Dimitris Papanikolaou
pp. 132 – 156, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-058-006)
Abstract
The integration of digital media into the curricula of design and architecture schools raises important pedagogical questions as to what kind of technical skills and what kind of critical thinking should designers of future interactive systems have and how these skills and mindsets should be cultivated. This paper argues for a pedagogical model for the design of intelligent environments that sees designers and architects as engineers, humanists, system thinkers, and researchers. The paper presents these ideas through the case of a new graduate course that introduces design, prototyping, programming and evaluation of physical telepresence media for individual or collective interactions with and through the built environment. The course was offered as a core course to a dual MSc degree program in Architecture and Information Technology and it aimed to cultivate three skills: an engineering ingenuity; a critical understanding of information and computation; and a technical skillset of network-based communications for connecting people, objects, and places. The discussion concludes with teaching experiences and future directions for development.
Keywords: connective technologies, engineering design, human-computer interaction, pedagogy, interactive systems, physical computing.
References
1. R. A. Bolt, “‘Put-that-there’: Voice and gesture at the graphics interface,” ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 262–270, 1980, doi: 10.1145/965105.807503.
2. “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.” Accessed: Nov. 13, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
3. “MIT Media Lab Homepage,” MIT Media Lab. Accessed: Nov. 12, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.media.mit.edu/
4. “NYU Interactive Telecommunications Program.” Accessed: Nov. 12, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://tisch.nyu.edu/itp
5. “CMU Computational Design Program Homepage,” CMU School of Architecture. Accessed: Nov. 12, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://soa.cmu.edu/computational-design
6. “REAL Harvard GSD,” REAL Harvard GSD. Accessed: Nov. 12, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://research.gsd.harvard.edu/real/
7. “CU Boulder ATLAS Institute,” ATLAS Institute. Accessed: Nov. 12, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.colorado.edu/atlas/
8. “AADRL,” AADRL. Accessed: Nov. 12, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://drl.aaschool.ac.uk
9. “Bachelor Media & Interaction Design,” ECAL – École cantonale d’art de Lausanne. Accessed: Nov. 12, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ecal.ch/en/courses-and-research/bachelor/bachelor-media-interaction-design/
10. “NuVu Studio Innovation School.” Accessed: Nov. 12, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://cambridge.nuvustudio.com/
11. “Microsoft Research Artist in Residence Program,” Microsoft Research. Accessed: Nov. 12, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/group/artist-in-residence/
12. Art and Innovation: The Xerox PARC Artist-in-Residence Program. The MIT Press, 1999. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/1390.001.0001.
13. K. Camarata, M. D. Gross, and E. Y.-L. Do, “A Physical Computing Studio: Exploring Computational Artifacts and Environments,” International Journal of Architectural Computing, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 169–190, Jun. 2003, doi: 10.1260/147807703771799166.
14. O. Shaer, M. S. Horn, and R. J. K. Jacob, “Tangible user interface laboratory: Teaching tangible interaction design in practice,” AI EDAM, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 251–261, Aug. 2009, doi: 10.1017/S0890060409000225.
15. K. Sorathia and R. Servidio, “Learning and Experience: Teaching Tangible Interaction & Edutainment,” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 64, pp. 265–274, Nov. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.031.
16. J. A. Valente and P. Blikstein, “Maker Education: Where Is the Knowledge Construction?,” Constructivist Foundations, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 252–262, 2019.
17. R. Chen, M. Demko, D. Byrne, and M. Louw, “Probing Documentation Practices: Reflecting on Students’ Conceptions, Values, and Experiences with Documentation in Creative Inquiry,” in Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Creativity and Cognition, in C&C ’21. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Jun. 2021, pp. 1–14. doi: 10.1145/3450741.3465391.
18. D. Papanikolaou, “Cloudcommuting: Games, Interaction, and Learning,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, in IDC ’13. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2013, pp. 459–462. doi: 10.1145/2485760.2485833.
19. N. Davis, C.-Pi. Hsiao, K. Yashraj Singh, L. Li, and B. Magerko, “Empirically Studying Participatory Sense-Making in Abstract Drawing with a Co-Creative Cognitive Agent,” in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, in IUI ’16. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Mar. 2016, pp. 196–207. doi: 10.1145/2856767.2856795.
20. S. Brave and A. Dahley, “inTouch: a medium for haptic interpersonal communication,” in CHI ’97 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, in CHI EA ’97. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Mar. 1997, pp. 363–364. doi: 10.1145/1120212.1120435.
21. B. Piper and H. Ishii, “PegBlocks: a learning aid for the elementary classroom,” in CHI ’02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, in CHI EA ’02. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Apr. 2002, pp. 686–687. doi: 10.1145/506443.506546.
22. D. Leithinger, S. Follmer, A. Olwal, and H. Ishii, “Physical telepresence: shape capture and display for embodied, computer-mediated remote collaboration,” in Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, in UIST ’14. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Oct. 2014, pp. 461–470. doi: 10.1145/2642918.2647377.
23. M. Deshpande, S. Sarwar, A. Mahdavi, and D. Papanikolaou, “Pneuxels: A Platform for Physically Manifesting Object-Based Crowd Interactions in Large Scales,” in Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Joint Conference and 2019 International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers, in UbiComp ’19. London, UK: ACM, 2019, pp. 9–12. doi: 10.1145/3341162.3343828
24. C. F. Griggio and M. Romero, “Canvas Dance: An Interactive Dance Visualization for Large-Group Interaction,” in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, in CHI EA ’15. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Apr. 2015, pp. 379–382. doi: 10.1145/2702613.2725453.
25. D. Papanikolaou, A. J. B. Brush, and A. Roseway, “BodyPods: Designing Posture Sensing Chairs for Capturing and Sharing Implicit Interactions,” in Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI TEI’15: 9th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, Stanford, CA, USA: ACM, Jan. 2015, pp. 375–382. doi: 10.1145/2677199.2680591.
26. “ToT __ Bientôt l’été __ ToT.” Accessed: Jan. 28, 2022. [Online]. Available: http://tale-of-tales.com/bientotlete/
27. B. Bengler and N. Bryan-Kinns, “Designing collaborative musical experiences for broad audiences,” in Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Creativity & Cognition, in C&C ’13. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Jun. 2013, pp. 234–242. doi: 10.1145/2466627.2466633.
28. S. Jordà, “The reactable: tangible and tabletop music performance,” in CHI ’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, in CHI EA ’10. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Apr. 2010, pp. 2989–2994. doi: 10.1145/1753846.1753903.
29. J. Patten, B. Recht, and H. Ishii, “Interaction techniques for musical performance with tabletop tangible interfaces,” in Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGCHI international conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology, in ACE ’06. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Jun. 2006, pp. 27–es. doi: 10.1145/1178823.1178856.
30. A. Guo, I. Canberk, H. Murphy, A. Monroy-Hernández, and R. Vaish, “Blocks: Collaborative and Persistent Augmented Reality Experiences,” Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 83:1–83:24, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1145/3351241.
31. S. Robinson, M. Jones, E. Vartiainen, and G. Marsden, “PicoTales: collaborative authoring of animated stories using handheld projectors,” in Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, in CSCW ’12. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Feb. 2012, pp. 671–680. doi: 10.1145/2145204.2145306.
32. J. C. Tang and S. L. Minneman, “Videodraw: a video interface for collaborative drawing,” ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 170–184, Apr. 1991, doi: 10.1145/123078.128729.
33. “The Collider – Anagram.” Accessed: Jan. 28, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://weareanagram.co.uk/project/the-collider
34. S. Angelia, N. Ohta, and K. Sugiura, “Design and evaluation of educational kinesthetic game to encourage collaboration for kindergarten children,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, in ACE ’15. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Nov. 2015, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1145/2832932.2832967.
35. M. H. Fogtmann, “Designing bodily engaging games: learning from sports,” in Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the New Zealand Chapter of the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction, in CHINZ ’11. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Jul. 2011, pp. 89–96. doi: 10.1145/2000756.2000768.
36. M. H. Fogtmann, J. Fritsch, and K. J. Kortbek, “Kinesthetic interaction: revealing the bodily potential in interaction design,” in Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Designing for Habitus and Habitat, in OZCHI ’08. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Dec. 2008, pp. 89–96. doi: 10.1145/1517744.1517770.
37. H. Larrea-Tamayo, “ARkits : architectural robotics kits,” Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2015. Accessed: Nov. 13, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/98627
38. H. S. Alavi, D. Lalanne, J. Nembrini, E. Churchill, D. Kirk, and W. Moncur, “Future of Human-Building Interaction,” in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, in CHI EA ’16. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, May 2016, pp. 3408–3414. doi: 10.1145/2851581.2856502.
39. M. Weiser, “The Computer for the 21st Century,” Sci.Am., vol. 265, no. 3, p. ec, 1991. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0991-94
40. D. Papanikolaou, Knowledge acquisition will be like swallowing a pill. Harvard Graduate School of Design, 2013.
41. M. Kuniavsky, “The Coming Age of Magic – Orange Cone.” Accessed: Sep. 29, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.orangecone.com/archives/2006/10/the_coming_age.html
42. G. Lakoff, “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor,” 1993, Accessed: Sep. 27, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/54g7j6zh
43. J. Kim and M. L. Maher, “Metaphorical Concepts and Framework for Designing Novel Approaches to Interactive Buildings,” in Design Computing and Cognition’20, J. S. Gero, Ed., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 331–350. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-90625-2_19.
44. S. Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture: The Growth of a New Tradition, Fifth Revised and Enlarged Edition, 5 edition. Cambridge, Mass. London: Harvard University Press, 2009. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv1bzfnzf
45. B. Fuller, Ideas and Integrities: A Spontaneous Autobiographical Disclosure, Trade Paperback Edition. New York: Collier Books, 1974.
46. “International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interactions (ACM TEI),” ACM TEI Conference. Accessed: Nov. 14, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://tei.acm.org
47. “ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference.” Accessed: Nov. 14, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://dis.acm.org/
48. “ACADIA – Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture.” Accessed: Nov. 14, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://acadia.org/
49. D. Offenhuber, Autographic Design: The Matter of Data in a Self-Inscribing World. The MIT Press, 2023. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/14666.001.0001
50. C. Petzold, Code : the hidden language of computer hardware and software. Redmond, Wash., 2000.
51. A. Chalcraft and M. Greene, “Train Sets,” Eureka, vol. 53, pp. 5–12, 1994.
52. B. Hayes, “Trains of Thought,” American Scientist; Research Triangle Park, vol. 95, no. 2, p. 108, Apr. 2007. doi: 10.1511/2007.64.108
53. J. T. Godfrey, “Binary digital computer,” US3390471A, Jul. 02, 1968 Accessed: Mar. 28, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3390471/en
54. L. Pitt, “Turing Tumble is Turing-Complete.” arXiv, Oct. 18, 2021. Accessed: May 16, 2022. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.09343
55. “Turing Tumble – Build Marble-Powered Computers,” Turing Tumble – Build Marble-Powered Computers. Accessed: May 16, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.upperstory.com/turingtumble
56. The Amazing Dr. Nim board game. 1966.
57. “home | p5.js.” Accessed: May 16, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://p5js.org/
58. Node.js, “Node.js,” Node.js. Accessed: Mar. 27, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://nodejs.org/en/
59. “Socket.IO.” Accessed: Jan. 21, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://socket.io/