Conclusions If I compare proposals of future development of HCI theory presented by Yvonne Rogers with those made by Stappers and Sanders from M6 readings, I would call Rogers’ more realistic however not such elaborate. In my opinion, she has had to focus more on future than only in one and half page.
Even larger vast and transdisciplinarity are coming. The science productions is growing and transdisciplinary researchers will be most probably valued. Rogers makes really nice point when talking about this:
“Many weeks, months and years can be spent by a team of researchers, to establish a new technology infrastructure that can help a local village collect water more efficiently, only for it not to be deemed methodologically rigorous enough for it to warrant publication at a CHI conference!”
I think that this turn to values and environment is being still hugely hindered by processes she is addressing (i.e. evalution of science, access to information etc.), power and money distribution in academia and also researchers’ own values which are definitely shaped by societal ones such as rapid (or sustainable rapid) growth, personal success and hedonism.
I really liked that criticism of theories and approaches to HCI because it provided interesting and new insight on some of them. I also confirmed my doubts about abstract modeling.
Here are the key concepts I tried to extract from my concept maps (only 27, order is based on personal importance = 1st is most important):
ethics
human values
responsibility
environment (ecological context)
cultural practices
context
holistic approach
user’s motivation
feminism
transdisciplinarity
role of technology
interactions
individual settings
embodiement
everydayness
human augmentation
in-situ research
situated action
ethnography
grounded theory
CSCW
modeling
user studies
importing theories
congitive science
pleasure
UX
