Cardboard modeling:exploring, experiencing and communicating

\u3cp\u3eThis chapter presents Cardboard modeling as a tool for design that allows for simultaneous exploration, experiencing, and communication of design proposals. It introduces basic techniques and exercises to build skill and speed in Cardboard modeling and then demonstrates how it can be used as a tool for exploration. It ends with presenting two Cardboard models that were made to give a sense of the fidelity level and type of design that is possible with the technique.\u3c/p\u3

Cardboard modeling studio: a designerly exploration tool for rich and embodied interaction

Central to this studio is the question of how to design for rich and embodied (meaningful) interaction. We approach this question from a designerly perspective and find inspiration in the theory of ecological perception and in the domain of tangible and embodied interaction. As we aim for a meaningful interaction style that is firmly rooted in human experience and the diverse human skills, we present cardboard modeling as a designerly exploration tool that offers experiential insight into the solution domain of a given interaction design challenge. The studio has two distinct parts: part one aims at familiarizing the participants with the cardboard modeling technique and part two emphasizes the use of the cardboard modeling technique as an instrument to explore meaningful interaction. During the second part of the studio also the quality of the interaction solutions are discussed through presentations. The studio runs from 9.30h to approximately 17.00h

Research through design: a camera case study

Information-for-use has become abstracted from human skills during the rise of interactive products. This chapter describes the search for a new interaction paradigm for interactive products, applying a research through design approach. Five conceptual cameras were designed to explore the solution domain for this new paradigm, named rich interaction. One of the proposals was elaborated into a modular, working prototype. The prototype accepts different interface modules to vary the interaction style of the camera from rich to conventional. In an experiment the interaction styles were compared

Research prototypes

\u3cp\u3eBackground Prototyping has become a key research tool in product and interaction design during the last twenty years. There is a growing debate about its processes, objectives, qualities, and types. This paper contributes to this discussion by distinguishing research prototypes from design prototypes and industrial prototypes, and by analyzing debate about research prototypes. Methods The primary method of the paper is theoretical literature review. The paper analyzes literature and its implications to research prototyping. The secondary method of the paper is a case study of a well-known research prototype built by Joep Frens (2006). Results The main result of the paper is a clarification of research prototype and how it differs from design and industrial prototypes. Research prototypes have a connection to a theory rather than practice. Because of that connection, they are theoretical objects that have to be subjected to a study to understand their meaning. Although the methodology for studying prototypes may vary depending on the philosophical background of researchers, this paper argues that it is this embeddedness to theory that is the differentia specifica of research prototypes. Conclusions If the argument of this paper is correct, research prototypes are objects of their own, and have to be understood as such rather than put to the same continuum as design and industrial prototypes.\u3c/p\u3

Presenting the IoT Sandbox: a catalyser of insights

Designing for systems, that is, complex contexts with diverse users, needs and expectations can be a challenging task if there are few or limited ways to explore, experiment, and embed design concepts early in the process. The IoT Sandbox [1] addresses this problem through a physicalization of the to be designed for context at different scales. It allows for physical, tangible and also data access to a simulated environment that support design tasks in-situ. When designing with the IoT Sandbox, we can observe how design teams deal with limitations and, together, explore how emergent behaviors can be emphasized, grown and essentially designed

From movement to mechanism : exploring expressive movement qualities in shape-change

This one-day studio revolves around the exploration of expressive movement qualities in shape-change by means of physical sketching and prototyping. It is a hands-on studio where participants first explore expressive movement qualities and interaction scenarios with a generic shape-changing platform and then abstract the explored movement qualities to model them in detail using cardboard modeling techniques combined with an Arduino controlled actuator (the advanced cardboard modeling platform). We recognize and want to zoom in on the potential of the expressiveness of shape-change in the context of human-product interaction as an emerging field in HCI research. In this studio we aim to both acquaint participants with new, low threshold platforms for exploration and give them insight in and a vocabulary of expressive movement qualities in shape-change

To make is to grasp

Making plays an important role in the design process, but the focus of design is shifting towards designing for interaction and systems. Following the changing nature of design the role of making is also under change and new tools are available. The different roles of making can be captured in a framework distinguishing ‘making for exploration (inspiration/elaboration)’ and ‘making for validation’. The new tools accelerate the design process by accelerating the making and promise to unlock new solution domains in design but seem to deteriorate the quality of design. We argue that particularly the ‘making for exploration (elaboration)’ role of making is lost in the use of the new tools as they enforce more definition than is wise in the early phases of the design process promoting sketches, unfinished thoughts, to design proposals. We conclude that (1) a new craftsmanship of design is needed where the old ways of doing design meet the new ways, (2) a tool should remain a tool not become the means in itself, and (3) we need to have a experiential basis in the physical to shape the physical

Design for attachment:an explorative search for product qualities that enhance our emotional bond with digital products

This paper describes an explorative search for elements of attachment: qualities that support a stronger emotional bond between user and digital product. Based on a reflection of attachment literature we conclude that digital products require a different approach towards attachment, namely one that focuses on both the physical artifact and the digital content. We hypothesize that the digital products should continuously adapt to the user affecting all product aspects: appearance, interaction, functionality and content. explorative research-through-design approach with exploration phase, where we perform a series of case studies: small design iterations on different types of The concepts from the case studies are coded and clustered into a first set of elements of attachment.\u3cbr/\u3eIn the implementation phase, these elements are used in the in the design of a new mobile phone concept: on its translation of the elements and its ability to support attachment through expert review sessions. From evaluation we define a refined set of elements of attachment.\u3cbr/\u3eThe elements that we present are ‘Knowing each other’, ‘Creating focus’, ‘Sharing memories’ and ‘Reflecting identity’. They can be used as inspiration and guidance in different phases of the design process