User Centered Design in Practice - Problems and Possibilities

would allow her to obtain the students’ views about the technology. She reminded other
members of the design team of the classroom context during design meetings, and, to
some extent acted as a representative for the children in meetings with the rest of the
participatory design team.
A member of the ATIC-DL made weekly visits to the school to observe student and
teacher use of the emergent technology, and members of the ATIC-DL facilitated three
extended sessions that used a technique similar to PICTIVE iii (Muller, 1993) to elicit
design input from students. Group discussion following design sessions and student
journal entries about experiences using the technology were used to elicit additional
design input from students.
Rationale for adapting a participatory approach
For PDG and IPS members concerned with what children could learn through use of the
new networked based tools, it was hoped that a participatory approach would improve the
quality of the tools, which in turn would lead to a better form of learning. The system
developers hoped that a participatory process would result in a system that worked better.
Members of the ATIC-DL were primarily concerned with the politics and philosophy of
participatory design, although they stressed pragmatic aspects of participatory design at
the onset of the project.
Project Structure
The project was funded through a national funding source as part of a larger project (the
M3/Plexus Project). The ATIC-DL became involved in the project after development of
the software had begun, but before beta versions of the software were implemented in the
school setting. The ATIC-DL entered into a contractual relationship (modeled after a
consultancy) iv with the PDG to provide an ethnographic analysis of use of computers and
the math software in the school setting, and to facilitate users’ (students’) involvement in
the design process. A member of the ATIC-DL conducted observations at the school on a
weekly basis, and attended weekly project meetings at the CECM. Members of both
groups held extended meetings at key points throughout the project.
Problems and Possibilities
Although developing software for use in a school environment is not a widely
representative user-centered design context, throughout the project we encountered a
number of situations that are indicative of the problems and possibilities of user-centered
design. Some of what worked well for us, the problems we faced and the issues the
project raised are briefly outlined below.
iii The technique developed, simCHET (simulated Computer-Human Engagement Trials project) is
discussed in greater depth in a paper titled Premature Adoption of a Constructive Educational Technology:
A Case Study, available at http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/~loki/Papers/PreAdopt/paper.html.
iv In Norway, Denmark and Sweden worker involvement in technological change is supported through
legislation. In contrast, in North America neither labour law nor tradition supports user-involvement in
technological change. In the absence of tradition and legislation, facilitating user involvement as a design
team member or consultant is often the way to encourage user-centered practices.
30 (85) CID-40 • User Centered Design in Practice