Lawrence text. The evidence suggests that the concept of design rationale Erlbaum Associates; 1996: 488 pp. Price: $49.95. (ISBN 0-is open enough to interpretation to prevent a cohesive set of 8058-1566-X.) issues being formalized. This is not a criticism, it is an indication of the contents of the volume, and readers should be aware of The concept of design rationale has emerged over the last this as they approach the text. It weaves a wide tapestry, fredecade as attention focused on the reasons and criteria underlyquently appearing repetitive (do so many of the authors need ing any application's design and development. In general terms, to put their own spin on the concept of design?), and the editors a design rationale is a description of the development of an have indulged authors who want to tell us how their chapters artifact that goes beyond the record of its specification and evolved before they tell us what their chapters contain. testing, for example, to include details of why it was designed
The text kicks off seriously with Lee and Lai discussing the to operate one way rather than another, what trade-offs were various ways in which design rationale may be represented, made, what motivated the design team to include certain feaplacing emphasis on their own complex Decision Representatures or to drop others, or what mistakes or errors were made tion Language which I found unnecessarily cumbersome but along the way. Growing out of the field of human-computer which the authors argue is more natural in use than it may interaction's (HCI) regular concern with understanding designsound. While they make a strong case for the representative ers in order to influence their designs, Design Rationale could power of their language compared to other forms of rationale be seen as the culmination of efforts on the part of the HCI description, few of the other authors pick up on their work, and community to apply user-centeredness to designers. By focusing the best case of all is never presented: Evidence that a design on the manner in which design proceeds, and the reasons for team has used this language to document a rationale. For a any one artifact being designed the way it is, the hope is design chapter originally written in 1991, and for which the only uprationales can inform our decision making, both in designing dated references are other chapters in the present volume, one new information technologies and training future designers.
can only conclude that such a test seems less pressing for the The present volume is the latest entry in the LEA Computers, authors.
Cognition and Work series, and it contains 16 chapters by some
The tackling of more concrete concerns, such as what a of the major thinkers in the field. At nearly 500 pages, it is a rationale may look like in practice, is handled neatly in large text that is divided into five major sections developing a MacLean and colleagues' chapter that immediately follows. Put bottom-up line of reasoning from details of certain notations simply, they argue that the essential components of their design for design rationale, to capturing organizational perspectives rationale (QOC) are Questions (the key design issues being on designs. Though logical and systematic at the high level, considered), Options (the alternatives that are presented for individual chapters within sections deviate from the theme conanswering the questions), and Criteria (the relative assessment siderably, and six of the chapters have already been published issues for weighing options). At once, a notation of design in a special issue of the journal Human-Computer Interaction rationale becomes clear even if the designers they show using in 1991, giving the distinct impression that influence between this notation seem to find it less useful or intuitive than the authors was not reciprocal.
authors do (a point neatly demonstrated in Buckingham Shum's As Moran and Carroll put it in their introductory overview, chapter in which he examines the usability of this notation with design is the process of making the tangible out of the intangiintended users). ble. As it is classically understood, design is an ill-structured Carroll and Rosson view the use of rationale as a means problem solving process, much rooted in craft-based (as opof developing a contextualized science base for HCI that can posed to scientific) knowledge. Design rationale is proposed as influence real-world design practice. These authors have argued a means of exploring this process in a relatively formal manner this point for several years, and they themselves can tie their (assuming rationales always existed informally). The logic efforts back to the pioneering work of Francis Bacon in the seems to be as follows: If we identify how artifacts are created, 17th century. Theirs is perhaps the most ambitious chapter of and the reasons for implementing an interface one way rather the present volume, going beyond a concern with representing than the other, over time such knowledge should provide us rationale to advocating its application to the advancement of with insights into how we might design better. Put so simply, the state of the art in HCI. This is powerful work that is not this is likely true, but a more than cursory glance at the notion without its critics, but I feel its importance is likely to be lost of rationale immediately raises the questions of just what might on some readers as the chapter is dominated by examples from we capture, and to what use should we put it? a SmallTalk environment that these authors have described in It might seem that there is little enough known about the detail elsewhere. use and value of rationales to produce such a text, yet the editors
The empirical chapters are generally not too encouraging raise 13 research issues, ranging from how we make explicit about the immediate prospects for design rationales. Buckingfor capture certain management, as opposed to technical forces, ham Shum finds QOC to be as disruptive as it is useful. Olson at work in design, to whether or not capturing rationale alters et al. suggest that in practical terms, the capture of rationale the nature of the design process itself? All fascinating questions, requires an enormous amount of work, and most likely, the and no doubt a fruitful source of doctoral dissertation topics for years to come, but only some of these questions are (or perhaps employment of a dedicated scribe at design meetings. Conklin