skip to main content
10.1145/3025453.3025797acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Products as Agents: Metaphors for Designing the Products of the IoT Age

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 May 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Design-based inquiries into the networked products of the Internet of Things (IoT) lack a coherent understanding of the effect of such products on society. This paper proposes a new taxonomy for networked products, which would allow articulation on their current state and future, and provide insights to designers for creating meaningful and aesthetic products of IoT. Central to this framework is the proposition that our current product-scape should be understood as a distribution of material agencies and best analyzed through the metaphor of "agency". We identify three types of agencies, i.e., the Collector, the Actor, and the Creator, and discuss how this approach could create new design methodologies to create more meaningful networked products that would empower people in their everyday lives.

References

  1. Emile Aarts and Boris de Ruyter. 2009. New research perspectives on ambient intelligence. Ambient Int and Smart Envi 1, 1: 5--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Emile Aarts and Stefano Marzano. 2003. The new everyday: Visions of ambient intelligence. 010 Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. James Henry Auger. 2014. Living with robots: A speculative design approach. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 3, 1: 20--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Karen Barad. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Peter Bihr and Michelle Thorne. 2016. Understanding the connected home: Thoughts on living in tomorrow's connected home. Retrieved Dec 30, 2016 from https://www.gitbook.com/book/connected-homebook/understanding-the-connected-home/detailsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Thomas Binder, Giorgio De Michelis, Pelle Ehn, Giulio Jacucci, Per Linde and Ina Wagner. 2011. Design things. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Erling Bjögvinsson, Pelle Ehn, and Per-Anders Hillgren. 2012. Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Design Issues 28, 3: 101--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Susanne Bødker. 2006. When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles (NordiCHI '06), Anders Mørch, Konrad Morgan, Tone Bratteteig, Gautam Ghosh, and Dag Svanaes (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--8. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1182475.1182476 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Sander Bogers, Joep Frens, Janne van Kollenburg, Eva Deckers, and Caroline Hummels. 2016. Connected Baby Bottle: A Design Case Study Towards a Framework for Data-Enabled Design. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 301--311. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901855 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Ian Bogost. 2012. Alien phenomenology or what it's like to be a thing. University of Minnesota Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Josh Bongard, Victor Zykov and Hod Lipson. 2006. Resilient machines through continuous self-modeling. Science 314, 5802: 1118--1121. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Cynthia Breazeal and Fardad Faridi. 2016. Robot. U.S. Patent D761,895, Filed Nov 24, 2015, issued July 19, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Levi R. Bryant. 2011. The democracy of objects. Open Humanities Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Levi R. Bryant. 2009. Being an Object-Oriented Ontologist and Actor-Network-Theorist is Hard! Retrieved Sep 11, 2016 from https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/being -an-object-oriented-ontologist-and-actor-networktheorist-is-hard/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Susannah Cahalan. 2014. The future is now: The 10 gadgets that will change your life. Retrieved Sep 11, 2016 from http://nypost.com/2014/07/12/10-futuristicgadgets-that-will-change-your-world/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Nazli Cila, Elisa Giaccardi, Melissa Caldwell, Fionn Tynan-O'Mahony, Chris Speed, and Neil Rubens. 2015. Listening to an Everyday Kettle: How Can the Data Objects Collect Be Useful for Design Research?. In Proceedings of the Participatory Innovation Conference. The Hague, NL, 500--506.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Laura Devendorf and Kimiko Ryokai. 2015. Being the Machine: Reconfiguring Agency and Control in Hybrid Fabrication. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2477--2486. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702547 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Carl DiSalvo, Tom Jenkins, and Thomas Lodato. 2016. Designing Speculative Civics. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4979--4990. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858505 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Carl DiSalvo and Jonathan Lukens. 2011. Nonanthropocentrism and the non-human in design: Possibilities for designing new forms of engagement with and through technology. In From social butterfly to engaged citizen: urban informatics, social media, ubiquitous computing, and mobile technology to support citizen engagement, Marcus Foth, Laura Forlano, Christine Satchell and Martin Gibbs (eds.), MIT Press, 421--437.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2007. Technological Dreams Series: No.1, Robots. Retrieved Sep 20, 2016 from http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/projects/10/0Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Deborah Estrin, David Culler, Kris Pister, and Gaurav Sukhatme. 2002. Connecting physical world with pervasive networks. IEEE Pervasive Computing 1, 1: 59--69. DOI=10.1109/MPRV.2002.993145Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Daniel Fallman. 2011. The new good: exploring the potential of philosophy of technology to contribute to human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 10511060. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979099 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Umer Farooq and Jonathan Grudin. 2016. Humancomputer integration. interactions 23, 6 (October 2016), 26--32. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3001896 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Batya Friedman and Peter H. Kahn, Jr.. 2002. Human values, ethics, and design. In The human-computer interaction handbook, Julie A. Jacko and Andrew Sears (Eds.). L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, USA 1177--1201.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. William Gaver. 2012. What should we expect from research through design?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 937946. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208538 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. William Gaver, Phoebe Sengers, Tobie Kerridge, Joseph Kaye, and John Bowers. 2007. Enhancing ubiquitous computing with user interpretation: field testing the home health horoscope. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 537--546. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240711 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Neil Gershenfeld. 2008. Fab: the coming revolution on your desktop--from personal computers to personal fabrication. Basic Books,Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Elisa Giaccardi, Chris Speed, Nazli Cila and Melissa L. Caldwell. 2016. Things as co-ethnographers: Implications of a thing perspective for design and anthropology. In Design Anthropological Futures, Rachel C. Smith, Kasper T. Vaskilde, Mette G. Kjaersgaard, Ton Otto, Joachim Halse, Thomas Binder (eds.). Bloomsbury Academic, 235--248.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Elisa Giaccardi, Chris Speed, and Neil Rubens. 2014. Things making things: An ethnography of the impossible. Retrieved Sep 11, 2016 from https://kadk.dk/co-design/research-network-designanthropology/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Adam Greenfield. 2006. Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquiotous computing. New Riders.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Graham Harman. 2011. The quadruple object. Zer0 books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Wimer Hazenberg, Menno Huisman and Sara Cordoba Rubino. 2011. Meta products: Building the internet of things. BIS Publishers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Tim Ingold. 2013. Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Tim Ingold. 2011. Being Alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Tom Jenkins, Christopher A. Le Dantec, Carl DiSalvo, Thomas Lodato, and Mariam Asad. 2016. ObjectOriented Publics. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 827--839. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858565 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Viktor Kaptelinin and Bonnie A. Nardi. 2006. Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Jørn Knutsen. 2014. Uprooting products of the networked city. Int J of Design 8, 1: 127--142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Mike Kuniavsky. 2010. Smart things: Ubiquitous computing user experience design. Morgan Kaufmann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Matthias Laschke, Sarah Diefenbach, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2011. "Annoying, but in a nice way": An inquiry into the experience of frictional feedback. Int J of Design 9, 2: 129--140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Bruno Latour. 2011. Networks, societies, spheres: Reflections of an actor-network theorist. Int J of Communication 5, 15: 786--810.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Brenda Laurel. 2008. Design animism. In Re(searching) the digital Bauhaus, Thomas Binder, Jonas Löwgren and Lone Malmorg (eds.). Springer, London, UK, 251--274.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. John Law. 2009. Actor network theory and material semiotics. In The new Blackwell companion to social theory, Bryan S. Turner (ed.). Wiley-Blackwell, Sussex, UK, 141--158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Joseph Lindley and Robert Potts. 2014. A machine learning: an example of HCI prototyping with design fiction. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (NordiCHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1081--1084. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2670281 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Betti Marenko. 2014. Neo-animism and design: A new paradigm in object theory. Design and Culture 6, 2: 219--242. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Bjorn Nansen, Luke van Ryn, Frank Vetere, Toni Robertson, Margot Brereton, and Paul Dourish. 2014. An internet of social things. In Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: the Future of Design (OzCHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 8796. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2686612.2686624 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Kjetil Nordby. 2010. Conceptual designing and technology: Short-range RFID as design material. Int J of Design 4, 1: 29--44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Simone Rebaudengo, Walter Aprile, and Paul Hekkert. 2012. Addicted products, a scenario of future interactions where products are addicted to being used. In Out of control: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on design and emotion, London, UK, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Mario Romero, Zachary Pousman and Michael Mateas. 2007. Alien presence in the home: The design of Tableau machine. Pers and Ubi Comp 12, 5: 373382.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. David Rose. 2014. Enchanted objects: Design, human desire, and the Internet of things. Simon and Schuster.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Marco Rozendaal. 2016. Objects with intent: a new paradigm for interaction design. interactions 23, 3 (April 2016), 62--65. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2911330 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Eivind Samuelsen and Kyrre Glette. 2015. Real-World Reproduction of Evolved Robot Morphologies: Automated Categorization and Evaluation. In European Conference on the Applications of Evolutionary Computation. Springer International Publishing, 771--782.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Donald Schön. 1979. Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In Metaphor and thought, Andrew Ortony (ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 138--163.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Bruce Sterling. 2005. Shaping things. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Superflux. 2015. Uninvited guests. Video. (20 May 2015.). Retrieved Sep 17, 2016 from https://vimeo.com/128873380Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Philip van Allen, Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, Brooklyn Brown, Hye Mi Kim, and Daniel Lara. 2013. AniThings: animism and heterogeneous multiplicity. In CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2247--2256. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468746 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Mark Weiser. 1991. The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American 265, 3: 94--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Products as Agents: Metaphors for Designing the Products of the IoT Age

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2017
      7138 pages
      ISBN:9781450346559
      DOI:10.1145/3025453

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 May 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '17 Paper Acceptance Rate600of2,400submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader