Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15207/JKCS.2021.12.5.127

A Research on the Paradigm of Interaction Based on Attributes  

Shan, Shu Ya (Division of Visual Communication Design, Zhongyuan University of Technology)
Pan, Young Hwan (Division of Smart Experience Design, Kookmin University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korea Convergence Society / v.12, no.5, 2021 , pp. 127-138 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
Interaction Attribute; Interaction Paradigm; Interaction Dimension; Design; Gestalt;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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
2 J. Lowgren & E. Stolterman. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design. A design perspective on information technology. MIT Press. DOI : 10.7551/mitpress/6814.001.0001
3 M. Rogala. (2005). Towardsa theory of interactive art experience. Computer graphics and interactive media. 106-126. DOI : 10.1002/sce.21085
4 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
5 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   DOI
6 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   DOI
7 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   DOI
8 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
9 H. Landin. (2009). Anxiety and Trust: And Other Expressions of Interaction. Chalmers University of Technology. DOI : 10.1891/1946-6560.6.3.298
10 D. Saffer. (2009). Designing Gestural Interfaces: Touch screens and interactive devices. O'Reilly Media, Inc. 122-124. DOI : 10.1145/2465958.2465981.
11 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   DOI
12 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   DOI
13 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
14 S. Lundgren & T. Hultberg. (2009). Time, temporality, and interaction. interactions, 16(4), 34-37. DOI : 10.1145/1551986.1551993   DOI
15 J. Lowgren. (2009). Toward an articulation of interaction esthetics. New Review in Hypermedia and Multimedia, 15(2), 129-146. DOI : 10.1080/13614560903117822   DOI
16 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   DOI
17 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   DOI
18 E. Stolterman. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2(1). DOI : 10.1080/07370020903586696   DOI
19 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   DOI
20 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   DOI
21 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   DOI
22 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
23 C. Crawford. (2002). The Art of Interactive Design: A Euphonious and Illumination Guide to Building Successful Software. No Starch Press. DOI : 10.5555/515418
24 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   DOI
25 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   DOI