Choreographic Inscriptions : A Framework for Exploring Sociomaterial Influences on Qualities of Movement for HCI

ISSN: 1795-6889 www.humantechnology.jyu.fi Volume 12(1), May 2016, 31–55 31 CHOREOGRAPHIC INSCRIPTIONS: A FRAMEWORK FOR EXPLORING SOCIOMATERIAL INFLUENCES ON QUALITIES OF MOVEMENT FOR HCI Abstract: With the rise of ubiquitous computing technologies in everyday life, the daily actions of people are becoming ever more choreographed by the interactions available through technology. By combining the notion of inscriptions from actor–network theory and the qualitative descriptors of movement from Laban movement analysis, an analytic framework is proposed for exploring how the interplay of material and social inscriptions gives rise to movement patterns and behaviors, translated into choreographic inscriptions described with Laban effort and shape. It is demonstrated through a case study of an affective gesture mobile device. The framework provides an understanding of (a) how movement qualities are shaped by social and material inscriptions, (b) how the relative strength of inscriptions on movements may change according to different settings and user appropriation over time, and (c) how transforming inscriptions by design across different mediums can generate action spaces with varying degrees of openness. Keywords: choreographic inscription, movement quality, actor–network theory, Laban movement analysis. © 2016 Lian Loke & A. Baki Kocaballi, and the Agora Center, University of Jyväskylä DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201605192619 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Lian Loke Design Lab University of Sydney Australia A. Baki Kocaballi Design Lab University of Sydney Australia Loke & Kocaballi 32 INTRODUCTION Everyday actions of people are becoming ever more choreographed by the interactions available through ubiquitous computing technologies. As these technologies become embedded in objects and the environment, close to the entire range of human actions, movements and gestures that make up daily life become available for input and computational processing. This poses a challenge to the fields of human–computer interaction (HCI) and interaction design. HCI now has specializations such as tangible, natural, and proximal interaction that include an explicit movement dimension. But when is movement a design priority in itself? Most applications require some form of human movement to take place for interaction but often in the service of achieving a goal or task that is not explicitly about movement itself. In recent years, applications have appeared where movement is the central focus of the system, often for games, sport, dance, exercise, and rehabilitation. Even if movement is not the central or explicit focus of the system, the fact that movement is involved at some level to facilitate actions and interactions with and through technology brings a new significance to the quality and spectrum of movements people perform in daily life. We are interested in examining how material and social factors enable or constrain movement patterns and behavior, whether intentionally by design or as a side-effect. In this paper, we propose to do this through an analysis combining actor–network theory and Laban movement analysis. Our focus goes beyond functional movements to consider the quality, expressivity, creativity, and kinesthetics of movement often treated as choreographic in nature. By combining the notion of inscriptions from actor–network theory and the qualitative descriptors of movement from Laban movement analysis, a new concept for HCI, choreographic inscriptions, is put forward for inscribing qualities of movement by design. The notion of inscriptions is often employed together with that of translations. In very simple terms, they correspond to acts of writing and reading, respectively. They are key terms of actor–network theory (Akrich & Latour, 1992) to render visible the interconnectedness between entities and transformations taking place at multiple levels during interactions between entities. While acts of inscribing onto something generate various programs for action, acts of translating something may produce deviations from the inscribed programs for action. Therefore, as Hanseth and Monteiro asserted, the notion of inscription allows a balance between technological and social determinism: Balancing the tight-rope between, on the one hand, an objectivistic stance where artefacts determine the use and, on the other hand, a subjectivistic stance holding that an artefact is always interpreted and appropriated flexibly, the notion of an inscription may be used to describe how concrete anticipations and restrictions of future patterns of use are involved in the development and use of a technology. (Hanseth & Monteiro, 1997, p. 3) The notion of choreographic inscriptions aims to provide a way of framing and conceptualizing human movement beyond the purely functional towards an understanding of the field of potential movement quality and expression enabled or constrained through designed artifacts and the social world in which they are embedded. The term choreography is traditionally defined as the composition or structuring of movement in space and time (Butterworth & Wildschut, 2009). It also speaks to the aesthetic, creative, and vitalitygenerating aspects of movement (Fraleigh, 1987), the qualities that foster a more nuanced and Choreographic Inscriptions: A Framework 33 articulate human movement expression and quality of life. In etymological terms, choreography is writing dance or, as anthropologists more broadly define it, “writing movement” (Williams & Farnell, 1990). Choreography has been understood as inscribing moving bodies in space (Martin, 1995) and, by extension, into other media, including digital technologies (Lycouris, 2009). The transfer of choreographic thinking onto materials other than the body can be considered a form of inscription (in the actor–network theory sense of creating programs of action), echoing Forsythe’s (2009) contention that “A choreographic object is not a substitute for the body, but rather an alternative site for the understanding of potential instigation and organization of action to reside” (p. 4; emphasis added) or, as Allsopp and Lepecki (2008, p. 4) described, “a means of inscribing bodily, social, and non-human movement in cultural, social, political and personal space.” This expanded view of choreography as inscribing movement in dimensions and arenas other than the purely material connects choreographic approaches to considerations of the immaterial forces and influences acknowledged by actor–network theory. The analysis of movement is well established in anthropology, science, and dance. Movement can be interpreted in the sociocultural frame of patterns of social and spatial interaction between people. The most well-known examples are Goffman’s (1959) theory of social interaction based on a theatrical metaphor and Hall’s (1968) proxemics. Movement has been conceptualized as nonverbal communication, most notably in Birdwhistell’s (1970) kinesics, Kaeppler’s (1978) kinemes and morphokines, and as meaning in patterned and structured movement systems such as sports games, religious rituals, and dance (Reed, 1998; Williams, 1991). Whereas these systems have tended to foreground the social and semantic dimensions of human behavior, interaction analysis (Jordan & Henderson, 1995) in HCI studies aimed to integrate both social and material aspects of human activity and interaction, with a particular focus on technology use. Actor–network theory differs from these approaches by its emphasis on the emergent and co-constructive characteristics of human– technology relationships and its symmetrical treatment of human and nonhuman actors. Dance and movement notations focus on the changing patterns of motion in the body and between bodies in relation to parameters of space and time (Guest, 1984). Laban movement analysis has been used in dance and movement studies for observing both natural and choreographed movement and for exploring and choreographing movement. It continues to be used in fields traditionally associated with the physical body, such as dance studies (Guest, 1984; William & Farnell, 1990), physical therapy (Bartenieff & Lewis, 1980), and drama (Newlove, 1993), and also has been applied in anthropology (Farnell, 1999; Lewis, 1995). Since the late 1970s, Laban movement theory has been applied to various fields of computing, such as motion recognition, computer animation, and artificial intelligence (e.g., Badler & Smoliar, 1979; Camurri et al., 2000; Schiphorst, Lovell, & Jaffe 2002; Swaminathan et al., 2009). More recently, it has been applied in the design of interactive products and systems for its ability to capture the relations between movement, expression, and emotion (Fagerberg, Ståhl, & Höök, 2003; Jensen, 2007; Ross & Wensveen, 2010). It is becoming recognized as the primary crossdisciplinary shared language among researchers working at the junction of experiential and computational models of movement (e.g., Larboulette & Gibet, 2015; Lockyer, Bartram, Schiphorst, & Studd, 2015). Several existing design frameworks provide ways of framing, conceptualizing, and interpreting movement (Bongers & Veer, 2007; Eriksson, Hansen, & Lykke-Olesen, 2007; Fogtmann, Fritsch, & Kortbek, 2008; Hornecker & Buur, 2006; Hummels, Overbeeke, & Loke & Kocaballi 34 Klooster, 2007; Klooster & Overbeeke, 2005; Ross & Wensveen, 2010; Schiphorst, 2007). Choreographically oriented design approaches include the choreography in interaction framework (Hummels et al., 2007; Klooster & Overbeeke, 2005) and the interaction quality framework (Ross & Wensveen, 2010), arising out of product design with an interest in the design of moveable products inspired by human movement. The kinesthetic interaction framework (Fogtmann et al., 2008) offered a range of concepts for thinking about movement in design (expressive meaning, kinesthetic empathy, movability, explicit/implicit motivation), which overlap with choreographic intentions. Several frameworks provide mapping strategies for interaction with technology and support of various kinds of movement-based activities (Benford et al., 2005; Loke & Robertson, 2013; Rogers & Muller, 2006; Wensveen, Djajadiningrat, & Overbeeke, 2004). Although these frameworks offer concepts for sensitizing the qualities of movement for interaction with technology and methods for generating and evaluating models, prototypes and solutions for movement-based interaction, less attention has been paid to how qualities of movement are inscribed—in varying strengths, in different technology design choices. In the following sections, we briefly introduce the key concepts and terminology of actor– network theory and Laban movement analysis relevant to this paper. The actor–network concepts of inscription and translation are compared with established understandings in HCI of the concepts of affordances, constraints, and appropriation. We then present and explain our choreographic inscription analytic framework. The framework is illustrated through application to a selected case study of a gesture-based interactive technology, the eMoto affective gesture system (Fagerberg, Ståhl, & Höök, 2004). This case was selected as an example of an interactive technology that has not yet been widely adopted but presents an exploration of future likely possibilities of gesture-based interactions with mobile devices. The published work on the development of the eMoto system provides a solid foundation for our analytic purposes, especially because the authors of the eMoto system have utilized Laban effort and shape in combination with Russell’s (1980) circumplex of emotion to derive their affective gestural plane model. A discussion is opened on a number of key insights, including how the relative strength of inscriptions may change according to different social settings and user appropriation over time, and how it is possible to translate inscriptions across different mediums by design to achieve desired programs of action. These insights are elaborated through hypothetical extensions of the eMoto system, positioned within a mapping of open- and closed-action spaces. We conclude by summarizing the key contributions of the paper. ACTOR–NETWORK THEORY AS A RELATIONAL LENS Actor–network theory (ANT) evolved out of the efforts of scholars of science and technology studies, notably those of Michel Callon, Bruno Latour, and John Law, in the 1980s. The etymology of the term is French: acteur réseau. Latour (1990) noted that the term réseau was first used by Diderot to describe matter and bodies without being confined to the Cartesian divide between matter and spirit. In their ethnographic study of practices in scientific laboratories, during which they analyzed the daily practices undertaken in a neuroendocrinological laboratory in California, Latour and Woolgar (1979) demonstrated how scientific facts are socially constructed in a network of relations between people, inscription devices, and articles rather than being discovered. Choreographic Inscriptions: A Framework 35 According to Law (1999, p. 3), ANT may be understood either as a semiotics of materiality or as a material-semiotic approach: “It takes the semiotic insight, that of the relationality of entities, the notion that they are produced in relations, and applies this ruthlessly to all materials—and not simply to those that are linguistic.” Therefore, relationality in ANT is not confined to explaining linguistic units but is extended by including any kind of human and nonhuman entity. The main area of interest for ANT researchers is the emergence and transformation of relations and patterns of relations. Analytically, humans and nonhumans are treated symmetrically, which allows researchers to understand the processes of becoming: becoming a kind of human, becoming a kind of nonhuman, and becoming a kind of collective of humans and nonhumans. Both humans and nonhumans can be authentic actors provided that they are capable of doing things and/or modifying “a state of affairs by making a difference” (Latour, 2005, p. 70–71). Key Concepts of ANT Mol (2010) argued that ANT may be seen simply as a list of terms. While stressing that there are many important terms in ANT, we limit the discussion to a few relevant terms only. Actor, Actants, and Entities According to ANT scholars, any entity that acts or makes a difference can be defined as an actor. Latour proposed the term actant in order to overcome the cultural anthropomorphic connotations of the term actor. Scholars of ANT have provided various definitions of the two terms. For example, an actor (or actant) can be “any element which bends space around itself, makes other elements dependent upon itself and translates their will into a language of its own” (Callon & Latour, 1981, p. 286). Latour (2005, p. 71) claimed that “any thing that does modify a state of affairs by making a difference is an actor—or, if it has not figuration yet, and actant.” In general, anything can be considered as an actor/actant provided that it is able to make a difference and leave a trace. Inscriptions and Translations The power of inscription and translation, two important concepts of ANT, generates from their broad metaphorical scope and intertwined conceptualization. Metaphorically speaking, inscribing can be understood as an act of writing in or on anything. When an actor writes something, the written thing, that is, the inscription, influences the relations and roles of its actors to varying degrees. Any human or nonhuman actors, their effects, and their relations can be viewed as inscriptions for a situation. Inscriptions join in a collective of actors and influence the actors’ capacities for action. Thus, a collective of human and nonhuman actors may be viewed as a collective of inscriptions that have the capacity to affect each other. In this respect, all interactions among the actors become processes of translation: Actors translate (read) the interests of other actors or their programs of action. Akrich (1992) noted that the technical content of the objects embodies a script similar to a film script that defines the actors, their roles, and the settings. A script involves, in varying degrees of strength, programs of action that are translated into practice (Akrich, 1992; Callon, 1986). However, these inscribed programs of action may not succeed should the translation Loke & Kocaballi 36 processes vary; in addition, actual interactions between entities may unfold in unexpected ways. There is a mutual influence between interacting entities: Objects enable or constrain the actions of humans, but, at the same time, humans reshape the objects and their relationships with them. The strength of an inscription may vary from very strong, that is, imposing one particular inflexible program of action, to very weak, offering many flexible programs of action. Latour (2005) provided an example of the progressively increasing strength of an inscription. The case cited is that of a hotel manager who wants his/her guests to deposit their room keys at the reception desk when departing the hotel. The manager first uses oral communication, then written notices to invite the desired behavior. However, neither form of communication implemented to define a desired program of action proves successful. Finally, a metal weight is attached to the room keys, an inscription that proves successful. While the first two inscriptions were weak, the final one was strong enough to impose the desired behavior on the hotel guests. Translation has been used to explain various processes during the construction of a collective or network. Callon explained that translations are processes within which actors relate to one another and “the identity of actors, the possibility of interaction and the margins of manoeuvre are negotiated and delimited” (1986, p. 203). According to Murdoch, translation involves “the processes of negotiation, representation and displacement which establish relations between actors, entities and places” (1998, p. 362). In effect, translations and inscriptions are intertwined processes. The objects of translation may include the inscriptions embodied in materials or the interests or intentions of some actors. In fact, the very act of inscribing something involves an act of translating. An actor translates its interests to different mediums, which can be anything from words and gestures to objects and laws and may be material or semiotic. These mediums embody the interests of the actor through the inscriptions, as in the case of the hotel keys. Therefore, inscriptions may be defined as embodied translations in a medium that will, in turn, be further translated by other actors in practice. This idea of translating inscriptions from one medium to another will be taken up in the Discussion section but from a design perspective. CONSTRAINTS, AFFORDANCES, AND APPROPRIATION In the related fields of HCI and interaction design, there are similar notions to inscriptions, such as constraints (Norman, 1998), affordances (Gaver, 1991; Norman, 1998), and appropriation (Anacleto & Fels, 2013; Dix, 2007). Norman (1998) explained that constraints can be viewed as limitations on the possible set of actions. Constraints can be defined by material properties of an object (physical constraints), social acceptability in situations (cultural constraints), a user’s knowledge of situations (semantic constraints), or a user’s reasoning of situations (logical constraints). The concept of affordance was originally developed by J. J. Gibson (1986) to explain how action possibilities emerge out of a relation between the material properties of a physical object and the capabilities of a living entity. For example, if an object has a large enough horizontal flat surface raised 50 cm from the ground, it may afford sit-on-ability for an adult person. However, the same object may afford climb-on-ability for a small child. Affordance is a powerful relational concept to understand how the space of possibilities is constructed by the properties and capabilities of an object and subject, respectively. Choreographic Inscriptions: A Framework 37 Although constraints and affordance are similar in terms of their role in shaping actions, there are some important differences between the two. While constraints are generally attributed to an entity or situation, affordances are attributed to the relationships between entities and emphasize the emergent and relational nature of possibilities for action. Constraints deal with the limitations of an entity or a situation on actions whereas affordances focus on both the enabling and constraining aspects of relationships on actions. The concept of appropriation, on the other hand, refers to the cases in which interpretation and usage of technologies deviate from their original purpose. Appropriation allows a less deterministic attitude to be developed towards the relationships among humans and other entities, in particular, technologies. Despite the fact that constraints, affordances, and appropriation are valuable concepts embracing, in varying degrees, the relational aspects in the possibilities for action, their focus is mainly upon unidirectional aspects from humans to technology in human–technology relations. In other words, their primary concern is either humans’ interpretations of technology or humans’ actions on technology, but is not about their mutual effects or entanglement. The power of inscription and translation is attributable to their metaphorical scope and their intertwined conceptualization according to which an act of inscription is an act of translation as well. While the broad metaphorical scope facilitates application of the concepts to the relations between practically any entities, the intertwined conceptualization allows a balance between technological and social determinism. The notions of inscription and translation do not privilege any actors in their framing of possibilities for action. Humans and nonhumans are treated as symmetrical in analytic terms. It is possible to consider the notions of inscriptions and translations as an overarching pair of concepts unifying the concepts of constraints, affordances, and appropriation in the sense that they allow us to become aware of (a) the enabling or constraining aspects of relationships on actions (that is, affordances), (b) the constructed nature of affordances, (c) the actors taking part in the creation of affordances, and (d) the possibilities of deviations from affordances. Ultimately, employment of inscriptions and translations captures the mutual coconstructive nature of human–technology relationships and enables interaction designers to integrate a relational sensitivity into their design thinking at almost every decision-making step. Latour (1992) explained how a simple case of closing doors involves complex translations and delegations between human and nonhuman actors. In his example, he compared a regular door, a door with a doorman, a door with a spring-based automatic door closer, and a door with a hydraulic door closer. One of his main points was that each alternative creates a very different inscription or program for action of opening, passing through, and closing the door. For instance, a door closer with a spring mechanism requires a very specific and quick way of passing through the doorway, otherwise it may slam in one’s face. On the other hand, a door with a hydraulic closer retains the energy it receives from a person’s movement and slowly releases it. Therefore, it does not require passers to be very quick in their movements. However, it does require more power to operate and may create an obstacle for children or older people with limited muscular power. LABAN EFFORT AND SHAPE FOR DESCRIBING QUALITIES OF MOVEMENT Laban movement analysis (LMA) and its companion Labanotation form a system and language for observing, describing, analyzing, and notating all forms of human movement. It was Loke & Kocaballi 38 originally developed by choreographer Rudolph Laban (1971) in the 1920s and was extended primarily by Knust (see Guest, 1984), Hutchinson (1977), Lamb and Watson (1979), and Bartenieff and Lewis (1980). It offers a framework and vocabulary for describing the structural and physical characteristics of the moving body, the use of space, and the dynamic, qualitative, and expressive aspects of movement through four major components: body, effort, shape, and space. We focus here primarily on the effort and shape components because they are intended for description of the qualities of movement, including the inner attitude of the mover. These two components of movement focus on “the changing patterns which occur in the ebb and flow of energy within the body” (Hutchinson, 1977, p. 12). For example, in dance choreography, this form of description conveys the aesthetic, emotional, and expressive qualities of the dance. Effort Effort (or the energy content) of a movement is described in the motion factors of weight, space, time, and flow, together with how a person indulges in or resists each factor. Each factor is represented by two polarities: Weight (light/strong), Space (direct/indirect), Time (sudden/sustained), and Flow (bound/free). Laban (1971) defined an effort element in terms of two components: the measurable, objective aspects of resistance, speed, direction, and control and the personal and classifiable aspects of levity, duration, expansion, and fluency. The first component relates to the properties of movement that can be measured by an outside observer. The second component relates to the movement sensation, that is, qualities of psychosomatic experience. Laban (1971, p. 81) described the significance of movement sensations as, “While in functional actions the movement sensation is an accompanying factor only, this becomes more prominent in expressive situations where psychosomatic experience is of utmost importance.” For this paper, we restrict the analysis to the observational perspective, how movements are observed from an external point of reference to the body. There are eight basic effort actions derived from the motion factors of weight, space, and time (flow is excluded). A diagram of the basic effort actions is illustrated as an effort cube (see Figure 1), otherwise known as the dynamosphere (Newlove, 1993). For example, a Float effort action is light in weight, indirect in space, and sustained in time. By changing the polarity in one factor, say from indirect to direct in space, the effort action becomes a Glide. The effort cube is a useful reference for quickly locating and identifying specific movement qualities in a field of movement potential, delineated by eight basic actions with names that refer to familiar actions in daily life. Shape Shape describes the spatial shaping of form—growing, shrinking, or carving patterns in space. It describes the expressiveness inherent in the form of a movement. Shape analysis was developed primarily by Lamb and Watson (1979). They described the shaping process in this way: The actual process of variation, which results in a succession of differently sculpted positions, can be described as a sculpturing, or shaping process. If we wish to become more aware of the shape of a person’s posture pattern, as he [sic] dresses himself, or greets friends at a party, or elbows his way around a store, for example, it helps to imagine that all his joints are emitting vapour trails as though they contained jet engines. (Lamb & Watson, 1979, p. 49–50) Choreographic Inscriptions: A Framework 39 Figure 1. The Laban effort cube maps the effort dimensions of weight, space, and time along axes into a three dimensional field delineated by eight effort actions on the vertices of the cube. The spatial shaping of the body can be analyzed in terms of what forms the body makes and the relation of the body to itself and its environment. Shape analysis provides a set of descriptors for dynamic, fluctuating shape characteristics, classified into categories of Shape Form, Shape Flow, Shape Quality, and Directional Shape. Shape form describes the static shapes that the body takes, for example, pin-like, wall-like, ball-like, or screw-like. Laban (1971, p. 70) defined these four terms in relation to the organization of parts of the body as the (a) spine and its pin-like extension, (b) right/left symmetry of body and its wall-like surface, (c) limbs, together with their respective trunk regions curling and circling in ball-like shapes, and (d) shoulder-girdle and pelvis twisted against one another in screw-like fashion. Shape flow supports the body changing its form only in relationship to itself, for example, when breathing, daydreaming, or being self-involved (Bradley, 2009). Shape quality describes the attitudinal process changing the shape of the body, for example, opening or closing or growing or shrinking, indicating the degree of extension or contraction in the body. More specific terms include rising and sinking (along the vertical axis of the body), spreading and enclosing (along the horizontal axis), and advancing and retreating (along the sagittal axis). Directional shape is when the body is directed towards some part of the environment, other person, or object. It can be spoke-like (e.g., shaking hands) or arc-like (e.g., painting a wall). The spatial intent of a movement determines the particular spatial shape that is produced as the movement unfolds. For example, the action of pulling a fishing net out of the water has a spatial intent that is directed along a radial line from the center of the body to the periphery where the hands hold the net. The related spatial shape of the body is one that expands and contracts along the path dictated by the spatial intent as the person repeatedly pulls the net towards the body (Bartenieff & Lewis, 1980). Together, effort and shape capture the dynamic process of human movement and provide a vocabulary for describing the salient features of the movement that can form part of a design language enabling communication and exploration of movement qualities. thrust slash wring press dab flick floatglide flexible direct light strong sudden sustained Space Time Weight Loke & Kocaballi 46 guides, or affordances in the intended ways or they may intentionally go against the scripted actions (Akrich, 1992). Deviations refer to those instances where human actors’ actions deviate from the dominant scripted actions. It is important to note that deviations do not necessarily correspond to undesired instances. In the design literature, various approaches aim to utilize deviations as a way to empower users or the variety in their actions, such as designing for appropriation (Dix, 2007), designing for ambiguity (Gaver, Beaver, & Benford, 2003), staying open to interpretation (Sengers & Gaver, 2006), and seamful design (Chalmers & Galani, 2004). Open and closed action spaces may help designers in understanding the enabling and constraining characteristics of human–technology relations on humans’ movements. They can also be helpful in foreseeing deviations from the scripted movements or convergences to a limited set of movements. In general, although there may be deviations or convergences, open action spaces support more variety in movements while closed action spaces keep movements in a predictable range. Transforming Inscriptions and Translations in Use Having explained convergences and deviations in open and closed action spaces, we will now demonstrate how shifts across those spaces may take place by transforming eMoto’s material and social inscriptions—through user appropriation or the creation of new technology-enabled social protocols. The current version of eMoto is deliberately designed to be open, flexible, and interpretative by its users so that they can develop the kinds of affective gestures most resonant with their individual preferences and personalities. The communication of emotional expression through the visual representations on the mobile device is also open to interpretation by the receiver of the message. Despite the designed-in or inscribed flexible interface, it may be the case that, over a period of extended use, a person develops a recognizable set of habitual affective gestures. That is, he/she tends to always perform the same kind of gesture for a specific emotion in a similar way. What was previously a weakly inscribed material influence on possible expressive movement behaviors has now become a strong bodily inscription. The person has incorporated a set of affective gestures into his/her bodily repertoire. The material inscription of the device has not actually changed—it was intended by the designers to be a weak inscription enabling flexible programs of action—but the practices of the human actor in appropriating the use of the device have translated the material inscriptions into a stable set of affective gestures, effectively becoming a strong choreographic inscription. In this case, a person’s developing some habitual affective gestures over time changes the strength of inscriptions from weak to strong and transforms the action space from open to closed. As a result, a convergence to a limited set of gestures takes place. In addition to developing habits, there can be other factors transforming the strength of inscriptions, such as continued exposure and the capacity of people to perceive inscriptions. Rico and Brewster (2010) maintained that humans’ relationships with a device may create a new standard of social acceptability through continued exposure. Furthermore, the possession of a device may also allow a person to perform atypical gestures that are not normally socially acceptable in a particular setting because the person is perceived as a new hybrid actor, combining person and device. As the movement gestures are attributable to a person– device hybrid, the gestures may not be subject to the same social inscriptions1 affecting a person without any devices. However, this would be the case only if the person believes that Choreographic Inscriptions: A Framework 47 his/her device is perceivable by observers. Rico and Brewster (2010, p. 894) observed that it is “not the energy required to perform a gesture that makes it acceptable, but the perceived appearance of that gesture.” Therefore an important factor for social inscriptions is the public availability or perceptibility of gestures. From the perspective of design, social inscriptions may represent a challenge because designers have very little control over the unfolding of these inscriptions that may cause deviations from the intended human and device interactions. However, participatory design methods—such as workshops, enactments, and prototypes—may prove useful for identifying and accommodating the unexpected effects of social inscriptions. Although material inscriptions are generated in accord with social inscriptions, in some cases the former might be employed to subvert the latter. For example, Serendipitor (Shepard, 2010), a mobile phone app for walking through city streets in a dérive2-like fashion, employs strong inscriptions, such as well-defined explicit and disruptive instructions about what to do at each step of interaction, in order to allow the app users to break up their daily habitual movement paths and patterns. Shifting Across Action Spaces by Design In this section, we discuss how transforming material, social, and choreographic inscriptions by design may result in shifts across action spaces with different action possibilities. We return to Latour’s example of the hotel manager and room key to illustrate how an inscription’s power to achieve a desired action is transferred from a weak social inscription in the first option (oral communication) to a weak material inscription in the second option (a written notice) to a stronger form of material inscription in the third option (a heavy weight attached to keys). While the first and second options, with their weak social and material inscriptions, stay in the open action space in which the hotel customers do not leave the keys at the front desk as requested, the third option shifts to the semiopen space in which a strong inscription of an attached metal made the majority of customers leave their keys at the reception desk. Figure 6 illustrates this transformation process. In order to demonstrate how similar shifts may take place in eMoto, we introduce three cases involving one original and two hypothetical versions of eMoto. Case 1 involves the original eMoto The Perfect Job scenario (eMoto V1) in the home; Case 2 involves a hypothetical redesign of eMoto (eMoto V2) used at home; and Case 3 involves another hypothetical redesign of eMoto (eMoto V3) employed in a public place.3 Figure 7 illustrates the three cases. Case 1 with eMoto V1 involves a typical user interaction of communicating the emotion of excitement by performing vigorous shaking of the device with the arm held up above the head (refer to Table 1). In this scenario the person is sitting at a desk; the desk is a material constraint resulting in restricted physical movements of the body. An alternative option is for the person to perform the affective gesture while standing, which may result in more spatially expansive body movements. The spatial shaping of the body is depicted in Figure 2(iv). When standing, the action may become more pronounced as the hips swing to counterbalance the swing of the arms. The weak material and social inscriptions are translated by the human actor in flexible ways, as intended by the designers. The eMoto V2 in Case 2 aims to encourage larger body movements through changing how the sensor data are computationally processed, achieved technically through programming the accelerometer to require bigger spatial gestures to generate data. For example, the emotional Loke & Kocaballi 48 Figure 6. Transforming inscriptions for the case of the Hotel Manager: A weak material inscription of a written notice and a weak social inscription of an oral communication are transformed into a strong material inscription through the use of a heavy weight on the door key. Figure 7. Transforming inscriptions for the three cases of eMoto: Version 1 has weak material and social inscriptions, transformed into a strong material inscription in Version 2, and strong material and social inscriptions in Version 3. expression of excitement may require a more exuberant action, perhaps jumping up and down with the whole body with the arms also flapping up and down. In Laban terms, this action demands high effort, characterized crudely as elements of flick/slash for the arms/torso and Material Inscriptions Social Inscriptions Weak Strong Strong Material Inscriptions Social Inscriptions Weak Strong Strong eMoto V1 eMoto V2 eMoto V3 restrictive gesture recognition system nonrestrictive gesture recognition system private place public place Choreographic Inscriptions: A Framework 49 thrust/press for the legs. The shape component of the action can be described in terms of quality—whole body expanding/contracting in the vertical/horizontal planes—and directional— up/out into space as the body expands and down/in as the body contracts, with the spatial intent more outward oriented and with less attention on the device stylus. This is an example of how a desired choreographic inscription is then translated into the material properties of the device. The introduction of strong material inscriptions (i.e., the requirement of amplified gestures) can move Case 2 into a semiopen action space in which the system ignores smaller movements and requires users to perform more exuberant movements in a more limited range. The eMoto V3 in Case 3 provides an additional functionality to formalize a set of affective gestures for sharing among friends. Often couples or good friends develop their own idiosyncratic social language—a set of gestures with specific meanings mutually created, recognized, and performed only within that group. The eMoto system could be customized to enable the creation of a formal gestural vocabulary for sharing between select people. This new feature would be a strong material and choreographic inscription of preferred or desired affective gestural expressions, changing the original weak material inscription embodied in the eMoto system to a stronger one. This social agreement may give the users a sense of permission to flaunt acceptable social behaviors, especially in public settings, enabling a potentially greater range of physically expressive affective gestures than usual. This is an example of how a social inscription embodied in the social agreement between friends is translated into a material inscription by adding new functionality to an existing system that is then translated into actual user actions corresponding to their shared gesture set. Through the introduction of strong social (i.e., public place and social agreement between friends) and material inscriptions (i.e., a user-defined gesture recognition system), Case 3 can shift to a closed action space in which the majority of the users’ gestures can be performed in accord with the predefined set of gestures, in other words, a strong choreographic inscription. In summary, the combination of open/closed action spaces and weak/strong inscriptions can help designers to think through the relative merits of enabling or constraining programs of action in material, social, and choreographic terms. It is possible through intentional design acts to inscribe desired choreographic or social behaviors in the material properties of technologies. However the actual translation of material, social, and choreographic inscriptions in practice can result in convergence or deviation from the expected programs of actions. Whether the transformation of inscriptions and translations takes place in actual use through acts of user appropriation or by intentional design acts, the application of our framework can draw attention to how the strength of inscriptions and translations evolves over time to produce varying qualities of movement in open or closed action spaces. IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY Our framework employs some core concepts from ANT and Laban’s effort and shape to help recognize multiple sources of influence on humans’ actions and movements. The framework can be expanded to include various other material and social inscriptions according to the level of relational sensitivity desired. There are two main implications for design theory. First, humans’ actions and movement choreographies cannot be considered independent phenomena; they take place within a network of other human and nonhuman actors acting as multiple Loke & Kocaballi 50 sources of influence, that is, inscriptions, on action possibilities. Second, the relations between inscriptions and actual actions and movements are semideterministic. Therefore, a strongly scripted choreography situated in a closed action space may not result in expected movements, whereas a choreography with weak scripts taking place in an open action space may not support sustained variety in movements. Although in practice it is not possible to consider an entire network of social and material inscriptions, developing sensitivity towards recognizing the multiplicity of inscriptions may prove useful for foreseeing possible cases of deviation from the desired flow of interaction and accommodating those deviations. CONCLUSION We have presented an analytic framework combining the notions of inscriptions and translations from ANT and a vocabulary for describing qualities of movement based on Laban effort and shape to draw attention to the range and quality of movement enabled or constrained by interaction with interactive technologies in social settings. The dimensions of material, social, and choreographic inscriptions characterize the framework. The power of the framework was demonstrated by applying it to the eMoto case study. This affective gesture system was selected to illustrate how different design or technology decisions can result in the inscription in bodies of different types and degrees of movement patterns and qualities, as well as the social factors influencing the performance of expressive movement behaviors. The use of the ANT terms inscription and translation is critical for how we have defined the notion of choreographic inscriptions in this paper. They allow a balance between determinism and nondeterminism in the relations between humans and other entities and capture the ongoing processes of interpretation and appropriation involved in interactions between humans and interactive technologies. The actual movements performed in interaction can be thought of as a translation of both material and social inscriptions, resulting in a choreographic or movement inscription distributed across a network of people, artifacts, and protocols. The use of the Laban effort and shape descriptions of qualities of movement provides a language for partially articulating these choreographic inscriptions. Our aim is to provide designers with a language and vocabulary with which to reason about the qualities of movement in relation to technology design decisions and the social settings in which interaction with the technology takes place, not to prescribe or reduce the movements performed in actuality. The framework contributes to the palette of tools available for sensitizing designers to the variety and qualities of movement that are enabled, constrained, or inhibited by technology design decisions. It is not limited to interactive technologies but can be applied more broadly to designed objects, structures, and systems. Furthermore, it is important to note that our framework does not suggest that designers should avoid constraining user behavior or should always support higher amounts of flexibility in technology use. Rather, our intention is to help designers to develop an account of enabling and constraining effects of design decisions, on the one hand, and the possibilities of deviations from the expected human–technology relations on the other. In future work, we wish to expand our analysis of the qualities of movement from the observational perspective taken in this paper to embrace the internal felt experience of movement. Rather than just designing for the outward form of movement, the notion of choreographic inscriptions can be extended to more fully consider Choreographic Inscriptions: A Framework 51 the design of kinesthetic choreographies. That is, it may be desirable to foreground the kinesthetic experience of movement within our framework, to better support this dimension in the design of interactive technologies. We believe that the analytic framework presented in this paper can contribute to the growing awareness of the significance of human movement within discourses and practices of technology design, and in turn, encourage the design of an ecology of artifacts that embraces and promotes a fuller spectrum of movement where the quality of movement is recognized as critical for the quality and vitality of life. ENDNOTES 1. Latour’s (1999) discussion of a case involving a gun and a man provides an invaluable insight on the agency of human and nonhuman hybrid collectives. 2. The word dérive is French for drift and refers to the situationist practice of exploring urban environments through “playful-constructive behavior and awareness of psychogeographical effects” (Debord 1956/2006, p. 1). 3. It is important to note that the cases illustrate a simplified consideration of social and material inscriptions in demonstrating how shifts may take place between different spaces of possibilities. In praxis, many other factors may be influential on the movements observed. REFERENCES Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In J. Law (Ed.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press. Akrich, M., & Latour, B. (1992). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In J. Law (Ed.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 259–264). Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press. Allsopp, R., & Lepecki, A. (2008). On choreography [Editorial]. Performance Research, 13(1), 1–6. Anacleto, J., & Fels, S. (2013). Adoption and appropriation: A design process from HCI research at a Brazilian neurological hospital. Series Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8118, 356–363. Badler, N. I., & Smoliar, S. W. (1979). Digital representations of human movement. ACM Computing Surveys, 11(1), 19–38. Bartenieff, I., & Lewis, D. (1980). Body movement: Coping with the environment. New York, NY, USA: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. Benford, S., Schnadelbach, H., Koleva, B., Anastasi, R., Greenhalgh, C., Rodden, T., Green, J., Ghali, A., Pridmore, T., Gaver, B., Boucher, A., Walker, B., Pennington, S., Schmidt, A., Gellersen, H., & Steed, A. (2005). Expected, sensed, and desired: A framework for designing sensing-based interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 12(1), 3–30. Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context: Essays on body motion communication. Philadelphia, PA, USA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bongers, B., & Veer, G. C. (2007). Towards a multimodal interaction space: Categorisation and applications. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11, 609–619. Bradley, K. K. (2009). Rudolf Laban. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. Butterworth, J., & Wildschut, L. (Eds.). (2009). Contemporary choreography: A critical reader. London, UK: Routledge. Loke & Kocaballi 52 Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief a new sociology of knowledge? London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathan: How actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In A. V. Cicourel & K. D. Knorr-Cetina (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology (pp. 277–303). Boston, MA, USA: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Camurri, A., Hashimoto, S., Ricchetti, M., Ricci, A., Suzuki, K., Trocca, R., & Volpe, G. (2000). Eyesweb: Toward gesture and affect recognition in interactive dance and music systems. Computer Music Journal, 24(1), 57–69. Chalmers, M., & Galani, A. (2004). Seamful interweaving: Heterogeneity in the theory and design of interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (pp. 243–252). New York, NY, USA: ACM. Debord, G. (2006). Theory of the dérive. In K. Knabb (Ed. & Trans.), Situationist international anthology (pp. 62–66). Berkeley, CA, USA: Bureau of Public Secrets. (Original work published 1956) Dix, A. (2007). Designing for appropriation. In Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: HCI...but not as we know it (Vol. 2; pp. 27–30). Swinton, UK: British Computer Society. Eriksson, E., Hansen, T. R., & Lykke-Olesen, A. (2007). Movement-based interaction in camera spaces: A conceptual framework. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11, 621–632. Fagerberg, P., Ståhl, A., & Höök, K. (2003). Designing gestures for affective input: An analysis of shape, effort and valence. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (pp. 57–65). Norrköping, Sweden: ACM. Fagerberg, P., Ståhl, A., & Höök, K. (2004). eMoto: Emotionally engaging interaction. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8, 377–381. Farnell, B. (1999). Moving bodies, acting selves. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 341–373. Fogtmann, M. H., Fritsch, J., & Kortbek, K. J. (2008). Kinesthetic interaction: Revealing the bodily potential in interaction design. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Designing for Habitus and Habitat (pp. 89–96). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press. Forsythe, W. (2009). Choreographic objects. In S. Spier (Ed.), William Forsythe and the practice of choreography (pp. 90–92). London, UK: Routledge. Fraleigh, S. H. (1987). Dance and the lived body: A descriptive aesthetics. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In S. P. Robertson, G. M. Olson, & J. S. Olson (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’91; pp. 79–84). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/108844.108856 Gaver, W., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’03; pp. 233–240). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/642611.642653 Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY, USA: Doubleday. Guest, A. H. (1984). Dance notation: The process of recording movement on paper. London, UK: Dance Books. Hall, E. T. (1968). Proxemics. Current Anthropology, 9, 83–108. Hanseth, O., & Monteiro, E. (1997). Inscribing behaviour in information infrastructure standards. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 7, 183–211. Hornecker, E., & Buur, J. (2006). Getting a grip on tangible interaction: A framework on physical space and social interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’06 pp. 437–446). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press. Choreographic Inscriptions: A Framework 53 Hummels, C., Overbeeke, C. J., & Klooster, S. (2007). Move to get moved: A search for methods, tools and knowledge to design for expressive and rich movement-based interaction. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11, 677–690. Hutchinson, A. (1977). Labanotation or kinetography Laban: The system of analyzing and recording movement (3rd ed.). New York, NY, USA: Theatre Arts Books. Jensen, M. V. (2007). A physical approach to tangible interaction design. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI ’07; pp. 241–244). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/1226969.1227018 Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. Kaeppler, A. L. (1978). Dance in anthropological perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology, 7, 31–49. Klooster, S., & Overbeeke, C. J. (2005). Designing products as an integral part of choreography of interaction: The product’s form as an integral part of movement. In Proceedings 1st International Workshop on Design and Semantics of Form and Movement (DeSForM ’05; pp. 23–35). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Kocaballi, A. B. (2013). Agency sensitive design: A relational understanding of design (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Kocaballi, A. B., Gemeinboeck, P., & Saunders, R. (2010). Enabling new forms of agency using wearable environments. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’10; pp. 248–251). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/1858171.1858216 Laban, R. (1971). The mastery of movement (3rd ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Play Inc. Lamb, W., & Watson, E. M. (1979). Body code: The meaning in movement. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Larboulette, C., & Gibet, S. (2015). A review of computable expressive descriptors of human motion. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Movement and Computing (MOCO ’15; pp. 21–28). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/2790994.2790998 Latour, B. (1990). On actor–network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, 44, 369–381. Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of mundane artefacts. In J. Law (Ed.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 151–180). Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. London, UK: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor–network-theory. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA, USA: Sage Publications. Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 1–14). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Lewis, J. L. (1995). Genre and embodiment: From Brazilian capoeira to the ethnology of human movement. Cultural Anthropology, 10, 221–243. Lockyer, M., Bartram, L., Schiphorst, T., & Studd, K. (2015). Extending computational models of abstract motion with movement qualities. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Movement and Computing (MOCO ’15; pp. 92–99). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/2790994.2791008 Loke, L., & Robertson, T. (2013). Moving and making strange: An embodied approach to movement-based interaction design. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 20(1), Article 7, 1–25. doi:10.1145/2442106.2442113 Lycouris, S. (2009). Choreographic environments: New technologies and movement-related artistic work. In J. Butterworth & L. Wildschut (Eds.), Contemporary choreography: A critical reader (pp. 346–361). London, UK: Routledge. Loke & Kocaballi 54 Martin, R. (1995). Agency and history: The demands of dance ethnography. In S. L. Foster (Ed.), Choreographing history (pp. 105–115). Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press. Mol, A. (2010). Actor–network theory: Sensitive terms and enduring tensions. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 50, 253–269. Murdoch, J. (1998). The spaces of actor–network theory. Geoforum, 29, 357–374. Newlove, J. (1993). Laban for actors and dancers: Putting Laban’s movement theory into practice. A step-by- step guide. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. Norman, D. A. (1998). The design of everyday things. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books. Reed, S. A. (1998). The politics and poetics of dance. Annual Review of Anthropology, 27, 503–532. Rico, J., & Brewster, S. (2010). Usable gestures for mobile interfaces: Evaluating social acceptability. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’10; pp. 887–896). New York, NY, USA: ACM. Rogers, Y., & Muller, H. (2006). A framework for designing sensor-based interactions to promote exploration and reflection in play. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(1), 1–14. Ross, P. R., & Wensveen, S. A. G. (2010). Designing aesthetics of behavior in interaction: Using aesthetic experience as a mechanism for design. International Journal of Design, 4(2), 3–13. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178. Schiphorst, T. (2007). Really, really, small: The palpability of the invisible. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition (C&C ’07; pp. 7–16). New York, NY, USA: ACM. Schiphorst, T., Lovell, R., & Jaffe, N. (2002). Using a gestural interface toolkit for tactile input to a dynamic virtual space. In CHI '02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’02; pp. 754–755). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/506443.506581 Sengers, P., & Gaver, B. (2006). Staying open to interpretation: Engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’06; pp. 99–108). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/1142405.1142422 Shepard, M. (2010). Serendipitor [mobile application software]. Retrieved from http://www.andinc.org/v4/serendipitor/ Sundström, P., Ståhl, A., & Höök, K. (2005). eMoto: Affectively involving both body and mind. In CHI ’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2005–2008). New York, NY, USA: ACM. Swaminathan, D., Thornburg, H., Mumford, J., Rajko, S., James, J., Ingalls, T., Campana, E., Qian, G., Sampath, P., & Peng, B. (2009). A dynamic Bayesian approach to computational Laban shape quality analysis. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, Article 2, 1–17. New York, NY, USA: Hindawi Publishing Corp. Wensveen, S. A. G., Djajadiningrat, J. P., & Overbeeke, C. J. (2004). Interaction frogger: A design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (DIS ’04; pp. 177–184). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/1013115.1013140 Williams, D. (1991). Ten lectures on theories of the dance. Metuchen, NJ, USA: Scarecrow Press. Williams, D., & Farnell, B. (1990). The Laban script: A beginning text on movement-writing for non-dancers. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Choreographic Inscriptions: A Framework 55 Authors’ Note All correspondence should be addressed to Lian Loke Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning University of Sydney 148 City Road Darlington NSW 2006 Australia [email protected]u.au Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments ISSN 1795-6889 www.humantechnology.jyu.fi