skip to main content
10.5555/1531407.1531461guideproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesbcs-hciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

HCI and creative problem-solving at Lancaster

Published:03 September 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Creative Problem-Solving Research Group (CPSRG) at Lancaster University is a collaboration between psychologists and computer scientists conducting research into creativity, problem-solving and design at the interface between humans and computer systems. Our aim is to develop theoretical understandings and practical interventions that address how creative individuals and groups manage conflicting demands of novelty and divergent thinking versus constraint, domain relevance and minimization of task load. Current projects include creative design in virtual and ubiquitous environments, developing methodologies for inspirational design, and impacts of expert reasoning on creative problem-solving.

References

  1. Ball, L. J., Evans, J. St. B., Dennis, I.& Ormerod, T. C. (1997). Problem-solving strategies and expertise in engineering design Thinking and Reasoning, 3, 247--270Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, L. J., & Alford, D. (2007). What determines the acceptability of deontic health and safety rules? D. McNamara, & G. Trafton (Eds.): Proc. 29th Annual Conf. Cognitive Science Society. Alpha, NJ: Sheridan Printing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, L. J. and Ormerod, T. C. Putting ethnography to work: The case for a cognitive ethnography of design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53 (2000), 147--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Ball, L. J. and Ormerod, T. C. Structured and opportunistic processing in design: A critical discussion. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43 (1995), 131--151. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ball, L. J., Ormerod, T. C. and Morley, N. J. Spontaneous analogising in engineering design: A comparative analysis of experts and novices. Design Studies, 25 (2004), 495--508.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Dix, A. The adaptive significance of regret, 2005. http://www.hcibook.com/alan/essays/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Dix, A., Ormerod, T. C., Twidale, M., Sas, C., Gomes da Silva, P. A. and McKnight, L. (2006). Why Bad Ideas are a Good Idea. HCI Educators Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. DEPtH, Designing for Physicality, 2007. http://www.physicality.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Dix, A. Teaching innovation (keynote). at Excellence in Education and Training convention. Singapore, 2002. http://www.hcibook.com/alan/talks/singapore2002/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. HCI Educators 2007 -- Creativity3: Experiencing to educate and design. Aveiro. Portugal, 2007. http://www.bcs-hci.org.uk/hcied2007/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. McKnight, L. (2007). Creativity in Second Life: Exploration versus Constraint. The 6th Creativity & Cognition Conference, Graduate Symposium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Morley, N. J., Ball, L. J., & Ormerod, T. C. (2006). How the detection of insurance fraud succeeds and fails Psychology, Crime, and Law, 12, 163--180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Ormerod, T. C. (2005). Planning and ill-defined problems. Chapter in R. Morris and G. Ward (Eds.): The Cognitive Psychology of Planning. London: Psychology Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Ormerod, T. C., MacGregor, J. N. & Chronicle, E. P. Dynamics and Constraints in Insight Problem Solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28 (2002), 791--799Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Ormerod, T. C., Morley, N., Mariani, J., Lewis, K., Hitch, G., Mathrick, J. & Rodden, T. (2004). Doing ethnography and experiments together to explore collaborative photograph handling: In A. Dearden & L. Watts (Eds.) Proc. HCI2004: Design for Life, Volume 2, pp. 81--84. 6--10th September 2004, Leeds.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Ormerod, T. C., Mariani, J. Ball, L. J. & Lambell, N. (1999). Desperado: Three-in-one indexing for innovative design: Interact -Seventh IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. IOS Press, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Sas, C. (2006). Learning Approaches for Teaching Interaction Design. HCI Educators Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Sas, C. (2006). Teaching Interaction Design through Practitioners' Praxis. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the Higher Education Academy. posterGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Sas, C. (2007). Engaging Higher Education Institution in regional development: A case study for Human Computer Interaction discipline. Engaging HEIs in business and the community: A learning perspective Symposium. Lancaster University Management School.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Sas, C. and Dix, A. (2007). Alternative Design Brief for Teaching Interaction Design: Finding New Applications for Existing Technologies. HCI Educators Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Silva, P. and Dix, A. Chindogu and Scrapheap Spirit as Creativity Triggers. In Proc. of The First International Symposium on Culture, Creativity and Interaction Design, CCID 2006. LeonardoNet, 2006, 97--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. HCI and creative problem-solving at Lancaster

            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 Guide Proceedings
              BCS-HCI '07: Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: HCI...but not as we know it - Volume 2
              September 2007
              270 pages
              ISBN:9781902505954

              Publisher

              BCS Learning & Development Ltd.

              Swindon, United Kingdom

              Publication History

              • Published: 3 September 2007

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              Overall Acceptance Rate28of62submissions,45%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader