how ambiguity and affinity are enacted to perform interaction design Jeremy Yuille Doctor of Philosophy 2012 RMIT The Forensic Wall how ambiguity and affinity are enacted to perform interaction design An exegesis submitted in (partial) fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Jeremy Yuille M.Des School of Media and Communication, Design and Social Context Portfolio RMIT University October 2012 ii Declaration I certify that except where due acknowledgement has been made, the work is that of the author alone; the work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for any other academic award; the content of the exegesis is the result of work which has been carried out since the official commencement date of the approved research pro- gram; any editorial work, paid or unpaid, carried out by a third party is acknowledged; and, ethics procedures and guidelines have been followed. Jeremy Yuille May 2 2012 i Acknowledgements Without the support of the Interaction Design Association (IxDA) I would never have gained a This is a work of toil and late nights, but above global and professional perspective on interac- all the help and inspiration of others. Forensi- tion design. Thank you to my IxDA colleagues cally speaking, there are many fingerprints on for their continuing encouragement and stimu- all the work contained herein, and those traces lating argument on the nature, state and fu- reveal a deeper story that I cannot hope to ture of interaction design practice. Particular do justice in a few pages. But I’ll try to sketch thanks to Jon Kolko for feedback on some of an impression, starting at the beginning… the early ideas contained in this exegesis. Thank you to John and Bing for accepting, en- Many thanks to professional colleagues Dan couraging and believing in my abilities, how- Saffer, Indi Young, Nathan Shedroff, Danny Stil- ever much I demonstrated to the contrary. My lion, Jamin Hegeman, Jesse James Garrett, and grandparents, for their example of what you Steve Portigal for taking the time to meet with me can achieve with determination and courage. and discuss interaction design practice. I want to particularly thank Kim Lenox, Dani Malik and I would not be writing this without the sup- Adaptive Path for hosting a lunchtime workshop port of my colleagues at RMIT school of Me- exploring my research. Thank you to Professor dia and Communication—and its predecessor Terry Winograd and Bill Verplank for their gen- Applied Communication—for their support erosity both with time and insight. Continued to undertake and complete this research. thanks and respect to Professor Mark Amerika for allowing me to jam with his students, and to Two of my projects would not have been possible Professor Alec McHoul for among other things, without the support of the Commonwealth Govern- recognising interaction design as an ongoing ment, via the Australasian CRC for Interaction De- conversation between Aristotle and Wittgenstein. sign (ACID). I particularly want to thank ACID man- agement for the opportunity to collaborate with Interaction design is no solo calling: I am fortunate many wonderful colleagues from across the Aus- to have worked with many wonderful research tralasian interaction design research community. colleagues at RMIT and other universities, and particularly want to thank Marius Foley for his Neither of those projects would exist were it not for collaborative verve and enterprise in bringing their respective industry partners Deloitte Digi- the Pool project together and seeing it through tal and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to the end. Chris Marmo, Hugh Macdonald and (ABC). Specific thanks to Pete Williams and Bevan Nifeli Stewart for their wonderful collaboration McLeod from Deloitte Digital; Sherre DeLys, John on the Pool and Loupe projects, particularly for Jacobs and Katie Gauld at ABC Radio National for going along with me when they must have thought their trust, energy and willingness to explore. I was making it up as we went. I often was. ii Professor Jamin Terry Hegeman Jesse James Winograd Garrett Bill Danny Verplank Stillion Hugh Dubberly Nathan Shedroff Professional Dani colleagues Malik Janetta Dan Marius Kerr Kevin Saffer Nasir Silver Foley Associate Professor Grant Barday Adrian Sherre Soumitri Varadarajan Steve Bill Miles DeRouchey DeLys Portigal Amyris Bruce Fernandez Berryman Professor Linda Editor Kim Brennan Supervisors Lenox Extended thanks to Reuben Stanton for being Kyla Matt Nish- so open to the messiness of design collabora- Brettle Pool IxDA Lapidus Josh John me Seiden tion, and without whom none of these projects Jacobs Seth Associate Professor Jon would look, work or feel the way they do. Keen Laurene Vaughan Kolko Dave Steve Liz Chris Joe Baty Bacon Marmo Malouf Sokohl Hugh Reuben Greg Janna Unless otherwise stated, all images in this Mcdonald Stanton Petroff DeVylder exegesis were produced by the author. Pascale Affinité Yuille Family John Nifeli Yuille Stewart Luca Many thanks to Professor Mark Burry for his Loupe Professor Michael Mark Amerika Yuille Sabrina research leadership on the Loupe project, and Dunbar Yuille Maria Darcy mentorship with ACID. Sincere thanks to all Dr Stephen Pete Yuille Viller Dr Yoko Williams Fong my panel critics at different graduate research Akama Dr Jane Burry Bevan conferences, for taking the time to expand my Professor McLeod Mark Burry Vanessa understanding and stretch my capabilities. Dr Bonna Cooper Jones These capabilities and understandings owe an enormous debt to my PhD supervisors: Profes- sor Linda Brennan pragmatically encouraged me to begin the end, and helped me turn a corner. This PhD is my oldest child, and I have to thank Associate Professor Laurene Vaughan for her its younger siblings for expressing just the right collaborative generousity on many projects—of amount of jealousy toward its monopolisation of my which this is but one— her professional men- attention. Their exuberant expression of life, learn- torship and ability to perform design are an ing and experience are a constant inspiration to me. inspiration. Finally, many thanks to Associate Professor Soumitri Varadarajan for joining me on To Maria, my thanks cannot do your role justice. this journey, leading me to the high road, show- They are but a part of my gratitude. Thank you ing me how to cast a critical eye on boosterism, for holding it all together while I was doing it, and leaving me to search for an authentic voice. and giving me the best reason to finish. Again. Thank you for helping me become a researcher. Many thanks to Janetta Kerr Grant for copy editing and proofreading. iii Included in this submission are a UBS memory stick with video files from the Affinité project, one report, and a set of workshop materials from the Pool Project and one report from the Loupe project. iv Abstract vii Introduction 1 Interaction Design: a tale of two disciplines 5 Defining the Intersection 12 The Turn to Experience 20 Communicating Experiences 25 Research Design 27 Inquiry and Questions 30 Research Design 35 Loupe and Pool 38 Contents Insights from the Field 40 Affinité 43 Using Ambiguity 45 Performative Ambiguity 46 Pool: designing a shared enterprise 49 Perceiving Affinity 89 Splicing in the Affinity Gene 91 Loupe: the social life of visualisation 95 The Forensic Wall 133 The Forensic Wall 134 Affinité: designing a digital wall 137 Performing Design 163 A Design Fiction 166 Conclusion: the designer’s choice 168 References 173 v vi Abstract Through a methodology incorporating de- This research contributes to the sign practice, studies and exploration (Fall- understanding of interaction design man 2008), this research has examined the emergent field of interaction design. practice in the following ways: Integrating discourse and literature from both I bring professional and academic perspectives academic and professional arenas with critical re- together to present a interaction design practice flection on two projects for clients and one self-ini- as being made up of pragmatic, critical, and enter- tiated project, I propose a model of how interaction prising approaches to performative ambiguity. designers work with artifacts, spaces and people to design for the intangible material of experience. I illustrate how interaction designers modu- late their ability to perceive similarities: I bring together theories of perception and expe- seeking, spotting and making affinity be- rience (Dewey 1934, Merleau Ponty 1945/1962), tween elements in a design situation. enaction and distributed cognition (Hutchins 2005, 2011), design practice (Schön 1983, Löwgren I identify and name a key site and method for & Stolterman 2008), and performativity (Austin this performance of design: the Forensic Wall. 1962) to reframe interaction design as a set of practices that draw on the designer’s ability to Finally, I reflect on these discoveries and propose perform ambiguity and perceive affinity between that designers perform design by choosing to excise different elements and stages of a design process. or exercise ambiguity in the situation of concern. vii viii 1 Introduction Interaction design and the turn to experience Introduction Program Academic My inquiryNetworks has been undertakenKnowledge as Manager Educator an embedded practitioner, framed by at ACID at RMIT four interrelated but distinct roles: Designer Academic educator at RMIT University, Director at the Interaction Design Association (IxDA), Program manager at The Australasian CRC for Interaction Director at Interaction Design (ACID), and Interaction designer IxDA Designer Actions in a range of design research projects 2 This research was prompted by a multiplicity of positions I saw in the contemporary discourse around the practice of interaction design. In chapter one I locate interaction de- sign within a larger turn toward experi- The range of different opinions on what made ence as a way to frame design situations. someone a good, or even competent, interaction de- signer stimulated my interest, and led my inquiry.