Grand challenges in WaterHCI
Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller

Maria Fernanda Montoya

Sarah Jane Pell

Exertion Games Lab, Department of
Human-Centred Computing, Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia
floyd@exertiongameslab.org

Exertion Games Lab, Department of
Human-Centred Computing, Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia
maria@exertiongameslab.org

Exertion Games Lab, Department of
Human-Centred Computing, Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia
research@sarahjanepell.com

Leif Oppermann

Mark Blythe

Paul H. Dietz

Mixed and Augmented Reality
Solutions, Department of Cooperation
Systems, Fraunhofer FIT, Sankt
Augustin, Germany
leif.oppermann@fit.fraunhofer.de

Northumbria University, Newcastle,UK
mark.blythe@northumbria.ac.uk

Dynamic Graphics Project, The
University of Toronto, Ontario,
Canadadietz@cs.toronto.edu

Joe Marshall

Scott Bateman

Ian SmithMixed Reality Lab, School ofComputer Science, University of
Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
joe.marshall@nottingham.ac.uk

University of New Brunswick, Facultyof Computer Science, Fredericton,
New Brunswick, Canada
scottb@unb.ca

University of New Brunswick, Facultyof Computer Science, Fredericton,
New Brunswick, Canada
iansmith.bwr@unb.ca

Swamy Ananthanarayan

Ali Mazalek

Alexander Verni

Department of Human-Centred
Computing, Monash University,
Melbourne, Australia
swamya@gmail.com

Synaesthetic Media Lab, Toronto
Metropolitan University, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada
mazalek@torontomu.ca

Synaesthetic Media Lab, Toronto
Metropolitan University, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada
alexanderverni@torontomu.ca

Alexander Bakogeorge

Mathieu Simonnet

Kirsten Ellis

Synaesthetic Media Lab, Toronto
Metropolitan University, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada
abakogeorge@torontomu.ca

LEGO, IMT Atlantique, Brest, France
mathieu.simonnet@imt-atlantique.fr

Department of Human-Centred
Computing, Monash University,
Melbourne, Australia
kirsten.ellis@monash.edu

Nathan Arthur Semertzidis

Winslow Burleson

John Quarles

Exertion Games Lab, Department of
Human-Centred Computing, Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia
nathan@exertiongameslab.org

University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona, USA
win@arizona.edu

Computer Science, University ofTexas at San Antonio, San Antonio,
Texas, USA
jpq@cs.utsa.edu

Steve Mann

Chris Hill

Christal Clashing

Waterhci.com, 330 Dundas Street
West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
mann@waterhci.com

Exertion Games Lab, Department of
Human-Centred Computing, Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia
chrishillcs@gmail.com

Exertion Games Lab, Department of
Human-Centred Computing, Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia
christal@exertiongameslab.org

Don Samitha Elvitigala
Exertion Games Lab, Department of
Human-Centred Computing, Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia
don@exertiongameslab.org

Figure 1: A collage of WaterHCI works: a) “Gravity Well” fosters aquatic play through robotics [143]; b) “Growlerboarding” isan interactive icewater paddling video game on a wearable display [87]; c) “Ocean Space Habitat” is a portable inflatable station
to augment lengthy in-water decompression stops for divers [76]; d) “Project Moonwalk” conducted human-robotic cooperative
lunar-analogue underwater trials; e) Extended reality in floatation tanks: “Sensory-reprivation tank” [92] and f) “Fluito” [106];g) Augmented reality under water [135]; h) Playing with “AReef” in public pools [134]; i) “LifeBoat” is a biological laboratory
and psychological profiling station (contained within an off-shore platform lifeboat), visa and passport processing terminus[53]; j) Inside “LifeBoat” [53].

ABSTRACTKEYWORDS

Recent combinations of interactive technology, humans, and water
have resulted in “WaterHCI”. WaterHCI design seeks to complement the many benefits of engagement with the aquatic domain, byoffering, for example, augmented reality systems for snorkelers, virtual reality in floatation tanks, underwater musical instruments forartists, robotic systems for divers, and wearables for swimmers. We
conducted a workshop in which WaterHCI experts articulated thefield’s grand challenges, aiming to contribute towards a systematic
WaterHCI research agenda and ultimately advance the field.

human-water interaction, fluid user interfaces, grand challenges

CCS CONCEPTS

ACM Reference Format:
Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller, Maria Fernanda Montoya, Sarah Jane Pell, Leif
Oppermann, Mark Blythe, Paul H. Dietz, Joe Marshall, Scott Bateman, Ian
Smith, Swamy Ananthanarayan, Ali Mazalek, Alexander Verni, Alexander
Bakogeorge, Mathieu Simonnet, Kirsten Ellis, Nathan Arthur Semertzidis,
Winslow Burleson, John Quarles, Steve Mann, Chris Hill, Christal Clashing,and Don Samitha Elvitigala. 2024. Grand challenges in WaterHCI. In
Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’24), May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA,18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642052• Human-centered computing; • Interaction design;1

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributedfor profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citationon the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than theauthor(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA© 2024 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
ACM ISBN 979-8-4007-0330-0/24/05
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642052

Interactions at the intersection of water, humans, and technology
date back to the invention of vessels and rafts, leading to the claimthat “vessels were the first cyborg prostheses” [85]. More recently,
these have been complemented by a rich array of systems andinvestigations around the coming together of interactive technology
and water, collectively referred to as “WaterHCI” [30, 31, 90, 92, 94].
Early examples of WaterHCI systems include: “SWIM” (“Sequential Wave Imprinting Machine”) used cathode-ray oscillographdisplays for exploring underwater acoustics and collaborative multiswimmer video gameplay [192]; “Aqua-Syntauri”, an interactive
musical water fountain, allowed participants to interact with a

INTRODUCTION

Grand challenges in WaterHCI

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

Table 1: A summary of our Grand Challenges, based on four groupings, and derived from the process detailed in section 3“Process of identifying the Grand Challenges”.
Technology for water
environments

Users engaging with water

Designing water experiences

Ethics around water

Waterproofing technology
Developing materials for
WaterHCI interactions
Water as interaction material

Evaluation framework for
WaterHCI experiences
Supporting human senses inaquatic environments
Sharing aquatic experiences

Designing implicit aquaticinteractions
Designing shared agency
with aquatic tools
Overcoming aquatic
environment constraints

WaterHCI for and as
sustainability
Applying WaterHCI safely

Toolkits for prototyping
WaterHCI devices

Transitions in and out of theaquatic environment

computer by touching water jets [78]; and “Hydraulophone” [95],an interactive musical instrument, required physical contact withwater in order to play it [83]. Recent WaterHCI examples range
from: devices to help rafters navigate rivers [152] and avoid rocks[91]; novel force feedback modalities using water [57, 153]; virtual
reality (VR) headsets for waterslides [10]; underwater camping
tents that provide support for human-robot assistance [76]; to water pumps for interactive wet spectacles based on quantified-selfdata [65, 66] and augmented reality used in swimming pools tolearn about marine life [135].
The aquatic arts tradition has also inspired performance research[140], for example involving the artist submerging in a tank filledwith 17,000 liters of water to perform variations of John Cage performance instructions, including “Water Walk” and “Water Music”[139]. There have been underwater concerts [169], as well as alecture by an underwater wheelchair performance artist [137, 172].
Mann et al. also created WaterHCI devices for other artists to use[84] based on their experiences of introducing interactive showers
in art gallery settings [78, 81].
There are myriad opportunities for interactive technology toenhance water-based experiences and support the many benefits –improved physical and mental health as well as social relationships[127, 171, 176, 177, 183] – that engaging with water can provide.
However, these examples also reveal that HCI has mainly engaged
with water through one-off designs, without a structured overarching research agenda, limiting opportunities to advance thefield. To consolidate ad-hoc research and discovery, we conducteda workshop with WaterHCI experts to articulate the field’s Grand
Challenges, spanning four categories: technology for water environments; users engaging with water; designing water experiences;and ethics around water. Grand Challenges are defined as major
existing or potential limiting factors, and they are used to steer the
direction of future research fields [168]. Our collaborative approach
was inspired by prior work that aimed to advance diverse sub-fields
of HCI via Grand Challenges in: social robotics [175], information retrieval [13], crowdwork [69], humanistic intelligence [104],
shape-changing interfaces [5], human-computer integration [121],and immersive analytics [44]. Table 1 illustrates a summary of ourGrand Challenges, based on the groupings above, and derived fromthe process that we detail in section 3 “Process of identifying theGrand Challenges”.

Overcoming the divide in termsof accessibility to water
Addressing cultural factors

Introducing interactive technology into aquatic environments canresult in unique “in”, “on”, and “under” water interactions (all promoting specific benefits [127]) that are uncommon to normal terrestrial interactions. WaterHCI researchers are uniquely equipped
to address these. For example, in rehabilitation settings, they apply
technical and design expertise to develop devices to make repetitive exercises more engaging and accessible through waterproofing
virtual reality headsets, gamification techniques, and leveraging
water’s buoyancy [150]. Furthermore, they understand the methods to evaluate associated first-person felt experiences of being
in water [56] and physiological changes that occur during aquatic
immersion [12].
As a result, WaterHCI is more than simply an application domain for HCI. WaterHCI offers distinctive opportunities (uniqueexperiences such as floating, tactile sensations, etc.) as well as
significant challenges (skin pruning, drowning, visual and acoustic
distortion, etc.) that span experiences from everyday showering tospace simulation in pools. These considerations demand their own
dedicated research effort to keep abreast of blue economies [184],
epistemologies [59], and the sensorium of oceanic embodiment
technologies [103] to respect that we are made of water, that we
come from water (in the womb) [50], and that we require a lifelong
water-body practice [131] to survive while embracing its many
benefits.
While other sub-fields of HCI can contribute to WaterHCI (suchas wearable computing helping to reduce the size of swimming
devices), WaterHCI has unique hydrodynamic design requirements(such as the need for waterproofing and pressure resistance). In
turn, WaterHCI can give back insights to other sub-fields of HCI,
for example, we believe that “immersion” for VR experiences canbe better designed if we understand the design of immersion inwater better [106]. Furthermore, as WaterHCI allows us to understand interactions with technology in saturation environments, thetranslation of principal insights can also inform the research anddesign of general-HCI experiences for humans in different density,
viscosity, hydrostatic pressure, and specific gravity environments,
such as on mountains [126], underwater habitats [76] and excursion
activities on the Lunar surface [58, 141, 142].
When it comes to the similarities and differences between thechallenges WaterHCI and general-HCI researchers face, we refer toprior work that listed Grand Challenges for HCI [168]. Some of the

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

Florian Mueller et al.

Table 2: Contributions and benefits to expectations, stakeholders, and application areas.
Contributions

Benefits

Expectations

Stakeholders

Application areas

Identification of gaps inknowledge in WaterHCI

More people working in
WaterHCI, advancing
the field and hence more
people profiting fromwater’s benefits
External partners gain abetter understanding of
how projects contributetowards the societal goalof engaging people inaquatic activities
Guiding PhD students inselecting research topics
that advance WaterHCI
as a whole
Prepares industry what
trends to expect

Helps bringing
non-WaterHCI
researchers into the fieldby aiding them identify
where they can contribute
Helps WaterHCI
researchers situate theirwork within a larger
research agenda

HCI researchers notworking in WaterHCI

Research that advances
the coming together ofinteractive technology
and water

External partners, likefunding agencies

Funding applications
that ask forarticulating how
projects contributetowards larger goals

Working on Grand
Challenges advances thefield more thanincremental research
Helps practitioners
anticipate what future
WaterHCI experiences
emerging interactive
technologies can enable
Helps people profit fromthe many benefits ofengaging in aquatic
activity
Helps organizers to utilize
latest developments toadvance their aquaticinterventions

Higher degree by
research candidates such
as Master’s and PhD
students
Practitioners such as pool
operators, aquatic leisurepark designers,
watersports equipment
developers, etc.
End users

Thesis contributions

Larger research agenda in
the form of four Grand
Challenge categories

Grand Challenges
articulation

Summary of Grand
Challenges

Articulation of benefits if
Grand Challenges are
solvedArticulation of relation ofGrand Challenges toaquatic interventions

Motivates HCI
researchers to work on
topics that support end
users
Accelerated
advancements in aquaticinterventions thanks tointeractive technology

authors’ general-HCI Grand Challenges (such as ethics, health, andhuman-environment interactions) are more specific to WaterHCI
and our work may aid in solving them in part (as evident in, for example, our “WaterHCI for and as sustainability” challenge). Equally,some general-HCI Grand Challenges (“Democracy”) have a lesser
specific equivalent in WaterHCI. The same applies to other HCI subfields: for example, “Grand Challenges for Immersive Analytics”[44] asks for “Establishing an Evaluation Framework for Immersive
Analytics” which speaks to our “Evaluation framework for WaterHCI experiences”, while “Assessing Collaborative Work” does notseem to be specific to WaterHCI. As such, we believe that addressing WaterHCI is worthwhile, distinct, and specific compared toboth general-HCI and other sub-fields of HCI. In response, we now
outline our contributions and benefits to expectations, stakeholders,and application areas (Table 2).

2

BACKGROUND

By providing an overview of the evolution of the WaterHCI field,
we aim to establish a basis on which we articulate our Grand Challenges. A few prior research efforts have tried to go beyond one-off
designs and looked at WaterHCI from a more holistic perspective.

Participants ininterventions such as
aquatic rehabilitation,
swimming classes,
surfing therapy [99]Better aquatic
infrastructure

Physical, mental andsocial health andwellbeing
Enhanced intervention
outcomes, such asincreased safety
around beaches

The results included survey work, broader frameworks for WaterHCI design, and community-building efforts such as conferences,which informed the Grand Challenges discussed in this article.
A recent survey tried to synthesize the findings of the increasing
number of WaterHCI publications. The survey (with six of theauthors attending our workshop) conceptualized two dimensions:the first dimension being water as an “opportunity or challenge
for the user”, and the second being water as an opportunity or
challenge for the technology [31]. This led to the articulation offour different user experiences that WaterHCI designers can pursue:“water as delight”; “water as enabler”; “water as challenge”; and“water as synergy” [31]. Our “Users Engaging with Water” category
considers various modes in which designers can engage with water
to facilitate different user experiences.
Frameworks have also been developed to help researchers better
understand the opportunities they have when introducing technology to existing water-based activities. For example, Raffe etal. (with two of the authors attending our workshop) proposed
to consider “six degrees of water contact”, namely “vicinity, sporadic contact, on top of water, partially submerged, floating, andunderwater” [151]. The authors noted that these degrees of water contact affect a technology’s “networking, acting, sensing, andGrand challenges in WaterHCI

state” features. Our “Technology for Water Environments” category considered challenges relating to these features across the six
degrees of water contact.
Prior work also resulted in frameworks relating to the use of water (supplemented by technology) in artistic experiences [7, 81]. The
authors made two arguments: first, that locating the “body aquatic”
in all stages of design is significant to Grand Challenges [70, 155];and second, that a designer’s conceptual choices must acknowledge the agency of water bodies [20]. Our discussions regarding“Designing Water Experiences” touched upon these challenges.
Prior works also tried to facilitate community building. For example, since 1988, the annual “WaterHCI” event [80] has explored
WaterHCI culture, technology, engineering, science, philosophy,
and art. These explorations have led to the development of a taxonomy that focuses on interfaces where water enters the humanversus the human entering water, when technology enters the human versus the human entering technology, and when water enters
technology versus technology entering water. This taxonomy embodies three dimensions along which WaterHCI systems could beplaced, namely: “water+user”, with water as an opportunity or
challenge for the user and vice-versa; “water+technology”, withwater as an opportunity or challenge for the technology and viceversa; and “user+technology”, with technology as an opportunityor challenge for the user and vice-versa. The result is three planes:
the water plane, the user plane, and the technology plane [86]. Our
workshop discussions also considered the three elements of water,human, and technology, and how they intersect. However, with ourworkshop, we tried to go beyond descriptive conceptualizations
and instead aim to inform the development of future systems.
In 2021, a hybrid conference and associated events (which included swimming) identified four WaterHCI challenges: first, water“priveillance”, which involved the consideration of privacy, surveillance, and sousveillance while bathing or using the toilet in anenvironment that might contain sensors such as video cameras[93]; second, “vironmentalism”, which is concerned with the interplay between the environment and the “invironment” in WaterHCI; third, water justice and human rights in WaterHCI; andfourth, reliability, meaning the difficulty associated with getting
sensing and computation to work well when wet or underwater.
Our workshop discussions regarding “Ethics Around Water” addressed the first three of these challenges and our “Technology
for Water Environments” addressed the fourth. Furthermore, a
symposium [92] proposed four challenges for WaterHCI: the aforementioned “priveillance”, fairness (for example, human rights tolimited water resources), technology (for example, water presents
unique challenges such as waterproofing) and health (for example,
positive health benefits as a result of engaging with water but also
dangers such as drowning). Several of our workshop participants
took part in the events above, thus their outcomes also informed
our discussions on the Grand Challenges.
In summary, although prior efforts have produced surveys, frameworks, etc., there is still only limited knowledge that could forma basis for a future research agenda. As such, we aim to begin
answering the research question: “What are the Grand Challenges
that WaterHCI is facing that could form a basis for a future research
agenda?” Without knowing what the Grand Challenges are, wehave limited chances to solve them. In contrast, with an articulation

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

of Grand Challenges, we have a basis for a future research agendathat could begin solving them. Ultimately, this will help drive theWaterHCI field forward.

3

PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING THE GRAND
CHALLENGES

This section outlines our process, inspired by prior works that also
aimed to articulate Grand Challenges for an HCI sub-field: shapechanging interfaces [5], human-computer integration [121], andimmersive analytics [44].

3.1

Participants

During a premier HCI conference, 17 participants (Table 3) took
part in a workshop. Participants were recruited through the websiteof the HCI conference. We also designed our website and promoted
the workshop widely on HCI-relevant e-lists and socials as well as
through word of mouth. Potential applicants had to write a position
statement that included their aquatic background, their personal
experiences with the interaction between water and technology, anda discussion on water-based systems that they have worked on or
are aware of in industry or research. This statement also needed toinclude images that illustrated their positive or negative experienceswith water. The workshop spanned 2 days, lasting in total 6.5 hours
plus regular breaks, with an additional asynchronous mapping
activity of prior water-based systems in between. Participants had
to register for at least one day of the conference and pay for theworkshop registration. There was no compensation provided.
We chose a workshop format based on prior work that also
used a workshop to arrive at Grand Challenges [5, 44]. Alternative
formats are possible, such as seminars [121] or reflection [13], however, we leave these for future investigations to complement ourwork. Our participants have had experience designing, evaluatingor analyzing WaterHCI systems, and several are leaders in the field,with expertise spanning augmented reality in water, aquatic art,
toolkit design for water, and augmented human in water. In particular, they had designed underwater augmented reality 3D games,
studied the effect of water immersion on vection in virtual reality, investigated accessible virtual SCUBA experiences for people
with impairments, designed a platform for artists to create interactive water-based shows via autonomous watercrafts, exploredwater-based interaction techniques that exploit the electrical andoptical properties of water for sensing user interactions, designed
an interactive fountain that recedes when approached by humanhands, invented pump toolkits and designed a harp-like musicalinstrument with strings made of flowing water, amongst others.
The combined credentials included having organized over 20 WaterHCI events, developed more than 30 WaterHCI systems andwritten over 40 papers on WaterHCI. This was supplemented bytheir backgrounds such as a commercial occupational diver, a PADI
dive master, an experienced underwater photographer, sailing withblind sailors over large distances, and rowing across oceans. The
participants possessed varying levels of water competence, too,with two non-swimmers and fifteen with swimming abilities. The
participants’ personal water experiences included water polo, underwater hockey, surfing, wing foiling, stand-up paddle boarding,and kayaking among others.

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

Florian Mueller et al.

Table 3: Participant demographics: participant; age; gender (female, male, non-binary, self-described); work experience inyears; WaterHCI experience in years; WaterHCI experience domains; disciplinary background; affiliation: academia (uni),
industry, or both; country.
#Age

Gen- Expeder rience

WaterHCI
experience

WaterHCI experience domains

Disciplinary background

Affiliation

Country

1

43

m

19

1

Accessibility, sensing and sensors

Uni

AU

2

34

f

15

1

Literature review

Uni

AU

3

41

m

20

5

Aquatic virtual reality

Both

USA

4

52

m

29

20

Uni

USA

5

47

f

17

2

Uni

CA

6

-

f

43

23

Both

AU

7
8

52
29

f
f

25
6

4
2

HCI for underwater habitats & diving,art/installations
Water-based interactions, water
spectacles, interactive fountains,water-based drones
Underwater performance, aquabatics,
undersea analogue
Inclusion
Playful design, virtual environments,
biosignals

Uni
Uni

AU
AU

9

61

m

30

25

Tangible computing, accessibility,
computational toolkits
Swimming, diving, sports
development
Virtual reality, augmented reality,
mixed reality
Affective & context-aware computing,learning sciences, creativity researchTangible & embodied interaction,interactive surfaces, embodied
cognition, creativity & expression
Human performance, live art,
commercial diving, human factors
Accessibility
Engineering physics, biophysics,
games for health, virtual reality
applications
Electrical engineering, HCI

Uni

CA

10
11
12

44
29
48

m
m
m

16
6
20

3
2
17

Uni
Uni
Both

CA
CA
DE

13
14
15

45
26
43

m
m
m

20
10
15

2
2
18

Uni
Uni
Uni

UK
CA
FR

16

25

m

4

2

Swimming, waterproofing, cold
Robotics, sensing, swarm robotics
Blindsailing, seamark, wind feeling,
non-visual representation
Robotics, human-water interaction

Uni

CA

17

-

m

25

6

UX, design, theory

Uni

AU

3.2

Discussion process

Interactive fountains, displays,
prototyping tools
Sport, games, boating
Swimming, athletic performance
Underwater AR, mixed reality, game,entertainment, edutainment

Our discussion process (including tools employed) (Figure2 ) was
inspired by workshops with analogous aims [44, 121] where participants were invited to write down before the workshop theirpast experiences with the topic, both positive and negative, to fuelthinking about Grand Challenges early on. The organizers also
shared papers beforehand outlining what other HCI sub-fields havedone to articulate Grand Challenges [5, 44, 121].
The workshop began with presentations about participants’ past
WaterHCI research and the challenges they encountered. During
the talks, participants were encouraged to note down any thoughts
on a shared online whiteboard that could be useful for the articulation of the Grand Challenges. This led to an initial articulationof Grand Challenges and a grouping that were then discussed ingroups before the results were shared amongst the entire cohort.

HCI, mixed reality, games
HCI, feedback design
Computer science, media informatics,
pervasive games, mobile, mixed
realityComputer science, HCI
Computer Science
User experience
HCI, narrative-based interaction,interaction design
HCI

The groups were organized to help give less vocal participantsa chance to have their opinions heard. A representative of eachgroup presented their findings. Then, participants were asked togive names to each grouping and also turn the short post-it descriptions into fuller and richer textual explanations. After an initialstructured draft emerged, groups worked on the individual Grand
Challenges, which continued beyond the workshop where participants arranged their own synchronous and asynchronous online
discussions that led to a further refinement of the Grand Challenges.
This collaborative writing approach was supplemented by editing
sessions where it was decided which challenges were so grand thatthey needed to stay, in comparison to those that could be cut for
brevity purposes. We reminded participants that we needed to
identify challenges that are “grand”, i.e., that are challenging forGrand challenges in WaterHCI

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

Figure 2: Each step of our process and tools employed.
the field and are probably not easily solved with, for example, asmall student project.
We considered prioritizing some Grand Challenges over others,
however, found an ordering in terms of, for example, urgency or
implementation difficulty, not very useful. There was no formalized
methodology for the discussions, but rather, the approach was
discursive and informal, where the quality of the output was afunction of the expertise of the participants. We also discussed
various alternative grouping options to ultimately decide on ourfour categories, inspired by the four categories identified in prior
Grand Challenges work [5, 44, 121].

4

GRAND CHALLENGES IN WATERHCI:TECHNOLOGY FOR WATERENVIRONMENTS
4.1 Waterproofing technology
WaterHCI interactions rely on interactive devices that are suitablefor use in an aquatic environment, i.e., are waterproof. Such waterproofing must prevent electric shocks to protect the device but
also the user, all while not hindering the intended interactivity.
4.1.1 Waterproofing to protect interactive devices and users throughIP ratings. Even though prior work has highlighted that waterproofing is not the panacea for all WaterHCI challenges [30, 31],
waterproofing is still one of the field’s Grand Challenges becauseinteractivity and water do not mix well: if we want to support
interactions with water, we need to consider interactive devices,which mostly rely on electronic circuits. Getting these electronic
circuits wet can produce shorts, which can not only damage thedevice but also lead to injury and even death. One aspect of waterproofing is therefore to keep participants safe while also protecting
the interactive device. Another aspect is to ensure that the device
remains usable and offers the expected interactivity (e.g., traditional
touchscreens do not work well, if at all, when wet).

Unfortunately, “waterproof” is not clearly defined although frequently used in advertisements for devices like smartphones. IP
ratings remain the only clear indicators of a device’s capacity toresist moisture ingress. In general, a device’s IP rating consistsof two digits, occasionally followed by a letter denoting specificmaterials, hazards, or testing scenarios. The first digit between 0-6
indicates the degree of protection from ingress of solid objects (suchas dust or dirt). The second digit between 0-9 denotes the quality of resistance to moisture ingress at varying intensities, angles,
depths, and pressures of exposure or immersion. Ratings that feature an “X” denote that a numerical rating has only been provided
for one of the two main ingress types. Hence, IPX7 will indicate
a moisture resistance rating of 7, but no assigned rating against
foreign body ingress. The ratings widely accepted as “waterproof”
for most general purposes are IP65, IP66, and IP67. However, one
common misconception is that water resistance is “higher” if a
device’s rating is above IPX6. In fact, IPX7, IPX8 and IPX9 relate toa device’s immersion properties, which means that these devices do
not necessarily meet the criteria for pressurized water jet resistance,
while devices rated IPX5 and IPX6 do. Furthermore, there are manydifferent IP ratings that vary internationally; in the UK, IP codes are
assigned in accordance with British standard BS EN 60529:1992, in
Europe, the codes fall in line with IEC standard 60509:1989, and inother countries, the codes conform to EN 60529 certification [156].
These variations make it difficult for interaction designers to source
and compare components.
Fortunately, devices such as smartphones and Bluetooth speakers
increasingly come with an IP rating. There is even nanotechnology
spray that claims to be able to achieve an IPX7 rating when sprayedon phones [73]. However, common interaction design components,
such as microcontrollers and sensors, do not have an IP rating,making prototyping challenging as the researcher does not know
how waterproof these devices are without trying them out, often
breaking them in the process [55].

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

4.1.2 Waterproofing, yet not hindering interactivity. Constructing
a waterproof case might not solve all problems, as there can beadditional challenges of operating terrestrial interfaces underwater. Analogous to the difference between a waterproof microphone
and a hydrophone, there is often a need for custom-sensing, forexample, lidar and infrared depth cameras do not work underwater
without modifications. We note that there are opportunities toutilize marine-grade and industrial technology fittings that work
underwater, including sonar, rubber electrical lugs, pressure-release
housings, and hydrophobic inert biomedical components. There isalso an opportunity to create novel experiences by taking advantage of what has traditionally been seen as technological limitations
associated with water exposure. For example, in a videogame aboutwar, droplets were dripped onto a tablet using a mechanical contraption, making the touchscreen increasingly prone to inaccuracies[101]. These inaccuracies became a feature: the water was coloredwith red ink to remind players of the blood of war, and the increasingly difficult gameplay was linked to the increasing difficulty ofoperating a touchscreen covered in “bloody” droplets.

4.2 Developing hardware suitable for WaterHCI
interactions
WaterHCI devices are enhanced by hardware optimized for use in
an aquatic environment. This hardware should support designing
for buoyancy, robustness and connectivity.
4.2.1 Buoyancy. Buoyancy (the upward force exerted by waterthat opposes the weight of the partially or fully immersed device) is
an important factor in WaterHCI hardware design. It complements
more traditional HCI hardware factors such as weight and size, forexample, with the desire to make wearables light and small. The
challenge is to develop hardware that allows designers to easily
create various levels of buoyancy. This allows WaterHCI devices toeither sink or float (inspired by underwater cameras [9]) as needed
for the interactions that they support. Because light refracts when
it enters water, users can more readily see and interact with adevice that is buoyant enough to float, rather than fully submerged.
Depending on size, and adherence to standardized safety features,a device could also serve an additional function as an emergency
floatation aid (however, should never be seen as a substitute forswimming ability [145, 159]).
Three factors impact buoyancy: displacement, gravity, and water
density. Designers can engage with displacement and gravity byconsidering the size of the WaterHCI device as well as its material toaffect weight. When it comes to density, designers need to consider
the characteristics of the water the device is being used in: Moresalt, for example, would increase water density (often measured bysalinity).
We envisage an opportunity to develop hardware that builds
upon various buoyancy support on demand via gas, for example
through inflatables [157, 158]. These features enable designers tocreate a device that features negative buoyancy when supporting
divers in descending (e.g., functioning like a weight belt), and positive buoyancy to facilitate divers’ ascent (or device retrieval if lost).
Designers should also factor the hydrodynamics that can influence
the user’s experience in and their movement through water. Recent
research in deformable hardware that can change shape on demand[5] could be a useful starting point for such endeavors.

Florian Mueller et al.

4.2.2 Robustness. WaterHCI devices need to be able to withstandthe impacts of harsh aquatic environments, including exposure tosalt, sunlight (UV light), and pressure (pressurized water in the formof water jets or pressure underwater), but also the impacts of often
forceful interactions due to an exerting activity [109, 112, 119, 120,124], such as when exhaustingly grabbing onto a WaterHCI device
after having successfully swum to it. The challenge is to develop
hardware that allows designers to easily create robust WaterHCI
devices while supporting interactivity.
Sodium chloride (NaCI) in water can not only cause electronics toshort out, but also form chemical bonds with different device surface
materials. These bonds are formed immediately upon wetting of
the surface, and they leave a corrosive salt residue that damages
electrical connections and produces equipment faults. However,corrosion is not the only risk. For example, even if a device sensor
is IP67 rated, saltwater can still cause problems if salt residue forms
on the sensor, resulting in erratic data. One way to neutralize thesalt is to use isopropyl alcohol >90% [4].
WaterHCI devices are often exposed to direct or reflected sunlight and associated higher temperatures; these can cause damage.
For example, semiconductors and batteries are prone to be negatively affected by high temperatures, while ultraviolet light candamage LCD displays and plastic device casings.
A device and its electronic components need to be able to withstand water pressure when the device is submerged. Work in thefield of pressure-tolerant electronics [17] suggests that WaterHCI
researchers need to know whether any electrolytic capacitors have
either air or fluids that are susceptible to compression under water. Selecting the right components is challenging when pressure
tolerance is not part of datasheets [166]. One solution might be toturn to marine-related equipment that often comes with pressure
tolerance data, however, these systems are often costly, narrowly
accessible, and closed, hindering prototype development.
4.2.3 Connectivity. WaterHCI researchers face “connectivity” challenges mostly due to wireless hardware being only suited for terrestrial use. Connectivity can be desired in situations where WaterHCI
devices need to communicate with other devices (e.g., to support
the social aspects of the aquatic interaction [21, 27, 28]) or the
cloud (for example, to download security updates or outsource
power-demanding tasks). Wireless connectivity is often preferredbecause cables can produce physical entanglement hazards. The
wireless signals that interaction designers commonly use (WIFI,
Bluetooth) die rapidly in water. Furthermore, commercial cellular coverage such as 5G extends only a short distance from many
shorelines. Research projects such as “Aqua-WIFI” [164] have not
yet progressed beyond the proof-of-concept stage and are hence
not yet readily available; however, advances have been made toreach larger wireless distances [42] and reduce power consumption
[61].

4.3

Water as interaction materialWith respect to prior work that proposed that HCI designers shouldhave a “material concern for interaction” [189], we find that utilizing water as a material for interaction – where the interactivity
stems from interacting with the water itself, rather than with aninteractive device in or near water – has huge potential. However,Grand challenges in WaterHCI

the challenge is the development of technology that allows water
to be treated as a material for interaction.
4.3.1 Sensing water displacement. To utilize water as a material
for interaction, WaterHCI researchers will benefit from technology that can sense water displacement. For example, researchers
might want to know how much water, in which direction and withwhich force, their device or users have displaced because of their
movements. There are not many sensors available that can readily sense such water displacement (mainly sensors that measurewater flow from the plumbing domain, or prototype devices withconstraints on how water can be displaced [23]) and are easily integrated into interactive designs as they are often closed systems.
Kiss et al. described these challenges in their work around attempting to introduce sensors into a swimming pool to guide swimmers[68]. Similar challenges were faced in the early days of ubiquitous
computing that also tried to advance the placement of sensors in
the environment [1]. This was picked up by ubiquitous computing
advocates who have begun to develop suitable sensors to help interaction designers [72]. We hope that similar developments will
emerge that will help WaterHCI researchers. Such work might
benefit from the fact that many bodies of water, especially indoor
pools, are quite standardized. For example, prior work utilized theblack lines featured in most pools that help swimmers stay straight:
the authors have utilized these black lines to improve their visionsystem’s performance [108].
4.3.2 Enhancing the human body’s predisposition to water. To utilize water as a material for interaction, WaterHCI researchers will
also benefit from technology that enhances the human body’s predisposition to water as it makes it easier for the user to directlyinteract with the water. There are already (non-interactive) technologies that enhance the human body’s predisposition to water,such as snorkels that allow people to put their mouth under water
for longer, swim fins that enable divers to move faster, and athletic swimsuits [190] that trap air for buoyancy to help swimmers
achieve faster lap times. We believe that HCI can contribute tothese developments. For example, researchers could learn fromprior work on wearables, as wearable design appears to share similar goals, such as low weight and being always available [79, 88].
However, researchers need to also consider the drag the additional
device might produce. We also note that watersport participants canform very intimate bonds with their equipment, to the point where
the device becomes an extension of their body [167]. Consequently,
researchers could learn from prior work on human-computer integration [46, 110, 121] when it comes to enhancing the body’s
predisposition to water as “integration” research aims for a fusion
between users and devices [111, 114, 121].
4.3.3 Altering the materiality of water. If WaterHCI researchers
had the technology to interactively alter the materiality of water,
we believe that they would be much better equipped to utilize water
as an interaction material. Such technology could, for example,
interactively change the water’s density (affecting buoyancy on
the fly), change the water’s color (via interactively adding ink),
or change the shape of bodies of water on demand (turning theminto shape-changing interfaces [5]). Systems that make use of technologies that can interactively alter the materiality of water are

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USAdifficult to imagine, never mind develop. However, technical advances can hint at such futures. For example, research has enabled
a droplet to freely float in air that users can interact with via anarray of ultrasonic transducers [182]. In addition, researchers haveinteractively moved droplets across a 2D surface via electrowetting(electrowetting alters the water’s interfacial contact angle throughan externally applied electric field) [179]. These technologies movejust one water droplet at a time, which means that futures in which,for example, water in a pool could be interactively moved fromone end to another remain some way off. Nevertheless, stage productions such as those by Cirque de Soleil’s “O”, and Pinewood
Studio UK, have hinted at the spectacular staging possibilities wheninteractively moving large bodies of water [32, 49, 62, 102, 133],
while some commercial swimming pools have incorporated moving
floors or bulkheads to dynamically adjust pool depth or width [2].
WaterHCI researchers interested in such futures could probably
learn from five contemporary areas of research: first, investigations
into shape-changing interfaces could aid with understanding what
technologies might help with realizing the ability to interactively
alter the materiality of water [5]; second, theory around the materiality of interaction could help with understanding how to makesense of such technologies [189]; third, research into “radical atoms”[60] could help with understanding what to learn from materialscience to realize such technologies; fourth, research exchange withSpaceCHI could help in understanding the impact of altered gravity environments on user experience [136]; and fifth, art research
could help with envisioning state-changes in the materiality ofwater (i.e., steam to aerosol, water to ice, etc.) for interactivity, andconceptualizing its performativity [186].

4.4

Toolkits for prototyping WaterHCI devices

HCI research has developed many toolkits [72, 96] to enable novel
interactive experiences. In keeping with this work, we contend thattoolkits could encourage the embrace of WaterHCI to enable novel
aquatic experiences. Although no longer available, the “Pumpspark”[39, 40] constitutes an example of a toolkit for prototyping WaterHCI devices [48], and we note that companies are emerging fromthe sea and space environmental monitoring industries that offer
consumer-level “plug and play” marine integration toolkits, such as
the “Bristlemouth”, that WaterHCI researchers could benefit from[163]. A standard platform for hardware prototyping, a software
layer for applications, and tools for end-user programming, could
complement such toolkits nicely. Prior work suggested that such
efforts could improve prototyping by a factor of 10 in time and cost
[5].

5

GRAND CHALLENGES IN WATERHCI:USERS ENGAGING WITH WATER
5.1 Evaluation framework for WaterHCI
experiences
Evaluating WaterHCI systems is a Grand Challenge, and we now,
through the next subheadings, articulate this challenge using the“why, when, what, . . .” questions proposed in prior Grand Challenge
work [44].

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

5.1.1 Evaluation framework for WaterHCI experiences: why andwhen. A survey highlighted that we have yet to answer the questionof why we would want to evaluate WaterHCI experiences [30]. Is
it to show that we can amplify the advantages of being in water?
Or is it to demonstrate that water can enrich our experiences withinteractive technology? Or are there other reasons? Therefore, we
point out that we have yet to answer the question of why we would
want to evaluate WaterHCI experiences.
Another challenge is that we do not yet have a sufficient understanding of when to evaluate WaterHCI experiences. Evaluatinga WaterHCI experience while users are immersed in water can bechallenging. While evaluating after the experience is often practical,
participants miss out on being able to report on their immediate
visceral response, a challenge that has been previously reported onaround other embodied experiences [122].
WaterHCI is yet to understand users’ long-term engagementwith systems, beyond short-term novelty effects, which can fadequickly [165]. Therefore, we highlight the challenge of evaluating
WaterHCI experiences after long periods of use (inspired by priorcalls for long-term studies in SportsHCI [125, 146]). One of thefoundational issues that long-term WaterHCI studies face is thedefinition of “long-term”. While users of land-based systems can,for example, carry a wearable for 3 months (and be studied overthat period), systems that only work by humans in water are likely
to be used for merely hours at a time.
5.1.2 Evaluation framework for WaterHCI experiences: who andwhere. Prior land-based HCI work has highlighted that when designing user studies, researchers must take into consideration who
the targeted users are and where they will use the system [161].
These considerations have been extensively discussed [25], however, when it comes to WaterHCI user studies, we note that they
have mostly been conducted with participants that are easily accessible, such as students [31]. While our experience indicates that
researchers are willing to involve more diverse participant groups,
practical limitations often hinder doing so. For example, while
adding less confident swimmers to a study might provide new andvaluable insights, safety regulations that favor highly competentswimmers make it difficult to include such participants.
5.1.3 Evaluation framework for WaterHCI experiences: what andhow. Researchers need to know what design features to consider
when evaluating WaterHCI experiences and how these features
can be measured. While evaluation can be difficult at the best oftimes, it can be even more challenging in WaterHCI. For example,
we could ask participants during their engagement in a lake what
design features of a device they appreciate and why. However,
it is hard to conduct explicitation interviews [100] because they
will have difficulty both talking and focusing on their breathing.
Furthermore, the interviewer would either need to swim besidethe participant or use an on-helmet communications system likethose used by wakeboarders and water-skiers [11]. For underwater studies, researchers may need to invest in waterproof paper,hydrophones, underwater cameras, and possibly remotely operated underwater vehicles (ROV) or unmanned underwater vehicles(UUV). Even if interviews are scheduled after the water activity,
they cannot always be undertaken immediately. Participants will

Florian Mueller et al.

often find it uncomfortable staying in the water or even outside because of differences in temperature and want to have a shower first.
However, as most aquatic activities are rather body-centric [113]and produce immediate bodily responses, any break of context orcondition before an interview could disassociate them from thewater experience they just had, thus possibly diluting the richnessof any immersive accounts they could provide. While there aremany individual experiences, there are also shared sensory humanaquatic memory databanks, meaning that there are behaviors andperceptions that have shared cultural, evolutionary, and social traits
around engagement with water [170].

5.2

Supporting human senses in aquatic
environments

Better understanding perception is a general challenge for HCI, andwhen it comes to water, interaction designers are faced with the additional challenge of how to design for the changes to how humans
perceive in aquatic environments. Sensory changes are caused
by pressure-related alterations to the physiology impacting bodily
gas-exchange processes called hyperbaric conditions, extending
to cognitive changes impacting performance, behavior, memory,affecting spatial orientation, navigation, and timing [107]. We focus
on vision, hearing and touch as interaction designers might want
to start with these due to a rich history in HCI to support them, but
we also highlight the need for future work to support other senses
as well as multimodal interactions. We envisage that multimodal
interactions may make WaterHCI more accessible. For example,
prior work suggested that blind sailors benefit from vocal cues,
audio feedback and tactile devices to receive spatial information
during navigation [64].
5.2.1 Vision. When it comes to vision, interaction designers have arich history of utilizing LCD displays. However, this is challenging
in terrestrial-aquatic situations, as water drops on a display makeany information hard to read. If the user’s head is underwater,
vision is initially blurry. This is because water is almost the samedensity as the fluid inside the eye, so underwater light barely bends
as it enters the eye [154]. In addition, water causes a scattering oflight between the display and the user, resulting in lower contrast.
Furthermore, pollution, turbidity, viscosity and even temperature
impact how people see what is shown on a display. In response,
divers wear masks, and masks make objects underwater appear
33% bigger (34% in saltwater) and 25% closer than they actually are[3]. The “Oyster” helmet prototype, filled with ocean water, magnified these phenomena [141]. Pincushion distortion and lateralchromatic aberration are also noticeable. Interactively controllable
lens corrections could offer ways to address such challenges, supporting vision above and under water equally [173]. Underwater
head-mounted displays can therefore benefit from modified lenses[10].
5.2.2 Hearing. Another popular sense engaged with in HCI is hearing using speakers. Sound travels in water about 4 times faster andlonger distances than in air. Humans can hear up to 200,000 Hz
underwater, which is near ultrasonic range, and 10x greater thanhearing ranges on land, yet the subjective impression is that hearing is much reduced underwater [149]. If the head is submerged,

Grand challenges in WaterHCI

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

sound localization is initially more difficult, as the brain defaults
to the difference in loudness and timing of the sound detected byeach ear, but this is severely hindered because of the sound’s fastertravel time and because the sound is perceived simultaneously. Nevertheless, the user can adapt and learn to localize and hear wellover time. The different hearing experience has been turned into afeature by a wellness spa that provides visitors with a soundscape
only accessible if floating in a pool with ears underwater, delivered
via underwater speakers [74]. There are also examples of an underwater opera [54] as well as in-water and across-water operas[147].

internet, is in a freshwater pool, experiencing different buoyancies,
smells, currents, visibilities, etc. Interesting questions arise, suchas: how do we communicate a range of sensorium and sensations
across participants if we want to foster a deeper understandingof each other’s aquatic circumstances? What if one participant
is in a large body of water, such as the ocean, while their friend
only has a bathtub? Prior HCI work around “balancing” embodied
activities between differently abled participants, so that all of themcan engage on an even footing, through the use of dynamicallyadjusting the difficulty level for participants [6], might be usefulhere.

5.2.3 Touch. Touch as input modality has become ubiquitousthanks to the touchscreen. However, as most touchscreens use
capacitance sensing, they do not work underwater. Systems haveemerged that use optical sensors instead [148] or project “Moonwalk 2016” [188] used a pneumatic push-button from a small air
cylinder to self-inflate and a transparent membrane pillow aroundthe screen, thus creating an air-pocket lens for better viewing content on the screen and for differentiating the gloved user interactions from the pressure of the surrounding water [178, 180]. We
point out that water affords the opportunity to provide haptic feedback through pneumatics and hydrodynamics while water pumps
can result in engaging experiences as seeing water being jetted outof a nozzle can be a spectacle [66, 67] and feeling the sensationof the water hitting one’s skin can make for an intriguing experience [57]. Furthermore, interaction designers can harness water
turbulence, eddies, and currents to aid experiences [140] or drift
light-weight participants [135]. This contrasts with using jets of air
in land-based systems, where the air turbulence is often not very
visible, does not reach far, nor supports full-bodied propulsion.

5.3.2 Supporting different WaterHCI systems. Another issue is how
to support sharing WaterHCI experiences if participants have different WaterHCI systems. For example, what if one participant
has a device that allows diving deep, whereas another participant has a different system that does not support the same depth?
How do the two systems make the participants aware so that they
do not “blindly” follow each other into too deep waters? This
example highlights that the appeal of social support in interactive systems [117], such as demonstrated in social exertion games[112, 115-118, 123, 187], can facilitate participants entering a flow
state [26, 36, 97, 174] that is so engrossing that users might forgetbasic safety procedures, hence WaterHCI designers should always
consider safety first.

5.2.4 Smell. Water odor varies, ranging from appealing smells ofhigh-end drinking water to rancid aromas of sewage canals (forexamples of engagement with such smells, see [16]). When people
are underwater, their epiglottis closes off to prevent getting water
into the lungs and disables the olfactory sense. We could envision
the use of full-face snorkeling masks as a way to control smell by
releasing a scent within the mask, eliminating some of the challenges associated with smell-based interfaces with water [138, 194].
However, designers should know that breathing any substance underwater comes with associated hazards: the particulate matterof any scent transmitted via air or gas aerosols is compressed andinhaled at partial pressure. Any air mix and other substances underwater concentrate both the toxicity and absorption rates of thesubstance [29].

5.3

Sharing aquatic experiences

Engaging with water is very often a social activity. However, whenit comes to interactive technology support, there are not many
examples beyond apps, however, notable exceptions are: an AR
snorkeling experience that has been enjoyed in groups [135] and afloatation experience that allows participants in different floatation
tanks to sing together via internet-connected microphones [89].
5.3.1 Supporting different water exposures. One issue is how to
support users with different water exposures. For example, one
participant might be in the ocean, when another, connected over the

5.4

Transitions into and out of the aquatic
environment

Users of WaterHCI systems must often cope with transitions intoand out of the aquatic environment. Most users will be familiar
with on-land interaction devices, modalities, and techniques; however, they will likely be different with WaterHCI systems; hence
users will need to switch if coming from land-based interactions
to the aquatic domain and back. While prior research has alreadyinvestigated transitions with traditional interfaces [33] and also
unconventional interfaces [14], WaterHCI systems bring about
new, more complex transitions as water makes hearing, seeing, andtouching “strange” [75] (as outlined in our “senses” Grand Challenge). This can affect any interaction fluidity [43], for example,
when a swimmer uses a touchscreen on their phone to set up theirtraining plan before entering the pool, but then cannot use it in
the pool and therefore instead may use their augmented swimming
goggles’ buttons, only to switch back when exiting the pool toanalyze the training results.
To aid such transitions, future WaterHCI systems may seek tolower any entry barriers. One response could be to develop WaterHCI systems that also work on land; this could be facilitatedby interfaces that replace traditional mouse and keyboard interactions [113]. The use of augmented reality in pools [135] is anotherinspiring example that could lead to AR headsets or swim boards
that support wearers both above and underwater. However, these
unconventional interfaces raise the issue of discoverability [129], as
it might not always be obvious what interaction possibilities they
have. We agree with prior suggestions that a unified interaction
vocabulary could be a step forward in reducing the learning curvefor WaterHCI systems and hence make associated transitions easier[44].

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

6

GRAND CHALLENGES IN WATERHCI:DESIGNING WATER EXPERIENCES
6.1 Designing implicit aquatic interactions
As most aquatic activities require the user’s attention and bodily
engagement in submersion, such as performing swimming strokes
to stay afloat, interactions with technology will often not be theprimary focus. Rather, they may operate just beneath the user’s
conscious level. Examples are a smartwatch that monitors a swimmer’s heart rate in the background or a system in a sea kayak thatsteers the boat subtly away from getting too close to dangerous
currents. As such, interaction designers might want to focus theirattention on supporting secondary interactions that make use of
the subconscious [37].
Such implicit interactions have been investigated in HCI before(e.g., see [63, 111, 162]); here, we point to the fact that the bodily
involvement required in many aquatic activities not only makes
implicit interactions a possible alternative input modality, but frequently a necessity. As such, we confirm a prior Grand Challenge
in human-computer integration that already suggested that ourknowledge of how to design implicit interactions for bodily activity
is still limited and holds such body-centric fields back [121].

6.2

Designing shared agency with aquatic tools

We find that many aquatic activities involve some kind of tool, forexample, see the use of kickboards, surfboards, inflatable toys, pool
noodles, etc. [22] We believe that there is an opportunity to utilize
emerging advances around artificial intelligence and actuators togive these tools some agency, where the system can take control.
For example, we can envision kickboards that autonomously change
their shape to guide the user toward a particular swimming style
improvement. Similarly, fins and keels could take control andguide the user towards a better wave or away from danger [19].
These examples highlight how the interaction shifts from the user
exploring the aquatic environment through the technology to anagent-driven interaction where the system explores the world byitself, akin to the difference between driving a car and being driven
by an autonomous car. WaterHCI systems might therefore either
feel like a tool that supports the user in engaging with the aquatic
domain [160], or an agent that acts on their own, with their own
intent (such as an autonomous kayak [181]). “Intentional binding” isa tool from neuroscience that could help evaluate such experiences
quantitatively [15], aiding the design of systems where the user
will think “I did that” rather than “the tool did that” [35].

6.3

Overcoming constraints of the aquatic
environment

Technologies such as VR enable to recreate aquatic experiences onland; for example, see projects that allow “swimming” and “fishing”
via head-mounted displays [47, 132]. Such projects that do not use
any actual water are outside the scope of this article, however, wenote that augmented reality is increasingly used to augment realwater activities with digital content (for example, see the use of AR
to explore virtual coral reefs in the local pool [10, 18]). One issue
that can arise here is that the design of the virtual environment
needs to consider the constraints of the aquatic environment. For

Florian Mueller et al.

example, in a head-mounted display system that allows snorkelers
to explore virtual reefs, the participant needs to be attached toa rope tied to a weight at the bottom of the pool [10]. This prevents the snorkeler from bumping into the end of the pool whentraversing the endless virtual world, however, participants mightfeel as if they are not really moving forward as the rope holds themback. Prior non-aquatic VR work has already acknowledged theneed for innovative solutions to address the constraints of reality[98]. Here, we extend this thinking to the aquatic domain. The“redirected walking” technique has used head-mounted displays toenable participants to traverse a virtual world that is considerablylarger than the physical room they are in [128]. We propose that
“redirected swimming” might be an approach to provide small HCI
labs that do not have space for large pools with an opportunity todesign larger water experiences.

7

GRAND CHALLENGES IN WATERHCI:ETHICS AROUND WATER
7.1 WaterHCI for and as sustainable practice
HCI is increasingly interested in sustainable practices [52]. WaterHCI systems not only need to address power consumption ande-waste problems as discussed in traditional HCI [144], but also
water source, use, waste and pollution. The challenges are therefore:
WaterHCI for sustainable practice and WaterHCI as sustainable
practice.
7.1.1 WaterHCI for sustainable practice. Existing projects employ
serious games to educate people about water conservation [8] andhow to protect marine life [135]. These approaches are initial steps
in using interactive technology to promote sustainability. In the
future, we hope that WaterHCI research goes further and helps to
avoid water waste, reduce pollution, protect aquatic environments
and communities, and save marine and aquatic life while mitigating
the effects of climate change.
7.1.2 WaterHCI as sustainable practice. The WaterHCI field also
faces the challenge of becoming a sustainable research practice itself.
This is particularly troubling when considering that many parts of
the world face severe droughts and water saving is paramount. We
note that most HCI labs are not set up to work with water, hence
provisions to minimize water waste and reduce spilling are often
not in place. Guidance on how to set up HCI laboratories that workwith water would therefore benefit many researchers (such as exist
for other sub-fields of HCI [105]). Furthermore, WaterHCI practiceneeds to consider the environmental impact their devices might
have. For example, devices used in the ocean could easily be swept
away by currents. The result could be that marine life mistakes
it for food, eats toxic materials, or gets caught in it, causing theanimal to die. Furthermore, the harsh environment can cause thedevice to fall apart, exposing any materials such as batteries to leakhazardous materials into the water. As such, interaction designers
need to be careful not to contribute further to the 5 trillion pieces ofgarbage currently littering our oceans [130]. Current efforts aroundbiodegradable interaction device components such as capacitancesensors [77] and logic gates [38] are interesting developments that
could help towards more sustainable WaterHCI practice.

Grand challenges in WaterHCI

7.2

Applying WaterHCI safely

Having people interact with water raises many ethical challenges
about safety that affect researchers’ practices. Addressing theseis an essential part of bringing the field forward. Internal review
boards for studies involving human subjects must be aware of andvigilant with respect to all safety and ethical matters involving WaterHCI. In many cases, academic institutions will have Dive Control
Boards and Dive Safety Officers with the explicit mandate to review
all research involving any form of aquatic activity. Furthermore,creating new forms of interactions with water poses inherent risks
to the person interacting, as the technologies may have unintended
consequences. For example, there is a tendency to grab when feeling vulnerable, or grasp when startled. New devices need to ensurethat human reflexes do not create life-threatening situations.
Another point worth considering is that applying technology
to any environment not only alters interaction in that space but
also the environment itself. This might remind HCI researchers
about embodied interaction [41], but it also has much simpler andpractical implications: water is an asset that needs to be protected.
Early expert interviews for the AReef system revealed how important the asset water and its immediate surroundings are for pool
operators [135]. For example, introducing technology must notlead to potentially dangerous situations, such as broken tiles fromfalling gear or shards that could hurt participants or contaminationof the water source.

7.3

Overcoming the divide in terms ofaccessibility to water

Traditional HCI is already concerned with the “digital divide” because of technology resulting in unequal access to opportunities.
We see this as potentially amplified with WaterHCI systems becoming a potential double barrier to inclusion. People already haveunequal access to water, not just for drinking, but also for aquatic
activity [191], mostly through geographical location, but also as aresult of political, financial or physical limitations. For example,
many small communities simply cannot afford a public pool, resulting in their members missing opportunities to not only learn
important life-saving skills and swimming but also fall short in benefiting from the associated health benefits [127]. Globally available
technologies could be used to increase access to lifesaving water
education, but co-design with these communities would need to
be undertaken to ensure that the WaterHCI solutions are fit for
purpose. Furthermore, if WaterHCI systems provide safeguarding
functions, preventing people from drowning (such as suggested
through life vest-dropping drones used at beaches [193]), could
the operators of the drones turn this into an enterprise that only
rescues people who can afford a subscription?

7.4

Addressing cultural factors

Combining interactive technology with water also requires factoring in cultural issues. For example, some cultures have different
practices regarding sharing facilities and specific clothing being
worn, which HCI researchers need to accommodate (such as researchers allowing participants to change first before beginninginterviews). Furthermore, we point to privacy concerns as interaction with water often involves the removal of at least some clothing.

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

A case in point is a smart shower that uses a camera-based system toreduce water wastage but raises ethical concerns about the captured
vision [81, 82]. Prior work around the coming together of privacy,
surveillance, and sousveillance (inverse surveillance) [93] pointed
to an interesting parallel between wearable technology, where theclothing is a boundary element, and WaterHCI, where the removalof clothing could lead to the dissolution of the boundary between
the human body and the world, affecting our understanding of“cyborg” technologies.
Prior research pointed out that many of today’s interactive devices are designed by developers of particular cultural backgrounds(mostly Western) that often ignore existing cultural sensitives[24, 71]. With aquatic activities being very body-centric [113],
such missed opportunities to consider cultural sensitivities could
increase, speaking to a prior Grand Challenge in human-computer
integration that highlighted that “body bias” is a hurdle to overcome
in body-centric devices [121].

8

LIMITATIONS & FUTURE WORK

Our work has limitations, as does all work that aims to identify
implications for an entire sub-field of HCI through a group of experts [121]. For example, as our experts self-subscribed to theworkshop, they were enthusiastic about bringing the field forward.
Other, more skeptical proponents might see the coming togetherof aquatic experiences and technology as more doubtful. As such,
we look forward to additional voices. In parallel, we also call for
future work on supplementary contributions to understand thetwo other silent partners in WaterHCI: the body-aquatic, and the
body of water, and how researchers might expand their approach
towards an understanding for co-design, cooperation and synergistic performance, with fluid technocentric ambitions. To facilitatesuch a more critical approach, we point to “dark patterns” [51]. We
encourage future work to investigate such dark patterns in WaterHCI and believe that our article might be useful in structuring suchinvestigations.
We also acknowledge that requiring payment for the workshop
might have resulted in a selective participant pool. However, being
co-located with a prestigious HCI conference also ensured thatthe top researchers were readily available and hence resulted inexpertise that might have been otherwise difficult to assemble. The
number of participants was based on the conference workshop cochairs’ recommended size range. Informed by the organizers’ pastexperiences with workshops, we believe that the number of participants was a strategic compromise between being large enoughto cover a wide range of work yet leaving enough time to discuss
the work in depth. The number of participants is also in line withsimilar prior workshops [5, 44, 168]. However, we acknowledge
that we have not (yet) validated that our number of participants was
sufficient to cover all Grand Challenges, hence, we see our work
as an important starting point. Additional future workshops andparticipants will certainly complement this work. We also pointout that our approach to the Grand Challenges in WaterHCI comesfrom a privileged position, as we all had access to waterways andtechnology to experiment and tinker with [55]. As such, we areaware that our article might give the impression that some of theconsequences, if the challenges are solved, are only within reach for

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

those in similar positions. Furthermore, we point out that we see
the identified challenges not necessarily as problems that require
an immediate fix, but rather that they are key to WaterHCI that
benefit from closer investigations and need to be developed andcritiqued further.

9

CONCLUSIONS

We have described a set of WaterHCI Grand Challenges that areconceptually and technically complex. Addressing them will require a range of research communities to work together. Technicalcategory challenges will require engineers with expertise in areas
such as underwater exploration and maritime science, contributing in return to interaction design’s understanding of material
HCI. Challenges in the “ethics” category will depend on knowledge from wider societal areas of concern, contributing possibly
in return to value-sensitive [45] and more-than-human HCI efforts [34, 185], while challenges related to the “user” category will
require knowledge from social science and in return have the potential to contribute to HCI’s social computing community. The
field of WaterHCI offers tremendous potential and by addressing
the challenges laid forth in this article will propel HCI’s collective
capacity to more fully realize and benefit from this potential.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller, Maria Fernanda Montoya and Sarah Jane
Pell thank the Australian Research Council, DP200102612, andFlorian ‘Floyd’ Mueller also DP190102068 and LP210200656.

REFERENCES[1] Gregory D Abowd and Elizabeth D Mynatt. Charting Past, Present, and Future
Research in Ubiquitous Computing. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
Interaction (TOCHI) 7, 1 (2000), 29-58.
[2] Samy S Abu-Naser and Aeman Aead. Variable Floor for Swimming Pool Using
an Expert System. International journal of modern engineering research (IJMER)
3.6 (2013), 3751-3755.
[3] John Adolfson and Thomas Berghage. Perception and Performance under Water.
John Wiley & Sons, 1974.
[4] Dan Alcox. 2016. How Salt Water Affects Electronics. https://www.maxbotix.
com/articles/135.htm.
[5] Jason Alexander, Anne Roudaut, Jürgen Steimle, Kasper Hornbæk, MiguelBruns Alonso, Sean Follmer and Timothy Merritt. 2018. Grand Challenges in
Shape-Changing Interface Research. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1-14.
[6] David Altimira, Florian Mueller, Jenny Clarke, Gun Lee, Mark Billinghurst andChristoph Bartneck. Enhancing Player Engagement through Game Balancing in
Digitally Augmented Physical Games. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies. Elsevier. 103 (2017), 35-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.02.004[7] Johanna Andersson, Karenina Gunnarson and Lydia Wallgren. Interaction with
Water. https://sider2014.csc.kth.se/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2014/04/water.
pdf.
[8] Alice H Aubert, René Bauer and Judit Lienert. A Review of Water-Related
Serious Games to Specify Use in Environmental Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.
Environmental modelling & software 105 (2018), 64-78.
[9] Backscatter. 2023. Best Buoyancy Solutions for Underwater Cameras.
https://www.backscatter.com/reviews/post/Best-Buoyancy-Solutions-ForUnderwater-Cameras.
[10] Ballast VR. 2022. Ballast Vr. https://www.ballastvr.com/.
[11] bbtalkin.com. 2022. Bbtalkin.Com. https://www.bbtalkin.com/.
[12] Bruce E Becker. Aquatic Therapy: Scientific Foundations and Clinical Rehabilitation Applications. Pm&r 1, 9 (2009), 859-872.
[13] Nicholas J Belkin. 2008. Some (What) Grand Challenges for Information Retrieval. In ACM SIGIR Forum. ACM New York, NY, USA, 47-54.
[14] Steve Benford, Gabriella Giannachi, Boriana Koleva and Tom Rodden. 2009. From
Interaction to Trajectories: Designing Coherent Journeys through User Experiences. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. ACM, 1518812, 709-718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518812

Florian Mueller et al.

[15] Joanna Bergstrom-Lehtovirta, David Coyle, Jarrod Knibbe and Kasper Hornbæk.
2018. I Really Did That: Sense of Agency with Touchpad, Keyboard, and onSkin Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems. ACM, 1-8.
[16] Biennale of Sydney. 2022. Smelling Rivers. https://www.biennaleofsydney.art/
events/smelling-rivers/.
[17] Nic Bingham. 2013. Designing Pressure-Tolerant Electronic Systems. http://
uutech.com/ptepaper.
[18] Lisa Blum, Wolfgang Broll and Stefan Müller. Augmented Reality under Water.
In Siggraph’09: Posters, 2009, 1-1.
[19] Philip Bresnahan, Tyler Cyronak, Robert JW Brewin, Andreas Andersson, Taylor
Wirth, Todd Martz, Travis Courtney, Nathan Hui, Ryan Kastner and Andrew
Stern. A High-Tech, Low-Cost, Internet of Things Surfboard Fin for Coastal
Citizen Science, Outreach, and Education. Continental Shelf Research 242 (2022),
104748.
[20] Douglas Brock and Stanislav Roudavski. 2020. Sentience and Place: Towards
More-Than-Human Cultures. In Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium
on Electronic Arts (ISEA 2020). 83–90. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10/ghg57d.
[21] Felix Büsching, Nicole Holzhauser, Peter Knapp and Lars Wolf. 2016. A Smart
Spa: Having Fun with Physical Activities. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop
on Experiences in the Design and Implementation of Smart Objects. 1-5.
[22] Chris Button. Aquatic Locomotion: Forgotten Fundamental Movement Skills?
New Zealand physical educator 49, 1 (2016), 8-10.
[23] Tim Campbell, Cesar Torres and Eric Paulos. 2015. Fl. Uis: Liquid-Mediated
Vision Based Touch Surfaces. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conferenceon Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, 85-88.
[24] Vikram Kamath Cannanure, Dilrukshi Gamage, Christian Sturm, Heike
Winschiers-Theophilus, Juan Fernando Maestre, Naveena Karusala, Pedro
Reynolds-Cuéllar and Neha Kumar. 2021. Decolonizing Hci across Borders.
In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. 1-5.
[25] Stephen J Ceci, Dan M Kahan and Donald Braman. The Weird Are Even Weirder
Than You Think: Diversifying Contexts Is as Important as Diversifying Samples.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33, 2-3 (2010), 87.
[26] J. Chen. Flow in Games (and Everything Else). Communications of the ACM 50,
4 (2007), 31-34.
[27] Woohyeok Choi, Jeungmin Oh, Darren Edge, Joohyun Kim and Uichin Lee.
2016. Swimtrain: Exploring Exergame Design for Group Fitness Swimming. In
Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
1692-1704.
[28] Woohyeok Choi, Jeungmin Oh, Taiwoo Park, Seongjun Kang, Miri Moon, Uichin
Lee, Inseok Hwang and Junehwa Song. 2014. Mobydick: An Interactive MultiSwimmer Exergame. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Embedded
Network Sensor Systems. 76-90.
[29] James E Clark. Moving in Extreme Environments: Inert Gas Narcosis andUnderwater Activities. Extreme physiology & medicine 4, 1 (2015), 1-7.
[30] Christal Clashing, Maria Fernanda Montoya Vega, Ian Smith, Joe Marshall, Leif
Oppermann, Paul H Dietz, Mark Blythe, Scott Bateman, Sarah Jane Pell and
Swamy Ananthanarayan. Year. Splash! Identifying the Grand Challenges for
Waterhci. In Proceedings of CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems Extended Abstracts. 1-6.
[31] Christal Clashing, Ian Smith, Maria F Montoya, Rakesh Patibanda, Swamy
Ananthanarayan, Sarah Jane Pell and Florian Floyd Mueller. Year. Going into
Depth: Learning from a Survey of Interactive Designs for Aquatic Recreation.
In Proceedings of Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1119-1132.
[32] Cnet. 2017. Staging Cirque Du Soleil: The Technology Behind ’O’. https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v$=$CD5uzkRi-HU.
[33] Andy Cockburn, Carl Gutwin, Joey Scarr and Sylvain Malacria. Supporting
Novice to Expert Transitions in User Interfaces. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
47, 2 (2014), 1-36.
[34] Aykut Coskun, Nazli Cila, Iohanna Nicenboim, Christopher Frauenberger, Ron
Wakkary, Marc Hassenzahl, Clara Mancini, Elisa Giaccardi and Laura Forlano.
Year. More-Than-Human Concepts, Methodologies, and Practices in Hci. In
Proceedings of CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended
Abstracts. 1-5.
[35] David Coyle, James Moore, Per Ola Kristensson, Paul Fletcher and Alan Blackwell. 2012. I Did That! Measuring Users’ Experience of Agency in Their Own
Actions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. ACM, 2025-2034.
[36] Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Performance. New
York: Harper and Row, 1990.
[37] Valdemar Danry, Pat Pataranutaporn, Florian Mueller, Pattie Maes and Sangwon Leigh. On Eliciting a Sense of Self When Integrating with Computers. In
Augmented Humans 2022, 2022, 68-81.
[38] Jialin Deng, Patrick Olivier, Josh Andres, Kirsten Ellis, Ryan Wee and Florian
Floyd Mueller. 2022. Logic Bonbon: Exploring Food as Computational Artifact.
In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1-21.

Grand challenges in WaterHCI[39] Paul H Dietz, Gabriel Reyes and David Kim. Year. The Pumpspark Fountain Development Kit. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designinginteractive systems. 259-266.
[40] Paul H Dietz, Jonathan Westhues, John Barnwell, Jefferson Y Han and William
Yerazunis. Submerging Technologies. In Acm Siggraph 2006 Emerging Technologies, 2006, 30-es.
[41] P. Dourish. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Boston,
MA, USA: MIT Press, 2001.
[42] Aline Eid, Jack Rademacher, Waleed Akbar, Purui Wang, Ahmed Allam andFadel Adib. 2023. Enabling Long-Range Underwater Backscatter Via Van Atta
Acoustic Networks. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2023 Conference. 1-19.
[43] Niklas Elmqvist, Andrew Vande Moere, Hans-Christian Jetter, Daniel Cernea,
Harald Reiterer and TJ Jankun-Kelly. Fluid Interaction for Information Visualization. Information Visualization 10, 4 (2011), 327-340.
[44] Barrett Ens, Benjamin Bach, Maxime Cordeil, Ulrich Engelke, Marcos Serrano,
Wesley Willett, Arnaud Prouzeau, Christoph Anthes, Wolfgang Büschel, Cody
Dunne, Tim Dwyer, Jens Grubert, Jason H. Haga, Nurit Kirshenbaum, Dylan
Kobayashi, Tica Lin, Monsurat Olaosebikan, Fabian Pointecker, David Saffo,
Nazmus Saquib, Dieter Schmalstieg, Danielle Albers Szafir, Matt Whitlock and
Yalong Yang. 2021. Grand Challenges in Immersive Analytics. In Proceedings ofthe 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for
Computing Machinery, Article 459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3446866[45] Daniel A Epstein, Alan Borning and James Fogarty. Year. Fine-Grained Sharingof Sensed Physical Activity: A Value Sensitive Approach. In Proceedings ofProceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on Pervasive andubiquitous computing. ACM, 489-498.
[46] Umer Farooq and Jonathan Grudin. Human-Computer Integration. interactions
23, 6 (2016), 26-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3001896[47] Sidney Fels, Yuichiro Kinoshita, Tzu-Pei Grace Chen, Yasufumi Takama, Steve
Yohanan, Ashley Gadd, S Takahashi and Kenji Funahashi. Swimming across the
Pacific: A Vr Swimming Interface. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 25,
1 (2005), 24-31.
[48] Gabriel Reyes, Nicolai Marquardt and David Kim. 2013. Uist 2013 Student Innovation Contest. https://uist.acm.org/uist2013/contest.php.
[49] Issam A Ghazzawi, Teresa Martinelli-Lee and Marie Palladini. Cirque Du Soleil:
An Innovative Culture of Entertainment. Journal of the International Academy
for Case Studies 20, 5 (2014), 23.
[50] Brett A Gooden. Mechanism of the Human Diving Response. Integrative physiological and behavioral science 29 (1994), 6-16.
[51] Saul Greenberg, Sebastian Boring, Jo Vermeulen and Jakub Dostal. 2014. Dark
Patterns in Proxemic Interactions: A Critical Perspective. In Proceedings of the2014 conference on Designing interactive systems. ACM, 523-532.
[52] Lon Åke Erni Johannes Hansson, Teresa Cerratto Pargman and Daniel Sapiens
Pargman. 2021. A Decade of Sustainable Hci: Connecting Shci to the Sustainable
Development Goals. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems. 1-19.
[53] Nigel Helyer and John Potts. Volume 08 Experimental Arts Ecolated: Art, Scienceand Environment. Studies in material thinking 8, 6 (2012).
[54] Claudia Herr. 2016. Unterwasseroper. http://www.unterwasseroper.de.
[55] Lars Erik Holmquist. Grounded Innovation: Strategies for Creating Digital Products. Elsevier, 2012.
[56] Kristina Höök, Baptiste Caramiaux, Cumhur Erkut, Jodi Forlizzi, Nassrin Hajinejad, Michael Haller, Caroline Hummels, Katherine Isbister, Martin Jonsson,
George Khut, Lian Loke, Danielle Lottridge, Patrizia Marti, Edward Melcer, Florian Mueller, Marianne Petersen, Thecla Schiphorst, Elena Segura, Anna Ståhl,Dag Svanæs, Jakob Tholander and Helena Tobiasson. Embracing First-Person
Perspectives in Soma-Based Design. Informatics 5, 1 (2018), 8.
[57] Lode Hoste and Beat Signer. 2014. Water Ball Z: An Augmented Fighting Game
Using Water as Tactile Feedback. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction. 173-176.
[58] Barbara Imhof, Molly Hogle, Bob Davenport, Peter Weiss, Diego Urbina, J
Røyrvik, Thomas Vögele, Victor Parro and Alistair Nottle. 2017. Project Moonwalk: Lessons Learnt from Testing Human Robot Collaboration Scenarios ina Lunar and Martian Simulation. In 69th International Astronautical Congress(IAC). IAC-17-F1. 2.3, Adelaide, SA.
[59] Karin Amimoto Ingersoll. Waves of Knowing: A Seascape Epistemology. Duke
University Press, 2016.
[60] Hiroshi Ishii, David Lakatos, Leonardo Bonanni and Jean-Baptiste Labrune. Radical Atoms: Beyond Tangible Bits, toward Transformable Materials. interactions
19, 1 (2012), 38-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2065327.2065337[61] Junsu Jang and Fadel Adib. Underwater Backscatter Networking. In Proceedingsof the Acm Special Interest Group on Data Communication, 2019, 187-199.
[62] Michael Johnson. American Circus (Re) Invented: Queering Cirque Du Soleil.
Reconstruction: Studies in Contemporary Culture 11, 4 (2012).
[63] Wendy Ju. The Design of Implicit Interactions. Synthesis Lectures on HumanCentered Informatics 8, 2 (2015), 1-93.
[64] Kaitlyn Keil, Alexander Morrow, John B Geddes and Paul Ruvolo. 2017. Autonomous Sailing for Blind Sailors Using Gps. In OCEANS 2017-Aberdeen. IEEE,

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

1-6.
[65] Rohit Ashok Khot, Jeewon Lee, Deepti Aggarwal, Larissa Hjorth and Florian
Mueller. 2015. Tastybeats: Designing Palatable Representations of Physical
Activity. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (CHI’15). ACM, 2702197, 2933-2942. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1145/2702123.2702197[66] Rohit Ashok Khot, Jeewon Lee, Larissa Hjorth and Florian ’Floyd’ Mueller.
2015. Tastybeats: Celebrating Heart Rate Data with a Drinkable Spectacle. In
Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, andEmbodied Interaction. ACM, 2680545, 229-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2677199.
2680545[67] Rohit Ashok Khot, Jeewon Lee, Helmut Munz, Deepti Aggarwal and Florian
Floyd Mueller. 2014. Tastybeats: Making Mocktails with Heartbeats. In CHI’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2574830,
467-470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2574830[68] Francisco Kiss, PawełW Woźniak, Felix Scheerer, Julia Dominiak, Andrzej Romanowski and Albrecht Schmidt. 2019. Clairbuoyance: Improving Directional
Perception for Swimmers. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. 1-12.
[69] Aniket Kittur, Jeffrey V Nickerson, Michael Bernstein, Elizabeth Gerber, Aaron
Shaw, John Zimmerman, Matt Lease and John Horton. Year. The Future of Crowd
Work. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported
cooperative work. 1301-1318.
[70] Cresantia F Koya, Lingikoni Vaka’uta and Rosiana Lagi. Tidalectics: Imagining
an Oceanic Worldview through Art and Science. MIT Press, 2018.
[71] Neha Kumar, Kurtis Heimerl, David Nemer, Naveena Karusala, Aditya Vashistha,
Susan M Dray, Christian Sturm, Laura S Gaytán-Lugo, Anicia Peters and Nova
Ahmed. 2018. Hci across Borders: Paving New Pathways. In Extended Abstractsof the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-8.
[72] David Ledo, Steven Houben, Jo Vermeulen, Nicolai Marquardt, Lora Oehlberg
and Saul Greenberg. 2018. Evaluation Strategies for Hci Toolkit Research. In
Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
1-17.
[73] Lexuma. 2022. Lexuma X20. https://www.lexuma.com/products/x2o-waterrepellent-spray-for-electronic-devices.
[74] Liquidrom. 2022. Liquidrom. https://www.liquidrom-berlin.de/en/.
[75] Lian Loke and Toni Robertson. Moving and Making Strange: An Embodied Approach to Movement-Based Interaction Design. ACM Transactions on ComputerHuman Interaction (TOCHI) 20, 1 (2013), 7.
[76] Michael Lombardi, Winslow Burleson, Jeff Godfrey and Richard Fryburg. An
Experimental Deployment of a Portable Inflatable Habitat in Open Water to Augment Lengthy in-Water Decompression by Scientific Divers. Marine Technology
Society Journal 47, 6 (2013), 52-63.
[77] Madalina Nicolae, Marion Koelle, Aditya Shekhar Nittala, Marc Teyssier andJürgen Steimle. 2022. Prototyping Soft Devices with Interactive Bioplastics. In
ACM Symposium on User interface software and technology UIST’2022. ACM.
[78] Steve Mann. 1980. Aqua-Syntauri Art Installation. http://wearcam.org.
[79] Steve Mann. Wearable Computing: A First Step toward Personal Imaging. IEEE
Computer 30, 2 (1997), 25-32.
[80] Steve Mann. 1998. Waterhci-98 Symposium/Deconference™. https://www.
waterhci.com/.
[81] Steve Mann. 2001. Prior Art: Art of Record for Personal Safety. Gallery Tpw,
80 Spadina Avenue, Toronto, On., Canada. Curator, Kathleen Pirrie Adams.
http://wearcam.org.
[82] Steve Mann. Decon2 (Decon Squared): Deconstructing Decontamination.
Leonardo 36, 4 (2003), 285-290.
[83] Steve Mann. 2005. ” Fl Huge Uid Streams” Fountains That Are Keyboards with
Nozzle Spray as Keys That Give Rich Tactile Feedback and Are More Expressive and More Fun Than Plastic Keys. In Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM
international conference on Multimedia. 181-190.
[84] Steve Mann. 2018. The Aquasonic Instruments - Hydraulophone. https://www.
facebook.com/betweenmusic.dk/videos/1457767170996222/.
[85] Steve Mann. 2021. Can Humans Being Machines Make Machines Be Human? In
International Conference on Cyborgs in Ethics, Law, and Art, Medical. Universityof Łódz. 47-64.
[86] Steve Mann. 2022. Symposium of the Sustainable Technology Society™, Mersivity. https://mersivity.com/.
[87] Steve Mann, Jaden Bhimani, Samir Khaki and Calum Leaver-Preyra. 2023. Smart
Paddleboard and Other Assistive Veyances. In 2022 IEEE International Conference
on Cyborg and Bionic Systems (CBS). IEEE, 298-305.
[88] Steve Mann, Li-Te Cheng, John Robinson, Kaoru Sumi, Toyoaki Nishida, Soichiro
Matsushita, Omer Faruk Ozer, Oˇguz Ozün, C Oncel Tüzel and Volkan Atalay.
Wearable Ai. Intelligent Systems, IEEE 16, 3 (2001), 1-53.
[89] Steve Mann, Max Lv Hao and Jeremy Warner. 2018. Virtual Reality Games in Sensory Deprivation Tanks. In 2018 IEEE Games, Entertainment, Media Conference(GEM). IEEE, 1-9.
[90] Steve Mann, Zhao Lu, Faraz Sadrzadeh-Afsharazar, Christina Mann, Samir Khaki
and Jaden Bhimani. 2022. Waterhci Part 2: Open Water Sensing, Meta-Sensing,

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

and Observing with Drones and Augmented Reality. In 2022 IEEE International
Conference on Signal Processing, Informatics, Communication and Energy Systems(SPICES). IEEE, 378-383.
[91] Steve Mann, Christina Mann, Faraz Sadrzadeh-Afsharazar, Zhao Lu, Jiten Sainiand Jacqueline Lian. 2020. Safeswim: Overhead Vision to Help People See Better.
In 2020 IEEE Congreso Bienal de Argentina (ARGENCON). IEEE, 1-8.
[92] Steve Mann, Mark Mattson, Steve Hulford, Mark Fox, Kevin Mako, Ryan Janzen,
Maya Burhanpurkar, Simone Browne, Craig Travers and Robert Thurmond.
Water-Human-Computer-Interface (Waterhci): Crossing the Borders of Computation Clothes Skin and Surface. Proceedings of the 23rd annual Water-HumanComputer Interface Deconference (Ontario Place TeachBeach, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada). Ontario Place TeachBeach, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (2021), 6-35.
[93] Steve Mann, Jason Nolan and Barry Wellman. Sousveillance: Inventing andUsing Wearable Computing Devices for Data Collection in Surveillance Environments. Surveillance & society 1, 3 (2003), 331-355.
[94] Steve Mann, Faraz Sadrzadeh-Afsharazar, Samir Khaki, Zhao Lu, Christina
Mann and Jaden Bhimani. 2022. Waterhci Part 1: Open Water Monitoring with
Realtime Augmented Reality. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Signal
Processing, Informatics, Communication and Energy Systems (SPICES). IEEE, 4954.
[95] Steve Mann, Ahmedullah Sharifi, Mike Hung and Russell Verbeeten. 2006. The
Hydraulophone: Instrumentation for Tactile Feedback from Water Fountain
Fluid Streams as a New Multimedia Interface. In 2006 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo. IEEE, 409-412.
[96] Nicolai Marquardt, Steven Houben, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon and Andrew D
Wilson. 2017. Hcitools: Strategies and Best Practices for Designing, Evaluating
and Sharing Technical Hci Toolkits. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 624-627.
[97] Anna Lisa Martin-Niedecken and Ulrich Götz. Year. Go with the Dual Flow:
Evaluating the Psychophysiological Adaptive Fitness Game Environment “Plunder Planet”. In Proceedings of Joint International Conference on Serious Games.
Springer, 32-43.
[98] Sebastian Marwecki, Maximilian Brehm, Lukas Wagner, Lung-Pan Cheng, Florian Mueller and Patrick Baudisch. 2018. Virtualspace - Overloading Physical Space with Multiple Virtual Reality Users. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3173815, 1-10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173815[99] MG Matos, Anabela Caetano Santos, Cristiana Fauvelet, Francisco Marta, Ema
Shaw Evangelista, José Ferreira, Miguel Moita, Tim Conibear and Matt Mattila.
Surfing for Social Integration: Mental Health and Well-Being Promotion throughSurf Therapy among Institutionalized Young People. HSOA journal of community
medicine & public health care 4, 1 (2017), 1-6.
[100] Maryse Maurel. The Explicitation Interview: Examples and Applications. Journalof Consciousness Studies 16, 10-11 (2009), 58-89.
[101] Bernhard Maurer, Vincent Van Rheden, Martin Murer, Alina Krischkowsky
and Manfred Tscheligi. Year. Reign in Blood: Exploring Blood as a Material for
Game Interaction Design. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the 16th International
Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia. 541-547.
[102] Megan McDonough. 2018. From Undercover to Underwater: Four New
Times Square Attractions Offer a Variety of Immersive Experiences. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/from-undercover-to-underwaterfour-new-times-square-attractions-offer-a-variety-of-immersive-experiences.
[103] Stephanie Merchant. The Body and the Senses: Visual Methods, Videography
and the Submarine Sensorium. Body & Society 17, 1 (2011), 53-72.
[104] Marvin Minsky, Ray Kurzweil and Steve Mann. 2013. The Society of Intelligent
Veillance. In 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS): Social Implications of Wearable Computing and Augmediated Reality in
Everyday Life. IEEE, 13-17.
[105] Moran Mizrahi, Amos Golan, Ariel Bezaleli Mizrahi, Rotem Gruber, Alexander
Zoonder Lachnise and Amit Zoran. 2016. Digital Gastronomy: Methods &Recipes for Hybrid Cooking. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on
User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 541-552.
[106] Maria F. Montoya, Yuyang Ji, Sarah Jane Pell and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2023.
Demonstrating Fluito: A Playful Floatation Tank Experience. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Association for Computing Machinery, Article 433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/
3544549.3583908[107] Rogelio Morales, Peter Keitler, Patrick Maier and Gudrun Klinker. 2009. An
Underwater Augmented Reality System for Commercial Diving Operations. In
OCEANS 2009. IEEE, 1-8.
[108] Annika Muehlbradt, Varsha Koushik and Shaun K Kane. Year. Goby: A Wearable
Swimming Aid for Blind Athletes. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the 19th
international acm sigaccess conference on computers and accessibility. 377-378.
[109] F Mueller, D Wilde, C Toprak, E Graether and N Berthouze. Year. Future User
Research for Exertion Games. In Proceedings of Annual Conference Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing
Machinery, 1-4.

Florian Mueller et al.

[110] Florian Mueller, Nathan Semertzidis, Josh Andres, Martin Weigel, Suranga
Nanayakkara, Rakesh Patibanda, Zhuying Li, Paul Strohmeier, Jarrod Knibbe,
Stefan Greuter, Marianna Obrist, Pattie Maes, Dakuo Wang, Katrin Wolf, Liz
Gerber, Joe Marshall, Kai Kunze, Jonathan Grudin, Harald Reiterer and Richard
Byrne. Human–Computer Integration: Towards Integrating the Human Body
with the Computational Machine. Foundations and Trends®in Human-Computer
Interaction 16, 1 (2022), 1-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000086[111] Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller, Juerg von Kaenel, Jonathan Duckworth and Josh Andres. Taking Inspiration from Becoming “One with a Bike” to Design HumanComputer Integration. Human–Computer Interaction (2023), 1-26.
[112] Florian Mueller, Stefan Agamanolis and Rosalind Picard. 2003. Exertion Interfaces: Sports over a Distance for Social Bonding and Fun. In SIGCHI
conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI’03). ACM, 561-568.
http://dx.doi.org/http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/642611.642709[113] Florian Mueller, Josh Andres, Joe Marshall, Dag Svanaes, m. c. schraefel, Kathrin
Gerling, Jakob Tholander, Anna Lisa Martin-Niedecken, Elena Marquez Segura,
Elise van den Hoven, Nicholas Graham, Kristina Hook and Corina Sas. BodyCentric Computing: Results from a Weeklong Dagstuhl Seminar in a German
Castle. Interactions 25, 4 (2018), 34-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3215854[114] Florian Floyd Mueller, Nathan Semertzidis, Josh Andres, Joe Marshall, Steve
Benford, Xiang Li, Louise Matjeka and Yash Mehta. Towards Understanding
the Design of Intertwined Human-Computer Integrations. ACM Transactions on
Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing (2021).
[115] Florian Mueller, Martin R Gibbs and Frank Vetere. Designing for Social andPhysical Interaction in Exertion Games. In Playful User Interfaces, Anton Nijholt
Ed. Springer Singapore, 2014, 227-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-456096-2_11[116] Florian Mueller, Martin R. Gibbs and Vetere Frank. Towards Understanding How
to Design for Social Play in Exertion Games. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing
14, 5 (2010), 417-424.
[117] Florian Mueller, Martin R. Gibbs, Frank Vetere and Darren Edge. Designing for
Bodily Interplay in Social Exertion Games. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.
(TOCHI) 24, 3 (2017), 1-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3064938[118] Florian Mueller, Martin Gibbs and Frank Vetere. 2009. Design Influence on
Social Play in Distributed Exertion Games. In CHI ’09: Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York,USA, 1539-1548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518938[119] Florian Mueller, Martin Gibbs, Frank Vetere and Stefan Agamanolis. Design
Space of Networked Exertion Games Demonstrated by a Three-Way PhysicalGame Based on Table Tennis. Computers in Entertainment 6, 3 (2008), 1-31.
http://dx.doi.org/http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1394021.1394029[120] Florian Mueller, Rohit Ashok Khot, Kathrin Gerling and Regan Mandryk. Exertion Games. Foundations and Trends Human–Computer Interaction 10, 1 (2016),
1-86. http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000041[121] Florian Mueller, Pedro Lopes, Paul Strohmeier, Wendy Ju, Caitlyn Seim, Martin
Weigel, Suranga Nanayakkara, Marianna Obrist, Zhuying Li, Joseph Delfa, Jun
Nishida, Elizabeth M. Gerber, Dag Svanaes, Jonathan Grudin, Stefan Greuter,
Kai Kunze, Thomas Erickson, Steven Greenspan, Masahiko Inami, Joe Marshall,Harald Reiterer, Katrin Wolf, Jochen Meyer, Thecla Schiphorst, Dakuo Wang andPattie Maes. 2020. Next Steps for Human-Computer Integration. In Proceedingsof the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association
for Computing Machinery, 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376242[122] Florian Mueller, Marianne Graves Petersen and Zhuying Li. Technology Futures:
Towards Understanding How to Design Awe-Inspiring Futures. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies (2022), 102961.
[123] Florian Mueller, Frank Vetere and Martin Gibbs. Considerations for the Designof Networked Exertion Interactions. International Journal of Arts and Technology
3, 4 (2010), 374-389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijart.2010.035828[124] Florian Mueller and Damon Young. 2017. Five Lenses for Designing Exertion
Experiences. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3025746, 2473-2487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3025453.
3025746[125] Florian Mueller and Damon Young. 10 Lenses to Design Sports-Hci. Foundations
and Trends®Human–Computer Interaction 12, 3 (2018), 172-237.
[126] Florian’Floyd’ Mueller and Sarah Jane Pell. Adventure and Technology: An
Earthquake-Interrupted Expedition to Mt. Everest. interactions 24, 1 (2016),
58-62.
[127] Wallace J Nichols. Blue Mind: How Water Makes You Happier, More Connected
and Better at What You Do. Hachette UK, 2014.
[128] Niels Christian Nilsson, Tabitha Peck, Gerd Bruder, Eri Hodgson, Stefania
Serafin, Mary Whitton, Frank Steinicke and Evan Suma Rosenberg. 15 Yearsof Research on Redirected Walking in Immersive Virtual Environments. IEEE
computer graphics and applications 38, 2 (2018), 44-56.
[129] Donald A Norman. Natural User Interfaces Are Not Natural. interactions 17, 3(2010), 6-10.
[130] Oceancleanup. 2022. Oceancleanup. https://theoceancleanup.com/.
[131] Michel Odent. Water, Birth and Sexuality: Our Primeval Connection to Water
and Its Use in Labour and Therapy. Clairview Books, 2014.

Grand challenges in WaterHCI[132] Yuki Onishi, Aoi Suzuki, Daigo Hayashi, Ami Niwano, Akiyuki Ebi and Yoshifumi Kitamura. Be Bait!: A Unique Fishing Experience with Hammock-Based
Underwater Locomotion Method.
[133] Early morning opera. 2014. Holoscenes. http://earlymorningopera.com/projects/
holoscenes/.
[134] Leif Oppermann, Lisa Blum, Jun-Yeong Lee and Jung-Hyub Seo. 2013. Areef
Multi-Player Underwater Augmented Reality Experience. In 2013 IEEE International games innovation conference (IGIC). IEEE, 199-202.
[135] Leif Oppermann, Lisa Blum and Marius Shekow. 2016. Playing on Areef: Evaluation of an Underwater Augmented Reality Game for Kids. In 18th international
conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services. 330340.
[136] Pat Pataranutaporn, Valentina Sumini, Melodie Yashar, Susanna Testa, Marianna
Obrist, Scott Davidoff, Amber M Paul, Dorit Donoviel, Jimmy Wu and Sands A
Fish. 2022. Spacechi 2.0: Advancing Human-Computer Interaction Systems forSpace Exploration. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Extended Abstracts. 1-7.
[137] Józef Patkiewicz. The Specificity of Diving of the Disabled. Physiotherapy/Fizjoterapia 23, 1 (2015).
[138] Biswaksen Patnaik, Andrea Batch and Niklas Elmqvist. Information Olfactation: Harnessing Scent to Convey Data. IEEE transactions on visualization andcomputer graphics 25, 1 (2018), 726-736.
[139] S.J. Pell. 2004. Transport 2004. https://sarahjanepell.com/transport2004.html.
[140] Sarah Jane Pell. Aquabatics: A Post-Turbulent Performance in Water. Performance Research 19, 5 (2014), 98-108.
[141] Sarah Jane Pell. Performing Astronautics: Following the Body’s Natural Edge
to the Abyss of Space. Virtual Creativity 7, 1 (2017), 53-61.
[142] Sarah Jane Pell, Steve Mann and Michael Lombardi. 2023. Developing Waterhci
and Oceanicxv Technologies for Diving. In OCEANS 2023-Limerick. IEEE, 1-10.
[143] Sarah Jane Pell and Florian Mueller. 2013. Gravity Well: Underwater Play. In
CHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 31153118.
[144] Devin N Perkins, Marie-Noel Brune Drisse, Tapiwa Nxele and Peter D Sly.
E-Waste: A Global Hazard. Annals of global health 80, 4 (2014), 286-295.
[145] Lauren A Petrass and Jennifer D Blitvich. Preventing Adolescent Drowning:
Understanding Water Safety Knowledge, Attitudes and Swimming Ability. The
Effect of a Short Water Safety Intervention. Accident Analysis & Prevention 70(2014), 188-194.
[146] Dees BW Postma, Robby W van Delden, Jeroen H Koekoek, Wytse W Walinga,
Ivo M van Hilvoorde, Bert Jan F van Beijnum, Fahim A Salim and Dennis
Reidsma. A Design Space of Sports Interaction Technology. Foundations andTrends®in Human–Computer Interaction 15, 2-3 (2022), 132-316.
[147] John Potts and Nigel Helyer. Science Meets Art. CRC Press, 2022.
[148] Presto. 2022. The Underwater Touchscreen. https://www.presto-eng.com/casesstories/underwater-touchscreen.
[149] Michael K Qin, Derek Schwaller, Matthew Babina and Edward Cudahy. Human
Underwater and Bone Conduction Hearing in the Sonic and Ultrasonic Range.
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129, 4 (2011), 2485-2485.
[150] John Quarles. 2015. Shark Punch: A Virtual Reality Game for Aquatic Rehabilitation. In 2015 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR). IEEE, 265-266.
[151] William L. Raffe, Marco Tamassia, Fabio Zambetta, Xiaodong Li, Sarah Jane Pelland Florian Mueller. 2015. Player-Computer Interaction Features for Designing
Digital Play Experiences across Six Degrees of Water Contact. In Proceedingsof the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM,
2793134, 295-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2793107.2793134[152] David S Ranson, Emily S Patterson, Daniel L Kidwell, Gavin A Renner, Mike
L Matthews, Jim M Corban, Emil Seculov and Constantine S Souhleris. 1996.
Rapid Scout: Bridging the Gulf between Physical and Virtual Environments. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
442-449.
[153] Hendrik Richter, Felix Manke and Moriel Seror. 2013. Liquitouch: Liquid as a
Medium for Versatile Tactile Feedback on Touch Surfaces. In Proceedings of the
7th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction.
315-318.
[154] Rick Weiss. 2003. A Close Look at Human’s Underwater Vision.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/06/30/a-closelook-at-humans-underwater-vision/edbf45b6-2d9c-4b1d-9221-11447dcbc5a1/.
[155] Lisa Roberts, Cat Kutay, Jess Melbourne-Thomas, Katherina Petrou, Tracey M
Benson, Danae Fiore, Paul Fletcher, Ellery Johnson, Melissa Silk and Stephen
Taberner. Enabling Enduring Evidence-Based Policy for the Southern Ocean
through Cultural Arts Practices. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9 (2021),
616089.
[156] RS Online. 2022. Ip Ratings. https://au.rs-online.com/web/generalDisplay.html?
id$=$ideas-and-advice/ip-ratings.
[157] Aryan Saini, Haotian Huang, Rakesh Patibanda, Nathalie Overdevest, EliseVan Den Hoven and Florian Floyd Mueller. 2022. Somaflatables: Supporting
Embodied Cognition through Pneumatic Bladders. In Adjunct Proceedings of

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology.
Association for Computing Machinery, Article 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/
3526114.3558705[158] Aryan Saini, Srihari Sridhar, Aarushi Raheja, Rakesh Patibanda, Nathalie Overdevest, Po-Yao Wang, Elise Van Den Hoven and Florian Floyd Mueller. 2023.
Pneunocchio: A Playful Nose Augmentation for Facilitating Embodied Representation. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on
User Interface Software and Technology. Association for Computing Machinery,
Article 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3586182.3616651[159] Lee H Samers. 1975. Skin & Scuba Diving and Associated Rescue Techniques.
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/41312/noaa_41312_DS1.pdf.
[160] David Scaradozzi, Silvia Zingaretti, Luca Panebianco, Corentin Altepe, S Murat
Egi, Marco Palma, Ubaldo Pantaleo, Davide Ferraris and Fiorenza Micheli. 2017.
Docuscooter: A Novel Robotics Platform for Marine Citizen Science. In The 27th
International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference. OnePetro.
[161] Michael Sedlmair, Miriah Meyer and Tamara Munzner. Design Study Methodology: Reflections from the Trenches and the Stacks. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 18, 12 (2012), 2431-2440.
[162] Barış Serim and Giulio Jacucci. 2019. Explicating” Implicit Interaction” an Examination of the Concept and Challenges for Research. In Proceedings of the2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-16.
[163] Evan Shapiro, Isabel Houghton and Tim Janssen. 2021. Bristlemouth: An Open
Connectivity Standard for Marine Applications. In OCEANS 2021: San Diego–
Porto. IEEE, 1-5.
[164] Basem Shihada, Osama Amin, Christopher Bainbridge, Seifallah Jardak, Omar
Alkhazragi, Tien Khee Ng, Boon Ooi, Michael Berumen and Mohamed-Slim
Alouini. Aqua-Fi: Delivering Internet Underwater Using Wireless Optical Networks. IEEE Communications Magazine 58, 5 (2020), 84-89.
[165] Grace Shin, Yuanyuan Feng, Mohammad Hossein Jarrahi and Nicci Gafinowitz.
Beyond Novelty Effect: A Mixed-Methods Exploration into the Motivation forLong-Term Activity Tracker Use. JAMIA open 2, 1 (2019), 62-72.
[166] Inderpreet Singh. 2017. Electronics That Can Handle Pressure. https://hackaday.
com/2017/06/09/electronics-that-can-handle-the-pressure/.
[167] Bernt Spiegel. The Upper Half of the Motorcycle: On the Unity of Rider andMachine. Motorbooks, 2019.
[168] Constantine Stephanidis, Gavriel Salvendy, Margherita Antona, Jessie Y. C.
Chen, Jianming Dong, Vincent G. Duffy, Xiaowen Fang, Cali Fidopiastis, Gino
Fragomeni, Limin Paul Fu, Yinni Guo, Don Harris, Andri Ioannou, Kyeongah Jeong, Shin’ichi Konomi, Heidi Krömker, Masaaki Kurosu, James R. Lewis,
Aaron Marcus, Gabriele Meiselwitz, Abbas Moallem, Hirohiko Mori, Fiona FuiHoon Nah, Stavroula Ntoa, Pei-Luen Patrick Rau, Dylan Schmorrow, Keng Siau,
Norbert Streitz, Wentao Wang, Sakae Yamamoto, Panayiotis Zaphiris and Jia
Zhou. Seven Hci Grand Challenges. International Journal of Human–Computer
Interaction 35, 14 (2019), 1229-1269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.
1619259[169] Steve Mann, James Fung and Ariel Garten. Deconcert: Bathing in the Light,
Sound, and Waters of the Musical Brainbaths. ICMC 8 (2007), 204-211.
[170] Veronica Strang. Common Senses: Water, Sensory Experience and the Generation of Meaning. Journal of Material Culture 10, 1 (2005), 92-120.
[171] Veronica Strang. The Meaning of Water. Routledge, 2020.
[172] Susan Austin. 2012. Freewheeling Pool Performance. https://www.
wearefreewheeling.org.uk/freewheeling-galleries-pool-performance.
[173] Jonathan Sutton, Tobias Langlotz and Alexander Plopski. Seeing Colours: Addressing Colour Vision Deficiency with Vision Augmentations Using Computational Glasses. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 29, 3 (2022),
1-53.
[174] P Sweetser and P Wyeth. Gameflow: A Model for Evaluating Player Enjoyment
in Games. Computers in Entertainment (CIE) 3, 3 (2005), 3.
[175] Adriana Tapus, Maja J Mataric and Brian Scassellati. Socially Assistive Robotics[Grand Challenges of Robotics]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 14, 1(2007), 35-42.
[176] Nadine Thompson and Stephanie Wilkie. ‘I’m Just Lost in the World’: The
Impact of Blue Exercise on Participant Well-Being. Qualitative Research in Sport,
Exercise and Health 13, 4 (2021), 624-638.
[177] Hilary Thomson, Ade Kearns and Mark Petticrew. Assessing the Health Impactof Local Amenities: A Qualitative Study of Contrasting Experiences of Local
Swimming Pool and Leisure Provision in Two Areas of Glasgow. Journal of
Epidemiology & Community Health 57, 9 (2003), 663-667.
[178] Diego & Madakashira Ubina, Hemanth & Martinez-Gonzalez, Javier & Lierde,
Boris & Taillebot, Virginie & Weiss, Peter & Gobert, Thibaud & Imhof, Barbara& Fossum, Knut & Vögele, Thomas & Parro Garcia, Victor. 2017. Analogue Capabilities for Human-in-the-Loop Simulations of Surface Operations in Training
and Research. In Human Spaceflight Symposium, International Astronautical
Congress, Adelaide, AU.
[179] Udayan Umapathi, Patrick Shin, Ken Nakagaki, Daniel Leithinger and Hiroshi
Ishii. 2018. Programmable Droplets for Interaction. In Extended Abstracts of the2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-1.

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA[180] Diego Urbina, Tom Hoppenbrouwers, Hemanth Madakashira, Vladimir Albert,
Keshav Chintamani, Martinez-Gonzalez and Boris & Ho Javier & Lierde, NgocDiep & Mihalache, Nicolae & Schwendner, Jakob & Hoeckelmann, Mathias& Schröer, Martin & Weiss, Peter & Taillebot, Virginie & Gobert, Thibaud. .
Moonwalk -Prototyping the Spacesuit Human Interfaces of the Future for Test
in Water Immersion Partial Gravity Simulation. In Human Exploration Of The
Solar System Symposium, International Astronautical Congress, Jerusalem IS 2016[181] TK Venugopalan, Tawfiq Taher and George Barbastathis. 2012. Autonomous
Landing of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle on an Autonomous Marine Vehicle. In
2012 Oceans. IEEE, 1-9.
[182] Chi Thanh Vi, Asier Marzo, Damien Ablart, Gianluca Memoli, Sriram Subramanian, Bruce Drinkwater and Marianna Obrist. 2017. Tastyfloats: A Contactless
Food Delivery System. In 2017 ACM International Conference on Interactive
Surfaces and Spaces. ACM, 3134123, 161-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3132272.
3134123[183] Sebastian Voelker and Thomas Kistemann. “I’m Always Entirely Happy When
I’m Here!” Urban Blue Enhancing Human Health and Well-Being in Cologne
and Düsseldorf, Germany. Social science & medicine 91 (2013), 141-152.
[184] Michelle Voyer, Genevieve Quirk, Alistair McIlgorm and Kamal Azmi. Shadesof Blue: What Do Competing Interpretations of the Blue Economy Mean for
Oceans Governance? Journal of environmental policy & planning 20, 5 (2018),
595-616.
[185] Ron Wakkary. Things We Could Design: For More Than Human-Centered Worlds.
MIT press, 2021.

Florian Mueller et al.

[186] Ruth Wallen. Ecological Art: A Call for Visionary Intervention in a Time of
Crisis. Leonardo 45, 3 (2012), 234-242.
[187] Wouter Walmink, Danielle Wilde and Florian Mueller. 2013. Displaying Heart
Rate Data on a Bicycle Helmet to Support Social Exertion Experiences. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied
Interaction. ACM, 2540970, 97-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2540930.2540970[188] P Weiss, B Gardette, B Chirié, J Collina-Girard and HG Delauze. Simulation andPreparation of Surface Eva in Reduced Gravity at the Marseilles Bay Subsea
Analogue Sites. Planetary and Space Science 74, 1 (2012), 121-134.
[189] Mikael Wiberg. The Materiality of Interaction: Notes on the Materials of Interaction
Design. MIT press, 2018.
[190] Wikipedia contributors. 2022. Lzr Racer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_
Racer.
[191] Stacey M Willcox-Pidgeon, Amy E Peden and Justin Scarr. Exploring Children’s
Participation in Commercial Swimming Lessons through the Social Determinants of Health. Health Promotion Journal of Australia 32, 2 (2021), 172-181.
[192] Steve Mann and Charles Wyckoff. 1991. Extended Reality, Mit 4-405.
wearcam.org/xr.htm.
[193] Gang Xiang, Andrew Hardy, Mohammed Rajeh and Lahari Venuthurupalli. 2016.
Design of the Life-Ring Drone Delivery System for Rip Current Rescue. In 2016
IEEE Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS). IEEE,
181-186.
[194] Yasuyuki Yanagida. 2012. A Survey of Olfactory Displays: Making and Delivering Scents. In SENSORS, 2012 IEEE. IEEE, 1-4.