Marcos Serrano

Jolee Finch

Pourang Irani

Andres Lucero

Anne Roudaut

Andrés Lucero

Mold-It: Understanding how Physical Shapes affect Interaction with Handheld Freeform Devices

Keywords: Freeform interfaces, handheld devices, device form factor

Advanced technologies are increasingly enabling the creation of interactive devices with non-rectangular form-factors but it is currently unclear what alternative form-factors are desirable for endusers. We contribute an understanding of the interplay between the rationale for the form factors of such devices and their interactive content through think-aloud design sessions in which participants could mold devices as they wished using clay. We analysed their qualitative reflections on how the shapes affected interaction. Using thematic analysis, we identified shape features desirable on handheld freeform devices and discuss the particularity of three themes central to the choice of form factors: freeform dexterity, shape features discoverability and shape adaptability (to the task and context). In a second study following the same experimental set-up, we focused on the trade off between dexterity and discoverability and the relation to the concept of affordance. Our work reveals the shape features that impact the most the choice of grasps on freeform devices from which we derive design guidelines for the design of such devices.

INTRODUCTION

The pervasive rectangular touchscreen, which has dominated the display industry for decades is slowly giving room to a future in which devices may have any arbitrary shape. For example, it is now possible to manufacture displays having any shape [START_REF] Folium | Folium Optics[END_REF][START_REF] Sharp | Sharp Free-Form Display[END_REF], and circular displays are already available on many smartwatches. Additionally more research is being conducted to create new materials allowing new form factors such as [START_REF] Wessely | Sprayable User Interfaces: Prototyping Large-Scale Interactive Surfaces with Sensors and Displays[END_REF] or [START_REF] Hanton | ProtoSpray: Combining 3D printing and spraying to create interactive displays with arbitrary shapes[END_REF] allowing to spray displays on complex surfaces geometries. Devices with such nontraditional displays are commonly referred to as Freeform devices [START_REF] Serrano | Investigating Text Legibility on Non-Rectangular Displays[END_REF][START_REF] Serrano | Visual Composition of Graphical Elements on Non-Rectangular Displays[END_REF], as they can assume any non-planar and non-rectilinear shape. Freeform devices take their roots in Shape-Changing (SCI) [START_REF] Alexander | Grand Challenges in Shape-Changing Interface Research[END_REF] and Organic User (OUI) Interfaces [START_REF] Holman | Organic User Interfaces: Designing Computers in Any Way, Shape, or Form[END_REF] but constitute a specific subcategory defined by their rigid, non-planar and non-rectilinear nature.

With this fundamental shift in device and display form factors, the looming question that arises for interaction designers includes how to integrate and take advantage of the non-rectilinearity of such interactive devices that may soon become common. Furthermore, opening the space of possible topologies for displays creates a tremendous need for understanding the interplay between shapes, interactions, applications and contexts. To date, characteristics of freeform devices and their supersets, including SCIs or OUIs, have been primarily defined by taxonomies driven by technological innovations [START_REF] Roudaut | Morphees: Toward High "Shape Resolution" in Self-actuated Flexible Mobile Devices[END_REF][START_REF] Sturdee | Analysis and Classification of Shape-Changing Interfaces for Design and Application-based Research[END_REF]. Previous explorations of the design space of such devices heavily focus on shape transformation, for example how a change in shape may relate to a user's emotions [START_REF] Strohmeier | An Evaluation of Shape Changes for Conveying Emotions[END_REF], input gestures [START_REF] Lahey | PaperPhone: Understanding the Use of Bend Gestures in Mobile Devices with Flexible Electronic Paper Displays[END_REF] or interaction metaphors [START_REF] Majken | Sketching Shape-changing Interfaces: Exploring Vocabulary, Metaphors Use, and Affordances[END_REF]. In contrast, little is known on the rationale for selecting rigid shape features, particularly when these are handheld. This knowledge gap was further highlighted in the recent roadmap for SCI research by Alexander et al. in 2018 [START_REF] Alexander | Grand Challenges in Shape-Changing Interface Research[END_REF], as being a critical factor in the evolution of this field.

We address this gap by specifically examining rigid freeform devices and the interplay between the rationale for the form factors of such devices and their interactive content. In this way, this work takes an opposite approach to recent developments in freeform device research where investigations were made to understand how traditional rectangular content could adapt to different device form factors. [START_REF] Serrano | Investigating Text Legibility on Non-Rectangular Displays[END_REF][START_REF] Serrano | Visual Composition of Graphical Elements on Non-Rectangular Displays[END_REF][START_REF] Simon | Finding Information on Non-Rectangular Interfaces[END_REF]. Here we look at how the shape of such devices can be molded to fit usage and user's experience. In contrast to past literature on SCIs, our work also moves away from looking at the transformation of the devices and rather investigates the state of the device at a given time, i.e. rigid freeform displays. In particular, we know little about the rationale behind the choice of rigid shape features.

We conducted two studies consisting in design sessions using modeling clay props to explore how users may interact with handheld freeform devices. We chose participants with no experience of freeform devices as we wanted to have application examples closer to what everyday people would imagine. In both cases, we designed activities to have participants be involved in ideation. We used interviews, think-aloud processes, and thematic analysis, which are all well-known methodologies to gather and analyse the data and deepen our understandings of how freeform displays can better support and enrich interaction. Our studies both look at complementary aspects of our research question:

• In our first study, we asked participants to mold their own handheld display and think aloud about their rationale and perspective behind the various shape features they selected for such device. Through multiple design sessions involving 24 participants working in pairs, we encouraged and recorded how they built freeform handheld device prototypes, by first sketching and actually shaping these using clay. We identified and discussed three main design goals that are facilitated by freeform interactive devices: Freeform dexterity, Shape features discoverability, and Shape adaptability.

We also observed two minor design themes, Shape-content consistency and Tangibility. Our analysis highlights how such themes emerge in relation to shape features of freeform devices and we highlight how these can be used to inform the design of such devices to support novel applications. • We then conducted a second study to further understand the trade-off between dexterity and discoverability and their relation to the concept of affordance. We asked 12 participants to mold a freeform object for no specific task that unmistakably exhibited some affordances. Through thematic analysis of the produced shapes, we extracted a number of themes related to how rigid shapes features are used to produce affordances such as: indentations, size of contact area, orientation, past experience, or prevention of grasps. We further investigated how indentations alter the choice of grasps in a small follow up study.

This paper is an exploration of the potential impact that freeform devices can have on our everyday digital interactions. To explore this topic we faced the challenges involved with the nascent and emerging nature of such technologies. We adopted a Research through Design 1 (RtD) approach [START_REF] Frayling | Research in Art and Design[END_REF][START_REF] Koskinen | Design Things: Models, Scenarios, Prototypes[END_REF][START_REF] Zimmerman | Research through Design as a Method for Interaction Design Research in HCI[END_REF], where the act of designing is in itself a confrontation of various forms of knowledge, both formalized and experiential, which brings about new knowledge. This knowledge can for instance be generated by designing an artifact, by the artifact itself, and by evaluations of use, and later be generalized as design recommendations, theories or frameworks. Our twofold contributions consist of: 1) an exploration of the rationale behind the shape features of freeform handheld devices through 2 studies eliciting participants to mold their own artefacts; and 2) a discussion on the implications for the design of upcoming freeform devices.

1 https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-humancomputer-interaction-2nd-ed/research-through-design

RELATED WORK

Related work sits a the intersection of Organic User Interfaces (OUIs), Shape-Changing Interfaces, (SCIs) and studies relevant to understanding how to design such interfaces.

Freeform, Shape-Changing and Organic User Interfaces

The term "Freeform device" was used by Serrano et al. [START_REF] Serrano | Investigating Text Legibility on Non-Rectangular Displays[END_REF][START_REF] Serrano | Visual Composition of Graphical Elements on Non-Rectangular Displays[END_REF] to refer to devices having a non-rectangular display. By extension, in this paper we consider freeform devices as any device not having a rectangular shape, in contrast to current laptops or smartphones for instance. Freeform devices take their roots in Organic User (OUIs) and Shape-Changing (SCI) Interfaces. Organic User interfaces (OUIs), which originated with the desire to let computational devices adopt natural forms to make a better fit with human ecology [START_REF] Holman | Organic User Interfaces: Designing Computers in Any Way, Shape, or Form[END_REF], are defined by three design principles: "input equals output", "function equals form" and "form follows flow. " Alexander et al. [START_REF] Alexander | Grand Challenges in Shape-Changing Interface Research[END_REF], define Shape-Changing interfaces to use the physical change of shape or materiality, be interactive, be self-or user-actuated and convey information/meaning/affect. Freeform devices constitute a specific subcategory defined by their static but non-planar and nonrectilinear nature. Research on Freeform devices has also its specific agenda, focusing on the design of non-rectangular content according to static shape features [START_REF] Serrano | Investigating Text Legibility on Non-Rectangular Displays[END_REF][START_REF] Serrano | Visual Composition of Graphical Elements on Non-Rectangular Displays[END_REF][START_REF] Simon | Finding Information on Non-Rectangular Interfaces[END_REF]. There are numerous prototypes of organic and reconfigurable devices, from shape-changing phones or tangibles [START_REF] Goguey | PickCells: A physically reconfigurable cell-composed touchscreen[END_REF][START_REF] Kim | KnobSlider: design of a shape-changing UI for parameter control[END_REF][START_REF] Park | The Trial of Bendi in a Coffeehouse: Use of a Shape-Changing Device for a Tactile-Visual Phone Conversation[END_REF][START_REF] Roudaut | Cubimorph: Designing modular interactive devices[END_REF][START_REF] Roudaut | Changibles: analyzing and designing shape changing constructive assembly[END_REF] to shape-changing walls, and several papers offer extensive reviews of these areas [START_REF] Kim | Morphees+: Studying Everyday Reconfigurable Objects for the Design and Taxonomy of Reconfigurable UIs[END_REF][START_REF] Roudaut | Morphees: Toward High "Shape Resolution" in Self-actuated Flexible Mobile Devices[END_REF][START_REF] Sturdee | Analysis and Classification of Shape-Changing Interfaces for Design and Application-based Research[END_REF]. More particularly, Roudaut et al. [START_REF] Kim | Morphees+: Studying Everyday Reconfigurable Objects for the Design and Taxonomy of Reconfigurable UIs[END_REF][START_REF] Roudaut | Morphees: Toward High "Shape Resolution" in Self-actuated Flexible Mobile Devices[END_REF] define the shape resolution as a tuple of features mathematically describing shape-changes. Similarly, Sturdee et al. [START_REF] Sturdee | Analysis and Classification of Shape-Changing Interfaces for Design and Application-based Research[END_REF] classified existing prototypes into a subset of categories. These frameworks are generative and descriptive but do not answer the question "what should the shape features of our devices be? " and "how such shapes are influenced by specific applications" , which is the goal of our work.

Designing Shape-Changing and Organic-User Devices

Beyond taxonomical approaches, researchers have produced a consequent number of explorations on the design space of shapechanging interfaces or organic user interfaces. The common element among these explorations is their focus on the shape transformation [START_REF] Majken | Shape-changing Interfaces: A Review of the Design Space and Open Research Questions[END_REF]. These studies have explored, for instance, the level of control offered to the user over the shape change [START_REF] Kirkegård Rasmussen | Balancing User and System Control in Shape-Changing Interfaces: A Designerly Exploration[END_REF], which gestures are employed to bend flexible mobile devices [START_REF] Lahey | PaperPhone: Understanding the Use of Bend Gestures in Mobile Devices with Flexible Electronic Paper Displays[END_REF], how to convey emotions with shape transformations [START_REF] Strohmeier | An Evaluation of Shape Changes for Conveying Emotions[END_REF], and what affordances shape-changing buttons provide [START_REF] Tiab | Understanding Affordance, System State, and Feedback in Shape-Changing Buttons[END_REF]. Researchers have also investigated the best design approaches for ideating shapechanging devices. Rasmussen et al. [START_REF] Kwak | The Design Space of Shape-changing Interfaces: A Repertory Grid Study[END_REF][START_REF] Majken | Sketching Shape-changing Interfaces: Exploring Vocabulary, Metaphors Use, and Affordances[END_REF] investigated the use of sketches, Fuchs et al. [START_REF] Fuchs | Foldwatch: Using Origami-inspired Paper Prototypes to Explore the Extension of Output Space in Smartwatches[END_REF] employed origami paper prototypes, Everitt et al. [START_REF] Everitt | ShapeCanvas: An Exploration of Shape-Changing Content Generation by Members of the Public[END_REF] conducted a deployment of a prototype in a public environment, while Sturdee et al. [START_REF] Sturdee | A Public Ideation of Shape-Changing Applications[END_REF] first employed brainstorm sessions within a public engagement study, and later proposed an approach combining low-fidelity prototypes, high fidelity video footage, with end-user diagrams and scenario sketching [START_REF] Sturdee | Visual Methods for the Design of Shape-Changing Interfaces[END_REF].

These papers focused on the design of shape transformations. In contrast, our goal is to explore the design aspects of static and non-rectilinear shape features. As such, we address the challenge presented in a recent roadmap for the field of shape-changing interfaces [START_REF] Alexander | Grand Challenges in Shape-Changing Interface Research[END_REF] that highlights the lack of understanding on the design of the shapes themselves.

Non-Rectangular Interfaces

Researchers have developed novel non-rectangular interfaces for different contexts, ranging from tabletop and projected UIs [START_REF] Cotting | Interactive Environmentaware Display Bubbles[END_REF][START_REF] Niyazov | Dynamic Decals: Pervasive Freeform Interfaces Using Constrained Deformable Graphical Elements[END_REF] to round smartwatches [START_REF] Ashbrook | An Investigation into Round Touchscreen Wristwatch Interaction[END_REF]. Serrano et al. [START_REF] Serrano | Investigating Text Legibility on Non-Rectangular Displays[END_REF][START_REF] Serrano | Visual Composition of Graphical Elements on Non-Rectangular Displays[END_REF] studied how to generate generic guidelines for the design of such UIs. Their first study [START_REF] Serrano | Investigating Text Legibility on Non-Rectangular Displays[END_REF] focused on text mappings on non-rectangular shapes in terms of reading performance and perceived aesthetic value. Results uncovered new text presentation rules for non-rectangular interfaces. In a second study [START_REF] Serrano | Visual Composition of Graphical Elements on Non-Rectangular Displays[END_REF], they focused on visual layouts for web pages, comparing them in terms of perceived symmetry, clarity and preference. Results led to a set of design guidelines, some of which contradict current conventions. Simon et al. [START_REF] Simon | Finding Information on Non-Rectangular Interfaces[END_REF] extended these studies by investigating how people search information on non-rectangular displays. They used eye-tracking data to unveil which areas are seen first according to different visual structures and help designers placing relevant content on non-rectangular displays. In summary, beyond these initial scenarios, prior work on non-rectangular interfaces has not explored the design features of freeform devices, and rather focused on the perceptual questions of such interfaces.

Link to Affordances

Our work is of course closely linked to the notion of affordance, which has been long debated in HCI. Gibson [START_REF] James | The ecological approach to visual perception: classic edition[END_REF] introduced the concept with an ecological approach to its reasoning; suggesting that an animal can directly detect the possible actions that are available on an object just by its appearance. Affordances are formed from an object's own information, independent of a user's past experience and interpretation. Norman [START_REF] Donald A Norman | The psychology of everyday things[END_REF][START_REF] Donald A Norman | The way I see IT signifiers, not affordances[END_REF] builds on Gibson's idea by suggesting that affordances should be distinguishable by past experience and knowledge. In contrast to Gibson, this places more focus on the mental competence of the user, as opposed to just their action capability. He proposed the term "perceived affordance" as a designer would only want to bear in mind the affordance that a user would perceive to be evident through "signifiers", rather than all true possibilities. McGrenere and Ho [START_REF] Mcgrenere | Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept[END_REF] carried out a critical analysis of both Norman and Gibson's definition. They established that Gibson defined affordances as just the possibility of an action, whereas Norman placed focus onto not only the action capability, but also the method in which this possibility is conveyed. It is important to mention the extension and clarification proposed by Gaver [START_REF] William | Technology affordances[END_REF] and the idea that more focus should be placed on exploration of objects in order to determine the affordances it contains. Gaver divides the definition of affordance into three core concepts: hidden, false and perceptible affordances. Hidden affordance, is characterised by an object having no useful information that is directly obvious to the user. Therefore, actions have to be discovered through other means. False affordances are when information for an affordance does exist but is deceptive, as a user may erroneously attempt to perform an action that may not be physically possible. Perceptible affordance is the existence of information that is readily available for an accessible affordance.

Understanding the definition of affordances alone does not provide sufficient knowledge for designers to create objects with a clear function for users. It is therefore important to learn how users can discover affordances in objects effectively and how false affordances are avoided. Although the use of past experience and mental capabilities are debated within the definition of affordances, there is one aspect that is undeniably agreed upon. This is the form of an object playing a major role in determining the actions that can be taken upon it. Therefore, it is within the design of the object itself that contains the perceivable information and where the focus of design should lie.

To sum up, in contrast to past literature our work moves away from looking at the transformation of the devices and rather investigates the state of the device at a given time t(s), i.e. rigid freeform displays. Contrary to prior work, we investigate the rationale behind the choice of shape features in freeform devices. Morphees or Rasmussen's frameworks [START_REF] Majken | Shape-changing Interfaces: A Review of the Design Space and Open Research Questions[END_REF][START_REF] Roudaut | Morphees: Toward High "Shape Resolution" in Self-actuated Flexible Mobile Devices[END_REF] are proposing spaces to describe shapes and their transformations (the 'what') but do not provide insights on the rationale for adopting non-linear shape features (the 'why'), which our work does. In this manner, our work is orthogonal to past explorations of shape transformation and as such enriches and complements existing knowledge.

STUDY 1: MOLDING FREEFORM DEVICES IN CONTEXT

The goal of this study is to understand the shape features that endusers would find desirable and how the choice of the application context would drive those choices. This is particularly interesting for the case of handheld devices and which present an interesting design challenge in that they must be held while interacting. Crafting small handheld devices is also easier than large-scale concepts.

We thus conducted a study where participants freely molded and built their own devices with clay while being told to design a device for a particular context of use.

Method

We ran two design sessions with a total of 12 participants spread into 2 groups of 6, each session taking place in a different country (Canada and France) to broaden the cultural diversity of participants.

In each group participants worked in pairs. All of the participants were students in HCI, but had no previous experience in the area of FreeForm Devices. The participants (3F/9M) were aged 26.3 years on average. Each design session lasted approximately 80 minutes. Each session started by explaining the goal of the research, i.e. that the participants will be asked to rethink the shape of handheld mobile devices. We gave participants pencils, paper, play-doh, clay and molding tools (Figure 1). Play-doh was meant to be used as an ideation tool, while we asked participants to mold a version of their final design using rapid clay, which dries and becomes solid in 24 hours. We used only one colour of Play-doh and clay so that participants focused solely on the shape instead of color features. The rationale behind using this clay was to allow participants to test their design (i.e. grasp it, touch it, etc.), and to keep a solid version (after drying) of their probes for future analyses. Besides, while all ideation tools have pros and cons (for instance, people usually find it difficult to sketch if they have no sketching skills), molding clay can be a less apprehensive method [START_REF] Lucero | The dialogue-labs method: process, space and materials as structuring elements to spark dialogue in co-design events[END_REF]. Participants were grouped in pairs as we thought this would enable more discussing and elicit natural think aloud between them. Pairs were given two specific scenarios in which a task was defined through two different contexts. They were asked to create one prototype for the task in each context (i.e. four prototypes in total). They had 20 minutes for each prototype. We suggested participants employ 5-10 minutes to sketch or mold different versions, and then employ 20 minutes to mold the final production. They could create more designs but eventually had to choose their preferred one to present to the other participants. At the end of the 20 minutes, we asked them to take some pictures of the prototype along with their imagined way of holding it by placing their hands on the device. They also had to produce one sentence explaining the rationale for the choice of shapes for each prototype. We chose to let the participants design in pairs to elicit discussions around the choice of topology.

Once all pairs had finished creating their productions, participants were then gathered as a group. All the clay productions were placed on a table and each group was given the opportunity to discuss their designs and explain the chosen shapes. Participants were otherwise invited to comment on each other's productions. The experimenter made sure the discussions focused on better understanding the choice of shape. Each pair of participants had 10 min each to present their productions and discuss them with the group.

Scenario Choices

To define the tasks and contexts to study, we first looked to define the level of abstraction needed. One approach was to look at very low-level abstraction tasks such as the generic sets proposed by Ruiz et al. [START_REF] Ruiz | User-defined Motion Gestures for Mobile Interaction[END_REF] (e.g. pressing "previous" or "next"). However low-level abstraction tasks can be found in any type of mobile application and do not encompass the richness and differences in manipulation between those applications.

The other approach is to look at a high-level abstraction task, which we chose to ensure the tasks would have high ecological validity. We looked at the most downloaded mobile applications using reports from Apple and Android. For both Android and Apple, we considered game as a a category on its own. Apart from games, this list included 17 Android and 10 Apple apps (with 6 common apps between these lists). Note that those applications do not include common usage of smartphones such as calling or taking pictures, which are independent from any applications. We grouped these apps into 7 categories: Call communication (e.g. phone functions, Skype); Text messaging (e.g. Facebook or Google messenger); Map navigation (e.g. maps,game maps); Capturing (e.g. taking photos, videos); Linear reading (e.g. feed, newspaper, web searches); Gaming (e.g. swipe accelerometer or video games); Video watching (e.g. Netflix, YouTube).

From this list, we generated scenarios for the participants. We chose not to embed watching videos because it is a relatively passive task where few inputs from the user are required compared to the other tasks, which involve complex manipulation of the device. From the six other tasks, we then generated six scenarios encompassing two different user contexts each. This ensured we could not only study the effect of task on form factors but also the effect of context. We chose the contexts in order to generate the maximum variability in the generated shape (e.g. one hand vs. two hands).

Data Collection

We video recorded design sessions for each pair of participants to collect their actions and discussions using GoPro cameras attached to their tables (for an overview of the setup, see Figure 1) and Jabra omni-directional microphones connected to a laptop (for better sound sound capture). We also video and audio recorded the actions and discussions during the general briefing using the same setup. We collected all 24 drawings and 24 molded prototypes (Figure 2). Drawings and clay models were used to generate prototype concept sketches (see following figures).

Analysis

Using the video and audio recordings, we first transcribed all the think-aloud discussions within each pair of participants during the design sessions. We used thematic analysis [START_REF] Braun | Using thematic analysis in psychology[END_REF] to analyze these transcripts and better understand the rationale behind the design choices. This followed a process of developing from lower level codes to five higher level themes. A first coder proceeded to create initial codes that were refined with one other coder. The entire transcription was then coded and an additional coder was brought in to refine the codes and to proceed to the grouping by themes. We particularly focus the analysis by looking at the rationale behind the choice of shapes and present them below, from the most frequently mentioned to the least. We start by looking at the overall results before discussing the themes that emerged. We exemplify the themes with excerpts from the participants' discussions, by identifying the pair that made a given comment (e.g. [pair1]).

STUDY 1 RESULTS

As said earlier, we developed from lower level codes to five higher level themes, which we divided into three major themes (Freeform dexterity, Shape features discoverability, and Shape adaptability) and two minor themes (Shape-Content consistency and Tangibility), which we present below.

Theme 1: Freeform Dexterity

One of the most recurrent themes relates to the dexterity of the overall freeform device. By dexterity we mean the ability to hold the device securely while enabling the interaction [START_REF] Eardley | Understanding Grip Shifts: How Form Factors Impact Hand Movements on Mobile Phones[END_REF][START_REF] Eardley | Designing for Multiple Hand Grips and Body Postures within the UX of a moving Smartphone[END_REF][START_REF] Eardley | Investigating How Smartphone Movement is Affected by Body Posture[END_REF]. Four subtopics emerged frequently: firstly, participants clearly identified that there is a tradeoff between holding the device and interacting with it; secondly, they discussed about how certain shapes are better than others at either holding or interacting; thirdly, they proposed solutions involving a contraption such as a hole or a ring to help achieve both actions (holding and interacting) seamlessly; finally, they discussed the tradeoff between occlusion (of the screen) and interaction. We look at these in more detail.

Tradeoff Between Holding and Interacting.

The first sub-category concerns the tradeoff between holding the device and interacting with it [START_REF] Eardley | Understanding Grip Shifts: How Form Factors Impact Hand Movements on Mobile Phones[END_REF]. Participants reasoned that the problem with this kind of devices is that all fingers hold the device and only one is free to interact (Figure 3

.] in a way that your thumb is relaxed. " [pair 6]

This could be simply due to the importance of thumb interaction on current smartphones [START_REF] Bergstrom-Lehtovirta | Modeling the Functional Area of the Thumb on Mobile Touchscreen Surfaces[END_REF], which seemed to inspire some of the proposed interactions: "When you hold it in the hand you can scroll with the thumb." [pair 3] This could also be an indication of the lesser importance of using other fingers for input, i.e. they would just serve to hold the device.

Less and More Ideal Shapes for Holding and Interacting.

The second aspect of the dexterity theme concerns the labeling of certain shapes as being more or less ideal for holding or interacting. Participants discussed shapes being too large or too thin: "If [the device] is large it won't be practical as you cannot hold it in your hand,". [pair 1] Participants often mentioned their own devices to exemplify their problems and identified the rectangular (traditional) handheld shape as not adapted: [START_REF] Pecchioli | Investigating Screen Reachability on an Articulated Dual-Display Smartphone[END_REF]: "One of the problems here [showing his phone] is that you have difficulties reaching certain areas with the thumb." [pair 6] In contrast they viewed rounder shapes [START_REF] Gary Perelman | The Roly-Poly Mouse: Designing a Rolling Input Device Unifying 2D and 3D Interaction[END_REF] to be better adapted to both grasp and interaction (Figure 4): "kind of oval shape, probably easier to grip." [pair 5] Only one pair of participants mentioned the weight of the device to be a critical aspect for the choice of shape, probably due to the clay used for the prototypes which was relatively light. But the weight of a device may surely have an impact, as the heavier it is, the harder it is to both hold the device and perform interactions. In some ways, it is possible to see those contraptions as a way of introducing hook and scissor grasp types (from Napier [31]). However, it appears that participants considered these contraptions not only for holding the object more securely, but also to ensure the fingers are placed at the right place for interaction.

Occlusion.

The fourth and final sub-category relates to the occlusion between the fingers and the screen [START_REF] Vogel | Shift: A Technique for Operating Penbased Interfaces Using Touch[END_REF]. Some participants weighed up the advantages of adding more screen real estate, "This should be a total display, even though there are parts that can also be touched, " [pair 4], while others seemed reluctant "No, [touchscreen everywhere] is annoying because there is occlusion everywhere. " [pair 2] The majority of the pairs of participants was concerned that the hand and the finger would occlude the screen and had to think about solutions to address this, such as the aforementioned handles. Another approach was to reconsider the placement of screens: "I would have put [the screen] further up because when you play, you look in front of you." [pair 3] This led to thinking about fragmenting the device: "We can separate the display part from the keyboard part [...] So I can hold it here and see it here. " [pair 4] The fact that this sub-category was frequently discussed is interesting because it means that designing interactive objects is fundamentally different from designing objects without touchscreens as designers must carefully balance the areas that are touched, grasped, or viewed. Additionally, the feedback suggests that we do not need the entire device to be covered touch sensors and displays, which clash with some of the visions proposed in the current literature [START_REF] Gomes | Magicscroll: A Rollable Display Device with Flexible Screen Real Estate and Gestural Input[END_REF][START_REF] Sato | Touché: Enhancing Touch Interaction on Humans, Screens, Liquids, and Everyday Objects[END_REF].

Theme 2: Shape Features Discoverability

The second most recurrent theme concerns the discoverability of the overall device. By discoverability we mean the property of shapes to invite users to hold and interact with the device in the correct way without prior instructions [START_REF] Gibson | The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception[END_REF][START_REF] Norman | The Design of Everyday Things[END_REF]. Participants particularly discussed two kinds of solutions for increasing discoverability: using metaphors or using shapes where the hand can dock (as in a jigsaw).

Metaphors.

Most of our participants suggested using the shape of common objects (Figure 6) to help people understand how to grasp or interact with the device, such as "a flip mirror or makeup container in two parts, " [pair 2] "a steering wheel shape, " [pair 3] "a newspaper, you can hold it with two hands," [pair 3] or "like an umbrella, you can open it, it becomes flat, and then it becomes your smartphone again." [pair 5] They thus clearly use metaphors or analogies with the real world to increase discoverability [START_REF] Bakker | Embodied Metaphors in Tangible Interaction Design[END_REF]. Some participants were inspired by existing devices as "game controllers, " [pair 4] or other electronic devices, such as "a TV remote," [pair 3] or "like VTECH with two hands." [pair 2] Maybe this is not as surprising as the shape of game controllers has received significant attention from gaming companies and are well adapted to the task they are designed for, i.e. playing. This may clash with the shape of mobile phones which could be seen as universal, or basic so as to accommodate a myriad of tasks. In this light, game controllers may be seen as an ultimate ergonomic standard. However it is unclear if their shape can be really adapted to other tasks.

Docking Hands.

Another solution participants used to help people understand how to hold or interact with the device was to use shapes that would invite a person's hand to dock, i.e. like how two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle match together. Participants elaborated particularly on fitting the palm of the hand (Figure 6): "if I dig this part a bit [...] it takes the shape of the palm, like a bit round." [pair 1] Fingers were another body part often referred to: "We could do an ergonomic shape with the print of the finger on the shape. " [pair 3] This solution appears interesting, and perhaps game controllers only are designed as such. After all, docking fingers is a motor skill we have learned since kindergarten (e.g. shape sorters) and grasping could use a similar mental process. In such a case, users may typically place their hands in the part of the shape that looks like their counter-shape.

Theme 3: Shape Adaptability

This theme focuses on how well a given shape adapts to a usage scenario. Discussions suggest that one shape cannot fit all functionalities a handheld device can offer. This shape dilemma was nicely exemplified by a quote from a pair of participants: "I mean, do you think it is an optimum shape for the phone? It is good for texting maybe, but not for much else. " [pair 4] This theme thus relates to the ability of the device to adapt to either the task, the user(s), or the context [START_REF] Suh | Button+: Supporting User and Context Aware Interaction Through Shape-Changing Interfaces[END_REF]. It is interesting to note that although we did not ask participants to consider shape changes, some participants clearly identified cases where reconfigurability of the device is an advantage. We now look at those aspects in detail.

Adaptability to the Task and Context

. By looking at the prototypes we can clearly see that there is no single shape for all the contexts, and that participants really explored diverse form factors to fit the particular needs of their scenarios. Despite the fact that participants were confined to prototype for only one task, they still mentioned adaptation to task and context in several ways. For example they talk about changing the form factor to offer a different functionality, such as "a device with small screens that can reconfigure. " [pair 3] Increase/decrease the size of the screen (Figure 7-left) was also considered through different means, such as folding: "We should be able to unfold the screen" [pair 2] or "It could be a cylinder that you can unfold [...] like unfolding a map. " [pair 1] We also observed a couple of participants mentioning the ability of the device to adapt to multiple users to ease collaboration [START_REF] Lucero | Towards Proxemic Mobile Collocated Interactions[END_REF]: "The user placed the device in the middle [of the table]. [...] At the beginning it would be square, but you can extend it like clay" [pair 2] (Figure 7-right). Only one pair of participants mentioned the adaptation to the environment of the user during the task and proposed to morph the screen shape to fit the shape of the road.

Practicality.

A lot of our participants discussed how to adapt the device shape to increase practicality in diverse cases "I find it more practical to make the different parts of the device slide. It is divided in several pieces, and when put together it creates the shape. " [pair 1] Participants put a focus on storing the device when not used "you have it in your pocket and when you take it out you can unfold it," [pair 3] Other participants reflected on this once they had already proposed a prototype: "We were happy with the 'lamp' shape, but then you cannot put it in your pocket" [pair 5] (Figure 8).

Minor themes

We also found two other minor but interesting themes: shapecontent consistency and tangibility.

Theme 4: Shape-Content

Consistency. This theme involves finding shapes or shape elements that suit the content: "A round screen makes like a tunnel effect, like in the game Temple Run" [pair 3] and "We could have an oval screen, so that it has the same shape than a face [for the Skype application]. " [pair 1] It was particularly interesting to see that participants noted that most current digital content is rectangular and that we might need to rethink the content itself for it to be consistent for freeform displays: "but the photo is rectangular, it is not round so we have a problem". [pair 2] This particularly corroborates with some work done within the field of freeform interfaces in HCI [START_REF] Serrano | Investigating Text Legibility on Non-Rectangular Displays[END_REF][START_REF] Serrano | Visual Composition of Graphical Elements on Non-Rectangular Displays[END_REF].

Theme 5:

Tangibility. This theme includes decisions made to bring haptic features to the shape: "I don't like a touchscreen; a scroll wheel would be better to bring haptic feedback." [pair 2] Some considered haptic elements such as physical buttons to be interesting because "we can put them everywhere. " [pair 2] Others mentioned using these haptic features for eyes-free interaction.

Summary

Our analysis highlighted three major themes concerning how people envision the shape features of freeform devices, i.e. Freeform dexterity, Shape features Discoverability and Shape adaptability, as summarized in Table 1. These three themes echo previous work in HCI research, which we cited in summarizing our results. However, to our knowledge, these themes have never been linked to freeform devices and present an interesting direction to explore. Other interesting minor findings relate to the shape-content consistency and tangibility of such devices. The Freeform dexterity theme, and the problems surrounding the trade-off between grasping and interaction in freeform devices, seem to be at the core of most design considerations. Hence we decided to further explore this theme in a subsequent study.

STUDY 2: TRADE-OFF BETWEEN FREEFORM DEXTERITY AND DISCOVERABILITY

With our first study we found that the three themes surrounding the choice of shape are of course intrinsically related to how the user holds and grasps the freeform device. This depends on a tradeoff between the dexterity the user wants to achieve, and the grasp discoverability. Although Napier [START_REF] Alexander | Grand Challenges in Shape-Changing Interface Research[END_REF] described how different object sizes play a role in grasping, there is little knowledge into what properties of an object's shape can change a user's grasp choices.

Task

To investigate what shapes and features would have an impact on the device's grasp dexterity, and its interlink with discoverability, we asked participants to create device shapes, which would range from a high discoverability (a single affordance), to low discoverability (multiple affordances). Then we asked participants to update these devices for different grasp actions, to further investigate the interlink between discoverability and dexterity, as detailed below.

We first asked participants to design three devices according to three different levels of discoverability, through the use of affordances. The first instruction was to form an object that displayed one affordance (i.e. high discoverability); to simplify the comprehension of the term we told them to find an object that only allowed for one grasp possible. The second task still required participants to restrict the number of affordances, but this time it was to three (i.e. medium discoverability). The third instruction was to create an object which had "many affordances" (i.e. low discoverability), this meant that they no longer had to restrict grasp types but, instead prepare for as much grasps as possible.

Themes

Sub-themes Findings T1: Freeform dexterity

Tradeoff between holding and interacting Holding devices is an obstacle to performing gestures Less and more ideal shapes for holding and interacting Bringing haptic features to the shape Table 1: Overview of the major and minor themes emerging from the design session analysis. Secondly we asked participants to combine their previous ideas to create objects for the actions 'pinching', 'pressing' and 'twisting', to further explore the device dexterity according to its discoverability. Participants were encouraged to make objects themselves and were prompted to discuss their design choices within the group. At the end of the task they were asked to pick their favourite design amongst the group and discuss why this one was better than the others.

Participants

12 participants took part in the study, of which six were female and six were male. The minimum age was 20 and the maximum was 22, with a mean of 20.8. Participants were split into four groups of three to elicit more qualitative feedback. All participants were HCI students with no previous experience in freeform interfaces. None of them had taken part in the previous studies.

Method

Prior to the study, participants were presented with information which introduced the concept of affordance, and outlined some of the possible grasp types. This was to illustrate to users that there are many different grasp types, that they may not have previously considered. Each group, consisting of three participants, took part in the study within the same meeting room, in the same set up. The participants were each provided with a pot of modelling clay. Every participant was given only one colour in order to reduce the temptation to make affordances more discoverable through the use of different colours, instead of shape.

Analysis

Feedback was gathered in the form of a video recording which was later transcribed. We adopted the same thematic analysis process as in the study 1, except that we analyzed both the discussion transcripts and the molded objects and that our thematic analysis specifically focused on coding shape features that we report below.

STUDY 2 RESULTS

Figure 10 shows examples of the collected data organised as follows: on the left an example for each affordance (one, three, multiple); on the right objects created for specific actions. Beyond presenting all the shapes, our interest lied within the rationale made by the participants that we present below grouped by themes.

Indentations

Grooves and ridges were essential for displaying the intended affordance of an object. Participants mentioned that it made discovering where to grasp 'much clearer' and 'easier'; the majority of the objects possessed some level of indentation for fingers. Participants varied this, with many making holes and others, only very slight impressions into the clay. Albeit, the general consensus among participants was that creating an indent too deep into the object was the least desirable; it produced the possibility of an alternative grasp (the pinching of the protrusion made by a deep indentation).

When dealing with the second task (designing for 3 affordances), many participants removed the majority of indentations for hands and experimented with new features such as knobs or loops. Most groups concluded that the indentations added during the first task were too restrictive, as they made the objects biased to one particular grasp. Many participants scrapped all indentations on the objects, whereas only two out of the four groups initially adopted a different approach to make the indentations into the objects shallower. For the third task, all indentations were removed from the objects as participants did not want to sway users to a specific grasp.

Orientation of Features

Furthermore, not only the presence of the indentations is important, so is the direction in which they face. One participant moulded a small ball with two deep impressions on either side, intended for a thumb and forefinger. This participant then stated that 'naturally you want to pinch (the object) because they (the indentations) are in the same direction as your fingers'. The group that this participant was part of then debated whether the indentations should point upwards or sideways. They concluded that if they pointed upwards the wrist would have to bend at a 90 • angle in order to pinch it, which was uncomfortable; therefore, not the most intuitive.

Preferred Shapes

The most popular shape made in the first task, made by three out of the four groups, was a solid ball, with indents in the shape of a hand on it. These finger impressions were placed at a hand's resting position, with the thumb dent positioned at a 45 • angle away from the index finger. The most favoured shape made during the second task was a simple ball too, similar to that made in the first task, but without any fingerprint impressions. Alongside this two of the four groups made very similar shapes, one described as a 'bugle' and the other described as a 'wizard's hat', were considered to be the best shapes. The most common shapes made by participants in the third task were all variations of loops, some were large and slack, whereas others were more rigid handle like objects. When asked what was it about the shape that made it the best, one group responded that 'it's the two portions, they allow for your hand to go through and are big enough to fit your whole palm'. Another said that 'the hole in the middle means you have a large edge around that you can try lots of grasps with'.

Size of Contact Area

The size of the object and intended contact area was essential to participants in this study. Many participants claimed that very small objects would reduce the number of affordances possible with it. They explained that the smaller the object was, the fewer places a hand could have contact with the object, therefore reducing the grasp possibilities. Also encompassed into this idea of object size, was the notion that the thickness of an object also alters its affordance capability. A completely thin, almost paper like object, was made and discussed by three out of the four groups within this study. Many participants stated that a 'thinner object needs lots of support'. Therefore, fewer combinations of hand variations exist that retain the much-needed support for the object.

Shape Features for Preventing Grasps

Persuading people to intuitively choose one specific grasp was found to be easy by participants, yet specifically restricting other grasps was seemingly more difficult. All but one group found that the best way to deter users from certain grasps was to include sharp or spikey edges. These would discourage users to touch certain parts of the objects, thus averting users from discovering the unintended grasps.

Shape Features for Actions

When considering incorporating actions not just a grasp, impressions become important once again, probably as one grasp per action is required for each object. The direction of the impressions on the objects created by participants became essential for this task. No longer were they just for comfort (which was seen in the previous tasks), but they also had to expose the actions that were available. We noticed that participants would purposely put the impressions far from the resting hand position, to illustrate to the user that there may be a more complicated action required. In the case of the twisting action, the impressions made for the hands were at opposite sides of the object, compelling users to put one wrist angled forwards and the other backwards. Users would then move their hands back to the resting position, thus producing a twisting action. In addition, many indentations (not just those in fingertip and finger form) were put at the angle in which the action was required (slanting left for a left twist).

Past Experience

One concept that was discussed by all four groups during this task, was the idea that some level of previous knowledge was required in order to make grasping decisions. One participant stated that 'if people experienced different things, they might pick up things differently' and another mentioned that 'you can't account for every person on earth (to grasp the object the same way) because this is learnt behaviour'. This concept was developed throughout the course of this study.

Summary

This second study revealed the shape features that impact the most the trade off between dexterity and discoverability. This study highlighs that designing for various grasps is a difficult task, as the shape properties chosen for the "one affordance" condition were the least desired for the "many affordance" condition. It also shows that shape features such as indentations are not only important for conveying a particular grasp, but also to suggest possible actions such as twisting. We further discuss the implications of these findings for the design of handheld freeform devices in the Discussion section.

One of the most important results of this study is the addition or removal of indentations, which was not the sole focus of this study. While our participants employed indentations to vary the level of discoverability, it is unclear whether this strategy would actually work. To further investigate this we performed a small follow-up study.

Follow-up Study on Indentations

We were interested to know if the presence of indentations could persuade users to change their pre-established perception of wellknown objects and the grasps they would choose to hold them. We recruited 6 new participants with similar background that our two studies but with a wider age spectrum to enhance the external validity of the results (2 males, age between 22 and 56 with a mean of 45 and a standard deviation of 15.65). Participants were presented with 9 pre-molded objects on Figure 11: a mug, a cylinder, a sphere with 3 indentation level possible (none, finger indentation, full hand indentation). Participants first observed each of the objects without any additional features, then indentations were added in order to see if participants would change their grasp. We encouraged them to discuss their reasoning. With no indentation, we saw participants using common grasp (spherical power grasp) for the sphere with variation of the preferred wrist angle when grasping (two had their palm facing downwards, holding the object from the top). For the cylinder, they all decided on a power cylindrical grasp with thumb pointing upwards. The only difference between the grasps that participants used was whether the thumb was straight, or bent at 90 degrees. The mug object had two favoured grasps, these being a hook grasp through the looped handle and the other was a cylindrical power grasp around the side. The number of fingers used in the hook grasp ranged between one and three.

With one finger indentation, over half of the participants chose a spherical power grasp, with fingers placed in the finger indentations. One participant said "it would annoy them to choose a grasp where my fingers didn't line up with the dents" and another stated "It's hard to consider other options now, because I feel I have to use the indentations". However, two participants did not place their fingers into the indentations as they felt as though their fingertips were too large to fit in. Unlike the sphere, the indentations in the cylinder did not persuade any participants to change their grasp. Two participants did not notice the indentations and others excluded them as a potential visual aid for grasp choice. For the mug, the position of the fingertip indentations were set out to persuade users to perform a precision lumbrical grip. Only one participant attempted to put their fingers into the indentations. When asked why that grasp was not considered when previously given the same object with no indentations, the participant said, "I hadn't tried to hold the mug like this before, didn't cross my mind, but I feel it's a lot more stable".

With the full finger indentations, all participant used the same grasp for the sphere, with all fingers placed within the ridges. The position of the indentation can be potentially leading the user to see the hand imprint, thus suggesting a particular affordance. One participant stated that "it feels satisfying, like my fingers are supposed to fit in there'. When asked if there were any other grasps they would consider, one individual responded with "no, because I feel I have to put my fingers there, I would feel like I'm holding it wrong". With the cylinder, half of the participant altered their grasp (adopting a tripod precision grasp). When asked why they attempted this grasp only now, when the full finger indentations were added, one participant said that "these indentations all point to one place, so I know where to place my palm". The other half, who did not change their grasp, retained the cylindrical power grasp. One stated that "I noticed the ridges in the object, but I didn't want to use them". Lastly the indentations on the mug did convince three participants to try the new lumbrical precision grasp. Although similar to the cylinder, the new grasp was considered less comfortable than the previous grasps they had chosen. One individual expressed a concern that the size of their fingers was not compatible with finger indentations, exclaiming that "my finger is too short to rest on this part". The two individuals who did not change their grasp said they had noticed the added dents, but it could not convince them to change their grasp.

To sum up, this follow up study confirms that the presence or absence of indentations, as well as their level (partial or full finger) and size, can all alter the grasp choice. However, our study also shows that it highly depends on the shape of the object, as well as the perceived comfort of the new grasp. We can conclude that any addition of indentation on a freeform object needs to be specifically tailored for the object in question.

DISCUSSION

In this section we discuss our results in light of our goal which was to investigate the rationale behind shape features of handheld freeform devices. We particularly discuss the differences we found with previous work that were more technologically driven and highlight directions for future work.

Designing for Dexterity: Stability vs. Interactivity

Of the three themes of our design sessions, dexterity appears more prominently. One reason might be that there is a learnt fear of

Shape features properties

Impact on grasp discoverability and dexterity Indentations (Grooves, holes and ridges) Indentations conduct to one particular grasp Deep indentations can introduce alternative grasps Indentations can be restrictive to change grasps Knobs, Loops

Allows for a variety of grasps

Orientation of features

Features oriented in the same direction than fingers help in discovering grasps Features orientation can bend the hand at uncomfortable angles Solid ball shape Ball with fingerprints is the most preferred shape for high grasp discoverability Size of object and contact area Small or thin objects reduce the number of grasp possibilities Sharp or spiky edges Discourage users to touch certain parts of the objects Deter user from certain grasps Features to convey actions Shape features placed far from hand position Shape features at the angle in which the action is required (slanting left for a left twist) Table 2: Summary of the impact of the different shape features on grasp discoverability and dexterity.

having the device fall, and break, during interaction. Participants particularly point at the need to maximize thumb reachability in all instances, for one-or two-handed operations. In most of the prototypes the other fingers clearly serve the purpose of holding the device securely, either by using a traditional power grip, or a combination of hook or scissor grips. Interestingly, current catalogs of grasp postures [START_REF] Feix | A comprehensive grasp taxonomy[END_REF] have not considered interactivity, i.e. movement of fingers during grasp. While not a concern for studying the fundamentals of grasp, this becomes a prominent concern when it involves input dexterity on freeform devices [START_REF] Saidi | TDome: A Touch-Enabled 6DOF Interactive Device for Multi-Display Environments[END_REF].

Dexterity and grasping have been extensively studied in Robotics but our results suggest that when grasping interactive devices, users must maximise stability and interactivity. This challenge has not be investigated so far as the goal in Robotics is often to hold an object or to use an object for an action external to it. In the case of grasping interactive devices, the action happens directly on the object itself. Thus users will look to maximize: (1) the area that can be reached on the object with any finger (although it is possible that the thumb might be the most prevalent digit for interaction);

(2) and the stability of the grasp. We think there is a need to systematically study the dexterity of the novel shape features introduced by freeform devices, such as finger holes, handles, etc.

Designing for Discoverability: Acquired or Innate

Discoverability, i.e., the affordance of the device, is a well-known theme in object design [START_REF] Gibson | The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception[END_REF][START_REF] Norman | The Design of Everyday Things[END_REF] and there is a well known debate into the question of whether the affordances are innate or acquired.

Our results reflect this question as these were essentially the two ways used to suggest how people should use and grasp the devices.

Existing metaphors: these are common in HCI and interactive devices. What is interesting in our exploration is to uncover where these metaphors come from in terms of freeform devices: while some of them come from real world objects, such as umbrellas or pocket mirrors, others are iterations of current interactive devices, such as phones or game controllers. This highlights that freeform devices are a new generation that implicitly builds upon the previous generation of handheld devices.

Hand print features: What our research also uncovers is the use of hand print in form factors to suggest users how to handle it. Using such features is really interesting because it has been used in many other objects (e.g. bottles) but we are not aware of work done for embedding such features in interactive devices. In our follow-up study, we looked at how reliable the hand print needs to be to suggest an appropriate grasp. Results show that the presence or absence of indentations, as well as their level (partial or full finger) and size, can all alter the grasp choice.

Designing for Adaptability: No Universal Shapes

Our work challenges the fact that there is a universal shape that fits all functions. So far this shape has been rectangular but even when offering the possibility to design for any shapes we found that not only users stayed within relatively simple shapes, but also they mentioned the need for the device to morph from one shape to another in order to better fit the functionality. Our work thus further corroborates the need for shape-changing devices. That being said, such a perspective means that there is much research to be done into how to adapt the content on any possible shape, even if there is a small amount of shape the devices can morph into. For example, a user interface on a sphere might be very different from a triangular one because of the way visual elements can be placed on it and also the way users will interact with such form factors. We believe this may open a significant research agenda into how to design adaptive user interfaces for multiple form factors.

Desirable Physical Features

Our second study revealed the shape features that impact the most the trade off between dexterity and discoverability, which are summarized in Table 2. We observed that the shape properties chosen for the "one affordance" were the least desired for the "many affordance" instruction, such as indentations. Indentations were pivotal for "one affordance", but were made shallower and then completely removed for the "many affordances". This removal helped prevent bias towards just one grasp. Other more complex features such as loops and handle were also considered: while they were quickly dismissed by all groups for the "one affordance", they were quickly adopted and deemed the most appropriate shape for an object with an infinite grasp affordance. We also discovered that choosing correct shape properties and features became important when considering a grasp action: the addition of an unclear feature could be misinterpreted, in turn leading to an incorrect action.

Although the trend of diminishing impressions was prominent during this study, one aspect that was not clear was how deep these indentations should be. This attribute was varied by all participants in the different g roups. I t w as m entioned t hat i ndentations too deep would leave the elevated parts open to pinch, introducing another grasp. The most desired level was not considered, nor was the question whether the fingertip indentations was sufficient or a whole hand imprint was necessary. We further investigated these questions in our follow-up study, which revealed that while the level of indentations can impact the choice of grasp, this is dependent on the object's shape as well as the foreseen comfort of the grasp.

Technical feasibility of handheld freeform devices

In this work we tackled the challenge of understanding the shape of free-form devices through the use of clay to let end-users mould devices which of course does not reflect a real device. However this approach is coherent with standard research methodologies using probes or mock-ups for gathering user's insights (e.g. in [START_REF] Flores | MorphBenches: Using mixed reality experimentation platforms to study dynamic affordances in shape-changing devices[END_REF] using Augmented Reality to study shape-changing affordance). We took this approach because there is limited empirical data around such devices because the technologies required to build them are still in their infancy, making the exploration of interaction on them and their manipulation limited. Like others in the area of free-form displays and shape-changing devices we made use of an alternate material to explore such space. There are many improvements needed in terms of hardware to explore the full spectrum of interaction with shape-changing devices [START_REF] Alexander | Grand Challenges in Shape-Changing Interface Research[END_REF] and researchers are now working with material scientists to speed up technological developments [START_REF] Hanton | ProtoSpray: Combining 3D printing and spraying to create interactive displays with arbitrary shapes[END_REF][START_REF] Isabel Ps Qamar | HCI meets material science: A literature review of morphing materials for the design of shape-changing interfaces[END_REF]. Previous research used thin-film electroluminescence (TFEL) to create freeform and bendable displays [START_REF] Olberding | PrintScreen: Fabricating Highly Customizable Thin-Film Touch-Displays[END_REF]. More recently, Hanton et al. [START_REF] Hanton | ProtoSpray: Combining 3D printing and spraying to create interactive displays with arbitrary shapes[END_REF] are exploring the combination of 3D printing and spray coating to create touch-sensitive displays of arbitrary shapes. As said in the related work, many non-rectangular interfaces have been developed for different context, ranging from tabletop and projected UIs [START_REF] Cotting | Interactive Environmentaware Display Bubbles[END_REF][START_REF] Niyazov | Dynamic Decals: Pervasive Freeform Interfaces Using Constrained Deformable Graphical Elements[END_REF] to round smartwatches [START_REF] Ashbrook | An Investigation into Round Touchscreen Wristwatch Interaction[END_REF]. We believe these examples only scratch the surface of what free-form displays can enable and we hope this can inspire researchers and designers to extend the form factors of interactive devices.

In the meantime, gathering empirical data in parallel with developing necessary technologies can be valuable for researchers and accelerate the development of appropriate interfaces. Our work provides recommendations in this direction.

CONCLUSION

As our interactive devices start adopting new form factors, we need to consider suitable shape features. In this paper we explored this question through a set of design sessions, focused on handheld freeform devices, which uncovered important considerations related to the shape features of such devices. Our first design session revealed the main themes related to grasping such freeform devices: freeform dexterity, shape features discoverability and shape adaptability. We further explored the interlink between shape dexterity, discoverabiliy and freeform shape features in two subsequent design sessions. These revealed that designing for various grasps is a difficult task, as the shape properties chosen for the "one affordance" condition were the least desired for the "many affordance" condition. It also shows that shape features such as indentations are not only important for conveying a particular grasp, but also to suggest possible actions such as twisting. Our work opens up many perspectives on the use of such novel devices and reveals the need to systematically study freeform shape properties, which constitute a roadmap for the upcoming research on freeform devices. In the future, we plan to develop design probes corresponding to the proposed ideas of handheld devices. We will carry both controlled studies on the dexterity and discoverability of such devices, as well as longitudinal studies similar to [START_REF] Everitt | ShapeCanvas: An Exploration of Shape-Changing Content Generation by Members of the Public[END_REF] so that we can investigate the practicality of freeform devices.

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Participants using clay to prototype and test their design. Design sessions involved combined sketching and molding.

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2: Example of collected data, beyond the discussion transcripts: participant sketches, clay prototypes and pictures illustrating how to grasp the devices. To better illustrate the original intentions of the participants, we created illustrations which showed at the same time the device and the intended usage.

  -left): "So let's have a design that lets you hold and have two fingers to interact" [pair 5] (Figure 3 -right). Participants deliberated about solutions to improve interaction while holding the device, such as "tapping the back of the device." [pair 1] These examples clearly express that the ways of holding the phone was an obstacle (or a benefit) to the action of performing certain gestures or touching parts of the device. Interestingly the effector of those gestures was mainly the thumb: "The first challenge is how to hold the mobile [..

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3: Participants reasoned about the problem that all fingers hold the device and only one is free to interact (left). Among the proposed solutions, a design that leaves two fingers to interact (pinky and thumb fingers on the right).

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: Participants viewed rounder shapes to be better adapted to both grasp and interaction.

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 5: Participants identified various solutions to overcome dexterity tradeoff, such as using holes (left) or rings (right).

Figure 6 :

 6 Figure 6: To improve discoverability, many participants suggested using the shape of common objects, such as two-parts mirrors and car wheels (left). Participants also elaborated on how certain shapes could fit the palm of the hand (right).

Figure 7 :

 7 Figure 7: Although our focus was not on shape transformation, some participants suggested shape changes to adapt to tasks, context or collaborative activities.

Figure 8 :

 8 Figure 8: Certain devices were discussed as being impractical, such as this lamp shape that the user can not put in her pocket.

  Shapes too large or thin vs. rounder shapes Overcoming the dexterity tradeoff Fastening or wearing the device Occlusion Reconsidering placement of screens T2: Shape features discoverability Metaphors Grasping and interacting inspirational devices, e.g. umbrella, game controllers Docking hands Shapes that invite a person's hand to dock T3: Shape adaptability Adaptability to the Task and Context Single task vs. fit-all prototype Practicality Storing the device, fitting in the pocket Minor Themes Findings T4: Shape-Content consistency Shapes that fit the content T5: Tangibility

Figure 9 :

 9 Figure 9: Participants during the focus group.

Figure 10 :

 10 Figure 10: Example of objects created in the study 2.

Figure 11 :

 11 Figure 11: Example of objects created in the study 2.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the ANR JCJC PERFIN grant (ANR-18-CE33-0009). We thank all study participants for their valuable time. Many thanks to Laurie Dal Grande and Emilie Bardet for the illustrations.


Livia Holden

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT) PI

Degree of Jurisdiction

% #

Lower judiciary 57% 121

Middle judiciary 33% 70

Upper judiciary 2% 4

Other 8% 17

Total 100% 212

The most common area of jurisdiction was 'Civil law' with (42%, 106), followed by 'Family Law' and 'Other' (21%, 54) each, Criminal Law (15%, 38) and 'Asylum/Migration Law' (0%, 1). For the areas of law practiced, 'Family Law' was the most common (17%, 33), followed by Inheritance Law (12%, 24), Criminal Law (10%, 19), Financial Law (9%, 18), Property Law (7%, 14) and Contracts and Obligations (6%, 12) with all the remaining areas accounting for 5% or less.

Area of Jurisdiction

Career

Junior To the question about the number of written reports produced, (44%, 28) experts chose 'Other', (29%, 18) indicated 'Less than 5', (11%, 7) each indicated 'Between 5 and 10' and 'Between 10 and 20' and (5%, 3) 'Between 20 and 50'.

(35%, 22) of experts provided 'Between 10 and 20' oral reports, (22%, 14) indicated 'Between 20 and 50', followed by 'Less than 5' (19%, 12), 'Between 5 and 10' (14%, 9), 'Other' (8%, 5) and 'Between 50 and 100' (2%, 1).

Annual cases

Other Less than 10

Between 10 and 20

France Data Summary

Fields of law

The most common area of use of cultural expertise was 'Immigration Law' (32%, 235), followed by 'Refugee and Asylum Law' (29%, 213), 'Criminal Law' (12%, 85), 'Family Law' (10%, 77), 'International Human Right Law' (6%, 45) and European Law (4%, 32) with all the remaining areas accounting for 3% or less.

Overall

Less than 5

Between 5 and 10

Between 10 and 20

Between 20 and 50

Between 50 and 100

Written

Less than 5

Between 5 and 10

Between 10 and 20

Between 20 and 50

Between 50 and 100

Other

Oral

Less than 5

Between 5 and 10

Between 10 and 20

Between 20 and 50

Between 50 and 100

Other

France Data Summary

Typology of Experts

The most common response to the question regarding the expert type was 'Native Language Speakers' (34%, 41), followed by 'Other' (26%, 31), then 'Country Experts' (14%, 17), 'University Professors' (12%, 14), and 'Religious Leaders '(9%, 11).

Sites

In court

Out of court Through NGOs

In hospitals

In detention centres

In schools

Through private consultancy

France Data Summary

Discipline

The (12%, 14) who selected 'University professors' were asked to specify the disciplines of those professors. The most common responses were 'Sociology' and 'History' (32%, 12) each, followed by 'Other' (13%, 5), Anthropology (11%, 4), 'Linguistics' and 'Political Science', (5%, 2) each and Law (3%, 1).

Expert Type

Native Remuneration of cultural expertise (80%, 51), indicated that experts were paid at a 'Standard hourly rate', followed by 'Voluntary basis' (11%, 7), 'Set price per report' (5%, 3) and other (5%, 3).

Remuneration of experts

Usefulness

The most common response to the question regarding the usefulness of cultural expertise was 'Very useful' (49%, 37), followed by 'Extremely useful' (45%, 34), 'Moderately useful' (5%, 4). (1%, 1) indicated 'Not at all useful'.

Components of impact

Reputation of Experts

The majority of experts chose 'Expert opinions have been successful' (71%, 45), followed by 'Regularly instructed/appointed as an expert for many years' (14%, 9) and 'Other (15%, 9) and I don t know (5%, 3).

Competitiveness

Balance

Improved Access Database

Regarding the question of the usefulness of a case law database, the most common response was that it would be 'Somewhat useful' (76%, 286

Capacity Building

The most common response to the question regarding the usefulness of a program teaching cultural expertise was 'Probably yes (54%, 218) followed by 'Might or might not' (30%, 121), 'Definitely yes' (12%, 50), 'Probably not' (3%, 12) and 'Definitely not' (0%, 1).

  PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Christiane Besnier Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

			France Data Summary
	Lawyers Of the 138 lawyers who responded, (43%, 60) indicated 'Senior', (43%, 59) 'Mid-Career', and Degree of Jurisdiction
	(14%, 19) 'Junior'.
	Career Stage %	#
	Junior Lawyers 14% 19
	Mid-Career	43% 59
	Senior	43% 60
	Lawyers				Lower judiciary	Middle judiciary
	Total	100% 138		Upper judiciary	Other
				#	Area of Jurisdication
	Criminal Law		15% 38
	Family Law		21% 54
	Asylum/Migration	1%	2
	Law
	Civil Law		42% 106
	Other		21% 54
					Criminal Law
	Total		100% 254	Family Law
					Asylum/Migration Law
					Civil Law
					Other

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

  PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Christiane Besnier Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

  PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Christiane Besnier Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

		France Data Summary
	CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)
	PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Christiane Besnier
				Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019
				Date of Revision: 01/02/2022
	Sites
	Fields of Law Immigration law 33% % The most common site of cultural expertise was 'In court' (84%, 380), followed by 'Out of # 235 Fields of Law court' (8%, 38), 'In hospitals' (2%, 10), 'Through NGOs' and 'In detention centres' (2%, 8)
	Refugee and each and 'Through private consultancy' (1%, 2). 29% 213
	asylum law
	Criminal law Sites %	12% #	88
	Family law In court	10% 84% 380	77
	International Out of court 8%	6% 38	45
	human rights law In hospitals 2%	10
	European law Through 2%	4% 8	32
	Other NGOs		3%	19
	Health law In detention Medical and bio 2% law centres In schools 1%	2% 8 1% 4	13 6
	Inheritance law 0% Through 1% 2 Environmental 0% private consultancy law Labour law 0% Total 100% 451	3 2 2	Immigration law Refugee and asylum law Criminal law
	Contracts and	0%	1	Family law
	obligations				International human rights law
	Private		0%	1	European law
	international law			Other
	Total		100% 737	Health law
					Medical and bio law
					Inheritance law
					Environmental law
					Labour law
					Contracts and obligations
					Private international law

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

  PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Christiane Besnier Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

	Expert Type	%	#
	Native language	34%	41
	speakers
	Other	26%	31
	Country experts	14%	17
	University professors	12%	14
	Religious leaders	9%	11
	Community leaders	4%	5
	Native lawyers	2%	2
	Total	100% 121

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

  PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Christiane Besnier Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

	France Data Summary France Data Summary France Data Summary
	CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT) CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)
	PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Christiane Besnier PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Christiane Besnier
		Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019 Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019
			Date of Revision: 01/02/2022 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022
	Discipline Sociology How experts are selected Cost of Cultural Expertise % # 32% 12 % Cultural expertise is most commonly financed by 'Courts' (82%, 345), followed by 'Other' Discipline # How experts are selected
	History Experts facilitate (10%, 43), 'Clients/ Applicants/ Defendants/ Litigants' (4% 17), 'Legal aid' (3%, 14) and 32% 12 27% 158
	Other successful legal 'Philanthropists/ NGOs/ Relatives/ Community' (1%, 4). 13% 5 Anthropology outcomes 11% 4 Linguistics 5% The court is keen to 25% 148 How are experts paid? % # 2 Political Science 5% 2 Law 3% hear cultural arguments The reputation of the Courts 82% 345 15% 92 1 expert Other 10% 43
	Total Cost Defendants/ Litigants 100% 38 8% Time 11% 66 48 Clients/ Applicants/ 4% 17	Sociology Linguistics	language speakers Anthropology Other History Political Science Law
	The law allows Legal aid Client request Philanthropists/ NGOs/	7% 3% 3% 1%	40 14 20 4	Other	Country experts University professors Religious leaders
	Advised by the court Relatives/ Community	2%	13	Community leaders Experts facilitate successful legal outcomes
	Useful for an out of court settlement Total	1% 100% 423 4	Native lawyers The reputation of the expert The court is keen to hear cultural arguments
	Other	1%	3	Time
	The court/ prosecutor/	0%	2	Cost
	Ministry of the interior have already appointed			The law allows
	Modalities their expert			Client request
	Appointment of Experts Total 100% 594	Advised by the court
	The most common factor which influenced the decision to appoint was 'Experts facilitate successful legal outcomes' (27%, 158), followed by 'The court is keen to hear cultural Useful for an out of court settlement
	arguments' (25%, 148), 'The reputation of the expert' (15%, 92), 'Time' (11%, 66), 'Cost' Other
	(8%, 48) 'The law allows' (7%, 40), with all remaining responses accounting for 3% or less. The court/ prosecutor/ Ministry of the interior
				have already appointed their expert
					13

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

The most common response to how experts started giving opinions was 'Other' (31%, 19), followed by 'Contacted by a lawyer' (29%, 18), 'Contacted by a court' (25%, 16), 'Referred by a colleague' (13%, 8), with all remaining responses accounting for 3% or less.

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

  PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Christiane Besnier Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022 41%, 34) chose 'Interested in teaching themselves', (35%, 29) indicated 'Know professional organisations interested in teaching' and (22%, 18) 'Know educational institutions interested in teaching'. One respondent, 1%, chose 'Other'. PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Christiane Besnier Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

	France Data Summary France Data Summary
	Usefulness of a teaching program on cultural expertise	%	#		Usefulness of a teaching program on cultural expertise
	Definitely yes	12% 50
	Probably yes	54% 218		Contribution to a law database
	Might or might not	30% 121
	Probably not	3%	12
					Definitely yes	Probably yes
	Definitely not	0%	1		Might or might not Probably not
	Total	100% 402		Definitely not
					I would like to contribute to a database on cultural
	expertise I would not like to contribute to a database on Organisations interested in a teaching program
					cultural expertise
	Organisations interested in a teaching program I would be interested in	% 41% 34 #	Organisations interested in a teaching program
	teaching cultural expertise
	Know professional		35% 29
	organisations interested in
	teaching
	Know educational		22% 18
	institutions interested in
	teaching
	Other		1%	1
					I would be interested in teaching cultural expertise
	Total		100% 82
					Know professional organisations interested in
					teaching
					Know educational institutions interested in
					teaching
					Other
					22

(

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

Reuse of cultural expertise

The most frequent response to the question of the reuse of cultural expertise was 'Unique and not repeatable experience' (85%, 79), followed by 'Cultural expertise is applicable in similar cases' (13%, 12), and 'Reuse only within the same country/legal field' (2%, 2).

Reuse of cultural expertise

Impact Components of Impact

The most common components of impact include 'Stringent conclusions (28%, 219), followed by 'Reliable sources of contents' (26%, 200), 'First-hand experience' (20%, 159), 'Reputation of the expert's (14%, 107), 'Advocacy' (7%, 57) and 'Remuneration of experts' with all remaining areas accounting for 1%.

Reuse of cultural expertise


CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT) PI

. (3%, 13) respondents chose 'Other'.

The most common area of jurisdiction was 'Civil law' (30%, 166) followed by 'Asylum/Migration Law' (20%, 109), then 'Criminal law' (18%, 23), 'Other' (16%, 89), and 'Family law' (16%, 87).

Degree of Jurisdiction

Lawyers

Out of the 11 lawyers who responded, (73%, 8) indicated 'Senior' lawyers, followed by 'Midcareer' (27%, 3).

Career Stage

% # Mid-career 27% 3 Senior 73% 8 Total 100% 11
For the areas of law practiced, (14%, 5) chose 'Other' followed by 'Family law' and 'Labour Law' (12%, 4) each, 'Contract Law' and 'Medical and Bio Law' (9%, 3) each, 'Commercial law', 'Health law' and 'Inheritance law (6%, 2) each, with all the remaining areas accounting for (3%, 1).

Career Stage

Mid-Career Senior

Area of Jurisdiction

Frequency

Frequency of involvement

To the question of how many experts did they instruct annually, most responding judges and lawyers (56%, 239) chose 'Less than 10', followed by 'Never appointed experts' (41%, 177), 'Between 10 and 20' (1%, 5), 'Between 20 and 30' (1% , 4) and 'Between 30 and 50' (1%, 3).

Annual cases % #

Never appointed experts 41% 177

Less than 10 56% 239

Between 10 and 20 1% 5

Between 20 and 30 1% 4

Between 30 and 50 1% 3 Total 100% 428

Two experts indicated that they had provided expert evidence in both written and oral format for between 20 and 50 cases.

Fields of law

The most common area of use of cultural expertise was 'Refugee and Asylum Law' (16%, 204), followed by 'Family law' (14%, 185), 'Immigration Law' (13%, 173), 'Criminal Law' (11%, 138), 'Administrative law' (9%, 120), 'International human rights law' (7%, 93), 'Inheritance law' (5%, 65) with all the remaining areas accounting for 3% or less.

Annual cases

Never appointed experts

Less than 10

Between 10 and 20

Between 20 and 30

Between 30 and 50

Germany Data Summary

Who instructs the experts

One expert answered that he/she was appointed by the court.

Cost of Cultural Expertise

Remuneration of cultural expertise

To the question on how experts are remunerated one expert indicated 'Standard hourly rate' and another expert chose 'Set price per report'. With regards to the question on interest in the teaching program, the most common response was 'Other' (81%, 21), followed by 'Know educational organisations which may be interested' (15%, 4), and 'Know professional organisations that may be interested' (4%, 1).

Remuneration of experts

Organisations interested in a teaching

  PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Stefanie Lemke Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

		Germany Data Summary
	Country locations % Berlin 12% 49 #	Country locations
	Bayern	4%	18
	North Rhine-	4%	18
	Westphalia
	Lower Saxony	4%	16
	Potsdam Hannover Jurisdiction Degree of	4% 3% %	14 15 #
	Brandenburg Lower judiciary	3% 67% 309 12
	Saxony Middle judiciary	3% 19% 86 11
	Dusserdorf Upper judiciary	2% 11% 51 10	Berlin
	Mecklenburg -Other Vorpommern Rostok Karlsruhe Hesse Würzburg Frankfurt Total	2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 100% 459 10 13 5 6 6 8 9	Bayern Saxony Brandenburg Hannover Potsdam Lower Saxony North Rhine-Westphalia
	Duisburg	1%	5	Dusserdorf
	Aachen	1%	5	Mecklenburg -Vorpommern
	Lübeck	1%	5	Rostok
	Munich	1%	5	Karlsruhe
	Schleswig-Holstein 1%	5	Hesse
	Other	45% 188	Würzburg
	Total	100% 420	Frankfurt
				Duisburg
				Aachen
				Lübeck
				Munich
				Schleswig-Holstein
				Other

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

Germany Data Summary CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

	Germany Data Summary
	PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Stefanie Lemke
		Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019
		Date of Revision: 01/02/2022
	Areas of Law Other	% 14%	# 5		Areas of Law
	Family law	12%	4
	Labour law	12%	4
	Contract law	9%	3
	Medical and bio law Experts	9%	3
	Commercial law Only one of the three experts that responded to the survey indicated that he was a translator. 6% 2
	Health law The experts' area of expertise were 'North Africa', 'Minorities/Indigenous Populations in 6% 2
	Inheritance law Europe' and South and 'Central America' (1, 33%) each. 6% 2
	European law Minority/Indigenous Administrative law Banking and insolvency law 33% 1 3% 5% 3% Area of Specialisation % #	1 1 1	Civil Law Criminal Law Labour law Family Law Other Family law Area of Specialisation Asylum/Migration Law Other
	Financial law populations in Europe	3%	1		Contract law
	Aliens law	3%	1		Medical and bio law
	International civil law North Africa	3% 33% 1	1		Commercial law
	Property right	3%	1		Health law
	Refugee and asylum law South and Central Total America Total	3% 33% 1 100% 33 1 100% 3		Inheritance law Administrative law Banking and insolvency law
					European law
					Financial law
				Aliens law Minority/Indigenous populations in Europe
				North Africa	International civil law
				Property right South and Central America
					Refugee and asylum law

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT) PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Stefanie Lemke Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

Areas of law where cultural expertise is more useful

  PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Stefanie Lemke Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019 Date of Revision: 01/02/2022

	Germany Data Summary Germany Data Summary
	CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)
	PI: Livia Holden | Post-Doc: Anna Tsalapatanis: Data Collector: Stefanie Lemke
			Date of First Publication: 20/05/2019
				Date of Revision: 01/02/2022
	Financing Usefulness of cultural expertise Usefulness of case law The most common response to the question regarding the usefulness of a program teaching Usefulness of cultural expertise % # Moderately useful 38% 129 Usefulness of case law % # Capacity Building database Somewhat useful 43% 111 database cultural expertise was 'Probably yes' (39%, 105), followed by 'Might or might not' (34%, 92),
	Very useful 'Probably not' (15%, 40), 'Definitely yes' (9%, 24), and 'Definitely not' (3%, 8). 35% 91
	Very useful Slightly useful No use Other Usefulness of a teaching program on 24% 23% cultural expertise Total Probably yes	83 16% 40 6% 16 # 78 100% 258 39% 105 %	Courts Usefulness of a teaching program on cultural expertise
	Not at all useful Might or might not	13%	43 34% 92	Legal aid
	Extremely useful Probably not Definitely yes	3%	9 15% 40 9% 24	Clients/ Applicants/ Defendants/ Litigants Other Somewhat useful Very useful Moderately useful Very useful Slightly useful Not at all useful No use Other
	Total Definitely not	100% 342 3% 8	Home office/Federal Office for Extremely useful
	Migration and Refugees Philanthropists/ NGOs/ Relatives/ Community Most respondents did not wish to contribute to the establishment of a case law database Contribution to law database Total 100% 269 Usefulness: fields Cultural expertise is most useful in 'Migration law' (58%, 136), followed by 'More useful in criminal law rather than civil law' (25%, 59), 'Other' (12%, 29), and 'More useful in civil law (62%, 80), while (38%, 49) did wish to contribute. Contribution to a % Probably yes Might or might not # Contribution to a law Probably not Definitely yes law database than criminal law' (5%, 11). I would not like to 62% 80 database Definitely not
	contribute to a				%	#	Areas of law where more
	Migration law database on cultural expertise I would like to	38%	%	# 58% 136 49	useful Remuneration
	Standard hourly rate More in criminal law than in contribute to a	50% 1 25% 59
	civil law database on cultural
	Set price per report Other expertise Total More in civil law than in criminal law 100% Total Total	12% 29 50% 1 100% 2 5% 129 11 100% 235	Standard hourly rate Cultural expertise is most useful in immigration law Other Cultural expertise is more useful in I would like to contribute to a database on criminal law than in civil law cultural expertise
						I would not like to contribute to a database
						law than in criminal law Set price per report Cultural expertise is more useful in civil on cultural expertise
						20

CULTURAL EXPERTISE IN EUROPE: WHAT IS IT USEFUL FOR? (EURO-EXPERT)

21

Organisations interested in a teaching program

Typology of Experts

The most common response to the question regarding the expert type was 'Other' (43%, 132), followed by 'Country experts' (25%, 77), 'Native language speakers' (14%, 43) then 'University professors' (13%, 41), 'Native lawyers' (4%, 12), 'Community leaders' and 'Religious leaders' (1%, 2) each.

Expert Type

Discipline

The respondents who selected 'University professors' were asked to specify the disciplines of those professors. The most common response was'Law' (30%, 18), followed by 'Sociology' (19%,11), 'Political Science' (17%, 10), 'Other' (12%, 7), 'Linguistics' (10%, 6), Anthropology' (7%, 4) and 'History' (5%, 3).

Discipline

Impact

Components of Impact

The most common components of impact include 'Stringent conclusions' (18%, 206), followed by 'Reliable sources of contents' (17%, 198), 'First-hand experience' (15%, 168), 'Use of statistics' (13%, 149), 'Reputation of experts' (11%, 126), 'Style' (8%, 87) 'Quantitative assessment of risk' (7%, 80), 'Remuneration of experts' (5%, 58), 'Advocacy' (5%, 54) and 'Other' (1%, 11).

Reuse of cultural expertise

Usefulness

The most common response to the question regarding the usefulness of cultural expertise was 'Moderately useful' (38%, 129), followed by 'Very useful' (24%, 83), then 'Slightly useful' (23%, 78), 'Not useful at all' (13%, 43) and 'Extremely useful' (3%, 9).

Components of impact

Competitiveness

The two respondents indicated that their expertise was competitive because of their 'Competence' (50%, 1), and 'Balance between competence and cost' (50%, 1).

Competitiveness

Balance between competence and cost 50% 1 Total 100% 2

Reputation of Experts

One expert indicated that she/he had been 'Regularly instructed/ appointed as expert for many years'.

Improved Access Database

Regarding the question of the usefulness of a case law database, the most common response was that it would be 'Somewhat useful' (43%, 111), followed by 'Very useful' (35%, 91), of 'No use' (16%, 40). (6%, 16) choose 'Other'.

Competitiveness

Competence Balance between competence and cost

Germany Data Summary