University of Birmingham

Human computer interaction, foundations and new

paradigms
Dix, Alan

DOI:
10.1016/j.jvlc.2016.04.001
License:
Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND)

Document Version
Peer reviewed version

Citation for published version (Harvard):

Dix, A 2017, 'Human computer interaction, foundations and new paradigms', Journal of Visual Languages &
Computing, vol. 42, pp. 122-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2016.04.001

Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal

Publisher Rights Statement:

Checked 7/9/2016

General rights
Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the
copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes
permitted by law.

•Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication.
•Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private
study or non-commercial research.
•User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?)
•Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain.

Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.

When citing, please reference the published version.

Take down policy
While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been
uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

If you believe that this is the case for this document, please contact [email protected] providing details and we will remove access to
the work immediately and investigate.

Download date: 17. Feb. 2021

Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Human computer interaction, foundations and new

paradigms

Alan Dix

www.elsevier.com/locate/jvlc

PII: S1045-926X(16)30008-8
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2016.04.001
Reference: YJVLC748
To appear in: Journal of Visual Language and Computing
Received date: 19 January 2016
Accepted date: 18 April 2016
Cite this article as: Alan Dix, Human computer interaction, foundations and new
p a r a d i g m s , Journal of Visual Language and Computing,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2016.04.001
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Human Computer Interaction,
foundations and new paradigms
Alan Dix
University of Birmingham and Talis

Abstract
This paper explores the roots of human computer interaction as a discipline, the
various trends which have marked its development and some of the current and
future challenges for research. Human–computer interaction, like any vocational
discipline, sits upon three broad foundations: theoretical principles, professional
practice and a community of people. As an interdisciplinary field the theoretical
roots of HCI encompass a number of other disciplines including psychology and
computing, ergonomics, and social sciences; however, it also has theoretical and
practical challenges of its own. The evolving internal and external context of HCI
computers have become smaller and less costly, this has led to changes in nature
of the users and uses of computers, with corresponding impact on society. The
paper explores the current challenges of computers from the cloud to digital
fabrication and the need to design for solitude. It suggests that HCI cannot just
react to the changes around it, but also shape those changes.

Keywords
human–computer interaction; history, ubiquitous computing; cloud-computing;
design for solitude; digital fabrication

Introduction
From 'foundations' to 'new paradigms' is a wide canvas and this paper attempts
to paint a picture of human–computer interaction from its earliest roots to future
challenges. It is also iconic in that HCI as an academic discipline has always been
positioned, sometimes uneasily, sometimes creatively, in the tension between
solid intellectual rigour and the excitement in new technology. Stefano Levialdi,
in who this special issue is in honour, had a rich appreciation of both and so I
hope this paper is one that he would have enjoyed as well as offering an
overview of the field as it was, as it is and as it could be.

Foundations
Human–computer interaction, like any vocational discipline, sits upon three
broad foundations.
Principles – First, and most obviously are the intellectual theories, models and
empirical investigations that underlie the field. Give HCI's cross-disciplinary
nature, some of these come form a number of related disciplines and some as
core HCI knowledge.

Practice – Second, HCI is a field that, inter alia, seeks to offer practical guidance
to practitioners in interaction design, usability, UX, or whatever becomes the
next key term. However, also it is a discipline that has always sought to learn
form the practical design and innovations that surround it.

People – Finally, there are the visionaries who inspire the field and perhaps most
importantly the HCI community itself: researchers, educators and practitioners.

I will not attempt to separate these three in the following sections as they are all
deeply intertwined in both the history and current state of HCI.

The interplay between the first two is central to the long-standing discussion of
the nature of HCI originally posed by Long and Dowell [LD89]: is it a science,
engineering or craft discipline? However, when I addressed the scientific
credentials of HCI in my own response to this work [Dx10] in the IwC Festschrift
for John Long, I found myself addressing as much the nature and dynamics of the
academic community as the literature itself.

I will not reprise the arguments here, but the importance of the community is a
message that is also central to Stefano's legacy. As well as deeply humane
person at a one-to-one level, his contribution to the development of the Italian
HCI community, and the founding of the AVI conference series have been of
importance to many individuals as well as the academic growth of the field. It is
not that the archival written outputs are not critical, indeed Stefano's role in
JVLC is evidence of that, but that scientific outputs are always the result of a
human process.

Historic Roots
HCI developed as a discipline and a community in the early 1980s, triggered
largely by the PC revolution and the mass use of office computers. It was in the
early 1980s when the major HCI conferences began Interact, CHI, British HCI and
Vienna HCI; all but the last still active today. Core concepts were also formulated
in those days including the notion of direct manipulation and user centred
design [Sc83,ND86].

However, while the identifiable discipline began in the 1980s, the intellectual
roots can be traced back at least 25 years earlier.

The graphical user interface and desktop metaphor, embodied in the early Apple
Mac, were the result of work at Xerox PARC throughout the 1970s, mostly based
around graphical programming environments such as Smalltalk and InterLisp,
and leading to the design of the Xerox Star office computer [SK82, JR89], a
conceptual breakthrough albeit a commercial failure.

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 2

Going back further, Sutherland's Sketchpad [Su63], the first graphical user
interface dates back to the early 1960s and in the same period, Englebert's
'research centre for augmenting human intellect' was responsible for the
invention of the mouse, as well as early versions of electronic conferencing
[EE68].

However, the very first true HCI paper dates back into the late 1950s, with
Shackel's 'Ergonomics for a Computer' [Sh59]. While Sutherland and Englebert
were early examples of the vision/innovation side of HCI, Shackel's first HCI
paper came more from a practical design perspective, the redesign of the control
panel of EMIAC II, an early analogue computer.

Although the computer was analogue not digital, and the controls knobs and
patch-panels, not mice or keyboards, many of the principles of practical usability
engineering can be seen in this very earliest HCI paper including prototyping,
empirical testing, visual grouping, and simplifying design. Furthermore this very
practical work rooted itself in earlier theoretical work in ergonomics and applied
experimental psychology, in many ways prefiguring the discipline we know
today.

Theory and Contributing Disciplines

As already noted, the theoretical and empirical foundations of HCI draw partly
from a number of related disciplines and partly are special to HCI itself.

In the earliest days the main disciplines involved in HCI were computer science,
psychology and ergonomics, as reflected in Shackel's early paper. However,
these disciplines were soon joined by social science, or, to be more precise, the
ethnographic and anthropological side of sociology.

The input from ergonomics was initially in terms of physical ergonomics, sitting
at a computer terminal, pressing keys; however, this more physical side of HCI
declined rapidly as computers became commoditised as opposed to being in
special settings and issues of physical ergonomics were relegated to health and
safety concerns. To some extent this followed from the natural development of
the area, once computers were mass-produced, practitioners had little control of
the physical system unless they worked for major manufacturers. However,
users have suffered from this loss of ergonomic input: many laptops and other
devices sacrificed physical ergonomics for surface aesthetics, as a generation of
RSI sufferers will attest! Happily, in more recent years, issues of physical design
have resurfaced with interest in tangible computing and strong research
connections developing with product design.

Another disciplinary connection that waned but is resurfacing is that of broader

socio-technical design. Certain practitioners and researchers drew in the work
of information scientists such as Enid Mumford [Ri06] and Checkland's soft-
systems methodology [CS99]. While this has had its legacy in HCI theory and
practice, not least the focus on multiple stakeholders, the fields of information
science and HCI have been largely parallel rather than interconnected except in
the Nordic HCI tradition.

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 3

However, as with the physical side of HCI, there are signs of resurfacing interest
in more organisational or community focused views of human activity. This is
perhaps most marked in the related web science community where methods
such as social network analysis are clearly very important, enabled by the vast
quantities of data obtained form web-based systems. However, these techniques
are also being used within HCI, not least Liu et al.'s study of HCI itself [LG14],
which we'll return to later.

A few years ago Clare Hooper and I looked at the relationship between HCI and
web science [HD12, HD13]. Although there are core differences in scope and
focus, there are strong overlaps between the two. We drew on the web science
'butterfly', which includes all the disciplines that web science draws on. This
was remarkably similar to those that connect with HCI differing mostly in the
'heat map' of those most active or relevant (see figs 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Web Science ‘heat map’, showing discipline presence [HM12]

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 4

 Figure 2. Heat map for HCI (from [HD13])

Borrowings from other fields have been very powerful to enable both theoretical
and practical interventions. For example, Fitts' Law [Fi54] has created its own
small sub-community, human–human conversation analysis has been used to
design human–computer dialogues [FL90], and Csikszentmihályi's concept of
Flow [Cz90] has proved influential in user experience design.

However, while HCI can draw on the methods and knowledge of related fields
directly, there are limits to this for two reasons:

different concerns – The questions we ask in HCI are typically more applied and
hence more complex in terms of interrelations than 'base' disciplines, notably
psychology. For example, early studies of on-screen reading comprehension, or
more recent comparisons of reading comprehension when holding a screen vs
with hands on the table [BJ11]; while in many ways these could be seen as
standard perceptual and cognitive psychology, the reasons for studying both
were practical and unlikely to have arisen purely from a psychological interest.

integrating knowledge – Some concerns really cut across disciplines requiring

theoretical or practical knowledge from multiple areas of study. For example
work on how design affects behaviour [PV15], requires both behavioural
psychology and interaction design.

However, while there is copious empirical work of this kind, it is harder to find
truly integrative HCI theory. There were early descriptive accounts, notably
Norman's seven stages of action [No86,No88], and more predictive modelling
approaches such as Card, Moran and Newells' 'Model Human Processor' [CM86]
and Barnard's 'Interacting Cognitive Subsystems' [Ba85], but, while the former is
still influential, there is no clear path of deepening theory of interaction.

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 5

Liu et al. [LG14] used co-word analysis techniques to investigate the
development of themes and bodies of knowledge in HCI. This showed positive
things, notably the level of cross cutting integration across the field; that is there
are no disconnected camps. It also gave evidence to known effects such as the
way that new technologies seem to buffet the discipline starting new themes,
which rise for a period before trailing off. However, it also exposed a concerning
dearth of integrating bodies of knowledge:

"As it stands, the only tradition in HCI is that of having no tradition in terms of
research topics. … when a new technology comes along it seems that researchers
start from scratch leading to relatively isolated research themes" [LG14]

Human – technology interaction

One of the more recent changes in HCI is that computers really have become
ubiquitous to the extent that it is rare to find any technology that does not
involve computation, and if not in the artefact, in the design process, ordering, or
manuals. This process began some time ago. In the mid 1990s I met appliance
designers attending HCI conferences because they were beginning to have
computer control panels and so they needed to understand interaction design
principles. The difference is that at that stage computers were just beginning to
be embedded in domestic technology, whereas now the two are almost
synonymous, from heating radiators you can control from your mobile phone to
QR codes on paper posters.

So human–computer interaction is now effectively human–technology

interaction.

This creates new challenges for the discipline, but also opens up a longer history
of human innovation and evolution of technology. That is in understating the
foundations of HCI we can draw on millennia, not just the mere thirty to fifty
years of digital development (rich and rapid that it has been).
Ogburn and Gilfillan [OG33] were some of the earliest modern historians of
technology, and in the 1930s were reflecting on recent decades, which would
have seemed as revolutionary as our own (fig. 3). They, and more recent
commentators such as Basalla [Ba88] and Arthur [Ar09], emphasise the
continuity of technological change in contrast to what are often described as
'heroic' theories of invention focusing on great individuals.

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 6

 Figure 3. Growth in US and UK Patents 1852-1930 [OG33].

However, this does not mean that the social ramifications of these inventions are
not significant. Reflecting on medieval technological change, White [Wh66]
argues that the invention of the stirrup not only radically altered warfare, but its
effects rippled through to agriculture (because of the breeding of large horses
which the replaced oxen) and fundamentally changed the social order as the
feudal system developed to create units capable of 'servicing' the horsed knight.

Interestingly, from a digital perspective, when looking at early 19th century

inventions, Ogburn and Gilfillan [OG33] focus on telephony and radio as an
'example' to demonstrate the widespread potential changes wrought by
technologies. They list 150 effects including many that seem familiar today
when we look at the impact of the web, both those that seem more positive (e.g.
"Distinctions between social classes and economic groups lessened") and possibly
negative (e.g. "Regional differences in cultures become less pronounced").

At a more practical level, Alexander's concept of 'patterns' [AI77, Al79], itself

reflecting on the lessons of past architecture, has been adopted in HCI to reason
about user interfaces [Ba01, DF06].

Looking back further still, there are arguments that human cognition developed
in part due to a sort of co-evolution with technology; for example, Calvin [Ca91]
argues that the development of the stone axe as a throwing weapon developed
both manual dexterity that enabled future tool development; and, in the end
more importantly, mental sills for fine sequencing that enabled language and
logical thought.

While this sounds far from current HCI, we should consider Fitts' Law [Fi54],
which states that the time taken to move to a target (such as moving a mouse to
select an onscreen button), is proportional to the log of the ratio of distance and
target size. This has been one of the enduring and most celebrated uses of basic
psychological theory in user interface theory and design, from its incorporation

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 7

in Card, Moran and Newells 'Model Human Processor' [CM86], to ISO 9241-9
[IS00] and seemingly innumerable conference and journal papers [SM04].

Most work on Fitts' Law is empirical however, it can also be viewed as an

outcome of the cybernetics of the human body, as the small but finite time it
takes for visual stimuli to be processed leads to a iterative corrections of an
initial 'ballistic' movement [Di03]. However, in contrast to this, psychological
results on eye movement data suggests that saccades are essentially
independent of target size [Dr10]. This is because, once the object of attention
lies within the fovea, it is visually distinct enough for most purposes, so our eye
muscles have developed to be accurate enough to do this without correction.

While the eye is somewhat special as other hand-eye motor coordination

(whether arm, finger or foot) depends on the eye first acquiring the target, in fact
if you focus on a point then close your eyes, you can move your hand to cove the
point almost every time without corrections. Similarly if you place your hand
within finger reach of a dot, and again close your eye and try to touch the dot
with your finger, you can do this with high accuracy. Fitts' Law seems to kick in
when the size of the target is smaller than the size of the 'effector' (hand or finger
tip), that is we can do 'normal' bodily physical movements with high enough
accuracy.

Fitts' original experiments were with a stylus and HCI experiments are almost
always with some sort of artificial cursor. That is Fitts' Law is a law of the
artificially (or cybernetically) extended human body. The wonder is that we can
control such devices, but this is because the earliest Homo Sapiens were tool
users; we have always been cyborgs!

Continuity and and Change

In discussing the foundations of HCI, we have already seen some changes and
trends. In this section we look more systematically, if not exhaustively, at some
of the changes in HCI itself and the technological context within which the
discipline operates.

How many?
It is often said that in 1953 IBM believed that there would never need to be more
then five computers in the world. While this turns out to be a misquote (see
footnote 8 in [Dx10]), it is still true that in the early days the room-sized
computers were envisaged as something that would only be needed by very
large organisations. In this light, the decision, even in the late 1970s, to use 32
bit IP addresses [Po81], nearly one for every human being in the planet at that
time, appears prescient.

Of course, there are now far more than 4 billion “It would be easy to say the
people on the planet and mobile phones alone modern car is a computer
(each with a computer more powerful than the on wheels, but it’s more
1953 IBM 701) outnumber people [Bo14]. After like 30 or more computers
many years, IP v5 is being fully deployed, with 64 on wheels” [Mo10]

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 8

bit addresses allowing 2 billion addresses for every human being on the earth, or
enough for more than ten computers on every square centimetre of the earth's
land mass.

As well as being big numbers and creating new challenges for network routing,
this scale changes the nature of HCI. Although we have sketched the origins of
HCI onto the late 1950s, the discipline was formed with the rise of the desktop
PC, one computer per person, the age of IPv4. As we contemplate thousands of
computers per person, it is not clear that the old metaphors hold. This is partially
the fulfilment of Weisier's vision of ubiquitous computing [We91], but partly
going way beyond in terns of scale, both large and small.

In 2004, Jo Finney and I developed Firefly, which puts a separate computer

behind individual LEDs [CF09]. An early demonstrator was a small Christmas
tree with several thousand single-pixel networked computers wrapped round it.
While Weiser talks about displays at yard, foot and inch scale [We91], this is at a
far smaller, 'poppyseed scale' [DS10]. While this scale is still rare, it is common
to find dozens of computers in a single car [Mo10], and NFC tags are found in
commercial packaging, so a typical shopping bag could contain many simple
computers. Adam Greenfield calls this phenomenon of commoditised
computation 'everyware' [Gr06].

Weirdly, just as computers have shrunk and proliferated, there is also a counter
move to recentralise. While the internet giants are not operating single
computers, a significant proportion of the world's computation, and certainly
network traffic, happens in a handful of corporate distributed server farms.

Who?
In the early days of computing, the 1960s and 1970s, before HCI emerged as a
discipline, computer users were of two very different kinds. The creators of
software (programming and design) were mid-level employees, and relatively
well educated, although even then split very much between those involved in the
design and creation of computers and operating software, and those involved in
business programming. In contrast the direct users of computer software were
often low level, low paid, and involved in relatively repetitive jobs such as data
entry. The dominant professional interest in this was concerned with physical
ergonomics, a Taylorist desire to ensure that workers were as productive as
possible.

In contrast, the desktop PC radically changed the nature of the end user, shifting
to professional, clerical, and middle management and, to some extent, more
creative and intellectual work. The development of HCI is usually seen as the
reaction to this more individual form of computation. Alternatively, more
cynically, this could be seen less a humanist agenda and more to do with the
changing costs between computer and user: a shift from cheap labour using
expensive computers to cheap computers used by expensive employees.

The new millennium, and not least the rise of the web, has meant that now the
end user is everyone.

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 9

Of course, this is still a slightly idealised view. Currently less than half the
world's population has access to the Internet [IG15] and that proportion is
heavily weighed towards developed countries. The core barriers are economic
and educational, but design plays a part hence the continuing importance of the
ICT4D (ICT for Development) agenda within HCI [DD12]. Crucially, this should
not be a one-way street with 'clever HCI people' helping those who are less able
[RM13], but a process of mutual learning and enablement [DS10b].

Even in developed countries the best access tends to be focused on the more
affluent and able. This is emphasised by the changing demographics of many
developed countries in many of which the retired population is expected to
outnumber those in work. These aging populations will increase the need for
user interfaces and systems that continue to function even as human perceptual,
physical and mental function degrades. The ASSETS community has long served
those who by birth, accident, or age do not share the same abilities as the 'norm',
the work in this area was always important, but will grow more so.

During my thousand mile walk around Wales in 2013, it was rare to find even
usable GSM mobile signal, let along 3G which was only accessible in major cities
[MD14], and during the walk a Welsh government report found that 50% of
schools said that poor Internet connectivity was hampering education [Es13].
However, it is not just rural areas, which suffer; a report commissioned by the
Royal Society of Edinburgh showed that internet bandwidth was strongly
correlated with other measures of social depravation [FA13] – digital technology
widens existing social divisions.

Some of the issues are about government policy and economics, but as a
community we cannot simply wait for social change. Interface and digital design
makes a difference, sadly often for the worse. In the first journal paper on HCI
issues for mobile systems [Dx95], I looked not at issues of screen size, but
intermittent connectivity. Twenty years later, walking the margins of Wales, it
was poor design for low connectivity, not the low connectivity itself, which was
often the main issue: major software failed in predictable and avoidable ways
[Dx13].

The challenge for HCI is to really ensure we design for all.

Of course even if everyone can use software, those who can create it are few –
the gap between programmers and users is nearly as large as it ever was. Of
course, part of being a large-scale consumer society is that may of the things we
use are beyond our skills to make or even modify – when a plastic spoon breaks
you throw it away, when your car breaks down, you call for a mechanic.

While computers were something one used occasionally, this argument perhaps
seemed valid; however, when everything is controlled by computers and is
interlinked, the ability to be able to understand and modify, at least to some
extent, becomes more important. That is, general computer literacy and end-
user programming move from being marginal interests to centre stage. Stefano
had a long interest in visual languages (hence this journal). These may be used
for sophisticated purposes, but often lie behind some of the most widely used
educational and end-user programming systems (e.g. Scratch, Max/MSP).

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 10

Tommaso Turchi , one of the PhD students of one of Stefano's ex-PhD students
(Alessio Malizia) has been working on tactile as well as visual languages for end-
user programming, and furthermore has been working with me to see how this
could be used in a small island community; that is, bringing together both
aspects of this section [TM15].

What for?
Along with the change in users, those who have been in HCI since the early days
have seen a dramatic change in the purpose of the systems being developed.

In the early days, from the first computer systems through to the focus on
desktop PCs in the 1980s, and CSCW in the 1990s, the focus was on computers
for work. This was sometimes realised in more Taylorist forms of task analysis
[DS04], sometimes in more interpretative ethnographic studies [Su87],
sometimes in more democratic participatory approaches [Gr03, MK93], but the
aim was principally to help make work more productive, and possible more
enjoyable too (especially if that made it more productive). While 'satisfaction'
was always part of the early definitions of usability, it was almost always in f
efficiency and effectiveness which took centre stage.

Although work-centred systems are still important, a key change in HCI was
when computation entered leisure and home-centred systems. The market for
social networks, satellite navigation, smart phones and smart TVs is no longer
the corporate buying for its workers, but consumers buying for themselves. This
shift from employer-determined to self-determined choices of systems drove in no
small part the shift from efficiency and user interface design, to emotion and
user experience design.

However, we are in the midst of another shift, perhaps equally profound. The
ubiquity and (near) universality of internet access means that many common
services are becoming largely or solely online access. Many goods are cheaper if
purchased online, airlines often expect that boarding passes are downloaded and
printed before arriving at the airport, music and movies are streamed. In the
face of budget cuts the BBC is moving several broadcast channels to be digital
only, and many expect that printed news media will eventually disappear.
Furthermore, in many countries government and heath services are increasingly
online.

That is, the very structure of life is increasingly computational and networked,
and this is not optional. For example, in the UK welfare payments are being
moved to a new system of 'universal benefits'; this change is being accompanied
by a shift to wholly online access – for those, who by definition, are likely to be
poor and less well educated. We are moving form the era of self determined
computation to one that is societally determined.

The social problems with this are clear from the preceding section. As a
discipline HCI may likewise need to shift as we move from a decade that that was
based on free choice and therefore focused on users as consumers, to one where
there is a little choice, and users are citizens.

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 11

Drudgery and Creativity
Englebert's ground breaking 1960s research centre was aimed at "augmenting
human intellect" [EE68] and Vannevar Bush's 1945 vision of MEMEX, often seen
seen as the origin of hypertext, was to make the collective knowledge of human
kind available for the good of all [Bu45]. More generally, utopian views of
automation see it as removing the drudgery of repetitive work.

For computers the critical shift was not so much utopian as economic. The
earliest end users spent their time feeding the computer, largely because the
computer was expensive and they were cheap. However, as we discussed
earlier, as computers became cheaper and in higher volume, there came a point
when it as worthwhile making them serve people and HCI was born.

Within HCI, the issue of function allocation, which jobs belong with the computer
and which with the human, is constantly evolving as technology redefines the
boundaries of what is better done manually or automatically. In an aircraft
cockpit this boundary may shift dynamically depending on the pilot's workload;
visualisation techniques seek to exploit the power of computation to present
data in ways which exploit the visual pattern seeking abilities of humans; even
the humble word processor reflows text as the human writer composes the
words.

However, the lessons of history show that the utopian image of technological
development is rarely simple. The Luddites of the 19th century are now seen as
the epitome of backwardness, fighting the (inevitable) change to more efficient
and productive textile mills. However, examinations of the writings of the time
showed that for the mill owners automation was more about control than
efficiency, shifting a previously independent and self-employed industry into a
centralised one based on employment and coercive working hours [Th63].

It is very unclear where recent developments such as Uber fit into this picture:
enabling individuals to connect and increasing autonomy, or making them cogs
in a machine.

These issues are playing out within HCI and related areas, so we have the
potential for real impact. The area of human-computation is often about fun
games such as image matching, or minor task-related activities such as
reCaptcha codes [AM08]. Typically the humans engaged in these tasks have little
or no idea of how their small intellectual labours contribute to the overall goal of
the system (e.g. improving OCR) – a clever balance utilising the power of the
human intellect, or treating people as components? Large-scale systems such as
the way Google uses statistics on page popularity, or Amazon recommendations
are not commonly described as human computation, but effectively are just that,
and Web Science is sometime described as the study of 'social machines' [HB10].

In 1842 Ada Lovelace wrote of the Analytic Engine, "(it) has no pretensions
whatever to originate any thing. … Its province is to assist us in making available
what we are already acquainted with." [Lo43]. That is, she saw it, very much in
the same light as Englebert did, augmenting human intellect. In contrast, there is

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 12

growing serious discussion of 'the singularity', when artificial intelligence
designs itself [Vi93, IE08].

The latter may seem somewhat theoretical, but in HCI we constantly face this
tension between technological determinism and human capabilities. A good
example of this was in the recent UK REF exercises, evaluating all UK university
research [RE14]. The computing sub-panel used an automatic algorithm to
normalise the different grading patterns of reviewers (some more generous than
others, some more central markers, some marking to extremes). This sounds
reasonable, except that in order to get the algorithm to work 'optimally' there
needed sufficient overlap between reviewers' paper allocations, and in order to
achieve that overlap reviewers 'spread' their expertise, reviewing works far from
their core areas [Di15]. That is, in order to 'optimise' the machine algorithm, the
role of human expertise was diminished and the whole human–computer system
compromised.

To some extent this is such an obvious socio-technical error, and yet this
happened in the context of some of the most eminent computer science
academics in the UK. The human–computer processes we find around us today
are often far more complex. As a discipline and a community in HCI, we need to
develop the tools and techniques to understand and design such systems, and
equally important be able to communicate this to others.

Formalism and architecture

My own earliest discussions with Stefano concerned the formalisation of
interaction [DM97, DM97b], and this was also my own roots in HCI [Di91], so it
seems appropriate to look at the arc within HCI of the more formal and
engineering aspects of the discipline.

Some of the early work in HCI involved forms of mathematical modelling, not
least the Model Human Processor [CM86], often drawing in cognitive science
roots influenced by AI. These more reductionist models were challenged in the
early years by Winograd and Flores' "Understanding Computers and Cognition"
[WF86] and Suchman's "Plans and Situated Actions" [Su87], and led to a
widespread distrust of more formal methods in HCI ever since.

Despite this there has been a small but active community in formal methods for
HCI, initially focused strongly around the York group in the late 1980s and early
1990s, and continuing since in a number of specialists conferences, which
eventually merged to become ACM EICS. There have been a number of collected
volumes over the years [TH90, PP97] and a 'state of the art' Springer volume is
imminent [WP17].

The mainstay of this work has tended to be researchers and practitioners

working in safety critical environments such as air traffic control. However, as
we have seen, a number of trends are moving towards larger numbers of simpler
components working together (from apps on a smart phone to myriad
ubiquitous devices). The new complexity is likely to be in the interactions
between these many simple components; just the sort of issue that it is often

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 13

hard to conceptualise intuitively, but well suited to formal analysis. There is a
real opportunity for work in this area.

Another strand of HCI work, which has had a similar arc to formal methods, is
the engineering of user interfaces including tools, toolkits and architectures.
This was important in the early days of HCI notably the development of the
Seeheim model [PH85], MVC [KP88] and PAC [Co87]. This has continued to have
a core community represented in IFIP WG2.7 and ACM EICS, but also periodic
more widespread work as new kinds of technologies emerge and architectures
needed, for example, work in the early-2000s on event architectures for ubicomp
(e.g. Elvin [LR00] and ECT [GI04].

Currently practical user interface development is often focused around web

applications and in this community there is active work on frameworks and
architectures, often based nominally around MVC (although sometimes closer to
PAC in practice). There does not seem to be a corresponding body of HCI
research work either feeding into these developments, not learning from them,
another potential area for increased effort.

Visualisation
Visualisation was another core area for Stefano, and one of ongoing importance
as data continues to multiply. Indeed there is now more data created in the
world every second than there was in a whole year in the early 1990s [Wa15].
Although there had been work in scientific visualisation and graphics before HCI
existed, it was in the early 1990s that the speed of graphics terminals made
interactive visualisation possible and spurred a period of innovation not seen
since (for example, Cone Trees [RM91], TreeMaps [Sh92], Pixel Plotting [KH02],
Starfield [AS94] and Shneiderman's visualisation mantra [SP10]). However, the
sheer volume of data has led to new challenges over recent years, in particular
the rise of visual analytics combining visualisation and various forms of
automated analysis such as data mining [TC05, KK11]. It is likely that the Big
Data agenda will continue to push research in this area for some time to come
giving rise to interesting and important user interface challenges [DP11].

While some data is proprietary there has been a huge growth of Open Data
especially government data, offering the potential for third parties to interrogate
data and potentially use it to challenge policies and engage in democratic debate.
This has enabled a new media area of data journalism [GC12], for example, the
Guardian datablog [Gu16]. However, as with end-user programming, the ability
to harness this data is far from universal. Those that are most easily able to
afford the skills and processing power to benefit from open data are often those
who are already most powerful. There is a real challenge for HCI to make large-
scale data visualisation and analysis usable by small-scale communities and
interest groups [Di14].

Intelligence and autonomy

Artificial intelligence (AI) was influential in the earliest days of HCI; indeed
'Norman and Draper's User-Centered System Design [ND86] was precisely

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 14

founded on a collaboration between cognitive science and AI. One side of this,
already discussed under formalism above, was the use of models of cognition
drawing on AI understanding. The other side was the more practical use of AI
techniques in the development of intelligent user interfaces including Alan
Cypher's early work on programming by demonstration [Cy91]; this work has
continued, not least in the annual IUI (Intelligent User Interfaces) conference
series. After an early period of high expectation, and possibly due to a level of
overhype, for many years the area has sometimes been regarded as somewhat
simplistic in mainstream HCI. Even during this period practical aspects of AI
have found theory way into user interfaces including vision, speech and
handwriting technology. More explicit use of AI has also been a part of context-
aware systems, both in physical, ubiquitous systems and also virtual systems
such as Cyberdesk [WD97]. However, it has been the advent of large-data, big-
data and cloud-computing machine learning, which has really brought AI back
into the forefront of user interfaces, for example, recommender systems such as
Amazon's almost uncanny ability to suggest potential books to read.

Halevy et al. based on experience in many areas at Google, have written about
the "unreasonable effectiveness" of big data. In particular, areas that were once
the purview of symbolic AI techniques, such as natural language processing,
being tackled by large-scale statistical and machine learning algorithms [HN09].

Many years ago, in the early days of the use of non-symbolic AI such as neural
networks, I wrote about some of the challenges these raise for the transparency
and accountability of computer systems [Dx92], including examples of then
potential for implicit sexual and racial discrimination. Although it has been a
long time coming, these very issues have come to the fore with complaints that
Google image search produces gender-biased results or the Microsoft chat-bot
that learnt (from humans on Twitter) to use racist language [Hu16].

Some of these issues need to be tackled by AI and machine learning researchers

at the level of the algorithms, but in HCI we need to work with them to
understand better the ways to present and manage the results of 'black box'
algorithms, so that they are either comprehensible or at least not problematic
when they go wrong, a process I have called 'appropriate intelligence' [DR00].

Agency and Physicality

Finally in this section we will look at issues of agency (connected to intelligence)
and physicality. While these seem very different, their arc in HCI has been
closely linked.

One of the core developments in early HCI was the rise of the graphical user
interface GUI) and direct manipulation [Sc83]. The notion of 'directness' is
critical here (and explored in depth in several of the chapters in User Centred
System Design [ND86]). In command line interfaces, the interaction was
mediated: digital resources (files, words, numbers, shapes) were effectively seen
as under the control of the computer and users asked the computer to perform
actions on them. In GUIs, users directly acted on the objects themselves, what
Draper described as a display (effectively 'digital') medium [Dr86]. Effectively

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 15

user interfaces had moved from communication with a digital agent, to action on
a virtual representation of a physical world (down to the trash bin).

Much of the earliest computation was about automation, indeed the Commodore
PET, the first true personal computer, was still to be seen in factories and
controlling equipment long after it had been retired from the desktop. However,
as noted when discussing the role of ergonomics, the shrinking and
commodifying of the personal computer meant that for many years HCI focused
largely on digital interactions (even if emulating physical ones).

This arc in HCI to virtual physical interaction has changed in more recent years
in two ways.

First, has been the increasing focus on physical interaction in research on

tangible interfaces [IH97] and everyday personal devices and household
appliances [DG17].

Second has been increasing agency in user interfaces, from recommender

systems to virtual agents such as Apple Siri.

These two trends to some extent meet (see table 1), in emerging technology of
autonomous vehicles, both domestic (the controversial Google car) and military
(even more controversial autonomous weaponry) [HM15]. Slightly less
controversially, they also come together in the areas of human–robot interaction
and social robotics [BM10].

Table 1. Autonomy and physicality – different combinations

passive autonomous
early cybernetics Google cars
physical personal devices autonomous weaponry
digital appliances social robotics

GUIs and conversational agents

virtual direct manipulation recommender systems

New Paradigms
We have seen some of the trends and threads that characterise changes in the
discipline and this has naturally surfaced a number of key challenges and areas
that are either currently significant or need to be so. Not least is the way in
which computation has ceased to be an optional part of particular aspects of life
for certain people, but is becoming an unavoidable aspect underlying all aspects
of life for everybody. HCI is becoming as important and all pervading, and
perhaps as difficult, as nutrition.

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 16

In this last section we will pick up a few more specific changes and challenges.

Health, education and well-being

To some extent these are just 'application' areas, and there are many ways in
which either standard techniques can be applied or that these areas spark
specific work that is consonant with existing paradigms. For example,
Thimbleby's work on seven segment displays [Th13] is highly novel and
significant, but still operating within 'classic' interface paradigms.

However, in both health and education we are starting to see systems growing
together allowing big data techniques to be applied to determine trends and then
feed these back to give individual advice. For example, learning analytics have
been used in higher education to predict likelihood that students will fail and
then offer appropriate advice [AP12].

This raises specific interface issues, for example, I have considered how best to
notify academics and enable them to act on such data [DL15], but it also requires
much more 'big picture' whole-systems thinking as all your education data, or all
your medical data is being gathered, often imperceptibly, and integrated by
different systems, some governmental, some commercial. For example, when I
walked around Wales I ended up with 60 days worth of ECG, EDA and other
health related data, currently available as open data [DE15]. This is unusual in
terms of its pervasive nature, but was limited to a short period. Fitness devices
and apps mean that many are beginning to share intimate and personal data
without clear understanding of the implications.

So, as well as classic interface design, we have issues of ownership, privacy,

visibility and control, some of which will emerge in further topics. In some ways
this is not an entirely novel problem, back in 1990 I wrote myself about some of
the hidden privacy issues in apparently inconsequential data gathering such as
traffic data [Dx90]. However, the widespread nature of such systems now means
HCI needs to focus wider than it has been accustomed to over recent years,
indeed some are talking about a new area of human–data interaction [HM13].

Socially pervasive applications

Related to the previous topic, many of the trends ended up with strong social
challenges for HCI. This is particularly significant if the applications are in some
way an essential or socially expected part of 'normal' life. Some such applications
are classic screen-based information systems including many aspects of
eGovernment, and applications such as Uber and airBnB. While government
applications may be mandated (taxes one of the classic two unavoidable things of
life), others may effectively become so as initially 'disruptive' applications may
effectively become monopolies due to network effects [LM98].

Whereas in health and education, the user issues stretch out from the direct
interface into continual and intimate monitoring of life, many of these socially
pervasive applications are focused on very specific kinds of activity: paying taxes,
hailing a taxi, booking accommodation. Here the stretching is about the way

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 17

these systems include everyone: that is while health systems may impact large
areas of specific peoples lives, these are systems that target a specific area for a
large proportion of people.

This is not to say that the direct interface is not significant: Uber's simplicity has
been a key aspect of its growth. It is more that this individual interaction spills
into social and political changes that are larger than each individual transaction.

Amazon achieved a near monopoly position in online sales of books partly

because it spotted early a niche and so established brand, and partly through
effective interaction and experience design, such as one-click shopping.
However, with this position it has obtained a bargaining power with publishers
allowing Amazon to exact levels of royalty that no ordinary book seller can
achieve, allowing it to further reduce prices, undercut competitors, and cement
its market position. So far, this has been largely to the good of individual
consumers, although not necessarily for the industry and the taxman – that is
like 20th century factory chimneys the costs are hidden.

Much of the controversy around Uber has been the apparent deliberate attempts
to accelerate this process in its area, using massive investment to undercut
alternatives, but then exploit this posiion [Ro15,Ta15], as was seen in the Sydney
hostage crisis [Ba14].

In general, it seems hard to obtain the benefits of large-scale networks without

massive centralisation, but there are exceptions. Freecycle, which helps people
give things away, has a small central web site but then locally managed email
lists [FC16]. Other crowdsourced sites such as Wikipedia and OpenStreet Map
have centralised infrastructure, but decentralised control. All of these are non-
profit, but there are companies such as Telerivit, which seem to build effective
business models with concern for communities and development [Br14].

We clearly need better understandings of how individual, group and

organisational interaction issues interact with social, economic and political
structures. This may well stretch the already inter-disciplinary nature of HCI
and involve working more closely with those in web and internet science [TH15].

Personal Information – Cloud–based and multi-device

While the 1980s were the decade of the personal computer, the 2010s seem to
have finally left that behind, with smartphone access instead of desktop
computers and cloud services instead of desktop applications.

There are specific challenges of each development.

Cloud based service raise issues of privacy, ownership, and long-term

sustainability. As an example of the latter, Haliyana Khalid studied users of a
web based photo-blogging service, starting just before and during the rise of
Flickr [KD10]. One of the benefits her users cited for the sue of the web based
service was to create a permanent record, and yet by the end of the period most
had left it to use Flickr, threatening the economic base and hence longevity of the
service that still hosted their older photos.

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 18

Multiple device interactions have their own design challenges, not least because
they may involve devices owned by different people, often in public places
[TQ09,DS10]. Furthermore, the heavy use of 'second screen' and mobile devices
for numerous uses from control of home entertainment and heating to accessing
public information is likely to create issues with an aging population as
deteriorating visual accommodation makes it hard to switch between close and
distant screens – for example, needing to switch glasses when looking between
remote control and television screen.

However, there is also a more substantial paradigm shift needed. I have

previously argued that while the desktop computer has all but disappeared, the
models of personal computing are still rooted in this physical heritage [Dx11b].

To some extent this change is already happening with individual cloud

applications: you access Facebook whether it is on a phone, TV screen, public
access computer, or perhaps soon your glasses. However, when it comes to
personal information, such as photos or documents, or even person-to-person
messages, we do not have ways to deal with, or even adequately conceptualise
that these are all your photos whether they are on Flicker, Facebook or personal
cloud storage. Even Dropbox creates a view of a virtual disk.

The personal information management literature has developed language to talk

about the life cycle of personal 'stuff' independent of storage and media [Jo07],
and there has been extensive work on 'fragmentation', particularly for
integrating different kinds of information (files, emails, bookmarks) [BS04, KJ06].
However, we need new ways of pushing this into the interface, metaphors for
visualising and interacting with 'my stuff' wherever it is stored and whoever
manages that storage, and furthermore having confidence to access it, or at least
understand its accessibility, in areas of different network coverage or when
devices or companies fail.

Truly invisible
When Weiser introduced ubiquitous computing, he said, "The most profound
technologies are those that disappear " [We91]; indeed, when the European
Commission had a research strand on ubiquitous computing and when Norman
write about the issue, they both used the phrase "invisible computer" [No98].

However, Weiser's article is all about displays, small ones (inch scale), medium
ones (foot scale) and large ones (yard scale). The 'disappearing' was not about
the technology becoming physically invisible, but becoming unnoticed, like a
carpet or wallpaper, there but simply part of the background.

However, we are now finding many interfaces literally invisible. Voice interfaces
such as Siri or Cortona allow interaction without seeing a screen, and there is
substantial work on 'natural user interfaces' often using Kinnect or other non-
contact sensors to enable device-less interactions via gestures. It is even
possible to use ultrasound to create the feel of objects in mid-air, contactless
tactile interactions [CS13].

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 19

Most of these are about intentional interactions with computers, which are
hidden, but present in mind. However, as noted when we discussed health and
education, there are growing numbers of ways in which we are sensed without
being aware of it. Schmidt used the term 'implicit interaction' to talk about the
semi-intentional ways in which we might naturally tip a device to turn a page
[Sc00], but more extreme are 'incidental interactions' [Dx02] where the action
being sensed and the effect of it may be quite distinct. The metaphors and
mental models for dealing with these are very different from the intentional
goal-act-evaluate models, such as Norman's seven stage model [No86,No88],
with which we are familiar in HCI. At worst we may end up with a spooky 'ghost
in the wall' feeling as things change around us with little understanding of why
and the relationship between our activities and their effects.

Even more problematic, as the size of devices reduces and the number of devices
proliferate, it is not so much that we are interacting with a single invisible
computer, but a more amorphous computational substance permeating the
environment. To date, the situation is less extreme than this, but the time is not
far off. We urgently need new ways to conceptualise and design for these vast
device ensembles, to understand and control emergent behaviours and make
sense of the unseen.

Locus of control
One of the problems with invisible computation is potential loss of control. Many
of the key user interface design principles are about ensuring that the user is in
control: visibility of system state, knowing what it is possible to do, having
effective and timely feedback of actions (see fig 4 and 5). This importance of
control was also evident in the early hypertext communities concern that users
may get "lost in hyperspace" [Co87].

Visibility of system status.

User control and freedom.
Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors.

Figure 4. Selection from Nielsen's heuristic evaluation rules [Ni94]

Offer informative feedback..

Permit easy reversal of actions.
Support internal locus of control.

Figure 5. Selection from Shneiderman's Eight Golden Rules [SP10]

However, it is not clear whether this concern is still universally valid. The term
"lost in hyperspace" is rarely heard now-a-days, not because users have a greater
sense of where they are in complex web-based interfaces, but, apparently,
because they do not care, at least for web-based information – if you want to find
the information again, there is always Google. In contrast, for desktop PIM only a
small percentage of users rely on desktop search, the majority preferring to
navigate file hierarchies, despite many users' difficulties managing them.

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 20

In the physical world ubiquitous use of GPS, means that people find their way to
a destination. In London the famous 'knowledge', where taxi drivers learnt ever
street and route is being dropped, but with it apparently the ability to use local
knowledge to follow lesser-used shortcuts. Often this does not matter so long as
you get to your destination, but this has problems when the technology fails
sending you down routes that are evidently foolish (hence the proliferation of
'do not follow sat nav' road signs). Mountain rescue service increasingly have
problems with walkers who are using phone based maps and then find
themselves without mobile signal, run out of battery or damage the phone. Of
course a walker could lose a paper map, but the act of route finding meant that
they had a better knowledge of where they were.

Back to the digital world, there is an increasing focus on notification-based

systems, helpfully telling you when you have an email message, or someone has
liked your recent Facebook post. However, notifications need to come at an
appropriate time if they are neither to interrupt nor be ignored [DL15].

Whereas the shift to direct manipulation in the 1980s was all about users
controlling the interface, it is almost as if the user is being manipulated or
coerced, acting at the whim of the machine. The ramifications of this potentially
spread beyond the interface itself – if our systems constantly train people what
to do and when to do it, is this ultimately good for an informed citizenry and
democracy?

Looking back at the design of the interface itself. There is clearly a mismatch
between our user interface design principles and the reality in many systems
today. This could be because the systems are badly designed, or it could be
because the principles are out-dated, prepared in the days of productivity
software not social media. Probably the truth is somewhere between.

Digital fabrication
Even five years ago, laser cutters and digital printers were high-end industrial
machines. By Christmas of 2015, low-end 3D printers were in newspaper
magazine's 'what to buy your spouse' lists.

For the professional designer this offers the potential for rapid prototyping of
the physical form alongside the interactions of hybrid digital–physical goods;
experiments have shown subtle effects on interaction depending on the level of
physical fidelity of prototypes [GL08]. HCI researchers have also begun to
explore novel interactions involving digital fabrication including forms of direct
manipulation during the creation of objects [MK13, WA15].

In addition, as with other technological changes, the effects on society may be

more profound. We have seen a new DIY movement in 3D printing including a
sharing culture of plans. Also major manufacturers are beginning to exploit the
just-in-time nature of digital fabrication to reduce the need to hold stocks of
spare parts, rather as flexible just-in-time printing has been used extensively in
publishing. Both of these offer new challenges for HCI.

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 21

More radically would be the point between, if digital fabrication enabled the
development of a new kind of digital artisanship, where local makers and
menders could repair, customise and modify consumer goods. Even IKEA have
announced that people have reached "peak home furnishings" and that it is time
to recycle, repair and repurpose [We16]. Digital fabrication could offer the
potential to answer the consumer society's demand for 'new now' whilst
maintaining a carbon footprint consonant with there being a tomorrow.

Mass customisation near the point of use would open complex business, legal,
and health and safety issues; for example, who is responsible if a customised
microwave catches fire? From an interaction design perspective, we would need
ways to ensure that highly customised control panels are still usable, whether
through automatic tools to assess end-user designs, or maybe the HCI equivalent
of popular fashion or house redecoration television programmes.

Design for solitude

Computers have moved out of the machine room, onto the desktop and now into
the pocket. After 30 years of asking for faster processors, wider screens, more
pixels, better network connections, larger memory and smaller footprint,
increasingly one sees newspaper articles announcing that people feel too
available, overloaded with information. Mayer-Schönberger argues that we need
to re-learn how to forget in a digital age [MS09], and I have argued that ready
availability of information for young children could be harming the very meta-
cognitive skills needed to use it [Dx11].

Phoebe Sengers found that spending time on an island community enabled her to
re-evaluate the nature and, critically, the pace of IT [Se11], and one of the aims of
the Tiree Tech Wave workshop series I organise is to help researchers and
makers reflect on their work in a physically and intellectually open environment
[DD11]. However, it is not always possible or desirable to travel to an island in
order to escape constant digital intrusions.

In an age of hard-to-ignore notifications and copious data at our fingertips, it is

time to ask not simply for more computation, but more appropriate computation.

Basic HCI
Finally, after looking at the emerging trends and paradigms, it is wise to look
back to our beginnings.

Apple products are often seen as being a touchstone of good usability design.
However, if you turn on an iPhone the unlock slider appears up to a minute
before it is possible to actually swipe it. Similarly, when you open a MacOS
laptop, the password entry box appears long before you can type. In iTunes
there are scrolling panes within a scrolling window, where the inner scrolling
panes are larger than the outer window so that you need to scroll the outer
window to navigate the scrollbar of the inner window. Recently I had a several
hundred files selected in the downloads folder ready to move them to an archive,
but accidentally double clicked causing them to simultaneously open, and lock

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 22

up the computer. All of these are basic usability errors, which would be picked
up by standard usability principles or the user testing. What is going wrong?

For Apple this is not a recent problem and for some years the focus on surface
aesthetics has overridden core usability. Even Don Norman and Bruce
Tognazzini have written bemoaning the demise of Apple usability [NT15].

While Apple is an obvious high-profile target when considering poor usability, it

is not hard to find far worse examples in other major products.

Clearly there are examples of good usability practice, for example, the team
developing the touch keyboard for Windows 8 documented a rich process of
experiments and user observations [Si12]. However, it seems that as a discipline
we do need to constantly reiterate the lessons of the past as well as look towards
the new things of the future.

References
[AS94] Ahlberg, C., Shneiderman, B.: Visual information seeking: tight coupling of
dynamic query filters with starfield displays. Proceedings of the SIGCHI
conference on Human factors in computing systems: celebrating
interdependence. pp. 313–317. ACM, New York, NY, USA (1994).

[AM08] von Ahn, L., Maurer, B., McMillen, C., Abraham, D. and M. Blum, M.
(2008). reCAPTCHA: Human-Based Character Recognition via Web Security
Measures. Science, 321(5895):1465–1468

[AI77] Christopher Alexander; Sara Ishikawa; Murray Silverstein (1977). A

Pattern Language : towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press.
https://archive.org/details/APatternLanguage

[Al79] Christopher Alexander (1979). The Timeless Way of Building. Oxford

University Press. https://archive.org/details/TheTimelessWayOfBuilding

[AP12] Arnold, K. and Pistilli, M. 2012. Course signals at Purdue: using learning
analytics to increase student success. In Proc. of the 2nd International
Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK '12). ACM, NY, USA, 267-
270. doi:10.1145/2330601.2330666

[Ar09] W. Brian Arthur (2009). The Nature of Technology. Penguin

[Ba14] Naina Bajekal (2014). Uber Charged 4 Times Its Usual Rate During
Sydney Hostage Siege. Time, Dec. 15, 2014

[Ba85] P. Barnard. Interacting cognitive subsystems: a psycholinguistic

approach to short-term memory. In A. Ellis, editor, Progress in the Psychology of
Language, volume 2, chapter 6. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove, 1985.

[Ba88] George Basalla (1988) The Evolution of Technology. Cambridge

University Press

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 23

[BM10] David Benyon and Oli Mival. 2010. From human-computer interactions
to human-companion relationships. In Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Intelligent Interactive Technologies and Multimedia (IITM '10), M.
D. Tiwari, R. C. Tripathi, and Anupam Agrawal (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1-
9. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1963564.1963565

[BJ11] Nathalie Le Bigot and Wolfgang Jaschinski. 2011. Hand position at

computer screens: effect on visual processing. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual
European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE '11). ACM, New York, NY,
USA, 85-88. doi: 10.1145/2074712.2074730

[BS04] Richard Boardman and M. Angela Sasse. 2004. "Stuff goes into the
computer and doesn't come out": a cross-tool study of personal information
management. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 583-590. DOI:
10.1145/985692.985766

[Ba01] Jan Borchers (2001). A Pattern Approach to Interaction Design. Wiley.

[Bo14] Zachary Davies Boren (2014). There are officially more mobile devices
than people in the world. The Independent, Tuesday 7 October 2014.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/there-are-
officially-more-mobile-devices-than-people-in-the-world-9780518.html

[Br14] Kristen V. Brown (2014). S.F. startup Telerivet's SMS could help
developing nations. SFGate, San Francisco Chronicle, July 15, 2014.
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/article/S-F-startup-Telerivet-s-SMS-could-
help-5622382.php

[Bu45] V. Bush. As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, 176(1):101–8, 1945

[Ca91] William Calvin (1991). The Ascent of Mind: Ice Age Climates and the
Evolution of Intelligence. Bantam Books.

[CM86] Card, S. K. ; Moran, T. P. ; Newell, A. The model human processor: an

engineering model for human performance. Handbook of Perception and Human
Performance. NY: Wiley; 1986; 2: 45-1-35.

[CS13] Tom Carter, Sue Ann Seah, Benjamin Long, Bruce Drinkwater, Sriram
Subramanian, Ultrahaptics: Multi-Point Mid-Air Haptic Feedback for Touch
Surfaces. UIST'13. October 2013.

[CF09] Chandler, A., Finney, J., Lewis, C. and Dix, A (2009). Toward emergent
technology for blended public displays. Ubicomp '09: Proceedings of the 11th
international conference on Ubiquitous computing. New York, NY, USA: ACM, p.
101-104 4 p.

[CS99] P. Checkland and J. Scholes, Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John

Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK, 1999

[Co87] J. Conklin, Hypertext: A survey and introduction, IEEE Computer, 20

(9) :17-41, 1987

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 24

[Co87] J. Coutaz. Pac, an object oriented model for dialog design. In H. J.
Bullinger and B. Shackel, editors, Human–Computer Interaction – INTERACT’87,
pages 431–6. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987.

[Cz90]M. Csikszentmihályi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper

& Row, 1990

[Cy91] A. Cypher. Eager: Programming repetitive tasks by example. In Reaching

through Technology – CHI’91 Conference Proceedings, pages 33–9. ACM Press,
New York, 1991.

[DF06] Dearden, Andy and Finlay, J. (2006). Pattern languages in HCI: a critical
review. Human computer interaction, 21 (1), 49-102.

[DS04] Diaper, D., & Stanton, N. (Eds.) (2004). The Handbook of Task Analysis
for Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[Dx90] A. J. Dix (1990). Information processing, context and privacy. Human-

Computer Interaction - INTERACT'90, Ed. D. G. D. Diaper G. Cockton & B. Shakel.
North-Holland. 15-20.

[Di91] A. J. Dix (1991). Formal methods for interactive systems. London:

Academic Press. http://www.hiraeth.com/books/formal/

[Dx92] A. Dix (1992). Human issues in the use of pattern recognition techniques.
In Neural Networks and Pattern Recognition in Human Computer Interaction
Eds. R. Beale and J. Finlay. Ellis Horwood. 429-451.
http://alandix.com/academic/papers/neuro92/neuro92.html

[Dx95] A. J. Dix (1995). Cooperation without (reliable) Communication:

Interfaces for Mobile Applications. Distributed Systems Engineering, 2(3): pp.
171-181.

[DM97] A. Dix, R. Mancini and S. Levialdi (1997). Communication, action and

history. Proceedings of CHI'97. Atlanta, USA, ACM Press.
http://alandix.com/academic/papers/chi97/ajd.htm

[DM97b] A. Dix, R. Mancini and S. Levialdi (1997). The cube - extending

systems for undo. Proceedings of DSVIS'97, Granada, Spain, Eurographics. pp
473-495. http://alandix.com/academic/papers/dsvis97/

[DR00] A. Dix, R. Beale and A. Wood (2000). Architectures to make Simple

Visualisations using Simple Systems. Proceedings of Advanced Visual Interfaces
- AVI2000, ACM Press, pp. 51-60.

[Dx02] A. Dix (2002). Beyond Intention - pushing boundaries with incidental

interaction. Proceedings of Building Bridges: Interdisciplinary Context-Sensitive
Computing, Glasgow University, 9 Sept 2002.
http://alandix.com/academic/papers/beyond-intention-2002/

[Di03] Dix, A. (2003). A Cybernetic Understanding of Fitts' Law. HCI Book

online!. http://www.hcibook.com/e3/online/fitts-cybernetic/

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 25

[Dx10] A. Dix. Human-Computer Interaction: a stable discipline, a nascent
science, and the growth of the long tail. Interacting with Computers, 22(1), 2010,
13-27. http://alandix.com/academic/papers/IwC-LongFsch-HCI-2010/

[DS10] A. Dix and C. Sas (2010) Mobile Personal Devices meet Situated Public
Displays: Synergies and Opportunities. International Journal of Ubiquitous
Computing (IJUC), 1(1), pp. 11-28. http://www.hcibook.com/alan/papers/MPD-
SPD-2010/

[DS10b] A. Dix, S. Subramanian (2010). IT for Sustainable Growth. Journal of

Technology Management for Growing Economies. 1(1), pp. 35-54.
http://alandix.com/academic/papers/IT-Sustainable-Growth-2010/

[Dx11] Alan Dix. 2011. A shifting boundary: the dynamics of internal cognition
and the web as external representation. In Proceedings of the 3rd International
Web Science Conference (WebSci '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, , Article 9 , 8
pages. DOI: 10.1145/2527031.2527056
http://alandix.com/academic/papers/websci2011-int-ext-cog/

[Dx11b] A. Dix (2011). The Personal Information Environment beyond the

Personal Computer. Keynote i-USEr 2010, Shah Alam and Subang Jaya, 30th
November 2011. http://alandix.com/academic/talks/iUser-2011-keynote-
personal-inf-env/

[DP11] Alan Dix, Margit Pohl and Geoffrey Ellis (2011). Chapter 7: Perception
and Cognitive Aspects. In Mastering the Information Age Solving Problems with
Visual Analytics, Daniel Keim, Jörn Kohlhammer, Geoffrey Ellis and Florian
Mansmann (eds). Eurographics Association, pp. 109–130.
http://www.vismaster.eu/book/

[Dx13] A. Dix (2013). The Walk: exploring the technical and social margins.
Keynote APCHI 2013 / India HCI 2013, Bangalore India, 27th September 2013.
http://alandix.com/academic/talks/APCHI-2013/

[Di14] Dix, A. (2014). Open Data Islands and Communities. available at:
http://tireetechwave.org/projects/open-data-islands-and-communities/

[Di15] A. Dix (2015). Citations and Sub-Area Bias in the UK Research

Assessment Process. In Workshop on Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly
Communication on the Web (ASCW'15) at WebSci 2015 on June 30th in Oxford.
http://ascw.know-center.tugraz.at/2015/05/26/dix-citations-and-sub-areas-
bias-in-the-uk-research-assessment-process/

[DL15] A. Dix and J. Leavesley (2015). Learning Analytics for the Academic: An
Action Perspective. In Journal of Universal Computer Science (JUCS), 21(1):48-65.

[DE15] Dix, A., & Ellis, G. (2015). The Alan walks Wales dataset: Quantified Self
and Open Data. In J. Atenas & L. Havemann (Eds.), Open Data As Open
Educational Resources: Case Studies of Emerging Practice. London: Open
Knowledge, Open Education Working Group. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1590031

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 26

[DG17] Dix, A. and Gill, S. (with Ramduny, R. and Hare, J.) (2017). TouchIT
Oxford University Press (forthcoming).

[DD11] Jakub Dostal and Alan Dix (2011). Tiree Tech Wave. Interfaces, Summer
2011, p.16-17. http://tireetechwave.org/events/ttw-1/interfaces-article/

[Dr86] S. Draper (1986) Display managers as the basis for user-machine

communication. Chapter 16 in User Centered System Design; New Perspectives
on Human-Computer Interaction, Donald A. Norman and Stephen W. Draper
(eds). L. Erlbaum Assoc. Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, USA. pp. 339–352

[DD12] Dray, Susan, Andy Dearden, V Evers, Melissa Densmore, D

Ramachandran, Matt Kam, Gary Marsden, N Sambasivan, Tom Smyth, D van
Gruenen and N Winters (2012) Human Computer Interaction for Development:
Changing HCI to Change the World, in Jacko, J (ed). The Human-Computer
Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging
Applications, Third Edition, Chapter 61, pp.1369–1394. CRC Press.

[Dr10] Drewes, Heiko (2010): Eye Gaze Tracking for Human Computer
Interaction. Dissertation, LMU München: Fakultät für Mathematik, Informatik
und Statistik. https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11591/

[EE68] D. Engelbart, and W. English, A research center for augmenting human

intellect. AFIPS Conference Proceedings of the 1968 Fall Joint Computer
Conference, San Francisco, CA, December 1968, Vol. 33, 395–410. (available at
http://history-computer.com/Library/AHI.pdf)

[Es13] Estyn (2013) The Impact of ICT on Pupils’ Learning in Primary Schools –
July 2013. Cardiff: Estyn, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education and
Training in Wales. http://www.estyn.gov.wales/thematic-reports/impact-ict-
pupils-learning-primary-schools-july-2013

[Fi54] P.Fitts, The information capacity of the human motor system in

controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
47(6), 1954, 381–391.

[FA13] Michael Fourman, Alan Alexander, et al. (2013) Spreading the Benefits
of Digital Participation: An Interim Report for Consultation. Edinburgh: Royal
Society of Edinburgh, pp. 22–24.

[FC16] Freecycle Network (accessed 19/1/2016) https://www.freecycle.org/

[FL90] D. Frohlich and P. Luff, Applying the technology of conversation to the

technology for conversation. Computers and Conversation. Academic Press,
1990

[GL08] S. Gill, G. Loudon, A. Woolley, J. Hare, D. Walker, A. Dix and D. Ramduny‐

Ellis (2008) Rapid Development of Tangible Interactive Appliances: Achieving
the Fidelity/Time Balance. In Special Issue on Tangible and Embedded
Interaction, International Journal of Arts and Technology, Vol. 1, No.3/4, 2008, pp.
309 ‐ 331, DOI: 10.1504/IJART.2008.022365

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 27

 [GC12] Jonathan Gray, Lucy Chambers, Liliana Bounegru (2012). The Data
Journalism Handbook: How Journalists Can Use Data to Improve the News. O'Reilly
Media. available online at http://datajournalismhandbook.org

[Gr06] Adam Greenfield (2006). Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous

Computing. New Riders.

[GI04] Greenhalgh, C.M., Izadi, S., Mathrick, J., Humble, J. and Taylor, I. (2004).
ECT - A Toolkit to Support Rapid Construction on Ubicomp Environments In:
System Support for Ubiquitous Computing Workshop - UbiSys04.

[Gr03] Judith Gregory (2003). Scandinavian Approaches to Participatory Design.

International Journal Of Engineering Education. 19(1):62–74.

[Gu16] The Guardian (2016). datablog. Accessed 18/1/2016

http://www.theguardian.com/data

[HM13] H. Haddadi, R. Mortier, D. McAuley, J. Crowcroft (2013). Human-Data

Interaction. UCAM-CL-TR-837, University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory.
June 2013. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-837.pdf

[HN09] Halevy, A., Norvig, P. and Pereira, F. (2009). The Unreasonable

Effectiveness of Data, Intelligent Systems, IEEE , vol.24, no.2, pp.8,12, March-
April 2009. doi: 10.1109/MIS.2009.36

[HM15] Hawking, S., Musk, E., Wozniak, S., et al. (2015). Autonomous Weapons:
an Open Letter from AI & Robotics Researchers. Future of Life Institute.
http://futureoflife.org/AI/open_letter_autonomous_weapons

[HB10] Hendler, J., & Berners-Lee, T. (2010). From the Semantic Web to social
machines: A research challenge for AI on the World Wide Web. Artificial
Intelligence, 174(2), 156–161. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2009.11.010

[HM12] Hooper, C.J., Marie, N., Kalampokis, E. 2012. Dissecting the Butterfly:
representation of disciplines publishing at the Web Science conference series. In
Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Web Science Conference (WebSci '12). ACM,
New York, NY, USA, 137-140.

[HD12] Hooper, C.J., Dix, A. 2012. Web Science and Human-Computer

Interaction: When Disciplines Collide. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM
Web Science Conference (WebSci '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 128-136.

[HD13] C. Hooper and A. Dix., Web science and human-computer interaction:

forming a mutually supportive relationship. Interactions 20(3), 2013, 52–57.
DOI:10.1145/2451856.2451868

[Hu16] E. Hunt (2016). Tay, Microsoft's AI chatbot, gets a crash course in racism
from Twitter. The Guardian. Thursday 24 March 2016.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/24/tay-microsofts-ai-
chatbot-gets-a-crash-course-in-racism-from-twitter
[IE08] IEEE (2008). Special Report: The Singularity. Spectrum, IEEE, 45(10).
http://spectrum.ieee.org/static/singularity

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 28

 [IG15] IGF (2015). Policy Options for Connecting the Next Billion. United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Internet Governance Forum 2015.
(accessed 17/1/2016). http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/policy-options-for-
connection-the-next-billion

[IH97] Ishii, H. and Ullmer, B. 1997. Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces
between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference
on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '97). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 234-
241. DOI: 10.1145/258549.258715

[IS00] ISO, 2000. ISO 9241-9 International standard: Ergonomic requirements

for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)--Part 9: Requirements for
non-keyboard input devices: International Organization for Standardizalion.

[JR89] Jeff Johnson, Teresa L. Roberts, William Verplank, David C. Smith,. Charles
H. Irby, Marian Beard, and Kevin Mackey (1989). The Xerox Star: A Retrospective.
IEEE Computer, 22(9):11–26. doi:10.1109/2.35211

[Jo07] William Jones (2007). Keeping Found Things Found: The Study and
Practice of Personal Information Management. Morgan Kaufmann

[KJ06] David R. Karger, William Jones (2006). Data unification in personal

information management. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 49 No. 1, Pages 77-
82 doi:10.1145/1107458.1107496

[KH02] Keim, D.A., Hao, M.C., Dayal, U., Hsu, M.: Pixel Bar Charts: A Visualization
Technique for Very Large Multi-Attribute Data Sets. Information Visualization
Journal. 1, (2002).

[KK11] Daniel Keim, Jörn Kohlhammer, Geoffrey Ellis and Florian Mansmann
(eds). (2011). Mastering the Information Age Solving Problems with Visual
Analytics, Eurographics Association, ISBN 978-3-905673-77-7.
http://www.vismaster.eu/book/

[KD10] Haliyana Khalid and Alan Dix. 2010. The experience of photologging:
global mechanisms and local interactions. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 14, 3
(April 2010), 209-226. Doi: 10.1007/s00779-009-0261-4

[KP88] G. E. Krasner and S. T. Pope. A cookbook for using the model-

viewcontroller user interface paradigm in Smalltalk-80. JOOP, 1(3), August, 1988.

[LM98] Stan Liebowitz and Steve Margolis. "Network Externalities (Effects)"

entry in The New Palgraves Dictionary of Economics and the Law, MacMillan,
1998. http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/palgrave/network.html

[LG14] Liu, Y., Goncalves, J., Ferreira, D., Xiao, B., Hosio, S., & Kostakos, V. (2014).
CHI 1994-2013: Mapping two decades of intellectual progress through co-word
analysis. Proc. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI),
Toronto, Canada, 3553-3562.

[LR00] Loke. S.W., Rakotonirainy, A., and Zaslavsky, A. Enabling Awareness in

Dynamic Mobile Agent Environments. Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on
Applied Computing (SAC 2000), Como, Italy, March 2000, ACM Press.

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 29

[LD89] J. Long and J. Dowell, J. Conceptions of the discipline of HCI: craft,
applied science, and engineering. In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the
British Computer Society, Human–Computer interaction Specialist Group on People
and Computers V, A. Sutcliffe and L. Macaulay, Eds. Cambridge University Press,
1989, pp.9–32.

[Lo43] Ada Lovelace (1843). Notes on the translation of Menebrea's paper on

Babbage's Analytical Engine. Published in Scientific Memoirs, Selections from The
Transactions of Foreign Academies and Learned Societies and from Foreign
Journals, edited by Richard Taylor, F.S.A.,Vol III London: 1843, Article XXIX.
Sketch of the Analytical Engine invented by Charles Babbage Esq. By L. F.
Menabrea, of Turin, Officer of the Military Engineers. Quotation accessed
18/1/2016 from http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/Files/ada-lovelace-
notes.html

[MS09] Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2009). Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the

Digital Age. Princeton University Press.

[MD14] A. Morgan, A. Dix, M. Phillips and C. House (2014). Blue sky thinking
meets green field usability: can mobile internet software engineering bridge the
rural divide? Local Economy, September–November 2014. 29(6–7):750–761.
(Published online August 21, 2014). doi: 10.1177/0269094214548399

[Mo10] Jim Motavalli (2010). The Dozens of Computers That Make Modern Cars
Go (and Stop). The New York Times, Feb. 4, 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/technology/05electronics.html

[MK13] Mueller, A., Kruck, B. and Baudisch, P. (2013). LaserOrigami: Laser-

Cutting 3D Objects. Proceedings of CHI 2013, pp. 2585-2592.

[MK93] Michael J. Muller and Sarah Kuhn. 1993. Participatory design. Commun.
ACM 36, 6 (June 1993), 24-28. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/153571.255960

[Ni94] J. Nielsen. Heuristic evaluation. In Usability Inspection Methods. John

Wiley, New York, 1994.

[ND86] Donald A. Norman and Stephen W. Draper. 1986. User Centered System
Design; New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. L. Erlbaum Assoc.
Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, USA.

[No86] Donald A. Norman 1986. Cognitive Engineering. Chapter 3 in User

Centered System Design; New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction,
Donald A. Norman and Stephen W. Draper (eds). L. Erlbaum Assoc. Inc., Hillsdale,
NJ, USA. pp. 31–61

[No88] D. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Book, 1988.

[No98] Donald A. Norman (1998). The Invisible Computer. MIT Press.

[NT15] Don Norman and Bruce Tognazzini (2105). How Apple Is Giving Design
A Bad Name. Fast Company, November 10, 2015 (accessed 19/1/2016)

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 30

http://www.fastcodesign.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-design-a-bad-
name

[OG33] W. F. Ogburn, and S. C. Gilfillan (1933). The Influence Of Invention And

Discovery. Chapter III in Recent Social Trends in the United States: Report of the
President's Research Committee on Social Trends. pp.122–166. Full text
available at: https://archive.org/details/recentsocialtren01unitrich

[PP97] P. Palanque and F. Paterno (eds.) (1997). Formal Methods in Human-

Computer Interaction. London, Springer-Verlag

[PH85] G. Pfaff and P. J. W. ten Hagen, editors, Seeheim Workshop on User

Interface Management Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.

[PV15] Pinder, C., Vermeulen, J., Beale, R., and Hendley, R. Exploring
Nonconscious Behaviour Change Interventions on Mobile Devices. MobileHCI'15
Adjunct, ACM Press (2015).

[Po81] J. B. Postel (Ed.), Internet Protocol, IETF RFC 791, Sept. 1981.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc791

[RE14] Research Excellence Framework 2014. http://www.ref.ac.uk/

[Ri06] T. Rickards , Obituary: Enid Mumford, Sociologist devoted to making

computers work for people. The Guardian, 3 May 2006.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2006/may/03/guardianobituaries.obituari
es

[RM91] Robertson, G.G., Mackinlay, J.D., Card, S.K.: Cone Trees: animated 3D
visualizations of hierarchical information. Proc. CHI’91. pp. 189–194. ACM Press,
New Orleans, USA (1991).

[Ro15] Brishen Rogers (2015). The Social Costs of Uber. Online Symposium
Grassroots Innovation & Regulatory Adaptation, The University of Chicago Law
Review Dialogue, (accssed
19/1/2016)https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/page/dialogue

[RM13] Rogers, Yvonne and Gary Marsden (2013) Does he take Sugar? Moving
Beyond the Rhetoric of Compassion. Interactions 20(4):48-57.

[Sc00] Schmidt, A. (2000). Implicit human computer interaction through context.

Personal Technologies, 4(2–3):191-199. doi: 10.1007/BF01324126

[Se11] Phoebe Sengers. 2011. What I learned on Change Islands: reflections on

IT and pace of life. interactions 18, 2 (March 2011), 40-48.
DOI:1925820.1925830

[Sh59] B. Shackel, Ergonomics for a Computer. Design 120, 1959, 36–39.

(available at
http://www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.rauterberg/presentations/shackel-
1959.PDF)

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 31

[Sc83] Shneiderman, B. (1983). Direct Manipulation: A step beyond
programming languages, IEEE Computer, 16(8), 57-69.

[Sh92] Shneiderman, B. (1992). Tree visualization with tree-maps: 2-d space-

filling approach. ACM Trans. Graph. 11, 1 (January 1992), 92–99. doi:
10.1145/102377.115768

[SP10] Shneiderman, B. and Plaisant, C., Designing the User Interface: Strategies
for Effective Human-Computer Interaction: Fifth Edition, Addison-Wesley Publ.
Co., Reading, MA (2010)

[Si12] Steven Sinofsky (2102). Designing the Windows 8 touch keyboard. MSDN
blog, Microsoft, July 17, 2012. (accessed 19/1/2016)
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/b8/2012/07/17/designing-the-windows-8-
touch-keyboard/

[SK82] David Canfield Smith, Charles Irby, Ralph Kimball, Bill Verplank and Eric
Harslem (1982). Designing the Star User Interface. BYTE, April 1982, pp. 242–
282

[SM04] Soukoreff, R. W., & MacKenzie, I. S. (2004). Towards a standard for

pointing device evaluation: Perspectives on 27 years of Fitts' law research in
HCI. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61, 751-789.
[Su87] L. Suchman. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human–
Machine Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.

[Su63] I. Sutherland. SketchPad: A man-machine graphical communication

system. AFIPS Conference Proceedings 23, 1963, 323–328.

[Ta15] Erica Taschler (2015). A Crumbling Monopoly: The Rise of Uber and the
Taxi Industry’s Struggle to Survive. Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies, News
and Views, June 2015. Accessed 19/1/2016,
http://www.luc.edu/law/centers/antitrust/publications/news_views/

[TQ09] Lucia Terrenghi, Aaron Quigley, and Alan Dix. 2009. A taxonomy for and
analysis of multi-person-display ecosystems. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 13, 8
(November 2009), 583-598. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00779-009-0244-
5
[TH15] Thanassis Tiropanis, Wendy Hall, Jon Crowcroft, Noshir Contractor,
Leandros Tassiulas (2015). Network Science, Web Science, and Internet Science.
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 58 No. 8, Pages 76-82 doi:10.1145/2699416

[TH90] H. W. Thimbleby and M. D. Harrison (eds.) (1990). Formal Methods in

Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge University Press

[Th13] H. Thimbleby, “Reasons to Question Seven Segment Displays,”

Proceedings ACM Conference on Computer-Human Interaction — CHI 2013, Best
Paper Award, pp.1431–1440, Paris, France, ACM, DOI:
10.1145/2470654.2466190

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 32

[TC05] Thomas, J.J., Cook, K.A. (2005). Illuminating the Path: The Research and
Development Agenda for Visual Analytics. IEEE Press

[Th63] Thompson, E. P. (1963), ‘The Making of the English Working Class’,

Victor Gollancz Ltd.

[TM15] Turchi, T., Malizia, A. and Dix, A. (2015). Fostering the Adoption of
Pervasive Displays in Public spaces using Tangible End-User Programming. IEEE
Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, At Atlanta,
Georgia, US. 18-22 Oct 2015

[Vi93] Vernor Vinge, ”The Coming Technological Singularity,” Vision-21

Symposium, NASA Lewis Research Center and the Ohio Aerospace Institute, 30
to 31 March 1993.

[Wa15] Ben Walker (2015) Every Day Big Data Statistics – 2.5 Quintillion Bytes
Of Data Created Daily. Virtualization and Cloud News
http://www.vcloudnews.com/every-day-big-data-statistics-2-5-quintillion-
bytes-of-data-created-daily/

[We16] Webster, B. (2016). People don't need any more furniture, says, er, Ikea.
The Times, 18th Jan. 2016.

[WA15] Weichel, C., Alexander, J., Karnik, A. & Gellersen, H. (2015). Connected
tools in digital design. IEEE Pervasive Computing. 14, 2, p. 18-21 4 p.

[We91] M. Weiser. The computer of the 21st century. Scientific American,

265(3):66–75, September 1991.

[Wh66] L. White, Medieval Technology and Social Change. Oxford University

Press, 1966.

[WF86] T. Winograd and F. Flores. Understanding Computers and Cognition: A

New Foundation for Design. Addison-Wesley, New York, 1986.

[WD97] Wood, A., Dey, A., Abowd, G.: Cyberdesk: Automated Integration of
Desktop and Network Services. In: Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI 97), pp. 552–553, ACM Press (1997)

[WP17]. B. Weyers, P. Palanque, J. Bowen and A. Dix (eds). The Handbook on

Formal Methods in Human Computer Interaction. Spronger. 2017 (forthcoming).

Human Computer Interaction, foundations and new paradigms 33