Paper Reading #8, "iFeel_IM: innovative real-time communication system with rich emotional and haptic channels"

http://chi2010-cskach.blogspot.com/2011/02/paper-reading-8-shadows-no-4-belly.html
http://dlandinichi.blogspot.com/2011/02/paper-reading-8-thanatosensitively.html

iFeel_IM: Innovative Real-Time Communication System with Rich Emotional and Haptic Channels

Dzmitry Tsetserukou, Toyohashi University of Technology

Mitsuru Ishizuka, University of Tokyo

Susumu Tachi, Keio University

Alena Neviarouskaya, University of Tokyo

Helmut Prendinger, National (Japanese) Institute of Informatics
CHI 2010 Media Showcase Session 2, April 10-15, Atlanta, Georgia

Summary

I think this picture from the paper pretty much explains the whole thing.

In this paper, the above listed individuals from various Japanese universities present work they have done with the objective to, over web clients, "... imbue our communication with passion and increase the emotional intimacy, ability to be close, loving, and vulnerable." Various devices are worn by the users and respond to stimuli in Second Life, the virtual environment chosen. The heart emulates the users heart rate, with the intention of avoiding false heart rate feedback. The hug hardware puts pressure at the appropriate points (and can make it higher or lower through the use of appropriate smilies!). The HaptiTickler follow the name pretty well. The final piece of worn hardware pictured here, the HaptiButterfly, is intended to model "butterflies in the stomach", so it's was definitely an attempt to be cute. Not pictured is the HaptiShiver, intended to produce "shivers up the spine", which might be incorporated into the butterfly. I'm not quite clear there.

The paper is entirely about their motivations and design; results and feedback from users were not reported.

Discussion

I was really very impressed with this paper. I'm not sure that I want to increase my ability to be vulnerable in cyberspace, but someone obviously but a lot of time, effort, and care into this project, and not just the coding and theory. The design of the pieces (the butterfly really won me over) is aesthetically pleasing while retaining clear correlations to their intended role and that shows a lot of thought went into them.

There's no feedback to comment on, which is disappointing. I think that's a key element to any paper of this sort. That is the biggest flaw of the paper, in my view. The sections that were included were high in information and well written.

The next move I would take in their position would be to attempt to refine the technology, and then find a way to make it marketable. I expect people would buy this. Executing the greedy algorithm for move choices, however, I might see if it was feasible to combine this with some of the nonstandard, pressure feedback interfaces that have already been discussed in the classes.