skip to main content
10.1145/3411764.3445232acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Synthesis of Forms: Integrating Practical and Reflective Qualities in Design

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 May 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Synthesis, or the integration of hitherto separated elements, is a prominent concept in theories of design processes. Synthesis often happens when there is a need to make a decision, though it is often the result of a combination of different alternatives, instead of deciding in favor of one and eliminating another. In many design studies, synthesis has been investigated in the contexts of everyday design—bicycle frames, sewing machines, commercial architecture. We were interested in how it might apply in contexts of reflective design, whose pragmatics often depend on different interrelationships between users and technological products. In this paper, we argue that designing everyday use objects for reflection requires a synthesis of two apparently opposite forms: conventionally practical forms, since they are everyday use objects, and evocative forms, since they make users think. We provide two examples of everyday objects for reflection that we believe synthesize both conventionally practical and evocative forms, analyzing the design processes that led to these forms, and discussing how these reflective designs embody different forms of synthesis.

References

  1. Christopher Alexander. 1964. Notes on the Synthesis of Form(later pr. edition ed.). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Christopher Alexander. 2002. The Process of Creating Life: Nature of Order, Book 2: An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of the Universe (1st edition ed.). Center for Environmental Structure, Berkeley, Calif.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Christopher Alexander, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, Max Jacobson, Ingrid Fiksdahl-King, and Shlomo Angel. 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Arthur Aron, Elaine N. Aron, and Danny Smollan. 1992. Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63, 4(1992), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Ernesto Arroyo, Leonardo Bonanni, and Ted Selker. 2005. Waterbot: exploring feedback and persuasive techniques at the sink. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 631–639. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055059Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Mattias Arvola, Jeffrey Bardzell, Stefan Holmlid, and Jonas Löwgren. 2018. What we mean by interactive form. interactions 25, 4 (2018), 6–7. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-149589Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. James Auger. 2013. Speculative design: crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity 24, 1 (March 2013), 11–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.767276Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.767276.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Saskia Bakker, Elise Hoven, and Berry Eggen. 2015. Peripheral Interaction: Characteristics and Considerations. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 19, 1 (Jan. 2015), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0775-2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jeffrey Bardzell. 2009. Interaction criticism and aesthetics. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2357–2366. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1519063Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jeffrey Bardzell. 2011. Interaction criticism: An introduction to the practice. Interacting with Computers 23, 6 (Nov. 2011), 604–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.07.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Jeffrey Bardzell, Shaowen Bardzell, and Lone Koefoed Hansen. 2015. Immodest Proposals: Research Through Design and Knowledge. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2093–2102. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702400Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Jeffrey Bardzell, Shaowen Bardzell, and Erik Stolterman. 2014. Reading Critical Designs: Supporting Reasoned Interpretations of Critical Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1951–1960. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557137Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: Taking Stock and Outlining an Agenda for Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1301–1310. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753521Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Eli Blevis. 2007. Sustainable Interaction Design: Invention & Disposal, Renewal & Reuse. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 503–512. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240705event-place: San Jose, California, USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Carl DiSalvo. 2012. Adversarial Design. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2013. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming (1st edition ed.). The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts ; London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Gabriele Ferri, Jeffrey Bardzell, Shaowen Bardzell, and Stephanie Louraine. 2014. Analyzing Critical Designs: Categories, Distinctions, and Canons of Exemplars. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems(DIS ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598588Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jodi Forlizzi, Ilpo Koskinen, Paul Hekkert, and John Zimmerman. 2017. Let’s get divorced: Pragmatic and critical constructive design.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Christopher Frayling. 1993. Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Arts Research Papers 1, 1 (1993), 1–5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jon Froehlich, Leah Findlater, and James Landay. 2010. The Design of Eco-feedback Technology. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1999–2008. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753629Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Jon Froehlich, Leah Findlater, Marilyn Ostergren, Solai Ramanathan, Josh Peterson, Inness Wragg, Eric Larson, Fabia Fu, Mazhengmin Bai, Shwetak Patel, and James A. Landay. 2012. The design and evaluation of prototype eco-feedback displays for fixture-level water usage data. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2367–2376. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208397Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. William Gaver. 2012. What should we expect from research through design?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, Austin, Texas, USA, 937–946. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208538Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Maliheh Ghajargar. 2018. Designing Tools for Reflection: a concept-driven approach. (March 2018). https://doi.org/10.6092/polito/porto/2702550Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Maliheh Ghajargar and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2019. Synthesizing Opposites: Technical Rationality and Pragmatism in Design. The Design Journal 22, sup1 (April 2019), 2031–2044. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1594927Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1594927.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Maliheh Ghajargar, Mikael Wiberg, and Erik Stolterman. 2018. Designing IoT Systems that Support Reflective Thinking: A Relational Approach. International Journal of Design 12, 1 (2018), 21–35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. James Gibson. 2014. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Routledge, New York, London.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Pauline Gourlet, Louis Eveillard, and Ferdinand Dervieux. 2016. The Research Diary, Supporting Pupils’ Reflective Thinking During Design Activities. In Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children(IDC ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930702Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Shad Gross, Jeffrey Bardzell, Shaowen Bardzell, and Michael Stallings. 2017. Persuasive Anxiety: Designing and Deploying Material and Formal Explorations of Personal Tracking Devices. Human–Computer Interaction 32, 5-6 (Nov. 2017), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2017.1287570Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Lars Hallnäs and Johan Redström. 2001. Slow Technology – Designing for Reflection. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 5, 3 (Jan. 2001), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00000019Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Leonie Hannan and Sarah Longair. 2017. History through material culture. Manchester University Press, Manchester.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. John Chris Jones. 1992. Design Methods (2 edition ed.). Wiley, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Klaus Krippendorff. 2005. The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design (1 edition ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Susanne Lajoie. 2000. Computers As Cognitive Tools: No More Walls (2nd ed.). L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Eva Lenz, Sarah Diefenbach, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2013. Exploring Relationships Between Interaction Attributes and Experience. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces(DPPI ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1145/2513506.2513520event-place: Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Ian Li, Anind K. Dey, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2011. Understanding My Data, Myself: Supporting Self-reflection with Ubicomp Technologies. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing(UbiComp ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 405–414. https://doi.org/10.1145/2030112.2030166Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Youn-kyung Lim, Erik Stolterman, Heekyoung Jung, and Justin Donaldson. 2007. Interaction Gestalt and the Design of Aesthetic Interactions. In Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces(DPPI ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1145/1314161.1314183Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Jonas Löwgren. 2009. Toward an Articulation of Interaction Esthetics. New Rev. Hypermedia Multimedia 15, 2 (2009), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614560903117822Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. John McCarthy and Peter Wright. 2007. Technology As Experience. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Wim Miller. 2001. ORDER AND MEANING IN DESIGN. Purdue University Press, Utrecht.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Bonnie A. Nardi. 1996. Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human–computer interaction. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, US, 69–102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Harold G. Nelson and Erik Stolterman. 2012. The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Don Norman. 2005. Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things (1 edition ed.). Basic Books, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Don Norman. 2013. The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition (revised, expanded edition ed.). Basic Books, New York, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Seymour A. Papert. 1993. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, And Powerful Ideas (2 edition ed.). Basic Books, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Roy D. Pea. 1985. Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist 20, 4 (1985), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2004_2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Marianne Graves Petersen, Ole Sejer Iversen, Peter Gall Krogh, and Martin Ludvigsen. 2004. Aesthetic Interaction: A Pragmatist’s Aesthetics of Interactive Systems. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques(DIS ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1145/1013115.1013153event-place: Cambridge, MA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Nikolaus Pevsner. 1991. Pioneers of Modern Design: From William Morris to Walter Gropius (new ed editioned.). Penguin, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Bernd Ploderer, Wolfgang Reitberger, Harri Oinas-Kukkonen, and Julia van Gemert-Pijnen. 2014. Social interaction and reflection for behaviour change. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 18, 7 (Oct. 2014), 1667–1676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0779-yGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Marcel Proust. 1934. Remembrance of Things Past, Volume 1(later printing edition ed.). Random House New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. David Raizman. 2004. A History of Modern Design : Graphics and Products Since the Industrial Revolution. Laurence King Pub, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Devina Ramduny-Ellis, Alan Dix, Martyn Evans, Jo Hare, and Steve Gill. 2010. Physicality in Design: An Exploration. The Design Journal 13, 1 (March 2010), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069210X12580336766365Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Marco Rozendaal. 2016. Objects with Intent: A New Paradigm for Interaction Design. Interactions 23, 3 (April 2016), 62–65. https://doi.org/10.1145/2911330Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Corina Sas and Alan Dix. 2009. Designing for Reflection on Experience. In CHI ’09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4741–4744. https://doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520730Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. P. Wesley Schultz. 2002. Inclusion with nature: understanding human-nature interactions. In The psychology of sustainable development (2002 ed.). Kluwer, New York, 61–78.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. P. Wesley Schultz, Chris Shriver, Jennifer J. Tabanico, and Azar M. Khazian. 2004. Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24, 1 (2004), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00022-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Donald A. Schön. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner : How Professionals Think in Action. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Phoebe Sengers, Kirsten Boehner, Shay David, and Joseph ’Jofish’ Kaye. 2005. Reflective design. In Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing: between sense and sensibility(CC ’05). Association for Computing Machinery, Aarhus, Denmark, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1145/1094562.1094569Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Gerda Smets, Kees Overbeeke, and William Gaver. 1994. Form-giving: Expressing the Nonobvious. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’94). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 204–. https://doi.org/10.1145/259963.260289Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Erik Stolterman and Mikael Wiberg. 2010. Concept-Driven Interaction Design Research. Human–Computer Interaction 25, 2 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. César Tapia-Fonllem, Victor Corral-Verdugo, Blanca Fraijo-Sing, and Maria Fernanda Durón-Ramos. 2013. Assessing Sustainable Behavior and its Correlates: A Measure of Pro-Ecological, Frugal, Altruistic and Equitable Actions. Sustainability 5, 2 (Feb. 2013), 711–723. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5020711Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Wen-Sheng Tzeng, Kuang-Ming Kuo, Paul C. Talley, Hsiu-Chin Chen, and Jhi-Joung Wang. 2015. Do ePortfolios Contribute to Learners’ Reflective Thinking Activities?: A Preliminary Study of Nursing Staff Users. J. Med. Syst. 39, 9 (Sept. 2015), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-015-0281-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Anna Vallgårda and Johan Redström. 2007. Computational Composites. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240706Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Anna Vallgårda, Morten Winther, Nina Mørch, and Edit E Vizer. 2015. Temporal Form in Interaction Design. International Journal of Design 9, 3 (2015), 15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Mark Weiser and John Seely Brown. 1997. The Coming Age of Calm Technology. In Beyond Calculation: The Next Fifty Years of Computing, Peter J. Denning and Robert M. Metcalfe (Eds.). Springer New York, New York, NY, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0685-9_6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Mikael Wiberg. 2018. The Materiality of Interaction: Notes on the Materials of Interaction Design (illustrated edition ed.). The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Lu Xiao, Shawn Clark, Mary Beth Rosson, and John M. Carroll. 2008. Promoting Reflective Thinking in Collaborative Learning Activities. In Proceedings of the 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies(ICALT ’08). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 709–711. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2008.280Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, San Jose, California, USA, 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Synthesis of Forms: Integrating Practical and Reflective Qualities in Design
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        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 '21: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          May 2021
          10862 pages
          ISBN:9781450380966
          DOI:10.1145/3411764

          Copyright © 2021 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: 7 May 2021

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

          Upcoming Conference

          CHI '24
          CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          May 11 - 16, 2024
          Honolulu , HI , USA

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format