skip to main content
10.1145/3286689.3286698acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesihmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Patterns of creative UX in immersive collaborative design

Published:23 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Creativity can be studied in many ways: processes, tools, personality, etc. In this paper, we are interested in subjective emotional experience linked to creativity. People usually make rich experiences, and are more likely to be engaged in creative processes, when they face highly challenging task, and feel confident in their skills (Flow from Csikszentmihalyi [9]). On this base, our interest is to understand the dynamics of experience, how it evolves in time. We use a previously developed method, the Design Flow 2.0 [18], which allow, on a granular way, to describe the emotional states during design. In a sample of ideation sessions, during a co-design immersive studio in design pedagogy, thanks to the granular assessment, we identify patterns of creative experience linked to the creation of new and relevant ideas. Our results show two patterns, one which was expected (designers experience stress before the expression of the idea, optimal experience -flow- during its expression, and feel in control just after), and an unexpected reversed pattern (control-flow-stress), which respectively illustrate a proactive and a reactive posture in design. We discuss these results and open perspectives, about the usage of the method to enhance co-design and to address other types of user experiences.

References

  1. Akin, Ö., and Akin, C. (1998). On the process of creativity in puzzles, inventions, and designs. Automation in Construction, 7, 123--138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 779--806.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind myths and mechanisms. London; New York: Routledge. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Boubée, N. (2011). La méthode de l'autoconfrontation : une méthode bien adaptée à l'investigation de l'activité de recherche d'information ? Études de communication, 35(2), 47--60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cahour, B., Salembier, P. & Zouinar (2016) M. Analysing the lived experience of the activity. Le Travail Humain. pp. 259--284Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaubet, P. (2010). Saisir la réflexion pour mieux former à une pratique réflexive : d'un modèle théorique à son opérationalisation. Éducation et francophonie, 38(2), 60--77.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. New York : BergGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Motivation and creativity: Toward a synthesis of structural and energistic approaches to cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 6(2), 159--176.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Delle Fave, A., Massimini, F., & Bassi, M. (2011). Psychological Selection and Optimal Experience Across Cultures (Vol. 2). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425--437.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Dorta, T. (2007). Augmented Sketches and Models: The Hybrid Ideation Space as a Cognitive Artifact for Conceptual Design. In De Paoli, G., Zreik, K. et Beheshti, R. (Eds.). Digital Thinking in Architecture, Civil Engineering, Archaeology, Urban Planning and Design: Finding the Ways, EuropIA 11. Montréal, September 2007, pp. 251--264.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Dorta, T., Kalay, Y., Lesage, A., & Pérez, E. (2011). Comparing immersion in collaborative ideation through design conversations, workload and experience. In Integration through Computation (pp. 216--225).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Dorta, T., Pérez, E., & Lesage, A. (2008). The ideation gap: Hybrid tools, design flow and practice. Design Studies, 29(2), 121--141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Massimini, F. & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily experience. In Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (Eds). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press, 266--287.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. McDonnell, J. (2014). Sticky Square Plates Among Other Things: Some observations from a study of long-term creative collaboration. Unpublished paper at COOP 2014 Workshop 5: Collective creativity: collaborative processes in new socio-technical environments. Nice, May 2012Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Mougenot, C. Détienne, F., Pennington, M., Baker, M., Corvin, T., Veyrier, Arai, K. & Huron, S. (2017). Tensions in Creativity Workshops. Proceedings of ECCE 2017: 93--100 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Safin, S. Dorta, T., Pierini, D., Kinayoglu, G. & Lesage, A. (2016). Design Flow 2.0, assessing experience during ideation with increased granularity: A proposed method. Design Studies, vol. 47, pp. 23--46.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Schön, D.-A. (1983). The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action, New-York : Basic books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity research journal, 18(1), 87--98.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Theureau, J. (2010). Les entretiens d'autoconfrontation et de remise en situation par les traces matérielles et le programme de recherche « cours d'action », Revue d'anthropologie des connaissances 2010/2 (Vol 4, n° 2), 287--322.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Patterns of creative UX in immersive collaborative design

      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
        IHM '18: Proceedings of the 30th Conference on l'Interaction Homme-Machine
        October 2018
        275 pages
        ISBN:9781450360784
        DOI:10.1145/3286689

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 23 October 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate103of199submissions,52%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader