CURSO DE DOUTORAMENTO EM DESIGN III ED.

FACULDADE DE ARQUITECTURA
UNIVERSIDADE TCNICA DE LISBOA

PR-PROPOSTA DE DOUTORAMENTO

FOR REAL 2.0

SOCIAL TANGIBLE INTERACTIONS

Metaphoric appropriation of Web 2.0

concepts into social tangible experiences.

Andr Rocha 2009

FOR REAL 2.0

Metaphoric appropriation of Web 2.0 concepts into social tangible experiences.
KEYWORDS
Interaction Design;
Tangible Social Interaction;
Web 2.0;
Physical Computing;
Ubiquitous Computing;
User Experiences.
ABSTRACT
Our current understanding of the relation between the physical and the digital
dimensions of social interactions led us to identify it as a very pertinent design issue.
The designerly way tells us to understand, sketch and experience, analyse and
propose again. The tools of physical computing and prototyping are precious to
enable our studies and leave us with a vast field of experimentation paths. We also
believe that ubiquitous computing inevitability demands for the action of
conscientious design and of theoretically well-framed examples of good design
practices and approaches identification. Besides that, if technology is available it is
reasonable that it gets design tested and documented the more it(we) can. Most of
all we expect a solid interpretation and experience analysis and also that our
approach and framework could enrich future ubiquitous computing design
approaches towards social interaction improvements.
This research will have a lot to do with, the above listed, design intervention research
necessities.
Interaction design always drank from metaphors of the tangible world (desktop,
folder and so many others) enabling users to better understand the purposes of the
task he was invited to do.
This text will propose methods and a pre literary review framework that can help us
through out our research. The main idea is to figure out if there can be a tangible
1

reflection for the digitally born web 2.0. In the end, will it affect our products,
buildings and environments?

I. INTRO
A. WHAT?
INTRODUCTION AND THEME PRESENTATION
As we all might have noticed, everyone is talking about social networks: The ones
who know about the matter, the ones who use it and, last but not the least, the ones
who know someone who uses it.
The truth is that the social networking phenomenon over the internet is a fruit of a
different way of facing the web. The insiders call it Web 2.0 and we take the risk of
assuming the jargon. It is a new generation of information treatment, one step
ahead from the simple metaphor of the physical world which it has been before.
Another parallel issue as to do with interaction. Everyone seems to know what
interaction is! Everyone as an opinion about the matter and thats very good.
Interaction as to do with everything. Everything seems to be a medium through which
we get to everything or everyone.
Designers are talking a lot about interaction design, user-centred design and user
experiences.
Prototyping still means the same today but it is becoming more important and
meaningful. The tools through which a designer can test a product and/or service in
his public, and monitorize that test, are becoming more accessible to him from one
day to the other.
The design community is motivated to be present in this dematerialization of
computation process.
Assuming a two world scenario (tangible vs digital) in a technical sense (we might
come to assume it in a global sense but, besides not being necessary by now, it is
conceptually risky), we can say that there is tangible type of interaction.
Tangible interaction has to do with the way we interact with physical objects and
through which we also interact with each other.

Our purposed theme has to do with the above described main issues: Bringing Web
2.0 social networks an Media to tangibility.
That takes us to the exploration of social networking and the possibility of bringing
web 2.0 exclusive possibilities to the physical world, enriching our daily tangible
existence. It as to do with work, collaboration and professional networking as well as
leisure and cultural networking, friendship and other basic social structures.
It also has to do with architecture, environments and new products conception.

B WHILLING TO
Motivation principles.
One of our main motivations to engage in this PhD research process as to do with the
firm understanding that the designer should be a key part of the computational
development process in all fronts from interaction experiences to 3d product
development being integrated in whole of the process.
It is our firm belief (personal but also defended by some of the authors in some of
our previous readings) that there are really humanistic, socially correct and solid
foundation principles in web 2.0 generation: We are really getting close to each other
in a communicative way. In the opposite way information excess grabs everyone to a
chair impeding ones to actually and physically be with each other.
We probably can assume two types of motivation for engaging this PhD theme:
The first one as to do with the sense of believing in the skills of the designer as a
professional of the intuition, of a very serious and technical intuition that enables
him not to figure out Whats next but to conceptualize and test as many scenarios
and possible visions of the future as possible. That led me to observe the spread out
phenomenon of social networking, collaboration and media in the internet as a good
opportunity to explore the above described personal definition of the social mission of
design:
Why cant we bring this positive values to our physical world, to our old-fashioned
tangible social relations?
Increasingly we find ourselves designing for complex interaction that integrate hardware
and software, spaces and services. A design project today is likely to involve connected
products such as mobile digital devices, or systems of llinked design elements, such as
those comprising a train journey or a remote banking transaction
(Suri 2003)

The other motivation is technical and it has to do with the fantastic world of the new
prototyping tools that designers can now easily bring to their workshop, studio or
atelier. Most physical computing tools are based on microcontrolers with which we
5

can connect low-budget sensors and programme in high-level language (almost as

we were speaking in plain language with them and telling them to do things).
Isnt it wonderful? Now the designer can quickly, design, prototype (or sketch!) as
many user-experiences as he wishes and thinks are necessary. That enriches the
development process of any product, but most of all leaves chances and tested
material to others it is also a wonderful form of communication between peers.
The new challenge for interactive products occurs when the physical object and the
electronic behaviour are integrated.
(Moggridge 2007)

C. WHY FOR REAL?

Framing and Questioning.
1. Physical and Tangible vs Digital
The assumption of the existence of this two parallel worlds is merely speculative by
now. Of course it is not innocent and we are using it because most of the interaction
designers and researchers use it to separate and classify them.
The reader will notice further on that our literary review includes authors (that will
probably lead us to others) and that will help us to have a proper and stable
framework towards the consolidation (or not!) of the above mentioned (as separated)
territories.
2. Social Networking
Group action gives human society its particular character, and anything that changes
the way groups get things done will affect society as a whole. This change will not be
limited to any set of institutions or functions.()newly capable groups are assembling,
and theyre working without one managerial imperative and outside the previous
structures that bounded their effectiveness. These changes will transform the world
everywhere groups of people come together to accomplish something, which is to say
everywhere.
(Shirky 2009)

Our bibliography will include the reference authors of this field of study and the ones
that dedicated themselves to the study of the phenomenon over the internet.
This literary studies will pursue a more ethical approach seeking for a proper notion
and framework of the above mentioned improvements.
At the moment we can say that social networking is a solid phenomenon. What we
are not sure about the real implications and impact for future generations. We also
think design might have a word to say by not assuming any of the status quo and
critically experimenting other approaches.

3. The design tangible interactions.

Tomorrow's Services
How can interaction design improve our day-to-day life in a highly networked society? If
computers disappear and systems keep on changing, what then will we design?
At the dawn of the 21st century, information and communication technologies are
revolutionizing the functioning of the economy and society, and are generating new ways
of producing, trading and communicating.
We want to find opportunities and solutions for major social and economic challenges
faced by an emerging knowledge-based society, by concentrating on interactive and
intelligent systems for the applications and services of this networked society. We want to
shape technologies and integrate them with new appliances, processes and usercentered services.
The focus is on the services, systems, flows and processes that are connected to and
with products. The work is carried out with the strong awareness that there is indeed a
dynamic relationship and transaction between actors, stakeholders and products.
(IDII 2006)

As we look into the contemporary technology development we clearly notice that

(UC) Ubiquitous Computing1 is already an unavoidable reality.
The widespread of user-oriented computation started with the advent of the PC
(Personal Computer) and was mostly motivated by the introduction of proper
interface, interaction and product design approaches. From this point of view the
introduction of the GUI (Graphic User Interface) is considered one of the most
important landmarks of the introduction of Design Thinking into computational user
experience projects:
We believe that the computer revolution has left most of you behind. Steve Jobs had
similar thoughts when he founded Apple Computer and set out to build computers for
the rest os us. The idea was to enable people who were not computer experts-like
artists,educators and children- to take advantage of the power of computing. The

The Idea of ubiquitous computing is to move away from the desktop toward multiple devices. Rather than
thinking about using a computer, you do think about using a room, a world, or a whole environment of
computers. You move from simple one-to-one interactions toward more implicit interaction (Moggridge
2007)

graphical user interface (GUI) popularized by Apple was wildly successful, widely copied
and is now the standart interface of almost all personal computers. Thanks to this
interface people from all walks of life use computers.
Now we need to make computers for the rest of you We need computers that respond
to the rest of your body and the rest of your world. GUI technology allows you to drag and
drop, but it wont notice if you twist and shout. Its made it easy to open a folder and start
a program, but wed like a computer to be able to open a door or start a car. Personal
computers are evolved in an Office environment in which you sit your butt, moving only
your fingers, entering and receiving information censored by your conscious mind. That
is not your whole life, and probably not even the best part. We need to think about
computers that sense more of your body, serve you in more places and convey physical
expression in addiction to information.
(Sullivan & Igoe 2004)

Computers left the exclusive and restrict computer science territory and became
friendly with everyone that wanted and could.
Now we might be assisting to a re-materialization of computation through already
referred Ubiquitous Computing. It is nothing new, but it is a persisting and never
solved question. It is a concept that began in the mind of visionaries like Mark
Weiser: The question Weiser was asking was, How can we make computers become invisible? How
can we interact with environments rather than interacting with computers, where the computers now
become a medium through which we interact? (Moggridge 2007)

referring to the interview

given by Terry Winograd to the author.

Ahead he completes his referred author by synthesising what we present as our
broader theme in this proposal:
The reality, which is what the research is really on, is how to put computers into
tangible real world were in and have them do things that wont require the inference and
intelligence that people have. (Moggridge 2007)

We will seek this by applying it to the way we socially interact today, questioning how
Ubiquitous Computing can change that.

4. Design importance and meaning | User-Experience Design |

Physical Computing
It takes very strong and brave management to admit that we dont know what we are
doing at the start, and therefore need to accommodate that in our process. But the
reality is, if we factor out luck and a few rare exceptions, it is always faster, cheaper, and
leads to a better product if you take extra step of incorporating an explicit up-front design
phase than going directly for the status quo shortcut
(Buxton 2007)
The idea and practice of design are changing. Products have changed and assumed
new meanings. These changes have been caused by aspects such as experiential views
of the products to be designed. The objects of design are not merely products applying
modern technologies, but experiences and industrial strategies as well.
(Mattelmaki 2006)

(Buxton 2007) understands design as crucial but yet neglected part of the process.
He2, as many others like (Lawson & Dorst 2009) identify the fuzzy definition for the
word design as a major problem for the effective public agreement and recognition of
Designs importance in processes and decision taking in organizations and
multidisciplinary projects.
(Buxton 2007)3 brings sketching to discussion in a broad sense and as the most
distinctive designers speciality. That broad sense goes from the actual act of drawing
sketches to 3d or physical computer prototyping to baking cakes or folding paper. He
also emphasizes the value of the divergent and speculative capacity of thinking and
communicating trough sketching.
(Lawson & Dorst 2009) abandon design and present a multifaceted scope of able to
define skins. With a less provocative speech they define designer as trained to
seeing in multiple ways or seeing as () Designers are used to performing this little
dance around a problem, taking stabs from different sides. This may sound chaotic
but if done well it allows one to build up an integrated image of design itself, and
hope to end up with an integrated image of design.
2

(Buxton 2007) The Question of Design Chapter pg 95-97

So even if we cant (or wont) define design, we can perhaps nevertheless still gain some insights into its
nature and pratice by taking some time to delve to the nature of sketching (Buxton 2007) pg (97)
3

10

Seeking for a more synthetic way of framing our proposal and the pertinence of this
kind of work as design knowledge we found DRM definition sufficiently pragmatic
and broad to assume it as fundamental for the construction of our design theories:
Many definitions of design exist, very much depending on the culture and background
of the author. When we speak in this book about design, we refer to those activities that
actually generate and develop a product from a need, product idea or technology to full
documentation needed to realise the product and to fulfil the perceived needs of the
user and other stakeholders. The perceived need my be social (e.g., transportation
means) as much as economic (e.g., manufacturing systems for mass production) The
impulse to start such process can come from: the market, (); internal needs of product
development enterprises, (); and from other sources ().
The design process can be undertaken by individuals, industry, or a community ().The
solution resulting from these practices can be both engineering and non-engineering
nature, and may be physical (), virtual () or a combination of both . In these sense
the term product (), signifies a much broader concept than conjured up by its
commonly perceived image ()
(Blessing & Chakrabarti 2009)

. SURI, DESIGN PROBES etc etc

Physical Computing is another good example of opportunities for the designer in the
computational world (We will explain ahead and introduce it in our methodology) as it
allows the designer to sketch, prototype and even implement interactive user
experiences, study the use of objects and consumer usability behaviours.
It's an approach to learning how humans communicate through computers that starts
by considering how humans express themselves physically.
A lot of beginning computer interface design instruction takes the computer hardware for
given -- namely, that there is a keyboard, a screen, perhaps speakers, and a mouse -and concentrates on teaching the software necessary to design within those boundaries.
In physical computing, we take the human body as a given, and attempt to design within
the limits of its expression.

11

This means that we have to learn how a computer converts the changes in energy given
off by our bodies, in the form of heat, light, sound, and so forth, into changing electronic
signals that it can read interpret. We learn about the sensors that do this, and about very
simple computers, called microcontrollers, that read sensors and convert their output
into data. Finally, we learn how microcontrollers communicate with other computers.
Physical computing takes a hands-on approach, which means that you spend a lot of
time building circuits, soldering, writing programs, building structures to hold sensors
and controls, and figuring out how best to make all of these things relate to a person's
expression.
(Igoe 2008)

Physical computing also takes us to two important definitions. First prototype it self
easily defined as a representation of a final artefact before his existence (Moggridge
2007). The same author also takes us to what might come to define our testing ideas
and concepts methods, base on physical computing, which is experience
prototyping. It adds experimental use to prototyping accompanied by proper
observation methods.
5. The Internet | The World Wide Web | Web 2.0
There are real and permanent social dilemmas, which can only be optimized for, never
completely solved. The human social repertoire includes many such optimizations which
social tools can amplify
(Shirky 2009)
Groups of people are complex, in ways what make those groups hard to form and hard
to sustain; much of the shape of traditional institutions is a response to those difficulties.
New social tools relieve some of those burdens, allowing for new kinds of group-forming,
like using simple sharing to anchor the creation of new groups
(Shirky 2009)

Contextualizing the web 2.0 social networking and media phenomenon leads us to
a necessary pre-conceptualization. We found in (Moggridge 2007) who, as already
mentioned above, interviewed Terry Winograd and from whom resulted the article
The Internet or the Web?. It introduces the theme by pointing two main differences
between the two:
12

At a technical level, the internet is a set of protocols between machines, sending

information around. One particular protocol, which got built on top of those protocols, is
called http, the HyperText Transfer Protocol. That was the protocol that created the Web.
() other distinction in a social context. The Internet was first developed by a collection
of people who were computer-savvy, mostly computer programmers or scientists so it
was designed and optimized for that community. The Web also started that way, as
physicists, who were using it as a way to communicate their preprints ad papers among
themselves, created the http protocol. Then a surge of growth started to expand the web,
and the dot.com boom took off. Every business realized that they needed at least a Web
site and possibly an e-commerce arm to stay competitive. There was a sudden shift from
the specialist technical community to a new commercial consumer space full of business
opportunity.
(Moggridge 2007)

Even though it might be technically considered jargon Web 2.0 is a clear and well
defined concept:
"Web 2.0" refers to web development and web design that facilitates interactive
information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design[1] and collaboration on the
World Wide Web. Examples of Web 2.0 include web-based communities, hosted
services, web applications, social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs,
mashups and folksonomies. A Web 2.0 site allows its users to interact with other users or
to change website content, in contrast to non-interactive websites where users are
limited to the passive viewing of information that is provided to them.
The term is closely associated with Tim O'Reilly because of the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0
conference in 2004. Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it
does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but rather to cumulative
changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the Web. Whether Web 2.0
is qualitatively different from prior web technologies has been challenged by World Wide
Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee who called the term a "piece of jargon.
(Wikipedia n.d.)

Phenomenons of huge success like the social networking and the social media are
also unavoidable design issues.

13

The collaborative idea of the construction of concepts and sharing of knowledge and
the given chance of altering ourselves social relationships with a couple of mouse
clics are obviously changing the world:
Organized collaboration can produce results beyond the achievements of ad hoc
cooperation. Just look at any of hundreds of open source projects (...). The peer
producers who create stuff gain credit, status, reputation, enjoyment, satisfaction, and
experience. (...) the tools of online collaboration support the communal style of
production that shuns the capitalistic investitors and keeps ownership in the hands of
the workers, and to some extent those of the consuming masses.
(Kelly 2009)

Of course all this themes have their own social, economic and psychological impact.
We will focus our attention and research efforts in the social impact and sketch,
prototype and if pertinent implement products and experiences that we hope will be
a real contribution to design knowledge.
Our main research questions rely on the combination of the themes described
above.

14

D. WHAT IF IT IS POSSIBLE?
Research Questions
Research question 1:
-

What if physical computing can allow designers to conceptualize and experiment

solutions for the web 2.0 outside of the web?
An interesting aspect to observe is that we might be assisting to the same process
that generated GUI Graphic User Interface in the late eighties. The difference is
that this GUI and many other tools were digital metaphors of the physical world and
now, when we walk towards one or more TUIs (Tangible User Interfaces) we might
be assisting to some similar processes but in this case in the opposite way. Will our
physical world become a metaphor of the digital, still (and less) materialized but
easily consulted and understood? Will people relationships be so opened and
dynamic as in social networking and will our direct conversations be so rich, diverse
and varied as the social media is expected to be?
That leads us to our second research question:
Research question 2:

Can design of tangible social interaction experiences bring Web 2.0 social networking
and media to the physical world?

15

E. IF WE DO IT
Research aims
Based upon two already referred basic assumptions:
1.

Internet and more precisely Web 2.0 is changing social structures

and organizations;

2.

Design will necessarily change and adapt in two dimensions to that:

the first as cause of those changes (collaboration, professional
networking, open source, etc) and the second because it as to
question those changes and find the tools to purpose those
questions.

We aim to:
Generate debate: designers shouldnt be technology preachers nor the opposite.
They have the ethical mission of questioning intervening through their projects.
Leave a solid framework of analysis of the theme but most of all a good set of
recommendations in the form of god and successfully accomplished and produced
projects.
Last but not the least,
to get to have the chance of saying that besides contributing to knowledge we came
up with strategies to reinforce fruition of the good old tangible relationships.

16

II. STATE OF ART

A. CONTEXT AND CONCEPTS
1. KEY CONCEPTS
a. WEB 2.0
i. Social Networking
(different purposes networking)
ii. Social Media
iii. Collaboration and Open Source
b. User-Centred Design and User Experiences
c. Interactive Design (as a field of Study)
2. EXPERIENCE PROTOTYPING TECHNIQUES (or Sketching)
a. Introduction
b. TOOLS
i. Physical Computing tools
1. Electronic tools
2. Software tool

17

B. PREVIOUS RESEARCH
There are many interactive design user experiences we can study and adapt further
on (as referred before). Assuming our main field of study as the combination of both
social networking and tangible interaction studies there were few findings in our
previous literary research.
In a more late sense, but also conscious of the social impact of tangible interaction
we find Hiroshi Ishii, professor of the Tangible Media Group at MIT Media
Laboratory. His team seeks to change the painted bits of GUIs to tangible bits
by giving physical form to digital information (Moggridge 2007).
Ishii is also responsible for clearly defining TUI (tangible user interface) that, as
already shown before, opposes to the graphic digital form of interface that we know
(GUI). One of the definitions of TUI has to do with its own conceptual weaknesses
assumed by Ishi when mentioning the necessity of intangible representation in
tangible interfaces and the necessity of multiple forms of control of the information,
especially multiplex control in his interview for Moggridge (2007).
TUIs will augment the real physical world by coupling digital information to everyday
physical objects and enviroments. (Ishii & Ullmer 1997).
The same authors identified, back 1997, three key concepts on they pursuit of
making digital information tangible:
1) Interactive Surfaces: Transformation of each surface within architectural space
(e.g., walls, desktops, ceilings, doors, windows) into an active interface between the
physical and virtual worlds;
2) Coupling of Bits and Atoms: Seamless coupling of everyday graspable objects
(e.g., cards, books, models) with the digital information that pertains to them; and
3) Ambient Media: Use of ambient media such as sound, light, airflow, and water
movement for background interfaces with cyberspace at the periphery of human
perception.
(Ishii & Ullmer 1997)

As we already seen, concepts like Ubiquitous Computing, Physical Computing,

Tangible Interactions are all connected and dependant and have many intersections.

18

Well study them as the mean to get to and not to do an exclusive research about it.
Our specifical search for tangible social interacion led us in the first place to a project
which was a true revelation for our path towards the purposed research questions:
(Jennings 2005) has a clear theorethical framework leading towards Constructed
Narratives A Tangible Social Interface which seeks pure socialization through a
collaborative ludic task. The experience was programmed for enviroments where the
the necesssary proximity bettwen people is not usual to occur. So, it became more
simpler to identify social interaction when proximity and socialization were
accomplished and verified.
Most of the other examples found are not directly linked to social interaction as a
project or research aim. Anyway they can be assumed as precious case-studies
cause most of them are embbebed in the public sphere witch represents a large
percentage of our physical space.

19

III. RESEARCH DESIGN

A. Methodology
1. Literary Review Structure
a. Cyberculture
b. Social Network Analisys
i. Internet Social Networking
c. Economy and Internet
i. Social Networking and Media
ii. Web 2.0 and other related themes
d. Interactive Design
i. Ubiquitous Computing / Physical Computing
ii. Tangible Interactions
iii. Social Tangible Interactions
e. User-Centred Design / User Experience analisys
f. Technical Support Bibibliography
2. Social Networking Empiric Analysis
Through observation and experimentation we will try to experience the
possible online social networks as possible.
The experience, as well as previous utilizations and informal observation will
be taken into account and registered in an online diary based on a blog
structure.
We have the votes from the spontaneous, invited or casual contributors a
towards qualitative grid of analisys of this internet service.
We are expecting to receive feedback from the public about this iniative so we
will build a database of possible users of the service and built a weekly
newsletter during the evaluation period. That will keep everyone connected
during the intense period which will be the constitution of the:
3. Social Networks Qualitative Classification Grid
After filled up it will work with the results of the literary analysis as input for
the designing of the:

20

4. Participatory Design Process Laboratory

a. Design Probes
Design probes are an approach of user-centred design for understanding human
phenomena and exploring design opportunities.() They explore new opportunities

rather than solve problems that are known already

(Mattelmaki 2006)

i. M Collaborative Network THE NETWORK

It was chosen as an easily observable case. It is know being
setup and indirectly will serve our observation.
It is a pure collaborative, on line based, professional network.
It works for the physical world creating craft products.
It is not based in the tangible world but its purpose is to be a
medium of achieving tangible results.
ii. Wikimuseum | My Museum Network THE SOCIAL
NETWORK
It is a social network based on the principle that their members
are museum lovers. Through a specific setup of devices, the
participants will be able to collect the artefacts they like most
or are more interested in when they visit the museum.
Collect it in a database sense or to be more specific without
significant information transactions the profile of the user that is
stored in the database can be completed with the desired info.
That will enable the necessary operations.
After that, they have access to a complete pack of information
about that specific artefact. That information was built under
collaborative principles (wiki). The museums are an important
part of the collaborative network being able to edit all the packs
of info that are related with the artefacts present in his
museum. They are the scientific committee of the network and
have privileges.
The use of the info and devices opens up a large scope for user
interactive and tangible experiences. The idea is to walk in a
physical space and be able to access physically and in loco to
21

the selection of information the user wants, for him to able to

see it in various formats, bookmark it, tag it and easily publish.
For this experience we can say that the tangible interaction is at
the museum level and it is not synchronous with the social
interaction that can happen by numerous forms, physically or
digitally. It is assumed that socializing during Museum fruition
must be completely free and a personal choice so it shouldnt
be imposed by any system.
iii. My Farm
A physical and living object presented as a packed product is a
generator of a online community. My farm project is being
developed by Evol. The main principle as to do tangible
interaction with a living object with educational and ecological
purposes. What matters to our study is that a tangible living
device sends info to your online profile of your favorite social
network. The plant will say if it is or not being well taken care of.
Almost as if your tamagoshi came to life in a living vegetal form
and tells your buddies that you are not feeding him or about
how well he feels around you.
In this case the social network already exists but you will be
forced to interact with the physical world if you want to play this
game.
The final idea is to make it open source. Than it might become
a real farm or reforestation project - who knows!
iv. Feelings Bookmarks
People react to the physical world and to other people.
Feelings bookmarks has to do with clothing and sensors.
Trough digital and analogical sensors your clothes will be able
to analyse transitions in your physiological state that indicate a
possible mood change. The idea is to ask the user if he wants
to bookmark that. The info can be immediately treated and
geo-tagged. Those bookmarks can become public or not,
shared with specific publics or even help you to trace your

22

emotional map of a place. Sharing it through social networking

can be a useful tool in many senses.
From the design probe experience we can see it as a way to
monitorize social interaction. As a system, we can associate in
our studies with the use of others and better understand the
implications of the other probes.
v. How do you feel here? Social Interaction Game
Finnaly we have a typical web community (scaled to fit) in a
public space and completely independent from an internet
connection.
Benches and other urban furniture forms of sitting will be
placed during a specific period of time in a public space.
The objects will analyse how people interact with them and
immediately attribute a color to that interaction. That color will
polute all the other equipments color. (all the benches and
other equipments are made out of a tranluccent acrillic stone
and receive RGB Led self illumination beside sensors,
microcontrollers an zigbee modules to communicate with each
other). To get to a stable and pleasant warm white light people
will have to be or feel confortable. If theres a general and
sensor perceived confort in all the peers of this spontaneous
community the light will slowly fade out.
5. REPORTS 1
It is time for the interventive researcher to compile in a report with multimedia
support. This will act as basic support for the two invited panels who also
observed the tangible social interaction experiences.
6. REVIEW PANELS
previously invited experts and users should by now be producing mono
structure report of the experiences accompanied.

23

7. FINAL REPORTS
8. The Literary Review and the Reports Analysis will have the ANSWER FOR
RESEARCH QUESTIONS.

B. RESEARCH DESIGN (Anexo1)

C. BENEFITS AND EXPECTED RESULTS

Companies see social media and networking as a way a advertising, politics as
another way of participation, software developers as the way into networked
collaboration, Human resources as mean of prospection. The question is: How
do product and interaction designers see the phenomenon? How can designers
became a part of this changes (like they should)? How can they help
emphasizing the benefits of these changes?
By frameworking this small part of the general question we expect to actively
contribute to a better comprehension of what can be designing with/for the
(online) networked society.
Also, we would like to walk on the path of user experience oriented design.
In the end our expectations are high: Dematerializaton and the effort on
experiences might be the base of a strategy which can leads us to less wastes
and more a more sustainable society.
D. CRITICAL FACTORS
.

24

IV. PROVISIONAL CALENDER

25

PROVISIONAL CALENDER
2009

OCT

NOV

2010

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR APR

MAI

JUN

JUL

2011

AGO

SET

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR APR

MAI

JUN

JUL

WRITTING PROCESS
LITERARY REVIEW
SOCIAL NETWORKING EMPIRIC ANALYSIS
SOCIAL NETWORKS GRID

TECNHNICAL PREPARATION

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESS

CONCEPTS

SKETCHING +
PROTOTYPING
CONSTRAINTS

LABORATORY

TESTING
+
OBSERVATION

REPORTING
EXPERTS REVIEW
USERS REVIEW

DATA TREATMENT AND ANALYSIS

CONCLUSIONS 1 OR PREVIOUS ASSUMPTIONS

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

AGO

SET

AI

(Igoe 2007)
(Banzi 2008)
(Wensveen et al. 2000)
(Ehn et al. 2004)(Candy 2006)

26

METHODOLOGY DIAGRAM
INTERACTION DESIGN

WEB 2.O

TANGIBLE
INTERACTION

SOCIAL MEDIA
&NETWORKING

SOCIAL TANGIBLE INTERACTIONS

Can design of tangible social interaction

experiences bring Web 2.0 social networking
and media to the physical world?
What if physical computing
can allow designers to conceptualize
and experiment solutions
for the web 2.0 outside of the web?

LITERARY REVIEW
SOCIAL NETWORKING EMPIRIC ANALYSIS
SOCIAL NETWORKS GRID

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESS

CONCEPTS

USER EXPERIENCE ORIENTED

DESIGN PROBES

CONSTRAINTS

M COLLABORATIVE NETWORK
WIKIMUSEUM
FEELINGS BOOKMARKING CLOTHES
MY FARM
SOCIAL INTERACTION POETHIC GAME

TESTING
+
OBSERVATION

REPORT 1

VIDEO
DIRECT OBSERVATION
DESCRIPTIONS

EXPERTS REVIEW

USERS REVIEW

FINAL REPORTS

ANSWERS

SKETCHING +
PROTOTYPING

REFERENCES
Banzi, M., 2008. Getting Started with Arduino Ill., Make Books.
Blessing, L.T. & Chakrabarti, A., 2009. DRM, a Design Research Methodology 1st
ed., Springer.
Buxton, B., 2007. Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the
Right Design, Morgan Kaufmann.
Candy, L., 2006. Practice Based Research: A Guide, Sydney: University of
Technology.
Ehn, P. et al. eds., 2004. DESIGN [X] RESEARCH: essays on Interaction Design
as knowledge construction, Malm: Malm University Press.
IDII, 2006. Iteraction Design Institute Ivrea - General View - Tomorrow's Servives.
Available at: http://interactionivrea.org/en/projects/overview/index.asp
[Accessed August 30, 2009].
Igoe, T., 2007. Making Things Talk: Practical Methods for Connecting Physical
Objects illustrated edition., Make Books.
Igoe, T., 2008. Phys Comp Notes: The FAQs of Physical Computing. Available at:
http://tigoe.net/pcomp/blog/archives/notes/000169.shtml [Accessed July
29, 2009].
Ishii, H. & Ullmer, B., 1997. Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces between
People, Bits and Atoms. Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.46.4416
[Accessed September 8, 2009].
Jennings, P., 2005. Constructed narratives a tangible social interface. In
Proceedings of the 5th conference on Creativity \& cognition. London,
United Kingdom: ACM, pp. 263-266. Available at:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1056268#abstract [Accessed
September 3, 2009].
Kelly, K., 2009. The New Socialism. Wire Magazine, 17(06), 116-121.
Lawson, B. & Dorst, K., 2009. Design Expertise, Architectural Press.
Mattelmaki, T., 2006. Design Probes. Taideteollinen korkeakoulu.
Moggridge, B., 2007. Designing Interactions 1st ed., The MIT Press.
Shirky, C., 2009. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without
Organizations Reprint., Penguin (Non-Classics).

27

Sullivan, O. & Igoe, 2004. Physical Computing, Premier Press.

Suri, J.F., 2003. The experience evolution: Developments in design practice. THE
DESIGN JOURNAL, 6, 39--48. Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.115.6979
[Accessed September 8, 2009].
Wensveen, S., Overbeeke, K. & Djajadiningrat, T., 2000. Touch me, hit me and I
know how you feel: a design approach to emotionally rich interaction. In
Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems:
processes, practices, methods, and techniques. New York City, New York,
United States: ACM, pp. 48-52. Available at:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=347642.347661 [Accessed
September 3, 2009].
Wikipedia, Web 2.0 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 [Accessed September 4, 2009].

28