Staying Open to Interpretation: Engaging Multiple Meanings in Design and Evaluation

First week’s introduction seminar discussion evolved around W.Gaver, J.Beaver and S.Benford’s paper about how ambiguity can be seen as an opportunity in Human Computer Interaction (HCI) design [1]. To extend further on this subject, P. Sengers and B. Gaver point out that multiple interpretations can coexist and benefit the system rather than frustrate and annoy the users [2].

At first, the paper describes systems with a single interpretation, bearing in mind that the interpretation of a designer’s can differ from the user’s. This evokes a discussion about whose interpretation of the system is the correct one and how should designers create their systems in order it to appear similar to their users? Coming from a background of software engineering and having designed multiple user interfaces, I would say that the hardest thing is to get users to use the system as you, the designer, intended. Easier is to design the system from a user centered view as described in the paper [2], although this might not always be the best solution.

Paper goes on by describing the relationship between designers and users, and how can different designing methods encourage several interpretations. These methods are described and evaluated through series of different practical installations. Authors do not argue that there’s no need for single-interpretation approaches, but they stress that openness for multiple interpretations can create new opportunities for both design and evaluation [2].

I find the overall concept of designing an ambiguous digital systems a bit unnecessary. It might be because I come from an applied science background, where systems are created following exact design documents and for serving some particular purpose. It could also mean that I fall into the category of designers described in the paper – who design systems for efficiency [2]. I do agree that if it’s a non work-related system, then design strategies that encourage multiple interpretations are needed.

My biggest question regarding these kind of systems where, that would the users still use them if they don’t see the intended purpose of them. As seen with the example of Drift Table, some users became annoyed and abandoned their interest when the device didn’t perform as a task orientated piece of technology. The ones who still interacted with the machine took it as it is – a table which drifts around [2]. The Drift table and all the other design examples in the paper present themselves more as pieces of art rather than practical work related technology gadgets. From this respect the ambiguous nature of the design is highly encouraged.

The authors are making a strong point when they state that multiple interpretations are beneficial in evaluation. I also agree that users should be included to the evaluation process by giving dynamic feedback of their interactions with the system. This can change the user’s interpretation over time and give them more understating of the system.

I agree with a lot of the points that Sengers and Gaver are making and I can see the potential gains that multiple interpretations in HCI brings, but I think it needs a stronger validation process.

A chose a paper (actually John pointed me to it) which is not yet in ACM Digital library – Interacting with an Inferred World. I apologise for going a little bit out of the boundaries of the task, but from all of the papers I read regarding HCI, this was the one that really spoke to me.

[1] Gaver, W., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design. Proceedings of CHI’03. NY: ACM Press, 233-240.
[2] Sengers, P., & Gaver, B. 2006. Staying open to interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems(DIS ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 99-108.