skip to main content
10.1145/3411764.3445273acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Neuromancer Workshop: Towards Designing Experiential Entanglement with Science Fiction

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 May 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

The use of design fiction to speculate an imaginative and critical future has increasingly been recognized in the design research community. Instead of focusing on speculation with a critical position, this paper reports an experiential approach to entangling everyday experiences in the process of speculating. As science fiction has successfully provided fictional-world-building as entanglement material for speculation, we held a workshop to conduct an entanglement experiment of personal photographs with cyberpunk literature, Neuromancer. We built a card deck consisting of 206 quotes from the novel and invited 15 participants to shuffle, draw, and re-compose sentences that best matched their personal photographs. Purposefully selected everyday anchors and sci-fi features in the quotes allowed us to investigate the moment when an everyday photograph encountered a fictional world. We describe the phenomena of imagination and entanglement, explain experiential entanglement, propose a conceptual model for entangled status, and present interpretations and implications in HCI.

References

  1. Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell. 2014. “A great and troubling beauty”: Cognitive speculation and ubiquitous computing. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 18, 4 (April 2014), 779–794. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0677-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell. 2015. Humanistic HCI. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 8, 4 (2015), 1–185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Mark Blythe. 2014. Research through design fiction: Narrative in real and imaginary abstracts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 703–712. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557098Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Stuart Candy and Jake Dunagan. 2017. Designing an experiential scenario: The people who vanished. Futures 86: 136–153.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Kai-Chi Chang, Raylin Tso, and Min-Chun Tsai. 2017. IoT sandbox: To analysis IoT malware zollard. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Internet of things, Data and Cloud Computing (ICC '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 4, 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3018896.3018898Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Yu-Ting Cheng, Wenn-Chieh Tsai, David Chung, and Rung-Huei Liang. 2018. Once upon a future: An audio drama game for episodic imagination. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '18 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 159–163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3197391.3205429Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. David Chung and Rung-Huei Liang. 2015. Understanding the usefulness of ideation tools with the grounding lenses. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of Chinese CHI (Chinese CHI '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 13–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2739999.2740002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Design Fiction Product Design Work Kit 0-TBD-D012, retrieved on Dec. 16, 2020. https://shop.nearfuturelaboratory.com/products/design-fiction-product-design-work-kitGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Audrey Desjardins, Cayla Key, Heidi R. Biggs, and Kelsey Aschenbeck. 2019. Bespoke booklets: A method for situated co-speculation. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 697–709. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322311Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Audrey Desjardins, Heidi R. Biggs, Cayla Key, and Jeremy E. Viny. 2020. IoT data in the home: Observing entanglements and drawing new encounters. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376342Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Paul Dourish. 2001. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2013. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Chris Elsden, David Chatting, Abigail C. Durrant, Andrew Garbett, Bettina Nissen, John Vines, and David S. Kirk. 2017. On speculative enactments. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5386-5399.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Enrique Encinas, Abigail C. Durrant, Robb Mitchell, and Mark Blythe. 2020. Metaprobes, metaphysical workshops and sketchy philosophy. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376453Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Christopher Frauenberger. 2019. Entanglement HCI: The next wave? ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 27, 1, Article 2 (January 2020), 27 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3364998Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. 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). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 885–900. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/985921.985947Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. William Gibson. 1984. Neuromancer. Ace Science Fiction Books, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Michael Golembewski and Mark Selby. 2010. Ideation decks: A card-based design ideation tool. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 89–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1858171.1858189Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Katerina Gorkovenko, Daniel J. Burnett, James K. Thorp, Daniel Richards, and Dave Murray-Rust. 2020. Exploring the future of data-driven product design. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376560Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Ye-Guang Gui. 2019. Neuromancer by William Gibson. Traditional Chinese translation. Apex Press, Taipei.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lars Hallnäs and Johan Redström. 2001. Slow technology–Designing for reflection. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 5, 3 (August 2001), 201–212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00000019Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Kim Halskov and Peter Dalsgård. 2006. Inspiration card workshops. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive systems (DIS '06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1142405.1142409Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. N. Katherine Hayles. 2014. Speculative aesthetics and object-oriented inquiry (OOI). Speculations V: Aesthetics in the 21st Century. 158–179. DOI:10.21983/P3.0068.1.00Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Eva Hornecker. 2010. Creative idea exploration within the structure of a guiding framework: the card brainstorming game. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ‘10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 101–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1709886.1709905Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Bowen Kong, Wenn-Chieh Tsai, and Rung-Huei Liang. 2019. Confabulation radio: Reflexive speculation in counterfactual soundscape. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Paper LBW0141, 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312858Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Rung-Huei Liang. 2012. Designing for unexpected encounters with digital products: Case studies of serendipity as felt experience. International Journal of Design, 6, 1, 41-58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Rung-Huei Liang and Huang-Ming Chang. 2013. Hypnotist framing: Hypnotic practice as a resource for poetic interaction design. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (DPPI ‘13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 241–250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2513506.2513532Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Jonas Löwgren. 2007. Fluency as an experiential quality in augmented spaces. International Journal of Design, 1(3), 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Andrés Lucero and Juha Arrasvuori. 2010. PLEX cards: A source of inspiration when designing for playfulness. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Fun and Games (Fun and Games ‘10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 28–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1823818.1823821Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Thomas Markussen and Eva Knutz. 2013. The poetics of design fiction. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (DPPI ‘13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 231–240. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2513506.2513531Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. John McCarthy and Peter Wright. 2007. Technology as Experience. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Florian Mueller, Martin R. Gibbs, Frank Vetere, and Darren Edge. 2014. Supporting the creative game design process with exertion cards. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2211–2220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557272Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Renee Noortman, Britta F. Schulte, Paul Marshall, Saskia Bakker, and Anna L. Cox. 2019. HawkEye: Deploying a design fiction probe. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Paper 422, 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300652Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. William Odom, Ron Wakkary, Ishac Bertran, Matthew Harkness, Garnet Hertz, Jeroen Hol, Henry Lin, Bram Naus, Perry Tan, and Pepijn Verburg. 2018. Attending to slowness and temporality with Olly and slow game: A design inquiry into supporting longer-term relations with everyday computational objects. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Paper 77, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173651Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Daniela Petrelli, Nicolas Villar, Vaiva Kalnikaite, Lina Dib, and Steve Whittaker. 2010. FM radio: Family interplay with sonic mementos. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2371–2380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753683Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Miriam Sturdee, Paul Coulton, Joseph G. Lindley, Mike Stead, Haider Ali, and Andy Hudson-Smith. 2016. Design fiction: How to build a Voight-Kampff machine. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ‘16), 375–386. http://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892574Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Wenn-Chieh Tsai, Po-Hao Wang, Hung-Chi Lee, Rung-Huei Liang, and Jane Hsu. 2014. The reflexive printer: Toward making sense of perceived drawbacks in technology-mediated reminiscence. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ‘14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 995–1004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Daisuke Uriu, William Odom, and Hannah Gould. 2018. Understanding automatic conveyor-belt columbaria: Emerging sites of interactive memorialization in Japan. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ‘18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 747–752. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196801Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Ron Wakkary, William Odom, Sabrina Hauser, Garnet Hertz, and Henry Lin. 2015. Material speculation: Actual artifacts for critical inquiry. In Proceedings of the Fifth Decennial Aarhus Conference on Critical Alternatives (CA ‘15). Aarhus University Press. 97–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7146/aahcc.v1i1.21299Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Mark Weiser. 1991. The computer for the 21st century. Sci. Am. 265, 3, 94–104.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. William Gibson Wiki, retrieved on Sept. 14, 2020. https://williamgibson.fandom.com/wiki/NeuromancerGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Christiane Wölfel and Timothy Merritt. 2013. Method card design dimensions: A survey of card-based design tools. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 479-486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40483-2_34Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Richmond Y. Wong, Ellen Van Wyk, and James Pierce. 2017. Real-fictional entanglements: Using science fiction and design fiction to interrogate sensing technologies. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ‘17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 567–579. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064682Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Neuromancer Workshop: Towards Designing Experiential Entanglement with Science Fiction
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    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 '21: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2021
      10862 pages
      ISBN:9781450380966
      DOI:10.1145/3411764

      Copyright © 2021 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 ACM 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: 7 May 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format