This investigation explores relations between 1) a theory of human cognition, called Embodied Cognition, 2) the design of interactive systems and 3) the practice of ‘creative group meetings’ (of which the so-called ‘brainstorm’ is perhaps the best-known example). The investigation is one of Research-through-Design (Overbeeke et al., 2006). This means that, together with students and external stakeholders, I designed two interactive prototypes. Both systems contain a ‘mix’ of both physical and digital forms. Both are designed to be tools in creative meeting sessions, or brainstorms. The tools are meant to form a natural, element in the physical meeting space. The function of these devices is to support the formation of shared insight: that is, the tools should support the process by which participants together, during the activity, get a better grip on the design challenge that they are faced with. Over a series of iterations I reflected on the design process and outcome, and investigated how users interacted with the prototypes.
DOCUMENT
Behaviour change design has much to gain with the integration of insights from the behavioural sciences in the design process. However, this integration needs to be done without hampering the creative process. In two rich design cases aimed at health and safety behaviour change, we describe our efforts to develop a method for theory driven design based on the Double Diamond. Our method attempts to integrate insights from the Persuasive by Design-model (PbD) for behaviour change into the entire design process. Our case studies demonstrate that our method indeed augments the integration of theory and evidence in our designs, but only if the Double Diamond process model is complemented with an evaluation phase, and insights from the PbD-model are derived using rich, well developed tools.
DOCUMENT
This paper discusses two studies - the one in a business context, the other in a university context - carried out with expert educational designers. The studies aimed to determine the priorities experts claim to employ when designing competence-based learning environments. Designers in both contexts agree almost completely on principles they feel are important. Both groups emphasized that one should start a design enterprise from the needs of the learners, instead of the content structure of the learning domain. However, unlike business designers, university designers find it extremely important to consider alternative solutions during the whole design process. University designers also say that they focus more on project plan and desired characteristics of the instructional blueprint whereas business designers report being more client-oriented, stressing the importance of "buying in" the client early in the process.
DOCUMENT
