The Design Space of Shape-changing Interfaces
A Repertory Grid Study
Matthijs Kwak, Eindhoven University of Technology Kasper Hornbæk, University of Copenhagen
Panos Markopoulos, Eindhoven University of Technology Miguel Bruns, Eindhoven University of Technology
A C
B
D
E
“uses physical change of shape as input or output”
“self-actuated change as a defining character”
“self-actuation must be controllable”
Rasmussen et al. (CHI 2012)
Morphees (Roudaut et al., CHI 2013)
Surflex (Coelho and Zigelbaum, PUC 2011)
Relief (Leithinger and Ishii, TEI 2010)
Two approaches to understanding shape-change
How do users experience shape-change?
Evaluation of User Experience with Prototypes
Hemmert et al. (TEI 2013)
Evaluation of User Experience with Prototypes
Hemmert et al. (TEI 2013)
ARTIFACTS
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 19, 342-368 (1987)
Hand Movements: A Window into Haptic Object Recognition
SUSAN J. LEDERMAN
Queen’s University at Kingston, Ontario, Canada
AND
ROBERTA L. KLATZKY
University of California at Santa Barbara
Two experiments establish links between desired knowledge about objects and hand movements during haptic object exploration. Experiment 1 used a match- to-sample task, in which blindfolded subjects were directed to match objects on a particular dimension (e.g., texture). Hand movements during object exploration were reliably classified as “exploratory procedures,” each procedure defined by its invariant and typical properties. The movement profile, i.e., the distribu- tion of exploratory procedures, was directly related to the desired object knowl- edge that was required for the match. Experiment 2 addressed the reasons for the specific links between exploratory procedures and knowledge goals. Hand move- ments were constrained, and performance on various matching tasks was as- sessed. The procedures were considered in terms of their necessity, sufficiency, and optimahty of performance for each task. The results establish that in free exploration, a procedure is generally used to acquire information about an object property, not because it is merely sufficient, but because it is optimal or even necessary. Hand movements can serve as “windows,” through which it is pos- sible to learn about the underlying representation of objects in memory and the processes by which such representations are derived and utilized. o 1987 Academic
Press. Inc.
When we feel extremely helpless in a situation, we commonly say, “My hands are tied!” Indeed, it is hard to imagine a world in which we cannot feel the soft fur of a kitten or even tie our shoelaces. Yet, psy- chology has often portrayed the hand as a second-class citizen. Research
The research reported in this paper was supported by the Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council of Canada (Grant A9854 awarded to SJL) and by the National Science Foundation (Grant BNS84-21340 awarded to RLK). Reprint requests may be sent to SJL, Psychology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6 or to RLK, Psy- chology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. Order of authorship does not reflect relative contribution; both authors contributed equally to the work. We thank An- drew Currie for his considerable contribution; he helped to prepare the stimulus objects, ran the experiments, scored some of the videotapes for our reliability checks, collated and analyzed much of the data, and provided valuable comments in general discussion.
342 OOlO-0285/87 $7.50 Copyright 0 1987 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Interaction
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 19, 342-368 (1987)
Hand Movements: A Window into Haptic Object Recognition
SUSAN J. LEDERMAN
Queen’s University at Kingston, Ontario, Canada
AND
ROBERTA L. KLATZKY
University of California at Santa Barbara
Two experiments establish links between desired knowledge about objects and hand movements during haptic object exploration. Experiment 1 used a match- to-sample task, in which blindfolded subjects were directed to match objects on a particular dimension (e.g., texture). Hand movements during object exploration were reliably classified as “exploratory procedures,” each procedure defined by its invariant and typical properties. The movement profile, i.e., the distribu- tion of exploratory procedures, was directly related to the desired object knowl- edge that was required for the match. Experiment 2 addressed the reasons for the specific links between exploratory procedures and knowledge goals. Hand move- ments were constrained, and performance on various matching tasks was as- sessed. The procedures were considered in terms of their necessity, sufficiency, and optimahty of performance for each task. The results establish that in free exploration, a procedure is generally used to acquire information about an object property, not because it is merely sufficient, but because it is optimal or even necessary. Hand movements can serve as “windows,” through which it is pos- sible to learn about the underlying representation of objects in memory and the processes by which such representations are derived and utilized. o 1987 Academic
Press. Inc.
When we feel extremely helpless in a situation, we commonly say, “My hands are tied!” Indeed, it is hard to imagine a world in which we cannot feel the soft fur of a kitten or even tie our shoelaces. Yet, psy- chology has often portrayed the hand as a second-class citizen. Research
The research reported in this paper was supported by the Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council of Canada (Grant A9854 awarded to SJL) and by the National Science Foundation (Grant BNS84-21340 awarded to RLK). Reprint requests may be sent to SJL, Psychology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6 or to RLK, Psy- chology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. Order of authorship does not reflect relative contribution; both authors contributed equally to the work. We thank An- drew Currie for his considerable contribution; he helped to prepare the stimulus objects, ran the experiments, scored some of the videotapes for our reliability checks, collated and analyzed much of the data, and provided valuable comments in general discussion.
342 OOlO-0285/87 $7.50 Copyright 0 1987 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Design Interaction
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 19, 342-368 (1987)
Hand Movements: A Window into Haptic Object Recognition
SUSAN J. LEDERMAN
Queen’s University at Kingston, Ontario, Canada
AND
ROBERTA L. KLATZKY
University of California at Santa Barbara
Two experiments establish links between desired knowledge about objects and hand movements during haptic object exploration. Experiment 1 used a match- to-sample task, in which blindfolded subjects were directed to match objects on a particular dimension (e.g., texture). Hand movements during object exploration were reliably classified as “exploratory procedures,” each procedure defined by its invariant and typical properties. The movement profile, i.e., the distribu- tion of exploratory procedures, was directly related to the desired object knowl- edge that was required for the match. Experiment 2 addressed the reasons for the specific links between exploratory procedures and knowledge goals. Hand move- ments were constrained, and performance on various matching tasks was as- sessed. The procedures were considered in terms of their necessity, sufficiency, and optimahty of performance for each task. The results establish that in free exploration, a procedure is generally used to acquire information about an object property, not because it is merely sufficient, but because it is optimal or even necessary. Hand movements can serve as “windows,” through which it is pos- sible to learn about the underlying representation of objects in memory and the processes by which such representations are derived and utilized. o 1987 Academic
Press. Inc.
When we feel extremely helpless in a situation, we commonly say, “My hands are tied!” Indeed, it is hard to imagine a world in which we cannot feel the soft fur of a kitten or even tie our shoelaces. Yet, psy- chology has often portrayed the hand as a second-class citizen. Research
The research reported in this paper was supported by the Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council of Canada (Grant A9854 awarded to SJL) and by the National Science Foundation (Grant BNS84-21340 awarded to RLK). Reprint requests may be sent to SJL, Psychology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6 or to RLK, Psy- chology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. Order of authorship does not reflect relative contribution; both authors contributed equally to the work. We thank An- drew Currie for his considerable contribution; he helped to prepare the stimulus objects, ran the experiments, scored some of the videotapes for our reliability checks, collated and analyzed much of the data, and provided valuable comments in general discussion.
342 OOlO-0285/87 $7.50 Copyright 0 1987 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Design Interaction Behaviour
• one degree of freedom
• continuous feedback
• rotational platform and scissor mechanism
• uniform and segmented surfaces
REPERTORY GRID
These two seem insecure
Insecure Determined
This one seemsdetermined
Insecure Determined
This one seemsdetermined
209 construct/contrast poles
209 construct/contrast poles
Friendly/Distant
Indifferent/Attentive
Honest/Underhand
Random/Predictable
Sturdy/FragileMechanical/Organic
Cautious/Ambitious
Insecure/Determined
Unconcerned/InsecureVulnerable/Strong
Surly/Sensitive
Rebellious/Cooperative
Stubborn/Compliant
Obedient/Recalcitrant
Open/MysteriousBoisterous/Introvert
Social/Introvert
Skittish/Affectionate
Frightened/Defensive
Aggressive/Coy
Weak/Powerful
Playful/Calm
Restful/Hasty
Downhearted/HopefulHappy/Sad
Categories
interaction with others
CategoriesIndifferent/Attentive Honest/Underhand
interaction with others
product properties
CategoriesIndifferent/Attentive Honest/Underhand
Sturdy/Fragile Mechanical/Organic
interaction with others
product properties
approach
CategoriesIndifferent/Attentive Honest/Underhand
Sturdy/Fragile Mechanical/Organic
Cautious/Ambitious Insecure/Determined
interaction with others
product properties
approach
appearance
CategoriesIndifferent/Attentive Honest/Underhand
Sturdy/Fragile Mechanical/Organic
Cautious/Ambitious Insecure/Determined
Unconcerned/Insecure Surly/Sensitive
interaction with others
product properties
approach
appearance
stubbornness
CategoriesIndifferent/Attentive Honest/Underhand
Sturdy/Fragile Mechanical/Organic
Cautious/Ambitious Insecure/Determined
Unconcerned/Insecure Surly/Sensitive
Rebellious/Cooperative Stubborn/Compliant
interaction with others
product properties
approach
appearance
stubbornness
open/closed
CategoriesIndifferent/Attentive Honest/Underhand
Sturdy/Fragile Mechanical/Organic
Cautious/Ambitious Insecure/Determined
Unconcerned/Insecure Surly/Sensitive
Rebellious/Cooperative Stubborn/Compliant
Open/Mysterious Boisterous/Introvert
interaction with others
product properties
approach
appearance
stubbornness
open/closed
territorial
CategoriesIndifferent/Attentive Honest/Underhand
Sturdy/Fragile Mechanical/Organic
Cautious/Ambitious Insecure/Determined
Unconcerned/Insecure Surly/Sensitive
Rebellious/Cooperative Stubborn/Compliant
Open/Mysterious Boisterous/Introvert
Skittish/Affectionate Aggressive/Coy
interaction with others
product properties
approach
appearance
stubbornness
open/closed
territorial
energy
CategoriesIndifferent/Attentive Honest/Underhand
Sturdy/Fragile Mechanical/Organic
Cautious/Ambitious Insecure/Determined
Unconcerned/Insecure Surly/Sensitive
Rebellious/Cooperative Stubborn/Compliant
Open/Mysterious Boisterous/Introvert
Skittish/Affectionate Aggressive/Coy
Weak/Powerful Playful/Calm
interaction with others
product properties
approach
appearance
stubbornness
open/closed
territorial
energy
state of mind
CategoriesIndifferent/Attentive Honest/Underhand
Sturdy/Fragile Mechanical/Organic
Cautious/Ambitious Insecure/Determined
Unconcerned/Insecure Surly/Sensitive
Rebellious/Cooperative Stubborn/Compliant
Open/Mysterious Boisterous/Introvert
Skittish/Affectionate Aggressive/Coy
Weak/Powerful Playful/Calm
Downhearted/Hopeful Happy/Sad
FUTURE WORK
Systematic variation of parameters
Systematic variation of parameters
Map reactions back to model
(help) build a library of particulars to better understand the expressiveness of shape-changing interfaces and develop a vocabulary to operationalise this knowledge
The Design Space of Shape-changing Interfaces
A Repertory Grid Study
Matthijs Kwak, Eindhoven University of Technology Kasper Hornbæk, University of Copenhagen
Panos Markopoulos, Eindhoven University of Technology Miguel Bruns, Eindhoven University of Technology
