Henrik Sørensen

Kenton O'hara
email: oharakenton@gmail.com

Phil Gosset

Jesper Kjeldskov
email: jesper@cs.aau.dk

Wireless Smartphone Mirroring in Video Calls

Keywords: Screen mirroring, video conferencing, distributed collaboration, collocated collaboration 1

While screen mirroring is an integral part of many video mediated collaborations, current systems are limited in their ability to include ad hoc screen mirroring from personal devices of collocated participants on each end of a video call. In this paper we introduce a system that addresses this limitation by enabling lightweight multi-user wireless smartphone mirroring within a video call. The system enables multiple smartphones to share both digital content as well as physical artefacts when mirroring the live view from the smartphone camera feed. We present a study of the system in use for a distributed design task. The findings explore how shared access to screen mirroring facilitates a fluid switching of floor control in the meeting and smooth interleaving of individual, sub group and full group shared activities. Further, the findings highlight the importance of smartphone mobility in enabling access to screen mirroring from the sites of individual work and sites of various physical artefacts and the significance of this for the dynamics of a video mediated collaboration.

Introduction

Since the early days of video mediated communication research, there has been widespread recognition of the importance of sharing the viewing of information artefacts between distributed participants as the basis for ongoing discussion and collaboration [e.g. 2]. These shared artefacts whether physical or digital provide a common ground [START_REF] Clark | Using Language[END_REF] that can be drawn attention to in the context of collaborative work. Significant research efforts within the domain of computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) have looked to develop ways in which these artefacts can be shared and simultaneously viewed by distributed collaborators. Drawing on these efforts, many commercially available video calling solutions (e.g. Skype, Lync, Google Hangouts, and WebEx) offer some form of screen mirroring capability to support shared viewing of digital documents across distributed sites. In this paper the term mirroring refers to the direct duplication of one screen to another, while sharing is used to describe the act of visually sharing activities and digital or physical artefacts among collaborators.

While screen mirroring capabilities offer important value in video mediated collaborations, the current set-ups are not without their limitations. For example, it is common in many everyday conferencing situations for one site to use a single host computer to connect to another host computer at a remote site. It is common for multiple collocated participants to be present at either site but in hosting on a single computer, the access to screen mirroring capabilities can be restricted to the person driving the host computer. While it is possible to swap control to another participant, this process is cumbersome and ultimately inhibits more casual and ad hoc artefact sharing [START_REF] Mcgill | Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall: Collaborative Screen-mirroring for Small Groups[END_REF][START_REF] Tee | Artifact Awareness Through Screen Sharing for Distributed Groups[END_REF]. Related to this concern, these collocated participants may be working with a broader ecosystem of mobile devices such as laptops, tablets and smartphones as well as a variety of physical information surfaces like whiteboards and paper. Such personal devices have significance in that they may contain information arising from individual work performed prior to the video call as well as supporting any individual or subgroup work being performed in the meeting in parallel to the shared aspects of the workboth of these being potential contributions to subsequent shared activities in the meeting. While there are possibilities for sharing from some of these devices, the mechanisms are again cumbersome and inhibitory. For example, it is possible that these devices actively join the video meeting as an additional participant and then proceed to mirror the screen from there. But this is sufficiently effortful to be a barrier. As argued by Mueller-Tomfelde and O'Hara [START_REF] Mueller-Tomfelde | Horizontal Surfaces in Media Space Assemblies[END_REF], such effort also incurs certain social consequences. Going through these processes entails "taking the floor" in a strong way in which the contributions of the sharing and talk need to be sufficient to justify the interruption. In this sense, these cumbersome processes create a social barrier to more casual sharing.

Furthermore, there are various physical constraints on the sharing opportunities within such set-ups. Elements of sharing may involve fixed wired connections such as those connecting to any shared display used within the room. Again while not insurmountable, such requirements do present certain constraints on the sharing from wherever in the room. As McGill et al. [START_REF] Mcgill | Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall: Collaborative Screen-mirroring for Small Groups[END_REF] highlight in relation to purely collocated settings, wireless screen mirroring can liberate collaborators from such constraints in ways that can benefit the participation dynamic of the collocated settings. Additional concerns here arise in relation to opportunities for sharing physical artefacts whether these are personally created and assembled paper documents or larger vertical surfaces such as flipcharts and whiteboards within a conference room. While there exist bespoke camera based set-ups that support aspects of this kind of sharing, what is more typical is to appropriate the existing single camera set-up already in use for the video sharing. Such cameras are either fixed to the host machine or alternatively to the front of the meeting room. In either instance such fixity of the camera offers significant limitations on the ability to use them for the sharing of physical artefacts. Smaller documents can potentially be brought to within the camera frame which is burdensome, but the fixed cameras cannot be brought to the site of their production and use at the table. For larger physical information surfaces, such as wall-based whiteboards and flip charts there is little or no opportunity to usefully bring them into the frame of the primary video camera and little opportunity to bring cameras to their location in the meeting room.

In this paper, we present work that is motivated by the key arguments and limitations of current screen mirroring capabilities discussed above. The work looks to support more ad hoc and casual screen mirroring opportunities within video calls for multiple collocated participants at either end of a remote collaboration. The aim here is to achieve this by facilitating the personal devices of all participants that are not explicitly connected as host devices within the call. Furthermore it aims to enable this to be done from wherever in the room by using wireless rather than wired based screen mirroring mechanisms. While our aims and motivations apply to a broader range of personal devices and artefacts within the meeting room ecosystem, we focus in the first instance on wireless smartphone screen mirroring. One of the key reasons for this is to enable us to further exploit the specific mobile camera capabilities of smartphones with a view to open up access to all in the room to participate in distributed sharing of the various physical information artefacts located around the room. Before presenting the system, we briefly discuss some related work to further ground the arguments underpinning the system. After presenting the system, we highlight some initial findings from a study of the system in use for a distributed collaborative activity.

Related Work

The sharing of screens, documents, and artefacts within collocated and distributed settings has been well documented in the CSCW literature and a comprehensive review of the various systems and nuances of particular approaches cannot be given due justice here. A good review of the key arguments can be found in the work of Tee et al. [START_REF] Tee | Artifact Awareness Through Screen Sharing for Distributed Groups[END_REF]. Of particular significance to our concerns here are some of the themes arising from research into Multi Display Groupware. Such efforts look to augment elements of single display groupware based collaboration with additional display devices such as personal tablets or mobile devices (e.g. [START_REF] Nacenta | The Lunchtable: A Multi-User, Multi-Display System for Information Sharing in Casual Group Interactions[END_REF], [START_REF] Wallace | Investigating Teamwork and Task Work in Single-And Multi-Display Groupware Systems[END_REF]). Of particular relevance here is the combination of personal and shared displays that acknowledge and bring together strands of individual and small subgroup work with the larger shared activities of the group as a whole (e.g. [START_REF] Terrenghi | A Taxonomy for and Analysis of Multi-Person-Display Ecosystems[END_REF]).

With the emergence of commercial screen mirroring technologies in smartphones such as Miracast, Airplay and Chromecast, we are beginning to see some explorations of its use among small collocated groups of collaborators. A recent study [START_REF] Mcgill | Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall: Collaborative Screen-mirroring for Small Groups[END_REF] showed how multiple collocated users of these technologies self-managed the mirroring of their phones to a main display. While they used wired connections in their study, they highlighted the ways in which participation was better shared among the collaborators reducing dominance by a single person who might otherwise control the mirrored display. In our work we extend these ideas to include remote settings as well as wireless techniques for smartphone screen mirroring.

In addition to such multi-display and screen mirroring work, additional work looks to consider the potential for incorporating mobile phone camera capabilities into video call and media space set-ups. Neustaedter & Judge, for example, developed the peek-a-boo [START_REF] Neustaedter | Peek-A-Boo: The Design of a Mobile Family Media Space[END_REF] concept that exploited the mobility of the camera phone to link in with a fixed media space display in the home [cf. 3].

System

Detailed technical details is beyond the scope of this paper, but the following provides an overview of the used technologies and the main components of the implementation. The system we developed draws together capabilities from Microsoft's Lync communication suite and Lumia Beamer screen mirroring applications. Lync is Microsoft's communication suite that supports video conferencing, instant messaging and screen sharing functionalities. While a mobile Lync client is available, it does not support distributed screen mirroring capabilities. Lumia Beamer is an application available on Nokia Lumia Phones that enables users to mirror the screen of their phone to another display through a regular web browser. By using the phone to scan a QR code presented in the browser, the application mirrors the screen of the phone in the web session. In addition, switching to the inbuilt smartphone camera application while mirroring, can effectively make the phone function as a wireless handheld web cam. The prototype is implemented as a desktop application using .NET 4.5 and Windows Presentation Foundation. Using the Lync SDK we developed a bespoke Lync Client into which we have wrapped key elements of the Lumia Beamer functionality. The key difference from the standard Lync desktop client is in the interface of an active video call. When a call is answered our application intercepts the conversation and presents a full screen mode containing 3 primary elements: The video conversation, a QR code for connecting the Beamer application, and an area for displaying the mirrored smartphone screen (see Fig. 1). To synchronise the mirrored view on both clients connected to a call, a lightweight machine-to-machine communication protocol (MQTT) with a publish/subscribe mechanism is used. Whenever a Lync call is accepted, each client creates an ID unique to the conversation, based on an MD5 hash of a sorted list of the Lync IDs of connected users. Each client connects to a MQTT message broker and uses the created ID as the subscription topic. When a QR code is scanned the client publishes the session URL to the conversation topic and all clients with the same ID receive the message and redirect its mirrored view to that session URL. Each time a Beamer mirroring session has been initiated, the client on which the QR code was scanned generates and presents a new unique QR code. By doing this, participants on each side of the video call always have access to start a new Beamer mirroring session.

Study

In order to evaluate the system in action we conducted a study of its use in a distributed collaborative task. The study consisted of 20 participants in total, organised into five different sessions with four participants in each. The participants were employees at the same company recruited on a volunteer basis. Of these, 16 were male and 4 female (average age = 29 years, SD = 4.10).

A session consisted of an introduction to the task and system, a 20 minute collaborative design session, followed by a 20 minute group interview. The task chosen for the design session was for participants to collaborate on a t-shirt design representing the company they work for. The task was chosen to encourage several participants to create, share and discuss both physical and digital artefacts. Participants were divided across 2 conference rooms with 3 collocated people in one room and a single person in the other. This configuration was chosen as we found the 2x2 configuration option to be limiting for exploring aspects of collocated interaction. As such we chose 3 people at one end to better represent these concerns in each session.

Fig. 2. Room set-up for the study

The rooms used were standard conference rooms with a large display on the front wall on which the application was presented (see Fig. 2). Each room had various vertical whiteboard surfaces on the walls. We also provided both rooms with coloured pencils, felt-tip pens, post-its, and A4 paper both blank or with pre-printed t-shirt templates. During the introduction each participant was given a Nokia Lumia phone configured to have access from the start screen to the Beamer application, Internet Explorer, Office, camera, photo gallery, and calendar. Browser history and photo gallery were cleared between sessions. Each session was video recorded using a dedicated video camera that was positioned to capture all of the collocated participants in the room and the shared display on the front wall on which the remote video of the single participant room was visible. The single person room was not video recorded but observed, to document events that might not be so apparent through the video conversation view. The subsequent group interview sessions were used to elicit general opinions about the system as well as elaborations on specific behaviours of interest identified by the researcher observing the sessions. These interviews were video recorded and transcribed for later analysis. Over and above the in situ observations of the research, video recordings of the task sessions were subsequently revisited to allow a more detailed, reflective and systematic analysis of the unfolding collaborative action of the participants. Findings are primarily based on the observations and video recordings, but interview data have been utilised in getting a deeper understanding of particularly interesting events throughout the analysis.

Findings

Within the sessions, it was observed that multiple people in both locations took the opportunity to share content from their devices. The content shared included images sourced from the web, photographs taken of drawings on paper documents, photographs of whiteboards, photographs of objects captured outside the meeting room and live video images of paper documents and objects as they were being worked on or discussed and pointed to in real time.

Coordinated Organisation

Of significance here was the coordinated organisation of individual and shared aspects of the task. Individual work here took place in parallel to shared discussions happening around the shared display. For example, individuals were observed using their smartphones to search for images while not mirrored to the shared display. Once the images were located they would then mirror their display to the shared surface in order to take the floor. Likewise, design ideas were explored on paper documents in preparation for subsequent sharing via the main screen. Such preparation would often happen in parallel with another participant sharing and presenting. Some participants would prefer to utilise the live video to share design ideas with the option of quickly switching between different documents laid out on the table, by simply moving the camera around. Others would take photos as their work progressed and later share them by mirroring the photo gallery application of the smartphone. In any case, distributing the activities across multiple devices and artefacts enabled a more fluid interleaving of individual, subgroup and full group sharing activities. The preparation work meant that objects of sharing were immediately available to facilitate the social mechanisms and timings by which new ideas could be introduced to take the floor in the discussion.

Sharing Physical Artefacts

As well as sharing products of particular individual and subgroup work, what was also noteworthy was the real time sharing of work being done on paper documents and whiteboards. Here the video capabilities of the phones were used to reveal work as it was being performed. This involved some collaborative efforts with one person holding the mirrored phone to video the mark-up, gesticulation and talk around the paper in situ such that it could be shared across the two locations.

A critical feature of these interactions was the nature of mobility enabled by the wireless sharing of these images. This played out in a number of important ways. First of all, we saw how it allowed people to perform sharing activities from wherever they were seated allowing them to fluidly shift from individual to shared activities in the context of their locally assembled artefacts. Second, we saw how this mobility enabled movement around and beyond the room. For example, one participant left the meeting room to capture a photo of artwork situated in the atrium of the building.

Another participant moved from their seat to the whiteboard in the room and proceeded to share a live image of the content from his camera phone while talking about it.

Finally the micro mobility of the phone was exploited to achieve the fine-grained framing requirements of specific features of the work process and artefacts that were deemed useful to be shared across sites. In essence, mobility allowed participants to accommodate for features of the environment that impacted on the spatial organisation of the work.

Negotiating Control

As a final point we saw how participants were able to successfully negotiate among themselves the fluid transfer of control over the shared display. With the alwayspresent availability of the barcode to control mirroring, participants were observed to vocalise their intention to share just prior to initiating the mirroring process. It was apparent in the timing and nature of these socially mediated requests that participants exhibited sufficient awareness of the ongoing work of the collaborating parties across sites to achieve such transitions relatively smoothly. Because there were no explicit mechanics in the application to control the flow of screen mirroring or indicate who was currently sharing content, occasionally situations would occur where multiple participants would for instance try to share content simultaneously. However, keeping negotiation of control as part of the social interaction rather than an explicit function in the application was observed to be a strength rather than a needed feature that could easily complicate frequent switching between participants.

Discussion

In this paper, we have presented a system to enable wireless screen mirroring from smartphones to shared displays and across distributed settings. Key here is the integration of these mirroring capabilities within a video conferencing application that lends mirroring access mechanisms both across sites and to collocated participants within a site. What we see is how this extends the ecosystem of devices from which ad hoc wireless screen mirroring can be achieved within a video call in ways that exploits their unique affordances. Of note here is the lightweight way in which the camera ecosystem of the video call can be extended through the camera capabilities of the smartphone.

The mobility of these devices means that real time capture opportunities are available in flexible sites around the distributed locations. As we saw, this enabled this functionality to be moved to the sites of interest allowing physical artefacts and the work around them to be incorporated in the distributed screen mirroring. In extending the mirroring capabilities across multiple personal devices, individuals had an additional resource through which to take control of the floor in the conversation. We saw how this facilitated parallel streams of individual and shared working and the fluid interleaving of these activities. Individuals were able to engage in their own preparatory activities with both digital and physical resources before introducing them into a more shared context for discussion. Directly mirroring personal devices such as smartphones naturally introduce privacy issues. These are outside the scope of this paper but is an interesting issue for future work. Finally, in contrast to some screen mirroring technologies that require an existing mirror connection to be first disconnected, our mechanism enabled participants to override any existing connection. This meant the opportunity to share was always available and negotiable through lightweight social mediation.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. The interface consists of the video conversation, a QR code for connecting mobile devices and the mirrored content.


Andrés Lucero
email: lucero@acm.org

Mads Clausen

Funky-Design-Spaces: Interactive Environments for Creativity Inspired by Observing Designers Making Mood Boards

Keywords: Design Practice, Creativity, Co-Design, Tabletops, Displays. 1

de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

The field of human-computer interaction (HCI) has been investigating how people interact with computer systems at work, at home, and more recently in open public spaces, in an attempt to help people achieve their goals. Within HCI, researchers have already identified the potential behind interactive horizontal (e.g., DigitalDesk [START_REF] Wellner | Interacting with paper on the DigitalDesk[END_REF], ReacTable [START_REF] Jordà | The reacTable: exploring the synergy between live music performance and tabletop tangible interfaces[END_REF]) and vertical surfaces (e.g., DynaWall [START_REF] Streitz | i-LAND: an interactive landscape for creativity and innovation[END_REF], ambient displays [START_REF] Vogel | Interactive public ambient displays: transitioning from implicit to explicit, public to personal, interaction with multiple users[END_REF]) as a more natural and familiar setting to design collaborative interactions. Research in this area has traditionally been driven by technology.

A research project that explored ways in which novel technologies can provide support for professional users (i.e., industrial designers) in their work is presented. A co-design approach was applied by systematically involving fifty practicing designers throughout the design process in a series of activities. First, cultural probes [START_REF] Gaver | Design: cultural probes[END_REF] were used to understand design practice and identify an important task for designers (i.e., mood-board making). Second, retrospective interviews based on contextual inquiry [START_REF] Holtzblatt | Rapid Contextual Design[END_REF] were carried out in the Netherlands and Finland to understand what the creation of mood boards entails. Third, designers were invited to co-design workshops (i.e., dialogue-labs [START_REF] Lucero | The dialogue-labs method: process, space and materials as structuring elements to spark dialogue in co-design events[END_REF]) in both countries to collaboratively create novel tools that support the creation of mood boards. Finally, designers were invited to prototype evaluations of two resulting tools from the co-design sessions (i.e., the Funky Coffee Table [START_REF] Lucero | Augmenting mood boards: flexible and intuitive interaction in the context of the design studio[END_REF] and Funky Wall [START_REF] Lucero | An interactive support tool to convey the intended message in asynchronous presentations[END_REF]). The structure of the paper is as follows. First, two studies on design practice and mood board creation are presented. Next, the results of co-design workshops are introduced, which lead to the funky-design-spaces. Then, the two resulting tools and the outcome of a joint evaluation are presented. Finally, limitations of this work and future improvements are discussed, followed by conclusions.

Design Practice

With the aim to get a broad understanding of design practice and identify an important activity that could be supported by novel technologies, a first study with industrial designers was conducted. The study took place in design studios and looked into what designers do there, their activities, the places and objects they use in the practice of industrial design. There are many studies of design practice, focusing on different design disciplines and specific stages of the design process. These include studies with knitwear designers to facilitate communication within design teams [START_REF] Eckert | Sources of inspiration: a language of design[END_REF], and of how product designers keep their informal collections of visual material [START_REF] Keller | Collecting with Cabinet: or how designers organise visual material, researched through an experiential prototype[END_REF].

Method, Participants and Procedure

The method used was design probes [START_REF] Gaver | Design: cultural probes[END_REF]. Regarding its main characteristics, probes: 1) are based on user participation by means of self-documentation, 2) look at the user's personal context and perceptions, and 3) have an exploratory character [START_REF] Mattelmäki | Design probes[END_REF]. One main advantage of applying probes includes collecting participant data over an extended period of time (e.g., one week), which in turn allows people to reflect on what they are being asked and the answers they have provided on the previous days.

The probes study was conducted in the Netherlands with 10 practicing industrial designers. All participants had at least two years of design practice experience (nine years on average), with varying educational level (university or academy), age (between 24 and 50), and gender (6 male, 4 female). A wide variety of work contexts was obtained, ranging from an office in a large company, to freelance work performed at home, and sometimes combined with part-time teaching at a university.

Participants worked on the probes in their design studio and home for a period of one week (i.e., seven consecutive days) and freely chose the starting day. The probe kit contained a design-studio diary including: 1) a timeline to probe the daily thoughts and activities of the participants, 2) closed questions covering different aspects of routines, collaboration, and use of technology, 3) open questions to make people tell stories and express their opinions, 4) a map to allow for self-expression, and 5) a drawing exercise (i.e., ideal design studio) to probe the dreams and aspirations of the participants. The kit also included a single-use camera (i.e., 36 exposures) to illustrate interesting activities, places and objects, and a 'Picture Record Table ' to keep track of their pictures. Two researchers processed the data from the diaries and cameras (i.e., 200 photos) for interpretation. General findings were formulated and presented back to the participants during a workshop to triangulate the interpretation.

Findings

From the probes, a set of possible research directions connected to supporting creativity and finding inspiration in the early stages of the design process was deduced.

 Supporting flexibility in creation. Designers stressed the importance of working with their hands in the early stages of the design process. Designers prefer the naturalness of using pen and paper and thus keep a sketchbook at hand to make notes and bring their ideas to life. Work related to the creation phase is mostly performed away from the computer, as designers need tools that provide flexibility. This extends to their workplace, where designers want to decide how and where they work (Fig. 1a), and prefer not being tied to their computers or (indoor) physical spaces.  Finding inspiration. This is important for designers. It is a way to forget about work for a while, allowing them to approach design problems from a different perspective with a fresh mind. Designers have different ways to find inspiration (e.g., browsing magazines and the web, reading books, visiting fairs, meeting people).

Taking short breaks to perform physical activities both inside and outside the design studio can also be beneficial (e.g., playing darts or football at the office, taking a bicycle ride in town, walking the dog). Designers keep special areas in their studios where they can stick sketches, photos and project printouts, keep their collections of magazines, or relax for a while. Having a view on the outside world to observe people and life also creates an inspiring atmosphere inside the design studio.  Mood boards. Designers mentioned the creation of mood boards as an important activity for their work. One designer described herself as a mood board designer, and kept special magazines to make her mood boards with (Fig. 1b). Mood boards (Fig. 2a,2b) are an idea development tool consisting of visually stimulating images from magazines affixed to an A0 foam board, and which are used by designers and their clients to share their different views that emerge from the design brief [START_REF] Lucero | Framing, aligning, paradoxing, abstracting, and directing: how design mood boards work[END_REF].

The creation of mood boards was selected for further research, as it had not been sufficiently studied in design research despite its importance for designers. Furthermore, mood boards shared characteristics with the other findings: they are created in the early stages of the design process, by designers manipulating physical images, away from computers, and they force designers to move about their design studio.

Mood Boards

After identifying the creation of mood boards as an important task for designers, an empirical study of how experienced designers from different design disciplines (i.e., fashion, textile and industrial design) use mood boards as part of their work was conducted. Earlier studies on mood boards have concentrated on understanding the role that mood boards play in design education [START_REF] Garner | Problem Interpretation and Resolution via Visual Stimuli: The Use of 'Mood Boards' in Design Education[END_REF], [START_REF] Mcdonagh | Exploring the degree to which individual students share a common perception of specific mood boards: observations relating to teaching, learning and team-based design[END_REF]. In doing so, these studies have been mostly looking at design students and how they create and perceive mood boards. One notable exception is Eckert and Stacey [START_REF] Eckert | Sources of inspiration: a language of design[END_REF] who analyzed the use of mood boards to study the role played by sources of inspiration in the knitwear industry.

Method, Participants and Procedure

The type of study conducted was retrospective interviews based on contextual inquiry [START_REF] Holtzblatt | Rapid Contextual Design[END_REF]. The retrospective interviews were conducted in the Netherlands and Finland with 14 practicing designers who regularly use mood boards as part of their work. All participants except one had at least ten years of design practice experience (14 years on average), with varying education level (university or academy), background (4 textile designers, 4 industrial designers, 3 fashion designers, 2 designers, and 1 stylist/photographer), age (between 35 and 45), and gender (9 female and 5 male). Three of them worked in large companies (i.e., Nokia and Stockmann), six of them worked in small design firms that they owned, and the rest did freelance work at home for large companies (e.g., Nike, SNCF, Rukka, Luhta, Pentik). The retrospective interviews were planned for a total of two hours in the participants' workplace. Participants freely described between two and five of their previous projects for which they had used mood boards. Designers took the role of experts and guided the interviewer (the author) through different aspects of each mood board such as its purpose, the client's expectations, and the making process. There were no predefined sets of questions for the interviewer to ask, allowing for a more informal discussion to flow. Affinity diagramming [START_REF] Holtzblatt | Rapid Contextual Design[END_REF] was used to analyze the data from the retrospective interviews. The interviewer plus two researchers first independently made notes as they watched the 14 interview videos, and then collaboratively analyzed the qualitative data through several interpretation rounds. Fig. 3. The mood-board making process and the two support tools that were created. The Funky Coffee Table and the Funky Wall provide support for two stages of the process, i.e., browsing and presenting. The funky-design-spaces support the entire process creating mood boards.

Findings

Five Roles. Five roles that mood boards play in the early stages of the design process were identified [START_REF] Lucero | Framing, aligning, paradoxing, abstracting, and directing: how design mood boards work[END_REF]. First, mood boards play a framing role by defining the limits of the design task, which includes both problem setting and problem solving. Second, mood boards assist in the transmission of a mindset or vision by aligning the different stakeholders and getting them on the same wavelength. Third, mood boards support designers in visually researching apparently conflicting or contradicting ideas or paradoxing. Fourth, mood boards play an abstracting role by allowing designers to juxtapose both concrete and abstract imagery depending on the project and client. Finally, mood boards play a directing role by setting a trajectory for future design efforts.

A mood board was created to communicate these five roles to different stakeholders (Fig. 2b) [START_REF] Lucero | Framing, aligning, paradoxing, abstracting, and directing: how design mood boards work[END_REF].

The Mood-Board Making Process. Six stages of the mood board making process were also found (Fig. 3). First, in defining, designer and client hold meetings where the client tries to express through words their rough ideas for a product or service, while the designer attempts to understand (and shape) what the client has in mind. Second, the designer begins by roughly collecting images that reflect the client's vision from magazines, the Internet, and occasionally their own personal collection of images (Fig. 4a). Third, once the designer feels they have enough (visual) material to work with, they will move on to browsing. Here the designer can spend a considerable amount of time pre-selecting images that will help them build a story or say something about the target audience, product, or company they are designing for. Fourth, through connecting, the designer sorts the pre-selected images in a simple and flexible way by assigning them to piles (usually up to 30 images per topic or idea). Fifth, the designer starts building the mood board by thinking how they want to arrange the images and create different layouts. In the final sixth stage, presenting, designer and client meet face-to-face to share and discuss the intended story behind the mood board (Fig. 4b). The designer creates a single large mood board or a series of smaller booklets for their clients to keep and share with stakeholders. b) A designer guiding their client through the presentation by means of an explanation.

Considerations for a Mood-Board Making Tool

Based on the main aforementioned mood board interview findings, six considerations for a mood-board making tool were identified. Also, two mood boards were created to help communicate some of these findings to different stakeholders (Fig. 2a,2b).

 Support Idea Development. Mood-board making entails a series of steps occurring both before and after building the mood board itself. New tools should support idea development through all six stages of the mood board making process, rather than only focus on the creation of the artifact.  Encourage Two-Way Communication. Mood boards create the conditions for both designer and client to have a productive discussion together. New tools should en-courage two-way communication allowing the designer to present the mood board, see how the client perceives it, have a discussion, and get feedback on the artifact.  Involving the Senses. Designers involve all five senses (plus their intuition) to create a mood board (e.g., they like the touch and smell of different paper types). However, mood-board creation on computers is currently restricted by the visual nature of the artifact. New tools should encourage using other senses than just sight for interaction.  Holistic Interactive Space. Mood-board making is a dynamic and iterative process where designers must often switch activity and place. New tools should create a holistic interactive design space consisting of several interconnected tools that together support the mood-board making process.  Merging With the Real Context. The process of making mood boards takes place at different locations inside and outside the design studio. New tools should merge with the real context of the activity by considering both place and the relaxed (e.g., image browsing on a couch) or formal (e.g., meeting or presentation) nature of the activity.  Flexible and Intuitive Interaction. For creativity-related activities, designers prefer working with their hands using simple tools (e.g., pen and paper), and using their hands collaboratively (e.g., knife and fork). New tools should provide flexible and intuitive interaction through hand movements and other modalities (e.g., speech), allowing designers to perform tasks as naturally as they do now.

Co-Design

Co-design activities with practicing designers and researchers were organized to collaboratively develop future ways of creating mood boards with novel technologies. Practitioners from different fields of research and design have understood the importance of involving diverse groups of users in the generation phase of novel artifacts, products and services, and thus facilitating participation has become one of the cornerstones of co-design [START_REF] Brandt | The design lab: re-thinking what to design and how to design[END_REF]. Underpinning this approach is the supposition that stakeholders, including users, can contribute productively through involvement in the design process since they bring privileged insights into the domain that designers are trying to address and the ways in which future products and services may fit into and affect that domain. Within this field, there exists a variety of methods, techniques and events intended to inspire design participants and scaffold collaborative ideation and concept development. Such methods include inspiration card workshops [START_REF] Halskov | Inspiration card workshops[END_REF], design games [START_REF] Brandt | Facilitating collaboration through design games[END_REF], and contextmapping [START_REF] Visser | Contextmapping: experiences from practice[END_REF].

Method, Participants and Procedure

The method used was dialogue-labs [START_REF] Lucero | The dialogue-labs method: process, space and materials as structuring elements to spark dialogue in co-design events[END_REF]. Dialogue-labs and its three structuring elements (i.e., process, space and materials), provide a structured way of generating ideas through a sequence of co-design activities. The process provides a clear step-bystep procedure for a two-hour idea-generation session in which participants work in pairs. The space is carefully crafted to align content to different locations, inspire participants and encourage them to move around the room. Finally, the materials are the means for participants to build a design language of their own and to provide different entry points to the design problem.

Seven dialogue-labs sessions were conducted in the Netherlands and Finland with 14 practicing designers, experienced mood-board makers, some of which had previously participated in the probes study (n=1) and the retrospective interviews (n=3). All participants had at least five years of design practice experience (ten years on average), with varying education level (university or academy), age (between 28 and 46) and gender (7 male, 7 female).

Each dialogue-labs session was planned for a total of two hours and involved four people; two designers plus two researchers who acted in a double role of facilitator/designer. Based on the findings from the previous studies with practicing designers (i.e., probes and retrospective interviews), activities and locations of the dialoguelabs environment were aligned according to the six stages of the mood-board making process (Fig. 3). The physical space was further designed to look and feel like a design studio (including working tables, chairs, a laptop, magazines, drawing materials, a large screen for presentation, and a sofa). Participants formed pairs, with at least one domain expert in them, and were then asked to think of unusual ways to support the process of making mood boards with novel technologies. At the end of each session, the quality of the resulting ideas was collectively assessed. Participants rated each idea on a seven-point Likert scale (where -3 was very bad, +3 was very good, and 0 was neutral). The most promising ideas (i.e., mean rating ≥ 2.5) are presented below.

4.2

Ideas

Layered Table . This tool consists of a set of adjustable multi-purpose surfaces (e.g., table, wall). Different surfaces can be used to keep a collection of materials, to make a selection of materials, to put the discarded material (e.g., garbage surface), or to build the mood board. Materials can easily be shared between surfaces. These surfaces stimulate designers to be standing in an active attitude to be able to easily and rapidly share materials between surfaces. Mood boards can be built on a horizontal surface, be put up on a vertical surface to check and share the results, and back down on the horizontal surface for adjusting. Surfaces with discarded material can inspire and be a starting point for other designers working on a different project.

Mood Sketching. This tool (Fig. 5a) supports the designer's creative impulses by allowing them to create several mood boards in a very quick and inexpensive way. Designers use a phone or tablet to intuitively sketch different moods by selecting, moving, rotating, and enlarging images on the screen. The sketched mood board is then shared and put up on a digital wall so that colleagues can comment on them. At this point, the mood board looks pixelated when enlarged for display, but it is only a sketch. When designers are happy with a few mood sketches, the materials used in them pop up on a large horizontal table in full resolution for fine-tuning and to create a final mood board.

Living Mood Board. The living mood board is a tool that makes mood boards become interactive living objects that provide inspiration and surprise. The designer creates a core mood board with a few basic elements, and then adds alternative images, movies or sounds for each basic element. The mood board is displayed on a wall and changes over time by reacting to context (e.g., the number of people around, the amount of light in the room, or if it has remained unchanged for some time). The tool and other colleagues can also suggest new content related to the basic elements to challenge the designer. The living mood board provides inspiration for its creator and other designers by catching their attention and defining the atmosphere they work in.

Presentation Recorder. This tool (Fig. 5b) helps client and designer interactively communicate and later remember ongoing discussions. The tool captures the presentation given by the designer and shares it with the client to also involve them in the process. It becomes some kind of contract with the agreement to follow a given path for the remainder of the project. This pre-editing tool only captures movements and sounds to see the discussion (i.e., no video, no faces). The client can then take specific things of the presentation, point at them and change them. The tool takes snapshots of the different stages of the discussion. Mood-board making becomes a closer cooperation between the designer and the client who work as a team. Watching the Stars. This tool (Fig. 5c) is an open invitation to experience mood boards in a new way. Client and designer let go of their inhibitions and lie down together on the floor (or on Japanese Tatami mats) in a completely different sensorial experience. The tool projects the mood board on the ceiling for a few minutes, allowing people to immerse themselves into the mood board as they observe in silence. Lying on the floor creates a more relaxed and intimate setting, almost like a personal cocoon. After witnessing the mood board, people sit around a low round table in the center of the room on which the mood board is projected while it slowly rotates to provide different views. After discussing and sharing their experiences of what they have seen, the mood board can be put up on the ceiling or down on the table once again for further discussion. Take a Break. This tool (Fig. 5d) responds to the designers' need to have a space where they can momentarily disconnect from work, do something in there, and come back with a fresh mind. This comfortable space creates a feeling of disconnection from the world, similar to that of taking a shower or lying flat in bed. Designers feel free to go to this isolated space for a creative moment of doing nothing, while having some privacy and not being disturbed by others. An inspiration for this space could be Eero Aarnio's Ball Chair (1966), described as a "room within a room with a cozy and calm atmosphere, protecting outside noises and giving a private space for relaxing." Fig. 6. The funky-design-spaces are located in a natural surrounding where designers can disconnect from the world by, for example, going into the deep woods. Large windows provide a direct view on the natural surroundings and allow natural light to energize designers.

Funky-design-spaces

The funky-design-spaces is a vision for a new holistic design studio, a comfortable environment that facilitates creative thinking in designers. During the co-design sessions, designers expressed the need to have easily convertible flexible spaces that support different mood-board making activities. The funky-design-spaces consist of interconnected tools that encourage breaking the rhythm [START_REF] Keller | Collecting with Cabinet: or how designers organise visual material, researched through an experiential prototype[END_REF] and stimulate designers to perform activities away from their desks. The co-design teams suggested a mentality change for their work culture where they would have the mental freedom to go outside during work hours to find inspiration or simply to take a break.

The funky-design-spaces are set in natural surroundings (Fig. 6) where designers can disconnect from the world and come back with a fresh mind. For example, designers can go into the deep woods or walk along the canal during work hours to reenergize. The dome-like shape of the environment is an open invitation to leave behind current conceptions of what a design studio is and think of new inspiring buildings that house the funky-design-spaces. Within this larger context, a houseboat on the canal or a greenhouse in the forest could become good examples of design studios that house the funky-design-spaces. Large windows provide a direct view on the natural surroundings and allow natural light to energize designers.

Once inside (Fig. 7), the funky-design-spaces create a relaxed and comfortable atmosphere where designers can engage in individual activities as well as creative collaboration. Designers feel that they belong to a larger team but they can also have a moment for themselves when needed. Adjustable multi-purpose surfaces can be used to easily display and share information. These surfaces can be assigned for different uses. Storing and moving information between these different tools or spaces should also be made in a simple way to avoid breaking the creative process (Fig. 8). Designers have a ball that they can bounce on a surface (e.g. wall) to collect information that is being displayed there. Then, designers can move to any other surface (e.g. table ) and then roll the ball on the surface to display the contained information (e.g. images, audio, text, etc.).

Interactive Support Tools

To test the ideas behind the funky-design-spaces, two prototypes (i.e., the Funky Coffee Table [START_REF] Lucero | Augmenting mood boards: flexible and intuitive interaction in the context of the design studio[END_REF] and Funky Wall [START_REF] Lucero | An interactive support tool to convey the intended message in asynchronous presentations[END_REF]) were developed and evaluated with designers.

Intuitive Interaction

Intuitive interaction is proposed as a perspective on providing interactive support for professional users in their work, and it consist of four parts. First, it allows people to simply walk up to and start interacting with a tool using their current skills and knowledge on the task that is being supported. There are no hidden functions, menus or complex actions to be learned, and thus engaging with the system just makes sense to them. Second, it allows designers to use their hands as the main input mechanism for activities that involve creation, through asymmetric two-handed interaction. Designers wear custom-made Lycra® gloves that contain sensors to detect hand gestures. Speech provides an alternative to interact with the tools. Third, it takes use contexts into account or the ability of the tools to merge with the existing possibilities of a design studio environment. Finally, the orthogonal distance from a surface (or 'z') is introduced as a cue for interaction, to generate extra interaction space, or to hide and reveal different functions of the tools.

The Funky Coffee Table

The Funky Coffee Table [START_REF] Lucero | Augmenting mood boards: flexible and intuitive interaction in the context of the design studio[END_REF] is an interactive tabletop tool that supports image browsing (Fig. 3,4a). A number of tabletop systems have been designed to support image browsing and sharing. The Personal Digital Historian [START_REF] Shen | Sharing and building digital group histories[END_REF] is a tabletop penbased system that helps people construct, organize, navigate and share digital collections in an interactive multi-person conversational setting. SharePic [START_REF] Apted | Tabletop sharing of digital photographs for the elderly[END_REF] is a multitouch, gestural, and collaborative digital photograph sharing application for a tabletop, which was strongly influenced by the way physical photographs are handled and placed on physical tables. Cabinet [START_REF] Keller | Collecting with Cabinet: or how designers organise visual material, researched through an experiential prototype[END_REF] helps designers collect and organize visual material for inspiration. Other authors [START_REF] Wexelblat | An approach to natural gesture in virtual environments[END_REF], [START_REF] Quek | Multimodal human discourse: gesture and speech[END_REF] have studied the general application of hand gestures and movements to support human-computer interaction.

Design. Three main principles guided its design. First, the interaction was set around a coffee table to encourage image searching in a relaxed setting (Fig. 9a). A long rectangular IKEA coffee table (120x40x40 cm.) was used, onto which three images were simultaneously projected to allow designers to discover, compare, and make connections between the materials. Second, the tool encourages designers to work using hand movements to pre-select images. Finally, to reduce the desk clutter that results from cutting out dozens of pictures from magazines (Fig. 4a), the space above the work surface has been extended for interaction and divided into multiple interaction layers [START_REF] Subramanian | Multi-layer interaction for digital tables[END_REF]. Piles of images can be created in two layers above the table, which can be promptly consulted for an updated overview of the selection process. Interaction Techniques. There are two ways to browse images on the Funky Coffee Table . Designers can flip to the next or previous three images in the collection by placing their hand at table level and performing a short and quick diagonal movement to the left or to the right. The change of pages is accompanied by a page-flipping sound. Designers can also flick the collection by performing a longer and slower flip gesture, which triggers continuous image scrolling (without friction). The direction and speed of flicking are mapped to the direction and rate at which the images scroll. Continuous scrolling without friction was chosen to avoid fatigue while browsing large image collections. Tapping on the table stops continuous scrolling. The Funky Coffee Table also allows creating, reviewing and arranging two soft piles of images using layers above the digital table. To put an image in a soft pile, the designer must place their dominant hand over an image at table-level and quickly move it upwards orthogonally with respect to the table surface. Depending on the highest point reached by the hand while performing the gesture, the image is placed into soft-pile A (30-50 cm) or B (50-70 cm). To review soft-pile contents, the designer must place their non-dominant hand above the table inside the range for layer A or B. Finally, to arrange soft piles, the designer must first use their non-dominant hand to locate the image and put their dominant hand on top of the image at the same orthogonal height as the non-dominant hand to activate it. By moving the dominant hand, the selected image can then be put into another soft-pile or removed from the pile.

The Funky Wall

The Funky Wall [START_REF] Lucero | An interactive support tool to convey the intended message in asynchronous presentations[END_REF] is a wall-mounted display tool that supports presenting mood boards (Fig. 3,4b). Clark and Brennan [START_REF] Clark | Grounding in communication[END_REF] have extensively studied the relation between gestures and speech, and the role of gestures in human communication. Von Hardenberg and Bérard studied bare-hand human computer interaction, focusing on static hand postures to issue a command, and fingers for pointing [START_REF] Hardenberg | Bare-hand human-computer interaction[END_REF]. Vogel and Balakrishnan [START_REF] Vogel | Interactive public ambient displays: transitioning from implicit to explicit, public to personal, interaction with multiple users[END_REF] studied shared interactive public displays that support the transition from implicit to explicit interaction. Hand gestures and touch were used for explicit interaction, while body orientation and location played part in implicit interaction.

Charade [START_REF] Baudel | Charade: remote control of objects using free-hand gestures[END_REF] allows presenters to use free-hand gestures to control a remote computer display, while also using gestures to communicate with the audience.

Design. Three main principles guided the design of the Funky Wall. First, four ranges of interaction are used depending on the designer's proximity to the wall display [START_REF] Vogel | Interactive public ambient displays: transitioning from implicit to explicit, public to personal, interaction with multiple users[END_REF]:

showing, contemplating, replaying, and exploring. Different tool functionalities are available to people (e.g., designer or client) in each range. Second, the designer records their presentation by gesturing and explaining in front of the screen, using their hands to point or outline specific areas of the mood board. The tool automatically records three essential aspects of the mood board presentation (i.e., gestures, speech, and visuals, which are used to split the presentation into a number of meaningful segments by looking into hand location, gesture acceleration, and speech pauses. Third, the tool supports two-way communication between designer and client by allowing them both to provide input by creating a presentation, and to share their thoughts by providing feedback. For this type of communication to happen, two Funky Walls are needed, one for the designer and another one for the client.

Interaction Techniques. In the first range of interaction (i.e., showing), the designer records a presentation by standing in front of the wall display at close range (<0.5m) and then simply gesturing and speaking next to the mood board. The tool overlays white traces of the hand gestures made by the designer, at 30% opacity to allow good visibility of the mood board. Traces gracefully degrade to 25% opacity after 10 seconds to make recent traces more prominent than older ones.

The next three ranges of interaction provide different ways to review the presentation contents. In contemplating, spectators (i.e., the designer or client) assess the mood board by standing away from the wall display (>2m), for a more comfortable and clean overview. In replaying, spectators play back the entire presentation by approaching the wall display (1.5-2m). Raising the dominant hand results in displaying a static representation of all gestures made during the presentation, semitransparent on top of the mood board. Raising the non-dominant hand triggers the complete recorded speech. By putting both hands together, the recorded speech is played and the transparent dynamic gestures unfold as the presentation progresses. In exploring, spectators browse specific parts of the presentation by taking one step closer towards the wall display (0.5-1.5m). Pointing with the dominant hand to a given area in the mood board shows a static representation of the traces made in that area (Fig. 9b). These overlaid traces of gestures serve as guides for retrieval. The tool highlights both the explanations made by the designer just before (i.e., in white) and immediately after (i.e., in black) the currently selected gesture. Putting both hands together triggers the dynamic gestures together with its corresponding spoken explanation.

Implementation. Both prototypes were set up using a desktop PC, connected to a top-down projector displaying a 120x40 cm (1272x424 pixels) image on a white IKEA table (120x40x40cm) for the Funky Coffee Table, and to a back-projection screen of 200x150 cm (1024x768 pixels) for the Funky Wall. Both PCs also controlled an InterSense IS-600 ultrasonic tracking system to detect hands. Participants wore custom-designed Lycra® gloves that contained the sensors (Fig. 9a,9b). Both applications were written in C# and used OpenGL for visualization purposes.

5.4

Method, Participants, Procedure Prototype evaluations of both tools were conducted in the Netherlands with nine practicing designers, some of which had previously participated in the probes study (n=1), the retrospective interviews (n=2), and the co-design workshops (n=3). The participants had at least five years of design practice experience (13 years on average), with varying education level (university or academy), age (between 31 and 46), gender (7 male, 2 female), and handedness (7 right, 2 left). The evaluations were conducted individually and lasted on average one hour.

In the first part of the evaluation participants experienced both tools in counterbalanced order (i.e., five began with the table and four with the wall). Participants were asked to perform simple tasks such as change pages, start and stop scrolling, create piles and rearrange piles using 30 images for the Funky Coffee Table, and make a new mood board presentation, and explore an existing one for the Funky Wall (20 min. per tool). In the second part of the evaluation, participants were asked to share their views on the funky-design-spaces, specifically on the idea of supporting the process of making mood boards by having distributed interconnected tools (10 min.). Earlier studies where designers evaluated either tool are reported elsewhere [START_REF] Lucero | Augmenting mood boards: flexible and intuitive interaction in the context of the design studio[END_REF][START_REF] Lucero | An interactive support tool to convey the intended message in asynchronous presentations[END_REF].

Findings

Participants agreed with the vision of a holistic design studio housing interconnected tools that stimulate designers to break away from their desks. Designers also reflected on how these spaces could and should encourage collaboration with more people, not just designers: "The problem of [working] Regarding the use of the orthogonal distance from the interactive surface for interaction, participants identified both positive (i.e., extra space) and negative aspects (i.e., lack of physicality) of interacting in open space (i.e. midair). Regarding asymmetric two-handed interaction, designers found similarities between the tools and the use of one hand to select and the other hand to perform an action: "Although I want to have less chaos in my office, (…) at the same time I still want to see (how big) the pile of images is (…) and then move towards the screen where I make (the mood board).

So for me it still needs to have the physical world that I have but you translated it into another physical world into using distance as a cue for interaction and I like that. Maybe I am missing the physicality of it (in midair). In a way the table is already a touch screen so it comes very close to what I want." [P4] "(Using hand gestures) feels good for me because it's a bit the same with (triggering sounds on the wall) and the table where you choose a layer with one hand and activate with the other." [P6]

The table and wall prototypes running alongside each other allowed participants to get a glimpse of and imagine how the tools might work together. Designers reflected on how information might be transferred from one tool to another: "I see this table in a meeting room for example (…) so you can make groups of images and then you put them on the wall and the (groups of) images appear there (…) 6 Discussion

Supporting the Remaining Stages of the Mood-Board Making Process

The full funky-design-spaces vision was inspired by and provides support for the six stages of the mood-board making process (Fig. 3). However, the two prototypes developed only support two stages of the process (i.e., browsing and presenting). To obtain a full understanding of the impact of the proposed holistic environment, four tools that support the remaining stages of the mood-board making process would need to be co-designed and evaluated (i.e., defining, collecting, connecting, and building).

All six interconnected tools would need to be evaluated alongside each other to check whether people might naturally group back some of these tools together, so that instead of six tools, designers might only require four. Participants made some comments during the evaluations of the tools that might lead in this direction.

Virtual Space Above Versus Around the Table

Setting the interaction above the table created a problem in terms of the mental model we were trying to introduce. When rearranging an image pile, the action space is set in mid-air (i.e., holding both hands above the table to access a layer and interact with an image), while the perception space is located at table-level (i.e., image projected on the table). Participants instinctively tried to grab the projected image at table-level instead of layer-level. One way to circumvent this problem is to use 'y' instead of 'z' as a cue for interaction. Each row of images corresponding to one magazine or pile would be browsed horizontally using 'x', and then designers could use 'y' to move to other groups of images or magazines. Alternatively, marking menus [START_REF] Kurtenbach | The limits of expert performance using hierarchic marking menus[END_REF] could be used to assign different actions to the eight points of the compass. East (E) and West (W) would correspond to browsing backward and forward (as is currently), while the remaining six cardinal (i.e., North or N, South or S) and ordinal (i.e., NE, SE, SW, and NW) directions could be used to put images in piles. For novice users, pressing and waiting would display a discoverable menu as a reminder of the different options available. These eight directions fall within the capacity of short-term memory and therefore can be remembered and learned very quickly. The actions can be performed almost automatically with eyes closed so that the attention is always on the work. Another improvement for the Funky Coffee Table could be to retrieve the layer contents using one's fingers by indicating the number of the layer on the table or the direction where the layer is located by pointing to it.

6.3

Proximity-Based Interaction

Using the distance from the vertical display in the Funky Wall allowed designers to easily reveal different parts of the tool. However, participants mentioned some difficulties in knowing which range of interaction they were in (i.e., showing, contemplating, replaying, exploring) solely based on visual aspects, due to a lack of other feedback. This happened especially when designers would walk closer or further away from the tool without performing any hand gestures (i.e., keeping their hands in a resting position next to their body). One way to tackle this issue could be to add an extra sensor that would only track the designer's position with respect to the screen independent from hand gesturing. Another alternative would be to use other motion sensing devices (e.g., Kinect), which might allow us to design a different set of gestures to select and trigger different parts of the presentation by doing quick movements in mid-air pointing towards as specific sound or part of the presentation. Audio transitions could also indicate moving from one range of interaction to another.

Conclusions

This paper presents an example of surface computing support using a co-design approach by systematically involving end users throughout the design process. In a series of activities with fifty designers (i.e., probes study, retrospective interviews, codesign workshops, and prototype evaluations) the funky-design-spaces vision of a holistic design studio housing interconnected tools for creativity was arrived at by observing designers making mood boards. Evaluations suggest these environments could improve creativity and encourage collaboration, however more tools are needed to fully test the vision. Future research includes developing tools for all stages of the mood-board making process, and evaluating them in a design studio for a longer time.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. a) Designing behind a standing desk. b) Bookshelves filled with magazines for inspiration, including a special box with magazines to make mood boards.

Fig. 2 .

 2 Fig. 2. Two mood board examples [17]: a) Exploring the use of other senses than just sight for interaction. b) The five roles that mood boards play at the start of the design process.

Fig. 4 .

 4 Fig. 4. a) A designer in her studio browsing images while seated on a couch by a coffee table. b) A designer guiding their client through the presentation by means of an explanation.

Fig. 5 .

 5 Fig. 5. The main ideas from the co-design sessions: a) In Mood Sketching designers use mobile devices to impulsively create several mood boards and put them up on the wall for feedback. b) Presentation Recorder captures sounds and movements made during a presentation, serving as a reminder of previous agreements. c) Watching the Stars is an invitation for designers and their clients to experience mood board presentations in a different way. d) Take a Break responds to the designers' need for a comfortable place where they feel free to rest and unwind for a while.

Fig. 7 .

 7 Fig. 7. The funky-design-spaces create a relaxed and comfortable atmosphere where designers can engage in individual activities as well as creative collaboration. Adjustable multi-purpose surfaces are used to easily display and share information.

Fig. 8 .

 8 Fig.8. Sharing information between the different funky-design-spaces is done in a simple way to support the natural creative flow. Designers have a ball that they can bounce on a wall to collect the information and then can move to a table and roll the ball on it to display the contained imagery.

Fig. 9 .

 9 Fig. 9. a) In the Funky CoffeeTable, designers use their hands to store images in layers above the table. b) Funky Wall uses hand gestures, body position, and speech to support presentations.

  on the wall. So it's like a selecting table." [P1] "If you have places within one room, it should be easily shareable and also somehow clear what the other is trying to communicate to you in any stage of the mood board making process." [P3]