Design Research Report

How do inherent components in!uence our perception of augmented behaviors?Exploratory Design Research through prototyping by Tom Fejer

2

project by Tom Fejér, 2013, TU/e ID // contact: [email protected]

coach name: Simone de Waart // contact: [email protected]

3

"is document is an overview of a design research project which shows how the combination of digital and analog feedback in!uence the perception of an interactive object’s behavior. "e research is investi-gating through various prototypes and explores peo-

ple’s perception of intelligent artifact.

Research "rough Design approach was applied in order to de#ne both theoretical direction as well as

appearance and behavior of a #nal prototype.

"e report includes various re!ections a$er every chapter where the key learning points and challenges

are collected.

Keywords: designing behavior, augmented behavior, inherent components, perceptive qualities, research through design, research through making

Relevance to Design Practice - !e right use of physical and digital elements is relevant to design for rich emotional interplays between humans and intelligent artifact

Contents1. Introduction 1.1 Research Field - Perceptual Crossing 1.2 Research Direction 1.3 Open Questions 1.4 Terminology

2. Design Approach

3. ‘Research through Making’ 3.1 Preparation 3.11 Sensual Dynamics Module 3.12 Pressure Cooker workshop 3.2 Exploratory Research 3.21 Prototyping 3.211 PaperGeoDome 3.212 PlasticDome 3.213 RotatingPlasticDome 3.214 RotatingLightDisk 3.215 RotatingTouchDisk

4. Hypothesis testing 4.1 Dig_Mo - "e #nal artefact 4.2 Building Dig_Mo 4.3 Testing Dig_Mo 4.4 Results 4.41 grouping the insights 4.42 mapping the insights 4.43 evaluating the maps

5. Conclusion

6. Recommendation

7. Appendix

67789

10

1415151516171818191920

2224262830313234

36

38

40

6

Since we are using electronic devices, the digital informations and controls became part of our lives. We are using physical and digital interfaces in dai-ly basis to interact with our objects, from the light switch through the TV remote till our smart phones. Nowadays graphical user interfaces imitating phys-ical properties and this skeuomorphism can be recognized how some applications visually mimic re!ective or paper surfaces on screens. Some trends in interaction design tend to bring back rich physical interplays by using combination of analog and digital interfaces.

In this project people perception of object’s behavior were explored, focusing on the in!uence of the com-bination of analog and digital components.

1. Introduction"is 8 weeks project from September, 2012 was part of the esSense design research projects group at the Technical University of Eindhoven Industrial Design department. "e goal of these projects were designing perceptive behavior in artifacts and engage people in a meaningful reciprocal interplay with these artifacts, and whether we can rethink how we interact with products and space.1

1. Andersen, Kevin N. “Designing for perceptual crossing: Researching a design notion of interaction priming.”

7

"e term Perceptual Crossing #rst used by Charles Lenay (Lenay et al., 2007), which described Percep-tual Crossing as: !e direct perception of others as intentional beings."is design research project built upon the theory of ‘design for Perceptual Crossing’. "e theory aims to design for perceptive behavior to enhance the quality in interaction in the design of intelligent artefacts. "e artefact is able to perceive and show perceptive activity to and from the person allowing them to en-gage in a rich reciprocal interplay.3 Next to a%ecting

1.1 Research #eld - Perceptual Crossing“Perception is inherently interactive and participatory. It is a reciprocal interplay between the perceiver and the perceived.”2

1.2 Research Direction - Augmented and Inherent componentsBy using the theory ‘design for Perceptual Crossing’ we can design objects for embodied, emotionally rich interaction. In order to design such, designers can design artefacts which can express perceptive activi-ties through augmented and inherent components4.

An example of combination of augmented and in-herent components is a TV, where a physical button controls if the device is on or o% and it is indicated with an LED light as well right next to the button. In this example the button is the inherent component, showing inherent feedforward by the possibility that it can be pressed by a #nger, and giving inherent feedback by moving inside of the housing and by its clicking sound. Augmented components in this example is the light indication which gives con#rma-tion of my actions by lighting up or changing color.Nowadays products has more and more to tell us, for example my wireless mouse has a spectrum of colors

how it indicates if it is out of battery, in standby mode or connected to my laptop. In this project I research the communication be-tween one and the object. How can an object express itself and how do people translate the intention of an object.

In my research I am looking for guidelines, how can I design for rich, embodied interactions and see how inherent and augmented components in!uence each other in peoples perception when they are interact-ing with them.

each other the object and the subject are sharing the same physical space, therefore a%ected by the shared environment (or external events) as well.

2. Merleau-Ponty, M. “Phenomenology of Perception (Original: Phénoménologie de la perception 1945).(D. Tiemersma & R.” Vlasblom. Boom (1945).

3. “Applying and Evaluating Design Notions - International Journal of ...” 2012. 13 Jan. 2013 <http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/arti-cle/view/1062/526>

4. Wensveen, Stephan AG, Johan Partomo Djajadiningrat, and CJ Overbeeke. “Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and func-tion through feedback and feedforward.” Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques 1 Aug. 2004: 177-184.

8

"rough a series of prototypes I was looking for answers for the fol-lowing question["nd the answers at chapter 5]:

How does the perception changes if you add physicality to something virtual?

What happens when the augmented body becomes tangible?

How can you enhance this reciprocal inter-play by connecting inherent and augmented components?

How can this combination be meaningful?

1.3 Open Questions

9

1.4 Terminology

perceptual crossing: it happens when the perceiver senses he was perceived by the perceived; using sight as an exam-ple, a person sees that the object sees the person seeing it, i.e. awareness of reciprocal perception

design for perceptual crossing: design for new artifacts, that interact with users, in such a way that perceptual cross-ing and therefore the feeling of sharing a common space is possible5

emotionally rich interaction: interaction that heavily relies on emotion expressed through action6

augmented feedback: the term augmented feedback found its origin in the #eld of the psychology of learning and refers to information not coming from the action itself (which is inherent feedback), but from an additional source. Since it is not coming from the action itself, but from an additional source, augmented feedback appeals more to the cognitive skills of the user instead of appealing to the perceptual mo-tor skills.7(#nd an example above)

inherent feedback: Information provided as a natural con-sequence of making an action. It is feedback arising from the action itself.8 (#nd an example above)

perceptual qualities: properties of abilities which are relat-ed to perception for example our touch is short-range and our sight is long-rage.

embodied interaction: suggests that the future of interac-tion lies not in the interface “disappearing”, but rather in the interface becoming even more visible, or rather, available for a wider range of engagement and interactions.9

5. Deckers, E. “Designing for perceptual crossing to improve user involvement.” 2011. <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1979222>

6. Wensveen, Stephen, Kees Overbeeke, and Tom Djajadiningrat. “Touch me, hit me and I know how you feel: a design approach to emotionally rich interaction.” Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems 1 Aug. 2000: 48-52.

7. Wensveen, Stephan AG, Johan Partomo Djajadiningrat, and CJ Overbeeke. “Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and func-tion through feedback and feedforward.” Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems 1 Aug. 2004: 177-184.

8. “Re-!inking University Teaching: A Framework for ... - Google Books.” 2012. 10 Jan. 2013 <http://books.google.com/books/about/Re_!inking_Universi-ty_Teaching.html?id=RDsOAAAAQAAJ>

9. Dourish, P. “Embodied Interaction: Exploring the Foundations of a ... - Paul Dourish.” 2002. <http://www.dourish.com/embodied/embodied99.pdf>

10

I formed my research process in 3 main phases (see in "g.2.1). First the Preparation, where I read the available literature on Perceptual Crossing, Embodied Interaction, phenomenology and explored technologies that might be relevant for the project; than in 5 weeks, 5 di%erent prototypes were made and tested in order to explore material and emotional qualities in artifacts. Lastly a #nal hypothesis were formed through designing a #nal artifact, and a Lab experiment was set for qualitative testing.

2. Design Approach

11

I. PreparationSensual Dynamics Module (1 week), - involved ‘DQI’

Pressure-cooker workshop (1 week), - involved ‘EsSense project team’method used: Design Notions, Research through Design

II. Exploratory ResearchExploratory research through prototyping (5 weeks)

method used: Design Notions, Research through Design, Insights (quick tests)

III. Hypothesis-testing ResearchFinal artifact - DigMo - building and testing (1,5 week)

Evaluating the experiment and the design notions (1 week)method used: Design Notions, Lab Experiment, Interviewing, Mapping the insights

"g.2.1 - 3 phases of the project

12

My objective was to apply the resulting knowledge of the prototypes that were explored during the second phase in order to de#ne #nal direction for the re-search both theoretically and design wise.

"e research follows the Research through Design approach10 (Frayling, 1993). "e process is iterative where several artefacts were built and tested. In my work this approach helped to explore the theory of designing for Perceptual Crossing while I was physical-izing my ideas. At every iteration I was re!ecting on the theory to de#ne the next steps.

Eva Deckers, who coined the term ‘design for Percep-tual Crossing’, o%ers designers to evaluate intelligent artefacts through 7 Design Notions. "ese Notions were used in this research to indicate which Notions were applied in certain prototypes and how do these Notions inspired the upcoming steps. ("nd the de-tailed explanations of the Design Notions at Deckers, E. “Designing for perceptual crossing to improve user involvement.” 2011) Next to the Design Notions, designers recommended to design such artefacts which capable of perceiving presence, perceptive actions or expressivity in order to achieve Perceptual Crossing.

"e closing part of the project introducing a #nal artefact which was experienced in a controlled exper-iment, following the Lab approach by 11 participants. "e laboratory gives the researchers an opportunity to focus on one thing at a time. Most typically, this “thing” is a relationship, such as the relationship of rich interaction and user experience.11 "e participants were interviewed a$er the exper-iment and their insights were captured in order to identify tendencies in their perception of the interac-tion.

10. Zimmerman, John, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. “Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI.” Proceed-ings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems 29 Apr. 2007: 493-502.

11. Koskinen, Ilpo et al. Design Research through Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom. Morgan Kaufmann, 2011.

13

Re!ection!e design approach of the project was dynamically changed how the project developed further. In this exploratory research not only the Design Notions were explored but as well as the possibilities what the theory o#ers and my personal interest in interaction and product design. As this research was not focused on function, my centre of attention was on intelligent artefact and human relationship, design-ing and combining elements of rich interactions and evaluating them using the ‘design for Perceptual Crossing’ theory. !is report shows my explorations through prototyping and how it "rst explored materials and volumes, and from there how it started focusing on virtual and physical motions and their relation in perception.

14

My objective was to apply the resulting knowledge of the prototypes to de#ne #nal direction for the research both theoretically and design wise. "e project started with two weeks of preparation which included series of activities aiming to establish the research project with theoretical and practical grounds.

3. ‘Research "rough Making’

15

3.1 Preparation

3.11 Sensual Dynamics Module (1 week), - involved ‘DQI’

A one week long module were organized at the Tech-nical University of Eindhoven in order to introduce master students to the theory of Perceptual Crossing, and Phenomenology in design through exploring low quality prototypes. Next to the theory, students explored the Design Notions in groups and in the last two days they built working artefacts, based and inspired by the previous explorations.

"e #nal artefact I made with three other students, used light to explore its environment (#g. 2.2). By opening up di%erent parts of its segmented body, it can light up the space, and with its moving segments it can sense if the light was re!ected or not. "e behavior was based on a sample code, which includes such behaviors, as exploring, following or curiosity level which changes by time. 12

!e module was given by Eva Deckers and Pierre Lévy

3.12 Pressure-cooker workshop (1 week), - involved ‘esSense project team’

In a one week self-organized workshop 9 Master students explored further the theory of designing for Perceptual Crossing. In #ve days, in smaller groups we explored the design notions through interactive prototypes. "is pressure-cooker workshop showed that many aspects of this research #eld can be further explored, the physical characteristics of the artefact, the motion, and relationship between people and artefacts.

"g. 2.2 - "nal prototype of Sensual Dynamics Module

12. Video of the "nal prototype of the Sensual Dynamics Module - made by Koen Beljaars < https://vimeo.com/49662419 >

16

3.21 Prototyping In this phase of the project numerous prototypes were made and quickly tested with 3-5 persons; and instead of developing further one shape, an essen-tially new artefact were made in every iteration for broader exploration.13

"e artifacts will be described in the following chapter, including evaluations through the Design Notions.

3.2 Exploratory Research

13. Video of the prototypes < https://vimeo.com/56901966 >

17

3.211 PaperGeoDome3.212 PlasticDome 3.213 RotatingPlasticDome3.214 RotatingLightDisk3.215 RotatingTouchDisk

3.211 3.212 3.213 3.214 3.215

18

body: geodesic dome from paper (D=35cm) placed on a table; LED-s and LDR-s placed visibly on the surface and later on placed inside of the domeactuator: 4 LEDsensor: 4 LDR (photo resistors)

Conclusion and next steps"e reactive paper dome clearly perceived as it is per-ceiving presence, when it was approached by hand and it showed subtle changes in light !ickerings. "e object itself was quite fragile, involved both hands and the upper body movement in the interaction."e dome shape was interesting, invited a 3 dimen-sional movement and exploration during the inter-action, the LED lights provided rich communication possibilities in the interplay.As a next step, the volume, the material and resolu-tion of augmented communication was explored.

Design for Perceptual Crossing:

the artefact capable of perceiving presence perceiving perceptive actionsperceiving expressivity

the artefact shows perceptive activity to allow reciprocity




"e artefact reacts on light changes, therefore, it can detect human body, as someone moves, covers and uncovers the light sources in the environment. "e test included several conditions, light sources and sensors were placed both on the surface and inside of the body.

Design Notions:Focus the SensesActive Behaviour ObjectSubtlenessReaction to an External EventDetecting Active Behaviour SubjectRe!ecting Contextual NoiseCourse of Perception in Time


3.211 PaperGeoDome

3.212 PlasticDome"e artefact shows di%erent ‘active-behaviors’, changes the speed and pattern of its light animation regarding the distance and direction of someones hand; activate vibration when it was not touched for a long time as well as when it was touched for longer.

Conclusion and next steps"e ‘Wizard-Of-Oz’ technique allowed to explore perceptive qualities, the object could perceive pres-ence, perceptive actions and expressivity as well as showing perceptive activity. "e artefact had the capability to present most of the design notions, but even though it could express motion through the animation of light segments, exploration of physical motion was required for a richer experience.

body: translucent plastic dome (D=14cm) placed on a table; LED-s and vibration motor placedinside; electronics not visible, only the lights when they are activeactuator: 4 LED, 1 vibration motorsensor: - (manually controlled - ‘Wizard-of-Ozz’)

19









3.214 RotatingLightDisk

3.213 RotatingPlasticDome"e artefact can express movement through its augmented ‘light-body’ by individually dimming the grid of lights in a path, and by physical rotation. "rough this object, several condition was explored to experience the di%erence and combination of aug-mented and physical motion.

Conclusion and next stepsIn this prototype the physical motion was further explored, in combination with di%erent light ani-mations to see how this two components can work together in a object. "e artefact had stronger capa-bility to focus it senses, show active behavior and ex-press subtle changes; therefore people found it more interesting and associative. "e initial relation and the manner of interaction strongly dependent on the appearance and size of an object. Next to that, the relation of virtual and physi-cal needed to be further explored.

body: translucent plastic dome (D=14cm) placed on a disk which attached to a servo motor - hidden in a box; LED-s placed inside, rotating together with the dome; light sources only visible when they are activeactuator: 4 LED, 1 servo motorsensor: - (manually controlled - ‘Wizard-of-Oz’)

"e artefact can express movement through its augmented ‘light-body’ by dimming the grid of light sources in a path and by physical rotation which interfere with the light beam. "rough this object, several condition was explored to experience the dif-ference and combination of augmented and physical motion.

body: a tilted, rotating !at plate guiding the circle of LED light to the front. Around the plate, a thin ring holds 3 light sensors. actuator: 10 LED, 1 servo motorsensor: 3 LDR

Conclusion and next steps"e artefact investigated further in the relationship with the perceiver and the nature of light and shad-ows. "e stand and the angle created an interesting interaction with the combination of motion and light. "e physical motion still required further ex-plorations - to not only see the light but to touch the physical motion as well.

20

3.215 RotatingTouchDisk

body: a tilted, rotating, transparent !at plate mounted in a di%erently tilted surface; behind the plate 3 static light sources were placed. at the back of the plate, 3 aluminium foil pieces were attached - all of these placed in a box.

actuator: 3 LED, 1 servo motor

sensor: 3 capacitive sensors (aluminium foil)

"e artefact can express movement through its augmented ‘light-body’ by lighting up 3 light sourc-es individually and by rotation of a translucent disk in front of these lights. "rough this object, several condition was explored to experience the di%erence and combination of augmented and physical motion, especially how does it perceived when the touch sen-sitive surface starts moving.

Conclusion and next steps"is prototype could perceive where was it touched and indicate it through its lights as well as gently moving its touch sensitive surface, which showed subtle changes of its behavior in combination with the light. "e combination of visual and tactile feed-back and the integration of sensing and acting parts supported a rich experience. What this artefact still missed was the freedom; the perceiver was forced to use one hand and the form factors did not allow free-dom in expressing perceptual motoric actions either. "e idea of the touch sensitive, physically and vir-tually reacting surface was kept for the last object as well as the resolution of the augmented presence and the physical presence needed to be worked out.




Design NotionsFocus the SensesActive Behaviour ObjectSubtlenessReaction to an External EventDetecting Active Behaviour SubjectRe!ecting Contextual NoiseCourse of Perception in Time

21

Re!ectionQuick prototyping and quick decision making is essential in an exploratory phase of a design project. Appearance and behavior both in$uence the perception of an artefact. !is means I needed design both the outlook and the behavior which requires well-thought, high quality prototypes. !e act of designing these ‘boxes’ and ‘bodies’ for the electronic components made me more conscious what I am doing, trying to combine physical with digital seamlessly, create something natural by hiding or imitating. I choose to spend my e#ort more on prototyping, and less time on testing - which meant I was more relied on my intuitions than the results of user tests. !is made the research more personal, aligned more to my vision, my current questions in design, how can product or interaction designers use ‘digital’ and ‘physical’ in the design of rich and intelligent interactions.

22

4. Hypothesis testing "e Hypothesis - people perception of an interaction is dependent on the richness of the feedback they can get from an interactive object therefore the combination of augmented and inherent feedback results di#erent perception than the augmented feedback only.

"e phase of Hypothesis testing includes 3 steps, building a #nal prototype called Dig_Mo, setup and run an experiment with Dig_Mo and #nally analyzing the results of the experiment.

23

4.2 Building 4.3 Testing 4.4 Results

24

4.1 Dig_Mo - "e #nal artefact

25

Dig_Mo is an artefact, designed for researching the in!uence of inherent components on augmented behavior. "e corners of the top surface of the ar-tefact sensing where it was touched and it reacts on that by moving its center of movement in that di-rection. Dig_Mo is always in motion, and its speed and responsiveness depends on how dynamically it was touched; therefore if it is touched frequently in di%erent corners, its motion becomes faster and become more responsive, else it stays in position and slows down, meanwhile become less reactive to

touch.

"e artefact can express motion in two way; with its augmented light body or in addition to that it can move with its translucent disk as well; which is in a same level as the touch inputs and placed in front of the path of the light body, allows to be gently touch

during the interaction.

Video of the Dig_Mo <https://vimeo.com/56909279 >

26

a) translucent plexi plate for sensor coverb) translucent moving plexic) center plated) servoe) LED ringf) arduinog) side wallsh) holder - servoi) holder - LED ringj) servo extensionk) metal plates - CapSense

4.2 Building Dig_Mo

ag

ab

b

h

c

c

i

d

j

e

k

k

f

27

g

a

b

h

c

id

j

e

f

28

4.3 Testing Dig_MoProcedure12 students from the Technical University of Eind-hoven were attended to a test lab to participate in the comparison experiment.

All the participants was informed they will experi-ence two di%erent conditions and they can explore both of them as long as they would like. In the in-structions they were told that they can gently interact with the top surface of the object ("g.4.3.1 - a) and the headphones ("g.4.3.1 - d) are only for canceling the sound of the environment.15

A$er they experienced both conditions the partici-pants were asked to answer for a few questions. Next to the questionnaire, I interviewed the participants and tried to maintained balanced between “insider” and “outsider” roles which allows a good combina-tion of involvement and necessary detachment to remain objective (such as using their wording in the questions). "is type of participant observation is a typical data collection method done in the qualitative research paradigm.14 ("nd the full interviews in the Appendix, chapter 7)

14. Patton, Michael Quinn. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications, Incorporated, 2001.

15. Video collage of the experiment <https://vimeo.com/56902190 >

29

a) Dig_Mob) camerac) laptopd) headphonese) tablef) boxg) area where participants stands

a f e

b

dc

g

"g.4.3.1 - experiment setup

30

4.4 Results"e key part of the research project - and challenging phase of a qualitative research - is analysing the data. In this research the data is answers, and descriptions of interactions from the participants, which requires to identify and group the insights of these descrip-tions. In order to be able to draw some conclusions regarding the tendencies of the responses these in-sights can be grouped, and mapped in certain axis.

31

Augmented Motion

engagement animalactivity

unnecessary

alive

separation

activity

autonomic

behavior

‘me & the light’

General With Physical Motion

nervous

follows

connected

listening

it can perceive but it does not always want to

“When you sync with each

other ...“

nervous

more ob-vious

‘hysterious’

“there was always the

movement you can play with “

“the move-ment is its own

activity”

activeactive

involving

less hap-pening

searching

relaxed

rich

random

scaredintimate

playful

the whole ob-ject tries to do

something

subtle

playing

double

connected

fun

expressiveexpressive

responding

con#rma-tionplaying

cat

serioushypnotized

static

alligatormechanical

creature

running active

playing

bored and going some-where else

following

adapt

exploring

“almost forget about the light “

“I stimulated him.“

“it was chasing me“

anamorphic character

“that it moves is an extra show o% “

physicalizing the movement

“involves me in a more active

level “

“the motion is the lights little

friend”

“Somewhere running there, far

away from me“

“It was only me and the light. “

“engages me in a very unconscious

level”

“I was playing with something

what tries to escape or following me.

Something I was also doing. “

“... little bit unclear that is why indeed you

feel more involved, more dependent.“

“It tries to engage me more. Even if I don’t

pay attention any more to the light. “

“#rst one was already clear to

me. It did not added extra value. “

“When I am over-active it become

overactive, but not immediately “

“you place your hand...it becomes

calm”

“it perceives, but it chooses not to act

on it.”

“it was only me and the light.

Instead me and the light and the move-

ment. “

“I could for instance make it

curious or that it chase me or me chasing the

light itself, but the sec-ond one was not clear

to me. “

“I felt like more connected or

implied to move, because there is nothing else. “

““I guess I did not even put my both

hands o% for a really long “

“It came to me, and the I could

just reposition and play around a little

bit.“

“it was more natural when there

was less tangibility, ... the movement actually

distracted from the interaction I was

having.“

“I can feel the rhythm of the

rotation”

“I was touching something else when I was watching the lights

so it is quite separate for me “

“something live, I can touch. And it

touches back.“

respondingfaster

responded

“f it would be some kind of ani-

mal I would say it is more alive “

reached my hand

escaping

sensitive

less obvi-ous

active

following

curious

trying to #nd

it try to get to a

greater dis-tance

running

ignores

4.41 grouping the insights Participants was asked to describe the two di%erent conditions but still they frequently referred to the ob-ject in general. In these cases three topic was identi-#ed how they described the artefact("g.4.41 - middle part):

Connection with animal behaviors and with actual animals, like a cat.

Di%erent activities what the object did such as playing or exploring.

About the objects autonomic behavior, how it has its ability to make decisions like it ignores, adapts, or choose not to act on something.

"ere were some tendencies of the topics how they were described the Augmented Motion ("g.4.4.1 - le% side):

Participants described their relationship with the object, their engagement level, how they felt hyp-notized and perceived the object is sensitive.

Descriptions of the perceived actions and behav-ior such as following or curiosity.

Some participants perceived this condition high-ly engaged because they became equal with the augmented body as they spoke about it: ‘me and the light’.

When the participants talked about the condition with the physical motion their descriptions tended in the following topics (#g.4.4.1 - right side):

"ey described the artefact’s activities like escap-ing, ‘hysterious’ or playful.

Some participants found the physical movement unnecessary, they described as ‘extra show-o#’ or con#rmation of the augmented motion.

"e descriptions of the participants relationship with the object was identi#able through the way they described the interaction and the object itself, ‘it felt more alive’, scared or intimate.

For several participant the motion of the light and the physical movement did not form one entity, they perceived as two separate component, “the motion is the light little friend”.

"g.4.4.1 - insight groups

32

4.42 mapping the insights In order to contextualise the identi#ed insights, these items were mapped in a two axis diagram, where it visualise how active and involving the conditions were perceived.

General

passive

active

separated involved

nervousfollows

connected

listening

it can perceive but it does not always want to

“When you sync with each

other ...“

playing

cat

alligator

mechanical creature

running

active playing

bored and going some-where else

following

adapt

exploring

“I stimulated him.“

“When I am overactive it be-

come overactive, but not immediately “

“you place your hand...it becomes

calm”

“it perceives, but it chooses not to act

on it.”

running

ignores

"g.4.42.1 - insight map - General

33

Augmented Motion

active

passive

separated involved

involving

less hap-pening

searching

relaxed

serious

hypnotised

static

“it was chasing me“

anamorphic character

“Somewhere running there, far

away from me“

“It was only me and the light. “

“engages me in a very unconscious

level”“it was only

me and the light. Instead me and the light and the move-

ment. “

“I could for instance make it

curious or that it chase me or me chasing the

light itself, but the sec-ond one was not clear

to me. “

“I felt like more connected

or implied to move, because there is nothing else. “

““I guess I did not even put my both

hands o% for a really long “

“It came to me, and the I could

just reposition and play around a little

bit.“

“it was more natural when there was less

tangibility,”

sensitive

less obvious

active

following

curious

trying to #nd

it try to get to a

greater dis-tance

With Physical Motion active

passive

separated involved

nervous

more ob-vious

‘hysterious’

“there was al-ways the move-ment you can

play with “

“the move-ment is its own

activity”

activeactive

rich

random

scared

intimate

playful

the whole ob-ject tries to do

something

subtle

playing

double

connected

fun

expressiveexpressive

responding

con#rma-tion

“almost forget about the light “

“that it moves is an extra show o% “

physicalizing the movement

“involves me in a more active level “

“the motion is the lights little friend”

“I was playing with something

what tries to escape or following me.

Something I was also doing. “

“... little bit unclear that is why indeed

you feel more involved, more dependent.“

“It tries to engage me more. Even if I don’t

pay attention any more to the light. “

“#rst one was already clear to me.

It did not added extra value. “

“I was touching something else when I

was watching the lights so it is quite separate

for me “ “something live, I can touch. And it

touches back.“

responding

faster responded

“f it would be some kind of ani-

mal I would say it is more alive “

reached my hand

escaping

"g.4.42.2 - insight map - Augmented Motion

"g.4.42.3 - insight map - With Physical Motion

34

4.43 evaluating the mapsBy using di%erent colors for the di%erent condition orders, conclusions can be drawn how the initially explored behavior in!uence the perception of the second condition. For example tendency can be seen on the map of the ‘augmented motion’ ("g.4.42.2) which shows people who seen that augmented mo-tion #rst (blue: condition order B) are more engaged with that condition then the others (red: condition order A); furthermore you can see on the ‘with phys-ical motion’ map ("g.4.42.3) that some of the same participants (order B) perceived that condition more separated than those who experienced the ‘augment-ed motion’ #rst.

"ese insight maps shows general trends how the participants perceived the separate conditions. On the ‘augmented motion’ map ("g.4.42.2), the lo-cation of the insights shows variety of participant descriptions how involving was the interplay and the object when they only experienced the light-body

movement. "is engagement with the artefact was perceived both as passive, such as hypnotised and as active, like curious.

Figure 4.42.3 shows that most of the people de-scribed the interplay and the object’s behavior as active, like ‘hysterios’, playful, or ‘more alive’. In the same time compare to the ‘augmented motion’ map the descriptions more vary in the separation-in-volvement axis which means for some perceived that condition more ‘connected’ to them and some felt “the motion is the object’s own activity” and has no real in!uence on it. One other interesting thing which happened with only those who saw the light-only condition #rst (condition B), that they explicitly describe the phys-ical motion as an ‘extra show o% ’ which is only a con#rmation and not add any meaning to them in the interplay.

Tendencies

the order of experienced conditions in!uence the perception - in ‘Augmented motion’ condition order B are more involved than condition order A; in ‘With physical motion’ condition order B are more separated than condition order A

strong engagement shown in the ‘Augmented motion’, that condition was perceived involving for most of the participants

the condition ‘With the physical motion’ was perceived more active, but the engage-ment level was varied

35

Re!ectionIn the limited timeframe of the project, in less than 2 weeks the "nal prototype was built, programmed and tested. As the experiment shows interesting insights, it indicated the limitation of the prototype as well. Capacitive sensing, controlling 20 LED-s and moving parts all had its all challenges but at the end everything worked out. Some opportunities still remained to develop further both in the hardware and behavior site - more stable sensor reading and higher resolution of behavior changes. I had the chance to talk with Pierre Levy, one of the research group member at the TU/e before I run the experiment - and as he pointed out, the experiment should investigate my research question, all the questions and the setup should re$ect on that. He recommended to create two scenarios, two conditions, where I can compare the behavior with and without the physical motion. !rough the question-naire and by changing the condition orders I can "lter out those tendencies which resulted by the order and what was the in$uence of the physical motion.

36

"e experiment shows di%erence between the two conditions, and both condition was achieved the perception of the intentional active, engaging inter-play ("g.4.42.2, "g.4.42.3). Tendencies showed how the physical motion in!uences the perception of the virtual interplay with the artefact designed for this project. "e feeling of involvement and the perception of ac-tiveness was described in both condition but in some cases, the physical motion was seen as a separated element of the interaction; meanwhile the interaction with the virtual motion was interpreted as an inti-mate, hypnotizing interplay.

As the physical motion together with the virtual light body was associated with a more living, rich and nat-ural ‘creature’, the virtual motion was o$en described more as sensitive and engaging.

"e behavior of the object during the experiment did not change, what changed is how the object expressed itself which changed the participants’ perception of how this object behaves. "e way how interactive objects look and express themselves are fundamental in the way we people, users perceive their actions. "is project shows how can the medi-um of the movement - let it be a grid of LEDs or a rotating disk - can change the way we interact or feel about the interaction.

5. Conclusion

37

How does the perception changes if you add physicality to something virtual? In this project, people perceived the object with combined physical and digital motion more active and some felt it less engaging.

What happens when the augmented ‘body’ becomes tangible? "e combination of augmented and inherent feedback can enhance the feeling of active behavior by giving a richer experience.

How can you enhance this reciprocal interplay by using inherent and aug-mented components? "e question is more, what aspects you can enhance in the perception through design? "is project shows how rich feedback can strengthen the feeling of activity, playfulness or ner-vousness; and how can simplicity, and subtleness can empower the perception of involve-ment and engagement.

How can this combination be meaningful?In the next chapter (6) application recommendations can be found.

38

6. RecommendationTo design interactive products and environments in the future, designers need to know how to design engaging and expressive interactions. "is design research project demonstrates the e%ectiveness of physical ideation, working with ‘experienceable’ scenarios, show it to people and understand how do they perceive the design and why.

In my case, I was triggered by the current consum-er products, the analog and digital interfaces; and I wanted to know how people perceive a combination of analog and digital interface. "e results shows for example if I would like to de-sign a game for children the combination of digital and analog would be perfect for a game where I would like to stimulate kids to be more active and provide rich, expressive feedback with a combination of lights, sound and physical motion. In case if I am designing a serious, logic game and I would like to o%er an engaging interplay with the toy I would focus on simple, subtle augmented feedback in the interac-tion.

I think currently in interaction design there is a trend to give as rich experience as possible to the user; which means you can touch the virtual and see the invisible. On the other hand as we see currently on smart phones and tablets, they try to replace the ‘physical’ - the notepad, the calendar - and use the GUI on a screen for everything what is resulting the richness of interaction stay in a few inch !at touch screen which occasionally can vibrate. I believe there is a certain balance, and as soon as we understand the power and di%erence in certain elements of inter-action; designers can truly focus on experiences and create interfaces which feels natural but not invisible.

If I would have the opportunity to design a next version of Dig_Mo; I would develop further the mov-ing-touch-surface to give more freedom in touching, slowing down or speeding up the motion. Next to that gesture interaction with objects is a current-ly growing #eld, how people feel interacting with objects through hand movements and how does this way of interaction in!uence the perception.

40

7. AppendixDATA P2

Male / Master IDcondition order - A (1st condition: light and motion together; 2nd condition: light only) 1st condition: L+M 02 min 42 sec /////////////////////////////////2nd condition: L 03 min 01 sec ////////////////////////////////////

preferred condition: 2ndkeywords: nervous, relaxed, running, calm down

INTERVIEW

0:00:16.1 Did you feel the object could perceive?0:00:19.6 Yes, a little bit. 0:00:22.1 Why just a little bit?0:00:28.6 One time I had the feeling when I push it here the light goes #nger to #nger; than I make it smaller, like the touching points.0:00:55.5 Which one do you prefer, when there was movement or there was no movement?0:01:00.7 No movement; because with movement, I did not really felt involved, like it is doing its own thing, I have no in!uence on it. 0:01:14.4 Alright; Can you describe the two behaviours? and what is the di%erence between the two?0:01:24.6 For me both of them was nervous, "e light was only like from 6 to 9; like in a clock, a quarter. And in the beginning it was running around.0:01:51.7 But in the behaviour; what did you feel di%erent between the two? In the movement and no movement?0:01:55.8 For me, the movement was more nervous, more do not know what to do. 0:02:12.2 And which one of the situation did you felt more involved?0:02:20.8 Without the movement. "at was more involving. 0:02:25.6 Did you felt the object has a goal?0:02:33.6 Maybe to relax him. In the beginning it was running around in loops, and by touching it, it becomes smaller, or did I nervous him, or I did make him more relaxed. Just small movements. 0:02:59.4 So you can in!uence its behavior by touching di%erent points? "e speed?0:03:07.4 Only the length. 0:03:12.8 Do you think the object has an opinion about you? 0:03:23.3 I did not really found it out. 0:03:31.6 What do you think what was more pleasant for the object? When was it more involved? with or without the movement?0:03:43.3 I think with the movement. He has more in!uence on me than I have on the object. 0:03:57.1 Can you imagine some kind of function for such a behavior?0:04:06.2 like a turntable. for me it was more like make it more or less nervous. an object you have to calm down.0:04:39.4 can you imagine a context?0:04:45.3 like a sleeping object. or a$er sports. an object what makes you relaxed. 0:05:14.4 it was a bit confused. It went from 6 till 9 for a long time. so i was doing a lots of things. but it was only doing one quarter. 0:05:41.2 can you name the object?0:05:48.8 no0:05:53.1 how do you name your projects?0:05:54.8 I don’t.

Scripted interviews can be found in this chapter.

41

DATA P3

Male / Master IDcondition order - A (1st condition: light and motion together; 2nd condition: light only) 1st condition: L+M 01 min 58 sec ///////////////////////2nd condition: L 02 min 07 sec /////////////////////////

preferred condition: 1stkeywords: search, nervous, hysterious, rich, sensitive, random, trying, scared, escape, curious, #nd, intimate, distant

INTERVIEW0:01:52.0 Did you feel the object could perceive?0:01:55.2 hmmm.. Yes.0:01:59.6 How does it perceive?0:02:04.6 How? 0:02:12.5 What is the way it detects? 0:02:18.7 It perceives the presence of my hand. "at they are there or they are not. 0:02:24.3 One, two hands? the movement of the hand? or is it only the 4 corners?0:02:41.6 I had the impression, in the second situation, it was something that was searched for like where my hand was, and not sure where to go, and at some point it made a decision to go to one hand or to the other. And with the #rst situation, I had the im-pression that it was much more nervous and more active for its own movement; specially when I touched several places it became ‘hysterious’ 0:03:18.6 Which one did you prefer? Which one was better?0:03:25.3 I felt the #rst one could be more intweking (?), like more rich. But the second one like more sensitive for me. "e #rst one was showed ‘hysterious’, looked more a bit random, but the second one I had an idea it trying to do this. 0:03:48.4 So, did you felt more involved in the second?0:03:51.6 Yeah, in the end the second. Even though I preferred the interaction of the second one.0:03:54.7 And what do you think about this entity, in which condition it felt more involved?0:04:08.6 I think in the second one. In the #rst one it was more scared. Also in the #rst one I felt it tries to get away from me some-how but it can not because it is a circle. And in the second one it tried to move towards to me. 0:04:31.1 Do you think there is a goal of the behaviours? Any of them?0:04:33.8 Yes, I think the #rst one, is like escaping; and the second one was like curiosity, it was trying to #nd what was there.0:05:04.3 Can you imagine a bene#t of such an application? not only the physicality, but also how you felt? Can you imagine an application where the physical movement reenforce the augmented?0:05:29.3 Good question. I don’t have a direct answer. It is interesting to say I felt the object was more involved or I was. 0:05:57.8 So, how distant were you from the object in the two situation?0:06:05.1 "e #rst one was closer. 0:06:05.9 Because of the movement?0:06:09.9 Yeah. It was more like intimate. I could feel it moving with my hands. 0:06:13.6 And the second one was less intimate?0:06:18.3 Yes. More distant. Something behind the glass. Like a #sh in the aquarium. 0:06:36.6 Do you have any idea how can I name this?0:06:42.9 ‘"e Circle of Confusion’?

42

DATA P4

Male / Bachelor IDcondition order - A (1st condition: light and motion together; 2nd condition: light only) 1st condition: L+M 02 min 20 sec ////////////////////////////2nd condition: L 02 min 41 sec ////////////////////////////////

preferred condition: 2ndkeywords: reach, follow, search, guide, active, subtle

INTERVIEW

0:05:40.8 Could you feel the object can perceive you?0:05:44.1 Yes.0:05:47.7 And how does it sees?0:06:01.1 First one, when I touched it I went further. One light further each time. Till it reached my hand. And make it shorter. 0:06:23.1 Can you describe the two di%erent behaviour?0:06:50.9 "is one (no movement) is more clear it wants you to go somewhere.0:06:53.2 Is it trying to guide you somewhere? Or is it trying to catch you? 0:07:01.2 It is following you. But I think it is both. First it is searching me. Following me. It wants me guide me to a point.0:07:43.0 Is it di%erent in the two condition?0:07:48.6 First time it is more wide. I like the second one more. 0:08:07.9 this would be my next question.0:08:11.2 "e second one is more clear, because it gets your attention; but the other one less.0:08:33.7 Which one was the object more involved? More responsive to your actions? You said the second time you felt more in control, but was the object also more involved in that interplay?0:08:56.7 "e second one, I had a feeling it wants to get me somewhere. 0:09:04.8 So that is the goal of the object.0:09:13.9 So what situation was the object more in control?0:09:35.7 ... Ok; then I ask di%erently. "is physical movement, what do you think it added to this object? So you said the second one was more clear and easy, but the #rst one? It was more nervous, more active? 0:10:09.1 No the second one is far more active. "e #rst one is more subtle. 0:10:57.3 In which one you felt more distance?0:11:06.0 I think the #rst one was more close to me. I like the second one more, I like it tries to get me somewhere. 0:11:38.2 And which one you felt more intimate? 0:11:43.1 I think the #rst one. "e second one just tries to get me somewhere but the #rst one somehow I felt more warm. 0:12:10.7 Any idea how can I name it.0:12:16.4 oh no. we also having troubles naming ours.

43

DATA P5

Male / Master IDcondition order - A (1st condition: light and motion together; 2nd condition: light only) 1st condition: L+M 03 min 03 sec ////////////////////////////////////2nd condition: L 01 min 50 sec //////////////////////

preferred condition: - (more natural: 1st )keywords: follow, sync, listen, connect, ignore, relaxed, play, intimate, natural, responding

INTERVIEW

0:05:10.8 Did you feel the object can perceive?0:05:15.9 Partly. Because sometimes it follows you. 0:05:21.8 But is it perceiving you?0:05:30.0 If you wanna give it some human characteristic than it can perceive but it does not always want to. 0:05:40.6 So how does it perceive? 0:05:47.5 You mean technically? 0:05:51.5 Nooo. Is it about touch? about movement? "e distance between them? Or the relation between the light and you? what?0:06:00.6 First, I was kinda confused when you said to do it slower.0:06:15.2 Oh no I was trying to show you can use your whole palm. So how does it perceiving you?0:06:29.3 I would say it is the movement when you go along with it. When you sync with each other; you and the object, than it start listening to you. "an you more connected to each other. And then It stops and then it perceives me or completely ignores me. 0:07:00.5 So can you brie!y describe the two di%erent behaviors?0:07:03.5 Yeah; the #rst one, this thing was moving and the second one it did not. 0:07:06.8 Ok. But the behaviour felt exactly the same?0:07:13.9 It seemed, the second one was more relaxed. Maybe because there is also a moving part in the #rst one. 0:07:31.4 So what did the movement added or removed? 0:07:53.8 It was more of its own activity I think. I was more focused on the light to try to Interact with. I was trying to make the lights follow me and make the lights do stu% and the physical movement of the circle, seemed to me the object own movement. He or she - I do not know what it is - was trying to do something.0:08:18.7 So is it two di%erent thing? the light and the movement?0:08:21.3 No, not two di%erent part, because light and the movement moves in the same direction, on the same boundaries. 0:08:34.8 Which one did you feel more involved yourself?0:08:37.5 I think the #rst one. Yeah. Because it is more happening. Sometimes I didn’t know what it was doing or what is happen-ing. But there was always the movement you can play with. And how the whole thing was moving.0:09:16.6 And which one was the object more involved?0:09:22.5 It was also the #rst one. 0:09:30.3 And which one you felt more intimate? "e #rst or the second?0:09:32.5 I think the second one. 0:09:35.6 Why?0:09:37.9 Because it is less happening. And only the !uent movement of the lights. So maybe because in the #rst condition it is more obvious when it doesn’t want to do what I want. And the second one it is less obvious. 0:10:23.9 You are more forgiving in the second. Or understanding. 0:10:26.3 Yeah. "at is why it is more intimate, it does not try to repeal me. And at the #rst one you kinda get that idea. 0:10:49.4 So how did you felt the distance between you and the behaviour of the object? Which one was closer? 0:11:09.0 It is just like I said, if there is only lights, and the light is all the way there and it seems like it try to get to a greater dis-tance. I perceive the distance more than when the whole object tries to do something. 0:11:27.7 And which one felt more natural?20:11:32.3 I would say the #rst one, because the movement is natural. I am moving. And I am trying to physically manipulate things. And then this whole circle was physically responding as well. So I think that is more natural. 0:12:03.6 I really wanted to touch it. If this would show some kind of feedback, and I could really manipulate this one as well, then I think you would get the real thing. You can feel than the forces, how stable, how strong it is. "an I could try to move it and it could allow me to do so.

44

DATA P6

Female / Master IDcondition order - A (1st condition: light and motion together; 2nd condition: light only) 1st condition: L+M 01 min 58 sec ///////////////////////2nd condition: L 02 min 20 sec ////////////////////////////

preferred condition: - (more natural: 1st )keywords: active, playful, alive

INTERVIEW

Did you feel the object can perceive you?Both versions?Yes"e #rst one more than the second one. Why?"e #rst one was quicker to go where my hand was. For the second one it took a while. It did something in the direction I wanted, but it took some time. And how does this object perceives things?I am not sure. 0:00:23.1 Which one did you felt more involved? "e #rst or the second one?0:00:27.8 With the movement.0:00:33.4 It was faster how it responded to me. And it was more active than the second one. 0:01:22.0 Which behaviour you felt more intimate?0:01:25.0 "e second one. "e light-only. 0:01:40.1 And how did you felt the distance between you and the object? Did the physical movement brought you closer or more distant?0:01:57.1 Closer. It was more playful. 0:02:08.3 And which one felt more natural?0:02:11.9 "e #rst one. I was more aware of that it was reacting on me. 0:02:38.4 Going back to the intimacy. Some people said this physical movement makes it more intimate because you can really touch it. What do you think?0:03:01.5 I would not say that it is more intimate. But if it would be some kind of animal I would say it is more alive. "at is why the #rst one felt more natural.

45

DATA P7

Male / Master IDcondition order - B (1st condition: light only; 2nd condition: light and motion together) 1st condition: L 02 min 16 sec ///////////////////////////2nd condition: L+M 02 min 49 sec /////////////////////////////////

preferred condition: 1stkeywords: play, run, rhythm, escape, follow, live

INTERVIEW

0:05:47.7 Did you feel the object can perceive?0:06:10.8 Specially the second one.0:06:12.1 Why?0:06:18.6 A$er some time I started playing with only the rotating thing, I almost forget about the light. So I was trying to play with the rotating thing. So actually I am interacting with something, that is what I feel playing with it at the end. 0:06:31.9 And the other one?0:06:36.4 "e only-light. So, my focus was only on the light, so I was touching something else when I was watching the lights so it is quite separate for me. 0:06:53.1 So what do you think how does the object perceives? What does it react on?0:07:13.3 It reacts almost the same in both conditions. It perceives my two hands. Not one hand. I tried to cover as much as possible with one hand, but the feeling is di%erent when I touch it with two hands. And that is something nice because ... I do not know. At the end I tried to play with two hands also with the rotating ring. So I think, for me, it perceives when I am putting two hands. And it runs faster. 0:07:59.3 What elements of the two hand it perceives? is it the position? 0:08:03.7 It is mostly the position. What I did I put one of my hand somewhere here () and here and it starts running really fast. Instead of only one hand. 0:08:23.1 Can you describe the two di%erent behaviours?0:08:42.7 It tries to play. But because of the rotating speed is almost the same, the degree is also almost the same. So I can feel the rhythm of the rotation. 0:09:03.5 So how does it behave?0:09:12.8 I tried to behave the other way it does. So I can say, it behaves the other way. 0:09:31.0 So is it escaping or following?0:09:32.1 I tried both. I had the feeling it really depends on me. So that is my feeling. 0:10:29.1 Which one do you prefer?0:10:30.5 I would say the #rst one, in a sense that I focus more only on one thing. And I like the second one because I interact with something what is really moving. But I loose the connection between the LED and the rotating. So I can only focus on one thing. When I was playing with the ring I did not pay attention to the LED at all. But I liked to play with it. 0:10:57.8 Which one you felt more involved?0:11:08.3 "e second one. "e #rst one, I separate the object from the light, so the light and what I am doing. But the second one I was playing with something what tries to escape or following me. Something I was also doing. So I felt more involved in the second case. 0:11:45.8 Which behaviour felt more intimate? 0:11:49.1 "e second one. Because something live, I can touch. And it touches back. 0:12:06.6 How did you feel the distance between you and the object in this two di%erent conditions?0:12:12.1 "e #rst one is quite large. And also because most of the time the light is not in my site. Somewhere running there, far away from me. Also the feeling of me with the object. "e second one, when I only look at the light, it is the same as the #rst one, I tried to play with it and then the distance became small. 0:12:42.4 Which one felt more natural?0:12:44.2 "e #rst one.

46

DATA P8 & P9

Male / Master ID x2condition order - B (1st condition: light only; 2nd condition: light and motion together) 1st condition: L 02 min 09 sec /////////////////////////2nd condition: L+M 01 min 27 sec //////////////////

1st condition: L 03 min 01 sec ////////////////////////////////////2nd condition: L+M 02 min 00 sec ////////////////////////

preferred conditions: 1stkeywords: stimulate, active, explore, respond, unclear, dependent, come, reposition, play, chasing, curious, double, con#rmation, connected

INTERVIEW

0:08:21.2 Did you feel the object can perceive?0:08:31.1 At least respond. Reacting upon one input. Or at least what I saw. 0:08:45.9 I mean if it is response, it perceiving you in a way. My answer would be yes. in both cases. 0:09:00.0 Is it the same in the #rst and the second one?0:09:03.6 To me, it was the same. I liked the #rst perception better because the second one was in my opinion only showing the motion to con#rm the direction. And the #rst one was already clear to me. It did not added extra value. 0:09:27.4 So which one was the preferred behaviour?0:09:29.2 Also the #rst one. A$er the #rst one I thought the second one will be better, but then I noticed, indeed, that is what I think, that it moves is an extra show o% how the thing is moving, in a way. exaggerating only. 0:09:56.7 And how does this thing perceive?0:10:19.2 Four little dots. And it acted upon the direction where it moves. 0:10:59.1 So how could you in!uence the speed? it was sometimes faster sometimes slower.0:11:02.3 It was something I could not make sense of. At a speci#c moment it was really fast. ‘Oh, what did I do?’ 0:11:09.0 For me it was like I stimulated him. In a way that I was more active, and more exploring he was more. And I did not get the sensing. It was location based maybe, but ... I found hard to make the relationship between the light, of course it is hard, it comes to your hand, but I thought it can sense me everywhere all the time, and then have a di%erent kind of output that is moving this thing. At least I did not have a feeling it was locally sensing.0:11:59.2 So there is no di%erence between the two behaviours?0:12:11.8 No. I did not see it. 0:12:18.1 In which one you felt more involved?0:12:32.5 I think it was the #rst, because it was only me and the light. Instead me and the light and the movement. 0:12:42.9 I think the second one goes almost more to responding, a reactive thing, the #rst is a little bit unclear that is why indeed you feel more involved, more dependent. 0:13:06.6 So is it more clear when you have the physical movement?0:13:08.4 For me it was.0:13:22.8 "e #rst one I really liked a lot because it was reacting upon my position. It came to me, and the I could just reposition and play around a little bit. It’s chasing me for instance. 0:13:53.0 I was expecting the second one was more elaborate, so that motion will add some extra communication as well, because I got the communication using the light and my position, I could for instance make it curious or that it chase me or me chasing the light itself, but the second one was not clear to me. So I missed a bit of that communication between my input and the motion.DATA P8_9 part20:00:18.0 Which behaviour you felt more intimate?0:00:20.6 First. Yeah, again, for me intimate means also involved. 0:00:31.1 More people said, because they can feel this movement it is more intimate. 0:00:39.4 I didn’t #nd it personal having a rotating ring in addition the light itself. It was really intimate the light and just sensing and playing around. 0:00:57.8 So it did not enhanced, it just extended it. 0:01:05.7 I think the issue is although the light is moving, it is moving but not in the location. So having next to that having a motor which makes the platform moves is a really di%erent output than seeing the light changing direction. 0:01:33.5 I thought it was a bit double. Or at least tent to be a con#rmation. 0:01:51.7 How did you perceive the distance between you and the object? Is the physical motion brought it closer or created more distance?0:02:02.5 Again, the #rst one. I think I guess I did not even put my both hands o% for a really long time in the #rst case. I felt like more connected or implied to move, because there is nothing else. 0:02:38.2 And which felt more natural? 0:02:43.5 "e #rst. 0:03:59.0 If you would remove the light when the plate is turning, I would actually feel the movement.

47

DATA P10

Male / Master ID condition order - B (1st condition: light only; 2nd condition: light and motion together) 1st condition: L 01 min 53 sec ///////////////////////2nd condition: L+M 01 min 34 sec ///////////////////

preferred condition: 2ndkeywords: overactive, alligator, cat, fun, serious, expressive, anamorphic, mechanical creature, distract

INTERVIEW

0:03:57.1 Do you feel the object can perceive? 0:04:02.5 To an extent, yes. Perceives my own activity. When I am overactive it become overactive, but not immediately, which makes it seem like reacting instead of ... it seems fairly clear. So it is not just random stu% happening. So it is reacting to me.0:04:48.3 So both condition was completely clear. 0:04:55.3 "e second one even seemed like only physicalizing the movement. 0:05:05.2 Can you describe the two behaviours?0:05:14.8 I thought it was actually identical. What happens is, if you do not move much or you just placing your hands to the light-ed area, it become calm, like holding over it. It slows down, calms down much like holding the eyes of an alligator. and then you move your hand like rubbing a cat in a wrong way, it goes all (...) .0:06:14.8 And what do you think how you behaviour changes in this two conditions?0:06:18.3 First of all, when you start moving you immediately start having more fun, so the #rst one was very serious but when there was movement I was like ‘yeah man’. And in fact the movement helped a lot, it was far more expressive, and the lights itself is sort of like a loading bar and it actually gives it a sort of anamorphic character. its own creature. it is not really relatable to an actual animal. it is very much of a mechanical creature. (...) "is does not steal from animals but still has a character. 0:07:52.0 Which one did you prefer?0:07:53.2 "e second.0:07:54.7 Why?0:07:56.4 Because it was more fun. 0:08:05.9 In which condition you were more involved?0:08:07.2 In the #rst one. Because it in the second one I already felt I know what is gonna happen. It was just too similar for me to be more active. 0:08:38.6 Which condition was more intimate?0:08:42.6 "e #rst one was more intimate. Because when I am talking about intimate I think of very #ne movements, you know, like in a girl, some small details. 0:09:11.7 Some people said the movement made it more intimate. 0:09:33.8 It probably depends on a person. I am more like a chick. Touching is nice, but when this very small things happen... that is a wow moment. (...) less is more. 0:10:22.4 Is the movement made it more closer or distant you and the object?0:10:49.8 I do not think it has any e%ect on it. Because it is moving it doesn’t make it more or less connected. I have a very clear connection, it is not like a computer. I am interacting with this. I can feel that I interact with this. "is formation that is happening. Not the object, with the formation. "e movement does not change that interactive sense. 0:11:37.2 And which felt more natural?0:11:41.4 "e #rst. Because the servo has a strange kinda motion, which does not feel organic. Cause you used the word natural, I take it very literal. For my natural or organic means something I can #nd in nature. 0:12:32.2 I would say it was more natural when there was less tangibility, because of the added layer of the movement actually dis-tracted from the interaction I was having. 0:13:23.9 Suggestion for name?0:13:55.1 it looks like a problem solver animal survival thing...

48

DATA P11

Female / Bachelor ID condition order - B (1st condition: light only; 2nd condition: light and motion together) 1st condition: L 02 min 25 sec /////////////////////////////2nd condition: L+M 01 min 56 sec ///////////////////////

preferred condition: 1stkeywords: choose, follow, bored, go, little friend, buddies, distracting, intruding, compete

INTERVIEW

0:04:57.7 Did you feel the object able to perceive?0:05:00.2 Yes. But I feel like it chooses not to act on it. 0:05:10.2 Both conditions?0:05:11.5 Not all the time, but in the beginning I guess. 0:05:16.7 And how does it perceive? Or what does it perceive?0:05:23.7 I don’t know. In the beginning I thought it is following me. Trying to come towards me, and then sometimes I thought it was bored and it just going somewhere else. 0:05:35.5 Can you describe the two di%erent behaviors? the two conditions?0:05:51.1 In the second one (with motion) I had more a feeling it companying the disk. It was his little friend. 0:06:03.5 Little friend of your hand or ...?0:06:04.4 No. "e light and the disk. "ey were buddies. 0:06:18.3 Which one do you prefer, the #rst or second one?0:06:21.9 I like the #rst one.0:06:22.9 Why?0:06:24.6 Because the second one I felt like a bit distracting. 0:06:27.6 Distracting?0:06:28.7 Because the disk. "an it was an another thing. "an the sound was also confusing me. (static noise in the headphone) 0:06:35.9 "e static sound?0:06:41.9 Cause it got louder and so$er and it was like ‘waved-rushy’. It got more intensive in some point. And I was like ‘ow, I just did something’. ... 0:07:36.2 Which one did you feel more involved?0:07:39.1 I think the #rst one. 0:07:43.6 Because?0:07:46.4 Because there in the beginning, ... ...0:09:05.2 I had the opinion the light would (..) more to me. I don’t know. Maybe I am completely wrong. Maybe also my attention was stronger in the beginning. 0:09:25.8 So how would you describe your di%erent intention in the two cases?0:09:32.2 In the #rst one I still tried to #gure it out what is going on. First I was only focusing on the light. So then I maybe noticed more. And then the sound got more intense, and than I thought maybe I moved in to some corner, than I payed more attention to di%erent in!uences. Maybe. 0:10:07.1 Which behaviour was more intimate?0:10:12.4 "e #rst one. Because in the second one there was also the other guy. "e disk. Stealing my attention you know. 0:10:23.3 And how do you feel about the distance between you and the object in the two condition? Is this physical movement - as I understand you - is really just isolate you and the light-body movement?0:10:35.0 No. "e light and the disk, they were closer together. "ey felt like they were close. In the second one I felt like I am in-truding. And in the #rst one. It was only me and the light. You know. 0:11:04.9 Which one felt more natural?0:11:08.7 I think the #rst one. For the same reason. Because then I’m not like trying to compete with the disk. It seems like pulling a light a little bit.0:11:33.9 Some people said, it was more intimate for them to physically feel the movement. 0:11:44.1 I did not touch the disk so much. When it was moving with the light. Maybe that is a good point. "at I did not go to that direction.

49

DATA P12

Male / Master HTI condition order - B (1st condition: light only; 2nd condition: light and motion together) 1st condition: L 02 min 30 sec //////////////////////////////2nd condition: L+M 03 min 18 sec ///////////////////////////////////////

preferred condition: - (more natural: 2nd )keywords: play, confuse, adapt, stop, static, expressive, focus, experiment, connected, hypnotised, conscious, engage, unconscious, active

INTERVIEW

0:05:12.7 Did you feel the object able to perceive?0:05:23.6 I think it react to what I do. 0:05:26.9 And what was it perceive? 0:05:33.5 If I touch, it moves where I am touching. 0:05:39.5 "at is all what it does?0:05:42.2 Yeah. Well, If I am playing with it, if I am start switching, trying to confuse, moving, it goes faster, to adapt what I am doing. 0:06:00.7 Can you describe the two behaviours? Or was that the same?0:06:10.5 "e one, it was moving then it starts perceiving you. It reacts on subtle movement. If I press one side it tries to follow. It goes fast and then stops a little bit. "an if you start playing with it, it starts. 0:06:40.2 In both conditions?0:06:50.0 No, in the #rst one, it is more static without the movement. an you can feel in the second one, you can see more. I do not know how to say. More expressive maybe. Even if you know, or you look, you know that it is moving. Maybe it is still missing some-thing that tells more, makes it stronger, the feeling of movement. Because I know it is moving, because I can see it. But I can not feel it completely.DATA P12 part20:00:24.3 Which behaviour was more intimate?0:00:30.2 "e second one. 0:00:31.4 Why?0:00:32.7 Because I was trying to get deeper into the feeling. So I was very focused on trying to feel. "e other was more to make the light move around. In the second one it was ... Maybe because I got use to it, the interaction, so I was playing with it. "an when I knew how it works, I was also experimenting, what happens if I press one, and then pressing one and pressing another one in the same time. "ere will be something else what happen. 0:01:33.2 And what about intimacy? Which one was emotionally more intimate? 0:01:37.1 I got deeper in the second one. 0:01:46.7 And how did you perceive the distance in the interactions? Which one you felt closer the object?0:02:03.2 In the #rst one I felt closer the light, because I was only paying attention of the light, so I focused all my attention on the light. On the second one, I was trying to feel more than only paying attention the lights. It is just a di%erent feeling actually. "e one you completely centered to the light, the other one, you are looking at the light, but you are more trying to perceive the movement. 0:02:42.0 I ask a bit di%erently. Was this physical movement connecting you or creating a border between you and the object? 0:02:47.0 I think, I got more connected. 0:02:57.7 Which felt more natural? 0:03:08.1 I don’t know. I like the movement. I like I can feel. It makes me more... It tries to engage me more. Even if I don’t pay attention any more to the light. 0:06:26.6 Why did you felt more engaging this physicality? What was so attractive in that?0:06:32.8 Cause... First you are playing with it, and with the light, you get hypnotised. But in the second one, I do not get hypno-tised. It is more that I am more conscious about the feeling. 0:06:57.1 "e #rst one engages me in a very unconscious level. And the second one involves me in a more active level.

Design Research Report

Documents

e research

exploratory design research

interaction design

exploratory research

research direction

design practice

design approach3

research rough design