Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The enriching limitations of the physical world

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the third stand, our perspective on embodied interaction with digital products and systems. First, we discuss its background of dematerialization, an ongoing evolution in which physical products and information carriers disappear, and become immaterial information packages and on-screen applications. We establish how dematerialization influences both design research and design practice. Next, we present a digital payment terminal that we designed in order to explore the added value of our third stand perspective. In an experiment, we compare it with an existing payment terminal. The results of the experiment reveal that the third stand terminal scores higher on hedonic values, like beauty and stimulation. The existing terminal scores higher on pragmatic values, like ease-of-use and efficiency. We position the third stand as a design approach that pleas for embodiment from a hedonic perspective and propose to extend the argument for embodiment beyond pragmatic values. Finally, we suggest that the third stand celebrates the limitations of the physical world instead of trying to overcome them, and gives rise to specific emotional values like attentiveness, profundity, and preciousness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Belk RW (2013) Extended self in a digital world. JCR 40(3):477–500. https://doi.org/10.1086/671052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Blackler A (2008) Intuitive interaction with complex artefacts: empirically-based research. VDM Verlag, Saarbrücken

    Google Scholar 

  3. Blackler A, Popovic V, Mahar D (2010) Investigating users’ intuitive interaction with complex artefacts. Appl Ergon 41(1):72–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2009.04.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Buur J, Jensen MV, Djajadiningrat T (2004) Hands-only scenarios and video action walls: novel methods for tangible user interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 5th conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM Press, New York, pp 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1145/1013115.1013141

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Diefenbach S, Hassenzahl M, Eckoldt K, Hartung L, Lenz E, Laschke M (2017) Designing for well-being : a case study of keeping small secrets. J Posit Psychol 12(2):151–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1163405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Diefenbach S, Hassenzahl M, Eckoldt K, Laschke M (2010) The impact of concept (re)presentation on users’ evaluation and perception. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Extending Boundaries—NordiCHI ‘10. ACM Press, New York, pp 631–634. https://doi.org/10.1145/1868914.1868991

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Diefenbach S, Kolb N, Hassenzahl M (2014) The ‘hedonic’ in human-computer interaction—history, contributions, and future research directions. In: Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598549

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Djajadiningrat JP, Wensveen SAG, Frens JW, Overbeeke CJ (2004) Tangible products: redressing the balance between appearance and action. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 8(5):294–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-004-0293-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dourish P (2001) A history of interaction. In: Dourish P (ed) Where the action is—the foundations of embodied interaction, vol 36. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1162/leon.2003.36.5.412

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Dourish P (2001) “Being-in-the-world”: embodied interaction. In: Dourish P (ed) Where the action is—the foundations of embodied interaction, vol 36. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1162/leon.2003.36.5.412

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Dourish P (2001) Conclusions and directions. In: Dourish P (ed) Where the action is—the foundations of embodied interaction, vol 36. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1162/leon.2003.36.5.412

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Dourish P (2001) Foundations. In: Dourish P (ed) Where the action is—the foundations of embodied interaction, vol 36. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1162/leon.2003.36.5.412

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Dourish P (2001) Getting in touch. In: Dourish P (ed) Where the action is—the foundations of embodied interaction, vol 36. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1162/leon.2003.36.5.412

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Ebert JD (2011) The new media invasion: digital technologies and the world they unmake. McFarland Books, Jefferson

    Google Scholar 

  15. Edwards AL (1957) The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. Dryden, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Engelen U, De Peuter S, Victoir A, Van Diest I, Van den Bergh O (2006) Verdere validering van de Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) en vergelijking van twee Nederlandstalige versies. Gedrag Gezondheid 34(2):89–102

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fishkin KP (2004) A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 8(5):347–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-004-0297-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Frens JW (2006) Designing for rich interaction—integrating form, interaction and function. Eindhoven University of Technology, Dissertation

    Google Scholar 

  19. Frens JW, Van Campenhout LDE (2014) Advanced cardboard modeling: exploring the aesthetics of the third way. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tangible. Embedded and Embodied Interaction. ACM Press, New York, pp 349–352. https://doi.org/10.1145/2540930.2567903

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Gaver W (2012) What should we expect from research through design? In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 937–946. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208538

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hassenzahl M (2003) The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In: Blythe M, Overbeeke M, Monk A, Wright P (eds) Funology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2967-5_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Hassenzahl M (2004) The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Hum-Comput Interact 19(4):319–349. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1904_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hassenzahl M (2010) Experience design: technology for all the right reasons. Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hassenzahl M, Burmester M, Koller F (2003) AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. In: Ziegler J, Zwillus G (Eds) Mensch & Computer 2003. Interaktion in Bewegung, BG Teubner, Stuttgart, pp 187–196 doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80058-9_19

  26. Hassenzahl M, Diefenbach S, Göritz A (2010) Needs, affect, and interactive products—facets of user experience. Interact Comput 22(5):353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hassenzahl M, Eckoldt K, Diefenbach S, Laschke M, Lenz E, Kim J (2013) Designing moments of meaning and pleasure. Experience design and happiness. Int J Des 7(3):21–31

    Google Scholar 

  28. Holmquist LE, Redström J, Ljungstrand P (1999) Token-based access to digital information. In: Proceeding of the 1st international symposium on Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48157-5_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Hornecker E (2012) Beyond affordance: tangibles’ hybrid nature. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tangible. Embedded and Embodied Interaction. ACM Press, New York, pp 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1145/2148131.2148168

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Hornecker E, Buur J (2006) Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. In: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Design for Tangible Interactions. ACM Press, New York, pp 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124838

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Hornecker E, Dünser A (2008) Of pages and paddles: children’s expectations and mistaken interactions with physical–digital tools. Interact Comput 21(1):95–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2008.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15(9):1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hurtienne J, Israel JH (2013) PIBA-DIBA or how to blend the digital with the physical. Extended Abstracts of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York, In

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ishii H, Lakatos D, Bonanni L, Labrune JB (2012) Radical atoms: beyond tangible bits, toward transformable materials. Interactions 19(1):38–51. https://doi.org/10.1145/2065327.2065337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ishii H, Ullmer B (1997) Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 234–241. https://doi.org/10.1145/604046.604048

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Jacob RJK, Girouard A, Hirshfield LM, Horn M, Shaer O, Solovey ET, Zigelbaum J (2008) Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-WIMP interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357089

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Jetter HC, Geyer F, Schwarz T, Reiterer H (2012) Blended interaction—toward a framework for the design of interactive spaces. Workshop designing collaborative interactive spaces (DCIS 2012) at AVI 2012

  38. Klemmer S, Hartman H, Takayama L (2006) How bodies matter: five themes for interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 6th conference on designing interactive systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1145/1142405.1142429

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Koskinen I, Zimmerman J, Binder T, Redström J, Wensveen S (2011) Design research through practice: from the lab, field, and showroom. Elsevier, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  40. Magaudda P (2011) When materiality ‘bites back’: digital music consumption practices in the age of dematerialization. J Consum Cult 11(1):15–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540510390499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Negroponte N (1995) Being digital. Alfred A. Knopf, New York

  42. Odom W, Zimmerman J, Forlizzi J (2011) Teenagers and their virtual possessions: design opportunities and issues. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 1491–1500. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979161

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Overbeeke CJ, Djajadiningrat JP, Wensveen SAG, Frens JW (2001) Set me free, give me degrees of freedom. Proceedings of the Scuola Superiore G. Reiss Romoli Conference, In

    Google Scholar 

  44. Partala T, Kallinen A (2012) Understanding the most satisfying and unsatisfying user experiences: emotions, psychological needs, and context. Interact Comput 24(1):25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Raghubir P, Srivastava J (2008) Monopoly money: the effect of payment coupling and form on spending behavior. J Exp Psychol Appl 14(3):213–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.14.3.213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sheldon KM, Elliot AJ, Kim Y, Kasser T (2001) What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. J Pers Soc Psychol 80(2):325–339. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.80.2.325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Siddiqui S, Turley D (2006) Extending the self in a virtual world. Adv Consum Res 33:647–648

    Google Scholar 

  48. Soffer O, Eshet-Alkalai Y (2009) Back to the future: an historical perspective on the pendulum-like changes in literacy. Mind Mach 19(1):47–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-008-9119-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ullmer B, Ishii H, Glas D (1998) MediaBlocks: physical containers, transports, and controls for online media. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. ACM Press, New York, pp 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1145/280814.280940

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  50. Ullmer B, Ishii H, Jacob RJK (2005) Token+constraint systems for tangible interaction with digital information. TOCHI 12(1):81–118. https://doi.org/10.1145/1057237.1057242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Van Campenhout LDE (2016) Materializing the third stand. In: Van Campenhout LDE (ed) Physical interaction in a dematerialized world. Eindhoven University of Technology, Dissertation, pp 97–124

    Google Scholar 

  52. Van Campenhout LDE (2016) Experiment. In: Van Campenhout LDE (ed) Physical interaction in a dematerialized world. Eindhoven University of Technology, Dissertation, pp 141–166

    Google Scholar 

  53. Van Campenhout LDE, Frens JW, Hummels CCM, Standaert A, Peremans H (2012) Hard cash in a dematerialized world. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Engineering & Product Design Education. The Design Society, Westbury, pp 121–126

    Google Scholar 

  54. Van Campenhout LDE, Frens JW, Overbeeke CJ, Standaert A, Peremans H (2013) Physical interaction in a dematerialized world. Int J Des 7(1):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  55. Van Campenhout LDE, Frens JW, Hummels CCM, Standaert A, Peremans H (2016) Touching the dematerialized. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 20(1):147–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-016-0907-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. van Dijk J, Moussette C, Kuenen S, Hummels C (2013) Radical clashes: what tangible interaction is made of. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on tangible, embedded and embodied interaction. ACM Press, New York, pp 323–326. https://doi.org/10.1145/2460625.2460680

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  57. Van Wijk C (2000) Toetsende statistiek: Basistechnieken. Een praktijkgerichte inleiding voor onderzoeker van taal, gedrag en communicatie. Coutinho, Bussum

  58. Weiser M, Brown JS (1996) Designing calm technology. PowerGrid Journal 1(1):75–85

    Google Scholar 

  59. Zimmerman J, Forlizzi J (2008) The role of design artifacts in design theory construction. Artifact 2(1):41–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17493460802276893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Zimmerman J, Forlizzi J, Evenson S (2007) Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  61. Zimmerman J, Stolterman E, Forlizzi J (2010) An analysis and critique of research through design: towards a formalization of a research approach. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1145/1858171.1858228

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Design Sciences, Product Development, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

    Lukas Van Campenhout & Achiel Standaert

  2. Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, PO Box 513, 5600 MB, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Joep Frens & Caroline Hummels

  3. Faculty of Applied Economics, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

    Herbert Peremans

Authors
  1. Lukas Van Campenhout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joep Frens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Caroline Hummels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Achiel Standaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Herbert Peremans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lukas Van Campenhout.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 1462 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van Campenhout, L., Frens, J., Hummels, C. et al. The enriching limitations of the physical world. Pers Ubiquit Comput 23, 81–98 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-018-1176-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-018-1176-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation