Artefacts as designed, Artefacts as used: resources for uncovering activity dynamics

Devina Ramduny-Ellis, Alan Dix, Paul Rayson, Victor Onditi, Ian Sommerville, Jane Ransom
Lancaster University, UK

web: < Alan > < Devina > < Paul > < Victor > < Ian > < Jane >

Abstract

This paper addresses the use of artefacts as a powerful resource for analysis, focusing on the 'artefact as designed' as a means of eliciting the designers' explicit and implicit knowledge and 'artefacts as used' as a means of uncovering the trail left by currently inactive processes. Artefact analysis is particularly suitable in situations where direct observation is ineffective, especially in activities that occur infrequently. We demonstrate the usefulness of our technique through the analysis of artefacts within both the office and the meeting environment. This is part of a wider study aimed at understanding the nature of decisions in meetings with the view of producing a tool to aid decision management and hence reduce rework. We conclude by drawing out some general lessons from our analysis, which reaffirms the intricate role that artefacts play in maintaining activity dynamics.

Keywords: artefacts, archaeologically-inspired artefact analysis, transect analysis, activity dynamics, decision, meetings, field study methodology

References

1. Abowd, G. (1999). Classroom 2000: An Experiment with the Instrumentation of a Living Educational Environment.  IBM Systems Journal, Special issue on Pervasive Computing, Volume 38, Number 4, pp. 508-530, October 1999.

2. Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words, Oxford: Clarendon press, 1962

3. Bannon, L. & Bo/dker, S. (1991). Beyond the interface: encountering artefacts in use.  In Designing Interaction, Carroll, J. (ed.).  Cambridge Univeristy Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 227–253.

4. Bertelsen, O. & Bo/dker, S. (2003). Chapter 11. Activity Theory.  In HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward an Multidisciplinary Science. Carroll, J. (ed.). Morgan Kaufman. pp. 291–324.

5. Buckingham Shum, S. (1996). “Analyzing the Usability of a Design Rationale Notation”, in T. P. Moran and J. M. Carroll, (Eds.) Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp 185-215.

6. Conklin, J. & Begeman M. L. (1989). “gIBIS: A Tool for All Reasons”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(3), pp 200-213.

7. Dix, A. (1994). Computer-supported cooperative work - a framework.  In Design Issues in CSCW Eds. D. Rosenburg and C. Hutchison. Springer Verlag. 23-37.

8. Dix, A. (2002). Managing the Ecology of Interaction. Proceedings of Tamodia 2002 – First International Workshop on Task Models and User Interface, C. Pribeanu, J. Vanderdonckt (Eds.). INFOREC Publishing House, Bucharest.

9. Dix, A., Ramduny, D. & Wilkinson, J. (1998). Interaction in the Large.  Interacting with Computers. 11(1): 9-32.

10. Dix, A., Wilkinson, J. & Ramduny, D. (1998b). Redefining Organisational Memory – artefacts, and the distribution and coordination of work. In Understanding work and designing artefacts (York, 21st Sept., 1998). http://www.context99.html.com/alan/papers/artefacts98/

11. Dix, A., Ramduny, D., Rayson, P. & Sommerville. I. (2001). Artefact-centred analysis - transect and archaeological approaches. Team-Ethno Online, Issue 1 - Field(work) of Dreams, November 2001, Lancaster University, UK.  http://www.teamethno-online.org/Issue1/Dix.html

12. Dix, A., Ramduny-Ellis, D. & Wilkinson, J. (2002).  Trigger Analysis - understanding broken tasks.  In The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction. D. Diaper & N. Stanton (eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002

13. Englebart, D. & English, W. (1968). ‘A research centre for augmenting human intellect’ In Proceedings Fall Joint Computing Conference, Thompson, Washington, DC, pp 395-410. 

14. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Chapter 6: Good organizational reason for ‘bad’ clinic records. In Studies in Ethnomethodology. Polity Press.

15. Gibson, J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In Perceiving, Acting and Knowing: Towards Ecological Psychology. Shaw, R. and Bransford, J. (eds.). Lawrence Earlbaum, Hillside, NJ, USA.

16. Grudin, J. (1994). “Groupware and Social Dynamics: Eight Challenges for Developers”, in Communications of ACM, Vol. 37, No. 1, Jan 1994, pp 92-105.

17. Hartson, H.R. (2003). “Cognitive, Physical, Sensory, and Functional Affordances in Interaction Design”, Behaviour & Information Technology, September-October 2003, Taylor & Francis Ltd, 22(5), pp. 315–338.

18. Heath, C. & Luff, P. (1992). Collaboration and control: Crisis management and multimedia technology in London Underground line control rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1, pp 69–94.

19. Howes, A. & Payne, S. (1990). Display-based competence: towards user models for menu-driven interfaces. Int. J. of Man-Machine Studies, 33:637-655.

20. Hughes, J., O'Brien, J. J., Rouncefield, M., Sommerville, I. & Rodden, T. (1995). Presenting ethnography in the requirements process.  In Proc. IEEE Conf. on Requirements Engineering, RE'95. IEEE Press, pp. 27–34.

21. Hutchins, E. (1990). The Technology of team navigation. In Intellectual teamwork: social and technical bases of collaborative work.  Gallagher, J., Kraut, R. and Egido, C., (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum.

22. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild, MIT Press, Cambridge USA.

23. Kunz, W., & Rittel, H. W. J. (1970). “Issues as elements of Information Systems”, Working Paper No. 131, Center for Planning and Development Research, University of California, Berkeley, July 1970

24. Lee, J., (1990). “Sibyl: A Tool for Managing Group Decision Rationale”, in proceedings of Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work '90, Los Angeles, CA., pp 79-92.

25. Leontiev, A. (1978). Activity, Consciousness and Personality.  Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.

26. MacLean, A., Young, R., Bellotti, V. & Moran, T. (1991). “Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis”, in Human-Computer Interaction, 6 (3&4), Special Issue on Design Rationale: John M. Carroll and Thomas P. Moran (Eds.), pp 201-250.

27. Richter, H., Abowd, G., Geyer, W., Fuchs, L., Daijavad, S., & Poltrock, S. (2001). “Integrating Meeting Capture within a Collaborative Team Environment”, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, Ubicomp 2001, Atlanta, GA, September, Springer, pp 123-138.

28. Rogers, Y. & Ellis, J. (1994). Distributed Cognition: an alternative framework for analysing and explaining collaborative working. In journal of Information Technology, 1994, vol 9(2), pp. 119 – 128.

29. Selvin, A., Buckingham Shum, S., Sierhuis, M., S., Conklin, J., Zimmermann, B., Palus, C., Drath, W., Horth, D., Domingue, J., Motta, E. & Li, G. (2001). “Compendium: Making Meetings into Knowledge Events”, Knowledge Technologies 2001, March 4-7, Austin TX, also available from http://kmi.open.ac.uk/publications/tr.cfm?trnumber=103

30. Spillers, F. (2003). Task Analysis Through Cognitive Archeology. Chapter 14: In The Handbook of Task analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, D. Diaper and N. Stanton Eds, Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, London, pp 279-290.

31. Stefik, M., Bobrow, D., Foster, G.,Lanning, S. & Tatar., D. (1987). ‘WYSIWIS revisited: early experiences with multiuser interfaces’. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, vol. 5, no. 2, pp 147–167.

32. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge University Press.

33. Vygotsky, L., Cole, M., John-Steiner, V. & Scribner, S. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press.

     

Attributes of artefacts

Functions:

• Physical and functional
• Information and communication
• Control and coordination
• Social and political 

Encoded in:

• Content
• Appearance
• Disposition

http://www.hcibook.com/alan/papers/CTW-artefacts-2005/

Alan Dix 23/5/2005