Staying Open to Interpretation

Sengers & Gaver (2006) begin by discussing the idea that HCI lends itself to developing systems that convey one single, authoritative interpretation of how they should be experienced. In the past, HCI and its disparate areas have often circumscribed an approach that centres around a problem and solution. This raises questions of whose interpretations should be privileged. Should it be those of the designers or the users? The authors then delve into an area of HCI that makes use of interdisciplinary approaches to facilitate multiple interpretations of systems to co-exist in a beneficial way.

I felt that the paper was extremely insightful for somebody like myself who comes from a qualitative background. My research has focussed upon eliciting rich, complex data from real individuals with subjective experiences. Though this has never involved designing systems for other people, I feel that moving forward (and bearing in mind my MRes project), it would be useful to consider how ‘interpretation at all levels is strongly dependent on context…and users’ social and cultural situations’.

Perhaps part of the reason I feel persuaded by the notion that multiple interpretations of a system can be useful, is the way in which the authors illustrate their argument with concrete examples. The Key Table not only served the function of acting as a repository for the keys of a given household, but also produced a ‘pet’ (!) through the anthropomorphised frame which swung proportionally to the force of the object on the table. The participants who volunteered to have the table in their house were able to use the system for a functional purpose, but also project their own meanings onto the system, thus creating a personal connection with it.

I found that the idea of allowing for personal interpretations evoked a very ‘Bourdieusian’ feel. I agree with the notion that ‘systems reflect their designers’ subconscious concerns’ and that these ‘unintentionally shape user experience’, just in the way that an individual’s habitus would shape, and be shaped by, their interaction with a system or technology. Of course, allowing for multiple interpretations raises questions about how we can evaluate the systems in question. The authors allude to this and explain that designing systems to support a variety of interpretations does not ‘abdicate the designer from responsibility for the eventual success of the system’. Although they concede that this is a complex process, I feel that they do not address how to quantify this success, and therefore render the evaluation process somewhat inadequate.

Looking toward my own research project, I feel that staying open to interpretation and designing a system with implications for multiple meanings, is extremely pertinent. My interest in mental health issues has led to an enthusiasm for thinking about how I could build/create a system/tangible object that could not only help, but mean something to those experiencing mental health challenges. As mental health is such a personal and idiosyncratic issue and is intertwined with a person’s biology, biography and life trajectory (and regressing further, their interpretations of these factors), it makes sense that designing a system for this population should account for eliciting personal and idiosyncratic interpretations.

Here is the link to the paper I found could be useful to me in my approach to all things HCI.