Biography The Wrong Trousers Pdf


Sunday, December 29, 2019

The Wrong Trousers - Download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online. - Download as PDF File .pdf) or read online. DOWNLOAD OR READ: WALLACE AND GROMIT IN THE WRONG TROUSERS PDF EBOOK EPUB MOBI. Page 1. Page 2. Page 2. Page 3. wallace and gromit.

The Wrong Trousers Pdf

Language:English, Spanish, French
Genre:Academic & Education
Published (Last):13.12.2015
ePub File Size:15.88 MB
PDF File Size:10.79 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Uploaded by: ARDELLA

The Wrong Trousers: Radically Rethinking Climate Policy is a Joint .. less, http:// / DOWNLOAD OR READ: WALLACE GROMIT IN THE WRONG TROUSERS A GRAPHIC NOVEL PDF EBOOK EPUB. MOBI. Page 1. The wrong trousers. 1. THE WRONG TROUSERS; 4. CRACKING! 5. Gromit is having breakfast. He is pouring a cup of tea. 8. SUPER!.

Gromit is reading the newspaper. Gromit is opening his present from Wallace. What is it? It is a collar and a lead. Gromit is not very happy. Gromit is afraid! There is another present for Gromit. Great for walkies! Gromit is in the park.

He is playing on a slide. Gromit is sitting in the living room. He is knitting.

The penguin is looking at Gromit. Gromit is looking at the penguin. Oh dear! He is sitting on the bed. Gromit is in the techno-trousers. He is reading the instruction book. Gromit is going up the wall. He is going to paint the ceiling.

The penguin is looking at the techno-trousers.

More From Emilio Castro

He is thinking. Poor Gromit! The music is very loud. Gromit is angry. Now Gromit is outside. But he can hear the music outside too. Gromit is waiting. The penguin is in the bathroom.

The penguin is bringing Wallace his slippers. Thank you very much, penguin. Gromit is not happy. He is putting his things in a handkerchief. Gromit is leaving home. The penguin has got a drill and a book. What is he doing?

These are the wrong trousers! Stop them, Gromit! Have you seen this chicken?

You just clipped your first slide! Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later. Now customize the name of a clipboard to store your clips. Such learning by doing provides a potentially very important source of information on the effective use of a technology.

By giving suppliers access to what users have learnt about their products and what deficiencies and potentialities they have discovered, it could provide invaluable information for subsequent product innovation.

It has been further noted that this information is often not systematically collected and used — perhaps because of the strength of the rhetorics of technology supply on the grounds that, if a new product already fulfils user requirements as claimed, what need is there to examine the problems that may arise in its implementation and use. This underlines the importance of the linkages between users and producers that can act as a vehicle for this kind of knowledge exchange.

To innovate successfully, producers may depend critically on information from users, and vice versa. We can further distinguish two related social learning processes by which users contribute to technology development and use: innofusion and domestication.

Innofusion refers to the "processes of technological design, trial and exploration, in which user needs and requirements are discovered and incorporated in the course of the struggle to get the technology to work in useful ways, at the point of application This often involves innovation by the consumer: using artefacts in ways not anticipated by the designer Berg These two facets of social learning over technology — innofusion and domestication — are not separate.

However these concepts were coined separately and for differing purposes. The social learning framework combines these to achieve an integrated perspective — and one that addresses innovation over different phases of the cycle of product development and use and in different sites.

A social learning perspective on design The social learning perspective on design thus locates design within a broader context. Episodes of design are not viewed as snapshots in isolation - temporally from what precedes and followed it, or socially from its broader context - but are seen as moments of innovation across multiple cycles of design, implementation, 8 consumption and further enhancement and dispersed across a wide range of players; sites; phases.

We have elaborated and tested this framework through a series of case-studies of digital experiments and trials, conducted under the EC Social Learning in Multimedia SLIM project - an eight country study funded by the European Commission.

The SLIM case-studies unusually sought to encompass the design, implementation and consumption of new multimedia systems across a range of contexts — commercial, education, public administration, community information and everyday life.

This work has highlighted the pertinence of the social learning framework to understanding technology design. A schema has been developed for understanding innovation in ICT applications.

As this portrays a rather different view than received models, it is helpful to briefly outline some of the salient points. ICT applications as configurational technology Social shaping of technology research has produced a number of important insights into the form of technology particularly in respect of ICT applications , the process of innovation and the opportunities for influence by various players.

It reveals that today, ICT development virtually never takes the form of ab initio design of complete systems as is tacitly presumed by the design-centred account. Design of configurational technologies is most immediately about the appropriate selection and artful combination of the array of standard components as well as the creation of customised components.

The user can exert considerable choice over the final configuration. What is critical in terms of this current discussion is that the 9 development of configurational technology is a model in which technology design and implementation are closely coupled. This is particularly marked when we are dealing with ICT applications in complex organisational and cultural contexts. In other words, supplier offerings are inevitably unfinished; work must be done to adapt them to the technical and social contexts of use.

This is a process of mutual shaping in which, on the one hand, the artefact may be reworked to meet specific user exigencies, while on the other, the artefact, in being incorporated within local systems of practice and meaning, may open up new ways of doing things. The social learning perspective seeks to capture these inter- twining innofusion and domestication processes in the implementation and use of technologies as well as the possibility of drawing lessons for future technological supply.

Design as specific or generic For example we need to bear in mind that artefactual design is inevitably generic to some degree in relation to specific users. Since not all users can be directly involved in design — selected users must inevitably to some extent stand proxy for their peers and for future potential users. Indeed successful system design depends on an ability not just to capture the specificities of the user context, but also to translate these into a form in which they can be more widely used.


Whilst the design fallacy conceives the improvement of design in terms of building-in ever more knowledge about users into the artefact, there are also risks in trying to prefigure too closely the user and their purposes; in seeking to foreclose user choice around the expressed preferences of particular sets of users.

There are issues around the building of representations of the user. Moreover, design is subject to a number of contradictory paradoxes — between making a solution specific and generic; between aligning with and moving beyond current practices and models.

These factors may mandate in favour of adopting more generic design approaches. We thus see strategies to build upon successful specific applications, but to design out from the artefact reference to its specific contexts of origination and use which might limit its future use and market - or more precisely to 're-design' and re- present the artefact to make it more generic and open it up to broader markets.

Designers may need to balance between building solutions that are very tightly configured around particular local requirements — which may for example act as a barrier to utility and use in other contexts — and keeping the system more flexible. Despite the rhetorics of the accountability of design to the user, designers and developers may only have a limited understanding of, or concern about actual users. In the case of novel mass-market products, there may be no existing users to refer to.

Whilst the preferences of users may be assessed through panels and trials with selected proxy users, the product will be developed and promoted around rather different sets of categories and knowledges from, for example, market research e.

There are important trade-offs between making artefacts unique versus standardised. For example, the cost and other benefits of re-using software 'code' generates a trade-off in software acquisition strategies between the increased utility to the particular user and higher cost of solutions custom-built around their particular requirements and cheaper generic solutions which may match their requirements less exactly Fincham et al , Brady et al.

Suppliers may seek to adapt applications developed in one context to sell them on as niche or generic solutions, securing additional returns on their development effort. Users may choose to adapt to the constraints of cheaper packaged software for a variety of reasons. The attractiveness of standardised offerings is further increased by the possibility of combining them with customised elements into configurational technology solutions. This is further assisted by conscious attempts to design such component technologies to be readily linked together and customised.

Design as an hypothesis about the user This perspective involves a shift away from the idea of the supplied artefact as a finished solution for particular users.

Instead, we took the broad view that artefactual design embodies something of an hypothesis about the user Lobet-Maris and van Bastelaar In this sense, digital experiments and trials can be seen as providing an opportunity to test these hypotheses. The SLIM investigations however have shown, across a range of case-studies, that in the design and development process for multimedia products and services, these hypotheses about the user and use often remain implicit and under-specified.

The presumptions made about the user typically remain largely unstated and are often poorly elaborated. These presumptions are then tested — for example under simulated or actual conditions of use.

We return to this in the following section when discussing how an effective representation of the user is achieved. Representation of the user - revisited Our critique of the main tradition of analysis of design highlighted the difficulties in generating an adequate model, or representation Vedel , of the user and user requirements.

However a richer understanding of the representation process is perhaps called for. Representation relates to a number of different elements. For example, Nicoll's contextual usability model conceives the usability of technology as a complex of interdependent elements within a particular context, including usefulness, the development of usage patterns, and the particular social and cognitive exigencies of situated use.

Vedel identifies a range of mechanisms through which developers seek to configure the user — including, for example, advertisements, directions for use and technical guides — as well as technical design. Developing these ideas, Lobet-Maris and van Bastelaer identify the different elements of the artefacts through which the user may be configured in the design of Digital Cities : 1.

The interface, and in particular, the way information is presented in the interface e. The language and terminology used in the interface 3. Services offered — the types of information 4. Rules allowing or forbidding particular behaviours 5.

Access possibilities — e. Training However design is not a one-off act, but is part of an iterative series of activities, informed by earlier design practice and feedback from the appropriation and use of other systems earlier technologies in this application domain; similar technologies in related domains. Figure 1 shows schematically the various moments involved in a particular cycle of development, and the relationships between them. Figure 2 Resources for building representations of the user from Williams, Stewart and Slack Figure 2 illustrates a number of points.

First, in a context in which information about potential users is typically incomplete or of uncertain reliability, players may be obliged to 'knit together' different kinds of knowledge from diverse sources with different evidential status and with different degrees of gearing to 'actual' users. Second, there may be relatively little empirically grounded information about existing users. Many studies have drawn attention to the crude and limited ways in which technology suppliers have sought to understand the requirements of potential users Cawson et al In the absence of direct knowledge of users, there may be resort to more or less well-justified indirect constructions of the user - for example by extrapolating from similar technology applications.

Constructions of the user, created by 'experts' e.

Viney Peter, Viney Karen. Wallace and Gromit: The Wrong Trousers Student's book

Expert constructions may be informed not only by rigorous evidence and pertinent experience but also by visions of technology and narratives myths? Developers do not work in a vacuum - but may be influenced here by popular opinion, media views and in particular by the behaviour of peers and competitors - which may be reflected in clustering of supplier offerings or the mutual reinforcement of supplier visions and presumptions.

These kinds of alignment of expert views, and consequent mission- 14 blindness, have been identified as the root of a number of high-profile and expensive failures of ICT systems Collingridge However it would be misleading to see the application of formal techniques for as obviating the uncertainties surrounding users and their requirements.

We would like to carry this argument further. Our third point is that all the forms of information about future users carry their own uncertainties and difficulties. For example the most systematic empirical information available about user choices and preferences as revealed, for example, in aggregate form through market behaviour is likely to exist only in relation to established products even then, user preferences may change over time as some elements become seen as essential features in a particular product market for example in the way that every mobile phone sold today includes the relatively recent SMS innovation.

In contrast, where products are changing, expert views are liable to be rooted in prior experiences in other related markets. The question arises as to how far one can extrapolate from such information. The problem perceived in relation to 'radical innovations' is that knowledge about the users and uses of existing applications may not provide a reliable guide to the novel application. There is inevitably a metaphorical leap. Empirically grounded information about users of a new product may be sought through a variety of methods: though the direct involvement of proxy users in panels, through market research surveys and trials Akrich However, various difficulties arise regarding the interpretation of such direct information about potential and ultimate actual users.

For example user panels need to be introduced to new technologies and given some training in their use - their selection and training however mean that they are in some ways no longer independent and representative of wider publics. Since in most organisational settings, not all current users can be involved, user involvement directly in design or in panels and trials is inevitably based on an incomplete sample of existing users let alone future, as yet unknown, users , which throws up a set of further uncertainties and choices.

How should appropriate 'proxy users' be selected? Is their behaviour in the laboratory a good basis for understanding behaviour in everyday life? This may be one of the reasons leading to the development of baroque technologies e. Many of these considerations tended to mandate in favour of live digital experiments and trials - which would allow experimentation around the acceptance and utility of a product in relatively naturalistic settings Nicoll The proliferation of digital experiments and trials over the last decade underpin the potential importance of social learning in the innofusion and domestication of ICT 15 applications - in that it can provide rich sources of more direct and reliable information about 'actual' user responses to supplier offerings though issues arise about how such appropriation experiences can be fed back to generate more robust user representations for future design.

The knowledge base is, of necessity, incomplete and potentially open to challenge. It is, in consequence, necessary to exercise judgement in a context of uncertainty.

The analysis we have presented calls for some rethinking of certain common presumptions about design. For a start we argue for a broad understanding of design, as involving a range of decisions about system design, development and deployment. In parallel with this we move away from a conception of design as an individual cognitive process, embodied in a particular designer, to seeing it as a negotiation process; a collective endeavour involving many players, including for example project managers as well as just design specialists.

Third we stress that design has a number of audiences as well as the projected final users and the organisational user that may have commissioned.

Who does what? – YouTube technique

MacKay et al. Design as a configuration process We would also make a slightly different point, deriving from our analysis of configurational technology see above , that design is a constrained configuration process.

This contrasts with the heroic account of design by seeing the process of design not as an open search,xii but as constrained, enabled and channelled by its insertion in a broader setting and history of prior design choices.

An important feature of many system design processes is thus the creative selection and configuration together of a selection of already existing bundles of knowledge, practices, artefacts, as well as novel elements. Design in this context is revealed as a process of configuration: in the sense of an artful selection and combination of diverse fixed and malleable elements but operating largely within existing repertoires which Whipp [] described as structural repertoires of established problem diagnoses and designed solutions.

Our use of the term configuration draws attention to the application of relatively restricted sets of rules for reconfiguring i.

Смотри также

Indeed a rather similar conception underpins more formalised Structured Systems Design Methodologies. The designers role is thus to receive this specification and to embed it authentically and reliably in the eventual designed system. However this represents a rather restricted, bureaucratic and uncreative view of the role of the designer and the character of design work. For example designers inevitably play an active role I establishing which requirements are prioritised in a context of potentially conflicting requirements of competing demands on limited resources.

Our critique of the conceptualisation of computer-systems design in terms of the Accountability model suggests an alternative model of design as a Creative process, and one that valorises Authorship. This is particularly evident when we consider the design of novel applications especially for mass market products where there are no existing users.

When actual design settings are studied for example in the SLIM case-studies , the primary design goals and purposes of a project were not typically induced from user responses, but were instead invoked in the original conception of the project.

The cases varied in the emphasis given to user objectives and uses; in some, there were relatively clear sets of parameters emerging from consideration of user requirements, while in others, the technical potential and its imputed self-evident advantages were more central. We can explore this by examining the analyses that have been advanced of the development of a class of community information systems known as Digital Cities. Lobet-Maris and van Bastelaer argue that failure in some Digital City projects to focus upon specific user groups resulted in technical criteria prevailing over design decisions.

In contrast it seems that those design cases in which a clear and determined attempt was made to transform existing gendered presumptions, designers found it helpful to conjure up stereotypical representations of users — not with any implication that these were actual representations of particular groups of actors, but as self- consciously stylised archetypes — as tools for rethinking design presumptions.Why not share!

Show related SlideShares at end. Moreover, design is subject to a number of contradictory paradoxes — between making a solution specific and generic; between aligning with and moving beyond current practices and models.

Unfortunately, as they argue, this sub-optimal approach has developed an iconic status of its own, so that in many minds to be against Kyoto is tantamount to being against any form of action on climate.

Upcoming SlideShare. What is critical in terms of this current discussion is that the 9 development of configurational technology is a model in which technology design and implementation are closely coupled.

This work has highlighted the pertinence of the social learning framework to understanding technology design. Developing these ideas, Lobet-Maris and van Bastelaer identify the different elements of the artefacts through which the user may be configured in the design of Digital Cities : 1.