Embodied Interaction in Design

As said, many have endeavoured to put these theories into practice with varying success, resulting in the community called TEI: Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction, which is often shortened to Tangible Interaction. Tangible Interaction is concerned with full-body interaction and giving data physical or material form [77], [78]. The resulting designs are often a hybrid between digital and physical interac- tion, encompassing digitally augmented spaces as well as physically represented data. We “act within and touch the interface itself” [77].

Because of the multidisciplinary nature of the field, with researchers and design- ers with a background in and focus on among others Computer Science, Human- Computer Interaction, and Industrial and Product design, there are multiple ap- proaches and arguments about what is meant with a tangible interface. Hornecker [77] identified three current views: theData-Centred view, theExpressive-Movement-

Centred view andthe Space-Centred view. Each of these views will be discussed

now.

The Data-Centred view concerns the representation of data in tangible inter-

faces or the interaction with data through a physical interface. This view is closely related to the theory of distributed cognition. One important distinction between tan- gible interaction and interaction through for example a mouse is the tight coupling between what is represented and how it is represented [78]. For example, Un- derkoffler [79] designed Urp, in which architects can design an urban place. The buildings themselves have physical models, which the user can move around on a workplace representing the city or district. Other elements, such as shadows and wind, are calculated digitally and in real time, such that if the models of the buildings are moved, the positions of the shadows and wind flows are automatically updated. The user can thus immediately see the consequences of these movements. The physical entities, the buildings, directly represent the buildings in real life. Of course, since physical representations can not be modified as easily, what should and should not be represented physically depends on the goal and purpose of the device.

Another example is the PaperWindow developed by Holman et al. [80]. The Pa- perWindow presented digital windows unto augmented paper. Articles could then for example be acquired online, and then without printing be shown on real paper, which removes the need for printing. The paper served as a physical representa- tion of itself, and properties of paper can be used as methods of interaction. For example, paper can bend, can be stacked and can easily be moved around, which is not possible with a computer screen or tablet. The physicality of the paper thus adds dimensions which were lost with the transfer to computers.

The second view is the Space-Centred view, which is about interactive spaces [77]. An Interactive Spaces is, according to Bongers et al. [81], “an environment

which interacts with the people that are in it”. This thus concerns the environment as a whole and the practices of people in that environment. People are experts in moving around and keeping track of actions by using the environment [82], and environments which are enhanced digitally should take that into account. In addition, interactions spaces are often used by or react to multiple users at the same time. For example, [83] allowed students to create angles and triangles with their bodies, which was reflected on a display. To create the triangle, they had to work together. This showed them the mathematical rules governing triangle shapes in an interactive and cooperative manner. Current (digital) Interaction Spaces are limited in the sense that the feedback is often a (large) display. While this is suitable for the purpose of giving feedback to multiple users at once, it does not cover the variety of interaction in most predominantly non-digital spaces (such as the kitchen).

The third is view is theExpressive-Movement-Centred view, which is advocated especially by Djaniningrat et al. [84], [85]. One main problem they identify in current design is that there is a trend which diminishes the physical skill requirements of operate technological devices [84]. While the skill level goes down, however, the cognitive load increases. In [85], Djaniningrat et al. argue for design which takes into account the physical learning curve, such as when learning how to play the piano, and the notion of flow, which is about the ease of performing physical movements after some practice. One of the examples of a design developed with this in mind is another design for the microwave oven, in which the knob is used for opening the door of the oven, setting the time by turning and setting the heat by sliding it from left to right [85]. This combines the three separate button presses into one fluid motion, reducing the need to memorise the function of each buttons and the correct order.

Tangible Interaction and Smartphone Use

Although the smartphone is an interactive device and it is thus also tangible, most of its interactions are limited to a single action: touching a screen. This single action is multifunctional (it can be used to swipe, click, enlarge, and so forth), but also highly cognitive. There is no physical indication which helps to differentiate between opening one app or the other.

The above mentioned themes in Tangible Interaction design can help provide a direction to take a possible alternative for the smartphone. In line with the Data- Centred view, for example, [86] created magnetic buttons and sliders which could be connected to the smartphone and used for interaction. In the Space Centred view, augmented reality apps such as Pokemon Go enhance the world through digitisation as well as bring real spatial dynamics into the game. Similar techniques are used to make people walk more.

Most of these apps, though, do not change the tangibility of the smartphone itself. The basic interaction mechanism stays the same. Instead of designing a new version based on the smartphone mechanisms a whole new method of interaction might be necessary.