Paul Dourish on reflective HCI

Been reading this paper from Paul Dourish tonight in the train: “Seeing Like an Interface” (a paper he presented at OzCHI 2007). The author concluded about “the burgeoning interest in a reflective approach to HCI” that would be concerned by the “critical dimensions of design”. He basically describes technologies such as computers as “an effective site” at which to engage in critical engagements about the cultural values and assumptions. What does that mean for the everyday researcher/practitioner? Here are some hints described in the paper:

Reflective HCI suggests an approach to interaction design in which cultural assumptions and values play as important a role as traditional usability metrics both as measures of success and as elements of the design process.
(…)
The discipline of HCI has evolved considerably over several decades, but so too have computer systems themselves. What I want to draw attention to here is not simply the fact that computers have become faster, smaller, and more powerful as technological artifacts, but that they have emerged as cultural objects in a radically different way than they did before. They are elements of the landscape of daily life in many different forms. Digital devices are embedded in our cultural and social imagination in very different ways than they were when HCI was emerging. To the extent that our discipline thinks not simply about user interface design but about interactions between humans and computers, these transformations suggest that we need to look more broadly for theoretical perspectives that help us understand how computation manifests itself as a cultural object

Why do I blog this? surely some elements to be connected with what Anthony Dunne described in Hertzian tales about “critical design” (although the two visions are not the same). On a more general level, I find interesting to see when different disciplines (such as human-computer interaction or design) come-up with close concepts.

What is then interesting for the layman (for example when I am working with game designers on gestural interfaces usage for the Nintendo Wii) is to see how these ideas can be turned into (pragmatic) actions. In other words, what would “reflective HCI” brings to the table when I am surrounded by level designers, scenario planners, the production manager and the lead coder? Well, it’s certainly different from showing graphics about usability issues (that bloody tester missed the door 14 times on that level!) but it does bring questions, insights, discussions that sometimes allow to reconsider problems and results from tests/observations/ethnographic accounts of playtests.

5 Responses to “Paul Dourish on reflective HCI”

  1. Putting people first » Recent publications by Prof. Paul Dourish Says:

    […] Pasta&Vinegar)   Leave a […]

  2. Chris Says:

    Surely the point of reflective practice is to critique and develop the discipline itself and its processes, rather than expecting “pragmatic actions” that can be immediately applied to products…? Put another way its “audience” is practioners themselves, not clients and end-users.

    Thanks for the heads-up on this. I will look for the Sengers/CTP stuff as well.

  3. Putting People First in italiano Says:

    […] Pasta&Vinegar)   Scrivi un […]

  4. plus six » links for 2008-01-29 Says:

    […] Paul Dourish on reflective HCI (Pasta&Vinegar) HCI meets critical practice maybe (tags: design theory hci dourish criticaldesign criticaltechnicalpractice ctp sengers) […]

  5. Tom Wynne-Morgan Says:

    Nice post…i skimmed over the paper by Paul too. I think i might have to disagree with Chris on this one (i don’t do that too often). I think the level that people like Tony Dunne work at is very much inspiration and provocation for the discipline…navel gazing to take a negative slant on it. However from the little that i have experience of the UI/UE world, they are simultaneously crying out for this bigger picture, this critique on cultural value etc. The only difference is that they need it in their own language. Maybe what Paul is getting at is that the lexicon and points of reference need re-positioning. Creating a new, iterative process that embeds usability design into the larger context all the time. By all account,s its not an easy thing to do since on a first pass they seem at odds with each other. That’s my two pence anyway.

Leave a Reply