Five reasons for scenario-based design

Scenarios of human-computer interaction help us to understand and to create computer systems and applications as artifacts of human activity-as things to learn from, as tools to use in one's work, as media for interacting with other people. Scenario-based design of information technology addresses five technical challenges. Scenarios evoke reflection in the content of design work, helping developers coordinate design action and reflection. Scenarios are at once concrete and flexible, helping developers manage the fluidly of design situation. Scenarios affords multiple view of an interaction, diverse kinds and amounts of detailing, helping developers manage the many consequences entailed by an given design move. Scenarios can also be abstracted and categorized, helping designers to recognize, capture, and reuse generalizations, and to address the challenge that technical knowledge often lags the needs of technical design. Finally, scenarios promote work-oriented communication among stakeholders, helping to make design activities more accessible to the great variety of expertise that can contribute to design, and addressing the challenge that external constraints designers and clients often distract attention from the needs and concerns of the people who will use the technology.

[1]  M. Mcluhan.  Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man , 1964 .

[2]  Fred P. Brooks,et al.  The Mythical Man-Month , 1975, Reliable Software.

[3]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[4]  Leslie J. Briggs,et al.  Principles of Instructional Design , 1974 .

[5]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Getting around the task-artifact cycle: how to make claims and design by scenario , 1992, TOIS.

[6]  John Millar Carroll.  The Nurnberg Funnel: Designing Minimalist Instruction for Practical Computer Skill , 1990 .

[7]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Participatory analysis: shared development of requirements from scenarios , 1997, CHI.

[8]  Donald A. Sch.  The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action , 1983 .

[9]  Stanley Schachter,et al.  When Prophecy Fails , 1956 .

[10]  Karen A. Schriver.  Dynamics in document design , 1998 .

[11]  Peter Checkland,et al.  Systems Thinking, Systems Practice , 1981 .

[12]  Russell L. Ackoff,et al.  Resurrecting the Future of Operational Research , 1979 .

[13]  C. Churchman.  Operations Research as a Profession , 1970 .

[14]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Human-computer interaction scenarios as a design representation , 1990, Twenty-Third Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[15]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. , 1987 .

[16]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[17]  M. Scriven.  The methodology of evaluation , 1966 .

[18]  Colin Potts,et al.  Using schematic scenarios to understand user needs , 1995, Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems.

[19]  Michael J. Muller,et al.  Bifocal tools for scenarios and representations in participatory activities with users , 1995 .

[20]  S. Duval,et al.  A theory of objective self awareness , 1972 .

[21]  D. Schoen.  Educating the reflective practitioner , 1987 .

[22]  John Karat,et al.  Using scenarios in design meetings—a case study example , 1991 .

[23]  Morten Kyng,et al.  Creating contexts for design , 1995 .

[24]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Making argumentation serve design , 1991 .

[25]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[26]  C. Hutchins,et al.  The Acoustics of Violin Plates , 1981 .

[27]  Colin Runciman,et al.  Perfect hash functions made parallel-Lazy functional programming on a distributed multiprocessor , 1993, [1993] Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[28]  R. Ackoff.  The Future of Operational Research is Past , 1979 .

[29]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  The use-case construct in object-oriented software engineering , 1995 .

[30]  P. Kidwell,et al.  The mythical man-month: Essays on software engineering , 1996, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing.

[31]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Technology and Change; the New Heraclitus , 1967 .

[32]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Deliberated Evolution: Stalking the View Matcher in Design Space , 1996, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[33]  T.M. Duffy,et al.  Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development [Book Review] , 1996, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[34]  L. Lunsky.  Identity and the Life Cycle. , 1966 .

[35]  Rebecca Wirfs-Brock,et al.  Designing objects and their interactions: a brief look at responsibility-driven design , 1995 .

[36]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Making use: a design representation , 1994, CACM.