Content uploaded by Liam J. Bannon
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Liam J. Bannon on May 17, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Bannon, L. & Bødker, S. (1991) Beyond the Interface: Encountering Artifacts in Use. Book Chapter in J.M. Carroll (Ed.) (1991) Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface, pp.227-253. (New York: Cambridge University Press)
... In fact, there has, over many years, been a wide range of attempts to conceptualize, in Suchman's words, the 'appropriability' of such 'objects' into 'the environments of their intended use' so as to facilitate their 'artful integration'. Noteworthy examples of such attempts are notions such as 'artifacts in use' [1], 'appropriation' of interactive artifacts [6; 49], 'coordination mechanisms' [27], 'ordering systems' [28], 'socially embedded technologies' [12], 'artifact ecologies' [2], and 'practice-oriented' or 'practicebased' computing [18; 29; 30]. However, it seems fair to say that the large variety of proposed conceptions, and the obvious fact that nothing even remotely akin to consensus has emerged, indicates that the whole issue is still wide open. ...
... While it certainly makes sense to point to the heterogeneity of our settings, distinctions are surely required. 1 In short, in order to overcome our bewilderment, not to mention to be able to compare findings from our studies, we need to be able to talk systematically about the entities that are to be 'appropriated' or 'infrastructured' or 'artfully integrated' into the manifold material settings of our practices. Now, that is not as trivial a question as one might imagine. ...
... The notion of 'computational artifact' was originally introduced by Lucy Suchman 3 in 1985 in a PhD-dissertation based on empirical studies at Xerox PARC and published as a technical report by Xerox PARC [37, pp. [iii], [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. 4 The notion of 'computational artifact' occupies an important place in the foundations of HCI, CSCW, and related fields of computing technology research, not because it is widely used, far from it, but because it figured prominently in the incontestably most influential attempt to formulate a conceptual foundation for this kind of research, namely, Lucy Suchman's Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. She introduced and used it in her pathbreaking attempt to give a principled and clear articulation of what was to be addressed and explored in the research program of 'human-machine communication' or 'interaction': it was suggested as the term for that with which humans were supposedly 'interacting' or 'communicating'. ...
The key concern of CSCW research is that of understanding computing technologies in the social context of their use, that is, as integral features of our practices and our lives, and to think of their design and implementation under that perspective. However , the question of the nature of that which is actually integrated in our practices is often discussed in confusing ways, if at all. The article aims to try to clarify the issue and in doing so revisits and reconsiders the notion of 'computational artifact'.
... It has also been applied to interface design (e.g. Bannon & Bødker 1991;Gay & Hembrooke 2004;Kaptelinin & Nardi 2006). However, these studies are not integrated with a social semiotic view on kinetic interfaces. ...
... However, these studies are not integrated with a social semiotic view on kinetic interfaces. Rather, they often try explicitly to look beyond the interface (Bannon & Bødker 1991). ...
... (Norman 1990: 210-217) For Norman, the interface is only an instrument. A similar argument is made by Bannon and Bødker (1991), who want to look beyond the interface to the tasks in which it is used as a tool. Negroponte (1995) also wants the interface to disappear, but for a different reason. ...
Screen-based user interfaces now include dynamic and moving elements that transform the screen space and relations of mediated content. These changes place new demands on design as well as on our reading and use of such multimodal texts. Assuming a socio-cultural perspective on design, we discuss in this article the use of animation and visual motion in interface navigation as navimation. After presenting our Communication Design framework, we refer to relevant literature on navigation and motion. Three core concepts are introduced for the purpose of analysing selected interface examples using multimodal textual analysis informed by social semiotics. The analysis draws on concepts from multiple fields, including animation studies, 'new' media, interaction design, and human-computer interaction. Relations between time, space and motion are discussed and linked to wider debates concerning interface design.
... For the service user, on the other hand, these interactions are peripheral. As computers are increasingly pervasive, accepted as ordinary tools for everyday life [4], so the focus of users is on the objects of their activities rather than on the computer artefacts themselves. From the point of view of service users, the interaction is merely a part of their daily routine: "In fact, users don't think of themselves as primarily having anything to do with the computer at all" [29]. ...
... The increasing integration of computer power into mundane artefacts gives new significance to the question raised by Bannon and Bødker: how is it possible to understand an artefact which "reveals itself to us fully only in use?" [4]. How is it possible to grasp usability in the lived experience of socially situated users? ...
... Researchers also stress that empowering teachers/instructors as designers is a challenging task (Wasson & Kirschner, 2020). In the Scandinavian context, researchers underline a close association between design and use, when designing for a future use situation (Bannon & Bødker, 1991). ...
The importance of providing mechanisms and tools that effectively support the transition from implicit to explicit representations of Learning Design has been emphasised by previous research in the field of Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL). In addition, the benefits of Game-based learning approaches have been long documented in the educational research literature. The paper presents the design, implementation and evaluation of a card game that aims to support the design process of TEL activities in higher education. The game was tested by a group of 36 students and tutors (n = 36) in higher education during an interactive workshop. Feedback was asked by the participants using an anonymous survey. The results reveal that the participants a) are satisfied with the game process, b) appreciate the groupwork and interaction taking place, and c) believe that they used their communication and collaboration skills. The paper includes the description of the outputs of a group (i.e., the cards selected for their TEL scenario and their actual TEL scenario) to exemplify that it is possible to use the game in order to elicit or diagnose existing LD knowledge from the game participants. The paper concludes on the usefulness of the approach suggested, limitations, and plans for future work.
... Scandinavian tradition also recognises a tight relationship between design and use, where one is always designing for a future use situation (Bannon and Bødker 1991). In such a perspective design is rooted in a human activity framework where the origin for design is the future use activity or situation, which means that design needs to start from "the present praksis of future users" (Bannon & Bødker,991,p. ...
Research on instructional and learning design is ‘booming’ in Europe, although there has been a move from a focus on content and the way to present it in a formal educational context (i.e., instruction), to a focus on complex learning, learning environments including the workplace, and access to learner data available in these environments. We even see the term ‘learning experience design’ (Neelen and Kirschner 2020) to describe the field. Furthermore, there is an effort to empower teachers (and even students) as designers of learning (including environments and new pedagogies), and to support their reflection on their own practice as part of their professional development (Hansen and Wasson 2016; Luckin et al. 2016; Wasson et al. 2016). While instructional design is an often heard term in the United States and refers to “translating principles of learning and instruction into plans for instructional materials, activities, information resources, and evaluation” (Smith and Ragan 1999), Europe tends to lean more towards learning design as the key for providing efficient, effective, and enjoyable learning experiences. This is not a switch from an instructivist to a constructivist view nor from a teacher-centred to a student-centred paradigm. It is, rather, a different mind-set where the emphasis is on the goal (i.e., learning) rather than the approach (i.e., instruction). Designing learning opportunities in a technology enhanced world builds on theories of human learning and cognition, opportunities provided by technology, and principles of instructional design. New technology both expands and challenges some instructional design principles by opening up new opportunities for distance collaboration, intelligent tutoring and support, seamless and ubiquitous learning and assessment technologies, and tools for thinking and thought. In this article, the authors give an account of their own and other research related to instructional and learning design, highlight related European research, and point to future research directions.
... These initiatives can be found both on a theoretical and a practical level, as well as in different areas, such as graphical user interfaces, digital media, natural interaction, tangible and embodied interaction. For example, Bannon and Bødker (1991); Kuutti and Bannon (1993;; Buxton (1994); Rauterberg and Steiger (1996); Ishii and Ullmer (1997); Seaman (1998) ...
... For example, Bannon and Bødker (1991) want to look beyond the interface to the tasks in which it is used as a tool, while Manovich (2001) sees the interface as a medium with strong connections to the history of cinema, print and pictorial art. For the design and analysis of kinetic interfaces that moves us, we need both approaches. ...
We are increasingly surrounded by screen-based interfaces that are characterized by visual movement, referred to as kinetic interfaces. This paper argues that kinetic interfaces engage and affect us in two distinct ways. First, kinetic interfaces may engage users when visual movement is employed to allow them to carry out specific actions, referred to as instrumental mediation. Second, kinetic interfaces may affect users when movement is employed to allow specific meanings to be made, referred to as semiotic mediation. Situated within a sociocultural view on design and use, this dual role of the kinetic interface is referred to as double mediation. The complex relationship between instrumental and semiotic mediation is elaborated through analysis of the screen interface of the Apple iPad, and through a practical design experiment.
There are a number of problems with the current state of the art in the evaluation of user interfaces. Firstly, there have been proposed a wide range of different methods for performing the evaluation, each with its own body of advocates, but with no common agreement as to how the different methods compare with one another. Secondly, the methods which exist at the moment either provide insufficient information or they are so time-consuming as to not be practical in real cases. Finally, many methods are unreliable, with individual evaluators having an undue influence on results, and there is in general no way to translate results into solid recommendations for improving the interface under test. This paper surveys a representative subset of evaluation methods, and suggests ways in which their differences may be resolved.
Les recherches qui se sont penchées sur la relation humain-technologie-organisation relèvent le plus souvent du concept d'acceptation (Davis, 1986). Notre proposition se base sur la théorie de la symbiose initiée par Licklider (1960). Elle envisage la relation humain-technologie au travers des idées de coévolution, d'extension des capacités et de dépendance mutuelle. A partir d'une étude par questionnaire sur 483 personnes, nous avons, d'une part, validé les qualités métriques de l'échelle et, d'autre part, proposé une révision de la modélisation initiale. Plus précisément, nous avons extrait une nouvelle modélisation centrée sur le versant utilisateur, au coté de l'autre, qui représentait le versant concepteur. Dans un second temps, la techno-symbiose a été resitée dans une perspective temporelle, en complément des autres approches dont l'acceptation. Cette deuxième étude a confirmé le caractère distinct de l'acceptation et de la symbiose ; la symbiose étant conditionnée par les caractéristiques de l'utilisateur (attitude face à sa relation à la technologie) et les caractéristiques de la technologie (complexité, réponse a un besoin d'amplification des capacités humaines, simplification de l'interaction). le lien entre activité de l'utilisateur et technologie semble également déterminant. L'ensemble des résultats sont discutés d'un point de vue théorique et méthodologique
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.