back
back
We live in a society where interaction with products is mostly mediated by GUIs, button arrays, touch screens and, more recently, gestures and speech. Efficiency and multi-functionality are becoming increasingly common [8]. Due to the flexibility of these interfaces, their functionality tends to expand limitlessly, leaving the user with meaningless generic action possibilities and overwhelming amounts of features. The multi-functionality of these interfaces has its benefits, but at the cost of a fit with the context-of-use, thereby disrupting the use flow. What’s more, interaction with these interfaces relies almost completely on cognitive skills [4,6,12]. In contrast, I think the context-of-use is an essential element for good design.
I am interested in designing immersive experiences and interactions that take advantage of human skills beyond cognition. This means that interaction fits the context-of-use and seamlessly integrates into the use flow, thereby becoming an “extension of our body”. This relates to being “ready-to-hand”: the product moves to the periphery of attention while it is being used to complete a (attention demanding) task [5,7].
My approach to achieve this is combining technology with creativity to break free from generic interaction paradigms (pressing buttons, rotating dials, and tapping displays) and create new, innovative action possibilities. For instance, using AI to convert writing to text prevents the need to pull up a keyboard during sketching, or fingerprint and face ID for seamless, yet secure, unlocking a device.
Developments in AI are especially valuable, as they can be used to accurately interpret nuanced and complex contexts that the interface can adapt upon, making it possible to create a fit in a dynamic context (see Apto, my bachelor graduation project). Other interesting domains are tangible and embodied interaction, since we can build on the meaningfulness of feedforward and affordances [9]. This makes the interaction more intuitive and available for use in the periphery of attention [1,9]. In addition, the physical world allows for expressive and multi-sensorial interaction (such as weight, sound, haptics, texture) that enrich the experience by addressing our perceptual-motor -and emotional skills [5,12].
In short, I believe industrial designers distinguish themselves from other engineers by creating value from bridging people and technology within a certain context. Fundamentally, they ensure the goals of a user match the product's functionality and that the functionality is accessible through a usable interface. Altogether, this creates a good fit between the product, user, and context-of-use. Additionally, I think designers are responsible for shaping the application of new technologies, such as AI. Designers can build the foundation for innovative applications of (new) technology that considers the needs of users and context first, instead of being technology driven.
My designs combine modern technology with creativity to create aesthetic and innovative experiences and interactions. Appearances are important to me, but over time, I value products that integrate well into a workflow much more. That's why I tend to prioritize momentary and long-term experiences regarding the interaction with a product over the appearance. This makes me a designer of immersive experiences and interactions that seamlessly integrate into the use flow. I try to achieve this by designing richer action possibilities than meaningless controls being mediated by a screen or labelled buttons that do not consider the context-of-use. In order to break free from the contemporary meaninglessness of everyday interfaces, a sound foundation of technology is required, including domains such as data, machine learning and programming, materials, manufacturing techniques, mechanics, and electronics. According to the Law of the Hammer, people are limited by their reliance on familiar tools (here, technology) [3]. So, proficiency in these areas prevents constraints on my creativity resulting from a lack of know-how. Furthermore, I have developed a skill set in user experience design in order to understand the use flow, desires, and problems of users.
I gain inspiration from materializing my ideas, so as to explore and test their contextual fit, or immersiveness, I have developed prototyping skills to build conceptual and experiential prototypes. Sketching is part of my exploration process, but no longer as a sole activity. I use sketches as a basis for making. Besides exploration, the prototypes enable me to evaluate my ideas with actual users and illustrate a (mis)match with the context-of-use. Compared to other designers, I consider myself quite skilled in prototyping, which is why I am usually responsible for the technological implementation in a design team. However, in a multidisciplinary team, I would rather take a role more focused on interaction and experience design. I work best in a small team, where ideas can be discussed and critiqued by colleagues because I think the best ideas arise from multiple perspectives (other designers or disciplines). I feel more comfortable in the earlier phases of a design process since there is more freedom for exploration of the desirable experience, nevertheless, I also possess valuable skills in the optimization and implementation phases.
Designs like Fonckel One [11], Sensel Morph [10] and Apple's handwriting to text feature inspire me, because they apply some form of intelligence to achieve meaningful interaction and aesthetic experiences, allowing the user to stay immersed in the use flow. Reflections of my own experiences are common starting points for my designs, especially bad ones, because they present clear opportunities for creating value.
I work in quick and focused iterations, trying to answer increasingly specific questions using various prototypes. The prototypes are used as a means for experiments to gain a better understanding for making refinements to the concept or its implementation. I do not like to cling on to predetermined design processes because I find them limiting, but in general I follow a Double Diamond-like process, where the main objectives are to find the right problem, and then to solve the problem right [2]. The problems I focus on are everyday challenges that are not solved well -or at all. For example: sustaining a wind down routine to recover from work related stress (Verso) or supporting motorcyclists to be situationally aware (InForm).
