Designing Multisensory Wearables to Support Physical Rehabilitation and Training

The publications in the following list are partly included in the thesis. The inclusion of material from these sources is specified in each chapter where an inclusion occurs. The material included from these sources is not singled out with typographic means and references.

Other research merits

1 Introduction

1.1 Positionality

1.2 Thesis Structure

2 Foundational Knowledge

2.1 Peripheral Nerve Transfer Surgery Rehabilitation

Injuries and trauma in the arms do not only entail bone fractures or skin lacerations, but also commonly nerve injuries with dire consequences. Injuries in the peripheral nerve and brachial plexus are complex and usually present considerable functional and sensory impairments and pain [3]. In Europe, it is estimated that there are 300.000 new cases per year [3].

2.2 Takeaways

3 Related Work

4 Methodological Considerations

5 Design Resources in Movement-based Design

How can we design wearable technologies to support physical rehabilitation and training? One possible path lies in the use of movement-based design methods. As previously discussed, movement-based design methods have increasingly been adopted in several domains due to their capacity for providing early insights into the embodied experience of participating stakeholders [88]. They can be used in multiple phases of a design project, ranging from sensitising exercises to evaluation [43]. However, while some methods are known and documented, these are not always well-suited for the specific characteristics of a design project. One has to consider the requirements, goals, limitations and possibilities, context, available resources, and emerging contingencies; as well as when in the design process the methods may be used.

In this chapter, I introduce a characterisation work which aimed to map the features these methods have, identifying how they can be applied to different application domains. This work resulted from a collaboration with an international movement-based design consortium working together in the Method Cards for Movement-based Interaction Design (MeCaMInD) project supported by Erasmus+. As a consortium, we developed a comprehensive characterisation of movement-based design methods to guide designers in selecting, adapting or creating their methods. The goal was to identify salient characteristics of the methods that influence their applicability in different contexts. For this purpose, we were interested in collecting and analysing methods that design researchers use in a specific context. Some of these were adapted from previously-known methods and some others were created from scratch.

Through a series of workshops, we analyzed a total of 41 key movement-based design methods used in 12 interaction design projects from the consortium. We characterised and classified the methods using a comprehensive thematic analysis [7] with a bottom-up approach. We obtained 17 categories that encompassed the significant characteristics of our corpus. We arranged them into five main groups: Design Resources, Activities, Delivery, Framing, and Context (See Fig. 1.)

This work was a collaborative effort, so in some instances during this chapter I use we to refer to what we did together. As the main author, I participated in all the analysis along with Elena, and I organised the materials and led the research activities, coordinating the team. Based on the resulting analysis, I wrote most of the work and created the corresponding figure.

In this chapter, I introduce the methodology we used for the analysis. Then, I present the core considerations related to each category and then focus the discussion on the Design Resources group. Finally, I provide action points and recommendations that ground the Design Resources with the practice of using movement-based design methods.

5.1 Characterisation of Movement-based Design Methods

In this work, I collaborated with design researchers from six institutions participating in the Method Cards for Movement-based Interaction Design (MeCaMInD) project, an international Erasmus+ project focused on movement-based design methods. They facilitated the interaction design projects that constituted the original data corpus, reporting on the movement-based design methods used for the different stages of their design processes. For each method, they reported its description, account of logistics and facilitation, benefits and outcomes, and reflections.

The following are the 12 interaction design projects that were reported, each one using between one and seven methods. From this, we collected a corpus of 41 descriptions of movement-based design methods (See Tbl. 1 for their names and IDs.)

Table 1: Characterised Movement-based Design Methods.
Project	Code	Method
`ACHIEVE`	`Ach1`	Somaesthetic field Trips
	`Ach2`	Somaesthetic body scan and body mapping
	`Ach3`	Generative bodystorming
	`Ach4`	Role-playing and improvisation
	`Ach5`	Online re-enactments
	`Ach6`	Puppeteering
	`Ach7`	Wizard of Oz + Informances
`KOMPAN Workshop`	`KOM1`	What can I do with this?
	`KOM2`	Video sketching
	`KOM3`	Play moods and quality cards
	`KOM4`	Explore the movement aspect
	`KOM5`	Action mock-up
	`KOM6`	Play in context
`Astaire`	`Ast1`	Warm-up games
	`Ast2`	Playing off-the-shelf VR and MR games
	`Ast3`	Embodied exploration and bodystorming with the affordances of MR
	`Ast4`	Embodied exploration and bodystorming with off-the-shelf VR games
	`Ast5`	Embodied explorations to fine-tune the game
`Super Trouper`	`SuT1`	Warming-up to introduce and sensitize participants to tech and exercises
	`SuT2`	Training sessions turning into participatory Embodied Sketching
	`SuT3`	Bodystorming with experts
	`SuT4`	Bodystorming with cards
`Magic outFit`	`MoF1`	Dynamic body maps and keywords to characterise energising moments
	`MoF2`	Barriers to physical activity cards
	`MoF3`	Somatic dress-up for movement and sensation awareness
	`MoF4`	Brainstorming based enactment
`Sense2makeSense`	`S2M1`	First-person sensorial exploration and materialization of data representations
	`S2M2`	Dolls to facilitate feeling and acting like your persona
	`S2M3`	Body and sensory cards to inspire ideation
	`S2M4`	Video prototype to capture design and scenario
`LearnSPORTtech`	`LSt1`	Embodied explorations of technology use
	`LSt2`	Technology sensitization
	`LSt3`	Sensory Bodystorming
`Tangibles`	`Tan1`	Field studies and short ethnography
	`Tan2`	Interaction Relabelling applied in co-design
	`Tan3`	Acting out movements
`DigiFys`	`DiF1`	Long-term play engagement intervention in outdoor play
	`DiF2`	Short-term play engagement intervention in outdoor play
`Diverging Squash`	`DiS1`	VR Bodystorming
`GIFT`	`GIF1`	Sensitising towards human practices
`Online Course in Embodied Interaction`	`OEI1`	Online Bodystorming

The thematic analysis [7] was performed by the UC3M team (Elena, Laia, Omar, Ana and me) and consisted of the following steps:

5.1.1 Characterisation

The labelling and characterisation process was performed by Elena, Laia, Omar and me. We printed the reports of methods on big sheets and arranged them on the floor of a closed space. To characterise them, we used sticky notes, where we wrote sentences or individual concepts that best described the methods. We tagged them with their corresponding project and method names. This approach aimed to gather insights bottom-up. Thus we did not come into the process with preconceived categories or specific aspects to look out for. We made sure that at least one embodied design expert covered each technique, and also that every technique was characterised by at least two people.

5.1.2 Categorisation

Once we had the sticky notes as working material, Elena, Laia, Omar, Ana and I gathered for a big initial categorisation session lasting over 3 hours in a room of approximately 50m². This happened collaboratively, on-site, and preserving the bottom-up approach. We arranged the sticky notes in the space, placing them randomly all over half of the room floor, independent from other notes from the same technique or project. A small and relatively cryptic code was used in the notes to later be able to trace them back to their respective method and project. We proceeded to simultaneously traverse the space reading and surveying the notes, and looking for patterns and similarities between notes.

As this activity continued, new categories started to emerge. We grouped relevant notes in particular areas of the space and made the group aware of their existence—e.g. “There’s a group about Objects in this area!”—, to which the rest responded by bringing relevant notes they were aware of. During the process, these clusters would transform, grow, get divided into subcategories, or be integrated as subcategories of others. Interconnections with other categories were also drawn either through making use of proximity to indicate their closeness or through colour threads indicating relations between notes and categories. Finally, we documented the resulting map of categories with photos. We had a debrief session to talk about the experience and our insights during the process, concluding that some categories still needed revision and further connection with relevant others.

Next, Elena and I performed subsequent categorisation sessions. We revised big, unfocused, or complex categories at the level of notes, finding overarching categories and their relations to each other, and also deepening and refining the findings from the first big session. This allowed for an increased level of detail and led to finding clusters within categories, merging clusters that were closely related, naming and revising the names of clusters, and surfacing interconnections. Further, subsequent sessions were needed to trace back which methods and projects were involved in each category. In the end, we found and chose 17 categories from the process.

5.2 Categories and Groups

In our analysis, we found 17 categories from the 41 movement-based design methods reported by the facilitators of 12 movement-based interaction design projects. We arranged them into five groups: Design Resources, Activities, Delivery, Framing, and Context (See Fig. 1). These categories and groupings are not orthogonal, meaning several of them can characterise a given method or project.

In this section, I introduce the groups and categories to provide a sense of their components. Note that the names of the categories are written in italics and the names of subcategories are written in bold.

5.2.1 Design Resources

This is the main emerging group of categories, on which I will focus on later in this chapter. It contains the categories of Movement, Space and Objects.

5.2.2 Activities

5.2.2.1 Design Phase

We found that movement-based methods were used across different Design Phases. They helped not only in Sensitizing and Inspiration but also in the Iteration and Evaluation stages of the design process. As such, they were adopted for the Divergent and Convergent phases of the design process. Additionally, some of the projects leveraged existing Technologies during these activities.

5.2.2.2 Methods

We categorized under Methods several references to already-existing design and research methods. Regarding Research, we found some references to field studies and ethnography. Concerning design, we found several references to classical Interaction Design techniques such as Brainstorming, Scenarios and personas, Participatory design, Wizard of Oz, and Puppeteering. Additionally, there were mentions of already existing Embodied Design and movement-based methods, especially the use of Embodied Sketching [43] and bodystorming [42,53,60,76]. We identified Warm-up techniques across projects as an important component of embodied methods.

5.2.2.3 Acting Out

Methods in the corpus used Acting Out to come up with, materialize, and iterate design ideas, or as part of a convergence process. It allowed participants to flesh out, experience and see key action sequences. Role-playing was used to iterate ideas in the following ways: by testing ideas within a particular situation and adjusting it iteratively; by tapping into human-like interactions, e.g. exploring different social roles; or by filtering and indicating improvements. It was also used to achieve joint sense-making as a group and to share ideas. Role-playing was mostly reported to be done in combination with improvisation.

5.2.2.4 Sensorial Explorations

We categorised under Sensorial Explorations notes regarding activities aimed towards increasing awareness of specific sensing modalities like vision, hearing or touch, either individually or in the form of multisensory feedback. They were used to inspire or iterate designs, and typically made use of bodystorming—particularly Sensory Bodystorming [76]—using physical probes with characteristic tactile and sound qualities.

5.2.2.5 Crafting

Crafting was adopted to create prototypes of interactive experiences, controllers and costumes while making use of readily available materials.

5.2.3 Delivery

5.2.3.1 Facilitation

As part of the Facilitation category, we obtained the following list of Facilitation Tasks described and utilized across several projects:

Additionally, we found several mentions of having a predefined set of Instructions or rules for the facilitators or the participants to follow. These allowed a fluent development of the activities because they:

Regarding the involvement of the facilitators, there was a variation in the required Facilitation Level that was reported for each method in the corpus. Noteworthy, methods that used digital technologies reported needing more time, energy and resources. Finally, we found some reflections that considered the context of the Participants of the design methods, either as a target audience or as designers in the project. The projects prioritized the accommodation of different participant backgrounds, abilities, needs and limitations. We found these considerations concerning physical movement and also the use of digital technologies. Methods in which Experts were participants, tended to emphasize co-creation with them. It was apparent how their skills and knowledge were leveraged, for example by providing detailed feedback, developing or introducing technologies, or guiding somatic and movement-based activities.

5.2.3.2 Planning and Logistics

An important complement to Facilitation was the category of Planning and Logistics. Regarding Planning and Logistics Tasks, we found and grouped considerations and reflections regarding the following:

Methods varied in the Involvement Level they required for planning and logistics. A low involvement level occurred when there was a low requirement for resources, when these resources were easily available, when the facilitators or participants had high expertise, or when the activity had relatively low stakes. Conversely, methods that used complex technologies and setups like Virtual or Mixed Reality experiences, or methods that used several ad hoc elements such as custom-made cards or body maps, reported requiring considerable effort in planning and logistics.

5.2.3.3 Documentation

We found that the Documentation of activities was an important component in the Delivery of the movement-based design methods we analyzed. In this category, we grouped considerations regarding Data collection in general and the use of video and body maps in particular. Video recording was leveraged not only as a way to have an archive of evidence to evaluate after the activities but also as a creative medium for participants to prototype their ideas. Body Maps were adopted several times for participants to observe and communicate their body states, sensations or wearable prototypes across stages of the activities and design process.

5.2.4 Framing

5.2.4.1 Play

Under the Play category, we grouped notes regarding playfulness, fun, and game design. Several projects had Playfulness either as a design goal or as a resource to instigate engagement and curiosity. Similarly, a few projects involved the concept of Fun as a goal or as a resource within their design methods. One way of fostering fun was to include pre-existing Movement-based games in the design activity. Finally, we found that some projects focused their movement-based methods on playing with and exploring, ideating and iterating key actions that were envisioned to be at the core of the designed activity. We found that these were related to core mechanics in Game Design and embodied core mechanics in playful activity-centric design [38,84].

5.2.4.2 Perspectives

The perspective participants would take in relation to the target audience would emerge as an important consideration. We found methods that worked from a First, Second or Third-person perspective, and even some that combined them [67]. This category also covered users’ perspectives, which were strongly related to the target group of the design. Specifically, Children were supported using several techniques with technology (e.g. using perspectives in VR in ACHIEVE) and without it. Finally, we found that Physical Models allowed for first- and third-person perspective shifts.

5.2.5 Context

Some notes related very specifically to the Context of projects we studied, in their motivations and results. Starting Points and Outcomes were strongly tied to the given projects. The range of possible Goals for projects and the movement-based methods they used included the following: understanding; reflection; focus; embodied core mechanics; and changes in physical activity, behaviour or self-perception. Finally, some common Challenges faced during these methods and projects included social and ethical concerns, levels of expertise in relevant areas, the management of engagement during activities, and the use of VR together with all its technical requirements.

5.3 Design Resources in Detail

We found three categories that we grouped under the name of Design Resources: Movement, Space and Objects. In this section, I describe and exemplify the subcategories that compose them. The categories and subcategories came from analysing the notes regarding specific projects and methods, but for this section I also include relevant and applicable examples from other sources in the corpus. To refer to the methods, I use the IDs introduced in Tbl. 1.

5.3.1 Movement

The methods in our empirical material were chosen based on their prominent use of movement. However, we still found a distinctive category for Movement, encapsulating important body and movement aspects at focus: Movement Qualities, Body Regions involved, and physical Contact. Additionally, this category included strategies and external elements that supported movement: Moving with Objects, and Constraints and Superpowers; as well as particular considerations when working with movements in Instrumental Domains, such as training and rehabilitation. Finally, it covered a possible outcome of using movement, Engagement.

5.3.1.1 Movement Qualities

Methods focused on experiencing, exploring, understanding, and working with particular Movement Qualities, such as movement trajectory, tension, or pace. This sub-category initially originated from notes on the project of Sense2makeSense and the methods Ast4, LSt1, S2M3, in particular. Common in all the projects is that movement qualities were targeted in their future designed experience. Methods focused on elucidating and experiencing these aspects first-hand to obtain a seed to inspire subsequent or concurrent ideation activities.

Additionally, some activities centred on working with a particular focus of attention regarding Movement Qualities, which were often related to the sensory and body experience in relation to the self, others, and the surrounding space. For example, in some instances there was a focus on bodily and proprioceptive sensations, body orientations in relation to the space and others, and proxemics [9,23,31]—physical, social, and cultural resources of action that can be useful in the design of technology [37,39].

5.3.1.2 Body Regions

We found two main groups of methods regarding the Body Regions involved during movement: those that were open to and instigated movement with the whole body—like LSt3, S2M3, or most of the methods from Magic outFit—and those that prioritized the movement of particular body areas, specifically the upper limbs—such as MoF1 S2M1, S2M2, S2M3, Tan2, or Tan3. In LearnSPORTtech, there was an involvement of the whole body. For example, the explorations of the technology in yoga focused on how the body was affected by the contribution of each limb in relation to the chest [71].

Regarding upper limb movements, we found a couple of different cases. The Tangibles project involved activities related to specific kinds of motor impairments that targeted the upper limbs. Alternatively, methods that focused on the movement of upper limbs also involved some traditional design and research activities in Interaction Design that are typically performed by hand, e.g.: drawing, sorting cards and crafting.

Some projects alternated between the use of the whole body and specific regions. For example, in Sense2makeSense, participants built a physical model of their prototype on a reduced scale and used small toys to enact a scenario. They used their bodies to capture and represent body actions that were not able to produce by the toys. Hence, these were classical Interaction Design activities that were used in a way that involved physical enactment.

5.3.1.3 Contact

Physical Contact emerged as a subcategory of movement due to the Ast4 method from Astaire [92]. It was the only project that explicitly targeted social interaction involving physical contact. The design researchers described physical contact both as a design target and a key aspect shaping the design process.

Nonetheless, physical contact was present in other projects. For instance, physical contact was used in the form of physical collaboration and assistance to put on, modify, and adapt design materials and prototypes on the body. As an example, in Magic outFit, participants helped one another to “dress up” as the persona they were trying to feel like and enact. The enacting participants would request certain sensations from other participants, who would facilitate them through physical contact and engagement—e.g. poking, caressing, tapping, etc.

Additionally, contact was sometimes used to conduct the target activity. For example, in the Super Trouper project, instructors and researchers helped the children engage with the activities by offering support when needed, for example providing a hand for extra support when the children walked the tightwire.

5.3.1.4 Moving with Objects

Many projects used objects as design resources and goals in their methods. Hence Objects emerged as a whole category in its own right. Moving with Objects focuses on the relationship between objects and movement in doing and acting, as originally found in the Ast3, KOM1, KOM4 and Tan2 methods. These instances belonged to projects that had an emphasis on exploring possible movements done in combination with objects. We found that wearables in Magic outFit were the design goal, and objects were used to craft and simulate them. Objects were used to explore the sensations they produced and whether they invited movement or supported self-awareness. They allowed delving into other physical, cognitive, and emotional effects.

Objects were frequently used to explore, experience, generate and reflect on key physical and social actions [38] of the intended experience and their effects on it. For example, in Ast4, designers used objects as props to explore moving together with indirect physical contact, playing a variation of the Virtual Reality game Audioshield with two players. One player was inside VR while the other was outside. Players placed themselves side to side—in an I formation position [39]—, holding a controller in their outer hand and the end of a single toy golf club in the inner hand, closer to one another. The golf club connected them. The player in VR had to move and guide the other player to score. This allowed design researchers to explore how this kind of movement made them feel socially and physically, how it worked as a way to score, and how much they felt like dancing—a core design goal.

5.3.1.5 Constraints and Superpowers

We found several instances of movement explorations around Constraints—limiting in one way or another the poses, movements, or actions that otherwise would be feasible in a participant—, and around what we called Superpowers, i.e. poses, movements, and actions that a participant would not be able to do in principle. This category emerged from the Tangibles project in general and the Ast3, Ast4, DiS1, S2M2 and Tan3 methods in particular.

Constraints were used as creative prompts, to explore and subvert possibilities tied to particularities of objects and environments. For example, mainstream VR experiences tend to hijack the senses of the VR user—mostly vision, but also touch, and hearing—and their presence from the physical space. Astaire worked towards subverting these trends and exploring the design space of collocated mixed-reality play with a two-player dance game. Embodied explorations in the design process involved constraining and providing access to senses, actions, and physical or virtual worlds [92].

Alternatively, Constraints emerged from practical reasons due to instrumentality or the objects and models that were used during the activity. The Tangibles project is an example of the former because the target rehabilitation exercises required movements in specific directions. An example of the latter is S2M2, where Playmobil toys were used to enact a scenario involving an immersive environment with multisensory data representation. The mobility of the toys imposed constraints over the movements that could be explored from this third-person perspective. This was overcome through first-person involvement, i.e. physically engaging with those actions the toys were unable to enact. This is linked to the category of Perspectives.

Over and above, several projects worked with exploring capacities, sensations, and possibilities beyond the participants’ current repertoire both in the physical and virtual worlds. In the physical world, Magic outFit used MoF4 to bodystorm how to mitigate and transform the current sensations of participants using external stimuli produced by different objects. In the design of VR experiences, these explorations of possibilities of action turned to the extreme when investigating Superpowers. For example, in Diverging Squash, designers altered the physics of the VR world—gravity and bounciness of a ball—to explore a new way of playing squash. In ACHIEVE’s methods Ach3 and Ach4, designers explored being a child both in the physical world through changing bodily stance and posture, and in the VR world through changing the dimensions of the world in comparison to the participant’s avatar. This is linked to the Perspectives category and resonates with previous works regarding changing individual and social perception and action (e.g., [48].)

5.3.1.6 Instrumental Domain

While a free exploration of movement was pervasive throughout the projects in the portfolio, some of them focused on particular embodied core mechanics [38] that were necessary for the user, like Astaire. This happened in the context of applications where movement belonged to an Instrumental Domain such as training or therapy. In the case of the Tangibles project in general, and Tan3 in particular, researchers were interested not in the free exploration of movement possibilities but in the re-contextualisation of specific, instrumental movements.

The design context in which a project was developed was often behind an explicit focus on instrumental goals. In the KOMPAN workshop, the objective was to make the physical fitness training more playful and thus more intrinsically motivated. They were aiming for a combination of instrumentalized training parameters such as exertion, strength, flexibility, coordination, motor skills, gravity, resistance, and power, combined with play characteristics. As another example, projects in LearnSPORTtech focused on instrumental values of particular practices of training—such as yoga or weightlifting— and targeted particular exercises within those practices.

5.3.1.7 Engagement

Participants typically engaged well with the movement-based design activities by involving their bodies and frequently interacting with one another. In our empirical material, participants tended to feel good and comfortable with themselves and with one another, and there was usually high energy and a feeling of togetherness after embodied design sessions. Engagement as a sub-category originated from the general description of Astaire and Magic outFit and the methods MoF1 and KOM1.

The energy of the participants was carefully considered in several projects, alternating between higher and lower energy activities, and activities involving the body in different ways. For example, in Magic outFit, co-designers carefully interwove less physically and socially active activities with the main movement-based activities. In particular, more reflective and quieter activities such as filling body maps or brainstorming using sticky notes were used as a way to change the focus—e.g. from recalling to acting, from acting to listening; from generating ideas, to documenting them; and so on—, and to rest and recover energy. Consider that energy management is one of the Facilitation tasks listed above.

5.3.2 Space

We found several considerations around the use of Space, which could be either Physical, Virtual or a Hybrid of both. Additionally, we identified factors concerning the Delimitation and Room size of the space in use during the development of the activity.

5.3.2.1 Physical Space

In our corpus of data, projects used different types and scales of Physical spaces. In some cases, very specific and project-relevant places were used, often in instrumental domains where there was an overarching goal behind the design. This goal could be more or less playful. For example, LearnSPORTtech employed yoga and fitness studios, and KOMPAN Workshop resorted to the Athletic Experimentarium, a combination of a track and field stadium, obstacle course, parkour installations, and a cross-fit area. Specific places were also important in open and playful-oriented projects, like DigiFys, which focused on outdoor play environments. Plus, in VR-related projects, such as ACHIEVE, Diverging Squash and Astaire, appropriate rooms with VR equipment were essential. The choice of location was due to their relevance to the target application domain or the needs in logistics or materials to conduct the design activity.

However, we also found that methods used more generic spaces, which were adapted by facilitators and design researchers for the activity at hand. For example, in LearnSPORTtech, activities were organised both in a room transformed into a training space with basic yoga equipment and in the target place: a dedicated gym equipped with weights, machines and yoga mats. The former was chosen as it gave control and access to designers—e.g. it allowed them to organise and change the space during the process—, while the latter offered control and access over the process to target users which were instructors and practitioners.

In a middle ground, Super Trouper used a school gym hall, which incorporated some physical training equipment used during warm-ups—e.g. mats, balls, hoops, a vaulting horse, etc.—, and which was further equipped by the circus instructors and co-designers with circus-specific equipment such as a tightwire, trapeze, balance board, etc. Additionally, the design research team incorporated the technology—multiple wearables—and research equipment like cameras.

Finally, DigiFys reported both its methods DiF1 and DiF2 as being located outdoors and in public. While this was necessary given the project’s focus on designing and observing behaviour in playgrounds, it posed limitations to what ideation activities could be done, and in particular, this required a more lightweight approach to facilitation.

5.3.2.2 Virtual and Hybrid Spaces

On one hand, Virtual space originated as a category from the Astaire project and the Ach1, Ach3, Ast2, Ast3, Ast4, DiS1 and S2M1 methods. On the other, Hybrid space originated from ACHIEVE, Astaire, Diverging Squash, and Online Course in Embodied Interaction as projects and from the Ach3, Ast3, Ast4 and DiS1 methods. Notice how some of these methods appear in both categories. VR emerged as a particular and distinctive space in the following projects: ACHIEVE, Diverging Squash, Astaire, and Sense2makeSense. The last two focused more or as much on the physical than the virtual space. In Sense2makeSense, the physical space was used to leverage important socio-spatial considerations to design an immersive and multisensory experience for VR. In contrast, the design goal of Astaire was set in the hybrid space: providing a fun and interesting play experience for a player in VR and out. Both projects involved both the physical and virtual worlds.

In Ast2, off-the-shelf VR experiences and games were used to sensitize designers. Additionally, in Ast4, they worked as design resources to help inspire, explore, and come up with interesting play ideas through transgression and re-appropriation. In both the ACHIEVE and Diverging Squash projects, custom 3D environments were designed and used for the activities. Some of these environments employed custom physics and behaviours, which required the added effort of 3D modelling, programming, testing, setting up, and onboarding, and also the added requirements of appropriate equipment and physical space. This is connected with the Facilitation and Planning and Logistics categories.

Projects using virtual spaces were also aware of and considered the role of the physical space. In some of them, the simultaneous exploration of the physical space was intrinsic to their goals. For example, in ACHIEVE a hybrid space was created by adding tracked physical shopping carts to the experience. This allowed the designers to employ tangibly embodied feedback in the virtual environment while also developing a meaningful connection to the physical space and collaborators. In this way, students outside VR would interact with students inside by aligning their physical and virtual positions. Students were able to see their fellows’ virtual perspectives on screens in the mixed-reality space. Additionally, physical props such as different food types were used in the embodied improvisational interactions.

In other cases, the hybrid space emerged out of necessity, like in the Online Course in Embodied Interaction, a course that needed to be conducted online due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions but that otherwise would have benefited from participants being in the same space [86]. In that setting, individual participants connected through videoconferencing software but conducted the bodystorming activities—physical games, exploration of materials, movements in space, etc.—from their rooms at home. Students reported curating the space to be shown, which gave them control over the presentation of such an intimate space. They felt the safety supported by their spaces. The familiarity of objects in their space allowed them to engage and ideate straightforwardly. While the physical space became the main place of bodily action the online space became the place for social interaction, thus creating a hybrid form of bodystorming. This approach integrated two of the method’s main considerations, space and social interaction, from different perspectives.

5.3.2.3 Delimitation

We found that the Delimitation of working space was a relevant consideration across methods in our corpus. This category emerged from Ach1, Ach3, DiF1, DiF2, DiS1 and GIF1; and also from the GIFT project in general. We found the category was related to the concept of frames [22], and the concept of the magic circle of play from game design and game studies [27,58]. Frames refer to social conventions and expectations structuring and organizing our experience [22]. The magic circle of play refers to a special time and space created when playing that is governed by different rules and understandings than in the everyday world [16,58,64]. Similarly, embodied design methods seem to seek and foster a distinctive frame set apart from ordinary life in which particular kinds of physical and social action that might be weird or unusual in everyday contexts are sought and supported.

At times, special spaces emerged as participants engaged in the design or play activity. For example, in Astaire, a demarcated round-shaped stage emerged where players in and outside VR interacted. The rest of the team stayed around acting as a participating audience, commenting and assisting when needed. Contrastingly, in other projects, a good deal of attention was paid to boundary objects and marks helping physically demarcate areas to focus attention, understanding, intention, and action [16]. Sometimes the limits of the space were physically indicated through the arrangement of furniture and objects in the room, and sometimes by marking spaces on the floor with tape. For example, in GIFT, several activities included pretending to be in a museum. Delimiting the space with barriers representing different rooms served to signal what space was standing in for the museum as a whole. Further, it encouraged a high level of social interaction between participants in a focused space.

Delimitation of the physical space was at the core of the design goals of DigiFys. The designers not only wanted to install interactive playground equipment but to create a space that would foster particular movements, paths and behaviours between play stations. As such, landscape architects worked together with interaction designers, and natural materials such as bushes, flower beds and paths were designed to delimit the interaction space, promoting movement and social interaction in certain areas and limiting access to other areas. Finally, furniture emerged as a delimiting spatial boundary in some projects, even if unintended. For example, in ACHIEVE, the designers expected the furniture to be used by the students as a design material. However, students initially understood furniture as fixed elements in the space.

5.3.2.4 Room Size

Considerations in delimitation were related to the space requirements regarding Room Sizes across projects. These requirements first appeared in our corpus in the GIFT and Online Course in Embodied Interaction projects, and in the Ach3, Ast1, Ast2, Ast3, Ast4 and DiF1 methods. For example, we found that GIFT reported having low requirements for space, and Astaire reported needing only a big enough space to move and run around. In contrast, ACHIEVE reported needing a large room for their bodystorming sessions due to their video recording setup and because of health measures regarding COVID-19. DigiFys, by contrast, needed events to be run in authentic environments. Because the material and spatial conditions were in focus for these studies, selecting authentic environments that were representative of different types of places—a playground, in this case—became a central consideration. Similarly, Super Trouper required big halls—a circus hall and a primary school physical education hall—because its design activities involved multiple large objects and furniture such as mats and mattresses, trapezes, benches, and trellises that could not be placed elsewhere.

An interesting compromise regarding room size and engagement comes from Magic outFit. The researchers had a problem of interference caused by the two groups being in the same room. On the one hand, they wanted to have all participants in the same space for sharing the materials and interacting, but on the other hand, the two groups interacting with sound interfered with each other ideation process. Sometimes the room was too noisy and did not allow participants to hear well some of the more subtle sounds, especially when the sound objects were applied to body parts or space far from the ears, like close to the feet.

5.3.3 Objects

Objects was one of the most prominent categories. Most of the techniques relied on the use of objects, which ranged from tangible, Physical objects—including a special focus on Cards—to Technologies of different sorts and fidelity. In the following, I cover this range and conclude by also articulating two properties and strategies around the use of objects: Affordances and Subversion.

5.3.3.1 Physical Objects

The use of Physical objects was very common across the projects. For instance, we found them in notes regarding Ach3, Ach6, Ast3, DiF2, KOM3, LSt1, LSt3, MoF4, S2M1, Tan2, and Tan3, and also in the general descriptions of GIFT and LearnSPORTtech. Physical objects were frequently described as common, simple, readily available, and low cost, meaning that they were cheap to buy or create and that they did not need to be necessarily handled with special care. We observed that because of how they were used, the objects were not destructively transformed, and when they were, they were easy to replace. All of this made these objects malleable, adaptable, and highly transformative and provided them with a strong re-signification power. For example, as we mentioned earlier in the Moving with objects sub-category regarding Ast4, a toy club for playing pretence golf was momentarily torn apart: The clubhead was removed and the shaft was used to extend the reach of the controllers.

Objects were key for divergent design as crucial prompts for ideation. They were often essential in multidisciplinary contexts involving experts and novices. For example, both in Magic outFit and Online Course in Embodied Interaction, simple objects supporting different sensory qualities—textures, shapes, weights or sounds—, enabled people with and without a technical background to generate ideas for future sensing and actuating technologies.

Idea materialization using objects played a strong role in convergent phases of ideation, involving building mock-ups. These acted as “quick and dirty” experience prototypes [8] that allowed other participants to get a sense of the target experience. For example, in S2M1, participants within a team used objects to individually come up with ideas for multisensory immersive data representation. These ideas were then shared among the group and iterated together in the rest of the activities from Sense2makeSense.

Additionally, objects were used to prototype the space in which the activity would take place and explore ideas involving spatial elements. For example, in Ast3, cardboard boxes were used to explore an idea involving a hybrid obstacle course with physical and digital obstacles.

We observed very deliberate decisions regarding what kinds of elements to bring to use during the methods that involved objects. For instance, objects were chosen for a given method due to one or more of the following:

In most cases, the objects that were used were common crafting materials and everyday objects, such as cardboard boxes, tape, sticks, balls, toys, lights, toys, dolls, hand puppets, children’s musical instruments, glue guns, pipe cleaners, cardboard, scissors, knife, sponges, modelling wax, foam cardboard, straws, plastic mugs, barbecue sticks, adhesive tape, a stapler, a multi-head screwdriver, a Rubik’s cube, and small boxes with magnetic closing. Crafting materials were essential to transform and re-signify other kinds of objects.

The objects that were brought in were also related to the target domain, like sports equipment in KOMPAN Workshop and Super Trouper. These objects were essential to support ideation considering domain-specific practices.

5.3.3.2 Cards

Paper Cards were a special class of physical objects used across methods in different ways. The projects that used cards were KOM5, LearnSPORTtech, Magic outFit, Sense2makeSense and Super Trouper. Specifically, the methods from which this category emerged were KOM3, KOM4, KOM5, KOM6, MoF1, MoF2, MoF3, S2M2, S2M3, S2M4 and SuT4.

Regarding objectives, uses, and rules, the cards were used in the following ways across methods:

We found that cards were used according to different mechanics. In some cases, the cards were used by the participants as a way of getting a random design prompt. This was implemented through shuffling and drawing from a deck in KOMPAN Workshop, or by scattering cards on the floor and picking up one in Magic outFit. This created some spatial requirements to consider, as previously discussed in Physical Space. In other cases, the facilitators or participants would choose the cards after careful consideration. For instance, in Magic outFit, participants chose the card with a keyword that best described how they had felt, and in KOMPAN Workshop, designers added action modifiers that they considered interesting to introduce variations. Additionally, there were occurrences where cards could be modified on the spot. This happened in Magic outFit and Sense2makeSense, which featured blank or wild cards for the participants to fill in using sticky notes.

In several projects, card use was carefully timed in the schedule of design activities. For example, in Magic outFit, cards depicting barriers to engaging in physical activity set up the design goal by being used before the design and enactment stages. As discussed above in Engagement, when card usage was combined with activities that engaged the whole body, some friction would appear and movement creation would be hindered.

Regarding the design of the cards, they were often minimalistic, containing a few keywords or an image in the form of a picture or an icon. Cards with keywords would often have a defining and focusing character while cards with imagery would be used to inspire and evoke. Images came either from stock pictures and icons or from in-house designs. Cards often featured categories identified either with colours or with printed icons. This allowed for quick identification in the design activities. It is worth mentioning that cards in all projects were highly visual and assumed sighted participants. Hence, without further modifications, the studied cards would present an accessibility barrier for participants with visual impairments.

5.3.3.3 Technologies

Technologies with different levels of fidelity, high or low, were present in several of the movement-based design methods of our corpus. Specifically, this category emerged from the following projects: Astaire, Diverging Squash, Magic outFit, Super Trouper and Tangibles; and from the following methods Ach7, Ast3, Ast4, DiF1, KOM5, LSt1, LSt2, MoF3, S2M1, S2M2 and SuT3. On the lowest end of this technological fidelity range, we could find “fake tech”: props or cards that represented and substituted a specific device or functionality during the activity. Such elements were often used when the details of implementation were still not known or needed, or when the cost of logistics for the existing technology would be prohibitive for the given design stage. For example, in KOM5, a set of technology cards—see Cards above—was used when building physical mock-ups of the ideated interactive interventions. The focus was on experiencing the 1:1 scale of the mock-up and not on testing the proposed interactivity.

In contrast, some projects included already working technology in their methods, such as LearnSPORTtech, Magic outFit and Super Trouper. For instance, LearnSPORTtech used a series of wearables—Training Technology Probes, or TTPs—that had been designed and implemented in the context of yoga and circus training, and then deployed them in embodied explorations of weightlifting [74]. In other projects, the technological element was central in the form of Virtual Reality. This was the case of projects including Astaire and Diverging Squash, which employed VR both as the design goal and the vehicle to design. In ACHIEVE, similarly to the work of [87], designers used VR to facilitate embedding and placing virtual objects, lighting, sounds, and video screens within a virtual supermarket as a vehicle to design.

5.3.3.4 Affordances

A key element that we found when analyzing the use of objects across these movement-based design methods was the concept of Affordances [21,30,47]. In our empirical material, affordances mostly referred to physical actions allowed and invited by an object or environment [50]. Further, they had a strong focus on materiality and material aspects. This category emerged from the projects of Astaire, GIFT, KOMPAN Workshop and LearnSPORTtech, and the Ach3, Ach4, Ach5, DiS1, MoF3, Tan2, and Tan3 methods.

Affordances were considered when selecting objects to bring to design activities for the actions—core mechanics—they would possibly inspire. For example, in Magic outFit, designers included stress-release balls to invite explorations around squeezing. Additionally, affordances emerged to reflect creative emergent behaviour in the design sessions supported by objects, which was instrumental in design. For example, in ACHIEVE, the participating students pushed a shopping cart but could also physically sit in it while simultaneously puppeteer a virtual character in VR. Even when interacting in a virtual space, such affordances steered the ideation process.

5.3.3.5 Subversion

Some methods were focused on finding new uses for objects and technologies that were designed with a specific purpose: Subversion emerged as a sub-category from Ast3, Ast4, Ast5, KOM1, LSt1, LSt2, S2M1, SuT2, SuT3, Tan1 and Tan2. These new uses were either the objective of the project in general or a way to aid in the ideation process. We discussed above in Technologies, an instance of LearnSPORTtech that exemplified the former: embodied explorations in LSt1 leveraged Training Technology Probes that were initially developed for yoga [71] and which were brought to weightlifting to find out new uses in this other physical training practice [77]. An example of subversion aiding in the ideation process is Ast4, which, as we mentioned above in Virtual and Hybrid spaces, used existing VR games as platforms to explore different game mechanics and affordances of VR equipment.

5.4 Action Points and Recommendations

Based on the previous observations regarding the characteristics of movement-based design methods, we compiled a list of action points, insights and recommendations focused on the categories and subcategories of the Design Resources group (Movement, Space and Objects.) We also included references to other relevant categories. These actions points and recommendations were thought as a practical guide for novice and seasoned designers.

5.4.1 Movement

5.4.1.1 Movement Qualities

5.4.1.2 Body Regions

5.4.1.3 Contact

5.4.1.4 Moving with Objects

5.4.1.5 Constraints and Superpowers

5.4.1.6 Instrumental Domain

5.4.1.7 Engagement

5.4.2 Space

5.4.2.1 Physical Space

5.4.2.2 Virtual and Hybrid Space

5.4.2.3 Delimitation

5.4.2.4 Room Size

5.4.3 Objects

5.4.3.1 Physical Objects

5.4.3.2 Cards

5.4.3.3 Technologies

5.4.3.4 Affordances

5.5 General Reflections, Limitations and Future Work

Movement-based design methods exhibit properties that are less common in other forms of ideation. In particular, the physicality of these methods requires important considerations related to the bodily engagement of participants, as well as to space and materiality. This poses challenges and opportunities not seen in classical ideation activities. Therefore, those who have not experimented with these kinds of methods might find them intimidating.

Related previous works have resulted in categorizations of movement-based design methods: [2] and their typology of seven foci, [88] using an analyzing framework based on estrangement, and [35] proposing a design methodology based on choreographic tools. Despite their relevance, I contend that these works are not an ideal entry point for the design researcher who wants to start using movement-based methods.

Contrastingly, with this work, I provide a practical guide for them by focusing on surfacing tacit knowledge from a group of experienced researchers. I focused on analysing the Design Resources (Movement, Space and Objects) because of how practical they are. Through the Action Points and Recommendations, I connected them to the categories of Facilitation and Planning and Logistics.

In this way, novices can find a clear route to start experimenting with movement-based design methods. The seasoned designer will identify that the action points are not groundbreaking—rather, they encapsulate and articulate existing tacit knowledge of embodied design. However, I also believe that seasoned designers can find utility in our work: using these categories as a live palette of possibilities that can inspire them, and as a document to help them argue for or against particular design choices.

I acknowledge that this work provides knowledge that is articulated and shared in a written format, which is not enough to engage with and facilitate these kinds of methods. Movement-based design methods require hands-on involvement and a first-person perspective on the moving body that is not usually integrated (yet) into the mainstream formation of an Interaction Designer. In this sense, I would like to emphasize the concept of Somatic Conoisseurship [59] as a lens with which to involve experienced somatic practitioners in HCI design processes, and the work on Soma Design [24,26,90] as a way to develop one’s sensibilities and self-knowledge. Obtaining first-hand experience in movement practices is crucial for involving the first-person perspective emphasized by this kind of design practice [25].

Our methodology used a bottom-up approach, was practice-based, and led to a comprehensive set of results. I contend that our results have validity due to the following considerations. First, our original corpus of data came from several projects of different authors and the reported movement-based design methods that they used in practice. During the initial characterization process, we used perspectives both from two experts in the field and from two students in training. This allowed for the emergence of characteristics relevant to different levels of expertise. Additionally, we worked with a loose set of guidelines so that the characteristics that emerged would tend to be divergent. We decided on the names and boundaries of emerging categories and subcategories based on consensus combining these different levels of expertise. Finally, the insights, action points and recommendations I share are based on these empirics and are tied to previous work.

A limitation of the work is that we only focused on one group of categories. Even though we attempted to connect the Action Points and Recommendations with other categories, there is still work to do to expand on all of them and their implications. In this way, the work offers a palette of possibilities that we acknowledge are not exhaustive or definitive. Additionally, the action points are articulated based on our tacit knowledge and references. They worked for us, but their generative capacity for others needs to be proven. Future work can expand or challenge what I presented here.

Finally, I also acknowledge the limitation of the corpus, as it is not necessarily representative of all movement-based design processes. I argue that it being part of an international design research consortium with a focus on movement-based design is illustrative of different approaches to these methods, but I recognise that having started from another corpus of data we could have obtained a different set of categories and action points.

5.6 Chapter Takeaways

This work adds to the Interaction Design and HCI body of works on movement-based design methods: we developed an empirically-based characterisation of design resources as employed in movement-based design methods. Using this characterisation as a starting point, I provided a practical guide for novice and seasoned designers to engage with these methods.

6 Designing a Minimalist Toolkit for Embodied Sketching

In this chapter, I report on the design, development and evaluation of the Movits, a toolkit of minimalist technology probes that support hands-on explorations and design of future interactions driven by movement and multisensory feedback (Fig. 2.) The Movits are relatively small and simple wearable digital units that provide audiovisual or visuotactile patterns in response to body inputs such as motion, spatial orientation or touch.

I was interested in designing and employing a toolkit of probes that would serve as an aid for the embodied sketching workshops in our design process. The toolkit would enable the relevant stakeholders in our project—interaction designers, engineers, movement and health professionals in the areas of rehabilitation, physical therapy and occupational therapy, along with their patients—to establish common ground regarding the possibilities of interactive technologies that provide multisensory feedback, and empower them all to contribute to the design process. The design of this toolkit was driven by key design qualities and requirements connected to our application domain. In particular, we sought our toolkit to be modular, interactive, open-ended, simple, easy to deploy and with a strong focus on movement-based applications. While some of these characteristics are present in previous works, none of them feature all of them in the form of an ideation toolkit.

As we have discussed, the design community has long realised the importance of taking an embodied and holistic approach to design. To help in this regard, they have developed strategies, such as design methodologies like Embodied Sketching [43] and Soma Design [24,26]; and custom design tools. Among the latter, we find bodystorming baskets—introduced in the previous chapter—as collections of simple and diverse props for ideation. While often these props are analogue—such as balls, textiles, play jewellery, styrofoam objects, and mechanical gadgets—, they might also include simple off-the-shelf technology like a buzzer or a laser pointer, featuring interactivity that would be simple and relevant for the application domain [76]. These technological props can be evocative and may help spur creativity, allowing participants to engage multisensorially and explore design possibilities. However, depending on the design challenge, it might be hard to find a diverse set of proper interactive props with befitting properties to the target application domain, which may affect ideation.

In such situations, it is worth considering having a bodystorming basket with ad hoc technology props or probes [28]—simple, flexible and adaptable technologies to inspire users and researchers to ideate new technologies [28]. Many examples can be found in the design research community. Several of these toolkits assemble a collection of Bits—the Inspirational Bits [66], the Soma Bits [89,90], the Menarche Bits [62,63], the Wearable Bits [29] and the DanceBits [15]. (TODO add little bits) The work that I describe in this chapter adds to this body of work, focusing in particular on the domain of movement-based design. Following that naming tradition, the Movits acquired their name as a portmanteau word from Move(ment) Bits, or alternatively from Move-its, because they are focused on designing for the moving body with the moving body.

In the chapter, I detail the analysis leading my design process. I describe the resulting toolkit, and discuss four evaluation workshops with different participants—design students, technologists, dancers and physiotherapists—and the insights they yielded.

6.1 Designing the Movits

To design the Movits, I was interested in analysing the features of previous projects of wearables for movement learning and physical activity and prior work in toolkits for embodied interaction design—discussed in Chapter 3—so that I could develop minimalist versions of common interactions they presented. I was especially curious about the modalities of inputs and outputs they had, as well as the type of mappings between them that they conveyed. As a guide during the design process, I established a list of design requirements based both on personal values I wanted to put forward, and on the theoretical concepts and methodological approaches that inform our work. These requirements and the results of my analysis, in combination, supported me in selecting the hardware and software platforms I would use, and in delimiting the types of interactions we would like to develop as a first iteration of the kit.

6.1.1 Inputs, Outputs and Mappings

I analysed the modalities of inputs and outputs employed in the related toolkits and probes and related projects of wearables and multisensory technologies in movement learning or physical activity contexts from our review (TODO ref).

In terms of input modalities, I found that projects used spatial orientation [1,15,32,33,40,41,61,68,68,68,70,71,74], motion [32,33,40,41,57,65,68,70,74], pressure [18,41,54,57,65,68,70], touch [34,51,52], buttons [15], knobs [89,90], biosignals [1] and fully-fledged graphical user interfaces [91].

Regarding output modalities, I found the use of sound [1,32–34,40,41,61,65,68,70,74], vibrotactile haptics [18,40,41,51,52,68,74], lights [40,41,54,57,71,74], shape-changes through inflation [62,63,89,90], heat [51,89,90] and robotic touch gestures [91] as outputs. Fig. 3 illustrates the inputs and outputs I found and the relationships between them.

Additionally, I noted the type of relationship that was established between inputs and outputs. Roughly, they could be classified as either continuous or discrete. A continuous mapping would involve the direct or inverse proportional modulation of a dimension of the output—e.g. pitch, frequency, intensity, colour—in relation to the input. A discrete mapping would be based on single or multiple thresholds of the input quantities that trigger a behaviour—e.g. a musical note or a vibration pulse—when crossed.

6.1.2 Design Requirements

My goal with the Movits design was to generate a toolkit of minimal units reflecting preexisting and proven interactions in open-ended wearable projects for movement applications employing augmented feedback. My aim was that such a toolkit could contribute to the overarching aim of fostering exploration and idea generation in movement-centric domains using interactive technology. Based on the design inspirations presented in the previous section, I articulated a series of values that I aimed to inculcate in our toolkit design.

For instance, when I refer to minimal units, I aim to indicate simplicity—i.e. low complexity—and the decision to only use the technologies that would be necessary and sufficient [56] for the task. Towards the design of the first set of our toolkit, this would mean that the Movits should be self-contained and work in a standalone manner: a group of designers using them should be able to bring them into an embodied design workshop without having to bring an extra computer to make them work or troubleshoot them. Therefore, the devices should provide straightforward interactions without a setup or calibration step: one should be able to turn them on and start using them immediately. I anticipated that this would likely help participants to figure out meaningful interactions by organically exploring them.

Additionally, the Movits should work offline, i.e. without Wi-Fi or other wireless communications. This would support embodied sketching done in the wild or outdoors. Additionally, this would reduce technical complexity during embodied design workshops, keeping the focus on embodied action rather than on troubleshooting. I left for future work to develop relatively more complex design probes implementing features such as communication. For the early design stages that the Movits targeted, I was contented with such interaction between devices being able to be simulated or puppeteered in a Wizard of Oz manner [12].

The Movits toolkit draws on the intercorporeal biofeedback [75] strong concept using its four characteristics to shape our design goals and envisioned preferred state [93]: the units in the toolkit would be intended to provide a shared frame of reference, via audiovisual or visuotactile feedback, that thanks to their open-endedness would likely allow its users to engage in fluid meaning allocation. Because of the minimalism in their behaviour, they would likely be unobtrusive. Therefore, they could be used to guide attention and action as an additional and complementary—to other objects and activities—, interwoven interactional resource. Furthermore, the toolkit would reflect an Embodied Interaction approach, and be designed in particular to support embodied design methods, such as those within embodied sketching [43]: sensitizing, ideating and prototyping, in particular in the context of movement learning experiences.

6.1.3 Hardware and Software

I chose to develop our toolkit using Adafruit Circuit Playground Express and Gemma M0 boards, along with some extra components—vibration motors, motor controllers and buzzers. I selected these platforms because of their assortment of built-in components and capabilities—such as accelerometers, speakers, lights, buttons, and capacitive touch input—and computational specifications which allow for simple sound processing and playback of short sound samples. Additionally, I decided to use these boards because of their potential availability as prototyping tools across research and design institutions. I intended to streamline the process of researchers and designers getting up and running with our system. Furthermore, these boards reside at a middle ground regarding complexity in hardware and software, ideal for our design goals. For the physical construction of the Movits, besides the boards, I used e-textile materials such as conductive thread and fabric, soft enclosures and straps. The Movits have velcro behind them so that they can be attached to textile straps worn on arms, legs, head or torso, or directly to the wearer’s clothes. For programming the Movits I chose to use CircuitPython to leverage its support for beginners and allow for a simple re-configuration of its parameters should a more advanced design session require it.

6.1.4 Selection of Inputs and Outputs

I chose to craft a first iteration of the toolkit implementing the more common modalities from the input-output analysis (Fig. 3), which at the same time were simpler in terms of setup, implementation, and use. I was interested in having enough modalities that could still support and reflect more rounded and polished movement-based designs, such as those in the multiple projects I reviewed.

For this, I selected three types of inputs—orientation, motion and touch—, and three types of outputs—sound, vibrotactile haptics and lights (Fig. 4). I chose touch as an input because we gathered it could emulate to some extent the behaviours provided by the pressure and button inputs while being relatively simpler to implement with the tools we selected.

For the first iteration of the Movits, I decided to focus on the two most prominent output modalities in our analysis, sound and vibration. I wanted to keep them in separate modules to be able to evaluate differences in their use. I reasoned that if someone wanted to use these modalities together, they could physically join the Movits which exhibited them. However, to maintain a shared frame of reference [75], the vibration had to be accompanied by another modality perceivable from the outside, and for this, I chose lights. Vision is usually the primary sensory modality, and sighted people can easily and readily make sense of visual information [76]. When this is well designed, it has proven to be useful in dynamic and changing contexts of movement teaching and learning [77,78]. Further, as the use of lights synchronised with other outputs is technically straightforward with the boards I chose to use, I decided to incorporate them into the Movits with sound as an output as well. In this way, the Movits would provide either audiovisual or visuotactile feedback. Fig. 4 illustrates the inputs, outputs and mapping we chose to implement in the first iteration of the Movits.

6.2 The Movits Toolkit

I designed a total of nine Movits divided into three groups according to their input: four Tilt Movits that use orientation¹, three Motion Movits that use the measured change of acceleration, and two Touch Movits that use capacitive touch (Fig. 5.) In the name of each Movit, we attempt to indicate their behaviour using three parts: (1) the type of input, (2) the word “To” or “Play” to indicate a continuous or discrete mapping respectively, and (3) a descriptive word indicating the type of output. Tbl. 2 provides an overview of their names, inputs, outputs and mappings.

Table 2: Input-output mappings implemented in the Movits.
Name	Input	Output	Mapping
TiltToMetronome	Orientation	Audiovisual	Continuous
TiltPlayNote	Orientation	Audiovisual	Discrete
TiltToVibration	Orientation	Visuotactile	Continuous
TiltPlayVibration	Orientation	Visuotactile	Discrete
MotionToPitch	Motion	Audiovisual	Continuous
MotionPlaySample	Motion	Audiovisual	Discrete
MotionPlayVibration	Motion	Visuotactile	Discrete
TouchPlaySound	Touch	Audiovisual	Discrete
TouchPlayVibration	Touch	Visuotactile	Discrete

6.2.1 Tilt Movits

The Movits based on orientation calculate it from the gravity pull measured from the three axes in the accelerometer, assuming a relatively static position. As an input, they use the angle of rotation of the plane of the device around a single axis. The axis of rotation can be selected by pressing a button on the board. All of these units have a similar behaviour regarding visual feedback: they use a rainbow-like palette that is mapped to the full rotation of the units.

6.2.1.1 TiltToMetronome

This Movit provides a metronome that changes its frequency according to the angle of rotation. Its sonic behaviour is inspired by the Movement and Tiltband TTPs [40,41,74], but instead of a pure tone for the sound, it uses a sound sample of a real metronome and provides the option to choose the axis of rotation. The coloured lights in this Movit pulsate at the same frequency as the metronome.

6.2.1.2 TiltPlayNote

In this Movit, the full rotation of the device is divided into eight angular sections of the same size. A note of the C major scale is assigned to each one of them. When the Movit enters a given angular section, the corresponding note is played once. This behaviour is based on the sonic phrase paradigm of Go-with-the-flow [61], where a single scale is correlated to changes in orientation. In this Movit, we assigned one colour of the rainbow-like palette per note. The coloured light stays on during each angular section.

6.2.1.3 TiltToVibration

This Movit uses a single vibrotactile actuator connected to a controller that allows modulating the intensity of vibration based on the angle of rotation: the change in intensity is directly proportional to the angle. The colour of the light also changes based on the rotation angle.

6.2.1.4 TiltPlayVibration

This Movit contains two vibrotactile actuators—one at each side—and divides the full rotation into three sections: neutral, left and right. When the device is tilted and its orientation reaches the left or right section, it activates the actuator of that side. The lights on the same side of the activated actuator are lit and change colour depending on the amount of tilt. This Movit is based on the Tiltband and FrontBalance TTPs [40,41,74] but provides a simplified version in terms of form factor along with more customization in its behaviour.

6.2.2 Motion Units

The Movits based on motion calculate and use the total absolute difference in the acceleration measured in the three axes between two points in time. In this way, movements that involve sudden changes in motion trajectory generate a greater value of motion than those that are slow or with a constant direction.

6.2.2.1 MotionToPitch

This Movit emits notes of increasing pitch proportional to the amount of measured motion. This behaviour is mostly inspired by the Movement TTP [40,41,74]. The rainbow-like colour palette is mapped to the notes that are played.

6.2.2.2 MotionPlaySample

In this Movit, when a threshold of motion is crossed, one sample of sound from a given collection is randomly selected and played. For instance, when one moves, one can hear sounds of splashing water or blowing wind, as if those sounds were generated by own’s motion. The collection of samples can be selected by pressing a button on the board. This Movit is inspired by Soniband [33] in both its behaviour and the types of sounds that are used, but it presents a simplified version of the system regarding requirements of hardware and calibration capabilities. In this Movit, the lights are turned on when a sample is played and their colour is fixed and based on the chosen selection.

6.2.2.3 MotionPlayVibration

Similar to the TiltToVibration Movit, MotionPlayVibration uses a single vibrotactile actuator. In this case, a vibration is triggered once a threshold of amount of motion is crossed. In my analysis of previous projects, I did not find an example of this behaviour but we decided to implement it to allow for its exploration.

6.2.3 Touch Movits

Our Touch Movits are devices partially covered by a conductive fabric. Touching the fabric activates an output—vibration or sound—that stays on until the touch is released. The output of these units is accompanied by a light turned on simultaneously. These units are based on the capacitive touch capabilities of our prototyping boards.

6.2.3.1 TouchPlaySound

This Movit plays sound samples and turns a light on when touched. The samples are the same as the MotionPlaySample Movit, based on the work of [33]: they consist of water and wind sounds.

6.2.3.2 TouchPlayVibration

This Movit activates a vibration motor disc as long as it is touched. It is based on the Sense Pouch [51] and Felt Sense Glove [51,52], but replaces their soft button with the touch of the fabric.

6.2.4 Additional Details

The Movits provide either audiovisual or visuotactile feedback. Their bi-modal output is intended to assist the shared frame of reference between wearers and audience as postulated by intercorporeal biofeedback [75]. The output of each of the units was designed to be open-ended—thus likely allowing for a fluid meaning allocation [75] between their users—, and unobtrusive—so that it would be feasible to guide attention and action [75] toward and away from it, and it could potentially blend well as an interwoven interactional resource [75].

I included in the Movits a minimal degree of configuration, as I imagined that it could be useful to better adapt them to a specific design scenario. For instance, all of them have a switch that allows one to turn off the sound or vibration, leaving the lights only. This originated as an aid during development but became useful when demonstrating the Movits. Additionally, the Tilt and Motion Movits make use of the two buttons in the Circuit Playground Express boards. One button allows one to cycle between modes of operation, for instance changing the axis of rotation for the Tilt Movits, the initial pitch in MotionToPitch, the collection of sound samples in MotionPlaySample or the duration of vibration in MotionPlayVibration. The other button enables one to cycle between up to three levels of perceived sensitivity by changing the trigger thresholds in the case of the discrete interactions or the range of output in the continuous interactions.

To design the Movits, I was interested in attempting to convey a straightforward mapping of their input modality by activating or modulating a single parameter of the output. In line with the decision to separate the sonic and haptic feedback from the Movits, my intention for designing them consisted of abstracting and simplifying the interactions of our references—when they existed—so that each resulting Movit would exhibit a single behaviour. The source code I wrote, along with installation instructions, can be found in an online repository [83].

6.3 Testing the Movits: Four Workshops

To validate the potential of the Movits as ideation probes for explorations of movement-based design, I co-organised four embodied sketching workshops with different populations.

6.3.1 Workshop Participants

I was interested in probing the potential and limitations of the Movits. While the Movits were originally conceived to be used in participatory design workshops inviting professional physiotherapists, I was also interested in testing if the Movits lent themselves as useful creative tools for participants from different contexts and with different backgrounds and expertise. Hence, I co-organised several workshops with different participants. All of them focused on wearable design and ideation. Workshops 1 and 2 targeted a broader population of students (Workshop 1) and the general public (Workshop 2) with overlapping interests in the project—creativity and design, movement practices, and technology innovation. These workshops served as pilots for the workshop and Movits, and helped to refine them for the subsequent workshops. Workshops 3 and 4 were meant to further inspect and evaluate the Movits in use by the actual target population.

In Workshop 1, the participants were 15 undergraduate students who were part of a Creativity and Design course taught by Elena Márquez Segura. The class was a non-mandatory lab part of the course’s usual class schedule. For Workshop 2, I co-organised an open call for the general public in the context of a nation-wide science dissemination event. The workshop was advertised on the regional website of the event featuring multiple workshops and activities, and on the research group’s website. There were five participants: three of them reported having technology innovation jobs and two of them were multidisciplinary dancers. For these two workshops we did not gather demographic data for data protection reasons.

For Workshops 3 and 4, Tomás Bonino directly invited a group of professional physiotherapists from his professional network. There were four participants in Workshop 3 and three participants in Workshop 4. The mean age of the seven physiotherapists was 43.2 years (SD=6.0) with a mean duration of professional practice of 20.1 years (SD=5.9). The expertise of the physiotherapists included sports, movement coaching, global postural reeducation, osteopathy, and core, perineum and pelvic floor reeducation. None of the participants in the four workshops received monetary compensation for their participation.

6.3.2 Workshop Structure

The four two-hour workshops shared the same objective and general structure (Fig. 6.) Participants utilised the Movits as ideation probes for designing wearable technologies to support physical training in flexibility and strength. The four workshops were framed as standalone events, i.e. they were presented as the only instance of participation for the attendees without an expectation of further collaboration. In Workshops 1 and 3, participants worked in pairs or trios; in Workshop 2, they worked individually with a facilitator assisting each one, and in Workshop 4, they worked individually with a single rotating facilitator. The workshops followed a double diamond [10] structure, adapting its four stages: Discover, Define, Develop and Deliver. The Movits were used for bodystorming [42] during divergent phases—Discover and Develop—, and custom-made documentation sheets during convergent phases—Define and Deliver. In the fourth stage, participants presented and demonstrated their resulting ideas.

In all cases, the workshops had a bodystorming basket consisting of fabric straps of different lengths and widths—some of them with velcro, snap buttons or plastic clasps—, pieces of fabric, cardboard, paper and EVA foam, attachment methods such as safety pins, velcro, zip ties, rope and cords, and some fabric bags with marbles or pulses to provide weight.

I was the main facilitation of the four workshops, with support from Elena Márquez Segura and Ana Tajadura Jiménez. In the following, I will use “we” to refer to us as facilitators of the workshops. We collected field notes and asked the participants to fill out documentation sheets of their designs. Based on the consent provided by the participants, only Workshops 3 and 4 were video recorded.

All workshops began with an introduction to the research context, the workshop’s general structure and the generalities of the Movits. Due to technical issues, the Touch Movits were excluded from Workshops 1 and 4. The Movits, tagged with colours and behaviour icons, were arranged on a table. We did not show them in action, name them or indicate in any form which of the units would respond in which way. Then, the context of wearable design for physical training was illustrated through diagrams ([Fig. 7}) based on the review work of [78] and [49]. The depth of the presentation varied across groups: in Workshops 1 and 2 the context was provided as a general overview, whereas in Workshops 3 and 4 we further discussed the implications of these frameworks to design wearable technologies for movement learning. We conducted a brief warm-up activity to motivate a creative focus; it followed a sequence of (1) a body scan meditation, (2) a visualization activity, (3) a movement-based game where people introduced themselves by synchronizing their names with a chosen movement, and (4) a somatic activity to explore different ranges of motion. In Workshop 1, the warm-up consisted of remembering and visualising these activities, which had been performed in a previous session.

6.3.2.1 Discover

For the initial divergent phase, participants silently explored the Movits for five minutes. Their objective was to choose two—per group or person, depending on the workshop—for the session and to arrive at an initial understanding of their behaviour. After selecting their Movits, the participants explained their findings to the group, with facilitators offering clarification. For example, it could happen that they understood a continuous behaviour as discrete because they did not explore the middle steps of the input range, or that they thought that a Movit was responding to tilting when it was responding to motion, or vice versa.

Then, we facilitated a bodystorming [42] activity to explore possible applications in the context of wearable technologies for physical training. We defined three exploration phases to loosely guide participants in their explorations: (1) Movit placement on their bodies—using straps and other mechanical aids from the bodystorming basket—; (2) movement range levels; and (3) diversity of actions in sports and fitness practices. In practice, the flow of ideas was so rich in covering these dimensions and more that we did not need to indicate separate phases. This divergent activity lasted approximately 15 minutes.

6.3.2.2 Define

After guiding participants back to a seated position, we introduced the first documentation sheet for the first convergence step. Participants were asked to define the context for the wearable technology they would like to design, based on their findings during the previous phase. Then, using a diagram from the design space of wearables for sports and fitness practices [78], we prompted them to consider roles for the technology outputs: to support some experiential quality or to convey information through augmented feedback—be it knowledge of the current performance or knowledge of results—or feed-forward—providing information in advance (Fig. 7, a). We told them that these roles were non-exclusive. Finally, we asked participants to consider the objective of their technology—to enable, improve or augment—across physical, cognitive, emotional and social aspects of the context they chose, using a diagram based on the review of trends and opportunities of wearable systems for sports by [49] (Fig. 7, b). Again, we clarified that these objectives were non-exclusive. The facilitators adapted to participants’ needs by answering questions or assisting with idea framing. This activity lasted approximately 10 minutes.

6.3.2.3 Develop

For the second round of convergence, the participants engaged in another 15-minute bodystorming [42] activity to develop a concrete idea within their chosen context. We prompted the exploration of Movit placements and consideration of design aspects like shape, texture, weight, feedback types, configuration modes and compatible movements. Facilitators adapted prompts to each group or individual based on the participants’ process. For instance, in Workshops 3 and 4, physiotherapists had very clear ideas of possible applications, so we guided them towards a detailed specification of what they envisioned. In contrast, in Workshops 1 and 2, our work as facilitators consisted of guiding participants towards deciding on a single idea and developing it. In all cases, we encouraged participants to use the available objects from the bodystorming basket in combination with the Movits to build a low-fidelity prototype, extending or discarding the actual behaviour of the Movits that they had chosen as inspiration.

To keep the activity manageable, with a focus on embodiment and not on technicalities, we did not initially communicate the configuration capabilities of the Movits, except when the participants: (1) accidentally pressed buttons, leading to notable changes in what they were exploring—e.g., the responsiveness of a Motion Movit was now too much or too little for their chosen movement, or a Tilt Movit was not responding the same way to the movement they had tried before—; (2) voiced a very specific need that could be met by this configuration change, such as a sensitivity adjustments in the Motion Movits or axis changes in the Tilt Movits.

6.3.2.4 Deliver

For the second convergent stage, participants completed two tasks with a 10-minute time limit. First, we provided another documentation sheet for specific details of their final design, including a general description, an account of the concrete application, behaviour and expected results of the technology, and a body map to illustrate the shape and placement of the design. Additionally, we asked participants to reflect on the features of the Movits they used in or left out of their design, the changes they made and the helpfulness of the toolkit in their design process. To conclude, participants presented a low-fidelity prototype of their design (Fig. 8) and engaged in a Q&A session with the facilitators and the rest of the participants.

The workshop ended with a semi-structured group discussion exploring overall experiences, feelings and insights from both divergent and convergent phases—taking into account the differences between the movement-based nature of the former and the written and analytical aspects of the latter. Participants shared experiences through the lenses of embodied ideation methods, the use of the Movits and other objects, and teamwork.

6.3.3 Analysis

The analysis mainly focused on the resulting designs and on the documentation sheets filled by the participants in the workshops, which were complemented by the field notes gathered by the workshops’ facilitators. For this, I digitised the data gathered from the documentation sheets described in the Define and Deliver sections of the workshop. I conducted a top-down qualitative analysis of this material, using the categories of the sheets as guiding analytical lenses. These categories included: the application of the design, its placement in the body, the Movits in use during the workshop, the variations in the design (from the original behaviour exhibited by the Movits), the self-classification of their design regarding roles and objectives (Fig. 7), the suggested modifications to the Movits, and the reflections on their usefulness.

I used the field notes to complement the data, as some relevant comments from the participants were not captured in their documentation sheets. The workshop where each idea originated was kept.

I then identified emerging themes across each category roughly based on what they found more common, less common, or more relevant to the design requirements of the Movits. These were important aspects of the overarching project and were discussed by Elena Márquez Segura and me. Laia Turmo Vidal and I discussed the resulting insights from this analysis and elucidated their relevance for the wider Interaction Design and Human-Computer Interaction community, which provided clear directions for deepening the analysis. After iterating and refining the analysis, Elena and I discussed the findings and framed the themes for dissemination in what would become the paper [82].

6.4 Embodied Sketching Results

Table 3: Overview of the resulting designs from the embodied sketching workshops. Abbreviations: Inputs: O is Orientation, M is Motion; Outputs: L is Lights, S is Sound, V is Vibration.
ID	Application	Place	In	Out	Probe(s)
`W1D1`	Arm alignment in archery	Forearm	O	L V	TiltPlayVibration
`W1D2`	Augmentation of weightlifting	Arms, Legs	O	L S V	TiltPlayNote
`W1D3`	Swimming pacing	Ears and Waist	O	L S V	TiltPlayVibration, TiltToVibration, TiltToMetronome
`W1D4`	Recovery massage	Hand	M	L S V	MotionPlaySample
`W2D1`	Swimming stroke technique	Forearm	O	S V	TiltToMetronome
`W2D2`	Recovery massage	Hand	O	L V	TiltPlayVibration
`W2D3`	Artistic swimming synchronization	Head, Elbows, Wrists, Knees, Ankles	O	V	TiltPlayVibration
`W2D4`	General alignment in yoga	Waist, Wrists, Knees	M O	L S	TiltToMetronome, MotionPlaySample
`W2D5`	Dance creativity stimulation	Head (top), Wrists, Ankles	O	V	TiltToVibration
`W3D1`	Ankle mobility in volleyball	Thigh	O	L S V	TiltPlayVibration
`W3D2`	Jumping technique in volleyball	Waist (back)	M	L S V	MotionToPitch
`W3D3`	Lumbopelvic stability	Waist (front)	M O	S V	TiltPlayVibration, MotionPlaySample, MotionPlayVibration
`W4D1`	Scapular rehabilitation	Shoulder blades	M	S	MotionPlaySample
`W4D2`	General joint rehabilitation	Head, Waist, Forearm	O	L V	TiltPlayVibration
`W4D3`	Gait rehabilitation	Head (top)	O	V	TiltPlayVibration

6.4.1 Overview

In the four workshops, participants generated a total of 15 different ideas for wearables supporting movement learning across different movement practices, showcasing the generative potential of the Movits. Tbl. 3 summarises these design ideas and provides an ID for them, detailing their application domains, wearable placements, input/output modalities, and the Movits that participants used as probes and references to develop and present their ideas during the workshops. Overall, the participants explored movement disciplines familiar to them—swimming, volleyball, archery, weightlifting, yoga—, specific rehabilitation or alignment exercises—such as those for gait rehabilitation or the recovery of joint range—, or self-care or creativity experiences—massage and choreographic exploration.

In this section, I discuss our findings regarding the roles of generated ideas, to what extent they extended the interactions provided by the Movits, the Movits that were used the most and the least and their impact on idea generation, and to what extent and why the Movits were helpful in the participants’ design processes. Because the analysis was based on the written reports for each of the designs—some of which were created collectively—and not on the conversations or individual comments by the participants, I report the findings by referring to the ID of the involved designs.

6.4.2 Roles of Generated Ideas

To evaluate the designs, we employed as a lens the classification of [78] (Fig. 7) regarding the possible roles of the outputs of wearable technology for sports and fitness practices. The Movits provide immediate feedback to the wearers’ actions, and therefore the most straightforward role for all of their outputs is to provide information in the form of feedback which consists of knowledge of performance [78]. Because of this, it was not surprising that most of the ideas presented applications where some kind of knowledge of performance was supplied, be it an indication of misalignment—such as in W1D1, W2D1, W2D3 or W4D3—or a reward for arriving to a desired position—such as in W1D2, W3D1, W3D2 or W4D2. We were interested in evaluating to what extent the generated ideas would extend this base role and explore others.

We found it illuminating that several designs selected and focused on another possible role, the experiential qualities that the Movits provided to the participants. For instance, W1D4, W2D2, W2D4 and W2D5 highlighted the experience of the vibrotactile haptic feedback on their bodies, and W1D4, W2D2, W3D3 and W4D1 focused on the sound of water emitted by the MotionPlaySample Movit. W2D5 and W3D3 were also interested in the experiential qualities of the possibilities of social connection while using their designs in a group. In the case of W1D4 and W2D2—the two designs focused on wearables for providing a holistic recovery massage—, the experiential quality was their only focus and they did not consider the role of providing information. The emphasis on the felt experience and experiential qualities of these designs reminded us of slow, introspective and reflexive Soma Design processes which inform our work [1,51,52,62,63,89,90] even if that was not the default mood of the workshops. We observed that the designs that considered the experiential qualities emerged in all four workshops and thus were not restricted to a specific population. From this, we gather that the Movits have the potential to be used effectively as probes in somaesthetic appreciation design [26] workshops.

Finally, some designs also considered the roles of providing feedback in the form of knowledge of results [78] and some others the role of supplying feed-forward. For instance, W3D1, W3D2, W3D3, W4D1 and W4D3 involved a reporting of the results of the activity. Those were all designed by physiotherapists, which might speak to their involvement in the evaluation and improvement of the conditions of their patients and the interest they might have in quantifying results. Regarding feed-forward, W2D1, W3D1 and W3D2 considered their design could provide instructions and objectives of the activity to perform, and W1D3 was inspired by the sound of TiltToMetronome to use it as a feed-forward mechanism to indicate the desired pace. It appears that the Movits helped to some extent to provide a framework for designing complete experiences with feed-forward of objectives and feedback of results even if by themselves they only supply feedback of performance.

7 Designing Wearables to Support Physical Rehabilitation

8 Discussion and Conclusion

Bibliography

Miquel Alfaras, Vasiliki Tsaknaki, Pedro Sanches, Charles Windlin, Muhammad Umair, Corina Sas, and Kristina Höök. 2020. From Biodata to Somadata. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376684

Rasmus Vestergaard Andersen, Søren Lekbo, René Engelhardt Hansen, and Lars Elbæk. 2020. Movement-Based Design Methods: A Typology for Designers. European Conference on Games Based Learning: 637–645, XII, XIV, XVI. Retrieved January 30, 2023 from https://www.proquest.com/docview/2473445482

Elena Armas, Elisa Sanz, Juan José Jover, María Fernanda Alarcón, Sonia Martín, Lara Cristóbal, and Andrés A. Maldonado. 2021. Current treatment of traumatic brachial plexus and peripheral nerve injuries. ANALES RANM 138, 138(03): 270–281. https://doi.org/10.32440/ar.2021.138.03.rev04

Mattias Arvola and Henrik Artman. 2007. Enactments in Interaction Design: How Designers Make Sketches Behave. Artifact 1, 2: 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/17493460601117272

Jon Back, Laia Turmo Vidal, Annika Waern, Susan Paget, and Eva-Lotta Sallnäs Pysander. 2018. Playing Close to Home: Interaction and Emerging Play in Outdoor Play Installations. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173730

Mathilde M. Bekker, Judith S. Olson, and Gary M. Olson. 1995. Analysis of gestures in face-to-face design teams provides guidance for how to use groupware in design. In Proceedings of the 1st conference on Designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, & techniques (DIS ’95), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1145/225434.225452

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2: 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Marion Buchenau and Jane Fulton Suri. 2000. Experience prototyping. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (DIS ’00), 424–433. https://doi.org/10.1145/347642.347802

T. Matthew Ciolek. 1983. The proxemics lexicon: A first approximation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 8, 1: 55–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986330

10.

Design Council. 2003. The Double Diamond. Retrieved February 6, 2024 from https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/the-double-diamond/

11.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2008. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, New York.

12.

N. Dahlbäck, A. Jönsson, and L. Ahrenberg. 1993. Wizard of Oz studies — why and how. Knowledge-Based Systems 6, 4: 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-7051(93)90017-N

13.

Robby van Delden. 2011. Design of therapeutic TagTile games for children with unilateral spastic cerebral paresis. Univeristy of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands. Retrieved from http://essay.utwente.nl/61135/

14.

Robby van Delden, Pauline Aarts, and Betsy van Dijk. 2012. Design of Tangible Games for Children Undergoing Occupational and Physical Therapy. In Entertainment Computing - ICEC 2012 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33542-6_19

15.

Kayla DesPortes, Kathleen McDermott, Yoav Bergner, Francisco Enrique Vicente Castro, Sauda Musharrat, and Aakruti Lunia. 2024. DanceBits ’It tells you to see us’: Supporting Dance Practices with an Educational Computing Kit. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’24), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3623509.3633350

16.

Sebastian Deterding. 2009. The Game Frame: Systemizing a Goffmanian Approach to Video Game Theory.

17.

J. P. Djajadiningrat, W. W. Gaver, and J. W. Fres. 2000. Interaction relabelling and extreme characters: Methods for exploring aesthetic interactions. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (DIS ’00), 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1145/347642.347664

18.

Don Samitha Elvitigala, Denys J. C. Matthies, Löic David, Chamod Weerasinghe, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2019. GymSoles: Improving Squats and Dead-Lifts by Visualizing the User’s Center of Pressure. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300404

19.

Sarah Fdili Alaoui, Baptiste Caramiaux, Marcos Serrano, and Frédéric Bevilacqua. 2012. Movement qualities as interaction modality. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’12), 761–769. https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318071

20.

Pedro Ferreira and Kristina Höök. 2011. Bodily Orientations Around Mobiles: Lessons Learnt in Vanuatu. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978981

21.

William W. Gaver. 1991. Technology Affordances. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’91), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1145/108844.108856

22.

Erving Goffman. 1986. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Northeastern University Press.

23.

Edward Twitchell Hall. 1966. The hidden dimension. Doubleday, Garden City, NY, USA.

24.

Kristina Höök. 2018. Designing with the Body: Somaesthetic Interaction Design. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11481.001.0001

25.

Kristina Höök, Baptiste Caramiaux, Cumhur Erkut, Jodi Forlizzi, Nassrin Hajinejad, Michael Haller, Caroline C. M. Hummels, Katherine Isbister, Martin Jonsson, George Khut, Lian Loke, Danielle Lottridge, Patrizia Marti, Edward Melcer, Florian Floyd Müller, Marianne Graves Petersen, Thecla Schiphorst, Elena Márquez Segura, Anna Ståhl, Dag Svanæs, Jakob Tholander, and Helena Tobiasson. 2018. Embracing First-Person Perspectives in Soma-Based Design. Informatics 5, 1: 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics5010008

26.

Kristina Höök, Martin P. Jonsson, Anna Ståhl, and Johanna Mercurio. 2016. Somaesthetic Appreciation Design. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16), 3131–3142. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858583

27.

Johan Huizinga. 1955. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Beacon Press, Boston, MA, USA.

28.

Hilary Hutchinson, Wendy Mackay, Bo Westerlund, Benjamin B. Bederson, Allison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, Nicolas Roussel, and Björn Eiderbäck. 2003. Technology probes: Inspiring design for and with families. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’03), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642616

29.

Lee Jones, Sara Nabil, Amanda McLeod, and Audrey Girouard. 2020. Wearable Bits: Scaffolding Creativity with a Prototyping Toolkit for Wearable E-textiles. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’20), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1145/3374920.3374954

30.

Victor Kaptelinin and Bonnie Nardi. 2012. Affordances in HCI: Toward a Mediated Action Perspective. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12), 967–976. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208541

31.

Adam Kendon. 2010. Spacing and Orientation in Co-present Interaction. In Development of Multimodal Interfaces: Active Listening and Synchrony: Second COST 2102 International Training School, Dublin, Ireland, March 23-27, 2009, Revised Selected Papers, Anna Esposito, Nick Campbell, Carl Vogel, Amir Hussain and Anton Nijholt (eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12397-9_1

32.

Judith Ley-Flores, Frédéric Bevilacqua, Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze, and Ana Tajadura-Jiménez. 2019. Altering body perception and emotion in physically inactive people through movement sonification. In 2019 8th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2019.8925432

33.

Judith Ley-Flores, Laia Turmo Vidal, Nadia Berthouze, Aneesha Singh, Frédéric Bevilacqua, and Ana Tajadura-Jiménez. 2021. SoniBand: Understanding the Effects of Metaphorical Movement Sonifications on Body Perception and Physical Activity. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445558

34.

Wanyu Liu, Artem Dementyev, Diemo Schwarz, Emmanuel Flety, Wendy E. Mackay, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, and Frederic Bevilacqua. 2021. SonicHoop: Using Interactive Sonification to Support Aerial Hoop Practices. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445539

35.

Lian Loke and Toni Robertson. 2013. Moving and making strange: An embodied approach to movement-based interaction design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 20, 1: 7:1–7:25. https://doi.org/10.1145/2442106.2442113

36.

Alexander Hvidbjerg Kjær Lund, Amalie Finnemannn Sørensen, Lars Elbæk, and Maximus D. Kaos. 2021. Insights from design processes used in developing exergames. In 15th European Conference on Game Based Learning, ECGBL 2021, 490–498.

37.

Nicolai Marquardt and Saul Greenberg. 2015. Proxemic Interactions: From Theory to Practice. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, CA, USA. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=7056253

38.

Elena Márquez Segura. 2016. Embodied core mechanics. Designing for movement-based co-located play. Uppsala University. Retrieved from http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2\%3A920694&dswid=-4668

39.

Elena Márquez Segura, Katja Rogers, Anna Lisa Martin-Niedecken, Stephan Niedecken, and Laia Turmo Vidal. 2021. Exploring the Design Space of Immersive Social Fitness Games: The ImSoFit Games Model. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445592

40.

Elena Márquez Segura, Laia Turmo Vidal, Luis Parrilla Bel, and Annika Waern. 2019. Circus, Play and Technology Probes: Training Body Awareness and Control with Children. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’19), 1223–1236. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322377

41.

Elena Márquez Segura, Laia Turmo Vidal, Luis Parrilla Bel, and Annika Waern. 2019. Using Training Technology Probes in Bodystorming for Physical Training. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Movement and Computing (MOCO ’19), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3347122.3347132

42.

Elena Márquez Segura, Laia Turmo Vidal, and Asreen Rostami. 2016. Bodystorming for movement-based interaction design. Human Technology 12, 2: 193–251. https://doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201611174655

43.

Elena Márquez Segura, Laia Turmo Vidal, Asreen Rostami, and Annika Waern. 2016. Embodied Sketching. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16), 6014–6027. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858486

44.

Elena Márquez Segura, Laia Turmo Vidal, Annika Waern, Jared Duval, Luis Parrilla Bel, and Ferran Altarriba Bertran. 2021. Physical Warm-up Games: Exploring the Potential of Play and Technology Design. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445163

45.

Elena Márquez Segura, Annika Waern, Luis Parrilla Bel, and Laia Turmo Vidal. 2019. Super Trouper: The Playful Potential of Interactive Circus Training. In Extended Abstracts of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts (CHI PLAY ’19 Extended Abstracts), 511–518. https://doi.org/10.1145/3341215.3356282

46.

Joe Marshall, Conor Linehan, and Adrian Hazzard. 2016. Designing Brutal Multiplayer Video Games. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16), 2669–2680. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858080

47.

Joanna McGrenere and Wayne Ho. 2000. Affordances: Clarifying and Evolving a Concept. 8.

48.

Joshua McVeigh-Schultz and Katherine Isbister. 2021. The Case for “Weird Social” in VR/XR: A Vision of Social Superpowers Beyond Meatspace. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’21). https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3450377

49.

Eleonora Mencarini, Amon Rapp, Lia Tirabeni, and Massimo Zancanaro. 2019. Designing Wearable Systems for Sports: A Review of Trends and Opportunities in Human–Computer Interaction. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 49, 4: 314–325. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2019.2919702

50.

Don Norman. 1988. The Psychology Of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York.

51.

Claudia Núñez Pacheco and Lian Loke. 2017. Tacit Narratives: Surfacing Aesthetic Meaning by Using Wearable Props and Focusing. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’17), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1145/3024969.3024979

52.

Claudia Núñez-Pacheco and Lian Loke. 2015. The Felt Sense Project: Towards a Methodological Framework for De-signing and Crafting From the Inner Self. In 21st International Symposium on Electronic Art, Vancouver, Canada.

53.

Antti Oulasvirta, Esko Kurvinen, and Tomi Kankainen. 2003. Understanding contexts by being there: Case studies in bodystorming. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 7, 2: 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-003-0238-7

54.

Hyung Kun Park and Woohun Lee. 2016. Motion Echo Snowboard: Enhancing Body Movement Perception in Sport via Visually Augmented Feedback. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’16), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901797

55.

Dennis Reidsma, Robby W. van Delden, Joris P. Weijdom, René Engelhardt Hansen, Søren Lekbo, Rasmus Vestergaard Andersen, Lærke Schjødt Rasmussen Rasmussen, and Lars Elbæk. 2022. Considerations for (Teaching) Facilitator Roles for Movement-Based Design. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’22), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1145/3505270.3558315

56.

Roopika Risam and Alex Gil. 2022. Introduction: The Questions of Minimal Computing. Digital Humanities Quarterly 016, 2.

57.

Patrick Roche, Collin J. Goldbach, Alix Putman, Jeffrey A. Jalkio, Katie Kimball, and AnnMarie P. Thomas. 2020. Circus Science: Designing Responsive Flying Trapeze Performance Costumes. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’20), 551–556. https://doi.org/10.1145/3374920.3374986

58.

Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. 2003. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

59.

Thecla Schiphorst. 2011. Self-evidence: Applying somatic connoisseurship to experience design. In CHI ’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’11), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979640

60.

Dennis Schleicher, Peter Jones, and Oksana Kachur. 2010. Bodystorming as embodied designing. Interactions 17, 6: 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1145/1865245.1865256

61.

Aneesha Singh, Stefano Piana, Davide Pollarolo, Gualtiero Volpe, Giovanna Varni, Ana Tajadura-Jiménez, Amanda CdeC Williams, Antonio Camurri, and Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze. 2016. Go-with-the-Flow: Tracking, Analysis and Sonification of Movement and Breathing to Build Confidence in Activity Despite Chronic Pain. Human–Computer Interaction 31, 3-4: 335–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2015.1085310

62.

Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard, Marianela Ciolfi Felice, and Madeline Balaam. 2021. Designing Menstrual Technologies with Adolescents. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445471

63.

Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard, Ozgun Kilic Afsar, Marianela Ciolfi Felice, Nadia Campo Woytuk, and Madeline Balaam. 2020. Designing with Intimate Materials and Movements: Making "Menarche Bits". In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’20), 587–600. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395592

64.

Jaakko Stenros. 2014. In Defence of a Magic Circle: The Social, Mental and Cultural Boundaries of Play. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association 1. https://doi.org/10.26503/todigra.v1i2.10

65.

Jelle Stienstra, Kees Overbeeke, and Stephan Wensveen. 2011. Embodying complexity through movement sonification: Case study on empowering the speed-skater. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGCHI Italian Chapter International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Facing Complexity (CHItaly), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/2037296.2037310

66.

Petra Sundström, Alex Taylor, Katja Grufberg, Niklas Wirström, Jordi Solsona Belenguer, and Marcus Lundén. 2011. Inspirational bits: Towards a shared understanding of the digital material. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11), 1561–1570. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979170

67.

Dag Svanæs and Louise Barkhuus. 2020. The Designer’s Body as Resource in Design: Exploring Combinations of Point-of-view and Tense. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376430

68.

Ana Tajadura-Jimenez, Judith Ley-Flores, Omar Valdiviezo, Aneesha Singh, Milagrosa Sanchez-Martin, Joaquin Diaz Duran, and Elena Márquez Segura. 2022. Exploring the Design Space for Body Transformation Wearables to Support Physical Activity through Sensitizing and Bodystorming. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Movement and Computing (MOCO ’22), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3537972.3538001

69.

Ana Tajadura-Jiménez, Maria Basia, Ophelia Deroy, Merle Fairhurst, Nicolai Marquardt, and Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze. 2015. As Light as your Footsteps: Altering Walking Sounds to Change Perceived Body Weight, Emotional State and Gait. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15), 2943–2952. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702374

70.

Ana Tajadura-Jiménez, Francisco Cuadrado, Patricia Rick, Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze, Aneesha Singh, Aleksander Väljamäe, and Frédéric Bevilacqua. 2018. Designing a gesture-sound wearable system to motivate physical activity by altering body perception. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Movement and Computing (MOCO ’18), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3212721.3212877

71.

Laia Turmo Vidal, Elena Márquez Segura, Christopher Boyer, and Annika Waern. 2019. Enlightened Yoga: Designing an Augmented Class with Wearable Lights to Support Instruction. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’19), 1017–1031. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322338

72.

Laia Turmo Vidal, Elena Márquez Segura, Luis Parrilla Bel, and Annika Waern. 2018. Exteriorizing Body Alignment in Collocated Physical Training. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’18), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188685

73.

Laia Turmo Vidal, Elena Márquez Segura, Luis Parrilla Bel, and Annika Waern. 2020. Training Body Awareness and Control with Technology Probes: A Portfolio of Co-Creative Uses to Support Children with Motor Challenges. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’20), 823–835. https://doi.org/10.1145/3374920.3375002

74.

Laia Turmo Vidal, Elena Márquez Segura, Luis Parrilla Bel, and Annika Waern. 2020. Training Technology Probes Across Fitness Practices: Yoga, Circus and Weightlifting. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’20), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382862

75.

Laia Turmo Vidal, Elena Márquez Segura, and Annika Waern. 2023. Intercorporeal Biofeedback for Movement Learning. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30, 3: 43:1–43:40. https://doi.org/10.1145/3582428

76.

Laia Turmo Vidal, Elena Márquez Segura, and Annika Waern. 2018. Sensory bodystorming for collocated physical training design. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI ’18), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240224

77.

Laia Turmo Vidal, Hui Zhu, and Abraham Riego-Delgado. 2020. BodyLights: Open-Ended Augmented Feedback to Support Training Towards a Correct Exercise Execution. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376268

78.

Laia Turmo Vidal, Hui Zhu, Annika Waern, and Elena Márquez Segura. 2021. The Design Space of Wearables for Sports and Fitness Practices. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445700

79.

José Manuel Vega-Cebrián, Elena Márquez Segura, María Fernanda Alarcón, Tomás Bonino Covas, Lara Cristóbal, Andrés A. Maldonado, and Ana Tajadura-Jimenez. 2025. Co-designing Minimalist Wearables to Support Physical Rehabilitation after Peripheral Nerve Transfer Surgery. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17903256

80.

José Manuel Vega-Cebrián, Elena Márquez Segura, and Ana Tajadura-Jiménez. 2024. Towards a Minimalist Embodied Sketching Toolkit for Wearable Design for Motor Learning. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’24), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3623509.3635253

81.

José Manuel Vega-Cebrián, Elena Márquez Segura, Laia Turmo Vidal, Omar Valdiviezo-Hernández, Annika Waern, Robby Van Delden, Joris Weijdom, Lars Elbæk, Rasmus Vestergaard Andersen, Søren Stigkær Lekbo, and Ana Tajadura-Jiménez. 2023. Design Resources in Movement-based Design Methods: A Practice-based Characterization. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23), 871–888. https://doi.org/10.1145/3563657.3596036

82.

José Manuel Vega-Cebrián, Laia Turmo Vidal, Ana Tajadura-Jiménez, Tomás Bonino Covas, and Elena Márquez Segura. 2024. Movits: A Minimalist Toolkit for Embodied Sketching. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’24), 3302–3317. https://doi.org/10.1145/3643834.3660706

83.

José Manuel Vega-Cebrián, Laia Turmo Vidal, Ana Tajadura-Jiménez, Tomás Bonino Covas, and Elena Márquez Segura. 2024. Source Code: Movits: A Minimalist Toolkit for Embodied Sketching. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11121429

84.

Annika Waern and Jon Back. 2017. Activity as the Ultimate Particular of Interaction Design. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17), 3390–3402. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025990

85.

Annika Waern, Paulina Rajkowska, Karin B. Johansson, Jon Bac, Jocelyn Spence, and Anders Sundnes Løvlie. 2020. Sensitizing Scenarios: Sensitizing Designer Teams to Theory. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. Retrieved July 26, 2022 from https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376620

86.

Annika Waern, Alessandra Semeraro, Nikolay Georgiev, Ruochen Wang, Andreas Bergqvist, Jon Back, Shuang Feng, Karan Manjunath, and Laia Turmo Vidal. 2021. Moving Embodied Design Education Online.: Experiences from a Course in Embodied Interaction during the COVID-19 Pandemic. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’21), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451787

87.

Joris Weijdom. 2022. Performative prototyping in collaborative mixed reality environments: An embodied design method for ideation and development in virtual reality. In Sixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’22), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3490149.3501316

88.

Danielle Wilde, Anna Vallgårda, and Oscar Tomico. 2017. Embodied Design Ideation Methods: Analysing the Power of Estrangement. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17), 5158–5170. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025873

89.

Charles Windlin, Kristina Höök, and Jarmo Laaksolahti. 2022. SKETCHING SOMA BITS. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’22), 1758–1772. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533510

90.

Charles Windlin, Anna Ståhl, Pedro Sanches, Vasiliki Tsaknaki, Pavel Karpashevich, Madeline Balaam, and Kristina Höök. 2019. Soma Bits: Mediating technology to orchestrate bodily experiences. 1387501 Bytes. https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.7855799.V2

91.

Ran Zhou, Zachary Schwemler, Akshay Baweja, Harpreet Sareen, Casey Lee Hunt, and Daniel Leithinger. 2023. TactorBots: A Haptic Design Toolkit for Out-of-lab Exploration of Emotional Robotic Touch. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580799

92.

Zhuoming Zhou, Elena Márquez Segura, Jared Duval, Michael John, and Katherine Isbister. 2019. Astaire: A Collaborative Mixed Reality Dance Game for Collocated Players. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’19), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311350.3347152

93.

John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07), 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704

I chose to name them Tilt Movits because they use a specific instance of orientation: the angle of rotation around a single axis, orthogonal to the gravity.↩︎

Acknowledgements

Published and submitted content