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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Notes

  1. 1.

    Form giving exists in the Scandinavian languages as formgivning, in Dutch as vormgeving, and in German as Gestaltung and is traditionally used to denote the specific practice of giving form to materials as done in, for instance, the practice of craft.

References

  1. 1.

    Vallgårda A (2009) Computational composites—understanding the materiality of computational technology. PhD Dissertation. IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

  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, USA

  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. http://makezine.com (Retrieved: 12 Nov 2011)

  10. 10.

    Haque U, Somlai-Fischer A (2005) Low tech sensors and actuators

  11. 11.

    Igoe T (2007) Making things talk: practical methods for connecting physical objects. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Redström J (2001) Designing everyday computational things. PhD Dissertation. Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden

  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 513–522

  14. 14.

    Gibson JJ (1986) The theory of affordances. In: The ecological approach to visual perception. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

  15. 15.

    Norman DA (2011) Living with complexity. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google 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 105–116

  17. 17.

    McCullough M (1996) Abstracting craft: the practiced digital hand. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Verbeek P–P, Kockelkoren P (1998) The things that matter. Design Issues 14(3):28–42

    Article  Google 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, Denmark

  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, London

    Google 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, Japan

  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, USA

  23. 23.

    Djajadiningrat T, Wensveen S, Frens J, Overbeeke K (2004) Tangible products: redressing the balance between appearance and action. Pers Ubiquit Comput 8:294–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Djajadiningrat T, Matthews B, Stienstra M (2007) Easy doesn’t do it: skill and expression in tangible aesthetics. Pers Ubiquit Comput 11:657–676

    Article  Google 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, 9–18

  26. 26.

    Baskinger M, Gross M (2010) Tangible interaction = form + computing. Interactions 17(1):6–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Löwgren J (2007) Fluency as an experiential quality in augmented spaces. Int J Design 1(3):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Löwgren J (2007) Pliability as an experiential quality: exploring the aesthetics of interaction design. Artifact 1(2):85–95

    Article  Google 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 447–454

  30. 30.

    Hallnäs L, Redström J (2006) Interaction design: foundations, experiments. The Swedish School of Textiles University College of Borås and Interactive Institute, Borås, Sweden

  31. 31.

    Hallnäs L, Redström J (2001) Slow technology—designing for reflection. Pers Ubiquit Comput 5:201–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Redström M, Redström J, Mazé R (eds) (2005) IT + textiles. Edita/IT Press, Helsinki

    Google 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 157–166

  34. 34.

    Doordan DP (1993) Promoting aluminium: designers and the American aluminium industry. Design Issues 9(2):44–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Bullivant L (ed) (2005) 4Dspace: interactive architecture. Architect Design 75(1)

  36. 36.

    Bullivant L (2006) Responsive environments—architecture, art and design. V&A Contemporary, London

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Paul C (2003) Digital art. Thames & Hudson, London

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Lovejoy M (2004) Digital currents: art in the electronic age. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Freyer C, Noel S, Rucki E (eds) (2008) Digital by design: crafting technology for products and environments. Thames & Hudson Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Brownell B (2006) Transmaterial—a catalogue of materials that redefine our physical environment. Princeton Architectural Press, New York

    Google 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, USA

  42. 42.

    Brownell B (2008) Transmaterial 2—a catalogue of materials that redefine our physical environment. Princeton Architectural Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Vallgårda A, Sokoler T (2010) A material strategy: exploring the material properties of computers. Int J Design 4(3):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Manzini E (1989) The material of invention: materials and design. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Coelho M, Zieglbaum J (2011) Shape-changing interfaces. Pers Ubiquit Comput 15:161–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Worbin L (2010) Designing dynamic textile patterns. University of Borås, Borås

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Nordby K (2011) Between the tag and the screen. PhD Dissertation. The School of Architecture and Design, Oslo, Norway

  48. 48.

    Nordby K (2011) Multi-field relations in designing for short-range RFID. Pers Ubiquit Comput 15:175–185

    Article  Google 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 205–212

  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 569–574

  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 383–384

  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):155–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Dumitrescu D, Landin H, Vallgårda A (2012) An interactive textile hanging: textile, spaces, and interaction. Stud Mater Think 7

  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 Jan

  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 Nov

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Vallgårda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vallgårda, A. Giving form to computational things: developing a practice of interaction design. Pers Ubiquit Comput 18, 577–592 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0685-8

Download citation

Keywords

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