Advertisement

Bringing Worth Maps a Step Further: A Dedicated Online-Resource

  • Fatoumata G. CamaraEmail author
  • Gaëlle Calvary
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10515)

Abstract

Worth Maps (WMs) are promising because they model interactive systems following different perspectives. Consequently, WMs support design in many ways. ARROW was introduced to provide designers with a systematic approach to worth mapping. However, the framework currently remains untested, which raises open questions about general applicability and relevance. In this work, we operationalize ARROW in additional design cases. With insights gained from the operational experience, we propose ARROWS (for ARROW-Support) as a refinement of the initial framework. ARROWS was assessed via a workshop with designers. Results highlight the need for appropriate resources supporting worth mapping. In order to fulfill this need, we have created and released a website providing designers with knowledge on ARROWS and WMs that follows a more practically oriented perspective.

Keywords

Worth-Centered Design (WCD) Worth Maps (WMs) ARROW ARROWS Online resource 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We warmly thank Orange Labs and Fraunhofer IAO for their participation and support.

References

  1. 1.
    Almquist, E., Senior, J., Bloch, N.: The elements of value. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2016). https://hbr.org/2016/09/the-elements-of-value
  2. 2.
    Camara, F., Calvary, G.: Worth-centered design in practice: lessons from experience and research agenda. In: Abascal, J., Barbosa, S., Fetter, M., Gross, T., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9299, pp. 123–139. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-22723-8_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Camara, F., Calvary, G., Demumieux, R.: The PEW framework for worth mapping. In: Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2013. LNCS, vol. 8120, pp. 667–674. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40498-6_59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Camara, F., Parmentier, T., Kharab, M.: Colibri: towards a new generation of advanced planning systems. In: 25me conférence francophone sur l’Interaction Homme-Machine, IHM 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cockton, G.: From quality in use to value in the world. In: CHI 2004 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA 2004, pp. 1287–1290. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cockton, G.: Value-centred HCI. In: Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference on Human-computer Interaction, NordiCHI 2004, pp. 149–160. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cockton, G.: A development framework for value-centered design. In: CHI 2005 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA 2005, pp. 1292–1295. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cockton, G.: Designing worth is worth designing. In: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles, NordiCHI 2006, pp. 165–174. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cockton, G.: Designing worth-connecting preferred means to desired ends. Interactions 15(4), 54–57 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cockton, G.: Putting value into e-valu-ation. In: Law, E.C., Hvannberg, E., Cockton, G. (eds.) Maturing Usability. Human-Computer Interaction Series, pp. 287–317. Springer, London (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-1-84628-941-5_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cockton, G.: Sketch worth, catch dreams, be fruity. In: CHI 2008 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA 2008, pp. 2579–2582. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cockton, G.: Getting there: six meta-principles and interaction design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2009, pp. 2223–2232. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cockton, G., Kirk, D., Sellen, A., Banks, R.: Evolving and augmenting worth mapping for family archives. In: Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Celebrating People and Technology, BCS-HCI 2009, pp. 329–338. British Computer Society, Swinton (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cockton, G., Kujala, S., Nurkka, P., Hltt, T.: Supporting worth mapping with sentence completion. In: Gross, T., Gulliksen, J., Kotz, P., Oestreicher, L., Palanque, P., Prates, R., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5727, pp. 566–581. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-03658-3_61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Friedman, B.: Value-sensitive design. Interactions 3(6), 16–23 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Friedman, B., Kahn, P.H., Borning, A., Huldtgren, A.: Value sensitive design and information systems. In: Doorn, N., Schuurbiers, D., van de Poel, I., Gorman, M.E. (eds.) Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening up the Laboratory. PET, vol. 16, pp. 55–95. Springer, Dordrecht (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gutman, J.: A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. J. Mark. 60–72 (1982)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laurillau, Y., Foulonneau, A., Calvary, G., Villain, E.: Sepia, a support for engineering persuasive interactive applications: properties and functions. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (EICS 2016), pp. 217–228. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Otero, N., José, R.: Worth and human values at the centre of designing situated digital public displays. Int. J. Adv. Pervasive Ubiquitous Comput. 1(4), 1–13 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Otero, N., Rego, A., José, R.: Considering the inclusion of worth and values in the design of interactive artifacts. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Integration of Design, Engineering and Management for Innovation (IDEMI 2009) (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reynolds, T.J., Gutman, J.: Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. J. Advert. Res. 28(1), 11–31 (1988)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rokeach, M.: The Nature of Human Values, vol. 438. Free Press, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roto, V., Lu, Y., Nieminen, H., Tutal, E.: Designing for user and brand experience via company-wide experience goals. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA 2015, pp. 2277–2282. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shneiderman, B.: The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In: Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, VL 1996. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, D.C. (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sonnleitner, A., Pawlowski, M., Ksser, T., Peissner, M.: Experimentally manipulating positive user experience based on the ful_lment of user needs. In: Kotz, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction INTERACT 2013. LNCS, vol. 8120, pp. 555–562. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40498-6_45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R.: Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19(3), 387–420 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vu, P.: A Worth-centered development approach to information management system design. Master’s thesis, Aalto University (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP Institute of Engineering Univ. Grenoble Alpes, LIGGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations