Advertisement

Design Labs for Data-Driven Multivalence

  • Mathias FunkEmail author
Chapter
Part of the S.M.A.R.T. Environments book series (SMARTE)

Abstract

Designing products, spaces, and services for the Everyday has become the focus of designerly research and practice over the last decade. As designers create complex systems that are space-aware, grow and dynamically morph, their tools and methods have to undergo a similar parallel transformation and extension–often towards and borrowing from technical disciplines. Current designers work with complexity and let data shape all facets and modalities of designed artifacts. This article investigates new challenges for design operating at macro, meso, and micro scales. A translational perspective is proposed together with new types of labs and design research infrastructure that address challenges and emerging needs of the design community.

Keywords

Design labs Multi-valence Research through design Research products Industrial design Systems design 

References

  1. Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In Shaping technologybuilding society (pp. 205–224).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1989.tb07952.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alavi, H. S., Lalanne, D., Nembrini, J., Churchill, E., Kirk, D., & Moncur, W. (2016). Future of Human-Building Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems – CHI EA ’16 (pp. 3408–3414). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2856502. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakker, S., van den Hoven, E., & Eggen, B. (2015). Peripheral interaction: characteristics and considerations. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 19, 239–254.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0775-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binder, T., Brandt, E., Ehn, P., & Halse, J. (2015). Democratic design experiments: Between parliament and laboratory. CoDesign, 11, 152–165.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081248. Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bongers, B. (2015). Interactive infrastructures: Towards a language for distributed interfaces. In Proceedings of the ninth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction (pp. 481–484).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2683585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bongers, B., Eggen, B., & Oosterhuis, K. (2014). Interactive infrastructures—Distributed interfaces for the built environment. Next Generation Building, 1, 101–112.Google Scholar
  7. Brand, S. (1995). How Buildings Learn: What happens after they’re built. London: Penguin Books.  https://doi.org/10.2307/990971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chai-Woo, L., Suh, Y., Kim, I. K., Park, J.-H., & Yun, M. H. (2010). A systematic framework for evaluating design concepts of a new product. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 20, 424–442.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fasoulaki, E. (2005). Integrated design: A generative multi-performative design approach. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer, J. E., Colley, J. A., Luger, E., Golembewski, M., Costanza, E., Ramchurn, S. D., Viller, S., Oakley, I., & Froehlich, J. E. (2016). New horizons for the IoT in everyday life: Proactive, shared, sustainable. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and Ubiquitous computing: Adjunct (pp. 657–660). UbiComp ’16. New York, NY, USA: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2968219.2968347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frens, J., Funk, M., van Hout, B., & Le Blanc, J. (2018). Designing the IoT sandbox. In Proceedings of the 2018 designing interactive systems conference (pp. 341–354. DIS ’18). New York, NY, USA: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Funk, M. (2011). Model-driven design of self-observing products. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology. doi:978-90-386-2427-3.Google Scholar
  13. Funk, M. (2016). Design and data: Strategies for designing information products in team settings. In Collaboration in creative design: Methods and tools. Cham: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29155-0_17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Funk, M. (2018). Designing the fog: Towards an intranet of things. In F. Müller, D. Schnelle-Walka, S. Günther, & M. Funk (Eds.), 2018 CHI workshop on interacting with smart objects (Vol. 2082, pp. 31–38). Montreal: CEUR Workshop Proceedings.Google Scholar
  15. Greenberg, S., Boring, S., Vermeulen, J., & Dostal, J. (2014). Dark patterns in proxemic interactions: A critical perspective. In 2014 conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS’14) (pp. 523–532).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space (Vol. 53). Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
  17. Houben, M., Denef, B., Mattelaer, M., Claes, S., & Moere, A. V. (2017). The meaningful integration of interactive media in architecture. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference companion publication on designing interactive systems (pp. 187–191). New York, NY, USA, ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3064857.3079143.
  18. Intille, S. S. (2002). Designing a home of the future. IEEE Pervasive Computing 1. Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE Educational Activities Department, pp. 76–82.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2002.1012340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Janlert, L.-E., & Stolterman, E. (2010). Complex interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 17, 1–32.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1746259.1746262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Janlert, L. E., & Stolterman, E. (2015). Faceless interaction – A conceptual examination of the notion of interface: past, present, and future. Human-Computer Interaction, 30, 507–539.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2014.944313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Janlert, L.-E., & Stolterman, E. (2017). Things that keep us busy: The elements of interaction. Johanneshov: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones, Q., Grandhi, S. A., Terveen, L., & Whittaker, S. (2004). People-to-people-to-geographical-places: The P3 framework for location-based community systems. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: CSCW: An International Journal 13. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 249–282.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-004-2803-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Khan, W. A., & Angeles, J. (2007). The role of entropy in design theory and methodology. In Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association.Google Scholar
  24. Kidd, C. D., Orr, R., Abowd, G. D., Atkeson, C. G., Essa, I. A., MacIntyre, B., Mynatt, E. D., Starner, T., & Newstetter, W. (1999). The aware home: A living laboratory for ubiquitous computing research. In Proceedings of the second international workshop on cooperative buildings, integrating information, organization, and architecture (pp. 191–198). CoBuild ’99. London, UK: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koskinen, I., Binder, T., & Redström, J. (2008). LAB, FIELD, GALLERY, AND BEYOND. Artifact 2. Routledge, pp. 46–57.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17493460802303333. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lucero, A., Vaajakallio, K., & Dalsgaard, P. (2012). The dialogue-labs method: process, space and materials as structuring elements to spark dialogue in co-design events. CoDesign, 8(1), –23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2011.609888. Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lundsgaard, C., & Chalmers, S. A. (2013). NEW WAYS OF NETWORKING: A hands on workshop exploring the workspace: Lab and its equipment (pp. 463–465).Google Scholar
  28. Marquardt, N., Diaz-Marino, R., Boring, S., & Greenberg, S. (2011). The proximity toolkit: Prototyping proxemic Interactions in Ubiquitous computing ecologies. In Proceedings of the 24th annual symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’11) (pp. 315–325).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marquardt, N., Ballendat, T., Boring, S., Greenberg, S., & Hinckley, K. (2012). Gradual engagement : Facilitating information exchange between digital devices as a function of proximity. In ITS ’12 Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces (pp. 31–40).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2396636.2396642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCullough, M. (2004). Digital ground: Architecture, pervasive computing, and environmental knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mennicken, S., Hwang, A., Yang, R., Hoey, J., Mihailidis, A., & Huang, E. M. (2015). Smart for life. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems – CHI EA ’15 (pp. 2377–2380). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2702631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitchell, W. J. (1996). Excerpts from city of bits: Space, place, and the infobahn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mynatt, E. D., Essa, I., & Rogers, W. (2000). Increasing the opportunities for aging in place. In Proceedings on the 2000 conference on universal usability – CUU ’00 (pp. 65–71). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/355460.355475. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Newman, M. W., Sedivy, J. Z., Neuwirth, C. M., Keith Edwards, W., Hong, J. I., Izadi, S., Marcelo, K., & Smith, T. F. (2002). Designing for serendipity: Supporting end-user configuration of ubiquitous computing environments. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 147–156). DIS ’02. New York, NY, USA: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/778712.778736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Overgoor, C., & Funk, M. (2018). IdleBot: Exploring the design of serendipitous artifacts. In DIS 2018 companion – Proceedings of the 2018 ACM conference on designing interactive systems. Hong Kong: ACM.Google Scholar
  36. Poole, E. S., Chetty, M., Grinter, R. E., & Edwards, W. K. (2008a). More than meets the eye: Transforming the user experience of home network management. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on designing interactive systems (pp. 455–464). DIS ’08. New York, NY, USA: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1394445.1394494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Poole, E. S., Le Dantec, C. A., Eagan, J. R., & Keith Edwards, W. (2008b). Reflecting on the invisible: Understanding end-user perceptions of Ubiquitous computing. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Ubiquitous computing (pp. 192–201). UbiComp ’08. New York, NY, USA: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1409635.1409662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodden, T., Crabtree, A., Hemmings, T., Koleva, B., Humble, J., AAkesson, K.-P., & Hansson, P. (2004). Between the dazzle of a new building and its eventual corpse: Assembling the ubiquitous home. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 71–80). DIS ’04. New York, NY, USA: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1013115.1013127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rogers, Y. (2006). Moving on from Weiser’s vision of calm computing: Engaging Ubicomp experiences. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Ubiquitous computing, pp. 404–421. UbiComp’06. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/11853565_24.Google Scholar
  40. Schnädelbach, H. (2003). Adaptive Architecture. Interactions 23. ACM, pp. 62–65.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2875452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the twenty-first century. Scientific American, 265, 94–104.  https://doi.org/10.1145/329124.329126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wiltse, H., & Stolterman, E. (2010). Architectures of interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction extending boundaries – NordiCHI’ 10 (p. 821). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1868914.1869038. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations