Counterfactual Thinking: What Theories Do in Design

References

• Barnard, P., May, J., Duke, D., & Duce, D. (2000). Systems, interactions, and macrotheory. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(2), 222–262. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/353485.353490
   Google Scholar
• Barry, M., Doherty, K., Belisario, J. M., Car, J., Morrison, C., & Doherty, G. (2017). mHealth for maternal mental health: Everyday wisdom in ethical design In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 2708–2756). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025918
   Google Scholar
• Bederson, B. B., Bederson, B. B., Shneiderman, B., (eds.). (2003). The craft of information visualization: Readings and reflections. Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Booth, C., Rowlinson, M., Clark, P., Delahaye, A., & Procter, S. (2009). Scenarios and counterfactuals as modal narratives. Futures, 41(2), 87–95. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borchers, J. O. (2008). A pattern approach to interaction design In Cognition, Communication and Interaction (pp. 114–131). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Card, S. K., Mackinlay, J. D., & Robertson, G. G. (1991). A morphological analysis of the design space of input devices. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 9(2), 99–122. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/123078.128726
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Card, S. K., Moran, T., & Newell, A. (1984). The psychology of human-computer interaction. CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. M. (1997). Human-computer interaction: Psychology as a science of design. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 61–83. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.61
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carroll, J. M. (2003). HCI models, theories, and frameworks: Toward a multidisciplinary science. Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. M., & Campbell, R. L. (1986). Softening up hard science: Reply to newel1 and card. Human-Computer Interaction, 2(3), 227–249. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0203_3
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. M., & Kellogg, W. A. (1989). Artifact as theory-nexus: Hermeneutics meets theory-based design (Vol. 20). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. M. (1991). Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface (Vol. 4). CUP Archive.
   Google Scholar
• Clemmensen, T., Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2016). Making HCI theory work: An analysis of the use of activity theory in HCI research. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(8), 608–627. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1175507
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, N., & Roy, R. (1989). Engineering design methods (Vol. 4). Wiley New York.
   Google Scholar
• Dalsgaard, P., & Dindler, CA. (2014). Between theory and practice: Bridging concepts in HCI research. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1635–1644). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Dearden, A., & Finlay, J. (2006). Pattern languages in HCI: A critical review. Human–computer Interaction, 21(1), 49–102. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci2101_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dennett, D. C. (2013). Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking. WW Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Dourish, P. (2004). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Dourish, P. (2006). Implications for Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘06 (pp. 541–550). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124855
   Google Scholar
• Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building (Rev. ed.).
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, D. A., Lee, N. B., Kang, J. H., Agapie, E., Jessica Schroeder, L. R., Pina, J. F., Kientz, J. A., & Munson, S. (2017). Examining menstrual tracking to inform the design of personal informatics tools. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 6876–6888). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025635
   Google Scholar
• Erete, S., & Burrell, J. O. (2017). Empowered participation: How citizens use technology in local governanceIn Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 2307–2319). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025996
   Google Scholar
• Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(6), 381. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055392
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gaver, W. (2012). What should we expect from research through design? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 937–946). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Gould, J. D., & Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM, 28(3), 300–311. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3166.3170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, T. R. G., Davies, S. P., & Gilmore, D. J. (1996). Delivering cognitive psychology to HCI: The problems of common language and of knowledge transfer. Interacting with Computers, 8(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0953-5438(95)01020-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gugenheimer, J., Stemasov, E., Frommel, J., & Rukzio, E. (2017). ShareVR: Enabling co-located experiences for virtual reality between HMD and non-HMD users. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 4021–4033). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025683
   Google Scholar
• Hartson, H. R., Andre, T. S., Williges, R. C., & Van Rens, L. (1999). The user action framework: A theory-based foundation for inspection and classification of usability problems. HCI, 1999(1), 1058–1062.
   Google Scholar
• Hilpinen, R. (1976). Approximate truth and truthlikeness. In M. Przełęcki, K. Szaniawski, R. Wójcicki, & G. Malinowski (eds.), Formal methods in the methodology of empirical sciences (pp. 19–42). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Höök, K., & Jonas, L. (2012). Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 19(3), 23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/2362364.2362371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornbæk, K., & Oulasvirta, A. (2017). What is interaction? In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 5040–5052). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J., Gogia, S., Mĕch, R., & Brandt, J. R. (2017). Supporting expressive procedural art creation through direct manipulation. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 6330–6341). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025927
   Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N., Byrne, R. M., & Schaeken, W. (1992). Propositional reasoning by model. Psychological Review, 99(3), 418. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.418
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jokinen, J. P. P., Sarcar, S., Oulasvirta, A., Silpasuwanchai, C., Wang, Z., & Ren, X. (2017). Modelling learning of new keyboard layouts. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’17 (pp. 4203–4215). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025580
   Google Scholar
• Kan, V., Vargo, E., Machover, N., Ishii, H., Pan, S., Chen, W., & Kakehi, Y. (2017). Organic primitives: synthesis and design of pH-reactive materials using molecular I/O for sensing, actuation, and interaction. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 989–1000). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025952
   Google Scholar
• Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Kazemitabaar, M., McPeak, J., Jiao, A., Liang, H., Outing, T., & Froehlich, J. E. (2017). MakerWear: A tangible approach to interactive wearable creation for children. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 133–145). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025887
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y.-S., Reinecke, K., & Hullman, J. (2017). Explaining the gap: Visualizing one’s predictions improves recall and comprehension of data. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 1375–1386). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025592
   Google Scholar
• Kjeldskov, J., & Paay, J. (2012). A longitudinal review of Mobile HCI research methods. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services (pp. 69–78). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Klemmer, S. R., Hartmann, B., & Takayama, L. (2006). How bodies matter: Five themes for interaction design. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems (pp. 140–149). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Kostakos, V. (2015). The big hole in HCI research. interactions, 22(2), 48–51. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/2729103
   Google Scholar
• Landauer, T. K. (1991). Let?s get real: A position paper on the role of cognitive psychology in the design of humanly useful and usable systems. Carroll [101] 60–73.
   Google Scholar
• Lazar, A., Edasis, C., & Piper, A. M. 2017. A critical lens on dementia and design in HCI. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 2175–2188). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025522
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, D. (2013). Counterfactuals. John Wiley & Sons
   Google Scholar
• Ling, K., Beenen, G., Ludford, P., Wang, X., Chang, K., Xin, L., Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Terveen, L., Rashid, A. M., Resnick, P., & Kraut, R. (2005). Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4), 00. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00273.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, W., D’Oliveira, R. L., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., & Rioul, O. (2017). BIGnav: Bayesian information gain for guiding multiscale navigation. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 5869–5880). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025524
   Google Scholar
• Long, J., & Dowell, J. (1989). Conceptions of the discipline ofHCI: Craft, applied science, and engineering. In People and Computers V: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the British Computer Society, Vol. 5, 9. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moran, T. P., & Carroll, J. M. (1996). Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Nardi, B. A. (1996a). Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-computer Interaction, 7–16.
   Google Scholar
• Nardi, B. A. (1996b). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. mit Press.
   Google Scholar
• Newell, A., & Card, S. K. (1985). The prospects for psychological science in human-computer interaction. Human–Computer Interaction, 1(3), 209–242. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0103_1
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. (2005). Ten usability heuristics.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J., & Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘90 (pp. 249–256). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97281
   Google Scholar
• Niiniluoto, I. (1999). Critical scientific realism
   Google Scholar
• Niiniluoto, I. (2012). Truthlikeness (Vol. 185). Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Olson, J. R., & Olson, G. M. (1990). The growth of cognitive modeling in human-computer interaction since GOMS. Human–computer Interaction, 5(2–3), 221–265. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.1990.9667155
   Google Scholar
• Oulasvirta, A. (2019). It’s time to rediscover HCI models. Interactions, 26(4), 52–56. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3330340
   Google Scholar
• Oulasvirta, A., Dayama, N. R., Shiripour, M., John, M., & Karrenbauer, A. (2020). Combinatorial optimization of graphical user interface designs. In Proceedings of the IEEE (pp. 434–464). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Oulasvirta, A., & Hornbaek, K. (2016). HCI research as problem-solving. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4956–4967). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (2013). Engineering design: A systematic approach. Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, J. (1999). Probabilities of causation: Three counterfactual interpretations and their identification. Synthese, 121(1–2), 93–149. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005233831499
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning and inference (Vol. 29). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Polson, P. G., Lewis, C., Rieman, J., & Wharton, C. (1992). Cognitive walkthroughs: A method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces. International Journal of Man-machine Studies, 36(5), 741–773. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7373(92)90039-N
   Google Scholar
• Pritchard, G., Vines, J., & Olivier, P. (2015). Your money’s no good here: The elimination of cash payment on London buses. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 907–916). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Psillos, S. (2005). Scientific realism: How science tracks truth. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Redström, J. (2017). Making design theory. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reeves, S. (2015). Human-computer interaction as science. In Proceedings of The Fifth Decennial Aarhus Conference on Critical Alternatives (pp. 73–84). Aarhus University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, Y. (2012). HCI theory: Classical, modern, and contemporary. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 5(2), 1–129. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2200/S00418ED1V01Y201205HCI014
   Google Scholar
• Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. Psychological Review, 115(1), 101. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schorr, S. B., & Okamura, A. M. (2017). Fingertip tactile devices for virtual object manipulation and exploration. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 3115–3119). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025744
   Google Scholar
• Shadish, W., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.10129
   Google Scholar
• Shneiderman, B. (1986). Seven plus or minus two central issues in human-computer interaction. University of Maryland, Center for Automation Research.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Steinberger, F., Schroeter, R., Foth, M., & Johnson, D. (2017). Designing gamified applications that make safe driving more engaging. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 2826–2839). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025511
   Google Scholar
• Stolterman, E. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2(1), 55–65. http://ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/240
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge university press.
   Google Scholar
• Sutcliffe, A. (2000). On the effective use and reuse of HCI knowledge. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(2), 197–221. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/353485.353488
   Google Scholar
• Tolmie, P., Procter, R., Randall, D. W., Rouncefield, M., Burger, C., Wong Sak Hoi, G., Zubiaga, A., & Liakata, M. (2017). Supporting the use of user generated content in journalistic practice. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 3632–3644). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025892
   Google Scholar
• Ur, B., Alfieri, F., Aung, M., Bauer, L., Christin, N., Colnago, J., Cranor, L. F., et al. (2017). Design and evaluation of a data-driven password meter. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 3775–3786). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3026050
   Google Scholar
• Valentine, M. A., Retelny, D., Alexandra, T., Rahmati, N., Doshi, T., & Bernstein, M. S. (2017). Flash organizations: crowdsourcing complex work by structuring crowds as organizations. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 3523–3537). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025811
   Google Scholar
• Velt, R., Benford, S., & Reeves, S. (2017). “A survey of the trajectories conceptual framework: Investigating theory use in HCI.” In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2091–2105). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Webber, S., Carter, M., Sherwen, S., Smith, W., Joukhadar, Z., & Vetere, F. (2017). Kinecting with orangutans: zoo visitors’ empathetic responses to animals? Use of interactive technology. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 6075–6088). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025729
   Google Scholar
• Wiegmann, D. A., & Shappell, S. A. (2001). Human error perspectives in aviation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 11(4), 341–357. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327108IJAP1104_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson, J. R., & Williamson, J. (2017). Understanding public evaluation: quantifying experimenter intervention. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 3414–3425). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025598
   Google Scholar
• Yi, X., Chun, Y., Weijie, X., Xiaojun, B., & Shi, Y. (2017). “COMPASS: Rotational keyboard on non-touch smartwatches. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘17 (pp. 705–715). ACM. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025454
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2008). The role of design artifacts in design theory construction. Artifact, 2(1), 41–45. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17493460802276893
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007). “Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 493–502). ACM.
   Google Scholar