I just had a question about something that was mentioned briefly in the very last lecture we had covering semiotics. We were talking about how syntagms imply time as a factor and rules in a sequence and gave the example that certain tasks are structured in a sequence, online shopping for example. So, tasks are completed in a sequence and we stated that in general this sequence is usually modeled on the behavior of an expert. But is this inherently problematic, maybe not always but at least sometimes? If we are designing “something” for people who will be using our “something” who are not considered experts, then it seems misleading to be using a model based on the behavior of those who are experts. Can we then also argue that this is then not even necessarily human-centered as we are viewing the non-experts as cogs fitting in the system of interaction between our “something” and our (expert) users instead of primarily focusing on and fully understanding our (non-expert) users?
- Should the critical-interpretavist researchers of CHI leave the design subcommunity?
- The Materiality of Research Practice
- Critiquing Scholarly Positions
- A Dark Pattern in Humanistic HCI
- The “Knowledge as a By-Product of Artistic Practice is Still Not Research” Objection to My “Criterial Knowledge” Post
- The Criterial Knowledge Argument for Research Through Design
- Research Through Design: A Humanistic Conception
- HCI as “Core” or “Relation”?
- An Erotics of Research
- A Visual Representation of Dewey’s Notion of Experience
Kristina Höök on Should the critical-interpreta… jeffreybardzell on Should the critical-interpreta… Paul Dourish on Should the critical-interpreta… 霍達葦訓練企業有限公司 (USBCT) on Macro & Micro Rayne Zhou on A Dark Pattern in Humanistic…