Semiotic Design and Evaluation Framework - Cross-Cultural Human-Computer Interaction and User Experience Design - page 35

We base our interaction games on the language game theory first introduced by
Wittgenstein (1986). Here, we shall follow their application to interaction and com-
munication design by Andersen, as follows.
A language game can only be identified by the results the actions have in a given
situation. A language game is a closed unit of interaction in the sense that when the last
word has been said, nobody is required to continue the line of argument, since the goal
has been reached or abandoned. A language game consists of sequences of verbal acts
that mutually presuppose each other, and form a well-defined unit in relation to other
acts, since they can be subsumed under the same purpose. (Holmqvist, 1986, p. 22; cited
from Andersen, 1997, pp. 347-8; see also Wittgenstein, 1986)
On the other hand, “[v]irtually any meaningful sentence should be eligible for
expression upon termination of another sentence” (Foley and Wallace, 1974, p. 465).
The interaction game (or simply “interaction”) begins, when the user encounters
the UI and needs to figure out which tasks to perform in order to achieve his or her
goal. An objective might be to print out a specific document. The tasks (actions) to
accomplish the goal are the following: searching for the document, opening it, and
printing it. The end of the interaction game comes when the user evaluates the results
and doesn't need to perform any other action to achieve his or her goal.
As we can see, the interaction game is closely tied to the user's interpretation of his
or her actions. Transformed for the ends of UI interaction, we are (a) encountering a
setting, (b) performing an action, and (c) seeing a result. This sequence accords with
Norman's seven stages of action (Norman, 1986):
1. Forming the goal
2. Forming the intention
— Gulf of execution —
3. Specifying an action
4. Executing the action
5. Perceiving the state of the world
6. Interpreting the state of the world
— Gulf of evaluation —
7. Evaluating the outcome
(Norman, 1986, p. 47)
During the user interaction we can thus distinguish several phases. Here, we can
build upon the thought, that “[w]e expect to have a beginning, a middle, and an end”
(Laurel, 1993, p. xiii). This expectation is based on the drama tradition since Aristotle,
who sets the following structure. The plot must be a whole, complete action. Such
action is “that which has beginning, middle, and end. A beginning is that which is not
itself necessarily after anything else, and which has naturally something else after it;
an end is that which is naturally after something itself, either as its necessary or usual
consequent, and with nothing else after it, and a middle, that which is by nature after
one thing and has also another after it” (Barnes, 1984, p. 2321).
The interaction phases work both on the interaction sentence level and on the
interaction game level. As such, the phases form a recurring pattern that is present in
every interaction. More patterns are discussed in Section 3.1.5, “Patterns.”