Tracing links between UX frameworks and design practices: dual carriageway

How does theory inform practice in User Experience research, and vice versa? We focus on two popular UX frameworks -- i.e., Hassenzahl's hedonic-pragmatic model and McCarthy & Wright's sense-making experience -- and inquire into their influence on design practice through the study of "Strong Concepts" (SC), one form of intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design. However, due to the problem of 'fading traceability', which arguably reflects the quintessential nature of theory-assimilated design, the number of SC candidates identified is limited. Based on the reviews of some research-through-design experts on those candidates, Randomness is deemed as a promising SC; some design cases appropriating Randomness are presented. There are reservations that the notion of SC is viable for resolving the tenacious issues between theory and design, given critical issues such as process malleability.

[1]  Jinmin Seok,et al.  Non-finito products: a new design space of user creativity for personal user experience , 2014, CHI.

[2]  Gregory Bateson,et al.  Gregory Bateson , 2016 .

[3]  Colin M. Gray.  Communicative Interaction in the Use of Design Precedent , 2012 .

[4]  Roger H. Clark,et al.  Precedents in Architecture , 1985 .

[5]  Rung-Huei Liang.  Designing for Unexpected Encounters with Digital Products: Case Studies of Serendipity as Felt Experience , 2012 .

[6]  Martin R. Gibbs,et al.  Being chased by zombies!: understanding the experience of mixed reality quests , 2013, OZCHI.

[7]  Doreen Meier,et al.  Precedents In Architecture , 2016 .

[8]  Erik Stolterman,et al.  Concept-Driven Interaction Design Research , 2010, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[9]  Marc Hassenzahl,et al.  MARC HASSENZAHL CHAPTER 3 The Thing and I: Understanding the Relationship Between User and Product , 2003 .

[10]  P. Desmet,et al.  Framework of product experience , 2007 .

[11]  Vasilije Kokotovich,et al.  Strategies for Creative Connections: Fomenting Technological Change , 2007 .

[12]  Tamara van Gog,et al.  The worked example and expertise reversal effect in less structured tasks : Learning to reason about legal cases , 2013 .

[13]  Tuck Wah Leong,et al.  Nudging towards serendipity: a case with personal digital photos , 2011, BCS HCI.

[14]  Kristina Höök,et al.  Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research , 2012, TCHI.

[15]  John C. McCarthy,et al.  Technology as experience , 2004, INTR.

[16]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  CHI@20: fighting our way from marginality to power , 2002, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[17]  Tek-Jin Nam,et al.  Designing Unique Products with Self-morphing Randomness , 2013 .

[18]  Amy L. Parsons,et al.  Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things , 2006 .

[19]  John Sweller,et al.  The worked-example effect using ill-defined problems: Learning to recognise designers' styles , 2009 .

[20]  Jodi Forlizzi,et al.  Understanding experience in interactive systems , 2004, DIS '04.

[21]  Mads Haahr,et al.  Lessness:Randomness, Consciousness and Meaning , 2002 .

[22]  Wendy E. Mackay,et al.  HCI, natural science and design: a framework for triangulation across disciplines , 1997, DIS '97.

[23]  Peter Dalsgård,et al.  Between theory and practice: bridging concepts in HCI research , 2014, CHI.

[24]  Tuck Wah Leong,et al.  Randomness as a resource for design , 2006, DIS '06.

[25]  Tuck Wah Leong,et al.  The serendipity shuffle , 2005, OZCHI.

[26]  G. Bateson,et al.  Mind and Nature , 1980 .

[27]  John Zimmerman,et al.  Measuring the dynamics of remembered experience over time , 2010, Interact. Comput..

[28]  William W. Gaver,et al.  Annotated portfolios , 2012, INTR.

[29]  D. Norman.  Emotional design : why we love (or hate) everyday things , 2004 .

[30]  Kari Kuutti,et al.  Where are the Ionians of user experience research? , 2010, NordiCHI.

[31]  Sarah Diefenbach,et al.  All You Need is Love: Current Strategies of Mediating Intimate Relationships through Technology , 2012, TCHI.

[32]  T. Gog,et al.  Example-Based Learning: Integrating Cognitive and Social-Cognitive Research Perspectives , 2010 .

[33]  P. Jordan.  Designing Pleasurable Products: An Introduction to the New Human Factors , 2000 .

[34]  Jonas Löwgren,et al.  Annotated portfolios and other forms of intermediate-level knowledge , 2013, INTR.

[35]  Paul van Schaik,et al.  An Experimental Analysis of Experiential and Cognitive Variables in Web Navigation , 2011, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[36]  M. Thüring,et al.  Usability, aesthetics and emotions in human–technology interaction , 2007 .

[37]  Peter Dalsgaard,et al.  Pragmatism and Design Thinking , 2014 .

[38]  Alexander Renkl,et al.  Toward an Instructionally Oriented Theory of Example-Based Learning , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[39]  Tuck Wah Leong,et al.  Abdicating choice: the rewards of letting go , 2008, Digit. Creativity.

[40]  Noam Tractinsky,et al.  Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites , 2004 .

[41]  Rivka Oxman,et al.  Educating the designerly thinker , 1999 .

[42]  Ryan Kelly,et al.  Understanding participation and opportunities for design from an online postcard sending community , 2012, DIS '12.