From Research Prototype to Research Product
Open accessAbstract
Prototypes and prototyping have had a long and important history in the HCI community and have played a highly significant role in creating technology that is easier and more fulfilling to use. Yet, as focus in HCI is expanding to investigate complex matters of human relationships with technology over time in the intimate and contested contexts of everyday life, the notion of a 'prototype' may not be fully sufficient to support these kinds of inquiries. We propose the research product as an extension and evolution of the research prototype to support generative inquiries in this emerging research area. We articulate four interrelated qualities of research products inquiry-driven, finish, fit, and independent and draw on these qualities to describe and analyze five different yet related design research cases we have collectively conducted over the past six years. We conclude with a discussion of challenges and opportunities for crafting research products and the implications they suggest for future design-oriented HCI research.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The interactive tableaux are research products, not prototypes, because of their aesthetic qualities and ability to support richer investigations in design research; their aesthetic qualities and skilled craft make them professional interventions ideal to study tangible and embodied interaction in the field.
“Because of their aesthetic qualities and ability to support richer investigations in design research they are research products, not prototypes [34]: the aesthetic qualities and the skilled craft make the installations professional interventions, ideal to study tangible and embodied interaction in the field [28].”
From Crafting Critical Heritage Discourses into Interactive Exhibition Design (2020) · cites this paper as [34]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFraming the scaling challenge through the HCI lens of 'research products' clarifies the particular demands of scaling the Ryelands AI Lab by articulating a design space with constraints.
“To frame this challenge productively, we are considering to frame it through the established HCI lens of 'research products' [68] developed by Odom and colleagues and recently expanded precisely in the dimension of 'scale' [16] by Boucher, as this clarifies the particular demands of scaling the Ryelands AI Lab by articulating a design space with constraints.”
From Responding to Generative AI Technologies with Research-through-Design: The Ryelands AI Lab as an Exploratory Study (2024) · cites this paper as [68]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 57 · Cited by 259
- Authors
- Odom, W., Wakkary, R., Lim, Y.-K., Desjardins, A., Hengeveld, B., & Banks, R.
- Affiliations
- Simon Fraser University (CA)
- Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KR)
- Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
- Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2016-05-07
- Pages
- 2549-2561
- OpenAlex
- W2404856281
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 15.24
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- summit.sfu.ca
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Summit (Simon Fraser University) (submittedVersion)
- TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- Summit (Simon Fraser University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- Microsoft Research
- Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- research prototypes, research products, design research, human-technology relationship
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
