Design Paradigms
Hartson and Pyla (sections 8.5, 8.6, 8.7; see section 6.3 in the 2nd edition) survey design themes and goals that may not (yet) be generally practiced. These perspectives tend to work within the phenomemological paradigm.
See Harrison, Tatar and Sengers article that provides an overview of the paradigms.
Engineering Paradigm
- Focus on the system and functionality
- May consider human use, but only in a very "practical" sense
- Adds usability as separate phase
- Atheoretic
Human Information Processing Paradigm
- Rooted in human cognition
- Considers constraints of the human cognitive architecture
- Assumes established goals (e.g. efficiency, minimal errors)
Design-Thinking Paradigm
This is Hartson and Pyla's (first edition) term for the paradigm. In the second edition, they call it the phenomenological paradigm.
- Phenomenological approach --- based on direct experiences
- Minimal assumptions of what constitutes a good design
Issues for discussion
- Consider some interactive technologies. Under which paradigms were they principally designed?
- What are the paradigms' implications for when they should be practiced in the UX process?
- Does the discussion on paradigms conflate research for making a better design with academic research?