WHO AND HOW
So, it's time to start collaborating online then! Contact your fellow group mates via email and decide upon the following three things:
• A name for your group
• Discuss and test your strategy for collaborating in the future. How will you communicate, how will you share documents? Wiki? Skype? Blog? Email? IM? GoogleDocs? All of them? Some of them? Something else?
• How you will go about to find and develop your concept idea. Which design methods will you use when you meet the next week?
PERSUASIVE TECHNOLOGY
Read B. J. Fogg. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do . Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco , 2003. ISBN: 1-55860-643-2.
This book is available from the library ( Eindhoven ), in the secretaries office of TUe-HTI, or as a digital book for Chalmers students (http://www.lib.chalmers.se/). Also, you could buy it (e.g., find a good price through www.addall.com). I think this book will be a worthwhile addition to your book collection.
For this week, read the following chapters from Fogg's (2003) book:
• Introduction
• Chapter 1
• Chapter 2
Task
With your group, prepare a presentation about the functional triad:
• Identify for each persuasive role of technology one example of a persuasive technology that strives to attain the same goal but that uses different persuasive technology in Sweden versus in The Netherlands. That is, in both countries persuasive technologies might exist that strive for the same goals (e.g., recycle, or use public transportation) but these technologies might be completely different (e.g., in The Netherlands persuasive trashcans are used, whereas in Sweden TV commercials urge the citizens to recycle their cans and bottles). It would be nicest if you could come up with clear and also appealing examples!
• For each example, identify which of the three persuasive roles its employs, and (in general) what type of persuasive strategy it uses.
• Prepare three powerpoint slides that present the three examples. Use one or a few key words to label each example, but preferably use a clear picture. Also use a few key words describing the issues you identified under (b).
• On the first day of the second week (the week in Eindhoven ), each group gives a (max) 5 minute presentation where each group member introduces herself or himself, and the group presents its powerpoint slides with examples of each of the 3 persuasive roles of technology and explains one of those examples in more detail (persuasive strategy).
If you have any questions about this assignment, do not hesitate to contact Jaap Ham.
Deliverables
Send the powerpoint slide (.ppt document, version 2003 or 2007) to Jaap Ham (see Teachers for email address) before Friday September 4 th , 17.00 hours. Also: bring your presentation with you on a USB-stick.
AESTHETICS
The aim of this task is to explore and compare a number of different views on aesthetics related to interaction design. And - to realize that there is not one absolute truth in this matter. :)
Task
In the group, read the papers listed below. Divide the reading as follows: One Chalmers student and one TU/e student read papers 1, 2 and 3. The other two students (again one from Chalmers and one from TU/e) read papers 4, 5, and 6. Each pair cooperates on finding the aesthetic view presented in the papers they are reading, and summarizes their findings in a few sentences per paper, which they present to the other pair.
Then, all of you together, discuss which one of all the designs presented in the papers do you particularly like? Why? Which one do you particularly dislike? Why? Write down your arguments, ca one page. Also, compare the different views on aesthetics you've found. Which similarities and differences are there? Write down your discussion on ca 1-2 pages.
1) Backlund, S., Gustafsson, A., Gyllenswärd, M., Ilstedt-Hjelm, S., Mazé, R. Redström, J. (2006) Static! The Aesthetics of Energy in Everyday Things . In Friedman, K., Love, T. and Corte-Real, E. (Eds.) Proceedings of Design Research Society Wonderground International Conference 2006.
2) Djajadiningrat, T., Matthews, B., Stienstra, M. (2007) Easy doesn't do it: skill and expression in tangible aesthetics , In: Journal Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, Volume 11, Number 8 / December, 2007, Pages 657-676, Springer London
3) Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J. and Benford, S. (2003) Ambiquity as a resource for design . Proceedings CHI'2003 . ACM Press, NY, pp. 233–240.
4) Hallnäs, L. and Redström, J (2002) From use to presence: on the expressions and aesthetics of everyday computational things, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) Volume 9, Issue 2, (June 2002), pp. 106-124
5) Norman , D. A. (2002) Emotion and Design. Attractive things work better . In interactions, Volume 9 Issue 4, (July + August 2002), ACM Press, pp. 36-42.
6) Sullivan, L. H. (1896) The tall office building artistically considered , Lippincott's Magazine, March 1896.
Deliverables
The summaries you made of the aesthetic views presented in the papers. Your argumentation regarding which design you like and which one you dislike. Your discussion regarding the different views you found in the papers. Put all of it in the same document and send this as a .doc or .rtf or (worst case) .txt file to Sus (see Teachers for email address) no later than 12.00 on Friday the 4 th of September.
|
|
