Interactions - March/April 2013

rial nature of interaction—that is analytically interesting. Indeed, he argued it would be a mistake to confuse the material with the simply tangible. Rather, it is the forms of materiality at work—the range of material properties at play, questions of durability, fragility, visibility, malleability, deformability, density, heft, and so on—that contribute to the sociocultural considerations, and that further, these perspectives could be brought to bear beyond the domain of “tangible” experience [ 5].

While the panel did cover this
range from new digital materials
to important implications for HCI,
in applying this theoretical lens,
we also had good examples of how
design practices increasingly merge
the digital and the physical. As
described by the industry keynote
panelist Mark Rolston from Frog
Design, “Since most of the modern
computing experience is about the
world we live in (people, places, and
things), it makes sense to move the
user interface out into the material
world.” In saying so, Rolston pin-
pointed the importance of a design
perspective governed by ideas of
literally moving the digital material
out there into the physical world.
Finally, and in an attempt to slightly
challenge this focus on the mate-
rials and to add a philosophical
twist as to what really constitutes a
material, Petra Sundström conclud-
ed that “it might not all be materi-
als, but the perspective can help
us be more innovative.” In claming
this, she pointed out an argument
further elaborated in Sundström
et al. [ 6] in which the digital mate-
rial really is to be understood and
explored as a material, and a mate-
rial we need to consider in design
like any other. The challenge that
these positions express is precisely
one of novelty; while some denied
Rolston’s implication that interac-
tion had ever not been in the mate-
rial world, Sundström’s argument
suggests that materiality is none-
theless seen as a source of innova-
tion—the question, of course, being
what sort of innovation!

Experience Materials!

To summarize the discussion from the panel, a material lens offers a number of very different implications for HCI research and practice. For some, this lens repositions the material as the locus of inquiry and, in doing so, returns HCI research to its roots in computational exploration. Focusing on the basic elements of design practice places HCI alongside other materials-centric design disciplines, including industrial design, architecture, the fine arts, or glassblowing—areas that have always highlighted the importance of a close understanding of the materials in play. For others, a material lens introduces new opportunities for designers to think more broadly about what computation can comprise. It positions traditional or mundane materials (e.g., wood and metal) alongside new or novel materials (e.g., shape-changing polymers), expanding possibilities for design. Last, this lens offers new theoretical framings that acknowledge the material conditions and material consequences of design environments. It enables researchers to conceptualize the computational based on its properties and how, through their arrangement, they entangle with social practices in different ways, revealing particularities, surfaces, and temporal flows [ 7].

A good material understanding thus brings with it a potential for extending the reach of HCI. In applying this lens, we may more effectively explore the digital as a design material and how it might work in composition with other (physical)

materials, on the one hand, and examine people’s experiences with, through, and of digital materials, on the other. In short, a material lens presents us with a new way of seeing [ 8], and it brings with it a huge potential for advancing HCI—as a design discipline, as an academic field, and as a potential for new user experiences. The question around which many of our discussions revolved is also whether materiality provides a new ground for consideration of the relationship between HCI research and practice. While such a brief discussion could do little more than provoke the question in the first place, some agreement could nonetheless be struck: It’s the experience, and experience matters!

ENDNOTES:

1. Wiberg, M., Ishii, H., Rosner, D., Vallgårda, A., Dourish, P., Sundström, P., Kerridge, T., and Rolston, M. Material interactions—from atoms and bits to entangled practices (Panel at CHI’ 12). Proc. of CHI´ 12 Extended Abstracts. 2012. 2. Ishii, H., Lakatos, D., Bonanni, L., and Labrune, J-B. Radical atoms: Beyond tangible bits, toward transformable materials. interactions 19, 1 (2012), 38-51. 3. Vallgårda, A. and Redström, J. Computational composites. Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2007, 513-522. 4. Vallgårda, A. and Sokoler, T. A material strategy: Exploring the material properties of computers. International Journal of Design 4, 3 (2010), 1-14. 5. Dourish, P. and Mazmanian, M. Media as material: Information representations as material foundations for organizational practice. Proc. Third Intl. Symposium on Process Organization Studies (Corfu, Greece). 2011. 6. Sundström, P., Taylor, A., Grufberg, K., Wirström, N., Solsona, J., and Lundén, M. Inspirational bits—towards a shared understanding of the digital material. Proc. of CHI’ 11 (Vancouver, BC). 2011, 1561-1570. 7. Rosner, D.K. The material practices of collaboration. Proc. of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 2012, 1155-1164. 8. Wiberg, M. and Robles, E. Computational compositions: Aesthetics, materials, and interaction design. International Journal of Design 4, 2 (2010), 65-76.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS The authors all par-
ticipated in a panel held at CHI 2012 (Austin, Texas,
May 5-10) titled “Material Interactions—From Atoms
and Bits to Entangled Practices.”
March + April 2013