Establishing shared understanding of product use through collaboratively generating an explicit frame of reference

References

• Badke-Schaub, Petra, AndreNeumann, KristinaLauche, and SusanMohammed. 2007. “Mental Models in Design Teams: A Valid Approach to Performance in Design Collaboration?” CoDesign3 (1): 5–20.
   Google Scholar
• Beyer, Hugh, and KarenHoltzblatt. 1998. Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Blessing, Lucienne T. M., and AmareshChakrabarti. 2009. DRM, A Design Research Methodology. Springer. Original edition, A Design Research Methodology.London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Blomberg, Jeanette, MarkBurrell, and GregGuest. 2003. “An Ethnographic Approach to Design.” In The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, edited by Julie A.Jacko, and AndrewSears, 964–986. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Boess, Stella. 2009. “Experiencing Product Use in Product Design.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Design ICED'09, Stanford, CA, USA, August 24–27.
   Google Scholar
• Boos, Margarete. 2007. “Optimal Sharedness of Mental Models for Effective Group Performance.” CoDesign3 (1): 21–28.
   Google Scholar
• Bruseberg, Anne, and McDonagh-PhilpDeana. 2002. “Focus Groups to Support the Industrial/Product Designer: A Review Based on Current Literature and Designers' Feedback.” Applied Ergonomics33: 27–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchenau, Marion, and Jane Fulton Suri. 2000. “Experience Prototyping.” Paper presented at DIS'00 the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, Brooklyn, NY, USA, August 17–19.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, John M.2000. Making Use: Scenario-Based Design of Human–Computer Interactions. London: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, Alan. 1999. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity. Indianapolis, IN: Sams.
   Google Scholar
• Cushman, William Mitchell, and Daniel J.Rosenberg. 1991. Human Factors in Product Design. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Dong, Andy, MaaikeKleinsmann, and FleurDeken. 2013. “Investigating Design Cognition in the Construction and Enactment of Team Mental Models.” Design Studies34 (1): 1–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorst, Kees, and NigelCross. 2001. “Creativity in the Design Process: Co-Evolution of Problem-Solution.” Design Studies22 (5): 425–437.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, T.1996. “Design as Storytelling.” Interactions3 (4): 30–35.
   Google Scholar
• Gaver, Bill, TonyDunne, and ElenaPacenti. 1999. “Design: Cultural Probes.” Interactions6 (1): 21–29.
   Google Scholar
• Green, W. S., H. Kanis, and A. P. O. S. Vermeeren. 1997. “Tuning the Design of Everyday Products to Cognitive and Physical Activities of Users.” Paper presented at the annual conference of the Ergonomics Society, Stoke Rochford Hall, April 15–17.
   Google Scholar
• Harkema, Christelle. 2012. “Revealing Unawareness in Usability Related Decision-Making.” PhD diss., Faculty of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Hornbæk, Kasper. 2010. “Dogmas in the Assessment of Usability Evaluation Methods.” Behaviour & Information Technology29 (1): 97–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iacucci, Giulio, Kari Kuutti, and Mervi Ranta. 2000. “On the Move with a Magic Thing: Role Playing in Concept Design of Mobile Services and Devices.” Paper presented at the conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, Brooklyn, NY, USA, August 17–19.
   Google Scholar
• ISO. 1998. ISO 9241-11 Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs) – Part 11: Guidance on Usability. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• Janis, I.1972. Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Kanis, H.1998. “Usage Centred Research for Everyday Product Design.” Applied Ergonomics29 (1): 75–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klimoski, R., and S.Mohammed. 1994. “Team Mental Model: Construct or Metaphor?” Journal of Management20 (2): 403–437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattelmäki, Tuuli. 2005. “Applying Probes – From Inspirational Notes to Collaborative Insights.” CoDesign2 (1): 83–102.
   Google Scholar
• Mohammed, Susan, and Brad C.Dumville. 2001. “Team Mental Models in a Team Knowledge Framework: Expanding Theory and Measurement Across Disciplinary Boundaries.” Journal of Organizational Behavior22 (2): 89–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, Jakob. 1993. Usability Engineering. Boston: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, Donald A.2010. “The Research-Practice Gap: The Need for Translational Developers.” Interactions17 (4): 9–12.
   Google Scholar
• Prince, Michael. 2004. “Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research.” Journal of Engineering Education93 (3): 223–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pruitt, John, and Jonathan Grudin. 2003. “Personas: Practice and Theory.” Paper presented at DUX '03 Designing the User Experience, San Francisco, CA, USA, June 5–7.
   Google Scholar
• Rosson, Mary Beth, and John M.Carroll. 2002. Usability Engineering: Scenario-Based Development of Human–Computer Interaction. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Roto, Virpi, Effie L.-C. Law, Arnold P. O. S. Vermeeren, and Jettie Hoonhout. 2011. “User Experience White Paper: Bringing Clarity to the Concept of User Experience.” http://www.allaboutux.org/uxwhitepaper.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, J.1994. Handbook of Usability Testing. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Sharp, Helen, YvonneRogers, and JennyPreece. 2007. Interaction Design: Beyond Human–Computer Interaction. 2nd ed.New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Simsarian, Kristian T.2003. “Take It to the Next Stage: The Roles of Role Playing in the Design Process.” Paper presented at ACM CHI 2003 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA, April 5–10.
   Google Scholar
• Sleeswijk Visser, F., R.van der Lugt, and P. J.Stappers. 2007. “Sharing User Experiences in the Product Innovation Process: Participatory Design Needs Participatory Communication.” Journal of Creativity and Innovation Management16 (1): 35–45.
   Google Scholar
• Suchman, Lucy. 1995. “Making Work Visible.” Communications of the ACM38 (9): 56–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Bijl-Brouwer, M.2012. “Guidelines to Design for Dynamic and Diverse Use Situations.” http://www.designforusability.org/wp-content/Guidelines-DDU_final.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• van der Bijl-Brouwer, M.2013. “Exploring Usability. Design for Dynamic and Diverse Use Situations.” PhD diss., University of Twente, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• van der Bijl-Brouwer, M., S. U. Boess, and C. L. E. Harkema. 2011. “What Do We Know About Product Use? A Technique to Share Use-Related Knowledge in Design Teams.” Paper presented at the 4th World Conference on Design Research IASDR2011, Delft University of Technology, October 31–November 4.
   Google Scholar
• van der Bijl-Brouwer, M., S. U.Boess, and C. L. E.Harkema. 2012. The Envisioning Use Workshop. TU Delft: Faculteit van het Industrieel Ontwerpen.
   Google Scholar
• van der Bijl-Brouwer, M., and M. C.van der Voort. 2014. “Understanding Design for Dynamic and Diverse Use Situations.” International Journal of Design8 (2): 29–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Kuijk, J. I.2010. “Managing Product Usability. How Companies Deal with Usability in the Development of Electronic Consumer Products.” PhD diss., Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• van Kuijk, J. I., H. Kanis, H. H. C. M. Christiaans, and D. J. van Eijk. 2007. “Usability in Product Development Practice: After Sales Information as Feedback.” Paper presented at IASDR07, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, November 12–15.
   Google Scholar
• Visser, Willemien. 2006. “Designing as Construction of Representations: A Dynamic Viewpoint in Cognitive Design Research.” Human–Computer Interaction21 (1): 103–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiltschnig, Stefan, Bo. T.Christensen, and Linden J.Ball. 2013. “Collaborative Problem-Solution Co-evolution in Creative Design.” Design Studies34: 515–542.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wixon, Dennis. 2003. “Evaluating Usability Methods, Why the Current Literature Fails the Practitioner.” Interactions10 (4): 28–34.
   Google Scholar