Design for Interaction - Fundamentals

Lukas Van Campenhout

Embodied Interaction
User Experience
Material Morality - Aesthetics of Interaction

1Ma PO
2025 - 2026
 2
In advance
Four lectures:
1. Design for Interaction - Embodied Interaction
2. Different themes within Embodied Interaction
3. User Experience - UX versus Embodiment
4. Material Morality - Aesthetics of Interaction

Reader on BlackBoard:
publications / dissertations: for consultation, not obligatory
2 books: not available on BlackBoard. Possible to buy for those who are interested.
Experience Design (Marc Hassenzahl)
Where the action is (Paul Dourish)

Subject matter for the exam:

Different definitions and their interrelationships. You must be able to interpret the
definitions personally.

Presentation document = course

Please take notes. Questions are appreciated.
 3

Lecture 1

Design for Interaction

Embodied Interaction
 4

[Link]
[Link] for Interaction
[Link] Interaction - Embodiment
[Link] Interaction
[Link] Interaction
[Link]: a linear continuum
[Link]
[Link] versus traditional interaction
Some examples
[Link]
10. References
 5
1. Introduction
1.1 Form follows function
• Louis Sullivan (1896): “Form follows function”. This later gives rise to modernism.
• The form of a product is seen as something that “naturally” follows its function. Func-
tion comes first, and form follows it. In other words, function determines form, and
form is subordinate to function.
• Echoes in Braun and Apple.
• Timelessness <-> planned obsolescence Function
Form

IBM 305 RAMAC, 1956 Braun Kitchen machine KM 321, 1957

 6

Apple versus Braun

Jonathan Ive versus Dieter Rams
 7
1.2 Form and function are equivalent
• In the 80s and 90s of the last century: under the impulse of the Memphis movement,
form was upgraded as a design driver (post-modernism).
• Form and function are seen as equal. They constitute each other mutually. This is the
paradigm in which we find ourselves today.
• Carlton (Sottsass), Book computer (David Gresham), Bag radio (Daniel Weil)

Function Form

Carlton Book Computer

Ettore Sottsass David Gresham
1981 1989

Bag Radio - Daniel Weil 1982

 8
1.3 Payment experiment
• Comparison of two payment terminals with the same new technological function: con-
tactless payment: Worldline’s XENTA Contactless Reader versus Experimental Pay-
ment Terminal.
• Physical setup in a lab environment, simulated interaction, 25 participants.
• Purpose of the test: measuring the user experience during the payment interaction.

XENTA Experimental Payment Terminal

Worldline Lukas Van Campenhout
 9

Experimental setup in the usability labo

 10
Question: I thought this payment terminal was
Dull 1...7 Captivating
Tacky 1...7 Stylish
Cheap 1...7 Premium
Unimaginative 1...7 Creative

Question: I thought this payment terminal was

Ugly 1...7 Attractive
Bad 1...7 Good
Unpleasant 1...7 Pleasant
Discouraging 1...7 Motivating
 11

The XENTA terminal was designed for form.

The experimental payment terminal was designed

for form and interaction.
 12
2. Design for interaction
2.1 Interactive products
• In the context of these lectures, design for interaction is limited to the domain of
interactive products and systems.
• Interactive products and systems contain digital components: a processor, a number
of sensors, actuators, a memory, interface elements, etc... As a result, these products are
able to compose their own output based on a number of input parameters, which we,
the users, give them, or which they extract from their immediate physical environment
or via a connection to a digital network. This gives them a certain degree of autonomy
and intelligence, and we attribute a behaviour to them. In this sense, it is correct to
state that we do not “use” them, like we use a hammer or ballpoint pen, but deal with
them or interact with them. User and product mutually exchange information. Hence
the name “interactive products”.
• Examples of interactive products: smart phones and tablet computers, desktop
computers, TV sets, audio installations, dishwashers, washing machines, etc.. They are
usually referred to as digital products.
 13
2.2 Design for interaction
• Joep Frens (TU Eindhoven) says that the design of interactive products contains not
two, but three components: form, function and interaction.
• Moreover, he states that interaction is on an equal footing with form and function,
and that there is an equal relation between the three components. Interaction is
determined by form and function, but can also constitute them. In other words,
interaction in itself can be designed.
• An example of the designability of interaction was the UX design assignment last
year, “The precious now”, in which interaction was designed together with the
function and the physical/on-screen form of the product.
 14
2.3 Mechanical products vs interactive products
• Form, function and interaction of a mechanical product are a direct result of its physical
construction. They are for a large part determined by the internal layout of the product.
This implies that the freedom to design form, function and interaction in a mechanical
product is limited.
• Usually mechanical products are easily understood by the user. This is because we,
people, have a good understanding of the mechanics of our own bodies. We all know
the elementary mechanical principles like hinges, levers, forces etc..
 15
• This is different for interactive products. Interactive products usually consist of a cen-
tral PCB (Printed Circuit Board), a number of sensors and actuators, all packaged in a
housing.
• On this PCB, digital phenomena can be found: the PCB makes calculations and stor-
age operations through a continuous process of distributing and redistributing electri-
cal charges across its various components. This process is physical in nature: electrical
charges can be measured and steered. On the contrary, they can not be perceived, nor
touched by people. We cannot see, hear or feel these charges, and we cannot move
them manually from one component to another.
• In order for us, humans, to be able to deal with the processes on this PCB, we have to
build an interaction layer around it, which translates these processes into a form that
is perceivable and tangible for us. This layer is open for design. As such, the design of
interactive products is a lot less constrained than the design of mechanical products.
• Interactive products therefore offer much more design freedom: their shape and inter-
action is less determined by their internal layout. The interaction is open for design.
 16

Publication: Tangible products, redress-

ing the balance between appearance
and action (Djajadiningrat, Wensveen,
Frens, & Overbeeke, 2004)
 17
2.4 Tangible products: redressing the balance ...
• Very inspiring, creative publication, for and by designers.
• Demonstrates the need for a shift from design for appearance towards design for
interaction.
• Step-by-step presentation of interaction routines using low-fi models (cardboard
models). This paper sets the stage for a whole series of Research through Design
projects at TU Eindhoven and UA, in which physical prototypes serve as research
vehicles. Many of these prototypes have product characteristics, similar to real
products.
• This publication is the starting point for the research of Lukas Van Campenhout.

LinguaBytes - Bart Hengeveld

PeP+
Eva Deckers

Fonckel One
Philip Ross
 18
2.5 The time dimension
• One of the main characteristics of design for interaction is the time dimension.
Interaction supposes physical movement, and physical movement takes place in
time. One could say that traditional industrial design is also concerned with action
routines and contexts of use. However, the difference lies in the fact that, in design
for interaction, the time dimension is dominantly present, and is considered a design
driver.
• Specific interaction design courses educate students in time-related disciplines:
dance, music, film, animation, choreography.

Mustick
TU Eindhoven
 19
2.6 Design for interaction at Product Development (UA)
• The term Interaction Design (IxD) is often used to indicate the design process
in which designers translate rough pieces of software into usable applications.
Therefore, interaction design is usually associated with the context of app design,
web design, UI design. Bill Buxton speaks of “design behind the glass”.
• In Product Development, we have the module “Designing Interactions”, which you
can choose as a major or minor. The essence of Product Development is made up
by product and product service system design. Our approach is holistic: we do not
design interfaces with digital phenomena, we design products and product service
systems, which have a meaning in the life of the end user. The interface with the
digital is merely one part of this bigger whole, and should be regarded as such. At
Product Development, we speak about interaction-driven industrial design. This
perspective includes and embraces “design in front of the glass”.
Word Catcher
Sarah Serneels
Sara Van Moeseke
 20
3. Embodied Interaction - Embodiment
3.1 Introduction
• Embodied interaction or embodiment is a perspective on our interaction with
interactive products and systems. It is at the heart of much of today’s technological
development in this field, and is expected to grow in importance in the future.
• There are other perspectives, and they are equally important. In the context of these
lectures, embodied interaction is juxtaposed with traditional interaction, which
refers to the current way of interaction with digital products. Embodied interaction
is not better. It is different, and designers should be familiar with it. As a designer it is
important to be able to make a well-considered choice between different interaction
styles.
• A large part of the graduation projects in Product Development contains digital
technology. Embodied interaction is not always employed, but hopefully always
considered.
• Embodied interaction has roots in philosophy (phenomenology) and cognitive
psychology (embodied cognition).
• The designer needs to understand embodied interaction, but above all she needs to
feel it and make it her own. A theoretical explanation is only a starting point.
 21
• There are multiple ways to look at people and the world they live in. In this
context we consider two perspectives: the Cartesian perspective, and the
phenomenological perspective.
 22
3.2 The Cartesian perspective
• René Descartes (1596 -1650): Cogito ergo sum. Emphasis on cognition.
• Our mind is positioned opposite our body and the world.
• The mind is the realm of immaterial, intangible ideas, mental constructions and pro-
cesses.
• The body and the world form the realm of the physical, material, tangible.
• Both entities are disconnected/detached. The mind operates isolated and completely
independent from the body and the world. One speaks of Dichotomy and Mind-body
split. Our mind “lives” in our body, namely in our brain.
• The mind is superior, and rules the body and the world. The mind is the master, and the
body is the executor. Roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition. First reflection, then action.
• The body perceives the world. This perception is stored in the mind. Based on this per-
ception, the mind performs calculations on inner representations of the world, and
then commands the body to execute the result of these calculations in the world (ac-
tion).
• Perception and action are two separate concepts.
23
 24
3.3 The phenomenological perspective
• Phenomenology: Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), Martin Heidegger (1889-1976),
Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961).
• Mind and body are on the same level. They constitute each other, and form one
whole. Without body there can be no mind. We “are” our body.
• The mind and the body/world are fundamentally interwoven. The mind permanently
participates in the world, and is in continuous interaction with it (“situatedness”).
Heidegger speaks of the tool as an extension of the body (“Ready to hand” versus
“Present at hand”, classic example of the hammer, example of clothes, gloves,
sunglasses).
• Our mind operates immediately on the world itself, not on a representation of it.
• Perception and action are difficult to distinguish from each other, because they are
simultaneous and determine each other.
• Integrated or coupled vision.
25
 26
3.4 Everyday examples
• In everyday life we rarely reach the level of detachment that allows us to first reflect, and
then act.

The Cartesian perspective The Phenomenological perspective

 27
3.5 Lateral step

Mind Digital technology

Body/world The physical world

Cartesian perspective Traditional HCI

Phenomenological perspective Embodied Interaction
 28
3.6 Traditional Human Computer Interaction (HCI)
• Traditional HCI is Cartesian inspired.
• In the Cartesian perspective, digital technology is diametrically opposed to the
physical world.
• Digital technology is the entirety of digital data, processes and phenomena
(distribution and redistribution of electrical charges, p15). In their most original form,
these data, processes and phenomena are intangible, because not accessible to our
senses and our actuators.
• The physical world is the everyday environment in which we live, our habitat.
• Both domains are separate from each other. Digital technology can be found within
the black box of the PC / tablet / smartphone. When people want to interact with
digital technology, they withdraw from their physical context and social environment,
and become immersed in the digital world. Traditional HCI supposes a dichotomy
between the digital (the mind in the Cartesian perspective) and the physical (the
body/world in the Cartesian perspective).
• The computer works with representations of the physical world: the desktop
metaphor (GUI) is a clear example of this.
29
 30
3.7 Embodied Interaction
• Embodied interaction is phenomenologically inspired.
• Digital information is not contained in a separate box, it is spread over the physical
world. Digital technology and the physical world are intertwined, and constitute each
other.
• As such, people interact with digital technology in a physical way, without necessarily
being aware of it. The digital “feels physical”.
• People interact “directly” with digital technology, not with a representation of it.
The physical world is used as a medium, and not just as a metaphor (cf. Linear
Continuum, Section 6).
• When digital technology is part of the world in this way, we speak of embodiment.
Embodied interaction is the interaction that then arises.
31
 32
3.8 Overview

Traditional Human Computer Interaction (HCI) Embodied Interaction

 33
• Traditional USB stick in a PC <-> token in OPUS

USB stick OPUS

Viktor Warndorff
Stijn Vanvolsem
Rens Musters
 34
3.9 The paradox of embodied interaction
• Regarding the design of the interaction layer around the PCB (see section 2.3), there
are several possibilities. You can opt for a traditional HCI approach, and design an
interaction that feels digital, computeresque. You can also choose an embodied
approach, and design an interaction that feels physical.
• The crux of embodied interaction lies in the inherent contrast between the physical
and the digital.
• Physical objects/artifacts are static and persistent.
• Digital phenomena are dynamic and transient. The main property that characterizes
digital phenomena is their temporality: the fact that they are time-based.
 35
• Embodied interaction is an umbrella concept, containing a whole series of interaction
styles, each of which proposes a specific relationship between the digital and the
physical. Two of them are presented in the following sections:
• Tangible interaction
• Rich interaction
 36

10 minute break
 37
4. Tangible Interaction

[Link]
 38
4.1 The Desktop Computing Paradigm
• The PC evolves drastically and rapidly. PCs become faster and more powerful, display
resolution increases, color possibilities increase, wireless connections become more
powerful.
• In addition, there is a continuous broadening of the scope of the PC. In the 80s the
PC was used for word processing and basic programming. Today, the PC is suitable
for a wide range of applications: CAD modeling, graphical applications, multimedia,
internet, ...
• What has changed little or not at all during the last 30 years is the user interface of the
PC. The PC contains a display with Graphical User Interface (GUI), speakers, a mouse
and a keyboard. In other words, the way we interact with the PC has not changed.
• This phenomenon is called the Desktop Computing Paradigm. A paradigm is a certain
set of theories in a knowledge or application area, which is generally considered to be
very good and reliable. Hence, it forms a guideline for future developments within this
knowledge or application area.
 39

1985 2025
 40
4.2 Criticism
• In the 90s this desktop computing paradigm is criticized by a number of people
within HCI (engineers and computer scientists). They argue that the PC has led to
a homogenization of human tasks. In the pre-PC era, an accountant worked with
written or printed text on A4 paper, sitting at a desk. A graphic designer stood at a
drawing table and drew and painted on large format. The PC has ensured that both
people nowadays apply a very similar physical interaction style. Both sit in front of a
screen, and control a mouse and a keyboard.
• These HCI scientists state that there is an asymmetry in the PC. The PC offers an
enormously rich output: a high resolution display, a rich color palette and animation
possibilities, speakers with a large range. On the other hand, the input of the PC goes
through a mouse and a cursor on the GUI. The mouse is a singular and sequential
device. It is singular because it can only do one thing: click. It is sequential because, if
you want to perform two actions, you have to do one action first, and only then the
second.
• They say there is a mismatch between the bandwidth of the input and the bandwidth
of the output.
 41
4.3 The alternative: tangible interaction
• Developed at MIT Media Lab, by HCI scientists and engineers.
• They suggest the following: what would happen if I didn’t have to touch an icon on my
display via a mouse, but could grab it directly and put it in my pocket? If I had to give a
package of information to someone, I wouldn’t have to attach it to an email, and then
send it to that person. I could give him the physical icon directly.
• If I want to store a package of digital information, I could just put this physical icon in
my closet, provided that my closet is part of the digital system. When someone asks for
the information, I don’t have to remember in which subdirectory I left it. It’s just in my
closet, between my t-shirts and my stockings.
• They advocate a more physical interaction with digital information through embodiment
of this digital information by physical objects. They call these physical objects“tangibles”,
and the interface itself is called a TUI (Tangible User Interface).
• Classic examples of tangible interaction: MIT’s MediaBlocks, MIT’s URP.
• [Link]
 42
4.4 Examples in design research

URP
MIT Media Lab
Tangible Media Group
1998
 43

7608 14
63

Marble answering machine - Durrell Bishop 1992 - RCA

 44
4.5 Cognition versus action
• Computers and computational devices (smartphones, tablets) emphasize the
cognitive. Too many computers in our daily lives can lead to cognitive overload.
Tangible interaction wants to counteract this, by embedding digital information
deeper into the physical world. Cfr. Popular media about digital detox.

Made of Glass
Corning
 45
4.6 Social interaction versus man-system dialogue
• The traditional PC celebrates the principle of dialogue:
• it is a setup between two actors, the PC and its user.
• Both actors act in turn. Their actions are always reactions to the actions of the
other actor.
• Tangible interaction integrates digital information with the physical world, and makes
it possible for different people to, at the same time and in each other’s proximity, in-
teract with a digital system and with each other. The tangible digital system does not
detach its user from his immediate physical and social environment. The traditional
PC does.

Microsoft Surface
table
 Lego 46
4.7 Commercial applications Action bricks

Apple
iPhone

YOTO Player 3d generation

Yotoplay

Microsoft
Surface Studio
 47
4.8 A criticism of tangible interaction
• Tangible interaction clearly originated from the HCI world, and was created by
computer scientists and engineers.
• Tangible ineraction is very much about the interface between the digital and the
physical. It’s more about interfaces than products.
• Designers want to design a meaningful digital product in the first place, and the
interface with the digital is just a part of that.
• Recent criticism: the impact of tangible interaction seems to decline. The contrast
between the “infinite” digital and the “finite” physical is too big. The mapping is
experienced as very limiting. Tangible interaction is regarded as not very scalable and
cost effective.
 48
Marieke Van Camp
 49
5. Rich Interaction

Rich actions camera

Joep Frens
 50
5.1 A perceptual-motor-centered approach to tangible
interaction
• Tangible interaction became popular in the late 90s outside the HCI research domain.
It stimulated researchers from other disciplines: ergonomists, cognitive psychologists,
architects and artists.
• Around the turn of the century, a group of industrial designers (TU Eindhoven)
emerged, and claimed that everyday products are also subject to the desktop
computing paradigm. Not only the processor has found its way into everyday
products, the traditional display and keypad came across too. Displays and keypads
were literally copied, usually in a smaller version, onto digital products such as
cameras, coffee machines, washing machines etc..
• However, a washing machine is fundamentally different from a PC. A PC processes
data, a washing machine manages and controls a physical task.
 51
• Unlike the tangible interaction researchers, these designers do not take digital
information as a starting point. Their starting point is the human body, and the way
our physical environment opens itself to it as a range of action possibilities. They find
inspiration in the theory of direct perception and affordances by James J. Gibson
(1986).
• Our body is a very rich instrument, with countless sensors (senses), actuators
(muscles) and degrees of freedom (bodily movements). Our interaction with the
current generation of digital products is limited to button pushing, or to a number of
standard hand movements on a multi-touch display. Isn’t it possible to design digital
products that capitalize more on our body’s natural capabilities?
• They advocate interaction with digital products through rich, meaningful body
movements, and call their framework Rich Interaction (Rijke Interactie). The
researcher who coined this term is Prof. Joep Frens of TU Eindhoven.
• They consider rich interaction as a perceptual-motor-centered approach to tangible
interaction. Rich interaction is perceptual-motor-centered, while tangible
interaction is data-centered.
• Rich interaction is a design perspective. It is more concerned about the design of
digital products and their meaning in our lives, than about the interface with digital
information. Rich interaction is more holistic than tangible interaction.
 52

Heating controller
Tom Djajadiningrat

Nintendo
Labo
 53
5.2 A few concepts ...
• In the rich interaction perspective, a digital product changes its physical shape along
with the movements of the user’s body. Physical shape changes are central to rich
interaction. The different physical shapes of the product say something about the
state in which the processor is at that moment. In this sense, the product’s shape
changes, as well as the physical movements of the user, are meaningful. The digital
product itself is a display.

Ilo Balans OPUS

Thomas Cools Sien Heirbauts Viktor Warndorff
Juliette Enthoven Chiara Rousseau Stijn Vanvolsem
Jill Sempels Laurien Wouters Rens Musters
 54
• In the context of shape changes, Frens introduces two concepts: MURPS and MR APs
• MURPS: Mode of Use Reflected in the Physical State. These are the various
meaningful shapes that a digital product can take.
• MR APs: Mode-Relevant Action-Possibilities. A shape change reveals new controls
and thus creates new action possibilities, which are only relevant in the mode
associated with that particular shape.
• Frens advocates “aesthetics of interaction”. A shape change supposes two shapes: one
before and one after. Ideally, these two shapes convey aesthetics, and so does the
movement from one shape to the other.
 55
5.3 Commercial applications
Rich interaction is embedded in parts of products. A digital product is never designed to
offer uniquely rich interaction.

Numark
Mix deck
Dishwasher
Samsung
Galaxy Z Cooker hood
Flip 6
 Car cockpit
56

Car rearview mirror

Dyson
Solarcycle Morph

Tesla Model S
Door handle
 57
6. Embodiment: a linear continuum
• Fishkin (2004) presents a two-dimensional spectrum as a representation of
embodiment. I myself represent embodiment on a linear axis. A digital product is not
either embodied or not. The product contains a certain degree of embodiment.
• On the left side of the axis the interaction feels digital and computeresque. As you
move to the right, the physical world plays a greater role.
• An important transition presents itself when you enter the realm of “real” embodied
interaction: the physical world is used here as a medium, and no longer as a
metaphor.
• Virtual reality does not fit on this axis. Virtual reality is about completely immersing
the physical in the digital. Embodied interaction strives to spread the digital over the
physical. In this sense, both phenomena are each other’s opposite.

The physical world as metaphor The physical world as medium

Command Graphical Multi-touch Augmented Tangible Full

User User display reality User Embodiment
Interface Interface Interface
 58
7. Familiarity
• What makes embodied interaction desirable? Why should we employ embodiment
in our interaction with digital products? The standard answer to this question is
presented by the idea of familiarity.
• We, humans, are familiar with the physical world in which we live, with its animals,
plants and objects, and with the other people who live in it. We have highly
developed skills to interact in and with this physical world. The idea now is to
exploit this familiarity in our interaction with digital products in such a way that this
interaction becomes more intuitive, natural and direct.
 59

8. Embodiment versus traditional interaction

Some examples
NAVU 60
Jonathan De Clercq
Graduated in 2015
Beeline
61
Velo 2
 62

Livall
Smart Helmet

Strömer
ST2 S
 63

Tesla
Model 3
Xiaomi
SU7 64
 65

Northrop Grumman
Projected work instructions
Photo Projector
66
Sem Beerens
Amber chys
Jorn Joosen
Zack Kinnaer
 67
9. Definitions
• Design for interaction
• Form, function and interaction
• interactive products and systems
• mechanical products versus interactive products
• the time dimension in interactive products
• Cartesian perspective - phenomenological perspective
• embodiment - embodied interaction
• desktop computing paradigm
• tangible interaction - tangibles - TUI
• rich interaction
• temporality
• physical shape changes
• MURPS
• MR APs
• the physical world as metaphor - the physical world as medium
• familiarity
• cognitive overload
• the man-system dialogue
10. References 68
Buxton W (2001) Less is more (more or less). In: Denning P (ed) The invisible future: the seamless integration of technology in
everyday life. McGraw Hill, New York, pp 145–179
Djajadiningrat, J. P., Wensveen, S. A. G., Frens, J. W., & Overbeeke, C. J. (2004). Tangible products: Redressing the balance be-
tween appearance and action. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(5), 294-309.
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is - The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Niet op BlackBoard)
Fishkin, K. P. (2004). A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(5), 347-358.
Frens, J. W. (2006). Designing for rich interaction – Integrating form, interaction and function [Doctoral dissertation]. Eindhoven,
the Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology.
Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp 234-241). New York: ACM Press.
Van Campenhout, L. D. E., Frens, J. W., Overbeeke, C. J., Standaert, A., & Peremans, H. (2013). Physical interaction in a demateria-
lized world. International Journal of Design, 7(1), 1-18.
Van Campenhout, L. D. E., Frens, J. W., Hummels, C. C. M., Standaert, A., & Peremans, H. (2016). Touching the dematerialized. Per-
sonal and Ubiquitous Computing, 20(1), 147-164.
Van Campenhout, L. V. C., Frens, J. W., Hummels, C. C. M., Standaert, A., & Peremans, H. (2019). The enriching limitations of the
physical world. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 23(1), 81-98.
Van Campenhout, L.; Vancoppenolle,W.; Dewit, I. From Meaning to Expression: A Dual Approach to Coupling. Designs 2023,
7, 69.
Van Dijk, J., van der Lugt, R., & Hummels, C. (2014). Beyond distributed representation: Embodied cognition design supporting
socio-sensorimotor couplings. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Inter-
action (pp. 181-188). New York: ACM Press.
 69
Please read as a preparation for the next lecture:
Wensveen, S.A.G.; Djajadiningrat, J.P.; Overbeeke, C.J. Interaction Frogger: A Design Framework to Couple Action and Function

through Feedback and Feedforward. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems Processes,

Practices, Methods, and Techniques—DIS’04, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1–4 August 2004; ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004; p.

177.