Getting Around the Task-Artifact Cycle: How to Make Claims and Design by Scenario

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

221 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We are developing an “action science” approach to human-computer interaction 1992, seeking to better integrate activities directed at understanding with those directed at design. The approach leverages development practices of current HCI with methods and concepts to support a shift toward using broad and explicit design rationale to reify where we are in a design process, why we are there, and to guide reasoning about where we might go from there. We represent a designed artifact as the set of user scenarios supported by that artifact and more finely by causal schemas detailing the underlying psychological rationale. These schemas, called claims, unpack wherefores and whys of the scenarios. In this paper, we stand back from several empirical projects to clarify our commitments and practices.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)181-212
Number of pages32
JournalACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS)
Volume10
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 4 1992

Fingerprint

Human computer interaction
Scenarios
Rationale
Human-computer interaction
Action science
Design process
Leverage
Psychological

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Information Systems
  • Business, Management and Accounting(all)
  • Computer Science Applications

Cite this

@article{c26d8482135b4a048cff6f6e0ccaa2c4,
title = "Getting Around the Task-Artifact Cycle: How to Make Claims and Design by Scenario",
abstract = "We are developing an “action science” approach to human-computer interaction 1992, seeking to better integrate activities directed at understanding with those directed at design. The approach leverages development practices of current HCI with methods and concepts to support a shift toward using broad and explicit design rationale to reify where we are in a design process, why we are there, and to guide reasoning about where we might go from there. We represent a designed artifact as the set of user scenarios supported by that artifact and more finely by causal schemas detailing the underlying psychological rationale. These schemas, called claims, unpack wherefores and whys of the scenarios. In this paper, we stand back from several empirical projects to clarify our commitments and practices.",
author = "John Carroll and Rosson, {Mary Beth}",
year = "1992",
month = "1",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1145/146802.146834",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "181--212",
journal = "ACM Transactions on Information Systems",
issn = "1046-8188",
publisher = "Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Getting Around the Task-Artifact Cycle

T2 - How to Make Claims and Design by Scenario

AU - Carroll, John

AU - Rosson, Mary Beth

PY - 1992/1/4

Y1 - 1992/1/4

N2 - We are developing an “action science” approach to human-computer interaction 1992, seeking to better integrate activities directed at understanding with those directed at design. The approach leverages development practices of current HCI with methods and concepts to support a shift toward using broad and explicit design rationale to reify where we are in a design process, why we are there, and to guide reasoning about where we might go from there. We represent a designed artifact as the set of user scenarios supported by that artifact and more finely by causal schemas detailing the underlying psychological rationale. These schemas, called claims, unpack wherefores and whys of the scenarios. In this paper, we stand back from several empirical projects to clarify our commitments and practices.

AB - We are developing an “action science” approach to human-computer interaction 1992, seeking to better integrate activities directed at understanding with those directed at design. The approach leverages development practices of current HCI with methods and concepts to support a shift toward using broad and explicit design rationale to reify where we are in a design process, why we are there, and to guide reasoning about where we might go from there. We represent a designed artifact as the set of user scenarios supported by that artifact and more finely by causal schemas detailing the underlying psychological rationale. These schemas, called claims, unpack wherefores and whys of the scenarios. In this paper, we stand back from several empirical projects to clarify our commitments and practices.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026842540&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026842540&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1145/146802.146834

DO - 10.1145/146802.146834

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0026842540

VL - 10

SP - 181

EP - 212

JO - ACM Transactions on Information Systems

JF - ACM Transactions on Information Systems

SN - 1046-8188

IS - 2

ER -