About the author
Read more >>
Commentaries by:
Donald A. Norman
Don Norman is the author of numerous books including "Emotional Design," and more recently, "Living with Complexity." He is co-founder of the Nielsen Norman group, a professor at KAIST (in Korea), and IDEO fellow, and a design theorist, studying the fundamenta...
More about Donald >>Eva Hornecker
Eva Hornecker is Assistant Professor at the University of Strathclyde. She has worked at several places before, including the UK's Open University, Sussex University, the Vienna University of Technology, following her PhD in Bremen, Germany. Eva's research...
More about Eva >>Editors of this chapter:
Mads Soegaard
Rikke Friis Dam
Allan Holstein-Rathlou
Peer Reviewers
Reviewer 1: Name suppressed
Reviewer 2: Name suppressed
Peer-review is based on the reviewing guidelines and coordinated by the Reviewing Board.
Get Notified!
Get notified when new chapters are added to the encyclopedia!
Featured chapter
Authoritative overview of Social Computing by Tom Erickson - veteran researcher at IBM Research Lab. It includes 9 HD videos filmed in Copenhagen.
Read Thomas's chapter
11. Philosophy of Interaction
- and the Interactive User Experience
Over the last two decades, interaction design has emerged as a design discipline alongside traditional design disciplines such as graphics design and furniture design. While it is almost tautological that furniture designers design furniture, it is less obvious what the end product of interaction design is. Löwgren's answer is "interactive products and services" (Löwgren 2008). This narrows it down, but leaves open the question of what it means for something to be interactive.
Interactive systems have been studied within the field of Human-Computer Interaction since the early 1980s. This research has given us valuable knowledge about users, systems and design methodology, but few have asked "philosophical" questions about the very nature of interactivity and the interactive user experience.
I will approach the question of interactivity from a number of angles, in the belief that a multi-paradigmatic analysis is necessary to give justice to the complexity of the phenomenon. I will start by defining the scope through some examples of interactive products and services. Next, I will analyse interactivity and the interactive user experience from a number of perspectives, including formal logic, cognitive science, phenomenology, and media and art studies. A number of other perspectives, e.g. ethnomethodology, semiotics, and activity theory, are highly relevant, but are not included here. (For an analysis that includes these perspectives, see (Svanaes 2000)).
11.1 Terminology
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines interaction as "mutual or reciprocal action or influence". Taking this definition as a starting point, what is the meaning of interactive and interactivity? A product or service is interactive if it allows for interaction. An artefact's interactivity is its interactive behaviour as experienced by a human user. Or to be more precise, it is the potential for such experiences. Its interactivity is a property of that artefact; alongside other properties like its visual appearance. Interactivity can also be used as a noun to signify everything interactive, similar to how radioactivity refers to everything radioactive.
Many definitions exist for "the user experience". I prefer this one: "a person's perceptions and responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service" (ISO 2009)
11.2 The scope: Interactive products and services
What makes a product or service interactive? One of the simplest interactive products imaginable is a touch-sensitive light switch like the one in Figure 11.1A. You touch it once to turn the light on, and again to turn the light off. At the other end of the complexity scale you find interactive products like the cockpit of a modern aeroplane (Figure 11.1B); allowing trained pilots to fly the plane through a number of input devices and visual displays.
Examples of interactive services include internet banking, online shopping, and social media, all made possible through networked digital devices like PCs (11.1C) and mobile phones (11.1D). All above examples are interactive. Are there digital products that are not interactive?
If you solder a light bulb to a battery and leave it on your desk until the battery is drained (Figure 11.2A), this digital product can hardly be called interactive. You can of course turn it off by cutting one of its wires, but that would not be an intended interactivity of the product. The light bulb could be substituted with something far more complex, like a digital photo frame that was programmed to generate random fractals on a screen (Figure 11.2B). With no buttons, handles or other means for interacting, despite its complex behaviour, neither that product would be interactive. It would be like the 1957 Sputnik 1 satellite (Figure 11.2C), which contained a "transmit only" radio beacon that transmitted beeps from space for 20 days until its batteries ran out.
From the above examples it becomes clear that what makes a product or service interactive is not its complexity, nor the fact that it is digital, but whether it is designed to respond to actions by a user.
11.3 Formal descriptions of interactive behaviour
One way of describing the interactive behaviour of a product or a service is through a formal representation. A number of such formalisms exist, the simplest being state diagrams. A state diagram is a visual representation of a Finite State Machine.
Figure 11.3A shows a state diagram for the touch-sensitive light switch in Figure 11.1A. It contains two states, "Light off" and "Light on", and two user-initiated transitions between the states ("Touch switch"). The black dot leading in to the "Light off" state tells us that this is the initial state, i.e. the light starts out in the "off" state.
In Figure 11.3B, we see the state diagram for the non-interactive "Bulb-with-battery" device. It starts with the light being on and stays in that state until the battery is drained. The black dot in a circle is the "game over" symbol. When the battery is drained, the device stops being what it was intended to be.
A number of more sophisticated formalisms have been used for describing interactive behaviour, including Harel's hierarchical state diagrams (Harel 1987), temporal logic (Hartson & Gray 1992), Petri nets (Elkoutbi & Keller 2000) and algebra (Thimbleby 2004).
Formal representations of interactive behaviour are well suited to describe the technical side of interactivity, but say little of the human side. They are of little value in answering questions like: "How is the interaction experienced?", "What does the interaction mean to the user?" To be able to answer such questions about the interactive user experience, we have to leave formal logic and the natural sciences and turn to the humanities and the social sciences.
11.4 Cognitive science: Interaction as information processing
Since the birth of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) as a scientific discipline in the 1980s, cognitive science has been the dominant paradigm for describing the human side of the equation. "The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction" by Stuart K. Card, Thomas P. Moran and Allen Newell (Card et al 1983) presented a model of the user based on an information processing metaphor (Figure 11.4). Here, the interaction is modelled as information flowing from the artefact to the user, where it is processed by the user's "cognitive processor", leading to actions like pushing a button. Their model sees interaction as the sum of stimuli reception and user actions.
Imagine the user in Figure 11.4A operating the light switch in Figure 11.1A. The act of turning on the light switch would be modeled as information about the state of the light reaching the perceptual processor through the user's eyes, where it would flow to the working memory, and be processed by the cognitive processor. A command would then be sent to the motor processor, leading to the hand pushing the switch.
In "The Design of Everyday Things" (Norman 1988), Don Norman elaborates the details of what is going on as a seven step "action cycle" (Figure 11.4B). Returning to our user in front of the light switch in Figure 11.1A, Norman would describe this as the user having the goal of turning the light on (step 1). This goal would lead to an intention to act (step 2), leading to a sequence of actions being sent to the motor processor (step 3), where it would trigger a hand movement (step 4). In "the world", the light would turn on, and this would be perceived (step 5) and interpreted (step 6) by the user. Finally, the user would evaluate the new state of the light as a fulfillment of the goal (step 7), and be ready for a new action cycle. The action cycle is described by Norman in the following video.
Based on their model of the user, Card, Moran and Newell devised a framework for predicting user behaviour called GOMS (Goals, Operators, Methods, and Selection Rules). A number of GOMS-inspired cognitive frameworks have since been developed to model the behaviour of the user, all based on the same basic assumptions of the human information processing model.
GOMS-like models have been successful in predicting key-level human behaviour for routine tasks, but have shown little explanatory and predictive power when it comes to more open tasks, like updating your Facebook profile. Further, they are of little help in understanding the interactive user experience.
In "The Design of Everyday Things", Don Norman introduced the concept of affordance that had been developed by the psychologist J.J. Gibson. Norman defines affordance: "...the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used". While Gibson's ecological approach to human cognition and perception in many respects is incommensurate with the information-processing approach, the affordance concept has mainly been interpreted within HCI to describe what functions an object allows for, and how this is "signalled" through its visual appearance. Norman illustrates the affordance concept in the video below. Adding the concept of affordance to the framework, the light switch in Figure 11.1A would appear to the user as an object that affords turning the light on and off.
A number of researchers in HCI have argued that the information-processing model reduces the user to a mechanical symbol-processing machine, leaving out important aspects of what defines us as human. One of the earliest criticisms of the information processing approach to human-computer interaction was voiced by Stanford professor Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores in their influential book "Computers and Cognition" (Winograd & Flores 1986). The book was primarily written as a criticism of artificial intelligence and cognitive science, but has strong relevance for a discussion of interactivity.
Winograd and Flores presented three alternatives to cognitive science, of which the phenomenology of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) is the most relevant here.
11.5 Heidegger: Interaction as tool use
Winograd and Flores argue in "Computers and Cognition" that cognitive science takes for granted that human cognition and communication are symbolic, and that symbols like "cat" refer in a one-to-one manner to objects in the world. Heidegger's philosophy of being (Heidegger 1996; original version is Heidegger 1927) rejects this view and starts out with our factual existence in the world and the way in which we cope with our physical and social environment. His philosophy spans a wide range of topics, of which Winograd and Flores mainly use his analysis of tools. Heidegger used a carpenter and his hammer as an example (Figure 11.5B). Winograd and Flores argue that a computer can be viewed as a tool: For skilled users of computers, the computer is transparent in use - it is ready-to-hand. When I write a document in a text editor, my focus is on the text and not on the text editor. If my text editor crashes, my focus is moved from the text that I am working on to the text editor itself. It is only when we have a breakdown situation and the computer stops working as a tool that it emerges as an object in the world - it becomes unready-to-hand. If we are not able to fix the problem that causes the breakdown, it becomes present-at-hand.
Heidegger would describe the light switch in Figure 11.1A as a tool for controlling the light. As part of our everyday life, a light switch is an integral part of our background of readiness-to-hand, and the interaction with the switch is to some extent invisible to us. It is only when the switch stops working as expected, or when we consciously chose to reflect on it, that it emerges from the background as an object.
Heidegger does not deny the fact that the light switch exists in the world as an object to be viewed, touched and manipulated. His point is that the essence of the switch only emerges through use. Its "switchness" is hidden for us until we put it into use. An important aspect of its "switchness" is that it allows for a certain kind of interaction. When the ape in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (Figure 11.5C) realises that the piece of bone in front of him can be used to crack things, the "hammerness" of the bone emerges to him - and bones forever stop only being bones. The bone's "hammerness" had been there all the time, but it needed to be put into practice to emerge. Similarly with the interactivity of a light switch - its "switchness" emerges through use.
From a Heideggerian perspective, the specific meaning of the interaction with the light switch depends on the use situation and the user's intention. Turning the light on as part of my everyday action of entering a room is different from turning the light on to see if the switch works. In the first case the interaction is part of a wider goal, while in the second case it would be a goal in itself. Cognitive science would miss this subtle difference, as it would model both interactions as the same goal-seeking information processing behaviour. Heidegger would also argue that to be able to understand how an interaction is meaningful for a specific user, we would have to understand the lifeworld of that user, i.e. the cultural and personal background that serves as a frame of reference and context for every experience of that person.
Heidegger further argues that tools exist in the shared practice of a culture as part of an equipmental nexus , e.g. hammers with nails and wood. The hammer gets it significance through its relation to nails and wood, as the nail get its significance through its relation to hammer and wood. The elements form a whole, and each element gets its significance from its role in this whole.
11.6 Merleau-Ponty: Interaction as perception
Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961) was, besides Jean Paul Sartre, the most influential French philosopher of the 1940s and 1950s. Inspired by Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty stressed that every analysis of the human condition must start with the fact that the subject is in the world. This being-in-the-world is prior to both object perception and self-reflection. To Merleau-Ponty, we are not Cartesian self-knowing entities detached from external reality, but subjects already existing in the world and becoming aware of ourselves through interaction with our physical environment and with other subjects.
In his major work, "The Phenomenology of Perception" (original: Merleau-Ponty 1945; Translated: Merleau-Ponty 1962), Merleau-Ponty performs a phenomenological analysis of human perception. His purpose is to study the "precognitive" and embodied basis of human existence. He ends up rejecting most of the prevailing theories of perception at his time. In all his writing there is a focus on the first-person experience. Merleau-Ponty rejected the idea of perception as a passive reception of stimuli. When we perceive objects with our eyes, this is not a passive process of stimuli reception, but an active movement of the eyeballs in search of familiar patterns. This view is in total opposition to the popular view in "information-processing" HCI that sees perception as sense data being passively received by the brain. To Merleau-Ponty there is no perception without action; perception requires action.
Perception hides for us this complex and rapid process going on "closer to the world" in "the pre-objective realm". Modern eye trackers allow us to see these rapid perceptual interactions unfold in vision. The optics of the human eye is such that we see the world through a rapidly moving peephole. In Figure 11.6 we see the rapid eye movements of two different persons viewing the same painting, a non-artist (11.6A) and a trained artist (11.6B). We see how the artist rapidly scans the whole painting (Figure 11.6B), while the layperson mostly focuses on the face of the girl (Figure 11.6A) (from (Vogt & Magnussen 2007)). The result of their different viewing styles is that they actually see different paintings. Merleau-Ponty uses the term phenomenal field to denote the personal background of experiences, training, and habits that shapes the way in which we perceive the world.
Merleau-Ponty saw perception as an active process of meaning construction involving large portions of the body. The body is, a priori, the means by which we are intentionally directed towards the world. When I hold an unknown object in my hand and turn it over to view it from different angles, my intentionality is directed toward that object. My hands are automatically coordinated with the rest of my body and take part in the perception in a natural way. Any theory that locates visual perception to the eyes alone does injustice to the phenomenon. To Merleau-Ponty, the body is an undivided unity, and it is meaningless to talk about the perceptual process of seeing without reference to all the senses, to the total physical environment in which the body is situated, and to the "embodied" intentionality we always have toward the world.
The body has an ability to adapt and extend itself through external devices. Merleau-Ponty used the example of a blind man's stick to illustrate this. When I have learned the skill of perceiving the world through the stick, the stick has ceased to exist for me as a stick and has become part of "me". It has become part of my body and at the same time changed it.
Applied to an analysis of interactivity, Merleau-Ponty invites us to see interaction as perception. If I test out the light switch in Figure 11.1A to see if it works, this interaction can be seen as a perceptual act involving both eyes and hand. I move my hand to the switch as part of the process of perceiving its behaviour, in the same way as my eyes make rapid eye movements when I see a painting. The hand movements towards the switch result from my directedness towards the object of perception, i.e. the behaviour of the switch.
In more complex interactions, like when an experienced computer user plays World-of-Warcraft, the perceiving body extends into the game. When the gameplayer tries out a new sword that she has acquired for her game character, she perceives its working through the mouse and the part of the software that let her control her character. Playing World-of-Warcraft is similar to riding a bicycle or driving a car in that the technology becomes a tool, but it differs in that the world is computer generated.
The integrated view of action and perception makes Merleau-Ponty an interesting starting point for a discussion of meaningful interactive experiences. A consequence of his theory is that it should be possible to lead users into interactions with the computer that are meaningful at a very basic level. The interactions themselves can be meaningful.
|
|
||||||||
The interactive artefact in Figure 11.7 exemplifies this. Try it by clicking on the "Mr. Peters" button!
The button has a script that makes it jump when the cursor is moved over it. The user tries to click on the button, but experiences that "Mr. Peters" always "escapes". Most users understand the intended meaning of the example and describe Mr. Peters as a person who always avoids you, a person you should not trust. The interaction itself works as a metaphor for Mr. Peters' personality. How does the philosophy of Merleau-Ponty shed light on this example?
11.6.1 Key points
11.6.1.1 Perception requires action
- Perception of the "Mr. Peters" button requires action. The button as interactive experience is the integrated sum of its visual appearance and its behaviour. Without action, we are left with the visual appearance of the button, not the actual button as it emerges to us through interaction.
11.6.1.2 Perception is an acquired skill
- One of the necessary conditions for the Mr. Peters example to work is that the user has acquired the skill of moving the mouse cursor around. This skill (Merleau-Ponty: habit) is part of being a computer user. Without this skill, the only perception of the Mr. Peters button would be its visual appearance.
11.6.1.3 Tool integration and bodily space
- For the trained computer user, the mouse has similarities with the blind man's stick. The physical mouse and the corresponding software in the computer are integrated into the experienced body of the user. The computer technology, and the skills to make use of it, changes the actual bodily space of the user by adding to the potentials for action in the physical world also the potentials for action presented by the computer. The world of objects is in a similar manner extended to include also the "objects" in the computer.
11.6.1.4 Perception is embodied
- Experiencing the "Mr. Peters" button requires not only the eye, but also arm and hand. Mouse movements and eye movements are integrated parts of the perceptual process that lead up to the perception of the button's behaviour. The interactive experience is both created by and mediated through the body.
11.6.1.5 Intentionality towards-the-world
- As a skilled computer user, I have a certain "directedness" towards the computer. Because of this intentionality, the Mr. Peters button presents itself to me not only as a form to be seen, but also as a potential for action with an expectation for possible reactions. From seeing the button to moving the cursor towards it, there is no need for a "mental representation" of its position and meaning. The act of trying to click on the button is part of the perceptual process of exploring the example. When the button jumps away, I follow it without having to think.
11.6.1.6 The phenomenal field
- In the above example, the context of the button is given by the leading text and by the user's past experiences with graphical user interfaces. It is important to notice that this example only works with users who are used to clicking on buttons to find more information. This is the horizon of the user, i.e. the phenomenal field that all interaction happens within. The Mr. Peters button emerges as a meaningful entity because the appearance of a button on a computer screen leads to a certain expectation and a corresponding action. The action is interrupted in a way that creates an interactive experience that is similar to that of interacting with a person who always escapes you.
With Merleau-Ponty it becomes meaningless to talk about interaction as the sum of stimuli reception and action as cognitive science tells us. Interaction is better described as a kind of perception. I perceive the behaviour of the "Mr. Peters" button through interaction. This perception involves both hand and eye in an integrated manner. Interaction-perception is immediate and "close to the world".
11.7 A media and art perspective
While phenomenology can help us understand the interactive user experience for a specific product, and might help us choose between two or more alternative designs, it gives us little guidance on what designs are possible. To be able to fully utilize the potential of interactive media, it is important to have a deep understanding of the medium itself. There is a tradition in Media and Art Studies for asking questions concerning the nature of the medium being studied. However, compared to the vast literature on the social and cultural impact of new media, media studies with a focus on the properties of the medium itself are rare. The most prominent author on this subject is Rudolf Arnheim (1904-2007). Arnheim dealt with non-interactive media like film, painting, drawing, sculpture, and architecture, and he analysed their media-specific properties from an artistic and psychological perspective. In the introduction of "Art and Visual Perception: a Psychology of the Creative Eye" (Arnheim 1974), he states explicitly that he is not concerned with the cognitive, social, or motivational aspects. Nor is he concerned with "the psychology of the consumer". By ignoring all elements of social function and meaning in a traditional sense, he was free to discuss issues such as balance, space, shape, form, and movement in relation to the different media. Arnheim draws heavily on examples from art and gestalt psychology. What is relevant for the current study is not his results, but his approach to the study of a new medium.
We find a similar approach to studying a medium in artist and Bauhaus teacher Johannes Itten's theory of colours.
No higher resolution available
In Figure 11.8 we see some of the coloured squares that he drew to illustrate how the perception of colour changes with the background (Itten 1974).
|
|
|
||
A |
B |
Itten brought to the Bauhaus School of Design the idea that students of design should develop a deep knowledge of their media and materials through explorations of their properties. Seen as a medium and a material, the modern computer can be viewed as a display of pixels that each can have only one colour at any given time. Through some input device(s), the user can interact with this matrix of pixels. In Figure 11.9 we see a white and a black pixel enlarged.
|
|
|
||
A |
B |
The two pixels in Figure 11.9 are static in the sense that they do not respond to input from the user. An interactive pixel is a pixel that responds to user actions. The simplest "artefact" of this kind is a pixel that changes colour when clicked on. The pixel in Figure 11.10B has what we call "push button" behaviour. Figure 11.10A shows its state diagram.
|
|
|
|
|
||||
A |
B |
The two interactive artefacts in Figure 11.11 look the same, but differ in behaviour. The "user experience" of an interactive artefact is the sum of its visual appearance and its interactive behaviour. The behaviour can only be experienced through interaction, and requires an active user. The fact that the pixel in Figure 11.11A is a "push button" and the pixel in Figure 11.11B is a "toggle" can only be perceived through interaction.
Borrowing from gestalt psychology, I use the term interaction gestalts for these kinds of basic interactive user experiences (Svanaes 1993).
|
|
If Figure 11.11A were placed in an art gallery, such an artefact would require the interactive behaviour to be perceived through use. Figure 11.12 illustrated this. A detached observer would miss the essence of this piece of minimalist interactive abstract art.
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
A |
B |
The artefacts in Figure 11.13 each consist of two pixels. Their behaviours are so simple that we can take them in as wholes, i.e. as interaction gestalts.
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
A |
B |
The previous artefacts all had the response located to the pixel you click on. By allowing pixels to affect each other, we get more complex artefacts. The artefacts in Figure 11.14 illustrate this. When clicked on, Figure 11.14A creates a foreground and a background; a black square moving on a white background. In Figure 11.14B the white square is active. This creates the illusion of a white square moving on a black background.
|
|
||||
A |
|
|
||||
B |
With three pixels like in Figure 11.15, the spatialisation becomes clearer. This simple swapping of colours is what happens at the pixel level when objects move on the computer screen.
|
|
|
||||
A |
B |
The three-pixel artefact in Figure 11.16B has three states. As the artefact does not create the illusion of foreground/background, we perceive the behaviour as a rotation between states. It starts out all white, and after two states we are back "home" where we started. Figure 11.16A shows its state diagram. This kind of "state space" is the perceptual basis for the World-Wide-Web metaphor of moving between web pages, each web page being a state of the screen's pixels.
|
|
Real computers do not have two pixels, but millions. Figure 11.17 shows an example of how a matrix of elements with simple behaviour can become something potentially useful. Even with as few as 5x5 pixels you can use it to make basic shapes, i.e. an icon editor.
These kinds of explorations of interactive media can be extended in different directions. All the above examples have been with only two colours and discrete states. If we include analogue input, full colour, hidden states, delays, animations, sound, algorithms and communication through Internet, we get enough complexity to justify a whole new profession: Interaction Design.
11.8 Implications for interaction designers
What are the implications of this for interaction designers? We have gone through four perspectives on interactivity: interaction as information processing (Cognitive Science), interaction as tool use (Heidegger), interaction as perception (Merleau-Ponty), and interaction from a media and art perspective (Arnheim/Itten). The focus of the current analysis has mostly been on the interactivity of digital products. The implications for design will consequently mainly be related to the design of interactivity:
11.8.1 Interactivity is an important part of the user experience
- Combining the perspectives of Merleau-Ponty and Arnheim, it becomes evident that the interactivity of digital artefacts is perceived as interaction gestalts at a very immediate level, similar to that of visual perception. Interactivity is not simply the behaviour necessary to implement a certain functionality, but an important quality of a digital product. We often talk about the "look and feel" of a digital product. Users perceive "the feel" of the product through interaction, and this thus becomes an important part of the resulting user experience. Users care about "the feel".
11.8.2 A product's "feel" should be designed with care to detail
- If you want to design interactive products that stand out, you must be conscious of the interactive qualities of your products. "The feel" should consequently be designed; not only engineered. As with everything designed, God is in the details also concerning interactivity.
11.8.3 Perception of "the feel" requires action: Invite the user in
- Perception of the interactive dimension of a product, its “feel”, requires user actions. It is therefore important that the product signals its potentials for interaction, its “affordances”. The user experience is created through interaction. Interactivity that is hidden away is like a tree falling in the forest with no one watching.
11.8.4 Design for unforeseen use
- From a phenomenological perspective, objects get their meaning through use and social interaction. As Norman pointed out in his video on affordances, a good product should be designed for use situations other than the one intended.
11.8.5 Design for "the lived body"
- When designing for interaction beyond mouse and keyboard (e.g. mobile and whole-body interaction), design for the experienced body. This requires a focus on the bodily feeling of using the product.
11.8.6 Take responsibility for the feel of the total user experience
- In some cases, the user experience is a result of the user’s interaction with a number of interconnected products and services, e.g. the combination of earplugs, an MP3 player, and an online music store. In those cases it is important that the "feel" of these products and services are designed in such a way that the sum give rise to a good user experience.
11.8.7 Interaction designers need to learn basic programming skills
- Designing interactivity requires the ability to make rapid "sketches" of interactive behaviour. This is important to be able to explore different behaviours, and to have running specification to hand over to the programmers. Despite numerous attempts to make the process of designing interactivity non-technical, interaction designers who want to add an extra quality to the interactive user experience still need to learn basic programming skills. Programming is the tool for shaping interactivity. A lot can be done with simple programming environments like Processing and Arduino.
11.8.8 The perceptual field is personal: Test with real users and listen carefully
- Make numerous sketches of interactive behaviour, but always test them on real users before you make important design decisions. Different users can perceive the same interactive behaviour in surprisingly different ways; and often very differently from you. This is not only because they interpret and experience their interactions differently, but also because their ways of interacting differ. Test for more than usability; ask them how it feels in use and listen carefully to what they tell you.
11.8.9 Intentionality and context matters: Make the tests realistic
- The perception of a product's interactivity is to a large extent coloured by the user's intention. Trying out "the feel" of a product in a controlled setting is very different from using it in a real context and for a real purpose. Ideally, tests should be done with real tasks and in real contexts. If that is not possible, you should be aware of the difference between real use and your test setting, and how this colours the user experience.
11.8.10 Interaction designers should be skilled in kinesthetic thinking
- The interactivity of digital products should be designed by interaction designers with a special sensitivity for "the feel" of a product. "The feel" is about action-reaction; it involves the whole body and it is about timing and rhythm. This requires the interaction designer to develop skills in kinesthetic thinking and bodily intelligence. While drawing classes are excellent for designing "the look", interaction designers should also consider classes in dance, drama or martial art to develop their sensitivity for things interactive.
Getting the feel right is of course not sufficient to make successful interactive products, but it is my belief that in a competitive market, products with a well designed feel will always stand out; interactivity matters.
11.9 Where to learn more
11.9.1 Books
11.9.2 Relevant papers
Hornecker, Eva (2005): A Design Theme for Tangible Interaction: Embodied Facilitation. In: Gellersen, Hans, Schmidt, Kjeld, Beaudouin-Lafon, Michel and Mackay, Wendy E. (eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work 18-22 September , 2005, Paris, France. pp. 23-43
Hummels, Caroline, Overbeeke, Kees and Klooster, Sietske (2007): Move to get moved: a search for methods, tools and knowledge to design for expressive and rich movement-based interaction. In Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11 (8) pp. 677-690
Larssen, Astrid Twenebowa, Robertson, Toni and Edwards, Jenny (2007): The feel dimension of technology interaction: exploring tangibles through movement and touch. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction 2007. pp. 271-278
Larssen, Astrid Twenebowa, Robertson, Toni and Edwards, Jenny (2006): How it feels, not just how it looks: when bodies interact with technology. In: Kjeldskov, Jesper and Paay, Jane (eds.) Proceedings of OZCHI06, the CHISIG Annual Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2006. pp. 329-332
Larssen, Astrid Twenebowa, Robertson, Toni and Edwards, Jenny (2007): Experiential Bodily Knowing as a Design (Sens)-ability in Interaction Design. In: Desform - 3rd European Conference on Design and Semantics of Form and Movement Dec. 12-13, 2007, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Lim, Youn-kyung, Lee, Sang-Su and Lee, Kwang-young (2009): Interactivity attributes: a new way of thinking and describing interactivity. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2009 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2009. pp. 105-108
Lim, Youn-kyung, Stolterman, Erik A., Jung, Heekyoung and Donaldson, Justin (2007): Interaction gestalt and the design of aesthetic interactions. In: Koskinen, Ilpo and Keinonen, Turkka (eds.) DPPI 2007 - Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces August 22-25, 2007, Helsinki, Finland. pp. 239-254
Lowgren, Jonas (2006): Articulating the use qualities of digital designs. In: Fishwick, Paul A. (ed.). "Aesthetic Computing (Leonardo Books)". The MIT Presspp. 383-403
Lowgren, Jonas (2009): Towards an articulation of interaction aesthetics. In New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 15 (2) pp. 129-146
Moen, Jin (2005): Towards people based movement interaction and kinaesthetic interaction experiences. In: Bertelsen, Olav W., Bouvin, Niels Olof, Krogh, Peter Gall and Kyng, Morten (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing 2005 August 20-24, 2005, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 121-124
Ozenc, Fatih Kursat, Kim, Miso, Zimmerman, John, Oney, Stephen and Myers, Brad A. (2010): How to support designers in getting hold of the immaterial material of software. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2010 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2010. pp. 2513-2522
Schiphorst, Thecla (2007): Really, really small: the palpability of the invisible. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Creativity and Cognition 2007, Washington DC, USA. pp. 7-16
Sundström, Petra and Höök, Kristina (2010): Hand in hand with the material: designing for suppleness. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2010 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2010. pp. 463-472
© All rights reserved Sundström and Höök and/or their publisher
11.11 Commentary by Donald A. Norman
How to cite this commentary in your report
Read more >>
It is clear that our understanding of the nature of interaction has been evolving in a practical sense, in terms of our scientific understanding, and in terms of the underlying philosophy. Dag Svanaes has done an excellent job of describing the changes in philosophical approaches to the study of interaction that have occurred in the last few decades. But the review feels as if it stopped at the end of the 20th century, but today we are well into the 21st century. So the changes described in the article have continued: we are still evolving our understanding, still making progress.
From my point of view, the study of interaction is far ranging, including all the ways by which we interact with the environment. As Svanaes points out, interaction means the interplay between the state of the environment and the actions of agents (which are usually people), where the actions change the state of the world. Interaction can be accidental or purposeful, goal-directed or deliberately non-intentional.
Although the definition provided by Svanaes is appropriately broad, the chapter and its examples are surprisingly limited to discussions of the way by which individuals interact with information systems. The chapter primarily reflects single individuals interacting with computational systems. Pity: interaction is far broader. Interaction designers must deal with groups of people, sometimes separated by time and or distance, with non-computational objects and with the natural world. Designers who are designing services, rules, and procedures must be concerned with how systems and services interact with employees, technical staff, and of course customers and others who make use of the services. Some interaction designers have to be concerned with interactions among machines. The principles of interaction design are far more important to be limited to single individuals interacting with information systems and displays.
Interaction design is critically important for lots of non-computer systems. Thus, skis are a tool for interaction, as are baseball and cricket bats, the rules of engagement of soccer (football), and the way by which we steer and control our automobiles. Interaction designers must work with a wide variety of technologies, not just those of information and computer systems.
Our philosophical basis for the understanding of interaction has been evolving rather dramatically. As Svanaes points out, in the early days of personal computers, which is where interaction design started, we took a strict, internal-processing, information processing point of view to describe the system and to develop rules for designers. This approach has been seminal in teaching us about affordances (and what I now call “signifiers”), conceptual models, and the role of feedback, appropriate mapping, and all the many other formal, theoretical principles that have resulted from these studies. However, this approach is also very narrow, limiting, and now widely considered either to be too restrictive or, by some, simply wrong.
Today, our understanding of human cognition is undergoing major changes. We no longer look at pure information processing. Instead, we know that emotion and cognition interact in fundamental ways, that the entire human body interacts with the environment, and that as a result we must come to understand the whole system. It is not enough to use limited input and output mechanism. Hence, the development of mobile systems that are location, position, and orientation sensitive, where the entire body is involved, where the gestures, posture, and movements of the entire body are taken as inputs to our systems and where the results are not simply changes in some image on a screen, but changes that envelop the body, surrounding it with sights, sounds, and feelings, exciting the entire panoply of sensory systems. Haptics and gestures are missing from this article as are simulators that move in space to engage the proprioceptive systems. Three-dimensional sound is as important as three-dimensional sight. Haptics is increasingly important.
The review of affordances in the article needs to be expanded. Affordances are about possibilities: an affordance is a relationship between a person and the environment. But it is not affordances that are critical to interaction, it is our perception of those affordances. After all, an affordance that is not known about might as well not exist. To make this distinction more clear, in my recent work I call the perceptual signal of an affordance a “signifier.” (D. A. Norman, 2011: Living with Complexity. MIT Press.) Signifiers are the clues for people about possible actions, hence possible interactions.
I don’t know where Svanaes got the notion that the popular view of information processing in HCI is that it “sees perception as sense data being passively received by the brain.” (In his section on Merleau-Ponty). The notion that perception is an active, constructive process is an old one in psychological theories and it is certainly dominant today. We don’t follow Merleau-Ponty: we follow where the data have taken us. But Gibson, for example, was a strong advocate of the active nature of exception, and that was 50 years ago.
The view of HCI and of cognitive science held by Svanaes seems rooted in the last century.
Today, we study interaction as a fundamental property of human and social behavior, rooted in the entire body, where the person – or people – is inside a sensory field that is rich in information. All the senses are involved, not just the visual sense that is the focus of this chapter: haptics, proprioception, smell, sight, and sound. That is why the development of rich sensors and novel haptics are so encouraging. This is why we have surround sound, motor and solenoid-driven hairs and other objects to grasp, fondle, and manipulate. This is why medical simulators involve the entire body, allowing the novice surgeon to put the hand inside the simulated body, feeling the beating heart, the throbbing veins, and the different pressures and feelings associated with cutting through different layers of skin. Interaction today is a rich, vibrant filed.
Some of these topics are still in their infancy, so the definitive articles within this Encyclopaedia will have to wait a few years. I am disappointed, however, that these new developments and approaches are not discussed within the article – they aren’t even hinted at. So stay tuned for further news.
11.12 Commentary by Eva Hornecker
How to cite this commentary in your report
Read more >>
What is Interaction or Interactivity? Most HCI and Interaction Design textbooks do not really define (beyond more then one sentence) one of the most often used terms in our vocabulary. What seems so straightforward turns elusive when we try to dig deeper. We are in this situation probably because it is not evident where to turn to for definitions and theoretical underpinnings.
Different disciplines offer a large variety of definitions of interaction, ranging from phenomena of intersubjectivity and human sociality in social philosophy to system-theoretical approaches that analyze and model observable reciprocal action-effect relations and patterns. The word ‘interaction’ thus allows both for ‘human as information processor’ models, the kinds of formal state diagrams exemplified in this encyclopedia entry with a light switch, and 3d generation HCI approaches investigating the user experience of interaction. It even allows for anthropomorphic interpretations of human-computer interaction. Dag Svanaes provides a very good example of how we ascribe intentionality and agency to an animated object (the Mr. Peters button is evasive), even though the button itself merely acts on preprogrammed stimuli-response schemata. We perceive its behaviour – and our mind is basically desperately trying to see meaning in whatever we perceive and experience.
Svanaes’ article traces the history of HCI’s understanding of what happens on the user side of HCI. He steers the reader towards Phenomenology, starting with the Heideggerian view introduced by Winograd and Flores. The videos go into far more detail here – an important thought that seems missing from the written version is that ecologies of object derive meaning through each other.
The unique view that Svanaes contributes combines ‘interaction as perception-action’ (Merleau-Ponty) with elements of gestalt-perception, using very simple but powerful examples. He emphasizes how experiencing the ‘feel’ of interaction requires active engagement – the encyclopedia entry itself has interactive components that provide a first-hand experience. To experience this process, users must enter it; they need to actively interact in order to conceive the “dynamic gestalt” and the feel of interactive products. Feel is about dynamics, timing, and how the users’ body is part of the interaction. One of the unusual recommendations that arises from this thought is that interaction designers should learn some form of sport or exercise that trains kinesthetic thinking and bodily awareness.
Svaneas beautifully explains (and illustrates) the part of interactivity that results from the perception-action loop – but it is hard to scale this up from his little colour-shifting disobedient buttons to large-scale behaving, intelligent, ambient objects and environments, with interactions that extend over long periods of time (and/or space). It is a bit like we smashed a mirror and now inspect a small crystal, which in miniature allows us to experiment with reflections, but that we find hard to put together so we can see the whole picture. I don’t really have any recommendations on how to proceed from here – I think we are still only just beginning to understand what it means to have artificial interactive objects (that are not really living entities), and there may be further branches of philosophy to look at.
The view that Svanaes shares with many other contemporary interaction design protagonists is that the dynamics of interaction should be central in design. The experience of use is created through the interrelation of system behaviour and user activity. It is a dialogical and time-based, temporal process. I want to point out some of the literature in interaction design that I have found helpful for a better understanding of the longer-term process of interaction. These take a far more pragmatic and practical approach, without aiming to provide a philosophy of interaction, that may complement the approach taken in this article.
Crawford (2002) uses human conversation as a metaphor. It does not fully work, but turns out to be useful – the metaphor carried much further than I initially thought it was able to. It emphasizes how interactivity depends on having two active participants that contribute to the interaction and how the quality of interaction depends on what they are able to contribute, how well they understand each other, and what they can perceive of each other. The metaphor highlights that interaction can be skewed and dominated by one partner, or that one partner might be severely handicapped in their expressivity or ability to perceive and understand the other. Toni Robertson and her coworkers have done a similar analysis from a situated action perspective, analyzing what is available to the machine in an interaction process. Shedroff (2000) sees Interactivity as a continuum, between passive and interactive experiences. He points out aspects that make a system interactive, the most elemental components being system feedback and user control. Of more interest is that it often is the nature of the user activity that makes something interactive, e.g. in creativity tools or communication media. This means that a system that merely mediates messages between 2 points may be perceived as interactive, because it is an open system where the interactive component is ‘donated’ by the outside world, or, in the case of e.g. a drawing tool, by the user. Interaction transforms closed to open systems (cf. Wegner 1997) – even more so if interaction contributes content. Svanaes’ article highlights how even within the seemingly mundane level where we only have user control and system feedback (the Mr. Peters button) interactional meaning emerges. Crawford and Shedroff motivate and might help us to analyse longer and more complex processes – does Mr Peters always react the same way, can we engage in a dialogue with him and what else can we do?
References
- Chris Crawford: The Art of Interactive Design: A Euphonious and Illuminating Guide to Building Successful Software. No Starch Press 2002
- Robertson, Toni and Loke, Lian. (2009) Designing Situations. Proceedings of OZCHI 2009, ACM. 1-8
- Nathan Shedroff: Information Interaction Design: A Unified Field Theory of Design. In: Information Design, Bob Jacobson (Hrsg.) MIT Press 2000
- Peter Wegner. Why Interaction is more powerful than Algorithms. CACM May 1997, Vol 40 Issue 5
Related images (for using on your slides)
Edmund Gustav Albrecht Husserl (April 8, 1859 - April 26, 19...
Ludwig Wittgenstein in his youth. ...
Heidegger. Courtesy of Taylo...
Photograph of Maurice Merleau-Ponty. ...
Rene Descartes (31 March 1596 ? 11 February 1650): French ph...
11.10 Behind the scenes
Interviewing Dag Svanaes. Final testing before the shoot. ...
Interviewing Dag Svanaes. Setting up the equipment. ...
Interviewing Dag Svanaes. Solving problems with the micropho...
Taking a break from the interview. ...
Taking a break from the interview. ...
11.13 User-contributed notes
Give us your opinion! Do you have any comments/additions
that you would like other visitors to see?
11.14 References
Arnheim, Rudolf (1974): Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. University of California Press
Card, Stuart K., Moran, Thomas P. and Newell, Allen (1983): The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Elkoutbi, Mohammed and Keller, Rudolf K. (2000): User Interface Prototyping Based on UML Scenarios and High-Level Petri Nets. In: ICATPN 2000 2000. pp. 166-186
© All rights reserved Elkoutbi and Keller and/or their publisher
Harel, David (1987): Statecharts: A Visual Formalism for Complex Systems. In Sci. Comput. Program., 8 (3) pp. 231-274
Hartson, H. Rex and Gray, Philip D. (1992): Temporal Aspects of Tasks in the User Action Notation. In Human-Computer Interaction, 7 (1) pp. 1-45
© All rights reserved Hartson and Gray and/or Taylor and Francis
Heidegger, Martin (1996): Being and Time (translated by Joan Stambaugh and Dennis J. Schmidt). State University of New York Press
Hornecker, Eva (2005): A Design Theme for Tangible Interaction: Embodied Facilitation. In: Gellersen, Hans, Schmidt, Kjeld, Beaudouin-Lafon, Michel and Mackay, Wendy E. (eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work 18-22 September , 2005, Paris, France. pp. 23-43
Hummels, Caroline, Overbeeke, Kees and Klooster, Sietske (2007): Move to get moved: a search for methods, tools and knowledge to design for expressive and rich movement-based interaction. In Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11 (8) pp. 677-690
Itten, Johannes (1974): The Art of Color: The Subjective Experience and Objective Rationale of Color. John Wiley and Sons
Larssen, Astrid Twenebowa, Robertson, Toni and Edwards, Jenny (2007): The feel dimension of technology interaction: exploring tangibles through movement and touch. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction 2007. pp. 271-278
Larssen, Astrid Twenebowa, Robertson, Toni and Edwards, Jenny (2006): How it feels, not just how it looks: when bodies interact with technology. In: Kjeldskov, Jesper and Paay, Jane (eds.) Proceedings of OZCHI06, the CHISIG Annual Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2006. pp. 329-332
Larssen, Astrid Twenebowa, Robertson, Toni and Edwards, Jenny (2007): Experiential Bodily Knowing as a Design (Sens)-ability in Interaction Design. In: Desform - 3rd European Conference on Design and Semantics of Form and Movement Dec. 12-13, 2007, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Lim, Youn-kyung, Lee, Sang-Su and Lee, Kwang-young (2009): Interactivity attributes: a new way of thinking and describing interactivity. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2009 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2009. pp. 105-108
Lim, Youn-kyung, Stolterman, Erik A., Jung, Heekyoung and Donaldson, Justin (2007): Interaction gestalt and the design of aesthetic interactions. In: Koskinen, Ilpo and Keinonen, Turkka (eds.) DPPI 2007 - Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces August 22-25, 2007, Helsinki, Finland. pp. 239-254
Loke, Lian, Larssen, Astrid Twenebowa, Robertson, Toni and Edwards, Jenny (2007): Understanding movement for interaction design: frameworks and approaches. In Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11 (8) pp. 691-701
Lowgren, Jonas (2009): Towards an articulation of interaction aesthetics. In New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 15 (2) pp. 129-146
Lowgren, Jonas (2008). Encyclopedia chapter titled "Interaction Design". Retrieved 7 May 2012 from http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/interaction_design.html
Lowgren, Jonas (2006): Articulating the use qualities of digital designs. In: Fishwick, Paul A. (ed.). "Aesthetic Computing (Leonardo Books)". The MIT Presspp. 383-403
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1962): Phenomenology of Perception: An Introduction. Routledge
Moen, Jin (2005): Towards people based movement interaction and kinaesthetic interaction experiences. In: Bertelsen, Olav W., Bouvin, Niels Olof, Krogh, Peter Gall and Kyng, Morten (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing 2005 August 20-24, 2005, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 121-124
Norman, Donald A. (1988): The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York, Basic Books
Ozenc, Fatih Kursat, Kim, Miso, Zimmerman, John, Oney, Stephen and Myers, Brad A. (2010): How to support designers in getting hold of the immaterial material of software. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2010 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2010. pp. 2513-2522
Schiphorst, Thecla (2007): Really, really small: the palpability of the invisible. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Creativity and Cognition 2007, Washington DC, USA. pp. 7-16
Stambaugh, Joan and Schmidt, Dennis J. (eds.) (1996): Being and Time (Suny Series in Contemporary Continental Philosophy). State Univ of New York Pr
Sundström, Petra and Höök, Kristina (2010): Hand in hand with the material: designing for suppleness. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2010 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2010. pp. 463-472
© All rights reserved Sundström and Höök and/or their publisher
Svanaes, Dag (1993): Interaction is orthogonal to graphical form. In: Ashlund, Stacey, Mullet, Kevin, Henderson, Austin, Hollnagel, Erik and White, Ted N. (eds.) INTERACT 93 - IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction - jointly organised with ACM Conference on Human Aspects in Computing Systems CHI93 24-29 April, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. pp. 79-80
Svanaes, Dag (2000): Understanding Interactivity: Steps to a Phenomenology of Human-Computer Interaction. Trondheim, Norway, Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet (NTNU)
Thimbleby, Harold (2004): User interface design with matrix algebra. In ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 11 (2) pp. 181-236
Vogt, Stine and Magnussen, Svein (2007): Expertise in pictorial perception: eye-movement patterns and visual memory in artists and laymen. In Perception,
Winograd, Terry and Flores, Fernando (1986): Understanding Computers and Cognition. Norwood, NJ, Intellect
ISO (2009). ISO 9241-210:2009. Ergonomics of human system interaction - Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. International Organization for Standardization
Changes to this chapter
21 Dec 2011: AddedAbout this chapter
Author(s): Dag SvanaesEditors: Mads Soegaard, Rikke Friis Dam and Allan Holstein-Rathlou
Reviewer 1: Name suppressed
Reviewer 2: Name suppressed
Peer-review is based on the reviewing guidelines and coordinated by the Reviewing Board.
Commentaries by: Donald A. Norman and Eva Hornecker
This encyclopedia chapter has undergone double-blinded peer-review by two reviewers based on the reviewing guidelines, language copy-editing, typesetting, and reference validation.
How to cite/reference this page
URL: http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/philosophy_of_interaction.html
Open Access
We believe in Open Access and the democratization of knowledge. Unfortunately, world class educational materials are normally hidden behind payment systems or in expensive textbooks. If you want this to change, you should help us out! Kind thoughts are not enough - you need to act!
Except as otherwise noted, this page/work is copyright of Dag Svanaes and The Interaction-Design.org Foundation (Chr. Molbechs Vej 4, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark) and is licensed under the following terms:
- The Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs Licence
- The Interaction-Design.org Addendum to the Creative Commons licence
...with the exception of materials described in...:
- "Exceptions"
Furthermore, your use of Interaction-Design.org signifies your consent to:
- the "Site Terms and Conditions"
The Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License
THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED.
BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. TO THE EXTENT THIS LICENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE A CONTRACT, THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
1. Definitions
- "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
- "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined above) for the purposes of this License.
- "Distribute" means to make available to the public the original and copies of the Work through sale or other transfer of ownership.
- "Licensor" means the individual, individuals, entity or entities that offer(s) the Work under the terms of this License.
- "Original Author" means, in the case of a literary or artistic work, the individual, individuals, entity or entities who created the Work or if no individual or entity can be identified, the publisher; and in addition (i) in the case of a performance the actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore; (ii) in the case of a phonogram the producer being the person or legal entity who first fixes the sounds of a performance or other sounds; and, (iii) in the case of broadcasts, the organization that transmits the broadcast.
- "Work" means the literary and/or artistic work offered under the terms of this License including without limitation any production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression including digital form, such as a book, pamphlet and other writing; a lecture, address, sermon or other work of the same nature; a dramatic or dramatico-musical work; a choreographic work or entertainment in dumb show; a musical composition with or without words; a cinematographic work to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; a work of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving or lithography; a photographic work to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; a work of applied art; an illustration, map, plan, sketch or three-dimensional work relative to geography, topography, architecture or science; a performance; a broadcast; a phonogram; a compilation of data to the extent it is protected as a copyrightable work; or a work performed by a variety or circus performer to the extent it is not otherwise considered a literary or artistic work.
- "You" means an individual or entity exercising rights under this License who has not previously violated the terms of this License with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous violation.
- "Publicly Perform" means to perform public recitations of the Work and to communicate to the public those public recitations, by any means or process, including by wire or wireless means or public digital performances; to make available to the public Works in such a way that members of the public may access these Works from a place and at a place individually chosen by them; to perform the Work to the public by any means or process and the communication to the public of the performances of the Work, including by public digital performance; to broadcast and rebroadcast the Work by any means including signs, sounds or images.
- "Reproduce" means to make copies of the Work by any means including without limitation by sound or visual recordings and the right of fixation and reproducing fixations of the Work, including storage of a protected performance or phonogram in digital form or other electronic medium.
2. Fair Dealing Rights. Nothing in this License is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any uses free from copyright or rights arising from limitations or exceptions that are provided for in connection with the copyright protection under copyright law or other applicable laws.
3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:
- to Reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collections, and to Reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collections; and,
- to Distribute and Publicly Perform the Work including as incorporated in Collections.
-
For the avoidance of doubt:
- Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes. In those jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme cannot be waived, the Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect such royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License;
- Waivable Compulsory License Schemes. In those jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme can be waived, the Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect such royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License; and,
- Voluntary License Schemes. The Licensor waives the right to collect royalties, whether individually or, in the event that the Licensor is a member of a collecting society that administers voluntary licensing schemes, via that society, from any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License.
The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats, but otherwise you have no rights to make Adaptations. Subject to Section 8(f), all rights not expressly granted by Licensor are hereby reserved.
4. Restrictions. The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:
- You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of this License. You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work, You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. This Section 4(a) applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collection, but this does not require the Collection apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License. If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested.
- If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work. The credit required by this Section 4(b) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors. For the avoidance of doubt, You may only use the credit required by this Section for the purpose of attribution in the manner set out above and, by exercising Your rights under this License, You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties.
- Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation.
5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer
UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
6. Limitation on Liability. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE OR THE USE OF THE WORK, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
7. Termination
- This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Collections from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any termination of this License.
- Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.
8. Miscellaneous
- Each time You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work or a Collection, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.
- If any provision of this License is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, it shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of the terms of this License, and without further action by the parties to this agreement, such provision shall be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable.
- No term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent.
- This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You.
- The rights granted under, and the subject matter referenced, in this License were drafted utilizing the terminology of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (as amended on September 28, 1979), the Rome Convention of 1961, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 and the Universal Copyright Convention (as revised on July 24, 1971). These rights and subject matter take effect in the relevant jurisdiction in which the License terms are sought to be enforced according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law. If the standard suite of rights granted under applicable copyright law includes additional rights not granted under this License, such additional rights are deemed to be included in the License; this License is not intended to restrict the license of any rights under applicable law.
The Interaction-Design.org Addendum to the Creative Commmons licence is a placeholder for additions to the Creative Commons licence, which are deemed necessary to include in consideration of Danish law and the operation of this site and The Interaction-Design.org Foundation.
1. Attribution
Attribution must be clearly given, i.e. the author's name, the title and URL of this work/publication/web page must clearly appear. The attribution must be given in a manner appropriate to the medium in which it is given: For example, electronic copies must include a clickable URL, which does not use the nofollow attribute value.
2. Updates
The Interaction-Design.org Foundation reserves the unilateral right to update, modify, change and alter its Site Terms and Conditions as well as Copyright Terms at any time. All such updates, modifications, changes and alterations are binding on all users and browsers of Interaction-Design.org and will be posted here.
Exceptions
In some cases, a page/work may include content, such as an image, that is not covered by the copyright terms (i.e. "The Interaction-Design.org Addendum to the Creative Commons licence" and the "Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported"). When this is the case, we clearly label the content. For images, we also include the copyright label inside the image file (i.e. the full-resolution version) in metadata types like EXIF, IPTC, and XMP. We only include and label content with the following copyright terms:
- CC-Att-SA:
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
Legal Code (full licence text): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ - CC-Att-SA-2:
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Unported
Legal Code (full licence text): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ - CC-Att-SA-3:
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
Legal Code (full licence text): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ - CC-Att-SA-1:
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 Unported
Legal Code (full licence text): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/ - CC-Att-ND:
Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported
Legal Code (full licence text): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ - CC-Att-ND-1:
Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 1.0 Unported
Legal Code (full licence text): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/1.0/ - CC-Att-ND-2:
Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Unported
Legal Code (full licence text): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/ - CC-Att-ND-3:
Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported
Legal Code (full licence text): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ - CC-Att:
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
Legal Code (full licence text): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ - CC-Att-2:
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Unported
Legal Code (full licence text): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ - CC-Att-3:
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
Legal Code (full licence text): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ - CC-Att-1:
Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 Unported
Legal Code (full licence text): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ - AllRightsReserved:
All Rights Reserved. Materials used with permission. Permission to use has been granted exclusively to The Interaction-Design.org Foundation and/or the author of the given work/chapter, in which the copyrighted material is used. This permission constitutes a non-transferable license and, as such, only applies to The Interaction-Design.org Foundation. Therefore, no part of this material may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, recording or otherwise without prior written permission of the copyright holder. - AllRightsReservedUsedWithoutPermission:
All Rights Reserved. Non-free, copyrighted materials used without permission. The materials are used without permission of the copyright holder because the materials meet the legal criteria for Fair Use and/or because The Interaction-Design.org Foundation has not been able to contact the copyright holder. The most common cases are: 1) Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). 2) Team and corporate logos: For identification. 3) Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads: For critical commentary. 4) Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. 5) Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary. 6) Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school. 7) Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary. 8) Images that are themselves subject of commentary. - Pd:
Public Domain (information that is common property and contains no original authorship) - Trademarks and logos:
All trademarks, logos, service marks, collective marks, design rights, personality rights or similar rights that are mentioned, used or cited on Interaction-Design.org are the property of their respective owners. The use of any trademark on Interaction-Design.org does not vest in the author or The Interaction-Design.org Foundation any trademark ownership rights in such trademarks, nor does the use of such trademarks imply any affiliation with or endorsement of The Interaction-Design.org Foundation and its authors by such owners. As such The Interaction-Design.org Foundation can not grant any rights to use any otherwise protected materials. Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is at your own risk.
In addition, content linked from a page is not covered by one of our licenses unless specifically noted. For example, pages may link to videos or slide decks that are not covered. The design of Interaction-Design.org (graphics, html, client-side scripts, etc.) is copyright of Mads Soegaard.
Please read these terms and conditions (the "Terms") carefully before using Interaction-Design.org. By using Interaction-Design.org you signify your consent to these Terms. If you do not agree to the Terms please do not use Interaction-Design.org. The Terms addresses your legal rights and obligations and includes important disclaimers and choice of law and forum provisions. Please read carefully.
1. Ownership of Interaction-Design.org
Interaction-Design.org is owned and operated by The Interaction-Design.org Foundation, a privately held corporation incorporated under the laws of Denmark, with office in Aarhus, Denmark.
Address:
The Interaction-Design.org Foundation
Att: Mads Soegaard
Chr. Molbechs Vej 4
DK-8000 Aarhus C.
Denmark
2. Choice of Law and Forum Provisions
Interaction-Design.org is run by The Interaction-Design.org Foundation, a privately held corporation residing in Aarhus, Denmark. You agree that these Terms and your use of Interaction-Design.org are governed by the laws of Denmark. You hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the courts, tribunals, agencies and other dispute resolution organizations in Denmark in all disputes
- arising out of, relating to, or concerning Interaction-Design.org, The Interaction-Design.org Foundation, and/or these Terms
- in which Interaction-Design.org, The Interaction-Design.org Foundation, and/or these Terms is an issue or a material fact
- or in which Interaction-Design.org, The Interaction-Design.org Foundation, and/or these Terms is referenced in a paper filed in a court, tribunal, agency or other dispute resolution organization.
The Interaction-Design.org Foundation has endeavoured to comply with all legal requirements known to it in creating and maintaining Interaction-Design.org, but makes no representation that materials on Interaction-Design.org are appropriate or available for use in any particular jurisdiction. You are responsible for compliance with applicable laws. Any use in contravention of this provision or any provision of these Terms is at your own risk and, if any part of these Terms is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, the invalid or unenforceable provision will be deemed superseded by a valid, enforceable provision that most closely matches the intent of the original provision and the remainder of these Terms shall govern such use.
3. Liability
Your use of and browsing Interaction-Design.org is at your own risk. The Interaction-Design.org Foundation does not warrant that the software used for Interaction-Design.org, and the information, material, and content on it, or any other services provided by means of Interaction-Design.org are error-free, or that their use will be uninterrupted. The Interaction-Design.org Foundation expressly disclaims all warranties related to the above-mentioned subject matter, including, without limitation, those of accuracy, condition, merchantability and fitness for particular purpose. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary on Interaction-Design.org, in no event shall The Interaction-Design.org Foundation be liable for any loss of profits, revenues, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or other similar damages arising out of or in connection with Interaction-Design.org or out of the use of any of the services proposed by means of Interaction-Design.org.
4. Updates
The Interaction-Design.org Foundation reserves the unilateral right to update, modify, change and alter its Site Terms and Conditions as well as Copyright Terms at any time. All such updates, modifications, changes and alterations are binding on all users and browsers of Interaction-Design.org and will be posted here.
5. Legal Disclaimer
The Interaction-Design.org Foundation and its authors make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information, material, or content on Interaction-Design.org.
THE MATERIAL AND CONTENT POSTED ON INTERACTION-DESIGN.ORG ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS WARRANTY OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF ANY KIND INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE INTERACTION-DESIGN.ORG FOUNDATION BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF INFORMATION) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE MATERIALS, EVEN IF THE INTERACTION-DESIGN.ORG FOUNDATION HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Because some jurisdictions prohibit the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential and or incidental damages, the above limitation may not apply to you. Furthermore, The Interaction-Design.org Foundation does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information of links or other items contained within these materials that have been provided by third parties.
6. Provision regarding change in attribution of copyrighted materials
Please contact us at mads@interaction-design.org if you, or your organization, wish to correct or change attribution or presentation of any image/material used on Interaction-Design.org, which you, or your organization, are the rightful copyright holder of. We will request that you submit proof of your ownership of the copyright on this material but will act immediately on any reasonable request.
7. Notice and prodecure for claims of copyright infringement
Every effort has been made by the individual contributing authors as well as The Interaction-Design.org Foundation to discover and contact copyright holders of artwork/illustrations/content used on Interaction-Design.org. To the extent that a copyright holder could not be found or an inadvertent permissions or copyright error was made, The Interaction-Design.org Foundation stands ready to remove content upon notice and request by a copyright holder. In the case that you believe that any content or other material provided through Interaction-Design.org infringes your copyright, you should notify The Interaction-Design.org Foundation of your infringement claim in accordance with the procedure set forth below.
We will process each notice of alleged infringement which The Interaction-Design.org Foundation receives and take appropriate action in accordance with applicable intellectual property laws. A notification of claimed copyright infringement should be emailed to mads@interaction-design.org (subject: "Takedown Request"). You may also contact us by mail at:
The Interaction-Design.org Foundation
Att: Mads Soegaard
Chr. Molbechs Vej 4
DK-8000 Aarhus C.
Denmark
To be effective, the notification must be in writing and contain the following information:
- an electronic or physical signature of the copyright owner or the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright interest
- a description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed
- a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on Interaction-Design.org that is reasonably sufficient to enable us to identify and locate the material;
- how The Interaction-Design.org Foundation can contact you, such as your address, telephone number, and email address
- a written statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law
- if you represent a publisher, a written statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the material has not been placed in the public domain, or licenced under another licence, before you acquired the copyright as this would possibly invalidate your copyright
- and a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf.
8. Trademarks and other rights
All trademarks, logos, service marks, collective marks, design rights, personality rights or similar rights that are mentioned, used or cited on Interaction-Design.org are the property of their respective owners. The use of any trademark on Interaction-Design.org does not vest in the author or The Interaction-Design.org Foundation any trademark ownership rights in such trademarks, nor does the use of such trademarks imply any affiliation with or endorsement of The Interaction-Design.org Foundation and its authors by such owners. As such The Interaction-Design.org Foundation can not grant any rights to use any otherwise protected materials. Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is at your own risk.
9. Screenshots
Screenshots of copyrighted computer software, for which the copyright is held by the author(s) or the company that created the software, is believed to fall under the fair use doctrine in the US (and similar laws in other countries). It is believed that reproduction for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, or research is not copyright infringement. If you reuse screenshots, as well as any other information on Interaction-Design.org, you do so at your own risk and under the copyright laws of your country.
10. Copyright of Abstracts
Abstracts in the Wiki Bibliography (/references/) are submitted by their authors who use the wiki to make their research as accessible as possible. When a page on Interaction-Design.org cites/references/lists a work from the bibliography, its abstract is included. However, abstracts have varying copyrights depending which publisher the work is published through. You should assume that an abstract is copyright, all rights reserved, of its publisher and/or author and therefore always use/cite abstracts according to Fair Use. You may visit the publisher's website to learn about the specific copyright terms (e.g. ACM, IEEE, or Springer) or contact the author directly. Bottom line: Cite/use abstracts according to the principles of fair use as it may otherwise be construed as a copyright infringement and subject to legal action.
11. User Submissions / User Content
You understand and acknowledge that additions to the Wiki Bibliography (including article abstracts), additions the Conference Calendar (including conference descriptions), user-contributed notes on each page (including text, photographs, graphics), or other materials posted by users on Interaction-Design.org ("Content") are the sole responsibility of the person from whom such Content originated. This means that you, and not The Interaction-Design.org Foundation, are entirely responsible for all Content that you upload, post or otherwise make available to other users of Interaction-Design.org.
When submitting content to Interaction-Design.org, you agree to not:
- impersonate any person or entity or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;
- upload, post or otherwise make available any Content that you do not have a right to make available under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under nondisclosure agreements);
- upload, post or otherwise make available any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party;
- upload, post or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
You acknowledge that The Interaction-Design.org Foundation shall have the right to remove any Content that violates these Site Terms and Conditions or is otherwise objectionable.
12. Third Party Websites
If we provide links or pointers to other websites, no inference or assumption should be made that The Interaction-Design.org Foundation operates, controls, or is otherwise connected with these websites. When you click on a link within Interaction-Design.org, we will not warn you that you have left a Site and are subject to the terms and conditions (including privacy policies) of the destination website. In some cases it may be less obvious than others that you have left a Site and reached another website. Please be careful to read the terms of use and privacy policy of any website before you provide any confidential information or engage in any transactions. You should not rely on these Terms for another website. The Interaction-Design.org Foundation is not responsible for the content or practices of any other website. By using Interaction-Design.org, you acknowledge and agree that The Interaction-Design.org Foundation is not responsible or liable to you for any content or other materials hosted and served from any third party website.
13. Email communication: Confidential and proprietary information notice
Email messages sent from members of The Interaction-Design.org Foundation, including emails generated from the use of the interaction-design.org website, are proprietary to The Interaction-Design.org Foundation, and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom they are addressed. Such messages may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what they are intended. If you receive a message from a member of The Interaction-Design.org Foundation in error, please notify the sender immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of the message. The Interaction-Design.org Foundation accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by email message including damage from virus.
14. Usage conditions
Please make sure that you understand that the information provided by The Interaction-Design.org Foundation is being provided freely, and that no kind of agreement or contract is created between you and the owners, partners, users, or authors of this site, the owners of the servers upon which it is housed, the individual contributors of the The Interaction-Design.org Foundation, any project administrators, sysops or anyone else who is in any way connected with this project. If you choose to use or copy anything from from this site it does not create or imply any contractual or extracontractual liability on the part of The Interaction-Design.org Foundation or any of its members, partners, sponsors, contributors or other users. Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is at your own risk.
15. Legal Disputes
Any dispute arising from the use of Interaction-Design.org or the interpretation of the terms is governed by the laws of Denmark, and shall be settled by the courts of Denmark. All communications regarding legal matters must be made in writing to
The Interaction-Design.org Foundation
Att: Mads Soegaard
Chr. Molbechs Vej 4
DK-8000 Aarhus C.
Denmark
About the author
Read more >>
Commentaries by:
Donald A. Norman
Don Norman is the author of numerous books including "Emotional Design," and more recently, "Living with Complexity." He is co-founder of the Nielsen Norman group, a professor at KAIST (in Korea), and IDEO fellow, and a design theorist, studying the fundamenta...
More about Donald >>Eva Hornecker
Eva Hornecker is Assistant Professor at the University of Strathclyde. She has worked at several places before, including the UK's Open University, Sussex University, the Vienna University of Technology, following her PhD in Bremen, Germany. Eva's research...
More about Eva >>Editors of this chapter:
Mads Soegaard
Rikke Friis Dam
Allan Holstein-Rathlou
Peer Reviewers
Reviewer 1: Name suppressed
Reviewer 2: Name suppressed
Peer-review is based on the reviewing guidelines and coordinated by the Reviewing Board.
Get Notified!
Get notified when new chapters are added to the encyclopedia!Featured chapter
Authoritative overview of Social Computing by Tom Erickson - veteran researcher at IBM Research Lab. It includes 9 HD videos filmed in Copenhagen.
Read Thomas's chapter
