=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3328/workshop5
|storemode=property
|title=Designing wearable interactions through playful on-body explorations
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3328/workshop5.pdf
|volume=Vol-3328
|authors=Barbro Scholz,Michaela Honauer,Kristi Kuusk,Paula Veske,Seçil Ugur Yavuz
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/etis/ScholzHKVY22
}}
==Designing wearable interactions through playful on-body explorations==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3328/workshop5.pdf
Designing wearable interactions through playful on-body
explorations
Barbro Scholz 1 , Michaela Honauer 2 , Kristi Kuusk 3 , Paula Veske 4 and Seçil Ugur Yavuz 5
1
University of Applied Sciences Hamburg, Armgartstr.24., Hamburg, 20087, Germany
2
Bauhaus University Weimar, Schwanseestr. 143, Weimar, 99427, Germany
3
Estonian Academy of Arts, Design Faculty, Põhja pst 7, Tallinn, 10412, Estonia
4
Centre for Microsystems Technology (CMST), imec and Ghent University, Technologiepark 126, 9052 Gent,
Belgium
5
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Faculty of Design and Art, Piazza Universita 1, Bolzano,39100, Italy.
Abstract
This workshop proposal aimed at provoking novel ways for full body interaction with
interactive soft materials. Building on learnings from previous experiences on playful
interaction with soft materials as a starting point, we focused on experimenting with full body
interactions. We applied embodied design methods from soma design and material-led
interaction design research. Together with the participants, we wanted to investigate the role
of material characteristics in the interplay with body, movement and technology. The provided
methods fostered novel full body material explorations which were presented to other
participants in a performance setting at the end of the workshop. We extended the group of
researchers being aware of the role of material characteristics in playful interactions of soft
materials.
Keywords 1
Embodied Interaction, Soft Technology, Playful Interaction
1. Introduction
E-textile design research combines domains from textile and technology development and
contributes significantly to material-related research in HCI. Researchers have employed new methods
to design embodied experiences and to connect with users in a playful manner [1], [2]. For instance, by
creating lab settings to guide participants to interact with various materials in new modalities [1], [3]–
[5] and to communicate bodily experiences through novel frameworks or media [2], [6].
In a previous interdisciplinary online workshop, we explored the role of materiality in playful
interaction with soft materials at TEI'21 conference [7]. The workshop aimed at learning about how
participants engage in playful ways with soft materials - with and without added technology. In this
workshop, the materials’ agency was the main source of playfulness, and the various characteristics of
soft interactive materials gave rise to play scenarios. In our current workshop-proposal, building on our
previous findings, we aim to explore interactive soft materials and their playful characteristics to trigger
new types of interactions through focusing on the body as an experimental territory. We propose a
workshop that brings soft materials into alternative, unusual and, beyond all, ludic interplay with the
body, to explore new whole-body interactions with textiles and e-textiles. We aim at provoking new
ways of bodily interactions, that combine textile with technology towards a playful interactive
engagement with materials.
Proceedings of ETIS 2022, November 7–10, 2022, Toulouse, France
EMAIL: barbro.scholz@haw-hamburg.de (A. 1); michaela.honauer@uni-weimar.de (A. 2); kristi.kuusk@artun.ee (A. 3);
paula.veske@ugent.be (A. 4); secil.uguryavuz@unibz.it (A. 5)
ORCID: 0000-0001-6939-8780 (A. 1); 0000-0001-5051-4913 (A. 2); 0000-0003-3324-6050 (A. 3); 0000-0002-3793-9877 (A. 4); 0000-0002-
1603-7700 (A. 5)
© 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
Our aim is to focus on the exploration of new ways of full body interaction by using a tubular and
circular soft probe in a physical workshop setting. By providing materials in bigger size and shape, we
provoke the participants to involve full body and large movements in their interaction with the material.
Our previous workshop, using video-conferencing tools resulted in limited body movements mainly
focusing on the upper body interaction to fit the screen frame. The added technology was limited to the
smartphone or other simple technology simulations, which in were not embedded fully in the soft
material and therefore degraded the characteristics of the interactive material. In our current workshop,
we aim at exploring playfulness with soft materials, where the soft characteristics of the materials would
be augmented with embedded technology such as light, sound or vibration - together with the
participants in the shared space. Our idea is to introduce methods that allow the participants to explore
bodily interactions with a wearable soft probe on the body. Body movements (micro or macro) would
be a driving force for an interplay between body and wearable item, a link between the physical and the
digital worlds.
Our goal is to better understand how to design wearable interaction, in this case through playful on-
body explorations, while answering the following questions:
• How can body movement become triggers to new types of play(ful) on-body interaction with
soft wearables?
• What is the role of material agency in designing interaction on the body?
• How can body and material co-become, collaboratively act in a playful manner?
2. Background
This workshop involves the research about e-textiles on the body, material related interaction and
bodily interaction frameworks. Some of those have been applied in the previous workshop at TEI 21
“Design for Playfulness with Interactive Soft Materials” [7], and the learnings are the basis for this
workshop.
Bergström et al have introduced the characteristic “becoming” of interactive materials: soft materials
that change shape and appearance by property and technology in micro and macro level, and their traces
of use [8]. We extend this notion with the body as a part of a shape changing component, therefore
proposing a “co-becoming” experience through whole body experimentation.
The material turn in HCI has initialized the understanding for material related interaction and
brought a focus on materials’ characteristics as drivers for new interaction scenarios [9], [10, p. 34].
From the perspective of a material designer, this has not yet been researched to its extent: Researchers
introduce different concepts of material related interactions which we aim to contribute to. On the other
hand, while material designers focus on the material, they often neglect the whole-body experience, and
generally work in a more fragmented way with various senses (touch, vision, sound, etc.).
2.1. E-textiles on the body
E-textile materials on the body are mostly explored in the fields of performance costumes and
technical applications in sports, wellness or safety [11], [12]. The textile material is often only
considered as a carrier of technology, disregarding the potential of its tactile experience. Other examples
of everyday tech-garments are therapeutic light wearables, providing mobile light therapy [13], [14].
Besides these applications, e-textiles in daily life clothing have not found a ground.
How interactive materials on the body are actually perceived has not been explored in depth [15].
The authors criticize, that designers tend to treat textiles in interactive applications only as a carrier for
the technology, but do not make use of the textile’s characteristic in the interaction concept disregarding
the potential of its tactile experience.
In our workshop, we will invite the participants to play with larger textiles (tubular and plain) on the
body to reflect on the interplay of textileness, closeness, tactility and playfulness related interactive
features, and how material-led interactions (not only technologies) can be integrated with soft materials.
2.2. Material-led interaction
In the shift of the “material turn” in interaction design, Robles and Wiberg mention ubiquitous
computing, tangible interactions, and computational materiality as strategies to relate the full integration
of the digital and physical [9]. Other researchers argue to see the computer as a material and call the
combined interfaces “computational materials/composites” [16], [17].
Bredies and Gowrinshenkar have explored and discussed material led interactions based on the
textileness of e-textile objects such as “stretching, folding, piercing” and “turning inside out, rolling up,
and stuffing” [18]. They stress for a material related interaction design process. Tholander et al [19]
highlight the importance of the agency in interactive novel materials through underlining “how
creativity emerges in the situated interactions between designers and their materials.” Winters refers to
material-led design thinking through focusing on the importance of embodied and speculative
experimentation in designing wearables [20]. By following these approaches, we will use material-
methodological strategies to involve the participants and the material properties of the textiles by
manipulating them in a playful manner. Thus, we (textile and our bodies) “co-become” hybrid entities.
2.3. Bodily interaction framework
Applying the theory of somaesthetics [21] to the practice of interaction design, relations between
designed interface and bodily engagement with a designed object are described. According to Höök,
Somaesthetic Design could help to “improve on all connections between sensation, feeling, emotion,
and subjective understanding and values” [3] and therefore can provide a more holistic understanding
on interaction design.
Beyond the somaesthetic approach that requires in-depth preparation of the design team and ongoing
engagement with their inner lives [22], we strongly draw our practice on embodied design methods,
particularly for the ideation process [5]. In doing so, it becomes possible to create new interactions from
bodily activities, through/with/on the body. Other research has revealed that designing wearables and
exploring materials on the body has an impact on the use context and on meaning-making [23].
Inside this situatedness and process, our embodied approach for the proposed workshop enables
participants to engage with (un)known materials and shapes in a playful way, and through that, to
(mis)use these materials to (re)design interactions enhanced by technologies.
3. Results from “Design for Playfulness with Interactive Soft Materials” [7]-
workshop
In the previous workshop, we had 16 participants from different fields in HCI (computer science,
interaction design, e-textile design). Prior to the workshop, each participant analyzed three soft
materials based on sensory perception.
For task 1 (Table 1), everybody chose one material as “the most playful” and described the reasons
with help of the PLEX-framework [2].
Table 1
Tasks previous Workshop
Task Description
1 Material Explorations Choose three soft materials, how you perceive them and what
kind of playful aspects they have.
2 Material Selection Which material is most playful and why?
3 Soft Tech Material Team task after “Sensitizing-Labs” with test person, observer and
Exploration interviewer.
4 Ideate with tech-enhanced Creation of a playful experience interaction cycle.
soft material
Task 2 was a group work done by three people in each group, derived after the “Sensitizing Labs”
[1]. One was the test person, playing with the material, one was “the interviewer” posing the given
questions, and one was the “documenter” taking written notes. The final assignment was to create an
individual interaction with the chosen material and tech, again using the PLEX set of categories to
describe the playful experience.
In total, 15 final designs were gathered focusing on different body interactions: 5 whole-body
interaction and 10 upper-body interactions (including head and fingers/hands).
The PLEX-framework only filled in for task 2 and 3 by seven participants. They shifted from
analyzing material properties to exploring interactive experiences with them. Qualitative results
concerned mostly the properties of materials. Main finding was that elastic and thin, flexible material
in combination with high- or low-tech actuation (vibration or air) invites to play with the material.
Moreover, strong elasticity was perceived as a technological characteristic. One participant said:
“material with many details/tentacles is more inviting than “clean” shapes”, this features the quality of
texture that can enhance interest and curiosity. Due to the workshop being online during the Covid-19
pandemic, the participants were limited to materials they had close-by, for tech add-on most of them
used their phones which changed the properties of the material with an imbalance of weight, which
often destroyed the playfulness. Also, due to attending the workshop online through their computers,
participants mostly restricted themselves to work with their upper bodies only, although we tried to
encourage them to stand up and explore the materials with their whole bodies while using the space
they were situated in.
One of the crucial insights from our first workshop is the size of a material. We documented a range
of interactions: due to size of the individual materials, the spatial volume of the movements was very
different. Additionally, the manifold properties of soft materials, in particular textiles, make it worth
exploring how much technology is needed, moreover, when the body can be the actuator.
We learned that the PLEX method may be too complex and focused on too many aspects, including
negative experiences as well. In contrast to that, some other approaches to understand playfulness in
adults [24] and children [25] draws on positive emotions and outlines that it is connected to a state of
mind. Furthermore, it makes action and reflection easier instead of framing them with negative aspects.
4. Workshop Implementation
The workshop aimed at exploring bodily interactions with soft materials applying methods from
embodied-design and performing arts. We applied embodied methods as the main activity of the
workshop through first-person [26] and third-person perspectives to bring the body into the center of
ideation and experimentation with materials. Moreover, to explore the playfulness of these bodily
experiences, we adapted “LevelXplore” method [27, pp. 131–132], and activated the participants by
answering the following questions:
1. Look: Looking at the material from outside and define,
2. Interact: Interact with it and define,
3. Explore: Explore it through your body: what can it do?
4. Manipulate: What can it become? - with technology and the body
5. Perform: Put the playful experience on stage, perform the final outcome.
Tubular, elastic and plain, non-elastic textiles of undyed cotton, together with tools and SamLab
Actuator Kits [28] were provided for the participants, and adhesive loop tape, white duct tape, safety
pins for simple wearable tech construction. We chose SamLab Actuator Kits because they are easy to
integrate with the fabric, to keep the barrier low for non-tech or non-textile affine participants.
In addition to theoretical and practical input from our side e.g. on design ideation methods and
methods from performing arts, the participants started with defining the given textile material by
looking at it and afterwards interacting with it (Phase 1-2). After this analyzing and defining phase, they
passed to an explorative stage to create ideas for playful interactions through embodied design ideation
methods (Phase 3).
The next task was to consider how this material shall be changed with high- or low-tech
manipulations (e.g. embedding actuators, like light, sound or vibration (Phase 4)).
Next input was a physical exercise to open the idea to bigger movements and novel forms of
interaction. Participants worked on realizing their ideas with the material and got some time for
rehearsing their interaction to be presented later to the group (Phase 5).
We expected to gain results that are body related, as the provided textile is already wearable and the
exercises activating the body as a whole. As this was an onsite workshop, we expected that more
feasible actuators provide better integration of tech and textile to keep its soft characteristic. However,
it was observed that it needs a longer workshop timeframe to make participants grasp different technical
skills, such as stitching, circuit making, programming, etc.
Methods we applied are primarily taken from the performing arts (improvisation, following) and
embodied design ideation (material props in context [23], props for undesigning [5]), to engage
participants in bodily activities and designing with/on the moving body. See table 2 for details.
Table 2
Workshop Schedule
Time (CET) Preliminary schedule actions
9.30-10.30 Introduction and Check-In with the participants, Task 1-2
(Look & Interact) - Defining the material.
10.30-13.00 Introduction to embodied design methods, using with provided
materials (group) - Task 3 (Explore)
13.00-14.00 Lunch Break
14.00-16.00 Exploring playful aspects of technologies (group) and low-fi
prototyping - Task 4 (Manipulate)
16.00-16.30 Coffee
16.30-17.00 Preparation of final performance and technical preparations for
staging the results
17.00-17.30 Final performance (open to other participants of the conference)
and reflections
5. Workshop Results
The workshop participants had mainly technical design or engineering background. We asked them
to tell us about their favorite movement which disclosed activities apart from their professional life, like
cello playing or dancing. All participants mentioned they had no experience with embodied methods,
but all of them mentioned a physical/performative activity they regularly do. Some participants referred
to dancing/theatre acting experiences they had made during their childhood.
Groups of two or three participants were formed. All groups explored both textile materials, although
the stretchy tube was more appreciated as the most inspiring one. All of them played single- and multi-
player interactions. The participants used the outside space of the conference to have more space for
the exploration. The participants were very open-minded and experimented freely with material
experiences and the introduced methods. The overall feedback about the free exploration of textiles was
that it was challenging but effective in leaving the comfort zone and thinking about interaction in a very
different way (Figure 1). For example, one participant reported, that while she explored the materials
on her body, features of the environment, e.g. wind, also shaped her experience with the materials.
In the second part of the workshop, technology was added to the textile material (Figure 2) by simply
hiding it under or attaching it with pins onto the textile. The participants employed full-body movements
like circular, up-down, slow-fast or twist.
Sound was used by two groups as feedback for bodily activity (stretching the body or variety in
movement). Two groups used light as an output for the interaction with the textile, both times as a
communication signal. In one of the groups, the light was involved in the method of following. There
we could observe the co-becoming of material and body. Both outputs (light and sound) became
commands for the players to change movement.
The motor was used to create kinetic feedback with the textile as a response to a social interaction.
Only one group created a scenario for single play (a textile fitness device with sound output) whereas
all other groups formed multiuser play scenarios.
Feedback from most participants was, that the technology in the second part of the workshop felt
limiting to them and that they had almost forgotten the free exploration of material-experience and
interaction from the first part. After being free in exploration, the technology required a program that
was based on the schematic of input and output and most participants immediately created use cases
rather than creating a pure playful interactive material. Some explorative play scenarios were not
implemented due to the feasibility reasons with the technology. However, in the end they managed to
simulate and perform their playful ideas that they explored in the first session.
Figure 1: Exploration Phase Figure 2: Placement of technology in textile
6. Discussion and conclusions
In this workshop, we focused on the design of on-body interactions based on a given, specific
wearable probe and provided a defined set of technology to be added. This guided the design process
to be inclusive of people of all backgrounds and the workshop to be results oriented.
Having the activity conducted onsite, we had the chance to create an atmosphere for the group where
participants felt safe to play and explored materials with their bodies. With methods from the
performative arts sphere and embodied interaction design, we extended the comfort zones of the
participants to explore materials, body movements and their playfulness. Moreover, the interactions
between participants during the workshop led to novel and playful multi-user soft wearable on-body
interactions.
We learned parameters about how body movements trigger new types of playful on body interactions
with soft wearables, for example flexibility of materials - both textile and technology - to allow open
ended play. Learnings about the role of the materials’ agency with or without technology were that
textiles are easily put in the role of a textile functional object. By wearing it, storytelling started by
association of costume stereotypes (e.g. superman-cape) and then evolved into more playful body
extensions. The tubular shape inspired some participants to use the restriction of wearing it with e.g.
arms inside the tube or both legs together. We observed that in some examples the body and material
co-become a hybrid entity in a playful manner by wearing textiles as costumes or extension of the body
in an interplay with technology. But, when technology was added, many participants went back to their
usual ideation practice and did not involve the beforehand material experiences. E-textiles and sew-able
electronic parts could be a solution to avoid that in another workshop, this with longer timeframe.
An overall outcome of the workshop was that the activity of play led to joy, the groups were able to
stretch their knowledge about design methods and involve embodied experience into play. Textile as a
material was giving them the freedom to move and explore bodily interaction while also providing a
playful basis for design though its responsive and tactile features. On the other hand, technology
functioned as an augmentation and gave the possibility to simulate possible responses from the
movement and interaction with the textile.
7. References
[1] C. Akner-Koler and P. Ranjbar, “Integrating Sensitizing Labs in an Educational Design Process
for Haptic Interaction,” FormAkademisk - forskningstidsskrift Des. og Des., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1–
25, 2016.
[2] J. Arrasvuori, M. Boberg, J. Holopainen, H. Korhonen, A. Lucero, and M. Montola, “Applying
the PLEX framework in designing for playfulness,” in DPPI’11 - Designing Pleasurable
Products and Interfaces, Proceedings, 2011.
[3] K. Höök et al., “Soma design and politics of the body addressing conceptual dichotomies
through somatic engagement,” ACM Int. Conf. Proceeding Ser., no. May 2020, 2019.
[4] D. Wilde and J. Underwood, “Designing towards the Unknown: Engaging with Material and
Aesthetic Uncertainty,” Informatics, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 1, Dec. 2017.
[5] D. Wilde, A. Vallgårda, and O. Tomico, “Embodied design ideation methods: Analysing the
power of estrangement,” Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc., vol. 2017-May, pp. 5158–
5170, 2017.
[6] C. Windlin et al., “(9) (PDF) Soma Bits -Mediating Technology to Orchestrate Bodily
Experiences,” Proc. 4th Bienn. Res. Through Des. Conf., 2019.
[7] S. Ugur Yavuz, P. Veske, B. Scholz, M. Honauer, and K. Kuusk, “Design for Playfulness with
Interactive Soft Materials: Description document,” TEI 2021 - Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Tangible,
Embed. Embodied Interact., 2021.
[8] J. Bergström, B. Clark, A. Frigo, R. Mazé, J. Redströma, and A. Vallgårda, “Becoming
materials: Material forms and forms of practice,” Digit. Creat., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 155–172,
2010.
[9] E. Robles and M. Wiberg, “Texturing the ‘material turn’ in interaction design,” TEI’10 - Proc.
4th Int. Conf. Tangible, Embed. Embodied Interact., no. January 2010, pp. 137–144, 2010.
[10] T. Döring, “A Materials Perspective on Human-Computer Interaction Case Studies on Tangible,
Gestural, and Ephemeral User Interfaces,” 2016.
[11] Ford Industries, “Now That’s a Bright Idea! Cycling Jacket Prompts Riders to Turn, Shows
Others When They Do | Ford of Europe | Ford Media Center,” 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/feu/en/news/2018/06/13/now-that_s-a-bright-idea--
cycling-jacket-prompts-riders-to-turn-.html. [Accessed: 29-Jun-2021].
[12] A. Komolafe et al., “E-Textile Technology Review-From Materials to Application,” IEEE
Access, vol. 9, pp. 97152–97179, 2021.
[13] Philips Bluecontrol, “Inside Innovation,” 2014.
[14] H. Profita, A. Roseway, and M. Czerwinski, “Lightwear,” pp. 321–328, 2015.
[15] A. Buso, H. Mcquillan, K. Jansen, and E. Karana, “The Unfolding of Textileness in Animated
Textiles : An Exploration of Woven Textile-Forms,” 2022.
[16] A. Vallgårda and J. Redström, “Computational composites,” Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst.
- Proc., pp. 513–522, 2007.
[17] A. Vallgårda and T. Sokoler, “A material focus - Exploring properties of computational
composites,” Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc., no. April, pp. 4147–4152, 2009.
[18] R. Gowrishankar, K. Bredies, S. Ylirisku, S. Schneegass, and O. Amft, A Strategy for Material-
Specific e-Textile Interaction Design, no. February. Cham: Springer International Publishing,
2017.
[19] J. Tholander, M. Normark, and C. Rossitto, “Understanding agency in interaction design
materials,” Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc., no. May, pp. 2499–2508, 2012.
[20] A. Winters, “Wearable rhythms: Materials in play,” Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subser.
Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics), vol. 10289 LNCS, pp. 737–746, 2017.
[21] R. Shusterman, “Somaesthetics: A Disciplinary Proposal,” J. Aesthet. Art Crit., vol. 57, no. 3,
p. 299, 1999.
[22] K. Höök, Designing with the Body. The MIT Press, 2018.
[23] O. Tomico and D. Wilde, “Soft, embodied, situated & connected: enriching interactions with
soft wearables,” mUX J. Mob. User Exp., 2016.
[24] P. Guitard, F. Ferland, and É. Dutil, “Toward a Better Understanding of Playfulness in Adults,”
OTJR Occup. Particip. Heal., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2005.
[25] M. M. Bekker, B. A. M. Schouten, and L. C. T. de Valk, “Designing play solutions with the
lenses of play card tool .” BIS Publishers , pp. 75-87 BT-Framing Play Design, 2020.
[26] A. Desjardins, O. Tomico, A. Lucero, M. E. Cecchinato, and C. Neustaedter, “Introduction to
the Special Issue on First-Person Methods in HCI,” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
Interaction, vol. 28, no. 6. p. 12, 2021.
[27] S. K. (Eds) Gudiksen and H. M. (Eds) Skovbjerg, Framing Play Design: - A hands-on guide for
designers, learners and innovators. BIS-Verlag, 2020.
[28] SamLabs, “STEAM & Coding Tools & Resources for K-8 | SAM Labs,” 2022. [Online].
Available: https://samlabs.com/us/. [Accessed: 16-Nov-2022].