Difference between revisions of "Ikeya-Luck-Randall2012"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Nozomi Ikeya; Rachael Luck; David Randall |Title=Recovering the emergent logic in a software design exercise |Tag(s)=EMCA; ethnomethodol...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|Journal=Design Studies | |Journal=Design Studies | ||
|Volume=33 | |Volume=33 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=6 |
| − | |Abstract=This paper develops a deeper understanding of professional software design by | + | |Pages=611–629 |
| − | examining the emergent logic of a software design exercise. Decision-making is | + | |URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X12000415 |
| − | evident as a ‘product’ of activity, including coordinated attention to primarily | + | |DOI=10.1016/j.destud.2012.06.004 |
| − | two artefacts, the brief and the whiteboard. Thus, we pay attention to the | + | |Abstract=This paper develops a deeper understanding of professional software design by examining the emergent logic of a software design exercise. Decision-making is evident as a ‘product’ of activity, including coordinated attention to primarily two artefacts, the brief and the whiteboard. Thus, we pay attention to the ‘situatedness’ of decision-making, which is not one person’s accomplishment, but is interactively carried out through treating what is known to the participants such as requirements written in the brief as ‘documentary’ of what is to be understood. The paper examines how each pair resolved the requirements uncertainties, by treating different ‘users’ differently. Our examination reveals how different approaches to the design exercise were actually organised to shed new light on software design practices. |
| − | ‘situatedness’ of decision-making, which is not one person’s accomplishment, but | ||
| − | is interactively carried out through treating what is known to the participants | ||
| − | such as requirements written in the brief as ‘documentary’ of what is to be | ||
| − | understood. The paper examines how each pair resolved the requirements | ||
| − | uncertainties, by treating different ‘users’ differently. Our examination reveals | ||
| − | how different approaches to the design exercise were actually organised to shed | ||
| − | new light on software design practices. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:06, 11 January 2016
| Ikeya-Luck-Randall2012 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Ikeya-Luck-Randall2012 |
| Author(s) | Nozomi Ikeya, Rachael Luck, David Randall |
| Title | Recovering the emergent logic in a software design exercise |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, ethnomethodology, software design, design practice, reasoning, problem solving |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Design Studies |
| Volume | 33 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 611–629 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.destud.2012.06.004 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper develops a deeper understanding of professional software design by examining the emergent logic of a software design exercise. Decision-making is evident as a ‘product’ of activity, including coordinated attention to primarily two artefacts, the brief and the whiteboard. Thus, we pay attention to the ‘situatedness’ of decision-making, which is not one person’s accomplishment, but is interactively carried out through treating what is known to the participants such as requirements written in the brief as ‘documentary’ of what is to be understood. The paper examines how each pair resolved the requirements uncertainties, by treating different ‘users’ differently. Our examination reveals how different approaches to the design exercise were actually organised to shed new light on software design practices.
Notes
