For this week’s theme we read
two different texts, Finding Design Qualities in a Tangible Programming Space by Ylva Fernaeus & Jakob
Tholander and Differentiated Driving Range:
Exploring a Solution to the Problems with the “Guess-O-Meter” in Electric Cars by Anders Lundström.
The empirical data in these two texts
Both of the papers we read this
week are trying to get a result by using an iterative usability process.
Meaning the researchers use a design methodology based on a cyclic process of testing,
analyzing, prototyping, and refining a product or process, with the aim of improving the functionality
and quality of a design.
The first paper I read, about differentiated driving range,
is based on technical data provided by the electric car, as well as on
interviews with experienced drivers of electric cars. Based on the information
received, the researchers built a new interface that they then adapted and
evaluated. The empirical data is based on the driving range, the researchers
found relationships between factors related to driving and the estimated
driving range, and then tried to explore some solutions.
In the second paper the research was gathered by observation
of children’s interaction with different models of the tangible programming
interface. The researchers looked at differences between computer virtual and
human computer interactions, and based on that they made experiments.
Can practical design work in itself be
considered a 'knowledge contribution'?
Practical design work creates new knowledge to
the research field, so I would argue that design work is a knowledgeable
contribution. For these two design works they are both based on thorough
research and insights, and is definitely new knowledge.
Are there any differences in design intentions
within a research project, compared to design in general?
Both in design in general and
a research project are solution-oriented, however, the intention of a research
project is to find the best design solution to a project or a problem, and the
design intention is a lot of the times clearer than design in general. I think
that design in general is wider while a research project aims to achieve a more
specific purpose or solve a specific problem.
Is research in tech domains such as these ever
replicable? How may we account for aspects such as time/historical setting,
skills of the designers, available tools, etc.?
By a research being replicable, it means that
the research needs to be able to be copied or recreated. When doing research,
the researchers need to thoroughly explain their process and each step so the
research is replicable for others. Looking at tech domains, the mentioned
external factors does play a vital role in the research, however, I don’t
really see why those or other external factors would make research less
replicable in tech domains than in any other.
Are there any important differences with design
driven research compared to other research practices?
I would say that design
driven research demands a lot more repetition than other research, it needs to
be tested a lot more. And it’s based on the ground of finding solutions, if we
take the papers we read for example, the aim of Lundström’s research was to
reveal the relationship between factors related to driving and estimated
driving range, a research that is design driven will then spend more time on
development and innovation of technologies.
