have a seat draft

8/2/2019 Have a Seat Draft

1/10

Proxemics in Public Space: Media Technology Projects

Mika Igarashi, Michiel Stade andSylvain Vriens

Leiden Institute for Advanced Computer Science,Leiden University, the Netherlands

Abstract

This paper presents anoverview of the treatment ofthe concept of private and public spaces in designand media technology projects with a particularattention to proxemics. i.e. the social behaviouralspacing between individuals.

Keywords

Public space, private space, privacy, personal space,territorial behaviour, social behaviour, mediatechnology, design, interpersonal relationship

Introduction

We define Public Space as consisting out of manyprivate spaces. How does our private spacesdynamically change in public space? How does oneprotect one s own private space or invade other sprivate spaces, as embedded in our social behavior

in public space? Need for physical privacy andprivate space is inherent to all human beings. Thisneed is rooted deeply in our daily social behaviour.Science has considered the need in the design ofspaces and technological projects have investigatedthe concepts in various fields.The paper firstly investigates the philosophical andpsychological notions of privacy. Secondly, itdiscusses the functionality of privacy particu larlyrelevant to social behaviour in public spaces,namely, personal space and territorial behaviour.Thirdly, it introduces how these concepts have beenincorporated into the design of public spaces.Fourthly, it surveys how this idea has been explored

in the field of media technology. Finally, it details

the background concept of Have-A-Seat mediatechnology project.

1. Privacy

Privacy is an interpersonal boundary-controlmechanism that regulates interaction. It is anoptimizing process that seeks the desired degree of

interpersonal distance sought at the particularmoment in time. This is done by balancing between1) desired privacy: how much contact is desired atthe moment in time with the specific other, and 2)achieved privacy: the actual degree of privacyobtained at the time. Thus, privacy has bothattracting and distancing forces. The state ofimbalance between these two results in an intrusionof privacy or isolation. Optimal degree of privacyconstantly shifts depending on the flow of inputfrom and output to others. Privacy is based onvarious social units: individuals, families, social

groups etc. Privacy goals are obtained through abehavioural mechanism that consists out of1:

1) verbal and para-verbal behaviour: contentand style of verbal interaction

2) personal space: area surroundingindividuals and groups defined by anglesand distances to others

3) territory: use and ownership of areas andobjects

4) cultural mechanisms: norms of behaviourregulating the contacts of the members withothers

Above behaviours operate as a unified system thatmutually amplify, substitute and complement.

Julius Fast describes an incident that vividlyillustrates the privacy mechanism and reaction to athreat to one's territory and personal space of anindividual. Fast and his friend were at a tablehaving lunch, seated opposite to each other at atable for two. His friend took several steps inencroaching Fast s territ ory and personal space inthis setting, from which Fast felt a strangeuneasiness but could not tell what it exactly was.His friend first laid a cigarette packet just in front ofFast while continuing to talk. Fast found himselfuncomfortable, but was unable to define thefeeling. Then, his friend pushed his plate towardFast, which increased the uneasiness. When thefriend leant towards Fast over the table, Fast couldnot help interrupting the conversation out ofanxiety. His friend then explained how he haddemonstrated a basic fact of body language: Theyhave divided the table into two on the basis ofestablished convention; one half for Fast and the

other for the friend. This imagined territory shouldbe respected and the other's half should not beintruded. By putting cigarette packet deliberatelyinto the Fast s half, the friend broke the agreement.As the friend pushed his plate and leaned towardsFast, having his personal territory encroachedcausedFast uneasiness.2

In a public setting, personal space can be observedwhen people are standing in line: they do not stand

directly next to one another, but with somedistance between each other. When they stand tooclose to each other, it engenders uneasiness. Theexact distance varies depending on several factorssuch as cultural norms.Studies of the specific space requirements of peopleand the optimal distance in certain particu larcommunicative circumstances have become a newscience, called Proxemics. Purpose of proxemics isto maintain social order by regulating humaninteraction.


2/10

2. Interpersonal spacing in public space

For social behaviour in public spaces, which is aspontaneous interaction that takes place betweenstrangers, the personal space and territorialbehaviour are particularly relevant, cultural normsplaying a major role in setting parameters of thetwo. The size of personal space and characteristics

of territoriesare determined by various factors.

2.1. Personal Space3

Personal space was first researched by Hediger whodiscovered that animals maintain a remarkablyconstant distance between one another. 4 Personalspace is a dynamic, active process of movingtoward and away from others, to make oneselfmore or less accessible to others. Hall observedinterplay of personal distance: spacing that animalskeep from each other, and social distance: apsychological distance beyond which animals feeluncomfortable due to need to be in contact withothers. Hence, personal space behaviour involves

withdrawal and protective reactions to intrusion oroverly close contact by strangers, and a desire tobe close to liked others: attracting and retractingforces. Personal space is defin ed as: an area wit han invisible boundary surrounding the person sbody into which intruders may not come. 5

FactorsinPersonal Space

Personal space is influenced by multiple factors:interpersonal relationship, personality, culturalnorms, age, gender, and situational elementsamong others.

1) Interpersonal Relationship

Hall has described the most important facts aboutthe personal space between people. 6 Hedifferentiates between four distance zones: intimate,personal, social and public speaking distances

depending on the interpersonal relationshipbetween the subject and the other.

Figure 1: Proximetry zones for those who do not knoweach other well

2) PersonalityThe distances between different interpersonal

relationships and personalities are described byRuhleder.7 Anxiety is an important factor that playsa role in the spacing of personal space. Individualswith high anxiety level, typically introverted, take agreater distance between themselves and others. Ithas been indicated that personality disorderinfluences personal spacing; abnormal personalitiesresulting in abnormal personal spacing.

Figure 2:Distances in the 4 proximetry zones

3)Cultural normsThe size of desired personal space is culturaldependent. It is generally agreed that North

Americans needs wider personal space than NorthEuropeans, North Europeans need more than SouthEuropeans, and South Europeans need more thanArabic population.

4) AgeRegulation of personal space is learned anddeveloped only through social interaction, alongwith other social skills and norms. Therefore, youngchildren are unable to take regular distance, attimes being too close or further away from others.

-More

introvertedperson

More

extrovertedperson

Stranger

Intimatedistance

0,40 m -1,50 m

0,30 m0,50 m

up to0,50 m

Personal

distance1,50 m -2,00 m

0,40 m1,50 m

0,50 m -1,50 m

Social/business

distance2,00 m -4,00 m

1,50 m3,00 m

1,50 m -3,00 m

Public speakingdistance

from4,00 m

from3,00 m

from3,00 m


3/10

5)GenderIt is anecdotally believed that gender influences thesize of personal space. For example, females tendto take less personal space from each other thanmen. However, the findings of researches are notsufficiently consistent.

6)Situational factorsIt has been observed that the size of personalspace varies depending on the action the involvedindividuals are taking and the environment (inputand output dependent). For instance, the desiredpersonal space is wider when two individuals areengaging in a conversation than when they aresimply seated next to each other. Also, in case ofcommon danger or emergency, the size of personalspace shrinks dramatically.8

7)Number of individuals involved in the interactionThe number of individuals increases the desiredpersonal space. For instance, when a doctor and apatient are engaged in a conversation, optimalconversation distance is between 90 and 150 cm ,falling into personal distance. When the discussioninvolves several people, business distance of 2 and3 meters is more optimal.

2.2. Territory

The concept of territory originated in thesociological studies of urban life, beginning in the1920s. 9 The notion of territory is present in ourdaily life both in language (e.g. my place, my turf,

keep out) and in behaviour, as described earlier inFast s experience. When a territory is encroached, it

gives rise to uneasiness, threat and aggression.Transgression through a territory is permitted onlywhen it does not signify invasion, and when it isdone in an obviously submissive manner. In humansociety, territorial ownership extends to variousentities including streets, houses, objects, ideas andother individuals. The process of the personalization

of these entities involves management of mentally

drawn boundaries. Territor y in public space wher eland ownership does not involve predeterminedsuperior or inferior relationship (except in case ofbeing in a larger group territory, e.g. white man

walking on the street of a black neighbourhood).The first passenger of a public bus does not claim alarger territorial space than the second passenger,but the space tends to be divided equally between

individuals. This equal division of territory is alsodescribed in the example of Fast.

Categorization of Territory

Territorialization can be influenced by: 1) kind ofmotives, purpose and action taken, e.g. sitting orsleeping, 2) geographical characteristics, e.g.location and size, 3) temporal duration of territorialpossession, 4) behaviours that mark territories andaction taken against encroachment.

There are three kinds of territories particularlyvarying in the degree of permanency of ownershipand degree of control occupants have over the useof a place: primary, secondaryand public territories.

1) Primary territoryPrimary territories are owned on a relativelypermanent basis and used exclusively by certain

individuals or groups, being marked clearly as theirpossession, e.g. home.10

2) Secondary territoryThere are two types of secondary territories, calledhome and interactional. 11 Home type refers tospaces that the regular user claims an ownership,e.g. specific seating in a local bar for a regularcustomer. Interactional type can be classified alsoas a group personal space, regulating the use ofarea by community members, for example, streetsin an Italian neighbourhood used primarily andregularly by Italian residents.

3) Public territoryPublic territories have a temporary quality, freeaccess and occupancy rights to almost anyone.There are two types of public territories:

a) Occupancy by society, e.g. streets and parkswhere individuals have no restriction in access yetare expected to respect social rules.

b) Free occupancy e.g. isolated beach that is opento almost any use for a limited amount of time.

Lyman and Scott speak of public territory asallowing freedom of access but not necessarily ofaction. It is open to all, yet certain expectations ofappropriate behaviour limits the freedom, oftenrestricted by local social norms and regulation. Forexample, individuals are allowed to seat freely onbenches in public parks, however, are not generallyallowed to sleep there overnight. The characteristicof public territory is that it does not usually involve

ownership or possession, and is controlled only bythe right of access for a brief period of time and fora particular purpose.Goffman describes a variety of public territories:12

i) Stall: a public space for which a temporaryownership can be claimed, that disappearswhen they leave the place for more than ashort amount of time, e.g. tables in

restaurants, tennis courts.ii) Turn: a place in line e.g. at ticket counter.Turn is a claim to an order of use of aresource, is open to anyone, has temporarynature and must follow certain rules.

iii) Use space: an area around an individual ora group that is recognized as being in use,e.g. line of vision in an art gallery.

iv) Possessional territories: objects identifiedas belonging to an individual, e.g. clothingand eating utensils.


4/10

Public territories are generally more fragile thanprimary and secondary territories, being heavily

dependent on institutional norms and culturalcustoms rather than preferences of individual users.The territorial behaviour that takes place in publicspace is regulated mostly by public territorial rules.

3. Proxemics in public space design

The function of proxemics is to maintain socialorder. Lack of consideration of proxemics inenvironmental design leads to discomfort, conflictand even to a high crime rate in extreme cases.Environmental designers have been intuitivelysensitive to personal space mechanisms in furnituredesign, layouts of office and living-room areasamong others. For instance, office desks and chairsusually place people about 4 feet from one another,with in Hall s social distance zone, deemed to be anappropriate distance for strangers in a publicenvironment. Another example is at doctors offices,where the doctor and patients converse in thedistance of 90 and 150 cm, a personal distance

between strangers.Primary territories such as a home are markedclearly as owned by means of placing name tags orbuilding fences around it. However, secondary andpublic territorialization is more problematic thanprimary territory, lacking in clear indication of

territory ownership. In his investigation of highcrime rate neighbourhoods, Newman observed thatone of the key problems was the design of thesemi-public areas, e.g. hallways, entranceways tothe buildings and immediate street areas.13 In theseneighbourhoods, these places were not easilypersonalized or territorialized, thus not placedunder the surveillance or control of the residents.These places became non-defensible territories andthus vulnerable to crime. Car vandalism studyindicates similar findings; vandalism occurs morefrequently near unterritorialized areas, e.g.abandoned houses, vacant lots or railroads.14 Lackof surveillance, territorial control and evidence of

territorial ownership in the design of public spaceinfluences the social behaviour of the users.Solution to such problem would be to convert suchpublic areas into clear secondary territories byarchitectural design techniques using symbolic

territorial markers.Public space design plays a crucial role in defendingthe proxem ics order. It indicates the size ofpersonal space and public territory allowed per

person, creating a general rule for the use of t hepublic space based on human proxemics needs.Phone booths in public space tend to have walls ortake a form of closed boxes in order to keep thepersonal space and protect the territory over theconversed content.The figures below show how public territor ies forindividuals are indicated on public seating facilitiesby the spacing between seats and installation ofarm rests that separates seats in station benches,and by the use of consecutive seats consisting out

of many single chairs of an individual size in trainsand movie theatres, instead of one longbench.

Figure 3: Spacing between seats indicates the personaldistance

Figure 4:Arm rest dividing one bench into two territories

Figure 5: Movie theatre seating consisting out of multiple

single chairs

Due to the fragility of public territory and itsdependency on social and cultural norms, theprotection of public territory is strongly influencedby the space design more than primary andsecondary territories. Some phone booths havelittle sound shielding, some walkways get toocrowded, and some tables in restaurants are tooclosely located. In these cases, the users can dovery little to avoid invasion of personal space andterritory than to utilise other social behaviour suchas verbal and para-verbal signs, e.g. apologize forbeing too close, or to intentionally look away. Thus,the awareness of human proxemics needs in thedesign process of public space is particularlyimportant.

4. Treatm ent of Proxem ics in me dia

technology

The need for privacy has been widely addressed inpolitical and legal realms. In relation to mediatechnology, privacy concerns are heightened in thedesign of communication protocols and networkingsystems in terms of personal information. 15 Thus,

the interrelation between technology and privacyhas been largely in information management.Architecture and interior design has considered thebasic human needs for privacy and personalspace,16 however has not incorporated the mediatechnology in the reasoning and solution. There aresome theoretical consideration of privacy andpersonal space in webspace and interface design, as

seen in researches in digital collaborativeworkspace design 17 and digital environmentaldesign.18 There are a number of projects that dealwith the attracting force of the privacy mechanism,


5/10

i.e. bringing distant people together. However,there seem to be much less projects treating thedistancing, retracting forces of interpersonalrelationship. In particular, technologicalundertakings that assert the need for physicalinterpersonal spaceappear to be scarce.

Below presents an overview of existing media

technology projects investigating the issue ofinterpersonal distance with a particular attention tothe notion of space. The projects can be largelygrouped into two categories: HumanConnectedness: bringing individuals closer, andHuman Disconnectedness: giving more distancebetween individuals or individuals and machines.

4.1.Human Connectedness

Human connectedness projects that primarily dealswith space can be categorized into two:Connecting spacesandExchanging territories.

1)Connecting Spaces

Passage19

Passage concerns the notion of personal space, andbrings strangers that are usually at a social distanceor further to an intimate distance. It is a mediaspace that interfaces individuals in different cities.The interface is designed so that the strangers atseparate locations interact with each other veryclosely, almost touching each others silhouett es onthe interaction surface. This poses an extremelyclose proximity with a complete stranger,engendering surprise, intimacy and possiblyuneasiness. Proxemics holds that the optimaldistance between strangers to be three meters ormore, 1.5 meters even in conversational situation.In Passage, complete strangers are invited tocommunicate very closely to each other, almosttouching one another. This breaks the law ofproxemics, arousing unusual sense of closeness anddiscomfort. However, the actual stranger is not in

the user s int imat e space, but in another city . Thiscreates an ambivalence of connectedness anddisconnectedness that is unique to this project, notpossible to experience in everyday life.

Figure 6: Passage

iCom20

iCom connects personal spaces and blurrs theboundary of territories by seamlessly linking spaces.It is a multipoint, surrounding interface thatconnects two distant locations in a non- breakingmanner. By constantly connecting separate spaces,it creates a sense of social connectedness amongthe users. This project deals with extension of the

part icipants personal spaces to one another. Byembedding the connection point to the surroundingin a immersive manner, the perticipants sharedifferent levels of personal spaces with each other,creat ing a feeling of connect edness pleasant orunpleasant, depending on the terms of relationshipamong the users and the closeness of the point ofcamera interface.

Figure 7: iCom

2) Exchanging territories

There are projects that connect individuals byexchanging psychological territories, e.g. TradingPlaces, and physical territories, such as Peek-A-Drawerand Habitat.

Trading Places21

Trading Places deals with psychological territory:personal memories and ideas as considered to bepossessed by individuals, which can be extremelyprivate. This project enables people to exchangetheir memories, feelings and experience of places.Trading Places is a website acting as a travel agent,where users are encouraged to report theirexperiences of another city in Amsterdam. Forexample, on a rainy day, if you go to thisMacDonald s on th is street and sit on th is seat nearthe window and look out to the street, it feels likeyou are in Boston . Other users can request to goon a virtual trip to Boston, and goes to the specifiedMacDonald s provided that it is raining at thatmoment. This sense of another space is based on

the resistor s experience, lived by another user thatacts as a traveller. They share a space in theirmemory, orthe experience of the space. Thisexperience of space is an enotional and conceptualterritory of the resistor, shared and experienced bythe traveller. In this manner, it can be said that thisproject enables psychological (metaphysical)territoriesto be shared between individuals.


6/10

Peek-A-Drawer

Peek-A-Drawer enables two individuals to share and

exchange their primary and possessional territories.It gives a sense of connected and communicationby exchanging the spaces in two drawers ofdifferent locations, and virtually sharing eachother s belongings. An individual can keep hispersonal belongings in a drawer space, of which

image is communicated to the drawer of anotherperson and vice versa, thus exchnaging privateinform ation about each other. The drawer as aprivate spaceis a territory of the owner (spatialterr itor y) , as well as the obj ects kept inside thedrawer (object possessional territory). Byexchanging and sharing each other s ter rit ory, theusers of Peek-A-Drawer extablishes an int imateconnection between one another..22

Figure 8: Peek-A-Drawer

Habitat23

Habitat shows another example of two individualssharing and exchanging their primary territories athome: in this case, their dining tables. Habitat is apiece of furniture that connects geographicallydistant people by connecting their private spaces,

such as a table in their living-rooms. Through this,separated individuals can share their daily routinesand cycles.

Figure 9: Habitat

4.2. Human Disconnectedness

Projects concerning human disconnectedness canbe largely grouped into three:1)Disconnecting humans2)Using the notion of personal space in projectdevelopment3) Project on the theme of personal space

Below, each group are introduced and discussedwith project examples.

1) Disconnecting humans

Projects with the theme of interpersonaldisconnection address the fear of being touched,scrutinized and privacy invasion. No contact Jacket

focuses on physical disconnection, while Please Waitconcerns the informational disconnection: personal

information and cognitive attention.

Please Wait24

This proj ect considers the inside of a person s head,or perception, to be a psychological territory thatneeds to be protected. The head-worn devicedisconnects the external world and the user bypreventing all unwanted access. The user cannotsee or hear anything unless the others swipe theirID card in the ID scan machine and have beenapproved to talk to the user. Please Wait wasdeveloped to protect individuals from unwanteddistractions that takes place in capitalized society;

questionnaire about commercial product, filling outforms for customer profiling, sales personcontacting you to sell items. These activities can beseen as privacy invasion and unwantedcommunication that almost inevitably takes place ineveryday life. Through the regulation of the

communication between the individual and theexternal world, Please Wait acts as a privacyprotection mechanism, which proxemics is part of.The important characteristic of Please Wait is that itassumes and provides a strong informationalhuman disconnection as a basis of suchcommunication control.

Figure 10: Please Wait

No Contact Jacket25

No Contact Jacket protects a person s physicalterritory, i.e. his own body. Thus, this project doesnot concern the idea of personal space; nonetheless,it strongly addresses the necessity of humandisconnectedness. When activated, the jacketelectrically stuns those who touch it. It expressesthe fear for unwanted contact and being attacked.This project expresses the securing of physical

privacy based on bodily human disconnection.


7/10

Figure 11: No Contact Jacket

2) Using the notion of personal space in projectdevelopment

There are some projects that consider the need forpersonal space, although they do not deal with theidea as being central to their project concept. Theseprojects tend to utilize the notion of personal spacein interface design.

Head-Tracking for Gestural and Continuous Controlof Parameterized Audio Effects26

This is a synthesizer that employs the concept ofsocial gestural cues and personal space in thedesign of the man-machine interface of a guitarsynchronizer. As one of its several social features,

the system coordinates the distance between theperformer and the camera in order to preventpersonal space intrusions and to ensure the usercomfort. This project attempts to improve man-machine interface by incorporating social rules intomachine s behaviour , respecting the personal spaceof the user being part of it. This is an interestingundertaking when considered in relation to theconcept of Man-Machine relationship that will bementioned later in this paper.

Figure 12: Head-Tracking for Gestural and ContinuousControl of Parameterized Audio Effects

Public Anemone27

Public Anemone is an interactive entertainmentrobot that keeps a personal space between itselfand the audience to properly capture theirmovement. By doing this, it ensures theappropr iate function of inter active inter face whichis a similar process for the personal space forhumans. This raises a question of whether a

machine also requires personal space in a similarmanner to individuals in order to regulate andoptimize the input and output of informationbetween oneself and the external environment.

Figure 13: Public Anemone

3) Projects on the theme of personal space

Projects on the theme of personal space can befurther categorised as asserting for the need and

awareness of personal spaces in Man machinerelationship and Man man (interpersonal)

relationship.

a) Man machine relationshipDesign Noir projects refer to the social aspect ofelectronics, and have the themes of control,personal space and subversion. It addresses therelationship and cultural interaction between manand electronic devices. The invasion of everydayhuman life by technology is addressed in their workfaraday Chair. Fried develops this theme furtherinto the concept of Social Defence Mechanisms thatprotects individuals from unwanted technologicalinterventions in the technology prevalent society.28

She argues that electronic devices increasinglydistract and annoy people and that the electronicsindustry has had little incentive to address theproblem. Her projects concentrate on the protectionof personal space from technologicaldisruptiveness: invasion of personal space byunfamiliar electronics, similar to the physicalintrusion of personal space that takes place ininterpersonal interactions. There are also variationsthat protect metaphysicaland physicalprivacy.

Media-sensitiveGlasses29

The concept of Media-sensitive Glasses resembles

that ofPlease Wait

in the sense that it protects theperceptual and cognitive territory inside a person shead. This is a pair of glasses that darkens the sightwhen a television is in view. By doing this, itprotects the ideational personal space of the userfrom distraction. This project protects thepsychological and cognitive privacy of the wearer,by keeping the personal space inside theindividual s head intact. EyeTap project by SteveMann, a wearable device that autom aticallyreplaces billboard advertisements in sight with


8/10


9/10

5.1. The concept

Have-A-Seat is a seemingly normal sofa that dealswith the behavioural patterns that arise whenpeople in a public space try to create some personalspace around them. When there are two personssitting on the sofa the sofa 'breaks' apart and the

two seats ride away from each other. As soon asone person leaves the sofa the two seats will cometogether and again form a seemingly normal sofa.Have-A-Seat emphasises these behaviours byenlarging the natural reaction of persons when twostrangers sit down next to each other. At the sametime the installation gives the users their desiredpersonal space and so raising awareness of thisunconscious desire of the users.Have-A-Seat project deals with the interactionsbetween strangers in public space for a purpose ofhaving a rest on a seat for a limited amount oftime. This falls into the personal spacing betweenstrangers in a non-conversational situation,typically requiring 18 inches of personal space in

between individuals. The cultural norms employedin the installation is of North-western Europe. Theapplicable concepts of proxemics for this project ispersonal distance between strangers (personalspace) and public territory (territory behaviour,particularly Occupancy by society type and of stall

variation. The sofa is divided equally into two, sincethere is no prioritized ownership of the bench inpublic space: the first user equally divides thebench with the second user, as mentioned earlier asa characteristics of public territorialization.

5.2. Implementation

1) Construction

Have-A-Seat detects the occupancy of the seats bypressure mats installed on top of the each seat, andis operated by a mechanical force when separatingthe two seats in case they are both occupied.

Figure 18: Have-a-Seat const ruction model

It utilizes a drive system that works with a customadapted electromotor and a custom adapted controlbox. The motor features a built- in stop mechanismwhich is connected to the sensory system.

Figure 19: Mechanics of Have-A-Seat

Thetwo sofa consists of wooden frames: one of

them has four wheels attached to it and the otherholds the motor.The sofa is filled with polyetherfoam.

Figure 20: Sofa construction

2) Safety issue

The motor used for Have-A-Seatinstallation is so

powerful that it does not stop when a limb istrapped between the two parts. In order to avoidinjury of the user of the system, a thin woodenpanel is installed between the two sofas. When thewooden panel is lightly pressed, it stops the motorfrom moving the two sofas together. There is also abutton that can be pressed to manually stop themotor movement.

Figure 21: Safety mechanism

6. Discussion

In this paper, we have explored the idea of privacyand public space, and its treatment in the field ofdesign and media technology. We defined privacyas an interpersoal attracting and distancing forcethat ensures comfort and social order. Thus, itsawar eness is crucial in design and in social life.Personal space and territory are particularlyimportant in interpersonal spacing, and itsapplication has been surveyed. From the discussion,it can be concluded that in the area of media


10/10

technology projects, there are projects ofconsidable number and variety dealing with theinformational privacy ( intellectual and personalinformation ) and attracting aspect of distanceoptimization (human connectedness), however,there are relatively few projects in the separatingaspect. The importance of the separating aspect ofhuman distancing can be observed from the

literature review of privacy, personal space andterritory, and thus deserves more consideration.There are a few media technology projects dealingwith the theme of human disconnectedness,

however, most of these few examples concern theMan-machine relationship or metaphysical privacy,

but not the physical private space. In this sense,Have-A-Seat claims a unique position in thediscipline, raising the awareness for the need ofphysical interpersonal distancing in public space.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Jan Grouve, Leo Nugteren andRidder BV for technical and resource support, andMaarten Lamers for advice and his wise words.

1 Altman, Irwin, The Environment and Social Behaviour: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding,TheUniversity of Utah, wadsworth Publishing Company, Monterey, Califonia 19752 Fast, Julius3 Also called Kinesphere.4 Hediger, 19505 Sommer, 1969 p. 266 Hall, E. T., The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Press.19667

Ruhleder, R.H8 For instance, a train delay or crash, or a flood hitting a village.9 Park, Burgess, & MaKenzie, 1925; Thrasher, 1927; Whyte, 1943, Yoblonsky, 192, Zorbaugh, 192910 Brower, 196511 Lyman and Scott, 196712 Goffman, 197113 Newman, 197214 Ley & Cybriwsky, 197415 The protection of private information has been a major concern in the development of ubiquitous

computation, networking and communication protocol. An example of studies dealing with this issue in the fieldof Computer Science is: Designing for Privacy and Other Competing Requirements by Eric Yu and Luiz MarcioCysneiros, 200216 Julie Stewart-Pollack and Rosemary M. Menconi, Designing for Privacy and Related Needs, 200517 Territory-Based Interaction Techniques for Tabletop collaboration by Stacey D. Scott, 200318 Constructing Social Spaces in Virtual Environments: A Study of Navigation and Interaction, by Phillip Jeffreyand Gloria Mark, 1998 and George Robertson, Data Mountain: Using Spatial Memory for DocumentManagement, 1998

19 Stefan Agamanolis, New Technologies for Human Connectedness, ACM interactions, vol. 12, no. 4, July -August 2005, pp. 33 37. Project executed by Jolle Bitton, Cline Coutrix, Stefan Agamanolis, Human

Connectedness research group, 200520Stefan Agamanolis, New Technologies for Human Connectedness, ACM interactions, vol. 12, no. 4, July -August 2005, pp. 33 - 37.21 Marion, Barbara, Anwar, LIACS, Leiden University.22 Beth Mynatt, Human Connectedness23 Dipak Patel, Aoife N Mhrin, Stefan Agamanolis, Human connectedness research group, Media Lab Europe,

200324Mann, s., Excerpt from Prof. Mann's Keynote Address at the Virtual Reality Conference in Rio de Janeiro, June

1- 6, 199825Adam whiton, Yolita Nugent26 David Merrill, MIT Media Lab, Head-Tracking for Gestural and Continuous Control of Parameterized AudioEffects27 By Cynthia Breazeal, Andrew Brooks, Jesse Gray, Matt Hancher, John McBean, Dan Stiehl and Joshua

Stickon, Interactive Theatre, 200328Limor Fried, Social Defense Mechanisms:Tools for Reclaiming our Personal Space, 200529See endnote 28.30Anthony Dunne, 199931 See endnote 28.32 Donne 2001, p. 4533Elizabeth Sylvan

have a seat draft

Documents