Inspired by the intuitive prototyping method employed by Palm Pilot founder Jeff Hawkins, this formative field study recreates and reimagines his generative techniques as a new methodology that could be useful for mobile media designers. Viewed theoretically through an activity theory lens, this approach also integrates bodystorming ideals as a way to externalize and embody user perspectives about the potential of place-based media, in situ, using a proposed National Park Service app, funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, as an example. Such data gathering, especially early in the design process, could help user-centered projects gather otherwise inaccessible feedback, leading to better designs, through tailored content and interfaces, particularly at the dynamic intersections of digital and physical space.
BellG.DourishP. (2007). Yesterday’s tomorrows: Notes on ubiquitous computing’s dominant vision. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11(2), 133–143.
2.
BodkerS. (1991). Through the interface: A human activity approach to user interface design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
BuchenauM.SuriJ. F. (2000). Experience prototyping. In BoyarskiD.KelloggW. A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 424–433). Brooklyn, NY: ACM.
4.
ButterA.PogueD. (2002). Piloting Palm: The inside story of Palm, Handspring, and the birth of the billion-dollar handheld industry. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
5.
CampbellS. (2013). Mobile media and communication: A new field, or just a new journal?Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), 8–13.
6.
ColborneG. (2011). Simple and usable: Web, mobile, and interaction design. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
7.
DiehlM.StroebeW. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509.
8.
DourishP.BellG. (2011). Divining a digital future: Mess and mythology in ubiquitous computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
EhnP. (1993). Scandinavian design: On participation and skill. In SchulerD.NamiokaA. (Eds.), Participatory Design: Principles and Practices (pp. 41–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
EngeströmY. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
11.
EngeströmY. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
12.
EricssonK. A.SimonH. A. (1985). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
FarmanJ. (2012). Mobile interface theory: Embodied space and locative media. New York, NY: Routledge.
14.
GordonE.de Souza e SilvaA. (2011). Net locality: Why location matters in a networked world. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
15.
GradyH. M. (2000). Web site design: A case study in usability testing using paper prototypes. In JonesS. B.Weise MoellerB. (Chairs), Proceedings IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (pp. 39–45). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Educational Activities Department.
16.
HaningtonB.MartinB. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Beverly, MA: Rockport.
17.
HeideggerM. (1977). The question concerning technology. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
18.
HolmquistL. E. (2008). Bootlegging: Multidisciplinary brainstorming with cut-ups. In HakkenD. (Chair), Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008 (pp. 158–161). Indianapolis: Indiana University.
19.
HumphreysL.LiaoT. (2011). Mobile geotagging: Reexamining our interactions with urban space. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(3), 407–423.
20.
JaaskelainenR. (2010). Think-aloud protocol. In GambierY.van DoorslaerL. (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (pp. 371–373). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
21.
KaptelininV.NardiB. A. (2006). Acting with technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
KaptelininV.NardiB. A. (2012). Activity theory in HCI: Fundamentals and reflections. Lexington, KY: Morgan & Claypool.
23.
KoerberA.McMichaelL. (2008). Qualitative sampling methods: A primer for technical communicators. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(4), 454–473.
24.
KuuttiK. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human–computer interaction research. In NardiB. A. (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction: 17–44. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
25.
LiawS. S.HatalaM.HuangH. M. (2010). Investigating acceptance toward mobile learning to assist individual knowledge management: Based on activity theory approach. Computers & Education, 54(2), 446–454.
26.
LiikkanenL.HämäläinenM.HaggmanA.BjorklundT.KoskinenM. (2011). Quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness of idea generation in the wild. In KurosuM. (Ed.), Human Centered Design: Second international conference (Vol. 6776, pp. 120–129). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
27.
LonsdaleP.BaberC.SharplesM.ArvanitisT. N. (2004). A context awareness architecture for facilitating mobile learning. In AttewellJ.SmithC. S. (Eds.), Learning with mobile devices: Research and development (pp. 79–85). London, UK: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
28.
MacefieldR. (2009). How to specify the participant group size for usability studies: A practitioner’s guide. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(1), 34–45.
29.
McLuhanM.FioreQ. (1967). The medium is the massage. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
30.
MorganM.BornsL. (2004). 360 degrees of usability. In Dykstra-EricksonE.TscheligiM. (Eds.), Proceedings CHI Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 795–809). Vienna, Austria: ACM, Association for Computing Machinery.
31.
NardiB. A. (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human–computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
OsbornA. F. (1953). Applied imagination. Oxford, UK: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
33.
OulasvirtaA.KurvinenE.KankainenT. (2003). Understanding contexts by being there: Case studies in bodystorming. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 7(2), 125–134.
34.
PrattP.NunesJ. (2012). Interactive design: An introduction to the theory and application of user-centered design. Beverly, MA: Rockport.
35.
RietzschelE. F.NijstadB. A.StroebeW. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 244–251.
36.
RubinsteinS. (1946). Osnovy obshchei psikhologii [Foundations of general psychology]. Moscow, Russia: Uchpedgiz.
37.
SharplesM.TaylorJ.VavoulaG. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In AndrewsR.HaythornthwaiteC. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of e-learning research (pp. 221–247). London, UK: Sage.
38.
StillB. (2010). Mapping usability: An ecological framework for analyzing user experience. In AlbersM. J.StillB. (Eds.), Usability of complex systems: Evaluation of user interaction (pp. 89–108). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press (Taylor & Francis).
39.
StillB.MorrisJ. (2010). The blank-page technique: Reinvigorating paper prototyping in usability testing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(2), 144–157.
40.
TaylorD. W.BerryP. C.BlockC. H. (1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking?Administrative Science Quarterly, 3(1), 23–47.
41.
TaylorJ.SharplesM.O’MalleyC.VavoulaG. (2006). Towards a task model for mobile learning: A dialectical approach. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(2), 138–158.
42.
UdenL. (2007). Activity theory for designing mobile learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 1(1), 81–102.
