skip to main content
10.1145/3430524.3446069acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesteiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Textile Game Controllers: Exploring Affordances of E-Textile Techniques as Applied to Alternative Game Controllers

Published:14 February 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Invested in increasing access to computational literacy, this paper explores the development of a series of free public workshops in partnership with an equity-seeking group. These workshops cover e-textile techniques that lend themselves to making alternative game controllers leading up to a concept-led game jam. We use research creation approaches to prioritize creative exploration within a community group for marginalized makers. The goal of the research is to explore and elucidate the overlap between e-textiles and experimental game making. We discuss our playful use of workshops as research method to iterate on the embodied experience of making on behalf of our participants. Our contribution maps the connections between workshop design and development, learning materials generated, through to application within an online game jam setting.

References

  1. Beginner's Mind Collective and David Shaw. 2012. Makey Makey: Improvising Tangible and Nature-Based User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (Kingston, Ontario, Canada) (TEI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 367–370. https://doi.org/10.1145/2148131.2148219Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Leah Buechley and Benjamin Mako Hill.2010. LilyPad in the Wild: How Hardware's Long Tail Is Supporting New Engineering and Design Communities. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (ACM). ACM Digital Library, 199–207. https://doi.org/doi:10.1145/1858171.1858206Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Owen B. Chapman and Kim Sawchuk. 2012. Research-Creation: Intervention, Analysis and ‘Family Resemblances. Canadian Journal of Communication 37, 1 (April 2012). https://doi.org/doi:10.22230/cjc.2012v37n1a2489Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Alastair H. Cummings. 2007. The Evolution of Game Controllers and Control Schemes and Their Effect on Their Games. The 17th Annual University of Southampton Multimedia Systems Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Nick Farr. 2009. Respect the Past, Examine the Present, Build the Future –Hackerspaces | Flux. Hackerspaces Flux. https://doi.org/doi:10.22230/cjc.2012v37n1a2489Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. S J Fisher and A Harvey. 2013. Intervention for Inclusivity: Gender Politics and Indie Game Development. Loading... 7, 11 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jacques Foottit, Dave Brown, Stefan Marks, and Andy M. Connor. 2014. An Intuitive Tangible Game Controller. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interactive Entertainment (IE2014), Karen Blackmore, Keith Nesbitt, and Shamus P. Smith (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 4 , 7 pages. DOI=10.1145/2677758.2677774 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2677758.2677774Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Rita Francese, Ignazio Passero, and Genoveffa Tortora. 2012. Wiimote and Kinect: gestural user interfaces add a natural third dimension to HCI. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI‘12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 116–123. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2254556.2254580Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Enric Granzotto Llagostera. 2019. Cook Your Way: Political Game Design with Alternative Controllers. In Companion Publication of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2019 Companion (DIS ’19 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 25–28. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3301019.3325148Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kate Hartman. [2014].Make: Wearable Electronics. Maker Media, Sebastopol, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Anja Hertenberger, Barbro Scholz, Beam Contrechoc, Becky Stewart, Ebru Kurbak, Hannah Perner-Wilson, Irene Posch, Isabel Cabral, Jie Qi, Katharina Childs, Kristi Kuusk, Lynsey Calder, Marina Toeters, Marta Kisand, Martijn ten Bhömer, Maurin Donneaud, Meg Grant, Melissa Coleman, Mika Satomi, Mili Tharakan, Pauline Vierne, Sara Robertson, Sarah Taylor, and Troy Robert Nachtigall. 2014. 2013 E-Textile Swatchbook Exchange: The Importance of Sharing Physical Work. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers: Adjunct Program (Seattle, Washington) (ISWC ’14 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 77–81. https://doi.org/10.1145/2641248.2641276Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Garnet Hertz (Ed.). 2012. Critical Making. Retrieved Oct 2, 2020 from http://www.conceptlab.com/criticalmaking/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Katherine Isbister and Kaho Abe. 2015. Costumes as game controllers: An exploration of wearables to suit social play. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Kinneret Itzhak, Kamila Kantek, Dafna Levi, Shachar Geiger, Shoval Nir, and Michal Rinott. 2018. Sew-Flow: A Craft Interpretation of a Digital Game. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Stockholm, Sweden) (TEI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 307–312. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173225.3173289Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Jeremey Millard, Marie N. Sorivelle, Sarah Deljanin, Elisabeth Unterfrauner, Christian Voigt. 2018. Is the Maker Movement Contributing to Sustainability?. Sustainability 10, 7 (July 2018), 2212. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072212Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Yasmin B. Kafai, William Q. Burke, Deborah A. Fields 2009. What Videogame Making Can Teach Us About Access and Ethics in Participatory Culture. In DiGRA ’09 - Proceedings of the 2009 DiGRA International Conference: Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory, Vol. 5. 9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Helen W. Kennedy. 2018. Game Jam as Feminist Methodology: The Affective Labors of Intervention in the Ludic Economy. Games and Culture (May 2018). https://doi.org/doi:10.1177/1555412018764992Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Kishonna L. Gray, Gerald Voorhees, and Emma Vossen. 2018. Feminism in Play. Palgrave Macmillan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. lady ada. [n.d.]. Introducing Circuit Playground. Retrieved Oct 2, 2020 from https://learn.adafruit.com/introducing-circuit-playgroundGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Larissa Hjorth, Anne M. Harris, Kat Jungnickel, Gretchen Coombs 2020. Creative Practice Ethnographies. Lexington Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Camille Moussette and Fabricio Dore. 2010. Sketching in Hardware and Building Interaction Design: Tools, Toolkits and an Attitude for Interaction Designers. In Proceedings of Design Research Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Carter Nelson. [n.d.]. Circuit Playground Simple Simon. Retrieved October 2, 2020 from https://learn.adafruit.com/circuit-playground-simple-simonGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Kylie Peppler and Christian Mckay. 2013. Broadening Participation and Issues of Inclusion and Accessibility in Making. Interaction Design for Children Conference (IDC), At New York, NY. http://www.kpeppler.com/Docs/2013_Peppler_BroadeningParticipation_Making.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Hannah Perner-Wilson and Mika Satomi. [n.d.]. How To Get What You Want. Retrieved October 2, 2020 from https://www.kobakant.at/DIY/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Matt Ratto and Stephen Hockema. 2009. FLWR PWR – Tending the Walled Garden. Walled Garden (2009), 51–60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Daniela K. Rosner, Saba Kawas, Wenqi Li, Nicole Tilly, and Yi-Chen Sung. 2016. Out of Time, Out of Place: Reflections on Design Workshops as a Research Method. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW ‘16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1131–1141. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820021Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Daniela Rosner. 2018. Critical Fabulations: Reworking the Methods and Margins of Design. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Ryan Locke, Lynn Parker, Dayna Galloway, Robin J. S. Sloan. 2015. The Game Jam Movement: Disruption, Performance and Artwork. In Workshop Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomas S. Smith. 2018. Material Geographies of the Maker Movement: Community Workshops and the Making of Sustainability in Edinburgh, Scotland. University of St. Andrews. https://research-repositoryst-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/12815Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Theresa Jean Tanenbaum, Karen Tanenbaum, Katherine Isbister, Kaho Abe, Anne Sullivan, and Luigi Anzivino. 2015. Costumes and Wearables as Game Controllers. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Stanford, California, USA) (TEI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 477–480. https://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2683584Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Emma Westecott. 2013. Independent game development as craft. Loading. . . 7 (2013), 78–91. Issue 11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Emma Westecott. 2020. Game sketching: Exploring approaches to research creation for games. Virtual Creativity 10 (2020), 11–26. Issue 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. William Goddard, Richard Byrne, and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2014. Playful Game Jams: Guidelines for Designed Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interactive Entertainment (IE2014). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. DOI:https://doi-org.ocadu.idm.oclc.org/10.1145/2677758.2677778Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. R. Ørngreen and K. Levinson. 2017. ”Workshops as a Research Methodology”.Electronic Journal of E-Learning15, 1 (2017), 70–81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. alt.ctrl.GDC Archive. Retrieved October 2, 2020 from https://gdconf.com/alt.ctrl.gdc/archiveGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Arduino Micro. [n.d.]. Retrieved October 2, 2020 from https://store.arduino.cc/usa/arduino-microGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Dames Making Games. [n.d.]. Retrieved October 2, 2020 from https://dmg.to/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Processing. [n.d.]. Retrieved October 2, 2020 https://processing.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Textile Game Controllers: Exploring Affordances of E-Textile Techniques as Applied to Alternative Game Controllers
      Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        TEI '21: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction
        February 2021
        908 pages
        ISBN:9781450382137
        DOI:10.1145/3430524

        Copyright © 2021 Owner/Author

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 14 February 2021

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        TEI '21 Paper Acceptance Rate40of136submissions,29%Overall Acceptance Rate393of1,367submissions,29%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader