Zhou et al., 2024 · via Tangible Affect (DIS ‘24)
What it says
Four axes along which any tangible affective system can be placed:
| Axis | From | To |
|---|---|---|
| Engagement | unconscious | conscious |
| Theory | common-sense | scientifically validated |
| Interaction | subtle | conspicuous |
| Affect | ambiguous | explicit |
Does it hold for my work
It is not a theory and I should not cite it as one. It is an instrument for making design decisions explicit — and that is precisely why it is useful, because it forces me to state positions I have been holding silently.
Placing my own direction on it:
- Engagement — conscious. A player who knows they are playing.
- Theory — mixed. Embodied metaphors is validated; the controller as cultural symbol is currently common-sense.
- Interaction — conspicuous. A controller and a screen in a room. Nothing subtle about it.
- Affect — ambiguous, deliberately. I am not trying to make people feel one named emotion.
Why that last one matters
Three of the four are conventional choices. The ambiguous-affect position is the one that needs defending, and it is the one that separates this from most of the 49 systems in the survey.