See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314917196

EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE IN INTERACTION DESIGN: A CASE STUDY

Conference Paper · March 2016

DOI: 10.21125/inted.2016.1475

CITATIONS READS

0 77

3 authors, including:

Sara Colombo Lucia Rampino

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Politecnico di Milano
30 PUBLICATIONS   46 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   101 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

4D : Designing Development, Developing Design. Intl Conf on Design & Development (September 2017, Kaunas Lithuania) View project

Smart design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lucia Rampino on 28 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE IN INTERACTION DESIGN: A CASE
STUDY
Sara Bergamaschi, Sara Colombo, Lucia Rampino
Politecnico di Milano (ITALY)

Abstract
This paper refers to a new educational experience in interaction design within the Design &
Engineering Master Programme of Politecnico di Milano. The theme of interaction design is a novelty
for the Design & Engineering Programme that is traditionally based on technical knowledge.
In this paper, a new design studio conducted at the first year of the interaction design programme is
discussed. The studio was designed to transmit to students knowledge and tools coming from
research carried out by the authors in the field of interaction design. The goal was not only to teach
students how to design interactive products, but especially to improve their skills in envisioning and
designing meaningful and engaging experiences with products. Indeed, in previous studies, it was
observed that students enrolled in Design & Engineering courses have the tendency to focus more on
the product’s industrial feasibility, than on soft aspects like aesthetics and user experience [1].
During the design studio, three workshops were organized. This paper describes the three design
activities and summarizes the students’ outputs for each workshop. Its purpose is to analyse the
educational experience in order to evaluate the effectiveness of translating research insights into the
design activities proposed to students.
Keywords: design education, interaction design, dynamic products, user experience.

1 INTRODUCTION
This paper investigates a recent educational change in the Design & Engineering Master Programme
of Politecnico di Milano, a multidisciplinary programme involving three disciplinary areas: Product
Design, Mechanical Engineering and Materials Engineering. The traditional aim of this Master
Programme is to train product designers to manage the whole design process: from the idea
generation to the product industrialization. However, due to the technological revolution of the last
years, some changes in the Programme’s focus became necessary. Indeed, products are becoming
more and more smart, dynamic and interactive, as sensors and actuators are embedded into everyday
objects, causing huge changes in product’s functions and in the way users interact with them.
Consequently, designing products means designing not only their static features, but also their
interactive and dynamic nature. To accommodate these changes, a track on interaction design has
been recently introduced in the Design & Engineering Programme, with the aim of teaching students
to design interactive and smart products.
The paper describes a new design studio that represents a real case of educational experience in the
field of interaction design. The studio was held in the first semester of the academic year 2014-2015.
Twenty-four international students attended lectures and partook in the design activities. Students had
different cultural and educational backgrounds, since traditionally the Design & Engineering Master
Programme is attended by graduated students in industrial design, chemical engineering, and
mechanical engineering.
The design studio was structured around three topics: the basics of interaction design, smart materials
and dynamic products, and the influence of product interactions on users’ behaviour. During the
course, introductive lectures were provided to students in order to transfer knowledge and tools about
these themes and to give them a uniform theoretical background. Moreover, for each topic, a design
activity was organized in order to put into practice the transferred theoretical knowledge:
• A first workshop that introduced the topic of interaction design and tangible interactions.
• A second workshop focused on smart materials and the new product experiences they can
generate by the creation of dynamic products.

Proceedings of INTED2016 Conference ISBN: 978-84-608-5617-7

7th-9th March 2016, Valencia, Spain 2253
 • A third workshop that explored the design of persuasive products: students were invited to
design products that can affect users’ behaviour in their daily life.

2 OBJECTIVE
This paper aims to assess the relevance of introducing the topic of interaction design in product
design education and to evaluate the effectiveness of transferring research insights to students,
particularly in the field of Design & Engineering. The results of three design activities were analysed
and evaluated in order to highlight critical points and strengths of the presented educational
experience.

3 DESIGN STUDIO OVERVIEW

The new design studio in the field of interaction design consisted of three exercises. The three design
activities were planned in a specific order, according to their level of complexity.
In the first two exercises, students were asked to analyse interactive products already on the market
and to redesign some of their features, with a specific focus on i) designing new interaction modalities;
ii) designing dynamic sensory features of products (e.g. changing colours, shapes, sounds, smells,
etc.) to display information to users in a more tangible way. In the last exercise, students faced a more
complete design process (from ideas generation to design development) in the field of design for
resource saving.
In all the exercises, students were asked to work in groups made up of three students each. As a
result, eight concepts were developed for each exercise.

4 THE THREE DESIGN ACTIVITIES: DESCRIPTIONS AND RESULTS

4.1 WS1 Description

The first workshop consisted of a one-month design activity aimed to introduce the basics of
interaction design and user’s experience with smart and interactive products. During the first day, the
teachers gave a lecture about the basic principles of designing interactive products. Lectures were
considered an essential part of the exercise not only because they served as theoretical foundations
useful for guiding the practical activities, but also because they were necessary to give a common
background to students, to let them work together with the same approaches and frameworks as
reference.
The first part of the lecture presented and described the three main elements to take into
consideration when designing interactive products: i) the feedforward (the product’s features that
suggest how to interact with and control the objects’ functions, i.e. the suggested actions), ii) the
user’s action, and iii) the feedback (the effect of the action). These concepts were a reworked and
education-oriented version of the ones presented by Djajadiningrat et al. [2] and Wensveen et al. [3].
The second part of the lecture introduced how to design for the user’s experience, by giving a
framework able to guide the student’s work in the ideation of new interactive products. Such a
framework required the designer to pay attention to the What (product’s functionality); the How (the
way in which users interact with products); the Why (the motivation behind the usage of the product) of
a new interaction. This framework is based on a revised version of Hassenzahl’s work [4].
After the lecture, the first workshop was launched. Students were invited to design user-product
interaction (feedforward, input and feedback) in terms of user experience (considering the why, the
what and the how of the interaction). The topic of this exercise was the management of indoor
temperature in one of the following situations: at home, at work or in a hotel room. We encouraged the
students to design tangible products, avoiding the design of screen-based interfaces or touch-screens.
Indeed, products had to communicate their functions and to allow the user control their functionalities
by their physical features (e.g. buttons, knobs, smart surfaces, etc.), whenever possible.
We asked students to redesign a new thermostat-like product following three steps:
• Step 1. Analysing the “Why” (context and user analysis: what are the user’s needs, motivations
and expectations in controlling the room temperature?).

2254
 • Step 2. Defining the “What” (definition of the main product functions and the overall user-
product interaction).
• Step 3. Designing the “How” (final design proposal: how does the product work? How does the
user interact with it? What are the feedforwards, user’s actions and feedback?).

4.1.1 Analysing the “Why”

Firstly, every group was asked to choose one of the given three contexts (home, office, hotel room).
Then, for the chosen situation, they were asked to make a brief analysis on:
• The user (households, employees, staff, etc.).
• The user’s needs and expectations, and the recurring situations (when and how often the user
interacts with the product, and why).
• The products already on the market.

4.1.2 Defining the “What”

In the second step, every group was asked to define the framework of the user-product interaction, in
terms of:
• Product’s functionalities.
• Data the user would like to have.
• Overall proposal of the user-product interaction, also by creating a storyboard.

4.1.3 Designing the “How”

Finally, we asked students to propose a design concept based on the previous analysis (taking into
consideration the Why and the What of the user experience). They had to define every step of the
interaction, the product’s form and dimensions and its technical feasibility. In particular, students had
to design:
• The feedforwards the product gives to the user.
• The inputs the user will give to the product.
• The feedback the product will give to the user.

4.2 Results
In general, the results of the Workshop were satisfactory in term of giving students a cultural
framework useful for managing a quite simple user-product interaction. However, the main difficulty
encountered by students was the design of tangible interactions, i.e. interactions based on product
physical features, instead of digital interfaces.
Four groups redesigned a thermostat for home, three groups for the work environment and one group
redesigned a thermostat for a hotel room. All groups embedded a screen in the product, to display
information and data about the temperature. Some groups decided to support the traditional
visualization of the temperature based on numbers by introducing a conventional color code, such as
blue LEDs for the cooling system activation, red LEDs for the heating system activation, and green
LEDs for the energy-saving mode.
Three of them used a touch screen also to control all the product’s functions (feedforward, action and
feedback). The other five groups used the screen only to give information about the temperature of the
environment. In these cases, they designed physical buttons to give inputs to the system; one group
used a ring that can be turned to set the desired temperature (Fig. 1).

2255
 Fig. 1 concept by Ioannis Adamopoulos, Marco Conte and Eloisa Ronchi.

One group decided to support the touch screen with the rotation of a physical part (for setting the
temperature) and introduced an aroma diffusor to give a positive smell feedback when the system is
on the energy-saving mode (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 concept by Olga Gnutova, Leyla Menchola and Chi Zhang.

One group designed a physical product that resembles a screw with a screen on the top to visualize
the temperature in the work environment. The desired temperature could be set by screwing a
mechanic bolt upwards (for heating the system) or downwards (for cooling the system) (Fig.3).

Fig. 3 “Screw Temperature” designed by Calvo , Jing and Martinot.

The results of this first exercise show that students became familiar with the basic principles of
interaction design for tangible products. Even though many concepts were naïve in their appearance,
students were able to take successfully into consideration the concepts of feedforward, user’s action
and feedback in their design process. Moreover, although all products embed digital displays, several
of the resulting concepts are more than touch screens controlling all the products’ functions. In some
cases, students also designed new gestures and new tangible interactive elements (such as the screw
or the interactive cylinder). However, designing tangible interactions based only on product’s
physicality was very challenging for students, who were naturally inclined to design digital interfaces in
order to solve all the interactions with the product’s functions. This carries the risk of reducing the
interaction with products to the interaction with screen-based interfaces, thus impoverishing the user’s
sensory and gestural experience.

2256
4.3 Ws2 description
Once students had assimilated the basics of user-product interaction in the first exercise, the second
exercise aimed to teach them how to design enhanced interactions with products through new sensory
experiences. We thus introduced the concept of dynamic products and the use of smart materials as a
technological possibility for their development. Dynamic products are products showing sensory
features (e.g. shape, colour, smell, texture, sound, etc.) that change proactively in order to display
some information to users. For instance, a change in the colour of an object from blue to red can
mean that the external temperature has increased. Such products can be used to make the
information more tangible and sensorial, with the aim of creating more pleasant experiences for users.
The concepts of dynamic products and sensory information are based on previous researches carried
out by the authors [5; 6; 7; 8].
Before the workshop launch, two separated lectures were delivered, in order to pass students
knowledge about products’ dynamic features and smart materials. Moreover, as a support for the
design process, we provided the students with three design tools: the Sensory map, useful for
exploring the senses that can be stimulated by dynamic sensory features [5]; a set of cards
representing examples of dynamic products, useful for inspiring students; the Smart Material for
Sensory Experience map, useful for linking inspiration to feasibility [9]. Again, these tools stem from
previous research performed by the authors in the field of interaction design and dynamic products.
The topic of the workshop was redesigning the user interaction with a home appliance. Students were
asked to redesign either a dishwasher or a washing machine, focusing on the possibility to convey
messages or information coming from the product through dynamic sensory features, thus making the
user-product interaction more surprising and engaging.
The exercise was divided into three steps:
− Step 1. Analysis of the current product use.
− Step 2. Definition of the new user-product interaction.
− Step 3. Final design proposal.

4.3.1 Analysis of the current product use

Every group was asked to analyze the communication process - what information is conveyed to users
by the product and how, of either a dishwasher or a washing machine. Students had to choose an
existing product (preferably one they used in their everyday life), which they had to analyze in order to
outline a typical interaction with it. During the analysis of the product use, we asked to define the
messages that the product conveys to the user (e.g. “the dishwasher has completed the washing
cycle”). Among these messages, the students were suggested to select one or more messages that
could be displayed through one or more product’s dynamic features. They could be both messages
that the product already conveys by a screen-based interface, or new messages.

4.3.2 Definition of the new user-product interaction

In the second step, every group designed a new communication process based on product’s dynamic
features. The students also defined the framework of the new user-product interaction and the
messages the user would get. If the message asked the user to perform an action as a result (e.g.
take the clothes out of the washing machine), the students also had to analyze the feedforward, input
and feedback of the interaction. In this phase, student were asked to use the Sensory map and the set
of cards to find inspiration for new ideas about how to display information by dynamic sensory
features.

4.3.3 Final design proposal

Finally, every group developed a product design proposal. Students were asked to define the
product’s general appearance, the specific sub-component(s) that they had re-designed, and the
technical feasibility. As a support for the technical feasibility, students were encouraged to use the
Smart Material for Sensory Experience map, which relates the possible sensory changes with the
opportunities offered by smart materials, such as thermochromics inks that change their color
according to the temperature.

2257
4.4 Results
During this second workshop, six groups redesigned a washing machine and two groups redesigned a
dishwasher.
In both appliances, students observed that messages about the timing of the cleaning process were
almost missing. Indeed, most of them (six groups out of eight) decided to give prominence to this
message by designing dynamic sensory features that display the duration of the washing cycles. Of
the remaining two, one group focused on the suggested load for a dishwasher, while the other one
displayed the appropriate amount of detergent to put in the washing machine, according to amount of
clothes to wash.
One group working on the dishwasher conveyed information about the timing of the cleaning process
by embedding a smart glass in the door. At the beginning of the process, the glass is opaque and it
becomes progressively transparent as time passes, so to show the machine inside only when the
washing cycle is completed (Fig. 4). Both the groups decided to suggest correct uses of the product by
impeding improper actions. For instance, one group designed a button that pops up when the
dishwasher is loaded enough, to encourage the user not to use the machine just to wash a few dishes.
Another group designed a handle that is loose while the appliance is working (to avoid the opening of
the door while the cleaning process is activated).

Fig. 4 Concept by Maria Sol Calvo, Mahesh and Agathe Martinot.

The groups that redesigned a washing machine worked mostly on visual stimuli. Two groups used
color changes to convey information about the cleaning process; one group designed a texture that
appears on the appliance’s surface to inform the user about the cleaning process. One group used an
electrochromic ink to display the amount of soap to place in the detergent compartment, depending on
the weight of the clothes inside the machine (Fig. 5). Only one group explored tactile stimuli, by
changing the temperature of the knob according to the temperature of the selected washing
programme.

Fig. 5 Concept by Jessica Cesana, Marianna Mazzi and Eloisa Ronchi.

The results of this design activity showed that students felt more comfortable in approaching the
design of new interactions compared to the previous exercise. They were more familiar with controlling
the feedforward-input-feedback process in complex and dynamic situations (e.g. designing a
dishwasher that moves some parts to affect the user’s behavior). Compared to the first workshop,

2258
students explored unusual sensory stimuli such as temperature and tactile textures. Moreover, in
several concepts, students were able to select the appropriate smart material and the appropriate
technology to develop the product’s dynamic features, demonstrating the ability to link their ideas to
feasibility. The tools turned out to be very useful for applying the knowledge about dynamic products
and smart materials in the design process. Moreover, students stated that the maps were very
effective in fostering them to explore sensory media that otherwise would be overlooked [8].

4.5 WS3 Description

In this final exercise, students were asked to apply all the previously gained knowledge in a complete
product design process with particular emphasis on the definition of a user-product interaction aimed
at affecting the user’s behavior. This third workshop was focused on the user interaction with a lamp
or a kitchen scale. The product should be designed to help households to reduce their resource
consumption (in particular to save electricity and food).
During the launch of the workshop, one lecture was delivered in order to introduce the topic of
persuasive design and the use of dynamic products as media for informing users about their resource
consumption. During the presentation, several examples were shown in order to inspire students.
Again, the lecture was based on previous research on dynamic products for resource saving carried
out by the authors [10].
The final exercise lasted two months and it was divided in four steps:
− Step 1. Analysis of the current product use.
− Step 2. Definition of the Why.
− Step 3. Definition of the What.
− Step 4. Definition of the How.

4.5.1 Analysis of the current product use

As a first step, every group chose one of the given two categories of products (kitchen scale or lamp).
For the chosen product, groups were asked to: i) do an extensive market analysis and ii) select an
existing product and analyze a typical interaction with it.

4.5.2 Definition of the Why

Students were required to identify the users’ needs that the product should fulfill, in order to help them
to save resources (energy or food). Moreover, they were asked to imagine how the product could be
improved to help the user reduce his resource consumption (e.g. by displaying some data about the
user’s electricity consumption or by suggesting to eat expiring food, etc.). In this phase, student were
encouraged to design meaningful and engaging interactions.

4.5.3 Definition of the What

In the third step, groups were asked to define the main functionalities of the product and the
framework of the new user-product interaction considering the relationship between feedforward, input
and feedback.

4.5.4 Definition of the How

In the last step, each group had to develop a design proposal on the basis of the previous analysis
and the outlined interaction. Students were asked to define the product’s appearance and the
technical feasibility of the whole object.

4.6 Results
As a result, five groups redesigned a lamp and three groups redesigned a kitchen scale.
Most of the groups that redesigned a lamp (three out of five) displayed information to users through
light. For instance, one group added a LED strip on the base, which changes color from green to red
according to the energy consumption in the household (Fig. 6).

2259
 Fig.6 Soffione by Giulia Scurati, Thomas Boudot and Ece Pınar Nuhoğlu.

Some groups supported the light with other media (such as smell and sound). One group used smell
to reward the users about their sustainable energy consumption. One group used auditory media as
alarms for informing the user about his/her wrong behavior. In all these cases, persuasion occurs at a
cognitive level, as products only give users sensory feedback about their behavior. Indeed, such
objects did not require or impede specific actions to avoid the energy waste.
Instead, the two remaining groups developed concepts that act directly on user’s behavior, by
designing physical interactions that encourage users to take on specific actions to prevent and reduce
waste. For instance, one lamp was designed as a drop that progressively changes its inclination (from
vertical to horizontal position) according to the energy usage. In order to move back the lamp to the
vertical position, which is the most symmetrical and natural one, the user should turn off the light, thus
reducing the energy waste [7].

Fig. 7 Roly-Poly by Fenglin, Yinan and Jing.

The other lamp shows some small components that pop out every five minutes, breaking the shape’s
continuity (Fig.8). The user has to press these “buttons” to receive extra time, otherwise the lamp will
turn off when all the buttons come out (after a set period of time, e.g. one hour). Therefore, the product
encourages the user to ask for extra time only if he really needs it, because pushing the buttons is an
activity that requires some effort and waste of time, and asks the user to interrupt the tasks he is
preforming to get more light.

Fig.8 Popo by Olga Gnutova, Leyla Menchola and Chi Zhang.

The three groups that redesigned a kitchen scale focused on different strategies to sensitize users
about resource-saving practices connected to food. One group embedded the scale in the kitchen bin
and used color and movement to convey information about the amount of food wasted by the
households. Another group added a calendar function to the kitchen scale to inform the users about
the food that was about to expire, by color changes. The last one designed a pattern that appears on

2260
the scale’s surface to display the water footprint connected to the production of the food that is being
weighted (Fig.9). All these concepts tried to create engaging sensory experiences while informing
users about their habits in food consumption. Such experiences could increase the users’ attention
towards the issue of resource saving and could trigger more sustainable behaviours as a
consequence.

Fig. 9 blup by Maria Sol Calvo, Aghate Martinot and Eloisa Ronchi.

The outcomes of this third workshop showed that students were able to manage the whole design
process (from ideation to technical development) of simple products. The resulting concepts show that
students were able to design new product interactions that create meaningful experiences, in order to
encourage users to modify their behaviour. Although in most of the concepts students designed
sensory feedback related to the user’s behaviour, in some cases - such as the Roly-Poly lamp (Fig. 7)
or the Popo Lamp (Fig. 8), they paid less attention to the information level to directly engage users
through actions and interactions.

5 GENERAL DISCUSSION
A general analysis of the resulting concepts shows that all the students, who approached the theme of
interaction design for the first time, progressed during the course. The improvement of students’ skills
suggests that the structure of the course and the increasing level of complexity of the three exercises
helped them to gradually approach the interaction design field, by acquiring knowledge and abilities
step by step.
This course was also an opportunity to assess the outcomes of previous research performed by the
authors. Particularly, it was possible to test tools and theoretical frameworks developed in previous
studies. Lectures and design tools turned out to play an essential role in the student’s learning
process, as they supported the design activities and served as theoretical and practical references for
the students.
Lessons were useful for focusing the students’ work on the purpose of the activities. However, it was
observed that theoretical knowledge was not always easy to transfer to students, especially when they
have different cultural backgrounds. For instance, the language used during the lectures was
misleading for some students coming from disciplines different from design, such as engineering. As
an example, we report student’s difficulties in understanding the concepts of feedforward and
feedback, which were interpreted in a different way by designers and engineers. The second issue
concerns some difficulties that student faced when it was required to integrate theoretical knowledge
to practice, especially at the beginning of the course. In order to overcome these problems, in the
second and third workshop lectures were enriched with several examples of applied research,
concepts and products that inspired students during the design process.
The tools worked as an effective solution to link theory to practice. For instance, the Sensory map
encouraged students to explore unusual product’s features and stimulated their creativity. In the first
workshop, most of the groups designed a user experience focused on visual features of products.
However, after the second workshop (when students were encouraged to use the tools), they started
to explore also other senses, such as touch conveying messages through temperature or texture
changes on the artefact’s surface.

6 CONCLUSION
The progress that students showed during the course highlights the importance of introducing the field
of interaction design also in a technical master programme such as Design and Engineering. Indeed,
the first workshop demonstrated that students are inclined to design the interaction between user and

2261
 product mostly through digital screens. Encouraging them to design tangible interactions and dynamic
products, focusing on the products’ physical and sensory features, increased their skills in controlling
the product’s aesthetics also to create more pleasant and rich interactions. At the beginning, students
had difficulties taking into consideration senses different from sight, since they were not familiar with
designing for the richness of the products’ materiality. Lectures and tools were a fruitful strategy to
guide students in the exploration of the material features. Tools encouraged students to think out of
the box, and encouraged them to design new product experiences through new sensory interactions.
Lectures provided a common background among students, even though, at the beginning of the
course, researchers faced some issues about the language that was not homogeneous.
In conclusion, giving students theoretical frameworks and design tools helped them to design for rich
user-product interactions. The resulting concepts (particularly the results of the third workshop)
highlight that students were able to explore new communicative modalities and to design pleasurable
interactive experiences with products, based on theory stemming from research, which was
transferred to students through lectures and tools.

REFERENCES
[1] Colombo, S., Gorno, R., & Bergamaschi, S. (2013). Enhancing product sensory experience:
cultural tools for design education. In DS 76: Proceedings of E&PDE 2013, the 15th
International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Dublin, Ireland, 05-
06.09. 2013.
[2] Djajadiningrat, T., Overbeeke, K., & Wensveen, S. (2002, June). But how, Donald, tell us how?:
on the creation of meaning in interaction design through feedforward and inherent feedback.
In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices,
methods, and techniques (pp. 285-291). ACM.
[3] Wensveen, S.A.G., Djajadiningrat, J.P. and Overbeeke, C.J. Interaction frogger: a design
framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward. In Proc. of DIS’04,
ACM Press (2004), 177-184.
[4] Hassenzahl, M. (2013). User experience and experience design. The Encyclopedia of Human-
Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.
[5] Colombo S. (2014); Sensory Experiences. Informing, Engaging and Persuading through
Dynamic Products; Phd Thesis, Politecnico di Milano.
[6] Colombo, S., Rampino, L. (2013). Beyond Screens. Exploring product dynamic features as
communication means; Design and semantics of form and movement (DeSForM 2013)
[7] Colombo, S., Bergamaschi, S., and Rampino, L. (2013). “What Are You Telling Me? How
Objects Communicate Through Dynamic Features.” In Proceedings of xCoAx Conference,
Computation, Communication, Aesthetics and X, Bergamo, 129-137.
[8] Bergamaschi, S., Lefebvre E., Colombo S., Del Curto B. (2015). Implemented Design &
Engineering Students Skills through Functional Materials Knowledge; published in the
proceedings of the conference EDULEARN15.
[9] Bergamaschi, S., Lefebvre E., Colombo S., Del Curto B., Rampino L.; Material and immaterial:
new product experience; paper accepted for The International Journal of Designed Objects.
[10] Bergamaschi, S. (2015). Dynamic Products: an instrument for saving resources. Improve user's
awareness through designing product experiences; published in the proceedings of ICED2015
conference.

2262

View publication stats