top of page

 How can objects be used within UX design research? 

Introduction 

Kirsh (2010, p. 451) argues that the physical world does not lie. It is a claim with which I agreed initially, then found myself looking more critically at the physical world around me, curious as to whether there are answers are embodied in objects. I was inspired by Fass (2018, p. 1) who believes that UX research calls on a rich “suite” of qualitative research methods, and Pierce (2014, p. 736) who asserts that design artefacts should constitute a part of research knowledge. Having begun to engage with the physical side of user experience design in my studio practice, this essay reflects upon the role objects play in my design research. Hanington and Martin (2019, p. 11) review and define 125 different research methods, asserting that “these methods and approaches have a role to play to help designers have the right conversations at the right time.” 

​

Make 

Exploration into objects within UX research can involve the making of objects, artefacts, or prototypes. Ratto (2011, p. 253) defines critical making as focused on the construction of objects, rather than the outcome. The shared experience and ongoing analysis of the elements within the making form “practice-based engagement with pragmatic and theoretical issues.” (Ratto 2011 p. 253) This focus on the criticality of, and the creative processes behind making an object is inspirational, as it grounds the work we as designers do. 

​

My initial thoughts on the making of objects lead me to data physicalisation, defined by Hanington and Martin (2019, p. 164) as “physical modelling to enable data and relationships to be visualized, experienced, and understood in new ways for communicating insights more widely.” This is a clinical and pragmatic definition, which does not emphasise the significant role of sensory or emotional inputs. Our own attempts at data physicalisation in the studio using this definition were focussed too much upon the data itself. We used an easy set of data which was already visually clear and focussed on making it in a 3D form. 

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

Image 1 & 2: Data and its physicalisation. Photo Credits: Slavi Kaloferov 

​

In reflection, we should have looked at it from another point of view: what does this data make us feel? How can we make the data a sensory experience, or a narrative, telling its own story? 

In contrast, Thudt et al (2018, p. 2) argue that “the act of active creation can be beneficial for reflection”, and Kirsh (2010, p. 444) describes the process of communicating with oneself when externalising a structure. These two alternative descriptions give a more emotive approach the experience of making objects. Thudt emphasises the review process that should take place after the making, whereas Kirsh proposes that making is a conversation. 

​

Thudt’s claim that reflection on the making occurs after the act does not fully take into consideration the fact that the making of the piece is a sensory experience which allows for a larger range of meanings to be conveyed (Jansen et al, 2015, p. 3229). These views of making expressed by Thudt, Kirsh and Jansen formed a guide to what was missing from our physicalisation attempts. As my research addresses the question of what objects do, Kirsh’s belief that reflection occurs during the making process was closer to the research approach I wanted to adopt, as through my own experiences, this is where the most learning has occurred. 

​

My experiences of making and building extend across the whole of the studio practice; every brief had a physical element to it. For each challenge, choosing the methods and materials to depict and convey our meaning was a sensory as well journey which grew more detailed and thorough as we learned to interpret and engage the senses more. 

​

Kramer (2012, p. 106) maintains that “perceived value plays an integral part in the design process when it comes to such activities as selecting materials.” For the Birdsong design brief, we were using physical prototyping as part of our research which gave us an insight into the importance of perceived value as described by Kramer. As a group, our exploration was centred around a discussion of each material and its properties in relation to the tactile experiences we associated with each different type of birdsong, before it could be selected and used, shown in Figure 1. 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Image 2: Physicalisation of different birdsongs. Photo credit: Jakob Prufer 

Lockton et al (2020, p. 45) theorised that the use of materials that can change could make a physicalisation unstable, so decisions need to be made about what the right materials are and what the most effective arrangement is. Each of our choices in the Birdsong project revealed something about the relationship we had with the material world: the screech of a seagull was sharp, so toothpicks were chosen; the cooing of a pigeon was soft, like cotton balls. Whilst this was conceptual, this was valid to us, in alignment with Fass’s (2018, p. 6) claim that the making of physical representations closed the gap between the abstract and concrete. 

​

Study 

Another way to review objects in UX research is by studying them. Artefact analysis, defined by Hanington and Martin (2019, p. 28) is a “systematic examination of the material, aesthetic, and interactive qualities of objects contribute to an understanding of their physical, social, and cultural contexts.” Each of these features identifies to the researcher new information about the object, its substance and origins. 

​

We studied an object in the Disguise brief; my group and I studied a medical face mask. We started with its basic identity: what it is made of, and what it looks like, however when we furthered the analysis to include the social and political aspects, we ended up reviewing, in the words of Odom and Pierce (2009, p. 3), “the distinction between people’s attachment to a thing itself versus attachment to what a thing provides.” 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Image 3: Study of a facemask. Image by author 

The face mask provided more than just a covering of the face, instead, we discovered that the mask was making a statement about your political and social views on mask wearing; it was providing concealment on how you really felt about a situation by hiding your emotions. This leads me to believe that objects have layers of meaning, which are revealed as you look at them through different perspectives. 

​

This is in consensus with Plowman (in Laurel, 2003, p. 31) who submits that objects derive their meaning through use and experience, and this determines whether they have multiple layers of meaning. However, this brings forth more questions than answers: where do these layers come from? Are they a construct of our imagination, or are they already there from the design of the object itself? Csikszentmihalyi (1981, p. 173) states that “objects are not static entities whose meaning is projected onto them from cognitive functions of the brain or from abstract conceptual systems of culture.” Csikszentmihalyi is claiming objects can have more than one meaning or use, but that comes from within them, rather than humans suggesting or creating ways ourselves – it is innate to the physical item. Maybe this is what Zeisel (1984, p.108) means when he suggests that objects can be props for behaviour, or a type of barrier. Objects create the responses we give. I agree with Zeisel, artefacts can create behaviours, however I think Csikszentmihalyi is too critical of the human mind, lacking appreciation for the imagination people can have. 

​

This leads us further from artefact analysis, and closer to a view by Turkle (2007, p. 5) who has a deeper prospect on objects: “We are on less familiar ground when we consider objects as companions to our emotional lives or as provocations to thought.”. She goes on to claim that “most objects exert their holding power because of the particular moment and circumstance in which they come into the author’s life.” This is a status for objects that I did not allow for at the beginning of my research, and the impact of this is profound for me. A review of objects I hold dear (a necklace from my grandmother, a magnetic word-making toy from childhood) confirms to me that Turkle has strong grounds for this claim. Lockton et al (2020, p. 47) discusses the politics of the materials an object has, and the associations they could trigger. The feel of the metal hexagon within my fingers, or the sound of the magnets snapping into place will instantly bring back memories; these are emotional, tactile, audible reminders of another time, validating Lockton’s theory to me. 

​

Reflect 

At the beginning of this journey, the aim was to review what place objects might have within UX research. Through examining them under the guise of the making of, and examination of objects, I have learned that they both have a strong place for being used within this research. Making objects allows exploration of both materials and ideas in a sensory manner, as well as reflection of the process, which can inform us about what was learned through the undertaking, and how this shapes human responses. Reviewing existing objects and the meanings they have to us is also instructional, as I have found that objects can have multiple layers, including the emotional triggers they can hold, which can be informative of many distinct characteristics, such as their social and political statements, or their meaning to a person. 

​

Throughout this process I have reflected on my own practice, having used objects in my previous design work; however, I now know these encounters did not truly incorporate what they have to offer. Objects can provoke sensory and emotive experiences giving us greater insight into people's thoughts and feelings. However, I would be hesitant to use them as a cure-all tool in every situation when objects can be so revealing of a person. Having spent time with this topic, I am now keen to know how far can this go, and how much more could they tell us, and should they? The undeniability of their presence in our lives gives them greater reach than first expected, and now both my life and my work can now be enriched by engaging with objects as both an active tool and a companion. 

​

​

​

​

REFERENCES 

Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981) The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Fass, J. (2018) “Could a Crocodile Run a Steeplechase? Design, Machine Learning, and Boundary Objects.” El Paso: Woodstock. 

Jansen, Y. et al. (2015) “Opportunities and challenges for data physicalization,” Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702180. 

Kirsh, D. (2010) “Thinking with external representations,” AI & SOCIETY, 25(4), pp. 441–454. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0272-8. 

Kramer, K.-L. (2012) User experience in the age of sustainability a practitioner's blueprint. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufmann. 

Laurel, B. (2003) Design research: Methods and Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Lockton, D. et al. (2020) “Thinking with things: Landscapes, connections, and performances as modes of building shared understanding,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 40(6), pp. 38–50. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/mcg.2020.3027591. 

Martin, B. and Hanington, B.M. (2019) Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways To Research Complex Problems, develop innovative ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers. 

Odom, W. and Pierce, J. (2009) “Improving with age,” CHI '09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520573. 

Pierce, J. (2014) “On the presentation and production of design research artifacts in HCI,” Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598525. 

Ratto, M. (2011) “Critical making: Conceptual and material studies in technology and Social Life,” The Information Society, 27(4), pp. 252–260. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2011.583819. 

Thudt, A. et al. (2018) “Self-reflection and personal physicalization construction,” Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173728. 

Turkle, S. (2007) Evocative objects: Things we think with. Cambridge, MA: MIT. 

Zeisel, J. (2009) Inquiry by design: Environment, behavior, neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning. New York, NY: Norton. 

bottom of page