Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Design, Business & Society
  4. Volume 10, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2055-2106
  • E-ISSN: 2055-2114

Abstract

: This article reviews the theoretical foundations of interaction design to draw attention to three theoretical foundations of the field. It suggests that these three foundations endure even as the theory, practice and exploration of interaction design continue to evolve. : The article integrates and extends the foundational work of prior theorists to contribute novel responses to persistent questions about the nebulous nature of interaction design and its relationship with digital technologies as they continue to develop. It takes the form of a review, integrating the work of key theorists within the field, including Gui Bonsiepe, Kristina Höök, Jon Kolko, Jonas Löwgren and Erik Stolterman amongst others. : An integrative review of the literature leads to a proposal for three foundations for interaction design, that it: (1) involves seeing the world as design for dialogues between users and complex artefacts; (2) pertains to particular kinds of design complexity and (3) is concerned with dialogues that extend across both the material and the virtual and involve control and representation technologies. : The article discusses theoretical underpinnings of interaction design and makes a novel contribution to an ongoing discussion within the field about coherency. The work has particular significance for those involved in teaching interaction design. : Three theoretical foundations for interaction design are suggested in this article. They are a synthesis of prior theoretical works leading to a novel perspective on the coherency between interaction design exploration, practice and theory.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
© 2024 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00058_1
2024-10-11
2025-04-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Apple, M. W. (1993), Official Knowledge: Democratic Education in a Conservative Age, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ballantyne, A. (2013), What Is Architecture?, London: Routledge, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.4324/9781315012933.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bannon, L. J. (1995), ‘From human factors to human actors: The role of psychology and human–computer interaction studies in system design’, in R. M. Baecker, J. Grudin, W. A. S. Buxton and S. Greenberg (eds), Readings in Human–Computer Interaction, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 205–14, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1016/b978-0-08-051574-8.50024-8.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bardzell, J. (2011), ‘Interaction criticism: An introduction to the practice’, Interacting with Computers, 23:6, pp. 604–21, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.07.001.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Barsalou, L. W. (2017), ‘Define design thinking’, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3:2, pp. 102–05, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1016/j.sheji.2017.10.007.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Benyon, D. (2014), Designing Interactive Systems: A Comprehensive Guide to HCI, UX and Interaction Design, Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bødker, S. (2006), ‘When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges’, in Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human–Computer Interaction: Changing Roles, Oslo, Norway, 14–18 October, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 1–8, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1145/1182475.1182476.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bonsiepe, G. (1999), Interface: An Approach to Design, Maastricht: Jan van Eyck Akademie.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Cash, P. J. (2018), ‘Developing theory-driven design research’, Design Studies, 56, pp. 84–119.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cooper, A., Reimann, R., Cronin, D. and Noessel, C. (2014), About Face: The Essentials of Interaction Design, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cross, N. (2001), ‘Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science’, Design Issues, 17:3, pp. 49–55, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1162/074793601750357196.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Dade-Robertson, M., Ramirez-Figueroa, C. and Zhang, M. (2014), ‘Radical vernacular: Bacterial architecture on mars’, Journal of the British Interplanetary Studies, 67, pp. 346–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Douglas, S. A. (1995), ‘Conversation analysis and human–computer interaction design’, in P. J. Thomas (ed.), The Social and Interactional Dimensions of Human-Computer Interfaces, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 184–203.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dourish, P. (2001), Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dourish, P. (2022), The Stuff of Bits: An Essay on the Materialities of Information, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Dubberly, H. and Pangaro, P. (2009), ‘What is conversation? How can we design for effective conversation’, Interactions Magazine, 16:4, pp. 22–28, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1145/1551986.1551991.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fallman, D. (2008), ‘The interaction design research triangle of design practice, design studies, and design exploration’, Design Issues, 24:3, pp. 4–18, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1162/desi.2008.24.3.4.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Fallman, D. and Stolterman, E. (2010), ‘Establishing criteria of rigour and relevance in interaction design research’, Digital Creativity, 21:4, pp. 265–72, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1080/14626268.2010.548869.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Frauenberger, C. (2019), ‘Entanglement HCI the next wave?’, ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 27:1, pp. 1–27, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1145/3364998.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodman, E., Stolterman, E. and Wakkary, R. (2011), ‘Understanding interaction design practices’, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, Canada, 7–12 May, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 1061–70, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1145/1978942.1979100.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), ‘A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies’, Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26:2, pp. 91–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Heidegger, M. (1962), Being and Time, New York: Harper & Row.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hook, K. (2018), Designing with the Body: Somaesthetic Interaction Design, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Höök, K., Bardzell, J., Bowen, S., Dalsgaard, P., Reeves, S. and Waern, A. (2015a), ‘Framing IxD knowledge’, Interactions, 22:6, pp. 32–36, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1145/2824892.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Höök, K., Dalsgaard, P., Reeves, S., Bardzell, J., Löwgren, J., Stolterman, E. and Rogers, Y. (2015b), ‘Knowledge production in interaction design’, in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul Republic of Korea, 18–23 April, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 2429–32, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1145/2702613.2702653.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Höök, K. and Löwgren, J. (2012), ‘Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research’, ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 19:3, pp. 1–18, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1145/2362364.2362371.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Höök, K. and Löwgren, J. (2021), ‘Characterizing interaction design by its ideals: A discipline in transition’, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 7:1, pp. 24–40, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1016/j.sheji.2020.12.001.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hornbæk, K. and Oulasvirta, A. (2017), ‘What is interaction?’, in Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 5040–52, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1145/3025453.3025765.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Interaction Design Foundation (2022), ‘Interaction Design Foundation home page’, https://interaction-design.org. Accessed 5 July 2022.
  30. Janlert, L.-E. and Stolterman, E. (2015), ‘Faceless interaction – A conceptual examination of the notion of interface: Past, present, and future’, Human–Computer Interaction, 30:6, pp. 507–39, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1080/07370024.2014.944313.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Janlert, L.-E. and Stolterman, E. (2017), Things That Keep Us Busy: The Elements of Interaction, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.7551/mitpress/11082.001.0001.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Johansen, S. S., Kjeldskov, J. and Skov, M. B. (2019), ‘Temporal constraints in human–building interaction’, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 26:2, pp. 1–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Jordà, S., Kaltenbrunner, M., Geiger, G. and Bencina, R. (2005), ‘The reactable’, in Proceedings of the 2005 International Computer Music Conference, ICMC 2005, Barcelona, Spain, September 4–10, 2005.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Kelly, N., Greentree, J. and Hobson, S. (2022a), ‘How do interaction design degrees relate to the UX profession?’, Dr Nick Kelly, 2 August, https://nickkellyresearch.com/how-do-interaction-design-degrees-relate-to-the-ux-profession/. Accessed 3 August 2022.
  35. Kelly, N., Kindler, G., Watson, J. and Carden, T. (2022b), ‘Designing for connection with local threatened species’, Interactions, 29:5, pp. 22–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kolko, J. (2010), Thoughts on Interaction Design, Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington: MA, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1016/B978-0-12-378624-1.50012-X.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. London College of Communication (2022), ‘BA (Hons) interaction design arts’, https://www.arts.ac.uk/subjects/animation-interactive-film-and-sound/undergraduate/ba-hons-interaction-design-arts-lcc. Accessed 5 July 2022.
  38. Löwgren, J. (2013), ‘Interaction design-brief intro’, in M. Soegaard and R. F. Dam (eds), The Encyclopedia of Human–Computer Interaction, 2nd ed., Aarhus: The Interaction Design Foundation.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Löwgren, J. and Stolterman, E. (2004), Thoughtful Interaction Design: A Design Perspective on Information Technology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Maturana, H. R., Varela, F. and Behncke, R. (1984), El árbol del conocimiento: las bases biológicas del entendimiento humano, Santiago de Chile: Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA).
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Moggridge, B. (2006), Designing Interactions, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Niedderer, K. (2007), ‘Mapping the meaning of knowledge in design research’, Design Research Quarterly, 2:2, pp. 1–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Norman, D. (2013), The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition, New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Page, A. and Memmott, P. (2021), Design: Building on Country, Port Melbourne: Thames and Hudson.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Preece, J., Rogers, Y. and Sharp, H. (2019), Interaction Design: Beyond Human–Computer Interaction, 5th ed., Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Queensland University of Technology (2022), ‘Bachelor of Design (interaction design)’, https://www.qut.edu.au/courses/bachelor-of-design-interaction-design. Accessed 5 July 2022.
  47. Saffer, D. (2010), Designing for Interaction: Creating Innovative Applications and Devices, Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Seevinck, J. (2022), ‘Water mirror’, in Creativity and Cognition, Venice, 20–23 June, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 646–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Siang, T. Y. (2020), ‘What is interaction design?’, Interaction Design Foundation, https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/what-is-interaction-design. Accessed 1 July 2021.
  50. Smith, G. C. (2007), ‘What is interaction design’, in B. Moggridge and B. Atkinson (eds), Designing Interactions, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 8–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Stern, R. A. and Stamp, J. (2016), Pedagogy and Place: 100 Years of Architecture Education at Yale, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Stolterman, E. (2008), ‘The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research’, International Journal of Design, 2.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Suchman, L. A. (1987), Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human–Machine Communication, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. University of East London (2022), ‘BA (Hons) design interactions’, https://www.uel.ac.uk/undergraduate/courses/ba-hons-design-interactions. Accessed 5 July 2022.
  55. Verbeek, P.-P. (2015), ‘Beyond interaction: A short introduction to mediation theory’, ACM Interactions, 22:3, pp. 26–31, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1145/2751314.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Wiberg, M. (2018), The Materiality of Interaction: Notes on the Materials of Interaction Design, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.7551/mitpress/9780262037518.001.0001.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Winograd, T. (1997), ‘The design of interaction’, in P. J. Denning and R. M. Metcalfe (eds), Beyond Calculation, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 149–61, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1007/978-1-4612-0685-9_12.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Zhang, X. and Wakkary, R. (2014), ‘Understanding the role of designers’ personal experiences in interaction design practice’, in Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, Vancouver, BC, 21–25 June, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 895–904, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1145/2598510.2598556.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00058_1
Loading
Three theoretical foundations for interaction design theory, practice and exploration
Journal of Design, Business & Society 10, 43 (2024); https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1386/dbs_00058_1
/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00058_1
/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00058_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): coherency; complexity; design education; design theory; digital technology; interaction design

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test