skip to main content
10.1145/1518701.1518874acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Framing design in the third paradigm

Published:04 April 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper develops vocabulary to discuss the phenomena related to the new design paradigm, which considers designing as a situated and constructive activity of meaning making rather than as problem solving. The paper studies how design projects proceed from the fuzzy early phases towards the issues of central relevance to designing. A central concept is framing, and it is elaborated with examples from two case studies. Several aspects of framing are explicated, exploratory, anticipatory and social framing, and related concepts of 'focusing', 'priming', and 'grounding' are explained. The paper concludes that understanding designing as a situated and constructive making of meaning has bearings on how designing needs to be supported.

References

  1. Anderson, R.J. Representations and Requirements: The Value of Ethnography in System Design. Human-Computer Interaction 9, (1994), 151--182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Beyer, H., Holtzblatt, K. Contextual Design: A Customer-Centered Approach to Systems Designs. Morgan Kaufmann, (1998). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Blumer, H. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press, (1998).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks, F.P. No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering. IEEE Computer 20, 4 (1987), 10--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Cagan, J., Vogel, C.M. Creating Breakthrough Products: Innovation from Product Planning to Program Approval. FT Press, (2002). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Cooper, A. Inmates are Running the Asylum: Why High-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity. SAMS, (1999). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Cooper, R.G. Product Leadership: Pathways to Profitable Innovation. Basic Books, New York, (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Dorst, K., Cross, N. Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies 22, 5 (2001), 425--427.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Forlizzi, J. Product Ecologies: Understanding the Context of Use Surrounding Products. Carnegie Mellon University, (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Gasson, S. Framing design: a social process view of information system development. In Proc. ICIS '98, Association for Information Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA, (1998), 224--236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Gibson, J.J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, USA, (1979).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Goffman, E. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Northeastern University Press, USA, (1974).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodwin, C., Duranti, A. Rethinking context: an introduction. In Duranti, A.&Goodwin, C. Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge University Press, (1992) 1--42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Harrison, S., Tatar, D., Sengers, P. The Three Paradigms of HCI. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, (in press), (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Hey, J.H.G., Joyce, C.K., Beckman, S.K. Framing Innovation: negotiating shared frames during early design phases. Journal of Design Research 6, 1-2 (2007), 79--99.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W. Westerlund, B., Bederson, B.B., Druin, A., Plaisant, C., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., Conversy, S., Evans, H., Hansen, H., Roussel, N., Eiderbäck, B. Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. In Proc. CHI '03, ACM Press (2003), 17--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Johnstone, K. Impro: Improvisation and the theatre. Theatre Arts Book, (1987).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Jordan, B., Henderson, A. Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4, 1 (1995), 39--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Jääskö, V., Mattelmäki, T., Ylirisku, S. The Scene of Experiences. In Proc. The Good the Bad and the Irrelevant, (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Keinonen, T., Takala, R. Product Concept Design: A Review of the Conceptual Design of Products in Industry. Springer, (2006).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Kuikka, N. Asukaskeskeisiä suunnittelumenetelmiä kylien kehittämiseen. Nordia tiedonantoja 3/2004. Multiprint Oy, (2004)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Lim, Y., Stolterman, E., Tenenberg, J. The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 15, 5 (2008), 1--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Ljungblad, S., Holmquist, L.E. Transfer scenarios: grounding innovation with marginal practices. In Proc. CHI 2007, ACM Press (2007), 737--746. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Mattelmäki, T. Design Probes. Doctoral thesis, the University of Art and Design Helsinki, (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio K., Ylirisku, S. Active@work - Design dealing with social change. In Proc. Include, (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Moore, J., Buur, J. Exploring how user video supports design. In Proc. Nordic Design Research Conference, (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Rittel, H., Webber, M. Planning Problems are Wicked Problems. In Cross, N. Developments in Design Methodology. John Wiley&Sons, (1984), 135--144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Sanders, E.B.N., Dandavate, U. Designing for Experiencing: New Tools. in Overbeeke, C. J.&Hekkert, P. (ed.), In Proc. Design and Emotion, (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Schön, D.A. Problems, frames and perspectives on designing. Design Studies 5, 3 (1984), 132--136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Schön, D.A. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey-Bass, (1987).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Schön, D.A., Rein, M. Frame Reflection: Towards the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. Basic Books, (1994).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Simon, H.A. The Sciences of the Artificial. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, (1996). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Sleeswijk-Visser, F., Stappers, J., van der Lugt, R., Sanders, E.B.N. Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign Journal, 1, 2 (2005), 119--149.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Ulrich, K.T., Eppinger, S.D. Product Design and Development. McGraw-Hill, (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Valkenburg, R.C. The Reflective Practice in product design teams. Ph.D. Thesis, TU Delft, (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang, C., Burris, M.A. Photovoice: Concept, Methodology, and Use for Participatory Needs Assessment. Health Education&Behavior 24, 3 (1997), 369 -- 387.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Williamson, J., Brown, L.M. Flutter: Directed Random Browsing of Photo Collections with a Tangible Interface. In Proc. DIS 2008, (2008). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Yan-Chi Kwok, J. The weight of space: participatory design research for configuring habitable space for new arrival women in Hong Kong. In Proc. PDC 2004, (2004), 183--192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Ylirisku, S., Buur, J. Designing with Video: Focusing the User-Centred Design Process. Springer, (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Ylirisku, S., Vaajakallio, K. Situated Make Tools for envisioning ICTs with ageing workers. In Proc. Include, (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., Evenson, S. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proc. CHI 2007, ACM Press (2007), 493--502. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Framing design in the third paradigm

    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 '09: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2009
      2426 pages
      ISBN:9781605582467
      DOI:10.1145/1518701

      Copyright © 2009 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: 4 April 2009

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '09 Paper Acceptance Rate277of1,130submissions,25%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