Turkka Keinonen
ABSTRACT
This paper will discuss whether User-Centered Design (UCD) is capable and/or oriented towards satisfying users' fundamental needs. At face value, UCD is the advocate of the user in product development, but do its actual practices and values address what is fundamentally important for users? The question will be addressed by starting with a moral philosophical discussion for separating the concept of 'fundamental needs' from 'survival needs', occasional 'wishes' or instrumental 'necessary conditions'. After being equipped with a satisfactory conception of the fundamental need, two conditions will be formulated to characterize UCD practices that orient towards need satisfaction. Protection conditions will address design criteria, and examine whether UCD practice defends users from harm. Appreciation condition is related to the conception of the user within UCD, and tests UCD agents' tendency to avoid reducing users. The discussion will show that the historical development of UCD from a limited Human-Machine paradigm towards more socially focused and interventionist approaches has influenced on its need satisfying orientation. The protection condition, which relatively well described early UCD activities, i.e. usability engineering, in 1980s and early 1990s, has become too limited to explain the widening scope of interests towards the end of this decade. On the contrary, the appreciation condition, is better met by the present holistic and active user conception than the previous reduced users defined by their roles as computer operators.
- Baker, J. and Jones, C. 1998. Responsibility for Needs. In Brock, G. Ed. Necessary Goods. Our responsibilities to meet other's needs. Rowman & Littlefield, 219--232.Google Scholar
- Bensel, C. K. and Santee, W. R. 2006. Use of Personal Protective Equipment in the Workplace. In Salvendy, G. Ed. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Wiley, 912--928.Google Scholar
- Bevan, N. and Macleod, M. 1994. Usability measurement in context. Behavior & Information Technology 13, 1--2, 132--145.Google Scholar
- Beyer, H. and Holtzblatt, K. 1998. Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bodok, R. 1993. Consumption. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Braybrooke, D. 1987. Meeting Needs. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
- Braybrooke, D. 1998. The Concept of needs, with a hearthwarming offer of aid to utilitarianism. In Brock, G. Ed. Necessary Goods. Our responsibilities to meet other's needs. Rowman & Littlefield, 57--72.Google Scholar
- Brock, G. Ed. 1998. Necessary Goods. Our responsibilities to meet other's needs. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
- Brock, G. 2005. Needs and global justice. In Reader, S. Ed. The philosophy of need. Royal institute of philosophy supplement 57. Cambridge University Press, 51--72.Google Scholar
- Cagan, J. and Vogel, C. M. 2002. Creating Breakthrough Products. Innovation from Product Planning to Program Approval. Prentice Hall. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chapanis, A. 1991. Evaluating usability. In Shackel, B. and Richardson, S. Eds. Human factors for informatics usability. Cambridge University Press, 359--398. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chapman, J. 2005. Emotionally Durable Design. Objects, Experiences and Empathy. Earthscan.Google Scholar
- Clark Miller, S. 2005. Need, Care and Obligation. In Reader, S. Ed. The philosophy of need. Royal institute of philosophy supplement 57. Cambridge University. Press, 137--160.Google Scholar
- Copp, D. 1998. Equality, Justice, and the Basic Needs. Brock, G. Ed. Necessary Goods. Our responsibilities to meet other's needs. Rowman & Littlefield, 113--133.Google Scholar
- Cross, N. 2006. Designerly Ways of Knowing. Birhäuser.Google Scholar
- Darses, F. and Wolff, M. 2006. How do designers represent to themselves the users' needs? Applied Ergonomics 37, 757--764.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Desmet, P. 2002. Designing Emotions. Doctoral dissertations. Technische Universiteit Delft, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Doyal, L. 1998. A theory of human need. In Brock, G. Ed. Necessary Goods. Our responsibilities to meet other's needs. Rowman & Littlefield, 157--172.Google Scholar
- Dreyfuss, H. 2003. Designing for People. Allworth Press.Google Scholar
- Eason, K. D. 1984. Towards the experimental study of usability. Behaviour & Information Technology 3, 2, 357--364.Google Scholar
- Fisher, G. 2003. Meta-Design: Beyond User-Centered and Participatory Design. Proceedings of HCI International, 22--27 June, 2003 Crete, Greece.Google Scholar
- Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Ye, Y., Sutcliffe, A. G. and Mehandjiev, N. 2004. Meta-design: a manifesto for end-user development. Communications of the ACM, 47/9, 33--37. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Flach, J., Hancock, P., Caird, J. and Vicente, K. Eds. 1995. An Ecological Approach To Human Machine Systems I: A Global Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Frankfurt, H. G. 1998. Necessity and desire. In Brock, G. Ed. Necessary Goods. Our responsibilities to meet other's needs. Rowman & Littlefield, 19--32.Google Scholar
- Friedman, B. and Freier, N. G. 2005. Value sensitive design. In Fisher, K. E., Edrelez, S. and McKechnie, E. F. Eds. Theoreis in information behavior: A researcher's guide. Medford, 268--372.Google Scholar
- Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H, Jr. and Borning, A. 2006. Value sensitive design and information systems. In Zhang, P. and Galetta, D., Eds., Human-computer interaction in management information systems: Foundations. Armonk, 348--372.Google Scholar
- Gasper, D. 1996. Needs and Basic Needs. A clarification of meaning, levels and different streams of work. Working papers 210, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague.Google Scholar
- Gawron, V. J. 2000. Human Performance Measures Handbook. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Glennerster, H. 1983. Planning for priority groups. Martin Robertson.Google Scholar
- Gould, J. D. and Lewis, C. 1985. Design for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM, 28, 3, 360--411. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. 1991. Design at work, cooperative design of computer systems. Lawrence Erlbaum. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hanington, B. 2003. Methods in the Making: A Perspective on the State of Human Research in Design. Design Issues 19, 4, 9--18.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hart, S. G. and Staveland, L. E. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX: Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Hancock and Meshkati Eds. Human mental workload. Elsevier, 139--183.Google Scholar
- Helander, M. Ed. 1988. Handbooks of human-computer interaction. North-Holland. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Helander, M. and Tham, M. P. 2003. Hedonomics - affective human factors design. Ergonomics 46, 13--14, 1269--1272.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Helander, M. G., Khalid, H. M. 2006. Affective and pleasurable design. In Salvendy, G. Ed. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Wiley, 543--572.Google Scholar
- ISO 13407.1993. Human-centred design processes for interactive systems. International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
- ISO 9241-11. 1998. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) -- Part 11: Guidance on usability. International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
- Jordan, P. 2002. Designing Pleasurable Products: An Introduction to the New Human Factors. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- Jääskö, V. and Keinonen, T. 2006. User Information in Concepting. In Keinonen, T. and Takala, R. Eds. Product Concept Design - A review of the Conceptual Design of Products in Industry. Springer, 92--131.Google Scholar
- Kelley, T. 2001. Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from Ideo. Doubleday.Google Scholar
- Kelley, T. and Littman, J. 2005. The Ten Faces of Innovation. Doubleday.Google Scholar
- Khalid, H. M. 2006. Embracing diversity in user needs for affective design. Applied Ergonomics 37, 409--418.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kim, W. C. and Mauborgne, R. 2005. Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant. Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- Koskinen, I., Battarbee, K. and Mattelmäki, T., Eds. 2003. Empathic Design. User Experience in Product Design. IT Press.Google Scholar
- Kuutti, K., Keinonen, T., Norros, L. and Kaasinen, E. 2007. Älykäs ympäristö suunnittelun haasteena {Smart Environment as a Design Challenge} In Kaasinen, E. and Norros, L. Eds. Älykkäiden ympäristöjen suunnittelu -- Kohti ekologista systeemiajattelua {Design of Smart Environments -- Towards Ecological System Approach}. Teknologiateollisuus, In FinnishGoogle Scholar
- Lawson, B. R. 1997. How Designers Think, 3rd ed. Architectural Press.Google Scholar
- Ledered, K. Ed. 1980. Human need. Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.Google Scholar
- Lewis, J. R. 2006. Usability testing. In Salvendy, G. Ed. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Wiley, 1275--1316.Google Scholar
- Lowe, J. 2005. Needs, Facts, Goodness, and Truth. In Reader, S. Ed. The philosophy of need. Royal institute of philosophy supplement 57. Cambridge University Press, 161--174.Google Scholar
- Martin, M. W. and Schinzinger, R. 2005. Ethics in engineering, 4th ed. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Maslow, A. H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 370--396.Google Scholar
- Max-Neef, M. 1991. Human Scale Development. Conception, application and further reflections. The Apex Press.Google Scholar
- Max-Neef, M., Elizalde, A. and Hopenhayn, M. 1991. Development and Human Needs. In Max-Neef, M. Ed. Human Scale Development. Conception, application and further reflections. The Apex Press, 13--54.Google Scholar
- Miller, J. K., Friedman, B., Jancke, G. and Gill, B. 2007. Value tensions in design: The value sensitive design, development, and appropriation of a corporation's groupware system. Proceedings of GROUP 2007 conference. ACM Press, 281--290. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nielsen, J. 1989. Usability engineering at a discount. In Salvendy, G., and Smith, M. J. Eds. Designing and Using Human-Computer Interfaces and Knowledge Based Systems, Elsevier, 394--401. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nielsen, J. 1990. Big paybacks from 'discount' usability engineering, IEEE Software 7, 3 (May 1990), 107--108. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nielsen, J. 1993. Usability engineering. Academic Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nielsen, J. and Mack, R., L. Eds. 1994. Usability Inspection Methods. Wiley. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Norman, D. A. 1988. The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Norman, D. A. 2003. Emotional Design: Why We Love (Or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Norman D. A. 2005. Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful. Interactions (July-August 2005), 14--19. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Norman, D. A. and Draper, S. W., Eds. 1986. User centered system design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Norros, L., Kuutti, K., Rämä, P. and Alakärppä, I. 2007. Ekologisen suunnittelukonseptin kehittäminen {Development of an Ecological Design Concept}. In Kaasinen, E. and Norros, L. Eds. Älykkäiden ympäristöjen suunnittelu -- Kohti ekologista systeemiajattelua {Design of Smart Environments -- Towards Ecological System Approach}. Teknologiateollisuus. In Finnish.Google Scholar
- Papanek, V. 1974. Design for the real world. Human ecology and social change. Paladin.Google Scholar
- Papanek, V. 2006. Design for the real world. Human ecology and social change (2nd ed.). Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
- Penz, P. 1986. Consumer Sovereignty and Human Interest. Cambridge University Perss.Google Scholar
- Percy-Smith, J. Ed. 1995. Needs assessments in public policy. Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Pheasant, S. and Haslegrave, C., M. 2006. Bodyspace. Anthropometry, ergonomics and the Design of Work, 3rd ed. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- Purcell, A. T. and Gero, J. S. 1996. Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies 17, 4, 363--383.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Reader, S. Ed. 2005. The philosophy of need. Royal institute of philosophy supplement 57. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Rittel, H. W. J. and Webber, M. M. 1984. Planning problems are wicked problems. In Cross, N. Ed. Developments in design methodology. Wiley, 135--144.Google Scholar
- Rubin, J. 1994. Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests. Wiley. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sanders, E. B.-N. 2005. Information, Inspiration and Cocreation. 6th International Conference of the European Academy of Design, March 29--31 2005, University of the Arts, Bremen, Germany.Google Scholar
- Schuler, D. and Namioka, A., Eds. 1993. Participatory design: Principles and practices. Lawrence Erlbaum. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Schön, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Simon, H. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. The MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sterba, J. P. 1998. From liberty to universal welfare. In Brock, G. Ed. Necessary Goods. Our responsibilities to meet other's needs. Rowman & Littlefield, 185--217.Google Scholar
- Thomson, G. 1987. Need. Routledge & Kegan.Google Scholar
- Thomson, G. 2005. Fundamental needs. In Reader, S. Ed. The philosophy of need. Royal institute of philosophy supplement: 57. Cambridge University Press, 175--186.Google Scholar
- Tilley, A., R. 2002. The Measure of Man and Woman. Human Factors in Design. Wiley.Google Scholar
- Usability Professionals' Association UPA (2008). http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org/usability_resources/about_usability/what_is_ucd.html. Visited 21.02.2008.Google Scholar
- Vicente, K. J. 1999. Cognitive Work Analysis. Toward a Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work. Lawrence Erlbaum. Google ScholarDigital Library
- von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Whiteley, N. 1993. Design For Society. Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
- Weiser, M. 1993. Ubiquitous Computing. IEEE Computer "Hot Topics" (October 1993). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wiggins, D. 1998. What is the force of the claim that one needs something? In Brock, G. Ed. Necessary Goods. Our responsibilities to meet other's needs. Rowman & Littlefield, 33--56.Google Scholar
- Wiggins, D. 2005. An idea we cannot do without: What difference will it make (e.g. To moral, political and environmental philosophy) to recognize and put to use a substantial conception of need? In Reader, S. Ed. The philosophy of need. Royal institute of philosophy supplement 57. Cambridge University Press, 25--50.Google Scholar
- Witkin, B. R. and Altschuld, J. W. 1995. Planning and conducting needs assessments. Sage publications.Google Scholar
- Wogalter, M. S. and Laughery, K. R. 2006. Warnings and Hazard Communication. In Salvendy, G. Ed. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Wiley, 889--911.Google Scholar
- Ylirisku, S. and Buur, J. 2007. Designing with Video -- Focusing the user-centered design process. Springer. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zimolong, B. M. and Elke, G. 2006. Occupational Safety and Health Management. In Salvendy, G. Ed. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Wiley, 243--268.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- User-centered design and fundamental need
Recommendations
User-centered design, activity-centered design, and goal-directed design: a review of three methods for designing web applications
SIGDOC '09: Proceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on Design of communicationWhen conducting research with users in order to design web applications, the practitioner has a variety of methods from which to choose. This paper examines three such methods'User-Centered Design (UCD), Goal-Directed Design (GDD), and Activity-Centered ...
A study of the role of user-centered design methods in design team projects
User-centered approaches to design can guide teams toward an understanding of users and aid teams in better posing design problems. This paper investigates the role of user-centered design approaches in design process and outcome within the context of ...
Beyond human centered design?
DIS '04: Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniquesThe concept of the user and user-centered design is central to the history of SIGCHI and the culture the Designing Interactive Systems conferences. The idea of the user and designing around user requirements and contexts of use were a radical ...
Comments