Comparison to related research – equipment in use

There is an increasing body of research inspired by phenomenology about the ways of relating with technology. Don Ihde has described different relationships with technology through the framework of phenomenological relativity (Ihde, 1990; Ihde, 1986). The notion of embodiment relationship, hermeneutic relationship and alterity relationship are suggested as ways of being-in-the-world with technologies.

According to Ihde, the embodiment relationship is not restricted to the visual sense. The same structural feature of embodiment is present for all the human senses in the way that

equipment “withdraws” from the user. The embodiment relationship is found for both simple technologies like eyeglasses, hearing aids or the blind man’s cane and complex technologies like the automobile. The telephone in use falls into an embodiment

relationship, according to Ihde; if it is working as expected the apparatus itself withdraws into the background (Ihde, 1990).

Ihde does not discuss what “withdrawing” into the enabling background means in actual use. For Ihde, the concept of “embodiment relation” seems to be used in order to discuss the amplification/reduction structure present in all technology use. The way of

experiencing the “transparency” of technology in embodiment relationship is not discussed further by Ihde. He is primarily concerned with the questions regarding the history of technology and the science of technology, and not explicitly with investigating the actual present-day technologies in use.

Fallman has applied the perspectives provided by Ihde in order to discuss the use and the design of wearable computers (Fallman, 2003). However, neither Ihde – nor Fallmann have an explicit discussion about visibility in use. Both authors assume that when interacting with equipment through the embodiment relationship, the equipment

withdraws from the attention of the user into an enabling background. The ways in which the equipment is visible for the user in the enabling background are not elaborated.

Dourish (Dourish, 2001) introduced the notion of “embodied interaction”, based upon a phenomenological inquiry into HCI. He describes the phenomenon of social computing and tangible computing, and proposes a conceptual framework for how the user interface can move into the background without completely disappearing (Dourish, 2001). He notes that the “idea of the invisible interface is too simplistic. It frames interface interaction as an all-or-nothing issue” (ibid). Hence, his is a call for an inquiry into situations of use when the equipment is apparently invisible.

Embodiment is, for Dourish, the common way in which users encounter physical and social reality in the everyday world. The importance of direct engagement instead of

abstract reflection is central for understanding embodied interaction. Dourish

distinguishes between inhabited interaction in the world and disconnected observation and control, and he states that this is at the heart of embodied interaction. He explains that as users engage in the world and act through technology that has become ready-to-hand, the technology itself “disappears” from our immediate concerns (Dourish, 2001).

However, the way of relating with equipment that has apparently disappeared is not discussed any further by Dourish.

Dourish builds upon the work of Winograd and Flores (Winograd and Flores, 1986). In the seminal work “Computers and Cognition”, these authors introduced for the first time the phenomenology of Heidegger into the field of computer science and HCI. Winograd and Flores were the first researchers who introduced the two modes of relating with equipment using the terms ready-to-hand and present-at-hand for the field of HCI. They stressed that breakdown situations are valuable resources, in order to be informed about use, since in the use situations when equipment is present-at-hand the equipment is visible to the user as an object with properties that can be reflected upon.

In Scandinavia, Pelle Ehn (Ehn, 1988) was the first to follow this up and he introduced notions from phenomenology into the Scandinavian tradition of systems design, i.e.

participatory design. Dourish, Ehn, Winograd and Flores elaborate upon breakdown situations, and talk about the valuable insights that can be learnt from such situations when non-functional equipment becomes visible as objects. This has been, and is continually an important area for investigating and understanding the use of computers.

Most users, engaged in real use situations want to avoid breakdown situations, but for research into the use of technology the breakdown situation can be valuable. For example, breakdown situations can create opportunities for creativity (Fischer, 1994).

However, neither of the above-mentioned research discusses the kind of visibility that everyday, engaged use of computers is endowed with.

The input of psychology has been influential within HCI. Norman (Norman, 1988a) has investigated and described ways of interacting with “everyday artifacts” like doors and

cars in order to inform the field of HCI. In the tradition of user-centered design, he promotes an approach to design where the requirements and interest of the users are taken seriously. He makes the observation that when a user wants to write something, he is interested in writing, and not in using the computer or the word processor. From this, Norman argues that the computer should fade into the background, disappear and in the end become invisible for the writer. While this might be a noble goal for design, it comes with some conceptual problems. If the computer or the interface to the computer becomes

“invisible” for the user, it is not possible to use it at all, since it is not there for the user. It might be that Norman meant something else than “invisible” by the notion of invisible, but then I will proceed to argue that we need to search for other more descriptive concepts.

Norman has also been an advocate for promoting visibility in “the interface”, but for other reasons than those mentioned above. During the transition from command-based interaction, towards the graphical user interfaces, it became possible to make information visible in the interface (Norman and Draper, 1986). Based upon the notion of affordance by Gibson (Gibson, 1979), he promoted making elements in the user interface visible.

Norman interprets visibility in the interface broadly, in that it possible to facilitate visibility also using sound (Norman, 1988a).

Hence, Norman conceptualized the interaction with computers and everyday objects as making the interface sometimes visible, other times invisible. The perspective of circumspective use opens up for a different perspective on the relationship between the user and the computer in that there is not an either/or issue at stake, i.e. either visible or invisible. What the circumspective use perspective promotes is describing a kind of awareness in use that goes beyond the visible-invisible dichotomy.

Shneiderman (Shneiderman, 1992) has advocated “user control”, i.e. to let the user be in control when using computers. In particular, he has raised the issue within the context of the ongoing debate as to whether intelligent agents or other forms of automation at the interface should be pursued. One way of facilitating user control is by making elements

in the interface, and their actions visible to the user. Hence, Shneiderman stresses the importance of not “hiding” functions in the computer, but making them explicitly visible for the user to perform his activities. In addition, he stresses the importance of visible feedback in order to support control. The objective of user control can be met by different strategies, where making information visible to the user is one option. According to Shneiderman, and in line with Norman in this respect, user control is a question about designing interfaces where information is either visible or invisible.

The debate about user control was initiated in the context of desktop computing and the use of stationary computer interfaces, where both Norman and Shneiderman have made significant contributions. The slogan Direct Manipulation and WYSIWYG promotes awareness about what should be visible and what should be hidden in the interface. If the designer wants to hide some of the complexity of the interface, this might come at the cost of reducing user control. However, when computers are embedded into the fabric of everyday life, with computers “everywhere”, it is hard to locate “the interface” in the first place, and also to design for less or more user control. When the interface is spread out through the environment, there simply is not “an interface”, as is the case with desktop computers. A dominant way of thinking about the computers within the ubiquitous computing paradigm is that it becomes so embedded into the fabric of the everyday with the effect that it becomes invisible for the user.

Weiser and Brown describe the human ability of being informed without being overburdened (Weiser and Brown, 1997). Equipment can be described as calm technology if the user experiences calm while using it. The calm computing proposal focuses neither on the technology nor on the user, but the relationship in between the two.

The relationship between a user and the technology in use is described as what matters when concerned about the design of technology. This view corresponds to the perspective held by this thesis.

The way users attend to, and are attuned to, technology is at the heart of calm computing.

When attuned to something, it is in the periphery of attention (Weiser and Brown, 1997).

When attending to something explicitly, it is in the foreground. By placing things in the periphery, it is possible for the user to be attuned to many more things than if everything was at the center of attention. The periphery “informs without overburdening” the user, and hence leads to calmness as an important design principle. This is in line with what Polanyi describes as focal and peripheral awareness (Polanyi, 1983).

Related to the notions of center and periphery is the notion of foreground and

background. The notion of background channel is emphasized in the theory of tangible bits (Ishii and Ullmer, 1997). When interacting with tangible user interfaces, the

background channel conveys information from a digital environment. This information is peripheral to the user’s awareness, or, in other words, the information is in the

background. Within tangible bits, the background channel is static and permanent and there is no explicit explanation of movement between what is in the foreground for the user and what is in the background. The background and foreground notions are spatial metaphors applied for discussing the interaction between the user and the digital environment. This is different to the notion of circumspective use, in that there is no explicit dichotomy describing either center/periphery or foreground/background.

Circumspective use is a perspective on the use situation from the “inside” of the situation, as it unfolds over time during use.

The psychologist Csikszentimihalyi described the characteristics of situations when people perform at their peak. He calls this optimal experience, and being in a flow state (Csikszentmihalyi 1991; Csikszentmihalyi 1996). To “be in the flow” is characterized by a high degree of concentration in achieving a clear goal in a situation where there is a balance between being bored and being overwhelmed by anxiety. People in flow are in control of their environment by receiving rapid feedback so as to evaluate their progress.

Many different activities can lead to “being in the flow”, and examples from climbing and music performance are often listed. However, also routine work may be conducted while in the flow. The particular relationship with the equipment in use during such use situations is not discussed primarily within the literature on Flow.

While the concept of “flow” might sound similar or related to circumspective use, there are also some important differences. While circumspectively using equipment, there is not a prerequisite that there is an optimal experience. It is furthermore possible to be both anxious and bored while using equipment. While engaged in using equipment, it is possible to move in and out of the flow state, whereas while using equipment it is always with circumspection, or a kind of awareness. Circumspection is not something that is present in some circumstances and not present at other times – it is about various degrees of awareness in use.

Kluge, in his thesis “Progressive interaction design for the metamedium; an investigation into interactive meaning making” (Kluge, 2005) addresses the field of HCI and tangible computing. Kluge promotes “interactivity” as the primary subject to be studied and argues that the relation between human and technology cannot be accurately understood by elaborate investigations limited to the human, the technology, or the content by themselves. Kluge followed up the work of Svanæs (Svanæs, 1999) who investigated seven important contributions to the HCI field, and drew the conclusion that the field at present can not provide a deep understanding of the nature of the interactive experience.

The main reason for this, according to Svanæs, is the ignorance of the role of the body in human-computer interaction. This is an important insight, since the body is indeed present in all interactive experiences. However, neither Kluge nor Svanæs addresses explicitly the visibility of equipment in use.