InTouch: Crossing Social Interaction with Perception

Transcript

1. InTouch:  Crossing   Social  Interaction  with   Perception Rung-­‐Huei  Liang,

    Wei-­‐Ming  Chung,  Hsin-­‐Liu  Kao,  Tsen-­‐Ying  Lin   Department  of  Industrial  and  Commercial  Design,  NaAonal  Taiwan  University   of  Science  and  Technology  (NTUST),  Taipei,  Taiwan

2. Outline •  SpaAal  Media  Group   •  IntroducAon   • 

   Literature  Review   •  Design  Process   •  Prototyping   •  User  Scenarios   •  User  EvaluaAon   •  Discussion   •  Conclusion  and  Future  work  

3. SPATIAL  MEDIA  GROUP

4. Spatial  Media  Group Spatial Media Group

5. •  Tangible  Interac.on   Design  2011   •  h6p:// www.spa.almedia.or

   g/.d/

6. •  ACM  Interac.ons   •  Volume  19  Issue  4,  July

    +  August   2012  

7. •  Workshop/  OpenHCI  2009  -­‐2013/  h6p://www.openhci.com/

8. •  Strong  Concept   •  Annotated  PorOolio

9. None

10. INTRODUCTION

11. Introduction •  Bret  Victor  points  out  that  those  technology-­‐oriented  

    interfaces  do  not  provide  sensuous  feedback,  nor  can  they   allow  us  to  perceive  inherent  properAes  of  objects.    

12. LITERATURE  REVIEW

13. Literature  Review •  Merleau-­‐Ponty  argues  that  the  whole  world  is

     a  field  for   percepAon,  to  which  we  can  assign  meaning  through  human   consciousness.   •  Perceptual  crossing:  We  perceive  while  being  perceived.

14. •  We  perceive  while  being  perceived  by   others  making

     dual  percep.on  at  the   same  .me.

15. •  We  perceive  while  being  perceived  by  others  making  dual

      percep.on  at  the  same  .me.

16. •  Designing  for  Perceptual  Crossing,  E  Deckers,  2012

17. •  Friendly  Vending  Machine,   Guus  Baggermans,  2009  

18. Literature  Review •  Ambiguity  as  a  resource  for  design  

    •  Ludic  design   •  Research  through  Design  (RtD)  

19. DESIGN  PROCESS

20. Design  Process •  Extended  PercepAon   •  FuncAon  of  InTouch

      •  Material  and  Form   •  MulAdisciplinary  CooperaAon

21. Extended  Perception •  Cryoscope

22. Function  of  InTouch Thermoelectric   cooler  (TEC)

23. Material  and  Form

24. Multidisciplinary  Cooperation

25. PROTOTYPING

26. None

27. USER  SCENARIOS

28. User  Scenarios

29. None

30. USER  EVALUATION

31. User  Evaluation •  The  InTouch  system  was  demonstrated  and  played

     by  5   students  coming  from  design  and  5  from  computer  science   backgrounds,  respecAvely.   •  All  players  found  the  system  to  be  “fun”  and  “very   interesAng”.  The  system  was  able  to  engage  users  to  explore   for  an  enough  span  of  Ame  to  report  their  accounts.    

32. DISCUSSION

33. Discussion •  The  ambiguity  of  InTouch  allows  users  to  explore

     its  ludic   value   •  The  perceptual  crossing  evokes  implicit  social  meanings   •  Users  find  their  own  appropriaAon  over  Ame

34. Discussion •  We  see  the  interacAon  as  an  embodied  phenomenon

     that   could  inspire  future  innovaAon.   •  The  intenAonality  of  InTouch  is  not  a  physical  form  only  but  a   parAcipaAve  situaAon  manifesAng  arAfact  in  the  domesAc   context.

35. CONCLUSION  AND  FUTURE  WORK

36. Conclusion  and  Future  work •  This  paper  stresses  a  design

     arAfact  as  outcome  that  can   transfer  the  world  from  visual  feedback  as  a  major  output  of   networked  social  interacAon  to  a  preferred  future  where  all   sensory  outputs  can  become  significant  feedback.   •  From  our  empirical  user  study,  we  have  found  that  users   concerned  how  many  friends  they  can  interact  with  through   the  system.  

37. REFERENCE

38. Reference •  Auvray,  M.,  Lenay,  C.,  &  Stewart,  J.  (2009).

     Perceptual  interacAons  in  a  minimalist  virtual   environment.  New  Ideas  in  Psychology,  27(1),  32-­‐47.   •  De  Jaegher,  H.  (2009).  Social  understanding  through  direct  percepAon?  Yes,  by  interacAng.   Consciousness  and  CogniAon,  18(2),  535-­‐542.  Elsevier.   •  Deckers,  E.,  Wensveen,  S.,  Ahn,  R.,  &  Overbeeke,  K.  (2011).  Designing  for  Perceptual   Crossing  to  Improve  User  Involvement.  In  Proceedings  of  the  SIGCHI  Conference  on  Human   Factors  in  CompuAng  Systems  (pp.  1929-­‐1938).  New  York,  NY:  ACM  Press.   •  Godshaw,  R.  (2012).  Feel  tomorrow's  air  temperature  today.  hhp://robb.cc/Cryoscope     •  Gaver,  W.  (2002).  Designing  for  Homo  Ludens.  i3  Magazine,  June  (2002),  pp.  2—5   •  Gaver,  W.,  Beaver,  J.,&  Benford,  S.  (2003).  Ambiguity  as  a  resource  for  design;  In  Pro-­‐ ceedings  of  the  SIGCHI  Conference  on  Human  Factors  in  CompuAng  Systems  (pp.  233-­‐240).   New  York,  NY:  ACM  Press.   •  MarA,  P.  (2010).  Perceiving  while  being  perceived.  InternaAonal  Journal  of  Design,  4(2),   27-­‐38.   •  McLuhan,  M.  (1964).  Understanding  Media:  The  Extensions  of  Man,  New  York:  Signet.   •  Merleau-­‐Ponty,  M.,  (1945).  Phenomenology  of  PercepAon  (Original:  Phénoménologie  de  la   percepAon  1945).  (D.  Tiemersma  &  R.  Vlasblom).  Boom.     •  Victor,  B.  (2011).  A  Brief  Pant  on  the  Future  of  InteracAon  Design.  hhp://worrydream.com/ ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteracAonDesign   •  Zimmerman,  J.,  Forlizzi,  J.,  &  Evenson,  S.  (2007).  Research  through  design  as  a  method  for   interacAon  design  research  in  HCI.  In  Proceedings  of  the  SIGCHI  Conference  on  Human   Factors  in  CompuAng  Systems  (pp.  493-­‐502).  New  York,  NY:  ACM  Press.    

39. Q&A Thanks  For  Your  Kind  AhenAon!