Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
bjbjq Rikke: We're meeting Dag in Aarhus in Denmark, and Dag is a professor at the Norwegian
University of Science and Technology in Trondheim. Since the late 1980s, Dag has been doing research
in HCI. One of his main areas of interest is the Philosophy of Interaction. Let's go
back to the cognitive science. We have now an overview of the different perspectives,
but since the birth of HCI, what has been the dominant paradigm for describing the interactivity
or the human side of interaction? Dag: The dominant side has been this cognitive perspective,
but to that extent, it's not even made explicit. Often, if you have to say you have a study
of different input devices or the classical study in HCI on what is or how do most interaction
compared to using a stylist, for example, or one-handed interaction versus two-handed
interaction, most of these studies, they don't even make explicit the underlying assumptions.
They will just start up with describing experiment, why they do this and they do that, that we
have this condition and we have that condition, and just describe your experiments and your
findings, and your interpretations. So, it's not necessarily any deep philosophical background
in a lot of these publications or in a lot of this research. It's more what we take for
granted when we study computer interaction. Some of the things you take for granted is
that you have a symbolic representation, and you have subconscious, that the user is conscious
of what he or she is doing which is somewhat the implicit assumptions here. Rikke: I can
hear that you think that's a problem. Why is that? Dag: It's a problem in the sense
that to what extent that you think literally, that people literally have a model. So, it's
useful as a tool. For example, if I want to design a thermostat or user interface for
the thermostats then, you have this concept from cognitive science called mental models
saying that people have mental models of the behavior of artifacts. So, when I drive a
car, I have a mental model; I have an understanding of how the car works. I have this understanding
that when I turn the steering wheel, the tires move, and when I press different handles,
things happen. So, I have this understanding of the internal working of the car. This is
my mental model of the car. When I use a mobile phone, I have this mental model that when
I just press the numbers, then I am connected to someone. This is my mental model of this
artifact, which is, of course, a very simplified version. The real thing is a thousand times
more complex with all the digital signals et cetera, et cetera, etcetera, but I have
this simple version, simple understanding. In cognitive science, we have this idea that
you can describe this mental model as a set of rules or a set of relations between objects.
So, you describe it as if it was some a diagram, my internal map of this artifact or the behavior
of this artifact. For example, if I want to build a thermostat, that make sense because
if you go into how people perceive thermostats, you find that kids, when they see a thermostat
where they can change the temperature from a 10 degrees, 20 degrees, 30 degrees, a lot
of kids think that it's just a turn-it-up. If it's cold, you turn it up, right? Like
if it was an oven. So, the mental model of the thermostat is that the higher the temperature,
the faster the room gets heated which is a false mental model, I would say, if not a
correct mental model, but it's still a mental model that makes sense. That is an alternative
mental model from the real thing which is, of course, that you turn up to the temperature
you want and then you just wait for the oven to heat it up, and then automatically it will
goes at flip on and off to keep the temperature steady which is a complex to explain to a
five-year-old. So, the thing is, if you want to make a user interface that also works for
kids on the thermostat, you have to do some thinking, and then it's very useful to have
this concept of mental model because it reminds you that there are some internally consistent
ways of misunderstanding this. Missed ways of understanding it that makes sense but still
are wrong. So, when we build the user interface, you should make sure that this alternative
perception of what a thermostat is that in some way, that you d communicate the right
model, to put it like that. So, that's a good example of where it makes sense to think in
terms of the cognitive science perspective. But the idea is that it works even if it isn't
real. People don't have models. If you do an MR scan or something with the brain, you
won't find that model. It's nowhere in there. Even if you asked kids to draw the model,
they won't be able to draw the model. It's not in there in any sense but still it makes
sense to model people. So it's not people's understanding or the kid's understanding of the thermostat, but it's
our model of the kid's understanding of the thermostat. So, if you take that extra step,
then it's okay, but it's like you shouldn't take it literally. That's the whole thing.
It's not metaphorically, anyway. Rikke: Has it been taken literally? Dag: I don't know.
Most textbooks don't really make that distinction. They say that the user has a mental model.
Rikke: That's it? Dag: That is or you can say mental model of the user. Of course, it
gets a little bit more complex when you if every sentence you have to say, Our model
of the understanding of the user, and not even of the user but of an idealized user,
not necessarily connected to any specific user, any specific user situation, and of
course, a simplification of et cetera et cetera. Instead of this long academic explanation,
we say that the user has a mental model. But if you take that literally then, from my perspective,
it's too simple. It's just psychologically wrong. It's not correct but still it works.
As a design tool, it works. But if you want to do science, then it s not precise. Rikke:
Okay. In your opinion, is that a better way to understand the nature of interactivity?
Dag: Yeah. I'm not the only one who has been inspired by Heidegger and the Phenomenology.
Going back, as I said to Terry Winograd and Flores, and their work back in the mid-80s,
and for me it was their book then in 86 and reading about Heidegger, because I've been
struggling with some of these things, feeling that these cognitive science theories didn
t really get to the core of what human computer interaction was all about and there was something
missing here I felt, and reading Winograd and Flores was something that really an eye
opener for me. Even if they had also a simplified version of Heidegger, they just do some aspects
of, but this idea that we are, as users, we are not primarily thinking and planning. We
are in the environment and we act. That's the primary thing. That's the old Heidegger
idea, which is the break that Heidegger could get back in the late 1920s with the philosophical
tradition going back to Plato. So, the break that we are not primarily cognitive thinking,
reflecting people, individuals, beings, we are in the world. That's the primary thing.
Then, we should start with the way we are in the world, and then it starts just analysis
of who we are in the world as a starting point for understanding what it means to be human
which is the whole philosophical thing, which is not really in my topic. I'm not a philosopher
but I'm inspired by these ideas, and a lot of people have been inspired by it because
it makes sense. Lot of it is just common sense, simply common sense. Rikke: So, we've reached
the end of our interview. Thank you so much, Dag, for coming here and for sharing some
interesting perspectives with us. If you want to know more, you could have a look at the
other videos with Dag and you can read his chapter at interaction-design.org. You can
also find more chapters all written by top leaders and inventors, and you can find videos
like this one as well. Thanks for watching. Advantages and Problems with Cognitivism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8cyMIFcC_g
(Philosophy of Interaction) - Video 4 gd2T [Content_Types].xml Iw}, $yi} _rels/.rels
theme/theme/themeManager.xml sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml w toc'v )I`n 3Vq%'#q :\TZaG L+M2 e\O* $*c?
)6-r IqbJ#x ,AGm T[XF64 E)`# R>QD =(K& =al- 4vfa 0%M0 theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels
6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK
theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK
win7 Normal Jared Microsoft Office Word Title Microsoft Office Word 97-2003
Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8