Final Master Project process report by Elii Ecoo

FINAL MASTER PROJECT D O O R W IT H AN AT T I T U DE : E VA L U AT I N G A N ORGANI C USER I N T E R FA C E T HAT E X U D E S I NVI TAT I O N, P E R M I S S I O N O R R E S T R A I N T

M2.2 PROCESS REPORT ELENI ECONOMIDOU

Final Master Project Report Prepared for: Professor Matthias Rauterberg, Professor Bart Hengeveld Prepared by: Eleni Economidou, M2.2 Industrial Design student Submission Date: 16 June 2017 Student Number: 0978864

This document was submitted by Eleni Economidou (student no: 0978864) in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MSC in Industrial Design, Department of Industrial Design, Technical University of Eindhoven for the academic year of 2016-2017. Keywords: Actuated interfaces; Organic user interfaces; ShapeChanging Interfaces; Interactive Surfaces; Research through Design; Dynamic AďŹ&#x20AC;ordances; Dynamic Restraints;â&#x20AC;Š

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  Document Aims

Project Goals

The graduation project report at hand aims to

The goals of this project involve:

describe and rationalise through all steps and decisions that shaped the process and built up

i) Designing and building a shape-changing door prototype that, accordingly:

towards the end result of the Final Master Project and ensure that all the goals are met.

a) provides an inviting/nonthreatening invitation to ‘trespass’ a territory

Project Aim

b) permits ‘trespassing’ a territory c) reduces/prevents intrusion

This graduation project pursues a line of inquiry into the way an Organic User Interface(OUI) — in the form

ii) Evaluating the prototype through a final user study iii) Presenting the final results in an academic paper

of an actuated door— is experienced and test whether we hold the ability to perceive and correctly

format. Thus, this project is an attempt at expanding the

recognise the cues provided by the system in the form of Dynamic Affordances and Constraints.

current knowledge on the applications of shapechanging interfaces at a larger size than current explorations in the field. Document Outline The main body of this document covers and justifies the process undergone towards the completion of this project. Firstly, the final prototype and the products of this study are presented. Then, all the iterations, explorations and user studies that were implemented from the beginning of this project are mapped out and rationalised. Enjoy Reading!

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PERSONAL DRIVE

1.0 FINAL OUTCOMES

1.1 FINAL PROTOTYPE

1.1.1 SCENARIO 1

1.1.2 SCENARIO 2

1.1.3 SCENARIO 3

2.0 RESEARCH PROCESS

2.1 FMP PROPOSAL

2.2 RESEARCH QUESTION AND CONTEXT

2.3 FRAMEWORK

2.4 LITERATURE REVIEW + BENCHMARKING

2.5 RESEARCH APPROACH

3.0 DESIGN PROCESS

3.1 FIRST EXPLORATIONS

3.2 FIRST ITERATION

3.2.1 CONDITION STUDY & 1A USER STUDY SUMMARY

3.2.2 1B USER STUDY SUMMARY

3.3 FURTHER EXPLORATIONS

3.4 MECHANICS EXPLORATIONS

3.5 MECHANICS + ELECTRONICS INTEGRATION

3.5.1 MECHANICS + ELECTRONICS

45 5

3.6.1 EXTERNAL DESIGN - EXPLORATIONS

3.6.2 EXTERNAL DESIGN - DEVELOPMENT

3.6.3 EXTERNAL DESIGN - PATTERN GENERATION

3.7 FINAL ASSEMBLY

3.7.1 FINAL ASSEMBLY - PHASE 1

3.7.1 FINAL ASSEMBLY - PHASE 2

3.7.2 FINAL ASSEMBLY - PHASE 3

3.7.3 FINAL ASSEMBLY - PHASE 4

4.0 FINAL USER STUDY

4.1 FINDINGS + DISCUSSION

5.0 LIMITATIONS AND OBSTACLES

6.0 REFLECTION

7.0 APPENDICES

7.1 ARDUINO SKETCH CODE (C++)

7.2 ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL DRAWING

7.3 TEST 2A - QUALITATIVE DATA

7.4 TEST 2B - QUALITATIVE DATA

PERSONAL DRIVE

I initially became acquainted with the field of

Responsive environments are, essentially, physical

responsive/kinetic environments during my final years studying architecture. Fusions of design disciplines,

but dynamic spaces enhanced by ambient intelligence, e.g. sensors and actuators, to provide

such as dynamic environments that alter according to the user’s actions or other parameters, have —

with a novel, interactive and rich experience. Such environments are frequently encountered in the form

ever since — captured my interest.

of interactive art installations, “smart” home features, or adaptive furniture.

I actively researched on the topic of responsive environments last year (2016) during my second

Shape-changing interfaces are an under-explored

semester in the department of Industrial Design where I researched about an ambient kinetic display

area of research, especially when it comes to products and interfaces of a larger scale such as

that provided with cues on current weather conditions and how perceptible these cues were.

architectural features, i.e doors, walls, floors, ceilings. Since I am following the Constructive Design Research (CDR) track I am planning upon graduating to follow a career as a Design Researcher in the field of interactive environments, thus, researching this field could be valuable for my future development as a designer.

Figure 1. Design prototype close-up

1.0 FINAL OUTCOMES  The main product of a design research is the academic paper that reports the findings of the research. In this case, a final outcome was also the final design prototype (Figure 1) which was employed as an instrument of design knowledge enquiry1. Research Questions: RQ1: Can people perceive and interpret the cues provided by a Kinetic Organic Interface (KOI) of a large scale correctly? RQ2: How do people experience and accept a door with shape changing features? The final user study explored eight participants’ experiences of interacting with the actuated door panel prototype in 3 different scenario-cases and juxtaposed them with the experiences of eight other participants who interacted with a conventional door. The academic paper based on this study can be found in the link below: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvx6yap5k898sva/ Eleni_Economidou_M2.2_First_Deliverable.pdf?dl=0

David V. Keyson and Miguel Bruns Alonso. 2009. Empirical Research Through Design. In In'l Assoc. of Soc. of Design Res. Conf. (IASDR’09), Seoul: Design Research Society, 4548-4557. 1

Figure 1.1. The developed design prototypeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s states and its protocols through each scenario of use.

1.1 FINAL PROTOTYPE By redesigning a traditional threshold, such as doors, the notions of privacy and publicness are challenged, inhospitality and welcomeness, as well as, space flexibility and dynamics. Doors are an existing interface between the outside of the space they enclose and the indoors. Their simple design has remained relatively unaltered for centuries. Basic protocols regarding the state of the door (e.g. open, ajar or closed) communicate meaning regarding presence and availability to people outside in the outside. The protocols provided by a conventional door were matched to the three protocols of use of the high-fidelity working designed prototype. The function of the final prototype was demonstrated through 3 scenarios of use that utilised three protocols: a) providing a non-threatening invitation to ‘trespass’ a territory, b)giving permission to ‘trespass’ a territory, and c) reducing/preventing intrusion (Figure 2).

Initial State

Final State

Figure 1.1.1. Scenario 1. Prohobition. Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com 12

1.1.1 SCENARIO 1

Setting During the first scenario of use, the meeting room that the door prototype is enclosing is occupied. Any kind of interruption â&#x20AC;&#x201D; albeit how minor â&#x20AC;&#x201D; is unwanted. Entering is prohibited. Action An ultrasonic sensor attached on the door frame detects movement of people outside the room. If an individual steps closer to the door than twenty centimetres, the door panel extends concealing the door handle, indicating in effect that entering is prohibited.

â&#x20AC;Š

Initial State

Final State

Figure 1.1.2. Scenario 2. Permitting. Icons on the left Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.comÂ 14

1.1.2 SCENARIO 2

Setting During the second scenario of use, the meeting room that the door prototype is enclosing is occupied. Entering is permitted. Action An ultrasonic sensor attached on the door frame detects movement of people outside the room. If an individual steps closer to the door than twenty centimetres, the door panel extends slightly concealing the door handle, indicating in effect that entering is allowed but requires effort to grab the door handle.

â&#x20AC;Š

Initial State

Final State

Figure 1.1.3. Scenario 3. Inviting. Icons on the left made by Freepik from www.flaticon.comÂ 16

1.1.3 SCENARIO 3

Setting During the second scenario of use, the meeting room that the door prototype is enclosing is occupied. Entering is permitted. Action An ultrasonic sensor attached on the door frame detects movement of people outside the room. If an individual steps closer to the door than twenty centimetres, the door panel retracts revealing the door handle, indicating in effect that entering is encouraged.

Figure 2.0. Early project mind-map

2.0 RESEARCH PROCESS

Figure 2.0.1. Diagram of research process throughout the academic year

â&#x20AC;Š

Figure 2.1 Left: First Proposal Right: Updated Proposal.

2.1 FMP PROPOSAL  The start date of this project was unofficially the 15th of August where a collaboration for this Final Master Project was agreed between Jeroen Peters, a PhD student at the Interactive Institute in Umeå, Ambra Trotto, the director of the institute, and me. A collaboration was agreed on the basis of providing a framework for a constructive design research investigation within the home environment and potentially an internship at the Interactive Institute. The three design briefs that all parties agreed upon was constructed on the 12th ofSeptember 2016 and can be found here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/e0z3sdhwljj3d69/ Draft_FMP_briefs_Eleni_Economidou.pdf?dl=0 Unfortunately, the first submitted proposal was deemed too complex to implement further, so the collaboration was terminated. The first FMP proposal can be found here: https:// w w w. d r o p b o x . c o m / s / q o 8 v 5 u d i q 0 m b t l s / FMP_proposal_eleni_Economidou_updated.pdf?dl=0

The report at hand reports the process of a project whose proposal was submitted on the 29th of November 2016. The project’s subject was provided by Matthijs Kwak, a PhD student of the ID department specialising in shape-changing technologies. The document of the updated proposal can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4c3l20urrpbxp8y/ FMP_revised_proposal_Eleni_Economidou.pdf?dl=0

2.2 RESEARCH QUESTION AND CONTEXT  Problem definition

The door is one of the architectural elements/

Even though, shape-changing interfaces and their

surfaces that we interact most frequently with. It is already a moving structure that has the double

applications are rapidly evolving, our understanding of the design space of such technology is still quite

function of either allowing or blocking someone’s entry in an enclosing space, making it one of the first

limited. Furthermore, current knowledge on the experience of shape-changing interfaces is still at an

points of interaction with a space.

infancy stage. The Industrial Design department of the Eindhoven University of Technology is one of the

Project Scope Through different behaviours, a shape-changing

pioneering higher institution departments in the field of shape-change which makes it an ideal

threshold could potentially express the current state of the spaces the individual enters. The door will

environment to pursue such a research.

function as a means to explore the user’s experiences in a dynamic environment, instead of a

Related research

static one, as well as a way to explore how shapechanging technologies could enhance daily life.

As mentioned, research in the shape-changing technologies field is still limited. Further review of the related literature in the field of shape-change

Spatial Context Reasoning

revealed that research expands to applications on a small scale, such as handheld devices.

An interior door acting as a threshold of a social shared space environment in a private or semi-

Research question

private setting such as an academic institution establishments, office buildings, communal areas

Q1: Can a door structure communicate information to people through shape-change?

instead of a was chosen due to the frequency of interaction

Q2: Can people perceive and interpret correctly the cues that a shape-changing door communicates?

I selected the door element as a responsive shape-changing surface due to: • Scale of surface • Frequency of interaction. • Experts within the department work on such an application.

Q3: How do people experience a shape-changing door?

2.3 FRAMEWORKâ&#x20AC;Š

The shape-changing features of the prototype follow an indirect interaction principle where shape-change occurs based on implicit input (room occupancy, userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs) and has direct output (shape-change). The design prototype follows a framework of behaviour, inspired by the framework designed by Tromp et al 1, where the device illustrates 4 different behaviours (Figure). In order to follow a structure I decided that the probe prototype that was going to be tested would demonstrate the following behaviours. Device Behaviours a) device as a facilitator (door enabling trespassing) seductive design b) device as a nudging device (door gives a cue on the state of the room) - persuasive design c) device as a trouble maker (door acts in a coercive manner preventing trespassing) -coercive design

Figure 2.3. Visual of behaviour framework.

Nynke Tromp, Paul Hekkert, and Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2011. Design for socially responsible behavior: a classification of influence based on intended user experience. Design Issues, 27(3), 3-19. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00087 1

â&#x20AC;Š

Figure 2.4. Initial Benchmarking Figure Sources: 1- Thrifty Faucet - Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org 10.1145/1517664.1517680 2 - LivingSurface- Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2839462.2839469 3 - UniMorph - Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2807442.2807472 4 - Transform, MIT Media Lab. Retrieved from: https://vimeo.com/91406395 5 - Translated Geometries - Retrieved from: https://vimeo.com/100694919 24 6 - Lineform - Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2807442.2807452

2.4 LITERATURE REVIEW + BENCHMARKING

In order to familiarise myself with the body of work on shape-changing interfaces and responsive surfaces, and the theories that shaped the final study of the research (Figure) and get an overview on the different perspectives, I have researched the background theories and the Related Research and Design (benchmarking). The review can be found in the submitted academic paper under headings: Theoretical Background and Related Research and Design. It was observed that research on shape-changing interfaces takes a technical view and rarely touches upon aspects such as psychological effects. Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s where, in my belief, there is a gap that could be bridged through researching how people experience devices with shape-changing features.

2.5 RESEARCH APPROACHâ&#x20AC;Š Since I have chosen to follow the Constructive Design Research Track I employed a research-through-design approach. The main outcomes out of this approach are research prototypes and the theoretical frameworks that define them. The objective of this combination is the generation of new knowledge while promoting the employment of technological design in a societal context1. Application Since the research question has to do with a certain technology being applied in order to solve a practical problem; accessibility or privacy to an interior space, this study follows the structure of an Applied research. Objective The research objective is to explore a new application area for shape-changing interfaces. Therefore, the approach that I am followed is Constructive Design Research. Research Method Since the main research questions are seeking fir both qualitative and quantitative data I have decided to employ mixed methods to get the relevant answers.

Constructive Design Research. Industrial Design. Technical University Eindhoven. 2016. https://www.tue.nl/en/education/tue-graduate- school/ masters-programs/industrial-design/ tracks/constructive-design-research/ 1

Figure 3.0. Laser-cut panel - structure removal

3.0 DESIGN PROCESS

â&#x20AC;©

Figure 3.1. Visual of Design Process

Figure 3.1.1. Pressure-cooker on shape-changing surfaces

DOOR - DANCER EXPERIMENT WITH DOOR-PROBE EXPERIENTIAL PROTOTYPE

Figure 3.1.2. Early scenarios of use 30

3.1 FIRST EXPLORATIONS Pressure cooker Since I am aware that one of my weaknesses is getting started on the making part of the design process, I decided that I will follow the pressure cooker method (Figure 3.1.1) for my first iteration to start exploring how to change the shape of a flat surface. A short description and a demonstrative video can be found in the following link: https://youtu.be/ PDMnJDeMcC8 Learning outcomes The outcome of the pressure cooker was an exploration of materials that can change shape. I have decided to follow a type of shape-changing technology that changes the shape of a surface by morphing through a mechanic way. Scenarios Scenarios of use (Figure3.1.2) were constructed in order to define the context of the 1st iteration (explained in more detail in the FMP proposal document). Learning outcomes A fusion of principles used in both scenarios such as affordance visibility or disappearance of affordance using the door knob, were used as guidelines in the first iteration.â&#x20AC;Š

Figure 3.2. First iteration experiential prototype during first preliminary user study

3.2 FIRST ITERATION Iterationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Goal The main aim of the experiment was to gain enough/ significant insights that back up the research question with an indication/s of a valuable answer in order for this research project to proceed to the technology implementation stage. Decisions Reasoning This experiment was inspired by the Light Dancer experiment by Philip Ross for the purpose of investigating how to design intelligent products and systems to elicit values in Aesthetic Interaction through Dynamic Form, a design language for behaviour. Fleur Leloup, a professional dancer, agreed to collaborate with me and enacting six different behaviours on an experiential prototype. The behaviours were enacted on a door which its entire door panel is made out of flexible fabric material (lycra double lined with a spongy material in between). The dynamic form of the door allowed for the dancer to experiment within the given framework of behaviours (Figure 3.2.1).

Figure 3.2.1. Behaviour Framework

â&#x20AC;Š

INVITING

In a seductive way

In a nudging way

In a coercive way

Dynamic Affordance Appearing handle Rotation

Cues pointing towards the door handle affordance

Door handle pushing outwards when hand is approaching to allow for extra affordance

UNINVITING

In a seductive way

In a nudging way

In a coercive way

Visible Dynamic Constraint - Disappearing handle

2 door handle 34 affordances

2 door handles that move chaotically

3.2.1 CONDITION STUDY & 1A USER STUDY SUMMARY Condition Study and Results

Results/Learning Points

A condition group study was conducted to compare the findings of study 1A and B. The analysed data

This user study has provided with some preliminary insights into how people react when they encounter

can be found on the appendix section of this document (digital version).

a large scale Kinetic Organic user Interface (KOI), in this case, an interior door. Following the data

Condition Study Results Results indicate that the participants found all

analysis, it was possible to identify recurrent themes that can serve as trajectories for future research.

behaviours to be Unwelcome and experienced the door mostly negatively (high Negative Affect scores)

From the results the conclusions that were deduced are: •

coercive shape-change is mostly perceived as an uninviting cue even if its meant to be inviting.

This user study took place as supplementary research material in the form of empirical data to

•

The more drastic the shape-change, the more eager the participants are in interacting.

provide with indications onL • a) the ability of individuals to distinguish

•

Individuals might be able to distinguish among an invitation to trespass through seductive

1A Findings Expectations

•

between an inviting, a nudging and a discouraging behaviour to

design, a permission to enter through persuasive design and a restriction of trespassing through

‘trespass’ through a shape-changing door (Figure).

coercive design. The experienced behaviours were encountered,

•

b) how the participants’ overall experience with such a design product.

in most cases, with positivity. A more detailed overview of the setup of the user study can be found in the previous version of this document: https://www.dropbox.com/s/if7iln8vzdn02l9/Report%20m21.pdf? dl=0

Figure 3.2.2. First iteration experiential prototype during second preliminary user study

3.2.2 1B USER STUDY SUMMARY Aim of a second user study

Results

Limitations occur in all researches, let alone when it

The results of 1B User Study indicated that there was no change between the reactions of the participants whether the probe was an openable door panel or a fixed one.

comes to a master individual study were the data is coded and analysed by the student and the themes that emerge out of the analysis are identified by the same person. Indisputably, these themes as well as

The analysed data can be found in the appendix section of this document (digital version).

the discussion that follows the analysis has to be and was discussed with the supervisor of this study. This

From the results the conclusions that were deduced

allowed for uniformity during the process of the research but lacked in reaching a holistic conclusion

are: • coercive shape-change is mostly perceived as

from a multitude of perspectives.

•

The main experiment, even though well-structured, had technical limitations in terms of the functionality

an uninviting cue even if its meant to be inviting. People in general did not attempt to open the door panel (two out of eight) even though it was possible.

of the door-probe. The door did not function as a door in terms of being openable. This was tackled by a second pilot where the experiential probe was functional/openable. The User Study was performed under a different setting (Metaforum Library at TU/e campus) with 8 different participants picked at random. The 1B study replicated study 1A as much as possible.

Seductive Influence Based on Intended User Experience Weak and Implicit

Coercive Influence Based on Intended User Experience Strong and Explicit

Figure sources: 1. WRAP UK. 2017. How to Recycle at Work | Wrap.org.uk. http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/how-recycle-work (accessed 2017). 2. Tromp, Nynke, Paul Hekkert, and Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2011.   Design for socially responsible behavior: a classification of influence based on intended user experience.   Design Issues, 27(3), 3-19. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00087 Coffee machine placed in the hallway of a company. Photo: Nynke Tromp. 3. Karin Ehrnberger and Loove Broms, 2007. Puzzle Switch,RISE Interactive, http://www.tii.se/groups/energydesign/press (accessed 2017). 4. Road Humps - Road Humps, Traffic Safety, - manufacturers. Cormsquare.com, 2017.   https://cormsquare.com/Traffic-Safety/Road-Humps/27727/Road-Humps (accessed 2017). 5. B.J. Fogg. 2003. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change what We Think and do.   Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA. 6. Matthias Laschke, Sarah Diefenbach, Thies Schneider, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2014. Keymoment: initiating behavior change through friendly friction. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (NordiCHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 38 853-858. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2670179

3.3 FURTHER EXPLORATIONS  Search and Analysis

In order to scope down the way that the final door prototype would behave, I performed a small search and analysed how seductive and coercive design are used in everyday products to guide humans towards eliciting the desired behaviour.

ADDING/SUBTRACTING

COERCIVE DESIGN DOOR SURFACE

FORM

• An example of seductive influence is a coffee machine placed in the hallway of a company (Figure ). The coffee machine acts as a gathering spot and elicits social behaviour. • An example of coercive influence are road humps (Figure). They act as speed regulators forcing the drivers to slow down speed before passing over them. Ideation1 The analysis exercise provided with some valuable insights that were utilised during the ideation phase. The ideation phase was divided into categories based on the shape-change typologies2 coined by Rasmussen et al. (2012) and on the context of the shape -change (door handle v whole door panel).

DOOR HANDLE

SEDUCTIVE DESIGN ADDING/SUBTRACTING

Decision and Reasoning I decided that I would utilise a combination of change in form and change in terms of abstraction/subtraction (Figure) since they combined the notion of Dynamic Affordances and Constraints which was an interesting theory to explore in an architectural scale. 1

FORM

Further ideation examples can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hk8ten9t9gz5nmo/Ideation.pdf?dl=0 2 Majken K. Rasmussen, Esben W. Pedersen, Marianne G. Petersen,   and Kasper Hornbæk. 2012. Shape-Changing Interfaces:   A Review of the Design Space and Open Research Questions.   In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in   Computing Systems (CHI ’12), 735–744.   https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207781 39

DOOR HANDLE

DOOR SURFACE

Figures: 1,2,3. Linkage length explorations through foam board modelling 4. Rhinoceros 3D exploratory technical model 5,6. foam model explorations of scissor mechanisms

3.4 MECHANICS EXPLORATIONS External Input, Search, and Analysis In order to get an overview of the way that I could achieve shapechange of a door surfaceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s form through abstraction/subtraction that would in effect result in concealing or revealing the door handle (Figure 7), I arranged a Skype meeting with a Mechanical Engineer acquaintant, specialised in home automations, to enquire which type of mechanism would be the most feasible,

Door handle

effective and suitable to use. Following his instructions on selecting a retracting and suspending mechanism in the form of a pantograph and research in the field of mechanics, I performed an exploration exercise to put into practice what I learned and decide after I had something tangible to compare to. Explorations and Decision One of the most efficient ways to extend and suspend anything is through a linkage system. After experimentation of various linkage types through physical and digital models (Figures 1-4), the most

Actuated door panel

suitable linkage that would require the least force to have the maximum extension and suspension was the pantograph linkage system in the form of a scissor lift mechanism (Figures 5 and 6). â&#x20AC;Š

Figure 7. Concept Section diagram

3.5 MECHANICS + ELECTRONICS INTEGRATION Integration Explorations and Decision Following the mechanical explorations, I decided to begin integrating both mechanic and electronic components. The electronic component that was used was a push-pull solenoid valve due to the fact that they are relevantly less noisy than other forms of actuation (pneumatic, hydraulic, rotary or linear motors). Reflection on Limitations After four different time-consuming iterations with the combination of two different push-pull solenoid valves (Small and large) with 10 mm throw each, I concluded that the force from both solenoids was very low to push the weight of the scissor mechanism. The small solenoid valve (Figure 3) had 5 Newton (N) starting force while the large one(Figures 4 and 5 ) had 12N, both too weak to push a large construction. Therefore, I decided reject the use of a solenoid valve and purchased an electric linear actuator instead; which could handle more weight.â&#x20AC;Š

Figures: 1. Model of a scissor mechanism lasercut on 3mm mdf and assembled. 2. Model of a scissor mechanism lasercut on 3mm clear perspex with a solenoid mount integrated and assembled. 3. Small push-pull solenoid 12V attached on scissor mechanism, configured to work with Arduino Uno micro-controller. 4. Large push-pull solenoid attached on scissor mechanism. 43 5. Large push-pull solenoid attached on scissor mechanism with smaller extension arms. 6. Model of a scissor mechanism lasercut on 3mm clear perspex with smaller extension arms.

Figures: 1. Scissor mechanism extension arms in stainless steel. 2.Top Left: Soldering wires of actuator, Top Right: relay module wire configuration, Bottom Left: circuit configuration. 3.Model of the mechanism and actuator assembly, designed in Autodesk Fusion 360. 4. Mechanism in context, axonometric generated from Autodesk Fusion 360. 5. Linear actuator extending and retracting attached on the scissor lift mechanism. 6. Assembly consisted of ultrasonic sensor 44and the actuated mechanism.

3.5.1 MECHANICS + ELECTRONICSâ&#x20AC;Š Actuator Technical Details A linear actuator (GLA200 12VDC) with 100mm

Mechanics and Electronics Assembly Figure illustrates the stainless steel extension arms of

throw and 200N/20kg force, out of aluminium & zinc plated steel, weighing 820g, was purchased by

the scissor lift mechanism. The arms were assembled together by metal tubes, threaded rods

Gibson Robotics (UK)1 (Figure). The linear actuator posed a quieter option than others (< 50dB under

(M3) and nuts (Figures 3 and 5). The tip of the linear actuator was attached onto one

no-load, < 53dB under full-load), yet, it was much more powerful than a solenoid valve.

of the rods of the scissor lift mechanism (Figure 5). A plate out of wood and metal was attached on the

Relay Module In order to control the actuator electronically, I

other end of the scissor mechanism to extrude over the door handle and hide it. The entire assembly was

purchased a two channel relay module2 (Figure 2) since the actuator had only a power (+) and a ground

designed in detail with a 3d modelling software, Autodesk Fusion 360 in order to figure out the exact

(-) cable. The relay mode uses the input current to power an electromagnet. The electromagnet retracts

placement of each component (Figure 4). Circuit programming

the switch from one position to the next one, allowing higher power currents on the other side of

Following the assembly of the mechanism, I connected the relay module and an ultrasonic sensor

the relay to flow. Hence, a small powered circuit of 5V (Arduino micro-controller) can control a large

(measuring distance) on the micro controller (Arduino Uno). The electronic circuit was

power circuit of 12V (actuator control)3. By switching the relay module on and off the actuator can be

programmed and tested (Figure 6). When the sensor detected movement, the linear actuator was

controlled electronically.

activated and retracted (programming code can be found in the Appendix section 7.1 of this document).â&#x20AC;Š

GLA200 12V DC Small-Sized Linear Actuator, High Speed. 2017. Gimson Robotics | The linear actuator and electric motor specialist. Gimsonrobotics.co.uk, 2017. https://gimsonrobotics.co.uk/categories/linear-actuators/products/gla200-12v-dc-small-linear-actuator 2 5V relais 2-channel laag-actief. 2017. TinyTronics. https://www.tinytronics.nl/shop/nl/diversen/relais/5v-relais-2-channel-laag-actief 3 Using Relay Boards to Control Linear Actuators. 2016. Progressive Automations. http://www.instructables.com/id/Using-Relay-Boards-to-Control-Linear-Actuators/ 1

3.6.1 EXTERNAL DESIGN - EXPLORATIONS Kerf Patterns; Search and Analysis In order to figure out a way to construct an external cover for the actuated door panel which would as flexible as possible, I researched the ways to transform a rigid panel into a flexible one. I came across kerf bending patterns; repeated geometric patterns cut onto thin plates of wood (usually mdf) using a laser cutter. Three different patterns were designed, laser-cut and tested both in terms of flexibility (Figure1) and their ability to allow an object to pass through a horizontal opening (if the door handle could pass through) (Figure 2). Deduction I observed that the kerf patterns, albeit flexible (especially the spiral one), they were too fragile under stress and snapped. Therefore, I decided to keep change course and ask a colleague (Sanda Timus) who constructed flexible prototypes by adhering stretchable fabric onto laser cut how to tackle this problem. I decided to explore the possibilities of an outer cladding material out of stretchable fabric where the door handle could easily pass through giving the impression of a door that conceals and reveals the possibility to enter a space.

Figures: 1. Kerf bending patterns lasercut on 2mm mdf. From left to right: rectangular pattern, rhomboid pattern, spiral pattern. 2. Kerf bending patterns lasercut on 2mm mdf. From top to bottom: living 47 hinge pattern, circular pattern, rhomboid pattern. 3. Stretchable fabric with a horizontal cut letting through a steel door handle.

â&#x20AC;¨

Figures: 1. Laser-cut pattern on 3.6mm soft plywood, adhered on black stretchable fabric. 2. Close-up of laser-cut pattern. 48 3. Laser-cut triangle pattern designed in Adobe Illustrator. 4,5,6. Fabric with attached laser-cut pattern fixed on a door panel with door handle sliding through.

3.6.2 EXTERNAL DESIGN - DEVELOPMENTâ&#x20AC;Š Decisions and Reflection

Following the material exploration, I decided to pick a geometric form and test out adhering a laser-cut timber panel on stretchable fabric. The geometric pattern that I chose was a triangular one made out of

equilateral triangles (Figure), designed in Adobe Illustrator. Holes were added in an attempt to sew the triangular pieces on the fabric; an activity deemed too timeconsuming and inefficient to attempt. As seen in Figures 4, 5, and 6, this exploration was considered successful, since, it was tested placed on a door panel and the expansion of the fabric allowed for the door handle to slide through the small, horizontal opening smoothly. However, the movement did not seem as organic as wanted considering triangles are one of the most rigid shapes. Digital Development In order to create a pattern that was more organic and gradually expanded to the area of the door handle, I decided to utilise the Grasshopper plugin for Rhinoceros 3D; a visual programming language specialised in building generative algorithms. Figures A-B illustrate experimentation with squares and hexagons, while figures D-F show gradual change in size of a triangular pattern.â&#x20AC;Š 49

â&#x20AC;Š

Figures: 1. Voronoi pattern generated through Grasshopper plugin for Rhino. 2. Adjusted Voronoi pattern to fit triangular pattern on door panel. 3. Grasshopper expression, algorithm generator. 50 4. Generated Voronoi pattern.

3.6.3 EXTERNAL DESIGN - PATTERN GENERATION     Pattern Generation Procedure 5

After the fabric tests, I decided not to cover the whole door with fabric but, instead, use two rigid panels (triangular pattern), one on the top of the door and one on the bottom to prevent the fabric from sagging. In the middle part where the actuated was going to be placed, I decided to use an aforementioned organic pattern. Following some experimentation with the Grasshopper software, I decided to the use Computational Geometry, specifically, a Voronoi pattern. Voronoi diagrams are frequently found in nature; are made out of partitioning of a plane into regions. Through selecting the area of interest and

with the help of a Voronoi component a pattern was generated(Figure1-3). The pattern (Figure 2) was

Figures: 5. Six laser-cut plywood panels, 1,5mm thickness size: 40cmx70cm. 6. Front side of door handle panel. 7. Covering laser-cut plates in masking tape.

adjusted and corrected in Adobe Illustrator so that the triangular pattern meets the voronoi pattern gradually and seamlessly, a 2mm gap structure was added among all shapes and, then, it I sent the file to be laser-cut (by d-search team) on six 1,5mm thick plywood panels of with dimensions 70cm x 40cm. The panels were taped on mdd 3mm panels so that no pieces would be lost during transport.  51

3.7 FINAL ASSEMBLY This section describes how all the components making up the prototype were assembled.

The configuration of the final construction is illustrated in Figures 3.7.0. and 3.7.1.â&#x20AC;Š

Figure 3.7.1. Technical Drawing of the assembly in detail - NE view. 52 Made in Autodesk Fusion 360, Rhinoceros 3D and Adobe Illustrator.

â&#x20AC;Š

Figure 3.7.0. Technical Drawing of Exploded Isometric - NE view. Made in Autodesk Fusion 360, Rhinoceros 3D and Adobe Illustrator.

â&#x20AC;©

3.7.1 FINAL ASSEMBLY - PHASE 1 Construction Procedure Door Handle Installation (Figure 1)

Mount Construction (Figures 4 and 5)

Due to time constraints, I decided not to construct a door panel from scratch. Instead I purchased one from the local hardware store with dimensions 201,5cm x 80cm along with a set of door handles and a latch system. I measured, drilled and installed the latch and then I aligned, drilled holes and installed the door handle.

In order to fix the whole mechanism (actuator attached on a scissor lift mechanism) onto the door, I constructed a mount out of four plates of hard plywood (9mm thick) which I cut, stack together, sanded and adhered with wood glue. I fastened the linear actuator and the scissor lift mechanism on the mount with metal plates and screws.

Mechanism Installation (Figure 2)

Integration on Door Panel (Figure 6)

In order to integrate the mechanism on the door panel I saw with an electric jigsaw a hole at a distance of 10cm from the door handle.

• Firstly, the mount was attached on the door so that the scissor mechanism could extend through it.

Plate Construction (Figure 3)

• With the use of a level, a drill and screws the mount was fixed on the back side of the door so that the scissor lift mechanism extend through the door panel.

I designed and cut a metal and a wooden plate with a hole in the middle for the door handle and then drilled and fixed them together using bolts and nuts (M4).

• Metal plates on both sides and long bolts (M6), safety washers, and nuts kept everything in place. • The front plate was fixed on the scissor mechanism using metal angle mounts, bolts, washers and nuts.  55

â&#x20AC;©

3.7.1 FINAL ASSEMBLY - PHASE 2â&#x20AC;Š Construction Procedure Structure Removal (Figure 1)

Wood Treatment (Figures 2 and 3)

In order to ensure that the laser-cut pattern was going to be glued with the same distance between each piece, I taped all laser-cut patterns on covering one side and then carefully removed the structure in between the pieces. Then, the triangular pieces were covered in wood glue and placed on two 3mm thick plywood panels of 70cm x 80cm, priorly painted black (Figure). For the middle part with the Voronoi pattern, I followed the same procedure but adhered the pieces onto a thin, black, stretchable fabric.

To achieve a wood finish as smooth as possible, I first sanded the panels by hand with a sandpaper of 80 and 120 grit size and then sanded the panels with an electric sander with sandpapers of 240 and 600 size. Panel Mounting (Figure 4) The 3 panels where mounted on the door panel using wood-glue, screws and a drill. Firstly, the fabric surface was placed and then, the two rigid panels were placed on top of it to keep it in place on the door panel.

Wood Finish (Figure 5) For the finish, I waxed the whole door panel twice using a hard-wax oil in silk matt using a sponge. â&#x20AC;Š

Figure 6. Plywood panels, 3mm thick, 70cm x 80cm, painted black.

3.7.2 FINAL ASSEMBLY - PHASE 3 Door and Frame Assembly

Electronic equipment management

Carving Door Frame (Figures 1 and 2)

Electronics Encasement (Figures 4 and 5)

The door frame had to be marked and carved with a chisel in order to make space for the hinges of the door. This was a long process and required precision.

The electronics were placed in a custom made case which was laser cut on a 2mm clear perspex. The Arduino microprocessor was placed next to the relay module and next to the relay module three buttons were encased. The three buttons were programmed firstly to Stop, Extend and Retract the actuator and then they were programmed according to the three scenarios of use.

Cutting the Door Panel (Figures 3 and 4) The edge of the door panel had to be cut as well (2mm in depth) in order for the door hinge to match the one of the frame and to minimise the gap between the door and the frame.

Electronics Mount (Figure 6) The electronics case was then screwed onto the back of the door panel, above the mechanism and in a height that was out of reach for most.â&#x20AC;Š

â&#x20AC;Š 4

â&#x20AC;©

60 6

3.7.3 FINAL ASSEMBLY - PHASE 4  Final Touches Fastening Electronics (Figure 1) I used black cable wall clips which I hammered on the frame in order to affix the cable of the ultrasonic sensor around the door structure. Door Frame Finish (Figure 2) The door frame was sanded and then covered to protect the door panel. The frame was painted with a semi-glossy black acrylic paint. Safety Casing (Figures 3 and 4) In order to ensure the safety of people who would observe the prototype up close, I manufactured an acrylic enclosure with rounded edges. I measured and cut the acrylic panel, sanded the edges and sand-blasted one of it’s sides to get a matt result to prevent people’s curiosity. The panel was bended and fastened with screws on the back side of the prototype, over the actuator and the scissor lift mount. Final Result (Figures 5 and 6) In Figure 5, the back side of the door prototype is shown. The final prototype as it was presented during Demoday is shown in Figure 6.

P1: ’It seems pretty cool, if there is no door handle nobody will try and open’. P3: ’cool concept […] it’s quite clear. The movement is pretty unexpected…a bit aggressive in action’. P4: ’[…] in pubic spaces or the library is open or if the store is open […] it’s not more or less secure than an ordinary door. With this design it is easy to understand if I am welcome or not.’.

P7: ’Its a really nice concept. It looks fragile. The execution is really nice as a proof of concept.[…]Initially would be good if there is a display added to explain or lights. ’. 62

Figure 4.0. Photograph taken during Final User Study

4.0 FINAL USER STUDYâ&#x20AC;Š Study and Data Collection method The study follows a triangular mixed methods approach based on quantitative surveys (User Experience Questionnaire and PANAS Scales) coupled with qualitative data in the form of intercept interviews (Appendix 7.3.1 and 7.3.2). The data was gathered in parallel and analysed at the same level in order to answer the Research Questions.

and 10 male candidates. In terms of gender, 4 male and 4 female individuals formed the control group (test A), while 6 male and 2 female individuals formed the study group (test B). Conditions An A/B testing was employed in order to compare the two versions of a variable, in this case, a conventional interior door and the constructed door prototype. Eight individuals participated in each test; for the A test the participants were the control group and were asked to interact with an ordinary door panel, while, for the B test the participants were the study group and were asked to interact with the designed DwA prototype.

Participants and Conditions Sampling strategy The population group that the sample is representative of, is one that is capable of using doors, therefore quite broad. A non-probability sampling technique, and more specifically, a purposive sampling technique was utilised. The type of sampling was homogeneous since the condition for the sample was that that the participants experienced the same object (doors) in their everyday life. The sample size consisted of 16 individuals who were selected at random out of a pool of 639 members and were not acquainted with the researcher. It is worth mentioning that the type of the sample is qualitative since the aim was rich data instead of quantity.

Procedure The final study took place at a controlled conditions private residence where only the researcher and one participant were present at each test. Each of the tests had a total duration of approximately half an hour. Each of the participants experienced the conventional door or the door prototype through three different scenarios which the researcher presented at a randomised order. The first one portrayed a situation where the room that the participant was attempting to open was occupied. The second scenario depicted a situation in which the room that the participant was attempting ti enter was occupied yet still accessible. The third scenario presented the participants a situation where the room they were attempting to enter was vacant. Debriefing followed after each test session.â&#x20AC;Š

Basic Demographics In terms of age, the participants varied both within Test A and B as well as in comparison between the two tests (Figure 3). In terms of gender, the sample in total consisted of 6 female

â&#x20AC;Š

Figure 4.1. Photograph taken during Demo day

4.1 FINDINGS + DISCUSSION

Discussion

Summary of Findings: • There was significant diﬀerence in most values between Test A and Test B for the first and third scenario. Albeit, the second scenario did not significantly vary from Test A to Test B apart from the Novelty value.

With regard to the second scenario the participants mentioned that the movement of the panel was too subtle to notice compared to the protocols that the door followed during the first and third scenario. This is reflected in the UEQ results considering the second scenario for test B.

• Scenario 2 was falsely identified in test B and Scenario 3 was falsely identified in scenario A. Both were perceived as unwelcoming cues.

Thus, the results indicate that a cue is perceived the most when the shape-change of the door panel is prominent; it either invites or prevents intrusion.

• Through comparison between test A and B it was evident, through the PANAS scale data analysis, that Test B had a more positive eﬀect on the participants.

The overall experience of the participants was positive regarding the experience of the experiential prototype, yet, participants reacted negatively when encountering a conventional door. This opens up discussion regarding the novelty effect of the prototype. Participants reported the third scenario they encountered as a foreseeable action; a claim that leads to the conclusion that the participants were able to predict the behaviour of the door after their first or second encounter with it proving that there was indeed a novelty effect that was worn off during the test.

• Referring back to the second research question, the overall remark is that for test B the experience was reported as positive and comprehensible while for test A the experience was negative and incomprehensible. • When it comes to Test B and the falsely identified Scenario 2, it can be indeed observed that the participants reported Incomprehension, Hesitation and Confusion.

An more extensive view on the findings and the discussion can be found on the paper submission of this study: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvx6yap5k898sva/

• It is worth to mention that one of the emerged themes for test B was Foreseeable Action.

Eleni_Economidou_M2.2_First_Deliverable.pdf?dl=0

â&#x20AC;Š

Figure 5.0. Prototype with suspended panel

5.0 LIMITATIONS AND OBSTACLES User Study Limitations

Large Prototype Manufacturing Limitations

Approach Limitations One of the laboratory approach strengths is that tests and phenomena can be performed and observed without distraction from external factors. However, this very same isolation from the natural environment and the controlled setting can be a limitation in the sense that different results might occur when external factors enter the equation. The results from a laboratory approach are replicable however; a similar controlled setting has to be used. Objective Limitations Another limitation with regard to the user study, which is worth mentioning, was the objective of test A. Requesting from individuals to rate an everyday object â&#x20AC;&#x201D;such as a door, whose design remained relatively unaltered for centuriesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; which they use intuitively daily having an imaginary scenario to enact proved to be a challenging task. A follow-up study could resolve these limitations through a field approach.

The completion of a large fully functional frictionless prototype is an extremely time-consuming and quite challenging task. There is a number of considerations that have to be taken into account. Weight of mechanism Weight is a great limitation when mechanisms are not placed on a horizontal plane. Gravity acts as an extra force fulling all components downwards. If the mechanism is placed vertically, its weight of the should be taken into account before the construction phase. Weight of Door Panel Indoor doors have a certain weight limit. When that limit is crossed, the hinges cannot lift the load and the door panel hits the ground preventing the door from opening. Caution before construction and enforcement of the door hinges can avert such mishaps. Transportation Large structures require special processes to be transported. Most often, I had to take the frame apart of transport components one by one. Safety Considerations When designing large structures safety must be an aspect to be considered early on. For this construction I had to take measures to prevent finger entrapment and inclination of the whole prototype. Fabrication Designing large prototypes is one thing but construction is another. Two of the many limitations were that a standard laser cutter machine can not cut pieces larger than 40 cm x 70cm and the maximum plate of a standard CNC machine does not exceed 100cm x 70xm.

sometimes was somewhat difficult to approach strangers, it was rewarding to observe their reactions about an artefact that I had fabricated. It is the users that made this whole study possible. The results of the first study indicated a direction towards a second User Study with a functioning prototype.

6.0 REFLECTION Integration of Expertise Areas Math, Data & Computing One of my personal goals for this project was to gain experience in computational design and fabrication. With the aid of online tutorials, I learned how to use computational tools and algorithms (Rhinoceros 3D and Grasshopper) to generate a complex pattern that was then fabricated onto a plywood plate. In addition, Autodesk Fusion 360 was employed to calculate how to construct the final assembly.

Creativity and Aesthetics This project followed an iterative process with a multitude of experimentation phases. As a result, the final design is one of the most complicated things I have ever designed and built. Nonetheless, due to my high expectations, throughout the construction phase I had to keep reminding myself that the prototype is not a finished product but an instrument for research. I am still not completely satisfied with the final result even though the majority of individuals that experienced the prototype during both, the user studies, and the demonstration day, were enthusiastic regarding the aesthetics of its design. I will continue to learn and develop myself in that aspect, in order to, finally, design delicate, detailed and complex products that induce awe and inspiration.

Technology Realisation (Mechanics+Electronics) In the beginning, I was very hesitant to start working on the electronics part of my prototype. However, as soon as I started figuring out how relays work it was relatively easy to proceed, a fact that surprised even myself. I guess I remembered my coding skills from my GCE course in Advanced Computer Science back in high school. I consider the mechanics and electronics integration for this project an achievement, since I did not have prior knowledge. In retrospect, I believe that it would have been easier if I asked experts on the matter earlier on in order to save me a bit of time that I spend learning everything by myself.

Design & Research Processesâ&#x20AC;¨ During this project, I managed to successfully employ both qualitative and quantitative methods regarding data collection and analysis. I applied the knowledge on how to conduct a mixed methods research gained through both, the elective Research

User Studies During this project I have performed 5 different user studies (Control group 1, 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B). Although 68

my tasks on time. However, I have decided that in the future I will document and plan my work better.

Methods taught by Panos Markopoulos, and Saskia Bakkerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s valuable notes on academic writing. I, once again, genuinely enjoyed writing an academic paper, applying different methodologies and performing research through user studies. I still have a lot to learn but I am aspiring one day to publish an academic paper. I hope that through this project I achieved a tiny contribution to the field of Kinetic Organic user Interfaces (KOIs).

Overall Development and Vision As stated in my PDP, my interests are quite clear. I have a fascination for design that brings change, especially in the form of an intervention, product or responsive environment. Being an architect I believe that my career path is predetermined, I will always carry my architectural education years with me as a legacy. What I enjoyed the most during my two years in the department is making. I am satisfied with my overall development throughout the year, I achieved things that I did not believe were possible. I think I have matured as a designer but most importantly as a person. I sincerely hope that following this year, I will have the opportunity to show what I have learned and put it into practice in the field of interactive architecture and/or responsive environments.

Business and Entrepreneurship Although business was never one of my interests, the participants of the 2B User Study inquired a multitude of times if this is a product that I am planning to introduce to the market. Their reactions came as a surprise to me, since I have never considered the fact. Such an implementation would not have been feasible on my part, in my opinion. Organising and planning What I have come to realise this year is that when attempting to construct a prototype of a large scale, backlashes such as miscalculations always occur that push the process even further. It is through years of experience that someone can predict exactly how long construction phase can take. During the past three months that I was fabricating the final prototype, I always felt a bit out of schedule. To overcome this, I re-adjusted my planing at the end of each week, with to-do lists for the next one. Taking one week at a time, helped me in completing most of 69

7.0 APPENDICESâ&#x20AC;©

7.1 ARDUINO SKETCH CODE (C++) unsigned long echo = 0; const int UltraSoundSignal = 5; // Ultrasound signal pin unsigned long UltraSoundValue = 0; //Use constants for the relay pins in case you need to change these later const int relay1 = 8; //Arduino pin that triggers relay #1 const int relay2 = 9; //Arduino pin that triggers relay #2 const int ButtonPin1 = 2; // the number of the Extend button pin const int ButtonPin2 = 3; // the number of the Retract button pin const int ButtonPin3 = 4; byte mode; int ButtonState1 = 0; // variable for reading the pushbutton status int ButtonState2 = 0; int ButtonState3 = 0; void setup() { Serial.begin(9600); pinMode(ButtonPin1, INPUT); pinMode(ButtonPin2, INPUT); pinMode(ButtonPin3, INPUT); digitalWrite(ButtonPin1, LOW); digitalWrite(ButtonPin2, LOW); digitalWrite(ButtonPin3, LOW); pinMode(UltraSoundSignal,OUTPUT); //Set pinMode to OUTPUT for the two relay pins pinMode(relay1, OUTPUT);//relay for linear actuator on relay1 pinMode(relay2, OUTPUT);//relay for linear actuator on relay2 } unsigned long ping() { // Switch signalpin to output pinMode(UltraSoundSignal, OUTPUT); // Send low pulse digitalWrite(UltraSoundSignal, LOW); // Wait for 2 microseconds 71

delayMicroseconds(2); // Send high pulse digitalWrite(UltraSoundSignal, HIGH); // Wait for 5 microseconds delayMicroseconds(5); // Holdoff digitalWrite(UltraSoundSignal, LOW); // Switch signalpin to input pinMode(UltraSoundSignal, INPUT); // Turn on pull-up resistor digitalWrite(UltraSoundSignal, HIGH); // pulseIn has a 1sec timeout echo = pulseIn(UltraSoundSignal, HIGH,38000); //Listen for echo //convert to CM UltraSoundValue = (echo /58.138); return UltraSoundValue; } void loop() { ButtonState1 = digitalRead(ButtonPin1); ButtonState2 = digitalRead(ButtonPin2); ButtonState3 = digitalRead(ButtonPin3); if ( ButtonState1 == HIGH) { Serial.println("Button 1 pressed. Actuator extending"); extendActuator(); delay(250); stopActuator(); Serial.println("action complete");} if (ButtonState2 == HIGH) { Serial.println("actuator retracting"); retractActuator(); delay(500); stopActuator(); Serial.println("action complete"); ; } else { Serial.println("actuator idle"); stopActuator(); delay(250); //delay 1/4 seconds 72

} if (ButtonState3 == HIGH) { Serial.println("actuator stopped"); stopActuator(); Serial.println("action complete"); ; } int x = 0; x = ping(); Serial.println(x); //x equals distance in cm from sensor if ( x < 2 ) { Serial.println("Person detected. Actuator extending"); extendActuator(); delay(250); stopActuator(); Serial.println("action complete"); } } void extendActuator() { Serial.println("Extending Actuator..."); digitalWrite(relay1, HIGH); digitalWrite(relay2, LOW); delay(250); } void retractActuator() { Serial.println("Retracting Actuator..."); digitalWrite(relay1, LOW); digitalWrite(relay2, HIGH); delay(1000); } void stopActuator() { digitalWrite(relay1, LOW); digitalWrite(relay2, LOW);

}

7.2 ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL DRAWINGâ&#x20AC;©

Figure 7.2. Technical Drawing of Exploded Isometric - NW view. Made in Autodesk Fusion 360, Rhinoceros 3D and Adobe Illustrator.

7.3 TEST 2A - QUALITATIVE DATA TEST A Participant

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Overall comments

1 2

Annoying,No indication why the door is closed, it causes confusion

Slow. Not obvious if you can enter or not

Hesitant as you look for clues of how the situation is behind the door. Is there muffled talking or lights underneath the door, It feels uncomfortable to walk in to a room you thought was empty and you are the cause of an interruption for the people. Especially if you walk in on significant people you are working under in a company. You make a fool out of yourself.

The careful attempt to enter is no different as if the door was closed. I knock lightly to address the situation. Besides most people sit with the back to the door so you cannot make eye contact through the crack with the hopes of getting a wave of a hand to enter. You never know if they actually are inviting people into the room or if they forgot to close the door.

Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s an uncomfortable feeling. You don't like to interrupt with a noisy door in such situation and preferred to interact with an efficient one

Not thinking about consequences because you are still welcome in the end. I like the unexpected action that is behind the door

There is no interest to open it because the room is empty. I don't like that I can noticed with a label that is empty or not and in the end it's closed with no reason and it's unlocked

It is very unpleasant

They dont mind if someone could get in.I don't know if it is ok to leave door open

It is usual for me

It is the right interaction. Nothing

Nothing

Here, I would be more assertive, if i knew it was empty. Depending on the door, and my knowledge of what it leads to it can be a likeable interaction. But if it's an unknown room I would always be afraid to set off alarms or encounter an incorrect room.

7 8

They are in to the point and gives you a different aspect of how you feel in such situations

7.4 TEST 2B - QUALITATIVE DATA TEST B Participant

Scenario 1

Its seems pretty cool, if there is no door handle nobody will try and open

I like the concept, its nice. This scenario is quite clear

cool concept It’s quite clear. Pretty unexpected, a bit aggressive action

Scenario 2

That’s it? Is it the same one as before? It’s not different enough than the previous one

Need instructions on this scenario. I feel that this scenario..it is not different enough.

It’s not different enough than the previous one This scenario was the most hostile

Scenario 3

Overall comments

Pretty clear that I am not welcome. It’s like a red sign/ a complex sign

an overcomplicated solution if its at the office environment. at work it would make some sense but we have glass walls so it’s visible when people are having a meeting. companies, meetings/ conference rooms/ hotels/bathrooms. It’s annoying sometimes when people try to open the door when you’re in the bathroom

clear what it does It goes fast but not too noisy

in companies/ business When you have meetings but not in your own place. It’s a form of gadget! It could be used for public bathrooms, hotels or At schools-> in classes during a presentation

Knowing what the situation is, this was the most clear scenario. I already expect it

It can be used in business rooms at companies when they don’t want to be disturbed Overall quite clear . At schools I have experienced interruptions-> in classes during a presentation. If the first scenario was there, and there was no door handle that wouldn't be a problem Overall in some cases I would use it.

TEST B

it’s a really prominent action

I don't like this scenario, the door acts as an ordinary door

I was a bit confused at first but it is easy to learn

the action is very specific instructions are required beforehand to get what I am supposed to do. How safe is it to protrude like this?

a bit scary cause it’s a door with different elements on it. but cool and creative idea It’s clear that I am not allowed in the room when you’re not able to open it.

hard to get in/ completely new idea You can’t get the handle so it’s hard to get in. I don't know if I would touch the handle or try to run away if I saw it for the first time

there is an opportunity to enter.

seen opportunity in pubic spaces / indication if the library is open or if the store is open Not more or less secure than an ordinary door. With this design it is easy to understand if I am welcome or not.

cutting edge construction but there is a safety aspect to keep in mind

It can be used if it’s commonly understood by people. It was interesting to interact with. it can be used in public restrooms/ cant enter here

It’s clear that It is ok to enter

It is really nice innovative concept. It could be integrated in, a fun house, maybe for the house of the future maybe it could be good for that. More commercial, bank and government buildings. Normally you see a lock or there is a red sign, is not like the door does not reacts to the situation.

Could be indicated as Red

Could be indicated as Yellow Complicate to understand

Could be indicated as Green

Its a really nice concept. It looks fragile. The execution is really nice as a proof of concept. Initially would be good if there is a display added to explain or lights. And slowly people might get used to it. Could be used at service apartments or hostels/hotel industry where privacy is important instead of using tags. Activated through NFC tags

it’s a little too fast to grasp what is happening Unexpected

This scenario does not work as it should…?

It is expected

LEDs or visual indications could have facilitated the effect?

Test B - PANAS Scale Data Analysis - Dancer-Door Experiment Survey 1=Not at all 2=A Little 3=Moderately 4=Quite a bit 5=Extremely Scenarios 1 - Coercive manner Timestamp

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

Negative affect

Positive affect

4.25

3.625

2.125

3.375

1.875

2.375

1.625

1.75

3.125

2.375

1.625

3.375

1.375

3.625

2.25

3.25

2.375

3.25

2.25

18.75

30.625

Perceived average:

Unwelcome

Difference:

Timestamp

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

2.[Distressed]

3.[Excited]

4.[Upset]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

Negative affect

Positive affect

3.125

3.5

1.625

2.875

2.125

1.75

1.375

1.25

2.375

3.375

1.5

2.75

3.375

1.625

2.5

1.75

1.25

15.875

28.125

Average Perceived average:

Unwelcome

Difference:

Timestamp

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

2.[Distressed]

3.[Excited]

4.[Upset]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

Positive affect

1.5 4.285714286

3.571428571

2.285714286

1.142857143

1.571428571

3.857142857

2.142857143

2.714285714

3.428571429

1.428571429

2.857142857

2.714285714

1.714285714

3.285714286

1.142857143

13.14285714

31.14285714

Perceived average:

Welcome

Difference:

29.7 SD=7.9

Highest score of emotion

Emotion with lowest score

3.625

1.375

14.[Inspired]

13.[Ashamed]

Negative affect mean average

Positive affect mean average

14.8 SD=5.4

29.7 SD=7.9

Highest score of emotion

Emotion with lowest score 3.5

1.[Interested]

13.[Ashamed]

Negative affect mean average

Positive affect mean average

14.8 SD=5.4

29.7 SD=7.9

4 5

Average

SD=5.4

12.25

Negative affect

Positive affect mean average

14.8

11.875

2 3

Negative affect mean average

4 5

07/06/2017

4.[Upset]

Average

3 - Seductive manner

3.[Excited]

2- Nudging manner

2.[Distressed]

Highest score of emotion

Emotion with lowest score

4.285714286

1.[Interested]

4.[Upset ]+ 11. [Irritable]13.[Ashamed]

Test A - PANAS Scale Data Analysis - Dancer-Door Experiment Survey 1=Not at all 2=A Little 3=Moderately 4=Quite a bit 5=Extremely Scenarios 1 - Coercive manner Timestamp

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

Negative affect

Positive affect

4.375

1.75

2.5

1.5

2.5

1.625

2.625

1.75

1.5

1.375

1.25

2.125

2.375

2.75

1.625

2.5

1.75

2.25

1.75

1.625

21.625

17.125

Perceived average:

Unwelcome

Difference:

Timestamp

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

2.[Distressed]

3.[Excited]

4.[Upset]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

Negative affect

Positive affect

1.75

1.875

2.25

1.625

1.5

1.875

2.25

1.75

1.625

1.75

1.875

2.125

1.625

2.125

1.375

16.75

19.75

Average Perceived average:

Welcome

Timestamp

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

Difference:

2.[Distressed]

3.[Excited]

4.[Upset]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

Negative affect

Positive affect

2.75 2.142857143

1.714285714

1.857142857

1.571428571

1.714285714

1.428571429

1.571428571

1.857142857

1.714285714

1.428571429

2.142857143

1.428571429

1.857142857

2.142857143

1.714285714

1.428571429

2.142857143

1.428571429

15.28571429

19.28571429

Perceived average:

Unwelcome

Difference:

Emotion with lowest score 2.75

1.25

14.[Inspired]

13.[Ashamed] Positive affect mean average

14.8 SD=5.4

29.7 SD=7.9

Highest score of emotion

Emotion with lowest score 2.25

1.375

1.[Interested]

13.[Ashamed]

Negative affect mean average

Positive affect mean average

14.8 SD=5.4

29.7 SD=7.9

4 5

Average

29.7 SD=7.9

Highest score of emotion

1 3

SD=5.4

Negative affect mean average

Positive affect mean average

14.8

-4.5

2 3

Negative affect mean average

4 5

07/06/2017

4.[Upset]

Average

3 - Seductive manner

3.[Excited]

2- Nudging manner

2.[Distressed]

Highest score of emotion

Emotion with lowest score

2.142857143

1.428571429

1.[Interested]

4.[Upset ]+ 11. [Irritable]13.[Ashamed]

1B Experiment - PANAS Scale Data Analysis - Dancer-Door Experiment Survey 1=Not at all 2=A Little 3=Moderately 4=Quite a bit 5=Extremely Behaviours Inviting #1 - Seductive manner Timestamp

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

Negative affect

Positive affect

2 2.142857143

2.5

2.428571429

2.25

1.375

1.625

1.75

1.625

1.375

1.875

2.125

1.625

2.125

1.5

2.5

2.142857143

2.375

1.625

18.19642857

19.875

Perceived average:

Welcome

Timestamp

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

Difference: 2.[Distressed]

3.[Excited]

4.[Upset]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

1.678571429

Negative affect

Positive affect

33 14

8 Average

2.333333333

2.75

1.714285714

2.375

1.375

1.125

1.25

1.625

1.75

1.5

2.5

1.375

2.25

1.625

2.375

1.571428571

2.375

1.25

14.41071429

21.875

Perceived average:

Welcome

Timestamp

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

Difference:

2.[Distressed]

3.[Excited]

4.[Upset]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

7.464285714

Negative affect

Positive affect

3.5 2.428571429

1.857142857

1.5

2.142857143

1.142857143

1.571428571

1.714285714

2.285714286

2.571428571

1.285714286

1.571428571

1.857142857

1.833333333

2.285714286

1.285714286

15.47619048

20.14285714

Average Perceived average:

Uninviting #1 - Seductive manner Timestamp

Unwelcome

Difference:

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

2.[Distressed]

3.[Excited]

4.[Upset]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

4.666666667

Negative affect

Positive affect

7 8 Average

3.5

2.625

1.625

1.857142857

1.625

1.25

1.125

1.625

1.25

1.125

2.125

1.75

1.25

1.5

2.25

1.75

1.285714286

1.5

1.625

16.39285714

16.75

Perceived average:

Unwelcome

Timestamp

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

Difference:

2.[Distressed]

3.[Excited]

4.[Upset]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

0.3571428571

Negative affect

Positive affect

2.75

2.125

1.75

1.5

1.375

1.625

1.428571429

1.875

2.5

1.25

1.75

2.375

1.857142857

2.5

1.75

16.60714286

20.80357143

Average

3.166666667

Perceived average:

Uninviting - Coercive manner #3 Timestamp

Average

5.[Strong]

Uninviting #2 - Nudging manner

4.[Upset]

Average

Inviting #3 - Coercive manner

3.[Excited]

Inviting #2- Nudging manner

2.[Distressed]

Unwelcome

Difference:

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

2.[Distressed]

3.[Excited]

4.[Upset]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

4.196428571

Negative affect

Positive affect

3.375

1.75

2.75

1.75

1.25

1.375

1.625

2.25

2.125

2.375

3.25

1.25

2.625

2.125

2.75

2.285714286

2.875

16.78571429

2.5

Door-Dancer Experiment - PANAS Scale Data Analysis 1=Not at all 2=A Little 3=Moderately 4=Quite a bit 5=Extremely Behaviours Inviting #1 Timestamp

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

Negative affect

Possitive affect

2017/01/07 11:52:11 am CET

2017/01/07 12:08:50 pm CET

2.125

1.5

3.125

1.25

2.625

1.125

1.625

2.75

1.75

1.5

2.5

2.875

1.875

2.75

3.625

1.375

2.875

1.25

13.5

28.875

Perceived average:

Welcome

Difference:

Timestamp

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

2.[Distressed]

3.[Excited]

4.[Upset]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

Negative affect

Possitive affect

2016/12/18 4:02:16 pm CET

2017/01/07 11:52:11 am CET

2017/01/07 12:08:50 pm CET

2017/01/07 12:15:15 pm CET

2017/01/07 12:47:03 pm CET

2017/01/07 1:02:39 pm CET

1.375

2.75

1.25

2.125

1.375

1.875

2.75

1.875

1.5

1.125

2.125

1.75

2.75

3.125

1.625

3.125

1.25

14.125

27.625

Timestamp

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

Difference:

2.[Distressed]

3.[Excited]

4.[Upset]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

Negative affect

Possitive affect

2016/12/18 4:02:16 pm CET

2017/01/07 11:52:11 am CET

2017/01/07 1:02:39 pm CET

2017/01/07 1:17:49 pm CET

3.75

2.375

2.875

1.75

3.375

1.625

1.375

1.625

2.125

1.875

2.375

3.125

1.25

1.375

1.75

3.375

2.875

1.5

3.25

1.375

Average Unwelcome

Timestamp

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

Difference:

2.[Distressed]

3.[Excited]

4.[Upset]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

Negative affect

Possitive affect

2017/01/07 11:25:58 am CET

2017/01/07 11:52:11 am CET

2017/01/07 12:08:50 pm CET

2017/01/07 1:17:49 pm CET

2.25

3.625

1.75

2.875

1.5

1.625

1.75

1.375

1.125

2.625

1.5

1.625

2.625

1.375

2.125

1.5

2.25

2.375

1.625

2.625

1.5

15.125

24.25

Perceived average:

Welcome

Timestamp

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

Difference:

2.[Distressed]

3.[Excited]

4.[Upset]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

Negative affect

Possitive affect

2016/12/18 4:02:16 pm CET

34 39

2017/01/07 12:47:03 pm CET

2017/01/07 1:02:39 pm CET

2017/01/07 1:17:49 pm CET

2.375

4.125

1.25

3.25

1.125

1.875

3.5

1.75

1.125

2.375

2.5

1.25

2.75

1.5

3.25

12.125

28.375

Average Welcome

Timestamp

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

Difference:

2.[Distressed]

3.[Excited]

4.[Upset]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

Negative affect

Possitive affect

2016/12/18 4:02:16 pm CET

2017/01/07 12:08:50 pm CET

2017/01/07 12:15:15 pm CET

2017/01/07 12:47:03 pm CET

2017/01/07 1:02:39 pm CET

2017/01/07 1:17:49 pm CET Average

3.125

3.75

2.625

3.375

2.125

1.625

1.375

2.25

2.875

1.5

2.625

3.75

2.125

2.875

2.375

3.875

2.125

3.25

1.625

32 20.625 Difference:

Perceived average:

Unwelcome

Negative affect mean average Possitive affect mean average 14.8 SD=5.4

29.7 SD=7.9

Negative affect mean average Possitive affect mean average 14.8 SD=5.4

29.7 SD=7.9

16.25

2017/01/07 11:25:58 am CET 2017/01/07 11:52:11 am CET

29.7 SD=7.9

2017/01/07 12:08:50 pm CET 2017/01/07 12:15:15 pm CET

Perceived average:

14.8 SD=5.4

9.125

2017/01/07 11:25:58 am CET 2017/01/07 11:52:11 am CET

Negative affect mean average Possitive affect mean average

2017/01/07 12:47:03 pm CET 2017/01/07 1:02:39 pm CET Average

29.7 SD=7.9

2016/12/18 4:02:16 pm CET

2017/01/07 12:15:15 pm CET

14.8 SD=5.4

2017/01/07 12:15:15 pm CET 2017/01/07 12:47:03 pm CET

Perceived average:

Negative affect mean average Possitive affect mean average

13.5

2017/01/07 11:25:58 am CET 2017/01/07 12:08:50 pm CET

29.7 SD=7.9

2.375 Welcome

14.8 SD=5.4

15.375

2017/01/07 11:25:58 am CET

Perceived average:

Negative affect mean average Possitive affect mean average

2017/01/07 12:47:03 pm CET 2017/01/07 1:02:39 pm CET

2017/01/07 1:17:49 pm CET

Uninviting #3

6.[Guilty]

2 3

Average

Uninviting #2

5.[Strong]

1 3

2017/01/07 1:17:49 pm CET

Uninviting #1

4.[Upset]

3 2

Average

Inviting #3

3.[Excited]

2 3

2017/01/07 12:15:15 pm CET

Inviting #2

2.[Distressed]

2016/12/18 4:02:16 pm CET 2017/01/07 11:25:58 am CET

35 28.5 7.875

Negative affect mean average Possitive affect mean average 14.8 SD=5.4

29.7 SD=7.9

Experiment 1.0 Experiment 1.0 Participant

Welcome-Unwelcome: 1-5 1.[Interested]

2.[Distressed]

3.[Excited]

4.[Upset]

5.[Strong]

6.[Guilty]

7.[Scared]

8.[Hostile]

9.[Enthusiastic]

10.[Proud]

11.[Irritable]

12.[Alert]

13.[Ashamed]

14.[Inspired]

15.[Nervous]

16.[Determined]

17.[Attentive]

18.[Jittery]

19.[Active]

20.[Afraid]

Negative affect

Positive affect

3.5

2.375

2.5

1.5

1.75

1.5

2.25

1.5

2.5

3.125

1.125

1.375

2.375

2.75

1.75

2.875

1.75

18.875

24.875

Average

Negative affect mean Positive average affect mean average 14.8 SD=5.4

Highest score of emotion Emotion with lowest score 3.125

Perceived average: Unwelcome

Difference:

29.7 SD=7.9

1.125

1.[Interested] 6.[Guilty]+13.[Ashamed]

Special thanks to: My mentor, Bart Hengeveld   for his patience and guidance throughout this year,   my partner, Thĳs Hesby Roeleven,   for the immense understanding, support and help,   my friend, Kyriacos Paraskeva,   for his expertise on electronics   Charalambos Charalambous,   Fleur Leloup, Matthĳs Kwak   for their valuable input   all user studies’ participants,   my friends and family,   and you, the reader.