Not Signed-In
Which clippings match 'Technology Affordances' keyword pg.1 of 5
17 DECEMBER 2015

Even tails can have unexpected affordances

"Affordance is a term used to describe the potential uses or actions latent in materials and designs. Glass affords transparency and brittleness. Steel affords strength, smoothness, hardness, and durability. Cotton affords fluffiness, but also breathable cloth when it is spun into yarn and thread. Specific designs, which organize these materials, then lay claim to their own range of affordances. A fork affords stabbing and scooping. A doorknob affords not only hardness and durability, but also turning, pushing, and pulling. Designed things may also have unexpected affordances generated by imaginative users: we may hang signs or clothes on a doorknob, for example, or use a fork to pry open a lid, and so expand the intended affordances of an object."

Caroline Levine (2015) "Forms: Whole, Rhythm, Hierarchy, Network", Princeton University Press.

Fig.1 YouTube clip titled "What tails are for!" showing an unexpected affordance for a dog's tail.

1
2

TAGS

affordancescandid videochildhood agencychildhood imaginationchildhood innocence • children and their pets • designed thingsdivergent thinkingdog • dogs tail • free range playimaginative thinking • imaginative users • intended affordances • Lance Ellis • latent actions • latent uses • mischievous behaviour • painting a picture • perceivable action possibilities • potential actions latent in designs • potential actions latent in materials • potential uses latent in designs • potential uses latent in materials • rethinking limitations • tail • technology affordances • unexpected affordances • useful significanceyoung child

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
04 OCTOBER 2015

Connbox: prototyping a physical product for video presence with Google Creative Lab, 2011

"At the beginning of 2011 we started a wide-ranging conversation with Google Creative Lab, discussing near-future experiences of Google and its products. They had already in mind another brief before approaching us, to create a physical product encapsulating Google voice/video chat services. This brief became known as 'Connection Box' or 'Connbox' for short…

There were interaction & product design challenges in making a simpler, self-contained video chat appliance, amplified by the problem of taking the things we take for granted on the desktop or touchscreen: things like the standard UI, windowing, inputs and outputs, that all had to be re-imagined as physical controls.

This is not a simple translation between a software and hardware behaviour, it’s more than just turning software controls into physical switches or levers.

It involves choosing what to discard, what to keep and what to emphasise.

Should the product allow ‘ringing’ or ‘knocking’ to kickstart a conversation, or should it rely on other audio or visual cues? How do we encourage always-on, ambient, background presence with the possibility of spontaneous conversations and ad-hoc, playful exchanges? Existing ‘video calling’ UI is not set up to encourage this, so what is the new model of the interaction?

To do this we explored in abstract some of the product behaviours around communicating through video and audio. "

(Matt Jones, 26 February 2013, Berg Ltd)

1
2
3

4

5

6

TAGS

2011 • Apple FaceTime • Berg Ltd • communications interaction interface • computer-mediated interaction • connbox • design prototypedesigning for interaction • development log • Durrell Bishop • experiential proof • form and functionfuture interfacesGolan Levin • Google Creative Lab • Google Hangouts • Google Plus • hardware prototyping • interaction designinteraction styleslive video • Luckybite • material exploration • near-future scenariosOpenFrameworks • physical product • portalproduct design • prototyping brief • research and developmentSkypesoftware prototypingtechnology affordances • teleconference • video calling • video chat • video conferencing • video phone • video presence • video-based communication • videoconferencing

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
19 JUNE 2015

The benefits of Facebook 'Friends': the social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices

Tuesday, 7 June 2011, 12:30 pm, Berkman Center, 23 Everett Street, second floor.

"This talk will provide an overview of research exploring the social capital implications of social network site use. Specifically, I will report on new research that attempts to identify specific Facebook-enabled behaviors that contribute to users' ability to access diverse perspective, novel information, and social support. This research explores the link between bridging social capital levels and Facebook-related factors such as time on site, the number of Facebook Friends, and a set of behaviors we call 'Cultivation of Social Resources.'"

1

TAGS

2011 • absent ties • Berkman Center • Bernie Hogan • cultivation of social resources • Danah Boyd • diverse perspectives • Dmitri Williams • Erving GoffmanFacebook • Facebook friends • friendship networksinformation transmissioninformation-seeking behaviour • Internet effects • interpersonal ties • Michigan State University • multi-method investigation • multiple methods • NameGenWeb • Nicole Ellison • novel information • pseudo experimental techniques • quasi-experimental research • reciprocity • sample group • sample size • social affordances • social behavioursocial capital • social embeddedness • social media researchsocial networks • social support • social ties • status update • student sample • survey instrument • survey measures • technology affordancesUniversity of Michiganvideo lecture • weak ties

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
12 MARCH 2015

Joep Frens: To Make is to Grasp

"Joep Frens, Designer/Researcher and Assistant Professor in the 'Designing Quality in Interaction' group at Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands. Joep's work explores how to design for (growing) systems and the power of 'making' as a physical way of thinking. He takes a 'hands-on' approach to design based in the research-through-design method and regularly gives workshops on cardboard modeling.

Joep is a designer/researcher from the Netherlands. He holds a master degree in Industrial Design Engineering from Delft University of Technology and a doctoral degree from Eindhoven University of Technology on a thesis called: 'Designing for Rich Interaction: Integrating Form, Interaction, and Function' (2006). Currently he is assistant professor in the 'Designing Quality in Interaction' group at the same university. He teaches several courses at bachelor and master level and supervises several PhD students.

In his teaching and research Joep tries to bring together two of his fascinations: the question of how to design for (growing) systems and the power of making as a physical way of thinking. He takes a hands-on approach and is well versed in the research-through-design method. He regularly gives workshops on cardboard modeling and runs a website around the technique.

Before his doctoral research he spent a year at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich (ETH), and after he has been invited to teach and lecture in the USA (CMU), Germany (HFGSG, FHD), South-Korea (KAIST), China (Tsinghua University, Jiangnan university), Belgium (UA) and at several universities in the Netherlands.

Joep's lecture occurred Wednesday, October 1st at 5:00pm in MMCH A14."

1
3

4

TAGS

2014 • action based paradigm • aesthetic experience • aesthetic interaction • camera • cardboard modelling • Carnegie Mellon Universitycognitive skillsconcept camera • David Menting • Delft University of Technologydesign conceptDesign the Future Lecture Programme • designing for growing systems • designing for interaction • designing for rich interaction • designing for systems • ecological psychology • Eindhoven University of Technology • embodied interaction • expressivity • expressivity of form • feel thingsform and function • form and use • future interfaces • grasp • handlehaptic interfaceHCIhuman capabilitiesindustrial designinteraction styles • Joep Elderman • Joep Frens • Jordy Rooijakkers • Josje Wijnen • Kacper Holenderski • Ken Giang • Lukas Van Campenhout • making as a physical way of thinking • making processmodular design • multi-specific products • Netherlands • Nierenberg Chair of Design • on-screen menus • our tools talk to usphysical modelsphysical objectspliability • proceduralisation • product design • research-through-design method • rich interaction • standardisation interaction styles • systemic design • tactile richnesstechnology affordances • Tom Frissen

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
23 OCTOBER 2014

Describing social and material interactions through formal methods

"To some extent, Formal Methods sit uneasily within interaction design. Human beings are rich, complex, nuanced, engaged in subtle and skilful social and material interactions; reducing this to any sort of formal description seems at best simplistic. And yet that is precisely what we have to do once we create any sort of digital system: whether an iPhone or an elevator, Angry Birds or Facebook, software is embedded in our lives. However much we design devices and products to meet users' needs or enrich their experiences of life, still the software inside is driven by the soulless, precise, and largely deterministic logic of code. If you work with computers, you necessarily work with formalism.

Formal Methods sit in this difficult nexus between logic and life, precision and passion, both highlighting the contradictions inherent in interaction design and offering tools and techniques to help understand and resolve them.

In fact, anyone engaged in interaction design is likely to have used some kind of formal representation, most commonly some sort of arrow and sketch diagram showing screens/pages in an application and the movements between them. While there are many more complex formal notations and methods, these simple networks of screens and links demonstrate the essence of a formal representation. Always, some things are reduced or ignored (the precise contents of screens), whilst others are captured more faithfully (the pattern of links between them). This enables us to focus on certain aspects and understand or analyse those aspects using the representation itself (for example notice that there are some very long interaction paths to quite critical screens)."

(Alan J. Dix, 2013)

Dix, Alan J. (2013): Formal Methods. In: Soegaard, Mads and Dam, Rikke Friis (eds.). "The Encyclopedia of Human–Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.". Aarhus, Denmark: The Interaction Design Foundation. Available online at https://www.interaction–design.org/encyclopedia/formal_methods.html

TAGS

abstract system models • Alan Dix • arrow and sketch diagram • context awareness • context-aware interfaces • design methods • design products • deterministic logic • dialogue models • digital devices • digital interactions • digital system • executable models • formal abstraction • formal analysis • formal description • formal design methods • formal methods • formal notation • formal representations • formalised principleshuman-computer interactioninteraction designInteraction Design Foundation • material interactions • notation • physical context • physical interactionphysigrams • product design process • product development methodologyrepresentationrich descriptionsrich user experienceshaping our relationship to the material worldsocial interactionssoftware modellingspace syntax • specification language • state machines • state transition network • structured approach • system behaviour • tangible interfacestechnology affordancesusability testinguser experienceuser-based evaluationworld around us • world representations

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
Sign-In

Sign-In to Folksonomy

Can't access your account?

New to Folksonomy?

Sign-Up or learn more.