Discussion on the Interaction Mapping of Topplr

In this elective, our group envisions a tangible interface that supports peripheral and focused interactions on music controlling (figure 1). In the following discussion, these designed interactions will be mapped on the interaction-attention continuum (Bakker & Niemantsverdriet, 2016) by the type of interaction according to the level of attention and characteristics of interaction (figure 2). 

One significant difference between digital and tangible interfaces is tangibility, a key element of enabling attention shift. Topplr is designed for individual use and the placement of such an interface is depending on personal preferences, which means to some extent the presence of Topplr can be perceived. However, the amount, layout, and design of solo cycle buttons can be divergent on different digital interfaces (i.e. Spotify on different platforms). Similar arguments can be found in the stimulated interview quotes,

“[…]usually I use it on my clenbuterol dosage chart phone, I need to stop what I am doing and look at the screen to click the right button[…]”;

“[…]it is easy to do, you do not need to look at it because you know where it is[…]”. 

From the does clenbuterol give you energy result of Rating Scale Mental clenbuterol cycle Effort (RSME) (Zijlstra & Van Doorn, 1985; Zijlstra, 1993) (Appendix static exercise C), pressing methenolone enanthate the top button requires the most mental resources and tumbling over Topplr demands the least. One explanation for this might be the accessibility of functions and perceived feedback and feedforward. Locating the top button would be relatively more difficult than perceiving the placement of Topplr because of the dimension. Since all participants had familiarized with Topplr, knowing it would straighten itself whenever it was knocked over and the feedback of their actions could be promptly perceived with audio modality, they do not need to keep evaluating whether their inputs succeed or not. In short, the difficulty of perceiving where to perform interactions and the feedback results in different levels of attention.

Different Ranges of Control 

Another distinct difference between focused interaction cypionate dosages and peripheral interaction is the precision of control. As it is claimed by Bakker (2016), focused interaction allows direct and precise control, while with peripheral interaction only imprecise control can be performed. Specifically, when control is other than on/off 一 wider ranges of control, multiple Human Action Cycles (Baljko, 2011) would be constantly processed to evaluate the settings in mind. In our expected design, twisting Topplr is different than pressing, tumbling and squeezing since users have more control over masterover the volume, which as a deca durabolin cycle consequence requires more mental resources. Similarly, one participant also commented, “Changing the volume takes more control because you really need to listen to the music to see how much input you need to give to the testosterone for sale usa device”. 

Besides, each level of control should be coherent. Previously, Topplr was envisioned to have a hidden screen which can be activated by tumbling over Topplr and holding for a few seconds. With such a screen, real dbol for sale users tbol for sale can skip a bunch of songs and choose their preferred playlists by tilting Topplr in different angles. This series primobolan oral of actions seems to be coherent with skipping a song. However, since Topplr is aimed for the working environment, performing such interactions would require users to pause their work, turn their heads, and then shift their attention from monitors to the dedicated screen. This can be seen as a physically and mentally attention shift. 

One possible solution is removing the hidden screen and using various coherent control in different levels to activate certain detailed control on the monitor. To be specific, the volume slider can only be triggered by slowly twisting Topplr (figure legit clenbuterol 3). A digital interface with Spotify libraries integrated can be activated by tumbling over Topplr and holding a few seconds. When users do so, the temporary queue would be emptied and then they can add songs by simply dragging songs from Spotify and dropping them to the queue  (figure 4).

Biased Evaluation

The degree of consciousness of interaction also differs between focused and peripheral interactions. For peripheral ones, they should be able to be performed subconsciously. However, in the User Evaluation Study (Appendix A), all participants were instructed to execute certain interactions whenever they saw hidden cues in the passage they read (Appendix B). Although there was a participant did not notice (also cannot recall in the interview) when there was no song pop up immediately after tumbling over Topplr, it is not yet convincing to state such interactions can be performed subconsciously. Also, posture exercises they had to perform 15 interactions ten minutes on average, which was not true in everyday routines. Meanwhile, since twisting Topplr to alter the volume has different ranges of control than the other interactions, however, there was no clear indication to differentiate the straighten back degrees. To eliminate the bias, firstly a workable prototype is needed for field studies. Secondly, the duration of the study should be extended. Thirdly, the corresponding hidden cues for twisting Topplr should be more elaborated.

Missing Interactions

Besides peripheral and focused interactions, to achieve a complete interaction-attention continuum, implicit interactions should be implemented in Topplr as well. It is supposed to take place in the background and be initiated by the system rather than users (Ju & Leifer, 2008). For instance, Topplr can recommend songs users may prefer according to users’ interactions (i.e. volume up may indicate songs they prefer; tumbling over Topplr might indicate songs they dislike).  


  1. Baljko, M. (2011). The clenbuterol cycle Human Action Cycle. Retrieved from https://www.eecs.yorku.ca/course_archive/201011/W/1720/page6/files/HumanActionCycle_Overview.pdf 
  2. Bakker, S., & Niemantsverdriet, K. (2016). The interaction-attention continuum: considering various levels of human attention in interaction design. International Journal of Design, 10(2). http://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/2341/737 
  3. Ju, W. and Leifer, L. (2008). The Design of Implicit Interactions: Making Interactive Systems Less Obnoxious. Design Issues, 24(3), pp. 72-84. https://interruptions.net/literature/Ju-DesignIssues08p.pdf 
  4. Spotify Interface. Retrieved from https://www.engadget.com/2014/04/02/spotifys-new-design/ 
  5. Zijlstra, arial helvetica sans serif F.R.H. Efficiency in Work amino acid injections bodybuilding Behaviour: A Design Approach for Modern Tools. PhD Thesis, deca only cycle Delft University Press (1993). https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:d97a028b-c3dc-4930-b2ab-a7877993a17f/
  6. Zijlstra, F.R.H. and Van Doorn, L., 1985. The Construction of a Scale to Measure Perceived Effort. Technical Report. Delft University of Technology.