skip to main content
10.1145/3294109.3300992acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesteiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Work in Progress

A Multisensory Design Probe: An Approach for Reducing Technostress

Published: 17 March 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Technostress is an emerging and significant psychological phenomenon associated with the use of technology. As humans increasingly encounter computational technology on a daily basis, there is a need to manage the anxieties and tensions that can result from these interactions. Using the lens of critical design, we created a design probe to explore this concept of technology induced stress. The probe builds on the topic of slow technology and embraces multisensory experiences as a tool for individuals to reflect on their relationship with technology.

References

[1]
Shaowen Bardzell, Jeffrey Bardzell, Jodi Forlizzi, John Zimmerman, and John Antanitis. 2012. Critical Design and Critical Theory: The Challenge of Designing for Provocation. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '12). ACM, 288--297.
[2]
Ishac Bertran. 2014. Slow Games. (2014). Retrieved October 22, 2018 from http://www.ishback.com/slowgames
[3]
Kirsten Boehner, Janet Vertesi, Phoebe Sengers, and Paul Dourish. 2007. How HCI Interprets the Probes. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07). ACM, 1077--1086.
[4]
Ozge Merzali Celikoglu, Sebnem Timur Ogut, and Klaus Krippendorff. 2017. How do user stories inspire design? A study of cultural probes. Design Issues 33, 2 (2017), 84--98.
[5]
Justin Cheng, Akshay Bapat, Gregory Thomas, Kevin Tse, Nikhil Nawathe, Jeremy Crockett, and Gilly Leshed. 2011. GoSlow: Designing for Slowness, Reflection and Solitude. In CHI '11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '11). ACM, 429--438.
[6]
Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2013. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. The MIT Press.
[7]
Daniel Fallman. 2003. Design-oriented Human-computer Interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '03). ACM, 225--232.
[8]
Bill Gaver, Tony Dunne, and Elena Pacenti. 1999. Design: Cultural Probes. Interactions 6, 1 (Jan. 1999), 21--29.
[9]
William W. Gaver, Andrew Boucher, Sarah Pennington, and Brendan Walker. 2004. Cultural Probes and the Value of Uncertainty. Interactions 11, 5 (Sept. 2004), 53--56.
[10]
Lars Hallnas and Johan Redström. 2001. Slow Technology -- Designing for Reflection. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 5, 3 (01 Aug 2001), 201--212.
[11]
Leslie M Kay. 2011. Olfactory coding: random scents make sense. Current Biology 21, 22 (2011), R928--R929.
[12]
Emanuela Maggioni, Robert Cobden, Dmitrijs Dmitrenko, and Marianna Obrist. 2018. Smell-O-Message: Integration of Olfactory Notifications into a Messaging Application to Improve Users' Performance. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI '18). ACM, 45--54.
[13]
Marianna Obrist. 2017. SCHI LAB. (2017). Retrieved November 3, 2018 from http://multi-sensory.info
[14]
Marianna Obrist, Elia Gatti, Emanuela Maggioni, Chi Thanh Vi, and Carlos Velasco. 2017. Multi-sensory experiences in HCI. IEEE MultiMedia 24, 2 (2017), 9--13.
[15]
Marianna Obrist, Nimesha Ranasinghe, and Charles Spence. 2017. Special issue: Multisensory human-computer interaction. IEEE MultiMedia 24 (2017), 9--13.Issue 2.
[16]
William Odom. 2015. Understanding Long-Term Interactions with a Slow Technology: An Investigation of Experiences with FutureMe. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, 575--584.
[17]
William Odom, Richard Banks, Abigail Durrant, David Kirk, and James Pierce. 2012. Slow Technology: Critical Reflection and Future Directions. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '12). ACM, 816--817.
[18]
William Odom, Siân Lindley, Larissa Pschetz, Vasiliki Tsaknaki, Anna Vallgårda, Mikael Wiberg, and Daisy Yoo. 2018. Time, Temporality, and Slowness: Future Directions for Design Research. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '18 Companion). ACM, 383--386.
[19]
William Odom, Mark Selby, Abigail Sellen, David Kirk, Richard Banks, and Tim Regan. 2012. Photobox: On the Design of a Slow Technology. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '12). ACM, 665--668.
[20]
Monideepa Tarafdar, Ashish Gupta, and Ofir Turel. 2013. The dark side of information technology use. Information Systems Journal 23, 3 (2013), 269--275.
[21]
Kirsikka Vaajakallio. 2012. Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure; Suunnittelupelit osallistuvan ideoinnin työkaluna. G4 Monografiaväitöskirja. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:aalto-201312037994
[22]
Jayne Wallace, John McCarthy, Peter C. Wright, and Patrick Olivier. 2013. Making Design Probes Work. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). ACM, 3441--3450.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
TEI '19: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction
March 2019
785 pages
ISBN:9781450361965
DOI:10.1145/3294109
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 17 March 2019

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. critical design
  2. design probe
  3. reflection
  4. slow technology
  5. tangible interaction

Qualifiers

  • Work in progress

Conference

TEI '19
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

TEI '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 36 of 110 submissions, 33%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 393 of 1,367 submissions, 29%

Upcoming Conference

TEI '25

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)304
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
Reflects downloads up to 17 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media