Content uploaded by Mikael Wiberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mikael Wiberg on Jul 02, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Methodology for materiality: interaction design research through
a material lens
Mikael Wiberg
Received: 30 August 2012 / Accepted: 7 February 2013
ÓSpringer-Verlag London 2013
Abstract Increasingly, human–computer interaction
(HCI) is acknowledging the material dimensions of our
subject. In doing so, a wide repertoire of methods is cur-
rently being explored for conducting interaction design
research through a material lens. These methods range
from material studies and studies in material cultures to
methods borrowed from craft, designerly approaches to
interaction design, sketching in hardware approaches, and
so on. While we acknowledge these important attempts to
approach the material dimensions of interaction design, it
should also be noted that there is a lack of more systematic
studies of methods that are, can be, or have been applied
within HCI and interaction design to specifically explore
interaction design through a material lens. So, there is a
need for a methodology that acts as a guideline to material-
centered interaction design research. In this paper, we
address this need. More specifically, this paper contributes
to this current state by presenting a methodology for
methodological explorations in material-centered interac-
tion design research. The development of this proposed
methodology takes a point of departure in the methods
available and applied so far. With grounding in design
theory, this paper organizes these methods into a four-
dimensional structure to guide deliberate choices of
methods in different phases of interaction design research
projects—that is, it serves as a framework for research
design. The organizing structure for the proposed meth-
odology follows the simple dialectic tradition in design to
work back and forth between details and wholeness,
materials and textures. In this paper, we describe the four
dimensions of our framework and how these can be useful
to guide research design aimed at advancing our under-
standing of the material dimensions of HCI. We illustrate
how the proposed structure can be practically useful—both
in advancing our studies of interaction design through a
material lens and show how it brings us back to the roots of
our profession—that is, back to a focus on the materials,
the fundamental components of any computational
composition.
Keywords Interaction design research Materiality
Material lens Methods Methodology
1 Introduction
Human–computer interaction (HCI) and interaction design
research have a long history of paying close attention to the
human as an important component of the object of study.
Through the development of a rich repertoire of methods
and corresponding methodologies, including a number of
user-centered and participatory design methods [11,22,
37], this field has rapidly established itself as a design
discipline and as a distinct area of research. In fact, the
methods have served as important scaffolding structures for
ensuring quality in design research projects and in the
studies we conduct. With this as a point of departure, the
field has developed methods and methodologies for con-
textualizing interaction design, including, for example,
contextual inquiry and contextual design methods which
situates interaction design and HCI within social, physical,
and organizational contexts (see, e.g., [4]).
Increasingly, our field of research is now revisiting
the core of the subject and, in doing so, acknowledging
yet another one of its dimensions, that is, the materials
we relate to and interact with when designing and using
M. Wiberg (&)
Department of Informatics, Umea
˚University, Umea
˚, Sweden
e-mail: mwiberg@informatik.umu.se
123
Pers Ubiquit Comput
DOI 10.1007/s00779-013-0686-7
interactive systems (see, e.g., [15,43–45,50,51]). More
and more, we are approaching interaction design research
through a material lens (as an example, see, e.g., Sun-
dstro
¨m et al. [42]) and for some overviews of this trend, see
[49–51]. The advocacy for applying this lens to the field
has been so strong that it has even been labeled as a
‘‘material turn’’ in HCI and interaction design research
[36]. We see this trend in not only the growing interest in,
and through the advancement of, the tangible computing
research agenda (see, e.g., Ishii0s vision on ‘‘radical atoms’’
[19]), but more broadly and fundamentally in how we
redirect our focus from digital artifacts or the application
layer of interaction design toward the materials from which
digital products and services are built in the first place (see,
e.g., [21,43]) as well as in studies of material practices in
the context of interaction design research [38]. As for-
mulated by Bertelsen et al. [5], this indicates a shift from
the triad of ‘‘domain object’’–‘‘user’’–‘‘tool,’’ in which
the user applies the computer tool to mold the domain
object in predictable ways according to a well-defined
goal, to frameworks for understanding and advancing
HCI and interaction design research through the notion of
‘‘materiality.’’
At present, we are increasingly interested in the material
dimensions of interaction design and in ‘‘materiality’’ as an
analytical lens [50,51]. From one perspective, this can be
understood as something new, indicating this ‘‘material
turn’’ [48] in interaction design. On the other hand, it can
be seen as a revisiting of the core of the field and, as such, a
return to its foundation in the sciences of the artificial [39]
as we ‘‘return to the materials,’’ the basic components of
design and use. For instance, Schon [40] was one of the
first to point out the importance of paying close attention to
the materials at hand and gaining a deep understanding of
how these materials ‘‘talk back to the designer’’ as an
important component in understanding design and design
practice. Expressing it through a vocabulary that
acknowledges the materials as a conversational object,
Schon [40] also highlighted the completely dynamic pro-
cess in design of working back and forth between whole-
ness and ideas about the design, in relation to its practical
manifestation including the materials, textures, and details
needed to be carefully crafted to reach the desired outcome.
More recently, the field has returned to this material-ori-
ented perspective and in doing so has tried to further
advance this perspective through the development of more
formalized methods for how this could be done. For
instance, Doering [13] has suggested a material-centered
design approach as a complement to existing user-centered
design approaches to interaction design research.
While we acknowledge the work by Doering [13] and
others as being fruitful attempts to approach the material
dimensions of interaction design, we simultaneously notice
how we, at present, lack more systematic studies of
methods that are, can be, or have been applied within our
discipline to specifically explore interaction design
research through a material lens. Formulated more pre-
cisely, there is a need for a methodology, operating as a
guideline system to material-centered interaction design
research. In this paper, we address this need. More spe-
cifically, we contribute to this current need by presenting a
methodology for methodological explorations in material-
centered interaction design research.
With a conceptual grounding in design theory, this paper
organizes current methods applied in material-centered
interaction design research into a structure to guide delib-
erate choices of methods for different phases of interaction
design research projects. The organizing structure proposed
follows the simple dialectic tradition in design to work
back and forth between materials and materiality, details
and textures. We use this as a framework to discuss how
this organizing structure can be applied to guide the design
of an interaction design research project. Having also dis-
cussed how the proposed structure can be practically used,
we conclude our paper by reflecting on how this is helpful
for moving forward—to advance our studies of interaction
design research through a material lens, while simulta-
neously bringing us back to the roots of our profession—
that is, back to a focus on the materials, the fundamental
components of any computational composition.
2 Background
Currently, our field is occupied with adjusting and devel-
oping research methods to address and advance ‘‘third
wave HCI’’ [6,14]. As part of this movement, the field is
increasingly emphasizing the use of a material lens [50,51]
to grasp how technology becomes integrated in our phys-
ical and social world and in our everyday lives. Driven by
current developments in smart materials, TUIs, and ubiq-
uitous computing, we are seeing an increasing interest in
studies and explorations of inseparable entities of atoms
and binary bits [19] forming larger computational wholes
and ‘‘computational compositions’’ [48]. This increase is
visible both through the increase in papers published that
explicitly emphasize the dimensions of materiality in
interaction design (see, e.g., [15,45,50,51]), as well as
through an increase in methodological explorations aimed
at exploring interaction design through a material lens.
At present, we have identified at least four interrelated
streams of methods and approaches applied to advance this
interest. These methods range from material science and
studies [9] and studies in material cultures [7] to methods
borrowed from craft (e.g., [32,33]), designerly approaches
to interaction design [31], and sketching in hardware
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
approaches to interaction design (e.g., [29]). Examining
these different streams of methods applied here at a more
detailed level of methodological exploration, we find
unique aspects about each particular method, but also some
similarities. For instance, these methods all have a common
focus on the materials and all of these methods emphasize
working with those materials as an important factor for
understanding them at play and as resources for design.
Starting with the material studies literature (e.g., [28])
and studies in material culture (e.g., [17,27]), we find a
good set of examples of how social and cultural contexts
can be understood and theorized through the methods used
for close-up studies of artifacts, handmade objects, and
ancient materials (see, e.g., [12,16,26,27,46]). At the
same time, we notice how this strand of approaches to
material studies does not only cover historical accounts and
backward looking studies of artifact use, constructed
through a point of departure in the material lens and further
refined through an act of theorizing. On the contrary, we
also find forward-looking and design-oriented studies in
which the same closeness to the materials at hand with the
same sensibility for material form and material properties
has been applied for the purpose of generating new ideas
for design, for inspiring new form-giving activities and for
the creation of new objects. One example illustrating this
forward-looking perspective is the ‘‘inspirational bits’’
project [42]. Inspirational bits is a research project aimed at
applying a material lens for the purpose of rethinking basic
technologies such as Bluetooth, in order to generate new
design spaces for interaction design. This, with an explicit
point of departure taken in exploration of material prop-
erties, is an exploration of Bluetooth as a design material.
Currently, there is an increasing interest in the field to
take this ‘‘closeness to materials’’ approach one step fur-
ther. We notice the interest in how the field is increasingly
borrowing methods from craft and by using craft as a way
of thinking through material (e.g., [33]). We also see how
these methods of craft are currently being applied in
interaction design research projects (see, e.g., [8,23,33]).
In putting a particular emphasis on the methodological
importance of closeness to the materials at hand and in
underlining the importance of actively working with these
materials, the field applies craft and craftsmanship as
methods for exploring how HCI and interaction design can
be advanced through research that advocates a knowledge
generating process inseparably intertwined with, and
enabled by, a material discovery process.
This interest in knowledge generation through close
engagement with the materials at hand has also been
recently explored through designerly approaches to inter-
action design research (see, e.g., [31]). Further, it has
recently been explored in more philosophical interaction
design studies focused on understanding material
engagement through phenomenological perspectives of
interaction design (see, e.g., [14]). A core assumption
behind this position is that close engagement with the
materials at hand does not only enable a certain under-
standing of material properties, but this engagement also
changes our relationship to, and experience of, these
materials. This is a change which ultimately alters our
understanding of not only the materials at hand, but also
how we might conceptualize our relationship to these
materials.
Switching back now to more practically oriented, but
still material-centered, approaches to interaction design, we
should acknowledge the ‘‘sketching in hardware’’ approach
explored by, for example, Moussette and Banks [29] and
Sundstro
¨m et al. [42]. In short, the ‘‘sketching in hardware’’
approach highlights the importance of explorations through
an intimate relationship with the materials at hand. This
approach illustrates a practical, yet somewhat romantic,
approach to interaction design research. It does so by
illustrating that conceptual exploration can be done through
hands-on experimentations with materials (hardware) and
through explorations of the abstract and theoretical through
an act of sketching, not with pen and paper, but through the
making of prototype sketches that reveal how materials
work in composition and how one such composition
operates in relation to a user.
Going through these different applied methods, there are
some similarities between them that should be noted as
well. What these methods have in common is a focus on
the materials as a point of departure. As such, they dem-
onstrate a material lens to interaction design research,
although differently implemented in each specific method.
Furthermore, another similarity between these methods is
that they demonstrate a certain viewpoint in relation to
these materials.
While the dominating paradigm of interaction design
focuses on the level of applications, the use of materials to
build new applications and understanding the context once
these applications are put into use, the methods within the
material lens paradigm differ from this in that they do, on
the one hand, share an interest in materials, but in doing so,
these methods take the paradigm in another direction when
it comes to material exploration. This alternative direction
empathizes material explorations over material applicabil-
ity and it focuses on material character rather than matters
of purpose. This means that while the dominating meth-
odological paradigm in interaction design is focused on
research questions related to purpose (and to evaluate
whether a certain design corresponds to a certain purpose,
user requirements, or user needs), interaction design
research carried out through a material lens is guided by a
fundamentally different set of research questions. Formu-
lated through content, these research questions are created
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
distinctly to highlight material qualities, whereas tradi-
tional interaction design research questions are formulated
to highlight purposefulness. To exemplify this difference, a
researcher applying a material lens can formulate the
question ‘‘what is the character of wood?’’ (in which the
material of wood is in focus). From one such viewpoint, the
typical purpose-oriented question, ‘‘what is the purpose of
wood?’’, is not only impossible to answer, but serves to
illustrate the fundamental difference here. Indeed, as pro-
posed by Bertelsen et al. [5], a focus on materials and the
materiality of interaction brings with it a need to ask new
and different kinds of questions [5] beyond the traditional
HCI triad of domain object, user, and tool. It should be
noticed that these different methods also share some sim-
ilarities with architectural design approaches. More pre-
cisely, this similarity is expressed through the shared
interest in reading materials carefully to understand their
properties, character, and potential. Furthermore, a second
similarity lies in the interest in reading and understanding
how materials work in compositions and, in return, how
these compositions enable and support social interaction,
context, culture, and activities.
Having presented these different strands of methods
currently applied in material-centered interaction design
research, it should be noticed that there are many available
methods at the moment. At the same time, it should be
noticed how these methods are quite disparately applied.
Throughout our literature review, we found no explicit
references to any guiding system for method selections. We
view this as an indicator for the lack of guiding method-
ological frameworks, that is, although the methods are
frequently applied, there is a lack of a methodology oper-
ating as a guiding system for material-centered interaction
design research.
In line with this analysis, we are currently seeing a
growing interest in HCI and interaction design research to
advance and apply the notion of ‘‘materiality’’ to organize
thinking on the relationship between man and machine.
The notion of materiality works as a theoretical lens for
discussing how materials are amalgamated into a compo-
sition [35,43] and how we perceive this composition as an
integrated computational whole [21]. From a conceptual
and theoretical viewpoint, we can see efforts made to
establish this conceptual guideline system. Still, what is
also needed here is a similar guiding system to address
material-centered interaction design research from an
empirical/methodological viewpoint. As highlighted by
Jung and Stolterman [21], this movement toward materi-
ality calls for new research agendas including formulating
research questions at the level of form and materiality of
digital artifacts [21]. However, in order to systematically
explore this challenge, we need to establish a methodo-
logical foundation.
To summarize, there is a growing need for a new
methodology, that is, a guiding system that can help in
guiding what to look for and what to pay attention to at
different stages of a research process. As this section has
shown, there are many reasons for establishing a method-
ology to guide studies of the materiality of interaction. We
view this paper as a first attempt to move forward in one
such direction and we view it as a complementary per-
spective to other well-established methodological accounts
in interaction design research.
3 Some notes on the essence of a methodology
Before moving forward, we should establish how the
notion of methodology is related to the notion of research
methods. From our perspective, a methodology is a
guideline system for solving a problem, with specific
components such as phases, tasks, methods, techniques,
and tools. We ground this understanding of methodology
on previous work in our field, see, for example, Irny and
Rose [20]. In our view, a methodology can be defined as
the systematic study of methods that are, can be, or have
been applied within a discipline and as the study or
description of methods [2]. Furthermore, a methodology
can also be seen as a body of methods, rules, and postu-
lates employed by a discipline and as a particular proce-
dure or set of procedures. Also, a methodology can be
considered to include multiple methods, each applied to
various facets of the whole scope of the methodology.
From the perspective of this paper, we view methodology
as the fundamental guide to what to look for given a
material lens.
It should be noticed here that a methodology does not
describe specific methods, despite the attention given to the
nature and kinds of processes to be followed in a given
procedure or in attaining an objective. Instead, methodol-
ogy organizes methods and shows how different methods
are, can be, or have been applied within a discipline.
Accordingly, the background provided in this paper serves
as not only a context for our work presented here, but also
as an overview of different methods applied in our
discipline.
Having established this point of departure, the next
section outlines a draft of an organizing schema to start
building a methodology for material interaction design
research. As will be further explained, this schema is built
around the simple dialectic tradition in design to work back
and forth between details and wholeness, materials and
textures. In the next section, we illustrate this organizing
model and we discuss how it can be used to guide choices
of methods in material-centered interaction design research
projects.
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
4 Towards a methodology for material interaction
design research
As illustrated in the background to this paper, it is possible,
and in many cases necessary, to work with a material lens
at many different levels of analysis in an interaction design
research project. In some phases, very detailed studies of
materials and material properties are needed, whereas, in
other phases, it makes more sense to conduct studies
focused on material cultures or material practices. This
paper seeks to establish a guiding framework that can
operate across this spectrum, ranging from details to
wholeness and vice versa.
To account for this range and to systematically organize
the methods applied into a methodology, a point of
departure in thinking back and forth between details and
wholeness is needed. In this paper, this point is established
through guidance from design theory. More specifically,
we guided the development of our methodology with a
point of departure in design theory that highlights the
importance of working back and forth between details and
wholeness (see, e.g., [30,40]). Furthermore, we advocate
our proposed methodology as an artifact-oriented [21]
perspective on interaction design, ultimately focused on
how we might approach the artifact given a material lens in
interaction design research projects.
As already mentioned, there is an established body of
research on ‘‘material studies,’’ material science (see, e.g.,
[9]), and ‘‘material culture studies’’ in other areas of
research (in fields such as archeology, politics, and cultural
geography) (see, e.g., [7,27,53]). In this paper, we draw
on these strands of research to establish a methodology for
material interaction design research. In fact, we build on
these related strands of research as a point of departure for
building our own method. More specifically, we see this as
a way to build on recent methodological work on concept-
driven interaction design research [41], which has pointed
to how the crafting of ideas can be achieved by working
back and forth between the sketching out of ideas and the
manifestations of ideas through the act of design, that is,
the crafting of ideas through concept development and
design activities.
In implementing this model of working back and forth
between details and wholeness, between materials and
their appearance and texture, we suggest that the organiz-
ing structure of our proposed methodology follows the
simple dialectic tradition in design, that is, to work back
and forth between details and wholeness, materials and
textures. As we will illustrate in the following section,
these four dimensions also correspond well to the different
approaches currently applied in this field and currently
being reflected in how different methods are applied to
explore different levels of analysis. In detail, as further
illustrated in Fig. 1, we envision a methodology that takes
a point of departure in material studies. To account for a
nonlinear, recursive structure that allows for research
dynamics and iterations as part of the overall research
design, we suggest that in-depth material studies are linked
to methods addressing wholeness and composition. Fur-
thermore, we envisage a methodology capable of linking
this perspective back to the materials via studies of texture
and details. In doing so, our proposed methodology is
intended to account for the dynamics of working back and
forth between materials and wholeness.
As outlined in Fig. 1, the suggested methodology
enables switching from material studies to the studies of
materials that form larger compositions (wholeness). Fig-
ure 1also shows how methods and studies can then be
arranged to work backwards again from wholeness back to
the origin, the materials.
In the next section, a more detailed description of how
each level of analysis might be methodologically approa-
ched is outlined including a discussion on characteristic
research questions for each level.
5 Analysis of interaction design research through
a material lens
In this section, we seek to implement our proposed meth-
odology. By implement, we mean to move from a con-
ceptual motivation and description of this methodology to
an analysis of its implications for methodologically orga-
nizing material-centered interaction design research.
Accordingly, this section seeks to implement the proposed
methodology by establishing a structure that can, on a
practical level, guide deliberate choices of methods for
different phases of interaction design research projects.
We achieve this by going through the four levels of
analysis as outlined above (i.e., the levels of materials,
details, texture, and wholeness). For each of these four
levels, we highlight what is particular about each level and
we identify, for each level, two aspects of particular
importance to pay methodological attention to.
In presenting the methods in this systematic way, we
illustrate how we can organize seemingly similar methods
into a structure that accounts for the uniqueness of each
level of analysis and how we can benefit from how our
available methods can address their uniqueness. In detail,
Fig. 1 Schematic description of the proposed methodology for
material-centered interaction design research
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
we present, for each of these four levels, two central
aspects of the level followed by (1) a presentation of
available methods for addressing these aspects and (2) a
presentation of typical/characteristic research questions to
be asked at this level of analysis. Accordingly, we extend
the methodology to account for the following dimensions
(see Fig. 2) that will be further outlined and elaborated
upon below.
5.1 Focus on materials
If we are to conduct interaction design research through a
material lens, it is first necessary to focus on the materials.
A material understanding of things brings us down to the
level of analysis of the ultimate particular [30] and down to
the level of material properties. As highlighted by Lo
¨wgren
and Stolterman [26], this level enables us to understand the
potential and limitations of a certain material. In a sense,
this level enables us to reach a non-relational understand-
ing of materials. That is to say, the material understanding
is not provided through descriptions of how it works in
relation to a certain use context, or how it fulfills a certain
need, or user requirement. Instead, a focus on materials is
about understanding materials per se.
In applying this first lens, two specific dimensions of
materials surface as being of central importance here—
material properties and material character.
5.1.1 Material properties
A good example of conducting interaction design research
with a particular point of departure taken in the investi-
gations of material properties is found in the paper
‘‘inspirational bits’’ by Sundstro
¨m et al. [42]. In their
research, they applied a material lens to understand the
properties of Bluetooth as a design material. Based on the
in-depth descriptions of the special properties of Bluetooth
(including, e.g., radio frequency, range, and the Bluetooth
profile stack), they progressed to envisage a novel inter-
action design. In doing so, they demonstrated (1) how a
detailed understanding of the material can help in envi-
sioning new design and (2) how this exercise also helps in
rethinking and reimagining the material itself. Their exer-
cise demonstrated how investigation into material
properties is simultaneously about understanding material
limitations and its enabling qualities, that is, its potential.
Recently, this attention to materials has not only been
highlighted in applied projects like ‘‘inspirational bits’’
[42] but has also more profoundly been suggested as an
important perspective in interaction design (see, e.g., [42,
43]).
5.1.2 Material character
Closely related to material properties is the notion of
material character. Taken together, the particular properties
of a certain material also come together as a composition,
framing, and characterizing the material. This means that a
particular material might be good to use for some purposes,
whereas in other situations, it might not correspond to the
role it is supposed to fulfill. In material-centered interaction
design research, this dimension of understanding a material
is critical both in the design of new interactive solutions
and for gaining deeper knowledge about the materials per
se. In short, material character is about how a certain
material can be used, what it expresses, and its inherent
structure and logic. As such, material character defines the
potential of the material.
5.1.3 Available methods: material studies and craft
Currently, there are a couple of methods and approaches in
this field suitable for addressing this dimension of the
proposed methodology. For instance, Material studies in
interaction design (see, e.g., [42]) focuses on the potential
and limitations inherent in the materials. Furthermore, craft
and craftsmanship have been recently explored in this field
to unveil material potential through hands-on engagement
with the materials themselves (see, e.g., [8,23]). Not least,
it has been argued that programming is an important act of
craftsmanship, both from the perspective of how the
material is approached and that reflections on programming
through one such lens enable us to see the material from
this proposed perspective [8].
5.1.4 Characteristic research questions
Breaking down the suggested research methods to the level
of research questions, it becomes obvious that the most
central questions at this stage of the model will revolve
around (1) What is it made of? (i.e., if breaking down
material composition into the materials from which it is
made, then we leave the level of artifact analysis and
simultaneously enter the level of material analysis). After
that, it is likely that we will ask questions such as (2) What
are the particular properties of this material? and (3) how
might we describe a particular material in terms of
Fig. 2 Extended schematic description of the proposed methodology
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
material character? Given that we are also pushing a
design-oriented research agenda, we might also ask (4)
How can the potential of this material be framed and
described?
Ultimately, this first lens is about decomposing things
into materials. If this phase is part of a design-oriented
research project, it might also be about the potential, about
what a certain material can offer in the first place.
5.2 Focus on wholeness
Staying true to the core idea behind this proposed meth-
odology, as well as allowing shifting in perspective back
and forth between details and wholeness, this next level of
analysis highlights the importance of attention to
wholeness.
While material studies brings with it a clear focus on
material properties and character, this latter dimension
hints to a way in which these materials come together in a
composition. At this level, this composition is approached
as a wholeness from the perspective of an observer.
Accordingly, meaning, in terms of sense-making, is of
central importance to this level of analysis. Below, these
two dimensions of composition and meaning are further
outlined and elaborated upon, followed by a presentation of
available methods and characteristic research questions at
this level of analysis.
5.2.1 Composition
One way of approaching wholeness is to shift the analytical
perspective from materials treated in isolation to material
compositions [48]. This has also been proposed by, for
example, Jung and Stolterman [21]. They suggested the
notion of ‘‘material ecology’’ to operate as a conceptual
framing of material compositions. In similar terms, Wiberg
[47] has suggested ‘‘interaction landscapes’’ as a lens to
study interconnected sets of digital artifacts and services.
Furthermore, at present, the notion of ‘‘materiality’’ has
surfaced as a strong conceptual frame for exploring expe-
riences of digital material compositions [35,50,51]. As
Jung and Stolterman [21] wrote: ‘‘materiality can provide
useful perspectives to investigate aesthetic and experiential
qualities of digital artifacts’’ [ 21]. It is important to notice
that this conceptual framing goes beyond pure material
compositions to also account for how these compositions
are experienced. In interaction design, this is a central and
important aspect since interaction design is not solely about
visual design, but foremost about designing the interaction
as it will play out with and through material compositions.
While these different conceptual framings all point to
understanding compositions, there are also additional
dimensions to account for in a perspective advocating
wholeness in relation to a material lens in interaction
design research. One such obvious dimension is to also
further contextualize the materiality of interaction, that is,
to contextualize, socially and culturally, the aesthetic and
experiential qualities of digital artifacts. Still, in order for
something to become socially and culturally embedded in
the first place, it needs to be understood as a meaningful
whole.
5.2.2 Meaning
While wholeness can be understood from a perspective that
accounts for what something contains, the notion of
meaning is about how this container is perceived and
understood. Meaning is about how the fundamental ratio-
nale behind a design, as expressed and manifested in that
design, is understood. As such, it corresponds to the ulti-
mate question of whether or not something make sense. As
stated by Jung and Stolterman [21]: ‘‘Meaning is a sub-
jective interpretation about qualities and values of a
material artifact, indicating how material artifacts are
experienced and understood in personal and social life.’’ I t
is important to remember here that this subjective inter-
pretation is also historically situated. As meaning changes
over time, it is important to contextualize this subjective
interpretation not only socially and culturally, but also
historically. As further elaborated on by Jung and Stol-
terman [21] and Stolterman and Wiberg [41], meaning and
the process of sense-making is not only an act of inter-
preting and understanding, but an act of conceptualizing.
As such, it is an act of constructing meaning through the
theorizing of the wholeness.
5.2.3 Available methods: compositional material studies
and material culture studies
In addressing wholeness in material-centered interaction
design, we have noted how our proposed methodology
points to a set of particular methods currently applied in
our field. These methods include Compositional Material
Studies (see, e.g., [43]) and studies of computational
compositions (see, e.g., [48]). It is important to highlight
the focus on Material practices as explored by Rosner [38]
in order to account for the studies of materiality, the social
and cultural role of materials, and material embeddedness
in this context. Material Culture Studies (e.g., [26,27,46])
are suitable at this level of analysis since they take a point
of departure in the material to understand the context. Also,
contextual studies, ethnography, and designerly approaches
are valuable at this level as these methods take a point of
departure in the social, organizational, and cultural context
to analyze material (and socio-material) compositions (see,
e.g., [34]).
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
5.2.4 Characteristic research questions
By translating the proposed methodology at this level of
analysis into some characteristic research questions, we
find that a central concern here is to relate material com-
position to experience as well as social and cultural con-
text. Here, the question ‘‘What is the overall activity?’’ or
‘‘what is the purpose?’’ (in which/for which the material
composition plays a role) becomes key—for understanding
the composition, for understanding the relationship between
material composition and context, and for establishing a base
for making sense of it as a wholeness (meaning).
5.3 Focus on texture
Following the guiding principle behind this methodology
that tells us that we should work back and forth between
materials and wholeness, we now move the analytical lens
backwards again, from wholeness toward textures and, in
doing so, focus on texture as an important dimension of a
material lens.
Texture is a relational concept [36]. As such, it works as
an intermediate between materials and wholeness. Texture
communicates material properties through material surface
and thus through appearance. As an effect of how texture
operates relationally between material properties and its
appearance, it simultaneously becomes an issue of
authenticity, that is, if the appearance has grounding in the
materials used in the composition—in short, if the
appearance is true given what it is made of.
In this section, we look more closely at these two
notions of appearance and authenticity followed by a
description of available methods and a discussion of typical
research questions to be addressed at this level of analysis.
5.3.1 Appearance
The notion of appearance is about how a material or a
material composition is manifested, presented, and per-
ceived. Since texture is a relational concept that unifies the
relationship between material and surface, it operates as a
mediating structure between these two. It should thus be
noted that, due to its relational role, it is not solely about
visual appearance (a position which would primarily lean
toward ‘‘surface’’). Instead, its relational position enables
texture to communicate material properties, enabling not
only visual appearance but also, for example, haptics (how
it feels). For interaction design, this means that appearance
speaks to both look and feel.
Furthermore, appearance is not only about aesthetic
qualities. Appearance might be guided by a certain aes-
thetic and it might demonstrate aesthetic qualities. Still, at
the core of this level of analysis is a focus on how different
materials work in concert and the way this orchestration is
manifested. As such, it is about the interrelating aspects of
material compositions.
In interaction design, we work with digital materials.
These materials have a number of unique qualities. One of
these qualities concerns how these materials are not only
reactive (like many chemical materials), but also bring with
them the potential to work as active elements in material
compositions. Most recently, researchers have explored
how these qualities can also work in concert with tradi-
tional materials where the active (digital) materials are
programmed not only to work in isolation but also to work
compositionally together with non-digital materials in
order to re-active those non-digital materials through the
use of material properties that are already and always
present [36]. Here, the notion of appearance points to an
aspect of our studies that explicitly highlights material
properties and, as such, supports a perspective that frames
materials at the level of human perception and sensibility.
5.3.2 Authenticity
This staging of appearance concerns another critical
dimension at this level of analysis. While appearance is
about how a material or a material composition is mani-
fested, there are also critical questions to be asked about
whether this appearance is authentic, that is, if there is a
true relationship between materials, material composition,
and appearance. In some designs, an object might look as if
it is made of a certain material when in fact it is not (e.g., a
wooden table might not be made out of solid wood, but
might in fact only demonstrate a ‘‘wooden character,’’
while the table surface might, in fact, be made out of
plastic). In interaction design, this counterpart, to make an
interface look like something that it is actually not, has
been labeled ‘‘skeuomorph.’’ Typically, a skeuomorph
borrows its material look from a real-life everyday object
(like a physical book or a physical calendar) which is then
re-represented digitally.
Ultimately, this level of analysis deals with the analysis
of issues related to appearance and authenticity. Is the
appearance equal to ‘‘the real thing,’’ that is, what you see
is what you get, or is it built around a certain metaphor?
Does a certain composition project a different appearance
to the materials it is composed of? Ultimately, this level is
about the relationship between materials, composition,
metaphors used, and compositional appearance.
5.3.3 Available methods: material criticisms
and interaction criticisms
There are a number of methods available in interaction
design research for exploring this level of analysis. For
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
instance, Material Criticisms [21] and Interaction Criti-
cisms [1] are two recently proposed methods. More prac-
tical than these two is the ‘‘sketching in hardware’’
approach as explored by, for example, Moussette and
Banks [29]. On a more general level, the methods appli-
cable to an analysis of texture include various approaches
for studying and exploring new ways of establishing rela-
tionships between different materials and between different
materials and appearance (including functionality). As
such, this level also includes, for example, mechatronics, as
an experimental and design-oriented approach to the
exploration of (interactive) texture.
5.3.4 Characteristic research questions
Material-centered interaction design research at this level
of analysis deals with questions of how texture is estab-
lished through material composition. It concerns relational
analysis of material compositions and studies of how
material properties are used to construct compositional
appearance. In addition, it concerns research questions that
capture different ways of framing how texture communi-
cates material properties through material surface and thus
through appearance. This level also concerns research
questions targeting human experience of texture and how
these experiences relate to materials and material proper-
ties. Here, the notion of authenticity plays a central role
and, accordingly, research questions formulated to address
how we not only see things, but also how we value them as
‘‘real,’’ are in focus here. Finally, at this level of analysis,
characteristic research questions also put texture into con-
text through questions aimed at gaining knowledge about
how a certain texture works in relation to a certain social,
cultural, and physical context. This concerns how a par-
ticular texture relates to a particular activity, but also
questions symbolic and aesthetic qualities of a certain
texture in a particular context.
5.4 Attention to details
In design practice, ‘‘attention to details’’ has established
itself not only as an expression, but as a gold standard for
designers who want to communicate that they have an
aesthetic eye and a developed regard for quality. In inter-
action design research, ‘‘attention to details’’ brings us back
to the materials in focus for interaction design research
conducted through a material lens. ‘‘Attention to details’’
implies a methodological focus on implementation. It
focuses on how, on a very detailed level of analysis,
materials have been selected and used in form-giving and
design. It is, as such, both about aesthetic aspects as well as
heavily concerned with quality aspects as being inseparable
and intertwined with any design.
5.4.1 Aesthetics
To methodologically work with attention to details implies
working with the dimension of aesthetics from a particular
perspective. If one pays attention to details in design-ori-
ented and material-centered interaction design, then aes-
thetics is a concern reaching far beyond an attention to
surface. It implies an attention to material details and, as
such, it implies a focus on the particular materials mani-
festing these details. Furthermore, this implies an under-
standing and careful study of material properties in relation
to how these properties, on a detailed level of analysis, can
be brought into a particular design and into a particular
aesthetic expression. As such, the methodological impli-
cations from this dimension are that aesthetics brings with
it advocacy for methods focusing on the study and explo-
ration of material choices, form, and shape. The dimension
of aesthetics is concerned with how these details are
arranged into wholes and how the application of different
styles or framing notions in return shapes and organizes
details accordingly. Aesthetics from this perspective is
concerned with this connection between details and
wholeness. Finally, aesthetics operates as a governing
principle, not only for any designed object, but also for
how this composition is perceived, understood, and valued.
As such, aesthetics links and organizes material properties
not only into objects, but into how these objects commu-
nicate certain qualities, values, and quality issues.
5.4.2 Quality
While aesthetics operates as an organizing principle for
material compositions and as a framing lens for how we
perceive and relate to objects, we have noticed how we also
need methods focused on quality aspects. We need this to
be able to conduct interaction design research fully through
a material lens, capable of paying attention to details.
Quality is a relational concept operating as a measure-
ment between material properties and the ultimate purpose
they serve in a composition. A certain material can be
considered to be good for certain purposes, whereas it
might lack quality in other compositions and situations. In
paying attention to details, this relational understanding of
quality needs to be implemented. Accordingly, the study of
quality aspects on this level of analysis concerns questions
of material choices and integration of different materials.
However, these questions need to be evaluated in relation
to a certain material’s intended role in a particular com-
position. So, in other words, the study of the materials and
details of any composition require an equally careful study
of which purposes a particular composition is suppose to
correspond to. Accordingly, we suggest that, at this level of
analysis, there should be a process in which the focus is
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
constantly altered between the micro and macro aspects of
a design. Almost coming across as a paradox, an attention
to details is simultaneously about an attention to
wholeness.
5.4.3 Available methods: studies in form-giving
and studies in making
There are a number of methods available and currently
applied in our field that are applicable to the level of
analysis in the proposed methodology. Ultimately, paying
attention to details is not only about observational studies,
but also includes studies in making. In addressing attention
to details through a process which switches back and forth
between details and wholeness, we should thus acknowl-
edge the design research community and, more explicitly,
methods describing studies in form-giving and studies in
making (see, e.g., [21]). Furthermore, to account for how
aesthetics also concerns how we relate to designed objects,
we should highlight empirical methods suitable for cap-
turing how details play out in practice. In such studies, the
focus is on attention to details in execution, that is, how
well material qualities are inscribed, supporting a certain
aesthetics and affordance (perceived functionality).
Finally, we should acknowledge the methods we have for
studying material choices, form, and shape. Here, we have
a rich body of methods available for studying this through
the perspective of craft (see, e.g., [3,8]) but also precise
theoretical recommendations on how to conduct studies
with a focus on form and form-making (see, e.g., [21]).
5.4.4 Characteristic research questions
As we direct our attention to details at this level of analysis,
we should at the same time highlight a set of characteristic
research questions that can be asked here. Of course, typ-
ical or characteristic questions to be asked concern details
and how those details have been implemented. More spe-
cifically, research questions concerning details can be
formulated within the two dimensions of aesthetics and
quality as outlined above. For instance, research questions
aimed at deepening our understanding of how tiny aspects
(details) in technology design shape, govern, or determine
how the technology is used, understood, and appreciated as
a whole, are of relevance here. Also of relevance is how
certain aesthetics is manifested through the materials and
how they link to both the level of materials (and material
choices) but also in relation to texture (to understand the
relationship between details and how these are organized
into texture and experienced). At this level of analysis, it is
also about how wholeness is manifested in, and made real
through, specific material configurations, for example,
whether or not the governing aesthetic of ‘‘disappearance’’
for ubiquitous computing comes across as truly ‘‘disap-
pearing’’ is, in return, dependent upon the specifics in its
implementation. If not, in detail, configured to support
these aesthetics, the technology will not ‘‘disappear’’ but
will probably make itself visible to its user, displaying
itself in various forms of technology breakdowns. Here, it
is also obvious that a concern for understanding details of
technology and interaction design is deeply connected with
understanding how compromised details not only affect the
aesthetics but also, maybe more fundamentally, the quality
of a computational composition—both in how it operates
as well as how it is perceived.
6 Discussion and concluding remarks
In this paper, we have studied and described the range of
methods currently applied in material-centered interaction
design research. We have presented our work as a com-
plementary methodology to already existing methodologies
in HCI and interaction design that accounts for the human
(e.g., user-centered design research).
The proposed methodology enables us to further
develop our repertoire of methods and to further explore
human–computer interaction. It does so by providing us
with this complementary perspective and, in doing so,
opens up, on a methodological level, a more systemized
approach to interaction design research conducted through
a material lens. This new material lens offered here is, of
course, a practical lens, but it is simultaneously also an
analytical and conceptual lens, enabling researchers in this
field to grasp concepts through its manifestation. As such,
this methodology, as presented in this paper, builds upon
established research in the field advocating concept-driven,
yet design and material-centered interaction design
research (see, e.g., [18,41]).
In particular, this paper has offered an organizing
methodological structure based on the simple dialectic
tradition in design to work back and forth between details
and wholeness, materials and textures. In this paper, we
have described each of these four dimensions and we have
further described how these can be used to guide research
design of material-centered interaction design research
projects.
While it might be obvious how this proposed structure is
helpful for moving forward—to advance our studies of
interaction design through a material lens—we should at
the same time acknowledge how this proposed structure is
simultaneously helpful for bringing us back to the roots of
our profession—that is, back to a focus on the materials,
the fundamental components of any computational com-
position. While Schon [40] did highlight that ‘‘the material
talks back to the designer,’’ our proposed methodology
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
organizes the methods available for empirical inquiries into
the processes governing this dialogue.
In similar ways to how an ‘‘architectural understanding
of interaction’’ [52] enables us to see digital technology
through a new architectural lens and as the notion of the
‘‘anatomy of prototypes’’ [24] helps us to see how pro-
totypes not only illustrate a design idea, but also operate
as a lens for transcending a design space, it should be
noted how this proposed methodology provides the
structure for a systematic material lens. This lens can help
in designing studies capable of reaching more in-depth
understandings of not only materials but also the rela-
tionship between material configurations (compositions),
material users’ experiences (materiality), and the sense-
making processes of these (framed by the dimension of
meaning).
At one level, this proposed methodology can be used to
read and analyze existing systems and to understand the
architecture of material compositions (which implies an
empirical value). Still, we believe that the framework
proposed here primarily adds a methodological value to
this field of research by offering a guideline system to
material-centered interaction design research. Ultimately,
we also hope that our proposed methodology adds theo-
retical value in providing a framework for reaching new
knowledge and, in this respect, moves the field forward
conceptually as well. If so, it would operate not only as a
complementary perspective, but it would also answer
Cockton’s [10] call when he said that ‘‘HCI must move out
from its human science comfort zones to embrace all ways
of understanding humanity.’’ Thus, we view the proposed
framework as one such attempt to move forward and to
operate not only as a complementary perspective to user-
centered HCI research but also to offer a perspective in
which the material dimensions of HCI can be brought to
our understanding of humanity.
In this paper, we have only illustrated how this meth-
odology can be used to guide studies of digital materials
and there are still much work that needs to be done. This
includes careful design of studies capable of capturing not
only the character of new materials, new material practices,
and the materiality of interaction, but also showing how the
different levels and aspects of this proposed methodology
could work in concert.
References
1. Bardzell J (2009) Interaction criticism and aesthetics.In: CHI ’09:
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in
computing systems, ACM
2. Baskerville R (1991) Risk analysis as a source of professional
knowledge. Comput Secur 10(8):749–764
3. Bean J, Rosner D (2012) Old hat: craft versus design? ACM
interactions 19(1):86–88
4. Beyer H, Holtzblatt K (1997) Contextual design: defining cus-
tomer-centered systems, 1st edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San
Francisco
5. Bertelsen O, Breinbjerg M, Pold S (2009) Emerging materiality:
reflections on creative use of software in electronic music com-
position. Leonardo 42(3):197–202
6. Bødker S (2006) When second wave HCI meets third wave
challenges. In: NordiCHI ’06: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic
conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles
7. Buchli V (2002) The material culture reader, Berg Publishers
8. Buechley L, Perner-Wilson H (2012) Crafting technology: re-
imagining the processes, materials, and cultures of electronics,
Trans Comput Hum Interact (TOCHI) 19(3):1–21
9. Callister W (2010) Materials Science and Engineering. Wiley,
London
10. Cockton G (2012) Refuser (centered design): moving on, moving
out, moving up. ACM Interact 19:8–9. doi:10.1145/2377783.
2377786
11. Carroll JM (ed) (2003) HCI models, theories, and frameworks
toward a multidisciplinary science. Morgan Kaufmann, San
Francisco, CA
12. Dant T (2004) Materiality and society. Open University Press,
Buckingham
13. Doering T (2011) Material-centered design and evaluation of
tangible user interfaces. In: TEI ’11: Proceedings of the fifth
international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied
interaction
14. Fa
¨llman D (2011) The new good: exploring the potential of
philosophy of technology to contribute to human-computer
interaction. In: CHI ’11: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference
on human factors in computing systems, ACM
15. Gross S, Bardzell J, Bardzell S (2013) Structures, forms, and
stuff—the materiality and medium of interaction, Personal and
Ubiquitous Computing, Theme issue ‘‘Material interactions’’,
X(X)
16. Hedeager L (2011) Iron age myth and materiality: an archaeology
of Scandinavia AD 400-1000, Routledge
17. Hicks D, Beaudry M (2010) The Oxford Handbook of Material
Culture Studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford
18. Hook K, Lo
¨wgren J (2012) Strong concepts: intermediate-level
knowledge in interaction design research, ACM Trans Comput
Hum Interact (TOCHI) 19(3):1–18
19. Ishii H, Lakatos D, Bonanni L, Labrune J-B (2012) Radical
atoms: beyond tangible bits, toward transformable materials,
interactions. ACM 19(1):38–51
20. Irny SI, Rose AA (2005) Designing a strategic information sys-
tems planning methodology for malaysian institutes of higher
learning (isp-ipta). Issues in Information System VI(1):325
21. Jung H, Stolterman E (2012) Digital form and materiality:
propositions for a new approach to interaction design research,
NordiCHI ’12, October 14–17, 2012
22. Kaptelinin V, Nardi B (2006) Acting with technology: activity
theory and interaction design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
23. Kolko J (2011) Craftsmanship. ACM Interactions 18:78–81
24. Lim Y-K, Stolterman E, Tenenberg J (2008) The anatomy of
prototypes: prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of
design ideas. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 15(2):Article 7
25. Lo
¨wgren J, Stolterman E (2004) Thoughtful interaction design.
The MIT Press, Cambridge
26. Meskell L (2005) Archaeologies of materiality. Blackwell Pub-
lishing, Malden, USA
27. Miller D (2005) Materiality (Politics, History, and Culture). Duke
University Press, Durham
28. Miller D (2009) Stuff. Polity Press, Cambridge
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
29. Moussette C, Banks R (2011) Designing through making:
exploring the simple haptic design space. In: TEI ’11: Proceed-
ings of the fifth international conference on Tangible, embedded,
and embodied interaction, pp. 279–282, ACM
30. Nelson H, Stolterman E (2003) The design way—intentional
change in an unpredictable world. Educational Technology
Publications, New Jersey
31. Nigel C (2010) Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer,
Heidelberg
32. Nimkulrat N (2009) Material inspiration: the practice-led
research of a craft artist. In: C&C ’09: Proceeding of the seventh
ACM conference on Creativity and cognition, ACM
33. Nimkulrat N (2012) Hands-on intellect: integrating craft practice
into design research. Int J Design 6(3):1–14
34. Orlikowski WJ (2010) The sociomateriality of organizational life:
considering technology in management research. Camb J Econ
34:125–141
35. Robles E, Wiberg M (2011) From materials to materiality. ACM
Interact 18(1):32–37
36. Robles E, Wiberg M (2010) Texturing the ‘‘material turn’’ in
interaction design. In: Proceedings of TEI2011—international
conference on tangible and embedded interaction, ACM Press,
pp. 137–144
37. Rogers Y (2004) New theoretical approaches for human-com-
puter interaction. Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol 38:87–143
38. Rosner D (2012) The material practices of collaboration. In:
Proceedings of CSCW’12
39. Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial. The MIT Press,
Cambridge. MA
40. Schon DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals
think in action. Basic Books, NewYork
41. Stolterman E, Wiberg M (2010) Concept-driven interaction
design research. Hum Comput Interact (HCI) 25(2):95–118
42. Sundstro
¨m P, Taylor AS, Grufberg K, Wirstro
¨m N, Belenguer JS,
Lunde
´n M (2011) Inspirational bits—towards a shared understand-
ing of the digital material. CHI’11, May 7–11, Vancouver, BC
43. Vallga
˚rda A, Redstro
¨m J (2007) Computational composites.
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in
computing systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 513–522
44. Vallga
˚rda A, Sokoler T (2010) A material strategy: exploring
material properties of computers. Int J Design [Online] 4:3
45. Vallga
˚rda A (2013) Giving form to computational things—
Developing a practice of interaction design, Personal and Ubiq-
uitous Computing, Theme issue Material interactions, X(X)
46. Watts A (2007) Does it matter?: Essays on man’s relation to
materiality. Reprint edition, New World Library
47. Wiberg M (2012) Landscapes, long tails & digital materialities—
implications for mobile HCI research. Int J Mobile Hum Comput
Interact 4(1):45–62
48. Wiberg M, Robles E (2010) Computational compositions: aes-
thetics, materials, and interaction design. Int J Design 4(2):65–76
49. Wiberg M, Ishii H, Rosner D, Vallga
˚rda A, Dourish P, Sundstro
¨m
P, Kerridge T, Rolston M (2012) Material interactions—from
atoms and bits to entangled practices. In: Proceedings of CHI012,
New York, NY, USA, pp. 1147–1150
50. Wiberg M, Ishii H, Rosner D, Vallga
˚rda A, Dourish P, Sundstro
¨m
P, Kerridge T, Rolston M (2013) Materiality matters—experience
materials, ACM Interact
51. Wiberg M, Kaye J, Thomas P (2013) Material interactions, per-
sonal and ubiquitous computing, Theme issue Material interac-
tions, X(X)
52. Wiltse H, Stolterman E (2010) Architectures of interaction: an
architectural perspective on digital experience. In: Proceedings of
NordiCHI, pp. 821–824
53. Woodward I (2007) Understanding material culture. Sage Pub-
lications Ltd, London
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
