Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
experimental research carried out in ubiquitous music. The implications of adopting
material relational properties and social relational properties as targets for experi-
mental work are discussed within the context of a series of ubimus design studies.
The last section of the chapter points to the methodological challenges faced by
creativity-aware interaction aesthetics, including factors related to the profi le of the
participants, the profi le of the by-products, and the observation of situated
behaviors.
6.1.1
Interaction Aesthetics
A promising approach for supporting the design of everyday creative activities.
Advances in interaction design have highlighted the need for a wider view on
technological developments and their applicability in everyday activities (Löwgren
2009
). The utilitarian focus of previous human-computer interaction research is
being questioned by researchers interested in the creative enhancement of technol-
ogy usage (Mitchell et al.
2003
; Shneiderman
2007
) and by investigators dealing
with the aesthetics of interaction design (Redström
2007
; Wright et al.
2008
). In
2005, Udsen and Jørgensen stated: “at present, the aesthetic turn is not a full-fl edged
shift in paradigm. However, it is undoubtedly an indication of a new awareness of
the wide-ranging dimensions of interaction between humans and computers.” We
have reasons to believe this situation has changed, particularly within the practices
of interaction design.
Interaction aesthetics is surfacing as a strong alternative to mainstream human-
computer interaction theories and methods (Hallnäs and Redström
2002
; Löwgren
2009
; Redström
2007
; Stolterman
2008
; Udsen and Jørgensen
2005
). Löwgren
(
2009
) and Stolterman (
2008
) propose a shift in focus from task-oriented, utilitarian
approaches to human-centered and experience-centered methods, described as a
“rational, disciplined, designerly way” (Stolterman
2008
). Redström (
2007
) sug-
gests that a central idea is the need to create a richer relation to computational
things, through the exploration of:
•
Engagement rather than effi ciency
•
Temporal patterns of behavior
•
Alternative forms of design that challenge expectations
•
User identities, cultural contexts, and traditions, within specifi c design domains
•
Innovative material combinations
Despite the signifi cant theoretical advances in interaction aesthetics, how to
approach the variety of methodological issues raised by this perspective on technol-
ogy is still an open question. In one of the initial studies in this area, Redström
(
2007
) endorsed a radical change of focus, i.e., how to design for living with, rather
than just using, computational technology. To design for everyday life involves
more than supporting people to accomplish certain tasks effectively. Designs for
usability and functionality are not suffi cient. This broader view of interaction
