Cited by 1,471Innovative Human-Technology InteractionUsability and User Interface DesignTechnology Use by Older Adults

Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families

Hutchinson, Hilary, Mackay, Wendy, Westerlund, Bo, Bederson, Benjamin B., Druin, Allison, Plaisant, Catherine, Beaudouin-Lafon, Michel, Conversy, Stéphane +4 more·2003·Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

We describe a new method for use in the process of co-designing technologies with users called technology probes. Technology probes are simple, flexible, adaptable technologies with three interdisciplinary goals: the social science goal of understanding the needs and desires of users in a real-world setting, the engineering goal of field-testing the technology, and the design goal of inspiring users and researchers to think about new technologies. We present the results of designing and deploying two technology probes, the messageProbe and the videoProbe, with diverse families in France, Sweden, and the U.S. We conclude with our plans for creating new technologies for and with families based on our experiences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/642611.642616

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A design-probe approach lets researchers observe how interface choices, not only model accuracy, shape collaborative performance and user agency.

    “This design-probe approach, having each participant evaluate and comment on contrasting interaction paradigms instead of a single model, lets us observe how interface choices, not only model accuracy, shape collaborative performance and user agency (Hutchinson et al. 2003).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W., Westerlund, B., Bederson, B. B., Druin, A., Plaisant, C., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., Conversy, S., Evans, H., Hansen, H., Roussel, N., & Eiderbäck, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
  • KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
  • HCIL, UMIACS, CS/University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Venue
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2003-04-05
Pages
17-24
OpenAlex
W2150634379
Cited by
1,471
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 87 · 2025: 131 · 2024: 87 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 81 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 57 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 59
FWCI
28.94
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
Keywords
technology probe, co-design, user needs, field testing, family, user-centered design

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