Advertisement

Electronic Kintsugi

An Investigation of Everyday Crafted Objects in Tangible Interaction Design
  • Vanessa Julia CarpenterEmail author
  • Amanda Willis
  • Nikolaj “Dzl” Møbius
  • Dan Overholt
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 880)

Abstract

In the development of enhanced and smart technology, we explore the concept of meaningfulness, tangible design and interaction with everyday objects through Kintsugi, the Japanese craft of repairing broken ceramics with gold. Through two workshops, this emergent design research develops an iterative prototype: Electronic Kintsugi, which explores how we can facilitate more human-to-human or human-to-self connection through a hybrid crafted everyday object. We identify three themes: (1) enhancing human connection through embedded or “magic” technology; (2) using everyday objects to prompt personal reflection and development; and (3) exploring transferable design principles of smart products with a device of undefined purpose, and this converges traditional craft and technology.

Keywords

Craft Internet of Things (IoT) Tangible interaction Everyday objects 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We are grateful to FabCafe Tokyo, Kurosawa-San, the participants of workshop one, the design experts of workshop 2, and all the user testers and helpers along the way.

References

  1. 1.
    Zheng, C., Nitsche, M.: Combining practices in craft and design. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI 2017), pp. 331–340. ACM, New York (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3024969.3024973
  2. 2.
    Zoran, A., Buechley, L.: Hybrid reassemblage: an exploration of craft, digital fabrication and artifact uniqueness. Leonardo, 46(1), 4–10 (2013). http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/designing-information-feedback-within-hybrid-physicaldigital-interactions(4709b666-bbe3-46f8-ad3a-6d06fdd6f5cd)/export.htmlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lingel, J.: The poetics of socio-technical space: evaluating the internet of things through craft. In: Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2016). ACM, New York (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858399
  4. 4.
    Schoemann, S., Nitsche, M.: Needle as input: exploring practice and materiality when crafting becomes computing. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI 2017). ACM, New York (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3024969.3024999
  5. 5.
    Hogan, T., Hornecker, E.: Feel it! See it! Hear it! Probing tangible interaction and data representational modality. In: Proceedings of DRS 2016, Design Research Society 50th Anniversary Conference, Brighton, UK (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kettley, S., Sadkowska, A., Lucas, R.: Tangibility in e-textile participatory service design with mental health participants. In: Proceedings of DRS 2016, Design Research Society 50th Anniversary Conference, Brighton, UK (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mols, I., van den Hoven, E., Eggen, B.: Informing design for reflection: an overview of current everyday practices. In: Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human–Computer Interaction (NordiCHI 2016). ACM, New York (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2971494
  8. 8.
    Cila, N., Smit, I., Giaccardi, E., Kröse, B.: Products as agents: metaphors for designing the products of the IoT age. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2017), pp. 448–459. ACM, New York (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025797
  9. 9.
    Akama, Y., Light, A., Bowen, S.: Mindfulness and technology: traces of a middle way. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS 2017), pp. 345–355. ACM, New York (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064752
  10. 10.
    Mols, I., van den Hoven, E., Eggen, B.: Balance, cogito and dott: exploring media modalities for everyday-life reflection. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI 2017), pp. 427–433. ACM, New York (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3024969.3025069
  11. 11.
    Wakkary, R., Oogjes, D., Hauser, S., Lin, H., Cao, C., Ma, L., Duel, T.: Morse things: a design inquiry into the gap between things and us. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS 2017), pp. 503–514. ACM, New York (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064734
  12. 12.
    Núñez Pacheco, C., Loke, L.: Tacit narratives: surfacing aesthetic meaning by using wearable props and focusing. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI 2017), pp. 233–242. ACM, New York (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3024969.3024979
  13. 13.
    Tsaknaki, V., Fernaeus, Y.: Expanding on wabi-sabi as a design resource in HCI. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2016), pp. 5970–5983. ACM, New York (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858459
  14. 14.
    Rose, D.: Enchanted Objects: Design, Human Desire, and the Internet of Things. Simon and Schuster, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsaknaki, V., Fernaeus, Y., Schaub, M.: Leather as a material for crafting interactive and physical artifacts. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Designing Interactive Systems (DIS 2014). ACM, New York (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598574
  16. 16.
    Tsaknaki, V., Fernaeus, Y., Rapp, E., Belenguer, J.S.: Articulating challenges of hybrid crafting for the case of interactive silversmith practice. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS 2017), pp. 1187–1200. ACM, New York (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064718
  17. 17.
    Nordrum, A.: Popular Internet of Things Forecast of 50 Billion Devices by 2020 Is Outdated (2016). https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/internet/popular-internet-of-things-forecast-of-50-billion-devices-by-2020-is-outdated
  18. 18.
    Cranny-Francis, A.: Semefulness: a social semiotics of touch. Soc. Semiot. 21(4), 463–481 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2011.591993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fallman, D.: The new good: exploring the potential of philosophy of technology to contribute to human–computer interaction. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2011), pp. 1051–1060. ACM, New York (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979099
  20. 20.
    Hobye, M.: Designing for Homo Explorens: Open Social Play in Performative Frames, pp. 16–17. Malmö University, Malmö (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bødker, S.: When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In: Mørch, A., Morgan, K., Bratteteig, T., Ghosh, G., Svanaes, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human–Computer Interaction: Changing Roles (NordiCHI 2006), pp. 1–8. ACM, New York (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1182475.1182476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martin, B., Hanington, B.: Universal Methods of Design. Rockport Publishers, Beverly (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kujala, S., Walsh, T., Nurkka, P., Crisan, M.: Sentence completion for understanding users and evaluating user experience. Interact. Comput. 26(3), 238–255 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwt036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kujala, S., Nurkka, P.: Identifying user values for an activating game for children. In: Lugmayr, A., Franssila, H., Sotamaa, O., Näränen, P., Vanhala, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th International MindTrek Conference: Everyday Life in the Ubiquitous Era (MindTrek 2009), pp. 98–105. ACM, New York (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1621841.1621860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brooke, J.: SU: a quick and dirty usability scale. In: Jordan, P., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.A., McClelland, I. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry, pp. 189–194. Taylor & Francis, London (1996)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wheeldon, J., Faubert, J.: Framing experience: Concept maps, mind maps, and data collection in qualitative research. Int. J. Qual. Methods. (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Astor, M.: Microchip implants for employees? One company says yes. New York Times (2017). https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/technology/microchips-wisconsin-company-employees.html
  28. 28.
    Newman, K.M.: Free Mindfulness Apps Worthy of Your Attention. Mindful (2017). https://www.mindful.org/free-mindfulness-apps-worthy-of-your-attention/

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vanessa Julia Carpenter
    • 1
    Email author
  • Amanda Willis
    • 2
  • Nikolaj “Dzl” Møbius
    • 3
  • Dan Overholt
    • 1
  1. 1.Technical Doctoral School of IT and DesignAalborg UniversityCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Simon Fraser UniversitySurreyCanada
  3. 3.HumTekRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations