have-a-seat-draft

Proxemics in Public Space: Media Technology Projects

Mika Igarashi, Michiel Stade and Sylvain Vriens

Leiden Institute for Advanced Computer Science,
Leiden University, the Netherlands

Abstract groups et c. Privacy goals are obtained t hrough a
behavioural mechanism that consists out of1:
This paper presents an overview of the treatment of
t he concept of privat e and public spaces in design 1) verbal and para- verbal behaviour: cont ent
and m edia technology proj ect s wit h a part icular and style of verbal interaction
at t ent ion t o proxem ics. i.e. the social behavioural
spacing between individuals. 2) personal space: area surrounding
individuals and groups defined by angles
Keywords and distances to others

Public space, privat e space, privacy, personal space, 3) t errit ory: use and ownership of areas and
t errit orial behaviour, social behaviour, m edia objects
technology, design, interpersonal relationship
4) cult ural m echanism s: norm s of behaviour
Introduction regulating the contacts of the members with
others
We define Public Space as consist ing out of m any
privat e spaces. How does our privat e spaces Above behaviours operat e as a unified syst em t hat
dynam ically change in public space? How does one mutually amplify, substitute and complement.
prot ect one s own privat e space or invade ot her s
privat e spaces, as em bedded in our social behavior Julius Fast describes an incident t hat vividly
in public space? Need for physical privacy and illust rat es t he privacy m echanism and react ion t o a
privat e space is inherent t o all hum an beings. This t hreat t o one's t errit ory and personal space of an
need is rooted deeply in our daily social behaviour. individual. Fast and his friend were at a t able
Science has considered t he need in t he design of having lunch, seat ed opposit e t o each ot her at a
spaces and technological proj ect s have invest igat ed t able for t wo. His friend t ook several st eps in
the concepts in various fields. encroaching Fast s t errit ory and personal space in
The paper first ly invest igat es t he philosophical and t his set t ing, from which Fast felt a st range
psychological not ions of privacy. Secondly, it uneasiness but could not t ell what it exact ly was.
discusses t he funct ionalit y of privacy part icularly His friend first laid a cigarette packet just in front of
relevant t o social behaviour in public spaces, Fast while cont inuing t o t alk. Fast found him self
nam ely, personal space and t errit orial behaviour. uncom fort able, but was unable t o define t he
Thirdly, it int roduces how t hese concept s have been feeling. Then, his friend pushed his plat e t oward
incorporat ed int o t he design of public spaces. Fast, which increased t he uneasiness. When t he
Fourthly, it surveys how this idea has been explored friend leant t owards Fast over t he t able, Fast could
in t he field of m edia t echnology. Finally, it details not help int errupt ing t he conversat ion out of
t he background concept of Have- A- Seat m edia anxiety. His friend t hen explained how he had
technology project. demonstrated a basic fact of body language: They
have divided t he t able int o t wo on t he basis of
1. Privacy est ablished convent ion; one half for Fast and t he
ot her for t he friend. This im agined t errit ory should
Privacy is an int erpersonal boundary- control be respect ed and t he ot her's half should not be
mechanism t hat regulat es int eract ion. It is an intruded. By put t ing cigarette packet deliberat ely
opt im izing process t hat seeks t he desired degree of into t he Fast s half, the friend broke the agreement.
int erpersonal dist ance sought at t he part icular As t he friend pushed his plat e and leaned t owards
m om ent in t im e. This is done by balancing bet ween Fast, having his personal t errit ory encroached
1) desired privacy: how m uch cont act is desired at caused Fast uneasiness.2
t he m om ent in t im e wit h t he specific ot her, and 2) I n a public set t ing, personal space can be observed
achieved privacy: the actual degree of privacy when people are st anding in line: t hey do not st and
obt ained at t he t im e. Thus, privacy has both direct ly next t o one anot her, but wit h som e
at t ract ing and dist ancing forces. The st at e of dist ance bet ween each ot her. When t hey st and t oo
imbalance between these two results in an intrusion close t o each ot her, it engenders uneasiness. The
of privacy or isolat ion. Opt im al degree of privacy exact dist ance varies depending on several fact ors
const ant ly shift s depending on t he flow of input such as cultural norms.
from and out put t o ot hers. Privacy is based on Studies of the specific space requirements of people
various social unit s: individuals, fam ilies, social and t he opt im al dist ance in cert ain part icular
com m unicat ive circum st ances have becom e a new
science, called Proxem ics. Purpose of proxem ics is
t o m aintain social order by regulat ing hum an
interaction.

2. Interpersonal spacing in public space Figure 1: Proxim et ry zones for t hose who do not know
each other well
For social behaviour in public spaces, which is a
spont aneous int eract ion t hat t akes place between 2) Personality
st rangers, the personal space and t errit orial The dist ances bet ween different int erpersonal
behaviour are part icularly relevant , cult ural norms relat ionships and personalit ies are described by
playing a m aj or role in set t ing param et ers of t he Ruhleder.7 Anxiet y is an im port ant fact or t hat plays
two. The size of personal space and charact erist ics a role in t he spacing of personal space. I ndividuals
of territories are determined by various factors. wit h high anxiet y level, t ypically int rovert ed, t ake a
great er dist ance bet ween t hem selves and ot hers. I t
2.1. Personal Space3 has been indicat ed t hat personalit y disorder
influences personal spacing; abnorm al personalit ies
Personal space was first researched by Hediger who resulting in abnormal personal spacing.
discovered t hat anim als m aint ain a rem arkably
const ant dist ance bet ween one anot her . 4 Personal M ore M ore Stranger
space is a dynam ic, act ive process of m oving
t oward and away from ot hers, t o m ake oneself - introverted extroverted
m ore or less accessible t o ot hers. Hall observed
interplay of personal dist ance: spacing t hat anim als person person
keep from each ot her, and social dist ance: a
psychological dist ance beyond which anim als feel Intimate 0,40 m - 0,30 m up to
uncom fort able due t o need t o be in cont act wit h distance 1,50 m 0,50 m 0,50 m
others. Hence, personal space behaviour involves
wit hdrawal and prot ect ive react ions t o int rusion or Personal 1,50 m - 0,40 m 0,50 m -
overly close cont act by st rangers, and a desire t o distance 2,00 m 1,50 m 1,50 m
be close t o liked ot hers: at t ract ing and retracting
forces. Personal space is defined as: an area wit h Social/business 2,00 m - 1,50 m 1,50 m -
an invisible boundary surrounding t he person s 3,00 m 3,00 m
body int o which int ruders m ay not com e. 5 distance 4,00 m

Factors in Personal Space

Personal space is influenced by m ult iple fact ors:
int erpersonal relat ionship, personalit y, cult ural
norm s, age, gender, and sit uational elem ent s
among others.

1) Interpersonal Relationship

Hall has described t he m ost im port ant fact s about
t he personal space bet ween people. 6 He
differentiates between four dist ance zones: intimate,
personal, social and public speaking dist ances
depending on t he interpersonal relat ionship
between the subject and the other.

Public speaking from from from
3,00 m 3,00 m
distance 4,00 m

Figure 2: Distances in the 4 proximetry zones

3) Cultural norms
The size of desired personal space is cult ural
dependent . I t is generally agreed that North
Americans needs wider personal space t han North
Europeans, Nort h Europeans need m ore t han Sout h
Europeans, and Sout h Europeans need m ore t han
Arabic population.

4) Age
Regulat ion of personal space is learned and
developed only t hrough social int eract ion, along
wit h ot her social skills and norm s. Ther efore, young
children are unable to t ake regular distance, at
times being too close or further away from others.

5) Gender There are t hree kinds of t errit ories part icularly
I t is anecdotally believed t hat gender influences t he varying in t he degree of perm anency of ownership
size of personal space. For exam ple, fem ales t end and degree of cont rol occupant s have over t he use
t o t ake less personal space from each ot her t han of a place: prim ary, secondary and public t errit ories.
m en. However, t he findings of researches are not
sufficiently consistent. 1) Primary territory
Prim ary t errit ories are owned on a relat ively
6) Situational factors perm anent basis and used exclusively by cert ain
I t has been observed that t he size of personal individuals or groups, being m arked clearly as their
space varies depending on t he act ion t he involved possession, e.g. home.10
individuals are taking and the environment (input
and out put dependent ) . For inst ance, t he desired 2) Secondary territory
personal space is wider when t wo individuals are There ar e t wo t ypes of secondary t errit ories, called
engaging in a conversat ion t han when t hey are home and interactional. 11 Home t ype refer s t o
sim ply seat ed next t o each ot her. Also, in case of spaces t hat t he regular user claim s an ownership,
com m on danger or em ergency, t he size of personal e.g. specific seat ing in a local bar for a regular
space shrinks dramatically.8 customer. I nt eract ional t ype can be classified also
as a group personal space, regulat ing t he use of
7) Number of individuals involved in the interaction area by com m unit y m em bers, for exam ple, st reet s
The num ber of individuals increases t he desired in an I t alian neighbourhood used prim arily and
personal space. For inst ance, when a doct or and a regularly by Italian residents.
pat ient are engaged in a conversat ion, optimal
conversat ion dist ance is bet ween 90 and 150 cm , 3) Public territory
falling int o personal dist ance. When the discussion Public t errit ories have a t em porary qualit y, free
involves several people, business dist ance of 2 and access and occupancy right s t o alm ost anyone.
3 meters is more optimal. There are two types of public territories:

2.2. Territory a) Occupancy by societ y, e.g. st reet s and parks
where individuals have no rest rict ion in access yet
The concept of t errit ory originated in t he are expected to respect social rules.
sociological studies of urban life, beginning in t he
1920s. 9 The not ion of t err it ory is present in our b) Free occupancy e.g. isolat ed beach t hat is open
daily life bot h in language ( e.g. m y place, m y t urf, to almost any use for a limited amount of time.
keep out ) and in behaviour, as described earlier in
Fast s experience. When a territory is encroached, it Lym an and Scot t speak of public t errit ory as
gives rise t o uneasiness, t hreat and aggression. allowing freedom of access but not necessarily of
Transgression t hrough a t errit ory is perm it t ed only act ion. I t is open t o all, yet cert ain expect at ions of
when it does not signify invasion, and when it is appropriate behaviour lim its the freedom , often
done in an obviously subm issive m anner. I n hum an rest rict ed by local social norm s and regulat ion. For
societ y, t errit orial ownership ext ends t o various exam ple, individuals are allowed t o seat freely on
entities including streets, houses, objects, ideas and benches in public parks, however, are not generally
other individuals. The process of the personalization allowed t o sleep t here overnight . The charact erist ic
of t hese ent it ies involves management of mentally of public t errit ory is t hat it does not usually involve
drawn boundaries. Territ ory in public space where ownership or possession, and is cont rolled only by
land ownership does not involve predet erm ined t he right of access for a brief period of t im e and for
superior or inferior relat ionship ( except in case of a particular purpose.
being in a larger group territory, e.g. white man Goffman describes a variety of public territories:12
walking on the st reet of a black neighbourhood).
The first passenger of a public bus does not claim a i) Stall: a public space for which a temporary
larger t errit orial space t han t he second passenger, ownership can be claim ed, that disappears
but t he space t ends t o be divided equally bet ween when t hey leave t he place for m ore t han a
individuals. This equal division of t errit ory is also short am ount of t im e, e.g. t ables in
described in the example of Fast. restaurants, tennis courts.

Categorization of Territory ii) Turn: a place in line e.g. at t icket count er.
Turn is a claim t o an order of use of a
Territ orializat ion can be influenced by: 1) kind of resource, is open t o anyone, has t em porary
m ot ives, purpose and act ion t aken, e.g. sit t ing or nature and must follow certain rules.
sleeping, 2) geographical charact erist ics, e.g.
locat ion and size, 3) t em poral durat ion of t errit orial iii) Use space: an area around an individual or
possession, 4) behaviours t hat m ark t errit ories and a group t hat is recognized as being in use,
action taken against encroachment. e.g. line of vision in an art gallery.

iv) Possessional t errit ories: obj ect s ident ified
as belonging t o an individual, e.g. clot hing
and eating utensils.

Public t errit ories are generally m ore fragile than of m any single chairs of an individual size in t rains
prim ary and secondary t errit ories, being heavily and movie theatres, instead of one long bench.
dependent on inst it ut ional norm s and cult ural
customs rather than preferences of individual users. Figure 3: Spacing bet ween seat s indicat es t he personal
The t errit orial behaviour t hat t akes place in public distance
space is regulated mostly by public territorial rules.
Figure 4: Arm rest dividing one bench into two territories
3. Proxemics in public space design
Figure 5: Mov ie t heat re seat ing consist ing out of m ult iple
The funct ion of proxem ics is t o m aint ain social single chairs
order. Lack of considerat ion of proxem ics in
environm ent al design leads t o discom fort , conflict Due to the fragility of public territory and its
and even t o a high crim e rat e in ext rem e cases. dependency on social and cult ural norm s, t he
Environm ent al designers have been int uit ively prot ect ion of public t errit ory is st rongly influenced
sensit ive t o personal space m echanism s in furnit ure by t he space design m ore t han prim ary and
design, layout s of office and living- room areas secondary t errit ories. Som e phone boot hs have
am ong ot hers. For inst ance, office desks and chairs lit t le sound shielding, som e walkways get t oo
usually place people about 4 feet from one anot her, crowded, and som e t ables in rest aurant s are t oo
wit hin Hall s social dist ance zone, deem ed t o be an closely locat ed. I n t hese cases, t he users can do
appropriat e dist ance for st rangers in a public very lit t le t o avoid invasion of personal space and
environment. Another example is at doct ors offices, t errit ory t han t o ut ilise ot her social behaviour such
where t he doct or and pat ient s converse in t he as verbal and para- verbal signs, e.g. apologize for
dist ance of 90 and 150 cm , a personal dist ance being t oo close, or t o int ent ionally look away. Thus,
between strangers. t he awareness of hum an proxem ics needs in t he
Primary territories such as a hom e are m arked design process of public space is part icularly
clearly as owned by m eans of placing nam e t ags or important.
building fences around it . However, secondary and
public territorialization is m ore problem atic than 4 . Treat m ent of Proxem ics in m edia
prim ary t errit ory, lacking in clear indicat ion of technology
territory ownership. I n his investigation of high
crim e rat e neighbourhoods, Newm an observed t hat The need for privacy has been widely addressed in
one of the key problem s was the design of the polit ical and legal realm s. I n relation t o media
semi- public areas, e.g. hallways, ent ranceways t o technology, privacy concerns are height ened in t he
the buildings and immediate street areas.13 In these design of com m unicat ion prot ocols and net working
neighbourhoods, these places were not easily syst em s in t erm s of per sonal infor m at ion. 15 Thus,
personalized or t errit orialized, t hus not placed t he int errelat ion bet ween t echnology and privacy
under t he surveillance or cont rol of t he residents. has been largely in inform ation m anagem ent.
These places becam e non- defensible t errit ories and Archit ect ure and int erior design has considered t he
t hus vulnerable t o crim e. Car vandalism st udy basic hum an needs for privacy and personal
indicat es sim ilar findings; vandalism occurs m ore space, 16 however has not incor porat ed t he m edia
frequent ly near unt errit orialized areas, e.g. t echnology in t he reasoning and solut ion. There are
abandoned houses, vacant lot s or railroads. 14 Lack som e t heoret ical considerat ion of privacy and
of surveillance, t errit orial cont rol and evidence of personal space in webspace and interface design, as
t errit orial ownership in t he design of public space seen in researches in digit al collaborat ive
influences the social behaviour of t he users. wor kspace design 17 and digit al environm ent al
Solut ion t o such problem would be t o convert such design.18 Ther e are a num ber of proj ect s t hat deal
public areas into clear secondary t erritories by wit h t he at t ract ing force of the privacy m echanism ,
archit ect ural design t echniques using sym bolic
territorial markers.
Public space design plays a crucial role in defending
t he proxem ics order. It indicat es t he size of
personal space and public t errit ory allowed per
person, creat ing a general rule for t he use of t he
public space based on hum an proxem ics needs.
Phone boot hs in public space t end t o have walls or
t ake a form of closed boxes in order t o keep t he
personal space and protect t he t errit ory over t he
conversed content.
The figures below show how public t errit ories for
individuals are indicat ed on public seat ing facilities
by t he spacing bet ween seat s and inst allat ion of
arm rest s that separates seat s in st at ion benches,
and by t he use of consecut ive seat s consisting out

i.e. bringing dist ant people t oget her. However, iCom20
t here seem t o be m uch less proj ect s t reat ing t he iCom connect s personal spaces and blurrs t he
dist ancing, ret ract ing forces of int erpersonal boundary of t errit ories by seamlessly linking spaces.
relat ionship. I n part icular, technological It is a m ult ipoint , surrounding int erface t hat
undertakings t hat assert t he need for physical connect s t wo dist ant locat ions in a non- breaking
interpersonal space appear to be scarce. manner. By const ant ly connect ing separat e spaces,
it creat es a sense of social connect edness am ong
Below present s an overview of exist ing m edia t he users. This proj ect deals wit h ext ension of t he
t echnology proj ect s invest igat ing the issue of part icipant s personal spaces t o one anot her. By
interpersonal dist ance wit h a part icular at t ent ion t o em bedding the connect ion point t o t he surrounding
t he not ion of space. The proj ect s can be largely in a im m ersive m anner, t he pert icipant s share
grouped int o t wo cat egories: Human different levels of personal spaces wit h each ot her,
Connectedness: bringing individuals closer, and creat ing a feeling of connect edness pleasant or
Hum an Disconnectedness: giving m ore distance unpleasant , depending on t he t erm s of relat ionship
between individuals or individuals and machines. am ong t he users and t he closeness of t he point of
camera interface.
4.1. Human Connectedness
Figure 7: iCom
Hum an connect edness proj ect s t hat prim arily deals
with space can be categorized into two: 2) Exchanging territories
Connecting spaces and Exchanging territories.
There ar e proj ect s t hat connect individuals by
1) Connecting Spaces exchanging psychological t errit ories, e.g. Trading
Places, and physical t errit ories, such as Peek- A-
Passage19 Drawer and Habitat.
Passage concerns t he not ion of personal space, and
brings strangers that are usually at a social distance Trading Places21
or furt her to an int im at e dist ance. It is a m edia Trading Places deals wit h psychological t errit ory:
space t hat int erfaces individuals in different cities. personal m em ories and ideas as considered t o be
The int erface is designed so t hat t he st rangers at possessed by individuals, which can be ext rem ely
separat e locat ions int eract wit h each ot her very private. This proj ect enables people t o exchange
closely, alm ost t ouching each ot hers silhouet t es on t heir m em ories, feelings and experience of places.
t he int eract ion surface. This poses an ext rem ely Trading Places is a websit e act ing as a t ravel agent ,
close proxim it y wit h a com plet e st ranger, where users are encouraged t o report t heir
engendering surprise, int im acy and possibly experiences of anot her cit y in Am st erdam . For
uneasiness. Proxem ics holds t hat t he opt im al exam ple, on a rainy day, if you go to this
dist ance between st rangers t o be t hree m et ers or MacDonald s on t his st reet and sit on t his seat near
m ore, 1.5 m et ers even in conversational sit uat ion. t he window and look out t o t he st reet , it feels like
I n Passage, com plet e st rangers are invit ed t o you are in Bost on. Ot her users can request to go
com m unicat e very closely t o each ot her, alm ost on a virtual trip to Boston, and goes to the specified
t ouching one anot her. This breaks t he law of MacDonald s provided t hat it is raining at t hat
proxemics, arousing unusual sense of closeness and m om ent . This sense of anot her space is based on
discom fort . However, t he act ual st ranger is not in t he resist or s experience, lived by anot her user t hat
t he user s int im at e space, but in anot her cit y. This act s as a t raveller. They share a space in t heir
creat es an am bivalence of connect edness and memory, ort he experience of t he space. This
disconnect edness t hat is unique t o t his proj ect , not experience of space is an enot ional and concept ual
possible to experience in everyday life. t errit ory of t he resist or, shared and experienced by
the traveller. In this manner, it can be said that this
Figure 6: Passage proj ect enables psychological ( m et aphysical)
territories to be shared between individuals.

Peek- A- Drawer Below , each group are int roduced and discussed
Peek- A- Drawer enables two individuals to share and with project examples.
exchange t heir prim ary and possessional territories.
It gives a sense of connect ed and com m unicat ion 1) Disconnecting humans
by exchanging t he spaces in t wo drawers of
different locat ions, and virt ually sharing each Proj ect s wit h t he t hem e of int erpersonal
other s belongings. An individual can keep his disconnect ion address the fear of being t ouched,
personal belongings in a drawer space, of which scrut inized and privacy invasion. No cont act Jacket
im age is com m unicat ed t o t he drawer of anot her focuses on physical disconnection, while Please Wait
person and vice versa, t hus exchnaging privat e concerns t he inform at ional disconnect ion: personal
inform at ion about each ot her. The drawer as a information and cognitive attention.
privat e spaceis a t errit ory of t he owner ( spat ial
territory), as well as t he obj ects kept inside t he Please Wait24
drawer ( obj ect possessional t errit ory) . By This proj ect considers t he inside of a person s head,
exchanging and sharing each ot hers t errit ory, t he or percept ion, t o be a psychological t errit ory t hat
users of Peek- A- Draw er ext ablishes an int imate needs t o be prot ect ed. The head- worn device
connection between one another..22 disconnect s t he ext ernal world and t he user by
prevent ing all unwant ed access. The user cannot
Figure 8: Peek- A- Drawer see or hear anyt hing unless t he ot hers swipe t heir
I D card in t he I D scan m achine and have been
Habitat 23 approved t o t alk t o t he user. Please Wait was
Habitat shows anot her exam ple of t wo individuals developed t o prot ect individuals from unwant ed
sharing and exchanging t heir prim ary t errit ories at dist ract ions t hat t akes place in capit alized societ y;
home: in t his case, t heir dining t ables. Habit at is a quest ionnaire about com m ercial product , filling out
piece of furnit ure t hat connect s geographically form s for cust om er profiling, sales person
dist ant people by connect ing t heir privat e spaces, cont act ing you t o sell it em s. These act ivit ies can be
such as a t able in t heir living- room s. Through t his, seen as privacy invasion and unwant ed
separat ed individuals can share t heir daily rout ines com m unicat ion t hat alm ost inevitably t akes place in
and cycles. everyday life. Through t he regulat ion of t he
com m unicat ion bet ween t he individual and t he
ext ernal world, Please Wait act s as a privacy
prot ect ion m echanism , which proxem ics is part of.
The important charact erist ic of Please Wait is t hat it
assum es and provides a st rong inform at ional
hum an disconnect ion as a basis of such
communication control.

Figure 9: Habitat Figure 10: Please Wait

4.2. Human Disconnectedness No Contact Jacket25
No Cont act Jacket prot ect s a person s physical
Proj ect s concerning hum an disconnect edness can t errit ory, i.e. his own body. Thus, t his proj ect does
be largely grouped into three: not concern the idea of personal space; nonetheless,
1) Disconnecting humans it st rongly addresses t he necessit y of human
2)Using t he not ion of personal space in proj ect disconnectedness. When activated, t he j acket
development electrically st uns t hose who t ouch it . I t expresses
3) Project on the theme of personal space t he fear for unwant ed cont act and being at t acked.
This proj ect expresses t he securing of physical
privacy based on bodily human disconnection.

m achine also requires personal space in a sim ilar
m anner to individuals in order to regulate and
optim ize the input and output of inform ation
between oneself and the external environment.

Figure 11: No Contact Jacket Figure 13: Public Anemone

2) Using t he not ion of personal space in proj ect 3) Projects on the theme of personal space
development
Projects on t he t hem e of personal space can be
There are som e proj ect s t hat consider t he need for
personal space, alt hough t hey do not deal wit h t he further cat egorised as assert ing for t he need and
idea as being central to their project concept. These
proj ect s t end t o ut ilize t he not ion of personal space awareness of personal spaces in Man m achine
in interface design.
relationship and Man m an ( int erpersonal)
Head- Tracking for Gest ural and Cont inuous Control
of Parameterized Audio Effects26 relationship.
This is a synt hesizer t hat employs t he concept of
social gest ural cues and personal space in t he a) Man machine relationship
design of t he m an- m achine int erface of a guit ar
synchronizer. As one of it s several social feat ures, Design Noir proj ect s refer t o the social aspect of
t he syst em coordinat es t he dist ance bet ween t he elect ronics, and have t he t hem es of cont rol,
perform er and the cam era in order to prevent personal space and subversion. I t addresses t he
personal space int rusions and t o ensure t he user relat ionship and cult ural int eract ion bet ween m an
comfort. This proj ect at t em pt s t o im prove m an- and elect ronic devices. The invasion of everyday
m achine int erface by incorporat ing social rules int o hum an life by t echnology is addressed in t heir work
m achine s behaviour, respect ing t he personal space faraday Chair. Fried develops t his t hem e further
of t he user being part of it . This is an int erest ing int o t he concept of Social Defence Mechanism s t hat
undert aking when considered in relat ion t o t he prot ect s individuals from unwant ed t echnological
concept of Man- Machine relat ionship t hat will be int ervent ions in t he t echnology prevalent societ y.28
mentioned later in this paper. She argues t hat elect ronic devices increasingly
dist ract and annoy people and t hat t he elect ronics
Figure 12: Head- Tracking for Gest ural and Cont inuous indust ry has had lit t le incent ive t o address t he
Control of Parameterized Audio Effects problem. Her proj ect s concentrate on t he prot ect ion
of personal space from t echnological
Public Anemone27 disruptiveness: invasion of personal space by
Public Anem one is an int eract ive ent ert ainm ent unfamiliar elect ronics, sim ilar t o t he physical
robot t hat keeps a personal space bet ween it self int rusion of personal space t hat t akes place in
and t he audience t o properly capt ure t heir int erpersonal int eract ions. There are also variations
movement. By doing t his, it ensures t he that protect metaphysical and physical privacy.
appropriate function of interactive int erface which
is a sim ilar process for t he personal space for Media- sensitive Glasses29
humans. This raises a quest ion of whether a The concept of Media- sensit ive Glasses resembles
t hat of Please Wait in t he sense t hat it prot ect s t he
percept ual and cognit ive t errit ory inside a person s
head. This is a pair of glasses that darkens the sight
when a t elevision is in view. By doing t his, it
prot ect s t he ideat ional personal space of t he user
from dist ract ion. This proj ect prot ect s t he
psychological and cognit ive privacy of t he wearer,
by keeping t he personal space inside t he
individual s head int act . EyeTap proj ect by St eve
Mann, a wearable device t hat aut om atically
replaces billboard advert isem ent s in sight wit h

mind- calm ing im ages, also gives a sim ilar effect t o
Media- Sensitive Glasses.

Figure 14: Media- Sensitive Glasses Figure 16: Wave Bubble

Faraday chair30 b) Man man (interpersonal) relationship
A concept ual proj ect of a space shielded from
electromagnetic transmissions in a form of a glass These proj ect s can also be grouped int o
cage surrounding a hum an body. I t depict s the metaphysical and physical protection. Dunne argues
current societ y as prevailed by elect ronic Sony Walkm an t o be t he first t echnological device
com m unicat ion, no air around us being free from t hat allows t he em bodim ent of personal space. 32
t he invasion and pollut ion of elect ronic Walkm an allows t he user t o bring t heir own micro
transmissions. This proj ect provides a personal personal space t o urban environm ent , controlling
space where an individual can be prot ect ed from their im m ediat e personal environm ent by m eans of
this invasion. However, the personal space provided music and being undisturbed by background noise.
in t his prot ect is st at ic and except ionally sm all, not
in adj unct t o t he propert y of personal space SpaceMaker33
addressed by Hall as being port able and 0.5 2 SpaceMaker enables t he user prot ect his personal
m et ers wide around t he individual. This proj ect can space by concent rat ing on his own bodily presence
be considered t o be prot ect ing t he physical privacy in a chaot ic environm ent . I t produces m usic and
of the user. light based on t he user s biological inform at ion such
as heart beat . This concept is sim ilar t o what Sony
Figure 15: Faraday Chair walkm an enables t he users: creat e and bring
around one s own sm all world regardless of his
Wave Bubble31 environment in order t o prot ect t he individual s
Wave Bubble is a m obile- phone- looking device t hat inner psychological personal space.
act s as RF j am m er and disables t he use of wireless
com m unicat ion devices near t he user, creat ing a There seem s t o be relat ively very few proj ect s, if
sphere of silence t hat is four m et er in diam et er. any, t hat focus on t he physical int rusion of personal
This prot ect s t he personal space by prevent ing space and personal t errit ory in t he field of m edia
ot hers t o use elect ronics such as m obile phone, so t echnology. As one of t hese few exam ples, we
t hat user is not dist urbed by loud chat ting of ot hers would like t o describe and discuss our m edia
in t heir personal space. This resem bles st rongly t he technology inst allat ion Have- A- Seat, raising
charact erist ics of personal space as being port able awareness of the need for physical personal space.
and t hat it creat es a personal sphere of four m et ers
around t he individual. This proj ect does secure t he 5. Have- A- Seat
personal space of t he user from unwant ed use of
elect ronic devices as int ended by t he producer, Have- A- Seat is a m edia t echnology inst allat ion
however, remains negligible and vulnerable to proj ect addressing t he issue of t he need for
physical int rusion of ot hers in t he personal space personal space and public t errit ory in public space.
that happens more commonly in everyday life. I t raises t he awareness in t he users about t he
inherent proxem ics needs of bot h ot hers and t heir
own t hat usually rem ain unaware t hrough t he use
of the installation.

Figure 17: Have- A- Seat

5.1. The concept Figure 19: Mechanics of Have- A- Seat
The two sofa consists of wooden frames: one of
Have- A- Seat is a seem ingly norm al sofa t hat deals them has four wheels attached to it and the other
wit h t he behavioural pat t erns that arise when holds the motor. The sofa is filled with polyether
people in a public space try to create some personal foam.
space around t hem . When t here are t wo persons
sitt ing on t he sofa t he sofa 'breaks' apart and t he Figure 20: Sofa construction
t wo seat s ride away from each ot her. As soon as 2) Safety issue
one person leaves t he sofa t he t wo seat s will com e The motor used for Have- A- Seat installation is so
t oget her and again form a seem ingly norm al sofa. powerful that it does not stop when a limb is
Have- A- Seat em phasises t hese behaviours by trapped between the two parts. In order to avoid
enlarging t he nat ural react ion of persons when t wo injury of the user of the system, a thin wooden
st rangers sit down next t o each ot her. At t he sam e panel is installed between the two sofas. When the
t im e t he inst allat ion gives t he users t heir desired wooden panel is lightly pressed, it stops the motor
personal space and so raising awareness of this from moving the two sofas together. There is also a
unconscious desire of the users. button that can be pressed to manually stop the
Have- A- Seat proj ect deals wit h t he int eract ions motor movement.
bet ween st rangers in public space for a purpose of
having a rest on a seat for a lim it ed am ount of
t im e. This falls int o t he personal spacing bet ween
st rangers in a non- conversat ional sit uat ion,
t ypically requiring 18 inches of personal space in
bet ween individuals. The cult ural norm s em ployed
in t he inst allat ion is of Nort h- west ern Europe. The
applicable concept s of proxem ics for t his proj ect is
personal dist ance bet ween st rangers ( personal
space) and public t errit ory ( t errit ory behaviour,
part icularly Occupancy by societ y t ype and of st all
variation. The sofa is divided equally int o t wo, since
t here is no priorit ized ownership of t he bench in
public space: t he first user equally divides t he
bench with the second user, as mentioned earlier as
a characteristics of public territorialization.

5.2. Implementation

1) Construction

Have- A- Seat det ect s t he occupancy of t he seat s by
pressure mats installed on top of the each seat, and
is operat ed by a m echanical force when separat ing
the two seats in case they are both occupied.

Figure 18: Have- a- Seat const ruction model Figure 21: Safety mechanism

It utilizes a drive system that works with a custom 6. Discussion
adapted electromotor and a custom adapted control
box. The motor features a built- in stop mechanism I n this paper, we have explored the idea of privacy
which is connected to the sensory system. and public space, and it s t reat m ent in t he field of
design and m edia technology. We defined privacy
as an int erpersoal at t ract ing and dist ancing force
t hat ensures com fort and social order. Thus, it s
awareness is crucial in design and in social life.
Personal space and t errit ory are part icularly
important in int erpersonal spacing, and it s
application has been surveyed. From the discussion,
it can be concluded t hat in t he area of m edia

t echnology proj ect s, t here are proj ect s of however, m ost of t hese few exam ples concern t he
considable num ber and variet y dealing wit h t he Man- m achine relat ionship or m et aphysical privacy,
inform at ional privacy ( intellect ual and personal but not the physical privat e space. I n t his sense,
information ) and at t ract ing aspect of dist ance Have- A- Seat claim s a unique posit ion in t he
optimization ( hum an connect edness) , however, discipline, raising t he awareness for t he need of
t here are relat ively few proj ect s in t he separat ing physical interpersonal distancing in public space.
aspect. The im port ance of t he separat ing aspect of
hum an distancing can be observed from t he Acknowledgements
literat ure review of privacy, personal space and
territory, and t hus deserves m ore considerat ion. Many t hanks t o Jan Grouve, Leo Nugt eren and
There are a few m edia t echnology projects dealing Ridder BV for t echnical and resource support , and
wit h t he them e of hum an disconnect edness, Maarten Lamers for advice and his wise words.

1 Altman, Irwin, The Environment and Social Behaviour: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding, The

University of Utah, wadsworth Publishing Company, Monterey, Califonia 1975
2 Fast, Julius
3 Also called Kinesphere.
4 Hediger, 1950
5 Sommer, 1969 p. 26
6 Hall, E. T., The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Press.1966
7 Ruhleder, R.H
8 For instance, a train delay or crash, or a flood hitting a village.
9 Park, Burgess, & MaKenzie, 1925; Thrasher, 1927; Whyte, 1943, Yoblonsky, 192, Zorbaugh, 1929
10 Brower, 1965
11 Lyman and Scott, 1967
12 Goffman, 1971
13 Newman, 1972
14 Ley & Cybriwsky, 1974
15 The protection of private information has been a major concern in the development of ubiquitous

computation, networking and communication protocol. An example of studies dealing with this issue in the field

of Computer Science is: Designing for Privacy and Other Competing Requirements by Eric Yu and Luiz Marcio

Cysneiros, 2002
16 Julie Stewart- Pollack and Rosemary M. Menconi, Designing for Privacy and Related Needs, 2005
17 Territory- Based Interaction Techniques for Tabletop collaboration by Stacey D. Scott, 2003
18 Constructing Social Spaces in Virtual Environments: A Study of Navigation and Interaction, by Phillip Jeffrey

and Gloria Mark, 1998 and George Robertson, Data Mountain: Using Spatial Memory for Document

Management, 1998
19 Stefan Agamanolis, New Technologies for Human Connectedness, ACM interactions, vol. 12, no. 4, July -

August 2005, pp. 33 37. Project executed by Joëlle Bitton, Céline Coutrix, Stefan Agamanolis, Human

Connectedness research group, 2005
20 Stefan Agamanolis, New Technologies for Human Connectedness, ACM interactions, vol. 12, no. 4, July -

August 2005, pp. 33 - 37.
21 Marion, Barbara, Anwar, LIACS, Leiden University.
22 Beth Mynatt, Human Connectedness
23 Dipak Patel, Aoife Ní Mhóráin, Stefan Agamanolis, Human connectedness research group, Media Lab Europe,

2003
24 Mann, s., Excerpt from Prof. Mann's Keynote Address at the Virtual Reality Conference in Rio de Janeiro, June

1- 6, 1998
25 Adam whiton, Yolita Nugent
26 David Merrill, MIT Media Lab, Head- Tracking for Gestural and Continuous Control of Parameterized Audio

Effects
27 By Cynthia Breazeal, Andrew Brooks, Jesse Gray, Matt Hancher, John McBean, Dan Stiehl and Joshua

Stickon, Interactive Theatre, 2003
28 Limor Fried, Social Defense Mechanisms:Tools for Reclaiming our Personal Space, 2005
29 See endnote 28.
30 Anthony Dunne, 1999
31 See endnote 28.
32 Donne 2001, p. 45
33 Elizabeth Sylvan