ArticlePDF Available
Bill Gaver
Computer Related Design
Royal College of Art
‘All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy’
– popular saying
The advent of graphical interfaces, more than fifteen years ago, revolutionised the way we think
about computers. The desktop metaphor had such a complete inner logic that it seemed to dismiss
offhand the tedious call-and-response interfaces that had prevailed. The computer as concept
expanded from a tool to a virtual environment, from a clumsy machine to a place for exploration and
experimentation. Research on interaction also expanded, as people sought new perspectives from
which to understand this newly-discovered territory – from cognition, to perceptual, to ethnographic
and anthropological. As our appreciation of computing’s potential grew, so did our appreciation of
the aspects of humanity it mirrors.
Now we are on the brink of another revolution, as computers invade our everyday lives. The point is
not that computers are becoming ubiquitous or ambient or disappearing altogether. Nor am I saying
that interaction will be tangible, or that the virtual will merge with the physical. These things may
happen, but they’re symptoms — attempts to shortcut technologically the challenges we face. The
real revolution is that computing is leaving the confines of task-oriented, rational, ‘left-brain’ work,
and is set to join us in our homes, on the street, at parties, on lonely mountaintops – everywhere, in
short, where ‘work’ is the stuff we want to get done so we can do what we really want to do.
The effects of this new revolution will, I believe, be as radical as the move to graphical interfaces,
causing us to rethink computers, research, and even ourselves. However, we have been slow to
appreciate the implications of technology’s incursion into our everyday lives. As computing has
emerged from the office and laboratory, it seems to have brought along values of the workplace:
concerns for clarity, efficiency and productivity; a preoccupation with finding solutions to problems.
If, as ethnographers suggest, it takes a lot of work to achieve an ordinary life, then new
technologies will help us take care of it. In this vision, internet-enabled refrigerators will automatical-
ly update our shopping lists. We will use our microwave ovens to do our banking as well as to heat
ready-made meals. Mobile devices will allow us to coordinate our schedules, download information,
update records on the move. We will be surrounded by technology devoted to taking care of our
everyday chores, giving us the leisure to pursue whatever activities we really value.
But what if technologies helped us pursue those activities now, directly, rather than merely helping
us get the chores done? What if computing helped us pursue our lives, not just our work?
o o o
‘We are here on Earth to fart around.’
– Kurt Vonnegut
The idea of Homo Ludens – humans defined as playful creatures (Huizinga, J., 1950) – is an antidote
to assumptions that technology should provide clear, efficient solutions to practical problems. From
this perspective, we are characterised not just by our thinking or achievements, but by our playful-
ness: our curiosity, our love of diversion, our explorations, inventions and wonder. An aimless walk in
the city centre, a moment of awe, a short-lived obsession, a joke – all are defining and valuable
facets of our humanity, as worthy of respect as planning, logic or study. Play is not just mindless
entertainment, but an essential way of engaging with and learning about our world and ourselves —
for adults as well as children. As we toy with things and ideas, as we chat and daydream, we find
new perspectives and new ways to create, new ambitions, relationships, and ideals. Play goes well
beyond entertainment: it’s a serious business.
What sorts of computational device might appeal to Homo Ludens?
An essay for I3 Magazine
to appear 2002
The Pillow, by Tony Dunne (Dunne, 1999; Gaver &
Dunne, 1996; see Figure 1) might be an example. This is
a clear inflatable pillow, enclosing a translucent plastic
block with holes cut in it, exposing patterns of colour as
they play over an LCD screen. As the light suffuses the
object, it creates a much softer, more imprecise display
than we usually associate with computers. But the Pillow
isn’t just an aesthetic object; it is a strange form of
radio in which lighting reflects bits of electromagnetic
information from radio stations, passing taxis or nearby
baby alarms. And more than a radio, it is a poser of soci-
ocultural questions, pointing out the degree to which our
homes and even our bodies are permeated by wireless
communications. It casts its viewers as meditative
voyeurs, providing them with a gentle electronic experi-
ence while subtly eliciting unease about the communica-
tions that feed it. It is an object which invites a relation-
ship, not as a pet, but perhaps as a sort of computation-
al alien sharing one’s home (Dunne, 1999).
Some of the designs developed in the I3 Presence
Project, too, might speak to Homo Ludens (see Gaver &
Hooker, 2001). At the RCA, Tony Dunne, Ben Hooker,
Shona Kitchen, Brendan Walker and I explored ways that
technology might increase the presence of older people
in three communities: a hilltop village in Tuscany, an
affluent district of Oslo, and a huge housing estate in the
Netherlands. Our designs took a wide and playful view of
‘presence’. In Italy, we proposed a ‘radioscape’ that
would transmit sounds from the countryside to the vil-
lage, encouraging the older people to enjoy their pastoral
landscape in new ways (Figure 2). In Oslo, we suggested
that the older people might use a ‘digital boudouir’ to
craft questions for their fellow citizens, to be displayed
on trams or in cafés, or relayed to public phones (Figure
3). In the Netherlands, we proposed and built the
Projected Realities system, which disseminated people’s
attitudes from their private flats, through local neigh-
bourhoods, to the roads and railways surrounding this
notorious area. With visible elements including ‘slogan-
benches’ (Figure 4a) and an ‘imagebank’ (Figure 4b), the
Projected Realities system allowed passers-by to
encounter the words and images of their older neigh-
bours in a way that was not didactic or demanding, but
quietly suggestive.
Ludic appeal might also be found in the proposals that
Heather Martin and I developed for the Alternatives proj-
ect (Gaver & Martin, 1999). Funded by Hewlett Packard,
the Alternatives project was part of the Appliance
Design Studio, a collaborative investigation of informa-
tion appliances. In investigating the field, Heather and I
found ourselves uninspired by current examples, and
developed a series of sketch proposals to expand the
group’s thinking. For instance, the Dawn Chorus (Figure
5a) was a birdfeeder that would use operant conditioning
principles to teach local songbirds new tunes. The
(De)tour Guide would be an audio-only device using GPS
and an electronic compass to lead people through the
city – and to support them in getting lost for a predeter-
Figure 1: The Pillow suggests a kind of ambient voyeurism.
Figure 2: Peccioli’s Radioscape would bring the countryside into a
Tuscan village.
Figure 3: The Digital Boudouir suggested that older people could
lead a political conversation distributed through Oslo.
mined interval. The Intimate View camera (Figure 5b),
later developed as a prototype, linked separated lovers
by allowing them to capture and transmit small, highly
magnified pictures to encourage moments of intensely
shared focus. The Dream Communicator allowed distant
lovers to use sounds or speech to influence one anoth-
er’s dreams. Finally, the Telegotchi was an electronic pet
with no buttons that relied on psionic communication for
happiness (Figure 5c), and the Prayer Device (Figure 5d)
would be found on streets, like a new sort of telephone
booth, waiting to transmit one’s voice to the sky. The
appeal of many of these proposals, in particular, was
that they didn’t demand belief so much as a suspension
of disbelief. They encouraged an attitude of speculation
that in itself might be enjoyable.
The examples described here may be pleasurable to
experience, but it should be clear that they go beyond
mere entertainment. Each raises issues and asks ques-
tions, ranging from the effects of pervasive electromag-
netic communication, to possibilities for inter-genera-
tional communication, to the ethics of taming nature, the
value of getting lost, or the status of psychic or spiritual
experiences. They raise these issues, but don’t provide
answers. Instead, they offer ways for people to experi-
ence life from new perspectives, thereby testing
hypotheses about who we might be or what we might
care about. They hint at possibilities for technologies
that we could use in our everyday life, not to accomplish
well-defined tasks, but to expand in undefined directions.
Open-ended and personal, they encourage us to play –
seriously – with experiences, ideas and other people.
o o o
‘…work is play for mortal stakes…’
- Robert Frost
What does designing for Homo Ludens imply for our
methodologies? How can we invent and develop systems
that legitimise wonder, even encourage it? How do we
encourage people to meander, rather than to accomplish
tasks with speed?
First, scientific approaches to design need to be comple-
mented by more subjective, idiosyncratic ones. It is diffi-
cult to conceive of a task analysis for goofing around, or
to think of exploration as a problem to be solved, or to
determine usability requirements for systems meant to
spark new perceptions. Instead, designers need to use
their personal experiences as sounding boards for the
systems they create. Balancing this, they need to
engage in, and often lead, a conversation with the peo-
ple for whom they are developing, lest their designs
become purely self-indulgent. Traditional requirements
capture or ethnographic methods may be useful in this,
but more ambiguous, open-ended forms of engagement
can also produce inspiring results. For instance, the
Cultural Probes developed for Presence (Gaver et al.,
1999; see Figure 6) used provocative questions and
Figure 4. Slaganbenches and an Imagebank expressed older peo-
ple’s attitudes in a notorious Dutch housing estate.
Figure 5. Concept proposals from the Alternatives project.
tasks to elicit informative materials from volunteers. The
returns were never definitive, but they were evocative,
allowing us to create semi-factual narratives about the com-
munities for whom we were designing, and to develop design
ideas that furthered these stories.
Second, designing for Homo Ludens means allowing room for
people to appropriate technologies. Playing involves pursuing
one’s inner narratives in safe situations, through perceptual
projection or, ideally, action. If computational devices chan-
nel people’s activities and perceptions too closely, then peo-
ple have to live out somebody else’s story, not their own
(c.f. Wejchert, 2001). This might be an interesting possibili-
ty – as Dunne (1999) suggests, people might approach
computational devices the way they do cinema, borrowing
the identities and values they suggest for a short period of
time – but in general we should give people the ability to
own technology, to bring it into their own complex life sto-
ries. I know two primary tactics for doing this. The first is
to create ‘suggestive media’ – suggestive in that they are
designed to encourage or impel ludic activity, and media in that they are tools through which people
experience, create, or communicate freely. The second is to employ ambiguity at all phases of
design. Contrary to traditional thinking about interaction, ambiguity is an invaluable tool because it
allows people to find their own meaning in uncertain situations. Used in design processes, concepts
and products, ambiguity gives space for people to intermesh their own stories with those hinted at
by technologies.
Third, and most important, pleasure comes before performance, and engagement before clarity.
Designing for Homo Ludens requires a new focus that seeks intrigue and delight at all levels of
design, from the aesthetics of form and interaction, to functionality, to conceptual implications at
psychological, social and cultural levels. Not only should technologies reinforce pleasures that people
know, but they should suggest new ones. The designer’s role in this is not like that of a doctor, pre-
scribing cures for people’s ills; nor is the designer a kind of servant, developing technologies that
people know they want. Instead, designers should be provocateurs, seeking out new possibilities for
play and crafting technologies that entice people to explore them. In the end, designers themselves
need to be Homo Ludens. They need to recognise that they are playful creatures, and that their
work depends on their play.
I am grateful to Jake Beaver, Anne Schlottmann, and Jakub Wejchert for their comments and suggestions.
Dunne, A. (1999). Hertzian tales: Electronic products, aesthetic experience and critical design. London: RCA:CRD
Research Publications.
Dunne, A. & Gaver, W. W. (1997). The Pillow: Artist-designers in the digital age. Conference Companion for CHI’97.
Gaver, W.W., Dunne, A., and Pacenti, E.. (1999) Cultural Probes. interactions magazine. vi(1), pp. 21 - 29.
Gaver, W., and Hooker, B. (2001). The Presence Project. London: RCA:CRD Research Publications.
Gaver, W., and Martin, H. (2000). Alternatives: Exploring information appliances through conceptual design propos-
als. Proceedings of CHI'00 (Den Haag). New York, ACM Press.
Huizinga, J. (1950). Homo Ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Boston: The Beacon Press.
Wejchert, J. (2001). The Dreaming. Informatik/Informatique 5/2001.
Figure 6: Cultural probes are provocative materials eliciting inspir-
ing responses.
... The term ludic design, and the appropriation of Huizinga's Homo Ludens, was introduced by Gaver (2002) through a series of design experiments exploring the ludic capacities of design for HCI (Gaver et al., 2004(Gaver et al., , 2003Sengers et al., 2005). 27 Where humans are generally characterised in light of the ability to think and achieve, taking in the perspective of Gaver (2002) humans may further be characterised as playful through curiosity and their affection for exploration, inventions, and wonder. ...
... Now let's return to the topic of ludic design and where notions of curiosity fit into this argument of playfulness and design. What should be understood is that its focus is towards meaning-making rather than tackling technical, social, psychological or other issues (Mivielle, 2015;Gaver, 2002Gaver, , 2009Gaver et al., 2004;Back et al., 2017). This is a core ideology that Gaver utilises in his different experiments and design probes. ...
... The referencing of illusions here is done as a realignment of perspectives in order to accommodate object-oriented-ness for humans. Also unlike the board game this is a truer ludic design artefact as described through explorations by Gaver (2002) of designing through engaging curiosity. This might feel confusing to say the board game was a less ludic artefact when it involved play more directly but it is for that reason that I consider it less Gaver's ludic design. ...
Full-text available
The Internet of Things (IoT) has garnered heightened interest and momentum in recent years. These connected devices have extended the concurrent rise of data collection and processing within the everyday objects that cohabit our human lives. Though technology has always changed the way we live our lives these ‘smart’ devices are adding new challenges—particularly concerning privacy and security—not previously experienced when using their older ‘dumb’ predecessors. These challenges are not always apparent to their human cohabitors and often only come to the fore when something untoward happens as a consequence of the data being collected. These objects are not to blame, they exist in their worlds governed by their own rules established by their creators rather than their users. Designers have traditionally been taught to present these objects as neutral participants in our human lives; there to help, but not supersede. However, these objects exist within many independent and interdependent assemblages of human and non-human actants that go beyond the previously experienced human-object relationship. Through this discourse, I highlight the overall aim of this thesis to ask questions around our traditional practices of design concerning IoT. In particular, this research strives to do many things: it attempts to intertwine philosophical debate with the act of design; it moves towards an argument of rethinking design orthodoxies around human-centeredness in favour of object-oriented-ness; it explores an alternative side to the phenomenon of the IoT, arguing for agency in a post-anthropocentric perspective of the world and its implications; it tries to bridge the gap between practice-based design research and theory by passing through a veil of philosophical intrigue. But at its core, is an advocacy for the presence of a playful attitude within the practice of design, arguing for an attitude of playfulness as an integral part of the design process. How being playfully charged to create artefacts can usher in unique perspectives for design and technology. The research is enacted through an iterative Research through Design ideology, using a transdisciplinary approach of Ludic and Speculative Design practice that explore alternative perspectives towards the design of IoT. It is conducted through an exploration of Object-Oriented Philosophy as a means to enact a metaphorical ‘carpentry’ of artefacts that practice philosophical arguments through their execution. In the process of designing three artefacts—a model for a philosophical view of IoT, a board game, and a bespoke deck of tarot cards—this research builds upon the idea of More-than Human-Centeredness for the design of IoT, by introducing the creation of bespoken method assemblages as a means for playful design exploration. It concludes on a debate around the implications and potential of design thinking in a post-anthropocentric perspective through the inclusion of playfulness and philosophy as assets for design, and, the use of philosophical carpentry as a methodology for understanding the nebulous nature of IoT.
... We define and approach gamification from this mature perspective, one that goes "beyond points, badges, and leader-boards" [29,124]. Specifically, we gamify the SCM to provide participants with a visual game-like experience that enhances curiosity and role-playing [54,57], and allows for exploring new identities and roles [45]. ...
... While the participants writing these stories may have had any reason to write them as such, we see how a simple background may have already generated biases and acknowledge this as a potential limitation of our proposed method. On the other hand, perhaps we did not go far enough with enticing players to explore this topic through play (see Gaver [57] on designing for Homo Ludens). Hence, we suggest that researchers interested in replicating (or extending) our study, continue experimenting to identify potential design trade-offs that well-balance gamification vis-à-vis social constructionist research. ...
... ". . . Play is not just mindless entertainment, but an essential way of engaging with and learning about our world and ourselves -for adults as well as children" [23]. ...
... Some view play and games on opposite ends of a spectrum, though people do regularly shift into playful modes of thinking while playing games [17]. Most technology is created with a utilitarian, task-oriented purpose, but there is value in designing playful explorations that tap into our inclinations to be curious, explore, and refect [23,25]. Gaver proposes that designing for activities to elicit curiosity, exploration, and refection without a defned task "can be a mechanism for developing new values and goals, for learning new things, and for achieving new understandings" [25, p 886]. ...
Conference Paper
Wildlife calls are the best witnesses to the health of ecosystems, if only we know how to listen to them. Efforts to understand and inform restoration of healthy ecosystems with environmental audio recordings languish from insufficient tools to learn and identify sounds in recordings. To address this problem, we designed and playtested the Bristle Whistle Challenge prototype with ten players. We explored how to design delightful interactions with audio for gaining awareness of nature sounds and supporting wildlife conservation through citizen science. We found that rather than presenting audio alone, it was necessary to connect sounds to other senses and experiences in creative ways to impart meaning and enhance engagement. We offer recommendations to design creative and contextual interactions with media to build awareness of nature's wonders. We call for greater efforts in interaction design to engage people with nature, which is the key to turning around our environmental crisis. Also see a video talk here ->
... While there is value in that approach, here we argue for an equally relevant agenda: exploring how technology could enable socio-emotionally rich food experiences regardless of productive gains. As [8] suggests, echoing [34], "ludic design can support values such as curiosity, play, exploration and reflection, which are not only important, but essential to wellbeing". We see those values as highly relevant in the context of mealtime. ...
In this paper, we present an annotated portfolio of speculative ideas that emerged from a co-design process where we investigated the playful potential of day-to-day mealtime. Our portfolio illustrates the learnings from our participatory engagements: it embodies ours and our participants' ideas of how technology might support increasingly playful and socio-emotionally rich experiences around food. We contribute: (1) a list of play potentials of mealtime-i.e. people's existing playful practices with food-that will point designers towards socio-emotionally desirable play-food experiences; (2) a portfolio of speculative design ideas that illustrate how mealtime technology could help to realize that playful potential; and (3) a discussion of our participants' experiences with and responses to lo-fi prototypes of our ideas. Our work will provoke designers to carefully consider the impact of food-tech innovation on the quality of people's social eating experiences and inspire them to cultivate forms of food-play that are socio-emotionally rich.?
... Fast-paced contemporary life usually makes people miss out on wonderful moments [37]. After observations in public spaces and embodied design workshops, the designers have applied the principles of ludic design [18] and created BubbleBot: bursting bubbles at passers-by to invite for serendipitous interactions [36]. With this project, the aim was to trigger conversations about the future roles and interaction paradigms of urban robots. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In this paper, we investigate how to elicit new perspectives in research-through-design (RtD) studies through annotated portfolios. Situating the usage in human-robot interaction (HRI), we used two robotic artefacts as a case study: we first created our own annotated portfolio and subsequently ran online workshops during which we asked HRI experts to annotate our robotic artefacts. We report on the different aspects revealed about the value, use, and further improvements of the robotic artefacts through using the annotated portfolio technique ourselves versus using it with experts. We suggest that annotated portfolios – when performed by external experts – allow design researchers to obtain a form of creative and generative peer critique. Our paper offers methodological considerations for conducting expert annotation sessions. Further, we discuss the use of annotated portfolios to unveil designerly HRI knowledge in RtD studies.
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted processes interaction designers took for granted, challenging some of our most commonplace design practices. Participatory and situated approaches have been impacted the most: where we engaged stakeholders in-person and in-context, during this time we must co-design remotely and in virtual environments. Such a dramatic change calls for new co-design methods. In this paper, we present a novel remote strategy for involving stakeholders to co-design interactive technology: Designerly Tele-Experiences (DTE). Our methodological proposal enables participants to experience early design concepts in-the-wild as a provocation to contribute new ideas that resonate with their experiential preferences. Here we describe the rationale for DTE, unpack how it builds on and extends existing methods, and provide actionable guidelines from our experience of using it in our work. Our contribution will empower interaction designers to embrace participatory and situated approaches even when engaging stakeholders in person is not possible or desirable.
In the recent decades, there has been a significant investment in the incorporation of games in the educational practice. This has taken either the form of game-based learning or serious gaming. A literature review on gaming and education results in numerous works tackling different aspects of the approach. Even a simple search on the Web on gaming and learning produces multi-million results. In this work, we try to touch not only the surface of this approach and provide typical game-based learning evaluation results but also to explore its inner workings (offering a modest mixed philosophical and science aspect) and to provide an even more concrete foundation for a playful education.
What can design researchers learn from our own and each other's failures? We explore “failure” expansively—turning away from tidy success narratives toward messy unfoldings and reflexive discomfort—through retrospective trioethnography. Our findings reflect on failures we identified in six past design research projects: issues of relational labor of deployment, mismatched designer/participant imaginaries, burden of participation, and invisibility of researcher labor. Our discussion contributes to broader reflections on shifting design research practice: (a) methodological considerations inviting others to engage failures through retrospective trioethnography, (b) letting go as a mode of research care, (c) possibilities for more candid research reporting, and (d) how centering failure may contribute to design justice by providing a technique for attending to harm and healing in design research practices. Throughout, we call for challenging success narratives in design research, and underscore the need for systemic changes in design research practice.
In this article, we present a lifecycle study of We Dare You , a substitutional reality installation that combines visual and tactile stimuli. The installation is set up in a center for architecture, and invites visitors to explore its facade while playing with vertigo, in a visual virtual reality environment that replicates the surrounding physical space of the installation. Drawing on an ethnographic approach, including observations and interviews, we researched the exhibit from its opening, through the initial months plagued by technical problems, its subsequent success as a social and playful installation, on to its closure, due to COVID-19, and its subsequent reopening. Our findings explore the challenges caused by both the hybrid nature of the installation and the visitors’ playful use of the installation which made the experience social and performative—but also caused some problems. We also discuss the problems We Dare You faced in light of hygiene demands due to COVID-19. The analysis contrasts the design processes and expectations of stakeholders with the audience’s playful appropriation, which led the stakeholders to see the installation as both a success and a failure. Evaluating the design and redesign through use on behalf of visitors, we argue that an approach that further opens up the post-production experience to a process of continuous redesign based on the user input—what has been termed design-after-design —could facilitate the design of similar experiences in the museum and heritage sector, supporting a participatory agenda in the design process, and helping to resolve the tension between stakeholders’ expectations and visitors’ playful appropriations.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The Pillow is a treated LCD screen which shows changing patterns in response to ambient electromagnetic radiation, challenging viewers to consider our constant invasion by electronic information. It is proposed as a product for mass-production, one that people would purchase for home use. In this paper, we describe how this admittedly impractical value fiction illustrates some of the ways that designers can pursue research.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
As a way of mapping a design space for a project on information appliances, we produced a workbook describing about twenty conceptual design proposals. On the one hand, they serve as suggestions that digital devices might embody values apart from those traditionally associated with functionality and usefulness. On the other, they are examples of research through design, balancing concreteness with openness to spur the imagination, and using multiplicity to allow the emergence of a new design space. Here we describe them both in terms of content and process, discussing first the values they address and then how they were crafted to encourage a broad discussion with our partners that could inform future stages of design.
Hertzian tales: Electronic products, aesthetic experience and critical design
  • A Dunne
Dunne, A. (1999). Hertzian tales: Electronic products, aesthetic experience and critical design. London: RCA:CRD Research Publications.
The Presence Project
  • W Gaver
  • B Hooker
Gaver, W., and Hooker, B. (2001). The Presence Project. London: RCA:CRD Research Publications.
The Dreaming. Informatik/Informatique 5/2001. Figure 6: Cultural probes are provocative materials eliciting inspiring responses
  • J Wejchert
Wejchert, J. (2001). The Dreaming. Informatik/Informatique 5/2001. Figure 6: Cultural probes are provocative materials eliciting inspiring responses.