STRUCTURING ENVISIONMENT: USING UNDERSTANDING OF CURRENT PRACTICES - PDF document

Published in the Proceedings of OZCHI 2001 STRUCTURING ENVISIONMENT: USING UNDERSTANDING OF CURRENT PRACTICES TO DESIGN FOR FUTURE USE Jennie Carroll 1 and Steve Howard 1 1 Interaction Design Group, Department of Information Systems The University of Melbourne, Australia 3010 email: jcarroll@staff.dis.unimelb.edu.au ABSTRACT This paper proposes a process model that provides a structured and systematic way of using scenarios to design for future use. The process model assists designers in moving from understanding of current practices to envisioning future practices and situations of use; a by-product of the process is that the rationale for decisions is documented. Examples from an ongoing research project demonstrate the value of the approach. KEYWORDS Scenario based design 1. INTRODUCTION One of the most intractable problems facing developers of interactive systems is designing artefacts for future practices and situations of use. Typically, efforts are made to understand current use that then provides the foundation for predicting or envisioning future use (Kensing and Munk-Madsen 1993). Methods such as interviews, observation or experiments are used to understand current use and designer introspection, future workshops or scenarios are used to envision future use. Currently this provides an idiosyncratic, ‘hit or miss’ approach to the design of artefacts. In this paper, we suggest a more systematic method for using scenarios to design for future technology use. A process model for iterative scenario- based design facilitates ‘stretching’ users’ current understanding in a structured and methodical way. An important by-product is that the rationale for design decisions is documented as an intrinsic part of the process. Examples from an ongoing research project into young people’s use of technology are used to demonstrate the value of the approach. Designers face a number of problems when determining user needs. These include the inability of users to understand or express their current or future needs, the inevitable changes in needs as users learn more about a problem situation and their technological options, as well as the changes that arise in response to external changes (see Holtzblatt and Beyer 1993). Also, context is important: not just the physical and organisational context but also the social or group context and the human or psychological factors that may operate when users interact with technology. The difficulties in determining user needs are compounded by the fact that users adapt technologies (individual artefacts or systems) once they are delivered to the situations of use. The process of adapting or appropriating a technology for their needs brings new needs to light that may supercede or alter existing requirements (Howard et al. 2001). We have been conducting empirical research into the process of technology appropriation. In particular, young people’s appropriation of technology has been examined and theories induced from the data collected. It has been suggested that increased understanding of the process through which a new technology is appropriated is important for improving the design process (Griffith 1999; Majchrzak et al. 2000). However, we faced the problem of how to use this understanding to improve design. Our focus is on understanding young people’s use of technology in their everyday lives and then identifying breakdowns in current technology use and opportunities for technological innovation. Understanding of current practices or situations of use provides the starting point for envisionment rather than being an end

Published in the Proceedings of OZCHI 2001 in itself: it is important to generate creative ideas for innovation rather than focusing on the current situation which will soon be obsolete (Dahlbom and Ljungberg 1998). This involves trying to envision future users’ personal needs and desires and then designing appropriate technological artefacts rather than exploring technological innovations and then trying to design work or social spaces in which they might be used. Thus the focus is on technology in use not the inherent qualities of the technology itself (Bricklin 2001). 1.1 Scenarios We have selected scenarios as the method for envisioning future practices and situations of use. Scenarios are narratives that describe typical and significant user activities (Carroll 1994). We sought a method that could provide access to the drivers of technology use (the need to complete tasks, achieve goals or participate in group, leisure or social activities), the barriers to use (such as cost, usability and social mores), the physical and social situations of use (organisational, social and leisure contexts) and the drivers of technology diffusion (including tacit individual and group priorities). Both designers and users need to conceptualise future uses of technology within context; we believe that scenarios fulfill this requirement as they “support reasoning about situations of use, even before those situations are actually created” (Carroll 1994:29). Scenarios enable designers to construct a series of ‘what ifs’ that are grounded in context, to move beyond the limitations of users’ existing experiences and knowledge to perceive some of the possibilities provided by technology. However, even with adept use of scenarios these perceptions of future possibilities can never be complete; the role of individuals and groups in shaping the technology cannot be completely forecast. At best designers can use their understanding of users’ needs to design to facilitate future appropriation of new technologies. 2. THE STRUCTURED MODEL We have adapted a process model for qualitative research (Carroll and Swatman 2000) to provide a structured and systematic way of using understanding of current practices to design for future use (see Figure 1). Series of Conceptual Frameworks Topic of interest Visions of Literature future Insights practices & Initial situations Prior research Conceptual of use Framework Reflect The Envisionment Cycle Plan Present Analyse scenarios Figure 1: The structured model The structured model has three structural components: an initial conceptual framework which expresses current understanding of the area of interest, a pre-defined envisionment cycle (Plan, Present scenarios, Analyse and Reflect) whereby this understanding is used to plan and present scenarios to facilitate envisionment, and the resulting series of conceptual frameworks that documents the findings from each envisionment cycle. Although it cannot provide the creativity necessary to envision future practices, the structured model does represent a process through which understanding of the way that users shape