Cover not available

Article published In: Information Design Journal
Vol. 22:3 (2016) ► pp.221–236

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Swing Compass

A metaphorical and embodied approach to structuring choices for user reflection

Published online: 19 January 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.22.3.03cho
Information design aims to arrange and present not only information for people to retrieve and understand, but sometimes also choices for them to select and reflect on. In this paper we introduce a configurable, intelligent, and embodied recommendation system, Swing Compass. It allows users to select items spatially arranged on a compass-like interface, according to their past selections. The user can also turn the device to reveal new alternatives. The interaction embodies the metaphorical meaning of ‘swing’, prompting users to reflect on their choice behaviours. This paper articulates the theoretical framework and the design of Swing Compass. It also presents a summary of experience testing and discussion.
References (14)
Chow, K.K.N., Harrell, D.F., & Wong, K.Y. (2015). Designing and Analyzing Swing Compass: A Lively Interactive System Provoking Imagination and Affect for Persuasion. In T.M. a. S. Basapur (Ed.), PERSUASIVE 2015 Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embedded Interaction. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2001). Design noir: the secret life of electronic objects. London; Basel: August; Birkhauser.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J. (1985). Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, VI(2), 222–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fogg, B.J. (2009). A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design. Paper presented at the Persuasive’09 , Claremont, California, USA.
Gaver, W.W., Bowers, J., Boucher, A., Gellerson, H., Pennington, S., Schmidt, A., Walker, B. (2004). The Drift Table: Designing for Ludic Engagement. Paper presented at the Proceedings of CHI’04 , Vienna, Austria.
Minsky, M. (1974). A Framework for Representing Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murray, J.H. (2012). Inventing the medium: principles of interaction design as a cultural practice. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. (2002). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sengers, P., Boehner, K., David, S., & Kaye, J.J. (2005). Reflective Design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fourth Decennial Conference on Critical Computing , Aarhus, Denmark.
Thaler, R.H., & Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wurman, R.S. (1997). Information Architects: Graphis Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Chow, Kenny K.N.
2017. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction - TEI '17, ► pp. 435 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue