This chapter elaborates on design for the value of presence. As digital technologies have made it possible for us to connect to each other at a speed and scale that is unprecedented, presence is acquiring many new stances. The distinctions between being-there (in virtual worlds), being-here (making the being there available here) and the merging realities of these two, is essential to the notion of presence. Understanding the essence of presence is the focus of current presence research to which many disciplines contribute, including computer science, artificial intelligence, artistic research, social science and neurobiology.
This chapter elaborates on design for the value of presence. As digital technologies have made it possible for us to connect to each other at a speed and scale that is unprecedented, presence is acquiring many new stances. The distinctions between being-there (in virtual worlds), being-here (making the being there available here) and the merging realities of these two, is essential to the notion of presence. Understanding the essence of presence is the focus of current presence research to which many disciplines contribute, including computer science, artificial intelligence, artistic research, social science and neurobiology.
The definition of presence used in this chapter is ‘steering towards well-being and survival’, and this definition introduces a neurobiological perspective on presence fundamental to the approach on which this chapter focuses. This perspective recognizes the choices and trade-offs involved in presence design. Presence design is a meta-design, which creates the context for human experience to emerge. Presence as a value for design can be a design requirement, a factor of analysis and a key value in a process of Design for Values. This chapter discusses a number of analytical and design frameworks for constructing and deconstructing presence design. Acknowledging that presence is a fuzzy concept, and that a variety of open issues can be identified, presence as a value for design is fundamental for human beings to accept responsibility in complex environments. Further research will need to address how we, as human beings, change and how our sense of presence changes, as result of living in a network society with ubiquitous technology and all pervasive media being part of our day-to-day lives.
Presence is a word that appears in many social, political, religious and economic contexts and refers to an array of meanings. In the era of ubiquitous media, networks and many complex infrastructures on which society depends, presence is no longer solely coupled to physical reality. Presence has acquired new virtual stances, with completely new dynamics.
Presence is a word that appears in many social, political, religious and economic contexts and refers to an array of meanings. In the era of ubiquitous media, networks and many complex infrastructures on which society depends, presence is no longer solely coupled to physical reality. Presence has acquired new virtual stances, with completely new dynamics.
We, as human beings, connect to each other in many different ways. We meet virtually and participate in many different types of networks in merging on- and offline realities. We also participate in new types of communities such as energy communities in which participants organise their own exchange of energy. Energy communities rely on communication and visualisation technology, but also on technology needed to provide data, for example, on usage, pricing, availability, accounting and expected market developments mandating distributed data aggregation and service level agreements between participants.
To take responsibility we, as participants in such communities, need to have some form of presence for each other, both in on- and offline context as well as in information and communication trajectories. The design of presence is a prerequisite to participation: understanding the value of presence is a prerequisite to the design of large distributed complex participatory systems.
Human kind has been mediating presence since the beginning of times: leaving traces, making maps and drawings, telling stories, performing rituals, music and play. These are all ways with which we communicate presence from one time or place to another, from one human being to another. Technology has made it possible for us to mediate our presence in new ways facilitating communication, interaction and transactions over distance, often simultaneously. With the introduction of every new medium, new ways of establishing connection, and being able to say ‘hello’ for example, is the first achievement and source of surprise and curiosity. Soon after, when many people start to use a new medium, this is integrated in day-to-day practices of millions of people and new habits, customs and understanding emerge (Wyatt 2004). While new technologies produce increasingly better ways to produce mediated presence, natural presence is still distinct from mediated presence.
We, as human beings, are creative, and find unexpected ways to survive and serve our own well-being. New technologies, new systems, are emerging continuously, connecting people across the world, creating connections between family friends and total strangers. These connections can be beneficial or detrimental for those involved. Facebook, for example, is designed to anticipate specific types of behaviour with participatory scripts to build on this human potential of connecting with others. The outcomes of human behaviour, however, cannot be predicted, and unintended side-effects happen. The real-time connection between dozens, hundreds and thousands of people Facebook provides has shown to be powerful for gathering people both for the good and for the bad. Social networks were instrumental to the rising of the Arab Spring between 2010 and 2012, to the hooligan gathering in London in 2011 and to Project X in Haren in the Netherlands in 2012. In all of these events the behaviour of many individuals together creates a different situation and experience than any individual alone could have anticipated. In social networks individual behaviour is contextualized and inspired and this leads to new formation of (historical) experience, which is focus of further research in a variety of domains (Castells 2012).
This chapter elaborates on the notion that presence is essentially the strive for well-being and survival. Designing for the value of presence is not designing for a specific behaviour. It is designing for experience, as argued in this chapter. Presence as a value for complex systems design has great societal relevance. Research into this value is timely.
In today's ever changing network society the amount of multi-media information we can access within seconds is unprecedented: we are, in fact, experiencing a tsunami of information at a speed that society has not experienced in the past. Our experience of time, place and authenticity is changing (Benjamin 1936, McLuhan 1964, Baudrillard 1983, Postman 1985, Virilio 1989, Lovink 2012).
In today's ever changing network society the amount of multi-media information we can access within seconds is unprecedented: we are, in fact, experiencing a tsunami of information at a speed that society has not experienced in the past. Our experience of time, place and authenticity is changing (Benjamin 1936, McLuhan 1964, Baudrillard 1983, Postman 1985, Virilio 1989, Lovink 2012).
Some argue there are possibilities as never before, others claim that in the tsunami of copies at grand scale and speed the concept of ‘meaning’ implodes. In these times of fast transformation into the network society, place and time are still distinct factors in human lives and the social structures that are built. It is often, however, unclear how the ‘space of places’ in the physical world relates to the ‘space of flows’ in the many networks in which we participate (Giddens 1984, Castells 1996). In the collective experience of the emerging society a new culture and a ‘next nature’ is emerging in which we redefine, design and establish how we want to live our lives (van Mensvoort 2012, Lunnenfeld 2003). In the flow of images, text, and audio-visual communication a new sense of authenticity is emerging creating media-auras as a result (van der Meulen 2011). Key to this new culture and next nature is how we perform presence and participate in the complex networks that constitute our day-to-day reality (Brazier & Nevejan 2014).
The many online experiences and representations of selves mandate a new perspective on design of social, technical and ecological networks and infrastructures, including consideration of related values such as privacy, integrity and trust. The ethical dimension of presence design, including augmented reality design, is acknowledged as a value for the design of larger social technical en ecological infrastructures in a variety of public debates around privacy, integrity and trust (Hamelink 2000).
As mentioned above, different notions of presence function in a variety of social, political, religious, spiritual and ideological contexts. The focus of this chapter is on our natural presence qualified by breathing and a heart that ticks. It grounds presence in our physical nature.
Even though it was not labelled as such in a wide variety of scientific domains, presence research has been conducted over the last few centuries: in Philosophy, in Architecture, in Psychology, in scientific technology development, in Communications and Media Studies. The distinction between being present in the here and now, and being present elsewhere, by voice or by imagination (when reading a book for example), has been a topic of scientific interest for many years.
The current large scale spread of digital and distributed technologies has positioned the design of presence centre stage. With the ever developing technology, spreading Internet, evolving game culture, augmented reality, wearables, smart textiles, avatars and more, new presence designs and configurations are continually influencing the possible stances of presence. The five key notions that have and still guide presence design during the last two decades are: (1) being there, (2) being here, (3) merging realities, (4) presence as the strive towards well-being and survival, and (5) co-presence, social presence and witnessed presence. These notions and their historical context are discussed below in more detail.
A first issue of controversy is that presence is a fuzzy concept. Most measurements in the ‘being-there’ approach to presence design are concerned with effects of certain media configurations focusing on a reported sense of presence. Where does presence as a phenomenon start and where does it end? What is the opposite of presence?
A first issue of controversy is that presence is a fuzzy concept. Most measurements in the ‘being-there’ approach to presence design are concerned with effects of certain media configurations focusing on a reported sense of presence. Where does presence as a phenomenon start and where does it end? What is the opposite of presence?
Not having presence may not be the same as being absent or having/performing absence. How can presence be defined to make distinctions possible between more or less, better or worse, real or false presence? The notion of witnessing sheds light on these issues, but does not make hard distinctions possible.
A second issue is the controversy of how presence is considered – as a result of human consciousness or as part of human consciousness. The notion of presence differs between the variety of social sciences and natural sciences, between deterministic and more holistic approaches. Also the role of emotions and the role of imaginations in processes of presence is approached differently. This regularly leads to misunderstandings.
A third issue concerns design trajectories of presence in complex systems. Inducing and deducing dynamics in virtual simulations and serious games requires rigorous analytical skills and an associative/creative capacity at the same time. Results often only shed light on a specific dynamic given a set of predefined rules and variables. Nevertheless, these simulations and serious games inform real life processes in which real people participate. The gap between simulations and serious games and real life situations is considerable and has to be taken into account. In cyber therapy this gap is used to induce healing processes in individuals. When complex systems assist in matters of life and death, as in crisis management systems, or more mundane applications as in railway systems, unintended side-effects can have dramatic effects. Virtual simulations and serious games are unable to anticipate how individuals will act and be witnessed in extreme situations in their strive for survival and well-being. Such unexpected side-effects are matters of concern.
Designing presence in complex systems in the context of the functionality and non-functional requirements on which a system is based should target specific functionality, such as: to facilitate social interaction, to facilitate collaboration, to facilitate exchange, to facilitate a marketplace, to facilitate distributed structures of governance. As the design of presence is not often explicitly addressed as an explicit requirement, it is often neglected. Developments in the outsourcing industry in India, for example, indicate that neglect for presence design is detrimental for the workers involved (Ilavarasan 2008, Upadhya 2008). Presence as a value for design, as a requirement, facilitates designs that make it possible for us to be able to have agency, accept responsibility, and be able to engage with others in meaningful interaction, making it possible for us to steer towards our own well-being and survival.
Presence research is a science of trade-offs (IJsselsteijn 2004). We, as individuals make these choices and trade-offs on the basis of what we know: we decide on how, when and where we perform our own presence in which situations. Collective experience with a medium affects how we, as a society, understand and respond to media realities.
Presence research is a science of trade-offs (IJsselsteijn 2004). We, as individuals make these choices and trade-offs on the basis of what we know: we decide on how, when and where we perform our own presence in which situations. Collective experience with a medium affects how we, as a society, understand and respond to media realities.
When film was just invented, and a train was approaching, the whole cinema audience would dive under the chairs. For many years email was ignored as a legitimate form of communication – it took up until a decade ago for the Courts of Law to accept email as proof. (Note that the concerns with respect to legitimacy of email are well founded.) The implication of understanding presence as a choice and trade-off, on both the individual and collective level, is that presence can be designed and this opens up new fields for research and design.
There is a direct relation between design for presence and design for trust in the emerging network society in which on- and offline realities merge. Arguing that witnessed presence is fundamental for establishing trust, Nevejan (2007) introduces the YUTPA framework in which 4 dimensions of time, place, action and relation define potential trust in different presence configurations of these dimensions. Interdisciplinary research with artists, academics and experts elaborated this framework and identified factors of significance in human experience in each dimension (Nevejan & Brazier 2012), providing a frame of reference for the analysis of choices and trade-offs in presence design.
Designing for the making of choices and trade-offs, designing a context in which people can steer towards well-being and survival, needs to conceptualize presence design as meta-design (Fisher 2013). It is not designing for a specific behaviour, it is designing for the choice of behaviour or the creation of new behaviour. Social networks, Internet platforms, and participatory systems aim to offer such meta-design upon which we can perform our own presence in our own way. Presence as value for design is mandatory in these systems of participation (Brazier & Nevejan 2014).
Design for presence needs to include the complex notion of design for experience. We make choices for our own behaviour, for the performance of our presence, not only out of habit of previous behaviour. Such choices are more complex and include outcomes of reflection on our previous action and outcomes, understanding of contexts, imagination and anticipation of possibilities. Different levels of consciousness (proto, core and extended) influence performance of presence (Damasio 2004).
Design for presence needs to include the complex notion of design for experience. We make choices for our own behaviour, for the performance of our presence, not only out of habit of previous behaviour. Such choices are more complex and include outcomes of reflection on our previous action and outcomes, understanding of contexts, imagination and anticipation of possibilities. Different levels of consciousness (proto, core and extended) influence performance of presence (Damasio 2004).
In the English language the word experience reflects different kinds of experience in one word only. In the German language the word ‘erfahrung’ is distinct from ‘erlebnis’. A distinction is made between ‘erlebnis’, referring to sensations and happenings, which are foundational to behaviour, and ‘erfahrung’ which refers to experience, as being the reflexive context in which we, as human beings, reflect upon our own actions and understand our own situation to inform new actions. Design for presence not only includes design for sensations and behaviour (‘erlebnis’) as discussed above. Design for presence is distinct because it necessarily includes design for experience (‘erfahrung’) in which a larger context allows for individual reflection and choices. Performance of presence emerges from experience.
Experience design is a relatively young discipline in certain design schools in Europe, USA and India. Its theoretical foundation is diverse including media and cultural studies, marketing and business, philosophy and interaction design.
Not often used today, but very clear in their intention, is the work of the Frankfurter Schule on experience design in the previous century (Habermas 1983, Negt & Kluge 1972). This group of German philosophers and social scientists posed the question of design for experience, as the ground for human’s autonomous choice, in the early 1960s. Confronted with the fact that millions of people had followed Hitler in the 1930s and into WOII, they were determined to understand how individual people could keep their autonomy and independent perception in mass media and propaganda contexts. As result the Frankfurter Schule introduced a specific idea about experience design in which sensations and happenings need to be historically contextualized in both personal and collective ways to nurture reflection and inspire people to steer towards their own, and others, well-being and survival. Artists and artistic research play a role of significance in this approach. In the era of ubiquitous computing and all pervasive media the thinking of the Frankfurter Schule is acquiring new attention.
Presence research uses many methodologies from the medical and natural sciences as well as methodologies from the social and design sciences. Artists, who have challenged the imagination of presence design with elaborate use of technology for several decades now, make specific contributions to presence research.
Presence research uses many methodologies from the medical and natural sciences as well as methodologies from the social and design sciences. Artists, who have challenged the imagination of presence design with elaborate use of technology for several decades now, make specific contributions to presence research.
Every new technology is an inspiration for artists. They run with it, push its limits and focus on exploring experiences that the new medium facilitates. For over 50 years now technology artists have experimented with different presence designs. Using radio and television, video, audio and digital media in many ways, artists have explored how human beings can perform presence in different media configurations. Marcel Duchamp, John Cage, Nam June Paik, Bill Viola, Char Davies, David Rokeby, Shu Lea Cheang, Lisa Autogena, just to name a few, have altered the way in which people experience the merging realities around them.
Artists are experts in creating experiences for others offering perception and reflection in unanticipated ways and affect the aesthetic experience that is part of everyday life (Dewey 1934). Artistic research, including the making of work and methodologies for research, offers radical realism, non-conceptualism and contingency (Schwab & Borgdorff 2014). Distinct from art history, and distinct form art practice, artistic research aims to contribute to larger research questions (Biggs & Karlsson 2011, Borgdorff 2012, Zijlmans 2013). Presence design in the era of ubiquitous computing and pervasive media is definitely such a question.
In a variety of disciplines scholars are concerned with understanding requirements for designing structures in which we, as human beings, can steer towards our own well-being and survival for establishing sustainable social structures. None of these approaches is currently considered part of presence theory or design.
In a variety of disciplines scholars are concerned with understanding requirements for designing structures in which we, as human beings, can steer towards our own well-being and survival for establishing sustainable social structures. None of these approaches is currently considered part of presence theory or design.
However, when accepting that presence is essentially the strive for well-being and survival, these approaches contribute to presence design for larger social, ecological and technological structures. Fundamental to all of these approaches is that we participate with our own strive for well-being and survival while participating in a larger process of collective evolution or change. Each of these approaches is concerned with design processes or analyses as meta-design for the value of presence.
Presence design requires the involvement of different scientific and design disciplines. This in itself is a major issue. Connecting psychological, sociological, economic, technological, cultural and design, such interdisciplinary approaches require multi-lingual capacity between different communities of practice (Kuhn 2000).
Presence design requires the involvement of different scientific and design disciplines. This in itself is a major issue. Connecting psychological, sociological, economic, technological, cultural and design, such interdisciplinary approaches require multi-lingual capacity between different communities of practice (Kuhn 2000).
Even when this multi-lingual capacity is available, there is no best solution, no ultimate system to be designed. As history shows, we, as human beings, with our ability to strive for well-being and survival we continually find new ways to adapt, invent and move on. Nevertheless, in today’s world we are dependent on complex systems that define basic utilities, transport, food and water, finance culture, politics and more. Presence as a value for design is fundamental to all of these systems, in particular to support emergence as the outcome of the accumulation of many participants' strive for well-being and survival is most often characterized by processes of self organisation and emergence. This in itself is a challenge, as the process of self-organisation is, by definition, unpredictable.
The need to integrate our strive for survival and well-being in the design process from the start is implicit in each of the approaches discussed above. Note, however, that we, as human beings, are changing due to our networked societies, with ubiquitous technology in pervasive media landscapes. Such changes pertain not only to our own psychological and physiological being, but also to how social structures emerge and function with increasing complexity.
There are three ways in which values can play a role in a design process: as design requirement, as factor of analysis and as the value driving a value sensitive design process (Vermaas et al 2011, van den Hoven 2005). To shed light on each of these roles the YUTPA framework is used to analyse and design presence as value for (meta) design (see section 3 under ‘meta design for choices and trade-offs’) (see figure 1).
Interdisciplinary research has identified 4 dimensions of significance for making choices and trade-offs for the performance of presence. The YUTPA framework, acronym for being with You in unity of Time, Place and Action, sheds light on specific presence configurations in which a person performs presence with YOU, in the NOW, being HERE, with a specific potential to DO certain things.
Each of the dimensions of relation, time, place and action is defined by a number of factors, which affect how a person judges the presence configuration in which one finds oneself. As a result specific trust is established, which affects how a person performs presence.
When translating presence into design requirements, an application should facilitate a participant’s capacity to steer towards his/her own and others' well-being and survival. A participant’s possibilities to act have to be real in the sense that they can be aware of the situation they are in and act upon it. This is one of the great challenges in the design of augmented reality applications in which experts have to collaborate.
The research project CSI The Hague explores the potential of mediated and augmented reality for future crime scene investigation. Using special VR glasses through which experts see a real crime scene as well as augmented indicators that colleagues have placed, the application needs to facilitate experts to investigate together.
The research project CSI The Hague explores the potential of mediated and augmented reality for future crime scene investigation. Using special VR glasses through which experts see a real crime scene as well as augmented indicators that colleagues have placed, the application needs to facilitate experts to investigate together.
YUTPA-CSI
Relation: Experts in the Crime Scene Investigation of the CSI The Hague project meet each other in professional roles. This defines their engagement and affects their reputation. Interestingly, the experts in this case need to create a shared meaning. Not the same type of shared meaning as the shared meaning we make with family or friends, but a shared meaning to contextualize and understand a crime scene investigation that also includes ethical positions in the process.
Time: Experts work together for the limited amount of time that is needed to do the investigation. They are trained in their professional roles to synchronize performance. This is not often possible as their rhythms will often not be integrated as they have different professional environments and may even live in different time zones. Because they work online in mediated presence, it is almost impossible to share moments that signify. It is almost impossible to share celebration when successful or share the mourning that comes with atrocity or defeat. On the time dimension the performance of presence is defined by the lack of trust caused by a low integration of rhythms and not-sharing of moments to signify.
Place: The body sense and environmental impact between an expert on the crime scene and an expert elsewhere is very different and therefore contribute very little to the collaborative performance of presence. The emotional space experts share, depends significantly on the compassion and experience of the remote expert. This emotional space is defined by professional roles, expert knowledge of the task at hand, but also by the gravity of the situation with which both experts have to deal. Situated agency, the fourth factor in the place dimension, is clearly defined as a requirement. The purpose of the application is to give agency to the remote expert to make remote collaboration effective, which if successful, will significantly contribute to experts trust in the situation.
Action: Reciprocity in signs and negotiation of conditions are performed in professional settings and can be executed in remote situations as well. However, these are hindered by the lack of tuning possibilities. No body moves or breath space can be shared. Trust in the expert collaboration may be created by a series of activities for contextualizing the actions experts may exchange at distinct moments in time.
Overall the YUTPA analysis shows that the degree of trust in the expert in augmented collaboration is a challenge. Of the 16 factors that have been identified so far, only 7 contribute significantly to trust affecting choices and trade-offs for presence in the current design. Synchronizing performance, situated agency, reciprocity, negotiation, quality of deeds and role are requirements on which the design of the system it is based. Depending on the experts that engage with each other, emotional space and communion may contribute to the degree of trust in augmented collaboration in which case the balance flips to more than half of the factors contributing to trusting mediated collaboration. But these are highly individual factors. From a presence design perspective the system could benefit from the time dimension by enhancing, for example ‘integrating rhythm’. In the place dimension situated agency and emotional space could benefit from explicit functionality designed to this purpose. In the action dimension, there are options to improve tuning of presence and quality of deeds. In the relation dimension a reputation system may contribute to the sense of presence.
Presence as a factor of analysis judges the choices that are made in a design process giving agency to participants to steer towards their own and others well-being and survival. Such agency needs to be in balance with attention, intention and expectation of participants in the to be designed participatory scripts.
In this example a YUTPA analysis is carried out to understand how Facebook’s presence design generates trust for its participants.
In this example a YUTPA analysis is carried out to understand how Facebook’s presence design generates trust for its participants.
YUTPA-Facebook
Relation: Depending on personal style all identified factors in the dimension ‘relation’ play a role of significance in networks of friends. Some people use Facebook mostly professionally for which Facebook scores high with respect to its role. Facebook functions as a reputation system, for example employers look up possible new applicants to learn more about them. Engagement can be very high, up to the point of addiction. In specific contexts, Facebook is part of creating shared meaning. Family and friends use Facebook to stay in touch. The dimension of relation in Facebook's design contributes significantly to why people trust Facebook.
Time: For Facebook the duration of engagement is endless and 24/7. Its design supports integration of posts of friends minute by minute in individuals' own rhythms and activities of the day. Synchronizing with friends, for example, by entering a chat, or issuing likes is instantaneous. Facebook communication is also designed to support significant moments in peoples' lives, for example, when friends celebrate a shared meaning as in protest or a party. The time dimension of Facebook's design generates a high level of trust.
Place: Facebook does not directly affect our body sense. It also does not have or create direct environmental impact but many friends may live in the same environment and therefore Facebook may have environmental impact. The emotional space Facebook offers is immense and elaborate for many. It offers ‘situated agency’ allowing participants to post, like, comment on anything they notice. So the dimension of place contributes significantly to the emergence of trust.
Action: Depending on personal style and choice, Facebook is able to support intense tuning with others as well as reciprocity between friends. Negotiation is not really one of its features, although some people may invent ways to acquire this functionality within Facebook. Concerning the quality of deeds, it seems that most people use Facebook as part of their daily activities. At some moments in time in specific context a post may be considered a deed. It is clear though that the dimension of Action contributes significantly to the emergence of trust.
From this short analysis it may be concluded that Facebook generates trust from its participants by its presence design. In this presence design the dimension of time is crucial. Followed by action and relation, but also the dimension of place contribute significantly. However, a YUTPA analysis does not shed light on political opinions on how Facebook as a company behaves and can be trusted or not. Quite many people do not participate in Facebook because of Facebook’s data policy. This policy includes giving details of Facebook users to both to business and intelligence corporations. This YUTPA analysis sheds light on how people make choices for presence and trust but does not incorporate judgements on larger issues of trust as Facebook’s behaviour as a company for example.
When judging increase or decrease in presence in a specific design trajectory, arguments need to incorporate social, economic, political and ecological consequences of the intended participatory scripts for presence. From one perspective it may seem that a participant acquires agency, while, for example, from another perspective actual economic or political circumstances deeply affect the situation in such a way that presence for other participants decreases. The analytical frameworks discussed in section 3.1 address the social, political and economical issues of presence as a value for design. An ANT analysis (Actor Network Theory), for example, identifies relations of Facebook with the world of finance, intelligence, and business, providing insights for the judgement on presence as a value for design.
Presence as a value in Design for Values positions our ‘strive for well-being and survival’ centre-stage in all phases of the design process. However, systems necessarily have multiple actors each with their own strive for well-being and survival. Their needs may collide. Where in nature's design, according to Darwin, in the strive for well-being and survival the fittest will survive, in designs for human society more complex and more balanced presence design is possible. Colliding, interdependent needs of multiple actors need to be taken into account, as the context for design.
Presence as a value in Design for Values positions our ‘strive for well-being and survival’ centre-stage in all phases of the design process. However, systems necessarily have multiple actors each with their own strive for well-being and survival. Their needs may collide. Where in nature's design, according to Darwin, in the strive for well-being and survival the fittest will survive, in designs for human society more complex and more balanced presence design is possible. Colliding, interdependent needs of multiple actors need to be taken into account, as the context for design.
For social structures, including businesses, to be sustainable a balance between individual and collective strive for well-being and survival has to be met. To this end design choices have to be made for modes of participation, modes of communication and decision-making, modes of influence and authority in the context of network, networked, networking and network making powers (Castells 2012). Also this presence design is effectively a meta-design in which structures of governance and structures of participation are designed to be amended over time.
The different analytical frameworks, as discussed in section 3.1, are all of relevance to Design for Values: presencing, collaborative authoring of outcomes, simulations and emulations for paying tribute to the diverse links in the actor network system, poly-centricity and distributed systems design. Presence as a value in Design for Values needs to address agency of participants and the potential for trust between participants including the system itself. Being and bearing witness have to be scripted in (Nevejan & Brazier 2014).
Currently smart grid technology is developed worldwide. Boulder Colorado, for example, the first Smart Grid city in the USA, provided two-way connectivity to the city. Citizens can be both consumers and producers of energy and the Grid negotiates and divides according to the needs and possibilities of each household.
In Western Europe energy is available 24/7. In current energy market ‘supply’ follows ‘demand’. With the expectation that over time, as energy resources and needs change (for example with the introduction of electric vehicles) future Smart Grids have to be designed in such a way that ‘demand’ will follow ‘supply’.
Little is known about the embodiment of virtual and mediated experiences. Looking at data of users it seems that millions of people engage daily in network activities. How such activities affect us human beings is unclear. Effects on human psychology, on how communities and societies function, on how markets adapt, and many more questions are open issues and subject of further research.
Little is known about the embodiment of virtual and mediated experiences. Looking at data of users it seems that millions of people engage daily in network activities. How such activities affect us human beings is unclear. Effects on human psychology, on how communities and societies function, on how markets adapt, and many more questions are open issues and subject of further research.
How does network reality influences the mind maps we make? How does networked reality become embodied? How does network reality affect our feelings and emotions and are emotions and feelings also fundamental to steering in network realities, or are there other drivers in the online world? The relation between performance of presence and imagination needs to be explored much deeper for being able to answers question like this.
Network reality is part of our daily negotiation for performance of presence, but most psychological and sociological theories are based on a world in which network reality does not play a role. It is unclear whether psychological and sociological mechanisms can be transposed to network reality. In mass communication, media studies and in net critique these issues are being explored, a new paradigm for analysis and design is emerging but is not yet clearly defined.
A confusing issue is that we, as people, negotiate performance of presence based on how we trust a situation with which we are confronted. Trust may not be granted for appropriate reasons and performance of presence may not be beneficial in the end. As in the Facebook example above, it is easy to trust Facebook because its presence design supports us to significantly steer in each of the 4 dimensions of time, place, action and relation. However, this trust may be misleading. Power relations in the network society are often opaque, but not less relevant. It is an open issue how distributed transparency can be designed. Also it is unclear how we, as individuals, are positioned in personal-global dynamics. Whistle blowers like Edward Snowdon and Julian Assange show how technology in the hands of a few, control many. They reach a large audience via the media, but little political action happens as a result. These open issues have great societal impact and further research is timely.
This chapter focuses on the design of presence in merging realities as approached in the social and design sciences. Presence is a fuzzy concept. Many methodologies implicitly include or exclude presence as value for design.
This chapter focuses on the design of presence in merging realities as approached in the social and design sciences. Presence is a fuzzy concept. Many methodologies implicitly include or exclude presence as value for design.
Current presence research focuses on creating the sense of presence in being-there, but it most often does not address larger issues of societal impact of presence design. In our day-to-day lives in social networks and pervasive ubiquitous technologies upon which fundamental processes of life depend in network societies, on- and offline realities merge. The being-here and the being-there are one in human experience.
Presence design is not design for specific behaviour for presence; it is meta-design; it is designing for choice and trade-offs between choices. It is design for experience in which current and historical contexts are taken into account together with actual perceptions and understanding. Both scientific, design and artistic research contribute to presence design.
Despite all of the current models of thinking, the current speed and scale of technological innovation is changing our lives profoundly. It is as if we are part of a global experiment in which dynamics of information, communication and transaction, all fundamental to society, are changing. Dynamics that have existed for over a thousand of years of building up experience and social structures, markets and structures of governance to be able to live together. Today systems of law and systems of value exchange are all under pressure. We, as human beings, are changing as result of the global network society.
The strive for well-being and survival is deep in our DNA and will keep on defining what will happen next. By incorporating presence as a value for design, and configuring design processes accordingly, ‘old’ human experience will have a chance to resonate and inform future generations to come for designing and creating a social, technological and ecological environment worth living in.
Azuma R., 1997. A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence 6, Vol 4, 355-385, 1997
Baxi, Upendra. 1999. Voices of Suffering, Fragmented Universality, and the Future of Human Rights. In The Future of International Human Rights, ed. Bums H. Weston & Stephen P. Marks,101–156. New York: Transnational Publishers.
Baren van J. & IJsselsteijn W., 2004. “Measuring Presence: A Guide to Current Measurement Approaches”. Report for the OmniPres project, funded by the European Community under the Information Society Technologies Programme.
Baudrillard J. 1983. Fatal Strategies. Translated by Philippe Beitchman and W. G. J. Niesluchowski. In: Semiotext(e), a history of the present. USA.
Benjamin, Walter. 1936 Het kunstwerk in het tijdperk van zijn technische reproduceerbaarheid. Trans. Henk Hoeks. Nijmegen: SUN, 1985. Translated from: Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit (Frankfurt am Main: SuhrkampVerlag, 1974).
Biggs M & Karlsson H.(eds.), 2011. The Routledge Companion to Research in the Arts, Routledge
Borgdorff, H., 2012. Conflict of the Faculties, Perspectives on Artistic Research and Academia. Leiden University Press
Boyd, D. 2014. It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Brazier F. 2011. Inaugural speech Delft University of Technology, October 2012, www.particpatorysystems.org
Brazier F. & Nevejan C. 2014. Framework for Participatory Systems Design. Paper presented at CESUN 2014, Stevens Institute for Technology, New Jersy.
Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies that Matter, on discursive limits of “sex”. New York: Routledge
Castells, Manuel. 1996. The Rise of the Networked Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Castells M., 2001.The Internet Galaxy, Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society. Oxford, Oxford University Press
Castells M. 2009. Communication Power. Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press
Castells M. 2012. Networks of Outrage and Hope. Social Movements in the Internet Age. Cambridge, MA, Polity Press
Damasio, Antonio. 2000. The Feeling of What Happens. Body, Emotion and the Making of Consciousness. London: Vintage, Random House.
Damasio, Antonio. 2004. Looking for Spinoza, Joy, Sorrow and the Feeling Brain. London: Vintage, Random House.
Dewey, J. , 1934. Art as Experience. Perigee Books (1980), Penguin, New York
Fischer, G. (2013) "Meta-Design: Empowering All Stakeholder as Co-Designers" in R. Luckin, P. Goodyear, B. Grabowski, S. Puntambeker, J. Underwood, & N. Winters (Eds.), Handbook on Design in Educational Computing, Routledge, London, pp. 135-145.
Floridi L., 2005. The Philosophy of Presence: From Epistemic Failure to Successful Observation. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments- Special section: legal, ethical and policy issues associated with virtual environments and computer mediated reality. Volume 15, issue 6 (pages 656-667). MIT press Cambridge, USA.
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of Society, Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gill S.P. & Nevejan C., 2012. Introduction to special issue Witnessed Presence. AI & Society, Journal for Knowledge, Culture and Commuication, special issue Witnessed Presence. Volume 27:6.
Goffman, E., 1963. Behavior in Public Places; Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.
Habermas J., 1983. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Translated by Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen (1990). Introduction by Thomas A. McCarthy. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Hamelink, Cees J. 2000. The ethics of Cyberspace. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications. Originally tilte: Digitaal Fatsoen (Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Boom 1999).
Hackett E, Amsterdamska O., Lynch M.E., Wajcman J. (eds.) 2007. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, third edition, MIT Press
Hendrix C., Barfield W., Bystrom K.E., 1999. A Conceptual Model of the Sense of Presence in Virtual Environments. In: Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. Volume 8, issue 2.
Hoven, van den M.J. 2005. Design for Values and Values for Design. Information Age +, Journal of the Australian Computer Society 7 (2):4-7.
Humphries, Patrick and Garrick Jones. 2006. The Evolution Of Group Decision Support Systems To Enable Collaborative Authoring Of Outcomes. In World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution 62: 171–192. Oxford: Routledge.
IJsselsteijn, Wijnand and Giuseppe Riva. 2003. Being There, The experience of presence in mediated environments. In Being there: Concepts, effects and measurement of user experience in synthetic environments, ed. Giuseppe Riva, Fabrizio Davide, Wijnand IJsselsteijn, 3–16. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Retrieved from http://www.ijsselsteijn.nl (accessed 30 November, 2006).
IJsselsteijn, Wijnand A., 2004. Presence in Depth, PhD diss., Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Ilavarasan, P.V., 2008. Software Work in India: a Labour Process View. In: Upadhya, C., Vasavi, A.R. (eds.) An Outpost of the Global Economy, Work and Workers in India’s Information Technology Industry. Routledge, New Delhi
Kuhn, Thomas S. 2000. The road since structure, philosophical essays, 1970–1993, with an autobiographical interview. Editors.James Conant and John Haugeland. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social, On the difficulty of being ANT: An interlude in the form of a dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lombard, M., & Jones M. T., 2007. Identifying the (Tele)Presence Literature.
PsychNology Journal, 5(2), 197 – 206.
Lovink G., 2012. Networks Without a Cause: A Critique of Social Media. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.
Lunenfeld, Peter. 2003. The Design Cluster, Preface. In Design Research: Methods and Perspectives, ed. Brenda Laurel, 10–15. Cambridge/London: MIT press.
Mann S. & Barfield W., 2003. Introduction to Mediated Reality, International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, 205-208, 2003
McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw–Hill.
Mensvoort K. & Grievink H-J, 2012. Next Nature. Actar Barcelona
Meulen van der S. 2012. Witnessed Presence in the work of Pierre Huyghe. In Special issue on Witnessed Presence 2012, AI & Society, journal for Knowledge, Culture and Communication, Volume 27:1
Negt, O. & Kluge A.,. 1972. Öffentlichkeit und Erfahrung: Zur Organisationsanalyse von bürgerlicher und proletarischer Öffentlichkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Nevejan, C. 2007. Presence and the Design of Trust. PhD diss., University of Amsterdam.
Nevejan Caroline. 2009. Witnessed presence and the YUTPA framework. In PsychNology Journal 'Ethics in Presence and Social Presence Technology', volume 7 (1). www.psychnology.org
Nevejan, Caroline & Brazier, Frances, 2010. Witnessed Presence in Merging Realities in Healthcare Environments. In: Advanced Computational Intelligence Paradigms in Healthcare 5, Studies in Computational Intelligence, 2011, Volume 326/2011, 201-227, Springer
Nevejan C. & Brazier F. 2011. Granularity in Reciprocity. In AI & Society, Journal for Knowledge, Culture and Communication, Nevejan C. & Gill S.P. (eds.), Vol.27:1.
Nevejan C. & Gill S.P. 2012. Special issue on Witnessed Presence 2012, AI & Society, journal for Knowledge, Culture and Communication, Volume 27:1
Nevejan C. (editor), 2012. Witnessing You, On trust and Truth in a Networked World, Participatory Systems Initiative, Delft University of Technology.
Nowak K.L. & Biocca F., 2003. The Effect of the Agency and Anthropomorphism on Users' Sense of Telepresence, Copresence, and Social Presence in Virtual Environments. In: Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. Volume 12, no. 5. Pages 481-494. MIT Press
Oliver, Kelly. 2001. Witnessing, beyond recognition. University of Minnesota Press, Mineapolis/London
Ostrom, Elinor, 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom E., 2009. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems
In Science Vol 325 24 July
Poelman R., Akman O., Lukosch S., Jonker P., 2012. As if Being There: Mediated Reality for Crime Scene Investigation In: CSCW '12: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer supported cooperative work pp. 1267-1276.
Postman N., 1985. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. USA Penguin.
Riva, Giuseppe, John A. Waterworth and Eva L. Waterworth. 2004. The Layers of Presence: A Bio–cultural Approach to Understanding Presence in Natural and Mediated Environments. In CyberPsychology & Behavior (7) 4: 402–416.
Riva, Giuseppe 2008. From Virtual body to real body: virtual reality as embodied technology. In Journal for Cyber Therapy and Rehabilitation, Spring 2008, Volume 1, Issue 1
Schwab, M. & Borgdorff H. (eds.). 2014. The Exposition of Artistic Research: Publishing Art in Academia. Leiden: Leiden University Press, 2014.
Senge Peter, C.Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski, Betty Sue Flowers. 2004. Presence, exploring profound change in people, organizations and society. Published by arrangement with Society for Organizational Learning,
Short, J.A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. ,1976. The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Spagnoli, Anna, and Luciano Gamberini. 2004. The Sense of Being ‘There’: a Model for the Space of Presence. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual International Workshop Presence 2004, October 13–15, in Valencia, Spain. In printed collection of papers, ed. M.A Raya, B.R. Solaz,, 48–53. Valencia: Editorial de la Universidad Politecnica de Valencia.
Spanlang, B., T. Fröhlich, F. F. Descalzo, A. Antley, and M. Slater, The Making of a Presence Experiment: Responses to Virtual Fire. In PRESENCE 2007 -The 10th Annual International Workshop on Presence. 2007. Barcelona, Spain.
Upadhya, Carol. 2008. Management of culture and Management through Culture in the Indian Outsourcing Industry. In In an Outpost of the Global Economy, Work and Workers in India’s Information Technology Industry, eds. Carol Upadhya and A.R.Vasavi. Routledge New Delhi
Virilio, Paul. 1989. Het Horizon negatief. Trans. Arjen Mulder and Patrice Riemens. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Duizend & Een. Original title: L’Horizon negatif: essai de dromoscopie (Paris: Galilee 1984).
Weston, Bums H. and Stephen P. Marks, editors. 1999. The Future of International Human Rights. New York: Transnational Publishers
Wiederhold, Brenda K. 2006. The Potential for Virtual Reality to Improve Health Care, published by The Virtual Reality Medical Center.
Whiteside A.L.& Garrett Dikkers A. 2012. Using the Social Presence Model to Maximize Interactions in Online Environments," Computer-Mediated Communication Across Cultures: International Interactions in Online Environments, Kirk St. Amant and Sigrid Kelsey, eds., IGI Global, pp. 395–413 (accessed 21/9/2014 at http://onlinelearningconsortium.org)
Wyatt, Sally. 2004. Danger! Metaphors at work in economics, geophysiology and the Internet. In Science, Technology and Human Values 29(2): 242–61.
Zijlmans C.J.M. (2013), Laboratory on the Move in Retrospect. In: Thissen J., Zwijnenberg R., Zijlmans CJM (Eds.) Contemporary Culture. New Directions in Art and Humanities Research. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 175-186
Caroline Nevejan,
