How to design for transformation of behavior through interactive materiality

This paper presents a design approach tackling the transformation of behavior through 'interactive materiality' from a phenomenological perspective. It builds upon the Interaction Frogger framework that couples action to reaction for intuitive mapping in intelligent product interaction. Through the discussion of two research-through-design cases, the augmented speed-skate experience and affective pen, it highlights the opportunities for design of an action-perception loop. Consequently, an approach is suggested that defines three steps to be incorporated in the design process: affirming and appreciating current behavior; designing continuous mapping for transformation; and fine-tuning sensitivities in the interactive materiality. Thereby, it discusses how behavior transformation through interactive materiality derived from a theoretical level, can contribute to design knowledge on the implementation level. The aim of this paper is to inspire design-thinking to shift from the cognitive approach of persuasion, to a meaningful and embodied mechanism respecting all human skills, by providing practical insights for designers.

[1]  Stephan Wensveen,et al.  There is more in a single touch: mapping the continuous to the discrete , 2011, CHItaly.

[2]  P. Verbeek,et al.  Materializing Morality , 2006 .

[3]  Kristina Höök,et al.  eMoto: affectively involving both body and mind , 2005, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[4]  Diana Laurillard,et al.  Rethinking University Teaching 2nd Edition: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies , 2002 .

[5]  Susanne Bødker,et al.  When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges , 2006, NordiCHI '06.

[6]  J. Gibson.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[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]  Rosa Torguet,et al.  Interaction Design Feedback and Feed Forward Framework : Making the Interaction Frogger Tangible , 2012 .

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

[10]  Caroline Hummels,et al.  Towards design-driven innovation: designing for points of view using intuition through skills , 2011, DPPI.

[11]  Miguel Bruns Alonso,et al.  Exploring Manipulative Hand Movements During a Stressful Condition , 2007, ACII.

[12]  Miguel Bruns Alonso,et al.  Measuring and adapting behavior during product interaction to influence affect , 2011, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[13]  Paul Hekkert,et al.  Design for Socially Responsible Behavior: A Classification of Influence Based on Intended User Experience , 2011, Design Issues.

[14]  Diana Laurillard,et al.  Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies. 2nd Edition , 1993 .

[15]  C. J. Overbeeke,et al.  Experiential and Respectful , 1999 .

[16]  Paul Marshall,et al.  Empirically Investigating the Distinction between Phenomenally Present and Phenomenally Transparent Tools , 2010 .

[17]  Miguel Bruns Alonso,et al.  Squeeze, rock, and roll; can tangible interaction with affective products support stress reduction? , 2008, TEI.

[18]  Stephan Wensveen,et al.  Embodying complexity through movement sonification: case study on empowering the speed-skater , 2011, CHItaly.

[19]  Stephan Wensveen,et al.  But how, Donald, tell us how?: on the creation of meaning in interaction design through feedforward and inherent feedback , 2002, DIS '02.

[20]  Miguel Bruns Alonso,et al.  Post-error expression of speed and force while performing a simple, monotonous task with a haptic pen , 2013, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[21]  Madeleine Akrich,et al.  A Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies , 1992 .

[22]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  New theoretical approaches for human-computer interaction , 2005, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[23]  Martin Frey.  CabBoots: shoes with integrated guidance system , 2007, Tangible and Embedded Interaction.

[24]  Gry Seland,et al.  System designer assessments of role play as a design method: a qualitative study , 2006, NordiCHI '06.

[25]  N. Stroebele,et al.  Effect of ambience on food intake and food choice. , 2004, Nutrition.

[26]  Eva M. Hyatt,et al.  The Effects of Food Color on Perceived Flavor , 2000 .

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

[28]  K. Höök.  Affective loop experiences: designing for interactional embodiment , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[29]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions , 1998, CHI.

[30]  B. Hengeveld.  Designing LinguaBytes : a tangible language learning system for non- or hardly speaking toddlers , 2011 .

[31]  S. Greenberg,et al.  The Psychology of Everyday Things , 2012 .

[32]  CHRISTINE A. HALVERSON,et al.  Activity Theory and Distributed Cognition: Or What Does CSCW Need to DO with Theories? , 2002, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[33]  Yeup Hur,et al.  Urban Kinesic: a gestural interface for the expression of emotions through bodily movements , 2009, OZCHI '09.

[34]  Pd Pierre Lévy,et al.  Designing for Perceptual Crossing: Applying and Evaluating Design Notions , 2012 .

[35]  Caroline Hummels,et al.  E-scale: unity of location and time, increasing bandwidth and enhancing physical learning does matter , 2008, Tangible and Embedded Interaction.

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