Once I read this article, what I immediately recalled is not the term 「criticism」, but the term 「judgment」 from Stolterman’s book 「The Design Way」. I think that book formed some of my basic points on design criticism. But look back to that book after this paper, I think there is some difference between two terms, although sometimes I even mixed them up.
In this paper, author defines interaction criticism as 「a knowledge practice that enables design practitioners to engage with the aesthetics of interaction, helping practitioners cultivate more sensitive and insightful critical reactions to designs and exemplars.」 The author also claims the benefits of engaging in such activity, including 「informing a particular design process, critiquing and innovating on design processes and methods more generally, developing original theory beneficial to interaction design, and exposing more robustly the long-term and even unintended consequences of designs.」
I agree with author on such claims, and apparently he gives me a compelling example to demonstrate its benefits. But when I am trying to do such criticism, a problem always haunts around me and deters me to perform such skill, that is, what role should I be when I am implementing interaction criticism?
I believe I am not the only person who have been troubled by such problem, and different roles could perform different critiques. Users and designers should be on the same side and have the same feeling towards a design, but unfortunately, it is not true, even worse, what you can conclude from the perspective of users are sometimes entirely be different from what you can conclude from the perspective of designers. Windows 8 is an example that could be examined in this case. Should I perform interaction criticism from user’s perspective or from designer’s perspective?
I believe there are various answers, but once again, even I can draw some conclusions from both perspectives, there are a lot of serious problems that follow behind: How can I coordinate two criticisms? How can I evaluate each criticism? Is there any criteria that I can use to measure if it is a good successful criticism or a bad failed criticism? Without considering the questions of this kind, I found it is pretty hard for me to perform such criticism in the real situation. A lot of confusions accompany its benefits. But still I have no objection against what author claims in his paper, I am just wondering if there is any chance for me to get clarified to those points.
There is another point I want to mention, which I think is of great help for me: Four perspectives, creator, artifact, consumer, social context. (modified after class) Jeff showed us a video to force us to critique it by four perspectives. I found it was interesting because there is a lot of critiques that could be put into multiple categories, which makes me think if there is a real instinct line between each category? Or if there is a more specific definition to each term? I think I still have a long way to go to get clarified.