ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Keeping up appearances: interpretation of tangible artifact design
Full text PdfPdf (995 KB)
Source
ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Vol. 358 archive
Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: building bridges table of contents
Lund, Sweden
SESSION: Full papers table of contents
Pages 162-171  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISBN:978-1-59593-704-9
Authors
Marigo Heijboer  Eindhoven University of Technology, MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Elise van den Hoven  Eindhoven University of Technology, MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Sponsors
: Mangold International
: Microsoft Dynamics
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 13,   Downloads (12 Months): 73,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1463160.1463178
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The design and interaction of physical game artifacts is becoming increasingly important for the design of digital tabletop games. In this paper a study is described investigating the differences in interpretations of realistic and abstract game artifacts comparing children and adults. A game was created on a digital tabletop as a carrier for the user evaluation presented in this paper. The appearance of the game artifacts was explored and a family of each of the artifacts was created. The interpretations of each of the individual artifacts and their different visual appearances were tested to determine whether children rank and interpret the functionalities of the artifacts differently than adults.

The results showed that overall the understanding of abstract artifacts compared to realistic ones was best for both children and adults. It also indicated there was no significant difference in the interpretations of the realistic and abstract artifacts between children and adults.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
 
3
Chandler, D. 2002. Semiotics, the basics. Routledge, London.
 
4
 
5
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J. and Clarkson, P. J. 2004. Seeing Things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design studies, Vol. 25, No. 6. 547--577.
 
6
Demirbilek, O. and Sener, B. 2003. Product Design, semantics and emotional response. Ergonomics, Vol. 46, No. 13. 1346--1360.
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
11
12
 
13
14
 
15
Krippendorff, K. 2006. The semantic turn, a new foundation for design. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton.
16
17
18
 
19
20
21
22
 
23
Oehlke, H. 1990. In search of the semantics of design objects. In Semantic Vision in Design, S. Vihma, Ed., University of Industrial Arts Helsinki (UIAH), e1-e12.
 
24
Petterson, G. 2001. Products as signs: An implication of semantic and three-dimensional visual analysis in product development. Last retrieved 16 Apr 2008, from: http://www.ivt.ntnu.no/ipd/forskning/artikler/2001/Petterso n_II.PDF
 
25
Pinho, M. S. and Dal-Sasso Freitas, C. M. 2001. Cooperative and Simultaneous Object Manipulation in Collaborative Virtual Environments. IEEE Workshop on the future of VR AR Interfaces. (Yokohama, Los Alamitos). 85--92.
26
27
 
28
Rogers, Y. and Lindley, S. 2004. Collaborating around large interactive displays: which way is best to meet? Interacting with Computers 16. 1133--1152.
 
29
Scott, S. D., Mandryk, R. L. and Inkpen, K. M. 2003. Understanding children's collaborative interactions in shared environments. In Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, Vol. 19, No. 2. 220--228.
 
30
Tse, E., Greenberg, S. and Shen, C. 2006. Motivating Multimodal Interaction Around Digital Tabletops. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Cooperative Work. (Banff, Canada). CSCW'06.
 
31
Tuan, Y. 1978. Sign and Metaphor. Annals of the association of American geographers, Vol. 68, No. 3. 363--372.
 
32
 
33
Väkevä, S. 1990. What doe we need semiotics for? In In Semantic Vision in Design, S. Vihma, Ed., University of Industrial Arts Helsinki (UIAH), g1--g9.
 
34
Vogt, P. and Ziemke, T. 2002. The physical symbol grounding problem. Cognitive Systems Research, Vol. 3, No. 3. 429--457.
35
 
36
You, H. and Chen, K. 2007. Applications of affordance and semantics in product design. Design Studios, Vol. 28, No. 1. 23--28.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Marigo Heijboer: colleagues
Elise van den Hoven: colleagues