2nd Workshop on Evaluating Child Robot Interaction

Many researchers have started to explore natural interaction scenarios for children. No matter if these children are normally developing or have special needs, evaluating Child-Robot Interaction (CRI) is a challenge. To find methods that work well and provide reliable data is difficult, for example because commonly used methods such as questionnaires donot work well particularly with younger children. Previous research has shown that children need support in expressing how they feel about technology. Given this, researchers often choose time-consuming behavioral measures from observations to evaluate CRI. However, these are not necessarily comparable between studies and robots. This workshop aims to bring together researchers from differentdisciplines to share their experiences on these aspects. The main topics are methods to evaluate child-robot interaction design, methods to evaluate socially assistive child-robot interaction and multi-modal evaluation of child-robot interaction. Connected questions that we would like to tackle are for example: i) What are reliable metrics in CRI' ii) How can we overcome the pitfalls of survey methods in CRI' iii) How can we integrate qualitative approaches in CRI' iv) What are the best practices for in the wild studies with children? Looking across disciplinary boundaries, we want to discuss advantages and short-comings of using different evaluation methods in order to compile guidelines for future CRI research. This workshop is the second in a series that started at the International Conference on Social Robotics in 2015

MIE 2017: 1st international workshop on multimodal interaction for education (workshop summary)

The International Workshop on Multimodal Interaction for Education aims at investigating how multimodal interactive systems, firmly grounded on psychophysical, psychological, and pedagogical bases, can be designed, developed, and exploited for enhancing teaching and learning processes in different learning environments, with a special focus on children in the classroom. Whilst the usage of multisensory technologies in the education area is rapidly expanding, the need for solid scientific bases, design guidelines, and appropriate procedures for evaluation is emerging. Moreover, the introduction of multimodal interactive systems in the learning environment needs to develop at the same time suitable pedagogical paradigms. This workshop aims at bringing together researchers and practitioners from different disciplines, including pedagogy, psychology, psychophysics, and computer science - with a particular focus on human-computer interaction, affective computing, and social signal processing - to discuss such challenges under a multidisciplinary perspective. The workshop is partially supported by the EU-H2020-ICT Project weDRAW (http://www.wedraw.eu)

Interactive spaces for children: gesture elicitation for controlling ground mini-robots

[EN] Interactive spaces for education are emerging as a mechanism for fostering children's natural ways of learning by means of play and exploration in physical spaces. The advanced interactive modalities and devices for such environments need to be both motivating and intuitive for children. Among the wide variety of interactive mechanisms, robots have been a popular research topic in the context of educational tools due to their attractiveness for children. However, few studies have focused on how children would naturally interact and explore interactive environments with robots. While there is abundant research on full-body interaction and intuitive manipulation of robots by adults, no similar research has been done with children. This paper therefore describes a gesture elicitation study that identified the preferred gestures and body language communication used by children to control ground robots. The results of the elicitation study were used to define a gestural language that covers the different preferences of the gestures by age group and gender, with a good acceptance rate in the 6-12 age range. The study also revealed interactive spaces with robots using body gestures as motivating and promising scenarios for collaborative or remote learning activities.This work is funded by the European Development Regional Fund (EDRF-FEDER) and supported by the Spanish MINECO (TIN2014-60077-R). The work of Patricia Pons is supported by a national grant from the Spanish MECD (FPU13/03831). Special thanks are due to the children and teachers of the Col-legi Public Vicente Gaos for their valuable collaboration and dedication.Pons Tomás, P.; Jaén Martínez, FJ. (2020). Interactive spaces for children: gesture elicitation for controlling ground mini-robots. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing. 11(6):2467-2488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01290-6S24672488116Alborzi H, Hammer J, Kruskal A et al (2000) Designing StoryRooms: interactive storytelling spaces for children. In: Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems processes, practices, methods, and techniques—DIS’00. ACM Press, New York, pp 95–104Antle AN, Corness G, Droumeva M (2009) What the body knows: exploring the benefits of embodied metaphors in hybrid physical digital environments. Interact Comput 21:66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2008.10.005Belpaeme T, Baxter PE, Read R et al (2013) Multimodal child–robot interaction: building social bonds. J Human-Robot Interact 1:33–53. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.1.2.BelpaemeBenko H, Wilson AD, Zannier F, Benko H (2014) Dyadic projected spatial augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology—UIST’14, pp 645–655Bobick AF, Intille SS, Davis JW et al (1999) The KidsRoom: a perceptually-based interactive and immersive story environment. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 8:367–391. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474699566297Bonarini A, Clasadonte F, Garzotto F, Gelsomini M (2015) Blending robots and full-body interaction with large screens for children with intellectual disability. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 351–354Cauchard JR, E JL, Zhai KY, Landay JA (2015) Drone & me: an exploration into natural human–drone interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing—UbiComp’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 361–365Connell S, Kuo P-Y, Liu L, Piper AM (2013) A Wizard-of-Oz elicitation study examining child-defined gestures with a whole-body interface. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’13. ACM Press, New York, pp 277–280Derboven J, Van Mechelen M, Slegers K (2015) Multimodal analysis in participatory design with children. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 2825–2828Dong H, Danesh A, Figueroa N, El Saddik A (2015) An elicitation study on gesture preferences and memorability toward a practical hand-gesture vocabulary for smart televisions. IEEE Access 3:543–555. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2015.2432679Druin A (1999) Cooperative inquiry: developing new technologies for children with children. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors computer system CHI is limit—CHI’99, vol 14, pp 592–599. https://doi.org/10.1145/302979.303166Druin A (2002) The role of children in the design of new technology. Behav Inf Technol 21:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290110108659Druin A, Bederson B, Boltman A et al (1999) Children as our technology design partners. In: Druin A (ed) The design of children’s technology. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, pp 51–72Epps J, Lichman S, Wu M (2006) A study of hand shape use in tabletop gesture interaction. CHI’06 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems—CHI EA’06. ACM Press, New York, pp 748–753Fender AR, Benko H, Wilson A (2017) MeetAlive : room-scale omni-directional display system for multi-user content and control sharing. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM international conference on interactive surfaces and spaces, pp 106–115Fernandez RAS, Sanchez-Lopez JL, Sampedro C et al (2016) Natural user interfaces for human–drone multi-modal interaction. In: 2016 international conference on unmanned aircraft systems (ICUAS). IEEE, New York, pp 1013–1022Garcia-Sanjuan F, Jaen J, Nacher V, Catala A (2015) Design and evaluation of a tangible-mediated robot for kindergarten instruction. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on advances in computer entertainment technology—ACE’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–11Garcia-Sanjuan F, Jaen J, Jurdi S (2016) Towards encouraging communication in hospitalized children through multi-tablet activities. In: Proceedings of the XVII international conference on human computer interaction, pp 29.1–29.4Gindling J, Ioannidou A, Loh J et al (1995) LEGOsheets: a rule-based programming, simulation and manipulation environment for the LEGO programmable brick. In: Proceedings of symposium on visual languages. IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, pp 172–179Gonzalez B, Borland J, Geraghty K (2009) Whole body interaction for child-centered multimodal language learning. In: Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on child, computer and interaction—WOCCI’09. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–5Grønbæk K, Iversen OS, Kortbek KJ et al (2007) Interactive floor support for kinesthetic interaction in children learning environments. In: Human–computer interaction—INTERACT 2007. Lecture notes in computer science, pp 361–375Guha ML, Druin A, Chipman G et al (2005) Working with young children as technology design partners. Commun ACM 48:39–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/1039539.1039567Hansen JP, Alapetite A, MacKenzie IS, Møllenbach E (2014) The use of gaze to control drones. In: Proceedings of the symposium on eye tracking research and applications—ETRA’14. ACM Press, New York, pp 27–34Henkemans OAB, Bierman BPB, Janssen J et al (2017) Design and evaluation of a personal robot playing a self-management education game with children with diabetes type 1. Int J Hum Comput Stud 106:63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.06.001Horn MS, Crouser RJ, Bers MU (2011) Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a hybrid approach. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 16:379–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0404-2Hourcade JP (2015) Child computer interaction. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, North CharlestonHöysniemi J, Hämäläinen P, Turkki L (2004) Wizard of Oz prototyping of computer vision based action games for children. Proceeding of the 2004 conference on interaction design and children building a community—IDC’04. ACM Press, New York, pp 27–34Höysniemi J, Hämäläinen P, Turkki L, Rouvi T (2005) Children’s intuitive gestures in vision-based action games. Commun ACM 48:44–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/1039539.1039568Hsiao H-S, Chen J-C (2016) Using a gesture interactive game-based learning approach to improve preschool children’s learning performance and motor skills. Comput Educ 95:151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.005Jokela T, Rezaei PP, Väänänen K (2016) Using elicitation studies to generate collocated interaction methods. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on human–computer interaction with mobile devices and services adjunct, pp 1129–1133. https://doi.org/10.1145/2957265.2962654Jones B, Benko H, Ofek E, Wilson AD (2013) IllumiRoom: peripheral projected illusions for interactive experiences. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’13, pp 869–878Jones B, Shapira L, Sodhi R et al (2014) RoomAlive: magical experiences enabled by scalable, adaptive projector-camera units. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology—UIST’14, pp 637–644Kaminski M, Pellino T, Wish J (2002) Play and pets: the physical and emotional impact of child-life and pet therapy on hospitalized children. Child Heal Care 31:321–335. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326888CHC3104_5Karam M, Schraefel MC (2005) A taxonomy of gestures in human computer interactions. In: Technical report in electronics and computer science, pp 1–45Kistler F, André E (2013) User-defined body gestures for an interactive storytelling scenario. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinform) 8118:264–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40480-1_17Konda KR, Königs A, Schulz H, Schulz D (2012) Real time interaction with mobile robots using hand gestures. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI’12. ACM Press, New York, pp 177–178Kray C, Nesbitt D, Dawson J, Rohs M (2010) User-defined gestures for connecting mobile phones, public displays, and tabletops. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices and services—MobileHCI’10. ACM Press, New York, pp 239–248Kurdyukova E, Redlin M, André E (2012) Studying user-defined iPad gestures for interaction in multi-display environment. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on intelligent user interfaces—IUI’12. ACM Press, New York, pp 93–96Lambert V, Coad J, Hicks P, Glacken M (2014) Social spaces for young children in hospital. Child Care Health Dev 40:195–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12016Lee S-S, Chae J, Kim H et al (2013) Towards more natural digital content manipulation via user freehand gestural interaction in a living room. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing—UbiComp’13. ACM Press, New York, p 617Malinverni L, Mora-Guiard J, Pares N (2016) Towards methods for evaluating and communicating participatory design: a multimodal approach. Int J Hum Comput Stud 94:53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.03.004Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat 18:50–60. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730491Marco J, Cerezo E, Baldassarri S et al (2009) Bringing tabletop technologies to kindergarten children. In: Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI Group annual conference on people and computers: celebrating people and technology, pp 103–111Michaud F, Caron S (2002) Roball, the rolling robot. Auton Robots 12:211–222. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014005728519Micire M, Desai M, Courtemanche A et al (2009) Analysis of natural gestures for controlling robot teams on multi-touch tabletop surfaces. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces—ITS’09. ACM Press, New York, pp 41–48Mora-Guiard J, Crowell C, Pares N, Heaton P (2016) Lands of fog: helping children with autism in social interaction through a full-body interactive experience. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’16. ACM Press, New York, pp 262–274Morris MR (2012) Web on the wall: insights from a multimodal interaction elicitation study. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces. ACM Press, New York, pp 95–104Morris MR, Wobbrock JO, Wilson AD (2010) Understanding users’ preferences for surface gestures. Proc Graph Interface 2010:261–268Nacher V, Garcia-Sanjuan F, Jaen J (2016) Evaluating the usability of a tangible-mediated robot for kindergarten children instruction. In: 2016 IEEE 16th international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT). IEEE, New York, pp 130–132Nahapetyan VE, Khachumov VM (2015) Gesture recognition in the problem of contactless control of an unmanned aerial vehicle. Optoelectron Instrum Data Process 51:192–197. https://doi.org/10.3103/S8756699015020132Obaid M, Häring M, Kistler F et al (2012) User-defined body gestures for navigational control of a humanoid robot. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), pp 367–377Obaid M, Kistler F, Häring M et al (2014) A framework for user-defined body gestures to control a humanoid robot. Int J Soc Robot 6:383–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0233-3Obaid M, Kistler F, Kasparavičiūtė G, et al (2016) How would you gesture navigate a drone?: a user-centered approach to control a drone. In: Proceedings of the 20th international academic Mindtrek conference—AcademicMindtrek’16. ACM Press, New York, pp 113–121Pares N, Soler M, Sanjurjo À et al (2005) Promotion of creative activity in children with severe autism through visuals in an interactive multisensory environment. In: Proceeding of the 2005 conference on interaction design and children—IDC’05. ACM Press, New York, pp 110–116Pfeil K, Koh SL, LaViola J (2013) Exploring 3D gesture metaphors for interaction with unmanned aerial vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on intelligent user interfaces—IUI’13, pp 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1145/2449396.2449429Piaget J (1956) The child’s conception of space. Norton, New YorkPiaget J (1973) The child and reality: problems of genetic psychology. Grossman, New YorkPiumsomboon T, Clark A, Billinghurst M, Cockburn A (2013) User-defined gestures for augmented reality. CHI’13 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems—CHI EA’13. ACM Press, New York, pp 955–960Pons P, Carrión A, Jaen J (2018) Remote interspecies interactions: improving humans and animals’ wellbeing through mobile playful spaces. Pervasive Mob Comput. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2018.12.003Puranam MB (2005) Towards full-body gesture analysis and recognition. University of Kentucky, LexingtonPyryeskin D, Hancock M, Hoey J (2012) Comparing elicited gestures to designer-created gestures for selection above a multitouch surface. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces—ITS’12. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–10Raffle HS, Parkes AJ, Ishii H (2004) Topobo: a constructive assembly system with kinetic memory. System 6:647–654. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985774Read JC, Markopoulos P (2013) Child–computer interaction. Int J Child-Comput Interact 1:2–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2012.09.001Read JC, Macfarlane S, Casey C (2002) Endurability, engagement and expectations: measuring children’s fun. In: Interaction design and children, pp 189–198Read JC, Markopoulos P, Parés N et al (2008) Child computer interaction. In: Proceeding of the 26th annual CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems—CHI’08. ACM Press, New York, pp 2419–2422Robins B, Dautenhahn K (2014) Tactile interactions with a humanoid robot: novel play scenario implementations with children with autism. Int J Soc Robot 6:397–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0228-0Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R, Nehaniv CL (2008) Behaviour delay and robot expressiveness in child–robot interactions: a user study on interaction kinesics. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACMIEEE international conference on human robot interaction, pp 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349826Ruiz J, Li Y, Lank E (2011) User-defined motion gestures for mobile interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’11. ACM Press, New York, p 197Rust K, Malu M, Anthony L, Findlater L (2014) Understanding childdefined gestures and children’s mental models for touchscreen tabletop interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on interaction design and children—IDC’14. ACM Press, New York, pp 201–204Salter T, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R (2006) Learning about natural human-robot interaction styles. Robot Auton Syst 54:127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2005.09.022Sanghvi J, Castellano G, Leite I et al (2011) Automatic analysis of affective postures and body motion to detect engagement with a game companion. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI’11. ACM Press, New York, pp 305–311Sanna A, Lamberti F, Paravati G, Manuri F (2013) A Kinect-based natural interface for quadrotor control. Entertain Comput 4:179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2013.01.001Sato E, Yamaguchi T, Harashima F (2007) Natural interface using pointing behavior for human–robot gestural interaction. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 54:1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2007.892728Schaper M-M, Pares N (2016) Making sense of body and space through full-body interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’16. ACM Press, New York, pp 613–618Schaper M-M, Malinverni L, Pares N (2015) Sketching through the body: child-generated gestures in full-body interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 255–258Seyed T, Burns C, Costa Sousa M et al (2012) Eliciting usable gestures for multi-display environments. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces—ITS’12. ACM Press, New York, p 41Shimon SSA, Morrison-Smith S, John N et al (2015) Exploring user-defined back-of-device gestures for mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on human–computer interaction with mobile devices and services—MobileHCI’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 227–232Sipitakiat A, Nusen N (2012) Robo-blocks: a tangible programming system with debugging for children. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’12. ACM Press, New York, p 98Soler-Adillon J, Ferrer J, Pares N (2009) A novel approach to interactive playgrounds: the interactive slide project. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’09. ACM Press, New York, pp 131–139Stiefelhagen R, Fogen C, Gieselmann P et al (2004) Natural human–robot interaction using speech, head pose and gestures. In: 2004 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37566). IEEE, New York, pp 2422–2427Subrahmanyam K, Greenfield PM (1994) Effect of video game practice on spatial skills in girls and boys. J Appl Dev Psychol 15:13–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(94)90004-3Sugiyama J, Tsetserukou D, Miura J (2011) NAVIgoid: robot navigation with haptic vision. In: SIGGRAPH Asia 2011 emerging technologies SA’11, vol 15, p 4503. https://doi.org/10.1145/2073370.2073378Takahashi T, Morita M, Tanaka F (2012) Evaluation of a tricycle-style teleoperational interface for children: a comparative experiment with a video game controller. In: 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: the 21st IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, New York, pp 334–338Tanaka F, Takahashi T (2012) A tricycle-style teleoperational interface that remotely controls a robot for classroom children. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI’12. ACM Press, New York, pp 255–256Tjaden L, Tong A, Henning P et al (2012) Children’s experiences of dialysis: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Arch Dis Child 97:395–402. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2011-300639Vatavu R-D (2012) User-defined gestures for free-hand TV control. In: Proceedings of the 10th European conference on interactive TV and video—EuroiTV’12. ACM Press, New York, pp 45–48Vatavu R-D (2017) Smart-Pockets: body-deictic gestures for fast access to personal data during ambient interactions. Int J Hum Comput Stud 103:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.01.005Vatavu R-D, Wobbrock JO (2015) Formalizing agreement analysis for elicitation studies: new measures, significance test, and toolkit. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 1325–1334Vatavu R-D, Wobbrock JO (2016) Between-subjects elicitation studies: formalization and tool support. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’16. ACM Press, New York, pp 3390–3402Voyer D, Voyer S, Bryden MP (1995) Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychol Bull 117:250–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250Wainer J, Robins B, Amirabdollahian F, Dautenhahn K (2014) Using the humanoid robot KASPAR to autonomously play triadic games and facilitate collaborative play among children with autism. IEEE Trans Auton Ment Dev 6:183–199. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAMD.2014.2303116Wang Y, Zhang L (2015) A track-based gesture recognition algorithm for Kinect. Appl Mech Mater 738–7399:334–338. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.738-739.334

Education innovation through material innovation in primary education : the grow-it-yourself workshop

In recent years more STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) topics have been incorporated in mainstream public education. Although the benefits of STEM instruction are broadly recognised in secondary school curricula, STEM topics in primary education are rather limited, leaving a gap in manipulative skills building and in preparation processes for the next school level. This paper reflects on the outcomes of a design workshop attended by 12 primary school students (9 to 12 years old) in Belgium. Mycelium, a fungi-based natural material now used in innovative sustainable applications, served as a means to introduce early learners engineering basics through self-made learning tools. Students grew their own 3-D structures to build a 'Grow-It-Yourself biodegradable playground using mycelium as a primary source. The paper stems from an in-progress research that investigates the opportunities of how mycelium as a material innovation can be used as a medium to create innovation in primary education through a learning-by-design approach. Reflections on the workshop's instructional guidelines are included along with an extension of the call for support for primary school teachers delivering STEM topics in their classes

Philosophy with children : helping designers cooperate with children

Engaging children in design through in-depth interviews is coming to prominence in the IDC community, which increasingly engages with issues about understanding the children's world. To date, research in this area has primarily focused on engaging children using techniques somehow similar to adult-techniques (moodboards, brainstorming, laddering,...). However, questioning or interviewing children is fraught with difficulties. The proposed workshop seeks to explore where and how a philosophy with children methodology can be adapted for design, exploring themes such as Socratic Attitudes, wondering, and question types. This workshop aims to build an interdisciplinary community of researchers, designers, and practitioners to share and discuss their work and experiences

CreaTable Content and Tangible Interaction in Aphasia

Multimedia digital content (combining pictures, text and music) is ubiquitous. The process of creating such content using existing tools typically requires complex, language-laden interactions which pose a challenge for users with aphasia (a language impairment following brain injury). Tangible interactions offer a potential means to address this challenge, however, there has been little work exploring their potential for this purpose. In this paper, we present CreaTable – a platform that enables us to explore tangible interaction as a means of supporting digital content creation for people with aphasia. We report details of the co-design of CreaTable and findings from a digital creativity workshop. Workshop findings indicated that CreaTable enabled people with aphasia to create something they would not otherwise have been able to. We report how users’ aphasia profiles affected their experience, describe tensions in collaborative content creation and provide insight into more accessible content creation using tangibles

Participatory Scenario Generation: Communicating Usability Issues in Product Design through User Involvement in Scenario Generation\ud

Scenarios have proven to be a valuable tool in evaluating and communicating usability issues in consumer product design. Scenarios are explicit descriptions of hypothetical use situations. Realistic scenarios can serve as a valuable frame of reference to evaluate design solutions with regard to usability. To be able to achieve this required level of realism, involving users in scenario generation is essential. In this presentation we discuss how and where users can be involved in a scenario based product design process by means of examples of design projects that were executed by master students Industrial Design Engineering of the University of Twente. \ud \ud We distinguish direct and indirect scenario generation. In direct scenario generation the user is actively involved in a participatory scenario generation session: the scenarios are created together with users. Indirect scenario generation is an approach in which scenarios are created by designers based on common analysis techniques like observations and interviews. These scenarios are then offered to users for confirmation. Both types of user involvement in scenario generation can be aimed at either current use scenarios which describe the current situation or future use scenarios which include a new product design. \ud \ud The examples show that all strategies can be applied successfully to create realistic scenarios. Which strategy to choose depends among others upon risks and privacy issues, occurrence of infrequent events and availability of users. Furthermore, the variety of approaches shows that there is still a lot to explore with regard to benefits and limitations of the many techniques that can be applied in generating scenarios for consumer product design. We hope to contribute to this field by means of the research in our group and the work of students in the SBPD course\u

Face-to-face and online collaboration: appreciating rules and adding complexity

This paper reports how 6-8 year-old children build, play and share video-games in an animated programming environment. Children program their games using rules as creative tools in the construction process. While working both face-to-face and remotely on their games, we describe how they can collaboratively come to explain phenomena arising from programmed or 'system' rules. Focusing on one illustrative case study of two children, we propose two conjectures. First, we claim that in face-to-face collaboration, the children centre their attention on narrative, and address the problem of translating the narrative into system rules which can be =programmed‘ into the computer. This allowed the children to debug any conflicts between system rules in order to maintain the flow of the game narrative. A second conjecture is that over the Internet children were encouraged to add complexity and innovative elements to their games, not by the addition of socially-constructed or 'player' rules but rather through additional system rules which elaborate the mini-formalism in which they engaged. This shift of attention to system rules occurred at the same time, and perhaps as a result of, a loosening of the game narrative that was a consequence of the remoteness of the interaction