Written by:
Salvatore Fiore
contact@salvatorefiore.com
Peter Wright
pcw@cs.york.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science,
University of York,
Heslington,
York, YO10 5DD
UK
Alistair Edwards
alistair@cs.york.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science,
University of York,
Heslington,
York, YO10 5DD
UK
We describe work in developing an
approach to the design of technological artefacts based in pragmatist
aesthetics, grounding ideas in a developing case study, representing
one possible way in which such a conceptual approach, which we see as
essentially empathic, may evolve. From a conception of designer as
creative and intersubjective subject, we explore the difficulties and
possibilities in designing empathically for blind experience. We
propose appropriation as a basis for sighted designers to build empathy
with users by understanding blind experience as aesthetic. Various
phases of appropriation provide a way of developing empathy and
increasing agency in design.
INTRODUCTION
Aesthetics is a domain with an extensive genealogy which is reflected
throughout the historical developments in design practice. In the
context of this research, we are specifically concerned with the
aesthetics of interaction, in which we see a broad distinction between
the analytic, emphasising a view of humans as disembodied processors
able to construct independent realities in the mind, and the pragmatic,
which instead emphasises how people experience the world dialogically
as embodied subjects. The critical difference between the two
perspectives is in their legacy on our understanding of design: The
former lends support to cognition as the foundation of interaction and
a view of the designer as analyst aiming to meet objectively
identifiable requirements in design, whereas the latter supports a more
artistically-oriented idea about design, more able to account for the
roles of emotion, engagement, the separation between objects-subjects
and events unfolding unplanned as a normal feature of the instability
of existence. Our preference towards pragmatist aesthetics emerges out
of discontent with how approaches to design underestimate the relevance
of fundamental characteristics of experience and understanding. For
example, ‘Experience Design’ [19] aimed at designing experiences and
‘Emotional Design’ [17], essentially classify users within categories
of predictable behaviours. Such classification disregards the wealth of
experience brought to the interaction by a person’s prior experiences
and individual way of being, as well as an object’s meaning-laden
history and the uniqueness of a situation. It also fails to account for
the inseparable integration of thinking, feeling and doing in an
experience. At the same time, ‘Empathic Design’ approaches [14] have
not yet overcome the problem of the designer being unable to really
access the subjective experiences of a person.
The designer cannot see through the eyes of another, feel what another
feels or develop meaning as any other person would [21] [20].
Similarly, they cannot know experiences of being blind merely by
wearing a blindfold and temporarily simulating another phenomenology.
Approaches situating the designer in the user’s domain only enable
her/him to know how s/he feels, rather than establish empathy towards
another. The danger in believing that such empathy represents knowledge
of what a user feels, thinks and senses is in the denial of agency for
both designer and user in constructing experiences around an event. In
this way, while contemporary design practices may not begin with
analysis, they often maintain the legacy of an analytic aesthetics
proposing the possibility of knowing objectively another’s perspective.
A pragmatic aesthetics of interaction provides the basis for exploring
an alternative conception of design based on understanding others
(rather than interpreting observed behaviours or accepting
propositional knowledge as certainty) and appropriation of objects as
the aesthetic products of experience. Our work here involves
theoretical and practical examination of how such an aesthetics can
allow us to think more clearly about empathy in design. We explore a
means for sighted designers to express their understanding of blind
experience through the construction of artefacts and draw on
appropriation, a fundamental process in aesthetic experience, as the
basis for design empathy. Taking Dewey’s pragmatist aesthetics [1][2]
and the related works of Shusterman [21][20] and Jackson [12] as a
basis, we build on contributions seeking more holistic approaches to
understanding and supporting experience in design [8][16][18] as well
as others who reflect in design the details and subtleties of everyday
life and blur the boundaries between the ‘scientific’ and the
‘artistic’ [5][10].
A PRAGMATIST AESTHETICS FOR DESIGN: SENSE AND SENSIBILITY
Adopting a Pragmatist Aesthetics of Human-Computer Interaction prevents
denigration of the senses to visceral satisfaction and is inconsistent
with conceptions of interaction as the purely rational execution of
routines. We are drawn towards an understanding of experience that
holistically incorporates thinking, feeling, doing and effecting change
within an intersubjectively constructed world: Experience has a
consummation and fulfilment and an aesthetic quality which makes it
intrinsically worthwhile. This quality is the indescribable sense we
have of a situation: When we are in experience, we cannot describe it
without first exiting it and transforming it into an object of
reflection [12], but we may have a sense of the situation, a sort of
immediate and pre-linguistic meaning or understanding that we feel [1].
However, when we encounter a situation that we cannot understand, we
have to reflect on our experience and try to make sense of it. This may
be reflection on second-hand propositional knowledge told by others or
on something experienced directly for the first time. In this light,
while understanding of an event when we are experiencing it may happen
without conscious reflection on our understanding, making sense of the
experience requires conscious reflection on the event. And this is
central to our objectives here: An object is itself a form of event,
with a unique past and future, whereby its meaning has been transformed
through inquiry, enabling it to play a role in the conscious shaping of
future experience [12]. As such, while we give meaning to events when
we abstract and objectify them, that meaning may always change so that
“an object is always an abstraction. It is like a sketch of the thing
itself, a sketch in which certain features are highlighted and others
overlooked.” [ibid, p25]. In the context of designing technological
objects then, it is necessary to recognise the way in which the meaning
we make of an object emerges both out of what we do [3] and the
qualities an object embodies suggesting the potential for action and
construction of meaning. Our interaction in the world thus enables us
to construct meaningful experiences around objects [18] [15]. More
importantly, as we select objects from our environment and give them
meaning for the purposes of both utility and enjoyment [12], we
appropriate them with respect for the historical significance they
carry: We give things a meaning that no other person can and which we
would not imagine for any other object in any other situation. The
aesthetic of a technological object is then “a result of the human
appropriation of the artifact… released in dialogue as we experience
the world.” [4, p.271] so that an object achieves significance and
meaning only when appropriated through active and critical reception
and appreciated in its creation and use.
The meaning of an object thus changes with respect to its history and
significance. It is through an act of appropriation of the history of a
thing that the perceiver is able to construct the meaning of an
artefact as more than a functional object. While an object may hold
significance that is intersubjectively shared (e.g. a chair as a symbol
of power), extrinsic meaning (e.g. a chair functions as a seat),
intrinsic meaning (e.g. a chair invokes personal memories of a
childhood place), it may also carry the potential to have meaning that
allows it to be enjoyed for its own sake. Such meaning comes neither
from the formal properties of the object, nor as an invention of mind,
but rather emerges from the play of imagination in direct relation to
the object itself. In the case of a chair, we might, for example learn
that it was once sat on by Leonardo DaVinci while painting or sketching
his machines, dramatically impacting on the experience of beholding the
object. A person can in this way have a sense of an experience with a
chair, but more importantly, can consciously appropriate such an
object’s meaning to make sense of her/his experience. This
appropriation requires a sensibility towards the thing and its various
levels of meanings. The aesthetic in the experience is thus rooted in
the way in which this object is meaningful and transforms the
perceiver’s understanding, making enjoyment so much deeper.
Importantly, such notions of appropriation and construction of meaning
do not imply merely interpreting an object to mean what we want, as
this would deny all the enrichment and pleasure achieved from
submitting ourselves to its alterity and seductive power [21]. The
creative process is characterised neither by passive and irrational
inspiration nor by a designer in full control of the productive
process: these are instead both necessary and complementary moments of
the experience of designing [ibid]. We at the same time bridge the gap
between creating and perceiving by “reconceiving appreciation as
creative production where the [perceiver] actively reconstructs the
aesthetic object.” [ibid, p. 54]. The creative act is an experience
which connects designer and audience. This has profound implications
for our understanding of design. If appropriation of a thing involves actively constructing the aesthetic
object and the experience, then the line begins to blur between the
dualistic roles of designer and user. We can see a much closer and
interdependent relationship between the experiences of creating and
appreciating an object, because the very act of appreciating is itself
constructive. Many questions consequently emerge regarding how we can
realise the pragmatist ideals of design as a process of
self-development, change, discovery and of reflection that is felt and
sensed as well as intellectual.
UNDERSTANDING BLIND EXPERIENCE: APPROPRIATING OBJECTS TO DEVELOP SENSIBILITY
Our design process begins with the ambiguity engendered in the
endeavour of designing an object that we hope will be meaningful for
others whose way of perceiving the world differs fundamentally from our
own. Given the important role of the senses in shaping experience, our
desire to better understand blind experience so that we might more
empathically design for it, begins with a recognition of the diversity
in ways of perceiving and making sense brought about by being with or
without sight. In this sense, we see blind experience as equally
meaningful, though qualitatively different from experience which
incorporates visual perception. Primarily, this is because the quality
or essence which gives an experience its emotional, intellectual and
physical completeness, is, for the blind person, developed without
actual visual phenomena. This is further to the emotional and
intellectual uniqueness of every person’s experiences. Concepts like
height, distance, lightness, or colour and visual things or events,
such as sunsets, or road markings have particular meanings as a
consequence of how we perceive and interact with them in experience.
Descriptions by others in the form of propositional knowledge cannot
communicate such primary experience of an event. A pragmatist way of
seeing requires us to understand the experiences of the blind person in
relation to ourselves and it is here that we identify empathy. In other
words, we see how the designer’s expression of empathy in the object
designed – the eloquent transformation of materials into a work of art
– is connected to the experience of the user or perceiver. While the
sense of the experience may begin with the user, it develops in direct
relation to the history of the thing/event, its present and the
possibilities of its future. The object then, to be aesthetic, must
give the possibility for the perceiver to appropriate and make sense of
it rather than only passively comprehend it or use it. And so the
designer must develop a sensibility towards the situation through their
understanding.
Understanding through autobiography reading
We have explored blind experience through readings of autobiographical
narratives, as we discuss in detail elsewhere [9]. This has enabled us
to develop understanding of blind experience and empathise with some of
the emotional-volitional aspects of it, moving away from a conception
of designer as detached observer, towards an emphasis on understanding
another in relation to ourselves [13]. Our endeavours to understand
something more about the experiences of autobiographical subjects, have
opened up possibilities for reflection on the certainty which we, as
designers, ascribe to new knowledge about others: We have engaged in a
process of constructing a meaningful response to the texts, making
sense of the work rather than describing any given or definitive
meaning in it [21]. As the experiences expressed by the autobiography
authors lead us to encounter problems in understanding another way of
experiencing the world, we explore, confirm or alter the meaning we
have created through active attempts to overcome doubt and incongruity
in our understanding; interpreting as necessary so that we
might make sense. Reading in this way thus mirrors any other aesthetic
experience: We can have a sense of the experience and feel some
understanding towards aspects of blind experience, but when we
encounter something that we don’t understand, such as how it is to not
perceive the sky above us, we are forced to consciously reflect on the
experience and try to make sense of it. It is in this way, by attention
to our own experience, that we move towards appropriating the object
through the construction of a new object, by making sense. Thus we
reach an understanding in approaching the reading of the texts: that
beauty in such processes, lies not in the identification and
objectification of novel truths, or the construction of imagined
disembodied meanings, but in the enrichment of the design experience,
where the activity is legitimised and made meaningful by the agency it
brings to the designer to understand the text and make sense of it.
Transforming understanding through storytelling
As we appropriate the text, the interpretation we make and the
knowledge we construct, render changes in it so that it is continuously
becoming. The object becomes an organising focus for the production of
discourse, rather than a static substantive entity (ibid). It was by
reflection on the initial phase of reading towards understanding that
we could begin to imagine objects and the possibilities that may emerge
through their construction and the idea of an constructing interactive
chair emerged. We imagined a chair with capabilities to sense and
indicate, by vibrating, the presence of a person. This suggested
infinite possibilities for meaning-making, from the instrumentality of
showing a blind person where the chair is in a room and letting them
feel (while seated) the approach of another, to deeper meanings
emerging from the potential effects of such an object on perceptions of
space and place. This idea was a result of a newfound empathy towards
certain ambiguities and beauties in blind experience and the
enchantment that we might come to understand more through the creation
of such an object. The aesthetic experience of reaching a better,
perspectival, understanding of blind experience has thus opened up new
possibilities for our appropriation: expressing such understanding in
the construction of a new artefact. This appropriation took place
through storytelling and specifically the writing of a story about the
imagined interactive chair [7] wherein fictional characters played out
experiences with the object, embodying our ideas about the chair.
Writing the story was an opportunity to be agent in imagining
possibilities, the activity itself assisting in building a better
understanding about the evolving subject. The focus was on exploring
experiences and interactions, relationships and meanings, rather than
on depicting tasks and actions. Within design practice scenarios,
stories and personas have been adopted as means for designers to
consider a range of users and situations, defining requirements and
identifying intended users’ physical, cognitive and emotional needs
[11]. However, by seeking a “a user’s-eye view” [6], stories used
elsewhere in design differ fundamentally from our work. Our story was
instead a way of exploring the designer’s understanding of blind
experience: The story characters were not representative ‘users’ of the
chair, but merely embodied our understanding of people whose
appreciation of their own experiences of blindness had enabled them to
find expression through the construction of autobiographical objects.
Intersubjectivity in design: a second appropriation
The creation of the story brought the first embodiment of the
interactive chair and a new artefact to be appreciated in itself.
Moving further on in the design involved handing over this
story-artefact to a second person to appropriate and create another
artefact from their understanding. This was realised through
development of a storyboard by an artist, expressing his understanding
of the chair story, drawing characters, situations and events as he
interpreted them. When we create stories and see their interpretation
by another person as a storyboard, we are presented with new
opportunities to reflect and re-examine our own understanding of the
subject-matter. Each appropriation is unique and an opportunity for
reflection by both the designer and others involved in the process, to
find new meanings and possibilities within the emerging objects.
Because of this, we see our current research as exemplary of one way in
which appropriation may form the basis for an approach to design that
is essentially exploratory and empathic. And, as the project continues
its gradual evolution towards the construction of the chair, we work to
build upon our understanding of what this object may represent for both
us and the blind people who will ultimately interact with it.
CONCLUSIONS
In our process, appropriation is central to a series of creative phases
involving designers, artists and engineers. The collaborators
appropriate consecutively the artefact with which they are presented.
This has so far involved the creation of a narrative and storyboard,
with stages of formal design, modelling and building to follow.
Critically, subjective reading towards pragmatic understanding of
autobiographical texts has enabled us to initiate an empathic process
towards understanding blindness, leading through subsequent phases of
appropriation and artefact construction. In this exploratory process,
we do not primarily seek to create an object that a blind person can
use, but rather to construct a better understanding of blindness,
developing a more natural connection. We can never know if our
understanding corresponds with others’, but by adopting appropriation
as our foundation in design, we respect and connect with the things
others have already constructed out of their experience. With our
pragmatist stance, it has been possible to highlight issues of sense
and meaning, regaining a reality wherein sighted and blind ‘worlds’ do
not differ and where one way of being makes sense in light of the
possibilities opened by another. A sense of otherness pervades the
design process with interpenetrating meanings and dialogue. As a
result, agency can be felt by a sighted person striving to understand
what it means to be blind: An empathic stance for self-discovery and
understanding of the human condition, dialogically. We have come to see
the objects of our design as having the potential to suggest deeper
meanings and enrich our experiences as designers. Most of all, the
experiences of creating these objects help us develop a sensibility
towards possible meanings that we might give them and which we imagine
the people who will use and experience our interactive chair might
construct. If, at such an incomplete stage in our design project,
reflecting critically on our pragmatic approach can remind us of human
qualities sometimes lost in the search for novel design approaches and,
if the value of art is in the moment of liberation from the shell
formed by the slackness of routine and from the endless absorption in
the instrumental properties of the object, then the value of design is
also in refreshing our sensibilities and helping us to learn new ways
of thinking.
REFERENCES
1. Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and Nature. Dover
2. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Capricorn .
3. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied Interaction. MIT Press.
4. Dreyfus, H. L. (2001). On the Internet. Routledge.
5. Dunne, A. & Raby, F. (2001). Design noir: The secret life of electronic objects. Birkhäuser.
6. Erickson, T. (1996) Design as Storytelling. Interactions, July + August. 31-35
7. Fiore, S. G. (2005) Chairs: The ambiguity of invisible
objects. In (ed) Sloane, A. Home Oriented Informatics and Telematics.
IFIP.
8. Fiore, S. G. (2004). From designing for function to designing for meaning. In Proc. ECCE-12
9. Fiore, S. Wright, P. & Edwards, A. (2005) Agency,
interaction and disability: Making sense through autobiographical
accounts. In Proc. Include 2005.
10. Gaver et al (2004) Cultural Probes and the value of uncertainty. In Interactions. September/October. 53-56.
11. Gruen, D. et al (2002) The Use of Stories in User Experience Design. Int. J. of HCI, 14(3&4) 503–534
12. Jackson, P. W. (1998) John Dewey and the Lessons of Art. Yale Univ. Press.
13. Josselson, R. (1995). Imagining the Real: Empathy, Narrative, and
the Dialogic Self. In Josselson, R. & Lieblich, A. (Eds.)
Interpreting Experience: The Narrative Study of Lives (vol. 3). Sage.
14. Mattelmäki, T. & Battarbee, K. (2002) Empathy Probes. Proc. PDC2002.
15. McCarthy, J. and Wright, P. C. (2004a). Technology as experience, MIT Press.
16. McCarthy, J and Wright, P. (2004b). Putting ‘felt-life’ at the centre of HCI. In Proc. ECCE-12.
17. Norman, D. (2004) Emotional Design. Basic Books.
18. Petersen, M. G., Iversen, O. S., Krogh, P. G. & Ludvigsen, M.
(2004) Aesthetic Interaction – A Pragmatist’s Aesthetics of Interactive
Systems. In Proc. DIS2004.
19. Shedroff, N. (2001) Experience Design 1. New Riders.
20. Shusterman, R. (2002) Surface and Depth. Cornell.
21. Shusterman, R. (1992). Pragmatist aesthetics: Living beauty, rethinking art. Blackwell
Published in:
Proceedings Critical Computing Conerence, Aarhus, 2005. Pp. 129-132
|
|||||
Month Archive
|
Login Search SalvatoreFiore |
||||
|
|||||