Designing for Embodied and Rich Interaction in Home IoT

Internet of things (IoT) artifacts form systems where touchscreen and speech interaction is the norm. As IoT systems are inherently open (artifacts can be added or removed, software can be updated), we observe that the natural state of an IoT system is changed, “growth.” This chapter describes a designerly experiment exploring how to design for embodied and rich interaction in these “growing” IoT systems. We present four design cases showcasing four approaches to the design challenge: a hybrid, a modular, a shape changing, and a service approach. We describe and appraise the four approaches and discuss insights from the designerly experiment. We conclude that it is indeed possible to design for embodied and rich interaction in “growing” IoT systems and see our work as a first step toward diversifying IoT interaction styles

Co-refining interactive systems with older adults from function, form and interaction

Designing interactive systems that are pragmatic, attractive and easy to use for older adults is challenging. Participatory design, as an approach to enhance the mutual understanding between designers and end users, has been proved to be useful to improve the quality of design for older people. However, PD research has long been criticized for extensively dealing with the early-phase design while putting less emphasis on the later stages. In this paper, we argue for the importance of collaborative refinement when designing interactive systems for older adults. Through a case study, we describe our experience of co-refining the preliminary design of an interactive system with older participants from three perspectives: function, form and interaction. We also explored to adopt some potential PD methods and conclude by discussing the effectiveness of the chosen approach and methods

On the Role of External Representations in Designing for Participatory Sensemaking

Public issues demand highly complex collaborations in which different (public, private) stakeholders, each with their own complementary or conflicting interests, expertise and experiences, work toward public good. Typically, collaborative technological applications function to represent people’s ideas and to enable the exchange of representational messages between people. By contrast, we designed [X]Changing Perspectives ([X]CP): an interactive table-system for multi-stakeholder collaboration around public issues. The system aims, not to represent views but rather, to scaffold the emergence of situated meaningful couplings in face-to-face interactions. It helps people to align their visual attention, materialises their input and provokes associations. However, [X]CP does contain representations, such as symbols, tangibles and an interactive visualisation. In reflecting on its design and use, we analyse what these representations do, as seen from the perspective of embodied, participatory sensemaking. We explain how representations are not the foundational building blocks of the system, and how they do not have fixed meanings. Rather, as scaffolds, our representations add a layer of artificial structure that guides the ongoing interactive couplings between people, contributing to participatory sensemaking. Applying this approach to the design of mediating technologies for multi-stakeholder collaborations can open up new ways of interacting and understanding between stakeholders without disrupting their collaboration

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

The reflective transformative design process

Overview of your contributio

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