skip to main content
10.1145/3270316.3270600acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageschi-playConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Understanding the Design of Playful Experiences Around Ingestible Sensors

Published:23 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

The advancement of sensor technology has provided new opportunities for bodily play and consequently enriched our bodily experiences. The emergence of ingestible sensors supports capturing the user's body data continuously. The intimacy between ingestible sensors and human body also shapes our bodily experiences. My research focuses on utilizing ingestible sensors to facilitate playful and engaging experiences in HCI using a Research through Design approach. This will lead to the development of ingestible interfaces, which allow the creation of novel and playful experiences. My work so far has explored the playful experiences that can be designed without crafting the relationships between the user's body and ingestible sensors. This research will contribute to the understanding of how to design playful experiences around ingestible sensors and ultimately inspire designers to create a wider range of future play experiences.

References

  1. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Lisa Brolin. 2017. Designing for Body Awareness - A Study on Enabling Body Awareness in Mindfulness Through Wearable Haptic Thermal Technology. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Alan Bryman, Bob Burgess, and others. 2002. Analyzing qualitative data. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. C. Mc Caffrey, O. Chevalerias, C. O'Mathuna, and K. Twomey. 2008. Swallowable-Capsule Technology. IEEE Pervasive Computing 7, 1 (Jan 2008), 23--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Robert Cercos and Florian 'Floyd' Mueller. 2013. Watch Your Steps: Designing a Semi-public Display to Promote Physical Activity. In Proceedings of The 9th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment: Matters of Life and Death (IE '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 2, 6 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. John W Creswell and J David Creswell. 2017. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Venere Ferraro and Secil Ugur. 2011. Designing Wearable Technologies Through a User Centered Approach. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (DPPI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 5, 8 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Sarah Homewood. 2016. Maintaining Relationships With Our Devices. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 273--276. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Kristina Höök, Martin P. Jonsson, Anna Ståhl, and Johanna Mercurio. 2016. Somaesthetic Appreciation Design. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3131--3142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kourosh Kalantar-zadeh, Nam Ha, Jian Zhen Ou, and Kyle J. Berean. 2017. Ingestible Sensors. ACS Sensors 2, 4 (2017), 468--483.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Rohit Ashok Khot, Jeewon Lee, Deepti Aggarwal, Larissa Hjorth, and Florian 'Floyd' Mueller. 2015. TastyBeats: Designing Palatable Representations of Physical Activity. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2933--2942. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. George Poonkhin Khut. 2006. Development and Evaluation of Participant-Centred Biofeedback Artworks. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Western Sydney.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Ilpo Koskinen, John Zimmerman, Thomas Binder, Johan Redstrom, and Stephan Wensveen. 2011. Design research through practice: From the lab, field, and showroom. Elsevier. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Madelene Lindström, Anna Ståhl, Kristina Höök, Petra Sundström, Jarmo Laaksolathi, Marco Combetto, Alex Taylor, and Roberto Bresin. 2006. Affective Diary: Designing for Bodily Expressiveness and Self-reflection. In CHI '06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1037--1042. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Andrés Lucero, Evangelos Karapanos, Juha Arrasvuori, and Hannu Korhonen. 2014. Playful or Gameful?: Creating Delightful User Experiences. interactions 21, 3 (May 2014), 34--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. John McCarthy and Peter Wright. 2004. Technology As Experience. interactions 11, 5 (Sept. 2004), 42--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Claudia Nunez-Pacheco and Lian Loke. 2014. Crafting the Body-tool: A Body-centred Perspective on Wearable Technology. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 553--566. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Rakesh Patibanda, Florian 'Floyd' Mueller, Matevz Leskovsek, and Jonathan Duckworth. 2017. Life Tree: Understanding the Design of Breathing Exercise Games. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 19--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Ayoung Suh, Ruohan Li, and Lili Liu. 2016. The Use of Wearable Technologies and Body Awareness: A Body--Tool Relationship Perspective. In HCI International 2016 -- Posters' Extended Abstracts, Constantine Stephanidis (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 388--392.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Kevin Warwick. 2003. Cyborg morals, cyborg values, cyborg ethics. Ethics and Information Technology 5, 3 (01 Sep 2003), 131--137. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. John Zimmerman and Jodi Forlizzi. 2008. The role of design artifacts in design theory construction. Artifact: Journal of Design Practice 2, 1 (2008), 41--45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research Through Design As a Method for Interaction Design Research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 493--502. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Understanding the Design of Playful Experiences Around Ingestible Sensors

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI PLAY '18 Extended Abstracts: Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts
        October 2018
        725 pages
        ISBN:9781450359689
        DOI:10.1145/3270316
        • General Chairs:
        • Florian 'Floyd' Mueller,
        • Daniel Johnson,
        • Ben Schouten,
        • Program Chairs:
        • Phoebe O. Toups Dugas,
        • Peta Wyeth

        Copyright © 2018 Owner/Author

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 23 October 2018

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • abstract

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI PLAY '18 Extended Abstracts Paper Acceptance Rate43of123submissions,35%Overall Acceptance Rate421of1,386submissions,30%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)5
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader