Co-constructed spaces, place-making and computational environments

A perspective on HCI and IxD

What are the space and the place?

In order to answer this question, it is essential to look into the definitions of both terms. Encyclopaedia Britannica defines space as a “boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction” [1]. In contrast to this more abstract definition, in Human-Computer Interaction space is generally understood in more concrete terms as the design opportunity, space and material ​[3].​ The definition of place in Wikipedia is described as: ​“location (geography), an area with definite or indefinite boundaries or a portion of space which has a name in an area”​ [2]. Therefore, a place could for example be home, city or a country. Something, that has a culturally constructed meaning for humans. Places may also overlap with each other, such as home and city or country do with each other. Places generally has a name, that one can address in language in order to communicate its meaning to other humans. We can tell each other in common language, that we visited Germany or that there is a tree in our backyard. Aligning to this perspective, in Human-Computer Interaction, the place is understood as the prevailing constructed reality ​[3]​. As one begins to understand the concepts of space and the place, it can be understood that:

1. understanding and experiencing a place requires a social and conscious entity to observe it, ​and
2. spaces and places are co-constructions of the human societies, entangled with the natural conditions and entities

The first notion is a consequence of the separation between the understood “material reality” or space and constructed meaning of the place. Material reality can be considered to exist independent of humans observing and experiencing it, whereas the constructed place is fundamentally tied to the constructing observers, who are making the meaning. This leads to the first point: conscious and social being is needed to make meaning out of the place, in order for it to be observed and understood, or to exist. We, as humans, assign value and meaning to the environments we encounter and this in turn constructs the places, which we can experience. The second notion touches upon how in the same way as humans and our social and cultural realities participate in creating the spaces and places — so are the natural elements, climate, and animals living in them part of constructing our places/spaces. This essentially means, that places and spaces can not be separated from the prevailing biological, political, cultural and technological conditions. Instead, they are entangled co-constructions of different entities and constructs.

Image 1: Human experiencing the the place/space

As [5] however points out, there is a long tradition of ​not acknowledging​ this connection and considering spatial designs as merely material realities, in which the non-human attributes are passive and deprioritized, whereas human is understood to have active and central role as the user. I argue, that this viewpoint has lead into desensitized worldview, in which we see material as merely resource, instead of acknowledging and respecting the complex network of co-creation that produces our realities. Or as [5] quotes Goodman, the process of ​world-making​. This viewpoint has also resulted into late blooming awareness of how Anthropocene is impacting our environment, as we have for a long time separated environments and humans from each other in our thinking. The climate change crisis has partially forced us to adjust to this new perspective, in which humans can not be perceived as separate from the environment. Potentially, we are also pushed towards reflecting on the relations between the co-constituents of the reality.

Image 2: The climate change has awakened us to reflect on the relationship between the human and the spaces and places

This emerged shift of perspective can also be seen in how we understand the material and spatial realities in technological contexts. Whereas in the past, we tended to understand the computational materials as passive materials of use and the human as the user, we now have started to appreciate how the computational materials together with humans and the priorly discussed constituents of place-making result into new kinds of co-constructed realities. As [4] points out, this leads into a notion that understanding the interaction between human and computer as a mere one-directional channel is old-fashioned. It can not be only understood that an user one-directionally ​uses the computer,​ but the depth of the interaction and influencing factors expand wider than that — to the prevailing context. Instead, we should address and take into consideration the entangled network of elements that constitute the realities. This needs to be noted in interaction design: we are not only designing interaction only between the human and the technology, but influenced by and constituting these networks, which in turn constitute the reality we live in.

According to [5], a ​sociomaterial approach​ to design extends to include these aspects, and shifts the focus to a wider scale — thinking what kind of place-making we want to practice? Ultimately this means, that designers must expand their perspective from narrowly focusing on interaction and interfaces, but to focus on the ​values and goals​ that guide the design process to reflect on this question. It also places a heavy weight on the shoulders of a designer: a designer should understand the relationship their designed experience, artifact of product has with the continuously changing reality and conditions — and also let certain guides value the direction of the design process. Even though the value approach is also somehow reductionist, these guides may be useful in making sense of the complexity of the reality during the design process.

Embodiment, perspective, and material ontology

In terms of spatial design with computational materials, [6] also points out another factor to keep in mind: how the viewers embodiment is central to constituting the spatial experience as it for example creates the viewing perspective. In traditional architecture, the size, position and other attributes create a relationship between the spatial design and the experiencing human: for example, large objects may seem intimidating, whereas small objects not. This applies naturally to designing computational spaces and designs, such as intelligent rooms [7] or public artworks [8] and should therefore be taken into consideration. The main challenge, however, remains in how to design these contexts due to the material and functional differences of computational and analogue materials. [9] suggests, that this can be addressed through designing in a way, that the material similarities​ are a starting point. This means looking for overlapping characteristics, such as the texture, and building the computational composites on this relation between the materials. The value that this viewpoint builds on is getting away from the separation of the analogue and digital materials, and addressing them in a similar manner. [10] has also addressed this viewpoint, imagining a future in which the analogue and digital co-exist without a noticeable separation. This viewpoint can be included into the values that the design attempts to enforce — a relational harmony between the computational and the physical materials.

Takeaways

When one keeps in mind the prior mentioned awareness of the relations of the existing and designed realities, the complexity of the co-constructed spaces and places, the desired outcome and values of the design, and the attempt to find balance in merging the digital and physical — it is a good starting point for thinking, understanding and designing computational spaces.

References

1. Retreived from ​https://www.britannica.com/science/space-physics-and-metaphysics
2. Retreived from ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location
3. Harrison, S, Dourish, P: Re-P1ace-ing Space: The Roles of Place and Space in Collaborative Systems. 10.
4. Dourish, P. 2004. Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
5. Taylor, A.: After interaction. interactions. 22, 48–53 (2015). ​https://doi.org/10.1145/2809888​.
6. Cullen: The Concise Townscape.
7. Bullivant, L.: Ada: the Intelligent Room. Archit. Des. 75, 86–90 (2005). ​https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.20​.
8. Bullivant, L.: D-Tower, NOX, Doetinchem, the Netherlands, 1998–2004 and Son-O-House, Son en Breugel, NOX, the
9. Netherlands, 2000–2004. Archit. Des. 75, 68–71 (2005). ​https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.16​.
10. Robles, E., Wiberg, M.: Texturing the “material turn” in interaction design. In: Proceedings of the fourth international
11. conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction — TEI ’10. p. 137. ACM Press, Cambridge,
12. Massachusetts, USA (2010). ​https://doi.org/10.1145/1709886.1709911​.
13. Weiser, M.: The Computer for the 21st Century. 10.

Images

1. Unsplash.com
2. https://o.aolcdn.com/images/dims?quality=85&image_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fo.aolcdn.com%2Fimages%2Fdims%3Fcro p%3D3456%252C2304%252C0%252C0%26quality%3D85%26format%3Djpg%26resize%3D1600%252C1067%26im age_uri%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fo.aolcdn.com%252Fhss%252Fstorage%252Fmidas%252Fabe9c882bd1fc4bdf90 283a2b58db74b%252F204676611%252F491635508.jpg%26client%3Da1acac3e1b3290917d92%26signature%3Ddb 8f9b9c382433d3ea5997ce89f8b09c639d6f91&client=amp-blogside-v2&signature=aeb82cedb106ff8d9ff6ca01ca7ad34 4745ab388