Advertisement

Design as a Reflection of User Experience

  • Adson Eduardo Resende
  • Yvonne M. M. Mautner
  • Sheila W. Ornstein
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

This article presents preliminary results from a study developed at a control room of a passenger transport system, namely a subway system, as part of an ongoing doctorate research from the School of Architecture and Urbanism at the University of São Paulo. The aim of this study is to demonstrate that designing requires the retrieval of the user experience and its recognition as an essential part of the development of work artifacts. While building their daily use experience, the user creates strategies in order to overcome the frailties of the projects. Indeed, the understanding of the subsystems of an artifact is paramount, for this is where the designer encounters the variables that need to be dealt with. The designer manipulates these subsystems both simultaneously and separately. In fact, in the face of difficulties, there is a tendency to fragment the problem and to use concepts in an attempt to help determine the requirements that will be handled separately. Such conceptual independence among variables, promoted by the designing process, leads to some mismatches. The experience of the users and designers with this artifact emerges as an alternative to provide information to the project and raise their necessities, decreasing the mismatches. To achieve that, methodologies such as the Ergonomic Work Analysis and the Post-Occupancy Evaluation offer possibilities to recover the experience, thus requalifying the designing process.

Keywords

Ergonomic work analysis User experience Design Post-occupancy evaluation 

References

  1. 1.
    Löbach B (2001) O Processo de Design; em: Design Industrial Bases para configuração dos produtos industriais, Ed. Blücher, São Paulo, pp 139–155Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rabardel P, Waern Y (2003) From artefact to instrument; em. Interact Comput 15:641–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonsiepe G (1998) Lãs siete columnas del diseño; em: Del Objeto a la Interfase – mutaciones del diseño, Ediciones Infinito, Buenos Aires, pp 15–23Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Engestron Y (2000) Activity theory as framework for analysing and redesigning work. Ergonomics 43(7):960–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daniellou F (2004) Questões Epistemológicas Levantadas pela Ergonomia de Projeto, em: A Ergonomia em Busca de Seus Princípios – debates epistemológicos, Edgard Blucher, São Paulo, pp 181–198Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ornstein SW, Romero MA (colab) (1992) Avaliação Pós-ocupação do Ambiente Construído. São Paulo Studio Nobel EDUSPGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schön, DA (1992) Learning to design and designing to learn; anais International Conference on Theories and Methods of Design, Goteborg – Suécia, pp 25–46Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beguin P, Duarte F (2008) A inovação: entre o trabalho dos projetistas e o trabalho dos operadores. Revista Laboreal, Portugal, vol 4, pp 10–14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adson Eduardo Resende
    • 1
  • Yvonne M. M. Mautner
    • 2
  • Sheila W. Ornstein
    • 2
  1. 1.Federal University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  2. 2.University of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations