Interaction Aesthetics and Ubiquitous Music

  • Damián KellerEmail author
  • Nuno Otero
  • Victor Lazzarini
  • Marcelo Soares Pimenta
  • Maria Helena de Lima
  • Marcelo Johann
  • Leandro Costalonga
Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC)


Two recent approaches to interaction design have good potential to address creative practice in everyday settings: interaction aesthetics and ubiquitous music. We discuss the theoretical and methodological issues raised by both perspectives and highlight the similarities and differences among the two approaches. Through the analysis of a series of experiments, a common theme emerges: relational properties may provide a useful target for creativity-oriented experimental work.


Relational Property Creative Activity Interaction Design Creative Potential Musical Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baer J, McKool SS (2009) Assessing creativity using the consensual assessment technique. In: Schreiner C (ed) Handbook of research on assessment technologies, methods, and applications in higher education. Information Science Reference, Hershey, pp 65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bardram E (2005) Activity-based computing: support for mobility and collaboration in ubiquitous computing. Pers Ubiquit Comput 9(5):312–322. doi: 10.1007/s00779-004-0335-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bødker S, Klokmose CN (2011) The human-artifact model: an activity theoretical approach to artifact ecologies. Hum Comput Interact 26(4):315–371. doi: 10.1080/07370024.2011.626709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Botero A, Kommonen K-H, Marttila S (2010) Expanding design space: design-in-use activities and strategies. In: Durling D, Bousbaci R, Chen L-L, Gautier P, Poldma T, Roworth-Stokes S, Stolterman E (eds) Proceedings of the DRS 2010 conference: design and complexity. DRS, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown AR, Dillon SC (2007) Networked improvisational musical environments: learning through online collaborative music making. In: Finney J, Burnard P (eds) Teaching music in the digital age. Continuum International Publishing Group, London, pp 96–106Google Scholar
  6. Bryan-Kinns N (2011) Annotating distributed scores for mutual engagement in daisyphone and beyond. Leon Music J 21:51–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnard P (2007) Reframing creativity and technology: promoting pedagogic change in music education. J Music Technol Educ 1(1):37–55. doi: 10.1386/jmte.1.1.37/1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buxton W (2007) Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design. Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann, New York. ISBN 9780123740373Google Scholar
  9. Coughlan T, Johnson P (2006) Interaction in creative tasks. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 531–540. ISBN: 1-59593-372-7Google Scholar
  10. De Bruijn O, Spence R (2008) A new framework for theory-based interaction design, applied to serendipitous information retrieval. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 15(1):5:1–5:38. doi: 10.1145/1352782.1352787 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DiLiello TC, Houghton JD (2008) Creative potential and practised creativity: identifying untapped creativity in organizations. Creat Innov Manag 17:37–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00464.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Di Paolo EA, Rohde M, Jaegher HD (2010) Horizons for the enactive mind: values, social interaction, and play. In: Stewart JR, Gapenne O, Paolo EAD (eds) Enaction: toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 33–88Google Scholar
  13. Eaglestone B, Ford N, Holdridge P, Carter J, Upton C (2008) Cognitive styles and computer-based creativity support systems: two linked studies of electro-acoustic music composers. In: Kronland-Martinet R, Ystad S, Jensen K (eds) Computer music modeling and retrieval: sense of sounds. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 74–97. ISBN 978-3-540-85034-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehn P (1988) Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Arbetslivscentrum, Stockholm. ISBN 9789186158453Google Scholar
  15. Flores L, Miletto E, Pimenta M, Miranda E, Keller D (2010) Musical interaction patterns: communicating computer music knowledge in a multidisciplinary project. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on design of communication. ACM, New York, pp 199–206. ISBN 978-1-4503-0403-0Google Scholar
  16. Flores LV, Pimenta MS, Keller D (2014) Patterns of musical interaction with computing devices. Cadernos de Informática 8(2):68–81Google Scholar
  17. Freire P (1999) Pedagogy of Hope/Pedagogia da Esperança: Um Reencontro com a Pedagogia do Oprimido. Paz e Terra, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaver WW, Beaver J, Benford S (2003) Ambiguity as a resource for design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2003). ACM, New York, pp 233–240. ISBN 1-58113-630-7Google Scholar
  19. Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. ISBN 0898599598Google Scholar
  20. Hallnäs L, Redström J (2002) From use to presence: on the expressions and aesthetics of everyday computational things. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 9(2):106–124. doi: 10.1145/513665.513668 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hummels C, Overbeeke K (2010) Special issue editorial: aesthetics of interaction. Int J Des 4(2):1–2Google Scholar
  22. Hutchins E (2005) Material anchors for conceptual blends. J Pragmat 37:1555–1577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keller D (2000) Compositional processes from an ecological perspective. Leonardo Music J 10:55–60. doi: 10.1162/096112100570459 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keller D (2004) Paititi: a multimodal journey to El Dorado. Doctor in Musical Arts thesis. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Keller D (2012) Sonic ecologies. In: Brown AR (ed) Sound musicianship: understanding the crafts of music. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp 213–227. ISBN 978-1-4438-3912-9Google Scholar
  26. Keller D, Capasso A (2000) Social and perceptual processes in the installation the trade. Organ Sound 5(2):85–94. doi: 10.1017/S1355771800002053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keller D, Capasso A (2006) New concepts and techniques in eco-composition. Organ Sound 11(1):55–62. doi: 10.1017/S1355771806000082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keller D, Barreiro DL, Queiroz M, Pimenta MS (2010) Anchoring in ubiquitous musical activities. In: Proceedings of the international computer music conference. MPublishing, University of Michigan Library, Ann Arbor, pp 319–326Google Scholar
  29. Keller D, Flores LV, Pimenta MS, Capasso A, Tinajero P (2011a) Convergent trends toward ubiquitous music. J N Music R 40(3):265–276. doi: 10.1080/09298215.2011.594514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keller D, Lima MH, Pimenta MS, Queiroz M (2011b) Assessing musical creativity: material, procedural and contextual dimensions. In: Proceedings of the National Association of Music Research and Post-Graduation Congress – ANPPOM. ANPPOM, Uberlândia, pp 708–714Google Scholar
  31. Keller D, Ferreira da Silva E, Pinheiro da Silva F, Lima MH, Pimenta MS, Lazzarini V (2013) Everyday musical creativity: an exploratory study with vocal percussion (Criatividade musical cotidiana: Um estudo exploratório com sons vocais percussivos). In: Proceedings of the National Association of Music Research and Post-Graduation Congress – ANPPOM. ANPPOM, NatalGoogle Scholar
  32. Leont’ev AN (1978) Activity, consciousness and personality. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. ISBN 0130035335Google Scholar
  33. Liikkanen LA, Laakso M, Björklund T (2011) Foundations for studying creative design practices. In: Proceedings of the second conference on creativity and innovation in design (DESIRE ’11). ACM, New York, pp 309–315. ISBN 978-1-4503-0754-3Google Scholar
  34. Lima MH, Keller D, Pimenta MS, Lazzarini V, Miletto EM (2012) Creativity-centred design for ubiquitous musical activities: two case studies. J Music Technol Educ 5(2):195–222. doi: 10.1386/jmte.5.2.195_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lima MH, Keller D, Otero N, Pimenta MS, Lazzarini V, Johann M, Costalonga L (2014) Ecocompositional techniques in ubiquitous music practices in educational settings: sonic sketching. In: Himonides E, King A (eds) Proceedings of the Sempre (MET2014). Researching music, education, technology: critical insights. University of London, London, pp 123–127Google Scholar
  36. Loi D, Dillon P (2006) Adaptive educational environments as creative spaces. Camb J Educ 36(3):363–381. doi: 10.1080/03057640600865959 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Löwgren J (2009) Toward an articulation of interaction esthetics. N Rev Hypermed Multimed 15(2):129–146. doi: 10.1080/13614560903117822 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miletto EM, Pimenta MS, Bouchet F, Sansonnet J-P, Keller D (2011) Principles for music creation by novices in networked music environments. J N Music Res 40(3):205–216. doi: 10.1080/09298215.2011.603832 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mitchell WJ, Inouye AS, Blumenthal MS (2003) Beyond productivity: information technology, innovation, and creativity. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Mumford MD, Hester K, Robledo I (2011) Methods in creativity research: multiple approaches, multiple methods. In: Mumford MD (ed) Handbook of organizational creativity. Elsevier Science, Waltham, pp 39–64. ISBN 9780080879109Google Scholar
  41. Nordmark S, Milrad M (2012) Mobile digital storytelling for promoting creative collaborative learning. In: Proceedings of the seventh IEEE international conference on Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technology in Education (WMUTE 2012). IEEE, Takamatsu, Japan, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  42. Pimenta MS, Miletto EM, Keller D, Flores LV (2012) Technological support for online communities focusing on music creation: adopting collaboration, flexibility and multiculturality from Brazilian creativity styles. In: Azab NA (ed) Cases on Web 2.0 in developing countries: studies on implementation, application and use. IGI Global Press, Vancouver. ISBN 1466625155Google Scholar
  43. Pinheiro da Silva F, Keller D, Ferreira da Silva E, Pimenta MS, Lazzarini V (2013) Everyday musical creativity: exploratory study of ubiquitous musical activities (Criatividade musical cotidiana: Estudo exploratório de atividades musicais ubíquas). Música Hodie 13:64–79Google Scholar
  44. Pinheiro da Silva F, Pimenta MS, Lazzarini V, Keller D (2014) Time tagging in its niche: engagement, explorability and creative attention (A marcação temporal no seu nicho: Engajamento, explorabilidade e atenção criativa). Cadernos de Informática 8(2):45–56Google Scholar
  45. Radanovitsck EAA, Keller D, Flores LV, Pimenta MS, Queiroz M (2011) mixDroid: time tagging for creative activities (mixDroid: Marcação temporal para atividades criativas). In: Proceedings of the XIII Brazilian symposium on computer music (SBCM). SBC, VitóriaGoogle Scholar
  46. Redström J (2007) Aesthetic concerns. In: Giaglis G, Kourouthanassis P (eds) Pervasive information systems. M.E. Sharpe Inc., Armonk, pp 197–209Google Scholar
  47. Richards R, Kinney D, Benet M, Merzel A (1988) Assessing everyday creativity: characteristics of the lifetime creativity scales and validation with three large samples. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:476–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Runco MA (2007) A hierarchical framework for the study of creativity. New Horiz Educ 55(3):1–9Google Scholar
  49. Schaeffer P (1977) Traité des objets musicaux: Essai interdisciplines. Éditions du Seuil, Paris. ISBN 9782020026086Google Scholar
  50. Schafer RM (1977) The tuning of the world. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Serafin S, Franinović K, Hermann T, Lemaitre G, Rinott M, Rocchesso D (2011) Sonic interaction design. In: Hermann T, Hunt A, Neuhoff JG (eds) The sonification handbook. Logos Publishing House, Berlin, pp 87–110. ISBN 978-3-8325-2819-5Google Scholar
  52. Shneiderman B (2007) Creativity support tools: accelerating discovery and innovation. Commun ACM 50(12):20–32. doi: 10.1145/1323688.1323689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stolterman E (2008) The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. Int J Des [Online] 2(1):55–65Google Scholar
  54. Truax B (2002) Genres and techniques of soundscape composition as developed at Simon Fraser University. Organ Sound 7(1):5–14. doi: 10.1017/S1355771802001024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Udsen LE, Jørgensen AH (2005) The aesthetic turn: unravelling recent aesthetic approaches to human-computer interaction. Digit Creat 16:205–216. doi: 10.1080/14626260500476564 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wright P, Wallace J, McCarthy J (2008) Aesthetics and experience-centered design. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 15(4):1–21. doi: 10.1145/1460355.1460360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Damián Keller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nuno Otero
    • 2
  • Victor Lazzarini
    • 3
  • Marcelo Soares Pimenta
    • 4
  • Maria Helena de Lima
    • 4
  • Marcelo Johann
    • 4
  • Leandro Costalonga
    • 5
  1. 1.NAP, Federal University of AcreRio BrancoBrazil
  2. 2.Linnaeus UniversityKalmarSweden
  3. 3.National University of IrelandMaynoothIreland
  4. 4.Federal University of Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  5. 5.Federal University of Espirito SantoVitóriaBrazil

Personalised recommendations