No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
User-Centred Co-Design in the Pandemic – A Reindeer Case
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 May 2022
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
An innovative design process which has been conducted under the restrictions during the covid-19 pandemic is in focus in this study. Visits were banned so user-centred design activities were particularly challenged by the necessity to meet and work online. The purpose of the study is to present and reflect on how user-centred design was done under those conditions. The potential users, the reindeer herders, were merely contacted online, the user investigation were supported by for example using videos and storytelling. Also, the final concept is presented.
Information
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- The Author(s), 2022.
References
Arvola, M. (2010), “Interaction design qualities: Theory and practice”, Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction, ACM Press, USA. 10.1145/1868914.1868982Google Scholar
Brown, T. and Katz, B. (2009), Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. HarperCollins, USA.Google Scholar
Eliasson, L. and Silawiang, H. (2021), Märkbara renar: En digitaliserad och effektiv renmärkning (in Swedish), [Bachelor of Science Thesis], Luleå University of Technology. Available at: https://bit.ly/3HhoONN (accessed 12.11.2021).Google Scholar
Ericson, Å., Wenngren, J., Holmqvist, J. and Hammarberg, K. (2016). “The case of an innovation contest: participatory design in a social context”, Proceedings of the DESIGN 2016 /14th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May, 16-19, 2016, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, pp. 967–974.Google Scholar
Ericson, Å. and Törlind, P. (2013), “A deep dive into creative thinking: the now-wow-how framework”, Proceedings of ICED 13, the 19th International Conference on Engineering, Design Research Society, 2013, Vol. 7, pp. 337–346.Google Scholar
Leifer, L. and Steinert, M. (2015), “Dancing with ambiguity: causality behaviour, design thinking, and triple-loop-learning”, Information Knowledge Systems Management, Vol. 10, No. 1-4, pp. 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lugnet, J., Ericson, Å. and Larsson, T. (2020), “Design of product-service systems: toward an updated discourse”, Systems, Vol, 8, No, 4, 10.3390/systems8040045Google Scholar
Löwgren, J. and Stolterman, E. (2007), Thoughtful Interaction Design, The MIT Press, USA.Google Scholar
McKay, E.N. (2013), UI is communication: How to design intuitive, user centered interfaces by focusing on effective communication, Elsevier Inc, USA.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (2008), “Signifiers, not affordances”, Interactions, Vol. 15, No.6. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ltu.se/10.1145/1409040.1409044Google Scholar
Osvalder, A-L. and Ulfvengren, P. (2015), “Människa-tekniksystem”, In: Editors, Bohgard, M., Karlsson, S., Lovén, E., Mikaelsson, L-Å., Mårtensson, A-L., et al. Arbete och teknik på människans villkor (in Swedish), Prevent, Stockholm, pp. 353–438.Google Scholar
Patnaik, D. and Becker, R. (1999), “Needfinding: The Why and How of Uncovering People's Needs”, Design Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 37–43.Google Scholar
Patnaik, D. (2004), “System Logics: Organising Your Offerings to Solve People's Big Needs”, Design Management Review, Summer, pp. 50–57.Google Scholar
Pruitt, J. and Grudin, J. (2003). “Personas: practice and theory”, Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences /DUX '03. San Francisco, California, 10.1145/997078.997089Google Scholar
Sametinget (2020), Får bara samer äga renar? (in Swedish: Can only Sámi people own reindeers?), Available at: https://www.sametinget.se/123060. (accessed 22.10.2021).Google Scholar
Sametinget (2021), Rennäringen i Sverige (in Swedish: Reindeer husbandry in Sweden), Available at: https://www.sametinget.se/rennaring_sverige. (accessed 22.10.2021).Google Scholar
Service, O., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., Algate, F., Gallager, R., et al. . (2014), EAST, foru simple ways to apply behavioural insights, Available at: https://bit.ly/3orbSw2 (accessed 17.10.2021).Google Scholar
Shanks, M. (n.d), An introduction to design thinking, process guide, d.school, Hasso Plattner, Institute of Design at Stanford, Available at: https://web.stanford.edu/~mshanks/MichaelShanks/files/509554.pdf (accessed 22.10.2021)Google Scholar
Swallow, D., Blythe, M. and Wright, D. (2005), “Grounding Experience: Relating Theory and Method to Evaluate the User Experience of Smartphones”, EACE '05: Proceedings of the 2005 annual conference on European association of cognitive ergonomics, pp. 91–98.Google Scholar
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, pp 1–17.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access