This is a page for a pig meeting to be held on Wednesday the 17th of December 2003. The details for the meeting are;
Date: 17/12/2003
Room: 78-411
Time: 10-noon
Presenter: JaredDonovan
One of the topics we discussed at last week's pig meeting was how you could apply the results of field-studies to design. The purpose of this meeting is to pursue this question further. As Dourish notes in 'Where the Action is';
"What we have learned is that, despite our best intentions, field studies and design activities often sit uncomfortably together. Fieldwork and technological design require different sorts of sensibilities, and despite
many attempts to cross "the great divide", combining the two remains problematic. Despite the premise that the field setting is an incomparably rich source of information ... it seems a rare occurrence for the design partners in the collaborative research projects actually to visit the field. Most often they learn of the field through the reports of their fieldworker colleagues. In these cases, the successes of the project often hinges on the fieldworkers' ability to communicate and translate their understandings in terms that are meaningful to the constructive activities of design." ( Dourish 2001 p. 156 )
I've collected together 6 papers that attempt to 'cross the divide' in different ways. I propose that for the meeting we each present a summary of one paper to the rest of the group. We would then compare and discuss the different approaches.
The papers
Binder, T. ( 2002 ). "Intent, Form, and Materiality in the Design of
Interaction Technology". Social thinking-software practice. Y. Dittrich, C.
Floyd and R. Klischewski. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press: 451-468.
Electronic copy available at:
www.itee.uq.edu.au/~pig/docs/field_to_design/binder-Intent_form_and_materiality.pdf
Buchenau, M. and J. Fulton Suri ( 2000 ). "Experience prototyping". Designing
Interactive Systems: processes, practices, methods and techniques, New York,
USA, ACM Press, NY, USA.
Electronic copy available at:
www.itee.uq.edu.au/~pig/docs/field_to_design/buchenau-Experience_prototyping.pdf
Button, G. and P. Dourish ( 1996 ). "Technomethodology: paradoxes and
possibilities". SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems:
common ground, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, ACM Press, New York, NY
USA.
Electronic copy available at:
www.itee.uq.edu.au/~pig/docs/field_to_design/button-Technomethodology.pdf
Martin, D., M. Rouncefield, et al. ( 2002 ). "Applying Patterns of Cooperative
Interaction to Work ( RE )Design: E-Government and Planning". Conference on
Human Factors and Computing Systems, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, ACM Press,
New York, NY, USA.
Electronic copy available at:
www.itee.uq.edu.au/~pig/docs/field_to_design/martin-Patterns_of_cooperative_interaction.pdf
Shapiro, D. ( 1994 ). "The limits of Ethnography: combining social sciences
for CSCW". ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina, United States.
Electronic copy available at:
www.itee.uq.edu.au/~pig/docs/field_to_design/shapiro-The_limits_of_ethnography.pdf
Suchman, L. ( 2002 ). "Located accountabilities in technology production", published by the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University
Available at: www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc039ls.html
Who reads what
For the meeting please summarise the first of the two papers next to your name below. Please also try to read the second paper if you have time.
BrettCampbell: Experience Prototyping / Technomethodology
TimCedermanHaysom: The Limits of Ethnography / Experience Prototyping
JeffAxup: Patterns of Cooperative Interaction / The Limits of Ethnography
JaredDonovan: Intent Form and Materiality / Patterns of Cooperative Interaction
BenMcGarry: Located Accountabilities / Intent Form and Materiality
BenMatthews: Technomethodology / Located Accountabilities
Questions
Some questions to guide your reading/summary;
|
[ListAllPages] |