aesthetics of touch: desform conference
Post on 15-Jan-2015
2.057 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Aesthetics of TouchDesForM Presentation 2012
Vicky Teinaki, Bruce Montgomery, Nicholas Spencer, Gilbert CocktonNorthumbria University
Haptics & Aesthetics
Hapticshaptikos: ‘pertaining to the sense of touch’
Carnal? Embodied? Different from touch? ARISTOTLE MERLEAu-POnTy WSyChOgRAD
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jakescreations/52190954
Vicky TeinakiThe Vocabulary of Touch | Yr1 PhD University of Northumbria
23 November 2010Diagram: Methods of Aesthetics
Educational scale of touch: a scale of tactile values for Tactilism, or the Art of Touch
First scale, level, with four di�erent categories of touch.
1. Extremely confident touch, abstract, cold. Sandpaper, Silver-coated paper.2. Touch without heat, persuasive, reasoning. Smooth silk, Silk crepe.3. Exciting, lukewarm, nostalgic. Velvet, Wool from the Pyrenees, Wool, Silk-wool crepe.4. Almost irritating, hot, determined. Granulous silk, Plaited silk, Spongy cloth.
Second scale, volumes
5. So�, hot, human. Suede, Horsehair or dog hair, Human hair, Marabou.6. Hot, sensual, spirited, a�ectionate. This category has two branches: a. Rough iron b. So� brush, Sponge, Wire brush, Plush, Human or peach fuzz, Bird down.
HEADInstant – 30 mins
HEART/MIDDLE30mins – 3 hrs
BASE3+ hrs
Citrus fruitsLemon, mandarin, bergamont
Aromatics Anis, lavender, lemon grass
Floral Erose, jasmine, lilac
Green Grass, stone, leaf
Fruity Rasberry, pear, peach
Spices Clove, nutmeg, cinnamon
Wooded Cedar, patchouli, moss
Balsamic Vanilla, heliotrope, tonka bean
FL
OR
AL N
O T E S O R I E N T A
L NO
TE
S
WO
OD
Y
NOTES FRESH N
OT
ES
Aromatic Fougere
Floral oriental
Floral
So� oriental
So� floral
Woody oriental
Mossy woods
Drywoods
Citrus
Green
Water
CARAMELIZ
ED
NU
TTY
VE
GE
TA
TIV
E
FRUITY
SPICY
FLORAL
MIC
ROBIOLOGIC
AL
OX
IDIZ
EDPU
NG
EN
T
CH
EM
ICA
L
EARTHY
WOODY
CitrusGrapefruitLemon
BerryBlackberry Raspberry(Tree)FruitCherry Apricot Peach Apple
(Tropica
l)FruitPinea
ppleM
elon Ban
ana
(Drie
d)Fr
uitSt
raw
berry
Jam
Raisin Prun
e
Fig
Oth
er
Art
ific
ialF
ruit
Met
hylA
nthr
anila
te
Fres
h
Stem
my
Gra
ss,C
utG
reen
Bel
lPep
per
Euc
alyp
tus
Min
t
Can
ned
/C
ooke
d
Gre
enB
eans
Asp
arag
usG
reen
Ol i
veB
lack
Oli
veD
ried
Hay
/ Str
awT
eaT
obac
co
Nut
tyW
alnu
tH
azel
nut
Alm
ond
Carameli
zed
Hon
eyBut
ters
cotc
h
Soy Sauce
Chocolat
e
Molasses
Art
icho
ke
Phenolic
Phenolic
Vanilla
Resinous
Cedar
Oak
BurnedSmokyBurnt Toast/CharredCoffee
Earthy
Moldy Mushroom
Dusty
MoldyCork Musty(Mildew)
Petroleu
m
PlasticTar
Diesel Kero
sene
Sulfu
r
Hydro
gen S
ulfid
e
R
ubbe
ry
Cab
bage
Wet
Woo
l,W
etD
og
Sulfu
rDio
xide
Bur
ntM
atch
Pape
ry
Wet
Car
dboa
rd
Filte
rPad
Pung
ent
Ace
ticA
cid
Eth
ylA
ceta
te
Sulf
urD
ioxi
de
Eth
anol
Oth
er
Fuse
l Alc
ohol
Sorb
ate
Soa
py F
ishy
Hot
Coo
lA
lcoh
ol
Men
thol
Ace
tald
ehyd
e
Oxi
dize
d
Yea
sty
Lees
yFl
orye
ast
Lact
ic
Lactic
AcidSwea
ty
Butyr
icA
cid
Saue
rkra
ut
Other
Mousey
Horsey
Floral
Orange Blossom
Linalool
Rose
Geranium
Violet
Spicy
ClovesBlack Pepper
Licorice, Anise
Strawberry BlackCurrant(Cassis)
Skun
k
Gar
lic
Mer
capt
anDiac
etyl (
Butter
)
The Manifesto of Tactilism – Marine�i (1921)
Aroma Wheel– Noble (1984)
Sense wheel – Williams (1980)
Ranged of the Senses – Mainar and Vodvarka (2004)
Fragrance Wheel– Edwards (1983)
Fragrance Wheel– Edwards (1983)
other variations include sublevels and masculine/feminine qualities
Vicky TeinakiThe Vocabulary of Touch | Yr1 PhD University of Northumbria
23 November 2010Diagram: Methods of Aesthetics
Educational scale of touch: a scale of tactile values for Tactilism, or the Art of Touch
First scale, level, with four di�erent categories of touch.
1. Extremely confident touch, abstract, cold. Sandpaper, Silver-coated paper.2. Touch without heat, persuasive, reasoning. Smooth silk, Silk crepe.3. Exciting, lukewarm, nostalgic. Velvet, Wool from the Pyrenees, Wool, Silk-wool crepe.4. Almost irritating, hot, determined. Granulous silk, Plaited silk, Spongy cloth.
Second scale, volumes
5. So�, hot, human. Suede, Horsehair or dog hair, Human hair, Marabou.6. Hot, sensual, spirited, a�ectionate. This category has two branches: a. Rough iron b. So� brush, Sponge, Wire brush, Plush, Human or peach fuzz, Bird down.
HEADInstant – 30 mins
HEART/MIDDLE30mins – 3 hrs
BASE3+ hrs
Citrus fruitsLemon, mandarin, bergamont
Aromatics Anis, lavender, lemon grass
Floral Erose, jasmine, lilac
Green Grass, stone, leaf
Fruity Rasberry, pear, peach
Spices Clove, nutmeg, cinnamon
Wooded Cedar, patchouli, moss
Balsamic Vanilla, heliotrope, tonka bean
FL
OR
AL N
O T E S O R I E N T A
L NO
TE
S
WO
OD
Y
NOTES FRESH N
OT
ES
Aromatic Fougere
Floral oriental
Floral
So� oriental
So� floral
Woody oriental
Mossy woods
Drywoods
Citrus
Green
Water
CARAMELIZ
ED
NU
TTY
VE
GE
TA
TIV
E
FRUITY
SPICY
FLORAL
MIC
ROBIOLOGIC
AL
OX
IDIZ
EDPU
NG
EN
T
CH
EM
ICA
L
EARTHY
WOODY
CitrusGrapefruitLemon
BerryBlackberry Raspberry(Tree)FruitCherry Apricot Peach Apple
(Tropica
l)FruitPinea
ppleM
elon Ban
ana
(Drie
d)Fr
uitSt
raw
berry
Jam
Raisin Prun
e
Fig
Oth
er
Art
ific
ialF
ruit
Met
hylA
nthr
anila
te
Fres
h
Stem
my
Gra
ss,C
utG
reen
Bel
lPep
per
Euc
alyp
tus
Min
t
Can
ned
/C
ooke
d
Gre
enB
eans
Asp
arag
usG
reen
Ol i
veB
lack
Oli
veD
ried
Hay
/ Str
awT
eaT
obac
co
Nut
tyW
alnu
tH
azel
nut
Alm
ond
Carameli
zed
Hon
eyBut
ters
cotc
h
Soy Sauce
Chocolat
e
Molasses
Art
icho
ke
Phenolic
Phenolic
Vanilla
Resinous
Cedar
Oak
BurnedSmokyBurnt Toast/CharredCoffee
Earthy
Moldy Mushroom
Dusty
MoldyCork Musty(Mildew)
Petroleu
m
PlasticTar
Diesel Kero
sene
Sulfu
r
Hydro
gen S
ulfid
e
R
ubbe
ry
Cab
bage
Wet
Woo
l,W
etD
og
Sulfu
rDio
xide
Bur
ntM
atch
Pape
ry
Wet
Car
dboa
rd
Filte
rPad
Pung
ent
Ace
ticA
cid
Eth
ylA
ceta
te
Sulf
urD
ioxi
de
Eth
anol
Oth
er
Fuse
l Alc
ohol
Sorb
ate
Soa
py F
ishy
Hot
Coo
lA
lcoh
ol
Men
thol
Ace
tald
ehyd
e
Oxi
dize
d
Yea
sty
Lees
yFl
orye
ast
Lact
ic
Lactic
AcidSwea
ty
Butyr
icA
cid
Saue
rkra
ut
Other
Mousey
Horsey
Floral
Orange Blossom
Linalool
Rose
Geranium
Violet
Spicy
ClovesBlack Pepper
Licorice, Anise
Strawberry BlackCurrant(Cassis)
Skun
k
Gar
lic
Mer
capt
anDiac
etyl (
Butter
)
The Manifesto of Tactilism – Marine�i (1921)
Aroma Wheel– Noble (1984)
Sense wheel – Williams (1980)
Ranged of the Senses – Mainar and Vodvarka (2004)
Fragrance Wheel– Edwards (1983)
Fragrance Wheel– Edwards (1983)
other variations include sublevels and masculine/feminine qualities
Hapticsactive touch(vs kinaesthesia)
Haptic Aesthetics in relation to visual aestheticsBAuhAuS, gESTALT PSyChOLOgy (KEPES, 1995)
Design principles as explained by Virginia Howlett (1996)
Design Principles• Harmony• Balance• Simplicity
Design Methods• Refinement• Restraint• Unity• Modularity
Elements• Proportion• Scale • Contrast• Colour• Fonts• Imagery• Arrangement• Emphasis• Focus• Hierarchy• Layering• Grouping• Alignment• White space• Grids
Rudolf Arheim’s (1983) set of ten criteria of visual perception:
1. Balance2. Shape3. Form
4. Growth5. Space6. Light / Dark7. Colour8. Movement9. Dynamics10. Expression
BAuhAuS, gESTALT PSyChOLOgy (KEPES, 1995)
Haptic Aesthetics in relation to visual aesthetics
ExiSTiNG RESEaRCh:
Languaging Design
LaNGUaGiNG DESiGN:
Sketches or Language?
Sketches may contain 90% of a design discussion, but conversations cover 100% of it(LAWSOn 2005)
ExiSTiNG RESEaRCh:
Touch & Language
TOUCh & LaNGUaGE:
Methods of understandingLEDERMAn & KLATSKy (1985)
Global dimensions of touchAKERMAn ET AL (2010)
Fig. 2. The 24 real telephone samples in the SD test.
to view them thoroughly and then evaluated themon the basis of their impressions. They were al-lowed to assess the telephone samples in randomorder. To avoid interference in evaluating the tele-phone samples, the subjects were asked not to talkto each other during the test.
3. Results and discussion
The raw evaluation data and preference scores ofthe designers and users were analyzed primarilywith regard to the following points:(1) Evaluation and preference score distribution;
(2) Factor analysis (principal component analysis)of the subject's perceptual space;
(3) Relative importance of design elements;(4) Design reference model.
3.1. Distribution of the raw data
The raw data } mean scores and standard devi-ation } for the 14 adjective pairs rated by designersand users re#ected that the designer is better ablethan the user to tell one product form from another.Because the users are not clear about the productform, they tend to give the telephone samplea mid-scale evaluation. For example, the range of
S.H. Hsu et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 25 (2000) 375}391 379
TOUCh & LaNGUaGE:
Consumer response centredE.g. DAgMAn ET AL (2010), hSu, ChAng, & ChAng (2000)
… or looks to rationalise designersE.g. KAnSEI EngInEERIng (SEE SChüTE (2005))
Is this the result on a focus on visual semiotics?JACuCCI & WAgnER, 2007
Image from Hsu, Chang, & Chang (2000)
TOUCh & LaNGUaGE
Designers need to be able to articulate touch in relation to wider systems E.g. gIZMODO On ThE ‘SWAMP WATER JELL-O’ BROWn ZunE(AShLOCK, 2007)
ExiSTiNG RESEaRCh:
Apprenticeships
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elgincountyarchives/4306624931
aPPRENTiCEShiPS:
Novices learn by picking up language of expertsSEELy BROWn ET AL (1989)
There is a concept nexus between touch & languageACKERMAn ET AL (2010)
ExiSTiNG RESEaRCh:
An Aesthetic Language?
ExiSTiNG RESEaRCh:
Aesthetic Perspectives and The Role of Qualities
Criticism(Interaction)
ReaderViewer
ResidentClothes-wearer
Listener
Literary hermeneuticsReception theoryReader response
Novel Church
ScriptFilm
Structure
Post-structuralismSemiotics
NarratologyFormalism
New criticism
End UserManagerConsumerEmployee
EthnomethodologySurveys, interviewsMental modelsCognitive walkthroughHCI hermeneutics
Website GUIVideogameAPI Tangible UI
AuthorPoet
ArchitectComposer
Painter
Interaction DesignerUsability EngineerUser Experience Designer
UsabilityHeuristicsPrototypingpattern languageRemediation
Religious hermeneuticsBoigraphical criticism
Psycholanalytical
Porfolio (collection of works)Reflective practictionerDesignerly style
GroupsEnvironment
social Classrace
gender
GroupsSocial ClassEnvironmentRace GEnder
MorscioismFeminism
New historicism
Workplace studygroups research CSCWContextual inquiryActivity theory
Creator (Designer)
Artifact (Interface)
Social Context (Social Context)
Consumer (User)
Bardzell (2011): Criticism and interaction design
ExiSTiNG RESEaRCh:
Interaction CriticismBARDZELL (2011)
CRITICISM hELPS InfORM PERCEPTIOn;SPuR uS On TO fuRThER ACTIOn
ExiSTiNG RESEaRCh:
Worth MappingCOCKTOn (2010)
QuALITIES RELATE TO ExPERIEnCES AnD vALuE
Materials Qualities Experience outcomes (positive)
outcomes (negative)defects
Features
means endsbeneficiaries
evaluation
worth
designed co-produced
ExiSTiNG RESEaRCh:
SummaryTouch and language should be considered together as design skills that are improved through critique.
iNTERViEwS
New Designers 2011
NEw DESiGNERS
Yearly June/July show of UK graduate design students (split across two weeks, one for fashion, one for graphics/3D).
Image from http://www.flickr.com/photos/30871685@N07/6012142057/
iNTERViEwS
Ten students across design/making interviewed with their objects and audiotaped. (Video not possible.)Asked about:•Products and process•Qualities they liked•Thoughts on materials, physical form
Image from http://www.flickr.com/photos/dizajn/5890562387
iNTERViEwS
Products ranged from furniture to jewellery.
iNTERViEwS
10 students
Transcribed, phenomenological coding.
ID OBJECT(S) MATERIALS nOTED
n Lampshade Concrete, copper, brass Tape Dispenser Concrete, copper, brassL Rings Coloured copper wire, previous materials (stones), silverA necklace Sheet aluminium, aculon, vacuum formed plasticL Chair Ash, walnut (laminated), Stoneware Stoneware/ silicon rubber Bowl PewterC Jewellery Coper, brass (decayed)C Rings Acrylicy Coffee table Ash (green)J Chair Wood, pewterE Bowl glassM Stool glass, metal, wood Clock Wood, acrylic
iNTERViEwS
ResultsCODES
IntentEvaluationReferencesQualities
iNTERViEwS
ResultsCODES
IntentEvaluationReferencesQualities
ThEMES
A: Using Materials to Challenge Expectations
B1: Limited Mention of Haptic Qualities
B2: What They Did Mention
a. USiNG MaTERiaLS TO ChaLLENGE ExPECTaTiONS “Y (wooden steam bent table): I’ve had a lot of people think that the underneath [the wooden table] is all was really soft and flowing, and they’ve had to come along and like, touch it, and make sure it’s all solid. But yeah, everyone loves it and making sure like, feeling all the curves and everything.
A (metal necklace):I’ve actually had someone come from up there [the top floor of the exhibition] and go, “is it [the metal necklace] rubber? It looks like rubber.” and lots of people have said, what is it actually made of? It’s not plastic, but it’s usually the sound it creates, you can tell it’s metal.
K (acrylic jewellery): If people have knowledge already about the material and the processes, they come in and question more, where’s the join, or how it is worked? If it’s people who don’t and have no idea, they come and approach and question: is it glass?
M (stool with metal strap): It wasn’t really intentional to bring the strapping through and keep it the same aesthetic, it just sort of ended up that way, without me realizing … I was er, surprised at the number of people saying, “I thought it was fabric, how is it standing up?” which I kinda like really.
Designers sought to disrupt audience expectations(REf BARDZELL, 2010)
Designer Social Context
Artifact Consumer/User
Materials Qualities Experience outcomes (positive)
outcomes (negative)defects
Features
means endsbeneficiaries
evaluation
worth
designed co-produced
haptic VerificationMCCuLLOugh (1995)PATERSOn (2007)
B1. LiMiTED MENTiON OF haPTiC QUaLiTiES
Not in high frequencyWhen it does occur, is used for•Haptic verification•Rationalising choice of materialsWhat did get mentioned frequently •construction, absences
B. LiMiTED MENTiON OF haPTiC QUaLiTiES
Terms comparing wood to acrylic in a laser-cut clock and related success
Acrylic Wood
Weighty, solid, finished (outcome: sold better), lego-like
Lighter, more flimsy (outcome: not as popular)
Material comparison for selection:
Glass Metal Plastic
“water-like, touchable” harsh, “though beautiful polished”, didn’t flow
“not a material I enjoy working with, it’s all wrong”
B2. whaT ThEy DiD MENTiON
flow: haptic/visual;finish: six mentioned being proud of this;comfort: angles or temperature;thrown: only example of a term being translated from one domain (clay) to another (wood).
Other terms that appeared:
tactility; what it did not have (“no joins”, “no glue”); ‘natural’;
iNTERViEwS
Discussion
DiSCUSSiON
The language around touch and aesthetics may not be so much tacit as situated (i.e. it needs to be seen!)
DiSCUSSiON
Limited ability to critique qualitiesComparable to cookingfInE (2008)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emptyhighway/76726329
FUTURE wORK
Investigating the Language of Designers
FUTURE wORK
Investigating the situated language of material expert designers.
order. The three models visualizing “something that flows
out of a crack in the mountain” exhibit a somewhat
different time frame (Figure 2). These models have been
developed in several months of work and they are
indicative of a shifting focus in the students’ thinking.
Although they have been produced in a sequential order,
they maintain their relevance as they communicate
complementary aspects of the design project.
Let us look once more at the first semester student who
studied a saw and its movements, translating it into a
physical model (Figure 9, see also Figure 5 and 8). In a
later session, using different light sources, he highlights
details of the model that exhibit distinctive material
features, such as the dents of the saw. Using multiple
projections he transforms a collage of these details into a
spatial installation. We can look at this as a particular
material feature ‘circulating’ through different
representations, in a sequence, helping the student to
explore its significance for creating an architectural space.
Each transformation deepens the student’s understanding of
the material and makes the design concept mature. These
students explore the properties of concrete step-by-step,
with one discovery leading them to the next design
intervention. Another type of temporality can be identified
in the ways the students make use of the big shared model
(see also Figure 4 right). Here we observed a more
ephemeral apparition of material features, with students,
from day to day, leaving material traces of their design
thinking on the model or overwriting them in the next
collaborative design session. These (temporary) traces
serve as indices to planned or discussed interventions in the
mountain valley. They change or disappear with the
progress of students’ discussions. Also the ‘carving out’
example has a temporal dimension. It shows how one
model is transformed, over the course of a few days, to
perform different visual effects through its changing shape
and material features. This resonates with Russian designer
Vladimir Tatlin, who held that design should “derive from
exploring and exploiting a material’s intrinsic qualities, and
be considering how it might combine with other materials”
([6], p. 53). A more general point is illustrated by these
examples: There is a temporal framework connected to
material features which elucidates how these emerge in
specific events. Hence our notion of ‘material events’.
These events range from: long-term activities, such as
creating a material-dense work environment or design
space; to creating design representations from different
materials or exploring a specific material through
circulating it through different representations – gradually
transforming and translating the design concept or even
‘jumping’ between formats, scales and media (all activities
of medium durée); to short communicative events (leaving
temporary traces).
Materiality in Performative Events
Our analysis points to a diversity of material resources for
collaborative creativity. The different material features of
an artefact engage our different senses and are connected to
different techniques of working with materials –
perceiving, expressing and experiencing. The spatiality –
an artefacts size, shape, proportion, location in space and
weeks
days
translation of material features from a saw ….. to a model……
……….to a spatial representation
temporary arrangement of materials as traces of
discussions
days
staging material features of the model
….changing the model and staging it again, from outside and inside
Figure 9 Material events
80
FUTURE wORK
Investigating how the current apprenticeship system of design could be improvedE.g. SOnnnEvELD (2004), JACuCCI & WAgnER, (2007)
From Material Moments, Jacucci & Wagner (2007)
DiSCUSSiON
Designers should be empowered to be able to communicate an aesthetics of touch, through an improved vocabulary and supporting practices.
REFERENCESAckerman, J. M., Nocera, C. C., & Bargh, J. a. (2010). Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgments and decisions. Science, (328), 1712-5. doi:10.1126/science.1189993Ashlock, J. (2007). What Can Brown Do for You ? I.D. Magazine. Retrieved June 7, 2007, from http://www.idonline.com/features/feature.asp?id=1575Bardzell, J. (2011). Interaction Criticism : An Introduction to the Practice. Interacting with Computers.Buchanan, R. (1992). In Design Thinking Wicked Problems. Design Issues, 8(2), 5-21.Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right & the Right Design (Interactive Technologies). Boston: Morgan Kaufmann. Cockton, G. (2008). Designing Worth — Connecting Preferred Means to Desired Ends. Interactions, (4), 54-57.Cockton, G. Kirk, D., Sellen, A. & Banks, R. 2009, Evolving and Augmenting Worth Mapping for Family Archives in Proceedings of HCI 2009 – People and Computers XXIII – Celebrating people and technology, ed. A.F.Blackwell, 329-338, BCS eWIC, available at http://www.bcs.org//upload/pdf/ewic_hci09_paper42.pdfCross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing (1st ed.). Springer.Dagman, J., Karlsson, M., & Wikström, L. (2010). Investigating the Haptic Aspects of Verbalised Product Experiences. Design, 1-15.Dore, R., Pailhes, J., Fischer, X., & Nadeau, J. (2007). Identification of sensory variables towards the integration of user requirements into preliminary design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37(1), 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2006.08.006Fine, G. A. (2008). Kitchens: The Culture of Restaurant Work, Updated with a New Preface (p. 328). University of California Press.van Halen, C., Vezzoli, C., & Wimmer, R. (2005). Methodology for Product Service System Innovation. Assen: Koninklijke van Gorcum.Hodges, R. M. (1991). Opening the designers’ spatial dictionary: the power of a professional vocabulary. The Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 8(1), 39-47.
Hsu, S. H., Chuang, M. C., & Chang, C. C. (2000). A semantic differential study of designers’ and users’ product form perception. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25, 375-391.Jacucci, G., & Wagner, I. (2007). Performative roles of materiality for collective creativity. Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on Creativity & cognition - C&C ’07, 73-83. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1254960.1254971Kepes, G. (1995). Language of Vision. Dover Publications. Krippendorff, K. (1995). Redesigning Design ; An Invitation to a Responsible Future Redesigning Design ; An Invitation to a Responsible Future.Krippendorff, K. (2005). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. CRC Press. Lawson, B. (2005). How Designers Think, Fourth Edition: The Design Process Demystified (4th ed.). Architectural Press.Lederman, S. J., & Klatzky, R. L. (1987). Hand movements: a window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive psychology, 19(3), 342-68.Lehrer, A. (2009). Wine and Conversation (2nd ed., p. 336). Oxford University Press, USA.Paterson, M. (2007). The Senses of Touch: Haptics, Affects and Technologies (Senses and Sensibilities). Oxford: Berg Publishers. Schütte, S. (2005). Engineering Emotional Values in Product Design. PhD Thesis, Institute of Technology, Linköping, Dissertations No. 951, last accessed 15/5/11 at liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:20839/FULLTEXT01Seely Brown, J., Collins, A., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible. American Educator, 6, 38-46.Sonneveld, M. (2003), Close encounters of the first kind: meet the material world. In McDonagh, D, Hekkert, P, Erp, J van & Gyi, D (Ed.), Design and emotion: the experience of everyday things. (pp. 436-437). London: Taylor & Francis.Verganti, R. (2008) Design, meanings and radical innovation : A meta-model and a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(5), 436-456. Winograd, T. (1996). Reflective Conversation with Materials An interview with Donald Schön by John Bennett. Bringing Design to Software (1st ed.) Harlow: Addison Wesley. 171-189.
top related