Complex interaction

2007

The natural world is filled with examples of complexity, a notion that new system behavior emerges from the local interactions of its many similar parts. This phenomenon translates to the artificial world as well.

By going to the root of complexity I show that it can be simplified only if apparent. The true complexity - arising from the peculiarities of the laws governing the interaction among n components of a 'natural' system and, as well, from the 'topology' of the latter - requires to deeply re-think the approach to the design: operative framework, expectations, methods, evaluation. Complexity leads also to refocus on: i) the central role and relevance of the person, as core of the experience mediated and supported by technology; ii) the peculiarities of the context; iii) their mutual and unpredictable co-evolution. Accordingly one has to redefine the framework of reference and, as consequence, to empower the individuals through the dissemination of an adequate design literacy.

Interaction Design and Architecture(s), 2021

The design of digital experiences and sociotechnical solutions in the contemporary society is characterized by increasing complexity. More and more variables are present and unpredictable effects are observed. The complexity of systems calls for increased awareness and problem-solving abilities. In this survey, design in general, and design of the user experience in particular, is positioned in the scope of complexity. Moreover, the design reasoning and methods are framed by culturally determined factors and cognitive styles. This survey aims to converge complexity and complex problem solving, design of the user experience, and cultural variations, reviewing bodies of work to inspire and map interdependencies that shape future challenges in systems and experience design.

She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 2021

As a way to capture a broadly acceptable high-level characterization of design, we focus on the guiding values or ideals of the discipline. We first reason from the notion of engineering interfaces for usability and utility up to the 1990s to the current ideal of designing interfaces for experience and meaning. Next, we identify three recent technical and societal developments that are challenging the existing ideals of interaction design, namely the move towards hybrid physical/digital materials, the emergence of an increasingly complex and fluid digital ecology, and the increasing proportion of autonomous or partially autonomous systems changing their behavior over time and with use. These challenges in turn motivate us to propose three directions in which new ideals for interaction design might be sought: the first is to go beyond the language-body divide that implicitly frames most of our current understandings of experience and meaning, the second is to extend the scope of interaction design from individual interfaces to the complex sociotechnical fabric of human and nonhuman actors, and the third is to go beyond predictability by learning to design with machine learning.

Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Extending Boundaries - NordiCHI '10, 2010

Digital technologies increasingly form the backdrop for our lives, and both provide and shape possibilities for interaction. This is a function similar to that of architecture in the physical world. For this reason we suggest that it could be productive to view and critique interactive digital technologies as one might physical architecture: in terms of the possibilities they provide for action, visibility, and interaction. We begin by pointing to the many architectural metaphors that are already common in HCI, and then move on to demonstrate how an architectural perspective can make visible less obvious interactive spaces. Finally, we argue that the potential benefits of this perspective are that it can allow us to see where interactive spaces have been constructed (intentionally or not); think about how particular artifacts and systems interface with each other and with the whole of embodied experience; and link specific design decisions to potential social dynamics.

2012

Abstract: The underlying motivation for our research is the need for a deeper understanding of human-computer interaction that can speak to the increasingly varied and intricate forms of interactivity and interfaces that are present in everyday life. With this purpose in mind we have examined and 'tested'an already existing theoretical framework on interaction complexity. We have done this by applying an analytical, artifactist methodological approach. Our studies have led to both support and criticism of the existing framework, ...

2007

Embracing complexity in design is one of the critical issues and challenges of the 21 st century. As the realization grows that design activities and artefacts display properties associated with complex adaptive systems, so grows the need to use complexity concepts and methods to understand these properties and inform the design of better artifacts. It is a great challenge because complexity science represents an epistemological and methodological swift that promises a holistic approach in the understanding and operational support of design. But design is also a major contributor in complexity research. Design science is concerned with problems that are fundamental in the sciences in general and complexity sciences in particular. For instance, design has been perceived and studied as a ubiquitous activity inherent in every human activity, as the art of generating hypotheses, as a type of experiment, or as a creative co-evolutionary process. Design science and its established approaches and practices can be a great source for advancement and innovation in complexity science.

2007

Digital technologies increasingly form the backdrop for our lives, and both provide and shape possibilities for interaction. This is a function similar to that of architecture in the physical world. For this reason we suggest that it could be productive to view and critique interactive digital technologies as one might physical architecture: in terms of the possibilities they provide for action, visibility, and interaction. We begin by pointing to the many architectural metaphors that are already common in HCI, and then move on to demonstrate how an architectural perspective can make visible less obvious interactive spaces. Finally, we argue that the potential benefits of this perspective are that it can allow us to see where interactive spaces have been constructed (intentionally or not); think about how particular artifacts and systems interface with each other and with the whole of embodied experience; and link specific design decisions to potential social dynamics.