Menu Close

Academic readings for an Interaction designer #1

I live in Denmark and is able to take an education for free. I am currently studying Digital Design and Interactive Technologies on the IT Univercity of Copenhagen. I know education can be really expensive in other countries so I have decided to upload my curriculum from my first semester of my masters (Fall of 2018). This will give people an insigt to what we learn about design on a university that you proberly don’t learn on more hands-on sites like codeacademy or lynda.  If you find a text you wan’t to read you have to search for it. I can’t share them due to copyrights, but I am confident most of them exist somewhere on the web.

On my first semester I had the following 3 courses.

Advanced Design Processes

• plan, conduct and reflect on digital design processes from a design theoretical foundation 

• choose between appropriate design methods and techniques based on knowledge about the context of use and type of design process 

• discuss and reflect on the use of analytic and practical design tools in the process in a user-oriented design perspective 

• develop and analyze functional prototypes and reflect on the use of interactive technologies as a design material 

• present findings from the design process, argue for, evaluate and critically assess the value of their design to an academic and professional audience 

• use the insights from the process to reflect on the development of their own design ability

Users in Context

• relate the use of digital media platforms, services and designs to a broader historical context and the cultural history of digital technologies

• discuss different theoretical perspectives on social services and user cultures

• account for relevant methodological approaches to the study of users in context, including ethical considerations

• independently select the most relevant theories and methods for use in their own case study, and in continuation thereof independent selection and present an original research question and research design

• systematically analyze own-found empirical data using the concepts, theories and methods they have acquired in the course

Prototyping Interactive Technologies

• Use current industry-standard mobile application prototyping tools and frameworks in the design for mobile interaction 

• Apply standard design guidelines and best practices in the prototyping for mobile interaction 

• Apply Usability and User Experience design principles and methods in the prototyping for mobile interaction 

• Analyze and discuss mobile interaction and mobile practices as part of rich physical and social settings

Advanced Design Processes

  1. Andersen, T. (2014). Designantropologiske undersøgelser af Patient 2.0. Tidsskrift for Forskning I Sygdom Og Samfund, (21), 77-107.
  2. Bardzell, J. (2018). A Practical Guide to Design Critique. Indiana University. (5s)
  3. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), pp 5-21.
  4. Dalsgaard, P., Dindler, C. and Fritsch, J. (2013): Design Argumentation in Academic Design Teaching, short paper in proceedings of ”Experiments in Design Research”, Nordic Design Research Conference (NORDES), 2013, pp. 426-429.
  5. Dourish, P. (2006). Implications for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems (pp. 541-550). ACM
  6. Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT Press. Kapitel 3.
  7. Fritsch, J. (2009): “Understanding Affective Engagement as a Resource in Interaction Design”. Proceedings of “Engaging Artifacts”, Nordic Design Research Conference (10s).
  8. Fritsch, J. (2018): Affective Interaction Design at the End of the World. Proceedings of the Design Research Society (DRS) Conference in Limerick, Ireland, pp. 896-900.
  9. Iversen, O. S.,  Halskov, K. & Leong, T. W. (2012): Values-led participatory design, CoDesign, 8:2-3, pp. 87-103.
  10. Lottridge, D., Chignell, M. and Jovicic, A. (2011). Affective Interaction: Understanding, Evaluating, and Designing for Human Emotion. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, Vol. 7, 2011, pp. 197–237.
  11. Løwgren, J. & Stolterman, E (2007): Thoughtful Interaction Design: A Design Perspective on Information Technology, MIT Press
  12. Nielsen, H. K. (2015). Kritisk Teori. In S. Brinkmann & L. Tanggaard (pp. 373-388). Hans Reitzels Forlag.
  13. Pedersen, J. (2016) War and peace in codesign, CoDesign, 12:3, pp. 171-184.
  14. Pedersen, L. R. (2018). Fact Finders: Knowledge Aesthetics and The Business of Human Science in a Danish Consultancy, PhD Dissertation, University of Copenhagen – chapter 1 (30s).
  15. Redström, J. (2008). RE:Definitions of use. Design Studies, 29(4), 410-423.
  16. Schön, D. A. (1987): Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey-Bass Publishers. I skal læse kapitlerne 1,2 og 7
  17. Ryan, G. W., & Russell Bernard, H. (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109.
  18. Sengers, P., & Gaver, B. (2006). Staying Open to Interpretation: Engaging Multiple Meanings. Proceedings from Design and Evaluation Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, University Park, PA, USA New York, NY, USA. Pp. 99-108.
  19. Stolterman, E. & Nelson, H. G.(2012/14): The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World, MIT Press
  20. Suchman, Lucy (2000) ‘Located Accountabilities in Technology Production’, published by the Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YN, UK (12s).
  21. Vallgårda, A. (2014). Giving form to computational things – Developing a practice of interaction design. Personal Ubiquitous Computing, 18(3), 577-592.
  22. Verbeek, P.-P. (2008). Cyborg intentionality: Rethinking the phenomenology of human–technology relations. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), pp 387-395.
  1.   Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J. and Stolterman, E.    
          (2010): “An Analysis and Critique of Research 
          through Design: towards a Formalization of a   
            Research Approach. DIS’10: Proceedings of the 8th 
            ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, 
            ACM, New York, pp. 310-319.

Users in Context

  1. Sheldon, P. & Bryant, K. (2016). Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and contextual age. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 89-97.
  2. Silverstone, R.; Hirsch, E and Morley, D. (1992). Information and Communication Technologies and theMoral Economy of the Household in Hirsch, E. & Silverstone, R. (eds.), Consuming Technologies – Media and Information in Domestic Spaces (pp. 15-30). London & New York, Routledge.
  3. Windahl, S. (2013). Uses and gratifications – look-up in Kolstrup, S.; Agger, G.; Jauert, P. & Schrøder, K.(eds.) Medie- og Kommunikationsleksikon, Samfundslitteratur.Prototyping Interactions
  4. Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2016). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society,1–20.
  5. Jørgensen, K.M. (2016). The media go-along Researching mobilities with media at hand. MedieKultur. Journal of Media and Communication Research, 32(60), 32–49. Retrieved at
  6. Tiidenberg, K. (2018). Research Ethics, Vulnerability, and Trust on the Internet. In Second International Handbook of Internet Research, 2-12. Retrieved at This short doc helps you consider how to structure, frame and be in an interview: Strategies for Qualitative Interviews (fra
  7. Robards, B., & Lincoln, S. (2017). Uncovering longitudinal life narratives: scrolling back on Facebook. Qualitative Research, 17(6), 715–730. Retrieved at
  8. Chadwick, A. (2013). The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. An Ontology of Hybridity (pp.10-28) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  9. Sandvik, K. (2018). Tværmediel kommunikation. Producent-, bruger- og hverdagsperspektiver. Tværmedial kommunikation i et brugerperspektiv (pp. 85-110), Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
  10. Miller, V. (2008). New Media, Networking and Phatic Culture. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14(4), 387–400. Retrieved at
  11. Møller, K., & Petersen, M. N. (n.d.). Bleeding boundaries: Domesticating gay hook-up apps. In R.
  12. Andreassen, K. Harrison, M. Nebeling, & T. Raun (eds.), New Media – New Intimacies: Connectivities, relationalities, proximities, London: Routledge.
  13. Massanari, Adrienne L. (2015). Participatory Culture, Community and Play; learnings from Reddit (pp.19-65) New York, NY: Peter Lang.
  14. Trammell, M. (2014): User investment and behavior policing on 4chan, First Monday, vol. 19 (2). Retrieved at
  15. Baym, N.K. (2015). Communities and Network. Personal Connections in the Digital Age (pp. 72-91), Cambridge: Polity Press
  16. Gotved, S. (2017). 20 år med Tolkien: Forandrede fællesskaber på nettet. MedieKultur: Journal of media and communication research, vol. 33 (63),130-149.
  17. Warner, M. (2002). Publics and Counterpublics (abbreviated version). Quarterly Journal of Speech, 88(4), 413–425.
  18. Giddens, A. (1984). Elements of the Theory of Structuration in The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (pp. 1-34), Cambridge, Polity Press. Chapter 1,
  19. Gerlitz, C., & Helmond, A. (2013). The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media & Society, 15(8),1348-1365
  20. Kammer, K. (upubliceret manuskript). Resource Exchanges and Data Flows between News Apps and Third Party Actors.

Prototyping interactive technologies

Figma Tutorials :

Whimsical: “Getting Started” guide forefindes når man logger ind på sin Whimsical konto

Pagedraw: Pagedraw intro (The Pagedraw site):​


Phonegap getting started (The Phonegap site) :

PhoneGap Developer App (The Phonegap site) :


Thinking in React  (The ReactJS site) :


Hello World,(Afsnittene 1-6) (The ReactJS site):

Tutorial: Intro to React, (til og med Overview afsnit)  (The ReactJS site):

Components and Props (Afsnittene 4,5,6 og 10) (The ReactJS site):

Articles & Blogs

  1. Marion Buchenau and Jane Fulton Suri. 2000. Experience prototyping. In Proceedings of DIS ’00, Daniel Boyarski and Wendy A. Kellogg (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 424-433
  2. Keith Cheverst, Keith Mitchell, and Nigel Davies. 2002. Exploring Context-aware Information Push. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 6, 4 (January 2002), 276-281.
  3. Elizabeth F Churchill, Rochelle King, Caitlin Tan. Introducing  a data mindset,  in Designing with data, O’Reilly Media inc. Apr.2017,  pp.33-46
  4. Constantinos K. Coursaris, Dan J. Kim. A Meta-Analytical Review of Empirical Mobile Usability Studies. Journal of usability studies . vol.6, Issue 3, May 2011, pp.117-171
  5. Nir Eyal: How to build habit-forming products. Penguin Books Ltd, June 2014, pp.5-26
  6. Denzil Ferreira, Jorge Goncalves, Vassilis Kostakos, Louise Barkhuus, and Anind K. Dey. 2014. Contextual experience sampling of mobile application micro-usage. In Proceedings of MobileHCI ’14. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 91-100.
  7. Maia Jacobs, Henriette Cramer, and Louise Barkhuus. 2016. Caring About Sharing: Couples’ Practices in Single User Device Access. In Proceedings of GROUP ’16. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp.235-243.
  8. Ron Miller. Pagedraw UI builder turns your website design mockup into code automatically. (The Techcrunch Feb. 2018):
  9. Sadie Plant. On the Mobile, the effects of mobile technologies on social and individual life, Motorola, Chicago, 2001
  10. Alex S. Taylor and Richard Harper. 2002. Age-old practices in the ‘new world’: a study of gift-giving between teenage mobile phone users. In Proceedings of CHI ’02. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp.439-446.

The Design Interaction Design Foundation’ 

Design Thinking  :

Mobile User Experience (UX) :

Native vs Hybrid vs Responsive: What app flavour is best for you ?