skip to main content
10.1145/3469410.3469433acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmabConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Work in Progress

Storystamp: Evaluating the impact of a place-oriented approach for placemaking

Published:22 October 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Storystamp is an interactive installation designed using the place-oriented design approach that we have developed previously as part of a research project titled: A place-oriented approach: from field knowledge to design framework. The approach was developed based on the literature of place and a field study of existing media architecture artefacts. It aims to provide place-oriented design framework that enables designers to engage with and incorporate the uniqueness of places when designing media architecture artefacts. In this study, we provide an evaluation on the impact of the framework on designing media architecture artefact for placemaking. Using the case of Storystamp, we conducted a field study that consists of observations on how people interact it. We also interviewed people who interacted with the Storystamp. Based on the findings from this field study and interviews, we report on people's interactions and experiences with the Storystamp to identify the potential for place-oriented design artefacts to facilitate placemaking.

References

  1. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Glenda Amayo Caldwell and Marcus Foth. 2014. DIY media architecture: Open and participatory approaches to community engagement. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (2014), 1–10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2682884.2682893Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. David V Canter. 1976. The psychology of place. The Architectural Press Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Matthew Carmona, Tim Health, Taner Oc, and Steve Tiesdell. 2003. Public places - Urban spaces. Taylor & Francis Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Peter Dalsgaard and Kim Halskov. 2010. Designing urban media façades: Cases and challenges. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings 4, (2010), 2277–2286. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753670Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Parag Deshpande. 2016. On the application of interaction design for placemaking. In Architecture and Interaction, Nicholas S Dalton, Holger Scgnädelbach, Wibergm Mikael and Tasos Varoudis (eds.). Springer, 321–343. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30028-3_15Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Joel Fredericks, Luke Hespanhol, and Martin Tomitsch. 2016. Not just pretty lights: Using digital technologies to inform city making. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on media architecture biennale - MAB, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1–9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2946803.2946810Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. William W. Gaver, Albrecht Schmidt, John Bowers, Anthony Steed, Andrew Boucher, Nicholas Villars, Hans Gellerson, Brendan Walker, and Sarah Pennington. 2004. The drift table: Designing for ludic engagement. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 885–900. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/985921.985947Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Kaj Grønbæk, Karen Johanne Kortbek, Claus Møller, Jesper Nielsen, and Liselott Stenfeldt. 2012. Designing playful interactive installations for urban environments – The SwingScape experience. In International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, Springer, 230–245. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34292-9_16Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Luke Hespanhol and Peter Dalsgaard. 2015. Social interaction design patterns for urban media architecture. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT’15), Springer, Cham, 596–613. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22698-9_41Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Luke Hespanhol, Martin Tomitsch, Oliver Bown, and Miriama Young. 2014. Using embodied audio-visual interaction to promote social encounters around large media façades. In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, DIS, Association for Computing Machinery, 945–954. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598568Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Yu Kao, Amayo Glenda Caldwell, and Jared Donovan. 2021. A place-oriented approach: from field knowledge to design framework. In MAB20: Proceedings of the 5th Media Architecture Biennale Conference.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Daniel Michelis and Jörg Müller. 2011. The audience funnel: Observations of gesture based interaction with multiple large displays in a city center. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 27, 6 (2011), 562–579. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2011.555299Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Andrew vande Moere and Niels Wouters. 2012. The role of context in media architecture. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2307798.2307810Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Harold M Proshansky. 1978. The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior 10, 2 (1978), 147–169.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Edward Relph. 1976. Place and placelessness. Pion, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. David Seamon. 1979. A geography of the lifeworld: Movement, rest & encounter. Croom Helm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Susan Silberberg, Katie Lorah, Rebecca Disbrow, and Aaron Naparstek. 2013. Place in the making: How placemaking builds places and communities.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin Tomitsch, Christopher Ackad, Oliver Dawson, Luke Hespanhol, and Judy Kay. 2014. Who cares about the content? An analysis of playful behaviour at a public display. In PerDis 2014 - Proceedings: 3rd ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays 2014, Association for Computing Machinery, 160–165. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2611009.2611016Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Martin Tomitsch, Ian McArthur, M Hank Haeusler, and Marcus Foth. 2015. The role of digital screens in urban life: New opportunities for placemaking. In Citizen's Right to the Digital City: Urban Interfaces, Activism, and Placemaking. 37–54. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-919-6_3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. William H. Whyte. 1980. The social life of small urban spaces. Conservation Foundation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Niels Wouters, John Downs, Mitchell Harrop, Travis Cox, Eduardo Oliveira, Sarah Webber, Frank Vetere, and Andrew Vande Moere. 2016. Uncovering the honeypot effect: How audiences engage with public interactive systems. In DIS ’16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901796Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Storystamp: Evaluating the impact of a place-oriented approach for placemaking
    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

    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