Monat: November 2018

What interacts?
I already found situations of interaction on the way to the museum: you need to know what train to take and what the best way to walk towards the museum is. When we arrived at the vita campus, we also had to figure out (with help of the orientation system) in which area we are and which building is the right one of the exhibition.
We arrived a little bit early and talked to the museum staff about our guided tour. When the rest f the group arrived, we were handed out out tickets which we’re stickers, to apply to our clothing. Then the guided Tour started, where we had different interactions within the group with the displayed pieces, but also with the guide who encouraged discussions, explained certain backgrounds and was asking different questions. it ended with a little lecture and time to look around the exhibition and have a closer look to the pieces and the books that were laying out.
Also during lunch I discovered different interactions within the group, but also with the service staff in terms of asking for the current menu, ordering, chatting and paying.

Who interacts?
Because it was a group excursion, of course we interacted within the group, but also with the staff at the museum, especially the guide of out tour and the service staff in the cafe.

What do people mean when they refer to interaction?
I think the common way of referring to interaction is a way of communication between people or objects that require action and reaction.

Can you identify differences?
Maybe there’s a difference between direct and indirect interaction. Direct interaction could be direct conversation, situations that require interaction and make you do something or talk to someone.
Indirect interaction could be something where you can use given information, like for example orientation systems, maps, movies…

Is interaction even a topic If so in what context?
I think it is a big and important social topic, as interaction makes people talk and act & react, which is the base of creating a functional community.

Die Hochschule Luzern bietet am Abend der Wirtschaft eine Austauschplattform zum Thema Digitale Transformation der Arbeitswelt. Bei der Anmeldung wurde ich darauf hingewiesen, dass auf der grossen Nachfrage eine Videoübertragung in einem der Nebenräume stattfinden wird. Beim Aufsuchen dieses Raumes musste ich feststellen, dass dieser unbesetzt ist und es nicht möglich sein wird Interaktionen zu beobachten.  

Im Hauptraum wurde ich empfangen und mit dem Namesschild ausgestattet, welches Name und  Rolle / Firma zeigt. Im Vortragsaal fand ich Platz neben einem der geschalten Herren, im Alter 40+ welche die grosse Mehrheit im Saal ausmachten.

Die Vortragenden wurden von den Organisatoren vor dem Vortrag jeweils kurz vorgestellt und ergriffen in Folge das Wort. Anhand von Powerpointpräsentationen und kurzen Videos stellten Sie Ihre Standpunkte dar. Abhängig vom Vortragenden unterschied sich die Intensität des Einsatzes von Gestik und Mimik, die Konzentration des Blickes auf das Publikum oder die Folien der Präsentation. Während den Präsentationen liess sich beobachten, dass eine klare Trennung der Rollen Redner und Zuhörer gemacht wurde. Abgesehen von ein paar Lachern, war von Seiten des Publikums keine Reaktion zu hören und wurde ebenfalls nicht erfragt. Von Seiten der Vortragenden wurden wohl auf Grund des klaren, geforderten Zeitplanes keine Diskussionen in die Präsentationen integriert. Einzig kurz vor der Pause werden die Teilnehmer aufgefordert mit Hilfe einer App zu einer Stellungsnahme zu gewissen Punkten aufgefordert.

Die Zeit zwischen und nach den Vorträgen stellen für die Teilnehmer die Möglichkeit dar, sich im Dschungel der Teilnehmer mit Blick auf die Namenschilder interessante Gesprächspartner zu finden. Nach dem Besuch des Buffets lässt sich die Bildung sich Gruppen beobachten, welche sich gegenseitig austauschen. 

In den Vorträgen konnte ich die folgenden Aussagen zum Thema Interaktion ausmachen:

Sollen grosse Transformationen in einer Firma anstehen, können diese einfacher erwirkt werden, wenn den Mitarbeiter keine starre Strukturen und Anweisungen gegeben werden.  Um die Transformation erfolgreich zu erwirken empfiehlt sich die Integration der Mitarbeiter in den Prozess und Ihnen genügend Raum zu lassen, damit eine entsprechende Anpassung an die Begebenheiten möglich wird. Interaktion zur Integration.

Das von der HSLU vorgestellte Projekt zeigt auf das Interaktion zwischen verschiedenen Experten die Möglichkeit gibt schneller und effektiver an ein gemeinsames Ziel zu gelangen. Durch Interaktion Wissen gebündelt und geteilt werden kann und dadurch Ressourcen gespart werden können. 

Zusammenfassend konnte ich am Abend der Wirtschaft folgende Aktionen / Interaktionen beobachten.

–       Redner  – Wissen / Erfahrung im Rahmen von Präsentationen à   Zuhörer / Teilnehmer

–       Teilnehmer – Gespräche / Austausch zu in Erfahung gebrachtem / eigene Erfahrung -à Teilnehmner

–       Teilnehmner – APPà  Meinungsabgabe

Autor:Carmen Blättler

My experience at the vitra museum was very interesting, and the experience inspired me, specially knowing that design can go to various fields, and watching his progress and way of thinking, design in various aspects of society and therefore improving what he found was not working or had some design problems, in his context, and his way to approach difficulties, point of view and his way of thinking where the main interesting points for me.

It was my first time there, and the way we walked around the place until finding the exact exposition from Victor papaneck, help me define my first impressions of the surroundings in a curious way, watching the different buildings at the start made me think that what I was perceiving buildings from different times and with different context set together in one extended area, but at the same time the area is that extended between a few buildings, that the relation between them is not that obvious, they where some elements in the exposition that called my attention, the work with materials, nature related, political posters, etc.

The buildings it self are a way for me to interact with different era’s buildings concept, establishing a link between the past and now with the store and place where the new vitra furniture design happens.

The exposition was very interesting for me, because it was remarkably palpable what victor papeneck did while being alive, Reading his busy calendar, his notes and the way those express or shows a hidden face of him, it opens the doors to his brain, his thoughts and how his daily live was.

I would say that’s a way of interacting with him directly his vestiges of what he did, the impact he created, socially, politically, inventing and designing new objects, visuals, books, etc. To guide people, suggest, critique society, defend woman’s rights, and even interior design ideas specifically created for nomads like him.

He was a fantastic designer but also the way the museum shows what he did and with whom he interacted, showing a Wall that communicates so well who was against him, who was with him, who influenced him and etc. Which was somehow an other way of interaction, having the names of the people set on a Wall stablished in us a relation in which the guide explained a bit of their lives ans the more we Heard about the most important ones, we would kind of feel like we where there, relating and understanding the context and his surroundings.

It was very impressive to see how he took examples of nature and represented them in a whole new way, in the second floor we could experiment ans smell the various unique smells from perfumes taking form some real smells that we all know, like the aroma of coffee and wine with others more abstract like “ice” perfume, interacting using our senses, tact (for example with the fabric designed in the second floor), smell, beside the visual and the sound components that are normal ones. That we experiment more often, was honestly unique.

Also watching some artefacts he designed with the purpose of helping disabled kind swimming, critiques about how depending the culture some woman where badly treated, the way he sketched, and made graphic his thoughts was a way for us to understand what was in his mind.

The interaction with the guide, teachers, specially listening to Frascara opinion, and students when talking about some specific objects, the interaction with the space, the way we interacted with the different architectural zones and the way everything is placed inside and out are ways of interaction between the content and the specific place design and  characteristics that go along with the same concept.

The Evening of Economics 2018 was the perfect example for a typical and an atypical Speaker-Listener-Situation. What we saw during the event, was a many different speakers and their different ways of communicating with the audience.

One speaker, for example, had a very open and sociable body language. He specifically tried to build a connection with the listeners by calling himself as one of them. He has done this by often using pronouns like “us” and “our” to make the listeners feel part of the conversation. In this way he didn’t fit in the typical Speaker-Listener-Situation, which we are usually use to from our time at school, where the teacher is the only one talking, and the students have listen without interacting mostly. 

His whole attention was on the listeners and not on any of the technological devices, which were added in the background to the speech to give the audiences more information, even still the speaker had the control of the technological devices, he didn’t use this medium for the communication.  

As opposite of this example there was another speaker during this evening who focused much more on technological devices than on the audience. The reason for this could be that he planned his speech around the projected content on the wall. Even though it felt like that in this way he didn’t create an interaction with the audience.

The use of projectors and other technological devices could be in some cases helpful, like when you are using visual graphics to make a difficult topic simpler and thus easier. But in this way, there is a higher risk that the audience will focus less on the speaker’s spoken content to try to concentrate on trying to understand its visual content. 

In these cases, a greater level balance is needed to keep the audience on the track but unfortunately this was not the case here. This is why in my opinion the latter speech was weaker than the previously mentioned one.

Except for a few exceptions, the absence of interaction was mostly present during the interventions, this is because the level of interaction in a speaker-listener-situation is lower, than in an open discussion. The coffee break was instead used to make deeper contact with the speakers. In this way the whole speaker-listener-situation developed into an interaction at the same eye level. A large number of small groups of three or four participants could be observed. Visitors and speakers used this time for discussion and exchange of contact information.

Compared to the “interaction” during the speeches, the interaction during the coffee break were a typical example of communication within a large number of participants: instead of a single communication group, several smaller communicating groups were formed with a greater lever of interaction. 

The exhibition Victor Papanek – The Politics of Design currently taking place at the Vitra Design Museum in Weil am Rhein focuses on showcasing the inspirations, ideas and works of one of the fiercest critics of Industrial Design. His observations are still relevant today, 20 years after his death, in an age where endless consumerism and a throwaway society encourage people to design unnecessary needs instead of solutions to existing problems.

When entering the exhibition space, one is first introduced to these themes via film segments and an overlying audio narration. In the back of the room a compilation of people who either influenced or critisized Papanek as well as his pupils allows for a first impression of his life’s legacy. The next room then highlights important dates, his ideas and achievements in context with major events such as the Vietnam War and the first World Earth Day. His books are displayed in the middle of the room to invite visitors to browse and read them. After that, product designs and advertising campaigns, either by Papanek himself or influenced by his concepts and ideas, are displayed in cubicles. The last room showcases projects focusing on design solutions for current and future problems, a sum of the legacy of Papanek’s concepts.

Generally, each room is designed to invite the visitor to explore the exhibits at his or her own pace. Since the space in total is rather small, quite a lot of information is crowded as efficiently as possible, leaving it to each person to explore whatever catches their interest. Various media are used to give a full view of Papanek’s life such as film, texts, photographies, illustrations, sketches, audio excerpts and objects. The objects themselves are either only for display, can be picked up and touched, or are installed in the room for a 3D experience.

The exhibition was mostly empty while we enjoyed a guided tour with an overview of why and how the exhibition was put up this way and a short introduction to Papanek’s life. Our guide invited us to discuss his work and explore the exhibition afterwards. His work turned out to be a conversation starter for relating it to current design trends, problems and so forth. Issues such as impacts on the environment, consumerism, sustainable design, design problems and solutions, Do-it-yourself concepts and more were as relevant then as they are now and the parallels to today’s problems become shockingly evident in the exhibition.

The Politics of Design uses depth of information with invitations for interactions to inspire visitors to question the purpose of design in today’s context. A look at the past as well as the future shows that while we have advanced on various issues, there are many still persisting today. While the exhibition mainly focuses on inviting visitors to interact with Papanek’s works and ideas, it serves as a starting point to question where we are today and where to go next.

During the “Abend der Wirtschaft 2018” event, which consisted of a sequence of presentations on the topic from a panel of speakers, I could observe multiple forms of interactions as follows:

– Interaction of the speakers with the audience: through eye contact (some speakers establishing it with the audience, some of them not and just staring into space), body gesture (some speakers using their hands to emphasize their speech, some of them not), dress code (business attire versus business casual dressing, a female speaker wearing very colorful jewelry and accessories, another female speaker dressed in total black), sense of humor (some making funny jokes, some displaying funny video, some being more serious), referral to a specific person in the audience by his first name (“Menschen wie Stefan”), different communication tools (language, screen presentation, videos), different ways of occupying the space (some speakers standing still, some going back and forth, some walking through the whole available space) and through the use of devices (different types of microphones).
– Interaction of the audience with the speakers by clapping hands and laughing.
– Interaction between the attendees during the coffee pause: forming several discussion groups, varying in size, some people queuing to get something to drink/eat, some people going outside to smoke.
– Interaction between the attendee and the artefacts of the venue: use of loudspeakers, use of a projection screen with live zooming/image adjustment, audience installed in chairs with tablets arranged in different levels so that everyone can see the speaker, photographers, a big bunch of flowers in a pot set next to the speaking area, architecture tools on the board, with light …
– Also, a side note here is that the attendance was at least 80% male.

I think interaction is a key topic, at the center of our life in every context. Interaction comes from Latin “inter”, meaning between, and “ago” meaning to do or to act. Any “action between” is considered an interaction. When interaction involves a sequence of actions then it could be seen as a process. When two people or two things interact, the two people or two things affect each other’s behavior or condition, react to each other. Interaction implies a two-way effect. The purposes of interaction are multiple. In my opinion, any form of communication implies interaction. Transmitting or receiving an emotion, a knowledge or even just a simple information require interaction with someone or something. I think to interact is to talk, to look, to communicate, to be with, to create contact, to engage, to share, to shape, to impact to change, to affect. I can’t imagine a single life experience without interaction.

To be further discussed …

Maha

Observations at the Papanek exhibition at the Vitra Design Museum in Weil am Rhein.

I saw different kinds of interaction. There were Installations, texts, pictures, paintings, illustrations, movies and sound. First thing I interacted with were other students and teachers. Then I entered the exhibition space, we get instructions on where to put our backpacks from the staff. Thy also handed out some stickers, which I put on my sweater. The stickers should help them identify who belongs to our group and have paid the entrance fee I guess. The interaction with the staff was limited as they told us to wait for our tour guide. As the tour guide welcomed us, all the attention was on her. Was it? Not necessarily. Of course, she gave us the tour through the exhibition and answered our questions. But at the same time, I was asking myself questions and made conclusions. She had a monologue. Our class and the teachers were the audience she was speaking to. From time to time there were questions. But it didn’t evolve in a conversation as the timeframe was tight and we always had to move on.

So, there was a constant listening, evaluating, dismissing or approvingprocess. Why that? I guess all the knowledge she presented is somehow getting evaluated.Because she was speaking about Papanek’s live I questioned myself where shegets her insights from? Did she know him? Did she carefully research the topicand so on? Of course, she was a professional and the exhibition was carefullyset up. But as soon as people interact with each other questions like that willpop up. Why? I think It is somehow in our nature to quickly evaluate things andpersons. Not only the question of relevance is coming up also we react on people’sappearance, behaviour, tonality and so on. We always compare the things we hearor see with our existing knowledge. This all are factors which could makeinteraction difficult. Some thoughts she presented about Papanek’s work I foundmore interesting, some less. Why couldn’t I listen to the things she said in amore objective way?

I think in communication it is always like this. People don’t get further if they can’t understand and react on each other. It would have been interesting to see if I would have happened if there would have been a discussion with the tour guide. If she would listen to my questions and reacting on them in a neutral way. But what means neutral and is this even possible?

Often Interaction is described by people as the action between people andgroups. I would also say, that it could be an interaction between an object andpeople. At the exhibition you could see that too. People tend to feel, smelland look and react to all kinds of stimuli. Is therefore the term ofinteraction broader then I thought?

JD

When I arrived at the venue, a tall, well-dressed young woman accompanied me to the auditorium where the speeches took place. Once entering the hall I was quite surprised about the vast majority of men sitting there. Mostly around the age of 40+. At that time a men from V-Zug was holding a speech. The topic of the event was Digital Transformation. The CEO of V-Zug was well dressed and had put big gestures to the things he was saying. He was definitely not holding a speech for the first time. He walked around the stage to reach both sides of the audience while talking. Even tho I must say, mostly looking into the eyes of men. I mean, women were not really present anyways.

Afterwards a women entered the stage to announce the next speaker – a men again. Pretty much same image as the one before and same gestures. The women seem to have the role of a host or an assistant helping the speakers.

While I was listening to the second speaker I observed the audience. Pretty much all of them where dressing up in a suit, with their business bags and a notebook. Some seem very interested in the talks. Some seem to be absent. And some men were having a busy discussion, about the speeches? I do not know.

Also there was a male photographer capturing the event.

So after a while I recognise female speakers entering the stage as well, but they were part of a group of different speakers talking about one project. It still felt like, they took the part of an assisting member of the group rather than having their own presentation.

Over an hour later the female host announced a short break to grab some coffee, snacks and maybe to have a little chat chat among one another.

So there I was standing with my group of students – mostly female – observing the situation. The room was full of suited up men casually talking to men. Most of the time two to three people. I have not seen a bigger group of people interacting with each other. I would say that the little groups do not look very welcoming to someone who might want to join their conversation. And also some groups were quite quiet, looking around to catch one or anothers glance. And the few women I have seen there, were mostly staff members, serving coffee and water.

I think, in a „business“ situation with men in a suit, people do not look like they would like to casually start talking to you. Their hands are closer to their body, standing straight up and always trying to maintain a serious expression. The few people not wearing business outfits, seem to most likely be more talkative and not too stiff. We were also all wearing a name tag on us, so I had the feeling that people were first looking at the nametag + company and then into your eyes.

Nonetheless, I think the whole event was crowded with suited up men who were quite… quiet.

Migros

Migros was founded in 1941. Migros is one of the most popular coorparations in Switzerland, if not even the most popular one. They have hundreds of stores all over Switzerland and also restaurants, a club school and so many more companies under their influence. They are always improving their system and their quality in order to make the experience for their customer more convenient. For example with the self – scanning system. They attach importance to sustainability. As everybody knows Migros is actively involved in culture, society, leisure, education and business. Migros is particularly innovative when it comes to systems and new technologies. They communicate these to the customer in a simple and playful way. Migros is a real customer experience.

ON running shoes

On running shoes can be considered an innovative swiss company as they have acquired international recognition. The founders were desperate to find a running shoe that lived up to their demand for comfort but as they couldn’t find any they started developing one themselves. The product development process was thus an emergent one as it developed and enrolled simultaneously and wasn’t a fixed process from the start. The shoes use innovative design and advanced technology, so it comes that their cushioning system is even patented. A technology that is clearly responding to consumer’s needs and therefore clearly human-centered. In terms of their communication they engage in storytelling and their flat hierarchies back up their strong organizational culture. This contributes to the fact that their employees carry the story of on running shoes into society as ambassadors themselves. 

Swatch Group
Swatch is a good example of Design management in Swiss business because it applies design management competencies to keep up with the demands of the market. They are innovative and keeping up with trends. They create a good work environment investing in young talent.