Advertisement

Invisible Touch! – Design and Communication Guidelines for Interactive Digital Textiles Based on Empirical User Acceptance Modeling

  • Philipp Brauner
  • Julia Offermann-van Heek
  • Martina Ziefle
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 822)

Abstract

Interactive digital textiles are both light and shadow in regard to users’ perception and technology acceptance. To understand people’s perceived barriers and benefits in regard to interactive digital textiles and to derive empirically founded design and communication guidelines, we conducted an empirical study based on a synthesis of the Unified Theory and Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) and the Smart Textile Technology Acceptance Model (STTAM). In a scenario-based quantitative user study with N = 324 participants, we evaluated the projected acceptance of two exemplary textile products in a between-subject design. The first product addressed wearables in form of a smart jacket and the second product referred to technology augmented living environments in form of a smart armchair. Regression analyses revealed that the combined model (UTAUT2 and STTAM) explained over 80% of the variance of the participants intention to use the smart armchair (80.3%) as well as the smart jacket (84.7%): For the smart armchair, the model dimensions performance expectancy, hedonic motivation, washability, and input modality were decisive, while performance expectancy, hedonic motivation, and connectivity were relevant for the smart jacket. We conclude with empirically based communication and design guidelines to increase the acceptance of interactive digital textiles.

Keywords

Digital textiles Smart textiles Technology acceptance User modeling User diversity Wearables 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The participants’ willingness to share their thoughts and the outstanding research support of David Peters are highly acknowledged. The German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) funded this work as part of the project Intuitex (16SV6270) [18].

References

  1. 1.
    Kvavadze E, Bar-Yosef O, Belfer-Cohen A, Boaretto E, Jakeli N, Matskevich Z, Meshveliani T (2009) 30,000-year-old Wild Flax Fibers. Science (New York, NY) 325(5946):1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moore GE (1965) Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics 86(1):114–117Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weiser M (1991) The computer for the 21st century. Sci Am 265:94–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aarts EH, Encarnacão JL (eds) (2006) True visions: the emergence of ambient intelligence. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Poupyrev I, Gong NW, Fukuhara S, Karagozler ME, Schwesig C, Robinson KE (2016) Project jacquard: interactive digital textiles at scale. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 4216–4227Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karrer K, Glaser C, Clemens C (2009) Technikaffinität erfassen Der Fragebogen TA-EG [Measuring Affinity to Technology]. ZMMS Spektrum - Der Mensch im Mittelpunkt technischer Systeme. 8. Berliner Werkstatt Mensch-Maschine-Systeme 22(29):196–201Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rekimoto J (2001) Gesturewrist and gesturepad: unobtrusive wearable interaction devices. In: Proceedings of 5th international symposium on wearable computers. IEEE, pp 21–27Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cherenack K, van Pieterson L (2012) Smart textiles: challenges and opportunities. J Appl Phys 112(9):091301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Venkatesh V, Thong JYL, Xu X (2012) Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q 36(1):157–178Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Post ER, Orth M (1997) Smart Fabric or “Wearable Clothing”. In: Proceedings of the 1st IEEE international symposium on wearable computers, ISWC ’97, Washington, DC, USA. IEEE Computer Society, pp 167–168Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rus S, Braun A, Kuijper A (2017) In: E-textile couch: towards smart garments integrated furniture. Springer, Cham, pp 214–224Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heller F, Oßmann L, Al-huda Hamdan N, Brauner P, Van Heek J, Scheulen K, Möllering C, Großen L, Witsch R, Ziefle M, Gries T, Borchers J (2016) Gardeene! Textile controls for the home environment. In: Short paper at Mensch und Computer 2016, Gesellschaft für Informatik (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee SS, Kim S, Jin B, Choi E, Kim B, Jia X, Kim D, Lee K (2010) How users manipulate deformable displays as input devices. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, London, pp 1647–1656Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brauner P, van Heek J, Ziefle M, Al-huda Hamdan N, Borchers J (2017) Interactive FUrniTURE evaluation of smart interactive textile interfaces for home environments. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM international conference on interactive surfaces and spaces, Brighton, England. ACM Press, New York, pp 151–160Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hildebrandt J, Brauner P, Ziefle M (2015) Smart textiles as intuitive and ubiquitous user interfaces for smart homes. In: Zhou J, Salvendy G (eds) Human computer interaction international - human aspects of IT for the aged population. Springer, Cham, pp 423–434Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brauner P, van Heek J, Martina Z (2017) Age, gender, and technology attitude as factors for acceptance of smart interactive textiles in home environments – towards a smart textile technology acceptance model. In: Proceedings of the international conference on ICT for aging well (ICT4AWE 2017). SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, pp 53–56Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brauner P, van Heek J, Schaar AK, Ziefle M, Al-huda Hamdan N, Ossmann L, Heller F, Borchers J, Scheulen K, Gries T, Kraft H, Fromm H, Franke M, Wentz C, Wagner M, Dicke M, Möllering C, Adenau F (2017) Towards accepted smart interactive textiles - the interdisciplinary project INTUITEX. In: HCI in business, government, and organizations (HCIGO), held as part of HCI International 2017. Springer, Berlin, pp 279–298Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beier G (1999) Kontrollüberzeugungen im Umgang mit Technik [Locus of control when interacting with technology]. Rep Psychol 24(9):684–693Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Heek J, Schaar AK, Trevisan B, Bosowski P, Ziefle M (2014) User requirements for wearable smart textiles. Does the usage context matter (medical vs. sports)? In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on pervasive computing technologies for healthcare (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hassenzahl M (2006) Hedonic, emotional, and experiential perspectives on product quality. In Ghaoui C (ed) Encyclopedia of human computer interaction. Number 2000. Idea Group, pp 266–272Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Brauner
    • 1
  • Julia Offermann-van Heek
    • 1
  • Martina Ziefle
    • 1
  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction CenterRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations