Design Research Report by tom fejér

How do inherent components influence our perception of augmented behaviors? Exploratory Design Research through prototyping by Tom Fejer

project by Tom FejĂŠr, 2013, TU/e ID

contact: t.i.fejer@student.tue.nl

coach name: Simone de Waart

contact: s.g.d.waart@tue.nl

This document is an overview of a design research project which shows how the combination of digital and analog feedback influence the perception of an interactive objectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s behavior. The research is investigating through various prototypes and explores peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perception of intelligent artifact. Research Through Design approach was applied in order to define both theoretical direction as well as appearance and behavior of a final prototype. The report includes various reflections after every chapter where the key learning points and challenges are collected.

Keywords: designing behavior, augmented behavior, inherent components, perceptive qualities, research through design, research through making

Relevance to Design Practice - The right use of physical and digital elements is relevant to design for rich emotional interplays between humans and intelligent artifact

Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Research Field - Perceptual Crossing 1.2 Research Direction 1.3 Open Questions 1.4 Terminology

6 7 7 8 9

2. Design Approach

3. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Research through Makingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 3.1 Preparation 3.11 Sensual Dynamics Module 3.12 Pressure Cooker workshop 3.2 Exploratory Research 3.21 Prototyping 3.211 PaperGeoDome 3.212 PlasticDome 3.213 RotatingPlasticDome 3.214 RotatingLightDisk 3.215 RotatingTouchDisk

14 15 15 15 16 17 18 18 19 19 20

4. Hypothesis testing 4.1 Dig_Mo - The final artefact 4.2 Building Dig_Mo 4.3 Testing Dig_Mo 4.4 Results 4.41 grouping the insights 4.42 mapping the insights 4.43 evaluating the maps

22 24 26 28 30 31 32 34

5. Conclusion

6. Recommendation

7. Appendix

1. Introduction Since we are using electronic devices, the digital informations and controls became part of our lives. We are using physical and digital interfaces in daily basis to interact with our objects, from the light switch through the TV remote till our smart phones. Nowadays graphical user interfaces imitating physical properties and this skeuomorphism can be recognized how some applications visually mimic reflective or paper surfaces on screens. Some trends in interaction design tend to bring back rich physical interplays by using combination of analog and digital interfaces.

This 8 weeks project from September, 2012 was part of the esSense design research projects group at the Technical University of Eindhoven Industrial Design department. The goal of these projects were designing perceptive behavior in artifacts and engage people in a meaningful reciprocal interplay with these artifacts, and whether we can rethink how we interact with products and space.1

In this project people perception of object’s behavior were explored, focusing on the influence of the combination of analog and digital components.

1. Andersen, Kevin N. “Designing for perceptual crossing: Researching a design notion of interaction priming.”

1.1 Research field - Perceptual Crossing “Perception is inherently interactive and participatory. It is a reciprocal interplay between the perceiver and the perceived.”2 The term Perceptual Crossing first used by Charles Lenay (Lenay et al., 2007), which described Perceptual Crossing as: The direct perception of others as intentional beings. This design research project built upon the theory of ‘design for Perceptual Crossing’. The theory aims to design for perceptive behavior to enhance the quality in interaction in the design of intelligent artefacts. The artefact is able to perceive and show perceptive activity to and from the person allowing them to engage in a rich reciprocal interplay.3 Next to affecting

each other the object and the subject are sharing the same physical space, therefore affected by the shared environment (or external events) as well.

1.2 Research Direction - Augmented and Inherent components By using the theory ‘design for Perceptual Crossing’ we can design objects for embodied, emotionally rich interaction. In order to design such, designers can design artefacts which can express perceptive activities through augmented and inherent components4. An example of combination of augmented and inherent components is a TV, where a physical button controls if the device is on or off and it is indicated with an LED light as well right next to the button. In this example the button is the inherent component, showing inherent feedforward by the possibility that it can be pressed by a finger, and giving inherent feedback by moving inside of the housing and by its clicking sound. Augmented components in this example is the light indication which gives confirmation of my actions by lighting up or changing color. Nowadays products has more and more to tell us, for example my wireless mouse has a spectrum of colors

how it indicates if it is out of battery, in standby mode or connected to my laptop. In this project I research the communication between one and the object. How can an object express itself and how do people translate the intention of an object. In my research I am looking for guidelines, how can I design for rich, embodied interactions and see how inherent and augmented components influence each other in peoples perception when they are interacting with them.

2. Merleau-Ponty, M. “Phenomenology of Perception (Original: Phénoménologie de la perception 1945).(D. Tiemersma & R.” Vlasblom. Boom (1945). 3. “Applying and Evaluating Design Notions - International Journal of ...” 2012. 13 Jan. 2013 <http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/1062/526> 4. Wensveen, Stephan AG, Johan Partomo Djajadiningrat, and CJ Overbeeke. “Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward.” Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques 1 Aug. 2004: 177-184.

1.3 Open Questions Through a series of prototypes I was looking for answers for the following question[find the answers at chapter 5]:

t How does the perception changes if you add physicality to something virtual? t What happens when the augmented body becomes tangible? t How can you enhance this reciprocal interplay by connecting inherent and augmented components? t How can this combination be meaningful?

1.4 Terminology perceptual crossing: it happens when the perceiver senses he was perceived by the perceived; using sight as an example, a person sees that the object sees the person seeing it, i.e. awareness of reciprocal perception design for perceptual crossing: design for new artifacts, that interact with users, in such a way that perceptual crossing and therefore the feeling of sharing a common space is possible5 emotionally rich interaction: interaction that heavily relies on emotion expressed through action6 augmented feedback: the term augmented feedback found its origin in the field of the psychology of learning and refers to information not coming from the action itself (which is inherent feedback), but from an additional source. Since it is not coming from the action itself, but from an additional source, augmented feedback appeals more to the cognitive skills of the user instead of appealing to the perceptual motor skills.7(find an example above) inherent feedback: Information provided as a natural consequence of making an action. It is feedback arising from the action itself.8 (find an example above) perceptual qualities: properties of abilities which are related to perception for example our touch is short-range and our sight is long-rage. embodied interaction: suggests that the future of interaction lies not in the interface “disappearing”, but rather in the interface becoming even more visible, or rather, available for a wider range of engagement and interactions.9

5. Deckers, E. “Designing for perceptual crossing to improve user involvement.” 2011. <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1979222> 6. Wensveen, Stephen, Kees Overbeeke, and Tom Djajadiningrat. “Touch me, hit me and I know how you feel: a design approach to emotionally rich interaction.” Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems 1 Aug. 2000: 48-52. 7. Wensveen, Stephan AG, Johan Partomo Djajadiningrat, and CJ Overbeeke. “Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward.” Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems 1 Aug. 2004: 177-184. 8. “Re-Thinking University Teaching: A Framework for ... - Google Books.” 2012. 10 Jan. 2013 <http://books.google.com/books/about/Re_Thinking_University_Teaching.html?id=RDsOAAAAQAAJ>

9. Dourish, P. “Embodied Interaction: Exploring the Foundations of a ... - Paul Dourish.” 2002. <http://www.dourish.com/embodied/embodied99.pdf>

2. Design Approach I formed my research process in 3 main phases (see in fig.2.1). First the Preparation, where I read the available literature on Perceptual Crossing, Embodied Interaction, phenomenology and explored technologies that might be relevant for the project; than in 5 weeks, 5 different prototypes were made and tested in order to explore material and emotional qualities in artifacts. Lastly a final hypothesis were formed through designing a final artifact, and a Lab experiment was set for qualitative testing.

fig.2.1 - 3 phases of the project

I. Preparation Sensual Dynamics Module (1 week), - involved ‘DQI’ Pressure-cooker workshop (1 week), - involved ‘EsSense project team’ method used: Design Notions, Research through Design II. Exploratory Research Exploratory research through prototyping (5 weeks) method used: Design Notions, Research through Design, Insights (quick tests) III. Hypothesis-testing Research Final artifact - DigMo - building and testing (1,5 week) Evaluating the experiment and the design notions (1 week) method used: Design Notions, Lab Experiment, Interviewing, Mapping the insights

My objective was to apply the resulting knowledge of the prototypes that were explored during the second phase in order to define final direction for the research both theoretically and design wise. The research follows the Research through Design approach10 (Frayling, 1993). The process is iterative where several artefacts were built and tested. In my work this approach helped to explore the theory of designing for Perceptual Crossing while I was physicalizing my ideas. At every iteration I was reflecting on the theory to define the next steps. Eva Deckers, who coined the term ‘design for Perceptual Crossing’, offers designers to evaluate intelligent artefacts through 7 Design Notions. These Notions were used in this research to indicate which Notions were applied in certain prototypes and how do these Notions inspired the upcoming steps. (find the detailed explanations of the Design Notions at Deckers, E. “Designing for perceptual crossing to improve user involvement.” 2011) Next to the Design Notions, designers recommended to design such artefacts which capable of perceiving presence, perceptive actions or expressivity in order to achieve Perceptual Crossing. The closing part of the project introducing a final artefact which was experienced in a controlled experiment, following the Lab approach by 11 participants. The laboratory gives the researchers an opportunity to focus on one thing at a time. Most typically, this “thing” is a relationship, such as the relationship of rich interaction and user experience.11 The participants were interviewed after the experiment and their insights were captured in order to identify tendencies in their perception of the interaction.

10. Zimmerman, John, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. “Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems 29 Apr. 2007: 493-502. 11. Koskinen, Ilpo et al. Design Research through Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom. Morgan Kaufmann, 2011.

Reflection The design approach of the project was dynamically changed how the project developed further. In this exploratory research not only the Design Notions were explored but as well as the possibilities what the theory offers and my personal interest in interaction and product design. As this research was not focused on function, my centre of attention was on intelligent artefact and human relationship, designing and combining elements of rich interactions and evaluating them using the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;design for Perceptual Crossingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; theory. This report shows my explorations through prototyping and how it first explored materials and volumes, and from there how it started focusing on virtual and physical motions and their relation in perception.

3. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Research Through Makingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; My objective was to apply the resulting knowledge of the prototypes to define final direction for the research both theoretically and design wise. The project started with two weeks of preparation which included series of activities aiming to establish the research project with theoretical and practical grounds.

3.1 Preparation 3.11 Sensual Dynamics Module

3.12 Pressure-cooker workshop

A one week long module were organized at the Technical University of Eindhoven in order to introduce master students to the theory of Perceptual Crossing, and Phenomenology in design through exploring low quality prototypes. Next to the theory, students explored the Design Notions in groups and in the last two days they built working artefacts, based and inspired by the previous explorations.

In a one week self-organized workshop 9 Master students explored further the theory of designing for Perceptual Crossing. In five days, in smaller groups we explored the design notions through interactive prototypes. This pressure-cooker workshop showed that many aspects of this research field can be further explored, the physical characteristics of the artefact, the motion, and relationship between people and artefacts.

(1 week), - involved ‘DQI’

The final artefact I made with three other students, used light to explore its environment (fig. 2.2). By opening up different parts of its segmented body, it can light up the space, and with its moving segments it can sense if the light was reflected or not. The behavior was based on a sample code, which includes such behaviors, as exploring, following or curiosity level which changes by time. 12

(1 week), - involved ‘esSense project team’

The module was given by Eva Deckers and Pierre Lévy

fig. 2.2 - final prototype of Sensual Dynamics Module

12. Video of the final prototype of the Sensual Dynamics Module - made by Koen Beljaars < https://vimeo.com/49662419 >

3.2 Exploratory Research 3.21 Prototyping In this phase of the project numerous prototypes were made and quickly tested with 3-5 persons; and instead of developing further one shape, an essentially new artefact were made in every iteration for broader exploration.13 The artifacts will be described in the following chapter, including evaluations through the Design Notions.

13. Video of the prototypes < https://vimeo.com/56901966 >

3.211

3.212

3.213

3.214

3.215

3.211 PaperGeoDome 3.212 PlasticDome 3.213 RotatingPlasticDome 3.214 RotatingLightDisk 3.215 RotatingTouchDisk 17

3.211 PaperGeoDome The artefact reacts on light changes, therefore, it can detect human body, as someone moves, covers and uncovers the light sources in the environment. The test included several conditions, light sources and sensors were placed both on the surface and inside of the body.

body: geodesic dome from paper (D=35cm) placed on a table; LED-s and LDR-s placed visibly on the surface and later on placed inside of the dome actuator: 4 LED sensor: 4 LDR (photo resistors) Design for Perceptual Crossing: the artefact capable of perceiving presence perceiving perceptive actions perceiving expressivity the artefact shows perceptive activity to allow reciprocity

Design Notions: Focus the Senses Active Behaviour Object Subtleness Reaction to an External Event Detecting Active Behaviour Subject Reflecting Contextual Noise Course of Perception in Time

Conclusion and next steps The reactive paper dome clearly perceived as it is perceiving presence, when it was approached by hand and it showed subtle changes in light flickerings. The object itself was quite fragile, involved both hands and the upper body movement in the interaction. The dome shape was interesting, invited a 3 dimensional movement and exploration during the interaction, the LED lights provided rich communication possibilities in the interplay. As a next step, the volume, the material and resolution of augmented communication was explored.

3.212 PlasticDome The artefact shows different ‘active-behaviors’, changes the speed and pattern of its light animation regarding the distance and direction of someones hand; activate vibration when it was not touched for a long time as well as when it was touched for longer.

body: translucent plastic dome (D=14cm) placed on a table; LED-s and vibration motor placed inside; electronics not visible, only the lights when they are active actuator: 4 LED, 1 vibration motor sensor: - (manually controlled - ‘Wizard-of-Ozz’) Design for Perceptual Crossing: the artefact capable of perceiving presence perceiving perceptive actions perceiving expressivity the artefact shows perceptive activity to allow reciprocity

Design Notions: Focus the Senses Active Behaviour Object Subtleness Reaction to an External Event Detecting Active Behaviour Subject Reflecting Contextual Noise Course of Perception in Time

Conclusion and next steps The ‘Wizard-Of-Oz’ technique allowed to explore perceptive qualities, the object could perceive presence, perceptive actions and expressivity as well as showing perceptive activity. The artefact had the capability to present most of the design notions, but even though it could express motion through the animation of light segments, exploration of physical motion was required for a richer experience.

3.213 RotatingPlasticDome The artefact can express movement through its augmented ‘light-body’ by individually dimming the grid of lights in a path, and by physical rotation. Through this object, several condition was explored to experience the difference and combination of augmented and physical motion.

body: translucent plastic dome (D=14cm) placed on a disk which attached to a servo motor - hidden in a box; LED-s placed inside, rotating together with the dome; light sources only visible when they are active actuator: 4 LED, 1 servo motor sensor: - (manually controlled - ‘Wizard-of-Oz’) Design for Perceptual Crossing: the artefact capable of perceiving presence perceiving perceptive actions perceiving expressivity the artefact shows perceptive activity to allow reciprocity

Design Notions: Focus the Senses Active Behaviour Object Subtleness Reaction to an External Event Detecting Active Behaviour Subject Reflecting Contextual Noise Course of Perception in Time

Conclusion and next steps In this prototype the physical motion was further explored, in combination with different light animations to see how this two components can work together in a object. The artefact had stronger capability to focus it senses, show active behavior and express subtle changes; therefore people found it more interesting and associative. The initial relation and the manner of interaction strongly dependent on the appearance and size of an object. Next to that, the relation of virtual and physical needed to be further explored.

3.214 RotatingLightDisk The artefact can express movement through its augmented ‘light-body’ by dimming the grid of light sources in a path and by physical rotation which interfere with the light beam. Through this object, several condition was explored to experience the difference and combination of augmented and physical motion.

body: a tilted, rotating flat plate guiding the circle of LED light to the front. Around the plate, a thin ring holds 3 light sensors. actuator: 10 LED, 1 servo motor sensor: 3 LDR Design for Perceptual Crossing: the artefact capable of perceiving presence perceiving perceptive actions perceiving expressivity the artefact shows perceptive activity to allow reciprocity

Design Notions: Focus the Senses Active Behaviour Object Subtleness Reaction to an External Event Detecting Active Behaviour Subject Reflecting Contextual Noise Course of Perception in Time

Conclusion and next steps The artefact investigated further in the relationship with the perceiver and the nature of light and shadows. The stand and the angle created an interesting interaction with the combination of motion and light. The physical motion still required further explorations - to not only see the light but to touch the physical motion as well.

3.215 RotatingTouchDisk The artefact can express movement through its augmented â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;light-bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; by lighting up 3 light sources individually and by rotation of a translucent disk in front of these lights. Through this object, several condition was explored to experience the difference and combination of augmented and physical motion, especially how does it perceived when the touch sensitive surface starts moving. body: a tilted, rotating, transparent flat plate mounted in a differently tilted surface; behind the plate 3 static light sources were placed. at the back of the plate, 3 aluminium foil pieces were attached - all of these placed in a box. actuator: 3 LED, 1 servo motor sensor: 3 capacitive sensors (aluminium foil)

Design for Perceptual Crossing: the artefact capable of perceiving presence perceiving perceptive actions perceiving expressivity the artefact shows perceptive activity to allow reciprocity

Design Notions Focus the Senses Active Behaviour Object Subtleness Reaction to an External Event Detecting Active Behaviour Subject Reflecting Contextual Noise Course of Perception in Time

Conclusion and next steps This prototype could perceive where was it touched and indicate it through its lights as well as gently moving its touch sensitive surface, which showed subtle changes of its behavior in combination with the light. The combination of visual and tactile feedback and the integration of sensing and acting parts supported a rich experience. What this artefact still missed was the freedom; the perceiver was forced to use one hand and the form factors did not allow freedom in expressing perceptual motoric actions either. The idea of the touch sensitive, physically and virtually reacting surface was kept for the last object as well as the resolution of the augmented presence and the physical presence needed to be worked out.

Reflection Quick prototyping and quick decision making is essential in an exploratory phase of a design project. Appearance and behavior both influence the perception of an artefact. This means I needed design both the outlook and the behavior which requires well-thought, high quality prototypes. The act of designing these ‘boxes’ and ‘bodies’ for the electronic components made me more conscious what I am doing, trying to combine physical with digital seamlessly, create something natural by hiding or imitating. I choose to spend my effort more on prototyping, and less time on testing - which meant I was more relied on my intuitions than the results of user tests. This made the research more personal, aligned more to my vision, my current questions in design, how can product or interaction designers use ‘digital’ and ‘physical’ in the design of rich and intelligent interactions.

4. Hypothesis testing The Hypothesis - people perception of an interaction is dependent on the richness of the feedback they can get from an interactive object therefore the combination of augmented and inherent feedback results different perception than the augmented feedback only. The phase of Hypothesis testing includes 3 steps, building a final prototype called Dig_Mo, setup and run an experiment with Dig_Mo and finally analyzing the results of the experiment.

4.2 Building

4.3 Testing

4.4 Results

4.1 Dig_Mo - The final artefact

Dig_Mo is an artefact, designed for researching the influence of inherent components on augmented behavior. The corners of the top surface of the artefact sensing where it was touched and it reacts on that by moving its center of movement in that direction. Dig_Mo is always in motion, and its speed and responsiveness depends on how dynamically it was touched; therefore if it is touched frequently in different corners, its motion becomes faster and become more responsive, else it stays in position and slows down, meanwhile become less reactive to touch. The artefact can express motion in two way; with its augmented light body or in addition to that it can move with its translucent disk as well; which is in a same level as the touch inputs and placed in front of the path of the light body, allows to be gently touch during the interaction.

Video of the Dig_Mo <https://vimeo.com/56909279 >

4.2 Building Dig_Mo

a b c

b k

c j f

h d

a) translucent plexi plate for sensor cover b) translucent moving plexi c) center plate d) servo e) LED ring f) arduino g) side walls h) holder - servo i) holder - LED ring j) servo extension k) metal plates - CapSense

g i

c b a

j e i

f h

4.3 Testing Dig_Mo Procedure 12 students from the Technical University of Eindhoven were attended to a test lab to participate in the comparison experiment. All the participants was informed they will experience two different conditions and they can explore both of them as long as they would like. In the instructions they were told that they can gently interact with the top surface of the object (fig.4.3.1 - a) and the headphones (fig.4.3.1 - d) are only for canceling the sound of the environment.15

After they experienced both conditions the participants were asked to answer for a few questions. Next to the questionnaire, I interviewed the participants and tried to maintained balanced between “insider” and “outsider” roles which allows a good combination of involvement and necessary detachment to remain objective (such as using their wording in the questions). This type of participant observation is a typical data collection method done in the qualitative research paradigm.14 (find the full interviews in the Appendix, chapter 7)

14. Patton, Michael Quinn. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications, Incorporated, 2001. 15. Video collage of the experiment <https://vimeo.com/56902190 >

a) Dig_Mo b) camera c) laptop d) headphones e) table f) box g) area where participants stands

fig.4.3.1 - experiment setup

4.4 Results The key part of the research project - and challenging phase of a qualitative research - is analysing the data. In this research the data is answers, and descriptions of interactions from the participants, which requires to identify and group the insights of these descriptions. In order to be able to draw some conclusions regarding the tendencies of the responses these insights can be grouped, and mapped in certain axis.

Augmented Motion

General

With Physical Motion escaping

relaxed sensitive

serious

hypnotized

involving

less obvious ““I guess I did not “engages me in a even put my both very unconscious hands off for a really level” long “

“you place your hand...it becomes calm”

mechanical creature

nervous

“I stimulated him.“

fun

the whole object tries to do something

animal activity

“Somewhere running there, far away from me“

searching active

trying to find

playing playing

following “I could for instance make it curious or that it chase me or me chasing the light itself, but the second one was not clear to me. “

behavior

“It came to me, and the I could just reposition and play around a little “it was chasing bit.“ me“

anamorphic character

it try to get to a greater distance

exploring

follows following

“first one was already clear to me. It did not added extra value. “

running running

active

ment. “

“that it moves is an confirmaextra show off “ tion

faster responded

random

listening scared

“... little bit unclear “f it would be that is why indeed you some kind of anifeel more involved, mal I would say it is more dependent.“ expressive expressive more alive “

subtle

“When you sync with each other ...“

“it perceives, but it chooses not to act on it.”

it can perceive but it does not always want to

“something live, I can touch. And it touches back.“

connected

activity

ignores

reached my hand

intimate

connected

‘me & the light’

double

responding responding

unnecessary

curious

“it was more natural when there was less tangibility, ... less hapthe movement actually pening distracted from the interaction I was “It was only me having.“ and the light. “ “I felt like more connected or “it was only implied to move, me and the light. because there is Instead me and the nothing else. “ light and the move-

active active

“I was playing with something what tries to escape or following me. Something I was also doing. “

“there was always the movement you can play with “

rich

playing

“involves me in a more active level “

‘hysterious’

playful

cat

static

engagement

“the movement is its own activity”

alligator

nervous

adapt

bored and going somewhere else

autonomic

“When I am overactive it become overactive, but not immediately “

alive separation more obvious

physicalizing the movement

“the motion is the lights little friend”

“I can feel the rhythm of the rotation”

“almost forget about the light “

“It tries to engage me more. Even if I don’t pay attention any more to the light. “

“I was touching something else when I was watching the lights so it is quite separate for me “

fig.4.4.1 - insight groups

4.41 grouping the insights Participants was asked to describe the two different conditions but still they frequently referred to the object in general. In these cases three topic was identified how they described the artefact(fig.4.41 - middle part): t Connection with animal behaviors and with actual animals, like a cat. t Different activities what the object did such as playing or exploring.

When the participants talked about the condition with the physical motion their descriptions tended in the following topics (fig.4.4.1 - right side): t They described the artefact’s activities like escaping, ‘hysterious’ or playful. t Some participants found the physical movement unnecessary, they described as ‘extra show-off’ or confirmation of the augmented motion.

t About the objects autonomic behavior, how it has its ability to make decisions like it ignores, adapts, or choose not to act on something.

t The descriptions of the participants relationship with the object was identifiable through the way they described the interaction and the object itself, ‘it felt more alive’, scared or intimate.

There were some tendencies of the topics how they were described the Augmented Motion (fig.4.4.1 - left side):

t For several participant the motion of the light and the physical movement did not form one entity, they perceived as two separate component, “the motion is the light little friend”.

t Participants described their relationship with the object, their engagement level, how they felt hypnotized and perceived the object is sensitive. t Descriptions of the perceived actions and behavior such as following or curiosity. t Some participants perceived this condition highly engaged because they became equal with the augmented body as they spoke about it: ‘me and the light’.

4.42 mapping the insights In order to contextualise the identified insights, these items were mapped in a two axis diagram, where it visualise how active and involving the conditions were perceived.

General

active active

running running

“I stimulated him.“

exploring follows following

bored and going somewhere else

ignores

playing playing

alligator

“When you sync with each other ...“

nervous

cat “When I am overactive it become overactive, but not immediately “

mechanical creature

“you place your hand...it becomes calm”

connected

separated

involved listening adapt

“it perceives, but it chooses not to act on it.” it can perceive

but it does not always want to

passive

fig.4.42.1 - insight map - General

active

Augmented Motion

active

it try to get to a greater distance following

searching

curious

trying to find “Somewhere running there, far away from me“

“I felt like more connected or implied to move, because there is nothing else. “

“it was chasing me“

“I could for instance make it curious or that it chase me or me chasing the light itself, but the second one was not clear to me. “

“It came to me, and the I could just reposition and play around a little bit.“

anamorphic character

sensitive involving

separated

involved

less obvious

““I guess I did not even put my both hands off for a really long “

serious

“It was only me and the light. “

hypnotised “engages me in a very unconscious level” “it was only me and the light. Instead me and the light and the movement. “

relaxed

less happening

“it was more natural when there was less tangibility,”

static

passive fig.4.42.2 - insight map - Augmented Motion

With Physical Motion

physicalizing the movement

“the movement is its own activity”

active active

nervous

scared

escaping reached my hand expressive expressive

“It tries to engage me more. Even if I don’t pay attention any more to the light. “

random

rich

“first one was already clear to me. It did not added extra value. “

fun

playing

“involves me in a more active level “

“f it would be “I was playing some kind of aniwith something mal I would say it is what tries to escape more alive “ or following me. “there was al- Something I was also ways the movedoing. “ “something live, ment you can I can touch. And it play with “ touches back.“ faster

the whole object tries to do something

responded

connected responding responding

double

separated “the motion is the lights little friend”

playful

‘hysterious’

“almost forget about the light “ “I was touching something else when I was watching the lights so it is quite separate for me “

active

“... little bit unclear that is why indeed you feel more involved, more dependent.“

confirmation

intimate

involved

subtle more obvious

“that it moves is an extra show off “

fig.4.42.3 - insight map - With Physical Motion

passive

4.43 evaluating the maps By using different colors for the different condition orders, conclusions can be drawn how the initially explored behavior influence the perception of the second condition. For example tendency can be seen on the map of the ‘augmented motion’ (fig.4.42.2) which shows people who seen that augmented motion first (blue: condition order B) are more engaged with that condition then the others (red: condition order A); furthermore you can see on the ‘with physical motion’ map (fig.4.42.3) that some of the same participants (order B) perceived that condition more separated than those who experienced the ‘augmented motion’ first. These insight maps shows general trends how the participants perceived the separate conditions. On the ‘augmented motion’ map (fig.4.42.2), the location of the insights shows variety of participant descriptions how involving was the interplay and the object when they only experienced the light-body

movement. This engagement with the artefact was perceived both as passive, such as hypnotised and as active, like curious. Figure 4.42.3 shows that most of the people described the interplay and the object’s behavior as active, like ‘hysterios’, playful, or ‘more alive’. In the same time compare to the ‘augmented motion’ map the descriptions more vary in the separation-involvement axis which means for some perceived that condition more ‘connected’ to them and some felt “the motion is the object’s own activity” and has no real influence on it. One other interesting thing which happened with only those who saw the light-only condition first (condition B), that they explicitly describe the physical motion as an ‘extra show off ’ which is only a confirmation and not add any meaning to them in the interplay.

Tendencies t the order of experienced conditions influence the perception - in ‘Augmented motion’ condition order B are more involved than condition order A; in ‘With physical motion’ condition order B are more separated than condition order A t strong engagement shown in the ‘Augmented motion’, that condition was perceived involving for most of the participants t the condition ‘With the physical motion’ was perceived more active, but the engagement level was varied

Reflection In the limited timeframe of the project, in less than 2 weeks the final prototype was built, programmed and tested. As the experiment shows interesting insights, it indicated the limitation of the prototype as well. Capacitive sensing, controlling 20 LED-s and moving parts all had its all challenges but at the end everything worked out. Some opportunities still remained to develop further both in the hardware and behavior site - more stable sensor reading and higher resolution of behavior changes. I had the chance to talk with Pierre Levy, one of the research group member at the TU/e before I run the experiment - and as he pointed out, the experiment should investigate my research question, all the questions and the setup should reflect on that. He recommended to create two scenarios, two conditions, where I can compare the behavior with and without the physical motion. Through the questionnaire and by changing the condition orders I can filter out those tendencies which resulted by the order and what was the influence of the physical motion.

5. Conclusion The experiment shows difference between the two conditions, and both condition was achieved the perception of the intentional active, engaging interplay (fig.4.42.2, fig.4.42.3). Tendencies showed how the physical motion influences the perception of the virtual interplay with the artefact designed for this project. The feeling of involvement and the perception of activeness was described in both condition but in some cases, the physical motion was seen as a separated element of the interaction; meanwhile the interaction with the virtual motion was interpreted as an intimate, hypnotizing interplay. As the physical motion together with the virtual light body was associated with a more living, rich and natural ‘creature’, the virtual motion was often described more as sensitive and engaging. The behavior of the object during the experiment did not change, what changed is how the object expressed itself which changed the participants’ perception of how this object behaves. The way how interactive objects look and express themselves are fundamental in the way we people, users perceive their actions. This project shows how can the medium of the movement - let it be a grid of LEDs or a rotating disk - can change the way we interact or feel about the interaction.

How does the perception changes if you add physicality to something virtual?

In this project, people perceived the object with combined physical and digital motion more active and some felt it less engaging.

What happens when the augmented â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; becomes tangible?

The combination of augmented and inherent feedback can enhance the feeling of active behavior by giving a richer experience.

How can you enhance this reciprocal interplay by using inherent and augmented components?

The question is more, what aspects you can enhance in the perception through design? This project shows how rich feedback can strengthen the feeling of activity, playfulness or nervousness; and how can simplicity, and subtleness can empower the perception of involvement and engagement.

How can this combination be meaningful?

In the next chapter (6) application recommendations can be found.

6. Recommendation

In my case, I was triggered by the current consumer products, the analog and digital interfaces; and I wanted to know how people perceive a combination of analog and digital interface. The results shows for example if I would like to de-

I think currently in interaction design there is a trend to give as rich experience as possible to the user; which means you can touch the virtual and see the invisible. On the other hand as we see currently on smart phones and tablets, they try to replace the ‘physical’ - the notepad, the calendar - and use the GUI on a screen for everything what is resulting the richness of interaction stay in a few inch flat touch screen which occasionally can vibrate. I believe there is a certain balance, and as soon as we understand the power and difference in certain elements of interaction; designers can truly focus on experiences and create interfaces which feels natural but not invisible.

sign a game for children the combination of digital and analog would be perfect for a game where I would like to stimulate kids to be more active and provide rich, expressive feedback with a combination of lights, sound and physical motion. In case if I am designing a serious, logic game and I would like to offer an engaging interplay with the toy I would focus on simple, subtle augmented feedback in the interaction.

If I would have the opportunity to design a next version of Dig_Mo; I would develop further the moving-touch-surface to give more freedom in touching, slowing down or speeding up the motion. Next to that gesture interaction with objects is a currently growing field, how people feel interacting with objects through hand movements and how does this way of interaction influence the perception.

To design interactive products and environments in the future, designers need to know how to design engaging and expressive interactions. This design research project demonstrates the effectiveness of physical ideation, working with ‘experienceable’ scenarios, show it to people and understand how do they perceive the design and why.

7. Appendix Scripted interviews can be found in this chapter.

DATA P2 Male / Master ID condition order - A (1st condition: light and motion together; 2nd condition: light only) 1st condition: L+M 02 min 42 sec ///////////////////////////////// 2nd condition: L 03 min 01 sec //////////////////////////////////// preferred condition: 2nd keywords: nervous, relaxed, running, calm down INTERVIEW 0:00:16.1 Did you feel the object could perceive? 0:00:19.6 Yes, a little bit. 0:00:22.1 Why just a little bit? 0:00:28.6 One time I had the feeling when I push it here the light goes finger to finger; than I make it smaller, like the touching points. 0:00:55.5 Which one do you prefer, when there was movement or there was no movement? 0:01:00.7 No movement; because with movement, I did not really felt involved, like it is doing its own thing, I have no influence on it. 0:01:14.4 Alright; Can you describe the two behaviours? and what is the difference between the two? 0:01:24.6 For me both of them was nervous, The light was only like from 6 to 9; like in a clock, a quarter. And in the beginning it was running around. 0:01:51.7 But in the behaviour; what did you feel different between the two? In the movement and no movement? 0:01:55.8 For me, the movement was more nervous, more do not know what to do. 0:02:12.2 And which one of the situation did you felt more involved? 0:02:20.8 Without the movement. That was more involving. 0:02:25.6 Did you felt the object has a goal? 0:02:33.6 Maybe to relax him. In the beginning it was running around in loops, and by touching it, it becomes smaller, or did I nervous him, or I did make him more relaxed. Just small movements. 0:02:59.4 So you can influence its behavior by touching different points? The speed? 0:03:07.4 Only the length. 0:03:12.8 Do you think the object has an opinion about you? 0:03:23.3 I did not really found it out. 0:03:31.6 What do you think what was more pleasant for the object? When was it more involved? with or without the movement? 0:03:43.3 I think with the movement. He has more influence on me than I have on the object. 0:03:57.1 Can you imagine some kind of function for such a behavior? 0:04:06.2 like a turntable. for me it was more like make it more or less nervous. an object you have to calm down. 0:04:39.4 can you imagine a context? 0:04:45.3 like a sleeping object. or after sports. an object what makes you relaxed. 0:05:14.4 it was a bit confused. It went from 6 till 9 for a long time. so i was doing a lots of things. but it was only doing one quarter. 0:05:41.2 can you name the object? 0:05:48.8 no 0:05:53.1 how do you name your projects? 0:05:54.8 I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t.

DATA P3 Male / Master ID condition order - A (1st condition: light and motion together; 2nd condition: light only) 1st condition: L+M 01 min 58 sec /////////////////////// 2nd condition: L 02 min 07 sec ///////////////////////// preferred condition: 1st keywords: search, nervous, hysterious, rich, sensitive, random, trying, scared, escape, curious, find, intimate, distant INTERVIEW 0:01:52.0 Did you feel the object could perceive? 0:01:55.2 hmmm.. Yes. 0:01:59.6 How does it perceive? 0:02:04.6 How? 0:02:12.5 What is the way it detects? 0:02:18.7 It perceives the presence of my hand. That they are there or they are not. 0:02:24.3 One, two hands? the movement of the hand? or is it only the 4 corners? 0:02:41.6 I had the impression, in the second situation, it was something that was searched for like where my hand was, and not sure where to go, and at some point it made a decision to go to one hand or to the other. And with the first situation, I had the impression that it was much more nervous and more active for its own movement; specially when I touched several places it became ‘hysterious’ 0:03:18.6 Which one did you prefer? Which one was better? 0:03:25.3 I felt the first one could be more intweking (?), like more rich. But the second one like more sensitive for me. The first one was showed ‘hysterious’, looked more a bit random, but the second one I had an idea it trying to do this. 0:03:48.4 So, did you felt more involved in the second? 0:03:51.6 Yeah, in the end the second. Even though I preferred the interaction of the second one. 0:03:54.7 And what do you think about this entity, in which condition it felt more involved? 0:04:08.6 I think in the second one. In the first one it was more scared. Also in the first one I felt it tries to get away from me somehow but it can not because it is a circle. And in the second one it tried to move towards to me. 0:04:31.1 Do you think there is a goal of the behaviours? Any of them? 0:04:33.8 Yes, I think the first one, is like escaping; and the second one was like curiosity, it was trying to find what was there. 0:05:04.3 Can you imagine a benefit of such an application? not only the physicality, but also how you felt? Can you imagine an application where the physical movement reenforce the augmented? 0:05:29.3 Good question. I don’t have a direct answer. It is interesting to say I felt the object was more involved or I was. 0:05:57.8 So, how distant were you from the object in the two situation? 0:06:05.1 The first one was closer. 0:06:05.9 Because of the movement? 0:06:09.9 Yeah. It was more like intimate. I could feel it moving with my hands. 0:06:13.6 And the second one was less intimate? 0:06:18.3 Yes. More distant. Something behind the glass. Like a fish in the aquarium. 0:06:36.6 Do you have any idea how can I name this? 0:06:42.9 ‘The Circle of Confusion’?

DATA P4 Male / Bachelor ID condition order - A (1st condition: light and motion together; 2nd condition: light only) 1st condition: L+M 02 min 20 sec //////////////////////////// 2nd condition: L 02 min 41 sec //////////////////////////////// preferred condition: 2nd keywords: reach, follow, search, guide, active, subtle INTERVIEW 0:05:40.8 Could you feel the object can perceive you? 0:05:44.1 Yes. 0:05:47.7 And how does it sees? 0:06:01.1 First one, when I touched it I went further. One light further each time. Till it reached my hand. And make it shorter. 0:06:23.1 Can you describe the two different behaviour? 0:06:50.9 This one (no movement) is more clear it wants you to go somewhere. 0:06:53.2 Is it trying to guide you somewhere? Or is it trying to catch you? 0:07:01.2 It is following you. But I think it is both. First it is searching me. Following me. It wants me guide me to a point. 0:07:43.0 Is it different in the two condition? 0:07:48.6 First time it is more wide. I like the second one more. 0:08:07.9 this would be my next question. 0:08:11.2 The second one is more clear, because it gets your attention; but the other one less. 0:08:33.7 Which one was the object more involved? More responsive to your actions? You said the second time you felt more in control, but was the object also more involved in that interplay? 0:08:56.7 The second one, I had a feeling it wants to get me somewhere. 0:09:04.8 So that is the goal of the object. 0:09:13.9 So what situation was the object more in control? 0:09:35.7 ... Ok; then I ask differently. This physical movement, what do you think it added to this object? So you said the second one was more clear and easy, but the first one? It was more nervous, more active? 0:10:09.1 No the second one is far more active. The first one is more subtle. 0:10:57.3 In which one you felt more distance? 0:11:06.0 I think the first one was more close to me. I like the second one more, I like it tries to get me somewhere. 0:11:38.2 And which one you felt more intimate? 0:11:43.1 I think the first one. The second one just tries to get me somewhere but the first one somehow I felt more warm. 0:12:10.7 Any idea how can I name it. 0:12:16.4 oh no. we also having troubles naming ours.

DATA P5 Male / Master ID condition order - A (1st condition: light and motion together; 2nd condition: light only) 1st condition: L+M 03 min 03 sec //////////////////////////////////// 2nd condition: L 01 min 50 sec ////////////////////// preferred condition: - (more natural: 1st ) keywords: follow, sync, listen, connect, ignore, relaxed, play, intimate, natural, responding INTERVIEW 0:05:10.8 Did you feel the object can perceive? 0:05:15.9 Partly. Because sometimes it follows you. 0:05:21.8 But is it perceiving you? 0:05:30.0 If you wanna give it some human characteristic than it can perceive but it does not always want to. 0:05:40.6 So how does it perceive? 0:05:47.5 You mean technically? 0:05:51.5 Nooo. Is it about touch? about movement? The distance between them? Or the relation between the light and you? what? 0:06:00.6 First, I was kinda confused when you said to do it slower. 0:06:15.2 Oh no I was trying to show you can use your whole palm. So how does it perceiving you? 0:06:29.3 I would say it is the movement when you go along with it. When you sync with each other; you and the object, than it start listening to you. Than you more connected to each other. And then It stops and then it perceives me or completely ignores me. 0:07:00.5 So can you briefly describe the two different behaviors? 0:07:03.5 Yeah; the first one, this thing was moving and the second one it did not. 0:07:06.8 Ok. But the behaviour felt exactly the same? 0:07:13.9 It seemed, the second one was more relaxed. Maybe because there is also a moving part in the first one. 0:07:31.4 So what did the movement added or removed? 0:07:53.8 It was more of its own activity I think. I was more focused on the light to try to Interact with. I was trying to make the lights follow me and make the lights do stuff and the physical movement of the circle, seemed to me the object own movement. He or she - I do not know what it is - was trying to do something. 0:08:18.7 So is it two different thing? the light and the movement? 0:08:21.3 No, not two different part, because light and the movement moves in the same direction, on the same boundaries. 0:08:34.8 Which one did you feel more involved yourself? 0:08:37.5 I think the first one. Yeah. Because it is more happening. Sometimes I didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know what it was doing or what is happening. But there was always the movement you can play with. And how the whole thing was moving. 0:09:16.6 And which one was the object more involved? 0:09:22.5 It was also the first one. 0:09:30.3 And which one you felt more intimate? The first or the second? 0:09:32.5 I think the second one. 0:09:35.6 Why? 0:09:37.9 Because it is less happening. And only the fluent movement of the lights. So maybe because in the first condition it is more obvious when it doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t want to do what I want. And the second one it is less obvious. 0:10:23.9 You are more forgiving in the second. Or understanding. 0:10:26.3 Yeah. That is why it is more intimate, it does not try to repeal me. And at the first one you kinda get that idea. 0:10:49.4 So how did you felt the distance between you and the behaviour of the object? Which one was closer? 0:11:09.0 It is just like I said, if there is only lights, and the light is all the way there and it seems like it try to get to a greater distance. I perceive the distance more than when the whole object tries to do something. 0:11:27.7 And which one felt more natural? 20:11:32.3 I would say the first one, because the movement is natural. I am moving. And I am trying to physically manipulate things. And then this whole circle was physically responding as well. So I think that is more natural. 0:12:03.6 I really wanted to touch it. If this would show some kind of feedback, and I could really manipulate this one as well, then I think you would get the real thing. You can feel than the forces, how stable, how strong it is. Than I could try to move it and it could allow me to do so.

DATA P6 Female / Master ID condition order - A (1st condition: light and motion together; 2nd condition: light only) 1st condition: L+M 01 min 58 sec /////////////////////// 2nd condition: L 02 min 20 sec //////////////////////////// preferred condition: - (more natural: 1st ) keywords: active, playful, alive INTERVIEW Did you feel the object can perceive you? Both versions? Yes The first one more than the second one. Why? The first one was quicker to go where my hand was. For the second one it took a while. It did something in the direction I wanted, but it took some time. And how does this object perceives things? I am not sure. 0:00:23.1 Which one did you felt more involved? The first or the second one? 0:00:27.8 With the movement. 0:00:33.4 It was faster how it responded to me. And it was more active than the second one. 0:01:22.0 Which behaviour you felt more intimate? 0:01:25.0 The second one. The light-only. 0:01:40.1 And how did you felt the distance between you and the object? Did the physical movement brought you closer or more distant? 0:01:57.1 Closer. It was more playful. 0:02:08.3 And which one felt more natural? 0:02:11.9 The first one. I was more aware of that it was reacting on me. 0:02:38.4 Going back to the intimacy. Some people said this physical movement makes it more intimate because you can really touch it. What do you think? 0:03:01.5 I would not say that it is more intimate. But if it would be some kind of animal I would say it is more alive. That is why the first one felt more natural.

DATA P7 Male / Master ID condition order - B (1st condition: light only; 2nd condition: light and motion together) 1st condition: L 02 min 16 sec /////////////////////////// 2nd condition: L+M 02 min 49 sec ///////////////////////////////// preferred condition: 1st keywords: play, run, rhythm, escape, follow, live INTERVIEW 0:05:47.7 Did you feel the object can perceive? 0:06:10.8 Specially the second one. 0:06:12.1 Why? 0:06:18.6 After some time I started playing with only the rotating thing, I almost forget about the light. So I was trying to play with the rotating thing. So actually I am interacting with something, that is what I feel playing with it at the end. 0:06:31.9 And the other one? 0:06:36.4 The only-light. So, my focus was only on the light, so I was touching something else when I was watching the lights so it is quite separate for me. 0:06:53.1 So what do you think how does the object perceives? What does it react on? 0:07:13.3 It reacts almost the same in both conditions. It perceives my two hands. Not one hand. I tried to cover as much as possible with one hand, but the feeling is different when I touch it with two hands. And that is something nice because ... I do not know. At the end I tried to play with two hands also with the rotating ring. So I think, for me, it perceives when I am putting two hands. And it runs faster. 0:07:59.3 What elements of the two hand it perceives? is it the position? 0:08:03.7 It is mostly the position. What I did I put one of my hand somewhere here () and here and it starts running really fast. Instead of only one hand. 0:08:23.1 Can you describe the two different behaviours? 0:08:42.7 It tries to play. But because of the rotating speed is almost the same, the degree is also almost the same. So I can feel the rhythm of the rotation. 0:09:03.5 So how does it behave? 0:09:12.8 I tried to behave the other way it does. So I can say, it behaves the other way. 0:09:31.0 So is it escaping or following? 0:09:32.1 I tried both. I had the feeling it really depends on me. So that is my feeling. 0:10:29.1 Which one do you prefer? 0:10:30.5 I would say the first one, in a sense that I focus more only on one thing. And I like the second one because I interact with something what is really moving. But I loose the connection between the LED and the rotating. So I can only focus on one thing. When I was playing with the ring I did not pay attention to the LED at all. But I liked to play with it. 0:10:57.8 Which one you felt more involved? 0:11:08.3 The second one. The first one, I separate the object from the light, so the light and what I am doing. But the second one I was playing with something what tries to escape or following me. Something I was also doing. So I felt more involved in the second case. 0:11:45.8 Which behaviour felt more intimate? 0:11:49.1 The second one. Because something live, I can touch. And it touches back. 0:12:06.6 How did you feel the distance between you and the object in this two different conditions? 0:12:12.1 The first one is quite large. And also because most of the time the light is not in my site. Somewhere running there, far away from me. Also the feeling of me with the object. The second one, when I only look at the light, it is the same as the first one, I tried to play with it and then the distance became small. 0:12:42.4 Which one felt more natural? 0:12:44.2 The first one.

DATA P8 & P9 Male / Master ID x2 condition order - B (1st condition: light only; 2nd condition: light and motion together) 1st condition: L 02 min 09 sec ///////////////////////// 2nd condition: L+M 01 min 27 sec ////////////////// 1st condition: 2nd condition:

L L+M

03 min 01 sec 02 min 00 sec

//////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////

preferred conditions: 1st keywords: stimulate, active, explore, respond, unclear, dependent, come, reposition, play, chasing, curious, double, confirmation, connected INTERVIEW 0:08:21.2 Did you feel the object can perceive? 0:08:31.1 At least respond. Reacting upon one input. Or at least what I saw. 0:08:45.9 I mean if it is response, it perceiving you in a way. My answer would be yes. in both cases. 0:09:00.0 Is it the same in the first and the second one? 0:09:03.6 To me, it was the same. I liked the first perception better because the second one was in my opinion only showing the motion to confirm the direction. And the first one was already clear to me. It did not added extra value. 0:09:27.4 So which one was the preferred behaviour? 0:09:29.2 Also the first one. After the first one I thought the second one will be better, but then I noticed, indeed, that is what I think, that it moves is an extra show off how the thing is moving, in a way. exaggerating only. 0:09:56.7 And how does this thing perceive? 0:10:19.2 Four little dots. And it acted upon the direction where it moves. 0:10:59.1 So how could you influence the speed? it was sometimes faster sometimes slower. 0:11:02.3 It was something I could not make sense of. At a specific moment it was really fast. ‘Oh, what did I do?’ 0:11:09.0 For me it was like I stimulated him. In a way that I was more active, and more exploring he was more. And I did not get the sensing. It was location based maybe, but ... I found hard to make the relationship between the light, of course it is hard, it comes to your hand, but I thought it can sense me everywhere all the time, and then have a different kind of output that is moving this thing. At least I did not have a feeling it was locally sensing. 0:11:59.2 So there is no difference between the two behaviours? 0:12:11.8 No. I did not see it. 0:12:18.1 In which one you felt more involved? 0:12:32.5 I think it was the first, because it was only me and the light. Instead me and the light and the movement. 0:12:42.9 I think the second one goes almost more to responding, a reactive thing, the first is a little bit unclear that is why indeed you feel more involved, more dependent. 0:13:06.6 So is it more clear when you have the physical movement? 0:13:08.4 For me it was. 0:13:22.8 The first one I really liked a lot because it was reacting upon my position. It came to me, and the I could just reposition and play around a little bit. It’s chasing me for instance. 0:13:53.0 I was expecting the second one was more elaborate, so that motion will add some extra communication as well, because I got the communication using the light and my position, I could for instance make it curious or that it chase me or me chasing the light itself, but the second one was not clear to me. So I missed a bit of that communication between my input and the motion. DATA P8_9 part2 0:00:18.0 Which behaviour you felt more intimate? 0:00:20.6 First. Yeah, again, for me intimate means also involved. 0:00:31.1 More people said, because they can feel this movement it is more intimate. 0:00:39.4 I didn’t find it personal having a rotating ring in addition the light itself. It was really intimate the light and just sensing and playing around. 0:00:57.8 So it did not enhanced, it just extended it. 0:01:05.7 I think the issue is although the light is moving, it is moving but not in the location. So having next to that having a motor which makes the platform moves is a really different output than seeing the light changing direction. 0:01:33.5 I thought it was a bit double. Or at least tent to be a confirmation. 0:01:51.7 How did you perceive the distance between you and the object? Is the physical motion brought it closer or created more distance? 0:02:02.5 Again, the first one. I think I guess I did not even put my both hands off for a really long time in the first case. I felt like more connected or implied to move, because there is nothing else. 0:02:38.2 And which felt more natural? 0:02:43.5 The first. 0:03:59.0 If you would remove the light when the plate is turning, I would actually feel the movement.

DATA P10 Male / Master ID condition order - B (1st condition: light only; 2nd condition: light and motion together) 1st condition: L 01 min 53 sec /////////////////////// 2nd condition: L+M 01 min 34 sec /////////////////// preferred condition: 2nd keywords: overactive, alligator, cat, fun, serious, expressive, anamorphic, mechanical creature, distract INTERVIEW 0:03:57.1 Do you feel the object can perceive? 0:04:02.5 To an extent, yes. Perceives my own activity. When I am overactive it become overactive, but not immediately, which makes it seem like reacting instead of ... it seems fairly clear. So it is not just random stuff happening. So it is reacting to me. 0:04:48.3 So both condition was completely clear. 0:04:55.3 The second one even seemed like only physicalizing the movement. 0:05:05.2 Can you describe the two behaviours? 0:05:14.8 I thought it was actually identical. What happens is, if you do not move much or you just placing your hands to the lighted area, it become calm, like holding over it. It slows down, calms down much like holding the eyes of an alligator. and then you move your hand like rubbing a cat in a wrong way, it goes all (...) . 0:06:14.8 And what do you think how you behaviour changes in this two conditions? 0:06:18.3 First of all, when you start moving you immediately start having more fun, so the first one was very serious but when there was movement I was like â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;yeah manâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. And in fact the movement helped a lot, it was far more expressive, and the lights itself is sort of like a loading bar and it actually gives it a sort of anamorphic character. its own creature. it is not really relatable to an actual animal. it is very much of a mechanical creature. (...) This does not steal from animals but still has a character. 0:07:52.0 Which one did you prefer? 0:07:53.2 The second. 0:07:54.7 Why? 0:07:56.4 Because it was more fun. 0:08:05.9 In which condition you were more involved? 0:08:07.2 In the first one. Because it in the second one I already felt I know what is gonna happen. It was just too similar for me to be more active. 0:08:38.6 Which condition was more intimate? 0:08:42.6 The first one was more intimate. Because when I am talking about intimate I think of very fine movements, you know, like in a girl, some small details. 0:09:11.7 Some people said the movement made it more intimate. 0:09:33.8 It probably depends on a person. I am more like a chick. Touching is nice, but when this very small things happen... that is a wow moment. (...) less is more. 0:10:22.4 Is the movement made it more closer or distant you and the object? 0:10:49.8 I do not think it has any effect on it. Because it is moving it doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t make it more or less connected. I have a very clear connection, it is not like a computer. I am interacting with this. I can feel that I interact with this. This formation that is happening. Not the object, with the formation. The movement does not change that interactive sense. 0:11:37.2 And which felt more natural? 0:11:41.4 The first. Because the servo has a strange kinda motion, which does not feel organic. Cause you used the word natural, I take it very literal. For my natural or organic means something I can find in nature. 0:12:32.2 I would say it was more natural when there was less tangibility, because of the added layer of the movement actually distracted from the interaction I was having. 0:13:23.9 Suggestion for name? 0:13:55.1 it looks like a problem solver animal survival thing...

DATA P11 Female / Bachelor ID condition order - B (1st condition: light only; 2nd condition: light and motion together) 1st condition: L 02 min 25 sec ///////////////////////////// 2nd condition: L+M 01 min 56 sec /////////////////////// preferred condition: 1st keywords: choose, follow, bored, go, little friend, buddies, distracting, intruding, compete INTERVIEW 0:04:57.7 Did you feel the object able to perceive? 0:05:00.2 Yes. But I feel like it chooses not to act on it. 0:05:10.2 Both conditions? 0:05:11.5 Not all the time, but in the beginning I guess. 0:05:16.7 And how does it perceive? Or what does it perceive? 0:05:23.7 I don’t know. In the beginning I thought it is following me. Trying to come towards me, and then sometimes I thought it was bored and it just going somewhere else. 0:05:35.5 Can you describe the two different behaviors? the two conditions? 0:05:51.1 In the second one (with motion) I had more a feeling it companying the disk. It was his little friend. 0:06:03.5 Little friend of your hand or ...? 0:06:04.4 No. The light and the disk. They were buddies. 0:06:18.3 Which one do you prefer, the first or second one? 0:06:21.9 I like the first one. 0:06:22.9 Why? 0:06:24.6 Because the second one I felt like a bit distracting. 0:06:27.6 Distracting? 0:06:28.7 Because the disk. Than it was an another thing. Than the sound was also confusing me. (static noise in the headphone) 0:06:35.9 The static sound? 0:06:41.9 Cause it got louder and softer and it was like ‘waved-rushy’. It got more intensive in some point. And I was like ‘ow, I just did something’. ... 0:07:36.2 Which one did you feel more involved? 0:07:39.1 I think the first one. 0:07:43.6 Because? 0:07:46.4 Because there in the beginning, ... ... 0:09:05.2 I had the opinion the light would (..) more to me. I don’t know. Maybe I am completely wrong. Maybe also my attention was stronger in the beginning. 0:09:25.8 So how would you describe your different intention in the two cases? 0:09:32.2 In the first one I still tried to figure it out what is going on. First I was only focusing on the light. So then I maybe noticed more. And then the sound got more intense, and than I thought maybe I moved in to some corner, than I payed more attention to different influences. Maybe. 0:10:07.1 Which behaviour was more intimate? 0:10:12.4 The first one. Because in the second one there was also the other guy. The disk. Stealing my attention you know. 0:10:23.3 And how do you feel about the distance between you and the object in the two condition? Is this physical movement - as I understand you - is really just isolate you and the light-body movement? 0:10:35.0 No. The light and the disk, they were closer together. They felt like they were close. In the second one I felt like I am intruding. And in the first one. It was only me and the light. You know. 0:11:04.9 Which one felt more natural? 0:11:08.7 I think the first one. For the same reason. Because then I’m not like trying to compete with the disk. It seems like pulling a light a little bit. 0:11:33.9 Some people said, it was more intimate for them to physically feel the movement. 0:11:44.1 I did not touch the disk so much. When it was moving with the light. Maybe that is a good point. That I did not go to that direction.

DATA P12 Male / Master HTI condition order - B (1st condition: light only; 2nd condition: light and motion together) 1st condition: L 02 min 30 sec ////////////////////////////// 2nd condition: L+M 03 min 18 sec /////////////////////////////////////// preferred condition: - (more natural: 2nd ) keywords: play, confuse, adapt, stop, static, expressive, focus, experiment, connected, hypnotised, conscious, engage, unconscious, active INTERVIEW 0:05:12.7 Did you feel the object able to perceive? 0:05:23.6 I think it react to what I do. 0:05:26.9 And what was it perceive? 0:05:33.5 If I touch, it moves where I am touching. 0:05:39.5 That is all what it does? 0:05:42.2 Yeah. Well, If I am playing with it, if I am start switching, trying to confuse, moving, it goes faster, to adapt what I am doing. 0:06:00.7 Can you describe the two behaviours? Or was that the same? 0:06:10.5 The one, it was moving then it starts perceiving you. It reacts on subtle movement. If I press one side it tries to follow. It goes fast and then stops a little bit. Than if you start playing with it, it starts. 0:06:40.2 In both conditions? 0:06:50.0 No, in the first one, it is more static without the movement. an you can feel in the second one, you can see more. I do not know how to say. More expressive maybe. Even if you know, or you look, you know that it is moving. Maybe it is still missing something that tells more, makes it stronger, the feeling of movement. Because I know it is moving, because I can see it. But I can not feel it completely. DATA P12 part2 0:00:24.3 Which behaviour was more intimate? 0:00:30.2 The second one. 0:00:31.4 Why? 0:00:32.7 Because I was trying to get deeper into the feeling. So I was very focused on trying to feel. The other was more to make the light move around. In the second one it was ... Maybe because I got use to it, the interaction, so I was playing with it. Than when I knew how it works, I was also experimenting, what happens if I press one, and then pressing one and pressing another one in the same time. There will be something else what happen. 0:01:33.2 And what about intimacy? Which one was emotionally more intimate? 0:01:37.1 I got deeper in the second one. 0:01:46.7 And how did you perceive the distance in the interactions? Which one you felt closer the object? 0:02:03.2 In the first one I felt closer the light, because I was only paying attention of the light, so I focused all my attention on the light. On the second one, I was trying to feel more than only paying attention the lights. It is just a different feeling actually. The one you completely centered to the light, the other one, you are looking at the light, but you are more trying to perceive the movement. 0:02:42.0 I ask a bit differently. Was this physical movement connecting you or creating a border between you and the object? 0:02:47.0 I think, I got more connected. 0:02:57.7 Which felt more natural? 0:03:08.1 I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know. I like the movement. I like I can feel. It makes me more... It tries to engage me more. Even if I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t pay attention any more to the light. 0:06:26.6 Why did you felt more engaging this physicality? What was so attractive in that? 0:06:32.8 Cause... First you are playing with it, and with the light, you get hypnotised. But in the second one, I do not get hypnotised. It is more that I am more conscious about the feeling. 0:06:57.1 The first one engages me in a very unconscious level. And the second one involves me in a more active level.