Conduplicated Symmetries: Renegotiating the Material Basis of Prototype Research

  • Arne BergerEmail author
  • Michael Heidt
  • Maximilian Eibl
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 34)


The role of materiality within prototyping recently received a high degree of attention from HCI and design communities. Existing approaches have solely focussed on the materiality of artifacts produced during prototyping. This focus largely has left the materiality of designers and users unaccounted for. The text illustrates how the Somatic-Marker-Hypothesis and Actor-Network-Theory can be employed in order to illustrate these forgotten dimensions of materiality during prototyping: Not only is material shaped during construction of artefacts. Material modifications also comprise alterations within the material of designers’ and users’ bodies themselves. In order to facilitate these descriptions, a novel approach towards symmetry had to be developed.


Prototyping Somatic-marker-theory Design thinking Reasoning of designers Actor-network-theory Interdisciplinary concept 



This publication was prepared as a part of the research initiative ValidAX, which is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and as a part of the Research Training Group Crossworlds, which is funded by DFG (German Research Foundation). The authors take sole responsibility for the contents of this publication.


  1. 1.
    Berger, A.: Design thinking for search user interface design. In: Proceedings of euroHCIR2011, pp. 1–4 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buxton, B.: Sketching User Experiences. Morgan Kaufmann, Massachusetts (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Damásio, A.R.: Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Quill (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diefenbach, S., et al.: Ein Interaktionsvokabular: Dimensionen zur Beschreibung der Ästhetik von Interaktion. Usability Professionals 2010, 27–32 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Floyd, C.: A Systematic Look at Prototyping vol. 1, pp. 1–18. Springer, Berlin (1984)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gigerenzer, G., et al.: Heuristics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Houde, S., Hill, C.: What do prototypes prototype. Handbook Human-Comput. Interact. 2, 367–380 (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jung, H., Stolterman, E.: Digital form and materiality: propositions for a new approach to interaction design research. In: Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design, pp. 645–654 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Latour, B.: Reassembling the Social. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Law, J.: After ANT: complexity, naming and topology. Soc. Rev. 46, 1–14 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lim, Y., et al.: Interactivity attributes: a new way of thinking and describing interactivity. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 105–108 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lim, Y.-K., et al.: The anatomy of prototypes. ACM Trans. Comput.-Human Interact. 15(2), 1–27 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Petruschat, J.: Tische, Tennisbaelle, kurze Schreie. Prototype! In: Petruschat, J., Adenauer, J. (eds.) Form und Zweck, pp. 287–317 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Virzi, R.A.: What can you learn from a low-fidelity prototype? In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 224–228 (1989)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Whitfield, T.W.A.: Aesthetics as pre-linguistic knowledge: a psychological perspective. Des. Issues. 21, 3–17 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Media InformaticsTechnische Universität ChemnitzChemnitzGermany
  2. 2.Visual ComputingTechnische Universität ChemnitzChemnitzGermany

Personalised recommendations