English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In a way, concepts are like friends. Tell me what your concepts are and I can tell what you are. Modifying freely the way Wittgenstein (1921) expressed this important Kantian (1781) point on the limiting power of concepts on one’s thinking, the concepts that human– technology interaction designers of different scientific backgrounds use differ from each other and, consequently, they are apt to solve the same tasks in different ways. Theoretical concepts constrain the kinds of questions specialists can ask and what kinds of things they are interested in. Thus programmers have a different view of users than do psychologists or sociologists. Just as a lay person can understand little about ventricular tachycardia and cannot ask meaningful questions concerning this phenomenon, so an interaction designer with little psychological knowledge cannot know deeply the relevance of the Big 5 personality traits in interaction design. This way in which concepts function in critical thinking has been known for a very long time, and remains important in interaction design since the problems and innovations of this field can be approached by people who have very different disciplinary and conceptual backgrounds. While the power of concepts in shaping human thoughts has been known for centuries, I have seldom seen its practical consequences considered in interaction design. In this multidisciplinary field, the differences between the various special design languages have not often been addressed, even though concepts form the foundations for the various design languages. All hypotheses and solutions are drawn from concepts either explicitly or implicitly; thus, the contents of concepts define the contents of one’s speaking and thinking. Of course, concepts are not cut in stone but, rather, they are dynamic and versatile. While concepts can be formed on the spot, they grow from or respond to some other system of concepts, that is, perspectives needed to be able to formulate propositions or thoughts (Wittgenstein, 1958). The point of this editorial, however, is to acknowledge that many problems in design and human–technology interaction arise when designers and programmers, among others, attempt to solve specific problems using concepts inadequate for solving those particular problems. One cannot program with only philosophical concepts just as one cannot conduct a user psychological investigation using only concepts from the information systems sciences.

The Conceptual Levels and Theory Languages of Interaction Design