1

Interaction Design

One-Year Master

15 Credits

Spring Semester 2020

Supervisor: Anne-Marie Hansen

ConnectednessDesigning interactive systems that foster togetherness as a form of resilience for people in social distancing during Covid-19 pandemic.

Exploring novel user experiences in the intersection between light perception, tangible interactions and social interaction design (SxD).

Valeria Iezzi

2

Abstract

This thesis project explores how interactive technologies can facilitate a sense of social connectedness with others whilst remotely located. While studying the way humans use rituals for emotional management, I focused my interest on the act of commensality because it is one of the oldest and most important rituals used to foster togetherness among families and groups of friends. Dining with people who do not belong to the same household is of course hard during a global pandemic, just like many of the other forms of social interactions that were forcibly replaced by the use of technological means such as video-chat apps, instant messaging and perhaps an excessive use of social networking websites. These ways of staying connected, however, lack the subtleties of real physical interaction, which I tried to replicate with my prototype system, which consists of two sets of a lamp and a coaster which enable to communicate through light and tactile cues. The use of such devices creates a new kind of ritual based on the simultaneous use of the devices by two people, thus enabling a new and original form of commensality that happens through a shared synchronized experience.

Keywords

Research Through Design; Interaction Design Technologies; Interaction Design; Commensality; Social Connectedness; Social Resilience; Remote Communication; Tangible Interaction; Tangible User Interface; Shared Experience; Covid-19 Pandem-ic; Social Distancing; Tangible and Embedded Interaction; Internet of Things (IoTs).

3

Table of Contents2. Research Questions 53.Thereoretical Background 63.1 Designing in and for a crisis: 6the pandemic crisis & mental health 63.1.2 How loneliness is taking its toll 73.1.3 Blurring boundaries: finding connection and resilience 93.2.1 Rituals & emotional contagion 103.2.2 From regulating emotions to social connections: rituals 113.2.3 A universal medium and shared experience, a specific ritual: Commensality 133.3 Looking for connectedness: challenges of communication technologies 143.3.1 Remote-mediated commensality 143.3.2 From words to nonverbal communication 143.3.3 Communicate beyond the screen: bridging touch, tangible interactions and IoTs 153.4.1 From awareness to connectedness: 16Experience design in Social Interaction Design (SxD) 163.5 Canonical examples 193.5.1 LumiTouch 193.5.2 Friendl 203.5.3 Touch & Talk 203.5.4 CoDine 213.5.5 The Presence Table 224. Methodological approach 234.1 Research through Design (RtD) 234.2 Literature review 234.3 Online and participatory observations 244.4 Semi-structured interviews 244.5 Online survey 244.6 Cultural probes 254.7 Affinity Mapping 254.8 Sketching and material exploration 254.9 Prototyping 264.10 Usability testing: experience prototyping and retrospective think-aloud method 265.1 Design Process 275.2 State of the field research 275.3 Design Process & Methods 275.3 Fieldwork & Ethnographic research 285.3.1 Online and participatory observations 285.3.2 Semi-structured interviews 315.3.3 Online survey 335.3.4 Cultural probes kit 365.4 Initial data analysis and evaluations through affinity mapping 415.5 Ideation 445.6 Prototyping 475.6.2 The prototype system 496.Results & Analysis 597.Discussion and future work 648. Conclusion 669. Acknowledgements 6710. References 6811. Appendix 73

4

1. Introduction

“There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen” is one of the quotes that is frequently attributed to Vladimir Lenin, supposedly describing the events of the Russian Revolution. The years from 1917 to 1923 were indeed tumultuous ones not just for Russia, as the world was in the midst of the first global war and saw the outbreak of the deadliest pandemic in history. Just as the First World War and the Russian revolution, the Spanish flu is something very few people alive today can remember directly. As a result, the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented event for almost everyone on the planet (Bao et al., 2020). For the first time in a century, it seems everyone is affected by the same problem, no matter where they live or who they are, and cooperation is of the essence.

People all over the world have turned to technology to try and restore their social habits, which, for the most part, include close physical contact, now made impossible by social distancing regulations. Technology has, in the last 30 years, made it possible to be connected in previously unimagi-nable ways. However, videocalls, instant messaging and the likes still have not managed to adequately mimic real physical interactions. The lack of social contact has led many to feel lonely and disconnected and, as a result, many have tried to replicate forms of social interaction through the use of technology: many apps and other products have been developed to meet the needs of a population in need of human connections.

In such a scenario, it is vital for Interaction Design to play its role in the field of pandemic crisis management by experimenting with new and innovative design projects that can help people in maintaining stable social interactions, which are vitally important when it comes to their mental health during these times.By using a Research Through Design (RtD) methodological approach, this thesis is aimed at understanding how to help people cope with their current living situation, namely under more or less strict social distancing rules during the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak. The focus of this project is to explore how interactive technologies can foster togetherness as a form of resilience for people in social distancing and therefore which are currently remotely located. According to Zimmerman et al. (2010), it is through the design practice methods and processes deployed that RtD is considered a fruitful method of investigation (p.310). By adopting a human-centric perspective to understand how interactive technologies facilitate social relations and shared activity while being remoted located and we explore the implications of these socio-physical relations about the design of new interactive technologies that promote social interactions.In line with Zimmerman et. al, this project employs methods and design artefacts to generate knowledge contributions, bringing together research and design, with the intent of turn our attention not only to the present or the past, but to the future (Zimmerman et al., p.310, 2010).

5

Accordingly, in regard to RtD, the focus on the future together with the focus on concretely defining a preferred state “allows researchers to become more active and intentional constructors of the world they desire” (p.310), by engaging in a discourse on ethical considerations about what we, as designers, design.

Therefore, this thesis intends to contribute in finding new ways to help people in these trying times building upon current theories of social interaction design, psychology of rituals and designing for social crises. By giving people a way to stay connected in a more meaningful and playful manner, and, in doing so, tend to their emotional (and physical) needs in order to create the right circumstances to collectively find a solution to the current situation. Building upon the research notion advocated by Zimmerman, Stolterman & Folizzi (2010) where research is depicted as “a way of broadening the scope and focus of designers, of challenging current perceptions on the role and form of technology” (p.311). Therefore, it is through the exploration of the role of technology that this research intends to promote and support social resiliance. To do so, I formulated three research questions that proved to be essential in the development of both the theoretical background, the process and design outcomes.

2. Research QuestionsRQ 1: How can interaction design technologies, remotely connected, support the feeling of social connectedness between people during physical distancing?

RQ 2: How can interaction design features, of four online connected artifacts, enable a synchronized shared interaction between two people remotely located?

RQ 3: How can interaction design features, of an artefacts’ system, recreate a sense of togetherness through a synchronized shared interaction between 2 people remotely located?

6

3.1 Designing in and for a crisis: the pandemic crisis & mental health

Many are the bodies and organizations interested in design for crises that contributed to promising results. Pioneers among all researchers are Yoko Akama and Ann Light (2012), both committed to cultural sensitivity, diversity, and participation to pursue a design practice that deeply engages with communities. Throughout their research they refer to the Information and Communication Technology (ICT), claiming that there is strong evidence that ICT is now used in facilitating social networks in both pre- and post-disaster contexts for bushfires, earthquakes, hurricanes and floods (e.g. Akama, 2012). Whilst research into disasters of other entities such as fires and earthquakes has been detailed by today’s research, little has been heard of research into pandemics, such as malaria or the first SARS pandemic. This research could thus benefit the field of pandemic emergency and contribute to the knowledge just as other disciplines do. Furthermore, Light and Akama mention that “when participatory design work no longer takes the workplace as its domain but attempts to tackle bigger societal and environmental issues, the facilitation role increases in complexity,” (Light & Akama, 2012) but I would argue that a situation in which everyone can be affected (by the virus, in this case) and has to work towards a common goal to tackle the situation can have the opposite effect.As the spread of COVID-19 started, so does the amount of research about the new virus. Much has been investigated about its nature and constitution and research is needed both to contain the pandemic and to make the world’s population always up to date on the current state of the number of people infected, the healed and the dead. The World Health Organization and health authorities have informed the world population since the first outbreak of the virus, announced in December 2019. First among these the World Health Organization and international authorities which recommended the adoption of containment measures to contain the virus’ diffusion. Among the various recommendations, WHO stressed the importance of a possible impact on mental health well-being resulting from both the sudden and worldwide nature of the virus and the restrictions which the world community is undergoing (World Health Organization, 2020a). It is indeed considered equally as important to investigate mental health well-being, especially in conditions where our interaction paradigm has been paused. Despite this, understandably, medical researchers have priority for a vaccine to be found soon, and there is not that much research on the effects that social distancing, and other forms of containment, are having on the world population at a psychological level. And in this specific regard, there is also the necessity to enrich the field Interaction Design in terms of designing for crises. All this should be observed and considered so that psychological demands can be met. From an interaction design perspective, it is an opportunity to also investigate the mental health area and be supportive of institutions, including health care and households. To outline my research framework, it is appropriate to start from the analysis of the restrictions adopted by nations in order not to overlook their impact on our lives.

3.Thereoretical Background

7

3.1.2 How loneliness is taking its toll

An outbreak of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), a cluster of acute febrile respiratory illness, was first reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 (Paules et al., 2020). Coronavirus (COVID-19) has spread subsequently to the rest of the world causing this respiratory disease to be a global pandemic. Nations around the world are taking measures to contain the number of infections, among which social distancing, self-isolation, and quarantine. The preventive measures quoted here above are aimed at reducing the total number of people infected at any given moment, thus flattening the curve of the pandemic.The term social distancing refers to a variety of measures which aim to increase the physical distance between people. Indeed, according to the dictates of social distancing, if everyone limits their contact with people and public places, they can limit the spread of the disease. This practice is based on three main strategies. The first limits the physical interaction between people who come face-to-face; the second is to limit the size of gatherings – this decreases the likelihood that an infected person will be there. Thereby, social activities are cancelled or closed (i.e. closed schools, cancelled events, and shut down businesses like bars and movie theatres). The third is to follow the Stay at Home orders, which are designed to reduce personal interactions, except for minimal interactions to ensure vital supplies or in need to seek medical attention.

All these listed measures of contagion containment help ensure that healthcare facilities have the bandwidth to give quality care to everyone who needs it. On the other hand, these measures “have very real costs—including psychological ones” (Brooks et al., 2020)” (Limcaoco et al., 2020). Indeed, according to the report 57 in March 2020, although the World Health Organization (WHO) and the competent health authorities are operating to contain the pandemic, “this time of crisis is generating stress by the world population” (World Health Organization, 2020b). This source of stress is represented by fear and anxiety and, consequentially, might be overwhelming and cause strong emotions in adults and children. Moreover, public health actions such as social distancing can make people feel isolated and lonely and can increase stress and anxiety. The most common feelings are those of social isolation which come to play when dealing with social distancing and loneliness. These specific negative emotions are associated with having fewer interactions with other people, due to the loss of our social lives. According to professor Cacioppo (2006), this results in a disruption in our usual interaction patterns, in other words, we are forced to act against our human nature.

“Humans are not particularly strong, fast, or stealthy relative to other species. They lost their canine teeth thousands of years ago and they never had the safety offered by natural armour or flight. It is the ability to think and use tools, to employ and detect deceit, and to communicate, work together, and form alliances that make Homo sapiens such a formidable species.” (Cacioppo et al., 2006)

It is, indeed, the ability to create relationships, networks and share that distinguish our species from others on planet earth, and when our communication paradigm is interrupted this could result in many feeling disenfranchised and powerless.

8

There is a lot of research that suggests people feel happier and more socially connected when they spend more time interacting with others, and that social interaction and social support are related to improvements in health and wellbeing (Berkman et al., 2000). According to Sun et al. (2019), this state of well-being is been nurtured for hundreds of thousands of years as an individual’s survival has depended on the nature of the interactions with other humans (Sun et al., 2019). Social relationships come to play an evolutionary adaptive value; according to some, it is through sharing and collaboration with others that we ensure reproduction and survival of our species (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Cacioppo et al., 2014; Spithoven et al., 2017). This derives from an innate “need to belong” that leads human beings to have “a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995,p.).Recent studies have gathered a considerable amount of information about stress management during health crisis thanks to studies conducted during SARS, H1N1, and Ebola outbreaks. Baum et al. (2009) stated that public safety measures often lead to increased rates of depression and anxiety in the community. Furthermore, those rates are even higher for people with high exposure, like healthcare workers and people with certain mental health conditions, which may be more vulnerable. Therefore, when social connection and interaction is not always ensured, e.g. when social distancing is mandatory, our behavioural reaction might lead us to increased levels of stress and anxiety, due to negative feelings, i.e. loneliness. Conforming to Spithoven et al.’s (2017) study, experiencing loneliness could increase stress levels, and in some instances even expose to mental disorders. More specifically, “loneliness has been related to physical health problems, such as obesity, sleep problems, elevated blood pressure, and diminished immunity, as well as mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem” (Spithoven et al., 2017, p.98). Within public opinion and psychologists, experts have suggested that as we are frightened by an economic recession, we should be equally concerned about a possible social recession—"the psychological impact of quarantine is wide-ranging, substantial, and can be long-lasting” (Limcaoco et al., 2020). Moreover, “continued pattern of distancing socially, beyond the immediate pandemic, that will have broader societal effects” (Wright, 2020b). For instance, the possibility to have more people affected by depression, as well as more people afraid of spend time with others could be a potential risk.As shown in the above studies, since the risks for our society for mental health well-being are high, the necessity for continuous research in psychology is imperative. As assessed by experts, crisis times can cause a series of imbalances which may adversely affect our lives. It could increase psychological stress, raise anxiety levels, cause affective and cognitive alterations this due, more specifically relevant for this research, to the decrease in social interaction. Coming to agree with The New Yorker (March 2020)– “Loneliness is not just a feeling. It is a biological warning signal to seek out other humans much as hunger is a signal that leads a person to seek out food, or thirst is a signal to hunt for water. Historically, connections have been essential for survival. During the coronavirus pandemic, the loneliness signal may increase for many—with limited ways of alleviating it” (Wright, 2020b). Such ways may include relatively common video chat apps such as Zoom and Houseparty or, as is the case for the prototypes of this thesis, the Internet of Things.

9

3.1.3 Blurring boundaries: finding connection and resilience

Despite loneliness itself being related to various forms of maladjustment, psychologists affirm the feeling of loneliness might be adaptive, as it increases the likelihood of survival through promoting social contacts. In this regard, Cacioppo et al. (2006) affirm that “the social pain of loneliness and the social reward of connecting with others motivate the person to repair and maintain social connections even when his or her immediate self-interests are not served by the sharing of resources or defence”. Indeed, loneliness is a cue of threatened belongingness needs that acts as a drive to re-establish and preserve social bonds. According to Spithoven et al. (2017), since loneliness is a burdensome experience, defeating the negative emotions that it instils would be perceived as an intrinsic reward (p.97). Besides, it must be underlined that the “double” nature of loneliness goes hand in hand with, as previously anticipated, the “need to belong”, also known as “the desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). This important desire can contribute to our mental stability and social interaction, having “multiple and strong effects on emotional patterns and cognitive processes” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Consistent with the belongingness hypothesis, people form social attachments readily under most conditions and “resist the dissolution of existing bonds” (p.497). In this specific pandemic circumstance, it might be vital to investigate the potential of this “the need to belong” and it should be fruitful to think about it as a means of resilience for the global population. It is with this urge that the formation of our resistance is ensured. It is attributed to our resilience in maintaining social bonds, and it occurs also in adverse circumstances. Indeed, adverse circumstances can strengthen bonds and, according to Baumeister and Leary (1995), detrimental conditions would even be compelling for the formation of social attachments. Furthermore, it has been stated by researchers that a bit of stress may act as a catalyst for positive change from a state of dissatisfaction and stress to one of problem-solving and resolution. Indeed, overcoming stressful events can make us more resilient, and doing this together could even be more beneficial for our relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). According to some researchers, the mere presence of other people can be comforting (Schachter, 1959; Baumeister & Leary, 1995). In this regard, it must be underlined that both loneliness and the need of belongingness could contribute to the activation of what is called our “coping mechanism” which help us react, defeat negative feelings, and resist uncertainties. This might be, more than ever, a resource during the pandemic crisis.In this specific situation, possible connections between these theories and our present reality could be drawn. Indeed, it could be highly observable among public opinion and social media communication that as soon as people started to apply social distancing, also sought to find new ways of connecting each other. Social media shows how people are having video calls and birthdays at a distance in an attempt to recreate the cosiness of parties and events online. The desire of establishing social relationships relies on the need for social interaction; this innate desire could lead us to find creative alternatives in the way we communicate and, consequentially, to

10

the foundation of new communication trends. Indeed, according to public opinion, a coronavirus culture is emerging, spontaneously and creatively, “to deal with public fear, restrictions on daily life, and the tedious isolation of quarantine and social distancing” (Wright, The Newyorker, 2020a). “One of the amazing things about the human species—once harmless critters not much more than monkeys running around—is that, over time, we have become very creative. We have adapted to survive. That’s what people will rely on now—coming up with incredibly imaginative ways to find connections even when they’re not in the same physical space together” (Wright, The Newyorker, 2020a). Moreover, “when these rituals go missing, there is something resourceful and insistent in the human spirit requiring us to create rituals anew” (Imber-Black, 2020).Within these considerations, it is important to reflect upon the type of circumstances we are prompt to live and the possibility to draw some important considerations concerning design opportunities. As shown above, there might be a positive by-product of the pandemic.Indeed, for the past century, human life has focussed increasingly on money and material belongings, which, especially with technology, led to a disregard of human relationships. Now that we are suddenly constrained at home, the best means of surviving, psychologically and biologically, is to interact with people by whatever means available. And as mentioned before, the urge for being in contact created the formation of new rituals that take place through the means of technology and new communication tools.

3.2.1 Rituals & emotional contagion

COVID 19 set upon us, unanticipated, and unimagined by all who were not scientists and medical doctors. Children were unexpectedly required to be homeschooled by parents who were either suddenly unemployed or working from home; old people were left in their loneliness and friends were far apart. The master class I attend was swiftly moved online, along with undergraduate and graduate classes everywhere. Therapy sessions, smart working and meetings went to FaceTime or Zoom video calls. Our television screens and the internet were imbued with illness and death infographics and talks. With the advent of social media, we try to keep our contacts alive and, with them, the rituals that characterize our societies. And yet, now more than ever, we need new channels of communication. Just when a pandemic has involved everyone, part of the support to stay in touch with others is represented by media, namely video calling, chats and social media. Therefore, it is through the observation of the rituals during Covid-19 born online that this project has taken shape. During the process, I found myself aligned with Imber-Black (2020) regarding the formation of rituals “which bent but did not break During COVID-19” (Imber-Black, 2020). Indeed, as anticipated before, new rituals were created, designed, and invented that captured and expressed the current moment, often helped by technology. Our rituals shape us, sustain us, and connect us against the threat of social disconnection. Among public opinion, it is said that — "over time, the impact of the novel coronavirus may be so sweeping that it alters human rituals and behaviours that have evolved over

11

millennia" (Wright, The Newyorker, 2020a). By exercising resilience, we have created channels for the support of such rituals and with them the hope that they can carry out their task in our lives despite the restrictions. To better understand the value of these rituals for social interaction, it is vital to analyse the functional paradigm which they consist of.

3.2.2 From regulating emotions to social connections: rituals

It has happened to anyone, at least once in their life, to attend the birthday of a dear friend/s, or a relative; to greet someone by hugging him or shaking his hand; to toast to a particular event or to sit at the table and eat with someone. This is just a small list of rituals (among an infinite variety) that pervade a human life from birth and follow us through our daily lives. Rituals may provide us with a steady resource of connection, “whether as daily rituals for partings at the start of a school and workday, greetings when we return to one another, meals and bedtime” (Imber-Black, 2020). Notwithstanding, we often overlook their regulating functions as we enact them, but actually, it is acknowledged that rituals serve many psychological functions (Boyer & Liénard, 2006). Indeed, Hobson et al. (2018) delved in depth on this topic formulating a framework of three primary regulatory functions, which are: the regulation of emotions, performance goal states, and social connection. As a means of research in this project, the attention lies primarily on the regulation of emotions and social connection. The combination of these features generates a ritual experience which relies on bottom-up and top-down mental processing respectively, the convergence of these two processes regulates our psychological states which result in “both individual and social-based outcomes” (Hobson et al., 2018).The bottom-up processing engages us through the recruitment of perceptual, attentional and memory stimulus features and refers to the sensorimotor elements of ritual, hence, the experience or enactment of specific physical actions. Indeed, the actions are characterized by rigidity, formality, and repetition. For instance, we can consider the toasting ritual which has a specific movement pattern that involves eyes, hands, and coordination. According to the experts, this represents a form of event segmentation that involves a cognitive process that “economized perception and guides attention” (Newtson, 1976; Zacks & Swallow, 2007; Zacks, Tversky, & Iyer, 2001)” (Hobson et al., 2018). In other words, due to the enactment of rigid actions, rituals are more attention-grabbing, and this gives them a memorable connotation. On the other hand, top-down processing is associated with “the integration of physical motoric features into broader narratives, appraisals, and interpretations” (p.264). Indeed, it is thanks to this process that rituals are considered meaningful, and it is possible to connect oneself to traditions, cultural and religious groups. Associated with the improvement of emotional well-being, according to Hobson et al. (2018), experiencing an emotional or social deficit should elicit more ritualistic behaviour. Rituals are enacted to regain a sense of personal control and it is demonstrated that rituals are more likely to emerge when performers experience an emotional deficit. From the bottom-up processing, the act of performance may direct attention away from one’s emotions and in this regard, Boyer and Liénard (2006)

12

mantain that the physical action units of ritual engage a stream of working memory that temporarily dispels anxiety. Indeed, in accordance with Hobson et al., by enacting rituals, people start focusing on synchronizing gestures, body movements, voice and intonations, rather than an anxiety state. In this way, they activate a subconscious cognitive process that leads to allay the tension thanks to shifting the focus on movements and synchronization (Hobson et al., 2018).On the other hand, due to the top-down processing, enacting rituals should reduce these deficits through the positive feeling of having completed a procedure attributed to a ritual. It is compelling to find connections in our reality in this current situation—when the socio-emotional deficit is stated—therefore, the need to regain control is craved. Consequentially, enacting rituals should reduce these deficits.On a social connection point of view, Durkheim (1915) asserts rituals can build affiliation with group members, creating a sense of collective unity. Following his line of theorizing, a ritual could represent an effective “mediating social mechanism,[…] it strikes a balance between opposing social and interpersonal forces (Hobson et al., 2018). Arguably, someone could assume that experiencing a deficit of social connection during uncertain times (e.g. the coronavirus situation) could lead us to a reduction of rituals. As stated by Hobson et. al. (2018), evidence to the contrary demonstrated that lacking affiliation increases ritualistic behaviour. Indeed, we often saw people having dinner (mealtime ritual) together e.g. on Zoom (video calls) and this might empirically provide tangible evidence of this tendency. Following the line of theorizing, enacting a ritual could make the affiliative deficits disappear. Durkheim (1915) stated that collective rituals contribute to group cohesion due to shared attentional and emotional experiences, driving to a joint perceptual emotional contagion namely “collective effervescence”. Coming to agree once again with Hobson et al. (2018), the call to perform rituals is based on the performance practice that would be able to "lead to joint attention, perceptions of emotional synchrony and self-another overlap" (p.270). This thanks to the elicited synchronization of behaviours which generates a strong sense of oneness and cohesiveness. Moreover, in meaning creation and transference, a ritual generates feelings of self-transcendence, allowing a person to escape ego-based thoughts and anxieties. Channelling the actual situation in the world with these theories could lead to thinking that certain rituals could be explored more employing technology—going beyond chat, calls and video calls. In my opinion, there is still potential and interactive technologies could be the key to the investigation.It is in fact within these considerations that this project takes place, which aims to bridge emotional well-being and technology. Offering a transition from psychology, it turns to the involvement of technology and its potential in solving physical and social barriers. Besides, it shows how emotional contagion and the study of the mechanism of rituals—exploring all the ways that these intersect with human experience—contribute to social interaction, interaction design and HCI.Moreover, according to Imber-Black “when the shutdown finally becomes a memory and some of the newly invented rituals slip away, I predict that many will maintain as discoveries of our creativities, our capacities, and our requirement for the human connections rituals provide” (Imber-Black, 2020). This project aims to support this statement and, in line with what Imber-Black (2020) stated, this could be fruitful not

13

only for the management of togetherness in uncertain times for future purposes, but also to involve these psychological mechanisms and sources more frequently in the Interaction design arena.

3.2.3 A universal medium and shared experience, a specific ritual: Commensality

From the Roman feasts to the most important festivities of the year, the act of gathering around a table to eat a meal, also known as “commensality”, remains one of the most widespread and recounted rites throughout the history of the human species. Being together around a table eating a meal and drinking is a daily event so mundane, so ordinary that it is often taken for granted. Indeed, it is also a central part of social relationships and cultural rituals, as well as “a symbolic and a material means of coming together” (Fieldhouse, 2015). According to Szatrowski (2014), mealtime is a social activity and, in comparison with other social activities, it is considered a central part of our life. “It is through food that we celebrate, share, connect and strengthen the ties that bind us” (Hamilton & Wilson, 2009; Ochs & Kremer-Sadlik, 2013). Indeed, Fieldhouse (2015) holds the view that “food sharing is an almost universal medium for expressing sociability” (Fieldhouse, 2015). For this specific connotation, it is considered the most frequently repeated social activity (Fiese et al. 2018). Even though food and mealtimes are constantly influenced and reinvented depending on the era and culture, mealtime continues to be an opportunity to strengthen bonds for loved ones. Whilst it is vital for the formation and stability of a family, it enhances the health and well-being of family members (Hamilton & Wilson, 2009, p.346). Moreover, eating together with others is also a personal experience, that helps to restore personal well-being in the act of “give and take” during a mealtime (Fieldhouse, 2015). This act of share meals, drinks, or a snack, happens in every single culture and not only at home. For instance, it is a common tendency to go to restaurants with ones family, lovers, or friends. All these activities are quite widespread in every single country in the world. As Szartrowski et al. (2014) put it since sociality goes hand in hand with commensality, they are closely linked (Fiese et al., 2008). Therefore, by its combination of characteristics—informality, the intimate nature and versatility—commensality’s power to dramatically change social relations is evident.

Following this line of thought, the ritual of commensality results to be the most universal ritual for both bonding relationships and restoring personal well-being. However, the pandemic puts its universality in jeopardy due to factors such as social distancing and gathering restrictions. It becomes therefore a priority for the design of this project to explore alternatives in an attempt to help to restore this important ritual.

14

3.3 Looking for connectedness: challenges of communication technologies

3.3.1 Remote-mediated commensality

While the coronavirus limited the possibility to gather as a restriction, especially for those who live away from each other, the speedy rhythm of modern life has reduced the opportunities for families to have meals together. In this regard, a recent study demonstrated that families want to eat dinner together, but lack the time or resources to achieve their desires (Snyder et al., 2007). For many, dinner around the table is a time to reaffirm cultural and familial identity, values, ideals (Larson et al., 2006). Unfortunately, advances in technology are dragging people into the digital lifestyle, full of virtual communication, but lacking a sense of cosiness and intimacy. Furthermore, nowadays’ remote communication allows primarily text-, voice and video messages, voice, and videoconferencing, means as such are apps like WhatsApp, Zoom or Houseparty. With the pandemic, among public opinion social media show how people are having video calls and birthdays at a distance in an attempt to recreate the cosiness of parties and social gatherings online. One possible direction could be expanding the meaning of conversations on videocall platforms by developing new extensions that enrich the digital experience (Miller, 2020), or as this thesis aims for to create new tangible types of interactions for a different form of remote communication. According to Ogawa et al., remote communication methods and technologies such as email, messaging, videoconferencing, and calls, are not able to convey rich interactions between people and therefore some important subtle signals, such as touch and non-verbal cues, are destinated to get lost in the communication (Ogawa et al., 2005). Following this line of theorizing, it should be fruitful to consider physicality to enable a more significant contact in remote communication, introducing tangible interactions to support this communication and find new resources.

3.3.2 From words to nonverbal communication

While the social importance of dinnertime inspires my vision, it is important to understand how to reconnect people through technology that enhances co-presence, thus it is important to define the basis of communication. Finding myself in accordance with Haque (2016), by creating a physical link and incorporating the use of tactile interactions in the communication, it would open a new channel for nonverbal communication while being remotely connected through technology (Haque, 2016). As stated previously, the ritual of commensality relies on several interactions, these rely primarely on nonverbal communication which involves all our five senses at the same time, namely eyesight, hearing, olfaction and taste.Focusing on the sense of touch, Knapp et al. (2013) put that touch is particularly essential in nonverbal communication (p. 182) and it is for this reason that it becomes an important element for the foundation of this project. An overall explanation of nonverbal communication is provided by Knapp et al. which

15

define it as the combination of all human interactions that goes beyond speaking or the use of words (Knapp et al., 2013). According to the experts, while we are communicating, we can be aware of our actions and we can commonly control our responses through words or movements (Knapp et al., 2013). But we can also communicate through nonverbal cues which are instead more spontaneous and of which, to some extent, we are less in control. Indeed, the brain deploys a specific hemisphere of our brain (the right one) when it comes for the processing of nonverbal signals. Therefore, building upon what Knapp et al. explain, nonverbal communication should be viewed as a significant part of the whole human communication process. As it is also through nonverbal communication that we express, and it allows us to go beyond words, messages, talks and it represents an important part in our everyday life since “it facilitates an enormous amount of informational cues” (Knapp et al., 2013).In a social context where the communication pattern is not always ensured, a new way to reinvent certain mechanism must be investigated, and technology use is at the essence.

3.3.3 Communicate beyond the screen: bridging touch, tangible interactions and IoTs

Several significant studies have been dedicated to human touch and, even more considerable for this project, how they are integrated and developed in the HCI and Interaction Design fields. This investigation spans from an introduction to the sense of touch, towards the realm of tangible interactions and the Internet of Things. According to Hertenstein et al. (2006), touch is vital for the foundation of human social life. Indeed, it is the most developed sensory modality at birth and throughout infancy and childhood it supports cognitive functions, brain, and socioemotional development (Hertenstein et al., 2006).In comparison with other non-verbal communications, such as facial expressions and bodily gestures, touch is considered the main channel for expressing intimacy, impact, and feelings (Field, 2014; Morrison et al., 2010). As Morrison at al. (2010) put it, touch creates feelings of social presence due to involvement of physical interaction and co-location; indeed it can “mediate social perceptions in various ways” (p. 305). Touch can serve as a communicative way to convey thoughts and feelings to regulate them in others or for oneself (Hertenstein et al., 2006; Morrison et al., 2010). Within theories in psychology and anthropology, the sense of touch has been and continues to be fundamental in Interaction Design. For instance, in the formation of a tangible interface. Indeed, while physicality plays a fundamental role in interpersonal communication, GUI-based systems for distributed interactions do not provide any physical communication (Brave et al., 1998). Thus, touch it has been the foundation of many new challenges for design which present the prerequisite to designing not only digital but physical. As Ishii & Ullmer (1997) theorize, one of the loci of computation it is found in the physical environments we inhabit. They propose to allow users to “grasp & manipulate bits in the centre of users’ attention by coupling the bits with everyday physical objects and architectural surfaces” (Ishii & Ullmer, 1997). With this, they introduced Tangible User interfaces as an alternative to the GUI that makes greater use of physical space and real world objects as interface tools. The tangible

16

Interfaces represent a general approach to human-computer interaction that puts greater emphasis on physicality than tradition graphics-based interfaces. One of the resulted projects theorized on this basis is ambientRoom. In this context, the attention is on the integration of computational augmentations into the physical environment, taking advantage of the “natural physical affordances” to achieve “heightened legibility and seamlessness of interaction between people and information”(p.2). Conforming to Hartson “a physical affordance is a design feature that aids, supports, benefits, or enables physically doing something” (Hartson, 2003). According to the experts, the integration of haptic elements, like a button or a shape, to a digital device could lead the interaction with the user to a better understanding of the functionality of tools and, thus a smoother and seamless interaction. Following this theorizing, Peterson in defining haptic devices stated that “although physical touch is often associated with proximity and intimacy, technologies of touch can reproduce such sensations over a distance, allowing intricate and detailed operations to be conducted through a network such as the Internet” (Paterson, 2006). This opens the doors to the world of synchronization and tangible presence. In the theorization of these, while users can make full use of their hands and bodies and use their spatial kinaesthetic senses, they share physical objects and environment. This provides a deeper sense of cohesion since what it is shared, following what it was stated before, represents a tangible and graspable presence. In line with the expert Holmquist (2019), rather than talk about interfaces and interaction, designers should reckon digital artefacts more “holistically”(p.4). According to his research, already the boundaries between hardware and software are starting to disappear, leading to a new class of hybrid digital-physical products. Besides, Stankovic affirms that the world will be overlaid with sensing, embedded in “things”, creating smart (Stankovic, 2014). This revolution in digital products is already manifest in areas such as the Internet of Things (Holmquist, 2019; Leppänen et al., 2017; Stankovic, 2014). Indeed, Leppänen et al. (2017) present the Internet of Things (IoTs) vision as defined by a global network of interconnected services and smart objects that support humans in everyday activities through sensing and communication capabilities (Leppänen et al., 2017). With the help of IoTs systems, the communication paradigm in technology becomes much more compelling, opening the world of communication technology to several experimentations. The focus is primarily on the implementation of human-to-thing, human-to-human and thing-to-thing interactions, made possible via Bluetooth or Wi-fi, as Parekh (2019) write in his review. Indeed, Wi-Fi has a “ubiquitous coverage” which makes it preferable for enabling IoTs connectivity. Within these considerations, this project aims to bridge mediated communication between people at the distance aided by tangible interfaces, IoTs and connected systems. Allowing connectedness between smart devices to enable connectivity between people.

3.4.1 From awareness to connectedness: Experience design in Social Interaction Design (SxD)

Even before the advent of a pandemic crisis, social media communication and services are steadily permeating our everyday life and constantly revise the fabric of our social interactions. According to some, “as computing moves into the background and

17

smart objects and environments, designed interaction becomes embodied in everyday materials and artifacts”(Giaccardi et al., 2013). Furthermore, a scenario whereby socially substantial data is registered, and networked connections are produced based on our embodied interactions in physical spaces is foreseeable. Just as Giaccardi et al. (2013) put it “both in HCI and Interaction design the focus has been for some time on filling the gap between digital interaction and the material aspects of artifacts and systems (p. 326). Firstly, plenty of research has explored new possibilities for translating embodied forms of expression into rich digital ones. In the meantime, studies have been conducted to embed digital information into interactive artifacts to populate our everyday world. Concurrently, “in social computing domains, there has been an investigation of how people can perform socially significant interactions through digital means” (p.326). Within this project vital was the exploration of the paradigm of Social Interaction Design (SxD).

Giaccardi et al. (2013) define Social Interaction Design as following—“it merges social data, social networks, and socially sensitive interactions with a view for expressivity in computing” (p.326). In line with the dictates of the experts, we as interaction designers should “embrace the fluid social practises of connectivity” and, in parallel, “we also need to facilitate “lived and felt” interactions with the social and material contexts where socially generated data are produced and shared, rather than just ‘adding’ social data over the material world as a flat layer of information and media content” (Dourish, 2012; Giaccardi et al., 2013; Wei et al., 2013). The major challenge for this project relies on the “third wave” of social computing which focuses on the integration of social and collaborative digital tools and everyday life. Thus, that concretize the interest in bridging this “third wave” of ubiquitous social interactions and tangible computing (Giaccardi et al., 2013). To fulfil this challenge, co-experience must be investigated in combination, as a means of enriching people lives with experiences through artifact-mediated activities.

Coming to agree with Wei (2011), most of the technologies available for connecting people at a distance provide them with “information exchanges and messaging systems” (p.23), instances as such are Facebook and WhatsApp chats or video calls. Very little has been done foster that goes beyond the mere exchange of a text, namely a shared experience. What characterizes experience is much more compelling in terms of user experience and involves the user in a process of meaning. As stated by Hassenzahl (2010) “experience is a story, emerging from the dialogue of a person with her or his world through action” (p.8). As a consequence, people elaborate on the experiences they “felt” in a meaning-making process (Hassenzahl et al., 2013). This process may aid users to reach a better overall experience, both with the device itself and the person he/she relates to through the device. As analysed previously in rituals enactment, while we enact in a certain action, we “experience” it and this facilitate the user in stress management. In an experience design scenario, a smart device could enable a shared experience like in a postmodern ritual, contributing to the creation of what Battarbee (Battarbee, 2003) defines as “socially created experiences, or co-experiences” (p.109). Indeed, interactive technologies can support co-experience through the means of mediated communication channels and shared physical activities. Just as Sanders (2001)

18

Figure 1. People using masks on the street during COVID-19 pandemic

& Battarbee (2003) put it “co-experience is the user experience, which is created in social interaction. Co-experience is the seamless blend of user experience of products and social interaction. The experience, while essentially created by the users, would not be the same or even possible without the presence of the product and the possibilities for an experience that it provides” (Battarbee, 2003). Since co-experience takes place as experiences are created together and/or share with others, it is driven by social needs hence communication and social relationships. This process can lead to an increase in feelings of connectedness by providing availability awareness and opportunities for sharing everyday life.While smart objects can play a role by remapping social data onto objects that are a part of our daily routine, they can enable special kinds of awareness of people we care about. Linked to the research for making users aware of the remote presence of friends and family namely “awareness system”. Awareness systems were first investigated to connect remote worksites (e.g. Brave et al., 1998). As stated in the research carried out by Grevet et. al. (2012) “a more recent theme that has emerged in social awareness systems is achieving “connectedness,” or the positive feeling associated with an ongoing awareness of a social relationship (Dey & De Guzman, 2006)”(p.103).

Informed by these theories, the design focus was to mediate co-presence, for remotely located people, aiming to “social togetherness” during a commensality moment.

19

3.5 Canonical examplesThe following paragraph represents the review work of the most pertinent explorations which contributed to this project. Motivated by the multi-faceted nature of this research, canonical examples are selected based on their pertinence, in line with the theories presented in the theoretical background. As the design interest in enabling a sense of togetherness for physically separated people increases, a great collection of works has been developed to enrich the HCI and Interaction. Thanks to this proliferation, this review spans from the analysis of remote connections, mealtime connectedness, intimate awareness systems in domestic computing, and social connectedness.

3.5.1 LumiTouch

LumiTouch (2001) is a picture frame interactive object, and it is developed by a group of researchers at the Media Lab. The LumiTouch frame concept picks up on this emotional connection and enables people who are physically separated to detect each other’s presence and communicate feelings. Moreover, it rapresents a lightweight presence but a valuable one. In this work, the interaction is carried out through a photograph frame. This because in our imaginary a framed photograph represents a central keepsake for people, since it often stands in for a personal connection (Chang et al., 2001). It reminds us of moments in time and the emotions and experiences associated with them. We look at the people in the image and wonder about them, hope to be in touch with them. The interaction is enabled as the following. Lumitouch is deployed to two remotely separated people. Each of them has a LumiTouch frame at their location, and the two frames are connected over the Internet. When one of them squeezes the frame, the other friend’s frame lights up. The light colour shifts in response to how hard and how long the person grips the frame. One friend can simply enjoy the sentiment represented by the shifting colours on the frame or reciprocate by squeezing back.

Figure 2. Lumitouch prototypes

20

3.5.2 Friendl

Friendls (2012) project consist of a set of interactive candles that enables remote communication while dining designed by a group of designers, Beuthel et al. The prototypes deployed are designed for people located at a distance to connect each other through augmented candles. The candles are placed in a dinner setting environment and whenever the one users touch the candle, it lights up on the touched area. The interaction consists of touching the surface of the candle, thus while a person interacts with a candle, the other candle (remotely located) imitates the interaction on the other side through light cues. The peculiarity of the interaction relies on the synchronicity of the two prototypes, which enable the co-presence effect. Participants reported feeling of connectedness even if it was a lightweight interaction. The light emanated by the augmented candle affects the atmosphere, enabling a more pleasant mealtime experience. Since enabling synchronized interactions is a common feature of both Friendl and the presented project, the review of this work proves to be important for the development of the prototypes presented in this paper.

3.5.3 Touch & Talk

Touch & talk (2010) is a haptic interactive device developed by Rongrong Wang and Francis Quek. They developed a device for digitally mediated remote touch which allows affective interaction. In line with the discussion on the review literature in psychology and communication, touch represent an important medium in convey emotions and presence (Wang & Quek, 2010). Thus, touch based interaction can foster affect transmission and consequentially build connectedness between users. In Touch & talk the interaction has been enabled through the connection of three main elements: a microcontroller board that translate the pressure of a squeezable object into signals on a wristband. The user can squeeze the first device, enabling the measurement of the force which informs different haptic effects on the second prototype. As a predominant aspect of the system, touch and haptic affects are simultaneously reproduced. This

Figure 3. Friendl prototype

21

feature makes this project review of essence for the thesis here presented.

3.5.4 CoDine

Co-dine (2011) represents an interactive multi-sensory system for remote dining and it was developed by Wei and her team. The CoDine system provides a new solution for family bonding. It consists of a dining table embedded with interactive subsystems that augment and transport the experience of communal family dining to create a sense of co-presence among remote family members (J. Wei et al., 2011). The mutual presence is enabled thanks to shared dining activities which are gesture-based screen interaction, mutual food serving, ambient pictures on an animated tablecloth, and the transportation of edible messages. The innovation of this project relies on the intention of engaging interactive dining experience through enriched multi-sensory communication. Moreover, the projects present a resourceful number of interactive technologies: tactile sensors, subsystems and tablecloth which consists of thermo chromic inks combined with Peltier semiconductor elements and interactive screen. These series of feature and the overall aim of the project both invited the review of CoDine.

Figure 4. Touch & Talk components and prototype

Figure 5. CoDine scenario (left) and prototype (right)

22

3.5.5 The Presence Table

The Presence Table (2011) is a prototype that connects two households through an ambient, expressive interaction. It is developed as a reactive surface for ambient connection by Matthew Canton. The surface of the table illuminates and creates a reactive “trace” of human gestures and everyday objects (Canton, 2011). This trace is shared through a network connection to a linked surface remotely located. Indeed, this device is an embodiment possibility of ubiquitous computing in the domestic space. It is developed from design research with family members who lived apart but maintained a close sense of emotional connection. The main design characteristic is that the table senses gestures and give feedback without using a projector or external display. The system uses a camera inside the table, tracking data from a Community Core Vision1 application, and custom software created with Processing2. The software controls an LCD that sends light up to the fiber optic wires at the surface of the table. In the concept, the software records signals and transmit them across the internet to a paired table in another location.

Figure 6. The Presence Table prototype

23

4. Methodological approach

An overview of the methodological approach and methods that inform this project are presented in this section, focusing primarily on the main methods that informed the process. A more detail presentation of the methods will be presented In the Methods & Process chapter where I will detail the methods’ structure and expand on how I apply them and how they informed this project. The project’s main methodological approach is Research Through Design (RtD) formulated by Zimmerman et al. (2010) and Gaver (2012). It is followed by a literature review method and ethnographic research conducted as participatory and online observation (Holtzblatt & Beyer, 2015; Martin & Hanington, 2012).To further investigate people everyday lives subject to lockdown restrictions that currently affect all the nations in the world an online survey and derivable probes were used as in the case of Cultural Probes (Gaver et al., 1999; E. B. N. Sanders & Stappers, 2014) and piloted by the designer remotely. For the ideation phase I followed methodologies such as affinity diagramming, sketching, prototyping and ultimately an hybrid user testing characterizing by retrospective think-aloud protocol. Ultimately, the structure of the process was based on the four-stages design process promulgated by IDEO in The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design (2010), but also investigated by Frog throughout several case studies.

4.1 Research through Design (RtD)

Research Through Design (RtD) is the methodological approach that I followed throughout this project. According to Zimmerman et al. (2010), it is through the design practice methods and processes deployed that RtD is considered a fruitful method of investigation (p.310). Therefore, in line with Zimmerman et. al, this project employs methods and design artefacts to generate knowledge contributions, bringing together research and design, with the intent of turn our attention to the future of our projects and desires (Zimmerman et al., p.310, 2010). By adopting a human-centric perspective, I chose a RtD methodological approach aiming to understand how interactive technologies facilitate social relations and shared activities while being remoted located. I explored the implications of these socio-physical relations about the design of new interactive technologies that promote social interactions. Therefore, inspired by different theories from different research fields and disciplines, both the research and the design process intend to contribute to the field of Interaction design, communication technology and Social Interaction Design with substantial knowledge production.

4.2 Literature review

As a preliminar investigation a literature review was employed to explore relevant theories and to define the theoretical foundation of this project. The method was chosen to increase the knowledge of the thematic area and prior studies and to outline

24

the project’s direction. This method also included the exploration of the design arena in which the project aims to contribute in. Accordingly, this research referred to different search portals and databases namely ACM Digital Library, MAU Library, MitPress.edu, ResearchGate, and Malmö University Electronic Publishing.

4.3 Online and participatory observations

In the ethnographic research phase several research methods are chosen to gain a better understanding in relation to how people’s lives in order to inspire thoughtful designs that foster empathy (Martin & Hanington, 2012). Online observation is a type of ethnographic research that consists of the observation of online trends and social communication activities with the aim of gather knowledge of people’s lives and social changes. With this method, it is observable the behaviour changes and upcoming needs based on online trends. Together with online observations, participatory observation in the form of an ethnographic research method was conducted. According to DeWalt (2010), applying this method, the designer places himself in the user’s context as a “participating member” of his activities to immerse himself in his need and gain a comprehensive understanding of his experience while also observing the groups’ dynamics (Ellovich, 2011). This allows the designer to exercise empathy and inspiration together with the participant. In this method both the role of the observer and an active role are designer’s roles. This stage was vital to gain a better understanding and insights in relation to how people were experiencing social distancing and the other national restrictions , in order to find interesting scenarios to explore.

4.4 Semi-structured interviews

According to Hanington & Martin, “interviews are a fundamental research method to collect opinions, experiences, and perceptions” (Hanington & Martin, Interviews, 2012). For this reason, semi-structured interviews were chosen by the conductor (me) for the fieldwork, characterized by closed and open questions. With this etchographic method is characterized by the adaptation of questions and topics. Indeed the conductor is asked to guide the conversation but, at the same time, remain open to variations and changes depending on the interviews’ progression. It is thanks to the openess of this method that the designer can range from the research topics to considerations of any nature. This makes this methodology as efficient in qualitative data gathering as regular interviews thanks to the generation of deeper feedback and comments of participants.

4.5 Online survey

According to Hanington & Martin (2012), an online survey is considered an ethnographical method to collect information about “people’s feelings, behaviours, thoughts, and perceptions” (Hanington et al. 2012). It uses a method for collecting information from a larger amount of respondents, efficiently collecting “a lot of data

25

in a short period and are versatile in the type of information that can be collected” (Hanington & Martin, Surveys, 2012).

4.6 Cultural probes

According to Gaver, Dunne and Pacenti (1999), cultural probes are essential in Interaction Design research, in particular for conducting a Research Through Design project (Gaver et al., 1999). Cultural probes are presented as a series of interactive tools which participants are provided with, to interact with them in their natural settings throughout a certain period. What distinguishes this method are the qualitative data that are possible to gather that, as claimed by the researchers, are used to arouse information that can offer insight into people’s daily choices, reflections, and desires (Gaver et al., 1999). Accordingly, Wallace et al. (2013) claim that probes are considered tools both for designing and understanding (Wallace et al., 2013). In essence, designing probes consist of creating objects whose materiality and form are designed to relate to a particular question and context and to pose questions “through gentle, subtle, provocative, creative means” (p.3441). Therefore offering a participant intriguing ways to consider a question or task and formulate an answer through the act of completing the probe in a creative way (Wallace et al., 2013).

4.7 Affinity MappingIn line with what Martin and Hanington (2012) stated in their research, the affinity diagram is used to analyse and map out both considerations and intuitions of the designer as a final process of the research method. The data gathered from fieldwork’s research methods are clustered based on their analogous themes to accurately consider and visually represent all the results before proceding with the definition of the concepts (Martin & Hanington, 2012).

4.8 Sketching and material exploration

In line with Buxton (2007), sketching is essential for design thinking and concept development, it is through it that the designer can explore different ideas rather than convey defined and fixed concepts, being able to explore them and draw considerations and evaluating the design opportunities (Buxton, 2007). The material exploration method aims to identify perceived material qualities by utilizing electronics as materials (Bdeir, 2009) and further to experience the affordances of the physical materials per se. According to Bdeir (2009), thinking of electronics as material help the designer to focus on how the sensors work and how this informs the designer for insights but also obstacles implications, priming them with several design iterations. These methodologies were chosen as they are a quick way to explore ideas and identify the pros and cons and implications in concepts.

26

4.9 Prototyping

Identified with one of the main design stages, prototyping is a method employed for the investigation of the design of interactive artefacts, to represent the various states of an evolving design and to explore its options (Houde & Hill, 1997).In accordance with what Houde and Hill (1997) claim, the designer should focus on the essential questions about the interactive system being designed: “What role will the artifact play in a user’s life? How should it look and feel? How should it be implemented?” (p.1). Only by focusing on the purpuse of the prototype that the designer takes better decisions regarding the prototype to build. In this way, we might design prototypes with a clear purpose and, therefore, we can better adopt prototypes and better convey about their design (Houde & Hill, 1997).For Houde & Hill, these important questions are visually translated into important aspects of the design of an interactive artifact, represented by a three-dimensional space (Figure below).

4.10 Usability testing: experience prototyping and retrospective think-aloud method

According to Houde & Hill (1997), “once a prototype has been created, there are several distinct audiences that designers discuss prototypes with” (p,2). They are “the intended users of the artifact being designed; their design teams; and the supporting organizations that they work within” (Erickson, 1995; Houde&Hill, p.2). The evaluation of the prototype start from the design team members “by critiquing prototypes of alternate design directions”(p.2). Consequentially, they show prototypes to users to gain feedback on in progress designs. The purpose of showing the prototype to the users is to evaluate the experience of the prototype and by that, being open to progress and possible directions (Houde&Hill, 1997). Indeed, according to Fulton and Buchneau (2000) by handing over a prototype the focus is not necessarily on the devices and its elements, but on a comprehensive experience in context with them (Fulton & Buchneau,2000). Together with the Retrospective think-aloud (RTA) method, the usability test gains feedback and responses (Martin & Hanington, 2012). According to Martin & Hanington (2012), the RTA is a research method usually applied in usability tests and it sees the designer observing and analysing participants while compliting a task using the prototype (p.180). After using the prototype, the participants are asked to expand on their experience by reflecting on it, providing the observer with opinions, feelings and spontaneous insights (Martin & Hanington, 2012). This testing section allows the participants to reflect upon the experience delivered while experiencing the concept freely.

“What do Prototypes Prototypes” (Houde & Hill in Handbook of HCI, 1997)

27

5.1 Design Process

The thesis project here reported followed a four-stage design process which results to be an adaptation of the IDEO’s design process (Ideo, 2015), tailored on this specific project. Throughout the process is it possible to encounter diverge and converge phases which inform the project from the inspiration, ideation and, ultimately, the implementation phases. The first stage is defined as a “divergent stage”, which comprises both the exploration of the research context and data gathering for the foundation of the theoretical background study and fieldwork (as shown in the figure below). In the second stage namely “convergent stage” analysis and synthesis of the data gathered from the first stage are carried out. The third stage is a “divergent stage” where ideas and concepts are developed throughout the analysis until user-test. Finally. The last stage, a “convergent stage”, employs testing and analysis of the design outcomes in order to produce knowledge in line with the research questions.

5.2 State of the field research

As a preliminary investigation a literature review was to explore relevant theories and to define the theoretical foundation of this project. In the first stages of the project the inspiration phase and the brief were still open, therefore a background investigation of previous studies was used to increase the knowledge in the thematic and outline the first research qustion. This method also included the exploration of the design area in which the project aims to contribute. Therefore, it comprises the analysis of canonical examples as pertinent projects in the area of interest. Several search portals and databases were retrieved in this literature review that comprises ResearchGate, MAU Library, ACM Digital Library MitPress.edu, and Malmö University Electronic Publishing. Useful data were gathered from the websites, social media and journals namely The New Yorker, The Guardian, Vimeo, YouTube channels (Vice, Interaction

5. Design Process & Methods

Figure 7. Project process inspired by Ideo process, 2010

Literature reviewFieldworkCultural probes

Analysis Affinity diagram

Prototype testingProduce theory

Ideation

28

Design Foundation and TedTalks), Medium.com, The Guardian, The NY Times and Google analytics. Since this research investigated psychology and sociology intending to merge with Interaction design theories, several keywords where typed. They spanned from “pandemic crisis”, “social isolation”, “emotion regulation”, “ritual”, “social connection” to “technologies for internet-mediated communication”, “remote communication”, “tangible interaction” and “Internet of things”.

5.3 Fieldwork & Ethnographic research

As stated by Martin and Hanington (2012) ethnographic research comprises several research methods with the ultimate scope of gain a deeper understanding of the user’s life in order to create thoughtful designs for empathy and insight (Martin & Hanington, 2012). The fieldwork comprise online and participatory observations, semi-structured interviews, an online survey and the deployment of cultural probes. This stage was vital to investigate and understand people’s lives, desires and problems in relation to the experience of social distancing and the other national restrictions , in order to find interesting scenarios to explore. The interest was also directed to rituals and habits they enact to combat loneliness. But also, how they felt in communicating with each other over video calls and how they strived to maintain themselves connect with others despite the restrictions. As stated in the research question the focus of this research lied primarily on people in isolation of social/physical distancing, therefore people living in isolation or physical distancing were contacted. In line with this intention, the majority of the participants comes from Italy, as they were living in isolation, social distancing and “lockdown” at this stage of the process. Even though there was consistent participation from Italy, also people from Spain, the UK, Denmark and Sweden were included to maintain heterogeneous participation as the pandemic crisis became a worldwide concern. The next paragraphs are devoted to the presentation of each method that has contributed to fieldwork. The methods are the following: online and participatory observations, the online survey, semi-structured interviews and cultural probes namely “my interaction design diary” and “the digital camera roll” followed by a specific series of interaction tasks.

5.3.1 Online and participatory observations

Methods and goals

To inform the fieldwork at this stage online and participatory observation was conducted. Online observation consists of the observation with the aim of gather knowledge about online trends and social communication activities. Accordingly, online social media portray user’s behavioural patterns in everyday life from shared materials e.g.video on YouTube. With this method, it is observable the behaviour changes and upcoming needs based on online trends. On the other hand, together with online observations, participatory observation in the form of an ethnographic research method was conducted. According to DeWalt (2010), applying this method, the designer places himself in the user’s context as a

29

“participating member” of his activities to immerse himself in his need and gain a comprehensive understanding of his experience while also observing the groups’ dynamics (Ellovich, 2011). This allows the designer to exercise empathy and inspiration together with the participant. In this method both the role of the observer and an active role are designer’s roles. With the combination of these two methodologies findings are reported.

Observations background information

The participatory observation was conducted by me, the designer as a means of inquiry, during the Italian and danish lockdown in March 2020 fieldwork research in Sweden. Six participants took part in the participatory observation over Zoom videocalls and 1 in person, the context was a vitual dinner together. The participatory observation counted participants from Italy during its lockdown. The participants were living in different italian cities as such Villa Rosa, (TE) and Bologna (BO) and me and another participant remotely in Malmo, Sweden. There were 4 females and 2 male, from the age of 18 to the age of 57 years old.

Online observations

Online observation was conducted online as a form of ethnographic research. It comprises observation both of social communication channel and journals’ webpages. The databases where YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Zoom, Whatsapp and Snapchat. Very important was the observation on Instagram through stories and post, but also Youtube where the proliferation of videos of lockdowns activities resulted fundamental for this project.

Figure 8. Virtual birthday as participatory observation (source theoprahmag.com)

Figure 9. Toasting with wooden sticks on balconies, Italy (source LaRepubblica.it)

30

Participatory observation

As detailed in the theoretical background, since the Italian lockdown required all the participants to study and work from home they could only be with people they lived with so the choice of conducting the participatory observation online where we could meet respecting the social distancing dictates. The observation consisted of the participation of video calls with the seven participants. The focus was on behavioural changes caused by the pandemic crisis start and the respective reflection of this change in “social” online behaviours and interactions. Furthermore, I observed how people interact with online communication means whilst which kind of everyday interactions with people they missed and try to repeat over the video call (e.g. a virtual dinner as shown in the Figure 10). As these methods were carried out synergically the overall observations resulted in a unicum.

Findings, insights and conclusions

As the main results of the online observation and participatory observation, social media trends were observed, and behavioural changes and needs were noticed. Indeed, as observable on YouTube and online magazines but also during the participatory observations (Figure 8, 9 and 10) people start seeking for diffent forms of social connectiveness as the coronavirus pandemic started: alternative way of find new physical connection with the employment of alternative rituals (like in Figure 9) on digital platforms (Figure 9 and 10). As detailed in the literature review, this happens for two main reasons. The first is connected to the lack of “physical social interaction” and “social interaction” in general; the second regards the lack of rituals. As they both are part of our everyday life and support us together in emotion managing, lacking them could lead to behavioural change or, as in the participatory observation video calls case, to an increase in a social media interaction. These two needs were observable both with online observation and video calls. People were missing friends and relatives and felt in many cases alone. According to one participant the restrictions allowed him

Figure 10. Virtual lunch and virtual workout as participatory observations

31

only to walk the dog and go to the supermarket and regarding other social interactions he affirmed: “I feel powerless, but at least I can call or videocalls my friends, I still need to adapt to it but it is the only thing we can do to stay in contact”. One of the participants stated “I have never been so much in front of screens as these weeks of lockdown, it is alienating”. Therefore, it was observable the increase of frequent video calls interactions e.g. where people worked out together, work and eat together (see Figure 10). Birthdays, dinners and even graduations were held and experienced online like during one birthday in Figure 8 and celebrations such as Figure 9. This factor could increase the interest and stimulate people creativity for resilience seeking (e.g. people using new apps for moving parties online like in Figure 8-9-10). In this regard, one of the participant stated “This is not a real birthday together but at least it is a valid alternative and see, we can even dance here with Houseparty!”. On the other hand, the overuse of social media could create more loneliness, like for who live this experience as too “limited” as it cannot replace or support physical interactions. In this regard one of the participant stated: “the use of social media is too overwhelming at times, and I feel even more alone. Every time I close the call everyone is gone, I really miss a real social contact!”. In conclusion, these results enriched the research and narrowed down the research and ideation focus on rituals in relation to remote social communication.

5.3.2 Semi-structured interviews

Method and goals

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain insights into people’s personal life in everyday new rituals and the use of social media communication, as well as how they experience the changes during COVID-19 pandemic. But the kind of questions variates depending on the interviewee mood and guided by the choice of topics. It is thanks to the openness of this method that the designer can range from the research topics to considerations of any nature. Indeed, this method resulted to be efficient in qualitative data gathering since it allows to access deeper feedback and comments of participants. The interviews are perceived as more relaxed conversations and this opens the conversation, in some cases, to unexpected responses and outcomes.

Semi-structured interviews approach

The interview was conducted by me, the designer as a means of inquiry, during the Italian and danish lockdown in March 2020 field working in Sweden. The participants did not have any prior knowledge about the intention of the questions except for being conducted for a thesis, while the topic of the thesis was briefly presented at the beginning of the conversation.Three interviews were conducted with four female persons, three of them were living in Italy and one in Sweden. Three of the were living together in the same household, one living separately and alone in Bologna (Italy) and one living alone in Sweden. In the same conditions of the participatory observations the interviews were conducted over video calls due to COVID-19 restrictions. They lasted between 20 to 30 minutes. The

32

participants consented the process of notes and recordings the interviews which due to technical problems fails to be recorded impeding the transcription hereby, only few screenshot of the videocalls were saved. Nevertheless, qualitative notes taken during the conversations were processed as gathered data. In a prior stage all interviewees were asked consent verbally to use their answers and they all agree upon it. Therefore, due to technical issues, no personal data was collected or stored in this stage. The questions were used to gain an understanding of people’s personal life in everyday new rituals and the use of social media communication, as well as how they experience the changes during COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, “Can you please tell me about your everyday rituals?”, “How do you greed people that you know at the supermarket?”, “Did you find new way to enact your everyday interaction rituals like having a dinner over video call?”. To close the interviews the interviewees were asked a question concerning tools for the support of social interactions: “What is your opinion on online social communication online, are they helping you?”.

Findings, Insights and conclusions

Participants felt interested in the topic since the pandemic crisis were affecting their life in many ways and this benefited both the conversations and insights as both the designer and the interviewees were living under the say restrictions (i.e. social distancing and other measures). This method resulted important to the data regarding of everyday rituals in regard people’s old and new habits and behaviours. People did not have any difficulties in open a conversation regardig the ongoing pandemic. Actually, the conduction of these this interviews at the beginning of pandemic resulted to be interesting for them due to the overwhelming flow of changes. Indeed, one participant stated “it is somehow interesting to talk about this topic because is affecting my everyday so much and I want to be more aware of these changes”. Therefore the necessity to talk about this topic was felt as beneficial also personal mental well-being analysis. The participants provided the designer with insights and with fruitful discussion discussion about the role of technologies in their everyday lives and possible desidered scenarios.One participant stated “I feel that I need some support in terms of communication, I rely a lot on technologies like e.g. videocalls and social media these days. I would like something more”. The openness of questions conversations led to body experiments like in Figure 11. At the end of the interview the participants asked to try out a “new way” to hug a person vitually. The participants, including the conductor, try to hug the other person through the means of a pillow, looking each other through the camera. The experiment was of a unexceptional nature and emotional. It was perceived as special message also because all the four participants were family members at a distance due to social distancing. These series of interviews were therefore fruiftul for getting to know people new habits and perceptions. At the same time, the semi-structured interviews gave the designer the possibility to open the prospective also on the nature of objects and materials that surround us. The experiment allowed to draw considerations on the concept of “reuse” of everyday objects to engage in social rituals. Moreover, these fruitful conversations informed the creation of an online survey, presented in the next section.

33

5.3.3 Online survey

Method description and goals

According to Hanington & Martin (2012), an online survey is a method to collect information about “people’s feelings, behaviours, thoughts, and perceptions” (Hanington et al. 2012). It uses a method for collecting information from a larger amount of respondents, efficiently collecting “a lot of data in a short period and are versatile in the type of information that can be collected” (Hanington & Martin, Surveys, 2012). This method was chosen, to identify the overall feelings regarding COVID-19 to identify behaviour patterns, people feelings and needs in order for the design to support social interactions. The online survey aimed to identify the area of interest for gain insights for ideation purposes in accordance with the Research Question 1: How can interaction design technologies, remotely connected, support the feeling of social connectedness between people during physical distancing?

Online survey approach

The online survey was conducted by me, the designer as a means of inquiry, during the Italian and danish lockdown in March 2020 field working in Sweden. The participants did not have any prior knowledge about the intention of the questions except for being conducted for a thesis, while the topic of the thesis was briefly presented at the beginning of the survey. The research was conducted through a Google Forms document and 67 participants took part in the online survey. The participants were primarily located in Italy, Spain, Denmark and during the lockdown, and others were also in different cities. The participants were from 18 to 70 years old. The research did not focus on a specific age group at this stage, this peculiarity allows the survey to reach a broader public resulting heterogeneous in overall results. GDPR dictates were respected and participants consented to data process of their answers. To see all the structure and questions are attached in the Appendix.

Figure 11. Experiment of the virtual hug after the interview

34

Findings, insights and conclusions

After the interviews insight, the survey proved to be a way to investigate more in deep the topic of rituals in a pandemic and reached a vast group of people. One of the most important responses turned out to be that people, as stated in the interviews, are missing old rituals (e.g. handshakes, hugs with friends) and this led to a strong lack of physical contact and interactions (as shown in the picture below). It was asked to define which kind of alternatives they found to combat physical and social distancing and the data gathered from this stage resulted fruitful and, in many aspects, inspirational for the concept development. Several types of new gestures as part of “new rituals” were described and mentioned and online communication resultated to have an important role in people’s lives. Therefore, questions regarding the use of social media communication were also included as to analyse what was missing and what instead they liked. Lastly, as the interviews together with the observations were processed, a first insight design proposal was disclosed which turned to be essential for the direction of the project. After the survey was delivered it received several feedbacks and people wanted to share with me further comments such as the desire to have a digital diary for keeping track of their emotions and reflect upon their interaction with others and have a better understand of changes in their everyday rituals. Moreover, few participants found the survey helpful as this aided them reflecting on their interactions since the new condition (i.e been in physical distance) was perceived as frustrating. Thus, according to them, this survey highlighted the importance of personal interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic. In conclusion, both results and opinions enriched the research and helped both in drawing further observations and offering new insights for designer. This method informed the design of another method of investigation, the cultural probes kit.

Figure 12. Highlights of the survey

35

Figure 13. Highlights of the survey (results)

36

5.3.4 Cultural probes kit

Method and goals This project saw the creation of cultural probes which were designed as “digital and in cloud” probes and shared with the participants in Google Drive. These cultural probes kit employed in this phase are informed by a series of cultural probes methods and invite the participant to creatively complete a combination of tasks through the use of visuals, pictures and words. The cultural probes are presented as “My digital interaction diary” and a “Digital camera roll”. The main scope of the first probe was to gain an understanding of everyday people’s interactions during the pandemic crises in order to gain a broader understanding of their rituals’ changes and how they are copying with these—how they replaced them or how they deal with their lack. The second probe aims to gather data about people in relation with objects and materials, the relationship established while touching and watching them and their feelings. Therefore, exploring to emotion management and feelings of comfort related to human-object interaction.

Background information on cultural probesWith the on-going pandemic crisis, the probes were delivered online, so a redeployment of cultural probes was realized in an online version. The participants were provided with an online consent form, identical in structure and content of the consent form delivered in the online survey. Two participants were sent the derivable cultural probe toolkit, one located in Sweden and the other in Italy. The period for the use of the probes was 15 days.

Cultural probes kit: interaction diary & interaction camera rollThe tasks included a dairy task which comprises a series of task called “my interaction diary” and a “digital camera roll” followed by 25 tasks. The participant was invited to write their daily interaction with people in the diary completing the tasks. On the other hand, with the other probe namely “the interaction design camera”, the participant was invited to take pictures, make visuals and take notes about emotional responses following 25 different tasks and located these in a shared folder.

Findings, insights and conclusions of cultural probesThis method was fruitful for the research as it, together with the literature review, helped the designer to gather data and insights regardings user’s behavioural patterns. Indeed insights regarding rituals and remote communication between people were gathered but also relationships between people and objects. The importance of this relationships was analysed in detail as it affects people feelings and emotions. With this method people opened up to their everyday rituals and the new habits they started having giving this research an important contribution and this was made possible through images and thoughts that participants left written. The results are detailed in the next paragraphs by analysing the results of the cultural probes from Figure 18 to 25.

37

  

 

My interaction diary During the pandemic  

 

 

 

Day #1   

Think about all the interactions you had today, including interactions online and                       

in-person. 

Recall all the persons you had interaction today that you found significant.  

For each of them, create your diary of interaction! 

 

 

 

Person #1:  

Name the shared interaction: 

 Where and why did you meet this person? 

 

 

What happened when you met this person today? 

 

Figure 14. Interaction Diary p.1

38

Figure 15. Interaction Diary p.2

39

Figure 16. Interaction Camera roll instructions and tasks p.1

40

Figure 17. Interaction Camera roll instructions and tasks p.2

41

5.4 Initial data analysis and evaluations through affinity mapping

A suggested by the method of Martin & Hanington (2012) responses from the fieldwork were clustered based on their affinities and analogies through an affinity map (Martin & Hanington, 2012). An affinity map was deployed to cluster and to critically evaluate the results and insights gained from the different methods during fieldwork (Figure 27). This phase was of vital importance, since it is only through a meticulous analysis of the various responses, of the expressive details of the participants and the particular intuitions that the ideative phase is triggered. The most compelling results were written down on post-it notes and grouped by topic to form the affinity groups on a board.

Figure 20. Answer Participant B, Task #6 “Something that you shared or wanted to share today with some-one”

Figure 18. Answer Participant B, Task #12 “Your favourite item in the evening. Include the type of feeling you felt watching it” - “Cosiness”

Figure 21. Answer Participant B, Task #15“A screenshot of an online videocall you had recently, and the feeling you had” - “Lucky!”

Figure 19. Answer Participant B, Task #2 “A thing that makes you feel a relief when you watch it or touch it”

42

Several insights were organized for the main purpose to find similar trends in people’s everyday life rituals but also struggles and desires. In this specific section an important contribution was given by the cultural probes responses where the presence of social rituals was evident such in the case of participat A and B. Insights regarding rituals and remote communication between people were gathered but also relationships between people, ritual items and specific objects. The importance of this relationship was analysed in detail as it affects people feelings and emotions. In answering the tasks for the Interaction camera roll (Figures form 18 to 25) there were several links to commensality and light perception for emotional management and seeking virtual and physiclal support for well-being. In task n.12 similarities where found in the choice of items and emotions perceived, where both participants refferend to lights as means for comfort anf calming feelings. In the case of task n. 6 both participants chose a

Figure 24. Answer Participant A, Task #6 “Something that you shared or wanted to share today with some-one”

Figure 22. Answer Participant A, Task #12 “Your favourite item in the evening. Include the type of feeling you felt watching it” - “Relaxed”

Figure 25. Answer Participant A, Task #15“A screenshot of an online videocall you had recently, and the feeling you had” - “far but beloved”

Figure 23. Answer Participant A, Task #2 “A thing that makes you feel a relief when you watch it or touch it”

43

commensal moment to share for the probes. Moreover, these rituals where compared and filtered based on the responses throughout fieldwork studies, taking into considerations all the rituals found during the exploration. Among these rituals were considered greetings and social moments like playful moments like dance and games. Indeed according to the responsens in the diaries and participatory observations people often gather for games and vitual dance parties. A thoughful analysis was made of different rituals and compared them to find the concept that could suit the research the most. Therefore, the choice of the rituals was therefore adressed by alterning the focus on the map and on the sketching and material exploration phase (explained in the next section). Furthermore, by clustering these data that the designer could draw several conclusions and formulate the second and the third research question which are, How can interaction design features, of four online connected artifacts, enable a synchronized shared interaction between two people remotely located? How can interaction design features, of an artefacts’ system, recreate a sense of togetherness through a synchronized shared interaction between 2 people remotely located? and with this identify possible concepts for building the Research through Design design prototypes.This process was rich in iterations for identify both the right formulation of the research questions and the specific ritual to explore.

Figure 26. Map of the rituals in the preliminar analysis

Figure 27. Affinity mapping

44

This ideation process is the result of a combination of two methodologies sketching and material exploration. The ideation phase was also informed by the affinity diagram method and consisted of the explorations of the ideas through both a sketch process and a material exploration process. The material exploration conducted can be synthesized as a first-hand experiential method that focused on the lived experience through the interaction with materials. This phase rapresent one of the most important stage of the design process for the exploration of the design concepts whose aim were to adress the two research questions formulated. The sketching section was conducted to create and develop quick possible concepts. This phase was guided by an investigation of everyday life objects focusing on material, surfaces, and usability interactions exploration. Since the investigation was narrowed down to the type of relationship we have with objects based on the rituals and interactions made possible through and with them, this process was important to identify not only the context of interest for the research but also the specific interactions, materials, and type of objects. As the first phase of this process, I explored the surface materials of objects by touching, moving, stretching, bending, and various other forms of material interactions.

5.5 Ideation

Figure 28. Pics from the material exploretion phase

45

Successively, I clustered them in a grid according to a set of evaluation criteria. The set consists of “action-interaction” properties of the object (e.g. a bulb can be turned on); “type of ritual” enabled by the object (e.g. a glass can be used for dining) characteristics of objects and “how do you feel while touching it” and “which sensations does it suggest?” while interacting with it. Successively, I created a cell grid and sketched inside possible artefacts shapes based on evaluation criteria. I evaluated all the possible rituals classifying the usability of objects and materials. In an attempt to identify the riatual, together with the literature review the attention was narrowed down to the specific ritual of commensality. This was possible thanks to the amount of qualitative data related to this ritual during the analysis of the responses, more specifically by analysing the interviews’ notes and the cultural probes. Indeed, it is through the analisys of the cultural probes that commensality was identified as one of the most recurrent ritual. Therefore, by sketching and exploring various elements of the ritual of commensality, at the end of this process, the attention was narrowed down to a set of objects. A coaster and light bulb involved to share a commensal moment. Moreover the choice was also dictated by various important properties as such the shape, the weight and usability of the objects and materials. The lamp was selected for its specific feature of communicating through colour temperature and enabling an “presence” through visual cues. On the other hand, the coaster was selected as a portable object, often used on tables for hot drinks like tea. This object could be used while sharing a break moment with friends (in Swedish also known as “fika”), for instance e.g. breaks during the day and mealtimes. This makes this item one of the most interesting and therefore, invites itself to be explored in terms of possible interactivities and affordances. In conclusion, during this process, the focus was narrowed down to enabling a specific ritual remotely commensality through the affordances and qualities of two items in a set for each user: the coaster and the lamp.

Figure 29. Preliminary sketches of the rituals

46

In the affinity mapping and ideation phase, the intention to connect people remotely through remotely connected objects was decided and a concept was generated in the ideation stage. Therefore, the focus was on exploring how to make prototypes work and how to enable alternative ways of communicating and enacting rituals, through remote communication using interactive technologies (Figure 31).

Figure 30. Sketches of commensality ritual

Figure 31. Sketch of the final concept

47

5.6 Prototyping

Based on the ideation concept, and related to research question two and three — How might interaction design features, of four online connected artifacts, enable a synchronized shared interaction between two people remotely located? And How might interaction design features, of an artefacts’ system, recreate a sense of togetherness through a synchronized shared interaction between two people remotely located? — a prototyping method was conducted. In the prototyping phase the concepts derived from the ideation were translated into real and functional prototypes. The focus of this iteration was to make prototypes to allow a defined experience. Ineded, according to Houde& Hill only by focusing on the purpuse of the prototype— that is, on what it prototypes —that the designer takes better decisions regarding the prototype to build. In this way, by creating a clear purpose of the interaction also the prototypes can convey a specific and clear experience. The prototyping method was deployed to evaluate hypothesis and concepts developed from results and insights gathered with the affinity diagram and sketched in the ideation phase. To make the prototypes ready for a prototype test, the prototypes was developed in different design iterations. The iterations consisted in finding the right and responsive materials, calculating and evaluating different affordances. I employed material exploration to identify applications of the surface materials and electronic materials. I explored the surface materials by touching, moving, stretching, bending, and various other forms of material interactions. The electronic materials were explored in the way of examining their qualities by mocking how the physical interaction with these sensors was possible, on the one hand, to explore how the respective physical interaction is perceived, and ultimately, understand how these sensors work technically.

Figure 32. explorations in the prototyping phase

48

Figure 33. futher explorations in light perception

49

5.6.2 The prototype system

By attuning different affordances of materials and electronics it is possible to recreate a shared synchronized experience. Therefore, after several iterations in the prototype phase a working prototype system was created.

I developed a concept where four different prototypes take part of a prototype system which enables remote communication through the means of two sets of a coaster and a lamp, between two people remotely located. The all system enables the user to communicate through the artifacts while also enacting the ritual of sharing a drinking moment while dining. The all system reacts to users when they are using it and what is enabled is a personalized shared experience through interactive technologies. The prototype system comprise two coasters and two lamps. For enabling the shared experience each user is provided with one set of two items: one lamp and one coaster. The communication is enabled through light and touch according to a series of instructions given. The system reacts based on the interaction the users establish with the prototypes and the enactement of interactions with the objects. The communication is tought to be as an Internet of Things system but for technical constrains the artifacts communication on this prototype system is enabled through an Arduino board connected to a computer.

Figure 34. further iterations in the prototyping phase

50

The system comprise the interaction of four prototypes thought as two sets of a lamp and a coaster. The artifacts were developed to work synergically and so the conceptualization and development of the system was possibile only working with the artifacts at the same time. Even though the system could not work without the collaboration and interaction of all the artefacts, for the description and development of each artifact it is convenient to divide the system in two: the lamp prototype and the coaster prototype.

Figure 35. sketch of the system rituals

Figure 36. experiments for achieving the synchronization

51

Prototype one: The lamp

The lamp prototype is one of the developed protypes presented in the system. The lamp is designed with an embedded LED ring namely NeoPixel Ring (https://www.adafruit.com/product/1463) which is connected to an Arduino board. The lamp rapresent the main mean of communication in the system. Indeed, it is through the change of colours of the light that the communication is enabled for the users.

Figure 37. The prototypes of the lamps

52

Protoype two: The coaster prototype

The coaster prototype is the main prototype present in the system. The coaster is developed with the employment of Force Sensitive Resistor and copper ring as a Capacitive Touch breakout board. The all system of sensors where connected to an Arduino board which was where the control of the all system was. All the information gathered from the sensors are then process from the board and therefore computationally processed.

Figure 38. Prototypes of the coasters

53

The prototypes’ system interaction: the synchronized experience

The system was designed to enable a fully shared synchronized interaction so an interaction design system was created and designed.The system works on the computational process of tactile interaction information received from the coasters, then computationally analysed and processed and then ultimately returned as light signals through the lamp. The interaction system follows a series of criteria based on how people interact with the coaster, how they enact gestures while drinking and touching the coaster e.g. stroking the surface (using the coaster). Accordingly to these criteria the lamp lead the conversation between users informing them through light signals. The communication and the shared interaction is several different ways and constitutes the features of the interactive system.In a scenario where, as stated in the research questions, two people are using the system enabling a specific pattern of interactions, which are designed and enabled as the following.

The ritual interaction #1: The subtle callIn the first stage of the interaction, the first user starts interacting with the system by using his coaster. The communication initialises once the user places his glass/drink on the coaster.The first user that interacts with the coaster for the first stay is the one that also activates the call mode. The system collects the pressure-signal which will be transformed into a light cue by activating the lamp of the remotely located user. During the call, the lamp pulses and the colour of the lamp is of a cold-white.In order to “answers back” the other user needs to place a glass/drink on his coaster in its turn. While answering, the system detects both users interacting with the system and here he synchronization takes place. This time the pressure-signal of both users are collected and transformed into a light cue of a warm-white for both lamps. From this moment the users are able to experience more shared ritualistic interactions by exploring the other system’s interactions.

Figure 39. the subtle call activation

54

The ritual interaction #2: Toast togetherAfter answering the call both users are using the coasters and the glasses respectively. Both users may have different interaction-patterns with the objects. By drinking and interacting with the system differently. Whenever one user lifts up the glass from the coster (e.g. in order to drink), the system will detect the action and change the colour hue of the lights from a warm white (cue of a shared experience) to a cold white. The system follows criteria provided by the design conceptualization. indeed, through a different light saturation and light brightness (i.e various white tones and brightness intensity) the system can communicate the users the quality of their interaction, whether it is synchronous or asynchronous. Therefore, when the second user lifts up the glass in its turn and both glasses are raised up, accordingly the light hue turns warm white and slightly brighter.

Figure 40. The subtle call ritual

55

The ritual interaction #3: I care The second interaction is enabled through the tactile coaster surface. This concept was designed from the observation of how people interact with coasters in everyday life e.g. in pubs of cafes. The user can while using the coaster with the glass, stroke the coaster laterally and send in this way a “stroking message”. This stroking signal is also defined as an “affection” signal between people who share an experience. The system will process the signal and sent it to the other user lamp. The lamp pulses while the stroke is enacted by one user waiting for the other user to stroke/touch the coaster in turn. While the “stroke” is sent, the light pulses in a light fashion, becoming cold white only for the receiving user. While the sender lamp light is warm white, normal brightness. When both users “stroke” the coaster, both lights become synchronically multi-coloured to simulate an “I care” shared experience.

Figure 41. The “toast together” ritual

56

Figure 42. The “I care” ritual

57

In a further iteration a prototype test was conducted and four people participate in the testing section. There were two males of 27 and 30 years old and two females, of 26 and 32 years old. The participants were gathered in a home setting (in line with the Swedish raccomandations for the Covid-19 pandemic) and divided into two groups and set in a distance of at least one meter and a half. The duration of each prototype test was of thirty minutes long and devided in three main parts: the introductiona, the interaction with the system and brief interview section. The user test was conducted mainly to observing the user but also it was necessery to guide the user throught the experience at different points to make sure that all the elements could be tested as planned. As a short introduction to the prototype experience in each testing section the participants were described the scope of the prototype, how the system of artifacts worked and how to interact with it. As stated in the methodological approach experience prototyping and retrospective think-aloud protocol were employed as methods which allowed in the first phase the participants to explore the prototypes freely and draw their own conclusions around the interactive experience. Subsequently, after completing their experience with the prototypes, brief interviews were conducted to gather insights and opinions. As the semi-structured interviews have an open nature the questions spanned from simple to complex, changing and adapting based on the individual responsiveness of the participants.

The first questions where posed based on the overall experience to gain a general opinions regarding the interactivity with the artefacts. How was the experience of interacting with tangible elements. Which kind of improvements they envision and which where the limitations they encountered. The open-ended questions were: - How was the experience with the prototype? How do you feel to have a shared experience mediated by technology? Considering the current situation where you are in. - What do you think about communicating with others through the affection of other person atmosphere through gestures and touch but also though light cues? How do you perceive the immediacy of the feedback in affecting your surroundings?- How does it feel to share a synchronic experience? Regarding sharing a moment of commensality, what do you think of enacting a ritual through the means of technologies?

Therefore the prototyping process resulted vital for the results and the analysis of the second and third research questions:

RQ 2: How can interaction design features, of four online connected artifacts, enable a synchronized shared interaction between two people remotely located?

RQ 3: How can interaction design features, of an artefacts’ system, recreate a sense of together-ness through a synchronized shared interaction between 2 people remotely located?

58Figure 43. User testing

59

6.Results & AnalysisThe qualitative data from the user testing where recorded and analysed through an affinity map. Affinity mapping was used to identify similar directions or prospectives regarding the comments of the participants. This method was the base for main results which are stated in this section. By summarizing and analysing the results of the user testing the initial research questions of this project are answered.

A subtle shared experience mediated by technology and the sense of presence

During the prototype testing, participants appreciated the overall experience as this allowed them to communicate synchronically with a person at a distance. The prototype experience allowed them to live a lightweight experience which enables, according to them, both the remote communication and the sharing of a moment together despite the physical distancing. This could be an important feature to take into account while designing prototypes for share experience remotely. Indeed, while trying the prototype Participant A stated:

“At times I do not want to talk and would love a soft communication. I like to share a moment with a person that I care of, in a more tenderly way”.

Talking about presence and long-term relatioship with the device, Participant B stated that since the other person’s presence is perceived “in a light way” this prototypes might be used for a long time as it is not overwhelming to use:

“The feedback is not overwhelming, like could be in a call, which asks you to be fully in control and aware. Since the signal is of a light fashion can feel a subtle feeling of presence. This allows me to think that I would use this for a long time. It is quite nice to feel that someone is sharing a moment with you on the other side, even in a regular basis, in light way.”

Another important result was indeed the possibility to reach a light fashion interaction through interactive technologies. In line with the responses in the fieldwork and the usability testin, during the COVID-19 pandemic people were looking for ways of connecting each other mostly on video calls, and this resulted for many too overwhelming. As noticed in the participatory observations, one of the participants stated:

“I have never been so much in front of screens as these weeks of lockdown, it is alienating and overwhelming at times to have so many group videocalls”.

Moreover, talking about the experience with the prototype participant B stated:

“The feedback is not overwhelming, like could be in a videocall, which asks you to be fully present, in control and aware. Since the signal is of a light fashion can feel

60

a subtle feeling of presence.”

Moreover, the video call could result as stated by participant D “engaging but missing in tactile experience” and an interactive system can provide people with more interesting interactions mediated, like in this case, by touch and light cues. This system could be used together with social media as a form of complementing the overall experience in a light fashion. In the regard of a long-term presence enabled by technology, it could be important to have a subtle communication to not overwhelm the user and therefore, to prolongue the satisfaction in the experience with the devices. In this Participant B claimed:

“The signal is calming and the presence of the technology is not overwhelming. This allows me to think that I would use this for a long time. It is quite nice to feel that someone is sharing a moment with you on the other side, even in a regular basis, in light way.”

In regard of virtual presence Participant A added:“The fact that you can connect in a different way is something that amaze me and I would like to experience. This experience represents a different way to feel connected. This reminds me that presence can have different forms and this light and strokes are part of these. ”.

Nevertheless, the sense of presence is often related to the immediacy of the response in interacting with technologies. Therefore, while designing interactive technologies the feedback response must be further explored and tailored based on the interactive experience enabled by devices. Indeed, as claimed by participant B:

“It is an instant pleasure to know that the other person is there, responding to you. The being in the moment aspect is important and even though it could be compared with other communication devices it is not always granted the response. Here you need to be present. I like the fact that the meaning of the system is to keep you connected in the moment, otherwise I can just send the other person a message and he/she can read it whenever even the day after.”

However, the feeling of presence and the in the moment feeling are not always granted due to different habits but also geographical factors such as being in different times zones. As pointed out by Participant A:

“I wonder how would it be when you are in different time zones, how could you match? Maybe one person is having lunch and the other dinner. Being at a distance often means being really far away and with different timeframes and this should be also taken into consideration. I really like this idea of the immediate feedback which adds more value to the experience”

Therefore, as a result, both lightweight interactions and immediacy of the responses can help people to stay connected and mantain a costant but not overwehlming sense of social presence. Moreover, the employment of simple interactions allow the persons to

61

envision a long-term relationship with the devices which could result of vital importance while designing interactive technolgies such as Internet of things.

Touch and light to foster togetherness in (social) interaction design systems

Sharing a social activity with people who do not belong to the same household is of course hard during a global pandemic, just like many of the other forms of social interactions that replaced by the use of technological means such as video-chat apps, instant messaging and perhaps an excessive use of social networking websites. These ways of staying connected, however, lack the subtleties of real physical interaction. with what Participant A claimed:

“I think that affecting the other person environment through light is a strong but at the same time soft message to send. Thinking about the strokes and gestures, I feel that it is nice to communicate because I feel in control of my actions and able to physically react and communicate. Being able to affect the other person atmosphere adds value to the overall experience”.

Although communicating over chats or video calls remains important to have visual contact with each other, as stated by stated one participant in the observation phase:

“I feel powerless, but at least I can message or videocalls my friends, I still need to adapt to it but it is the only thing we can do to stay in contact. It is an instant pleasure to know that the other person is there, responding to you through gestures or through a stroke”

The amount of interactions enables by this communication is too limited and find new attractive solutions in the world of Interaction design arena might be fruitful for social communication and connection. For instance, a shared synchronic experience enables people to feel a deeper sense of social connectedness by sharing a simple body or light signal such as, in the case of these prototypes a stroke, a gesture or a light cue. As indeed

Figure 44. Users commenting the interactions in the user testing section

62

noted by Participant A:

“I never tried to communicate in a different way when I am at a distance, I often rely on the technologies that I have available now. It is interesting the communication through light and colour change, it immediately communicates you a mood or a emotional state.”

After the interaction with the prototypes participants felt a stronger sense of connectiveness thanks to the affordances of the prototypes. In such regard, by speaking about interactive alternatives that the experience allowed, Participant Cclaimed:

“I feel a sense of presence and I unespectedely connected with the other just by using my hands”. In regard of the light interaction”

Building upon this, Participant D claimed: “It’s interesting how you can feel the other person presence by let her affect your environment and atmosphere through light”.

Therefore, it could be stated that synchronized and shared experiences allow people to feel a strong sense of togetherness while being at a distance through the means of light and tactile interactions.

Support people desires and dinamics for interaction design systems: the ritual case

Another important theme from the literature review and fieldwork but mostly in the prototype testing was the attribution of an identity and context to the interaction experience. In this regard, it is beneficial for the experience and the system perception to give the participants a specific context to blend in in order to ensure a good engagement. As pointed out by participants C and D, giving a defined context and name to the all interaction activity this support both the experience and the meaning formation of a specific “interaction feature”. Therefore, the ritual of commensality resulted of important because, while interacting with it, it gave the participant a behavioural framing which included a set of gestures to enact and try. Moreover, this it resulted beneficial for meaning formation as the social dynamic and purpose for enacting the rituals were organized and clear in the synchronized experience. In this regard, Participant D claimed:

“I feel that this ritual is giving me simple instructions to follow to be in contact with the other person, while interpreting the system”.

Furthermore, in accordance with the literature review and the fieldwork findings, and as a result in the user testing, a ritualistic moment can help in building sociality in a group. As suggested by participant C sharing a ritualistic moment “makes you feel part of something, in this case a group”. As a result of the interaction with the prototype system, the suggestion here is to extend ritualily to interactive systems in order to enable rituals also at a distance. In this regard Participant C stated:

63

“I really miss hanging out and live social experiences with friends, this devices made me feel as I can still play with the coasters and have soft conversations in a pub”.

Moreover, by increasing the number of systems connected this could benefit the social interaction between people. Indeed, the devices allow to communicate with a another person system and this extend the possibility to communicate with others in a shared moment. Extending the devices to others allows you share mutual feedback can recreate the sense of being together in a group. Speculating on the idea of having these device for his friends Participant A claimed:

“Imagine if everyone can communicate with this device, while being in different part of the world. Everyone can get a device in an attempt to recreate a moment of conversation in a pub with friends”

Thereby, it might be fruitful for interactive technolgies to consider ritualistic settings, like the case of commensality, with the scope of bridging people and their social dynamics.

Feeling of social connectedness: the synchronic co-experience

While analysing the various results in the participatory observations and the cultural probes participants often times preffered to have a social moment while sharing the same activity while being remotely located. For instance, in the case of participant B in the cultural probes where they had a birthday party and it showed how they were toasting together in front of the camera (figure 25). Or, in the case of participant A in the Interaction diary which invited her friend to eating a together. Moreover, Participant B played a guessing game together with her friend (Diary highlights attached in the Appendix). Similarly, during the prototyping test people appreciated the combination of having a co-experience enabled by doing and enacting analogous activities and gestures. As affirmed by participant C:

“I think that sharing a synchronized moment let you feel more the other person presence. It seems we are caring about the same item by using it mutually. It seems you are socially connected while interacting with the system. While you are enacting a ritual like eating with someone else you feel part of something, a group. This what makes it meaningful. Technology can be therefore a valid support by being a medium in this case”.

In essence, in designing interactive technologies that help to exercise social connectedness it is important to consider mimicry and co-experience in the overall interaction experience. This could aid the user in meaning formation of an activity in relation to co-experience not only with the person remotely connected but also with the interactive devices per se.

64

7.Discussion and future work

Several methodologies have been involved in this research. By evaluating the results and proceeding in the Rtd process it was possible to ascertain how many of these methods had a positive impact on research or, otherwise, which had a poor outcome. Participatory observations, semi-structured interviews and cultural probes are among the most efficient methods. It was through these methods that it was possible to answer the main research questions of this research. These methods include interviews, online and participatory observations and cultural probes kits, but also prototyping and testing methods. Interviews and participatory observations gave me access to many opinions and feelings about the relationship that people have with technology, particularly during a global pandemic. But also by offering me a daily insight into their lives and this has helped to form the research process critically and constructively. Online observations have opened up the world of research on scenarios that I personally had never persuaded such as the targeted analysis of behavioral mechanisms on social networks such as Instagram or Youtube. However, not all the methods used have necessarily contributed to answering the various research questions. First of all, the survey, which despite having helped me in the formation of different insights, has not been sufficiently useful in comparison with other methods such as cultural probes. In fact, it is through this last that the research had access to more personal preferences of participants and better understand what their needs could be during a delicate moment like that of social distancing. If I would to do this process again then I would probably exclude the typical approach of a survey by focusing more on methods to understand people relationship with objects and technologies per se.

As regards the design and prototyping phase, the prototype has achieved positive results over the project’s time span. The fidelity of the prototype s have obtained interesting results that meet the research needs. In the case of my prototype was beneficial the use of Arduino for sharing the codes and increase the number of interactive system involved and this positively impact the project’s results. However, probably a more accessible method such as a low-fi prototype could have met the research objectives more quickly.As many considerations must be made on the choice of the ritual examined: commensalità. Investigating the rite of commensalità has allowed me to respond positively to research goals but many other rituals have been excluded. If I could redo this project again I would consider other rituals that involve greater use of gestures and mental well-being. Probably integrating this choice with other research objectives such as can be to build a system for reflective design (Ghajargar et al., 2018).

As stated in the theoretical background, the major challenge for this project relied on the “third wave” of social computing which focuses on the integration of social and collaborative digital tools and everyday life. To fulfil this challenge this research investigated the co-experience as a means of enriching people lives with experiences through artefact-mediated activities (Giaccardi et al., 2013).By following the dictates of the experts, I tried to “embrace the fluid social practises of connectivity” by including “live and felt” interactions with the social and material

65

contexts with the aim to socially generated data to produce and share(Giaccardi et. al, 2013, p.4). Therefore, this research intended to contribute to the field of Social Interaction Design by going beyond the mere exchange of a text, namely a shared experience. However, to the best of my knowledge, this research could have had more qualitative results with more time available and less technical limitations. For instance, the pandemic situation and the choice of focusing on social distancing also shaped the projects evidently, therefore considering other scenarios could benefit the research in the field and have different outcomes.

One of the limitations of this project is the number and the socio-demographics of the persons who tested the artefact. Future work should include larger cohorts of participants to analyse if factors like the age of cultural background have an impact on the results. Different cultural patterns might even requiere variations of the interaction’s aesthetics.

While the developed prototype in this project was not part of a connected system and had to be controlled manually, e.g. by turning the Arduino on and off, future work could explore the implementation of such an artefact as an IoT element. This would open further possibilities for analysing its communication with other devices or for considering mechanisms how the artefact might learn over the time by applying artificial intelligence. Incorporating the artefact into a connected system could also facilitate iterations and variations on the software. Without the need of substituting the hardware, users would be able to interact with different versions of the artefact’s coded behaviour which is also beneficial from the sustainability perspective. In other words, trying out different “templates” instead of acquiring a new artefact, provides a sustainable way of developing prototypes or future products further.

66

8. Conclusion

This thesis project explores how interactive technologies can facilitate a sense of social connectedness with others whilst remotely located. The methodological approach of Research through Design shaped the design process and the choice of methodologies.While studying the way humans use rituals for emotional management, I focused my interest on the act of commensality because it is one of the oldest and most important rituals used to foster togetherness among families and groups of friends. Therefore, by exploring the way humans use rituals for emotional management, the focus was on the specific ritual of commensality through a shared syncronized experi-ence. Whilst the protypes tried to replicate real physical interactions in the interaction with a set of interactive technologies, through tactile and light cues. The use of such devices creates a new kind of ritual based on the simultaneous use of the devices by two people and results, thus enabling a new and original form of com-mensality that happens through a shared synchronized experience enabled by interac-tive technolgies. In this thesis project the results advocate for new strategies in design-ing interactive technologies for remote communication. Such strategies include subtle interactions, shared synchronized co-experiences, and light and tactile interactions for the recreation of social connectedness. The process and outcomes contribute to the research in the arena of Interaction Design, Social Interaction Design (SxD), and De-sign for Crisis. They suggest how to design new or alternative forms of communication technologies and interactive systems that foster togetherness as a form of resilience for people in social distancing during Covid-19 pandemic.

67

9. Acknowledgements

To my supervisor Anne Marie Hansen, thank you for your resourceful guidance throughout the all thesis project. To my beloved family members, costant presence that goes beyond the mere distance. A heartfelt thank you goes to Lennart Czienkonskowski, Emanuel Palma Zapata, Benjamin Maus, Valentina Usstinova, Maria Lopez, Marsali Miller, Elizabeth Matkevits, Noppamon Swangwibbonpong, Giulia Annunzi, Tarek Ben Slimane and Alexander Konig.

68

10. References

Bao, Y., Sun, Y., Meng, S., Shi, J., & Lu, L. (2020). 2019-nCoV epidemic: address mental health care to empower society. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30309-3

Battarbee, K. (2003). Defining Co-Experience. Proceedings of the International Con-ference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1145/782920.782923

Baum, N. M., Jacobson, P. D., & Goold, S. D. (2009). The American Journal of Bioethics “Listen to the People”: Public Deliberation About Social Distancing Measures in a Pandemic. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160903197531

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. In Psychological Bulletin (Vol. 117, Issue 3, pp. 497–529).

American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social integra-tion to health: Durkheim in the new millennium p. www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed

Boyer, P., & Liénard, P. (2006). Precaution systems and ritualized behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X06009575

Brave, S., Ishii, H., & Dahley, A. (1998). Tangible Interfaces for Remote Collaboratio-nand Communication.

Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020). The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. The Lancet, 395(10227), 912–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8

Buchenau, M., & Suri, J. F. (2000). Experience Prototyping.

Buxton, W. (2007). Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design.

Morgan Kaufmann. https://proxy.mau.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=210095&site=eds-live

Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., & Boomsma, D. I. (2014). Evolutionary mechanisms for loneliness. COGNITION AND EMOTION, 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.837379

Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Ernst, J. M., Burleson, M., Berntson, G. G., Nouriani, B., Spiegel, D., Frede, J., Palmer, K., & Maxwell, E. (2006). Loneliness within a nomological net: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 1054–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.11.007

Canton, M. (2011). The Presence Table: A Reactive Surface for Ambient Connection. http://www.processing.org

69

Chang, A., Resner, B., Koerner, B., Wang, X. C., & Ishii, H. (2001). LumiTouch: An emotional communication device. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 313–314. https://doi.org/10.1145/634067.634252

Dey, A. K., & De Guzman, E. S. (2006). From Awareness to Connectedness: The Design and Deployment of Presence Displays.

Durkheim, É., Cosman, C. tr, & Cladis, M. S. edt. (1915). The elementary forms of re-ligious life. Oxford University Press. https://proxy.mau.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat05074a&AN=malmo.b1604155&site=eds-live

Ellovich, R. (2011). Participant observation: a guide for fieldworkers. Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, 49(1), 164. http://10.0.22.228/CHOICE.49-0366

Field, T. (2014). Touch. (Second edi). The MIT Press. https://proxy.mau.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=-cat05074a&AN=malmo.b2030474&site=eds-live

Fieldhouse, P. (1995). Food and Nutrition: Customs and Culture. Chapman & Hall.

Fieldhouse, P. (2015). (Still) Eating Together: The Culture of the Family Meal. Transi-tion, 9–13.

Fiese, B. H., Schwartz, M., & Development, S. for R. in C. (2008). Reclaiming the Fami-ly Table: Mealtimes and Child Health and Wellbeing. Social Policy Report. Volume 22, Number 4. In Society for Research in Child Development. Society for Research in Child Development. https://proxy.mau.se/login?url=https://search.ebsco-host.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED521697&site=eds-live

Gaver, W. (2012). What should we expect from research through design? Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 937–946. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208538

Gaver, W., Dunne, A., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural Probes. Interactions, 6, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/291224.291235

Ghajargar, M., Wiberg, M., & Stolterman, E. (2018). Designing IoT Systems that Sup-port Reflective Thinking : International Journal of Design, 12, 21–35.

Giaccardi, E., Ciolfi, L., Hornecker, E., Speed, C., Bardzell, S., Rozendaal, M., Stappers, P. J., & Hekkert, P. (2013). Explorations in Social Interaction Design. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 2013-April, 3259–3262. https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2479661

Grevet, C., Tang, A., & Mynatt, E. (2012). Eating alone, together: New forms of com-mensality. GROUP’12 - Proceedings of the ACM 2012 International Conference on Support Group Work, 103–106. https://doi.org/10.1145/2389176.2389192

Hamilton, S. K., & Wilson, J. H. (2009). Family Mealtimes Worth the Effort? https://doi.org/10.1177/1941406409353188

Haque, J. K. (2016). Synchronized Dining. 1–57.

Hartson, H. R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in inter-action design. Behaviour and Information Technology, 22(5), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290310001592587

70

Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., & Göritz, A. (2010). Needs, affect, and interactive prod-ucts-Facets of user experience. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002

Hassenzahl, M., Eckoldt, K., Diefenbach, S., Laschke, M., Lenz, E., & Kim, J. (2013). Designing moments of meaning and pleasure. Experience design and happiness. International Journal of Design, 7(3), 21–31.

Helander, M. G., Landauer, T. K., & Prabhu, P. V. (1997). Handbook of Human-Com-puter Interaction (Vols. 2nd, compl). North Holland. https://proxy.mau.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nleb-k&AN=249218&site=eds-live

Hertenstein, M. J., Keltner, D., App, B., Bulleit, B. A., & Jaskolka, A. R. (2006). Touch communicates distinct emotions. Emotion, 6(3), 528–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.528

Hobson, N. M., Schroeder, J., Risen, J. L., Xygalatas, D., & Inzlicht, M. (2018). The Psychology of Rituals: An Integrative Review and Process-Based Framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(3), 260–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317734944

Holmquist, L. E. (2019). The future of tangible user interfaces. Interactions, 26(5), 82–85. https://doi.org/10.1145/3352157

Holtzblatt, K., & Beyer, H. (2015). Contextual Design : Design for Life. (2nd ed.). Else-vier Science. https://proxy.mau.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat05074a&AN=malmo.b2118884&site=eds-live

Ideo (2015). the Field-Guide-to-Human-Centered-Design. https://www.ideo.com/post/design-kit

Imber-Black, E. (2020). Rituals in the Time of Covid 19: Imagination, Responsiveness and the Human Spirit. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12581

Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between peo-ple, bits and atoms. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Pro-ceedings, 234–241.

L. Knapp, M., Hall, J. A., & Horgan, T. G. (2013). Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction. http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=4DC4FD0527654DB-CE7225E66021BB28E#

Larson, R. W., Branscomb, K. R., & Wiley, A. R. (2006). Forms and functions of family mealtimes: Multidisciplinary perspectives. New Directions for Child & Adolescent Development, 2006(111), 1. https://proxy.mau.se/login?url=https://search.eb-scohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=20198277&site=eds-live

Leppänen, T., Milara, I. S., Yang, J., Kataja, J., & Riekki, J. (2017). Enabling user-cen-tered interactions in the Internet of Things. 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC 2016 - Conference Proceedings, 1537–1543. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2016.7844457

Light, A., & Akama, Y. (2012). The human touch: Participatory practice and the role of facilitation in designing with communities. ACM International Conference Pro-ceeding Series. https://doi.org/10.1145/2347635.2347645

71

Limcaoco, R. S. G., Mateos, E. M., Fernandez, J. M., & Roncero, C. (2020). Anxiety, worry and perceived stress in the world due to the COVID-19 pandemic, March 2020. Preliminary results. MedRxiv, March, 2020.04.03.20043992. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.03.20043992

Marie Rosa Beuthel, Frederik Gottlieb, R. M. & M. N. S. (2012). Friendl. https://car-gocollective.com/marierosa/friendl

Miller, M. (2020). # AloneTogether–An Exploration of Social Connectedness Through Communication Technology During Physical Distancing.

Martin, B., & Hanington, B. M. (2012). Universal Methods of Design : 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effec-tive Solutions: Vol. Digital ed. Rockport Publishers. https://proxy.mau.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nleb-k&AN=576491&site=eds-live

Morrison, I., Löken, L. S., & Olausson, H. (2010). The skin as a social organ. Experi-mental Brain Research, 204(3), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-2007-y

Ochs, E., & Kremer-Sadlik, T. (2013). Fast-Forward Family : Home, Work, and Rela-tionships in Middle-Class America. University of California Press. https://proxy.mau.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&d-b=nlebk&AN=507371&site=eds-live

Ogawa, H., Ando, N., & Onodera, S. (2005). SmallConnection: Designing of Tangible Communication Media over Networks.

Parekh, J. (2019). WiFi’s evolving role in IoT | Network World. https://www.network-world.com/article/3196191/wifi-s-evolving-role-in-iot.html

Paterson, M. (2006). Feel the Presence: Technologies of Touch and Distance. En-vironment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24(5), 691–708. https://doi.org/10.1068/d394t

Paules, C. I., Marston, H. D., & Fauci, A. S. (2020). Coronavirus Infections-More Than Just the Common Cold. In JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association (Vol. 323, Issue 8, pp. 707–708). American Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.0757

Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. aut. (2012). Convivial toolbox : generative research for the front end of design / Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. BIS Publishers. https://proxy.mau.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat05074a&AN=malmo.b1820397&site=eds-live

Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: Three ap-proaches to making in codesigning. In CoDesign (Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 5–14). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.888183

Sanders, L. (2001). Collective creativity, LOOP: AIGA. J Interact Des Educ (August, Number 3).

Snyder, M., Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2007). Your Dinner’s Calling: Supporting Family Dinnertime Activities. http://maxils.comhttp//www.hcii.cmu.edu

72

Spithoven, A. W. M., Bijttebier, P., & Goossens, L. (2017). It is all in their mind: A review on information processing bias in lonely individuals. In Clinical Psychology Re-view (Vol. 58, pp. 97–114). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.10.003

Stankovic, J. A. (2014). Research directions for the internet of things. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 1(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2014.2312291

Sun, J., Harris, K., & Vazire, S. (2019). Is well-being associated with the quantity and quality of social interactions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, No Pagination Specified-No Pagination Specified. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000272

Szatrowski, P. E. (2014). Language and Food : Verbal and Nonverbal Experiences (Is-sue volume 238). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://proxy.mau.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nleb-k&AN=673088&site=eds-live

Wallace, J., McCarthy, J., Wright, P. C., & Olivier, P. (2013). Making design probes work. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 3441–3450.

https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466473

Wang, R., & Quek, F. (2010). Touch & Talk: Contextualizing Remote Touch for Affec-tive Interaction.

Wei, H., Giaccardi, E., & Sonneveld, M. (2013). Exploring design opportunities for social intimacy through everyday objects and practices. UbiComp 2013 Adjunct - Adjunct Publication of the 2013 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, 1401–1404. https://doi.org/10.1145/2494091.2497365

Wei, J., Wang, X., Peiris, R. L., Choi, Y., Martinez, X. R., Tache, R., Koh, J. T. K. V., Ha-lupka, V., & Cheok, A. D. (2011). CoDine: An interactive multi-sensory system for remote dining. UbiComp’11 - Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Conference on Ubiqui-tous Computing. https://doi.org/10.1145/2030112.2030116

Wisneski, C., Ishii, H., Dahley, A., Gorbet, M., Brave, S., Ullmer, B., & Yarin, P. (1998). Ambient displays: Turning architectural space into an interface between people and digital information. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 1370, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-69706-3_4

World Health Organization. (2020a). Mental Health and Psychosocial Considerations During COVID-19 Outbreak. World Health Organization.

World Health Organization. (2020b). Mental Health and Psychosocial Considerations During COVID-19 Outbreak. World Health Organization, January, 1–6.

Wright, R. (2020a). Finding Connection and Resilience During the Coronavirus Pan-demic. New York Times. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/coping-camaraderie-and-human-evolution-amid-the-coronavirus-crisis?itm_con-tent=footer-recirc

Wright, R. (2020b). How Loneliness from Coronavirus Isolation Takes Its Toll. New York Times. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-loneli-ness-from-coronavirus-isolation-takes-its-own-toll

Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). An analysis and critique of re-search through design: Towards a formalization of a research approach. DIS 2010 - Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1145/1858171.1858228

73

11. Appendix11/28/2020 Your interaction during the pandemic

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1V0eE90iHWizoBb0kI3BMkLnDw_ZaEKcGwMJfy9fV4-M/edit 1/16

Your interaction during the pandemic

Information

Project title and description

Designing in and for a pandemic crisis - how can interactive technologies build new interactive rituals with people in a social distancing society?

This is a research on the interactions of people socially isolated due to quarantine factors and/or using social distancing during the COVID-19 outbreak.

This project aims to explore daily rituals and interactions in relation to their psychological factors affecting people in quarantine isolation and/or using social distancing throughout the outbreak of the CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19 / SARS-COV-2). In order to do so, we are collecting data by means of a survey about your current situation.

The current survey, part of a thesis project, is proposed by a student from the Interaction Design Master at Malmö University, Sweden.

Study manager: Valeria Iezzi

Data processing and data sharingThis research does not use sensitive data according to the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). As we will not inquire about sensitive data or data which allows for your recognition, the data can be considered to be anonymous. We will inquire, however, about some personal information such as gender, age, country of residence. This data will be used for analysing the characteristics of the population and how these characteristics influence human interactions, relationships and feelings during social isolation and distancing due to pandemic restrictions.

The data might be shared with other research groups and universities in a totally anonymous way. The results of the research will be publicly shared by means of articles, conferences, or other media.

ConfidentialityAs we will not inquire about sensitive data or data which allows your recognition, the data can be considered to be anonymous.

QueriesIn case you have any questions about the research or how we use your data, you can contact Valeria Iezzi via email at iezzi.valeria@outlook.com

Your interaction during the pandemicExploratory study on the interaction of people socially isolated due to social distancing and quarantine factors during the COVID-19 pandemic*Required

1. survey

74

11/28/2020 Your interaction during the pandemic

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1V0eE90iHWizoBb0kI3BMkLnDw_ZaEKcGwMJfy9fV4-M/edit 2/16

1.

Mark only one oval.

I agree

Consent form

2.

Mark only one oval.

I agree

3.

Mark only one oval.

I agree

Sociodemographic data

4.

Mark only one oval.

Other:

Female

Male

Prefer not to say

5.

I confirm that I have read and understood the information presented to me in thisdocument. I have had the opportunity to consider the information, ask questionsand have had these answered satisfactorily *

I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdrawfrom it without giving any reason *

By accepting this consent form, I confirm that I have read and agreed to theterms and conditions for the current research and to explore social interactionsamong people socially isolated due to quarantine and/or social distancing factorsduring the COVID-19 outbreak. *

Gender *

Age *

75

11/28/2020 Your interaction during the pandemic

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1V0eE90iHWizoBb0kI3BMkLnDw_ZaEKcGwMJfy9fV4-M/edit 3/16

6.

Your dailyinteractions...

Think about all the interactions you had today (including interactions with people outside your home)

7.

Mark only one oval.

Yes

No

8.

Interactions since the isolation period,quarantine and/or social distancing,started...

Think about one person you had an interaction today that you found significant

9.

Mark only one oval.

Other:

Family member

Friend

Acquaintance

Colleague

In which country are you experiencing the pandemic? *

Have you met anyone in person today? *

How many people did you meet? *If you had not have any interactions today, recall the last day that you had interactions with, at least, oneperson

Who was the person you met? *

76

11/28/2020 Your interaction during the pandemic

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1V0eE90iHWizoBb0kI3BMkLnDw_ZaEKcGwMJfy9fV4-M/edit 4/16

10.

Mark only one oval.

Other:

At home

At the supermarket

On the street

Workplace

Reflecting on what happenedwhen you met this person...

Recall your memories about the interaction (said hi, shook hands, hugged, tapped on the shoulder, etc.) and answer the following questions

11.

Mark only one oval.

Less than 1 m

Between 1 and 2 m

2 m or more

12.

Mark only one oval.

I did not and did not want to hug

I wanted to but did not hug

I wanted to and hugged with worry

I wanted to and hugged without worry

13.

Where did you meet this person? *

How much distance did you keep when you greeted this person? *

Did you greet this person with a hug? *

Did you greet this person in a different way? *Briefly describe how you greeted this person

77

11/28/2020 Your interaction during the pandemic

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1V0eE90iHWizoBb0kI3BMkLnDw_ZaEKcGwMJfy9fV4-M/edit 5/16

14.

Mark only one oval.

Less than 1 m

Between 1 and 2 m

2 m or more

Did not spend time together after greeting

Interactions BEFORE the isolationperiod, quarantine and/or socialdistancing, started...

Think about the same person and how would you normally interact with him/her, but did not because of the pandemic

15.

Mark only one oval.

Less than 1 m

Between 1 and 2 m

2 m or more

16.

Mark only one oval.

Less than 1 m

Between 1 and 2 m

2 m or more

Would not spend time together after greeting

17.

Mark only one oval.

Yes

No

How much distance did you keep after the greeting? *

Before the pandemic, how much distance would you normally keep from thisperson? *

How much distance would you normally keep when you spent time together? *

Before the pandemic, would you normally greet this person with a hug? *

78

11/28/2020 Your interaction during the pandemic

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1V0eE90iHWizoBb0kI3BMkLnDw_ZaEKcGwMJfy9fV4-M/edit 6/16

18.

Observations on theexperience...

Reflect on the interaction experience in the context of the pandemic

19.

20.

21.

Tick all that apply.

Not scared at all about touching

A bit scared of being touched

A bit scared to touch

Lonely and needed a physical contact

I do not touch this person normally

How else would you greet this person? *Briefly describe it

How did make you feel the way you greeted this person? *Briefly describe it

How did make you feel the way you interacted with this person? *Briefly describe it

How did you feel about the possibility of physical contact with this persontoday? *(you can select multiple answers)

79

11/28/2020 Your interaction during the pandemic

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1V0eE90iHWizoBb0kI3BMkLnDw_ZaEKcGwMJfy9fV4-M/edit 7/16

22.

Mark only one oval.

Yes

No

Coping with socialrestrictions...

Think about changes that are affecting your everyday life and answer the following questions

23.

Other:

Tick all that apply.

Yes, I wave my hands from a distance

Yes, I imitate a hug from a distance

Yes, I smile more to let them know that I care about their presence

Yes, I justify myself for not giving a proper greeting

No, actually I would like to find alternatives

No, nothing changed. I interact with them like I normally do

24.

Other:

Tick all that apply.

I miss a proper physical contact

I miss talking and listening to people while close to them

I miss being closer to people

I don't miss anything

Think about how you would normally interact with people. Since the pandemicstarted, have you felt any changes? *

Did you try to find any new ways to interact with people? *For example at the supermarket, on the street, on a bench, at the pharmacy, etc. (you can select multipleanswers)

What do you miss the most from the way you usually interacted with people? *(you can choose multiple answers)

80

11/28/2020 Your interaction during the pandemic

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1V0eE90iHWizoBb0kI3BMkLnDw_ZaEKcGwMJfy9fV4-M/edit 8/16

25.

Mark only one oval.

not at all

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

it's helping me a lot

26.

Mark only one oval.

Other:

Yes

No

27.

Mark only one oval.

Other:

Something that could help me respect better the recommendations

Something that could mitigate the lack of proper physical contact

Both

Information

On a scale of 1 to 10, how have online interactions (social media, video calls,chats) helped you in this situation? *

Think about the possibility to have a tool that could enhance your interactiononline or/and in real person with people. Would you like to try said tool? *

Ultimately, would you prefer a tool that helps you respect the recommendationsand guidelines set for the pandemic or one that alleviates the lack of properphysical contact? *

81

Project title: Designing in and for a pandemic crisis - how can interactive technologies build new interactive rituals with people in a social distancing society.

Date: 20.04.2020

Study manager/s: (Student/s) Valeria Iezzi Your e-mail: iezzi.valeria.iezzi@gmail.com

Studying at Malmö University, Faculty of Health and Society, S-205 06 Malmö, Phone +46 40 665 70 00 Education and level: Interaction design Master Level

Project title and description Designing in and for a pandemic crisis - how can interactive technologies build new interactive rituals with people in a social distancing society. This is a research on the interactions of people socially isolated due to quarantine factors and/or using social distancing during the COVID-19 outbreak. This project aims to explore daily rituals and interactions in relation to their psychological factors affecting people in quarantine isolation and/or using social distancing throughout the outbreak of the CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19 / SARS-COV-2). In order to do so, we are collecting data by means of a digital diary and a photo collection, a survey, interviews and user test of a interactive prototype. The current thesis project is proposed by a student from the Interaction Design Master at Malmö University, Sweden. Study manager: Valeria Iezzi Data processing and data sharing This research does not use sensitive data according to the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). As we will not inquire about sensitive data or data which allows for your recognition, the data can be considered to be anonymous. We will inquire, however, about some personal information such as gender, age, country of residence. This data will be used for analysing the characteristics of the population and how these characteristics influence human interactions, relationships and feelings during social isolation and distancing due to pandemic restrictions. The data might be shared with other research groups and universities in a totally anonymous way. The results of the research will be publicly shared by means of articles, conferences, or other media. Confidentiality As we will not inquire about sensitive data or data which allows your recognition, the data can be considered to be anonymous. Queries In case you have any questions about the research or how we use your data, you can contact Valeria Iezzi via email at iezzi.valeria@outlook.com Hereby, are you willing to participate in this study?

Information letter Appendix 1

2. information letter and consent

82

Informed consent Appendix 2 Project title: Designing in and for a pandemic crisis - how can interactive technologies build new interactive rituals with people in a social distancing society.

Date: 20.04.2020

Study manager/s: (Student/s) Valeria Iezzi Your e-mail: iezzi.valeria.iezzi@gmail.com

Studying at Malmö University, Faculty of Health and Society, S-205 06 Malmö Phone +46 40 665 70 00 Education and level: Interaction design Master Level

I have been verbally informed about the study and read the accompanying written information. I am aware that my participation is voluntary and that I, at any time and without explanation, can withdraw my participation. By accepting this consent form, I confirm that I have read and agreed to the terms and conditions for the current research and to explore social interactions among people socially isolated due to quarantine and/or social distancing factors during the COVID-19 outbreak. Survey Interviews Cultural Probes digitally delivered: Diary and Camera Roll Prototype testing I hereby submit my consent to participate in: Date: …………………………………………………………………………….. Participant’s signature: …………………………………………………………

2 0 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 0

83

  

 

My interaction diary During the pandemic  

 

 

Ciao! :) 

Day #1, 2020   

Think about all the interactions you had today, including interactions online and                       

in-person. 

Recall all the persons you had interaction today that you found significant.  

For each of them, create your diary of interaction! 

 

 

 

Person #1:  

Name the shared interaction: massage 

 Where and why did you meet this person? 

 

What happened when you met this person today? 

We met each other at my dormitory, we stayed in the same dormitory just on a                               different floor. We met each other because we wanted to talk to each other and I                               wanted her to massage me. 

We talked to each other and she massage me. 

3. Interaction diary in cultural probes

84

 

Did you share any item/moment/experience with this person? 

 

 

Observations on the experience. Reflect on the interaction experience in the                     

context of the pandemic and social distancing. 

 

How did you feel the way you interacted with this person? 

 

 How did you feel about the possibility of having or not physical contact with this person? If it was online, how did you feel about the lack of physical contact? 

 

 How did the experience change your day? Describe the flux of feelings 

 

 

Did you do something out of the ordinary in the way you interact with this person?  What did you do?  

 

    

 

Yes, (Well, your question is yes/no question but I want to tell you more) we shared                               our study tools, such as some articles or experience, for helping each other expand the                             knowledge in our study. 

I felt normal because we had interactions normally but I was a bit worried,                           honestly, because I felt a bit sick. I a bit afraid that I could spread the sickness to her                                     somehow. 

Because today she massage me, of course, I will feel so sad if we don’t be able to have a                                         physical contact, also she’s my best friend so I want to hug her especially when i’m                               tired. 

Today I was so tired, especially mentally tired. When I met her and spent time                             together I felt like my mental and physical got fully charged again. 

No, I didn’t.  

85

  

Day #2, 2020  

 

Think about all the interactions you had today, including interactions online and                       

in-person. 

Recall all the persons you had interaction today that you found significant.  

For each of them, create your diary of interaction! 

(You are free to write either in English or Italian)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Person #1:  

Name the shared interaction: 

 Where and why did you meet this person? 

 

What happened when you met this person today? 

 

Did you share any item/moment/experience with this person? 

 

 

Observations on the experience. Reflect on the interaction experience in the                     

context of the pandemic and social distancing. 

 

How did you feel the way you interacted with this person? 

6.15 am. in my kitchen, we eat breakfast together. She woke me up by phone called                               and came up to eat breakfast with me to make sure that I was ready to prepare myself                                   for seminar at 11.00 today. 

We had breakfast together. 

Yes, we ate breakfast together, we shared the buns. 

86

 How did you feel about the possibility of having or not physical contact with this person? If it was online, how did you feel about the lack of physical contact? 

 How did the experience change your day? Describe the flux of feelings 

 

Did you do something out of the ordinary in the way you interact with this person?  What did you do?  

   

  

Day #5, 2020  

 

Think about all the interactions you had today, including interactions online and                       

in-person. 

Recall all the persons you had interaction today that you found significant.  

For each of them, create your diary of interaction! 

(You are free to write either in English or Italian)  

 

 

Person #1:  

Name the shared interaction: 

 Where and why did you meet this person? 

I felt comfortable and calm. 

I will feel so sad if we don’t be able to have a physical contact. She’s my best friend so I                                         want to hug her especially when i’m tired. 

 

It made me ready for seminar in the morning, otherwise, I would too tired to do so. 

No, I didn’t. 

87

 

What happened when you met this person today? 

 

 

Did you share any item/moment/experience with this person? 

 

 

Observations on the experience. Reflect on the interaction experience in the                     

context of the pandemic and social distancing. 

 

 

How did you feel the way you interacted with this person? 

  

How did you feel about the possibility of having or not physical contact with this person? If it was online, how did you feel about the lack of physical contact? 

 

 How did the experience change your day? Describe the flux of feelings 

At the 1st floor of my dormitory, we had dinner together. 

We had dinner together. 

Yes, we shared food. 

It’s normal, we did what we usually do. 

Well, I only like to shared food with him. We don’t usually touch each other but if                                 we also cannot meet each other I would miss his cooking sometime. 

It did not change my day. 

88

My interaction diaryDuring the pandemic

Ciao! :)

Day #1, - 2020

Think about all the interactions you had today, including interactions online and

in-person.

Recall all the persons you had interaction today that you found significant.

For each of them, create your diary of interaction!

Person #1:

Name the shared interaction: Carlo Alberto

Where and why did you meet this person?

What happened when you met this person today?

I met Carlo at home, we live together these weeks.

89

Did you share any item/moment/experience with this person? Expand on this

We share a playful moment. We played the game “guess the salary of these jobs titles”.The game consists of owning a beer, a package of chips to share and a lot of creativity.In turn one person between the two appoints a trade and both try to locate the salary; itproceeds with the verification on the Internet and the activity continues until one of thetwo guesses the exact figure. Neither of us made it in about an hour.

Observations on the experience. Reflect on the interaction experience in the

context of the pandemic and social distancing.

How did you feel the way you interacted with this person?

I feel very happy to be with a person that I love. We can not meet anyone else.

How did you feel about the possibility of having or not physical contact with thisperson? If it was online, how did you feel about the lack of physical contact?

-

How did the experience change your day? Describe the flux of feelings

I felt calm and relaxed because, that activity let me felt less stressed.

Did you do something out of the ordinary in the way you interact with this person?What did you do?

We played.

90

Interviews – Prototype user testing.

Participants B

V How was the experience with the prototype? How do you feel to have a shared experience mediated by technology? Considering the current situation where you are in.

B If you have a person at a distance with whom you want to share a moment like a meal it is intriguing the possibility to have a tool like this. The feedback is not overwhelming, like could be in a call, which asks you to be fully in control and aware. Since the signal is of a light fashion can feel a subtle feeling of presence. This allows me to think that I would use this for a long time. It is quite nice to feel that someone is sharing a moment with you on the other side, even in a regular basis, in light way.

V What do you think about communicating with others through the affection of other person atmosphere through gestures and touch but also though light cues? How do you perceive the immediacy of the feedback in affecting your surroundings?

B It is an instant pleasure to know that the other person is there, responding to you. The in the moment aspect is important and even though it could be compared with other communication devices it is not always granted the response. Here you need to be present. I like the fact that the meaning of the system is to keep you connected in the moment, otherwise I can just send the other person a message and he/she can read it whenever even the day after. The items require the persons to be there at the same time, responsive but not overwhelming. But, as a possible alternative, the persons can record the shared moment and watch it again through the light lamps whenever they want as a personal recording of the experience, a souvenir. This could be an alternative to the immediacy for example.

Participant A

V How was the experience with the prototype? How do you feel to have a shared experience mediated by technology?

A I liked the experience enabled by the device, which was also quite simple to understand and try. The fact that you can connect in a different way is something that amaze me, and I would like to experience, it is a different way to feel connected. It is interesting the communication through colour change; it immediately communicates you a mood or an emotional state. This reminds me that presence can have different forms and this light and strokes are part of these. For those moments when you think of the other person it could be that the other person is thinking about you as well and through this device that could be nice. I wonder how would it be when you are in different time zones, how could you match? Maybe one person is having lunch and the other dinner. The fact of being at a distance and this should be also taken into consideration. But for now, in general I really like this idea and the immediate feedback adds more value to the experience”.

4. User testing notes

91

V What do you think about communicating with others through the affection of other person atmosphere through gestures and touch but also though light cues? How do you perceive the immediacy of the feedback in affecting your surroundings?

A I never tried to communicate in a different way when I am at a distance, based on the technologies that I have available now. I think that affecting the other person environment through light is a strong but at the same time soft message to send. Thinking about the strokes and gestures, I feel that it is nice to communicate because I feel in control of my actions and able to physically react and communicate. Being able to affect the other person atmosphere adds value to the overall experience. At times I do not want to talk and would love a soft communication. I like to share a moment with a person that I care of, tenderly.

V Did you perceive any difference in the colour of the light? Which type of feeling did it suggest?

A “I could perceive the colour change and it gave me the idea of warmth when it was turning to the yellow tone and, cold when was becoming blue. The interaction with the device invites you somehow to interpret the colour shades and gives you the possibility to guess what the other person is doing through colour shade, I found it interesting and new.”

Participant C

V How does it feel to share a synchronic experience? Regarding sharing a moment of commensality, what do you think of enacting a ritual through the means of technologies?

C I think that sharing a synchronized moment let you feel more the other person presence. It seems we are caring about the same item by using it mutually. It seems you are socially connected while interacting with the system. While you are enacting a ritual like eating with someone else you feel part of something, a group. This what makes it meaningful. Technology can be therefore a valid support by being a medium in this case.

Participant D

V How does it feel to share a synchronic experience? Regarding sharing a moment of commensality, what do you think of enacting a ritual through the means of technologies?

D “I feel that this ritual is giving me simple instructions to follow to be in contact with the other person, while interpreting the system”.