%0 Book Section %1 erickson05 %A Erickson, Thomas %B Foundations of Interaction Design %D 2005 %I Lawrence Erlbaum Associates %K methodology theory hci %T Five Lenses: Towards a Toolkit for Interaction Design %U http://www.visi.com/~snowfall/5Lenses.html %X This volume is concerned with establishing foundations for interaction design. "Foundations" strikes me as an ambitious metaphor, suggesting, as it does, a solid base upon which a single, unified edifice will be erected. And, following the metaphor a step further, it assumes the existence of a stable, well organized community with a shared set of values that is ready to embark upon a such construction project. I don't believe these assumptions hold up. To me, the state of interaction design feels more primitive. Rather than being an organized community, interaction design feels closer to being composed of a number of roving tribes who occasionally enounter one another, warily engage, and, finding the engagements stimulating, remain open to other encounters. If this is the case, how do we make progress? I suggest that rather than trying to construct a unified, coherent account of interaction design, we would do better to take a more syncretic approach, gathering appropriate concepts and exploring their interplay without, however, insisting on resolving their tensions and contradictions. In this essay I explore these issues. I begin with a definition, and illustrate my approach to partitioning the terrain of interaction design using five conceptual "lenses." In so doing, I cover most of what I see as the theoretical roots of interaction design. I then turn to the role of theory in interaction design, and suggest that a good way to begin is to assemble a toolkit of concepts for interaction design that consists of appropriately sized theoretical constructs.

@incollection{erickson05, abstract = {This volume is concerned with establishing foundations for interaction design. "Foundations" strikes me as an ambitious metaphor, suggesting, as it does, a solid base upon which a single, unified edifice will be erected. And, following the metaphor a step further, it assumes the existence of a stable, well organized community with a shared set of values that is ready to embark upon a such construction project. I don't believe these assumptions hold up. To me, the state of interaction design feels more primitive. Rather than being an organized community, interaction design feels closer to being composed of a number of roving tribes who occasionally enounter one another, warily engage, and, finding the engagements stimulating, remain open to other encounters. If this is the case, how do we make progress? I suggest that rather than trying to construct a unified, coherent account of interaction design, we would do better to take a more syncretic approach, gathering appropriate concepts and exploring their interplay without, however, insisting on resolving their tensions and contradictions. In this essay I explore these issues. I begin with a definition, and illustrate my approach to partitioning the terrain of interaction design using five conceptual "lenses." In so doing, I cover most of what I see as the theoretical roots of interaction design. I then turn to the role of theory in interaction design, and suggest that a good way to begin is to assemble a toolkit of concepts for interaction design that consists of appropriately sized theoretical constructs.}, added-at = {2006-03-24T16:34:33.000+0100}, author = {Erickson, Thomas}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2bf2e9096d3d8a5111ea8a2725d758448/neilernst}, booktitle = {Foundations of Interaction Design}, citeulike-article-id = {129359}, comment = {Mind This is the lens most often deployed by interaction designers versed in human-computer interaction, and is of critical import in the design of screen-based applications. Proxemics This is the domain of ethnomethodologists such as Adam Kendon (1990), sociologists such as Erving Goffman (1963), and anthropologists such as Edward Hall (1983), who focus on the role of expression, posture, gaze, gesture and timing in interactions within small groups. This lens is important for those concerned with designing material artifacts--especially large artifacts such as control panels, rooms and buildings--as well as those designing digital systems which support mediated (i.e. disembodied) interaction. Artifacts This lens--with the glimpses it gives of artifacts and their varied roles--is important for those who design material artifacts, as well as for those who aim to replace material objects with digital 'equivalents.' The Social This is the realm of social psychology, sociology (Goffman, 1963), ethnomethodology (Heath \& Luff, 2000) and anthropology (Whyte, 1988). This lens is essential to any interaction designer wishing to reflect upon ways in which a newly designed artifact may disrupt situations in which it is introduced, or the ways in which--as with a web-based chess game--the digital equivalent of a face to face interaction may have very different social effects. The Ecological Jane Jacobs, Kunstler, etc.}, description = {sdasda}, interhash = {c635c359fc542e3267329200ee7fd0b6}, intrahash = {bf2e9096d3d8a5111ea8a2725d758448}, keywords = {methodology theory hci}, priority = {0}, publisher = {Lawrence Erlbaum Associates}, timestamp = {2006-03-24T16:34:33.000+0100}, title = {Five Lenses: Towards a Toolkit for Interaction Design}, url = {http://www.visi.com/~snowfall/5Lenses.html}, year = 2005 }