Thursday, January 20, 2011

Reading #9 "There's methodology in the madness: toward critical HCI ethnography"

Comments:
http://zmhenkel-chi2010.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-1-chi-paper-tbd.html?showComment=1295547876887#c4088712809667355413

Reference:
There's Methodology in the madness: toward critical HCI ethnography
Amanda M. Williams, Lilly Irani
CHI EA '10

Summary:
This paper seeks to improve methods of CHI design and evaluation by identifying some of the challenges present in diverse environments.  To give an ethnographic example, researchers would often find that their experiments had to be modified when they discovered the expected boundaries of a field site were not entirely accurate.  The same can be applied to CHI.  Observations must take place in order to know how an individual might use a system to prevent incorrect assumptions.  Furthermore, it is the view of the authors that improvisation is an inevitable part of design research in unfamiliar settings.  This approach allows researchers to follow individuals and make meaningful insights into how they use technology.
Discussion:
I too believe that observation is a critical part of good design.  There are too many products that are now designed primarily in a computer without any practical testing.  For example, this method can produce cars whose components under the hood fit together with jigsaw-like snugness, yet are infuriatingly difficult to repair when an out of reach component breaks down.  Too often, the best intentions of product designers go awry, so it is better for both the designer and user to practically observe how a new technology might be used.

1 comment:

  1. Your car part example reminded me of the terrible trend of retail computers being build inside of the tiniest cases possible. I remember helping someone put more RAM in one of these or replace the video card, and having to disassemble the entire computer just to get to them. It almost seemed like a tactic to dissuade the users from doing anything themselves. Or, the designers just weren't thinking.

    ReplyDelete