Feed-aggregator

Grand Old Man of HCI, Jack Carroll, explains the history of Human-Computer Interaction and how the field gave birth to User Experience and Interaction Design. Few people know the history of fields like UX, IxD, Usability and Human-Centered Design as Jack does..
Read more at http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/human_computer_interaction_hci.htmlHuman Computer Interaction (HCI)

Human-computer interaction (HCI) is an area of research and practice that emerged in the early 1980s, initially as a specialty area in computer science. HCI has expanded rapidly and steadily for three decades, attracting professionals from many other disciplines and incorporating diverse concepts and approaches. To a considerable extent, HCI now aggregates a collection of semi-distinct fields of research and practice in human-centered informatics. However, the continuing synthesis of disparate conceptions and approaches to science and practice in HCI has produced a dramatic example of how different epistemologies and paradigms can be reconciled and integrated.

Where HCI came from

Until the late 1970s, the only humans who interacted with computers were information technology professionals and dedicated hobbyists. This changed disruptively with the emergence of personal computing around 1980. Personal computing, including both personal software (productivity applications, such as text editors and spreadsheets, and interactive computer games) and personal computer platforms (operating systems, programming languages, and hardware), made everyone in the developed world a potential computer user, and vividly highlighted the deficiencies of computers with respect to usability for those who wanted to use computers as tools.

The challenge of personal computing became manifest at an opportune time. The broad project of cognitive science, which incorporated cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, linguistics, cognitive anthropology, and the philosophy of mind, had formed at the end of the 1970s. Part of the programme of cognitive science was to articulate systematic and scientifically-informed applications to be known as "cognitive engineering". Thus, at just the point when personal computing presented the practical need for HCI, cognitive science presented people, concepts, skills, and a vision for addressing such needs. HCI was one of the first examples of cognitive engineering.

Other historically fortuitous developments contributed to establishment of HCI. Software engineering, mired in unmanageable software complexity in the 1970s, was starting to focus on nonfunctional requirements, including usability and maintainability, and on non-linear software development processes that relied heavily on testing. Computer graphics and information retrieval had emerged in the 1970s, and rapidly came to recognize that interactive systems were the key to progressing beyond early achievements. All these threads of development in computer science pointed to the same conclusion: The way forward for computing entailed understanding and better empowering users.

Finally human factors engineering, which had developed many techniques for empirical analysis of human-system interactions in so-called control domains such as aviation and manufacturing, came to see HCI as a valuable and challenging domain in which human operators regularly exerted greater problem-solving discretion. These forces of need and opportunity converged around 1980, focusing a huge burst of human energy, and creating a highly visible interdisciplinary project.

From cabal to community

The original and abiding technical focus of HCI is on the concept of usability. This concept was originally articulated naively in the slogan "easy to learn, easy to use". The blunt simplicity of this conceptualization gave HCI an edgy and prominent identity in computing. It served to hold the field together, and to help it influence computer science and technology development more broadly and effectively. However, inside HCI the concept of usability has been reconstructed continually, and has become increasingly rich and intriguingly problematic. Usability now often subsumes qualities like fun, well-being, collective efficacy, aesthetic tension, enhanced creativity, support for human development, and many others. A more dynamic view of usability is that of a programmatic objective that should continue to develop as our ability to reach further toward it improves.

Although the original academic home for HCI was computer science, and its original focus was on personal productivity applications, mainly text editing and spreadsheets, the field has constantly diversified and outgrown all boundaries. It quickly expanded to encompass visualization, information systems, collaborative systems, the system development process, and many areas of design. HCI is taught now in many departments/faculties that address information technology, including psychology, design, communication studies, cognitive science, information science, science and technology studies, geographical sciences, management information systems, and industrial, manufacturing, and systems engineering. HCI research and practice draws upon and integrates all of these perspectives.

A result of this growth is that HCI is now less singularly focused with respect to core concepts and methods, problem areas and assumptions about infrastructures, applications, and types of users. Indeed, it no longer makes sense to regard HCI as a specialty of computer science; HCI has grown to be broader, larger and much more diverse than computer science. It expanded from individual and generic user behavior to include social and organizational computing, creativity, and accessibility for the elderly, the cognitively impaired, and for all people. It expanded from desktop office applications to include games, e-learning, e-commerce, military systems, and process control. It expanded from early graphical user interfaces to include myriad interaction techniques and devices, multi-modal interactions, and host of emerging ubiquitous, handheld and context-aware interactions.

There is no unified concept of an HCI professional. In the 1980s, people often contrasts the cognitive science side of HCI with the software tools and user interface side of HCI. The HCI landscape is far more differentiated and complex now. HCI academic programs train many different types of professionals now: user experience designers, interaction designers, user interface designers, application designers, usability engineers, user interface developers, application developers, technical communicators/online information designers, and more. And indeed, many of the sub-communities of HCI are themselves quite diverse. For example, ubiquitous computing (aka ubicomp) is subarea of HCI, but it is also a superordinate area integrating several mutually diverse subareas (e.g., mobile computing, geo-spatial information systems, in-vehicle systems, community informatics, distributed systems, handhelds, wearable devices, ambient intelligence, sensor networks, and specialized views of usability evaluation, programming tools and techniques, application infrastructures, etc.). The relationship between ubiquitous computing and HCI is becoming paradigmatic: HCI is the name for a community of communities.

In the early 1980s, HCI was a small and focused specialty area. It was a cabal trying to establish what was then a heretical view of computing. Today, largely due to the success of that endeavor, HCI is a vast and multifaceted community, loosely bound by the evolving concept of usability, and the integrating commitment to value human concerns as the primary consideration in creating interactive systems.

Implications of HCI for science, practice, and epistemology

One of the most significant achievements of HCI is its evolving model of the integration of science and practice. Initially this model was articulated as a reciprocal relation between cognitive science and cognitive engineering. Later, it ambitiously incorporated a diverse science foundation, notably Activity Theory, distributed cognition, and ethnomethodology, and a culturally embedded conception of human activity, including the activities of design and technology development. Currently, the model is incorporating design practices and research across a broad spectrum. In these developments, HCI provides a blueprint for a mutual relation between science and practice that is unprecedented.

Early HCI sought to develop synergies between cognitive science and cognitive engineering. During the 1980s a rich reciprocal relationship developed. In areas like user modeling, HCI directly applied key cognitive science theories to the design of command languages and information visualizations. In other cases, HCI provided guidance to cognitive science through embodied concepts like direct manipulation and user interface metaphor. Mutual reciprocity between underlying science and application is rare, but not unprecedented (the discovery of the transistor effect in physics emerged from applied research). For HCI, this starting point was an intellectually sophisticated and ambitious foundation for more radical possibilities.

HCI research and application provided a strong force for theoretical integration within cognitive science. The very first HCI theories were far more ambitious integrations than had been attempted in the basic science. For example, the model human processor included simple aspects of perception, attention, short-term memory operations, planning, and motor behavior in a single model. Ironically, while such models astounded cognitive science researchers, they were criticized within HCI as too limited with respect to understanding and creating applications. This self-criticism promoted increasingly comprehensive modeling that has jointly driven the basic science and its applications. But more importantly, these early successes, and their deconstruction, further fueled paradigmatic aspirations in HCI.

In the latter 1980s and early 1990s, HCI assimilated ideas from Activity Theory, distributed cognition, and ethnomethodology. This comprised a fundamental epistemological realignment. For example, the representational theory of mind, a cornerstone of cognitive science, is no longer axiomatic for HCI science. Information processing psychology and laboratory user studies, once the kernel of HCI research, became important, but niche areas. The most canonical theory-base in HCI now is socio-cultural, Activity Theory. Field studies became typical, and eventually dominant as an empirical paradigm. Collaborative interactions, that is, groups of people working together through and around computer systems (in contrast to the early 1980s user-at-PC situation) have become the default unit of analysis. It is remarkable that such fundamental realignments were so easily assimilated by the HCI community.

Although HCI was always talked about as a design science or as pursuing guidance for designers, this was construed at first as a boundary, with HCI and design as separate contributing areas. Throughout the 1990s, however, HCI directly assimilated, and eventually itself spawned, a series of design communities. At first, this was a merely ecumenical acceptance of methods and techniques laying those of beyond those of science and engineering. But this outreach impulse coincided with substantial advances in user interface technologies that shifted much of the potential proprietary value of user interfaces into graphical design. Somewhat ironically, designers were welcomed into the HCI community just in time to help remake it as a design discipline. A large part of this transformation was the creation of design disciplines that did not exist before. For example, user experience design and interaction design were not imported into HCI, but rather were among the first exports from HCI to the design world. Design is currently the facet of HCI in most rapid flux. It seems likely that more new design proto-disciplines will emerge from HCI during the next decade.

Conceptions of how underlying science informs and is informed by the worlds of practice and activity have evolved continually in HCI since its inception. In each of the three eras of HCI, as briefly sketched above, paradigm-changing scientific and epistemological revisions were deliberately embraced by a field that was, by any measure, succeeding intellectually and practically. The result has been an increasingly fragmented and complex field that has continued to succeed even more. This example contradicts the Kuhnian view of how intellectual projects develop through paradigms that are eventually overthrown. The continuing success of the HCI community in moving its meta-project forward thus has profound implications, not only for human-centered informatics, but for epistemology.

Pointers: How to learn more History

Unfortunately, the best primary information about the founding of HCI - the proceedings of the 1982 US Bureau of Standards Conference in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and the 1984 IFIP INTERACT Conference in London - are not available in digital form. Brad Myers published an interesting history (Myers 1998). The leading textbooks include some discussion of history (see below).

The top international conference for HCI is the ACM CHI Conference. However, as the leading conference, CHI tends to be conservative. There are many other general HCI conferences of roughly equivalent quality that represent diverse aspects of HCI and that sometimes are more innovative than CHI: the NordiCHI conference, the British Computing society's HCI Conference. There also are a host of excellent HCI specialty conferences, addressing particular subareas: UIST, CSCW, ECSCW, GROUP, DIS, CandT, Creativity and Cognition.

The leading general journal for HCI is the ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. However, as is the case with the CHI Conference, this journal is conservative by design. There are many other journals of roughly equivalent quality: Human-Computer Interaction (emphasizes design research), Interacting With Computers, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Journal of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Recently, Association for Information Systems has initiated Transactions on HCI.

Textbooks

The number of important monographs is just too large to list, so I have concentrated in the list below on a few significant textbooks. Readers should also check the HCI Bibliography, the HCC Education Digital Library, the ACM Digital Library, and the Synthesis Series of lectures on human-centered informatics.

• Dix, Alan J., Finlay, Janet E., Abowd, Gregory D. and Beale, Russell (2003): Human-Computer Interaction (3rd Edition). Prentice Hall
  View info on Amazon.com or .co.uk
  
• Shneiderman, Ben and Plaisant, Catherine (2005): Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction (4th ed.). Addison-Wesley
  

These texts have both been through several editions. Both are highly refined and comprehensive.

• Sharp, Helen, Rogers, Yvonne and Preece, Jennifer J. (2007): Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. John Wiley and Sons
  View info on Amazon.com or .co.uk
  

Sharp et al. (2007) emphasize HCI as interaction design.

• Rosson, Mary Beth and Carroll, John M. (2001): Usability Engineering: Scenario-Based Development of Human Computer Interaction. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers
  View info on Amazon.com or .co.uk
  

Rosson and Carroll (2003) emphasize a software engineering view of HCI. The text uses a set of case studies to convey an engineering process view of usability.

• Carroll, John M. (ed.) (2003): HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a multidisciplinary science. San Francisco, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers
  View info on Amazon.com or .co.uk
  

Carroll (2003) presents various scientific conceptions of HCI. An even broader collection of theory-based tutorials is being developed in the Synthesis Series on Human-Centered Informatics.

My personal perspectives on the emergence and development of HCI are elaborated in several other articles:

• Carroll, John M. (1997): Human-Computer Interaction: Psychology as a Science of Design. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46 (4) pp. 501-522 and#147;Human-computer interaction (HCI) is the area of intersection between psychology and the social sciences, on the one hand, and computer science and technology, on the other. HCI researchers analyse and design-specific user-interface technologies (e.g. three-dimensional pointing devices, interactive video). They study and improve the processes of technology development (e.g. usability evaluation, design rationale). They develop and evaluate new applications of technology (e.g. computer conferencing, software design environments). Through the past two decades, HCI has progressively integrated its scientific concerns with the engineering goal of improving the usability of computer systems and applications, thus establishing a body of technical knowledge and methodology. HCI continues to provide a challenging test domain for applying and developing psychology and social science in the context of technology development and use.and#148;

  Copyrights may apply

• Carroll, John M. (2004): Beyond fun. In Interactions, 11 (5) pp. 38-40
• Carroll, John M. (2002): MacMillan Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. In: "MacMillan Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science". Macmillan-Nature Publishing Group
  

Relevant Conference Series ACM SIGCHI CHI - Human Factors in Computing Systems2000199919981997199619951994 1993199219911990198919881987 1986198520012002200319821983 200420052006200720082009Next conference is coming up 10 Apr 2010 in Atlanta, Georgia, USAECSCW - European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperate Work1989199319971991199520011999 2003200120032007CSCW - Conference On Computer-Supported Cooperative Work2002200019981996199419921990 198819862004200420062008Next conference is coming up 19 Mar 2011 in Hangzhou, ChinaUIST - Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology2002200120001999199819971996 1995199419931992199119901989 1988200320042005200320062007 200720072008Next conference is coming up 03 Oct 2010 in New York City, USANordiCHI - Nordic conference on human-computer interaction2002200020042000200220062008 Next conference is coming up 16 Oct 2010 in Reykjavik, IcelandBCSHCI People and Computers1985198619871988198919911992 1993199419951996199719982000 2001200220032004200520062006 20072008Next conference is coming up 06 Sep 2010 in University of Abertay Dundee, UKACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work2003200119991997199519931991 1990198819861984198220052007 2009Next conference is coming up 07 Nov 2010 in Sanibel Island, Florida, USADIS - Designing Interactive Systems2000200220042006199519972008 Next conference is coming up 16 Aug 2010 in Aarhus, DenmarkCreativity and Cognition1999200720022005

Jonas Löwgren (Professor of Interaction Design and considered 'Mr. Interaction Design' here in Scandinavia) has just finished writing an entry on 'Interaction Design' in our encyclopedia. It paints a portrait of Interaction Design as a discipline going in two directions: One interpretation is to view Interaction Design as an extension of HCI. The proponents of this view are the old HCI-hardliners like Ben Shneiderman, Don Norman, and Jenny Preece. Another interpretation is to view Interaction Design as a design discipline, with more in common with architecture than with engineering and behavioral sciences..
Read more at http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/interaction_design.htmlInteraction Design

andquot;Interaction Designandquot; refers to the shaping of interactive products and services with a specific focus on their use.

Broadly speaking, there are two main senses of the concept, coming out of different intellectual traditions but increasingly converging in practice and research.

Interaction design as a design discipline

One interpretation is to view interaction design as a design discipline, distinguished by its focus on the digital design materials: software, electronics and telecommunications.

As a design discipline, it is more closely affiliated with industrial design and architecture than with engineering and behavioral science. The andquot;shaping of interactive products and servicesandquot; is an instance of design work, which broadly shares the following characteristics across design disciplines.

• Design work is about exploring possible futures, starting from a situation at hand.
• It intends to change the situation for the better by developing and deploying some sort of product or service, i.e., the concrete outcome of the design process.
• It considers instrumental and technical as well as aesthetic and ethical qualities throughout the design process.
• Design work involves developing an understanding of the task – the andquot;problemandquot;, or the goal of the design work – in parallel with an understanding of the space of possible solutions.
• Finally, it entails thinking by sketching, building models, and expressing potential ideas in other tangible forms.

This interpretation of interaction design tends to combine two main strands of intellectual traditions, one involving design disciplines such as industrial design, graphic design and architectural design gradually acknowledging the influence of digital technology and media on their own core materials and practices. The other main ancestor is the Scandinavian school of systems development with its long-standing ideological and methodological aims for user participation and co-determination.

Prominent examples of viewing interaction design as a design discipline within academia are found in conferences such as DIS (Designing Interactive Systems), DUX (Designing the User Experience), PDC (Participatory Design Conference) and lesser conference series such as DPPI (Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces). Some cornerstone books include the prescient collection Bringing Design to Software and, more recently, Designing Interaction and Sketching User Experiences. Influential proponents of this perspective in academia include people like Brenda Laurel, Terry Winograd, Bill Buxton and Pelle Ehn.

Interaction design as an extension of HCI

The other interpretation of interaction design is to see it as an extension of human-computer interaction (HCI), a field originating in experimental psychology and computer science and tracing its roots to the 1970s. The main concern in HCI was always to assert instrumental qualities such as usability and usefulness of digital products and services, predominantly in work-related or task-oriented use situations and typically with a focus on an individual user and his/her goals.

HCI was originally oriented mainly towards field studies (of, e.g., existing user populations, their cognitive traits and current practices) and evaluation (of, e.g., an existing product or a proposed product concept). However, it was found that the impact on the resulting products and ultimately on the benefits for the users would be greater if HCI practitioners and researchers would engage in the design rather than merely pointing out usability problems after the fact. Hence, the HCI palette of methods, tools and responsibilities was extended to encompass more creative and generative activities.

The key academic venues for interaction-design-oriented HCI include the CHI conference (Human Factors in Computing Systems) and many other regional or second-tier conferences, as well as a broad range of journals including the prestigious TOCHI (ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction). A typical book reflecting the reorientation of the HCI field towards interaction design is Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, and characteristic examples are found in the works of researchers like Ben Shneiderman, Donald Norman, Stuart Card and Jenny Preece.

The two perspectives converge

The use of digital products and services (i.e., the subject matter of HCI) in society transformed radically from the early 1990s and onwards with the proliferation of the Internet, mobile connectivity, digital consumer products and games towards a dominance of discretionary use for fun, pleasure and recreation over instrumentally motivated use for solving work-related tasks. Consequently, instrumental quality concepts such as usability and usefulness lost in relative importance to experiential concepts addressing the non-instrumental qualities of use (including aesthetic, ludic and social qualities). As mentioned above, the more mature design disciplines underlying the first interpretation of interaction design always addressed non-instrumental and instrumental qualities in equal measures.

The increasing amount of design activities and the increasing focus on what HCI calls user experience are the two main factors motivating the growing tendency for HCI to adopt interaction design as a more appropriate label for the field. They also broadly explain the apparent tendency for the two interpretations to converge, as witnessed in hiring policies and work practices in professional interaction design contexts as well as in the increasing amount of cross-disciplinary research where designers collaborate with scholars from a HCI background.

Looking back, the most significant differences between the two interpretations of interaction design used to be the degree of interest in aesthetic and ethical qualities, the nature of understanding the goal (growing throughout the process versus aiming at goal specification in upstream phases), and the importance ascribed to the work of making ideas explicit throughout the process. As the two interpretations converge, the differences tend to diminish accordingly.

Interaction design and digital materials

The recommended use of the term interaction design is limited to products and services which more or less rely on digital materials for their realization. This is due to the significance for a design discipline of knowing its respective design materials. It is impossible to design interaction per se, even though the term unfortunately implies otherwise, but what interaction designers do is to create conditions for interaction. It is possible to make some things more likely to happen, others less likely, and the way in which this is accomplished is by shaping the digital materials into tools, props and media for others to appropriate and use. The digital materials of software, electronics and telecommunications have specific properties that interaction designers need to understand well in order to increase the likelihood of achieving intended outcomes in use. For instance, designing a multiplayer online game is quite different from designing a (non-digital) board game. The digital-material property most significantly determining the difference in this case is the possibility for synchronous and quasi-anonymous many-to-many communication over a distance.

There is also a pragmatical argument for coupling interaction design with digital materials. Both of the main interpretations above have strong roots in fields concerned exclusively with the digital, which ought to carry more weight than any fine semantic points about what interaction andquot;actuallyandquot; means.

This is not to say that interaction design concerns itself only with purely digital products and services. For instance, it is rapidly becoming impossible to separate interaction design from industrial design in digital consumer products (even though some developers of consumer products still try). Moreover, several emerging fields in interaction design research, including tangible interaction, mixed-reality interfaces and pervasive computing, address physical form and materials as inevitably integrated with virtual form and digital materials. The point is merely that the digital materials have specific properties which greatly influence the use of products and services built from them, and the knowledge of those materials and properties form part of the core of knowledge defining the interaction design community.

Other ways of slicing the field

The choice of the two interpretations (design-discipline versus extension-of-HCI) is by no means the only possible way to structure a presentation of the interaction design field, even though it tends to explain the historical development of multidisciplinarity in the field rather well. Another approach which seems quite established in the community is to divide the field according to the main technologies involved in creating the use situation. For instance, academic subcommunities with their own conferences and journals have emerged in areas like mobile services, ubiquitous computing, web services, adaptive systems, and tangible interaction.

Other attempts to slice the field of interaction design include dividing by use genre (productivity, play, communication, entertainment, and so on) or by market structures and development-process organization (bespoke development, in-house development, product development, end-user development, etc.)

How to learn more

For further explorations, the HCIBIB project is a rich repository of academic HCI books, articles and other resources. The official Wikipedia entry on interaction design provides a useful introduction to interaction-design-as-HCI.

There is an annotated bibliography at webzone.k3.mah.se/k3jolo/idBookshelf, focusing on the design-discipline perspective on interaction design.

In relation to the brief discussion about different ways of slicing the field, here are some of the key resources in the different technology-defined subcommunities.

• Mobile services: The MobileHCI conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services.
• Ubiquitous computing: The Ubicomp conference and the journal on Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.
• Adaptive systems: The journal on User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.
• Tangible interaction: The TEI conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction.

Finally, the Interaction Design Association is a rather widespread and lively network of interaction design practitioners, built around an email list, where it is easy to get an idea of current issues and trends in the emerging industry of interaction design.

The following list includes references to the books and other resources mentioned in the text above.

• Buxton, Bill (2007): Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. Morgan Kaufmann
  View info on Amazon.com or .co.uk
  

• Moggridge, Bill (2007): Designing Interactions. The MIT Press
  View info on Amazon.com or .co.uk
  

• Sharp, Helen, Rogers, Yvonne and Preece, Jennifer J. (2007): Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. John Wiley and Sons
  View info on Amazon.com or .co.uk
  

• Winograd, Terry, Bennett, John, Young, Laura De and Hartfield, Brad (eds.) (1996): Bringing Design to Software. Addison-Wesley Publishing
  View info on Amazon.com or .co.uk
  

• Proceedings from the DIS, DUX, PDC, DPPI and CHI conferences as well as articles from TOCHI are found in the ACM Digital Library.

Frank Spillers thoroughly explains Progressive Disclosure and why it is an immensely important concept..
Read more at http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/progressive_disclosure.htmlProgressive Disclosure

Progressive disclosure is an interaction design technique that sequences information and actions across several screens in order to reduce feelings of overwhelm for the user (Spillers 2004).

Nielsen (2006) defines progressive disclosure as a technique that “defers advanced or rarely used features to a secondary screen, making applications easier to learn and less error-prone”.

By disclosing information progressively, interaction designers reveal only the essentials and help users manage the complexity of feature-rich sites or applications. Progressive disclosure follows the typical notion of moving from andquot;abstract to specificandquot;; including the sequencing of user behaviors or interactions not necessarily level of detail (information). In other words, progressive disclosure is not just about displaying abstract then specific information, but rather about 'ramping up' the user from simple to more complex actions or tasks.

In its most formal definition, progressive disclosure means andquot;to move complex and less frequently used options out of the main user interface and into secondary screensandquot;. Progressive disclosure says: andquot;Make more information available within reach, but don't overwhelm the user with all the features and possibilitiesandquot; (Spillers 2004).

Progressive disclosure is a concept that has been around since at least the early 1980's. The technique caught the attention of user interface specialists with John M. Carroll and Mary Rosson’s lab work at IBM (Carroll 1983), where they found that hiding advanced functionality early on led to an increased success of its use later on. The approach dubbed andquot;training wheelsandquot; (Carroll 1984) is one of the only references validating the technique.

Empirical research lacking

Carroll and Rosson (1997) indicated that no empirical evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of progressive disclosure and that the training wheels approach only studied a andquot;single computer application (word processor) and a single interface style (menu based control)andquot;.

Historically, progressive disclosure is a concept that came from the software usability experience. It is clearly easier to apply to software than it is on the Web, which is likely why few web-based progressive disclosure guidelines exist. In software, the interaction is between dialogues and 'fixed state' interactions. On the Web, interactions are chaotic, randomized and dynamic due to the fact that hypertext is a non-linear media.

Furthermore, in the software world the audience is predictable and targeted, making learning styles more predictable. On the Web, it's anybody's guess who might be using the site. The website visitor might be a particle physicist, a teen or a grandma. Learning styles, comfort levels and expectations differ greatly.

While independent usability studies have shown that appropriate usage of the progressive disclosure technique is valuable, more empirical research is clearly required.

New definitions needed

One of the weaknesses of the Carroll and Rosson studies is that they draw from Word processor metaphors (static desktop applications) and from a user base unlike the users of today who are exposed to dozens of interfaces and Internet sites today. So to, the thinking about progressive disclosure by usability practitioners is framed in early 1990’s terms.

Nielsen (2006) introduces a hybrid to progressive disclosure called “staged disclosure”, characterized by the “wizard” (back-next) interaction technique. However, as with other applications of progressive disclosure, specific context of use can paralyze the effectiveness of progressive disclosure.

Today, new definitions of progressive disclosure need to be explored as interface complexity problems change and interfaces evolve. Microsoft Office 2007 task ribbons, Apple Leopard “stacks” and “spaces”; AJAX “instant add/edit/delete” website interfaces and iPhone “pinch and zoom” interactions require us to think differently about the potential of more accessible and elegant formats of progressive disclosure displays—across all displays and devices.

Examples of progressive disclosure

An example of progressive disclosure is an online news article that is spread across four screens (with a Next Page link at the bottom). This use of progressive disclosure serves advertising objectives (showing banners on each page) and not the user's task. Another example is a Web site that explains a product by making the user click through 4-5 pages of overview/benefits information before revealing the price of the product. The idea here is that if the user reads the product information, they will accept the price more easily. The problem with that approach is that it does not accommodate free-form exploration, a typical behavior on the web.

In its purest format, progressive disclosure is about offering a good “teaser”.A good teaser can include the following:

• A sample of what is next
• An introductory task that is most common
• A high level view of what is expected
• A wizard that walks the user through the task (a “staged disclosure” according to Nielsen).
• A button that leads to more advanced functions (such as editing)

Progressive Disclosure usability guidelines

Usability guru Jakob Nielsen has stated (2000; 2002) that progressive disclosure is one of the best interaction design techniques. In interviews, for example, Nielsen has stated:

andquot;Good usability includes ideas like progressive disclosure where you show a small number of features to the less experienced user to lower the hurdle of getting started and yet have a larger number of features available for the expert to call upandquot;. (Sitepoint interview 2002)

andquot;Progressive disclosure is the best tool so far: show people the basics first, and once they understand that, allow them to get to the expert features. But don't show everything all at once or you will only confuse people and they will waste endless time messing with features that they don't need yetandquot;. (Slashdot interview 2000)

In 2006, Nielsen departed from merely stating the benefit of progressive disclosure, but providing several usability guidelines for using progressive disclosure. These guidelines included:

1. Getting the right split between initial and secondary features.
2. Making it obvious how users progress from the primary to the secondary disclosure levels (by increasing information scent and making target area visible).
3. Avoid multiple ways to progress to secondary options.
4. Consider multiple secondary displays, each of which is revealed by a different control on the initial display.

Using user observations to increase effectiveness

Progressive disclosure is an interaction design technique that emerges out of the insights gained during Field Studies or Task Analysis (user observation of tasks). Observing users in the field, allows you to understand their workflow outside of your technology. This insight gives you the data you need to prioritize and sequence content and functionality (Spillers 2004; Nielsen 2006).
By observing user workflow, sequence of task and priority of aids used in problem-solving, researchers can gain more insight into appropriate progressive disclosure design choices. For example, by observing someone's eating habits, you'll know whether they typically look at the desert and drinks menu at the start, in the middle or at the end of the meal. You'll discover whether they like to eat the main course or their salad first and whether they drink before a meal or at the end of a meal.

Progressive disclosure is best used as a contextual research tool, taking user insights gained in ethnographic field studies, and developing design decisions based on in-depth familiarity with what will aid users most in sense-making.

As a design technique progressive disclosure’s fallacies can be prevented by basing the progressively disclosed tasks and information on actual observed user behavior.  Ad-hoc use of progressive disclosure will yield inaccurate results.

Using progressive disclosure effectively on the web

The best way to think about progressive disclosure on the web is: andquot;Only show information that is relevant to the task the user wants to focus on, on any given pageandquot;.

Examples of progressive disclosure on the Web:

• Learn more link
• Related topics link
• Overview of account information on the first screen
• View more details link
• Advanced search link

Forrester Research (2003) points to an example with Internet configurator tools: “Instead, minimize jarring transitions by providing the right level of detail at the right time throughout the scenario. Progressive disclosure is a design technique that reduces the complexity of an interaction by providing interface layers that incrementally introduce content and function based on the customer’s progress through the application”.

Pros and Cons of Progressive Disclosure

Progressive disclosure is powerful because it embraces several good design principles:

• Advocate for users with different needs (experienced and non-experienced users)
• Limit what you show on a screen
• Give access to the low hanging fruit and de-emphasize infrequent tasks
• Only show users what they need when they need it
• Focus the interface on making the user successful at the start

Benefits of Progressive Disclosure:

• Remove the need for the user to explore and examine the interface first
• Allow the user to chunk the task in a sequence that matches their expectation
• Reduce cognitive overload
• Increase the efficiency and ease of use of the site

Dangers of Progressive Disclosure

• Users are forced to wait until you are ready to show them
• Repeat use may not require progressive disclosure (depends on the task)
• Over-constraining what users see (or dumbing it down too much)
• Assuming you understand what is the most popular, common or important task

Progressive disclosure can be powerful. It allows users to orient to a screen, figure out what they need to do, and do it in steps that reveal more complex information as they go along. The downside to it, is in its inappropriate usage. Microsoft Word 2003, for example, is full of many inappropriate uses of progressive disclosure, such as the auto-hiding extra menus that users have to repeatedly activate even if they don't use the menu item (the down arrows that appear at the bottom of any menu). Word 2007 tries to address this by moving away from hidden menu items instead opting for the task ribbon interface.

Advances in implementing Progressive Disclosure

New JavaScript and AJAX interface techniques hold great promise for resolving progressive disclosure—one the most popular interaction design techniques (Spillers 2007) specifically with regard to:

1. Extending discoverability;
2. Providing dynamic “smart” help;
3. Giving the user less “drill down” or more shallow navigation; and
4. Showing related details or content.

Hatice Gunes does an impressive job of explaining Multimodal Affective Computing research. Her encyclopedia entry is comprehensive, precise, and easy to read..
Read more at http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/multimodal_affective_computing.htmlMultimodal Affective Computing

Affective Computing is computing that relates to, arises from, or deliberately influences emotion or other affective phenomena (Picard 1997).

Research on automatic emotion recognition did not start until the 1990s. Although researchers like Ekman published studies on how people recognized emotions from face display in the 1960s (Ekman and Friesen 1968), people would find it absurd that anyone would even propose giving machines such abilities when emotional mechanisms were not considered to have a significant role in various aspects of human life. However, scientists found out that even in the most rational of decisions, emotions persist: emotions always exist, we always feel something.

In the early 1990s, Salovey and Mayer published a series of papers on emotional intelligence (Salovey and Mayer 1990). They suggested that the capacity to perceive and understand emotions define a new variable in personality. Goleman popularized his view of emotional intelligence or Emotional Quotient (EQ) in his 1995 bestandshy;selling book by discussing why EQ mattered more than Intelligence Quotient (IQ) (Goleman 1995). Goleman drew together research in neurophysiology, psychology and cognitive science. Other scientists also provided evidence that emotions were tightly coupled with all functions we, humans, are engaged with: attention, perception, learning, reasoning, decision making, planning, action selection, memory storage and retrieval (Isen 2000 and Picard 2003).

This new scientific understanding of emotions provided inspiration to various researchers for building machines that will have abilities to recognize, express, model, communicate, and respond to emotions. The initial focus has been on the recognition of the prototypical emotions from posed visual input, namely face expressions. All existing work in the early 1990s attempted to recognize prototypical emotions from two static face images: neutral and expressive. In the second half of 1990s, automated face expression analysis started focusing on posed video sequences and exploiting temporal information in the displayed face expressions. In parallel to the automatic emotion recognition from visual input, works focusing on audio input emerged. Rosalind Picard's awardandshy;winning book, Affective Computing, was published in 1997, laying the groundwork for giving machines the skills of emotional intelligence. The book triggered an explosion of interest in the emotional side of computers and their users and a new research area called affective computing emerged. Affective computing advocated the idea that it might not be essential for machines to posses all the emotional intelligence and skills humans do. However, for natural and effective humanandshy;computer interaction, computers still needed to look intelligent to some extent (Picard, 1997). Experiments conducted by Reeves and Nass showed that for an intelligent interaction, the basic humanandshy;human issues should hold (Reeves and Nass 1996).

One major limitation of affective computing has been that most of the past research had focused on emotion recognition from one single sensorial source, or modality. However, as natural humanandshy;human interaction (HHI) is multimodal, the single sensory observations are often ambiguous, uncertain, and incomplete. It was not till 1998 that computer scientists attempted to use multiple modalities for recognition of emotions/affective states. The combined use of multiple modalities for sensing affective states in itself triggered another research area. What channels to use? And how to combine them? The initial interest was on fusing visual and audio data. The results were promising, using multiple modalities improved the overall recognition accuracy helping the systems function in a more efficient and reliable way. Starting from the work of Picard in 2001, interest in detecting emotions from physiological signals emerged. Moreover, researchers moved their focus from posed to spontaneous visual data (Braathen et al. 2002). Although a fundamental study by Ambady and Rosenthal suggested that the most significant channels for judging behavioural cues of humans appear to be the visual channels of face expressions and body gestures (Ambady and Rosenthal 1992), the existing literature on automatic emotion recognition did not focus on the expressive information that body gestures carry till 2003 (Hudlicka, 2003). Following the new findings in psychology, some researchers advocate that a reliable automatic affect recognition system should attempt to combine face expressions and body gestures. Accordingly, a number of approaches have been proposed for such sensorial sources (Gunes and Piccardi 2007), (Kapoor et al. 2007), (Karpouzis et al. 2007), (Lisetti and Nasoz 2002) and (Martin et al. 2006). With all these new areas, a number of new challenges have arisen.

Overall, the interest in affective computing has grown significantly in the last three years. In Europe (EU), Humanandshy;Machine Interaction Network on Emotion (HUMAINE) was created as a Network of Excellence in the EU's Sixth Framework Programme, under the Information Society Technologies (IST) programme (Humaine 2007). The HUMAINE Network started on 1st January 2004, and is funded to run for four years. In parallel to this the First international Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction was organized in 2005 bringing together researchers from diverse fields of research (ACII 2005).

Currently, every research group agrees that multiple modalities should be explored in order to understand which channels provide better information for automatic affect/emotion recognition. If a monomodal affect recognition system is compared to a multimodal one some of the assumptions made when building monomodal affect recognisers still hold (e.g., affect data collection is still needed). However, specific problems exist for multimodal affect recognition (e.g., multiple sensors are now required).Therefore, some new assumptions need to be taken into consideration.

The final stage affective computing has reached today is, combining multiple channels for affect recognition and moving from posed data towards spontaneous data. Achieving these aims is an open challenge. At this stage, scientists expect emotion recognition to be solvable by machine in the near future, at least as well as people can label such patterns (Picard 2003). A significant issue to note here is that, the focus of affective computing research field is gradually moving from just developing more efficient and effective automated techniques to concentrating on more contextandshy;/cultureandshy;/userandshy;related aspects. In order to achieve the smooth transition aimed, it should be realised and understood that machine learning for humanandshy;computer applications is distinctively different from the conventional machine learning field. Issues such as loads of data, spatial coherence, and the large variety of appearances make affective behaviour analysis in particular, a special challenge for machine learning algorithms.

Today, the term affective computing has many aims in common with the recently emerging research field called human computing. Human computing is an interdisciplinary research field focusing on computing and computational artefacts as they relate to the human condition. As defined in (Pantic et al. 2007), human computing focuses on the human portion of the HCI context, going beyond the traditional keyboard and mouse to include natural, humanandshy;like interactive functions including understanding and emulating behavioural and social signalling. Human computing research field is interested in devising automated analysis algorithms that aim to extract, efficiently describe, and organise information regarding the state or state transition of individuals (identity, emotional state, activity, position and pose, etc), interactions between individuals (dialogue, gestures, engagement into collaborative or competitive activities like sports), and physical characteristics of humans (anthropometric characteristics, 3D head/body models) (Pantic et al. 2007).

Starting from the survey by Pantic, Pentland, Nijholt and Huang (Pantic et al. 2007), special sessions have already been organised and special journal issues have been proposed in this field:

• Special session on Human Computing at the ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, November 2006.
• Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Human Computing in conjunction with the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, January 2007.
• International Workshop on Humanandshy;Centered Multimedia in Conjunction with ACM Multimedia 2007.
• International Journal of Image and Video Processing, special issue on Anthropocentric Video Analysis: Tools and Applications, 2007.
• Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), special volume on AI for Human Computing, 2007.
• IEEE Computer Magazine, Special Issue on Humanandshy;Centered Computing, 2007.
• IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part B, special issue on Human Computing, 2007.

Although research fields such as affective computing, human computing and multimodal interfaces seem to be detached and have their own research community/conferences/audience, as prophesied by some researchers (e.g., Pantic et al. 2007), future progress in these fields is likely to bring them together and merge them into one single most widespread research area within computer science, artificial intelligence and CHI research communities. The future direction in these research fields is to advance further by making computers/machines/devices/environments more humanandshy;like rather than forcing humans to act machineandshy;like. Further progress is mandatory in order to achieve this common goal.

Where to learn more?

Informative websites are listed as follows:

• HUMAINE Portal: http://emotionresearch.net/
• Human Centered Computing Task Force, sponsored by IEEE CS http://www.humancentered.org/
• First International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII2005): http://www.affectivecomputing.org/2005/
• Second International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII2007): http://gaips.inescid.pt/acii2007/
• MIT Media Lab, Affective Computing Group: http://affect.media.mit.edu/
  

Today we've published a text by Eva Hornecker where she explains the key aspects and history of Tangible Interaction. Her entry is a must-read for those interested in post-desktop Interaction Design. When it comes to researching physical space, social interaction, and tangible interaction, Eva has produced some extremely interesting results over the years..
Read more at http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/tangible_interaction.htmlTangible Interaction

Tangible Interaction has come to be the 'umbrella term' used to describe a set of related research and design approaches which have emerged in several disciplines. It became noticeable as a research topic in the late 90s and then rapidly grew into a research area.

Broadly, Tangible Interaction encompasses user interfaces and interaction approaches that emphasize

• tangibility and materiality of the interface
• physical embodiment of data
• whole-body interaction
• the embedding of the interface and the users' interaction in real spaces and contexts.

Tangible Interaction is a very interdisciplinary area. It spans a variety of perspectives, such as HCI and Interaction Design, but specializes on interfaces or systems that are in some way physically embodied - be it in physical artefacts or in environments. Furthermore it has connections with product/industrial design, arts and architecture. Finally, new developments in Ubiquitous Computing, Actuation, Sensors, Robotics and Mechanics contribute through enabling technologies to the field of Tangible Interaction.

A history of Tangible Interaction: influences, perspectives, and influential prototype systems

Tangible Interaction has been influenced by work from different disciplines, in particular Computing, HCI, and Product/Industrial Design. For Computing and HCI, the notion of a andlsquo;Tangible User Interfaceandrsquo; (as it was originally conceived in the mid/late 90s) constituted an alternative vision for computer interfaces that brings computing back andlsquo;into the real worldandrsquo; (Wellner, Mackay, Gold 1993; Ishii, Ullmer 1997). A general dissatisfaction with traditional screen-based interfaces and with Virtual Reality, which were seen as estranging people from andlsquo;the real worldandrsquo;, motivated the development of the first prototypes, while technological innovations enabled building these (e.g. RFID technology). In contrast, the field of Industrial Design came to engage with Tangible Interaction out of necessity, as increasingly appliances contain electronic and digital components and become andlsquo;intelligentandrsquo;. For designers, this constituted new challenges as well as new opportunities (Djajadiningrat, Overbeeke, Wensveen 2000; Djajadiningrat et al 2004).

An interesting point is that challenges and established skills are complementary for the above mentioned disciplines: Where considerations of physical form factors, choice of materials and so on forced computer scientists and HCI researchers out of their comfort zone, industrial designers now had to focus on designing complex behaviour that is digitally controlled and has no inherent relationship to product form.

These practice and research fields had no common discussion forum and only intersected occasionally or through personal contacts, with e.g. particular product ideas and sketches inspiring the notion of a Tangible User Interface. The Marble Answering Machine, devised by Durrell Bishop while studying design at the Royal College of Art, is one such sketch that used marbles to represent incoming messages. The marbles fall out of the machine and can be played by placing them into a mould on the machine (Poynor 1995). Generalizing this design yielded the idea of representing data through physical objects and of manipulating the data by physical handling of the objects andndash; Ishiiandrsquo;s Tangible Bits vision (Ishii, Ullmer 1997).

In the early years of the new century researchers with a design background more frequently participated at HCI-related conferences, starting a dialogue. From about the same time, the number of workshops addressing Tangible User Interfaces or Tangible Interaction (a term which was proposed by parts of the design community) as a topic increased steadily. From this grew an interdisciplinary research community that adopted the term andlsquo;Tangible Interactionandrsquo; to describe its shared focus, and has its own conference since 2007.

With emerging technologies coming quickly onto the market, the field has become more diverse (e.g. some systems involve actuation, some rely on complex sensor-based data-collection, some are based on conductive fabrics etc.) and also more inclusive, as it has become easier and cheaper to build working prototypes and functioning systems. Whereas in the late 90s, specialized hardware and expertise was required to build a prototype with comparatively simple functionality, in 2009 this has become a standard project assignment in many industrial or interaction design courses.

The following gives an overview of the major influencing perspectives. As much of the conceptual and visionary development went hand in hand with the building of prototype systems, this is very much in the style of andlsquo;a history through examplesandrsquo;.

HCI and Computing: Tangible User Interfaces

Within Computing and HCI Tangible Interaction first became prominent with the notion of 'Tangible User Interfaces' (TUIs) proposed by Hiroshi Ishii and his group at the MIT Media Lab in 1997 (Ishii, Ullmer 1997). This work built on prior work by George Fitzmaurice in collaboration with Bill Buxton and Ishii himself (Fitzmaurice, Ishii, Buxton 1995). Fitzmaurice's PhD thesis (1996) explored the use of graspable bricks as a more direct input mechanism for the interaction with graphical representations. It further suggested employing multiple graspable objects that are distributed in space, with strong-specific functionality, instead of the generic input device we know as a mouse, which distributes input over time. The bricks were laid on top of graphics (displayed on a horizontal screen), which then got anchored to them. Moving a brick thus moved the graphics, and moving two corners of a triangle apart with two bricks would stretch the triangle correspondingly.

Tangible User Interfaces were envisioned as an alternative to graphical displays that would bring some of the richness of interaction we have with physical devices back into our interaction with digital content (Ishii, Ullmer 1997). It was proposed to represent digital content through tangible objects, which could then be manipulated via physical interaction with these tangibles. The core idea was to quite literally allow users to grasp data with their hands and to unify representation and control. Digital representations were thought to be closely coupled, usually through graphical projections on and around the tangible objects, which came to be referred to as 'tokens'.

One of the first examples developed by the MIT's Tangible Media Group was a map that was manipulated by placing iconic representation of central buildings on it and moving these apart. Later-on the research group developed Urp, a system that supports urban planning (Underkoffler, Ishii 1999). Urp integrates a physical model with an interactive simulation of the effects of building placement on sunlight and wind flow. The tangible models of buildings cast (digital) shadows that are projected onto the surface. Simulated wind flow is projected as lines onto the surface. Several tools are available to probe e.g. the wind speed or the distance between points in space, and to change the properties of buildings (glass or stone walls) or the time of day, resulting in shadows moving. Over the years, a series of related systems have been built, and the notion of TUIs was taken up by many other research groups worldwide.

Influences from other disciplines: Product/Industrial Design and the Arts

Within other disciplines, the merging of physical form with digital contents and behaviors occurred alike. Product Design increasingly concerns complex computational behavior and designers need to rethink how to make IT-related appliances legible and usable. Some design researchers have come to investigate how form and digital behavior can be more closely coupled and how users could interact in richer ways with digital products (Djajadiningrat et al 2004; Jensen, Buur, Djajadiningrat 2005). The Marble Answering Machine is an early example of this endeavour. The term 'Tangible Interaction' originated in this context.

Djajadiningrat et al (2004) describe a concept sketch for a videodeck that integrates the physical controls within the mechanism of the mechanical device, creating physical legibility of the controls. For example the contours of the device are broken where there is interaction with the outside world. The eject button has turned into a ribbon which lies under the tape and is pulled outward. They further describe the concept design of a digital camera that attempts to replace all of the typical menu functions and identically looking buttons with physical manipulations of the camera. Here, the user e.g. slides the screen towards the memory card in order to save an image and slides the screen towards the lens to go into ready mode again.

A further merging of digital and physical design can be seen in the emergence of 'Physical Computing' within design worldwide through a culture of tinkering and making things (cp. Igoe and O'Sullivan 2004). Physical Computing involves fast prototyping with electronics, and often reuses and scavenges existing technology (tinkering). It is defined as the design of interactive objects, which are controlled by software, and that people interact with via sensors and actuators.

Within the interactive arts a related development can be seen. Many installations employ 'interactive spaces' which are sensorized to track users' behavior and integrate tangible objects into the installation (see e.g. Bongers 2002). Often, whole-body movement is used to interact within these environments. Interaction designers have also developed an interest in bodily interaction, which can be pure movement (gestures, dance) or is related to physical objects (Hummels, Overbeeke, Klooster 2007).

In a sense, whole-body interaction and interactive spaces is thinking of Tangible Interaction on another scale - instead of interacting with small objects that we can grab and move around within arms reach (this is more the focus of Tangible User Interfaces and Product Design) we interact with large objects within a large space and therefore need to move around with our whole body.

andlsquo;Tangible Interactionandrsquo; brought different perspectives under one umbrella

The term 'Tangible Interaction' has come to embrace all these developments. As argued by Hornecker and Buur (2006), the field prioritizes as principles of design:

• tangibility and materiality
• physical embodiment of data
• bodily interaction
• embeddedness in real spaces and contexts.

Hornecker and Buur argue that the original definition of Tangible User Interfaces excludes many interesting developments and systems from product design and the arts and therefore suggest using a more inclusive, less strictly defined term. The shift in phrasing from Tangible Interface to Tangible Interaction was intentional, similar to the distinction between Interface and Interaction Design. It places the focus on the design of the interaction instead of the visible interface. This puts the qualities of the interaction into the foreground of attention, and requires system designers to think about what people actually do with the system (see also: Djajadiningrat, Overbeeke, Wensveen 2000; Jensen, Buur, Djajadiningrat 2005). It further encourages thinking of the tangible system as part of a larger ecology and as located in a specific context. This has been described as the 'practice turn' by Fernaeus et al (2008), with newer conceptualizations of Tangible Interaction focusing on human action, control, creativity and social action instead of the representation and transmission of information.

The adoption of andlsquo;Tangible Interactionandrsquo; as umbrella term has supported the development of a larger interdisciplinary research community (the TEI conference series), but as a downside, results in some tension/ambivalence as to where to draw the line between Tangible Interaction and other areas. For a report on discussions during the TEI 2007 and TEI 2008 panel discussions see Hornecker et al (2008). For example it remains open whether a car is a Tangible Interface and whether gesture-based interaction can be considered tangible interaction. Different people in the research community would answer this question in different ways.

Tangible Interaction therefore overlaps at its fringes with a range of other research areas, summarized in this encyclopedia entry under andlsquo;Related Topicsandrsquo;. Whether a particular paper is framed as andlsquo;tangibleandrsquo; or e.g. as gesture-based interaction often depends on the conference or journal that it is submitted to. The research community seems well aware of this ambivalence, but has decided to embrace it: The TEI conference in 2010 changed its name from andlsquo;Tangible and Embeddedandrsquo; to andlsquo;Tangible Embedded and Embodied Interactionandrsquo; in order to more explicitly invite research on whole-body or gestural interaction.

Research directions

Tangible Interaction is a growing research area. Its commercial relevance is still somewhat unclear (if we disregard standard product design for a moment). Yet companies like Philips Design and Microsoft Research increasingly invest in research in this area, and TEI 2009 was hosted by Microsoft Research in Cambridge, UK.

Furthermore there are an increasing number of spin-off companies that market systems in this area. The system currently probably best known to the public and the media is the ReacTable (http://mtg.upf.es/reactable/ and http://www.reactable.com/, see Jordandaacute; et al 2007) from the Universitat Pompeu Fabra. This is a table-based music performance instrument combining tangible input (movement of tagged objects on a flat surface) with multitouch interaction on the surface, enabling users to manipulate the graphics projected around the tangible input objects with their fingers. It was used by Bjandouml;rk during her 2007 world tour, won the Prix Ars Electronica Nica in 2008, and is now being marketed for museums and andndash; soon andndash; for musicians and DJs.

Application areas for Tangible Interaction are diverse. Many projects are aimed at supporting learning and education. This is where so far the most systems have been employed outside of the lab. Common are also domestic appliances, interactive music installations or instruments, museum installations, and tools to support planning and decision making.

Research still needs to tease apart what exactly are the advantages of tangible interaction systems and for which contexts and application areas they are the most suitable. While there is good evidence that tangibles tend to support collaboration and social interaction (Hornecker, Buur 2006), it is, for example, less clear what kinds of tangibles are most effective in supporting learning (see Marshall 2007). Related to this question, design knowledge and guidelines are still scarce.

The availability of toolkits for physical computing has made it significantly easier to develop systems, contributing to the interdisciplinarity of the field.

An exciting new direction for evolving work lies in the use of actuation. While with Tangible User Interfaces initially only input was tangible, actuation allows for tangible system output beyond visual and auditory feedback.

Relevant conference series

TEI (Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction) is the first conference series that is dedicated to Tangible Interaction. It took place first in 2007, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. TEI is a yearly conference with proceedings published in the ACM DL and in 2010 is now organized in collaboration with ACM SigCHI.

Other conferences such as CHI, NordiCHI, OzCHI, DPPI, Interact, IDC, Pervasive, UbiComp, DesForm, DIS (Designing Interactive Systems), and IEEE Tabletop also tend to invite submissions on Tangible Interaction or Tangible Interfaces. In general, most conferences in the HCI or (Interaction) design area nowadays consider tangible interaction a standard topic. The same holds for journals, with Personal and Ubiquitous Computing being the most prominent, and featuring the first special issue on andlsquo;Tangible User Interfaces in Perspectiveandrsquo; in 2004.

Before TEI was established, tangible interaction had been a focus or was listed as a topic of several workshops, for example

• Look mama, with hands!: on tangible interaction, gestures and learning (ACM DIS 2002)
• Designing Tangible User Interfaces to Support Participation (Participatory Design Conference 2002)
• Toolkit Support for Interaction in the Physical World (Pervasive 2004)
• Workshop on Real World User Interfaces (PI03)
• Tangible Interfaces for Playful Learning: past, present, and future (IDC 2005)
• What is the Next Generation of Human-Computer Interaction? (CHI 2006)

Related Topics

Given the field of Tangible Interaction is still developing and has multiple origins and inspirations, there are numerous related topics, which are only loosely demarcated from Tangible Interaction.

Among the closely related areas there are, for example, Physical Computing (a term made popular by Tom Igoe and employed by designer/artist makers), Tangible User Interfaces (see Ishii 2007), Graspable User Interfaces (cf. Fitzmaurice et al 1995), physical-digital appliances (a focus on designing interactive intelligent products), interactive spaces (as discussed early, important inspiration for Tangible Interaction came from interactive spatial art installations), and Tangible Augmented Reality (which employs principles of tangible input in an Augmented Reality context).

Somewhat wider related areas are, for example, Appliance Design, Whole-Body Interaction and Movement-Interaction (which rely less on tangible objects), Interactive Tabletops/Surfaces (which might feature tangible input elements, but may just rely on pure touch), Embodied Interfaces, Ambient Technology, Ubiquitous and Pervasive Computing, Interactive Buildings and Interactive Furniture, or Organic Interfaces. As fields these have less of a focus on tangibility, albeit example systems from these areas might very well fit within the area of Tangible Interaction.

What do you think?

Voice your opinition or make additions to this entry in the comments further down the page.

Suggestions for further reading -- Choose Citation Style -- Standard format APA format MLA formatBibTex formatEndNote/Refer format what's this? andlarr; Format menu will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Djajadiningrat, Tom, Wensveen, Stephan, Frens, Joep and Overbeeke, Kees (2004): Tangible Products: redressing the balance between appearance and action. In Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8 (5) pp. 294-309

Dourish, Paul (2001): Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press
View info on Amazon.com or .co.uk

Fernaeus, Ylva, Tholander, Jakob and Jonsson, Martin (2008): Towards a new set of ideals: consequences of the practice turn in tangible interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction 2008, Bonn, Germany. pp. 223-230. Available online

Fitzmaurice, George W. (1996). Graspable User Interfaces (Ph.D. Thesis). Retrieved [Date unavailable] from http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/~gf/papers/PhD%20-%20Graspable%20UIs/Thesis.gf.html

Fitzmaurice, George W., Ishii, Hiroshi and Buxton, William (1995): Bricks: Laying the Foundations for Graspable User Interfaces. In: Katz, Irvin R., Mack, Robert L., Marks, Linn, Rosson, Mary Beth and Nielsen, Jakob (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 95 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference May 7-11, 1995, Denver, Colorado. pp. 442-449. Available online

Hornecker, Eva and Buur, Jacob (2006): Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2006 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2006. pp. 437-446. Available online

Hummels, Caroline, Overbeeke, Kees C. J. and Klooster, Sietske (2007): Move to get moved: a search for methods, tools and knowledge to design for expressive and rich movement-based interaction. In Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11 (8) pp. 677-690

Igoe, Tom and O'Sullivan, Dan (2004): Physical Computing: Sensing and Controlling the Physical World with Computers. Course Technology
View info on Amazon.com or .co.uk

Igoe, Tom and O'Sullivan, Dan (2004): Physical Computing: Sensing and Controlling the Physical World with Computers. Course Technology
View info on Amazon.com or .co.uk

Ishii, Hiroshi (2007): Tangible User Interfaces. In: Sears, Andrew and Jacko, Julie A. "The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications (2nd Edition)". Lawrence Erlbaum Associates pp. 469-487

Ishii, Hiroshi and Ullmer, Brygg (1997): Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces between People, Bits and Atoms. In: Pemberton, Steven (ed.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 97 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference March 22-27, 1997, Atlanta, Georgia. pp. 234-241. Available online

Ullmer, Brygg and Ishii, Hiroshi (2001): Emerging Frameworks for Tangible User Interfaces. In: Carroll, John M. "Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millennium". Addison-Wesley Publishing pp. 579-601

Extended literature list -- Choose Citation Style -- Standard format APA format MLA formatBibTex formatEndNote/Refer format what's this? andlarr; Format menu will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Bongers, Bert (2002): Interactivating Spaces. In: Proceedings of the the 4th Annual Symposium on Systems Research in the Arts 2002. .

Djajadiningrat, J. P., Overbeeke, Kees and Wensveen, Stephan (2000): Augmenting fun and beauty: a pamphlet. In: Designing Augmented Reality Environments 2000 2000. pp. 131-134. Available online

Hornecker, Eva, Jacob, Robert J. K., Hummels, Caroline, Ullmer, Brygg, Schmidt, Albrecht, Hoven, Elise van den and Mazalek, Ali (2008): TEI goes on: Tangible and Embedded Interaction. In IEEE Pervasive Computing, 7 (2) pp. 91-96

Jensen, Mads Vedel, Buur, Jacob and Djajadiningrat, Tom (2005): Designing the user actions in tangible interaction. In: Bertelsen, Olav W., Bouvin, Niels Olof, Krogh, Peter Gall and Kyng, Morten (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing 2005 August 20-24, 2005, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 9-18. Available online

Jordà, Sergi, Geiger, Günter, Alonso, Marcos and Kaltenbrunner, Martin (2007): The reacTable: exploring the synergy between live music performance and tabletop tangible interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction 2007. pp. 139-146. Available online

Marshall, Paul (2007): Do tangible interfaces enhance learning?. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction 2007. pp. 163-170. Available online

Poynor, R. (1995): The Hand That Rocks the Cradle. In I.D. The International Design Magazine, pp. 60-65

Underkoffler, John and Ishii, Hiroshi (1999): Urp: A Luminous-Tangible Workbench for Urban Planning and Design. In: Altom, Mark W. and Williams, Marian G. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 99 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference May 15-20, 1999, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. pp. 386-393. Available online

Wellner, Pierre, Mackay, Wendy E. and Gold, Rich (1993): Computer-Augmented Environments: Back to the Real World - Introduction to the Special Issue. In Communications of the ACM, 36 (7) pp. 24-26

.
Read more at http://www.interaction-design.org/index.html

.
Read more at http://www.interaction-design.org/index.html

I’m always fascinated by new releases, as design changes offer the outsider a glimpse into a company’s strategy.

Foursquare and Gowalla have just pushed out major releases to their iPhone applications.  When the two leaders of a brand new industry offer updates on the same day, it gives the rest of us a wonderful opportunity to reflect on where each company – and the social geoloaction space – is headed.

Here is a side by side comparison of the primary screens:

Some closing thoughts.

Foursquare has closed the UI gap – both of these apps are pleasing to use now.

The Foursquare and Gowalla apps are both copying each other, and as a result, are coming closer together in terms of experience.

Foursquare now has a Passport, errr, self profile view, and venue icons.

Gowalla is downplaying the item collection / packrat aspect of its game.

Indeed, the primary difference between the two companies seems to be in the industries that they are trying to disrupt.

Foursquare is trying to disrupt the local yellow pages / local directory space.  Tips are offered to folks who have already arrived at a venue.

Gowalla is trying to disrupt the travel industry.  Trips our offered for folks who are touching down in a new city, and photo functionality has been added – critical in the travel space.  Note how Gowalla doesn’t offer any search and discovery.

This difference in strategy is represented by the letter “R” – Gowalla gives a tab to “Trips” and Foursquare gives a tab to “Tips.”

Thoughts on these two releases?

So Foursquare’s and Gowalla’s updated iPhone Apps have been released at almost the exact same time – and right in time as promised for SXSW – we wonder if this is some inside joke at Apple or something?

UPDATE: Foursquare’s update is now the new v1.7. Below is a picture we took of the update page in the App Store, and check out our side-by-side UI review of both Foursquare’s and Gowalla’s updates.

New insights from science and behaviour change could lead to significantly improved outcomes, and at a lower cost, than the way many conventional policy tools are used, argues the UK Government.

MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy was a joint commission by the UK Cabinet Office and the Institute for Government. It shows how the latest insights from the science of behaviour change can be used to generate new and cost-effective solutions to some of the current major policy challenges, such as reducing crime, tackling obesity and climate change.

In their joint foreword to the report, the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, and the Executive Director of the Institute for Government, Sir Michael Bichard, said that behavioural theory has the potential to help policy makers deal with some of the difficult issues ahead and achieve more for less:

“Many of the biggest policy challenges we are now facing – such as the increase in people with chronic health conditions – will only be resolved if we are successful in persuading people to change their behaviour, their lifestyles or their existing habits. Fortunately, over the last decade, our understanding of influences on behaviour has increased significantly and this points the way to new approaches and new solutions.

“So whilst behavioural theory has already been deployed to good effect in some areas, it has much greater potential to help us. To realise that potential, we have to build our capacity and ensure that we have a sophisticated understanding of what does influence behaviour. This report is an important step in that direction because it shows how behavioural theory could help achieve better outcomes for citizens, either by complementing more established policy tools, or by suggesting more innovative interventions.”

- A practical guide to MINDSPACE
- Full version of the MINDSPACE report

Izwan Ismail, a journalist at Malaysia’s New Strait Times newspaper, talked to Nokia’s top three designers — Nikki Barton, Younghee Jung and Robert Williams — to find out what it takes to come up with a winning mobile phone.

Nikki Barton, head of digital design at Nokia Design Studio, points out that a good design delivers the goods that are not only pretty to look at, but also work the way people want them to. [...] “As all the models must be user-friendly, designers often spend hours observing how people all over the world use and interact with their phones. They then bring back their new insights to the studios.” [...]

For Younghee Jung, her work as a phone designer is mostly about forecasting future trends, focusing on people. “People’s behaviour and motivation change slower than technology, but simultaneously guide its development,” says the research leader at Nokia Research Center. [...]

For design manager Robert Williams, his work revolves around giving people a better mobile experience. He is responsible for creating the icons used on Nokia phones.

Read full story

After being in trial mode since last summer, Microsoft is set to officially launch its MSN video player in the UK tomorrow.

The video on demand service competes directly with recently-launched SeeSaw in offering a range of commercial TV shows for viewers to watch for free in their browser. The service is monetised using 30-second preroll ads.

Unlike SeeSaw, Microsoft appears to have done deals with independent TV production companies as opposed to TV stations. As a result, MSN Video Player can’t claim to have a full range of Channel 4 or 5 shows, but what it does have is certainly presented in a much more appealing way than SeeSaw.

Yes, Microsoft has eyecandy on its side here. Large thumbnails of featured shows encourage exploration of shows you might otherwise have not considered. By comparison, SeeSaw looks drab and unappealing. Unfortunately, neither site has the ability to embed shows elsewhere on the web. This is something that helps make Hulu’s long-delayed UK all the more appealing.

Both SeeSaw and MSN Video Player can be seen as children of the cancelled Project Kangaroo video service. SeeSaw features technology acquired from Kangaroo, while MSN’s offering is overseen by former Kangaroo head honcho Ashley Highfield.

Although not officially launched until tomorrow, MSN Video Player is already up and running here.

Introducing new digital services in cities promises the change the way citzens live in cities around the world.

“Only a few years ago, digital services were about bandwidth, wireless protocols, and emerging standards for mobile television. To the keen observer, however, there has recently been a significant shift from antennas to services that might completely change the way we as citizens live, work and interact with technology around us. [...]

From the integrated digital services in the transportation system of Paris, to the integration of mobile and online public services of the City of Westminster, the way citizens interact with the city in which they live is changing rapidly.

Around the world, groundbreaking services are already being piloted to allow the visually impared to move seemlessly around cities, to solve congenstion problems once and for all through intelligent and personalised car pooling, and implement sensor-networks in cities to create a smart city that only cleans the streets, turn on the street lights, and empties the harbage bins when there is a need.”

Read full story

Bart De Waele (netlash) begint zijn opstel over het geïntegreerde webbureau met de vaak gehoorde stelling Onze sector is een jonge sector. Vergeleken met artsenij, rederij of uitgeverij geldt dat, maar wat te denken van de vele decennia oude brondisciplines als computerwetenschap, psychologie of vormgeving. Het Web viel niet zomaar uit de lucht. ~ Link

Opgeslagen onder: Concept en theorie, Ontwerpstrategie

Here's a site commenting on early Wired ads. Gentle ribbing makes for a pleasant way to revisit the early 90s. Ahh, youth.

As interaction designers, we’re keenly aware of the explicit meanings in words and images. But how many of us also focus on the what is suggested by our words and images?

What does a "base camp" make you think of?

Consider Basecamp. For a project management tool aimed at “the Fortune 5,000,000,” it would be difficult to find a better a product name than “Basecamp.” With one simple word, so much is suggested: A base camp is the safe place from which to plan your trek to the summit. Base camps are positioned to be safe from the harsher conditions above. It’s where you return to. And think of the folks who’d be staying in a base camp—likely a small, adventurous team. It’s the perfect product name to appeal to the small businesses who use 37 Signals’ project management tool.

We’re all keenly aware of the explicit meanings in words and images—we talk ad nauseam about everything from clean button labels to accessible content. But how many of us also focus on what is suggested by our words and images?

Great poets are masters of imagery. Skilled speakers know how to phrase and frame their arguments in a way that is difficult for their listeners to resist. Artists and comedians thrive or fail based on our ability to connect the dots. Words, images, animations—these elements all work on a suggestive level that (whether we’re aware of it or not) affects our recall, judgment, and decision making.

A Little Psychology

Here’s a little trick from psychology. Let’s say we’re having a conversation and I want to nudge the conversation in a certain direction; I want to influence what comes to mind for you. To do this, I might try using associative priming. Basically, I’ll tell a few stories or inject specific language into our conversation that your brain will pick up on, bringing associated mental objects into short term memory. A few minutes later, I might ask you a certain question. If I’ve done a good job at priming, there’s a good chance I can predict how you might respond (I suspect this is one way magicians are able to predict what someone is thinking!).

For example, let’s suppose I asked you to name some kinds of “blue boxes.” If a few minutes earlier we had been talking about wedding bands and jewelry, you’re much more likely to think of Tiffany’s blue box. If instead we were talking about science fiction and time travel, you’re much more likely to think of Doctor Who’s iconic telephone box, the Tardis. Our brains are constantly working to make associations. Assuming you’re familiar with Tiffany’s or (a riskier assumption) Doctor Who, our earlier discussion would have “primed” your brain, making it much easier for you to recall a thought or idea not entirely of your own choosing.

Here’s a simpler example: If I was to say “the dog was chasing the ____,” what word comes to mind? If you said “cat,” that’s consistent with most of the population. Our brains think and learn by associations and analogies. Even if the rest of that sentence was “squirrel” or “piece of trash being blown by the wind,” our brains are primed to think “cat” is what comes next. If you can make a reasonable guess about the associations your audience might make, priming can be a powerful tool, as evidenced by politicians and other kinds of persuasive speakers.

Most studies I’ve seen focus on linguistic priming, but what about ways we can use visuals to prime an audience?

Visual Priming and Semiotics

Classic advertisement for Panzani pasta

Our brains are trained to make associations. This is a basic way we learn and acquire knowledge, leveraging what we already know to make sense of new information. Just as specific words or phrases might trigger an association, images can do the same thing. This idea is nothing new to advertisers.

Our brains are trained to make associations. This is a basic way we learn and acquire knowledge, leveraging what we already know to make sense of new information. Just as specific words or phrases might trigger an association, images can do the same thing.

In 1964, the French philosopher Roland Barthes published his paper “The Rhetoric of Image,” which deconstructs an ad into three messages: the “linguistic” message, the “coded iconic” message and the “non-coded iconic” message. What we’re talking about here are the “coded iconic” messages associated with specific images, that is, those things suggested or associated with the literal objects pictured. In Barthes’ example, he discusses how the choice to show beautiful, fresh vegetables (and a box of pasta displaying a brand name) in a mesh grocery bag suggests freshness, plenty, and even “Italianicity” (in the yellow, green, and red of the tomato and peppers). A certain still-life aesthetic is also suggested. All in all, these are very positive brand associations. That’s nice for selling things. But how might we use this idea help us design better interactions?

When Decoration Isn’t

I’ve been working on an application focused on formal businesses meetings. I emphasize formal, as you might find this a bit burdensome for things like lunch meetings or daily standups.

'Add Meeting' form

To clearly communicate this intent, we’ve chosen design elements that evoke a more formal business atmosphere. The most overt of these is the background image used on the form page where a new meeting is added:

Although this boardroom image might be viewed as texture or decorative ornamentation, it serves a functional role in this application.

First, we’re hoping people have a favorable response to the overall feel, as this is one of the first pages encountered by new users. But beyond any perceived attractiveness, we need to communicate the intent of this Web app. Chances are, most people will skip past all but the shortest of written explanations. In the same way that microcopy, clear labels, and icons are explicit cues to help out users, we are using this image to suggest—through connotation—the kinds of meetings where we think this tool will be most valuable. We use this specific image to suggest board meetings, staff meetings, presentations to a VP, planning sessions—the kinds of formal meetings that would take place in that conference room.

Additionally, this imagery was included as a prime for the “meeting type” form field. In the event that people don’t read the microcopy that cues people as to kinds of meetings you can create, this image is our backup. It’s decoration that suggests usage. Or at least that is the intent.

Elsewhere in the same application we use a more subtle cue to suggest a degree of formality:

Accepting a request

What does the ornamental border bring to mind? Perhaps a certificate or legal contract? This is a key area of the application—asking people to accept a request made of them during the meeting. We want everything about this page, from the literal language to the associative visual elements to suggest the seriousness of this moment: You are about to make a commitment to another person, a commitment that will be visible to everyone in that meeting. Do you intend to follow through on this commitment?

To be clear, these are subtle nudges. And they may be difficult to quantify. But there’s good reason to justify these aesthetic choices, for what they say and what they suggest.

Avoiding Negative Associations

The layout and photography used by Groupon bring to mind high-end catalogs (click for a larger image)

Here’s another example from the Groupon site. For the uninitiated, Groupon offers “one ridiculously huge coupon each day, on the best things to eat, see, do and buy in [your city].” I’ve purchased gift cards for everything from a favorite Thai restaurant to an artisan cheese shop. Their daily deals are typically on the classier side—think salons, fancier restaurants and shopping. These are not closeout deals like you’d find on other “deal” sites. In fact, I believe Groupon wants to avoid any suggestion of a “cheap” deal. Consider the photography and layouts they use in their daily deals. The photography is usually top notch. And the layout style brings to mind high end catalogs.

That’s an example of positive associative priming. But here’s an interesting discovery I made while researching the site: in earlier versions of the site, Groupon used the familiar dotted line or scissor clipping design element to border their deals, a design choice that has since been dropped for a simpler solid border.

Why do you think Groupon dropped the coupon style border?

Why did they lose the scissors and the association with coupon clipping? I suspect this goes back to communicating a “value” message versus one that suggests cheap clearance. This would be an example of avoiding what for them would be a negative (cheap) association.

On that note, have you ever wondered why the original iPod Nano resembled (and was compared to) a stick of gum? Think about how that association might have shaped perceptions.

Concept Models and Metaphors

Visual priming is also a powerful tool in print contexts. Below is a poster I created to explain The Fundamentals of Experience Design. The content of the model should, in and of itself, be fascinating, but that’s not what attracted people to this poster. No, what people found most striking about this was the floating chunk of earth.

On the surface, it is a fairly intriguing image. But what associations come to mind? Conceptually, this functions the same way as the cliché iceberg model we see everywhere—there is the obvious stuff everyone sees, and below that the critical stuff that gets overlooked. But if we consider this visual metaphor a bit more, we might also think about the roots. An experience (the grass above) that has no roots is likely to result in tumbleweeds. However, the deeper our roots go, the stronger our foundation. These are good associations. Beyond the conceptual suggestions, though, consider the style of the illustration. Does it resemble technical illustrations you might find in an academic textbook? Not a bad association if you wanted your ideas to be taken seriously!

I could go on, but you get the idea: The images we use, the words we choose– whether we’re aware of it or not, they function at an associative level that can (if given conscious attention) work in our favor. What are you suggesting?

UX London 2010

This is just one of many such ideas from psychology that Stephen will be sharing at the UX London conference (May 19-21), in both his Seductive Interactions talk and his Concept Models Workshop.

Header image by baylorbear7 / CC BY-SA 2.0

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Bing, Microsoft’s new search engine, has just launched its first UK TV advert aimed at dethroning the mighty Google.

The three-month, multi-million pound campaign kicks off today with three TV ads. More details here.

Focusing on its ability to bring you relevant answers to what you’re looking for, the advert does

via youtube.com

Online giants Google, Facebook, eBay and Yahoo and a number of UK internet service providers (ISPs) have signed an open letter to the Financial Times objecting to an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill, a measure currently being put before parliament.

Originally, parliamentary ministers had sought to extend powers allowing them to amend existing copyright law and penalise copyright infringements with tougher penalties and hefty fines. These were overturned by both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, replacing them with a more specific and damaging proposal.

Amendments to the Digital Economy Bill look set to hand power to courts to force internet service providers (ISPs) to block certain websites. Signatories of the letter believe the Bill and it’s associated measures will threaten “freedom of speech and the open internet” and would not tackle copyright infringement as intended.

The bill has complete party support Westminster (the revisions approved by 165 votes to 140), it’s members believing new measures would protect the creative industries by preventing access to websites where films and music were being provided illegally.

Parliament face stiff opposition from some of the largest telecoms (BT, Virgin Media, Carphone Warehouse, Talk Talk) and internet companies in the UK (Facebook, eBay, Yahoo, Google) aswell as backing from Stephen Fry, Labour MP’s and a whole host of digital rights groups and activists.

The letter states:

“Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the internet in the UK and elsewhere and threaten freedom of speech and the open internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended.

To rush through such a controversial proposal at the tail end of a parliament, without any kind of consultation with consumers or industry, is very poor lawmaking.”

The bill will be put before a House of Lords vote next week before passing it to the House of Commons.

We will keep you updated as this story progresses.

[Source - Telegraph]

We bieden je een inspirerende werkomgeving met gedreven collega’s. De afdeling heeft verschillende disciplines in huis (zoals Usability en Web Analyse). We bekijken daarmee de opdrachten vanuit verschillende invalshoeken. Daarnaast zijn we er allemaal op gebrand om de digitale processen van TNT Post te verbeteren met de gebruiker als uitgangspunt. Daarom vinden we het belangrijk dat onderzoek altijd wordt afgerond met bruikbare adviezen voor de interne opdrachtgever.

Als usability expert werk je aan verschillende opdrachten. De belangrijkste taken zijn:

• In kaart brengen van user needs en die vertalen naar persona’s, scenario’s of taakmodellen
• Verenigen van business doelstellingen en user needs
• Uitvoeren van expert reviews
• Plannen, opzetten en uitvoeren of begeleiden van verschillende soorten kwalitatief onderzoek zoals usability tests, card sorts en diepte interviews
• Analyseren van resultaten en schriftelijke rapportage
• Mondelinge presentatie aan de opdrachtgever en begeleiding bij de implementatie van het advies
• Ontwikkelen en documenteren van interactieconcepten en interactieontwerpen
• Adviseren over passende en gebruiksvriendelijke vormgeving

Interesse? Voor meer informatie kun je bellen met Thirza Wegman (Manager Web Intelligence) via telefoonnummer 06 2326 5986. Direct reageren? Stuur dan een brief met recent CV als Word of PDF bestand naar thirza.wegman@tntpost.nl.

(bron: Chi Nederland)

Opgeslagen onder: Loopbaanontwikkeling, Vacature

"A five minute rant on the importance of letting data be your guide when making tactical design decisions. An introduction for managers of design teams who are driven from a heuristic, or 'genius' perspective." (Ryan Freitas)