09.09.2014 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!