skip to main content
10.1145/2556288.2557137acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Reading critical designs: supporting reasoned interpretations of critical design

Published:26 April 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Critical Design has emerged as an important concept in HCI research and practice. Yet researchers have noted that its uptake has been limited by certain lacks of intellectual infrastructure theories, methodologies, canons and exemplars, and a community of practice. We argue that one way to create this infrastructure is to cultivate a community adept at reading that is, critically interpreting and making reasoned judgments about critical designs. We propose an approach to developing close readings of critical designs, which are both evidence-based and carefully reasoned. The approach highlights analytical units of analysis, the relevance of design languages and social norms, and the analytical contemplation of critical aspects of a design. It is intended to be relatively easy to learn, to try out, and to teach, in the hopes of inviting more members of the HCI community to engage in this practice. We exemplify the approach with readings of two critical designs and reflect on different ways that a design might serve a critical purpose or offer a critical argument about design, society, and the future.

References

  1. Bardzell, J. (2011). Interaction criticism: An introduc-tion to the practice. Interacting with Computers 23(2011), 604--62 Oxford University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Bardzell, J., and Bardzell, S. (2013). What is critical about critical design? Proc. of CHI'13. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bardzell, J., and Bardzell, S. (2013). "A great and trou-bling beauty": Cognitive speculation and ubiquitous computing. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bardzell, S., Bardzell, J., Forlizzi, J., Zimmerman, J., and Antanitis, J. (2012). Critical design and critical the-ory. Proc. of DIS2012. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Barnard, M. (2001). Approaches to Understanding Vis-ual Culture. Palgrave.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Blevis, E. (2012). The PRInCiPleS design framework. In J. Carroll (ed.). Human-Computer Interaction Series (1)20, 143--169. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bogost, I. (2008). Unit Operations: An Approach to Videogame Criticism. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Bowers, J. (2012). The logic of annotated portfolios: Communicating the value of "research through design." Proc. of DIS2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Carroll, N. (2009). On Criticism. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Birkhäuser.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 1Coyne, R. (1995). Designing Information Technology in the Postmodern Age: From Method to Metaphor. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. DiSalvo, C. (2009). Design and the construction of pub-lics. Design Issues 25(1), 48--63.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. DiSalvo, C. (2012). Adversarial Design. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. DiSalvo, C. (2012). Spectacles and Tropes: Speculative Design and Contemporary Food Cultures. The Fibercul-ture Journal 2012 (20), 109--122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunne, A. (2006). Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience, and Critical Design. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Dunne, A. & Raby, F. Design for Debate. Convivio Web-Zone 203: http://daisy.cti.gr/webzine/Issues/Issue-%203/Art%20and%20Design/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunne, A., and Raby, F. (2001). Design Noir: The Se-cret Life of Electronic Objects. Birkhäuser.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunne, A., and Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Eagleton, T. (2008). Literary Theory: An Introduction. University of Minnesota Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Gadani, A. (2010). Porcupine Dress. http://amishagadani.com/Work/porcupine/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. 2Gaver, W., Bowers, J., Boucher, A., Gellerson, H., Pen-nington, S., Schmidt, A., Steed, A., Villars, N., Walker, B. (2004). The drift table: Designing for ludic engage-ment. CHI EA'04. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 2Gaver, W. (2012). What should we expect from research through design? Proc. of CHI'12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Greenberg, S. and Buxton, B. Usability considered harmful (some of the time). Proc. of CHI'08. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Kael, P. (2005 {1965}). The idea of film criticism. In Wartenberg & Curran (eds.), The Philosophy of Film. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 108--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Kant, I. Critique of Judgment. (1987 {1790}). Indianapo-lis: Hackett.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redstrom, J. and Wensveen, S. (2011). Design Research through Practice. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Kuutti, K. (2009). HCI and design: Uncomfortable bed-fellows? In Binder, Löwgren & Malmborg (eds.) (Re)searching the Digital Bauhaus. Springer, 43--59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, Y. & Lee, K. (2010). Design research and the com-plexity encountered in people's critical thoughts. Proc. of DRS'10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Malpass, M. (2010). Perspectives on critical design: A conversation with Ralph Ball and Maxine Naylor. Proc. of DRS'10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Mazé, R., & Redström, J. (2007). Difficult forms: Critical practices of design and research. Proc. of IASDR'07.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. 3Nelson, H. and Stolterman, E. (2012). The Design Way. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. 3Schön, D. (1984). Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. 3Taylor, C. Interpretation and the sciences of man. The Review of Metaphysics 25(1), 3--51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., and Evanson, S. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction de-sign research in HCI. In Proc. of CHI'07. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Reading critical designs: supporting reasoned interpretations of critical design

    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 '14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2014
      4206 pages
      ISBN:9781450324731
      DOI:10.1145/2556288

      Copyright © 2014 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: 26 April 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '14 Paper Acceptance Rate465of2,043submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader