from HCI as Science | unraveled

"As the class identified, HCI has plenty of current phenomena, but due to advances in technology those phenomena are radically changing and continue to change. This is a strong contrast to traditional sciences such as chemistry and biology where phenomena are generally static. Since HCI phenomena are constantly changing, HCI is constantly moving into new domains, redefining itself and absorbing new types of technology. Basically, there are no static phenomena so there can't be an HCI paradigm. Furthermore, since there is no HCI paradigm, HCI is not a science."

I'm not completely convinced that there is no stable phenomena, but suspect we have not observed the matter long enough to see the patterns in apparently various phenomena. from an intellegent comment on that post
"The Wright brothers constructed a working airplane without knowledge of aerodynamics, fluid mechanics, etc. They just applied tried and true engineering best practices which they learned from working on bicycles (plus a ton of trial and error)." Sometimes it takes a while to understand why things work, and see what the laws are.

Still, I have long suspected HCI is not science but craft.

I was teaching personas, and a user researcher in the class approached me after extremely concerned-- the idea of making up personas, even with rich data, unnerved her. It just didn't seem scientific, and one might make a mistake in deciding who to design for. I pointed out 8 users wasn't exactly a safe procedure either. And I told her something I've noticed. if I create a persona... even if I don't use it again beyond the initial creation... I design better. and I mean that quantifiably: I not only discover more innovative solutions, I also get fewer usability issues later in the lab. If I use the persona for scenarios and task analysis, I get still fewer errors, and of reduced severity.

I'd love ot see a formal study on this, but for now I know my craft is improved by good HCI practices.

Craft? A tad too much wishful thinking I'd say. More along the lines of a shared delusion. Legerdemain.

So personas are constraints. Design is always more creative in the face of constraints.

I would call them informers, rather than constraints, though they sometimes play that role.

And it isn't design without constraints, I do believe.... it's art.

From an engineering perspective the persona is a stand-in for product requirements and goals. Once you have the destination set, the engineering is the path and journey to that end.

Personas are better in that they set an acceptance function without trying to spec all of the details up-front. If everyone (even if you are only 1) understands how to evaluate their work, then everyone is more likely to hit the same goal.

Bingo bingo bingo (buzzwords)
Bill

the linked article is interesting, but in the second part of the article the author says that computer science is not a science... the Boolean algebra and the mathematical logic computer science, is science! therefore the computing science is a science!

in the second part of the article the author says that computer science is not a science...

I don't say that computer science is not a science. You may be referring to the first comment after the article.

in the second part of the article the author says that computer science is not a science...

I don't say that computer science is not a science. You may be referring to the first comment after the article.

in the second part of the article the author says that computer science is not a science...

I don't say that computer science is not a science. You may be referring to the first comment after the article.

*Name:


*Email Address:


URL:


Remember me?

Comments:



posting can be slow; please wait a few seconds before hitting the button again.

mail entry to a friend