Umeå University's logo

In this workshop position paper, we exemplify and elaborate on how “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants” i.e. a turn to philosophy can be a very useful approach to move forward in our exploration of HCI. In line with the call for this workshop we suggest that the classic notion of “thought styles”, a notion originally developed and proposed by Ludwick Fleck, and later introduced to the HCI community by Janlert & Stolterman might be useful as a conceptual vehicle for further explorations. Further, we elaborate on how this notion might serve as a conceptual backbone for the development of new interactive systems. We explore this notion of ‘thought styles’ by revisiting its historical and philosophical roots, and we discuss how philosophical methods including questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation in relation to ‘thought styles’ and in the context of HCI might be useful. Finally, and on a more fundamental level, we conclude our position paper by acknowledging that we have a lot to gain from further explorations at the intersection of philosophy and HCI.

As materiality of interactive artifacts is diversified with integrated physical and digital materials, metaphoric design approaches in Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) go beyond resembling the appearance of physical objects, exploring novel materials and forms of interactive artifacts. The hybrid materialities and forms of artifacts influence how interactivity is perceived, reframing the concept of affordances according to its evolving relationship to metaphors and materialities. By conceptualizing interactive forms in their surface, behavioral and systemic aspects, we examine multifaceted roles of metaphors in HCI from concealing and revealing a formal system to expanding and reifying its meaning; and propose a morphologic perspective on affordances as an invitation for making variations of interactive forms by compositing multiple design resources.

New interactive applications, artifacts, and systems are constantly being added to our environments, and there are some concerns in the human-computer interaction research community that increasing interactivity might not be just to the good. But what is it that is supposed to be increasing, and how could we determine whether it is? To approach these issues in a systematic and analytical fashion, relying less on common intuitions and more on clearly defined concepts and when possible quantifiable properties, we take a renewed look at the notion of interactivity and related concepts. The main contribution of this article is a number of definitions and terms, and the beginning of an attempt to frame the conditions of interaction and interactivity. Based on this framing, we also propose some possible approaches for how interactivity can be measured.

We are surrounded by interactive devices, artifacts, and systems. The general assumption is that interactivity is good -- that it is a positive feature associated with being modern, efficient, fast, flexible, and in control. Yet there is no very precise idea of what interaction is and what interactivity means. In this book, Lars-Erik Janlert and Erik Stolterman investigate the elements of interaction and how they can be defined and measured. They focus on interaction with digital artifacts and systems but draw inspiration from the broader, everyday sense of the word.

Viewing the topic from a design perspective, Janlert and Stolterman take as their starting point the interface, which is designed to implement the interaction. They explore how the interface has changed over time, from a surface with knobs and dials to clickable symbols to gestures to the absence of anything visible. Janlert and Stolterman examine properties and qualities of designed artifacts and systems, primarily those that are open for manipulation by designers, considering such topics as complexity, clutter, control, and the emergence of an expressive-impressive style of interaction. They argue that only when we understand the basic concepts and terms of interactivity and interaction will we be able to discuss seriously its possible futures.

This paper discusses how theories (as objects) are used in articles published in Design Studies. While theory and theory construction have been given time and attention in the literature, less is known about how researchers put theories to work in their written texts about practical, everyday theory use. In the present paper, we examine 32 articles and synthesize six models of theory use based on our examination.

While much has been written about designerly knowledge and designerly ways of knowing in the professions, less has been written about the production and presentation of knowledge in the design discipline. In the present paper, we examine the possibility that knowledge claims might be an effective way to distinguish the design discipline from other disciplines. We compare the kinds of knowledge claims made in journal publications from the natural sciences, social sciences, and design. And we find that natural and social science publications tend to make singular knowledge claims of similar kinds whereas design publications often contain multiple knowledge claims of different kinds. We raise possible explanations for this pattern and its implications for design research. Examining the Types of Knowledge Claims Made in Design Research.

In the middle of the present struggle to keep interaction complexity in check as artifact complexity continues to rise and the technical possibilities to interact multiply, the notion of interface is scrutinized. First, a limited number of previous interpretations or thought styles of the notion are identified and discussed. This serves as a framework for an analysis of the current situation with regard to complexity, control, and interaction, leading to a realization of the crucial role of surface in contemporary understanding of interaction. The potential of faceless interaction, interaction that transcends traditional reliance on surfaces, is then examined and discussed, liberating possibilities as well as complicating effects and dangers are pointed out, ending with a sketch of a possibly emerging new thought style.

The digital computational technologies that over the past decades have come to be fully integrated into nearly all aspects of human life have varying forms, scales, interactive mechanisms, functions, configurations, and interconnections. Much of this complexity and associated implications for human experience are, however, hidden by prevalent notions of ‘the computer’ as an object. In this paper, we consider how everyday digital technologies collectively mediate human experience, arguing that these technologies are better understood as fluid assemblages that have as many similarities with the infra-structural as they have properties typical for objects. We characterize these aspects in terms of ‘wicked interactions,’ drawing on and adapting the classic theory of wicked problems in design discourse that has similarly consid-ered the complexity of interactions with and within other types of social infrastructure. In doing this we emphasize the need and the potential for building up connections between philosophy of technology and design discourse, with the hope that this might further the shared goals of understanding digital technologies and their consequences and determining how to act in relation to them and their design.

With many medical procedures done today, patients are forced to act as passive recipients of care, while nurses and doctors are actively involved in the process of diagnosis or treatment. In this paper, we focus upon patient positioning for radiotherapy treatment, looking at the immobilization and positioning techniques used, and the role of the patient in this process. Our desire to engage patients in the positioning process led to the creation of an experimental positioning system which can enable patients to self-position themselves for treatment. Utilizing the body tracking and skeletal data capabilities of a Kinect™ sensor, our prototype provides visualizations of where an individual's body is in relation to the desired position, and when these two positions have become correctly aligned. Testing demonstrated how our prototype could be used to actively engage patients in the positioning process together with care providers, in a mutually empowering and supportive way.