Advertisement

A simple design for a complex work domain - the role of sketches in the design of a Bachelor study’s new folder structure for use by teachers, students and administrators

  • Torkil Clemmensen
Conference paper
  • 587 Downloads
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 221)

Abstract

In this paper we explore the role of design sketches in Interaction design and work analysis in a case of designing a simple folder structure for e- learning software used to do course administration at a higher education study programme. The case presents a detailed description of how developers use different work analyses to collectively reflect upon and interpret design sketches of possible support of different user groups’ interaction within their complex work, learning and life contexts. We conclude with what was learned from the case make recommendations how to conceptualize the process of reading design sketches using work analysis.

Keywords

User Group Task Analysis Study Programme Work Analysis Interaction Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

6. References

  1. 1.
    Akin, Ö. Variants in Design Cognition. in Eastman, C., Newstetter, W. and McCracken, M. eds. DESIGN KNOWING AND LEARNING: COGNITION IN DESIGN EDUCATION, Elsevier, 2001, 301.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloenberg, J., Suchman, L. and Trigg, R.H. Reflections on a Work-Oriented Design Project. Human-Computer Interaction, 11(3). 237–265.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carroll, J.M. Five reasons for scenario-based design. Interacting with Computers, 13(1). 43–60.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christensen, B.T. and Schunn, C.D. The relationship between analogical distance to analogical function and pre-inventive structure: The case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clemmensen, T. and Norbjerg, J. Separation in Theory-Coordination in Practice. Software Process Improvement and Practice, 8. 99–110.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cole, M. and Engestram, Y. A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition, in Salomon, G. ed. Distributed cognitions-Psychological and educational considerations, Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper, A. and Reimann, R.M. About Face 2.0.” The Essentials of Interaction Design. Wiley, 2003.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Creswell, J.W. Qualitative inquiry and research design-choosing among five traditions. SAGE, London, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Engestrøm, Y. Interactive expertise-Studies in distributed working intelligence. Research Bulletin, University of Helsinki, Department of Education, 83.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fallman, D., Why Research-oriented Design Isn’t Design-oriented Research. in Nordes: Nordic Design Research Conference, (Copenhagen, Denmark, (2005)).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hamel, R., Psychology and Design Research. in Design Research in the Netherlands, (1995).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harper, R.H.R. The Organisation in Ethnography-A Discussion of Ethnographic Fieldwork Programs in CSCW. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 9. 239–264.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hasdogan, G. The role of user models in product design for assessment of user needs. Design Studies, 17. 19–33.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hutchins, E. Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hutchins, E. How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3). 265–288.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kirwan, B. and Ainsworth, L.K. (eds.). A guide to task analysis. Taylor & Francis, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mathiassen, L., Munk-Madsen, A., Nielsen, P.A. and Stage, J. Object Oriented Analysis and Design. Marko, Aalborg, 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nielsen, L., From user to character, in Designing Interactive Systems, (London, 2002).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oh, Y., Gross, M.D. and Do, E.Y.-L., Critiquing Freehand Sketching-A Computational Tool for Design Evaluation. in Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design [VR’04], MIT, Cambridge, USA, (2004).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oh, Y., Yi-Luen Do, E. and Gross, M.D., Intelligent Critiquing of Design Sketches. in AAA1 Fall Symposium-Making Pen-Based Interaction Intelligent and Natural, (2004).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Preece, J., Rogers, Y. and Sharp, H. Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. John Wiley & Sons, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rasmussen, J., Pejtersen, A.M. and Schmidt, K. Taxonomy for Cognitive Work analysis, Riso National Laboratory, 1990.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Siegel, D. and Dray, S. Avoiding the next schism: etnography and usability. Interactions, march + april 2005.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tatnall, A. and Gilding, A., Actor-Network Theory and Information Systems Research. in lOth Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 1999, (1999).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilson, J.R. and Corlett, E.N. (eds.). Evaluation of human work-a practical ergonomics methodology. Taylor & Francis, London, 1992.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yammiyavar, P.G. Emotion as a semantic construct in product design, IIS, Bangalore, 1999, 367.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yi-Luen Do, E., Gross, M.D. and Zimring, C., Drawing and Design Intentions — An Investigation of Freehand Drawing Conventions in Design. in Design Thinking Research Symposium, (Cambridge MA, 1999).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Torkil Clemmensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksberg

Personalised recommendations