Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 11, Issue 8, pp 677–690 | Cite as

Move to get moved: a search for methods, tools and knowledge to design for expressive and rich movement-based interaction

  • Caroline Hummels
  • Kees C. J. Overbeeke
  • Sietske Klooster
Original Article

Abstract

The world is inherently meaningful for us, i.e. we perceive the world in terms of what we can do with it, and by physically interacting with it we access this meaning and express the meaning. We believe that this is the core reason and foundation for turning to movement-based interaction. ‘Interaction creates meaning’ does not only hold for users during interaction but also for designers when generating ideas and developing concepts. Therefore, we postulate that if one truly likes to design for movement-based interaction, one has to be or become an expert in movement, not just theoretically, by imagination or on paper, but by doing and experiencing while designing. In order to do so, we believe that designers need design tools, techniques, knowledge, awareness and skills that support their search for expressive, rich behaviour. Our search for this support resulted in several methods, tools and knowledge that help designers exploring, visualising and reflecting on interactions. Our developed methods and tools such as the Design Movement approach with its choreography of interaction, gestural design tools, interactive installations and interactive tangible sketching, have not only supported and inspired designers to design for movement-based interaction, but also resulted in surprising, fresh designs in comparison with the limited scope of rather uniform and traditional electronic consumer products. This paper discusses the possibilities and limitations of our approach.

Keywords

Movement-based interaction Richness Tangible interaction Meaning Tools Methods Gestures Choreography of interaction Installations Emotions Expressivity Experience Product design 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We like to thank Aadjan van der Helm, Rob Luxen, Gerda Smets, Tom Djajadiningrat, Stephan Wensveen, Philip Ross, Joep Frens, Hans van Balkom, Riny Voort, Jan de Moor, Pieter Jan Stappers, Rudolf Wormgoor, David Keyson, Paul Hekkert, Han Chul Jung, Johannes Zachrisson, Miguel Bruns Alonso, the Maeterlingschool in Delft and the Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, as well as all participating students and colleagues who made these projects a success.

References

  1. 1.
    Djajadiningrat JP, Overbeeke CJ, Wensveen SAG (2000) Augmenting fun and beauty: a pamphlet. In: Mackay WE (ed) Proceedings of DARE’2000. Helsingor, pp 131–134Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 25:1–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hummels C, Stappers PJ (1998) Meaningful gestures for human computer interaction: beyond hand postures. In: Proceedings for the 3rd IEEE international conference on automatic face and gesture recognition (FG’98), Nara, Japan, 14–16 April 1998. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, pp 591–596Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gaver B (2002) Designing for Homo Ludens. I3 Magazine, vol 12, pp 2–6Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Overbeeke CJ, Djajadiningrat JP, Hummels CCM, Wensveen SAG (2002) Beauty in usability: forget about ease of use! In: Green WS, Jordan PW (eds) Pleasure with products: beyond usability. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 9–18Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van der Heijden A, Hennink A, Kistemaker N, Hummels C (2005) Especially made for you. In: Wensveen S, Diederiks E, Djajadiningrat T, Guenand A, Klooster S, Stienstra M, Vink P, Overbeeke K (eds) Proceedings of the conference designing pleasurable products and interfaces, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 24–27 October 2005, pp 478–479Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hummels C, Ross P, Overbeeke CJ (2003) In search of resonant human computer interaction: building and testing aesthetic installations. In: Rauterberg M, Menozzi M, Wesson J (eds) Interact ’03. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 399–406Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Branzi A (1989) We are the primitives. In: Margolin V (ed) Design discourse: history theory criticism. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dourish P (2001) Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fels S (2000) Intimacy and embodiment: implications for art and technology. In: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM workshops on multimedia, pp 13–16Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wensveen S, Overbeeke CJ, Djajadiningrat T, Kyffin S (2004) Freedom of fun, freedom of interaction. Interactions 11:59–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Verbeek P (2002) Devices of engagement: on Borgmann’s philosophy of information and technology. Techné J Soc Philos Technol 7(1):69–92Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gibson J.J (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Lawrence Erlbaum, London (Original work published in 1979)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hummels CCM (2005) ‘Descendants’ of a design quest for diversity. Keynote speech. In: Wensveen S, Diederiks E, Djajadiningrat T, Guenand A, Klooster S, Stienstra M, Vink P, Overbeeke K (eds) Proceedings of the conference designing pleasurable products and interfaces, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 24–27 October 2005, pp 10–23Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wensveen SAG, Djajadiningrat JP, Overbeeke CJ (2004) Interaction Frogger: a design framework to couple action and function. In: Proceedings of the 2004 conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp 177–184Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frens JW (2006) A rich user interface for a digital camera. Pers Ubiquit Comput 10(2–3):177–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hassenzahl M, Seifert K, Pastoor S (2002) The effect of ‘‘Usage Modes’’ on product appeal. Available at http://www.tu-darmstadt.de/fb/fb3/psy/soz/forvero_mh.html (Last visited 20-06-2006)
  18. 18.
    Hummels C, van der Helm A (2004) ISH and the search for resonant tangible interaction. Pers Ubiquit Compu 8:385–388Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner; how professionals think in action. Basic Books, JacksonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guiard Y (1987) Asymmetric division of labor in Human Skilled Bi-manual action: the kinematic chain as a model. J Motor Behav 19(4):486–517Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kabbash P, MacKenzie IS, Buxton W (1993) Human performance using computer input-devices in the preferred and non-preferred hands. In: Proceedings of InterCHI ’93, pp 4747–481Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Anderson J (1985) In: The New York Times. Available at http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/dancetech (Last visited 20-06-2006)
  23. 23.
    Klooster S, Overbeeke CJ (2005) Designing products as an integral part of choreography of interaction: the product’s form as an integral part of movement. In: Design and semantics of form and movement. Proceedings of the 1st European workshop on design and semantics of form and movement. New Castle, UK, pp 23–35Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Djajadiningrat T, Matthews B, Stienstra M (2005). Easy doesn’t do it: skill and expression in tangible aesthetics. Pers Ubiquit Comput, special issue on movement-based design (this issue)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hummels CCM (2000) Gestural design tools: prototypes, experiments and scenarios. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fish J, Scrivener S (1990) Amplifying the mind’s eye: sketching and visual recognition. Leonardo 23(1):117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hummels CCM (2004) Educating interaction, experience and diversity. In: Loyd P, Roozenburg N, McMahon C, Brodhurst L (eds) The changing face of design education. Proceedings of the 2nd international engineering and product design education conference, 2–3 September 2004, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 247–254Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline Hummels
    • 1
  • Kees C. J. Overbeeke
    • 2
  • Sietske Klooster
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Industrial Design EngineeringDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Industrial DesignEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Design MovementAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations