HCI as Science
We had a great lecture/conversation with Paul Cairnes today on HCI as Science.
According to Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, science works within a paradigm and has phenomena, methods and questions. Paul argued that if HCI is to be considered a science, it needs a paradigm. As the class identified, HCI has plenty of current phenomena, but due to advances in technology those phenomena are radically changing and continue to change. This is a strong contrast to traditional sciences such as chemistry and biology where phenomena are generally static. Since HCI phenomena are constantly changing, HCI is constantly moving into new domains, redefining itself and absorbing new types of technology. Basically, there are no static phenomena so there can’t be an HCI paradigm. Furthermore, since there is no HCI paradigm, HCI is not a science. Paul concluded by saying that if HCI is to be recognized as a science, it needs a proper theory.
The second part of Paul’s talk lecture dealt with Karl Popper’s theory of falsifiability which says that science is justified through falsification (being proven false). If it’s not falsifiable, it’s not science. Therefore, according to Popper, if HCI is a science it must have falsifiable universal laws. There are a few examples of universal HCI laws such as GOMS and Fitts’ Law, but compared to the established sciences, we find HCI generally lacking in such laws.
So if HCI fails both Kuhn’s and Popper’s definition of science, what is it? Paul suggested an interesting way to look at it: usability (HCI) is a privative. If we say “this system is usable,” it’s falsifiable by any one instance of unusability. In other words, usability is the absence of unusability.
So why does it even matter if HCI is a science? Does anyone really care? Well, as Paul noted, after we graduate we’ll be masters of science, not art or philosophy. There should be a reason for that. Furthermore, he said it’s good for HCI be considered a science because science was practically the only measurable form of progress in the 20th century.
So what do you think? Is HCI a science? Does it matter? Why?
- 3 Oct 03
- human computer interaction, ms hci, science, talk
Go back to the top of this entry ↑
Comments
Is “Computer Science” really a science, then? Probably not.
I think the answer is “who cares.” I think that HCI is attempting to assume the mantle of science *because* science the “practically the only measurable form of progress in the 20th century”; it’s a legitimacy ploy. HCI is just a profession, with a set of more or less popular techniques that come in and out of fashion.
Do marketers worry about a “science of marketing” and whether it’s a valid term? What about other fields?
andrew on 3 Oct 03
HCI is closer to being an engineering discipline than a science. In engineering, there a best practices and rules of thumb which aren’t statements of fundamental laws, and this is essentially what Fitt’s law and other HCI guidelines are. Though underlying science might be in there somewhere, it is completely possible to design and build great things without any full understanding this underlying science.
Case in point: The Wright brothers constructed a working airplane without knowledge of aerodynamics, fluid mechanics, etc. They just applied tried and true engineering best practices which they learned from working on bicycles (plus a ton of trial and error). In fact, several generations of planes were created before scientists started to grasp any of these principles, and the debate continues today. Yet we fly around in planes. They work, even if we don’t have all the “laws” exactly nailed down.
This is the situation we are in with HCI. There is a need, and as engineers we are out there trying to build things that work. We have best practices, we employ trials and usability testing, and we (hopefully) arrive at good interfaces. While there may be some underlying science buried down there somewhere (in our case, cognitive psychology, fluid dynamics), our inability to tie each design choice to a fundamental scientific law is not stopping us from doing our work.
The people want to fly.
thegoodtomchi on 7 Oct 03
Is HCI a science? - I don’t care other than that I rarely find such discussions worthwhile other than as distractions.
Can science be used to better HCI? Absolutely!
Can someone ignorant of science be an effective HCI practitioner (without supervision of someone who’s not ignorant)? Extremely unlikely. (Too easy to fall into delusions.)
Ron Zeno on 11 Oct 03
from HCI as Science | unraveled “As the class identified, HCI has…
TrackBack from IA? EH. on 11 Oct 03
Joshua Kaufman of Unraveled reports on a well thought-out lecture given by Paul Cairns on whether or not HCI is a true science. The conclusion is inexact, but interesting all the same….
TrackBack from Fear Everything on 13 Oct 03
Before lambasting TfL’s maps any more, I thought I should try and get a grounding in cartography (so I can at least use long words when smacking them down). I’ve picked the book How Maps Work by Alan M. MacEachren. Now, I’m only ten or so pages in, so …
TrackBack from anti-mega on 16 Oct 03