Article Preview
TopInteraction Aesthetics
In 2005, Udsen and Jørgensen stated: “at present, the aesthetic turn is not a full-fledged shift in paradigm. However, it is undoubtedly an indication of a new awareness of the wide-ranging dimensions of interaction between humans and computers.” We have reasons to believe this situation has changed, particularly within the practices of interaction design.
Interaction aesthetics is surfacing as a strong alternative to mainstream human-computer interaction theories and methods (Hällnas & Redström, 2007; Löwgren, 2007; Löwgren, 2009; Redström, 2007; Stolterman, 2008; Udsen & Jørgensen, 2005). Löwgren (2009) and Stolterman (2008) propose a shift in focus from task-oriented, utilitarian approaches to human-centred and experience-centred methods, described as a “rational, disciplined, designerly way.” (Stolterman, 2008). Redström (2007) suggests that a central idea is the need to create a richer relation to computational things, through the exploration of:
- •
Engagement rather than efficiency;
- •
Temporal patterns of behavior;
- •
Alternative forms of design that challenge expectations;
- •
User identities, cultural contexts and traditions, within specific design domains;
- •
Innovative material combinations.
Despite the significant theoretical advances in interaction aesthetics, how to approach the variety of methodological issues raised by this perspective on technology is still an open question. In one of the initial studies in this area, Redström (2007) endorsed a radical change of focus: “how to design for living with, rather than just using, computational technology.” To design for everyday life involves more than supporting people to accomplish certain tasks effectively. Designs for usability and functionality are not sufficient. This broader view of interaction explores aspects for which the traditional usability assessment methods are incapable of providing useful information. New techniques are necessary.