Co-experience: Understanding user experiences in social interaction

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the time (articles 1 Mäkelä & Battarbee 1999, article 2 Battarbee 2003a, article 3 Battarbee 2003b, article 4 Battarbee & Koskinen forthcoming) • Concept development and scenarios that take the needs for sharing and communicating into account (article 6 Battarbee et al. 2002) • Elaborations of the concept for interactive system design (article 5 Forlizzi & Battarbee 2004). Rather than a particular method, co-experience is a perspective that opens designers’ eyes to a feature of reality that sometimes is blinked away: the fact that people often make sense of their experiences together, and the definition of the meaning or purpose of a technology emerges from these shared experiences. The ways in which these experiences become shared become evident in all the forms of social interaction, both face-to-face and mediated. The methodological argument for co-experience is that observing how people lift up experiences for each other and respond to them is the best way to learn about the experiences that are relevant to a technology or product. Meaning is emergent in social interaction; therefore to learn about it, the conditions for it to happen must be created. Once the conditions are set up and exist, preferred approaches that allow these experiences to be interpreted from the interaction can be used, with empathic sensitivity to the experiences and also their emotional significance. 3.3 REFLECTION 96 3 CO-EXPERIENCE Dourish (2001) draws an exhaustive list of why research (social studies, ethnographic studies) and design (in most cases, system design for computer supported collaborative work) have not been able to connect properly in the design process despite the dire need to do so. Social studies and design have opposing aims: frameworks are either too general to be practical or too detailed to be useful but to the person who created them. This dissertation has, hopefully, addressed these challenges and managed to provide enough of a theoretical background but also enough of practical reflection to be both interesting and useful. This is why there are attempts to connect to philosophy, theory and practice, at the expense of none of them being in the central focus. It also seems unfortunately rare that designers actually visit the places their users work (Dourish 2001 mentions this and his observations are probably not outdated). It seems there is still plenty of work in the field, especially in relating
social interaction to design, be it about work or systems of collaboration (Heath & Luff 2000). All kinds of design are still needed as in the days of Modernism. There are the rare but necessary radical innovations that usually have little to do with involving the users and at the same time users’ social innovation in taking existing technologies and appropriating them. Similarly, there is need for a good, solid development of products involving design work, materials and manufacture development and which clearly can benefit from user centred processes. There is also need for experimentation, style and styling, fashion, interactivity and breaching the boundaries of design, interaction, art and technology. Increasingly, design is also part of creating technologies for people’s lives, for communication, for activities that tie many others together, and for allowing people to create content. This line of work could probably most benefit from this study, as it is about how technology, social interaction and design all come together in ways that can be learned from and designed for. Co-experience as a concept can inform the design of spaces, of products, of human computer interaction, new media, and events. The validity of the ideas and proposals, in a practical sense, is determined by how many user experience professionals learn about them and whether the ideas presented have a positive effect on the definition and perception of the term “user experience” in practical work. Determining such success and effect is difficult – the dissertation alone should not be expected to change much in a grand scale – such a goal should rather be a life-long one. Secondly, the validity of the ideas can be seen more directly in how they become visible in further research on design and user experience – thanks to online reference tracking in databases, following this kind of influence is easier, though possibly rather superficial. Thirdly, the proof of concept of the validity of the ideas is to be seen in how these ideas can be put into practice in my own future work, be it practical design work, design education or technology research. Of this I am most optimistic. Applying the idea of user experience in social interaction and collaboration contexts seems a promising one. 97
Page 3 and 4:
Katja Battarbee UNDERSTANDING USER
Page 5 and 6:
FOR YOU
Page 7 and 8:
4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES 101 1 IT
Page 9 and 10:
an experience, the recipient is use
Page 11 and 12:
It takes a group to turn a design s
Page 15 and 16:
1 INTRO - DUCTION 1.1 FOCUS AND AIM
Page 17 and 18:
duction cycles are short and the st
Page 19 and 20:
fizzy flavoured water seem to be ab
Page 21 and 22:
tronic, and there was no movement o
Page 23 and 24:
and content developers to channel t
Page 25 and 26:
1.3 WHAT IS DESIGN FOR USER EXPERIE
Page 27 and 28:
longer process, in the order of mon
Page 29 and 30:
something independent of being and
Page 31 and 32:
panies are more likely to publish r
Page 33 and 34:
3 CO-EXPERIENCE takes the most prom
Page 37 and 38:
2 USER EXPERIENCE DEMYSTIFIED This
Page 39 and 40:
ecause of the way people enjoy chal
Page 41 and 42:
ness - the ability to facilitate ta
Page 43 and 44:
43 ACTION GOAL goal goal goal actio
Page 45 and 46: Interaction designers who focus on
Page 47 and 48: other kinds of products. These mode
Page 49 and 50: THE MOMENT PAST EXPERIENCE DREAMS F
Page 51 and 52: experiences with products that do n
Page 53 and 54: 53 ACTION INHERENT INFORMATION AUGM
Page 55 and 56: Hassenzahl defines fun as a mode of
Page 57 and 58: ing, and coveting products all elic
Page 59 and 60: verbal self-reports are subject to
Page 61 and 62: veen’s alarm clock (ibid.) is int
Page 63 and 64: spaces illustrates, merely telling
Page 65 and 66: even artistic, approach that treats
Page 67 and 68: BEHAVIOUR EXPERIENCE 67 OBSERVATION
Page 69 and 70: FIGURE 14 69 Empathic observations
Page 71 and 72: Liz Sanders has been influential in
Page 73 and 74: FIGURE 17 73 Examples of self docum
Page 76: 3.1 REALITY SEEKS THEORY FOR SERIOU
Page 80 and 81: 3.1 REALITY SEEKS THEORY FOR SERIOU
Page 82 and 83: 3.1.1 EXPERIENCES IN SOCIAL INTERAC
Page 84 and 85: He succeeds in terminating the repo
Page 86 and 87: 86 3 CO-EXPERIENCE drawn from the c
Page 88 and 89: 21 FIGURES 20 The actual fishing ex
Page 90 and 91: 90 3 CO-EXPERIENCE typically half-w
Page 92 and 93: field testing as an early research
Page 94 and 95: ple explore a product or a technolo
Page 98: 1 IT’S FUN TO DO THINGS TOGETHER
Page 102 and 103: 102 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES cial
Page 104 and 105: 104 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES
Page 106 and 107: The results of the two user studies
Page 108 and 109: FIGURE 2 One of the users with a Ph
Page 110 and 111: joyed the challenge of breaking the
Page 112 and 113: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the other
Page 114 and 115: KEYWORDS User experience, interacti
Page 116 and 117: pretation act to shape the experien
Page 118 and 119: 118 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES
Page 120 and 121: CATEGORIES AND SUBJECT DESCRIPTORS:
Page 122 and 123: make proposals and counterproposals
Page 124 and 125: The first message (figure 1) is jus
Page 126 and 127: and sunniest time of year. The “f
Page 128 and 129: ecome fluent in forms of media, the
Page 130 and 131: mote storytelling. [3] Narration an
Page 132 and 133: in Computer Systems 2002, Minneapol
Page 134 and 135: INTRODUCTION Usability experts know
Page 136 and 137: 136 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES ence
Page 138 and 139: 138 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES Simil
Page 140 and 141: ticipant was given a MMS phone (eit
Page 142 and 143: Sometimes experiences belong to lar
Page 144 and 145: From Liisa: 11 th July 2002 6:35 p.
Page 146 and 147:
People may also align with negative
Page 148 and 149:
From Thomas: 16 th July 2002 1:41 p
Page 150 and 151:
150 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES disti
Page 152 and 153:
152 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES 6. Bl
Page 154 and 155:
52. Taylor, A. and Harper, R. (2002
Page 156 and 157:
CATEGORIES AND SUBJECT DESCRIPTORS:
Page 158 and 159:
158 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES proac
Page 160 and 161:
USER-PRODUCT INTERACTIONS: FLUENT,
Page 162 and 163:
162 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES end,
Page 164 and 165:
tive, often shared experiences - su
Page 166 and 167:
166 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES inter
Page 168 and 169:
oth a subjective and objective view
Page 170 and 171:
170 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES T. Ed
Page 172 and 173:
172 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES
Page 174 and 175:
This leads us to the core question
Page 176 and 177:
that resist all your attempts to un
Page 178 and 179:
or even grass. This poses new chall
Page 180 and 181:
FIGURE 2 The large emply piazza. FI
Page 182 and 183:
INTERVENTIONS A first attempt to sp
Page 184 and 185:
• After recording, preview the me
Page 186 and 187:
A SCENARIO FOR THE SATELLITES The s
Page 188 and 189:
pants can experience affective inti
Page 190 and 191:
the importance of qualitative exper
Page 192:
A AFFECTIVE COMPUTING WEBSITE . . .
Page 196 and 197:
196 REFERENCES Beyer, Hugh. & Karen
Page 198 and 199:
198 REFERENCES Garrett, Jesse James
Page 200 and 201:
200 REFERENCES The ever improving d
Page 202 and 203:
202 REFERENCES Picard, Rosalind W.
Page 204:
1900 ZEPPELIN, ESCALATOR . . . . .
Page 208 and 209:
EVENTS, INVENTIONS, ART, CULTURE DE
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
show all

Co-experience: Understanding user experiences in social interaction

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?