Co-experience: Understanding user experiences in social interaction

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A SCENARIO FOR THE SATELLITES The satellite is on the ground in a busy square, camera pointed up at people, emitting sounds from a different part of the city. The ground control is on the other side of the city centre, displaying the live video and recording sounds. Two sisters, and the best friend of the older sister are touring the shops for something nice for an upcoming party. They glance at the fish-eyed image, and then look again – hehey, what good-looking guys are right close by! They start joking to each other and laughing. One of the guys hears sounds of female laughter and thinks he also heard the word “handsome” and looks around at a red ball on the ground, where the sounds seem to be coming from. Hey, guys, this looks like some kind of camera, he says and squats down to take a closer look at the ball. He hears squeals of surprise and muffled laughter coming from the loudspeaker. Oh no! he is looking at us! The girls laugh in surprise. They can’t believe he actually heard them, however did that happen. The guy holds the ball up looking in to the camera. He asks the camera: can you hear me? The girls see his mouth move and figure out what he might be asking. They tell him that they can only see him, not hear him. The guy assures the girls he is heartbroken, not to be able to see the sources of such lovely voices. His mates laugh and also take a look at the camera. They want to know where the girls are. The girls wink at each other and ask the guy to show them where they are. The guy obliges, sweeping a look at the local cafe and shops with the camera in the ball. The girls take off, giggling, leaving the guys talking to the camera. Sure they know where that cafe is – who knows, they might go that way for ice creams later. That would be a laugh if the guys are still there.
dressed in the fact that people can interact with each other, cooperate and perform tasks, but they can also turn it into a game (of hide and seek for example). DISCUSSION ARTICLE 6 187 THE CONCEPTS The Intimate City can serve as a good example for the new kinds of interaction situations that, by necessity, appear as information appliances become mobile, ubiquitous and personal. One user vs. one computer, the interaction situation formerly assumed to be default within the HCI community, should no longer be viewed as the default situation. Although the concept of the satellite has many similarities with the traditional HCI setup of a person-to-person communication device, it also deliberately tries to involve more people than merely the direct users. It does so by disturbing the modal symmetry of communication. It is a communication device of low usability in the functional sense. It is quite unusable for efficient messaging between individuals. It will possibly evoke slight frustration or surprise as well as curiosity. It is also placed in a public space, on the ground, to be seen by many potential participants. Its shape is suggestive of play (especially in a country obsessed by soccer). The asymmetry can be seen as a potential bridge over personal disabilities of mobility, of hearing and of sight, providing a platform for cooperation between individuals. The Pool of Memory furthers the idea of “multi-user interaction”. This is achieved by distributing the input devices across several locations in the city, as well as by placing the output device in a square where it is at the heart of the action. The concept allows active, meaningful interaction between those who create messages and those for whom the messages are intended – knowing that there is also another audience, the rest of the community. It also allows observers to be a part of the experience: seeing and hearing the messages, seeing people creating messages, possibly discussing the content with others. Without force, but relying on curiosity, the concept hopefully invites and provokes people to actively take part in this visual communication process. The complex interaction pattern that the Pool of Memory affords serves as a good example of Emergent Interaction [2] where most participants share some parts of the interaction while other parts are more tuned to individual preferences. The use of visuals makes the channel also more emotionally rich, and the limitations of a short video clip can become the strict form that allows the participants to be playful and inventive in creating content. The active partici-
Page 3 and 4:
Katja Battarbee UNDERSTANDING USER
Page 5 and 6:
FOR YOU
Page 7 and 8:
4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES 101 1 IT
Page 9 and 10:
an experience, the recipient is use
Page 11 and 12:
It takes a group to turn a design s
Page 15 and 16:
1 INTRO - DUCTION 1.1 FOCUS AND AIM
Page 17 and 18:
duction cycles are short and the st
Page 19 and 20:
fizzy flavoured water seem to be ab
Page 21 and 22:
tronic, and there was no movement o
Page 23 and 24:
and content developers to channel t
Page 25 and 26:
1.3 WHAT IS DESIGN FOR USER EXPERIE
Page 27 and 28:
longer process, in the order of mon
Page 29 and 30:
something independent of being and
Page 31 and 32:
panies are more likely to publish r
Page 33 and 34:
3 CO-EXPERIENCE takes the most prom
Page 37 and 38:
2 USER EXPERIENCE DEMYSTIFIED This
Page 39 and 40:
ecause of the way people enjoy chal
Page 41 and 42:
ness - the ability to facilitate ta
Page 43 and 44:
43 ACTION GOAL goal goal goal actio
Page 45 and 46:
Interaction designers who focus on
Page 47 and 48:
other kinds of products. These mode
Page 49 and 50:
THE MOMENT PAST EXPERIENCE DREAMS F
Page 51 and 52:
experiences with products that do n
Page 53 and 54:
53 ACTION INHERENT INFORMATION AUGM
Page 55 and 56:
Hassenzahl defines fun as a mode of
Page 57 and 58:
ing, and coveting products all elic
Page 59 and 60:
verbal self-reports are subject to
Page 61 and 62:
veen’s alarm clock (ibid.) is int
Page 63 and 64:
spaces illustrates, merely telling
Page 65 and 66:
even artistic, approach that treats
Page 67 and 68:
BEHAVIOUR EXPERIENCE 67 OBSERVATION
Page 69 and 70:
FIGURE 14 69 Empathic observations
Page 71 and 72:
Liz Sanders has been influential in
Page 73 and 74:
FIGURE 17 73 Examples of self docum
Page 76:
3.1 REALITY SEEKS THEORY FOR SERIOU
Page 80 and 81:
3.1 REALITY SEEKS THEORY FOR SERIOU
Page 82 and 83:
3.1.1 EXPERIENCES IN SOCIAL INTERAC
Page 84 and 85:
He succeeds in terminating the repo
Page 86 and 87:
86 3 CO-EXPERIENCE drawn from the c
Page 88 and 89:
21 FIGURES 20 The actual fishing ex
Page 90 and 91:
90 3 CO-EXPERIENCE typically half-w
Page 92 and 93:
field testing as an early research
Page 94 and 95:
ple explore a product or a technolo
Page 96 and 97:
the time (articles 1 Mäkelä & Bat
Page 98:
1 IT’S FUN TO DO THINGS TOGETHER
Page 102 and 103:
102 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES cial
Page 104 and 105:
104 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES
Page 106 and 107:
The results of the two user studies
Page 108 and 109:
FIGURE 2 One of the users with a Ph
Page 110 and 111:
joyed the challenge of breaking the
Page 112 and 113:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the other
Page 114 and 115:
KEYWORDS User experience, interacti
Page 116 and 117:
pretation act to shape the experien
Page 118 and 119:
118 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES
Page 120 and 121:
CATEGORIES AND SUBJECT DESCRIPTORS:
Page 122 and 123:
make proposals and counterproposals
Page 124 and 125:
The first message (figure 1) is jus
Page 126 and 127:
and sunniest time of year. The “f
Page 128 and 129:
ecome fluent in forms of media, the
Page 130 and 131:
mote storytelling. [3] Narration an
Page 132 and 133:
in Computer Systems 2002, Minneapol
Page 134 and 135:
INTRODUCTION Usability experts know
Page 136 and 137: 136 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES ence
Page 138 and 139: 138 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES Simil
Page 140 and 141: ticipant was given a MMS phone (eit
Page 142 and 143: Sometimes experiences belong to lar
Page 144 and 145: From Liisa: 11 th July 2002 6:35 p.
Page 146 and 147: People may also align with negative
Page 148 and 149: From Thomas: 16 th July 2002 1:41 p
Page 150 and 151: 150 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES disti
Page 152 and 153: 152 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES 6. Bl
Page 154 and 155: 52. Taylor, A. and Harper, R. (2002
Page 156 and 157: CATEGORIES AND SUBJECT DESCRIPTORS:
Page 158 and 159: 158 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES proac
Page 160 and 161: USER-PRODUCT INTERACTIONS: FLUENT,
Page 162 and 163: 162 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES end,
Page 164 and 165: tive, often shared experiences - su
Page 166 and 167: 166 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES inter
Page 168 and 169: oth a subjective and objective view
Page 170 and 171: 170 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES T. Ed
Page 172 and 173: 172 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES
Page 174 and 175: This leads us to the core question
Page 176 and 177: that resist all your attempts to un
Page 178 and 179: or even grass. This poses new chall
Page 180 and 181: FIGURE 2 The large emply piazza. FI
Page 182 and 183: INTERVENTIONS A first attempt to sp
Page 184 and 185: • After recording, preview the me
Page 188 and 189: pants can experience affective inti
Page 190 and 191: the importance of qualitative exper
Page 192: A AFFECTIVE COMPUTING WEBSITE . . .
Page 196 and 197: 196 REFERENCES Beyer, Hugh. & Karen
Page 198 and 199: 198 REFERENCES Garrett, Jesse James
Page 200 and 201: 200 REFERENCES The ever improving d
Page 202 and 203: 202 REFERENCES Picard, Rosalind W.
Page 204: 1900 ZEPPELIN, ESCALATOR . . . . .
Page 208 and 209: EVENTS, INVENTIONS, ART, CULTURE DE
show all

Co-experience: Understanding user experiences in social interaction

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?