A4MakeshiftCrew

A4MakeshiftCrew

To-Do

1. selection process: choose one of the design methodologies (not yet taken by another group) from the list (and mark it as chosen by editing the wiki page — “first come / first served”)
2. do research (read papers, interview software designers, analyze existing systems—hint: the abovementioned wiki site contains references to resources) and answer the following specific questions for your chosen design methodology:

Define your chosen design methodology.

Participatory Design: "Participatory design approaches seek to involve users more deeply in the design process as co-designers by empowering them to propose and generate design alternatives themselves. Participatory design supports diverse ways of thinking, planning, and acting by making work, technologies, and social institutions more responsive to human needs. It requires the social inclusion and active participation of the users (Computer/Human Interaction 2007)."

Characterize your chosen design methodology.

Participatory design says that design should transcend both social sciences and natural sciences, combining the two. It is largely based on the idea that design constantly evolves within a context (Institute for Participatory Design). People are constantly designing throughout their lives, and new products should be "pliable" and "simple" and open to ongoing change (Wakkery). This methodology focuses on human practice rather than human tradition. Therefore, those "who are affected by the decision [to create these new products] or events should have an opportunity to influence it," which is similar to the idea of democracy. As a result, "the quality can improve with strong and effective participation of the people involved" (Schuler xii).

What are the strengths of your selected methodology?

One of the main goals of participatory design is "to improve the quality of life, rather than demonstrate the capability of technology (Ellis)." This embodies one of the biggest strengths of participatory design. As technology advances, it will become more important to design computers that most people can use as a tool rather than to design computers that are technologically impressive. If humans cannot understand how to work the computer, it is worthless and useless. Similarly, participatory design "rejects the assumption that the goal of computerization is to automate the skills of human workers, instead seeing it as an attempt to give workers better tools for doing their jobs" (Schuler xi). As a result, workers takes advantage of the computer by using it as a tool to effectively carry out their work rather than mechanizing their jobs.

Participatory design gives users a chance to decide on the aspects of computers that will affect them. As a result, "it assumes that the workers themselves are in the best position to determine how to improve their work and their work life. In doing so, it views the users as the experts- the ones with the most knowledge about what they do and what they need- and the designers as technical consultants" (Schuller xi). For example, in one study, a group of researchers worked with a group of older people to design a website that would work for them. Together, they found out which fonts and styles were easiest to read and how content should be displayed. In this way, users were able to have a website that they were comfortable using (Ellis). These older users may not have gotten a chance to have a website they could use if it had not been for the participatory design project.

Another strength of participatory design is that "it views the users' perceptions of technology as being at least as important to success as fact, and their feelings about technology as at least as important as what they can do with it." It also "views computers and computer-based applications not in isolation, but rather in the context of a workplace; as processes rather than as products" (Schuler xi). In effect, the user is able tap into their creative mind and openly explore multiple solutions to problems with the help of technology.

What are the weaknesses of your selected methodology?

If a design team is not completely democratic, then the idea of participatory design will not work very well. There will be disagreements as to what decisions will be taken based on suggestions from users. Rather than solving it democratically, a group might make decisions based on one person's input rather then on the input from the entire group, which hinders the design itself (Inkpen).

In a professional setting it is difficult and expensive to find and gather a good group of users to involve in your design process. This is considered a weakness of participatory design because a good group of users are almost required to reach the goals of this design methodology. In addition to this, when and if a good group of users are found, they may all come from different cultures and have different backgrounds. This may cause some miscommunication in ideas and thoughts among the group due to language barriers or different levels and areas of expertise (Inkpen). An example is if an user suggests a certain element be included in the design of some application and a programmer or developer looks at this idea and sees that it will be impossible to develop with the resources given, unless they use an already developed element that is very similar to what the user suggests. This can cause a disagreement between the user and the developer because a user will want to use his design rather than a previously made one, while the developer will want to use already working code to be able to have a very similar element.

For what domains or problems is your selected design methodology appropriate?

Participatory design is appropriate new products, since it will be easier to implement creative ideas before the project is defined in traditional terms (Morch). Participatory design is appropriate in a senior projects type of setting where a group of students have to design and develop an application as a team. It could also be appropriate for groups of people who use computers often. They will certainly have opinions about what will make it easier for them, and if those improvements will make them more efficient or comfortable, then the changes are worth making.

For what domains or problems is your selected design methodology inappropriate?

Participatory design is not appropriate in exam settings. Also, it is not appropriate in a setting with a defined hierarchy because there will not be democratic involvement. If one person needs to make decisions, it is not practical to get input from everyone.

Why is design methodology important (suited) or not important (suited) for human-centered computing?

It is important because the best ideas come up with "everyday creativity", not in a one-time design situation (Wakkary). So, we need to take advantage of the ideas generated while users are using the products. For example, at a University which was being remodeled, the landscapers kept asking the president for the plans for the pathways, but the president kept putting it off. He told them that the paths would be installed the following summer. This way, the students took the most efficient ways from class to class, and the routes used most often were worn into the grass. The following summer, the president told the landscapers to lay the concrete on the student-worn paths. This is the ideal form of participatory design, since the users are not inconvenienced in forming the ideal product, and only the most used routes get worn down enough to form paths. So, in the best case scenario, human centered computing would be participatory in this manner, and it would allow for further alterations based on future ideas from the customers. Computing designers can try to create user-friendly computing that serves to support the user's goals, but ultimately the best ideas will arise on a day-to-day basis. This is not to say that the computer-designer's role is not essential, because it is also true that users are often not able to articulate what they want in a product. In general, users tend to find things to complain about rather than suggestions for what to fix. And, as Professor Gerhard said in lecture, we need the designers to help extend the user's abilities, in the way that the advent of the bicycle extended capabilities beyond the tricycle. 

Works Cited

Ellis, R.D.& Kurniawan, S. H. Increasing the Usability of Online Information for Older Users: A Case Study in Participatory Design. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 2000. 263-276.

http://swiki.cs.colorado.edu:3232/CHI07Design . "Converging on a 'Science of Design' through the Synthesis of Design Methodologies." Computer/Human Interaction 2007. 19 September 2010.

Inkpen, K. (2001) "User-Centered Design Lecture 5", Simon Fraser University 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, B.C. Canada V5A 1S6, http://www.cs.sfu.ca/CourseCentral/363/inkpen/lecture_notes/363_lecture5.pdf . 19 September 2010.

Morch, Anders I. "Using Theoretical Ideas to Stimulate Creativity and Participation in Design." InterMedia, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1161 Blindern, N-0318 Oslo. http://swiki.cs.colorado.edu:3232/CHI07Design/uploads/5/morch.2.pdf . 19 September 2010.

"Participatory Design." Institute for Participatory Design. http://www.participatory-design.com/institut/theorie . 19 September 2010.

Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (Eds.) Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993.

Wakkary, Ron. "A Participatory Design Understanding of Interaction Design." Computer/Human Interaction 2007. School of Interactive Arts and Technologies, Simon Fraser University. http://swiki.cs.colorado.edu:3232/CHI07Design/uploads/5/wakkary.pdf . 19 September 2010.

---

Authors of this document are the Makeshift Crew:

Alberto Aranda
Andy Truman
Anne Gatchell
Ho Yun "Bobby" Chan
Kyla Maletsky