This impulse is a continuation (or part 2) of my first post about my visit to the Children’s museum FRida & FreD. For the Gamification Course this semester we visited CoSA and looked at different parts of their exhibition. I talked to a staff member there and was able to find out that they actually work together with the Children’s museum FRida & FreD but have a slightly older target group. It was interesting to see how they approached the same concept of making complex topics tangible through interactive installations for different age groups. This exhibition gave me further insights into tangible information and learning. What was great is that I was able to see and test examples from many different subject areas such as finance, medicine, microbiology, tech (specifically the automotive industry) and STEM topics in general. Especially the STEM topics were something that really peaked my interest. Last semester I made a small prototype about tangible chemistry experiments without needing the actual laboratory.
Looking into more exhibitions was equally inspiring and insightful as I was also able to discover some approaches I didn’t enjoy so much, or thought weren’t conceptually great. The entire finance section for example I found quite boring and upon talking to some of my colleagues I discovered that they felt the same way. While some principles and ideas might have seemed nice on paper and were technically interactive, I felt that the way the content itself was displayed was not very creative or clever. The topics were still not always easy to understand and most „storylines“/games/stations took way too long. This was a helpful reminder that its not just the form that matters but its also the content itself that has to be adjusted. Simply placing it into a new medium, making it interactive by adding screens, buttons, voice control or an avatar does not make a topic easier to grasp or more fun. This highlighted for me that designing for engagement requires an alignment of content, format, and interaction method, not just “gamification”.
This was something the other part of the exhibition did much better. The stations were way more digestible in terms of length and information structure. An approach I found really great was the medical area that allowed kids to use actual operation and laboratory tools on fake scenarios and substances. I know this would have been something I would have loved as a child (and still really enjoyed now to be honest). From what I could see the kids there also enjoyed this immensely and stayed engaged throughout the whole process. Additionally what was executed nicely here, I think, was the storytelling. Apart from the cool interactions and real tools, the lengthy process never got boring. Diagnosing a patient and building a race-car were the two areas that did this best because there were constantly new steps and aspects to discover.
Both museum visits really reinforced my interest in tangible learning environments. However what I am still wondering is whether I can really find a new angle or topic that hasn’t been done yet. The setting of a museum is really interesting and it might also be fun to look into other target groups. Another interactive museum space I enjoyed was the exhibition on democracy in the Graz Museum. I feel like with these three I have a broad spectrum of target groups and topics to draw inspiration from and it might be worth looking into more.
Author: victoria.bremer
Impulse #3 a book!
This impulse comes from a book I was reading: “Beschleunigung und Entfremdung” by Hartmut Rosa, a German sociologist whose work revolves around the concept of social acceleration. According to Rosa, advancements in communication, transport, and production have made things increasingly fast, creating expectations of efficiency and speed in almost every area of life. This ongoing acceleration, he argues, ultimately leads to alienation, distancing us from the world rather than connecting us to it.
In the book, he raises two key questions: What constitutes a good life? And why is it that we so often fail to lead one? Since the first is almost impossible to answer universally, he focuses on the second. Rosa says that both our individual and collective ways of living are in need of reform. He identifies time as the central issue, claiming that modern society is governed, coordinated, and controlled by an “intense and rigid regime of time.”
This phenomenon isn’t entirely new. Others have written about similar concerns (James Gleick, Peter Conrad, Douglas Coupland), but Rosa examines the idea more structurally. He asks whether we should talk about “social acceleration” (singular) or rather a sequence of accelerations occurring across various areas: sports, fashion cycles, video editing speeds, transportation, job markets, and so on. Fast food, speed dating, power naps, drive-through culture all show how speed has become a central part of every day activities and aspects of life.
Rosa categorises acceleration into three types:
Technological acceleration: the intentional increase of speed in transport, communication, and production processes, reinforced by new types of organisation and administration. Our perception of space and time has been reshaped. With space and time, space used to take precedence (due to our senses like sight, gravitation, etc.) this has now switched with „shapeless“ places like the internet taking over, shrinking space down or eliminating it entirely. For example the distance between London and New York, has shrunk to a fraction within the timespan of sailboats to the invention of planes, reinforcing the sense that time conquers space.
Acceleration of social change: not just the processes, but society itself speeds up: values, lifestyles, relationships, group dynamics, habits, even our social language. In the past, sons followed their fathers professions across multiple generations. Later, choosing their own career path for life became the norm. Now, it’s common for people to change professions several times within a single lifetime.
Acceleration of the pace of life: this one is paradoxical. Technical acceleration should, in theory, free up time. Yet people in western cultures increasingly report the feeling that time is slipping away. Time is perceived as a resource. What actually happens is that the quantity of tasks and experiences per unit of time rises. Instead of using speed and technological advance to create space, we fill the newly freed time with more activity.
All in all, this is a really complex topic and definitely too broad to tackle in its entirety. From a design perspective, I think it becomes important to set a small framework and pick one very specific aspect to focus on, whether that’s something like food, relationships, mobility, or another everyday field. I’ve briefly looked into Slow Design before, and I feel like it could offer an interesting approach to this idea of acceleration. Not in the sense of rejecting technology altogether, but more as a way of rethinking how we work with it (considering timing, intention and presence as design qualities). I think that could be an exciting angle to explore further.
Book: https://books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=&id=QLY7CgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT4&dq=hartmut+rosa+theorie&ots=PVM4doUUVA&sig=A1RGw7OgClYj0LTPHh_Jais49ew&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hartmut%20rosa%20theorie&f=false
Disclaimer: I used AI to translate this since the book and my notes on it are in german.
Impulse #2 – a talk!
The event that inspired this impulse was a talk I saw during the world Usability Congress Graz called „Don’t design me out“ by Kausik Surendran. I have chosen to include this even though its isn’t my focus topic. I still think its highly relevant because the talk discussed the issue of inclusivity very nicely, which is something I sometimes tend to forget, even though I like to think that I try to consider everything and design with empathy. It reminded me of how important and complex the job of a designer can be and how much though and consideration sometimes has to go into the simplest of systems. No matter what topic I choose for my thesis in the end or which direction I go in, the principles of inclusive and empathetic design are something I will try to apply for all designs, whether it’s a product or a system or something else entirely.
An example that stuck with me was when Surendran described living in a smart home fully controlled by voice interfaces but having no voice. This moment made me reconsider how easily technology, even when intended to improve life, can unintentionally exclude. One thing I found especially interesting was the idea that a universal experience (like growing old) can still be so different for every person due to a bunch of factors like personal attitude, cultural factors, gender and identity, health and ability, socioeconomic situation.
With the topic of tangible interfaces especially, I’ve been coming from a place of what I’d call “screen fatigue.” As technology becomes increasingly integrated into all areas of our lives, there’s also a kind of screenification happening. It often feels like every problem is approached with the mindset of “if we can attach a screen to it, we will.” I find this somewhat exhausting, and the talk’s examination of the digital divide reminded me of this frustration that I and many others feel [1]. I think there is real value in questioning this approach. While technology has definitely had a positive impact on our lives, I believe it’s worth exploring how its integration can be made more accessible, not just more digital. Tangible interfaces, for example, could offer meaningful alternatives, especially for older people who are being left behind by overly screen-based solutions. Instead of digitalising everything and calling it progressive and innovative, perhaps we should consider how interaction can be made more human, intuitive, and inclusive.
Of course this is only one aspect. Simply removing the screen and claiming that this fixes a digital divide isn’t enough. The systems that take the screens place have to equally consider the users abilities and knowledge. I often approach tangible interfaces from the angle of curiosity, learning through making, or playful exploration. But what if physical engagement is not always possible or equally accessible? How could I design with adaptability, varying levels of mobility, or sensory capabilities in mind? How can interaction be designed so that it adapts to different users rather than requiring users to adapt to it? The concept of designing with empathy was one of the core messages. Surendran framed empathy not as a “nice to have” but as a strategic tool to design a better future for oneself and others. He emphasized that „technology is no longer a luxury, it is a tool, and therefore, its accessibility becomes a matter of equity“. For design to be truly inclusive, inclusion must begin at the core, not as an afterthought.
[1] Book: Technology vs. humanity p.38-39
Tangibility: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/258549.258715
Adaptive user interfaces: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1574013721000034?via%3Dihub
Impulse #1 – a museum!
For my first Impulse-Post I have chosen my visit to the Children’s Museum FRida & FreD in Graz. One of the topics I am considering for my masters thesis is tangible interfaces and embodied interaction. I already looked into this topic last semester and have considered children and the setting of learning and (STEM Education) as an interesting target group and subject. Tangible Interfaces allows for a many different approaches, angles which I have been finding hard to narrow down. I visited the museum with two friends of mine that had come to visit. Both of them worked on the exhibition as interaction and graphic designers so it was really interesting to get their perspective on the production and development of such an installation. The Exhibition was about Data Security and designed in a medieval aesthetic. This setting created many fun metaphors for otherwise abstract and (especially for children) hard-to-grasp topics. Choosing a medieval theme for a modern issue is a really interesting approach in my opinion but although I was skeptical at first and wasn’t sure if it would translate well, I really liked the outcome. I found the analogies surprisingly clear, the only thing I can’t say for sure is that kids fully understood the meaning, as I wasn’t able to talk to any (we went just before closing hours). I was however able to ask the staff and they had mostly positive feedback!
I think „play“, learning through making and exploration/curiosity are additional interesting keywords here, and have prompted me to look into this a bit further. What I will say is that in some parts the exhibition did rely on screens, which is something I would consider removing, if possible as I felt this sometimes took away from the immersive „magical“ feeling that was created. Another interesting part that sparked my interest was the storytelling. While the different stations alone were interesting I really liked the fact that there was an overall „quest“ and a companion that appeared at every station. This gave the whole experience a slightly more structured and guided feeling.
The biggest take-away for me (apart from the inspiring and creative interactions I got to try out), is that I have two options on how to approach this topic. I either need to pin down a very specific topic to explore in this thesis or I could go in a more general direction with an explorative thesis-approach where I ask a research question that is something along the lines of „how can interactive installations be designed to be more tangible for children?“. From there I could experiment with creating design guidelines or principles that can be generally applied to tangible interfaces/interaction. With the other option would have to pick a really specific topic and focus on making this tangible through existing methods. So I could either focus on the system and methods themselves or on the topic (like Data Security in the case of the exhibition).
Exhibition PDF: https://fridaundfred.at/wp-content/uploads/Ff_Damals-1410_Paedagogisches-Handbuch.pdf
tangible interfaces (a cool example): https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3490149.3502252
learning through making: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11528-017-0172-6
Evaluation Masters Thesis – Task 3
The Masters Thesis „Exploring Slow Technology in the Home“ by Martin Krogh from from the Interaction Design Program at Malmö University (2015) is a new approach to interaction design in the context of (smart) technology in homes. The work is divided into two parts consisting of a first theoretical research, ending with research questions and a methodological chapter and a second practical part including field work, design making, user testing, reflections and a conclusion.
Overall presentation quality
Besides very few and minor formatting issues the thesis is is laid-out nicely with a clear, logical and comprehensible structure. Text is nicely supported with sketches and images especially in the practical part.
Degree of innovation
The thesis generally explores an under-researched and relatively new topic that hasn’t been studied much. Therefor it raises interesting new questions and aims to explore them in a playful, curious way while considering the little research and prevailing ideas that do exist in the field. It even introduces a semi-new methodology of slow provotyping. Although nothing entirely new is discovered or innovated, the design experiments that are conducted are very thought-provoking and offer a new perspective on current design approaches.
Independence
The underlying motivation for the thesis clearly has a strong tie to the authors own life and personal experience. Besides a literature research to better understand the current state of research on the topic ideas, interviews experiments and user-testings were entirely unique to the thesis and conducted by the author himself.
Structure and Organization
The thesis follows a very clear and logical structure which is especially well done considering how messy an explorative a design process such as this one can be. Dividing the work into two parts (theoretical and practical) makes it easy to follow the thought-process and understand how the ideas and findings came to be.
Communication
The writing is personal and engaging as well as academic and professional, which makes for an informative read, which at the same time doesn’t feel boring or dry. The visual documentation perfectly supports the practical part and makes the experimental ideas and somewhat abstract concepts understandable. I feel like even someone who isn’t well-versed in the design world could follow the thought-process of the experiments.
Scope
The scope of the masters thesis seems appropriate and well balanced in terms of research and practical experiments. Creating three prototypes is quite a lot, which makes up for the fact that there is no „final Product“. Given that this is an experimental project that aimed to explore, rather than develop, this fits the scope and fulfills the goal of the thesis.
Accuracy and attention to detail
The language is easy to understand, mostly correct, conscience, clear and scientifically accurate. The experiments are nicely described and supported with photos and sketches. As already mentioned the structure is logical and detailed but not repetitive.
Literature
The thesis uses a good amount and range of literature aas well as own research and seems to be cited fairly correctly with clickable links which make deeper research more easy.
Overall I really enjoyed reading this thesis. It was interesting as well as informative and really nicely thought out. Especially considering that this is an under explored field the theoretical research felt thorough and gave a good understanding of the current state of research. Also considering this was written in 2015 it is quite impressive how well the situation and development of future smart technology was assessed. It also had a clear goal leading through the thesis despite being explorative and experimental.
Blogpost #6 – Prototype Video
Enjoy my little Chemistry Prototype :))
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.