Interactions - March/April 2012

In the large-display scenario, the container is initially empty, and as such its task context is undefined. Let us assume that users in front of the display are discussing a new organizational structure and begin to pull up names of managers who could play a major role in a new business. At this point, the display becomes a collection of content items (people) and is still not tailored to a specific domain. When a user adds an org-chart view and begins to sketch org units, the context of the large display becomes focused on organizational structures. People’s names within this context are potential candidates for manager positions, and users can annotate pros and cons for each nominee. The large display then turns into a planning tool and the container context becomes an organizational structure, with managers and organizational units as the content items. When several users create different variants of the org chart, the org chart itself becomes a decision option (content item) within a larger decision-making context. When the discussion is wrapping up, follow-up actions are defined and users agree to get in touch with some of the proposed managers. Now the manager object has assumed the role of a to-do item for the respective task owner, which can be accepted, rejected, and signed off as completed.

Today an explicit design rationale for systematically constructing such an organic, open-ended interaction framework has not been articulated. Transformative User Experience attempts to identify the principles of how to construct transformative interfaces in a native way to empower the user to incrementally establish new task contexts with intended meanings within the system itself.

While our principles for content composition resemble the classic drag-and-drop principles of direct manipulation interfaces, Transformative User Experience aims at leveraging the interaction between content and container in ways that acknowledge the potentials for semantic plasticity of both.

ENDNOTES:

1. Sengers, P. and Gaver, W. Designing for interpretations. Proc. of HCI International 2005. Lawrence Erlbaum, Las Vegas, NV, 2005. 2. Dubberly, H. Design in the age of biology: Shifting from a mechanical-object ethos to an organic-systems ethos. interactions 15, 5 (2008), 35-41. 3. Sikka, V. Timeless software. 2010; http://vishal- sikka.blogspot.com/2008/10/timeless-soft ware. html 4. Schneyer, M. Containers and devices, and how to decouple the right way. 2010; http://markschney- er.com/2010/10/containers-and-devices-and-how- to-decouple-the-right-way 5. Melichar, C. Content vs. container. 2006; http:// www.intermediablog.com/2006/12/content_vs_ cont.html 6. Dix, A. Designing for appropriation. Proc. of the 21st BCS HCI Group Conference. 2007. 7. Salovaara, A. Studying appropriation of everyday technologies: A cognitive approach. Proc. of the 27th International Conference. Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, 2009, 3141-3144. 8. Dourish, P. The appropriation of interactive technologies: Some lessons from placeless documents. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 12, 4 (2003), 465-490. 9. Fischer, G. and Giaccardi, E. Meta-design: A framework for the future of end user development. In End User Development, H. Lieberman, F. Paternò, V. Wulf, eds. Springer, Dordrecht, 2006, 427-457. 10. Wulf, V., Pipek, V., and Won, M. Component-based tailorability: Enabling highly flexible software applications. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 66, 1 (2008), 1-22. 11. Werner, H., Latzina, M., and Brade, M. Symbik—A new medium for collaborative knowledge-intensive work. Proc. of the International Conference on Education, Informatics, and Cybernetics. International Institute of Informatics and Systemics, Winter Garden, FL, to be published. 12. Barker, R. and Gump, P. Big School, Small School. Stanford Univ. Press, Palo Alto, CA, 1964.

Conclusion

We believe that Transformative User Experience is a promising conception for bridging the omnipresent chasm between the levels of con-tent-agnostic operating systems on the one hand, and packaged applications on the other (see Figure 3).

An integrated work environment for knowledge workers requires more than generic file-storage systems and tool palettes that launch packaged applications. The seamless transition between searching, collecting, using, and transforming content is what characterizes knowledge work. Currently, an intermediate layer that supports goal-orient-ed, lightweight situational actions in a more fluid way than today’s application paradigm is missing. This layer requires a new design rationale suitable to augmenting knowledge work and would create a symbiosis between system and users in which the system supports the emerging intentions of users.

Instead of launching packaged applications and navigating along static screens, users should be able to navigate in an ostensive manner between content, context, and applications, and to create content and contexts at runtime. When the user can actively transform content and create task contexts and the user interface is no longer restricted to a priori packaged applications, the difference between use time and design time begins to vanish: Design time becomes use time.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Markus Latzina is a senior UX
architect at SAP. His aspirations
are oriented toward developing a
generative design theory by
adopting a praxeological, human-
istic stance that puts designful
thinking at its heart. He holds a master’s degree in
psychology from the University of Tübingen and
completed graduate studies at Sonoma State
University with a Fulbright scholarship.

Joerg Beringer is VP of New
Product Design at SAP Labs in
Palo Alto, CA. As a design entre-
preneur and thought leader he
contributed to establish innovative
products for knowledge-intensive
work and collaboration at the
workplace. His current focus is combining aspects
of business intelligence and personal productivity
to define new product experiences that form a sym-
biosis between business and personal needs.