The increasing evidence of the effects
of adaptive environments on their
inhabitants alongside developments
of technology and how we gather
and share data about us now suggest
that HCI thinking is becoming
useful to and perhaps even necessary
for architectural thinking. Thus,
architects need to begin considering
the intended interactions between
inhabitants and digitally augmented
architectural space. They will
need to ask: What meaning can
inhabitants gain from interacting
with adaptive architecture? What
benefits can such interactions have
for them? What contexts and what
spaces would benefit from interactive
architectural elements? Who should
be leading such human-building
interactions (see our work on
reciprocal control)? When do these
interactions occur on an individual
or group level? And how do they
scale to multi-inhabitant scenarios?
of their synchrony motivated
practitioners to stay synchronized or
try to regain synchrony, making the
yoga experience more relational and
group focused. Practitioners
perceived this emerging quality of
the session as very positive.
To explore synchrony further, we
built another prototype of adaptive
architecture called WABI. It
kinetically responds to how its two
inhabitants breathe and can do this
for each inhabitant independently.
These are only a few questions that
point toward an exciting future
of our interactions with adaptive
1. Wiberg, M. Interaction design meets
architectural thinking. Interactions
WABI can process data from both
inhabitants to create different
interaction modes and data
22, 2 (2015), 60–63; http://doi.
2. Jelić, A., Tieri, G., De Matteis, F., Babiloni,
F., and Vecchiato, G. The enactive
approach to architectural experience:
• Inhabitants can be surrounded
by their own data—a one-to-one
mapping of their data to their
A neurophysiological perspective on
embodiment, motivation, and affordances.
Frontiers in Psychology 7, 608 (2016),
• Their data can be aggregated—
WABI’s response to the average of
inhabitant data is equal for both
• The data can be crisscrossed—
inhabitant A is surrounded by the
data/behavior of inhabitant B and
3. I mean haptic here in the sense of actively
exploring an object (or environment)
by moving one’s body. Or, as Gibson
(1966) put it, haptic perception is “the
sensibility of the individual to the world
adjacent to his body by use of his body.”
Hence, this includes proprioception/
kinaesthesia, the sense of our own body
in relation to its environment.
An initial exploratory study of
WABI (currently in preparation for
publication) indicates that
crisscrossing data seems to facilitate
synchrony between inhabitants more
than other interaction modes.
4. De Jaegher, H. and Di Paolo, E. Participatory
sense-making. Phenomenology and the
Cognitive Sciences 6, 4 (2007), 485–507;
5. Schnadelbach, H. Adaptive architecture.
Interactions 23, 2 (2016), 62–65; http://
AN (EN)ACTION PLAN
6. Fuchs, T. The Phenomenology of Affectivity.
OUP Oxford, 2013.
7. Jäger, N., Schnädelbach, H., Hale, J., Kirk,
D., and Glover, K. Reciprocal control in
adaptive environments. Interacting with
Computers 29, 4 (Jul. 2017), 512–529;
8. Moran, S., Jäger, N., Schnädelbach,
JOCCH publishes papers of
significant and lasting value in
all areas relating to the use of ICT
in support of Cultural Heritage,
seeking to combine the best of
computing science with real
attention to any aspect of the
cultural heritage sector.
H., and Glover, K. ExoPranayama: A
biofeedback-driven actuated environment
for supporting yoga breathing practices.
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing
20, 2 (Apr. 2016), 261–275; http://doi.
At the time of this writing, Nils Jäger
was a research fellow in the Mixed Reality
Laboratory, University of Nottingham, U.K.
He is now a lecturer in digital architecture
at the School of Architecture, Building and
Civil Engineering, Loughborough University,
U.K. A trained architect, he investigates the
bodily relationship between inhabitants and
DOI: 10.1145/3137113 COPYRIGHT HELD BY AUTHOR.
PUBLICATION RIGHTS LICENSED TO ACM. $15.00