Research Methods – What Is Best for Developing and Evaluating Human Computer Interaction and Interactive Artistic Installations?

  • Arminda Guerra LopesEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 544)


Research in human computer interaction (HCI) covers both technological and human behavioral concerns. As a consequence, the contributions made in HCI research tend to be aware to either engineering or the social sciences. In HCI the purpose of practical research contributions is to reveal unknown insights about human behavior and its relationship to technology. Practical research methods normally used in HCI include formal experiments, field experiments, field studies, interviews, focus groups, surveys, usability tests, case studies, diary studies, ethnography, contextual inquiry, experience sampling, and automated data collection. In this paper, we report on our experience using developing and evaluation methods to assess artifacts. Four defined outputs (projects) were examples of the different methods application to gather information about user’s wants, habits, practices, concerns and preferences. An interactive artistic installation, Sea Grains – an immersive poetics in interactive artistic experience, is another example of the use of research methods for development and evaluation of artifacts. The goal was to build an understanding of the attitudes and satisfaction of the people who might interact with those artifacts. Conversely, we intend to present a framework design to be applied on the design for interactive applications, to promote better user’s experiences.


Human computer interaction Mixed methods Human work interaction design Interactive artistic installations Framework for interactive artistic installation’s evaluation 



We want to thanks the students that developed the artifacts and Adriana Moreno who did the interactive artistic installation.


  1. 1.
    Höök K., Laaksolahti J., Isbister K.: In: Proceedings of the WP9 Workshop on Innovative Approaches for Evaluating Affective Systems (2006). The sensual evaluation instrument: developing an affective evaluation toolGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Norman, D.: The Design of Everyday Things, Revised Edition. Basic Books, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Laurel, B.: Design Research, MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mao, J.-Y., et al.: The state of user-centered design practice. Commun. ACM 48(3), 105–109 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eklund, T., et al.: Usability evaluation of an XP product. In: Proceedings of the 19th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), pp. 280–289 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schindlholzer, B.: Methode zur Entwicklung von Innovationen durch Design Thinking Coaching, Dissertation, Universität St. Gallen (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Young, I.: Mental Models: Aligning Design Strategy with Human Behavior. Rosenfeld Media, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Preece, J., Sharp, H., Rogers, Y.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, 4th Edition. Wiley, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hirschhorn, L., Gilmore, T.: The new boundaries of the ‘boundaryless’ organization. Harvard Bus. Rev. 70, 104–115 (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Creswell, J.: A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research (Sage Mixed Methods Research). Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J.: Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 33(7), 14–26 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saffer, D.: Designing for Interaction: Creating Innovative Applications and Devices, 2nd edn. New Riders Publishers, Berkley (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Branner, J.: Mixing methods: the entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research process. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8(3), 173–184 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baden, M., Wimpenny, K.: A Practical Guide to Arts-Related Research. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam (2014). ISBN 978-94-6209-813-8Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Conquergood, D.: Interventions and radical research. Drama Rev. 46(2), 145–156 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barone, T., Eisner, E.W.: Arts based educational research. In: Green, J., Camilli, G., Elmore, P. (eds.) Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, pp. 93–107. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elbaz, F.: Teacher Thinking: A Study of Practical Knowledge. Croon Helm, London (1983)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clandinin, D.J., Connelly, F.M.: Narrative inquiry: experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kay, L.: Bead collage: an arts-based research method. Int. J. Educ. Arts 14(3) (2013). Accessed 2018
  20. 20.
    Gerstenblatt, P.: Collage portraits as a method of analysis in qualitative research. Accessed 19 Apr 2018
  21. 21.
    Phillips, C.B., Bellinger, A.: Feeling the cut: exploring the use of photography in social work education. Qual. Soc. Work 10(1), 86–105 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hill, D.A.: The poetry in portraiture: seeing subjects, hearing voices, and feeling contexts. Qual. Inquiry 11(1), 95–105 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Witkin, S.L.: Relational poetry. Qual. Soc. Work 6(4), 477–481 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dixson, A.D.: Extending the metaphor: notions of jazz in portaiture. Qual. Inquiry 11(1), 106–137 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuhn, A.: Memory texts and memory work: performances of memory in and with visual media. Mem. Stud. 3(4), 298–313 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Butler-Kisber, L.: Collage as inquiry. In: Knowles, J.G., Cole, A.L. (eds.) Handbook of the Arts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives, Methodologies, Examples, and Issues. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jongeward, C.: Visual portraits: integrating artistic process into qualitative research. In: Leavy, P. (ed.) Method Meets Art: Arts-Based Research Practice. The Guilford Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vaughan, K.: Pieced together: collage as an artist’s method for interdisciplinary research. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 4(1), 1–21 (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heinrich, F.: On the beauty of interactive art. Int. J. Arts Technol. 1, 159 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lambert, J.: Digital Storytelling Cookbook, 3a edn. Digital Diner Press, Berkeley (2010). Accessed April 2018
  31. 31.
    de Jager, A., Fogarty, A., Tewson, A., Lenette, C., Boydell, K.M.: Digital storytelling in research: a systematic review. Qual. Rep. 22(10), 2548–2582 (2017).
  32. 32.
    Lopes, A.: Using research methods in human computer interaction to design technology for resilience. J. Inf. Syst. Technol. Manage. 13, 3 (2016)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moreno, A., Lopes, A., Mendes, M.: Grãos de Mar - Uma Poética Imersiva em Experiência Artística Interativa 6º EIMAD | Encontro de Investigação em Música, Artes e Design. Castelo Branco (2018)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Clemmensen, T., Campos, P., Orngreen, R., Pejtersen, A.M., Wong, W. (eds.): HWID 2006. IIFIP, vol. 221. Springer, Boston, MA (2006). Scholar
  35. 35.
    Campos, P., Clemmensen, T., Nocera, J.A., Katre, D., Lopes, A., Ørngreen, R. (eds.): HWID 2012. IAICT, vol. 407. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  36. 36.
    Norman, D.A.: The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Edmonds, E.: Interactive art. In: Candy, L., Edmonds, E.A. (eds.) Interacting: Art, Research and the Creative Practitioner, pp. 18–32. Libri Publishing, Oxford (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Madeira ITI/LarSysInstituto Politécnico de Castelo BrancoCastelo BrancoPortugal

Personalised recommendations