skip to main content
10.1145/3374920.3375009acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesteiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

SWAN: Designing a Companion Spoon for Mindful Eating

Published:09 February 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this pictorial, we unfold and reflect on the design process behind the creation of a research product - SWAN. SWAN is an augmented spoon that encourages people to pay more attention to their food and urges them to eat mindfully. With SWAN, our aim is to address the increasing tensions between the lucrative appeal of screen-based media and ideologies of mindful eating. We present a descriptive account on how we brought SWAN into being. In attending to key design decisions across our design process, we unveil ideas and challenges in creating a domestic research product to support everyday mindful eating.

References

  1. James Auger. 2013. Speculative design: crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity 24, 1: 11--35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.767276Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Amanda Avery, Catherine Anderson, and Fiona McCullough. 2017. Associations between children's diet quality and watching television during meal or snack consumption: A systematic review. Maternal & child nutrition 13, 4. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12428Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Pollie Barden, Rob Comber, David Green, Daniel Jackson, Cassim Ladha, Tom Bartindale, Nick Bryan-Kinns, Tony Stockman, and Patrick Olivier. 2012. Telematic Dinner Party: Designing for Togetherness Through Play and Performance. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '12), 38--47. https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2317964Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Andy Boucher. 2016. The Form Design of the Datacatcher: A Research Prototype. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '16), 595--606. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901907Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ying-Yu Chen, Ziyue Li, Daniela Rosner, and Alexis Hiniker. 2019. Understanding Parents' Perspectives on Mealtime Technology. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 3, 1: 5:1--5:19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3314392Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Peter Dalsgaard and Kim Halskov. 2012. Reflective Design Documentation. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '12), 428--437. https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318020Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Daniel A. Epstein, Felicia Cordeiro, James Fogarty, Gary Hsieh, and Sean A. Munson. 2016. Crumbs: Lightweight Daily Food Challenges to Promote Engagement and Mindfulness. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16), 5632--5644. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858044Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Leonard H. Epstein, Jennifer L. Temple, James N. Roemmich, and Mark E. Bouton. 2009. Habituation as a determinant of human food intake. Psychological review 116, 2: 384--407. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015074Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Hasan Shahid Ferdous, Bernd Ploderer, Hilary Davis, Frank Vetere, Kenton O'Hara, Geremy Farr-Wharton, and Rob Comber. 2016. TableTalk: Integrating Personal Devices and Content for Commensal Experiences at the Family Dinner Table. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '16), 132--143. https://doi.org/10.1145/2971648.2971715Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Carmen Fishwick. 2014. Table for one? Restaurant offers giant stuffed animals for company. The Guardian. Retrieved September 9, 2018 from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/06/table-for-one-restaurant-giant-stuffed-animals-loneliness-japanGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Heather M. Francis, Richard J. Stevenson, Megan J. Oaten, Mehmet K. Mahmut, and Martin R. Yeomans. 2017. The Immediate and Delayed Effects of TV: Impacts of Gender and Processed-Food Intake History. Frontiers in psychology 8: 1616. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01616Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Teresa T. Fung, Michael W. Long, Pamela Hung, and Lilian W. Y. Cheung. 2016. An Expanded Model for Mindful Eating for Health Promotion and Sustainability: Issues and Challenges for Dietetics Practice. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 116, 7: 1081--1086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2016.03.013Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. William W. Gaver, John Bowers, Andrew Boucher, Hans Gellerson, Sarah Pennington, Albrecht Schmidt, Anthony Steed, Nicholas Villars, and Brendan Walker. 2004. The Drift Table: Designing for Ludic Engagement. In CHI '04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '04), 885--900. https://doi.org/10.1145/985921.985947Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Alexis Hiniker, Sarita Y. Schoenebeck, and Julie A. Kientz. 2016. Not at the Dinner Table: Parents' and Children's Perspectives on Family Technology Rules. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '16), 1376--1389. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819940Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Rohit Ashok Khot, Eshita Sri Arza, Harshitha Kurra, and Yan Wang. 2019. FoBo: Towards Designing a Robotic Companion for Solo Dining. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '19). ACM, Paper LBW1617, 6 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3313069Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Anastasia Kononova, Anna McAlister, and Hyun Jung Oh. 2018. Screen overload: Pleasant multitasking with screen devices leads to the choice of healthful over less healthful snacks when compared with unpleasant multitasking. Computers in human behavior 80: 1--11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.042Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jean L. Kristeller and Ruth Q. Wolever. 2011. Mindfulness-based eating awareness training for treating binge eating disorder: the conceptual foundation. Eating disorders 19, 1: 49--61. https://doi.org/10.1080/10640266.2011.533605Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Henry Lin, Ron Wakkary, and Doenja Oogjes. 2019. The Tilting Bowl: Electronic Design for a Research Product. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '19), 345--357. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3323701Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Ricky Maughan. 2018. One in three Americans can't eat without their phone. Retrieved October 3, 2019 from https://nypost.com/2018/01/23/one-in-three-americans-cant-eat-without-their-phone/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Melissa Mazmanian and Simone Lanette. 2017. Okay, One More Episode: An Ethnography of Parenting in the Digital Age. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, 2273--2286. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998218Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Yash Mehta, Rohit Ashok Khot, Rakesh Patibanda, and Florian Mueller. 2018. Arm-A-Dine: Towards Understanding the Design of Playful Embodied Eating Experiences. In Publication of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Robb Mitchell, Alexandra Papadimitriou, Youran You, and Laurens Boer. 2015. Really eating together: a kinetic table to synchronise social dining experiences. In Proceedings of the 6th Augmented Human International Conference, 173--174. https://doi.org/10.1145/2735711.2735822Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. William Odom, Ishac Bertran, Garnet Hertz, Henry Lin, Amy Yo Sue Chen, Matt Harkness, and Ron Wakkary. 2019. Unpacking the Thinking and Making Behind a Slow Technology Research Product with Slow Game. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Creativity and Cognition (C&C '19), 15--28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3325480.3326567Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. William Odom, Ron Wakkary, Youn-Kyung Lim, Audrey Desjardins, Bart Hengeveld, and Richard Banks. 2016. From Research Prototype to Research Product. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16), 2549--2561. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858447Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Kenton O'Hara, John Helmes, Abigail Sellen, Richard Harper, Martijn ten Bhömer, and Elise van den Hoven. 2012. Food for Talk: Phototalk in the Context of Sharing a Meal. Human--Computer Interaction 27, 1--2: 124--150. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2012.656069Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Rose E. Oldham-Cooper, Charlotte A. Hardman, Charlotte E. Nicoll, Peter J. Rogers, and Jeffrey M. Brunstrom. 2011. Playing a computer game during lunch affects fullness, memory for lunch, and later snack intake. The American journal of clinical nutrition 93, 2: 308--313. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.110.004580Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Simone Rebaudengo. 2017. Design for Living with Smart Products. O'Reilly Media, Inc. Retrieved October 3, 2019 from https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/design-for-living/9781491997390/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jonathan van't Riet, Siet J. Sijtsema, Hans Dagevos, and Gert-Jan De Bruijn. 2011. The importance of habits in eating behaviour. An overview and recommendations for future research. Appetite 57, 3: 585--596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.07.010Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Roland Sigrist, Georg Rauter, Robert Riener, and Peter Wolf. 2013. Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: a review. Psychonomic bulletin & review 20, 1: 21--53. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0333--8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Katy Tapper. 2018. Mindfulness and craving: effects and mechanisms. Clinical psychology review 59: 101--117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.11.003Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. The Australian Communications and Media Authority. 2017. Communications report 2017--18 | ACMA. Retrieved May 1, 2019 from https://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/communications-reportGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Janet M. Warren, Nicola Smith, and Margaret Ashwell. 2017. A structured literature review on the role of mindfulness, mindful eating and intuitive eating in changing eating behaviours: effectiveness and associated potential mechanisms. Nutrition research reviews 30, 2: 272--283. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954422417000154Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Jun Wei, Xuan Wang, Roshan Lalintha Peiris, Yongsoon Choi, Xavier Roman Martinez, Remi Tache, Jeffrey Tzu Kwan Valino Koh, Veronica Halupka, and Adrian David Cheok. 2011. CoDine: an interactive multi-sensory system for remote dining. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Ubiquitous computing, 21--30. https://doi.org/10.1145/2030112.2030116Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

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
    TEI '20: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction
    February 2020
    978 pages
    ISBN:9781450361071
    DOI:10.1145/3374920
    • General Chairs:
    • Elise van den Hoven,
    • Lian Loke,
    • Program Chairs:
    • Orit Shaer,
    • Jelle van Dijk,
    • Andrew Kun

    Copyright © 2020 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 9 February 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    TEI '20 Paper Acceptance Rate37of132submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate393of1,367submissions,29%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader