Link

Jörn Messeter Space & Virtuality studio, Interactive institute, Malmöö, Sweden
Eva Brandt Space & Virtuality studio, Interactive institute, Malmöö, Sweden
Joachim Halse Space & Virtuality studio, Interactive institute, Malmöö, Sweden
Martin Johansson Space & Virtuality studio, Interactive institute, Malmöö, Sweden

Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems archive
Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques table of contents
Cambridge, MA, USA
SESSION: Interactive systems in public places table of contents
Pages: 27 - 36
Year of Publication: 2004
ISBN:1-58113-787-7

Abstract:
Information and communication technologies are moving into the era of ubiquitous computing, with increased density of technology and increased mobility and continuity in use. From a design perspective, addressing the accommodation and coordination of multiple devices and services in situated use across different contexts is becoming increasingly important. In the COMIT project, ethnographic fieldwork has been combined with participatory design engaging users, designers and researchers in order to explore mobile IT use as well as the design of mobile IT concepts. Four seclected scenarios from the project are presented and discussed regarding implications for the design of mobile IT devices, with particular focus on (1) coping with multiple social contexts, and (2) the configuration and connectivity of mobile devices.

My Discussion:
This paper did not really excite me. If it is a paper about a new form of design, it doesn't highlight how its steps or methodology is better than other forms of user-centered design, nor even if there is a specific methodology. It also spends a lot of paper discussing what we already know: users adapt to technology, users have many roles and switch between roles depending on what is required and what opportunities they have, users have opinions about technology. The resulting ideas for devices from their exercises are not innovative, really. The only place the paper really came to life for me was in the quote

"Storage, display, software for main functions and other elements are separated in different devices implying a more ‘architectural’ approach to providing services to users. In line with these ideas the last two examples serve to illustrate that use qualities do not necessarily emerge on a device level. Rather, in these scenarios the most important use qualities emerge on the level of a configured set of devices. Arguably, it is the particular device configuration as a response to the needs of a use situation that produces relevant use qualities, suggesting a shift in the design agenda regarding what to design in mobile technologies. This further implies that the designated functions of a device may be defined on a level more loosely connected to specific user activities. The cell phone being re-configured as a remote control referred to
in the introduction, may be reframed to be portable keypad supporting wireless communication with other devices."

but then doesn't go further than the platitude

"From this perspective, technology is deliberately open to configuration to further enable the user to manipulate freely the adaption of various devices in any given situation. This implies that the user could be in control of configuring, manipulating and adapting mobile devices to their personal needs."

Doesn't every UI designer already know users use the stuff they have, and like to configure it?