INTERACTION DESIGNCAVI

Interaction DesignKim Halskov (ed.)

Between Theory and Practice: Bridging Concepts in HCI ResearchPeter Dalsgaard and Christian Dindler

Pragmatism and Design ThinkingPeter Dalsgaard

Material Interactions with Tangible TabletopsNicolai Brodersen Hansen and Kim Halskov

BullsEye: High-Precision Fiducial Tracking for Table-based Tangible Interaction Clemens Klokmose, Janus Kristensen, Rolf Bagge, and Kim Halskov

Instruments of Inquiry: Understanding the Nature and Role of Instruments in DesignPeter Dalsgaard

Designing Infrastructures for Creative EngagementChristian Dindler

Design Anthropological FuturesRachel Charlotte Smith, Kasper Tang Vangkilde, Mette Gislev Kjaersgaard, Ton Otto, Joachim Halse, and Thomas Binder

A Constraint-Based Understanding of Design SpacesMichael Mose Biskjaer, Peter Dalsgaard, and Kim Halskov

Design Thinking for Digital Fabrication in EducationRachel Charlotte Smith, Ole Sejer Iversen, and Mikkel Hjorth

Decisive Constraints as a Creative Resource in Interaction DesignMichael Mose Biskjaer and Kim Halskov

A Framework for Designing Complex Media FacadesKim Halskov and Tobias Ebsen

Participatory Heritage Innovation: Designing Dialogic Sites of EngagementRachel Charlotte Smith and Ole Sejer Iversen

Understanding Teenagers’ Motivation in Participatory DesignOle Sejer Iversen, Christian Dindler, and Elin Hansen

Values-led Participatory Design as a Pursuit of Meaningful AlternativesTuck Leong and Ole Iversen

In Pursuit of Rigor and Accountability in Participatory DesignChristopher Frauenberger, Judith Good, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and Ole Iversen

The Diversity of Participatory Design Research Practice at PDC 2002–2012Kim Halskov and Nicolai Brodersen Hansen

Participation as a Matter of Concern in Participatory DesignLars Bo Andersen, Peter Danholt, Kim Halskov, Nicolai Brodersen Hansen, Peter Lauritsen

Participation Gestalt: Analysing Participatory Qualities of Interaction in Public SpacePeter Dalsgaard, Kim Halskov, and Ole Iversen

Relational Expertise in Participatory DesignChristian Dindler and Ole Sejer Iversen

Sustaining Participatory Design InitiativesOle Sejer Iversen and Christian Dindler

Local Area Artworks and ProxiMagicClemens Klokmose, Susanne Bødker, Matthias Korn, Anne Marie Polli, and Henrik Blunck

Social Interaction Design Patterns for Urban Media ArchitectureLuke Hespanhol and Peter Dalsgaard

Webstrates: Shareable Dynamic MediaClemens Klokmose, James R. Eagan, Siemen Baader, Wendy Mackay, and Michel Beaudouin-Lafon

Urban Interaction Design: Towards City MakingMartin Brynskov, Juan Carvajal Bermúdez, Manu Fernández, Henrik Korsgaard, Ingrid J. Mulder, Katarzyna Piskorek, Lea Rekow, and Martijn De Waal

Participatory Action Research for Civic EngagementMarcus Foth and Martin Brynskov

Citizen’s Right to the Digital City: Urban Interfaces, Activism, and PlacemakingMarcus Foth, Martin Brynskov, and Timo Ojala

Digital Design Lab - DD Lab

The CAVI lab

CIBIS: Creativity in Blended Interaction Spaces

FabLab@School.dk

OrganiCity: Smart cities done right

Partners and funding

People

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

23

24

26

27

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

43

44

46

48

50

52

53

TABLE OF CONTENTS

For several decades The Interaction De-sign group at Aarhus University has been conducting research into the design of interactive systems.

Our research covers a broad spectrum of interaction design research with a unique concern for both social and technical aspects of design. Our research is strong-ly rooted in the participatory design research tradition, which explains our concern for involving people, in order to explore critical alternatives. We of-ten carry out research through design, in the sense of conducting design ex-periments and interventions aimed at gaining insight into interaction design – design process, as well as interface and use. In several of our projects, we have worked closely with external partners, for instance, design studios, architects, technology providers, schools, museums, and other kinds of public institutions. Col-

laborating closely with external partners pushes us to take context seriously, and to make full-scale installations which can be used in the real world.

Significant parts of our research are currently organized around three large projects: CIBIS (Creativity in Blended In-teraction Spaces), FabLab@School.dk, and OrganiCity. Moreover, our research activities are part of Aarhus University’s interdisciplinary research center for Par-ticipatory IT (PIT).

Two laboratory facilities are available for our research: CAVI and the Digital Design Lab. The CAVI laboratory was originally based on 3D technologies, but has been expanded to include a number of mixed reality platforms, such as tangible table-tops, as well as various kinds of pervasive computing technologies. The Digital De-sign Lab is a prototype facility focused on

physical and tangible interaction.

In this booklet we present selected re-search results published during the recent couple of years, in areas such as child computer interaction, design processes, digital design creativity, media archi-tecture, participatory design, sharable dynamic media, software infrastructure, and urban computing.

Kim Halskov (ed.)

INTERACTION DESIGN CAVI

2

Bridging concepts are intermediary forms of knowledge that reside between ab-stract theory and design practice, distin-guished by their specific capacity to fa-cilitate exchanges between theory and practice. Articulating knowledge in the form of bridging concepts prompts us to formulate knowledge in a way that spec-ifies accountability to both theory and practice. While continuous exchanges between theory and practice are impor-tant in academia in general, arguably, it is even more so for Human-Computer Interaction.

Much theory in this field has been import-ed from other, more established disci-plines, such as psychology and sociology. For interaction design researchers and practitioners, this prompts the constant articulation of how and to what extent newly imported theories are useful. This accentuates the need for continuous re-flection on how new materials, interac-tion styles, and products challenge our theories, and in turn, how theories may be employed to understand these new de-velopments. Bridging concepts provide one way of facilitating this exchange, by articulating a knowledge construct both in terms of its ties to theory and particu-lar design exemplars. A bridging concept has the following features:

• It exists in the middle ground between theory and practice.

• It is accountable to both practical ex-emplars, the parameters that shape the concept (articulations), and theo-retical grounding.

• Its purpose is to bridge the gap be-tween theory and practice, thereby un-veiling and articulating untried design opportunities and potential theoretical advancements.

We propose that, in order to serve as bridges, bridging concepts are com-posed of three constituents that may help interaction design practitioners and re-searchers to understand their grounding and potential, and offer advice on how to employ them in practice. First, bridging concepts have a theoretical grounding. In the case of the “peepholes” bridging concept, we draw primarily on pragma-tism and the philosophy of technology. Second, drawing on exemplars as well as theoretical insights, bridging concepts may be illuminated through the formu-lation of design articulations. We use the term “design articulations” to refer to the parameters that are important in ex-pressing the qualities of a concept. Third, bridging concepts may be explored through exemplars that clearly illustrate critical aspects of the concept. Exemplars may illustrate similar salient aspects of a particular concept, or may be critical, in the sense that they delineate the bound-aries of the concept.

To exemplify what a bridging concept is, we present the concept of peepholes: interactive artifacts that provide a limited view of a larger space, and which play on the tension between what is hidden and what is revealed, to spark engage-ment.

Reference Peter Dalsgaard and Christian Dindler. 2014. Between theory and practice: bridging con-cepts in HCI research. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1635-1644.

Peter Dalsgaard and Christian Dindler

BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE:BRIDGING CONCEPTS IN HCI RESEARCH

Bridging Concepts as an intermediate form of knowledge between theory and practice

Tangible 3D Blue-print, an example of an installation using the Peephole bridging concept

3

The concept of design thinking has been the center of much attention in recent years, with researchers and practitioners from a range of fields contributing to dis-cussions of what constitutes designerly ways of knowing and doing, and how such insights might inform and inspire domains beyond traditional design dis-ciplines. However, this mounting inter-est has not led to a clear understanding of design thinking. Indeed, it may have resulted in a blurred picture, as stake-holders with disparate perspectives and agendas take part in the discussion. We propose that the discourse on design, and by extension, the practice of design, may be developed by drawing on cen-tral understandings and concepts from an established and well-developed the-oretical position: pragmatist philosophy. We do so by examining how pragmatism adds to the understanding of a selection of core issues in design thinking: theory, practice, emergence, interaction, situat-edness, experimentation, intervention, transformation, and the role of technol-ogy.

The pragmatist perspective may be of value for design thinking in at least four respects. First, the examination of dis-tinct issues in design thinking may be in-formed and enriched by drawing on how these issues have been articulated and explored in pragmatism (for instance, re-curring themes in design thinking, such as the theory-practice relation and the role of experiments have been extensively discussed in pragmatism). Second, the coherent conceptual framework offered by pragmatism may inspire and inform

studies of how issues in design thinking are related (for instance, the pragmatist perspective on the interrelation between experimentation and technology may inspire an examination of the relations between experiments, tools, techniques, and materials in design). Third, these understandings may in turn enrich the practice of design, since the pragmatist perspective may lead to (and to some extent has already resulted in) specific approaches to design challenges (for in-stance, the pragmatist concept of inquiry has inspired specific approaches to un-derstanding and developing interfaces, as will be expanded on in the section on Implications of a pragmatist perspective on design). Fourth, pragmatist concepts have been employed in a number of fields, from education to the arts. They may yield new and fresh perspectives for design thinking through discussions of how concepts treated in design thinking unfold in other spheres of human activity and experience.

Reference Peter Dalsgaard. 2014. Pragmatism and De-sign Thinking. International Journal of Design 8 (1) 2014.

PRAGMATISM AND DESIGN THINKING

Experimentation and transformation

Peter Dalsgaard

4 Photo: Jakob Halskov

5

In order to explore the potential of tangible tabletops for material interaction, we have developed an interactive installation, the Radar Table, which makes sounds availa-ble to people for playful engagement.

The Radar Table The Radar Table turns the conventional understanding of what to expect from a concert or musical experience on its head. Radar Table is an interactive, audiovisual installation, a kind of musical instrument, and a platform for creative and social in-teraction, which transcends the boundary between performer and audience by of-fering people the opportunity to collabo-ratively express themselves musically as part of a performance, and as a personal experience – without any previous experi-ence of playing music.

The Danish musician, composer, and producer, Henrik Munch, has created the musical material, which is available for people to shape and transform into a mu-sical experience. By interacting with two kinds of tangible objects, cubes and cylin-ders, the audience defines how the music sounds and how it evolves.

Associated with each side of the cubes is a single music loop, and when intro-duced to the table, the loop associated with the side of the cube facing the table is played from the start. By rotating the cube the volume may be controlled. The only visual identifier on the cube surfaces is the visual marker used for tracking the object. To encourage exploration it has been a conscious design decision to not assist users to select a specific loop. Each

loop is of a different length, ranging from four to thirty-one bars, with the implication that the relation between loops changes over time.

Cylindrical tangibles representing musical effects (reverb, delay, etc.) may be easi-ly applied to the musical loops to create complex expressions. The flexibility en-abled by the tangible objects provides people with the opportunity to mould the music in unanticipated ways – in essence, creating a unique musical experience.

The Radar table has had a very active life outside the CAVI research laboratory: Screen Media Expo London 2012, Infocom Las Vegas 2012, Multitouch Helsinki 2012, LEGO World Copenhagen 2012 and 2013, CHI 2013 Paris, and SPOT Interactive Aarhus 2013.

Our analysis of the people interacting with the Radar Table at SPOT Interactive builds on Dewey’s pragmatism, as well as recent efforts to appropriate pragmatism for in-teraction design research. Three of the ba-sic concepts of pragmatism are: situation, inquiry, and technology.

Problematic situations By taking as the point of departure the idea that certain situations stand out in the flow of experience, it makes sense to ask about the character of the situations en-countered when using the Radar Table. In the view of pragmatism, no one feature of the Radar Table itself creates problematic situations. Rather, in a pragmatist view, a situation is the totality at a given moment in time, meaning that as inquiry unfolds

through learning, experimentation, and conversation with others, the problematic situation changes.

Inquiry strategies Having encountered a problematic situa-tion, users attempt to resolve it in various ways by working their way through inquiry experimentally. Several kinds of inquiry for resolving situations were employed throughout the examined case. Broadly speaking, it seems that there are two dif-ferent approaches, one involving experi-menting with the tangibles, and one con-sisting of collaborating with others.

Technology supporting inquiry The Radar Table offers a simple material interface providing opportunities for com-plex sound experiences. While it is easy to move the cubes and cylinders around, creating different soundscapes, it is also an open-ended experience. The Radar Table enables and constrains the poten-tial transformation of the situation through ongoing inquiry. However, the users are also an integral part of problematic situ-ation and inquiry strategy, as their expec-tations and ideas are part of the dynamic flow of the situation. Furthermore, their collaboration, while not explicitly techno-logical in a traditional sense, may actually be considered technological in the prag-matist understanding of the word.

Reference Nicolai Brodersen Hansen and Kim Hal- skov. 2014. Material interactions with tangi-ble tabletops: a pragmatist perspective. In proceedings of NordiCHI ’14, 441-450.

MATERIAL INTERACTIONS WITH TANGIBLE TABLETOPS

Material interaction

Nicolai Brodersen Hansen and Kim Halskov

6

With BullsEye, we propose a series of techniques for improving the precision of optical fiducial tracking on so-called tan-gible tabletops, that is, interactive tables that can track physical objects placed on the surface of the tables. The moti-vation is to enable convincing interac-tive projection mapping on tangibles on the table, which requires high precision tracking of the location of tangibles. We propose a new fiducial design optimized for GPU-based tracking, a technique for calibrating light that allows for compu-tation on a grayscale image, rather than a binarized black and white image, an automated technique for compensating for optical distortions in the camera lens-es, and a tracking algorithm implement-ed primarily in shaders on the GPU. The techniques are realized in the BullsEye computer vision software. While BullsEye is designed for tangible 3D tabletops, it is also a framework for general table-top fiducial tracking. Therefore, the pre-sented improvements on fiducial track-ing will also benefit a regular tangible tabletop application based on optical tracking. The core advantage of BullsEye, compared to the popular reacTIVision tracking software, is that BullsEye offers subpixel precision, down to an average of one tenth of a pixel, compared to the around one-pixel precision we measure on reacTIVision. Furthermore, BullsEye facilitates significantly more precise and automated compensation for optical dis-tortion in camera optics.

Similarly to reacTIVision, BullsEye uses a printed calibration grid as input to the ge-ometry calibration, but the alignment to

the grid is automated, rather than man-ual. The BullsEye calibration grid consists of black dots in a uniform grid on a white background. By tracking the location of the black dots in the uniform grid on the printed sheet, a position mapping texture may be produced, which is subsequently used to correct the image from the cam-era.

BullsEye compensates for variations in lighting conditions across the table by normalizing the grayscale spectrum per pixel through calibration of light. The cali-bration involves continuously storing the brightest white and darkest black seen in a pixel in a texture, and subsequently us-ing that texture as input to normalize the grayscale values of the camera image during tracking. An empty table provides the darkest black, while moving a white object across the whole area of the table can provide the brightest white.

BullsEye does real-time image process-ing using shaders on the GPU to manipul- ate images in real-time. The core of the tracking algorithm in BullsEye is imple-mented as subsequent shaders in a ren-dering pipeline. BullsEye is implemented in Java and the OpenGL Shader Lan-guage. Figure 3 shows the steps involved in BullsEye’s initial image processing, where the images from two cameras are stitched together, and grayscale values are calibrated based on input from the lighting calibration.

BullsEye features a user interface that en-ables real-time tweaking of the parame-ters of the tracking. Furthermore, the user

interface allows for easy calibration of both light and geometry. Input from mul-tiple cameras may be combined, and their placement in relation to each other may be configured visually.

Reference Clemens Klokmose, Janus Kristensen, Rolf Bagge, and Kim Halskov: BullsEye: High-Pre-cision Fiducial Tracking for Table-based Tan-gible Interaction. 2014. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (pp. 269-278).

Clemens Klokmose, Janus Kristensen, Rolf Bagge, and Kim Halskov

BULLSEYE: HIGH-PRECISION FIDUCIAL TRACKING FOR TABLE-BASED TANGIBLE INTERACTION

The BullsEye user interface

A BullsEye fiducial marker

7

Designers employ a range of tools and materials in almost any creative design project, yet there are few frameworks for understanding how and why they work. On the basis of a well-established school of thought, pragmatism, this paper con-tributes a coherent conceptualization of tools and materials in design, called instruments of inquiry. This perspective underscores the crucial role that instru-ments play in design, and the ways in which they scaffold design creativity and exploration. In particular, it highlights that instruments not only augment our capa-bilities for carrying out intended actions, they also guide our perception and un-derstanding of design problems and solutions. I present and discuss a frame-work consisting of five qualities of instru-ments of inquiry that make them valuable in design inquiry: perception, conception, externalization, knowing-through-ac-tion, and mediation. These qualities are exemplified and examined through a retrospective analysis of two real-life in-teraction design cases, the Danish Pavil-ion for the 2010 World Expo, and a pro-posal for a new Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw, in which existing and novel instruments of inquiry were employed to develop interactive media architecture. Two key insights from these analyses are that mastery of instruments is an essen-tial part of design competence, and that design projects often require designers to modify existing instruments, or to develop new ones.

The paper speaks to design researchers, in part by extending the discourse of de-sign, in part by offering a framework for

instruments of inquiry that may be em-ployed to analyze real-life design cases. However, the framework may also be of use to design practitioners. On a rela-tively abstract level, it offers a coherent understanding of how and why the instru-ments we use in everyday design work. On a more concrete level, this may help designers to develop their competence in using these instruments, for example, by looking at how specific ways of em-ploying an instrument may help to gain a better understanding of a design chal-lenge, support the generation of novel solutions, or help communicate with oth-er stakeholders in a design process. As is demonstrated in the examples at the end of the article, an important part of design competence is knowing how to tweak existing instruments to fit specific design challenges, or even to develop new in-struments, if the situation calls for them. Given this interplay between instruments and design competence, the article may also be of relevance to design educators.

ReferencePeter Dalsgaard. 2016. Instruments of Inquiry: Understanding the Nature and Role of Instru-ments in Design. Forthcoming in International Journal of Design.

INSTRUMENTS OF INQUIRY: UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE AND ROLE OF INSTRUMENTS IN DESIGN

The five qualities of instruments of inquiry A 3D Model that uses a custom-developed visualization instrument to design the façade for the Danish Pavilion at the 2010 World Expo

Peter Dalsgaard

8

As museums extend their scope beyond traditional exhibition spaces and into everyday practices and institutions, it is necessary for them to develop suitable conceptualizations of how technology may be understood and designed. To this end, I propose the concept of infra-structures, both social and material, as a useful framework for discussing important challenges and opportunities in terms of designing for audience engagement. I further argue that when designing infra-structures, an important challenge is to develop the social aspects of infrastruc-tures in terms of creating, maintaining, and developing relationships between organizations and communities. I argue that this is as much an object of design as technical interactive systems, and discuss the relational work undertaken through this activity. The ideas of infrastruc-ture and relational work are illustrated through a case describing the design of a system for cultural heritage engagement for Danevirke museum, covering issues related to the Danish minority in northern Germany.

Museum engagement Recent years have seen a significant in-terest among many museums and schol-ars in exploring ways in which the au-dience may be engaged as more than passive receivers of knowledge. Audi-ences are seen as engaged participants, assuming an active role not only in the exploration, but also in the production of content, challenging traditional notions of curation and exhibition. Moreover, many museums are exploring ways of extending their scope beyond the tradi-

tional exhibition space, not only by their presence on the web, but also through events and more permanent installa-tions in local communities. This broaden-ing of scope in terms of the physical site and ways of engaging audiences holds much potential for museums. Allowing exhibitions to be shaped by people’s en-gagement holds the promise of creating vibrant exhibitions where dialogue, rath-er than effective transmission, is the po-tential gain.

From installations to infrastructures – from participation to relational work In this article I contribute to the discourse on creating systems that engage peo-ple as active and creative producers of heritage material. In particular, I address the design of systems that aim to engage people outside the physical space of the museum. While studying these sys-tems themselves as artifacts or media is important, the focus here will be on the design process. However, I do address the issue of museum technology and infrastructures, inasmuch as the way we conceptualize the object of design has consequences in terms of how design is practiced. Briefly stated, the contribution of this article is to explore two shifts in per-spective in the area of designing for her-itage engagement. First is a move from thinking about technological objects or single installations that promote creative engagement to thinking about infrastruc-tures promoting creative engagement. And second, in terms of designing infra-structures, there is a move from thinking of design participation to thinking about creating networks and relationships

through relational work. The first parts of the article briefly sketch out important developments in technology design for museums as the backdrop for outlining an infrastructural perspective on tech-nology. Having outlined an infrastructural perspective, I present a case study from a project involving organizations related to the Danish minority in northern Germany, focusing on the relational work in the de-sign process.

Reference Christian Dindler. 2014. Designing infrastruc-tures for creative engagement, Digital Crea-tivity, 25 (3), 212-223.

Christian Dindler

DESIGNING INFRASTRUCTURES FOR CREATIVE ENGAGEMENT

Workshop at the A.P. Møller school

9

Design Anthropological Futures explores future making from a design anthropolog-ical perspective. The concept of futures relates to both the creation of visions, and practices of the possible through trans-formative processes of anthropology and design, and to the exploration of new frontiers and future directions for the disci-pline of design anthropology. The authors explore different perspectives on design anthropology as a holistic and critical ap-proach to addressing complex societal issues, with the aim of creating potential futures with diverse communities and stakeholders. Focus is on the theoretical and methodological challenges involved in the shaping of possible futures through temporal, interventionist, collaborative, and material modes of knowledge pro-duction. Through four major sections, the edited volume addresses future concerns in design anthropology, and its particular focus on futures and future making.

Ethnographies of the Possible An evident difference between design and anthropology is their temporal ori-entation. Exploring ethnographies of the possible, the chapters shed light on the transformative spaces between the pre-sent(s) and the future(s), a space that is highly contested in practice, yet relatively unexplored in theoretical terms. How do the processes through which imaginative practices are conceived and materialized unfold? Both techniques of estrangement from the well-known, and of familiariza-tion with seemingly distant alternatives are at work in these experimental mo-ments. But what are the methodological implications of conducting ethnography

in a distorted here-and-now, a partly fic-tional space that resists full articulation?

Interventionist Speculations Interventions into existing realities with the focus on creating alternative visions or change are central to design anthropolo-gy, and enable new forms of experience, awareness, and dialogue to emerge. In-terventionist speculation poses a produc-tive line of connection between design research and anthropology, and explores what happens when design methods are used to raise new ethnographic ques-tions and output. Can the particular stag-ing of new possibilities be seen as a new mode of ethnographic inquiry into peo-ple’s concerns, aspirations, and imagina-tive horizons? And how can interventions serve as an approach to research through design, that is, as an occasion for design anthropological knowledge production?

Collaborative Formation of Issues Participation and collaboration among various stakeholders have become sig-nificant convergence points between de-sign and anthropology, not least because of the ability of ethnographers to mobilize and engage “ordinary people” in profes-sional design processes. Recently, more intriguing concerns with engaging peo-ple have emerged in the borderland be-tween speculative design, participatory design, and the social sciences: What role does the socio-material setup play for how the public gathers and emerges around particular issues, and what kinds of framing, scaffolding, and politics are involved in such processes? How do we make the process of collaborative forma-

tion of issues available to anthropologi-cal scrutiny, not after the fact, but while it takes place?

Things in the Making Within design theory, the notion of “de-sign things” is used to capture the spaces where people gather to discuss and form or break alliances around emerging is-sues. Here, speculative objects allow us to express conflicting perspectives about how our social world should be structured and experienced. Within anthropology, the recent “material turn” has placed particular emphasis on the agency of objects, the affordances of materials, and interplay between humans and non-humans. The contributions constitute a detailed exploration of how the particu-lar choreography involved in “thinging,” “staging,” and “fiction” affect design an-thropological endeavors.

Reference Rachel Charlotte Smith, Kasper Tang Vangkil-de, Mette Gislev Kjaersgaard, Ton Otto, Joa-chim Halse, and Thomas Binder (eds.). 2016 fc. Design Anthropological Futures, London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.

DESIGN ANTHROPOLOGICAL FUTURES

Creating design anthropological concepts and di-alogues

Discussions at the Design Anthropological Futures conference in 2014

Rachel Charlotte Smith, Kasper Tang Vangkilde, Mette Gislev Kjaersgaard, Ton Otto, Joachim Halse, and Thomas Binder

10

11

The term design space is often used among designers and researchers to describe a cre-ative “space of action” in a design process. Even so, there is no consensus on what a de-sign space is or how it may be distinguished from problem space, solution space, re-search space, or search space, for instance. Some designers refer to a design space as a physical space – a lab or a studio replete with whiteboards, Post-It® notes, prototyping materials, and so on – while others conceive of it as a purely conceptual space.

In order to address this ambiguity and the confusion that may spring from it when each participant in a design project shows up with an individual understanding of a de-sign space, we have proposed a framework to promote terminological transparency. To ensure relevance to, and ease of use in practice, we have also developed an anno-tation technique – a design space schema. In order to exemplify this design space sche-ma in action, we have applied it to an in-teraction design case, LEGO Projected Play.

Theory: Understanding Design Spaces Through Constraints In this paper, we develop a framework for understanding, analyzing, and maneuver-ing design spaces based on our previous comprehensive research into creativity con-straints and how they not only restrain, but also enable creative design processes by rendering unforeseen ideas and unexpect-ed process trajectories possible. Adopting this perspective allows us to offer a new and clear understanding of a design space. We define a design space as a conceptu-al space that 1) is co-constituted, explored, and developed by the designer/s engaged

in the given creative design activity, and 2) encompasses the creativity constraints that at any given time govern what the design-er/s can and cannot do, and what the de-sign outcome can and cannot be.

Practice: Articulating Design Spaces Through a Design Space Schema Building on means for mapping and doc-umenting design processes as one of our major areas of interest, we propose a design space schema inspired by morphological analysis as a systematic way to identify and investigate possible relationships or config-urations in complex design problems. A de-sign space schema is a table consisting of aspects listed in the top row, and a number of options for each aspect in columns below. Simple as it may seem, we have found the design space schema very valuable when we educate our design students, but also when it is applied to actual design process-es, especially when many different stake-holders are involved.

LEGO Projected PlayTo exemplify the design space schema, we have used it in an interaction design project consisting of tangible 3D tabletops based on 3D projection. Projected Play, as this project is called, is a series of experimental proto-types developed in collaboration with the LEGO Group, and its implementation was tested at a LEGO World event in Copenha-gen, Denmark, in 2013. In this case, using the design space schema as a notational technique enabled us to delimit and adjust our design space continuously, for both the design of the tabletop surface itself and the tangibles on it – case cubes and styl-ized buildings, which were painted when

moved over colored zones on the tabletop. Working from a shared understanding of a design space using the constraint-based framework proved productive, and helped all involved to identify the properties of the design product that could be transformed (or could not).

ContributionsAs stated in this paper, we conclude that the constraint-based framework and the design space schema can support both research-ers and designers in various ways, including helping them to gain an overview of the design process, document it, reflect upon it, and develop design concepts. In contrast to other kinds of design representations that capture a specific design idea, the design space schema specifically encapsulates a space of opportunity.

The contributions of this paper are therefore three-fold:

1. the constraint-based understanding of design spaces establishes a common lan-guage;

2. the design space schema serves as a simple, flexible format for articulating and documenting the manipulable compo-nents of the design space; and thus

3. design practitioners may immediately benefit from using design space schemas.

Reference Michael Mose Biskjaer, Peter Dalsgaard, and Kim Halskov. 2014. A constraint-based un-derstanding of design spaces. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing inter-active systems (DIS ‘14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 453-462.

A CONSTRAINT-BASED UNDERSTANDING OF DESIGN SPACES

Content on Table Surface Content on Tangible Tangible Shape Experience Basic Idea Use Situation Interaction

Coloured spots in LEGO primary colours

A sea of LEGO bricks

Mono-chrome LEGO primary colours (red, blue, green, yellow)

Cubes

LEGO car

Asian-style tower

Stairway

Emergent

Exploratory

Playing with colour-changing LEGO objects

Individual

Social

Multiple groups

Walk-up and use

Colouring of cubes

Objects exchanging colours

Cubes colouring the other objects

The final design space schema for Projected Play

Michael Mose Biskjaer, Peter Dalsgaard, and Kim Halskov

12

13

In this paper, we argue that digital fabrica-tion in education may benefit from design thinking, to foster a more profound under-standing of digital fabrication processes among students. Two related studies of digital fabrication in education are pre-sented in the paper. In an observational study we found that students (aged 11–15) lacked an understanding of the com-plexity of the digital fabrication process, impeding the potential of digital fabrica-tion in education. In a second explorative research through design study, we inves-tigated how a focus on design thinking affected the students’ performance in digital fabrication processes. Our findings indicate that design thinking may provide students with a general understanding of the creative and complex process through which artifacts and futures emerge in pro-cesses of digital fabrication.

Digital Fabrication in Education – FabLab@School.dk Digital fabrication in education is closely tied to the rise of the maker movement and the evolution of digital fabrication technologies (such as 3D printers, laser cutters, and electronic toolkits), which en-able consumers to tinker and create with digital technologies. This democratization of production through digital fabrication has been developed in educational set-tings with an emphasis on learning-ori-ented activities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Our approach moves beyond this, to-wards combining digital fabrication, de-sign thinking, and collaborative processes of complex problem solving. This provides children with a sustained understanding

of digital technology, and supports their ability to create with digital material, while affording access to a general understand-ing of the postmodern society mediated by digital technology.

Towards Design Ability in Digital Fabrica-tion Findings from our research and design experiment reveal that incorporating ele-ments of design thinking into digital fab-rication initiates process reflection among students, which are not part of existing literature on digital fabrication in schools. Three aspects emerged as particularly strong indicators:

•Framing the design brief and challenge may contribute significantly to the stu-dents’ conceptualization of their digital fabrication process, assisting students in navigating complex processes and con-texts.

• Design techniques such as scenarios, ideation, and prototypes may provide a language and scaffold students’ ability to collaborate in the fabrication process.

• Reflection and argumentation may be progressively developed through the design process, empowering students to develop self-direction and, eventual-ly, design ability.

Integrating digital fabrication into formal educational contexts is a highly complex process. Design thinking may support children’s ability to work in a “wicked” solution space, in which failure, iterative processes, and continuous reflection on fabrication materials are integral parts. As

a consequence, we argue that addressing personal and societal challenges through “designerly” approaches to digital fabri-cation may allow students to develop a more profound understanding and ability to create alternative futures.

Reference Rachel Charlotte Smith, Ole Sejer Iversen and Mikkel Hjorth. 2015. Design Thinking for Digital Fabrication in Education. International Journal of Child Computer Interaction.

DESIGN THINKING FOR DIGITAL FABRI-CATION IN EDUCATION

Students’ design materials based on field studies

Developing design concepts for social contexts

Rachel Charlotte Smith, Ole Sejer Iversen, and Mikkel Hjorth

14 Photo: Hans Helleshøj Buch

15

In the design projects we have conducted, we have noticed a puzzling phenomenon. We have observed that designers some-times voluntarily make creative decisions that appear to bind them to an extent that the design space seems pruned to a bare minimum. But not only that, we have also noticed how such extremely limiting crea-tive decisions of self-binding may at times kindle original ideas in the design process, and occasionally even lead to highly inno-vative final designs.

Theory: Introducing the Concept of Deci-sive Constraints In order to explore this phenomenon, we have conducted extensive studies into constraints in various creative processes – from art and architecture to design and engineering. We refer to these generically as creativity constraints. In this paper, our literature review enables us to develop a framework to conceptualize and articulate how such acts of creative self-binding may be conceived in a design process. Con-cretely, we distinguish among three types of creativity constraints – intrinsic (in the material or situation), imposed (from out-side sources), and self-imposed ones (de-liberately brought into the process by the designers themselves). To account for the radical decision-making we have noticed in our design projects, we further develop the self-imposed category by introducing the concept of decisive constraints, built on two definitional conditions. This denotation has been chosen since the adjective “de-cisive” may refer to both a) radical creative decision-making and b) the decisiveness of a creative turning point in the design pro-cess. Therefore, as a concept, decisive con-

straints designates the voluntary introduc-tion of a radical creativity constraint that seems completely at odds with the design-er’s previous (standard) solutions, and does – beyond a reasonable doubt – indeed lead to a more original final design.

Practice: Applying the Concept to Three Interaction Design Projects To test our concept analytically and ensure its relevance to design practice, we have applied its two definitional conditions – rad-ical decision-making and the emergence of a creative turning point – to three media façade installation projects that our inter-action design research lab, CAVI, has been involved in. Specifically, we revisit three projects in which we have noticed that this phenomenon of radical creative self-bind-ing was present – albeit without being able to properly address it at the time.

Three Media Façade Installations The first case is a proposal submitted to an architectural competition in 2007 for the design of a new museum of modern art in Warsaw, Poland. The renowned Danish architecture studio, BIG, was invited to sub-mit, and we at CAVI were brought in to help develop ideas and solutions for integrating interactive technology into the building’s façade. In this case, the chief architect suddenly decided to use a radically new material – color-changing concrete, TCC, which had never been tested in such a large scale setting. The second case, Aar-hus by Light (2008), is a project for the city music hall, Musikhuset, in Aarhus, Denmark. Again, we were asked to help integrate an interactive media façade into the architec-ture of the building, see image on the page

to the left. This proved a major challenge, since the pitched idea was to cover the entire music hall façade, but in reality, we had to accept seemingly unsuitable mate-rials, namely, fixed-size, low-resolution LED panels – and only a very limited number of them. The third case is the design of the Danish pavilion for the 2010 World EXPO in Shanghai, China, see page 16. In order to aim for a high level of originality, in this case we chose to impose on ourselves a high-ly limiting design manifesto consisting of seven elements, which guided the design process.

Contributions Based on the insights that we have gained by analyzing these three media façade installation projects, we conclude in the paper that our proposed concept, decisive constraints, offers two main contributions.

Our proposed concept, decisive con-straints, may:

1. inform design research by providing a clearly defined framework for investi-gating and conceptualizing the intrigu-ing phenomenon of radical, creative, self-binding; and

2. act as a creative resource for practition-ers, as a means to attain originality, not only in interaction design, but presuma-bly also in related creative domains and disciplines.

Reference Michael Mose Biskjaer and Kim Halskov. 2014. Decisive constraints as a creative re-source in interaction design. Digital Creativity 25 (1), 27-61.

DECISIVE CONSTRAINTS AS A CREATIVE RESOURCE IN INTERACTION DESIGN

Color-changing concrete (TCC)

Michael Mose Biskjaer and Kim Halskov

16 Photo: Leif Orkelbog-Andresen

17

Media façades differ from conventional displays in several respects. Whereas a conventional display commonly has a flat, rectangular shape, a media façade extend into three-dimensional space and may have any shape, including an organic form. The shapes of individual pixels of ordinary displays are dot-like or square, and ideally hardly noticeable, but the pixel shape of media facades is non-standardized, and often part of the visual expression of the façade. More-over, the pixels of conventional displays are organized in a grid or matrix structure, whereas there does not exist a standard-ized way of organizing pixels, when it comes to media facades.

The main contribution of this paper is a conceptual framework for addressing how content for a media façade may be designed, taking into account the specific qualities of the display of me-dia façade interfaces: scale, shape, pix-el configuration, pixel shape, and light quality. These qualities of the interface may be investigated using a repertoire of design tools with modalities ranging from physical models to mixed reality models, to virtual representations.

Six qualities of media façadeScale is important to address, in order to understand the size and volume of the building. In contrast to conventional dis-plays, whose dimensions are commonly measured in inches, media facades are huge.

Shape refers to both the outer perimeter of the media screen and also the shape

of the image surface. Whereas tradition-al displays are flat, rectangular surfaces, media facades may have any shape, and may even curve around the corners, bends and curves of a building.

Pixel configuration is the layout or pat-tern of pixels on the media façade, which on traditional screens is a grid system of equal and perpendicular lines. On the other hand, media facades may use any configuration of pixels, creating complex patterns on a building façade.

Pixel shape refers to the physical form of the pixels in the facade. Traditionally, pixels are square, but on media facades the pixels may be any shape, determined by the lighting fixture or the architectural element that structures the configurations of pixels.

Light quality is crucial to how smoothly colors are displayed, and how bright the media façade is. The type of lighting fix-ture, and the use of diffusers and reflec-tors may produce visual qualities that are different from what traditional displays may produce.

Danish pavilion at Expo 2010 For the design of the media architecture of the Danish pavilion at Expo 2010 in Shanghai, a repertoire of design tools and visualization techniques was applied, in order to address how the content for the media façade might be designed, taking into account the above-mentioned qual-ities of media façade interfaces.

The Expo media façade was especially

challenging because of its physical prop-erties, such as the shape of the building, the very low resolution, and the shape and configuration of the pixels. When un-folded, the facade of the pavilion yield-ed a 300-meter-long, 12-meter-high structure, with a wavy shape, due to the helical form of the building. This gave an aspect ratio of 25:1, which is 13 times wider than what we normally define as “widescreen.”

During the design process, the design tools were instrumental in realizing the final design. The table below provides an overview of how five design tools (mock-up, pixel tool, wall projection, virtual 3D model, mixed reality model) addressed the unique qualities of the display (scale, shape, pixel configuration, pixel shape, and light quality).

None of the five design tools was able to address all the unique qualities of the media façade at the same time, but in-stead, they complemented each other in addressing the visual potential and chal-lenges of the display. Only during the on-site adjustment were we able to work at full scale with the 3D elongated shape of the display with its unique shape and pix-el configuration.

Reference Kim Halskov and Tobias Ebsen. 2013. A framework for designing complex media fa-cades. Design Studies 34 (5), 2013, 663-679.

A FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING COMPLEX MEDIA FACADES

Mock-up Pixel tool Wall projection Virtual 3D model Mixed reality model On-site

Scale 1:1 Small 1:1 Small 1:100 1:1

Shape of display 1D 2D 2D 3D 3D 3D

Pixels configuration Not tested Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual

Pixel shape Actual Fair approximation Fair approximation Good approximation Poor approximation Actual

Light quality Actual Simulated Simulated Simulated Simulated Actual

Part of display Small section Section Section Entire Entire Entire

Relation to building yes no no no yes yes

Content Pixel Explorative Explorative Focused Focused Adjustment

Overview of how the design tools address the various aspects of the design

Kim Halskov and Tobias Ebsen

18

19

Innovations in digital cultural commu-nication for museums challenge us to develop appropriate methods for par-ticipation in curatorial processes, and to rethink the role of audiences inside exhibitions. The article explores the po-tential of scaffolding sites of dialogue and creative engagement through the design process and final exhibition. The research is based on an interactive ex-hibition project, Digital Natives, in which we combined principles from participa-tory design with issues of contemporary digital culture, to explore possibilities for creating innovation in cultural heritage We suggest three critical stages of the di-alogic design process in which engage-ment between stakeholders, researchers, and audiences may be central to shap-ing and transforming future conceptions of digital cultural heritage, through the process and the final exhibition. We ar-gue that a participatory and design an-thropological approach to digital culture may expand opportunities for heritage innovation through technological means of engagement in museums.

Dialogic Curation The Digital Natives project aimed to cre-ate dialogical spaces of engagement between exhibition space and audi-ences, by involving young stakeholders as co-creators in the design process. A contribution of the research was the con-ceptualization of the design process as a form of dialogic curation; a holistic design anthropological approach to the design and innovation of digital cultural herit-age, from project inception to final ex-hibition. From this point of departure, we

created a design process that actively in-tertwined the voices and emergent prac-tices of contemporary digital cultures into the production of new cultural and tech-nological imaginings for the museum.

Our approach enabled a shift from an understanding of technology as arte-facts, to flexible means and materials created through dialogue with specific contexts, people, and environments. In the paper we describe three critical stag-es of the design process, which illustrate our approach to participatory heritage innovation:

• Beginnings: Scaffolding an emergent design space

• Middles: Developing concepts through dialogue

• Endings: Fusing process and product into a hybrid design ecology

The research illustrates how the design ecology dissolved boundaries between process (dialogical curation) and product (heritage exhibition) in a continuous pro-cess of interaction between designers, young co-creators and visitors, and situ-ated negotiations of the digital.

Participatory Sites of Heritage Innovation Designing for audience engagement in exhibitions through dialogic curation provides opportunities for co-creating unanticipated futures based upon situ-ated professional and personal experi-ences. Participation and engagement are not something you install in muse-ums. It is something researchers or mu-seum professionals may choose to in-

vest in, to create unforeseen modes of engagement. Using a dialogic design process may allow exhibitions to emerge as assemblages – or hybrid ecologies – through which new materialities and imaginings of heritage and the digital may come into being. These processes transform relations between digital tech-nology, cultural heritage, and audience engagement into new sites for co-con-structing emergent cultural futures and heritage innovation.

Reference Rachel Charlotte Smith and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2014. Participatory Heritage Innovation: De-signing Dialogic Sites of Engagement, Journal for Digital Creativity, 25 (4), 254-268.

Rachel Charlotte Smith and Ole Sejer Iversen

PARTICIPATORY HERITAGE INNOVATION: DESIGNING DIALOGIC SITES OF ENGAGEMENT

The Digital Natives exhibition | Digital Sea installation

20

21

Engaging children in the design of digi-tal technology is one of the core strands in child–computer interaction literature. However, few studies explore how teen-agers as a distinct user group are en-gaged in Participatory Design (PD) activ-ities. Based on a case study comprising ten Participatory Design workshops with teenagers (13–15 years old), we identified a range of tools that designers employed in order to actively engage the teenagers in Participatory Design: rewards, storytell-ing, identification, collaboration, endorse-ment, technology, and performance. Al-though these tools were realized through the use of well-established Participatory Design methods and techniques, a deep-er understanding of teenagers’ motivation and motives is essential to understanding how tools and techniques may be made to support teenagers’ motivation. We pro-pose a Cultural–Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) approach to teenagers’ motives and motivation as a framework for under-standing how various tools may be em-ployed to engage teenagers in Participa-tory Design activities.

The contribution of this paper to the Child-Computer Interaction (CCI) com-munity is two-fold. First, a CHAT-based ac-count of the formation of motives provides a way of articulating issues of motivation and engagement, both with designed products and within the design process. The CHAT perspective provides a view of motives as products of peoples’ partici-pation in socio-cultural institutions, and the way in which the values embedded in these shape individual development. In this paper we have pursued the CHAT

perspective in relation to the design pro-cess, but we suggest that it is equally use-ful when understanding how teenagers use and appropriate technology. Second, the seven overarching categories pre-sented in this paper proved (in various ways) to support teenagers’ motivation during the set of workshops. The catego-ries are not exhaustive, but resonate well with existing literature on CCI, ranging from paying teenagers to participate (re-wards), to embodied narratives (perfor-mance and storytelling), to more subtle forms of communicating ownership and expertness (endorsements). In fact, estab-lished tools and techniques of CCI and PD in general already support these different categories.

In our analysis we demonstrated how a CHAT perspective on the formation of mo-tives may be a resource for understanding not only how individual tools support mo-tivation, but also serves as a resource for understanding how children appropriate these tools in relation to their dominating motives, and how various tools work in concert to support motivation. We sug-gest that the CHAT perspective may be a valuable approach for discussing how tools and techniques from the existing PD toolbox may be used to engage teenag-ers in a PD process.

Reference Ole Sejer Iversen, Christian Dindler, and Elin Hansen. 2014. Understanding Teenagers’ motivation in Participatory Design. Interna-tional Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 1 (3-4), 82 -87

UNDERSTANDING TEENAGERS’ MOTIVATION IN PARTICIPATORY DESIGN

Engaging students in the design of a future school environment

Ole Sejer Iversen, Christian Dindler, and Elin Hansen

22

Participatory Design (PD) is inherently concerned with inquiring into and sup-porting human values when designing IT. We argue that a PD approach that is led by a focus on participants’ values may allow participants to discover meaningful alternatives – alternative uses and alter-native conceptualizations for IT that are particularly meaningful to them. Howev-er, the way in which PD works with values in the design process has not been made explicit. In this paper, we aim to (i) expli-cate this values-led PD approach, (ii) illus-trate how this approach may lead to out-comes that are meaningful alternatives, and (iii) explain the nature of meaningful alternatives. We use a PD case study to illustrate how we work with participants in a values-led PD approach towards to meaningful alternatives.

This paper explicitly describes and dis-cusses one approach whereby designers can engage with human values when using PD to design IT. In particular, it de-scribes how this values-led approach can help realize meaningful alternatives as possible outcomes of the design pro-cess. Meaningful alternatives are realized when we support people to imagine their future use of technology in relation to particular values. To bring about this im-agining, the designer may use a range of fictional spaces consisting of particular tools, props, and techniques, as well as the orchestration of the design process. We found that different artifacts may be used to help shape their imagining.

The use of different artifacts may also help free people from their preconceived

ideas about the domain, potential design solutions, and so on, allowing for creative leaps. While imagining may invite peo-ple into a make-believe world where they are free to envision alternative outcomes for technology, they are never entirely decoupled from reality. This is because designers find ways to tether people’s imagining to their shared values and cur-rent practices with regard to the aim of the project. In doing so, this process may derive IT that is likely to be meaningful to people and their practices. At the same time, people who have participated in the design process would emerge with a different conceptualization of technol-ogy and be more empowered in terms of how they relate to technology.

By supporting people in placing one foot in the world of imagined possibili-ties and the other in their shared values, this particular design process mediates and fosters (in the individual, as well as collectively) continuous dialogue and sense-making of shared values related to the domain of interest and technolo-gy. Additionally, this process also helps people to envision alternative futures whereby these values might materialize. Since people’s sense-making of these envisioned futures is always dialogical and relational, this approach ensures that such alternatives are potentially mean-ingful to those involved. Furthermore, this process uncovers people’s felt and lived notions about using technology in this envisioned future. This ensures that the design outcome is also supportive of the fuller human experience.

Reference Tuck Leong and Ole Iversen. 2015. Meaning-ful Alternatives: Inquiring into Human Values through Participatory Design. Proceedings of OZCHI 2015.

Tuck Leong and Ole Iversen

VALUES-LED PARTICIPATORY DESIGN AS A PURSUIT OF MEANINGFUL ALTERNATIVES

The outcome of the design for meaningful alternatives: An interactive floor for learning

23

The field of Participatory Design (PD) has greatly diversified, and we see a broad spectrum of approaches and method-ologies emerging. However, to foster its role in designing future interactive tech-nologies, a discussion about account-ability and rigor across this spectrum is needed. Rejecting the traditional, pos-itivistic framework, we take inspiration from related fields, such as Design Re-search and Action Research, to develop interpretations of these concepts that are rooted in PD’s own belief system. By “accountability” we mean the ability to link the collaborative work in PD with decisions and outcomes in a transparent way. In the context of PD, we interpret rigor as internal validity, in other words, that a well-structured argument can may be made for the way a PD process has been conducted. We argue that unlike in other fields, accountability and rigor are nuanced concepts that are delivered through debate, critique, and reflection. A key prerequisite for such debates is the availability of a language that allows de-signers, researchers, and practitioners to construct solid arguments about the ap-propriateness of their stances, choices, and judgments.

To this end, we propose a “tool-to-think-with” that provides such a language by guiding designers, researchers and practitioners through a process of sys-tematic reflection and critical analysis. The tool proposes four lenses for critical-ly reflecting on the nature of a PD effort: epistemology, values, stakeholders, and outcomes. In a subsequent step, the co-herence of the revealed features is ana-

lyzed, which shows whether they pull the project in the same direction, or work against each other. Regardless of the fla-vor of PD, we argue that the coherence of features indicates the level of internal rigor of the PD work, and that the pro-cesses of reflection and analysis provide the language to argue for it. We envision our tool as being useful at all stages of PD work: in the planning phase, as part of a reflective practice during the work, and as a means to construct knowledge and advance the field after the fact. We ground our theoretical discussions in a specific PD project to motivate the tool and to illustrate its workings.

Reference Christopher Frauenberger, Judith Good, Ger-aldine Fitzpatrick, and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2015. In pursuit of rigour and accountability in par-ticipatory design. International Journal of Hu-man Computer Studies, 74, 93-106.

IN PURSUIT OF RIGOR AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN PARTICIPATORY DESIGN

Summary of the four lenses and starter questions in the conceptual framework

Christopher Frauenberger, Judith Good, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and Ole Iversen

24

25

Participatory Design (PD) emerged about 25 years ago as a distinct set of design and research practices rooted in a Scandina-vian approach to systems design. Based on a detailed study of the research papers published at the PDC between 2002 and 2012, we suggest a reformulation of the fundamental aspects of PD (Politics, Peo-ple, Context, Methods, and Product), and a nuanced understanding of what constitutes participation.

Politics During the period between 2002 and 2012, the political aspect has become subtler, and more focused on a polyvoiced perspective, rather than a conflict perspective. Much of the research presented at the recent PDCs focuses on engaging users in design in do-mains with complex constellations of users and other kinds of participants: civic en-gagement, healthcare, or outside of classic Western contexts. In the case of designing outside the Western world, we see much work on different standards for participation and political aims.

People Projects aimed at social media, on en-gaging temporary users, on fostering civic engagement and FabLabs, challenge the idea of the “user” by intentionally blurring the distinctions between designers and users. Such examples illustrate the impor-tance of considering new groups of users, who may not specifically consider them-selves users, but merely people. However, this development also presents researchers and designers with the question of whom to involve in a project, if the “users” are not a clearly defined group.

Context The fact that participatory design has en-tered new domains is a significant devel-opment in participatory design research. Whereas early PD projects played out in Europe and North America, in the last decade PD has propagated to other parts of the world, with different organizational structures and politics. Moreover, in new do-mains, users comprise a much less well-de-fined groups, and instead encompass multiple cohorts of stakeholders with only partially shared interests, which challenges the PD axiom that those affected by a sys-tem should have a say in decisions related to it – indeed, what constitutes a use situa-tion, and therefore the context of a system, becomes much harder to define.

Methods The extent to which various methods are specifically PD methods has been discussed frequently, as has whether “methods” is an important area of PD research. The survey clearly demonstrates that PD researchers remain preoccupied with methods, and a thesis is that research into methods is par-ticularly relevant in relation to the other fundamental aspects of PD, for example, the way in which a certain method enables loosely defined configurations of people to have a say in decision-making in a civic context. Questions such as how a specific method translates into a new context and how it may be used with specific constella-tions of people remain valid.

Product One of the original aims of PD was the im-provement of the quality of life of workers or users through the design of new products

or technologies. However, it is notable that PD has become concerned with improving quality of life in a broad sense. Thus, it is not so much the product of the design process itself that is in focus, but the role it plays as an alternative within a specific domain.

Participation The analysis of PDC literature reveals the diversity of participation within the field of PD, and ranges from an implicit under-standing to explicit statements about users driving the process forward. We have seen how the issue of participation has been de-fined variously, and in some instances only loosely or not at all, and have identified three approaches: participation as implicitly defined, discussing the users as full partici-pants in the design process, and the value of mutual learning between users and de-signer.

A major concern is the lack of clarity re-garding the way in which authors define participatory design, and how it is practiced in specific design projects. Although users were undoubtedly involved in all the design projects presented, it is sometimes difficult to gauge either the motivation or the ap-proach, and one may argue that it is cru-cial that researchers be more precise about users’ roles when planning design events, selecting methods, interpreting design ma-terials, and making decisions.

Reference Kim Halskov and Nicolai Brodersen Hansen. 2015. The Diversity of Participatory Design Research Practice at PDC 2002-2012. Inter-national Journal of Human-Computer Stud-ies, vol 74, 2015, 81-92.

THE DIVERSITY OF PARTICIPATORY DESIGN RESEARCH PRACTICE AT PDC 2002–2012

Politics People who are affected by a decision should have an opportunity to influence it.

People People play critical roles in design by being experts in their own lives.

Context The use situation is the fundamental starting point for the design process.

Methods Methods are means for users to gain influence in design processes.

Product The goal of participation is to design alternatives, improving quality of life.

Fundamental aspects of participatory design

Kim Halskov and Nicolai Brodersen Hansen

26

Ensuring participation is complex, and par-ticipatory design (PD) practitioners are well-versed in navigating influential design con-straints and complex user identities. However, although participation is part and parcel of a rich diversity of practices, little attention has been given to developing analytical resourc-es, and conceptualizing what participation is.

Accordingly, our concern is to investigate and discuss the consequences of the con-cept of participation when bringing togeth-er Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and PD. The purpose is not to develop a method for par-ticipation, but to use ANT as a resource for framing participation as an inherently un-settled matter of concern. Participation as a matter of concern goes against universal standards for participation and the ability to claim, as a matter of fact, what is and what is not participation. ANT provides an ontolo-gy of participation in which it is imperative to continuously investigate what constitutes and qualifies as participation in specific sit-uations.

Participation as overtaken and partially existent This article discusses and develops partic-ipation as a matter of concern through two distinct yet intimately connected ANT con-cepts and experiences. The first ANT concept outlines participation as overtaken, meaning that agency is always derived from many interfering sources, rather than possessed by individuals. The second concept is that participation is partially existent, implying that different forms of participation come into existence in various ways and situations, unbounded by the designer’s intention or methods.

The Teledialogue project Empirical evidence from the Teledialogue project exemplifies how participation is par-tially existent and overtaken. The Teledia-logue aims to design an IT-enabled platform for communication between social work-ers and children placed in foster care or at institutions, through participatory methods such as design workshops and qualitative interviews. Through an empirical analysis focused on the children’s participation, it is evident that children’s stances on privacy are overtaken by a government body, that their participation began long before they were physically present, and that they inevitably brought with them networks of other partic-ipants. Participation as partial and overtaken presents three challenges to design:

1. Participants are not stand-alone subjects, but network configurations. There are no authentic participants representing only themselves. For instance, when children ask for more contact with social workers, when they decline the use of Skype, or insist that social workers should stay clear of their private lives, they do so through acts that are overtaken by others, that unfold through networks of relations. This necessitates increased attention to how participants are configured and medi-ated by reports, budgets, family, friends, designers, design activities, and so forth. Although ANT affords no possibility of un-earthing authentic and unconfigured chil-dren, it provides an opportunity to analyze and evaluate how children participate, in relation to such numerous mediators.

2. Participation is not limited to designat-ed events, but is always partially at work.

Participation does not occur only during designated design events or activities. Rather, participation becomes a partial-ly existent aspect of the whole project, from the very first formulations to the point where the design no longer exists. In Teledialogue, the children were there from the outset, and are still part of the project. Similarly, children who are pres-ent during interviews, chat sessions, and phone calls are also present as “cases,” when designers interview social workers.

3. There is no gold standard for participation, only an imperative to account for and in-vestigate. When participation is a matter of concern, it is not possible, a priori, to consider some forms of participation to be more authentic or ethically superior to oth-ers. And, neither is it possible to establish a dichotomy between participation and non-participation. Rather, participation is configured, and may come in many forms. Participatory design involves all sorts of dif-ferent participants, such as reports, spokes-persons, media accounts, drawings, sta-tistics, and so forth. So, the scope of what may qualify as a participant is considera-bly broadened. But with this freedom fol-lows the obligation to account for, legiti-mize, and argue for the relevance of this or that configuration of participants.

ReferenceLars Bo Andersen, Peter Danholt, Kim Halsk-ov, Nicolai Brodersen Hansen, Peter Lauritsen. 2015. Participation as a matter of concern in participatory design. CoDesign 1 (3-4), 250-261.

Lars Bo Andersen, Peter Danholt, Kim Halskov, Nicolai Brodersen Hansen, Peter Lauritsen

PARTICIPATION AS A MATTER OF CONCERN IN PARTICIPATORY DESIGN

Inspiration card for design workshop

27

In order to conceptualize participation, we provide a participation gestalt frame-work with which HCI researchers can articulate and analyze the participatory qualities of interaction with public, digital installations. We suggest five qualities of participation related to the degree of ex-posure, investment, expression, sociality, and persistence that unfolds in interac-tion. By mapping these qualities of partic-ipation, we propose that HCI researchers can articulate the participation gestalt of a public installation. We define the par-ticipation gestalt of a public, interactive system as the unified perception and ex-perience of participatory qualities as they unfold through interaction with a system in a given socio-cultural setting.

Expressivity We define expressivity as “the way and degrees to which people can convey thoughts or feelings by interacting with an installation.” An installation may sup-port a high degree of expressivity by of-fering multiple modes of expression, by allowing people to express themselves in different formats such as text, audio, video, or by using their body to express themself. In contrast, an installation that provides one or few un-nuanced means for expression will often lead to low de-grees of expressivity in interaction. Ex-pressivity in interaction also depends on people’s competence in the given medium.

Investment We define investment as “the resources and effort that people commit in order to successfully engage in interaction.”

An installation may demand a high de-gree of investment by requiring people to commit mentally and physically to the interaction over a period of time, possibly requiring them to develop certain skills, for the interaction to be truly meaningful and successful. On the other hand, other installations require low degrees of in-vestment, some to the extent that people may hardly notice that they are interact-ing, for instance tracking people moving through a public space, and using this as input for an installation.

Exposure We define exposure as “the degree to which participants attract attention or are visible to other people during or after interaction with an installation.” The real or perceived exposure of people inter-acting with installations in public spaces may have a dramatic influence on their behavior, to the extent that it may even lead potential users to not interact at all. A crucial element with respect to exposure is whether the effect of interaction may be associated with the person causing the effect. Elements of exposure include the identity of the person interacting, and the extent to which the person is visually recognizable in the location of interac-tion or in other locations. Interaction with large and highly visible displays in public spaces often makes users’ actions highly exposed. At the other end of the spec-trum, an instance of low exposure would be when people anonymously interact with a small-scale display, using a mobile phone.

Sociality We define sociality as “the opportuni-ty for participants to engage with other people when interacting with an instal-lation in a public space.” Interaction de-signers can address a spectrum ranging from individual to highly social interac-tion in public installations. Furthermore, configurations of individual and social interaction may dynamically evolve over time. An interactive installation may sup-port individual interaction by limiting, or even preventing, the participant from engaging with other people, for instance, by restricting others from accessing the input and output of the interaction.

Persistence We use persistence to mean “the time span during which the outcome of an interaction is exposed and remains ac-cessible to others.” Participants’ ability to leave “social traces” is considered de-cisive for engaging in interactive public installations at a museum, for instance. A high degree of persistence will allow participants and others to retrieve the outcome of the interaction. Converse-ly, a low degree of persistence limits the possibility of exploring the outcome of an interaction.

Reference Peter Dalsgaard, Kim Halskov, and Ole Iver- sen. (2016). Participation Gestalt: Analysing Participatory Qualities of Interaction in Public Space. CHI 2016.

PARTICIPATION GESTALT: ANALYSING PARTICIPATORY QUALITIES OF INTER-ACTION IN PUBLIC SPACE

The participation gestalt of four installations

Peter Dalsgaard, Kim Halskov, and Ole Iversen

28

29

This paper positions relation expertise as a core competence of participatory de-sign. It is an a form of expertise that de-mands the participatory designer to stim-ulate the emergence of loosely coupled knotworks, and obtain symbiotic agree-ment among participants, regardless of their professional and social status. We illustrate our theoretical argument for a relational expertise with a running exam-ple from a participatory design process involving an interprofessional group of participants in a project on future tech-nology-enabled learning environments.

A relational perspective Participation has become a mainstream topic and approach, reaching far beyond the participatory design (PD) discourse. In politics, institutional life, and design in general, participatory ideals and practic-es have gained momentum to the extent that they (in some areas) are considered the norm. No less so in the academic dis-courses surrounding technology design; participation is a familiar term across HCI and interaction design disciplines. So what then is left for PD? We suggest that one area in which PD can and should reach beyond internal discourse and make a strong contribution to de-sign research more generally, is related to understanding how personal and pro-fessional relationships are a fundamental and potentially driving force in design. Moreover, we suggest that this relational perspective on design should be further articulated for the benefit of PD and other design research disciplines. In this paper we start from the perspective of interac-tion design, and explore how a relational

perspective, inspired by PD, may further our understanding of design processes.

Relational expertise The need for a strong PD vocabulary re-garding aspects of participation it great-er than ever. In this paper we argue that an important part of the PD approach to participation is the result of a relational expertise that entails work with the es-tablishment, and transformation or per-sonal and professional relationships. This work is exercised through the designer’s appreciation of different PD methods and techniques, through workshop facil-itation, recruitment, internal and exter-nal communication, and other relational aspects of design work. These elements of participation are already well-doc-umented in PD research. However, this paper takes the articulation of the PD ap-proach to participation a step further by offering a vocabulary for articulating the relational aspects of PD processes. As part of relational design expertise, PD practi-tioners continuously reflect on establish-ing and developing dynamic knotworks from which new design ideas emerge. They negotiate and nourish symbiotic agreements among the project partners by use of PD tools and methods, and an understanding of participants’ profes-sional motives. Part of the PD approach to participation is the relational expertise that critically examines the engagement with the knowledge that underpins one’s practice as a designer, as well as the capacity to recognize and respond to what others might offer. We envision this paper as a first step towards positioning the qualities of PD within the plurality of

collaborative design approaches. How-ever, more research is needed. First, we need to better understand how relational agency and the relational expertise of the designer affect the final design out-come. Second, we need to constantly im-prove our toolbox to accommodate the dynamics of collaborative design pro-cesses. Finally, relational expertise must find its way to design curricula as impor-tant expertise in line with functional, ethi-cal, political, and aesthetic aspects of the design process.

Reference Christian Dindler and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2014. Relational expertise in participatory design. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory De-sign Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1 (PDC ‘14), Vol. 1. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 41-50.

RELATIONAL EXPERTISE IN PARTICIPATORY DESIGN

The Wisdom Well

Christian Dindler and Ole Sejer Iversen

30

31

While many participatory design (PD) pro-jects succeed in establishing new organi-zational initiatives or creating technology that is attuned to the people affected, the question of how such results are sustained after the project ends remains an impor-tant challenge. We explore the challenge of sustaining PD initiatives beyond the in-dividual project, and discuss implications for PD practice. First, based on current PD literature, we distinguish among four ideal, typical forms of sustainability: main-taining, scaling, replicating, and evolving. Second, with a case study, we demon-strate how these various forms of sustain-ability may be pursued in PD practice and how they may become a resource for reflecting on PD activities. Finally, we discuss implications for PD practice, sug-gesting that a nuanced conception of sustainability and how it may relate to PD practice are useful resources for designers and researchers before, during, and after the design processes.

Sustainability in Participatory Design Participatory design has been hailed as not only a way of creating technolo-gies that are attuned to people’s needs, but also as a way of changing practices and giving people a voice in technolog-ical development. Whether or not PD in general has been successful in meeting these ambitious goals is difficult to an-swer. It is evident that the more or less direct involvement of people, in a variety of guises, has become common practice in many public and private institutions. However, it is also the case that although the PD literature has demonstrated some success in designing technologies and

promoting democratic ideals, there are only a few studies that assess the sus-tainability of these results. Given that PD researchers and practitioners entertain ambitious goals that extend beyond the immediate product, the issue of sustaina-bility is a central, albeit underdeveloped, aspect of PD.

Four forms of sustainability Based on our reading of the literature on sustainability in PD and related disciplines, we suggest distinguishing among at least four ideal, typical forms in which PD initi-atives are sustained: maintaining, scaling, replicating, and evolving. We suggest that these forms are to be thought of as ideal types that do not exist in their pure forms, but may serve as lenses through which we can inspect PD projects, and begin to understand how sustainability is pursued and achieved. Moreover, they are not mutually exclusive – often, they are accu-mulative, in the sense that any form pre-supposes the prior one. These four forms of sustainability may be distinguished by looking at two parameters: the context in which the initiative is sustained, and the extent to which the initiative remains sta-ble or is further developed, once the pro-ject ends.

Reference Ole Sejer Iversen and Christian Dindler. 2014. Sustaining participatory design initiatives, CoDesign, 10 (3-4), 2014, 153-170.

SUSTAINING PARTICIPATORY DESIGN INITIATIVES

Children brainstorming with their feet

Ole Sejer Iversen and Christian Dindler

32

33

Local Area Artworks (LAA) was a system that enabled visitors at an art exhibition to collaboratively write texts with interpre-tations of works of art displayed on digital panels next to the works, mediated by the visitors’ own personal devices. Local Area Artworks was deployed and ran for the duration of a month-long Easter exhibition at Kunsthal Aarhus, in Aarhus, Denmark, connected to six selected works of art.

Local Area Artworks (LAA) was developed to study what is referred to as participatory IT in a semi-public space. Participatory IT denotes the use of information technol-ogy to enable participation, whether in politics, local democracy, cultural life, and so on. In LAA, the conventional curatori-al descriptions of artwork were replaced by texts on digital panels, collaboratively written and re-written by visitors during the exhibition, mediated by their personal de-vices. Using a novel WiFi proximity detec-tion technique, the system detected when visitors were in close proximity to artwork, and redirected the web-browser on their personal device to the relevant, editable text. With LAA, a part of the usual curato-rial activity of authoring descriptive texts associated with works of art was opened up for participation by visitors, artists, cu-rators, staff, and so on–effectively, anyone physically present in the exhibition space. Hence, LAA made the existing interpreta-tive role of the audience explicit and vis-ible by enabling co-interpretation among audience members in the physical space.

Fostering participation The core research idea of LAA was to ex-plore whether the “local” aspect of a local

wireless network could be exploited to foster participation in the local, physical space. LAA embedded a number of re-search hypotheses that the researchers were interested in studying in an actual use context. A central idea was to use people’s personal devices as a means of participation. The hypothesis was that the use of personal devices would create a sense of familiarity, of being on home turf, and benefit from visitors’ existing skills and experiences with their devices. However, making use of personal devices may re-quire significant effort on the part of the user, in the form of downloading and in-stalling apps on their devices. LAA sought to foster initial engagement through a more seamless approach requiring zero installation on the user’s device.

Another hypothesis was that contributions regarding local matters would flourish best when people wrote about what they immediately saw and experienced. This led us to a design requiring the physical proximity of the user to the artwork, in or-der to allow the editing of the associated text, thereby strengthening the coupling of the physical and digital layers. For this reason, and to minimize the amount of navigation required on the users’ behalf, LAA sought to make navigating among different works of art in the exhibition as “automagic” as possible by basing it on the user’s location in the gallery. The digi-tal panels next to each work of art give the digital activity a physical representation in the space.

Technically, LAA relied on WiFi proximi-ty detection in mobile web applications,

based on proximity-adaptive HTTP re-sponses (PAHR). The technique requires zero installation on users’ personal devic-es, and is client platform independent. Our reference implementation, ProxiMagic, is low-cost, using off-the-shelf hardware, including Raspberry Pis and low-cost net-work adapters, while providing robust and responsive interactivity based on proximity detection.

References Clemens Klokmose, Susanne Bødker, Mat-thias Korn, Anne Marie Polli: Participatory IT in semi-public spaces. 2014. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Com-puter Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational, 765-774. ACM 2014.

Clemens Klokmose, Matthias Korn, and Hen-rik Blunck. 2014. WiFi proximity detection in mobile web applications. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineer-ing interactive computing systems. ACM, 2014.

LOCAL AREA ARTWORKS AND PROXIMAGIC

The ProxiMagic architecture

A snapshot of the texts from Local Area Artworks from the

exhibition web site

Clemens Klokmose, Susanne Bødker, Matthias Korn, Anne Marie Polli, and Henrik Blunck

34

35

Media architecture is an emergent field at the intersection of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), design, architecture, ur-ban planning, art, and sociology. While the use of media technologies in archi-tecture has a long history – exemplified by the neon signs at Times Square in New York, dating back to the 1920s – the field we know as media architecture emerged when designers and architects began to embed digital technologies, in particular displays, into the built envi-ronment. Decreasing prices of important media architecture components, such as display and sensor technologies, has led to their uptake by industry, and they are now prominent features in many cities in the world. Simultaneously, the interest in media architecture has grown in the HCI community, and in addition to a dedicat-ed conference series, media architecture research is represented at many confer-ences for the field.

Typical of emergent disciplines related to HCI, the initial focus of many academ-ic contributions is on technical aspects and the potential of this novel form of interface. To the extent that social as-pects of media architecture have been examined, this has primarily been done for individual installations, and not in or-der to examine patterns across multiple cases. From these contributions, it is clear that social aspects play a very large role in how media architecture is perceived and used, and that interaction design-ers working in media architecture need an understanding of both technical and social dimensions to develop successful installations.

In this paper, we offer an overview and analysis of social interaction in media ar-chitecture through a comparison of nine representative cases from the relatively brief history of the field. We combine the findings on social interaction from each original case study, to offer two comple-mentary contributions: first, a framework outlining six different modes of social interaction in relation to media archi-tecture – appreciation, self-expression, playfulness, collective narratives, trian-gulation, and negotiation of space – and second, a set of seven social interaction design patterns for media architecture, which represent different strategies for designing media architecture to achieve specific types of social interaction – shadow playing, remote control, smooth operator, soapbox, amusement park, swarm, and automatic gate.

The intended audience of this paper consists of HCI researchers working in the field of media architecture, who may employ the framework and design pat-terns, examine the relations between the technical and social aspects of media ar-chitecture, and categorize and analyze further installations. In addition, the social interaction design patterns may be of value to HCI practitioners, since they in-dicate specific strategies for developing media architecture installations.

Reference Luke Hespanhol and Peter Dalsgaard. 2015. Social Interaction Design Patterns For Urban Media Architecture. Proceedings of Interact 2015.

SOCIAL INTERACTION DESIGN PATTERNS FOR URBAN MEDIA ARCHITECTURE

Social interaction design patterns in urban media architecture

Luke Hespanhol and Peter Dalsgaard

36

37

Alan Kay’s early vision of interactive computing saw software as an expres-sive medium that could be personalized, tinkered with, and shared. He called it “Personal Dynamic Media.” In his vision, children with linked Dynabooks could collaboratively tinker with a Spacewar game to make it more challenging by adding a more sophisticated form of gravity. Decades later, Mark Weiser envi-sioned a future of ubiquitous computing, where heterogeneous devices of varying sizes and capabilities interact easily with each other, and technology disappears into the background. He imagined that colleagues could share a virtual office and collaborate on a document, seam-lessly moving between a wall-sized dis-play and various ”tabs” and ”pads.”

Today’s interactive software traps docu-ments inside closed applications, making it difficult to truly share content, personal-ize applications, and work across devices. While the hardware envisioned by both Kay and Weiser has been realized today, by and large, software lags behind.

Our vision, Shareable Dynamic Media, builds on Kay and Weiser’s visions. We define shareable dynamic media as col-lections of information substrates (or sub-strates, for short). Substrates are software artifacts that include content, computa-tion, and interaction, effectively blurring the distinction between documents and applications.

Shared collaborative object Webstrates (web substrates) are proto-types of shareable dynamic media that

consist of a custom web server that serves pages, called webstrates, to regular web browsers. Each webstrate is a shared col-laborative object: changes to the web-strate’s Document Object Model (DOM), as well as changes to its embedded Ja-vaScript code and CSS styles, are trans-parently made persistent on the server, and synchronized with all clients sharing that webstrate, using Operational Trans-formations. By sharing the DOM itself, rather than some data model from which is derived the content of a web page, as most current web frameworks do, Web-strates supports a strong form of sharing that is easy to understand. Any change to the DOM, whether it is made directly by the user or through embedded code, is visible to everyone. By also sharing embedded code, behavior typically as-sociated with application software may also be (collaboratively) manipulated, opening the way to novel possibilities for combining content, computation, and in-teraction.

The true power of Webstrates comes from the possibility of composing them by embedding one webstrate within an-other, a process called transclusion. Tran-sclusion lets users truly share, rather than copy, content. For example, a webstrate containing editing tools may transclude a webstrate of the document being edited, creating something similar to a tradition-al application. Another user may use a different editor webstrate, with a differ-ent set of tools, and transclude the same content webstrate. This results in a shared editor, where each user can choose their editing tools.

We have shown that Webstrates may be used to allow users to collaborate on documents with their own personalized and extensible editors. Webstrates ena-ble collaborative run- time extension of a user interface, for example, one user can manipulate the user interface of anoth-er remotely, and during run-time. Web-strates also make it possible to simultane-ously sketch a figure on a graphics tablet, see it in a live print preview displayed on an iPad, and adjust it in a vector graph-ics editor on a laptop. Finally, we have shown that Webstrates may be used to easily orchestrate a complex setup for a distributed slideshow presentation that includes audience participation.

ReferenceClemens Klokmose, James R. Eagan, Sie-men Baader, Wendy Mackay, and Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. 2015. Webstrates: Share-able Dynamic Media. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Inter-face Software & Technology, pp. 280-290. ACM, 2015.

WEBSTRATES: SHAREABLE DYNAMIC MEDIA

The synchronization mechanism of Webstrates

Clemens Klokmose, James R. Eagan, Siemen Baader, Wendy Mackay, and Michel Beaudouin-Lafon

38

20Foundations — TThe City as an Urban Interaction Design Platform

The City as an Urban Interaction Design Platform This chapter aims to introduce some concerns and issues around concepts that are arising as the field of urban interaction design emerges. It is no longer meaningful to have a complete separation between the idea of an urban plan, a building or product, a service, technology or interface, or see these in isolation. What it is we are developing constantly changes depending on use and context. What is understood and used as a product by one group is a part of the service infrastructure for another, or a tool for mapping the city for an entirely different purpose. For example, in its simplest functional form, Google maps is both a map that provides a service for the majority of its users; an application program interface (API); and a tool for a whole different group when organising political meetings, mapping urban issues, or coordinating a flash mob. The point being, is that one person's product becomes a platform or tool for others. This idea about the fluidity of products and the notion of platforms is not entirely new within each field.

39

What is Urban Interaction Design? Obvi-ously, it has something to do with the three separate terms that make up the name of this emerging field. It is about the interac-tion of humans with their urban surround-ings. But has that not always been the core concern of urban planners?

Sure.

However, what we have observed is that “the making of the city” is no longer their concern only. And, no longer do their methodologies, expertise, and theories suffice to address the complex issues of the 21st century networked city. That is why, increasingly, we see designers of all sorts, IT specialists, urban anthropologists, philosophers, HCI researchers, artists, and sociologists teaming up in coalitions that up to a few years ago were unthinkable. Why? Call it the hybrid city, the sentient city, the media city, or whatever you want: what has changed in the last decade is the rapid technologization of everyday urban life. It is through the interfaces of our mobile phones that we make sense of our surroundings, at the same time con-necting the local with the global. Similarly, cities and governments have – often with the help of companies – started to collect all sorts of data about urban life, ranging from air quality to traffic congestion. Will-ingly or unwillingly, pervasive technolo-gies have become part of our everyday experience. Software is now organizing urban life as much as the programs of ur-ban designers do.

This is the situation to which urban inter-action design is a response. Its practition-

ers provide citizens with ways to make their everyday urban experiences more pleasurable, interesting, productive, and efficient. At the same time, they also de-sign interfaces that help citizens to under-stand the salient features of the layers of the networked city, and let them organ-ize themselves around these, in whatev-er matters are of concern to them. They come up with platforms that help citizens govern their cities from a public interest perspective, in collaboration with other stakeholders.

Urban Interaction Design is a field that is not just about producing services or tools that optimize urban life as it exists. An im-portant part of it also consists of dreaming up alternative futures. The latter is of great importance. The rise of new media tech-nologies creates opportunities for citizens to organize themselves in communities or political movements to improve their cities. At the same time, there is also the risk that this new software layer and the interactive services geared to the city will be designed or appropriated in a closed manner that excludes particular uses or groups, or will prioritize economic profit above societal benefits.

What is at stake is not so much a battle between “beautiful” bottom-up and terri-ble top-down, between the citizens and the system, or between commercial and non-profit. Bottom-up initiatives may be exclusive or just seize resources for the benefit of their own group, bypassing democratic decision-making processes. And top-down initiatives may be aimed at improving transparency or providing

the means for projects that benefit the urban community at large. What is im-portant is not so much the organizational structure of the project, but its rationale: in what way does the application of these new technologies serve human and soci-etal needs?

This book makes an effort to explore the newly emerging field of urban interaction design, which addresses these issues. In the first part of the book, “Foundations,” we look into its origins. Where do its practitioners come from? How are they working together? What methodologies do they bring to the table? What are the key concepts they are addressing in their work? In the second part of the book, titled “Trends,” we go into current developments in the networked city and how urban interaction design as a field addresses these. Taken together, these sections will not give the definite definition or overview of this field. But, hopefully, there is enough here to convincingly claim that the fur-ther development of the field matters.

Research contributions • an analysis of five societal megatrends

related to the digital transition • a research agenda for digital urban

transition • case analyses ReferenceMartin Brynskov, Juan Carvajal Bermúdez, Manu Fernández, Henrik Korsgaard, Ingrid J. Mulder, Katarzyna Piskorek, Lea Rekow, and Martijn De Waal. 2014. Urban Interaction Design: Toward City Making, Booksprint, ISBN 978-0-9562169-1-5.

URBAN INTERACTION DESIGN: TOWARDS CITY MAKING

44

Trends — Amateur Professionals Reshaping Cities

Preceding the recent resurgence in rolezinhos, the massive protests of May through August 2013 gathered its supporters largely through the Anonymous movement’s Facebook presence, which created new pages to direct people to each new protest.

SMARTPHONES AND GAS MASKS —- NEW MEETS OLD IN RIOT GEAR.

Urban Interaction Design: Towards City Making

11

For pragmatic purposes, and to indicate the general notion of clusters of traditions, we will refer to them as Society, Technology and Art.

We have used these disciplinary fields to define the points on our compass that plot the key trajectories in urban interaction design. This community does not just bring various academic disciplines together but entails collaboration between various kinds of actors—academic and applied practitioners including professional designers, policy makers and engineers working in the fields of art, urban planning and ICT development. Equally important, are the various stakeholders involved in the issues that urban interaction design is addressing. These include local government, non-governmental organisations (NGO), various forms of self-organising collectives, and individuals. In urban interaction design they all have an active role in the consortia that are formed around relevant city making issues. Another category that is important to the field are the nexuses where this community becomes visible: the events, public programmes, protests, interventions, and exhibitions that, to some extent, provide a gathering space for community to share their ideas.

TECH

SOCIETY

ARTS

The amateurs have be-come, in many ways, as organized as the profes-sionals and institutions born out of the industrial age

New technologies enable, and require, collaboration across traditional disciplines

Martin Brynskov, Juan Carvajal Bermúdez, Manu Fernández, Henrik Korsgaard, Ingrid J. Mulder, Katarzyna Piskorek, Lea Rekow, and Martijn De Waal

40

41

The future of civic engagement is charac-terized by both technological innovation and new technological user practices that are fuelled by trends towards mobile, per-sonal devices, broadband connectivity, open data, urban interfaces, and, cloud computing. These technological trends are progressing at a rapid pace, and have led global technology vendors to pack-age and sell the “Smart City” as a central-ized service delivery platform predicted to optimize and enhance cities’ key perfor-mance indicators, and generate a profit-able market. The top-down deployment of these large and proprietary technology platforms has helped sectors such as en-ergy, transport, and healthcare to increase efficiency. However, an increasing num-ber of scholars and commentators warn of another “IT bubble” emerging. Along with some city leaders, they argue that the top-down approach does not fit the gov-ernance dynamics and values of a liberal democracy, when applied across sectors. A thorough understanding is required, of the socio-cultural nuances of how people work, live, play across different environ-ments, and how they employ social me-dia and mobile devices to interact with, engage in, and constitute public realms.

Although the term “slacktivism” is some-times used to denote a watered down version of civic engagement and activism that is reduced to clicking a “Like” button and signing online petitions, we believe that we are far from witnessing anoth-er Biedermeier period that saw people focus on the domestic and the non-po-litical. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, such as post-election violence in Kenya in 2008, the Occupy movements

in New York, Hong Kong, and elsewhere, the Arab Spring, Stuttgart 21, Fukushima, the Taksim Gezi Park in Istanbul, and the Vinegar Movement in Brazil in 2013. These examples of civic action shape the dy-namics of governments, and in turn, call for new processes to be incorporated into governance structures. Participatory re-search into these new processes, across the triad of people, place, and technolo-gy, is a significant and timely investment for fostering productive, sustainable, and livable human habitats. With this chapter, we want to reframe the current debates in academia and the priorities of industry and government, to allow citizens and civ-ic actors to take their rightful, central place in civic movements. This calls for new par-ticipatory approaches to co-inquiry and co-design. It is an evolving process with an explicit agenda to facilitate change, and we propose participatory action research (PAR) as an indispensable component of the journey to develop new governance infrastructures and practices for civic en-gagement.

This chapter proposes participatory action research as a useful and fitting research paradigm to guide methodological con-siderations surrounding the study, design, development, and evaluation of civic technologies. We do not limit our defini-tion of civic technologies to tools specifi-cally designed to simply enhance govern-ment and governance, such as renewing your car registration online, or casting your vote electronically on election day. Rath-er, we are interested in civic media and technologies that foster citizen engage-ment in the widest sense, and particular-ly the participatory design of such civic

technologies that strive to involve citizens in political debate and action, as well as question conventional approaches to po-litical issues.

Following an outline of some underlying principles and assumptions behind par-ticipatory action research, especially as it applies to cities, we will critically review case studies to illustrate the application of this approach with a view to engendering robust, inclusive, and dynamic societies built on the principles of engaged liberal democracy.

The rationale for the Participatory Action Research approach is an alternative to smart cities in a “perpetual tomorrow,” based on many weak and strong signals of civic actions revolving around technol-ogy seen today. It seeks to emphasize and direct attention to active citizenship over passive consumerism, human actors over human factors, culture over infrastructure, and prosperity over efficiency.

Research contributions: • Proposes Participatory Action Research

as a research paradigm • Explores civic media and technologies

that foster citizen engagement in the broadest sense

• Integrates an interdisciplinary method-ology approach for multi-sector situa-tions

ReferenceMarcus Foth and Martin Brynskov. 2016. Partici-patory Action Research for Civic Engagement, in Gordon, E., & Mihailidis, P. (eds.), Civic Media: Technology, Design, Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

The city is a mesh of common and private spaces. New materials and codes blur the lines.

(Photo: Rasmus Steengaard, Media Architecture Biennale)

Marcus Foth and Martin Brynskov

42

This book is a collective call for reclaim-ing the citizen’s right to the digital city. The chapters in this book offer a variety of analyses of the unique and largely untapped qualities of the digital city that we want the community of scholars inter-ested in urban interaction design and ur-ban informatics to further explore with us, such as their ability to reach a diversity of citizens, and the absence of automated personalization algorithms. They also of-fer complementary urban interfaces and civic media channels that may enable non-users of conventional social media to participate in different ways. Can city spaces help us burst the filter bubbles and break out of the echo chambers, and give us a voice?

The citizen’s right to the digital city recog-nizes the wealth of knowledge, wisdom, and experiences collectively and pri-vately held by each urbanite. Similarly to the way in which, in 1992, Liam Bannon called for a profound shift in attention “from human factors to human actors” in systems development, more and more commentators these days critique the established hegemony of the engineer-ing and technology-centric epistemol-ogy embedded in any one proprietary, smart-city vision. With this book, we want to contribute to the debate that has start-ed to consider alternative approaches, focusing on “smart citizens,” and their not only vital, but crucial participation in the city-making enterprise.

People have advanced from being con-sumers to co-producers, from being sta-tionary office workers to mobile urban

nomads, from being passive members of the plebs to active instigators of change. Yet, interaction designers often still refer to them only as “users,” and architects and urban planners often refer to them only as “city residents” or “building occu-pants.” There is more to it. There is a need to focus on the “life between the systems,” with reference to Danish architect Jan Gehl’s pivotal 1971 book, “Life between buildings.” With this volume, we continue the Digital Cities series, expanding its rep-ertoire, looking at urban interfaces, citizen action, and participatory city-making. We trust that the contributions to this book will continue the series that has been key in tracing key historic developments at the intersection of digital media and the built environment, from the information super-highway to the smart city.

The Digital Cities series started in 1999, and is the longest running academic workshop series that has rigorously fol-lowed the intertwined development of cities and digital technologies. Previous years have seen papers presented at Digital Cities appear as the basis of key anthologies that we list below. The works presented at the Digital Cities workshop series have also been formative for a di-verse set of emerging fields, for example, urban informatics, smart cities, pervasive computing, internet of things, media ar-chitecture, urban interaction design, and – most recently – urban science.

Research contributions Case studies and theoretical perspec-tives from thought leaders in urban infor-matics and urban interaction design.

ReferenceMarcus Foth, Martin Brynskov and Timo Ojala (eds.) 2016. Citizen’s right to the digital city: Urban interfaces, activism, and placemaking. Springer, Singapore. ISBN 978-981-287-919-6.

Marcus Foth, Martin Brynskov, and Timo Ojala

CITIZEN’S RIGHT TO THE DIGITAL CITY: URBAN INTERFACES, ACTIVISM, AND PLACEMAKING

Cities are for citizens. Digital cities need to rethink the roles of citizens

In a world of great challenges, cities and societies need to rally all resources

43

DD Lab is a prototype facility focused on physical and tangible interaction, locat-ed at The Department of Digital Design and Information Studies at Aarhus Univer-sity. It is an open space, staffed every day during the work week. It is also possible to get access beyond the opening hours, and use the facility around the clock.

The primary purpose of the lab is to fa-cilitate student access to practical ap-proaches to physical and digital design materials, as a supplement to more the-oretical knowledge acquisition. It takes its inspiration in artistic and technical practices that are key to the academic traditions of the design and architecture schools.

On this foundation, DD Lab serves as a physical space and knowledge facility for conducting work on prototypes and projects, whether they be student pro-jects or parts of research projects. In addi-tion to the physical tools, the knowledge of the staff and the information reposito-ries, available on the DD Lab website and Github page, are important components of the lab.

Finally, workshops and other teaching activities that introduce technical and/or other relevant knowledge and skills are key to the transfer of knowledge that DD Lab aims to provide.

Facilities DD Lab is equipped with tools for process-ing and machining a wide range of ma-terials that are often used in prototyping. Including, but not limited to: electronic

components, wood, plastics, foam and cardboard.

The tool bank consists of CNC-operated machinery such as a laser cutter, a vinyl (and other soft materials) cutter, and 3D printers, and a range of hand and elec-tric saws, cutters, drills, and milling tools. Soldering equipment and other types of tools for electronic prototyping like spec-trum analyzers, multimeters, and a (digi-tal) oscilloscope are also available.

The bank of materials available to use, borrow and/or buy in DD Lab includes a selection of electronic components, sensors and actuators, microcontrollers, computer hardware and accessories, thermoplastics and smart materials such as conductive and resistive fabrics and ink, and muscle wire.

A central function of the lab is to educate and inform students and fellow universi-ty staff of the possibilities of the different materials and electronic components.

Who is it for? On a daily basis, DD Lab provides a space for experimentation, and project and prototype building for bachelor’s, master’s and PhD students from the Dig-ital Design and Information Studies study programmes. In addition, researchers from The School of Communication and Culture may use the tools in DD Lab, as well as the knowledge of the staff, when conducting research that entails the use of electronic prototyping.

Management Director: Associate professor Martin Brynskov, email: brynskov@cavi.au.dk

Lab manager: Rasmus Lunding, email: rasl@dac.au.dk

Web sites DD Lab website: www.ddlab.dk DD Lab Github repository: github.com/DDlabAU DD Lab Facebook page: www.facebook.com/AUDDLab

DIGITAL DESIGN LAB - DD LAB

Digital materials and a sketching attitude is the focus of the Digital Design Lab

Students, researchers and artists meet and work together in the

busy lab

44

45

THE CAVI LAB

CAVI is an interdisciplinary research center at Aarhus University. CAVI’s researchers primarily have backgrounds in interaction design or digital aesthetics, although some have a background in computer science. CAVI carries out research-through-design, in the sense of making design experiments aimed at gaining insight into interaction design – design process, as well as inter-face and use. Many of our research activ-ities have a background in participatory design, which explains the concern for the context for which we are designing. A strong interest in exploring the design of engaging experiences is a persistent thread throughout the research.

Facilities and technologies The CAVI laboratory was established in 2001, and was originally based on 3D technologies, including a 3D panorama and a virtual studio, but during recent years the CAVI platform has been ex-panded to include a number of mixed re-ality platforms, such as tangible tabletops and various kinds of pervasive computing technologies.

The 3D panorama consists of a 3D cinema that seats 25–30 people. The 6.40 meter × 3.60 meter 3D stereo display provides people with the illusion of three-dimen-sional immersion. Furthermore, it is pos-sible to interact in real-time, through the use of consumer devices such as the Wii controllers or custom developed interac-tion technology. The 3D panorama is par-ticularly suited to displaying large-scale models in domains such as architecture, city planning, and art. The virtual studio or virtual stage set makes

it possible to use digital 3D models as sets, instead of sets made of wood, steel, card-board, or other materials. Live recordings in a blue studio with real objects may be mixed with computerized models. The mix of real and virtual recordings may then be viewed in real-time as part of design work-shops, or used to create films and video prototypes.

The technology of 3D projection mapping augments a physical object by projecting digital content directly onto it – hence, giving the object a new digital layer. 3D projections rely on precise mapping of the physical spaces into which they are pro-jected, but this is still a flexible technology, which may be adapted for different cas-es, installations, and purposes. Advanced 3D projection mapping may be used as a design tool, or it may be part of the design itself.

Several of CAVI’s interactive tables are custom developed and allow for tangible interaction. Based on the technology of camera tracking and tags, it is possible to combine a physical object with a virtual object, or data and sound, for example. CAVI has developed the BullsEye tags and software to secure precise interaction and fast response times.

The DUL Radio is a small, wireless toolkit for sketching sensor-based interaction aimed at wearable and ultra-mobile prototyping, where a fast reaction is needed, for in-stance when controlling sound. The board has been developed in order to balance ease-of-use (learning, setup, initialization), size, speed, flexibility and cost.

Reference Kim Halskov. 2011. CAVI - An interaction de-sign research lab. In interactions, 18 (4) 2011, 92-95.

Management Director: Professor Kim Halskov, email: halskov@cavi.au.dk Lab manager: Morten Lervig, email: lervig@cavi.au.dk

Web sites cavi.au.dk digitalexperience.dk

Virtual video prototype production

Tangible interaction

46

47

Today, more and more forms of human activity involve a repertoire of digital de-vices, ranging from mobile phones to tab-lets and desktop computers, to electron-ic whiteboards and wall-sized displays. While some integration across multiple devices is supported by access to shared data, for instance via cloud computing services, more sophisticated kinds of inte-gration that connect devices and amplify their potential are limited. As an engine for advancing research into ICT-supported creative practices, the CIBIS (Creativity in Blended Interaction Spaces) project de-velops and explores blended interaction spaces for supporting and developing the creative potential of young people at the high school level. The project explores the following six research areas.

Blended Interaction Blended Interaction is interaction in phys-ical environments augmented by ICT, to blend the power of digital computing and the physical environment. Blended Interaction seeks to combine the virtues of physical and digital artifacts in a com-plimentary way, so that the desired prop-erties of each are preserved. Blended Interaction Spaces bridge personal and collaborative computing. A key research question is RQ1: what kind of software infrastructure can handle a dynamic mix of personal, shared, physical and digital devices and artefacts?

Individual and social activities CIBIS poses the thesis that the individual vs. social creation dichotomy is artificial: real-life creativity almost always takes place in both spheres, albeit at different

times, which CIBIS investigates by ad-dressing research question RQ2: how can Blended Interaction Spaces facili-tate seamless integration of individual creative sessions with collaborative ones, hereby allowing for ideas to travel across platforms and contextual boundaries?

Creativity constraints Although constraints act as obstructions in a process by determining what cannot be done, they also give rise to new opportu-nities, and inspire creative breakthroughs, which leads to RQ3: what is the nature of creativity constraints and how can they be balanced and managed in a creative process?

Transformation of design ideas It is generally acknowledged that sources of inspiration play a crucial role in crea-tive processes, which leads to RQ4: how can we conceptualise the emergence of design ideas and the transformation of design ideas across devices in Blended Interaction Spaces?

Generative design materialsD. Schön coined the term generative met-aphors, generative in the sense that they generate new perceptions, explanations, and inventions. CIBIS extends the con-cept to generative design materials, in or-der to examine RQ5: how can generative design materials, digital as well as physi-cal, spur ideation and create momentum in a creative process?

Creativity methods A number of interaction design methods support ideation and creativity. CIBIS will

provide a systematic overview of such methods, as part of a strategy to investi-gate RQ6: how can creativity methods be supported and/or augmented by Blend-ed Interaction Spaces?

International collaboration City University London, UK Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, NL Université Paris-Sud, France

National partners Designit LEGO Education Aarhus TECH – Viby Academy of Talented Youth Copenhagen Business School Kirstinebjergskolen Ørestad Gymnasium Viby Gymnasium

Funding The Danish Council for Strategic Research

Management Project manager: Professor Kim Halskov Email: halskov@cavi.au.dk

CIBIS: CREATIVITY IN BLENDED INTERACTION SPACES

Blended interaction space

48 Photo: Simon Jeppesen

49

Digital Fabrication in Education: Design Literacy for Children FabLab@School.dk is a three-year re-search project studying how children de-velop “design literacy” through processes of digital fabrication and ‘making’ in cur-riculum-based education. From our per-spective, design literacy denotes a child’s ability to take a designerly stance when faced with wicked problems and dilem-mas, and incorporate digital material in possible solutions. We investigate design literacy in learning processes of digital fabrication and ‘making’ through three core questions:

• What are the central qualities and dy-namics of design literacy for children?

• How is design literacy, as a core com-petence, scaffolded through iterative processes of digital fabrication and design thinking?

• How can we develop digital materials and interactive technologies to support design literacy among children?

The outcome of the study is hybrid learn-ing environment – a FabLab@School.dk that combines elements of digital fabri-cation, design thinking, and collaborative ideation, for children to meet (complex) societal challenges. Aside from physical and networked spaces with fabrication technologies, FabLab@School.dk con-sists of a coherent set of tools, techniques, and principles of organization to scaf-fold the development of design literacy among children (aged 11-15).

Developing New Learning Practices through Research The study has been carried out in fifteen Danish schools (upper primary and lower secondary) in which digital fabrication and design processes are introduced to children as part of their learning prac-tices (aged 11–15). By combining ele-ments of Design Anthropology and Par-ticipatory Design, we integrate students, teachers, and school managers into our research and design interventions. Re-search results are disseminated to the schoolteachers, students, and managers who incorporate these results into their own practices, creating fifteen lighthouse FabLab@Schools for others to learn from. A customized FabLab@School master program for schoolteachers will be intro-duced in 2016, to develop and sustain the knowledge created, and to further disseminate research findings.

FabLab@School.dk research is an inter-disciplinary endeavor incorporating re-search in Design Thinking and Interaction Design with the latest research on child development, teaching, and Child-Com-puter Interaction. The research project has initiated a European research net-work for digital fabrication with a bian-nual FabLearn Europe conference, which was held in Aarhus, Denmark (2014), and will be held in Manchester, UK (2016).

International collaboration Stanford University (US) University of Central Lancashire (UK) Bremen University (DE) Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)

Management Project manager: Professor Ole Sejer Iversen

Funding The Danish Industrial Foundation The A.P. Møller Foundation

Contact Professor Ole Iversen Email: oiversen@cavi.au.dk

FABLAB@SCHOOL.DK

Students experimenting with Makey-Makey invention kit 3D printing is used in lower secondary schools. Photo: Lars Thomsen

50

51

OrganiCity is an EU project launched in January 2015. It puts people at the centre of city development and brings together three leading smart cities – Aarhus, Lon-don, and Santander – and 15 interna-tional partners. Martin Brynskov, Associate Professor at Aarhus University, is Organi-City’s coordinator.

OrganiCity is about doing smart cities in the right way – by combining citizen-driv-en innovation with smart city technolo-gy. And, importantly, OrganiCity is about making cities better through systematic experimentation, rather than through the search for “perfect” solutions.

Earlier attempts to figure out what kinds of solutions are well-suited to cities have not worked. This has to do with the fact that cities are very complex, and that they are still largely sector based. So, Organi-City is about making cities better through systematic experimentation, not through searching for the perfect solution. This means that OrganiCity will enable citi-zens – and activists, researchers, business-es and city governments – to experiment and organically grow sustainable solu-tions to the many challenges posed by working with systems and cities. All in all, OrganiCity offers the framework to make experiments in the cities, and it is one of the world’s most ambitious attempts to do so.

Co-creation and technological building blocks Aarhus, Santander, and London, the pro-ject’s three OrganiCities and experimen-tation hubs, are all mature smart cities, but

represent very different types of cities, cul-turally, organizationally, technically, and size-wise. In other words, if OrganiCity succeeds in finding a way of experiment-ing that works in all three cities, we will be able to make it work in many, many places. This is important not least because one of the project’s goals is to connect with new cities, to help enable other cities engage in systematic experimentation using the OrganiCity tools. The Aarhus Cluster features Aarhus University, the Al-exandra Institute, and the City of Aarhus.

Each of the three current OrganiCities will launch the first of two open calls early in 2016, inviting citizens, companies, and anyone else to conduct to preliminary experiments, or to start preparing for up-coming experiments. Because the project considers citizen involvement and co-cre-ation, and technological solutions to be equally important elements of city devel-opment, it is mandatory to form partner-ships and secure co-creation, in order to receive funding. This is all to make sure that the experiments and projects that are supported by OrganiCity, are actually anchored in society, and accepted by the citizens whose cities they aim to improve.

Another mandatory element for exper-imenters receiving funding is working with some of the building blocks that OrganiCity offers. The OrganiCity facility includes datasets provided by Open Data Aarhus and Open Data Denmark, and the so-called DUL radio, a small device de-veloped at Aarhus University that enables people to conduct plug’n’play sensor ex-periments.

Beside the three OrganiCities, London, Aarhus and Santander, the project in-volves 15 consortium partners with very different forms of competence and ex-perience. The second open call will be in 2017. Read more on www.organicity.eu

International collaboration Intel, UK Future Cities Catapult, UK Imperial College London, UK Luleå Technical University, Sweden University of Lübeck, Germany IAAC - Institute of Advanced Architecture of Catalunya Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives, France University of Cantabria, Spain Santander Municipality, Spain Computer Technology Institue, Greece TST Sistemas, Spain University of Melbourne, Australia

Management Coordinator: Associate Professor Martin Bryn-skov

Funding EU Horizon 2020 LEIT-ICT-11 (€ 7.2m)

Contact Associate Professor Martin Brynskov Email: brynskov@dac.au.dk

ORGANICITY: SMART CITIES DONE RIGHT

OrganiCity is creating new hybrid network infra-structures, with incentives tuned to collaboration and sustainability

Fifteen partners are needed to put together the many pieces

of the Experimentation- as-a-Service facility

52

International partners Bremen University, Germany City University London, UK Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives, France Computer Technology Institue, Greece Eindhoven University of Technology, NL Future Cities Catapult, UK IAAC - Institute of Advanced Architecture of Catalunya, Spain Imperial College London, UK Intel, UK Luleå Technical University, Sweden Media architecture institute, Austria Santander Municipality, Spain Stanford University, US TST Sistemas, Spain Université Paris-Sud, France University of Cantabria, Spain University of Central Lancashire, UK University of Lübeck, Germany University of Melbourne, Australia

Funding CIBIS: The Danish Council for Strategic Research (DKK 16m) FabLab@School: The A.P. Møller Foundation (DKK 5.7m) FabLab@School: The Danish Industrial Foundation (DKK 3.0m) OrganiCity: EU Horizon 2020 LEIT-ICT-11 (€ 7.2m) TEKNE: Capital of Culture Aarhus 2017 (DKK 1.6m)

National partners 3XN Aarhus Municipality Aarhus TECH – Viby Academy of Talented Youth Alexandra Institute BIG Capital of Culture Aarhus 2017 Copenhagen Business School Danish Business Authority Designit Dokk1 Invest in Denmark Kirstinebjergskolen Kollision Kunsthal Aarhus LEGO Education LEGO System A/S Martin Professional MMeX Meaning Making Experience Moesgård Museum Roskilde Library Silkeborg Municipality Vejle Municipality VIA University College Viby Gymnasium Ørestad Gymnasium

PARTNERS AND FUNDING

53

ProfessorsKim Halskov, halskov@cavi.au.dk Ole Sejer Iversen, oiversen@cavi.au.dk

Associate professors Christian Dindler, dindler@cavi.au.dk Clemens Nylandsted Klokmose, clemens@cavi.au.dk Martin Brynskov, brynskov@cavi.au.dk Peter Dalsgaard, dalsgaard@cavi.au.dk

Assistant professors and postdoc researchers Adriënne Heijnen, ahe@dac.au.dk Ditte Amund Basballe, basballe@cavi.au.dk Graham Dove, graham.dove@dac.au.dk Michael Mose Biskjaer, mmb@cavi.au.dk Nicolai Brodersen Hansen, nbhansen@cavi.au.dk Rachel Charlotte Smith, rsmith@cavi.au.dk

PhD students Kasper Skov Christensen, ksc@dac.au.dk Lasse Steenbock Vestergaard, lasse.vestergaard@alexandra.dk Mikkel Hjorth, mh@cavi.au.dk Nanna Inie, inie@cavi.au.dk Peter Lau Torst Nielsen, peter.nielsen@dac.au.dk Stig Møller Hansen, smh@dmjx.dk Thomas Hvid Spangsberg, tbhs@dac.au.dk

CAVI technical staff Janus Bager Kristensen, software developer, jbk@cavi.au.dk Jonas Petersen, 3D interaction designer, jonas@cavi.au.dk Louise Balslev, demo pilot, balslev@cavi.au.dk Malte Erslev, demo pilot, stavning@cavi.au.dk Morten Lervig, production management, lervig@cavi.au.dk Peter Friis-Nielsen, engineer, friis@cavi.au.dk Rolf Bagge, software developer, rolf@cavi.au.dk

Digital Design Lab technical staff Esben Hardenberg, esbenh@dac.au.dk Mark Moore, moore@dac.au.dk Rasmus Lunding, rasl@dac.au.dk

PEOPLE

INTERACTION DESIGN CAVIwww.InteractionDesign.au.dk www.CAVI.au.dk

Department of Digital Design and Information Studies Aarhus University, Denmark