Critical Design Research and Constructive Research Outcomes as Arguments
•
0 gefällt mir•143 views
Presentation for the workshop "Let’s Get Divorced: Constructing Knowledge Outcomes for Critical Design and Constructive Design Research” at DIS 2018, the ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. Hong Kong. June 9, 2018
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Ähnlich wie Critical Design Research and Constructive Research Outcomes as Arguments
Ähnlich wie Critical Design Research and Constructive Research Outcomes as Arguments (20)
Mehr von Omar Sosa-Tzec
Mehr von Omar Sosa-Tzec (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Critical Design Research and Constructive Research Outcomes as Arguments
- 1. CDRandCDoutcomes asarguments Omar Sosa-Tzec Visual information designer and researcher 2018 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems June 9,2018
- 2. ¡Hola!
- 3. ann arbor,michigan Assistant Professor Art and Design University of Michigan Rhetoric and semiotics of user interfaces • Foundations of 2D design • Research methods • Information Design • Semiotics
- 4. CDRorCD?
- 5. CDR CD
- 6. CDR CD Address a situation Involve criticality Imagination Judgment Designer's identity Designer's knowledge and skills Designer's values
- 8. Meta-communication Argument • Logos • Ethos • Pathos • Disposition • Style • Metaphor Rhetor Audience Situation System • Static Signs • Dynamic Signs • Meta-linguistic signsDesigner User Rhetorical perspective Semiotic Engineering perspective • Communicability
- 9. Meta-communication Argument • Logos • Ethos • Pathos • Disposition • Style • Metaphor Rhetor Audience Situation System • Static Signs • Dynamic Signs • Meta-linguistic signsDesigner User Rhetorical perspective Semiotic Engineering perspective • Communicability
- 10. Meta-communication Argument • Logos • Ethos • Pathos • Disposition • Style • Metaphor Rhetor Audience Situation System • Static Signs • Dynamic Signs • Meta-linguistic signsDesigner User Rhetorical perspective Semiotic Engineering perspective • Communicability • Rhetoric is the human use of symbols*to communicate. • The purpose of rhetoric is to persuade,identify,invite to understanding,aid in self-discovery and self-knowledge,and shape reality *Signs whose meaning is established by human convention (unlike icons and indexes)
- 11. Meta-communication Argument • Logos • Ethos • Pathos • Disposition • Style • Metaphor Rhetor Audience Situation System • Static Signs • Dynamic Signs • Meta-linguistic signsDesigner User Rhetorical perspective Semiotic Engineering perspective • Communicability • Rhetoric is the human use of symbols*to communicate. • The purpose of rhetoric is to persuade,identify,invite to understanding,aid in self-discovery and self-knowledge,and shape reality *Signs whose meaning is established by human convention (unlike icons and indexes) • HCI is a meta-communication act • Semiotic Engineering is concerned with a system's communicability and the process of semiosis (and abductive reasoning) during interaction time
- 12. Meta-communication Argument • Logos • Ethos • Pathos • Disposition • Style • Metaphor Rhetor Audience Situation System • Static Signs • Dynamic Signs • Meta-linguistic signsDesigner User Rhetorical perspective Semiotic Engineering perspective • Communicability • Rhetoric applies rhetoricalcriticism to analyze an existing artifact (one case at the time) • The goal is to develop theory (knowledge) about how rhetoric works • Rhetorical criticism is concerned with logos,ethos,pathos, disposition,style,metaphors,ideologies,narratives,and others • Interaction criticism (Bardzell,2015) connects closely to RC • The expert-based method of S.E.is the Semiotic Inspection Method (SIM) • SIM evaluates the communicability of a system through the analysis of its static,dynamic,and meta-linguistic signs • Gap: broken link with interaction criticism (and therefore with RC)
- 13. Design situation System Designer User • The system is an argument: logos,ethos, andpathos • The design is a symbolic composition: staticanddynamicsigns • The system is to persuade,identify,invite to understanding,aid in self-discovery and self-knowledge,and shape reality • CDR/CD are two genres of multimodal argumentation • The visual,verbal,aural,tactile and the temporal are the elements of design and therefore the modes of arguing
- 16. System Designer User HCI Researcher • The designer can engage in a reflective self-critique activity • The activity is to reflect and document (knowledge production on the system's deign)
- 17. System Designer User HCI Researcher • The researcher can analyze an existing artifact to describe compositional and experiential qualities as a form of knowledge production to theorize about designing for interactions
- 18. • Logos • Ethos • Pathos Lensesforinteractioncriticism Aristotelean Lens Metaphorical Lens • To persuade • To identify • To invite to understanding • To aid in self-discovery and self- knowledge • To shape reality Implication of the design System • Static Signs • Dynamic Signs Designer User
- 19. Casesforanalysis