Enjoy my little Chemistry Prototype :))
Author: victoria.bremer
Blogpost #5 – Prototype
In my previous blog post (#3), I explored the value of tangible interfaces and embodied interaction, especially when applied to scientific concepts. I took a look at constructivist and kinesthetic learning theories and discussed how meaningful, hands-on engagement can help people and especially children understand and retain information more effectively than traditional textbook-based approaches. Building on this I tinkered around with a lo-fi tangible prototype: an interactive chemistry simulation that allows users (kids) to explore real chemical reactions in a safe, accessible, and playful way.
One of the challenges in kinesthetic learning (or hands-on learning in general), especially in the context of science education, are the physical restrictions: there is messiness, the danger of working with certain substances, and the financial or spatial limitations of traditional labs. The prototypes approach is to offer a digital-physical hybrid that provides the sensory and experiential engagement of a real experiment without the need for actual chemicals or laboratory space. Of course this is really stripped down to the most basic parts, but the bigger idea is to use technology to make knowledge tangible and engaging and not just shift everything from a textbook to a screen – because where’s the fun in that?
Making the prototype
I started by developing the concept of my prototype. I knew I wanted it to deal with some kind of scientific topic and while reading the paper about kinesthetic learning I figured that making experiments with chemicals more accessible could be an interesting starting point, since that is something that I always found most interesting in chemistry class and would have wanted to do more. The idea is to simulate the feeling of experimenting through look, sound and haptics. I chose a simple experiment where different substances react with water and started by creating my digital setup for which I created some simple visuals in processing. I initially wanted to trigger the sounds with Max9. This worked great, however I ran into the problem, that I couldn’t simultaneously trigger the MaxPatch and the Processing sketch. So I decided to add the sound directly into processing with a sound library, which worked really nicely. I then did some more experimenting with the visuals and sounds and added some information text for each chemical reaction for more context as to what is happening (it is still about education after all, even if the shapes and colors are a lot of fun to look at). I then hooked the whole thing up to a MakeyMakey and crafted really simple physical representations out of paper for the chemical substances I was simulating. To make them conductive I used tinfoil and after a bit of experimenting I was able to make my own little Natrium-Explosion in my room without dying – how cool!
Conclusion
It was really interesting diving into prototyping with a vague idea at this point in the project, as this is not an approach I am used to. I liked that it pushed me to just start, try things and experiment. This really helped me get rid of high standards for this early stage. While I think I do enjoy the topic, I might have to still dabble in my other two ideas just to figure out where I see the most potential and have the most fun. I think I will need a lot more experimenting to see what I want to do, but this is definitely a good start.
Blogpost #4.1 – Material Engagement
In the following blogpost I want to further discuss some research I did on the other two topics I find interesting.
The first one is going to be material engagement and making. Just a few days ago I was once again reminded how enriching and important crafting, creating and working with your hands can be. While out with a friends w spontaneously stumbled upon someone who asked us if we wanted to learn pottery because he was just about to get out all the supplies and work on some pottery. We proceeded to do this most of the afternoon, and had a great time, this being one of the most relaxing and at the same time energizing and creative afternoons in a long time. It made me reflect about the creative process in general (not just pottery) especially In the sense of valuing process over product, attitudes towards learning new things and patience. While I obviously cant generalize this for everyone I thinks safe to say that this brings joy to a lot of people and can be beneficial in many ways. Science also backs this: A study from 2017 found, that engagement in making and diy activities was associated with subjective well-being. [1]
For this topic I think it would be interesting to explore how physical making (manual skill, tactile engagement) can support well-being, and how interaction design can encourage these practices in an increasingly digital-first world. This world has become all about efficiency, frictionlessness, optimization and convenience. Physical craft offers a stark contrast to this, often being messy, slow, and unpredictable. But I would argue that with this comes creativity and exploration that the efficiency of the modern, digital world doesn’t allow.
Physical craft demands patience, intention, and a tolerance for imperfection. But maybe that’s exactly what makes it so rewarding. Slowness here isn’t a flaw, it’s a feature. It invites reflection, presence, and exploration. This mindset of embracing friction and resisting hyper-efficiency is a insight for interaction design. What would it mean to design interfaces that don’t streamline everything, but instead encourage focus, mindfulness, or even a bit of struggle? Could intentional “inconvenience” become a tool for supporting well-being?
A project that explored a slow approach and the physicality of things was the „photobox“. Taking pictures has to be one of the most intensely transformed things over the past few years. We have gone from being restricted to only a few photos per film, having to physically develop them, taking days or weeks to see results, to being able to take thousands of photos any where any time. Photobox is a“slow technology” prototype that regularly prints small batches of randomized Flickr photos over several months and provides them in a physical form, rather that a digital archive:
„Our study provided a glimpse into how long term deployments of slow technologies can open unique opportunities to explore designing for anticipation, mindfulness and reflection. It has clear links to ongoing initiatives exploring how more enduring forms of technology can be designed and how this might shape people’s (or future generations’) experience over time. On a broader level, we see our study as a case building on and expanding prior research, articulating how embracing values alternative to the more dominant focus of efficiency and usability can critically nurture and expand future research in the HCI.“ [3]
This example discussed the role of materiality, however this was in a passive way. Another aspect that can be considered her is the „making“. Research in embodied making* shows that physical engagement with materials activates emotional memory and supports decision-making. This means that crafting isn’t just therapeutic, it’s a cognitive and emotional part of the design process. For interaction design, this this can be a new view on how we design experiences and interfaces (not prioritizing speed or efficiency, but inviting people to engage physically and emotionally with the process) [2, 4].
*Embodied making refers to the idea that thinking, learning, and understanding happen through the body—not just the brain. In the context of craft or design, it means that we think with our hands just as much as with our heads.
[1] Kaimal, Girija, Kelsey Ray, and Juan Muniz. 2017. “Cultural Efficacy and Subjective Well-Being: A Mixed Methods Study with Participants of a Community-Based Arts Program.” Journal of Happiness Studies 19 (6): 1783–1801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9866-x.
[2] Rosner, Daniela K., and Kimiko Ryokai. 2012. “ReCrafting Craft: Craftsmanship, Computing and Culture.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12), 1233–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/2399016.2399115.
[3] Odom, William, Ron Wakkary, and Youn-kyung Lim. 2014. “Designing for Slowness, Anticipation and Re-Visitation: A Long-Term Field Study of the Photobox.” Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1961–70. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266655557.
[4] Nimkulrat, Nithikul. 2012. “Hands-On Intellect: Integrating Craft Practice into Design Research.” Doctoral diss., Aalto University. https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/72d9699a-7c47-4fa1-a89f-0babdf951c25/content.
Blogpost #4.2 – Communication
The second topic I want to look at is the future of communication. I’ve often found myself overwhelmed by the pace and text-heavy nature of digital interaction. Whether it’s the pressure to respond instantly or the amount of notifications, modern communication has become hyper-efficient and fast paced, often at the cost of emotional well-being. Instead of creating meaningful connection, our tools tend to cause distraction and fatigue.
This made me wonder: what would communication feel or look like if it wasn’t optimized for speed and visibility, but for quality, presence, and emotional interaction? Could we design communication tools that are more ambient, multisensory, and respectful of our attention and natural rhythms (nobody can have a conversation with 14 people at once, yet thats pretty much what we’re doing online)? Future interaction design concepts should integrate emotion, movement, and sensation, not just visual and verbal information. This means alternative communication models that go beyond the screen and keyboard [1].
A project that explores this idea is „Ambient Telephony“, a system designed to enhance social presence in the home through subtle audio-visual cues. Instead of rings or buzzers, they used ambient lighting changes and soft audio (no screen, no intrusive alert) to indicate incoming calls. The goal was to foster a gentle awareness of loved ones trying to reach out, without demanding immediate reaction or forceful attention. [2]
In the same way physical crafting can make us to slow down and engage more, communication technologies can be reimagined to encourage reflection, empathy, and presence.
[1] Borkowski, Stanislaw, Thibaud Flury, Anne Gerodolle, and Gilles Privat. 2008. “Ambient Communication and Context-Aware Presence Management.” In Constructing Ambient Intelligence, edited by Max Mühlhäuser, Alois Ferscha, and Erwin Aitenbichler, 391–396. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 11. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85379-4_44
[2] Härmä, Aki, Pavan Dadlani, Boris de Ruyter, and Jorge Peregrin Emparanza. 2009. “Ambient Telephony: Designing a Communication System for Enhancing Social Presence in Home Mediated Communication.” Proceedings of CHI 2009, 899–908. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518884
Blogpost #3 – tangible science
In this post I want to dive deeper into tangible interfaces and embodied interaction especially in terms of learning and understanding new scientific topics and abstract concepts. The goal here is to gain a better understanding of how and why [inter]active engagement is beneficial in learning and understanding and how this is important in interaction design.
Two key theories I have discovered and make a good base for a project like this are constructivist learning and kinesthetic learning.
In constructivist learning the teacher isn’t the main focus and learning is centered around building new knowledge on past experience and previous learnings. Its important that students actively participate and go through a meaningful process of learning („meaning-making”, rather that learning by heart from a textbook): „The central tenet of constructivism is that human learning is constructed and that learners construct new knowledge on the basis of prior learning“. This active participation with the environment and the experience means that the learners stay engaged all throughout, constantly applying knowledge, having to think critically and adapt and modify their knowledge. [1]
What this active engagement can mean is seen in kinetic learning, where sensory-motor elements have been researched in relation to education and learning. What was found is that learning, retention, application, engagement and focus can be enhanced by such approaches: „By engaging in experiential, hands-on activities, learners are encouraged to explore, experiment, and adapt to the demands of the learning environment.“ There are different concepts and approaches which kinesthetic learning uses. These could be interesting base concepts for future interaction projects, or at least starting points for prototypes:
Hands-On Experiments and Labs
Role-Playing and Simulation
Manipulatives and Tactile Learning Tools
Field Trips and Outdoor Learning
Project-Based and Problem-Based Learning (PBL)
Movement and Active Breaks
Kinesthetic learning can be applied to many different topics and subjects reaching from STEM to languages or arts and music. A nice example of the hands on approach is employing these methods in abstract subjects like math. Numbers, values and metrics can be made a lot more tangible and applicable to real world scenarios in hands on experiments with physical representations. I feel like the value of new learning approaches really becomes very clear here, as math is a very stigmatized (often hated) subject, yet it’s mostly taught in only one (very theoretical) way [2]. A nice example for grasping values more easily was a case study where the carbon footprint of certain foods was actually represented in their weight (Each model’s weight mirrors its carbon footprint, from 50 grams for half a kilo of potatoes to 13 kilograms for half a kilo of beef) [3].
Like I already said, the implications for interaction design are great and learning concepts like these are not only a great foundation for projects but are also becoming increasingly more relevant. There are many interesting sources to be found, especially from psychological research standpoint. It will be interesting to see how these findings can be turned into actual learning concepts and products.
[1] Constructivist learning
Chand, Satish Prakash. “Constructivism in education: Exploring the contributions of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner.” Children 10 (1995).
[2] Kinesthetic Learning
Oladele, Oluwaseyi. “Kinesthetic Learning: Hands-On Learning and Active Engagement.” ResearchGate, 2024. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385619069_Kinesthetic_Learning_Hands-On_Learning_and_Active_Engagement.
[3] Case Study
Wong, Chia-Hao, Chen Ling, Yuchen Yang, and Masahiko Inami. “Case Study: Leaf+—Supporting Tangible User Interface Prototyping for Soft Materials.” In Extended Abstracts of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–7. New York: ACM, 2024. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3623509.3635272.
Blogpost #2 – new topics to explore
Throughout the process of writing the past blogposts, researching the topic of loneliness and connection and just generally moving along in the masters degree I’ve decided to change directions a bit in terms of my topic and approach to the thesis. While I still find it really interesting how human connection is formed, why we’re lonely, how this can be dealt with and what role interaction design can play in all this, I want to take a look at other topics that have peaked my interest. What I’ve found myself always coming back to in recent months are interfaces and interface design, especially tangible interfaces and multi sensory or haptic displays that challenge the increasing use of screens that has been happening over the past few years.
I have identified three topics connected to this interest that I would like to take a closer look at.
Tangible interfaces & education
Like I said I’m especially interested in how I could design interfaces that are more physical, less screen-based (more touch, movement, play, spaces etc.). What I would mostly want to look at is how these interfaces could make abstract or complex concepts more understandable. One context I’m interested in is science (education), not through a textbook, but through interactive, embodied experiences that help people grasp things like time, scale, systems, or cause-and-effect in a hands-on way. This could be interesting for museums or learning spaces for children. A first prototype here could be a very simple, tactile experiment to translate a scientific concept into a physical interaction, something you can touch or manipulate and therefore understand in a more meaningful way.
Material engagement & making
Another topic I want to explore is the value of making things with our hands in an increasingly digital world. How can interaction design support or encourage craft, manual skill, and material engagement? OR how can interacting through physical craft and creation support our mental health? I’m interested in the psychology behind this: how slowing down, working with tools or materials, or creating something by hand can support well-being or mental clarity. Interesting keywords here are play theory, flow theory, and the mental health benefits of active engagement. I wonder: what would a design look like that invites people to slow down and focus through physical making? Could “inconvenience” be a design goal in a positive sense (This is something I also discussed in my Glitch-Workshop during international design week)? A project here might be a simplified or slower interface that’s not as efficient or powerful as for example a phone, but rather something that rewards mindfulness and encourages active engagement and slowing down.
The future of communication & interaction
A third idea floating around in my head is about the future of communication technologies. Specifically: how can we design new ways of interacting with one another that support connection, but without the overwhelming side effects of today’s always-online, screen-heavy tech? I could explore how technology can be designed to be meaningful and less distracting. Maybe more ambient, multi-sensoric, or embodied communication? I don’t know yet how to prototype this or exactly what type of project this could lead to, but even diving into different types of communication and how we use them (screen-based/digital vs. physical, synchronous vs. asynchronous, passive vs. active) could help me define where to design. This is something I already partly touched upon during my bachelors thesis and found very interesting, especially since there is quite a bit of research but not too many innovative solutions.
The next challenge is figuring out how to structure my exploration from here. I think I’ll use the next few blogposts to dive deeper into each of these themes. I’m still unsure what the final prototype might be (an educational tool, a communication medium, or a kind of interactive craft) but I’m hoping that following these ideas will help me arrive at something more concrete and meaningful.
Blogpost #1 – First prototype and speed-dating
Prototype
For my first Prototype I picked up my research topic from last semester, where I looked into loneliness from different angles and standpoints. The central question I’ve been researching, was wether interaction design can help combat feelings of loneliness. I added the factor of interaction in public spaces as a research component, because loneliness itself is already such a big and complex topic. What I looked into during my research were installations, interactions with strangers and oneself, building communities and finding out what creates a feeling of community. For my prototype I wanted to try out a slightly different angle, where I was not primarily trying to fix the loneliness part by eliminating it through interaction with several people or creating a community, but rather focus on getting familiar or even comfortable with the feeling itself. The approach was to take away the stigma and fear around being alone somewhere and associating this with negative emotions, but rather reframing it and embracing solitude. The very basic goal here was to find out wether it could be beneficial being mindful and present in a situation and understand that being alone isn’t a bad thing and doesn’t equate to being lonely.
I chose the form of an App as a quick and easy first approach. This wouldn’t be a medium I would want to use for an actual project, since I believe we should shift our focus away from phones and screens ESPECIALLY when it comes to mindfulness and getting more in touch with our selves and other people. However, for the sake of the prototype this medium was fine for now. It’s a simple set of three screens that invite a person to sit with their solitude and focus on different things like their surroundings and their thoughts, instead of overthinking their aloneness (in a public space). The prototype serves as a reminder of how you spend your time alone and maybe even appreciate it.
The people I talked to during the „speed-dating“ process understood my topic pretty well and were able to see where I was going with this. I think it would have needed a bit more quiet time to fully test wether this concept works, but the approach itself was accepted pretty nicely.
Interview
Another thing that confirmed this and validated the approach was my interview with a classmate that I conducted for an exercise. When I asked her about loneliness, she said that she often feels most alone not necessarily when she’s by herself in public, but when she doesn’t feel understood, for example in a past relationship. She admitted that she doesn’t enjoy being out alone and prefers to share experiences with someone else. What was really helpful to hear for me in the context of this prototype was her comment on what helps her feel less alone: “Wenn viele Menschen im selben Raum sind, fühlt man sich automatisch weniger alleine. Das Teilen des Alleinseins kann verbinden.” She described a feeling of shared solitude (not needing to talk, but not feeling invisible either). Another thing she mentioned was also very interesting because this was the approach I had for a second prototype I considered. For this one I had made small cards with conversation starter topics for public spaces. This later aligned with something I talked about with my interview classmate, because she said that in order for her to actually start an interaction with a strange in a public space the context needed to be right. She described needing somewhat of an „invitation“ or in this case maybe just a conversation-starter-promt to initiate an interaction.
Reflection
Especially with social media, constant online connectedness and availability we’re not used to being alone anymore. While the loneliness epidemic is very real (!), maybe sometimes we’re not as lonely as we think we are, we’ve just developed a warped sense of the feeling. Starting to understand that our own company is also worth something can be an important step to a less lonely society.
This prototype helped me shift my own thinking. It showed me that I don’t have to solve loneliness by pushing people toward social connection. Sometimes, it can support connection with oneself by creating small spaces of reflection, comfort, or acceptance. I’m still not sure whether this is the direction I want to continue in, and I’ve since decided to pivot my topic. But this early experiment still valuable and insightful.
WebExpo Conference Talk #2 – Digital Intimacy: Feeling Human in an Artificial World
I have identified „Digital Intimacy-Feeling Human in an Artificial World“ as the second talk I want to discuss here because I have previously worked on two projects during my bachelors degree that dealt with the same topic and similar questions as the ones Lutz Schmitt presented at the Expo. Especially in one of my projects about long distance relationships my team and I asked ourselves how we could create a sense of closeness through media and technology. Closeness especially meaning emotional intimacy – through rituals shared experiences and time spent doing things together, but also asked ourselves if we should mimic physical intimacy and proximity in some way and more importantly how to do that with technology.
Lutz Schmitt’s talk investigates how feelings of closeness and connection can be created in digital and artificial contexts (through robots, AI-driven systems, or designed experiences). He explores whether digital interactions can offer a genuine sense of intimacy and how we can distinguish meaningful connection from simulation. He brings up key questions: Can people form real emotional bonds with non-human objects? What role do trust and vulnerability play in creating such connections? And what ethical responsibilities arise when we design digital interactions?
From a UX and interaction design perspective, this talk is very relevant. In both projects I worked on, we looked into creating interfaces that go beyond typical communication(tools). Ones that encourage presence and emotional involvement. For example, instead of simply allowing users to send messages, we explored designing rituals: synchronized activities, and interfaces that created a sense of “co-being” rather than just „back and forth“ communication. These approaches align with Schmitt’s idea that intimacy is not just about frequency of contact, but about quality of interaction and the emotional context.
He also challenges the trend of creating frictionless, overly polished digital experiences. In reality, human relationships are full of imperfection and effort. Transferring that to UI/UX means intentionally designing for slowness and emotional nuance which is something we often avoid in tech but is deeply engrained in us and an inherent part of the human experience. For example, what if the interface was affected by emotional tone? Or what if moments of silence or waiting became part of the interaction, signaling care or presence instead of emptiness?
What I also found to be a really interesting and relevant aspect he brought up in his talk, was the consideration of privacy. This is much harder to maintain when introducing a technological component/product into a situation, since it’s almost impossible to not have a third party involved. It raises the ethical question of how to handle the very private data that is collected responsibly. As someone who designs these kinds of products this is something I hadn’t given much thought before but really need to take into consideration.
In conclusion the talk reminded me that designing for emotional intimacy is not just about what technology to use but a much deeper emotional and ethical problem that requires understanding the essence of human intimacy and how technology can support that, instead of substituting or mimicking it. It’s a complex but deeply relevant area for interaction design, that requires sensitivity, creativity, and critical thinking.
WebExpo Conference Talk #1 – Data Visualization
As someone who is very interested in visual design, data visualization and interdisciplinary topics, mixing design and science or values and aesthetics, I was really curious about Nadieh Bremers talk „Creating an Effective & Beautiful Data Visualisation from Scratch”. I wasn’t sure what to expect, since I have found that „beautiful data visualization“ often just means clear and structured, but I was more that positively surprised to see how much artistic creativity she was able to incorporate into her visualizations while still maintaining the data to communicate. What I was also surprised by and really broadened my view on the topic was her approach and angle to how she creates her visualizations. I had never heard of the tool she uses (coding it in D3.js) and thought it was so cool to create truly interactive pieces with the actual data in the background instead of using visual tools like Illustrator, which I was more used to when it comes to creatively visualizing data.
What I also thought was a great starting point was her emphasis on storytelling through data. Rather than beginning with tools or templates, she encouraged designers to start with the narrative: what is the data trying to say? This approach really aligns with interaction design principles, where the goal is not just functionality but clarity, emotion, and user connection. Sketching ideas before coding is sort of like prototyping in UX or any other visually creative field, reminding us that visual thinking is critical to problem solving. I really enjoyed that she considered aesthetic and emotional engagement. I feel like many visualizations aim for neutrality or objectivity, but in her case the work also aims to be expressive, and fun. She challenged the idea that beauty is just decoration. Instead, she argued that beauty and clarity are not mutually exclusive, and that well-designed visuals can help users stay curious, linger longer, and feel more connected to the data. This view aligns with interaction design’s attention to emotional and engaging user experiences and human centered design.
As mentioned her use of D3.js was also very interesting for me. By building a data visualization from scratch in a live coding session, she nicely demonstrated what a workflow can look like, which I found really helpful. What made this talk especially valuable was watching her iterative process. Trying something to see what happens, then continuing from there, changing things along the way and making mistakes. Her process reminded me of the iterative prototyping cycles in interaction design: test, tweak, refine. Even a small change in data structure or layout can significantly shift the meaning of a visualization. It was a really eyeopening creative process and a reminder that you don’t need a perfect or exact vision to start and then go through with, but rather develop an idea of what works along the way. This process also showed me how D3 (and coding in general) can empower designers to go beyond their visual tools and create more immersive and interactive experiences while still maintaining the aesthetics.
NIME Review – “Sound Kitchen”
The paper “Sound Kitchen: Designing a Chemically Controlled Musical Performance” presents a project in which chemical reactions were created and used to trigger different sounds. The reactions were sampled and mapped into a “sound recipe” and showcased as a live performance. Different chemical processes and substances were carefully selected based on certain criteria like availability, safety, controllability, and range. The creation of sound was the main focus; however, since it was meant to be a live performance, visual appeal was also considered (colorful liquids like red wine and orange juice were chosen over clear vinegar). Chemical reactions are used not just as metaphors (or visuals) in performance, but as literal sound generators. Through the manipulation of chemical properties—like electrolyte mixtures and their reactive behaviors—electrical signals are generated and fed into computer systems, where they are shaped and sonified.
The project was created as part of a course called “Human Computer Interaction Theory and Practice: Designing New Devices.” It is an interesting study of the process of creation—drawing parallels between the art of cooking and the art of music: creating a carefully crafted dish and composing a piece of music. Different ingredients and processes alter the final outcome, directed by a composer or chef who controls the composition and final product.
Personally, this new angle of looking at music and approaching composition in such a tangible way was very interesting. Especially as someone who doesn’t know a lot about music and sonification, but is very interested in cooking and baking, I found this experiment gave me a new perspective on the composition of music.
What’s especially interesting about this idea for me as an interaction designer are the implications for almost every interdisciplinary design field and place for interaction. It is a powerful reminder to look beyond the obvious tools. It encourages us to rethink the boundaries of materiality, data, and performance, and expands our definition of what can be an interface or generate usable data (or how something seemingly unrelated can be made usable). I am thinking especially about how this can reshape how we engage with technology, nature, and art. Invisible processes, for example (in nature, cooking, our surroundings, etc.), can be uncovered—not just (as usual) via visuals, but perhaps through sound. This is a channel I, and many other installations, projects, or products, often overlook. However, in terms of ambience or even accessibility, this should be considered and explored much more.
Another thought that is more closely related to artistic aspects of the project would be the visual components of the “instrument.” I feel like it has great potential, and while already considered in some parts, I see a lot of room for improvement, since chemical reactions offer a huge amount of visually appealing options to work with. Phenomena like synesthesia come to mind, and it would be very interesting to see a close relation between the visual reactions and the generated sounds. Moving away from performance art and more into immersive, interactive, and participatory projects, this could, for example, mean an entirely new dining experience that engages all senses in a new and enhanced way.
In conclusion, this paper serves as a strong starting point for rethinking how we design—by considering and combining different sensory experiences in innovative and unexpected ways to create new experiences.
Sound Kitchen: Designing a Chemically Controlled Musical Performance: https://www.nime.org/proceedings/2003/nime2003_083.pdf
Where do we go from here? Possible approaches for designing connection
What I’ve discovered is that there’s a strong awareness of loneliness as a problem, especially in the research community. There are countless studies, statistics, and even political measures addressing it, but what’s missing are concrete steps and ideas on how to tackle it.
There are some considerations, such as guidelines for urban planners and architects, that lay the groundwork. But direct, creative, and innovative approaches are harder to find. Most existing solutions focus on open spaces, but few actively invite specific forms of interaction. What’s needed is a deep understanding of both the structural aspects of loneliness and the personal experience of it. This means understanding what people need in order to change their behavior and the way they operate in the world we currently live in. Is it the online world and our phone addiction? The fast paced life style? The way and amount we work? The ways our offices, homes an cities are designed and built?
It might be helpful to focus on specific scenarios where loneliness occurs, as its causes and effects vary depending on the context. Loneliness looks different for an older person in a retirement home than it does for a young person who just moved to a new city. Patients in hospitals or reha centers face different challenges than single parents with little time for social interaction. Immigrants who have been separated from their families and cultures experience isolation differently than someone struggling with mental health issues. People who have been removed from or disconnected from their communities also face unique forms of loneliness.
So what can design do? There are different angles and scales from which to approach this issue. One possibility is rethinking urban planning to create spaces that naturally foster human interaction. Another is shifting public perception by raising awareness and reducing the stigma around loneliness, making it something we can talk about openly rather than something to be ashamed of. Smaller interventions can also play a role, like simple design elements that spark interaction and connection, allowing relationships to develop organically.
The next step is to explore possible directions. Should this take the form of a framework or set of guidelines for urban design? A workshop that actively engages communities? A game or interactive tool that initiates connection? A digital platform that helps people meet in meaningful ways? Maybe physical installations or experimental spaces designed to encourage spontaneous interactions. Or maybe artistic works that highlight and address loneliness could invite reflection and conversation.
To move forward, more research is needed and the questions that came up during research need to be answered. Interviews, testing, and case studies could provide valuable insights into what actually works. Understanding the real experiences of people struggling with loneliness and setting a direction for a project are key to designing solutions that go beyond theory and make a real impact.