Contributors

PubPub Community Manager
Discussions79Share

Discussions

Authors
Labels
Sort
New Discussion on Sep 12
Matt Nish-Lapidus
A systems approach could imply that all of these things become “users”, or maybe more appropriately actors (as you infer), within the system with equally weighted needs, contexts, and attention. Designing for something like this could seek to balance the impact of the system on all… or to skew it towards one set of actors. The examples earlier in the paper speak to a skewed attention on “users” because users = customers to systems where commerce is the point of being. The other actors are resources to be extracted and exploited for profit.
New Discussion on Jul 18
Tim Chambers
"Only two industries refer to their customers as 'users:' drug dealers and software/web developers." – Edward Tufte
New Discussion on Jul 18
Tim Chambers
A dweller or a visitor?
Submission for Publication
Kevin Slavin
(fixed broken images and captions — something got dorked with resolving GIF images, evidently)
Discussion on Jan 29, 2017
Ian Wojtowicz
test
Discussion on Jan 29, 2017
Ian Wojtowicz
test
Discussion on Nov 11, 2016
David Fore
Design for participation is exactly the right idea. This concept is just as true in software design these days as in architecture. In addition to whatever native wit and well-honed craft any interaction designer may possess, each of us also depends upon some form of User Centered Design(UCD) to create products, services, and systems that are hospitable and appealing. Placing human concerns at the center of the design of software-enabled systems has been quite a trick, given that doing so has meant moving technology to a role that is subservient to human needs. But this Copernican shift has led not only to better products, but better process also. That’s because doing interaction design in the proper way also provides everyone greater visibility into and appropriate influence over the development, use, and impact of the systems that are designed. The problem comes when UCD is taken too literally, for it can also promote a myopia that blurs what’s outside the immediate reach of individuals, preventing us from clearly seeing the inter-woven social, industrial, and environmental ecologies within which people live and companies exist. This must change. Whether interaction designers hear it or not, we are being called upon to address the broader ecological contexts of the companies that build what we design, and those who use the product of our labors. It is, therefore, urgent for our design values, methods, and collaboration habits to evolve. Now. See more here: https://www.cooper.com/journal/2008/07/beautiful_monsters
Discussion on Nov 10, 2016
Saikiran Chandha
Discussion on Apr 24, 2016
Mike Rea
In healthcare/ pharmaceutical design, we have yet to move beyond the word 'patient', which implies a level of detachment even one level beyond user... Yet the 'patient's participation is whole and holistic - their interaction (innate and personal) is a part of how well the treatment works... Would love to see the ideas here extend into that realm
Discussion on Mar 31, 2016
Philip Sheldrake
Perhaps the epitome of designers in this postmodern mode will be those that help develop the framework, models, libraries, and methods that are called upon by each and everyone of us, in unique combination, for our interaction with all things digital (which increasingly means all things analogue too as the two irreversibly entwine). The complex adaptive system around each of us contributes to that combination and is effected by it. Sustainability is served by its distributed, unmediated and open manifestation. If you like the sound of this Kevin, everyone, love to chat about the hi:project (www.hi-project.org/).
Discussion on Mar 24, 2016
Iain Perkin
"Price was designing not for the uses he wished to see, but for all the uses he couldn’t imagine." Does this not describe the dream for computers but arrived as the smartphone (the computer you have in your pocket)?
Discussion on Mar 18, 2016
Juan Safra
The end justifying the means, in a pervasive and harmful sense. Specially if we look it from a systems perspective. It's an unsustainable approach to design and it doesn't has humble designers. Guess this way isn't design at all.
Discussion on Mar 18, 2016
Erik Schmitt
One way to subvert this troubling "obfuscation of labor" trend is to shop local. To physically interact. I'd like to see more efforts by designers in the tech landscape to empower small local business enitities. This could help to create a counterpoint to the monoculture of mega corporations that thrive on this detachment of consumer form worker.
Discussion on Mar 17, 2016
Jean Foster
I worked at A&TT Bell Labs in the late 70s as a Unix System Administrator and "user" was what we called the people who used our systems. The online etomology dictionary says the term, as related to computers, has been in use since 1967.
Discussion on Mar 16, 2016
undefined undefined
This is a great read. The latest theories on smart home development are already recognising the need for a process that involves all stakeholders, from those who use the spaces to those who maintain them. Everyone has a voice. Intelligent environments evolve; the process of "design" is exactly that - a process without a point of terminus.
Discussion on Mar 16, 2016
Sean Champ
Sounds Complex. Juxtaposing any singular concrete models and views of strictly material systems - as in a context of the SysML modeling language and applications with regards to Europe's AUTOSAR - I believe that the article presents a manner of a socially realistic view of how society ... functions, broadly. Alternate to the dark shadows of Orwellian narratives, I believe it strikes a chord in a Constructivist sense. That in these complex systems, surely communication must be a thing - I believe that may be towards the nature of my own "Vested Interest," academically. Likewise, I believe it is my "Takeway" of this transaction.
Discussion on Mar 16, 2016
Eitan Reich
Love this piece and the Journal- thanks! But It seems to me that disruption is not just about users's desires or behaviours it's more about transforming the user all together. Where Henry Ford succeded in making us all into drivers, it's the driver-less car's turn to make us something new. See what I wrote about this here - https://complextochangeblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/disruption-means-transforming-your-users/
Discussion on Mar 14, 2016
Geoffrey Lew
This is fantastic, one of the most insightful things I have read. But it takes such a large leap of faith, more than most organizations are willing to make.
Discussion on Mar 13, 2016
Peter Hartree
Pretty sure the book referred to here is The Design of Everyday things.
Discussion on Mar 13, 2016
Peter Hartree
Pretty sure the book referred to here is The Design of Everyday things.