Abstract
The evolution of human–computer interaction design (HCID) over the last 20 years suggests that there is a growing need for educational scholars to consider new and more applicable theoretical models of interactive product design. The authors suggest that such paradigms would call for an approach that would equip HCID students with a better understanding of the social context of technology design and development. An intrinsic part of the proposed pedagogical model is the concept of affordance or that which implicitly suggests to the user a particular kind of functionality of the product. According to cognitive theory, people approach multi-functional mobile devices by building mental models of their functions, starting with physical appearance. A case study of an HCID teaching strategy, based upon the primacy of affordance, highlights how students can be taught a range of knowledge domains for product design to support creative problem-solving and critical thinking skills.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Although there are varying definitions of human–computer interaction (HCI), HCI and human–computer interaction design (HCID) are a combined phrase that includes the traditional field of HCI and interaction design (ID). The latter is a further development of the first that places more emphasis on human interaction and user interfaces, focusing primarily on design as a key factor that impacts user behavior, cognitive style, and the overall human–computer experience. As a branch of informatics, we define HCID to include all of the above definitions, with an added concern for the study, design, development, and implementation of humanly usable and socially acceptable information technologies.
Participatory design emerged in Scandinavia in the early 1970s, becoming an approach that involves users as equal partners in the design process, i.e., designing the product in cooperation with the design team. Several models of how to carry out this technique have been developed since its inception (Muller et al. 1991).
Pluralistic walkthroughs: Another form of cognitive walkthrough that integrates user participation into the process of assessment of prototype design. As with cognitive walkthroughs, pluralistic walkthroughs simulate a user’s interaction process at each step of executing a task. Driven by the scenario, the user and design team check to see if task goals are being fulfilled, while noting memory, cognitive overload, and overall ease of use (Muller et al. 1998).
Raskin states, that to be humane, is to truly be “responsive to human needs and considerate of human frailties” (p. 7). HCID must grasp the relationship between context, cognition, and technology. Hence, a greater concern for humane technologies is argued from the position that an underpinning of epistemology should form the base of human–computer interaction design methodology for system design. This is because current software design still remains traditional, with outdated research models that do not give adequate attention to social context, human limitations, and the enhancement of human creativity and processes of learning.
References
Abowd, G. D., & Mynatt, E. D. (2000). Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), 29–58.
Agre, P. E. (2001). Changing places: Contexts of awareness in computing. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16(2–4), 177–192.
Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., & Scharff, E. (2000). Transcending the individual human mind creating shared understanding through collaborative design. Proceedings of the ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(11), 22–38.
Barak, M., & Goffer, N. (2002). Fostering systematic innovative thinking and problem solving: Lessons education can learn from industry. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(3), 227–247.
Barnard, P. J., May, J., Duke, D. J., & Duce, D. A. (2000). Systems interactions and macrotheory. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interactions, 7, 222–262.
Bay, S., & Ziefle, M. (2003). Performance in mobile phones: Does it depend on a proper cognitive mapping? In D. Harris, et al. (Eds.), Human centered computing (pp. 170–174). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Beyer, H., & Hoszbalatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. New York: Morgan Kaufmann.
Buchanan, R. (2004). Human-centered design: Changing perspectives on design education in the East and West. Design Issues, 20(1), 30–39.
Carroll, J. M. (Ed.). (2003). HCI models, theories, and frameworks: Toward a new multidisciplinary science. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
De Bono, E. (1990). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step. New York: Harper & Row.
Denton, H. G., & Williams, P. J. (1996). Efficient and effective design. The Technology Teacher, 55(6), 15–20.
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Faiola, A. (2006). Designing humane technologies: A potential framework for human-computer interaction design. The International Journal of the Humanities, 2(3), 1877–1886.
Faiola, A. (2007). The design enterprise: Rethinking the HCI education paradigm. Design Issues, 23(3), 30–45. (MIT Press).
Gaver, W. (1991). Technology affordances. In Proceedings CHI’91 (pp. 79–84). New York: ACM Press.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Goldstein, M., Nyberg, M., & Anneroth, M. (2003). Providing proper affordances when transferring source metaphors from information appliances to a 3G mobile multipurpose handset. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 7(6), 372–380.
Hartson, H. R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour and Information Technology, 22(5), 315–338.
Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(2), 174–196.
Howard-Jones, P. A. (2002). A dual-state model of creative cognition for supporting strategies that foster creativity in the classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(3), 215–226.
Ji, Y. G., Park, J. H., Lee, C., & Yun, M. H. (2006). A usability checklist for the usability evaluation of mobile phone user interface. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 20(3), 207–231.
Kapor, M. (1996). A software design manifesto. In T. Winograd, J. Bennett, L. De Young, & B. Hartfield (Eds.), Bringing design to software (pp. 1–16). New York: Addison Wesley.
Klopfer, E., Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2004). Environmental detectives: PDAs as a window into a virtual world. In M. Kerres, M. Kalz, J. Stratmann, & C. de Witt (Eds.), Didactik der Notebook-Universitat. Munster, Germany: Waxmann Verlag.
Lim, Y., & Sato, K. (2001). Development of design information framework for interactive systems design. Paper presented at the 5th Asian International Symposium on Design Science, Seoul.
Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2005). Thoughtful interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Matei, S., Wheatley, D. J. & Faiola, A. (2005). On-screen vs. physical affordances in the context of a multimedia cell phone. In Proceedings of the MOBILEHCI 7 th Annual Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Mobile Devices and Services, Salzburg.
McCrickard, D. S., Chewar, C. M., & Somervell, J. (2004). Design, science, and engineering topics: Teaching HCI with a unified method. In Proceedings of SIGCSE’04, Norfolk (pp. 31–35).
Monk, A., Fellas, E., & Ley, E. (2004). Hearing only one side of normal and mobile phone conversations. Behaviour and Information Technology, 23(5), 301–305.
Muller, M., Blomberg, J., Carter, K., Dykstra, E., Madsen, K. H., & Greenbaum, J. (1991). Participatory design in Britain and North America: Responses to the Scandinavian challenge. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Reaching Through Technology (pp. 389–392). New Orleans: ACM Press.
Muller, M. J., Matheson, J., Page, C., & Gallup, R. (1998). Methods & tools: Participatory heuristic evaluation. Interactions, 5(5), 13–18.
Nardi, B. A. (1996). Activity theory and human-computer interaction. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interactions (pp. 7–16). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday Currency.
Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6, 38 (ACM Press).
Oshlyansky, L., Thimbleby, H., & Cairns, P. (2004) Breaking affordance: Culture as context. In Proceedings of the Third Nordic ACM Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, NordiChi 2004 (pp. 81–84).
Oulasvirta, A., & Saariluoma, P. (2004). Long-term memory and interrupting messages in human-computer interaction. Behaviour and Information Technology, 23(1), 53–64.
Oulasvirta, A., Nivala, A. M., Tikka, V., Liikkanen, L., & Nurminen, A. (2005). Understanding users’ strategies with mobile maps. In Mobile HCI 2005, Mobile Maps 2005 Workshop, Salzburg, Austria.
Overbeeke, C. J., & Wensveen, S. A. G. (2003). From perception to experience, from affordances to irresistible. In J. Forlizzi (Ed.), Proceedings of the DPPI (pp. 92–97). Pittsburgh: ACM Press.
Owen, C. L. (1998). Understanding design research: Toward an achievement of balance. Design Studies, 19(1), 9–20.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction design: Human-computer interaction. New York: Wiley.
Raskin, J. (2000). The humane interface. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Sanders, J. T. (1997). An ontology of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 9(1), 97–112.
Sears, A., & Williams, M. G. (1997). None of the above: What’s really essential in HCI education? In Proceedings of Extended Abstracts of Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’97 (pp. 109–110).
Shneiderman, B. (2002). Leonardo’s laptop: Human needs and the new computing technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vivrou, M., & Kabbasi, K. (2002). Reasoning about users actions in a graphical user interface. Human-Computer Interaction, 17(4), 369–398.
Weiser, M. (1993). Some computer science issues in ubiquitous computing. Communications of the ACM, 36(7), 75–84.
Winograd, T. (1997). From computing machinery to interaction design. In P. Denning & R. Metcalfe (Eds.), Beyond calculation: The next fifty years of computing (pp. 149–162). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Zhang, D., & Adipat, B. (2005). Challenges, methodologies, and issues in the usability testing of mobile applications. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 18(3), 293–308.
Zhang, R., Watters, C., & Duff, J. (2004). Examining table variations on small screen devices. In Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI’04), Canada (pp. 652–655).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Faiola, A., Matei, S.A. Enhancing human–computer interaction design education: teaching affordance design for emerging mobile devices. Int J Technol Des Educ 20, 239–254 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9082-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9082-4