Tangible Interactions with Physicalizations of Personal Experience Data
Zann B. Anderson
1 a
and Michael D. Jones
2
1
Utah Valley University, Orem, Utah, U.S.A.
2
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, U.S.A.
Keywords:
Physicalization, Tangible Interaction, Human-computer Interaction, Personal Data.
Abstract:
Individuals record large amounts of data about their daily lives, from locations to steps to heart rate. Services
allow individuals to review and share this data. We explore physical representations—physicalizations—of
data recorded by individuals during personally meaningful trail running activities. Physical interactions may
change the way in which individuals recall and share their experiences. We present the results of two interview
studies involving physicalizations of trail running data for advanced amateur runners. Our results appear to
indicate that physicalization of personal experience data supports reflection and sharing, among other themes,
and that physical interaction with the object plays a central role in driving these responses.
1 INTRODUCTION
Mobile devices and wearable technology enable the
gathering of a vast amount of personal data, includ-
ing data regarding physical activity. Many individu-
als take advantage of this in order to record GPS data
for activities such as running and cycling. Platforms
such as Strava
1
enable individuals to record, review,
and share data from their activities, and to encourage
one another.
Given the physical nature of such activi-
ties, researchers have explored creating physi-
cal representations—physicalizing—these activities.
This includes 3D printed abstract representations of
activities as in Activity Sculptures (Stusak et al., 2014)
from Stusak et al. as well as Khot’s Sweat Atoms
(Khot, 2013). Khot has also explored other represen-
tations of physical activity such as with sports drinks
in TastyBeats (Khot et al., 2015) and with chocolate as
in EdiPulse (Khot et al., 2017). Such work physically
commemorates and further encourages the types of
daily physical activity that promote health and well-
ness.
Besides seeking to stay active and healthy, indi-
viduals often use daily physical activity to train for
more significant and meaningful events such as races
or larger outdoor adventures. This type of physical
activity is unique in that it is planned for in advance,
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1718-3184
1
http://www.strava.com
Figure 1: A tangible representation, or physicalization of a
person’s trail running route through mountainous terrain.
takes more time and effort, and is more challenging
and rewarding than a typical daily training session.
Such activities are often significant, personally mean-
ingful experiences. Physicalization of data gathered
from these types of activities has not been explored.
The most common method of visualizing this GPS
data is a line on a map viewed on a PC, tablet, or
smartphone. This method of reviewing GPS data may
not adequately convey the physical terrain in which
the adventure occurred, an essential—perhaps even
defining—facet of such activities. Existing methods
of visualization, such as shaded relief maps with topo-
graphic lines require interpretation to understand the
actual terrain context. 3D printed models (as shown
in Figure 1), on the other hand, allow the viewer to
quickly see and understand the terrain context. This
may lead more readily to reflection and promote shar-
ing of experiences.
Our work explores physical representations which
186
Anderson, Z. and Jones, M.
Tangible Interactions with Physicalizations of Personal Experience Data.
DOI: 10.5220/0008990201860194
In Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISIGRAPP 2020) - Volume 2: HUCAPP, pages
186-194
ISBN: 978-989-758-402-2; ISSN: 2184-4321
Copyright
c
2022 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
commemorate such experiences. Understanding the
experience of interacting with physical representa-
tions of such personally meaningful events may help
us better understand the potential and limitations of
tangible interaction with personal data in general.
As an initial foray into this area, we have con-
ducted interview studies involving physicalization of
GPS data gathered by trail runners. Trail running is
a sport in which people run on unimproved trails in
an outdoor or wilderness setting. GPS data from trail
running is a natural fit for exploring physicalization of
data from exceptional personal experiences because
the topography of the route traversed provides mean-
ingful context for the GPS data, and such experiences
are often undertaken as significant and exceptional
personal experiences.
In an exploratory semi-structured interview study,
we presented 10 “advanced amateur” (Knaving et al.,
2015) trail runners with physicalizations of their runs
and conducted interviews to understand their reaction
to and interactions with these physicalizations. In a
second interview study with 10 more advanced am-
ateur participants, we sought to understand the phe-
nomenon of sharing stories, which we encountered
frequently in the initial study, and to see whether more
stories were told with physicalizations than with pa-
per maps.
Qualitative analysis of data from these studies re-
vealed strong themes around remembrance and shar-
ing, as well as other themes, all of which appeared
largely to be driven by physical interactions with the
physicalizations. In the second study, participants
also told more stories with physicalizations than with
paper maps. Physical interactions as provided by
physicalizations may lead to increased reflection and
more ready sharing of personally meaningful experi-
ences.
2 RELATED WORK
2.1 Data Physicalization
A physicalization is “a physical artifact whose ge-
ometry or material properties encode data. (Jansen
et al., 2015) An important body of existing work
in Data Physicalization explores physicalization as a
means for communicating data to a person.
Research involving physicalization in general in-
cludes exploration of the efficacy of physicalizations
(Jansen et al., 2013) (Stusak et al., 2016) and work
which investigates how well people remember data
communicated using a physicalization (Stusak et al.,
2015). Taher explores interacting with data through
an actuated table which allows for physical interac-
tions with a 3D bar chart (Taher et al., 2015) (Taher
et al., 2017).
Jansen presents an overview of the field of Data
Physicalization, outlining important concepts, related
areas, and providing direction for future work (Jansen
et al., 2015). More recently, Dragicevic et al. give
a broad overview of the area of Data Physicaliza-
tion (Dragicevic et al., 2019), including recent work,
particular applications, and enabling technologies,
among others.
2.2 Physicalization of Personal Data
Previous research on physicalization of personal data
has focused on abstract physicalizations derived from
heart rate or other activity data (Khot, 2013) (Khot
et al., 2014) (Stusak et al., 2014). A body of work by
Khot is largely focused on the physicalization of data
gathered during exercise and/or regular daily activity.
Mediums explored include plastic (Khot, 2013) (Khot
et al., 2014), liquid (Khot et al., 2015), and choco-
late (Khot et al., 2017). Much of this work explores
the emotional and social aspects of individuals’ in-
teractions with these physicalizations and the way in
which they support and encourage activity. We like-
wise begin by choosing to focus largely on emotional
and social aspects of physicalizations of personal ex-
perience data.
Swaminathan presents MakerVis (Swaminathan
et al., 2014), a tool which aids in the design and con-
struction of physicalizations.Thudt explores personal
reflection through the creation of hand-made physi-
calizations (Thudt et al., 2018).
Khot’s work on Fantibles (Khot et al., 2016) is
similar to ours in that the physicalizations produced
include a component which is centered around the
user—in this case, representing the user’s excitement
and social media activity during a cricket match—as
well as a component which gives context to the user’s
data, with spokes which each represent a portion of
the match and the number of wickets and during that
portion.
This work, like ours, has focused on the emotional
response produced by physicalizations of data which
is personal in nature. However, the data itself is dif-
ferent in our work, centering around one-time signif-
icant personal experiences. In contrast, the work of
Khot and Stusak largely explores the effect of physi-
calizing data from regular, day-to-day activity.
Tangible Interactions with Physicalizations of Personal Experience Data
187
2.3 Terrain Models
Physical models of terrain, often called Terrain Mod-
els (Institute of Cartography, 2018b) or Raised-relief
maps (Wikipedia, 2018), have existed in different
forms for centuries (Institute of Cartography, 2018a).
Their applications include education, urban plan-
ning, museums and visitors centers, and military use,
among others (Institute of Cartography, 2010a).
Such models have been constructed using a vari-
ety of methods, largely driven by current technology
at any given time. These include plaster models, pan-
tograph, vacuum forming, CNC routing, and others
(Institute of Cartography, 2010b). Advances in rapid
prototyping and in particular 3D printing have made
relief models for personal use more feasible. Cald-
well gives a review of related technologies and their
possibilities dating to 2001 (Caldwell, 2001), while
Rase gives a similar overview of rapid prototyping
techniques and their applications in creating solid ter-
rain models (Rase, 2011) from 2011.
Online tutorials also exist for generating .stl files
to print one’s own terrain model. Companies are be-
ginning to emerge in this space as well.
Our work builds on the history and current ad-
vances in terrain modeling and rapid prototyping,
seeking to understand their application to personal ex-
perience data from an HCI standpoint.
3 METHODS
We conducted two studies, both of which were inter-
view studies. In the first study, we sought to gain an
initial understanding of individuals’ interactions with
and reactions to physicalizations of personal experi-
ence data from trail running. The second study was
intended to build on the first, in particular by explor-
ing the unexpected phenomenon of storytelling en-
countered in the first study.
Participants for both studies were recruited from
within local trail running groups as well as online
social media groups dedicated to trail running. Par-
ticipants’ backgrounds and experience varied, but all
fell into the “advanced amateur” category identified
by Knaving et al. in that they “run regularly and par-
ticipate in races” (Knaving et al., 2015).
3.1 Study A: Exploratory
In the exploratory study we created physicalizations
of trail running data and conducted interviews with 10
runners. 4 participants were female and 6 were male.
Participant trail running experience ranged from a sin-
gle race (on trail, with numerous prior road races)
to having run many many trail races of different dis-
tances and difficulty.
We instructed participants to select a run or race
that was personally significant or meaningful and for
which they had GPS data, and to send us a GPX file
from that run. From the GPX files submitted, we cre-
ated and gave the physicalizations to the participants,
and conducted two interviews with each participant.
Of the files selected by participants, 5 were from
races, 4 included or were specifically focused on
mountain summit attempts, and one was from a run
that the participant had been on with their spouse
while on vacation. Participants indicated that they se-
lected the runs they did because they felt a connection
to the terrain in which the run took place or to the par-
ticular path or course they ran, or because they felt the
terrain would produce an interesting physicalization.
The first interview was given when the participant
received their physicalization and was intended to as-
sess their initial reactions. The second was given 7
to 10 days later and was intended to assess their re-
sponse to the physicalization after a brief period of
time. A secondary goal was to determine whether any
of the initial response was due to the novelty effect
since most participants were interacting with this type
of physicalization for the first time.
The content of the initial interview focused on the
participants’ initial thoughts and feelings, how they
felt the physicalization compared to familiar methods
of visualization, and what they intended to do with the
physicalization.
The second interview was intended to explore par-
ticipants’ impressions after interacting with the phys-
icalization over a period of time. Participants were
asked what they had done with the physicalization
since receiving it. Other questions probed what im-
pact, if any, the physicalization had over time on: par-
ticipants’ understanding of the actual terrain depicted,
their remembrance of the event in question, the shar-
ing of the experience with others, and their running in
general.
3.2 Study B: Follow-up
In the initial study, participants told many stories in
interviews, and made frequent mention of connecting
to their own memories sharing them with others. We
hypothesized that the physical nature of the physical-
izations might have something to do with their ability
to enable participants to remember.
In order to test this hypothesis we designed a study
in which we sought to compare individuals’ interac-
HUCAPP 2020 - 4th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications
188
tions with physical maps with their interactions with
physicalizations. The study had two main purposes.
First, to determine whether or not participants tell
more stories when interacting with physicalizations
of their running data compared to interacting with a
printed paper map showing the same data. Second,
to compare participants’ reactions to physicalizations
and 2D printed maps as guided by the themes iden-
tified in the first study. We selected paper maps in
order to compare two physical conditions as opposed
to comparing a physical with an on-screen 2D or 3D
condition.
Participants were recruited in the same manner as
the first study and were given the same instructions,
however, in this study only one interview was con-
ducted. The interview was conducted in two parts:
one focusing on the physicalization and the other on
a paper topographic map the participant was given
which was of roughly the same area as the physical-
ization and included the route. See example in Figure
3.
During each interview we counted how many sto-
ries the participant told for each representation of the
data. At the end of the interview we told participants
that we were counting stories told.
Questions for each portion of the interview were
identical to the first study, with the exception of the
physicalization portion also including a question ask-
ing the users how the physicalization compared to
viewing a topographic map. The choice to use iden-
tical questions for both representations of the data
avoids introducing biases based on the content of the
questions. Half of the participants were shown and
asked about the paper map first and the other half saw
the physicalization first.
Questions were designed to generally probe par-
ticipants’ feelings about each medium, for example
how they felt the medium portrayed and related to
their experience and whether it had any effect on their
remembrance of the experience or the physical ter-
rain in which they ran. Questions were written to ex-
plore participants’ response to each without specifi-
cally prompting for stories or memories, and follow-
up questions were worded to avoid specifically asking
for stories or memories. In addition to counting sto-
ries, we also made notes about the participants’ reac-
tions to each data representation.
Maps were generated using GPS Visualizer using
data from Google Maps and printed on a color laser
printer.
4 RESULTS
Our analysis of data followed a thematic analysis ap-
proach based on the constant comparative method and
was performed by both authors. Initially we read
through all interview notes twice to become famil-
iar with the data. From these readings, we began
developing a set of descriptive (rather than in vivo)
codes to describe the data. Initial work was induc-
tive, adopting an open coding approach. Following
the constant comparative method, codes were contin-
ually compared to one another and to the data in order
to arrive at a clear and useful set of codes which de-
scribed the data.
We then performed an axial coding phase in order
to arrive at broader themes which could help to paint
an overall picture of the data. Following the constant
comparative method, codes and themes were itera-
tively compared in order to refine them. We arrived
at a set of codes and themes which seemed to accu-
rately describe the phenomenon of individuals inter-
acting with physicalizations of personal trail running
data. Themes are described below.
4.1 Physical Interactions
Participants exhibited a number of different ways of
interacting with the physicalizations, including:
Holding the physicalization in their hands
Tracing the route
Tracing other contours of the terrain
Rotating the physicalization to view from differ-
ent angles
Peering more closely at the terrain and/or route
Holding the physicalization at a low viewing an-
gle in order to simulate a ground-level view as one
would see mountains in person
Placing the physicalization on a flat surface and
looking at it from different angles
Attempting to match the physicalization with the
actual mountains depicted (location permitting)
Such interactions often persisted throughout the
interviews, either being relatively constant with the
participant holding the physicalizationand referring to
it, or occurring periodically throughout as the partic-
ipant set it down and picked it back up at different
points in the interview.
Participants also indicated that physical interac-
tions were common among others with whom they
shared the physicalizations. P1 said, “People seem
to love to touch it.
Tangible Interactions with Physicalizations of Personal Experience Data
189
Physical interactions with objects is a rather obvi-
ous result in a study involving physicalization. How-
ever, it is important to relate the manner of these inter-
actions. We also note that such interactions frequently
seemed to both spark and be an integral part of each
of the other themes we relate below.
In all of the discussion about sharing the physical-
izations and the runs and terrain depicted, physical in-
teraction played a central role. Participants indicated
that they used the physicalization as a prop in order
to illustrate their discussions about their experiences
with others, and that those with whom they shared
also interacted with the physicalizations. Noticing the
physicalization on a coworker’s desk could also be
said to be a form of physical interaction at a distance.
4.2 Memory
Participants made frequent mention of remembrance
and memories during interviews. P6 stated, ”It brings
back a lot of memories.” P9 said, ”It gives a stronger
sense of memory than anything else. In the second
interview, P2 indicated that her interactions with the
physicalization had allowed her to reflect more fondly
on both the run depicted and the area in which she ran,
which is near her home and in which she indicated she
had done many other runs. P3, whose physicalization
depicted a race she had run roughly two years prior to
the study, appreciated the memories that viewing the
physicalization brought back.
Mentions of remembrance typically took place
as participants were interacting with the physicaliza-
tions. Quite often this would take the form of the par-
ticipant touching the path or a part of the terrain and
then telling a brief story related to that portion of the
course or topology. Such sharing is discussed more
below.
4.3 Sharing
The most frequent manner in which memories were
manifested in our studies was participants sharing
brief stories about their runs or other experiences in
the terrain depicted. Some such recollections were
very brief, such as P9 and P6, who pointed out places
where they had become sick during their runs. Others
were somewhat more extended in duration, and re-
flected on happenings, thoughts, and feelings regard-
ing the run. Such sharing of stories was frequently
augmented by physical interactions with the physi-
calizations, pointing to locations, tracing portions of
the route, or holding out the physicalization to show a
particular view.
This theme of sharing extended beyond what oc-
curred in the interviews as well. One of the primary
things that all participants indicated they wanted to
do, and that they had done, with physicalizations was
sharing them with family, friends, and coworkers.
Some of this sharing took the form of sharing the
physicalization itself, which is unsurprising given the
relatively new nature of 3D printing for participants
and their loved ones. P10 indicated that the people
he had talked to were interested in how the physical-
ization was made. This aspect of the sharing theme
would seem to indicate that novelty definitely played
a part in the experience for both participants and oth-
ers with whom they shared the physicalizations. It
seems unlikely that this could be entirely avoided
given most individuals’ relative inexperience with 3D
printing.
Other sharing involved sharing of the experience
or about the terrain depicted. P8 indicated that he was
able to use the physicalization to help his wife more
fully understand the run and terrain in which it took
place, which she had found difficult in previous at-
tempts using online maps and/or physical topographic
maps.
Participants indicated sharing was both initiated
by themselves as well as by others.
When sharing with family members, the reported
level of interest and engagement varied. P8 indicated
his son, with whom he had hiked a portion of the trail
depicted, was very interested in the physicalization
and used it to share his experience with friends, which
also made his daughter jealous of her brother. In con-
trast, P5 indicated that his children “thought it was
cool, but showed little actual interest. P10 also in-
dicated that his spouse was less than interested in the
physicalization apart from the first time he introduced
it to her.
In similar fashion to P8’s experience with his son,
P2 said that her husband—who had been with her dur-
ing the run depicted—was very interested in the phys-
icalization. In particular, she indicated that they had
spent time going over the terrain and the course as
shown, and that it had helped him to remember por-
tions of the run he had forgotten, mentioning that he
tended to remember less than she did about runs. She
described this interaction as “bonding over plastic.
Sharing was also initiated by people other than
the participants. This seemed to take place most of-
ten in the workplace. Participants P1, P5, P6, and
P9 indicated that they had taken their physicalizations
to display at their workplace. These participants de-
scribed interactions in which a coworker would notice
the physicalization and ask about it. This led to par-
ticipants sharing about their experiences and/or what
HUCAPP 2020 - 4th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications
190
they had learned about the process of creating the
physicalization, depending on whether the participant
themselves and/or the coworker were more interested
in the experiential or the technical aspects. P9 indi-
cated that one coworker took a particular interest in
the rugged nature of the mountains depicted, having
come from a region lacking such terrain.
Other sharing took the form of displaying the
physicalization. All participants who did not take
their physicalization to work made mention of dis-
playing it somewhere in their home, usually in a place
of prominence, and specifically for some in the same
location where they display medals and other race
memorabilia. P6 and P7, who are husband and wife,
indicated different intentions for displaying. P6 said
he wished to display his “not to brag” but as a me-
mento, while his spouse said she definitely wanted to
“show off [her] accomplishment.
4.4 Understanding Geography and
Topology
Participants said that the physicalizations aided in
their understanding of the geography or topology of
the area depicted. P4 said that the physicalization
aided her in understanding and placing landmarks she
had seen while on her run, and that when she and
her husband reviewed the physicalization together it
aided them in understanding one portion of the route
which they had found confusing during the run.
P1 said that the physicalization made understand-
ing the topology easier than topographic maps to
which he was accustomed: “It makes more sense for
my type of brain. P6 indicated that he was also able
to better understand, and pointed out two portions of
the race course depicted in his physicalization which
were quite close geographically but separated by a
mountain ridge, a fact he had not taken note of pre-
viously.
P10 compared the physicalization to viewing the
same run on Strava and appreciated the contextual
“bird’s eye view” provided by the physicalization
while noting that it did not provide the ability to zoom
in for more detail as would an online topographic
map. P3 also felt that seeing a physical, 3D depiction
aided in contextual understanding when compared to
2D visualizations.
Participants who were more familiar with the ter-
rain depicted, in particular P1, P2, P8, and P9, rec-
ognized and pointed out familiar geological land-
marks such as peaks, ridges, and bowls. P1 said
his coworker, an avid mountain biker, did the same
when he noticed the physicalization and stopped to
talk about it. Interestingly, some of the same par-
ticipants also indicated they felt the physicalization
helped them to better understand details and overall
context for the areas depicted.
4.5 Route Discovery and Planning
Participants also described the physicalization func-
tioning as a tool for seeking out and/or planning runs
on new routes. P1 indicated that the physicalization
was a useful tool for augmenting his planning and bet-
ter understanding what to expect when contemplating
a new route.
In the second interview, P8 indicated that his in-
teractions with the physicalization had changed over
time. Initially he focused on the path itself and on the
novelty of having a tiny version of the mountain that
he could hold in his hand. He said that by the time of
the second interview, he had begun to use the physi-
calization to carefully examine features of the moun-
tain and routes which he was interested in attempting
and to share them with others. He described this type
of interaction as “exploring.
Also in the second interview, P9 used the physical-
ization to show and describe a route that he had begun
planning in the time since the first interview. He indi-
cated that looking at the physicalization had inspired
him to begin planning this route. Several months later,
he reported having taken a trip with friends to run this
route.
4.6 Aesthetic Appreciation
Figure 2: P1 sent this picture of the physicalization on his
work desk next to his Millennium Falcon model.
Participants exhibited an appreciation for the aesthet-
ics of the physicalizations. P1 and P4 said that it was
like a piece of art. P1 sent a picture of the physical-
ization on his desk at work, next to his model of the
Millennium Falcon from Star Wars (see Figure 2. P9
said, “I want to make a keychain out of it.
Tangible Interactions with Physicalizations of Personal Experience Data
191
As mentioned before, each of the participants in-
dicated that they displayed their physicalization, ei-
ther at home or at work. Some in particular said they
wanted to display it with other running memorabilia,
possibly indicating as mentioned by P6 and P7 above,
that the display of the physicalization is at least in part
connected with wishing to share one’s accomplish-
ment. It also seems likely that this desire stems in part
from the novelty of 3D printed mountains, as well as
from appreciation of their aesthetic qualities.
4.7 Study 2: Map vs Physicalization
Overall, there were 41 stories told with the physical-
izations and 12 with the maps. This gives a mean of
4.1 per participant with a standard deviation of 3.07
with physicalizations, and a mean of 1.2 with a stan-
dard deviation of 1.62 with maps, an interesting set
of raw numbers but an inconclusive result statistically
speaking.
General responses to the map ranged from posi-
tive: ”I know it well” (P4-2) to ambivalent: ”Uhh...I
mean, it seems detailed... (P6-2), to downright neg-
ative: ”It’s a piece of paper” (P3-2). Three partic-
ipants mentioned that they themselves owned better
maps that they were fond of but that this particular
map wasn’t of much interest to them.
One participant (P2-2) told more stories with the
paper map than the physicalization. This participant
stated he had a particular affinity for the topographic
map of the race, saying that he had spent much time
reviewing it both prior to his running the race as well
as in the approximately two years since as he planned
to return and finish the race, having had to drop out
before.
One participant (P5-2) mentioned being color-
blind and pointed out that the physicalization is easier
to read than topographic maps which can depend on
color cues.
5 DISCUSSION
5.1 Novelty
Novelty is an important consideration in our work
given the relatively new experience it is for many peo-
ple to interact with 3D printed objects. One way to
gauge this is to consider how much of the discussion
in interviews centered around the physicalization it-
self, the creation of it, and other aspects focusing on
the physical object rather than on the experience it is
meant to commemorate.
In interviews, all participats spent time discussing
their excitement or wonder at the novelty of the phys-
icalization. Participants in the first study also fre-
quently mentioned others having been curious or in-
terested in the creation of the physicalization during
the time between interviews.
Overall, however, this represented a small portion
of the interview time–perhaps 5%. One participant in
the firs study, however, P10, spent most of the second
interview expressing his excitement over the physi-
calization and its potential as something that others
might also be interested in.
5.2 Embedded Data
GPS data collected from trail running fits into a cate-
gory of data identified by Willett (Willett et al., 2017)
which is “associated with specific locations, people,
and objects. Willett explores the notion that such
data is well-suited to embedded representations, in
which data is displayed in the context of its physical
referent—“the physical spaces, objects, and entities
to which the data refers. More directly, the tangible
representations used in our studies are what Willett
terms a facsimile, and due to their high level of accu-
racy in depicting the topography of the area depicted,
they “can be considered a physical referent in and of
[themselves]” into which an individual’s GPS track
can be embedded.
Among the benefits and drawbacks of situated and
embedded representations of data presented by Wil-
lett, one in particular relates to a result from our stud-
ies. Willett notes that embedded physicalizations may
support collaboration in unique ways: “In particular,
physical marks could provide concrete, persistent in-
stantiations of data that support shared pointing, ma-
nipulation, and reasoning among collaborators. Such
behaviors were indicated by our participants, particu-
larly in the experiences of P2 with her husband, and
P6 with both his wife and coworkers.
Further work may seek to explore the phe-
nomenon of shared interaction with physical repre-
sentations of personal data or of topographical and
other geographical data, in particular as it relates to
situations such as planning of trips and routes, search
and rescue, and other collaborative activities.
5.3 Limitations
Interviews were not recorded. Each interview was
conducted by a single interviewer who took notes
while conducting the interview, and made further
notes immediately or as soon as possible afterwards.
HUCAPP 2020 - 4th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications
192
Figure 3: An example of a physicalization and corresponding map as used in the second qualitative study. The image on the
right shows the physicalization from a low viewing angle.
This likely led to some data loss, however the data
gathered still led to interesting and valuable insights.
5.4 Future Work
Looking at the physicalizations we produced, an ob-
vious area for future work is to increase their data
density. It may be helpful to find out how dense the
physicalization can be with data before it begins to
lose some of its ability to convey such data effectively,
and at what point it becomes less of a piece of art or
memento and more of an informative display. The ad-
dition of labels at different densities may be a way to
begin to understand this, and it would be informative
to see how adding labels changes the experience for
individuals.
Another area for exploration is technical aspects
of the physicalizations themselves. We have be-
gun exploring lighting the path, either from within
the physicalization or with light transmitted as from
underneath the physicalization (Willis et al., 2012)
(Baudisch et al., 2010) (Pereira et al., 2014). This
could be used to display data such as pace or heart
rate. We have also considered generating physical-
izations which are simply a very large bundle of light
pipes. This would allow for even greater flexibility,
creating opportunities for data to be overlaid onto the
physicalization surface and changed or updated in real
time or on demand.
Finally, further exploration is warranted surround-
ing collaborative aspects of working with such phys-
ical representations. Such work might explore appli-
cation in areas such as route planning or search and
rescue. We look forward to this and other work which
builds upon and explores new avenues uncovered in
this work.
6 CONCLUSION
We have explored physicalizations of personal activ-
ity data recorded during personally meaningful trail
running experiences. Through two interview studies,
we have found that interactions with these physical-
izations leads to reflection on one’s experience, shar-
ing, and further consideration of the topography and
geography of the areas depicted, including planning
of new routes. Furthermore, these responses seem
largely to be driven by participants’ physical interac-
tions with the physicalizations. This work gives sup-
port to the ability of physicalizations to allow indi-
viduals to understand and connect with data. We look
forward to further work by ourselves and others in ex-
ploring physicalizations, particularly personal physi-
calizations as enabled by the growing democratization
of 3D printing technology.
REFERENCES
Baudisch, P., Becker, T., and Rudeck, F. (2010). Lumino:
Tangible blocks for tabletop computers based on glass
fiber bundles. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Confer-
ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI
’10, pages 1165–1174, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Caldwell, D. R. (2001). Physical terrain modeling for ge-
ographic visualization. Cartographic Perspectives,
(38):66–72.
Dragicevic, P., Jansen, Y., and Moere, A. V. (2019). Data
physicalization.
Institute of Cartography, E. Z. (2010a). Applications.
Institute of Cartography, E. Z. (2010b). Production tech-
niques.
Institute of Cartography, E. Z. (2018a). History of terrain
models.
Institute of Cartography, E. Z. (2018b). Welcome to the
terrain modeling website.
Jansen, Y., Dragicevic, P., and Fekete, J.-D. (2013). Evalu-
ating the efficiency of physical visualizations. In Pro-
Tangible Interactions with Physicalizations of Personal Experience Data
193
ceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Fac-
tors in Computing Systems, CHI ’13, pages 2593–
2602, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Jansen, Y., Dragicevic, P., Isenberg, P., Alexander, J.,
Karnik, A., Kildal, J., Subramanian, S., and Horn-
bæk, K. (2015). Opportunities and challenges for data
physicalization. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual
ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, CHI ’15, pages 3227–3236, New York, NY,
USA. ACM.
Khot, R. A. (2013). Sweat-atoms: Crafting physical ob-
jects with everyday exercise. In CHI ’13 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
CHI EA ’13, pages 2701–2706, New York, NY, USA.
ACM.
Khot, R. A., Aggarwal, D., Pennings, R., Hjorth, L., and
Mueller, F. F. (2017). Edipulse: Investigating a playful
approach to self-monitoring through 3d printed choco-
late treats. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Confer-
ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI
’17, pages 6593–6607, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Khot, R. A., Andres, J., Lai, J., von Kaenel, J., and Mueller,
F. F. (2016). Fantibles: Capturing cricket fan’s story in
3d. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on
Designing Interactive Systems, DIS ’16, pages 883–
894, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Khot, R. A., Hjorth, L., and Mueller, F. F. (2014). Under-
standing physical activity through 3d printed material
artifacts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’14,
pages 3835–3844, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Khot, R. A., Lee, J., Aggarwal, D., Hjorth, L., and Mueller,
F. F. (2015). Tastybeats: Designing palatable repre-
sentations of physical activity. In Proceedings of the
33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, CHI ’15, pages 2933–2942, New
York, NY, USA. ACM.
Knaving, K., Wo
´
zniak, P., Fjeld, M., and Bj
¨
ork, S. (2015).
Flow is not enough: Understanding the needs of ad-
vanced amateur runners to design motivation technol-
ogy. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Confer-
ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI
’15, pages 2013–2022, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Pereira, T., Rusinkiewicz, S., and Matusik, W. (2014).
Computational light routing: 3d printed optical fibers
for sensing and display. ACM Trans. Graph.,
33(3):24:1–24:13.
Rase, W.-D. (2011). Creating physical 3d maps using rapid
prototyping techniques. In True-3D in Cartography,
pages 119–134. Springer.
Stusak, S., Hobe, M., and Butz, A. (2016). If your mind can
grasp it, your hands will help. In Proceedings of the
TEI ’16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible,
Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, TEI ’16, pages
92–99, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Stusak, S., Schwarz, J., and Butz, A. (2015). Evaluating the
memorability of physical visualizations. In Proceed-
ings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’15, pages 3247–
3250, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Stusak, S., Tabard, A., Sauka, F., Khot, R., and Butz, A.
(2014). Activity sculptures: Exploring the impact
of physical visualizations on running activity. IEEE
Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graph-
ics, 20(12):2201–2210.
Swaminathan, S., Shi, C., Jansen, Y., Dragicevic, P.,
Oehlberg, L. A., and Fekete, J.-D. (2014). Supporting
the design and fabrication of physical visualizations.
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’14, pages 3845–
3854, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Taher, F., Hardy, J., Karnik, A., Weichel, C., Jansen, Y.,
Hornbæk, K., and Alexander, J. (2015). Exploring in-
teractions with physically dynamic bar charts. In Pro-
ceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Hu-
man Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’15, pages
3237–3246, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Taher, F., Jansen, Y., Woodruff, J., Hardy, J., Hornbæk, K.,
and Alexander, J. (2017). Investigating the use of a
dynamic physical bar chart for data exploration and
presentation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and
Computer Graphics, 23(1):451–460.
Thudt, A., Hinrichs, U., Huron, S., and Carpendale, S.
(2018). Self-reflection and personal physicalization
construction. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Confer-
ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI
’18, pages 154:1–154:13, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Wikipedia (2018). Raised-relief map.
Willett, W., Jansen, Y., and Dragicevic, P. (2017). Embed-
ded data representations. IEEE Transactions on Visu-
alization and Computer Graphics, 23(1):461–470.
Willis, K., Brockmeyer, E., Hudson, S., and Poupyrev, I.
(2012). Printed optics: 3d printing of embedded opti-
cal elements for interactive devices. In Proceedings of
the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface
Software and Technology, UIST ’12, pages 589–598,
New York, NY, USA. ACM.
HUCAPP 2020 - 4th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications
194