eral of the most compelling ones. The students in
the subgroup then work collaboratively with the
students for whom they voted to create final proj-
ects for an aggregated, competitive critique that
is judged in an assembly of the entire class. Points
are awarded not only for having a winning proj-
ect, but also for collaborating, attributing others,
and being attributed according to a fairly complex
formula. The process is very much in the spirit of
several popular reality-based competitive design
television shows, especially “Project Runway” and
its imitators. Unlike the popular television shows,
the design projects pose important fundamental
design problems for socially and environmentally
conscious designers who work with the materi-
als of information technologies. Also, the grading
structure is designed to reward and foster partici-
pation and collaboration as well as promote the
fun of competition. Finally, the structure provides
the sense and feeling of studio-based learning,
certainly when the subgroups are small and even
when they are quite large.
It is easier to fully understand the DCBL
approach by looking at more examples of design
research challenge projects and design concept
challenge projects. Some of the themes I have
used and continue to use are time-keeping and
time-telling systems, comfort and climate-con-
trol systems, music-enjoyment and music-discov-
ery systems, sustainability and futuring, travel
and travel-memory preservation systems, food
and food-advisor systems, imagery and image-
sharing systems, diversity and social-inclusion
systems, wayshowing and digital signage sys-
tems [ 5], and others. Since these themes are very
broad and the technologies they entail are very
dynamic, the reuse of these themes from one
semester to another does not appear to be
a problem.
In addition to the design concept project of
Figure 2, another approach is design research
and design concept projects, namely comfortable
spaces and comfort-control systems. A very com-
mon project in introductory HCI classes is to ask
students to design a thermostat that illustrates
their understanding of the commonly held but
incorrect mental model many people have of a
thermostat as a continuous control rather than
the switch that its operational semantics actually
denote [ 6]. The DCBL approach in my treatment
recasts this problem, not as a problem of incor-
[ 4] The term “futuring”
is in reference to T.
Fry’s Design Futuring:
Sustainability, Ethics,
and New Practice
(Oxford, 2009). The
idea of clearer labeling
is inspired in part by
a workshop position
paper presented at
CHI 2009: Busse, D.
and Wang, W. ” Visible
Sustainability: Carbon
Label 2.0”; and see also
Huang, E. M., Blevis,
E., Mankoff, J., Nathan,
L. P., and Tomlinson,
B. 2009. “Defining
the role of HCI in the
challenges of sustainability.” In Proceedings
of the 27th international
Conference Extended
Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing
Systems. New York:
ACM, 2009. The figures
for CO2 emissions of
disposal and recycling
of plastics used in the
model can be found at:
http://timeforchange.
org/plastic-bags-and-
plastic-bottles-CO2-
emissions/
6 KG CO2 PER KG
3. 5 KG CO2 PER KG
[ 5] The term “way-
showing” owes
to Per Mollerup’s
Wayshowing: A Guide to
Environmental Signage
Principles and Practices
(Lars Müller Publishers,
2005).
• Figure 2. A model design concept project on the theme of
sustainability and futuring inspired by an existent “Smaller
Labels = More Trees” promotion.
biggEr labEls = bEttEr choicEs
GOVERNMEN T REQUIRED WARNINGS
Use of this product is harmful to the environment. Consider
alternatives.
ALTERNATIVES
Consider using refillable more durable containers using local water
sources. Consider reusing and refilling this container using local
water sources.
DISTANCE TO THIS 300 Miles
MARKET
DISPOSAL
RECYCLE
altErnativEs
REUSE AND REFILL
CONSIDER MORE DURABLE CON TAINERS
USE LOCAL WATER SOURCES
May + June 2010
[ 6] Sharp, H., Rogers,
Y., and Preece, J.
Interaction Design:
Beyond Human-Computer Interaction.
2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley and Sons,
2007.
tures. Nonetheless, many of the students soon
learn that doing a little bit of independent study
pays off in terms of the success of their projects.
In my experience, more than a few even engage
in primary observation and other forms of
empirical study without ever being explicitly
asked to do so, in order to make their projects
more competitive.
The students meet in subgroups (of up to 30 or
so—a size that will seem too large to K- 12 educa-
tors but is a logistical reality for the university
setting) to discuss their sketches and vote for sev-
