=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1861/paper6
|storemode=property
|title=Challenges For Designing Tangible Systems
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1861/paper6.pdf
|volume=Vol-1861
|authors=Torben Wallbaum,Andrii Matviienko, Wilko Heuten, Susanne Boll,Stephanie Rey
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/etis/WallbaumMHB17
}}
==Challenges For Designing Tangible Systems==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1861/paper6.pdf
Challenges For Designing Tangible Systems
Torben Wallbaum1 , Andrii Matviienko1 , Wilko Heuten1 , Susanne Boll2
1 OFFIS - Institute for IT 2 University of Oldenburg
Oldenburg, Germany Oldenburg, Germany
firstname.lastname @offis.de susanne.boll@uol.de
ABSTRACT Scalability
Since the introduction of tangible systems and tangible inter- Designers of new tangible systems are often trying to maxi-
action a lot of work has been done in this area. The focus for mize the scalability of a system they are developing. In some
most of these works was on a success of tangible interaction cases this is needed to enable the use of the system by multiple
and few papers discuss when tangible systems fail. In this pa- users or to integrate different modalities into an artifact. How-
per, we aim to understand what we can learn from the failures ever, the level of a scalability is still limited in comparison to
of tangible systems. We discuss the challenges raised during a smartphone application, and often increases the complexity
the design of tangible systems and present a list of research of a tangible system. Couture et al. [3], for example, studied
questions for future exploration. whether a tool with a generic form factor can be scaled and sub-
stitute tools with a dedicated functionality. However, systems
that support an extension of contacts [5, 20], different kinds of
INTRODUCTION notifications [1] or modalities [8] still have an extension limit.
Tangible interaction has been a widely researched area since The questions that are raised: “What happens if the number of
the work by Ishii and Ullmer [9]. During this period of time communication partners increases to 100?" or “What if I have
there were both positive and negative experiences with tan- five types of notifications instead of one? Do I want to have
gible systems. Hornecker and Buur [7], for example, have five notification objects on my desk?" Matviienko et al. [11]
shown that tangible interaction is engaging and provides a low tried to solve this issue with a tangible modular calendar by
threshold for accessing interactive systems. Ishii and Ulmer letting the users assign and reassign a contact to a dedicated
[9] showed that tangible systems are successful in facilitat- tangible figure. Even though these artifacts have been devel-
ing the smooth transition of attention between foreground and oped with a possible scalability in mind, they are still restricted
background tasks, what makes them successful for the increase in comparison to most software systems. The extension of
of awareness. Shear and Hornecker [14] provided scenarios tangible systems in comparison to smartphone applications
and recommendations regarding the future development of is demanding more resources and is harder to realize in the
tangible interaction. While most of the works focus on the late stages of the development process. One of the research
positive aspects of tangible interaction, we decided to make questions to explore in the future work would be: “How can
a closer look at the negative experiences and problems with we design tangible systems with simplified scalability?"
tangible systems and what we can learn from it. Throughout
the exploration of related work we were aiming to answer the Acceptability
following questions: (1) What is this about tangibility that Acceptability and integration of new tangible systems in peo-
makes things work and what not? (2) Till what extend one ple’s environment is another challenging aspect for designers
can use tangible interaction? (3) Where does the tangible and developers. Systems which are designed in the form of a
interaction fail? flower [20], a tree or a house are not immediately accepted,
if at all. Even though people are used to tables and desks
To find the answers to these questions, we analyzed existing
in their working environments, the artifacts in the form of a
tangible systems. As a results, we derived a list of challenges
table [19] would require some time for a user to get used to it.
from the experiences with tangible systems, which we describe
Moreover, people get often attached to specific artifacts from
and discuss in detail in the following section.
their environment, since they inherit memories from their past
[2]. When designing artifacts that replace existing objects, it is
important to involve users into the design process or integrate
CHALLENGES FOR DESIGNING TANGIBLE SYSTEMS
existing objects into the design.
In this section we aim to outline some of the problems and
challenges which raise during the process of design and in- Users who use portable tangible systems, such as CubeLendar
teraction with tangible user interfaces. Based on the previous [12] or Forget-Me-Not [20], often face problems of acceptabil-
work and our own experience, we discuss the following as- ity, since taking an object to a location uncommon for the usual
pects of tangible systems: (1) scalability, (2) acceptability, interaction might raise social concerns or is annoying to the
(3) novelty and complexity of interaction, (4) form factor and users. It is a long process of accepting and adapting to a new
context of use and (5) maintenance and complexity. In the tangible artifact in the environment, especially when designed
following we discuss in detail each of the aforementioned to be used in various contexts of use. For example, an artifact
dimensions. which has been designed for domestic environment might not
fit into a workplace. As a consequence, users tend not to use should further not only consider affordances through physical
the systems in different context. It affects users’ interaction shape, but also take ergonomics into account, which are espe-
with a system and can provide misleading information in field cially important for longer-term usage of systems. This leads
experiments. us to another research question: “How can we design tangible
systems with a flexible context of use?"
Another challenging aspect regarding future tangible system is
to investigate the change of interaction with the same function-
Maintenance and Complexity
ality developed as a mobile application and as a tangible object.
Users usually do not face problems using new applications on After all, maintaining tangible systems for research purposes
their smartphone, but need time to get used to new tangible is cumbersome in comparison to software applications. When
systems. What is missing in tangible objects for increasing such applications fail, a researcher can update the software
their acceptability? This leads us to another research question: remotely or provide an exchange device with an updated ap-
“Which properties of tangible objects can help increasing users’ plication. When a tangible system fails, one has to either fix
acceptance?" the whole system or as in the case with smartphone applica-
tion provide a new one. However, building a new tangible
Novelty and Complexity of Interaction system as back-up is more time and costs consuming than a
Different software applications imply interaction with the pure software application.
same physical object, e.g. smartphone or laptop. The in- A tangible system usually consists of a multiple hardware
teraction paradigm for software systems is often consistent components. These components have to communicate with
due to standards and best design practices. Tangible artifact, each other by exchanging data to ensure that a system works as
however, have various form factors. Therefore, a user has one module. The more components are integrated in a tangible
to learn an interaction for a specific object and adapt to its system, the higher its complexity, the harder its maintenance.
affordances. Ullmer et al. [17, 16, 15], however, tried to Another research question here would be: “How can we design
solve this issue by presenting physical interaction elements tangible systems with a simplified maintenance?"
which can serve common roles across different tangible sys-
tems. Furthermore, physical objects are not mutable, and are CONCLUSION
not able to change their physical representation as it would be We presented some of the challenges in the application of
possible with digital systems, e.g., change a button state [13], designing and developing new tangible systems from our own
undo or a history function [10]. This can be a challenging experience and from other related works. The design and
aspect, especially when designing for non-technical users like evaluation of tangible interfaces with users in a realistic en-
children or elderlies. To reduce complexity of the interaction vironment can be challenging and requires a lot of attention
and to ease the way users are interacting with an artifact, de- by researchers and designers. Although, this is an important
signers of tangible systems have to carefully select solutions topic, these challenges rarely get reported or reflected after
and involve users as early as possible into the design process. an artifact has been designed and implemented into the field.
This might include brainstorming sessions to get insights into This work is far from being conclusive, but rather is meant to
users’ needs, low-fi prototyping sessions together with users create starting points for discussion. We hope that reporting
to get early feedback on form and size of tangible artifacts and some of the challenges will assist future designers of tangible
continuous user evaluations within a realistic context of use. systems and avoid the identified issues.
Another research questions to explore here would be: “How
can we design tangible systems with minimized novelty effects REFERENCES
and complexity of interaction?" 1. Mark Altosaar, Roel Vertegaal, Changuk Sohn, and
Daniel Cheng. 2006. AuraOrb: using social awareness
Form Factor and Context of Use cues in the design of progressive notification appliances.
Some of the tangible systems are restricted to the environments In Proceedings of the 18th Australia conference on
where they can be used. The form factor of a tangible artifact Computer-Human Interaction: Design: Activities,
is one of the reasons. If one uses an ambient light on the lamp Artefacts and Environments. ACM, 159–166.
[4] to encourage people to move more at work, she cannot take
it home as easily as a smartphone with a fitness application 2. Margot Brereton. 2013. Habituated objects: everyday
installed on it. The systems such as the information percolator tangibles that foster the independent living of an elderly
[6] is a stationary system integrated into environment, which woman. interactions 20, 4 (2013), 20–24.
can function and show information in the environment, where 3. Nadine Couture, Guillaume Rivière, and Patrick Reuter.
it was installed. Other examples like the StoryBox [18] can 2008. GeoTUI: a tangible user interface for geoscience.
be used to support children and elderlies to easily create and In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on
share stories within a domestic context. Due to the interaction Tangible and embedded interaction. ACM, 89–96.
concept, the box has certain form factor constraints with re-
gards to its size, and relatively large size might not be accepted 4. Jutta Fortmann, Tim Claudius Stratmann, Susanne Boll,
by all users within their homes. Therefore, the form factor of Benjamin Poppinga, and Wilko Heuten. 2013. Make me
tangible systems might restrict the context of use and often move at work! An ambient light display to increase
raises acceptability concerns by users, especially when used physical activity. In Proceedings of the 7th International
within a domestic context. The designers of tangible artifacts Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for
Healthcare. ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, 13. Ivan Poupyrev, Tatsushi Nashida, and Makoto Okabe.
Social-Informatics and Telecommunications 2007. Actuation and tangible user interfaces: the
Engineering), 274–277. Vaucanson duck, robots, and shape displays. In
Proceedings of the 1st international conference on
5. Doris Hausen, Sebastian Boring, Clara Lueling, Simone
Tangible and embedded interaction. ACM, 205–212.
Rodestock, and Andreas Butz. 2012. StaTube: facilitating
state management in instant messaging systems. In 14. Orit Shaer and Eva Hornecker. 2010. Tangible user
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on interfaces: past, present, and future directions.
Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction. ACM, Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction
283–290. 3, 1–2 (2010), 1–137.
6. Jeremy M Heiner, Scott E Hudson, and Kenichiro Tanaka. 15. Brygg Ullmer, Christian Dell, Claudia Gil, Cornelius
1999. The information percolator: ambient information Toole Jr, Cole Wiley, Zachary Dever, Landon Rogge,
display in a decorative object. In Proceedings of the 12th Rachel Bradford, Guillaume Riviere, Rajesh Sankaran,
annual ACM symposium on User interface software and and others. 2011. Casier: structures for composing
technology. ACM, 141–148. tangibles and complementary interactors for use across
diverse systems. In Proceedings of the fifth international
7. Eva Hornecker and Jacob Buur. 2006. Getting a grip on conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied
tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and interaction. ACM, 229–236.
social interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
conference on Human Factors in computing systems. 16. Brygg Ullmer, Zachary Dever, Rajesh Sankaran,
ACM, 437–446. Cornelius Toole Jr, Chase Freeman, Brooke Cassady,
Cole Wiley, Mohamed Diabi, Alvin Wallace Jr, Michael
8. Steven Houben, Connie Golsteijn, Sarah Gallacher, Rose DeLatin, and others. 2010. Cartouche: conventions for
Johnson, Saskia Bakker, Nicolai Marquardt, Licia Capra, tangibles bridging diverse interactive systems. In
and Yvonne Rogers. 2016. Physikit: Data Engagement Proceedings of the fourth international conference on
Through Physical Ambient Visualizations in the Home. Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction. ACM,
In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human 93–100.
Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1608–1619.
17. Brygg Ullmer, Rajesh Sankaran, Srikanth Jandhyala,
9. Hiroshi Ishii and Brygg Ullmer. 1997. Tangible bits: Blake Tregre, Cornelius Toole, Karun Kallakuri,
towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and Christopher Laan, Matthew Hess, Farid Harhad, Urban
atoms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference Wiggins, and others. 2008. Tangible menus and
on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 234–241. interaction trays: core tangibles for common
10. David Kirk, Abigail Sellen, Stuart Taylor, Nicolas Villar, physical/digital activities. In Proceedings of the 2nd
and Shahram Izadi. 2009. Putting the physical into the international conference on Tangible and embedded
digital: issues in designing hybrid interactive surfaces. In interaction. ACM, 209–212.
Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI Group Annual 18. Torben Wallbaum, Matthias Esser, Wilko Heuten, and
Conference on People and Computers: Celebrating Susanne Boll. 2016a. StoryBox: Design of a System to
People and Technology. British Computer Society, 35–44. Support Experience Sharing through Visual Stories. In
11. Andrii Matviienko, Swamy Ananthanarayan, Wilko Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on
Heuten, and Susanne Boll. 2017. AwareKit: Exploring a Human-Computer Interaction. ACM, 97.
Tangible Interaction Paradigm for Digital Calendars. In 19. Torben Wallbaum, Wilko Heuten, and Susanne Boll.
Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended 2016b. RemoTable: Sharing Daily Activities and Moods
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Using Smart Furniture. In Universal Design 2016:
ACM, 1877–1884. Learning from the Past, Designing for the Future, Vol.
12. Andrii Matviienko, Sebastian Horwege, Lennart Frick, 229. IOS Press, 345–354.
Christoph Ressel, and Susanne Boll. 2016. CubeLendar: 20. Torben Wallbaum, Janko Timmermann, Wilko Heuten,
Design of a Tangible Interactive Event Awareness Cube. and Susanne Boll. 2015. Forget Me Not: Connecting
In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Palliative Patients and Their Loved Ones. In Proceedings
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts
ACM, 2601–2608. on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM,
1403–1408.