Tag Archives: interaction design

Aesthetics of Being Together

On November 30, 2018, I defended my PhD Thesis successfully.
Dag Svanæs performed the role of opponent; grading committee consisted of Marianne Graves-Petersen, Ylva Fernaeus and Charles Lenay.
A brief basic summary of the work was posted on the pages of UID. This led to a full page article in the national newspaper DN “Sociala Medier är inte så sociala”.

Design deals with matters of aesthetics. Historically, aesthetics in industrial design refers to the designed artifact: aesthetics of objects. When designed artifacts include digital technologies, aesthetics in design refers to what happens between people and artifacts as well: aesthetics of interaction. Now that these artifacts increasingly mediate our social lives, what aesthetics in design quite obviously also refers to, is what happens between people.

This dissertation proposes an aesthetic of being together, as a necessary addition to current notions of aesthetics in interaction design practice, when it engages with digital systems that are part of people’s social life. It does not answer the question what Aesthetics is in general, instead it examines the work that particular notions of aesthetics do in interaction design practice.

The practice based design research assembled in this dissertation starts from current notions of aesthetics in interaction design to explore the social experiences that mediated interactions between groups of people offer. What I found, through designing digital systems, is that current notions of aesthetics in interaction design are not conducive to addressing the kind of social experience people have with such systems. On the contrary, current notions actually inhibit interaction design to approach any experiences that cannot in the first place be conceived of as useful in terms of instrumental task performance. Yet, being social is hardly like performing a task or using other people in that sense.

An aesthetic of being together is a proposition of a different fundament for interaction design practice. In addition to referring to properties of things and qualities of interacting with things, it refers to the kind of relations that come to expression between people interacting with each other with these things. Consequently, interaction design needs to resolve basic issues in what it considers and brings to expression, i.e. people’s relations with things and people at the same time. This requires (re-) considering what the designed thing is, what interaction is about and what the role of design is in bringing those to expression.

My work contributes to the field of interaction design research an example of how, through practice, fundamental issues can be addressed. By orienting one set of concepts, ways of working and objectives into a different design situation, tensions built up that exposed foundational issues with that frame of reference, while pointing to the different fundaments needed to enable design practice to engage such situations.

The results of the practical experimentation led to the articulation of a series of structural mechanisms of mediating systems.  These mechanisms provide material handles for interaction designers on how experiences of being present with others take shape. They configure the relations of artifacts and people in different ways than current notions of aesthetics afford. This theoretical investigation is then synthesised in the form of a new logic of expression for interaction design practice: an aesthetic of being together.

Video of defense

Advertisements

‘Affective Computing’ – Affective Interaction

Over at interaction-design.org, they have been publishing chapters of an online interaction design encyclopedia, where each chapter is written by an expert in a particular area in the field. I had come across it before for the chapter on Social Computing, which discusses crowd-sourcing type implementations of social computing such as wikipedia and scoring systems in e.g. Amazon and discussing mediated communication systems like twitter and facebook. A nice read and particularly a possibly helpful breakdown of crucial elements of such social systems.

Now I am posting as there is a thought provoking discussion of Affective Computing in response to a chapter of the same name written by Kristina Höök. The chapter  is followed by a well written response from prof. Roz Picard, who coined the term Affective Computing and drafted the first maps of that then poorly-charted terrain in her book Affective Computing. Next a rather artless response from one of the bigger names in the field of design and emotion, prof. Paul Hekkert. I do have to agree with the jest of his response. He amongst others, quotes the work on the compelling concept of ‘inherent feedback’ by my colleague and friend Miguel Bruns Alonso. The discussion centers on wether some HCI/AI approaches to Affective Computing is reductionist and cognitivist versus a more holistic and phenomenological approach to Affective Interaction that Höök describes. the Interactional Approach. That concept reminds me of the work of Stephan Wensveen, e.g. his paper at DIS in  2000 Touch Me, Hit Me and I Know How You Feel. A Design Approach to Emotionally Rich Interaction and then in his 2005 dissertation: A Tangibility Approach to Affective Interaction.

Against this backdrop I am currently reading the PhD thesis work of Joris Janssen, Joris’ work at first sight seems to take a reductionistic approach to empathic mediation (what he calls physiosocial technology), but particularly in the later chapters walks he shows examples of both a reductionist -lab based- approach and more holistic -real life- setting.
What fascinates me most in Joris’ work is the idea of technology that supports (even promotes?) empathy in dyads (2 people). Of particular interest for me is his (forthcoming) research on providing some form of feedback based on the correlation between one persons physiological signals and those of another. About a year ago Joris and I discussed social bio-feedback in more detail, after we got into contact over my Masters’ thesis on that topic and his paper on Intimate Heartbeats. Particular issue we discussed then was the modality of such feedback.