Embodiment 4

Good thing to bring rich actions strengthens the embodiment to tangible product after the inspired argument by them who were Gibson, Norman, Dourish and Overbeeke referred to the effect of physical perception from the world and how the meaning be created by acting, that I now use the term (inter)action[1] including all studies of them, because this is a primacy of embodiment.


The enrichment of actions for embodied interaction (arrangement from Overbeeke[1], Wensveen and Djajadiningrat[2][3])

I tried looking for the richness of actions with related paper in order to add up to perceptual motor skills in a sequential method. So far the designed action possibilities I gain mainly from those by Wensveen and Djajadiningrat. According to them and others, there were some views known to rich the movement, such as freedom, diversification(differentiation), multiple parameters simultaneously, multiple point at once, myriad of ways, easily be undone, mechanics (skills), coupling form, action and function(coupled and visibility)[2][3][4][5].

If physical products afford us many opportunities to act our whole body, many of the emotions we could naturally express as well. Furthermore, besides during the action, it will leave a trace of message on the surface of an artwork even when the move has ceased[2]. The designed product of an alarm clock created by Wensveen is a case in point. In fact, many of researchers, such as Caroline Hummels and Philip Ross, are focusing more on emotional rich made meaning to system than disruptive and discrete way to interaction.


reference:
[1] Overbeeke, C.J., the aesthetics of the impossible. Retrieved 26 October 2007 from Technische Universiteit Eindhoven: http://www.tue.nl/bib/
[2] Wensveen SAG, Djajadiningrat JP, Overbeeke CJ (2004) Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward. DIS2004, pp177-184
[3] Djajadiningrat JP, Wensveen SAG, Frens JW, Overbeeke CJ (2004) Tangible Products: Redressing the Balance Between Appearance and Action. Spec Issue Tangible Interaction JPers Ubiquitous Comput 8:294-309
[4] Djajadiningrat JP, Matthews B, Stienstra M (2005) Easy doesn’t do it: skill and expression in tangible aesthetics. Pers Ubiquit Comput, special issue on movement-based design
[5] Jensen MV, Buur J, Djajadiningrat JP (2005) Designing the user actions in tangible interaction. Acceped for critical computing: between sense and sensibility, Aarhus

Embodiment 3

Originally, an affordance came from the Gibson’s ecological psychology that offered the status for acting in naturally physical environment which provided us with an opportunity to achieve end. Then, Norman placed it in design and made supreme stun in the field of HCI.

The effect of physical objects in embodied interaction is immense. But what’s the embodiment in system design? Now that seeing what a product looks like lets me more than sure it might not be like a computer. As Djajadiningrat and Wensveen put it:

“Many interfaces of electronic products feel ‘stuck on’. This is not only a matter of form interaction, but also a matter of how ‘display and push button’ interfaces disrupt interaction flow, causing many electronic products to feel computeresque[1: p.294].”

So, it is obvious that we don’t need take time to interpret icons and text within the cognition. One of its first procedures is to sense the form what the thing can do for you and then give it a try. If the function could be used, we will get out the meaning of it. However, it’s very important for user to balance what they consequently confront. Djajadiningrat and Wensveen, that great European industrial designed researcher related the approach in tangible products when they said:

“In this approach neither action nor appearance is arbitrary: they need to be designed concurrently with function in order to craft a meaningful relationship between appearance, action and function[1: p.295].”

It seems clear that an affordance is the direct perception and sensory[1]! No meaning be there, it may just be created in the interaction without much more complex and complete representation requiring somebody to learn and remember. Another, focusing on actions is also a help to couple between appearance and function.


reference:
[1] Djajadininingrat JP, Wensveen SAG, Frens JW, Overbeeke CJ (2004) Tangible Products: Redressing the Balance Between Appearance and Action. Spec Issue Tangible Interaction JPers Ubiquitous Comput 8:294-309

Embodiment 2

Remember that Chien-Ming Wang had the worst earned run averages in career at the 09 MLB seasons before being put to disabled list. When a reporter asked for the coach and he said “Don’t worry! Wang is fine, just the problem of mechanics.” I think it’s a good initiation to contemplate the bodied condition called the ‘mechanics’.

As the ball game get start, what we find the most important in players is that how does he do? Or how does he feel in today? This includes not only the ability, but also the sensation, action, mechanic, flexibility and fluency. All these properties are so naturally connected that everybody never ignores them.

Not surprisingly, that Hummel and Overbeeke[1] embodied research explored human perceptual-motor and emotional skills to improve tangible product. They were inspired by parts of theory of Gibson’s ecological psychology and Norman’s physical psychology, even there have a little argument for “Affordance.”

As point out by them, stress on ‘visual perception’ creating rich meaning for metaphor or semantic in HCI, an affordance couldn’t separate it from acting that everyday engagement with the world directed toward the accomplishment of practical task[2]. Furthermore, Overbeeke strongly convince that meaning is in (inter)action[1]. In other words, meaning is build by user and manifested in the end through performance. Therefore, an affordance can be easily seen as a tool and process.

So much for the detailed argument; I will now again use a Paul Dourish’s[2] clearly narration of ecological psychology studies epitomizing . He said: “ ’Knowledge in the world’ rather than ‘Knowledge in the head.’ ”


[1] Overbeeke, C.J., the aesthetics of the impossible. Retrieved 26 October 2007 from Technische Universiteit Eindhoven: http://www.tue.nl/bib/
[2] Dourish, P. Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001.

Embodiment 1

Naoto Fukasawa moved many Taiwanese students in his design. He pushes the characteristic in his product, but also preserves the element of natural environment to design. These things naturally fit artifacts in our everyday life. He offers simple form by observing the people acting through physical manifestation in the world. They all affected by representation of environment, as he puts it: ‘design dissolves in behavior.‘

Also, Paul Dourish[1] has the same way to think about how people embody in the real world. He pays attention not just to physical presence, but also social acting motivating. Some research tend to improve manipulating in computer, while, others prefer to concern how it forms a shared environment whose characteristics are thoroughly predictable. Most importantly, their shared understanding couldn’t split the individual from the world where that individual lives and acts. Instead how to used objects as represented information.


[1] Dourish, P. Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001.