Bringing Design Patterns to Life: Applying Christopher Alexander’s Theory of Living Structure in HCI

AbstractAs digital technologies increasingly impact humanity, human–computer interaction (HCI) researchers and designers must find ways to create digital experiences that help us feel whole, affirm our lives, and encourage us to care for each other and our planet. The theory of living structure developed by Christopher Alexander is highly relevant to this end. Living structures are those that stir up feelings of wholeness, inspiration and comfort. Alexander’s theory, which he refined empirically with a research team over six decades, demonstrates how to identify, evaluate and generate living structure. This article illustrates how Alexander’s theory of living structure can be applied to digital design. The theory supports and furthers several threads of concern in HCI, including calm technology, value sensitive design, aesthetic interaction, and humanity-centered design. While Alexander is best known for originating the concept of design patterns, his theory of living structure may prove to be a much stronger compass for designing a favorable digital future.Keywords: Christopher Alexanderwholenessliving structuredesign patternslight patternshumanity-centered design AcknowledgementsMany thanks to the anonymous reviewers of previous drafts of this manuscript. Two reviewers in particular—I wish I could thank you by name—offered extensive, constructive comments that vastly improved this work.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 See also the work of the Hillside Group (https://hillside.net) particularly the numerous conference series they sponsor, such as Pattern Languages of Programs (PLoP).2 In this article, I refer to “theory of living structure” to identify Alexander’s eventual theory. Others have also used the terms “theory of wholeness” and “theory of centers.” Throughout The Nature of Order, Alexander uses all these terms interchangeably. Other relevant terms include “unfolding,” “the differentiation process,” and “structure-preserving transformation.”3 Moral philosophers also make this distinction between “thick” and “thin” moral concepts (Väyrynen, Citation2021). Thin concepts are high-level generalizations, while thick concepts are rich and concrete. For example, respecting one’s elders is a thin moral concept; this manifests as distinct thick moral concepts in different cultures and time periods.4 Though third-wave HCI emerged around the turn of the millennium, some writers even in the earliest days of computing raised moral issues; for instance, Norbert Wiener emphasized that sociotechnical systems should embody virtues such as justice (Wiener, Citation1948, Citation1950).5 Of note also is Raskin’s use of the term “humane interface” (Raskin, Citation2000).6 Alexander stresses that the number fifteen is not important—a few may be debatably combined or split—only the order of magnitude (Alexander, Citation2002a).7 See https://live-social-patterns.pantheonsite.io and https://www.prosocialdesign.org/.8 See https://www.buildingbeauty.org/beautiful-software.Additional informationNotes on contributorsTim GorichanazTim Gorichanaz is an Assistant Teaching Professor in the College of Computing & Informatics at Drexel University, where he teaches and conducts research in human–computer interaction, philosophy of information and information behavior. His current research is exploring the connections between virtue ethics and digital design.