Contact through canvas: an entertaining encounter

When meeting someone new, the first impression is often influenced by someone’s physical appearance and other types of prejudice. In this paper, we present TouchMeDare, an interactive canvas, which aims to provide an experience when meeting new people, while preventing visual prejudice and lowering potential thresholds. The focus of the designed experience was to stimulate people to get acquainted through the interactive canvas. TouchMeDare consists of a flexible, opaque canvas, which plays music when touched simultaneously from both sides. Dynamic variation of this bodily contact is reflected through real-time adaptations of the musical compositions. Two redesigns were qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated and a final version was placed in the Lowlands Festival as a case study. Evaluation results showed that some explanation was needed for the initial interaction with the installation. On the other hand, after this initial unfamiliarity passed, results showed that making bodily contact through the installation did help people to get acquainted with each other and increased their social interaction.

[1]  Greg Corness,et al.  Playing with the sound maker: do embodied metaphors help children learn? , 2008, IDC.

[2]  Martin R. Gibbs,et al.  Remote impact: shadowboxing over a distance , 2009, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[3]  Argiris Theodosiou,et al.  Temporal Stability of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory , 2003, Perceptual and motor skills.

[4]  Tina Blaine,et al.  The Jam-O-Drum interactive music system: a study in interaction design , 2000, DIS '00.

[5]  Michael Burmester,et al.  AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität , 2003, MuC.

[6]  Eva Hornecker,et al.  “I don’t understand it either, but it is cool” - visitor interactions with a multi-touch table in a museum , 2008, 2008 3rd IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human Computer Systems.

[7]  Caroline Hummels,et al.  Move to get moved: a search for methods, tools and knowledge to design for expressive and rich movement-based interaction , 2007, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[8]  R. Ryan,et al.  Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. , 1982 .

[9]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Where the action is , 2001 .

[10]  S Sietske Klooster,et al.  Designing products as an integral part of choreography of interaction : the product's form as an integral part of movement , 2005 .

[11]  Jin Moen.  KinAesthetic Movement Interaction : Designing for the Pleasure of Motion , 2006 .

[12]  Austin Henderson,et al.  Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction , 2002, UBIQ.

[13]  R. Motl,et al.  Measuring enjoyment of physical activity in adolescent girls. , 2001, American journal of preventive medicine.

[14]  S. Allen.  Designs for Learning: Studying Science Museum Exhibits that Do More than Entertain. , 2004 .

[15]  Jacob Buur,et al.  Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction , 2006, CHI.

[16]  R. L. Archer,et al.  The farmer and the cowman should be friends: An attempt at reconciliation with Batson, Coke, and Pych. , 1984 .

[17]  Gil Weinberg,et al.  The Squeezables: Toward an Expressive and Interdependent Multi-player Musical Instrument , 2001, Computer Music Journal.

[18]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Bricks: laying the foundations for graspable user interfaces , 1995, CHI '95.

[19]  Nima Motamedi.  The aesthetics of touch in interaction design , 2007, DPPI.

[20]  Protima Banerjee.  About Face 2.0: The Essentials of Interaction Design: Alan Cooper and Robert Reimann Published by John Wiley & Sons, 2003, 576 pp, ISBN 0764526413 , 2004 .

[21]  Bert Bongers,et al.  An Interview with Sensorband , 1998 .

[22]  William W. Gaver,et al.  Sound Support for Collaboration , 1991, ECSCW.

[23]  M. Bradley,et al.  Measuring emotion: the Self-Assessment Manikin and the Semantic Differential. , 1994, Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry.

[24]  G. Gemser,et al.  Success in the Dutch Music Festival Market: The Role of Format and Content , 2005 .

[25]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces , 2000, IBM Syst. J..

[26]  Scott R. Klemmer,et al.  How bodies matter: five themes for interaction design , 2006, DIS '06.

[27]  Florian Vogt,et al.  Tooka: Exploration of Two Person Instruments , 2002, NIME.

[28]  Sascha Mahlke,et al.  Understanding users' experience of interaction , 2005 .

[29]  Sidney Fels,et al.  Collaborative Musical Experiences for Novices , 2003 .

[30]  Wolfgang Strauss,et al.  Staging the space of mixed reality—reconsidering the concept of a multi user environment , 1999, VRML '99.

[31]  Sergi Jordà,et al.  The reacTable: exploring the synergy between live music performance and tabletop tangible interfaces , 2007, TEI.

[32]  Rob Tieben,et al.  Meeting duet : challenging people into a body language of meeting , 2007 .

[33]  Elise van den Hoven,et al.  Design research & tangible interaction , 2007, TEI.

[34]  Claudia Eckert,et al.  Sources of inspiration: a language of design , 2000 .

[35]  Dan Shaver,et al.  Characteristics of Corporate Boards in Single-Industry and Conglomerate Media Companies , 2005 .

[36]  Katja Battarbee,et al.  Defining co-experience , 2003, DPPI '03.

[37]  E. Berscheid,et al.  The Relationship Closeness Inventory : Assessing the Closeness of Interpersonal Relationships , 2004 .

[38]  S. M. Hansen.  Where the action is. , 1985, Journal (National Association for Hospital Development (U.S.)).

[39]  Alan Cooper,et al.  About Face 3: the essentials of interaction design , 1995 .

[40]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Audiopad: A Tag-based Interface for Musical Performance , 2002, NIME.

[41]  Gerd Szwillus,et al.  Mensch & Computer 2003 , 2003 .

[42]  A. Aron,et al.  Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness , 1992 .