Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 637–649 | Cite as

Structures, forms, and stuff: the materiality and medium of interaction

  • Shad Gross
  • Jeffrey Bardzell
  • Shaowen Bardzell
Original Article


Though information is popularly, and often academically, understood to be immaterial, nonetheless, we only encounter it in material forms, in books, on laptops, in our brains, in spoken language, and so forth. In the past decade, HCI has increasingly focused on the material dimensions of interacting with computational devices and information. This paper explores three major strands of this research—tangible user interfaces, theories of computational materiality, and craft-oriented approaches to HCI. We argue that each of these offers a formulation of the materiality of interaction: as physical, as metaphysical, or as tradition communicating. We situate these three formulations in relation to debates on the nature of media, from philosophical aesthetics (the ontology of art, in particular), media studies, and visual cultural studies. We argue that the formulations of materiality, information, and meaning from HCI and those from the humanities have deeper underlying similarities than may be expected and that exploring these similarities have two significant benefits. Such an analysis can benefit these differing threads in different ways, taking their current theories and adding to them. It also serves as a basis to import philosophical art concepts in a robust way into HCI, that is, not simply as prepackaged ideas to be applied to HCI, but rather as ideas always already enmeshed in productive and living debates that HCI is now poised to enter—to the benefit of both HCI and the humanities.


Materiality Medium HCI Design Art Philosophy Aesthetic interaction 


  1. 1.
    Miller D (2009) Stuff. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bardzell J (2011) Interaction criticism: an introduction to the practice. Interact Comput 23(6):604–621CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Norman D (1999) Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions 6(3):38–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broken Probes: Towards the Design of Worn Media (in this issue)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ishii H, Ullmer B (1997) Tangible bits: towards seamless integration interfaces between people, atoms, and bits. In: Proceedings of CHI’97, New York, ACM pp 234–241Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vallgårda A, Redstöm J (2007) Computational composites. In: Proceedings of CHI’97, New York, ACM pp 513–522Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dourish P, Mazmanian M (2011) Media as material: information representation as material foundations for organizational practice. Third international symposium on process organization studies, Corfu, Greece pp 1–24Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schön D (1983) The reflective practitioner. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosner D, Ryokai K (2009) Reflections on craft: probing the creative process of everyday knitters. In: Proceedings of creativity and cognition’09, New York, ACM pp 195–204Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosner, D, Blanchette, J F, Buechley, L, Dourish, P, Mazmanian, M (2012) From materials to materiality: connecting practice and theory in HCI. In: Proceedings of CHI’2012 extended abstracts, ACM pp 2787–2790Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bardzell S, Rosner D, Bardzell J (2012) The craft of designing for quality: integrity, creativity, and public sensibility. In: Proceedings of DIS’12, ACMGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Janlert LE, Stolterman E (1997) The character of things. Des Stud 18:297–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bergström J, Clark B, Frigo A, Mazé R, Redström J, Vallgårda A (2010) Becoming materials: material forms and forms of practice. Digit Creativity 21(3):155–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barnard M (2001) Approaches to understanding visual culture. PALGRAVE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cavell S (1979) The world viewed: reflections on the ontology of film. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davies D (2005) Medium in art. In: Levinson J (ed) The Oxford handbook of aesthetics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herwitz D (2008) Aesthetics: key concepts in philosophy. Continuum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greenberg C (1961) The new sculpture. In: Art and culture: critical essays, vol 212. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manovich L (2001) Language of new media. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benjamin W (2008) The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lessing GE (1874) Laocoön. (trans: Frothingham E). Roberts Brothers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aristotle (1961) Poetics. (trans: Butcher SH). Macmillan and Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smith GC (1995) The marble answering machine. The hand that rocks the cradle (May/June), pp 60–65Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fitzmaurice G, Ishii H, Buxton B (1995) Bricks: laying the foundations for graspable user interfaces. In: Proceedings of CHI’95, ACM pp 442–449Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ishii H (2008) Tangible bits: beyond pixels. In: Proceedings of TEI’08, New York, ACM pp 15–25Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ishii H, Lakatos D, Bonanni L, Labrune J-B (2012) Radical atoms: beyond tangible bits, towards transformable materials. Interactions 19(1):38–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hornecker E (2012) Beyond affordances: tangibles’ hybrid nature. In: Proceedings of TEI’12, ACM pp 175–182Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vallgårda A, Sokoler T (2010) A material strategy: exploring material properties in computers. Int J Des 4(3):1–14Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Robles E, Wiberg M (2010) Texturing the “material turn” in interaction design. In: Proceedings of TEI’10, New York, ACM pp 137–144Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Giving form to computers: the material practice of interaction design (in this issue)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Crafting interaction: the epistemology of modern programming (in this issue)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hybrid crafting: towards an integrated practice of crafting with physical and digital components (in this issue)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    McCullough M (1996) Abstracting craft: the practiced digital hand. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sennett R (2008) The craftsman. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rosner D, Taylor A (2011) Antiquarian answers: book restoration as a resource for design. In: Proceedings of CHI’11, New York, ACM pp 2665–2668Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Buechley L, Mako Hill B (2010) LilyPad in the wild: how hardware’s long tail is supporting new engineering and design communities. In: Proceedings of DIS’10, New York, ACM pp 199–207Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Buechley L, Hendrix S, Eisenberg M (2009) Paints, paper, and programs: first steps toward the computational sketchbook. In: Proceedings of TEI ‘09, ACM pp 9–12Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bødker S (2006) When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In: Proceedings of NordiCHI, New York, ACMGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Harrison S, Sengers P, Tatar D (2011) Making epistemological trouble: third-paradigm HCI as successor science. Interact Comput 23(5):385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rogers Y (2012) HCI theory: classical, modern, and contemporary. Synthesis lectures on human-centered informatics. Morgan ClaypoolGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Arias E, Eden H, Fischer G (1997) Enhancing communication, facilitating shared understanding, and creating better artifacts by integrating physical and computational media for design. In: Proceedings of DIS’97, New York, ACMGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fernaeus Y (2007) Let’s make a digital patchwork designing for children’s creative play with programming materials. Dissertation, Stockholm UniversityGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bolter J, Grusin R (2000) Remediation. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Carroll N (1985) Specificity of media in the arts. J Aesthet Educ 19(4):5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kracauer, S (2004) [1960] Basic concepts. In: Braudy L, Cohen M (eds) From theory of film, excerpted in film theory and criticism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 143–153Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bazin A (2004) What is cinema?. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Levinson J (1980) What a musical work is. J Philos 77(1):5–28CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Doane MA (2007) The indexical and the concept of medium specificity. Differences 18(1):397–408Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ratti C, Wang Y (2004) Tangible user interfaces (TUIs): a novel paradigm for GIS. Trans GIS’04 8(4):407–421Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Piper B, Ratti C, Ishii H (2002) Illuminating clay: a 3-d tangible interface for landscape analysis. In: Proceedings of CHI’02, ACM pp 355–362Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ishii H, Ratti C, Piper B, Wang Y, Biderman A, Ben-Joseph E (2004) Brining clay and sand into digital design—continuous tangible user interfaces. BT Technol J 22(4):287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Piper B, Ratti C, Ishii H (2002) Illuminating clay: a tangible interface with potential GRASS applications. In: Proceedings of open source GIS-GRASS user conf ‘02, University of Trento, TrentoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shad Gross
    • 1
  • Jeffrey Bardzell
    • 1
  • Shaowen Bardzell
    • 1
  1. 1.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations