william ryan, school of informatics

1. Explorations in sense-making: Interaction Design and technology through a phenomenological perspective william ryan, school of informatics

2. organization sense-making with technology (why should we care?) phenomenological roots of studies (briefly) case studies: 1. breakdown in games 2. twitterspace 3. ecology of interactive artifacts summary of themes

3. sense-making with technology by sense-making process of interpretation and negotiation with something to generate a “working” understanding of a situation

4. sense-making with technology an example: • A design team creates a new cell phone. • It is heralded as being the latest must-have device. • The phone includes all common features: • “phone” • camera • gps • even a new touch screen interface [1]

5. sense-making with technology persona 1: Jim • Loves to play with technology and discover all the nooks of any new device. • Already has two other previous generation cell phones for various purposes. • Has utilized cell phones in the past to call, check email, text, schedule appointments, connect to facebook, play mp3s, and record audio. [2]

6. sense-making with technology persona 2: Jim’s brother: Gerald • Working on his degree in computer science. • Has an older cell phone, which he used almost entirely for making phone calls. • Relies prominently on email to communicate with others, checks on laptop only religiously. • Usually very busy and does not have a great deal of time to play with settings on his cell phones. [3]

7. sense-making with technology how does a designer resolve this situation? • same level of technical knowledge • same demographic • even from within the same family (same upbringing). • …yet differing values • each user is unique

8. sense-making with technology this notion emphasizes • prior experience • process of interpreting a situation from experience • importance of activity, engagement, participation • emphasis on idiosyncratic ways of accomplishing tasks • designed representations, affordances, and functional capabilities of the thing we are using • sense-making arises through interaction with the thing

9. phenomenology: themes lifeworld over the course of our life, we develop a certain world of experience that we can associate with our “self.” background against which all things in the world become meaningful and through which we make sense of things. (Dourish, 2001)

10. phenomenology: themes mediation through tools, we engage with the world in ways that augment and amplify our physical, cognitive, and emotional capacities as humans. as we become coupled with these tools and technologies, we derive a new intentionality with respect to our engagement in the world. (Ihde, 1990; Scaife & Rogers, 1997; Clark & Chalmers, 1998; Dourish, 2001; Mingers, 2001)

11. phenomenology: themes hermeneutic circle an intention is embedded within a certain tool through its design. this process inscribes a “designing-being” in the tool where the tool is given the potential to transform the user through its use. Once it transforms the user, the user interprets this transformation and applies it to a new designed artifact. (Winograd & Flores, 1986; Willis, 1999; Gaver, Beaver, & Benford, 2003; Bertelsen & Pold, 2004; McCarthy & Wright, 2004)

12. phenomenology: themes embodiment we do not disengage with the world (most of the time) rather we are always engaged, always participating in both the physical and social worlds. we are bound to this world by our body. (Agre, 1997; Clark, 1997; Dourish, 2001; Mingers, 2001, )

13. my approach study of people’s response to playing games that they are unfamiliar with. [4] Breakdown in Games • we will look for evidence of: • collections of experience • enaction upon that experience • breakdown of the “hermeneutic circle” • utilization of resources and affordances provided by the system • coping behavior Twitterspace Ecology of Artifacts

14. my approach study in the way a public display in a community center affects one’s awareness with what is going on around them in the community. [4] Breakdown in Games • we will look for evidence of: • relation between I and community • change of behavior (different kind of public?) • system fades into background Twitterspace Ecology of Artifacts

15. my approach study of the web of technologies that people use on a daily basis to get things done and how they are related as well as how they cope in such an environment. [4] Breakdown in Games • we will look for evidence of: • coping mechanisms • lack of awareness of bigger picture • a great deal of what an engineer might call inefficiencies. Twitterspace Ecology of Artifacts

16. breakdown in games [4] Breakdown in Games (Ryan, unpublished)

17. breakdown: goals • discrepancies in video game abilities • frustration and barriers faced when playing video games • method for studying players’ challenges and strategies

18. breakdown: conceptual model Breakdown Breakdown Player’s prior experience of this game

19. breakdown: approach study participants • recruited 13 participants of varying genders, ages, and levels of prior experience games selection criteria • obtained from interview with player using self-reported inexperience in various types of games study sessions • lasted approximately 3 hours each • encouraged to talk aloud and also asked questions about their experience and strategies

20. breakdown: approach how do I identify breakdown? • manifestations of breakdown: • frustration due to confusion • accidental discovery of affordances • cues from players • player exclamations (“What?” “Ohhhh!!!”) • behavior changes from feedback in the environment • general confusion and wandering behavior • trying the same actions over and over again • trial and error behavior • responses to my questions

21. breakdown: example [5,6]

23. breakdown: take-away • players can accommodate pretty much any interface, but often need quite a bit of guidance and failure recovery (during times of breakdown) at the beginning. • activities that players should be able to make sense of may be stopped prematurely if frustration starts to mount. • players generally rely on repertoires that have worked before. If those don’t seem to work, they begin to experiment with trial and error behavior to accomplish tasks. (Schön, 1983)

24. twitterspace Twitterspace (Ryan, Hazlewood, Makice, 2008 ; Hazlewood, Ryan, Makice, unpublished)

25. twitterspace: goals mechanism to increase community awareness • sense of awareness that spanned multiple locations • to ultimately, help build a more tight-knit community interlink various sub-groups together • publish typically back-channel information encourage participation in the community, but: • make people aware of the opportunities for participation they have • allow for participants to choose the level of involvement they wish to have

26. twitterspace: approach twitter • social networking platform • microblogging – “what are you doing now?” public displays in our community centers

28. twitterspace: findings • participation in the Twitter feed greatly increased after the display went public.

29. twitterspace: findings • participation in the Twitter feed greatly increased after the display went public. • those who participated most fully in the study showed the greatest sense of awareness of community activities. • members reported feelings of connection to the community even though the device does not call their attention that much • people taking ownership of this shared space

30. twitterspace: take-away • responding to the presence of other in public community center. choosing one’s level of engagement. • care of individuals towards community as seen through policing others in the community. • the emergent way that this public display encourages people to share more/post more. • device remains ambient, but affects both participant’s connection with community and awareness of community activities (even though they don’t feel that it does).

31. ecology of artifacts Ecology of Artifacts (Jung , Stolterman, Ryan, Siegel, Thompson, 2008 ; Ryan , Stolterman, Jung, Siegel, Thompson, Hazlewood, under review)

32. ecology: observations 1.increasing number of technological devices we engage with on a day-to-day basis 2. increasing number of connections shared between those devices 3. connections influence buying habits, maintenance policies, social relationships with others 4. designers do not really know what do to about it

33. 3 properties of value centered ecology model 4 properties of digital interactive artifacts

34. ecology: approach personal inventories & ecology mapping (face-to-face)

36. ecology: approach personal inventories & ecology mapping (face-to-face) digital ecology mapping

38. ecology: take-away • most people think of their devices on a device-by-device basis. • organizing such a map of ecological components requires reflecting on context of use, properties of artifacts, and how each artifact is related with all other artifacts—it is a dynamically changing “organism.” • no two ecologies are the same.

39. conclusion

40. conclusion emphasis on the role of sense-making in making sense of the technological world around us. themes: lifeworld mediation hermeneutic circle embodiment

41. conclusion • lifeworld: repertoire of experience • hermeneutic circle: breakdown, coping • embodiment: affordance [4] Breakdown in Games • mediation: physical transformation of social, • medium fades into background. • embodiment: abstract made physical Twitterspace • lifeworld: experience is emergent • mediation: possibilities shaped by devices • hermeneutic circle: dynamical “organism” • embodiment: devices collected, not planned Ecology of Artifacts

42. conclusion As designers, we must be prepared to deal with that which makes our users unique. As mentioned already some HCI researchers have attacked this problem already. Users are quite smart at figuring out what works for them. We as designers need to learn how to communicate to users in cases where such “working” understandings might lead them astray.

43. citations [1] Agre, P. E. (1997). Computation and Human Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press. [2] Bertelsen, O. W., & Pold, S. (2004). Criticism as an approach to interface aesthetics. Proceedings of NordiCHI ‘04. 23-32, Tampere, Finland. [3] Clark, A. (1997). Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [4] Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 7-19. [5] Dourish, P. (2001). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [6] Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 233-240, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. [7] Harrison, S., Tatar, D., & Sengers, P. (2007). The three paradigms of HCI. Extended Abstracts of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA. [8] Hazlewood, W. R., Ryan, W., Makice, K. Twitterspace: Evaluation of a set of community ambient displays. (Unpublished Manuscript.)

44. citations [9] Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [10] Jung, H., Stolterman, E., Ryan, W., Stroman, T., & Siegel, M. (2008). Toward a framework for ecologies of artifacts: How are digital artifacts interconnected within a personal life? In Proceedings of 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Lund, Sweden, 201-210. [11] McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [12] Mingers, J. (2001). Embodying information systems: The contribution of phenomenology. Information and Organization, 11, 103-128. [13] Ryan, W. Embodied learning in video games: Evaluating the learnability of interactive entertainment. (Unpublished manuscript.) [14] Ryan, W., Hazlewood, W. R., & Makice, K. (2008). Twitterspace: Co-development through Twitter to enhance community awareness. In Participatory Design Conference 2008, Bloomington, IN. [15]Ryan, W., Stolterman, E., Siegel, M., Jung, H., Stroman, T., & Hazlewood, W. R. Device ecology mapper: A tool for studying users’ ecosystems of interactive artifacts. (Under review.)

45. citations [16] Scaife, M. and Rogers, Y. (1996) External cognition: how do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 185-213. [17] Schön, D.(1983).The Reflective Practioner: How Professional Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. [18] Willis, A. M. (1999). Ontological Designing. Proceedings of the Design Cultures, Conference of the European Academy of Design, Sheffield Hallam University. [19] Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

46. image references [1] http://www.made-in-china.com/image/2f0j00nBhETOamrPcdM/Cell-Phone.jpg [2] http://www.studentloan.org/images/Photos/264-Young-Man-Kneeling.jpg [3] http://www.alcoholism-information.com/young-man-pondering-his-life-as-an-alcoholic.jpg [4] SSX On Tour [5] NeverWinter Nights [6]http://www.nwnwiki.org/images/c/c8/Nwn_logo_400x178.jpg

48. ecology: connections

49. phenomenology what can phenomenology offer? phenomenology is the study of consciousness, subjectivity, and a host of other perspectives that relate to the way we engage with the world. typically challenge a strict information-processing paradigm in which sense-making happens by developing awareness, making hypotheses/inferences, and making a decision as a result.

50. what questions do we ask? • Is this system usable? learnable? • What steps are required to complete a task in this system? • Can the user complete the core tasks of the application? • How many errors does the user make in trying to use the system?