批判互動設計作業06 / m10210302 林浩翔

“InTouch” allows interaction web within human relationships to be embodied through the metaphor of temperature. 4 squares respectively represent 4 different relations, may be friends, family members, or beloved one...etc. While pressing it, temperature responds, transmitting a kind of non-definite, abstract information.

From 1st paradigm’s point of view, the interaction that InTouch provides can not be precisely measured, the process of its use is not tend to dissect and(or) hack things; InTouch does not identify any specific problems, and isn’t a complete solution. Its non-task-oriented design may confuse researchers: “What is this do for? Why will I put such a thing without any clear function in my house?” As it using soft fabric for the pressing interface, from the 1st paradigm’s aspect, the action of pressing is not accurate, without any definite trigger point, and its expression is obscure, not to mention that the perception of temperature differs from person to person. As a result, InTouch is a design artifact with unidentified purpose under the 1st paradigm.

The purpose of InTouch is to embody interaction within human relationships through the device installed in a living space. I believe its universal-applicability fits in the 2nd paradigm. But the purpose of the interacting process doesn’t lie in optimizing human-computer interaction, and its uncertainty can not be evaluated as well. For researchers can not optimize for particular design goal or reduce the scope of it, InTouch can not be generalize into a widespread design wireframe or research method. So from the 2nd paradigm’s point of view, InTouch does not fulfill its research goal.

The 3rd paradigm focus on phenomenological interpretation. Under this paradigm, the ability of a machine is no longer a target for researcher. Rather, the goal is to grapple with the full complexity around the system. Therefore, optimization and efficiency is not the point, it is how a interaction device itself assists users to construct meanings, how users complete phenomenological interpretations through InTouch. 

Researchers of the 3rd paradigm construct meaning through thick description, and through this process to have a profound understanding of the lived world. So, the interaction of InTouch, for the 3rd paradigm, possesses a huge research space.

批判互動設計作業6 / M10210118 王柏皓

According to Maslow's hierarchy of human needs, after fulfilling physiological, and security needs, there comes the needs of feeling belongingness, being loved and cared about. InTouch is a design artifact aiming at providing a whole new social interaction experience to fulfill this kind of need. It allows social interaction between friends through simple action of touch and press, where the color on the device shows the level of one's consideration toward their friend while the temperature indicates the friend's.

Although InTouch creatively uses temperature as the metaphor for the considerations toward others, it radically does not provide a precise number of temperature for the user, which might lead to a mis-understanding and therefore fundamentally go against what the first paradigm of HCI are seeking for, that is to optimize the fit between humans and machines.

And because temperature is perceived differently by different people, it is difficult to generate a standardized mapping from temperature spectrum to every levels of considerations. As the result, InTouch does not fit very well in the second paradigm.

While InTouch can't receive good credit in the first two paradigms, the value of it still remains. Not being a task-oriented tool for efficient information communication, InTouch is rather a companion quietly hung in one's room, and continuously providing materials for meaning making, such as one may hold expectation before touching the device to see whether his/her friend is giving consideration to him/her, one may feel companionship while doing other activities in the room for each squares are representing the particular friends...etc. So, from the third paradigm's aspect, InTouch opens up the space for meaning making.

It is these reasons that makes the third paradigm important. Our world is not filled with task and problems. The third paradigm provides a new aspect of viewing the world, and addresses issues that are bad fits to prior paradigms. It sees meaning and meaning construction as a central focus. 

批判互動設計作業06 / M10110301 / 陳柏英

hw06 / 500-word Essay

【 inTouch 】

The histories of HCI used to thrash out two major intellectual waves. One orients from engineering and human factors and concentrates on optimizing the functionality of a product; the other stems from cognitive science and lays its emphasis on theory and the mental activities of human. However, according to “The Three Paradigms of HCI” written by Steve Harrison in 2007, the third paradigm has come with the tide of fashion. Its specialty in phenomenology has made creators to think about the importance of meaning making which is mutually defining and subjects to various interpretations. Above all, instead of disproving the old two paradigms, the emersion of the third paradigm leads to a brand new choice of viewpoint to design. That is, researchers have an alternative way of viewpoint.

Since each paradigm in HCI is a different metaphor of interaction, we may then analyze products by different paradigms. The following case is a project named inTouch, which aims at conveying something vague but poetic such as human temperature, interactions between people and flow of time.

The purpose of inTouch focuses on perceptual crossing, ambiguity, ludic design and the implicit social meaning. Merlean argues that the whole world is a field for perception, to which we can assign meaning through human consciousness. Therefore, the perceptual crossing happens in inTouch when users see the color changes and know that it represents the contact with others since the color changes from blue to red only when users press the soft material with LED inside and trigger the button; without the touch, the color fades back to blue as time goes by. This enthralling device is mainly composed of Arduino, multi-color LED light, heat conduction material, thermoelectric cooler and the network connect to Internet. With all this stuff, the ludic value may be induced by ambiguous metaphor of interaction, and perceptual crossing also brings out the implicit social meaning.

Hence, researchers may assay products by the three paradigms we mentioned before. Take inTouch as example:

1)
The theme that underlies the first paradigm concentrates on functionality and reduction of error. inTouch, nevertheless, has little practical utility enhancing our daily lives. It only provides quite simple information of whether there is someone beside his inTouch or not. Each section represents a communication link with others.

2)
On the other hand, the second paradigm espouses cognitive science, human interaction and efficiency. We can merely infer that people is capable of knowing whether or not the person who shares his existence through inTouch is still keeping in touch with them.

3)
In contrast, meaning making is of the essence to the third paradigm. What kind of meaning inTouch makes depends on users’ own past experience. In my view, inTouch leaves a message of accompany. People are colonial animals; as a result, whenever and whatever we encounter, we tend to share this message and feeling with others. That is why twitter, facebook, and all kinds of social websites are so popular nowadays. inTouch creates great meaning on this point.

In conclusion, the three paradigms actually co-exist. However, I argue that inTouch is mainly designed to have similar intention as the third paradigm does. This artifact reflects the importance of being with people you care and appropriately display your existence even though you guys are not actually together.