MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972968105 · doi:10.1093/iwc/iwz023

Identifying Five Archetypes of Interaction Design Professionals and Their Universal Design Expertise

2019· article· en· W2972968105 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInteracting with Computers · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPersona Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchetypeInformation and Communications TechnologyKnowledge managementDesign for AllUniversal designPublic relationsPersonaComputer sciencePolitical scienceWorld Wide WebHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Systems and services based on Information and Communications Technology (ICT) are now prevalent in our daily lives. Digital transformations have been, and are still being, initiated across private and public sectors. As such, the consequences of digital exclusion are severe and may block access to key aspects of modern life, such as education, employment, consumerism and health services. In order to combat this, regions and countries such as the USA, Canada, EU and Scandinavia have all legislated universal design (UD) in relation to ICT, in order to ensure as many citizens as possible have the opportunity to access and use digital information and services. However, there has been limited research into how higher educational programs address legislated accessibility responsibilities. This paper looks into the discipline of interaction design (IxD). IxD is the design domain focused on ‘how human beings relate to other human beings through the mediating influence of products’ (Buchanan, R. (2001) Designing research and the new learning. Des. Issues, 17, 3–23). The study presents an analysis of Norwegian higher educational programs within IxD. Based on document analysis, we map the skillsets the study programs state to deliver and investigate to what degree UD expertise is included. Our findings indicate the study programs do not deliver adequate training in UD, in order to fulfill the professional responsibilities related to ICT accessibility. From our findings, we extrapolate five ‘archetypes’ of interaction designers. These personas-like analytical constructs hold slightly different characteristics. For each of the five, we propose UD expertise fitting key skillsets. We hope our contributions are useful both for the higher education sector and the industry and will contribute to raised awareness of UD skills so they can educate interaction designers in their different industry roles with required competences. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS We indicate the current content of interaction design (IxD) programs in higher education and document the lacking focus on universal design (UD). We identify five different archetypes of interaction designers being educated in such programs. We describe key skillsets and strengths for each archetype. We propose UD expertise for the (IxD) profession and link UD expertise to archetype skillsets to emphasize relevance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it