Journal of the Korea Convergence Society (한국융합학회논문지)

Korea Convergence Society (한국융합학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Research on the Paradigm of Interaction Based on Attributes

인터렉션 속성에 기초한 인터렉션 범식화 연구

  • Shan, Shu Ya (Division of Visual Communication Design, Zhongyuan University of Technology) ;
  • Pan, Young Hwan (Division of Smart Experience Design, Kookmin University)
  • 샨슈야 (중원공학대학교 시각전달학과) ;
  • 반영환 (국민대학교 경험디자인학과)
  • Received : 2021.03.29
  • Accepted : 2021.05.20
  • Published : 2021.05.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The aim of this study is to demonstrate interaction as a describable field and tries to understand interaction from the perspective of attributes, thus building a theoretical to help interactive designer understand this field by common rule, rather than waste huge time and labor cost on iteration. Since the concept of interaction language has been brought out in 2000, there are varies of related academical studies, but all with defect such as proposed theoretical models are built on a non-uniform scale, or the analyzing perspective are mainly based on researcher's personal experience and being too unobjective. The value of this study is the clustered resource of research which mainly based on academical review. It collected 21 papers researched on interaction paradigm or interaction attributes published since 2000, extracting 19 interaction attribute models which contains 174 interaction attributes. Furthermore, these 174 attributes were re-clustered based on a more unified standard scale, and the two theoretical models summarized from it are respectively focuses on interaction control and interaction experience, both of which covered 6 independent attributes. The propose of this theoretical models and the analyzation of the cluster static will contribute on further revealing of the importance of interaction attribute, or the attention interaction attribute has been paid on. Also, in this regard, the interactive designer could reasonably allocate their energy during design process, and the future potential on various direction of interaction design could be discussed.

본 연구의 목표는 인터렉션이 하나의 영역으로서 묘사 가능성을 증명하는 것이다. 또한 패러다임화된 시각으로 인터렉션을 이해하려고 시도하는 것이다. 일반적으로 통용되는 규칙에 기초하여 이론모델을 구축하고, 디자이너들에게 인터렉션의 본질을 효과적으로 이해하도록 돕고, 현재 인터렉션 설계가 주로 기초적인 수단으로 의존하게 됨으로써 파생되는 인력과 시간비용의 낭비를 방지하는 것이다. 2000년도에 처음으로 인터렉션 패러다임화의 개념을 제시한 이래 지금까지 관련된 연구에는 일부 결함이 존재한다. 예를들어 제시된 이론 모델들이 서로 다른 척도에서 만들어졌거나, 혹은 접근하는 시각에 객관성이 결여된 것, 그리고 주로 연구자의 개인적 경험 등에서 오는것 등이다. 본 연구의 가치와 뛰어난 성과는 그 전체적 기초가 파일검색이라는 토대위에 구축되었다. 최근 2000년 이래 현재까지의 인터렉션 패러다임화에 관한 연구 총 21편의 수집을 통하여 인터렉션 속성 모델 19개,인터렉션 속성 포함 총 174개를 추출하였다. 또한 이 174개 속성에 대하여 보다 통일된 표준 척도에 근거를 두고 집합류의 연구수단을 이용하여 재분류 귀납함으로써 두 개의 이론 모델을 한 조로 만들었다. 이 두 모형은 각각 인터렉션 운용과 인터렉션 체험의 시각으로 접근하며, 그중 각 모델은 각각 6개의 독립된 속성을 포함한다. 이 인터렉션 모델의 제시 및 집합류 데이터의 분석은 각 인터렉션 속성이 인터렉션 설계에서 얼마만큼의 주목을 받고 중요한지 밝히는데 도움이 될것이다. 이런 데이터는 디자이너가 디자인 과정에서 힘 분배를 합리적으로 할 수 있게 도와주며, 또한 미래에 인터렉션 설계에 관해 발전공간을 설계하기 위한 이론적 근거를 제공한다.

Keywords

References

  1. H. Ishii. (2008, February). Tangible Bits: Beyond Pixels. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction. (pp. 18-20). DOI : 10.1145/1347390.1347392
  2. T. Djajadiningrat, S. Wensveen, J. Frens & K. Overbeeke. (2004). Tangible products: Redressing the balance between appearance and action. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(5). 294-309. DOI : 10.1007/s00779-004-0293-8
  3. E. Stolterman. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2(1). DOI : 10.1080/07370020903586696
  4. S. K. Card, T. P. Moran & A. Newell. (1980). The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems. Communications of the ACM, 23(7), 396-410. DOI : 10.1145/358886.358895
  5. O. J. Wobbrock, A. J. Kientz. (2016, April). Research contributions in human-computer interaction. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. DOI : 10.1145/2907069
  6. L. Hallnas & J. Redstrom. (2002, June). From use to presence: on the expressions and aesthetics of everyday computational things. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 9(2), 106-124. DOI : 10.1145/513665.513668
  7. D. Svanaes. (2016). Kinaesthetic Thinking: The Tacit Dimension of Interaction Design. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(4), 443-463. DOI : 10.1016/50747-5632(97)00020-4
  8. M. Ashby & K. Johnson. (2002, December). Materials and Design: The Art and Science of Material Selection in Product Design. Butterworth-Heinemann, 43-43 DOI : 10.1080/14606925.2017.1353059
  9. C. Crawford. (2002). The Art of Interactive Design: A Euphonious and Illumination Guide to Building Successful Software. No Starch Press. DOI : 10.5555/515418
  10. J. P. Djajadiningrat, W. W. Gaver & J. W. Fres. (2000). Interaction relabelling and extreme characters: Methods for Exploring Aesthetic Interactions. Proceedings of the conference on Designing interactive systems processes, practices, methods, and techniques. (pp. 66-71). DOI : 10.1145/347642.347664
  11. T. Djajadiningrat. S. Wensveen. J. Frens & K.. Overbeeke. (2004). Tangible products: redressing the balance between appearance and action. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(5), 294-309. DOI : 10.1145/347642.347664
  12. R. Hunicke. M. LeBlanc & R. Zubeck. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI (Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 1722). DOI : 10.1007/978-3-319-53088-8_3
  13. J. Lowgren & E. Stolterman. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design. A design perspective on information technology. MIT Press. DOI : 10.7551/mitpress/6814.001.0001
  14. M. Rogala. (2005). Towardsa theory of interactive art experience. Computer graphics and interactive media. 106-126. DOI : 10.1002/sce.21085
  15. Y. Lim. E. Stolterman. H. Jung & J. Donaldson. (2007). Interaction gestalt and the design of aesthetic interactions. Proceedingsof the 2007 conference on Designing pleasurable products and interfaces. (pp. 239-254) DOI : 10.1145/1314161.1314183
  16. S. Diefenbach. E. Lenz. M. Hassenzahl. (2013). An interaction vocabulary. Describing the how of interaction. CHIEA '13: CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. (pp. 607-612) DOI : 10.1145/2468356.2468463
  17. D. Saffer. (2009). Designing Gestural Interfaces: Touch screens and interactive devices. O'Reilly Media, Inc. 122-124. DOI : 10.1145/2465958.2465981.
  18. Y. Lim, S.-S. Lee & K. Lee. (2009). Interactivity attributes: a new way of thinking and describing interactivity. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. (pp. 105-108). DOI : 10.1145/1518701.1518719
  19. H. Landin. (2009). Anxiety and Trust: And Other Expressions of Interaction. Chalmers University of Technology. DOI : 10.1891/1946-6560.6.3.298
  20. K. M. Sheldon. A. J. Elliot. Y. Kim & T. Kasser. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 325-39. DOI : 10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325
  21. M. Hassenzahl. S. Diefenbach. A. Goritz. (2010). Needs, affect, and interactive products - Facets of user experience. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 353-362. DOI : 10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002
  22. C. Hummels. P. Ross & K. C. J. Overbeeke. (2003). In search of resonant human computer interaction: Building and testing aesthetic installations. International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. DOI : 10.1007/s00779-004-0303
  23. Y. K. Lim. E. Stolterman. H. Jung & J. Donaldson. (2007). Interaction gestalt and the design of aesthetic interactions. In Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Designing pleasurable products and interfaces. (pp. 239-254). DOI : 10.1145/1314161.1314183
  24. S. Lundgren & T. Hultberg. (2009). Time, temporality, and interaction. interactions, 16(4), 34-37. DOI : 10.1145/1551986.1551993
  25. J. Lowgren. (2009). Toward an articulation of interaction esthetics. New Review in Hypermedia and Multimedia, 15(2), 129-146. DOI : 10.1080/13614560903117822