Abstract
Unlike in other fields of design, interface and interaction designers rarely relate an understanding of material to the process and outcome of their work. Their practice seems to be to engage with information rather than material. However, a different perspective has been brought into focus recently: Researchers have started to investigate the material dimension of digital data from a theoretical angle, while new developments in the field of wearables, e-textiles and smart materials focus on the material side of interaction. However, when discussing these approaches, it is still difficult to establish what kind of understanding of material should be applied. As a contribution to this field of research, we highlight problematic aspects of a dichotomous perspective on the relationship between material and information in relation to computational things. We introduce Ingold’s processual understanding of material, which evolves around the critique of this specific dichotomy. Then, Ingold’s understanding is discussed in comparison with exemplary approaches from design, digital humanities and computer science. Through this comparison unresolved aspects of the implied material-information relationship become apparent. In the second half of the paper an exploratory method based on material samples and performative observation has been chosen to investigate this relationship further. As a result, three categories are drafted that are understood as a basis of a processual understanding of material in interaction and interface design. In the overall context of the conference, this contribution adds a perspective to designing with materials by exploring a processual understanding of material in relation to information.
Keywords
understanding of material; material-information dichotomy; processual understanding; Tim Ingold; interactive surfaces
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/eksig2017.102
Citation
Rzezonka, A.,and Hemmert, F.(2017) Interlacing Surfaces: Relating Tim Ingold’s Understanding of Material with Material in Interface and Interaction Design, in Elvin Karana, Elisa Giaccardi, Nithikul Nimkulrat, Kristina Niedderer, Serena Camere (eds.), Alive. Active. Adaptive. International Conference on Experiential Knowledge and Emerging Materials, 19-20 June 2017, Delft and Rotterdam, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.21606/eksig2017.102
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Interlacing Surfaces: Relating Tim Ingold’s Understanding of Material with Material in Interface and Interaction Design
Unlike in other fields of design, interface and interaction designers rarely relate an understanding of material to the process and outcome of their work. Their practice seems to be to engage with information rather than material. However, a different perspective has been brought into focus recently: Researchers have started to investigate the material dimension of digital data from a theoretical angle, while new developments in the field of wearables, e-textiles and smart materials focus on the material side of interaction. However, when discussing these approaches, it is still difficult to establish what kind of understanding of material should be applied. As a contribution to this field of research, we highlight problematic aspects of a dichotomous perspective on the relationship between material and information in relation to computational things. We introduce Ingold’s processual understanding of material, which evolves around the critique of this specific dichotomy. Then, Ingold’s understanding is discussed in comparison with exemplary approaches from design, digital humanities and computer science. Through this comparison unresolved aspects of the implied material-information relationship become apparent. In the second half of the paper an exploratory method based on material samples and performative observation has been chosen to investigate this relationship further. As a result, three categories are drafted that are understood as a basis of a processual understanding of material in interaction and interface design. In the overall context of the conference, this contribution adds a perspective to designing with materials by exploring a processual understanding of material in relation to information.