skip to main content
10.1145/3290605.3300259acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Changing Perspective: A Co-Design Approach to Explore Future Possibilities of Divergent Hearing

Published:02 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Conventional hearing aids frame hearing impairment almost exclusively as a problem. In the present paper, we took an alternative approach by focusing on positive future possibilities of 'divergent hearing'. To this end, we developed a method to speculate simultaneously about not-yet-experienced positive meanings and not-yet-existing technology. First, we gathered already existing activities in which divergent hearing was experienced as an advantage rather than as a burden. These activities were then condensed into 'Prompts of Positive Possibilities' (PPP), such as 'Creating a shelter to feel safe in". In performative sessions, participants were given these PPPs and 'Open Probes' to enact novel everyday activities. This led to 26 possible meanings and according devices, such as "Being able to listen back into the past with a rewinder". The paper provides valuable insights into the interests and expectations of people with divergent hearing as well as a methodological contribution to a possibility-driven design.

References

  1. Günther Anders. 2002. Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen II: Über die Zerstörung des Lebens im Zeitalter der dritten industriellen Revolution. C.H.Beck Verlag, München.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Karen Barad. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway. Duke University Press, Durham, London.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Ann Blandford, Dominic Furniss, and Stephann Makri. 2016. Qualitative HCI research: Going behind the scenes. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 9, 1: 1--115. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Eva Brandt and Camilla Grunnet. 2000. Evoking the future: Drama and props in user centered design. In Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference PDC 2000, 11--20. Retrieved from http://www.itu.dk/courses/I/F2004/PDC00-drama-endelig.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Citation Briggs, Pam Briggs, Mark Blythe, John Vines, Stephen Lindsay, Paul Dunphy, and James Nicholson. 2012. Invisible Design?: Exploring Insights and Ideas through Ambiguous Film Scenarios.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Marion Buchenau and Jane Fulton Suri. 2000. Experience prototyping. Proceedings of the conference on Designing interactive systems processes, practices, methods, and techniques - DIS '00: 424-- 433. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Pieter Desmet and Marc Hassenzahl. 2012. Towards Happiness: Possibility-Driven Design. In Human-computer interaction: The agency perspective, Marielba Zacarias and José Valente de Oliveira (eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 3--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Pma Desmet and Ae Pohlmeyer. 2013. Positive design: An introduction to design for subjective well-being. International Journal of Design 7, 3: 5--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Sarah Diefenbach and Marc Hassenzahl. 2017. Psychologie in der nutzerzentrierten Produktgestaltung: Mensch-Technik-InteraktionErlebnis. Springer, Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Sarah Diefenbach, Marc Hassenzahl, Kai Eckoldt, Lena Hartung, Eva Lenz, and Matthias Laschke. 2016. Designing for well-being: A case study of keeping small secrets. The Journal of Positive Psychology 12, 2: 151--158.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Fiona Dunne, Anthony; Raby. 2013. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction and Social Dreaming. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Maria Egbert and Arnulf Deppermann. 2011. Introduction. In Hearing Aids Communication: Integrating Social Interaction, Audiology and User Centered Design to Improve Communication with Hearing Loss and Hearing Technologies, Maria Egbert and Arnulf Deppermann (eds.). Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, Mannheim, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Maria Egbert and Arnulf Deppermann. 2011. Introduction to conversation analysis with examples from audiology. In Hearing Aids Communication, Maria Egbert and Arnulf Deppermann (eds.). Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, Mannheim, 40--47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Maria Egbert and Ben Matthews. 2011. User centered design: From understanding hearing loss and hearing aids towards understanding interaction. In Hearing Aids Communication, Maria Egbert and Arnulf Deppermann (eds.). Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, Mannheim, 48--55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Chris Elsden, David Chatting, Abigail C. Durrant, Andrew Garbett, Bettina Nissen, John Vines, and David S. Kirk. 2017. On Speculative Enactments. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '17: 5386--5399. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Sigmund Freud. Civilization and its Discontents. Penguin Books, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Arnold Gehlen. 1988. Man, his nature and place in the world. Columbia University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Simone Groeber and Simona Pekarek Doehler. 2011. Hearingimpaired adolescents in a regular classroom: On the embodied accomplishment of participation and understanding. In Hearing Aids Communication, Maria Egbert and Arnulf Deppermann (eds.). Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, Mannheim, 76--89.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Karin Harrasser. 2013. Körper 2.0. transcript, Bielefeld.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Marc Hassenzahl, Kai Eckoldt, Sarah Diefenbach, Matthias Laschke, Eva Lenz, and Joonhwan Kim. 2013. Designing moments of meaning and pleasure. Experience design and happiness. International Journal of Design 7, 3: 21--31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Erich Hörl. 2010. Die künstliche Intelligenz des Sinns. Sinngeschichte und Technologie im Anschluss an Jean-Luc Nancy. Zeitschrift für Medien- und Kulturforschung 1, 2: 129--147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Hilary Hutchinson, et. al. 2003. Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '03), 5: 17--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Giulio Iacucci and Kari Kuutti. 2002. Everyday life as a stage in creating and performing scenarios for wireless devices. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 6, 4: 299--306. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Don Ihde. 1990. Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Indiana University Press, Indianapolis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Benjamin Johansen, Yannis Paul Raymond Flet-Berliac, Maciej Jan Korzepa, Per Sandholm, Niels Henrik Pontoppidan, Michael Kai Petersen, and Jakob Eg Larsen. 2017. Hearables in Hearing Care: Discovering Usage Patterns Through IoT Devices. In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Human and Technological Environments, 39--49.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Benjamin Johansen, Michael Kai Petersen, Niels Henrik Pontoppidan, Per Sandholm, and Jakob Eg Larsen. 2017. Rethinking Hearing Aid Fitting by Learning From Behavioral Patterns. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA '17: 1733--1739. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Elizabeth Keating and Pirkko Raudaskoski. 2011. Theoretical Framework: Communicative technology for augmented interaction within the field of Science, Technology and Society ("STS"). In Hearing Aids Communication, Maria Egbert and Arnulf Deppermann (eds.). Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, Mannheim, 35--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. David Kirsh. 2010. Thinking With the Body. 2864--2869.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Malene Patsche Kjeldsen and Ben Matthews. 2008. Talking about hearing: Designing from users' problematisations. In Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: building bridges., 531--534. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Holger Klapperich and Marc Hassenzahl. 2016. "Hotzenplotz" Reconciling Automation with Experience. Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Ray Kurzweil. 2006. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Penguin Books, London. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Joseph Lindley and Robert Potts. 2014. Anticipatory Ethnography?: Design Fiction as an Input to Design Ethnography. 237--253.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. William Odom, John Zimmerman, Scott Davidoff, Jodi Forlizzi, Anind K. Dey, and Min Kyung Lee. 2012. A fieldwork of the future with user enactments. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '12), 338--347. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Dennis Schleicher, Peter Jones, and Oksana Kachur. 2010. Bodystorming as embodied designing. interactions 17, 6: 47--51. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Martin E.P. Seligman, Tracy A. Steen, Nansook Park, and Christopher Peterson. 2005. Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. The American psychologist 60, 5: 410-- 421.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Louise Skelt. 2011. Dealing with misunderstandings: The sensitivity of repair in hearing-impaired conversation. In Hearing Aids Communication, Maria Egbert and Arnulf Deppermann (eds.). Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, Mannheim, 56--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Bruce Sterling. 2005. Shaping Things (Mediaworks Pamphlets).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Lucille Alice Suchman. 2007. Human-machine reconfigurations. Camebride University Press, Cambridge. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:sJbJxg4KmIUJ:scholar.g oogle.com/&hl=en&num=20&as_sdt=0,5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Danielle Wilde. 2015. Embodying Material Ideation. In Participatory Innovation Conference 2015, 386--393.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Danielle Wilde and Jenny Underwood. 2017. Designing towards the Unknown: Engaging with Material and Aesthetic Uncertainty. Informatics 5, 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Danielle Wilde and Anna Vallgårda. 2017. Embodied Design Ideation Methods?: Analysing the Power of Estrangement. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 5158--5170. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2702123.2702393 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Changing Perspective: A Co-Design Approach to Explore Future Possibilities of Divergent Hearing

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2019
      9077 pages
      ISBN:9781450359702
      DOI:10.1145/3290605

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 May 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '19 Paper Acceptance Rate703of2,958submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader