w4 - cordiality

DESN800 // 24/03/26

Updated Research Question

My original research question is as follows: How can the creative use of interactive technology enable the transformation of under-utilised public spaces to encourage emotional engagement in urban environments?

Upon reflection from last week, I realised I was drifting away from looking at emotional engagement (this wording was also vague as I was unsure what kind of emotions I wanted to evoke in people) and was more interested in helping people establish or strengthen their connection with their wider urban contexts. As a result, I started looking into the idea of place identity and what factors affect its perception, such as the natural or built environment (factors I had already been examining in my work). This line of inquiry also stemmed from a paper I read which examined residents' perception of place identity in a Vietnam city (Do & Do, 2025), and introduced me to the concept of affordance theory and its applications in spatial design, particularly to establish a sense of place (eg. what activities are afforded in a particular space based on its design).

As a result, I updated my research question as follows: How can the creative use of interactive technology enable the transformation of under-utilised public spaces to encourage the formation of place identity in urban environments?

500-Word Reflection on Practice

Throughout the past three weeks, I’ve produced artefacts exploring the materiality of interaction interfaces, translating environmental data into tangible forms, incorporating immersiveness and the natural environment into public spaces, and embedding themes into a larger-scale interactive installation. Each week’s constraints often informed my focuses for that week: the small scale and short timeframe of the artefacts in week 1 guided my exploration of materiality and different visual styles, allowing me to pick up new mediums such as woodworking and weaving; week 2 gave me the larger scale and longer timeframes needed to delve into spatial design, laser cut and CNC models and projection mapping; the freedom of week 3 enabled me to focus on producing a full-scale interactive installation as a single 19-hour artefact. I found this gradual narrowing to be quite advantageous for honing in my skills each week with the aforementioned new mediums, while also allowing me to trial new methods such as brainstorming via photo walks / site visits and creating spatial design models. In the end, I am happy with how this process led to a final refined outcome that I feel effectively incorporates my previous explorations into the materiality of interaction and how the natural environment can inform the visual narrative of interactive works.

However, upon reflection, I’ve realised that most of my making has only dealt with very specific kinds of interaction: input via physical touch through holding a finger to a surface, and output via visual graphics or information. Additionally, this narrowing of outputs over the past three weeks has prevented me from exploring other contexts, such as affordance theory and sense of place, that may be especially relevant for addressing the ‘why’ of my research question. Although my week 3 output enabled me to test interaction on a larger scale, I haven’t yet produced the same level of ‘testable’ work in a spatial design context. Ultimately, the gradual narrowing of my work from week 1 to week 3 led to a fear of producing unpolished work, hindering me from diverging more to fully explore my research question and in some cases requiring more time than allotted by the constraints in order to finish the work to a degree of quality I was happy with.

From this reflection, I’ve set the following four goals for this week:

1. Diverge in my making for greater exploration, rather than focusing on a single output;

2. Lower my expectations for the quality of my work, to spend more time exploring instead of unnecessarily perfecting what I’ve created;

3. Explore other interaction techniques than just tapping/touching inputs with visual outputs;

4. Focus on the ‘why’ of my research question, incorporating contexts such as placemaking, dwelling, affordance theory, feedback loops in interaction, and establishing a sense of place through spatial design.

With these goals, I aim to take a step back from the making I’ve produced up to this point and refocus my efforts on exploring all aspects of my research question as it continues to evolve this semester.

Action Plan

Based on the above reflection and goals, I created the following Action Plan for this week's design practice:

1. Use corrugated cardboard panels (material constraint) to explore interaction in a spatial design context.

   • This method allows me to diverge in exploring interaction methods and outcomes without worring about the quality of my output and while still exploring a larger sense of scale.

   • This also allows me to trial distributing interaction points throughout space, rather than locating them in one central location (based on peer feedback from the previous week). Each panel will essentially form a different interaction point and can be laid out relative to each other so that there is a degree of separation between them in space.

   • I will use at least 3 panels of 900x640cm cardboard (with extra cardboard for extra parts), as cardboard allows for quick iteration and assembly of ideas. I'll incorporate other materials as required, focusing on ones that are quick to develop with.

   • Cardboard also allows me to trial the method of "experiential prototyping" where I create interaction experiences with cheap materials and use a 'Wizard of Oz' manner (Hu et al., 2014) to control them where electronics would be too complicated or lengthy given the time constraints. This method will likely be an important tool for evaluating early designs if I carry out user testing during the thesis portion of my Master's.

2. The first panel will explore placemaking and place identity:

   • Through a community contribution-based interaction interface,

   • Through identifying with different aspects of place (environment, structures, etc.),

   • Through incorporating a historical and/or cultural narrative.

3. The second panel will explore responsive architecture and sense of place:

   • Through movement of space or change in qualities thereof that respond to the user’s movements/inputs and change how the environment is perceived.

4. The third panel will explore dwelling, immersiveness with multisensory experiences and affordance theory in interaction:

   • Through incorporation of multiple senses (sight, sound, touch, etc.),

   • Through use of familiar objects/affordances to facilitate interaction.

5. Time constraint: 4-5 hours per panel.

   1. This is a self-imposed time constraint to help limit the time I spend on each panel, although the time will vary per panel depending on how much is involved in bringing each one to life. For example, the third panel combines many more aspects than the first two, so will require more time to put together.

   2. This constraint was also due to multiple health appointments scheduled for this week which prevented me from using most workshop/lab resources and from being able to spend more time on making.

Process and Methods

Panel 1: Placemaking and Place Identity

As noted in my previous post's reflection, I wanted to continue integrating place-based narratives into my work, especially as my focus has shifted to establishing place identity. Having mostly explored environmental narratives up to this point, I pivoted to historical and cultural narratives through researching the pre-colonial history of Auckland and how iwi settled into and used the land. Throug this exploration, I discovered a historic map of Auckland (Figure 1) that depicted the locations of various fortified Māori settlements called pā which were commonly established at strategically higher elevations such as volcanoes, with Maungakiekie, or One Tree Hill, as a notable example (Fenton, 1879). I found it interesting how using historic maps such as these require a different method for locating oneself on a map: I found myself using natural features such as water and shorelines, as well as the knowledge that most pā are located at volcanoes, to extrapolate where modern areas such as the Auckland CBD region would be located on this map. On a typical modern-day map, I would normally use well-known streets such as highways to locate myself. I found this practice encourages deeper reflection about the natural and historic features that surround us, a historical narrative that I decided to incorporate in this first panel.

Figure 1. Map of Auckland with locations of various pā sites (Fenton, 1879). No known copyright restrictions.

For this panel I wanted to implement a placemaking activity, inspired by groups such as Fresh Concept (https://www.freshconcept.co.nz/) who implement activities in spaces to transform them into places that help bring communities together. I decided to implement an activity where people could locate a place in central Auckland that has meaning to them, but using the above map to spark deeper thought about how we locate ourselves in space. I also researched Māori interpretations of place identity and found the concept of tūrangawaewae, referring to a "place where one has the right to stand" and has belonging through kinship or whakapapa (Te Aka Māori Dictionary, n.d.).

I laser cut the above map onto the first corrugated cardboard panel, punched holes bordering the map, and added open cardboard boxes where scraps of yarn would be stored (Figure 2). The intention of this setup is for passersby to locate where their tūrangawaewae is using lines of latitude and longitude by threading the yarn through the holes on a backdrop of a historic, "pre-colonial" map (note that this map was drawn during colonial times but was the earliest map I could find that depicted pre-colonial Māori settlements), requiring consideration of where they situate themselves relative to natural features such as water or volcanoes. I wanted this activity to have a community element as well, where individual additions would add up over time to form a weaving of sorts, representing how different community members in Auckland are interwoven through their connections to place. The specific interaction activity of threading is itself symbolic as threading/sewing is used to connect pieces together.

To help guide the activity, I added signifiers in the form of written labels (such as for the "lines of latitude and longitude" and a needle people could use to thread the yarn) and a set-up example as a starting point to demonstrate the intended outcome. Upon reflection, if I had more time, I would have liked to make the communication more effective, perhaps by defining tūrangawaewae for users unfamiliar with the concept or providing more context as to the reasons for this particular map being used. However, I'm happy with my exploration of more historical and cultural narratives that could be integrated in my work, as well as expanding my experimentation to non-digital interaction methods such as threading that still provide engaging interaction without requiring any technical knowledge.

Figure 2. First panel with community contribution-based placemaking "latitude and longitude" activity to identify where someone's tūrangawaewae is (Te Aka Māori Dictionary, n.d.).

Panel 2: Responsive Architecture and Sense of Place

With the second panel, I wanted to experiment with responsive architecture (a broad area, but in my case referring to qualities of architecture that can change in response to qualities associated with a user of that space, such as their presence, proximity, heart rate, body temperature, etc.). I specifically wanted to use responsive architecture in a way that changed the sense of place of a particular space. Nguyen et al. defines sense of place as the spatial (physicality), situational (possible activites, environmental and social conditions) and subjective (history, culture, memories, etc.) qualities associated with a space (2022). Up to this point, I have mostly looked at reinforcing a positive sense of place with the goal of encouraging activities like dwelling and engaging through touch or sight, so I decided to try reinforcing a negative sense of place such as a sense of not belonging through hostile architecture. I also wanted to experiment with different kinds of responses or outputs in my interaction feedback loops than just the 2D visuals I have been working with so far, so I decided to try working with moving parts and materials.

My initial idea with this in mind was to create a panel that would become visibly and texturally "sharp" or uncomfortable if a user's presence was detected to be too close. I created a panel with a sheer fabric "window" and a smaller, movable cardboard panel behind it with rods sticking out that would distort the fabric when pushed against it (Figure 3). However, I found it very difficult to automate the panel with motors due to the cardboard's weight, so I ended up implementing this with a manual handle that users could push themselves. In hindsight, if I had more time, I would have preferred to hide the handle behind the panel so I could simulate the intended automated response using the aforementioned 'Wizard of Oz' technique. I also think the cardboard was too flexible for this prototype to work effectively, as the fabric didn't distort as well as I would've liked, but I think the general sense of hostility was achieved which helped to explore how architectural façades can elicit different senses of place, whether positive or negative.

Figure 3. Responsive architecture panel with signifier for interaction (handle and written instructions) exploring a sense of hostility in place.

Panel 3: Dwelling, Multisensory Immersiveness and Affordance Theory in Interaction

For the third and final panel, I wanted to explore how to encourage dwelling in a place through multisensory immersion (essentially employing this as a method to establish a sense of place that encourages the act of lingering in a space). Taking inspiration from my own experiences in differen places, I have a hunch that more immersive-feeling spaces that positively engage multiple senses (eg. with aesthetic and soothing sights or sounds) might encourage one to linger in that space. Given I had only explored visual responses/outputs up to this week, I wanted to employ more than one sense, such as sound, in my outputs to encourage this feeling of immersion. I also wanted to explore more multidimensionality in my work rather than just 2D surfaces to help aid this feeling of immersion, of being surrounded by the work.

With this in mind, I constructed a windowed panel with an angled "roof" and draped sheer fabric over it, thus establishing a more "3D" sense of space through the structure itself while employing more translucent materials to prevent a feeling of claustrophobia (Figure 4). My aim was to project different visuals onto this structure and play associated sounds in the background to heighten the feeling of immersion.

To interact with the panel and activate the different projected visuals, I explored the concept of affordance theory, coined by James Gibson but often discussed in the context of design by Don Norman (2013). This theory applied in design practice involves taking advantage of users' perception of what activites are afforded by various forms: for example, a handle on a door usually implies pulling, whereas a flat panel might imply pushing. I found this to be an insightful theory for rethinking how interactions are designed, especially ones that are rooted in the physical realm but have ties to the digital realm, as I believe such physical-digital interactions can be more effectively designed if they take advantage of affordance theory.

Figure 4. Immersive panel using a "book trigger" to activate different multisensory experiences: 1. an ocean, with images and sounds of waves lapping, and 2. a forest, with images of trees and sounds of birds.

I started by brainstorming different affordances in space, but found that there weren't many I could think of except seats, handles, rails, stairs and footpaths. Almost all of these, except seats, afford moving through a space rather than emphasising its exploration. As a result, I found it interesting to reflect on this brainstorm and realise how little we physically and tangibly interact with the space that surrounds us, especially in urban environments.

I shifted to drawing on inspiration from objects instead such as books which have the affordance of opening (from right to left in Western culture). Not only do they afford such tangible and embodied interaction, involving touch and movement in 3D space, but they also symbolically afford dwelling through reading and imagination. Thus, I chose this form as a trigger for this panel due to how it subconsciously establishes a sense of lingering in a place in users.

To implement this trigger, I created two cardboard book forms with curved spines and placed a proximity sensor inside each one (Figure 5). When a book is opened, the sensor detects the change in proximity and triggers a change in the projection mapped visuals and associated sounds (discussed further below) using a network in TouchDesigner (Figure 6). Each book's cover is labelled with the different environments they trigger; if both are opened simultaneously, the two environments will combine and overlap in both visuals and sound.

I found it immensely rewarding to expand my exploration of interaction into more embodied forms that draw on existing design theories and go beyond simple tapping or touching. I also feel I have explored many different material interactions up to this point, so I was glad to branch out into testing different forms such as this book trigger, paying more attention to the shape of what is being interacted with and how this affects hand/finger or even wider body positioning. I also think the use of familiar, non-technical forms to disguise the underlying digital technologies helps communicate the interaction possibilities to a broader range of audiences without requiring any technical background. This led me to develop another related research hunch: do tangible, familiar forms and materials aid in facilitating interaction with physically-digitally coupled systems? I believe this line of questioning will prove useful as I shape my research question once more before the final week of this course.

Figure 5. The trigger uses a proximity sensor hidden inside the familiar form of a book that affords opening (from right to left in Western culture); opening the book changes the sensor reading which then activates the respective experience via TouchDesigner.

Figure 6. TouchDesigner network using the proximity sensor data to trigger different projection-mapped visuals and associated sounds.

Finally, for the projection mapping aspect, I found it rewarding to experiment with more 3-dimensional projecting rather than the 2D surfaces I have been using up to this point. I felt this digital augmentation of space aided the sense of immersion and the desire to dwell in these spaces, especially as your eyes are drawn to visually explore different aspects such as the window or roof. Branching out into using different materials to project onto, such as sheer fabric, also proved rewarding through the different effects they had on the light, even letting the projected visuals shine through on the other side (Figure 7).

My choice of nature-inspired environments such as an ocean and a forest was based on creating a soothing, calm atmosphere through sounds of waves and birds and associated visuals, something that could help break the loud, jarring sounds of urban environments (as explored in Week 1). My hunch was that positive emotions associated with such atmospheres would help further establish a sense of place that encourages dwelling, a hunch that will also become important as I continue to develop my research question. The sound files unfortunately didn't work in the end for some reason (possibly due to the sound trying to play through the projector rather than my laptop), but I was happy I tried to branch out into employing different senses in the outputs of my interaction feedback loops.

Figure 7. Experimenting with more 3D projection mapping and projecting onto different materials such as sheer fabric, which allowed the visuals to be seen on the other side (pictured right). The cardboard structure also allowed experimentation with multidimensional use of space to aid in a sense of immersion.

Overall Assembly of Panels

The overall "space" I constructed with these three panels is shown below (Figure 8), where each panel is angled relative to each other to create different "zones" of interaction. The goal of this was not only to explore more multidimensional elements in my work, but also to spread out the different interaction points to help combat social barriers for interaction based on peer feedback from last week. I think the angled panels ultimately help create more intimacy and calm in these separate spaces which could be a welcome change from the wider urban context they might be situated within. However, I wonder if structuring the panels in this way prevents other people from engaging with users and sparking conversations, as the corners in the panels don't provide enough space for multiple people to inhabit simultaneously. In the future, I would like to further explore the spatial layout of such "interaction zones" and what impacts they have on how people engage with these installations, with each other, and with the broader space.

Figure 8. All three panels assembled together to create different "zones" of interaction.

Peer Feedback and Reflection

Peer feedback I received this week is summarised through the following main points:

• Peers suggested to set stricter or more specific constraints to enable more intentional and safe experimentation.

  • Peers suggested choosing a specific material to experiment with, such as wood or metal that have specific sensory qualities.

  • Peers were also interested in seeing experimentation with more physical forms, such as organic ones.

• Peers were curious about whether I had specific locations in mind to base my installations around.

  • They suggested looking at places I want to help draw attention to.

  • Peers also suggested choosing a specific type of space as a starting point, such as a bus stop or park, to help design more intentionally. For example, I could consider designing for people who are already waiting in a space, or for people who want to relax and stroll around.

• Peers responded positively to my use of affordances this week, especially in aiding interactions with digital systems as they can be unfamiliar to some.

• Peers were interested in answering the "why" of my research question, as it seems quite vague or uncertain in its current form.

  • Some questioned whether I intend the installation to be educational, bring people together, or achieve some other purpose.

  • One peer responded positively to my desire to help address the feeling of detachment that people can have in urban spaces.

  • Another peer had a particularly insightful comment on whether my goal was to solve the problem of under-utilised spaces or to take advantage of underutilised spaces to express technology/creativity. They noted that both could be important, but perhaps one might take higher priority or have stronger weighting in my research goals.

• Finally, a peer provided a recommendation for a source to look at: "Conversational Artefacts" by Alyssa Tang.

Reflecting on this feedback and on my making this week, I recognise that my research question and design explorations are still incredibly broad and are coming across as such, even though it sometimes feels like I'm operating in a niche field. Although I've enjoyed being able to try new methods and develop new skills in projection mapping, working with different materials, creating spatial designs, and improving my ability to couple physical and digital systems in installations, I also feel that I've stayed quite broad in my explorations and haven't begun narrowing down my research focuses. Having now explored facets of my research topic such as incorporating different narratives in my work, bringing people together, establishing a sense of place and by extention place identity, encouraging people to dwell or linger in a space, and the types of interactions I might employ to do so (such as tangible and embodied interaction), I feel I've gained a much greater understanding of how the interaction and spatial design elements of my topic work with each other to achieve different goals. My next step is to develop a better understanding of the exact outcome I want (while still keeping my research open-ended enough for further exploration!).

Updated Research Question

Upon examining my making outputs, peer and instructor feedback, and sources I've analysed as part of my contextual review, I am able to narrow down facets of my research question based on key aspects that have consistently remained important in my practice throughout the past four weeks:

1. Types of interactive technologies / interaction methods:

   • Tangible interaction has consistently remained important to me through my hunch that it can facilitate interactions with digital systems through physical materials and forms more effectively than traditional devices such as touchscreens, Virtual Reality or Augmented Reality.

   • My emphasis on this type of interaction has been clear from the start, even if initially unintentional, through my use of physical materials and forms in all aspects of my making even when combined with digital systems.

2. Type of under-utilised space:

   • Residual urban spaces, noted for their poor design despite existing in well-populated areas, have been of particular interest for me since the second week of making. I believe these areas are symbolic of a broader problem in urban space, where (as my peers also noted) people feel increasingly detached from the spaces they are surrounded by each day, just as these spaces themselves are detached from the larger urban landscape. As a result, I believe residual spaces hold great potential for transformation in a way that helps address this literal and symbolic detachment, hence my interest in focusing on them.

   • However, I also acknowledge that the exact site I choose may be based on other factors, such as how it's currently being used (or not used) and its cultural, economic, social, historical and/or environmental significance to people or groups of people. These factors and my chosen site may ultimately shift the spatial aspect of my research question once more, so I leave some room for exploration in this area as I look towards doing more site research and analysis.

3. Type of engagement with space:

   • Lingering has also consistently remained an aspect of interest for me in my making goals, even when I didn't consciously acknowledge it at first. In our second week of making, I was set on encouraging people to linger in the spaces I was designing through adding seating areas, and my third and fourth weeks increasingly focused on creating objects and spaces that inspired people to spend more time dwelling and interacting. I believe that lingering has the potential to support positive engagement with space through spending more time exploring, interacting with and learning about it, which could ultimately help improve people's understanding of and connection to place.

   • I also enjoy the potential that lingering has for both quantiitative and qualitative user testing analysis: I could evaluate the overall time spent lingering in a space (quantitative) and I could evaluate the nature of this time (qualitative), such as whether people are socialising with others, interacting with the installation specifically, interacting with the broader space, etc.

   • Ultimately, the exact type of engagement that encouraging lingering would aim to support will likely depend on the space itself. As explained above, aspects of my chosen site and my reasons for choosing it will play a large part in informing my design intentions and goals for the installation I hope to create there. These goals could involve encouraging people to engage with the materiality of the site, a historical, cultural or environmental narrative connected to the site, or even socialising with other people in the site. Hence, I will leave my research question open for this exploration while still emphasising my focus on lingering.

Thus, my updated research question is now as follows: How can tangible interactive technologies be used to transform residual urban space to support lingering as a form of engagement with such space?

Sources:

Do, T. D., & Do, S. X. (2025). Shaping Urban Identity: How Physical and Non-Physical Factors Influence Resident Perception. Sage Open, 15(4), 21582440251403740. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251403740

DRAGON-STUDIO. (n.d.). Soothing ocean waves [Sound effect]. Pixabay. https://pixabay.com/sound-effects/search/ocean%20waves/

Fenton, F. D. (1879). Map of Auckland showing the location of some pa sites [Map]. Auckland Libraries. https://kura.aucklandlibraries.govt.nz/digital/collection/maps/id/3094/

freesound_community. (n.d.). Tui birdsong New Zealand [Sound effect]. Pixabay. https://pixabay.com/sound-effects/search/new%20zealand%20birds/

Hitchcock, D. (n.d.). Maori forts – pa. https://donsmaps.com/maoripa.html

Hu, J., Frens, J., Funk, M., Wang, F., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Design for Social Interaction in Public Spaces. In P. L. P. Rau (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Design (Vol. 8528, pp. 287–298). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07308-8_28

Karpovich, V. (n.d.). The sun shining through the trees in a park [Video]. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/video/the-sun-shining-through-the-trees-in-a-park-17416249/

Nguyen, A. B. V. D., Han, J., & Vande Moere, A. (2022). Towards Responsive Architecture that Mediates Place: Recommendations on How and When an Autonomously Moving Robotic Wall Should Adapt a Spatial Layout. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555568

Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things (Revised and expanded ed.). Basic Books.

R., K. (n.d.). Tranquil shallow water with sunlight reflections [Video]. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/video/tranquil-shallow-water-with-sunlight-reflections-30014949/

Te Aka Māori Dictionary. (n.d.). Tūrangawaewae. https://maoridictionary.co.nz/search?keywords=turangawaewae