FMP REPORT

CREATIVITY IN THESMART KITCHEN

STUDENT ROY GEVERS

COACH JOEP FRENS

15-06-2017

3

In the Creativity in the Kitchen project, a critical look is taken into the impetuous focus on ease and efficiency that is strived towards in many implementations of the Internet of Things and Smart Home movements, with a specific focus on the kitchen environment, since there are many possibilities for creative action in the kitchen but also a trend towards highly efficient appliances, tools and environ-ments threatening to almost take the human out of the equation of cooking. It is proposed that the connectivity and intelligence of IoT solutions can alternatively be used to increase creativity and en-hance daily interactions with surrounding things. To bring this vision to fruition a cutting board was made that through cognition-heightening interactions and a connection to a digital image representing work done helps the user experience the cooking process as less stressful and more fulfilling, while helping to create meals of a higher quality.

Abstract

5

Table of Contents

Introduction 7

Craftsmanship & Creativity 9

IoT & the Smart Kitchen 11

First Semester 12

Meeting Kookschoolkunsten 16

Meeting Inspiratiehuis 20|20 18

WES Cutting Board 22

User Involvement 24

Conclusion & Discussion 28

References 32

Appendix I: User drawings 34

Appendix II: 50 recipes 38

Reflection 40

7

Before it bore the name Creativity in the Smart Kitchen, this project started as an investigation into where craftsmanship could be found in a world where makers and designers have access to new excit-ing tools. Through this initial exploration it was found that the Internet of Things movement was at its core a promising development for creative undertakings, but that its focus on comfort and efficiency, especially in the Smart Home scenario [14,15, 16], was somewhat misguided. Because of some much needed specificity, the Smart Home context was narrowed down to the kitchen with its inherent op-portunities for creativity but also a multitude of new Smart products promoting fast, easy and efficient cooking with less and less user input. Using the IoT paradigm in concert with lessons learned from craftsmen and the field of creativity [e.g., 1, 2, 7, 8, 12], this project tries to bring about an advance in the Smart Kitchen trend with its misguided focus on efficiency, by imposing physical limits, encouraging conscious interaction with tools and ingre-dients and thereby stimulating everyday creativity. This report starts by describing what makes craftsmanship and creativity important and looking a bit further into IoT and the Smart Kitchen. Later, it highlights the work done in the second semester of the Final Master Project, but not before looking back into the preparatory steps taken in the semester be-fore. After looking back it details new knowledge gained from interviews with experts and afterwards the final concept is introduced and explained. Finally a conclusion is reached in which the end result is discussed and future improvements are suggested.

Introduction

9

The craftsman, seen often as the epitome of creativity, is constantly operating in an environment of limited possibility. For example, the properties of the materials he or she works with inherently come with limitations. The same goes for the tools that are used. The craftsman has to constantly adapt and invent new ways with which to work up to, or past the known limits, only to find new limits. These limits create a tension with the desire to do good work, which in turn enables the creativity necessary to circumvent these limits and thereby make something beautiful. If anything was possible and there were no limits, creativity would not exist and no creation would be special [7, p113]. To use the same analogy Robert Frost did when he said: “Writing free verse is like playing tennis with the net down,” even in sports the rules and demarcations of the playing field are what makes the game challenging and fun. So with many hours of trying and experiencing, the creative individual is able to create order out of chaos. By doing this, he or she “edits, amplifies, and amends the socially prescribed narratives with which he conceptualizes his world” [6, p148], or as existential psychologist Rollo May describes it: “Creativity is the encounter of the intensively conscious human being with his or her world.” [7, p54] Why is it important for the layman to experience in some small form these ways of the craftsman? Bringing something new into being creates moments of joy (defined as the emotion that goes with heightened conscious-ness [7]). These spontaneous “periods of abandon are valuable, particularly in our mechanized civilization where creativity and the arts are all but starved to death by the routine of punching clocks and attending endless committee meetings.” [7, p47]

Craftsmanship & Creativity

11

IoT & the Smart Kitchen

The Internet of Things, as a system of physical and digital Smart objects that can communicate, ex-change data and interact with each other, can exist in different shapes and sizes. A relatively large quantity of Smart objects can be found interacting with each other and human users in the context of the home and in specific, in the kitchen. The Smart Kitchen offers a wide array of IoT solutions intend-ed to make life safer, healthier or simply more comfortable. In an attempt to benchmark the final design, it was found that designers and companies have a long-standing tradition of making predictions on the ‘kitchen of tomorrow.’ In a somewhat similar way, this project can be seen as such a prediction. However, there are some striking differences to be found between the way the established names [17] envision the future and the vision behind the WES cut-ting board. Where many see flat surfaces like the table, counter or cutting board as viable sources to measure and/or display information, the desired effects some design proposals have on everyday life are opposed by this report and accompanying design. For instance, it is striking that in the examples found the user rarely seems to make a mistake using a Smart system and that the system presented almost never has to correct anything. (There is no ‘Backspace button’ to be found, nor is it apparently necessary.) Similarly, little time is spent cleaning in the videos and images, yet every surface is shiny and clean. Wood that is used as a cutting and cooking surface is scratchless, stainless and has no burn marks and every touchscreen present is spotless [18]. It is easy to strive for convenience in a world where everything stays clean despite cooking being a messy endeavor. It is also noteworthy that when going back in time fifty years and looking at what was envisioned then [19], little has changed. In many of the videos and images the kitchen is still being used primarily by women and still companies have an appetite for efficiency, comfort and speed. In reality, the user has many possible interactions vying for attention at the same time, socially, physically and digitally. One can indeed choose to let the system do everything; all discomforts can be referred to a Smart Home solution, eliminating all tools but the smartphone and erasing all skills but the clear articulation of commands to the system. Another option would be to heed the plethora of interactions users deal with and give them the tools to build certain skills and feel some form of creative fulfillment along the way.

12

First Semester

When considering the work done to arrive at the final concept and accompanying prototype, it is im-portant to call to mind the results of the first semester. Throughout the creative experiments done in the very first quartile, multiple (rapid prototyping) techniques were explored and experienced through hands-on use and interviews, to examine the notion of craftsmanship, which to many still carries an ar-chaic connotation, in relationship with the tools and techniques of the present and future. In an exper-iment using the laser cutter, a certain carelessness throughout the process was found and at the time mainly ascribed to separations between physical and digital, combined with the separation between conceiving (the person taking the measurements and making the CAD file) and the actual production (the machine making the cut). The solution at the time was to have the head and hands work in concert and thereby have the work rely “on the judgement, dexterity and care which the maker exercises as he works” [8, p20], which for instance is the case when carving a piece of wood, testing the semantics of software on the same screen on which it is being written or hearing when the 3D printer is not printing properly and adapting settings ad hoc, as observed when interviewing an expert on 3D printing.

However, through the ideas and concepts of the latter half of the semester, it became clear that a rift in the information that is available and skills needed to recognize and interpret all the necessary information is a more encompassing way to describe the problem, which in the context of a kitchen tool became one of the main opportunities. After all, the ramifications of important parameters when cooking (e.g., size, dosage, timing, spicing) are hard to test and only truly become clear when tasting. Getting all parame-ters right consistently and fixing mistakes requires monitoring, planning and a lot of cognitive skill [11], whereas there should be more sensory available information to start exploring creatively. Alternatively, one can look at the ambiguous terminology of cooking (‘a pinch of salt’, ‘medium heat’), as learned in a meeting with Mark Thielen in the first semester, who knows a lot about cooking and has done proj-ects of his own on the subject. Looking at this ambiguity, one realizes there is little reliable reference in cooking, which also makes it more difficult to transcend the level of dilettante.

13

In a paper on context-aware kitchen tools, Kranz et al. concluded the following: “Technology usually makes its way to the end-user for different reasons: it saves time and thus money, or it adds new comfort [6, p214].” The project described in this report hopes to add to or replace the saving of time and increas-ing comfort with a fulfilling experience, akin to the creative endeavours of craftsmen. To do this, based on the conclusions of the first semester, going into the second semester it was decided that a pro-posed design should adhere to the following principles:

• Instead of delegating tasks that could potentially generate new knowledge, skills or a sense of ac-complishment to a system, the user should be stimulated to try these tasks himself.

• Because the design lives within a Smart context, it should be able to grow in several regards.The amount of nodes in the system is ever-growing and so is the data it holds. Next to this, a similar thing is happening with the user, who gains more skill and is searching for new challenges. How-ever, one of the problems the (professional) IoT community faces is compatibility and the aligning of protocols. So next to growing with the user and size of the system, the data the product sends should not be hard to address by other members of the system.

• Curbing the limitlessness of IoT solutions and enforcing physical boundaries has proven to be another key to trigger creative input by the user, because meaningful limits offer challenges that require creative solutions. The design should find a way to embrace the tangibility, inertia and sus-ceptibility to age and wear of the physical world [10].

• As said, the feedback in the cooking process is very much separated from the actions one takes to arrive at the end product. To make the feedback loop more legible, it is important to send data to the user in a more meaningful way, presenting information in such a way that it takes less cognitive skill and thus opens up room for interpretation and creative exploration with more reliable results.

Going into the final semester, these principles served as somewhat of a thread and were revisited on occasion. Furthermore, based on this a new concept was conceived to be discussed with experts.

1 2 3

654

The dial, which is placed abovethe cutting board is o�.

-

The �rst ingredient is chosen by twisting the knob to position one.By placing a sample of the cut ingredient on the middle of the dial, the size is determined by sensors. The meal now consists of ingredientone for 100%.

The size of the surface of a cut ingredient dictates the amount of �avor it produces. By c hoosing a second ingredient and again placing a cut piece on the dial, the system changes the ratio of ingredient one and two.

The �avor ratio can be changed by cutting the second ingredientsmaller, since more surface equalsmore �avor.

A third ingredient is introduced to the system in the same way.Again, the ratio changes and isvisually communicated in the dial.

If necessary, the dial is turned backto the �rst ingredient and a piece of a di�erent size is placed on the dial to further re�ne the �avor ratio.By cutting reference pieces and placing them on the dial the user has the power to make better predictions about what choices madein the beginning of the process meanfor the end result.

The concept used during the cooking work-shop meeting, explained in this image, consisted of a dial placed aside the cutting board, which could be used to keep track of the size of ingredients, by cutting reference pieces and placing them on the dial, essen-tially making a visual chart of the flavor ratio.

14

15

1 2 3

654

The dial, which is placed abovethe cutting board is o�.

-

The �rst ingredient is chosen by twisting the knob to position one.By placing a sample of the cut ingredient on the middle of the dial, the size is determined by sensors. The meal now consists of ingredientone for 100%.

The size of the surface of a cut ingredient dictates the amount of �avor it produces. By c hoosing a second ingredient and again placing a cut piece on the dial, the system changes the ratio of ingredient one and two.

The �avor ratio can be changed by cutting the second ingredientsmaller, since more surface equalsmore �avor.

A third ingredient is introduced to the system in the same way.Again, the ratio changes and isvisually communicated in the dial.

If necessary, the dial is turned backto the �rst ingredient and a piece of a di�erent size is placed on the dial to further re�ne the �avor ratio.By cutting reference pieces and placing them on the dial the user has the power to make better predictions about what choices madein the beginning of the process meanfor the end result.

16

To pick the brain of a professional chef and get an insight into which skills and practices are involved in cooking, an interview and brainstorm session were conducted with the owner of a catering company and cooking studio, where people can take lessons and workshops to learn about the skills and knowl-edge needed to cook, in a social setting. This was believed to be a good way to gain information on the professional standpoint and get more insight on the user at the same time. Questions were asked about the act of cooking and the validity of the presented concept introduced in the previous chapter. A list of prepared questions was brought along with explanatory sketches of the first concept. The au-dio of the meeting was recorded. Next to this meeting, some cooking experiences shared with friends and relatives were carried out and helped to further take the perspective of the end user in consider-ation, revealing the shortcomings of the concept described above and thereby expose new and poten-tially more interesting directions to take a second design. The meeting took about 45 minutes. After the vision behind the project was explained, it was the opinion of the chef that ease and conve-nience and creativity don’t necessarily contradict each other. In fact, they might complement each oth-er, since there’s a time and place for convenience and a time and place for creativity. Creative efforts costs time and in a home setting (for example with kids and a job) people might choose the easy way out. There are however a lot of people who take their time (in the weekend for example) to make a big meal (e.g., cook with/for friends, family). There is a trend surrounding this behaviour, hence the emer-gence of cooking platforms and workshops, both offline and online.

Meeting Kookschoolkunsten

17

When asked about the most important principle in the kitchen, it was said that the first principle of cooking is cleanliness, and by extension order and organization. (“Randen schoon, handen schoon”). Many untrained cooks, e.g., people at home, have a lot of stress while cooking. This happens because they start too late or try to do a lot of things at once. The result often is that they rush the final stages and present a visually inferior product, which also results in a less satisfactory eating experience. The visual aspect of food (layout on plate, artful presentation) is important to the professional. His advice was to, next to being orderly and organized, to think about preparing ingredients and putting them in sealed containers (a day or two) in advance. It was also said that a visual (abstract) representation of a meal could help to guide the cook and stim-ulate creative endeavours. It can bring some extra clarity to aid in reproducing results and as a result clear up and structure the workflow so that there is time to try new things, update recipes etcetera. However, the focus on how fine different ingredients are cut is too one-sided, since it is very depen-dent of the rest of the parameters of cooking. Also, many different recipes require many different ways to cut ingredients and while some ingredients react heavily to being cut into smaller or larger pieces, e.g., onions, many ingredients don’t. However, when viewed from a more professional context, using inconsistently cut ingredients in a dish is considered sloppy. Before this meeting, two versions of the concept (page 14-15) were considered: one where the feed-back was physical and one where it was of a digital nature. However, getting insight in the user’s perspective, it became clear that many beginning cooks rely heavily on step-by-step recipes that are to be found online on platforms like Instagram, Pinterest and Youtube and even dedicated food websites and blogs, while professional chefs are also becoming more active on these media. The physical form of feedback (i.e., representations printed on paper) chosen from the designer’s perspective for its po-tential to be stored, cared for and improved upon tangibly [4] by the user while cooking and/or eating was found to be less important as seen from the perspective of the user [3] and expert.

18

Meeting Inspiratiehuis 20|20

To investigate the status of the Smart kitchen of the present and near future, a meeting in, and a tour of, the Inspiratiehuis 20|20 were planned. Here Siemens, Bosch, Neff and Gaggenau (BSH Home Ap-pliances Group) share their latest products for the smart home and kitchen. The focus of the visit was on the Smart products and services of Siemens, because of their Home Connect range, which consists of many smart appliances in and around the kitchen (from ovens, microwaves, steam ovens, hoods, gas and induction stoves to dishwashers). Moving around a lot to see and experience the different products, it proved hard to record audio, so it was decided to take pictures and write down as much as possible and expand on it on the train ride home. Next to answering the prepared questions, the host showed a lot of different appliances of the different brands and went into depth on currently available technology and future plans of Siemens and Bosch, which took the better part of an afternoon. For instance, Siemens likens its Home Connect app to Amazon’s Alexa or Google Home in that they try to offer an all-encompassing system of connected appliances and even going so far as to, in the near future, introduce an assistant that lives in the kitchen called Mykie. The system is also similar to these existing systems in that it relies on verbal communication, which it combines with a projected display for recipes and instructional videos. After being filled with awe by the abundance of stainless steel, LED lights and touch screens that filled the kitchens on display, a few interesting observations could be made on the contradictions that seem to surround the Smart kitchens of today. For example, many potential customers visiting the Inspiratiehuis ask questions about safety issues and a lot of steps are taken to make the app and appliances as ‘unhackable’ as possible, yet the devices can be connected through If This Then That (IFTTT) to other devices and services that are potentially vulnerable. In line with this is the intention of the manufacturer to have their kitchen appliances be more than a mere gimmick or gadget. At Siemens, they try to explain features of the system rooted in real-life problems people face. At the same time, however, they have a dishwasher of which the internal lights’ color can be changed by use of an app, an oven that plays a song through Spotify or changes lighting parameters through the Philips Hue system when it’s done and hoods with programmable backlight.

19

With regards to explorative cooking and creativity in the Smart kitchen, it is clear that the main focus as of yet is to cater to ease of use, efficiency and convenience and the sales pitch for almost every appli-ance aimed at conveying this sentiment, but going past for example the Bosch AutoCook, which does almost everything without user interference, the Home Connect app does potentially offer users a way to get their hands dirty in the kitchen: the Smart refrigerator streamlines the tedious process of doing groceries and makes sure ingredients are as fresh as possible, while the app offers instructional videos and recipes, some made by Jamie Oliver especially for Siemens. Right now, users can neither add their own recipes nor change existing ones, but this is being worked on. A reality that designers and users alike have to deal with is that within two years, 60% of kitchen appli-ances is of the Smart variety, as Siemens, Bosch and practically every competitor is heavily investing in this trend, not to mention the many smaller companies on platforms like Kickstarter. This movement has the potential to give people more freedom and convenience, but after the visit it again became clear that it is important to not lose the user’s creative and personal input into the system, since eating healthy and tasty meals perfectly cooked in record time is not interesting if it means the eater is miser-able because he was not challenged in the process.

20

21

22

After processing the input from experts, the new knowledge on both the status quo of the Smart Kitch-en and the way potential users regard food was implemented in a new concept. The phase in which the ingredients are being prepared and cut was still deemed very interesting for it being the time when the user should make conscious decisions that dictate and have an effect on the subsequent steps in the process, all the way to the quality of the end result. In order to do this, the notions of cleanliness, order and organization came into play, since these free up mental space to actually make creative decisions. It was considered that having the user realize the importance of not simultaneously starting too many tasks, shifting focus from the deliberate choices to be made to multiple other locations, hindering both the creative effort and quality of the meal to be had, was important in this regard. Next to this the user has to be able to compare different instances of the same meal, to decide in the extra time given by the improvement in the process what to try, improve and build upon. As it was found earlier that this is hindered by the gap in the available sensory information and the skills needed to recognize and inter-pret said information, the ephemeral quality of taste, which makes it hard to recall and the ambiguity of cooking terminology used, it was decided to further look into the addition of a digital representation to the system, since external representations have the power to “provide external memory aids”, can “provide information which can be directly perceived and used without being interpreted and formulated explicitly” and “anchor and structure cognitive behavior.” [13, p5.] To feed the information to the digital system that makes the representation, a number of sensors was used. Under each of the four holes in the cutting board, a scale and a color sensor were placed as well as an array of hall sensors to measure the turning of the red dial to determine coarseness. These twenty sensors fed their readings into an Arduino within the board, connected directly to a tablet showing the visual representation, because of the preference of many people to display recipes and cooking videos on a tablet during cooking. More pertinent to the actual interaction, some choices were made to help the user tangibly to be in conscious control of his or her actions. For instance, it was seen that normally people use the back of the knife to thoughtlessly slide the ingredients from a cutting board into another container or pan. By

WES Cutting Board

23

having the it sit square on the counter without lifting it with small legs and using metal and wood as the main materials, the WES cutting board is visually and physically heavy, preventing the user from lifting it over a container or pan. Furthermore, when putting the cut ingredients in the provided con-tainers, the user has to consciously lift the ingredients into the glass, which can be done using fingers, knife, spoons or other tools, but in any case gives the user some time to reflect further on choices made on relative size, order and amount of each ingredient. By physically setting the coarseness using the dial instead of the system detecting it, the user sets his or her own rules, further considering choic-es before cutting.

24

After creating the cutting board prototype, it was time to put the interaction to the test and find out what users need from a representation. In order to do this, three cooking sessions were held with four people in total. It was decided to establish a somewhat authentic scenario with two or three people cooking together with the help of a new cutting board and thinking aloud while doing so, instead of creating an imposing atmosphere with participants, observers and questionnaires. This helped the people to get into the mindset of cooking and eating and yielded some interesting insights.

One person, when told that there were scales in the cutting board used to create the representation, asked why she couldn’t also use them to weigh her ingredients while using them, which could be a very practical feature overlooked by the designer in search of creativity inducing interactions. Another person realized while cutting that he took the time to clean up after himself and throw away waste after finishing cutting every ingredient, which was something he didn’t do normally and would often result in a pile of waste that had to be dealt with during the cooking process. The same person, after entering the cooking process, noticed that he had plenty of time to monitor the ingredients already introduced to the fire so that they would never cook too long, whereas when doing things simultaneously, the cooking time of ingredients was subject to his cutting speed. He also noted that during the process of cutting, he was thinking about the end result and adapted the amounts and sizes of ingredients to that desired end result. When it became time to cook for yet another user, he had an interesting suggestion for an additional Smart node in the form of a pan. He said that the rim of the pan could light up in the color of the ingredient that has to be added, either based on a recipe or an earlier instance of cooking the same meal. At one point during the cooking phase of the last session, the smartphone with the recipe on it died. Normally, this would have been a problem, but now there was plenty of time for helper/observer to find the same recipe on a replacement phone and continue the process, revealing to both parties involved that taking the time to prepare the ingredients before introducing fire to the equation also helps when mistakes are made or unforeseen things happen.

After cooking and eating, the people were asked one extra question, namely what they would like a representation of the diner to look like, in order for them to reproduce it at a later time. They were

User Involvement

25

provided with paper and colored pencils to help them describe their choices. Based on those drawings [Appendix I], a new representation was made to replace the rather simple one shown during the Demo Day.

When meeting one of the participants some time after the cooking session, he mentioned how he’d started cooking one day and after starting boiling water and cutting, he felt rushed and reverted to the way he’d done it during the cooking session, which he said again helped him think the process through. This illustrates the need for longitudinal studies or at least follow up interviews to investigate long term changes. Does the spending of a little extra time, which today is seen as inconvenient but which does help improve the results, trump comfort and speed or do people fall back to their old habits where the quality is of a lower importance than the quickness? Furthermore, it would be interesting to, after a given amount of time, confront the people observed in the first sessions with their representations and see if they can reproduce their creations based on the external assistance and motivation provided.

26

bosuitjes

winterpeen

Na het snijdenWas de winterpeen doe in een pan met 1½ liter water. Voeg met gember de bosui, kno-flook en rode peper de toe aan het water in de pan en breng aan de kook. Laat op laag vuur 45 min. trekken.

Maak een theedoek nat, wring uit en leg in het vergiet. Zet deze op een pan. Schenk de bouillon met de groente erdoor en vang de bouillon op in de pan. Breng op smaak met de 3 bouillontabletten en 3 el sojasaus. Voeg de witte kool toe en breng aan de kook. Laat de soep 5 min. koken of tot de kool beetgaar is. Voeg samen met de rode peper en taugé toe.

bosuitjes rode peper witte kool

Notities

winterpeen

rode peper witte kool

Striking similarities between the four drawings, like extra (textual) informa-tion next to the representation, or giving the user the ability to write notes and the names of ingredients and the use of colored circles (in three out of four) to rep-resent ingredients like in the original were added to the representation.

27

bosuitjes

winterpeen

Na het snijdenWas de winterpeen doe in een pan met 1½ liter water. Voeg met gember de bosui, kno-flook en rode peper de toe aan het water in de pan en breng aan de kook. Laat op laag vuur 45 min. trekken.

Maak een theedoek nat, wring uit en leg in het vergiet. Zet deze op een pan. Schenk de bouillon met de groente erdoor en vang de bouillon op in de pan. Breng op smaak met de 3 bouillontabletten en 3 el sojasaus. Voeg de witte kool toe en breng aan de kook. Laat de soep 5 min. koken of tot de kool beetgaar is. Voeg samen met de rode peper en taugé toe.

bosuitjes rode peper witte kool

Notities

winterpeen

rode peper witte kool

28

One of the strengths of products living in an IoT system is the ability to share information amongst one another. The cooking process exists of more steps than just cutting food. And so the more nodes that can provide data, the more interesting the representation becomes for reproducing meals and im-proving them. Thus, during the final stages of the project, some sketches and mockups for extra nodes were made. First, the LIO knife from the M2.1 semester was shortly revisited, because the sensors measuring cutting speed could provide further information on coarseness and cutting proficiency. To offset the ‘broad strokes’ provided by data on the main ingredients the COEN spice rack was made to provide the ‘fine details’ added to a dish by the herbs and spices. Based on input from users, afore-mentioned pan that changes color based on what ingredient should be added next, could also be con-sidered as another node. It could also give information on other cooking parameters (e.g., heat, dura-tion) to round out the representation even further. It was also found through observing the user during the cooking sessions that the holes are too small when cooking for more than one person, which was solved by using them only as reference, filling them to the brim if there was a lot of an ingredient need-ed and only putting in a little bit if less was needed, but keeping the actual amounts of the ingredients in separate containers. Bigger holes, taller glassware or other expansions could solve this problem.Next to this, the user can only play with four ingredients at a time. This was a deliberate choice based on the compiling of ‘beginner’ recipes (i.e., recipes that can be made with little tools and in reasonable time) during the project [appendix II], but a case could be made for having more bigger holes that exist apart from the cutting board. However, the physical limit of four containers that exist in one place in the kitchen keeps it manageable and overseeable.

To conclude, it is relevant to revisit the before stated guidelines, to see in how far the final concept fulfills the things needed for a successful cooking help that stimulates creative input and improves the results, that were found through research during the first semester. In a nutshell, they were:• Stimulate the user to try potentially fulfilling tasks instead of having the system do it .• The design should be able to grow with the user and within a system of other appliances.

Conclusion & Discussion

29

• Curbing the limitlessness of IoT solutions to offer meaningful limits that trigger creative solutions. • Send legible feedback to the user in a more meaningful way earlier in the process. Where many Smart solutions seen and experienced during the project delegate tasks to the system, many of which could potentially generate knowledge, new skills or fulfillment, the WES cutting board gives the user a firm grasp on a set of tasks (i.e. cooking) that produces a better end result that the user is knowledgeable about making and can be proud of. The system makes it easier to experiment through giving the user time to make well thought-through decisions and saving the results in a representation, so it is helpful while cutting ingredients, which is an important part of cooking, regardless of the user’s skill level. On the subject of compatibility with other Smart systems, it was hard to take precautions for this, because fully Smart kitchen to implement the cutting board into were not readily available. However it was ensured that during prototyping, there were no difficult boundaries thrown up or protocols used to keep others from adding nodes that could enrich the representation, with the footnote that the first functioning version of the software is still very much in a prototype stage, only used for testing and presenting during the Demo Day. During meetings with experts, the suggestion to create a piece of software, or an app, came up a couple of times. People are searching for cooking guidance on the smartphone and tablet, and there are a lot of apps, amongst which the apps Siemens provides with its appliances, the different social media, recipe finders and guides, food blogs etcetera. However, it is harder to form a bond with digital things, whereas a physical possession can evolve into much more, like a valued part of life or a token of competence [5, 9], it can be displayed and its physical limits help cultivate creative solutions and workarounds. In observing the user and cooking together with people using the WES cutting board, it was seen that when preparation is respected in the time allocation, this is reflected in the rest of the process (e.g., the freedom to make and fix mistakes, try out things and having space to reflect on possible outcomes) and the end product. Furthermore, when the user is presented with a representation from a previous meal, this should help in further demystifying the act of cooking. It has to be noted, though, that even though the representation was designed with the help of user input and that users and experts stood favorably towards having an extra representation next to a recipe or idea for a meal, this is not yet tested for the long term.

30

31

1. Cross, Nigel. Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg, (2011). 2. Frens, Joep, and Bart Hengeveld. “To make is to grasp.” Proceedings of IASDR 13 (2013). 3. Hunicke, Robin, Marc LeBlanc, and Robert Zubek. “MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research.” Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI. Vol. 4. No. 1. 2004. 4. Hurtienne, Jörn., & Johann Habakuk Israel (2013). PIBA-DIBA or how to blend the digital with the phys-ical. In Extended Abstracts of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press. 5. Kleine, Susan Schultz, and Stacey Menzel Baker. “An integrative review of material possession attach-ment.” Academy of marketing science review 2004 (2004): 1. 6. Korn, Peter. Why we make things and why it matters: the education of a craftsman. Random House, (2015).6. Kranz, Matthias, et al. “Context-aware kitchen utilities.” Proceedings of the 1st international confer-ence on Tangible and embedded interaction. ACM, 2007. 7. May, Rollo. The Courage to Create. New York: Norton, (1975). 8. Pye, David. The nature and art of workmanship. Cambridge UP, (1968). 9. Turkle, Sherry. Evocative objects: Things we think with. MIT press, 2011. 10. Van Campenhout, L.D.E. Physical Interaction in a Dematerialized World. Thesis. Technische Universite-it Eindhoven, 2016. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 2016. Print.

32

References

33

11. Wagner, Juergen, et al. “Towards a pervasive kitchen infrastructure for measuring cooking compe-tence.” 2011 5th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (Pervasive-Health) and Workshops. IEEE, 2011. 12. Wallas, Graham. “The art of thought.” (1926). 13. Zhang, Jiajie. “The interaction of internal and external representations in a problem solving task.” Proceedings of the thirteenth annual conference of cognitive science society. Vol. 88. Erlbaum Hillsdale, NJ, 1991. Websites14. Brownlee, John. “5 Ways The Amazon Echo Could Become An Essential Part Of Your Life.” Co.Design. N.p., 11 Nov. 2014. Web. 03 Oct. 2016. 15. “Google Home.” Google Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2016. 16. “Homey, The Living Room ― Talk to Your Home!” Kickstarter. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2016. <https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/athom/homey-the-living-room-talk-to-your-home/description> 17. “ A Table For Living” Concept Kitchen 2025. IKEA Temporary, 2015. Web. 14 June 2017. <http://con-ceptkitchen2025.ideo.london/#Prototypes> 18.WhirlpoolUSA. “Whirlpool® Interactive Cooktop at CES 2014.” YouTube. YouTube, 09 Jan. 2014. Web. 14 June 2017. 19. Philco-Ford Corp. “Year 1999 AD.” Internet Archive. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 June 2017. <https://archive.org/details/Year1999Ad>

34

Appendix I: User drawings

After the first session, the participant gave three of options, all revolving around graphs representing the ingredients.

35

This is the drawing made after the second session. The ingredients are placed on virtual circular scales that rise and fall with the weight. Coarseness is represented the same way as on the cutting board. The ingredient is either represented with a picture of the ingredient or color.

36

The third participant saw more value in user input in the system. A written recipe is added, which a user should be able to import from all popular recipe websites. The user can grade himself, give notes and upload a picture of the meal. The sensors in the cuttingboard measure order, but also time when which container is taken out of the cutting board.

37

The fourth participant, cooking together with the third participant in one session used the size of the circles to show coarseness and saw textual feedback as the way to go for the weight. The user is able to fill in the ingredients into the boxes below the circles.

38

Appendix II: 50 recipes

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

winterpeen

venkel

ui

tomaten

sperziebonen

sjalot

rode ui

rode peper

rode paprika

parmezaanse kaas

paprika

mango

mais

handperen

ei

Courge�e

citroen

cherrytomaat

bosui

avocado

Most frequently occuring ingredients

39

Cooking time (average 27 minutes)

10

13

15

20

25

30

35

2

3

4

5

6

7

Amounts of ingredients

40

I’ve spent two semesters of researching a phenomenon and building towards a new object that adds something to people’s lives. Looking back, the final concept turned out great, the demonstrator looked rather good, which was one of the goals going into the semester, it worked for the most part and people were enthusiastic to play with it. Yet, for all my efforts to present the project as the solution on the rift between the perceived need for creativity in society and the abundance of new screen- and button-based inventions that promise to make life easier and simpler, essentially eliminating the need to learn skills, care for tools or take pride in making something that wasn’t there before, it feels like somewhat of a ‘drop on a hot plate.’ Surely, the cutting board achieves a new and better way to pre-pare meals, opening the door to try something new and reproduce it, a little better every time, but the envisioned seeping of creative energy from the kitchen into other areas of life was not observed, nor could I have hoped to observe it within the scope of the project. During the project, I’ve often wondered what would’ve happened if I’d searched for a client in the beginning. As it turned out, I’ve seen what the status quo is of Smart Home hardware with existing companies like Siemens and Bosch and their vision is very different from the one I’ve tried to imbue into the outcomes of this project. In the end, I’m happy I’ve been able to explore my own vision very freely in this project and the statement that it makes, because previous projects and side projects have taught me that once a client is involved, the designer has to respect the wishes of that client or spend extra time trying to convince the client of better ways. Through involving multiple stakeholders, how-ever shortly, the necessary knowledge and skill was gained to fill in the gaps that theory and my own trials couldn’t fill.

Last semester, I took a lot of time researching the problems and opportunities in different ways and coming up with an interesting playing field for this semester. The pitfall of last semester, namely hesitating to ask for help when things went wrong, I felt I had to be able to do them myself or took too long, was mostly remedied this semester. I planned meetings with external parties fairly early in the semester and with making the cutting board, I asked different experts for advice on how to create the wooden part (which afterwards still warped), do the engraving and 3D print the back piece, with-

Reflection

41

out losing too much time on endlessly trying things myself. On the other hand, I do realize that I still sometimes have a tendency to focus on one part of a project before moving on to another, which, in a project with a lot of moving parts and deadlines isn’t the best approach. In this case this happened when building the final prototype and preparing for the Demo day. This on the one hand threatened to jeopardise the rest of the planning, were it not that I caught myself on time. The focus on the aesthetic quality of the final demonstrator was one of the main goals this semester, with the Demo day being the best test case, so the focus was somewhat justified, but normally, it would have been wise to speed up the making and finishing process and at times shift focus on for example user evaluations or report preparations. This also begs the question when to leave well enough alone, since small details that I’ve obsessed about, adding layer upon layer of paint and clear coat, sanding and buffing etc. might not even have been noticed by the people visiting the Demo day. And while finding pride and fulfillment in the work is good, in a process where deadlines must be met and the quality of all aspects must be high, a balance must be found and this is something I have to keep working on, by keeping a planning and sticking to it even though it might result in a less beautiful object, but with a more fleshed out story surrounding it.