Interdisciplinary Design Teams Translating Ethnographic Field Data Into Design Models: Communicating Ambiguous Concepts Using Quality Goals

Translating ethnographic field data to engineering requirements and design models suitable for implementing socio-technical systems is problematic. Ethnographic field data is often “messy” and unstructured, while requirements models are organized and systematic. Cooperation and communication within an interdisciplinary design team makes the process even more complicated. A shared understanding between ethnographers, interaction designers, and software engineers is vital to ensure that complex and subtle social interactions present in the data are considered in the final system design. One solution for supporting team conversations uses the quality goal construct as a container for complex and ambiguous interaction attributes. Quality goals in system modelling promote shared understandings and collaborative design solutions by retaining a high level of abstraction for as long as possible during the design process. This chapter illustrates the effectiveness of abstract goals for conveying complex and ambiguous information in the design of a socio-technical system supporting social interaction between couples.

[1]  Alessandro Soro,et al.  Cross-Cultural Dialogical Probes , 2016, AfriCHI.

[2]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Scenario-based design , 2002 .

[3]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  From Object Orientation to Goal Orientation: A Paradigm Shift for Requirements Engineering , 2002, RISSEF.

[4]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Making use: scenarios and scenario-based design , 2000, DIS '00.

[5]  Eric Yu,et al.  Modeling Strategic Relationships for Process Reengineering , 1995, Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering.

[6]  Daniel M. Berry,et al.  Extended Disambiguation Rules for Requirements Specifications , 2007, WER.

[7]  Shailey Minocha,et al.  Supporting Scenario-Based Requirements Engineering , 1998, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[8]  T. Timpka,et al.  Use of cultural probes for representation of chronic disease experience: exploration of an innovative method for design of supportive technologies. , 2005, Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine.

[9]  Martin R. Gibbs,et al.  Mediating intimacy: designing technologies to support strong-tie relationships , 2005, CHI.

[10]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  A Requirements-Driven Development Methodology , 2001, CAiSE.

[11]  Franco Zambonelli,et al.  Developing multiagent systems: The Gaia methodology , 2003, TSEM.

[12]  Richard F. E. Sutcliffe,et al.  Using Latent Semantic Indexing as a Measure of Conceptual Association for Noun Compound Disambiguation , 2002, AICS.

[13]  D. Sanders,et al.  Do students recognize ambiguity in software design? A multi-national, multi-institutional report , 2005, Proceedings. 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2005. ICSE 2005..

[14]  Brendan Walker,et al.  Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty , 2004, INTR.

[15]  Leon Sterling,et al.  The Benefit of Ambiguity in Understanding Goals in Requirements Modelling , 2011, Int. J. People Oriented Program..

[16]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Revisiting the Core Ontology and Problem in Requirements Engineering , 2008, 2008 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference.

[17]  Bruce McMillin,et al.  Software engineering: What is it? , 2018, 2018 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[18]  Barbara Paech,et al.  Detecting Ambiguities in Requirements Documents Using Inspections , 2001 .

[19]  Keith Cheverst,et al.  How probes work , 2007, OZCHI '07.

[20]  Sonja Pedell,et al.  "Out of sight, out of mind", investigating affective intergenerational communication over distance , 2016, OZCHI.

[21]  Michael Arnold,et al.  The Connected Home: probing the effects and affects of domesticated ICTs , 2004 .

[22]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering , 2000, International Series in Software Engineering.

[23]  Ivan Jureta,et al.  Clarifying Goals Models , 2007 .

[24]  J. Paay.  From Ethnography to Interface Design , 2008 .

[25]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Making Use: Scenario-Based Design of Human-Computer Interactions , 2000 .

[26]  Andrew Peter Wallace McCarthy.  E DITOR ’ S C OMMENTS Diversity of Design Science Research , 2022 .

[27]  William W. Gaver,et al.  Design: Cultural probes , 1999, INTR.

[28]  Leon Sterling,et al.  Understanding socially oriented roles and goals through motivational modelling , 2012, J. Syst. Softw..

[29]  David Coyle,et al.  Empirically derived user attributes for the design of home healthcare technologies , 2015, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[30]  Eric Paulos,et al.  Urban probes: encountering our emerging urban atmospheres , 2005, CHI.

[31]  Rohan J. McAdam,et al.  A Software Architecture Primer , 2006 .

[32]  Daniel M. Berry,et al.  Ambiguity in Natural Language Requirements Documents , 2008, Monterey Workshop.

[33]  Isabel Ramos,et al.  Is emotion relevant to requirements engineering? , 2005, Requirements Engineering.

[34]  Tom Rodden,et al.  Probing the Probes , 2002 .

[35]  Wes Sharrock,et al.  Occasioned practices in the work of software engineers , 1994 .

[36]  Karen Holtzblatt,et al.  Contextual design , 1997, INTR.

[37]  Steve Benford,et al.  Ambiguity as a resource for design , 2003, CHI '03.

[38]  Pierre-Yves Schobbens,et al.  A More Expressive Softgoal Conceptualization for Quality Requirements Analysis , 2006, ER.

[39]  L. Sterling,et al.  Promoting Personal Recovery in People with Persisting Psychotic Disorders: Development and Pilot Study of a Novel Digital Intervention , 2016, Frontiers in psychiatry.

[40]  Hans-Gerhard Groß,et al.  Component-based software testing with UML , 2004 .

[41]  Anind K. Dey,et al.  From awareness to connectedness: the design and deployment of presence displays , 2006, CHI.

[42]  Allan MacLean,et al.  What rationale is there in design? , 1990, INTERACT.

[43]  Allison Woodruff,et al.  Making space for stories: ambiguity in the design of personal communication systems , 2005, CHI.

[44]  J. Hughes,et al.  Designing with Care: Adapting Cultural Probes to Inform Design in Sensitive Settings , 2003 .

[45]  Tom Rodden,et al.  Presenting ethnography in the requirements process , 1995, Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE'95).

[46]  J. Hughes,et al.  Design with care:technology, disability and the home , 2003 .

[47]  Frank Vetere,et al.  Virtual box: supporting mediated family intimacy through virtual and physical play , 2007, OZCHI '07.

[48]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Agent-Oriented Software Engineering: The State of the Art , 2009, AOSE.

[49]  Volker Wulf,et al.  Designing for Those who are Overlooked: Insider Perspectives on Care Practices and Cooperative Work of Elderly Informal Caregivers , 2016, CSCW.

[50]  Joseph A. Goguen,et al.  Techniques for requirements elicitation , 1993, [1993] Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering.

[51]  Leon Sterling,et al.  One size doesn't fit all: diversifying "the user" using personas and emotional scenarios , 2014, SSE@SIGSOFT FSE.

[52]  Dan Shapiro,et al.  Steps toward a partnership: ethnography and system design , 1994 .

[53]  Ian Sommerville,et al.  Ethnographically informed analysis for software engineers , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[54]  Steve Benford,et al.  The evolution of buildings and implications for the design of ubiquitous domestic environments , 2003, CHI '03.

[55]  Gerald M. Weinberg,et al.  Exploring Requirements: Quality Before Design , 1989 .

[56]  Leon Sterling,et al.  Socially-Oriented Requirements Engineering: Software Engineering Meets Ethnography , 2014, Perspectives on Culture and Agent-based Simulations.

[57]  Michael Winikoff,et al.  Developing intelligent agent systems - a practical guide , 2004, Wiley series in agent technology.

[58]  Phoebe Sengers,et al.  Staying open to interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation , 2006, DIS '06.

[59]  James Marshall,et al.  Agent-Based Modelling of Emotional Goals in Digital Media Design Projects , 2014, Int. J. People Oriented Program..

[60]  Stefania Gnesi,et al.  An Automatic Quality Evaluation for Natural Language Requirements , 2001 .

[61]  Martin R. Gibbs,et al.  Using Cultural Probes to Explore Mediated Intimacy , 2004, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

[62]  Janis Grundspenkis,et al.  Information Systems Development: Advances in Methodologies, Components, and Management , 2002 .

[63]  Peter Sawyer,et al.  Shallow knowledge as an aid to deep understanding in early phase requirements engineering , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[64]  Leon Sterling,et al.  Engineering the social: The role of shared artifacts , 2009, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[65]  Daniela Petrelli,et al.  Making history: intentional capture of future memories , 2009, CHI.

[66]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  The Gaia Methodology for Agent-Oriented Analysis and Design , 2000, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[67]  Leon Sterling,et al.  The Art of Agent-Oriented Modeling , 2009 .

[68]  L. Sterling,et al.  Don't leave me untouched: Considering emotions in personal alarm use and development , 2014 .

[69]  Jesper Kjeldskov,et al.  Mobile Interactions in Context: A Designerly Way Toward Digital Ecology , 2014, Mobile Interactions in Context.

[70]  Erik Kamsties,et al.  From Contract Drafting to Software Specification: Linguistic Sources of Ambiguity , 2003 .