Information embodiment: how products communicate through dynamic sensory features

Products are more and more required to communicate messages to users, as ICT is invading the realm of everyday objects. This paper explores the possibility to communicate bits of information to the user through dynamic changes in the product sensory features, as an alternative to digital interfaces. The aim is both to propose a descriptive framework for the analysis of this emerging category of dynamic products, and to investigate the role each sensory modality may assume in the transmission of different kinds of messages. The study was performed through a case study methodology, by collecting products, prototypes and concepts which show dynamic sensory features. Through the analysis of the selected samples, hypotheses about the role of different senses and stimuli in conveying different kinds of information have been extracted. These are going to be used as starting points for further research in this field.

[1]  P. Desmet.  Faces of Product Pleasure: 25 Positive Emotions in Human-Product Interactions , 2012 .

[2]  Oya Demirbilek,et al.  Product design, semantics and emotional response , 2003, Ergonomics.

[3]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[4]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Product Semantics: Exploring the Symbolic Qualities of Form , 1984 .

[5]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms , 1997, CHI.

[6]  P. Clarkson,et al.  Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design , 2004 .

[7]  Ramia Mazé.  Occupying Time: Design, Time, and the Form of Interaction , 2007 .

[8]  Tomas Sokoler,et al.  A Material Strategy : Exploring Material Properties of Computers , 2010 .

[9]  Hendrik N.J. Schifferstein,et al.  Noisy Products: Does Appearance Matter? , 2011 .

[10]  Herbert Peremans,et al.  Physical interaction in a dematerialized world , 2013 .

[11]  E. Ozcan Vieira,et al.  Basic Semantics of Product Sounds , 2012 .

[12]  Lucia Rampino,et al.  The Innovation Pyramid: A Categorization of the Innovation Phenomenon in the Product-design Field , 2011 .

[13]  C. Spence,et al.  The science of interpersonal touch: An overview , 2010, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[14]  D. Norman.  Emotional design : why we love (or hate) everyday things , 2004 .

[15]  H. Schifferstein,et al.  THE TACTUAL EXPERIENCE OF OBJECTS , 2008 .

[16]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Sensorial interfaces , 2006, DIS '06.

[17]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics , 2005 .

[18]  Yuzuru Matsuura,et al.  EFFECT OF VIBRATION STIMULUS IN LOWERING ALERTNESS LEVELS OF DRIVERS. MOBILITY: THE TECHNICAL CHALLENGE; PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC CONFERENCE ON AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING, MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA, NOVEMBER 8-14, 1987. VOLUMES 1 TO 3 , 1987 .

[19]  H. Schifferstein,et al.  Capturing product experiences: a split-modality approach. , 2005, Acta psychologica.

[20]  Mikael Wiberg,et al.  Computational Compositions : Aesthetics, Materials, and Interaction Design , 2010 .

[21]  Sarah Diefenbach,et al.  All You Need is Love: Current Strategies of Mediating Intimate Relationships through Technology , 2012, TCHI.

[22]  H. Rex Hartson,et al.  Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design , 2003, Behav. Inf. Technol..