2006.05.04
faces!
understanding what we read into the face
how does one consider it in interface design?
long term cues, fairly immutable: skin condition, hair loss
long term, more immutable + deliberate: haircut, lines of facial expression
short term (facial expression)
decoration: hair, makeup, glasses
in-borne feature vs. deliberate feature
metaphorical generalizations not really grounded in anything
cues are superset: anything you use to read any hidden qualities
signals are intentional or evolved (meant to communicate)
evidence, unintentional cues: not meant as communication but can read into
ex. person looking like an animal -> has nothing to do with their personality
how do you interpret this information?
behaviour associated with this animal
associate look with behaviours
role of it as a cue purely exists in the interpretation process (b/c sender cannot control this at all)
signal that gets generalised as unreliable cue
an infant with baby features - intentional cue so that it's taken care of
an adult with baby features - unintentional cue
--> misinterpretation of a cue
more contextsensitive
ekman:
all signals are beneficial
so all facial expression are meaningfully beneficial
-->
voluntary vs unvoluntary expressions
heart attack: having a face from emotions despite fact that no one is around
do ppl imagine audiences? watching movie w/ friend, alone, told to imagine a friend
process has evolved to be innate - just b/c the moose is alone, he still has antlers.
evolution: parts of brain have mapped to behaviour - make expressions at certain times, i.e. becomes involuntary
--> what is intent? evolution? communication? conscious or unconscious?
natural state overlaid with social nuances, social learned behaviour
--> first question, does emotion even exist? or a set of fundamental emotions?
ekman: emotion as a state ("how am i feeling right now")
fridlund: emotion as an interactive sense ("what am i going to do? how am i going to react) --> makes sense that emotion has a signaling component
struggle -- trying not to show ppl too much about yourself
layers of inner feeling plus the cultured coddling of external representations
ekman: why would you be leaking anything? merely a display
fridlund: why a leak? there must a reason.
generally useful to couple the facial expression with communication inner state
not always conscious control
reading faces is a weird thing -- we're not always good at interpreting faces
evolution to take care of babies is pretty important -- treating baby-faced adults as such is just a side effect
'happiness' --> a conflation of many diverse phenomena
involuntary: blushing, crying
evolutionary uses -- to seek help
what's useful about putting physiological / emotion data in communication system?
blushing is easier to effect on some people
affective chat circles - display people's arousal state thru intensity
- online, has a remote aspect, what is arousal triggered by? online or off?
- colour change fabric, wouldnt add much to a face-to-face interaction
- redundant + inefficient + contradictory (is this desirable or ethical? like a lie-detector)
- facial expression is very complex and we're good at reading them, evolved
- skin response isnt a signal
- deep privacy issues -- sharing these originally hidden things about yourself
galvanic skin response isnt developed to be shared, but we have it
plausible case: evolved communication through tactile -- silent handholding in the forest
GSR -- who do i show this to? can i turn it off?
having awareness of gaze, attention --> problems with not being in shared space
response: interacting w ppl in a graphical space in representative + informative
how can we take these involuntary cues to create a more interesting environment rather than merely supplementing faces?
this 'other' space for the outputs? want to make sense out of the data - interpretation
logitech thing - separating rough facial expression from identity
these work better for videoconferencing than regular video because we read too much into real faces -- reduction to basic expressions can convey enough communication.
looking at people in public
in the T --> very awkward, want privacy in a very public place
gaze, activity
neutral face
deep cultural level - uncomfortable to stare at someone, to read something about them - privacy of our face
the subway is a very tension-rich place, close quarters
--> eye contact opens up connection w other people
sense of intensity of relationship in phyiscal proximity
-- any possible incorporation of this into a mediated interface + space?
face-to-face is efffortful, have to focus
want reaction without making interface as demanding as actual presence
lightweight medium - balance of meaning and cost
understanding what we read into the face
how does one consider it in interface design?
long term cues, fairly immutable: skin condition, hair loss
long term, more immutable + deliberate: haircut, lines of facial expression
short term (facial expression)
decoration: hair, makeup, glasses
in-borne feature vs. deliberate feature
metaphorical generalizations not really grounded in anything
cues are superset: anything you use to read any hidden qualities
signals are intentional or evolved (meant to communicate)
evidence, unintentional cues: not meant as communication but can read into
ex. person looking like an animal -> has nothing to do with their personality
how do you interpret this information?
behaviour associated with this animal
associate look with behaviours
role of it as a cue purely exists in the interpretation process (b/c sender cannot control this at all)
signal that gets generalised as unreliable cue
an infant with baby features - intentional cue so that it's taken care of
an adult with baby features - unintentional cue
--> misinterpretation of a cue
more contextsensitive
ekman:
all signals are beneficial
so all facial expression are meaningfully beneficial
-->
voluntary vs unvoluntary expressions
heart attack: having a face from emotions despite fact that no one is around
do ppl imagine audiences? watching movie w/ friend, alone, told to imagine a friend
process has evolved to be innate - just b/c the moose is alone, he still has antlers.
evolution: parts of brain have mapped to behaviour - make expressions at certain times, i.e. becomes involuntary
--> what is intent? evolution? communication? conscious or unconscious?
natural state overlaid with social nuances, social learned behaviour
--> first question, does emotion even exist? or a set of fundamental emotions?
ekman: emotion as a state ("how am i feeling right now")
fridlund: emotion as an interactive sense ("what am i going to do? how am i going to react) --> makes sense that emotion has a signaling component
struggle -- trying not to show ppl too much about yourself
layers of inner feeling plus the cultured coddling of external representations
ekman: why would you be leaking anything? merely a display
fridlund: why a leak? there must a reason.
generally useful to couple the facial expression with communication inner state
not always conscious control
reading faces is a weird thing -- we're not always good at interpreting faces
evolution to take care of babies is pretty important -- treating baby-faced adults as such is just a side effect
'happiness' --> a conflation of many diverse phenomena
involuntary: blushing, crying
evolutionary uses -- to seek help
what's useful about putting physiological / emotion data in communication system?
blushing is easier to effect on some people
affective chat circles - display people's arousal state thru intensity
- online, has a remote aspect, what is arousal triggered by? online or off?
- colour change fabric, wouldnt add much to a face-to-face interaction
- redundant + inefficient + contradictory (is this desirable or ethical? like a lie-detector)
- facial expression is very complex and we're good at reading them, evolved
- skin response isnt a signal
- deep privacy issues -- sharing these originally hidden things about yourself
galvanic skin response isnt developed to be shared, but we have it
plausible case: evolved communication through tactile -- silent handholding in the forest
GSR -- who do i show this to? can i turn it off?
having awareness of gaze, attention --> problems with not being in shared space
response: interacting w ppl in a graphical space in representative + informative
how can we take these involuntary cues to create a more interesting environment rather than merely supplementing faces?
this 'other' space for the outputs? want to make sense out of the data - interpretation
logitech thing - separating rough facial expression from identity
these work better for videoconferencing than regular video because we read too much into real faces -- reduction to basic expressions can convey enough communication.
looking at people in public
in the T --> very awkward, want privacy in a very public place
gaze, activity
neutral face
deep cultural level - uncomfortable to stare at someone, to read something about them - privacy of our face
the subway is a very tension-rich place, close quarters
--> eye contact opens up connection w other people
sense of intensity of relationship in phyiscal proximity
-- any possible incorporation of this into a mediated interface + space?
face-to-face is efffortful, have to focus
want reaction without making interface as demanding as actual presence
lightweight medium - balance of meaning and cost
posted by christine at 10:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home