Number of co-authors:34
Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:Eli Blevis:6Youn-kyung Lim:5Heekyoung Jung:4
Erik A. Stolterman's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:Jodi Forlizzi:90John Zimmerman:51Michael E. Atwood:48
It's all about one thing: creative problem-solving to get the story out.
-- Robert Greenberg, R/GA, 2006
Marc Hassenzahl explains the fascinating concept of User Experience and Experience Design. Commentaries by Don Norman, Eric Reiss, Mark Blythe, and Whitney Hess
User Experience and Experience Design !
Our Latest Books
Kumar and Herger 2013: Gamification at Work: Designing Engaging Business Software...
by Janaki Mythily Kumar and Mario Herger
Whitworth and Ahmad 2013: The Social Design of Technical Systems: Building technologies for communities...
by Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad
Soegaard and Dam 2013: The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed....
by Mads Soegaard and Rikke Friis Dam
Erik A. Stolterman
Has also published under the name of:
Personal Homepage: http://transground.blogspot.com/
Current place of employment: Indiana University
Erik Stolterman is Professor of Informatics and Department Chair in the School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University, Bloomington. Stolterman's main work is within interaction design, philosophy and theory of design, information technology and society, information systems design, and philosophy of technology. Stolterman has published a large number of articles and five books, including “The Design Way” (MIT Press, 2012), “Thoughtful Interaction Design” (2004, MIT Press) and "Information Systems Development: Methods-in-Action" (McGraw-Hill, 2002). Stolterman's research can be characterized as being grounded in careful analytical studies of the everyday practice of users and professionals dealing with interactive artifacts with a strong emphasis of building theory. Stolterman combines this approach with a strong critical and theoretical analysis of current practice.
Publications by Erik A. Stolterman (bibliography)
Stolterman, Erik A. (2013): Design Theory. In: Soegaard, Mads and Dam, Rikke Friis (eds.). "The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.". Aarhus, Denmark: The Interaction Design Foundation. Available online at http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/design_theory.html
Hazlewood, William R., Stolterman, Erik A. and Connelly, Kay (2011): Issues in evaluating ambient displays in the wild: two case studies. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2011 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2011. pp. 877-886
In this paper we discus the complex task of evaluating ambient displays, concentrating on issues within in-situ deployments. We start by describing how these technologies have been evaluated in lab settings, where the focus has been primarily on issues of usability, and argue strongly for the necessity of in-situ evaluation. We then present two case studies involving in-situ evaluations, and from these derive issues that hindered the researchers from being able to delve more deeply into the overall impact of their implementations. We conclude with our own suggestions on possible alternatives to explore for evaluating ambient displays, which are based on the issues derived from our case studies.
© All rights reserved Hazlewood et al. and/or their publisher
Goodman, Elizabeth, Stolterman, Erik A. and Wakkary, Ron (2011): Understanding interaction design practices. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2011 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2011. pp. 1061-1070
There is an undesirable gap between HCI research aimed at influencing interaction design practice and the practitioners in question. To close this gap, we advocate a theoretical and methodological focus on the day-to-day, lived experience of designers. To date, this type of theory-generative, experientially oriented research has focused on the users of technologies, not the designers. In contrast, we propose that HCI researchers turn their attention to producing theories of interaction design practice that resonate with practitioners themselves. In part one of this paper, we describe the mismatch between HCI research and interaction design practices. Then we present vignettes from an observational study of commercial design practice to illustrate the issues at hand. In part two, we discuss methodological and theoretical changes in research practice that might support the goal of integrating HCI research with interaction design practices. We then discuss current research methods and theories to identify changes that might enlarge our view on practice. In part three, we elaborate on our theoretically minded agenda and a kind of ideal-type theory.
© All rights reserved Goodman et al. and/or their publisher
Jung, Heekyoung and Stolterman, Erik A. (2011): Form and materiality in interaction design: a new approach to HCI. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2011 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2011. pp. 399-408
This paper is motivated by the increasing significance of form in design and use of interactive artifacts. The objective of this paper is to conceptualize what we mean by form in the context of interaction design and HCI research and how we can approach it in regard to emerging type of digital materiality. To do this, we first examine conceptual dimensions of form in interactive artifacts through the lens of three existing perspectives with their respective focus on: material, meaning, and making. We then apply these perspectives in our analysis of specific forms of interactive artifacts. Based on this analysis, we suggest a model of four different types of forms: the cognitive, embodied, expressive, and exploratory forms. Reflecting on this model, we propose form-driven interaction design research with its epistemological and methodological implications.
© All rights reserved Jung and Stolterman and/or their publisher
Wakkary, Ron and Stolterman, Erik A. (2011): Interactions magazine. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2011 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2011. pp. 523-526
In this SIG paper we invite members of CHI to join us for a meeting to discuss interactions magazine. We describe the vision of the new editorial team for interactions and describe new features. We also introduce the forums, forum editors and other regular contributors to the magazine.
© All rights reserved Wakkary and Stolterman and/or their publisher
Wiltse, Heather and Stolterman, Erik A. (2010): Architectures of interaction: an architectural perspective on digital experience. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2010. pp. 821-824.
Digital technologies increasingly form the backdrop for our lives, and both provide and shape possibilities for interaction. This is a function similar to that of architecture in the physical world. For this reason we suggest that it could be productive to view and critique interactive digital technologies as one might physical architecture: in terms of the possibilities they provide for action, visibility, and interaction. We begin by pointing to the many architectural metaphors that are already common in HCI, and then move on to demonstrate how an architectural perspective can make visible less obvious interactive spaces. Finally, we argue that the potential benefits of this perspective are that it can allow us to see where interactive spaces have been constructed (intentionally or not); think about how particular artifacts and systems interface with each other and with the whole of embodied experience; and link specific design decisions to potential social dynamics.
© All rights reserved Wiltse and Stolterman and/or their publisher
Zimmerman, John, Stolterman, Erik A. and Forlizzi, Jodi (2010): An analysis and critique of Research through Design: towards a formalization of a research approach. In: Proceedings of DIS10 Designing Interactive Systems 2010. pp. 310-319.
The field of HCI is experiencing a growing interest in Research through Design (RtD), a research approach that employs methods and processes from design practice as a legitimate method of inquiry. We are interested in expanding and formalizing this research approach, and understanding how knowledge, or theory, is generated from this type of design research. We conducted interviews with 12 leading HCI design researchers, asking them about design research, design theory, and RtD specifically. They were easily able to identify different types of design research and design theory from contemporary and historical design research efforts, and believed that RtD might be one of the most important contributions of design researchers to the larger research community. We further examined three historical RtD projects that were repeatedly mentioned in the interviews, and performed a critique of current RtD practices within the HCI research and interaction design communities. While our critique summarizes the problems, it also shows possible directions for further developments and refinements of the approach.
© All rights reserved Zimmerman et al. and/or their publisher
McCrickard, D. Scott, Atwood, Michael E., Curtis, Gayle, Harrison, Steve, Kolko, Jon, Stolterman, Erik A. and Wahid, Shahtab (2010): Artifacts in design: representation, ideation, and process. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2010 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2010. pp. 4445-4448.
Artifacts-representations that express properties or captured information-can serve to inspire, represent, and manage the decisions made throughout the design process. This workshop will explore how these artifacts are created, used, and reused during design projects, toward understanding the overall impact on the larger discipline of design. Through active engagement with novel design artifacts and methods, workshop participants will examine, categorize, and evaluate various design artifacts.
© All rights reserved McCrickard et al. and/or their publisher
Stolterman, Erik A. and Wiberg, Mikael (2010): Concept-Driven Interaction Design Research. In Human Computer Interaction, 25 (2) pp. 95-118.
In this article, we explore a concept-driven approach to interaction design research with a specific focus on theoretical advancements. We introduce this approach as a complementary approach to more traditional, and well-known, user-centered interaction design approaches. A concept-driven approach aims at manifesting theoretical concepts in concrete designs. A good concept design is both conceptually and historically grounded, bearing signs of the intended theoretical considerations. In the area of human-computer interaction and interaction design research, this approach has been quite popular but not necessarily explicitly recognized and developed as a proper research methodology. In this article, we demonstrate how a concept-driven approach can coexist, and be integrated with, common user-centered approaches to interaction design through the development of a model that makes explicit the existing cycle of prototyping, theory development, and user studies. We also present a set of basic principles that could constitute a foundation for concept driven interaction research, and we have considered and described the methodological implications given these principles. For the field of interaction design research we find this as an important point of departure for taking the next step toward the construction and verification of theoretical constructs that can help inform and guide future design research projects on novel interaction technologies.
© All rights reserved Stolterman and Wiberg and/or Lawrence Erlbaum
Wakkary, Ron and Stolterman, Erik A. (2010): WELCOME: Our first interactions. In Interactions, 17 (6) p. 5.
Janlert, Lars-Erik and Stolterman, Erik A. (2010): Complex interaction. In ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 17 (2) p. 8.
An almost explosive growth of complexity puts pressure on people in their everyday doings. Digital artifacts and systems are at the core of this development. How should we handle complexity aspects when designing new interactive devices and systems? In this article we begin an analysis of interaction complexity. We portray different views of complexity; we explore not only negative aspects of complexity, but also positive, making a case for the existence of benign complexity. We argue that complex interaction is not necessarily bad, but designers need a deeper understanding of interaction complexity and need to treat it in a more intentional and thoughtful way. We examine interaction complexity as it relates to different loci of complexity: internal, external, and mediated complexity. Our purpose with these analytical exercises is to pave the way for design that is informed by a more focused and precise understanding of interaction complexity.
© All rights reserved Janlert and Stolterman and/or ACM Press
Odom, William, Pierce, James, Stolterman, Erik A. and Blevis, Eli (2009): Understanding why we preserve some things and discard others in the context of interaction design. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2009 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2009. pp. 1053-1062.
This paper takes up the problem of understanding why we preserve some things passionately and discard others without thought. We briefly report on the theoretical literature relating to this question, both in terms of existing literature in HCI, as well as in terms of related literatures that can advance the understanding for the HCI community. We use this reading to refine our frameworks for understanding durability in digital artifice as an issue of sustainable interaction design in HCI. Next, we report in detail on our ongoing work in collecting personal inventories of digital artifice in the home context. We relate our prior and most current personal inventories collections to the framework that owes to our reading of the theoretical literature. Finally, we summarize the theoretical implications and findings of our personal inventories work in terms of implications for the design of digital artifice in a manner that is more durable.
© All rights reserved Odom et al. and/or ACM Press
Ryan, William, Stolterman, Erik A., Jung, Heekyoung, Siegel, Martin, Thompson, Tonya and Hazlewood, William R. (2009): Device ecology mapper: a tool for studying users' ecosystems of interactive artifacts. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2009 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2009. pp. 4327-4332.
This paper presents a tool for both researchers and designers called the Device Ecology Mapper, which allows users to share devices they own and describe to researchers how they believe these devices are connected. We built this tool from the theoretical perspective of ecology of artifacts in which designed artifacts do not exist independently, but rather in complex ecosystems with other artifacts through physical and perceptual connections. We designed the evaluations of this tool to evaluate the extent to which designers found the tool valuable and users found the tool true to the way they understand their ecology of interactive artifacts-rather than how closely user's perception of their ecology represents how these devices are actually connected. We found evidence for both perspectives from these studies.
© All rights reserved Ryan et al. and/or ACM Press
Blevis, Eli and Stolterman, Erik A. (2009): Transcending disciplinary boundaries in interaction design. In Interactions, 16 (5) pp. 48-51.
Jakobsson, Markus, Stolterman, Erik A., Wetzel, Susanne and Yang, Liu (2008): Love and authentication. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2008 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems April 5-10, 2008. pp. 197-200.
Passwords are ubiquitous, and users and service providers alike rely on them for their security. However, good passwords may sometimes be hard to remember. For years, security practitioners have battled with the dilemma of how to authenticate people who have forgotten their passwords. Existing approaches suffer from high false positive and false negative rates, where the former is often due to low entropy or public availability of information, whereas the latter often is due to unclear or changing answers, or ambiguous or fault prone entry of the same. Good security questions should be based on long-lived personal preferences and knowledge, and avoid publicly available information. We show that many of the questions used by online matchmaking services are suitable as security questions. We first describe a new user interface approach suitable to such security questions that is offering a reduced risks of incorrect entry. We then detail the findings of experiments aimed at quantifying the security of our proposed method.
© All rights reserved Jakobsson et al. and/or ACM Press
Odom, Will, Blevis, Eli and Stolterman, Erik A. (2008): Personal Inventories in the Context of Sustainability & Interaction Design. In ACM Interactions, 0 (5) pp. 16-20.
Lim, Youn-kyung, Stolterman, Erik A. and Tenenberg, Josh (2008): The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. In ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 15 (2) p. 7.
The role of prototypes is well established in the field of HCI and Design. A lack of knowledge, however, about the fundamental nature of prototypes still exists. Researchers have attempted to identify different types of prototypes, such as low- vs. high-fidelity prototypes, but these attempts have centered on evaluation rather than support of design exploration. There have also been efforts to provide new ways of thinking about the activity of using prototypes, such as experience prototyping and paper prototyping, but these efforts do not provide a discourse for understanding fundamental characteristics of prototypes. In this article, we propose an anatomy of prototypes as a framework for prototype conceptualization. We view prototypes not only in their role in evaluation but also in their generative role in enabling designers to reflect on their design activities in exploring a design space. We base this framework on the findings of two case studies that reveal two key dimensions: prototypes as filters and prototypes as manifestations. We explain why these two dimensions are important and how this conceptual framework can benefit our field by establishing more solid and systematic knowledge about prototypes and prototyping.
© All rights reserved Lim et al. and/or ACM Press
Jung, Heekyoung, Stolterman, Erik A., Ryan, Will, Thompson, Tonya and Siegel, Marty (2008): Toward a framework for ecologies of artifacts: how are digital artifacts interconnected within a personal life?. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2008. pp. 201-210.
Assuming that an interactive artifact cannot be fully understood by itself due to their increasing number, we explored how individual artifacts are related to each other and how those relationships can be investigated for further design and research implications. This study suggests a concept of ecology of artifacts to describe any implicit or explicit relationships among interactive artifacts in one's personal life. We conducted two types of studies -- personal inventory study and an ecology map study -- to explore multiple dimensions for understanding a personal ecology of artifacts. We expect the knowledge of artifact ecology would help designers and researchers in the field of HCI to create and analyze interactive artifacts considering their dynamic interplays in an increasingly ubiquitous technology environment.
© All rights reserved Jung et al. and/or their publisher
Chang, Yen-ning, Lim, Youn-kyung and Stolterman, Erik A. (2008): Personas: from theory to practices. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2008. pp. 439-442.
Persona is a technique being used by practicing designers in interaction design. Existing research presents the ways personas should/could be used, or report new efforts of making good use of the persona concept. Comparing to the primary idea of persona, this paper explores some manners with which practitioners actually utilize persona in their work, which has not been emphasized in-depth in current literatures. Our findings provide an initial step showing how practitioners in a creative way develop various usages of personas in practice. We believe this research not only expands the understanding of personas in design, but also gives insights about how practicing designers adapt and make design "tools" their own.
© All rights reserved Chang et al. and/or their publisher
Odom, William, Blevis, Eli and Stolterman, Erik A. (2008): Personal inventories in the context of sustainability and interaction design. In Interactions, 15 (5) pp. 16-20.
Lim, Youn-kyung, Stolterman, Erik A., Jung, Heekyoung and Donaldson, Justin (2007): Interaction gestalt and the design of aesthetic interactions. In: Koskinen, Ilpo and Keinonen, Turkka (eds.) DPPI 2007 - Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces August 22-25, 2007, Helsinki, Finland. pp. 239-254.
Blevis, Eli, Lim, Youn-kyung, Roedl, David and Stolterman, Erik A. (2007): Using Design Critique as Research to Link Sustainability and Interactive Technologies. In: Schuler, Douglas (ed.) OCSC 2007 - Online Communities and Social Computing - Second International Conference July 22-27, 2007, Beijing, China. pp. 22-31.
Lim, Youn-kyung, Blevis, Eli and Stolterman, Erik A. (2007): Grand Challenges in Design Research for Human-Centered Design Informatics. In: Schuler, Douglas (ed.) OCSC 2007 - Online Communities and Social Computing - Second International Conference July 22-27, 2007, Beijing, China. pp. 106-115.
Lowgren, Jonas and Stolterman, Erik A. (2004): Thoughtful Interaction Design: A Design Perspective on Information Technology. MIT Press
Lowgren, Jonas and Stolterman, Erik A. (1999): Methods tools: design methodology and design practice. In Interactions, 6 (1) pp. 13-20.
Lowgren, Jonas and Stolterman, Erik A. (1998): Design av informationsteknik - materialet utan egenskaper. Lund, Sweden, Studenterlitteratur
Show list on your website
Join our community and advance:
Changes to this page (author)28 Nov 2012: Added06 May 2012: Modified
05 Jul 2011: Added
05 Jul 2011: Modified
05 Jul 2011: Modified
05 Jul 2011: Modified
11 Apr 2011: Added
11 Apr 2011: Added
16 Jan 2011: Modified
16 Jan 2011: Modified
16 Jan 2011: Modified
18 Nov 2010: Modified
02 Nov 2010: Modified
02 Nov 2010: Modified
02 Nov 2010: Modified
02 Nov 2010: Modified
05 Jun 2009: Modified
05 Jun 2009: Modified
03 Jun 2009: Modified
02 Jun 2009: Modified
02 Jun 2009: Modified
01 Jun 2009: Modified
09 May 2009: Modified
09 May 2009: Modified
08 Apr 2009: Modified
30 Oct 2008: Added
12 May 2008: Modified
27 Jun 2007: Modified
28 Apr 2003: Added
Page maintainer: The Editorial Team