Interviewing is a fundamental methodology for both quantitative and qualitative social research and evaluation. Due to the Covid-19 restrictions it was not possible to conduct face to face interviews, which is why I did an online survey. The survey results can be found at the following link:
To summarize the outcome of the survey almost all of the 22 participant have encountered misinformation at some point and only a few are not sure about it, but when it comes to labeled content there are different opinions. Some of the participants feel like these labels are helpful and others do not trust them. They are not transparent enough and some of them also do not trust the correctness of the labelling.
However, when asked what additional information should be presented, some just answered: “Author and Date”. Only a few of them said that sources and other things like the domain ending and an SSL certificate should be included or present as well. When asked about the influence of the design of information on the trustworthiness 14 out of 18 answers stated that design does make a difference. Surprisingly one person said that when the design of information is too bold or striking it seems less trustworthy. Another answer was that it does not matter because false information can be designed properly as well.
To conclude this survey it seems that a lot of people have encountered false or misleading information and some of them do not trust online available information at all. Even if there is additional information given about a posting or if there is an independent factchecking site linked there still occurs major mistrust because it is not transparent enough.
The preliminary stage of Augmented Reality started already in 1968 at Harvard when Ivan Sutherland, computer scientist, created an AR head-mounted display syste. In the following years multiple universities and companies further developed the AR technologie first for digital displays and later also for warables.
While 2018 Augmented Reality was deep into the Valley of Tears, it disapeared on the Gartner Hype Cycle in 2020.
The Gartner Hype Cycle The Gartner Hype Cycle is a methode for Executives but also interested person can navigate themselfs during this fast moving time no a days through the current hypes and new technologies. This helps to estimate risks and chances of upcoming technologies.
2005 was the first time that AR appeared on Gartner’s Hype Cycle. In 2018 Gartner still predicted it will take 5 to 10 years until it reaches the plateau of productivity.
So why did it disappear in 2020? Augmented Reality did not lose it’s potential, it just developed so fast that it is not an emerging technologie any more. This means that AR has matured and ready to become an industry-proven technology in which executives can safely invest in to improve and innovate their businesses. Gartner predicts that in the end of 2021 AR will be used by more than a third of all companies.
The Exploratorium is a museum of science, technology and arts in San Francisco.
The Exploratorium was founded by the physicist and educator Frank Oppenheimer and opened in 1969 at the Palace of Fine Arts its home until January 2, 2013. On April 17, 2013, the Exploratorium reopened at Piers 15 and 17 on San Francisco bay. The historic interior and exterior of Pier 15 was renovated extensively prior to the move, and is divided into several galleries mainly separated by content, including the physics of seeing and listening (Light and Sound), Human Behavior, Living Systems, Tinkering (including electricity and magnetism), the Outdoor Gallery, and the Bay Observatory Gallery, which focuses on local environment, weather, and landscape.
Frank Oppenheimer
Since the museum’s founding, over 1,000 participatory exhibits have been created, approximately 600 of which are on the floor at any given time. The exhibit-building workshop space is contained within the museum and is open to view. In addition to the public exhibition space, the Exploratorium has been engaged in the professional development of teachers, science education reform, and the promotion of museums as informal education centers since its founding. Since Oppenheimer’s death in 1985, the Exploratorium has expanded into other domains, including its 50,000-page website and iPad app. It has also inspired an international network of participatory museums working to engage the public with general science education. The new Exploratorium building is also working to showcase environmental sustainability efforts as part of its goal to become the largest net-zero museum in the country. He has a major solar pannel to furnish its energy [1].
View of the Eploratorium on the bay
Field trip with explainers :
Dr Oppenheimer, the founder of the exploratorium had a special conviction about learning science. For him, having a real experience out of school was really important to learn. But he also knowed how it could be frustrated for someone not trained to understand it. That’s why he created this explainer program. Since 20 years, the explainers, special employees help the visitors to go through the museum. They are group of educators which help the visitor during the arrival : they guides the group to the check-in entry and help the teacher when they have classes. They will then guide the visitors through the museum and can help them when they have questions. There’s also some parts of the exhibitions where visitors can go through freely; but in case of need they always can find explainers at some special points inside the museum [2].
An explainer in action. They have a special uniform to be recognized.
Plan and journey of the visitor :
Exhibits in the Exploratorium cover a range of subjects areas including human perception (vision, hearing, learning, cognition), the life sciences, physical phenomena (light, motion, electricity, waves, resonance, magnetism), local environment (water, wind, fig, rain, sun..) and the human bevior (cooperation, competition, sharing) [3].
Exploring a few examples of interaction of the exploratorium
Human perception : the Black Box Space of the exploratorium
A place for presenting artwork that inspires and astounds in mysterious and wondrous ways, the Black Box is a darkened 800-square-foot space that provides an ideal environment for media art installations. A commonly used metaphor in science and engineering, a black box describes something that has observable inputs and outputs and unseen inner workings. Something goes in and something comes out, but the process by which transformation occurs is “black” or unknown to the observer.
Drawing on the Exploratorium’s unique province as a hybrid museum presenting and developing artworks at the juncture of art, science, and technology, the Black Box features dynamic, innovative multimedia exhibitions to prompt curiosity and transformation.
Experience a landscape of astonishing visual effects. Constructed as an 8-foot-square light box, artist Karina Smigla-Bobinski’s Kaleidoscope invites you to push and press on its surface to reveal an infinite pattern of vibrant colors. Each touch generates hyperdynamic images that visualize motion energy [4].
Living systems : See the plankton populations that multiply or die in response to changing ocean conditions
This interactive display presents microscopic marine organisms called phytoplankton. Visitors use special lenses to see what the plankton look like and to find out which live in different parts of the ocean at various times of year.
Child playing with the device. By zooming on a specific area of the map, you can see the proportion of phytoplankton present in this zone in relation to the climate change [5].
“We adapted a scientific model created at MIT” says Associate Curator Jennifer Frazier. ”Because the exhibit is based on real data, if you were able to look in the ocean with a microscope, this is what you’d be likely to see. I’m excited about this exhibit because it continues the Exploratorium’s tradition of engaging people with amazing phenomena of the natural world—but with new scientific data, visitors can explore worlds at a scale they normally can’t see.”
Human behavior : cooperationthrough the survival game
Players struggle to keep their livestock herds alive and thriving—despite disease, drought, and other dangers. When your neighbor suffers a major loss, the question arises: Can you afford to share? But the real question may be, can you afford not to?
Two players playing the survival game. This game is based on the lives of the Masaai in Africa. They live with milk and meat. But sometimes the cows they have got sick so the Masaai have to help each other in order to survive. This game is showing the cooperation process [6].
Tinkering
The Tinkering Studio is the heart of this gallery. In this immersive space, visitors use tools and materials to explore the intersection of science, art, and technology. They try experiments for the first time, or play along with other makers and artists. Whether expert of novice, they’re all learning together by making something that is personally meaningful.
Adjacent to the gallery is the museum’s exhibit-building workshop, where most of the exhibits are made. Open to public view, you’ll see our staff working with a variety of materials—woodworking tools, drills, and lathes, for example—and some of our exhibits in various stages of development [7].
Here you can see a project to work with electricity. https://www.exploratorium.edu/tinkering/projects/circuit-boards
After dark Tuedays : the museum is not only for kids !
Experience life After Dark, an evening series exclusively for adults that mixes cocktails, conversation, and playful, innovative science and art events.
Not a theater, cabaret, or gallery, After Dark contains aspects of all three. Each evening showcases a different topic—from music to sex to electricity—but all include a cash bar and an opportunity to play with our hundreds of hands-on exhibits.
This exhibition remains activ by distance during corona times with explainations about a different topic every thursday night on the american hour at 7 pm[8].
These Science Snack videos from the Teacher Institute should do just that, offering hands-on science activities you can do at home or in the classroom using easily-accessible materials [9].
In this first application showed in live stream the solar eclipse that happened the 2 of July 2019.
[10]
Conclusion and opening about the exploratorium :
By analysing the different means of communication and interaction, I think I have found what makes the exploratorium a magical and particularly attractive place. Firstly, the interactions play on the multi-sensory appeal of touch, vision and sound. Visitors are fully active and can visualise scientific concepts in a simple way by manipulating objects. I have the impression that this museum makes particular use of the kinesthetic sense, and is very much focused on these hands on approaches. What I also find very impressive is the ability that this museum developped on all fronts: both in physics in the exhibitions with the galleries, but also with all the virtual content that can be found with the tickering, science snacks, applications and thursday evenings. I would really like to have the opportunity to visit this museum to learn more about these experiences.
With all that we have seen so far about science centres, I wonder what are the most effective ways to learn science and whether in the long run science centres will not revolutionise the way science is taught in schools.
Connected cars are vehicles that are able to connect with different services, devices or other connected cars over a network. They are able to connect to smartphones, laptops, traffic signals and many more. Another important feature of connected cars is the emergency call function. This feature is able to register accidents based on the data from different sensors and automatically calls emergency hotlines. It is also called eCall in the European Union and all new car models, approved for manufacture after 31 March 2018, must have the emergency call function installed.
Reliable networks for connected cars can only be established with powerful telematic systems. Dedicated short-range communication (DSRC) and cellular vehicle to everything communication (C-V2X) are the most promising systems that are able to handle the workload while still staying fail-safe.
DSRC is based on the newest wifi standard and tailored to the needs of the automotive industry. It is a highly secure and high-speed communication channel that is able to see around corners and operate in extreme weather conditions. The main goal of DSRC is a seamless communication between vehicles and roadside infrastructure.
Cellular-V2X is a relatively new worldwide standard by the 3rd Generation Partnership Projects (3GPP) using cellular standards of the fourth and fifth generation (4G and 5G). It enables direct communication between road users and infrastructure to ensure a more fluent traffic flow and more traffic safety. C-V2X uses the same spectrum like DSRC for the communication between two devices but is also able to connect to cellular frequencies.
At the moment it is not clear which of these two technologies is going to be used for connected cars in the future. It could be either of them or a combination of both of them. Automakers from different countries could also use different technologies based on the country’s infrastructure.
While the concept of the “Connected Car” is not new in the automotive industry, the necessary technologies and communication standards have only been made available in the last few years. The vehicle to everything communication (V2X) is the umbrella term for the following categories of communication technologies that are needed for connected cars.
Vehicle to Network (V2N)
The V2N communication allows vehicles to connect to cellular networks and therefore also the communication with the V2X system. Because of the vehicle to network connectivity vehicles are becoming a device, just like smartphones and tablets. V2N allows cars a reliable interaction with other vehicles, devices, pedestrians and important infrastructure.
Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I)
V2I communication is an important part of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and allows bidirectional communication between cars and roadside infrastructure. It includes detailed data about the traffic gathered by different vehicles, data from sensors used in infrastructure like traffic lights, cameras, parking meters and broadcasted data like weather conditions, speed limits and road conditions. The main goal of this communication is to enhance safety and prevent accidents with real-time information for the drivers. But this information gets even more important in the future, when autonomous vehicles get available to the public.
Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V)
The V2V communication enables different vehicles to connect to each other. Because this communication is done wirelessly with DSRC frequencies it works similar to a mesh network. Its main advantage is that every car becomes a node and can therefore capture and send data and even retransmit data from other cars. This system allows the cars to get a 360 degree representation of the surroundings (about 300m radius) in real-time. Because of this overview it is able to inform drivers of other cars or autonomous vehicles. This overview could include information like speed, destinations and locations of traffic jams or accidents. V2V communication enhances road safety and could, according to NHTSA, prevent more than 600.000 accidents in the United States per year.
Vehicle to Cloud (V2C)
V2C communication uses the access to cellular networks to exchange data with the cloud. This data could include navigation services depending on the current traffic situation, remote diagnostic for car maintenance, over the air (OTA) updates for the vehicles software and communication with internet of things devices or digital assistants. V2C could also play an important role in carsharing in the future. The car from the carsharing service could download the drivers preferences and automatically adjust seat, mirrors, ambient lights and music playlists according to his past usages of the service.
Vehicle to Pedestrian (V2P)
The V2P communication is one of the newest and probably also hardest technologies to master. Its main goal is the reduction of accidents with pedestrians. While the other categories allow communication with smart sensors in different objects and devices, pedestrians and children are not wearing sensors to create awareness about their presence. That is the reason why automakers are currently using systems like LiDAR, 360 degree cameras and blind spot warning to detect pedestrians and cyclists. Another part of the vehicle to pedestrian communication gets more important when autonomous cars get available to the public. Currently, the driver can signal pedestrians that they are able to cross the street but if there is no driver left the autonomous car has to communicate with the pedestrian as well.
Vehicle to Device (V2D)
V2D is one of the most popular and well known communication categories. It allows vehicles to exchange data with smart devices, usually via Bluetooth. The most popular applications of this technology are Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. They allow smartphones, tablets and smart watches to seamlessly interact with the vehicles infotainment system and are already available in a lot of different cars.
Vehicle to Grid (V2G)
The V2G communication is especially useful for all electrified vehicles. It allows bidirectional data exchange between the different types of electric vehicles (PHEV, BEV, FCEV) and the smart grid. V2G will allow the next-gen electric grid to balance loads more efficiently, reduce utility bill costs and shorten waiting times.
Connected cars are also transforming the in-car experiences like never before. While digital interfaces are still tiny and have a horrible usability in a lot of cars, some automakers are already improving their in-vehicle infotainment systems and therefore also the whole in-car experience.
Tesla
Despite Tesla being known for their tech-first approach and their great software, their in-car infotainment is actually not that great if you take a closer look. Tesla’s car interface will be great somewhen in the future, when the cars are driving autonomously but not at the moment. The Model 3 for example has only one large screen in the center of the cockpit. There are nearly no additional buttons, switches or levers. Everything is displayed and controlled on the huge display. The driver has to look at the screen for every interaction and therefore also has to take the eyes off the road. One Tesla owner in Germany even recently (August 2020) got a one month driving ban because he crashed into trees while trying to change the speed of his windshield wipers.
Because the infotainment system of the Model 3 just got a huge UI Update (2020.48.26) in the last weeks, there is no up-to-date video about the detailed functionality of the new version. There is only a video about the previous version of the software. But while the new interface looks a lot nicer now, it still has a similar functionality. The windshield wiper settings for example now got a dedicated button in the bar on the bottom. Detailed changes will be analyzed and published by a lot of Tesla Model 3 owners soon.
Mercedes Benz
Because the first version of Mercedes MBUX was already a good system with multiple screens and a decent experience, especially for such an old and traditional company, there were high hopes for the following generations of MBUX. While the visual style may look outdated to some designers, the functionality was still a huge step forward in the right direction and created an advantage over infotainment systems of similar brands. The second generation of MBUX will be released alongside the new S-Class and started shipping a few weeks ago. Because of this there is currently no full review of the new infotainment system..
Mercedes also recently announced another new version of the MBUX infotainment system for the upcoming EQS. The EQS will be the electric counterpart of the new S-Class and is announced for later this year.
Porsche
Porsche’s first electric car, the Porsche Taycan, also has a completely new infotainment system. Because the Volkswagen group has just recently started to create their own infotainment software in-house and plans on hiring 10.000 designers, analysts and engineers to build one platform for all subsidiaries, the Porsche Taycan Infotainment is still using another system. (https://www.kurbos.com/de/projekt/porsche)
The Taycan infotainment is minimalistic, well structured and also usable. This infotainment has one main goal – supporting the user. While it currently is one of the best infotainment systems on the market, the lower central screen can also lead to a lot of driver distraction and therefore also decrease the safety.
Creating the perfect in-car infotainment system is nearly impossible, but a lot of different automakers are already working on improving their in-car experience. While there is no perfect system at the moment, there are a lot of different good solutions for specific problems available. Each system has unique advantages and disadvantages. The main goal of the next generation in-vehicle interfaces should be to provide a safe, usable and enjoyable experience for the driver and passengers. With the release of new electric vehicles like the Lucid Air, Byton M-Byte and Rivian R1S in Europe later this year, the development of in-car experiences will get more and more interesting and competitive in the upcoming years. Another interesting change for in-vehicle infotainment systems will be the change from human drivers to autonomous vehicles.
The individualization shift of the last decades was caused by three major developments. The first is the increase of wealth by which nearly all demographic groups elevated to a higher living standard. Secondly, shortening working hours brought more spare time in which citizens could pursue their interests, hobbies, political engagement, or further education. Eventually, an educational achievement brought social climbing and cognitive competencies that encouraged us to think about ourselves and our lives more profoundly.
Nowadays everybody has to answer their questions in life on their own instead of just following the path of their milieu like it was in former days. Life, death, identity, gender, physicality, religion, marriage, parenthood, social binding – everything is decided in detail by our selves, which can be overwhelming. Since we do not identify with a set of traditions anymore, everything could’ve been arranged differently, everything is questionable, there is always an alternative. We lost the cultural binding that led our way through the jungle of options.
Now, how can design make a difference here? Well, what if there is something that could help us guide the way through all those options? Help either to see the effects of a decision beforehand or simply help feeling comfortable with already made decisions.
One of the beautiful things about machine learning is that massively large data sets can be processed. And instead of using online profiling data for marketing intentions, it could be used to empower the very person whose profile it is. By creating online profile transparency and offering insight through an interface one would be able to understand themself, to make better decisions, and to understand their effects. Like laying out branches of actions that converge to a butterfly effect.
The butterfly effect basically describes how a small event can have a huge impact later on. Using an interface that computes your personal life could either predict the future or will let you understand your past. I personally find that idea fascinating even though it’s unclear how well machine learning and AI can execute it at this stage. I do not propose a destiny forecast but rather a tool to understand themself and to gain an overview of personal behaviors instead of offering it to companies that then forecast your consuming future for you.
In this article we will discuss the different design elements that make an object can generate awkward interactions.
The 5 Psychological Concepts Creating Good Interaction
In the previous article, we talked about the principle of discoverability, for this principle is the result of 5 fundamental psychological concepts: affordance, signifiers, mappings, constraints, and feedback. It is these 5 concepts that will allow us to create when discovering an object, an experience coupled with optimal use of the object. Let’s now discover what these 5 concepts are and their implications in clumsy interactions.
Affordance :
We live in a world full of all kinds of objects, we use and discover new ones every day. Whatever the object we manage to master, and affordance is one of the first things that allow us to explain this. First named by the psychologist James J. Gibson, it refers to the relationship between a physical object and a person, a relationship that will help that person determine how to use an object. It describes all the actions made physically possible by an object. We can take the example of a closet, we know we can pull its doors open or push them shut. Don Norman brings a specification to the term affordance, he talks about perceived affordance, this point is very important because it is he who can show us how an affordance error can generate a clumsy interaction. This new term designates the actions that the user perceives as possible, as opposed to those that are actually possible. I was looking for a common example of a situation generated by an affordance problem, so I remembered buying a pair of pants some time ago. The pants had pockets on them, or at least that’s what I thought until I wore them and realized that they were fake pockets. This is an example showing that the action that I wanted to perform, that is to say to put my hand in my pocket, could not be done because the object did not allow it. But it is just as valid in the other direction sometimes actions cannot be performed because the user does not perceive them as possible. And this is where the concept of signifier comes into play.
The Signifiers :
If the affordances allow us to determine the possible actions, the signifiers tell us where we will be able to carry out this action. If one takes again the example of the pants it is the false pockets that were significant for me and led me to think that the action to put my hand in my pocket was possible at this precise place. These two concepts can be difficult to differentiate today in a world of new technology. For example, in the presence of a screen, we may tend to think that touching an icon is an affordance but this idea is false because the affordance corresponds to the action of touching the screen (wherever it is), the icon will represent the place where the action must take place, it is the signifier. Nowadays, for aesthetic reasons, it can be complicated to identify the signifiers, and therefore interacting becomes difficult. This is what we can observe with handleless closets; where should we take our opening action? Similarly, how do we choose which action to take, should we pull or push? The handle answers all the questions, in addition to indicating where the action should be carried out, because of its location it shows us where the action is going to act, this is where the concept of mapping comes in.
The Mappings :
Mapping indicates the relationship between the two elements. For example, if we use baking trays with knobs, the mapping allows us to understand which knob is connected to which baking tray. The mapping is essential for the layout of the controls and displays. When the signifiers give a clear view of where to touch, the mapping allows us to instinctively understand what each control corresponds to. We will keep the example of the plates and see two interactions, one will be clumsy and the other not.
Here is a first hob composed of four plates. The buttons to operate each plate are placed next to each other. It is quite easy to realize that the two buttons on the left correspond to the left plates and the two buttons on the right to the right plates. However, to know which button corresponds to the top or bottom plate is more complicated, it is not possible to guess it naturally and therefore it must be tested with the risk of burning yourself.
Here is a second hob, more modern and based on tactile contact. The buttons to activate the plates are positioned like the plates, when we want to activate a plate we don’t ask ourselves and we are sure that it is the right one with this model.
It is important to specify that today, the majority of cooking tables with physical buttons have pictograms that make their understanding easier. Nevertheless, having this kind of hob I can attest to the fact that even with regular use I almost always check the pictogram to identify the right hob, so it’s simple but not intuitive. Let’s remember that the intuitive aspect of an object depends on the ability of the designer to provide the essential elements to understand the object and its limits. These limits can be constraints.
The Constraints :
The constraint in itself does not need to be explained, it is known to everyone. On the other hand, we can explain the different types of constraints that are applied to objects by creators in order to limit the possible actions. There are four of them: physical, cultural, semantic, and logical. The physical constraint is simple to understand, it is the one that limits the possible operations. For example, it is easy to realize that the wrong key is used to open the door because it will not make the lock work. Cultural constraint is more difficult to grasp. Indeed, each culture defines a set of authorized actions in social situations. So if we misunderstand a culture, it is easy to make mistakes and create things that can be considered inappropriate. What’s more, these constraints are likely to change over time. The semantic constraint is based on meaning, it is based on the knowledge of a situation in order to codify possible actions. For example, a windshield is there to protect the face of a person in a car, so it makes sense to put it in front of her. However, like cultural constraints, semantic constraints are also likely to evolve. Finally, there is the logical constraint, based as its name suggests on logic. This constraint is particularly related to the principle of mapping. If we take again the example of the hob, it is logical to think that the knob on the top right will correspond to the plate on the top right and if this is not the case it is because there is a problem in the conception.
The Feedback
Finally, our last concept is feedback. When an object is designed so that we can identify affordance using the signifier, the mapping is clear and the constraints identified, the feedback will ensure that we have an understanding of the other four concepts. Feedback is the element that allows us to understand that our action has been taken into account. For example, when I use my oven and start my program, I hear a sound signal or see the oven light come on. Without this feedback, I am likely, in doubt, to repeat the action or even modify it, which can lead to awkward interactions. An obvious example is that of the elevator, if there is no visual or audible indication that the call has been answered we are likely to press the button again and again until the elevator arrives. Attention, this feedback must be thought to correspond to the action. Thus, if when we call the elevator an alarm sound is triggered we will certainly not stay waiting for it.
The Conceptual Model
The conceptual model allows explaining the functioning of an object in a simple way. It is the one that will allow us to create a simple mental model and make it easier to use: for example, when we see the “folder” or “file” icon on a computer. The simplest conceptual models are those that should be used for everyday objects because they remain in our memory and become our mental models. Beware, however, analyzing a conceptual model will create different mental models for different people, so let’s remember the engineer from the previous article who just forgot that his mental model is different from the users’ one. Conceptual models derive from the devices themselves and are created by the experience. Since an experience differs from one individual to another and unforeseen things can happen, the mental models it generates often end up being erroneous.s This is where the awkward interaction happens, if I have an erroneous conceptual model of an object, so will my use of it. A good conceptual model is used to understand how the elements will behave together and why they should be operated in a particular way. Let’s take the remote control, no matter what its shape or model I don’t know anyone who has used all the buttons on that object, let alone someone who can explain to me what each button corresponds to. In my opinion, the majority of people using remote control have a faulty conceptual model of it. Indeed, for it to be right, the person would have to understand all the actions that can be performed which is complicated when you don’t need to use them.
Conclusion
We have seen that many elements can influence our experience and our interactions with an object, negatively or positively. The concepts we have just mentioned are major points of vigilance when designing an object, to limit clumsy interactions.
Definition, in progress
A clumsy interaction doesn’t happen at the moment we use the object, it was there before and can come from the designer and his personal vision of the use of the object.
A Clumsy interaction can depend on the conception of an object and more specifically on the design of the experience related to this object when trying to manipulate it, activate it, make it work, and understand it.
Sources : Book: The Design of Everyday Things, Don Norman, 2020 Article: Affordance in user interface design, UX Collective, 2017
As I want to use XR (extended reality includes AR, VR & MR) for my master thesis and since the current topic is prosopagnosia and I want to influence their lives for the better, I thought it would be useful to research if and how much VR or MR can influence our emotions. Actually there exist a few various studies on the subject by now and I looked into a few of them. But first it is important to clarify the terms mood and emotion because the two are not the same. Mood does not have to have a specific cause, but is long-term and has low intensity where emotions are triggered by specific things, are short-lived and much more intense. Emotions can be differently measured or recognized because each person responds differently based on their lifestyle and culture. However, the main characteristics to be able to measure emotions are in most cases subjective evaluation and perception, actions, facial or vocal expressions, heart rate, skin reactions and a few others. This is where user experience comes into play, especially in VR. In order to ensure a good UX some areas need to be included. This includes the feeling of presence within the environment or immersion, the system’s ability to interact with user input, and the user’s involvement in the virtual environment. It can be both passive and active. However, the user must always be a part of the environment or able to do something with it.
But back to the studies.
The Virtual Counselling Environment
The first study deals with the extent to which virtual people can have an influence on the emotions of the user.
To investigate this, a computer-generated counselling environment was created. Furnishings were oriented on a normal therapy room, which means sofas, paintings, books, a table and a chair on which the user can sit down. The user should feel as if he is in this virtual world and sitting on a real chair. The patient is a virtual human called ‘Justin’. The therapist is the user wearing the headset. So a training environment has been set up where virtual patients can be treated by novice clinicians and those therapists can practice challenging situations. To make it more realistic, it is important that the complete process is included in the virtual environment. This includes coming in, reactions, statements and leaving the room. The virtual human has basic movements, human facial features and a human voice. The whole system works only if speech recognition is built in, because only then a positive response is possible and the user is not frustrated. Surprisingly, the virtual human could simulate human emotions so well that the user could recognize them.
Virtual Counselling Environment [1]
Study results
VR has a strong influence on the emotions of the user
A natural human computer interaction has an impact on the user
Speech recognition is important, because only then it seems more natural and the emotional level is much stronger
The use by controllers has less influence on the emotional response
Virtual Park Scenarios
The next study is about whether a scenario of a fictional VR park can evoke joy, sadness, boredom, anger and anxiety. The Velten Mood Induction Procedure method was chosen, which means that under controlled conditions images, film clips or music are shown which evoke temporary emotional states. This method tests effects of emotional states, memory or change in information processing. In addition, electrodermal activity (EDA) was applied for this study.
„Electrodermal activity (EDA) refers to the variation of the electrical properties of the skin in response to sweat secretion. By applying a low constant voltage, the change in skin conductance (SC) can be measured non-invasively (Fowles et al., 1981).“[3]
To be able to evoke emotions, the feeling of presence must be considered above all. Presence is often defined as the sense of being there in a Virtual Environment and because of this feeling, an emotion can occur. So, a greater presence would create a much greater reaction and the user would behave, feel or think as if he or she were in a similar situation, because it does not feel as if what he or she is experiencing is only from technology. Frame Rate actually affects the feeling of being present as well. For the study, 120 students were selected to first of all relax for 5 minutes and then explore the park in the VE environment in first-person view for 5 minutes.
Joy, anger, anxiety and boredom have triggered the planned emotional states
The Park vor sadness failed because boredom and sadness are often accompanied by one another
Most negative emotions are accompanied to a small degree by other negative emotions
Feelings of fear and anger in VR
The purpose of this study was to find out to what extent the user’s emotions depend on the medium used, in this case VR and computer screen. To be even more specific, fear and anger were selected and compared with each other. Because especially from these two negative-valance emotions it is possible to see clear differences. The willingness to take risks increases with anger, while it decreases with fear. Both emotions have in common that they are negative and that we are strongly aroused by both. The differences are not only the willingness to take risks but also the control over the body and the awareness of the emotion. To trigger anger, a short film clip from the movie ‘My Bodyguard’ was chosen, in which a group of teenagers bully weaker people. For the emotion fear, the subjects had to play the VR horror game ‘Play with me’. Both emotions were shown to the subjects on a computer screen as well as in VR.
Trailer My Bodyguard (1980)
Trailer Play with me (Game)
Study results
Decisions can change depending on the emotional state in which the person is at the time
People take more risk when they are angry
VR has a much higher impact on decision-making behavior compared to the use of a computer
Emotional reactions are intensified much more by VR
To get to the bottom of this, the GAPED picture database was used. GAPED stands for Geneva Affective Picture Database. In this database 730 pictures were collected, which are supposed to trigger different states of mind. These included negatively affected pictures such as snakes or pictures about mistreatment (injured animals or butchering), positive ones such as puppies, nature scenes or laughing faces, and neutral pictures such as non-living objects (bicycle spokes). Participants had to answer three questions and rate their emotional state on a scale after viewing 24 selected images for 4 seconds.
Study results
For all images, the arousal was much higher with VR than with a computer screen
Photos with snakes or spiders where associated with phobias so the arousal was even higher
By diving into the world and blocking out the reality, the much higher arousal of the user could be explained
The attention span could be much higher when virtual reality is used
Sources:
The effect of two different types of human-computer interactions on user’s emotion in virtual counseling environment, Tu Ziqi, Weng Dongdong, Cheng Dewen, Shen Ruiying, Fang,Hui, Bao Yihua (10.2019), https://booksc.org/book/80763010/fcb00e
Is virtual reality emotionally arousing? Investigating five emotion inducing virtual park scenarios, Anna Felnhofera, Oswald D.Kothgassnera, Mareike Schmidt, Anna-Katharina Heinzle, Leon Beutl, Helmut HlavacsbIls, Kryspin-Exner (10.2020), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1071581915000981
A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity, Mathias Benedek, Christian Kaernbach (30.06.2010), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892750/
The Feeling is Real: Emotion Elicitation in Virtual Reality, Sahinya Susindar, Mahnoosh Sadeghi, Lea Huntington, Andrew Singer, Thomas K. Ferris (11.2019), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1071181319631509
Can Virtual Reality Increase Emotional Responses (Arousal and Valence)? A Pilot Study, Sergio Estupiñán, Francisco Rebelo, Paulo Noriega, Carlos Ferreira, Emília Duarte (2014), https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-07626-3_51
Physiological Measures of Presence in Stressful Virtual Environments, Frederick Phillips Brooks Jr., Michael Meehan, Brent Insko, Mary C. Whitton (08.2002), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2529722_Physiological_Measures_of_Presence_in_Stressful_Virtual_Environments
Redesign is live. Everything we see has been or will be redesigned for the modern aims. Nevertheless, some things become so iconic that they don’t need any redesign. Moreover, serve as inspiration for new ideas.
Thats why this topic will be defined on two parts: chairs, that have become part of culture and design icons redesigned in a new way.
Enjoy reading:)
CHAIR DESIGNS: 5 most famous models in history
Why these types of chairs still have a modern design and will not become obsolete by your retirement?
PANTON CHAIR (VITRA)
The first ever Verner Panton chair without the usual legs, made from one piece of plastic.
The chair designed by Verner Panton became a symbol of the 1960s and 70s, the era of space exploration, the invention of new polymers and the sexual revolution: a streamlined S-shape, hinting at a resemblance either to tongue or to a woman’s silhouette, made him a sexual fetish and a frequent hero of advertising campaigns and glossy magazines. Over the years, the Panton Chair has graced the cover of 1995 Vogue with seated nude Kate Moss.
Despite the fact that this chair is included in the collections of the world’s leading design museums, it does not pose a big threat to the wallet. Not a lot of people know that there are Panton Chairs in different “plastics”. So, the version of Vitra in matte polypropylene is cheaper than the classic glossy one.
THONET No.14 (THONET)
The “chair of chairs” on which the greatest people of the 20th century sat — Picasso, Einstein, Lenin …
The name of its creator has become a household name: our grandmothers still had such “thonet” made of bent wood. Officially known as Model №14, this chair is as much an “unbreatheable classic” as Chanel №5. Originally from Austria (hence another name — “Viennese chair”), these models of wooden chairs produced by the factory of the Tonet brothers, are an indispensable attribute of traditional cafes in Vienna, Paris or Berlin — therefore it is often called “bistro chair».
LOUIS GHOST (KARTELL)
This chair made of transparent plastic is a child of our time, but since its appearance in the early 2000s, it has gained immense popularity and has become a frequent guest in restaurants (in fact, it was invented for the trendy Kong restaurant in Paris), cafes and private interiors. It is not surprising, because any project — be it a chair or a yacht — by the most famous designer of the planet Philippe Starck is doomed to success.
In this case, the Frenchman Stark pays tribute to history, referring to the era of Louis XVI and the brilliant Marie Antoinette: the chair formally, but in a somewhat exaggerated form, interprets the armchair-medallion with an oval-shaped back, that came into use in the second half of the 18th century. In his usual playful manner, the designer makes an elegant classic model in inexpensive transparent plastic, due to which the new chair only vaguely resembles its high-society prototype — it is only the “ghost of Louis” (hence the name).
NAVY CHAIR (EMECO)
Designed in the 1940s for the US Navy, this chair is an icon of American design. One-piece cast aluminum chair, super lightweight and fireproof, virtually indestructible, has an unprecedented lifespan – 150 years warranty! This opened the way for him to libraries, police stations, prison cells and other places where his vandal-resistant essence is in demand.
Architects and designers love the naval chair for combining brutal industrial chic and elegance with a touch of glamor. According to legend, the anthropomorphic shape of the seat was sculpted by the standards of pin-up actress Betty Grable, the owner of the most beautiful legs in Hollywood.
TULIP CHAIR (KNOLL)
The author of this futuristic-looking chair, Finnish architect and designer Eero Saarinen, was worried about the “visual noise” in the interior created by the intricate interweaving of table and chair legs (four for each item — just imagine how many there are in the room). To rid the house of clutter and large unnecessary details, a Finn invented a chair on one leg — “pedestal”, reminiscent of its streamlined shapes either a tulip bud (hence the name, once again), or a pot-bellied wine glass. To pair with the chair, Saarinen provided the same one-legged table.
The Tulip Chair is not monolithic as it might seem at first glance. Due to the limited technology available to designers in the mid-1950s, the chair was made from fiberglass (a type of plastic) and aluminum. Although the designer dreamed that someday this object could be produced from one material — plastic. Actually, more than one generation of designers dreamed about the integrity of the structure. The task, as we now know, was destined to cope only with Verner Panton in his S-shaped chair …
Saarinen was convinced that the chair should not only be perceived as a sculpture in the interior when no one is sitting on it, but it should also serve as a good backdrop for the person sitting in it.
P.S. You can read about the rest of the chairs in the second part.
Population aging is taking place in nearly all of the countries around the world. Technologies and users change, which leads to some well-trained users in the digital environment. Metaphors are no longer needed to use or understand the icons, also the relation of a mapped object to its counterpart in the physical world is no longer necessary for the younger generation. As an increasing number of the elderly has moved from simple cell phones to smartphones, the industry sees this as an opportunity to create a new market segment. The smartphone industry becomes more competitive than ever before, and therefore studies on the elderly users are highly demanding.
There are already graphic user interfaces (GUIs) that are especially designed for the elder generation. But the layout design is much bigger, simpler and not very appealing, transferring the message that the elderly are not capable to use smartphones.
To support such deficiency, it should be approached in a more positive way to gain trust in technology and above all also emotional satisfaction. Particularly for the elderly who start using the smartphones in their later years, an intuitive graphical guide is indispensable.
To understand what a GUI for the older generation of smartphone users should look like and how it can be used better, I looked at two studies that were conducted 5 years apart, one in 2015 and one in 2020 in Asia. These studies both deal with icon design and draw a connection to seniors’ preferences for skeuomorphic and/or flat design and show the different perceptions from designers and actual users.
When Apple released iOS7, it set off a graphical style trend moving from skeuomorphic to a simpler flat design. How to manipulate the degree of realistic appeal strongly influenced the identity of GUI design. To trace how GUIs changed from skeuomorphic to flat icon design, I looked at the IOS apps icons evolution, where the development is very clearly visible.
The Elders Preference for Skeuomorphism as App Icon Style (2015, Korea)
In a Korean study of 2015 researchers from the department of industrial design explored the value of skeuomorphism as an icon style particularly for the elderly people. For this study the researchers visited two senior centers in South Korea and recruited 38 participants ranging from 65 to 91 years. To identify the proper approach of skeuomorphism, they articulated two factors such as degree of realism and level abstraction.
The researchers identified what appeals more to the elderly smartphone users, particularly focusing on comparing the effects of skeuomorphism and minimalism. They picked Call, Contact and Camera icons in four different degrees of realism and metaphoric function each, in collaboration with designers. The first results were three tables and each displays the eight types of each Call, Contact and Camera icons according to the two abstraction levels and four degrees of realism. Considering the nature of elderly responses to the stimuli, the researchers planned a pairwise comparison to minimize cognitive workload. 84 cards with icons to compare were created and shown to the seniors. The first question the researchers asked was: „Which one looks better?“ (preference) followed by: „Which one do you think would perform the given feature?” (understandability).
The evaluation revealed that in deciding the preference for an icon, the degree of realism had twice the influence of the degree of abstraction. In particular, there was a positive correlation between the degree of realism and the preference. Regarding the degree of abstraction, the metaphorical style was preferred. Similarly, there was a positive correlation between degree of realism and understandability. Also the elderly considered the metaphoric style being better for understanding the meaning of an icon.
In conclusion, using the same metaphor from the real world has influence on the elders’ understandability, while illustrative and realistic representations play an important role on the elder preference. The elderly seem to prefer familiar expressions that look realistic, but still might need a cue to guess the function. In addition, this result indicate that there is a contradiction between actual usability and emotional judgment. It is expected for services targeting elderly users to depict an icon rather realistic and skeuomorphic than flat and abstract.
Skeuomorphic or flat icons for an efficient visual search by younger and older adults (2020, China)
In a Chinese study of 2020 three researchers from the department of industrial design investigated whether older or younger users perceive the aesthetics of icon styles in the same manner as designers and which style is preferred by which user age group. It also examines whether skeuomorphic or flat design is more suitable for the elder generation. The goal of this study was to help designers to find a suitable design style for people of all ages. There were 48 participants in total, 24 over the age of 60 (on average at the age of 72) 24 on average at the age of 23 years.
More than 97.8 million Internet users aged above 60 in China have installed an average of 28 applications on their smartphones. Icon images are intended to capture the user’s attention and thus play an essential role in target application searches. Nowadays, the trend of skeuomorphism in app icon design is giving way to flat design. But there is also a new design style evolving, which is called flat 2.0. This design type is almost flat but uses subtle 3D effects. The study emphasizes, that what the designer stresses is not always what the user notices or interprets. Sometimes user and designer have completely different perceptions. Examining this gap could help to reflect the role of this particular design elements.
Relating to previously created work in this sector, the researchers reflect that in terms of user experience and usability, younger adults prefer flat icon to skeuomorphism icon design. This has to do with the aesthetic and emotional satisfaction. The results from the older adults were the other way around. For the experiment, it was also important what kind of education, gender and level of smartphone usage the participants had.
The experiment started with a first task, where the participants had to rank the 72 shown icons with stars between flat or skeuomorphic impression. The second task was to click the icon that they considered to match the function name as fast and accurate as possible. The third task was to rate the perceived beauty of the flat and skeuomorphic icons on a scale.
The results imply that the younger participants could use the skeuomorphic icons more efficiently than they could use the flat icons and that they had an advantage over older participants in terms of this ability; however, aesthetically they appreciated flat icons more. In contrast, older participants searched skeuomorphic icons more quickly and accurately than they did flat icons, and aesthetically they appreciated skeuomorphic icons more.
After explaining the basics of exhibition design, I’ll go through a little of history with science centers and define a few of their characteristics. In the next article, I will present a world reknowned science center, the Exploratorium.
Science, society and science centers
Nowadays, the relation between individuals and science is quite complexe and paradoxal. In the 90’s scientists and engineers had some image problem, public having in mind the image of the mad scientist. George Gerbner studied the perception of scintists among 1500 television watchers and it appears that the more likely the person watches TV, the more likely she is to think scientist are odd and peculiar. A lot of progresses have been made through the years, but the COVID-19 pandemic reminds us of some shadows around the scientific world. Every year, studies are made showing indicators of public attitudes towards science and technology. Here are a few of them released by the Pew Research Center about 2020 Worldwide opinion on science and technology. As you can see underneath, the majority of people in 2020 say they have some trust in scientists to do what is right, but in the same way they feel that they doesn’t know enough about science to really understand the topics around it. The image of scientists depend a lot of the level of education of population, and the way media depict and explain science can really get the population confused.
[1]
As you can see, talking about science implies a broad range of implication : not only the knowledge but legal, ethical, environmental, economic, political and sometimes religious issues. The populations usually are not well informed about science and technology, which create both a challenge and an opportunity for science centers.
Science centers
Science centers are educational facilities using methods to teach science and technology. Those methods include the use of interactive displays, events and activities, web-based education programs and remote teaching and learning techniques [2]. The range of exhibits may be oriented towards natural history, earth sciences, pure science, science and technology or industry. Aerospace, underwater exploration, nanotechnology, digitization, artificial intelligence and genetics are just a few of the subjects that may be encountered. Exhibitions based on pure science focus more specifically on demonstrating phenomena, the scientific method and the process of experimentation. The focus is on discovering learning with strong hands on emphasis.
Different thematics of the coSA center fpr activities in Graz
The audience for the science center usually includes children of school age, teenargers and adults altough science discovery rooms for preschoolers may also be found in some science centers. But children are not the only people in our society who need to understand science. And by over emphasizing fun, we run the risk of literally losing the science in science centers. Interpreting science and technology for a broad and diverse audience is at the heart of the mission of most science centers, it should include both children and adults.
Science centers are community ressources that empower parents as advocates for their children’s learning. Through content-rich exhibitions and programs, parents and children can learn together. Science centers partners with schools and expand the learning resources for families. Through after school programs, vacation and summer classes, parents are able to expand the experience base for their children, this enhances the educational infrastructure for the entire community [3].
Presentation of a chemie experiment in the Palais de la découverte in Paris [7]. Through this show, people can have a direct access to chemists and discuss with them.
Sciences Centers evolved with interactivity
20 years ago, science centers virtually owned interactivity. Video games were in their infancy, most children’s museums were small, the children’s museum file had not experienced the dramatic growth of recent years and few other interactive options existed. The competitive universe of children based centers changed this. Children’s museums look very much like science centers. Natural History Museums, zoos and art museum now reach out to families and provides hands on experiences. Even themes parks which previously used passive dark rides incorporate hands-on exhibits because they have learned that hands on increases dwell time (the time spend by visitors in an exhibition). So hands on pays.
In the 1970 only 16 museums centers existed worldwide. Today, Science centers and science museums are present on all continents and welcome 300 million visitors [4]. Large science centers exist in smaller cities, and more are in the planning stages. The proliferation of science centers provides multiple opportunities for informal science education.
Nowadays, there is an explosion of interaction in all the entertainment sectors, and in medias. It’s a challenge for science center to keep showing entertaining and educational content. Indeed who wants to see something in a science center that you can see on the TV or somewhere else ? The approach used by science centers against this is to integrate what can be seen as meaningful interactive experiences with authentic objects and concepts that can’t be replicated out of the space of the science center because every object used is unique. In this way, space and material is way more important than in every other exhibition [3].
The challenge of children education
Although aimed generally at children from preschool age through to about age 12, experience has demonstrated the value of having separate areas designed to serve the developmental requirement of toddlers (aged 18 monthts to 3 years), preschool and kindergarten children (aged 4-6) and primary and middle school children (aged 6-8 and 9-12). In addition, children’s spaces must accomodate accompanying adults and family groups including parents, grandparents, and both younger and older children.
The range of exhibits that may be conceived for a children’s exhibition space is very wide, but in virtually every instance there will be an interactive element. Interactivity in the children’s gallery can be :
Low tech : relying on such activities as storytelling, role playing ,dress-up ; directed seeing, and puzzle solving ; facility demands might include low dividing walls surrounding a play area or special floor surfaces, but these are generally manageable within most building types
Example of a low tech activity by the “Mazes & Brain Games” of the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences
Medium tech : which might involve working with clay, printmaking, such activites may demand water supply and drainage, food storage, animal care, and clean up facilities
example of medium tech experiment
High tech : using technology such as scientific apparatus or multimedia that may be as demanding of smart exhibition space as any sophisticated black box exhibition
example of high tech experiment from International Spy Museum of Washington, DC [6]
Intercreative exhibition spaces
More and more museums of all types are creating spaces and exhibits that offer different generations and market segments opportunities to interact creatively through diverse means such as performance problem solving hands on experience, experiment, creative writing, filmmaking, and many other activities. We may call the intercreative exhibition spaces.
Intercreative centers require specialized types of supports, storage and workshop space. They may feature living collections, moving water or wind tunnels, or industrial, transportation, medical, or military technology. Part of the ethos of these exhibitions is that visitors are invited not only to look at exhibits, but to learn by doing, so facilities must be designed for visitor participation, either right in the exhibition spaces or in immediately adjacent areas [3].
Science club in the fleet Science center of San Diego [6]
Planning and design of intercreative spaces may require the participation of specialists in the art, science or performance activity intended, or in the design of art studios, laboratories, workshops, rehearsal or performance venues, multimedia production facilities, TV or recording studios, or other specialized environments.
Most science centers resquires flexibiliy in their galleries so that the space can be completely reconfigured for each exhibition. Intercreative exhibition spaces require smart technologyu capability and flexbility of the location, setup ; and replacement of stand alone exhibit modules which are likely to change anywhere from every 2 months to every 3 to 5 years. For intercreative spaces incorporated within an exhibition space, the following requirements may apply and be specified in the design requirement for individual exhibits :
Access to power and data grids extended accross floors, majors walls, and ceilings
Level changes or the ability to build in structures provinding new levels and enclosures
Ability to create equipment pits in selected areas
Capacity for at least one school class (30 children) at one time
Storage for supplies and props, housekeeping and installation equipment nearby
Good service access via loading docks freight elevators, or hydraulic ligts
Public access for all age groups
Water supply and drainage
Air compressors
Sturdy washable surfaces
Specialized sound and light systems
Suspension capability for exhibit elements including electronics
Special acoustic treatments [3]
Intercreative space of the coSA center
An overview of Science Centers and institutionsaround the world
As we previously said before science center are getting more and more present worldwide. A few institutions are trying to promote their visibility such as the international science center. It is a yearly global event illustrating the impact and reach of all the world’s science centers and science museums. The last event was last year, because of COVID.
Cover of the website [8]
An other institution is the Association of science and technology centers, you can see their goals underneath.
Strategies of the association [9]
If you want to get an overview of the different Science Centers around the world you can go visit those links :
