Innovative ideas break conventions. Breaking conventions often confuses the user, because user interfaces do not look or behave the way he is used to. To solve this problem we can base our designs on a level of 'conventional' knowledge, that is not based on expertise with technology. This level of knowledge is formed through interacting with our environment as embodied minds.

1. Innova&ve
Designs
for
the
Embodied
Mind
Diana
Löffler
University
of
Würzburg
Chair
of
Psychological
Ergonomics

4. Innova&ve
vs.
intui&ve?
• familiar and (supposedly) optimal designs are repeated over
and over again to make them (more) intuitive to use
• innovation breaks with conventions

5. Levels
of
‚conven&onal‘
knowledge
Hur@enne
&
Blessing
2008
so far

6. Levels
of
‚conven&onal‘
knowledge
Hur@enne
&
Blessing
2008
so far
future: basing designs on a
lower level of conventional
level knowledge

7. Computa&onal
theory
of
mind
©
modified
aIer
Max
Planck
Ins&tute
for
Intelligent
Systems
Brain as a computer ‚operating‘ the body. We focus on the mind by trying to tap mental models, asking questionnaires
and so on and neglegt the state of the body and our sensorimotor learning history. We base our designs on knowledge
we gained through interacting with software that is intangible and can only be experienced with few senses. We are not
used to such a limited way of interaction.

8. Embodied
mind
Now, the nature of the human mind is understood as being largely determined by the form of the human body. We
form knowledge of how things work through many bodily interactions with the environment since we were born. Because
we are embodied minds, our mind not only influences the body but also vice versa: our body influences our minds as well.

9. CONTAINER
©
hPp://www.seenby.de/steffi-­‐atze/erstes-­‐bad

10. PATH
©
hPp://www.seenby.de/steffi-­‐atze/erstes-­‐bad

11. UP-­‐DOWN
©
hPp://www.joannajesse.de/uploads/tx_dmfgalleria/JJesse_Sprung_140x210_2011.JPG

12. BIG
-­‐
SMALL
©
hPp://farm6.sta@cflickr.com/5464/9048431792_d576db8ce6_o.jpg

13. Recurring
sensorimotor
experiences
with
the
environment
become
embodied…
Johnson
1987

14. extend
to
abstract
concepts…
MORE
IS
UP
LESS
IS
DOWN
IBM
shares
Infla%on
is
rising.
Grady
1997

15. …
and
influence
percep&on,
behavior
and
cogni&on
©
hPp://speak2all.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/holding-­‐cup-­‐of-­‐coffee1.jpg
©
Amy
Cuddy
Physical warmth influences judgements of psychological
warmth.
Power posing influences self-confidence judgements.

16. How
can
we
design
for
the
embodied
mind?

17. How
can
we
design
for
the
embodied
mind?
She will rise to the top.
Everything is under my
control.
POWERFUL
IS
UP
–
POWERLESS
IS
DOWN

18. How
can
we
design
for
the
embodied
mind?
POWERFUL
IS
UP
–
POWERLESS
IS
DOWN
Hur@enne
2011

19. How
can
we
design
for
the
embodied
mind?
• users make less errors
• are faster
• and prefer arrangements consistent with their
embodied concepts
Hur@enne
2011

20. central
hea@ng
image
edi@ng
order
&
customer
management
tangible
accoun@ng
tangible
interac@on
free
hand
and
touch
gestures
heuris@c
evalua@on
remote
control
energy
consump@on
touchscreen
interac@on

21. central
hea@ng
image
edi@ng
order
&
customer
management
tangible
accoun@ng
tangible
interac@on
free
hand
and
touch
gestures
heuris@c
evalua@on
remote
control
energy
consump@on
touchscreen
interac@on

22. remote
control
Toriizuka
2013
©
Pioneer
Volume and channel are understood along the vertical domain,
explaining why users are always confused with the d-pad.

23. central
hea@ng
image
edi@ng
order
&
customer
management
tangible
accoun@ng
tangible
interac@on
free
hand
and
touch
gestures
heuris@c
evalua@on
remote
control
energy
consump@on
touchscreen
interac@on

24. When
the
outside
temperature
falls
below
20°,
I
push
it
up
to
22.
WARM
IS
UP
–
COLD
IS
DOWN
Hur@enne
&
Langdon
2010

25. I
need
a
liPle
heat
in
the
morning
and
a
liPle
heat
in
the
evening.
TIME
PERIODS
ARE
CONTAINERS
Hur@enne
&
Langdon
2010

26. I
need
the
heat
from
6
to
9
in
the
morning
and
from
6
to
10
in
the
evening.
TIME
PERIODS
ARE
ON
A
PATH
Hur@enne
&
Langdon
2010

27. I
turn
it
off
in
the
aIernoon,
put
it
back
on
when
we
go
to
bed.
ON/OFF
IS
CONTACT

28. Embodied
Design
LCD
Hur@enne
&
Langdon
2010
turn
off/
put
back
on
is
CONTACT
@me
periods
are
CONTAINERS
warm
is
UP
–
cold
is
DOWN
@me
periods
are
on
a
PATH

29. Familiar
Interface
Hur@enne
&
Langdon
2010

30. User
evalua&on
Hur@enne
&
Langdon
2010
• users make less errors
• are faster
• and prefer arrangements consistent with their
embodied experience

31. central
hea@ng
image
edi@ng
order
&
customer
management
tangible
accoun@ng
tangible
interac@on
free
hand
and
touch
gestures
heuris@c
evalua@on
remote
control
energy
consump@on
touchscreen
interac@on

32. Classic interface

33. Embodied concepts prototype

34. Classic interface

35. Embodied concepts prototype

36. Real-­‐world
costs
and
benefits
Löffler
et
al.
2012,
Löffler
et
al.
2013,
Hess
et
al.
2013
• embodied prototypes are more intuitive to use,
described as innovative and creative
• the method offers a favorable cost-benefit-
ratio

37. central
hea@ng
image
edi@ng
order
&
customer
management
tangible
accoun@ng
tangible
interac@on
free
hand
and
touch
gestures
heuris@c
evalua@on
remote
control
energy
consump@on
touchscreen
interac@on

38. tangible
accoun&ng
Hur@enne,
Weber
&
Blessing
(2008);
Hur@enne,
Israel
&
Weber
(2008),
Thorenz
(2013)

39. central
hea@ng
image
edi@ng
order
&
customer
management
tangible
accoun@ng
tangible
interac@on
free
hand
and
touch
gestures
heuris@c
evalua@on
remote
control
energy
consump@on
touchscreen
interac@on

40. tangible
interac&on
Hur@enne,
Stößel
&
Weber
(2009),
Arlt
(2013)
Participants categorize abstract concepts based on physical object attributes.

41. central
hea@ng
image
edi@ng
order
&
customer
management
tangible
accoun@ng
tangible
interac@on
free
hand
and
touch
gestures
heuris@c
evalua@on
remote
control
energy
consump@on
touchscreen
interac@on

42. free
hand
and
touch
gestures
Hur@enne,
Stößel,
Sturm,
Maus
et.
al
(2010)
Participants performed touch and free hand gestures on abstract concepts.

43. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
near-­‐far
up-­‐down
centre-­‐periphery
up-­‐down
near-­‐far
up-­‐down
front-­‐back
up-­‐down
up-­‐down
near-­‐far
front-­‐back
near-­‐far
Young
Group
Old
Group
Familiarity
Happiness
Importance
Power
Valence
Quan&ty
Time
Valence
Virtue
Similarity
Progress
Items
to
be
considered
Abstract
Domain
Physical
Dimension
%
of
gestures
correctly
predicted
!
chance
!
Popula@on-­‐
stereotypes
*
*
Hur@enne,
Stößel,
Sturm,
Maus
et.
al
(2010)

44. central
hea@ng
image
edi@ng
order
&
customer
management
tangible
accoun@ng
tangible
interac@on
free
hand
and
touch
gestures
heuris@c
evalua@on
remote
control
energy
consump@on
touchscreen
interac@on

45. heuris&c
expert
evalua&on
Bischof
(2013)
Heuristic expert evaluation of user interfaces with embodied concepts to identify potential user problems.

46. central
hea@ng
image
edi@ng
order
&
customer
management
tangible
accoun@ng
tangible
interac@on
free
hand
and
touch
gestures
heuris@c
evalua@on
remote
control
energy
consump@on
touchscreen
interac@on

47. energy
consump&on
Nisha@
ni
kitu
kinacho
mwezesha
mtu
kufanya
kazizake
kwa
urahisi.
Energy
is
something
that
enables
somebody
to
do
work
his
with
ease.
Löffler,
Lindner
&
Hur@enne
(2014)
72% overlap of identified embodied concepts between Swahili and English

48. energy
consump&on
Löffler,
Lindner
&
Hur@enne
(2014)
Paper prototype to identify energy needs and select a solar panel size.

49. central
hea@ng
image
edi@ng
order
&
customer
management
tangible
accoun@ng
tangible
interac@on
free
hand
and
touch
gestures
heuris@c
evalua@on
remote
control
energy
consump@on
touchscreen
interac@on

50. touchscreen
interac&on
Hur@enne,
Löffler
&
Schmidt
(2014)

51. body
posture
Hur@enne,
Löffler
&
Schmidt
(2014)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Dominance prime Morality prime
Mean%ofmoney
giventootherperson
Sitting condition
Standing condition
Different body postures and context influence behavioral outcomes in a
dictator game (people donated +/- 15% to another player) performed on a
touch table vs. wall mounted display.

52. Take
Home
Messages
Diana
Löffler
(diana.loeffler@uni-­‐wuerzburg.de)
• break conventions at the level of expert knowledge
• consider the learning history at the sensorimotor level
• design for the embodied mind
• check our database of embodied concepts:
zope.psyergo.uni-wuerzburg.de/iscat
• take part in our tutorial at MUC14:
http://muc2014.mensch-und-computer.de/programm/workshops-mci/tutorium-ibis/
• drop us an email if you are interested in joint projects and research:
diana.loeffler@uni-wuerzburg.de
• visit our website to find out more about the cool stuff we are doing:
http://psyergo.uni-wuerzburg.de/

53. References
I
• Johnson,
M.
(1987).
The
body
in
the
mind:
The
bodily
basis
of
meaning,
imagina@on,
and
reason.
University
of
Chicago
Press,
Chicago.
• Grady,
J.
(1997).
Founda@ons
of
meaning:
Primary
metaphors
and
primary
scenes.
PhD
disserta@on.
University
of
California,
Berkeley.
• Hur@enne,
J.
(2011).
Image
schemas
and
design
for
intui@ve
use.
Exploring
new
guidance
for
user
interface
design
(Doctoral
disserta@on,
Technische
Universität
Berlin).
• Hur@enne,
J.,
&
Langdon,
P.
(2010).
Keeping
warm
in
winter:
Image-­‐schema@c
metaphors
and
their
role
in
the
design
of
central
hea@ng
controls.
In
Fourth
Interna@onal
Conference
of
the
German
Cogni@ve
Linguis@cs
Associa@on
(pp.
53-­‐54).
Bremen:
University
of
Bremen.
• Löffler,
D.,
Hur@enne,
J.,
&
Maier,
A.
(2012).
Die
Brücke
zwischen
Anforderungen
und
Design
schlagen.
Mit
Hilfe
von
Image
Schemata
Gestaltungsentscheidungen
systema@sch
treffen.
[Building
bridges
between
requirements
and
design.
Systema@c
design
decisions
with
image
schemas].
In
H.
Brau,
A.
Lehmann,
K.
Petrovic
&
M.C.
Schroeder
(Eds.)
Usability
Professionals
2012
(pp.
170-­‐175).
StuPgart:
German
UPA.
Link
hPp://issuu.com/germanupa/docs/
usability-­‐professionals-­‐2012
• Hess,
A.,
Maier,
A.,
&
Löffler,
D.
(2013).
Die
IBIS-­‐Methode
–
Eine
RE-­‐Methode
zur
Entwicklung
intui@ver
NutzungsschniPstellen
[The
IBIS-­‐method
–
a
RE-­‐method
to
develop
intui@vely
usable
user
interfaces].
GI
So:waretechnik
Trends,
33(1).
• Löffler,
D.,
Lindner,
K.
&
Hur@enne,
J.
(2014).
Mixing
Languages?
Image
Schema
Inspired
Designs
for
Rural
Africa.
In
CHI
2014
Proceedings
of
the
extended
abstracts
of
the
32nd
annual
ACM
conference
on
Human
factors
in
compu%ng
systems
(pp.
1999-­‐2004).
New
York:
ACM.
doi:
10.1145/2559206.258135
• Löffler,
D.,
Hess,
A.,
Hur@enne,
J.,
Lange,
K.,
Maier,
A.,
&
SchmiP,
H.
(2013).
Gestaltung
intui@v
benutzbarer
SoIwareanwendungen
mit
der
IBIS
Methode
[Designing
soIware
applica@ons
for
intui@ve
interac@on
using
the
IBIS
method].
i-­‐com
Zeitschri:
für
interak%ve
und
koopera%ve
Medien,
12(2),
pp.
48-­‐54.
Munich:
Oldenbourg-­‐
Verlag.
doi:
10.1524/icom.2013.0016

54. • Hur@enne,
J.,
Löffler,
D.
&
Schmidt,
J.
(2014).
Zur
Ergonomie
prosozialen
Verhaltens:
Kontextabhängige
Einflüsse
von
Körperhaltungen
auf
die
Ergebnisse
in
einem
Diktatorspiel
[Ergonomics
of
pro-­‐social
behavior:
Context-­‐
dependent
effects
of
postures
on
the
results
in
a
dictator
game].
In
A.C.
Schütz,
K.
Drewing
&
K.R.
Gegenfurter
(Eds.)
Abstracts
of
the
56th
Conference
of
Experimental
Psychologists
(p.
117).
Lengerich:
Pabst
Science
Publishers,
ISBN
978-­‐3-­‐89967-­‐915-­‐1
• Löffler,
D.,
Hess,
A.,
Maier,
A.,
Hur@enne,
J.,
&
SchmiP,
H.
(2013).
Developing
intui@ve
user
interfaces
by
integra@ng
users’
mental
models
into
requirements
engineering.
In
S.
Love,
K.
Hone
&
T.
McEwan
(Eds.),
Proceedings
of
the
27th
Interna%onal
BCS
Human
Computer
Interac%on
Conference.
Swinton,
UK:
Bri@sh
Computer
Society
University.
Link
hPp://dl.acm.org/cita@on.cfm?id=2578069
• Hur@enne,
J.,
Israel,
J.
H.,
&
Weber,
K.
(2008).
Cooking
up
real
world
business
applica@ons
combining
physicality,
digitality,
and
image
schemas.
In
A.
Schmidt
,
H.
Gellersen,
E.
van
den
Hoven,
A.
Mazalek,
P.
Holleis,
&
N.
Villar
(Eds.),
TEI'08.
Second
Interna@onal
Conference
on
Tangible
and
Embedded
Interac@on
(pp.
239-­‐246).
New
York:
ACM.
• Hur@enne,
J.,
Weber,
K.,
&
Blessing,
L.
(2008).
Prior
Experience
and
Intui@ve
Use:
Image
Schemas
in
User
Centred
Design
(pp.
107-­‐116).
In
P.
Langdon,
P.
J.
Clarkson,
&
P.
Robinson
(Eds.),
Designing
Inclusive
Futures.
London:
Springer.
• Hur@enne,
J.,
Stößel,
C.,
&
Weber,
K.
(2009).
Sad
is
Heavy
and
Happy
is
Light
-­‐
Popula@on
Stereotypes
of
Tangible
Object
APributes.
In
N.
Villar,
S.
Izadi,
M.
Fraser,
S.
Benford,
D.
Kern
&
A.
Sahami
(Eds.),
TEI’09
Third
Interna@onal
Conference
on
Tangible
and
Embedded
Interac@on
(pp.
61-­‐68).
New
York:
ACM.
• Hur@enne,
J.,
Stößel,
C.,
Sturm,
C.,
Maus,
A.,
Rö~ng,
M.,
Langdon,
P.,
&
Clarkson,
P.
J.
(2010).
Physical
gestures
for
abstract
concepts.
Inclusive
design
with
primary
metaphors.
Interac@ng
with
Computers,
22,
475-­‐484.
• Toriizuka,
T.
(2013).
A
study
on
the
opera@on
for
devices
based
on
image
schema.
The
Japanese
Journal
of
Ergonomics
49
(Supplement),
288-­‐289.
References
II