[-empyre-] Week 4 of empyre: Wearable Technologies Welcome Danielle Wilde, Sarah Kettley and Lucy Dunne

[danielle wilde]

hello everyone,

thanks for the introduction, Renate. It's great to be a part of the
conversation. Though I've only been able to follow it from a distance so
far, it's wonderful to be exposed to the range of approaches, thinking and
also works I wasn't previously across.

I would like to begin my contribution with some musings about process. My
current research has three aims:

   1. inspiring people to move, literally, beyond their habitual limits
   2. considering technology's potential to poeticise experience when
   extending our dynamic moving form
   3. broadening the way we think about our bodies and technology

My field of concerns includes enchantment and ambiguity as resources for
design, encouraging 'magical thinking' and 'making strange', as well
as emergent
performativity.

with this in mind my most successful work begins with the body and, in a
sense, designs backwards: I develop structured processes for embodied
cognitive reflection, and thereby arrive at outcomes that I retrospectively
describe and evaluate - the applications emerge from the artefact. The
processes may or may not incorporate body-worn technologies. The outcomes
almost certainly do.

Kamran Sedighian and Maria Klawe identify three key elements in interaction
design for provoking reflective thought that I find useful to focus on:
representation, interaction protocol and feedback. Kristina Andersen
describes them in relation to wearables through her ensemble project (a
suite of musical dress-up clothes for children):


• The sensors are represented by the garments in such a way that the
garments act as larger scale image of the function of the sensor.

• The physical attributes of the garments are used as clues to the
interaction protocol in order to provide a tangible interface to the
sensors.

• The feedback consists of a tight link between physical manipulation of the
garments and immediate [technology] response. There is no perceivable lag
between the garments and the [technology] response.
Thinking about body-worn technologies through such protocols during the
design process, helps me to arrive at outcomes that are intuitive to use.
These protocols were designed for children but I find them invaluable when
designing for cognitive reflection irrespective of age.

As has been discussed, in this conversation, wearable technologies are
relevant to a broad range of disciplines and applications. My own work is
examined through use in performance and both free-form and guided play (such
as learning and abilitation contexts) - anywhere where engaging the body
through the imagination and the imagination through the body might be of
interest.

I find that wearable works are inherently performative, irrespective of the
application (Johannes' example of the young man in the carpark and his
instinctual response to hug him is a wonderfully apt example). I'm curious
if other people on the list focus on this notion of performativity beyond
traditional performance paradigms. I wrote a short
paper<http://www.daniellewilde.com/dw/publications_files/wilde_a%20New%20Performativity_wearables+body%20devices.pdf>
for
re:live Media Art History conference that posits a new performativity that
wearables and body-worn devices make possible. It barely touches on the
subject. I would be very interested to elicit further engagement on this
topic, as well as on design processes and protocols.

regards
danielle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20110525/760dfb82/attachment.html>