by dila.bayraktar -

Why Do Playgrounds Still Look the Same?

Public playgrounds have existed for little more than a century, yet their physical appearance has changed surprisingly little. Swings, slides, and climbing frames arranged on soft surfaces remain the dominant model in cities around the world. While these spaces are widely accepted as “safe,” they are often criticized for being repetitive, predictable, and limited in terms of creativity. This raises an important question: why do playgrounds still look the same despite decades of research on child development and play?

One key reason lies in the rise of risk-averse attitudes toward childhood. As Tim Gill explains in No Fear: Growing Up in a Risk-Averse Society, parents and institutions have increasingly prioritized supervision and risk elimination over children’s independent exploration (Gill, 2007). Concerns about injury and liability have led to strict safety standards, which strongly influence playground design. As a result, playgrounds became standardized environments optimized to minimize physical risk rather than to support imagination or curiosity.

Historically, early playgrounds were often supervised and included equipment that would be considered unacceptable today due to injury risks. However, from the mid-20th century onward, safety regulations and cost considerations encouraged uniform solutions. Impact-absorbing surfaces and fixed equipment became the norm, reinforcing a one-size-fits-all design approach. While research shows that the actual risk of serious injury in playgrounds is extremely low, fear continues to shape design decisions more than evidence does (Gill, 2007).

Another reason playgrounds remain unchanged is their adult-centered design process. Children are rarely involved in early design stages, and decisions are typically made based on adult assumptions about safety, order, and control. Brown et al. (2021) highlight that many playgrounds are designed to meet regulatory and accessibility requirements but fail to consider how children actually experience play. This often results in environments that are inclusive in theory but limited in playful engagement.

The persistence of similar playground designs is therefore not due to a lack of alternatives, but to a system shaped by fear, regulation, and adult perspectives. Reimagining playgrounds requires shifting the focus from eliminating risk to designing meaningful play experiences, where creativity, curiosity, and social interaction are valued alongside safety. For designers, this opens an opportunity to rethink playgrounds not as fixed installations, but as dynamic environments that support children’s development in richer and more diverse ways.

References

[1] T. Gill, No Fear: Growing Up in a Risk-Averse Society. London, UK: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 2007.

[2] D. M. Y. Brown et al., “A Scoping Review of Evidence-Informed Recommendations for Designing Inclusive Playgrounds,” Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences, vol. 2, 2021.

[3] Future Foundation, Changing Patterns of Parental Time and Supervision, Report, 2006.

by elizabeth.trevinopadilla -

Communication: what is it, what makes it good, and how does it present itself? 

[1] states that “a central puzzle that people face, from a design perspective, is how to make communication possible that was once difficult, impossible or unimagined.” This problem is exacerbated when the communication topic is one’s own body awareness and proprioception – and it’s an even bigger problem when you add the extra element of being suspended in the air. 

I believe that a possible solution to my identified design problem is redesigning the communication strategies used in aerial silks teaching, but to do so, we must first understand what communication design actually is. [1] defines it as “an intervention into some ongoing activity through the invention of techniques, devices, and procedures that aim to redesign interactivity and thus shape the possibilities for communication.” We, as designers, must design communication strategies in the preferred form of interactivity of the receiver, eliminating the nonpreferred forms [1]. 

According to [2], good communication must be effective (achieving the objective), appropriate (conforming to the rules of a situation), satisfying (fulfilling expectations), efficient (achieving the valued outcomes relative to the amount invested), verisimilar (having clearly understood symbol-referent links), and task-achieving (accomplishing the correct interpretation). It is also located in perception rather than in behavior [2]. This means that good communication is evaluated by people’s subjective perception that a communicator and their performance are appropriate and effective [2]. 

Communication can be classified by channel (i.e., the medium, means, manner, and methods): verbal or non-verbal [3]. Verbal communication can be either oral (either face-to-face or via a distance) or written, whereas non-verbal communication is more subtle [3]. Non-verbal communication consists of facial expressions, gestures, body language, eye contact, touch, space, and personality [3]. Communication can also be classified by style: formal (as in, within the professional environment) or informal (also called word-of-mouth) [3]. 

In the context of aerial silks, effective communication must: 

  • Reference mutually understood signifiers for basic movements (e.g. Footlock, hip key, S-wrap, etc.) 
  • Be both visual (observation of a teacher/video) and verbal (naming the steps) 
  • Be memorable (or in its defect, have a communicator repeating the steps while the aerialist does the figure) 

Plus, I would add that communication in aerial silks does not terminate once the communicator gives the steps to the aerialist; but rather, it ends once the aerialist has climbed the silk and actually felt the figure in the air. 

– 

Sources:  

[1] M. Aakhus, “Communication as Design,” Communication Monographs, vol. 74, pp. 112-117, March 2007. 

[2] B. H. Spitzberg, “What is Good Communication?,” Journal of tbe Association for Communication Administration, vol. 29, pp. 103-119, January 2000. 

[3] R. Kapur, “The Types of Communication,” Multidisciplinary International Journal, vol. 6, pp. 1-7, December 2020. 

by flora.dokonal -

Design Activism (Part 5)

Welcome back to my blog, in my last post I focused on the importance to know that everything designed is in some way political and it is the job of the designer to think about this before publishing your own work. Besides, it is crucial to give people the opportunity to share their voices through your work. Do not speak for them, because you might not be able to express things in the same way as affected people.

Nick Adam, Associate Partner and Director of Span, shares:

Working across networks is powerful, and bringing people into the design process can help level the playing field. When done well, this work engages people who may not have had access to designers and are understandably unsure of what they need or how to participate. While this can extend a project’s timeline, a slower, more generous process often yields richer outcomes. A collaborative designer’s role must include guiding people to engage and participate meaningfully. (Meharry 2024, p. 21)

With this citation the persona of the collaborative designer is added to the mix. This shows that designers can use different methods to go about their work. They can either work on their own, just finishing projects for their customers, share their knowledge and skills through co-design or work collaboratively, which might add new dimensions to the design if done in a meaningful way.

This idea of collaborative design is a form of activism, as well. It gives a voice to people and involves them in the design process to which they usually do not have any access. Dave Pabellon, Associate Professor at the Columbia College in Chicage, argues that the word activism often has certain connotations and is viewed as something extreme, when sometimes it is just about connecting with affected communities. (cf. ibid. p. 22)

Language is important in every aspect of our lives, therefore, we have to think about how certain words make us feel, which connotations they might have. This can give us access to different groups of people. Similar to activism is “[…] the word activist, because in many ways, everyone is an activist – it just depends on what they’re activating and working toward.” (ibid. p. 22) He mentions that it does not make him more of an activist than another designer just because he is working with communities and they are working with big corporations, they just promote different things through their work. (cf. ibid. p. 22f)

It is interesting how easy it is to initiate a shift in mindset. Language is power, is a crucial statement to remember in communication design or all types of design really. And therefore, any designer should think about what kind of activist do they want to be? Do they want to influence a societal change or do they want to make the powerful people and corporations even more powerful?

To conclude, try to think about which kinds of products or services you want to advocate for. What kind of activist designer do you want to be and how will you be able to do that? Try to think about different ways of designing, do you want to work for certain companies, with certain people (co-design) or with communities (collaborative design)?

Source:

Meharry, Jessica (ed.): Design as Acitivsm. September 13-14, 2024. Symposium Proceedings. Institute of Design at Illinois Tech. California: ORO Editions 2024.

by flora.dokonal -

Design Activism (Part 4)

In my last post, I started talking about which questions you need to ask yourself as a designer in order to become a design activist and which questions you need to ask about your target group. This is a good starting point to make design that matters and promotes a greater cause.

Anne H. Berry states why it is important to be a design activist:

There are many ways in which design has been a contributor to racism and bigotry and negatively affected people’s lives. So part of our work is to recognize the ways in which these problematic histories and relationships exist, whether or not we’re choosing to identify or acknowledge them. You can stand at a distance, say that you aren’t political, and remain reticent about engaging with politics, but that’s just [not] how our society works. I don’t think it’s a reflection of reality.
Designers need to be ready to push back, stand our ground, and say, “No, we’re not going to do that.” We just can’t afford to be silent. There’s nothing neutral about design. Ever. (Meharry 2024, p. 12)

Even though, you might think your designs are not political and do not influence anyone in this direction, by not acknowledging problems you might just play right into the plans of some politicians or parties you might not want to help. And if you are doing this on purpose then be aware of the ideals you are conveying to others.

To be able to change society you have to be aware of where the power lies and what power is. Sara Cantor from the Greater Good Studio thinks power has “the ability to change someone else’s reality, or maybe even your own.” (ibid. p. 13) She talks about power being inherently neutral, only society interprets it as being either good or bad, but it is necessary if you want to bring about equitable social change. (cf. ibid. p. 13)

Furthermore, she talks about designers being involved in decision-making processes. This means, they are able to influence clients and stakeholders to a certain degree and, therefore, able to redistribute power. (cf. ibid. p. 14) For instance, powerful people usually want to stay powerful on their own, but if you tell them that their power will increase, if they share with others, because they have people behind them they can trust and work together with it could help shift their mindset slightly. (cf. ibid. p. 16)

Ahmad Jitan, Director of Organizing and Advocacy in the Inner-City Muslim Action Network, adds that it is important to remember: “[…] that I don’t need to be the voice for the voiceless. You just pass the mic. That’s where, at its base, it becomes a values conversation.” (ibid. p. 16) Do not try to speak for the people, but be their amplifier and give them the stage they need to be heard.

To conclude, be aware that each work you put out is somehow political and think about how you can strengthen the causes you want to support. Additionally, do not try to speak for others, give them the room they need and let their voices be heard.

Source:

Meharry, Jessica (ed.): Design as Acitivsm. September 13-14, 2024. Symposium Proceedings. Institute of Design at Illinois Tech. California: ORO Editions 2024.

by michelle.hauptmann -

2. Why Emotions Influence Design More Than Logic

In my first blog post, I talked about what emotional design is and why emotions play such an important role when we interact with products or interfaces. While writing it, I realized that emotions don’t just influence how something feels in the moment, but also how we make decisions and remember experiences afterwards.

In this post, I want to look a bit deeper into why emotions often have more influence on our behaviour than logic. To better understand this, it helps to take a short look at how our mind actually works and how decisions are made in everyday situations.

Modern psychology shows that emotions guide attention, decision-making, and memory. Kahneman (vgl. 2011, S. 21-51) explains this through a dual-system model: System 1 operates intuitively and emotionally, while System 2 processes information more consciously. Because most everyday interactions happen at the fast, intuitive System-1 level, emotional cues heavily shape the behaviour of the user.

Emotional responses are quicker and more influential than cognitive evaluations (vgl. Norman 2004, S. 13). This means that a product that feels for example trustworthy and friendly is more likely to be perceived as easier to use, even when functionality is identical to a product that does not evoke those feelings (vgl. ebda., S. 17-18).

However, emotions influence not only the moment of interaction but also future behaviour (vgl. ebda., S. 38, 65).

When a customer reflects on the product in order to decide what next to purchase or to advise friends, a pleasant reflective memory can overcome any prior negative experiences.

(Norman 2004, S. 88)

So customers or users consider how well a product fulfils their emotional needs, and those emotional needs are often shaped by prior experiences (vgl. Norman 2004, S. 70).

This would mean, that in our consumption-driven society, emotional resonance can also provide a competitive advantage e. g. for the following reasons:

  • Memorability: “memories can trigger (…) powerful, long-lasting emotions” (Norman 2004, S. 65)
  • Loyalty: Positive emotional associations strengthen attachment, for example to brands or interfaces (vgl. Norman 2004, S. 46, 88)
  • Motivation: Enjoyable interactions encourage repeated use (vgl. ebda., S. 136)
  • Connection: Emotional resonance differentiates brands in crowded markets (vgl. ebda., S. 38)

In conclusion of my first two blog posts, emotional design reminds us that products are not neutral. Every interaction and every product leaves a feeling, whether this is intended or not. Understanding how these emotions shape the perception, memory, and behaviour of customers or users allows designers to create experiences that truly resonate with people.

For me personally, emotional design is ultimately about empathy. It is about understanding people’s wants and needs and finding meaningful ways to respond to them. This is also why I chose this topic for my blog entries: to explore how I can achieve this while becoming a designer myself.

Literature

Desmet, P. (2002). Designing Emotions. Delft: University of Technology.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. UK: Penguin Books.
Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional Design. Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.

by michelle.hauptmann -

1. What Is Emotional Design?

Hello and welcome to my very first blog post!
Even though life is pretty busy at the moment, I didn’t want to procrastinate too much, although I already did a little, haha.

In this post, I want to introduce my design and research topic for this semester at FH JOANNEUM. If you’re interested, feel free to comment, ask questions, or start a discussion. And please don’t be too hard on me about my English skills, I’m really trying my best, even though mistakes sometimes happen.

The topic I chose for my research is “Emotional design”. The main reason, why I chose this topic is that I believe empathy and compassion are things our world is missing right now, and I want to explore how I, as a future designer, can contribute to making it a little brighter.

So, let’s dive into it!

When we interact with a product or a digital interface, our first reaction is rarely logical. Instead, it is immediate, intuitive, and emotional (vgl. Norman 2004, S. 12-13). Don Norman (vgl. ebda., S. 7-10) argues in his book “Emotional Design – Why we love (or hate) everyday things” that we love or hate products because of the emotions they evoke. Emotional design builds on exactly this idea, that people experience products not only through function, but also through feeling.

Norman (vgl. ebda., S. 5) argues that emotions influence how effectively people use and especially appreciate products. By doing so, he describes three levels of emotional processing which together shape how users perceive and remember an experience:

  • Visceral → is automatic and happens very quickly; it is about first impressions and how something looks (vgl. ebda., S. 19)
  • Behavioural → is about how easy and enjoyable something is to use during action (vgl. ebda., S. 23)
  • Reflective → is about thinking back on an experience; it includes meaning, memories, and rational thoughts (vgl. ebda., S. 38)

Origins of Emotional Design

Although Norman came up with this concept in the early 2000s, its roots lie much deeper. Before taking emotional aspects into account, Norman focused mainly on utility and usability, function and form, for which he was criticized a lot, especially by designers themselves (vgl. ebda., S. 8).

In my opinion, this was the case because designers have always wanted to create an emotional response with their designs. Many of them already knew that this aspect is also very important for a product.

So, what has changed about how we define emotional design then?
I think it is the scientific understanding behind these emotional reactions. Desmet (vgl. 2002, S. 111-117) also notes that products evoke emotions through the meanings that users assign to them, which makes the emotional impact an inherent part of the design itself.

In the next blog post, I will take a closer look at why emotions influence our behaviour more strongly than logic and what this means for design.

Literature

Desmet, P. (2002). Designing Emotions. Delft: University of Technology.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. UK: Penguin Books.
Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional Design. Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.

by veronica.bergonzoni -

Technology at Home: From Domotics to Smart Plant Care

Introduction

Can technology be limited to only reproducing or simulating nature? In many fields, it has been shown that technology can interact directly with real living organisms, influencing their care, growth, and management. For the purpose of this research, we explore some of these interactions, focusing in particular on those that take place within the domestic environment.

Today, technology no longer mediates only our relationship with nature, but also shapes the way we live in, organize, and care for our homes.

Types of Home Automation

Domotics

The term domotics, or home automation, refers to a set of technologies designed to automate private homes and provide services that improve comfort, safety, energy efficiency, and system management.
In addition to common functions such as lighting and climate control, domotics also includes applications like multimedia entertainment systems, automatic plant irrigation, and systems for feeding pets.

From a structural point of view, domotic systems can be organized according to different architectures: v

  • Centralized – a single central device collects data from sensors and decides which actions to activate.
  • Distributed – each device has its own “intelligence”: sensors and actuators make local decisions and communicate with each other without a single central controller.
  • Mixed – a combination of both systems, where some devices process data locally while being coordinated by central units.

Smart Home

A more advanced definition is that of the smart home, as described by the European Commission. A smart home is a dwelling where an organized home automation system connects electrical devices to manage lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, security, audio-video systems, energy control, door and window automation, presence sensors, and technical alarms. [2]

By connecting previously separate systems into a single network, the smart home reduces the need for human intervention and increases comfort and safety. A smart home therefore represents a more advanced stage of domotics

Examples of Real Applications

We can distinguish five levels of home automation, [1] but the term smart home applies only from the third level onward. This evolution from domotics to smart homes can be clearly understood by observing how plant care changes within the domestic environment.

Level 1 – Homes with intelligent objects

At the simplest level, an automatic irrigation system performs a repetitive task by watering plants at fixed times, without sensors or environmental feedback.

Level 2 – Homes with communicating intelligent objects

At this level, soil moisture sensors can indicate when a plant needs water, but irrigation still happens in a mostly autonomous and isolated way.

Level 3 – Connected homes

Sensors and irrigation actuators coordinate with each other, and users can control plant watering remotely, for example through a mobile application.

Level 4 – Learning homes

At this stage, irrigation systems can self-regulate by analyzing data over time, adapting watering patterns based on user behavior, climate conditions, and seasonal changes.

Level 5 – Attentive homes

In the most advanced systems, the activity and location of people and objects are constantly monitored. This information is used to anticipate needs, such as advanced sensors that monitor plant conditions and provide real-time feedback, automatically adjusting irrigation, light, and environmental conditions.

References

[1] D. Ardu, M. G. Bellino, and G. Di Giorgio, Domotics and Smart Homes. Italy: EDISCO Editrice, n.d. Domotics_and_smart_homes_

[2] B. Dvoršak, J. Havelka, E. Mainardi, H. Pandžić, T. Selič, and M. Tretinjak, Smart Home Systems. SHVET Project, co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Commission, n.d. Smart_Home_systems_FINAL

[3] Elecrow, “Arduino Automatic Smart Plant Watering Kit,” Elecrow Electronics, n.d. [Online]. Available: https://www.elecrow.com/arduino-automatic-smart-plant-watering-kit.html. [Accessed: n.d.].

[4] TechPunt, “Xiaomi Mi Flower Care Plant Sensor,” TechPunt, n.d. [Online]. Available: https://www.techpunt.nl/de/xiaomi-mi-flower-care-plant-sensor.html. [Accessed: n.d.].

[5] GARDENA, “Smart Irrigation Control,” GARDENA GmbH, n.d. [Online]. Available: https://www.gardena.com/at/produkte/bewaesserung/sprinklersystem/smart-irrigation-control-bewaesserungssteuerung/970658701.html. [Accessed: n.d.].

[6] RainPoint, “Manuals, Downloads & Support,” RainPoint Irrigation, n.d. [Online]. Available: https://www.rainpointonline.com/pages/manuals-downloadssupport. [Accessed: n.d.].

[7] GARDENA, “Smart System,” GARDENA GmbH, n.d. [Online]. Available: https://www.gardena.com/it/c/in-evidenza/prodotti/smart-system. [Accessed: n.d.].

by Lay -

The remembrance of the dead pt.2

In the previous blog post I talked about Samhain, All Saints’ Day and Halloween. I will describe other festivals about the remembrance of the dead, however I will strictly stick to the sources, as I do not have experience with them. Also, I will (selfishly) pick out the most visually unique ones, but here is a small list of other festivals I found: Pchum Ben,Undas, Luminația, Qingming, Pitru Paksha. If I have gotten anything wrong, please to not hesitate to contact me.

Día de los Muertos / Day of the Dead

The annual Día de los Muertos celebration embodies the Mexican relationship with death. Even though it is a very important and solemn occasion, Día de los Muertos is not considered a time to be sad about the loss of loved ones, but rather a time to be happy for their return. The dead are guests at a feast that the family has prepared in their honor – they enjoy the scent of foods, incense, and flowers but cannot participate in the conversation. To help guide the dead home, relatives spread aromatic flowers that emit a pungent scent leading them toward the ofrenda (altar), where the banquet awaits them.

In some regions, October 27th is the day to remember spirits with no survivors to greet them and no home to visit, and October 28th is set aside for those who died by accident, murder, or other violent means. In contrast, dead children are expected to come home to visit on October 31st, but to leave by November 1st to make room for the adult dead. In the afternoon of November 1st, bells toll at churches announcing the arrival of the “Faithful Dead” (adults). In the evening, complete families may go to the cemetery to offer a vigil for the souls of their loved ones. By midnight, cemeteries are filled with lit candles. The souls return to the world of the dead on the afternoon of November 2nd.

Día de los Muertos instils values that foster hope; those who provide offerings trust that their own survivors will take care of them in a similar fashion after death. In this manner, an individual’s immortality is assured. Mexicans embrace death, as is reflected through this celebration as well as the different rituals that are practiced when someone dies. This celebration also serves to demonstrate the intensity of familial fidelity, a devotion that reaches beyond the grave. This devotion to those who have died also embraces friends and even strangers; offerings are often made to the “ánima sola” (the forgotten soul) or “el muerto desconocido” (the unknown dead). Traditionally, the costumes of children would consist of images of the dead, such as a corpse bride, a catrina (a female skeleton that represents death), or a skeleton.

Gutiérrez, I. T., Rosengren, K. S., & Miller, P. J. (2015). Día de los Muertos: Learning about death through observing and pitching in. In Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 49, pp. 229-249). JAI.

Festival de Barriletes Gigantes / Día de los Difuntos

The barriletes gigantes developed specifically within a Guatemalan Maya cultural context. The kites reflect centuries of colonialism and Christianity mingled with subversive Indigenous Maya beliefs, while also presenting a vision for the future through their imagery. Their function is not passive but active, inherently invested in constructing Maya culture. If participants successfully get the kite up into the air, they write notes and wrap them around the rope, then wait for the wind to push them upward and transmit the messages to their deceased loved ones.

While small kites are flown in cemeteries throughout Guatemala on Día de los Difuntos, these giant kites are made only in Sumpango and Santiago, Department of Sacatepéquez. These kites represent a fusion of art, religion, and politics. Their construction and display allow the living to honour the ancestors and communicate with them in a communal setting – grief is not individual. Simultaneously, the kites function to raise consciousness among the living about issues of injustice or their heritage. These two functions work together to help promote Maya ways of living and beliefs about life and death, particularly regarding the insignificance of the individual compared to the wider community.

By honouring the past, they also require an investment in the future. Beyond these historical lessons, the kites honour Maya heritage, make a statement about what it means to be Maya in the present day, and offer a vision for the future. These kites occur at the intersection of the past, present, and future of the Maya community, communicating messages between the ancestors, the living, future progeny, and the surrounding nature.

Deutsch, B. (2020). Barriletes Gigantes in Guatemala: Kites as a Communication with the Past and Future (Master’s thesis, Graduate Theological Union).

by Julia R.🐨 -

Temporal Experience in UX: How Interfaces Shape Our Sense of Time 6/10

#slowness #slowliving #slowinteraction #digitalcalm #calmtechnology

In UX design, time is almost never neutral.


Even if an interface is designed to be “fast,” it still actively influences the perception of time: as pressure, flow, anticipation, boredom, or calm. Users don’t perceive milliseconds — they perceive moments. In this sense, every interface is also a temporal system.

From a technical perspective, time is rather an objective parameter. Loading takes a certain number of seconds, animations have a fixed duration, and interactions can be measured and optimized. From a human perspective, time is definitely subjective and variable. The same interaction can be perceived as rushed or relaxed depending on how it is structured, presented, and built. UX design is not just a process that occurs over time — it creates a sense of time.

Waiting Is a Designed Experience

Waiting is often treated as a failure state, something to hide or minimize. Yet waiting is one of the most emotionally charged temporal moments in UX.

The loading moment may sometimes feel:

👉 stressful and uncertain;
👉 neutral and unnoticeable;
👉 or calm and exciting.

This depends not so much on duration as on meaning. Progress indicators, language, movement, and visual rhythm all influence whether waiting is perceived as wasted time or purposeful preparation. When waiting is well structured, users tolerate it better—sometimes they hardly notice it.

“Show people what’s taking so long and they’ll be more satisfied. Sometimes they even *prefer a longer waiting time with information over a bland progress bar that is twice as fast because they know what to expect.” — Sanne Eikelboom [1]

Micro-Interactions Create Temporal Rhythm

“Micro-interactions are small but crucial elements that enhance user experience (UX). They offer intuitive cues and turn routine tasks into enjoyable moments. Learn about their significance in modern UX design through examples and best practices. Understand how these subtle interactions contribute to more engaging and intuitive digital environments.”[2]

[3] Micro-interactions to delight your users: what, when and how.

Micro-interactions shape our perception of the interface:

👉reactive or thoughtful;
👉hasty or deliberate;
👉demanding or forgiving.

Temporary perception arises not from a single animation, but from the accumulated rhythm of interaction.

Compression and fragmentation of time

Many digital products compress time by eliminating pauses and natural stopping points. Infinite scrolling, autoplay, and algorithmic sequencing contribute to continuous movement.

“The infinite scroll is just another one of these addictive design features … I often find myself … scrolling through recommended feeds on YouTube and Netflix for minutes on end, only to give up and not watch anything because nothing seems interesting. … You scroll. And scroll and scroll and scroll.” — Grant Collins [4]

The result is not only faster consumption, but also a disruption of the sense of time:

👉 users feel constantly active;
👉 but rarely feel present in the moment;
👉 and time passes without a clear memory of how it was spent.

Speed here does not equal efficiency — the opposite, it often leads to fatigue.

Making Time Visible Again

Some interfaces take the opposite approach: time is displayed rather than hidden. When users see the duration, progress, or boundaries of a session, they regain awareness and control over the situation.

“Showing elapsed time … accentuates the passing of each and every second and minute. When we show elapsed time, psychologically it is a bit of torture for the user and it accentuates the passing of each and every second and minute.” — Chris Kiess [5]

Examples include:

👉 a clear beginning and end;
👉 a summary of events or reflections on time;
👉 explicit pauses instead of endless continuation.

Visuality transforms time from something fleeting into something users can interact with and control.

When time becomes visible, interaction shifts from passive consumption to purposeful engagement. Users are no longer absorbed by a continuous default stream—they are given the opportunity to decide whether to continue, pause, or stop. Visibility transforms time from an invisible resource consumed by users into a shared reference point that they can understand and manage.

Sources 🛈

[1] Loading UX: Make Users Not Care About Having to Wait. UX Design. Available at: https://uxdesign.cc/loading-ux-make-users-not-care-about-having-to-wait-c3b02a0220b5

[2] Micro-Interactions in UX. Interaction Design Foundation. Available at: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/micro-interactions-ux

[3] Micro-interactions to delight your users: what, when and how. YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgrkV_hJdJw

[4] Why the Infinite Scroll Is So Addictive. UX Design (UX Collective). Available at: https://uxdesign.cc/why-the-infinite-scroll-is-so-addictive-9928367019c5

[5] Expressing Time in UI & UX Design: 5 Rules…and a few other things. Prototypr. Available at: https://blog.prototypr.io/expressing-time-in-ui-ux-design-5-rules-and-a-few-other-things-eda5531a41a7

by artun.sepken -

Taxonomies of Interaction and Why They Matter for Interruption Design

As interactive systems become more complex, designers need ways to describe and compare interactions beyond individual features or interfaces. One approach that appears repeatedly in HCI research is the use of taxonomies: structured ways of classifying interactions, systems and design choices. Rather than founding direct solutions, taxonomies help clarify what kind of interaction is taking place and under which conditions.

In the context of interruptions and flow, taxonomies are useful because interruptions are not all the same. A notification on a phone, a system alert in a cockpit or a haptic warning in a wearable device may all interrupt attention, but they do so through different interaction channels and with different consequences.

Early taxonomies of human–system interaction

Agah and Tanie propose one of the early comprehensive taxonomies for research on human interactions with intelligent systems. Their framework classifies interaction research along several dimensions: application domain, research approach, system autonomy, interaction distance and interaction media.1

What is important here is not the specific categories themselves, but the idea that interaction can be analyzed across multiple layers at the same time. For example, an interaction can be local or remote, involve visual or auditory feedback also operate with varying degrees of system autonomy. This already suggests that interruptions should not be treated as a single design problem, but as events shaped by media or system behavior.

Agah later expands this work into a broader research taxonomy that includes human-computer, human-machine and human-robot interactions.2

The taxonomy emphasizes that intelligent systems increasingly share space and tasks with humans, rather than operating in isolation. From an interaction design perspective, this is a key shift: interruptions now happen inside shared environments not just between a user and a screen.

Interaction media and attention

One part of Agah’s taxonomy that is especially relevant to interruption design is interactionmedia. Interaction can happen through visual displays, audio signals, tactile feedback, body movements, voice or combinations of these. Each medium places different demands on attention.2

For example, visual interruptions often require users to shift gaze and visual focus, while auditory interruptions can break concentration even when the user is not looking at a device. Tactile feedback may be less intrusive in some contexts but can still disrupt fine motor tasks. Taxonomies help make these differences explicit instead of treating all notifications as equivalent.

This becomes important when thinking about flow. Flow relies on sustained attention and smooth interaction. An interruption that forces a modality switch (for example, from visual focus to auditory alert) may break flow more strongly than one that stays within the same modality.

From system-centered to human-centered taxonomies

While early taxonomies often focused on systems, devices or tasks, Augstein and Neumayr argue for a human-centered taxonomy of interaction modalities. Their framework classifies interaction based on what humans can actively sense and produce, rather than on specific technologies or devices.3

This shift matters for interaction design because technologies change quickly, but human perceptual capabilities change slowly. By grounding classification in human senses and actions, the taxonomy remains useful even as devices evolve. For interruption design, this suggests that the critical question is not “what device delivers the interruption,” but “how the interruption is perceived by the human.”

Augstein and Neumayr also highlight that many existing taxonomies reduce interaction to a narrow set of modalities; typically vision, audition and touch.3

In practice, however, interactions often combine modalities or rely on subtle perceptual hints. Ignoring this complexity can lead to blunt design decisions, such as defaulting to visual notifications in contexts where visual attention is already overloaded.

Taxonomies as design tools, not checklists

Across these papers, taxonomies are not presented as rigid classification systems but as thinking tools. They help designers and researchers ask better questions: What kind of interaction is this? Through which sensory system does it operate? How autonomous is the system? How close is it to the user?

In the context of interruptions, this means moving away from treating notifications as a single UX pattern. Instead, interruptions can be understood as events that vary along multiple dimensions, each with different effects on attention, flow and recovery.

This perspective supports a more nuanced approach to interaction design. Rather than optimizing interruption frequency or timing in isolation, we as designers can reason about how different interaction modalities and system characteristics shape the interruption experience as a whole.

Positioning within the research trajectory

Within this research project, taxonomies provide a structural bridge between research findings on interruptions and later design strategies for recovery and flow. They offer a shared language for describing interaction complexity without reducing it to simple metrics.

By combining early system-oriented taxonomies with more recent human-centered approaches, interaction design can better account for how interruptions are perceived, processed and integrated into everyday interaction.

References (APA 7)

  1. Agah, A., & Tanie, K. (1999). Taxonomy of research on human interactions with intelligent systems. IEEE.
  2. Agah, A. (2000). Human interactions with intelligent systems: Research taxonomy. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 27(1), 71–107.
  3. Augstein, M., & Neumayr, T. (2019). A human-centered taxonomy of interaction modalities and devices. Interacting with Computers, 31(5), 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwz003


AI Assistance Disclaimer:
AI tools were used at certain stages of the research process, primarily for source exploration, grammar refinement and structural editing. All conceptual development, analysis and final writing were made by the author.