last update: November 4, 2015        [HOME]

DDB221: Design for Debate


Prof. Dr. M. Rauterberg, Full Professor
Faculty Industrial Design, Designed Intelligence Group, Technical University Eindhoven

 Izabela Bołoz (M.A.), Designer

Sietske Klooster (M.Sc.), Designer & Choreographer

Prof. Dr. Patrizia Marti, Professor


Lectures (2 hours/week), exercises (2 hours/week) and homework assignments (4 hours/week).

After following this module students should be able to:

  • specify the interaction structure of an interactive product with a new design form;
  • create a prototype to demonstrate the idea;
  • record the process and product for archival purposes;
  • prepare and give several presentations as input for discussions;
  • write a report about the findings and results.

Previous Knowledge

  • experience with the interaction design for interactive products and/or systems


When we design interactive products and systems somewhere during the design process we normally start building prototypes to express and discuss our ideas. Building such prototypes takes time and effort, and is sometimes even costly. In this module we will investigate the different ways to describe the interaction between the user and the product, so that we can optimize the intended design before we start building, hence dynamic form giving.
For any interaction we can distinguish between discrete and continuous interaction. For discrete interaction we have already well-established representational forms to describe those interactions. For continuous interaction we still need a way to do so (e.g. like notes to compose but also play music). In this module we will explore and develop new ways of describing continuous interaction in a representational manner.

Module work

The feedback for this module will be determined by the work done on the set of deliverables (Dx; see below). Each deliverable (Dx) will cover a number of steps. Feedback will be determined based on the innovation and rigour with which the work is done, and extra initiative to ensure good quality of work.

Deliverables [Dx] Date due

D1: Reporting about your learning experience, that includes the description of the idea and purpose of the interactive product, chosen semi-formal notation for an interaction with this product, and achieved results to visualize this interaction; either in form of a report or in a paper format; all presentations (incl. feedback provided during the contact hours); individual reflections about your learning experience.

end of day 5

D2: prototype/animation to demonstrate the interaction of the visualization tool.

end of day 5
D3: video-clip to describe the interaction with the product. end of day 5

D4: a CD (no auto run!) with deliverables D1 + D3 per team handed in to the assignor's pigeonhole (HG 2.33), secretariat (HG 2.34), or himself (HG 2.36).

end of day 5

Module schedule




Background material

day-1: kick-off

Mo: 9.00-13.00
HG 3.21

Introduction in the topic of this module:
lecture-1 [PPT] [PDF]

Students will be grouped in teams of 4 students.

Presentations of Loe Feijs, Sander Dijkhuis

for discrete interaction, see at DG308

look at Organic Interfaces, Visualisation of affordances,
From da Vinci to CAD and beyond


Tu: 9.00-13.00
HG 3.21
Each student team presents description of the idea and proposed functionality of a design format for dynamic forms.

optional extra readings:
read this paper from DESFORM2005



We: 9.00-13.00
HG 3.21
Each student team presents a description of the designed continuous interaction in the format of day-2. optional extra readings:
time representation


Th: 14.00-18.00
HG 3.21

Each student team presents working prototype of the designed continuous interaction based on the design of day-3.

optional extra readings:


Fr: 16.00-18.00
HG 3.21

Presentation of student team about the achieved results.


documentation in a video clip


Assignors Feedback to Student

Students will be working in 4 person teams; each team will be graded based on the quality of the written reports/documents and the presentation given using a four point grading scale [“not done”= insufficient, “done”= sufficient, “well done”= above average, “very well done”= very good] and in constructive written feedback via the module feedback form. The feedback of the teacher throughout the contact hours will be recorded by the students themselves, and forwarded to the teacher.