Rahaman, H & Tan, BK (2009), 'Interactive space : Searching for a dual physical-virtual world', in T-

W Chang, E Champion, S-F Chien & S-C Chiou (eds), 14th International Conference on Computer-Aided
Architecture Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA 2009), Yunlin, Taiwan, pp. 675-684.

INTERACTIVE SPACE: SEARCHING FOR A DUAL PHYSICAL -

VIRTUAL WORLD

HAFIZUR RAHAMAN, BENG-KIANG TAN

Department of Architecture
School of Design and Environment
National University of Singapore
[email protected], [email protected]

Abstract. This paper discusses embodied interaction followed by a survey

of examples in installation art and research projects that attempt to fuse
physical space and digital technology. From studying the examples, we
propose a categorization of types for a better understanding of interactive
spaces. Design attributes are also identified from the examples. We hope
this will be useful to designers in designing engaging interactive spaces.

Keywords. Architecture, interactive space, embodied interaction, human

computer interaction, virtual space.

1. Introduction

The last few years saw a distinct escalation of mass development in interactive
digital media, portable gadgets, communication devices, network and online
sharing that encouraged the growth of many virtual communities. People are
consuming more and more smart technologies. Various online media (i.e.
Twitter, Wikis, Blogs, Chat rooms, forums, Auctions etc) are becoming ever-
greater knowledge sharing and social networking resources.
The popularity of online communities such as ‘Second Life’ or ‘Face Book’
is an indicator of the shift of the masses to the virtual world. This affection of
digital culture is provoking users to be disinterested towards the real world. A
lack of the full range and breath of interaction with the environment can lead
to psychological and pathological disabilities (Grusser et al, 2006). The
phenomenon known as ‘Hikkiomori’ or ‘social withdrawal syndrome’ is one
such indication in recent years among male gamers in Japan who spend majority
of their time at home shutting off interaction with the outer physical world
(Jones, 2006).
670 H. RAHAMAN, B. K. TAN

Creating embodied interaction in physical spaces imbued with digital

technologies can be a way to draw the digital culture crowd back to physical
built environment. Such a space, which we term interactive space, is a blend
between physical and virtual space. How do we approach the design of such
spaces? There are very few built architecture examples and little literature on
typology or framework of interactive spaces. But there are many experimental
art installations that give us clues to how we can approach the design of
interactive spaces in architecture design. From studying the examples, this
paper attempts to categorise interactive spaces and to understand its associated
design attributes for a meaningful interactive space. Our definition of interactive
spaces excludes smart spaces that deal with human comfort by changing
physiological conditions of the environment. Section 1 discusses concept of
interactive space and embodied interaction. Section 2 includes a description of
the case studies, a proposed categorization of interactive spaces and the design
attributes that are found in the case studies, followed by conclusion in section 3.

1.1. ARCHITECTURE AND THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERACTIVE SPACE’

Architecture is the art and science of the built environment. It is an act of creation
through material understanding and representing the establishment of a cultural
order. It is a social product, a mimesis of society’s intentions and etiquette; thus
it reflects what a society holds important. Architecture is about permanence and
materiality while digital culture is virtual, dynamic, real time and transient. But
there often prevails some unwillingness in architecture to accept digital culture,
which possibly can lead towards replacing material by the virtual. These fears
of replacement are however misplaced as digital culture is not engaged in
assaulting the essence of materiality. Rather, interaction design reinforces
materiality and becomes a defence of architecture (McCullough 2004, p63).
Digital technology promises the possibility of transforming space and modes
of representations to meet changing needs and desires. Architecture by rejecting
digital culture misses out the potentials of this new tool to renew and reinvent
itself. According to Bullivant (2005, p5) architecture in the information age
faces two challenges: the need to reconcile materiality with the image and
practices of a digital culture; and overcoming the limitations of the built
environment through flexible digital technologies.
New evolving design technology promises the possibility of transforming
space and modes of representations to meet changing needs and desires. So
now designers are thinking about ‘fusion’ of digital media with physical space.
Pervasive computing as a catalyst emphasizes interactive media and network
technologies as key ingredients to design of a dynamic ‘third space’ or
‘interactive space’, which mediates between the immaterial and the material.
 INTERACTIVE SPACE: SEARCHING FOR A DUAL... 671

According to McCullough (2004, p154) architecture and interaction design

can overlap and escalate social consequences. He described it as ‘operable
inability’ systems where two disciplines converge on the design and shift from
foreground object to background experiences. Among some other technical
issue McCullough (2004) mentioned certain properties of such spaces: (i) User-
centric: physically situated and support user’s intention, actions and etiquettes
(p 101). (ii) Participative: should support multi-user participation for richer
experience (p101) and (iii) Transformative: Open systems for extensible places
and this extensibility must be casual and learning, nor burden the user with
technology (p114).
This attitude of design thinking thus reflects a ‘paradigm shift’ from building
virtual worlds towards embedding information technology into the ambient
social complexities of the physical world. This shift poses advantages in making
technology more intuitive by means of embodiment; although it inherits
unwanted annoyances such as extra surveillance.

1.2. WHY EMBODIMENT?

Dourish (2001) coined the term ‘embodied interaction’ which, refers to

interaction with computer systems that inhabit our world – a world of physical
and social reality – and that exploit this inhabitation in a way they interact with
us. Based on a platform of phenomenology, he defines embodied interaction
with artefacts and places at the intersection of tangible interfaces and social
computing. So, embodiment plays a key role of designing interaction as user’s
response to the environment, their engagement and understanding of the space
and enjoyment depends on it.
“For much as the body imposes a schema on space, architecture imposes a
schema on the body” - Tuan, Y. (1977). The proportions, image and
embellishments of the body are reflected in the proportions, image and
embellishments of the buildings. Both of the disciplines of architecture and
interaction design address how context shapes actions. Architecture frames
intentions while interactivity primarily connect those mental states to available
opportunities for participation (McCullough, 2004).
According to Dourish (2001, p126) embodiment is the property of our
engagement with the world that allows us to make it meaningful and embodied
interaction is the creation, manipulation and sharing of meaning through engaged
interaction with artefacts. For a successful embodied interaction Dourish
suggested three common elements. Participative: Embodiment is a participative
status, a way of being, rather than a physical property. Task accomplishing:
Embodiment directed toward the accomplishment of practical tasks. Practical
Action: Embodiment as a source for intentionality, rather than as the object of it.
672 H. RAHAMAN, B. K. TAN

2. Case Studies

“We experience buildings not as objects but as boundaries of space” – Day

(2004). Today many designers are adopting new technologies as means to create
smarter and smoother environments. Few are trying to enhance the experience
of space for people. Through specialized moments, stating narratives and event
designs, architects can directly influence the emotional state of users through
participatory acts (see references for related websites).
(a) Dune 4.0 (2006-07): Dune 4.0 (figure 01) by Daan Roosegaarde, an
interactive landscape that changes its appearance based on human presence.
(b) UVA (2006-07) (figure 02): In this LED grid of 46 columns, each plays
its own piece of music, the notes generate changing colours in real time
according to human presence.

Figure 01. Dune 4.0 Figure 02. UVA, volume

(Source: http://www.studioroosegaarde.nl/ (Source: http://www.polaine.com/
work_html.php?id=3: May 2008) bauhaus/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/
volume17.jpg: May 2008)

(c) Mirrorscape (2003): Enabling remote participants to look into each

other’s eyes, the work has a screen and mini camera at its centre. This setup is
repeated in a second installation, so people who look into the mirror can
communicate with each other (Bullivant, 2007).
(d) Antenna Design (2004): Based on a ‘hub’ and ‘spokes’ system that
visually embodies the notion of a tree-like gathering place. The information
system is an open platform with an interactive map allowing for community
participation, with an LED column serving as a public announcement screen
(Bullivant, 2007).
(e) Hole in the Earth (2004): Hole in the Earth linked the Netherlands, with
Indonesia by creating a video ‘hole’ in the planet through which people could
see and hear each other in real time (Bullivant, 2007).
(f) Tactical Sound Garden Toolkit (2006): Open source software platform
to cultivate public “sound gardens” in contemporary cities (Bullivant, 2007).
(g). RemoteHome (2003): Two spaces in London and Berlin were designed
with matching elements, to relay tactile, evocative communication between
the two via furniture and wall surfaces (Bullivant, 2005).
 INTERACTIVE SPACE: SEARCHING FOR A DUAL... 673

(h) Meta L Hyttan (2002): By re-animating the steel industry hall using
site-specific interactive media the historic blast furnaces in Avesta is being
transformed into an interactive environment for visitors to learn and experience
history, science and art (Bullivant, 2006).
(i) EnterActive Carpet (2006): A luminous field of red LED lights embedded
into the entry walkway at the Met Lofts apartment building, Los Angeles;
responds to the moves of visitors. When triggered, the impact is mirrored on
an eight-story grid of LED panels on the building facade.
(j). The KidsROOM (1996): A fully automated and interactive narrative
play-space for children developed at the MIT Media Laboratory.

Figure 03. The KidsROOM Figure 04. The Intelligent Stage

(Source: http://www.research.ibm.com/ (Source: http://people.brunel.ac.uk/
people/p/pinhanez/cp_medialab.htm: dap/dai.html: May 2008)
June 2008)

(k) Blur Building (2002): This project by Diller and Scofidio is an

architecture of atmosphere. Water is pumped from the lake, filtered, and shot
as a fine mist through 31,500 high-pressure mist nozzles. A smart weather
system reads shifting climactic conditions of temperature, humidity, wind speed
and direction, and regulates water pressure.
(l) The intelligent stage: Dance and the digitally mediated environment are
combined to explore new means of communicating immaterial concepts through
audiovisual displays (figure 04).
(m) BlogWall: Extends the short message service (SMS) to a new level of
self-expression and public communication by combining art and poetry.
(n) Age Invaders: A novel social physical game which allows the elderly to
play harmoniously together with their grandchildren in physical space, while
parents can participate in the game play in real time through the internet from
their workplace.
674 H. RAHAMAN, B. K. TAN

Figure 05. BlogWall Figure 06. Age Invaders

(Source: http://www.mixedreality. (Source: http://www.mixedreality.
nus.edu.sg: May 2008) nus.edu.sg: May 2008)

(o) The AmbientROOM (1996): A Tangible Bits platform which explores

the use of ambient media as a means of communicating information at the
periphery of human perception (Wisneski and Ishii, 1998).
(p) The Saltwater/Freshwater Pavilion (1994-97): Conceived by NOX, it
joins together physical and digital spaces to create a topological space of
emergence, liquid architecture. The central idea of the projects was to establish
an interaction with the users as though the building was alive.

2.1. DEFINING TYPOLOGIES

Figure 07. Typologies found from the cases.

Our study shows that attempts at making interactive architectural space by

 INTERACTIVE SPACE: SEARCHING FOR A DUAL... 675

means of integrating digital media/installation can be categorized into certain

typology (figure 07). We propose two basic typologies: Type A: Whole space
interacts with users and responses; Type B: Partial space/art installation that
interacts with users situated in architectural space.
Again from the point of interaction with user; the second category (type B)
may also have three sub-categories: Partial space/art installation that interacts
with individual user within or around the space (B1); Partial space/art
installation that interacts (synchronous or asynchronous) with different user in
different physical location and enables the different users to interact with each
other in real-time (B2); Partial space/art installation that interacts with users
located in both physical and virtual space (in virtual community) and enables
the different users in different spaces to interact with each other (B3). This is
explained in the above diagram.

2.2. COMMON DESIGN ATTRIBUTES FOUND

The need to connect architecture and interaction design comes from overlapping
subject matters and escalating social consequences. The path toward this
connection involves a shift from foreground object to background experiences
– thus developing embodied interaction through creation, manipulation and
sharing meanings. Although, Dourish (2001, p9) has defined three components
- participation, task accomplishing and practical action as the basis of an
embodied environment, we have also identified some other attributes from the
cases (explained in Table 1).
(a) Participative/ Agency: ‘Agency’ refers to the degree of which we are
able to interact in a meaningful way with our environment. Thus the more
meaningful the interactions and the more involvement within a context, the
higher the interactivity is. All cases are found to have some inherent
characteristics of participative manner depended upon user agency. However,
high interactivity does not always mean a higher proportion of meaningful
interactions; rather the criterion for successful interactivity is depended upon
the level of desire by which the individual wishes to interact.
(b) Task accomplishing: Although most cases are not task based, some
environments like KidsRoom, Meta L. Hyttan and Age Invaders are designed
with built-in objective of task accomplishing narrative. User gets new
experiences while accomplishing certain task and advance to new level.
(c) Practical Action: Engagement with such interactive environment must
pose some practical action to have meaningful real-time interaction.
Environment creates embodied interaction by creating, manipulating and
sharing-meaning through engaged interaction with artefacts. All case studies
676 H. RAHAMAN, B. K. TAN

TABLE 1. Common attributes/design strategies used in different case projects.

have practical action based on user response either in an implicit or explicit

manner. It seems that user finds meaningful experience and enlivens sate of
awareness through practical action.
(d) Desired context: Context is a major issue in designing interactive
environment. Context provides the basis of interactivity. Like in KidsRoom,
elements of a child’s room are included within the augmented reality as agents,
in Blur building within the misty environment users interact in a different way
by tracking the colour of the coat. In addition context also determines the degree
of interactivity which is desirable.
(e) New Experience: New experience makes people more interested about
the environment, enrich engagement and interaction. New experience provokes
delight and highlighted states of awareness too. However, delight is dependent
on the creativity that is injected within the experience. Like KidsRoom or
Interactive stage, users experience a mediated non-physical immersion that is
quite different from the daily life or daily experience. Sometimes, even when
old technology (video conferencing) is presented in a new way (e.g. ‘Hole in
the earth’), there is the same objective of assuring new experience.
 INTERACTIVE SPACE: SEARCHING FOR A DUAL... 677

(f) Embodied Learning: Interactive design affirms the need for embodiment.
Study shows that, some cases like Meta L Hyttan, Intelligent stage, KidsRoom
etc. are designed intentionally for embodied learning to take place – especially
where experiences are based on accomplishing a task. However, most of the
cases are developed for pleasure or excitement rather than task-based learning.
(g) Transformative Space/Element: The case studies show that for new
experience through agency, transformation is essential. Transformation can
take place through/within form, space, shape, colour, sound or even motion.
Examples like Dune 4.0, UVA volume, Enteractive carpets etc all are designed
to respond user’s movement through transformative elements.
(h) Visual Identity: Visual identity is mainly understood in terms of cognition.
As computing becomes pervasive, the identity of either user or systems goes
beyond the appearance of screens. New forms of ambient, haptic and multiuser
interfaces promote a shift from objects to experiences. Most of the projects are
designed for universal user and instead of emphasizing the visual identity of
an object – importance was given to the process of identifying with an
experience. Meta L Hyttan is designed in such way to give user an environment
to learn and experience - history, science and art through exploring the space.
Remote home on the other hand provide a communicative mediated environment
through interactive furniture, wall surface etc for different users located in
different space.
(i) Interface: Interface is the most important part for bridging the user with
the environment. Interactive environments are found to be smart and
reconfigurable. The design of such smart systems in interactive environments
is likely to be event driven, motion sensitive, decentralized and senses the
activity. Like Dune 4.0, UVA, Interactive stage, Ambient Room, Enteractive
carpet, Water pavilion, etc are all embedded with hidden sensors to provide
uninterrupted interaction with users.
(j) Shared experience: Interactive technologies can be both private and social.
In the public sphere, interactive technologies can serve as social capital to
energize the urban scene through the creation of shared meanings and
representations e.g. Blog wall or Tactical sound garden is built within this
concept of shared common interest. As in Antenna design, interactive
environments can create meaningful dialogues within the urban context by
creating situations that can serve as meaningful places for socialization.

3. Conclusion

As interactive space in architecture is a relatively new area with little literature

on framework and classification, this paper attempts to categorise interactive
678 H. RAHAMAN, B. K. TAN

space by reviewing case studies and identifying some common design attributes.
We did not find any set of attributes associated with a particular typology;
common design attributes are not exhaustive. More research with a larger sample
size of case studies is required to see if certain design attributes are essential
for each typology. We hope this paper has contributed to understanding
interactive spaces and offers designers a palette of design attributes to inspire
them when designing interactive spaces.

References

Bullivant, L..: 2007, 4dsocial: interactive design environments. London: Wiley.

Bullivant, L..: 2006, Responsive environments: architecture, art and design. London: Victoria
and Albert Museum.
Bullivant, L..: 2005, 4dspace: interactive architecture. Chichester, England: Wiley-Academy.
Day, C.: 2004, Places of the Soul: Architecture and Environmental Design as a Healing Art.
Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.
Dourish, P..: 2001, Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Grusser, S., Thalemann, R. & Griffiths, M.: 2006, Excessive Computer Game Playing: Evidence
for Addiction and Aggression? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(1),pp 290-292.
Jones, M. 2006.: Shutting Themselves In. The New York Times Magazine. New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/magazine/15japanese.html?ei=5090&en=7a1fdac
3eb790b32&ex=1294981200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all: Feb 2009
McCullough, M.: 2004, Digital ground: architecture, pervasive computing, and environmental
knowing. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Tuan, Y.: 1977, Space and place: the perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Wisneski, C., H. Ishii, A. Dahley, M. Gorbet, S. Brave, B. Ullmer and P. Yarin.: 1998, “Ambient
Displays: Turning Architectural Space into an Interface between People and Digital
Information.” Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Cooperative Buildings,
Integrating Information, Organization, and Architecture, pp. 22-32.
Dune 4.0: http://www.studioroosegaarde.nl/work_html.php?id=3: May 2008
UVA, volume: http://www.polaine.com/bauhaus/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/volume17.jpg:
May 2008
EnterActive Carpet: http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2006/08/-also-by-
electr.php: May 2008
The KidsROOM: http://www.research.ibm.com/people/p/pinhanez/cp_medialab.htm: June 2008
Blur Building: http://www.dillerscofidio.com/blur.html: May 2008
The Intelligent Stage: http://people.brunel.ac.uk/dap/dai.html: May 2008
BlogWall: http://www.mixedreality.nus.edu.sg: May 2008
Age Invaders: http://www.mixedreality.nus.edu.sg: May 2008
The Freshwater Pavilion: http://www.classic.archined.nl/news/9701/h2o_expo_eng.html
http://www.cybersickness.org/what_is_sickness.asp: Feb 2009