ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction : Preface

ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction

by Hewett, Baecker, Card, Carey, Gasen, Mantei, Perlman, Strong and Verplank
Copyright © 1992,1996 ACM SIGCHI

Contents

Preface

Last updated: 2008-04-11 Accesses since 1997-04-17: 86,361

Preface {p. i}

In August of 1988 the SIGCHI Executive Committee, consisting of Francine Frome, Chair; Phyllis Reisner, Vice Chair; Wendy MacKay, Secretary/Treasurer; and Peter Orbeton, Bulletin Editor, voted to authorize the expenses of a multi-year project to develop a set of curriculum recommendations for education in Human-Computer Interaction. This report presents the work of the Committee assembled to produce those recommendations. Along the way the Curriculum Development Group (CDG) has had several days of face-to-face meetings, a disagreement or two, and more than a moment's frustration with the task which they undertook to grapple with over the period of almost two and one-half years. Volunteers all, the members of the CDG have contributed a considerable amount of time and work to the final production of this report -- in some instances as much as two months worth of working days over the course of the project.

Although at one time individuals were identified with different sections of report, by the time it got to its present form the report became truly a group product, having been through several drafts and critiques. Furthermore, the group influence was felt from the very beginning. We engaged in extensive discussion and search for agreement on fundamentals even before electrons were rerouted on the screen of a paper simulator. In addition, over the course of the project we have all reflected upon and been informed by each other's thinking, written work, and visual thinking.

Along with the CDG's efforts, the report has benefited from two separate reviews by members of a Curriculum Advisory Panel (CAP) consisting of: Keith Butler, Boeing Computer Science Group; Bill Buxton, University of Toronto; Steve Cunningham, California State University at Stanislas and SIGGRAPH Education Chair; Jim Foley, Georgia Institute of Technology; Paul Green, University of Michigan; Rex Hartson, Virginia Polytechnic and State University; David Kieras, University of Michigan; Jakob Nielsen, Bellcore and formerly of the Technical University of Denmark; Don Norman, University of California at San Diego; Dan Olsen, Jr., Brigham Young University; Judy Olson, University of Michigan; Jenny Preece, The Open University, UK; Ben Shneiderman, University of Maryland; John Thomas, NYNEX; Gerrit van der Veer, The Free University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands; John Whiteside, DEC; and Russel Winder, University College London, UK and BCS HCI SG Liaison. The CAP commented on and critiqued one or more earlier versions of this report and served as a useful counterbalance for the CDG. We all knew they were watching over our shoulders, metaphorically if not literally. As you might expect, members of the CAP did not always agree with some of the things we said or with some of our fundamental assumptions. Nonetheless, we have been quite careful in attending to what they told us, especially where we chose not to modify our assumptions or the contents of the report in response to their comments.

In addition to the CAP, several other people contributed to the final report. Individuals who deserve special mention for their willingness to do a close reading of the penultimate draft of the report and provide thoughtful comments on relatively short notice are Izak Benbasat, University of British Columbia; Jonathan Grudin, University of California, Irvine; Aaron Marcus, Aaron Marcus Associates; Lawrence Miller, The Aerospace Corporation; Don Patterson, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; and Thomas Sheridan, M.I.T. At both CHI '89 and CHI '90 the CDG organized a Special Interest Group Session on Curriculum Development and were gratified and enlightened by the helpful and supportive comments of those who attended. In some cases CAP members asked junior colleagues or senior graduate students to provide comments on an earlier draft. Finally, almost 50 people spontaneously volunteered to read and comment on the penultimate version of the report. Although all of these people have not been named here, we truly appreciate their time and thank them for their efforts.

In conclusion, there are two important points which need to be stressed and which will be mentioned again later in the report. First, the CDG has attempted to create an heuristic structure with which, and within which, others can work to improve the state of education in Human-Computer Interaction. Given that one of our explicit goals was to avoid being prescriptive we have offered an inventory of things known about the field, a set of sample course descriptions which represent possible mappings of that content into course structures, and a set of sample curriculum descriptions. These exemplars are just that, examples. In each case they are but one of a family of mappings which could have been created. They are intended to make it possible for others to analyze their own local conditions and create their own unique mappings.

Second, the CDG members consider the results presented in this report to be the first iteration in the design of a product which is intended to have a long course of future iterative refinement and development, refinement of both the exemplar courses and the curricula. In fact, being convinced of the importance of the process of iterative design and evaluation of product, and recognizing the rapid pace with which the technology of HCI is changing, it is our sincere hope that in this report we have sown the seeds of the obsolescence of our own recommendations. We invite you to keep the best of our work, to discard our mistakes, and to create an improved product.

Tom Hewett, Chair, ACM SIGCHI CDG