Interactions - November/December 2014

four waves. The focus of the appointed faculty makes sense in the service of the production-orientation of the program as it is presently constituted.

As stated in the previous example, it is
important to note that the four waves
do not necessarily characterize every
competence of the faculty. And as with
the Indiana faculty, these ascriptions of
faculty competence refer to the present
circumstance at the time of writing.
Also, as in the previous example,
Table 7 shows the utility of the four
wave theory applied to curricular
organization. Combining Tables 5 and
6 allows one to see how the courses
may be assigned to the faculty, how
many faculty are qualified to teach each
course, and where the system is brittle
in terms of dependence on particular
uniquely focused faculty.

REFLECTION ON
THE FOUR WAVE TABULATION
AS A METHOD

In what precedes, we have presented the four wave theory and used it to analyze two interaction design programs, selected because they are familiar to the authors. For each example, we provided a matrix illustration of course content in terms of the waves ( W2C), faculty competences in terms of the waves (FC2W), and possible faculty per course in terms of the waves (C2PF). Producing these tables and looking at the patterns that emerge constitute a method for characterizing interaction design programs—as a way to analyze their focus and as a means of comparison [ 7]. We present only these two examples, but the method shows enough promise to warrant application to other HCI and/or interaction design programs in future work. The method also provides a means for understanding a program’s internal focus, as a tool for reflecting on the degree to which a program aligns with its values and vision and the degree to which it has the faculty resources to carry out its mission.

TELEOLOGICAL AND
ONTOLOGICAL
INTERACTION DESIGN

The four wave framework is in part a means to avoid the centrality of teleological, positivist notions of interaction design. While programs of study in interaction design can emphasize “making things,” it is important to be thoughtful, especially in terms of transdisciplinary thinking, about the ontological implications of what we make, or indeed unmake. What we mean by this is that interaction designers may in fact regard ideas of eliminating interactivity as possible sound outcomes of design. For example, designs that encourage people to find meaningful friendship in the real world rather than less meaningful friendship in online social networks may be a first-class result of interaction design. This notion is bundled into the idea of ontological design, first introduced within HCI by

Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores I

T

COURSENAME W1 W2 W3 W4 FACULTY

Research & Analysis for Design ( 3) ° • ° F1, F3, F8, F9, F6 Vision and Change ( 1) • ° F1, F8, F9, F6

Graduate Seminar I: Theories in Interaction Design ( 2) • ° F1, F6

Graduate Seminar II: HCI ( 2) • ° F4, F5, F7

Information Architectures & Visualization ( 2) • ° F4, F5, F1 Graduate Studio Workshop I ( 3) ° • F4, F5, F1, F10 Graduate Studio Workshop II ( 3) ° • F4, F5, F1, F10, F9 Prototyping & Scripting ( 3) • ° F4, F5, F2 Tangible Interaction Workshop ( 2) • ° F4, F5, F7 Embedded Interaction Workshop ( 3) • ° F4, F5, F7 Concept Workshop ( 1) • ° F1, F8, F9, F6