The design space of shape-changing interfaces: a repertory grid study

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