Navimation Research

Fallman on design and design research

The 8 pages long paper ‘Design-oriented Human-Computer Interaction‘ by Daniel Fallman takes on quite a comprehensive task when it addresses what design ‘is’, how design is related to HCI, and what the relation between design and research might be in HCI.

Even if Fallman takes on an impossible task for such a short paper, he offers very interesting concepts and arguments. The paper is written from the perspective of HCI, not design as such. However, he argues that HCI has emerged as a design-oriented field. Many of the arguments and concepts presented should be relevant for design research in general.

3 accounts on what design ‘is’

Fallman presents three accounts from design theory on what design ‘is’. He calls these the conservative, the romantic, and the pragmatic.

1. The conservative account sees design as a rational process that aims to convert an undesired situation into a desirable one, by going through rational and structured methodological steps. This account assumes that there is a ‘problem’ to be solved. Design is thought of as a scientific or engineering endeavour, and the focus is on normative design methods and generic design principles. For this account, references are given to H. Simon, C. Alexander, J. Löwgren and E. Stolterman.
2. The romantic account gives prominence to the role of the designer, which is seen as a mastermind or creative genius. Here, imagination and creativity is seen as key abilities rather than abstract reasoning and rational problem solving. Rather then a focus on the process, the focus is on values, taste, quality and aesthetics. Art is the role model here, rather then science. References are given to R. Coyne, E. Stolterman, and P. Louridas
3. The pragmatic account holds that design always is carried out in a specific situation, where the designers iteratively interpret the effects of their designs on the situation on hand. Design can therefore be seen as a hermeneutic process. This view draws on pragmatism and may see knowing-in-action as a specific and important kind of knowledge. Since every design situation is different, the ability to deal with different situations is more important than theories and methodology for guidance. Reference is given to D. Schön and D. Ihde.

I do not currently have the necessary overview to evaluate these categories, though I wonder if they may be a bit simplified and exaggerated. I do not think many designers (my self included) would position themselves in either one of these categories. In practice, it seems to me that design may sometimes include rational problem solving, sometimes ‘mysterious’ creativity, and most often the specificity of the situation at hand. The emphasis will vary from field to field, from designer to designer, and from project to project. However, such categories provide us with means for discussing what design ‘is’, which is essential in a theoretical inquiry. This understanding may further influence the way design education is conducted, and how the role of design and designers is understood at a general level.

Sketching as design thinking

To get closer to what design ‘is’, Fallman considers the role of sketching as an archetypical design activity. He argues that designers’ thinking is mediated by sketches and prototypes. The materials ‘talk back’ to the designer in an ongoing dialogue between the designer and the sketch.

…design involves the designer in a necessary dialogue with the materials of the design situation, from which the design problem and its solution are worked out simultaneously, as a closely coupled pair. (page 231)

In this unfolding process problem setting and problem solving (Schön) are seen as intertwined activities, in a search for a coherent, well-balanced whole.

[Design] … must not simply be seen either as a question of problem-solving, as an art-form, or as a bustle with reality: it is on the contrary an unfolding activity which demands deep involvement from the designer. ” (page 231-232)

Rather than seeing design as a hybrid discipline between art and science, design should be considered as a tradition guiding action and thought, which spans across many disciplines.

Design-oriented Research vs. Research-oriented Design

Fallman proposes a new way to distinguish research activities in HCI that involve design production.

• Design-oriented Research has knowledge of some sort as the main contribution. This is the conduct of academic researchers, and should be conducted when the knowledge would not be attainable if design production was not a vital part of the research process. Here, the designed artefact is considered a means to an end, for example for exploring possibilities outside a current paradigm.
• Research-oriented Design has production of new artefacts as its main motivation, not the production of new knowledge. Nevertheless, this production may relate to research in many ways. I suppose what is normally considered development would fit within this category.

Fallman argues that Design-oriented Research should include problem setting as an important part, while Research-oriented Design most often has problem solving as its main component.

Relating this to my own work, it is clear that doing a PhD entails scholarly and academic research where the aim is to produce new theoretical knowledge. The production of artifacts is subordinate. However, I think the production of artefacts can play an important role not only in informing theory, but also in embedding, presenting and visualising theory. In a social-cultural view on artefacts, the artefact does not in itself have a determined meaning. Nontheless, an artefact may play an important role in the dispersion of knowledge, as long as the theoretical argument is made clear and apparent.

Tags: artefacts, design, design research, Fallman, HCI, research, research by design, Theory

What is navimation?

This blog is about something I call navimation. But what do I actually mean by using this strange word? Before getting to the actual definition, we have to look at some background information.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that we create, share and use a lot of digital information every day. We consume news, TV, music, images and movies through a diversity of computer screens, including those of mobile phones.

To be able to find interesting content, we all have to find our way, or navigate, in this huge volume of digital information. This is done in a variety of ways, such as search, browsing, clicking interesting links and so on.

The information is usually presented to us at the screen, which we can describe as being a part of the interface between the human and the computer. The interface is what makes people able to control the computer, understand the digital information, and in turn communicate with other people. The interface has therefore a very important task.

Screen-based interfaces have become advanced. They can now show millions of colours, detailed graphics, and movement that is generated at the same time as we see it on the screen. This opens up for a range of new possibilities. Maybe one of the most prominent and impressing examples is the Apple iPhone, which uses motion rather consistently in the various parts of the interface. This is especially apparent in the Cover Flow interface (see video).

We haven’t got many specific words to describe this kind of motion in the interface. This is different from the motion we see in videos or on film, because here it happens with and as a result of something the user does. It is not only a playback.

Over time, I noticed that motion in the interface often (but not always!) occurs when the user  navigates digital information in the “virtual space” of the interface. I haven’t seen anyone else talk about this phenomenon, and therefore a new word seems appropriate. Actually a colleague of mine was the first one to articulate the word navimation, as a combination of navigation and animation. So, if you want the formal definition, navimation is the intertwining of the activity of navigation with the appearance of visual motion. The word motion seems more appropriate than the word animation, since animation often is understood as a specific genre or technique for making movies.

There are many ways to study navimation. For example, using cognitive psychology one can study how navimation is perceived by a specific user, and how navimation can help the user perform a specific task. From computer science, one can study how the underlying software technology can efficiently support navimation interfaces. From an artistic point of view, one can look at how navimation can be explored aesthetically and used for personal expression. From a marketing point of view, one can study how navimation can be used for strategic purposes, for example as part of visual identity and branding strategies.

However, my focus is somewhere else. As a design researcher, I am interested in how navimation can communicate. What can designers communicate by using navimation? How do you actually go about to create a navimational interface? What does navimation offer that visually static interfaces cannot? And – how is navimation engaging us at the affective level? These are hard questions, and I don’t know how many of them I will be able to answer. But I will try.

Feel free to drop a line if you have any suggestions, questions or opinions on this. What do you think about navimation? Is it only a buzz word, or does it have anything to offer?

Tags: approach, definition, interface, iPhone, motion, navigation, navimation

Siftable Computing

For a while I have been thinking about how the principles of navimation can be embodied in the physical world. There is no reason why navigation intertwined with screened movement should only happen on the screens of mobile phones and desktop computers. Then suddenly I stumbled upon this ‘Siftable Computing’ video, demonstrating a new mixed-reality interface:

This is a student project by David Merrill and Jeevan Kalanithi from the MIT Media Lab, presented at the TED conference (via Wired).

The interface (or should we call them interfaces?) consists of many tiny cubes with screens. Each cube has motion sensors, and they react in certain ways when they are placed together. The video also shows how these small boxes can relate to a larger screen for different types of interactions.

Obviously this platform opens up for a range of possibilities for interaction design, and new and interesting ways of communicating through the interface. It raises questions of what an interface can be, and, for example,  how the sensation of space can be manipulated. The cubes can be rearranged in the physical environment (restricted by laws of nature), while the screen spaces allow representations of all kinds of spatial environments. When interaction and movement (both real and screened) is introduced, a range of combinations are possible. There must be a lot of possibilities to explore beyond those presented in the video. I hope the inventors will be able to make this into a commercial product, as it will allow for a range of new and exiting interfaces to be designed.

UPDATE: Lise gave me a hint on the nice presentation by David Merrill at TED.

Tags: interface, navimation, physical, physical computing, screen, small, spatial manipulation, TUI + GUI

For All Seasons

The application ‘For All Seasons‘ by Andreas Müller was originally launched for PC and Mac some years ago, but is now also available for the iPhone (iTunes link). So far this is one of the best examples I have seen of ‘interactive motion graphics’. The interface is rather experimental in form, and allows for continuous user interaction. It makes it even more impressing that it works so well on the relatively small screen of the Apple iPhone.

For All Seasons [iPhone] from CreativeApplications.Net on Vimeo.

The graphical expression and visual movement is smooth and elegant. To give an example, in the ‘summer section’ (see video) of the application, the words of the text start swaying and swimming around like small fishes. If you touch the screen, the words tremble and swim fast away from the finger. The navigation is also very neat, if not particularly intuitive. By using two fingers you can rotate the ‘virtual camera’ around the scene, horizontally as well as vertically. The iPhone pinch can be used for zooming in and out.

I wonder how this type of interaction can be used for other and more utilitarian purposes. What if we could explore Facebook contacts or Flickr images by diving into a sea of swimming objects?

Tags: Apple, example, interface, iPhone, navimation, screen, touch, video

Problematising theorising

In the last week I have attended a workshop with Mieke Bal as well as a seminar on ‘research by design’. It has been a strange but interesting experience. The events presented me with two different approaches to theorising in practice-based research.

Mieke Bal talked about the case study. In her opinion, a case can be anything, including design experiments produced by the researcher. If I remember correctly, she described the case study as a “tool for polemics”, that is, a tool for critical theorising. Implicitly, theorising is the unquestionable goal of this process.

In the ‘research by design’ seminar, Chris Rust presented a different view. His advice is to avoid an excess of theorising. He referred to problems in the social sciences of developing grand theories that are not connected to reality. We should pay attention to theory, but not let the polemic take over “when there is work to do”, as he formulated it. I am not sure what kind of work he was referring to.

I guess the need for theorizing will depend on the specific research question, and research field. If the problem one tries to solve is “practical”, then it might not be necessary to develop much theory to solve it. However, a conceptual problem needs theory to be solved. And as far as I have understood, academic research (including a scholarly based PhD) requires a high degree of reflection or theorizing. Therefore, a regular design problem does not qualify as an academic research problem.

Then the remaining question is: how to find the balance between theorising and not creating a polemical monster disconnected from reality?