Aesthetics of TouchDesForM Presentation 2012

Vicky Teinaki, Bruce Montgomery, Nicholas Spencer, Gilbert CocktonNorthumbria University

Haptics & Aesthetics

Hapticshaptikos: ‘pertaining to the sense of touch’

Carnal? Embodied? Different from touch? ARISTOTLE MERLEAu-POnTy WSyChOgRAD

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jakescreations/52190954

Vicky TeinakiThe Vocabulary of Touch | Yr1 PhD University of Northumbria

23 November 2010Diagram: Methods of Aesthetics

Educational scale of touch: a scale of tactile values for Tactilism, or the Art of Touch

First scale, level, with four di�erent categories of touch.

1. Extremely confident touch, abstract, cold. Sandpaper, Silver-coated paper.2. Touch without heat, persuasive, reasoning. Smooth silk, Silk crepe.3. Exciting, lukewarm, nostalgic. Velvet, Wool from the Pyrenees, Wool, Silk-wool crepe.4. Almost irritating, hot, determined. Granulous silk, Plaited silk, Spongy cloth.

Second scale, volumes

5. So�, hot, human. Suede, Horsehair or dog hair, Human hair, Marabou.6. Hot, sensual, spirited, a�ectionate. This category has two branches: a. Rough iron b. So� brush, Sponge, Wire brush, Plush, Human or peach fuzz, Bird down.

HEADInstant – 30 mins

HEART/MIDDLE30mins – 3 hrs

BASE3+ hrs

Citrus fruitsLemon, mandarin, bergamont

Aromatics Anis, lavender, lemon grass

Floral Erose, jasmine, lilac

Green Grass, stone, leaf

Fruity Rasberry, pear, peach

Spices Clove, nutmeg, cinnamon

Wooded Cedar, patchouli, moss

Balsamic Vanilla, heliotrope, tonka bean

FL

OR

AL N

O T E S O R I E N T A

L NO

TE

S

WO

OD

Y

NOTES FRESH N

OT

ES

Aromatic Fougere

Floral oriental

Floral

So� oriental

So� floral

Woody oriental

Mossy woods

Drywoods

Citrus

Green

Water

CARAMELIZ

ED

NU

TTY

VE

GE

TA

TIV

E

FRUITY

SPICY

FLORAL

MIC

ROBIOLOGIC

AL

OX

IDIZ

EDPU

NG

EN

T

CH

EM

ICA

L

EARTHY

WOODY

CitrusGrapefruitLemon

BerryBlackberry Raspberry(Tree)FruitCherry Apricot Peach Apple

(Tropica

l)FruitPinea

ppleM

elon Ban

ana

(Drie

d)Fr

uitSt

raw

berry

Jam

Raisin Prun

e

Fig

Oth

er

Art

ific

ialF

ruit

Met

hylA

nthr

anila

te

Fres

h

Stem

my

Gra

ss,C

utG

reen

Bel

lPep

per

Euc

alyp

tus

Min

t

Can

ned

/C

ooke

d

Gre

enB

eans

Asp

arag

usG

reen

Ol i

veB

lack

Oli

veD

ried

Hay

/ Str

awT

eaT

obac

co

Nut

tyW

alnu

tH

azel

nut

Alm

ond

Carameli

zed

Hon

eyBut

ters

cotc

h

Soy Sauce

Chocolat

e

Molasses

Art

icho

ke

Phenolic

Phenolic

Vanilla

Resinous

Cedar

Oak

BurnedSmokyBurnt Toast/CharredCoffee

Earthy

Moldy Mushroom

Dusty

MoldyCork Musty(Mildew)

Petroleu

m

PlasticTar

Diesel Kero

sene

Sulfu

r

Hydro

gen S

ulfid

e

R

ubbe

ry

Cab

bage

Wet

Woo

l,W

etD

og

Sulfu

rDio

xide

Bur

ntM

atch

Pape

ry

Wet

Car

dboa

rd

Filte

rPad

Pung

ent

Ace

ticA

cid

Eth

ylA

ceta

te

Sulf

urD

ioxi

de

Eth

anol

Oth

er

Fuse

l Alc

ohol

Sorb

ate

Soa

py F

ishy

Hot

Coo

lA

lcoh

ol

Men

thol

Ace

tald

ehyd

e

Oxi

dize

d

Yea

sty

Lees

yFl

orye

ast

Lact

ic

Lactic

AcidSwea

ty

Butyr

icA

cid

Saue

rkra

ut

Other

Mousey

Horsey

Floral

Orange Blossom

Linalool

Rose

Geranium

Violet

Spicy

ClovesBlack Pepper

Licorice, Anise

Strawberry BlackCurrant(Cassis)

Skun

k

Gar

lic

Mer

capt

anDiac

etyl (

Butter

)

The Manifesto of Tactilism – Marine�i (1921)

Aroma Wheel– Noble (1984)

Sense wheel – Williams (1980)

Ranged of the Senses – Mainar and Vodvarka (2004)

Fragrance Wheel– Edwards (1983)

Fragrance Wheel– Edwards (1983)

other variations include sublevels and masculine/feminine qualities

Vicky TeinakiThe Vocabulary of Touch | Yr1 PhD University of Northumbria

23 November 2010Diagram: Methods of Aesthetics

Educational scale of touch: a scale of tactile values for Tactilism, or the Art of Touch

First scale, level, with four di�erent categories of touch.

1. Extremely confident touch, abstract, cold. Sandpaper, Silver-coated paper.2. Touch without heat, persuasive, reasoning. Smooth silk, Silk crepe.3. Exciting, lukewarm, nostalgic. Velvet, Wool from the Pyrenees, Wool, Silk-wool crepe.4. Almost irritating, hot, determined. Granulous silk, Plaited silk, Spongy cloth.

Second scale, volumes

5. So�, hot, human. Suede, Horsehair or dog hair, Human hair, Marabou.6. Hot, sensual, spirited, a�ectionate. This category has two branches: a. Rough iron b. So� brush, Sponge, Wire brush, Plush, Human or peach fuzz, Bird down.

HEADInstant – 30 mins

HEART/MIDDLE30mins – 3 hrs

BASE3+ hrs

Citrus fruitsLemon, mandarin, bergamont

Aromatics Anis, lavender, lemon grass

Floral Erose, jasmine, lilac

Green Grass, stone, leaf

Fruity Rasberry, pear, peach

Spices Clove, nutmeg, cinnamon

Wooded Cedar, patchouli, moss

Balsamic Vanilla, heliotrope, tonka bean

FL

OR

AL N

O T E S O R I E N T A

L NO

TE

S

WO

OD

Y

NOTES FRESH N

OT

ES

Aromatic Fougere

Floral oriental

Floral

So� oriental

So� floral

Woody oriental

Mossy woods

Drywoods

Citrus

Green

Water

CARAMELIZ

ED

NU

TTY

VE

GE

TA

TIV

E

FRUITY

SPICY

FLORAL

MIC

ROBIOLOGIC

AL

OX

IDIZ

EDPU

NG

EN

T

CH

EM

ICA

L

EARTHY

WOODY

CitrusGrapefruitLemon

BerryBlackberry Raspberry(Tree)FruitCherry Apricot Peach Apple

(Tropica

l)FruitPinea

ppleM

elon Ban

ana

(Drie

d)Fr

uitSt

raw

berry

Jam

Raisin Prun

e

Fig

Oth

er

Art

ific

ialF

ruit

Met

hylA

nthr

anila

te

Fres

h

Stem

my

Gra

ss,C

utG

reen

Bel

lPep

per

Euc

alyp

tus

Min

t

Can

ned

/C

ooke

d

Gre

enB

eans

Asp

arag

usG

reen

Ol i

veB

lack

Oli

veD

ried

Hay

/ Str

awT

eaT

obac

co

Nut

tyW

alnu

tH

azel

nut

Alm

ond

Carameli

zed

Hon

eyBut

ters

cotc

h

Soy Sauce

Chocolat

e

Molasses

Art

icho

ke

Phenolic

Phenolic

Vanilla

Resinous

Cedar

Oak

BurnedSmokyBurnt Toast/CharredCoffee

Earthy

Moldy Mushroom

Dusty

MoldyCork Musty(Mildew)

Petroleu

m

PlasticTar

Diesel Kero

sene

Sulfu

r

Hydro

gen S

ulfid

e

R

ubbe

ry

Cab

bage

Wet

Woo

l,W

etD

og

Sulfu

rDio

xide

Bur

ntM

atch

Pape

ry

Wet

Car

dboa

rd

Filte

rPad

Pung

ent

Ace

ticA

cid

Eth

ylA

ceta

te

Sulf

urD

ioxi

de

Eth

anol

Oth

er

Fuse

l Alc

ohol

Sorb

ate

Soa

py F

ishy

Hot

Coo

lA

lcoh

ol

Men

thol

Ace

tald

ehyd

e

Oxi

dize

d

Yea

sty

Lees

yFl

orye

ast

Lact

ic

Lactic

AcidSwea

ty

Butyr

icA

cid

Saue

rkra

ut

Other

Mousey

Horsey

Floral

Orange Blossom

Linalool

Rose

Geranium

Violet

Spicy

ClovesBlack Pepper

Licorice, Anise

Strawberry BlackCurrant(Cassis)

Skun

k

Gar

lic

Mer

capt

anDiac

etyl (

Butter

)

The Manifesto of Tactilism – Marine�i (1921)

Aroma Wheel– Noble (1984)

Sense wheel – Williams (1980)

Ranged of the Senses – Mainar and Vodvarka (2004)

Fragrance Wheel– Edwards (1983)

Fragrance Wheel– Edwards (1983)

other variations include sublevels and masculine/feminine qualities

Hapticsactive touch(vs kinaesthesia)

Haptic Aesthetics in relation to visual aestheticsBAuhAuS, gESTALT PSyChOLOgy (KEPES, 1995)

Design principles as explained by Virginia Howlett (1996)

Design Principles• Harmony• Balance• Simplicity

Design Methods• Refinement• Restraint• Unity• Modularity

Elements• Proportion• Scale • Contrast• Colour• Fonts• Imagery• Arrangement• Emphasis• Focus• Hierarchy• Layering• Grouping• Alignment• White space• Grids

Rudolf Arheim’s (1983) set of ten criteria of visual perception:

1. Balance2. Shape3. Form

4. Growth5. Space6. Light / Dark7. Colour8. Movement9. Dynamics10. Expression

BAuhAuS, gESTALT PSyChOLOgy (KEPES, 1995)

Haptic Aesthetics in relation to visual aesthetics

ExiSTiNG RESEaRCh:

Languaging Design

LaNGUaGiNG DESiGN:

Sketches or Language?

Sketches may contain 90% of a design discussion, but conversations cover 100% of it(LAWSOn 2005)

ExiSTiNG RESEaRCh:

Touch & Language

TOUCh & LaNGUaGE:

Methods of understandingLEDERMAn & KLATSKy (1985)

Global dimensions of touchAKERMAn ET AL (2010)

Fig. 2. The 24 real telephone samples in the SD test.

to view them thoroughly and then evaluated themon the basis of their impressions. They were al-lowed to assess the telephone samples in randomorder. To avoid interference in evaluating the tele-phone samples, the subjects were asked not to talkto each other during the test.

3. Results and discussion

The raw evaluation data and preference scores ofthe designers and users were analyzed primarilywith regard to the following points:(1) Evaluation and preference score distribution;

(2) Factor analysis (principal component analysis)of the subject's perceptual space;

(3) Relative importance of design elements;(4) Design reference model.

3.1. Distribution of the raw data

The raw data } mean scores and standard devi-ation } for the 14 adjective pairs rated by designersand users re#ected that the designer is better ablethan the user to tell one product form from another.Because the users are not clear about the productform, they tend to give the telephone samplea mid-scale evaluation. For example, the range of

S.H. Hsu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 25 (2000) 375}391 379

TOUCh & LaNGUaGE:

Consumer response centredE.g. DAgMAn ET AL (2010), hSu, ChAng, & ChAng (2000)

… or looks to rationalise designersE.g. KAnSEI EngInEERIng (SEE SChüTE (2005))

Is this the result on a focus on visual semiotics?JACuCCI & WAgnER, 2007

Image from Hsu, Chang, & Chang (2000)

TOUCh & LaNGUaGE

Designers need to be able to articulate touch in relation to wider systems E.g. gIZMODO On ThE ‘SWAMP WATER JELL-O’ BROWn ZunE(AShLOCK, 2007)

ExiSTiNG RESEaRCh:

Apprenticeships

http://www.flickr.com/photos/elgincountyarchives/4306624931

aPPRENTiCEShiPS:

Novices learn by picking up language of expertsSEELy BROWn ET AL (1989)

There is a concept nexus between touch & languageACKERMAn ET AL (2010)

ExiSTiNG RESEaRCh:

An Aesthetic Language?

ExiSTiNG RESEaRCh:

Aesthetic Perspectives and The Role of Qualities

Criticism(Interaction)

ReaderViewer

ResidentClothes-wearer

Listener

Literary hermeneuticsReception theoryReader response

Novel Church

ScriptFilm

Structure

Post-structuralismSemiotics

NarratologyFormalism

New criticism

End UserManagerConsumerEmployee

EthnomethodologySurveys, interviewsMental modelsCognitive walkthroughHCI hermeneutics

Website GUIVideogameAPI Tangible UI

AuthorPoet

ArchitectComposer

Painter

Interaction DesignerUsability EngineerUser Experience Designer

UsabilityHeuristicsPrototypingpattern languageRemediation

Religious hermeneuticsBoigraphical criticism

Psycholanalytical

Porfolio (collection of works)Reflective practictionerDesignerly style

GroupsEnvironment

social Classrace

gender

GroupsSocial ClassEnvironmentRace GEnder

MorscioismFeminism

New historicism

Workplace studygroups research CSCWContextual inquiryActivity theory

Creator (Designer)

Artifact (Interface)

Social Context (Social Context)

Consumer (User)

Bardzell (2011): Criticism and interaction design

ExiSTiNG RESEaRCh:

Interaction CriticismBARDZELL (2011)

CRITICISM hELPS InfORM PERCEPTIOn;SPuR uS On TO fuRThER ACTIOn

ExiSTiNG RESEaRCh:

Worth MappingCOCKTOn (2010)

QuALITIES RELATE TO ExPERIEnCES AnD vALuE

Materials Qualities Experience outcomes (positive)

outcomes (negative)defects

Features

means endsbeneficiaries

evaluation

worth

designed co-produced

ExiSTiNG RESEaRCh:

SummaryTouch and language should be considered together as design skills that are improved through critique.

iNTERViEwS

New Designers 2011

NEw DESiGNERS

Yearly June/July show of UK graduate design students (split across two weeks, one for fashion, one for graphics/3D).

Image from http://www.flickr.com/photos/30871685@N07/6012142057/

iNTERViEwS

Ten students across design/making interviewed with their objects and audiotaped. (Video not possible.)Asked about:•Products and process•Qualities they liked•Thoughts on materials, physical form

Image from http://www.flickr.com/photos/dizajn/5890562387

iNTERViEwS

Products ranged from furniture to jewellery.

iNTERViEwS

10 students

Transcribed, phenomenological coding.

ID OBJECT(S) MATERIALS nOTED

n Lampshade Concrete, copper, brass Tape Dispenser Concrete, copper, brassL Rings Coloured copper wire, previous materials (stones), silverA necklace Sheet aluminium, aculon, vacuum formed plasticL Chair Ash, walnut (laminated), Stoneware Stoneware/ silicon rubber Bowl PewterC Jewellery Coper, brass (decayed)C Rings Acrylicy Coffee table Ash (green)J Chair Wood, pewterE Bowl glassM Stool glass, metal, wood Clock Wood, acrylic

iNTERViEwS

ResultsCODES

IntentEvaluationReferencesQualities

iNTERViEwS

ResultsCODES

IntentEvaluationReferencesQualities

ThEMES

A: Using Materials to Challenge Expectations

B1: Limited Mention of Haptic Qualities

B2: What They Did Mention

a. USiNG MaTERiaLS TO ChaLLENGE ExPECTaTiONS “Y (wooden steam bent table): I’ve had a lot of people think that the underneath [the wooden table] is all was really soft and flowing, and they’ve had to come along and like, touch it, and make sure it’s all solid. But yeah, everyone loves it and making sure like, feeling all the curves and everything.

A (metal necklace):I’ve actually had someone come from up there [the top floor of the exhibition] and go, “is it [the metal necklace] rubber? It looks like rubber.” and lots of people have said, what is it actually made of? It’s not plastic, but it’s usually the sound it creates, you can tell it’s metal.

K (acrylic jewellery): If people have knowledge already about the material and the processes, they come in and question more, where’s the join, or how it is worked? If it’s people who don’t and have no idea, they come and approach and question: is it glass?

M (stool with metal strap): It wasn’t really intentional to bring the strapping through and keep it the same aesthetic, it just sort of ended up that way, without me realizing … I was er, surprised at the number of people saying, “I thought it was fabric, how is it standing up?” which I kinda like really.

Designers sought to disrupt audience expectations(REf BARDZELL, 2010)

Designer Social Context

Artifact Consumer/User

Materials Qualities Experience outcomes (positive)

outcomes (negative)defects

Features

means endsbeneficiaries

evaluation

worth

designed co-produced

haptic VerificationMCCuLLOugh (1995)PATERSOn (2007)

B1. LiMiTED MENTiON OF haPTiC QUaLiTiES

Not in high frequencyWhen it does occur, is used for•Haptic verification•Rationalising choice of materialsWhat did get mentioned frequently •construction, absences

B. LiMiTED MENTiON OF haPTiC QUaLiTiES

Terms comparing wood to acrylic in a laser-cut clock and related success

Acrylic Wood

Weighty, solid, finished (outcome: sold better), lego-like

Lighter, more flimsy (outcome: not as popular)

Material comparison for selection:

Glass Metal Plastic

“water-like, touchable” harsh, “though beautiful polished”, didn’t flow

“not a material I enjoy working with, it’s all wrong”

B2. whaT ThEy DiD MENTiON

flow: haptic/visual;finish: six mentioned being proud of this;comfort: angles or temperature;thrown: only example of a term being translated from one domain (clay) to another (wood).

Other terms that appeared:

tactility; what it did not have (“no joins”, “no glue”); ‘natural’;

iNTERViEwS

Discussion

DiSCUSSiON

The language around touch and aesthetics may not be so much tacit as situated (i.e. it needs to be seen!)

DiSCUSSiON

Limited ability to critique qualitiesComparable to cookingfInE (2008)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/emptyhighway/76726329

FUTURE wORK

Investigating the Language of Designers

FUTURE wORK

Investigating the situated language of material expert designers.

order. The three models visualizing “something that flows

out of a crack in the mountain” exhibit a somewhat

different time frame (Figure 2). These models have been

developed in several months of work and they are

indicative of a shifting focus in the students’ thinking.

Although they have been produced in a sequential order,

they maintain their relevance as they communicate

complementary aspects of the design project.

Let us look once more at the first semester student who

studied a saw and its movements, translating it into a

physical model (Figure 9, see also Figure 5 and 8). In a

later session, using different light sources, he highlights

details of the model that exhibit distinctive material

features, such as the dents of the saw. Using multiple

projections he transforms a collage of these details into a

spatial installation. We can look at this as a particular

material feature ‘circulating’ through different

representations, in a sequence, helping the student to

explore its significance for creating an architectural space.

Each transformation deepens the student’s understanding of

the material and makes the design concept mature. These

students explore the properties of concrete step-by-step,

with one discovery leading them to the next design

intervention. Another type of temporality can be identified

in the ways the students make use of the big shared model

(see also Figure 4 right). Here we observed a more

ephemeral apparition of material features, with students,

from day to day, leaving material traces of their design

thinking on the model or overwriting them in the next

collaborative design session. These (temporary) traces

serve as indices to planned or discussed interventions in the

mountain valley. They change or disappear with the

progress of students’ discussions. Also the ‘carving out’

example has a temporal dimension. It shows how one

model is transformed, over the course of a few days, to

perform different visual effects through its changing shape

and material features. This resonates with Russian designer

Vladimir Tatlin, who held that design should “derive from

exploring and exploiting a material’s intrinsic qualities, and

be considering how it might combine with other materials”

([6], p. 53). A more general point is illustrated by these

examples: There is a temporal framework connected to

material features which elucidates how these emerge in

specific events. Hence our notion of ‘material events’.

These events range from: long-term activities, such as

creating a material-dense work environment or design

space; to creating design representations from different

materials or exploring a specific material through

circulating it through different representations – gradually

transforming and translating the design concept or even

‘jumping’ between formats, scales and media (all activities

of medium durée); to short communicative events (leaving

temporary traces).

Materiality in Performative Events

Our analysis points to a diversity of material resources for

collaborative creativity. The different material features of

an artefact engage our different senses and are connected to

different techniques of working with materials –

perceiving, expressing and experiencing. The spatiality –

an artefacts size, shape, proportion, location in space and

weeks

days

translation of material features from a saw ….. to a model……

……….to a spatial representation

temporary arrangement of materials as traces of

discussions

days

staging material features of the model

….changing the model and staging it again, from outside and inside

Figure 9 Material events

80

FUTURE wORK

Investigating how the current apprenticeship system of design could be improvedE.g. SOnnnEvELD (2004), JACuCCI & WAgnER, (2007)

From Material Moments, Jacucci & Wagner (2007)

DiSCUSSiON

Designers should be empowered to be able to communicate an aesthetics of touch, through an improved vocabulary and supporting practices.

REFERENCESAckerman, J. M., Nocera, C. C., & Bargh, J. a. (2010). Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgments and decisions. Science, (328), 1712-5. doi:10.1126/science.1189993Ashlock, J. (2007). What Can Brown Do for You ? I.D. Magazine. Retrieved June 7, 2007, from http://www.idonline.com/features/feature.asp?id=1575Bardzell, J. (2011). Interaction Criticism : An Introduction to the Practice. Interacting with Computers.Buchanan, R. (1992). In Design Thinking Wicked Problems. Design Issues, 8(2), 5-21.Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right & the Right Design (Interactive Technologies). Boston: Morgan Kaufmann. Cockton, G. (2008). Designing Worth — Connecting Preferred Means to Desired Ends. Interactions, (4), 54-57.Cockton, G. Kirk, D., Sellen, A. & Banks, R. 2009, Evolving and Augmenting Worth Mapping for Family Archives in Proceedings of HCI 2009 – People and Computers XXIII – Celebrating people and technology, ed. A.F.Blackwell, 329-338, BCS eWIC, available at http://www.bcs.org//upload/pdf/ewic_hci09_paper42.pdfCross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing (1st ed.). Springer.Dagman, J., Karlsson, M., & Wikström, L. (2010). Investigating the Haptic Aspects of Verbalised Product Experiences. Design, 1-15.Dore, R., Pailhes, J., Fischer, X., & Nadeau, J. (2007). Identification of sensory variables towards the integration of user requirements into preliminary design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37(1), 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2006.08.006Fine, G. A. (2008). Kitchens: The Culture of Restaurant Work, Updated with a New Preface (p. 328). University of California Press.van Halen, C., Vezzoli, C., & Wimmer, R. (2005). Methodology for Product Service System Innovation. Assen: Koninklijke van Gorcum.Hodges, R. M. (1991). Opening the designers’ spatial dictionary: the power of a professional vocabulary. The Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 8(1), 39-47.

Hsu, S. H., Chuang, M. C., & Chang, C. C. (2000). A semantic differential study of designers’ and users’ product form perception. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25, 375-391.Jacucci, G., & Wagner, I. (2007). Performative roles of materiality for collective creativity. Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on Creativity & cognition - C&C ’07, 73-83. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1254960.1254971Kepes, G. (1995). Language of Vision. Dover Publications. Krippendorff, K. (1995). Redesigning Design ; An Invitation to a Responsible Future Redesigning Design ; An Invitation to a Responsible Future.Krippendorff, K. (2005). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. CRC Press. Lawson, B. (2005). How Designers Think, Fourth Edition: The Design Process Demystified (4th ed.). Architectural Press.Lederman, S. J., & Klatzky, R. L. (1987). Hand movements: a window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive psychology, 19(3), 342-68.Lehrer, A. (2009). Wine and Conversation (2nd ed., p. 336). Oxford University Press, USA.Paterson, M. (2007). The Senses of Touch: Haptics, Affects and Technologies (Senses and Sensibilities). Oxford: Berg Publishers. Schütte, S. (2005). Engineering Emotional Values in Product Design. PhD Thesis, Institute of Technology, Linköping, Dissertations No. 951, last accessed 15/5/11 at liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:20839/FULLTEXT01Seely Brown, J., Collins, A., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible. American Educator, 6, 38-46.Sonneveld, M. (2003), Close encounters of the first kind: meet the material world. In McDonagh, D, Hekkert, P, Erp, J van & Gyi, D (Ed.), Design and emotion: the experience of everyday things. (pp. 436-437). London: Taylor & Francis.Verganti, R. (2008) Design, meanings and radical innovation : A meta-model and a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(5), 436-456. Winograd, T. (1996). Reflective Conversation with Materials An interview with Donald Schön by John Bennett. Bringing Design to Software (1st ed.) Harlow: Addison Wesley. 171-189.