1.1. Tangible interfaces in controlling music playback

The evolution of music playback has been significantly influenced by technological advancements, leading to the development of innovative interfaces that enhance user interaction. Tangible interfaces, which allow users to manipulate physical objects to control digital music, have gained attention for their potential to provide engaging and intuitive experiences. This literature review explores the various designs, applications, and implications of tangible interfaces in music playback, highlighting their impact on user engagement, emotional connection, and social collaboration.

Tangible interfaces in music playback encompass a variety of interaction methods, including knobs, sliders, and physical objects that alter audio parameters. Johnson et al. (Reference Johnson2011) describe how these interfaces leverage physical manipulation, allowing users to engage in a more hands-on manner compared to traditional touchscreens. Studies suggest that such interactions enhance engagement, as they provide immediate tactile feedback and a sense of agency (Hornecker & Buur, 2006).

The literature indicates that tangible interfaces can significantly enhance user engagement with music. For instance, Leite et al. (2016) found that users reported higher levels of enjoyment and satisfaction when interacting with tangible controls. This engagement is attributed to users’ ability to conduct playful and exploratory movements while controlling playback, fostering a deeper connection to the music itself (Reference Blythe, Monk and OverbeekeBlythe et al., 2008). Researchers, such as Holmquist et al. (Reference Holmquist2005), emphasize that these interactive elements allow for a more immersive listening experience, bridging the gap between physical and digital realms.

Tangible interfaces also play an essential role in facilitating emotional connections to music. Studies by Tijs et al. (2015) demonstrate that users experience heightened emotional responses when controlling playback through tangible means, as the physical interaction creates a more sensory-rich experience. The embodiment of control enables users to resonate with the music on a personal level, contributing to a more profound emotional engagement. Tangible interfaces are particularly effective in promoting social interaction and collaborative music experiences. Brands et al. (Reference Brands and Farnell2017) describe how shared tangible interfaces encourage group engagement, allowing multiple users to manipulate the same controls simultaneously. This collaborative aspect not only enhances the social experience but also fosters communication and interaction among users, making music playback a communal activity (Reference Farnell, Hornecker and LeiteFarnell et al., 2016). Such environments have been identified as beneficial for educational contexts, where group learning and creativity can flourish (Reference KatzKatz et al., 2018).

The effectiveness of tangible interfaces in controlling music playback is also contingent upon thoughtful design. Key principles identified in the literature include usability, aesthetic appeal, and the provision of clear feedback (Wagner & Hornecker, 2016). However, challenges exist, such as ensuring intuitive interaction and addressing the potential for over-complication in interface design (Reference KjeldskovKjeldskov et al., 2015). Designers must balance the physical characteristics of tangible controls with usability to create meaningful user experiences. Recent advancements in technology have further enriched the possibilities of tangible interfaces in music playback. The integration of sensors, mobile devices, and wireless connectivity allows for dynamic interactions, enabling users to engage with music in new and innovative ways (Ranjan et al., 2020). These technological advancements have expanded the applicability of tangible interfaces, making them suitable for a wide range of environments and user contexts.

In summary, the literature demonstrates that tangible interfaces significantly enhance the experience of controlling music playback by promoting user engagement, fostering emotional connections, and facilitating social collaboration. While design principles and technological integration present opportunities for innovation, ongoing challenges must be addressed to optimize user experience. Future research should explore long-term user interactions, preferences, and the impact of emerging technologies on tangible interfaces in music playback, solidifying their role in the evolving landscape of music consumption.

1.2. Aesthetic interaction as music player experience

To measure the influence of differing music player experience we turn towards the literature on aesthetic interaction. The aesthetic experience accompanies both cognitive and emotional processes; the experience consists of aesthetic judgment and emotions (Kant, 1790). Aesthetic experience is not just about pleasure from visual perception of an object. Desmet (2007) defined aesthetic experience that indicates a product’s features to satisfy our sensory modalities. Looking into definitions of aesthetic experience in more detail, the object of beauty is not seen as a tool for satisfaction of bodily needs, but rather pleasures of the mind as a provocation of higher-level pleasures (Marković, 2012). Therefore, aesthetic experience is considered beyond “looks good” interaction between user and artifact to the extent “feels good” (Hashim, Noor, & Adnan, 2009). Nonetheless, the focus of the design process is mostly on the aesthetics of appearance and on the creation of artifacts that are attractive and pleasurable from that perspective (Locher, Overbeeke, & Wensveen, 2010).

As a result, and as an unusual event, the music player experience has the potential for creating unique aesthetic experiences in the sense that it does not frequently happen. Based on Rampino’s (2011) definition of Aesthetic - an added value to an artifact, this study adopts the concept of ‘aesthetic’ for application in packaging design to add value in unboxing experiences through aesthetic interaction.

However, the use of aesthetic interaction as means to explore the music player experience is complicated by the vagueness of the term. ‘Aesthetic’ is often used to describe a product’s visual appearance. As an attempt to distinguish visual aspects from aesthetic interaction. Locher (2010) defined aesthetic interaction as the aesthetics of interactive systems, which implies that aesthetics is tightly connected to context, use and instrumentality. In addition, the term “interaction aesthetics” refers to “the qualities of a design that lead to the feelings, emotions, and the behaviors that result from these more bodily types of interactions” (Eden, 2010). In this sense, the aesthetics of interaction do not have tangible properties because the definition emphasizes that the aesthetics is not intrinsic to the artifact itself, but to the way people experience it (Reference Lim, Stolterman, Jung and DonaldsonLim et al., 2007). In this sense, the nature of the aesthetic interaction emerges from a relationship between the user (i.e. their past experiences, expectations and cultural frame of reference) and the product (its characteristics, forms and materials for example). In the current study, we focus upon differences in the unboxing experience and implications for the nature of the aesthetic interaction. At the same time limiting the influence of the user through a repeated measures design.

Moreover, the focus on human-product interaction has shifted from user’s behavior and cognition to user’s affective experience (Desmet & Hekkert, 2007). Emotional functions of the product have emerged as an important factor for designers to consider beyond fulfilling functional requirement. In addition, although design for positive emotion is the main goal of designing these days, it is not sufficient for designers only to rely on their intuition and personal sensitivities. Instead, they need to understand what emotions could be experienced, knowing that these may be different from their own (Desmet & Schifferstein, 2012). Likewise, there have been many attempts to examine aesthetic interaction and its attributes. For example, it is defined as the dynamic, ongoing interaction between the artifact itself and the user’s cognitive structures (Locher et al., 2010).

From the interaction design domain, four aspects were defined in a case study on user interaction in website usage - the perceived usefulness, ease of use, hedonic quality and visual attractiveness (Mahlke, 2002). Apart from visual interaction between people and products, Desmet (2008) also suggested five elements of interaction dimension: Force, Sound, Motion, Texture, and Performance. Djajadiningrat et al. (Reference Djajadiningrat, Wensveen, Frens and Overbeeke2004) sees product appearance in the context of interaction design as the way in which objects appeal to our senses and motor skills, introducing three factors that play a role in aesthetics of interaction (Table 1). Freedom of interaction implies that a user can express herself in the interaction rather than following a fixed order or single path. On the other hand, interaction pattern draws out the timing, flow and rhythm that correspond between user action and product reaction, considerably influencing the feel of aesthetic interactions. For Richness of motor actions, operating and manipulating an object is a required interaction between user and product, implying that the way a product encourages human motor skills leads to aesthetic interaction.

Table 1. Three factors that play a role in aesthetics of interaction (Reference Djajadiningrat, Wensveen, Frens and OverbeekeDjajadiningrat et al., 2004)