Interaction Design Patterns: Generative Design Supporting Intercultural Collaboration
N. Schadewitz,
Dipl.Des. PhD. Candidate
School of Design,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, SAR China.
e-mail:
sd.nic@polyu.edu.hk
Abstract
Since Alexander first
introduced design patterns to architectural design, various researchers have
built on this approach to create and communicate reusable design knowledge.
Interaction design patterns for remote collaboration represent a new and constantly
evolving facet of the use of patterns in design.
So far, most collaboration
patterns address arrangements of physical objects and spaces rather than the
design of processes. In collaborative work, different teams may use different
means of communication for different purposes but there are many similarities
and commonalities among the processes employed. Patterns involved in work and
social interaction can be seen to reoccur in other modalities of collaboration
as well.
The author proposes that the
design of interfaces to support intercultural remote collaboration can be
informed by those more generalized interaction patterns. These interaction
patterns would capture and document good solutions used to structure the
collaboration process. This knowledge of interaction patterns can be reused to
generate and custom-make interface designs for various collaborative modes and
purposes.
This paper describes multiple
methods - including observations, interviews and case studies in co-located and
remote collaboration - which were used by the author to collect interaction
patterns in collaboration. It presents preliminary results in the form of
evolving interaction design patterns for intercultural collaborative learning
and design, and gives examples of how such patterns could be used to generate
designs.
1. Introduction
Design patterns and
pattern languages structure design knowledge into a format, which can be used
to generate infinite numbers of good design solutions. A pattern, which is by
definition [2] a good design solution to a problem in a certain context,
evolves slowly over generations. Patterns are written guidelines collected into
languages. There are numerous approaches to writing, sharing and using design
patterns and pattern languages in the field of interaction design, very
abstract human-computer-interaction design patterns [13], and more
contextualized interaction design [3] and website design patterns [15] to
collaborative interaction [6] and groupware patterns [12].
This paper explores the question, which pattern and pattern language
format is capable to generate good interaction design solutions in the context
of intercultural collaborative learning. It presents an interaction design
pattern approach and pattern language framework to intercultural collaborative
learning. The paper argues, that the collaboration goal and process are most
relevant to structure a pattern language for a specific context of use, but
ethnographic techniques like observations and interviews capture reoccurring good
design solutions in order to write a single pattern.
Research has been carried out to share, compare and evaluate different
approaches to pattern writing. Researchers generally agree that patterns have
to evolve slowly in order to find a commonly accepted format. But so far
researcher did not agree on a common degree of abstraction or focus of
interaction design patterns and pattern languages. However, many patterns in
the area of interactive and collaborative design remain using the original
“Alexandrian” format [2].
2. Patterns and Pattern Languages
In 1977, Alexander at al. [1] proposed a pattern language for
architecture. They argued that architecture is not created but generated by
events that reoccur, including the architecture for us experiencing it. Those
events are living patterns indirectly generated by ordinary action of people.
[2 pp.xi] Good patterns evolved slowly over generations. In order to document
good design knowledge and make it available for reuse, Alexander at al. [1,2]
collected patterns in architecture in order to abstract a shared pattern
language. This language gives each person who uses it the power to create an
infinite variety of new and unique designs. Patterns are described in
“three-part rules, which establish a relationship between a context, a system
of forces, which arises in that context [repeatedly], and a configuration which
allows these forces to resolve themselves [in a good way] in that context.” [2
pp. 247]
It sounds simple, but pattern writing is challenging. Patterns should
not be too wide or abstract, nether too limiting nor narrowing the context of
use. Alexander’s method in identifying good patterns is easy, almost profane;
You have to feel good about it! His suggestion how to identify and write
pattern reads almost like a cookbook recipe. Observe and analyze instances of
one pattern. Distinguish what feels good and bad about it. Identify and
abstract the properties all good solutions have in common. Define forces, which
balance this pattern. Describe the circumstances, which lead to a good
solution. Define a range of contexts where the named forces bring a pattern
into balance. [2 pp. 247-276] Patterns, identified in this way, slowly improve
by evaluating and testing them against our experience.
However, one isolated pattern does not work well. They need semantic
connections to other patterns. Alexander compared this phenomenon to natural
language. A word needs to be related to another word to express a deeper
meaning. Hence, a network of related patterns create a pattern language.
Alexander et al. [1] created an immense architecture pattern language offering
a network of large range (cities), middle range (buildings) and small range
patterns (single components and details of buildings). But they stress that a living
pattern language needs to be shared and needs to evolve like a culture.
Different cultures share patterns, like relatives share a common pool of genes
or natural languages share a common pool of language components. Pattern
languages vary from person to person and culture to culture, but overlaps do
occur.
3. Interaction and Collaboration Design Pattern
Interaction design patterns cover a diverse area of research into human
computer, social, collaborative or mobile interaction. Despite of writing style, naming convention, degree
of abstraction or format, different pattern collections and languages show
overlaps. Similarities of patterns can
be found between such different contexts of interaction as websites [15], human
computer systems [13] or interactive exhibits [3]. As an example, one pattern,
which reoccurs throughout the interaction design domain is called “Go back to a
save place” [13] or “Home Link” [15]. This pattern describes the phenomenon
that users want to explore the computational space freely, but in case they get
lost, users want to have a quick and secure escape, which takes them back to a
known place or position. There are more patterns showing commonalities. Those shared
patterns illustrate the emergence of a computational interface culture. Many
people share this culture nowadays. Shared patterns show a common pool of
widely accepted, good design solutions supporting a human interacting with a
computational system.
Similar to Alexander’s approach, interaction design patterns can also be
categorized into large, middle and small range patterns. As exemplified before,
small range patterns show commonalities among various interaction design
pattern collections and languages, but large range patterns differ most among
various languages. As an example, patterns like Attraction Space [3],
Commercial Website [14] or Collaborative Virtual Environment [12] closely
relate to a specific interaction design application domain, context of use and
interaction goal.
However, approaches to structure those collections and languages vary
greatly. Patterns can be structured into networks, showing relations among them
by families [12], hierarchy [14,15], or in parallel pattern languages, which
are connected by a model [3].
|
1. Groupware
Pattern Families |
2.
Shopping-Website Pattern Hierarchy |
|
3. Model to use
parallel pattern languages |
Borchers [3] structures patterns into three separate domains to describe good solutions for interactive music exhibits. Musical patterns describe the application domain of interaction. A HCI pattern language describes the human-computer interaction structure with the exhibit. Finally, software patterns describe the computational implementation of musical and HCI patterns in the interaction process. This approach allows the integration of patterns into a very specific interaction context. Whereas Welie and v.d. Veer [14,15] established a hierarchical pattern language for website design composed of large (goal and posture), middle (experience) and small range patterns (task and action). This approach structures interaction and interface design patterns by interaction goal and process in a certain context e.g. Online Shopping [14].
Collaborative
interaction and groupware patterns cover two different interaction categories.
These collections try to relate patterns of the human-computer-interaction
domain to patterns of human-human-interaction using a computational system.
Schuemer [12] established a network of groupware pattern families, which is a
rich but no-focused collection. The collection includes any kind of
collaboration tools and artifacts, large, middle and small patterns side by
side, rather than pointing out a good collection of patterns within a specific
context. Whereas Martin’s [6-8] collaborative interaction patterns take the
entire collaborative work context into account. These patterns describe good
solutions to the organization of collaborative work activities, which have been
identified by ethnomethodologically informed ethnographic studies of work using
interactive systems. Patterns are identified as systems to structure
ethnographic material utilizing findings from field studies as recourses for
re-using in new design settings. [7]
4. Writing Pattern for Intercultural Collaborative
Learning
Several forms and modes of collaboration and collaborative leaning are
practiced in intercultural settings. Full or partial collaboration projects are
carried out in educational contexts, e-learning environments or summer schools,
using collocated, remote or mixed modes of collaboration.
On one hand, to define a framework of interaction context and goal is
most important to write patterns for intercultural collaborative learning in
the first place. On the other hand, doing ethnographic studies, observing actual
teamwork gives valuable information about intercultural collocated and remote
collaboration. As mentioned in [6-8], a design pattern is a good format to
organize, present and represent a growing corpus of ethnographic material to
outline reoccurring design solutions. Hence, I simultaneously approach writing
interaction design patterns from bottom up - identifying the single pattern,
and from top down - structuring an emerging pattern language framework.
I observe reoccurring events and processes in collaborative teamwork,
where members do not share the same cultural background. I look for overlapping
patterns of intercultural collaborative learning in varying settings. Patterns,
which occur most often, all intercultural collaborative learning contexts share.
In addition to observing single reoccurring patterns, a framework can give
guidance. For this purpose, I adapted Welie’s website design pattern framework
[14] (see figure 4). I found it very helpful to establish a pattern network,
which describes intercultural collaborative learning processes as well as
artifacts being used. Furthermore, I can relate to and extend from existing
patterns in the HCI and groupware domain.
5. Context and Methods of this Study
Pattern writing is an ongoing process of observing events that reoccur,
abstracting them into design patterns and refining those patterns by testing
them against experience. I use a human-centered research approach to identify
interaction design patterns in intercultural collaborative learning. I observed
design and accomplishment of several intercultural collaborative team projects
in various contexts. Up to now I tested a few emergent patterns in case studies
by conducting interviews and observing the collaboration process. Additionally
to those case studies, I interviewed students and users of collaborative
systems, design experts and researcher to gain an overview of practices in
related contexts to help me evaluate emergent patterns from the observations
and design case studies.
I participated in an international information design
summer academy with the topic and title "Remote Relations - Tools for
Collaboration", held by IIIDj - the International Institute for
Information Design Japan. The invited international audience from the fields of
design, business, computation and social science was composed of 20
postgraduate university students and young professionals from Japan, Korea,
Hong Kong, India, Italy, Serbia, Germany, Norway and USA. The workshop was held
in Ogaki, Gifu Province in Japan for 2 weeks in August and September 2003.
Aim of the workshop was the collaborative development
of design ideas and scenarios to support remote relationships of individuals,
companies and institutions. Participants had been split up into small teams of
four to six people with a leader for each group being assigned previously. Each
group applied different methodologies to explore this rather broad topic, such
as structured or non-structured brainstorm sessions, change of physical work
environment or modification and customization of tools and space. There were
frequent short presentations within groups and to other groups. The workshop
was structured in morning and afternoon table discussions, attended by all
participant, continuous group work and lectures by design professionals. In
addition to formal collaboration activities, participants had also been
encouraged to share daily practices, activities and functions, such as lunch,
dinner and accommodation.
In
2004, I participated in Convivio-3, the third international summer school in
user-centred interaction design, which was held in Split, Croatia. Themes of
study were “Communities in Transition” and “Sustainable Tourism”. Forty-four
students from 14 countries including Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Ukraine, Romania,
Sweden, India, China and the United States participated in the 2-week program.
In addition to attending daily lecture series, participants were organized into
4 atelier groups and asked to design solutions that addressed the local
sustainable tourism needs of this post-war community-in-transition.
Each
atelier was appointed a leader, recruited in advance. Participants were
pre-assigned to the ateliers in efforts to construct teams that were well
balanced along the dimensions of culture, research discipline, and institution
of origin. Each atelier had a sub-theme, which was connected to the atelier
leaders’ areas of expertise as Mobile Devices, Design Methodologies, Identity
in Design and Games. Although the design methodologies used within the ateliers
varied, they were ethnographically inspired.
Each atelier utilized qualitative fieldwork such as interviews or
observation and did prototypes in varying degrees of fidelity to inform their
resulting designs.
Over a period of 2 years,
I observed a university design studio subject titled "Only Connect",
where students were asked to accomplish a design project collaborating remotely
and collocated. The School of Design at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University
organized and taught in collaboration with Design Schools in Korea, Austria and
USA. There were approximately 110 Hong Kong participants and 50 international
partners. Participants were undergraduate design and fine art students, from
various design disciplines and specializations including industrial,
environmental, architectural, interaction and fashion design, visual
communication and media art. They collaborated in small teams consisting of 4 -
6 people in a stream specific field over a period of seven weeks, from October
until December 2003 and 2004. Though distributed in geographical locations in
Hong Kong, Austria, USA, Japan and Korea, the meeting point was a shared
virtual project and team space in the Internet: the "Only Connect"
Project Website [www.onlyconnect.sd.polyu.edu.hk] in 2003 and a “Weblog” team
space [www.blogger.com] in 2004. In addition to the shared virtual space
students were free to use email, instant messaging, and video conferencing to
communicate remotely. In both years, Korean collaborators came to Hong Kong
over a period of about a week to collaborate collocated.
My personal agenda for
participation in the summer workshops and university courses was the
observation of co-located and remote intercultural collaboration. I looked for
practices employed to collaborate in intercultural teams within a given time
frame and local constraints. I observed teamwork strategies, and solutions to
overcome miscommunication and breakdowns in collaboration. My methods included
observation, note-taking, informal, formal and contextual interviews with the
participants, multi modal discourse analysis of online communication, and
designing prototypes and case studies in different stages of fidelity.
6. Examples of Emergent Patterns
Collaborative learning in intercultural contexts shows similarities but
also differences to previously described interaction and collaboration design
patterns. Similarities to existing interaction design patterns can be found
predominantly in small range patterns of human computer interaction and
groupware pattern domains.
Even though there are reports of using groupware applications in
collaborative learning environments elsewhere [9-10], this study cannot approve
the use of groupware especially in the context of intercultural collaborative
learning and design. I believe this finding is important as it points out the
need to support a flexible setup, as well as adaptation of work practices to
the specific context of interaction in intercultural collaboration. The
interaction domain of interaction design patterns for intercultural
collaborative learning should not be limited to groupware applications. I found
that the interaction and collaboration goal and process suggest means and
structures of interaction appropriate in the specific context. In addition to
this, my findings correspond to Graveline, Geisler and Danchak’s [4] report of
emergent patterns in media use and media richness in remote collaboration,
using predominantly emails and instant messaging as forms of group coordination
and communication. However, under certain conditions in collaborative learning
additional interaction processes including communication, coordination and
awareness mechanism need to be supported.
Adapting a website design pattern classification [14] I propose to
structure patterns by collaboration goal and process (goal, posture,
experience, task and action) on the x-axis, and collaboration mechanism
(awareness, coordination and conversation) identified in [9], on the y-axis,
into a hierarchical large, middle and small range patterns network. The
following graph shows a rough sketch of an evolving network of intercultural
collaborative learning design patterns using this framework. It exemplifies a
pattern connection from the collaboration goal of PEER-LEARNING to the
interaction strategy INTER-LINKED TEAM SPACES and the interface element MAIN
NAVIGATION.
This example of a pattern network and one pattern is work in progress.
4. Section of an interaction design patterns network for intercultural
collaborative learning.
Pattern Name INTER-LINKED TEAM SPACES
5. “Only
Connect” Collaborative Learning and Design Project, Toolkits03 Team Blog,
(http://omega.sd.polyu.edu.hk/~blog/onlyconnect/product9/)
Context
and Forces (upper
level patterns)
… your
collaborative learning environment consists of more than one team. For this
project all teams work collaboratively with their respective international team
members as partners – COLLABORATORS AS PARTNERS. In this context it is important that all teams and team members
are treated equally, and are encouraged to freely exchange any kind of
information about the project - PEER-LEARNING. You provide an online community
space to share information and comment on the team progresses– BLOG or WIKI
utilizing a remote collaboration mode. In collocated collaboration you provide
a shared physical space, which is divided into team sections or public
accessible rooms - TEAM CORNERS.
Problem
Intercultural teams profit from being aware what other teams are doing, aiming at and how they progress, especially when they work on similar projects. However, in intercultural collaboration, teams tend to focus on their potentially unfamiliar and new members within the team, missing the opportunity to share with other teams working on the same or similar topic.
Examples
Blogger.com offers the possibility to change the basic blog-page layout
within a template structure to adapt to specific needs of blog users. The
template format is based on html. Hyperlinks can be positioned at different
places on the page, linking different contents and spaces. The “Only Connect”
collaborative learning project makes use of this possibility to link different
teams in the same university collaboration course. Those hyperlinks are placed
in the main navigation space in the upper part of the website. User can browse
though other team blogs, compare the information collected and reflect on their
respective project progress. Collaboration and Communication experiences with
international team members can be viewed or directly and indirectly exchanged
in order to learn from each other’s mistakes and solutions.
Summer academies make use of available rooms and common areas in the
university environment, which usually hosts this workshop. Different
collaborating teams are placed in proximity to each other, whether in a section
within a shared room, or in public accessible team rooms. All member of the
workshop can walk into all team spaces, and share their views encouraged by the
visibility and transparency of the team’s collaboration process.
Solution (therefore)
Make a team space always accessible and easy to approach to other teams participating in the same collaborative leaning context. Provide visibly well placed connections to relate team spaces having a similar or the same topic of collaboration.
References (lower level
patterns)
In order to point out the importance of this
peer-learning option, links should be placed within an easy accessible part of
the team space – MAIN NAVIGATION.
7.
Conclusion
The applicability of those patterns is to generate different instances
of intercultural collaborative leaning environments. Environments, which
utilize remote, collocated and mixed-mode collaboration, are summer workshops,
university collaboration projects, e-learning systems and courses. A collaboration
and interaction goal and process oriented pattern language gives the designer
the power to not just to generate but custom-make intercultural collaborative
learning environments. Within my Ph.D. research, this paper presents a first
attempt to define an approach and classify a framework for such a pattern
language.
References
[1]Alexander, C. S., Silverstein,
M., Jacobson,M., Fiksdahl-King, I., Angel, S. (1977): A Pattern Language. New
York: Oxford University Press
[2]Alexander, C. S., (1979): The
timeless way of building. New York: Oxford University Press
[4]Graveline, A., Geisler,
C., Dancha, M. (2000): Teaming together apart: emergent patterns of media
use in collaboration at a distance. Proceedings of IEEE professional
communication society international professional communication conference.
Piscataway, NJ, USA
[5]Hughes, J., O'Brien, J.,
Rodden, T., Rouncefield, M. and Viller, S. (2000), Patterns of home life:
informing design for domestic environments,
Personal
Technologies, 4 (1) : 25-38
[6]Lancaster’s pattern collection:
http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/research/cseg/projects/pointer/ethno.html
[7]Martin, D., Rouncefield, M.,
Rodden, T., Sommerville, I. and Viller, S. (2001), Finding patterns in the
fieldwork, In Proceedings of ECSCW'01,
Bonn, Germany: Kluwer)
[8]Martin, .D, Sommerville, I.
(2003): Patterns Of Cooperative Interaction – A Brief Introduction To The
Lancaster Perspective. ECSCW 2003, the
8th European Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work in Helsinki, 14. - 18. September 2003. http://www.groupware-patterns.org/ecscw2003
[9]Preece. J.; Rogers, Y.; Sharp,
H. (20002): Interaction Design: beyond human computer interaction. New York,
Wiley & Son Inc.
[10]Rutkowski, A.-F., Vogel, D.,
Bemelmans, T.M.A., van Genuchten, M.: (2001): IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, VOL. 44, NO. 2, June 2001
[11]Rutkowski, A.-F., Vogel, D.,
Bemelmans, T.M.A., van Genuchten, M.: (2001): E-Collaboration: The Reality of
Virtuality. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, VOL. 45, NO. 4,
December 2002
[12]Schuemer, T. (2003): Evolving
a Groupware Pattern Language. ECSCW
2003, the 8th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Helsinki, 14. - 18.
September 2003. http://www.groupware-patterns.org/ecscw2003
[13]Tidwell,J, Common Ground
HCI pattern collection:
http://www.mit.edu/~jtidwell/interaction_patterns.html
[14]van Welie, M., van der Veer,
G.C (2003): Pattern Languages in Interaction Design: Structure and Organization. Published at In Proceedings of
Interact 2003 International Human–Computer Conference. Zuerich,
Switzerland
[15]van Welie,
M.: Interaction Design Patterns.
http://www.welie.com/patterns/index.html