Theme 5: Design research

Before I begin to answer or discuss the question for theme 5 I would like to state that the answer to these questions are very dependent on the context, even within the field of ICT there isn’t a model of how to evaluate every single technology in the media field.

The first paper we read this week was “Turn your mobile into the ball”. The paper reviewed the possibilities to render dynamic live data to the end-user by using a mobile phones vibrator. In this certain case the presentation consisted of both quantified test data and qualitative data from questionnaires. Both of these data comes from either interaction with the product/service or by observation according to the HCI field. So to answer the first question I would say that you need both the measureable data and the observed data evaluate the ICT at hand.

Prototypes is important to be able to test the concept and also, in a early stage be able to eliminate as many possible errors that might occur due to poor design in the product. There is also a good practice to see if your idea is feasible, if it turns out that it’s not then it might be a good idea to try to change the starting point for the project. It depends what function of the product will be evaluated. Is it the layout of a menu or is it the usability of the menu? For the first one it could be sufficient with a plain paper sketch to test out how end-users receive the design/layout. If you instead want to test the usability of the same menu you probably need a more advanced prototype with the possibility to interact with the prototype and to get live feedback in some way. The limitations will be set by the function being evaluated (sometimes it might actually turn out to be “almost-as-intended-in-retail”) and the characteristics would be that it’s built in a manner to be able to handle the test case.  I do favor the HCI approach when it comes to presentation, with the focus on the end user because, in the end it matters little that you built the best product according to the numbers if the end users feel the opposite.  I would say that the same statement holds true with ICT if the technology are meant to be used be the end-user and not on SP level.

For the last part of this theme we read the texts “Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space” and “Differentiated driving range”. The texts both present researches in the HCI field in some sort of way. In the first text it’s more obvious then in the second text. I think all practice in some extent contribute to the general knowledge in a given research field, but far from all contribute new and solid knowledge.

To the question if there is any difference in the design intentions within a research project and to the general case of design I would say yes. Most of the time within the field of research of technology I believe that you set out to try to answer a very specific question related between two or more object whilst in the more general case you probably aim for a design that hold high affordance in the eyes of the many.

Are these kind of research replicable as given in the last to texts? In the first text I find it very unlikely that one could get the exact same result even with the same test group because of the dynamic of input variables. In the last text the focus isn’t really on the end-users ability to understand the technology but rather to be able to understand the output, in this case that would be “miles left to drive on the battery as is”. Because the research focus on the possibility to be able to calculate the battery life under circumstances that are, compared with us humans, rather fixed or at least fluctuating in a manner that makes it possible to take them into consideration when developing the estimation model. When it comes down to design no matter the field in question I think the big difference is that the focus should be on the end-user even if the technology or design are to find in the lower levels of the product or service. In a non-design scenario I think that this is not the case.