Juncture: Supporting exploratory endeavors through a dialogue with interactive architecture

Juncture -

supporting exploratory endeavors through a dialogue

with interactive architecture

Miha Žgank

Interaction Design

One-year Master’s Programme 15 etcs

Spring semester 2020

supporting exploratory endeavors through a

dialogue with interactive architecture

Miha Žgank

Thesis project 1 | Interaction design Master’s programme | Malmö University, 2020

3

abs

trac

t

0.0

T

he way people inhabit a built space is being challenged in the Information Era. This thesis examines how interaction design could provide alternative ways of addressing the needs and activities of users of a built space that is traditionally in the domain of architecture. Through theoretical analysis and close examination of related contemporary practical examples, it re-examines interactive architecture and how it could support the exploratory activities of visitors of public buildings. Sketching, prototyping and contextual design methods are used to iterate between different possibilities of the physical and digital materiality and also to examine the experience of the users in the proposed context. Critical reflections between different phases of the design process lead to the development of Juncture, a design concept of an interactive architectural artefact that allows users to explore the physical space of a library.

4

0.0

li st o f co n ten ts

03

0 |

abstract

05

1 |

introduction

1 . 1 |scope of the research and the research question

08

2 |

theoretical background

2 . 1 |interactive architecture

2 . 2 | the notion of interactivity in interactive architecture 2 . 3 | the kinetic counterpart

2 . 4 | ubiquitous computing and calm technology

2 . 5 | implications of embodied interaction

14

3 |

relevant works

3 . 1 |Ada: the intelligent room 3 . 2 | Bubbles

3 . 3 | Túnel

3 . 4 | Liquid space 6.0. 3 . 5 | Living, breathing wall

19

4 |

methodology

4 . 1 | research through design

4 . 2 | research by iterative sketching and prototyping 4 . 3 | contextual design

4 . 4 | contextual inquiry

4 . 5 | other methods related to contextual inquiry 4 . 6 | moving into the design process

23

5 |

design process

5 . 1 | exploring the qualities and behavior of kinetic spatial elements

5 . 2 | considering the digital material

5 . 3 | how to detect and convey the presence of occupants in the physical space 5 . 4 | exploring the notion of interactivity

5 . 5 | contextualizing the design

5 . 6 | spatial analysis and comparison

5 . 7 | context immersion

5 . 7 | context evaluation with participants 5 . 8 | design phase conclusions

37

6 |

concept development and results

6 . 1 | stakeholders and the spatial setting

6 . 2 | the design concept

6 . 3 | evaluation and critical reflection

43

7 |

discussion

7 . 1 | the design concept

7 . 2 | addressing the research question 7 . 3 | methodology and design process 7 . 4 | future works

46

8 |

conclusion

47

references

50

appendix

5

in tr o d uc tio n

1.0

T

he topic addressed in this thesis is positioned in the intersection of the fields of interaction design and architecture. Generally, it dwells on the implications of the notion of interactive architecture as a category in which the reciprocity of interaction design and architecture can be explored. To better understand the implications of the relationship between the two disciplines which deal with “ontologically different matters - a physical and a digital one” (Wiberg, 2015) (Wiltse & Stolterman, 2010).

Even though this separation exists in the fields, they also share mutual preoccupations. Architecture as a discipline is concerned with designing the physical space which serves as the canvas where our lives unfold and as such supports our activities and routines as well as our mutual social engagement. Interaction design addresses this as well, it shares the concern for the support of people’s activities, their flow, sharing of information etc. Even though this might be achieved through different means - namely designed artefacts. This common ground of interest in the two fields is something which continually presents an important consideration - as the technological advances and the exploration of the so-called digital materiality (Jung & Stolterman, 2011) enables interaction design to be introduced into the architectural domain of physical space. As architecture is being challenged in this age of information technology to reconcile its limitations through digital technologies (Bullivant, 2005), interaction design provides understanding and guidance how to do so. Digital materiality presents a new point of departure in architectural design as it can be treated as a new kind of architectural element, one that ultimately expands the role of architecture from a kind of

static frame of our lives to a more active one. This enables a very different interactive experience for the people and the design practices of interaction design has the ability to supplement endeavours of introducing digital technologies into our built space. At this intersection of the two fields an important shift can be made in the way we expand the concern of both disciplines - through interaction design architecture can reach beyond the concern with the physical aspects of its design and vice versa - interaction design steps even further into the domain of designing in the physical space.

The implications that interaction design has on architecture can be also to reconcile the gradual push of our social lives and activities into the digital space. The advancement of technology and process of embedding it more into our lives has continually been a cause for concern in architecture. As our lives shift gradually from the physical into the digital spaces, a concern has emerged as to what end will this trend continue and whether it is downplaying the role of architecture as the frame facilitating our everydayness. It seems the digital culture might present a threat to the materiality which architecture works with. However McCollough (2004) concludes that interaction design in the context of the physical space reinforces this materiality - recognizing its different potentials through supplementing it with the digital material, not replacing it.

To renegotiate the physical space as the primary canvas of our everyday lives, the different needs of people in inhabiting the physical space need to be considered. And further, need to be addressed through enhancement of the physical space with computational technology. In this thesis this kind of elevated role of the physical space through

6

in tr o d uc tio n

1.0 - 1.1

embedded computation is considered in the capacity of providing unseen contextual data to the people. It explores how people could gather certain information about the space they inhabit which they otherwise wouldn’t have the access to. In the following explorations such information pertains generally to the presence of other individuals in a spatial setting - a public building. In such a space we are mostly unaware of the presence of others due to the factors like the large scale of the space, an articulated spatial plan and general opaqueness of the built space. However the introduction of computational technology enables us to bridge this gap of conveying our presence over geographical distance. Such information could directly benefit an individual in different capacities. One of them is to more easily adjust our movement in space, to be able decide where and if we want to go, find vacant spaces and general wayfinding. To be able to assess the state of the context and adjust their own actions accordingly. This extends the usual way in which people might navigate the space and introduce different kinds of information into the act of exploring. Architecture usually relies on different visual communication to convey some information about how the space is arranged. However, the computational technology enables us to convey a greater variety of information, many of which are different and more complex to what the users might observe with their own senses.

Another implication of using such a method to navigate a space is that it speaks to the individual one’s needs - most of the time solutions that guide us in space are generalized, there are no distinctions between how individuals’ needs might be considered. And such technology also enables to portray this information in ways that go beyond the two dimensions associated

with graphical user interfaces. Gülstrom (2010) establishes a term referred to as “mediated space” which could be defined as a spatial artefact that exists in an architectural setting and possesses the ability to mediate the presence of people over distance. To communicate information regarding a person’s presence through the means of spatial adaptation. The use of such spaces poses the potential to address the individual and their needs, a certain amount of personalization of conveyed information might be achieved.

This notion of conveying information through the physical space itself rather of relying on certain screen based devices also speak to the principles of ubiquitous computing and calm technology (Weiser, 1995) which pertain to people’s awareness when engaging with technology. When we embed computers into the physical space there is the possibility to challenge how people interact with technology and change their perception of this engagement. This involvement with technology can thus exist more in the periphery of our attention rather than taking it at will. As the screen based devices might do today. In the context of interactive architecture this means that the role of the physical space itself as the frame for our everyday lives can be renegotiated and reaffirmed further.

1.1

|

scope of the research and the

research question

I

n this thesis a development of a design case is proposed that explores the convergence of interaction design and architecture to address a certain contextual situation. Specifically, it explores the implications of interactive architecture in a setting of a public building, a space where a need

7

in tr o d uc tio n

1.1

might emerge among the users to be aware of some contextual information that they normally wouldn’t be able to see. Such information in the scope of this thesis pertains to the presence of users in a space, to explore how this information can be portrayed among the users through means of an interactive spatial artefact. And to further examine if such information could aid the users for the purpose of finding their way in a spatial setting, in other words, to support their exploratory activities. To guide the design process and establish a viable outcome of the design project a research question is proposed that would address the presented field of inquiry:

The question encompasses several terms, or rather subquestions, which are to be addressed in order to provide a valid answer. Most notably: What are the implications of the separate disciplines of interaction design and architecture in their convergence in the field of interactive architecture? What does the notion of interaction mean in the scope of interactive architecture? Also, defining and considering the context of a specific public building is necessary. How does the context of a certain public building come into play when incorporating interactive architecture? And to further dwell on the portrayal of the occupancy of the building space. How can interactive architecture portray contextual information which is usually unseen by users of a building, such as the presence of other people? And: How can portrayal of such information through interactive architecture support the exploratory endeavours of the users? These terms and questions are addressed through theoretical and practical explorations, using a selected methodological approach to establish valid conclusions to the presented question.

How can interactive architecture inform and support public building visitors’ actions of

ex-ploring the building space by portraying information about the presence of other occupants?

8

th eo ret ic al b ac kg ro un d

2.1

2

| theoretical background

2.1

|

interactive architecture

T

he notion of interactive architecture is rooted in the history of the development of cybernetics (Wiener 1948) as the science of developing automated control and communication systems. It began as an interdisciplinary exploration in the 60’s where computer engineers and artists such as Gordon Pask created large scale spatial kinetic sculptures which would interact with their observers. Early intentions of such projects might have been solely to produce intrigue among users, however it inadvertently posed the basis for challenging our understanding of the spaces we inhabit. To present the possibility of a dialogue between the users and their physical environment, a sense of involvement and control. Such multifaceted endeavors lead to further interest in the development of physical interactive environments in the following decades. Architects sought to implement new technology into buildings in order for them to become more attuned to facilitating the needs of their inhabitants and to give the users a certain amount of command over their environment. One of such pioneers was Cedric Price, a British architect who drew heavily

on the work of Pask in introducing the cybernetic into architectural space. Price acknowledged time as a fourth spatial dimension (Matthews, 2005) that enables the possible dynamic qualities of the three basic physical spatial dimensions. This enables the architecture a degree of temporal transformation, to adapt and offer the possibility for spatial rearrangement. This is visible in his project named Fun Palace, a hypothetical architectural project designed by Price and his collaborators in the mid-60’s. It challenges the notion of what architecture is, as the project did not foresee a conventional building but rather a frame that could adapt and transform to ever changing needs of its users as “an environment that is continually interacting and responding to people” (Matthews, 2005, p.75). Through the introduction of cybernetics and information

Figure 2.1: Gordon Pask: The Colloquy of Mobiles. A reactive, educable, computer-based system composed of five mobiles. Early explorations in spatial structures embedded with technology to induce artefact behavior.

(source: hhttp://www.medienkunstnetz.de/assets/img/data/3760/full.jpg)

Figure 2.2: Cedric Price: The Fun Palace. An experiment in adaptive architecture embedded with intelligent technology. A perspective drawing and schematic representation below

9

th eo ret ic al b ac kg ro un d

2.1 - 2.2

technology, a space that is reprogrammable could be created, a space that possesses the ability of temporal change, to adapt to constantly shifting needs of the occupants in the short term. But also a space that can be reinvented according to the social, cultural and economic changes in the long term (Fox & Kemp, 2009).

In the recent past the interest in interactive architecture has resurfaced in the light of technological advances and academic affirmation of interdisciplinary approaches in design. The view on interactive architecture emerged as a one that constitutes embedded computation (intelligence) and a physical counterpart (kinetics). The notion of intelligence in the context of the physical environment produced the term of “smart environments” all with the purpose to enhance ordinary activities (Mozer, 2005). Today the renewed interest in adaptable architecture is mainly driven by the possibilities that technology brings into the change in patterns of human interaction with the computationally embedded built environment. Challenging the possibilities that are concerned with sustainability, social and urban change etc.

These far reaching possibilities and implications of embedded intelligence in the physical space might not be what the term of interactive architecture might suggest. Clear terminology of the term is to be determined more precisely. It is sometimes used to refer to different installations, structures, buildings that are embedded with computational technology. It is sometimes used interchangeably with the terms such as intelligent, responsive environments, smart architecture and soft space (Yiannoudes, 2016). The common denominator when taking a closer look at the projects that fall into these categories is that they converge

architectural design and ubiquitous computing to achieve spatial adaptability. Interactivity in this capacity denotes a dynamic quality in architecture that implies ambient or spatial change in the built form. However interactivity which is suggested in the scope of interaction design is somewhat lacking. As Tomasz Jaśkiewicz (2013) suggests: “It can be generally postulated that interactive

architecture does not yet exist”. Referencing the

inherent lack of conceptual clarity of interactivity in the current definition of interactive architecture.

2.2

|

the notion of interactivity in

interactive architecture

A

s stated in the previous chapter the notion of interaction in the context of interactive architecture is today used almost interchangeably to describe two separate actions. A linear, one-directional responsive system which operates on the principle that an action causes a change or reaction in the built space. And a bi-directional communication between two active parties, people and the built space. The first one however does not constitute grounds for interaction as it merely introduces reacting to a variety of stimuli which might cause this action. Fox and Kemp (2013) refer to Usman Haque (2006) who states that interactive architectural spaces are a two way street:”...systems must utilize a definition of

interaction as circular, or they are merely reacting and not interacting. A truly interactive system is a multiple-loop system in which one enters into a conversation: a continual and constructive information exchange. As people interact with architecture, they should not be thought of as users but instead as participants.” As a guide to challenge

the meaning of interactivity in an architectural setting the following passage by Douglas Adams

10

th eo ret ic al b ac kg ro un d

2.2 - 2.3

(1978) as referred by Haque (2006) posed grounds for conteplation over the matter:

“I go up”, said the elevator, “or down.” “Good,” said Zaphod, “We’re going up.” “Or down,” the elevator reminded him.

“Yeah, OK, up please.” There was a moment of silence. “Down’s very nice,” suggested the elevator hopefully. “Oh yeah?” “Super.” “Good,” said Zaphod, “now will you take us up?”

“May I ask you,” inquired the elevator in its sweetest, most reasonable voice, “if you’ve considered all the possibilities that down might offer you?”

It can be observed that a kind of dialogue emerges between inhabitants and the built system, even though banal, the exchange of information in two ways is present. It challenges the conceptual perception between the terms reactive and interactive. And that equalizing these two terms in the scope of interactive architecture can lead to the loss of conceptual ground (Yiannoudes, 2016). This aspect of two separate meanings of the notion of interactivity has been observed and addressed by different research groups dealing in interactive architecture. Oosterhuis (2007) addresses this in a similar way stating that interactive architecture is not simply architecture which adapts and responds to changing circumstances but is “first

defined as the art of building relationships…”

Where the actions between the participants and the changing physical space inform each other and form a kind of dialogue between the involved. A dialogical process that involves proactivity and could also include the aspect of learning through the experience of engaging.

In the scope of this thesis the notion of interaction is addressed in the capacity which addresses the interactivity as a bi-derectional communication

between the space and the participants. Where a more active participatory role is prescribed to the involved - be it the human participants or the physical space itself.

2.3

|

the kinetic counterpart

I

nteractive architecture introduces computing into the architectural space where the gathering of contextual information causes changes in the space itself. These changes can be different - they range from ambiental changes such as sound and light to the change in the physical space itself associated with movement. This dynamic shift in the materiality of the built fabric is referred to as kinetic architecture (Zuk & Clarke, 1970). This notion of kinetic in the built space was a topic of research for several research groups where similar definitions of kinetic elements were developed are presented. Most notably by Fox & Yeh (2000):

“...buildings or building components, with variable

Figure 2.3: Muscle tower - a reactive kinetic spatial artefact made by the Hyperbody research group at TU Delft, 2004

11

th eo ret ic al b ac kg ro un d

2.3 - 2.4

location or mobility and/or variable geometry or movement.” (Fox & Yeh, 2000, p.2)

The common property of these kinetic elements is that they possess the ability of movement, where their morphology is transformable according to some demand. This dynamic motion in space allows transformability of objects and allows the shift in architecture from a static to a fluid, changeable and dynamic backdrop that can facilitate ever changing modes of life (Fox & Kemp 2009). Zuk & Clark (1970) also address this capability of the kinetic elements to respond to a set of pressures. Which could be defined as functional, social or environmental factors that influence the kinetic movement of these elements. The introduction of this ability to change and adapt has many implications for the architectural space, most notably aesthetic and performance wise. Usual capacity in which kinetic elements in architecture are applied today mostly concerns environmental changes and is related to sustainable building behavior. Other roles include changing spatial settings to accommodate different needs of the users. A kind of flexible space that can adapt to offer the possibilities for different uses.

However, the seldom explored role of interactive kinetic architecture is one of sharing unseen contextual information for the reason of supporting occupants in buildings and their activities The role the dynamic spatial changes might have in enhancing the user experience of appropriating the space. The concern of the thesis is exploring this role and to envision how it might be utilized. How the contextual information is detected and further portrayed by kinetic elements is one of the key aspects when conceptualizing the project.

2.4

|

ubiquitous computing and calm

technology

T

o examine how computational technology comes into play in interactive architecture the term of ubiquitous computing and calm technology need to be considered.

The notion of calm technology was proposed by researchers at the Xerox PARC Mark Weiser and John Seely in their seminal paper named Designing Calm Technology (Weiser & Brown, 1995). The term builds on a previously proposed notion of ubiquitous computing as the third wave in computing development (Case, 2015). In this wave a shift from personal computing where each individual is engaged by a personal device is proposed to a one where the internet would enable a widespread connection of devices. Where users can engage with many computational devices and systems at the same time in the course of conducting everyday activities and not necessarily even be aware of doing so. As Weiser (1995) describes this as “the age of calm technology, when

technology recedes into the background of our lives.”

Figure 2.4: Waves of computing, inspired by Mark Weiser and John Seely Brown’s three phases of computing in “The Coming Age of Calm Technology,” Xerox PARC, 1996

12

th eo ret ic al b ac kg ro un d

2.4 - 2.5

We can further associate this with the term the Internet of things which represents a network of devices. Calm technology addresses ubiquitous computing as grounds for enabling a simpler and less complex way of engagement for the users of new technologies. In this way the engagement with the technology can remain in the periphery of users attention, drawing it only when needed. As Weiser and Brown (1995) put it, the implications of such calm design could be more far reaching. The change in the way we interact with technology that could push mediated information from our focus into the periphery presents the opportunity to open up the social interactions among ourselves: “As we learn to design calm technology,

we will enrich not only our space of artifacts, but also our opportunities for being with other people.”

(Weiser, 1995, p. 85).

In this way calm technology becomes relevant in the context of interactive architecture. Our built environment serves as the frame that facilitates our daily activities, routines and mutual social engagement. It is in itself in the periphery of our focus to serve as a non-intrusive canvas where our lives unfold. Principles of calm technology (Case, 2015) can be applied to our physical space when embedded with computational technology to maintain this aspect. Some of these principles of calm technology include the said reduction on requiring attention - to communicate and create ambient awareness through different senses. To convey information without overburdening the user. An important principle is the aspect that technology should not impede our lives when it fails, our built space should retain its ability to facilitate our routines and activities even when the embedded technologies cease to operate. Still the main principle is that in the architectural context of our built environment calm technology remains

in the periphery of our attention. In this way it can not only maintain the social functions of the built spaces but supplement them in a considerate way.

2.5

|

implications of embodied

interaction

T

he notion of ubiquitous computing described previously speaks to a shift in introducing computational technology beyond screen based devices. This extends the domain of such technology, increasingly into the physical space as well, expanding the context in which computational technology is harnessed. The implications of this shift from interaction with screen based devices to physical artefacts embedded with computation technology has been a point of interest in the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) community as it introduces new ways of interaction with computers. This approach of interacting with digital artefacts that occupy our real world is introduced by Paul Dourish (2004) in his embodied interaction theory. By grounding his ideas in the philosophical discipline of phenomenology, he dwells on the embodied experience as one that involves inhabitation of both a physical and social reality. Embodiment as being physically embedded in the world and actively participating within it is necessary to create meaning, and to further share it with the world, or as he argues: “embodiment is the property

of our engagement with the world that allows us to make it meaningful.” (Dourish, 2004, p.126).

Implying that the embodied view on interaction defines the way we think and reason about the world we inhabit. This experiential quality of sense making that embodied interaction introduces is an important quality to consider in the context of interactive architecture. Firstly, because

13

th eo ret ic al b ac kg ro un d

2.5

the field is foremost driven by introduction of technological novelty rather than the explorations of the perceived experience of the people when engaged in the interaction with physical artefacts embedded with computational technology. Secondly, the discipline of architecture as a part of interactive architecture lacks interaction-based thinking (Jäger, 2017). Being mostly preoccupied with physical materiality and how it is experienced is the key point of departure in architectural design, things that mostly speak to the visual sense (Jäger, 2017). There have been arguments to expand the considerations in architectural design beyond the visually perceived ones. Most notably so by Juhani Pallasmaa (2005, 2009) who explores the phenomenological experience of inhabiting architectural space through a wider lens than the one provided by our visual sense. However, such an approach does not include the notion of interaction. In other words, it does not cater to the adaptive architectural space, but rather to a static one. It is thus important to consider the implications of embodied interaction when talking about interactive architecture. To introduce a greater phenomenological account of the perceived experience of architectural space when embedded with computational technology.

14

rel at ed w o rk s

3.1

3

| related works

3.1

|

Ada: the intelligent room

A

da is an intelligent room, an interactive physical space that provides an immersive and multimodal experience. It was developed for Expo 2, the Swiss national exhibition in 2004, by an interdisciplinary team of researchers at ETH Zürich in Switzerland. Ada can be treated as an artificial organism which has the ability to interact and communicate with the visitors and was programmed according to contemporary knowledge in neuroinformatics. The purpose of the project was to start an ongoing debate in implementing computational technology into the physical space and consequently into the future society. (Bullivant, 2005).

The project of Ada relies on real time interactions with the occupants of the space, as a functional creature it balances visitor density and flow. It can identify different groups and track and guide them, it also provides a playful experience where users can evoke a response in the space itself. Through sensors Ada can detect each individual

who enters the space and narrates their presence through lights embedded in the floor. Using lights and sounds Ada can communicate to the users, test their responsiveness to visual cues. It can also mimic users’ behavior, internalize their movements and reproduce them. A wide range of possible interactions with Ada provides an immersive experience in the physical space that creates a sense of ever present intelligence in the environment. Through the time Ada was deployed, the repertoire of the possible artifact behavior grew as new ways of interacting with Ada evolved.

This project is relevant to the development of the thesis in several key ways. Through embedded computational technology it allows the space itself to be engaged into a dialogue with the users. It expands the role of the physical space from the facilitator of social scenarios to an almost equal participant. This arguably creates a more holistic understanding of the space that users occupy. Even though the material physicality of the space

Figure 3.1: ADA: the intelligent room

(source: https://www.playart.org/gallery/photoGallery/2237_1402059587_61_orig.jpg)

Figure 3.2: ADA: the intelligent room

(source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/View-of-the-Ada-the-intelligent-space-exhibi-tion-The-interactive-inside-out-robot_fig3_328897422)

15

rel at ed w o rk s

3.1 - 3.2

doesn’t change in Ada (the spatial structure is still static), it introduces temporality through light and sound. But most importantly it addresses the key notions of interactive architecture. To extend and renegotiate the roles of the physical space we inhabit through means of embedding computational technology.

3.2

|

Bubbles

T

he project titled Bubbles developed by Michael Fox and Juintow Lin in 2007 is an interactive spatial installation that addresses public urban space. It was exhibited as a part of the Center for Architecture and Landscape Research in Los Angeles, California. The installation consists of 16 large pneumatic inflatable structures which articulate an open public space. The users can actively engage with these inflatable structures, their presence and physical contact deflates the structure to create larger open spaces where social interplay between people can happen and the space becomes much more easily navigable. The structures are gradually inflated again when occupants of the space are no longer present and engaging with them.

The project was created to explore interactive architecture behavior on a level that goes beyond just automatic response and adaptation. (Fox, 2010) To explore a dialogue between the users and the space, where the space doesn’t merely react to the presence of the users, but the users could engage with the space. Where the space takes on a more human like behavior through the information exchange between itself and the user. When the occupants are presented with the opportunity to actively engage with their environment and adapt it themselves rather than

the environment changing autonomously and automatically as a response to some processing of external information. As an immersive space it has the ability to narrate and facilitate the changing social conditions (Yiannoudes, 2016).

The project was relevant to the development of the thesis design project as to explore the notion of interactive in interactive architecture. It doesn’t present this term as a one-way cause and effect where the space merely adapts and reacts but as a dialectic process between user and the physical space. Where the space is informed by the user

Figure 3.3: Bubbles as an urban intervention

(source: https-//foxlin.com/portfolio_item/bubbles/.jpg)

Figure 3.4: Bubbles

16

rel at ed w o rk s

3.2 - 3.3

and vice versa. Architecture thus plays a more active role, possibly suggesting different kinds of uses for its occupants as they learn to engage with the space.

3.3

|

Túnel

P

roject Túnel by Cantoni Crescenti built in 2013 is an immersive interactive architectural space. It is a longitudinal tunnel structure made of 94 steel frame porticos which visitors can enter and move through. Each frame that makes up the tunnel is individually movable and behaves according to users engagement within the space of the tunnel. The installation responds to the occupants, their position in the tunnel and weight of the visitors, redefining its interior accordingly. Many visitors can engage with the structure simultaneously, their actions informing and affecting each other.

The induced artefact behavior however doesn’t just affect the people engaging with the artifact. Outside observers are affected by the installation as well, as its movement causes ambiental changes in light to the outside. This not only creates a dialogue between the occupants and the artefact, but between all the people - the ones on the outside and the ones outside. The engagement with the artefact informs the outside observers of their presence.

The project explores some specific spatial situations that translate the architectural use to an abstract expression to the outside observer. This establishes a kind of dialogue between different users - ones that engage with the structure and the ones that are observers. Becoming willingly or unwillingly introduced into the changing architectural space as active participants or outside observers. In the role of the letter this can serve as a point of establishing meaning from the users engaging with the interactive space. This ability to observe the workings of the artefact provides them with knowledge on what the behavior of the artefact is, and how it might be engaged with. To deduct conclusions to how the interactive space works from its seemingly abstract behavior.

Figure 3.5: Tunel

(source: https://www.designboom.com/art/cantoni-crescenti-tunel-tunnel/)

Figure 3.6: Tunel

(source: http://cantoni-crescenti.squarespace.com/tunnel-sketches/single-gallery/10315312?-originalSize=true)

17

rel at ed w o rk s

3.4 - 3.5

3.4

|

Liquid space 6.0

I

nstallation Liquid space was built by the Dutch artist and innovator Daan Roosegaarde as a way to research interactive architecture. Liquid space is a series of explorations of spatial structures that physically adapt to the occupants, detecting their sounds and motions. It engages with visitors through use of mechanisms, embedded electronics, sounds and lights. The emphasis is placed in exploring the dialogue with the users, to envision an architectural structure beyond its static definition. To embed it with capabilities of adaptation and communication according to the presence of visitors. The space becomes bigger, smaller, brighter in relation to the behavior of the visitors.

As with the other reference projects shown, the relevance of the project lies in the ability to establish a reciprocal relationship between people and the space they inhabit. To move beyond the static role of the space to a one that has the ability to create varied scenarios according to users needs and inputs. To facilitate a variety of social scenarios, where the structure itself is engaged in an equally active role as other participants. The use of different variety of input and output methods can be observed which points to the fact that our presence in the physical space can be detected and mediated in a variety of ways. And that our presence can affect the temporal behavior of the space in extended ways that are not just audio - visual such as in the project of Ada the intelligent room. Movement of the spatial elements is introduced that changes the physical space itself. That doesn’t just inform the people that engage with the artefact but also influences the way they move and engage with the space

with their bodies as a whole. A more tangible interaction arguably facilitates a greater sense of immersion into the environment they occupy. And provides a greater understanding of their role and ability when interacting with the artifact.

3.5

|

Living, breathing wall

T

he project is a movable wall that reacts and behaves according to spoken words. It was developed by Benhaz Farahi in 2013 in the attempt to create a space which could develop an understanding of their occupants and respond accordingly. The behavior of the artefact is facilitated by an interactive kinetic wall, made of a flexible textile material that takes on different

Figure 3.7: Liquid space 6.0

18

rel at ed w o rk s

3.5

shapes in accordance with speech recognition from the users. The main focus of the installation is to explore the relationship between materials, form and interactions between the users and the system. A kind of exploration into the connections between the physical and digital material. In a sense this embedded computation creates a kind of a living organism cable to adapt and react to human input.

The relevance of the project lies in the exploratory qualities of creating a dynamic spatial experience for the user. Through establishing a predefined repertoire of behavioral expressions which users can discover and recall. Even though it is an artistic exploration it still dwells on the behavioral qualities of the artefact which are determined by a variety in spoken word in combination with the movement. Creating a variety of different possibilities for how the user might engage with the artefact.

Figure 3.8: Living, breathing wall

19

me tho d s

4.1 - 4.2

4

| methodology

community, where design research is introduced in different and arguably limited capacities. Through introducing research through design methods in the scope of interaction design, new design research methods can be introduced into the architectural community but also expanding the domain of interaction design research methodology.

4.2

|

research by iterative sketching

and prototyping

I

n the scope of research through design as design-based research several design artefacts in the form of sketches and prototypes (Buxton, 2007) have been used as means of exploring ideas and reflection. The process appropriated the sketching and prototyping definition which is presented by Buxton (2007), where the gradual shift is made from developing sketches into prototypes in the design process reflecting the gradual shift in the intent and the purpose of gaining different insights from these artefacts. A common denominator in the development of both the sketches and further in the process prototypes is that in the scope of research through design they are all used in the capacity of producing reflections. The insights sketches and prototypes produce are changing according to the evolution of the design, where artefacts are used to inform the earlier stages of design in different capacities. In other words, information and reflections gathered in the process of sketching influences later stages where prototypes might be used where all of the artefacts serve as a tool for reflection. This research by producing and pondering over artefacts produces insights but also further

4.1

|

research through design

T

he design project presented in this thesis utilizes a form of design research referred to as Research through design. Where the goal is to gain insights from the process of designing rather than the final outcome. In the context of HCI this research method can be described as the practice of design in itself providing the method of conducting research (Frayling, 1993). The purpose also being that it stresses the outcomes of the design artefact is to propose a new preferred state of the world. Where the proposed artifact examples serve as a tool for theoretical discussion and provide grounds for research findings (Zimmerman, Forlizzi, & Everson, 2007). The thesis strives to apply the research through design as an interaction design research method into the architectural context where traditionally such an approach might not be considered the norm. However, architectural context in the scope of interactive architecture as a cross-disciplinary field of interest between architecture and interaction design can provide ground for utilizing this research through design approach. Zemmerman, Forlizi & Everson (2007) describe the interaction design research through design process allows us to engage with massively under-constrained problems that are difficult to address with approaches in traditional disciplines (such as engineering and in this scope architecture as well). In this way research through design approach can contribute to the knowledge of both disciplines. Through creating artifacts in the scope of interactive architecture which provide concrete embodiments of theory and technical opportunity these examples can become the conduit for transferring research knowledge into the design practice communities. Traditionally architecture can be seen as a design practice

20

me tho d s

4.2 - 4.3

establishes the artefact itself as exteriorization of thoughts. Mulder (2018) emphasises a kind of inseparability of the artefact and the process speaks of a more multifaceted role of the artefact citing Candy & Edmonds (2010): “The artefacts

that practitioners create are an integral part of practice whether or not there is a formal research process. However, within research, the making process provides opportunities for reflection and evaluation. It is also an opportunity to generate research questions from the exploration that is a normal part of practice.” (Candy & Edmonds,

2010, p. 123).

The initial production of sketches explored two divergent aspects that constitute interactive architecture. Firstly, in the context of architectural design the sketches focused more on the form and the implications of temporality. To explore dynamic changes in the physical form as a possible artifact behaviour in the scheme of interacting with the user. Secondly, the digital material was considered and examined through digital sketches. Where different technologies were considered as ways of possible input methods for the users. Finally the two aspects were combined, where the connections between the digital and physical material were sketched to iterate on different possibilities of artefact behaviour in relation to user interactions. This process of sketching and prototyping was conducted in what Kolskinen et al (2011) refers to as In the Lab, where a certain experimental control is possible. A kind of command over the researched substance can be achieved and undesired interference is reduced to achieve clear understanding of the results.

This In the lab approach however is subjected to a possible downside since the decontextualization of such means of inquiry might exclude conditions

that exist in the outside in the social and physical world (Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström, J. & Wensveen, S., 2011). To take this into account the outcome of the In the Lab approach can be built upon by applying it in the real world, which is the case with the design process presented in this thesis. Insights established in the phases of sketching and prototyping are imagined and transferred into the setting of a real context. To apply the knowledge gathered through the in the lab approach to a certain context with the intention of further providing means of addressing the research question.

4.3

|

contextual design

T

he proposed design project in the thesis is set out to explore the setting of public spaces that are shared by many people, where different situations emerge among the users and the space that they inhabit. As such spaces are many and can vary considerably, and effort should be made to narrow the scope of the project to address a specific public place. Where a closer look can be taken into a specific spatial setting that would determine the intricate characteristics of the design outcome. Such spaces of interest are determined by many different factors. From the architectural setting, its users and the specific social and working situations that transpire there. All these determining factors that constitute the notion of context. In this way a contextual design approach is to be utilized where an understanding for the context is to be achieved to be able to design a system that might address the specific user situation (Beyer & Holzblatt, 1998). Contextual design approach dictates a kind of a dialectic process revolving around familiarization with the users, analyzing and internalizing

21

me tho d s

4.3 - 4.5

the insights and using this to iterate different possibilities (Haningon & Martin 2012). These are then reflected upon with the users to gain further insights and help ideate further. Different steps can be taken in the contextual design process, some of which were used in the thesis project are described further.

4.4

|

contextual inquiry

C

ontextual inquiry can be described as a method that combines different field research, ethnographic and participatory design methods that provide the designer with detailed and relevant data about the context and its users to establish grounds for design (Wixon et al, 1996). In a broad sense contextual inquiry is the activity of uncovering and familiarizing with the underlying work structures in the context (Haningon & Martin 2012). There are a few basic principles that dictate context inquiry. Firstly, immersion into the context, where time is to be spent in the contextual setting, observing the activities to gain an understanding and experience the activities. To observe and reflect on the everydayness of the activities of people. Secondly, a master/apprentice model can be applied , where activities can be observed and inquired about on the spot. Through watching and questioning an understanding can be gained of the ongoing activities. To find out why certain actions take place through transferring knowledge between the user and the observer. Further principle includes interpretation of the data where all the relevant implications for the design outcome can be considered (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998). These interpretations of observed data can be discussed and evaluated with users in order to reduce the possibilities for misinterpretation and miscommunication. But

also to uncover shared understanding, knowledge and reflect on it: “We should be aiming at designing

processes that primarily make it possible for the users (and designers) to utilize their practical understanding, in design of the new situation. But the design process should also incorporate breakdowns as a means for detached reflections on what is already understood among the users as well as among the designers.” (Ehn, 1988, p.

78) Contextual inquiry as a method which can produce valuable insights and knowledge for the purpose of designing. However a question persists of which information of the user and its context is relevant for the design process and outcome. A careful consideration of the gathered and observed information is necessary to uncover the most crucial and relevant data.

4.5

|

other methods related to

contextual inquiry

I

n the scope of context inquiry several different methods have been applied as means of research. Firstly a variety of field research methods were utilized as means of context familiarization. As an passive outside observer immersed into the context with no particular influence on the context itself (Zeisel, 2006). A kind of fly-on-the wall approach of unobtrusive outside observations. Further inquiry was then made as a participant, where the perspective of the user was undertaken mainly to establish a sense for the context. As placing oneself into the role of the user to gain a greater understanding for their activities, decisions and most importantly needs. As a designer we can partake in the activities of a certain context to be able to familiarize ourselves with the specific situations, other users, spatial layouts and other factors that might be important.

22

me tho d s

4.5 - 4.6

This also includes learning some formal and informal rules that certain contexts operate under and are crucial to keep in mind when designing for these contexts.

More participatory methods were applied such as brief unstructured interviews with users of the context. Short observations and dialogue with participants when they were engaged in their activities in the context . A kind of activity that can be traced to the master/apprentice principle of contextual inquiry. (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998) A pre-planned activity was also conducted with participants, where an observational method was undertaken and extended to behavioural mapping. (Sommer & Sommer, 2002) Not only mapping the behaviour and activity of the observed participants by the designer. But the users would themselves reflect on their experiences in the context and map them. A kind of self-reflection method which could expose some underlying actions and thoughts that would otherwise be disregarded. Gaining reflections that could be contemplated and discussed upon after the activities.

Some analytical methods for observing the context were applied as well. This includes the studying and analyzing of architectural space itself, how it is organized to support users and what role it plays in facilitating their activities. How it is structured

in terms of distributions of different building programmes, in-between communication areas, uncovering which parts are meant for which users etc. Discovering the possibilities that the space of the building can offer and reflecting on them. To discover the underlying characteristics of the physical architectural space as a frame where users conduct their activities. Such insights were gathered mainly with on-site observations, photo documentation and floorplan studies.

4.6

|

moving into the design process

T

he previously described methodology suggests a design process (Fig 4.1) that would speak to the dual nature of the field of interactive architecture. A kind of iterative approach is proposed that shifts between the exploration of the materiality and form (physical and digital materiality and the spatial form constituting architecture) and the lived experience of the users (whether it is the experience of interaction, occupying the context, etc.). These two areas are explored through the two main design methods of contextual design and sketching/prototyping, constantly moving from one to another, reflecting in between to establish valid conclusions that guide the process further. Ultimately leading to the design concept as a final reflection to this iterative process.

reflect

ing refle_ctin

g

reflect

ing refl_ectin

g

exploring the materiality and form physical and digital materiality, spatial form

exploring the lived experience exploring user perception and experience

SKETCHING &

PROTOTYPING CONTEXTUALIZATIONMETHODS FOR

23

desig n p ro ces s

5.1

T

he following design process is accompanied by graphical material which can be found at the following link:

https://mihazganktp1.blogspot.com/

5.1

|

exploring the qualities and

behavior of kinetic elements

T

he initial phase of exploration was to determine and explore the dynamic materiality that constitutes kinetic spatial elements. To establish and explore different material behavior for the purpose of reflecting on the plausibility and possibility of use. In order to establish a repertoire of potential dynamic elements from which further ideation could draw

5

| design process

in the future. To create an understanding of how this dynamic temporal nature of their actions could be used to address a specific issue. In the development of the project this issue pertains specifically to portrayal of the presence of people but also the ability to guide.

The exploration initiated by research of different typologies that are associated with kinetic spatial elements in architecture and art. Initial hand drawn sketches (Fig 5.1) were used to contemplate the variety in the kinetic movement that is possible and to try and categorize them by their qualities. Further, a shift was made into the physical space, low-fi mock-ups were made that were animated through the use of sequences of images to portray the temporal nature of kinetic elements. Literature was consulted, to discover already established variety of dynamic spatial elements, their characteristics and use (Zuk & Clarke, 1970; Fox & Kemp, 2009; Popper, 1968) A repertoire of six basic different behaviors was established (Fig.5.2) . Besides their dynamic nature, these elements are also differentiated by the qualities of the physical materials that allow these motions such as their pliability. It is worth noting that even though the elements could be perceived as scale versions of final artifacts, this is not the case. The focus in development was on the dynamic qualities that might be interesting to explore further in the context of the design project. It should also be stated that the possibilities in the variety of motion and form is much greater than established here. The proposed typologies were an initial and basic inquiry from which further development could stem.

Moving forward, iterations were explored with combining and multiplying different dynamic

24

desig n p ro ces s

5.1

elements to create larger and more complex systems of moving parts (Fig. 5.3). The basic movement in simpler mock-ups considered previously can be combined into a kind of modular system or a matrix of the same elements. Though not portrayed here, even a combination of different basic elements could be considered, to achieve even greater variety in possible artifact behavior. This scaling up to a bigger system of more elements arguably provides greater possibilities

in facilitating more complex behavior of the artifact. It expands the possibilities to convey more intricate and nuanced information gathered from the users. This means more possibilities can also be considered later for the input method that would cause this dynamic artifact behavior. Giving ground for considering greater variety in the possibilities of interaction between the users and the artifact.

Figure 5.2: Low-fi mockups exploring basic kinetic element movement and discovering possible artefact behavior. Animated visualisations can be found at the following link: https://mihazganktp1.blogspot.com/2020/04/exploring-and-mapping-dynamic.html

25

desig n p ro ces s

5.1 - 5.2

Figure 5.3: Low-fi mockups further exploring a more complex kinetic systems of individual elements. Animated visualisations can be found at the following link: https://mihazganktp1.blogspot.com/2020/04/exploring-and-mapping-dynamic.html

5.2

|

considering the digital material

F

or the purpose of exploration in this design project different technologies were considered as a possibility of input for the artefact. In this way they were treated as a digital design material, whose qualities were examined and investigated to explore the possibilities of use in the context of the design project. The concern of the designed artefact is ultimately related to conveying people’s presence in the physical space and enabling a particular user to access this information. There is a certain duality in the way the digital material needs to address the artefact behavior as shown in the scheme below. Firstly, the artefact’s output is defined by the contextual data of the public space - the occupancy of certain areas that a person might want to go. Secondly, this contextual data is visualized by the artefact behavior when the user engages with the artefact itself. So the qualities of physical presence of the users and their actions

are the ones that need to be addressed with the digital material. Accordingly, the aim was to discover different ways some digital materials might be used not only as a form of input but how their qualities might affect and be mapped to the final artifact behavior.

Many different technologies were considered and further explored by making scale prototypes, some which were low-fi and behaviour was simulated and then visualized through the use of videos and animated images. Where the implications of the digital material was first simulated. In a step further, the digital computational technology was actually embedded into the scale mockups of the spatial artifact to get a better sense of how the system might work.

26

desig n p ro ces s

5.3

5.3

|

how to detect and convey the

presence of occupants in physical

space

I

nitially it was explored how the artefact behavior can be related to conveying the presence and distribution of people in space (or rather a public building as this is the concern of the thesis). To find a way to detect this contextual information and then portray it to the users through how the artefact would behave. A kind of simple system was proposed that could take the data of people’s presence and then reflect it in the spatial movement of the artifact (Fig. 5.4). Connected to this, several technologies were considered as described further.

Firstly, a scenario was envisioned and then explored through animating a mockup where different occupancy of three different spaces would influence the form of an architectural element. (Fig.5.5) These moving elements would then inform the person of the state of vacant

contextual information (the occupancy of an area)

artefact behavior (movement of the kinetic elements) INPUT OUTPUT actuator sensor processing of the digital information microcontroller

spaces and give them an idea of the general state of occupancy in the building. The artefact would through its movement and reshaping of its form guide to the area the user is seeking.

To detect this kind of contextual information that could be translated to the artefact different

Figure 5.4: a simple system to convey users presence

Figure 5.5: sketches of how a symple system for detecting presence of people could influence the behaviour of a kinetic counterpart. Animated visualisations can be found at the following link: https://mihazganktp1.blogspot.com/2020/04/blog-post.html

27

desig n p ro ces s

5.3

kinds of sensor technologies were taken into account and compared. Possible advantages and disadvantages and plausibility of use was weighed. Firstly, technologies were investigated that would be able to detect people’s physiology. To use the qualities of our bodies such as temperature, breathing etc. to detect our presence. Some initial digital sketches were made (Fig. 5.6) whit simple sensors for humidity, temperature, microphones etc. The implications of using such technologies became quite apparent immediately upon starting to compile the sketches. Such forms of input are highly personal, closeness to such sensors must be great in order to get viable readings that can be further utilized. Also the use of such technology is highly impractical on a large scale, the required amounts of sensors would be too great and further establishing a network is not rational. And the utility of such technologies comes with a lot of privacy concerns if it might be utilized in public spaces. Tracking physiological data of individuals is not quite a viable option for tracking the density of people present in a space in the scope of the project. Some similar concerns could be raised when trying to explore the use of some other technologies, such as gesture, proximity and light sensors, accelerometers, gyroscopes etc. For detecting the presence of many people at once in a spatial setting these technologies are too individualized. Being present doesn’t necessarily include movement or other activities to be detectable. Being present merely denotes being

physically present in the physical space. To detect this notion some other technologies would have to be considered. Some that could not only focus on detecting an individual but could detect the presence of multiple people at the same time. Detecting presence in the space on a larger scale can be done through a video input. A 2d image of a spatial setting can be taken and then continually compared to one of a default state. It is a matter of comparing the static elements - the spatial structure to the dynamic element which is in this case people’s presence in the space. This video information can be abstracted where only the temporal change in the spatial setting can be observed. Such abstracted information has the potential to convey much more information than sensors described previously. Most notably it can convey the density of people occupying the space. This notion of density of people in spatial setting is ultimately what the project is concerned about.

Figure 5.6: A digital sketch where a proximity sensors was used to rotate a servo motor.

(source: personal archive)

Figure 5.7: abstracting the visual data to convey presence in different areas. This also assures anonymity of the people the system detects

28

desig n p ro ces s

5.3 - 5.4

conclusion

A few conclusions can be drawn from this phase of the design. One of them is there are a few sensing technologies which could be viable to detect the presence and distribution of people in a spatial setting. However the ones which are plausible could be explored further given enough resources. But the most important conclusion is the fact that a simple system of detecting people to invoke artifact behavior in the context of interactive architecture is not speaking to the notion of interactivity. It is merely a reactive process rather than an interactive one. There is still no active participation between the user and the artefact but rather a passive one. The artefact itself does not convey personalized information that would be relevant to the user. In this way the notion of interactivity should be explored more.

5.4

|

exploring the notion of

interactivity

The literature review, exploring current research on the topic of interactive architecture, examining the canonical examples and also through the phase of exploring the digital material established a better understanding of what interactivity truly is in the scope of interactive architecture. The next steps in the design process addressed this notion of interactivity and explored some ways how it might be addressed through the design project. A more developed system on the interaction is proposed to address interactivity on a level that goes beyond just a reactive system explored before. Where more of a dialogue between the user and the artefact is explored. This means there is a more active engagement with the artifact on the part of the users (Fig 5.8).

To envision the lived experience of the user might interact with the artefact a few different methods of input were considered and compared.

contextual information (the occupancy of an area, passive engagement with

the artefact) artefact behavior_{(movement of the kinetic elements)}

users actions (active engagement with the artefact)

artefact behaviour further influences users actions and ultimatelly the contetual information when an user occupies a space

INPUT OUTPUT

processing the digital information

actuator sensor

sensor

29

desig n p ro ces s

5.4

Figure 5.9: Interacting with the artefact through positioning yourself in space

(source: personal archive)

Each of the different methods was examined and evaluated based on their plausibility and the implications these actions have on the users, and how they would perceive their actions. (Fig. 5.9 - 5.11). It should be noted that these different ways of interacting with the artefact are simply one in many that could be explored, as each individual method can be explored more precisely. This was done in different ways, one included evaluating through prototypes and the other was an evaluation with participants engaging with a scaled up version of a kinetic element.

To be able to reflect on the possibility to interact with the positioning of oneself in space a prototype was made. A scale model of a spatial setting was constructed which was embedded with a

Figure 5.10: Interacting with the artefact through controlling your pace of movement

(source: personal archive)

Figure 5.9: Interacting with the artefact with your hands

proximity sensor connected via a microcontroller to a motor which drove the kinetic counterpart. In this case this was a kind of a flexible wall, that would flex in the direction of vacant spaces in order to guide the participant (Fig. 5.9). The prototype itself and also the process of building it served as a discursive tool that opened up some relevant questions regarding the use of different sensing and actuating technologies, but more importantly what does this method if interacting with the artefact imply for the participants. For example, the way a person could interact with the artefact through the position of their body in space can be delved more into. In what way is there position tracked and in relation to what is their position measured and compared? How would such a way of interaction influence other

30

desig n p ro ces s

5.4

Figure 5.10: prototype of a simple kinetic wall moved by the position of the participant in space. Link to the animated visualization: https://mi-hazganktp1.blogspot.com/2020/05/exploring-interactivity-with-spatial.html

users in the spatial setting? Can the sensing technologies enable the tracking of an individual without the interference by other people? What are the implications of such interactions for the users? Can everyone participate in such forms of interaction? And many others. To further uncover the entanglement of the participant actions and the artefact behavior some methods of inquiry were undertaken further.

Figure 5.11: a participant engages with a simulated kinetic wall. The animated timeline can be observed here: https://mihazganktp1.blogspot. com/2020/05/exploring-interactivity-with-spatial.html

One of the methods to explore the lived experience of the people was building a real scale flexible kinetic wall, which was placed in a corridor. A person would operate the wall while another would engage with it through different means (Fig. 5.12). The participants engaging with the wall would then reflect on their experience. One of the ways participants would engage was through touching the wall, as this in their own