Seven Principles to Design for Embodied Sensemaking
Caroline Hummels Jelle van Dijk
DQI group, Department of Industrial Design, Technology and Innovation, Utrecht Univ. of Eindhoven University of Technology Appl. Sciences & Dep. of Industrial Design, TU/e
Author Keywords
Sensemaking; embodiment; social coordination; tangible interaction; communication; design process
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.2. User Interfaces: Theory and methods.
----
ABSTRACT
The TEI-community is based a various paradigms. We believe that the community matures by scrutinising these different paradigms and unravelling the consequences for designing for tangible, embedded and embodied interaction. In this paper we explore the consequences and possibilities of phenomenology-inspired embodied theory, and more specifically the concept of embodied sensemaking, i.e. human sensemaking using sensorimotor couplings to support social coordination between people. Based on our theoretical setting, we introduce seven design principles for developing face-to-face embodied sensemaking technology. We show in this paper how we used these principles to develop a mobile design and sensemaking studio for the encounter between two persons to sketch a future at the cross-section of their disciplines. By explaining these principles, we aim to show what embodied theory can bring the TEI-community, and invite others to do the same.
INTRODUCTION
The TEI conference and community originated at the crosssection of different disciplines such as HCI, the arts, design and engineering, with the aim to develop the field by bringing viewpoints together at an equal level and by creating an atmosphere of experiencing, informing, reflecting and inspiring [16]. As we discussed in our paper ‘Radical Clashes” [35] these differences in disciplines and viewpoint relate to different paradigms within the TEI community, which result in different designs for interaction. For example, Ishii et al.’s vision of Radical Atoms [20] is a representative of what we loosely call a Cartesian computer science and engineering-based way of thinking, and could not have been the result of a phenomenology-inspired design way of thinking [35]. Since we consider a multiplicity of perspectives to be desirable, we believe that the TEI community requires scrutinising different paradigms and unravelling the consequences for tangible, embedded and embodied interaction, in order to learn from each other and bring the field forward.
In this paper we describe our design process in which we explore the consequences of phenomenology-inspired embodied theory, and more specifically the concept of embodied sensemaking, for the design of a tangible mobile design and sensemaking studio (D&S studio). We will first explain our theoretical underpinning and the concept of embodied sensemaking. Thereupon, we introduce the context of the design project. In the remaining part of this paper we describe seven design principles for developing face-to-face embodied sensemaking technology, and how we applied these into our own design.
EMBODIED SENSEMAKING
Our work is inspired by phenomenology, embodied cognition and the ecological theory of perception, which all take the body-in-action as a starting point and which do not make the Cartesian mind-body division [9]. Merleau-Ponty considered ‘embodiment’ and ‘skilful coping’ to be unique characteristics of man; that is, we are able to engage with the world and develop skills while acting in the world. We perceive the world in terms of what we can do with it, and by physically interacting with it we access and express this meaning. “The meaning of things ... exist[s] neither ‘inside’ our minds nor in the world itself, but in the space between us and the world, in the interaction” [24, p.33]. To cope skilfully in the world from day to day, we do not need a mental representation of the world itself; our body is simply solicited by the situation to find the right balance so as to gain a maximum grip on the situation [7, 25]. When looking at cognition from a body-in-action perspective, it can be described as a coordination achieved through a selforganizing network of elements [1]. This network includes not only our brain, but also our body and the dynamic relationships between our body and the physical- and social environment [1, 4, 10] (figure 1). So, our cognitive system consists of the brain, the body and the environment [36].
Figure 1: From an embodied cognition perspective, cognition is seen as an emergent property of interactions between brain, body and the physical- and social environment.
We start from an embodied perspective on sensemaking, in which there is an ongoing sensorimotor coupling in a social situation. Embodied sensemaking is closely connected to De Jaegher and Di Paolo’s concept of participatory sensemaking [5]. They see participatory sensemaking as a shared process grounded in ongoing embodied and situated interactions in a shared action space, instead of exchanging messages originating in one ‘mind’ and received and interpreted by another. It relies on a process of social coordination, in line with Suchman’s Situated Cognition theory, referring to the way people, embedded in a sociocultural situation, continuously coordinate their own actions in relation to those of others [29, 36].
Before we describe the implications of embodied sensemaking for tangible/embodied interaction, let us first introduce the context and focus of our design project Engaging Encounters: sketching our future together.
ENGAGING ENCOUNTERS
Over the years we have noticed the difficulty of communication between people from different backgrounds and paradigms, e.g. people from industry, governance or research. Also within the TEI community we sometimes feel this tension, but we also experience the pleasant willingness to communicate, understand and learn from each other. Having the luxurious prospect of a sabbatical, the first author decided to use this time to travel around the world and help bridging communication gaps between her design research world and colleagues and people from other backgrounds, which resulted in the project ‘Engaging Encounters: sketching our future together’:
The aim of the project is to visit 50 inspirators around the world, including politicians, researchers, people from industry and NGOs, designers and artists, and envision with them what our future can be at the cross-section of their expertise and design (my expertise). By sketching this future together and creating a joined vision, I aim at bridging our worlds in action. Through this encounter, I like to show examples of the phenomenology-inspired work from our DQI group (dep. of Industrial Design, TU Eindhoven) and other design work; I like to inspire the inspirators by revealing what design could bring and vice versa get inspired by them; and I like introduce to them to the ideas and vision of the other inspirators. This way I
hope all participants get new insights and can grow, which might even create potential ground for further collaboration. Moreover, I hope that the overall result, documented in a blog, book and a movie, will inspire others in their work and perspective on the world.
Since our work is based on phenomenology-inspired embodied theory, we want to develop a mobile design and sensemaking studio that facilitates these encounters from an embodied sensemaking perspective. In the remaining part of this paper we describe our design process and explain the consequences of starting from this perspective, captured in seven design principles.
IMPLICATIONS FOR TANGIBLE AND EMBODIED INTERACTION
Van Dijk and Mitchell [37] showed the relation between a Cartesian perspective on tangible interaction and a sensemaking perspective, which we updated in Figure 2. The left side of the picture shows the Cartesian perspective where the mind and the body are divided, so where mental processes in the virtual world of information are divided from mechanical movements in physical space. One could say that the field of computer science originally targets at the upper part (supporting cognitive tasks) and the field of industrial design in the lower part of the figure (supporting physical tasks). Tangible interaction was once introduced as the new, mixed discipline, integrating the physical with the digital [15]. But it feels to us that tangible interaction is bridging the two aspects by mapping the digital to the physical, while not really resolving the split [37]. We see for example the approach in which tangible objects are used to access digital information, by representing digital forms [19]. And we see the approach in which tangible objects are digitally ‘augmented’ for example to learn a physical skill [27]. In both types, however, we feel that the theoretical split between mind and body, mental and physical, remains.
As a consequence, we do not use Ishii’s take on TUI: “the key idea of TUIs is to give physical forms to digital information. The physical forms serve as both representations and controls for their digital counterparts.” [19, p. xvi]. We start the other way around by saying that there is value in interacting with our environment, or as Klemmer et al. state:
“Clearly, the digital world can provide advantages. To temper that, we argue that because there is so much benefit in the physical world, we should take great care before unreflectively replacing it. More precisely, from a design perspective, solutions that carefully integrate the physical and digital worlds — leaving the physical world alone to the extent possible — are likely to be more successful by admitting the improvisations of practice that the physical world offers.” [22]
The perspective we use at the right side of the figure, ‘opens up’ the mind-body split to reveal a new design space
Cartesian Traditional Tangible Interaction Tangible Interaction Embodied Sensemaking:
philosophical engineering physical represents digital augments Ongoing sensorimotor coupling in a social situation tradition disciplines digital physical
Figure 2. Tangible interaction within the Cartesian tradition (left side of picture) and on the basis of an Embodied perspective (right side of picture). Further details in text.
grounded in our embodied being-in-the-world [37]. To make this practically applicable for design is no easy task. One of the strengths of the information processing perspective has always been that tasks and actions of both human and machine could be represented in a model by breaking up the complexity into component parts and - processes. Consequently, they are often communicated more easily, and transformed into design guidelines in a rather straightforward manner. The blurriness on the righthand side of our picture is inherent in the way a product will figure in embodied couplings. Couplings contain physical, social, sensory and action aspects, and they all form part of the self-organizing dynamic that creates the coupling. We 'address' this holistic process by introducing our principles as design scaffolds: they may help the designer to keep switching perspective and look at the design from a multitude of angles, precisely in order to deal with the complexity of the challenge without reducing it. In all, each principle is one way of looking at the whole of the socially situated, embodied process of coupling.
The Engaging Encounters project uses interactive technologies to create a new space for embodied sensemaking between the inspirator and the host (the first author) defined by the seven design principles. Based on the concept of social coordination, we therefore situate our new to-be-designed studio/platform in the actual, embodied space, supporting also nonverbal communication and social coordination in action, and focusing less on ‘message passing’ over a communication channel [36]. Through designing our D&S studio we explore new roles for digital processes as an element in the larger process of meaning generation, sustained by the embodied engagements of a person with her social/ physical environment at large. What can digital computing bring embodied sensemaking [35]?
THE SETTING
The host (1st author) will visit inspirators around the world and sketch with them possible futures, setting the following boundaries for our D&S studio, which should:
• facilitate the social coordination process between the host and inspirator and support them to inspire each other, explore common ground and sketch possible futures.
• support the inspiration and communication process beyond the specific encounters, towards other people.
• adjust to the social situation at hand (e.g. the environment is it used in, the existing conventions within the inspirator’s world).
• be transportable, preferably as hand luggage in an aeroplane, and easy to set-up upon arrival.
Based on these criteria we formulated seven design principles for developing face-to-face embodied sensemaking technology as we will discuss in the remaining part of this paper.
SEVEN DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR FACE-TO-FACE EMBODIED SENSEMAKING TECHNOLOGY
1. Social situatedness
From a socially situated practice perspective [29], cognition is seen as an on-going achievement of social coordination in a setting, which includes e.g. social interrelations, roles, norms, culture and politics. Stressing the importance of social situatedness, all encounters take (in principle) place in the environment that is valuable for the inspirator (his/her home, workplace, …), which requires a mobile D&S studio that can be used in situ. However, the D&S studio might stimulate behaviour that is not entirely common for the setting. As the majority of inspirators will be CEOs, senior researchers, ministers and majors (white collar jobs) we developed the D&S studio that is able to seduce the inspirators to doing as well as talking, in a way that fits of the expected environments such as offices, design studios and homes.
In order to blend into the environment, our D&S studio “should not be “an object that I interact with, but the ground upon which the possibility of interaction is based” [18], similar to the way a spider uses his web [8]. We take a physical stage as ‘our web’ in the encounter, which invites participants to sketch their envisioned future together using all kind of materials and objects, including the ones present at the inspirator’s environment. The stage can be easily adjusted to the situation at hand. The stage is a wooden suitcase that can be transformed into a standing table with telescopic legs. At first we developed a horizontal stage with screens at the back (see figure 3, top). This set-up turned the attention towards the screens and away from each other and the stage. Thereafter we developed a smaller curved-shaped stage to enable people to sit/stand either on one side or on opposite sides, and through its curved form affords to keep the focus point at the centre of the stage (see figure 3, middle). After experimentation, we fine-tuned this design again and are now building a foldable standing table with a small suitcase as table top, offering a variety of tools. The table stimulates the participants to walk around and use the entire environment (social situation) at hand. Moreover, the stage and the accompanying tools embed sensors that track the behaviour of the participants, which help us afterwards to analyse how the D&S studio was used in the different social situations, thus giving us insights for further refinement of the D&S studio.
Figure 3: Explorations of the stage design. After trying out the first prototypes (top left), the design moved towards a curved-shaped desktop (top right) and a standing table with with a top of veneer (bottom left). We are currently building the final table with storage in the top (inspired by Naoki Hirakoso’s storage table (http://dornob.com/100storage-wooden-table-made-up-of-secret-spaces/)).
2. Scaffolds
Andy Clark [4] introduced the concept of ‘cognitive scaffolds’, in reference to Vygotsky’s theory of scaffolded learning [38], by which Clark meant tools and ad hoc recruited props in the environment that enable people to solve problems in ways that would have been much more difficult using purely brain-internal computation [4, 34]. We prefer to take the Socially Situated Practice perspective, in which a scaffold gets meaning in the social context of a situated practice [29]. For example, in creativity sessions where people draw sketches and write down text on sticky notes, these sticky notes are used as scaffolds to enable creative thought and create shared insight between the participants during their conversation. So they mediate collaborative sensemaking between people and function as a guide towards interactive couplings between the various participants and the emerging idea in situ [14, 23, 29, 34].
As can be seen in figure 3, our D&S studio uses a stage for scaffolding, using e.g. prototypes, materials, cards, sketches, keywords, articles, booklets, movies and websites.
Moreover, we developed a so-called Ideating in Skills toolset, a set of tangible interactive objects that trigger skillbased interaction. They can be used to explore scenarios in a physical way by acting them out, while being inspired by the interaction possibilities of the objects and their connections (see figure 4 top). Moreover, to stress the physical invitation of scaffolds, we discarded our initial idea to use screens at a fixed place of the stage, but instead introduced separate screens (iPods/iPads) that can be used as scaffolds similar to other scaffolds, see figure 4 bottom.
Figure 4: The Ideating in Skill set stimulates to exploit sensorimotor skills during the design process (top). Digital information is accessed via separate physical scaffolds
(iPods/iPads, bottom) instead of fixed screens (middle).
We offer a set of screens in order to access websites and digital content easily. For practical reasons we now use iPods and Ipads and since the number is limited, we have now developed various ways to bring the digital scaffolds to the stage. Firstly, we developed a database to store digital content related to the encounters. This way the participants can bring along digital information to the encounter (e.g. movies and photos of designs) and collected material during the encounter can be stored (e.g. websites or photos/videos made during the encounter), see figure 5.
Next, we make use of small RFID stickers to easily retrieve digital content via physical scaffolds. The stickers can be attached to any object (cards, prototypes, materials, papers etc), thus retracing digital material easily when needed, by scanning the scaffold. Moreover, we make use of a small handheld printer (LG pocket photo printer), so we can print small photos (2x3 inch) of the collected material during the encounter and connect it to any digital material through a RFID sticker if preferred.
We realise that our digital solutions are rather pragmatic, since the D&Sstudio has to up and running before 2015, be fully stable to run for well over a year, and it has to be affordable using off-the-shelf materials. Despite the fact
Figure 5: Top left: database of which every digital file can also be displayed full screen. Bottom left: All information is
automatically connected to the encounters it is used in. Right: audio recordings are made during every encounter and
connected (time stamped) to the RFID-tagged objects.
that the design is based on sensorimotor couplings as well as social coordination, the merger of the digital and the physical world is far from ideal in our current design. Consequently, we will continue developing the D&S studio the upcoming years, to explore the full potential of TEI and build some of our ideas, see Figure 6.
Figure 6: Initial ideas to merge the physical with the digital:
Using context-aware small screens to pick of digital context related to the social situation at hand (left), using a stage with a top of OLED or ePaper (middle), experiment with various forms of 3D or augmented displays (middle and right), and using 3D printers and pens to create objects quickly (middle).
3. Traces
As said, objects and notes can be used as scaffolds, for example to enable creative thought and determine shared insight between the participants during the encounter. The selected objects, the photos and scribbles made, and their relative position in space form the traces of the conversation and can come again the ‘scaffolding’ elements further on in the conversation. We are inspired by the biological phenomenon called stigmergy [30] when referring to traces. “Stigmergy describes how animals leave physical markers in the environment as a natural consequence of their actions, upon which these same markers come to play a crucial role in the further coordination of the very same behaviors that produce them: … the trail formed by an animal walking in the forest may at first be purely a by-effect of a goal- directed action (accidently breaking a leaf, flattening the grass in walking) and at the same time later on come to function as a coordinating, ‘epistemic’ structure for action (animals following the path formed by the broken leaves).” So, one may say that stigmergic traces create ‘physical history’, without the need for internal memory of past events [34].
By offering a stage to place scaffolds, we stimulate the process of leaving traces. We realise that our approach to retrieving digital information via physical scaffolds can be seen as a Cartesian solution, where the physical scaffold is a representation of digital information. However it appears that ‘scaffolding traces’ such as scribbles on sticky notes are not simply external representations of insights stored into the artefact [see also 3, 13, 29], but they guide the way people interact with one another and make sense together. So, it is not so much the content of trace that determines the insight, but the fact that it enables “a ‘sense-making activity’, i.e., a conversation between people, which in this case creates a meaningful connection between what one of the team- members had experienced at an earlier moment, and how this may then be understood as relevant for the group as a whole, in the present context. It is in that reflective activity that the shared insight is to be found, as an aspect of the conversation itself” [34, p.134]. So, although the digital content like movies and websites is important to inspire the other person and stress specific ideas and content, it is at least as important to use the physical scaffold as a trace of the shared insight.
Next to the leaving traces with the scaffolds, we also capture an auditive trace (see figure 5), as we have done before in one of our tools called NOOT [36]. NOOT uses small physical tags with RFID that can be connected to time-points in a continuous audio-recording. The tags can be placed in the spatial setting, e.g. on a sticky-note, and by using a playback device the participants can revisit earlier moments in the conversation, thus stimulating the shared reflection process. In our current D&S studio one can use any RFID-enhanced object to time-stamp the audiorecording e.g. during insightful moments. These audiorecordings can be played back during as well as after the encounter, e.g. when the host summarises the insights and sketched future for others (captured e.g. in a book, movie or blog). Moreover, the time-stamped parts of the audiorecordings can be used during new encounters with other inspirators. Next to the audio-recordings, we have sensorsrecordings of the interaction with the table and the objects, e.g. how do people interact with it for how long?
Finally, after every encounter, the inspirator gets a trace of the session, existing of 1) photos of the encounter, 2) a box with cards related to the scaffolds used during the encounter, and 3) an URL to the digital database of the encounter, including the audio recording. This way the inspirators get scaffolds that they can use to show and discuss their envisioned future with their colleagues.
4. Interactive Imagery
According to Suchman [29] people act within the concrete circumstances of their environment and in doing so, their plans evolve in an improvised manner, instead of executing an internally created ‘plan for action’. Given the task at hand, i.e. sketching a possible future at the cross-section of disciplines, our D&S studio needs to enhance this improvised exploration of a possible future. Next to using the concept of scaffolds in our platform, we make use of interactive imagery. Goldschmidt [11] introduced this concept in the realm of sketching (with paper and pen), but we consider it to be useful for any type of sketching, also sketching with scaffolds such as the Ideating in Skills set. Interactive imagery indicates that percepts arising from sketches can facilitate and amplify imagery. When interacting with pencil and paper and leaving traces behind on the paper with a beautiful ambiguity, the flow of thoughts can be stimulated. Or as Leonardo da Vinci pointed out, “confused things rouse the mind to new inventions” [12] and with these confused things he referred to the ambiguous character of sketches.
Consequently, our D&S studio stimulates ambiguity, openness and confusion in order to trigger imagination, storytelling and inviting people to ‘sketch’ a future. The ambiguity and openness stimulate people in their sensemaking process. The design of the tool supports this fleeting emergence of insight. We offer this in several ways. Firstly, we value the physicality as is, and do not try to digitally capture everything or refine the content. For example, we offer a box with materials, objects (the Ideating in Skills toolset) and snippets of white paper with pencils, to make scenarios with the objects, and add handwritten cards that give a personal character to the trace. Moreover, the collage of scaffolds, i.e. the traces of the overall encounter, is not a finished story. It is insightful for the participants but these insights cannot be transferred to others by simply showing the traces. Finally, the D&S studio offers different sets of Inspiration and Assessment (IA) cards. Each set consist of hundred small visually attractive cards (slightly smaller than credit cards), divided in different categories, such as people, products, consumables, environments, and abstract images [17], to trigger ones imagination.
5. Dialogical system
The engaging encounter revolve all around communication. Coming from an Embodied Cognition perspective “communication [. . .] is not the transmission of information but rather the co-ordination of behaviour between living organisms through mutual structural coupling [2, p. 46]. Coming from the world of linguistics, Steffensen [28] proposes a theory of dialogical systems, i.e. “systems of co-present human beings engaged in interactivity that bring forth situated behavioural coordination (or a communicative, structural coupling). […] The participants in the dialogical system act face-toface: they co-ordinate with each other, they co-adapt to each other, and they co-regulate their co-ordination and co-adaptation.” Also Sennett [26] introduces the concept of dialogic conversations, in which the discussion does not resolve itself by finding common ground or synthesis, but where curiosity sustains the cooperation and exchange of ideas based on empathy. The listener has to get out of his/her own perspective trying to understand the other, and through a process of social coordination become more aware of his/her own view and expand the understanding of each other and the situation. According to Steffensen [28] it is important for people to stay in dialogue and balance dialogical engagement and individual integrity, thus maintaining a multi-stable dialogical system.
Consequently, the platform is designed as a studio in which people can create and discuss in a face-to-face process, instead of only talking or transferring information e.g. via mail or webpages. It aims at triggering Sennett’s curiosity actively, tempting people to get out of ones comfort zone without loosing ones individual integrity, by offering a dedicated stage with scaffolds that can act as a trusted and safe environment to explore a potential future. This aspect of trust and safety starts already from the first moment of connection. So, from the first physical invitation for the encounter up to the final token of gratitude (the box with collected scaffolds), all designs and means of communication are designed to breath respect, care and preciousness by showing craftsmanship and eye for details in the designs and materials used (see figure 3).
Moreover, Sennett [26] indicates that sustained cooperation has been reached since ancient times through workshops. Consequently, we developed our D&S platform as a studio and workshop, where skills can be experienced and shared, and ideas can be explored. The D&S studio will consist of tools, such as Ideating in Skills and Engagement Catalysers [33] and the host invites the inspirators to bring along their tools, so they can both actively learn from each other.
6. 1st person perspective
Merleau-Ponty [25] showed that we do not perceive ourselves as one more object in the world; we perceive ourselves as the point of view from which we perceive objects in the world [32]. Consequently, we take a firstperson perspective towards designing and towards our D&S studio. Drew and Heritage [6] indicate that specific patterns in social systems influence the dialogical system. Consequently, interactional patterns in the dialogical system differ for example between intimate and more formalized social systems. So, a person will most likely communicate differently in an intimate setting with friends and family than in a formalized setting with colleagues and clients. Although the role of the inspirator is an important reason for meeting the person in the first place, it are his/her actual experience, point of view, skills, unspoken ideas and dreams etc. that brings the encounter and envisioned future beyond convention and obvious results. So, how to create engagement, empathy and maybe even intimacy?
In our previous research we have seen that exploiting bodily skills in a co-design process has a positively influence on engagement and cooperation. Bodily involvement of participants, e.g. by using bodystorms, tinkering sessions or choreographies of interaction during workshops, seem to elicit a direct engagement and a (pro)active, empathic and responsible attitude propelled by personal experiences. Bodily engagement seems to push participants away from the abstract towards concrete ideas. Moreover, bodily encounters seem to lower the threshold to merge the perspectives from people with different backgrounds [21, 31].
Consequently, the D&S studio facilitates physical encounters based on bodily skills, e.g. though scaffolds on the physical and socially situated stage, and through workshops by exploring each other’s tools and techniques.
7. Catalysing engagement
Exploiting bodily skills in a co-design process positively influence engagement and cooperation, which again is a reason for stressing the validity of taking a body-in-action perspective for TEI. This stimulated us a few years ago, to design tools to boost engagement at the beginning of multistakeholder design processes. These so-called Engagement Catalysers (ECs) are open tools without a predefined goal that serve as a means to physically connect strangers, and thus enhance engagement, empathy and respect.
We used our ECs in several workshops, in which the tools helped hundreds of participants from very different cultural and professional background, to get familiar and connected in a short period of time, and to inspire the design process [33]. The Catalysers have effect on the physical / emotional connection between people while drawing upon aspects such as surprise, fascination, amusement and admiration.
Consequently, the D&S studio consists of an EC especially developed for this setting with two persons. In order to get the host and the inspirator as quickly as possible engaged and working at an empathic level, every encounter starts with a brief introduction session using a variation of the EC “We feel like talking”, see figure 7. The participants physically interact through a sheet, while discussing which values drives them in their work and life.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have shown the design of a mobile design and sensemaking studio, through which we explore the consequences of phenomenology-inspired embodied theory. When designing face-to-face embodied sensemaking technology, we see seven design principles that can help the
TEI community to apply phenomenology-inspired
Figure 7: “We feel like talking’ makes use of little magnets connected to the fingers, through which two people can feel each other, but not see each other due to a aluminum sheet in between (top, designed by Master students Chris Gruijters, Janne van Kollenburg and Kevin Andersen).
embodied theory into practice: social situatedness, scaffolds, traces, interactive imagery, dialogical system, 1st person perspective and catalysing engagement. All the principles are based on eliciting sensorimotor couplings in order to support social coordination between participants. We are currently finalizing the development and first tests of our D&S studio, which has incorporated all seven design principles. As of January 2015, the first author will travel around the world with this studio, to envision and sketch a possible future at the cross-section of the disciplines of the host and the inspirator. That is also the moment that the proof of the pudding will be really in the eating, starting with several encounters at the TEI’15 conference. We hope that these encounters will help to explore the existing paradigms in the TEI community, and explore together the future of tangible, embedded and embodied interaction.
REFERENCES
1. Beer, R.D. (2008). Dynamical systems and embedded cognition. In: K. Frankish and W. Ramsey (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge: University Press.
2. Capra, F. (2002). The Hidden Connections. A Science for Sustainable Living. Harper Collins, London.
3. Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition : On human knowledge and computer representation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
4. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
5. De Jaegher, H. and Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485507.
6. Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
7. Dreyfus, H. (1996). The Current Relevance of MerleauPonty’s Phenomenology of Embodiment. In Haber and Weiss (eds), Perspectives on Embodiment. London: Routledge.
8. Dreyfus, H.L. (2002). Intelligence without representation: Merleau-ponty's critique of mental representation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1, 367-83
9. Dreyfus, H. Wrathall, M., Kelly, S., Carman, T., Haugeland, J., Thomson, I., Taylor, C. and Borgmann, A. (2010). Being in the world. In a film by Tao Ruspoli. Mangusta Productions.
10. Gibson, J.J. (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. London: Lawrence Erlbaum (reprinted in 1986).
11. Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialects of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4 (2), 123 – 143.
12. Gombrich, E.H. (1966). Leonardo’s method for working out compositions. Norm and form: studies in the art of the Renaissance. Oxford: Phaidon Press.
13. Goodwin (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of pragmatics, 32, 1489-1522.
14. Goodwin, C. (2003). The semiotic body in its environment. In: Coupland & Gwyn (Eds.), Discourses of the Body, 19-42. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.
15. Hornecker, E. and Buur, J. (2006). Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. Proc. of Human Factors in Comput. Sys. ‘06, Apr. 22-27, 437-446, New York: ACM.
16. Hornecker, E., Jacob, R., Hummels, C., Ullmer, B.,
Schmidt, A., Hoven, van den E. and Mazalek, A. (2008). TEI Goes On: Tangible and Embedded Interaction. In:
D. Hong (Ed.). IEEE Pervasive Computing, 7 (2), 91-96
17. Hummels, C.C.M (2004). Educating interaction, experience and diversity. In: The changing face of design education; Proceedings of the 2nd IEPDE Conference (Delft, NL, September 2-3), 247-254.
18. Ingold, T. (2008). When Ant Meets Spider. Social theory for arthropods. In: C. Knappett, L. Malafouris (eds.), Material Agency, 209-215.
19. Ishii, H. (2008). Tangible bits: beyond pixels. In
Proceedings of the 2nd int. TEI Conference (Bonn, Germany, February 18 - 20). New York: ACM, xv-xxv.
20. Ishii, H., Lakatos, D., Bonanni, L. and Labrune, J.B. (2012) Radical Atoms: Beyond tangible bits, toward transformable materials. Interactions 19(1).
21. Jaasma, Ph., Trotto, A. and Hummels, C. (2014).
Irresistible brushes or open stickies? Bodystorming vs. Brainstorming. In: Proceedings of DRS’14 (Umeå, Sweden, June 15-19).
22. Klemmer, S.R., Hartman, B. and Takayama, L. (2008) How bodies matter: five themes for interaction design. Proceedings of the 2nd int. TEI Conference (Bonn, Germany, February 18 - 20). ACM, New York.
23. Lave, J., (1988). Cognition in Practice. Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge University Press.
24. Matthews, E. (2006). Merleau Ponty. A guide for the perplexed, Continuum: London, UK.
25. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962) Phenomenology of Perception, trans. Colin Smith. New York: Humanities Press.
26. Sennett, R. (2012). Together. The rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation. London: Penguin Group
27. Solomon, C., Banerjee, A., Horn, M. (2014). Ultimate trainer: instructional feedback for ultimate frisbee players. Proc TEI 2014. ACM, New York, 137-140.
28. Steffensen, S.V. (2012). Care and conversing in dialogical systems. In: Language Sciences,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.langsci.2012.03.008
29. Suchman, L.A. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions 2nd expanded edition. New York and Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
30. Theraulaz & Bonabeau (1999). A brief history of stigmergy. Artificial Life, 5, 97-116.
31. Trotto (2011). Rights through Making. Doctoral dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology.
32. Trotto, A., Hummels, C. and Levy, P. (2012).
Developing a Kansei design approach to cater for ethics. In: Proceedings of KEER 2012 Conference (Penghu, Taiwan, May 22 – 25).
33. Trotto, A. & Hummels, C.C.M. (2013). Engage me, do! Engagement Catalysers to ignite a (design) conversation. In: Proc. of DPPI ‘13. (Newcastle, September 3-5), 136-145.
34. Van Dijk, J. (2013). Creating traces, sharing insight: explorations in embodied cognition design. Doctoral dissertation. Eindhoven University of Technology.
35. Van Dijk, J., Mousette, C., Kuenen, C.D. & Hummels, C.C.M. (2013). Radical Clashes: What Tangible
Interaction is Made of. In Proceedings of the 7th Int.
TEI’13 Conference. New York, USA: ACM, 323-326.
36. Van Dijk, J., Van der Lugt, R. and Hummels, C. (2014a). Beyond distributed representation: embodied cognition design supporting socio-sensorimotor
couplings. In: Proceedings of the 8th Int. TEI’14 Conference. New York, USA: ACM, 181-188
37. Van Dijk, J. & Mitchell, R. (2014b) Co-Embodied
Technology: A Design space for Human Being. TEI’14
WIP poster.Vygotsky, L. S. (1956). Thought and
Language. Cambridge (Mass): MIT Press
_and_south_elevations.jpg)
