2) On the side of research, a disconnect btw technical sciences + computer science that primarily focus on tools, and cog sci + psychology-oriented research, which tends to focus on mental processes but largely ignore the role of tools. Bridge-building definitely required here.
Conversation
+1 for this. It's like educators understanding education and HCI understanding computer systems but they don't really attend each others' conferences and the lack of awesome EduTech prevails.
1
7
That being said it is very difficult to keep up with newest research in HCI as well as cognitive science, and as much as I would love to understand cog sci better, my brain seems to only have that much room...
2
8
Yes, even keeping up with one field is hard. But I'd argue that in many cases a lot could be gained by getting acquainted with canonical texts in these other disciplines would go a long way.
1
5
If only fields (and reviewers!) then agreed on which were canonical texts 😂
2
5
Peter, if you're willing, I'd be curious to hear what you consider to be, say, 3 "canonical" HCI texts published post-2000?
2
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Introducing HCI to colleagues from other disciplines, I’d start w pre-2000 texts like : The Design of Everyday Things; Card, Moran & Newell: The Psychology of HCI; : Designing the User Interface, Kay: Personal Dynamic Media; Through the Interface>
1
8
Post-2000: Raskin: The Humane Interface; : Where the Action Is; Hutchins, , Kirsh: Distributed Cognition; Sharp, Preece, Rogers: Interaction Design; Beaudouin-Lafon: Instrumental Interaction; McCarthy, Wright: Technology as Experience >
1
7
The reason I’d start with pre-2000 texts is that many concepts we take for granted have the power to inspire novel work in other disciplines, eg a recent interesting analysis of international diplomacy analyzed via the concept of affordances from & Drieschova.
2
4
Replying to
Thank you for sharing! The pre-2000's match what I'd expect, but there are a couple newbies to me in the post-2000's—looking forward to enjoying. :)
Replying to
You're welcome, it was an interesting exercise. I'm sure I left out much that I ought to have included. And many thanks in return for sharing your research with the rest of us. Highly inspiring.
1