Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding movement for interaction design: frameworks and approaches

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The results of a study of two computer games, that use human movement as direct input, were analysed using four existing frameworks and approaches, drawn from different disciplines that relate to interaction and movement. This enabled the exploration of the relationships between bodily actions and the corresponding responses from technology. Interaction analysis, two design frameworks and Laban movement analysis were chosen for their ability to provide different perspectives on human movement in interaction design. Each framework and approach provided a different, yet still useful, perspective to inform the design of movement-based interaction. Each allowed us to examine the interaction between the player and the game technology in quite distinctive ways. Each contributed insights that the others did not.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Merleau-Ponty M (1962) Phenomenology of perception. Trans. Smith C. Routledge, London

  2. Sony (2003) Playstation2® and Eyetoy™, hardware and computer program, London

  3. Suchman L (1987) Plans and situated action: the problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  4. Benford S, Schnädelbach H, Koleva B, Anastasi R, Greenhalgh C, Rodden T, Green J, Ghali A, Pridmore T, Gaver B, Boucher A, Walker B, Pennington S, Schmidt A, Gellersen H, Steed A (2005) Expected, sensed, and desired: a framework for designing sensing-based interaction. ACM Trans Comput–Hum Interact 12(1):3–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bellotti V, Back M, Edwards WK, Grinter RE, Henderson A, Lopes C (2002) Making sense of sensing systems: five questions for designers and researchers CHI 2002. ACM Press, Minneapolis, pp 415–422

    Google Scholar 

  6. Laban R (1980) The mastery of movement. 3rd edn revised by Lisa Ullmann. Play Inc, Boston

  7. Robertson T (1997) Cooperative work and lived cognition. a taxonomy of embodied actions. In: Proceedings of E-CSCW’97, pp 205–220

  8. Robertson T (2002) The public availability of actions and artefacts. Comput Support Coop Work 11:299–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dourish P (2001) where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  10. Svanæs D (2001) Context-aware technology: a phenomenological perspective. HCI J, special issue on context-aware computing, pp 379–400

  11. Hornecker E (2005) A design theme for tangible interaction: embodied facilitation. In: Proceedings of the 9th European conference on computer supported cooperative work, Paris September 18–22 2005

  12. Badler NI, Smoliar SW (1979) Digital representations of human movement. ACM CSUR 11(1):19–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gavrila DM (1997) The visual analysis of human movement: a survey. Comput Vis Image Underst 73(1):82–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Aggarwal JK, Cai Q (1999) Human motion analysis: a review. Comput Vis Image Underst 73(3):428–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pinhanez C (1999) Representation and recognition of action in interactive spaces. Doctoral dissertation, Media Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

  16. Rogers Y, Muller H (2003) Stop making sense: designing sensor-based interactions to facilitate exploration and reflection. Technical Report Equator-03-002, Equator

  17. Camurri A, Hashimoto S, Ricchetti M, Trocca R, Suzuki K, Volpe G (2000) Eyesweb—toward gesture and affect recognition. in interactive dance and music systems. Comput Music J 24(1):57–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chi D, Costa M, Zhao L, Badler N (2000) The Emote Model for Effort and Shape. In: Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 2000, pp 173–182

  19. Schiphorst T, Lovell R, Jaffe N (2002) Using a gestural interface toolkit for tactile input to a dynamic virtual space. In: CHI ‘02 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 754–755

  20. Fagerberg P, Ståhl A, Höök K (2003) Designing gestures for affective input: an analysis of shape, effort and valence. In: 2nd International conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia, Norrköping

  21. Neagle RJ, Ng K, Ruddle RA (2003) Studying the fidelity for a virtual ballet dancer. In: Hall P, Willis P (eds) Video, vision, graphics, The Eurographics Association

  22. Brereton M, Bidwell N, Donovan J, Campbell B, Buur J (2003) Work at hand: an exploration of gesture in the context of work and everyday life to inform the design of gestural input devices. In: Proceedings of 4th Australian user interface conference on user interfaces, 18 2003, Adelaide

  23. Buur J, Jensen MV, Djajadiningrat T (2004) Hands-only scenarios and video action walls: novel methods for tangible user interaction design. In: Proceedings of 2004 conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM Press, New York, pp 185–192

  24. Larssen AT, Loke L, Robertson T, Edwards J (2004) Understanding movement as input for interaction—a study of two eyetoy™ games. In: Proceedings of OZCHI 2004, Wollongong

  25. Hutchinson A (1977) Labanotation or kinetography laban: the system of analyzing and recording movement. Theatre Arts Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Buxton W (1986) There’s more to interaction than meets the eye: some issues in manual input. In: Borman DA, Draper SW (eds) user centered system design: new perspectives on human computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 319–337

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jacob RJK, Sibert LE, McFarlane DC, Mullen MPJ (1994) Integrality and Separability of Input Devices. ACM Trans Comput–Hum Interact 1(1):3–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bartenieff I, Lewis D (1980) Body movement: coping with the environment. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. Newlove J (1993) Laban for actors and dancers: putting laban’s movement theory into practice: a step-by-step guide. Routledge Nick Hern Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. Loke L, Larssen AT, Robertson T (2005) Labanotation for design of movement-based interaction. In: Proceedings of IE’05 interactive entertainment, Sydney

  31. Merleau-Ponty M (1969) The visible and the invisible. Trans. Lingis A. Northwestern University Press, Evanston

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

    Lian Loke, Astrid T. Larssen, Toni Robertson & Jenny Edwards

Authors
  1. Lian Loke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Astrid T. Larssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Toni Robertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jenny Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Astrid T. Larssen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Loke, L., Larssen, A.T., Robertson, T. et al. Understanding movement for interaction design: frameworks and approaches. Pers Ubiquit Comput 11, 691–701 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-006-0132-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-006-0132-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation