The Goal Buddy System Imagining an Experiential Approach to Long-term Goal Management through Playful Interaction
The Goal Buddy System: Imagining an Experiential Approachto Long-term Goal Management through Playful InteractionSubmitted in partial fulfillment for the degree Master of Graphic DesignDepartment of Graphic Design, College of Design, North Carolina State University
ABSTRACTA long-term goal is an aim to achieve a particularstate, condition, status, knowledge, or skill thatrequires commitment over an extended period of time.Unlike short-term goals, gratification of completionmight take months or years. Commitment can beboth exciting and frustrating as long-term goalsare often a manifestation of our values. This studyproposes a long-term goal management system,called The Goal Buddy System (GBS), in order tokeep goal setters committed to the long-term goalprocess. The GBS uses an experiential approach byapplying gameplay, social interaction, and tangibleinteraction to sustain goal setter engagement. PartOne of this research presents three principles ofthe GBS’s goal management strategy: Inquiry,Accountability, and Activity. Part Two explains thestructure for the designed GBS cycle and how thegoal principles translate into Meetings, Tasks, andChallenges. Part Three presents a series of designinvestigations that manifest both the principles andcycle through tangible and graphic interactions.The research suggests that amplifying the processhelps goal setters maintain commitment. The designinvestigations demonstrate a range of possibility thatcan exist within an experiential approach to long-term goal management, in order to encourage furtheriterations of the system.
TAB LE OF CONTE NTSThe Goal Buddy System: Imagining an Experiential Approachto Long-term Goal Management through Playful InteractionResearchable Question & IntroductionPart One: Principles of Goal ManagementIntroductionInquiryActivityAccountabilityFrameworksPart Two: The Designed SystemIntroductionMeetingsTasksChallengesCycleFrameworksPart Three: The Designed InterfaceIntroductionInvestigation OneInvestigation TwoInvestigation ThreeTangibilityBenefitsFrameworksThe Back of the BookInfluenceAppendixFeatured TopicsBibliography
LIST OF FIG U R ESPART ONEFigure 1.1 The Persona MatrixFigure 1.2 Goal Assessment QuestionsFigure 1.3 Goal Assessment Question CriteriaFigure 1.4 Concept MapFigure 1.5 AuditFigure 1.6 GTD Workflow Map & GBS CyclePART TWOFigure 2.1 System MapFigure 2.2 Goal Buddy CycleFigure 2.3 Gamification MapPART THREEFigure 3.1 Investigation One: Tangible Tasks & ChallengesFigure 3.2 Investigation One: Graphic Interface WidgetFigure 3.3 Investigation Two: Tangible Task Interaction StatesFigure 3.4 Investigation Two: Tangible Challenge Interaction StatesFigure 3.5 Investigation Three: Scenario of UseFigure 3.6 Information Flow ModelFigure 3.7 Framework for Tangible Interaction
ACKNOWLE DG E M E NTSThank you friends, peers, faculty and family.To my people at Yellow House Design. To David and Laura Luyendykfor introducing me to graphic design. To David for always telling me Ican do great things. To Brandi and Emily for teaching me design andgreat haikus.To my friends from 2009 Sophmore Studio for keeping me fresh ingrad school. I will miss our studio: the strings, the hanging almond andthe infamous ponytail. Special thanks to Katie Hill for all of her timeand attention and Kirsten Southwell for inspiring advice.To the 2010 Fall MGD Studio, First Years, Second Years, and AmberHoward for teaching me how to trust the flow. To my MGD graduatingclass for jokes about the curtain, late nights, and hilarious requotesfrom professors. Classic!To Martha Scotford who has been with me since First Year Experienceand acted as my first advocate to transition into grad school. I neverthought, “We’ve seen your kind before” could be good, until it camefrom Martha.To Scott Towsend. For his guidance since Sophmore Imaging Class,B-girl/Scientist, and lots of fascinating discussions! I have alwaysappreciated experimental design side and reliable support.To my advisor chair Denise. I had a feeling you would be the rightone to help me ask “What If” and I was right! Thank you for being anadvocate for process, knowing that it is the points in between (nothaving the perfect solution) that often matters the most.To Nam for her never ending support and being there through theentire Design School experience.To Matthew for helping me believe in my myself, helping me to see,and suggesting small doses of carrot juice and jumping jacks.
Researchable QuestionHow might the design of playful interactionswithin a long-term goal management systemencourage the process of goal achievement?SU BQU ESTIONSHow can the design of a tangible system embodyinquiry, accountability, and activity?How can a designed system connect two friendsthrough the goal achievement process?In what ways can the design of an interconnectedtangible and graphic interface support the goalachievement process?
I NTRODUCTION DE FI N ITIONS Long-Term Goal: a personal aim to achieve a particular The purpose of this study is to investigate how the The GBS creates an experiential approach to goal state, condition, status, knowledge, or skill. design of a long-term goal management system, which management. Instead of compressing time and easing connects two friends, might encourage the process of process, the interface must amplify the experience of Goal Buddy: the name for a goal setter using the goal achievement. The name of the proposed system is time and emphasize the role of process. The interface system, a goal buddy uses the system along with the Goal Buddy System (GBS). does not exist to reward information seeking behaviors another goal buddy with whom they are paired. but is designed to build an emotional connection with the The GBS is a long-term goal management system that user and encourage enjoyment. Goal Buddy Meeting: a regular face-to-face meeting builds an ongoing connection between two friends at which goal buddies discuss their goal progress. over the topic of their unfinished goals. The two friends, called goal buddies, use the system by interacting with a Task: a single activity that will allows a goal setter to handheld device, which is linked to a compatible desktop come closer to their goal achievement. widget or mobile app. They meet weekly or bi-weekly at a goal buddy meeting to discuss their progress, commit Challenge: a question, prompt, chosen by a person’s to a task they will complete before the next meeting, and goal buddy that is delivered through the tangible device choose a challenge for their goal buddy. while a task is being done. The system engages goal setters through the application Goal Buddy Device: a handheld device, which acts as of the gameplay, social interaction, and tangible a tangible interface, allowing a goal buddy to interact interaction strategies. The GBS uses these strategies with tasks and challenges. in order to create a playful experience as opposed to a utilitarian interaction with a goal management Goal Buddy Dashboard: a widget or app that is interface. A utilitarian approach to goal management synced to the device, stores chronological archives of favors efficiency and productivity. It seeks to compress goal buddy activity, supports user-generated content the experience of time by making the process easier for challenge gameplay, and allows manipulation of and simpler. Therefore, a utilitarian interface for goal gameplay mechanics. achievement tends to reward information seeking behaviors and allow for quick completion of activities.14 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 15
J USTI FICATION ASSU M PTIONS LI M ITATIONS A goal is an aim to achieve a particular state, condition, container for meaning, then any commitment can be There are a few assumptions I am making in regards to The interface is constrained to a handheld interaction status, knowledge, or skill. A long-term goal is often an thought of as a piece that fills up that time. (Thompson the goal setters. First, participants must have a long-term in order that the device can be transported to face-to- intrinsically motivated aim that requires commitment and Bunderson 2001, 17-24) Therefore, the more goal. I am assuming that participants are intrinsically face goal buddy meetings. The framework influencing over an extended period of time. Unlike a short-term we are able to fill our time containers with activities motivated to work on a goal, and this would result in this tangible device is The Framework for Tangible goal, the payoff of that commitment may be months or that we find significant, the less we will experience their positive well-being. In terms of time, attention, Interaction by Hornecker and Burr, which is the most years in the future. While both types of goals might hold conflict. (2001, 25) They go on to add that the more and resources, I am designing for a participant who is comprehensive and human-centered framework for personal importance, it is common that a person’s time, we spend our time making room for these significant single and has some leisure time to use towards goal designing for tangible interaction. (Hornecker and energy, and resources are devoted to managing day- commitments the more affirmation we experience achievement. They must also have enough money, Burr 2006, 3-6) to-day commitments. Sometimes this leaves little or no completing those activities. (2001, 24-25) These two support and resources to act on their tasks. Goal buddies time devoted to long-term goals. positive results happen because the activities we find must also have some access to the Internet and ability significant are usually somehow connected with our to purchase the goal buddy device. Most importantly, Why are our long-term goals important? An intrinsically identity. To say it simply, we will be happier if we allow goal setters must have friends, or at least willing motivated long-term goal is a product of personal value. some space for identity-affirming commitments, such as participants, who also have long-term goals they would Our values give our daily existence meaning. Time is tasks feeding into our long-term goals! This allocation like to develop. However, participants are not matched finite. One only has but so many moments to live. of time does not always need to result in a “balance” up through the system. An introductory website to the of time. (Balance implies equal quantity. The balance system would provide goal setters with tips for choosing Pursuing a long-term goal is a way to explore one of metaphor is incomplete because our perception of an appropriate goal buddy, but would not match the two the ancient philosophical questions of existence. It is a time can vary greatly.) This research does not imply friends. Goal setters must choose a suitable partner for means to seek, to find, to affirm your purpose, or ask if a need to commit equal amounts of time to intrinsic the game by identifying supportive friends and reflecting it even exists. This study proposes a similar response to long-term goals and other external daily demands. on their own needs in a goal buddy. aiding long-term goal management. There is no solution Instead, it suggests that we can experience less daily for achievement. A system can only offer a means conflict while doing any activity (of greater or lesser to take action. I would like to help people brave this consequence), if we use a portion of that time attending commitment, and create a system that helps goal setters to the commitments we find most important. who are ready to take action and find their own path. Two results of this long-term goal process include a reduction in daily conflict and an increase in affirmation. Researchers explain that if we think of our time as a16 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 17
Part OnePrinciples ofGoal ManagementI NTRODUCTIONThe design of the GBS responds to the need to create a long-term goal managementsystem that helps a goal setter discover their own path. This is facilitated through thesystem by encouraging ongoing inquiry, accountability, and activity.
FIGURE 1.1 I NQU I RY Declaring a long-term goal is easy, but finding the path approach their goal the same way? Consider the fairly • What kind of tasks have I already accomplished which to fulfill that goal can be very difficult and complex. common goal of losing weight. Health goals usually have helped me work towards this goal? Therefore, it is essential to integrate a habit of inquiry involve eating right and exercising. However, the or goal assessment into the goal management process. process of losing weight looks strikingly different for These questions were created in response to two This is reflected in the goals of the four personas, many people. In fact there are so many methods, plans, criteria relating to goal management. They were sorted which have been set up for this study: Ronnie, Dan, and formulas to choose from, it could be difficult to by a business management S.M.A.R.T. criteria: Specific, Jupiter, and Chi (Figure 1.1) Each goal setter has a decide. Even after choosing a particular path to losing Measurable, Actionable, Relevant, and Timely. (Doran clear goal but a vague sense of how they will get there. weight, the steps to get there might look different 1981, 36) They were also tagged according to goal Ronnie wants to decide between opening restaurant depending on a person’s unique circumstances and variables adapted from a longitudinal study of personal and becoming a better civil engineer. Dan wants to available resources. goals and subjective well-being determination. The make a series of three short films over the summer. variables are meant to evaluate a goal setter’s support, Jupiter wants to curate a manageable eco-friendly To help goal setters find the path to their goals, the willingness, urgency, opportunity, control, evaluation, and lifestyle. And Chi wants to practice regularly and system integrates a series goal assessment questions values. (Brunstein et al. 1993, 3) compete in a dancing competition in August. Each goal through challenges. (Figure 1.2–1.3) has a different set of circumstances and clarity. While These questions are integrated into the Goal Buddy Dan might already have a background in film, Ronnie This includes both open-ended questions such as: System through short easy-to-read challenges. might not know anything about owning a restaurant. • What are possible obstacles that could prevent me Challenges play a vital role in the ongoing assessment Also, different goals can call for different approaches. If from reaching this goal? of a goal. It also causes evaluation and clarification Chi wants to improve his dancing, he might benefit from • How can I make my goal more specific? of goal-related tasks. To see the direct relationship a consistent dancing schedule or regimented workout. • How can I make my goal more flexible? between the goal assessment questions and goal Jupiter’s goal might not require any habitual behaviors. • Why is this goal meaningful to me? buddy challenges, see Challenges in Part Two. Instead, she can make progress by completing many different types of tasks each week. Everyone has a It also includes more pointed questions such as: different path and a different experience. • If I had to choose a role model for this goal, who would it be? In these examples above, each person has a different • How will I know when I have met this goal? Describe goal. But what about people with the same goal? the conditions or state of success. Do goal setter’s working towards the same goal all • If I had time to start working on it tomorrow, what goal-related tasks could I complete? 20 PART ONE PRINCIPLES 21
FIGURE 1.2 FIGURE 1.3 22 PART ONE PRINCIPLES 23
FIGURE 1.4 ACCOU NTAB I LITY No tool can ever replace the support of a good friend. At the beginning of this mapping process I thought that Friends can combine their collective knowledge to find The GBS harnesses that support by directing it towards goal assessment, or inquiry was the central organizing their unique goal paths. Friends can remind each other goal assessment and achievement. The GBS centers principle of the proposed long-term goal management that finding the long-term goal path is not easy. Friends on the relationship between two friends. The friends system. However, it was through the map that the idea can learn from each other’s mistakes, and benefit hold each other accountable by discussing where of “goal assessment with a friend” began. This led to from each other’s advice. To put it simply, in the case they are in the goal process and where they want to the addition of “accountability” as a core concept of the of long-term goal management, “two heads are better be in the future. Inevitably, this leads to a discussion system. Accountability combines of the two interpretive than one.” of the values, thoughts, and behaviors that influence parts The Inquirer and The Conversator. Within the their goals. The Goal Buddy System intervenes in that map these two parts are described in this way: The introduction of accountability also led to the conversation to help the friends consider how they will development of a social gameplay strategy within the Goal act on their goals in the present moment. Together, the The Inquirer is described as the engine of the system. Buddy System. This aspect is explored in depth in Part goal setters commit to this process, creating a mutual It continuously produces provocations to help the goal Two of this study. See Gamification Map. (Figure 2.3) dependence that motivates goal achievement and setter clarify their goal and improve their goal activity. fosters goal assessment. Because The Inquirer has such an important job to do, it occasionally extends its duties to The Conversator. The I discovered the principle of accountability through Conversator is similar to a match-maker. It invites friends concept mapping. I created the concept map in order to engage with a goal setter on the topic of their goal. It to envision an experiential goal management system. is both an extension of The Inquirer and a connection to The concept map is an approach, which describes the outside world. the system as a benevolent guide to help a goal setter achieve their goals. The map proposes a six The Conversator created a wonderful shift in the interpretive parts of a goal management system, experience of the system. Not only did it emphasize which include The Absorber, The Presenter, The the goal setter’s need for external feedback and Inquirer, The Conversator, The Prodder, and The encouragement but it introduced a social aspect to Rememberer. (Figure 1.4). See Featured Topic: goal achievement. The social connection relieves a Insights Into Ways of Working for more on process. goal setter from needing to have all the right answers. 24 PART ONE PRINCIPLES 25
FIGURE 1.3 ACTIVITY While the GBS incorporates the principles of inquiry Another pitfall of the two sites, 43 Things and Life The audit also increased my interest in a playful and accountability, the system ultimately must Tango, is that the interface encourages an accumulation approach as opposed to a utilitarian approach in encourage goal achievement activity. The goal setters of goals. The GBS applies a different strategy by only order to motivate activity. The program Stikk begins use the system in order to progress toward their goals. supporting the pursuit of one goal. Also, goal setters to suggest this playful interaction through the use Therefore, the interface must encourage the goal do not create a long list of sub-goals to complete, but of stakes. The goal setter sets up their stakes when setters to take action. instead negotiate with their friend one task to complete they sign up for the service. Each time a goal setter at a time. This simplicity was inspired by the program does not complete a goal milestone, they must pay the I conducted an audit of five online goal management Streak.ly that organizes the interface around a minimal amount of money that they designated in their stakes. systems in order to understand how the features checklist that goal setters must check off. Streak.ly Though that rule does not sound any fun, the stakes of other goal management tools encouraged differs from the GBS in that is it a very basic tool that set up a playful connection because goal setters must goal activity. This provided direction for the helps with short-term or daily goals. choose to donate that money to one of the following: GBS experience. The audit offered ideas for the a charity, an anti-charity, a friend, or an enemy. The organization, strategy, and experience of the goal The program 42 Goals had a different strategy of idea of motivating activity through an entertaining social achievement process. (Figure 1.5) motivation. They organize their site around information connection is something that the GBS does through visualizations that provide feedback of goal setter challenges. This aspect is explored in depth in Part Two Many of the sites that I studied focused on a goal progress. This was a positive feature, however this of this study. setter’s profile. In many cases a person’s profile was feedback was delivered through charts and graphs. While developed but it was unclear as to how that social aspect the idea of feedback can be motivating, the sterile and of the site was motivating activity. Instead it often led quantitative aspect of the display was not motivating. to the accumulation of goals. Programs such as Life This led to realization that the feedback needed to Tango and 43 Things allowed the user to input profile connect more to the complexity of goal achievement. information and goals. The GBS bypasses this feature One way the GBS integrates more meaningful feedback but still fulfills the need for social interaction by situating is through the integration of a friend’s feedback. The two interaction within a face-to-face encounter. The friends’ goal setters are motivated to stay active and committed conversation is mediated by the GBS and refocuses the because they are receiving valuable and complex social interaction on goal achievement activity. Instead feedback. Another way the GBS integrates feedback in a of focusing on inputting information for a profile, the more exciting and meaningful way is through a handheld social interaction happens naturally. The goal setters only device. You can read more about this experience in Part spend time interacting with information in the GBS that Two and Part Three of this study. helps them develop their goal. 26 PART ONE PRINCIPLES 27
FIGURE 1.6 FRAM EWOR K The management framework found in David as an externalization of commitment by becoming a Allen’s Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress- collection tool for tasks. Allen describes a collection Free Productivity also presents a good strategy for tool as something that captures all of a person’s maintaining ongoing activity. Allen advises that, “You thoughts, ideas, or to-do’s. Allen emphasizes the use of can’t do a project, you can only do an action related to the collection tool as a place to incubate personal ideas a project.” (2001, 38) Similarly it is my belief that you and long-term projects. (Allen 2001, 27-30) Ongoing can’t complete a goal, you can only complete a goal- activity is maintained by using a collection tool. In the oriented task. It is for this reason that the GBS teaches GBS, a collection tool is both the goal buddy device the goal setter to translate their goal into actionable and the goal buddy dashboard. tasks. Through many actionable tasks, a goal setter can complete a goal. Allen’s Five Stages for Managing Workflow are constantly applied throughout the GBS system in order to maintain ongoing activity. See Figure 1.6 for comparison of steps in GBS cycle and Allen’s Five Stages for Managing Workflow. Long-term goals are really long-term commitments. Some people externalize that commitment through mission statements, mantras, vision boards, and special calendars. In my preliminary research, I found that the people who recorded their long-term goals did so through unique methods. Many people named a combination of tools, such as timekeepers and time managers, to manage their short-term goals. However, few people mentioned a tool or method to record or manage their long-term goals. To read more about this Interview process see Appendix A. The GBS acts 28 PART ONE PRINCIPLES 29
Part TwoThe Designed SystemI NTRODUCTIONThe goal process is improved by integrating inquiry, accountability, and activity. These threeprinciples are upheld in the system through challenges, meetings, and tasks.The GBS builds an ongoing connection between two friends over the topic of their unfinishedgoals. The two friends, called goal buddies, use the system by interacting with a handheld device,which is linked to a compatible desktop widget or mobile app. They meet weekly or bi-weekly todiscuss their progress, commit to a task they will complete before the next meeting, and choose achallenge for their goal buddy.The System Map is meant to demonstrate the relationships between the various touchpoints within thesystem. (Figure 2.1) The map includes the two goal buddies, each with their own goal buddy device, andgoal buddy dashboard. The map also includes the Goal Buddy Guidelines, as well as the purpose of thegreater goal buddy community.
FIGURE 2.1 M E ETI NGS R U LES A goal buddy is the name of the goal setter who uses A Goal setter must choose their own goal buddy. Goal setters must be willing to give the Goal Buddy System with another person. Goal Buddies are not matched up through the system, and receive feedback and encouragement buddies are two friends who decide to use the GBS therefore goal setters must choose their own goal buddy. in order to aid the process. together in order to manage one of their long-term Though a match-up feature could be easily integrated Instead of considering a person’s experience within the goals. The GBS is organized around the meeting of into the GBS, goal setters are expected to determine domain of a goal, one could choose a buddy according the two friends in order to foster the core principle of who might be a good match. Goal setters are given a to what their personality offers. These personality accountability. Instead of going through the process guide for choosing a helpful buddy when they sign up variables are reflected in the persona matrix. (Figure alone, goal buddies have fun with long-term goal for the service online. Upon sign-up they also agree to a 2.1) For example, Dan has a very social personality, achievement by committing to that the process with a few basic guidelines in order to generate a positive and but tends to overcommit his time and attention to many friend. The main requirement for goal buddies is that mutually encouraging experience for both buddies. different tasks. Dan has chosen to ask Ronnie to be his they are interested in making continuous progress goal buddy, because he knows that Ronnie can be very towards their goal. However, there are a few rules that Goal setters must choose one long-term methodical with his plans. Ronnie can help Dan to be can help goal buddies use the GBS to the fullest. goal they want to achieve. more patient and realistic about the amount of time and A goal buddy must choose one goal they want help energy he must devote to completing a task. Conversely, with. Because long-term goals are big endeavors the Ronnie is very strategic but sometimes does not have system supports one goal to be pursued at a time. the gusto he needs to take risks and make his ideas Also, the goal setter must choose a goal that they want happen. Dan can help Ronnie connect his goals with his to share and offer for feedback. It is the goal setter’s personal values, networking with others, and generating responsibility to consider what kind of partner might be some enthusiasm to actively find answers. appropriate for their goal. For example, a buddy could choose someone with a goal within a similar domain or Goal setters must take progressive action to something completely different. It is up to the buddies complete tasks and develop their goals. to consider the pros and cons of this relationship. For Though the system does provide incentives to help example, completely different goals could offer an goal setters make progress, it is not meant to become objective standpoint. On the other hand, a person’s a taskmaster or a referee. Goal setters must be current or past experience with a similar goal could working on a goal that they are intrinsically motivated be insightful. Each scenario would provide a different to complete. Intrinsic motivation implies that they have experience for the goal buddies. personal investment and interest in achieving the goal 32 PART TWO SYSTEM 33
as opposed to completing the goal due to an external occasionally throughout the goal process. All in all, by force. Also, the goal buddies must have a certain using both touchpoints, goal setters can benefit from all amount of time to devote to task completion. If goal of the features and fun of the GBS system. buddies do not have an ample amount of time then they can decrease the amount of times they meet or create Goal buddies can use the meeting status to create an simpler tasks to complete. alternative style of meeting. For example, buddies using a remote meeting status could also accommodate a Goal setters must agree and commit to different type of gameplay. Any remote meeting must the regularity of their meeting times. incorporate an additional mode of communication. Goal buddies designate their meeting status and The buddies must be able to give and receive relevant frequency in the online dashboard. The recommended updates and advice in order to maintain accountability. status is a face-to-face meeting and the recommended Some straightforward modes of communication would frequency is weekly or more realistically, bi-weekly. be phone, video chat, email, blogs, Twitter accounts, However, because the GBS is designed as an open or Facebook groups. But buddies could also use structure for gameplay, buddies can agree on their own alternative modes of communication. What would it look alternatives. (See Meeting Alternatives below for more like to discuss progress and plan tasks via postcards, information.) Buddies could also use the system in a carrier pigeon messages, or walkie-talkies? These more erratic way and meet spontaneously. These options are all silly examples, but it is meant to demonstrate are offered in order to make the system more accessible that the structure of the GBS is flexible enough to for goal buddies, as well as more flexible for gameplay. incorporate the unique preferences and imagination of its participants. Goal setters must use the touchpoints within the GBS to mediate their goal process. Buddies can also use settings for the frequency of These touchpoints include a handheld device and meetings to change the way the system organizes compatible dashboard, which is in the form of a desktop gameplay. Here is one example of creative widget or mobile app. The device is an interface which interpretation of how a spontaneous meeting status goal buddies are interacting with on a weekly basis could be used to create a different type of structured to record and complete their tasks and to choose and gameplay. With the spontaneous meeting mode, receive challenges. The dashboard acts as a repository meeting with a local goal buddy could become a for this activity and also allows for customized gameplay. long-term game of happenstance hide and seek. Goal The device and dashboard are synced with each other buddies must complete tasks and challenges before and together they mediate the goal process. Goal they randomly cross paths around town. If one buddy setters each have their own device, which are purchased is found without a completed task, then they lose that through the landing page of the GBS service. Devices round of the game. The loser must complete their task should be brought to meetings and used during task within three days; if they do not, they must take the completion. Goal buddies access their dashboards by other goal buddy out to lunch. downloading an app or desktop widget. For the sake of this study, we will be representing the desktop widget only. Both the app and widget are only to be used34 PART TWO SYSTEM 35
FIGURE 2.2 GOAL B U DDY CYCLE In order to give an overview of the comprehensive user experience of the Goal Buddy System, the Goal Buddy Cycle map represents all steps within the experience. (Figure 2.2) The Goal Buddy Cycle is divided into two halves: meet and complete. In the Meet phase, goal buddies meet to discuss their past progress, and plan their next steps. They do this by recording a task, and choosing a challenge for their buddy. In the complete phase they start and finish their task, and accept the goal buddy challenge. This is a continuous process which continues until a goal is met. 36 PART TWO SYSTEM 37
TASKS CHALLENGESA task is single actionable step that a goal setter must device stores this information and can recall it at the weighs down too much on the goal setter. Goal setters Another element, which would be browsed and • One Up: Can you one up your task? Make your task At the meeting, the buddies discuss their progress andtake to move closer to their goal. The GBS’s emphasis next meeting. When a buddy records a new task, the will have a record of these incomplete tasks within the stored within the device, is a goal buddy challenge. more specific by finding a more specific activity within record their tasks. After they record tasks, buddieson completing a task comes about through the core old task is deleted from the device. Buddies can find old online dashboard. Challenges are provocative goal assessment activities your task. An optimal challenge! browse challenges stored on their device. Each goalprinciple of maintaining ongoing activity to reach a goal. tasks by exploring their online dashboard. The device is and questions described in 160 characters or less. • Conditions: How are the conditions of your setter chooses one challenge for their goal buddy.As mentioned in Part One of this study, the system synced with the dashboard and holds a chronological Recalling tasks and related activity (tracked time, The purpose of a challenge is to help a goal setter (environment/resources/social support/mental and The challenge is only revealed after the goal buddyrevolves around the concept of taking action as opposed archive of tasks and other goal buddy activity. challenges, challenge responses) can be particularly improve upon their task and reflect on their goal. This emotional state/alertness) while completing this has made progress on a task. Challenges are secretlyto talking about taking action. Therefore, the focus of important when goal buddies decide to meet remotely component of the GBS was created to foster the spirit task? What could change to make it better or why is chosen at the meeting, in order to make this revealing athe meeting becomes both reviewing and planning tasks. Focusing on a single task prevents goal setters or if their meetings are significantly far apart. Using the of inquiry. As explained in Part One, challenges are this situation ideal? complete surprise. from becoming stagnant in their process. It avoids device to recall this information turns the device into shortened versions of a goal assessment questions. • Report Out: Create (at least) three distinct phasesGoal buddies meet to discuss big picture questions what many other systems encourage: discussing a mediator. The goal buddies can use the device as Challenges also introduce game play and create an for your task. When you complete one phase, record Browsing and choosing a challenge in the device issuch as “Where are you now?” and “Where do you and accumulating goals, sub-goals and milestones a talking point about progress. Challenge responses avenue for camaraderie and feedback. the purpose of the phase and the outcome. focused on finding the most appropriate challenge forwant to be?” The system intervenes in the conversation before taking any active steps. With GBS there is no also have the potential to store reflective thoughts that • 2x: Have you ever heard: “Practice makes perfect”? the goal buddy. For example, the previously mentionedto mediate a third question: “How do you get there?” such chance to feel false satisfaction from creating a might be of use to the goal setter at a later time, or to Challenges set forth a reflective question and/or When you finish your task, do it again. Complete at Role Model challenge is appropriate for someoneWhen it comes down to it, the goal setter must commit pristine action plan. The GBS is also designed so that the larger goal buddy community. suggest a mini-activity, which should be completed least 20-30 minutes of additional work. whose task is to practice dancing, but may be lessto a task. Goals are achieved through completing goal setters do not get stuck sitting around with a long along with a task. The default challenge called Role appropriate for someone writing a resume. It is themultiple tasks. The goal setter curates a task with the list of never ending to-dos. Since the two goal buddies Model is both a question and an activity. The Role The character limit for a challenge is modeled after responsibility of the goal buddy to choose a challengehelp of their goal buddy. The two buddies negotiate negotiate terms for the task, these methods could Model challenge is presented on the device with the standard mobile text-messaging word count. This that pushes the goal achievement process along andwhich task is appropriate while considering the goal easily be integrated within the goal buddy meeting this description: “Who is your Role Model? State was chosen for two reasons: screen size and simplicity. keeps their partner engaged and excited about thesetter’s particular context, goal, and recent progress. ritual. However, the GBS interface focuses on taking one characteristic they have and incorporate it into The screen dimensions within the device would be process. This sensitivity is a special element of the action not talking about taking action. your current task.” The goal setter can then choose between 1” x 1” and 1.5” x 1.5” which is a little smaller gameplay and goal buddy connection. It is somethingTasks are recorded through the goal buddy device. to accept or ignore the challenge. Certain challenges than the text messaging field within a standard flip that cannot be moderated by a system, at least at thisThe device only stores one task at a time. The device If a goal buddy does not complete a task, this lack require recorded responses after progress has been phone. This limit keeps the challenges brief and to the point in time, but only by another person.records the task, and reminds the goal setter to of progress becomes obvious in the next goal buddy made. The challenge and recorded response are then point. A simple challenge prevents challenges fromcomplete the task before the next goal buddy meeting. meeting. This amplifies the accountability between the stored in the device in order to be recalled during slowing down task with a long description or complex Challenges create an element of gameplay betweenWhen a goal buddy starts a task, they notify the device. two goal buddies. If a task is not completed, it can be the goal buddy meeting. Similar to tasks, challenge objectives. This gives the goal setter ample time to the two goal buddies as well as interdependence. AllThe device might track the time the goal setter works re-recorded and attempted again. This can be helpful and challenge responses are chronologically and reflect on how that challenge relates to their current challenges provide some sort of positive provocation foron the task or provide a timer for the goal setter. The in a time when short-term goals and weekly stress categorically archived within the dashboard. Here are task and their larger goal. the goal setter but do so through a variety of different some more examples of system-generated challenges: approaches. This diversity is made possible through 38 PART TWO SYSTEM 39
the devices connection to the online dashboard, which also exposes goal setters to the greater network of a larger community with a diversity of goals. A Vision holds the Challenge Gallery. The Challenge Gallery is an goal buddies through user-generated challenges. challenge might help a goal buddy who feels like an online library of system and user-generated provocative aimless wanderer. A Vision challenge could pose a goal assessment activities and questions, or challenges. The Challenge Gallery is meant to encourage users question such as: How will you know when you have They are described through a title, description, and to tailor their experience by creating challenges for met your goal? Describe what achieving your goal will category. They are labeled according to their creator, themselves, for their buddies, with their buddies, or just look like. Categories could also be created, filled, and which is displayed through the goal buddy username; for fun. Goal buddies earn the ability to create their filtered by users. and popularity, which is determined by the amount of own challenges after completing four tasks. If buddies times the challenge has been chosen by goal buddies are meeting weekly this translates to one months The majority of the Challenge Gallery would be while browsing within the device. commitment. This allows time for buddies to become comprised of user-generated challenges. When the familiar with the cycle of meeting, task completion, and GBS service launches, the default or Original system- Goal buddies visit the dashboard occasionally and responding to challenges. During this time they are generated challenges would exist. However, as more sporadically. The device, on the other hand, is a given system-generated challenges to provide good goal buddies interacted with the system, many more touchpoint they interact with on a weekly basis. In examples of well-crafted challenges before they choose categories would be created and filled. one visit to the dashboard a buddy can save a lot of or create their own. After four completed tasks, buddies challenges within their queue. Therefore, goal buddies can use their queue and create custom challenges. The social networking components of this system could only need to use the dashboard if they run out of a Buddies can use challenges to create their own incorporate other aspects of social networking features variety of challenges, or want to try something new. distinct method of gameplay. It could also elicit a secret such as such as rating, filtering, and suggestions. This puts more attention on browsing in the device. language or trash talk, which the goal buddies could However, at the most basic level, the Challenge Gallery Goal setters use the device to look for an appropriate develop within a series of customized challenges. in the dashboard displays an array of options to help a challenger. Therefore, the experience of browsing in the goal setter have fun with their buddy and improve their device is more reflective. The Challenge Gallery would comprise original system- goal process! generated challenges as well as goal buddy community When goal buddies begin the process they are only created challenges and categories. The Challenge allowed to browse through the system-generated Gallery would include categories such as Original, challenges, within the Original category. After the two Silly, Goal-specific, Time-related, or Vision challenges. goal buddies complete four rounds of successful task Labeling categories according to categories would completion, the entire Challenge Gallery library within allow goal buddies to find specific types of challenges the dashboard opens up for their choosing. The full if they noticed a particular issue they wanted their goal Challenge Gallery can be browsed online through the buddy to address. For example, if a goal buddy had dashboard. While browsing in the dashboard, the goal lots of difficulty devoting the right amount of time to a setter can add to their personal queue for challenges. task a Time-related challenge might be helpful, such as They choose according to two criteria: challenges that the 2x challenge mentioned earlier. Categories could will be beneficial or enjoyable for their goal buddy and also allow for variety in gameplay, for example the Silly or themselves. The queue is routed to the goal buddy category could contain an absurd challenge such as: devices to allow them to choose those challenges Complete ten minutes of your task upside down. On during a meeting. Each device would display a mix of a more serious note, a Goal-Specific challenge would challenges from both buddies’ queues in order to add deal with a particular domain such as career goals or an element of possibility. Creating a queue in the online goals that deal with a particular skill. This category gallery is a feature that tailors the GBS experience. It allows goal buddies to take advantage of being part of40 PART TWO SYSTEM 41
FIGURE 2.3 FRAMEWORKS The Goal Buddy System incorporates principles of Another influential principle is social objects. Social Zicherman’s and Cunningham’s acted as a backdrop social interface and gamification. Social Interface objects are the elements of desire in a social interface. for all elements of game play within the system. principles include: open taxonomies, activity streams, The concept of social objects perfectly describes a The purpose of gamification within this system is to social objects, and ambient intimacy. These principles goal buddy challenge. Crumlish explains, “Social objects sustain user engagement and create an enjoyable goal are taken from Social Interface: Designing Social are natural, not artificial. A successful social object is management experience. This is achieved through the Interfaces (Crumlish 2009) Gamification principles one that has layer upon layer of conversation created application of two gamification principles. This includes are also used in the GBS. This includes the levels of around it; as the number of participants increases, the top five player actions and establishing levels of mastery and the top five player actions, from Game social objects enjoy network effects. Social objects are game mastery. (Zichermann and Cunningham 2011, Design: Gamification by Design (Zichermann and about participation and participants.” (2009, 185-186) 24-33) These principles are demonstrated in the Cunningham 2011). Gamification Map. (Figure 2.3) This chart shows how A third generally applied principle is that of ambient a user would be engaged and motivated to continue to Crumlish describes social media as “media that is created, intimacy. This idea, along with online presence and interact with the system on both an individual and social filtered, engaged with, and remixed socially.” (Crumlish phatic communication, augment the goal buddy process basis. The top five player actions are mapped in relation 2009, 8) In addition to the social interaction that the goal by allowing a goal buddy to use the device to stay to the progression of the levels of mastery. The process buddies engage in at every meeting, GBS acts as a larger connected to their goal buddy when they are not in begins with going to a goal buddy meeting and naming social interface through the remixing of challenges. A a goal buddy meeting. Crumlish describes ambient a task to complete before the next meeting. Level principle of designing a social community with unfinished intimacy as, “…being able to keep in touch with people One (for novices) is to complete a goal-oriented task. elements or an open and flexible structure is described in with a level of regularity and intimacy that you wouldn’t Level Two (for problem solvers) is to respond to a task this source. The concept of leaving elements or the social usually have access to, because time and space challenge. Since every completed or in progress task site structure incomplete is reflected in the Challenge conspire to make it impossible.” (2009, 146-147) will cause the device to deliver a challenge to the goal Gallery. Goal buddies can create their own challenges, Phatic communication is described poetically as “… setter this is an easy way to advance in the gamification and organize them within categories. This is a reflection the sounds and grunts of acknowledgment we make to levels. Level Three (for experts) is to complete four of another principle: open taxonomies. Crumlish advises remind one another that we exist.” (2009, 122) Though tasks and accept four challenges. When a player does that designers must decide on strict or fluid taxonomies. the role of phatic communication has not been applied this, it opens up the entire Challenge Gallery. With the The GBS uses a fluid taxonomy in order to encourage within the device, it offers an interesting model for Challenge Gallery open players can not only customize participation and imagination. The GBS incorporates many how the device could easily support spontaneous live their experience but also create challenges themselves. other aspects of open or unfinished gameplay structures feedback from the remotely located buddy. Level Four (for masters) is to create your own challenge by leaving options flexible for different types of meeting to contribute to the Goal Buddy Community. Level Five statuses. (Crumlish 2009, 17-19) (for visionaries) is to stay committed to the goal buddy process until you complete a goal and start a new one. 42 PART TWO SYSTEM 43
Part ThreeThe Designed InterfaceI NTRODUCTIONA long-term goal management experience can be strengthened through a system that is both socialand playful. Long-term goal interfaces should engage the rich embodied experiences of the goalsetters who use them.The GBS interface should reveal a continuum of possibility, sensitivity, and meaning throughinteraction over time. This could be expressed in an interface through many means such as theform, function, qualities, and aesthetic characteristics of the object; or through the movement, bodilyrelationships, context, and embodiment of the user. Therefore, the primary concern then becomes thequestion: “When or where within in the GBS process would possibility, sensitivity, and meaning be themost exciting, helpful, or manageable?”Building on the concept of social objects in Social Interface: Designing Social Interfaces (Crumlish 2009),social objects, as explained in Part Two, are the elements of desire in a social interface. These arethe things people collect, customize, show off, and work for. In the case of the GBS the shared socialobjects are challenges. A social object is also determined by considering what type of activity shouldbe encouraged with the designed interface. Among the buddies, tasks are similar to social objects,but have a different feel because they are not collected and shared in the same way challenges are.However, tasks are also an important element within the system.
INVESTIGATION ONE Another element, which would be browsed and The in this sketch whether the user is influencing this widget, and how it would live within context. (Figure most important elements within the Goal Buddy possibility or if it is applied through the aesthetics of 3.2) Following standard practices, this widget also System are tasks and challenges. This makes these the interface. Either way, this demonstrates the first has a compacted view, which fits the quick scanning elements good candidates for revealing possibility, option of challenges not being browsed. The second behaviors which most desktop widgets accommodate. sensitivity and meaning within the interface. Therefore, option show limited browsing capabilities. Here we While the tangible interface records tasks, the this investigation poses the questions: How are see a commonly-used method of possibility: a wheel. graphic interface stores and organizes them. In these tasks recorded and displayed? How are challenges The contents of each wheel suggest more options wireframes an audio method of recording tasks is browsed? and How do goal setters view others’ for the user than the last. From this interface the user suggested as well as a text-based approach. Creating progress? (Figure 3.1) understands they have a certain restrained number of the foundational sketches for the dashboard revealed choices, and will be able to view one option on each the possibility of a Challenge Gallery and challenge The interface could express sensitivity at the point wheel at a time. Additionally restraints within the object queue, which was explained in Part Two. In this when goal setters record a task. This sensitivity is could also begin to express how quickly one could instance users can drag and drop different challenges expressed through the detection and feedback given browse by varying the stickiness, or ease of rotation, in their dashboard or their buddy’s dashboard. by the user recording their task through various input within the device. A wheel on the Price is Right, for Ultimately, the challenge gallery and chronological modes, including handwritten text, video footage, and example, takes a much different kind of energy to task archive represent a comprehensive look at a audio recording. Each category also demonstrates how control than the wheel in Wheel of Fortune. Both goal buddy’s activity. An additional functionality that the interface displays or accommodates this input. lead to a completely different embodied experience of is not represented here includes the creation of possibility and commitment, but each want the same new challenges. This feature would operate through Possibility is revealed within the tangible interface thing… Big Money! The third suggestion demonstrates constrained text forms and could include social at the point of browsing for challenges. Presenting full browsing capabilities. Within this option the networking functions such as filtering and popularity possibility to the user can be done in many different interface is represented as a segmented belt, which ratings in order to regulate the process. ways. As observed within earlier Game Observations, slowly rotates into the three cells lined with marking both a dice and an 8-ball toy are objects of possibility, tabs. This suggests to users that acceptable options yet they produce this experience in two different ways. should be tabbed in order to save amongst all the The first interface model demonstrates possibility various options. through a similar mode to the 8-ball. The user cannot view various options at once but is delivered The basic wireframes of the graphic interface show a challenge by a happenstance process. It is unclear the manifestation of the goal buddy dashboard as a46 PART THREE INTERFACES 47
FIGURE 3.4 INVESTIGATION TWO Building on the first round of investigations, (Figures the form slowly is closed. The Order/Disorder form Disorder form, except that the restoration is extended 3.3 and 3.4) represent a strategic elaboration of the also reflects a state change once a task is recorded. in relation to the next goal buddy meeting. The Visible/ task completion and challenge completion process. Instead of pushing the object back together, users can Invisible form only rewards task completion, and the These designed objects are provocations of what could run their fingers along each extension to play back the Beginning/End Mobius strip not only charts current be if the device solely managed challenges or solely audio like running a finger over piano notes. However, activity but also retains past cycles within the interface. managed tasks. The functions are separated to allow matching with the physical disorder of the device, The devices trigger state changes at different times to for a fuller exploration of each tangible interaction. In the audio also reflects a series of distortions. It is the emphasize different parts of the cycle. Also each has the third round of investigations the qualities of each responsibility of the goal setter to return this disorder specific ways of representing the passage of time in are combined. The timeline is devoted to simplified back into a balanced form by notifying the device of relation to universal time (what we see on our watches) comparison over time. the beginning of their task completion. In this instance as well as the nearness to another goal buddy meeting each digit slowly moves back into its original place. The (gameplay cycle). This amplifies our experience of time The buddy image and instructions at the top of these device keeps the goal setter aware of the passage of and emphasizes the users’ commitment to the process. studies helped curate the final Goal Buddy Cycle Map. time through this slow movement towards symmetry, This includes browsing, choosing, revealing, accepting, much in the way an ambient timekeeping element The tangible device challenge completion studies and responding to challenges; as well as recording, such as the sun passing through the sky heightens our highlight how the user browses and accepts recalling, beginning, and finishing a task. The task awareness of the passing of time. For more examples challenges. (Figure 3.4) The first round of completion study labels each interaction according of the qualities of ambient or celestial timekeepers see investigations suggested that possibility could be to its contrasting state changes. (Figure 3.3) For the Taxonomy in Appendix A. expressed through options that are automatically example, the first and second forms show devices that perceived or found through exploration. The first two are made up of small movable units, which change the The other forms within this study more explicitly forms, the patterned rock and wheel, have choices that topography and symmetry of the object. The Open/ reference the gradual passing of time, however each are implied by the form of the object. Each option is Closed form works as a device that keeps track of the measures different parts of the process. For example, compartmentalized and mapped to a specific node on beginning and end of the task. In a neutral state the the Light/Dark orb provides a continuous feed of the the tangible interface. This aids the browsing process, full unit lays flat, upon recording a task the unit closes passing of time, and gets darker or lighter depending because users can navigate back to previously viewed halfway. To recall or remember what task was stored, on its nearness to task recording and its status of task challenges and understand how many options exist. the user pushes down on the surface to hold the arms completion. Once a goal setter begins their task the orb parallel to the ground. As they begin and end their task begins to restore its original state much like the Order/ 52 PART THREE INTERFACES 53
FIGURE 3.6 In the last two forms, the spinning top and viewfinder, challenges must be found or explored by interacting with the device. Re-finding options are time consuming but this allows more time to reflect. The reflection process is similar to reading an analog clock versus a digital clock. For some people, accessing the information from an analog clock is much slower. During my preliminary research, an interviewee noted this phenomenon to admit that he prefers the reflective analog process so much that he turns his digital computer clock off while working. Like the analog clock, slowing down the challenge browsing ritual can be beneficial, even though it is not the most efficient. Two of the forms, the patterned rock and the spinning top incorporate uncontrolled movement while the wheel and viewfinder remain mostly static. The mostly static objects designate certain areas of the device as tools, which can control the browsing process. The uncontrolled movement devices are objects that express their state and mood through their entire forms. I was drawn to this type of a design challenge, because uncontrolled movement seemed to lead to more spontaneous interaction because it is responding to the physics of its surrounding environment. For example, if the rock vibrates, the object moves on a table, which we can feel and observe. We can also see the rock’s pattern move which heightens our perception of this uncontrolled activity. These are very conservative actions, but the investigation could be followed by extreme demonstrations of this principle. 54 PART THREE INTERFACES 55
FIGURE 3.7 INVESTIGATION THREE The third round of investigation in this study presents In order to explain this investigation better, it is the main body of the spinning top there is also a dial, one possible designed tangible interface to manage presented here as a scenario of use by our two persona which goal setters set while completing their tasks. the goal process. (Figure 3.5) This object, which goal buddies: Chi and Jupiter. As you might remember we will call the spinning top is a combination of the from the persona matrix and Part One, Jupiter’s goal Each buddy has their own device and can interact with following qualities from earlier investigations: paper is to curate a manageable eco-friendly lifestyle. Chi’s the device as they meet and talk. Since the spinning top task recording, limited browsing of challenges, Order/ goal is to compete at a dancing competition in August. is not embedded within a mobile phone, they can talk 1 2 Disorder task interaction states, and exploratory and Throughout this scenario themes and concepts from without being distracted by any of other functions. The uncontrolled movement challenge interaction states. The Tangible Interaction Framework are referenced object only exists to mediate their goal process. Also, The investigation combines these qualities into one in order to explain how the interface is designed for the device is embedded within their context. This allows form in order to facilitate the goal cycle shown in the embodied interaction. for non-fragmented visibility because they can hold and Goal Buddy Cycle Map. (Figure 2.2) manipulate the information on the device and show the Chi sits in a coffee shop and checks his email and information to their buddy. (Hornecker and Burr 2006, This object is one of many objects that could come Twitter as he waits for his goal buddy Jupiter to arrive. 4) The object acts as an Expressive Representation, about from a combination of these studies. It exists to When Jupiter sits down they begin their meeting by allowing goal setters to externalize their process. suggest that the long-term goal management process discussing the progress they have made in the past (Hornecker and Burr 2006, 5-6) Jupiter and Chi have an can be experiential by incorporating social interaction two weeks, since their last meeting. They have been easier time at meetings because they can think through and gameplay. It is built out of Eva Hornecker’s and using the GBS for a few weeks to mediate their goals. their tangible devices to tell what they have been up to. Jacob Burr’s Tangible Interaction Framework. (Figure They use their Goal Buddy Device, the Spinning Top 3.7) The compatible graphic interface for this tangible to mediate their conversation. The spinning top feels To talk about their progress, the buddies pull out their interface is implied through the narrative of interaction. something like a mix between an antique toy, locket, paper scrolls. Jupiter pulls her two lists out side-by-side The graphic interface or goal buddy dashboard, is not time capsule, secret diary, and mezuzah. While the and begins discussing her difficulties that week. She developed within these investigations because, as device looks like an older artifact, it is actually a smart looks at the list and explains how she felt lost trying mentioned earlier, this is it is outside of the scope of this object that is equipped with: a digitized smart pen that to complete her task last week. Chi talks about his project. Further investigation with this study would allow is placed all the way through the device, two retractable difficulties for that week and asks Jupiter her opinion for design of the graphic interface and more iteration of paper scrolls hat are housed within the main body of on what his next task should be. He uses the two the tangible interface. the device, and a detachable dome top with a small scrolls for challenges and tasks to explain what he has 3 4 digital screen underneath it. In between the dome and already accomplished and what he wants to accomplish. 56 PART THREE INTERFACES 57
This is important because both goal buddies can see, in a particular way to get the two tops to “sing” and it provides audio feedback that sounds like someone feel, and manipulate these important elements of their “dance.” This physical display is in many ways what running their finger along a piano scale. He begins to goal process through the tangible manipulation of the the actual challenge browsing process is trying to practice and after about twenty minutes he hears his spinning top. They agree that he needs to begin start a accomplish: interdependency for feedback and mutual device playback the quick succession of playful notes. journal to record all the things he practices. They also encouragement through interaction throughout the He goes to the device and looks at the dome’s screen. It decide on Jupiter’s next task. To record their tasks the goal process. shows: One Up: Can you one up your task? Make your buddies reach into the middle of the spinning top and task more specific by finding a more specific activity pull out the smart pen. They write down their next task The spinning also allows time for the buddies to reflect within your task. An optimal challenge! Chi laughs, and as they write, this note is being digitally stored in on one challenge at a time. If buddies want to re-find because this is one of the tasks that he and Jupiter their goal buddy dashboard online. a previous challenge they can rotate the dome top. made together through the goal buddy dashboard. They As Chi reads a challenge, he realizes it will be perfect made this last month, because they both felt they were After recording their tasks, the buddies begin to talk for Jupiter. The dome top screen shows the following: getting lazy with their tasks. Chi had gone on his phone about challenges. To browse challenges they spin their Report Out: Create (at least) three distinct phases for to access the challenge gallery and upload the challenge. tops. As they spin the two tops create a song together. your task. When you complete one phase, record the He wanted to call the challenge Man-up! But Jupiter The notes and pacing change depending on the way purpose of the phase and the outcome. Chi chose this looked at him strangely, and they decided a better name the two tops spin. If goal buddies can spin the two tops because he knows Jupiter is someone who has a lot of would be “One-up.” around near each other, they spin around in a way that passion for attempting each task she sets out to do, but makes it look as if they are dancing. With each spin often she becomes too introspective about the process. After sitting and reflecting for a moment Chi pulls out 5 6 there is a crash that releases one side of the dome top. In meetings he usually just says this through his usual the smart pen and writes on the scroll “After I write As a buddy pulls open the dome top, they secretly view comment: “You are thinking about it to much, instead down all my combinations, I will choose three and make a screen, which displays one challenge. They repeat this you just need to do it.” one good set.” Chi had lots of combinations, which process as many times as needed until they find the were a few dance moves held together by one or two challenge they think is the best for their goal buddy. When Jupiter spins the top, she chooses a very transitions. He decided also to produce a set that different kind of challenge for Chi. When they both is a series of combinations put together, to create a The spinning interaction emphasizes the shared decide on a challenge, they take off the dome of their beginning middle and end. He realized after he created inhabited space of the goal buddies. (Hornecker tops, and switch. Jupiter laughs while he hands the top and practiced his new set that he could use this for his and Burr 2006, 5) It creates meaning in the space to Chi. She pretends she will cheat and look at it, but competition in August. where the people and objects meet. The screen instead she completes the trade and puts the dome top that is embedded within the top operates off of the in place on her device. Now the two goal buddies have By answering challenges Chi clarifies both his task concept of perceived coupling. (Hornecker and Burr a part of each other’s spinning tops, which contain the and his goal. He realizes something about how 2006, 6) The digital screen as well as the music surprise challenges! he might get to where he wants to be. This is one that is produced is perceived as “coming from” the example of how the GBS introduces inquiry to help spinning top and is paired with the physical qualities Jupiter and Chi hang out for a little longer and then say Chi move closer to his goal. of the form. Most importantly, the spinning encourages goodbye and part ways. A few days later, Chi decides he embodied facilitation. (Hornecker and Burr 2006, 5) will try to complete his task. He goes to the gym with his When Chi leaves the gym, he picks up the spinning The physical set up of the two spinning tops heightens new notebook to practice and write down all the dance top, but this time he puts the dome upside down the cooperation between the two goal buddies. The combinations and transitions he already knows. When he because he finished his challenge. Meanwhile Jupiter tangibility of the device causes the goal buddies to starts to practice he notifies his device that he has begun has also just finished her task and challenge. She feels 7 8 control their behavior in a certain way to collaborate the goal process by turning the thin dial wheel. He knows discouraged and even though she finished her task by using the interface. They must spin together and that the device is registering this information because she thinks she might never reach her goal. As she gets58 PART THREE INTERFACES 59
online to check Facebook and email she toggles to see her dashboard. She notices an icon for a message. She clicks on the message and it shows one of her old tasks. She smiles and reads the task, which was from last year, when she was working on an old goal: to apply to grad school. She had started this goal with her last goal buddy, who was her old college roommate. She completely forgot about this task. Seeing it reminded her that she must stick to her goal and stay focused. Jupiter is encouraged to stay active because she realizes it is the little everyday commitment to the goal that makes her succeed. This renews her faith both in the process and committing fully to her tasks. She feels excited to go to the next meeting and see how Chi did with his task and challenge this week. When Chi and Jupiter meet again, they both realize 9 10 that they completed their tasks and challenges because the tops are both upside-down. Before they begin their meeting to talk about their goals, they spin the tops that make a song together again, since both buddies were successful. The upward-facing screens also put on a show and respond with a color or pattern as the devices spin. The upside down tops indicate to the buddies that progress has been made. This change in the form demonstrates tailored representation because it is building on their experience of the object. (Hornecker and Burr 2006, 5) They know that when the tops are down that nothing has changed since the last meeting. When the tops are displaced, the devices look as if they have one piece out of place. This playfulness, which encourages the form to move from ordered to disordered, further emphasizes the need for goal setters to enjoy the process. 11 1260 PART THREE INTERFACES 61
TANGIBILITY Ongoing engagement with the Goal Buddy System is sustained through weekly interaction with the goal system to facilitate two different kinds of actions. The input and output. These were later translated into a buddy device. The goal buddy device is a tangible tangible interface is a device that is interacted with on comprehensive list of actions, which the entire system interface, which means that interaction is situated within a weekly basis, whereas the graphic interface is less could perform. The long list was curated and mapped the goal buddies’ physical surroundings. A tangible frequent. However, both devices exist to help the goal into an old Information Flow model. After several more interface affords an interaction between human and setter stay committed to the goal process. iterations, and the development of other process maps, computer in which digital information is embodied and the final information flow was determined.To read manipulated through physical representations. In the The basic differentiation between a graphic and tangible more about a process of iteration and curation see GBS the manipulated tangible-digital bits include tasks interface, is that within the tangible interface there is the Featured Topic: Insights into Ways of Working. and challenges. no distinction from the view and the control of digital Curating the Information Flow map created a more information. A graphic interface controls information via streamlined input and output for the GBS and helped A tangible interface has the ability to reduce the time a mouse or keyboard and lets the user understand how designate what information became directly translated we spend processing information because it pairs data a computer translates that through a computer screen. into tangible elements within the interface. with our inherent knowledge of physical experience. A tangible interface controls information through direct Traditional screen-based interfaces do not directly manipulation of tangible elements. tap into our embodied experience. Screen-based interfaces or a graphic user interface such as the The Information Flow Model is the combination of two goal buddy dashboard operate off of learned intuitive existing models. (Figure 3.6) One of the models behaviors that utilize well-applied visual principles and comes from a graphic interface research called social metaphors. The tangible interaction can use both Model-View-Control. (Reenskaug 1979, 1) The second of these principles, and pair them with haptic feedback. is a new version of Model-View-Control for tangible For more about embodiment see the Featured Topic: interface research. (Ullmer et al. 2005, 11) Designing for Embodiment. I created the Information Flow Model from the User As shown in the earlier system map, Goal Buddy Journey, which can be found in Appendix D. The System mediates the goal process through two User Journey charted a series of actions that each interfaces: a handheld device as well as an online touchpoint delivered or sensed. This is demonstrated dashboard. These two touchpoints exist within the through a series of colored bars labeled according to62 PART THREE INTERFACES 63
FIGURE 3.7 BENEFITS FRAMEWORKS The goal achievement process can be daunting but I found Eva Hornecker’s and Jacob Burr’s Tangible Studying these precursory studies, gave me a deeper the interface that manages it does not have to be. Interaction Framework to be the most comprehensive understanding of each perspective found within The Embodied interaction allows users to concentrate research to aid the design of tangible interaction. They Tangible Interaction Framework. A full description and solely on the task at hand. Tangible interaction brings present this research in the article: Getting a Grip highlights of these studies can be found in the Featured many benefits to the goal management process. on Tangible Interaction: A Framework on Physical Topic: Digging into Tangible Frameworks. One benefit is that the device does not obstruct the Space and Social Interaction. The framework is a conversation between two people. It is situated within human-centered description of a tangible interaction the environment between the two goal buddies. and highlights how tangible interaction supports social behavior among users. This is a refreshing approach At every step within the goal setter cycle there are in the wake of many technology-centered studies. only a few options to choose from within the goal However, the framework builds upon these studies and buddy device. The minimalism of the interface creates synthesizes all tangible related issues into four major a clear purpose for goal buddies. Incoming e-mails, themes. These themes include Tangible Manipulation, multiple navigation options, or getting lost in complex Embodied Facilitation, Spatial Interaction, and information cannot disturb the goal setter. This Expressive Representation. Each theme holds a emphasizes the role of process by creating room for series of subsidiary concepts of tangible interaction. reflection on challenges and task progress. (Figure 3.7) Hornecker and Burr also pose a series of questions to aid design for tangible interaction. These The device creates a gateway to task completion. sensitizing questions help aid the application of each On an individual level, it acts as a physical reminder concept. (Hornecker and Burr 2006) that externalizes the goal. The object could mediate conversation among friends and family in addition to the Hornecker’s and Burr’s framework is a synthesis of goal buddy. With use it has the potential to become a the many concepts found in the rich body of tangible symbolic object of the shared goal progress experience interaction research. This includes articles published as well as an individual’s sign of progress and change. within the fields of human-computer interaction, computer science, interactive arts, and industrial design. 64 PART THREE INTERFACES 65
CONCLUSIONAn experiential approach to long-term goal graphic interface, or dashboard, has the potential to Ultimately, this research responds to utilitarianmanagement keeps goal setters engaged in the goal incorporate embodied interaction, reflect the quality of approaches to goal management to ask the questionachievement process. Tasks focus the goal setter interaction found in the tangible form, and incorporate “What if long-term goal management looked differenton single actions to take towards achievement. new functions such as asynchronous communication. or felt different.” This question could be answeredChallenges push the goal setter to assess and clarify The online dashboard could create stronger figuratively or literally. Regardless, it provokes furtherthose actions and the overall goal. Meetings offer connections among the greater goal buddy community investigation and like the Goal Buddy Cycle, the endgoal buddies a time for mutual encouragement and and remotely located goal buddies. The open structure becomes the beginning.feedback. The graphic and tangible touchpoints of gameplay, which is controlled through the dashboard,mediate the conversation of goal progress, both by also offers much room for exploration and flexibility.externalizing a goal setter’s plans and actions as wellas moderating discussion among buddies. The study suggests that Hornecker’s and Burr’s Tangible Interaction Framework could informThe research demonstrates that applying gameplay, future iterations of the tangible device and designedsocial interaction, and tangible interaction to a scenarios of use. (Hornecker and Burr, 2006) Certainlong-term goal management system amplifies the concepts, such as Performative Action, were underusedgoal process and thus encourages commitment. within this study and could help envision a device thatThe design iterations exist to demonstrate a range moves beyond a handheld interaction. (Hornecker andof possibility when designing for an experiential Burr 2006, 4-5)long-term goal management system. Furtherinvestigation would begin by creating additional The design of the GBS can also benefit from additionalcombinations of Investigation One (Figures 3.1-3.2) fields of research. The motivational gameplay elementsand Investigation Two (Figures 3.3-3.4). in the GBS could be reframed in response to Social Psychology or Personal Information ManagementThe role of the graphic interface within the GBS offers frameworks. Techniques found in art, architecture, film,interesting design questions such as, “How does the and theatre could also inform how the GBS mightquality of interaction and gameplay within graphic create a rich multi-modal experience over time.interface compliment the tangible interface?” The
Part FourThe Back of the BookI NTRODUCTIONThis is the last section of the book. Here you will find sketches, mapping,paper prototypes, informal writing, interview materials, doodles, thoughts,and more. It is a compilation of process work. Similar to the Goal BuddyCycle, the process was as important as the results.
INFLUENCES term goal management. The design of the GBS was GBS ushers in a habit of self-awareness. There are also influenced by the open nature of the Participatory many more non-religious examples of a ritual-related Tools. The GBS mediates a series of activities, just objects. Birthday candles are objects of ritual that guide like Participatory Toolkits, but serve the purpose of behavior in order to prompt awareness. mediating many different people’s long-term goals. To see results from the preliminary research in Appendix The designed GBS interface is like a handheld game. A. To read more about Participatory Design see the After reading the book Game Design: Gamification Featured Topic: Designer as Mediator. by Design I was interested in what games might bring to the experience of the GBS. (Zichermann and The GBS interfaces act like Collection Tools to capture Cunningham 2011) This was further explored by the thoughts related to long-term goals. My interest in long- observation of small handheld games. That observation term goal management came about through a series is found in Appendix B.The decision to create an interconnected system of experiences. While all of these interests are reflected this rich communal experience? This is what led to my of interviews on time management. In order to find agraphic and tangible interfaces for goal management in the long list of my ever-changing researchable interest in creating a tool that helps us manage the resource to help me understand principles of effective The qualities of timekeepers, Participatory Tools,was a result of a long journey, sustained throughout questions, they also influenced my journey to the playful quality of our time, acts as an externalization of our management I used David Allen’s Getting Things Done: collection tools, and objects of ritual all created athe thesis research semester. As the subject matter of long-term goal management system. T values, and builds a symbolic connection between two The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. As mentioned richer picture of how long-term goal managementthe study was refined, so was the conceptualization of people. These are the shared purposes of the ancient in Part One of this study, David Allen’s concept of interfaces might create a fuller experience for goalthe designed touchpoints. The previous conceptions The timekeeper begins my journey to imagine the calendar and the GBS. Collection Tools became an important aspect of setters and their buddies. These led me to study otherof the designed system all have particular experiential designed interface. Before I discovered the topic of envisioning the purpose and design of the GBS. A physical objects such as handheld games and tokenqualities. All of these qualities were layered over long-term goals, I was thinking about how we negotiate The designed GBS interface is like a Participatory Tool. collection tool is any container that captures a person’s and constraint tangible interfaces. For a display oftime, which provided a new way of thinking about the the quality of our time commitments. This led me to In the preliminary stages of my research, I created a ideas, thoughts, or to-dos. Allen gives the example of a game observations and token and constraint interfacesdesigned goal management experience. Many of these the first conception of the designed system: a calendar. Participatory Toolkit to conduct a series of informative physical inbox that sits on a person’s desk and collects see Appendix C. These two studies were the mostearly conceptions held a common purpose of mediating While I sought to understand the qualities of many interviews. Elizabeth B. N. Sanders, Eva Brandt and papers. He advises that this collection box must be direct inffluences within my journey to develop thesocial connections (timekeepers, participatory tools, timekeepers, I was most interested in the calendar for Thomas Binder describe the purpose of Participatory cleaned out every once in a while to operate correctly! designed GBS interface. My first attempt to manifestgames). All of them utilized some form of a physical its ability to synchronize human activity. All timekeepers Toolkits in their article A Framework for Organizing the He also gives a few analog and digital examples of those ideas can be found in the Quick Sketches intouchpoint to manage information (collection tools, have this purpose, however I was drawn to the history Tools and Techniques of Participatory Design. They collection tools: email inboxes, paper notebooks etc. Appendix C. The Quick Sketches suggest ideas forgames, token and constrain interfaces). The evolution of calendars because of their ability to maintain a describe Participatory tools as activities, which facilitate (Allen 2001, 27-30) The suggested physicality of a the form and experience of the tangible interface. Theyof this body of work is being presented in this main symbolic connection within a community. For more on a conversation between individuals and a designer. collection tool and its contents was informative for address the particular needs of the goal setter throughtext for two reasons. First, it is presented to provide a timekeepers see the Taxonomy in Appendix A. For Toolkits facilitate activities, which could involve card my process. I wondered, “Could the collection tool for an experiential and playful approach. Each interactionbroader understanding of the underlying mission of the more on calendars see Featured Topic: Calendars as sorting, 2d-collages, diaries, props, storyboarding, goal management be physical, and could I make the demonstrates how a participant uses the system in theirsystem. Secondly, it is presented for documentation Symbolic Links. or reenactment, in order to probe, prime, and aid goal setter perceive that its contents, or goal activity everyday context to connect with their desire to achievepurposes, with hopes that future iterations of the GBS understanding, and generate ideas from a participant. and tasks, are concrete?” For more information on the their long-term goals as well as their desire to socializemight be explored. Ancient or religious calendars not only have the (Sanders 2010, 1-4) subject of collection tools see Appendix C. with their goal buddy. power to mediate structured times of rest, work, andThe desire to design a long-term goal management celebration but manifest a community’s commonly held The designed GBS interfaces take cues from Engaging the GBS could be like engaging an object Ultimately, I chose a tangible interface framework astool came about from the following interests: personal beliefs. This artifact has so much to offer my study the Participatory Tools in that they exist to build a of ritual. Similar to a calendar, prayer beads empower the primary way to structure the interactions. However,growth, understanding new fields in human-computer- of long-term goal management. What might the rich conversation between two people, and act as physical and externalize the beliefs of a group of people. This all of these wacky ancient, everyday, and sacred objectsinteraction, designing for Embodied Interaction, and history of the ancient calendars say about the utilitarian thinking props to externalize one’s thoughts and sacred object acts as a reminder to complete a certain inspired the design of the GBS interfaces, and continueintroducing curiosity or awareness into everyday calendars we use in the 21st century? In our 21st values. In the case of the GBS this conversation and behavior. The GBS provides a similar reminder to to suggest ideas that might be applied to the long-term century attempt for efficiency have we lost a part of externalization happens around the subject of long- complete a task. Also, similar to the prayer beads, the goal management experience! INFLUENCES 71
APPENDIX A: PRELIMINARY RESEARCH APPENDIX A 73
FEATURED TOPICS1. Designer as Mediator2. Insights into Ways of Working3. Designing for Embodiment4. Digging into Tangible Frameworks5. Calendar as a Symbolic LinkDESIGNER AS MEDIATORThis writing presents a description of the influence Participatory Design (PD) is a field centered on theoretical research on sharing communities andof my graduate education on my thesis work, my integrating co-designing activities to inform a design conducted trend research to design future-castingphilosophy as a designer, and my academic and post- process of a commercial or community-based project. scenarios of new sharing communities and platforms.graduate interests. PD is a field of study, which has recently developed within the realm of design. Elizabeth Sanders, Eva The academic semester ended with each studentDesigner as Mediator Brandt, and Thomas Binder suggest a framework for developing one design principle, process, and methodMy interest in designing open framework systems and participatory tools techniques in order to strengthen PD to support a sharing community. Every studio memberartifacts began as a result of the collaborative work of and invite practitioners, researchers, and educators to developed a design principle that demonstrated athe fall 2010 MGD studio under the direction of Amber contribute to further exploration within the field. This connection to Participatory Design and collaboration.Howard. Our work during that semester included a framework is being offered at a time when the field See below for examples.studio titled Design as A Cultural Artifact: A Culture of is flourishing. It offers designers, such as myself, aSharing and the development of a graduate student common language by which to compare and develop Designers should incorporate empathetic cues tosymposium entitled Proposium. tools and techniques to strengthen the practice. The sustain participation and promote positive group three dimensions organizing the framework include dynamic. (Alexandria Jarvis)The purpose of the entire semester was to design form, purpose, and context. (Sanders et al. 2010) Co-creation requires equal opportunity for participantopen frameworks in which participants could engage, contribution (Andrew Whitcomb)create, discuss, act, and imagine. It encompassed the Studio Influence Designers must ensure systems of sharing communitiesshift of “designer as maker” to “designer as mediator.” The content of the Fall 2010 studio was designing for have the flexibility to accommodate new or unforeseenThese ideals were further developed through the sharing. The structure of the studio was completely a stakeholders and uses. (Josh Dillard)introduction to Liz Sanders of Make Tools. Sanders, a collaborative effort and was achieved through a series Community members should participate in developingresearch practitioner and educator exposed our studio of phased group projects. Collaboration is similar to a clear and accessible representations of expertto the field of Participatory Design. In addition to article participatory approach in that it demands methods and knowledge (Michael Carbaugh)readings we participated in an informal workshop, tools to mediate a co-designing process. Build scaffolds for participation to accommodatelecture, and discussion led by Sanders. The studio multiple entry points (Ariella Mostkoff)adopted the PD approach and methods in our work All work was created from the hard-earned cooperationduring the semester. and participation of our 18-person team of graduate Symposium Influence designers. Together we developed contextual and In addition to studio projects, we were fearlessly led by our professor to create an open framework for students, SPECIAL TOPICS 143
educators, and practitioners to propose, design and INSIGHTS ON WAYS OF WORKING thinks about what he wants to draw before drawing designing human-computer interactions around the full continuum of human-computer interaction, and Stephan A. G. Wensveen J. P. Djajadiningrat, and Keesdevelop the first ever Graduate Design Network. The A series of anecdotal insights that helped me it. He only puts on the page what is necessary. My everyday embodied experience of the user increases. match the project accordingly. Therefore, it is my goal C. J. Overbeeke emphasize the relationship betweenwork culminated in an event in which local and remote understand my design process. tactic of drawing many lines is an additive process. Consequently, the design of computational interfaces within this study to take this challenge to extend past the action and reaction of the user and the tangibleparticipants were guided in a series of workshops to Maybe this is not the best tactic for drawing; perhaps has made a pendulum swing from the restrictive boundaries of traditional utilitarian interface in order to interface through their article Interaction Frogger: Adevelop the purpose statement, goals, values, features Digital/Physical Thinking I take up painting instead? I have recently noticed a binary world of code to the seamless visceral human create a more experiential and subjective relationship Design Framework to Couple Action and Functionand platform of the proposed network. The two-day I have noticed that I am empowered by making digital connection to that way of thinking and reasoning in experience of reality. Anna Munster’s book Materializing between human and computer. through Feedback and Feedforward. Six characteristicssymposium was branded, created, promoted, led, and information physical, so that I might tangibly edit a my design strategy work. I prefer an additive process. I New Media, Embodiment in Information Aesthetics to judge this relationship include direction, dynamics,executed by our MGD studio in concurrence with our larger set of information. It keeps me on task, engaged, enjoy digital and physical collaging. Through this study, I declares that this embodied movement marks a DIGGING INTO TANGIBLE FRAMEWORKS location, time, expression, and modality. This presentsacademic work, and was appropriately titled: Proposium. and enjoying myself. I have tried to take good pictures have also realized I enjoy layering of information. When significant shift in the relationship between human This writing highlights of the rich body of tangible a more nuanced understanding between what theThe event was designed to support collaboration, co- to document this physical editing process in order to I start something, my goal it to accumulate it and then and computer. Munster defines an interface as the interaction research that has informed Eva Hornecker interface displays, and how a user understands whatownership, and co-design of the network. encourage constant flow within my workspace. respond to it. I respond by editing, moving, reorganizing, “communicative intermediary between human and and Jacob Burr’s Tangible Interaction Framework. the interface affords. (Wensveen et al. 2004, 178-179) I process information best when I iterate it through reframing, but above all else the process is never computer” and seeks to understand how this shift inThe most thrilling and influential part of the entire multiple means: digital word processing, handwritten straightforward. HCI influences our understanding of the interface. In the journal Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing Kenneth P. Fishkin describes interactions on aprocess to me was the implementation of our notes, index cards, colored pencil annotations, Munster points out that a polarity of interfaciality exists researchers Lars Erik Holmquist, Johan Redström and continuum of tangibility in his article A Taxonomy forhard work. In particular, crafting the analogous prototypes, concept maps, plain text edit files, designed Human-Centered Storytelling and ranges from the obvious and objective (i.e.: sitting Peter Ljungstrand present the concept of tangible and Analysis of Tangible Interfaces. He argues that avirtual experience of the workshops was a difficult documents. The digital-physical mediums act as a way In the Concept Map within this study all of the “parts” in front of a computer screen) to the embedded and interaction in terms of containers, tokens and tool. tool controlling a computational operation should bechallenge given the nature of the workshops: affinity to externalize ideas; in a way it is almost like having are anthropomorphized. This was a fun way for me to subjective (i.e.: a chip or sensor within our skin). She Their article titled Token-Based Access to Digital thought of as having varying degrees of tangibility asdiagramming, brainstorming, rapid prototyping and a conversation with another person. The more I allow think about the tool in a brainstorming phase. I have discusses the issues that come with each of these Information describes containers as generic objects opposed to being either “tangible” or “intangible.” Thespeed dating. The moment in which I was able to use myself to re-tell the story or recap the information noticed that referring to a relational connection with varying degrees of interfaciality and suggests that to move digital information between platforms. Tokens continuum of this tangibility relies on two variables:the virtual workshop materials to incite a conversation through the different means, the more I edit and something or someone helps me create a story and over time HCI will progressively focus on the quality of are unique objects that resemble the digital information embodiment and metaphor. Embodiment is measuredamong participants, and facilitate the proposal of the internalize the important parts. The process work in discover the larger narrative or purpose I am interested interaction and how embodiment allows for open and they represent. Tools are objects used to manipulate on a continuum of full, nearby, environmental andnetwork, had a profound impact and led to my deep the appendices reflects this way of working. See the in. This is reflected in earlier graduate work such as dynamic relationships between human and computer. and control the computational functions linked to the distant. This variable can then be cross-referenced on aappreciation of Participatory Design. appendices for process work. the K-12 Education Poster in which I studied issues (Munster 2006, 117-149) physical interface such as a handle, dial, or button. continuum of metaphor. Degrees of metaphor include: revolving around teachers by starting with the question (Holmquist et al. 1999, 236-237) no metaphor, noun metaphor, verb metaphor, and nounCommitment to Collaboration & Participatory Design The studio workspace is very important to me. I like to “What is a Teacher” and understanding issues through Building off of this research, I pose that one can classify and verb metaphor. (Fishkin 2004, 348-351)Maintaining a commitment to the collaborative process engage my surrounding environment and use it like a three lenses: relationship between teacher and student, any instance of human-computer interaction within a Brygg Ullmer, Hiroshi Ishii, and Robert J.K. Jacobproved to be both a fierce challenge and incredible lab to pin, hang, rip, and present work is essential. Not teacher and self, teacher and administration. continuum of an objective or subjective relationship with describe tangible interaction by categorizing different A large interdisciplinary team of researchers includingreward. With that knowledge came an aggressive only does this keep me motivated, but also I think being the computational interface. See page 146. This map types of tangible systems in their research Token + Steve Benford and fifteen other UK based researchers,differentiation from the many pseudo-collaborative surrounded by the work has a subconscious effect on presents a continuum of interfaciality and embodiment. Constraint Systems for Tangible Interaction with Digital frame tangible interaction in terms of movement withinenvironments, which both my peers and I previously my ability to process the information. Working both DESIGNING FOR EMBODIMENT I am interested in designing an embodied interaction Information. This includes interactive surfaces, constructive the interface. This is presented in the article Expected,experienced or described. Participatory Design and physically and digitally with information also provides When humans interact with computers are they users, with an interface that is present, but less explicit than a assemblages, and token and constraint systems. Sensed, and Desired: A Framework for Designingcollaborative processes require a completely different obvious breaks in a day because the progress becomes participants, or hosts? As technology advances, it traditional screen based interface. This is the highlighted Interactive surfaces include the manipulation of objects Sensing-Based Interaction. The research explainsset of values, skills, and commitment. When approached more tangible. becomes the duty of the 21st century designer to middle section of the continuum. I chose to work within on an augmented surface. With constructive assemblages that novel experiences can be found by mapping outwith great attention and continuous commitment consider this rich continuum of human-computer this area of HCI because it creates an open a dynamic users create constructions from augmented modular movements that are afforded within the interface.the difference in the process and designed result is Additive Process interaction. relationship with the computer and positions humans as interconnected elements. Both of these systems deal well These movements can be divided by weather they areunmistakable. It leads to the opportunity for shared My fiancé is an architect, and we occasionally we participants rather than a user or a host. with non-abstract physics based operations. Token and expected, desired and sensed. By identifying gapsunderstanding, shared learning, new ideas, approaches, spend time drawing together while at a coffee shop Since the birth of the analog computer the binary constraint systems deal well with abstract information in what movements are afforded between the threeand practices through design. or waiting in a lobby. He tries to challenge me, “This language of the computer dictated the conversation As this technology becomes increasingly available, and use physical objects called tokens to manipulate categories, designers can create novel experiences time, try to draw without so many lines.” I find this an between human and machine. As computational it becomes the duty of the designer to determine digital information which is limited to the affordances of a through introducing new and unexpected movements interesting challenge. When he looks at the paper, he technology has advanced, the importance of the goals and context of a project, consider the constraint. (Ullmer et al. 2005, 1-2) within the system. They give an example of this 144 SPECIAL TOPICS SPECIAL TOPICS 145
principle through a Virtual Reality game that allows their relevance. Whether it is the Aztec, Greek, Roman, users to have go-go gadget arms. Reaching out with Jewish, Muslim, Chinese, or Inuit calendars, their ones arms is an expected movement by a user because potency remains. Furthermore, some of these calendars it is within our daily experience. However, reaching continue to act as the symbolic link between existing out with the ability to extend ones reach beyond, with community members. They serve a greater purpose go-go gadget arms, is a movement within the interface than solely marking time. If a community or individual which is not expected but can be sensed through the abides by them, calendars have the power to mandate VR interface. This is an example of how designers can periods of rest, celebration, moments to reflect on the introduce interesting and new experiences to their past, and moments to usher in the future. users. (Benford et al. 2005, 1-14) If our instruments of time are artifacts of our identity, CALENDARS AS SYMBOLIC LINKS what does our 21st calendar say about contemporary This writing addresses the question: What has been society? Many generations have created, discovered, the role of calendars within society and how might we and shared a multitude of methods and instruments rethink the way timekeepers embody a symbolic link or for measuring time. As societies advanced, connection to others? institutions sought to unify calendars and fought in an attempt to standardize time. Now we have arrived. Generations have sought to make the most of their And here in the 21st century we value efficiency, time by creating models to mark, measure, or manage convenience, and synchronicity. time. In reality, all measurements of time are only accepted or standardized ways of understanding time We still use the calendar to instate times of rest, or “homemade improvisations [and] compromises with celebration, and tradition. However our lives are complex astronomical cycles.” (de Bourgoing, 2001) dictated by a mechanical time regiment, which has lost ties to both a natural rhythm and often a From the sundial, to the mechanical clock, to a data communal one. As our time has become standardized processing computer people have tried to employ and our world globalized, our calendar has become instruments to measure time. However, historian homogenized. The 19th century offered a list-like and Arno Boarst reminds us that the purpose remains the grid-like arrangement of time with the advent of the same: to make the most of ones time. Therefore, an personal datebook. Finally, history earned her crisp neat instrument of time serves as an artifact which both slots for time allotment, something that everyone can influences and is influenced by the relevant societal mechanically rely on. But if you are anything like me, conception of time. (Borst 1993) it leaves you and your sleek MacBookPro wondering. In the midst of the rich history of instrument making, An instrument, which has historically represented and identity taking, and community shaking, did we throw maintained the identity and values of not just one the baby out with the bathwater? person but a community of people, is the calendar. Ancient calendars acted as a beacon for the cultural identity for peoples throughout time. Ironically, it is these same calendars that continue to empower our understanding of cultural identities beyond the time of146 SPECIAL TOPICS SPECIAL TOPICS 147
B I B LIOG RAPHYDESIGN & EMBODIMENT Dewey, John. 1934. Art as experience. New York, Hornecker, Eva, and Jacob Burr. 2006. “Getting a GripBakker, Saskia, Alissa N. Antle, and Elise van den Capricorn Books [1959, c1934]. on Tangible Interaction : A Framework on Physical Hoven. 2011. “Embodied metaphors in tangible Space and Social Interaction.” Clavier 1: 437-446. interaction design.” Personal and Ubiquitous Dourish, Paul. 2001. Where the action is : the Computing (June 12): 1-17-17. doi:10.1007/ foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors s00779-011-0410-4. MA: MIT Press. we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Benford, Steve, Holger Schnadelbach, Boriana Koleva, Fishkin, Kenneth P. 2004. “A taxonomy for and analysis Mountford, S. Joy, ed. 1990. The Art of human- Rob Anastasi, Chris Greenhalgh, Tom Rodden, of tangible interfaces.” Personal and Ubiquitous computer interface design. Reading, MA: Addison- Jonathan Green, et al. 2005. “Expected, sensed, and Computing 8 (5): 347-358. Wesley Pub. Co. desired: A framework for designing sensing-based interaction.” Framework 12 (1): 3-30. Hallnäs, Lars, and Johan Redström. 2001. “Slow Munster, Anna. 2006. Materializing new media : Technology – Designing for Reflection.” Personal embodiment in information aesthetics. Hanover,Bolter, J. David. 2003. Windows and mirrors : and Ubiquitous Computing 5 (3): 201-212. NH: Dartmouth College Press : University Press of interaction design, digital art, and the myth of New England. transparency. Ed. Diane Gromala. Cambridge, MA: Hansen, Mark B.N. 2004. New Philosophy for New MIT Press. Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. O’Neill, Shaleph. 2008. Interactive media : the semiotics of embodied interaction. London:Cohen, Jonathan, Meg Withgott, Philippe Piernot, Hayles, N. K. 1999. How we became posthuman : Springer. and Page Mill Road. 1999. “Logjam : a Tangible virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and Multi-Person Interface for Video Logging.” SIGCHI informatics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Reenskaug, Trygve. 1979. Models - Views - conference on Human factors in computing Press. Controllers. Technical note Xerox PARC. http:// systems: 128-135. heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver/1979/mvc-2/1979-12- Holmquist, L., Johan Redström, and Peter Ljungstrand. MVC.pdf.Crumlish, Christian. 2009. Designing social interfaces : 1999. “Token-Based Access to Digital Information.” [principles, patterns, and practices for improving Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing 1707: 234- ———. MVC XEROX PARC 1978-79. University of the user experience]. Beijing ;Cambridge: O’Reilly 245. Oslo Department of Informatics. http://heim.ifi.uio. Media. no/~trygver/themes/mvc/mvc-index.html. BIBLIOGRAPHY 149
DESIGN & EMBODIMENT cont. GOALS & WORK vs. LEISURE Elsbach, Kimberly D., and Andrew B. Hargadon. 2006. Bourgoing, Jacqueline de. 2001. The calendar :Sanders, Elizabeth B, Eva Brandt, and Thomas Binder. Allen, David. 2001. Getting things done : the art of “Enhancing Creativity Through ‘Mindless’ Work: history, lore, and legend. Bourgoing, Jacqueline de. 2010. “A Framework for Organizing the Tools and stress-free productivity. New York: Viking. A Framework of Workday Design.” Organization Calendrier. English. New York: Harry N. Abrams. Techniques of Participatory Design.” In Techniques, Science 17 (4): 470-483. 195-198. Sydney, Australia: ACM. Bandura, A. 1977. “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying Ornstein, Robert E. 1975. On the experience of time. theory of behavioral change.” Psychological Review Jett, Q. R., and J. M. George. 2003. “Work interrupted: Oxford, UK: Penguin.Schöning, Pascal, ed. 2009. Cinematic architecture. 84 (2): 191-215. A closer look at the role of interruptions in London: Architectural Association. organizational life.” Academy of Management Rosenberg, Daniel, and Anthony Grafton. 2010. Baumeister, R. F., and M. R. Leary. 1995. “The need Review 28 (3) (July): 494-507. Cartographies of time. 1st ed. New York: PrincetonShaer, Orit, and Eva Hornecker. 2009. “Tangible User to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as Architectural Press. Interfaces: Past, Present and Future Directions a fundamental human motivation.” Psychological Prochaska, J. O., and W. F. Velicer. 1997. “The (preprint).” Found Trends HumComput Interact 3 Bulletin 117 (3): 497-529. transtheoretical model of health behavior change.” Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1981. Hidden rhythms: schedules (1-2): 1-137. American Journal of Health Promotion AJHP 12 and calendars in social life. Chicago, IL: University Benko, Cathleen. 2007. Mass career customization : (1): 38-48. of Chicago Press.Stephanidis, Constantine. 2009. “Designing for All in aligning the workplace with today’s nontraditional Ambient Intelligence Environments: The Interplay workforce. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. “Self-determination ———. 1985. The seven day circle: the history and of User, Context, and Technology.” International Press. theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, meaning of the week. New York; London: Free Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 25 (5): social development, and well-being.” American Press; Collier Macmillan. 441-454. Brunstein, Joachim C, Oliver C Schultheiss, and Gunter Psychologist 55 (1): 68-78. W Maier. 1999. “The pursuit of personal goals: Thompson, J. A., and J. S. Bunderson. 2001. “Work-Ullmer, Brygg, Hiroshi Ishii, and Robert J. K. Jacob. A motivational approach to well-being and life Schwartz, Shalom H. 1994. “Are There Universal Nonwork Conflict and the Phenomenology of 2005. “Token+constraint systems for tangible adjustment.” In Action and Self-Development Theory Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Time: Beyond the Balance Metaphor.” Work and interaction with digital information.” ACM and Research Through the LifeSpan, ed. Jochen Values?” Journal of Social Issues 50 (4): 19-45. Occupations 28 (1): 17-39. Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 12 Brandtstadter and Richard M Lerner, 169-196. (1): 81-118. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. GOAL PROGRAMS Wessman, A. E. 1973. “Personality and the Subjective Streak.ly. http://streak.ly/. Experience of Time.” Journal of Personality AssesmentUllmer, Brygg, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2000. “Emerging Champoux, J. E. 1978. “Perceptions of Work and 42 Goals. http://42goals.com/. 37 (2): 103-114. frameworks for tangible user interfaces.” IBM Nonwork: A Reexamination of the Compensatory 43 Things. http://www.43things.com/. Systems Journal 39 (3): 915-931. and Spillover Models.” Work and Occupations 5 (4) Goal Bot. http://goalbot.org/. (November 1): 402-422. Stikk. http://www.stickk.com/.Wensveen, S. A. G., J. P. Djajadiningrat, and C. J. Life Tango. http://www.lifetango.com/. Overbeeke. 2004. “Interaction frogger: a design Csikszentmihalyi, M., and J. LeFevre. 1989. “Optimal Achievr. http://www.achievr.biz/. framework to couple action and function through experience in work and leisure.” Journal of feedback and feedforward.” Designing Interactive Personality and Social Psychology 56 (5): 815- TIME Systems: 177-184. 822. Aveni, Anthony F. 2002. Empires of time: calendars, clocks, and cultures. Boulder, CO: University PressZichermann, Gabe, and Christopher Cunningham. Doran, G T. 1981. “There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write of Colorado. 2011. Gamification by design : implementing management’s goals and objectives.” Management game mechanics in web and mobile apps. Ed. Review 70 (11): 35-36. Borst, Arno. 1993. The ordering of time: from the Christopher Cunningham. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly ancient computus to the modern computer. Media. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 150 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 151