4.6 Article

The more-than-human turn in human-plant interaction design: From utilitarian object to living co-inhabitant

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103128

关键词

Human-computer interaction; Human-plant interaction; Interaction design; Plants; Nature; More-than-human; Posthumanism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper examines the role and impact of plants in interaction design through both theoretical and meta-analysis approaches. The findings indicate that plants are used as proxies for nature, triggers for human experiences, and interfaces for other actions. This research contributes to the understanding of the ethical and societal implications of using plants in technologically mediated environments.
Plants and specifically indoor pot plants have featured as a prominent object in human-computer interaction (HCI) studies for more than two decades. Motivated by recent discourse in posthumanist and entanglement HCI, this paper seeks to contribute to the more-than-human turn in interaction design. It uses a twofold approach. We first engage in theoretically grounded inductive reasoning to postulate that the role and agency of plants in interaction design projects ought to change. This is backed up with a deductive approach based on a critical metaanalysis using a methodical review of human-plant interaction studies. The analysis identified a range of characteristics that we discuss in relation to study motives and outcomes. Our findings suggest that so far, plants-asobjects in interaction design are used as (i) a proxy for nature; (ii) a trigger for human experiences or; (iii) an interface for other actions. Our synthesis combining theory and meta-analysis contributes to ongoing design discourse on the ethical and societal implications of using plants in technologically mediated environments. We offer reflective remarks on how HCI can re-conceptualise plants from utilitarian objects towards recognising their value as living co-inhabitants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据