  In XAI it is important to consider that, in contrast to explanations for
professional audiences, one cannot assume common expertise when explaining for
laypeople. But such explanations between humans vary greatly, making it
difficult to research commonalities across explanations. We used the dual
nature theory, a techno-philosophical approach, to cope with these challenges.
According to it, one can explain, for example, an XAI's decision by addressing
its dual nature: by focusing on the Architecture (e.g., the logic of its
algorithms) or the Relevance (e.g., the severity of a decision, the
implications of a recommendation). We investigated 20 game explanations using
the theory as an analytical framework. We elaborate how we used the theory to
quickly structure and compare explanations of technological artifacts. We
supplemented results from analyzing the explanation contents with results from
a video recall to explore how explainers justified their explanation. We found
that explainers were focusing on the physical aspects of the game first
(Architecture) and only later on aspects of the Relevance. Reasoning in the
video recalls indicated that EX regarded the focus on the Architecture as
important for structuring the explanation initially by explaining the basic
components before focusing on more complex, intangible aspects. Shifting
between addressing the two sides was justified by explanation goals, emerging
misunderstandings, and the knowledge needs of the explainee. We discovered
several commonalities that inspire future research questions which, if further
generalizable, provide first ideas for the construction of synthetic
explanations.
