Interaction Criticism: A Proposal and

Framework for a New Discipline of HCI

Jeffrey Bardzell

Abstract

School of Informatics

Though interaction designers critique interfaces as a

regular part of their research and practice, the field of
HCI lacks a proper discipline of interaction criticism. By
interaction criticism we mean rigorous, evidence-based
interpretive analysis that explicates relationships
among elements of an interface and the meanings,
affects, moods, and intuitions they produce in the
people that interact with them; the immediate goal of
this analysis is the generation of innovative design
insights. We summarize existing work offering
promising directions in interaction criticism to build a
case for a proper discipline. We then propose a
framework for the discipline, relating each of its parts
to recent HCI research.

Indiana University
jbardzel@indiana.edu
Shaowen Bardzell
School of Informatics
Indiana University
selu@indiana.edu

Keywords
Interaction, criticism, aesthetics, design, theory

ACM Classification Keywords

H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g.,
HCI): Miscellaneous.
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).

Introduction

CHI 2008, April 5 April 10, 2008, Florence, Italy

Though the practice of interaction design varies, our

field recognizes a more or less standard process of how
to practice interaction design: problem definition, user

ACM 978-1-60558-012-8/08/04.

study, sketching through prototype design, and

evaluation [34]. This process has been refined over the
past decades to address certain aspects of interaction
design, in particular usability, performance, and user
satisfaction. Increasingly, we are hearing calls for
innovation in more subjective areas, such as aesthetics
[31,40,9,19], affective computing [11,24,33],
experience design [10,13], and intimate and embodied
interaction [18,8]. In the words of Smith [39],
interaction design needs to improve its awareness of
the symbolic level of mood and meaning, of sociability
and civility; we need a language true to the medium
of computation, networks, and telecommunications.
That the problem Smith identifiesthe lack of an
expressive language of interaction designis a
symptom of the standard process of interaction design
outlined above: it lacks a step for interaction criticism.
Speaking generally, criticism refers to an expert of a
given domains informed exercise of judgment; familiar
examples include film and literary critics, criticism in
architecture, and even a sommeliers taste for wine. In
each of these cases, the expert cultivates a faculty for
judgment through a lengthy encounter with relevant
artifacts, theories, and other works of criticism. The
critics judgments are based on interpretive reasoning,
rather than methodically collected empirical evidence.
They are often particular to the individual critic, and
yet, though subjective, they are based on careful,
practiced, and theoretically informed investigation of a
given phenomenon (e.g., a novel, painting, evening
gown, or public building), situated in the historical,
social, and semantic contexts of similar artifacts. Due
to the inherent complexities involved in aesthetic
judgments surrounding art, design, and other cultural
phenomena, critical practices typically emerge to

enable scholars and experts to develop, share, and

evaluate their interpretations of them.
As HCIs cultural significance grows, and in particular as
demand grows for thinking in HCI surrounding cultural,
aesthetic, affective, and experiential categories,
demand is also growing for a practice of interaction
criticism. By interaction criticism we mean rigorous
interpretive analysis that explicates how elements of
the interface, through their relationships to each other,
produce certain meanings, affects, moods, and
intuitions in the people that interact with them. We say
rigorous to stress that interaction criticism, like the
best film and literary criticism, transcends anythinggoes subjectivism and offers instead systematic,
evidence-based analyses of subjective phenomena. The
purpose of such an analysis is to generate actionable
insights for interaction design.
Interaction designers have been practicing interaction
criticism all along. No one designs interaction in a
vacuum, without consideration of prior or analogous
interfaces. But even now, and in spite of promising
steps such as [17,38], HCI lacks a rigorous discipline of
interaction criticism, that is a stable vocabulary and set
of critical practices that can be subjected to discussion
and review. Without this discipline, designers and
researchers judgments are hidden from view.
In the process of offering our conceptualization of this
discipline, we will refer to analogous fields, including
film, literary, visual communications, and fashion
theory. Building on these traditions, we offer a
framework of the domain of interaction criticism,
exploring the analogies between cultural artifact and
interface, and between consumer/reader and user.

Benefits of a Discipline of Interaction

Criticism
A discipline of interaction criticism has much to offer
interaction design. Though criticism is often applied in
human domains, such as literature, film, advertising,
and the sociology of groups, it is grounded largely in
philosophy. The philosophy and critical traditions of the
twentieth century grapple with notions increasingly
relevant to interaction design: representation, beauty,
language, self-transcendence, subjectivity, creativity,
interpretation, identity, self-determination, and social
justice, among others.
To pursue understanding in the subjective dimension of
interaction, while continuing the human-centered
strategies in use for years, which were derived
primarily from phenomenology, interaction designers
should add to that new strategies of interpretation
developed from the comparatively artifact-centered
approaches offered by continental theory, semiotics,
and poststructuralism. Development of these
strategies, in consultation with thoughtful critiques of
them from analytic philosophy along the lines of
[14,15], open whole new vistas for nuanced interaction
design research.
Additionally, this program of research will not only
enhance our understanding of the most subjective and
difficult to measure aspects of interaction design, but it
will also improve the teachability of the field. A
standardized vocabulary and body of theory, even with
all the usual academic disputes and border wars,
provides a domain with a multilevel working space, or
clearing, facilitating many forms of relevant discourse.
As an example, the theorization of film language has
been developed sufficiently in film studies to organize

introductory student guides [26], practitioner manuals

[3], philosophical treatises [7,32], and philosophical
dissent [15].

Interaction Criticism in HCI: An Emerging

Domain
Critical stances have entered interaction design more or
less explicitly for years. Nonetheless, the collection of
these papers is far from constituting a coherent body of
research focusing on the agenda of a discipline of
interaction criticism. [40] offer a readable overview of
some of these approaches; however, their conclusion
suggests that the variety of approaches they surveyed,
all under the banner of aesthetic interaction, are so
broad that they dilute, rather than bring into focus, the
notion of aesthetics in the context of interaction design.
One recent example of work in the area of interaction
criticism is Bertelsen & Polds Criticism as an Approach
to Interface Aesthetics [9]. After making the case for
interface criticism as a response to rising interest in the
aesthetics of interaction design, the paper offers a
formalized guide to interface criticism as a practical
approach to interface aesthetics. This guide consists of
encouraging interaction designers to consider the
following 8-part framework as they study interfaces:

Stylistic references

Standards and conformance to tradition

Materiality and remediation

Genre

Functional versus cultural dimensions of an

interface

Representational techniques

Challenges to user expectations

Capacity for unanticipated use

Another approach gaining popularity is that of critiquing

interaction as a form of experience, and in particular,
aesthetic experience [31,30,29,27,36]. A key strategy
in McCarthy & Wright [31] is to redefine the unit of
analysis away from the interface, from user or designer
intentions, and instead to focus on experience,
including the internal and subjective notion of felt
experience. Much of their book is devoted to laying out
ways for analysts to gain access to this phenomenon,
which is so hard to represent and therefore difficult to
subject to analysis. Thus, they lay out critical strategies
for understanding the production of meaning in the
mind of the user, e.g., the dialogic interaction
between the self and the other, as described by
Bakhtin. They also offer critical frameworks, such as
the four threads of experience: the sensual,
emotional, compositional, and spatio-temporal.
Lwgren and Stolterman [27], relying on different
sources, come to a similar position. They, too, replace
the goal of knowledge with one of thoughtfulness
and a reflective mind. Characterizing design theory as
knowledge that can liberate the designer from
preconceived notions or knowledge focused on
creating new conditions for design, their emphasis is
on original thinking. To achieve the goal of becoming a
thoughtful, reflective designer, Lwgren & Stolterman
propose four strategies:

A sensibility regarding the qualities of designs and

design processes

A developed language, which appears to mean a

technical analytic vocabulary

Reflective thinking, which emphasizes the

interpreting subjects awareness of her- or himself
in the development of ones own thoughts

Retrospective reflection, which explores the

arguments and ideas that could explain a design

Clearly, the three approaches summarized here are

meant as a critical, rather than scientific strategies;
that is, their frameworks are not meant as models
representing the true nature of the experience of
interaction design, but rather as a means to enable
people to think more clearly and talk about the
elusive phenomenon of that experience. The outcome
of this strategy should be richly interpretive, rather
than analytically precise. Its goal is to generate insight
and reflection, rather than to demonstrate or validate
tightly formulated truth claims, such as, prototype B is
20% more efficient than prototype A.
All of these frameworks offer promise to interaction
designers interested in more critical and nuanced
understandings of interactive artifacts. In some ways
these frameworks compete with each other, and in
other ways they are distinct. All of them, for example,
offer critical strategies for designers to use when
critiquing interactions. Yet in general, Bertelsen &
Polds framework [9] appears to surpass McCarthy &
Wrights [31] with regard to artifact-centered concerns,
but the opposite is true as far as interpreting the
nuances of human response. Likewise, Lwgren and
Stoltermans [27] places more emphasis on the
designer than the other two.

figure 1. In transcoding, cultural and

computer layers influence each other.

A stable discipline of interaction criticism would support

further work on frameworks such as these, by more
clearly revealing their relationships and the gaps left by
them. It would stabilize emerging critical vocabularies,
simplifying communication among researchers and
practitioners. It would also reveal strengths and
weaknesses of the state of the art. For example,
surveying humanist-inspired approaches in HCI today
reveals that the existing literature provides far better
coverage of human-centered approaches than artifactcentered ones.

A Framework for the Domain of Interaction

Criticism
In his Language of New Media, Manovich [28]
introduces five principles of new media, which he
claims are the building blocks of works of digital media,
including interfaces. One of these is transcoding.
Transcoding is the principle that computer files have
both a computer layer and a cultural layer. The cultural
layer includes categories such as stories, compositions,
mimesis, and tragedy. The computer layer includes
functions and variables, data structures, packets, and
so on.

figure 2. Sketch of the domain of

interaction criticism

One of Manovichs key insights is that these two

layerscomputer and culturalmutually influence each
other (Figure 1). For example, the evolving use of
Photoshop has altered our conceptualization of
photography, which now gives billions of people
everyday access to seamless photographic composites.
Likewise, certain computer structures are becoming
cultural forms in their own right: Manovich describes
the database as originally a computer form that is also
becoming a cultural form. Other theorists, such as [25]
have argued that the hyperlink is a new form of

punctuation, because it is a marker that establishes

relationships between two text units, in much the same
way as does a semicolon or comma.
We agree with Manovichs overall characterization of
the mutual interaction of cultural and computer layers,
but we feel the key termscultural and computerare
too broad to be directly useful for interaction design. To
operationalize these terms, we began by considering
the major categories, or problem spaces, of traditional
criticism. We found that the major critical traditions
each emphasized issues that, broadly speaking, fell
under one of the following four general headings:
creator, artifact, consumer, and social context. For
example, auteur theory in film emphasizes the role of
the director [7]; text-centered orientations are
privileged in any discipline that uses the metaphor of
language to characterize the building blocks of the
art, as in the language of fashion; in literary theory
reader-response criticism privileges the role of the
reader; Marxist and feminist theories across the arts,
privilege the significance of social context. Thus, in our
sketch, we use 20th century critical trends to redefine
and operationalize Manovichs notion of the cultural
layer.
These four general headings can be adapted to
categorize at a general level critical concerns in HCI as
well: interface designer, interface, user, and social
context. The two sets of categories on the two layers
are roughly congruent to each other (Figure 2). The
benefit of this adaptation is that it bridges two hitherto
separated discoursesHCI (including psychology and
engineering) and criticism (including design and the
liberal arts)and potentially enables their overdue
cross-pollination.

Interaction Designer as Creator

Theories of authorship traditionally focus on the
biography, intentions, and psychological condition of
the author. For example, the literary critic E.D. Hirsch
advances the proposition that literary interpretations
can have validity in the scientific sense. The contents
of a valid interpretation are understood to be intrinsic
to the text, placed there by the intention of the author,
and decoded by the reader [22]. Other hermeneutic
theories of authorship explore ways that it is possible
for a reader to understand the intentions of an author,
given only the text. This possibility is described in
Gadamer [21] as a careful fusion of the respective
lifeworlds of author and reader, where in that
juxtaposition meaning is able to emerge.
Also popular in continental theory were poststructuralist
notions of authorship, famously expressed with
Barthes [6] slogan, the death of the author, but also
developed by Foucault [20] among others. This idea
has been widely misunderstood, and as a result its
significance has arguably been overlooked. The death
of the author was used in poststructuralist theory to
problematize the unity of the author as a single,
coherent subject of discourse.
To summarize, the problem space of authorship in
continental theory focuses on the relevance and
availability of the authors intention during the historical
moment of creation as well as on issues of who gets to
control the texts meanings. If any field has accepted
the death of the author, surely it is HCI. As much as
many interface designers would like to be treated as
Hirschs author, which would suggest that it is the
users obligation to figure out and proceed in accord
with the designers intentions, the fact is HCI has long

embraced the opposite position. The user matters more

than the designer, and design research is often largely
synonymous with user research.
In practice, such as in participatory design [58,61], the
agency of the designer is systematically ceded to users
from the very beginnings of the process. In interaction
design theory, as we saw earlier in the work of Lwgren
and Stolterman [27], the role of the designer is to
cultivate skills to transform her- or himself through a
self-critical process. [37] not only deny the designer
the authority to specify the meaning, but they
challenge whether interfaces should even have a single,
as opposed to more than one, meaning. HCI
consistently and creatively rejects the notion that the
meaning and use of an interface or system should be
anchored in the historical designers intentions. Of
course, these points should not suggest that designers
are unimportant or play no rolebut rather to draw
focus to the significance of the meaning-giving
consumer/reader.
Interface as Cultural Artifact
The individual cultural artifact, often called the text
regardless of medium, been the locus of several major
theoretical movements of the twentieth century. Major
problem spaces include the nature of meaning and
signification, relations between form and content, and
the relations among texts in a tradition. Three textbased theories in particular have come to have some
influence in interaction design and are worth discussing
here: formalism, semiotics, and intertextuality.
Formalism was a movement in the early twentieth
century that emphasized the formal character of
linguistic features of texts, such as rhetorical devices,

phonetic patterns, generic features, and syntactic

arrangements, to argue for a material basis for their
socio-ideological meaning. In other words, the
formalists claimed that linguistic analysis of text offered
an objective basis for literary analysis and criticism [4].
The work of the formalists, and in particular Bakhtin,
have suddenly become important in HCI, thanks to a
number of works that have appropriated Bakhtin to
shed light on experience design, e.g., [31,2,29].
The next generation of formalism was semiotics,
represented by theorists such as Barthes, Eco, and in
film, Metz [32], based on the work of the linguist
Saussure [35]. Semiotics uses natural language as a
model for many other forms of communication,
spreading the strategies of linguistic description to
phenomena other than human language. Following
Saussure, semiotic analysis focuses not on the
collection of meaningful elements in a cultural artifact,
but rather the relationships among the meaningful
elements in a work. Semiotics has been appropriated
by both the engineering [1,16] and critical sides of HCI
[5].
Intertextuality is the poststructuralist concept that
replaces romantic notions of a coherent, original
creation of a genius author with a notion of the text as
a pastiche of different texts, written by many authors.
This concept has been developed in new media theory
by [12], using the term remediation to describe the
ways that meanings from older media are appropriated
and reused in newer media. We have seen already that
[9] make remediation one of the eight categories of
their framework, operationalizing it with questions such
as, Consider how the interface draws on the
materiality of other media (e.g., text pages,

photography, cinematic language, control panels).

They continue to offer one description of innovation in
interaction design, grounded on this poststructuralist
notion of intertextuality: innovation occurs when the
materiality of the interactive artifact is used in new
manners or when old media are remediated in new
ways.
User as Reader/Viewer
At stake in the problem space of the reader and user
are the mechanisms by which the reader/user comes to
understand an interface through the process of
interacting with it. One of the most productive insights
that emerged in reader-centered theory of the
twentieth century was the notion of reading as an
event, activity, or performance [23]. The temporal
nature of reading denies reading abstract unity and
calls attention to the construction of meaning as a
process. This in turn destabilizes the text, since it never
can be performed all at once, and simultaneously calls
into question the texts authority over the reader; the
reader performs the text. Finally, these notions make
urgent questions about what constitutes a good or
competent reader.
This line of reasoning anticipates issues that are even
more obviously relevant for interactive systems than
literature, because interaction, like reading, is
performed over time. Through interaction, software
applications change state, a more literal transformation
than the metaphorical destabilization of the text.
Additionally, the user desires and expects control over
the application and any meanings that through its
interactions. A recent example of this sort of thinking in
the context of HCI appears in [37]. The authors critique
the notion that a given system should have a single

authoritative meaning. They observe that user

interpretation in HCI is traditionally considered a
problem whose solution is typically either for designers
to do a better job of anticipating user mental models,
or for users to change their mental models to
accommodate the system. Second, the authors
question the assumption that there necessarily ever
needs to be a single, authoritative interpretation,
proposing instead that interaction design could target
multiple, heterogeneous interpretations. They offer
SMS as an example: it facilitates coordination for
businesspeople, social connectivity for teens, and offers
a method for passing wireless control signals for
hackers. This approach to design enables users to
appropriate the technology more effectively: if people
are able to play a substantial role in determining the
meaning of systems, this implies that they will be
actively engaged in the process of understanding both
the system and its situation of use. The affinity to
reader-centered theories is unmistakable, as they
incorporate notions of use as an emergent process, a
system destabilized in the sense that its meaning
shifts through use, a situation in which users give the
system meaning in real-time as they use it, and notions
of the ideal user as emergent.
The Social Context of HCI
Users of technology are a part of the social ecologies in
which they work, live, love, and take rest. Our
technology-mediated networks are proliferating,
especially in the era of Web 2.0, where we participate
in social networks including MySpace, Facebook, our
cell phone contacts and instant messenger friend lists,
Flickr, amateur multimedia communities, 3D immersive
virtual worlds like Second Life, and so on.

The primary question of this category is how users

participation in various technologically mediated
networks shape their activities, interpretations, and
relations with others. Several HCI and information
science-related disciplines have stepped forward to
address issues such as these: activity theory, situated
action theory, computer-supported collaborative work,
computer-mediated communications, and social
network analysis, to name but a sample.
Summary
The purpose of this framework and summary obviously
is not to offer a detailed description of interaction
criticism, but rather to create a high-level and
preliminary sketch of the field. That is, we do not
expect the four categories necessarily to remain stable;
as HCIs capacity for critical inquiry catches up to its
proud history of scientific inquiry, our field could well
redefine the four critical categories outlined here.
Indeed, as human-computer interaction continues to
emerge as the dominant cultural paradigm of our time,
we should be in a position to rewrite and innovate on
critical traditions ourselves, rather than merely
importing them. The framework described here, then, is
offered as the beginning of an emerging discipline of
criticism in HCI; it is not intended as a straightjacket
into which all subsequent critical HCI work is forced.
Another benefit of the sketch is that it helps reveal
lacunae in interaction criticism. We highlighted how
HCIs privileging of human-centered approaches has led
to comparative neglect of artifact-centered criticism. As
the sketch exposes these gaps, it also reveals the
critical traditions that HCI tends to rely on, such as
phenomenology and more recently formalism, at the
expense of others, such as poststructuralism.

Conclusion
If HCI is to have an art-science balance, it will have
to do more than opportunistically take bits and pieces
from the arts and humanities and insert them into an
otherwise-unchanged scientific process. It will have to
recognize the subset of HCI problems that are best
addressed via criticism, where interaction design
experts are experts precisely because, in addition to
their mastery of the science of design, they also have a
capacity to evaluate the ephemeral and subjective
cultural qualities of interactions.
At the same time, HCIs increased interests in the arts
and humanities should not displace the manifest
successes of scientific approaches to interaction design.
The rise of leisure, ubiquitous, and mobile technologies
has created a demand for more interpretative and
reflective approaches to design, and critical approaches
stand ready to answer the call. But they need to be
used with rigor, and doing so means engaging with the
theory of interaction criticism.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank several people for their critical
feedback, which helped us clarify our argument in a
number of places: Gilbert Cockton, Christoph Bartneck,
Jill Coffin, Lars Erik Holmquist, Laurian Vega, Erik
Stolterman, Heekyoung Jung, Will Ryan, Marty Siegel,
Kevin Makice, and Christian Briggs.

References
[1] Andersen, P. A Theory of Computer Semiotics.
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[2] Anderson, K., McGonigal, J. Place storming:
Performing new technologies in context. Proc. of the

Third Nordic Conference on Human-Computer

Interaction. ACM Press (2004), 85-88.
[3] Arijon, D. Grammar of the Film Language. SilmanJames Press, Beverly Hills, CA, 1991.
[4] Attridge, D. The linguistic model and its
applications. In Selden, R. (ed). The Cambridge
History of Literary Criticism. Vol. VIII. Cambridge
University Press, 2005, 58-84.
[5] Bardzell, J. Creativity in amateur multimedia:
Popular culture, critical theory, and HCI. Human
Technology 3, 1(2007), 12-33.
[6] Barthes, R. The death of the author. In Heath, S.
(trans.). Image-Music-Text. Hill and Wang, New York,
1977, 142-148.
[7] Bazin, A. What is Cinema. v 1 & 2. University of
California Press, Berkeley, 1971.
[8] Bell, G., Brooke, T., Churchill, E. & Paulos, E.
Intimate ubiquitous computing. Proc. Ubicomp
Workshop (2003), 3-6.
[9] Bertelsen, O. & Pold, S. Criticism as an Approach to
Interface Aesthetics. Proc. of NordiCHI 04, ACM Press
(2004). 23-32.
[10] Blythe, M., Wright, J., McCarthy, J., and Bertelsen
O. Theory and method for experience-centered design.
Proc. of CHI 2006, ACM Press (2006), 1691-1694.
[11] Boehner, K., DePaula, R., Dourish, P. & Sengers, P.
Affect: From information to interaction. In Bertelsen, O.
et al. (eds). Critical ComputingBetween sense and
sensibility, ACM Press (2005), 59-68.
[12] Bolter, J. & Grusin, R. Remediation. MIT Press,
1999.
[13] Buchenau, M., Suri, J. Experience prototyping.
Proc. of DIS 2000, ACM Press (2000), 424-433.
[14] Carroll, N. Jean-Louis Baudry and The Apparatus.
Mystifying Movies. Columbia University Press, 1988.

[15] Currie, G. The long goodbye: The imaginary

language of film. British Journal of Aesthetics 33(3),
201-219.
[16] de Souza, C. Semiotic Engineering of HumanComputer Interaction. The MIT Press, 2005.
[17] Dourish, P., Finlay, J., Sengers, P., & Wright, P.
Reflective HCI: Towards a critical technical practice. In
CHI04 Extended Abstracts. ACM Press (2004), 17271728.
[18] Dourish, P. Where the Action Is: The Foundations
of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2001.
[19] Fishwick, P. (ed). Aesthetic Computing. The MIT
Press, 2006.
[20] Foucault, M. What is an Author? In Faubion, J.
(ed.). Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology. Penguin
Books, London, 1994, 205-222.
[21] Gadamer, H. Truth and Method. Weinsheimer, J.
and Marshall, D.G. (trans). Continuum International
Publishing Group, 1989.
[22] Holub, R. Hermeneutics. In Selden, R. (ed). The
Cambridge History of Literary Criticism Vol. VIII.
Cambridge University Press, 2005, 255-288.
[23] Holub, R. Other reader oriented theories. In
Selden, R. (ed). The Cambridge History of Literary
Criticism Vol. VIII. Cambridge University Press, 2005,
375-403.
[24] Hk, K., Laaksolahti, J., Isbister, K. Proc. of the
WP9 Workshop on Innovative Approaches for
Evaluating Affective Systems. (2006).

[28] Manovich, L. The Language of New Media. MIT

Press, 2001.
[29] McCarthy, J., and Wright, P. The value of the novel
in designing for experience. In Pirhonen, A., Isomki,
H, Roast, C., & Saariluoma, P. (eds). Future Interaction
Design. Springer (2005), 9-30.
[30] McCarthy, J. and Wright, P. Putting felt-life at the
centre of human-computer interaction (HCI). Cogn
Tech Work (2005) 7: 262-271.
[31] McCarthy, J. & Wright, P. Technology as
Experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. (2004).
[32] Metz, C. Film Language: A Semiotics of the
Cinema. Taylor, M. (trans.). The University of Chicago
Press, 1991.
[33] Picard, R. Affective Computing. Cambridge, MIT
Press, 1997.
[34] Preece, J., Rogers, Y., and Sharp, H. Interaction
Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. Second
Edition. John Wiley (2007).
[35] Saussure, F. Course in General Linguistics. Baskin,
W. (trans.). McGraw-Hill, 1966.
[36] Sengers, P. The engineering of experience. In
Blythe, M., Monk, A., Overbeeke, C., Wright, P. (eds).
Funology: From Usability to User Enjoyment. Kluwer,
Dordrecht (2003), 19-29.
[37] Sengers, P. and Gaver, B. Staying open to
interpretation: Engaging multiple meanings in design
and evaluation. Proc. of DIS 2006, ACM Press (2006),
99-108.

[25] Johnson, S, Interface Culture: How New

Technology Transforms the Way We Create and
Communicate. Perseus Books Group, 1999.

[38] Sengers, P., McCarthy, J., & Dourish, P. Reflective

HCI: Articulating an agenda for critical practice. In
CHI06 Extended Abstracts. ACM Press (2006), 16831686.

[26] Lacey, N. Introduction to Film. Palgrave Macmillan,

2005.

[39] Smith, G. What is interaction design? In Moggridge,

B. Designing Interactions. The MIT Press, 2007.

[27] Lwgren, J., & Stolterman, S. Thoughtful

Interaction Design. MIT Press, 2004.

[40] Udsen, L., & Jrgensen, A. The Aesthetic Turn.

Digital Creativity, 16 (4), 205-216.