How To Train Your Drone (HTTYD) is a novel, embodied human-drone interaction demonstration that enables an individual to shape the mapping between a drone and their own body. By demonstrating this system we aim to give conference attendees the opportunity to, not only shape their own interactions with a drone, but to experience being shaped by it. We hope this demonstration inspires researchers to build systems that allow for this kind of mutual shaping. We believe that supporting such interactions is vital to real world deployments of robots as they leverage embodied ways that people can understand robots, their environments, and the people around them.

As robots enter the messy human world so the vital matter of safety takes on a fresh complexion with physical contact becoming inevitable and even desirable. We report on an artistic-exploration of how dancers, working as part of a multidisciplinary team, engaged in contact improvisation exer-cises to explore the opportunities and challenges of dancing with cobots. We reveal how they employed their honed bodily senses and physical skills to engage with the robots aesthetically and yet safely, interleaving improvised physical manipulations with reflections to grow their knowledge of how the robots behaved and felt. We introduce somatic safety, a holistic mind-body approach in which safety is learned, felt and enacted through bodily contact with robots in addition to being reasoned about. We conclude that robots need to be better designed for people to hold them and might recognise tacit safety cues among people. We propose that safety should be learned through iterative bodily experience interleaved with reflection.

We reappraise the idea of colliding with robots, moving from a position that tries to avoid or mitigate collisions to one that considers them an important facet of human interaction. We report on a soma design workshop that explored how our bodies could collide with telepresence robots, mobility aids and a quadruped robot. Based on our findings, we employed soma trajectories to analyse collisions as extended experiences that negotiate key transitions of consent, preparation, launch, contact, ripple, sting, untangle, debris and reflect. We then employed these ideas to analyse two collision experiences, an accidental collision between a person and a drone and the deliberate design of a robot to play with cats, revealing how real-world collisions involve the complex and ongoing entanglement of soma trajectories. We discuss how viewing collisions as entangled trajectories, or ‘tangles’, can be used analytically, as a design approach, and as a lens to broach ethical complexity.

We present mechanical sympathy as a generative design concept for cultivating somaesthetic relationships with machines and machine-like systems. We identify the qualities of mechanical sympathy using the design case of How to Train your Drone (HTTYD), a unique human-drone research product designed to explore the process by which people discover and co-create the somaesthetic potential of drones. We articulate the qualities – (i) machine-agency, (ii) oscillations, and (iii) aesthetic pursuits – by using descriptive and reflective accounts of our design strategies and of our co-creators engaging with the system. We also discuss how each quality can extend soma design research; conceptualizing of appreciative, temporal, and idiosyncratic relationships with machines that can complement technical learning and enrich human-machine interaction. Finally, we ground our concept in a similar selection of works from across the HCI community.

Soma design processes are known to be slow and thoughtful, demanding personal engagement, authenticity and deep somatic engagements with both ourselves and the interactive materials. What happens when such designerly ways of knowing meet with industrial design thinking? Together with IKEA – a large furniture manufacturer – we collaborated to design for better sleep. Based on years of experience and prior somatic knowledge of designing for body awareness, the academic team staged a progression of somatic experiences for a joint one-day workshop. We contribute to interaction design epistemology by uncovering frictions and alignments between two designerly ways of knowing with distinct identities and values. In particular, we critically reflect on how to approach material choices, somatic cultivation and the notion of solutionism.

Through a soma design process, we explored how to design a shape-changing car seat as a point of interaction between the car and the driver. We developed a low-fdelity prototyping tool to support this design work and describe our experiences of using this tool in a workshop with a car manufacturer. We share the co-designed patterns that we developed: re-engaging in driving; dis-engaging from driving; saying farewell; and being held while turning. Our analysis contributes design knowledge on how we should design for a car seat to ‘touch’ larger, potentially heavier parts of the body including the back, shoulders, hips, and bottom. The non-habitual experience of shape-changing elements in the driver seat helped pinpoint the link between somatic experience and intelligent rational behaviour in driving tasks. Relevant meaning-making processes arose when the two were aligned, improving on the holistic coming together of driver, car, and the road travelled.

Soma design is intimately entangled with the politics, not only of design itself, but of bodies. We combine perspectives from soma design, political theory, and Sara Ahmed’s work The Cultural Politics of Emotions, to develop five political provocations that reflect on the politics of soma design and the possibilities and frictions therein. Inspired by soma design’s roots in somaesthetic philosophy, our five provocations are (i) Knowledge and Ways of Knowing; (ii) The Self and Self-Knowledge; (iii) Felt Ethics and Right Action; (iv) The Pursuit of Happiness; and (v) Justice and the Emotional Labour of Transformation. Our contribution intends to foster reflection on the politics implicit within soma design practice.

How To Train Your Drone is a novel human-drone interaction that demonstrates the generative potential of a design metaphor: the umwelt. We describe the concept of the umwelt and detail how we applied it to inform our soma design process, creating an interactive space where somatic understandings between human and drone could emerge. The system was deployed for a month into a shared household. We describe how three people explored and shaped the umwelts of their drones, leading to unique and intimate human-drone couplings. We discuss the compatibility of the umwelt to soma design practice and identify future avenues for research inspired by artificial life and evolutionary robotics. As our contribution, we illustrate how the umwelt as a design metaphor, can open up a generative new design space for human-drone interaction.

Interactive systems have become an integral part of our daily lives, influencing how we communicate, work, and play. Understanding the intricate relationship between humans and technology is at the core of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) research and design. Amid the array of methodological tools available, first-person research methods have emerged as powerful instruments that enable researchers to delve deeply into the human-technology experience. Five years after the first edition of the Designing Interactive Systems (DIS) workshop on first-person methods, this full day workshop invites HCI researchers, practitioners, and enthusiasts to embark on a journey of discovery of their sample of one. Drawing inspiration from the rich tradition of autoethnography, autobiographical design, embodied ideation, and more, we aim to explore the omnipresence of technology in our everyday lives while acknowledging our own subjectivity and positionality in research and design.

We report on the lessons we learned on programming human-drone interactions during a three-day challenge where five teams of drone novices each programmed a nanodrone to be piloted through an obstacle course using bodily movement. Center to the participants' learning process was the eventual shift from the deceptively simple idea of seamless human-drone interactions, to the reality of drones as non-predictable systems prone to crashes. This happened as participants had to first realize, then to deal with the limitations of the drone's resource-constrained hardware. Coping with these limitations was crucially complicated by the lack of appropriate programming abstractions, which led participants to focus on plenty of low-level, sometimes immaterial details, while losing focus on the ultimate objectives. We find concrete evidence of these observations in how participants handled the visibility problem in debugging drone behaviors, applied different defensive coding techniques, and altered their piloting practice. Our insights may inform further research efforts in drone programming, especially in the vastly uncharted territory of human-drone interactions.