ThisworkislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike4.0InternationalLicense.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

UsingHeterotopiastoCharacteriseInteractionsinPhysical/DigitalSpacesAKMALHaiderAlia*andCOULTONPaulb

aImagination,LancasterInstitutefortheContemporaryArts,LICABuilding,LancasterUniversity,UK,LA14YW.bImagination,LancasterInstitutefortheContemporaryArts,LICABuilding,LancasterUniversity,UK,LA14YW.*Correspondingauthore-mail:h.a.akmal@lancaster.ac.ukdoi:10.21606/dma.2017.348

This paper addresses the complexity of designing interactions in hybriddigital/physical spaces, in which notions of public and private are becomingincreasingly blurred, by using a philosophical lens to characterise such spaces. InparticularitreferencestheideaspresentedbyMichelFoucaultinhisessay“OfOtherSpaces”.Itproposesthepresenceofaspatialdivisionwithinphysicalandvirtual,intermsofprivateandpublic,andjuxtaposesthemthroughaHeterotopicalModelforInter-Spatial Interaction through which designers can examine the coexistence ofphysicalanddigitalinteractions.Thepurposeofmodellingthisjuxtapositionistohelpdesignersunderstandthenatureofconnectionsthathappenbetweenphysicalanddigitalobjectsinthesespacesandconsiderhowmeaningfulinteractionscanrespondtothiscomplexity.

spaces;phenomenology;heterotopia;philosophyfordesign

1. IntroductionThispaperillustrateshowphilosophicalconstructsshouldnotbeviewedasseparatefromdesignpracticebutrathercanaugmentthedesignprocessusingtheexampleofhowtocharacterisecomplexinteractionsthatcombineboththephysicalanddigitalaspects.WeestablishthepresenceofaphilosophicaldivisionofspacedevelopedthroughtheideaspresentedbyMichelFoucaultinhisessay“DesEspaceAutres”(OfOtherSpaces).ThisdivisionplaysapivotalroleinthecreationofaframeworkforInter-SpatialInteraction,actingasaphilosophicallensthroughwhichwedefineinteractionsbetweenphysicalanddigitalaspectsthattraverseoveranimaginedRealSpaceandDigitalSpace.ReferencingFoucault’sideaoftheheterotopiaasthebasisofthislens,wesystematicallydefinethepresenceofthesealternatespacesandthenatureofinteractivitythatcouldhappenwithinthem.Finally,adiscussionispresentedonthepotentialfordesignerstousethisapproachtounderstandthecomplexnatureofobjectsthatconnectwithdigitalinterfacesandservicesinordertoconsiderthe“rangeofperspectivesfromwhicheachdevicemaybeobserved”

(Lindley&Coulton,2017)andthuscomprehendthe“complexityrelatingtotheinterdependence”betweeninteractions,raisingquestionsontheneedfor‘meaningfulinteractions’betweenphysicalanddigitalinsuchenvironments.

1.1. ThedivisionofSpaceSpaceisdescribedbyTuan(1977)as,“anabstracttermforacomplexsetofideas”,whichhesayscomesfromhow,“peopleofdifferentculturesdifferinhowtheydivideuptheirworld,assignvaluestoitsparts,andmeasurethem”.Hisdefinitionassumesspaceinrelationtothe“intimateexperience[ofman]withhisbodyandwithotherpeople”,whereinone,“organisesspacesothatitconformswithandcaterstohisbiologicalneedsandsocialrelations”.Architecturallyspaceisseenthroughanideaofdimensionality,whereitcanbemeasured,yet“spatialdimensionssuchasverticalandhorizontal,massandvolumeareexperiencesknownintimatelytothebody”(Tuan,1977,p.108),thisallowsarchitecturetotraversetheboundarybetweenspaceandplace.Bothterms“denotecommonexperiences”(Tuan,1977,p.3)buttheybothexpandoneachother’sdefinitionswhere“placeissecurity,spaceisfreedom:weareattachedtotheoneandlongfortheother”.Tuan’sexplorationofspace/placeismoretowardsthestudyandexperienceofGeography,butitcanbeappropriatedtoencompassthedigitalaswehavedonewithintheresearch,assuch:

Considerthesenseofan‘inside’andan‘outside’,ofintimacyandexposure,ofprivatelifeandpublicspace.Peopleeverywhererecognisethesedistinctions,buttheawarenessmaybequitevague(Tuan,1977,p.107)

Thelevelofinteractionapersonmighthavewithinanopentownsquarecomparedtotheirownhousewouldbeverydifferent,asdifferentamountsoftrustwouldbeassociatedwiththese’inside’and’outside’spaces.Thisspace/placerelationshiptranscendsintoourdigitalenvironmentsequally,withthe“conceivingofcyberspaceasasocialspace”(Slane,2007,p.12),itcanbeseenasbeing,“sociallyconstructed,itsmeaningderivingfromtheusestowhichitisput,andthereforecapableofmultiplesimultaneousincarnations”—thewordsocialhereistakenliberallytoincludenotonlypersontopersoninteractionbutalsothingtothinginteractionwheredigitalterminalsandobjectswouldbeincluded—therefore,amobilephonewouldconstituteasapersonalspacewhereasamessageboardonlinewouldbeapublicspaceonlyjuxtaposedintoavirtualworldbutineithercasetheinteractionhappensthroughaphysicalinterface;hereamobile,oralaptop.TheseincarnationsofdigitalspacesbecomemoreconvolutedwhenimaginingtheplethoraofInternetpowereddevicesavailable,oftenwiththeSmartmonikerprecedingthem;SmartPhones,SmartWatches,SmartTV’s,andsoon.Aclusterofcommunicationsthathaveus“entangledwithintheheterogeneousnetworkofinterconnectedobjectsorthingsthatarereadable,recognisable,locatable,addressable,and/orcontrollableviatheInternet”(Coulton,2015;Lindley,Coulton,&Cooper,2017).Aspacecanthushavemultipleplacesresidingwithinit,eachwithitsownmeaningwhichisuniquetotheactorsinteractingwithinthem.

Oftenthesevirtualinteractionstendtomimicolderreal-worldpractices;adiarycanexistinaphysicalandvirtualform,bothcanbeclosedoropentoothers.ThecomplexityensueswhenmultiplepointsofinteractioncomeintoplaywithobjectsconnectedtowiderconstellationsofinteractionsforinstancewhenaSmartAssistantsuchasGoogleHomeneedstoconnectwithamobilephoneoraswitchamongmultipleotherpointsinordertorequestaccessandgainingtrusttoswitchonalightbulb,theseraisequestionssuchas:whatisthenatureoftheseinteractions?Aretheymeaningfulfortheactors?Andhowcanonebetterdesignthemtobenotonlyefficientbutalsoworthwhile?

2. MethodologyPhenomenologicalresearchattemptstounderstand,“howpeopleexperiencethingsandevents”,byexamining,“perspectivesandviewsofvarioussocialrealities”(Leedy&Ormrod,2010;Muratovski,2015,p.79).TheStanfordEncyclopaediaofPhilosophydefinesphenomenologyasthestudyof,

“thingsastheyappearinourexperience,orthewaysweexperiencethings,thusthemeaningsthingshaveinourexperience”(Smith,2016)andexpressesaninterestina“consciousexperienceasexperiencedfromthesubjectiveorfirst-personpointofview”.Philosophicalapproachessuchasspeculativerealism,orobject-orientedontologyputasideoldphilosophicaldualismsandinsteadexplorehowobjects“shouldberecognisedfortheirindifferencetous”(Cole,2013,p.106)andfocusonthethingstheydo“behindourbacks”lookingattheirindividualexperiencesas“actants”,movinginandoutof“assemblages,enteringintocollectivesoftheirownmaking”.Therefore,byseeingtheseinteractionsexistingasaphenomenonweattempttomakesenseoftheircomplexityusingphilosophicalreferencesintandemwithreal-lifeexamples.Byasking,“’Whatisitliketodoorexperience[something]?’”(Muratovski,2015,p.79),weattempttoempathisewiththeseobjectsandseefromtheirperspectivewhattheseInter-SpatialInteractionsarelike.

Figure1.ImaginingDigitalSpaceasasubsetofRealSpace

Forthisphilosophicallens,theactualspacewillbedividedutilisingTuan’s(1977)perspectiveofspacescontaininga“senseofan‘inside’,andan‘outside’”,bypresentingtworealities;onebeingthephysicalrealitythatwehavearoundusinwhichwephysicallyinteract(Real-SpaceorRS),theotherbeingavirtualonewhereinteractionsthrough/withdigitalobjectsoccur(Digital-SpaceorDS)(seeFig.1).InthisparticularviewDSresidesasan‘inside’orasubsetofRS,allowingforphysicalobjectstobepresentwithinthesamespacealongsidetheirvirtualcounterparts;onebeingtangibletheotherintangible.Theideaofvirtualbeingpresentalongsidethephysicalhasbeendiscussedbyothersseeingitasa“VirtualityContinuum”(Milgram,Takemura,Utsumi,&Kishino,1995),onewhere,“boththerealandthevirtualcoexist”(Coulton,2017).Virtualworldsarealsoseenasliteralplacesthat,“canbeconstruednotjustintermsofglobalisedonlinenetworks,butintermsofspace,landscape,andlocalitiesaswell”(Rymarczuk&Derksen,2014).Descartes’exploredtheconceptofamind/bodysplitwhichhecalledresextensa(extendingthings)andrescogitans(thinkingthings),commonlyusedtoimaginethe“physicalworldashavingbothextensionandlocationinspace”(Monk,1997,p.46),lookingatpsychologicalrealitiessuchasthevirtualthroughthisapproachthey,“donothavespatialdimensions,andtheirlocationisonlymetaphorically‘inthemind’”;therefore,thedivisionofspacecanbejustifiedthroughaphilosophicalembodimentofthevirtualspaceasasimilaryetalteredparallelspacetothephysicalresidingwithinit.

Thesecondstepistofurthercharacterisethesespaceswiththeir‘insides’and‘outsides’,andinthisparticularcasetoconsider:spheresofPrivateandPublic.Thesesphereshouseinformationwithwhichwephysicallyand/orvirtuallyinteractwith.Asanexample,takeapublicmessageboard

onlinetobeanalogouswithadiscussionintheparkwhereothersmayverywellhearyou,similarlyapersonalpasscodeprotecteddigitaldiarycanberelatedwithaphysicalkeyandlockdiary.Althoughthisisonlyintermsoftheimmediaterelationshiponehaswithobjectsandspacesaroundtheobjectsandasweshallseeforconnectedobjectstheseinteractionsbecomeconsiderablymorecomplex.

1.2. GroundingthePhilosophyHavingacknowledgedthespaces,wenowseespecificoverlapshappeningbetweenspacesandspheres(seeFig.2).Foucaultoncesaid:“Whatisinterestingisalwaysinterconnection,nottheprimacyofthisoverthat”(Brooker,1999),keepingthatinmindwecometothephilosophicalbasisofthispaper.Inhisessay“DesEspaceAutres”(OfOtherSpaces)Foucault(1967)introducedtheconceptoftheheterotopiaexploringhowourlivesare“governedbyacertainnumberofoppositionsthatremaininviolable”,callingthem“simplegivens”,being,“betweenfamilyspaceandsocialspace,betweenculturalspaceandusefulspace”,butmoreimportantly,“betweenprivatespaceandpublicspace”(Foucault,1967,p.2).Heexplainstheseasidealsthatare“nurturedbythehiddenpresenceofthesacred”andcallstheseheterotopiasplacelessplacesbecauseoftheirdeviationfromthenorm.Hegoesontoassertthat,“wedonotliveinakindofvoid,insideofwhichwecouldplaceindividualandthing”(p.3),rather,“weliveinsideasetofrelationsthatdelineatessiteswhichareirreducibletooneanotherandabsolutelynotsuperimposableononeanother”.Theseotherspacesthusexistasa,“simultaneouslymythicandrealcontestationofthespaceinwhichwelive”.ForFoucault,“HeterotopiasareplacesofOtherness,whoseOthernessisestablishedthrougharelationshipofdifferencewithothersites,suchthattheirpresenceeitherprovidesanunsettlingofspatialandsocialrelationsoranalternativerepresentationofspatialandsocialrelations”(Hetherington,2002,p.8).Hetherington(2002)explainsonhowthesespacesarecreatedsayingthatthey,“bringtogetherheterogeneouscollectionsofunusualthings”(p.43)—thedeviationfromthenorm—wheretheyhaveno,“orderestablishedthroughresemblance”.Furthermore,hediscussesthatwhatmattersistherelationshipseen“fromthestandpointofanotherperspective,thatallowsaspacetobeseenasheterotopic”.

ThisapproachmakesitsafetoimagineuniqueinteractionsthatexistwithintheoverlapsoftheInter-SpatialInteractivitymodelasresidingwithinaheterotopia—oraseriesofheterotopias.Agroundingfactorofthesespacesisthatinthese,“placesofOtherness”,“unsettlingjuxtapositionsofincommensurate‘objects’”areestablishedeachcontesting,“thewayourthinkingisordered”(Hetherington,2002,p.42);hencepresentinganalternateorderingofthingsthatisunsettlingbecausetheyhave“theeffectofmakingthingsappearoutofplace”(Hetherington,2002,p.50).Thisparticularaspectallowsustoviewinteractionsinthesespacesinamannerofurgencyandthuschallengingtheirmeaningfulnesstowardstheactorsandtheact.

AlthoughtheconceptofheterotopiahasmostcommonlybeenusedtodefinealternatephysicalspacesasthosereferencedbyFoucaulthimself—suchasthecemetery,afestival,orthelibrary—italsoisusedtodefinemoreabstractstructuresasheexplainswiththe,“rug[being]asortofgardenthatcanmoveacrossspace”(Foucault,1967,p.6).Anotheranalogyhegivesisoftheboatwhichhecallsa,“heterotopiaparexcellence”.RymarczukandDerksen(2014)discusshowtheboat,“asa‘placelessplace’appliestocyberspaceaswell,‘particularlywhenitisanetwork,linkingterminalsindifferentplacesandtimesintoaunifiedenvironment’”.TheygoontoassertthroughShermanYoung’spointofviewofhowcyberspacecanhave[further]heterotopiasaswell”.

1.3. PrinciplesofHeterotopiaFoucault(1967)establishedsixprinciplestoexplainhisideologyofaheterotopia,tobeginheaffirmsthatallculturesdisplaytheabilitytocreate,orhavecreated,heterotopiasthoughwhichthey,“takequitevariedforms”dependingoncausalrelationshipstothespacetheyinhabit,theculturetheyaretetheredtoandotherfactors.Second,societyhastheabilityto“guide,push,andmakeestablishedheterotopias”,ineffecthavingofthem,“changeoradoptnovelfunctionsornewmeanings”

(Rymarczuk&Derksen,2014).Foucaultexplainsthisinrelationtothecemeterywhichhavingevolvedovertime,“nolongerthesacredandimmortalheartofthecity,buttheothercity,whereeachfamilypossessesitsdarkrestingplace”(Foucault,1967,p.6).Third,isthe“juxtaposinginasinglerealplaceareseveralspaces,severalsitesthatareinthemselvesincompatible”(Foucault,1967,p.6).RymarczukandDerksen(2014)haveexpressedthistobea,“definingcharacterofheterotopias”,allowingthe,“merg[ing]ofcertainspaces”,suchaspublicandprivatetoexist.Thefourthprincipleestablishesaconceptofheterochroniesbeingthat“heterotopiasaremostoftenlinkedtoslicesintime”(Foucault,1967,p.6),forcingan,“absolutebreakwithtraditionaltime”;cemeteries,museums,libraries,areexamplesof“becom[ing]heterotopiasinwhichtimeneverstopsbuildingupandtoppingitsownsummit”.Fifth,“Heterotopiasalwayspresupposeasystemofopeningandclosingthatbothisolatesthemandmakesthempenetrable”(Foucault,1967,p.7).Thiscanbeimaginedthroughmetaphoricalgatekeepersentrustedwithresponsibilitiestoallowcertainthingstoenterandexittheheterotopia,digitallythiscanbeimaginedthroughpayment,registration,andidentificationprotocols.Finally,heterotopiashave,“afunctioninrelationtoallthespacethatremains”aroundthem.Foucault(1967)definesthisasafunctionthat,“unfoldsbetweentwoextremepoles”,inabidto,“exposeeveryrealspace”,throughcreatinganalternate,“spaceofillusion”,whereindefininga,“spaceofperfectiontocompensatefortheflawsofreallife”(Rymarczuk&Derksen,2014).

Asanexampleofadigitalspacebeingaheterotopia,RymarczukandDerksen(2014)usestheexampleofFacebook,affirminghowitrequiresactorsorinitscase,“user[s]followrulesofconduct”,iftheywishto,“startimmersingthemselves”,initsvirtualworldandhavetoagreeupon,“termsofagreement—acontractessentiallystrippingawayallpropertyclaimsofinformationpostedwithinthisspace”.Theycritiquethisaspectoftheservicesayingthatitis,“difficulttoleavethespaceentirely”;recentupdatesofFacebookhaveaddedadeletionoptionthoughthedesignofthefeaturearguablydiscouragessuchactivitywhichessentiallyalignstothefifthprincipleofheterotopia.Movingon,theyaffirmthatFacebookshowsthe,“distinctregimeoftime”,thatFoucaultdescribesinhisfourthprinciplecomparingittomuseumsthat“accumulatetime”,havingit“sharetraitswithbutalsocombinethemandaddadimensionthatmarksitasanaltogethernewkindofheterochrony”,summingupthat,“Facebookcollapsespastlife,presentlifeandafterlifeintosomethingveryother”.TheyconvergeonthethirdprinciplebyexplaininghowFacebookviewsprivacywhereinthepublicdomain,“isnotinvisibletotheFacebookownersandadministrators”,andatthesametimeindividual,“socialspheresformonebignetwork,ownedandadministratedbyFacebook”,andthoughindividualsaredividedintospaces,“thedistinctionbetweenprivateandpublicdoesnothold”,because,“Facebookasawholeisnotanundividedspace”.Finally,forthesixthprincipleadiscourseontheillusionthatFacebookgivesofconnectivitywhichthey,“characteriseasaperformance”,andgivepowerto,“inauthenticity”,aspeople,“rejoiceinthefactthatitgivesthemtheabilitytopresentthemselvestotheworld”.

1.4. AModelforInter-SpatialInteractionsTheseprinciplescanjustaswellbeestablishedforphysicaldevicesthatinteractwith-throughRSandDSandwhileonlineservicessuchasFacebookcanontheirownbeseenasheterotopias,thefollowingmodelisproposedtoexplorehowphysicalanddigitalinteractionscancoexistinthesameinstanceasaheterotopia.Figure2showstheproposedheterotopicalmodel,inspiredbyFoucault’s(1967)exampleofamirror:

Themirrorfunctionsasaheterotopiainthisrespect:itmakesthisplacethatIoccupyatthemomentwhenIlookatmyselfintheglassatonceabsolutelyreal,connectedwithallthespacethatsurroundsit,andabsolutelyunreal,sinceinordertobeperceivedithastopassthroughthisvirtualpointwhichisoverthere(Foucault,1967,p.4)

Hedescribesitasaparallelspacewhichappearstohavetraitsofa“utopia”sinceyouseeyourselfwhereyouarenot;orasheplacesit“inanunreal,virtualspacethatopensupbehindthesurface”

(p.4)—heretheseeingofoneselfistakeninthesenseoftheactorinthatspace,soamobilephone,oratoasterthatcanconnecttotheInternetcanbeimaginedsimilarly.TheactofseeingyouractivitiesonaSmartPhone,forexampleusingWhatsapp,canalsobeunderstoodfromFoucaultsexampleofthesoundsonatelephonelinewhichusesthesameconceptofthemirroranalogy,whereinbytalkingtoeachotherwithoutbeingphysicallypresentinthesamespaceandthehearingofeachother’svoiceaffirmstheirexistence.

Figure2.PhilosophicalModelforInter-SpatialInteractivity

Themodelthusincorporatestwospacescoexistingasonewithintheothereachwithitsrulesandregulationsandencompassingindividualspheresofprivacyandpublicity.Theoverlapscreatedcanbecharacterisedas:Private-Real(PrR),Public-Real(PuR),Private-Virtual(PrV),andPublic-Virtual(PuV).Furthermore,overlapsareseenbetweentherealandvirtualiterationsofprivacyandpublicityandtheyformthemoreuniqueandalbeitcomplexheterotopias(h1throughh8).

Private-Real:OneofthetwodivisionsofRS,itencompassesidealsandinformationthataremostintimatetousformingourinherentacknowledgementoftheprivate.Forinstance,thephysicalspaceofabedroomcouldbeconsideredasaveryrealprivatespace.Beingapersonalperspectiveitishenceofmoreimportancetotheindividualtoacknowledgeitassuch,butinordertofunctionasatrue‘private’itrequiresanunderstandingofacorrespondingopposite;

Public-Real:Opposinggeneralnotionsofprivacy,itdefinestheprivateasmuchasitdefinesitself.Anopenrealitythatexistsaroundus,governedbyculture,society,government,policy,tonameafew.Thepublicexistsasaplatformofinteractionthatisopenandvalidforalltointerfere/intersect

with.Carryingontheexampleofahome,acommunallivingroomcouldbeacceptedasrealpublicspace,andinalargerperspectiveaparkwhereonecanbeeasilyseenandinteractedwith.

Private-Virtual:FirstofthetwocounterpartsinDS,itincorporatesrulesthataredefinedbytheindividualtoreplicatetheirrealnotionsofprivacy.“Thealways-on,always-accessiblenetworkproducesabroadsetofchangestoourconceptofplace”(Varnelis&Friedberg,2008).Referringtothemobilephoneasa“telecocoon”Varnelis(2008)discusseshowit“maintainsintimacyatadistance,facilitatingprivateencountersinpublicspaces”,thereforecreatingthecounterexistenceoftheprivateinDS.ApersonalSmartPhonecanbeconsideredasaprivatevirtualspacewithinaphysicalobject.

Public-Virtual:Secondofthetwocounterpartsthisfacilitatesthepublicspherethroughdigitalinterfaces,Varnelis(2008)takesacuefromJaneJacobssayingwhat“makesthepublicspherevibrantisthecontinualcontactwithunexpectedformsofinteractions”,theDSallowsforacontinuumofthoseinteractionsbetweenPublic-Realthroughtothevirtual.Atelevisioncanbeseenasavirtualpublicspace,onewhereinteractioncanbeachievedthroughexperiencingit,andsincemultiplepeoplecanexperiencethesamethingtogetheritallowsforsomethingakintobeingataconcert.

Heterotopia1:ThefirstoverlaptooccurisbetweenRealPrivateandPublicspheres,heretheinteractionsarethosethathappeninourdailyphysicallivesinfluencedbyveryphysicalelementsintheworldaroundus.Forthepurposeofthispaperandtoaidunderstandingwewillbeusinganexampleoffitnesstrackingtoillustratethedifferenceswithinthemodel.Anactorcouldimaginethephysicalstepstheytakeasbeingaveryphysicalprivateinteractionthatintruthisverypublicasthestepscouldbeseenbeingtakenbyothersinthesamephysicalspace.Inbothinstances,theactorisin-chargeoftheacttohappenbecomingthegate-keeper,theytakeastepandindoingsohaveotherspotentiallyseeithappen;anamountoftimeisaccumulatedinordertotakeeachstepandviewithencetheactsarehetrochronies;eachstepbeingtakenhasanillusionofdisplacementwhichinthisinstanceconformtothelawsofphysicsandsubsequentlyremoveonefromtheirinitialstance(standingormoving)towardsanother.

Heterotopia2:Movingclock-wisearoundthemodelshowninfigure2thenextoverlapisseenbetweenRSandDS,hereusingthesameexampleoffitnesstracking,thisformcanbeseenwhenanactorusesaphysicaltrackingdevicesuchasaFitBittorepresentrealstepsinanalternatestate,inthiscasenumericdata.Althoughtheinformationisthesame,theybothrepresentphysicalstepsbutduetothefacttheyarewithintwodifferentspaces(RSandDS)theyarevisibleindifferentways.VariationsofthePrivateclashtogethercreatinganalternaterealityofprivacywhichexistsonlyinDShenceitisinmanywayssimilartotheillusioninFoucault’smirror;oneversionlooksatthevirtualversionofthemselvesandgroundstheothersvisibilityintheirownrespectiverealms.

Heterotopia3:NextweseeanoverlapbetweenPrVandPuV,theinteractionhereshouldabideprimarilybyrulesintheDSwithlittleinfluencefromRS.Continuingwithourexample,thestepssavedtothefitnesstrackerarenowallowedbythewearertobesavedtoaserveronline.ThereasonthisisaPuVinteractionisbecausetheserverwillbeoperatedbyotherentitieswhocouldprescribepoliciesandregulationstooverseethisinformation.

Heterotopia4:Thenextoverlapisbetweenbothiterationsofpublic.Manyinteractionstendtoexistinthisspacewhicharefreetoaccessthroughopendatainordertocreateapubliclyviableconnectionbetweentherealandthevirtual.Lookingbackatthestepstakenexample,imagineawearabledevicethatdoesn’tsharedatawithitswearerbutinsteadsavesitimmediatelytoapublicserver.AservicesuchasIfThisThenThat(IFTTT)couldthenbeusedtoparsethisdataandinitiatesomeaction,forexample,thestepdataissentfromthedevicedirectlythenparsedintoanonlinespreadsheet.Anotherwayofconsideringthisisthroughtheexampleofawifilight-bulbthat’sconnectedtoadigitalinterfaceallowingyoutoturnitonoroffviaamobiledevice.ThebulbisinaroomthatcanbeoperatedthroughapubliclinkonFacebook,anyonecanaccessitandchangethe

statusofthephysicalbulb.Thebulbexistsasaphysicalobjectandhasadigitalpresenceaccessiblethroughthemobiledevicemakingitexistthereasanalternateofitself.Whenturningthebulbonfromthemobilethereisnophysicalinteractionbeingmadewiththebulbyetaveryphysicalalterationoccursinthestateofthebulbwhereinitturnson.Thismakesthisinteractionaverypubliconewhereeventhoughphysicalcontactisnothappeningaveryvisiblephysicalchangeoccurs.

Heterotopia5:Theinneroverlapsofthemodelarewheremorecomplicatedinteractionsbegintoappeargovernedaccordingtoorders.ThefirstofwhichoccursasaPrR-PrV-PuRinteraction.AsthisoccursprimarilyinPrRitwouldbemoreinfluentialbuttheinteractionwouldhavetraitsoftheotherspheres.TakeourstepsbeingsavedfromourFitBit,whatifthatdataweretobesyncedwithanotherdeviceofanotherwearerandtheycouldscrollthroughdatathat’sbeensharedwiththemandviceversa?Althoughtheinformationhereispresentindifferentversions(realstepsandnumericiterations)thepresenceofanotherindividualandtheirphysicaldevicecanbetakenasitbeinginbothrealanddigitalspaces

Heterotopia6:HereweseeaPrV-PrR-PuVoverlapwiththingsprimarilygroundedbythePrVbutinfluencedbyothers.ThiscanbeimaginedverysimilartoexampleinH5butsubstitutingtheseconddevicewithawebsitewherealldataissyncedandsharedwithawidercommunity.Theuseofsocialmediacanalsobeimaginedhere,yourfitnesstrackersavesphysicaldataitinteractswithandsendsthattoadigitalserverwhichsubsequentlyinteractswithasocialnetworksuchasFacebookandsharestheinformationpublically.ThemovementofthisinformationfromRStoDSandthenagainintoDSbutasaverydifferentversionofitselfshowshowsimpledatacollectioncanberepurposedexponentially,witheveryjumpchangingthedatatoreaffirmaccordingtothenatureoftheotherspaceitinhabits.

Heterotopia7:InaPuV-PrV-PuRoverlapamoredigitalapproachoftrustcanbeobserved.TheIFTTTprotocolearlierimaginedtosavedatatoaspreadsheetcanbereconsidered,onlythistimeinsteadofsavingtoapersonalspreadsheetthedataisvisualisedonapublicdevicesuchasadigitaldisplayinanofficetellingallitsemployeesabouthowmanystepshavebeentakenintheofficeonlybytheemployees.

Heterotopia8:Finally,inaPuR-PuV-PrRoverlaponecanseeaphysicaldominatingthevirtual.AwaytopicturethisinteractionwouldbewithadoorthatcanmonitorpeoplegoinginandoutofitusingwearableRFIDtags.ThedataiscomingfromaphysicalsourceandreturningtoaphysicalsourcebybeingdisplayedpubliclybutwhatmakesthisuniquefromtheH7isthatherethedataistakendirectlyfromthephysicalsourceandnotthroughanyvirtualchannels,alternativelytomakeitmoreinteresting,thePuVcanbeasourceofinformationthatcouldbesyncingaparticularindividualaccordingtotheirinteractionwiththedoor.So,imagineashoewithanRFIDtag,itmovesbetweenthedoorandregistersthewearersyncingfitnessdatathatistrackedbytheshoe,thisinturnisreturnedtoaphysicaloutputlikethesamebulletinboardbutthistimethroughdirectphysicalinteraction.

Previouslywediscussedthemanyinteractionshappeninginthemodel,butatthecentremuchmorecomplexinteractionstakeplace.UtilisingfromthemirroranalogyofautopiathisspacehasbeenmarkedUandhereiswhereavirtuallyprivate-publicyetsimultaneouslyphysicallyprivate-publicinteractiontakesplace.Inordertoimaginethis,levelsofpermissionandtrustneedtobefacilitatedandthatcanonlyhappenifthedifferentinteractionsallowformajoralterationsinthenatureofinformationhandling.ImagineascenariowhereyourfitnessdataistrackedtoyourFitBit,thatinturnsendsdatatoadigitalserver,whichallowsaccesstophysicaldevicestorelaythatinformationwhenandwheretheywish,nowpicturegoingintoagymandseeingawalllightupwithyourspecificinformationkeepingtrackofyourstepsandsharingitwithyoubutveryopenlysootherscanseeandpossiblyinteractwithitaswell.Suchaninteractioncanonlytakeplacewhenlevelsofpermissionshavebeenallowedoverdifferentspacesthroughpolicies,regulations,differentterms

andconditionsandsoon.Bymakingthisinteractionbetweenuser-device-service-instituteandsoonnewheterotopiasaredynamicallycreatedwheretherulesdifferandthusthedevicehastooperateinthatparticularway;anychangehappeninginanyofthoserulesreverberatesthroughtheentireconstellation.

3. ConclusionsInthispaperwehavepresentedawayofcharacterisingdigitalandphysicalinteractionsbyimaginingarelationshipbetweenspacesandlevelsofpermissionexplainedthroughaphilosophicallensofheterotopias.ItcanbeseenthroughFigure3thatthecloseronegetstothecentreoftheInter-SpatialInteractivityModelthegreaterthecomplexityofinteractionsoccur.Theincreasedlevelsofcomplexity,whichincludesincreasinglydiffusedrelationshipsoftrust,raiseaquestionintothemeaningfulnessinhowtheseinteractionshappen.InterconnectivitybetweenphysicalanddigitalinterfacesarebecomingmoreandmorecommonwithIoTsurfacinginnewermoreseeminglyefficientformsoftenasdesignedartefacts.Butthecomplexitythatensuesfromtheseinteractionsmeansthatalotofinformationiseitherlost,ignored,ordeliberatelyobfuscated.Whenvariouspreviouslyclearrelationshipsoftrustarebeingaltered,istheinteractionstillworthittotheactor?Arethereanymeasuresthatcanbetakeninordertorenegotiatethistrustorindicatedthatithaschanged?

Figure3.RelationshipofnumberofinteractiontolevelofcomplexitywithinInter-SpatialInteractivityModel

ThoughHuman-CentredDesign(HCD)“hasbecomethedefactomodusoperandi”(Lindleyetal.,2017)fordesigningforIoT,concernshavebeenraisedoverhowthisapproach“obscure[s]underlyingcomplexitiesfromusers”.Designershavealwaysaffectedthe“well-beingandlivesofusersandsocietyatlarge”(Stam&Eggink,2014),StamandEggink(2014)havearguedfortheuseofphilosophyindesignsayingthat“encouragingdesignerstoengagewithdeeperphilosophicalissuesabouttheirpracticeandresearchwillcontributetoamoreprofoundunderstandingofdesign”(p.5),thisapproachofusingphilosophicalconstructsasasupportstructuretolookatthelargerpictureofadesignproblemcanallowdesignerstobe“moreawareofthepowerofdesignandhelpthemtoenvisionhowtheirdesignscancontributetoamoredesirablefuture”(p.5).TheuseofMichelFoucault’sphilosophiesasabasisforstudyingcomplexdigital/physicalinteractionsisineffectawaytohelpbetterunderstandHCDpitfallswhendesigningforthesekindsofinteractions.UsingtheabovemodelinconjunctionwithphilosophicalconstructssuchasObject-OrientedOntology(OOO)itispossibletousephilosophyfurtherasatooltohelpindesignresearchwithrelationtodissectingtheinevitablemessinessthatisassociatedwithdigitalandphysicalinteractionsseeninIoTdevices.

Lindleyetal.(2017)havereferredtotheinteractionbetweenpeopleandtechnologiesasa“Pandora’sboxofpossibility”beingopened,thismodelandapproachallowstomitigatethesepossibilitiesandforceustofocusonindividualinteractionstoseethemasactingindifferentlytotheirsurroundingsraisingquestionsforotherareasofstudythatcouldbenefitfromtheinformationextractedinthisprocess.Oneparticulardirectiontomoveonfromherecouldbelookingatwherevalueforstakeholdersliesinthismodel?Whenseeingphysical/digitalinteractionshappeninthisfashion,isitpossibletofurtherutiliseittoseehowdesigncouldbeusedtobenefitorcontestanypoliticaloreconomicalinterests?Foucaultoncedefineddiscourseas“goingoutsideofoneselfultimatelytofindoneself”(Foucault,1987,p.16),usingphilosophyasadiscoursebuildingactivitytobetterunderstandthecomplexityofdesignproblems—asinthiscasegivingmeaningandpurposetoobjectsandspacesinordertounderstandphysical/digitalinteractions—canproveasastrongtoolinadesignresearchersbeltandpossiblyhelpinestablishingtheneedformeaningfulinteractionstobetakenintoconsiderationthroughlargerperspectivesaswellasindividualones.

4. ReferencesBrooker,P.(1999).Culturaltheory:Aglossary.Arnold.Cole,A.(2013).TheCallofThingsACritiqueofObject-OrientedOntologies.TheMinnesotaReview,2013(80),

106–118.Coulton,P.(2015).PlayfulandgamefuldesignfortheInternetofThings.InMorePlayfulUserInterfaces(pp.

151–173).Springer.Coulton,P.(2017).SensingAtomsandbits.SensoryArtsandDesign,189.Foucault,M.(1967).DesEspaceAutres(OfOtherSpaces),Heterotopias.Architecture/Mouvement/Continuité.Foucault,M.(1987).FoucaultBlanchot.Hetherington,K.(2002).TheBadlandsofModernity.Routledge.Leedy,P.,&Ormrod,J.(2010).PracticalResearchplanninganddesign9theditionBoston:PearsonEducation

International.Lindley,J.G.,Coulton,P.,&Cooper,R.(2017).WhytheinternetofthingsneedsObjectOrientatedOntology.Lindley,J.,&Coulton,P.(2017).OntheInternetNoEverybodyKnowsYou’reaWhatchamacallit(oraThing).Milgram,P.,Takemura,H.,Utsumi,A.,&Kishino,F.(1995).Augmentedreality:Aclassofdisplaysonthe

reality-virtualitycontinuum,1994.SPIEProceedingsTele-ManipulatorandTelepresenceTechnologies,Boston,MA.

Monk,J.(1997).TheDigitalUnconscious.InJ.Wood(Ed.),TheVirtualEmbodied:Practices,TheoriesandtheNewTechnologies.

Muratovski,G.(2015).Researchfordesigners:Aguidetomethodsandpractice.Sage.Rymarczuk,R.,&Derksen,M.(2014).Differentspaces:ExploringFacebookasheterotopia.FirstMonday,

19(6).Retrievedfromhttp://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5006Slane,A.(2007).Democracy,socialspace,andtheinternet.Smith,D.W.(2016).Phenomenology.InE.N.Zalta(Ed.),TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy(Winter

2016).MetaphysicsResearchLab,StanfordUniversity.Retrievedfromhttps://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/phenomenology/

Stam,L.,&Eggink,W.(2014).WhyDesignersandPhilosophersshouldmeetinSchool.In.TheDesignSociety.Tuan,Y.-F.(1977).SpaceandPlace.UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Varnelis,K.,&Friedberg,A.(2008).Place:Thenetworkingofpublicspace.NetworkedPublics.

AbouttheAuthors:

HaiderAliAkmalisaPhDDesignstudentandpracticingvisualartistatImaginationLancaster,LancasterUniversity.HisresearchfocusesontheintricaciesofhumanexperiencesthroughintimatedigitalandphysicalinteractionsusingSpeculativeDesignasanexploratorymedium.

PaulCoultonistheChairofSpeculativeandGameDesignintheopenandexploratorydesign-ledresearchstudioImaginationLancaster.Heusesaresearchthroughdesignapproachtocreativefictionalrepresentationsoffutureworldsinwhichemergingtechnologieshavebecomemundane.