skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3174176acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

c.light: A Tool for Exploring Light Properties in Early Design Stage

Authors Info & Claims
Published:21 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Although a light becomes an important design element, there are little techniques available to explore shapes and light effects in early design stages. We present c.light, a design tool that consists of a set of modules and a mobile application for visualizing the light in a physical world. It allows designers to easily fabricate both tangible and intangible properties of a light without a technical barrier. We analyzed how c.light contributes to the ideation process of light design through a workshop. The results showed that c.light largely expands designers' capability to manipulate intangible properties of light and, by doing so, it facilitates collaborative and inverted ideation process in early design stages. It is expected that the results of this study could enhance our understanding of how designers manipulate light in a physical world in early design stages and could be a good stepping stone for future tool development.

References

  1. Adafruit. NeoPixels. Retrieved January 2, 2018 from https://www.adafruit.com/category/168Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Apple. HomeKit. Retrieved January 2, 2018 from https://developer.apple.com/homekit/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Auraglow. 2017. Auraglow 7W Remote Controlled Colour Changing B22 and E27 Light Bulb. Video. (19 April 2017). Retrieved January 2, 2018 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UIElAQZa4gGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Sebastian Boring, Sven Gehring, Alexander Wiethoff, Anna Magdalena Blöckner, Johannes Schöning, and Andreas Butz. 201 Multi-user interaction on media facades through live video on mobile devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2721--2724. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Virginia Braun, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Amber Case. 2015. Calm technology: Principles and patterns for non-intrusive design. O'Reilly Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Emilie Chalcraft. 2013. Driverless cars and OLED headlights by Audi at CES 2013. (January 2013). Retrieved January 2, 2018 from https://www.dezeen.com/2013/01/11/piloted-driving-and-oled-lighting-technology-presented-by-audi-at-ces/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Kyungah Choi, Jeongmin Lee, and Hyeon-Jeong Suk. 2016. Context-based presets for lighting setup in residential space. Applied ergonomics 52, 222--231.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Marcelo Coelho, Jamie Zigelbaum, and Joshua Kopin. 2011. Six-forty by four-eighty: the post-industrial design of computational materials. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, 253--256. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Design Council. 2007. Eleven lessons: Managing design in eleven global companies-desk research report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Cutecircuit. 2015. Mirror Handbag. Retrieved January 2, 2018 from https://shop.cutecircuit.com/collections/accessories/products/mirror-handbagGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Margarita Dekoli, and Bakhtiar Mikhak. 2004. CODACHROME: a system for creating interactive electronic jewelry for children. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Interaction design and children: building a community, 139--140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Tomas Dorta, Edgar Perez, and Annemarie Lesage. 2008. The ideation gap:: hybrid tools, design flow and practice. Design studies 29, 2, 121--141.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Tim Edensor. 2012. Illuminated atmospheres: anticipating and reproducing the flow of affective experience in Blackpool. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 30, 6, 1103--1122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Michael Fox. 2016. Interactive Architecture: Adaptive World. Chronicle Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. John Hardy, Christian Weichel, Faisal Taher, John Vidler, and Jason Alexander. 2015. Shapeclip: towards rapid prototyping with shape-changing displays for designers. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 19--28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Chris Harrison, John Horstman, Gary Hsieh, and Scott Hudson. 2012. Unlocking the expressivity of point lights. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1683--1692. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Björn Hartmann, Scott R Klemmer, Michael Bernstein, Leith Abdulla, Brandon Burr, Avi Robinson-Mosher, and Jennifer Gee. 2006. Reflective physical prototyping through integrated design, test, and analysis. In Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, 299--308. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Georg Hoffmann, Veronika Gufler, Andrea Griesmacher, Christian Bartenbach, Markus Canazei, Siegmund Staggl, and Wolfgang Schobersberger. 2008. Effects of variable lighting intensities and colour temperatures on sulphatoxymelatonin and subjective mood in an experimental office workplace. Applied Ergonomics 39, 6, 719--728.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Marius Hoggenmüller, and Alexander Wiethoff. 2014. LightSet: enabling urban prototyping of interactive media façades. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems, 925--934. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Marius Hoggenmueller, and Alexander Wiethoff. 2015. Blinking Lights and Other Revelations: Experiences Designing Hybrid Media Façades. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Pervasive Displays, 77--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Hiroshi Ishii. 2004. Bottles: A transparent interface as a tribute to mark weiser. IEICE Transactions on information and systems 87, 6, 1299--1311.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Majeed Kazemitabaar, Jason McPeak, Alexander Jiao, Liang He, Thomas Outing, and Jon E Froehlich. 2017. MakerWear: A Tangible Approach to Interactive Wearable Creation for Children. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 133--145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Han-Jong Kim, Ju-Whan Kim, and Tek-Jin Nam. 2016. miniStudio: Designers' Tool for Prototyping Ubicomp Space with Interactive Miniature. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 213--224. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Woohun Lee, and Jun Park. 2005. Augmented foam: A tangible augmented reality for product design. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, 106--109. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Remco Magielse, and Philip R Ross. 2011. A design approach to socially adaptive lighting environments. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGCHI Italian Chapter International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Facing Complexity, 171--176. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. NooElec. WS2801 LED Pixels. Retrieved January 2, 2018 from http://www.nooelec.com/store/25pc-12mm-diffused-rgb-led-pixels-5v-ws2801-drivers-waterproof-addressable-color.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Santiago Ortega-Avila, Jochen Huber, Nuwan Janaka, Anusha Withana, Piyum Fernando, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2014. SparKubes: exploring the interplay between digital and physical spaces with minimalistic interfaces. In Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: the Future of Design, 204--207. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Osram. LIGHTIFY. Retrieved January 2, 2018 from https://www.osram.com/cb/lightify/index.jspGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Jin-Yung Park, and Tek-Jin Nam. 2007. Understanding dynamic design elements for information representation of ambient media. In Proceedings of IASDR07.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Amanda Parkes, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2009. Kinetic sketchup: motion prototyping in the tangible design process. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, 367--372. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Roshan Lalintha Peiris, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2014. PaperPixels: a toolkit to create paper-based displays. In Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: the Future of Design, 498--504. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Philips. Hue. Retrieved January 2, 2018 from https://www2.meethue.com/en-usGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Henrika Pihlajaniemi, Toni Österlund, and Aulikki Herneoja. 2014. Urban echoes: adaptive and communicative urban lighting in the virtual and the real. In Proceedings of the 2nd Media Architecture Biennale Conference: World Cities, 48--57. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Cecil Piya, Senthil Chandrasegaran, Niklas Elmqvist, and Karthik Ramani. 2017. Co-3Deator: A Team-First Collaborative 3D Design Ideation Tool. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 6581--6592. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Carsten Röcker, Thorsten Prante, NA Streitz, and Daniel van Alphen. 2004. Using ambient displays and smart artefacts to support community interaction in distributed teams. In Proceedings of the OZCHI Conference, 22--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Norbert FM Roozenburg, and Johannes Eekels. 1995. Product design: fundamentals and methods. Wiley Chichester.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Daniel Saakes, and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2009. A tangible design tool for sketching materials in products. AI EDAM 23, 3, 275--287. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Samsung. Samsung SmartThings. Retrieved January 2, 2018 from https://www.samsung.com/us/smart-home/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Philipp Schardt, Michael Schmitz, Hannes Käfer, and Eric Hofmann. 2015. Lichtform: A Shape Changing Light Installation. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Pervasive Displays, 259--260. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Donald A Schon. 1984. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Donald A Schön. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Thomas Schroepfer, Suranga Nanayakkara, Anusha Withana, Juan Pablo, Thomas Wortmann, Alex Cornelius, Yu Nong Khew, and Aloysius Lian. 2014. nZwarm: a swarm of luminous sea creatures that interact with passers-by. In Wellington LUX 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Susanne Seitinger, Daniel S Perry, and William J Mitchell. 2009. Urban pixels: painting the city with light. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 839--848. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Solderlab. Glediator - LED matrix control software. Retrieved January 2, 2018 from http://www.solderlab.de/index.php/software/glediatorGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. no new folk studio. 2016. Orphe Smart footwear for Artists&Performers. Video. (20 June 2016). Retrieved January 2, 2018 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wzYunGFPLE&feature=youtu.beGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. ThingM. 2010. BlinkMSequencer. (October 2010). Retrieved January 2, 2018 from http://blog.thingm.com/2010/10/new-blinkmsequencer-features/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Cesar Torres, Jasper O'Leary, Molly Nicholas, and Eric Paulos. 2017. Illumination Aesthetics: Light as a Creative Material within Computational Design. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 6111--6122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Carlo Volf. 2011. Light and the Aesthetics of Perception. The Nordic Journal of Aesthetics 22, 40--41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Alexander Wiethoff, and Sven Gehring. 2012. Designing interaction with media façades: a case study. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 308--317. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. H. James Wilson, Baiju Shah, and Brian Whipple. 2015. How people are actually using the Internet of Things. (October 2015). Retrieved January 2, 2018 from https://hbr.org/2015/10/how-people-are-actually-using-the-internet-of-thingsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. c.light: A Tool for Exploring Light Properties in Early Design Stage

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2018
      8489 pages
      ISBN:9781450356206
      DOI:10.1145/3173574

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 21 April 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate666of2,590submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader