Getting into someone else's soul: communicating embodied experience

References

• Bardzell, J., and S. Bardzell. 2015. “Humanistic HCI.” Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 8 (4): 1–185.
   Google Scholar
• Benford, S., C. Greenhalgh, G. Giannachi, B. Walker, J. Marshall, and T. Rodden. 2012. “Uncomfortable Interactions.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, Texas, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Bopp, J. A., E. D. Mekler, and K. Opwis. 2016. “Negative Emotion, Positive Experience?: Emotionally Moving Moments in Digital Games.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, California, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, A., and D. Chalmers. 1998. “The Extended Mind.” Analysis 58: 7–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbin, J. M., and A. Strauss. 1990. “Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria.” Qualitative Sociology 13 (1): 3–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalsgaard, P. 2014. “Pragmatism and Design Thinking.” International Journal of Design 8(1), 143–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 1934. Art as Experience. New York: Minton, Balch, and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Dourish, P. 2001. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. The MIT Press. Cambridge, 2001, 256 pp. ISBN 0-262-04196-0
   Google Scholar
• Flanagan, P., and R. Frankjaer. 2018. “Rewilding Wearables: Sympoeitic Interfaces for Empathic Experience of Other-than-Human Entities.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction.
   Google Scholar
• Frayling, C. 1993. Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art. London.
   Google Scholar
• Garzotto, F., M. Gelsomini, V. Matarazzo, and D. Occhiuto. 2018. “Designing Wearable Immersive ‘Social Stories’ for Persons with Neurodevelopmental Disorder.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction.
   Google Scholar
• Gendlin, E. 1978. Focusing. Random House Digital, Inc. New York.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W. 2006. Embodiment and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, S., D. Tatar, and P. Sengers. 2007. “The Three Paradigms of HCI.” Paper presented at the Alt. Chi. Session at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems San Jose, California, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Höök, K., B. Caramiaux, C. Erkut, J. Forlizzi, N. Hajinejad, M. Haller, C. Hummels, et al. 2018. “Embracing First-Person Perspectives in Soma-Based Design.” Informatics 5 (1): 8.
   Google Scholar
• Höök, K., M. Jonsson, A. Ståhl, and J. Mercurio. 2016. “Somaesthetic Appreciation Design.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16), San Jose, CA, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Hummels, C., and J. van Dijk. 2015. “Seven Principles to Design for Embodied Sensemaking.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction.
   Google Scholar
• Ingold, T. 2011. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Koefoed Hansen, L., and S. Kozel. 2007. “Embodied Imagination: A Hybrid Method of Designing for Intimacy.” Digital Creativity 18 (4): 207–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loke, L., and Khut G. 2014. “Intimate Aesthetics and Facilitated Interaction.” In L. Loke and G. Khut (eds.) Interactive Experience in the Digital Age. Springer Series on Cultural Computing. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Loke, L., and T. Robertson. 2011. “The Lived Body in Design: Mapping the Terrain.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference, Canberra, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Mentis, H. M., J. Laaksolahti, and K. Höök. 2014. “My Self and You: Tension in Bodily Sharing of Experience.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 21 (4): 1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Núñez-Pacheco, C. 2019. “Interaction Aesthetics In and Beyond the Flow.” Diseña 15: 48–69.
   Google Scholar
• Prpa, M., S. Fdili-Alaoui, T. Schiphorst, and P. Pasquier. 2020. “Articulating Experience: Reflections from Experts Applying Micro-Phenomenology to Design Research in HCI.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, E., and P. J. Stappers. 2008. “Co-creation and the New Landscapes of Design.” Co-design 4 (1): 5–18.
   Google Scholar
• Smeenk, W., J. Sturm, J. Terken, and B. Eggen. 2018. “A Systematic Validation of the Empathic Handover Approach Guided by Five Factors that Foster Empathy in Design.” CoDesign 15(4):1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strohmeier, P. 2016. “Exploring Bodies, Mediation and Points of View Using a Robotic Avatar.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the TEI ‘16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Svanæs, D. 2001. “Context-Aware Technology: A Phenomenological Perspective.” Human–Computer Interaction 16 (2-4): 379–400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, J. 2018. “Designing for Embodied Being-in-the-World: A Critical Analysis of the Concept of Embodiment in the Design of Hybrids.” Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 2 (1): 7.
   Google Scholar
• Varela, F. J. 2000. “Four Batons for the Future of Cognitive Science.” In B. Wiens (Ed.) Envisioning Knowledge. Cologne: Dumont. 221–298.
   Google Scholar
• Waterworth, J. A., and E. L. Waterworth. 2014. “Altered, Expanded and Distributed Embodiment: The Three Stages of Interactive Presence.” In G. Riva, J. A. Waterworth, and D. Murray, Walter de Gruyter (eds.) Interacting with Presence: HCI and the Sense of Presence in Computer-Mediated Environments, 36–50. Berlin: De Gruyter Open.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, J., and J. Forlizzi. 2008. “The Role of Design Artifacts in Design Theory Construction.” Artifact 2 (1): 41–45.
   Google Scholar