Translational Products: The Affective Responses to Changing Physicality
228
-
Upload
josh-richman -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
description
Joshua M. Richman 2010 MSD Design Research Thesis - Translational Products: The Affective Responses to Changing Physicality
Transcript of Translational Products: The Affective Responses to Changing Physicality
Translational Products:
The Affective Responses to Changing Physicality
by
Joshua M. Richman
A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science in Design
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
May 2010
©2010 Joshua M. Richman
All Rights Reserved
Translational Products:
The Affective Responses to Changing Physicality
by
Joshua M. Richman
has been approved
April 2010
Graduate Supervisory Committee:
Jacques R. Giard, Co-Chair Kanav Kahol, Co-Chair
Prasad Boradkar
ACCEPTED BY THE GRADUATE COLLEGE
iii
ABSTRACT
This study examined the affective responses to changing physicality. Many
products serve the same purpose to the user but exist in physical and in nonphysical
versions. A nonphysical product is information or an action (service). The author has
termed this kind of product that exists in physical and nonphysical versions as
translational products. The questions posed in this study are: What perceived and actual
product attributes and affordances are gained and what are lost as understood by the user
when using either version or both? What are the design and market implications? The
literature review provided an understanding and a vocabulary from which to begin. The
understanding of product ownership and user satisfaction has been based mostly on
physical products, but with evolving technology where more services and products are
non-physically based, a further understanding is required. Using the grounded theory
approach, the author surveyed, observed, and interviewed participants that had
experience with various translational products to quantify and qualify the tendencies of
user perceptions. The attributes considered in this study fall under the general terms of
meaning and usability, more specifically sacrifice, preservation, emotional
signifier/personal, social, multimodal interaction, convenience, permanence, and
safety/comfort/control. The results of this study indicated that whether perceived or
experienced, the participants found a difference between physical and nonphysical
versions of the same product. Useful to the design process, tendencies and discrepancies
about the perceived attributes of translational products were discovered. In addition, this
study provides a method to identify design opportunities for physical and nonphysical
products to function symbiotically.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Prof. Kanav Kahol and Prof. Prasad Boradkar for their
direction, assistance, and guidance. In particular, I would like to thank Prof. Jacques R.
Giard for his recommendations, suggestions, and his invaluable insights into design
research.
A special thanks goes to my family and colleagues who helped me in many ways
and especially Allison Zenner for her support. Finally, words alone cannot express the
thanks I owe to Dr. Pamela Reynolds for her encouragement and assistance.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1
Purpose ............................................................................................................1
Rationale..........................................................................................................5
Question...........................................................................................................5
Topics and Questions ......................................................................................6
Conceptual Framework...................................................................................8
2 LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................. 11
Role of Physicality: What Objects Mean to People .....................................11
Touch and Space .................................................................................... 12
Meaning and Value ................................................................................ 17
Affect, Identity and Social Definition.................................................... 27
The Nonphysical World................................................................................34
The Relationship between Goods and Services............................................38
Product Experiences: Physical and Nonphysical..........................................43
Usability and Pleasure.............................................................................43
Defining the Experience..........................................................................49
The Optimal Experience .........................................................................51
Moving Between Touch and No Touch: The Translational Product...........54
vi
CHAPTER Page
Design Implications.......................................................................................63
Considerations.........................................................................................64
Design Tools............................................................................................71
The Return to Physical..................................................................................74
3 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 81
4 FINDINGS........................................................................................................ 86
Field Study #1 ...............................................................................................86
Field Study #2 .............................................................................................116
Field Study #3 .............................................................................................119
5 DISCUSSION................................................................................................. 166
6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 177
Design Implications.....................................................................................177
Emergent Artifact Signifiers .......................................................................181
Tools and Concepts.....................................................................................182
Empty Interfaces and Pure Possessions................................................183
Medical MIDI........................................................................................188
Emergent Artifacts ................................................................................192
Further Research .........................................................................................194
Final Comment............................................................................................194
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 195
APPENDIX
A SURVEY ..................................................................................................... 200
vii
APPENDIX Page
B CONSENT .................................................................................................. 210
C INTERVIEW QUESTION GUIDE............................................................. 213
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Translational Product Parameters............................................................................. 3
2. Three Levels of Processing (Norman, 20040......................................................... 28
3. Design Concepts of Service Designers (Downs, Reason, Lovlie, 2007) .............. 41
4. Emotions and the Product Properties (Jordan, 1998) ............................................ 44
5. Optimal Experience Components (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990)................................. 52
6. The Pleasure of Physical Books (Rueker, 2002).................................................... 59
7. Physical and Digital Libraries (Stelmaszewska and Blandford, 2004) ................. 60
8. Criteria and Principles of Design (Krippendorf, 1997) ......................................... 68
9. Tried, Used, Own - Progression ............................................................................. 97
10. The Type of Physicality for Each Item Used or Owned...................................... 98
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Containers ................................................................................................................. 2
2. Translational Products.............................................................................................. 4
3. Conceptual Model..................................................................................................... 8
4. Degree of Product Physicality (DoPP)..................................................................... 9
5. Degree of Product Physicality and Conceptual Model Overlay.............................. 9
6. DoPP – PTNP ......................................................................................................... 10
7. Three main ways that we interact........................................................................... 14
8. Product Semantics .................................................................................................. 20
9. Product Meaning..................................................................................................... 24
10. Second Life........................................................................................................... 36
11. Form VS Kind ...................................................................................................... 38
12. Goods and Services Interaction Continuum......................................................... 39
13. Physical and Digital Aspects................................................................................ 40
14. A hierarchy of consumer needs............................................................................ 45
15. Scanning SET Factors leads to POGs.................................................................. 63
16. Trajectory of Artificiality ..................................................................................... 66
17. TUI….................................................................................................................... 77
18. Physical instantiation of GUI elements in TUI.................................................... 78
19. mediaBlocks design space.................................................................................... 79
20. Tangible Bits - From GUI to Tangible User Interfaces....................................... 79
21. Tangible Bits - Center and Periphery................................................................... 80
x
Figure Page
22. Spatial Sound Field Comparison.......................................................................... 84
23. Wordle – High Definition..................................................................................... 87
24. Wordle – High Contrast ....................................................................................... 88
25. Meaning of Physicality......................................................................................... 89
26. Meaning of Non-physicality................................................................................. 90
27. Perceived Differences........................................................................................... 91
28. Yes there is a Difference ...................................................................................... 92
29. NO they are the Same........................................................................................... 93
30. Perceived Differences........................................................................................... 91
31. Tired, Use, Own – Progression ............................................................................ 96
32. Use Comparison ................................................................................................... 99
33. Photograph Experiences/Perceptions................................................................. 101
34. Music Listening Experiences/Perceptions ......................................................... 105
35. Musical Instrument Experiences/Perceptions.................................................... 107
36. Medical Records Experiences/Perceptions........................................................ 110
37. Book use Experiences/Perceptions..................................................................... 112
38. Avatar Based System Use .................................................................................. 114
39. Avatar based System Experiences/Perceptions ................................................. 115
40. Medical Record Process Flow............................................................................ 118
41. Collections .......................................................................................................... 120
42. Serato Interface................................................................................................... 121
43. Vinyl Records..................................................................................................... 122
xi
Figure Page
44. Musical Controller Interface............................................................................... 125
45. Roland - SPACE ECHO RE-201 ....................................................................... 126
46. Sketching ............................................................................................................ 128
47. Digital Sketching ................................................................................................ 128
48. Symphony Orchestra Concert ............................................................................ 130
49. My Love.............................................................................................................. 132
50. Medical Record Terminals................................................................................. 137
51. Participant drawn illustration of difficult medical documentation screen......... 139
52. Arm Bands.......................................................................................................... 141
53. Banner Healthcare Simulation Center................................................................ 144
54. Cerner medical record documentation system................................................... 145
55. Sepsis check sheet .............................................................................................. 148
56. Tip sheets ............................................................................................................ 151
57. Medical Record Documentation Island.............................................................. 156
58. CODE Cart.......................................................................................................... 158
59. CODE Cart CODE Sheet ................................................................................... 159
60. CODE Sheet (front)............................................................................................ 160
61. CODE Sheet (back) ............................................................................................ 161
62. Drug Guide book ................................................................................................ 163
63. BDMC Core Measures Prompter / Tip Sheet #18 ............................................. 165
64. Product Ecosystems............................................................................................ 172
65. Optimal Product Ecosystems.............................................................................. 178
xii
Figure Page
66. The Pendulum effect - Swings ........................................................................... 179
67. The Pendulum effect - Balancing....................................................................... 180
68. Interface Scales................................................................................................... 183
69. Concept Study - Clear Tablet Interface - 02 - Nimbus Viewer ......................... 185
70. Types of Interface Physicality............................................................................ 189
71. Interfaces Mapped on the Degree of Product Physicality Diagram.................. 191
72. Transitioning Hurdle........................................................................................... 191
73. Translational Product Diagnostic Tool .............................................................. 193
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
As expressed in the Physicality.org Journal:
We live in an increasingly digital world yet our bodies and minds are naturally
designed to interact with the physical. The products of the 21st century are and
will be a synthesis of digital and physical elements embedded in new physical and
social environments. As we design more hybrid physical / digital products, the
distinctions for the user become blurred. It is therefore increasingly important
that we understand what we gain, lose, or confuse by the added digitality. (2008,
Physicality.org home page)
This study explores human behavior and user interactions with products that exist
in both physical and nonphysical forms. It attempts to discover what is gained and lost
between the two types of user experiences. The study observes and evaluates the
attachment and emotional rewards; and the experience and its components that the user
derives in each situation.
2
Figure 1. Containers
This author coins the term translational product to identify those objects that are
represented by both physical and nonphysical states; for example, physical books and e-
books, CDs and Mp3s. Users directly interface with all translational product categories
through containers. Interfaces are contingent upon their containers. Containers house
information, which delivers product/services. Containers change over time and have the
potential to change states while the contents maintain their continuity. This continuity is
what is recognized as being the same in products/services. To clarify, hammers can
3
never be translational products because hammers action/function is intrinsically tied to its
container. The form and function are one.
Translational products:
-Contain information or services
-Retain recognizable element/s which constitute their continuity in any state
-Are composed of varying degrees of physicality
-Change in state and not shape (form)
-Have information/contents that are independent of their containers
-Have containers that are free to change over time or have the potential to change
-Have the potential to exist in either physical or nonphysical states
-Have interfaces that are contingent upon the state of container
Table 1. Translational Product Parameters
To be a translational product the information must be independent of the container
(Figure 2). By definition an intrinsically tied object, such as, a hammer is not a
translational product. When the term product is used, it is composed of both goods and
services, goods being one end of the continuum as physical, and services being the other
end as nonphysical. In Figure 2 (A) and (B) represents the product that is purchased.
With physical objects, there is just one product to purchase, but when the information is
4
independent of the container two products must be purchased. In Figure 2 (A), also
represent the continuity that must be maintained when the product translates its position
of physicality.
Figure 2. Translational Products
This study determines how the experiences change while using different types of
translational products. This phenomenon becomes necessary for examination as people
encounter the transfer of many of their cherished objects or collections from a physical to
a nonphysical form or visa versa. This study is not meant to be an examination of
package design, but an attempt provide direction to the industrial designer who will
determine how a product or how information is presented, used, and engages its user.
5
Interviews, questionnaires, and photo-journals were used to reveal users’ feelings
about ownership and experience. The goal is to identify trends and patterns to better
understand what is gained and lost between the use of physical and nonphysical products.
Rationale
This study contends that when interacting with an artifact/product that is capable
of existing in both a physical and a nonphysical state, the user’s experience and feelings
about the product differ depending on its state. How are the experiences different? In
either situation, there will be positive and negative subjective evaluations by the user.
Uncovering the factors that influence the evaluation of the user experience, determining
how the experience is perceived, and knowing the frequency in which they occur will
assist the designer in determining which attributes of a product are important to consider
and retain and which attributes are dispensable when designing from a nonphysical to a
physical state or from a physical to a nonphysical state.
Research Question
Which components of user experience are gained and/or lost when interacting
with products that change their physicality?
6
Research Topics and Questions:
Topics Questions
Meaning What does physicality and non-physicality afford
people?
What is the significance of ownership?
How do people create narratives?
Is there emotional attachment to their products?
Usability Is it easy to change translational products? What is
the inhibitor or incentives? Is one direction easier?
Is there an age or gender difference in ownership of
physical or nonphysical products?
What attributes affects user satisfaction?
Is it difficult to change to a new state?
What are the recognized affordances in the two
states?
What was felt before and after switching
translational products?
What is the life cycle of the product -
discarded/replaced/repaired/shared/passed-down?
Design Can nonphysical products compensate for the lack
of physicality?
Which attributes of a product are important to
consider?
Extensive research has been done on the relationship between physical products
and ownership: psychological and social implications, usability, and experience. Norman
(2002) writes, “the interaction is governed by our biology, psychology, society, and
culture (p. xiv). This study will apply to nonphysical products the same understanding of
7
behavior and satisfaction analyzed through the various disciplines of sociology,
anthropology, and psychology.
8
Conceptual Framework
Figure 3. Conceptual Model
The literature review provided an understanding and a vocabulary from which to
begin. The understanding of product ownership and user satisfaction has been based
mostly on physical products, but with evolving technology where more services and
products are non-physically based, a further understanding is required. In this study it is
accomplished by examining Affordances (What is enabled) ! Interactions (How is used)
! Experiences (How it is perceived) in each of the physical and nonphysical states
displayed in Figure 3 to determine where these attributes overlap or are distinctive for
each state. Figure 4 The Degree of Product Physicality diagram (DoPP) used through out
the research illustrates the level of physicality.
9
Figure 4. Degree of Product Physicality (DoPP)
Figure 5. Degree of Product Physicality and Conceptual Model Overlay
10
The Degree of Product Physicality Figure 5 is a cross section portion of the Venn
diagram from the Conceptual Model. All the charts and diagrams tie into one another by
color and configuration. Physical, Translational and Nonphysical are abbreviated as P, T,
and NP throughout the research. The degree of product physicality diagram always
represents physical on the left, Translational along the diagonal and Nonphysical on the
right Figure 6. Additionally, Physical is always represented by the color blue, yellow for
Nonphysical creating green for Translational, naturally.
Figure 6. DoPP – PTNP
11
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
An understanding of what is known about the human relationship with physical
objects must be considered in order to explore the ramifications of translational products.
Stated in other terms, it is important to know what is gained or lost as technology moves
from physical objects into nonphysical states and visa versa. From different angles, the
literature review examines what artifacts mean to people and the product experience.
Also included is relevant information about nonphysical products and reviews of various
studies that compare physical to nonphysical experiences.
Role of Physicality: What Objects Mean to People
Chapman (2005) in his book Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences
& Empathy, points out that as far back as recorded history humans have always had
attachments with objects not so different from the attachments that exist today. Primitive
people owned objects that they believed possessed some kind of life or power that would
be transferred to them by ownership, much in same way that we embody the symbolism
of the tools we use. The way an object feels conveys its construction and its abilities.
12
Touch and Space
Contact has a reciprocal nature; what you touch, inevitably and inescapably, touches you
in return.
The most basic understanding of humans and objects begins with the importance
of touch in the human experience. Jablonski (2006) writes, “Our skin mediates the most
important transactions in our lives. Skin is the key to our biology, our sensory
experiences, our information gathering, and our relationships with others” (p.1). She
further affirms that “touch is central to primate experience” (p. 97); hands and feet
possess an intricate sense of touch to perform tasks with accuracy using the ability to
sense pressure, vibration, texture, and temperature. Touch is necessary for us to negotiate
our environment and our lives in almost every situation that sustains us requiring physical
maneuvers. Touch is also an important aspect of communication and bonding (Jablonski,
2006). “Tactile satisfaction during early development is critical for healthy behavioral
development… the absence of touch equals stress” (Jablonski, 2006, p.103). Humans are
nurtured through touch. Infants deprived of touch suffer biological and psychological
stress (Jablonski, 2006). Touch benefits us throughout our lives. Even the elderly
experience feelings of well being with less irritability when physical contact is a part of
their daily experiences (Jablonski, 2006). The fondling and cuddling of pets is associated
with less cardiovascular disease in older pet owners and longer lives (Field, 2001). Field
(2001) writes:
13
Our bodies have eighteen square feet of skin, which makes skin our largest sense
organ. Because skin cannot shut its eyes or cover its ears, it is in a constant state
of readiness to receive messages - it is always on. (p. 10)
If touch is a necessary part of all human experiences then touch must play an important
part in experience satisfaction. What are the consequences or changes in user satisfaction
when touch is absent and not part of the experience? Moggridge (2007) quotes
Winograd:
I think we’re still inherently physical animals, and what we do in physical space
really affects us on a psychological level, even if in some abstract sense you could
say it’s the same information that we would get over a screen. (p. 465)
In addition, Norman (1993) points out “people are spatial animals with special
spatial abilities for navigation and finding things” (p.176). People recall the locations of
where objects are in their homes or on their bookshelves by the placement of an object.
People think in 3D space. We evolved that way, hence we are hardwired to think and
operate spatially. A technique used by ancient philosophers to memorize long pieces for
oration was based on mental cues in imagined physical space. Whenever philosophers
speak of “thingness,” it refers to the singularity of location in space at a given time. As
people move around their environment and encounter various things, these contacts
provide opportunities for interaction and future action. All emotions are ultimately
expressed in motion. "There is no human or animal emotion that is not ultimately
expressed as movement; in fact the argument is somewhat circular, for what else is
14
human behavior,” (Wolpert, 2006, p.32) Moggridge (2007) reiterates this point in Figure
7 below.
Figure 7. Three main ways that we interact (Moggridge 2007).
Treadaway (2007) examined physical influences in the creation of art and writes:
The research has shown how multi-sensory information, acquired through
physical experience, informs the development of visual concepts and impacts
upon the making process through the development of tacit knowledge in both tool
use and understanding of material properties. There is evidence that making by
hand, touch and manipulative activities, have a significant impact on creative
15
thinking and imagination. Emotional content can be translated from artist to
artifact through physical making and can be perceived in the work…(p.5)
Treadaway (2007) states that memory of physical experiences stimulates the
artist’s creative thinking and the expression of that thinking is best expressed through
physical manipulative creation. Digital tools do not provide the same level of sensitivity
and response. Art derived from sketches of a physical experience were richer in content
than art derived from digital photographs of the same experience (Treadaway, 2007). The
physical effort involved in the making the sketches and finished art allowed the artist
time to incorporate much more sensory and emotional information. “Objects can act as
carriers of memory through a variety of sensory properties: sight, smell, sound as well as
touch” (Treadaway, 2007, p.3).
Understanding sensory stimulation provides a broader background for this study
of translational products. MacLean (2000) outlined the special qualities of touch as
intention, manipulation, gesture and perception; intentional, socially invasive and
committing; communication; sensation of force, pressure, moisture, temperature, texture,
and space; control and discrimination. In addition, touch allows people to assess, verify,
monitor ongoing activity, and build mental models (MacLean, 2000).
Peck and Childers (2003) studied the influence of tactile information on product
judgments. They define “touch as a form of direct experience with a product” where a
consumer discovers the product’s texture, hardness, temperature, and weight; evaluates a
product’s performance or intrinsic qualities; and derives sensory enjoyment (autotelic)
(p.35). Peck and Childers questioned whether a picture or a description of a product
would compensate when there was no direct product experience through touch. Peck and
16
Childers (2003) rated the participants according to their need and use of tactile
information. Using a cell phone and a sweater, the participants whether able to touch the
products or unable to touch the products answered questionnaires about their attitude,
confidence, and frustration in evaluating the products. Written descriptions that were
provided included the non-tactile design qualities and the tactile design qualities. Peck
and Childers (2003) found that participants for whom touch is important were more
confident and less frustrated when they were able to touch the products, while
participants less dependent on touch were unaffected when they were unable to touch the
products. With both types of participants, a written description of the physical tactile
qualities reduced frustration and increased confidence but a written description of the
sensory tactile qualities did not; nor did it satisfy the sensory or pleasurable information
needed when touch was unavailable. If instead a picture was provided of the product,
Peck and Childers (2003) found that participants more dependent on touch required a
written description to increase their confidence and decrease their frustration in product
evaluation. Participants less dependent on touch did not need the written description.
Combining this information with sales figures, Peck and Childers (2003) pointed out that
those Internet sales of products that are more pre-purchase touch dependent like clothing
and apparel lag behind other Internet sales of products that have no tactile value like
books, music and services.
Touch and its feedback is the missing component in computer interaction and has
become an area of active study. Hale and Stanney (2004) found that haptic interaction
which includes touch and body movement when applied to computer interaction “offers
an independent sensory channel that the brain can process to further enhance a user’s
17
experience…” (p.33). Haptic stimulation can be tactile or kinesthetic and provides a
means to imitate real-world interaction; and improve perception and performance in
computer related tasks (Hale and Stanney, 2004). Visual information and haptic
information are different types of information so combining the two enhances the entire
experience.
Meaning and Value
When considering material artifacts, design may be considered to be making
sense of things, but when considering immaterial artifacts it can be said that design is
making sense of experience.
Turning to McCarthy and Wright (2004) and their emphasis on the felt experience
in technology they write that making sense of an experience is derived from the
emotional quality of the experience in reference to self and others. Meaning is composed
of several facets that must be considered when analyzing the relationship between
experience and meaning. (McCarthy and Wright, 2004) According to Dewey, there are
two types of meaning intrinsic: “the value of the event for the person engaged”
(McCarthy and Wright, 2004, p.114), and extrinsic: “meaning put to use for a purpose
outside the immediate experience engaged in” (McCarthy and Wright, 2004, p.115). This
would refer to the pleasure you derive on a walk in contrast to the viewing the only
purpose of a walk to reach a particular destination. Another consideration is the sense of
a situation or understanding of a situation that is immediate and nonlinguistic and that is
dependent on past experiences and reflection (McCarthy and Wright, 2004).
McCarthy and Wright (2004) describe processes people use in making sense of an
experience as help when evaluating technology as experience. The processes are: 1)
18
anticipating; 2) connecting – the immediate pre-linguistic sense of a situation; 3)
interpreting – the narrative about what has happened or will happen; 4) reflecting –
thoughts while the experience unfolds; 5) appropriating – relating the experience to self;
and 6) recounting – the telling of the experience to others.
In an article by Csikszentmihalyi (1993) about the importance of objects and our
dependence on them he writes that it is about not only the physical but also it is about the
psychological. “Most of the things we make these days do not make life better in any
material sense but instead serve to stabilize and order the mind” (p.22). They stabilize
our sense of who we are by demonstrating power and place in social hierarchy, and they
reveal our continuity in time by providing a focus for the past, present and future
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1993). He found that the artifacts that people value vary with age and
gender; for example, his studies have shown that the most important artifacts young
people own are associated with playing music while older individuals put furniture, art,
and books at the top of their lists of importance. Men choose active objects such as
sports equipment, tools, and television sets while women choose nurturing objects such
as plants, photographs and furniture as important objects (Csikszentmihalyi, 1993). Since
this study many changes that have occurred culturally and technologically and the
outcome of a similar study today may reveal different results.
Krippendorff (1989) explored the making sense of things through the study of
product semantics; “concern for the sense artifacts make to its users, for how technical
objects are symbolically embedded in the fabric of society, and what contributions they
thereby make to the autopoiesis of culture” (p.10). Krippendorff (1989) states that
“people surround themselves with objects that make sense to them, they can identify as to
19
what they are, when, how, for what, and on which context they may be used” (p. 11).
When people were asked what they see when viewing everyday items their response was
about what the object is, what it’s made for, what it does, where it’s bought and other
similar answers (Krippendorff 1989). When people were asked what they see when
viewing familiar items their response was about who gave it to them, how they feel about
it, how it relates to other possessions and other similar answers (Krippendorff 1989).
Krippendorff (1989) suggests that from these answers people see objects as meanings in a
cognitively constructed context “objects are always seen in a context” and that “meaning
is a cognitively constructed relationship (Figure 8). It selectively connects features of an
object and features of its context into a coherent unity” (p.12). Krippendorff (1989)
further states:
Making sense is a circular cognitive process that may start with some initially
incomprehensible sensation, which then proceeds to imagining hypothetical
contexts for it and goes around a hermeneutic circle during which features are
distinguished - in both contexts and what is to be made sense of - and meanings
are constructed until this process has converged to a sufficiently coherent
understanding. (p. 13)
Form and meaning are related; “something must have form to be seen but make
sense to be understood and used” (Krippendorff, 1989, p.14).
20
Figure 8. Product Semantics (Krippendorff, 1989)
Form is a description while meaning is a relationship to someone. Krippendorff (1989)
writes… “the designer’s form is the designer’s way of objectifying and disowning their
own meaning in the process of making sense for others” (p.14); so that in the design
process the context in which an object is used becomes paramount because it cannot be
assumed that the designer’s objective meaning and the user’s meaning is the same
(Krippendorff, 1989). This statement alone confirms the need for human factor studies. It
is basic but infused with the entire basis of industrial design. It is this author’s view that
designers are the thinking components of product creation because designers take user
problems and solve them by embedding the solution in the product. Though it is
impossible to know the exact interpretation of user possibilities, the designer’s role is to
anticipate the unforeseen meanings as best he or she can by using human factors studies.
21
Krippendorff (1989) believes that the semantically informed designer understands
that form follows meaning rather than form follows function. He sees four essentially
different contexts an object may be viewed where the object’s meaning varies. They are
described below.
Operational context people interacting with artifacts in use (p.16)
Though objects should be designed to clearly show how they should be used, very
often they end up meaning something entirely different. “An operational theory of
meaning should explain how forms constrain the sense users make of things in their
environment” (Krippendorff, 1989, p.16). In addition to using a cognitive model in
design, Krippendorff proposes that the designer aware of product semantics must
consider identities (appearance, organization of parts, features, behavior); qualities
(attributes expressed as differences between objects in the same category); orientations
(relation of object to user’s body, vision, or motion); locations (relative to other objects);
affordances (all possible behaviors); states, dispositions, and logic (example- open or
closed); motivations (object use for means to an ends and interaction for its own sake);
and redundancies (designing for uniform understanding) when designing an artifact.
Sociolinguistic context people communicating with each other about artifacts,
their uses, and users co-constructing realities, which objects, are a part of (p.16)
The items/objects we use and own communicate to others something about
ourselves; our identities, social standing, what groups we belong to, relationships etc.
(This area is discussed in depth in other parts of this paper). The linguistic portion of this
context refers to communication or conversations about objects: how objects are named,
22
distinguished, and classified in language; and discussions that evaluate, express cognitive
models, motivations, and meanings about objects (Krippendorff, 1989).
Context of genesis designers, producers, distributors, and users together
contributing to the technical organization of culture and material entropy (p.16)
This context includes all participants in the life of a product from conception to
death. It creates a continual cycle that feeds on itself in creation and recreation including
design, manufacture, distribution, consumption, and back to redesign (Krippendorff,
1989).
Ecological context artifact interacting with each other contributing to self-
production of technology and culture (p.16)
Taken from the discussions of the natural environment, Krippendorff (1989)
selected three aspects of ecology and applied them to manufactured artifacts:
competition, cultural complexes, and autopoiesis. Competition between products is self-
explanatory. Cultural complexes describe the phenomena where:
Dependencies that develop among interacting populations of artifacts grow into
cultural complexes, which consist of many different artifacts whose cooperative
forms of interaction have become so stable that they could be considered
composite forms or systems in their own right. (Krippendorff, 1989, p.36)
An example is the car industry; every component and every person involved from
conception, sale, use, street planning, fuel etc. together form a cultural complex.
Autopoiesis is defined as self-production and here Krippendorff refers to the circular act
of human participation in all stages of a product’s life.
23
Because people attach meaning to the objects/artifacts they own, it follows that
their values must play a part in the selection of products they choose to purchase. Allen
and Ng (1999) in a study of the purchase of family cars and sunglasses found:
When consumers are evaluating a product’s utilitarian meaning and making a
piecemeal judgment, values influence the evaluation of the product’s tangible
attributes that in turn affect product choice. When consumers are evaluating a
product’s symbolic meaning and making an affective judgment, values influence
product choice directly. (p. 6)
Values act as a standard by which individuals judge themselves, others, events
and objects (Allen and Ng, 1999). They influence “attitudes, attributes, consequences, or
consumption values that in turn influence product choice” and values also influence
product choice through association (Allen and Ng, 1999, p.8). Social and cultural beliefs
are components of human values and influence the symbolic meaning of products. Allen
and Ng (1999) stress that to understand how this works we must first understand “what
products mean to consumers and how those meanings are judged” (p.8). In their article
Allen and Ng (1999) cite a method of distinction of product meaning based on either
being utilitarian or symbolic.
24
Figure 9. The correspondence between the levels of prescriptive and evaluative beliefs
and the levels of product meaning, M. W. Allen, S.H. Ng (1999).
They found (Figure 9) that products were evaluated differently depending on the
products’ meaning to the users; for example, if the product had a utilitarian meaning it
was judged in a rational, attribute-by-attribute manner while if the meaning was symbolic
the product was judged holistically and intuitively. In the utilitarian situation, meaning is
derived from the product’s usability, performance, convenience, and efficiency, and
human values appeared to have an indirect influence on the product choice (Allen and
Ng, 1999). Meaning therefore, Allen and Ng (1999) deduce are located in the product’s
25
tangible attributes and since each tangible attribute is independent of another, the
judgment of the product is considered piecemeal because judgment takes place attribute-
by-attribute in a logical fashion concluding with an “overall product liking” from the
“combination of the affect associated with each attribute” (Allen and Ng, 1999, p.10).
When symbolic meaning was the primary importance associated with the product,
human values appeared to have a direct influence on product choice (Allen and Ng,
1999). The judgment was affective because symbols were subjective and based on
“abstract beliefs associated with an object or action that represent an entity extrinsic to
the physical form of the object” (Allen and Ng, 1999, p.11). Affective judgment was
subjective and related self to the object. Allen and Ng (1999) cite other researchers when
they suggest that “symbolic meaning tends to be located on a particular configuration of
tangible attributes, and so the evaluation of a product’s symbolic meaning results in an
instantaneous evaluation of the product whole” which is viewed as a holistic judgment
(p.12).
“Meaning is our mind’s construction of reality, the translation of existence into
conceptual form” (Gertz in Diller, Sherdroff, and Rhea, 2006, p.23). Diller, Shedroff,
and Rhea (2006) write that we need meaning to understand the world and ourselves, it is
how people make sense of things, how people assess values, beliefs, and desires. The
consumption of goods has evolved from function and economic, to status and emotion, to
meaning (Gertz in Diller, Sherdroff, and Rhea, 2006). Meaning connotes worth and what
people own is an expression of what they value. In interviews across many cultures
Diller, Shedroff, and Rhea (2006) found responses consistent about meanings associated
with possessions. In addition, “We found that people had the strongest ties to products,
26
services, and brands that evoked meaningful experiences for them” (Diller, Shedroff, and
Rhea, 2006, p.22).
“As computers begin to shape everyday life, we’re interested not only in what this
technology can do for us, but also in what owning it means for us” (Moggridge, 2007, p.
xiii). What does it say to us and what does it say to others about us. Items (artifacts) we
own have implicit and explicit meanings. Moggridge (2007) points out that because the
aesthetic qualities of the product can be interpreted differently by different people,
besides designing for usability, utility, satisfaction, and sociability, designers must also
design for communication; communicating product function and communicating implicit
meaning like the difference between a medicine bottle and a perfume bottle without ever
reading the label (Moggridge, 2007).
In the examination of the importance of objects and their role in society, it is
necessary to mention the distinction made by Maquet (1993) in his article about objects
as instruments versus signs. He states that when objects are viewed as instruments “the
observer considers the object and draws inferences from its design and its situation in the
social and physical environment,” but when objects were viewed as signs “the observer
considers the meanings ascribed to the object” (p.30). He explains further that an object
as an instrument could be understood independently from its cultural setting while as a
sign the object is understood by the collective culture where it exists.
27
Affect, Identity and Social Definition
It is difficult to separate affect, identity, and social definition. They are
intertwined together to create a mosaic of an individual. How people identify themselves
through their possessions not only defines who they are but also distinguishes them either
as belonging or not belonging to a particular group. Tied into identity and social standing
is emotional response; the way artifacts and/or interactions make people feel as a result of
ownership or the intentional purchase of an object in an attempt to illicit a particular
emotion.
We already know from the studies of Norman (2004) and Csikszentmihalyi
(1981) that people are connected to their objects and objects can evoke strong emotions.
Both researchers believe that besides the design principles of usability, aesthetics, and
practicality “that there is also a strong emotional component to how products are
designed and put to use” (Norman, 2004, p.5). In addition, Norman (2004) says, “The
emotional side of design may be more critical to a product’s success than its practical
elements” (p.5). In his book Emotional Design Norman (2004) writes:
The objects in our lives are more than mere material possessions. We take pride
in them, not necessarily, because we are showing off our wealth or status, but
because of the meanings, they bring into our lives. (p. 6)
Norman (2004) points out “cognitive scientists understand that emotion is a
necessary part of life affecting how you feel, how you behave, and how you think” (p.
10). From the work of Norman, Ortony, and Revelle, it is learned that the brain responds
to emotion on three different levels, visceral, behavioral, and reflective (Norman, 2004).
Each requires a different style of design. Norman (2004) explains in Table 2.
28
The three levels can be mapped to product characteristics:
Visceral design > appearance “initial impression”
Behavioral design > the pleasure and effectiveness of use
Reflective design > self-image, personal satisfaction, memories
Table 2. Three levels of processing: Visceral, Behavioral, and Reflective
(Norman 2004) (p. 39)
In Emotional Design Norman (2004) determined:
Products can be more than the sum of the functions they perform. Their real value
can be in fulfilling people’s emotional needs, and one of the most important needs
of all is to establish one’s self image and one’s place in the world. (p.87)
Positing that the concept of self is culturally specific, Norman (2004) writes that “Your
choice of products, or where and how you live, travel, and behave are often powerful
statements of self, whether intended or not, conscious or subconscious” (p. 55).
It is commonly understood that when a stranger enters a room and beholds a
collection or an object, he immediately begins to form an opinion about the owner’s
beliefs, interests, and values. The owner may make a point of showing his possessions
consciously or unconsciously by displaying them in a manner to create a particular
29
impression. “One of the more powerful ways to induce a positive sense of self is through
a personal sense of accomplishment” (Norman, 2004, p.55) and what better way to show
accomplishment than through a visual/physical collection.
When Miller (2008) anecdotally looked at physical library ownership in an essay
for The New York Times Book Review, she found that people viewed their personal
libraries as “a testimony to the past and a repository for the future” (p.23). The displayed
books that the library owner had already read created their self-portrait for others and for
themselves and the books they had yet to read was a testament to their future.
Besides the messages physical collections send, objects in the immediate
environment can also spontaneously stimulate conversations about a variety of subjects
that further identify the individual or link the individual to others through ideas or
memories. What happens to messages and when collections or objects no longer exist in
physical states and cannot be displayed casually; when a digital collection is hidden from
sight and must be purposely referred to? The reflective level is also sensitive to trends
and thus in continual fluctuation (Norman, 2004). We can all remember objects or
collections that were at one time revered and sought after only later to become passé and
stored in the attic.
“We are defined as people not only by what we think and say, but what material
things we possess, surround ourselves with, and interact with…” (Woodward, 2007,
p.133) What we possess has the capacity to communicate or send a message about
ourselves to others. They may indicate status, occupation, or group identity. Possessions
may also carry personal and emotional meaning for the owner and assist them in their self
perception (Woodward, 2007). The qualities of the passion may not matter but only the
30
ownership of it. “Possession of the object affords cultivation of identity, sometimes
irrespective of an object’s aesthetic or functional qualities” (Woodward, 2007, p.135).
In psychoanalytic theory object-relations refers to objects that are not necessarily
physical. These objects are targets that people direct their desires to satisfy an emotional
or psychological need (Woodward, 2007). “People choose certain objects from their
environment to develop, manage, and mediate their sense of self, others and the external
environment” (Woodward, 2007, p.139). People form a relationship with an object
investing power and energy in an object to preserve relationships and a sense of self
(Woodward, 2007).
Woodward (2007) says that according to Chodorow we project our feelings,
beliefs, fantasies, desires onto objects, and take in objects as we use and play with them.
Baudrillard (Woodward, 2007) believes that “while we may consume physical objects, in
fact we are really consuming the idea of an object…. tied to inner motivations and drives,
rather than utility” (p.141). James (Woodward, 2007) adds that who I am is not just me
but what is mine.
It is interesting to note that when people participate in virtual worlds they furnish
their virtual spaces with objects. The reasons may be for replication of their real world,
to express aspirations or possibly, to explore new ideas in ownership, but no matter what
the motivation, physical objects in the digital environment serve the same purpose as
physical objects in the real world. There appears to be a need for people to communicate
through possessions whether physical or nonphysical. This commonly found behavior is
evident in Second Life, Facebook and even common web forums. People will populate
their online presence with self-defining artifacts.
31
Objects play an important role in self-identity. “In almost every culture, objects
are chosen to represent the power of the bearer. More than any other trait, the potential
energy of the person, his or her power to affect others, is the one that is symbolically
expressed.” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1981, p. 26) Evidence of the power of object ownership
can also be traced along evolutionary lines where the fittest animals possess the most
resources. Again, we confirm the importance of physical objects where in one glance
affluence, prowess, or status is reflected. But what if that same collection is instead
viewed on a screen that requires specific access or is merely reflected in a set of numbers,
will the impact be totally different; and if the collector can no longer casually show off
their collection as an aside but instead requires the viewer to participate in the process?
The above discussion of reflective design explains how objects are used as a way
to differentiate people but objects are also used to integrate people into local culture.
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) write, “objects serve to express dynamic
processes within people, among people, and between people and the total environment
(and) these processes might lead to either a more and more specific differentiation or
increasing integration” (p.43). The user may purchase an item to be a part of a group or
distinguish him from the group.
Considering next behavioral design Norman (2004) writes, “Good behavioral
design should be human-centered, focusing upon understanding and satisfying the needs
of the people who actually use the product” (p. 81). Whether in a physical or nonphysical
state the product must function. It must do what it is supposed to do. How a product
performs influences how the user feels about the product. The product’s usability may
depend on the skill level or skill set of the user. If it is too difficult to manipulate the
32
product will not be used and will evoke a negative response and provide an unpleasant
experience. Norman (2004) found:
Far too many high-technology creations have moved from real physical controls
and products to ones that reside on computer screens, to be operated by touching
the screen or manipulating a mouse. All the pleasure of manipulating a physical
object is gone and, with it, a sense of control. (p.79)
This point ties into the evaluation of the user experience that is examined later.
At the visceral level the user is affected by the physical features of the product;
what meets the eye, how it feels to the touch, the sounds it emits, the smell it emits, and
the taste it embodies (Norman, 2004). These types of qualities elicit an immediate user
response.
We already explored user experience with Norman’s (2004) three levels of
product interaction. An important distinction to be made here is that there exists another
point of view when considering the link of object to cognition to emotion. Where
Norman believes that “emotion(s) are inseparable from and a necessary part of
cognition,” Cupchik believes “that a meaningful association must first be perceived with
an object before users may experience any arousal and subsequent emotion” (Chapman,
2005, p.98). This distinction may become important when comparing physical to
nonphysical because while looking at a physical object can illicit an immediate emotional
response, using a product in a nonphysical state may require manipulation before an
emotional response is felt. Another consideration is whether an emotional response is the
result of the mere idea of ownership of a product, be it physical or nonphysical, or is
generated from the anticipation of fulfilling a perceived need from the product as a social
33
signifier. Chapman (2005) in his concern for the durability of products wonders if the
increase in technological advances and virtual characteristics of products and the
decrease of product physical size will cause a decrease in positive product experiences
causing a decrease in emotional attachments to products and an increase in product
disposability.
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) in their book The Meaning of
Things believe “things embody goals, make skills manifest, and shape the identities of
their users” (p. 1). The things we use influence our existence, how we negotiate the
world, perform various tasks, and feel about ourselves. This explained by
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) is the socializing effect of things. All new
changes will subsequently affect our behavior. Woodward (2007) in his reference to
social status acquired by the ownership of products refers to a paper by Groffman that
states that status symbols serve in two ways: first to distinguish and socially place the
person and second to express the person’s taste, style, and cultural values. A uniform
may categorize a person or a possession may provide acceptance into a group. By the
same token these same artifacts may provide a means for a person to standout or
differentiate themselves from a group. “Objects have the ability to stand for other things”
(Woodward, 2007, p.134) and what we own sends our cultural messages about who we
are, what we desire and how we want to fit in society. When the pressures of a group
dictates what someone owns, the pleasure experienced may come not from the product
itself but from the ownership that affords them entrance into that particular social circle.
Trends and fashion play a part in-group acceptance dynamics as expressed in Simmel’s
theory derived from his study of fashion where “all excursions into fashion (including
34
anti-fashion stance) are techniques or resources for individuals to orient themselves to
social forces” (Woodward, 2007, p.126).
The Nonphysical World
A relationship with a computer can influence people’s conception of themselves,
their jobs, their relationships with other people, and with their ways of thinking
about social processes. It can be the basis for new aesthetics, values, new rituals,
new philosophy, and new cultural forms. (Turkle, 1984, p.166)
If physical objects have an affect on people and their relationship with the world,
then does it not follow that nonphysical ownership in some way must also have an affect?
What is lost and gained with artifacts that exist in physical and nonphysical states? It is
worthwhile to review the literature that considers the computer as an example of some of
the concerns of a nonphysical entity. Artifacts in any state influence the culture as well
as individuals.
An important aspect of digital technology’s impact on social structure is the
development of personal, portable devices for collecting and listening to music or
viewing pictures. Not long ago a family or a group of friends would have to agree on a
radio station for community listening in a car or would have to negotiate the movie
choice viewed in the living room, but now individuals can pursue these activities
solitarily. Interactions with others in these situations whether compromising or
discussing the medium’s content appear to be altered. The concept of shared space takes
on a new definition when several people in the same room can simultaneously participate
in their own activities.
35
Another aspect to consider is the way people work with machines for business or
recreation. The current devices based on digital rather than analog technology introduce
a form of communication that previously did not exist. Greenfield (2006) points out that
analog electrical and/or mechanical devices were unable to communicate with each other
in any way; each gathered its own information and performed its own specific task. With
the invention of digital encoded information these same devices now recast in this new
format are able to speak the same language and are able to communicate with each other;
for example, a picture taken on a digital camera can be sent from a phone and stored on
an iPod (Greenfield, 2006). This process today, though increasingly common, has altered
behavior, social contact, and expectations.
Figure 10. Second Life Avatar: The Threshold of the Real World and Virtual World.
36
When examining the nonphysical world and its influence on social interactions,
Second Life must be mentioned. A complete study of Second Life would consist of
volumes; the points Boellstorff’s (2008) study of Second Life found offers an alternative
side to the social consequences of physical ownership. Considering that Second Life
exists in a digital virtual world, it is interesting that the idea of space and commodities
that is basis of the physical (real) world plays such a large part. Boellstorff (2008) says:
“Through building, Second Life was constituted as a commodity economy, with
consequences for understandings of selfhood and society… it was also a place for forms
of barter, donation, and communal ownership” (p.97) and all these activities are the basis
for many of the social interactions. Participants furnish homes; use objects to signify a
virtual home place, and create objects to sell and to share. “Through gift exchange
…virtual relations become actual…underscores the social meaningfulness of objects”
(Boellstorff, 2008, p.100). In Second Life avatars purchase property and “only by
owning property could residents build objects with permanence: this was an economic
model in which property made the virtual ‘real,’” (Boellstorff, 2008, p.215)
The social construction of technology (SCOT) framework studies the relationship
between various groups and technology based on the belief that “technological change is
a social process: Technologies can and do have ‘social impacts,’ but they are
simultaneously social products that embody power relationships and social goals and
structures” (Gay and Hembrooke, 2004, p.15). When using this method to design an
artifact three specific areas are examined: relevant social groups, all groups that interact
with a single artifact but derive different meanings; interpretive flexibility, describes how
37
different groups perceive the artifact; and closure, freezing the artifact when the concept
is agreed upon (Gay and Hembrooke, 2004). This method reflects activity-centered
design that considers every possible user group, their needs, and possible uses.
38
The Relationship between Goods and Services
An interesting consideration when assessing product experience is that it can be a
combination of form and function in varying degrees depending on the physicality of the
product. It appears that as physicality (state) changes, the product experience changes
from goods to service, as the form (physicality) becomes less obvious, service becomes
more important. Make note that translational products are not changes in form, but of
kind. In Figure 11 on the left (Z-axis) are different forms and to the right are changes of
kind (X-axis). Notice continuity is maintained in changes of kind. Kinds are akin to
breeds (such as Terrier, Great Dane, Grey Hound and so on.) and forms with species
(Felines VS Canines).
Figure 11. Form VS Kind
39
Figure 12. Goods and Services Interaction Continuum
An item for sale may be goods or services each with a component of tangible and
intangible qualities at some point, tangible, and intangible qualities never mutually
exclusive, (Figure 12).
Mooggride (2007) gives an excellent example of the combination of goods and
services, physical and nonphysical as they apply to the train industry. See (Figure 13).
40
The chart opposite summarizes the overlapping of the physical and digital touch-points
for designing the service. Notice that the traditional idea of designing a train, both interior and
exterior, only applies to the boarding and riding steps in the journey, and the opportunity to
enhance the experience with digital technology applies to all of them, albeit in an unknown form
for starting and continuing.
Steps Physical Aspects Digital Aspects
1. Learning Advertising, Travel Agent, Word of Mouth On-line, Phone info., Intranet
2. Planning Station Staff, Travel Agent, Brochure, Phone On-line, Phone info.
3. Starting Other form of transportation Radio – up to the minute info.
4. Entering Station Architecture Signage
5. Ticketing Ticket Office, Travel Agent On-line, Phone info., Kiosks
6. Waiting Waiting Room, Station Facilities Signage, On-line services
7. Boarding Doors and Luggage Storage Auto Doors, Dynamic signage
Figure 13. Physical and Digital Aspects (Moggridge 2007)
41
When we “use” rather than “own,” design takes on a different face to satisfy the
needs of the service rather than tangible product. Moggridge (2007) outlines the design
concepts of service designers Downs, Reason, and Lovlie in Table 3.
1) Service design – defined as the design of intangible experiences.
2) Service ecologies – the systematic view of the service, the context it will
operate in, and all its relationships.
3) Touch-points – all tangibles involved in the total experience of using a service
from advertising to bills.
4) Service envy – products perform functions and confirm and communicate the
owner’s set of values. Create services that tell others who they are and what they
value (instead of through ownership).
5) Evidencing – mapping assumptions of future services and making them
tangible (touch-points) to evaluate the future service.
6) Experience prototyping – create touch-points and set scene for participants to
pretend using the service, then evaluating.
7) Service experience models – mock up of the service to experience it.
8) Service blueprinting – describes the service in enough detail to implement and
maintain it.
Table 3. Design Concepts of Service Designers: Downs, Reason, and Lovlie (Moggridge
2007 pp. 420-426)
42
A product/service system (PSS) is the combination of products and services that
together fulfill a user’s needs (Morelli, 2002). Morelli’s (2002) contention is that where
designers in the past have concentrated only on product design, the introduction of
technology has also introduced many intangible goods or services, consequently the
direction of design must change to account for this change by taking into consideration
the design of services, specifically the combination of product and service or PSS.
Morelli (2002) explains the parameters by comparing the service and product
components and finds several differences; product manufacturers do not have contact
with their users whereas service providers do, products are produced and consumed at
different times while services are produced when they are provided and used, and
products are tangible, services intangible. Keeping these comparisons in mind Morelli
(2002) proposes the two major implications for designing for the PSS. They are:
1) The design of new services is an activity that should be able to link the techno-product
dimension to the social and cultural dimension.
2) The need for new methodological tools to address service in the design activity that
explores three directions: linking technological artifacts to the attributes of relevant social
groups and interpreting and manipulating the cultural, social and technological values in
the artifacts; managing the development of the product, technological infrastructure,
personnel, marketing, customer relations, and communication; and technical
representation of PSS (Morelli, 2002).
Pine and Gilmore (1999) in their discussion of economic offerings, describe a
continuum from commodity ! good ! service ! experience. “Commodity” refers to
the fungible, “good” is the packaged tangible product, “service” the intangible
43
presentation of the good, and “experience” the memorable interaction. Pine and Gilmore
(1999) believe that concentrating on goods and services alone is not enough. The
experience associated with the goods and services is what matters today.
Product Experience: Physical and Nonphysical
Usability and Pleasure
The International Standards Organization defines usability as: “the effectiveness,
efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users can achieve specified goals in
particular environments” (ISO DIS 9241-11, Jordan, 1998, p.25). Jordan (1998) in his
article Human Factors for Pleasure in Product Use attempts to tie together pleasure with
usability and with perceived usability. He found that the emphasis here is that rather than
producing positive feelings, usability should instead avoid producing negative feelings.
He believes that products should be designed for usability, which is not the same as
pleasure, but a factor in pleasure assessment. He also states that products will fall short if
pleasure is not considered and completely ignored. To determine how they relate he
interviewed a group of students who were instructed to comment on two products that
they owned one that brought them pleasure to use and the other displeasure. Jordan
(1998) then categorized the emotions and the product properties as outlined in Table 4.
44
Pleasurable Feelings: security, confidence, pride excitement, satisfaction,
entertainment, freedom, nostalgia.
Displeasurable Feelings: aggression, cheated, resignation, frustration, contempt,
anxiety, annoyance.
Properties: features, usability, aesthetics, performance, reliability, convenience,
size, cost, gimmick. (p. 28-30)
Table 4. Emotions and the product properties (Jordan, 1998)
Jordan (1998) found that usability was not the single determining factor in user
pleasure. It is necessary to understand the link between all the properties and user
emotions. This conclusion is similar to the concept of Kansei Engineering “which
translates customers’ impressions, feelings and demands on existing products or concepts
into design solutions and concrete design parameters” (Schutte, Eklund, Axelson, and
Nagamachi, 2004, p.214).
Another investigation of human factors in industrial design was conducted by
Jordan (2000); in his book Designing Pleasurable Products he writes, “Customers are
becoming increasingly sophisticated in their knowledge of human factors and the quality
level of human factors they expect with a product. Whilst once human factors may have
been seen as a bonus, they are now becoming an expectation” (p.2). He goes on to say
that human factors add value to a product and are usually judged by the user by the
usability of a product (Jordan, 2000). Users do not expect a product to be difficult to use.
45
However, usability as the only human factor considered is not the complete picture,
“usability- based approaches are limited. By looking at the relationship between people
and products in a more holistic manner, the discipline can contribute more. Such holistic
approaches are known as pleasure-based approaches…” (Jordan, 2000, p.4). Though the
use of the word pleasure differs from the flow context, the idea of evaluating the users’
positive experiences with a product is after the same results. Jordan (2000) created a
hierarchy of consumer needs similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14. A hierarchy of consumer needs (Jordan, 2000).
Functionality is the first priority because the product must perform its task that it is
intended. The next is usability; the product must be able to be understood and easy
enough for the user. Ideally, a tool should possess a transparent interface where the tool
then becomes an extension of the person, like a prosthesis; the user forgets about the tool
46
as he works with it. Computers and digital equipment should also possess the same type
of transparency. (Included with usability would be other design principles such as
feedback, conceptual model, constraints, and affordances). The top of Jordan’s hierarchy
is pleasure, an extra above and beyond the first two requirements. Jordan (2000) writes,
“products that are not merely tools…products that bring not only functional benefits but
also emotional ones” (p. 6).
To understand how to design for emotional requirements or human factors other
than usability, Jordan (2000) suggests pleasure-based approaches that understand people
holistically, link product benefits to product properties, and develop methods and metrics
for assessing product pleasurability. In other terms, he is looking at more than whether
the task is completed, but at understanding what about the product elicits particular
emotional feelings, and being able to test whether a product delivers the pleasures
intended.
Citing the Oxford English Dictionary Jordan (2000) defines pleasure as “the
condition of consciousness or anticipation of what is felt or viewed as good or desirable
or sensation induced by the enjoyment”(p. 12). To continue he writes, “In the context of
products, pleasure can be defined as the emotional, hedonic and practical benefits
associate with products” (p. 12). He explains further that the emotional component can
be seen as how a product affects a person’s mood, the hedonic component is sensory and
aesthetic, and the practical component is the outcome of the task (Jordan, 2000).
Pleasurability comes from interaction with a product, not a property of the product but a
relationship to it (Jordan, 2000).
47
To study the pleasure in products, a framework designed by Jordan (2000) based
on the work of Tiger in 1992 divides pleasure into four categories physio-pleasure, socio-
pleasure, psych-pleasure, and ideo-pleasure.
Though the line between the characteristics is not always firm and overlap often,
the division provides a basic method for categorizing the characteristics of pleasure as a
tool for assessment and as framework for designing new products to satisfy a particular
group. Following are the characteristics summarized from Jordan’s book Designing
Pleasurable Products of each type of pleasure and the elements to consider when
designing for pleasurable aspects.
Physio-pleasure encompasses the physical properties of the product in relation to
the user and the user needs. It is evaluated for comfort, protection, maneuverability, and
ergonomics by the five senses. In this category, the design is influenced by user’s skill
level, disabilities, physical strength, external body characteristics (for example weight
and height), body personalization, environment (temperature, humidity, etc.), physical
dependencies, and reaction to the environment (Jordan, 2000). When these characteristics
are matched in the design of a product for a target audience, then usability is a success
and pleasure is achieved. Simply put if the vacuum cleaner is designed to be used mostly
by women then it must be light enough to maneuver, easy enough to use at the average
skill level, handle height and grip suitable for an average sized woman, not too loud
indoors, nice to the touch, and attractive to look at.
Socio-pleasure pertains to our relationship with others; status, social acceptability,
how the user is perceived by others, social self-image, labels, lifestyle, social personality
traits and how the product’s function affects those around (noise, smell, etc.) (Jordan,
48
2000) It is interesting to note the affects of the computer on society; for example, an
alternate social space provided by the Internet, the automation of tasks that reduce social
contact, and yet the ability to be in contact with others in distance lands, telepresence, and
remote manipulation.
Psycho-pleasure is dependent on cognition and emotion. Both can be seen as
directly related to the usability of a product, the demands of the product on the user and
the emotional response (Jordan, 2000). If the product is too difficult to understand, it
elicits frustration and unpleasantness. Feedback is also a contributor to the user’s
emotional response. Other affecters may be aesthetics or the ability to enhance cognitive
skills while using the product. When considering the design of a new product that
influences psycho-pleasure the following user traits must be considered: user intelligence,
psychological arousal at the particular time and in the particular context the product will
be used, personality traits, self confidence, and learned skills and knowledge (Jordan,
2000). Not only are these components important in the design of physical products, but
also in computer programs.
The last pleasure category is ideo-pleasure. It takes into account values, taste,
personal aspirations, trends, and culture. Jordan (2000) writes, “defining how people do
and would like to see themselves” (p. 48). Personal ideologies, social ideologies,
religious beliefs, and what a person wants to be all contribute to this category (Jordan,
2000).
49
Defining the Experience
In their book Technology as Experience, McCarthy and Wright (2004) address the
relationship between people and technology as an experience, specifically in human-
computer interactions. Though we generally see “concerns for needs of the user, (as)
their activities, relationships, and contexts of use, (this) seem(s) to us to lack the kinds of
sensibilities to the felt and personal that we associate with experience” (McCarthy and
Wright, 2004, p.183). McCarthy and Wright (2004) feel that to properly consider the felt
experience in technology you must turn from rationalism that looks at technological
artifacts as objects to the study of practice that looks at use in everyday life using
ethnography as a basis. Ideally, McCarthy and Wright (2004) say they
…want to be able to reflect on the particular experiences that people have, the
moral and political weight of a moment, the fun people have with their cyber-pet
or mobile phone, the irritation and offense they feel when forced by
circumstances into using a system that cuts against their values. (p. 43)
McCarthy and Wright (2004) believe evaluating the felt life experience of
technology is a difficult task and should be approached from a pragmatic view that
“prioritizes the aesthetic in understanding our lived experience of technology” (p. 18).
Aesthetic experiences are characterized by “always moving toward fulfillment”
(McCarthy and Wright, 2004, p. 64). Based on the studies of Dewey and Bakhtin,
McCarthy and Wright (2004) write:
…it is in aesthetic experience that our need for a sense of the meaningfulness and
wholeness of our action is fulfilled...it should be seen as continuous with ordinary
experience. In aesthetic experience, the lively integration of means and ends,
50
meaning and movement, involving all our sensory and intellectual faculties is
emotionally satisfying and fulfilling. (p. 57, 58)
An example of technology as an aesthetic experience is found in a study by
Turkle (McCarthy and Wright, 2004) where she examined at three types of computer
users – hackers, hobbyists, and users. Each type makes sense with their computers in
different ways and derives pleasure in different ways, but all three have experiences and
connections with their computers that can be described respectively thrill and danger,
neatness and control, exploring and negotiating.
The characteristics McCarthy and Wright (2004) use to describe the internal
dynamics or what is meant by an aesthetic experience are: cumulation (build-up),
conservation (to hold onto some of what has come before), tension, and anticipation. An
experience containing these integrated characteristics is considered an aesthetic
experience only if it is moving toward fulfillment (McCarthy and Wright, 2004).
Looking at technology as an experience, McCarthy and Wright (2004) want to see
the “relationships between people and technology in all their potential value, meaning,
and vitality” (p.79) by using as a guide for discussion the four threads of experience
associated with the pragmatic view, sensual (sensory engagement with a situation),
emotional (self engaged in a situation), compositional (relationship between parts and
whole of experience), and spatio-temporal (space and time) tying in past present and
future (McCarthy and Wright, 2004).
The thoughts of McCarthy and Wright should also be taken with a grain of salt
because they have based their beliefs on Dewey and Baktin and in their own words state:
51
Neither Dewey nor Baktin had much time for systemic philosophy or
theoreticism. Both were oriented toward the ordinary everyday and in many ways
the practical… Another criticism would be that we have been selective in our
readings of Dewey and Baktin, to which we plead guilty. (McCarthy and Wright,
2004, p.185)
The Optimal Experience
Earlier in this literature review Norman’s examination of the relationship of
objects to how the brain processes responses and the type of responses users may
experience emotionally was discussed. Csikszentmihalyi’s book Flow: The Psychology
of Optimal Experience goes further and examines the pleasure and enjoyment derived
from an experience. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) defines pleasure as:
a feeling of contentment that one achieves whenever information in consciousness
says that expectations set by biological programs or by social conditioning have
been met and enjoyment when a person has not only met some prior expectation
or satisfied a need or a desire but has also gone beyond what he or she has been
programmed to do and achieved something unexpected, perhaps something even
unimagined before. (p. 45-6)
Food and rest are examples of pleasurable experiences. They provide order and
homeostasis while enjoyment provides a sense of accomplishment and is a moving
forward experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). It is not limited to work or play but
includes every type of activity people participate. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) describes the
optimal experience as when:
52
We feel in control of our actions, masters of our own fate… we feel a sense of
exhilaration, a deep sense of enjoyment that is long cherished and that becomes a
landmark in memory for what life should be like. (p. 3)
Through his studies, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) has found that optimal experiences possess
eight major components that are necessary for enjoyment as seen in Table 5.
1. Tasks that we have a chance of completing
2. Ability to concentrate on the task
3. Task has clear goals
4. Task provides immediate feedback
5. Effortless involvement in task that removes awareness of everyday worries
6. Sense of control over actions
7. Concern for self disappears
8. Sense of time altered
Table 5. Optimal Experience Components (Csikszentmihalyi 1990 p. 49)
Csikszentmihalyi (1990) further finds that the tasks associated with enjoyment not only
require skill but also provide a challenge. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) says the tasks or
activities need not be a physical ones but can be reading or even socializing and as the
challenging tasks are pursued the users “become so involved in what they are doing that
the activity becomes spontaneous, almost automatic; they stop being aware of themselves
53
as separate from the actions they are performing” (p. 53). This state of being is where
Csikszentmihalyi (1990) derives the concept of a flow experience.
In the optimal flow experience the enjoyment is derived from the challenge the
goal provides (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). If the task is too easy, attaining it does not
provide enjoyment and probably lacks the need for total concentration. Feedback
provides a progress report towards the accomplishment of the goal. Feedback exists in
various forms depending on the activity, but in each case clearly provides information the
user needs to assess his or her progress.
Concentration on the tasks or activities is so consuming in enjoyment that users
forget about their everyday worries and frustrations (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
Information not relevant to the task being preformed is put to the side or out of mind.
Along with this, there is the loss of self-consciousness or loss of concern for self
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Self-scrutiny is removed and we forget who we are.
Awareness remains only for the physical parts, arms, legs, etc, involved in the activities.
The optimal experience provides an opportunity to sense control over actions.
“What people enjoy is not the sense of being in control, but the sense of exercising
control in difficult situations” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p.61). Even when the situation is
risky or involves a game of chance, the user feels that his skills will meet the challenge to
reach the goal.
Physical tasks preformed as part of a job provide a sense of control and
satisfaction that may disappear because of digital technology. When taking impressions,
for example, dentists manipulate the materials, evaluate the impressions immediately, and
alter them immediately. They are in direct control of the entire process and because they
54
are in control experience a sense of a job well done. Granted a new age of dentists
educated in digital impressions will soon forget the old process, but will their feelings of
control and accomplishment be as immediate as the old dentists that directly participated
in the process. Will it really matter years from now?
Csikszentmihalyi (1990) writes, “One of the most common descriptions of
optimal experience is that time no longer seems to pass that way it ordinarily does” (p.
66). It may be losing track of time or keeping track of time depending on the experience.
The first situation occurs in most flow experiences while the second occurs in flow
experiences like a swimmer where time is a skill necessary for the activity.
Moving Between Touch and No Touch:
The Translational Product
The subject of physical to digital has been visited by several authors with
differing approaches. They are worthy to mention to understand the development and
debates comparing the human factors associated with physical products and digital
products.
Jordan (2000) writes:
A product can be defined by its properties. Properties can be either formal or
experiential. Formal product properties are those that can be objectively
measured or that have a clear and fairly unambiguous definition within the
context of design. Experiential properties, meanwhile, are those that are defined
in the context in which the product exists and of the views, attitudes, and
expectations of the people experiencing the product. (p. 87)
55
In 1992 Nygren, Johnson, and Henrikson (Dourish, 2001) compared paper
medical records to electronic medical records in hospitals. They found that electronic
records were not usually lost, easier to read, and could be viewed in more than one place
at one time, but their study also revealed that the electronic systems rarely succeeded
because the paper records carried additional information beside patient information; such
as, handwriting identifying the provider, amount of use of the record from its wear and
tear, and pencil marks recording tentative treatment (Dourish, 2001). The records
essentially participated in the world.
Norman (1993) touches upon the positive and negative affordances of electronic
libraries in his book Things That Make Us Smart. Electronic libraries offer access to a
great deal of information easily, but electronic movement does not remain private and
sources on the Internet are not always reliable. There is always a cost and a benefit to be
considered with the move from physical to nonphysical/electronic.
In 2000, Edwards discussed anecdotally why he feels that people respond more
passionately about physical objects than digital ones, specifically computers. He
compares the strong affections he feels toward his old motorcycle to the indifference he
feels toward his old computer. Edwards (2000) questions:
Is it because the motorcycle is aesthetically pleasing as industrial design, a
beautiful metaphor for the joy of speed…But the Mac is an exceptional industrial
design, too, yet hardly anyone I know hangs onto his or her outmoded digital
equipment.” (p. 272)
Edwards (2000) believes there are two reasons for the difference in feelings between a
motorcycle and a computer “the physicality–the sound and fury that tell us something
56
amazing is happening, and the dominance of software over hardware…Function is
everything, form nothing” (p.272). From the first reason, he deduces that only a nerd can
buy into technological marvels but this author believes it is more complicated than that.
Though it may be true that a motorcycle and similar physical products have an “ in your
face” type of affect on people, there are groups (not just nerds) that experience
excitement over advances in technology and the devices themselves. The motorcycle
may provoke a series of reflective responses that are nostalgic not unlike gamers that
fondly remember old computer games (many still have their Atari games). Edwards’
second reason does have more merit. The computer box does not always matter; the
experience lies in the software, the usability. However, it may be found that there exists
a generational difference in the appreciation and excitement over computers and
software. Today it is common to find that people less than 35 years of age marvel at the
appearance, size, feel, of a computer along with its capabilities, speed and function. All
of these recognized attributes are conveyed through the form. Edwards (2000) calls the
computer itself as just passive, but this author contends that in 2009 computers sit in
many rooms of the house, out in the open to be seen as fixtures and admired for their
form not merely their function. Edwards (2000) continues, “it might be said that all
machines are only as important as what they do, that function will always matter more
than form. But form is what satisfies our atavistic souls” (p.272).
Edwards’ article is an anecdotal essay and not based on a comprehensive study,
but it does serve to illustrate a simplistic, yet still relevant age-old debate. This debate
will wander on through time as long as people confuse design with art. Design is not art;
they are clearly distinct. Art is ultimately about expression while design is has to work.
57
Art does not have this burden. Design can be wrong or can be right. Art can only be
displeasing or pleasing but not wrong or right. This conceptual mess is perpetuated by
the myth and slogan of form follows function as if one precedes the other. Form follows
function has been dismantled many times, yet lingers around because it is a fun thought
experiment to deconstruct and dissect. The author does admit that superficially, form
follows function seems valid, but with closer scrutiny the reasoning quickly begins to
fray. If one were to be splitting hairs, it is actually impossible to even imagine form
separate from function. It is like trying to imagine a four-sided triangle. Form and
function are one in the same and tied equally together. If form were to follow anything, it
would be meaning; form follows meaning. The author feels that Edwards is quite biased
and short sighted to compare computers to motorcycles believing that there is no
similarity in the way we relate to these products. Any good product designer or
passionate engineer could illustrate how each of those machines is meaningful. It is not
uncommon for people to keep their old electronics even when they are broken. Many
keep the boxes they came in. It could be easily argued that people share even closer
bonds that are more intimate with computers than transportation devices. Singularitons
and Ray Kurzweil would simply argue we have already long started bonding with
computers. We use thinking prosthetics. Steve Jobs put it best when he proclaimed that
computers are the equivalent of “bicycles for the mind”. Perhaps Edwards should
contemplate that while riding his Harley.
Ruecker (2002) in a study that interviewed avid readers to determine their
attachment to physical books and their attitudes toward the use of electronic books found
that pleasure was the key to their experience and was expressed in affective terms like
58
smell, feel, holding, turning pages, etc. Many of the interviewees had personal
collections and could not imagine using a reading device. They could only view the role
of an electronic book as a supplement. Their book collections were expressions of their
identity and were “representing in a physical artifact the effort that had gone into reading
them” (Ruecker, 2002, p.139). When displayed they could scan their collections to
determine which books they needed to add. Rueker (2002) discovered that books as
physical objects were personal in some way and the pleasures the readers received from
them he categorized in Table 6.
59
Cultural pleasures: buying new and used
collecting and displaying
reading reviews
Physical pleasures: holding and handling
looking
turning pages
annotating
Interpersonal pleasures: borrowing and lending
recommending
discussing
Cognitive pleasures: reading
studying
returning to passages
scanning on shelf
Table 6. The Pleasures of Physical Books (Rueker, 2002, p.141)
Electronic books will have to provide or mimic in some way the attributes that physical
books possess that users identify with as a pleasurable experience.
Stemaszewska and Blandford (2004) studied the behavior of researchers in
physical libraries to better understand how people interact with paper information in an
attempt to offer recommendations in the design of digital libraries. Though library is
used as a metaphor in digital library, the authors questioned the appropriateness of
metaphors describing interactions with physical information applied to digital
information interactions.
For example, the library represents a space in which particular activities (reading,
studying, being quiet) are expected, as well as a repository of information;
60
conversely, digital libraries offer capabilities that are not well matched by
physical libraries, such as ease of accessing information within the ongoing work
context… (Stelmaszewska and Blandford, 2004, p. 82)
Though both types of libraries store and provide access to information which can
be viewed and used, when the medium changes from physical to digital the details of the
interaction changes (Stelmaszewska and Blandford, 2004). Below in Table 7 is the
summary of the key differences found by Stelmaszewska and Blandford (2004).
Physical Library Digital Library
manageable collections overwhelming quantity of information
quality assurance questionable quality
searching
online catalogue and (locating information)
locating on shelf
browsing
scanning shelves for material (not available)
librarian assistance none
limited copies unlimited copies
preliminary evaluation evaluation at later stage
of search results
rapidly skim articles cannot skim without download
serendipity discovery none
quick familiarity and search engines differ
predictability
Table 7. Physical and Digital Libraries (Stelmaszewska and Blandford, 2004)
61
Whitham (2007) reviewed the available studies that compared paperless offices to
traditional offices and found in a study by Sellan and Harper that in the context of an
office work environment physical information is more advantageous than digital.
Whitham (2007) also cites a study by Kidd that “highlights the value of physical
representations of information as visible evidence of activity during internalized tasks”
(p.66). A study by Kaye found that information with special value was stored physically
in addition to digitally (Whitham, 2007). Whitham (2007) concluded that after reviewing
the current literature “information-centric work has many subtleties and nuances which
physical information technologies support, but which digital information technologies do
not” (p.66). Another observation was that physical information provided a passive
method to trigger memory, direct attention, or serve as a reminder (Whitham, 2007).
Sharp (2007) examined the use of physical artifacts, the story card, and the wall,
used by a team of programmers in agile software development. The story cards were the
user requirements and the wall was the physical space the cards were displayed and
organized. Sharp’s (2007) study attempted to understand what was gained or lost through
the translation of the cards and wall into an electronic version. The display of the cards
on the wall was the central focus of all meetings and an observer expending little energy
was able to quickly determine how the project was going. In addition, from the position
and color of the cards an observer could gather a great deal of information about the
project (Sharp, 2007). Sharp (2007) says that because of the public awareness of the
display, “there is evidence to suggest that the physical medium affects co-ordination and
collaboration activities” (p.63). When the team attempted to use an electronic form of the
card and wall method, there was a breakdown in the team. Accessing the information
62
electronically proved to be more effort than people wanted to put in so the information
stayed hidden (Sharp, 2007).
Recently two different popular magazines, Time and Kiplinger’s ran articles about
Amazon’s Kindle. Quitter (2008) writes about the drawbacks of using a Kindle and how
he overcame them. Ideally, he sees the need for improvement. His positive points are
the ability of the device to hold numerous books and the low price of acquiring the
formatted books. His views only criticize the usability of the product. He does not
address the emotional component of book ownership or of the collecting of books.
Bertolucci (2008) compares the Kindle to the Sony Reader. Again usability of the
device, price, downloading procedures, price of e-books and individual features were
evaluated, not the emotional components, only the aesthetics of each and the implied
durability. These articles are mentioned because in the design of electronic substitutes of
physical products major research studies show that usability is not the only factor to be
considered in design; overlooking emotional components in design falls short in
designing optimal product experiences. Again, this study may provide parameters for
products and for user target groups when designing nonphysical substitutes.
As with so many forms of electronics over the years, no sooner has the user
collected a library of music or movies then advancement takes place in the field yielding
the format of their collection obsolete. No longer are their collections in the proper
format to be read by the current electronic devices. Neither author above addresses the
issue of long-term book collection in relation to advancing technology.
63
Design Implications
A product opportunity exists when there is a gap between what is currently on the
market and the possibility for new or significantly improved products that result
from emerging trends. A product that successfully fills a Product Opportunity
Gap does so when it meets the conscious and unconscious expectations of
consumers and is perceived as useful, useable, and desirable. (Cagan andVogel,
2002, p.9) See Figure 15.
Figure 15. Scanning SET Factors leads to POGs (Cagan and Vogel, 2002).
64
Considerations
Twenty years ago when industrial designers saw products changing from material
to immaterial, they began proposing new approaches and considerations in design.
Abraham Moles (1988) in response to the emergence of an immaterial culture wrote:
One of the problems posed to the human spirit is its capacity to exercise control
over reality, while adjusting to the blurring of barriers between reality and images,
or between real objects and their appearances. As we enter the age of
telepresence we seek to establish an equivalence between “actual presence” and
“vicarial presence.”… the bulk of our effort will be spent more for manipulating
information than for manipulating objects… (p.25)
It is inevitable that change creates a myriad of new concerns.
In 1993, Norman in his concern about the relationship between human and
machine advocated for human-centered design so that humans would not be dictated by
technology but rather technology be used to enhance the tasks preformed by humans.
The design of the electronic product or nonphysical product has to take into account the
senses people use to navigate their environment. Norman (1993) writes:
In the modern world of electronic systems, the controls and indicators have
almost no physical or spatial relationships to the device itself. As a result, we
now have arbitrary or abstract relationships between the controls, the indictors,
and the state of the system…there doesn’t have to be any natural relationship
between the appearance of an object and its state…with the physical folder, the
visible properties are automatic, intrinsic part of its existence, whereas with the
65
electronic folder, any perceivable existence is dependent upon the goodwill and
cleverness of its human designer, who provides a perceivable interpretation of the
underlying invisible information structures. (p. 79)
In addition, by way of a historical perspective, it is interesting to examine the
evolution of ideas and design considerations that have been applied over the years from
the first introduction of immateriality. The role of the designer has been reshaped and
methods altered.
In 1988 Moles writes:
The role of the designer is not so much to create “new” objects to serve as
structural supports of an immaterial culture, as to insist on an environment of
implacable stability. Before introducing something new, the designer must
protect the status quo, which permits individuals to participate spontaneously and
with little effort in the seductive immateriality of today’s world. (p. 31)
Norman (1993) believes that technology forces us to extremes in either
experiential or reflective cognition rather than enhancing them both. Technology that
appeals to experiential cognition requires a wide range of sensory stimulation for a
reflexive reaction while technology that appeals to reflective cognition requires a means
for exploration of ideas (Norman, 1993). Knowing when cognition should be catered to
and how to balance them to complete a task through product use is one of the greatest
challenges. Norman (1993) sums up his belief very well when he says:
Appropriate tools are designed by starting off with human needs, working with
those who will be using the tools to fashion them into the most effective
66
instruments for the task. Above all, such tools allow people to be in control: This
is an appropriate use of an appropriate technology. (p. 252)
Klaus Krippendorf (1997) set forth design principles that anticipated the shift of
design from hardware to information. He (Krippendorf, 1997) presents a design
trajectory (Figure 16) that describes the considerations and challenges for designers.
Figure 16. Trajectory of Artificiality (Krippendorf, 1997)
67
The trajectory reflects a continuum of product evolution, the creation of
functional mass-products through immaterial products divided into five major categories
each with their unique concerns: products (end-user function and aesthetics); goods,
services, and identities (recognition, attraction, and consumption); interfaces (human-
machine interaction); multi-user systems (accessibility and connection between users);
projects (commitment and direction of a project); and discourses (create understanding
and community) (Krippendorf, 1997). “Along this trajectory of design problems, each
progressively creates new challenges that need to be met by new social or technical
inventions” (Krippendorf, 1997, p.92). Krippendorf (1997) proposes nine guidelines for
the new criteria and principles of design introduced by each category. They are listed in
Table 8.
68
1. Meaning is the only reality that matters. Artifacts never survive within a
culture without being meaningful to their users.
2. Design must delegate itself. Design must be delegated and dispersed with the
artifacts it creates.
3. Artifacts (are) create(d in) networks of stake holders …democratization of
design decisions and the distribution of responsibilities to all…
4. Interactivity replaces materiality. …design of human interfaces as the key to
the human use of complex artifacts…
5. Technology thrives in heterarchy, not hierarchy …embrace a great diversity of
meanings, and negotiate its possible outcomes…
6. As intervention, design is not informed by re-search …search the present for
possible ways to move into desirable futures.
7. A science for design must be a second-order science. It is designers’
understanding of users’ understanding…
8. Graduate design education must redesign design …create designers that are
capable of critically examining and re-designing the intellectual infrastructure of
their design community.
9. Design takes place in languaging …developing adequate (design) discourses…
Table 8. Criteria and principles of design (Krippendorf 1997 pp.92-95)
Thackara (2001) observes that technology is in every aspect of our life and that
the changes are taking place rapidly but the question should be asked what is it for and
does it add value to our lives? He believes the focus in design should shift from pure
technology to the context of daily life, to people and determine the effect technology has
on the quality of life. “We know how to make amazing things technically…we do not
know what needs these technologies are supposed to meet” (Thackara, 2001, p.49).
69
Thackara’s (2001) suggestion for a solution is for the designer to consider creating value
by designing ways for people to connect, designing richer interactions that favor all the
senses in a more playful and moving way, and by emphasizing service and flow.
In 2005, Dunne concerned about the social and cultural experiences mediated by
electronic products challenges designers to think more about the design of these products.
He writes: “Design is not engaging with the social, cultural, and ethical implications of
the technologies it makes so sexy and consumable” (p. xi). He believes that most
designers of electronic objects have accepted the role of creating semiotic packages along
side package designers. Dunne (2005) says:
The electronic object accordingly occupies a strange place in the world of
material culture… and is subject to the same linguistic discipline as all package
design, that of the sign. It is lost somewhere between image and object, and its
cultural identity is defined in relation to technological functionalism and
semiotics. (p.1)
Dunne (2005) believes “that design research should explore a new role for the
electronic object, one that facilitates more poetic modes of habitation: a form of social
research to integrate aesthetic experience with everyday life through “conceptual
products” (p.20). In a world where practicality and functionality can be taken for
granted, the aesthetics of the post-optimal object could provide new experiences of
everyday life, new poetic dimensions.” At this point, it is this author’s opinion that a
word of caution is given about postmodernism in design. Rationalists have discredited
postmodernism; therefore, the writings of Dunne have been dismissed. It seems that
70
Dunne has only obscured the central concepts that he is trying to clarify and might even
be considered disingenuous in nature.
Dunne differs from Norman’s (1993) belief that design should be human centered.
Dunne (2005) believes that designing technology centered cannot be overlooked because
objects shape the way the world is seen and how we think. One of the main reasons
Norman (1993) advocates human centered design is that it maximizes the use of qualities
that humans are good at doing and maximizes the use of qualities that machines are good
at doing. The combination of human and machine based on this concept produces the
optimal performance of a task. This author finds himself in agreement with Norman,
because technology and design are only tools, which may attempt to change the way
people, perform tasks and think about tasks, but in the end the users are the arbitrators of
the products.
The challenge of design in technology has been to make the computer fit into
everyday life, and to make it understandable for the general consumer. One way to make
programs easier is to understand and follow ways to design symbols and computer
actions based on physical action; metaphors of the physical world. Can physical
metaphors outlast their usefulness? Over time, young computer users who understand
how to use folders and windows may have not had any contact with physical folders so
the metaphors may no longer even resemble their physical references. Moggridge (2007)
writes:
We still use words like window, desktop, and folder, but the appearance and
behavior of the designs have evolved to a level where they communicate their
71
own attributes rather than the characteristics of a throwback to a physical world.
(p. 146)
In further addressing the design process in technology, Moggridge (2007)
suggests an understanding of the three phases of adoption presented by Little. In each
particular phase, the requirements vary based on the target audience. The first phase is
the enthusiasts where the user is only concerned with an innovative solution. The second
phase is the professional where now the technology must be reliable, perform
consistently, reasonable price, usable and useful. In the third phase, consumer phase, the
technology must be easy, enjoyable, a balance between price and performance, and must
be beautiful. “In this situation interaction design fills the equivalent role for digital
technologies that industrial design has filled for physical objects” (Moggridge, 2007, p.
249).
Design Tools
Concerns continue to exist on how immaterial/nonphysical/digital products play a
role in life and how designers approach this state of artifact. Moles (1988) seeing the
emergence of an immaterial culture, questions its impact on the designer’s task. “We are
passing from a time of hands-on creation of a model to one of an initial form plus a field
of variations, which stem from any already existing object, whether traditional or
modern” (Moles, 1988, p.28). Moles (1988) believes the drafting table and the scale
model are being replaced by the computer with its capacity to provide any number of
views of a product and make changes instantly. So, what is the relationship of design
with an artificial reality he asks? Moles (1988) sees the designer as a “neo-artist” where
72
the designer manipulates new artistic matter and explores interfaces that the user is in
contact with. In addition:
…if the immateriality of these images and symbols gives rise to a new approach
to the relationship between human being and object, the analysis will be one of
the individual’s connection with the material support underlying the new culture
of immateriality. (Moles, 1988, p. 30)
Yet contrary to Moles, designers still use paper prototypes. Note this author strongly
disagrees with the notion that designers are artists and does not advocate this
interpretation. Design is not art. Art at its core is expression; design does not explicitly
have this liberty, caries diametrically different, and at times opposing burdens. Design
has to work. Art is free of this burden; it has no such criteria.
The physical and digital balance can also affect the way industrial designers feel
about the materials they accumulate for inspiration. Keller, Pasman, and Stappers (2006)
inquired into the manner in which designers collect and organize visual material during
their design process. Their aim was to find tools to help designers in their collections.
The designers interviewed had both physical and digital collections. The authors of the
study discovered some interesting differences between the two. When Keller et al.
(2006) examined the designers’ workspaces the physical visual materials were stored in
stacks on the floor, on tables, in cupboards, and pasted on walls organized by themes or
media. Though the labeling of the themes was vague, the collectors could speak fluently
about the images. It appeared that “collecting as a background activity was more
important than the actual collection as an object of reference” (Keller et al., 2006, p.26).
In addition, the designers showed special bonds with their physical tools, pens, and
73
pencils though they did not use them as frequently as their computers (Keller et al.,
2006). The designers stressed the importance of the computer, Photoshop, Power Point.
The visual materials were stored in the computer for file management under categorized
by projects or clients for specific goals (Keller, et al., 2006). “The two collections of
physical visual material and digital imagery did hardly overlap” (Keller, et al., 2006,
p.27). Kellar et. al. (2006) found a clear difference between the two collections. There
was “a sense of place and enjoyment” (p.28) when using the physical collection that was
not there with the digital one. The designers conversed while looking through their
physical collections but while looking in the computer, they were quiet and focused. “All
participants clearly experienced searching for the right image on their computer as a task
instead of the pleasurable activity they were subjected to in search for physical material”
(Keller et. al., 2006, p.29). In summary Keller et. al. writes:
Both digital and physical materials are intensively used, but they appear to live in
two separate worlds, the former being created and used for formal documentation
and presentations to clients, while the latter is mainly used for exploration and
idea generation. (p.30)
Physical collections were ongoing, allowed for by chance inspiration, shared with
colleagues, and were negotiated by visual memory. The digital collections were
negotiated by verbal keywords and were not as open to chance discovery.
When examining the design process in architecture, Pallasmaa (2005) is
concerned with the growing use of computer imaging instead of physical models. He
writes:
74
Computer imaging tends to flatten our magnificent, multi-sensory, simultaneous,
and synchronic capacities of imagination by turning the design process into a
passive visual manipulation, a retinal journey. The computer creates a distance
between the maker and the object, whereas drawing by hand as well as model-
making put the designer into a haptic contact with the object or space…the object
is simultaneously held in the hand and inside the head… (Pallasmaa, 2005, p. 12)
The same could be said for the industrial design process; and why not then could we not
extrapolate this same rational to the user and the object? Pallasmaa (2005) further warns
that the disappearance of the physical (state of physicality) contributes to the
disappearance of sensual and embodied essence and a distancing of reality. He advocates
multi-sensory experiences that include all of the senses, which are naturally triggered by
touch.
The Return to Physical
Our environment will become our interface again
(Gerritzen and Van Mensvoort, 2005).
Both Netflix and Delicious Library studied the role of physicality in designing
their products. They understood that while something is gained when going from
physical to nonphysical, something is also lost. Kaufman writes (2006):
Netflix considered physical, cognitive, social, cultural, and emotional human
factors into the design of its service. They took the physical action a user
typically associated with renting movies and removed the annoying aspects.
75
Some people enjoy walking through the physical isles of the rental store and
might miss some aspects of the experience, like picking up and reading the boxes.
The solution Netflix provides with its online DVD browsing and selecting more
than makes up for this loss of physicality to most users. (para.7)
The Delicious Library as provided the same browsing type experience digitally
while still managing book and music collections.
Norman (2007) addresses the trend to return to physical controls and devices. He
(Norman, 2007) writes that people are physical creatures living in a 3-D world and that
digital devices take from the physical world and turn it into information spaces. New
approaches in design will put the body back into the picture by using physical action to
control mechanical devices rather than solely through electronic means. He believes in a
future where there is a combination of mechanical controls with embedded processors.
There are several interesting design concepts and an ample amount of research
that aims to reintroduce physicality. Design seems to have come full circle from physical
to nonphysical, from nonphysical to physical, a move towards NUIs, OUIs, and TUIs
interfaces. This researcher has presented and introduced an ambient signaling OUI based
product concept in ASU’s InnovationSpace brainstorms called the “Pill Plant”. In
Second Life, users are having their virtual avatars printed in 3D, the real world and while
in Second Life, the user expresses the character’s personality through physical objects.
Rooms are decorated, possessions are accumulated, and these objects serve the same
purpose in the virtual world as they do in the physical world expressing identity and
values. In the virtual world, it may also serve to express the user’s aspirations and
dreams. An even more interesting twist in this area was the American Cancer Society
76
Relay for Life that took place in Second Life, two thousand showed up and over
$150,000 was raised.
More examples of the return to physical are seen in music and automobiles. We
have gone from CDs to MP3s to iTunes cover art back to physical representations of the
virtual cover flow art. In the automobile industry, Audi and BMW take haptics seriously
in designing controls that shift the information load from visual to tactile senses, knobs,
switches, and buttons instead of digital circuits alone. In addition, a study comparing
response time from a visual warning light on the dashboard to a haptic mechanism on the
steering wheel found that the response time from the haptic warning was twice as fast as
that from the visual warning (Dale, 2005).
Touching, feeling, turning, moving is an area of study in computers also. Not
only is it about control and input, but also about feedback, receiving haptic information,
and creating a physical interface with digital systems. The Nintendo Wii game machine
requires physical movement as a method to interact with its video games and some tablet
computers have introduced the capacity to draw directly on the page.
The idea of tangible bits is a concept of Hiroshi Ishii (Moggridge, 2007) where
information and computation is given a tangible representation or physical form. See
(Figure 17).
77
Figure 17. TUI (Moggridge, 2007)
When considering Human Computer Interaction (HCI), Ishii and Ullmer (1997) write:
“Tangible bits allows users to grasp and manipulate bits in the center of users’ attention
by coupling the bits with everyday physical objects and architectural surfaces ” making
use of the sense of touch and kinesthesia (p.1). Ishii and Ullmer (1997) believe that
scientific instruments of the past, created rich experiences as a result of the necessary
physical contact (grasping and manipulating) needed to use them. These types of
experiences are now lost in the digital technologies. Most digital interactions use a
graphical interface rather than a physical interface. The comparison is illustrated in
Figure 18.
78
Figure 18. Physical instantiation of GUI elements in TUI (Ishii, Ullmer. 1997)
The purpose of Ishii and Ullmer’s research is to add the richness of the physical
world into HCI. “Tangible bits is an attempt to bridge the gap between cyberspace and
the physical environment by making digital information (bits) tangible” through
interactive surfaces, seamless coupling of graspable objects with digital information, and
ambient media (Ishii and Ullmer, 1997, p.2). The Tangible Media Group of the MIT
Media Laboratory is exploring these ideas through experimental projects like the
metaDESK, mediaBlocks, musicBottles and ambient displays.
79
Figure 19. mediaBlocks design space (Ishii, Ullmer, 1997)
The metaDesk uses tangible objects that can be touched and grasped to control the
human computer interaction (Ishii, Ullmer, 1997).
Figure 20. Tangible Bits - From GUI to Tangible User Interfaces (Ishii, Ullmer, 1997)
80
Figure 21. Tangible Bits - Center and Periphery of User’s Attention within Physical:
Space (Ishii, Ullmer, 1997)
The idea behind mediaBlocks is to physically transport media between media devices; “a
mechanism of physical reference and exchange” resembling copy and paste; “physical
controls for directly acting upon their internal state” (Ullmer, Ishii, and Glas, 1998, p.4,
p.6). The musicBottles uses bottles as containers and controls for digital information
(Ishii, Mazalek, and Lee, 1998). When the cork is removed the information escapes.
Ambient displays is an attempt to increase awareness about the surrounding environment
and feel connected to others by building into the environment, specifically by building
into the usual fixtures and objects in a room, subtle displays that deliver messages or
create the awareness of activities by others or the natural world (Wisneski et al., 1998).
81
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
This study was conducted using the grounded theory approach: a qualitative study
that asks a question without theoretical preconceptions (Robson, 2002). This type of
process is best suited for sociology/human factors studies where the researcher is
attempting to understand the situation and clarify the question to find possible
relationships, trends or theories. The study began with a general Internet survey. From
the analysis of the survey, the study defined its area of concentration for the subsequent
phases of interviews and observations. As in the tradition of grounded theory, the study
was conducted in a back and forth manner; “first to the field to gather information; then
back to base to analyze the data; then back to the field to gather more information; then
back home to analyze the data; etc.” (Robson, 2002, p.193) In addition to further
defining the questions, the sample group was defined based on the emerging information.
Three types of coding of the data were employed, open, axial, and selective at
various stages of the study. By using data triangulation and more than one method of data
collection, the study acquired validity.
The literature review provided an understanding of the role and meaning of
physical products, a review of the current studies from which to further direct this study,
and a basis for the formation of the survey questions. In reviewing the literature, the
author was able to develop a knowledgeable approach to human factor design research on
this particular subject.
82
The first study was a survey conducted on the Internet titled “Translational
Products: The Affective Responses of Changing Physicality” (Appendix B). The
participants were randomly chosen including various ages ranging from 21 to 66
(average age of 34), 20 males and 29 females. The 49 participants answered the survey
of 25 questions using SurveyMonkey.com. The questions required both open ended (fill
in the blanks) and Likert scale answers. The participants were asked about their use,
ownership, and perceptions of various physical and nonphysical products that they used,
tried, or did not use based on attributes. The intent of the survey was to identify the
emerging themes and their frequency in the study topic and to provide a focus on
particular physical and nonphysical products (translational products) and their important
attributes as determined by the survey participants for the subsequent studies.
In the second study, two dental offices were “first person observed and
experienced.” One office used digital radiography and the other used traditional physical
film radiography. The author immersed himself into the environment to discover as a
first person how the radiographic information traveled to its various points of use. This
experience enabled the author to understand the differences and similarities of this
particular translational product in a real life environment, and to identify discrepancies
and design opportunities. It provided an objective comparison of the physical and
nonphysical versions of the same product that served the same function and is posited to
deliver the same information.
The final study consisted of interviews of participants in the environments in
which they used a particular translational product. This provided an opportunity for the
author to again be immersed in the specific context of the product use. The focus was on
83
medical personal, physicians, nurses, and nurse practitioners. Also included were
musicians and a graphic artist. Each of the eleven-recorded interviews was
approximately one to two hours long. Prepared questions (Appendix D) based on the
analysis of the previous studies’ emerging themes were asked. The participants were also
encouraged to speak freely about their thoughts and feelings related to the questions. The
interviews were conducted in a conversational casual manner to provide the participant a
comfortable atmosphere to share their opinions. Consent forms were signed in
accordance with the IRB policies of Arizona State University.
84
Figure 22. Spatial Sound Field Comparison
A binaural recording device was used to capture 3-D audio. A new design
research tool that the researcher has been developing and used to capture all of the
recordings and interviews. The Spatial Sound Field Comparison (Figure 22) illustrates
the perceivable locations form different recording methods. The sphere is binaural, the
85
circular band is surround, and the front panel is stereo. The internal sound location is the
result of stereo or surround on headphones. Binaural audio is intended to be specifically
listened to on headphones in order to playback the audio spatial information. The tool is
discrete and nearly invisible to participants allowing the participants to feel more at ease
and not intimidated by a visible recording device. In the DJ interview, that participant
elected to wear the special recording device herself providing a first person audio
interview.
The data from the first study (survey) was analyzed using a variety of graphs for
the Likert scale answers while the open ended questions were analyzed by using Wordles
and by coding key phrases and key words of expressed qualitative attributes (Robson,
2002). From the survey analysis and the first person dental experience, the interview
questions were formulated based on the recurring themes. The author qualitatively
analyzed the data based on the survey coding themes or categories.
86
Chapter 4
FINDINGS
The field study consisted of three parts: survey, first-person observations, and
interviews. As in grounded theory research, the data from each part was used as a basis
to formulate the subsequent study and each part used different methods to gather data to
provide validity of the results through triangulation. The study began with no
preconceived notions only with the idea to explore translational products, products that
occur in both physical and nonphysical forms performing the same function.
Field Study #1: Survey
Data and Analysis
The survey consisted of multiple choice, grade scales, and open-ended (fill in the
blank) questions. Answers were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. They were
examined in several different ways to assure validity.
Figures 23 and 24 Wordles were created by collecting all the words the
participants used when answering the open-ended survey questions. The size of each
word displayed in the Wordle is dependent upon how many times the word appeared in
the participants’ open-ended answers. The frequency of the word’s use corresponds to its
size in the Wordle. This qualitative collection attempts to assess what the participants
were thinking and then visually quantifying the responses.
87
Figure 23. Wordle – High Definition
The Wordle in Figure 23 shows which words were significant to the participant.
It does not reveal how the words were used, only the frequency of occurrence. Both
Wordles were processed excluding basic sentence connectors i.e. and, the. Looking at
the Wordle, it clearly shows that the participants spoke most often in terms of physical
rather than nonphysical, but it must not be overlooked that the terms virtual and digital
could also refer to nonphysical qualities. The author found particular words interesting in
their frequency of occurrence: tangible, interaction, music, convenient, can, feel, touch,
and sense. Words like can (signifying action), feel, touch, and sense connect to
physicality. When examining the Wordle further, other words become surprisingly clear:
environment, accessible, temporary, ability, easily, experience, replacement, security,
contact, efficient, and connection. These words provide the language in which to
88
investigate the subject of this study. In (Figure 24) the data presented is identical, but the
contrast is increased to easily distinguish the information.
Figure 24. Wordle - High Contrast
Combining information from the literature review and data discovered from the
Wordles, the author created categories to assess the open-ended responses of the survey.
The author then examined the written survey answers and recorded each time the
participants’ responses fell into the categories described for that particular question. The
results are shown in the pie charts below.
89
The data generated criteria for each coding category is as follows:
- Sacrifice - (giving up something, exchanging, acknowledging taking less)
- Preservation - (saving, duplicating, concern of loss,)
- Emotional signifier / Personal - (subject represents an emotional token, used as triggers
for emotions memories etc.., meaningful to the individual in unique manner)
- Social - (dealing with any social aspect, how they fit into a group or distinguish
themselves)
- Multimodal interaction - (the richness of experience, mentioning of senses)
- Convenience - (mentioning about convince or inconvenience, relating to use and effort)
- Permanence - (relating to the notion of permanent or transient. perception of ‘real’)
- Safety, Comfort and Control - (anything mentioning of these subjects or lack of them)
What does physicality mean to you? What is it about the physical nature
(tangibility) of an object/item that is meaningful to you?
Figure 25. Meaning of Physicality
90
What does non-physicality mean to you? What is it about the non-physical nature
(intangibility) of a virtual product/service that is meaningful to you?
Figure 26. Meaning of Non-physicality
91
Do you feel there is a difference between physical products/services and nonphysical
(virtual) products/services?
Figure 27. Perceived Differences
92
Do you feel there is a difference between physical products/services and nonphysical
(virtual) products/services? YES.
The next question was answered by those participants that answered yes to the previous question.
What is the difference between physical products/services and nonphysical (virtual)
products/services?
Figure 28. YES there is a Difference
93
Do you feel there is a difference between physical products/services and nonphysical
(virtual) products/services? NO.
The next question was answered by those participants that answered no to the previous question.
How are physical products/services and nonphysical (virtual) products/services the
same?
Figure 29. NO they are the Same
94
The most notable results from the tally were as follows:
1) The participants perceived a difference between physical and nonphysical products
(Figure 27)
2) Personal/emotional signifiers and multimodal interaction were referenced most with
physical (tangible) products
3) Nonphysical products (intangible) were overwhelmingly associated with convenience.
Of those participants that answered, yes (Figure 28) to a difference between physical and
nonphysical, the difference was related to convenience, multimodal interaction, and
permanence. Of those participants that answered no to a difference between physical and
nonphysical, the similarity was related to convenience (Figure 29).
The information graphed in Figure 27 is the single most significant finding to
justify the necessity of this particular study where 95.8% of the participants answered yes
there is a difference between physical and nonphysical products. Participants perceived a
difference between physical and nonphysical products.
Figure 25 and 26 visually compares and contrasts how often the various
categories of attributes were referred to in relation to physical and nonphysical products.
It is important to note that the responses do not imply positive or negative comments,
only that the particular categories were deemed noteworthy to the participants when
discussing physical and nonphysical products. When comparing the meaning of
physicality and the meaning of non-physicality pie charts we find:
95
Sacrifice ! increased reference with nonphysical products
Safety, Comfort, and Control ! reference remains the same
Preservation ! increased reference with nonphysical products
Social ! marginal increase in reference with nonphysical products
Permanence ! decreased reference with nonphysical products
Emotional Signifiers !decreased reference with nonphysical
Multimodal Interaction ! decreased reference with nonphysical
When comparing the frequency of references to the categories for physical and
nonphysical products for those participants that viewed no difference between physical
and nonphysical products, it is found that convenience was the only category referred to
in both products and the only concern mentioned for nonphysical products.
96
Figure 30. Tried, Use, Own - Progression
97
Table 9. Tried, Use, Own - Progression
Figure 30 and Table 9 visually represent the participants’ responses to the
multiple-choice questions in the form of Likert grade scales. These examine which of the
translational products the participants of the survey have tried or use. The participants
were given a list of products that exist in both a physical and nonphysical form
(translational product) and asked if they have tried, use regularly, own or never tried.
Based on the visual representation, a bubble in the center/convex shows that a product is
used regularly and owned while a concave shape indicates the product was tried but not
98
used regularly; for example, CDS, MP3s, and digital photos are used regularly and owned
while paper airline tickets and digital event tickets were tried but not used regularly.
Table 10. The type of physicality for each item used or owned
The responses to select the type of physicality for each product/services that you
own or use are graphed in Table 10.
The physical version table shows the top ranking categories as physical books,
collecting, travel souvenirs, medical records, and musical instruments. Photography
99
ranks low in the physical version while in the nonphysical version chart, photography is
among the highest categories along with news. In the chart of using both physical and
nonphysical version, stores, cards, documents, post its, money, work meetings, and
messages rank the highest. Non-applicable answers allowed the author to exclude
categories from further study; second life, collecting as a hobby, movie collectables,
stuffed animals, and action figures.
Music Photography Books Musical Instruments Medical Records
Figure 31. Use Comparison
Figure 31 provides a cross section comparison of all of the following five product
categories that were questioned in detail on the survey; left to right, Music, Photography,
Books, Musical Instruments, Medical Records. Figure 31 clearly shows a few very
significant relations between translational products categories:
1) Music listening has the highest level of interaction with both physical and
nonphysical making it the prime category to examine as the most successful translational
product mixture and the most prevalent.
100
2) Photography is the lone category to completely abandon only physical versions
and also has the highest only digital participation making photography the most
successful translational product jump (photography has translated almost completely
leaving its physical roots behind).
3) The reading category has the largest purely physical interaction segment of all
the categories, which either indicates an incredible opportunity for digital print to pursue
or a significant barrier to traverse. This is very interesting in light of the newest wave of
e-book readers. Will the e-book be able to capture the attributes found in physical books
that participants of this survey found important? The reading category also has no purely
nonphysical users and a considerable amount of users that use both physical and
nonphysical versions.
4) Musical instruments is the only category to include all four groups of users,
non-users, only physical, only digital and both.
5) Medical records most closely relates to reading as seen in the in Figure 31.
It also appears that music listening and photography are further along in
traversing the translational jump. They might provide insights into how the jump can or
might take place.
The following Figures analyze six categories of products from the survey in
greater depth; photography, music, musical instruments, medical records, books, and
avatars. Each product analysis has two graphs, the first one ranks the attributes for the
physical version, and the second graph ranks the attributes for the nonphysical version.
101
Figure 32. Photograph Experiences/Perceptions
102
The pie chart in Figure 31 of photographs shows that almost everyone used digital
photographs and only half of the digital users also used physical photographs. Figure 32
shows that the physical photograph’s highest-ranking attribute is collectable followed by
real, own-able, authentic, and valuable. These attributes are characteristics of emotional
tokens/signifiers and will be examined further.
Convenience consistently ranks high for nonphysical products in all parts of the
survey analysis including nonphysical photographs. Accessible, enjoyable, shareable and
controllable are the next ranking attributes for nonphysical photographs. These attributes
refer mainly to manipulation and control, where as the highest-ranking physical attributes
deal with the ownership and value.
Though the content of photographs whether physical or digital are personal and
very meaningful in there own right to capture meaningful moments, places, and people,
the graphs reveal entirely different top ranked attributes depending on whether the
photographs are physical or digital. Because collectable ranks highest for the physical
version but not for the digital version, the author believes that the physical manifestation
of a photograph carries and extenuates an independent importance; the importance of
actually holding, displaying, and placing the photograph in a particular spot, i.e. keeping
the object within the vicinity of other objects that are important (spatial relationship to
other objects, on a desk). The importance of a photograph is not based solely on the pure
meaning of the captured and retained visual data, but it appears to serve as a
token/signifier. Tokens/signifiers are particularly important for photographs because
mental visual information fades with time. The photograph is an attempt to retain a
moment, idea, or feeling through time. Tokens/signifiers are used to cue or trigger
103
thoughts and ideas, to recall memories, and to reevaluate and reorder those thoughts.
Only physical versions allow for reorder spatially. The author believes the reason why
collectable ranks as the number one attribute for physical photographs is because of this
dual importance found with physical photographs.
Own-able ranks very high for physical photographs. Most people understand
possessions in physical terms and possessions are ultimately valued. Perhaps the own-
able attribute is about possessions and not about products. The goal of the designer when
creating personal products is to create possessions, tapping into the physical attributes
afforded and noted in these findings.
Value ranks high for physical photographs while only midway among nonphysical
attributes. The author speculates that a participant that used both physical and digital
photographs chose which version to use (physical or digital) for the image based on the
content and purpose of the picture so possibly the value of the photograph is not only
determined by its content, but also by its physical distinction. Each version, physical or
digital, has its own particular value to the photographer. (How a photographer chooses
the photograph’s version warrants further examination but is beyond the scope of this
study). This assumption agrees with the proposed token/signifier purpose and the
collectable discussion mentioned above where a picture’s importance /value is based not
only on its content but where it is placed in space.
Referring back to Figure 32, preservation was an attribute frequently mentioned
by the participants in the open-ended questions. Where physical attributes are about
ownership and value, these same attributes also fulfill the need to retain and preserve and
104
the ability to collect and own allows one to be able to act upon the impulses to preserve.
In the case of photography, photographs are always an act of preservation. All
photography is past tense only the click is present tense.
When comparing graphs in Figure 32, the largest differences between physical
and nonphysical photographs are not expensive for nonphysical vs. expensive for physical
and not searchable for physical vs. highly searchable for nonphysical. Digital
(nonphysical) photography was perceived by the participants as more enjoyable than
physical photography. Of all the nonphysical products examined, digital photography
was the only one that the participants ranked as being more understandable than its
physical version. Sorting, searching, finding, and managing concerns rank high in the
nonphysical version. The author speculates that this is probably due to the difficulty in
organizing the large numbers of physical photographs accumulated over time.
Figure 31 pie chart looks at the physicality of music consumption and without
surprise shows that not one participant did not use some form of music. This find is
unique to this category of products. In all other categories, some participants did not use
the product in any version. Only a fraction of the participants used purely physical means
of music consumption while 75% used both.
105
Figure 33. Music Listening Experiences/Perceptions
106
The searchable and displayable attributes show a large discrepancy between the
physical and nonphysical versions of music consumption; searchable ranks high for the
nonphysical version while displayable ranks high in physical. As expected, convenience
ranks high for the nonphysical version. Reliability and trust rank slightly higher in the
nonphysical than in the physical version. Nonphysical music was considered more
difficult and confusing than the physical music by the participants. The physical music
consumption version was considered more memorable and real, and more personal and
less public than the nonphysical consumption version.
107
Figure 34. Musical Instrument Experiences/Perceptions
108
Figure 31 pie chart indicates that almost have half of the participants did not play
musical instruments and Figure 34 graph shows the robustness of physical musical
instrument perceptions. The nonphysical / virtual instruments overall do not rank as high
in any categories compared to physical instruments. This author suspects some of this is
due to the intimate bond between a musician and his instrument. Most musicians sense a
strong connection with the instrument they use because it is often their only enabler to
share/express musical emotions. It becomes part of the user, an emotional prosthetic.
The value is retained even when the tool becomes outdated or replaced by a newer better
model. Much in same way, drivers develop a fondness for their first automobile and
collect it in some form (model, poster, etc.).
From the top of the list of attributes for physical instruments, the order is
authentic, memorable, real, valuable, own-able, enjoyable, displayable, and collectable.
This ranking order clearly shows the connection of physicality with a musical instrument.
Real shows the largest gap between the two versions. Virtual instruments’ top ranked
attribute is shareable. This probably refers to the software associated with
digital/nonphysical instruments. Collectable ranks low for the nonphysical instruments,
which is odd, because it is easier to collect nonphysical instruments and it is common for
users to accumulate many instruments once they get interested in it. Perhaps the
perception here does not match what people actual do. Accumulating might be
considered something different from the act of collecting, collecting being a conscious
activity, and accumulating being an unconscious consequence, a behavior.
Figure 31 pie chart shows only 48% of the participants used both forms of
medical records and no participant used digital only. In the pie charts, medical records
109
and books are strikingly similar to each other in the use of physical and nonphysical
versions (except for participants that don’t use medical records at all where all
participants used some version of books).
110
Figure 35. Medical Records Experiences/Perceptions
111
The striking points from Figure 35 are: 1) authentic ranks first for physical
medical records, 2) both physical and nonphysical versions are considered not expensive,
3) searchable and shareable show the largest discrepancy between the nonphysical and
physical versions where nonphysical medical records rank considerably higher then the
physical version, and 4) safety deceased with digital medical records. Both versions had
remarkably similar attribute rankings. Similar rankings imply that translation from the
physical form to the nonphysical or visa versa will be less troublesome and more familiar
for users.
Reading, we all do it. This is an experienced category. About 43% of the
participants used both physical and digital books. (It raises the question; does the e-book
wave intend to capture a new reading market segment or to permeate the already
established niche?)
112
Figure 36. Book use Experiences/Perceptions
113
Physical books were considered more useful to the participants compared to their
nonphysical versions even though when looking at the graphs independently useful ranks
high for nonphysical books. Physical books’ top five attributes are authentic,
displayable, comfortable, own-able, and collectable in that order. The affordance of
possess-able is a reoccurring theme. It is the root of possession. It may seem common or
mundane, but as our literature review revealed, people do not want to just be consumers
of everything; they also want to be possessors. Consuming has a sense of transience and
intangibility, possessions on the other hand want to be collected, displayed, and kept.
The creation of possessions appears to be more valued to the participants than the product
alone as deduced from the comparison of physical to digital books. When it comes to
books, convenience seems to be the central driving rational for the user. In an overall
comparison of the physical and nonphysical versions in Figure 35, the participants
recorded a definite decline in confidence in the nonphysical version. Physical books rank
so strongly positive overall for positive attributes that the author believes it will be hard
to provide a nonphysical offering that can surpass the physical version while still
retaining the nonphysical valued attributes. In addition, the author believes that digital
version’s overall lower rankings are probably due to a decreased sense of value the
participant feels toward a nonphysical book. Displayable showed a large discrepancy
between the two versions. The author feels that this attribute is very important and the
findings support this hypothesis. The displayable nature of products is a key element that
will be explored in the interview study that follows.
Since reading and medical records are similar, their comparison is useful. Both
nonphysical versions of books and medical records show that convenience is very
114
important. Medical records are not considered entertainment but are utilitarian in nature,
convenience and the perception of safety/trust may be the product’s most important
attributes rather than the attributes associated with nonphysical reading as a pleasurable
or hobby related activity. Books and medical records were considered more trustworthy
in the physical versions than nonphysical versions. This might be due to the feeling that
digital is transient and always changing or easily changed, manipulated and/or discarded.
Perhaps the sense that there is a great deal of scrutiny and long period of time necessary
for the printing of a physical version increases the perception of physical version’s
trustworthiness. Moreover, to the user all these steps imply a greater cost for the physical
version.
Figure 36. Avatar Based System Use
115
Figure 36 indicates that 95.2% of the participants had no experience with Second
Life or similar avatar based systems; therefore, this study will not explore this category
any further. Figure 37 shows that the Second Life experience is not considered
honorable, authentic, or valuable. The authentic ranking does coincide with earlier
findings for nonphysical categories, but since the sample is so small, this is as far as the
study will examine this category.
Figure 37. Avatar based System Experiences/Perceptions
Virtual goods: Atoms vs. Bits
For a place that has no physical boundaries or physical laws and has the potential to the
ultimate dream world, Second life is surprisingly familiar, tame, and ordinary. It seems
we are destined to replicate the familiar much like in the science fiction story Solaris,
116
"We take off into the cosmos, ready for anything - solitude, hardship, exhaustion, death.
We're proud of ourselves. But when you think about it, our enthusiasm's a sham. We
don't want other worlds; we want mirrors." In conclusion, of the second life topic,
Second life entertainment indulges a few activities. Second life is ultimately about three
things, Aspirations, Replications and Vicarious / Hypothetical Explorations.
Field Study #2 Autoethnographic First-Person Observation Dental Office
Data and Analysis
The author conducted this study by actual going to two dental offices and having
x-rays performed on the researcher while observing and interviewing dental personnel to
track the movement of radiographic information in one dental office that used physical
radiographs and one dental office that used digital radiographs. The objective was to see
how the information was stored, used, and transferred in each environment. A
comparison was made by the author in an attempt to determine the similarities and
differences in the use of physical and digital radiographs; and discover unexpected
information that might further direct this study. Most importantly, this field study
allowed the author to experience both processes first hand in order to create a lexicon in
which to analyze and relate to the interviews in the final study. Basic flow schemes are
below.
117
Dental Office #1 Physical radiographs and physical records
X-ray taken in treatment room " x-ray physically taken to dark room and unwrapped
and insert in automatic developer " retrieved from dark room and brought to treatment
room and set on view box for review " after treatment x-ray mounted and labeled and
stored in physical folder " folder filed in cabinet " x-ray retrieved with folder
X-ray may be duplicated physically in dark room processor to be sent to insurance
companies, specialists, etc.
Dental Office #2 Digital radiographs and physical records
X-ray taken in treatment room (patient’s name must appear on computer schedule) "
instantaneously appears on treatment room computer screen and automatically stored on
office hard drive (ability to zoom in specific areas on computer screen and ability to
change contrast) " after treatment physical folder stored in cabinet, x-ray remained on
hard drive " x-ray and folder retrieved separately
X-ray may be printed or sent digitally to insurance companies, specialists, etc.
Based on the flow chart created by the author (Figure 38) and the author’s first
person observation the following comparisons were made, the ease of use of both systems
is based on the operator’s knowledge of equipment, but digital equipment requires
extended training to utilize all the available features; the digital information was more
accessible to patient; the digital x-ray sensor was more comfortable; the digital office is
perceived as cutting edge; digital x-rays easily stored, but not in same place as physical
118
folder while the physical folder and physical x-rays were stored together, which opens
the door for misplaced and mismatched records.
When looking at the survey findings from study #1 the most associated attributes
to digital medical records were useful, sharable, accessible, convenient, and searchable;
and the least associated attributes were difficult, expensive, and inconvenient. For
physical medical records, the most associated attributes were authentic, real, useful,
accessible, and reliable; the least associated attributes were inconvenient, public, and
expensive. Looking at the author’s first person immersion experiences in the dental
offices found that the perceptions associated with digital/physical x-rays in the dental
office were similar to the perceptions of digital/physical medical records when
considering the finished x-ray but not examining the process of taking the x-rays.
Figure 38. Medical Record Process Flow
119
Field Study #3 Interviews
Data and Analysis
The author conducted conversational interviews using the questions found in the
Appendix. The eleven participants were met in the environment in which they used their
translational products. The average interview was two hours long. Some sessions
involved more than one interviewee. The participants were allowed to speak freely and
recordings were made using binaural recording device.
Interview 1
Producer/DJ
The producer/D.J. uses virtual and physical musical instruments and in her role as
a DJ uses a physical turntable interface for spinning records that are MP3s. She started at
a young age playing the piano and guitar and later moved into virtual instruments. “I
haven’t really touched my guitars in a while, I use guitar loops (digital),” she said. The
physical keyboards are used mostly as controllers, meaning they do not make sound they
just interface and trigger the computers virtual instruments.
120
Figure 39. Collections
When spinning she uses an in between method with an elaborate authentic
interface that uses real records that have no music on them only time codes that signal the
computer (Serato system – ProTools and Abelton Live). When performing the time code
is not normally heard, because it only synchronizes the music, but she played it to
demonstrate what the time code record sounds like. It was a very odd constant pitch.
“The sound of code was a bit like the reading the matrix,” she exclaimed.
121
Figure 40. Serato Interface
The DJ said that she uses this system “to stay true to the art of “turntablism” and
retain control while not having to cart around records; the touch, the feel, the culture that
I’m honoring by continuing the tradition.” She believes that spinning records (time
codes, no music - physical time code) represents a culture (subculture) and preserves the
art form. She continued, “Just how some people choose to still paint, when there is
Photoshop. There is some kind of kinesthetic. There is something reminiscent of a
movement.” Her physical records that have been collected over the years are “nostalgic,
reliable, romantic,” and she enjoys the connection to the physical. She keeps her dad’s
record albums to display on walls, like souvenirs, but does not play them. Though
122
CDJing is considerably less expensive, she says, “I don’t really like CDJs (DJs who play
CDs without any records at all), I don’t really appreciate the idea”. She views the
physical act of mixing music as a genre of music playing and has developed her skills in
this art. The conflict she felt between carting around all her records and still not using
CDs led her to use the Serato system (virtual instrument that incorporates the most
important elements of physical interaction into the interface). This system has a tangible
user interface (TUI). The DJ explained that CDJ devices eliminate the art of mixing and
synching tempos. They are “machine accurate” but they “miss the crackle of vinyl.”
There is authenticity in imperfection. Records degrade overtime (not as much as
Dub plates that were intended to be played only 3 to 4 times as part of the reggae
movement) so she records her favorite records into the computer to avoid a degradation
penalty each time she plays the music. “I want to preserve the record. They could warp
in the Arizona sun. I can archive them. But I still get that crackle of the vinyl records
which for me gives me a warm fuzzy feeling,” she said with a smile. “After I record the
records into the computer, I have a digital copy of my records and I still have these guys
as a memory and I’m gonna keep carting them with me for a while.”
Figure 41. Vinyl Records
123
The DJ said, “The whole industry has transitioned. I have a few tracks that are
only on iTunes online. It doesn’t feel like I’m spending money when I’m buying these
songs because I go online. I listen to it. I like it. I put in my name, my Paypal password,
and this invisible, behind the scenes, transaction occurs. The process is so streamlined,
but I think something is lost.” She enjoys remembering when she used to go to the record
store “flipping through and finding the one track, listening to it and meeting other
people.” She misses “the community aspect of going to the local record store.” This
social interaction revolves around the physical artifacts. She said she doesn’t do that
anymore, but “there are virtual communities now.” There was exclusivity in the
investment in records and the time spent hunting for the right songs.
“Accessibility is what progress and technology are all about, but I feel like
quality of mixing, being a DJ is like a cool thing now.” The DJ explained how it is so
easy now for people to say they are DJs when all they do is “download songs from the
internet, put the songs in Abelton which mixes it for you, wear the right clothes including
your snake skin shoes, and you get a gig because you’re a dapper looking dude. I feel
some things are lost” (referring the loss of exclusivity, serious true artist culture and
social aspects centering around the artifacts), “but it’s being compensated for. People are
having meet up groups and performing communities.”
There is a continuum here of physicality from MP3 only to CDJs to Serato, and to
only vinyl, in other words, from nonphysical entirely virtual to a middle ground of virtual
and physical, and finally to only physical. The DJ said, “I have a few friends that are
really extreme. They only collect vinyl and they don’t really say nice things about people
with a Serato. They think we are betraying the culture.” This was difficult for the DJ,
124
but she was very honest and articulate about how she felt about this subject. “I think they
are being silly, they represent a culture and staying really connected to it in their own
way and I think people are sometimes afraid of new technology.” She thinks extremists
are afraid to make the switch because it would invalidate the many years they spent
collecting and the many years they spent doing their type of DJing. Many have also
invested a lot of money in their particular format. It is possible that those who remain
unchanged might not be technologically oriented or might not be doing it to make a
living. For her Serato was a practical career choice. “ I was making good money from
just three to for days a week,” she said. She respects, but mostly understands that
“having an identity associated with something specialized does provide a sense of
community. Everything is becoming so homogenized that having an affiliation with
something that is superimposed by you as opposed to cultural or vocational is necessary.”
125
Figure 42. Musical Controller Interface
“I think there is this sense of non-permanence that exists with digital data,” so the
DJ has multiple backups of backups in different formats. She said she has more of a
connection with the music created on tangible interfaces. As one progresses from novice,
you need to control more than just a single click or one keyboard. As a producer, she
finds more satisfaction in using knobs and sliders simultaneously (even if the physical
knobs connect to a digital system) because she said “It’s your union with the sound that
the mouse does not offer.” When using digital systems she finds that the learning curve
is great and because of the complexity, she does not use all the features. Music is about
126
control; “personalize it, customize it to get the sound you want.” She feels the most
comfortable singing because “I have the most control over my voice.”
Even though all music is nonphysical, records, and CDs have cases, unlike MP3s.
People appear to want tangible things (Signifiers) to remind them of their music, a t-shirt
or poster or something that can be collected that reminds them of it. Possession and
signifier qualities go hand in hand, but have different properties. The DJ says, “I collect.
That I have, but don’t use.”
Figure 43. Roland - SPACE ECHO RE-201
She pointed to “this thing the Space Echo. It was my dad’s.” It is an old tape
based echo delay effect rack unit. “It doesn’t really work well, but it’s just a reminder of
that era.” There is a virtual instrument version today that is used to reproduce what the
127
Space Echo does naturally but this outdated unit is a Token Signifier for her. “It’s not
accurate. If you notice is doesn’t have any numbers. No values. There are no names of
modes. The values are assumed to be like 0-10 could be to 11, but it’s an estimate.
Everything with virtual instruments now is so precise down to the hundredth of a
millisecond. There’s something about just feeling it out and finding the right sound by
just tweaking these knobs with arbitrary names.”
Interview 2
Digital Sketch Artist for web, books, book covers, comics, and tattoos.
The artist originally started with traditional physical sketching, but now uses his
own developed process (like most digital artists now). His process begins with physical
sketches that he scans and digitizes. In the digital versions, he continues the refining
process and ends with a completely digital version as the final product. The artist
described the sketching as “messy” and would “clean it up” on the digital side. He said
the digital side is more precise than his abilities. His sketched proportions are usually a
little off, but he corrects them in the computer. He worries less when working with
digital pictures because they are so “perfect like the digital perfect circles.” He confesses
that the computer’s perfection is so comforting that he feels lazy and that it probably
makes him lazy.
128
Figure 44. Sketching
The artist believes that physical sketching allows for the freedom of ideas and
concepts, it is “familiar, comfortable, and unrestricted and truly cheap and ubiquitous.”
Digital sketching also has freedoms, "vectors aren't stuck, it is not ink," he said. Digital
freedom to him is the transience of the nonphysical, the ability to always to change.
Figure 45. Digital Sketching
129
The artist uses a Wacom pad and stylus pen input device. This interface
replicates the physical act in a digital medium. He sprays the sketches to preserve them
and then scans them into the computer. The computer scan workflow has two hard drives
for backup, so the work is duplicated. All the sketches are scanned in order to preserve
the originals, because continuing to work on the digital version will not smug or degrade
the originals. The original physical sketch seems to hold a special meaning to him. He
showed the author a website forum where he posts and shares finished artwork with other
artists. His goal is to create a digital painting that does not look like a digital painting but
a real one.
"A lot of the time, this work only has an existence in the digital medium,” the
artist said. “It would take a lot of effort, time, and money to produce the digital works in
print.” He admitted it would be cool to have them in his room, so he does wish for
physical versions of his digital art. The author believes that the artist is speaking about a
feeling of legitimacy and about the quality of physical versions. Only his best works or
most valued pieces would be selected to be made into a physically printed form.
The artist said that his skills are better on the computer than they are with painting
techniques. “Oh and you can undo (on the computer),” he pointed out. Because of the
transience, duplication, and ease in changing qualities of the nonphysical work version,
he feels safer experimenting with his works once they are in the computer.
Another issue of safety is that the artist has had some of his finished works
“copied and ripped off online,” but he also added that he was more concerned about his
ideas rather than his pictures being stolen. He does not reveal any of his ideas online.
The artist believes that people should not learn to draft on AutoCAD. “It's just a
130
tool. If the are computers down, I can always sketch.”
Interview 3
Professional Musician, Symphony Bassist
The musician interviewed plays the double bass. She has played the double bass
her entire life and studied at a prestigious Boston conservatory. She is currently taking a
new position in a symphony orchestra in Japan. In addition, the musician creates audition
DVDs for other musicians that are used for pre- auditions to procure real auditions.
“Real musicians are always auditioning,” she said.
Figure 46. Symphony Orchestra Concert
131
The musician has never used virtual instruments but is familiar with the
controversy regarding their use. She explained that currently Broadway productions are
using musical recordings played with virtual instruments (keyboard players mimicking
string instruments) rather than live orchestras to save money. Then she continued, “I
think it’s wrong, Synthetic sound is a totally different sound compared to the sound
people make with actual instruments where human beings aren't perfect and that's the
point! Live music (should) be played by real people. It's a very sad story what's
happening on Broadway.” The consequence is that live musicians and professionals are
not being hired any longer for many Broadway's shows.
The musician owns two basses one is in Japan. It was made in Germany. She
left it behind when she came to the US eight years ago because her teacher wanted her to
get a slightly smaller bass to fit her better. The second one is about 160 years old made
in Italy and purchased in New York. Good bass shops are only found in New York she
added.
The musician described the ownership of her instrument different from the usual
feeling of owning an object. In addition, she said, "it has been owned. It has a history,"
and that scares the musician. She continued, "It (the bass) has been owned, by several
people. It has a history so I kind of feel scared when I think about my bass’s history. To
think what if some really good player has owned it before and what if my bass thinks I
don't deserve it. Deserve owning it. It's so old. I also think my bass has a life. It was
born in Italy, 1840. I'm working on my technique and want to improve more. I kind of
think if I improve more maybe I will think that I own the bass...More feeling... more right
feeling about owning the bass when my musicality improves.”
132
The musician described the sound as loud and dark. "I really like it," she said
with a proud smile. She went on to say, "I just love my bass" and has owned it for seven
years. She has even named her bass she said while chuckling, but “it's a secret. Sorry I
can't tell you.” However, she did reveal that it was a male name and the bass- “it’s my
love.”
Figure 47. My Love
The musician described how physically demanding it is to play a bass. She said,
"It's just too bad" it so difficult to play. It’s uncomfortable due to the unavoidable
mechanics of the instrument. The lengthening of everything on the instrument is
exaggerated to produce low frequencies, and thus creates a large margin for error. “The
bass is not convenient,” she said, “and I don't feel in control all the time, just because it's
133
just so hard to play. I can never play like how I really want to play but still - still it's
meant to be like that I think. Yeah that's why I don't like the artificial synthetic sound.”
She does not feel in control all of the time though the aim is to be in complete control of
the instrument. The imperfections that are produced, is the goal she concluded, and that
implies to the author that mechanical precision is probably not the objective.
When the musician compared virtual instruments to her playing, she said,
"Authentic music is played by people. Perhaps authenticity is human at its core. There is
no virtual substitute for my bass." She does not own an electric upright bass, because it
does not allow her to work on her sound while on a traditional double bass she can. She
explained, "Always I feel it is imperfect (sound), but it's meant to be imperfect. I like to
work on sound quality and small details." It appears to the author that perfection is
imperfection based on the importance of authenticity.
The instrument is described as an emotional prosthetic for the musician. "I have
nightmares that someone breaks my bass or it is stolen or even my parents sell my bass,
yeah its weird,” she said. “The bass feels permanent, at least for my lifetime, despite that
fact that it is made of wood.” Without hesitation, she said that she has sacrificed her
social life for her bass. She also has difficulties about how she feels about the bass. If
she is playing well all is fine, but other times she doesn't even want to see her bass "It's
complicated, (laughing) it's like a relationship." She cleans her instrument and manages
the humidity in her room to maintain it. The bass is insured for well over fifty thousand
dollars. The act of preservation is standard maintenance in this case. If she needed and
could afford an even more expensive bass, she would still keep this one. To her the bass
derives its social importance based on the sound it produces and its ability to blend in an
134
ensemble. She also owns a keyboard and recorder (flute like instrument), but is not
connected to them.
The musician owns both CDs and Mp3s for listening to music. Surprisingly she
has no preference between the two. The author suspects that this lack of preference is
probably due to the lack of a high quality playback systems that allows her to be able to
distinguish quality differences between the two formats. It is likely that a professional
musician could easily discern the differences. She said she ultimately prefers listening to
live music.
Interview 4
Board Members of a Hospital Documentation Task Force Committee
Nurse #1 is a registered nurse who works in the PIC-U Pediatric intensive care unit at the
patient’s bedside.
Nurse #2 is a floor nurse in the GI /diabetes area.
Both nurses have direct interaction with patients and documentation.
The nurses serve on the board of the Documentation Task Force Committee of
their hospital. The committee deals with the transition and implementation of digital
medical records. Originally, the committee worked on optimizing paper documentation,
then turning paper documents into computer documents, and now they focus on
optimizing the digital documentation process.
The nurses explained that at first, everything was on paper but now it is 50/50;
half physical documents and half digital. The medical record starts with an "admission
profile" that records the patient’s history digitally. The patient’s vital signs and
135
assessments are also entered into the computer. Patient educational materials, medical
administration records, and medication reconciliation forms are still on paper. The
medication reconciliation form tracks what medications the patient takes at home or in
the hospital. It is noted that other hospitals have digitized these documents and
processes.
The nurses’ hospital started building a system for digital medical records about
three years ago. Both nurses agreed that the biggest hurtle for their departments was that
even though their patients are pediatric (birth to 18 years old); the software purchased for
the digital medical records is for adults. Therefore, they end up spending a great deal of
time researching other hospitals’ systems and they explained, "monkeying with the
program to get it to fit our needs. It is really emotionally tolling." and it “causes many
internal arguments; the cancer floor, the OR floor, diabetes floor, ER, PIC-U etc, every
department has a different perspective.”
The entire radiology department does not document in the computer. Out- patient
and pharmacy each uses their own system that does not interface with any other
department. The pharmacy resorts to faxes to communicate with other departments.
In just the first few minutes of the interview with the nurses, the problems they
spoke of seemed vast, persistent, and deeply imbedded. The lack of a designed system
was evident, and the many problems were solved reactively at a slow pace by finagling,
jerry ridging, and improvising. To the author this was not a planned system at all.
Design is proactive planning. Planning is foresight and anticipation making course
corrections long before the obstacles arise. The hospital did not prototype or test the
plan. It was mere trial an error, the farthest thing from “design thinking.”
136
The nurses said they encountered resistance to the move from physical to digital
medical records; some doctors would write their orders in the computer, others would
refuse. The nurses referred to those that refused as " old white men who need to retire" or
"old crabby white men who don't want to change their ways." The older doctors would
tell them “we didn't do it this way 20 years ago.” Consequently, it took two and half
years for the CEO of the hospital to finally say, "you will do this (use digital records to
document) or you will loose your privileges at PCH.” The nurses found it frustrating and
worried that "when you are going from paper to computer, there is a risk of transmission
error." The risk of errors was more serious than they thought considering that, one
medication alone has to go through three to four people just to be completed and there
could be transcription error from computer to paper. “Medication changes written in
charts over months cause errors,” they said. “Then there are added complications; some
orders are written while others are in the computer; along with not being able to read
handwriting; and discrepancies between written and digitized orders. Which was written
first and by whom? Whose order takes priority?”
137
Figure 48. Medical Record Terminals
PIC-U is pretty close to 100% compliant, but it did not come without resistance
one nurse explained. There are computer record stations, rolling computers, and
computers on desks and still the neonatal intensive care nurses are not switching to digital
medical records. "Nikky” nurses as they are called, care for premature births and
multiple birth babies. They are usually older; the average age is 45 (the older side of
nurses). "They are very resistant to using computers whereas we used computers through
college, it's not new for us," the nurses said. The average hospital nurse age is in the low
30s. "It wasn't just the older doctors, it was the older age group of nurses that resisted the
computer.”
Nurse #2 confessed that she preferred paper, "I like to see everything I'm working
with, spread out.” She uses many computer systems and is familiar with them. The
138
author believes that her preference for paper to “see everything” was referring to the
digital lack of display that the physical versions have i.e. display, physical orientation,
and spatial relationships. Nevertheless, both nurses did not agree on this personal
preference. Nurse #2 persisted, “I like person- interaction, I don't like staring at a
screen."
Both nurses agreed about documenting (medical records), "It’s the worst part of
our job." It takes time away from patients, and being with patients is what they like best.
Additionally because the system was made for adults and not "peeds" (children) it has
been cumbersome. Moreover, it is even more frustrating because the documenting
software is built on a completely different method of assessing patients from what they
practice. "It’s counterintuitive," they explained. The nurses clinically assess the patient
from head to toe while talking to their patient to get a cognitive evaluation at the same
time. However, the documenting program uses what is called Functional Health Patterns
and it looks at motor and neuromuscular responses. "It doesn't flow. We are having to
work towards it (the software program), as opposed to it (the software program) working
for us,” they said. Regardless of which approach is the best, the fact that they have to
manipulate their approach and reorder and/or reinterpret their assessments to be able to
record them is a major design flaw that could produce considerable errors.
The nurses described the interface like a giant excel spreadsheet. "It's obnoxious,
because you can't see everything in one screen." They drew a sketch to illustrate.
139
Figure 49. Participant drawn illustration of difficult medical documentation screen
Display and access to the information are time-consuming problems for the
nurses. Physical records do not have these display issues. The nonphysical version does
not overcome these problems through a search mode either; an area where it would seem
the computer would be better equipped to do.
The nurses have an additional problem with the digital record system, only four
hours of patient information is visible at any one time when twelve hours or more would
be more helpful.
What both nurses did like about digital records was the improved legibility. "I
have terrible hand writing," so Nurse #1 feels better typing. "Doctors have terrible hand
140
writing, so I can read what they say."
The medical administration record (different from the patient’s medical record or
progress notes) both nurses do not want to be on a computer, because then they would
have to roll a computer into each room (wipe down and disinfect after each use) or use a
computer outside each room. They explained how this program is used using the
dispensing of medication as an example; the medication has to be checked right as you
take it out of the storage area and then you have to check it again at the bedside;
therefore, it requires a computer at both locations at those exact moments. When the
computers are not there "there is all this room for error on my part, my license and my
job. Scary,” they said. The nurses believe this procedure would only be possible if they
had the right equipment.
A more convoluted process exists in the hospital because of the lack of continuity
throughout the hospital departments’ computer systems the nurses explained. It occurs
when an order is put into the computer. It is then made into paper and faxed to pharmacy
where it is re-transcribed and finally printed out. The nurses must first verify that they
transcribed the orders correctly. Then in the med room, they check five things: Is this
the right med? The right dose? The right patient? The right time? The right route?
Then once bedside in the patient’s room those five things are authenticated once again
using the paper printout. Nurse #2 fears that if people had to use the “cumbersome”
computers, nurses would skip steps because it would be too time consuming.
141
Figure 50. Arm Bands
Searching through the digital data is not easy, "less than 1% probably do it,” the
nurses said. (The author believes, this major flaw should be one of the strongest assets
for digital systems). The nurses described a great deal of confusion when the written
record is disorganized or when the record is a mixture of written and digital forms. They
did like the idea of audio-recorded documents though not many people use that method.
"Medical records is this magical place, I have never been down their downstairs
somewhere," Nurse #1 said. She imagines “piles of papers and probably now piles of
CDs.” The servers are on the east coast and the information is backed up on site and in
New Jersey. "When the computer system is down we kill a lot of trees."
142
Another problem the nurses discussed was if there is a time lapse between
entering the medical data and from when the data was gathered, then very often it never
is entered digitally. The nurses said this creates gaps in the medical record and especially
in the patient’s vital statistics making it impossible to track trends in the patient’s
physical condition. During fast paced periods where there are serious patient incidences
requiring frequent interventions, the documentation is often done on paper because on the
computer it takes too long. Nurse #1 said, "I re-enter some things myself just to cover
my own self, liability-wise. But a lot of people don't.” Nurse #2 said, “We take vitals
every hour, that's something you can keep up with. When you take vitals every minute,
you can't keep up with that or every thirty seconds, you can't keep up with that in the
computer."
In hospital emergency CODE situations there is normally a dedicated person to
record the event, sometimes even two people to record. The record ends up being a
"narrative / med record type thing" the nurses explained. "I'm really particular about my
documentation, because I just really don't want to go to court,” said one nurse. They have
heard about hospitals where everyone dictates everything and a service transcribes it all
for them. They did not know much about it, but loved the idea.
The nurses said they are sacrificing time with their patients by using the
computer. "If my baby is dying. I'm spending all that time in the computer, when I
should be sitting with that mom, at the bedside, talking to her while she's in tears.” They
go onto say that people don't really understand that nursing is holistic. It's not just about
the patho-physiology and medical aspects (they also have to be good at) or just about the
patient; it's the whole family; social and cognitive factors, it's the entire picture.
143
Documenting is time stamped and if the data is not entered in the appropriate
amount of time (under an hour or maybe two, three hours is too long), the nurses worry
that that could be used against them in court. On the other hand, the nurses feel safe
about the audit trail created by the time stamp in the computer, because people cannot
just alter data that is input. A great deal boils down to protecting themselves from
litigation.
In general, the hospital uses a preexisting software program that was customized
rather than using more appropriate software that is designed specifically for their
environment. The nurses explained that many of the decisions were made in the hospital
boardroom instead of on the hospital floor. The author believes that using software not
specifically designed for the situation is clearly a major flaw.
The nurses serve on a team that educates hospital employees about the computer
system how to do medical recording. They also receive the employee complaints about
the system. The nurses recall the first time they used the system it took thirty minutes to
get from top to bottom for one flow sheet on one patient. Now it takes them five minutes,
but that is still too long when they have several patients. The team admits they see no
way to get any faster at using the system. Another complaint is the hospital laptops as too
big.
"I don't fiddle around on my phone, if I can stay off the computer, I do. I like
tangible, I like tangible things,” said Nurse #2. She continued, “Feeling, interacting, with
a little device- I would rather be up moving, doing things, holding the baby or even
reading a book. I like flipping the pages. I don't like the idea of reading it off some little
screen." Nurse #1 refutes, "I've seen it (technology) save lives." One nurse enjoys
144
technology and the other one really does not; on this point, they disagreed.
Summary of positive aspects of digital medical records as described by the nurses:
- Communication - Sharing information (between nurses and doctors)
- Legibility
- Less room for error particularly with medications (acquisition not administering)
Interview 6
Two managers and Head RN from The Simulation Center and Clinical Educators and
Simulation Specialist Center at Banner Healthcare.
They oversee the simulation training and education of new employees. They also provide
training for outside groups.
Figure 51. Banner Healthcare Simulation Center
145
Most of the documentation and the patient medical records at Banner Healthcare
are digital (virtual). The people trained by the facility have varied experiences with
computers and medical records, paper and digital.
Manager #1
Manager #1 said that Banner uses the Cerner medical record documentation system.
She described it as “pretty easy” and that it can capture all types of information, NIC-U,
emergency room, adults, and children. It works with all patients. She explained the
biggest benefit of electronic medical records is that they are legible, and easy to read.
"Clarity of the documentation; it's a big safety thing and if you ever have to go to court,
you've got that documentation there."
Figure 52. Cerner medical record documentation system
146
On first thought, Manager #1 did not believe anything (attribute) was lost when
using digital medical records instead of physical records but as our discussion progressed,
she contemplated it further. She acknowledged that time management was a problem
with digital records and paper documents were easily carried to the patient’s bedside
while " you have to take this thing (pointing to the bulky computer laptop cart).” The
battery always has to stay charged she explained, so it has to stay plugged in and if there
aren’t enough computer consoles available, then you cannot get the documentation
finished. Many hospitals just do not have computers everywhere you need them.
When patients are admitted all sorts of information is gathered and cataloged into
the patient’s record; demographics such as age, martial status, race, ID, allergies, etc.;
background that includes why they are here today, and a history of previous visits. This
information once entered is accessible throughout the Banner medical system. This is
helpful because it circumvents signing waivers to have medical records transferred and
keeps track of the records to prevent them from being lost. In addition, providers often
verify data looking at the same medical record simultaneously in different locations
allowing physicians, nurses, medical records, respiratory technicians, anesthesiologists,
etc. to discuss and understand a patient’s situation even before they are seen. She pointed
out that paper physical records could not do that. They can only be viewed in one place
at a time.
Head RN
As an RN, works in the medical telemetry area, where patients wear monitors all the
time; cardiac leads, programmed blood pressure, etc.
147
The RN began with a background of sepsis; an extreme state of infection, which
can be so severe that it, affects all of a patient’s organs. It kills 1400 people a day around
the world. In the hospital setting 30-40% of unexpected deaths, occur on Med Surg
(Medical Surgery) floors. It is the number one cause of deaths in intensive care units and
in addition, another 20% will die at home from the complications of sepsis. When shock
occurs with sepsis the death rate jumps up to 50-60%. Sepsis is the tenth leading cause of
death in the United States, more than breast cancer and prostate cancer combined. The
Head RN explained that they are always looking for septic patients on Med Surg floors.
The entire staff works together to identify sepsis, because a septic patient requires blood,
urine, and sputum samples for culture and antibiotic treatment within an hour of
identification. Sepsis must be identified and treated as soon as possible. "Time is
tissue,” The Head RN said.
148
Figure 53. Sepsis check sheet
The RN showed the paper checklist that he created and the hospital adopted. (It is
very interesting that a paper reminder/check list was created even though the hospital’s
149
environment was mostly digital/nonphysical). The list was touted as a novel idea that
they were proud of. He described his motivation for using and sharing this sepsis check
sheet (which the author believes reinforces a behavior and is cognitive assistance tool).
"If a nurse uses this with a patient that is septic and notifies the physician right away, she
has probably saved this patient’s life," The Head RN said. The significance is that it saves
lives. He reiterated the mantra, "Time is tissue. Time is tissue." By using the following
role-playing scenario, he further explained why the physical paper form of sepsis
evaluation was particularly significant even when some are able do this process by
memory.
What follows is the role-playing scenario using the author as the consulting doctor:
The RN went down the paper checklist to remind himself of the order and process. He
highlighted each step as he completed them adding notes when necessary. Then he
reported to the attending physician verbally, "Dr. Richman, your patient in 106” (while
sharing his inner intentions out loud and you have 100 patients you are seeing today.
How am I gonna sell you that your patient is septic) “is sick and doesn't belong on a Med
Surge floor. She needs to be either on the Tele floor or ICU (where a higher level of care
is given). She is no-longer a Med Surg patient.” The RN now presents the paper check
sheet, "Dr. Richman...Emma Carlson is septic." Looking over the sheet the attending
physician exclaims, “Oh my, RN good job. Transfer to ICU stat, bolus one thousand
litters normal saline, blood cultures times two, urine cultures, sputum cultures, fecal,
myosin one gram stat IV now, infection control disease doctor. I will call him
personally."
The RN’s main concern was "How am I going to sell you;" meaning how am I
150
going to convince the attending physician that his patient is septic? He believes that the
paper checklist does the convincing. The sheet is an efficient displayable representation
of the facts. He said that the doctor asks often-additional questions about the patient’s
status and the sheet allows him to have every answer on hand rather than fumbling in the
computer. The RN found that looking on the computer, clicking away through the digital
medical record was not faster but slower at finding data and added that, “you don't have
time for that.” It appears to the author that the physician does not have instantaneous
access to the patient’s current vitals on the computer at that particular moment, as he does
with the Head RN’s checklist. It is noted that these check lists can sometimes be found in
smaller forms on ID badges but are not always able to be written on.
In addition the RN said that he and most of the staff had a problem with being
unable to see everything (information) at once, "scrolling and scrolling through charts on
the computer” They said that this wasn't a problem with paper records. "Having to
navigate through all that it's more time consuming and you don't get the big picture."
They agreed that the ability to display on the computer screen was a definite limitation.
151
Figure 54. Tip sheets
Note: the bottom image is purposely out of focus to conceal specific information about
the participants and hospital
152
Manager #2
Manager #2 began her interview explaining that different hospitals use different
and incompatible medical record systems so in order to send a record from one hospital
to another hospital the entire record must be printed. This printing means that every two
hours the hospital generates a box (several reams) of paper. "The state of Arizona said by
2010 all of the hospitals have to be on digital records. Well, we can all be on digital
records, but it doesn't mean that they are all going to talk to each other," she said.
Medical records can be retrieved from other hospitals, but only if the patient informs the
staff that he was previously treated somewhere else. Unless the patient informs the staff,
there is no way to just search for previous medical treatment outside of their system.
Physical records by their size alone relay information. The length of a stay or multiple
visits is explicitly displayed by thickness of the folder. In the digital version, this
information is only uncovered once the document has been reviewed and has no external
indicators.
Manager #2 explained that paper is lost and hard to archive. When charts are old,
they are transferred to film for storage, “which is a pain to lookup.” She said that most
believe that in facilities computers provide quicker and easier access to information. "It’s
a great concept," but as a bedside nurse she found it differently. "It took me away from
my patients. I did not like that. I felt I was spending more time at the computer."
She feels she sacrifices patient time with digital records. During her 12-hour day when
she used paper documentation, eight hours were spent doing patient care and four hours
charting. When the hospital switched to digital records, it felt like the opposite, 8 hours
were spent charting and four hours with the patients. "It was very dissatisfying at the end
153
of the day, because I felt I hadn't given the patient care that I had previously.”
Back when the hospital did only paper charting, the manager explained, the
documenting was done at the end of the conversation or episode. Now there is a push for
live documenting with digital records, but there are not always enough computers to
document in every location. She said that when she worked on the floor she carried a
paper sheet (referred to as “brain”) and marked down anything that was abnormal, but
now with the digital system one abnormality generates four independent forms in the
documenting process. She admitted that the information was much more accurate, but it
took more time. In the paper world, everything (information) was on six pages (three
pages front and back). “In the digital records”, she said, “You have to know which way
the information flows.” She added that becoming comfortable with the computer system
was a matter of familiarity.
The manager found the digital documenting restrictive. There was no way to add
comments or more information when the drop-down menus were in place. She said that
it is harder correcting errors on the digital system because you have to provide
explanations and that creates more work, "but it's probably safer."
Manager #2 pointed out that "We have lots of nurses who don't even have
computers at home, so we have them download solitaire to play during their down time to
learn how to move a mouse; how to right click and left click."
Consent forms are always physical; also code sheets and tip sheets (core measure
and screening). Tip sheets are created as they see fit and they are different in different
departments. These tip sheets are introduced for training and remain on their personal
clipboards well after. (The author believes clips boards can be considered physical
154
versions of PDAs making them a translational product category). Tip sheets are kept on
the back of cards. Manager #2 had five different tip sheets at one time. Tip sheets are
physical mental tools.
“Tip sheets are always handy, you don't have to turn anything on or look for it,”
Manager#2 said. "They are right there for them (nurses).” They are more accessible than
any system they have. Most nurses kept tip sheets on their clipboards, ID badges or in
their pockets. "We used to have tip sheets to help calculate different drugs, we now have
pumps that do that for us." The new systems are more accurate up to an additional
decimal place. The new pumps calculate the flow rate and warn if values are out of the
parameters that are requested. The pumps even alert when inputs are clearly user errors.
Manager #2 told stories about nurses who wouldn’t believe that their math could be
wrong so when the pump alerted them, instead of checking their entry calculations, they
got a new pump. (The author feels that designers have a responsibility to anticipant user
error and to take all the necessary precautions in order to prevent such dangerous
misunderstandings).
All the facilities use tip sheets to help them meet their core measures. There are no
digital tip sheets. The tip sheets are a personal accounting mechanism, but also in the
broader sense the tip sheets also serve as a verification document that is checked by
another person to make sure everything is completed. Manager #2 said, "The core
measures change every year, they add, they take away, they change it. It is up to date,
accurate; by doing this, it saves lives. It's helping me deliver quality care. Bottom line, it
saves lives, but reimbursement is also tied to it. It saves Banner money. It takes too long
to come up with a form and then put it on the computer (2-3 weeks). I could generate this
155
in five minutes.” Generating physical tip sheets can be created and deployed in less than
a week. The tip sheets are not official forms so they are passed on quicker to employees
and are not permanent parts of the medical record. The digital medical record should
have identical information in it. "This is my double check. Did I ask you this? Did I do
this? Tip sheets provide personal verification and serve as a personal to do list providing
task guidance and intended work flows. The electronic medical records themselves do
have many of the directions in popup form providing task guidance, but they are not
concise. They are not on one page or mobile and most importantly not with the
employees at all times. Manager #2 added, "I think our tip sheets are preserving the idea
of paper charting. I mean, we are not preserving the (paper) charts itself, but we’re
hanging onto that one piece. Wanting to go to (it). Holding on to that paper. So...It's our
control."
156
Figure 55. Medical Record Documentation Island
Almost everything in the hospital is mobile and has wheels so it is odd to the author
that the computer islands, "Nurses Stations," are fixed. Every procedure involved in the
documenting process equates to merely text data entry, a process that does not require a
fraction of the computer’s power. The computers are sporadically used through out the
day. The computers are all stationed on desk islands in main thoroughfares of the
hospitals and there is three to four rolling carts called WOWs (workstation on wheels).
The author observed that access to information is confused with the computer itself. "We
don't have enough computers to take in a room,” is a frequent complaint from hospital
staff. What appears to be needed is more access points or interfaces instead of complete
157
expensive computers (there is nothing to compute). If Manager #2 or her colleagues have
to wait for a computer, then they go into the bathroom, get a paper towel, and start
documenting on the paper towel. "Many CODES were documented that way," she said.
When a CODE sheet is on the cart, then no one has an excuse not to document. CODE
carts routinely have the CODE printed documents on them because everything happens
so fast and there is no time to enter the information in the computer.
158
Figure 56. CODE Cart
159
Figure 57. CODE Cart CODE Sheet
160
Figure 58. CODE Sheet (front)
161
Figure 59. CODE Sheet (back)
162
Manager #2 thinks physical records are convenient but electronic records are not
always. If she has the equipment (computer) and tools she needs right when she needs
them, then “yes” electronic records are convenient and easy. However, if she has to
search for a computer, then it is not. "It becomes time consuming and I don't want to do
it." She feels a sense of ownership of her work in both physical and nonphysical records.
Her perception is that electronic is permanent and paper is not, because paper can be lost,
though she acknowledges that digital records can be deleted. Neither type of record is
personally meaningful to her. She clearly considers paper medical records socially
meaningful "yes, because when you have a chart in front of you and the physician sits
down to talk, you socialize, communicate about the patient, and relate what you are
seeing.” Electronic charts are definitely not social she said.
The author asked manager #2, “How do nurses remember all the numbers and
monitor readings from every patient and machine when it’s time to sit down to
document? Where do you keep that information?” She answered, "in their brains.” She
explained further, "not in your brains, on your brains. A piece of paper folded into fours,
we call it our brains." She said you sometimes see nurses searching all around saying, "I
lost my brains, I can't find my brains. What they are referring to is their sheet of paper
that they write stuff on.” Everyone has his or her own system too. Some nurses use
photocopied versions, but most like having their own systems. They are personal
notepapers. (Tip sheets are different from personal notepapers). “I wouldn't call this (tip
sheet) my brain. OK, because my brain (personal note sheet) is my information that I
need to take care of.” She reiterated this point clearer to emphasize its importance,
"My brain (personal note sheet) is the information that I think is important to me to take
163
care of my patients today." Manager #2 presented a scenario to demonstrate:
“If I know a patient is going to surgery, then I may say when I walk into the patient’s
room, ‘I know that you are going for open heart surgery today. Is your family coming?
What time is your surgery?’ If the patient answers, ‘What surgery?’ Then I jot down on
my brains, ‘Call surgeon patient doesn't know he's going for a surgery.’ After I have
reviewed the digital chart, I may put notes (on my brains) about what I should look for
before I see a patient. The brains might say - do not feed the patient, going for surgery,
no water. It prevents calls to surgeons like "oops I feed the patient."
Figure 60. Drug Guide Book
164
Manager #2 explained that the hospital is trying to move away from paper drug
books because the computer based one is always up to date, but the books sit on the
counters. The author believes that the drug reference books are seen as symbolic,
redundant, and out of date once printed. The computer drug reference program is
superior in every respect to the printed drug reference books. The books are only needed
if the power goes out, but she spoke about them fondly, "I spent years studying these."
The books are "our nostalgia safety net.” In a medical environment, that has changed so
much over the years; it appears that the drug books are seen as symbolic tokens and
reminders of the past. A note about medical records: electronic backups are a form of
preservation.
165
Figure 61. BDMC Core Measures Prompter / Tip Sheet #18
166
Chapter 5
Discussion
This study examined the affective responses to changing physicality. Many
products serve the same purpose for the user but exist in physical and in nonphysical
versions. The author has termed this kind of product that exists in physical and
nonphysical versions as translational products. The question to the designer and posed in
this study is: What is gained and what is lost as perceived by the user when using either
version or both? What are the design implications? The literature review provided an
understanding and a vocabulary from which to begin. The understanding of product
ownership and user satisfaction has been based mostly on physical products, but with
evolving technology where more services and products are non-physically based, a
further understanding is required. The next question to the designer is: Which attributes
are important to the user and must be maintained when developing a nonphysical product
that already exists in a physical version? How does the designer establish a symbiotic
relationship between physical and nonphysical products using each versions’ best
attributes and affordances? Using the grounded theory approach, the author surveyed,
observed, and interviewed participants that had experience with various translational
products to quantify and qualify the tendencies of user perceptions to develop a system
for this design opportunity.
The attributes considered in this study fall under the general terms of meaning and
usability. Using the survey and the literature review to further distill these terms, the
author was able to examine attributes and perceptions more specifically. They are:
167
sacrifice, preservation, emotional signifier/personal, social, multimodal interaction,
convenience, permanence, and safety/comfort/control. Many of these areas of
investigation overlap and are intertwined.
The survey in the first field study took the range of attributes discussed in the
literature review and asked participants to rate and relate their feelings about these
attributes for both the physical and nonphysical versions of particular products. From the
information gathered from the participants, a number of tendencies became apparent
about affordances, attributes, meanings, usability, and perceptions about translational
products.
The most significant finding was that whether perceived or experienced, the
participants found a difference between physical and nonphysical versions of the same
product. Personal/emotional signifiers and multimodal interactions were associated most
with physical products.
A summary of the survey comparisons between physical and nonphysical versions
is as follows: 1) In every product category, the nonphysical versions never ranked higher
than the physical versions when considering the memorable attribute. The author
speculates that this is likely because physical objects enable multimodal interactions
perceived through different and independent senses that require much more to recall, thus
leaving an impression on the individual using the product. By sheer quantity alone, the
multimodal mountain of data is certainly more memorable than a nonphysical interaction.
Memorable may also be related to the ability to store a physical product in view
(displayable spatial significance) as a personal signifier to recall a memory or begin a
narrative. 2) The authentic and honorable attributes ranked higher throughout the survey
168
in all product categories for the physical versions. 3) Meaningful ranked consistently
higher in every physical version. This attribute may also be tied into ownership of a
product that stimulates a narrative. 4) Every product in the survey ranked the
nonphysical versions more convenient, more desirable, and less enjoyable, except for
musical instruments and books (which indicate the opposite). Whether or not it is
actually desired or perceived as desirable is not clear from this survey. 5) Easy ranked
higher in every product category for physical versions except for nonphysical e-books.
With the wave of new e-book readers and tablets, this is a perception (not easy) that must
be over come to increase the consumer market. 6) In every instance physical versions
ranked more real than nonphysical versions. 7) In every instance physical versions
ranked more valuable than nonphysical versions except for medical records, where the
value is identical in both versions. (Value related to memorable and meaningful -not
cost). 8) Physical versions ranked higher on the perception of safety and comfort, with
the exception of photography, but only marginally. 9) The physical versions ranked
higher as being personal and ranked lower on being public meaning that nonphysical
versions were consistently considered less personal and more public. Personal versus
public refers to the scope of the audience, i.e. the digital communities are large while
physical products stimulate more one to one relationships. 10) Accessibility ranked
higher in nonphysical throughout the survey except for musical instruments. 11)
Nonphysical versions ranked extremely high in being considered searchable, with
physical versions ranking searchablity as not at all (negative values). 12) Displayable
ranked high for all physical versions and tied for medical records. 13) All physical
versions were considered more expensive than their nonphysical counter parts. 14) All
169
physical versions ranked higher than nonphysical as being own-able and collectable. 15)
Nonphysical versions were thought of as being more confusing than physical versions.
The interviews confirmed many of the tendencies flushed out of the survey. In a
few areas, the surveys and the interviews did not agree. The following discussion
compares the findings.
The intertwined feelings derived from the survey about authenticity, real,
memorable, meaningful, personal/emotional signifiers, and valuable related to physical
products are corroborated by the interviews. From the interviews people appear to want
tangible things form attachments to them and create narratives about them. The DJ
provided two examples, the Space Echo, and her vinyl record collection. The Space
Echo is an outdated, inaccurate piece of equipment that she does not use. It was her
dad’s and “it’s just a reminder of that era,” she said. It sits in her studio along with her
dad’s vinyl record collection. She enjoys displaying the records and feels a personal
connection to them that she is willing to relate. In addition, the DJ finds authenticity in
the physical act of spinning records and the sound of physical records.
The bass player has clearly formed an emotional attachment to her instrument that
would seem impossible to do with a nonphysical instrument. Here is a clear example of
an endearing form of personification illustrating the connection the musician has to her
instrument. This expensive instrument is a life commitment, and her means of income. It
is enables her to learn, to perform, and derive pleasure; she holds it, admires its beauty,
and has anthropomorphized it through its history. A virtual instrument would have a hard
time competing with the attachment the musician has to her physical bass.
As mentioned above, out dated objects become forms of expression or an emotional
170
prosthetics. The relationship between attribute and object is clear, simple, and
intrinsically tied to one another. However, in nonphysical products this connection is
severed and bit more complicated. The connection is no longer innate and must be
planned for and designed into the product. For example, containers of nonphysical
translational products should pay special attention to satisfy the attributes of possession.
The evidence seems to indicate that users need a physical object to connect with
to fulfill qualities of possession. In addition, virtual instruments are extremely unlikely to
survive format progressions as technology moves forward while a 160-year-old
instrument seems to increase in its value over time.
The artist and the nurses value the physicality of their personal paper artifacts.
The artist desires to print his favorite digital drawings for hanging and the nurses carry
their paper brains in their pockets. The nurses have found no substitute for this personal
piece of paper. The physical drug book is another physical version that persists by choice
even when digital alternatives are available.
It appears that people do not want products they want possessions, the affordance
of possess-ability. In translational products, the container is not intrinsically tied to the
content. With this separation as in all translational products, the attributes that are
normally together in the physical manifestation are separated. Qualities of possession
such as, collectable typically reside in the container and not in the content. So in order to
capitalize on this separation, containers should emphasize their possession attributes.
The personalization of the containers like MP3 players and cell phones fulfills the need
of possession and turns the container into a personal signifier.
The survey found that convenience was associated with nonphysical product
171
versions, yet in the hospital setting, the staff did not unanimously find that to be true in
all cases. On one hand it was “pretty easy” to misplace or steal paper medical records,
and time consuming to retrieve or transfer paper records, but on the other hand digital
records have time, complexity, availability, and accessibility problems. Contrary to the
perception indicated in the survey, the nurses found it was slower to use digital medical
records and less efficient. Very often, the author noted that there was not a distinction
between digital program problems and computer equipment problems. Though many of
the interviewees complained about the limitations of the software, it was apparent that the
software that was not the problem; it was the entire product ecosystem that was out of
balance.
The ecosystem is composed of medical devices, people, physical notes, multiple
digital medical records systems, and interfaces. Figure 62 is a representation of an
ecosystem where the shapes represent the various components that exist within the
ecosystem whether physical or nonphysical. Again, the perception was that most of the
problems were in the software, when instead there was a deficiency in the product
ecosystem. This study has discovered that there needs to be advanced planning of the
ecosystem to design its various components so that physical and nonphysical are used
symbiotically to the advantage of the entire system.
172
Figure 62. Product Ecosystems
Both the surveys and interviews found easy to be associated with physical versions
and confusing associated with nonphysical versions. The author believes that those two
attributes are also interrelated with accessibility and complexity. Accessibility can be
viewed in two ways, cognitive processes, and mobility issues. Cognitive processes
include the ability to find things (searchability of information), and the ability to use the
product efficiently. Mobility issues involve physically moving a computer or its file. It
takes a long time to request information when it was in paper form. Digital records are
easy to transfer and allows for multiple provider viewing simultaneously, but the hospital
staff consistently found that searching for data and entering data was time consuming. It
was not fast enough so they resorted to paper (physical) products. The emergence of the
printed note systems (tip sheet, sepsis form, brain) to fill the inadequacies of the digital
systems is symptomatic of a void-filling behavior, an improvisation to solve a problem.
Unfortunately many of these types of solutions (although commendable and should be
encouraged in an atmosphere of continuous improvement), reintroduce many of the
173
deficiencies that were present in the previous (paper) system rather than addressing the
core problems of the present (digital) system. If unaddressed in future design processes,
then the overall system will remain in a dangerous middle ground between physical and
nonphysical where errors can easily occur. This is not to imply that the physical and
nonphysical cannot coexist when well planned. This author believes that the ideal
relationship is symbiotic where each (physical and nonphysical versions) performs its
function based on its best attributes. An ideal combination of the translational product
where the newer system absorbs, assimilates, and incorporates the positive attributes of
the older system.
When a system does not work well or is not fully utilized, it is necessary to
examine how the program and the user relate. The DJ and the digital dental office staff
stated that the digital equipment they used was so complex that they did not use all the
systems’ features available to them. The complexity of a product and its controls has
always been an important design consideration, but the complexity also has to be
appropriately matched with the user. Who is the user and what is the learning curve?
This is especially important when introducing new technology. Nurses #1 and #2 implied
in their interviews that age mattered, but the managers from the Banner training facility
found that that was not necessarily the only factor. Inexperience with technology and the
perceived breaking of the traditional ways of doing things also created problems when
moving from physical to digital record keeping. The age factor, the author cautions,
should not be overly emphasized because this hypothesis though frequently sited, makes
too quick a generalization and overshadows other important considerations. Age is a
factor, but only one of many already discovered factors and is not the most prominent
174
one. More than age, the author discovered that the amount of exposure and the ability of
the user affects his attitude to change from physical to digital. Rather than learning the
digital medical recording systems, the hospital nurses expected the older nurses to quit,
but instead found that when the younger nurses helped the older nurses through the
transition it was successful. "Acclimation and new flow has to settle in." is how they
described becoming accustomed to digital medical records. It was a "comfort issue"
based on exposure.
Control was mentioned by the nurses and the DJ. The nurses felt a greater control
over physical medical records because they could carry them and flip through them
easily. (It was not clear if the reduced complexity of paper records played a part). The DJ
felt in control when she manipulated knobs, sliders, and buttons.
The survey indicated that safety ranked high for physical versions while in the
medical interviews safety was a positive and important attribute for nonphysical
documentation. The documentation time stamp provides a layer of protection in legal
matters and the nurses added that opposed to written records, the digital records are
always legible reducing the chance of errors. They feel very safe and comfortable about
documenting digitally. His or her concern is that someone may mistakenly document in
the wrong persons chart. There are many safeguards in place for digital records,
particularly the tracking methods that track who accesses the information and when it
was accessed.
In the survey only physical stimulated a sense of ownership. The nurses felt a sense
of ownership of their patients and their medical record whether physical or digital.
Knowing where the records are located is part of the ownership. Location of the digital
175
records is irrelevant, because location equates to access points or interfaces. With
physical records, there is only one document (without backups); remembering its location
is a task. The records could be with the physician or misplaced.
There is not much faith put in the 20-40 year permanence of either form of medical
record. Paper felt more permanent because they could carry it and hold it in their hands,
"I can't carry the digital with me all of the time."
Display refers to the ability of a product to be shown or stored in a physical space
where others can see or have access to it. This visibility of the physical product informs
the observer, becomes a social signifier, and/or is a form of presentation. The display
affords an atmosphere that is object centric and is conducive to conversation regarding
the resolution or exchange of the object/information. It creates a situation where there is
communication between people. Both the survey and the interviews ranked physical
versions high for this attribute, to create a particular point of interest and focus.
Examples of display from the field study are the DJ father’s record collection, the sepsis
checklist, and the paper medical record. Personal collections CDs Books, etc. are all great
examples of this. The nurses said that engagements related to physical records often take
place in passing while walking through the hospital halls whether transferring the record
to a colleague or using it as reminder to stimulate a conversation about the patient. The
conversation then becomes a social act just as the sighting of the DJ’s record collection
stimulates a narrative and reflects the owner’s values. Because of the physical constraints
of electronic records in portability, the nurses explained that they could not make a
concise presentation of information as they can with physical records. Digital
information is spread across to many screens in different places. The same is true for the
176
paper sepsis checklist when information is exchanged in order to invoke immediate
action. The consolidation of information is very important task in critical moments.
Social exchange also gives the medical personnel an opportunity to also convey
nonverbal information. Mutually beneficial symbiosis is the most efficient and effective
relationship between physical and nonphysical records, and human interaction.
177
Chapter 6
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Design Implications
The outcome of the survey clearly indicates that there are perceived and
experienced differences between physical and nonphysical versions of products designed
for the same purpose (translational products). The previous discussion identified the
relationships between product versions and their perceived attributes. Among the various
tendencies and discrepancies revealed in the comparison of the survey responses with the
interviewee responses, two findings were the most prominent and consistent: 1) The
intertwined feelings of authenticity, real, memorable, meaningful, personal/emotional
signifiers, and valuable related to physical products only. 2) Convenience is product and
user specific and not based on physicality.
This grounded theory research began with no preconceived notions, but instead
followed the trail of each of the field studies building one upon the other. As the research
continued, it eventually narrowed to an extensive look at medical records. From the
findings, the author was able to formulate a theory on how to examine the integration of
physical and nonphysical products to benefit individual users and major industries.
178
Figure 63. Optimal Product Ecosystems
The author observed that products and systems are often designed with the intent of
converting every aspect of the system to one extreme of physicality excluding any
components from the other, but the author believes that optimal ecosystems
accommodate assimilate, imbed, and capitalize the positive attributes on both sides of the
physicality threshold as displayed in Figure 63. The author proposes a systematic
approach to analyze the ecosystem for design opportunities to achieve the system’s
optimal level by 1) observing and recognizing void-filling reactive behaviors and 2)
anticipating and creating products based on the desired attributes necessary for the task.
179
Figure 64. The Pendulum effect - Reaching User behavior - Swings
When products or systems from the extreme ends of the physically chart (entirely
physical or entirely nonphysical) are put into place a pendulum effect occurs where users
finding gaps in their systems reach to the other end of the physicality chart for solutions.
This pendulum effect reaching user behavior (Figure 64) is the user reaching and
swinging back and forth grabbing solutions from the physical and nonphysical realms
that possess the missing attributes necessary to satisfy their needs. It is a form of making
sense and solving problems.
180
Figure 65. The Pendulum effect - Balancing at Optimal Center (Convergence)
This back and forth trend, though often unrecognized by the user, over time inches
closer to an optimal center of positive product attributes combining both the physical and
nonphysical (Figure 65). The author believes that this process is inevitable. The
pendulum effect of progress can either happen slowly, reactively, and unplanned or
efficiently, proactively and designed. If the designer begins a project based on the
premise that the physical and nonphysical can exist symbiotically utilizing each
physicality’s’ attributes that best satisfies the user, and then the system or product will be
successful. By knowing in advance, which physicality works for people in which
situation, and then a system can be designed proactively.
A specific example of the pendulum effect was evident with the use of nurses’ tip
sheets. Tip sheets are translational products because they exist in both physical and
digital versions. Though they were expected to be used in the digital version with the
introduction of digital medical records, the tips sheets used were physical pieces of paper,
(a void filling behavior that represents a design opportunity in translational product
181
ecosystems). The author poses that if an investigation of the attributes necessary to make
a satisfactory user tip sheet was done, then a system could have been designed with either
a digital tip sheet component that worked or a symbiotic and meshed relationship
between the physical and nonphysical interfaces. The physical emergence of tip sheets
and when they become obsolete is directly related to complexity of the task. Some tips
sheets have been discarded because they became obsolete in light of better medical
devices.
Emergent Artifact Signifiers:
The myth, the meaning, and warning of the paperless office
The author concluded that tip sheets, brains, sepsis checklists, and drug books were
evidence of gaps in nonphysical systems, areas where the nonphysical version could not
satisfy or where the attributes of the physical version satisfied the need best. When these
gaps occur in either direction between physical and nonphysical, users reach across the
physical and nonphysical threshold to create or grab a product that offers a solution. This
type of product the author has named as an emergent artifact. Not all attributes can be
replicated or improved upon by crossing the translational product divide changing the
physical form. The research shows that physical and nonphysical versions or forms each
have their own advantages. For example, in the hospital setting emergent artifacts were
created to fill several gaps: electricity failure, emergencies requiring many immediate
responses, the presentation of information, and for personal reminders. Cognitively,
people naturally think in physical terms while the computer requires abstract thought.
Also as already, discussed, only physical artifacts create social situations; it is a quality
unique to physicality.
182
Emergent artifacts represent behaviors that are attempting to address imbalances in
the physicality of the translational product ecosystem. The ideal situation is to avoid
these reactive behaviors with observation and precise planning. When emergent artifacts
present themselves, they should not be ignored. They are evidence of a design gap and
future opportunity.
The author has developed a list of questions that can be used to analyze a design
gap when an emergent artifact is discovered. They are:
Why did this artifact emerge?
What does the emergent artifact mean in the translational product environment?
What void was filled with the artifact?
What was the deficiency or failure in attributes of the existing system?
What is the design opportunity within the translational product ecosystem?
Tools and Concepts
The following discussions are additional thoughts about future design areas to
explore. They appear as product ideas or considerations.
Empty Interfaces and Pure Possessions
The author’s research discovered that there are hospitals that use PDAs and Mercy
Gilbert Hospital uses a barcode system where the patient’s armband is scanned and the
medication is scanned before administering. This reduces the amount of steps to verify a
patient’s medication to one time. Barcode systems are an excellent choice. The author
183
believes that RFIDs could be coupled with barcode systems to wireless networks. The
author can easily envision more advanced and elegant solutions without cumbersome
computer carts and without the anticipated digital problems that would work better than
the current paper system the nurse’s use. Interfaces can scale from watch size to phone,
tablet, laptop, computer screens, TVs, tables (surfaces) then to walls, rooms and
environments (Figure 66).
Figure 66. Interface Scales
Personal input devices for each employee that are not PDAs are the solution.
People need something personal that they can hold and interface with the way they think,
and where computation or processing power is not needed, remote wireless screens to a
centralized computing system similar to cloud computing can be used. Translational
objects are not about pure "transparency” to their content. The container becomes the
possession and should imbue, embody, and exude all the qualities of possessiveness, even
184
when off, discarded or defective. Can services be owned? No, but its container can be.
How is value and meaningfulness determined by users of the service? By its container,
that embodies the attributes of possession and affording all the positive attributes of the
nonphysical item. Empty Interfaces provide more access tools/devices and are more
personal to individuals than most other devices in history. They are personal conduits to
the nonphysical, more akin to prosthetics than terminals. This is a shift towards pure
possessions without content or processing abilities.
185
Figure 67. Concept Study - Clear Tablet Interface - 02 - Nimbus Viewer
The author developed the Concept Study Clear Tablet Interface 02 Nimbus Viewer
in Figure 67. This concept study illustrates an empty interface or pure possessions
186
because it enables the attributes and affordances lost in digital medical records systems.
It is an example of intelligently incorporating the attributes and affordances that tip sheets
and “brains” filled, while addressing their shortcomings. Medical record tip sheets were
examples of users reaching across pendulum effect swings. The Nimbus Viewer is the
pendulum effect finding its balanced center. The concept is an example of a NUI,
UbiComp, and AR blended interface that captures and incorporates the particular
attributes and affordances found in the DM physical emergent artifacts (tip sheets and
“brains”). It is a wireless touch screen, slate interface concept that is hermetically sealed
in a transparent casing. Nimbus means cloud, it literally means “cloud viewer” because it
is a cloud computing interface. The remote screen multi-touch interface can display and
manipulate medical records and provide information in an orientation aware augmented
reality window AR mode, overlaying data onto the real world because the screen is
transparent. There are several layers of transparent screens in the unit. By displaying
images on multiple layers that overlap in real space creating a 3D decoupage layered
effect. Units have a photovoltaic encased battery so that they can collect ambient light
through its surface to recharge. Units are also wirelessly recharged while in their
disinfecting stations. Cleaned and charged units are readily available for anyone located
at “stack stations” throughout the hospital. The units are easy to sterilize and wipe down
because they are completely encased. There are no seems, no parts to come dislodged,
and no cable connectors. There is no onboard possessing either. The units are composed
of just few components; it is essentially several transparent screens in layers, a battery,
and receiver incased in glass/transparent durable material. The concept is a pure
interface, adding mobile access inexpensively harnessing the computer networks, and
187
processing power remotely. When the unit is idle, off or charging state the Nimbus auto
disinfects by emitting ultraviolet light, which shines through out the entire device to all
surfaces.
Computer systems that integrate barcodes and data entry linked with a centralized
cloud computing are the author’s prediction where both the spatial information and
access are controlled. Rooms are aware of occupants and their actions. Data input can be
ubiquitous and dissipate into the walls themselves so that the hospital is no longer a mere
architecture that houses a computer system, but the structure itself becoming a computer
medical device. It literally becomes a healing structure. A healing structure in the future
might actually be a designed living organism, a structure that disinfects continuously,
channels the right fluids, and has its own built in self-cleaning mechanisms. The future
of medical record systems is an integrated system between doctors, medical personnel,
and medical devices. The user can sense the status of his or her patients simultaneously as
relayed through their personal computer interfaces, which are relayed from other human
observations combined with lab results, humans doing what they do best and computers
doing what they do best. Then finally presenting contextual situated (temporally, spatially
and socially) in real-time a relevant presentation style. This is paradigm shift in the
notion of a healing environment and an uprooting of the traditional understanding of a
hospital and medical care.
188
Medical MIDI
It is odd how physical paper is faster and digital documenting is not saving time
in any instance. The author believes there is a clear opportunity for design improvement
in digital medical records. Data acquisition should be off-loaded from people and
integrated into medical devices for the devices to document themselves in an all-digital
loop. Presently the digital to paper, back to digital is messy, error prone, and time
consuming. A data acquisition protocol is need for all medical equipment. The medical
community needs the equivalent of music world’s MIDI. A Medical MIDI protocol
would allow devices to conform to a standard way of transmitting data to documenting
systems that were standardized between institutions.
As part of this study, the researcher mapped out all the categories of possible
interfaces as seen in Figure 68.
189
Figure 68. Types of Interface Physicality
190
The types of interfaces indicate each way to interact from completely physical to
completely nonphysical.
Types of Interfaces Physicality Key
DM Direct Manipulation
CLI Command Line Interface
GUI Graphical User Interface
UbiComp Ubiquitous Computing
KUI Kinetic User Interface
NUI Natural User Interface
OUI Organic User Interface
TUI Tangible User Interface
AR Augmented Reality
AV Augmented Virtuality
VR Virtual Reality
BCI Brain Computer Interface
Note: (TUI, AR, AV, VR) are types of MR Mixed Reality.
The Types of Interface Physicality are ordered by degree of interactions with the virtual
realm. The Degree of Product Physicality diagram is about the physicality of the
191
artifacts. Therefore, the order is shifted when the interface physicality chart is overlaid
on the DoPP (Figure 69).
Figure 69. Interfaces Mapped on the Degree of Physicality Diagram
Figure 70. Transitioning Hurdle
192
When switching over to different systems there exists a transitioning hurdle
(Figure 70). Product ecosystems involve physical and nonphysical components, but they
can only balance if one system is being used. Two independent ecosystems with
unrelated or duplicated features and processes cause the most amounts of confusion and
problems. When transitioning systems, this overlay presents a considerable challenge to
overcome.
Emergent Artifacts
As already discussed, paper tip sheets are representative of void-filling behaviors
within the broader translational product ecosystem of medical records. The sheet is
considered by the author to be an emergent artifact. The role of this artifact and
integrating it into their system is a prime example of the slow natural evolutionary type of
design problem solving. The purpose of the artifact is not what is important here, but its
existence. Its existence should stimulate questions: Why is it here? Why did this artifact
emerge? What does the emergent artifact mean in translational product environments?
What void was filled with the artifact? What was the deficiency or failure in attributes of
the existing system? What is the design opportunity within the translational product
ecosystem?
193
Figure 71. Translational Product Diagnostic Tool
The left diagram in Figure 71 is how hospital officials envisioned and thought their
digital medical record systems worked. However, in actuality their system resembled the
right side with skips jumps and disconnects. These tools can be filled out to evaluate
future systems and articulate product opportunity gaps that are a result of translational
products. By listing out the steps or flow of a system and drawing the path, the
translation product opportunities will spike as indicators that represent emergent artifact
194
signifiers.
There are two ways to approach design opportunities within ecosystems. The first
approach is based on observing and recognizing the void-filling reactive behaviors of the
users, while the second approach starts with anticipating and creating products based on
the desired attributes necessary for the task using the attribute list presented in this study.
Further Research
Future research that further articulates the attributes of pure possessions and
empty interfaces would yield insightful and beneficial information to the design and
business. An exploration of how the design process can anticipate, prototype, and test
translational products before users create emergent artifacts. In a sense explore, examine,
and refine the process of designed artifacts for translational product ecosystems that
appropriately balance and capitalize upon attributes and affordances from the physical
and nonphysical versions of artifacts.
Final Comment
This study set forth to uncover what the affective responses to changing
physicality are and to discover the key attributes, indicators of opportunities, how to map
out the physicality of new systems, and the trajectory of future physicality of translational
products. The author believes that the findings and the discussions presented in this
study reached this goal.
195
REFERENCES Allen, M., and Hg, S.H. (1999). The direct and indirect influences of human values on product ownership (Electronic version). Journal of Economic Psychology, 20,
5-39.
Audi AG. (2001, January 1). Progress you can touch: The “Audi feeling.” Retrieved November 7, 2006 from http:/www.audiworld.com/news/02/haptics/content.shtml.
Bertolucci, J. (2008, August). E-book readers: Paperless at a price. Kiplinger’s Personal
Finance, 85. Boellstorff, T. (2008). Coming of age in Second Life: An anthropologist explores the
virtually human. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cagan, J. and Vogel, C. (2002). Creating breakthrough products: Innovation from
product planning to program approval. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. Chapman, J. (2005). Emotionally durable design: Objects, Experiences & Empathy. Sterling, VA: Earthscan. Csikszentmihalyi, M., and Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic
symbols and the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). Why we need things. In S. Lubar and W. Kingery (Eds.),
History from things: Essays on material culture (pp.20-29). Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Dale,M. (2005). Eye on electronics. Retrieved November 7, 2006 from file://E:\myhaptic finds\not printed\Motor Eye On Electronics.htm. Diller, S., Shedroff, N., and Rhea, D. (2006). Making meaning: How successful
businesses
deliver meaningful customer services. Berkeley: New Riders. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dunne, A. (2005). Hertzian tales: Electronic products, aesthetic experience, and critical
design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
196
Eames, N. (n.d.). Haptic input. Human Factors Strategic Communication Technologies
Eecsba1:Group C. Retrieved November 7, 2006 from file://E:\myhaptic finds\not printed\Essay3.html. Edwards, O. (2000, November). Think indifferent. Forbes, 166(14), 272-272, 1p,1c. Fasbinder, D. (2008, August). Digital evolution or revolution. Dentaltown, 9(8), 12- 16. Field, T. (2001). Touch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gay, G., and Hembrooke, H. (2004). Activity-centered design: An ecological approach
To designing smart tools and usable systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Greenfield, A. (2006). Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquitous computing. Berkeley: New Riders. Hale, K., and Stanney, K. (2004, March/April). Deriving haptic design guidelines from human, physiological, psychophysical, and neurological foundations (Electronic version). IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 33-39. Ishii, H., and Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. Proceedings of CHI ‘ 97, March 22-27, 1997. Retrieved April 24, 2008 from http://tangible.media.mit.edu/papers/. Ishhii, H., Mazalek, A., and Lee, J. (1999). Bottles as minimal interface to access digital
information. Retrieved April 24, 2008 from http://tangible.media.mit.edu/papers/. Jablonski, N. (2006). Skin: A natural history. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jordan, P. (1998). Human factors for pleasure in product use (Electronic version).
Applied Ergonomics, 29(1), 25-33. Jordan, P. (2000). Designing pleasurable products. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis
Group. Jordan, P. (2002). Human factors for pleasure seekers. In J. Frascara (Ed.), Design and
the social sciences: Making connection (pp. 9-23). New York: Taylor and
Francis. Kaufman, J. (2006, Spring). The user centeredness of Netflix. Retrieved May 5, 2008 from http://www.ta-da.com/ITP/spring2006/user_centered/. Keller, A., Pasman, G., and Stappers, P. (2006, March). Collections designers keep:
collecting visual material for inspiration and reference (Electronic version). CoDesign, 2(1), 17-33.
197
Krippendorff, K. (1989). On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that
“design is making sense (of things)” (Electronic version). Design Issues, 5(2), 9-39.
Krippendorff, K. (1997). A trajectory of artificiality and new principles of design for the Information age (Electronic version). In D. Boyarski, R. Butter, K.
Krippendorff, R. Solomon, J. Tomlinson, and W Wiebe (Eds.), Design in the age
of information, A report to the National Science Foundation (pp. 91-96). Raleigh, North Carolina: School of Design, North Carolina State University.
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., and Butler, J. (2003). Universal principles of design.
Gloucester, MA: Rockport Publishers.
MacLean, K. (2000). Designing with haptic feedback (Electronic version). Proceedings
Of the 2000 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, April
2000, 783-788.
Maquet, J. (1993). Objects as instruments, objects as signs. . In S. Lubar and W. Kingery (Eds.), History from things: Essays on material culture (pp.30-40). Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
McCarthy, J., and Wright, P. (2004). Technology as experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Miller, L. (2008, Nov. 30). The well-tended bookshelf. The New York Times Book
Review, p.23. Moles, A. (1988). Design and immateriality: What of it in a post industrial society? (Electronic version). Design Issues, 4(1/2), 25-32. Moggridge, B. (2007). Designing Interactions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Morelli, N. (2002). Designing product/service systems: A methodological exploration (Electronic version). Design Issues, 18(3), summer, 3-17.
Norman, D. (1993). Things that make us smart: Defending Human Attributes in the age
of the machine. Reading, MA: Perseus Books. Norman, D. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. Norman, D. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New
York: Basic Books. Norman, D. (2007). UI breakthroughs-2-physicality. Retrieved September 1, 2008
198
from http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/ui_breakthroughs2phy.html. Pallasma, J. (2005). The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Peck, J. and Childers, T. (2003, April). To have and to hold: The influence of haptic Information on product judgments (Electronic version). Journal of Marketing,
67, 35-48.
Physicality.org/journal. (2008). Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http://www.physicality.org/Journal.
Pine, J., and Gilmore, J. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre and every
business a stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Quinn, C. (2008, August 24). Virtual fund raisers draw real donations. Atlanta Journal
Constitution, pp. M1, M6. Quittner, J. (2008, July 28). Warming to kindle. Time, 54. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Ruecker, S. (2002). Carrying the pleasure of books into the design of the electronic Book. In P. Jordan and W. Green (Eds.), Pleasure with products beyond usability
(pp.135-145). New York: Taylor and Francis. Schutte, S., Eklund. J., Axelsson, J., and Nagamachi, M. (2004, May-June). Concepts, methods and tools in Kansei Engineering (Electronic version). Theoretical Issues
in Ergonomics Science, 5(3), 214-231.
Sharp, H. (2007). The role of physical artifacts in agile software development team collaboration. In D. Ramduny-Ellis, A. Dix, J. Hare, and S. Gill (Eds.), Physicality2007: Proceedings of the Second International
Workshop on Physicality, 61-64. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://www.physicality.org/physicality 2007.
Shermer, M. (2008). The chain of accidents and the rule of law. Skeptic, 14(2), 28-36. Stelmaszewska, H., and Blandford, A. (2004). From physical to digital: A case study of computer scientists’ behavior in physical libraries (Electronic version). Int J
Digit Libr, 4: 82-92, DOI 10,1007/s00799-003-0072-6. Thackara, J. (2001, May-June). The design challenge of pervasive computing (Electronic
version). Interactions, 46-52. Thorndike-Barnhart Dictionary. (1992). Chicago: World Book.
199
Treadaway, C. (2007). Translating experience. In D. Ramduny-Ellis, A. Dix, J.
Hare, and S. Gill (Eds.), Physicality2007: Proceedings of the Second
International Workshop on Physicality, 1-5. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://www.physicality.org/physicality 2007.
Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon and Schuster. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon and Schuster. Ullmer, B., and Ishii, H. (1997). The metaDESK: Models and prototypes for tangible
user interfaces. Proceedings of UIST ’97, October14-17, 1997. Retrieved April 24, 2008 from http://tangible.media.mit.edu/papers/.
Ullmer, B., Ishii, H., and Glas, D. (1998). mediaBLOCKS: Physical containers, transports, and controls for online media. Computer Graphics Proceedings (SIGGRAPH
’98), July 19-24, 1998. Retrieved April 24, 2008 from http://tangible.media.mit.edu/papers/.
Webster’s New World College Dictionary 4th
Edition. (2001). Foster City, CA: IDG Books Worldwide. Weiser, M. (1991). The computer of the 21st century. In M. Gerritzen and K. van
Mensvoort (Eds.), Next Nature (p.20). Amsterdam: Bis. Whitham, R. (2007). Enabling prediction in virtual environments: Lessons from the
physical world. In D. Ramduny-Ellis, A. Dix, J. Hare, and S. Gill (Eds.), Physicality2007: Proceedings of the Second International
Workshop on Physicality, 65-71. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://www.physicality.org/physicality 2007.
Wisneski, C., Ishii, H., Dahley, A., Gorbet, M., Brave, S., Ullmer, B., and Yarin, P. (1998). Ambient displays: Turning Architectural space into an interface between people and digital information. Proceedings of the First International
Workshop on Cooperative Buildings (CoBuild ’98), February 25-26, 1998.
Retrieved April 24, 2008 from http://tangible.media.mit.edu/papers/. Wolpert, L. (2006). Six impossible things before breakfast. W.W. Norton: New York. Woodward, I. (2007). Understanding material culture. London: Sage Productions.
200
APPENDIX A
SURVEY
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
APPENDIX B
CONSENT FORM
211
Translational Products: The Affective Responses to Changing Physicality
INTRODUCTION
The purposes of this form are to provide you (as a prospective research study participant) information that may affect your decision as to whether or not to participate in this research and to record the consent of
those who agree to be involved in the study.
RESEARCHERS
Kanav Kahol, PhD, Department of Biomedical Informatics, and Josh Richman, MSD Human Factors
Design Research, College of Design, has invited your participation in a research study. Josh Richman is
working under the direction of Dr. Kahol.
STUDY PURPOSE
The research goal is to understand and establish the new opportunities and undisclosed roles of physicality in modern product/service offerings, through understanding users meanings and responses to
products/services that lose or gain physical attributes.
DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STUDY
If you decide to participate, then you will join a study involving research of personal reactions to products
and services that you use in your daily life, particularly products and services that change their amount of
tangibility over time.
This study will be looking at users interactions with these product categories that change over time and how
users respond, react and perceive these changes. The study will ask you to take part in an online survey. At that point, you might be selected to participate in the interview portion of the study. In addition to
interview questions asked, I might also ask you to, at your discretion, capture data via a camera and audio
recorders. This data could include, for instance, the state of your kitchen before and after a meal and/or a
picture of yourself at various points during your participation in the study. You will have complete control
over which data you will capture and/or release to the study. Participants can skip questions in the study at
any time.
If you say YES, then your participation will last for no longer than two hours – a day [specific time will be
provided for each participants’ consent form]. This could involve an online survey or interviews about
your feelings, thoughts, and stories towards products you use, where you interact with products, home,
studio or other locations and how you interact with them. Participants might be asked to wear an audio
recording device during an interview or through out their interaction with products. You must be 18 years or older to participate.
RISKS
There are no known risks from taking part in this study, but in any research, there is some possibility that
you may be subject to risks that have not yet been identified.
BENEFITS
By participating, you may better understand how your perceive products and the interactions with them. In
addition, you will be helping to advance the design research community’s understanding of how physicality is understood, used and articulate untapped potential uses.
CONFIDENTIALITY
212
All information obtained in this study is strictly confidential. The results of this research study may be used
in reports, presentations, and publications, but the researchers will not identify you. Recordings will be
destroyed at the completion of the study by multiple reformatting erasing media data.
WITHDRAWAL PRIVILEGE
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. It is ok for you to say no. Even if you say yes now, you
are free to say no later, and withdraw from the study at any time.
COSTS AND PAYMENTS
The researchers want your decision about participating in the study to be absolutely voluntary.
There is no payment for your participation in the study.
VOLUNTARY CONSENT
Any questions you have concerning the research study or your participation in the study, before or after
your consent, will be answered by Joshua Richman, College of Design, PO Box 871905 Tempe, AZ 85287-1905 at 480.965.3536
If you have questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you have been
placed at risk; you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board, through the
ASU Office of Research Integrity and Assurance, at 480-965 6788.
This form explains the nature, demands, benefits, and any risk of the project. By signing this form you
agree knowingly to assume any risks involved. Remember, your participation is voluntary. You may
choose not to participate or to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time without
penalty or loss of benefit. In signing this consent form, you are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or
remedies. A copy of this consent form will be offered to you.
Your signature below indicates that you consent to participate in the above study. By signing below, you
are granting to the researchers the right to use your likeness, image, appearance and performance - whether
recorded on or transferred to videotape, film, slides, and photographs - for presenting or publishing this
research.
___________________________ _________________________ ____________
Subject's Signature Printed Name Date
INVESTIGATOR’S STATEMENT
"I certify that I have explained to the above individual the nature and purpose, the potential benefits and possible risks associated with participation in this research study, have answered any questions that have
been raised, and have witnessed the above signature. These elements of Informed Consent conform to the
Assurance given by Arizona State University to the Office for Human Research Protections to protect the
rights of human subjects. I have offered the subject/participant a copy of this signed consent document."
Signature of Investigator_____________________________________ Date_________
213
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW QUESTION GUIDE
214
Name Age Gender Profession Can you give and overview of your history with translational products? What do you own or interact with that is a translational product? the good and bad? How did you discover them or learn about them? How did you acquire them? Where did you find them? Location? Can you share a personal story about translational products? In relation to the product/services being discussed: Explain your relationship to the product/service. Do you perceive it as convenient? Do you have a sense of ownership? Do you have a sense of permanence? How is it personally meaningful to you? How is it personally socially to you? Do you have a sense of safety, comfort, and control? How do you perceive the level of multimodal interaction (the richness of the interactions with all of your senses)? Are the products a result of acquiring an object or to supplement an activity? What causes you to switch from physical to nonphysical or from nonphysical to physical? What do you perceive as being sacrificed when switching between physicality's? - For what cause? What steps do you take to preserve it? (Does a translation take place in the process?) How does it make you feel when other people see you using the product/service? (Is it revealed or concealed?)
![MSc in Translational (Neuroscience) · PDF fileMSc in Translational Pathology [Neuroscience] Why Translational Pathology? The MSc Translational Pathology (Neuroscience) course combines](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/5a7454947f8b9a0d558bb440/msc-in-translational-neuroscience-a-msc-in-translational-pathology-neuroscience.jpg)
