Recently, I’ve decided to revisit a foundational paper on research through design. In “Research in Art and Design”, Frayling attempts to unpack what research is in the context of arts and design. He starts by differentiating between ‘research’ and ‘Research’; while he links the usage of the former term

“Evaluating User Interface Systems Research” (Olsen, 2002) is a paper that I consider fundamental for critique of HCI evaluation, despite its longevity. It highlights the evaluation caveats of interactive systems, and the claims that can be made for complex systems and interactive innovations. They stand across and are applicable as

This is a review of two publications about user-centred design (UCD) and evaluation of infrastructural software (also known as middleware)—the 2002 technical report “Stuck in the Middle: Bridging the Gap Between Design, Evaluation, and Middleware” and the follow-on CHI 2003 paper “Stuck in the Middle: The Challenges of User-Centered

In “Constructivist Design for Interactive Machine Learning”, Advait Sarkar argues that the Interactive Machine Learning (IML) loop facilitates constructivist learning, as it maximises the interaction between end-users’ experience of the Machine Learning (ML) model and their ideas about the status of the ML model. Sarkar proposes a set of objectives

Another review in my Human-Centred Machine Learning review series, authored by Simard et al. from Microsoft Research, “Machine Teaching: A New Paradigm for Building Machine Learning Systems” is a position paper and manifesto for Machine Teaching. Simard et al. propose Machine Teaching as a new discipline that is much related

Fresh out of CHI 2015, I came across a paper that tackles a problem many HCI researchers quietly wrestle with: how (and whether) our research prototypes actually make it into the world as products. In “From User-Centered to Adoption-Centered Design: A Case Study of an HCI Research Innovation Becoming a