Advertisement

Embodied Design Improvisation: A Method to Make Tacit Design Knowledge Explicit and Usable

  • David Sirkin
  • Wendy Ju
Chapter
Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)

Abstract

We present a design generative and evaluative technique that we call embodied design improvisation, which incorporates aspects of storyboarding, Wizard of Oz prototyping, domain expert improvisation, video prototyping and crowdsourced experimentation to elicit tacit knowledge about embodied experience. We have been developing this technique over the last year for our research on physical interaction design, where practitioners often rely on subtle, shared cues that are difficult to codify, and are therefore often left underexplored. Our current technique provides an approach to understanding how everyday objects can transition into mobile, actuated, robotic devices, and prescribing how they should behave while interacting with humans. By codifying and providing an example of this technique, we hope to encourage its adoption in other design domains.

Keywords

Tacit Knowledge Design Domain Everyday Object Expert Interaction Coffee House 
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.

References

  1. Beaudouin-Lafon M, Mackay W (2003) Prototyping tools and techniques. In: Sears A, Jacko J (eds) Human computer interaction—development process. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 122–142Google Scholar
  2. Benyon D, Hansen P, Webb N (2008) Evaluating human-computer conversation in companions. In: Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on human-computer conversationGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandt E, Binder T, Sanders E (2012) Ways to engage telling, making and enacting. In: Simonsen J, Robertson T (eds) Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Routledge, New York, pp 145–181Google Scholar
  4. Buxton B (2007) Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. Dahlbäck N, Jönsson A, Ahrenberg L (1993) Wizard of Oz studies—why and how. Knowl Based Syst 6(4):258–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dubberly H, Mitch D (1987) The knowledge navigator. Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CAGoogle Scholar
  7. Gerber E (2007) Improvisation principles and techniques for design. In: Proceedings of CHI 2007, ACM Press, pp 1069–1072Google Scholar
  8. Gerber E (2009) Using improvisation to enhance the effectiveness of brainstorming. In: Proceedings of CHI 2009, ACM Press, pp 97–104Google Scholar
  9. Hix D, Hartson H (1993) Developing user interfaces: ensuring usability through product and process. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoffman G (2007) Aur: a robotic desk lamp, Demo Video. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Hornecker E (2005) A design theme for tangible interaction: Embodied facilitation. In: Proceedings of ECSCW 2005, Springer, pp 23–43Google Scholar
  12. Ju W, Takayama L (2009) Approachability: how people interpret automatic door movement as gesture. Int J Des 3(2):1–10Google Scholar
  13. Kittur A, Chi E, Suh B (2008) Crowdsourcing user studies with mechanical turk. In: Proceedings of CHI 2008, ACM Press, pp 453–456Google Scholar
  14. Klemmer S, Hartmann B, Takayama L (2006) How bodies matter: five themes for interaction design. In: Proceedings of DIS 2006, ACM Press, pp 140–149Google Scholar
  15. Landay J, Myers B (1996) Sketching storyboards to illustrate interface behaviors. In: Conference companion on human factors in computing systems: common ground, ACM Press, pp 193–194Google Scholar
  16. Mackay W (1988) Video prototyping: a technique for developing hypermedia systems. In: Conference companion of CHI 1988, ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Mackay W (2002) Using video to support interaction design, DVD Tutorial, INRIA and ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Nass C, Mason L (1990) On the study of technology and task: a variable-based approach. In: Fulk J, Steinfeld C (eds) Organizations and communication technology. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 46–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Newell A, Card S (1985) The prospects for psychological science in human-computer interaction. Hum Comput Interact 1:209–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Odom W, Zimmerman J, Davidoff S, Forlizzi J, Dey A, Lee M (2012) A fieldwork of the future with user enactments. In: Proceedings of DIS 2012, ACM Press, pp 338–347Google Scholar
  21. Simsarian C (2003) Take it to the next stage: the roles of role playing in the design process, Ext. Abstracts CHI 2003, ACM Press, pp 1012–1013Google Scholar
  22. Sirkin D, Ju W (2012) Consistency in physical and on-screen action improves perceptions of telepresence robots. In: Proceedings of HRI 2012, ACM Press, pp 57–64Google Scholar
  23. Takayama L, Dooley D, Ju W (2011) Expressing thought: improving robot readability with animation principles. In: Proceedings of HRI 2011, ACM Press, pp 69–76Google Scholar
  24. Van der Lelie C (2006) The value of storyboards in the product design process. Pers Ubiquit Comput 10(2–3):159–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weiser M (1991) The computer for the 21st century. Sci Am 265(3):94–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilson M (2002) Six views of embodied cognition. Psychon Bull Rev 9(4):625–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Woods S, Walters M, Koay K, Dautenhahn K (2006) Methodological issues in HRI: a comparison of live and video-based methods in robot to human approach direction trials. In: Proceedings of ROMAN 2006, IEEE, pp 51–58Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Design ResearchStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations