I would like to suggest some additional strands of interaction
theories to those already suggested. The theories I propose mainly
focus on dynamic and complex environments, on analysis and design of
control, and understanding failures-system / redesign after negative
events.
Firstly, yet another cybernetic approach: Cognitive Systems
Engineering. This apprach deals with systems that have their own
dynamics that must be dealt with, in real time. It thus focuses on
interaction with dynamic systems. (rather than on interfaces per se)
There are (at least) two important strands:
-Hollnagel and Woods focus on quality of control, and control in
different time spans. (Hollnagel and Woods. Joint cognitive systems:
foundations of cognitive systems engineering. (2005)
-Vincente and Rasmussen focuses on visualizing the underlying system
dynamics (ecological interfaces).
(Vicente and Rasmussen. Ecological interface design: theoretical
foundations. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on (1992)
vol. 22 (4) pp. 589 - 606)
Secondly, Resilience Engineering, an approach to interaction aimed at
dealing with a chaning enviroments, on survival, safety and
productivity. (see e.g. Hollnagel et al. Resilience engineering:
concepts and precepts. (2006) pp. 397). It thus focuses on
interactions that create adaptive behaviour.
Third, it can be interesting (as an exercise) to compare underlying
assumptions of different design theories, and consider the
implications on design. (see e.g. Hult et al. Design perspectives.
Human-Computer Interaction (2006) vol. 21 (1) pp. 5-48).
Fourth, interactions that contribute to negative events (accidents and
near misses). (see e.g. Lundberg et al.
What-You-Look-For-Is-What-You-Find - The consequences of underlying
accident models in eight accident investigation manuals. Safety
Science (2009) vol. 47 (10) pp. 1297-1311) and how factors and
interactions during design processes (for instance during accident
investigation), affect what can be achieved (see e.g. Lundberg et al.
What you find is not always what you fix—How other aspects than
causes of accidents decide recommendations for remedial actions.
Accident Analysis and Prevention (2010) vol. 42 (6) pp. 2132-2139.
(I reference some of my own works here, but those reference other
works that I find equnally important and interesting)
Best regards
Jonas Lundberg, Ph. D.
Linköping University
> On 2011-01-12, at 4:04 PM, Etkin Çiftçi wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> I've been offered to lecture on "Interaction Theory" for next semester.
> This is a 14 week undergraduate course designated for 3rd year Communication
> Design students. Prior to this course, I've been lecturing to the same class
> on "Interaction Design" which covers case studies from various practices
> regarding to HCI along with workshops and outdoor assignments. Moggridge's
> "Designing Interactions" is the essential source book for this course.
>>
>> I'll be preparing a syllabus for the Interaction Theory course within next
> few weeks. I'm considering to refer to History of Interaction Design (Memex,
> Engelbart, multiple roots...), Activity Theory, Interface, Raskin's
> Cognetics, Ubiquitous Computing and so on.
>>
>> I'll be more than happy if you could suggest me course material on
> "Interaction Theory", suitable for undergraduate students.
>>
>> Best Regards.
>>
>> Etkin Ciftci, Adj. Prof.
>> Faculty of Communications, Kadir Has University
>> =====================================
>> PhD Cand. Dept. of Industrial Product Design
>> Istanbul Technical University (ITU)
|