Making tea: iterative design through analogy

The success of translating an analog or manual practice into a digital interactive system may depend on how well that translation captures not only the functional what and how aspects of the practice, but the why of the process as well. Addressing these attributes is particularly challenging when there is a gap in expertise between the design team and the domain to be modeled. In this paper, we describe Making Tea, a design method foregrounding the use of analogy to bridge the gap between design team knowledge and domain expertise. Making Tea complements more traditional user-centered design approaches such as ethnography and task analysis. In this paper, we situate our work with respect to other related design methods such as Cultural Probes and Artifact Walkthroughs. We describe the process by which we develop, validate and use analogy in order to maximize expert contact time in observation, interviews, design reviews and evaluation. We contextualize the method in a discussion of its use in a project we ran to replace a paper-based synthetic chemistry lab book with an interactive system for use in a pervasive lab environment.

[1]  Andrew F. Monk,et al.  Computers and fun , 1999, Pers. Ubiquitous Comput..

[2]  Andrew Clement,et al.  A retrospective look at PD projects , 1993, CACM.

[3]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Human Computer Interaction: The Year 2000 and Beyond , 1995, HCI.

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

[5]  Marc Rettig,et al.  Prototyping for tiny fingers , 1994, CACM.

[6]  Philip J. Barnard,et al.  THE HANDBOOK OF TASK ANALYSIS FOR HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION , 2003 .

[7]  Morten Kyng,et al.  COMPUTER SUPPORT FOR COOPERATIVE DESIGN , 1988 .

[8]  Alan J. Dix.  Deconstructing Experience: Pulling Crackers Apart , 2005, Funology.

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

[10]  Kim Halskov,et al.  Computer support for cooperative design (invited paper) , 1988, CSCW '88.

[11]  Monica M. C. Schraefel,et al.  Breaking the book: translating the chemistry lab book into a pervasive computing lab environment , 2004, CHI.

[12]  Peter C. Wright,et al.  Funology: from usability to enjoyment , 2005 .

[13]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  The Semantic Grid: A Future e‐Science Infrastructure , 2003 .

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

[15]  Andrew F. Monk,et al.  Perspectives on HCI : diverse approaches , 1995 .

[16]  Dan Gruen,et al.  Stories and storytelling in the design of interactive systems , 2000, DIS '00.

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

[18]  B. Nardi.  Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction , 1995 .

[19]  Clay Spinuzzi,et al.  A Scandinavian challenge, a US response: methodological assumptions in Scandinavian and US prototyping approaches , 2002, SIGDOC '02.

[20]  P. A. Sims.  Working with metaphor. , 2003, American journal of psychotherapy.

[21]  Sarah A. Douglas,et al.  Learning text editor semantics by analogy , 1983, CHI '83.

[22]  Timothy Chklovski,et al.  Learner: a system for acquiring commonsense knowledge by analogy , 2003, K-CAP '03.

[23]  Werner Sperschneider,et al.  Ethnographic fieldwork underindustrial constraints: Towards Design-in-Context , 2000 .