- A very good afternoon to everyone,
so I'm here to present our work on Gehna,
which was completed by me, along with my co-authors,
Kartik and Aryan, under the guidance of Dr. Aman Parnami,
at the Veev Lab in double I.D. Delhi.
So gehna, in Hindi, means jewelry,
and this paper is an exploration of designing
touch and manipulation interactions with gehna.
So how do we do that?
So there is inherent diversity in the physical form
and structure of jewelry.
It can go from a simple gold ring, which is essentially
just a metal band around your finger
to the extremely intricate and meticulously crafted
jewelry worn by Rani Pandmavat who was the legendary queen
of the kingdom of Mewar in Ancient India.
And similarly there is a huge diversity in body placement.
Jewelry as an adornment is used to adorn all body locations
from the head to the toe.
So we keep these two essential features offered by the
jewelry, or these qualities of jewelry,
essential to our analysis.
We design the interactions based on the physical affordances
of jewels and their on-body placement.
I.e. how and where they are worn on the body.
So now coming to the why of it.
Why does it make sense to design interactions with jewels?
So in 1991 Mark Weiser gave his
vision of ubiquitous computing,
he imagined that the computer of the future
won't be limited to its then-popular forms of
cell phone or a PC and would merge with the
objects around us or even our bodies.
So since then, researchers in variable computing
and ubiquitous computing have developed many computers
that we wear like the Google glass,
or that are around us and we hardly notice them,
like the smart phones.
Now the question becomes how do we communicate
with these computers?
Because it won't be necessary to carry these phones
and use them to communicate with the computers.
So to do that, researchers have,
One way researchers have done that is by using
the body as medium of input.
So the human body provides a large, easily accessible
and always available space for communicate input
which can be used to communicate with the computers.
So researchers have used our skin, our ears, our cheeks,
the clothing that we wear and even our nails to help us
communicate with these computers,
and normally these systems include a set of gestures
which can be understood by the computer,
and then the computer performs the required functionality.
And broadly these systems are either based on touch input
or on physical manipulation input, which for example,
you manipulate your skin or your clothing.
So jewelry is not only worn on the body,
it's in fact the most versatile wearable.
It's fashionable and ubiquitous.
It's worn by people all over the world.
Hence, we aim to design tasks and
manipulation interactions with jewelry.
So this brings us to the concept of digital jewelry.
This idea of adding technology or functionality to jewelry
became popular in the late 1990's due to the first
made by companies like IBM and IDEO who wanted
to create more socially acceptable wearables.
For example, IBM created a jewelry smart phone
or a jewelry cell phone which had a microphone embedded
in the nose ring and a speaker embedded in the earring.
And IDEO did some similar explorations.
At the same time, the efforts made by designers who had
a jewelry background became popular.
And they entered a focus on cultural, social aspects
as associated with jewelry.
For example, Nicole Stuber developed the two rings
which were worn by lovers
and when they touched hands,
the rings glow.
So for this paper,
we consider jewelry as a medium of input
in sync with the motivations of ubiquitous computing
as defined by Mark Weiser.
We still think that discussing the efforts
of jewelers, or mentioning their efforts
over here is important.
So our focus is on everyday jewelry,
everyday worn jewelry, and not on artifacts
that have a social or cultural significance.
So digital jewelry,
the popularity of digital jewelry has increased
considerably in the last few years,
as concluded by Selena et al.,
who conducted a survey of this medium.
Usually modeled as a ring or a bracelet,
these devices are used for many applications
like health monitoring, sleep monitoring
or just motion tracking.
And even notifications in some cases.
So overall this work is a parallel evolution,
this work is a novel outcome of this parallel evolution
between digital jewelry and ubiquitous computing.
So now we come to our research methodology.
So we argue that the knowledge required
to design important, actual jewelry
is segregated in four different disciplines.
Jewelry design and making,
interaction design, system engineering,
and input modality research.
And we as interaction designers
adopt the research through design procedure
popularized by Zimmerman et al.
To combine or synthesize the knowledge
in these four disciplines to solve this problem.
We started by collecting and analyzing
a sample set of jewelry artifacts,
and then based on this analysis
and by reviewing the literature
on jewelry design and making,
we developed a taxonomy of jewelry design,
which talks about how different parts
of jewelry enable specific interactions.
Finally, based on this taxonomy,
we defined interactions for a sample set of artifacts.
Now we'll look into each aspect of this process
in more detail.
So to collect our sample set of artifacts,
we visited Dariba Kalan,
which is one of the oldest jewelry markets
in old really part of India.
In the past, it has been popular
for traditional silver jewelry and craft artifacts.
But in the modern era now,
it has become the hub of all kinds of jewelry.
When visiting this place, we found jewelry
for all body parts, and a great variety of styles.
So initially we picked up artifacts
that looked interesting to the eye,
and covered most body parts.
But as we moved forward into our research procedure,
we visited this market again several times
to buy artifacts that exemplified
other features that we discovered.
So our final set consists of 30 artifacts
and something for all the body parts,
or most of the body parts.
Apart from buying jewelry, we also spent time
looking at the practices of local artisans and shopkeepers
to gain knowledge about jewelry design
and making procedures.
So after this, by looking into the literature
of jewelry design and making
and this hands-on experience with jewelry,
we defined the taxonomy of jewelry design.
And here it is important to consider
that our taxonomy is admittedly biased
towards jewelry that enabled our interactions
because that was the purpose of this paper.
So now, coming to the taxonomy itself,
the first important part of the taxonomy
is jewelements,
which are the basic jewelry elements that can be found
in most jewelry all over the world.
So this slide shows some of those jewelements
that we define in the paper.
For each of the jewelements,
we analyzed physical affordances,
and how those physical affordances
could be connected to interactions.
So let's right now look at an analysis
for two of those elements.
So a chain is a very interesting jewelement,
due to its flexible and slinky character.
Due to it, it gives the possibility
for manipulation gestures.
The disks and tags are basically plates
which provide surface for touch interaction.
And their specific shape and size,
the size of touch interaction that they can support.
The second important part of our taxonomy
of jewelry design is the different body locations.
And like in case of jewelements,
we analyzed each body location
and thought of interactions that made sense
with respect to that location.
So let's consider an analysis
for a necklace and a bangle,
for which we used the definition of jewelry
as defined by Oppi Untracht in his book.
So Oppi Untracht defined the necklace
to have frontal form.
It lies back straight on the body
and can be accessible from one side,
which makes it ideal for touch interaction.
Similarly, bangles have a cylindrical form.
Once they are worn on the arm,
they lie loosely on the wrist,
which allows us to move them over the wrist.
Hence, a physical manipulation interaction.
So once we had the taxonomy,
once we had the jewelements
and the body locations in place,
we started to analyze the artifacts
that we had bought from the market,
and started to design interaction for them.
So as research artifacts,
as defined by Zimmerman again in the definition of RTD.
They can act as examples for anyone who wishes
to design interactions with their specific artifacts.
So these are some of the artifacts that we designed for.
And for each of them, we broke them down
into their constituent jewelements
and also analyzed the body location
to come up with interactions.
Again, let's do that analysis for two of the artifacts.
So the figure shows a grape-shaped necklace,
which consists of six circular rings
and this U-shaped plate.
And these are interactions that we designed for it.
And it is visible that the base of this interaction
lies in the disk and tag,
or the jewelements that are part of it.
and also the necklace form factor,
which, being frontal, allows touch interaction.
So as it is visible in this table,
the three gestures are enabled
by the shape of the element,
the shape of the necklace,
and the presence of plates, which are tags.
Here it is important to consider the concept
of input dimensionality,
which allows us to connect any gesture
with a potential application.
This concept was popularized
by Ken Henckley in his 2012 paper.
A mouse has a dimensionality of 2D
because it can be used to control two parameters
like the X and Y coordinate of your pointer on the screen.
A knob has a dimensionality of 1D
because it can be used to control one parameter,
like the volume of your smart phone.
And finally, a button cannot be used
to control any parameter,
but to cause a state change
when you press it multiple times.
So it has a dimensionality of event,
as defined by Dr. Ken.
So bringing this concept to our gestures,
we can say what the dimensionality would be
for the three gestures that were defined
for the grape-shaped necklace.
Going to the other artifact,
which is the pendant necklace.
It has a chain that is worn around the neck,
and has a pendant attached onto the chain.
And these are again the interactions
that we designed for it.
So again, the jewelements that were a part of this artifact,
I.e. the chain and the chain-pendant arrangement,
was responsible for the interactions
or contributed to the interactions.
And also, obviously the shape of the necklace,
the shape of the neck where the necklace was worn.
And again, we can look at the dimensionality,
which will be 1D, and 1D plus 1D in this case.
The 1D plus 1D case is interesting
because the third gesture can be used
to control two independent properties at once.
So this brings us to the last part of our process,
which is implementing the sensing,
for sensing these gestures.
To implement the sensing for the grape-shaped necklace,
we used the passive sensing techniques
that are very popular in CHI community,
specifically in the system design,
system engineering field.
So one thing interesting is that
to create, to make these metal rings as separate electrodes,
we had to replace the metal jump rings that they came with
and tie them back with thread,
so that we could use them as separate electrodes
for the passive sensing.
Coming to the pendant necklace,
we used a resistive potentiometer network.
So initially we added small external resistances
on the chain of the pendant necklace,
but that made the artifact very messy,
and made the things complicated for us.
So we adopted a very interesting approach.
We took a conductive rubber cord,
put the pendant on it, and wore it as a necklace.
So the conductive rubber cord acted
as a resistive thread,
and when the pendant was moved over it,
the relative resistance of the two parts
of the cord changed,
and we could absorb it using a potentiometer.
So now let's consider a speculative application,
which shows the spirit of our designing
interaction to jewelry.
So here we consider that the way a user chooses
to wear the jewelry can become,
choice actually makes for her in the morning.
So for this specific interaction,
we used a jewelement called a multi-strand clasp,
which has multiple jump rings
where the chain can be put into.
So, if it's a working day,
the user can choose to put the chain
into the one jump ring.
And if it's a,
oh, it is printed actually working day here.
But if it's a holiday, then the chain can be put
into a different jump ring, which is three in this case.
So this information can be passed to the phone,
and the phone would react correspondingly.
For example, if it's a working day,
the phone would send the user notification to the person.
If it's not a working day, if it's a holiday,
then the person won't get any notifications
from the phone, so then she can enjoy her picnic.
So now to conclude this talk,
this is all the knowledge contribution
that we make in this paper.
The taxonomy of jewelry design
that we contribute can fill in the gaps
in the CHI community associated
with the jewelry styles and also
how those jewelry styles can be connected to interactions.
Also, our research artifacts where we talk
about the interactions as realized,
how those interactions can be implemented,
can serve as design exemplars
for anyone who wishes to design such interactions
for their specific artifacts.
Also, this table that you see on the right.
Sorry, this table that you see on the right
is a summary of all the artifacts that we considered
and the gestures that we developed with them.
And also it shows the dimensionality,
which can make easy connections to application.
So this table can act as a quick reference,
again for the practitioners who are interested
in deriving such interactions for jewelry.
Now coming back to our methodology,
this table shows what exactly we borrowed
from the four different disciplines
that we talked about initially.
For example, we talked about the sensing techniques
that we borrowed from the system engineering domain.
Or, obviously the jewelry design the knowledge
that we borrowed from jewelry design and literature.
So with this, I conclude my talk.
I thank my coworkers, and I thank you
for attending this talk.
I also thank Google India for sponsoring our travel
to this conference, and I'm open to questions.
(applause)
- [Announcer] You have around three minutes for questions.
- [Jillian] Thank you. Hi, Jillian Hays from UC Irvine.
So, first of all, thank you for this.
The designs you made were absolutely beautiful
and I want to wear them.
But I also am aware, if we think about audio interfaces
and all the challenges that we've had
over the years in knowing when you're actually talking
to Alexa versus when you're talking
to your friend Alexis, and so on.
I fidget with my jewelry constantly.
How do you deal with people like me?
- So that's definitely a problem.
To separate the noise from the actual signal
or to separate the actual input
from random touches to the jewelry.
But how we see it is, this is a very initial exploration
of how to explore interactions with jewelry,
and these kind of functional constraints
can come in when someone chooses
to implement jewelry for a particular artifact.
- [Man] So I also have one question.
Is, I really like your taxonomy
about the jewelry design space.
But I'm wondering, how can you extend this taxonomy?
So one thing, like from the engineering perspective,
I can see we can also do the 3D tracking
for other jewelry objects.
See, like I have a ring, I can rotate it.
I can move it in 3D space.
But I will try to fit my, like this interaction
into your taxonomy.
I didn't find a way to do it.
Do you have any idea on that?
- The moving the ring example?
- [Man] Yes.
- So how we considered rings was,
it is a cylindrical jewel that was worn on the finger.
- [Man] Yes.
- So yes you can move it and you can rotate it,
and those things we have included in our taxonomy.
But if you consider removing it
and rotating it.
- [Man] Yes.
- Like in the air, since it's a jewelry element,
we consider that it is part,
it is on the body location with which it is meant for
while you interact with it.
- [Man] Okay, thank you.