Comments on: Designing for conversations: the critical importance of turn taking http://copernicusconsulting.net/designing-for-conversations-the-critical-importance-of-turn-taking/ Design Research and Strategy Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:25:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: sladner http://copernicusconsulting.net/designing-for-conversations-the-critical-importance-of-turn-taking/#comment-825 sladner Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:03:21 +0000 http://designresearch.wordpress.com/?p=193#comment-825 Hi Paul, I did not realize that you were contrasting Pask with Shannon -- that wasn't clear to me. I guess this begs the question, why not embed the theoretical debate in your conceptual model? In other words, is there a way we could create an integrated conceptual model in your discussion of interaction design? I do hope that we can continue collectively to include theory in design itself. Hi Paul,

I did not realize that you were contrasting Pask with Shannon — that wasn’t clear to me. I guess this begs the question, why not embed the theoretical debate in your conceptual model? In other words, is there a way we could create an integrated conceptual model in your discussion of interaction design? I do hope that we can continue collectively to include theory in design itself.

]]> By: paul pangaro http://copernicusconsulting.net/designing-for-conversations-the-critical-importance-of-turn-taking/#comment-824 paul pangaro Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:27:13 +0000 http://designresearch.wordpress.com/?p=193#comment-824 thanks for posting your comment there and cross posting here about the article on conversation. a correction: we use Shannon's model as a _contrast_ to conversation, and we draw our model of conversation not from Shannon but from Pask, which is not generally known. (Shannon's does not apply to conversation, as he well knew, despite attempts by Weaver to claim that extrapolation. we agree with you that Shannon's model is insufficient.) Pask's approach is rigorous and deep and broad, and our purpose was to bring it to the attention of the interaction/design community. limits of length and scope prevented us from providing a general survey of approaches to conversation, hence our intentional, narrow focus. thanks for posting your comment there and cross posting here about the article on conversation. a correction: we use Shannon’s model as a _contrast_ to conversation, and we draw our model of conversation not from Shannon but from Pask, which is not generally known. (Shannon’s does not apply to conversation, as he well knew, despite attempts by Weaver to claim that extrapolation. we agree with you that Shannon’s model is insufficient.) Pask’s approach is rigorous and deep and broad, and our purpose was to bring it to the attention of the interaction/design community. limits of length and scope prevented us from providing a general survey of approaches to conversation, hence our intentional, narrow focus.

]]>