Diri - the actuated helium balloon: a study of autonomous behaviour in interfaces

Research on actuated interfaces has shown that people respond in certain socialized ways to interfaces that exhibit autonomous behaviours. We wished to explore the elements of design that drive people to regard an autonomous, interactive system as a social agent. To explore perceptions of autonomous behaviour in interfaces we created Diri - an autonomous helium balloon, used to document activity in spaces. We implemented two different technological sophistications of Diri, to compare the outcomes of our design decisions. We present our design process, technical details and evaluation workshops, concluding with implications for designing for autonomous behaviour in interfaces.

[1]  徐梦溪,et al.  Network video monitoring system based on OpenCV (open source computer vision library) , 2011 .

[2]  JOHN F. Young.  Machine Intelligence , 1971, Nature.

[3]  Masanori Sugimoto,et al.  RoboTable: a tabletop framework for tangible interaction with robots in a mixed reality , 2009, Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology.

[4]  Hiroaki Tobita,et al.  Floating avatar: telepresence system using blimps for communication and entertainment , 2011, CHI EA '11.

[5]  Michael Golembewski,et al.  Ideation decks: a card-based design ideation tool , 2010, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[6]  Ivan Poupyrev,et al.  Actuation and tangible user interfaces: the Vaucanson duck, robots, and shape displays , 2007, TEI.

[7]  Henrik I. Christensen,et al.  "My Roomba Is Rambo": Intimate Home Appliances , 2007, UbiComp.

[8]  Myung-Suk Kim,et al.  Make it move: a movement design method of simple standing products based on systematic mapping of torso movements & product messages , 2013, CHI.

[9]  Muriel Zimmerman,et al.  Design Research Through Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

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

[11]  John Zimmerman,et al.  6 – Showroom: Research Meets Design and Art , 2012 .

[12]  D. Dennett.  Kinds of Minds: Towards an Understanding of Consciousness , 1996 .

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

[14]  Mario Romero,et al.  Living with tableau machine: a longitudinal investigation of a curious domestic intelligence , 2008, UbiComp.

[15]  Adam Greenfield,et al.  Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing , 2006 .

[16]  Majken Kirkegaard Rasmussen,et al.  Causing commotion with a shape-changing bench: experiencing shape-changing interfaces in use , 2014, CHI.

[17]  Thomas Olsson,et al.  Intelligent ambient technology: friend or foe? , 2011, MindTrek.

[18]  John Canny,et al.  PRoP : Personal Roving Presence , 2007 .

[19]  V. Braitenberg.  Vehicles, Experiments in Synthetic Psychology , 1984 .

[20]  Wendy Ju.  Approachability : How People Interpret Automatic Door Movement as Gesture , 2008 .

[21]  Joshua McVeigh-Schultz,et al.  AniThings: animism and heterogeneous multiplicity , 2013, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[22]  Kristina Höök,et al.  Rudiments 1, 2 & 3: design speculations on autonomy , 2010, TEI.

[23]  Roland Siegwart,et al.  Design and control of an indoor micro quadrotor , 2004, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA '04. 2004.

[24]  R. Lane,et al.  An overview of smart technology , 1997 .

[25]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  Does the Design of a Robot Influence Its Animacy and Perceived Intelligence? , 2009, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[26]  Myung-Suk Kim,et al.  Three case studies of UX with moving products , 2013, UbiComp.

[27]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  The role of interactive conceptions of intelligence and life in cognitive technology , 1997, Proceedings Second International Conference on Cognitive Technology Humanizing the Information Age.

[28]  Phoebe Sengers,et al.  Staying open to interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation , 2006, DIS '06.

[29]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Designing sociable robots , 2002 .

[30]  R.I.A. Mercuri,et al.  Technology as Experience , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[31]  John Zimmerman,et al.  Breakaway: an ambient display designed to change human behavior , 2005, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[32]  Marianne Graves Petersen,et al.  "It's in love with you": communicating status and preference with simple product movements , 2012, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[33]  Vijay Kumar,et al.  Opportunities and challenges with autonomous micro aerial vehicles , 2012, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[34]  Manfred Tscheligi,et al.  The USUS Evaluation Framework for Human-Robot Interaction , 2009 .

[35]  David S. Kirk,et al.  Tangible autonomous interfaces (TAIs): exploring autonomous behaviours in TUIs , 2014, TEI '14.

[36]  Kazuhiro Jo,et al.  Designing Interactive Blimps as Puppets , 2009, ICEC.