Designing for perceptual crossing to improve user involvement

Designing for perceptual crossing to improve user involvement

Deckers, E. J. L., Wensveen, S. A. G., Ahn, R. M. C., & Overbeeke, C. J. (2011). Designing for perceptual crossing to improve user involvement. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI2011), May 7-12, 2011, Vancouver, BC (pp. 1929-1937). Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979222

DOI:

10.1145/1978942.1979222 Document status and date: Published: 01/01/2011

Document Version:

Publisher’s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers)

Please check the document version of this publication:

• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.

• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.

• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers.

Link to publication

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.

If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

www.tue.nl/taverne Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at: openaccess@tue.nl

providing details and we will investigate your claim.

Designing for Perceptual Crossing to Improve User

Involvement

E.J.L. Deckers, S.A.G. Wensveen, R.M.C. Ahn, C.J. Overbeeke

Eindhoven University of Technology, Department Industrial Design,

Den Dolech 2, 5600 MB, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

{e.j.l.deckers, s.a.g.wensveen, r.m.c.ahn, c.j.overbeeke}@tue.nl

ABSTRACT

In this paper we describe our research on how to design for perceptive activity in artifacts in order for perceptual crossing between subject and artifact to happen. We base our research on the phenomenology of perception [19] and on ecological psychology [10]. Perceptual crossing is believed to be essential to share perception and thereby to feel involved in the situation [5,15]. We propose a theoretical model in which perceptive connections between user, artifact and event are presented. We designed an artifact to function as physical hypotheses [9] and show the design relevance of the model. In an experiment we investigate how the user’s feeling of involvement is influenced in relation to differentiations of the proposed theoretical model. The results of our experiment show that indeed perceptual crossing between user and artifact influences the user’s feeling of involvement with the artifact in their common space. We conclude with describing several design notions important for designing for perceptive activity in artifacts.

Author Keywords

Perception, Design Theory, Design, Phenomenology, Perceptual Crossing, Behavior, Interaction

ACM Classification Keywords

H5.m. Miscellaneous.

General Terms

Design, Theory

INTRODUCTION

Our research through design tradition follows the Lab approach [14] where design knowledge is generated through empirical research on theoretically inspired designed artifacts. One of the critiques on research through design [28] is the lack of formalization of the approach. Therefore we try to formalize our approach by describing the theoretical departure and the resulting design-relevant

model, the design of the physical hypothesis and the testing of the hypothesis in a controlled experiment in order to generate design relevant knowledge, i.e., design notions. For our current research on designing perceptive and expressive qualities in artifacts we looked to phenomenology of perception and ecological psychology. Especially the work of the French phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty inspired and grounded our work.

Phenomenology in HCI

Winograd & Flores (1986) introduced the relevance of phenomenology to the broader HCI community. The work of the French phenomenologist Merleau-Ponty was introduced by Dag Svanœs (2000) in “Understanding Interactivity: Steps to a Phenomenology of Human Computer Interaction” showing the importance of ‘being-in-the-world’ and a new understanding of interaction-as-perception. This issue has also been addressed in the work by Dourish [8] and shown to be relevant in areas of Movement & Interaction [20,22,24], Aesthetics & Interactions [4,11] and Tangible Interaction [12]. Perceptual crossing is relevant for Mediated Social Interaction [16] and Social Robotics [7,18].

Where in the referred work phenomenology is used to provide knowledge of and a better understanding of how users are acting-in-the-world, our work takes a next step. We specifically aim at providing design knowledge on how to design for new artifacts, that interact with users, in such a way that perceptual crossing and therefore the feeling of sharing a common space is possible. We move from using the theoretical background as method for analysis, to a means of inspiration and input for the synthesis of new designs.

Theoretical Departure

The question we address in our research is if and how Merleau-Ponty’s work can inform design. We especially focus on his statement that “perception is inherently interactive and participatory; it is a reciprocal interplay between the perceiver and the perceived” [1,19]. Our goal is to design artifacts that are capable of perceptive activity and can engage in reciprocal interplay with the perceived. With the perceived we mean the world including the user interacting with the artifact.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.

CHI 2011, May 7–12, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Recently researchers at the Compiègne University of Technology (France) made reciprocal interplay operational for the perception between two human subjects [15]. In their work they describe two kinds of perception over time: perceiving the other as part of the environment (perceiving the body-image), versus perceiving the perceptive activity of the other perceiving me, and our common space (perceiving the lived-body). It is by switching between these two kinds of perception that it becomes possible for one subject to understand the position from which the other perceives the scene. In more simple words: I see you seeing me and you see me seeing you. Perceptual crossing between the two subjects happens. The constitution of the other subject’s viewpoint is essential to get a feeling of sharing a common space: to feel involved [15].

In earlier research we set out perceptive activity in three components [5]. This way the phenomenon of perceptual crossing becomes more tangible to start the design process. The first component is the perception of presence. In this situation one subject perceives the other without being perceived oneself. One recognizes the possibility of the other subject to perceive: the presence of the lived-body [16]. Second, for perceptive crossing to happen one needs

perception of perceptive actions. These actions are the

exploratory movements one undertakes to perceive the other and the space. It are these perceptive actions, like looking at each other, that tell us what another subject perceives. Lastly the third component is the perception of

expressivity. It is by perceiving expressivity of another

subject that we know how this person feels or thinks about what he or she perceives. For example if someone rubs a surface to the sensitive skin of the cheek this reveals to me that the surface feels soft or pleasant.

An example will clarify the concept of perceptual crossing in subject-subject interaction. Figure 1 shows two people and their bicycles.

Figure 1. Example of perceptive activity of subjects

Both persons have perceived each other’s presence, the ability of the other to perceive (the first component). The woman in the picture (person on the right) undertakes specific perceptive actions; she looks in the direction up in

the tree and points in that same direction (second component). The fact she expressively points might already reveal the event is interesting to look at (third component). In reaction to her perceptive activity the man looks in the same direction, trying to perceive what she is looking and pointing at. It is her perceptive activity that makes him undertake these perceptive actions.

Theoretical Model

In figure 2 our model on perceptive connections between two subjects and an event, as in the example in figure 1, is presented. The people on their bicycles are subject 1 and subject 2. The event is up in the tree. Both subjects undertake actions to perceive the event, resulting in sensory feedback. The subjects can also perceive each other’s perceptive activities, built up out of the three components described before.

Figure 2. Model showing perceptive connections between 2 subjects and an event.The perceptive connections are

presented as arrows in this model.

Figure 3. Model showing perceptive connections between subject, object with perceptive activity and event.

We now propose a second theoretical model (figure 3) in which we put forward the idea that one of the subjects might be an object with perceptive qualities. We question if we can design for perceptive activity in an artifact in order to make perceptual crossing between subject (user) and a designed artifact possible. By enriching the reciprocal perception between user and designed artifact hypothetically the user-involvement with the artifact in their common space will increase. In figure 3 this model on perceptive connections between subject, object with perceptive activity and event is shown.

Before discussing the designed artifact further two of the introduced concepts are summarized and defined.

Perceptual crossing: reciprocal interplay of perceiving the other as part of the environment (perceiving the body-image) and perceiving the other perceiving me (perceiving the lived-body).

Perceptive activity: Actions undertaken to perceive. These are actions that show presence, perceptive actions and expressivity.

THE DESIGNED ARTIFACT

We designed and built an artifact with perceptive activity to explore the phenomenon of perceptual crossing. This

physical hypothesis [9] is our vehicle to explore how to

design for perceptive activity in an artifact. Furthermore we use it to test the effect the perceptive activity of the artifact has on the feeling of involvement the subject experiences with the artifact in their common space. The design is therefore deliberately kept minimalist. Only by keeping the design simple, changes in the subject’s feeling of involvement can be attributed to the design variables. Based on the three components of perceptive activity and the proposed model, the following criteria apply to the design:

- The artifact should be able to detect perceptive activity, i.e. the presence, perceptive action and expressivity of the subject.

- The artifact should be able to show perceptive activity to allow for the reciprocity, where the subject is able to perceive the perceptive activity of the designed artifact. - The artifact should be able to detect the presence of an external event. For this event we chose a piece of popular instrumental music.

- The artifact should be able to show perceptive activity relating to the event, i.e. actions that show the artifact perceives the event and an expression on this perception.

The designed artifact named PeP, i.e. ‘Perception Pillar’ has next to a physical body, housing the electronics, a dynamic light body. In figure 4 again the model is presented. The criteria that apply to the design are included. The direct perceptive connections between PeP and subject are given in more detail. Note that we chose our design to be sensitive to music, as the external event.

The physical body

The artifact has the shape of a purple square pillar. On each of the four sides a light sensor (Light Dependant Resistor) is attached for the detection of intentional subjects. On the topside 13 LEDs (Light Emitting Diodes) are evenly placed in a five to five grid. The square shape is deliberately

picked as it gives PeP, the design, clear sides and thus makes that the subject has a clear position towards PeP. Nevertheless the dynamic light behavior, reflected in the LED grid, overtakes this shape. When lighted in a dark room, the blue LEDS draw the subject’s attention. The purple pillar now just functions as a container for the dynamic light design and the pillar fades to the background. This makes that the dynamic light body overtakes the overall form and shows perceptive activity to the subject. This light body becomes the perceptive body.

The light body

The dynamic behavior of the light body, reflected in the LED grid, is based on the interplay between the input of the four light sensors and the following properties: the location of the light body within the grid, the surface size and the

brightness of the light body and the direction and the speed of the movement of the body.

The dynamic characteristics for the light body were determined after acting out sessions between two human subjects through active exploration in movement [13]. In the exploration one participant acts as the perceiving object, the other participant acts as the subject interacting with the perceiving object. The choice for this design tool is made explicitly, as it allows for exploration from PeP’s point of view [17].

Figure 4. Model showing perceptive connections between subject, PeP (object with perceptive activity) and event and

the criteria that apply to the design.

The emphasis when creating the dynamic light body lies on the algorithm that translates the input of the four light sensors into perceptive activity shown in the LEDs. The algorithm developed over time; trying several ideas and interact with the behavior that emerges. Important more

Figure 6. Several interaction states between subject and PeP. From left to right: PeP focuses in the direction of the subject and follows when the subject walks around, if the subject does not move enough the focus returns inside.

general design notions that were implemented and aspects that need further consideration are part of our conclusion section. Next is a specific description of PeP’s behavior.

Figure 5. PeP, perception pillar, light sensors on the four sides detect perceptive activity of the subject, grid of 13 blue LEDs

shows perceptive activity of PeP.

PeP perceives its environment by means of the light sensors. When a change in this light is detected, in a conditioned setting, this movement indicates the presence of a lived-body. The light body is positioned within the grid according to an angle and a radius. The angle is depending on the side on which the movement is detected and the radius is depending on the amount of movement. PeP will focus on this movement and follow when the subject walks around. If the subject is not moving enough to be recognized as lived-body PeP returns its focus inside. Also when there is too much movement, PeP will turn back to the middle. The light body does not jump but gradually adjusts its position, moving along the sides. Before focusing on the subject the light body first exploratively moves along the side the subject is positioned. In figure 6 several interactions states between subject and PeP are shown. PeP is, as can be seen in the model, also able to perceive an event. For this event a piece of modern instrumental music is chosen. PeP will show perceptive actions towards the music by focusing his perceptive body in the direction of the sound and will give expression by changing brightness and size: PeP will move to the beat of the music. For practical reasons we chose the reaction to music be

triggered by a function within the algorithm, so PeP is not really given the opportunity to hear by means of a microphone. The limitation of this implementation is that PeP will not react to sounds the subject makes, whereas PeP is clearly able to perceive music.

EXPERIMENT

The designed perceptive activity is evaluated by means of an experiment. In this experiment the 12 participants, design students, go through five situations in which the perceptive connections between subject (participant), object (PeP) and event (music) vary. Theses situations will be discussed further below. The general hypothesis is that if perceptual crossing between the subject and object happens, the feeling of involvement of the subject increases.

In this experiment deliberately an order effect is created, to make it possible to build up the perceptive activity and give the participant the opportunity to get familiar with PeP’s activity. Only subsequent situations are compared to each other analyzing the results.

Situations

The five situations we chose for the participants to go through have different conditions according to the possible perceptive connections. Four perceptive connections are evident within the test set up. The first connection is a constant, as the subject (participant) is always able to perceive (the physical) PeP, either when PeP performs perceptive activity or when PeP does not. The other three connections can vary; PeP perceives the subject or PeP does not, the subject perceives music or the subject does not, and PeP perceives music or PeP does not. A complete overview of possible connections between subject (participant), PeP and event (music) are presented in Table 1. The grey marked situations are the situations the subject goes through. In the table also the order by which the subject goes through the different situations is given. The situations will be discussed next in this order, the model per situation can be found in figure 7.

Situation 1

The subject encounters PeP, who is only able to perceive music. The subject can’t hear this music and PeP does not perceive the subject. Perceptual crossing between subject and PeP and sharing the perception of music is not possible.

Situation 2

Next the subject encounters PeP who is only capable of perceiving the subject. No music is present in this situation. Perceptual crossing between subject and PeP is possible in this situation.

Situation 3

PeP perceives the subject and perceives music. The subject still does not hear the music. Perceptual crossing between PeP and the participant is possible but the participant is not able to share PeP’s perception of the music directly.

Situation 4

All perceptive connections are evident. Perceptual crossing between subject and PeP and sharing perception of the music is possible in this situation.

Situation 5

Last perceptual crossing between PeP and Subject is possible but now only the subject is able to hear the music, sharing this perception is not possible.

Table 1. Overview of different conditions (C1 to C8) in relation to the perceptive connections between Subject (participant), PeP (designed object) and Event (music). The grey marked conditions are part of the experimental set-up Hypothesis

As stated before the main hypothesis is that “the feeling of

involvement of the participant increases if perceptual crossing between the participant and PeP happens.”

Furthermore we see how the ability to share the perception of an event in the common space influences the feeling of involvement. Hypothetically “sharing the perception of an

external event increases the subject’s feeling of involvement.” These hypotheses are based on the earlier

discussed theory. The sub-hypotheses are a comparison between subsequent conditions. Summarizing the expected result is that the user-involvement in situation 2 is greater

than in situation 1 and in situation 4 is greater than in situation 3 and situation 5. The comparison between situation 3 and situation 2 is somewhat different.

Measure of involvement

Involvement within the situation is measured through thirteen 7-point differential semantic scales. The list of differentials is based on a semantic exploration of the term involvement [21]. The differentials are: intense/shallow, contact/no contact, close/distant, intimate/not intimate, connected/detached, warm/cold, understanding/ignorance, familiar/unfamiliar, sharing/isolated, influential/not influential, unity/individual, associated/dissociated, and involved/alone.

Results and discussion

The results are analyzed using the chi square test for nonparametric statistics between two successive situations to see whether the observed sample significantly differs from the expected values [25]. In figure 7 the results, in which the direction of the effect is visible, are presented. In this overview also the model of perceptive connections per situation is given. The bar diagrams give an overview of all cumulated ratings of all participants. As said only successive situations are compared in which the expected values are the values of the first situation. The ratings of the second situation are considered the observed values. For all the compared situations the number of significance of, p, is smaller than 0,001. This indicates that there is a significant difference between the ratings of different situations. Compared to situation 1 the user-involvement in situation 2 increases significantly (see figure 7). The subject is enabled in situation 2 to experience perceptual crossing with the designed object resulting in a greater feeling of involvement. In the situations 3 to 5 perceptual crossing between subject and object is possible but it differs if the perception of the event, music, can be shared or not. It is clear that perceptual crossing between the subject and object and of the event, situation 4, results in the greatest user-involvement. However we can see that although perception of the event cannot be shared in situation 5 the level of user involvement does differ remarkably to the user-involvement in situation 3. In situation 3 PeP is able to perceive something the subject does not. In situation 5 the subject is able to perceive something the object does not perceive. The fact that the subject is able to perceive the music but can’t share this perception with PeP is of less influence on the subject’s feeling of involvement than when he or she is not able to perceive and share the perception of the event that PeP does perceive.

The comparison between situation 2 and 3 is different from the so far discussed comparisons. In both situations perceptual crossing between subject and object is possible but in situation 3 the object perceives an event the subject does not perceive. The user-involvement decreases significantly in situation 3 compared to situation 2.

Situ-ation Subject Perceives PeP PeP Perceives Subject Subject Perceives Music PeP Perceives Music 4 x x x x 5 x x x - 3 x x - x x - x x 2 x x - - 1 x - - x x - x - x - - -

Figure 7. Left: model on perceptive connections per situation. Right: sum of differentials (n=13) over all participants (n=12) for each of the seven scales (high-low involvement)

It seems that the subject does not perceive PeP’s perceptive activity as related to perceiving music. If the subject was able to relate PeP’s perceptive activity to perceiving music, the subject as it were could perceive ‘through’ the designed artifact. It is like when we see someone dancing to music we don’t hear ourselves. If indeed the subject can perceive ‘through’ the designed artifact the subject is able to become aware of events that the subject does not or is not capable of perceiving directly oneself. This refers back to the work of Bach-y-Rita, on sensory substitution systems [2,3]. Direct sensory mediation gives a person the ability to perceive objects and events, that one was not able to perceive by one’s perceptive capabilities, in these systems. In the experimental situation described here this mediation indirectly happens through the object by means of its perceptive activity.

CONCLUSION

The experiment shows the relation between user involvement and perceptive product activity. Our hypotheses and designs are grounded in phenomenological and ecological perception theories. Recent research in this field showed the importance in subject-subject interaction of perceiving not only the other as part of the environment but also perceiving the activity of the other perceiving me [15]. To design for perceptual crossing between subject and object, we started from three components of perceptive activity; the perception of presence, perception of perceptive action and perception of expressivity to direct our designing.

Our design is an example of designed perceptive activity. PeP reacts to the activity of the subject and to music by means of a dynamic light design. Our experiment shows that indeed it is possible to design perceptive activity in an object to allow for perceptual crossing between subject and object and for sharing the perception of an event. We show that this indeed positively influences the feeling of involvement of the user.

We now end our paper with a set of design notions that need consideration when designing for perceptive activity in an artifact. The design notions will be validated in our future design research.

DESIGN NOTIONS

The first four design notions were explicitly considered in our final design of PeP. The last three notions came forward after analysis of our design and the experiment. For each notion is discussed why the notion is considered, how the notion is implemented in the current design and what the implications are for our future design and research.

Focus the Senses

Living organisms typically focus their senses, e.g. you close your eyes and turn your ear in the direction of the sound. In similar fashion, upon detecting presence, the light body in the design of PeP moves into the direction of the presence,

as it detects movement, and increases in size and brightness. In living organisms action and sensory feedback are directly coupled. Challenging for future work is to couple the sensory and active parts of the design as direct as possible in the algorithm, improving the embodiment of the sensing

and acting body.

Active Behavior Object

Living organisms act to gain sensory input on the environment, e.g. you turn your body and head to look around the room to see whether someone is there. The light body in our design also moves around, exploring the sensor sides for intentional subjects. When the body has detected presence, it will give the impression that it actively explores the subject [16]. The light body focuses in the direction of the subject and makes little movements from left to right to explore the subject. In the current design these implementations are really just an impression; by doing so the light body does not really explore. These actions should be come more than pre-programmed movements. In further work we will try to give the design its own intentions depending on the situation; perceptually motivated

perceptive activity.

Subtleness

The actions we undertake to perceive are smooth; we turn our head in a continuous movement to look at what is behind us. This subtleness of not jumping between sides is implemented in the design. In the shape and movements of the light body, the following decisions were taken. The center of the shape is brighter than the edges. Changes happen exponentially instead of linear to create a more gradual and natural effect. All LEDs have an analogue range and can fade in and out. If the body were to move from north to south, the body moves either along west or east instead of directly jumping from north to south. In our future design we will focus on balancing the aesthetics of the behavior, electronics and physical appearance of PeP.

Reaction to external event

While interacting with another subject we build a common space in an environment. This environment influences and shapes our interaction. PeP is capable to perceive an external event, namely music. PeP focuses on the music and expresses meaning by bouncing to the beat. This addition of an event is very interesting from a designerly point of view because the question if the subject has the feeling of sharing a common space with the design can be explored. The user can be enabled, as discussed in the results section, to perceive ‘through’ the design.

Active Behavior Subject

In the interaction not only the designed artifact shows perceptive activity, also the subject will show explorative actions to perceive. It should be these actions that are detected by the design to further enrich the behavior. PeP is already not just sensitive to the sensor input but to the

change in sensor input. In other words it compares the forgoing measurement of the sensor with the present measurement. This makes PeP sensitive to movement and holding still will result in no longer being detected as an intentional subject (lived-body) but as object in the environment (body-image). Perceptual crossing cannot longer occur and the light body looses focus. In our further research we will focus on detecting the actions by the subject in more detail and on differentiating these actions.

Contextual Noise

When one is in dialogue with someone, one’s perception is focused on the person one is talking to. However this neither means there is no contextual sensory input, nor does it mean that one does not undertake any action to get other sensory input. Especially when the sensory input reaches a certain level, for example when something makes a lot of noise or moves sudden and quick one will perceive and react to this event. The design of PeP makes use of light sensors. This amount of light is changed by the presence of the subject as the subject causes a shadow to fall on the sensor. Not every side of the design is equally exposed to the light and so the effect the subject causes might differ for each sensors. Furthermore a change of light, not caused by the subject, influences the behaviour of PeP. We found that this gives a natural feel to the behaviour. However this also makes the design less controllable. One should consider this effect and weigh it to the control one has over the design.

Course of perceptions in time

In our experience of the world we are aware of bygone perception and anticipate future perception. PeP has no clue of its own perception, in other words it does not rely on history or anticipate on what could happen next. A challenge is to include this kind of learning algorithms in the design and give the design as it were an experience. The richness of actions and expressivity in relation to the subject’s activity will be enhanced.

DISCUSSION

One of the most interesting points of our design is that by designing perceptive behavior the object could become an interface for more than just one function. PeP for example could not only react to music and presence of a subject but also to bygone activity or host of other events. We also think that not only the direct interaction between subject and object is interesting, also perceptive activity between objects could become recognizable and understandable to the subject. By integrating this perceptive activity of objects into the space we work and live in [6] activity between different artifacts in an environment become perceptible to the user.

Deliberately designing from the point of view that perception is inherently interactive and participatory makes that the designed object’s actions express meaning to the

subject. This emergent meaning we have seen in tangible approaches [9, 26].

We now move to a dynamic interface that can adapt to multiple events, in time and to multiple user(s). Here lies the interest of our future work where we are moving from designing for interaction between user and product to designing for systems of interactive products.

REFERENCES

1. Abram, D., The spell of the Sensuous: Language and Perception in a More Than Human World. Vintage Books, New York, NY, USA 1996.

2. Bach-y-Rita, P., Tyler, M.E., Kaczmarek, K.A., Seeing with the Brain, Int. J. of Hum-Comput. Int. (2003), pp 285-295.

3. Bach-y-Rita, P., Substitution sensorielle et qualia. In J. Proust (Ed.), Perception et intermodalité. Approches actuelles de la questions de Molyneux Paris, PUF (1997), 81-100.

4. Dalsgaard P., Hansen, L.K., Performing Perception-Staging Aesthetics of Interaction, Transactions on Computer Human Interaction, 15(3) Article 13, 2008, ACM

5. Deckers, E., Westerhoff, J., Pikaart, M., Wanrooij, G.v., Overbeeke, C., How Perception Gets Emotional Value Through the Use of an Object. Proc. DPPI, 2009, 104-115

6. Deckers, E.J.L., Wensveen, S.A.G., Overbeeke, C.J., PeR: Designing for perceptive qualities, Proc. DeSForM 2010, 68-70

7. DiSalvo, C. F., Gemperle, F., Forlizzi, J., Kiesler, S., All robots are not created equal: The design and perception of humanoid robot heads, Proc. DIS 2002

8. Dourish, P., Where the action is: The foundation of embodied interaction. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT-Press, 2001

9. Frens, J., Designing for rich interaction: integrating form, interaction, and function. Doctoral Dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology, 2006

10. Gibson, J. (1979). An ecological approach to visual perception (Repr. 1986.). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

11. Hallnäs, L., Redström J., From use to presence: on the expressions and aesthetics of everyday computational things, Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 9/2 (2002), 106-124.

12. Hornecker E., Buur, J., Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction, Proc. CHI 2006, 437-446

13. Hummels, C., Overbeeke, C., & Klooster, S., Move to get moved: a search for methods, tools and knowledge to design for expressive and rich movement-based

interaction. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11/8 (2007), 677-690.

14. Koskinen, I., Binder, T. and Redström, J. Lab, Field, Gallery, and Beyond. Artifact, 2/1 (2009), 46—57 15. Lenay, C., Thouvenin, I., Guénand, A., Gapenne, O.,

Stewart, J., Maillet, B., et al., Designing the ground for pleasurable experience. Proc. DPPI 2007, 35-58. 16. Lenay, C., “It’s so touching”; Emotional value in distal

contact. International Journal of Design, 4/2 (2010), 14-26.

17. Loke, L., & Robertson, T., Studies of dancers: Moving from experience to interaction design. International Journal of Design, 4/2 (2010), 39-54

18. Marti, P., Perceiving while being perceived. International Journal of Design, 4/2 (2010), 27-38. 19. Merleau-Ponty, M., Phenomenology of Perception

(Original: Phénoménologie de la perception 1945). (D. Tiemersma & R. Vlasblom). Boom.

20. Moen J., Towards People Based Movement Interaction and KinAesthetic Interaction Experiences, Proc Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility 2005, ACM Press, 121-124

21. Osgood, C., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P., The measurement of meaning, University of Illinois Press, 1956

22. Robertson, T., The Public Availability of actions and artefacts, Computer Supported Cooperative Work 11, 3-4 (2002), 299-316.

23. Svanœs, D., Understanding Interactivity, Steps to a Phenomenology of Human-Computer Interaction, Doctoral Dissertation, NTNU Trondheim, 2000 24. Schiphorst T., soft(n): Toward a Somaesthetics of

Touch, Proc CHI Extended Abstracts 2009, pp. 2427 25. Siegel, S., Nonparametic Statistics for the behavioral

sciences, p249, Mc-Graw Hill, 1956

26. Wensveen, S., A Tangibility Approach to Affective Interaction, Doctoral Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, 2005

27. Winograd, T., and Flores F., Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ, 1986. 28. Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E. & Forlizzi, J., An

analysis and critique of Research through Design: towards a formalization of a research approach. Proc. DIS2010, ACM Press, 310-319