INTERACTION DESIGN: DESIGN METHODOLOGY SEMINAR

Spring 2025

Instructors:

Dr Joëlle Bitton
joelle.bitton@zhdk.ch 

Prof. Jürgen Spath

OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES 

The Interaction Design Methods course is proposed as an ongoing 'workshop', where theory is practiced and where we share knowledge and learn from each other. This course proposes to investigate the methods of interaction design and the challenges they pose, with an outlook on human-centred, non-human centred & planet-centred design. With notions of cultural contexts, historical overviews, and case studies, we’ll discuss the foundations of interaction design methods and their evolution.

Each student is responsible to advance the collective knowledge of the class, by becoming an investigator and by discovering sources, case studies, and possible new methods as well. Students should also mentor each other.
During the overlap with your studio courses, some of the methods reviewed will be put into practice. 

The course is a work-in-progress inviting experiments in pedagogy and in modulating theory and practice together. The field of Interaction Design is dynamic and thus calls for mixing foundation literature with new proposals, while keeping a critical perspective and staying open to shifts. As we progress in uncovering the topics of method class, we also put a strong emphasis on developing essential skills: reading, writing and reflecting, researching, including diverse sources, evaluating data, identifying assumptions and biases, presenting arguments, mediating discussions, sharing knowledge and owning your voice.

COURSE OUTLINE 

See calendar for when the course takes place. From week 2, two students are responsible for one session around a topic, where they present literature, case studies, mediate discussion and activity. See topics below. 

Note that sessions may take place either on-site or online - but hybrid session (both on-site and online) are not possible. 

EXPECTATIONS, GRADING

In pair, students provide support and reflection for each other during the semester.
At the end of the course, the student grade themselves with a short written summary and reasoning included. *Teachers may modulate the grade with their own evaluations.

Following criteria for the final grading:

Exposé & Workshop 30% 

Handout/essay 30%

Participation in discussions 20% 

Blog 20%

Regular attendance is required (80%). Absences have to be excused (medical notes, etc). Arriving late on more than one occasion will also affect the grade.

Any assignment that remains unfulfilled receives a failing grade. 

DELIVERABLES

EACH SESSION

• BLOG FEATURING:
  • READINGS & RESPONSE NOTES
    For everyone, there are several mandatory readings per session and response notes are expected for each paper and have to be uploaded on the blog (see below) by the prior Sunday evening. 
    Students are expected to discuss and comment in class based on the readings they have done prior to the class (they can be randomly called to share their perspectives).
    A reading guideline is provided to support the reading process: identify author(s), research location/institution, country, background, date, writing style, publication, context, sources, possible biases; identify words and concepts that are not familiar to you; identify questions that are emerging. See additional tips for reading academic papers by researcher Mike Ananny.
    Texts vary in length every week, this is considered part of the learning process in this class to go through a reading and gather essential ideas in a limited time.
    
    
  • Reflective notes on class discussions/learnings
    A separate 'reflective journal' is developed by each student to share learnings from the seminar. It should be in the form of an online blog/vlog/podcast (ie. WordPress, Notion, Medium, TikTok, Insta or other) to share with the public your discoveries, findings, reflections, etc.
    
    • Notes, sketches for each lesson should be included as well, with short reflections on the topics discussed 
    • The readings notes are shared on the blog or online platform
    • The journal should be structured in a generally comprehensible manner
      
      

1-TIME DELIVERABLE:

Students have to independently prepare lectures on the 2 selected texts from the week as well as 3-4 additional sources that they will research themselves. The additional sources should include academic references, from various genders, and from various countries / cultures. Case studies should be presented as well.
The presentations can be organised in different formats.
Possible presentation formats are:

• Live sketching
• Demo with prototyping
• Classic Slides presentation
• etc.

The presentation should include a 1/2-pages written discussion, sent to the instructor by the Wednesday 14.00, in the week prior to the class to get enough time for feedback and possible changes.

The paper should include title, author, date, context, summary, bibliography.

Additionally, the students presenting have to engage the class with active participation with a short exercise/task and in a discussion with 1 main question.

• WORKSHOP 
  Every week four students are in charge to design a workshop of 1h hour on the topic of the week. You will act as workshop facilitator, use existing methods or generate your own ones – and present at least 6 literature references: 4 from the given pool – and at least 2 additional sources that you research yourselves, plus case studies. These additional sources should include academic and non-academic references, from various genders, and from various countries / cultures. 
  
  The structure of the workshop should include:

• 25-minutes Workshop facilitation: Propose together 1 short exercise where a method related to the topic is applied + propose 1 or 2 questions for the class to discuss, and mediate the discussion. 
• Each student present in 4mn a short vignette on one angle of the topic that is done through research. Readings provided help but the student needs to deepen research further with additional essays. Presentations complement each other and offer different angles on the topic. Possible formats are live sketching, classic slides presentation, other. You support your argument and critical view on the topic with the literature & case studies. Each presentation should provoke questions, inspire ideas.
• Leave time for the teacher to add remarks 
• Be mindful to keep the time!

• Handout/essay
  Ahead of your exposé, each student presents a written document, in form of a 1000-words essay using case studies related to their topic. This is also a document that serves as a handout summarizing your angle and the points you want to make during your exposé. In addition to the references that we provide, you should add additional literature that you have researched.
  Send the document to the instructor by Wednesday, 14.00 o’clock, the week before the class to allow time for feedback and possible changes. 
  Aside from the essay and summary points, include methods that you will use during the workshop and additional info (location, timings, etc...).

COURSE MATERIALS 

Readings are made available in the shared IAD server.

CALENDAR

Week 1 - 18.03.24 - 9.00-11.00 - Design/Undesign: Perspectives and biases (jb)

Historical outline and introduction of design method theories, highlighting the notion of design, technology and human experience, as well as understanding who designs design.

Lecture : “Perspectives of Interaction Design”

Readings: 

Additional references on the topic:

Carroll, J. M. (2000). "Making Use: Scenario-­Based Design of Human­Computer Interactions". The MIT Press. “the Process”

Dubberly, H. ­(2004). "How do you design?" Dubberly Design Office.

Kolko, J. (2011). "Exposing the Magic of Design: A Practitioner’s Guide to the Methods and Theory of Synthesis". (Oxford Series in Human­Technology Interaction) (1 ed.). Oxford University Press, USA.

Sanders, E. (2013). "Perspectives on Participation in Design". Transcript Verlag.

Week 2 - 25.03.24 - 9.30-11.30 - Observations & Experiences (jb)

At the heart of the design is the human experience: how to keep track of it?

• Facilitators: 

Readings

boyd, danah. 2007. “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.” In MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning – Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume (ed. David Buckingham). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Additional references on the topic:

Buchenau, M. & Fulton Suri, J. 2000. “Experience Prototyping”. In Proceeding of DIS ’00.

Merholz, P., Wilkens, T., Schauer, B., & Verba, D. (2008). Subject To Change:
Creating Great Products & Services for an Uncertain World: Adaptive Path on Design. O’Reilly Media, Inc. (Chapter 1 + 5) 

Horst, Heather. 2011. Free, Social, and Inclusive: Appropriation and Resistance of New Media Technologies in Brazil. In International Journal of Communication. 5. 437–462.  

Kaye, Joseph, Levitt, M. K., Nevins, J., Golden, J. & Schmidt, V. “Communicating Intimacy One Bit at a Time”. In Proceedings of CHI ‘05. 

Week 3 - 02.04.24 - 9.30-11.30 - Prototyping concepts, prototyping everything (jb)

The prototype is the actuation of an idea, its evaluation, its dissemination, its validation all at once? Where does the prototype stop?

• Facilitators: 

Readings

Montgomery, Will. 2013. “Machines for Living”. In Wire. 243. 28-35.

Houde, S., and Hill, C. 1997. "What Do Prototypes Prototype?", in Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd Ed.), M. Helander, T. Landauer, and P. Prabhu (eds.): Elsevier Science B. V: Amsterdam.

Schleicher D. & al. 2010. Bodystorming as Embodied Designing. Interactions.

Additional references on the topic:

O’Sullivan, D. & Igoe, T. 2003. Physical Computing: Sensing and Controlling the Physical World with Computers. Premier Press..

Youn­Kyung, L., Erik, S., & Josh, T. 2008. The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. In ACM Trans. Comput.­Hum.Interact. 15(2). 1–27. 

Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. 1991. Cardboard computers: Mocking-­it-­up or hands­-on the future. In Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. 169–195. 

Bolchini, D., Pulido, D., & Faiola, A. 2009. “ “Paper in screen” prototyping: an agile technique to anticipate the mobile experience”. In Interactions. 16(4). 29–33. 

Week 4 - 08.04.24 - 9.30-11.30 - The necessity of Pop Culture  (jb)

Why do we document, why do we practice pitching, selling ideas? How do we share and disseminate a design? What are the critical challenging points of using storytelling as a form of evaluating a concept?

• Facilitators: 

Readings

Auger, James. 2012. “Demo or die: Overcoming oddness through aesthetic experience”. In Why Robot? Speculative Design, the domestication of technology and the considered future. PhD Thesis. RCA, London. 

Kim, J., Lund, A. & Dombrowski. 2010. “Mobilizing Attention: Storytelling for Innovation”. In Interactions.

Lindström, K., Ståhl, Å. 2020. Un/Making in the Aftermath of Design. In: Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference.

Tsaknaki, Vasiliki & Fernaeus, Y. 2016. “Expanding on Wabi-Sabi as a Design Resource in HCI”. In Proceedings of CHI ‘16. 

Additional references on the topic:

Brown, D. M. (2010). “Competitive Reviews” In Communicating Design: Developing Web Site Documentation for Design and Planning. 254­-263. Berkeley: New Riders. 

Quesenberry, W. & Brooks, K. 2010. “Why Stories?”. In Storytelling for User experience. Rosenfeld Media. 

Loch, Christopher. 2003. Moving Your Idea Through Your Organisation. In Laurel, Brenda (ed.). Design Research. Methods and Perspectives. 

Week 5 - 15.04.24 - 9.30-11.30 - What's the Outcome? Evaluating with participants (jb)

What does it mean to evaluate an interaction design work, what are the tools, how is a project fitting its intentions? Is evaluation even necessary in the context of design?

• Facilitators: 

Readings

Bardzell, J., Bolter, J., & Löwgren, J. 2010. “Interaction criticism: three readings of an interaction design, and what they get us”. In Interactions. 17:2. 32–37. 

Greenberg, S., & Buxton, B. 2008. "Usability evaluation considered harmful (some of the time)". In Proceedings of CHI ’08.

Irani, L. et al. 2010. Postcolonial Computing: A Lens on Design and Development. CHI 2010.

Additional references on the topic:

Nørgaard, M., & Hornbæk, K. 2006. “What do usability evaluators do in practice?: an explorative study of think ­aloud testing”. In Proceedings of DIS ‘06.

Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. 2002. “Introducing Evaluation”. In Interaction Design. Wiley.

Sengers, P., & Gaver, B. 2006. “Staying open to interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation”.  In Proceedings of DIS ‘06.

Week 6 - 06.05.24 For who and what do we design? Do we design for anyone? (mn)

Design takes place everyday, it is inspired by popular culture and in turn inspires stories and the collective imagination. What power does design have? What kind of responsibility do designers have? What futures do we want to create? 

Readings:

Samochowiec, J. (2020). "Future Skills: Four scenarios for the world of tomorrow". GDI Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute. 

Bell, Genevieve, Blythe, M. & Sengers, P. (2005). “Making by Making Strange: Defamiliarization and the Design of Domestic Technologies”. In ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 12. 149-173.

Kelley, T. (2001). "The Art Of Innovation: Lessons In Creativity From IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm". Crown Business. 23-52.

Franzini, L., Herzog, R., Rutz, S., Ryser, F., Ziltener, K., Zwicky, P. (2021). “Postwachstum? Aktuelle Auseinandersetzungen um einen grundlegenden gesellschaftlichen Wandel". edition 8.
chapter ["Die Postwachtumsökonomie als plünderungsfreier Zukunftsentwurf, Paech, N., page 73-82]
chapter ["Von der imperialen zur konvivialen Technik", Vetter, A., page 159-167]

Week 7 - 13.05.24 Human-Computer Interaction and methods (mn)

Interaction Design and the field of HCI research are intertwined. Desk-based research, cultural probes, participatory design, ethnographic video, etc… terms that are at the heart of methodologies.

Readings:

Gaver, B., Dunne, T., Pacenti, E. (1999). “Design: Cultural probes”. In Interactions, 6(1), 21-­29. 

Oulasvirta, A., Kurvinen, E., & Kankainen, T. (2003). “Understanding contexts by being there: case studies in bodystorming". In Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 7(2), 125­-134. 

Buur, J., Fraser, E., Oinonen, S., & Rolfstam, M. (2010). “Ethnographic video as design specs”. In Proceedings of SIGCHI Australia’ 10.

Danzico, L. (2010). “From Davis to David: Lessons from Improvisation”. In Interactions.

Week 08 - 27.05.24  Data and visual abstractions (mn) 

Diagrams, sketching, mind mapping, working with data, visualising information: this is the work of explaining to your audience, from clients, to customers, to collaborators, the essence of an argument.

Readings

Buxton, B. (2007). "Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design". Morgan Kaufmann. 76-81.

Eggers, W. D., Hamill R., Ali A. (2013). “Data as the new currency. Government’s role in facilitating the exchange”. In Deloitte Review. 13. 18-31. 

Pavliscak, P. (2015). "Data-Informed Product Design". O’Reilly. 

Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Preece, J. (2002). “Identifying Needs and establishing Requirements”. In Interaction Design: Beyond Human­ Computer Interaction. John Wiley & Sons. 201-­211. 

Week 09 - 03.06.24 Design Fiction, Speculative Design, Artistic research (mn)

Where design and art collide: what is your design standing for? How do we reboot the design field?

Readings

Auger, James. 2012. “Speculative design: The products that technology could become”. In Why Robot? Speculative Design, the domestication of technology and the considered future. PhD Thesis. RCA, London. 

Wakkary, Ron & Odom, William & Hauser, Sabrina & Hertz, Garnet & Lin, Henry. 2016. A short guide to material speculation: Actual artifacts for critical inquiry. interactions. 23. 44-48. 

Dunne, Anthony and Raby, F. 2001. Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects. August / Birkhäuser. 

Kakalios, James. 2005. The Physics of Superheroes. The Gotham Books Publishing Group. 

Week 10 - 10.06.24 Teach or Why Were You Here? (mn)

For our final class, we go back to the basics of design: its pedagogy. Interaction Design is though here as a mediation for everyday life: how can you as students use your knowledge to develop your craft and to share your lessons learned.

Readings:

Ackermann, E.K. (2016). “Learning to Code: What is it? What’s In It For The Kids?— A Tribute to Seymour Papert". Trans. version from publication in Tecnologie didattiche (TD 27-2002).

Moriwaki, K., Brucker-Cohen, J. (2006). “Lessons from the scrapyard: creative uses of found materials within a workshop setting”. In AI & Society. 20:4. 506-525. 

JOURNALS/BLOGS LINKS