This paper explores the traditional distinction between problem- and possibility-driven design for promoting user well-being. Problem-driven design identifies and addresses unfulfilled needs to reduce ill-being (i.e., the first space of design for well-being), while possibility-driven design seeks to enhance well-being without addressing existing problems (i.e., the second space of design for well-being). The latter is informed by positive psychology, which studies the conditions for human flourishing. Although possibility-driven design has added a valuable new focus to the design repertoire, it confronts designers with some key challenges that are currently unresolved. Examples of these challenges include finding focus, determining evaluation metrics, and convincing stakeholders. To address these issues, this paper introduces a third space of design for well-being that integrates the two approaches with the intention of combining their strengths. The paper begins by discussing the first two spaces, then introduces the ideas behind the third space, and presents a design case of the third space in action. The case involves a design that supports the well-being of people engaging in online dating. The case is used as a platform to explore and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the third space, and possible future applications of the integrated approach to design for well-being.@en

Living materials are a nascent material class where living organisms are embedded and kept alive in the design outcome to achieve novel functionalities, expressions, and interactions. Experiential characterisation studies with potential endusers will provide insights for developing these novel materials for meaningful material applications. Nevertheless, the current literature lacks a vocabulary to communicate and discuss living materials in user studies. To bridge this gap, our paper presents the development of a “Living Materials Vocabulary” consisting of 45 descriptive items. Through a term frequency analysis of relevant literature and in-depth interviews with eight biodesigners, we identified a set of descriptions which we clustered under five themes: origin, making, agency and autonomy, temporality, and impact of living materials. We selected representative items from these themes to compile our final vocabulary. We discuss how our vocabulary can be operationalised in living material characterisation studies and further inspire future biodesign practice@en