Desktop. Window. Mouse. Document. Loop. Trash can. Recycle bin. These things all had rather independent meanings before the\u00a0emergence\u00a0of the modern computer. They existed in a manner that\u00a0fulfilled\u00a0their own<\/p>\n
In 1998, William Stubblefield published an article titled, \u201cPatterns of Change in Design Metaphor \u2013 A Case Study.\u201d Written during the heart of the dot-com\/technology boom, the author sought to uncover the significance of metaphors in the digital world, such as with Black\u2019s\u00a0interaction theory of metaphor<\/em>. The development of the Design for Machinability (DFM)\u00a0Advisor was used as a case study. This was created to improve the manufacturability of metal parts. The design team included two software engineers, a knowledge engineer, a manufacturing engineer, a project management team, and the customer.<\/p>\n There were three different prototypes:<\/p>\n The spell checker prototype was mainly concerned with holes in terms of detecting specific problems. Much like a spell checker, the interface included a \u201cNext\u201d button that permitted navigation from one critic to the next. However, the feature recognition of Prototype 1 appeared to adhere to no particular sequence, leading to a more flexible order of evaluation for Prototype 2. I did have to look up tolerances, as related to the engineering field, which essentially means variabilities and imperfections. So all machines contain some level of tolerances.<\/p>\n Prototype 2 allowed for more leeway by allowing for a \u201cdual-use\u201d approach where the user had the ability to select different features, as opposed to the one-item-at-a-time-model of a spell-checker. Prototype 3 essentially used the same foundation as Prototype 2 but also by splitting up the the knowledge base into two\u00a0components\u00a0 tools and critics. To counter the issues they had in the previous two iterations, \u201ccritics were used exclusively to evaluate existing features, whereas tools could be used for either evaluation of existing features, or to design features from scratch.\u201d The critic component was very much in line with the spell checker metaphor, while the tool component allowed the user to make inputs that were more customized.<\/p>\n The 2006 publication by Phoebe Sengers and Bill Gaver, \u201cStaying Open to Interpretation: Engaging Multiple Meanings in Design and Evaluation\u201d has a somewhat different take on design, while not being completely divergent. The goal of the was to demonstrate the possibilities of multiple or co-existing interpretations for the same thing \u2014 most notably in Human-Computer Interaction (yep, one of my fields, from back in the day!). Due to the structure of the the paper, I felt that it was important that I outline their work, not unlike they did. After all, my very popular blog was created as a means for me to take notes!<\/p>\n In terms of there being a \u201csingle authoritative interpretation,\u201d the authors ask what the interpretation might be and who is making the interpretation. In terms of what<\/em>, there are higher (social\/cultural meanings), middle (everyday use), and lower (usability) levels of interpretation. In terms of who<\/em>, they refer to the mental models of users and designers. Since the user is expected to be using the design, then the design of a system is best led by the interpretation of the user.<\/p>\n The authors explain that systems that allow for multiple interpretations might be \u201csafer\u201d since the users are responsible for their own actions and users can even define their own meanings and hopefully, make them engaged, active users. One example they offer is the use of \u201cskins\u201d and end-user programming.<\/p>\n About half of the paper consists of a \u201ctaxonomy\u201d When designing for \u201cmultiple, heterogeneous interpretations,\u201d the authors state that designs:<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n