Short Papers
Proceedings: NordiCHI 2010, October 16–20, 2010
Architectures of Interaction: An Architectural Perspective on Digital Experience Heather Wiltse Indiana University 919 East 10th Street Bloomington, IN 47408 USA
[email protected]
Erik Stolterman Indiana University 919 East 10th Street Bloomington, IN 47408 USA
[email protected] digital technologies mediate interaction between people in a myriad ways, from simple email to interaction in virtual worlds.
ABSTRACT
Digital technologies increasingly form the backdrop for our lives, and both provide and shape possibilities for interaction. This is a function similar to that of architecture in the physical world. For this reason we suggest that it could be productive to view and critique interactive digital technologies as one might physical architecture: in terms of the possibilities they provide for action, visibility, and interaction. We begin by pointing to the many architectural metaphors that are already common in HCI, and then move on to demonstrate how an architectural perspective can make visible less obvious interactive spaces. Finally, we argue that the potential benefits of this perspective are that it can allow us to see where interactive spaces have been constructed (intentionally or not); think about how particular artifacts and systems interface with each other and with the whole of embodied experience; and link specific design decisions to potential social dynamics.
Digital technologies are much more than tools used to accomplish specific tasks: they are also and increasingly the environments within which we act and interact. Moreover, their design determines the types of actions and awareness that are possible. And these are arguably key elements of our embodied experience as it relates to designed artifacts: one of the key issues of ‘Third Wave HCI’ [4] and something the HCI community has been increasingly interested in understanding (e.g., [5, 9]). However, HCI is historically rooted in a dedication to designing digital artifacts and systems that support specific tasks and workflows, and especially in ways that are effective, efficient and usable [14]. These design goals are relatively clear cut and amenable to straightforward product evaluation. But these goals can also limit our view of what designed artifacts do, pointing to only the activities they were designed to support and what they were intended to help users achieve. However, if we are to understand how technologies are actually used and experienced by people in their everyday lives, we need ways of viewing them that go beyond initial design specifications and usability tests.
Author Keywords
Experience, architecture, theory, interaction, infrastructure, phenomenology, postphenomenology, design, critique ACM Classification Keywords
H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): Miscellaneous.
Drawing on a postphenomenological perspective, we can see that one of the key aspects of how technologies are experienced relates to the ways in which they mediate our engagement with the world [16]. Technologies are not merely neutral tools: they shape activities and their associated meanings as well as support them (e.g., [17, 15, 3]). And people may take up and use artifacts in ways that their designers never intended (e.g., [1, 7]). For all these reasons, understanding the ways in which technologies are implicated in everyday lived experience requires thinking outside of designer intent and initial evaluation criteria, and instead seeing and critiquing the capabilities and social infrastructure that technologies actually provide. In other words, finding ways to reveal how technologies actually mediate human activity and engagement with the world – whether those ways were intended by designers or not.
INTRODUCTION
Digital technologies increasingly form the backdrop of our lives. They are often the infrastructure for our everyday work and play, and one of the primary means by which we maintain awareness of the world around us and interact with others. Even something as simple as a desktop weather widget or stock ticker mediates awareness of the world in ways that matter to the person using them. And of course Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. NordiCHI 2010, October 16–20, 2010, Reykjavik, Iceland. Copyright 2010 ACM ISBN: 978-1-60558-934-3...$5.00.
We suggest that one approach to make this possible is to draw inspiration from another discipline of practice and
821
Short Papers
Proceedings: NordiCHI 2010, October 16–20, 2010
critique that is concerned with the relationship between designed infrastructure and human activity: architecture. The physical infrastructure of architecture in a similar way shapes the actions and visibility that are possible, while still leaving a great deal of freedom to its ‘users’. Yet even though the people who live and move within built spaces do have this freedom, architects nonetheless think about, critique and try to anticipate the qualities, mood and soul of built spaces; how they enable and restrict flows and patterns of activity; and how they will relate to the rest of the environment [2, 8]. In short, architects are concerned with how spaces are experienced in everyday life.
(digital) physical spaces structure possibilities for awareness and interaction in much the same way as their offline concrete counterparts. For example, one might be able to see and interact with other people who are in the same room but not those on the other side of a solid wall. ‘Moving’ to another ‘space’ in a virtual world can afford other opportunities for action and interaction. And digital objects may replicate the appearance and behavior of artifacts in the physical world. In short, the structure or architecture of the virtual environment is understood to both enable and constrain certain types of activities and their associated visibility to others in ways that are similar to the ways in which physical structures and architecture function in the physical world.
Although there have been some early explorations of cyberspace as the architecture of experience [10, 11], there have not (to our knowledge) been attempts made to bring an architectural perspective to bear in design critique. Moreover, there is also not yet an approach that is well suited to making unintentionally-created interactive spaces visible during design and critique.
Thus, interaction design has already been informed by and drawn on architecture in a number of ways. However, we suggest that there is also a more subtle intersection that is worth exploring. ARCHITECTURES OF INTERACTION
The goal of this paper is to begin to explore how an architectural perspective might be useful in conceptualizing and critiquing designed artifacts and systems. We will begin by looking briefly at how architectural metaphors have already been used in interaction design, and then move on to consider some of the more subtle similarities between physical and digital spaces, and requirements for constituting digital space. Next we will look at some examples of digital interactive spaces that, while not explicitly architecture, can nonetheless be seen to serve some of the same functions. We will conclude by considering some potential benefits of using an architectural perspective in thinking about and critiquing interactive technologies. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
METAPHORS
IN
One of the most fundamental functions of architecture is in defining spaces and shaping access and visibility through built environments. Precisely how it does this in specific spaces is determined by design decisions regarding structure and material used. For example, if we think about the function of a brick wall, one of its most basic features is that it prevents passing through it, or seeing through it. However, it might be possible to hear what is happening on the other side. Clear glass windows, on the other hand, typically do not allow sound to pass through them, but they do afford visual awareness. Design decisions and materials afford different types of awareness through different channels. Walls also serve another important function in that they articulate spaces, which in turn shape interaction. The space of a narrow alley is not very conducive to interaction since, among other things, it is usually used only for passing from one space to another. A town square, on the other hand, is quite the opposite. It is often both a central hub for travel and a place to linger. It allows for a wide range of movement and activity and, since it is an open space, for a wide range of types of awareness of activity. This might be through the sound of children playing in a fountain or of street musicians; the smell of food from street vendors; or the sight of all these activities. In other words, a public square allows for many types of actions and mutual awareness of actions, and also for interaction between people.
INTERACTION
Good interaction design has long drawn on the familiar logic of the physical world in order to make its functionality and navigation comprehensible to users. Graphical user interfaces (GUIs) use metaphors like the desktop, handles, sliders, and file folders that allow users to draw on familiar mental models [13]. Even though these small things do not suggest architectural spaces, they do mimic the capabilities and logic of the physical world. An area of interaction design that more explicitly relates to architecture is that of augmented reality. Augmented reality is grounded in the physical world, but with some type of digital virtual display laid over it (see [6, 18] for overviews). This very directly connects digital and physical experience, and relies on the built environment to structure interaction. Spaces and possibilities for interaction are determined by both physical and digital elements.
Going back to the digital realm, we can see how a virtual world mimics these functions of architecture. Walls define interactive spaces and co-presence, and shape the nature of those spaces. However, in digital environments visibility and awareness is also there determined by design choices. In other words, the digital environment must be designed to capture and make visible certain types of activity. It is this
At the other end of the spectrum are virtual worlds: interactive spaces that are fully based in the digital world, but use explicitly architectural representations. These
822
Short Papers
Proceedings: NordiCHI 2010, October 16–20, 2010
sort of captured activity that is the foundation for awareness and possible actions in the digital realm.
Of course precisely what can be inferred on the basis of a status message in an instant messaging service is largely dependent on context and background knowledge. However, this is not at all unlike signals in the physical world that we learn to read over time and through experience. In the office this might be the presence of certain items like a jacket or lunch box in a cubicle that indicate its resident has arrived at the office. Similarly, a switch from ‘offline’ to ‘available’ in the morning can indicate that someone has arrived, while another switch to ‘idle’ during the middle of the day can coincide with her leaving for lunch.
In fully virtual worlds, such as Second Life, the connection to physical architecture is explicit and readily apparent. However, there are also other digital architectural environments that manifest less obvious interactive spaces. In fact, any time there is a technological device or infrastructure that makes presence and activity visible so that others can see it, there is the potential for an interactive social space: a space of mutual awareness and thus the possibility of interaction. We can liken this to a glass window being placed into a brick wall, allowing those on either side to become aware of each other’s presence and to interact through visual cues.
In summary, an instant messaging client can function as much more than a communication tool: it can also provide a space of mutual awareness of presence and activity.
Displayed records of activities might be designed to serve as social cues, but they can also do so unintentionally and, in so doing create (digital) interactive spaces and traces of actions. These interactive spaces function as architecture, even though they do not on the surface resemble it. Just like physical architecture, they can structure potential actions and visibility. They are architectures of interaction: digital structuring of mediated action, interaction and awareness.
Example 2. Shared File System
Another example of an interactive space that may be even less obvious is that of a shared file system accessed through a computer’s file browser (Finder window in the Mac operating system or Windows Explorer on a PC). This is a simple repository for files that multiple people need to access, modify, and/or store again. Yet even this can provide social cues in ways that can constitute and be analyzed as an interactive space.
We will consider two examples of technologies that construct these types of spaces in ways that were not originally intended by the designers.
Looking once again for ways that presence and activity are made visible, we can see that each file has a set of metadata associated with it that indicates things like its author and date and time created, modified, last opened, etc. And even an author name and time stamp can provide social cues. At a very basic level, it indicates that a particular person was at her computer at a specific time. The file itself can also give an idea of what she was working on at that time. The file system makes visible the activity of uploading a file, and thus allows for mutual awareness of presence and activity. This type of information is frequently trivial and yet, in context, it can be significant. In taking an architectural perspective we can see how even something as seemingly functional and banal as a shared file system can be seen as a social space and provide socially relevant awareness through making presence and activity visible.
Example 1. Instant Messaging
One classic example of a digital system providing a space of awareness in unintended ways is that of an instant messaging buddy list providing a sense for ‘who is around’ and online [12]. In an instant messaging client an ‘available’ status is not just a functional indicator of whether or not a certain user can be reached through the service at any given moment. Since this status is displayed as a result of a user being present at a computer and logging in to the service, it can also serve as a signal that, for instance, the person has arrived at the office. An instant messaging client can make other types of activities visible as well. For instance, most now make the fact that a buddy is typing visible, but do not show what is being typed in real time. This is a design decision regarding what activities to make visible, and how. Another is in the activity that is made visible by changes in status. For example, an ‘idle’ status typically appears only when a person is not active on her computer, and so might serve as an indicator that she is no longer there. This status can typically be set only by the system, which changes it automatically after a period of inactivity. An ‘away’ status, on the other hand, can typically be set by a user. So it can mean that a person is really away, or it can mean that he wants other users to think he is away. Each status gives subtle or clear social cues, and the ways in which it does this are dependent on design decisions regarding how to capture activity and make it visible as part of the environment.
Benefits of an Architectural Perspective
Viewing digital technologies through an architectural perspective can, we believe, enable us to: 1.
823
see interactive spaces, not just functions and workflows. Interaction design is not a matter of simply building tools to support specific tasks and workflows, but also a process of building interactive spaces. As digital technologies are taken up and actually used, their significance may go far beyond the functionality their designers intended. HCI has focused on and been successful in designing and assessing functionality of interactive systems, but this ability is not as helpful when it comes to understanding the role that technologies actually play in everyday human
Short Papers
Proceedings: NordiCHI 2010, October 16–20, 2010
experience in a broader sense. This is particularly true when it comes to the ways in which they may (even unintentionally) mediate activity, awareness and interaction. By looking at interactive spaces as architectural spaces we can perhaps be more attentive to some of these significant social and experiential dynamics. 2.
3.
REFERENCES
1. Akrich, M. The de-scription of technical objects. In Shaping technology/building society. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1991), 205-224. 2. Alexander, C. The Timeless Way of Building. Oxford University Press, New York, 1979. 3. Bowker, G.C., and Star, S.L. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
think about experiential wholes instead of functional parts. The concept of architecture implies that there is always a greater whole. When an architectural entity is analyzed, part of that analysis must (typically) be an articulation of how that entity is situated within relevant larger wholes, such as the street, neighborhood, city, etc., and how it relates to these larger wholes. The boundaries of what is analyzed are in many ways arbitrary. Once a building or other structure exists, the original conceptual boundaries of its creators dissolve as it becomes part of the broader environment. Digital architectures are similarly always part of larger wholes, arbitrarily cut off during design and analysis, but part of an experiential whole for users. So while a digital technology may provide a limited set of possibilities for awareness and interaction, these will always be only one of many other channels. Thus, for example, while the social cues that can be drawn from an instant messaging status and a time stamp on a shared document may be trivial, when combined in everyday experience they can potentially provide more complex social awareness and interaction.
4. Bødker, S.. When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In NordiCHI '06: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction (2006), 1-8. 5. Dourish, P. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001. 6. Dünser, A., Grasset, R., and Billinghurst, M. A survey of evaluation techniques used in augmented reality studies. In ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA 2008 courses (2008). 7. Franssen, M. Design, Use, and the Physical and Intentional Aspects of Technical Artifacts. In Philosophy and Design: From Engineering to Architecture. Springer, (2009), 21-35. 8. Hillman, J. A Blue Fire. Harper Perennial, New York, 1989. 9. McCarthy, J., and Wright, P. Technology as Experience. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004. 10. McCullough, M. Digital Ground: Architecture, Pervasive Computing, and Environmental Knowing. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004.
link specific design decisions to potential social dynamics. An architectural perspective considers both built infrastructure and the flows and patterns of activity that it supports and shapes. When considering architectures of (digital) interaction, we can look specifically for places where presence and activity are made visible and there is thus potential for interaction and awareness. Although just as with physical architecture there is no way to predict exactly what will happen, we may still be able to anticipate, talk about, and critique overall patterns.
11. Mitchell, W.J. City of Bits: Space, Place, and the Infobahn. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995. 12. Nardi, B.A., Whittaker, S., and Bradner, E. Interaction and outeraction: Instant messaging in action. In Proceedings of CSCW’2000 (2000), 79-88. 13. Norman, D.A. The Design of Everyday Things. Currency Doubleday, New York, 1988. 14. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., and Sharp, H. Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. John Wiley, New York, 2002.
CONCLUSION
15. Star, S.L.. The ethnography of infrastructure. American behavioral scientist 43, 3 (1999),377-391.
Digital technologies are much more than tools used to accomplish specific goals: they also constitute an infrastructure that shapes and mediates our activities and engagement with the world. In taking an architectural perspective that views these technologies in terms of the interactive spaces they enable, we can perhaps start to see and critique these other dimensions.
16. Verbeek, P. What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, And Design. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, 2005. 17. Winner, L. The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. University Of Chicago Press, Chicago & London, 1986.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
18. Zhou, F., Duh, H.B.-L., and Billinghurst, M.. Trends in augmented reality tracking, interaction and display: A review of ten years of ISMAR. In Proceedings of the 2008 7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality-Volume 00 (2008), 193-202.
We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
824
