Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 577–592 | Cite as

Giving form to computational things: developing a practice of interaction design

  • Anna Vallgårda
Original Article


The computer is no longer the center of attention. Thus, what we design is no longer the interface to the computer. Rather, what we design is a thing or an environment in which a computer might be used to create certain desired effects. Indeed, interaction design in a sense becomes the practice of giving form to artifacts or environments rather like any of the other design disciplines that we have know for centuries. However, giving form to computational things is highly complex and somewhat different than most other form-giving practices due to its temporal form element—its ability to change between states. Thus, an interaction design practice needs to encompass this temporal form giving in combination with physical form giving and performances of the interaction gestalt. In this paper, I propose this trinity of forms as a framework to unfold the practice of interaction design. I further demonstrate how computational composites present a way to work with the temporal form and the physical form in a process not too different from any traditional form-giving practice. Lastly, I point to some tools and techniques to deal with the interdependencies of the three form elements and thereby also demonstrate that a form-giving practice of interaction design is already well under way.


Temporal form Physical form Interaction gestalt Form-giving Computer as material Material turn Computational composites 


  1. 1.
    Vallgårda A (2009) Computational composites—understanding the materiality of computational technology. PhD Dissertation. IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Robles E, Wiberg M (2010) Texturing the “material turn” in interaction design. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gross S, Bardzell J, Bardzell S (2013) Structures, forms, and stuff: the materiality and medium of interaction. Pers Ubiquit Comput. doi: 10.1007/s00779-013-0689-4
  4. 4.
    Ikeyima M, Rosner DK (2013) Broken probes: towards the design of worn media. Pers Ubiquit Comput. doi: 10.1007/s00779-013-0690-y
  5. 5.
    Lindell R (2013) Crafting interaction: the epistemology of modern programming. Pers Ubiquit Comput. doi: 10.1007/s00779-013-0687-6
  6. 6.
    Golsteijn C, van den Hoven E, Frohlich D, Sellen A (2013) Hybrid crafting: towards an integrated practice of crafting with physical and digital components. Pers Ubiquit Comput. doi: 10.1007/s00779-013-0684-9
  7. 7.
    Kwon H, Kim H, Lee W (2013) Intangibles wear materiality via material composition. Pers Ubiquit Comput. doi: 10.1007/s00779-013-0688-5
  8. 8.
    Wiberg M (2013) Methodology for materiality: interaction design research through a material lens. Pers Ubiquit Comput. doi: 10.1007/s00779-013-0686-7
  9. 9.
    MAKE. (Retrieved: 12 Nov 2011)
  10. 10.
    Haque U, Somlai-Fischer A (2005) Low tech sensors and actuatorsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Igoe T (2007) Making things talk: practical methods for connecting physical objects. O’Reilly Media, SebastopolGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Redström J (2001) Designing everyday computational things. PhD Dissertation. Göteborg University, Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vallgårda A, Redström J (2007) Computational composites. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems, San José, USA, 28 April–3 May, pp 513–522Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gibson JJ (1986) The theory of affordances. In: The ecological approach to visual perception. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Norman DA (2011) Living with complexity. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hallnäs L, Redström J (2002) Abstract information appliances—methodological exercises in conceptual design of computational things. In: Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems, London, UK, pp 105–116Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCullough M (1996) Abstracting craft: the practiced digital hand. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verbeek P–P, Kockelkoren P (1998) The things that matter. Design Issues 14(3):28–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Djajadiningrat JP, Overbeeke CJ, Wensveen SAG (2000) Augmenting fun and beauty: a pamphlet. In: Proceedings of the designing augmented reality environments. Helsingor, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Overbeeke K, Djajadiningrat T, Hummels C, Wensveen S (2002) Beauty in usability: forget about ease of use! In: Green WS, Jordan PW (eds) Pleasure with products beyond usability. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frens JW, Djajadiningrat JP, Overbeeke CJ (2003) Form, interaction and function, an exploratorium for interactive products. In: Proceedings of the Asian international design conference, Tsukuba, JapanGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Buur J, Jensen MV, Djajadiningrat T (2004) Hands-only scenarios and video action walls—novel methods for tangible user interaction design. In: Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems (DIS 2004), Cambridge, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Djajadiningrat T, Wensveen S, Frens J, Overbeeke K (2004) Tangible products: redressing the balance between appearance and action. Pers Ubiquit Comput 8:294–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Djajadiningrat T, Matthews B, Stienstra M (2007) Easy doesn’t do it: skill and expression in tangible aesthetics. Pers Ubiquit Comput 11:657–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jensen MV, Buur J, Djajadiningrat T (2005) Designing the user actions in tangible interaction. In: 4th Decennial conference on critical computing: between sense and sensibility, 9–18Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baskinger M, Gross M (2010) Tangible interaction = form + computing. Interactions 17(1):6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Löwgren J (2007) Fluency as an experiential quality in augmented spaces. Int J Design 1(3):1–10Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Löwgren J (2007) Pliability as an experiential quality: exploring the aesthetics of interaction design. Artifact 1(2):85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hallnäs L, Jaksetic P, Ljungstrand P, Redström J, Skog T (2001) Expressions; towards a design practice of slow technology. In: Proceedings of the human–computer interaction conference (Interact ‘01), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 447–454Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hallnäs L, Redström J (2006) Interaction design: foundations, experiments. The Swedish School of Textiles University College of Borås and Interactive Institute, Borås, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hallnäs L, Redström J (2001) Slow technology—designing for reflection. Pers Ubiquit Comput 5:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Redström M, Redström J, Mazé R (eds) (2005) IT + textiles. Edita/IT Press, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hallnäs L, Melin L, Redström J (2002) Textile displays: using textiles to investigate computational technology as design material. In: Proceedings of the 2nd nordic conference on human–computer interaction, Aarhus, Denmark, pp 157–166Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Doordan DP (1993) Promoting aluminium: designers and the American aluminium industry. Design Issues 9(2):44–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bullivant L (ed) (2005) 4Dspace: interactive architecture. Architect Design 75(1)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bullivant L (2006) Responsive environments—architecture, art and design. V&A Contemporary, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Paul C (2003) Digital art. Thames & Hudson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lovejoy M (2004) Digital currents: art in the electronic age. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Freyer C, Noel S, Rucki E (eds) (2008) Digital by design: crafting technology for products and environments. Thames & Hudson Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brownell B (2006) Transmaterial—a catalogue of materials that redefine our physical environment. Princeton Architectural Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Raffle H, Joachim MW, Tichenor J (2003) Super cilia skin: an interactive membrane. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’03), Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USAGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Brownell B (2008) Transmaterial 2—a catalogue of materials that redefine our physical environment. Princeton Architectural Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vallgårda A, Sokoler T (2010) A material strategy: exploring the material properties of computers. Int J Design 4(3):1–14Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Manzini E (1989) The material of invention: materials and design. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Coelho M, Zieglbaum J (2011) Shape-changing interfaces. Pers Ubiquit Comput 15:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Worbin L (2010) Designing dynamic textile patterns. University of Borås, BoråsGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nordby K (2011) Between the tag and the screen. PhD Dissertation. The School of Architecture and Design, Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nordby K (2011) Multi-field relations in designing for short-range RFID. Pers Ubiquit Comput 15:175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Belenguer JS, Lundén M, Laaksolhati J, Sundström P (2012) Immaterial materials: designing with radio. In: Proceedings of the conference on tangible embedded embodied interaction, Kingston, Canada, 19–22 Feb, pp 205–212Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vallgårda A (2008) PLANKS: a computational composite. In: Proceedings of the 5th nordic conference on human–computer interaction, Lund, Sweden, 18–22 Oct, pp 569–574Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vallgårda A, Sokoler T (2010) Material computing—computational materials. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM international conference adjunct papers on Ubiquitous computing (Ubicomp ‘10), New York, NY, USA, pp 383–384Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bergström J, Clark B, Frigo A, Mazé R, Redström J, Vallgårda A (2010) Becoming materials—material forms and forms of practice. Digit Creat 21(3):155–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dumitrescu D, Landin H, Vallgårda A (2012) An interactive textile hanging: textile, spaces, and interaction. Stud Mater Think 7Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Landin H, Vallgårda A, Worbin L (2011) Wall hanging as an organic interface. In: Proceedings of the OUI workshop at TEI 2011, Funchal, Portugal, 23–26 JanGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Nilsson L, Satomi M, Vallgårda A, Worbin L (2011) Understanding the complexity of designing dynamic textile patterns. In: Proceedings of the Ambience conference, Borås, Sweden, 28–30 NovGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagen SDenmark

Personalised recommendations