簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 莊偉銘
Wei-Ming Chung
論文名稱： 探索形塑技術未來的設計工具
Exploring Designerly Tools for Shaping Technology Futures
指導教授： 梁容輝
Rung-Huei Liang
口試委員: 梁容輝
Rung-Huei Liang
唐玄輝
Hsien-Hui Tang
余能豪
Neng-Hao (Jones) Yu
蔡文傑
Wenn-Chieh Tsai
游創文
Chuang-Wen You
學位類別： 博士
Doctor
系所名稱： 設計學院 - 設計系
Department of Design
論文出版年： 2021
畢業學年度： 109
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 129
中文關鍵詞： 中介知識 、知識建構子 、設計工具 、創造力輔助 、人機互動
外文關鍵詞： intermediate-level knowledge, knowledge constructs, designerly tools, creativity support, human-computer interaction
相關次數： 點閱：279  下載：11 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 近年人機互動(human–computer interaction)學群已開始朝向探究設計知識可能是什麼。承載互動設計的中介知識(intermediate-level knowledge)的設計工具(designerly tools)，如實體牌卡，已被廣泛使用在創造技術想像上。然而，過去在創造力輔助研究中，鮮少探究中介知識可能的形式以及扮演的角色。基此，本研究並非提供唯一解答，而是分別透過圖像、聲音、和實體道具來探索中介知識的可能形式，以及這些設計物開展什麼樣的設計機會。本研究透過(做)設計進行論述型研究(an account of research-through-design)。以三個互動設計研究，Interaction Tarot、Once Upon a Future、以及Speculative Kits，作為設計個案，分別主張三種知識建構子(knowledge constructs)：原型式建構子(archetypal constructs)、聲音式建構子(auditory constructs)、以及實體建構子(tangible constructs)。研究成果探討將理論化的跨領域知識體現於設計工具的取逕、設計工具如何支持跨領域團隊拓展與探索豐富的設計空間、以及，設計工具又是如何持續推動跨領域團隊想像未來的人機互動。透過討論與反思，本研究更進一步論述知識建構子對創造力活動和HCI社群的貢獻。

    Constructing knowledge for technology imagination with designerly tools is attracting increasing interest. Designerly tools are means to bridge theoretical knowledge and design practice. However, most human–computer interaction (HCI) research still uses conventional designerly tools for creativity support. Few studies have examined alternate approaches and forms of theoretical knowledge of a designerly tool. Little could be ascertained about how knowledge works. To fill the gap, my thesis work builds upon Löwgren’s (2013) intermediate-level knowledge (ILK) and attempts to explore, design, and articulate knowledge constructs. In this thesis, I define knowledge constructs as hybrids of a designerly tool and the intermediary knowledge embodied in it. Intermediary knowledge could be a set of domain-specific concepts or technological imaginations inspired by the concepts, in a target knowledge domain. I discuss three designerly tools—Interaction Tarot, Once Upon a Future, and Speculative Kits—as research artifacts with which to inquire into archetypal constructs, auditory constructs, and tangible constructs in the three studies. Through three proposed dimensions—concept exploration, concept construction, and concept recap—I further address how knowledge constructs support design explorations, concept generation, and knowledge reconstructions. My results show that knowledge constructs serve as knowledge containers, bridge theoretical knowledge and creative practice in HCI, and act as prompters of new intermediary concept generation. This thesis aims to broaden the understanding within HCI research of ILK in creativity support.

    CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Constructing knowledge with designerly tools 2 1.1.1 What are knowledge constructs? 3 1.1.2 Research method and questions 5 1.2 Structure of the Article 7 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 10 2.1 Constructing knowledge for creativity with designerly tools 10 2.1.1 Conventional designerly tools and approaches for creativity support 10 2.1.2 Making card-based design is constructing knowledge 11 2.1.3 Prompting experiential imaginations by staging experiential engagements 14 2.1.4 Bodily understanding as a way of anchoring imagination 14 2.2 Design knowledge in HCI 15 2.2.1 Knowledge is embodied in design artifacts 15 2.2.2 Intermediate-level knowledge and other forms of ILK 16 2.2.3 Comparison of knowledge constructs and other ILK 18 CHAPTER 3. ARCHETYPAL CONSTRUCTS AND INTERACTION TAROT 21 3.1 Making cards is constructing knowledge 21 3.2 Research purpose and research questions 22 3.3 Explorations of a general-purpose framework 23 3.3.1 Grounding process for developing a framework 24 3.3.2 Archetypal grounding for developing a framework 25 3.4 Developing Interaction Tarot 32 3.5 Archetypal constructs 35 3.6 Research design 36 3.6.1 Pilot study 36 3.6.2 Cross-disciplinary interaction design workshop 38 3.6.3 Expert review with experienced facilitators 41 3.7 Understandings of how archetypal constructs work 43 3.7.1 Concept exploration of archetypal constructs 43 3.7.2 Concept construction of archetypal constructs 46 3.7.3 Concept recap of archetypal constructs 48 3.8 Conclusions and new challenges 51 CHAPTER 4. AUDITORY CONSTRUCTS AND ONCE UPON A FUTURE 55 4.1 Prompting experiential imaginations by staging auditory engagements 56 4.2 Recapping audio fictions assists in the generation of fictional reality 58 4.3 Auditory constructs 59 4.4 Research design 60 4.5 Understandings of how auditory constructs work 62 4.5.1 Concept exploration of auditory constructs 62 4.5.2 Concept construction of auditory constructs 63 4.5.3 Concept recap of auditory constructs 64 4.6 Conclusions and new challenges 66 CHAPTER 5. TANGIBLE CONSTRUCTS AND SPECULATIVE KITS 70 5.1 Bodily understanding as a way for embodying knowledge 71 5.2 Making knowledge accessible for imagining futures 73 5.2.1 The Fictional Catalog (Tsai et. al., 2020) 75 5.2.2 The Fictional Props (Tsai et. al., 2020) 77 5.3 Tangible constructs 78 5.4 Research design: technology imagination with Speculative Kits 79 5.5 Understandings of how tangible constructs work 80 5.5.1 Concept exploration of tangible constructs 81 5.5.2 Concept construction of tangible constructs 83 5.5.3 Concept recap of tangible constructs 87 5.6 Conclusions 88 CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION AND REFLECTIONS 93 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION 106 REFERENCES 108 CURRICULUM VITAE 114 APPENDIX A 115

    [1] 2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/c/Carl_Jung.htm?fbclid=IwAR13CWyGJtm0O0kGzBfUiPSxY6c4JjJYuzXv0PK9Ht_gw6IQAUtKyW21yPU
    [2] Aegerter, C., & Benjelloun, B. (2009). The spirit of the Tarot: Numbers as initiators of the major arcana. London: Aeon.
    [3] Alves, V., & Roque, L. (2011). A deck for sound design in games: enhancements based on a design exercise. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (No. 34). New York: ACM Press.
    [4] Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.
    [5] Antle, A. N. & Wise, A. F. (2013). Getting Down to Details: Using Theories of Cognition and Learning to Inform Tangible User Interface Design. Interacting with Computers 25(1), 1-20.
    [6] Arcana Empress. (n.d.). Retrived May 03, 2016, from http://megamitensei.wikia.com/wiki/Arcana_Empress.
    [7] Auger, E. E. (2004). Tarot and other meditation decks: History, theory, aesthetics, typology. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
    [8] Auger, J. 2013. Speculative design: crafting the speculation, Digital Creativity 24, 1, 11-35, DOI: http://10.1080/14626268.2013.767276
    [9] Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2013. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. The MIT Press.
    [10] Banzhaf, H. (2000). Tarot and the journey of the hero, York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser.
    [11] Barry Brown, Julian Bleecker, Marco D'Adamo, Pedro Ferreira, Joakim Formo, Mareike Glöss, Maria Holm, Kristina Höök, Eva-Carin Banka Johnson, Emil Kaburuan, Anna Karlsson, Elsa Vaara, Jarmo Laaksolahti, Airi Lampinen, Lucian Leahu, Vincent Lewandowski, Donald McMillan, Anders Mellbratt, Johanna Mercurio, Cristian Norlin, Nicolas Nova, Stefania Pizza, Asreen Rostami, Mårten Sundquist, Konrad Tollmar, Vasiliki Tsaknaki, Jinyi Wang, Charles Windlin, and Mikael Ydholm. 2016. The IKEA Catalogue: Design Fiction in Academic and Industrial Collaborations. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 335-344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2957276.2957298
    [12] Baskinger, M., & Gross, M. (2010). Cover story: Tangible interaction = form + computing. Interactions, 17(1), 6-11.
    [13] Beck, E., Obrist, M., Bernhaupt, R., & Tscheligi, M. (2008). Instant card technique: how and why to apply in user-centered design. In Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design (pp. 162-165). New York, NY: ACM.
    [14] Bekker, T., & Antle, A. N. (2011). Developmentally situated design (DSD): Making theoretical knowledge accessible to designers of children's technology. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2531-2540). New York, NY: ACM press.
    [15] Belman, J., Flanagan, M., & Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Instructional methods and curricula for "values conscious design". Loading: The Official Journal of the Canadian Games Studies Association, 3(4).
    [16] Belton, J., 1992. “Technology and Aesthetics of Film Sound,” in Film Theory and Criticism, edited by Gerald Mast, Marshall Cohen, and Leo Braudy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 326.
    [17] Boon, B., Rozendaal, M. C., van den Heuvel-Eibrink, M. M., van der Net, J., van Grotel, M., & Stappers, P. J. (2020). Design strategies for promoting young children’s physical activity: A Playscapes perspective. International Journal of Design, 14(3), 1-18.
    [18] Bootleg. (2010). Retrived May 03, 2016, from http://dschool.stanford.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2011/03/BootcampBootleg2010v2SLIM.pdf.
    [19] Bowers, J. (2012). The logic of annotated portfolios: Communicating the value of ‘research through design’. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 68-77). New York, NY: ACM.
    [20] Brandt, E., & Messeter, J. (2004). Facilitating collaboration through design games. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Participatory Design (pp. 121-131). New York: ACM.
    [21] Brandt, E., & SpringerLink (Online service). (2007). How Tangible Mock-Ups Support Design Collaboration. (Knowledge, technology and policy.)
    [22] Calvino, I. (1977). The castle of crossed destinies. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
    [23] Candy, S., Dator, J., and Dunagan, J. 2006. Four futures for Hawaii 2050. Manoa, Hawaii, Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies.
    [24] Candy, S., and Dunagan, J. 2017. Designing an experi- ential scenario: The people who vanished. Futures 86 (2017), 136--153.
    [25] Cassim, F. (2013). Hands on, hearts on, minds on: Design thinking within an education context. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 32(2), 190-202. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2013.01752.x
    [26] Chung, W.-M., Chiu, L.-Y., & Liang, R.-H. (2013). The Twins: Lighting design based on rich movements. In Proceedings of the 5th IASDR Conference on Design Research (pp. 2510-2520). Tokyo, Japan: Shibaura Institute of Technology.
    [27] Chung, D. W., & Liang, R.-H. (2015a). Interaction Tarot: A card-based design of knowledge construction for brainstorming in HCI. In Proceedings of the 6th IASDR Conference on Design Research (pp. 476-495), Queensland, Australia: Queensland University of Technology.
    [28] Chung, D., & Liang, R.-H. (2015b). Understanding the usefulness of ideation tools with the grounding lenses. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium of Chinese CHI (pp. 13-22), New York: ACM.
    [29] Chung, D., Tsai, W.-C., Liang, R.-H., Kong, B., Huang, Y., Chang, F.-C., and Liu, M. 2020. Designing Auditory Experiences for Technology Imagination. In 32nd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (OzCHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 682–686. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3441000.3441025
    [30] Costello, B., and Edmonds, E. (2007). A study in play, pleasure and experience design. In Proceedings of 2007 International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (pp. 76-91). New York, NY: ACM.
    [31] Dalsgaard, P., and Dindler, C. (2014). Between theory and practice: Bridging concepts in HCI research. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (1635-1644). New York, NY: ACM.
    [32] Daly, S., Christian, J. L., Yilmaz, S., Seifert, C., and Gonzalez, R. (2012). Assessing design heuristics for Idea generation in an introductory engineering course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(2), 463-473.
    [33] D'Arcey, J. T., Haines, J. K., and Churchill, E. 2019. Understanding Embodied State Using Speculative Artifacts. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 671-682. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.332229
    [34] Deng, Y., Antle, A. N., and Neustaedter, C. (2014). Tango cards: A card-based design tool for informing the design of tangible learning games. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 695-704). New York, NY: ACM Press.
    [35] Design Play Cards: Designing for Sustainability. (2013). Retrived April 16, 2016, from http://com.core77designawards.c77ad2012.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/6432/originals/45745142cc4d7d6d5.pdf.
    [36] Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1990). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 392-403.
    [37] Ehn, P. 1990. Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., USA.
    [38] Eno, B., & Schmidt, P. (1978). Oblique strategies. Retrived May 03, 2016, from http://stoney.sb.org/eno/oblique.html.
    [39] Eva Brandt and Camilla Grunnet. 2000. Evoking the future: Drama and props in user centered design. In Proceedings of the 2000 Participatory Design Conference (PDC’ 2000), 11–20.
    [40] Fallman, D. 2003. Design-oriented human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '03). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 225–232. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642652
    [41] Friis, S. K., & Gelting, A. K. G. (2006). DSKD method cards. Kolding, Denmark: Kolding School of Design.
    [42] Jonas Fritsch, Morten Breinbjerg, and Ditte Amund Basballe. 2013. Ekkomaten -exploring the echo as a design fiction con- cept. Digital Creativity 24, 1: 60-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1 080/14626268.2013.771673
    [43] Gaver, W. 2012. What should we expect from research through design? Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 937–946. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208538
    [44] Gaver, B., & Bowers, J. (2012). Annotated portfolios. Interactions, 19(4), 40-49.
    [45] Golembewski, M., & Selby, M. (2010). Ideation decks: A card-based design ideation tool. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 89-92). New York, NY: ACM Press.
    [46] Good Night Lamp. (2015). Retrieved February 2, 2015, from http://goodnightlamp.com/.
    [47] Gray, Colin M.; Seifert, Colleen M.; Yilmaz, Seda; Daly, Shanna R.; and Gonzalez, Richard, "What is the Content of “Design Thinking”? Design Heuristics as Conceptual Repertoire" (2016). Industrial Design Publications. 4.
    [48] Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
    [49] Halskov, K., & Dalsgård, P. (2006). Inspiration card workshops. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 2-11).New York: ACM.
    [50] Hamaker-Zondag, K. (1997). Tarot as a way of life: A Jungian approach to the Tarot. York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser.
    [51] Richard J. Hand and Mary Traynor. 2011. The radio drama handbook. London: Continuum.
    [52] Hansen, F. T. (2009). Epistemic artifacts: The potential of artifacts in design research. Paper presented at Communicating (by) Design, Brussels, Sint-Lucas, School of Architecture, Belgium.
    [53] Heskett, J. (2005). Design: A Very Short Introduction, 3-4.
    [54] Höök, K., & Löwgren, J. (2012). Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 19(3), No. 23.
    [55] Hornecker, E. (2010). Creative idea exploration within the structure of a guiding framework: The card brainstorming game. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (pp. 101-108). New York, NY: ACM Press.
    [56] Hornecker, E., & Buur, J. (2006). Getting a grip on tangible interaction: A framework on physical space and social interaction. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Design for Tangible Interaction (pp. 437-446). New York, NY: ACM.
    [57] Hume, N. Listen Here!, http://www.nicolahume.co.uk/ listen-here/, accessed on September 17th 2013.
    [58] IDEO (2003) IDEO Method Cards: 51 Ways to Inspire Design. Palo Alto: IDEO.
    [59] Intùiti Creative Cards. (2011). Retrieved October 22, 2014, from http://www.intuiti.it/.
    [60] Johansson, F. (2006). The Medici Effect: What elephants and epidemics can teach us about innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Busi¬ness School Press.
    [61] Jung, C. G. (1985). Synchronicity: An acausal connecting principle. London: Routledge.
    [62] Jung, H., & Stolterman, E. (2011). Form and materiality in interaction design: A new approach to HCI. In CHI ‘05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 399-408). New York: ACM Press.
    [63] Kaplan, Mark. (2015). The Archetypal Lens: An Integral Approach to Archetypes and Archetypes in the Cinematic Arts. 10.13140/RG.2.1.3885.0724.
    [64] Kay, A. (1972). “A personal computer for children of all ages.” Palo Alto, CA: Xerox Palo Alto Re- search Center. Available from http://www.mprove.de/diplom/gui/ Kay72a.pdf
    [65] Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2011). The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America's Leading Design Firm. New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday.
    [66] Sandjar Kozubaev. 2018. Futures as design: explorations, images, and participations. interactions 25, 2 (February 2018), 46–51. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3178554
    [67] Sandjar Kozubaev, Chris Elsden, Noura Howell, Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard, Nick Merrill, Britta Schulte, and Richmond Y. Wong. 2020. Expanding Modes of Reflection in Design Futuring. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376526
    [68] Bowen Kong, Wenn-Chieh Tsai, and Rung-Huei Liang. 2019. Confabulation Radio: Reflexive Speculation in Coun- terfactual Soundscape. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Paper LBW0141, 1–6. DOI:https://doi. org/10.1145/3290607.3312858
    [69] Liang, R.-H., Chung, W.-M., Kao, H.-L., & Lin, T.-Y. (2013). InTouch: Crossing social interaction with perception. In A. Marcus (Ed.), Design, user experience, and usability. User experience in novel technological environments (pp. 306-315). Berlin: Springer.
    [70] Lindley, J., Sharma, D., and Potts, R. 2014. Anticipatory Ethnography: Design Fiction as an Input to Design Ethnography. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings. DOI: http://10.1111/1559-8918.01030.
    [71] Löwgren, J. (2013). Annotated portfolios and other forms of intermediate-level knowledge. Interactions, 20(1), 30-34.
    [72] 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). New York, NY: ACM Press.
    [73] Martin, B., & Hanington, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers.
    [74] MethodKit. (2012). Retrived May 03, 2016, from https://methodkit.com.
    [75] Mitchell, J. 2015. Moon Graffiti. Retrieved Dec. 30, 2018 from http://www.thetruthpodcast.com/story/2015/10/15/ moon-graffiti
    [76] Muller, M. J. (2001). Layered participatory analysis: New developments in the CARD technique. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 90-97). New York, NY: ACM.
    [77] Mueller, F., Gibbs, M. R., Vetere, F., & Edge, D. (2014). Supporting the creative game design process with exertion cards. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.2211-2220). New York, NY: ACM.
    [78] Mueller, F., Edge, D., Vetere, F., Gibbs, M. R., Agamanolis, S., Bongers, B., & Sheridan, J. G. (2011). Designing sports: A framework for exertion games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.2651-2660). New York, NY: ACM Press.
    [79] Near Future Laboratory. TBD Catalog. Retrieved Dec 16, 2018 from http://tbdcatalog.com/index.html
    [80] Noel, D. (2016). The Starchild Tarot. Retrived May 03, 2016, from http://www.starchildtarot.com/about-1.
    [81] Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied Imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. New York, NY: Scribner.
    [82] Pelle Ehn. 2008. Participation in design things. In Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008 (PDC '08). Indiana University, USA, 92–101.
    [83] Pierce, J. & Mellon, C. (2014). On the presentation and production of design research artifacts in HCI. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 735-744). New York, NY: ACM Press.
    [84] Polanyi, M. 1966. The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.
    [85] Pollack, R. (2002). The Haindl Tarot, the Major Arcana. Franklin Lakes, NJ: New Page Books.
    [86] Pollack, R. (2008). Rachel Pollack's tarot wisdom: Spiritual teachings and deeper meanings.
    [87] Redström, J. (2008). RE:Definitions of use. Design Studies, 29, 410-423.
    [88] Saffer, D. (2005). The role of metaphor in interaction design. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
    [89] Rittel H, and Webber M. (1974). Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Design Research and Methods, 8(1), 31 - 39.
    [90] Scott R. Klemmer, Björn Hartmann, and Leila Takayama. 2006. How bodies matter: Five themes for interaction design. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’06), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1145/1142405.1142429
    [91] Semetsky, I. (2011). Re-symbolization of the self: Human development and tarot hermeneutic. Rotterdam: Springer.
    [92] Shadow Chie. (n.d.). Retrived May 03, 2016, from http://megamitensei.wikia.com/wiki/Shadow_Chie.
    [93] Skube. (2012). Retrieved March 15, 2014, from http://ciid.dk/education/portfolio/idp12/courses/tangible-user-interface/projects/skube/.
    [94] Some Tarot rooms in New Orleans. (n.d.). Retrived May 03, 2016, from http://thetarotroom.com/tag/w-new-orleans.
    [95] Spencer, D. (2009). Card sorting: Designing usable categories. Brooklyn, NY: Rosenfeld Media.
    [96] Star, Susan L. 1989. The Structure of Ill-Structured So- lutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distrib- uted Problem Solving. In: Gasser, Les and Michael Huhns, eds. Distributed Artificial Intelligence - Vol. 2. San Francisco Cal: Morgan Kaufman, 37-54.
    [97] Steers, J. (2009). Creativity: Delusions, realities, opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 28(2), 126-138. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2009.01600.x
    [98] Stolterman, E. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2(1), 55-65.
    [99] Stolterman, E., & Wiberg, M. (2010). Concept-driven interaction design research. Human–Computer Interaction, 25(2), 95-118.
    [100] Tschudy, M., Dykstra-Erickson, E. A., Holloway, M. S. (1996). PictureCARD: A storytelling tool for task analysis. In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference (183-191). Cambridge, MA: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.
    [101] Vines, J., Blythe, M., Lindsay, S., Dunphy, P., Monk, A., & Olivier, P. (2012). Questionable concepts: Critique as resource for designing with eighty somethings. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.1169-1178). New York, NY: ACM.
    [102] Visual Explorer Post Card. (2013). Retrived May 03, 2016, from http://solutions.ccl.org/Visual_Explorer_Post_Card_Facilitator's_Set.
    [103] Wölfel, C., & Merritt, T. (2013). Method card design dimensions: A survey of card-based design tools. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2013 (pp.479-486). New York, NY: Springer.
    [104] Richmond Y. Wong, Ellen Van Wyk, and James Pierce. 2017. Real-Fictional Entanglements: Using Science Fiction and Design Fiction to Interrogate Sensing Technologies. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 567-579. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064682

    QR CODE