Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure Kirsikka Vaajakallio
Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure Kirsikka Vaajakallio
Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure Kirsikka Vaajakallio
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
eference <strong>and</strong> collaboration ground to unite various forms of knowledge is<br />
adaptable to all design representations, from quite rough ones to detailed<br />
prototypes. Providing common ground to various participants is essential<br />
in co-design, since people look at the design t<strong>as</strong>k b<strong>as</strong>ed on their expertise<br />
<strong>and</strong> experiences about it <strong>and</strong> on responsibilities <strong>and</strong> personal concern for<br />
good design, <strong>and</strong>, therefore, designing requires negotiation between different<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ings (Bucciarelli 1994). Props <strong>and</strong> other types of design<br />
material can also be considered <strong>as</strong> boundary objects. According to Bowker<br />
<strong>and</strong> Star (1999, p 297), ”Boundary objects are those objects that both inhabit<br />
several communities of practice <strong>and</strong> satisfy the informational requirements<br />
of each of them. Boundary objects are thus both pl<strong>as</strong>tic enough to adapt to<br />
local needs <strong>and</strong> constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust<br />
enough to maintain a common identity across sites”. Artefacts in terms of<br />
boundary objects can be understood broadly to cover <strong>tool</strong>s, artefacts, techniques,<br />
ide<strong>as</strong>, stories, <strong>and</strong> memories (ibid.).<br />
Fig. 18<br />
Different types of visualisations work <strong>as</strong> reference points, which help in discussing <strong>and</strong> sharing<br />
knowledge <strong>and</strong> ide<strong>as</strong> within a team. In the picture, a researcher <strong>and</strong> professor work with a floor<br />
plan, play-mobiles <strong>and</strong> other visual material in the second co-design gathering during the “Codesigning<br />
university” c<strong>as</strong>e. (Autumn, 2008)<br />
For instance, Diaz-Kommonen et al. (2009) considered role-playing <strong>and</strong><br />
props <strong>as</strong> boundary objects in collaborative scenario development, which<br />
aimed at describing new user interface concepts <strong>and</strong> metaphors. They<br />
created a set of various props; some of them – beautiful stones, for example<br />
– were selected mainly because of their aesthetic qualities that could<br />
trigger inspiration <strong>and</strong> others because of their forms seemed to afford<br />
particular behaviours. The latter category included a piece of el<strong>as</strong>tic rubber<br />
that the researchers thought could represent a me<strong>as</strong>uring instrument.<br />
B<strong>as</strong>ed on their experiences, the props with the story created the context<br />
that supported imaginative <strong>and</strong> creative thinking.<br />
81