Cavi book of abstracts 2016 by CAVI

INTERACTION DESIGN CAVI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Interaction Design

Kim Halskov (ed.)

Kim Halskov and Nicolai Brodersen Hansen

Between Theory and Practice: Bridging Concepts in HCI Research

Peter Dalsgaard and Christian Dindler

Pragmatism and Design Thinking Peter Dalsgaard

BullsEye: High-Precision Fiducial Tracking for Table-based Tangible Interaction Clemens Klokmose, Janus Kristensen, Rolf Bagge, and Kim Halskov

Designing Infrastructures for Creative Engagement

Christian Dindler and Ole Sejer Iversen

30 32

Design Thinking for Digital Fabrication in Education

Decisive Constraints as a Creative Resource in Interaction Design

A Framework for Designing Complex Media Facades

Participatory Action Research for Civic Engagement

Citizen’s Right to the Digital City: Urban Interfaces, Activism, and Placemaking Marcus Foth, Martin Brynskov, and Timo Ojala

Participatory Heritage Innovation: Designing Dialogic Sites of Engagement

Digital Design Lab - DD Lab

The CAVI lab

Ole Sejer Iversen, Christian Dindler, and Elin Hansen

CIBIS: Creativity in Blended Interaction Spaces

Values-led Participatory Design as a Pursuit of Meaningful Alternatives

FabLab@School.dk

Tuck Leong and Ole Iversen

OrganiCity: Smart cities done right

In Pursuit of Rigor and Accountability in Participatory Design

Partners and funding

Christopher Frauenberger, Judith Good, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and Ole Iversen

People

Rachel Charlotte Smith and Ole Sejer Iversen

Urban Interaction Design: Towards City Making

Marcus Foth and Martin Brynskov

Kim Halskov and Tobias Ebsen

Webstrates: Shareable Dynamic Media

Martin Brynskov, Juan Carvajal Bermúdez, Manu Fernández, Henrik Korsgaard, Ingrid J. Mulder, Katarzyna Piskorek, Lea Rekow, and Martijn De Waal

Michael Mose Biskjaer and Kim Halskov

Social Interaction Design Patterns for  Urban Media Architecture

Clemens Klokmose, James R. Eagan, Siemen Baader, Wendy Mackay, and Michel Beaudouin-Lafon

Rachel Charlotte Smith, Ole Sejer Iversen, and Mikkel Hjorth

Local Area Artworks and ProxiMagic

Luke Hespanhol and Peter Dalsgaard

A Constraint-Based Understanding of Design Spaces Michael Mose Biskjaer, Peter Dalsgaard, and Kim Halskov

Sustaining Participatory Design Initiatives

Clemens Klokmose, Susanne Bødker, Matthias Korn, Anne Marie Polli, and Henrik Blunck

Design Anthropological Futures Rachel Charlotte Smith, Kasper Tang Vangkilde, Mette Gislev Kjaersgaard, Ton Otto, Joachim Halse, and Thomas Binder

Relational Expertise in Participatory Design

Ole Sejer Iversen and Christian Dindler

Instruments of Inquiry: Understanding the Nature and Role of Instruments in Design

Christian Dindler

Participation Gestalt: Analysing Participatory Qualities of Interaction in Public Space Peter Dalsgaard, Kim Halskov, and Ole Iversen

Peter Dalsgaard

Participation as a Matter of Concern in Participatory Design Lars Bo Andersen, Peter Danholt, Kim Halskov, Nicolai Brodersen Hansen, Peter Lauritsen

Material Interactions with Tangible Tabletops Nicolai Brodersen Hansen and Kim Halskov

The Diversity of Participatory Design Research Practice at PDC 2002–2012

Understanding Teenagers’ Motivation in Participatory Design

INTERACTION DESIGN

CAVI

Kim Halskov (ed.)

For several decades The Interaction Design group at Aarhus University has been conducting research into the design of interactive systems.

laborating closely with external partners pushes us to take context seriously, and to make full-scale installations which can be used in the real world.

Our research covers a broad spectrum of interaction design research with a unique concern for both social and technical aspects of design. Our research is strongly rooted in the participatory design research tradition, which explains our concern for involving people, in order to explore critical alternatives. We often carry out research through design, in the sense of conducting design experiments and interventions aimed at gaining insight into interaction design â&#x20AC;&#x201C; design process, as well as interface and use. In several of our projects, we have worked closely with external partners, for instance, design studios, architects, technology providers, schools, museums, and other kinds of public institutions. Col-

Significant parts of our research are currently organized around three large projects: CIBIS (Creativity in Blended Interaction Spaces), FabLab@School.dk, and OrganiCity. Moreover, our research activities are part of Aarhus Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interdisciplinary research center for Participatory IT (PIT). Two laboratory facilities are available for our research: CAVI and the Digital Design Lab. The CAVI laboratory was originally based on 3D technologies, but has been expanded to include a number of mixed reality platforms, such as tangible tabletops, as well as various kinds of pervasive computing technologies. The Digital Design Lab is a prototype facility focused on

physical and tangible interaction. In this booklet we present selected research results published during the recent couple of years, in areas such as child computer interaction, design processes, digital design creativity, media architecture, participatory design, sharable dynamic media, software infrastructure, and urban computing.

BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE: BRIDGING CONCEPTS IN HCI RESEARCH

Peter Dalsgaard and Christian Dindler

Bridging concepts are intermediary forms of knowledge that reside between abstract theory and design practice, distinguished by their specific capacity to facilitate exchanges between theory and practice. Articulating knowledge in the form of bridging concepts prompts us to formulate knowledge in a way that specifies accountability to both theory and practice. While continuous exchanges between theory and practice are important in academia in general, arguably, it is even more so for Human-Computer Interaction. Much theory in this field has been imported from other, more established disciplines, such as psychology and sociology. For interaction design researchers and practitioners, this prompts the constant articulation of how and to what extent newly imported theories are useful. This accentuates the need for continuous reflection on how new materials, interaction styles, and products challenge our theories, and in turn, how theories may be employed to understand these new developments. Bridging concepts provide one way of facilitating this exchange, by articulating a knowledge construct both in terms of its ties to theory and particular design exemplars. A bridging concept has the following features: • It exists in the middle ground between theory and practice. • It is accountable to both practical exemplars, the parameters that shape the concept (articulations), and theoretical grounding.

• Its purpose is to bridge the gap between theory and practice, thereby unveiling and articulating untried design opportunities and potential theoretical advancements. We propose that, in order to serve as bridges, bridging concepts are composed of three constituents that may help interaction design practitioners and researchers to understand their grounding and potential, and offer advice on how to employ them in practice. First, bridging concepts have a theoretical grounding. In the case of the “peepholes” bridging concept, we draw primarily on pragmatism and the philosophy of technology. Second, drawing on exemplars as well as theoretical insights, bridging concepts may be illuminated through the formulation of design articulations. We use the term “design articulations” to refer to the parameters that are important in expressing the qualities of a concept. Third, bridging concepts may be explored through exemplars that clearly illustrate critical aspects of the concept. Exemplars may illustrate similar salient aspects of a particular concept, or may be critical, in the sense that they delineate the boundaries of the concept. To exemplify what a bridging concept is, we present the concept of peepholes: interactive artifacts that provide a limited view of a larger space, and which play on the tension between what is hidden and what is revealed, to spark engagement.

Tangible 3D Blueprint, an example of an installation using the Peephole bridging concept

Bridging Concepts as an intermediate form of knowledge between theory and practice

Reference Peter Dalsgaard and Christian Dindler. 2014. Between theory and practice: bridging concepts in HCI research. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1635-1644.

PRAGMATISM AND DESIGN THINKING Peter Dalsgaard

The concept of design thinking has been the center of much attention in recent years, with researchers and practitioners from a range of fields contributing to discussions of what constitutes designerly ways of knowing and doing, and how such insights might inform and inspire domains beyond traditional design disciplines. However, this mounting interest has not led to a clear understanding of design thinking. Indeed, it may have resulted in a blurred picture, as stakeholders with disparate perspectives and agendas take part in the discussion. We propose that the discourse on design, and by extension, the practice of design, may be developed by drawing on central understandings and concepts from an established and well-developed theoretical position: pragmatist philosophy. We do so by examining how pragmatism adds to the understanding of a selection of core issues in design thinking: theory, practice, emergence, interaction, situatedness, experimentation, intervention, transformation, and the role of technology. The pragmatist perspective may be of value for design thinking in at least four respects. First, the examination of distinct issues in design thinking may be informed and enriched by drawing on how these issues have been articulated and explored in pragmatism (for instance, recurring themes in design thinking, such as the theory-practice relation and the role of experiments have been extensively discussed in pragmatism). Second, the coherent conceptual framework offered by pragmatism may inspire and inform

studies of how issues in design thinking are related (for instance, the pragmatist perspective on the interrelation between experimentation and technology may inspire an examination of the relations between experiments, tools, techniques, and materials in design). Third, these understandings may in turn enrich the practice of design, since the pragmatist perspective may lead to (and to some extent has already resulted in) specific approaches to design challenges (for instance, the pragmatist concept of inquiry has inspired specific approaches to understanding and developing interfaces, as will be expanded on in the section on Implications of a pragmatist perspective on design). Fourth, pragmatist concepts have been employed in a number of fields, from education to the arts. They may yield new and fresh perspectives for design thinking through discussions of how concepts treated in design thinking unfold in other spheres of human activity and experience.

Reference Peter Dalsgaard. 2014. Pragmatism and Design Thinking. International Journal ofâ&#x20AC;ŻDesign 8 (1) 2014.

Experimentation and transformation

Photo: Jakob Halskov

MATERIAL INTERACTIONS WITH TANGIBLE TABLETOPS Nicolai Brodersen Hansen and Kim Halskov

In order to explore the potential of tangible tabletops for material interaction, we have developed an interactive installation, the Radar Table, which makes sounds available to people for playful engagement. The Radar Table The Radar Table turns the conventional understanding of what to expect from a concert or musical experience on its head. Radar Table is an interactive, audiovisual installation, a kind of musical instrument, and a platform for creative and social interaction, which transcends the boundary between performer and audience by offering people the opportunity to collaboratively express themselves musically as part of a performance, and as a personal experience – without any previous experience of playing music.

loop is of a different length, ranging from four to thirty-one bars, with the implication that the relation between loops changes over time. Cylindrical tangibles representing musical effects (reverb, delay, etc.) may be easily applied to the musical loops to create complex expressions. The flexibility enabled by the tangible objects provides people with the opportunity to mould the music in unanticipated ways – in essence, creating a unique musical experience. The Radar table has had a very active life outside the CAVI research laboratory: Screen Media Expo London 2012, Infocom Las Vegas 2012, Multitouch Helsinki 2012, LEGO World Copenhagen 2012 and 2013, CHI 2013 Paris, and SPOT Interactive Aarhus 2013.

The Danish musician, composer, and producer, Henrik Munch, has created the musical material, which is available for people to shape and transform into a musical experience. By interacting with two kinds of tangible objects, cubes and cylinders, the audience defines how the music sounds and how it evolves.

Our analysis of the people interacting with the Radar Table at SPOT Interactive builds on Dewey’s pragmatism, as well as recent efforts to appropriate pragmatism for interaction design research. Three of the basic concepts of pragmatism are: situation, inquiry, and technology.

Associated with each side of the cubes is a single music loop, and when introduced to the table, the loop associated with the side of the cube facing the table is played from the start. By rotating the cube the volume may be controlled. The only visual identifier on the cube surfaces is the visual marker used for tracking the object. To encourage exploration it has been a conscious design decision to not assist users to select a specific loop. Each

Problematic situations By taking as the point of departure the idea that certain situations stand out in the flow of experience, it makes sense to ask about the character of the situations encountered when using the Radar Table. In the view of pragmatism, no one feature of the Radar Table itself creates problematic situations. Rather, in a pragmatist view, a situation is the totality at a given moment in time, meaning that as inquiry unfolds

through learning, experimentation, and conversation with others, the problematic situation changes. Inquiry strategies Having encountered a problematic situation, users attempt to resolve it in various ways by working their way through inquiry experimentally. Several kinds of inquiry for resolving situations were employed throughout the examined case. Broadly speaking, it seems that there are two different approaches, one involving experimenting with the tangibles, and one consisting of collaborating with others. Technology supporting inquiry The Radar Table offers a simple material interface providing opportunities for complex sound experiences. While it is easy to move the cubes and cylinders around, creating different soundscapes, it is also an open-ended experience. The Radar Table enables and constrains the potential transformation of the situation through ongoing inquiry. However, the users are also an integral part of problematic situation and inquiry strategy, as their expectations and ideas are part of the dynamic flow of the situation. Furthermore, their collaboration, while not explicitly technological in a traditional sense, may actually be considered technological in the pragmatist understanding of the word.

Reference Nicolai Brodersen Hansen and Kim Halskov. 2014. Material interactions with tangible tabletops: a pragmatist perspective. In proceedings of NordiCHI ’14, 441-450.

Material interaction

BULLSEYE: HIGH-PRECISION FIDUCIAL TRACKING FOR TABLE-BASED TANGIBLE INTERACTION Clemens Klokmose, Janus Kristensen, Rolf Bagge, and Kim Halskov

With BullsEye, we propose a series of techniques for improving the precision of optical fiducial tracking on so-called tangible tabletops, that is, interactive tables that can track physical objects placed on the surface of the tables. The motivation is to enable convincing interactive projection mapping on tangibles on the table, which requires high precision tracking of the location of tangibles. We propose a new fiducial design optimized for GPU-based tracking, a technique for calibrating light that allows for computation on a grayscale image, rather than a binarized black and white image, an automated technique for compensating for optical distortions in the camera lenses, and a tracking algorithm implemented primarily in shaders on the GPU. The techniques are realized in the BullsEye computer vision software. While BullsEye is designed for tangible 3D tabletops, it is also a framework for general tabletop fiducial tracking. Therefore, the presented improvements on fiducial tracking will also benefit a regular tangible tabletop application based on optical tracking. The core advantage of BullsEye, compared to the popular reacTIVision tracking software, is that BullsEye offers subpixel precision, down to an average of one tenth of a pixel, compared to the around one-pixel precision we measure on reacTIVision. Furthermore, BullsEye facilitates significantly more precise and automated compensation for optical distortion in camera optics.

the grid is automated, rather than manual. The BullsEye calibration grid consists of black dots in a uniform grid on a white background. By tracking the location of the black dots in the uniform grid on the printed sheet, a position mapping texture may be produced, which is subsequently used to correct the image from the camera.

Similarly to reacTIVision, BullsEye uses a printed calibration grid as input to the geometry calibration, but the alignment to

BullsEye features a user interface that enables real-time tweaking of the parameters of the tracking. Furthermore, the user

BullsEye compensates for variations in lighting conditions across the table by normalizing the grayscale spectrum per pixel through calibration of light. The calibration involves continuously storing the brightest white and darkest black seen in a pixel in a texture, and subsequently using that texture as input to normalize the grayscale values of the camera image during tracking. An empty table provides the darkest black, while moving a white object across the whole area of the table can provide the brightest white. BullsEye does real-time image processing using shaders on the GPU to manipulate images in real-time. The core of the tracking algorithm in BullsEye is implemented as subsequent shaders in a rendering pipeline. BullsEye is implemented in Java and the OpenGL Shader Language. Figure 3 shows the steps involved in BullsEyeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s initial image processing, where the images from two cameras are stitched together, and grayscale values are calibrated based on input from the lighting calibration.

The BullsEye user interface

A BullsEye fiducial marker

interface allows for easy calibration of both light and geometry. Input from multiple cameras may be combined, and their placement in relation to each other may be configured visually.

Reference Clemens Klokmose, Janus Kristensen, Rolf Bagge, and Kim Halskov: BullsEye: High-Precision Fiducial Tracking for Table-based Tangible Interaction. 2014. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (pp. 269278).

INSTRUMENTS OF INQUIRY: UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE AND ROLE OF INSTRUMENTS IN DESIGN Peter Dalsgaard

Designers employ a range of tools and materials in almost any creative design project, yet there are few frameworks for understanding how and why they work. On the basis of a well-established school of thought, pragmatism, this paper contributes a coherent conceptualization of tools and materials in design, called instruments of inquiry. This perspective underscores the crucial role that instruments play in design, and the ways in which they scaffold design creativity and exploration. In particular, it highlights that instruments not only augment our capabilities for carrying out intended actions, they also guide our perception and understanding of design problems and solutions. I present and discuss a framework consisting of five qualities of instruments of inquiry that make them valuable in design inquiry: perception, conception, externalization, knowing-through-action, and mediation. These qualities are exemplified and examined through a retrospective analysis of two real-life interaction design cases, the Danish Pavilion for the 2010 World Expo, and a proposal for a new Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw, in which existing and novel instruments of inquiry were employed to develop interactive media architecture. Two key insights from these analyses are that mastery of instruments is an essential part of design competence, and that design projects often require designers to modify existing instruments, or to develop new ones. The paper speaks to design researchers, in part by extending the discourse of design, in part by offering a framework for

The five qualities of instruments of inquiry

instruments of inquiry that may be employed to analyze real-life design cases. However, the framework may also be of use to design practitioners. On a relatively abstract level, it offers a coherent understanding of how and why the instruments we use in everyday design work. On a more concrete level, this may help designers to develop their competence in using these instruments, for example, by looking at how specific ways of employing an instrument may help to gain a better understanding of a design challenge, support the generation of novel solutions, or help communicate with other stakeholders in a design process. As is demonstrated in the examples at the end of the article, an important part of design competence is knowing how to tweak existing instruments to fit specific design challenges, or even to develop new instruments, if the situation calls for them. Given this interplay between instruments and design competence, the article may also be of relevance to design educators.

Reference Peter Dalsgaard. 2016. Instruments of Inquiry: Understanding the Nature and Role of Instruments in Design. Forthcoming in International Journal ofâ&#x20AC;ŻDesign.

A 3D Model that uses a custom-developed visualization instrument to design the faĂ§ade for the Danish Pavilion at the 2010 World Expo

DESIGNING INFRASTRUCTURES FOR CREATIVE ENGAGEMENT Christian Dindler

As museums extend their scope beyond traditional exhibition spaces and into everyday practices and institutions, it is necessary for them to develop suitable conceptualizations of how technology may be understood and designed. To this end, I propose the concept of infrastructures, both social and material, as a useful framework for discussing important challenges and opportunities in terms of designing for audience engagement. I further argue that when designing infrastructures, an important challenge is to develop the social aspects of infrastructures in terms of creating, maintaining, and developing relationships between organizations and communities. I argue that this is as much an object of design as technical interactive systems, and discuss the relational work undertaken through this activity. The ideas of infrastructure and relational work are illustrated through a case describing the design of a system for cultural heritage engagement for Danevirke museum, covering issues related to the Danish minority in northern Germany. Museum engagement Recent years have seen a significant interest among many museums and scholars in exploring ways in which the audience may be engaged as more than passive receivers of knowledge. Audiences are seen as engaged participants, assuming an active role not only in the exploration, but also in the production of content, challenging traditional notions of curation and exhibition. Moreover, many museums are exploring ways of extending their scope beyond the tradi-

tional exhibition space, not only by their presence on the web, but also through events and more permanent installations in local communities. This broadening of scope in terms of the physical site and ways of engaging audiences holds much potential for museums. Allowing exhibitions to be shaped by peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s engagement holds the promise of creating vibrant exhibitions where dialogue, rather than effective transmission, is the potential gain. From installations to infrastructures â&#x20AC;&#x201C; from participation to relational work In this article I contribute to the discourse on creating systems that engage people as active and creative producers of heritage material. In particular, I address the design of systems that aim to engage people outside the physical space of the museum. While studying these systems themselves as artifacts or media is important, the focus here will be on the design process. However, I do address the issue of museum technology and infrastructures, inasmuch as the way we conceptualize the object of design has consequences in terms of how design is practiced. Briefly stated, the contribution of this article is to explore two shifts in perspective in the area of designing for heritage engagement. First is a move from thinking about technological objects or single installations that promote creative engagement to thinking about infrastructures promoting creative engagement. And second, in terms of designing infrastructures, there is a move from thinking of design participation to thinking about creating networks and relationships

through relational work. The first parts of the article briefly sketch out important developments in technology design for museums as the backdrop for outlining an infrastructural perspective on technology. Having outlined an infrastructural perspective, I present a case study from a project involving organizations related to the Danish minority in northern Germany, focusing on the relational work in the design process.

Reference Christian Dindler. 2014. Designing infrastructures for creative engagement, Digital Creativity, 25 (3), 212-223.

Workshop at the A.P. MĂ¸ller school

DESIGN ANTHROPOLOGICAL FUTURES Rachel Charlotte Smith, Kasper Tang Vangkilde, Mette Gislev Kjaersgaard, Ton Otto, Joachim Halse, and Thomas Binder

Design Anthropological Futures explores future making from a design anthropological perspective. The concept of futures relates to both the creation of visions, and practices of the possible through transformative processes of anthropology and design, and to the exploration of new frontiers and future directions for the discipline of design anthropology. The authors explore different perspectives on design anthropology as a holistic and critical approach to addressing complex societal issues, with the aim of creating potential futures with diverse communities and stakeholders. Focus is on the theoretical and methodological challenges involved in the shaping of possible futures through temporal, interventionist, collaborative, and material modes of knowledge production. Through four major sections, the edited volume addresses future concerns in design anthropology, and its particular focus on futures and future making. Ethnographies of the Possible An evident difference between design and anthropology is their temporal orientation. Exploring ethnographies of the possible, the chapters shed light on the transformative spaces between the present(s) and the future(s), a space that is highly contested in practice, yet relatively unexplored in theoretical terms. How do the processes through which imaginative practices are conceived and materialized unfold? Both techniques of estrangement from the well-known, and of familiarization with seemingly distant alternatives are at work in these experimental moments. But what are the methodological implications of conducting ethnography

in a distorted here-and-now, a partly fictional space that resists full articulation?

tion of issues available to anthropological scrutiny, not after the fact, but while it takes place?

Interventionist Speculations Interventions into existing realities with the focus on creating alternative visions or change are central to design anthropology, and enable new forms of experience, awareness, and dialogue to emerge. Interventionist speculation poses a productive line of connection between design research and anthropology, and explores what happens when design methods are used to raise new ethnographic questions and output. Can the particular staging of new possibilities be seen as a new mode of ethnographic inquiry into people’s concerns, aspirations, and imaginative horizons? And how can interventions serve as an approach to research through design, that is, as an occasion for design anthropological knowledge production?

Things in the Making Within design theory, the notion of “design things” is used to capture the spaces where people gather to discuss and form or break alliances around emerging issues. Here, speculative objects allow us to express conflicting perspectives about how our social world should be structured and experienced. Within anthropology, the recent “material turn” has placed particular emphasis on the agency of objects, the affordances of materials, and interplay between humans and nonhumans. The contributions constitute a detailed exploration of how the particular choreography involved in “thinging,” “staging,” and “fiction” affect design anthropological endeavors.

Collaborative Formation of Issues Participation and collaboration among various stakeholders have become significant convergence points between design and anthropology, not least because of the ability of ethnographers to mobilize and engage “ordinary people” in professional design processes. Recently, more intriguing concerns with engaging people have emerged in the borderland between speculative design, participatory design, and the social sciences: What role does the socio-material setup play for how the public gathers and emerges around particular issues, and what kinds of framing, scaffolding, and politics are involved in such processes? How do we make the process of collaborative forma-

Reference Rachel Charlotte Smith, Kasper Tang Vangkilde, Mette Gislev Kjaersgaard, Ton Otto, Joachim Halse, and Thomas Binder (eds.). 2016 fc. Design Anthropological Futures, London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Creating design anthropological concepts and dialogues

Discussions at the Design Anthropological Futures conference in 2014

A CONSTRAINT-BASED UNDERSTANDING OF DESIGN SPACES Michael Mose Biskjaer, Peter Dalsgaard, and Kim Halskov

The term design space is often used among designers and researchers to describe a creative “space of action” in a design process. Even so, there is no consensus on what a design space is or how it may be distinguished from problem space, solution space, research space, or search space, for instance. Some designers refer to a design space as a physical space – a lab or a studio replete with whiteboards, Post-It® notes, prototyping materials, and so on – while others conceive of it as a purely conceptual space. In order to address this ambiguity and the confusion that may spring from it when each participant in a design project shows up with an individual understanding of a design space, we have proposed a framework to promote terminological transparency. To ensure relevance to, and ease of use in practice, we have also developed an annotation technique – a design space schema. In order to exemplify this design space schema in action, we have applied it to an interaction design case, LEGO Projected Play. Theory: Understanding Design Spaces Through Constraints In this paper, we develop a framework for understanding, analyzing, and maneuvering design spaces based on our previous comprehensive research into creativity constraints and how they not only restrain, but also enable creative design processes by rendering unforeseen ideas and unexpected process trajectories possible. Adopting this perspective allows us to offer a new and clear understanding of a design space. We define a design space as a conceptual space that 1) is co-constituted, explored, and developed by the designer/s engaged

in the given creative design activity, and 2) encompasses the creativity constraints that at any given time govern what the designer/s can and cannot do, and what the design outcome can and cannot be. Practice: Articulating Design Spaces Through a Design Space Schema Building on means for mapping and documenting design processes as one of our major areas of interest, we propose a design space schema inspired by morphological analysis as a systematic way to identify and investigate possible relationships or configurations in complex design problems. A design space schema is a table consisting of aspects listed in the top row, and a number of options for each aspect in columns below. Simple as it may seem, we have found the design space schema very valuable when we educate our design students, but also when it is applied to actual design processes, especially when many different stakeholders are involved. LEGO Projected Play To exemplify the design space schema, we have used it in an interaction design project consisting of tangible 3D tabletops based on 3D projection. Projected Play, as this project is called, is a series of experimental prototypes developed in collaboration with the LEGO Group, and its implementation was tested at a LEGO World event in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2013. In this case, using the design space schema as a notational technique enabled us to delimit and adjust our design space continuously, for both the design of the tabletop surface itself and the tangibles on it – case cubes and stylized buildings, which were painted when

moved over colored zones on the tabletop. Working from a shared understanding of a design space using the constraint-based framework proved productive, and helped all involved to identify the properties of the design product that could be transformed (or could not). Contributions As stated in this paper, we conclude that the constraint-based framework and the design space schema can support both researchers and designers in various ways, including helping them to gain an overview of the design process, document it, reflect upon it, and develop design concepts. In contrast to other kinds of design representations that capture a specific design idea, the design space schema specifically encapsulates a space of opportunity. The contributions of this paper are therefore three-fold: 1. the constraint-based understanding of design spaces establishes a common language; 2. the design space schema serves as a simple, flexible format for articulating and documenting the manipulable components of the design space; and thus 3. design practitioners may immediately benefit from using design space schemas. Reference Michael Mose Biskjaer, Peter Dalsgaard, and Kim Halskov. 2014. A constraint-based understanding of design spaces. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems (DIS ‘14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 453-462.

Content on Table Surface

Content on Tangible

Tangible Shape

Experience

Basic Idea

Use Situation

Interaction

Coloured spots in LEGO primary colours

Mono-chrome LEGO primary colours (red, blue, green, yellow)

Cubes

Emergent

Individual

Colouring of cubes

LEGO car

Exploratory

Playing with colour-changing LEGO objects

Social

Objects exchanging colours

A sea of LEGO bricks

Asian-style tower

Multiple groups

Stairway

Walk-up and use

Cubes colouring the other objects

The final design space schema for Projected Play

DESIGN THINKING FOR DIGITAL FABRICATION IN EDUCATION Rachel Charlotte Smith, Ole Sejer Iversen, and Mikkel Hjorth

In this paper, we argue that digital fabrication in education may benefit from design thinking, to foster a more profound understanding of digital fabrication processes among students. Two related studies of digital fabrication in education are presented in the paper. In an observational study we found that students (aged 11– 15) lacked an understanding of the complexity of the digital fabrication process, impeding the potential of digital fabrication in education. In a second explorative research through design study, we investigated how a focus on design thinking affected the students’ performance in digital fabrication processes. Our findings indicate that design thinking may provide students with a general understanding of the creative and complex process through which artifacts and futures emerge in processes of digital fabrication. Digital Fabrication in Education – FabLab@ School.dk Digital fabrication in education is closely tied to the rise of the maker movement and the evolution of digital fabrication technologies (such as 3D printers, laser cutters, and electronic toolkits), which enable consumers to tinker and create with digital technologies. This democratization of production through digital fabrication has been developed in educational settings with an emphasis on learning-oriented activities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Our approach moves beyond this, towards combining digital fabrication, design thinking, and collaborative processes of complex problem solving. This provides children with a sustained understanding

Students’ design materials based on field studies

of digital technology, and supports their ability to create with digital material, while affording access to a general understanding of the postmodern society mediated by digital technology.

a consequence, we argue that addressing personal and societal challenges through “designerly” approaches to digital fabrication may allow students to develop a more profound understanding and ability to create alternative futures.

Towards Design Ability in Digital Fabrication Findings from our research and design experiment reveal that incorporating elements of design thinking into digital fabrication initiates process reflection among students, which are not part of existing literature on digital fabrication in schools. Three aspects emerged as particularly strong indicators: •Framing the design brief and challenge may contribute significantly to the students’ conceptualization of their digital fabrication process, assisting students in navigating complex processes and contexts. • Design techniques such as scenarios, ideation, and prototypes may provide a language and scaffold students’ ability to collaborate in the fabrication process. • Reflection and argumentation may be progressively developed through the design process, empowering students to develop self-direction and, eventually, design ability. Integrating digital fabrication into formal educational contexts is a highly complex process. Design thinking may support children’s ability to work in a “wicked” solution space, in which failure, iterative processes, and continuous reflection on fabrication materials are integral parts. As

Reference Rachel Charlotte Smith, Ole Sejer Iversen and Mikkel Hjorth. 2015. Design Thinking for Digital Fabrication in Education. International Journal of Child Computer Interaction.

Developing design concepts for social contexts

Photo: Hans HelleshĂ¸j Buch

DECISIVE CONSTRAINTS AS A CREATIVE RESOURCE IN INTERACTION DESIGN In the design projects we have conducted, we have noticed a puzzling phenomenon. We have observed that designers sometimes voluntarily make creative decisions that appear to bind them to an extent that the design space seems pruned to a bare minimum. But not only that, we have also noticed how such extremely limiting creative decisions of self-binding may at times kindle original ideas in the design process, and occasionally even lead to highly innovative final designs. Theory: Introducing the Concept of Decisive Constraints In order to explore this phenomenon, we have conducted extensive studies into constraints in various creative processes – from art and architecture to design and engineering. We refer to these generically as creativity constraints. In this paper, our literature review enables us to develop a framework to conceptualize and articulate how such acts of creative self-binding may be conceived in a design process. Concretely, we distinguish among three types of creativity constraints – intrinsic (in the material or situation), imposed (from outside sources), and self-imposed ones (deliberately brought into the process by the designers themselves). To account for the radical decision-making we have noticed in our design projects, we further develop the self-imposed category by introducing the concept of decisive constraints, built on two definitional conditions. This denotation has been chosen since the adjective “decisive” may refer to both a) radical creative decision-making and b) the decisiveness of a creative turning point in the design process. Therefore, as a concept, decisive con-

straints designates the voluntary introduction of a radical creativity constraint that seems completely at odds with the designer’s previous (standard) solutions, and does – beyond a reasonable doubt – indeed lead to a more original final design. Practice: Applying the Concept to Three Interaction Design Projects To test our concept analytically and ensure its relevance to design practice, we have applied its two definitional conditions – radical decision-making and the emergence of a creative turning point – to three media façade installation projects that our interaction design research lab, CAVI, has been involved in. Specifically, we revisit three projects in which we have noticed that this phenomenon of radical creative self-binding was present – albeit without being able to properly address it at the time. Three Media Façade Installations The first case is a proposal submitted to an architectural competition in 2007 for the design of a new museum of modern art in Warsaw, Poland. The renowned Danish architecture studio, BIG, was invited to submit, and we at CAVI were brought in to help develop ideas and solutions for integrating interactive technology into the building’s façade. In this case, the chief architect suddenly decided to use a radically new material – color-changing concrete, TCC, which had never been tested in such a large scale setting. The second case, Aarhus by Light (2008), is a project for the city music hall, Musikhuset, in Aarhus, Denmark. Again, we were asked to help integrate an interactive media façade into the architecture of the building, see image on the page

Michael Mose Biskjaer and Kim Halskov

to the left. This proved a major challenge, since the pitched idea was to cover the entire music hall façade, but in reality, we had to accept seemingly unsuitable materials, namely, fixed-size, low-resolution LED panels – and only a very limited number of them. The third case is the design of the Danish pavilion for the 2010 World EXPO in Shanghai, China, see page 16. In order to aim for a high level of originality, in this case we chose to impose on ourselves a highly limiting design manifesto consisting of seven elements, which guided the design process. Contributions Based on the insights that we have gained by analyzing these three media façade installation projects, we conclude in the paper that our proposed concept, decisive constraints, offers two main contributions. Our proposed concept, decisive constraints, may: 1. inform design research by providing a clearly defined framework for investigating and conceptualizing the intriguing phenomenon of radical, creative, self-binding; and 2. act as a creative resource for practitioners, as a means to attain originality, not only in interaction design, but presumably also in related creative domains and disciplines. Reference Michael Mose Biskjaer and Kim Halskov. 2014. Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design. Digital Creativity 25 (1), 27-61.

Color-changing concrete (TCC)

Photo: Leif Orkelbog-Andresen

A FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING COMPLEX MEDIA FACADES Kim Halskov and Tobias Ebsen

Media façades differ from conventional displays in several respects. Whereas a conventional display commonly has a flat, rectangular shape, a media façade extend into three-dimensional space and may have any shape, including an organic form. The shapes of individual pixels of ordinary displays are dot-like or square, and ideally hardly noticeable, but the pixel shape of media facades is non-standardized, and often part of the visual expression of the façade. Moreover, the pixels of conventional displays are organized in a grid or matrix structure, whereas there does not exist a standardized way of organizing pixels, when it comes to media facades. The main contribution of this paper is a conceptual framework for addressing how content for a media façade may be designed, taking into account the specific qualities of the display of media façade interfaces: scale, shape, pixel configuration, pixel shape, and light quality. These qualities of the interface may be investigated using a repertoire of design tools with modalities ranging from physical models to mixed reality models, to virtual representations. Six qualities of media façade Scale is important to address, in order to understand the size and volume of the building. In contrast to conventional displays, whose dimensions are commonly measured in inches, media facades are huge.

Shape refers to both the outer perimeter of the media screen and also the shape

of the image surface. Whereas traditional displays are flat, rectangular surfaces, media facades may have any shape, and may even curve around the corners, bends and curves of a building.

Pixel configuration is the layout or pattern of pixels on the media façade, which on traditional screens is a grid system of equal and perpendicular lines. On the other hand, media facades may use any configuration of pixels, creating complex patterns on a building façade. Pixel shape refers to the physical form of the pixels in the facade. Traditionally, pixels are square, but on media facades the pixels may be any shape, determined by the lighting fixture or the architectural element that structures the configurations of pixels. Light quality is crucial to how smoothly colors are displayed, and how bright the media façade is. The type of lighting fixture, and the use of diffusers and reflectors may produce visual qualities that are different from what traditional displays may produce. Danish pavilion at Expo 2010 For the design of the media architecture of the Danish pavilion at Expo 2010 in Shanghai, a repertoire of design tools and visualization techniques was applied, in order to address how the content for the media façade might be designed, taking into account the above-mentioned qualities of media façade interfaces. The Expo media façade was especially

challenging because of its physical properties, such as the shape of the building, the very low resolution, and the shape and configuration of the pixels. When unfolded, the facade of the pavilion yielded a 300-meter-long, 12-meter-high structure, with a wavy shape, due to the helical form of the building. This gave an aspect ratio of 25:1, which is 13 times wider than what we normally define as “widescreen.” During the design process, the design tools were instrumental in realizing the final design. The table below provides an overview of how five design tools (mockup, pixel tool, wall projection, virtual 3D model, mixed reality model) addressed the unique qualities of the display (scale, shape, pixel configuration, pixel shape, and light quality). None of the five design tools was able to address all the unique qualities of the media façade at the same time, but instead, they complemented each other in addressing the visual potential and challenges of the display. Only during the onsite adjustment were we able to work at full scale with the 3D elongated shape of the display with its unique shape and pixel configuration.

Reference Kim Halskov and Tobias Ebsen. 2013. A framework for designing complex media facades. Design Studies 34 (5), 2013, 663-679.

Mock-up

Pixel tool

Wall projection

Virtual 3D model

Mixed reality model

On-site

Scale

1:1

Small

1:1

Small

1:100

1:1

Shape of display

Pixels configuration

Not tested

Actual

Pixel shape

Actual

Fair approximation

Good approximation

Poor approximation

Actual

Light quality

Actual

Simulated

Actual

Part of display

Small section

Section

Entire

Relation to building

yes

Content

Pixel

Explorative

Focused

Adjustment

Overview of how the design tools address the various aspects of the design

PARTICIPATORY HERITAGE INNOVATION: DESIGNING DIALOGIC SITES OF ENGAGEMENT

Rachel Charlotte Smith and Ole Sejer Iversen

Innovations in digital cultural communication for museums challenge us to develop appropriate methods for participation in curatorial processes, and to rethink the role of audiences inside exhibitions. The article explores the potential of scaffolding sites of dialogue and creative engagement through the design process and final exhibition. The research is based on an interactive exhibition project, Digital Natives, in which we combined principles from participatory design with issues of contemporary digital culture, to explore possibilities for creating innovation in cultural heritage We suggest three critical stages of the dialogic design process in which engagement between stakeholders, researchers, and audiences may be central to shaping and transforming future conceptions of digital cultural heritage, through the process and the final exhibition. We argue that a participatory and design anthropological approach to digital culture may expand opportunities for heritage innovation through technological means of engagement in museums. Dialogic Curation The Digital Natives project aimed to create dialogical spaces of engagement between exhibition space and audiences, by involving young stakeholders as co-creators in the design process. A contribution of the research was the conceptualization of the design process as a form of dialogic curation; a holistic design anthropological approach to the design and innovation of digital cultural heritage, from project inception to final exhibition. From this point of departure, we

created a design process that actively intertwined the voices and emergent practices of contemporary digital cultures into the production of new cultural and technological imaginings for the museum. Our approach enabled a shift from an understanding of technology as artefacts, to flexible means and materials created through dialogue with specific contexts, people, and environments. In the paper we describe three critical stages of the design process, which illustrate our approach to participatory heritage innovation:

vest in, to create unforeseen modes of engagement. Using a dialogic design process may allow exhibitions to emerge as assemblages – or hybrid ecologies – through which new materialities and imaginings of heritage and the digital may come into being. These processes transform relations between digital technology, cultural heritage, and audience engagement into new sites for co-constructing emergent cultural futures and heritage innovation.

• Beginnings: Scaffolding an emergent design space • Middles: Developing concepts through dialogue • Endings: Fusing process and product into a hybrid design ecology The research illustrates how the design ecology dissolved boundaries between process (dialogical curation) and product (heritage exhibition) in a continuous process of interaction between designers, young co-creators and visitors, and situated negotiations of the digital. Participatory Sites of Heritage Innovation Designing for audience engagement in exhibitions through dialogic curation provides opportunities for co-creating unanticipated futures based upon situated professional and personal experiences. Participation and engagement are not something you install in museums. It is something researchers or museum professionals may choose to in-

Reference Rachel Charlotte Smith and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2014. Participatory Heritage Innovation: Designing Dialogic Sites of Engagement, Journal for Digital Creativity, 25 (4), 254-268.

The Digital Natives exhibition | Digital Sea installation

UNDERSTANDING TEENAGERS’ MOTIVATION IN PARTICIPATORY DESIGN

Ole Sejer Iversen, Christian Dindler, and Elin Hansen

Engaging children in the design of digital technology is one of the core strands in child–computer interaction literature. However, few studies explore how teenagers as a distinct user group are engaged in Participatory Design (PD) activities. Based on a case study comprising ten Participatory Design workshops with teenagers (13–15 years old), we identified a range of tools that designers employed in order to actively engage the teenagers in Participatory Design: rewards, storytelling, identification, collaboration, endorsement, technology, and performance. Although these tools were realized through the use of well-established Participatory Design methods and techniques, a deeper understanding of teenagers’ motivation and motives is essential to understanding how tools and techniques may be made to support teenagers’ motivation. We propose a Cultural–Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) approach to teenagers’ motives and motivation as a framework for understanding how various tools may be employed to engage teenagers in Participatory Design activities. The contribution of this paper to the Child-Computer Interaction (CCI) community is two-fold. First, a CHAT-based account of the formation of motives provides a way of articulating issues of motivation and engagement, both with designed products and within the design process. The CHAT perspective provides a view of motives as products of peoples’ participation in socio-cultural institutions, and the way in which the values embedded in these shape individual development. In this paper we have pursued the CHAT

perspective in relation to the design process, but we suggest that it is equally useful when understanding how teenagers use and appropriate technology. Second, the seven overarching categories presented in this paper proved (in various ways) to support teenagers’ motivation during the set of workshops. The categories are not exhaustive, but resonate well with existing literature on CCI, ranging from paying teenagers to participate (rewards), to embodied narratives (performance and storytelling), to more subtle forms of communicating ownership and expertness (endorsements). In fact, established tools and techniques of CCI and PD in general already support these different categories. In our analysis we demonstrated how a CHAT perspective on the formation of motives may be a resource for understanding not only how individual tools support motivation, but also serves as a resource for understanding how children appropriate these tools in relation to their dominating motives, and how various tools work in concert to support motivation. We suggest that the CHAT perspective may be a valuable approach for discussing how tools and techniques from the existing PD toolbox may be used to engage teenagers in a PD process.

Reference Ole Sejer Iversen, Christian Dindler, and Elin Hansen. 2014. Understanding Teenagers’ motivation in Participatory Design. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 1 (3-4), 82 -87

Engaging students in the design of a future school environment

VALUES-LED PARTICIPATORY DESIGN AS A PURSUIT OF MEANINGFUL ALTERNATIVES

Tuck Leong and Ole Iversen

Participatory Design (PD) is inherently concerned with inquiring into and supporting human values when designing IT. We argue that a PD approach that is led by a focus on participants’ values may allow participants to discover meaningful alternatives – alternative uses and alternative conceptualizations for IT that are particularly meaningful to them. However, the way in which PD works with values in the design process has not been made explicit. In this paper, we aim to (i) explicate this values-led PD approach, (ii) illustrate how this approach may lead to outcomes that are meaningful alternatives, and (iii) explain the nature of meaningful alternatives. We use a PD case study to illustrate how we work with participants in a values-led PD approach towards to meaningful alternatives. This paper explicitly describes and discusses one approach whereby designers can engage with human values when using PD to design IT. In particular, it describes how this values-led approach can help realize meaningful alternatives as possible outcomes of the design process. Meaningful alternatives are realized when we support people to imagine their future use of technology in relation to particular values. To bring about this imagining, the designer may use a range of fictional spaces consisting of particular tools, props, and techniques, as well as the orchestration of the design process. We found that different artifacts may be used to help shape their imagining. The use of different artifacts may also help free people from their preconceived

ideas about the domain, potential design solutions, and so on, allowing for creative leaps. While imagining may invite people into a make-believe world where they are free to envision alternative outcomes for technology, they are never entirely decoupled from reality. This is because designers find ways to tether people’s imagining to their shared values and current practices with regard to the aim of the project. In doing so, this process may derive IT that is likely to be meaningful to people and their practices. At the same time, people who have participated in the design process would emerge with a different conceptualization of technology and be more empowered in terms of how they relate to technology. By supporting people in placing one foot in the world of imagined possibilities and the other in their shared values, this particular design process mediates and fosters (in the individual, as well as collectively) continuous dialogue and sense-making of shared values related to the domain of interest and technology. Additionally, this process also helps people to envision alternative futures whereby these values might materialize. Since people’s sense-making of these envisioned futures is always dialogical and relational, this approach ensures that such alternatives are potentially meaningful to those involved. Furthermore, this process uncovers people’s felt and lived notions about using technology in this envisioned future. This ensures that the design outcome is also supportive of the fuller human experience.

The outcome of the design for meaningful alternatives: An interactive floor for learning

Reference Tuck Leong and Ole Iversen. 2015. Meaningful Alternatives: Inquiring into Human Values through Participatory Design. Proceedings of OZCHI 2015.

IN PURSUIT OF RIGOR AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN PARTICIPATORY DESIGN

Christopher Frauenberger, Judith Good, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and Ole Iversen

The field of Participatory Design (PD) has greatly diversified, and we see a broad spectrum of approaches and methodologies emerging. However, to foster its role in designing future interactive technologies, a discussion about accountability and rigor across this spectrum is needed. Rejecting the traditional, positivistic framework, we take inspiration from related fields, such as Design Research and Action Research, to develop interpretations of these concepts that are rooted in PD’s own belief system. By “accountability” we mean the ability to link the collaborative work in PD with decisions and outcomes in a transparent way. In the context of PD, we interpret rigor as internal validity, in other words, that a well-structured argument can may be made for the way a PD process has been conducted. We argue that unlike in other fields, accountability and rigor are nuanced concepts that are delivered through debate, critique, and reflection. A key prerequisite for such debates is the availability of a language that allows designers, researchers, and practitioners to construct solid arguments about the appropriateness of their stances, choices, and judgments. To this end, we propose a “tool-to-thinkwith” that provides such a language by guiding designers, researchers and practitioners through a process of systematic reflection and critical analysis. The tool proposes four lenses for critically reflecting on the nature of a PD effort: epistemology, values, stakeholders, and outcomes. In a subsequent step, the coherence of the revealed features is ana-

lyzed, which shows whether they pull the project in the same direction, or work against each other. Regardless of the flavor of PD, we argue that the coherence of features indicates the level of internal rigor of the PD work, and that the processes of reflection and analysis provide the language to argue for it. We envision our tool as being useful at all stages of PD work: in the planning phase, as part of a reflective practice during the work, and as a means to construct knowledge and advance the field after the fact. We ground our theoretical discussions in a specific PD project to motivate the tool and to illustrate its workings.

Reference Christopher Frauenberger, Judith Good, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2015. In pursuit of rigour and accountability in participatory design. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 74, 93-106.

Summary of the four lenses and starter questions in the conceptual framework

THE DIVERSITY OF PARTICIPATORY DESIGN RESEARCH PRACTICE AT PDC 2002–2012

Kim Halskov and Nicolai Brodersen Hansen

Participatory Design (PD) emerged about 25 years ago as a distinct set of design and research practices rooted in a Scandinavian approach to systems design. Based on a detailed study of the research papers published at the PDC between 2002 and 2012, we suggest a reformulation of the fundamental aspects of PD (Politics, People, Context, Methods, and Product), and a nuanced understanding of what constitutes participation. Politics During the period between 2002 and 2012, the political aspect has become subtler, and more focused on a polyvoiced perspective, rather than a conflict perspective. Much of the research presented at the recent PDCs focuses on engaging users in design in domains with complex constellations of users and other kinds of participants: civic engagement, healthcare, or outside of classic Western contexts. In the case of designing outside the Western world, we see much work on different standards for participation and political aims. People Projects aimed at social media, on engaging temporary users, on fostering civic engagement and FabLabs, challenge the idea of the “user” by intentionally blurring the distinctions between designers and users. Such examples illustrate the importance of considering new groups of users, who may not specifically consider themselves users, but merely people. However, this development also presents researchers and designers with the question of whom to involve in a project, if the “users” are not a clearly defined group.

Context The fact that participatory design has entered new domains is a significant development in participatory design research. Whereas early PD projects played out in Europe and North America, in the last decade PD has propagated to other parts of the world, with different organizational structures and politics. Moreover, in new domains, users comprise a much less well-defined groups, and instead encompass multiple cohorts of stakeholders with only partially shared interests, which challenges the PD axiom that those affected by a system should have a say in decisions related to it – indeed, what constitutes a use situation, and therefore the context of a system, becomes much harder to define. Methods The extent to which various methods are specifically PD methods has been discussed frequently, as has whether “methods” is an important area of PD research. The survey clearly demonstrates that PD researchers remain preoccupied with methods, and a thesis is that research into methods is particularly relevant in relation to the other fundamental aspects of PD, for example, the way in which a certain method enables loosely defined configurations of people to have a say in decision-making in a civic context. Questions such as how a specific method translates into a new context and how it may be used with specific constellations of people remain valid. Product One of the original aims of PD was the improvement of the quality of life of workers or users through the design of new products

or technologies. However, it is notable that PD has become concerned with improving quality of life in a broad sense. Thus, it is not so much the product of the design process itself that is in focus, but the role it plays as an alternative within a specific domain. Participation The analysis of PDC literature reveals the diversity of participation within the field of PD, and ranges from an implicit understanding to explicit statements about users driving the process forward. We have seen how the issue of participation has been defined variously, and in some instances only loosely or not at all, and have identified three approaches: participation as implicitly defined, discussing the users as full participants in the design process, and the value of mutual learning between users and designer. A major concern is the lack of clarity regarding the way in which authors define participatory design, and how it is practiced in specific design projects. Although users were undoubtedly involved in all the design projects presented, it is sometimes difficult to gauge either the motivation or the approach, and one may argue that it is crucial that researchers be more precise about users’ roles when planning design events, selecting methods, interpreting design materials, and making decisions. Reference Kim Halskov and Nicolai Brodersen Hansen. 2015. The Diversity of Participatory Design Research Practice at PDC 2002-2012. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol 74, 2015, 81-92.

Politics

People who are affected by a decision should have an opportunity to influence it.

People

People play critical roles in design by being experts in their own lives.

Context

The use situation is the fundamental starting point for the design process.

Methods

Methods are means for users to gain influence in design processes.

Product

The goal of participation is to design alternatives, improving quality of life.

Fundamental aspects of participatory design

PARTICIPATION AS A MATTER OF CONCERN IN PARTICIPATORY DESIGN Lars Bo Andersen, Peter Danholt, Kim Halskov, Nicolai Brodersen Hansen, Peter Lauritsen

Ensuring participation is complex, and participatory design (PD) practitioners are wellversed in navigating influential design constraints and complex user identities. However, although participation is part and parcel of a rich diversity of practices, little attention has been given to developing analytical resources, and conceptualizing what participation is. Accordingly, our concern is to investigate and discuss the consequences of the concept of participation when bringing together Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and PD. The purpose is not to develop a method for participation, but to use ANT as a resource for framing participation as an inherently unsettled matter of concern. Participation as a matter of concern goes against universal standards for participation and the ability to claim, as a matter of fact, what is and what is not participation. ANT provides an ontology of participation in which it is imperative to continuously investigate what constitutes and qualifies as participation in specific situations. Participation as overtaken and partially existent This article discusses and develops participation as a matter of concern through two distinct yet intimately connected ANT concepts and experiences. The first ANT concept outlines participation as overtaken, meaning that agency is always derived from many interfering sources, rather than possessed by individuals. The second concept is that participation is partially existent, implying that different forms of participation come into existence in various ways and situations, unbounded by the designer’s intention or methods.

The Teledialogue project Empirical evidence from the Teledialogue project exemplifies how participation is partially existent and overtaken. The Teledialogue aims to design an IT-enabled platform for communication between social workers and children placed in foster care or at institutions, through participatory methods such as design workshops and qualitative interviews. Through an empirical analysis focused on the children’s participation, it is evident that children’s stances on privacy are overtaken by a government body, that their participation began long before they were physically present, and that they inevitably brought with them networks of other participants. Participation as partial and overtaken presents three challenges to design: 1. Participants are not stand-alone subjects, but network configurations. There are no authentic participants representing only themselves. For instance, when children ask for more contact with social workers, when they decline the use of Skype, or insist that social workers should stay clear of their private lives, they do so through acts that are overtaken by others, that unfold through networks of relations. This necessitates increased attention to how participants are configured and mediated by reports, budgets, family, friends, designers, design activities, and so forth. Although ANT affords no possibility of unearthing authentic and unconfigured children, it provides an opportunity to analyze and evaluate how children participate, in relation to such numerous mediators. 2. Participation is not limited to designated events, but is always partially at work.

Participation does not occur only during designated design events or activities. Rather, participation becomes a partially existent aspect of the whole project, from the very first formulations to the point where the design no longer exists. In Teledialogue, the children were there from the outset, and are still part of the project. Similarly, children who are present during interviews, chat sessions, and phone calls are also present as “cases,” when designers interview social workers. 3. There is no gold standard for participation, only an imperative to account for and investigate. When participation is a matter of concern, it is not possible, a priori, to consider some forms of participation to be more authentic or ethically superior to others. And, neither is it possible to establish a dichotomy between participation and non-participation. Rather, participation is configured, and may come in many forms. Participatory design involves all sorts of different participants, such as reports, spokespersons, media accounts, drawings, statistics, and so forth. So, the scope of what may qualify as a participant is considerably broadened. But with this freedom follows the obligation to account for, legitimize, and argue for the relevance of this or that configuration of participants.

Reference Lars Bo Andersen, Peter Danholt, Kim Halskov, Nicolai Brodersen Hansen, Peter Lauritsen. 2015. Participation as a matter of concern in participatory design. CoDesign 1 (3-4), 250261.

Inspiration card for design workshop

PARTICIPATION GESTALT: ANALYSING PARTICIPATORY QUALITIES OF INTERACTION IN PUBLIC SPACE

Peter Dalsgaard, Kim Halskov, and Ole Iversen

In order to conceptualize participation, we provide a participation gestalt framework with which HCI researchers can articulate and analyze the participatory qualities of interaction with public, digital installations. We suggest five qualities of participation related to the degree of exposure, investment, expression, sociality, and persistence that unfolds in interaction. By mapping these qualities of participation, we propose that HCI researchers can articulate the participation gestalt of a public installation. We define the participation gestalt of a public, interactive system as the unified perception and experience of participatory qualities as they unfold through interaction with a system in a given socio-cultural setting. Expressivity We define expressivity as “the way and degrees to which people can convey thoughts or feelings by interacting with an installation.”  An installation may support a high degree of expressivity by offering multiple modes of expression, by allowing people to express themselves in different formats such as text, audio, video, or by using their body to express themself. In contrast, an installation that provides one or few un-nuanced means for expression will often lead to low degrees of expressivity in interaction. Expressivity in interaction also depends on people’s competence in the given medium. Investment We define investment as “the resources and effort that people commit in order to successfully engage in interaction.”

An installation may demand a high degree of investment by requiring people to commit mentally and physically to the interaction over a period of time, possibly requiring them to develop certain skills, for the interaction to be truly meaningful and successful. On the other hand, other installations require low degrees of investment, some to the extent that people may hardly notice that they are interacting, for instance tracking people moving through a public space, and using this as input for an installation. Exposure We define exposure as “the degree to which participants attract attention or are visible to other people during or after interaction with an installation.” The real or perceived exposure of people interacting with installations in public spaces may have a dramatic influence on their behavior, to the extent that it may even lead potential users to not interact at all. A crucial element with respect to exposure is whether the effect of interaction may be associated with the person causing the effect. Elements of exposure include the identity of the person interacting, and the extent to which the person is visually recognizable in the location of interaction or in other locations. Interaction with large and highly visible displays in public spaces often makes users’ actions highly exposed. At the other end of the spectrum, an instance of low exposure would be when people anonymously interact with a small-scale display, using a mobile phone.

Sociality We define sociality as “the opportunity for participants to engage with other people when interacting with an installation in a public space.” Interaction designers can address a spectrum ranging from individual to highly social interaction in public installations. Furthermore, configurations of individual and social interaction may dynamically evolve over time. An interactive installation may support individual interaction by limiting, or even preventing, the participant from engaging with other people, for instance, by restricting others from accessing the input and output of the interaction. Persistence We use persistence to mean “the time span during which the outcome of an interaction is exposed and remains accessible to others.” Participants’ ability to leave “social traces” is considered decisive for engaging in interactive public installations at a museum, for instance. A high degree of persistence will allow participants and others to retrieve the outcome of the interaction. Conversely, a low degree of persistence limits the possibility of exploring the outcome of an interaction.

Reference Peter Dalsgaard, Kim Halskov, and Ole Iversen. (2016). Participation Gestalt: Analysing Participatory Qualities of Interaction in Public Space. CHI 2016.

The participation gestalt of four installations

RELATIONAL EXPERTISE IN PARTICIPATORY DESIGN Christian Dindler and Ole Sejer Iversen

This paper positions relation expertise as a core competence of participatory design. It is an a form of expertise that demands the participatory designer to stimulate the emergence of loosely coupled knotworks, and obtain symbiotic agreement among participants, regardless of their professional and social status. We illustrate our theoretical argument for a relational expertise with a running example from a participatory design process involving an interprofessional group of participants in a project on future technology-enabled learning environments. A relational perspective Participation has become a mainstream topic and approach, reaching far beyond the participatory design (PD) discourse. In politics, institutional life, and design in general, participatory ideals and practices have gained momentum to the extent that they (in some areas) are considered the norm. No less so in the academic discourses surrounding technology design; participation is a familiar term across HCI and interaction design disciplines. So what then is left for PD? We suggest that one area in which PD can and should reach beyond internal discourse and make a strong contribution to design research more generally, is related to understanding how personal and professional relationships are a fundamental and potentially driving force in design. Moreover, we suggest that this relational perspective on design should be further articulated for the benefit of PD and other design research disciplines. In this paper we start from the perspective of interaction design, and explore how a relational

perspective, inspired by PD, may further our understanding of design processes. Relational expertise The need for a strong PD vocabulary regarding aspects of participation it greater than ever. In this paper we argue that an important part of the PD approach to participation is the result of a relational expertise that entails work with the establishment, and transformation or personal and professional relationships. This work is exercised through the designer’s appreciation of different PD methods and techniques, through workshop facilitation, recruitment, internal and external communication, and other relational aspects of design work. These elements of participation are already well-documented in PD research. However, this paper takes the articulation of the PD approach to participation a step further by offering a vocabulary for articulating the relational aspects of PD processes. As part of relational design expertise, PD practitioners continuously reflect on establishing and developing dynamic knotworks from which new design ideas emerge. They negotiate and nourish symbiotic agreements among the project partners by use of PD tools and methods, and an understanding of participants’ professional motives. Part of the PD approach to participation is the relational expertise that critically examines the engagement with the knowledge that underpins one’s practice as a designer, as well as the capacity to recognize and respond to what others might offer. We envision this paper as a first step towards positioning the qualities of PD within the plurality of

collaborative design approaches. However, more research is needed. First, we need to better understand how relational agency and the relational expertise of the designer affect the final design outcome. Second, we need to constantly improve our toolbox to accommodate the dynamics of collaborative design processes. Finally, relational expertise must find its way to design curricula as important expertise in line with functional, ethical, political, and aesthetic aspects of the design process.

Reference Christian Dindler and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2014. Relational expertise in participatory design. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1 (PDC ‘14), Vol. 1. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 41-50.

The Wisdom Well

SUSTAINING PARTICIPATORY DESIGN INITIATIVES Ole Sejer Iversen and Christian Dindler

While many participatory design (PD) projects succeed in establishing new organizational initiatives or creating technology that is attuned to the people affected, the question of how such results are sustained after the project ends remains an important challenge. We explore the challenge of sustaining PD initiatives beyond the individual project, and discuss implications for PD practice. First, based on current PD literature, we distinguish among four ideal, typical forms of sustainability: maintaining, scaling, replicating, and evolving. Second, with a case study, we demonstrate how these various forms of sustainability may be pursued in PD practice and how they may become a resource for reflecting on PD activities. Finally, we discuss implications for PD practice, suggesting that a nuanced conception of sustainability and how it may relate to PD practice are useful resources for designers and researchers before, during, and after the design processes. Sustainability in Participatory Design Participatory design has been hailed as not only a way of creating technologies that are attuned to peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs, but also as a way of changing practices and giving people a voice in technological development. Whether or not PD in general has been successful in meeting these ambitious goals is difficult to answer. It is evident that the more or less direct involvement of people, in a variety of guises, has become common practice in many public and private institutions. However, it is also the case that although the PD literature has demonstrated some success in designing technologies and

promoting democratic ideals, there are only a few studies that assess the sustainability of these results. Given that PD researchers and practitioners entertain ambitious goals that extend beyond the immediate product, the issue of sustainability is a central, albeit underdeveloped, aspect of PD. Four forms of sustainability Based on our reading of the literature on sustainability in PD and related disciplines, we suggest distinguishing among at least four ideal, typical forms in which PD initiatives are sustained: maintaining, scaling, replicating, and evolving. We suggest that these forms are to be thought of as ideal types that do not exist in their pure forms, but may serve as lenses through which we can inspect PD projects, and begin to understand how sustainability is pursued and achieved. Moreover, they are not mutually exclusive â&#x20AC;&#x201C; often, they are accumulative, in the sense that any form presupposes the prior one. These four forms of sustainability may be distinguished by looking at two parameters: the context in which the initiative is sustained, and the extent to which the initiative remains stable or is further developed, once the project ends.

Reference Ole Sejer Iversen and Christian Dindler. 2014. Sustaining participatory design initiatives, CoDesign, 10 (3-4), 2014, 153-170.

Children brainstorming with their feet

LOCAL AREA ARTWORKS AND PROXIMAGIC Clemens Klokmose, Susanne Bødker, Matthias Korn, Anne Marie Polli, and Henrik Blunck

Local Area Artworks (LAA) was a system that enabled visitors at an art exhibition to collaboratively write texts with interpretations of works of art displayed on digital panels next to the works, mediated by the visitors’ own personal devices. Local Area Artworks was deployed and ran for the duration of a month-long Easter exhibition at Kunsthal Aarhus, in Aarhus, Denmark, connected to six selected works of art. Local Area Artworks (LAA) was developed to study what is referred to as participatory IT in a semi-public space. Participatory IT denotes the use of information technology to enable participation, whether in politics, local democracy, cultural life, and so on.  In LAA, the conventional curatorial descriptions of artwork were replaced by texts on digital panels, collaboratively written and re-written by visitors during the exhibition, mediated by their personal devices. Using a novel WiFi proximity detection technique, the system detected when visitors were in close proximity to artwork, and redirected the web-browser on their personal device to the relevant, editable text. With LAA, a part of the usual curatorial activity of authoring descriptive texts associated with works of art was opened up for participation by visitors, artists, curators, staff, and so on–effectively, anyone physically present in the exhibition space. Hence, LAA made the existing interpretative role of the audience explicit and visible by enabling co-interpretation among audience members in the physical space. Fostering participation The core research idea of LAA was to explore whether the “local” aspect of a local

wireless network could be exploited to foster participation in the local, physical space. LAA embedded a number of research hypotheses that the researchers were interested in studying in an actual use context. A central idea was to use people’s personal devices as a means of participation. The hypothesis was that the use of personal devices would create a sense of familiarity, of being on home turf, and benefit from visitors’ existing skills and experiences with their devices. However, making use of personal devices may require significant effort on the part of the user, in the form of downloading and installing apps on their devices. LAA sought to foster initial engagement through a more seamless approach requiring zero installation on the user’s device. Another hypothesis was that contributions regarding local matters would flourish best when people wrote about what they immediately saw and experienced. This led us to a design requiring the physical proximity of the user to the artwork, in order to allow the editing of the associated text, thereby strengthening the coupling of the physical and digital layers. For this reason, and to minimize the amount of navigation required on the users’ behalf, LAA sought to make navigating among different works of art in the exhibition as “automagic” as possible by basing it on the user’s location in the gallery. The digital panels next to each work of art give the digital activity a physical representation in the space. Technically, LAA relied on WiFi proximity detection in mobile web applications,

based on proximity-adaptive HTTP responses (PAHR). The technique requires zero installation on users’ personal devices, and is client platform independent. Our reference implementation, ProxiMagic, is low-cost, using off-the-shelf hardware, including Raspberry Pis and low-cost network adapters, while providing robust and responsive interactivity based on proximity detection.

References Clemens Klokmose, Susanne Bødker, Matthias Korn, Anne Marie Polli: Participatory IT in semi-public spaces. 2014. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational, 765774. ACM 2014. Clemens Klokmose, Matthias Korn, and Henrik Blunck. 2014. WiFi proximity detection in mobile web applications. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems. ACM, 2014.

A snapshot of the texts from Local Area Artworks from the exhibition web site

The ProxiMagic architecture

SOCIAL INTERACTION DESIGN PATTERNS FOR URBAN MEDIA ARCHITECTURE Media architecture is an emergent field at the intersection of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), design, architecture, urban planning, art, and sociology. While the use of media technologies in architecture has a long history – exemplified by the neon signs at Times Square in New York, dating back to the 1920s – the field we know as media architecture emerged when designers and architects began to embed digital technologies, in particular displays, into the built environment. Decreasing prices of important media architecture components, such as display and sensor technologies, has led to their uptake by industry, and they are now prominent features in many cities in the world. Simultaneously, the interest in media architecture has grown in the HCI community, and in addition to a dedicated conference series, media architecture research is represented at many conferences for the field. Typical of emergent disciplines related to HCI, the initial focus of many academic contributions is on technical aspects and the potential of this novel form of interface. To the extent that social aspects of media architecture have been examined, this has primarily been done for individual installations, and not in order to examine patterns across multiple cases. From these contributions, it is clear that social aspects play a very large role in how media architecture is perceived and used, and that interaction designers working in media architecture need an understanding of both technical and social dimensions to develop successful installations.

Luke Hespanhol and Peter Dalsgaard

In this paper, we offer an overview and analysis of social interaction in media architecture through a comparison of nine representative cases from the relatively brief history of the field. We combine the findings on social interaction from each original case study, to offer two complementary contributions: first, a framework outlining six different modes of social interaction in relation to media architecture – appreciation, self-expression, playfulness, collective narratives, triangulation, and negotiation of space – and second, a set of seven social interaction design patterns for media architecture, which represent different strategies for designing media architecture to achieve specific types of social interaction – shadow playing, remote control, smooth operator, soapbox, amusement park, swarm, and automatic gate. The intended audience of this paper consists of HCI researchers working in the field of media architecture, who may employ the framework and design patterns, examine the relations between the technical and social aspects of media architecture, and categorize and analyze further installations. In addition, the social interaction design patterns may be of value to HCI practitioners, since they indicate specific strategies for developing media architecture installations.

Reference Luke Hespanhol and Peter Dalsgaard. 2015. Social Interaction Design Patterns For Urban Media Architecture. Proceedings of Interact 2015.

Social interaction design patterns in urban media architecture

WEBSTRATES: SHAREABLE DYNAMIC MEDIA Clemens Klokmose, James R. Eagan, Siemen Baader, Wendy Mackay, and Michel Beaudouin-Lafon

Alan Kay’s early vision of interactive computing saw software as an expressive medium that could be personalized, tinkered with, and shared. He called it “Personal Dynamic Media.” In his vision, children with linked Dynabooks could collaboratively tinker with a Spacewar game to make it more challenging by adding a more sophisticated form of gravity. Decades later, Mark Weiser envisioned a future of ubiquitous computing, where heterogeneous devices of varying sizes and capabilities interact easily with each other, and technology disappears into the background. He imagined that colleagues could share a virtual office and collaborate on a document, seamlessly moving between a wall-sized display and various ”tabs” and ”pads.” Today’s interactive software traps documents inside closed applications, making it difficult to truly share content, personalize applications, and work across devices. While the hardware envisioned by both Kay and Weiser has been realized today, by and large, software lags behind. Our vision, Shareable Dynamic Media, builds on Kay and Weiser’s visions. We define shareable dynamic media as collections of information substrates (or substrates, for short). Substrates are software artifacts that include content, computation, and interaction, effectively blurring the distinction between documents and applications. Shared collaborative object Webstrates (web substrates) are prototypes of shareable dynamic media that

consist of a custom web server that serves pages, called webstrates, to regular web browsers. Each webstrate is a shared collaborative object: changes to the webstrate’s Document Object Model (DOM), as well as changes to its embedded JavaScript code and CSS styles, are transparently made persistent on the server, and synchronized with all clients sharing that webstrate, using Operational Transformations.  By sharing the DOM itself, rather than some data model from which is derived the content of a web page, as most current web frameworks do, Webstrates supports a strong form of sharing that is easy to understand. Any change to the DOM, whether it is made directly by the user or through embedded code, is visible to everyone.  By also sharing embedded code, behavior typically associated with application software may also be (collaboratively) manipulated, opening the way to novel possibilities for combining content, computation, and interaction. The true power of Webstrates comes from the possibility of composing them by embedding one webstrate within another, a process called transclusion. Transclusion lets users truly share, rather than copy, content. For example, a webstrate containing editing tools may transclude a webstrate of the document being edited, creating something similar to a traditional application. Another user may use a different editor webstrate, with a different set of tools, and transclude the same content webstrate. This results in a shared editor, where each user can choose their editing tools.

We have shown that Webstrates may be used to allow users to collaborate on documents with their own personalized and extensible editors. Webstrates enable collaborative run- time extension of a user interface, for example, one user can manipulate the user interface of another remotely, and during run-time. Webstrates also make it possible to simultaneously sketch a figure on a graphics tablet, see it in a live print preview displayed on an iPad, and adjust it in a vector graphics editor on a laptop. Finally, we have shown that Webstrates may be used to easily orchestrate a complex setup for a distributed slideshow presentation that includes audience participation.

Reference Clemens Klokmose, James R. Eagan, Siemen Baader, Wendy Mackay, and Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. 2015. Webstrates: Shareable Dynamic Media. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology, pp. 280-290. ACM, 2015.

The synchronization mechanism of Webstrates

This chapter aims to introduce some concerns and issues around concepts that are arising as the field of urban interaction design emerges. It is no longer meaningful to have a complete separation between the idea of an urban plan, a building or product, a service, technology or interface, or see these in isolation. What it is we are developing constantly changes depending on use and context. What is understood and used as a product by one group is a part of the service infrastructure for another, or a tool for mapping the city for an entirely different purpose. For example, in its simplest functional form, Google maps is both a map that provides a service for the majority of its users; an application program interface (API); and a tool for a whole different group when organising political meetings, mapping urban issues, or coordinating a flash mob. The point being, is that one person's product becomes a platform or tool for others. This idea about the fluidity of products and the notion of platforms is not entirely new within each field.

URBAN INTERACTION DESIGN: TOWARDS CITY MAKING Martin Brynskov, Juan Carvajal Bermúdez, Manu Fernández, Henrik Korsgaard, Ingrid J. Mulder, Katarzyna Piskorek, Lea Rekow, and Martijn De Waal

What is Urban Interaction Design? Obviously, it has something to do with the three separate terms that make up the name of this emerging field. It is about the interaction of humans with their urban surroundings. But has that not always been the core concern of urban planners? Sure. However, what we have observed is that “the making of the city” is no longer their concern only. And, no longer do their methodologies, expertise, and theories suffice to address the complex issues of the 21st century networked city. That is why, increasingly, we see designers of all sorts, IT specialists, urban anthropologists, philosophers, HCI researchers, artists, and sociologists teaming up in coalitions that up to a few years ago were unthinkable. Why? Call it the hybrid city, the sentient city, the media city, or whatever you want: what has changed in the last decade is the rapid technologization of everyday urban life. It is through the interfaces of our mobile phones that we make sense of our surroundings, at the same time connecting the local with the global. Similarly, cities and governments have – often with the help of companies – started to collect all sorts of data about urban life, ranging from air quality to traffic congestion. Willingly or unwillingly, pervasive technologies have become part of our everyday experience. Software is now organizing urban life as much as the programs of urban designers do.

Urban Interaction Design is a field that is not just about producing services or tools that optimize urban life as it exists. An important part of it also consists of dreaming up alternative futures. The latter is of great importance. The rise of new media technologies creates opportunities for citizens to organize themselves in communities or political movements to improve their cities. At the same time, there is also the risk that this new software layer and the interactive services geared to the city will be designed or appropriated in a closed manner that excludes particular uses or groups, or will prioritize economic profit above societal benefits. What is at stake is not so much a battle between “beautiful” bottom-up and terrible top-down, between the citizens and the system, or between commercial and non-profit. Bottom-up initiatives may be exclusive or just seize resources for the benefit of their own group, bypassing democratic decision-making processes. And top-down initiatives may be aimed at improving transparency or providing

the means for projects that benefit the urban community at large. What is important is not so much the organizational structure of the project, but its rationale: in what way does the application of these new technologies serve human and societal needs? This book makes an effort to explore the newly emerging field of urban interaction design, which addresses these issues. In the first part of the book, “Foundations,” we look into its origins. Where do its practitioners come from? How are they working together? What methodologies do they bring to the table? What are the key concepts they are addressing in their work? In the second part of the book, titled “Trends,” we go into current developments in the networked city and how urban interaction design as a field addresses these. Taken together, these sections will not give the definite definition or overview of this field. But, hopefully, there is enough here to convincingly claim that the further development of the field matters. Research contributions • an analysis of five societal megatrends related to the digital transition • a research agenda for digital urban transition • case analyses Reference Martin Brynskov, Juan Carvajal Bermúdez, Manu Fernández, Henrik Korsgaard, Ingrid J. Mulder, Katarzyna Piskorek, Lea Rekow, and Martijn De Waal. 2014. Urban Interaction Design: Toward City Making, Booksprint, ISBN 978-0-9562169-1-5.

Preceding the recent resurgence in rolezinhos, the massive protests of May through August 2013 gathered its supporters largely through the Anonymous movement’s Facebook presence, which created new pages to direct people to each new protest.

The amateurs have become, in many ways, as organized as the professionals and institutions born out of the industrial age

TECH

ARTS

SMARTPHONES AND GAS MASKS —- NEW MEETS OLD IN RIOT GEAR.

For pragmatic purposes, and to indicate the general notion of clusters of traditions, we will refer to them as Society, Technology and Art. We have used these disciplinary fields to define the points on our compass that plot the key trajectories in urban interaction design. This community does

Urban Interaction Design: Towards City M

New technologies enable, and require, collaboration across traditional disciplines

SOCIETY

Trends — Amateur Professionals Reshaping Cities

This is the situation to which urban interaction design is a response. Its practition-

ers provide citizens with ways to make their everyday urban experiences more pleasurable, interesting, productive, and efficient. At the same time, they also design interfaces that help citizens to understand the salient features of the layers of the networked city, and let them organize themselves around these, in whatever matters are of concern to them. They come up with platforms that help citizens govern their cities from a public interest perspective, in collaboration with other stakeholders.

PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT Marcus Foth and Martin Brynskov

The future of civic engagement is characterized by both technological innovation and new technological user practices that are fuelled by trends towards mobile, personal devices, broadband connectivity, open data, urban interfaces, and, cloud computing. These technological trends are progressing at a rapid pace, and have led global technology vendors to package and sell the “Smart City” as a centralized service delivery platform predicted to optimize and enhance cities’ key performance indicators, and generate a profitable market. The top-down deployment of these large and proprietary technology platforms has helped sectors such as energy, transport, and healthcare to increase efficiency. However, an increasing number of scholars and commentators warn of another “IT bubble” emerging. Along with some city leaders, they argue that the top-down approach does not fit the governance dynamics and values of a liberal democracy, when applied across sectors. A thorough understanding is required, of the socio-cultural nuances of how people work, live, play across different environments, and how they employ social media and mobile devices to interact with, engage in, and constitute public realms. Although the term “slacktivism” is sometimes used to denote a watered down version of civic engagement and activism that is reduced to clicking a “Like” button and signing online petitions, we believe that we are far from witnessing another Biedermeier period that saw people focus on the domestic and the non-political. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, such as post-election violence in Kenya in 2008, the Occupy movements

in New York, Hong Kong, and elsewhere, the Arab Spring, Stuttgart 21, Fukushima, the Taksim Gezi Park in Istanbul, and the Vinegar Movement in Brazil in 2013. These examples of civic action shape the dynamics of governments, and in turn, call for new processes to be incorporated into governance structures. Participatory research into these new processes, across the triad of people, place, and technology, is a significant and timely investment for fostering productive, sustainable, and livable human habitats. With this chapter, we want to reframe the current debates in academia and the priorities of industry and government, to allow citizens and civic actors to take their rightful, central place in civic movements. This calls for new participatory approaches to co-inquiry and co-design. It is an evolving process with an explicit agenda to facilitate change, and we propose participatory action research (PAR) as an indispensable component of the journey to develop new governance infrastructures and practices for civic engagement. This chapter proposes participatory action research as a useful and fitting research paradigm to guide methodological considerations surrounding the study, design, development, and evaluation of civic technologies. We do not limit our definition of civic technologies to tools specifically designed to simply enhance government and governance, such as renewing your car registration online, or casting your vote electronically on election day. Rather, we are interested in civic media and technologies that foster citizen engagement in the widest sense, and particularly the participatory design of such civic

technologies that strive to involve citizens in political debate and action, as well as question conventional approaches to political issues. Following an outline of some underlying principles and assumptions behind participatory action research, especially as it applies to cities, we will critically review case studies to illustrate the application of this approach with a view to engendering robust, inclusive, and dynamic societies built on the principles of engaged liberal democracy. The rationale for the Participatory Action Research approach is an alternative to smart cities in a “perpetual tomorrow,” based on many weak and strong signals of civic actions revolving around technology seen today. It seeks to emphasize and direct attention to active citizenship over passive consumerism, human actors over human factors, culture over infrastructure, and prosperity over efficiency. Research contributions: • Proposes Participatory Action Research as a research paradigm • Explores civic media and technologies that foster citizen engagement in the broadest sense • Integrates an interdisciplinary methodology approach for multi-sector situations Reference Marcus Foth and Martin Brynskov. 2016. Participatory Action Research for Civic Engagement, in Gordon, E., & Mihailidis, P. (eds.), Civic Media: Technology, Design, Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

The city is a mesh of common and private spaces. New materials and codes blur the lines. (Photo: Rasmus Steengaard, Media Architecture Biennale)

CITIZEN’S RIGHT TO THE DIGITAL CITY: URBAN INTERFACES, ACTIVISM, AND PLACEMAKING

Marcus Foth, Martin Brynskov, and Timo Ojala

This book is a collective call for reclaiming the citizen’s right to the digital city. The chapters in this book offer a variety of analyses of the unique and largely untapped qualities of the digital city that we want the community of scholars interested in urban interaction design and urban informatics to further explore with us, such as their ability to reach a diversity of citizens, and the absence of automated personalization algorithms. They also offer complementary urban interfaces and civic media channels that may enable non-users of conventional social media to participate in different ways. Can city spaces help us burst the filter bubbles and break out of the echo chambers, and give us a voice? The citizen’s right to the digital city recognizes the wealth of knowledge, wisdom, and experiences collectively and privately held by each urbanite. Similarly to the way in which, in 1992, Liam Bannon called for a profound shift in attention “from human factors to human actors” in systems development, more and more commentators these days critique the established hegemony of the engineering and technology-centric epistemology embedded in any one proprietary, smart-city vision. With this book, we want to contribute to the debate that has started to consider alternative approaches, focusing on “smart citizens,” and their not only vital, but crucial participation in the city-making enterprise. People have advanced from being consumers to co-producers, from being stationary office workers to mobile urban

Cities are for citizens. Digital cities need to rethink the roles of citizens

nomads, from being passive members of the plebs to active instigators of change. Yet, interaction designers often still refer to them only as “users,” and architects and urban planners often refer to them only as “city residents” or “building occupants.” There is more to it. There is a need to focus on the “life between the systems,” with reference to Danish architect Jan Gehl’s pivotal 1971 book, “Life between buildings.” With this volume, we continue the Digital Cities series, expanding its repertoire, looking at urban interfaces, citizen action, and participatory city-making. We trust that the contributions to this book will continue the series that has been key in tracing key historic developments at the intersection of digital media and the built environment, from the information superhighway to the smart city. The Digital Cities series started in 1999, and is the longest running academic workshop series that has rigorously followed the intertwined development of cities and digital technologies. Previous years have seen papers presented at Digital Cities appear as the basis of key anthologies that we list below. The works presented at the Digital Cities workshop series have also been formative for a diverse set of emerging fields, for example, urban informatics, smart cities, pervasive computing, internet of things, media architecture, urban interaction design, and – most recently – urban science. Research contributions Case studies and theoretical perspectives from thought leaders in urban informatics and urban interaction design.

Reference Marcus Foth, Martin Brynskov and Timo Ojala (eds.) 2016. Citizen’s right to the digital city: Urban interfaces, activism, and placemaking. Springer, Singapore. ISBN 978-981-287-9196.

In a world of great challenges, cities and societies need to rally all resources

DIGITAL DESIGN LAB - DD LAB

DD Lab is a prototype facility focused on physical and tangible interaction, located at The Department of Digital Design and Information Studies at Aarhus University. It is an open space, staffed every day during the work week. It is also possible to get access beyond the opening hours, and use the facility around the clock. The primary purpose of the lab is to facilitate student access to practical approaches to physical and digital design materials, as a supplement to more theoretical knowledge acquisition. It takes its inspiration in artistic and technical practices that are key to the academic traditions of the design and architecture schools. On this foundation, DD Lab serves as a physical space and knowledge facility for conducting work on prototypes and projects, whether they be student projects or parts of research projects. In addition to the physical tools, the knowledge of the staff and the information repositories, available on the DD Lab website and Github page, are important components of the lab. Finally, workshops and other teaching activities that introduce technical and/or other relevant knowledge and skills are key to the transfer of knowledge that DD Lab aims to provide. Facilities DD Lab is equipped with tools for processing and machining a wide range of materials that are often used in prototyping. Including, but not limited to: electronic

components, wood, plastics, foam and cardboard. The tool bank consists of CNC-operated machinery such as a laser cutter, a vinyl (and other soft materials) cutter, and 3D printers, and a range of hand and electric saws, cutters, drills, and milling tools. Soldering equipment and other types of tools for electronic prototyping like spectrum analyzers, multimeters, and a (digital) oscilloscope are also available. The bank of materials available to use, borrow and/or buy in DD Lab includes a selection of electronic components, sensors and actuators, microcontrollers, computer hardware and accessories, thermoplastics and smart materials such as conductive and resistive fabrics and ink, and muscle wire. A central function of the lab is to educate and inform students and fellow university staff of the possibilities of the different materials and electronic components. Who is it for? On a daily basis, DD Lab provides a space for experimentation, and project and prototype building for bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and PhD students from the Digital Design and Information Studies study programmes. In addition, researchers from The School of Communication and Culture may use the tools in DD Lab, as well as the knowledge of the staff, when conducting research that entails the use of electronic prototyping.

Management Director: Associate professor Martin Brynskov, email: brynskov@cavi.au.dk Lab manager: Rasmus Lunding, email: rasl@dac.au.dk Web sites DD Lab website: www.ddlab.dk DD Lab Github repository: github.com/DDlabAU DD Lab Facebook page: www.facebook.com/AUDDLab

Students, researchers and artists meet and work together in the busy lab

Digital materials and a sketching attitude is the focus of the Digital Design Lab

THE CAVI LAB

CAVI is an interdisciplinary research center at Aarhus University. CAVI’s researchers primarily have backgrounds in interaction design or digital aesthetics, although some have a background in computer science. CAVI carries out research-through-design, in the sense of making design experiments aimed at gaining insight into interaction design – design process, as well as interface and use. Many of our research activities have a background in participatory design, which explains the concern for the context for which we are designing. A strong interest in exploring the design of engaging experiences is a persistent thread throughout the research. Facilities and technologies The CAVI laboratory was established in 2001, and was originally based on 3D technologies, including a 3D panorama and a virtual studio, but during recent years the CAVI platform has been expanded to include a number of mixed reality platforms, such as tangible tabletops and various kinds of pervasive computing technologies. The 3D panorama consists of a 3D cinema that seats 25–30 people. The 6.40 meter × 3.60 meter 3D stereo display provides people with the illusion of three-dimensional immersion. Furthermore, it is possible to interact in real-time, through the use of consumer devices such as the Wii controllers or custom developed interaction technology. The 3D panorama is particularly suited to displaying large-scale models in domains such as architecture, city planning, and art. The virtual studio or virtual stage set makes

it possible to use digital 3D models as sets, instead of sets made of wood, steel, cardboard, or other materials. Live recordings in a blue studio with real objects may be mixed with computerized models. The mix of real and virtual recordings may then be viewed in real-time as part of design workshops, or used to create films and video prototypes. The technology of 3D projection mapping augments a physical object by projecting digital content directly onto it – hence, giving the object a new digital layer. 3D projections rely on precise mapping of the physical spaces into which they are projected, but this is still a flexible technology, which may be adapted for different cases, installations, and purposes. Advanced 3D projection mapping may be used as a design tool, or it may be part of the design itself. Several of CAVI’s interactive tables are custom developed and allow for tangible interaction. Based on the technology of camera tracking and tags, it is possible to combine a physical object with a virtual object, or data and sound, for example. CAVI has developed the BullsEye tags and software to secure precise interaction and fast response times. The DUL Radio is a small, wireless toolkit for sketching sensor-based interaction aimed at wearable and ultra-mobile prototyping, where a fast reaction is needed, for instance when controlling sound. The board has been developed in order to balance ease-of-use (learning, setup, initialization), size, speed, flexibility and cost.

Reference Kim Halskov. 2011. CAVI - An interaction design research lab. In interactions, 18 (4) 2011, 92-95. Management Director: Professor Kim Halskov, email: halskov@cavi.au.dk Lab manager: Morten Lervig, email: lervig@cavi.au.dk Web sites cavi.au.dk digitalexperience.dk

Tangible interaction

Virtual video prototype production

CIBIS: CREATIVITY IN BLENDED INTERACTION SPACES Today, more and more forms of human activity involve a repertoire of digital devices, ranging from mobile phones to tablets and desktop computers, to electronic whiteboards and wall-sized displays. While some integration across multiple devices is supported by access to shared data, for instance via cloud computing services, more sophisticated kinds of integration that connect devices and amplify their potential are limited. As an engine for advancing research into ICT-supported creative practices, the CIBIS (Creativity in Blended Interaction Spaces) project develops and explores blended interaction spaces for supporting and developing the creative potential of young people at the high school level. The project explores the following six research areas. Blended Interaction  Blended Interaction is interaction in physical environments augmented by ICT, to blend the power of digital computing and the physical environment. Blended Interaction seeks to combine the virtues of physical and digital artifacts in a complimentary way, so that the desired properties of each are preserved. Blended Interaction Spaces bridge personal and collaborative computing. A key research question is RQ1: what kind of software infrastructure can handle a dynamic mix of personal, shared, physical and digital devices and artefacts? Individual and social activities CIBIS poses the thesis that the individual vs. social creation dichotomy is artificial: real-life creativity almost always takes place in both spheres, albeit at different

times, which CIBIS investigates by addressing research question RQ2: how can Blended Interaction Spaces facilitate seamless integration of individual creative sessions with collaborative ones, hereby allowing for ideas to travel across platforms and contextual boundaries?

provide a systematic overview of such methods, as part of a strategy to investigate RQ6: how can creativity methods be supported and/or augmented by Blended Interaction Spaces?

Creativity constraints Although constraints act as obstructions in a process by determining what cannot be done, they also give rise to new opportunities, and inspire creative breakthroughs, which leads to RQ3: what is the nature of creativity constraints and how can they be balanced and managed in a creative process? Transformation of design ideas It is generally acknowledged that sources of inspiration play a crucial role in creative processes, which leads to RQ4: how can we conceptualise the emergence of design ideas and the transformation of design ideas across devices in Blended Interaction Spaces? Generative design materials D. Schön coined the term generative metaphors, generative in the sense that they generate new perceptions, explanations, and inventions. CIBIS extends the concept to generative design materials, in order to examine RQ5: how can generative design materials, digital as well as physical, spur ideation and create momentum in a creative process? Creativity methods A number of interaction design methods support ideation and creativity. CIBIS will

International collaboration City University London, UK Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, NL Université Paris-Sud, France National partners Designit LEGO Education Aarhus TECH – Viby Academy of Talented Youth Copenhagen Business School Kirstinebjergskolen Ørestad Gymnasium Viby Gymnasium Funding The Danish Council for Strategic Research Management Project manager: Professor Kim Halskov Email: halskov@cavi.au.dk

Blended interaction space

Photo: Simon Jeppesen

FABLAB@SCHOOL.DK

Digital Fabrication in Education: Design Literacy for Children FabLab@School.dk is a three-year research project studying how children develop “design literacy” through processes of digital fabrication and ‘making’ in curriculum-based education. From our perspective, design literacy denotes a child’s ability to take a designerly stance when faced with wicked problems and dilemmas, and incorporate digital material in possible solutions. We investigate design literacy in learning processes of digital fabrication and ‘making’ through three core questions: • What are the central qualities and dynamics of design literacy for children?   • How is design literacy, as a core competence, scaffolded through iterative processes  of digital fabrication and design thinking?   • How can we develop digital materials and interactive technologies to support design literacy among children? The outcome of the study is hybrid learning environment – a FabLab@School.dk that combines elements of digital fabrication, design thinking, and collaborative ideation, for children to meet (complex) societal challenges. Aside from physical and networked spaces with fabrication technologies, FabLab@School.dk consists of a coherent set of tools, techniques, and principles of organization to scaffold the development of design literacy among children (aged 11-15).

Developing New Learning Practices through Research The study has been carried out in fifteen Danish schools (upper primary and lower secondary) in which digital fabrication and design processes are introduced to children as part of their learning practices (aged 11–15). By combining elements of Design Anthropology and Participatory Design, we integrate students, teachers, and school managers into our research and design interventions. Research results are disseminated to the schoolteachers, students, and managers who incorporate these results into their own practices, creating fifteen lighthouse FabLab@Schools for others to learn from. A customized FabLab@School master program for schoolteachers will be introduced in 2016, to develop and sustain the knowledge created, and to further disseminate research findings. FabLab@School.dk research is an interdisciplinary endeavor incorporating research in Design Thinking and Interaction Design with the latest research on child development, teaching, and Child-Computer Interaction. The research project has initiated a European research network for digital fabrication with a biannual FabLearn Europe conference, which was held in Aarhus, Denmark (2014), and will be held in Manchester, UK (2016).

Students experimenting with Makey-Makey invention kit

International collaboration Stanford University (US) University of Central Lancashire (UK) Bremen University (DE) Eindhoven University of Technology (NL) Management Project manager: Professor Ole Sejer Iversen Funding The Danish Industrial Foundation The A.P. Møller Foundation Contact Professor Ole Iversen Email: oiversen@cavi.au.dk

3D printing is used in lower secondary schools. Photo: Lars Thomsen

ORGANICITY: SMART CITIES DONE RIGHT OrganiCity is an EU project launched in January 2015. It puts people at the centre of city development and brings together three leading smart cities – Aarhus, London, and Santander – and 15 international partners. Martin Brynskov, Associate Professor at Aarhus University, is OrganiCity’s coordinator. OrganiCity is about doing smart cities in the right way – by combining citizen-driven innovation with smart city technology. And, importantly, OrganiCity is about making cities better through systematic experimentation, rather than through the search for “perfect” solutions. Earlier attempts to figure out what kinds of solutions are well-suited to cities have not worked. This has to do with the fact that cities are very complex, and that they are still largely sector based. So, OrganiCity is about making cities better through systematic experimentation, not through searching for the perfect solution. This means that OrganiCity will enable citizens – and activists, researchers, businesses and city governments – to experiment and organically grow sustainable solutions to the many challenges posed by working with systems and cities. All in all, OrganiCity offers the framework to make experiments in the cities, and it is one of the world’s most ambitious attempts to do so. Co-creation and technological building blocks Aarhus, Santander, and London, the project’s three OrganiCities and experimentation hubs, are all mature smart cities, but

represent very different types of cities, culturally, organizationally, technically, and size-wise. In other words, if OrganiCity succeeds in finding a way of experimenting that works in all three cities, we will be able to make it work in many, many places. This is important not least because one of the project’s goals is to connect with new cities, to help enable other cities engage in systematic experimentation using the OrganiCity tools. The Aarhus Cluster features Aarhus University, the Alexandra Institute, and the City of Aarhus. Each of the three current OrganiCities will launch the first of two open calls early in 2016, inviting citizens, companies, and anyone else to conduct to preliminary experiments, or to start preparing for upcoming experiments. Because the project considers citizen involvement and co-creation, and technological solutions to be equally important elements of city development, it is mandatory to form partnerships and secure co-creation, in order to receive funding. This is all to make sure that the experiments and projects that are supported by OrganiCity, are actually anchored in society, and accepted by the citizens whose cities they aim to improve. Another mandatory element for experimenters receiving funding is working with some of the building blocks that OrganiCity offers. The OrganiCity facility includes datasets provided by Open Data Aarhus and Open Data Denmark, and the so-called DUL radio, a small device developed at Aarhus University that enables people to conduct plug’n’play sensor experiments.

Beside the three OrganiCities, London, Aarhus and Santander, the project involves 15 consortium partners with very different forms of competence and experience. The second open call will be in 2017. Read more on www.organicity.eu

International collaboration Intel, UK Future Cities Catapult, UK Imperial College London, UK Luleå Technical University, Sweden University of Lübeck, Germany IAAC - Institute of Advanced Architecture of Catalunya Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives, France University of Cantabria, Spain Santander Municipality, Spain Computer Technology Institue, Greece TST Sistemas, Spain University of Melbourne, Australia Management Coordinator: Associate Professor Martin Brynskov Funding EU Horizon 2020 LEIT-ICT-11 (€ 7.2m) Contact Associate Professor Martin Brynskov Email: brynskov@dac.au.dk

Fifteen partners are needed to put together the many pieces of the Experimentationas-a-Service facility

OrganiCity is creating new hybrid network infrastructures, with incentives tuned to collaboration and sustainability

PARTNERS AND FUNDING International partners Bremen University, Germany City University London, UK Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives, France Computer Technology Institue, Greece Eindhoven University of Technology, NL Future Cities Catapult, UK IAAC - Institute of Advanced Architecture of Catalunya, Spain Imperial College London, UK Intel, UK Luleå Technical University, Sweden Media architecture institute, Austria Santander Municipality, Spain Stanford University, US TST Sistemas, Spain Université Paris-Sud, France University of Cantabria, Spain University of Central Lancashire, UK University of Lübeck, Germany University of Melbourne, Australia Funding CIBIS: The Danish Council for Strategic Research (DKK 16m) FabLab@School: The A.P. Møller Foundation (DKK 5.7m) FabLab@School: The Danish Industrial Foundation (DKK 3.0m) OrganiCity: EU Horizon 2020 LEIT-ICT-11 (€ 7.2m) TEKNE: Capital of Culture Aarhus 2017 (DKK 1.6m)

National partners 3XN Aarhus Municipality Aarhus TECH – Viby Academy of Talented Youth Alexandra Institute BIG Capital of Culture Aarhus 2017 Copenhagen Business School Danish Business Authority Designit Dokk1 Invest in Denmark Kirstinebjergskolen Kollision Kunsthal Aarhus LEGO Education LEGO System A/S Martin Professional MMeX Meaning Making Experience Moesgård Museum Roskilde Library Silkeborg Municipality Vejle Municipality VIA University College Viby Gymnasium Ørestad Gymnasium

PEOPLE Professors Kim Halskov, halskov@cavi.au.dk Ole Sejer Iversen, oiversen@cavi.au.dk Associate professors Christian Dindler, dindler@cavi.au.dk Clemens Nylandsted Klokmose, clemens@cavi.au.dk Martin Brynskov, brynskov@cavi.au.dk Peter Dalsgaard, dalsgaard@cavi.au.dk Assistant professors and postdoc researchers Adriënne Heijnen, ahe@dac.au.dk Ditte Amund Basballe, basballe@cavi.au.dk Graham Dove, graham.dove@dac.au.dk Michael Mose Biskjaer, mmb@cavi.au.dk Nicolai Brodersen Hansen, nbhansen@cavi.au.dk Rachel Charlotte Smith, rsmith@cavi.au.dk PhD students Kasper Skov Christensen, ksc@dac.au.dk Lasse Steenbock Vestergaard, lasse.vestergaard@alexandra.dk Mikkel Hjorth, mh@cavi.au.dk Nanna Inie, inie@cavi.au.dk Peter Lau Torst Nielsen, peter.nielsen@dac.au.dk Stig Møller Hansen, smh@dmjx.dk Thomas Hvid Spangsberg, tbhs@dac.au.dk CAVI technical staff Janus Bager Kristensen, software developer, jbk@cavi.au.dk Jonas Petersen, 3D interaction designer, jonas@cavi.au.dk Louise Balslev, demo pilot, balslev@cavi.au.dk Malte Erslev, demo pilot, stavning@cavi.au.dk Morten Lervig, production management, lervig@cavi.au.dk Peter Friis-Nielsen, engineer, friis@cavi.au.dk Rolf Bagge, software developer, rolf@cavi.au.dk Digital Design Lab technical staff Esben Hardenberg, esbenh@dac.au.dk Mark Moore, moore@dac.au.dk Rasmus Lunding, rasl@dac.au.dk

INTERACTION DESIGN www.InteractionDesign.au.dk

Department of Digital Design and Information Studies Aarhus University, Denmark

CAVI