History of HCI Sears and Jacko’s historical overview of development of HCI was profound to me, in part as an illustration of how the field’s development mirrored our readings, showing how various interpretations can dramatically morph a culture of sorts, in a relatively short time. The formation of HCI type groups and subsequent terms and language became aligned based on the background of the individuals and on the current situational problems each discipline encounters, relevant to Heidegger’s vision of interpretation of language [Heidegger, Being in Time, 1962]. The history illuminated how powerful words and language are in influencing thought and how we always bring new biases to the picture; truly HCI’s development shows “language is action” [Winograd, Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, 1987]. We are creating our HCI world on the fly, in the interconnectedness and sharing of our interpretations.
As a general life principle, as a songwriter I realized the power of language really made me reconsider my own responsibilities when putting out my own ideas and thoughts to others in the world. We all contribute to the twists and turns of culture. For HCI development especially, language may be in fact be the most powerful factor in enhancing (or diminishing) the existence of ‘traditional’ forms of human factors thinking and in fact, our very careers.
On a lighter note, understanding the history and oftentimes disconnection between groups made me feel a little less crazy in my everyday life experiences with UX concerns in a large corporation. With all variants in UX/UI descriptions, roles and responsibilities, sometimes as a group we may appear ununified to the corporate world and individuals out of touch as the field changes so rapidly. But I now can see that much of the confusion is less our own community and more a product of the variables, perspectives and expectations among IS, MIS and companies with various identities, calling upon HCI discipline to solve for different problems. So we’re not just creative crazies! :)
In terms of its maturity, I differ with Sears in that I don’t consider HCI in its infancy or even through an adult stage. It seems more the state of HCI is more like a young-at-heart grandfather – still seemingly ‘young’ and vital due to the input and conversation – but still, at the end of its ‘first’ incarnation as more efficient technology approaches, technology that can better approximate our user needs without such complex mental models and affordances on a screen. We will not diminish the need to broaden our understanding and research around how we think and act, but I think this focus on the interface as we know it will disappear rapidly. I maintain we are on the cusp of something very different in our approach to interfacing with a machine. I provided some comments on this at the end of this essay.
I would agree with the suggestion that information science is the closest and correct affiliation with HCI, because it deals with the process of interpretation and meaning, the most important aspects of human communication and exchange, implicating interaction.
Information-as-thingOf all the readings, I have to admit I understood this article least, but did notice some interesting parallels with the other readings. Buckland reviews how information can be thought of, and I believe he purports that in the processing information we begin to regard information-as-thing and when we begin to recognize structured objects in our world present-at-hand to be dealt with, presumably when not in our primordial state of unconscious every day living [Heidegger].
Of particular interest that was similar was Buckland’s assertion that information-as-process is “situational.” This seems to align with Heidegger’s contention in part – that interpretation of information, or in its processing, we include both the original knowledge and the current situation to find meaning.
Also, information-as-thing seems to be related to recognition of objects and properties. It struck me that this type of entity is how computers access information, but people on the other hand, may not naturally think about objects as information, rather they simply process the information and use it passively ready-at-hand in interpreting information. Perhaps these differences may help us understand how to compare and contrast ways we can bridge human and machine intelligence…
I look forward to more discussion on the depth of meaning of this article, especially considering how relevant the term ‘information’ and the discipline of information science (IS) are to HCI today.
Understanding and BeingWinograd essentially provides an overview of the theories of what constitutes understanding and being, drawing from theories of Heidegger and Gadamer [Gadamer, Truth and Method, 1975] as a primer to how people think and therefore how to design for them. He starts with a review of Hermeneutics; foundation for examining the role interpretation should play in the meaning of text. Questions are raised: Is there some absolute truth in a text itself, that we need to uncover? Should we try to rise above our own contexts, to try to understand the original meaning, or is that a fruitless attempt?
These questions of objective vs. subjective interpretation arise also around the current set of assumptions about cognition that persist in our culture today - a ‘rationalization orientation’ that dates back to Plato and Aristotle. Essentially a dual view of reality assumes there are both objective truths in the world and at the same time a reality perceived only through own subjectivity. It states that somehow we can change the physical by our thoughts and intentions in the subjective (just look at the assumptions and popularity of cognitive therapy). (I myself feel biased in believing in this system; having witnessed seemingly magical situations ‘created’ through a focus on words and thoughts).
While debate even now rages about this current thought and about what is true reality – the objective world of objects and things translated, or the subjective experience - Heidegger maintains neither the objective or subject view forms the true understanding of the world. There is a more “fundamental unity” which embodies the notion that that the interpreted (objective meaning) and the interpreter (with subjective perceptions) are both important contributors to meaning. That it’s impossible to understand existence without both.
Further, Gadamer saw the combination of both our current context or situation and our inescapable past (our ‘horizon’) and all the prejudices that come with it. Gadamer maintains we should not be so bent on trying to ‘get over’ our prejudices, because human understanding necessarily draws on both, but remembering that equal consideration must be given to the current situation as it definitely plays its part in interpretation. Therefore, there is always a new interpretation, if only giving way perhaps a few words or actions at a time.
[Note: This would definitely upset many fundamentalist religious people in the world, it would seem – as may feel that the context of the original understanding in the text of the Bible for example is ‘right’ one without regard to current situations and interpretations.]
One more concept discussed is that human awareness and existence is fundamentally ‘primordial’ in that we think instinctively rather than reflectively, i.e., taking time to contemplate our surroundings, something most of us just do not do. This has implications discussed later for anything in which humans act, react or interact with, including design. As humans, we don’t think about the actions we take generally take when performing tasks. And we don’t think about the objects we are using. We are not necessarily deriving meaning or aware of the objects we are using (ready-at-hand); we are just being and doing.
Heidegger continues that when we are “thrown” into situations that interrupt our natural flow we must act, and typically we are suddenly aware of the objects and structure around us that are present-at-hand. Heidegger maintains that therein the state of “throwness” lays the opportunity to take action and produce some meaningful ‘resonance’ in the world – at this intersection of instinct and thought. Winograd later refers to this as the place for innovation in design.
I think though, we have to be careful here – while the space between detached contemplation and instinctual reaction may have meaning, we have to be clear that if we all acted without some real contemplation driving our actions I don’t think we would grow as a culture and society – but that’s for a different essay.
Direction for DesignIn this chapter, Winograd basically asserts that thoughtful design is predicated on understanding the person’s everyday patterns, or sometimes called literal or abstract “conversations” - and discover the objects they interact with however unconsciously. Once determined, designers can design these representations; when the user is then “thrown” into a break down where the flow is interrupted, they may experience familiarity with these objects as part of their work stream, to inform their next move. Winograd says in this space designers have the opportunity to bring forth affordances, shift our patterns of thought, and perhaps engage in new conversations.
Regarding the subject of throwness, HCI scholars may want to investigate it through studying arts and artists. The state of throwness is not just a side effect of living of most artists, but in fact, is the often the desired state of being (I want to get in the “zone”). Abstract painters and jazz musicians, for example, actually utilize and count on being ‘thrown’ ideas – from outside their normal existence. This is the space is which rich innovation lives for them. It is in the combination of the ‘not-thinking’ coupled with some new situation or introduction of new sound, within and recognizing a familiar structure (like a shape on canvas or a repeating chord progression) upon which they act spontaneously. This is the space that produces that rich new sound or an image filled with new colors and light. Also, related to Winograd’s assertions, this is also the space where new, unspoken conversations arise, in the abstract in this case, either between the listener and the player or between the player and his own internal sensibilities, that evokes new thinking/feeling and the unspoken universal “language” of art.
Further, because artists are “experts” at being thrown, they give us the insight, tools and sensibilities with which to adapt and proceed as a society, into the future.
On research and design – UIGrrl shouts from the peanut galleryWinograd’s assertions on design in practical terms boils down to designers studying users and providing familiar affordances when they get to the state of break down, so they can recover and be on their way again. This all makes sense, but even if we get domains right, or find the correct representation to ‘unconceal’ so to speak, I would not say this is where we should put our focus as future researchers. Granted, as designers there is that space where we can innovate and continue to innovate but let’s remember - we’re not here to find *reasons* to develop our design chops, rather we’re here to make it easier to utilize computing. And to that end, there are bigger fish to fry in the HCI community.
I say we are entering a new era for HCI. The next generation of HCI studies should focus on two important actions:
1) Continued and improved study of users as individuals to uncover their primary conversations. More attention can be paid to methods such as Contextual Inquiry, where we can focus more on these processes and actively try to reduce the need for affordances we think required for users to move on when they break down.
2) Increased study in cooperation with technologists, prototyping networked ‘intelligence’ that can make appropriate adaptations, rather than relying on affordances on a screen. (This is obviously not a new idea, just my thoughts on where we should put our energies.)
To the latter, we should create human-computer or system associations that can anticipate and automate task flow changes before the thrown state actually happens, since it is optimal to keep the user in the conversation rather than fall out of it. For example, if someone from the shipping department depends on the accounting system to work and something happens, how can the system adapt to this change and inform the department or alter the workflows in ways that are still natural to both sets of users? Perhaps the system has intelligence about users on both ends. Perhaps they even know personal things. A very simple example is that the key person, say a manager who signs orders, might be out sick, the system adapts and adjusts the shipping department workflow. A more complex scenario might be that an entire marketing process relies on stock changes, and the system knows about those changes and more importantly, something about the people engaged, so that it can present the most natural prompts or interface possible; the point is that the system can get more detailed inputs about the person’s current situation in a department or domain and can successfully move the train tracks on a new path, seamlessly.
How do we get there? I believe we put our efforts into research and development that finds ways to provide better human inputs into the computer system, thus creating more “intelligence” or put more clearly, an awareness of the individual in the system. One day the acronym UI might stand for “User integration” as opposed to User Interface (and I’ll be called the Mother of User Integration – ha!).
One vision of this future is wearable input mechanisms, where computers or systems intelligence will seamlessly understand the needs of the human. Computers will then support human beings with natural human language (even though it might process it as ‘information-as-thing’). They will be able to respond and prompt the users in a way they understand, removing the screen interface layer and directly communicating with the person. The systems gain greater understanding of the human scenario and can progressively adapt based on that input. This does not refute Winograd’s statements in that the computer should not think necessarily like humans - but rather evolves its own natural processes to understand human thought and need.
Today we have very crude and static examples such as in Google “suggest,” where users are given feedback based on knowledge of their previous input. But imagine a more dynamic scenario where a system can detect even moods or presence and act accordingly - imagine the 2001 Hal computer that notices personal issues like mood and proceeds: “Dave, I notice you are depressed today. Would you like to listen to some of your favorite music and have me change your meeting with John?”
====
Chris Hawkins
uigrrl@gmail.comHCI Masters Student
Theory & Research
