Presentation on theme: "CARDBOARD COMPUTERS Mocking-It-Up or Hands-on the Future M"— Presentation transcript:
1CARDBOARD COMPUTERS Mocking-It-Up or Hands-on the Future M Pelle Ehn and Morten Kyng
2Dr. Pelle Ehn is a Professor of Interaction Design from the School of Arts and Communication at Malmö University in Sweden. For three decades he has been involved as project director in many research projects on participatory design and on bridging design and information technology.Morten Kyng is professor of Pervasive Computing and director of the Centre for Pervasive Computing. He has a long-standing track record of research in participatory design, computer supported cooperative work and human-computer interaction.Together with the late Kristen Nygaard, Ehn and Kyng since 1973 lead the development of the Scandinavian school of participatory design which has set the agenda for vast body of international research.
3UTOPIA PROJECTDesign of skill based tools for graphic work( )Designing the future of computer supported newspaper production-drukkers vs. journalisten-1970 opmars van de -computer based lay-outs en pagina opmaak-begin jaren 80 ging kwaliteit scandinavische kranten omlaag...“Artifacts, computers as well as other tools, should be understood via the human use of them.”(p.651)
4Within the UTOPIA project mock-up’s (fakes) where being used. Ehn and Kyng show examples from “cardboard computers” to “computer mock-ups” to show the pros and cons for envisionment of future use.Claim: Design artifacts such as mock- ups can be most useful in early stages of design process.(p.652)
5why? encouraging “hands on experience” they are understandable they are cheapthey are fun to work with (p.652)het wordt makkelijker de toekmomst in te beelden.k
6“If future users also actively participate in the design, the mock-ups may be truly useful and a proper move toward a changed reality” (p.654)
7How?Mock-ups are only effective in the design language games that make sense to the participant. (p.654)Language games are socially constructed by participants (users and designers)(p.655)“All you can understand is what you already understood” (p.655)Users’ awareness is focussed on doing the task, rather than on analyzing objects and relations. (p.656)“Hands on the future” as opposed to “eyes on a system description”. (p.656)vergelijkbaar met industrieel ontwerpers die marquetes maken....verschil is dat mock-ups op de voorspelling van de toekomst gericht zijn.
8“UNTIL NOW WE HAVE LOOKED AT HOW TO DESIGN WITHOUT COMPUTERS, NOT BECAUSE WE THINK THAT PEOPLE SHOULD AVOID COMPUTERS IN GENERAL, BUT BECAUSE THERE ARE GOOD REASONS TO THINK TWICE BEFORE USING THEM, AS WELL AS GOOD REASONS TO PROCEED “EVEN” IF COMPUTER SUPPORT IS NOT AVAILABLE”
9THOSE REASONS ARE:non-computer mock-ups are built with inexpensive materials (p.657)the characteristics of these simple tools and materials are familiar to everybody in our culture (p.657)NCMU leap to collaborative modification (p.657)Focus is on envisioning the system and creating the illusion of using the future system: Computers have no privileged position in relation to other materials such as cardboard and paper. (p.658)
10computer mock-upsovercome severe shortcomings in the use of simple mock-up materials. (p.660)not the same understandability as the non-computer mock-up tools (p.661)With unfamiliar tools and materials, the simulated future has to be carefully planed and enacted. (p.661)One of the reasons for the effectiveness of cardboard mock-ups is that nobody confuses them with the future computer system. With computers in mock-ups this is different. (P.661)
11conclusionmock-ups are a way to experience the future, they are able to make major changes in participants’ working lives (p.662)In using inexpensive mock-up tools and in establishing the pleasurable engagement of hands-on experience, the designers have to find their own role in the designing game. (p.662)What defines the professional designer is the competence to find a proper role in a specific design game and to expand the space for users to participate in design as action (p.662)