Abstract
This paper examines distributed design that involved educational science, information and communication technology (ICT) and human–computer interaction (HCI) specialists collaboratively designing a learning application. The design process is characterized by coordinating, contributing, contesting and representing. The HCI specialists “represented the user”, but users remained silent during the design process. The design work was dominated by ‘coordinating’ activity, but also ‘proposing’ and ‘evaluating’ activities were prominent. The educational science specialists were the most active ones in the design discussions, heavily involved in ‘proposing’ and ‘coordinating’ activities. The HCI specialists were involved in those as well, but distinctly contributed through ‘evaluating’ activity. Interestingly, also ‘challenging’ and ‘ignoring’ activities characterized the distributed design process among the educational science specialists and HCI specialists: design emerged as a political, conflictual process. The very limited ICT support for distributed design became also accentuated. This study opens up interesting avenues for future research in this respect.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
This categorization of design foci is from a very practical textbook on interaction design, while it provided a highly useful tool for making sense of the design work in this particular case.
References
Avram G, Bannon L, Bowers J, Sheehan A, Sullivan D (2009) Bridging, patching, and keeping the work flowing: defect resolution in distributed software development. Comput Support Coop Work 18:477–507
Barcellini F, Détienne F, Burkhardt J, Sack W (2008) A socio-cognitive analysis of online design discussions in an Open Source Software community. Interact Comput 20(1):141–165
Barcellini F, Detienne F, Burkhardt J (2009) Participation in online interaction spaces: design-use mediation in an Open Source Software community. Int J Ind Ergon 39:533–540
Blomkvist J, Persson J, Åberg J (2015) Communication through boundary objects in distributed agile teams. In: Proceedings of CHI ’15, pp 1875–1884
Bødker S, Buur J (2002) The design collaboratorium – a place for usability design. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 9(2):152–169
Bødker S, Ehn P, Knudsen J, Kyng M, Madsen K (1988) Computer support for cooperative design. In: Proceedings of CSCW 1988, pp 377–394
Boivie I, Åborg C, Persson J, Löfberg M (2003) Why usability gets lost or usability in in-house software development. Interact Comput 15(4):623–639
Carmel E, Agarwal R (2001) Tactical approaches for alleviating distance in global software development. IEEE Softw 18(2):22–29
Cooper A (1999) The inmates are running the asylum: why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity. Sams, Indianapolis
Cooper C, Bowers J (1995) Representing the users: notes on the disciplinary rhetoric of human-computer interaction. In: Thomas P (ed) The social and interactional dimensions of human-computer interfaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 48–66
Cooper A, Reimann R (2003) About face 2.0: the essentials of interaction design. Wiley, Indianapolis
Detienne F, Boujut J, Hohman B (2004) Characterization of collaborative design and interaction management activities in a distant engineering design situation. In: Proceedings of COOP 2004, pp 83–98
Fischer G (2011) Understanding, fostering, and supporting cultures of participation. Interactions 18(3):42–53
Greenbaum J, Kyng M (eds) (1991) Design at work. Cooperative design of computer systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale
Gulliksen J, Boivie I, Göransson B (2006) Usability professionals—current practices and future development. Interact Comput 18(4):568–600
Gumm D (2006) Distributed software development – a taxonomy. IEEE Softw 23(5):45–51
Gumm D, Janneck M, Finck M (2006) Distributed participatory design – a case study. In: Proceedings of NordiCHI 2004 Workshop on Distributed Participatory Design. 5 p
Hanisch J, Corbitt B (2007) Impediments to requirements engineering during global software development. Eur J Inf Syst 16(6):793–805
Høegh RT, Nielsen C, Overgaard M, Pedersen M, Stage J (2006) The impact of usability reports and user test observations on developers’ understanding of usability data: an exploratory study. Int J Hum-Comput Interact 21(2):173–196
Iivari N (2006) Understanding the work of an HCI practitioner. In: Proceedings of NordiCHI 2006, pp 185–194
Iivari N (2011) Participatory design in OSS development: interpretive case studies in company and community OSS development contexts. Behav Inform Technol 30(3):309–323
Iivari N (2013) Usability specialists as boundary spanners – an appraisal of usability specialists’ work in multiparty distributed open source software development effort. In: Proceedings of INTERACT 2013, pp 571–588
Iivari N, Karasti H, Molin-Juustila T, Salmela S, Syrjänen A, Halkola E (2009) Mediation between design and use – revisiting five empirical studies. Hum IT J Inf Technol Stud Hum Sci 10(2):81–126
Karasti H (2001) Increasing sensitivity towards everyday work practice in system design. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis, Scientiae Rerum Naturalium, A 362. Oulu University Press, Oulu
Klein H, Myers M (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Q 23(1):67–94
Kotlarsky J, Oshri I (2005) Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful collaboration in globally distributed system development projects. Eur J Inf Syst 14(1):37–48
Law E (2006) Evaluating the downstream utility of user tests and examining the developer effect: a case study. Int J Hum-Comput Interact 21(2):147–172
Lawrence K (2006) Walking the tightrope: the balancing acts of a large e-research project. Comput Supported Coop Work 15(4):385–411
Lee C (2007) Boundary negotiating artifacts: unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. Comput Supported Coop Work 16(3):307–339
Levina N (2006) Collaborating on multiparty information systems development projects: a collective reflection-in-action view. Inf Syst Res 16(2):109–130
Levina N, Vaast E (2005) The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Q 29(2):335–363
Markus M, Mao Y (2004) User participation in development and implementation: updating an old tired concept for today’s IS contexts. J Assoc Inf Syst 5(11–12):514–544
Nichols D, McKay D, Twidale M (2003) Participatory usability: supporting proactive users. In: Proceedings of ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Human Interaction – New Zealand Chapter, pp 63–68
Nichols D, Twidale M (2006) Usability processes in open source projects. Softw Process Improv Pract 11:149–162
Obendorf H, Janneck M, Finck M (2009) Inter-contextual distributed participatory design. Scand J Inf Syst 21(1):51–76
Olson GM, Olson JS, Carter MR, Storrosten M (1992) Small group design meetings: an analysis of collaboration. Hum-Comput Interact 7(4):347–374
Sack W, Détienne F, Ducheneaut N, Burkhardt J, Mahendran D, Barcellini F (2006) A methodological framework for socio-cognitive analyses of collaborative design of open source software. Comput Supported Coop Work 15(2):229–250
Sarker S, Sahay S (2004) Implications of space and time for distributed work: an interpretive study of US-Norwegian systems development teams. Eur J Inf Syst 13(1):3–20
Titlestad O, Staring K, Braa J (2009) Distributed development to enable user participation. Scand J Inf Syst 21(1):27–50
Walsham G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. Eur J Inf Syst 4:74–81
Zhu L, Mussio P, Barricelli BR (2010) Hive-mind space model for creative, collaborative design. In: Proceedings of DESIRE 2010, pp 121–130
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank the project partners for participating in this study as well as the Academy of Finland and EU for providing funding for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Iivari, N. (2016). Coordinating, Contributing, Contesting, Representing: HCI Specialists Surviving Distributed Design. In: De Angeli, A., Bannon, L., Marti, P., Bordin, S. (eds) COOP 2016: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, 23-27 May 2016, Trento, Italy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33464-6_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33464-6_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33463-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33464-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)