I am interested in solving everyday challenges using a vision on design related to innovative interaction styles. To design for that vision, I learned to understand what experience I am aiming for and how to do that by following the course User Experience Theory and Practise. There, I argued for a better appreciation of the interaction as part of the momentary and holistic experience, as this (i.e., the “how”) often seemed to be neglected when designing for the user needs (i.e., the “why”). I also improved my understanding of aesthetics and creativity by working with new design concepts including interactive materiality and slow technology.
For the former I designed LAXX (.pdf), an interactive material (figure 12 & figure 13). By doing so, I learned to design materials with a computer, rather than for, which makes these materials able to transfer information through inherent feedback and feedforward and possess behaviour that can be designed. This is an interesting addition to the domain of tangible and embodied interaction, as the interface through which we interact can be replaced or integrated into a material, thereby no longer requiring explicit (generic) controls. In the course, I additionally learned to appreciate other material qualities beside look and feel. LAXX also produced sound, as a consequence of bending wood (sound 1), which transferred an additional layer of information.
I, too, realized this while attending the course The Sound of Smart Things, where I learned that our physical world provides much information, which is usually linked to the domain of Tangible interaction, but I think it also applies to sound, such as the mechanical “jump” from a toaster, indicating it’s done. An artificial beep would tell less meaningful information. What’s more, similar to the information overload of meaningless controls, our daily lives are filled with arbitrary beeps that, too, rely purely on cognition. The course taught me the fundamentals of sound design, which I can use to implement more meaningful sounds that don’t disrupt the use flow but support it instead.
Finally, in a design project, I applied the concept of slow technology in a design called Verso (.pdf). Verso is an hourglass-type of ambient artifact for your desk (figure 14). It helps to support winding down routines in a home-office working environment by visualizing your work/relax balance over multiple days. I specifically chose this unfamiliar topic as I wanted to develop myself beyond interaction design, which was the main topic of former design projects. Slowness turns out to be a promising fit for everyday products, as it allows for long term relationships and doesn’t require much continuous attention for interaction. Finally, slow products are usually very simple and specific, highlighting the goal (or purpose) of the interaction. This quality prevents redundant multi-functionality and a better fit in the context-of-use.
