DEMOGRAPHICS
April 23, 1996
Horst, Limburg (the Netherlands)
evievandenmunckhof@gmail.com
+316 40465705
EDUCATION
HBO Bachelor Communication- and Multimedia Design (Avans Hogeschool, Breda)
WO Minor Social Psychology (Tilburg University, Tilburg)
WO Master Industrial Design (TU/e, Eindhoven)
HARD SKILLS
Adobe Illustrator
Adobe InDesign
Constructive Design Research
English (fluent)
SOFT SKILLS
Ideation
Conceptualization
Visualization
Problem Solving
Adaptability
Communication
Teamwork
Today’s reality - and the reality of tomorrow - calls for a designer that is capable of adapting to the needs of a rapidly changing environment by having expertise and skillfulness in fields that are not traditionally related to design. For me, those two areas are designing with knowledge from the field of psychology and being able to convey my designs to audiences by having developed powerful graphical sketching skills which I have learned to embrace as a relevant part of my (visual) identity. I have developed myself as a Pi-shaped designer [1, 2] by excelling in two Areas of Expertise (Creativity & Aesthetics and User & Society) besides my familiarity with the fundamentals of UX design.
When I design for a user experience, it can be recognized by the following aspects:
In my Master’s program, I’ve allowed myself to get familiar with sound design and tangible, embodied and rich interaction, contributing to my ability to design for an aesthetic experience.
Every argument mentioned above in itself doesn’t equal being a novel characteristic of a UX Designer, as each argument could be part of any UX Designer’s identity. However, I consider the combination of the arguments mentioned above to be an example of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, as they together form the definition of who I am as a UX Designer.
It appears to be of returning fashion that when richness is added to a product, system or service by integrating meaningful relations between form, function and interaction [6], efficiency is lost. We have become so used to screen-based interfaces and therewith utilizing our cognitive skills only when interacting with smart products, that this means of interaction could be deemed ‘most efficient’. Not because it necessarily is the most efficient means of interaction in itself, but mostly because it has been the course of action for a huge part of our lives: some of us literally grew up with it. So, even though not only our cognitive skills, but also our perceptual/motor- emotional- and social skills were to be adopted when designing for rich- and embodied interaction, resulting in a more efficient means of interaction in theory, this might not be the case in practice.
Even though recent studies within the field of tangible [4], embodied [5] and rich interaction [6] have provided us with numerous wonderful, inspiring designs that respect both the digital and physical qualities of a product have broadened my vision on industrial design - it has also emerged the realization that these type of products are both not aspired to be - nor suitable for - retail purposes, but merely have research purposes instead. This realization cautiously raised food for thought on what is exactly the value of designing these types of products, when there will most likely be no supply and demand for them.
Or… maybe there will be? Will perfecting our skills on designing products for embodied-, tangible- and rich interaction with respect for all human skills eventually lead to a gradual shift in the current course of action? Our society is built around efficiency: we have no time to acquire skills for controlling a certain product, we need to be able to use the product immediately to get to the desired result. People are used to reading labels and icons on or around similarly looking buttons: we are used to exploit our cognitive skills when it comes to interacting with a smart product or system.
What is overlooked here, is that integrating not only our cognitive skills but also our perceptual/motor- emotional- and social skills in the form, function, and interaction of a product will result in more efficiency instead of less, because not only the product in itself will communicate to its user how it can be used and what the effect will be but the interaction with the product will also be properly divided over our whole ability as a human, resulting in less speculation, less experimentation, and less mistaking.
When we are talking about ‘future everyday life’, we are talking about ubiquitous computing, first stated by Weiser & Brown [9]. By forecasting that ubiquitous computing would be “fundamentally characterized by the connection of things in the world with computation” [9,p. 6] Weiser & Brown were already describing the phenomenon that we now speak of as the Internet of Things.
The idea of ‘calm technology’ was initiated, claiming that “what matters is not technology itself, but its relationship to us” [9,p. 1], which has inspired many Human-Computer Interaction researchers and designers. Let’s not drown in the digitality of our future everyday life, proceeding to design products, systems and services that only appeal to our cognitive skills. Instead, let’s “enable users to remain in control of their interactions, without technology excessively influencing or overwhelming their everyday routine.” [10,p. 6] by building on all human abilities.
The only way to pursue this vision is to challenge the course of action of today’s digital society by aiming to design rich, physical products that embrace the adaptable nature of the digitality of things. I aspire to confirm and demonstrate that the physicality of products could and should be the future of our digital era, by having devoted my FMP towards designing and realizing a viable physical product, suitable for retail purposes. Moreover, instead of solely seeing the digitality of today’s age as something that can only obstruct a meaningful experience, I aspire to embrace its qualities and therewith allow the digitality of today’s age to give back what it initially ‘took’ from us.
[1]
Demirkan, H., & Spohrer, J. C. (2018). Commentary— cultivating T-shaped professionals in the era of digital transformation. Service Science, 10(1), 98-109.
[4]
Hummels, C. C. M., Djajadiningrat, J. P., & Overbeeke, C. J. (2001). Knowing, doing and feeling: Communicating with your digital products. In Proceedings of Interdisziplinäres Kolleg Kognitions- und Neurowissenschaften (pp. 289-308). Günne am Möhnesee, Germany: Interdisziplinäres Kolleg.
[3]
Hassenzahl, Marc (2011). Encyclopedia entry on User Experience and Experience Design. Available from Interaction-Design.org: https:// www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the- encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction- 2nd-ed/user-experience-and-experience-design
[2]
Tervo, V. (January 8, 2015). From T to Pi: design skill expectations in change. Retrieved from https:// www.futurice.com/blog/from-t-to-pi-design-skill-expectations-in-change/
[5]
Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of CHI’97 (pp. 234-241). ACM.
[6]
Dourish, P. (2004). Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT press
[7]
[9]
Weiser, M., & Brown, J. S. (1997). The coming age of calm technology. In Beyond calculation (pp. 75-85). Springer, New York, NY.
[8]
Lawless, C. (2019, August 6). What Is Information Processing Theory?: Using it In Your Corporate Training. Retrieved from:
https://www.learnupon.com/blog/what-is-information-processing-theory/
Frens, J. W. (2006). Designing for rich interaction : integrating form, interaction, and function. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. https://doi.org/10.6100/IR608730
[10]
Bakker, S. (2013). Design for peripheral interaction. Eindhoven University of Technology, 6.
[1]
Demirkan, H., & Spohrer, J. C. (2018). Commentary— cultivating T-shaped professionals in the era of digital transformation. Service Science, 10(1), 98-109.
[2]
Tervo, V. (January 8, 2015). From T to Pi: design skill expectations in change. Retrieved from https:// www.futurice.com/blog/from-t-to-pi-design-skill-expectations-in-change/
[3]
Hassenzahl, Marc (2011). Encyclopedia entry on User Experience and Experience Design. Available from Interaction-Design.org: https:// www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the- encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction- 2nd-ed/user-experience-and-experience-design
[4]
Hummels, C. C. M., Djajadiningrat, J. P., & Overbeeke, C. J. (2001). Knowing, doing and feeling: Communicating with your digital products. In Proceedings of Interdisziplinäres Kolleg Kognitions- und Neurowissenschaften (pp. 289-308). Günne am Möhnesee, Germany: Interdisziplinäres Kolleg.
[5]
Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of CHI’97 (pp. 234-241). ACM.
[6]
Dourish, P. (2004). Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT press
[7]
Frens, J. W. (2006). Designing for rich interaction : integrating form, interaction, and function. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. https://doi.org/10.6100/IR608730
[8]
Lawless, C. (2019, August 6). What Is Information Processing Theory?: Using it In Your Corporate Training. Retrieved from: https://www.learnupon.com/blog/what-is-information-processing-theory/
[9]
Weiser, M., & Brown, J. S. (1997). The coming age of calm technology. In Beyond calculation (pp. 75-85). Springer, New York, NY.
[10]
Bakker, S. (2013). Design for peripheral interaction. Eindhoven University of Technology, 6.
[1]
Demirkan, H., & Spohrer, J. C. (2018). Commentary— cultivating T-shaped professionals in the era of digital transformation. Service Science, 10(1), 98-109.
[2]
Tervo, V. (January 8, 2015). From T to Pi: design skill expectations in change. Retrieved from https:// www.futurice.com/blog/from-t-to-pi-design-skill-expectations-in-change/
[3]
Hassenzahl, Marc (2011). Encyclopedia entry on User Experience and Experience Design. Available from Interaction-Design.org: https:// www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the- encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction- 2nd-ed/user-experience-and-experience-design
[4]
Hummels, C. C. M., Djajadiningrat, J. P., & Overbeeke, C. J. (2001). Knowing, doing and feeling: Communicating with your digital products. In Proceedings of Interdisziplinäres Kolleg Kognitions- und Neurowissenschaften (pp. 289-308). Günne am Möhnesee, Germany: Interdisziplinäres Kolleg.
[5]
Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of CHI’97 (pp. 234-241). ACM.
[6]
Dourish, P. (2004). Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT press
[7]
Frens, J. W. (2006). Designing for rich interaction : integrating form, interaction, and function. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. https://doi.org/10.6100/IR608730
[8]
Lawless, C. (2019, August 6). What Is Information Processing Theory?: Using it In Your Corporate Training. Retrieved from:
https://www.learnupon.com/blog/what-is-information-processing-theory/
[9]
Weiser, M., & Brown, J. S. (1997). The coming age of calm technology. In Beyond calculation (pp. 75-85). Springer, New York, NY.
[10]
Bakker, S. (2013). Design for peripheral interaction. Eindhoven University of Technology, 6.
