GUI Interaction Interviews in the Evolving Map of Design Research

  • John Sören PetterssonEmail author
  • Malin Wik
  • Henrik Andersson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 26)


This chapter presents GUI-ii, Graphical User Interface interaction interview, a method used to remotely discuss, develop and test GUI prototypes with users and stakeholders. Examples of such sessions are presented to demonstrate that the main benefit of GUI-ii is that this way of co-designing allows for interaction-informed discussions around functions and user interfaces, where re-design and hands-on experience can be integrated and efficiently carried out remotely. Using a facilitation tool to enact GUI layout and responses allows participation and evaluation to be mixed in participatory design sessions in a productive way. This form of participatory design is discussed along the dimensions found in Sanders’ Map of Design Research. The discussion concludes that GUI-ii facilitates participation by relaxing demands for physical presence and by allowing people to participate from their own work environment while still making it easy for them to directly influence contents, structure and interaction.


Participatory design GUI-ii Interview techniques Design research 


  1. 1.
    Bryman, A., Bell, E.: Business Research Methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rettig, M.: Prototyping for tiny*. ACM 37(4), 21–27 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simonsen, J., Robertson, T. (eds.): Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kelley, J.F.: An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural language office information applications. ACM Trans. Off. Inf. Syst. 2(1), 26–41 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pettersson, J.S., Wik, M.: The longevity of general purpose Wizard-of-Oz tools. In: OzCHI’15 Proceedings Australian SIG CHI, pp. 422–426. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beyer, H., Holtzblatt, K.: Contextual Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Fransisco (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sanders, E.B.N.: An evolving map of design practice and design research. Interactions 15(6), 13–17 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sanders, E.B., Stappers, P.J.: Probes, Toolkits and Prototypes: Three Approaches to Making in Codesigning. CoDesign Int. J. CoCreation Des. Arts. 10(1), 5–14 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sanders, E.B.N.: Prototyping for the design spaces of the future. In: Valentine, L. (ed.) Prototype—Design and Craft in the 21st Century, pp. 59–73. Bloomsbury (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sanders, E.B., Stappers, P.J.: Convivial Toolbox—Generative Research for the Front End of Design. BIS Publishers, Amsterdam (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laurel, B.K.: Interface as mimesis. In: Norman, D.A., Draper, S.W. (eds.) User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1986)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Consolvo, S., Harrison, B., Smith, I., Chen, M.Y., Everitt, K., Froehlich, J., Landay, J.A.: Conducting in situ evaluations for and with ubiquitous computing technologies. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 22(1–2), 103–118 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schlögl, S., Doherty, G., Karamanis, N., Schneider, A., Luz, S.: Observing the wizard: in search of a generic interface for wizard of Oz studies. In: Proceedings of 4th Irish Human Computer Interaction Conference, pp. 43–50. Dublin City University, Dublin (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kelley, J.F.: An empirical methodology for writing user-friendly natural language computer applications. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’83), pp. 193–196. ACM, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pettersson, J.S., Wik, M.: Perspectives on Ozlab in the cloud. A Literature Review of Tools Supporting Wizard-of-Oz Experimentation. Karlstad University, Karlstad, Working Paper, urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-33617 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stappers, P.J.: Prototypes as a central vein for knowledge development. In: Valentine, L. (ed.) Prototype—Design and Craft in the 21st Century, pp. 85–97. Bloomsbury, London (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S., Carey, T.: Human-Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schade, A.: Remote usability tests: moderated and unmoderated. NNgroup (2013) Accessed 6 Apr 2017
  19. 19.
    Brandt, E., Binder, T., Sanders, E.B.: Tools and techniques: ways to engage telling, making and enacting. In: Simonsen, J., Robertson, T. (eds.) Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, pp. 145–181. Routledge, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Olson, G.M., Olson, J.S.: Collaboration technologies. In: Jacko, J.A. (ed.) Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications, 3rd edition, pp. 549–564. CRC Press (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rubin, J., Chisnell, D.: Handbook of Usability Testing. Wiley, Indianapolis (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sanders, E.B., Brandt, E., Binder, T.: A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. In: Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, pp. 195–198. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dunne, A., Raby, F.: Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects. Basel (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wirén, M., Eklund, R., Engberg, F., Westermark, J.: Experiences of an in-service wizard-of-Oz data collection for the deployment of a call-routing application. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Bridging the Gap: Academic and Industrial Research in Dialog Technologies, pp. 56–63, NAACL-HLT 2007. Association for Computational Linguistics, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gould, J.D., Conti, J., Hovanyecz, T.: Composing letters with a simulated listening typewriter. Com. ACM 26(4), 295–308 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Loebbecke, C., Powell, P.: Furthering distributed participative design. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 21(1), 77–106 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lukyanenko, R., Parsons, J., Wiersma, Y., Sieber, R., Maddah, M.: Participatory design for user-generated content: understanding the challenges and moving forward. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 28(1), 37–70 (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mumford, E., Land, F., Hawgood, J.: A participative approach to the design of computer systems. Impact Sci. Soc. 28(3), 235–253 (1978)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mumford, E.: Participative systems design: structure and method. Syst. Objectives Solut. 1, 5–19 (1981)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Obendorf, H., Janneck, M., Finck, M.: Inter-contextual distributed participatory design. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 21(1), 51–76 (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gumm, D.C., Janneck, M., Finck, M.: Distributed participatory design—a case study. In: Proceedings of the DPD Workshop at NordiCHI. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Trischler, J., Pervan, S.J., Kelly, S.J., Scott, D.R.: The value of codesign: the effect of customer involvement in service design teams. J. Serv. Res. Published online: 10 July 2017Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Löwgren, J.: On the significance of making in interaction design research. Interaction 23(3), 26–33 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gopalakrishnan, S., Sindre, G.: Activity diagrams with location context: experimental comparison of colour and icon annotations. In: Gołuchowski, J., et al. (eds.) Information Systems Development: Complexity in Information Systems Development (ISD2016 Proceedings). University of Economics, Katowice (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Sören Pettersson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Malin Wik
    • 1
  • Henrik Andersson
    • 1
  1. 1.Karlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden

Personalised recommendations