Investigating Synergies Between Interaction Design Methods

  • Stefano FilippiEmail author
  • Daniela Barattin
  • Paula Alexandra Silva
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9186)


A successful product provides a pleasurable and straightforward experience. This leads to an increasing importance of the human-computer interaction and user experience issues in design. Despite the wealth of methods and tools available to support the design process, these are frequently incomplete and difficult to use. This research contributes to fill this gap by investigating the possible synergies between two design methods, the BadIdeas method (BI) and the Interaction Design Integrated Method (IDIM). BI is an early design method especially suited for the ideation phase of the design process. IDIM deals with design, evaluation, and innovation forecasting, and covers the first part of the product development process. Two limitations are highlighted in each of these methods and their concepts and tools are mutually exploited to improve the other. Suggestions for integration and improvement are presented with examples that demonstrate the benefits of this research.


Interaction design methods BadIdeas IDIM Design process 


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Hassenzahl, M.: User experience and experience design. In: Soegaard, M., Dam, R. (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd edn. The Interaction Design Foundation, Aarhus (2014). Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Silva, P.A.: BadIdeas 3.0: a method for the creativity and innovation in design. In: 1st DESIRE Network Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design, pp. 154–162 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Filippi, S., Barattin, D., Cascini, G.: Analyzing the cognitive processes of an interaction design method using the FBS framework. In: ICED13 International Conference on Engineering Design (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Silva, P.A., Read, J.C.: A methodology to evaluate creative design methods: a study with the BadIdeas method. In: OzCHI, pp. 264–271. ACM Digital Library (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Filippi, S., Barattin, D.: IDGL, an interaction design framework based on systematic innovation and quality function deployment. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 1–19 (2014). doi: 10.1007/s12008-014-0231-6 (published online)
  7. 7.
    Filippi, S., Barattin, D.: Generation, adoption, and tuning of usability evaluation multi-methods. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 28(6), 406–422 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Filippi, S., Barattin, D.: Definition and exploitation of trends of evolution about interaction. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 86, 216–236 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cristiano, J.J., Liker, J.K., White, C.C.: Customer-driven product development through quality function deployment in the US and Japan. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 17, 286–308 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cong, H., Tong, L.H.: Grouping of TRIZ inventive principles to facilitate automatic patent classification. Expert Syst. Appl. 34, 788–795 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Altshuller, G.S.: Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, Systematic Innovation and Technical Creativity. Technical Innovation Center, Inc., Worchester (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chang, H.T., Chen, J.L.: The conflict-problem-solving CAD software integrating TRIZ into eco-innovation. Adv. Eng. Softw. 35, 553–566 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L.: Usability Inspection Methods. Wiley, New York (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Filippi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniela Barattin
    • 1
  • Paula Alexandra Silva
    • 2
  1. 1.DIEGM DepartmentUniversity of UdineUdineItaly
  2. 2.Department of Design InnovationNational University of IrelandMaynoothIreland

Personalised recommendations