skip to main content
10.1145/2468356.2479655acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
tutorial

Made for sharing: HCI stories of transfer, triumph and tragedy

Published:27 April 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Recent studies on how traditional HCI methods are applied in practice entail re-conceptualization of the nature of such methods, leading to the notion of 'method-as-set-of-resources'. Re-usable resources provide some, but not all, of the required resources for design work. Others must be provided within design work contexts. The expanding scope of use contexts alongside the shift of emphasis to user experience calls for the development of alternative HCI practices. These two trends can influence each other. Understanding, via structured case studies, how HCI professionals transfer the same (set) of design and evaluation methods across use contexts in terms of appropriating and configuring method-resources can provide applied knowledge for: (i) creating new methods, (ii) training novices, and (iii) laying a firmer groundwork for formal analysis of HCI methods. This workshop aims to bring together HCI professionals who have method-transfer experience and knowledge to share, analyze and synthesize insights so gained. Methods, transfer, approaches, resources, use context, case study, usability, user experience, practice

References

  1. Andrews, M. Squire, C., & Tamboukou, M. (Eds.) (2008). Doing narrative research. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bygstad, B.,Ghinea, G., & Brevik,E. (2008). Software development methods and usability: Perspectives from a survey in the software industry in Norway. Interacting with Computers, 20, 375--385. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Hartson, R., & Pyla, P. (2012). The UX Book. Morgan Kaufmann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Jeffries, R., Miller, J., Wharton, C., & Uyeda, K. (1991). User interface evaluation in the real world: A comparison of four techniques. Proc. CHI'91, 119--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. John, B. E. (2000). Learning and using the cognitive walkthrough method: a case study approach. In Proc. CHI'95 (pp. 429--436). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Følstad, A., Law, E. L.-C. & Hornbæk, K. (2010). Analysis in usability evaluation: An exploratory study. In Proc. NordiCHI 2012, 647--650. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Furniss, D. (2008). Beyond problem identification: Valuing methods in a 'system of usability practice'. PhD Thesis,: University College London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Gulliksen, J., Boivie, I., & Göransson, B. (2006). Usability professionals: current practices and future development. Interacting with Computers, 203--261. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Lárusdóttir, M.K., Cajander, A., & Gulliksen, J. (2012). The big picture of UX is missing in Scrum projects. In Proc. I-UxSED 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Nonaka, I., & Krogh, von G. (2009). Perspective-tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion. Organizational Science, 20, 635--652 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Schön, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Tullis, T., & Albert, B. (2008). Measuring the user experience: collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Venturi, G.,Troost, J.& Jokela, T. (2006). People, organizations, and processes: An inquiry into the adoption of user-centered design in industry. Int J, HCI21(2), 219--38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Wixon, D.R. (2003). Evaluating usability methods: why the current literature fails the practitioner. Interactions 10(4), 28--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Woolrych, A., Hornbæk, K., Frøkjær, E., & Cockton, G. (2011). Ingredients and meals rather than recipes: A proposal for research that does not treat usability evaluation methods as indivisible wholes. Int. J. HCI 27(10), 940--70. \ \Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Made for sharing: HCI stories of transfer, triumph and tragedy

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI EA '13: CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2013
      3360 pages
      ISBN:9781450319522
      DOI:10.1145/2468356

      Copyright © 2013 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s)

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 27 April 2013

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • tutorial

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI EA '13 Paper Acceptance Rate630of1,963submissions,32%Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader