ITU

Design (In) actions

Research output: Conference Article in Proceeding or Book/Report chapterArticle in proceedingsResearchpeer-review

Standard

Design (In) actions. / Sandelin, Erik; Homewood, Sarah.

Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society. Association for Computing Machinery, 2020. p. 1-9 25.

Research output: Conference Article in Proceeding or Book/Report chapterArticle in proceedingsResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Sandelin, E & Homewood, S 2020, Design (In) actions. in Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society., 25, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420172

APA

Sandelin, E., & Homewood, S. (2020). Design (In) actions. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society (pp. 1-9). [25] Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420172

Vancouver

Sandelin E, Homewood S. Design (In) actions. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society. Association for Computing Machinery. 2020. p. 1-9. 25 https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420172

Author

Sandelin, Erik ; Homewood, Sarah. / Design (In) actions. Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society. Association for Computing Machinery, 2020. pp. 1-9

Bibtex

@inproceedings{91fbd07c32b444acaa1cc18a575b6bb5,
title = "Design (In) actions",
abstract = "Sometimes the best decision may be to not design. But you can “not design” in different ways. There are emerging discussions of using design's destructive potential to hinder, eliminate, “undesign” unwanted technologies and practices. In this paper we argue that informed and carefully crafted not-doings should also be considered valid and generative design acts. Through discussing a series of inaction-related design projects we propose the concept of design (in)actions. An (in)action is the informed, articulated and designerly decision to not act. Through the concept of “designer killjoy” we frame risks and stakes of such moves. We discuss how design inactivism – design (in)actions mobilised for activist ends – inform and develop current conceptualisations of design activism. Finally, we propose design (in)actions as a useful tactic for “gracious design”: more-than-human design moves characterised by forsaking human privilege through leaving be. ",
author = "Erik Sandelin and Sarah Homewood",
year = "2020",
month = oct,
day = "25",
doi = "10.1145/3419249.3420172",
language = "English",
pages = "1--9",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society",
publisher = "Association for Computing Machinery",
address = "United States",

}

RIS

TY - GEN

T1 - Design (In) actions

AU - Sandelin, Erik

AU - Homewood, Sarah

PY - 2020/10/25

Y1 - 2020/10/25

N2 - Sometimes the best decision may be to not design. But you can “not design” in different ways. There are emerging discussions of using design's destructive potential to hinder, eliminate, “undesign” unwanted technologies and practices. In this paper we argue that informed and carefully crafted not-doings should also be considered valid and generative design acts. Through discussing a series of inaction-related design projects we propose the concept of design (in)actions. An (in)action is the informed, articulated and designerly decision to not act. Through the concept of “designer killjoy” we frame risks and stakes of such moves. We discuss how design inactivism – design (in)actions mobilised for activist ends – inform and develop current conceptualisations of design activism. Finally, we propose design (in)actions as a useful tactic for “gracious design”: more-than-human design moves characterised by forsaking human privilege through leaving be.

AB - Sometimes the best decision may be to not design. But you can “not design” in different ways. There are emerging discussions of using design's destructive potential to hinder, eliminate, “undesign” unwanted technologies and practices. In this paper we argue that informed and carefully crafted not-doings should also be considered valid and generative design acts. Through discussing a series of inaction-related design projects we propose the concept of design (in)actions. An (in)action is the informed, articulated and designerly decision to not act. Through the concept of “designer killjoy” we frame risks and stakes of such moves. We discuss how design inactivism – design (in)actions mobilised for activist ends – inform and develop current conceptualisations of design activism. Finally, we propose design (in)actions as a useful tactic for “gracious design”: more-than-human design moves characterised by forsaking human privilege through leaving be.

U2 - 10.1145/3419249.3420172

DO - 10.1145/3419249.3420172

M3 - Article in proceedings

SP - 1

EP - 9

BT - Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society

PB - Association for Computing Machinery

ER -

ID: 85564119