Welcome to this presentation!
My name is Linda Hirsch and together with my colleague Beat Rossmy and under the supervision
of Andreas Butz, we were looking into the topic of how to shape concrete for interaction.
But why concrete?
Concrete is one of the most used materials in construction worldwide.
This makes it a ubiquitous material that can be found anywhere, let it be a public urban
place or a kitchen counter indoors.
Prior research was already looking into its capacitive, thermal, and permeable qualities
proofing that it can be turned into an interactive material.
However, we also saw a lack of research considering how to do this, so that users would understand
the change from a prior non-interactive material to an interactive surface or object.
We see the relevance in the topic considering a more overarching goal of sustaining but
also enhancing existing environments.
This led to the following research questions: How can we (re-)shape concrete so that users
understand and perceive it as interactive?
How can we explicitly design it for certain types of tactile interactions?
How does the user perception change from a lab to an in situ situation?
We decided on applying a metaphorical approach, in particular using traces of use as a design
strategy.
Prior research showed that such traces are ubiquitous, calm, and natural in public environments
but also recognizable and distinguishable.
Additionally, they are signs of previous human interaction which might be an advantage when
turning concrete as a mainly known non-interactive material into an interactive one.
We further decided to make two versions of this metaphorical approach; one appearing
more like a natural trace of use including rougher edges, irregular shapes, and surface
textures, and one more abstract version including smooth surfaces and clear shapes.
Here, you can also see the slider versions which we created for our study.
On the left side the natural look and on the right site the clean abstract version.
One of the first questions, we had to tackle was how we could transfer a used look and
feel into the concrete.
Hence, we tested four different approaches, starting with simulating the traces by actually
repeating an interaction various times on modelling clay.
Then we also created negative models using modelling clay or sculpted the positive into
it to take another silicone layer first before pouring the concrete on top.
Lastly, we also tested digital 3D modelling to create adapted casts and to pour the concrete
directly into it.
However, as we still needed to explore how to transfer the used look best, we focused
on the physical modelling and sculpting approach for this study.
From our sample set, we then decided to create three well-known interface elements, a slider,
a button, and a scroll wheel, each in a natural and abstract version.
Those are the highlighted tiles here.
We took those prototypes and tested them with 33 participants in a gesture elicitation lab
study.
We decided on a lab study because we wanted to receive participants’ unbiased opinions
about the pieces understandability, look and feel.
Hence, we randomized the order of the pieces and asked participants to fill out a questionnaire
after each piece and finalized it with a semi-structured interview in which we asked them to compare
and mention preferences.
Overall, 21 of 33 participants liked interacting with the concrete appreciating its haptic
qualities.
We also saw that the natural designs were more confusing but also more inviting to explore.
And here, we also saw the participants split into two interest groups – one that preferred
the clear and clean shapes and another which preferred the natural, rougher look and feel.
Regarding the individual prototypes, participants clearly agreed on the interaction type for
both sliders (as slide and scroll interactions) as well as the abstract version of the scroll
wheel.
As we did not have any contextual influence, participants often related the pieces to known
web design elements or, in the case of the scroll wheel, to the iPod click wheel.
5 participants agreed on joining us in a follow-up bodystorming in situ.
Considering the used look of the natural design, we conducted it at a nearby cemetery which
is nowadays used for all kinds of activities, including running, having lunch, making out,
or celebrating birthdays.
For the bodystorming, we prepared 6 scenarios, such as being a tourist and looking around,
having a treasure hunt, doing exercise etc.
We asked participants to enact those scenarios by including our prototypes.
We prepared the scenarios because none of the participants was familiar with the method
or concrete interfaces.
The environment influenced participants’ opinions
about which design version should be used for what kind of task.
Hereby, the abstract elements would be good for a shared, public usage where users would
want their main focus on other activities or information.
For example, they could serve as an input element for a text display or for counting
laps when running.
In comparison, participants suggested using the natural designs more to express socio-emotional
messages through tactile feedback.
Among other things, they suggested using the slider as the lifeline of one of the deceased
persons including rougher edges for harder lifetimes and vice versa.
While users could still slide along the line, it would additionally convey implicit meta-information
about another person’s life.
Comparing both design versions, each has its advantages and limitations.
The abstract versions were appreciated for their regular, clear shapes which would appear
intentional and convey the feeling of staying in control.
In comparison, the natural designs were appreciated for fostering exploration and for being more
natural.
Also, we succeeded in creating a used look for the slider and button which indicated
prior human use.
This indication would assure people that there would be something interesting or worth touching.
This, in turn, would encourage them to explore the interaction with also unknown interfaces.
However, we also had contrary statements that those pieces would partly look ugly and unintended,
including a perceived lacking hygiene which is especially in the current times an issue
that might prevent instead of invite users to touch.
We conclude our paper with 5 design considerations when designing a concrete interface.
One challenge is to turn a material partly seen as ``unattractive to touch’’ into
an enjoyable user experience.
This also includes changing the user’s mental model to perceive concrete as a potential
interactive interface.
Here, the application of familiar interface elements supported a quick understanding of
the required touch interaction.
The clear shape of the abstract elements fostered the appearance of an intentionally applied
interface which was suggested to be the better strategy for shared, public interfaces where
the user focus is mainly on other tasks.
The context further influences the design decision regarding which design version one
should apply.
The natural designs incorporate more surface structure differences which, in turn, allows
richer haptic feedback and the transfer of meta-information.
Altogether, we see an advantage in developing both versions further and testing the strategy
with an actual interactive prototype in context.
In short, we explored the design of concrete interfaces in a gesture elicitation lab study
with 33 participants followed by an in situ bodystorming with 5 participants to gather
potential use cases and opinions.
We saw that concrete is definitely a material worth exploring further due to its appreciated
haptic qualities and its ubiquitous usage in construction.
With this, I thank you for your attention and look forward to your questions.