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