‘Location-based games’ is another term used in HCI research that relates to interaction from the ground up theme. In this game, players were chased through the city by runners equipped with wifi and GPS sensors.
Benford, S., Crabtree, A., Flintham, M., Drozd, A., Anastasi, R., Paxton, M., Tandavanitj, N., et al. (2006). Can you see me now? ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 13(1), 100-133. doi:10.1145/1143518.1143522
Lots of references to follow and makes some sensible sounding points for things you might want to consider when design such an interface.
Mueller, F. ‘., Gibbs, M. R., & Vetere, F. (2009). Design influence on social play in distributed exertion games. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 1539-1548). Boston, MA, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518938
Again, some brief notes about the second week of the course.
Continued with the servo-motor activity.
Concentrated on refining the movement towards the two words.
Got to a stage where the sculptures could be left to run by themselves.
Set up a little exhibition at 14:00. Invited the first years and staff.
Placed the cards out on the table and asked people to guess what the pair for each sculpture was.
Lecture in class on the idea of research though design.
Discussion of four papers on this topic.
Discussion of initial ideas for a design project.
We decided to run a video card game as a survey of possible interesting design contexts
Fallman, D. (2007). Why Research-Oriented Design Isn’t Design-Oriented Research: On the Tensions Between Design and Research in an Implicit Design Discipline. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 20(3), 193-200. doi:Article
Wolf, T. V., Rode, J. A., Sussman, J., & Kellogg, W. A. (2006). Dispelling “design” as the black art of CHI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems (pp. 521-530). Montréal, Québec, Canada: ACM. doi:10.1145/1124772.1124853
Wright, P., Blythe, M., & McCarthy, J. (2006). User Experience and the Idea of Design in HCI. In Interactive Systems (pp. 1-14). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11752707_1
Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). An analysis and critique of Research through Design: towards a formalization of a research approach. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 310-319). Aarhus, Denmark: ACM. doi:10.1145/1858171.1858228
A couple of additional references were mentioned in the lecture and discussions. These are included below.
Archer, B. (1995). The nature of research. Co-design, 6-13.
Braa, K., & Vidgen, R. (1995). Action Case: Exploring the middle kingdom in information system research methods. In Proceedings of 3rd Decennial Conference Computers in context: Joining Forces in Design (pp. 50-60). Århus, Denmark.
Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Action Research: Its Nature and Validity. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(1), 9-21. doi:10.1023/A:1022908820784
Frayling, C. (1993). Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1(1), 1-5.
Mackay, W. E., & Fayard, A. (1997). HCI, natural science and design: a framework for triangulation across disciplines. In Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 223-234). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ACM. doi:10.1145/263552.263612
Handed out the toolboxes with arduinos, breadboard, multimeters, servo motors, and some simple tools.
Pulled apart some gadgets which everyone had brought in. Looked at the components inside and discussed what the functions might be.
Tried to get the Arduinos hooked up and running, but we ran out of time, so I asked the students to do this before the next class.
Started by checking that everyone’s arduino was working. There were some problems with the drivers for the serial port for a couple of people, but we managed to get that working. Also, need to check that Nano board is selected with Atmega168 rather than Atmega328.
With the character and movement cards your group chose, try to tinker a kinetic sculpture driven by the servo motor that moves in a way that expresses those qualities. For example, if your words were ‘fierce leaping’ you need to create a sculpture that somehow leaps in a fierce way.
“The second part of Gesture and Speech is entitled ‘Memory and Rhythms’, and it is above all in Leroi-Gourhan’s attention to the rhythmicity of technical activity, rather than its grounding in social memory, that this counter-argument appears. A great many operations, he observes, entail the regular repetition of certain manual gestures: these include hammering, sawing and scraping. And whether or not the artisan has an idea in mind of the ﬁnal form of the artefact he is making, the actual form emerges from the pattern of rhythmic movement, not from the idea.” (Ingold, 2009, p.438)
Ingold, T. (1999). ‘Tools for the Hand, Language for the Face’: An Appreciation of Leroi-Gourhan’s Gesture and Speech. Studies in the History of Philosophy Biololgy and Biomedical Sciences, 30(4), 411-453.
The week before last, I was at the Designing Interactive Systems conference. I was there as one of the organizers of a one day workshop on the topic of ‘Materialities Influencing the Design Process’. We haven’t managed to make much of a synthesis of the outcomes of the workshop yet, but I have got the documentation for the day up on line:
The use of material artefacts within the design process is a long-standing and continuing characteristic of interaction design. Established methods, such as prototyping, which have been widely adopted by educators and practitioners, are seeing renewed research interest and being reconsidered in light of the evolving needs of the field. Alongside this, the past decade has seen the introduction and adoption of a diverse range of novel design methods into interaction design, such as cultural probes, technology probes, context mapping, and provotypes.
Yet, interaction design does not have a cohesive framework for understanding this diverse range of practices. Such a framework would assist practitioners in comparing and choosing between methods across the different stages, contexts and stakeholder relations within a design process. It seems that one fruitful place to start in addressing this lack is to focus in on the common characteristic that these practices share of materialities influencing the design process. This workshop proposes to bring together practitioners, educators, and researchers to discuss and begin the development of a shared understanding around this theme.