TECHNOMETHODOLOGY AND INTERFACE DESIGN

Information technology induces a new kind of literacy. However, the term "literacy" conceals the fact that there is more at issue than the mere ability to read and write. In my opinion it is one of the main tasks of design research to fathom out the new qualities of "computer literacy" made possible by the co-operation of computers and human beings.

Interface design acts as the predominant discipline exploring usable and sensitive forms of interactive relationships between man and machine. In the narrower sense interface design deals with the trinity of "Interaction Design", "Information Visualization", and "Concise Gestalt". Nowadays it also has to take into account the social practices which take place in everyday action, that is to say inter-action. Both human beings and computers are considered as members of (work) groups which − in the interplay of the members − carry out actions.

It is the remit of ethnomethodological approaches to put the focus on social practices. Especially in their particular branch of "workplace studies" they offer important contributions to grasping the roles of information technology in day to day organizational conduct. By emphasizing the situational action as an indexical expression of the actual here and now, everyday life is considered as "contingent ongoing accomplishments of organized artful practices" (Garfinkel, 1967). In this sense human-computer interaction has to be thought of as a situated interplay of group members which cannot be determined in advance. Order arises out of embodied actions. So it seems to be more than reasonable to look for alternatives to abstract and decontextualized system descriptions applied in the design of information technology.

But it is one thing to document situational practice through ethnographical descriptions, and another thing to describe the functionality of a computer for prospective embedding in predefined workflows. What we can take for granted is the notion that action cannot be reduced to simply carrying out plans. Such an approach would neglect the situational setting. So my question here is whether, and eventually how, ethnomethodological insights can instruct interface design practice in a fundamental manner. First of all, this means overcoming mere ethnographic observations in favour of perceiving a more substantial relationship between issues of design, engineering, and social sciences. Technomethodology, as suggested by Button and Dourish (1998), is an approach trying to establish such a foundational relationship.

After delineating a rough sketch of the concerns of workplace studies I will outline the essential notion of "accountability" in the interplay of interface design, system engineering and ethnomethodological practice. This will lead to a sketch of a signpost to a "designomethodological" manifesto for further interface design research concerning the new possibilities raised by this way of conceiving co-operation between human beings and computers. Finally I will move on from technomethodological considerations to the issues at hand in the narrower sense of interface design, namely interaction design, information visualization, and concise gestalt.