Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Aesthetics of Touch: Desform Conference


Published on

Presentation from the Desform 2012 conference in Wellington. Talks about my PhD research into touch and language.

Published in: Design, Technology, Spiritual
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Aesthetics of Touch: Desform Conference

  1. 1. Aesthetics of TouchDesForM Presentation 2012Vicky Teinaki, Bruce Montgomery, Nicholas Spencer, Gilbert CocktonNorthumbria University
  2. 2. Haptics & Aesthetics
  3. 3. Hapticshaptikos: ‘pertaining to the sense of touch’Carnal? Embodied? Different from touch? ARISTOTLE Merleau-Ponty Wsychograd
  4. 4. Hapticsactive touch(vs kinaesthesia) Ranged of the Senses – Mainar and Vodvarka (2004)
  5. 5. Haptic Aesthetics in relation to visual aesthetics Bauhaus, gestalt psychology (Kepes, 1995)
  6. 6. Rudolf Arheim’s (1983) 4. Growth set of ten criteria of 5. Space visual perception: 6. Light / Dark 7. Colour 1. Balance 8. Movement 2. Shape 9. Dynamics 3. Form 10. ExpressionHaptic Aesthetics in relation to visual aesthetics Bauhaus, gestalt psychology (Kepes, 1995) Design principles as explained by Virginia Elements Howlett (1996) • Proportion • Scale Design Principles • Contrast • Harmony • Colour • Balance • Fonts • Simplicity • Imagery • Arrangement Design Methods • Emphasis • Refinement • Focus • Restraint • Hierarchy • Unity • Layering • Modularity • Grouping • Alignment • White space • Grids
  7. 7. Existing Research:Languaging Design
  8. 8. Languaging Design:Sketches or Language?Sketches may contain 90%of a design discussion, butconversations cover 100% of it(LAWSON 2005)
  9. 9. Existing Research:Touch & Language
  10. 10. TOUCH & Language:Methods of understandingLederman & Klatsky (1985)Global dimensions of touchAkerman et al (2010)
  11. 11. TOUCH & Language:Consumer response centrede.g. Dagman et al (2010), Hsu, Chang, & Chang (2000)… or looks to rationalise designerse.g. Kansei ENGINEERING (see Schüte (2005))Is this the result on a focus on visual semiotics?Jacucci & WAGNER, 2007Image from Hsu, Chang, & Chang (2000)
  12. 12. TOuch & LanguageDesigners need to be able to articulatetouch in relation to wider systemse.g. GIZMODO on the ‘SWAMP WAter JEll-o’ Brown Zune(ASHLOCK, 2007)
  13. 13. Existing Research:Apprenticeships
  14. 14. APPRENTICESHIPS:Novices learn by picking uplanguage of expertsSeely BROWN et AL (1989)There is a concept nexusbetween touch & languageAckerman et Al (2010)
  15. 15. Existing Research:An Aesthetic Language?
  16. 16. Existing Research:Aesthetic Perspectivesand The Role of Qualities
  17. 17. Bardzell (2011): Criticism and interaction design Workplace study Religious hermeneutics Porfolio Morscioism groups research Boigraphical criticism (collection of works) Feminism CSCW Psycholanalytical Reflective practictioner New historicism Contextual inquiry Designerly style Activity theory Author Groups Groups Poet Environment Social Class Architect Interaction Designer social Class Environment Composer Usability Engineer race Race Painter User Experience Designer gender GEnder Creator (Designer) Social Context (Social Context)Existing Research:Interaction CriticismBardzell (2011) Criticism (Interaction)Criticism helps inform perception;spur us on to further action Artifact (Interface) Consumer (User) Novel Website GUI Reader End User Church Videogame Viewer Manager Script API Resident Consumer Film Tangible UI Clothes-wearer Employee Structure Listener Post-structuralism Usability Literary hermeneutics Ethnomethodology Semiotics Heuristics Reception theory Surveys, interviews Narratology Prototyping Reader response Mental models Formalism pattern language Cognitive walkthrough New criticism Remediation HCI hermeneutics
  18. 18. Existing Research:Worth MappingCockton (2010)Qualities relate to experiencesand value FeaturesMaterials designed Qualities co-produced Experience outcomes (positive) worth outcomes defects (negative) evaluation beneficiaries means ends
  19. 19. Existing Research:SummaryTouch and language should beconsidered together as designskills that are improved throughcritique.
  20. 20. interviewsNew Designers 2011
  21. 21. NEW DESIGNERS Yearly June/July show of UK graduate design students (split across two weeks, one for fashion, one for graphics/3D).Image from
  22. 22. INTERVIEWS Ten students across design/making interviewed with their objects and audiotaped. (Video not possible.) Asked about: • Products and process • Qualities they liked • Thoughts on materials, physical formImage from
  23. 23. INTERVIEWSProducts ranged from furnitureto jewellery.
  24. 24. interviews10 studentsID Object(s) Materials notedN Lampshade Concrete, copper, brass Tape Dispenser Concrete, copper, brassL Rings Coloured copper wire, previous materials (stones), silverA Necklace Sheet aluminium, aculon, vacuum formed plasticL Chair Ash, walnut (laminated), Stoneware Stoneware/ silicon rubber Bowl PewterC Jewellery Coper, brass (decayed)C Rings AcrylicY Coffee table Ash (green)J Chair Wood, pewterE Bowl GlassM Stool Glass, metal, wood Clock Wood, acrylicTranscribed, phenomenological coding.
  25. 25. InterviewsResultsCODESIntentEvaluationReferencesQualities
  26. 26. InterviewsResults THEMES A: Using Materials toCODES Challenge ExpectationsIntentEvaluation B1: Limited Mention ofReferences Haptic QualitiesQualities B2: What They Did Mention
  27. 27. A. USING MATERIALS TO CHALLENGE EXPECTATIONS“Y (wooden steam bent table): I’ve had a lot of people think that Designers soughtthe underneath [the wooden table] is all was really soft and to disrupt audienceflowing, and they’ve had to come along and like, touch it, and expectationsmake sure it’s all solid. But yeah, everyone loves it and making (ref Bardzell, 2010)sure like, feeling all the curves and everything.A (metal necklace):I’ve actually had someone come from up there[the top floor of the exhibition] and go, “is it [the metal necklace]rubber? It looks like rubber.” and lots of people have said, what isit actually made of? It’s not plastic, but it’s usually the sound itcreates, you can tell it’s metal. Designer Social ContextK (acrylic jewellery): If people have knowledge already about thematerial and the processes, they come in and question more,where’s the join, or how it is worked? If it’s people who don’t andhave no idea, they come and approach and question: is it glass? Artifact Consumer/User‌M (stool with metal strap): It wasn’t really intentional to bring thestrapping through and keep it the same aesthetic, it just sort ofended up that way, without me realizing … I was er, surprised atthe number of people saying, “I thought it was fabric, how is itstanding up?” which I kinda like really.
  28. 28. B1. LIMITED MENTION OF HAPTIC QualitiesNot in high frequency Haptic VerificationWhen it does occur, is used for McCullough (1995)• Haptic verification Paterson (2007)• Rationalising choice of materialsWhat did get mentioned frequently• construction, absences FeaturesMaterials designed Qualities co-produced Experience outcomes (positive) worth outcomes defects (negative) evaluation beneficiaries means ends
  29. 29. B. LIMITED MENTION OF HAPTIC QualitiesTerms comparing wood to acrylic in a laser-cut clock and related success Acrylic Wood Weighty, solid, finished Lighter, more flimsy (outcome: (outcome: sold better), lego-like not as popular)Material comparison for selection: Glass Metal Plastic “water-like, touchable” harsh, “though beautiful “not a material I enjoy working polished”, didn’t flow with, it’s all wrong”
  30. 30. B2. What they did mentionflow: haptic/visual;finish: six mentioned being proud of this;comfort: angles or temperature;thrown: only example of a term being translatedfrom one domain (clay) to another (wood).Other terms that appeared:tactility;what it did not have (“no joins”, “no glue”);‘natural’;
  31. 31. interviewsDiscussion
  32. 32. DISCUSSIONThe language around touch andaesthetics may not be so much tacitas situated (i.e. it needs to be seen!)
  33. 33. DISCUSSIONLimited ability to critique qualitiesComparable to cookingFine (2008)
  34. 34. FUTURE WORKInvestigating the Languageof Designers
  35. 35. Future workInvestigating the situated languageof material expert designers.
  36. 36. FUTURE WORK Investigating how the current apprenticeship s n rese a l rep pati system of design could be improved …… ….to a e.g. Sonnneveld (2004), … el… Jacucci & WAGNER, (2007) a mod to w ….. a sa s from ature ial fe ater n of m slatio es of tran as trac ls t eria o f ma ment ra nge y ar p orar s s tem ssion eek u w disc a i t ag ing d stag el an e mod in g th .ch ang …From Material Moments, Jacucci & Wagner (2007) l ode day s t he m s of
  37. 37. DISCUSSIONDesigners should be empoweredto be able to communicate anaesthetics of touch, throughan improved vocabulary andsupporting practices.
  38. 38. ReferencesAckerman, J. M., Nocera, C. C., & Bargh, J. a. (2010). Incidental haptic Hsu, S. H., Chuang, M. C., & Chang, C. C. (2000). A semantic differentialsensations influence social judgments and decisions. Science, (328), study of designers’ and users’ product form perception. International1712-5. doi:10.1126/science.1189993 Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25, 375-391.Ashlock, J. (2007). What Can Brown Do for You ? I.D. Magazine. Jacucci, G., & Wagner, I. (2007). Performative roles of materiality forRetrieved June 7, 2007, from collective creativity. Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conferencefeature.asp?id=1575 on Creativity & cognition - C&C ’07, 73-83. New York, New York, USA:Bardzell, J. (2011). Interaction Criticism : An Introduction to the Practice. ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1254960.1254971Interacting with Computers. Kepes, G. (1995). Language of Vision. Dover Publications.Buchanan, R. (1992). In Design Thinking Wicked Problems. Design Krippendorff, K. (1995). Redesigning Design ; An Invitation toIssues, 8(2), 5-21. a Responsible Future Redesigning Design ; An Invitation to aBuxton, B. (2007). Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Responsible Future.Right & the Right Design (Interactive Technologies). Boston: Morgan Krippendorff, K. (2005). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation forKaufmann. Design. CRC Press. Lawson, B. (2005). How Designers Think, FourthCockton, G. (2008). Designing Worth — Connecting Preferred Means Edition: The Design Process Demystified (4th ed.). Architectural Desired Ends. Interactions, (4), 54-57. Lederman, S. J., & Klatzky, R. L. (1987). Hand movements: a window intoCockton, G. Kirk, D., Sellen, A. & Banks, R. 2009, Evolving and haptic object recognition. Cognitive psychology, 19(3), 342-68.Augmenting Worth Mapping for Family Archives in Proceedings of Lehrer, A. (2009). Wine and Conversation (2nd ed., p. 336). OxfordHCI 2009 – People and Computers XXIII – Celebrating people and University Press,, ed. A.F.Blackwell, 329-338, BCS eWIC, available at http:// Paterson, M. (2007). The Senses of Touch: Haptics, Affects Technologies (Senses and Sensibilities). Oxford: Berg Publishers.Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing (1st ed.). Springer. Schütte, S. (2005). Engineering Emotional Values in Product Design.Dagman, J., Karlsson, M., & Wikström, L. (2010). Investigating the PhD Thesis, Institute of Technology, Linköping, Dissertations No. 951,Haptic Aspects of Verbalised Product Experiences. Design, 1-15. last accessed 15/5/11 at, R., Pailhes, J., Fischer, X., & Nadeau, J. (2007). Identification of FULLTEXT01sensory variables towards the integration of user requirements into Seely Brown, J., Collins, A., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitivepreliminary design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Apprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible. American Educator, 6, 38-46.37(1), 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2006.08.006 Sonneveld, M. (2003), Close encounters of the first kind: meet theFine, G. A. (2008). Kitchens: The Culture of Restaurant Work, Updated material world. In McDonagh, D, Hekkert, P, Erp, J van & Gyi, D (Ed.),with a New Preface (p. 328). University of California Press. Design and emotion: the experience of everyday things. (pp. 436-437).van Halen, C., Vezzoli, C., & Wimmer, R. (2005). Methodology for London: Taylor & Francis.Product Service System Innovation. Assen: Koninklijke van Gorcum. Verganti, R. (2008) Design, meanings and radical innovation : AHodges, R. M. (1991). Opening the designers’ spatial dictionary: the meta-model and a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovationpower of a professional vocabulary. The Journal of Architecture and Management, 25(5), 436-456.Planning Research, 8(1), 39-47. Winograd, T. (1996). Reflective Conversation with Materials An interview with Donald Schön by John Bennett. Bringing Design to Software (1st ed.) Harlow: Addison Wesley. 171-189.