Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. (2011). Towards a Feminist HCI Methodology: Social Science, Feminism, and HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 675–684). New York, NY, USA: ACM. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bdeir, A. (2009). Electronics As Material: LittleBits. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (pp. 397–400). New York, NY, USA: ACM. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bischof, A., Lefeuvre, K., Kurze, A., Storz, M., Totzauer, S., & Berger, A. (2016). Exploring the Playfulness of Tools for Co-Designing Smart Connected Devices: A Case Study with Blind and Visually Impaired Students. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts (pp. 93–99). ACM. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boucher, A. (2016). The Form Design of the Datacatcher: A Research Prototype. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 595–606). ACM. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2901907.Google Scholar
Boucher, A., & Gaver, W. (2017). Designing and Making the Datacatchers: Batch Producing Location-Aware Mobile Devices. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (pp. 243–251). ACM. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3024971.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. (2012). The Logic of Annotated Portfolios: Communicating the Value of ‘Research through Design’. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 68–77). ACM. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2317968.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. M., & Kellogg, W. A. (1989). Artifact as Theory-Nexus: Hermeneutics Meets Theory-Based Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 7–14). New York, NY, USA: ACM. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dourish, P. (2004). Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT press.Google Scholar
Gaver, W. (2012). What Should We Expect from Research Through Design? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 937–946). New York, NY, USA: ACM. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gaver, W., Boucher, A., Jarvis, N., Cameron, D., Hauenstein, M., Pennington, S., …Ovalle, L. (2016). The Datacatcher: Batch Deployment and Documentation of 130 Location-Aware, Mobile Devices That Put Sociopolitically-Relevant Big Data in People’s Hands: Polyphonic Interpretation at Scale. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1597–1607). ACM. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2858472.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist Grounded Theory? Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/825.Google Scholar
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2004). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse.
Harrison, S., Tatar, D., & Sengers, P. (2007, April). The three paradigms of HCI. In Alt. Chi. Session at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, California, USA (pp. 1–18). http://people.cs.vt.edu/~srh/Downloads/HCIJournalTheThreeParadigmsofHCI.pdf.Google Scholar
Hornecker, E. (2010). Creative Idea Exploration within the Structure of a Guiding Framework: the Card Brainstorming Game. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction (pp. 101–108). ACM. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jim Johnson, Mixing humans and nonhumans together: The sociology of a door-closer. Social Problems, 35(3), 298–310. 1998.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1967). Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen.
Lefeuvre, K., Totzauer, S., Bischof, A., Kurze, A., Storz, M., Ullmann, L., & Berger, A. (2016). Loaded Dice: Exploring the Design Space of Connected Devices with Blind and Visually Impaired People. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 31:1–31:10). New York, NY, USA: ACM. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lucero, A., & Arrasvuori, J. (2010). PLEX Cards: A Source of Inspiration when Designing for Playfulness. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Fun and Games (pp. 28–37). ACM. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mora, S., Divitini, M., & Gianni, F. (2016). Tiles: An Inventor Toolkit for Interactive Objects. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (pp. 332–333). New York, NY, USA: ACM. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world: Foundations and fundamentals of design competence.Google Scholar
Oh, H., & Gross, M. D. (2015). Cube-in: A Learning Kit for Physical Computing Basics. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (pp. 383–386). New York, NY, USA: ACM. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 2(1), 16–27.Google Scholar
Rittel, H. (1972). On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of the ‘First and Second Generations.’ Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387420.Google Scholar
Stolterman, E. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2(1).Google Scholar
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wakkary, R., & Maestri, L. (2008). Aspects of everyday design: Resourcefulness, adaptation, and emergence. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24(5), 478–491.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007). Research through Design as A method For Interaction Design Research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 493–502). ACM. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar
About the article
Officially a computer scientist with a doctorate in engineering from a technical university, Arnes research takes an inter- and transdisciplinary Research through Design approach at the intersection of design ethnography and interaction design. He is currently the principal investigator of Miteinander.
He is a computer scientist with a master degree in bioinformatics. His major research interest is how people can be motivated to take up agency for themselves, especially regarding the oncoming socio-technological paradigm shift.
He is a product designer with a master degree from Bauhaus-University Weimar. He is a tinkerer by profession and a user advocate by heart. At Miteinander he is exploring co-design methods and building co-design tools for designing smart connected fictions, scenarios, and devices.
He is a Human-Computer Interaction expert with a master degree in Informatics. His research focuses on the design and the implementation of multi-touch tabletops and their applications for museums and exhibitions. Most recently he is exploring the intersection of social Internet of Things, data visualization and user agency.
He is a computer scientist. His research interests are networking aspects in all flavors. In his interdisciplinary PhD thesis he quantified the relationship between QoS and QoE for mobile services with about 300 participants. He is currently a post doctoral researcher at Miteinander, where he is in charge for the engineering and IoT and is also focussing away from technology – to the users and the implications we create with technology. He is a tinkerer since elementary school days and nowadays back at tinkering in the office.
He is a cultural scientist and sociologist specialized in human-computer interaction and qualitative methods. His PhD thesis How do Robots become Social – Epistemic Practice of Social Robotics is an ethnographic science study within the fields of social robotics and human-robot interaction. His current research interests include the epistemics of interdisciplinary cooperation in human-computer interaction, Grounded Theory Methodology, Socio-Gerontechnology and the technization of social situations.
Published Online: 2017-08-10
Published in Print: 2017-08-28
This research is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under grant number FKZ 16SV7116.