Walking and technology Keywords: walking
Human mobility can be performed in a multitude of ways, but a fundamental (and to some extent primordial) means of movement is walking. In the fields of technology design, HCI or information systems research, only scant attention has been given to ‘how we go’ (ways of walking), or rather, how technologies now and in the future is, and will be, part of the practice of moving our bodies around on foot.
There is a considerable amount of work on how mobile and (potentially) ubiquitous technologies may be used when ‘on the go’ (REF REF & REF, see also below). So while research focused on human interactions with increasingly mobile and connected technologies has focused on the mobile artefact itself, less has been done to understand how different aspects of basic human mobility might be studied and how such mobilities might play a part in understanding ‘what to build’. In this paper we show examples of how observing and reflecting on walking, as a fundamental activity of everyday life, can support and inspire new ways of thinking about the way in which mobile technologies are designed.
Research question (or approach): to understand the “structure” (bad word) of the experience of walking (the threads of experience, cf. McCarthy & Wright, 2004?) in order to explore walking mobilities and the performance of technology in this most mundane, everyday activity. By approaching walking as a particular (and easy to overlook) way of engagement in the world, the aim of this paper is to
Title suggestions: Taking the concept of mobility in bipedalism to mobility carried in hand (and back again...).
The concept of mobility is “confused” and needs to be unravelled from the ground up - “we’re all becoming mobile” - but what does that mean?
Reflective HCI - reflexivity
Now, take off your shoes and socks. You might be sitting in an office or in a comfortable chair at home. You now have bare feet. At first, it might feel a little uncomfortable or intimidating. Now take a few steps. How does it feel? (THIS EXAMPLE WE NEED TO RETURN TO WHEN WE CLOSE THE PAPER).
The idea is to “translate” embodied walking through the lens of non-rep theory INTO design - and the reason why non-rep theory is appropriate for this is: rather than trying to take a distanced “interpretive” approach (e.g. comparing, observing, making sense of...) or studying the bio-mechanical components of walking, taking a postition from non-representational theory means attempting to take the phenomena at face value, not reducing it to some “latent meaning” or mechanical relationship. To retain the vitality of the practice...
What we can understand from basic “bi-pedality” —
How does mobile technolgu texture walking differently Create a more mindful designer
The design of back-packs - as an example of how people have tweaked wood and fabric, - and that the design of mobile apps (or supposedly mobile apps) should learn about walking in the same ways that the first back-pack designers learned about the design of packs - ergonomy, (could also be shoes) - the back-pack allows for a different relationship to the enviornment and so does the mobile phone/service...
Informing designers by making them mindful of walking...