Co-creating and Assessing Future Wellbeing Technology Using Design Fiction

Naseem Ahmadpour, Design Lab, Sydney School of Architecture, Design, and Planning, The University of Sydney, Australia Sonja Pedell, Centre for Design Innovation, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia Angeline Mayasari, Future Self and Design Living Lab, Centre for Design Innovation, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia Jeanie Beh, Future Self and Design Living Lab, Centre for Design Innovation, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia

Co-creating and Assessing Future Wellbeing Technology Using Design Fiction Abstract  In this article, we present our research using design fiction to explore future wellbeing technologies for older adults. “For Good Times and Bad Times” is a design fiction representing a range of emotional, qualitative, and functional goals associated with wellbeing health technology. We invited a small cohort of experts to participate in a wearable monitoring device co-creation session, and then invited older-aged participants to review and reflect on a design fiction crafted from the experts’ findings and a set of psychological needs and values that have been associated with wearable health devices. The results offer insight into the future of wellbeing monitoring technology, and demonstrate the power design fiction has to communicate and generate deep discussions on the psychological, cultural, and social implications of using technologies that mediate complex personal experiences. We discuss the challenges associated with creating and using design fiction in research with older adults, and the potential of fiction to shift perspectives and elicit prospective outcomes of using future technologies.

Keywords Design fiction Older adults Co-creation Wellbeing Assistive technology

Received November 21, 2018 Accepted August 21, 2019

Emails Naseem Ahmadpour (corresponding author) [email protected] Sonja Pedell [email protected] Angeline Mayasari [email protected] Jeanie Beh [email protected]

Copyright © 2019, Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). The peer review process is the responsibility of Tongji University and Tongji University Press. http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.08.003

Co-creating and Assessing Future Wellbeing Technology Using Design Fiction

209

1  Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Older Australia at a Glance, 4th ed. (Canberra: AIHW, 2007), available at https://www. aihw.gov.au/reports/older-people/ older-australia-fourth-edition/ contents/table-of-contents. 2  Naseem Ahmadpour and Alen Keirnan, “Design for Ageing-inplace: Evidence from Australia,” in Proceedings of DRS 2016, Design Research Society 50th Anniversary Conference (Brighton, UK, 2016), available at http://www.drs2016. org/170. 3  Harry T. Reis et al., “Daily Well-Being:The Role of Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26, no. 4 (2000): 419–35, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1177/0146167200266002. 4  Marc Hassenzahl, Sarah Diefenbach, and Anja Göritz, “Needs, Affect, and Interactive Products—Facets of User Experience,” Interacting with Computers 22, no. 5 (2010): 353–62, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002. 5  Dorian Peters, Rafael A. Calvo, and Richard M. Ryan, “Designing for Motivation, Engagement, and Wellbeing in Dgital Experience,” Frontiers in Psychology 9 (May, 2018): article 797, DOI: https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00797. 6  Vincenzo Valiani et al., “A New Adaptive Home-Based Exercise Technology among Older Adults Living in Nursing Home: A Pilot Study on Feasibility, Acceptability and Physical Performance,” The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging 21, no. 7 (2017): 819–24, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-0160820-0. 7  Chaiwoo Lee and Joseph F. Coughlin, “Perspective: Older Adults’ Adoption of Technology: An Integrated Approach to Identifying Determinants and Barriers,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 32, no. 5 (2015): 747–59, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1111/jpim.12176.

Introduction According to a 2016 report published by the Australian government, people aged 65 and over have come to comprise over 15% of the Australian population, a trend similar to many developed countries around the world.1 In light of this, helping older adults maintain the ability to perform everyday tasks at home as they age—a concept known as aging-in-place2— now seems of paramount importance. The concept of daily wellbeing has been the object of research by psychologists for over three decades. Harry Reis and his colleagues3 contend that fulfilling three psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and social relatedness—in daily activities results in greater experience of wellbeing. Marc Hassenzahl and his colleagues4 found a clear link between fulfillment of those needs and pleasurable experiences with everyday technologies including gaming consoles and digital music players. Within the wider domain of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Dorian Peters, Rafael Calvo, and Richard Ryan5 emphasize the urgency of finding ways to support those needs through digital systems, technologies, and everyday interactive products. Nevertheless, autonomy, competence, and social relatedness have yet to be explored in depth when it comes to everyday technologies for older people. We define ageing-in-place not only as having the self-sufficiency to perform everyday tasks as one ages—it is also the ability to exercise choice in the context of everyday activities. In this article, we will examine the implications of satisfying older people’s need for autonomy, competence, and social relatedness via interactive technologies that support ageing-in-place. We look at the design of a small, wearable device which notifies a user’s designated contact in the event of a fall or another medical emergency. We then examine and consider the potential for re-designing this emergency alarm to provide a better experience of aging-in-place via addressing the three key psychological needs. In addition to exploring a new form of empowerment through enhanced digital solutions, we aim to demonstrate the implications of digital disruptions for human values and the futures they contribute to building. We use design fiction to help us reflect, prototype, discuss, and shift perspectives toward future possibilities. We then compare our findings to a previous study where we employed use scenarios to engage older adult participants in discussions about the future of the device. The findings reveal some of the most important qualities and values that wellbeing technologies designed for older adults could embody, and point to potential outcomes for future wellbeing technologies. The findings also demonstrate the application of design fiction to contextualize and investigate concerns that arise when older adults consider using wellbeing technologies.

The Technology: A Wearable Device

8  Sonja Pedell et al., “Don’t Leave Me Untouched: Considering Emotions in Personal Alarm Use and Development,” in Healthcare Informatics and Analytics: Emerging Issues and Trends, ed. Madjid Tavana, Amir Hossein Ghapanchi, and Amir Talaei-Khoei (Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2015), 99–127, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-46666316-9.ch006.

The use of technology among older adults in everyday life is an area of growing interest for research in the field of HCI. Researchers are considering a wide range of potential—everything from specifics like home-based exercise technology 6 to more general barriers to and determinants for technology adoption by older adults.7 In the domain of health monitoring, a number of investigations have revealed the complexity inherent in personal8 and social9 experiences with monitoring technology. One example of such technology is the personal emergency alarm, a device that has two components. The first component is a pendant worn around the neck that acts as a tracking device. It has a GPS, a fall sensor, and an emergency button that alerts a nominated emergency contact when activated in case of an accident when pressed (see Figure 1). The second component is a daily wellbeing check terminal: a stationary device connected to a service provider that enables the older person to check in with them, and demonstrate that all is well. If

210

she ji  The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation

Volume 5, Number 3, Autumn 2019

no indication of wellbeing is received over a specified period, the service provider checks in on the user. As a tracking device, personal emergency alarm systems are a unique example of personal informatics systems—one example is an activity tracker like the Fitbit— because the tracking data is not transmitted back to the primary user: the older person who participates in collecting it. Instead, family members or other nominated individuals—“secondary users”— receive the collected data. The personal emergency alarm might be categorized as a goal-driven tracker.10 The goal is to alert secondary users about specific changes in the status of the primary user. It was our intention to explore these conflicting definitions in our study. An earlier study11 investigating older adults’ experiences using a personal emergency alarm system suggested that satisfying user goals will enhance their experience as primary users. These goals might be • Emotional—feeling assured, integrated, in control, in touch, cared for, safe, independent; • Qualitative—seamlessly integrated into a daily routine, invisible to others, flexible, accessible, associated with fitness, mobile, immediate; and • Functional—easeful communication, confirmation, acknowledgement, initiation, alerts, calls for help, and so on. We present a framework of user goals in Figure 2. It conceptually represents these user needs and values as a system. The goals are framed as emotional (hearts), qualitative (clouds), and functional (parallelogram). The framework provides inputs to identify product requirements and qualities for design or assessments of personal emergency alarms or similar wellbeing monitoring assistive technologies for older adults. There is an evident parallel between this framework and the three psychological need paradigm for daily wellbeing.12 The need for autonomy is reflected in the goals of being in control and independent (both are emotional) and for the service to be invisible to others (qualitative). The need for competence is manifested in the goals of feeling safe and reassured (emotional), of having something responsive (quality), and of being able to call help (functional)—all of which are linked to support for everyday activities. The need for social relatedness is reflected in the goals of feeling in touch and cared for (emotional), being mobile and having a fit lifestyle (quality), and being in touch (functional). Based on an interview study, Tim Miller and his colleagues13 found that a number of important goals—such as the emotional need to “feel in control” of the system, “feel in touch,” or be “cared about,” as opposed to being cared for—were not addressed particularly well by existing designs. We used this framework as a basis for generating three use scenarios representing user goals, and created animations and storyboards that narrated each scenario. We held an exploratory workshop with a group of older adults, and invited them to discuss and imagine how the technology could be enhanced to overcome the barriers to achieving the emotional, functional, and quality goals depicted in each animation (see the Background section). During a later workshop we held with a cohort of experts, we reframed the device as an instance of wellbeing monitoring technology, and speculated on its qualities and design directions and formulated a design fiction to represent a number of concepts. We then invited a different cohort of older adult participants to read the design fiction and reflect on the consequences of using the future technologies represented in it.

Co-creating and Assessing Future Wellbeing Technology Using Design Fiction

Figure 1  A pendant alarm device worn around the neck. Photo © 2015 by Sonja Pedell, reprinted with permission.

9  Jeremy Birnholtz and McKenzie Jones-Rounds, “Independence and Interaction: Understanding Seniors’ Privacy and Awareness Needs for Aging in Place,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York: ACM, 2010), 143–52, DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753349. 10  John Rooksby et al., “Personal Tracking as Lived Informatics,” in Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York: ACM, 2014), 1163–72. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/2556288.2557039. 11  Tim Miller et al., “EmotionLed Modelling for People-­Oriented Requirements Engineering: The Case Study of Emergency Systems,” Journal of Systems and Software 105 (July, 2015): 54–71, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jss.2015.03.044. 12  Reis et al., “Daily Well-Being.” 13  Miller et al., “Emotion-Led Modelling or People-Oriented Requirements Engineering,” 54–71.

211

Figure 2  Framework of emotional, qualitative, and functional goals for personal emergency alarms, adapted from Pedell et al., 2017, 11. © 2015 by Gretchen Dobson.

14  Mark A. Blythe and Peter C. Wright, “Pastiche Scenarios: Fiction as a Resource for User Centred Design,” Interacting with Computers 18, no. 5 (2006): 1139–64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. intcom.2006.02.001. 15  Joseph Lindley and Paul Coulton, “Modelling Design Fiction: What’s the Story?,” (working paper, StoryStorm Workshop at ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems in 2014), DOI: https://doi. org/10.13140/2.1.5047.8085. 16  Mark Blythe et al., “Solutionism, the Game: Design Fictions for Positive Aging,” in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York: ACM, 2015), 3849–58, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/2702123.2702491.

212

The aim of the research we present here was threefold: to explore new design directions for the wellbeing monitoring technology using the framework of user goals and psychological needs (Figure 2); replace use scenarios—which tend to be informed by existing tech—with a futuristic design fiction, and see whether it inspires deeper insights into this complex world of conflicting values and experiences; and assess the potential of design fiction as a thinking and research tool for uncovering the intimate, personal experiences of older adults who would be impacted by future technologies. We begin with a much needed introduction to what design fiction is.

Design Fiction Design fictions (as artifacts) are created in a range of forms—pastiche scenarios,14 films,15 and advertisements,16 to name a few. Joseph Lindley suggested that design fiction is not medium specific,17 because the world of story plays the central role. Eli Blevis18 describes design as a story that can be formalized to serve as an object of knowledge, while Keld Bødker and Peter Carstensen19 assert that scenarios are portable concepts that can exemplify various possibilities of what can be achieved through design. Blevis20 further elaborates a notion of design as one of forms, interactions, relations, and ecologies, noting that if a method can communicate why a design works then it can be considered effective. This definition does not discriminate against non-visual methods such as stories, scenarios, or other fictions, as long as they serve as practices of “constructing, referencing, comparing, sharing and adapting explanations.”21 Literary methods such as scenarios can contain these explanations, and also fulfil the need to externalize and represent design ideas,22 including the added benefit of framing the use context. Beyond that, design representations provide opportunities to explore values being brought to users.23

she ji  The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation

Volume 5, Number 3, Autumn 2019

Increasingly, design fiction is being used as a form of design proper, to construct fantasy concepts using technologies that do not exist yet.24 All of these instances emphasize the important role design fiction can play in value discovery and enabling design collaborators to envisage users’ lived experiences with novel technologies,25 especially when it comes to advanced digital and interactive technologies that are increasingly difficult to prototype for research. It should not be surprising then, that design fiction is gaining a spotlight in research and publication26 despite remaining elusive in definition.27 So, What is Design Fiction? There are many definitions of design fiction28 and researchers and designers have yet to converge on how it can be evaluated,29 what questions should be asked, and how those should be answered.30 However, while design fiction is still evolving and subject to varied interpretations31 we found authors have repeatedly noted six of its key characteristics: i. Design fiction suspends disbelief in change,32 ii. It often examines the implications presented by potential design and technology33 in the context of technological conflict,34 iii. It enables discussion of social and political context,35 iv. It inspires discussion about desirable and preferable futures,36 v. It helps to reveal potential user concerns and uncertainties,37 and vi. It is not concerned with a finished design—it presents a disruptive space for emerging cultural artifacts.38 Combinations of these six characteristics can guide and inform its use as a representational narrative tool39 that effectively transports the user to a different conceptual space.40 The literature provides multiple approaches to crafting design fiction. Mark Blythe and Peter Wright41 created pastiche scenarios around existing narratives and characters from familiar stories to take advantage of readers’ existing knowledge while exploring design values in emotional, social, and political use contexts. Other forms of fictions include the genre known as science fiction, and also future-tense scenarios. Blythe42 advises that when researching using design fiction, instead of ending with the resolution of a conflict, the fiction should remain open to exploration of the problem space and the role of a fictional prototype in that space. The benefits of using design fiction range from its contributions to generating useful discussion on collected data, conceptualizing new systems, and structuring mock-ups. In particular, design fiction has been used in research relevant to older adults in the domain of positive ageing,43 volunteer services for older adults,44 and creative writing by older adults.45 The particular form of critique that can be expected from using design fiction remains to be defined46 although researchers often cite discussions around the values underpinning the adoption of a future technology.47 It is within this realm of research that we position our approach to design fiction, and our intent to explore the complexities and implications of the future wellbeing technologies potentially available to ageing populations. Through our study, we hope to uncover new ways of using design fiction to engage older adults in the design process.

Background: An Exploratory Workshop Before the present study, the first three authors (with another colleague) conducted an exploratory study to investigate the ties between the three basic psychological needs for wellbeing and the emotional goals associated with using a personal alarm

Co-creating and Assessing Future Wellbeing Technology Using Design Fiction

17  Joseph Lindley, “A Pragmatics Framework for Design Fiction,” in Proceedings of 11th EAD Conference:The Value of Design Research, 2015, http://doi.org/10.7190/ ead/2015/69. 18  Eli Blevis, “What Design Is Matters Less Than What Designs Are: Explanations for HCI and Design, a Case Story,” in Workshop on the Relationship between Design and HCI. ACM CHI 2004 Conference on Human factors and Computing Systems, ed. J. Zimmerman, S. Evenson, K. Baumann, and P. Purgathofer (Vienna, Austria: ACM, 2004), http://echo.iat.sfu.ca/library/ belvis_02_design_is_HCI%20copy. pdf. 19  Keld Bødker and Peter Carstensen, “Development and Use of Web-Based Information Systems: Special Issue Editorial,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 16 (2004): 5–12. 20  Blevis, “What Design Is Matters Less than What Designs Are,” 1–3. 21  Ibid., 2. 22  Susanne Bødker, “Scenarios in User-Centred Design-Setting the Stage for Reflection and Action,” in Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (New York: IEEE, 1999), 11–21, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1109/HICSS.1999.772892. 23  Ibid. 24  Wouter Eggink and Adri A. Albert de la Bruheze, “Design Storytelling with Future Scenario Development; Envisioning ‘the Museum,’” in Proceedings of Summer Cumulus Conference 2015 (Politechnico di Milano: McGraw-Hill Education Italy, 2015), 245–56. 25  Renee Noortman et al., “HawkEye—Deploying a Design Fiction Probe,” in Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York: ACM Press, 2019), paper no. 422, DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300652. 26  Lindley, “A Pragmatics Framework for Design Fiction.” 27  Derek Hales, “Design Fictions an Introduction and Provisional Taxonomy,” Digital Creativity 24, no. 1 (2013): 1–10, DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.7 69453.

213

Figure 3  Screen captures of the three animated scenarios. From top to bottom “I forgot,” “Cow Bell,” and “Dress Code.” © 2015 by Angeline Mayasari.

31  Thomas Markussen and Eva Knutz, “The Poetics of Design Fiction,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (New York: ACM, 2013), 231–40, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/2513506.2513531.

pendant.48 This earlier study used a series of animated scenarios to illustrate the kinds of experiences older adults might have with the device. The four study participants, each aged 70 or over, watched three animations—each highlighting a specific emotional goal—as part of a workshop facilitated by two design researchers. Figure 3 shows a screen capture from each scenario.49 Our animated scenarios effectively communicated the user experience with the device and we were able to confirm the relevance of the three psychological needs to the use of this technology.50 We encouraged the participants to imagine changes to the alarm system to better fulfill the emotional goals presented in the animations (see Figure 4). We observed that our participants tended to mainly focus on a quality goal—they wanted to make it “invisible to others”—and the social stigma surrounding pendant’s visibility as a health monitoring device for “old people.” This outcome is not entirely surprising, given that previous research on wearable interactive objects has confirmed that a design’s form and functionality are both linked to its potential meaning.51 Our participants’ focus on improving the device’s aesthetic quality highlights a link between the visibility of the alarm and its social connotation—it might signal a stage of ageing that requires assistance. Several researchers

214

she ji  The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation

28  Lindley, “A Pragmatics Framework for Design Fiction.” 29  Blythe et al., “Solutionism, the Game.” 30  Steve Harrison, Phoebe Sengers, and Deborah Tatar, “Making Epistemological Trouble: Third-Paradigm HCI as Successor Science,” Interacting with Computers 23, no. 5 (2011): 385–92, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. intcom.2011.03.005.

Volume 5, Number 3, Autumn 2019

Figure 4  Images from the co-creation workshop activities, using paper copies of the animated scenarios. © 2015 by Naseem Ahmadpour.

have previously discussed the role of digital wearables and jewelry—the alarm pendant is worn around the neck—in people’s lives, and the role of such interactive devices in forming our identities. For instance, Patrick Olivier and Jayne Wallace52 suggested that aesthetic and interaction qualities are embedded in our notion of a digital self, and that consumer digital devices represent facets of a specific consumer identity. As a result, they argue, the significance of such devices is transferable. This possibly explains our participants’ desire to “fix” the device’s apparent aesthetic quality—the fact that it is visible at all. Indeed, our findings confirmed Olivier and Wallace’s53 position that digital communication technologies that aim to support families are more desirable without elements of recognizable technologies. These outcomes revealed a need to further explore design directions for elderly-­oriented technology to support wellbeing. We decided to use design fiction to shift the conversation from present-tense user goals toward a focus and critique of future goals. According to author Bruce Sterling, among others, a fictional representation makes it possible for people to suspend their disbelief in change.54 This suspension might therefore open up some space for us to share imaginative dialogue with the older adults about what they wanted to experience via future technologies. We also wanted to look beyond the functionality the pendant offered at the time, to see how it might work as a communication device in the context of family life involving personal, inter-personal, and social experiences.55 The study we present consisted of a future workshop, followed by a design fiction writing session, and then a design fiction sharing session with several older adults. Beyond testing the feasibility of using design fiction to engage older adults in the design process, this procedure enabled us to draw a comparison between two methods—use scenarios and design fictions—as methods for engaging older adults in deep discussion.

Study Future workshop There were five participants in the workshop: four were experts in design and HCI research and one was an occupational therapist with a small business selling homebased products/technologies to older people. Framed explicitly as a future workshop,56 our objective was to contemplate a range of future wellbeing check concepts and scenarios. First, the participants watched the “Vision of the Future” video by Philips,57 a video originally created to capture the imagination about future of home technologies, to acquaint them with creating future concepts that could lead

Co-creating and Assessing Future Wellbeing Technology Using Design Fiction

32  Bruce Sterling, “Patently Untrue: Fleshy Defibrillators and Synchronised Baseball Are Changing the Future,” Wired, October 11, 2013, https://www. wired.co.uk/article/patently-untrue. 33  Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming (London: MIT Press, 2013), 6. 34  Bruce Sterling, Shaping Things (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), 138–39. 35  Blythe et al., “Solutionism, the Game,” 3849–58. 36  Julian R. Hanna and Simone R. Ashby, “From Design Fiction to Future Models of Community Building and Civic Engagement,” in Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (New York: ACM, 2016), article no. 77, DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2993922. 37  Barry Brown et al., “The IKEA Catalogue: Design Fiction in Academic and Industrial Collaborations,” in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Supporting Group Work (ACM, 2016), 335–44, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/2957276.2957298. 38  Hales, “Design Fictions an Introduction and Provisional Taxonomy,” 1–2. 39  Mark Blythe, “Research Fiction: Storytelling, Plot and Design,” in Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York: ACM Press, 2017), 5400–5411, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/3025453.3026023. 40  Sterling, “Patently Untrue.”

215

41  Blythe and Wright, “Pastiche Scenarios.” 42  Mark Blythe, “Research through Design Fiction: Narrative in Real and Imaginary Abstracts,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York: ACM, 2014), 703–12, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/2556288.2557098. 43  Blythe et al., “Solutionism, the Game.” 44  Blythe and Wright, “Pastiche Scenarios.” 45  Aloha Hufana Ambe et al., “The Adventures of Older Authors: Exploring Futures through Co-design Fictions,” in Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York: ACM, 2019), paper no. 358, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/3290605.3300588. 46  Noortman et al., “HawkEye— Deploying a Design Fiction Probe,” 2. 47  For example, see Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard and Lone Koefoed Hansen, “Intimate Futures: Staying with the Trouble of Digital Personal Assistants Through Design Fiction,” in Proceedings of the 2018 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2018 (New York: ACM, 2018), 869–80, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/3196709.3196766. 48  Alen Keirnan et al., “Lights, Camera, Action: Using Animations to Co-Evaluate User Experience Scenarios,” in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction (New York: ACM, 2015), 492–96. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/2838739.2838807. 49  “I Forgot,” Vimeo video, 2:38, posted by Angeline Mayasari, accessed August 22, 2019, https://vimeo.com/126443388; “Cowbell,” Vimeo video, 5:20, posted by Angeline Mayasari, accessed August 22, 2019, https:// vimeo.com/123466330; “Dresscode,” Vimeo video, 2:01, posted by Angeline Mayasari, accessed August 22, 2019, https://vimeo. com/136821334. 50  Keirnan et al., “Lights, Camera, Action.”

216

to technological innovations. They then watched the three short animations we had created. After the viewing, the participants discussed the contextual and experiential aspects of using a personal emergency alarm. Together as a group, we reframed the alarm as being able to fulfill basic psychological needs, such as promote safety and competency at home, transmit a sense of agency and autonomy in everyday life, and enhance social relatedness through the meaningful relationships it could form with significant others including family and friends. A brainstorming activity followed, using the group passing technique.58 Each participant proposed a design concept on a piece of paper, using sketches and annotations, then passed their paper to the next person who commented on or added new features to it. By building upon each other’s concepts, the participants came up with several design ideas, three of which were selected as the ones best supporting the quality goals and psychological needs. Crafting the Design Fiction Three of the expert participants who attended the future workshop worked together to write the design fiction. A deliberate attempt was made to outline contextual examples of the value brought by each design concept and highlight links to the user goals in a futuristic home setting. The social, cultural, emotional, temporal, and situational aspects of the concepts were contrasted through interactions among characters in the fiction, contouring the benefits and potential uncertainties around using those futuristic technologies. The setting of the fiction is afternoon tea. Three close friends discuss their wellbeing check technologies. The story takes place in a city in Australia in the future, though not specified. The dialogue among the characters reveals the ways they live with future technologies. Through the process of writing the design fiction, the authors further refined the design concepts (see Appendix A). Revisiting the Design Fiction Finally, two group sessions were organized with older adult participants to gather feedback on the design fiction. The first session involved three participants (two female), aged 60 to 85 (M = 73) years, and the second involved two participants (one female), aged 72 and 81 years old. Michael Massimi and his colleagues59 note the importance of providing a familiar and comfortable environment that encourages older people to participate in the research process. We purposely kept the groups small in order to mimic the familiar setting of an afternoon tea gathering rather than a formal focus group. Participants completed a short questionnaire and declared whether they owned any of the following technologies: mobile, tablet, computer, smart watch, activity tracker/health band, or emergency alarm. We asked them to state whether they lived alone or with a partner. After a short introduction to the project, the participants received a copy of the design fiction to read, and we asked them to highlight the parts they found interesting, indicating their visceral reaction to those parts using a plus or minus sign. Finally, we gave the participants the chance opportunity to discuss those highlighted parts. All the participants gave their informed consent, and permission for audio recordings to be made.

Results Future Workshop Concepts Of the five concepts iterated in the future workshop, two were eliminated—one due to being too similar to another concept, and the other because it was more a conglomeration of design qualities rather than a design. Each of the three

she ji  The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation

Volume 5, Number 3, Autumn 2019

remaining wellbeing validation concepts included fall detection, but provided additional experiences as well. A short summary of each concept follows here. Kecil, the Robot Pet—This robot concept addresses the needs to feel in touch, cultivate individual agency, and experience autonomy in everyday tasks. Kecil is a robot home companion, a “smart” pet. Some of the concept’s qualities include being interactive, playful, and fun. Kecil has an important feature: he facilitates social interactions with the owner’s extended social network, using capabilities such as voice recognition. The robot pet moves around the house with built-in sensors to avoid causing damage. Gorby, the Lap Pet—The second concept, Gorby, is a tangible interactive concept that facilitates intimacy and social relatedness between the elderly person and their extended network or family (who each own a device) while allowing the older person to maintain agency and control. The connected pets make it possible to experience hugging, through a virtual channel, to cater to the older users’ emotional need to be “in touch.” Gorby is a quiet pet who sits on her owner’s lap and registers heartbeat, scent, and body temperature. When Gorby is hugged by the elderly user, the sensation and feeling is felt by the user (through vibration and change in temperature). Unidentified Objects: A Smart System of Built-In Sensors for a Smart Home—The third concept addresses the need to feel in touch with loved ones, and safe and secure, while maintaining privacy and control. A set of objects—selected by potential users, and so not explicitly fixed—are embedded with sensors incorporated into home objects with the intent of capturing personal data. The user may decide to share the health data with family or with their doctor. Other features include photo sharing. The idea of a smart home is central to this concept. The basic information about daily routine, and activity pattern may be collected through this smart system to detect possible functional decline of the user as they age. For Good Times and Bad Times: The Future of Wellbeing Check Technology The scene of the design fiction, “For Good Times and Bad Times,” is set in Melbourne, Australia. Annabelle, an older woman, is hosting her friends Mary and Agnes for afternoon tea. The three friends are close to their centennials and each owns one of the three wellbeing check concepts. Kecil is present because it belongs to the host, Annabelle. This inspires a conversation around personal experience with each of those concepts. For instance, because Gorby can register vital signs such as heart-rate and body temperature, Agnes says, “My daughter … sent me a virtual hug last night. Five minutes later she called me to ask about the new perfume I was wearing.” This leads Annabelle to comment on her relationship to Kecil, her robot pet, saying “Oh, you are such a cat person! My Kecil is much more fun, he runs around the house, sometimes he hides and I have to look for him, he likes playing hide and seek, keeps me moving … Last week we went for a walk in the park; we bumped into our neighbor’s labrador, the two played for an hour! I finally had to drag him back home because I had tickets to the movies.” Kecil has the ability to self-charge in the sun, arrange Annabelle’s doctor’s appointments when needed, sense movements around the house and keep his distance to avoid tripping the owner, all the while having playful conversations with Annabelle. Mary reacts to Annabelle’s and Agnes’s stories, arguing why she likes her unidentified objects better: “I guess I take it for granted that I live with Max. I suppose it could get quite lonely when you live all by yourself. But you see, even though we are a couple, we still get concerned about our health sometimes, and Max’s love for bacon

Co-creating and Assessing Future Wellbeing Technology Using Design Fiction

51  Sarah Kettley and Michael Smyth, “The Materiality of Wearable Computers—Craft and Authentic User Experience,” The Design Journal 7, no. 2 (2004): 32–41, DOI: https://doi. org/10.2752/146069204789354381. 52  Patrick Olivier and Jayne Wallace, “Digital Technologies and the Emotional Family,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67, no. 2 (2009): 204–14, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijhcs.2008.09.009. 53  Ibid. 54  Torie Bosch, “Sci-Fi Writer Bruce Sterling Explains the Intriguing New Concept of Design Fiction,” Slate, March 02, 2012, https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/bruce-sterling-ondesign-fictions.html. 55  Olivier and Wallace, “Digital Technologies and the Emotional Family.” 56  Fredrik Arvidsson, Carina Ihlström Eriksson, and Jonas Lundberg, “Visions of Future News—Consensus or Conflict?,” in Proceedings of 25th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia, Denmark (IRIS, 2002), available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236681222. 57  Robert Lambourne, Khodi Feiz, and Bertrand Rigot, “Social Trends and Product Opportunities: Philips’ Vision of the Future Project,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York: ACM, 1997), 494–501, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/258549.259001. 58  Martin Tomitsch et al., Design Think Make Break Repeat: A Handbook of Methods (Amsterdam: BIS Publishing, 2018), 70–71. 59  Michael Massimi, Ronald M. Baecker, and Michael Wu, “Using Participatory Activities with Seniors to Critique, Build, and Evaluate Mobile Phones,” in Proceedings of the 9th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (New York: ACM, 2007), 155–62, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/1296843.1296871.

217

doesn’t help at all of course! That’s why we had this wellbeing technology installed in our apartment. We have had it for a year now. I like it because it’s discreet and invisible—you wouldn’t even know we have it…. We have one in the living room right under that majestic stone we brought back from our trip to Antarctica … there is another one in the kitchen….” The sensors in the objects allow Mary to personalize which data are collected or shared. Mary then tells a story about Max, who manipulated the notifications in the system for Mary to find a funny picture of Max instead of her health report. The full script of the scenario is presented in Appendix A. Design Fiction Revisited: Results The demographic information on the participants and their responses to the questionnaire are summarized in Table 1. Four participants live with partners while one lives alone. They all own and use mobile phones, tablets, and computers, but none owns a smart watch, activity tracker, or emergency alarm. Table 1. Demographic information of the participants who revisited the design fiction. Code Male

1

Female

x

Age

Live with partner

81

Live alone

Mobile

Tablet

Computer

x

x

x

x

2

x

72

x

x

x

x

3

x

73

x

x

x

x

4

x

60

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

5

x

85

x

Smart Emergency watch/ alarm health band

Responses to the Three Design Concepts All the participants responded positively to Kecil the robot’s ability to organize a doctor’s appointment on behalf of the owner and keep the owner physically active around the house. We also received positive feedback about Kecil’s solar self-charging capability, which that frees the owner of the responsibility of monitoring battery life. They also liked Kecil reminding the owner’s friends to visit, and Kecil making remarks that were considered “funny” or “cute.” However, the participants responded negatively to Kecil potentially causing a fall due to moving autonomously, him getting too hot whilst being recharged under the sun, the robot knowing too much about the owner’s friends and therefore compromising their privacy, and the robot demanding too much attention from the owner. The conversational capability of the robot was in fact perceived as the robot being needy! The participants worried that Kecil might prove to be more in control of the owner rather than the other way around. We received several conflicting remarks on Gorby. Some of its qualities were perceived negatively by some participants and positively by others. These were letting the owner know when their child is home, the virtual hug as a medium for transmitting health data—for example, using smell as an indicator of owner’s capacity of maintaining hygiene—and registering heart rate and sharing the data with the owner’s child. The feedback we received in relation to this particular concept was quite contradictory.

218

she ji  The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation

Volume 5, Number 3, Autumn 2019

Some positive remarks on the unidentified objects concept included its quality of being discreet, the fact that it enabled owners to control the type of data that was shared with family members and self-monitor personal health data, and that it could generate a health report easily, at the touch of a button. However, participants expressed concern about data privacy, losing control over who views personal data, and the vulnerability of the system when one character’s partner used it to plant a funny picture. Responses to Design Fiction as a Tool Later, we examined the sections of the fiction that had received a plus or a minus sign. We found that the participants had responded to some contextual elements of the fiction that were unrelated to any specific concept. For instance, one participant favored the mention of the car a character used at the beginning of the story, remarking that four-wheel drives are not easy to get into in old age. Another participant responded positively to the popularity of sustainable cars in the future. Other elements that were marked with a plus sign included: “it is a lovely spring afternoon in Melbourne;” “my daughter … called me to talk about my perfume;” going to the movies; a character, Mary stating that she didn’t “want to feel like other people are checking in on me all the time,” and that she “had climbed 2000 meters up mount Kosciuszko.” Some participants also reacted to the relationship among the characters in the fiction. For instance, with respect to the unidentified objects for a smart home, one participant remarked that “Mary should have told her friends about the sensors she had installed in her house.” In general, some participants worried that the futuristic technology in the design fiction might be too much for them, and that it might have an unfavorable impact on their control and autonomy in daily life. Thematic Analysis Eight themes were generated from an analysis of participants’ comments during the design fiction discussion. Wherever we cite participant remarks, we refer to them with an assigned code, such as P1, and we italicize their comment. Moving on with the Times Most participants conceded that inevitably they would have to get comfortable with new technologies, or else they would risk falling behind the times. Nevertheless, they had different feelings about unavoidable changes in life as new technologies emerge. P1 was looking forward to the future. “I find it positive that we don’t know what future technology will enable us to do; some years ago, I used to work without computers and now I have a mobile, iPad and desktop.” P3 voiced concerns. “It worries me to think how life has changed in just about 10 years, and how it might change in the next 10 years.” For him, futuristic concepts such as the robot pet elicited anxiety about the future and a dislike of the concepts. “Robots may be taking our jobs in the future.” Meanwhile, P2 was concerned about the practical difficulties of adapting to new technologies as well as the compatibility of future devices with current ones. “I get used to the interface of an app in one device and I stick with it because it might look different on another device. Too many versions of the same thing are confusing.” We found that several futuristic elements of the fiction distracted participants from engaging with the core concepts. For instance, the fiction says that Gorby collected his owner’s personal data such as temperature. However, some participants misinterpreted that as Gorby checking the “weather” and not body temperature.

Co-creating and Assessing Future Wellbeing Technology Using Design Fiction

219

Consequently, a debate ensued among participants as to whether or not a weather forecast should be included in the design. Additionally, some participants revealed that they had difficulty putting themselves in the fictional characters’ shoes due to the futuristic style of the narrative. Technology as the Assistant The built-in capabilities to arrange appointments, schedule doctor visits, send health reports to the doctor, or set calendar reminders were well-received. These were generally perceived as the qualities of a smart assistant helping the user seamlessly, without requiring much effort. However, that perception was contrasted by a fear of excessive dependency on technology to the point that it might result in negative cognitive impact, because they would not need to rely on their memory to get things done. For example, P1 noted, “As long as we keep our technologies (like the phone) close to us, for the purpose of notifying us or putting us in touch with our emergency contacts, it is okay.” However, “Needing technology to be present in every aspect of life is not good, because if the technology breaks you will be left helpless.” In both sessions, participants emphasized the importance of maintaining autonomy during their daily interactions with technology, and their preference for having multiple small, but specific solutions for organizing activities/appointments rather than one all-inclusive solution. Most participants agreed there is a fine line between having the technology do things for you—more efficiently, using less resources—versus limiting their ability to function without it in case it breaks down. For instance, P3 said, “You should be able to communicate your health status with your doctor without needing your robot assistant.” Finally, some participants also mentioned that having a smart assistant that continuously collects or communicates health information may result in the user coming to feel less healthy. Who is in Control? In addition to the fear of dependency on technology discussed above, the participants voiced concerns about losing control over how the technology would respond to their actions. As one participant noted, “My main worry is that I don’t want the little robot to follow me around and tell me what to do.” P1 described how having a robot pet might influence everyday choices made by users, suggesting that “relying too much on technology makes you less active.” One participant found it intimidating that Kecil was capable of holding intelligent, autonomous conversations with other characters. “The fact that the robot had a memory of someone who has not been in to visit in a month is scary,” said the participant. Most participants agreed that “robots are only good for certain domains of personal data collection, and not everything.” Self-Knowledge and Security A number of participants agreed that being able to review their personal health data could “put your mind at ease.” As one noted, “I don’t mind being observed— sometimes I go days without seeing anyone, so it’s good if technology can keep track of my wellbeing,” while another said, “I know adults who have teddy bears for comfort, so I’ve come around the idea of having a robot pet.” Based on such comments, it seems that one important factor for user acceptance in relation to a robot pet is its capacity to provide a feeling of security. However, two participants insisted, “if you get to the point that you need a robot to help you with your every­day tasks, then perhaps it is time to go to the nursing home rather than purchase new technology, as that would be the safer choice.”

220

she ji  The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation

Volume 5, Number 3, Autumn 2019

Self-Sufficiency and Technology Maintenance Several participants noted that complicated technology requires maintenance. “If we are using sensors or robots, who is going to maintain them, what happens they break? We should not depend too much on robots, because if they break down then they leave a big hole in our lives … And if they store a lot of your personal data, you can lose it all!” Our participants wanted to learn more about the types of services offered along with each concept, but services were not included in the fiction. The participants were also concerned about their self-sufficiency in maintaining their data privacy on their own, pointing to the part of fiction where one character’s husband interfered with the home sensors to playfully upload a selfie. It was interesting to observe that a feature intended to demonstrate the system’s capability to extend social relatedness in a humorous way was in fact interpreted as a potential shortcoming of the system. Anything for My Kids All the participants liked that the concepts reinforced communication and relatedness between older adults and family members. One participant noted, “I came around the idea of the robot picking up the perfume because if you have not been able to maintain hygiene, then children can know from the smell being transmitted.” Another pointed out that it was good that all the concepts had the capacity to “put the children’s minds at ease” built in. Given that that attribute had already been established as an important emotional goal for wellbeing technology, we were not surprised that the participants did not make negative remarks on this topic. Social Life We received contradictory comments about the impact the fictional technologies might have on users’ social lives. One participant noted that “the robot can encourage you to get up and go out, it does not force you, but can be a good excuse.” Another said that “having an excuse to go out and meet new people is important; even though new technologies are helpful in organizing things they can’t replace human contact,” and “too much technology might take away the feeling of being present; you are constantly shifting your focus from the real world to the technology.” We found that a number of participants were fearful that with technology driving the user’s physical activity, there may be less reason for interaction with family members in person. An example comment in this vein was, “I tend to do things with my children, if I replace that with a robot, then I would miss that connection with my family.” Another participant thought that robots could help maintain social interactions, saying “I like technologies like FaceTime because I talked with my nephews on FaceTime before I actually met them, and when we finally met they already knew my face—I was familiar,” and adding that “robots like Kecil reminding you of your train of thought in the middle of a conversation can be useful.” Discreet Technology Not surprisingly, all the participants found it important that the wellbeing technologies should discreetly monitor health data. They liked that the unidentified objects’ design made it possible for users to take ownership of the sensors and the data rather than carrying an easily noticeable product.

Discussion Our approach to crafting a design fiction was to satisfy known emotional, qualitative, and functional user goals for wearable wellbeing check technologies and

Co-creating and Assessing Future Wellbeing Technology Using Design Fiction

221

60  Sus Lyckvi et al., “The Role of Design Fiction in Participatory Design Processes,” in Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (New York: ACM, 2018), 976–79, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/3240167.3240258. 61  Kettley and Smyth, “The Materiality of Wearable Computers.” 62  Ibid.

embed in our fiction a set of psychological needs. In comparison to a previous study, which employed use scenarios to engage older adult participants in discussions, we found design fiction particularly conducive to authentic conversations. Not only did we gain domain-specific insights that can be used as input for developing future wellbeing technologies, we also learned much about the experience of ageing, inter-personal relationships, family dynamics, and overall intimate concerns and values relevant to adoption of future wellbeing technologies. In our discussion, we reflect on the impact of using an existing framework in our research through design fiction, and the utility and feasibility of using design fiction in research on wellbeing technologies. Future Anxieties and Experience of Psychological Needs Our study confirms others’ assumptions that design fiction is a suitable tool to use during at least two types of participatory activities60—ideation and assessment. As researchers, we went through a process of thinking and creating through design fiction to contextualize future experiences and disrupt our participants’ views of emergency and wellbeing devices. Utilizing a goal oriented framework ensured that we would be exploring topics beyond the confines of current technology. The fictional setting we used enabled us to dramatize possible futures. The set of psychological needs provided us with a direction and a set of core values that we wanted to embed in near future experiences. We found our participants raised questions and shared concerns that they had not when working with use scenarios. The scenarios relayed narratives of success or failure to achieve goals. By contrast, the fiction presented participants with authentic experiences of their psychological needs in the context of everyday interests. Understanding the difference is key to an alternative use of design fiction in research. For instance, the scenario conveyed a goal of social relatedness in the situation it described; the fiction enabled the participants to discuss how technology could facilitate intimate sensory experiences in a speculative future world—within the context of future “everyday life”—as they considered how it would feel to have someone’s scent transmitted through technology. When the familiar semiotic perception of wearable artifacts is challenged, and an experience of the object in its’ own right becomes possible, then personal reflections can more easily emerge61— an effect amplified in our study, given that we explored a wearable digital object that affords personal meaning via form and function62 as it becomes part of the users’ every day physical presence. One of our aims with this study was to explore the type of critique that might emerge from using design fiction with older adults. While several of the themes that we identified in response to the fiction were aligned with the existing goal framework—being autonomous and in control, feeling secure, facilitating social life, and so on—the content and issues the participants discussed under those headings was quite varied. The participants expressed numerous anxieties about their future, often tied to specific themes such as their technology literacy in the future. The anxieties were typically experience oriented, and framed within the context of their personal, family, and social lives of the future. This is particularly important, as it suggests that some of this vulnerable, aging cohort’s concerns are not adequately addressed by current devices and solutions. Internal conflict was also apparent in some of the remarks from our participants. For instance, some wanted the technology to be a close, personal assistant that did things for them even when they forgot—make appointments, for example—but they also feared losing control over their choices and wanted to keep their distance, both figuratively and literally. It is precisely this type of tension and

222

she ji  The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation

Volume 5, Number 3, Autumn 2019

conflict of a future that has long attracted researchers to use design fiction. Helen Oliver63 stated that it would be naïve to ask users what they want from future wearable technologies directly, and suggested using design fiction for prototyping conceptual ideas, in order to generate original discussions on what users might want to experience in everyday life. In our research, we found design fiction to facilitate in-depth discussions on rich and daily experiences with wearable technology. Additionally, we note that some of the feedback from our participants can be characterized as incidental but nevertheless valuable. These were positive or negative reactions often linked to details we had included in our design fiction to provide an overall context—such as the lovely spring day, or that a character had climbed 2000 meters up mount Kosciuszko—rather than details of interactions with technology. This type of response, in our view, speaks to how well design fiction can suspend disbelief,64 and further evidence of its value for participatory research. It also speaks to some of the desires that older people do not often vocalize, such as to how they wanted to see themselves and their environment in the future: sustainable vehicle-owing, physically active, and able to achieve personal challenges. We could not have elicited similar responses with goal-oriented, function-­driven use scenarios.

63  Helen Oliver, “Design Fiction for Real-World Connected Wearables,” in The 5th ACM Workshop on Wearable Systems and Applications (New York: ACM), 60, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/3325424.3329664. 64  Sterling, “Patently Untrue.” 65  Blythe et al., “Solutionism, the Game.” 66  Maria Huusko,Yiying Wu, and Virpi Roto, “Structuring and Engaging—The Roles of Design Fictions in a Co-design Workshop,” in Proceedings of the 30th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (New York: ACM, 2018), 234–41, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/3292147.3292165.

Using Design Fiction with Older Adults We had speculated earlier in the project that the emergency alarm device should be redesigned as a personal information system, and reframed as a wellbeing check technology that sends collected data back to the primary user (the older person), and fosters new opportunities for them to reflect on their personal data. Our findings suggest that older people view this facility for self-reflection favorably, given their comments related to themes under “technology as assistant” and “self-knowledge and security.” This perhaps signals the potential design fiction has as a participatory method for exploring future directions of user experience on a more utilitarian level. This proposal does not contradict the central premise of the design fiction method as non-solutionist.65 Rather, it highlights how design fiction can be used to challenge existing systems and explore future ones by putting forth values and experiences that may not be in direct agreement with those of the current product. As such, we can conceive of a multi-layered system of methods where design fiction is part of a holistic approach to conceptualizing and researching desired experiences and attitudes, while use scenarios could be employed to examine the relationship between a concept and the clarified goals. One advantage of using design fiction is its flexibility—it can communicate and facilitate change throughout the design and research process. In our study, the initial concepts suggested during the future workshop matured through the formulation of the fiction narrative, as we reassessed the social, cultural, emotional, temporal, and situational aspects of the context within which we were speculating a future. Consequently, creating the design fiction enabled us to refine ideas and turn them into fictional experience prototypes. The design fiction was not merely a channel for communicating with our participants, it was also a means through which we as designers crafted and co-created a future. The design fiction was used to set the scene for each experience prototype, and reflected how the prototypes might disrupt notions of future life. In a study of co-creation workshops using design fiction, Maria Huusko and her colleagues66 also identified a number of roles for design fiction: setting the scene, structuring the co-creation tasks, and embedding the values. One disadvantage of using design fiction was that there are limited resources outlining how and to what level of detail a good design fiction should be formulated, and ways for engaging participants with it. The six characteristics for design fiction we described previously tell us when design fiction can be used. The

Co-creating and Assessing Future Wellbeing Technology Using Design Fiction

223

67  Blythe, “Research through Design Fiction,” 706. 68  Larissa Vivian Nägele, Merja Ryöppy, and Danielle Wilde, “PDFi: Participatory Design Fiction with Vulnerable Users,” in Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (New York: ACM, 2018), 819–31, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/3240167.3240272. 69  John Vines et al., “Questionable Concepts: Critique as a Resource for Designing with Eighty Somethings,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York: ACM, 2012), 1169–78, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/2207676.2208567; Rob Edlin-White et al., “From Guinea Pigs to Design Partners: Working with Older People in ICT Design,” in Designing Inclusive Systems: Designing Inclusion for Real-World Applications, ed. Patrick Langdon et al. (London: Springer, 2012), 155–64; Jenny Waycott et al., “Actively Engaging Older Adults in the Development and Evaluation of Tablet Technology,” in Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (New York: ACM, 2012), 643–52, DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/2414536.2414633. 70  Edlin-White et al., “From Guinea Pigs to Design Partners.”

literature does indicate that a well-crafted design fiction can be used throughout the entire design process, and our study confirms design fiction to be effective in the creative (co-creating the fiction) and evaluative (for collecting novel insights from participants) phases. We attribute the latter to our attempt at keeping the narrative of the fiction open ended (unlike use scenarios), as was suggested by Mark Blythe.67 Finally, a note on the consequences of using design fiction with older adults is inevitable, as we remain conflicted about the origin of some of the feedback we received from participants upon their review of the fiction. Specifically, when participants expressed dislike for an experience, it was not clear to us whether that was due to the fiction’s lack of sufficient communication about the experiential aspects, or our having placed too much emphasis on design features and thus turning the fiction into more of a use scenario. A third explanation could be that we emphasized the futuristic context of the fiction too heavily, as evidenced with participant comments about “moving on with the times.” We found ourselves asking, “Did we generate anxiety about future by presenting a futuristic fiction, or is that a true temporal/situated concern felt by our older adult participants?” It is not unreasonable to believe that many individuals find themselves worrying about the rate at which technology is progressing, and whether they can catch up with the changes. If that is the case, our research managed to capture the essence of such discomfort. Previous study on participatory design fiction research has also confirmed the method is exceptionally good at revealing the values vulnerable people associate with health related technologies.68 Just like any other design tool, the choice to use design fiction will depend on the aim of the study and the participant demographics. Our findings imply that using design fiction in research with older adults should be approached with care. Previous research acknowledges the challenge of actively engaging older adults in design processes.69 Rob Edlin-White and colleagues70 recommend a collaborative participatory approach with older people, stressing that designers should work within an established culture for people to gain trust. If a design fiction advocates unfamiliar futuristic forms of technology that deviate from current trends, it is entirely possible that this might generate strong reactions. Some of our participants expressed difficulty relating to characters in the story because of its futuristic nature. We learned that almost all the details in a design fiction generate some level of reaction, ranging from phrases linked to a design concept—a self-charging device, for instance—to those describing the environment or context—such as the type of car the characters drive. Therefore, each of those details should be examined with a view to inclusion or exclusion.

Conclusion As interactive technologies achieve greater presence and significance in our households, it is important to explore how those technologies can support ageing-inplace. In this study, we found that design fiction offers designers an incredible opportunity to co-create and assess future directions of home-based, personalized wellbeing technologies for older adults. We conducted participatory research using design fiction to capture a complex, intimate system of experiences and enable participants to explore conflicting values and anxieties relevant to future designs. Throughout this process, we used a set of psychological needs to embed values in the fiction. In this way, we set the design fiction apart from a use scenario, which is characterized by a narrative of goal achievement. The strength of design fiction is then contextualizing qualities, desires, and subjective experiences implied by using future forms of technology. We propose a multi-layered approach to research through design fiction, where use scenarios are employed to examine success or

224

she ji  The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation

Volume 5, Number 3, Autumn 2019

failure in achieving goals, while design fiction is used for a holistic exploration of user interests and experiences. We suggest that our set of six design fiction characteristics is a useful guide when formulating and using design fiction as a research and design tool.

71  Editorial note:The original design fiction uses Australian English. In this article, we convert the style to U.S. English for consistency.

Acknowledgments This research was funded through an industry engagement fund, granted by The University of Sydney, No. 195807. The authors thank all participants for their feedback.

Appendix A: Full Script of the Design Fiction Kecil, Gorby, and the Unidentified Objects: For Good Times and Bad Times71 It is a lovely spring afternoon in Melbourne. After a big stretch of several decades of the city struggling with water supply, bush fires in the outer suburbs, public transport, and housing availability, she was again voted to be the most livable city in the world, with many beautiful and lush gardens, roads paved with solar panels, and smaller sustainable vehicles replacing larger four-wheel drives. In one of the quiet inner suburbs, two compact driverless cars are parked in front of a lovely Victorian house. The car owners, Mary and Agnes, are having tea at Annabelle’s house. Kecil, a round and shinny little robot, comes running to ­Annabelle and playfully circles around her chair. “Calm down Kecil, can’t you see I’m busy!” says Annabelle, barely sounding authoritative. Agnes looks down. “Come here Kecil, I’ve missed you!” she says, reaching down to pat the little robot. Agnes comments, “You are so warm Kecil, are you okay?” Kecil turns around and approaches Agnes, making a squeaky noise, “I’m alright Agnes. I was recharging my battery under the sun so I can stay awake during the day.” Agnes replied, “I see.” Kecil rolls left and right and says, “I have missed you Agnes, you have not been here since last month. How is your daughter?” “My daughter is well, thank you for asking,” says Agnes, then turns to Mary and Annabelle, “she sent me a virtual hug last night. Five minutes later she called me to ask about the new scent I was wearing.” Annabelle comes closer, “Hmm, that is a beautiful scent!” Mary turns to Agnes and raises her eyebrows. “What are you talking about?” she says, looking perplexed. Agnes explains, “I’m talking about my little robo-pet Gorby, my daughter got it for me, you should come visit us at home one day. She is furry and very cuddly—she always sits on my lap. My daughter has one too and when she hugs her pet, my Gorby purrs and I know I am getting a hug—so I hold her tight and it just feels so good. She gets warmer and I can actually smell my daughter on her, that’s how she knew about my new scent, you see. I trained Gorby to share with my daughter some of my health information, to put her mind at ease.” “How does she do that?” asks Mary. “Oh, it’s just things about my heart rate and blood pressure; you know we have a history of heart failure in our family. My uncle died from a heart attack as young as 78. No age considering we enter our centennial soon! Anyway, what was I about to tell you?” Kecil nervously rolls back and forth and exclaims excitedly, “You were talking about Gorby sitting on your lap.” “Right!” said Agnes “thanks little darl!—It’s easy for Gorby to know about those things because she is always on my lap,” Agnes tells Mary, “and you know what, Gorby does this funny thing, she goes to the door when my daughter gets back home from work, she lives all the way in Sydney you know, I think Gorby gets

Co-creating and Assessing Future Wellbeing Technology Using Design Fiction

225

a signal or something, I don’t understand the technology but she lets me know when my daughter is back to her home.” Annabelle interrupts Mary. “Oh, you are such a cat person! My Kecil is much more fun, he runs around the house, sometimes he hides and I have to look for him, he likes playing hide and seek, keeps me moving… Last week we went for a walk in the park, we bumped into our neighbor’s labrador, the two played for an hour! I finally had to drag him back home because I had tickets to the movies.” Mary jumps in. “You two and your robo-pets! I can never understand the appeal!” Annabelle looks at her. “But I have always had pets: remember my dear border collie? They keep me active. But Kecil is such darling, because he talks! He even knows my routine; sometimes when I feel down and don’t go out for a day, he makes me get up and do something—it cheers me up. And did you see how he asked Agnes about her daughter? He knows all my friends, he knows my doctor, last month when I had a cold, he arranged for a home visit from my GP!” “But aren’t you worried not to be in control—who knows what these little fellows are doing next?” wonders Mary. Agnes shakes her head. “It’s actually fun that I don’t know! It’s not like I can control what a dog or cat would be doing next.” Annabelle and Agnes both laugh. “But in all seriousness,” says Mary, “if Kecil is always running around and being silly, aren’t you worried that one day you may trip over him?” Annabelle smiles. “But that is what’s so brilliant about him! You see, he has these sensors and when I am up and about, he always keeps a distance. It just feels so good to have a presence at home, plus what if I fall in the shower or burn myself in the kitchen? He would know and can call for help.” Agnes nods in agreement. “That is exactly how I feel about my Gorby.” Mary looks at them with a smile. “I guess I take it for granted that I live with Max, I suppose it could get quite lonely when you live all by yourself. But you see, even though we are a couple, we still get concerned about our health sometimes, and Max’s love for bacon doesn’t help at all of course! That’s why we had this wellbeing check installed in our apartment. We have had it for a year now. I like it because it is discreet and invisible, you wouldn’t even know we have it.” Agnes raises her eyebrows. “I didn’t know about this—you kept that a secret from us!” Mary smiles. “That’s because I had it built into some of our decorative objects around the apartment.” Annabelle jumps in. “Oh, I love your apartment, so sophisticated—you have so many beautiful things from your trips around the world, they are so eccentric!” “Yes,” says Mary, “and that is why we decided to hire a designer to incorporate the technology into those, we didn’t want to change the interior look.” Agnes looks confused, “I still don’t know what you are talking about? What is a wellbeing check?” “I’m talking about these sensors we had installed: we have one in the living room right under that majestic stone we brought back from our trip to Antarctica. There is another one in the kitchen built into a picture frame, there are also two others in the bathroom and the bedroom.” Annabelle says, “How brilliant.” Mary nods in agreement. “Exactly! It’s really useful and discreet. They basically monitor our health—things like weight, temperature, breathing, and even check for bone density and brittleness. It is very efficient, and I can get a summary projection using my iGlasses in a press of a button if I want to—it’s easy. I have given Max access to look at my report, but he doesn’t want me to look at his. He says he doesn’t want me on his case knowing what he eats and what not! He sometimes fiddles with

226

she ji  The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation

Volume 5, Number 3, Autumn 2019

the sensors, making them glow underneath the objects, making it look like there might be a change in my health report, but as soon as I press the projection button, I get a funny message or a picture from Max. It’s his way of joking with me. There is also a feature to give people outside some visible access like a mini window—it’s called the digital keyhole. I can give as little or as much access as I want, but I am still in control of what is seen from the other side, I don’t really use it though.” “Anything to hide, darl?” Agnes teases. “You might have more than one secret,” Annabelle adds while pouring tea into her cup. “Rubbish!” counters Mary. “I just don’t want to feel like people are checking in on me all the time. Anyway, if something really alarming occurs, I get a report in my email with advice on what to do.” Annabelle smiles, “you were always about efficiency, as long as I can remember,” she tells Mary, “and I suppose you don’t need any robo-pet encouraging you to go for walks!” Mary leans back in her chair. “I climbed two thousand meters up Mount Kosciuszko last spring for crying out loud, I don’t need a robo-pet to poking me all the time!” she says proudly. “Of course I’m joking, Annabelle. Look, I have this wristband,” she holds her hand up, “and it registers my health data while I’m out and as soon as I enter the apartment, it syncs itself with the wellbeing check, so I’m covered everywhere I go.” Agnes comes closer to look at her wrist. “I wouldn’t have known that it is a device—it looks like a piece of African jewelry!” Mary explains, “I know. Like I said, nothing about this thing is obvious. I don’t like wearing gadgets or having them around the house, plus I don’t want to be reminded of my health at all times, it stresses me out—but I want to have access to the health data if I need to.” Annabelle and Agnes look at each other. Annabelle takes a sip from her tea. “You always figure out how to do things your way Mary,” she says, then turns to Agnes. “Have you tried those macaroons yet? They are divine!”

References “Cowbell.” Vimeo video, 5:20. Posted by Angeline Mayasari. Accessed August 22, 2019. https:// vimeo.com/123466330. “Dresscode.” Vimeo video, 2:01. Posted by Angeline Mayasari. Accessed August 22, 2019. https://vimeo.com/136821334. “I Forgot.” Vimeo video, 2:38. Posted by Angeline Mayasari. Accessed August 22, 2019. https:// vimeo.com/126443388. Ahmadpour, Naseem, and Alen Keirnan. “Design for Ageing-in-place: Evidence from Australia.” In Proceedings of DRS 2016, Design Research Society 50th Anniversary Conference. Brighton, UK, 2016. Available at http://www.drs2016.org/170. Ambe, Aloha Hufana, Margot Brereton, Alessandro Soro, Laurie Buys, and Paul Roe. “The Adventures of Older Authors: Exploring Futures through Co-design Fictions.” In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, paper no. 358. New York: ACM, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300588. Arvidsson, Fredrik, Carina Ihlström Eriksson, and Jonas Lundberg. “Visions of Future News—Consensus or Conflict?” In Proceedings of 25th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia, Denmark. IRIS, 2002. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/236681222. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Older Australia at a Glance, 4th ed. Canberra: AIHW, 2007. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/older-people/older-australia-fourth-edition/ contents/table-of-contents. Birnholtz, Jeremy, and McKenzie Jones-Rounds. “Independence and Interaction:

Co-creating and Assessing Future Wellbeing Technology Using Design Fiction

227

Understanding Seniors’ Privacy and Awareness Needs for Aging in Place.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 143–52. New York: ACM, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753349. Blevis, Eli. “What Design Is Matters Less Than What Designs Are: Explanations for HCI and Design, a Case Story.” In Workshop on the Relationship between Design and HCI. ACM CHI 2004 Conference on Human factors and Computing Systems, edited by J. Zimmerman, S. Evenson, K. Baumann, and P. Purgathofer. Vienna, Austria. ACM Press, 2004. http://echo.iat.sfu.ca/ library/belvis_02_design_is_HCI%20copy.pdf. Blythe, Mark A., and Peter C. Wright. “Pastiche Scenarios: Fiction as a Resource for User Centred Design.” Interacting with Computers 18, no. 5 (2006): 1139–64. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.intcom.2006.02.001. Blythe, Mark. “Research through Design Fiction: Narrative in Real and Imaginary Abstracts.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 703–12. New York: ACM, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557098. Blythe, Mark, Jamie Steane, Jenny Roe, Caroline Oliver. “Solutionism, the Game: Design Fictions for Positive Aging.” In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3849–58. New York: ACM, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702491. Blythe, Mark. “Research Fiction: Storytelling, Plot and Design.” In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 5400–5411. New York: ACM Press, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3026023. Bødker, Susanne. “Scenarios in User-Centred Design-Setting the Stage for Reflection and Action.” In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, 11–21. New York: IEEE, 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1999.772892. Bødker, Keld, and Peter Carstensen. “Development and Use of Web-Based Information Systems: Special Issue Editorial.” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 16 (2004): 5–12. Bosch, Torie. “Sci-Fi Writer Bruce Sterling Explains the Intriguing New Concept of Design Fiction.” Slate, March 02, 2012. https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/bruce-sterling-on-designfictions.html. Brown, Barry, Julian Bleecker, Marco D’Adamo, Pedro Ferreira, Joakim Formo, Mareike Glöss, Maria Holm et al. “The IKEA Catalogue: Design Fiction in Academic and Industrial Collaborations.” In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Supporting Group Work, 335–44. New York: ACM, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2957276.2957298. Dunne, Anthony, and Fiona Raby. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. London: MIT Press, 2013. Edlin-White, Rob, S. Cobb, A. Floyde, S. Lewthwaite, J. Wang, and J. Riedel. “From Guinea Pigs to Design Partners: Working with Older People in ICT Design.” In Designing Inclusive Systems: Designing Inclusion for Real-World Applications, edited by Patrick Langdon, John Clarkson, Peter Robinson, Jonathan Lazar, and Ann Heylighen, 155–64. London: Springer, 2012. Eggink, Wouter, and Adri A. Albert de la Bruheze. “Design Storytelling with Future Scenario Development; Envisioning ‘the Museum.’” In Proceedings of Summer Cumulus Conference 2015, 245–56. Politechnico di Milano: McGraw-Hill Education Italy, 2015. Hales, Derek. “Design Fictions an Introduction and Provisional Taxonomy.” Digital Creativity 24, no. 1 (2013): 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.769453. Hanna, Julian R., and Simone R. Ashby. “From Design Fiction to Future Models of Community Building and Civic Engagement.” In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, article no. 77. New York: ACM, 2016. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/2971485.2993922. Harrison, Steve, Phoebe Sengers, and Deborah Tatar. “Making Epistemological Trouble: Third-Paradigm HCI as Successor Science.” Interacting with Computers 23, no. 5 (2011): 385– 92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.03.005. Hassenzahl, Marc, Sarah Diefenbach, and Anja Göritz. “Needs, Affect, and Interactive Products—Facets of User Experience.” Interacting with Computers 22, no. 5 (2010): 353–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002.

228

she ji  The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation

Volume 5, Number 3, Autumn 2019

Huusko, Maria, Yiying Wu, and Virpi Roto. “Structuring and Engaging—The Roles of Design Fictions in a Co-design Workshop.” In Proceedings of the 30th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, 234–41. New York: ACM, 2018. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/3292147.3292165. Keirnan, Alen, Naseem Ahmadpour, Sonja Pedell, and Angeline Mayasari. “Lights, Camera, Action: Using Animations to Co-Evaluate User Experience Scenarios.” In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction, 492–96. New York: ACM, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2838739.2838807. Kettley, Sarah, and Michael Smyth. “The Materiality of Wearable Computers—Craft and Authentic User Experience.” The Design Journal 7, no. 2 (2004): 32–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2 752/146069204789354381. Lambourne, Robert, Khodi Feiz, and Bertrand Rigot. “Social Trends and Product Opportunities: Philips’ Vision of the Future Project.” In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 494–501. New York: ACM, 1997. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/258549.259001. Lee, Chaiwoo, and Joseph F. Coughlin. “Perspective: Older Adults’ Adoption of Technology: An Integrated Approach to Identifying Determinants and Barriers.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 32, no. 5 (2015): 747–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12176. Lindley, Joseph, and Paul Coulton. “Modelling Design Fiction: What’s the Story?” Working paper, StoryStorm Workshop at ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems in 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.5047.8085. Lindley, Joseph. “A Pragmatics Framework for Design Fiction.” In Proceedings of 11th EAD Conference: The Value of Design Research, 2015. http://doi.org/10.7190/ead/2015/69. Lyckvi, Sus, Virpi Roto, Elizabeth Buie, and Yiying Wu. “The Role of Design Fiction in Participatory Design Processes.” In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 976–79. New York: ACM, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240258. Markussen, Thomas, and Eva Knutz. “The Poetics of Design Fiction.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, 231–40. New York: ACM, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2513506.2513531. Massimi, Michael, Ronald M. Baecker, and Michael Wu. “Using Participatory Activities with Seniors to Critique, Build, and Evaluate Mobile Phones.” In Proceedings of the 9th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, 155–62. New York: ACM, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1296843.1296871. Miller, Tim, Sonja Pedell, Antonio A. Lopez-Lorca, Antonette Mendoza, Leon Sterling, Alen Keirnan. “Emotion-Led Modelling for People-Oriented Requirements Engineering: The Case Study of Emergency Systems.” Journal of Systems and Software 105 (July, 2015): 54–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.03.044. Nägele, Larissa Vivian, Merja Ryöppy, and Danielle Wilde. “PDFi: Participatory Design Fiction with Vulnerable Users.” In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 819–31. New York: ACM, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240272. Noortman, Renee, Britta F. Schulte, Paul Marshall, Saskia Bakker, and Anna L. Cox. “HawkEye—Deploying a Design Fiction Probe.” In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, paper no. 422. New York: ACM Press, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300652. Oliver, Helen. “Design Fiction for Real-World Connected Wearables.” In The 5th ACM Workshop on Wearable Systems and Applications, 59–64. New York: ACM. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/3325424.3329664. Olivier, Patrick, and Jayne Wallace. “Digital Technologies and the Emotional Family.” Inter­ national Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67, no. 2 (2009): 204–14. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.09.009. Pedell, Sonja, Antonio A. Lopez-Lorca, Tim Miller, and Leon Sterling. “Don’t Leave Me Untouched: Considering Emotions in Personal Alarm Use and Development.” In Healthcare Informatics and Analytics: Emerging Issues and Trends, edited by Madjid Tavana, Amir Hossein

Co-creating and Assessing Future Wellbeing Technology Using Design Fiction

229

Ghapanchi, and Amir Talaei-Khoei, 99–127. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2015. DOI: https://doi. org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6316-9.ch006. Peters, Dorian, Rafael A. Calvo, and Richard M. Ryan. “Designing for Motivation, Engagement, and Wellbeing in Dgital Experience.” Frontiers in Psychology 9 (May, 2018): article 797. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00797. Reis, Harry T., Kennon M. Sheldon, Shelly L. Gable, Joseph Roscoe, and Richard M. Ryan. “Daily Well-Being: The Role of Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26, no. 4 (2000): 419–35. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1177/0146167200266002. Rooksby, John, Mattias Rost, Alistair Morrison, Matthew Chalmers. “Personal Tracking as Lived Informatics.” In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1163–72. New York: ACM, 2014. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1145/2556288.2557039. Søndergaard, Marie Louise Juul, and Lone Koefoed Hansen. “Intimate Futures: Staying with the Trouble of Digital Personal Assistants Through Design Fiction.” In Proceedings of the 2018 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2018, 869–80. New York: ACM, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196766. Sterling, Bruce. Shaping Things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005. Sterling, Bruce. “Patently Untrue: Fleshy Defibrillators and Synchronised Baseball Are Changing the Future.” Wired, October 11, 2013. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/ patently-untrue. Tomitsch, Martin, Cara Wrigley, Madeleine Borthwick, Naseem Ahmadpour, Jessica Frawley, A. Baki Kocaballi, Claudia Núnez-Pacheco, Karla Straker, and Lian Loke. Design Think Make Break Repeat: A Handbook of Methods. Amsterdam: BIS Publishing, 2018. Valiani, Vincenzo, M. Lauzé, D. Martel, M. Pahor, T. M. Manini, S. Anton, M. Aubertin-Leheudre. “A New Adaptive Home-Based Exercise Technology among Older Adults Living in Nursing Home: A Pilot Study on Feasibility, Acceptability and Physical Performance.” The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging 21, no. 7 (2017): 819–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12603-016-0820-0. Vines, John, Mark Blythe, Stephen Lindsay, Paul Dunphy, Andrew Monk, and Patrick Olivier. “Questionable Concepts: Critique as a Resource for Designing with Eighty Somethings.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1169–78. New York: ACM, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208567. Waycott, Jenny, Sonja Pedell, Frank Vetere, Elizabeth Ozanne, Lars Kulik, Alan Gruner, and John Down. “Actively Engaging Older Adults in the Development and Evaluation of Tablet Technology.” In Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference, 643–52. New York: ACM, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2414536.2414633.

230

she ji  The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation

Volume 5, Number 3, Autumn 2019