Conference PaperPDF Available

An interaction vocabulary. Describing the How of interaction.


Abstract and Figures

New technologies and opportunities in interaction design also come with new responsibilities. Besides the product's visual aesthetics, design needs to address the aesthetics of interaction. We discuss the various starting points of emerging approaches and then present an own approach to the How of interaction. We suggest an interaction vocabulary, i.e., a set of eleven dimensions of descriptive, non-judgmental, non-technology bound attributes of interaction. First insights from applying the vocabulary in design and evaluation studies and future research are discussed.
Content may be subject to copyright.
An Interaction Vocabulary. Describing
the How Of Interaction
New technologies and opportunities in interaction
design also come with new responsibilities. Besides the
product's visual aesthetics, design needs to address the
aesthetics of interaction. We discuss the various
starting points of emerging approaches and then
present an own approach to the How of interaction. We
suggest an interaction vocabulary, i.e., a set of eleven
dimensions of descriptive, non-judgmental, non-
technology bound attributes of interaction. First insights
from applying the vocabulary in design and evaluation
studies and future research are discussed.
Author Keywords
Aesthetics of interaction; interaction design; How of
interaction; interaction qualities; interaction
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g.,
HCI): Miscellaneous.
Ever new technology creates a multitude of
opportunities for interaction design. This is
accompanied by the dissolution of "traditional", mostly
technology-driven matches between function and
interaction. While for a good part of the last century
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).
CHI 2013 Extended Abstracts, April 27May 2, 2013, Paris, France.
ACM 978-1-4503-1952-2/13/04.
Sarah Diefenbach
Folkwang University of Arts
Universitätsstrasse 12
45141 Essen Germany
Eva Lenz
Folkwang University of Arts
Universitätsstrasse 12
45141 Essen Germany
Marc Hassenzahl
Folkwang University of Arts
Universitätsstrasse 12
45141 Essen Germany
Work-in-Progress: Interaction and Experience Design
CHI 2013: Changing Perspectives, Paris, France
"dialing a phone number" actually involved a dial (due
to the technical demands of pulse dialing), this
nowadays may involve pressing buttons, various forms
of touch or freeform gestures or speech input.
Interaction becomes less constrained by the underlying
technical effect, but by available interaction technology
in itself. The latter's possibilities are increasing,
creating an unsurpassed freedom of choice for the
interaction designer. Just as a product's form,
materiality and resulting visual aesthetic, small design
choices can be deciding for a resulting aesthetic of
interaction (e.g., [4]).
In the following, we discuss exemplary approaches to
the aesthetics of interaction in the HCI and Interaction
Design literature. We then suggest an additional
approach based on descriptive, elementary attributes of
interaction, i.e., a first interaction vocabulary. We
present examples of practical application in design,
research and evaluation, and provide an outlook on
future research.
Approaches to the Aesthetic of Interaction
The available frameworks and approaches to the
aesthetics of interaction focus on different levels.
Normative approaches suggest qualities of an especially
"good" or "aesthetic" interaction and according design
principles. For example, Djajadiningrat et al. [3]
promote movement-oriented interaction styles, and
suggest principles such as the richness of user actions,
i.e., a high variety in the repertoire of possible user
actions. Others emphasize various experiential qualities
of interaction, such as its dramaturgical structure [9],
its expressions (e.g., anxiety, thrill, trust) [6], or one's
personal sensations, experiences and reflections
connected to the system in context [12]. Some
underline the performative perspective within socially
situated interaction [1] or the emerging social dialogue
between user and the system itself [10]. All these
approaches take a high level perspective on interaction.
They focus on emotional experiences and certain
addressed psychological needs. In sum, they focus on
the reasons (i.e., the Why), which make interacting
meaningful to people (see Fig. 1 for an overview).
From a design perspective, those high level experiential
qualities are important they imply crucial experiential
outcomes of product use. However, high level qualities
are mediated and created through the arrangement of
concrete interactions on a lower level. This How of
interaction takes place on the level of "operations" or
motor actions (e.g., turning a knob, pressing a lever).
Psychological action theories point out that motor
actions are highly automatized and often performed
unconsciously (e.g., [5]). This is a barrier to conscious
thinking about interaction in terms of its basic qualities
(e.g., powerful, slow). Consequently, only a limited
number of approaches focus on the aesthetics of
interaction on the How-level. Those who do mostly
focus on a specific technology or domain such as
graphical user interfaces [8], gestural interfaces [14],
or movement based interaction [13]. Others mix
qualities of different levels without making this explicit
or discussing the qualitative difference between the
Why and the How. Lim and colleagues [7], for example,
use physical qualities (e.g., movement range) side by
side with qualities addressing complex experiential
qualities (e.g., expectedness) without much reflection
about this large conceptual difference. In addition,
many approaches certainly address relevant qualities,
but it remains unclear on what basis this particular set
of qualities was selected as relevant. Hence, we aimed
at a deeper and systematic exploration of the qualities
Figure 1. Interaction qualities on
the Why- and How-level.
Work-in-Progress: Interaction and Experience Design
CHI 2013: Changing Perspectives, Paris, France
of the How of interaction, the realm of interaction
design. Though resulting in highly complex experiences,
on a lower level, interaction consists of concrete motor
actions with particular qualities. We believe that
designing for high quality, aesthetic interaction requires
a deliberate consideration of interaction qualities
already on the How-level. To support this, we
developed an interaction vocabulary. Having a
vocabulary facilitates the explicit description of
interaction and reveals possible starting points for
shaping the interaction at the same time. In the
remainder of the paper, we describe the vocabulary and
provide examples of its use it in interaction design.
An Interaction Vocabulary
Our vocabulary currently consists of a set of eleven
dimensions (Fig. 2). This set resulted from an iterative
process of refinement. Aiming for a general eclectic
approach, our first step was a systematic derivation of
all possible differentiating factors between interaction
concepts with one same function: A simple function
(control of a light) was used as a trigger for collecting
alternative interaction concepts in an online survey.
The resulting collection of more than hundred ways of
interacting with the light was then used for extracting
differentiating attributes. Given our focus on the How-
level, we searched for elementary qualities, in the
sense of descriptive, non-judgmental, non-technology
bound attributes. Attributes were expressed as opposite
word pairs (e.g., slow fast, originally in German, see
[2]). Figure 3 presents examples of interactions and
differentiating attributes. In a number of successive
studies and workshops, we further refined the exact
wording and presentation of the vocabulary, and
explored its methodological and practical applicability in
design and research.
Applying the Interaction Vocabulary
Inspiration and personal reflection
The vocabulary's range of application is manifold. We
mainly understand the interaction vocabulary as an
inspirational tool for designers (see also [11]). The
vocabulary serves as a repertoire of interaction
qualities to choose from. It hints at potential
alternatives without being prescriptive. Having clarified
the wished for interaction qualities, the designer may
create concrete ideas for realization in the context of
the given domain and technical constraints.
In a course on interaction design at the Folkwang
University of Arts, for example, students were given the
assignment to design an interaction for opening a box,
containing a particular item (represented by a paper
card, e.g., a precious piece of jewelry, a birthday
present, first aid equipment etc.). However, before
realizing a concrete "opening interaction" through a
paper prototype, they were asked to clarify the
interaction's basic qualities, e.g., should it feel fast or
slow? Mediated or rather direct? Here, the interaction
vocabulary was used to clarify and specify the
intended, most characteristic qualities. Julia Lackas, for
example, designed an interaction for a box containing
an engagement ring. She wanted the interaction to feel
slow, gentle, stepwise and delayed. After carefully
opening the box, it plays the couple's favorite song.
After the song has faded, the top part lifts a bit and
reveals the precious content (Fig. 4). In contrast,
Selina Maleska chose quite different interaction
qualities for her box, containing a child's long awaited
birthday present (a Lego Star Wars' Millennium Falcon).
She wanted the interaction to be fast, powerful, fluent
and instant. Her box is perforated and features a
"lightsaber" that allows for a fast and instant access to
Figure 2. Interaction vocabulary.
Eleven dimensions of descripti ve,
non-judgmental, non-technology
bound at tributes.
Figure 3. Examples of interaction
concepts and extracted dimensions.
Above: Dimmer switch (fluent) vs.
flip switch (stepwise).
Below: Switch on the lamp (direct )
vs. switch on the wall (mediated).
Work-in-Progress: Interaction and Experience Design
CHI 2013: Changing Perspectives, Paris, France
the content; the sound of tearing paper makes it even
more powerful (Fig. 5). Thus, an important insight was
that the function alone (opening a box) is not sufficient
to determine the aesthetics of interacting with it.
Depending on the experience to be created, interacting
could feel slow, gentle, stepwise, and delayed or fast,
powerful, fluent and instant. The interaction with the
box containing the engagement ring reflects upon the
couple's special moment, by making it last a little
longer, and giving it a ceremonial and ritualistic
structure. The interaction with the box containing the
Millenium Falcon is oriented on the kid's needs in that
moment: finally getting the long wished-for present,
unwrapped in a swirl of activity, with absolutely no
need for reverent slowness or any further delay.
Besides being a source of inspiration, the vocabulary
supports the explicit communication about interaction
qualities. We experienced this as very helpful in student
courses, participatory design projects as well as
interdisciplinary research projects. Note, however, that
the interaction vocabulary only supports a more
conscious and purposeful interaction design. The
responsibility for determining appropriate interaction
qualities remains with the designer.
External feedback and evaluation
The vocabulary is further a tool for critical reflection
and evaluation of interaction concepts at different
points in time of the design process. For this purpose,
the vocabulary is presented as a semantic differential
questionnaire (e.g., 1=slow, 7=fast, see Fig. 6). Users
are confronted with the interaction concept and then
rate their impression of the interaction along the eleven
dimensions. The resulting interaction profile captures
the most characteristic qualities of the interaction, as
perceived by users. If applied to several interactions,
the profiles reveal felt differences between the
interactions. Figure 7 shows an example: the felt
differences between using software with the computer
mouse versus performing the same task via touch
display (from a research project with our industrial
partner a3 systems). As the comparison of interaction
profiles shows, the most (and statistically) significant
differences are that interacting with the mouse feels
more precise whereas the interaction via touch display
provides a higher degree of spatial proximity (Fig. 7).
While certainly not surprising, these results show that
users are sensitive to the differences in how an
interaction feels. Instead of talking about "mouse
versus touch", interaction designer should focus more
on the qualities of interaction resulting from different
Profiles obtained from external raters can be further
compared to the intended profile specified by the
designer (see [11] for an example). If both profiles
follow the same form, the How of interaction is
perceived by others as intended. In contrast,
discrepancies on single dimensions reveal qualities not
being realized as intended yet, and, thus, showing
potential for improvement.
Connecting the How and the Why
The example of the gift boxes revealed that
"appropriate" interactions can be quite different. This is
because design rationales were derived from different
intended "opening experiences". Designing for aesthetic
interaction thus requires considering both in parallel,
interaction and experience, the How and the Why, how
the interaction feels and whether felt qualities facilitate
Figure 4. Interaction for a box for
an engagement ring: slow, ge ntle,
stepwise, de layed.
Figure 5. Interaction for a box for
a child’s long awaited present: fast,
powerful, fluent, instant.
Figure 6. The interaction
vocabulary as a semantic
differential questionnaire.
Work-in-Progress: Interaction and Experience Design
CHI 2013: Changing Perspectives, Paris, France
or provide a barrier to the intended experience. To our
mind, an aesthetic interaction stems from the
alignment between these two levels. The awareness of
potential variations within the How of interaction is thus
only a first step. The next question is how to combine
these ingredients to create a particular experience.
Hence, after having established a way to explicate how
an interaction feels, our future work will attend to the
relationship between interaction qualities on the How-
level and experiential qualities on the Why-level.
As a first exploration, we already conducted a workshop
where participants presented interactive products from
their daily life. We asked them to reflect upon how it
felt to operate the product and why this way of
interaction was satisfying for them (or not). This
resulted in a list of matches of interaction and
experiential qualities. An initial analysis revealed some
typical patterns between interaction qualities and
psychological needs addressed in the related
experiential reports. For example, fluent interaction
generally supported feelings of autonomy. As one
participant explained: "I can do it exactly the way I
want it. I have continuous influence and don't need to
stick to predefined grades" (here: interacting with
Grundig Mini Chopper Multicut). In contrast, another
participant reflected on the feelings of security and
routine he got from stepwise interaction, split into
smaller consecutive stages: "Every step has got
meaning. It's like a ritual" (here: interacting with
Bialetti espresso machine). If it should turn out that
there is a relatively stable set of such relations between
interaction and experiential qualities, this set could be
integrated in a tool for interaction design as well, not
only highlighting possible variations in interaction but
also providing a link to resulting experiential
consequences. In a first prototype this was realized by
presenting the interaction vocabulary as a ring binder,
consisting of single segments for each of the
dimensions (Fig. 8). Depending on which of the two
poles are dominant, these may be turned in one or the
other direction, which then reveals associated
experiential qualities as well. However, further research
is needed to explore which kind of tools would be most
useful for designers.
The interaction vocabulary is a set of qualities inherent
to any interaction. It can be used as inspirational tool,
outlining the potential ways to design a particular
interaction. In addition it provides a means to talk more
systematically about how an interaction feels within
design teams but also with potential users. Given that
the How of interaction is highly automated and
unconscious, providing a vocabulary for communication
is essential. While most people are able to describe in
detail all sorts of positive experience on an emotional
and meaning-related level (the Why), describing how
an interaction feels is more difficult. The interaction
vocabulary is a first step towards a technology
independent perspective on interaction. Especially
practitioners revealed to us that design decisions on the
level of interaction are often made incidentally. "Design
rationales" don't stem from visions of how the
interaction should feel or which kind of experience
should be supported, but are driven by technology and
established solutions. Through its range of qualities, the
interaction vocabulary further establishes the notion of
an aesthetic of interaction beyond efficiency and
beyond an obsession with the currently most
fashionable interaction technologies.
Figure 7. Felt differences in
interaction qualities between
computer mouse and touch display.
! Mouse
! Touch display
Work-in-Progress: Interaction and Experience Design
CHI 2013: Changing Perspectives, Paris, France
This work was supported by the German Federal
Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), project
proTACT (Grant: 01 IS12010F).
[1] Dalsgaard, P. and Hansen, L.K. Performing
perceptionstaging aesthetics of interaction. ACM
Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 15, 3
(2008), 133.
[2] Diefenbach, S., Hassenzahl, M., Kloeckner, K.,
Nass, C., and Maier, A. Ein Interaktionsvokabular:
Dimensionen zur Beschreibung der Ästhetik von
Interaktion. In H. Brau, S. Diefenbach, K. Göring, M.
Peissner and K. Petrovic, eds., Usability Professionals
2010. German Chapter der Usability Professionals
Association e.V, 2010, 2732.
[3] Djajadiningrat, T., Matthews, B., and Stienstra, M.
Easy doesn’t do it: skill and expression in tangible
aesthetics. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 11, 8
(2007), 657676.
[4] Hummels, C. and Overbeeke, K. Special Issue
Editorial: Aesthetics of Interaction Where Do We
Stand Now? What is Our View on the Aesthetics of.
International Journal of Design 4, 2 (2010), 12.
[5] Kaptelinin, V. and Nardi, B.A. Acting with
Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design.
MIT Press, 2006.
[6] Landin, H. Anxiety and Trust And Other Expressions
of Interaction. Chalmers University of Technology,
[7] Lim, Y., Lee, S.-S., and Lee, K. Interactivity
attributes: a new way of thinking and describing
interactivity. Proceedings of the 27th international
conference on Human factors in computing systems,
(2009), 105108.
[8] Lim, Y., Stolterman, E., Jung, H., and Donaldson, J.
Interaction gestalt and the design of aesthetic
interactions. Proceedings of the 2007 conference on
Designing pleasurable products and interfaces DPPI 07,
(2007), 239-254.
[9] Löwgren, J. Towards an articulation of interaction
aesthetics. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia
15, 2 (2009), 129146.
[10] Marti, P. Perceiving while being perceived.
International Journal of Design 4, 2 (2010), 2738.
[11] Nass, C., Klöckner, K., Diefenbach, S., and
Hassenzahl, M. DESIGNiA Workbench for Supporting
Interaction Design. Proceedings of the 6th Nordic
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending
Boundaries, (2010), 747750.
[12] Petersen, M., Iversen, O., Gall Krogh, P., and
Ludvigsen, M. Aesthetic Interaction: a pragmatist’s
aesthetics of interactive systems. Proceedings of the
5th conference on Designing interactive systems:
processes, practices, methods, and techniques, (2004),
[13] Ross, P.R. and Wensveen, S.A.G. Designing
aesthetics of behavior in interaction: Using aesthetic
experience as a mechanism for design. International
Journal of Design 4, 2 (2010), 313.
[14] Saffer, D. Designing Gestural Interfaces. O’Reilly,
Sebastopol, 2009.
Figure 8. Interaction vocabulary as
a ring binder.
Work-in-Progress: Interaction and Experience Design
CHI 2013: Changing Perspectives, Paris, France
... In this paper, we introduce the design of Grace, a piece of jewelry that allows women to share their exercise intentions with friends to enable social support. While the current design space of wearable sports devices mainly focuses on quantification, we extend it here by relying on a qualitative aesthetics of interaction [9,21]. Away from the use of numbers as a feedback mechanism, our approach combines meaningful gestures with a specific aesthetics of the artifact. ...
... To explore how the concept of graceful interactions could materialize in a design artifact, we invited industrial designers (N = 22) to participate in a short study. Using the Interaction Vocabulary Cards by Diefenbach, Lenz & Hassenzahl [9], we asked them to describe how a graceful interaction with a physical product would feel/look like. Participants were provided with the following definition of gracefulness (combining definitions by [6] and [8]: "Gracefulness is characterized by elegance or beauty of form, manner, movement, or speech. ...
... Aesthetics of Interaction. We used the Interaction Vocabulary [9] to describe the interaction qualities of Grace. It consists of eleven descriptive, non-judgmental, non-technology bound attributes of interactions. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Increasingly aware of the importance of active lifestyles, many people intend to exercise more. Yet the main challenge remains to translate these intentions into action. Wearable devices supporting exercise regrettably tend to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach by monitoring activity through quantified data as a motivation strategy. Since certain individuals are driven by social motives to exercise, less addressed through quantification, the impact of these devices on user experience and motivation is questionable. We contribute to the field by defining interaction attributes of graceful interactions in product design. We then embedded these in designing Grace, a piece of jewelry enabling women to share exercise intentions with friends to encourage social support. Instead of focusing on quantification, we rely on a qualitative approach using graceful interaction. Through this we extend the design space of sport-related wearables for women and inform how to design for exercise motivation through social support and graceful interactions.
... Otros trabajos cuya intención es facilitar la abstracción y ubicación conceptual del trabajo del diseñador es la identificación y propuesta de dimensiones o vocabularios para la interacción, como los trabajos de Lim [152,151], Holmquist [101] y Diefenbach [51]. ...
... En An Interaction Vocabulary. Describing The How Of Interaction [51] sostienen que además de la estética visual del producto, el diseño debe abordar la estética de la interacción. En el trabajo presentan un enfoque propio del Cómo de la interacción. ...
... Finalmente, el trabajo de Lenz y Diefenbach [146] es una guía orientada a la práctica del trabajo que ya mencionamos entre las ayudas para abstraer y organizar ( [51]). El artículo se plantea la cuestión de cómo conceptualizar la estética de la interacción emergente. ...
Full-text available
El continuo desarrollo de tecnologías interactivas y la mayor comprensión de la participación del cuerpo en los procesos cognitivos ha impulsado al diseño de interacciones en el marco de las investigaciones HCI a la necesidad de resolver la relación del usuario con una multitud de dispositivos que se extienden más allá de los escritorios. Estos ámbitos de diseño abren nuevos desafíos a la hora de disponer de procesos, métodos y herramientas para alcanzar experiencias de uso adecuadas. En la medida que nuevos dispositivos y sistemas involucran los aspectos corporales y sociales del ser humano, se hace más relevante la consideración de paradigmas, teorías y modelos de soporte que excedan la selección de nodos de navegación y organización visual apropiada de widgets y pantallas. El diseño de interacción debe ocuparse no sólo de conseguir que se construya el producto de manera adecuada, sino además que se construya el producto correcto. Esta tesis se constituye en el cruce de tres temas: el diseño de sistemas interactivos que combinan un pie en lo digital y uno en lo físico, las teorías de la cognición corporizada y enactiva y las prácticas creativas soportadas por el bocetado, en particular los procesos de generación, evaluación y comunicación de ideas o propuestas de diseño. Este trabajo incluye contribuciones de diferente carácter. Se realiza un estudio profundo de las teorías sobre cognición corporizada y enactiva, del diseño de interacción con dispositivos digitales y del bocetado como herramienta básica del diseño creativo. Sobre la base de este análisis de la bibliografía existente y con una caracterización de la práctica de bocetado de interacciones enactivas basada en estudios etnometodológicos se plantea un framework para organizar conceptualmente esa práctica y una herramienta de soporte a esa actividad concebida como una composición creativa. Se discuten las contribuciones y se plantean posibles líneas de trabajo futuro.
... Using the Interaction Vocabulary Cards by Diefenbach, Lenz & Hassenzahl [11], we asked them to describe how a slow feedback mechanism for running would feel/look like with a physical product through an online survey. This method enables designers to think Table 1: Attributes used by design professionals (N = 23) to describe a slow feedback mechanism, using the Interaction Vocabulary. ...
... Designing for a slow feedback mechanism in the context of running is a challenging endeavor, which we addressed in two ways. First, by involving design professionals (N = 23) we reflected on how the concept of a slow feedback mechanism in the context of running could materialize in a design artifact, using the Interaction Vocabulary [11]. Second, by embedding and materializing these interaction attributes in the design of an interactive art piece, we gained insights into the effect of dynamic data physicalizations and slow feedback mechanisms on exercising. ...
... Through an expert study involving industrial designers (n = 22), we have explored how to design for graceful interaction in product design. Using the Interaction Vocabulary Cards that consist of 11 seven-point semantic differential items [4], we asked the designers to describe how a graceful interaction with a physical product would feel/look like. We provided them with the following definition of gracefulness: "Gracefulness is characterized by elegance or beauty of form, manner, movement, or speech. ...
... Attributes rated by design experts (n = 22) to describe a graceful aesthetic of interaction, using the Interaction Vocabulary[4] ...
... The card set also includes property cards that describe sensory qualities. Based on Diefenbach's interaction vocabulary [5] with pairs of adjectives we developed a slightly adapted and extended version with a few more pairs to match the IoT design space [4]. These cards relate to how local interaction with devices and through devices are conveyed and perceived by users. ...
Much research has been done around creating multisensory ideation and prototyping tools. We relate our own multisensory tool, the Loaded Dice, to this domain. We briefly explain what sensing and actuating possibilities the Loaded Dice already have (including thermal sensations), and how they are methodically embedded in workshops using an extended interaction vocabulary to characterize and ideate multisensory experiences. We briefly ponder simple technical ways to add smell as an output modality, and discuss why and how smell capabilities will enrich ideation workshops in co-design.
... The methods included in the booklet were discussed further during the related lectures (e.g., AttrakDiff during the lecture on evaluation scales). Our self-exploration booklet currently includes 10 methods: self-made questionnaires, product reaction cards [1], AttrakDiff scale [4], User Experience questionnaire [10], Repertory Grid [6], Geneva Emotion Wheel [11,12] , Cognitive Load assessment [3], Interaction Vocabulary [2], UX Curve [9], Sentence Completion [8]. The Sensual Evaluation Instrument [5] is proposal as an optional task (as it requires some material to 'craft' the tool). ...
Full-text available
In this contribution, we present three teaching activities used during a User Evaluation Methods course (Bachelor level): a self-exploration of methods, scenario-based debates around methodological choices, and a flipped-classroom video assignment. These are hands-on activities, brief and modular, that can be used or adapted to any similar course on user evaluation methods (on-campus or remote teaching). We describe each activity and reflect on their use, supported by students' reflections on the course and insights from our teaching practice.
... Product designers would make physical prototypes in which on-screen or virtual graphics play an important role and software designers would be involved in physical product design and mechanical development. Diefenbach et al. (2013) established a set of adjectives that describe aesthetics of interaction. These adjectives are deliberately descriptive, non-judgemental and non-technology bound. ...
Full-text available
This paper is about embodied interaction with digital products and systems, and more specific, about its aesthetics. We establish a particular form of aesthetics: the aesthetics of coupling. We start with illustrating them by presenting two design research projects, the rich actions camera and the Experimental Payment Terminal. We discuss the characteristics of the aesthetics, and coin their corner stone concepts, the persistent and the temporal. After that, we present the design process of two conceptual products: a night lamp and a medication dispenser. Both projects demonstrate how to design for the aesthetics of coupling. In a reflection, we position the aesthetics of coupling among several existing perspectives on interaction aesthetics, and elaborate on their significance for the design community. We conclude this paper by highlighting the broad lines of our framework, and by indicating directions for future research.
Human Work Interaction Design (HWID) is a socio-technical HCI design approach. This introductory chapter presents HWID as a platform with five parts: context, human work, interaction design, relations between human work and interaction design, and theory and methodology. The platform is to be used for building locally valorized theory and action in the form of IT artefacts. The contexts for a HWID project can, for example, be a small- and medium-sized manufacturing company that suffers from problems with productivity and worker satisfaction related to the use of algorithms. Current knowledge about socio-technical HCI design approaches offers solutions to such design cases. This book focus on what HWID can offer to socio-technical HCI design researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.
Full-text available
These are the proceedings of the research conference "Designing with Artificial Intelligence", which took place in September 2020. The proceedings cover theoretical papers on learning and teaching machines to do creative tasks, practical research on how machines can be used to create design and art and essays on the discourse of the creative nature of artificial intelligence.
Full-text available
As design moves into the realm of intelligent products and systems, interactive product behavior becomes an ever more prominent aspect of design, raising the question of how to design the aesthetics of such interactive behavior. To address this challenge, we developed a conception of aesthetics based on Pragmatist philosophy and translated it into a design approach. Our notion of Aesthetic Interaction consists of four principles: Aesthetic Interaction (1) has practical use next to intrinsic value, (2) has social and ethical dimensions, (3) has satisfying dynamic form, and (4) actively involves people's bodily, cognitive, emotional and social skills. Our design approach based on this notion is called 'designing for Aesthetic Interaction through Aesthetic Interaction', referring to the use of aesthetic experience as a design mechanism. We explore our design approach through a case study that involves the design of intelligent lamps and outlines the utilized design techniques. The paper concludes with a set of practical recommendations for designing the aesthetics of interactive product behavior.
Full-text available
Under what conditions can we engage in a meaningful, expressive interaction with an electronic device? How can we distinguish between merely functional objects and aesthetic, poetic, interactive objects that can be potential carriers for meaningful experience? This paper provides some answers to these questions considering an aspect of aesthetic interaction that is still quite unexplored. Taking a phenomenological approach to action and perception, the paper explores the possibility of achieving by design a shared perception with interactive devices in order to enrich the experience of use as an emergent and dynamic outcome of the interaction. In exploring shared perception with interactive devices, the concept of “perceptual crossing” is taken as a main source of inspiration for design. As defined by Auvray, Lenay, and Stewart (2008), perceptual crossing is the recognition of an object of interaction which involves the perception of how the behaviour of the object and its perception relate to our own. In this sense, a shared perceptual activity influences the behaviour of interacting entities in a very peculiar way: we perceive while being perceived. Here, this argument is explored from the design viewpoint, and prototypes that illustrate the dynamics of perceptual crossing in human-robot interaction are presented.
Full-text available
In this paper, we articulate the role of movement within a perceptual-motor view of tangible interaction. We argue that the history of human–product interaction design has exhibited an increasing neglect of the intrinsic importance of movement. On one hand, human–product interaction design has shown little appreciation in practice of the centrality of our bodily engagement in the world. This has resulted in technologies that continue to place demands on our cognitive abilities, and deny us the opportunity of building bodily skill. On the other hand, the potential for movement in products to be a meaningful component of our interaction with them has also been ignored. Both of these directions (design for bodily engagement and the expressiveness of product movements) are sketched out, paying particular respect for their potential to impact both interaction aesthetics and usability. We illustrate a number of these ideas with examples.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
We propose a new perspective, seeing interactivity that is the immaterial part of an interactive artifact as something concretely describable and perceivable as we do with physical materials. In order to examine the validity of this proposal, we extracted a set of interactivity attributes to be used as a design language for thinking and describing interactivity in a new way, and conducted an online survey with 14 Flash prototypes representing pairs of values of 7 interactivity attributes we extracted. The result showed that all the interactivity attributes were significant, and participants experienced distinctive and meaningful emotional effects for different interactivity attributes.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
There is a growing interest in considering aesthetic aspects in the design of interactive systems. A set of approaches are emerging each representing different applications of the terminology as well as different inherent assumptions on the role of the user, designer and interaction ideals. In this paper, we use the concept of Pragmatist Aesthetics to provide a framework for distinguishing between different approaches to aesthetics. Moreover, we use our own design cases to illustrate how pragmatist aesthetics is a promising path to follow in the context of designing interactive systems, as it promotes aesthetics of use, rather than aesthetics of appearance. We coin this approach in the perspective of aesthetic interaction. Finally we make the point that aesthetics is not re-defining everything known about interactive systems. We provide a framework placing this perspective among other perspectives on interaction.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
New devices expand design possibilities, but also lead to more challenges in the creation of interaction forms. This article introduces DESIGNi, a workbench that supports designers in exploring interaction forms and their attributes in a structured and systematic way. We present the components of DESIGNi and its use in creating a business application. Moreover, a comparison of the interaction forms specified in the design process with DESIGNi and the perceived interaction characteristics in user studies revealed interesting insights and points for improvement in the interaction design itself.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Although there has been a drastic increase in the research of aesthetics of interaction, we still lack well-defined practical knowledge of how to design aesthetic interactions. In order to develop such knowledge, we adapt three important ways of thinking in designing interactions influenced by traditional design disciplines, namely, 1) understanding what it is that is designed---i.e. interaction, 2) knowing what is possible to be manipulated when designing interactions---i.e. attributes of interaction, and 3) mastering how to manipulate the attributes to shape the interactions. We explain our approach by arguing from the somaesthetic perspective. We propose the concept of interaction gestalt, as a way to achieve those three ways of thinking in design. We then propose a set of interaction gestalt attributes that can be used in designing aesthetic interactions. We end with a discussion of the implications and benefits of this approach in interaction design.
Full-text available
Even though the emerging field of user experience generally acknowledges the importance of esthetic qualities in interactive products and services, there is a lack of approaches recognizing the fundamentally temporal nature of interaction esthetics. By means of interaction criticism, I introduce four concepts that begin to characterize the esthetic qualities of interaction. Pliability refers to the sense of malleability and tightly coupled interaction that makes the use of an interactive visualization captivating. Rhythm is an important characteristic of certain types of interaction, from the sub-second pacing of musical interaction to the hour-scale ebb and flow of peripheral emotional communication. Dramaturgical structure is not only a feature of online role-playing games, but plays an important role in several design genres from the most mundane to the more intellectually sophisticated. Fluency is a way to articulate the gracefulness with which we are able to handle multiple demands for our attention and action in augmented spaces.
In interaction design for experience-oriented uses of technology, a central facet of aesthetics of interaction is rooted in the user's experience of herself “performing her perception.” By drawing on performance (theater) theory, phenomenology and sociology and with references to recent HCI-work on the relation between the system and the performer/user and the spectator's relation to this dynamic, we show how the user is simultaneously operator, performer and spectator when interacting. By engaging with the system, she continuously acts out these three roles and her awareness of them is crucial in her experience. We argue that this 3-in-1 is always already shaping the user's understanding and perception of her interaction as it is staged through her experience of the object's form and expression. Through examples ranging from everyday technologies utilizing performances of interaction to spatial contemporary artworks, digital as well as analogue, we address the notion of the performative spectator and the spectating performer. We demonstrate how perception is also performative and how focus on this aspect seems to be crucial when designing experience-oriented products, systems and services.