Advertisement

Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 71, Issue 1, pp 97–117 | Cite as

Experience to understand: a methodology for integrating users into the design for kitchen interactions

  • Damjan ObalEmail author
  • Emilija Stojmenova
Article

Abstract

The kitchen is a place where many interactions happen every day. It is a place where new technologies and tradition meet. What makes a place a smart kitchen? This article describes our research over 29 months with a group representing typical users—we will call them the kitchen heroes. We involved them in a process of interaction design (IxD) for the kitchen following the tradition of participatory design (PD), to find out the potential of such a collaboration. We asked ourselves how could we, together with the intended users design for better, seamless interaction in the kitchen? Our research showed that designing for kitchen demands a high and consistent level of engagement of all the stakeholders if we are to design a truly smart and human-centred kitchen. How then, could we integrate them into the interaction design process? As an answer we developed a methodology for the integration of all the stakeholders into the whole design process. We focused on the early design phases and the ways to trigger engagement. The methodology we developed is named EPUI and consists of four parts: exploration, participation, understanding and integration. This article illustrates the EPUI methodology for successfully integrating kitchen users into the kitchen interaction design and fruitful participatory design. It is based on and combines benefits from methodologies such as PD, ADR, PADR, while in the article we explain how it also contributes to their flaws. Additionally, we present our lessons learned while implementing the EPUI methodology and offer tools to both seasoned and less-experienced researchers.

Keywords

Kitchen Interaction design User research User integration Participatory design Ubiquitous computing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Author thanks the participants who took part in the evaluation study. Operation leading to this paper is partially financed by the European Union, European Social Fund. The research and development work was carried out within the research program Algorithms and optimization methods in telecommunications, which is co-financed by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Slovenia.

References

  1. 1.
    Argyris C, Schön DA (1989) Participatory action research and action science compared: a commentary. Am Behav Sci 32(5):612–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baskerville R (1999) Investigating information systems with action research. Commun of AIS 2(3):2–31Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baskerville R, Pries-Heje J. Venable, J (2009). Soft design science methodology. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2009), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 7–9 May, 2009.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baskerville R, Pries-Heje J, Venable J. (2007). Soft design science research: extending the boundaries of evaluation in design science research. Paper presented at the 2nd International conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bell G, Kaye J (2002). Designing technology for domestic spaces: a kitchen manifesto in gastronomica, vol. 2, pp. 44–62Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beyer H, Holtzblatt K (1999) Contextual design. Interactions 6(1):32–42, Morgan KaufmannCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bilandzic M, Venable J (2011) Towards participatory action design research: adapting action research and design science research methods for urban informatics. J Community Informa Spec Issue: Res Action: Linking Communities Univ 7(3)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bødker S (1996) Creating conditions for participation: conflicts and resources in systems design. Hum Comput Interact 11(3):215–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bonanni L, Lee C.-H, Selker T (2005). Attention-based design of augmented reality interfaces. CHI 05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems CHI 05, 1228. ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, J.-hao, Chang, K.-hao, Chi, P.-yu, Chu, H.-hua. (2006). A Smart Kitchen to Promote Healthy Cooking. Human Factors Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cooper A, Reimann R, Cronin D (2007) About face 3: The essentials of interaction design. Wiley, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davison R, Martinsons MG, Kock N (2004) Principles of canonical action research. Inf Syst J 14:65–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diaz J (2008). 1960s Braun products hold the secret of Apple’s Future. Retrieved from http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future
  14. 14.
    Garrett JJ (2011). The elements of user experience. New RidersGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Genzuk M (2003). A synthesis of ethnographic research, http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~genzuk/Ethnographic_Research.pdf, accessed April 2008
  16. 16.
    Grudin J, Pruitt J (2002). Personas, participatory design and product development: An infrastructure for engagement. Proc PDC (pp. 144–161).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hevner A, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holzinger, A (2002). User-centered interface design for disabled and elderly people: First Experiences with Designing a Patient Communication System (PACOSY). ICCHP ′02Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Homesense project home page, http://www.homesenseproject.com/ , accessed September 2011
  20. 20.
    Ju W, Hurwitz R, Judd T, Lee B (2001). CounterActive: an interactive cookbook for the kitchen counter. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 269–270. ACM New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kensing F, Simonsen J, Bødker K (1996). MUST - a method for participatory design. proceedings of the fourth biennial conference on participatory designGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kolko J (2007). Thoughts on interaction design. Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Koster R (2005) A theory of fun for game design. Paraglyph Press, ScottsdaleGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee C-H. J, Bonanni L, Espinosa JH., Lieberman H, Selker T (2006). Augmenting kitchen appliances with a shared context using knowledge about daily events. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces IUI 06, 348. ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lowgren J, Stolterman E (2007) Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moggridge B (2007). Designing interactions. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Obal D (2011). Crowdasting: A platform fostering open innovation in Cruz-Cunha M, Putnik GD, Goncalves NL, Miranda EM (eds) Business social networking: Organizational, managerial, and technological dimensions. IGI Global (Accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Olivier P, Xu G, Monk A, Hoey J (2009). Ambient kitchen: designing situated services using a high fidelity prototyping environment. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, 1–7. ACM.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Piller FT, Walcher, D (2005). Toolkits for idea competitions: A novel method to integrate users in new product development. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pogorelc B, Bosnić Z, Gams M (2011) Automatic recognition of gait-related health problems in the elderly using machine learning. Multimed tools and applications. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sanders E (2002) From user-centered to participatory design approaches. Design and the social sciences. Taylor and Francis Books Ltd, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sanders E, Stappers PJ (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&doi= 10.1080/15710880701875068&magic=crossref
  33. 33.
    Sein M, Henfridsson O, Purao S, Rossi M, Lindgren R (2011) Action design research. Manag Inf Syst Q 35(1):37–56Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Susman G, Evered R (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Adm Sci Q 23:582–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    von Hippel E (2005) Democratizing innovation. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wagner J, Ploetz T, Halteren AV, Hoonhout J, Moynihan P, Jackson D, Ladha C, et al. (2011). Towards a pervasive kitchen infrastructure for measuring cooking competence. Proc Int Conf Pervasive Computing Technologies for HealthcareGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Warren JY (2008) Tech-Savvy users’ perceptions of consumer health portals. Health Care Informa Rev Online 12(3):2–5MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MariborMariborSlovenia
  2. 2.Iskratel d.o.o., KranjKranjSlovenia

Personalised recommendations