Easy doesn’t do it: skill and expression in tangible aesthetics

In this paper, we articulate the role of movement within a perceptual-motor view of tangible interaction. We argue that the history of human–product interaction design has exhibited an increasing neglect of the intrinsic importance of movement. On one hand, human–product interaction design has shown little appreciation in practice of the centrality of our bodily engagement in the world. This has resulted in technologies that continue to place demands on our cognitive abilities, and deny us the opportunity of building bodily skill. On the other hand, the potential for movement in products to be a meaningful component of our interaction with them has also been ignored. Both of these directions (design for bodily engagement and the expressiveness of product movements) are sketched out, paying particular respect for their potential to impact both interaction aesthetics and usability. We illustrate a number of these ideas with examples.

[1]  B. Farnell.  Moving Bodies, Acting Selves , 1999 .

[2]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[3]  Rosalind W. Picard.  Affective computing: (526112012-054) , 1997 .

[4]  Stephen W. Draper,et al.  Analysing fun as a candidate software requirement , 1999, Personal Technologies.

[5]  P. Desmet,et al.  A Multilayered Model of Product Emotions , 2003 .

[6]  Oksana Zelenko,et al.  Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience, and Critical Design , 2007 .

[7]  Patrice D. Tremoulet,et al.  Perceptual causality and animacy , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[8]  Christoph Bartneck,et al.  Interacting with an embodied emotional character , 2003, DPPI '03.

[9]  Johan Redström,et al.  From use to presence: on the expressions and aesthetics of everyday computational things , 2002, TCHI.

[10]  Lucy Suchman.  Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication , 1987 .

[11]  Tom Rodden,et al.  Ways of the Hands , 2005, ECSCW.

[12]  John Maeda,et al.  Design By Numbers , 1999 .

[13]  A. Michotte.  The perception of causality , 1963 .

[14]  J. Cassell.  Computer Vision for Human–Machine Interaction: A Framework for Gesture Generation and Interpretation , 1998 .

[15]  E. Reed.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1989 .

[16]  Colin Potts,et al.  Design of Everyday Things , 1988 .

[17]  Lars Halln.  From Use to Presence: On the Expressions and Aesthetics of Everyday Computational Things , 2002 .

[18]  Joep W. Frens,et al.  Interaction relabelling and extreme characters: methods for exploring aesthetic interactions , 2000, DIS '00.

[19]  Csaba Veres,et al.  The perceived intentionality of groups , 1999, Cognition.

[20]  E. Vesterinen,et al.  Affective Computing , 2009, Encyclopedia of Biometrics.

[21]  Joep W. Frens.  A rich user interface for a digital camera , 2005, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[22]  Amy L. Parsons,et al.  Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things , 2006 .

[23]  Jacob Buur,et al.  Designing the user actions in tangible interaction , 2005, Critical Computing.

[24]  J. Russell.  A circumplex model of affect. , 1980 .

[25]  William Buxton,et al.  There's more to interaction than meets the eye: some issues in manual input , 1987 .

[26]  Adrian Snodgrass,et al.  Rescuing CAD from rationalism , 1993 .

[27]  Martin Ludvigsen,et al.  Aesthetic interaction: a pragmatist's aesthetics of interactive systems , 2004, DIS '04.

[28]  Stephanie Houde,et al.  Working towards rich and flexible file representations , 1993, INTERCHI Adjunct Proceedings.

[29]  Jp Tom Djajadiningrat,et al.  EXPLORING EXPRESSION OF FORM, ACTION AND INTERACTION , 2005 .

[30]  Jacob Buur,et al.  Hands-only scenarios and video action walls: novel methods for tangible user interaction design , 2004, DIS '04.

[31]  Dag Svanæs,et al.  In search of metaphors for tangible user intefaces , 2000, DARE '00.

[32]  Jodi Forlizzi,et al.  All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads , 2002, DIS '02.

[33]  Joep W. Frens,et al.  Tangible products: redressing the balance between appearance and action , 2004, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[34]  Anthony Dunne,et al.  Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects , 2001 .

[35]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Understanding computers and cognition - a new foundation for design , 1987 .

[36]  Jacob Buur,et al.  Taking the best from a company history - designing with interaction styles , 2000, DIS '00.

[37]  Michael B. Schiffer.  Anthropological perspectives on technology , 2001 .

[38]  Marcelle Stienstra,et al.  Exploring enjoyability: which factors in a consumer device make the user smile , 2003 .

[39]  Colin Martindale,et al.  New Directions in Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts , 2006 .

[40]  W. Buxton,et al.  A study in two-handed input , 1986, CHI '86.

[41]  Toni Robertson,et al.  Building bridges: negotiating the gap between work practice and technology design , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[42]  Y. Guiard.  Asymmetric division of labor in human skilled bimanual action: the kinematic chain as a model. , 1987, Journal of motor behavior.

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

[44]  Caroline Hummels,et al.  An Intuitive Two-Handed Gestural Interface for Computer Supported Product Design , 1997, Gesture Workshop.

[45]  H.C.M. Hoonhout,et al.  Is every kid having fun? A gender approach to interactive toy design , 2003 .

[46]  F. Heider,et al.  An experimental study of apparent behavior , 1944 .

[47]  Stephen J. Misovich,et al.  Effects of Disruption of Structure and Motion on Perceptions of Social Causality , 1992 .

[48]  David Sudnow,et al.  Ways of the Hand: A Rewritten Account , 1978 .

[49]  Steve Benford,et al.  Ambiguity as a resource for design , 2003, CHI '03.

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

[51]  Caroline Hummels,et al.  Beauty in usability : forget about ease of use! , 2002 .

[52]  Stephan Wensveen,et al.  Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward , 2004, DIS '04.