3. artefact analysis - phenomenology - 2

Phenomenology*

Husserl Heidegger Merleau-Ponty Schütz Wittgenstein

Philosophical*founda3ons*

•  Cogni3vism/posi3vism/reduc3onism*•  Alterna3ve*theories:*

– Husserl*– Heidegger*– Merleau?Ponty*–  Schütz*– WiDgenstein*

•  Implica3on*for*design*

Technological*backdrop**

Tangible*and*Social*Compu3ng******

Desktop*compu3ng*

From*usability*test*of*“Xerox*Star”*1979.*

Ubiquitous*Compu3ng*

**Mark*Weiser*–*Xerox*Parc*1991*

Computing by • the Inch • the Foot • the Yard

Good*Technology*Is*Invisible*

•  “Invisible”*stays*out*of*the*way*of*task*–  Like*a*good*pencil*stays*out*of*the*way*of*the*wri3ng*–  Like*a*good*car*stays*out*of*the*way*of*the*driving*

•  Bad*technology*draws*aDen3on*to*itself,*not*task*–  Like*a*broken,*or*skipping,*or*dull*pencil*–  Like*a*car*that*needs*a*tune?up*

•  Computers*are*mostly*not*invisible*–  They*dominate*interac3on*with*them!

•  Ubiquitous!compu-ng*is*about*“invisible*computers”*

Overview?7*

How*to*Do*Invisible*Compu3ng?*

•  Integrated*computer*systems*approach*–  Invisible,*everywhere,*compu3ng*named*“ubiquitous*compu3ng”*in*April*1989*

•  Invisible:*3ny,*embedded,*aDachable,*…*•  Everywhere:*wireless,*dynamically*configurable,*remote*access,*adap3ng,*…*

Goals*of*Ubiquitous*Compu3ng*

•  Ul3mate*goal:*–  Invisible*technology*–  Integra3on*of*virtual*and*physical*worlds*–  Throughout*desks,*rooms,*buildings,*and*life*–  Take*the*data*out*of*informa3on,*leaving*behind*just*an*enhanced*ability*to*act*

Ubiquitous*Compu3ng*Vision*

“In*the*21st*century*the*technology*revolu3on*will*move*into*the*everyday,*the*small*and*the*invisible…”*

“The*most*profound*technologies*are*those*that*disappear.*They*weave*themselves*into*the*fabrics*of*everyday*life*un3l*they*are*indis3nguishable*from*it.”*

Mark*Weiser*(1952*–1999),*XEROX*PARC*

!  Small, cheap, mobile processors and sensors "   in almost all everyday objects "   on your body (“wearable

computing”) "   embedded in environment

(“ambient intelligence”)

Social*use*context*

•  Current*IT*is*ogen*ICT:*Informa3on*and*Communica3on*Techology.*

•  To*be*used*in*a*social*context.*

•  Interwoven*in*society*=*Infrastructure.*

Overview?11*

Ubiquitous*Informa3on*

PAN: Personal area network

Smart*Clothing*

•  Conduc3ve*tex3les*and*inks*–  print*electrically*ac3ve*paDerns*directly*

onto*fabrics*•  Sensors*based*on*fabric*

–  e.g.,*monitor*pulse,*blood*pressure,*body*temperature*

•  Invisible*collar*microphones*•  Kidswear*

–  game*console*on*the*sleeve?*–  integrated*GPS?driven*locators?*–  integrated*small*cameras*(to*keep*the*

parents*calm)?*

Wearable*Concept*(Motorola)*

RFIDs*(“Smart*Labels”)*

•  Iden3fy*objects*from*distance*–  small*IC*with*RF?transponder*

•  Wireless*energy*supply*–  ~1m*–  magne3c*field*(induc3on)*

•  ROM*or*EEPROM*(writeable)*–  ~100*Byte*

•  Cost*~$0.1*...*$1*–  consumable*and*disposable*

•  Flexible*tags*–  laminated*with*paper*

Tangible*&*social*compu3ng*

•  Dourish:*– How*to*design*technology**to*best*fit*into*the*life*of*people?*

–  Such*technology*is*”familiar”*to*the*user.*

–  It*is*”embodied”*–*becomes*part*of*the*user´s*life.**

–  Embodiment:*”..occur*in*real*3me*and*real*space”.*

Theore3cal*basis*for*“embodiment”*

• What*is*a*good*theore3cal*founda3on*for*understanding*”embodiment”?*

1950:*Systems*theory*/*cyberne3cs*

•  Ergonomics*–*cyberne3cs.*•  Technology*use*as*a*feedback*

loop.*•  The*user*is*just*one*element*in*

this*loop.*

*

Chaplin, “Modern times”, 1936

Model*Human*Processor*(2)*

•  Core*concepts:*–  Short*term*/*long*term*memory.*

–  Perceptual*processor.*–  Chunk*(smallest*unit*of*informa3on*=*a*difference*that*makes*a*difference)*

–  Motor*processor*–  Seman3c*memory.*

Kri3kk*av*C.S.*paradigmet*

Hubert*Dreyfus:*1972.*What*Computers*Can't*Do:*The*Limits*of*

Ar3ficial*Intelligence**

•  Kri3kk*av*symbolsk*AI.*•  Baserte*seg*på*Heidegger*og*Merleau?Ponty*•  Mesteparten*av*våre*handlinger*er*ikke*

“kogni3ve”.*Vi*har*ikke*en*symbolsk*representasjon*av*verden.*

•  Mestring*er*ikke*regel?basert,*men*en*handlingskompetanse.*

•  Krever*“bakgrunn”*og*kontekst.*Konteksten*kan*ikke*gjøres*eksplisiD.*

Kuns3g*intelligens*(AI)*

•  AI*fungerer*godt*på*definerte*domener*(Jeopardy,*sjakk),*men*dårlig*på*�åpne�*domener.*

•  Åpne*domener:*–  Improvisere*fram*en*god*middag.*–  �Lese�*en*sosial*situasjon.*–  Forstå*humor.*–  Ekte*AI*krever*et*menneskesinn*i*en*menneskekropp,*i*en*menneskeverden*med*andre*mennesker.*

Fenomenologi*og*Speech?act*theory*

–  Winograd*&*Flores*"Understanding*Computers*and*Cogni3on”*(1986):*–  Kri3kk*av*underliggende*1?1*antagelser*om*symboler*og*deres*mening*i*AI*og*

Cogn.*Sc.:*“1.*Sentences*say*things*about*the*world,*and*can*be*either*true*or*false.***2.*What*a*sentence*says*about*the*world*is*a*func3on*of*the*words*it*contains*and*the*

structures*into*which*these*are*combined.***3.*The*content*words*of*a*sentence*(such*as*its*nouns,*verbs,*and*adjec3ves)*can*be*

taken*as*deno3ng*(in*the*world)*objects,*proper3es,*rela3onships,*or*sets*of*these.”*

–  Presentasjon*av*3*alterna3ve*retninger:*–  Maturana:*Biologiske*systemer*–  Aus3n*&*Searl:*Speech*Act*theory*–  Heidegger:*Fenomenologi*og*Hermeneu3kk*

*

Speech?act*theory*•  Kommunikasjon*er*talehandlinger.*•  Når*person*A*sier*noe*3l*person*B*så*er*det*en*handling*f.eks.:*

–  En*oppfordring*–  En*spøk*–  En*kommando*–  Ironi*–  Sitat,,,*

•  En*setnings*betydning*er*giD*av*den*sosiale*sammenhengen,*og*har*ingen*objek3v*mening*som*sådan.*

*

Phenomenology*

•  Edmund*Husserl*(1859?1938)*•  Founder*of*phenomenology.*•  Concerned*with*the*rela3on*between*what*we*observe*in*the*world*and*our*understanding*of*these*phenomena.*

•  Important*concepts:*“Natural*aytude”,*“bracke3ng”,*“life?world”.*

Husserl*

•  We interpret the world with a basis in our “natural attitude”. This means that we can never see the world as it really is.

•  We have to “bracket” our own natural attitude (“bracketing”). Through this process we see our own implicit assumptions and cultural stereotypes. This brings us closer to a true understanding of the world.

•  The “bracketing” also shows us our “life-world”: our everyday life and culture, and the way in which it has shaped us.

“life?world”*

•  Husserl´s*concept*“lebenswelt”:*the*background*from*which*we*interpret*the*world.*

•  Our*life?world*is*private*and*unique,*but*we*share*some*of*it*with*other*people*in*our*culture*and*group.*

Schütz:*Intersubjec3vity*

•  Intersubjectivity: To or more people have individual, but also to a certain extent a shared understanding of something.

•  How can we know what the other person understands?

•  Shared understanding requires a shared life-world (“common ground”).

What*is*common*when*nothing*is*common?*

• What*will*be*the*shared*life?world*with*aliens?*

• Music?*

hDp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYCBgSRNjk0*(5:00*min)*

WiDgenstein*

•  Our use of langugage is a kind of “language game”.

•  Taking part in the language game creates a shared understaning.

•  “If a lion could talk, we could not understand him”.

Heidegger*(1889?1976)*•  Student*of*Husserl.*A*break*with*Husserl´s*“idealis3cs”*philosophy.*

•  As*human*beings*we*are*“thrown”*into*we*world;*we*have*not*chosen*to*exist*and*we*can*not*escape*the*fact*that*we*exist.**

•  “I*am*in*the*world”,*rather*than*“I*think,*therefore*I*am”.*Existence*is*a*given,*and*prior*to*thinking*and*self*reflec3on.**

•  Prac3cal*ac3on*is*more*fundamental*than*thinking.*

Heidegger*

•  There*is*no*neutral*posi3on*from*which*one*can*give*an*objec3ve*interpreta3on*of*a*phenomenon.*

•  Interpreta3on*is*always*going*on*in*a*social*and*cultural*context,*with*the*limits*our*pre?understanding*of*the*world.*

•  We*do*not*have*“mental*representa3ons”*of*the*world.*Our*view*of*the*world*is*created*through*ac3ng*in*the*world.*

•  The*hermeneu3c*circle:*We*never*read*the*same*book*twice.**

�Thrownness�*

•  An*ac3on*always*happens*in*a*context*– A*past*and*possible*futures*– A*social*context*– A*physical*context*– Our*cultural*context*

•  Example:*–  Buying*a*3cket*for*the*Metro*–  Riding*a*bike*in*Copenhagen.*

Heidegger*on*objects*and*tools*

•  Before*being*used,*tools*exist*as*objects*in*the*world.*

•  When*using*a*tool*it*becomes*“transparent”*to*us.*

•  If*a*tool*stops*working*as*a*tool,*we*experience*a*“breakdown”,*and*it*again*becomes*an*object*in*the*world.**

•  “Breakdowns”*make*objects*and*their*rela3ons*and*their*poten3als*for*use*emerge*in*a*new*way.*

•  Heidegger*uses*the*Germain*ending*“zeug”*(“tøy”).*Also*in*the*Nordic*languages:*verktøy,*kjøretøy,*klestøy,*fartøy,*fyrtøy,,.*Things*we*use*for*a*purpose.**

Equipmental*nexus**•  Heidegger*further*argues*that*tools*exist*

in*the*shared*prac3ce*of*a*culture*as*part*of*an*equipmental*nexus.*

•  E.g.*hammers*with*nails*and*wood.**•  The*hammer*gets*it*significance*through*

its*rela3on*to*nails*and*wood,*as*the*nail*get*its*significance*through*its*rela3on*to*hammer*and*wood.**

•  The*elements*form*a*whole,*and*each*get*their*significance*from*their*role*in*this*whole.*

What*is*a*thing?*

The*bone´s*�hammerness�*emerges*through*use.*

*

2001 – Ape scene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd3-1tcOthg&feature=related (0:55)

Apollo*13*•  Explosion*in*both*oxygen*tanks,*

a*“breakdown”.*•  They*had*to*build*an*air*filter*

from*what*was*available.*•  When*the*aim*changed,*the*

“meaning”*of*the*equipment*changed.*

*hDp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3csfLkMJT4*

”Breakdown” in usability test •  Causes of breakdowns:

–  Lack of functionality. – Bad communication of

functionality. – Wrong target group

•  Sources of insight: – Observation of use. – Post-test interviews. – Own experience.

Interac3vity*

•  Usability*•  User*experience*•  “Look*and*feel”*•  Desirability*

Research questions

•  What is interactivity? •  How is interactivity

experienced? •  How do we design the

interactive experience? •  How do we verify that our

interactive design actually creates the intended experience?

The five senses

•  Sight •  Hearing •  Smell •  Taste •  Touch

Designing for the five senses

Interaction: Look & Feel

ON/OFF Feel: The interactive experience

Look: The lamp�s visual appearance

ON/OFF

Interaction: Look & Feel

Feel: The interactive experience


Sensing the �feel�

Feel: The interactive experience


ON/OFF

Sight Hearing Smell Taste Touch

With what sense(s) do we perceive interactivity? •  We see the light bulb. •  We touch the switch. •  But the perceived interactivity is more than sight and touch, it

is our perception of the lamp�s behavior. •  The feel is not a sense as such, but something different.

Same look, different feel

ON/OFF ON/OFF

�Pushbutton��Toggle�

ON/OFF ON/OFF

�Pushbutton��Toggle�

Same look, different feel

Interactive vs. static

How do we explore the �feel�

1.  An exploration of the �design space�, i.e. the universe of possible expressions in a specific media.

2.  An exploration of how these expressions are perceived.

3.  Result: An understanding of how to communicate in this medium, i.e. what expressions lead to what impressions.

The modernists� approach

Kandinsky

Form + Color

Abstraction

KAZIMIERZ MALEWICZ Black square in a white background

1913 - 1915

Form + Color + Interaction

Abstract visual art!!

""""""""""""""""""""""

Untitled!

Abstract interactive art!!

""""""""""""""""""""""

Untitled II!

""""""""""""""""""""""

Untitled II!

Abstract interactive art!!

Exploring the design space

”13 Rectangles” Kandinsky

Form + Color Form + Color + Interaction

Abstract interactive squares • What stories do people tell? • What metaphors emerge? • What dimensions emerge?

Experiment 40 gadgets""""

"15 high school students (age 16-17).""Explore the gadgets""Think aloud""Implicit metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson)""

* Spatial metaphors:"""

"It jumps when I press on it"""

Interaction Gestalts •  The basic elements of the

interactive experiences are ”interaction gestalts”."

•  Similar to visual gestalts, they are directly perceived, and not a result of interpretations."

•  They are pre-verbal, and pre-analytical. "

•  Example: ”Toggle” vs. ”Push button” behavior"

"

""""""""""""""""""""""

Untitled II!

Interaction patterns

Millisecond scale

The psychology of the ”feel”!!

“The Human Information Processor”:!!!

Perception! (passive)!

!!

Action! (active)!

Problem: Perception of behavior requires action. It is not a passive reception of stimuli.

Merleau-Ponty (phenomenology):!!• Perception requires action.!!• Perception is governed by a “pre-objective” intentionality!!• Perception is embodied. !!• Perception is an acquired skill!!• The perceptual field!!• Tool use!!

Alternative theories

Eye trackers

Perception requires action •  Eye Movement Studies

(Alfred L. Yarbus): –  We actively construct

our inner image. –  Given the same

photograph, different viewers see different things.

Ordinary viewers vs. artists

S. Vogt and S. Magnussen, Expertise in pictorial perception: eye-movement patterns and visual memory in artists and laymen, Perception 36 (2007)

Men vs. women

From: �Eyetracking Web Usability�, Jakob Nielsen, Kara Pernice (2010)

Interaction = Perception

•  When we interact with an artifact, this is a kind of perception.

•  The �feel� involves active perception at three levels.

1.  The visual image is actively constructed. 2.  The interaction is a sequence of action-

reaction pairs. 3.  The �feel� experience is interpreted.

Mr. Peters

Individual differences

•  Individual differences make people interact in different ways.

•  In complex designs, that leads to parts of the design being unexplored, i.e. not perceived.

•  The viewers come back with different interactive experiences because they have interacted differently.

•  In addition they have seen differently and interpreted their actual experiences differently.

”Oh.. Now it is three squares..”!

”It jumps...”!

”..hmmm..”!

”..And then it goes back !to how it started..”!

Cartesian 2D+ space

”It jumps...”!

”It jumps...”!

Cartesian 2D+ space

State space

Initial state

Click

Click

Click

Click

ClickClick

”..And then it goes back to how it started..”!

Linear time

Cl ic k in mi ddl e

Cl ic k in r ig htmos t

Tim e = 0 Th e pre s e nt

Cl ic k in mi ddl e

Cl ic k in le f tmos t

PA STPR ESEN T

FU TUR E

Me / the world

•  Interaction design creates the subjectivity of the viewer.

•  Our experienced body extends to the experienced world.

•  Both body and world result from the interaction.

•  The artifact becomes both tool and object.

The interaction designer!Analytical design: programming!

“on mouse! if not...”!

Visual design: Photoshop!

Experience design, “Kinesthetic creativity”!

�Designing with your body�

Right brain Left brain

Perception is embodied

•  We explore objects with many senses.

•  The exploration is an active process.

•  We move, rotate, touch, smell, taste, squeeze the object and change our viewpoint.

3. artefact analysis - phenomenology - 2

Documents