More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

A critical, creative UX community: CLUF

Author:

Gilbert CocktonAuthors Info & Claims

Journal of Usability Studies, Volume 10, Issue 1

Pages 1 - 16

Published: 01 November 2014 Publication History

Abstract

Research and practice in human-computer interaction (HCI) are now in their fourth decade. After a first decade focused on modeling and guidance, professional practices associated with HCI have focused first on user-centered design (UCD), next on user experience (UX, which includes usability), and now on interaction design (IxD), with a range of practices (e.g., creative, agile, lean) that challenge established ways of working within UX, UCD, and early HCI.

References

[1]

My own papers cited below can be downloaded from https://northumbria.academia.edu/GilbertCockton

[2]

Adlin, T., & Pruitt, J. (2010). The essential persona lifecycle: Your guide to building and using personas. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

[3]

Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

[4]

Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994). Designing engineers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

[5]

Cockton, G. (2006). Designing worth is worth designing. In A. I. Mørch, K. Morgan, T. Bratteteig, G. Ghosh, & D. Svanæs (Eds.), Proceedings of NordiCHI 2006 (165--174).

[6]

Cockton, G. (2007). Make evaluation poverty history. alt. CHI paper, CHI 2007, available from http://www.academia.edu/1906725/Make_Evaluation_Poverty_History

[7]

Cockton, G. (2008a). Designing worth: Connecting preferred means with probable ends. Interactions, 15(4), 54--57.

[8]

Cockton, G. (2008b). Revisiting usability's three key principles. In M. Czerwinski, A. M. Lund, & D. S. Tan (Eds.), CHI 2008 Extended Abstracts (2473--2484).

[9]

Cockton, G. (2008c). Load while aiming; hit?. In H. Bau, S. Diefenbach, M. Hassenzahl, F. Koller, M. Peissner, & K. Röse (Eds.), Usability professionals (pp. 17--22), German UPA Chapter, available at http://www.researchgate.net/publication/43184724_Usability_Professionals_2008_Berichtband_des_sechsten_Workshops_des_German_Chapters_der_Usability_Professionals_Association_e.V_07.09.-10.09.2008_Lbeck

[10]

Cockton, G. (2013). A load of cobbler's children: Beyond the model designing processor. CHI EA '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2139--2148). New York, NY: ACM.

[11]

Cockton, G., & Clarke, S. (1999). Using contextual information effectively in design. In A. Sasse, & C. Johnson (Eds.), INTERACT 99 Proceedings (pp. 578--585).

[12]

Cockton, G., Kirk, D., Sellen, A., & Banks, R. (2009). Evolving and augmenting worth mapping for family archives. In A. F. Blackwell (Ed.), Proceedings of HCI 2009---People and Computers XXIII---Celebrating people and technology (pp. 329--338), BCS eWIC, available at http://www.bcs.org//upload/pdf/ewic_hci09_paper42.pdf

[13]

Cockton, G., Kujala, S., Nurkka, P., & Hölttä, T. (2009). Supporting worth mapping with sentence completion. In T. Gross, J. Gulliksen, P. Kotzé, L. Oestreicher, P. Palanque, R. O. Prates, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Human-Computer Interactions---INTERACT 2009, Part II, (LNCS 5727, pp. 566--581) Springer.

[14]

Cockton, G., & Lavery, D. (1999). A framework for usability problem extraction. In A. Sasse, & C. Johnson (Eds.), Human-Computer Interactions---INTERACT 99 Proceedings (pp.347--355). IOS Press.

[15]

Cockton, G., Lavery, D., & Woolrych, A. (2003). Chapter 57: Inspection-based methods. In. J. Jacko, & A. Sears (Eds.), The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook (LEA, pp. 1118--1138).

[16]

Cockton, G., & Woolrych, A. (2001). Understanding inspection methods: Lessons from an assessment of heuristic evaluation. In A. Blandford, J. Vanderdonckt, & P. D. Gray (Eds.) People and Computers XV (pp. 171--192). Springer-Verlag.

[17]

Cockton, G., Woolrych, A., & Hindmarch, M. (2004). Reconditioned merchandise: Extended structured report formats in usability inspection, In CHI 2004 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1433--1436). New York, NY: ACM.

[18]

Cockton, G., Woolrych, A., Hornbæk, K., & Frøkjær, E. (2012). Inspection-based methods. In J. Jacko (Ed.), The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook (3rd edition, pp. 1275--1293).

[19]

Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[20]

Constantine L., & Lockwood, L. (1999). Software for use: A practical guide to the essential models and methods of usage-centered design. New York, NY: ACM Press.

[21]

Cooper. A. (1999). The inmates are running the asylum: Why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity. Sams Macmillan Computer Publishing.

[22]

Cross, N.(2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg.

[23]

Darke, J. (1979). The primary generator and the design process. Design Studies 1(1), 36--44.

[24]

Davies, R., & Talbot, R. (1987). Experiencing ideas: Identity, insight and the imago. Design Studies, 8(1), 17--25.

[25]

Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425--437.

[26]

Dumas, J., & Saparova, D. (2012). The first seven years of the JUS, Journal of Usability Studies 8(1), 1--10.

[27]

Frøkjær, E., & Hornbæk, K. (2008). Metaphors of human thinking for usability inspection and design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 14(4).

[28]

Garnik, G., Sikorski, M., & Cockton, G. (2014). Creative sprints: An unplanned broad agile evaluation and redesign process. Proceedings of NordiCHI '14. (pp. 1125--1130). ACM.

[29]

Gaver, W. (2011). Making spaces: How design workbooks work. Proceedings of CHI 2011 (pp. 1551--1560). ACM.

[30]

Gothelf, J. with Seiden, J. (Ed.; 2013). Lean UX: Applying lean principles to improve user experience. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.

[31]

Gould, J., & Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. CACM 28(3), 300--311.

[32]

Gray, W. D., & Salzman, M. (1998). Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. HCI, 13(3), 203--261.

[33]

Hertzum, M., & Jacobsen, N. E. (2001). The evaluator effect: A chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13(1), 421--443.

[34]

Holtzblatt, K., Wendell, J., & Wood, S. (2005). Rapid contextual design: A how-to guide to key techniques for user-centered design. Morgan Kaufmann.

[35]

Keinonen, T. (2009). Design method: Instrument, competence or agenda. Paper presented at the Swiss Design Research Network Symposium, Lugano, Switzerland.

[36]

Koskinen, I. K., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström, J., & Wensveen, S. (2011). Design research through practice: From the lab, field, and showroom. Morgan Kaufmann.

[37]

Law, E., Hvannberg, E., & Cockton, G. (Eds.; 2008). Maturing usability: Quality in software, interaction and value. Springer.

[38]

McGinn, J., & Kotamraju, N. (2008). Data-driven persona development. In Proceedings of CHI '08 (pp. 1521--1524). ACM.

[39]

Molich, R. (n. d.) CUE---Comparative usability evaluation. Retrieved October 2014, from http://www.dialogdesign.dk/CUE.html.

[40]

Pruitt, J., & Adlin, T. (2006). The persona lifecycle: Keeping people in mind throughout product design. Morgan Kaufmann.

[41]

Rosenbaum, S. (2008). The future of usability evaluations: Increasing impact on value. In E. L.-C. Law, E. T. Hvannberg, & G. Cockton (Eds.), Maturing usability (pp. 344--378). London: Springer.

[42]

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books, Inc.

[43]

Sears, A., & Hess, D. J. (1999). Cognitive walkthroughs: Understanding the effect of task-description detail on evaluator performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 11(3), 185--200.

[44]

Simon, H. A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press.

[45]

Sorell, T. (1991). Scientism: Philosophy and the infatuation with science. Routledge.

[46]

Wisser, F. S., & Stappers, P. J. (2007). Mind the face. Proceedings of DPPI '07 (pp. 119--134). ACM.

[47]

Woolrych, A., Hornbæk, K., Frøkjær, E., & Cockton, G. (2011). Ingredients and meals rather than recipes: A proposal for research that does not treat usability evaluation methods as indivisible wholes. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27(10), 940--970.

Cited By

Hakoköngäs EAsiala A(2020)Image of the human in service designJournal of Usability Studies10.5555/3532708.353271015:2(71-84)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3532708.3532710
Cockton G(2020)Usability diverges, media converges, design remergesJournal of Usability Studies10.5555/3532708.353270915:2(63-70)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3532708.3532709
Reeves S(2019)How UX Practitioners Produce Findings in Usability TestingACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/329909626:1(1-38)Online publication date: 30-Jan-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3299096
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

A critical, creative UX community: CLUF
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. HCI design and evaluation methods
    2. Interaction paradigms
      1. Web-based interaction
  2. Interaction design
    1. Interaction design process and methods
      1. User centered design

Recommendations

Five agile UX myths

As more and more user experience practitioners dip their toes into Agile waters, the practice of Agile user experience (UX) continues to evolve and mature. While researching my book on Agile UX (Agile User Experience Design: A Practitioner's Guide to ...
Agile UX Storytelling: Crafting Stories for Better Software Development
Ethical Mediation in UX Practice
CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

HCI scholars have become increasingly interested in describing the complex nature of UX practice. In parallel, HCI and STS scholars have sought to describe the ethical and value-laden relationship between designers and design outcomes. However, little ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of Usability Studies

Journal of Usability Studies Volume 10, Issue 1

November 2014

62 pages

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

Usability Professionals' Association

Bloomingdale, IL

Publication History

Published: 01 November 2014

Published in JUS Volume 10, Issue 1

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

9
Total Citations
View Citations
159
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)3
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 02 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Hakoköngäs EAsiala A(2020)Image of the human in service designJournal of Usability Studies10.5555/3532708.353271015:2(71-84)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3532708.3532710
Cockton G(2020)Usability diverges, media converges, design remergesJournal of Usability Studies10.5555/3532708.353270915:2(63-70)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3532708.3532709
Reeves S(2019)How UX Practitioners Produce Findings in Usability TestingACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/329909626:1(1-38)Online publication date: 30-Jan-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3299096
Cockton GHöök KKaye JWaern AWynn EWilliamson JBrewster SFitzpatrick GCox AKostakos V(2019)Moving Towards a Journal-centric Publication Model for CHIExtended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3290607.3311743(1-4)Online publication date: 2-May-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290607.3311743
Cockton GBrewster SFitzpatrick GCox AKostakos V(2019)Balancing Interaction DesignExtended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3290607.3298816(1-4)Online publication date: 2-May-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290607.3298816
Cockton GMandryk RHancock MPerry MCox A(2018)Balanced Interaction DesignExtended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3170427.3170659(1-4)Online publication date: 20-Apr-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3170427.3170659
Gutierrez Lopez MRovelo Ruiz GLuyten KHaesen MConinx KForte APrilla MVivacqua AMüller CRobert L(2018)Re-thinking TraceabilityProceedings of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work10.1145/3148330.3148334(196-208)Online publication date: 7-Jan-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3148330.3148334
Cockton GMark GFussell SLampe Cschraefel mHourcade JAppert CWigdor D(2017)Creative Worthwhile Interaction DesignProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3027063.3027112(1192-1195)Online publication date: 6-May-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3027063.3027112
Cockton GKaye JDruin ALampe CMorris DHourcade J(2016)Creative Worthwhile Interaction DesignProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/2851581.2856681(1020-1023)Online publication date: 7-May-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2851581.2856681

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents