1. Towards Tangible Enactive- Interfaces Peter Bennett pbennett02@qub.ac.uk Sile O’Modhrain sile@qub.ac.uk

2. Comparison of Tangible User Interfaces with Enactive Interfaces Tangible User Interface Enactive Interface

3. Tangible User Interfaces “give physical form to digital information, employing physical artefacts both as representations and controls for computational media” (Ullmer and Ishii 2000) Frameworks include: –Model-Control-Representation(physical/digital) with 4 instances (Ullmer and Ishii 2000) –Fishkin’s embodiment/metaphor taxonomy. (2004)

4. Spatial (AudioPad) Constructive (BlockJam) Relational (Logo slot-machine) Associative (MusicBottles)

5. Why Tangible User Interfaces? Longer history than Enactive Interfaces. Greater practical knowledge in their design. The tangibility gives a direct link to bodily learning. Is it possible to draw from this experience to inform the design of new Enactive Interfaces?

6. Enactive Interfaces Expression and transmission of enactive knowledge. Bodily knowledge as opposed to iconic or symbolic knowledge. Direct and Immediate form of interaction between human and computer. Promotes tighter coupling between perception and action

7. Criteria of Embodied/Enactive Interaction 1.Embodied activity is Situated 2.Embodied activity is Timely 3.Embodied activity is Multimodal 4.Embodied activity is Engaging. 5.The sense of embodiment is an emergent phenomenon. (Armstrong 2006)

8. Comparison using Embodied Interaction Criteria Tangible User Interface Enactive Interface Situated 

9. Comparison using Embodied Interaction Criteria Tangible User Interface Enactive Interface Situated  Timely? 

10. Comparison using Embodied Interaction Criteria Tangible User Interface Enactive Interface Situated  Timely?  Multimodal 

11. Comparison using Embodied Interaction Criteria Tangible User Interface Enactive Interface Situated  Timely?  Multimodal  Engaging? 

12. Comparison using Embodied Interaction Criteria Tangible User Interface Enactive Interface Situated  Timely?  Multimodal  Engaging?  Emergent? 

13. Comparison using Embodied Interaction Criteria Tangible User Interface Enactive Interface Situated  Timely?  Multimodal  Engaging?  Emergent? 

21. Use of the Tangible-Enactive design space. Guide the design of new enactive interfaces. Does an enactive TUI make a better TUI? Do all TUI’s allow enactive interaction? Design Enactive Interfaces that have the Immediacy & Richness of Tangible Interaction.

22. Current Work ‘BeatBearing’ rhythm sequencer. How to move around the design space? When is an enactive TUI desirable?

25. Questions?