Reading & module resources

Note: Please also consult the module guide.

Key resource on design projects and ‘design sprints’: 

  • Knapp et al. (2016). Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days.

General

  • Position paper on ‘digital civics’: Olivier, P., & Wright, P. C. (2015). Digital civics: taking a local turn. Interactions, 22(4), 61–63.
  • On new forms of interaction (from media studies): de Lange, M., & de Waal, M. (2013). Owning the city: New media and citizen engagement in urban design. First Monday.
  • Critique of technology-focused agendas to the digital city: Hollands, R. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? City, 12(3), 303–320.

On gathering requirements

  • The requirements-feasibility gap of technology: Ackerman, M. S. (2000). The Intellectual Challenge of CSCW: The Gap Between Social Requirements and Technical Feasibility. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2), 179–203.
  • Example of using video posts to document everyday interactions: Hagen, P., Gravina, D., & Robertson, T. (2007). Engaging stakeholders: Mobile Diaries for social design (p. 2). Presented at the Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Designing for User eXperiences, DUX’07, New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.

Collaboration models in the digitally-augmented city

  • The role of shared representations for collective design: Paulini, M., Murty, P., & Maher, M. L. (2013). Design processes in collective innovation communities: a study of communication. CoDesign, 9(2), 90–112.
  • New forms of participation and new media: de Lange, M., & de Waal, M. (2013). Owning the city: New media and citizen engagement in urban design. First Monday.

Different examples of public engagement with tech

  • Engaging through collecting and mapping smartphone photos: Potts, R., Sharma, D., & Lindley, J. (2015). Shared ethnography of shared cities. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry.
  • Voting via low-cost digital posters: Vlachokyriakos, V., Comber, R., Ladha, K., Taylor, N., Dunphy, P., McCorry, P., & Olivier, P. (2014). PosterVote (pp. 795–804). Presented at the 2014 conference, New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
  • Suggesting and prioritising ideas via an online platform: Salganik, M. J., & Levy, K. E. C. (2015). Wiki surveys: Open and quantifiable social data collection. PLoS ONE, 10(5). http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123483
  • Open data and interactive interfaces as tools for a public enquiry: Handler, R. A., & Ferrer Conill, R. (2016). Open Data, Crowdsourcing and Game Mechanics. A case study on civic participation in the digital age. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 25(2-3), 153–166.

On storyboarding

  • Best practice (empirically tested): Truong, Khai N., Hayes, Gillian R., & Abowd, Gregory D. (2006). Storyboarding: An Empirical Determination of Best Practices and Effective Guidelines (pp. 12–21). Presented at the DIS.
  • User stories (and mapping): Patton, J., Economy, P. (2014) User Story Mapping: Discover the Whole Story, Build the Right Product. O’Reilly

On prototyping

  • Intro to the role of prototyping in design: Houde, Stephanie, & Hill, Charles. (1997). What do Prototypes Prototype? In P. Prabhu, T. K. Landauer, & M. Helander, Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction nd Ed. (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam.
  • Low-tech prototyping with paper: Snyder, C. (2003) Paper prototyping: the fast and easy way to design and refine user interfaces. Elsevier
  • Different approaches to ‘making’: Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDesign, 10(1), 5–14. http://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.888183

On testing prototypes for usability

  • Introduction: Hertzum, Morten. (2016). A usability test is not an interview. Interactions, vol. 23, no. 2, 82–84.
  • What usability testing is like: Nørgaard, Mie, & Hornbæk, Kasper. (2006). What Do Usability Evaluators Do in Practice? An Explorative Study of Think-Aloud Testing. Presented at the DIS.
  • Four testers offer the best benefit to cost ration for a narrowly defined usability question: Nielsen, J., & Landauer, T. K. (1993). A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems (pp. 206–213). New York, New York, USA: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/169059.169166

Conceptual work on public engagement practice

  • Self-organisation, civics taking care of themselves: Horelli, L., Saad-Sulonen, J., Wallin, S., & Botero, A. (2015). When Self-Organization Intersects with Urban Planning: Two Cases from Helsinki. Planning, Practice & Research, 30(3), 286–302.
  • On the role of “spatial learning” in planning engagement: Natarajan, L. (2015). Socio-spatial learning: A case study of community knowledge in participatory spatial planning. Progress in Planning.
  • The politics of participation at street-level: Taylor, A. S., Lindley, S., Regan, T., Sweeney, D., Vlachokyriakos, V., Grainger, L., & Lingel, J. (2015). Data-in-place: Thinking through the relations between data and community (Vol. 2015, pp. 2863–2872). Presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Proceedings, New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.

On scaling — going from “local” to “global”

  • Adoption-centred interventions: Chilana, P. K., Ko, A. J., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2015). From User-Centered to Adoption-Centered Design: A Case Study of an HCI Research Innovation Becoming a Product. Chi, 1–10.