1. Rob Gleasure R.Gleasure@ucc.ie www.robgleasure.com
IS4446 Advanced Interaction Design Lecture 10: Designing the practices 2 (social mediators)
Rob Gleasure

2. Today’s session Semester 2 Week 1: Introduction
Week 2: Designing the interface 1 (perception)
Week 3: Designing the interface 2 (affordances)
Week 4: Designing the interface 3 (aesthetics and colour)
Week 5: Designing the interface 4 (aesthetics and form)
Week 6: Designing the community 1 (trusting a platform)
Week 7: Designing the community 2 (trusting a group)
Week 8: Designing the community 3 (boundaries)
Week 9: Designing the practices 1 (tools as mediators)
Week 10: Designing the practices 2 (social mediators)
Week 11: Designing the practices 3 (socio-materiality)
Week 12: Revision

3. The design of social systems
The initial tool-mediated view of thought-in-action spread from Russian/Germany to Scandinavia in the 70s and 80s, where it was extended to include social mediators
Not just the tools we use that shape how we think, also the people with whom we interact and how we interact with them
Often termed the third generation of activity theory
This is the version most commonly used in interaction design

4. Expanded view of socially mediated thought and action
Mediator
(tool)
Subject (person)
Object (intention)
Community

5. Designing a community
What people or groups are involved in the activity?
Why?
Do some people or groups have particular qualities or personality traits of relevance?
Do some people or groups have a particular attachment to specific motives?
Do some people or groups have a particular attachment to specific material or symbolic tools?
Are there better people or groups to support the desired outcomes?

6. Expanded view of socially mediated thought and action (continued)
Mediator
(tool)
Subject (person)
Object (intention)
Rules
Community

7. Designing rules
What written or unwritten rules are governing the activity?
Why?
How do these rules relate to specific motives and action-goals?
How do these rules relate to specific material or symbolic tools?
How do these rules relate to specific people or groups?
Are there back-up rules for when these don’t work?
Are there better possible rules to support the desired outcomes?
How could tools or people/groups better support adherence to the rules?

8. Expanded view of socially mediated thought and action (continued)
Mediator
(tool)
Subject (person)
Object (intention)
Division of labour
Rules
Community

9. Designing division of labour
Who is responsible for each of the required actions?
Why?
How does this division of labour relate to specific motives and action-goals?
How does this division of labour relate to specific rules?
How does this division of labour relate to specific tools?
Is anyone else capable of doing them?
Is there a better possible division of labour to support the desired outcomes?
How could tools or rules better support the division of labour?

10. Designing for tensions and contradictions
We are constantly working with others to achieve shared outcomes, the nature of which we only partially agree
We’re also working with tools (material and symbolic) that only partially match our intended uses
We’re also constantly changing our understanding of what we are trying to achieve
This leads to tensions in an activity system, which act to drive ongoing change

11. Designing for tensions and contradictions (continued)
Tensions typically occur at four levels
Within some component of an activity, e.g. our tools aren’t compatible, our community is divided, the rules contradict one another
Between components of an activity, e.g. our rules don’t make sense with our tools, our division of labour doesn’t fit our community make-up
Between competing versions of the same activity, e.g. our motives are different from other participants
Between different activities, e.g. a sales team is trying to spread excitement and awareness, a user is trying to get technical information

12. Designing for tensions and contradictions (continued)
These tensions ultimately fuel the design
We spoke of pain points in semester 1, this perspective allows us more nuance in two important ways
What is the nature of the tension/pain point? Once we understand which aspect of the system is dysfunctional, we can target this aspect with precision
What are the new tensions we are introducing? These new tensions will drive the future evolution of the system, allowing us to predict how different users may structure it over time

13. Runaway objects
Sometimes objects (intentions) are so unstable, subversive, and prone to tensions that they transcend clearly bounded and stable activity systems.
Classic examples of such ‘runaway objects’ include:
Free and Open Source Software
Occupy Wall Street
Pollution
#deletefacebook
Design thinking
Agile
Cryptocurrencies and alternative finance

14. Runaway objects (continued)
These runaway objects are often difficult to design, rather they usually leave a trail of change and open design problems in their wake
Create an environment that is out of equilibrium and open to radical change
Runaway objects often have four qualities (c.f. Engestrom, 2009)
Not just useful for some specific purpose – embedded values
Must be described as both sensible and crazy – divisive
Must generate useful intermediate outputs – incomplete
Must attract repeated engagement – community

15. Runaway objects and revolutionary change
Most systems are hard to change (Lytinnen and Newman, 2008)
Low malleability tools due to path dependencies
Habit/cognitive inertia
Complexity
Means many changes have to occur in a separate ‘building system’
Attracts positively disposed actors
Builds new interactions outside current path dependencies and habits
Legitimises by demonstration

16. Runaway objects and revolutionary change
Environment
Established system
Building system

17. Runaway objects and revolutionary change
This means change often follows a path of slow builds and rapid surges
Change
New system takes over
New system takes over
Time

18. Summary Effective community make-up Effective rules
Effectiveness of social mediators
Effective division of labour
Effective balance of tensions

19. LinkedIn: what do you think?
Image from

20. YouTube: what do you think?
Image from

21. Uber: what do you think?
Image from

22. For forum discussion: Kickstarter
Image from

23. Readings
Engestrom, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7),
Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In Learning and expanding with activity theory, H. Daniels and K.D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, Massachusetts, pp
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT press.
Komischke, T. (2013). Activity Theory & Hierarchical Task Analysis: The Power Couple for Effective UX Analysis. Available online at
Lyytinen, K., & Newman, M. (2008). Explaining information systems change: a punctuated socio-technical change model. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(6),
Markus, M. L. (2004). Technochange management: using IT to drive organizational change. Journal of Information technology, 19(1), 4-20.