Content uploaded by Pierre Lévy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pierre Lévy on Feb 09, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
When Movement Invites to Experience:
a Kansei Design Exploration on Senses’ Qualities
Pierre Lévy1, Eva Deckers1, Michael Cruz Restrepo2
1Eindhoven University of Technology
Department of Industrial Design
Den Dolech 2, 5612AZ Eindhoven, The Netherlands
p.d.levy@tue.nl, e.j.l.deckers@tue.nl
2House of Gina
Temporary Art Centre
Vonderweg 1, 5611 BK Eindhoven, The Netherlands
michael@houseofgina.com
ABSTRACT
In this paper, we introduce a Research through Design
on ‘Sensual Dynamics’, and explore four design projects
(namely Be Touched!, Sound Flowers, Shylight, and
Blow!) from which we extract design notions providing
valuable insights on how to design with and for the
senses’ quality ‘reciprocity’. ‘Sensual Dynamics’
designs are artifacts that are able to sense one person
and to behave upon her presnece to invite for
movements enhancing the perceptive experience. Such
an artifact is therefore at the same time the object of the
experience as well as the trigger for a greater perceptive
experience.
Keywords
Sensual dynamics, senses’ qualities, perception,
reciprocity, acting intuition, design.
INTRODUCTION
With the increasing integration of electronics in
everyday products, to give them the ability to sense their
environment (virtual and physical ones) and to act upon
it, the focus of industrial designers has been greatly
expanded. Next to the focus on classical formgiving
aspects (form, texture, color, material of the product),
industrial designers need as well to focus on designing
for interaction. To design the artifacts’ behavior,
designers need approaches to design for aesthetical
quality in interaction, i.e. they need an approach for
artifacts to appeal to our kansei throughout our
perceptive activity, and therefore to our senses and to
our motor skills.
The main objective of this paper is the introduction of a
Research through Design project entitled ‘Sensual
Dynamics’. We describe basic design notions at the
sensorial level to design for perceptive qualities. To do
so, we describe the concept of the senses’ qualities as a
starting point for design for perceptive experience.
Thereafter, we focus on the quality of ‘reciprocity’ and
intend to point out design notions to support the
‘Sensual Dynamics’ design approach.
APPROACH ON SENSES AND EXPERIENCE
In this paper, we take a philosophical standpoint on
kansei. This philosophical outline has inspired our
design approach. The approach differs from the
generally taken approach in the discipline of kansei
engineering. Kansei engineering can be described, in
most of the cases, as embracing a systemic approach
based on a reductionist method (cf. [7,10]. The approach
we take here aims at being practical for design, and
holistic in its nature.
Acting intuition
This kansei design approach is inspired from the
philosophy of Nishida Kitaro, the father of the School of
Kyoto. In the case of the present research, we especially
focus on the notion of acting intuition (koiteki chokkan).
In short, Nishida describes acting intuition as follows [9]:
“we see a thing by action, and the thing we see
determines us as much as we determining the thing. ”
From a design perspective, this description is composed
of two strong inspirational arguments:
• “The thing we see determines us as much as we
determining the thing” – The meaning of one (e.g.,
the thing) cannot be constituted independently from
the other (e.g., me), and vice versa. This implies the
reciprocal influence of the world and the individual.
As Wilkinson (2009 – p120) explains: “We must
experience the world in order to act on it. Just as he
[Nishida] insists that practical reason is more
profound than the theoretical, so he insists that our
natural mode of being-in-the-world (Heidegger, 1962)
is not contemplative but active, an aspect of constant
mutual interaction between individual and world.”
Consequently, meaning emerges from interaction
(between the person and the thing) and cannot be
independent from it. From a design perspective, this
implies that the context and the interaction with it
should be considered to a greater extend, yet without
attempting to define them completely. This
consideration is required as it will be the place where
meaning emerges. Yet an attempt to make it complete
within the design process would actually be an
attempt of meaning creation from the designer’s
point-of-view, not the user’s one. This would
depreciate the quality in interaction and consequently
of the design.
• “We see a thing by action” – The environment (“the
thing”) is perceived in dynamics, i.e., in the dynamics
of interaction. Therefore, designers should design for
interaction taking into consideration its dynamics
quality, this invites to design for action possibilities,
preferred over usability of pre-determined actions.
To summarize, taking a Nishidian stance invites kansei
designers to focus on dynamics (i.e. movement), to offer
action possibilities, and to consider the context as a set
!"#$%"&#'("&)*+(",$%$"-$*("*.&"/$'*0"1'"$$%'"1*&"2*03(#'("*4$/$&%-56*.004*7897****:&;$%**:%$/$"#&#'("*
!Poster!!Presentation
!Poster!!Presentation
!
of dynamic elements. It is in the interaction that
meaning emerges.
Acting intuition can be put in parallel with active nature
of perception as described by Merleau-Ponty [8]:
“Perception is inherently interactive and participatory; it
is a reciprocal interplay between the perceiver and the
perceived.” The practical value of doing so is to gain the
design knowledge which derives from this notion [1,6].
From a phenomenological stance, Deckers [2] has
proposed a model from which few artifacts have been
already designed. The ones presented in the showcase
section are built on this model, which should therefore
be presented briefly here.
Figure 1: Design relevant model for designing perceptual
crossing
Figure 2: Model on perceptual crossing between person
(Subject) and artifact (Object)
Figure 1 shows the theoretical model of the person
(subject), the designed artifact with perceptive qualities
(object), the event happening in their common space
(event) and the perceptive connections between them.
As one can see in the perception of the event, perception
is here considered active [9] and is the result of the
actions one undertakes and of the sensory feedback this
results in, and vice versa. The actions the object
undertakes towards the event are part of the perceptive
activity the subject perceives of the object (the dashed
lines in the model). Theoretically this also works the
other way around.
The perception of each other is also active. The lower
lines are a simplified representation of what happens and
show the reciprocal interplay, i.e. perceptual crossing,
between subject and object. Figure 2 shows the two
lower lines of the model presented in Figure 1 in more
detail. The actions the subject undertakes to perceive the
object are part of the perceptive activity the object
perceives. This also works the other way around (the
dashed lines in Figure 2). The perception of each other
crosses.
Qualities of senses
This research focuses on the exploration of the relation
between the qualities of the senses (described in the
following paragraph) and the perceptive activity of the
subject, in order to find ways to design for a greater
experience while interacting with dynamics artifacts.
We describe here a quality of a sense as a
phenomenological property of the sense. Therefore,
these qualities are not directly related to any
physiological aspect, but to phenomenological ones.
Here we only focus on the quality of ‘reciprocity’.
Nevertheless we worked on three qualities of the senses
that we believe to be directly usable in design. They are
used as a basic framework for our research: reciprocity,
distance, and privacy (Table 1 gathers the qualities for
the five senses):
• The “reciprocity” quality concerns the fact that
sensing implies being sensed as well (e.g., I am
touched by what I touch (touch is reciprocal), whereas
I can hear without being heard (hearing is non-
reciprocal)).
• The “distance” qualifies where my body should be
relative to the artifact to sense it (e.g., I can see at a
distance (sight is distant), but I cannot touch at a
distance (touch is local)).
• The “privacy” quality concerns the fact that one piece
of an artifact (or of an event) can be sensed by more
than one person at a time (e.g., many people can hear
the same thing at the same time (hearing is public),
while nobody can touch what I touch at the same time
as it is covered by my skin (touch is private)).
Although pure publicity is not possible (because it
always depends on the position of my body in space,
which is where only my body can be), it is
perceptively acceptable (the announcement in a train
is heard the same way by all the passengers). Yet, this
is particularly noticeable for sight, as obviously
nobody sees the same artifact from the same angle at
the same time. In the specific case of sight, this
quality is named point-of-view.
Reciprocity
Distance
Privacy
Sight
no
distant
point-of-viewed
Audition
no
distant
public
Touch
yes
local
private
Taste
yes
local
private
Smell
no
distant
public
Table 1: Qualities of the senses (excerpt)
This description of the qualities of the senses is valuable
for design, as it provides a practical starting point to
design for perceptual experiences. This starting point
will help the designer to create new experiences, during
which the qualities of the senses will be transformed by
a proper use of technology. In other words, the qualities
of the senses are considered here as a starting point to
design for perceptive qualities. Figure 3 gathers a set of
!"#$%"&#'("&)*+(",$%$"-$*("*.&"/$'*0"1'"$$%'"1*&"2*03(#'("*4$/$&%-56*.004*7897****:&;$%**:%$/$"#&#'("*
!Poster!!Presentation
!Poster!!Presentation
!
examples of artifacts organized by the senses’ qualities,
sowing or transforming the ‘natural’ state of the quality.
An basic example of a design that influences the senses’
qualities are headphones. Headphones change hearing
from public-distant-nonreciprocal to private-local-
nonreciprocal. Their use profoundly changes both the
way one can behave (action possibilities), the way one
can sense the surrounding, and therefore the perceptive
relation one has with the environment.
Research approach
For this research, we use a Research through Design
approach [3]. This approach is formalized [11] as an
iterative process during which artifacts are designed and
considered as physical hypothesis [4] in the research
process. Therefore, designerly skills and activities are
highly involved and valued in the process: high quality
is required for designing and the making of the physical
hypothesis.
In this paper, we present the first iteration on designing
for sensual dynamics, focusing on the quality of
‘reciprocity’. Sensual dynamics artifacts are used as
physical hypothesis to investigate how to design for
perceptual experience, based on the senses’ qualities.
Because we present here the first iteration, our findings
are based on the first set of artifacts and on the reflection
upon experiencing them. Our insights get valuable as
findings are crossed over various artifacts, and will get
stronger in the future iterations as our reflection output
will be challenged with new artifacts designed by
different designers (seemingly similar to reliability in
classic research).
Sensual dynamics artifacts
A sensual dynamics artifact is described as an artifact
that is able to sense a person and to behave upon her
presence to invite for movements enhancing the
perceptive experience. Such an artifact is therefore at the
same time the object of the experience as well as the
trigger for a greater sensory experience. Such a concept
is not easy to design from, so a design approach to
create such artifacts is also described.
This approach was developed for and performed by a
group of master students from the department of
Industrial Design at Eindhoven University of
Technology, during a one-week module taking place at
the university.
This module was structured in three parts to support the
students’ exploration and progressive understanding of
the concept of ‘sensual dynamics’. In the first part, the
stuents are introduced to the theoretical framework and
the notion of the senses’ qualities. After this
introduction, students are assigned to create a similar
table as presented in Figure 3 based on personal
investigation. During the second part, we introduced
further the notion of dynamics from a design perspective
[5]. Thereafter students were assigned to do a dynamic
exploration on the senses’ qualities. Through acting,
they explored the influence of one sense’s quality on
experience – e.g., what is to experience a private sight,
or a distant touch. During the third and the last part, the
students were assigned to design a experienceable
prototype (introduced in the next section) expressing
through design the outcome from the second part. This
designed artifact should engage the person in a rich
sensorial and active interplay with an artifact exploring
especially one of the qualities of the senses.
Figure 3: Examples of designs for senses' qualities
!"#$%"&#'("&)*+(",$%$"-$*("*.&"/$'*0"1'"$$%'"1*&"2*03(#'("*4$/$&%-56*.004*7897****:&;$%**:%$/$"#&#'("*
!Poster!!Presentation
!Poster!!Presentation
!
SENSUAL DYNAMICS ARTIFACTS: SHOWCASE
In this section, we present four sensual dynamics
artifacts. These artifacts are the outcome of the module
previously described. We reflect on them to extract
preliminary design considerations for the research. In
this reflection, the characteristics and the qualities of the
artifacts, and the reactions of visitors of a one-day
exhibition were taken into account.
These artifacts explore respectively the reciprocity of
touch (“Be touched” project), the reciprocity of hearing
(“Sound flowers” project), the reciprocity of sight
(“Shylight” project), and the distance of touch (“Blow
back” project – upon which a reflection will be done
focusing on reciprocity as well).
Presentation movies of all the artifacts can be seen at
http://dqi.id.tue.nl/sensual-dynamics.
Be touched!
the students that designed BeTouched!, focused on the
concept of ‘reciprocal touch’. The artifact the students
designed exists out of several flexible bodies, gathered
on one platform. All these bodies are touch-sensitive by
the integration of a capacity sensor at both the front as
back of the body. They are enabled to act as they are
connected to a servomotor at the bottom. Figure 4 gives
an impression of the artifact.
When one of the bodies is touched on the front it really
let itself been stroked. It moves forward, in the direction
of your hand, and you are touched back. At the backside
the body is more ticklish. The body immediately moves
away from your touch. Also, when one of the bodies is
being touched the other bodies will start moving to draw
your attention: they also want to be touched.
Embodiment – The beauty of this artifact is that the
form does most of the work. The shape and material of
the body enhance the dynamics of the servomotor
tremendously and give the body a continuous and
sustained movement. This makes that it really feels that
the body actively lets itself being stroke.
Sensing and acting are strongly embodied: the sensors
move along with the moving body. When it is ticklish it
moves away from the touch, literally getting the senses
away from the hand. And when it likes to get stroked, on
the front, it really moves it senses towards the hand,
moving the whole length of the sensitive area along the
hand. From the sensual dynamics perspective, this point
provides a valuable insight: the embodiment of the
sensing and the acting provides a high quality of
reciprocity. The notion of reciprocity implies a notion of
force, and physical resistance when forces are (partially)
opposite. Similar findings were output on the research of
perceptual crossing [1].
Invitation – Furthermore, the request for attention
expressed by the non-touched bodies while one of them
is being touched, was quite effective in inviting the users
to touch them in return. This body expression, directly
relates to the current experience of the person as
touching one of the bodies, the non-touched bodies will
react with by performing a same type of movement. This
appearst to be a great invitation to act towards reciprocal
touch. Movement invites to movement.
Figure 4: Be Touched!
Sound Flowers
Sound Flowers results from an exploration of the
concept ‘reciprocal hearing’. It is composed of three
mechanical flowers which open when they hear sound
next to them. As they open, the sound of a musical
instrument can be heard. Each of the three flowers
diffuses a different instrument, which together form an
orchestrated piece of music. The flower closes
progressively and the music turns off, unless sound is
produced again by the person. To attract the person, the
set of flowers uses a slightly similar technique as ‘Be
Touched!’: when one of the flowers is being opened, the
other ones start to lure the person by opening very
briefly. Figure 5 gives an impression of the artifact.
Distributed system – An original aspect of the Sound
Flowers, compared to other artifacts presented in this
paper, is the distribution of the flowers in the
environment. For the Sound Flower this distribution is
easier than for the Be Touched!. The earlier focuses on
hearing,which is distant, and the latter on touch, which
is local. Each flower has its own sensor to hear the
person’s voice (a microphone) and its own actuators to
play its own layer (instrument) of the global music
(speakers) and mechanism to open the flower. Each of
!"#$%"&#'("&)*+(",$%$"-$*("*.&"/$'*0"1'"$$%'"1*&"2*03(#'("*4$/$&%-56*.004*7897****:&;$%**:%$/$"#&#'("*
!Poster!!Presentation
!Poster!!Presentation
!
them produces one of the layers of the total music
provided by the flowers together.
It is noticable that the students have intended to keep the
embodiment (as previously described) within the
distributed system, in order to design for the same level
of qualities in experience.
Embodiment – However, in the case of the Sound
Flowers, the sensors were put on the table next to each
flower, and were not strictly embedded in the flower
itself. Because the sensors were easily noticeable, many
speople actually knocked on the table or spoke gazing at
the table instead of the flower in order to ensure a
greater effectiveness in opening the flower. This detail
disembodied acting and sensing. This lack of integration
shows how much subtleness is important to create
qualitatively appreciable prototypes, and how much
embodiment is an important variable for reciprocity.
Invitation – Two phenomena were perceived as inviting
for further interaction:
• The first was obviously the designed lure, which was
created for the closed flowers to divert the attention of
the subject towards them. Similarly to Be Touched!,
the movements of a Sound Flower invites to
movement (of the gaze). However, we would have
been interested more in the creation of a sonorous
invitation, to initiate a reciprocal sonorous interaction.
• The second was created thanks to the distribution of
the music among the flowers. Each opening of a
flower has been perceived as a sonorously
improvement of the experience in interaction. As one
flower opens, the total experience is enriched.
Symmetrically, as another flower closes, the total
experience is impoverished. This creates a form of
tension in the experience, during which the person
cares for none of the flowers to close, and acts
contingently.
Figure 5: Sound flowers
Shylight
ShyLight is the result of exploration on the ‘non-
reciprocity of sight’. The artifact is a light that is able to
turn in the horizontal plane, situated in a dark room. It is
equipped with a webcam that can detect the presence
and dynamics of people. It sets out to find movement
and thus a person but if you come too close it moves
away. Once you look at it, it really gets shy and the light
turns off. Figure 6 gives an impression of the artifact.
Figure 6: ShyLight
Embodiment and active behavior – The most
fascinating aspect of this artifact is that when the light
gets shy and turns off, it really escapes from perceiving
the person. For the webcam to detect a person the light
has to be on, otherwise it is too dark in the room. So
when the light goes off it really cannot see the person
anymore. To try and see if the person is there the artifact
has to turn on its light again or it can move and dare to
look in a different direction.
The integration of the webcam and actuator actually are
at the basis of this embodiment of sensing and acting.
They are naturally embodied as the sensor moves along
with the actuator. When we want to look behind us we
need to turn which prevents us to see forward.
Although it is almost inescapable to use human and
animal references when talking about behavior, when
designing it should be about the perceptive activity and
not the shape. The ShyLight incorporates a strong
embodiment of sensing and acting but the pitfall of
making an ‘eye’ lurks. The way the students integrated
sensing and acting by turning of the light when you
come too close is therefore in our opinion a far more
beautiful way of embodying sensing and acting.
Blow!
The artifact Blow! was designed by students assigned to
focus on ‘distant touch’. The ‘reciprocity of touch’ is a
more natural quality as we can only touch something
because we are touchable; to touch always means to be
!"#$%"&#'("&)*+(",$%$"-$*("*.&"/$'*0"1'"$$%'"1*&"2*03(#'("*4$/$&%-56*.004*7897****:&;$%**:%$/$"#&#'("*
!Poster!!Presentation
!Poster!!Presentation
!
touched. This has a very local and private character. In
this assignment the students were challenged to think
through technology about touch in a more open and
distant form without losing the embodiment of acting
and sensing and without losing the reciprocal quality of
touch.
Active behavior – The students designed Blow! an
artifact that is able to detect the subject activity of
blowing and that acts by blowing hot air itself. The
students were still developing the behavior of the artifact
while the first people were interacting with it, on the
spot. In the first instance their design was a very
reactive, not that much a perceptive entity: it would
blow back at you when you blew on the sensor. Once
the artifact obtained some own initiative, the quality of
the interaction immediately enriched. Figure 7 gives an
impression of the artifact.
Figure 7: Blow!
Embodiment – Although the students did a very good
attempt in reaching an experience of touching something
at a distance, using air as mediator, the fact that sensor
and actuator were clearly disembodied makes that the
reciprocity of this distant touch could have been
stronger. When blowing on the sensor, that is right under
the actuator, the artifact will show perceptive activity by
blowing back. Yet because of the placement of the
sensor the air hits your forehead instead of the two
streams of air (of artifact and person) actually meeting
each other. If the placement of where I blow is where
the artifact acts the two forces would meet. It is in this
resistance that perceptual crossing would happen. In
other words then I could feel the artifact touching me,
even on a distance, while I’m touching it.
SUMMARY ON RECIPROCITY
A few notions have been extracted during the
description and the reflection of these four artifacts. We
gather and summarize them here.
Embodiment
The notion of embodiment is unquestionably an
important factor for reciprocity. At the experiential
level, we have pointed out the importance of
embodiment of that sensing and acting. Be Touched! is a
great example, as the moving parts are themselves the
sensing ones as well. When the body escapes from the
touch, so does the sensor. Shylight is also a brilliant
example shown thanks to a tentative of non-reciprocity.
As the Shylight turns off to escape from perceptual
crossing, it also prevents itself to perceive its
surroundings. Differently, Sound Flowers shown the risk
of disembodying the sensors and the actuators, as
subjects were progressively focusing on the table more
than on the flower.
“What senses is what is moving (and therefore reacting);
What moves away looses sensing abilities.” seems in
adequacy with the Nishidian stance. At the technical
level, this implies a wise integration of the sensors
together with the actuators, with subtlety.
Subtleness
The notion of subtleness has been indeed recurrent in
our reflection. It concerns appearance in both static and
dynamic dimensions. Movements and behaviors need to
be smooth. Material needs to support the expected
quality in interaction. For the designer, it also requires to
work on details, where quality (in interaction) resides.
By the dynamics, the shape and the material used for the
bodies, Be Touched! enhanced greatly the experience
and quality in reciprocity. Behavior is smooth and
beautifully expressed. The behavior of reacting to caress
and tickle, or inviting for it, is well embodied, and
provides a nice experience to the person. For both the
Sound Flowers and Blow!, the disembodiment of the
sensor (on the table for the Sound Flowers and under the
blower (actuator) for Blow!), due to the lack of time to
tune up the prototypes, was a source of a lesser quality
in interaction.
Active behavior
Designing for explorative behavior is crucial for sensual
dynamics artifacts. In their own way, each of the four
artifacts presented here has an active behavior. The
notion of active behavior reflects that the artifact acts
even in the case of absence of any input from the person:
it acts, it explores and tries to engage in interaction.
Therefore the artifact is not only responsive, not all the
initiative to engage in interaction is at the person’s side,
but the artifacts is also active. The artifact takes
initiative.
Be touched! and Sound Flowers actively invite the
person to further explore and engage in interaction. For
the earlier, the non-touched bodies act when another
body is touched to call for attention. For the latter, a
closed flower might open slightly to attract the attention
of the subject. Because the camera cannot observe the
entire space at once, Shylight scans its environment in
order to find somebody.
Blow is an interesting case, as the students programmed
its behavior continuously throughout the exhibition,
from a following to an active one. The reaction of the
visitors evolved accordingly, expressing more and more
interest and appreciation towards the quality in
interaction.
!"#$%"&#'("&)*+(",$%$"-$*("*.&"/$'*0"1'"$$%'"1*&"2*03(#'("*4$/$&%-56*.004*7897****:&;$%**:%$/$"#&#'("*
!Poster!!Presentation
!Poster!!Presentation
!
Lure
The notion of Lure is used here to describe the
requirement of inviting the subject to interact with the
sensual dynamics artifact. Even though only the
designers of Be Touched! and the Sound Flowers
created consciously a behavior to attract the attention of
the subject, the same behavior was experienced by the
subjects as well for the two other artifacts. In the case of
Shylight, the scanning of the environment invites the
subject to get in its gaze to initiate the interaction. In the
case of Blow!, in the later versions of the behavior, the
blower was not necessarily reacting immediately to the
subject’s blowing, and was also sometimes blowing
first, which was perceived by an invitation to start the
interaction. -! this alinea is very similar to the
previous
CONCLUSION
In this paper we presented a kansei design approach to
design for perceptive experience in interaction,
considering the senses’ qualities as the starting point of
the approach. Both the notion of interaction and the
notion of senses’ qualities were described at a
phenomenological level.
In this on-going research, through a Research through
Design approach, we pointed out a few notions for the
quality of ‘reciprocity’ valuable from a kansei design
perspective. More iterations need to be performed in
order to strengthen these notions and possibly to output
new ones, especially regarding other qualities, such as
distance and publicity.
Besides the insights that are directly valuable for our
research we also hope to show that making means
trying, means experiencing, means knowing. All these
short and longer design projects are all treated as
valuable.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank all the students who joined the module
Sensual Dynamics and designed these insightful
showcases: Josje Wijnen, Jurrian Tjeenk Willink Kim
van Iersel, and Sebastiaan Pijnappel (BeTouched!);
Johan Siekmans, Sander Bogers, Dirk van Erve, and Rik
van Donselaar (Sound Flowers); Idowu Ayoola, Luce
Aknin, Maxim Sakovich, and Thomas van Lankveld
(ShyLight); Bastiaan Ekeler, Dominika Potvzáková,
Hugo Christiaans, and Renée van den Berg (Blow!).
REFERENCES
1. Deckers, E., Wensveen, S., Ahn, R., and Overbeeke,
K. (2011). Designing for perceptual crossing to
improve user involvement. In Proc. CHI’11, pp.
1929.
2. Deckers, E.J.L., Westerhoff, J., Pikaart, M.,
Wanrooij, G.A.F. van, and Overbeeke, K. (2009).
How perception gets emotional value through the use
of an object. In Proc DPPI09.
3. Frayling, C. (1993). Research in Art and Design.
Royal College of Art Research Papers 1(1), pp. 1-5.
4. Frens, J. 2006. Designing for rich interaction:
integrating form, interaction, and function. Doctoral
thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.
5. Hummels, C., Cruz Restrepo, M., and Overbeeke, K.
(2009). Designing the melody of interaction through
movies, maps, mechanisms, prototypes and
presentations. In Proc. CHI EA’09, pp. 2647.
6. Lenay, C. (2010). “It’s So Touching”: Emotional
Value in Distal Contact. International Journal of
Design, 4(2), pp. 15-25.
7. Lokman, A.M. (2010). Design & Emotion: the
Kansei Engineering Methodology. Design &
Emotion: the Kansei Engineering Methodology 1(1),
pp. 1-11.
8. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phénoménologie de la
perception [Phenomenology of Perception]. Editions
Gallimard, Paris, France.
9. Nishida, K. (1987). Nishida Kitar! Zensh"
[Complete writings of Nishida Kitar!]. Iwanami
Shoten, Tokyo, Japan.
10.Schütte, S., Eklund, J., Axelsson, J., and Nagamachi,
M. (2004). Concepts, methods and tools in Kansei
engineering. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics
Science 5 (3), pp. 214-231.
11.Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., and Forlizzi, J.
(2010). An analysis and critique of Research through
Design. In Proc. DIS’10, pp. 310.
!"#$%"&#'("&)*+(",$%$"-$*("*.&"/$'*0"1'"$$%'"1*&"2*03(#'("*4$/$&%-56*.004*7897****:&;$%**:%$/$"#&#'("*
!Poster!!Presentation
!Poster!!Presentation
!
