About metaphorical expressions• The essence of a metaphor is understanding

and experiencing one kind of things in terms of another

• Metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action – ”Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which

we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature ” (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980)

– i.e. You disagree ? Okay , shoot!

• The user as …

The user as a problem-solver

• The user is viewed as a mental processor who achieves a task (goals) by solving sub-goals using some device

• Focus on the logic or practice of the task –users’ competence and performance-

• Human actions are characterized in terms of perceiving the world, represent it internally, manipulating it– The model human processor provides a means of

characterizing the various cognitive processes that are assumed to underlie the performance of a task

• Models of the user (hierarchical tasks analysis) seeks to model the internal representation and processing

Cognitive PsychologyAim: Make scientific studies of cognition describing similarities between

the human mind and the computer Unit of Analysis:

Individual, mental representations, its structure and processes

Method: Experimental, normative statistics, model resolved description, think aloud, task analysis

Composition: Cognition is built upon parts, is computational Relation to the artefact:

Symmetrical, any information processing can be described in same language

Reaction against:

Behaviourism, simple stimuli-response chains

Design: Task analysis, principles derived from theoretical model of cognition, empirical and experimental control,

Pros & cons: Clear and predictable models to evaluate from, common sense and scientific testing, focus only on the individual in vacuum.

The user as a component of a system

• The user is viewed as a part of a functional system

• The user is part of a collection of individuals and artifacts in the work setting

• Focus on the dynamic aspects of activity (i.e. the means by which knowledge is propagated and transmitted through the functional system) rather than static entities (e.g. the power and role structures within an organization)

• Human actions are characterized in terms of coordination of distributed structures

Distributed Cognition

Aim: Show how cognition is distributed into a functional contextualised system. Organise external representations for people to archive a system goal

Unit of Analysis

A system compromising people and technology

Method: Thorough system analysis (activity, task, representation), qualitative and quantitative of agency

Composition: Goal of the system Relation artefact:

Conceptually symmetrical, humans are agent in the system

Reaction against:

Individualism, representational-mentalism

Design: Activity and representational analysis

Pros and cons:

Deconstructing complex system and how parts fit together, diminishing individual knowledge and intention.

The user as human actor

• The user is viewed as the active individual or sub-group whose agency is chosen as the point of view in the analysis of the activity system

• Users often wish to accomplish tasks, to understand what is going on, they are always struggling to make sense of their world

• Focus on what is the engine of human activity

• Human actions are always motivated and instrumented

Activity Theory

Aim: Describe human activity, its structure.

Unit of Analysis

The activity system which is always object-oriented, mediate by tools and the community.

Method: Qualitative, conversational analysis, interviews, analysis of intra and inter tensions within the activity.

Composition: The activity system consist of individual and social aspects Relation artefact:

Asymmetrical, motive and consciousness are inherently human, artefacts are service for activities

Reaction against:

Cartesian individualism, idealism, cognitivism

Design: Comparative analysis from a structural model, analysis of breakdowns

Pros & cons Context and activity from a structural model, non-normative model

The user as a reader

• The user is viewed as the subjective interpreter

• The user as a reader brings certain assumptions to a text based on the interpretive strategies s/he has learned in a particular interpretive community

• Focus on the user and her meaning-making process– Instead of asking what the text means the question is on what

the text does to the reader– Different types of readers : ideal reader, the intended reader,

the real reader, the implied reader, and the resisting reader

• Human actions are characterized in terms of a dialectical process between the reader and the text

Reception theoryAim: To present the relation between cultural norms and subjectivity, to

show how understanding is related to society Unit of Analysis

Subjective understanding (and action)

Method: Interview, introspection, relation to cultural norms

Composition: Cultural knowledge and cultural norms, theoretical reflection on society

Relation artefact:

Asymmetrical, humans are definitely unique and cannot be reduced to any form of singular model

Reaction against:

Objectivism

Design: Mainly as a critical standard of how technology and science reify conditions for knowledge

Pros & cons Focus on the ideological norms and present caveats

The user as a resourceful person

• The user is viewed as a situated person making use of resources (i.e. Plans)

• Focus on the ongoing user’s action, on located accountability of human action

• Focus on boundaries between persons and machines, but ”differences without separation”…

• Human action are emergent and contingent

Situated actionAim: Relation between action and its ressources

Unit of Analysis

The ongoing uncertain action

Method: Ethnomethodology, detailed accounts of actions within a situated context

Composition: Individual action and understanding Relation artefact:

Asymmetrical, qualitatively different

Reaction against:

Cartesian individualism, idealism, cognitvism

Design: Analysis of how people actually use resources

Pros & cons Contextual, little reliability or transcending comparison. Difficult to generalise