科技的日新月異牽動人類的互動行為，科技產品影響著人們的生活型態，科技無所不在，深入你我的生活，然而，科技變成我們可以用手指頭操作的任何觸碰螢幕時，產品只扮演包裝科技的角色，此時，人們的生活也因科技變得如此生冷，因為產品已經成為毫無感知的媒介。它存在，然而，它與我們的關係僅止於傳達訊息的UI介面而已，不再賦予情感上的感受，由此顯示，大多數的產品都建構於視覺符碼之上，本研究嘗試將觸感裡的溫度覺符碼化，再透過帶入動作開展嶄新的互動體驗，並試圖探索感知與被感知是否提升互動性，並透過實作設計物InTouch 驗證感官的雙向溝通將帶給體驗者全新感受。

互動，是一個相對動作及感知對方的過程，感官使得人類對這個世界有了基本的了解，人類持續接收周遭環境所帶給我的感官刺激。我們感知世界，相同地，世界也被我們所感知著，屬一種動態且同步的相對關係，本研究透過實作設計物InTouch進行研究(Design Research through Practice) ，依感知交錯與溫度符碼兩大主軸設計InTouch，並針對InTouch雙向互動方式進行探索。首先，以探針對溫度進行初探，接續發想及製作未來溫度界面無所不在之概念影片，並舉辦工作坊訪談，於後，將溫度概念依據符號學:觸像、指示、象徵分類及分析，第三階段則邀請三位資深互動設計師進行論述設計(discource design)，最後，於五口設計展展出(Showroom)，結果顯示，有別於現今大量化的視覺符號，溫度符碼確實帶給人們更深層的感受。

Technology is everywhere in our life, emerging in our daily practice and shaping the life we all live in. However, technoloy is not only the interface we touch such as the screen of a smart phone or the tools carrying messages, but also the new material we could sense and feel. How do people commmunicate via these installations? Behind the visual icon on the screen, there is no more sensible feedback and tangible connection, that is to say, all we have is the cold screen. Even worse, technology closes the other sensations, only vision left. People get used to living in the world built on visual semiotics, however, we articulate to bring back the value of relationship between people through haptic sensation and build up thermo-semiotics system under the movement of people behavior.

With visual feedback serving as a major output of current interaction through Internet, we aim to explore how alternative sensory output can enrich the experience of mediated social connection. Thoughtfully making design choices, we deliver an artifact called InTouch to address the qualities we are interested in. InTouch is made of iron case with ark wooden frame and elastic Lycra. By pressing a link, it can express her consideration for a friend. When pressed, the color changes from blue to red, while raising the temperature on a friend's device. One movement triggers two senses, namley touch and vision, forming perceptual- crossing as perceiving while being perceived.
Through delivering InTouch, could we enhance the interaction through perceiving while being perceived? Could two-way communication create new user experience ?

Interaction, a dynamic synchronous process ongoingly senses others as well as the world, at the same time, the whole world is also sensed through our sensations. The methods are below: First, we did some temperature probing, and then made thermo-semiotics video to present the concept of ubiquitous thermo-interface in the future, after that, we held a workshop and concluded by three senior interaction designers with discursive design approache. Finally, InTouch was delivered in iiiii design exhibition (showroom) and publicly discussed. By doing design research through practice which presented the artifact InTouch, we draw a blueprint of thermo-semiotics instead of visual symbols in the future. In the design process, we regard temperature as a material which stimulates our deep feelings back with our thermal sensation.

Arnall, T., & Martinussen, E. S. (2010). Depth of Field Discursive design research through film. FORMakademisk, 3(1), 100-122.
Brave, S., & Dahley, A. (1997). inTouch: a medium for haptic interpersonal communication. CHI'97 extended abstracts on Human factors in … (pp. 363-364).
Chuang, Y.-L., Chiu, L.-Y., Hu, J.-C., Chang, G., Kao, H.-L., Lin, T.-Y., Huang, K.-S., Chang, L.-E., Liang, R.-H., Kan, T.-W., Yang, L.-T., Tsai, S.-Y. 2012. Demo hour. interactions 19, 4 (July 2012), 6-7.
Deckers, E. J. L., Levy, P., & Wensveen, S. (2012). Designing for perceptual crossing: applying and evaluating design notions. International Journal of Design, 6(3), 41-55.
Deckers, E. J. L., Wensveen, S., Ahn, R., & Overbeeke, K. (2011). Designing for perceptual crossing to improve user involvement. Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’11 (p. 1929). ACM Press.
Fishkin, K. (2004). A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.
Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. interactions.
Horev, O. (2006). Talking to the hand – The interactive potential of shape- behavior in objects and tangible interfaces. Design and semantics of form and movement. DeSForM2006.
Hummels, C., Overbeeke, K. C. J., & Klooster, S. (2007). Move to get moved: A search for methods, tools and knowledge to design for expressive and rich movement-based interaction. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing (Vol. 11, pp. 677-690).
Koppel, M. A. J. t., Walmink, W., Amiralis, Z., Ruiter, H. J., Gennip, D. A. P. v.(2005). Semotion: mediating urgency through mechanical movement. In Loe Feijs, Steven Kyffin, Bob Young. Design and semantics of form and movement. DeSForM Programme. (November 2005., pp. 103-109).
Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redstrom, J., & Wensveen, S. (2013). Design Research Through Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, 56(3), 262-263.IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION (2013).
Lenay, C. (2010). It’s So Touching ”: Emotional Value in Distal Contact. Methods, 4(2), 15-25.
Liang, R.-H., Chang, W-M., Kao, H-L., Lin, T-Y. 2013. “InTouch: Crossing Social Interaction with Perception," The HCI International 2013 Conference Proceedings, Nevada, July 21-26, 2013. also in (Aaron Marcus, Ed.) Design, User Experience, and Usability. User Experience in Novel Technological Environments, Vol. 8014, pp. 306-315, Springer Berlin Heidelberg. (ISBN: 978-3-642-39237-5) (EI)
Light, A. (2006). Adding method to meaning: A technique for exploring peoples' experience with technology. Behaviour & Information Technology.
Marti, P. (2010). Perceiving While Being Perceived. International Journal of Design, 4(2), 27-38. NATL TAIWAN UNIV SCI & TECHNOL.
Mercuri, R. I. A. (2005). Technology as Experience. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.
Petrelli, D., Whittaker, S., Hoven, E. V. D. (2009). Making History: Intentional Capture of Future Memories.
Vallgarda, a, & Sokoler, T. (2010). A material strategy: Exploring material properties of computers. International Journal of Design, 4(3), 1-14.
Wensveen, S. A. G., Djajadiningrat, J. P., & Overbeeke, C. J. (2004). Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward. Designing Interactive Systems, 177-184. ACM Press.
Wensveen, S., Overbeeke, C. J., & Djajadiningrat, T. (2002).
Push me, shove me and I show you how you feel: Recognising mood from emotionally rich interaction. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 335-340). New York: ACM.
中文文獻
Rheingold, H. (2004)。聰明行動族:下一場社會革命，第四章節，有器物知覺的年代，初版(張逸安譯)。台北市:聯經。
林岑縈, 梁容輝, "感知交錯之互動設計-以InTouch為例", 17th CID Annual Design Conference, 中華民國設計學會第17屆設計學術研究成果研討會, 台中, May 26, 2012.
林寶蓮（2002）。造型之視覺與觸覺意象研究─以塑膠容器型態為例。銘傳大學設計管理研究所碩士論文。
原研哉（2004），HAPTIC，Tokyo：朝日新聞社。
原研哉（2005）。設計中的設計。台北市：磐築創意出版。蕭舒駿 (2011)。
原研哉（2007），SENSEWARE，Tokyo：朝日新聞社。
莊安祺譯（2007）。感官之旅。台北市：時報文化。
溫顓豪 (2011)。轉換操作記憶之設計創作。未出版之碩士論文，國立台灣科技大學設計研究所，台北市。
蔡承諭（2004）。視、觸覺之形態與材質對產品意象影響研究。國立雲林科技大學工業設計碩士論文。
諾曼（Norman, D. A.）（2007）。設計日常生活：如何選擇安全好用的日常生活用品。（卓耀宗譯）。台北市：遠流。
魏伯倫 (2009)。觸覺記憶之創作研究。東海大學工業設計研究所碩士論文。
蕭舒駿（2001）感官經驗之統合之設計創作。未出版之碩士論文，國立台灣科技大學設計研究所，台北市。