You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Criticism’ category.

Achieving positive experiences in human-food interaction design

Intro

Human-food interaction

  • “Experience is a stream of feelings, thoughts and action; a continuous commentary on our current state of affairs.” [Hassenzahl]
  • “Experience” isn’t something that is experienced only during special moments like seeing a special exhibit at the museum, attending a party, going to an amusement park for a day, etc. [Nardi]
  • It is something that is a part of one’s normal life.
  • Something else is that is a part of our daily experiences is technology.
  • As McCarthy and Wright say, “We don’t just use or admire technology; we live with it… technology is deeply embedded in our ordinary everyday experience.” [McCarthy]

o   We use computers and cellphones everyday. Even if one scorns those technologies, we are surrounded by many ubiquitous technologies such as lights, cars, even the zipper on your clothes. Most likely, there is some sort of technology in your life that you are interacting with.

  •  “…our interactions with technology can involve emotions, values, ideals, intentions, and strong feelings.” [McCarthy]

o   This results in some sort of experience.

  • Something else that is important in our everyday lives is food.
  • Food isn’t just for nutrition to keep us alive. It also a huge social factor.
  • As Comber said, “Food is, and always will be, something that connects people together and which has the potential to inspire and engage us in new and exciting experiences.” [Rob Comber]
  • “Food-related behaviors respond to a complex of situational factors and choices that people make in these steps are neither always consistent (microwave dinner on one day, elaborate meal at the weekend), nor easy to understand.” [Comber et al]
  •  “Various physical, social, cognitive and physiological factors have to be considered when designing for what we grow, eat and throw away. These factors are influenced by our own values, social norms, culture and socio- demographic backgrounds.” [Comber et al]
  • “Given the importance of food in our daily lives [along with technology], it seems equally important to understand what role technology currently plays with regard to food and indeed what roles it can be imagined to play in the future.” [Grimes et al]
  • This is the space of human-food interaction. This is a design challenge for interaction designers and the HCI community.
  • In this space, food and technology is brought together to create an experience.
  • Currently there is a focus on corrective technologies [Grimes et al], which are designed to correct some sort of problem.
  • There should also be a focus on the more neglected path of celebratory technologies [Grimes et al], which focuses on creating positive experiences with their interactions with food and technology.
  • This paper will quickly introduce the space of corrective technologies and celebratory technologies.
  • It will follow by the exploration of two projects with the goal of achieving the creation of a celebratory technology: Food Media/CoDine and The Telematic Dinner Party. It is a look at their designs and their process to see whether or not a successful celebratory technology was created.
  • Finally, the paper will give a prescription of one way to achieve positive experience within the human-food interaction space.

 

  • Many HCI researchers in the field are focused on fixing problems.
  • They “sought to examine how technology might alter human-food interaction… uncertainty would be turned into certainty, inexperience into aptitude.” [Grimes et al]
  • This is what Grimes et al calls, “corrective technologies insofar as they attempt to fix undesirable behaviors.” [Grimes et al]
  • “That work which has been done has focused primarily on the problems that people have planning meals and preparing and consuming food.” [Grimes et al]

o   Examples:

o   “Kalas supports decision making by allowing users to leverage information such as others’ recipe choices, comments and ratings as they decide which recipe to choose.” [Grimes et al]

o   “Cook’s Collage captures a visual record of cooking activity and thus if the cook is interrupted he or she can view this record and be reminded of what step in the cooking process they have reached.” [Grimes et al]

o   “…U-kitchen system, smart devices communicate with each other and share the context via a kitchen server, including RFID tags in appliances so the system can identify appliances being used, and ubiquitous services which help the user with the grocery management, cooking and give healthy dining advice.” (CoDine)

o   “The Ambient Kitchen integrates data projectors, cameras, RFID tags and readers, object mounted accelerometers, and under-floor pressure sensing, to construct a supportive environment for food planning, preparation and cooking.” (CoDine)

o   “Playful Tray is embedded with an interactive game play over a weight-sensitive tray surface, to recognize and track the natural eating actions of children in real time, thus the children’s eating actions are used as game inputs for reducing their poor eating behaviours.” (Food Media)

  • Has element of playfulness but it is still there to correct behavior
  • But food isn’t just about the corrective experience.
  • “Socially, food is something that brings people together – individuals interact through and around it.” – Andrea Grimes
  • …points to the possibility and necessity to see technology and design interventions in this space as more than simply corrective.”  – Rob Comber
  • “…HCI community can begin to imagine another, much neglected path of research: one in which individuals’ current experiences with food are seen not as undesirable, but as positive, productive, even delightful. “ [Grimes et al]
  • “We certainly agree that individuals do encounter problems in their interactions with food, but…they enjoy their food, relish the practice of making it, and above all celebrate the sharing of it.” – Andrea Grimes et al
  • Human-food interaction should design for this positive experience.
  • Grimes et al calls this, “celebratory technology; technology that celebrates the positive and successful aspects of human behavior.” – Andrea Grimes et al
  • “By drawing from social science research on how people live with, consume, and conceive of food, we come to suggest six positive aspects of human-food interaction that can be designed for… creativity, pleasure and nostalgia, gifting, family connectedness, trend-seeking behaviors, and relaxation.”  – Andrea Grimes et al
  • I’ll explain each section
  • This is a framework that can be used to look at design, help design for positive experience
  • Many designers in this space are beginning to emphasize this positive experience in their design.
    • Examples:
    • “NetPot takes on the challenge of creating a communal cooking experience for remotely located participants. This project recognizes that the sensory experience is impoverished in mediated group experiences. The traditional communal nature of cooking around a Chinese hotpot is incorporated with gaming.” (Barden)
    • “The Netpot brought the focus of the participants on the pot for cooking.” (Barden)
    • LiveForm: Telekinetic projects (Barden)
    • “They performed a telematic dinner party between Amsterdam, Netherlands and Toronto, Canada.” (Barden)
    • “The dinner was comprised of interactive devices: networked wine glasses, saltshakers, and tabletop video projections.” (Barden)
    • “While this performance was situated around food, it was more of a celebration of the technological feats than an attempt at supporting the guests in sharing a dining experience.” (Barden)
    • “‘Mamagoto’ is an interactive and context-aware dining system which encourages small children to “play” with food, using their curiosity towards food to expand their sensory experience while eating.” (Food Media)

Projects that want to design for experience (Critiques if they succeeded or not, why)

  • Now I will present two projects with goals of designing “celebratory technology”.

o   Food Media/CoDine

o   Telematic Dinner

  • Both want to achieve playfulness, connectedness, and an experience with their amazing show of technology but with varying degrees of success.

o   Project’s goal, how match 6 positive aspects of HFI

o   Project’s process

o   Did they achieve goal?

o   If not why? [mostly because of process, they didn’t allow for the design of experience before the technology was made]

Food Media/CoDine is concepted as a celebratory tech but fails at it through the process of its creation (celebratory framework eval throughout, look at process to see why did or did not achieve)

  • What is this
  • Goal: how much of 6 positive aspects they want to achieve
  • Process
  • “Food Media” is “an intuitive multimodal interaction platform to engage remote people into social communication and entertainment within the telepresent family dinner context.” – Jun Wei et al
  • “…CoDine system, a dining table embedded with interactive subsystems that augment and transport the experience of communal family dining to create a sense of coexistence among remote family members.” – Jun Wei et al
  • “CoDine connects people in different locations through shared dining activities: gesture-based screen interaction, mutual food serving, ambient pictures on an animated tablecloth, and the transportation of edible messages.” – Jun Wei et al
  • “Rather than focusing on functionality or efficiency, CoDine aims to provide people with an engaging interactive dining experience through enriched multi-sensory communication.” – Jun Wei et al
  • They are two different papers about the same design
  • They want to create an experience with their prototype but their process was not best way to design for experience
  • Reasons why: prototype, test prototype, assume target audience will feel the way they want them to feel, next step is user study to make sure they feel the way they feel (lots of quotes and annoyed critiques about this)
  • “Compared to interacting in a virtual environment, we believe these physical movements of plates or cups physically on dining table convey more delicate human emotions and stronger feeling of warmth, which contributes to the enhanced sense of co-presence when user take the served dish from their remote dining partner, even though they do not share the same physical dining table.” – Jun Wei et al [My comments: They did not test this on their audience to see if they really do think this, it is them speculating.]
  • [prototype first than see if your users will feel the way you want them to feel, they built elaborate hi-fi prototype, how much are you willing to change if people don’t feel the way you want to? Does not acknowledge others.] “While we have conducted prototype tests during the implementation to verify the CoDine modules function, our next step is a user study to assess whether CoDine enhances engagement between fellow co-diners.” – Jun Wei et al
  • [the design is not everyday habit, design not shown how people react to it in home] “Our research explores how interaction with familiar but intelligent everyday environment and artefacts can be used to enhance meaningful interactions in dining situation, going beyond ambient sensing and computing, to the level of subconscious connection between human beings.” – Jun Wei et al
  • [more features = people feel more connected, that is what this says to me] “In the future, more interaction channels can be included to increase the feelings of connectedness, awareness and playfulness, to enhance the shared social entertainment experience beyond verbal or video communication.” – Jun Wei et al
  • Why didn’t actually achieve “celebratory design”

Telematic Dinner Party is a celebratory tech but still lacked some experience they wanted to achieve (celebratory framework eval throughout, look at process to see why did or did not achieve)

  • What is this
  • Goal: how much of 6 positive aspects they want to achieve
  • Process
  • Both of these designs are critique through the lens of design experience
  • Both, the technology should be mediators to bring diners and family members closer to each other
  • “Here we consider, among the others, the creativity, togetherness, pleasure and playfulness, associated with food and mealtime.” – Pollie Barden et al
  • “The Telematic Dinner Party (TDP) aims to support remote guests in experiencing a sense of togetherness, and playfulness and sharing in a dinner party.” – Pollie Barden et al
  • Their process better than above
  • They tested with their audience
  • They held activities with audience to see if they get the goal experience
  • They were iterative: traditional dinner party, pilot study, hi-fi prototype
  • Still found issues with experience and how people felt with prototype that they have to address
  • They built it all but some experience they wanted to achieve didn’t work
  • “Our observations of the TDPs and guest feedback indicate that the social structure is central in creating a sense of social presence between participants, and that this cannot be achieved by the quality of the technology platform alone.” – Pollie Barden et al
  • Why closer on track than previous design, Why still off

To get the experience right, the process needs to focus on the experience and getting that right first before the technology.

  • “Human-food interaction requires much more attention to the people and the ways in which they engage with food than efficiencies and novelties new technologies may provide.”  – Rob Comber

There are many ways of achieving this but I would like to propose the usage of achieving positive experience through low-fidelity prototypes first before creating high-fidelity prototypes.

o   Sketches, low-fidelity paper prototypes are low cost

o   If it fails, it is easy to change something quickly and test again

o   Sometimes if the features look too complete or work too much like a final product, further ideation and changes to the design will be less likely to happen

o   It doesn’t have to be used only for testing usability, this can also test what kinds of experience your user will have

o   Since the focus should not be emphasized on the technology, it is the concept that makes the experience and that is what we should test

o   The low-fidelity prototype can be used to simulate, make sure people are having the positive

Example of a process that used low-fidelity prototype to achieve positive experience: Food Journey (Capstone): a way to design for experience first

  • Want to “support relationship-building activities and extend them to distant dining situations… support [couple] bonding, communication, and social togetherness.” (CoDine, 23) Minus the remote participants
    • See how people act together collocated first before remote
  • What: design for the experience
    • Focus on the positive experience instead of technology
  • Tech mediator

o   aim for overall positive experience

o   make sure it is there before higher fidelity

o   couples are unique and will interact and respond different

  • Why: technology is just the mediator [unremarkable computing (Grimes)]
  • Concept

o   people grow up with different preferences and tastes

o   relationship together

  • bring their backgrounds together
  • possible to explore their preferences together
  • try new things
  • fun experience together

o   Food Journey helps initiate this experience to bring two people closer together [celebratory technology]

  • 6 postive aspects
  • don’t know where journey take them
  • aim, prompt conversation, expand horizons, develop positive food practice
  • Five parts: exploration, Adventure: The Hunt, Adventure: Create, Adventure: Eat, Keeper
  • How: low fidelity prototype, paper prototype with post its

o   simulate the journey

o   so far with three young couples (various status, various pickiness and control)

  • young couple already use smart devices like smartphone on regular basis

o   Allow focus on how couple interact with each other and engage with activities, how felt throughout the experience

o   Less focus on technology breakdown

o   Next step would be higher fidelity prototype to look at UI

Jeff’s last class had me reflecting on how my capstone has touched and shaped me. Over the course of this semester I have noticed more and more accessibility devices that focus only on the functionality aesthetic. This class has increasingly given me a harsh look on the technologies available to people with disabilities. I’ve taken this harsh look because these technologies separate people who do not ‘need’ these technologies from those that do. If these technologies were more desirable, perhaps they would not even be viewed as technologies for the disabled, but just good design that works well for people with disabilities? Even so, there some technologies that most people without a specific disability may never need. For example a prosthetic leg. This harsh look which will be evident in my paper as I use video game controllers as a lens to focus on this idea. Before this capstone and interaction culture I did not have these thoughts and it feels very fresh bit also very daunting at the same time. I’m not really where to with this blog post at the moment and I may come back to it later.

A bit better Jeff? I think I am focusing on what would make a good celebratory tech but also to get there what would be a good process. The critiques I think I will do will probably focus on the process of how the artefact (goals seem to fit celebratory tech but they don’t always achieve it) came about and because of the process, if it ends up as a good celebratory tech or not. Hope this is an OK line of thought.

 

Human-food interaction benefit from Third Wave HCI/Experience Design

Human- food interaction emphasize fixing problems

  •  “That work which has been done has focused primarily on the problems that people have planning meals and preparing and consuming food.” – Andrea Grimes et al
  • …points to the possibility and necessity to see technology and design interventions in this space as more than simply corrective.”  – Rob Comber
  • “We certainly agree that individuals do encounter problems in their interactions with food, but…they enjoy their food, relish the practice of making it, and above all celebrate the sharing of it.” – Andrea Grimes et al

Human- food interaction should also focus on positive experiences and connecting people

  • “Food is, and always will be, something that connects people together and which has the potential to inspire and engage us in new and exciting experiences.” – Rob Comber

  • “…our goal is to explore a different path for food research in HCI, one that focuses not on the problems that individuals have with food, but rather on the ways in which people find pleasure and success in their interactions with food.” – Andrea Grimes et al

  • “Human-food interaction requires much more attention to the people and the ways in which they engage with food than efficiencies and novelties new technologies may provide.”  – Rob Comber

 

Framework [Celebratory]

  • “This design space is characterized by what we call celebratory technology; technology that celebrates the positive and successful aspects of human behavior.” – Andrea Grimes et al

  • “By drawing from social science research on how people live with, consume, and conceive of food, we come to suggest six positive aspects of human-food interaction that can be designed for… creativity, pleasure and nostalgia, gifting, family connectedness, trend-seeking behaviors, and relaxation.”  – Andrea Grimes et al
  • I’ll explain each section
  • This is a framework that can be used to look at design, help design for positive experiences

Projects that want to design for experience (Critiques if they succeeded or not, why)

Food Media/CoDine is concepted as a celebratory tech but fails at it through the process of its creation (celebratory framework eval throughout, look at process to see why did or did not achieve)

  • “Food Media” is “an intuitive multimodal interaction platform to engage remote people into social communication and entertainment within the telepresent family dinner context.” – Jun Wei et al
  • “…CoDine system, a dining table embedded with interactive subsystems that augment and transport the experience of communal family dining to create a sense of coexistence among remote family members.” – Jun Wei et al
  • “CoDine connects people in different locations through shared dining activities: gesture-based screen interaction, mutual food serving, ambient pictures on an animated tablecloth, and the transportation of edible messages.” – Jun Wei et al
  • “Rather than focusing on functionality or efficiency, CoDine aims to provide people with an engaging interactive dining experience through enriched multi-sensory communication.” – Jun Wei et al
  • They are two different papers about the same design
  • They want to create an experience with their prototype but their process was not best way to design for experience
  • Reasons why: prototype, test prototype, assume target audience will feel the way they want them to feel, next step is user study to make sure they feel the way they feel (lots of quotes and annoyed critiques about this)
  • “Compared to interacting in a virtual environment, we believe these physical movements of plates or cups physically on dining table convey more delicate human emotions and stronger feeling of warmth, which contributes to the enhanced sense of co-presence when user take the served dish from their remote dining partner, even though they do not share the same physical dining table.” – Jun Wei et al [My comments: They did not test this on their audience to see if they really do think this, it is them speculating.]
  • [prototype first than see if your users will feel the way you want them to feel, they built elaborate hi-fi prototype, how much are you willing to change if people don’t feel the way you want to?] “While we have conducted prototype tests during the implementation to verify the CoDine modules function, our next step is a user study to assess whether CoDine enhances engagement between fellow co-diners.” – Jun Wei et al
  • [the design is not everyday habit, design not shown how people react to it in home] “Our research explores how interaction with familiar but intelligent everyday environment and artefacts can be used to enhance meaningful interactions in dining situation, going beyond ambient sensing and computing, to the level of subconscious connection between human beings.” – Jun Wei et al
  • [more features = people feel more connected, that is what this says to me] “In the future, more interaction channels can be included to increase the feelings of connectedness, awareness and playfulness, to enhance the shared social entertainment experience beyond verbal or video communication.” – Jun Wei et al

Telematic Dinner Party is a celebratory tech but still lacked some experience they wanted to achieve (celebratory framework eval throughout, look at process to see why did or did not achieve)

  • “Here we consider, among the others, the creativity, togetherness, pleasure and playfulness, associated with food and mealtime.” – Pollie Barden et al
  • “The Telematic Dinner Party (TDP) aims to support remote guests in experiencing a sense of togetherness, and playfulness and sharing in a dinner party.” – Pollie Barden et al
  • Their process better than above
  • They tested with their audience
  • They held activities with audience to see if they get the goal experience
  • They were iterative: traditional dinner party, pilot study, hi-fi prototype
  • Still found issues with experience and how people felt with prototype that they have to address
  • They built it all but some experience they wanted to achieve didn’t work
  • “Our observations of the TDPs and guest feedback indicate that the social structure is central in creating a sense of social presence between participants, and that this cannot be achieved by the quality of the technology platform alone.” – Pollie Barden et al

Inform future experience design for Human food interaction

Food Journey (Capstone Process): a way to design for experience first

  • Want to “support relationship-building activities and extend them to distant dining situations… support [couple] bonding, communication, and social togetherness.” (CoDine, 23) Minus the remote participants

o   See how people act together collocated first before remote

  • What: design for the experience

o   Focus on the positive experience instead of technology

  • Tech mediator
  • Comber: Human-food interaction requires much more attention to the people and the ways in which they engage with food than efficiencies and novelties new technologies may provide.” (182)

o   aim for overall positive experience

o   make sure it is there before higher fidelity

o   couples are unique and will interact and respond different

  • Why: technology is just the mediator [unremarkable computing (Grimes)]
  • Concept

o   people grow up with different preferences and tastes

o   relationship together

  • bring their backgrounds together
  • possible to explore their preferences together
  • try new things
  • fun experience together

o   Food Journey helps initiate this experience to bring two people closer together [celebratory technology]

  • 6 postive aspects
  • don’t know where journey take them
  • aim, prompt conversation, expand horizons, develop positive food practice
  • Five parts: exploration, Adventure: The Hunt, Adventure: Create, Adventure: Eat, Keeper
  • How: low fidelity prototype, paper prototype with post its

o   simulate the journey

o   so far with three young couples (various status, various pickiness and control)

  • young couple already use smart devices like smartphone on regular basis

o   Allow focus on how couple interact with each other and engage with activities, how felt throughout the experience

o   Less focus on technology breakdown

o   Next step would be higher fidelity prototype to look at UI

 

This is the skeleton of my outline of what I want to talk about in my paper:

Human food interaction require Third Wave/Experience Design

Framework [Celebratory]

  • Positive experiences

Projects that want to design for experience

Food Media/CoDine

  • Goal with experiences
  • What they did wrong

Telematic Dinner Party

  • What they did better
  • What they still did wrong

Inform future experience design for Human food interaction

Food Journey (Capstone Process)

  • Focus on the experience people have
  • Low fidelity/simulation to get the positive experience before build high fidelity prototype

I am sort of confused about this paper so here are my thoughts

The author, creator, designer etc: I feel this is a paper written for HCI people or for people who attend ubicomp conferences. It seems like the author is trying to make a case for ubicomp and a potential use for ubicomp. He is proposing a new way of thinking about the use of ubicomp and design it-self.

The main reason I say he is proposing a new way of thinking about design itself is because he says “the design of spore 1.1 evokes political issues without resolving them.”  It isn’t really producing solutions but exposing current states. Which is similar to all the arguments we had towards why Warhol is art!

The work itself

The design of the system identifies the factors at play and establishes their relationships and possible consequences, but it leaves open the space of interpretation and contest. 

DiSalvo’s explanation on what spore 1.1 does would be my definition of critical design. Again he is strongly interested in highlighting existing relationships and leaving it open for debate. The interesting difference is in the notion of “connectedness“. Compared to Blood bag radio the designs DiSalvo talks about have a lot more working parts. The combination of several seemingly independent objects linked together creates something new and brings out something political in nature. The key emphasis the DiSalvo makes is that when the pieces come together, they form something with a completely new meaning which is more than a sum of its parts.

“As devices of articulation, the products of ubicomp join together, by design multiple elements in a manner that transforms the identity and meaning of those elements and results in a new object-an articulated collective.”

I seriously can’t see the difference between this and critical design. If we compare this to Dunne and Raby’s blood bag radio, I don’t see a lot of difference. Sure BBR has  less working parts, but when you look at the materiality of the items, the individual parts and their actual use, it is very different from the way it reads when you look at BBR holistically. For example; the bag looks like a bear. If you really think about it, a blood bag can infact look like a bear. Especially in the context of a children’s hospital. But the moment you attach the energy context to it, that the blood is from a pet, it changes the way you look at the bag. Now, it is a vision of the future. It exposes the energy crisis and potentially how far we are willing to go get energy for our radios.

From this point, things get a little blurry for me since he just seems to be interested in merging words! I will post more about this later, but does my summary make sense? Am I understanding this correctly or has this completely flown over my head?

What are your thoughts on this paper?

I have to say, this made me really miss my CMCL courses. The way I read and watched the film was pretty weird, here was my method:

1. Skim the paper (not engaged… I didn’t know who the characters were, it was honestly hard for me to genuinely enjoy the reading)

2. Watch the film while following along with the paper (I missed a few things in the film, I thought I could multi task better than I could ((a lesson I should have learned by now )) also, the reading did not follow along with perfect chronology, a half assed attempt on both end)

3. Finish the film (I had to pause the film a few times throughout the day because of meetings. A former boyfriend used to get so angry at me for this… not to mention watching a film on my laptop or other device… David Lynch has more on that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0)

4. Re-read the paper (this time I was all about it, I did skip around to look for parts that didn’t make sense to me… like the rubbing of her eye with the with the ring, also I looked for something about the colors in the film- red & green, I knew there was something significant with this, but it wasn’t covered in the text, so I’d need to watch the film again to get more out of it)

5. Re-watch scenes to verify things I missed (I had the paper in one hand and skimmed the film with the other, I saw so much more than I had before)

Overall, I got a lot out of this. The way he criticized and remarked on the film, and the way he went out on a limb at times, but you never felt like he was on thin ice. I can definitely use this for the writing of my final paper and the criticisms of the designs. I tended to get more excited as the process went on- I spent about 5 hours of my day with this, when I could have spent 3 if I just did this in a logical way. Oh well, it was fun.

So here is another draft of a draft outline. This is what I have so far. These are some of the things I would like to talk about in my paper though keep in mind that they may not be in the order that I am showing now and I’ll be adding more information as I go:
3rd Wave HCI and Experience Design

Intro

McCarthy, John, Wright, Peter. (2004) Technology as Experience. The MIT Press.

  • “We don’t just use or admire technology; we live with it… technology is deeply embedded in our ordinary everyday experience.” (2)
  • “…our interactions with technology can involve emotions, values, ideals, intentions, and strong feelings.” (2)

Nardi, “Play as Aesthetic Experience,” from My Life as a Night Elf Priest, pp. 39-51.

  • “Dewey argued that aesthetic experience is part of ordinary life and should not be confined to viewing the works of a few elite artists presented in museums.” (41)
  • “… active aesthetic experience. He reconceptualized the term aesthetic experience to express an active participatory relation to artful material and collective activity.” (41)

Hassenzahl, “Needs, Affect, and Interactive Products: Facets of User Experience.” Interacting with Computers 22 (2010) 353-362.

  • “Experience is a stream of feelings, thoughts and action; a continuous commentary on our current state of affairs.” (353) [Definition]
  • Pragmatic quality refers to a judgment of a product’s potential to support particular ‘do-goals’ (e.g. to make a telephone call)” (357)
  • Hedonic quality is a judgment with regard to a product’s potential to support pleasure in use and ownership, that is, fulfillment of so-called ‘be-goals’ (e.g. to be admired, to be stimulated)” (357)

Criticism

Bardzell, Jeffrey. (2011). “Interaction Criticism: An Introduction to the Practice.” Interacting With Computers 23 (2011). 604-621.

  • “As HCI’s cultural goals (and significance!) grows, and in particular as demand grows for thinking in HCI surrounding cultural, aesthetic, affective, ethical, and experiential categories, the field needs to improve its practice of interaction criticism.” (606)
  • “By interaction criticism I mean rigorous interpretive interrogations of the complex relationships between (a) the interface, including its material and perceptual qualities as well as its broader situatedness in visual languages and culture and (b) the user experience, including the meanings, behaviors, perceptions, affects, insights, and social sensibilities that arise in the context of interaction and its outcomes.” (606)
  • “It is a strategy that enables design practitioners to engage with the aesthetics of interaction, helping practitioners cultivate more sensitive, insightful, and imaginative critical reactions to designs and exemplars.” (606)
  • “Speaking generally, criticism refers to an expert of a given domain’s informed exercise of judgment… the expert cultivates a domain-specific capacity for judgment through a lengthy engagement with relevant works/examples, theories, and other expert perspectives, an ongoing engagement that is both sensual/perceptual and intellectual.” (606)
  • “… typically based on a holistic, non-reductive understanding that includes issues such as the following:
    1. The work’s qualities, both sensually and intellectually…
    2. A cultivated awareness of the critic’s own direct sensual, emotional, and intellectual experience engaging with the work/ example…
    3. An awareness of (and taking a position with regard to) the moral or ethical consequences of the work and possible interpretations/uses of it.
    4. Knowledge of related expert perspectives from others, that is, what other critics, experts, and scholars have said about the work or those relevant to it in some way.
    5. Exemplars, that is, other known works/examples that in some interesting or worthwhile way are deemed to be comparable to the work.
    6. An awareness of the work’s position in history and location, including the reception of that artifact
    7. Relevant theories, be they methodological or specific to a type of work and its tradition(s).” (606)

Subspace: Human-Food Interaction and Experience Design

Intro

Comber, Rob. (2014). Designing for human-food interaction: An introduction to the special issue on food and interaction design. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 72 (2014) 181–184

  • “…points to the possibility and necessity to see technology and design interventions in this space as more than simply corrective.” (181)
  • Food is, and always will be, something that connects people together and which has the potential to inspire and engage us in new and exciting experiences.” (181)
  • “Thus while food has always been a significant element in community to global cultures, new forms of communication and mobility offer opportunities for extended food expressions and experiences.(181)
  • Human-food interaction requires much more attention to the people and the ways in which they engage with food than efficiencies and novelties new technologies may provide.” (182)

Choi, Jaz Hee-jeong, Comber, Rob, Linehan, Conor, McCarthy, John. (2012).Food for Thought: Designing for Critical Reflection on Food Practices. DIS 2012 (June 11- 15, 2012) 793-794.

  • “Indeed, modern food values are focused
on convenience and effortlessness, overshadowing other values such as environmental sustainability, health and pleasure. The rethinking of how we approach everyday food behaviours appears to be a particularly timely concern.” (793)
  • Food practices encapsulate the broad spectrum of food production, transport, purchasing, preparation, and consumption among others.” (793)
  • “…there is a growing interest in the design
of technologies to support positive food practices. That is, there is an increasing need to address food not only as a ‘problem’ area, where individuals have insufficient knowledge, inadequate nutrition, or inappropriate environmental behaviours.(793)
  • “Critical reflection on food practices opens the possibility to examine how we conceptualise food practices to redress the imbalance towards positive, playful food practices that support issues of health and sustainability through long-term engagement.” (793-794)

 

Grimes, Andrea, Harper, Richard. (2008). Celebratory Technology: New Directions for Food Research in HCI. CHI 2008, April 5-10, 2008, Florence, Italy.

  • “Socially, food is something that brings people together – individuals interact through and around it.” (1)
  • “In this paper we describe the existing and potential design space for HCI in the area of human-food interaction.” (1)
  • “We present ideas for future work on designing technologies in the area of human-food interaction that celebrate the positive interactions that people have with food as they eat and prepare foods in their everyday lives.” (1)
  • “Given the importance of food in our daily lives, it seems equally important to understand what role technology currently plays with regard to food and indeed what roles it can be imagined to play in the future.” (1)
  • “…our goal is to explore a different path for food research in HCI, one that focuses not on the problems that individuals have with food, but rather on the ways in which people find pleasure and success in their interactions with food.” (1)

 

Celebratory Design Not Corrective Design

Grimes, Andrea, Harper, Richard. (2008). Celebratory Technology: New Directions for Food Research in HCI. CHI 2008, April 5-10, 2008, Florence, Italy.

  • “…researchers sought to examine how technology might alter human-food interaction… uncertainty would be turned into certainty, inexperience into aptitude. In our mind, the resulting systems are corrective technologies insofar as they attempt to fix undesirable behaviors.” (1)
  • “…HCI community can begin to imagine another, much neglected path of research: one in which individuals’ current experiences with food are seen not as undesirable, but as positive, productive, even delightful. “ (1)
  • “We certainly agree that individuals do encounter problems in their interactions with food, but…they enjoy their food, relish the practice of making it, and above all celebrate the sharing of it.” (1)
  • “In this paper, we want to highlight a whole line of research that has for the most part been neglected within HCI to date.” (1-2)
  • “That is, we will discuss how treating individuals’ interactions with food as positive, as something in which they delight and find pleasure, excitement, and fondness opens up a very different space for technology design.” (2)
  • “This design space is characterized by what we call celebratory technology; technology that celebrates the positive and successful aspects of human behavior.” (2)
  • “By drawing from social science research on how people live with, consume, and conceive of food, we come to suggest six positive aspects of human-food interaction that can be designed for… creativity, pleasure and nostalgia, gifting, family connectedness, trend-seeking behaviors, and relaxation.” (5)
  • “Of course, many of these things are interrelated and rarely occur in isolation…” (5)

 

Six Positive Aspects of Human-Food Interaction

Grimes, Andrea, Harper, Richard. (2008). Celebratory Technology: New Directions for Food Research in HCI. CHI 2008, April 5-10, 2008, Florence, Italy.

Creativity

  • “…preparing meals is a way of expressing creativity…cooking process as a way to express themselves imaginatively.” (5)
  • “…we can imagine designing technologies that assume an adept user who enjoys expressing their creativity through cooking…technologies that support them in adapting recipes to fit their personal tastes and personalities and applications that help them explore new flavors and cuisines.” (5)
  • “For example, one idea would be to have an awareness display that shows individuals what other members of their social group are eating for dinner. This application could serve as a stimulus for creativity: as individuals observe the eating practices of others, they may be inspired to create new meal ideas.” (5)
  • “The point here is that the technology is not reversing or mending individuals’ interactions with food. The fact that some cooks use food preparation as a creative outlet is not something that needs to be fixed… we begin to imagine designs that celebrate aspects of human behavior, rather than correct it.” (5)

Pleasure & Nostalgia

  • “Smelling, preparing, touching, and tasting foods, and even remembering past food experiences can evoke emotional responses… In addition to these sensual experiences, foods can also hold symbolic meaning whereby they embody past experiences.” (5)
  • “These memories can bring with them feelings of nostalgia and fondness for the past.” (5)
  • “They examined how individuals subjectively characterize hedonic eating experiences as well as what conditions were needed for eating to be pleasurable. They describe how the features of the physical environment, the nature of the social interaction that surrounds the eating process, and feelings of relaxation can all contribute to individuals feeling that their eating experiences are pleasurable.” (6)
  • “For example, understanding that the physical environment can be an important aspect of pleasurable meals suggests that technologically augmenting tables, chairs, or dinnerware might be a way to provide new hedonic eating experiences for people.” (6)
  • “…memory microwave display…with the memory display, activating the microwave could trigger the display to show photographs from a digital photo album. For example, imagine heating up a meal and having related photographs be displayed (e.g. pictures of grandma are displayed when heating up dishes that she often used to prepare).” (6)
  • “The memory microwave display could augment the process by which foods trigger memories and subsequently emotional responses (such as pleasure) by providing another visual dimension for memories.” (6)
  • “With this type of design idea, the goal is not so much to improve the ways in which people have emotional responses to food, but rather to provide a new way for individuals to experience these emotions.” (6)

Gifting

  • “Food acts both literally and symbolically as a gift.” (6)
  • “Literally, individuals give gifts of food at holidays and other special occasions. (6)
  • “Symbolically, even when it is not presented as such, food can be a gift. For example, scholars studying the role of gender in food practices have often argued that for some women, the preparation of meals for the family is a means of symbolic gift giving whereby individuals express their love, affection, and sense of caring.” (6)
  • “…food is seen as the ultimate gift because it is both literally and symbolically consumed.” (6)
  • “…food acts as a gift we begin to see how food and the sharing of food can be viewed as precious, as something of symbolic value…does not suggest technological ideas that treat food as an obstacle, or ideas that treat human-food interactions as something that need to be fixed.” (6)

Family Connectedness

  • “The family is an important unit of analysis when considering the social nature of eating… through these patterns and eating norms that families define their identity.” (6)
  • “Shared meals are important to families not simply because they are a time of biological replenishment, but because they are social occasions.” (7)
  • “Since a part of what makes some shared family meals so important is that they are a time for the family to catch up with one another, one design idea is a table display whereby family members post aspects of their day.” (7)
  • “This display would serve as a conversation piece and as a way to augment the discussion with different forms of media. Thus the goal here would not be to fix family communication but rather to augment it by providing a different type of way to engage in social interaction around the dinner table.” (7)
  • “Our own project, HomeBook, is an example of such a display. Here, each member of a family has a space on the screen they can call their own and they can message content to it at their leisure.” (7)

Trend-Seeking

  • “Some individuals use cooking as way to express how hip they are. Riding the waves of culinary trends is a way to show others that one is cultured and modern.” (7)
  • “In various parts of the Western world for example, the emergence of new domestic cooking gadgets, cooking television programs, celebrity chefs, and slick cookbooks can be readily seen. Technologies, media outlets, and media personalities are frequently responsible for setting the trends and influencing consumer behavior.” (7)
  • “…we wish to point out that there are a number of people who are embracing the current trends in domestic cooking by preparing chic dishes, purchasing fashionable kitchen gadgets, or watching cooking programs on the television.” (7)
  • “…then we can imagine a technological artifact that provides a visual representation of the trends that one samples. For example, one design idea is a simple electronic scrapbook that allows individuals to document the trends they have been excited about.” (7)
  • “Such a display could be a fun way for an individual to reflect on the fads that they have participated in over time and might also serve as a whimsical talking piece for people visiting that person’s home.” (7)

Relaxation

  • “…for some individuals cooking and eating are methods of relaxation. For example, the website http://www.chowhound.com is an example of an online community devoted to blogs, message boards, and multimedia content about food. On this website discussion threads have been created where individuals discuss how cooking and baking help them relieve stress. Part of what can make cooking relaxing is the physical actions that go into preparing foods.” (7)
  • “Furthermore, intimate conversations with friends and family can occur in the kitchen while meals are being prepared…‘kitchen therapy’. It is in these over food and through these conversations that the stresses of the day can be diffused.” (7)
  • “The process of eating food can of course also be relaxing.” (7)
  • “One woman noted that drinking a cup of coffee in the morning gave her a few moments of time to be still that helped her feel ready to take on the day. Thus, food and beverages can help facilitate relaxation through their various properties and also through the atmosphere they create.” (8)
  • “Music can often help in setting a mood…Thus, we see potential in exploring systems that couple music with food in a variety of ways.” (8)
  • “Other variants could include a system that seeks music with certain beats and rhythms—food associated with parties and large events having pop and rock, haute cuisine tending towards classical music.” (8)

Related Works

 

Critique of Two Projects

Food Media

Wei, Jun, Wang, Xuan, Tache, Remi, Peiris, Roshan Lalintha, Choi, Yongsoon, Halupka, Veronica, Koh, Jeffrey Tzu Kwan Valino, Martinez, Xavier Roman, Cheok, Adrian David. (2011). Food Media: Exploring Interactive Entertainment over Telepresent Dinner. ACE’2011, Lisbon, Portugal.

  • “Food Media” is “an intuitive multimodal interaction platform to engage remote people into social communication and entertainment within the telepresent family dinner context.” (1) It allows food to become “a valuable asset in the computer-mediated entertainment.” (2)
  • It is meant to “derive playful experience from people’s everyday activities” and “supports multiple interaction modalities around food to afford the enjoyable social interactions.” (2)
  • While “Food Media” is to give the chance “for remote families to enjoy shared entertainment” (1), [Criticism] from the pictures in the paper, it looks very technical and clinical. It does not look very fun. It looks like something a person would do in the lab instead of comfortably integrated into their everyday life. [looks more like what engineers enjoy than regular people] [did find other sites about Food Media and will look at later]

Telematic Dinner Party

Barden, Pollie, Comber, Rob, Green, David, Jackson, Daniel, Ladha, Cassim, Bartindale, Tom, Bryan-Kinns, Nick, Stockman, Tony, Olivier, Patrick. (2012). Telematic Dinner Party: Designing for Togetherness through Play and Performance. DIS 2012, June 11-15, 2012, Newcastle, UK. 38- 47.

  • “There has been a recent call in HCI for new approaches to the design of technology for and around food.” (38)
  • “Here we consider, among the others, the creativity, togetherness, pleasure and playfulness, associated with food and mealtime.” (38)
  • “The Telematic Dinner Party (TDP) aims to support remote guests in experiencing a sense of togetherness, and playfulness and sharing in a dinner party.” (38)
  • “TDP provides a space where we can use technology to ‘make the familiar strange.’ In doing so, we can reveal the limits of technological acceptance, performance and the computer mediation of social relationships in a familiar social setting.” (38)
  • “Multimodal technology platform”
  • “…we explore the possibilities and consequences of designing for togetherness, performance and playfulness toward a form of social presence.” (38-39)
  • [Criticism] From the images it looks more people focused that “Food Media”. While they are still exploring the space, they went through several iterations with real people and seemingly real table settings. It has an appearance of what may be found in a dining space.

 

How Help Inform Future Work

Food Journey

So I finally get a chance to say what I feel about this subject. Yay me! Where to start? I guess I should start with my stance on the combination of horror and humor as genre’s, especially now and today and that stance is…don’t do it anymore. Seriously, please don’t do it anymore. Perhaps I have a different feel of what horror is compared to others but I am a horror movie fan to those movies that I deem worthy. Nowadays, horror is just consisting of a killer going around, mutilating everything in their wake, a main character that somehow ends up coming across said killer, and them trying to figure out how to escape while trying to kill the killer. Sadly, horror nowadays isn’t the genre it used to be. It’s completely watered down. When I think ‘horror’, I think of something that frightens me. In fact when I watch a so-called ‘horror’ film nowadays, I don’t find myself scared but rather I laugh out loud hysterically seeing blood and guts splatter everywhere and a more expensive showing of ‘1000 Ways To Die’. In this retrospect, I guess you can call me experiencing the comedy side of horror versus the fear. Horror films nowadays are just that: a joke. They are constantly repetitious and some of the elements that happen in horror movies have just become cliched. For example, why–TELL ME WHY!!!–there is always a dumb character that walks in the woods by themselves, ends up lost and with a broken car, starts running with the killer behind them and decide to slip and fall, the one and only black character dies protecting everyone (truthfully, most black people get highly offended by it because they would end up abandoning their own mother to survive, let alone a friend or comrade), the killer walks at a slow pace and no matter how much running the main character does, they end up getting killed; and somehow they manage to squeeze in a sex scene between characters right before the man then the woman (most times but it can be vice-versa) gets killed by the killer. Personally, I feel that in order to experience horror and humor first one must fix the horror side, at least to my standards. In fact, Gore needs to have its own genre to keep people from being confused about what is true horror.

In my opinion, the movie exemplars given by Carroll to me isn’t horror. Many of them are comedy movies/sitcoms (<– and that’s stretching the word ‘comedy’ too much for some of the films)  with horror movie elements. I can’t order a large sized meal from Burger King then get a diet Coke and say that it’s a healthy meal just for the diet Coke (<–that’s intentional. ‘Healthy’ is stretched a lot for diet Coke). There may be some elements like tomato and lettuce on your sandwich and the Coke but speaking realistic, it’s not healthy at all. That’s what I see with many horror/comedy movies nowadays. It’s not done right. Heck, sometimes I question the comedy aspect just as much as the horror.

I agree with Stuart Gordon when he states that ‘The thing I have found is that you’ll never find an audiences that wants to laugh more than a horror audience.’ but the only reason I agree with him is because I’m already biased as to how horror movies should be. To me, horror movies are to test someone’s will to survive when they have absolutely nothing and the situation seems totally desperate. That’s right, NOTHING! No guns, no shovel, no laser gun, no army, no knife, taser, mace, or brass knuckles. You are naked as an individual to protect yourself. That’s how horror movies should be, it should portray helplessness to the extreme. You can’t fight the enemy, all you can do is run, hide, and hope that they don’t see or hear you. THAT’S horror. None of this bullcrap nowadays can make me feel the fear of the character lost in a place that they’ve never seen before, surrounded by multiple enemies that when spotted, they must run for their lives. In that retrospective, I can’t say that comedy needs to be in it. True, I do want to laugh when seeing how pathetic the character is and that they are screwed with absolutely no hope of making it out alive; but laughing takes away what makes horror so awesome in the first place. There is no relief, there’s only suffering and no hope for getting out of the situation.

The only two names that come to mind when I think of these are in fact videogames. Honestly, it makes it much more scarier because you ARE the character that’s helpless. This is interesting because all last night, I watched the walkthroughs for both titles after looking up the top 10 scariest games of all times list on YouTube and a reference from a friend for a more recently released game. Both of those titles are called ‘Outlast’ and ‘Amnesia: the Dark Descent’. After hearing how scary these games were from my friend and knowing how much of a Boss I am, I was like, “Man, grow some hair on your chest and quit being such a punk!’. First I watched Amnesia, without any commentary (usually I hate hearing people talk while the game is being played) and found myself screaming more than watching to the point where I couldn’t even watch the first 10 minutes. It was too quiet and had me on edge so I had to find a video with commentary to make things easier. Needless to say, I didn’t finish it. So when my friend said ‘Outlast’ is scarier, I didn’t believe him…until I watched the first few minutes of it then called it quits. Those are true horror genres. When grown men with deep voices are so frightened that they scream out 6 octaves higher, that’s real horror. People truly forgotten what it’s like being caught off guard and surprised then realize that you have no means of protecting yourself. You can’t laugh at that. But with my sense of crude humor, it is possible to instill comedy in it to my liking, but like I said before, it’s got to be done right.

Sorry for the long post! You can tell I’m passionate abut this subject. 🙂

In a world that has become so saturated with commodified signs that they have begun to lose meaning, sometimes it’s best to slap together a bunch of stock footage and just see what happens.

 

Today in class, we discussed how a song was metal, broadway, or both, based on semiotics. I’m hoping to expand a little more on that here and work on my understanding of it.

Over Spring Break I re-read Faithfull: An Autobiography by Marianne Faithfull and David Dalton.  I could probably spend hours talking about Marianne Faithfull’s books and music as she is one of my favorite singers.  Her post 1969 voice is not for everyone, but it fits the worn, survivor she became after years of dealing with homelessness and drug/alcohol abuse.

In her book, Marianne discussed her first single, As Tears Go By, which she recorded when she was 16 years old.  It became a huge pop hit and launched her into stardom.  In 1987 she rerecorded the song for her first post-recovery album Strange Weather, and in her book, she stated 16 was not the appropriate age to record this song, 40 was the right age. I cannot help but agree with this after hearing the two versions, one right after another.  To me, event though the lyrics and the performer are the same, they are two completely different songs.

First off, the 1964 recording is very light sounding, sounds like a 16-year-old convent girl spending her life trying to figure out what she should do with her life, whereas the 1987 recording sounds as if the person has been to hell and back. The re-recording is a more reflective song, she is looking back on her life, seeing what she has been through and accepting where she is today — it almost sounds regretful when she says she sits and watches As Tears Go By now, wishing and wondering how things could have been different.  It became so much more personal, whereas the original 1964 songs sound a lot more generic. Marianne did not have the experiences yet to fully express the meaning of the song and make it a personal reflection on her life — just taking the lyrics at face value and not interpreting them as a way to show her journey from where she was to where she is.  Could it be the voice or her appearance in the two videos that makes the two different, but to me, it is more about the performance.  The performance of the 1987 recording is what makes it different.  It has been slowed down, with more emphasis on the lyrics — they can be heard loud and clear with minimal production.  Marianne sounds connected to the words here and even though she did not write the song (with was the first collaborative effort between Mick Jagger and Keith Richards), it sounds as if she did or could have.  The words became her accepting who she became.