**Research problem of the theoretical-applied thesis**
Digital interfaces keep getting better at what we expect of them, and worse at what we don’t.
In recent decades, human-centered design has become a cornerstone of how digital products are made. The aim is to make using them as fast and seamless as possible for the user: every interaction is optimized, every obstacle removed. The problem with this approach, however, is that it can lead to interaction without reflection: users act without being aware of the consequences of their decisions, and interfaces actively support them in doing so.
This thesis focuses on one specific aspect of this impoverishment: chance encounters with information. Erdelez defines information encountering (IE) as the experience of unexpectedly discovering useful or interesting information, either while looking for information on a different topic or during everyday activities (Erdelez, 1999). What matters is not chance itself, but the ability to recognize unexpected information, interpret it, and act on it. Algorithmic interfaces can increase how often such encounters happen, but at the same time they filter and personalize them in a way that limits precisely the cross-disciplinary randomness from which IE draws its value.
Friction design represents a critical stance towards this dominant paradigm of algorithmization, and at the same time a space in which IE can regain its place. It builds on the idea that not every obstacle is a design flaw. Many activities that force us to slow down or cause a certain discomfort are nevertheless valuable, especially when they draw attention to questions we would otherwise naturally avoid. The goal is not to create lasting discomfort, but to open up space for more intentional, more reflective interaction (Cox et al., 2016).
The thesis explores what is lost in fully optimized interfaces and what alternatives that actively support IE could look like.
**Literature review, research context, and related projects**
The following section presents the academic sources the thesis draws on, in chronological order.
The deliberate introduction of friction to support IE or moments of serendipity is not currently the subject of any diploma thesis at our university. For this reason, a section on previous theses is not included in this review.
Erdelez, S. (1999). Information encountering: it’s more than just bumping into information. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 25(3), 25. https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.118
This study is one of the key texts in the field of IE. It introduces a basic conceptual framework and a typology of users based on how well they are able to perceive and then use moments of accidental information discovery. It is important for my work mainly because it provides a shared language and structure for describing the individual aspects of this experience, from the user’s profile and the environment to the information need itself and the information discovered.
Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/642611.642653
This research tries to reframe how ambiguity in design is viewed: instead of a flaw to be removed, the authors present it as a design tool with the potential to prompt active interpretation by the user. Importantly, they clearly stress the difference between deliberate, meaningful ambiguity and a system that is simply broken or confusing. Gaver is also one of the pioneers of the Research through Design approach, which is methodologically central to my research, so his thinking about designing friction connects several layers of my work.
Cox, A. L., Gould, S. J. J., Cecchinato, M. E., Iacovides, I., & Renfree, I. (2016). Design Frictions for Mindful Interactions: The Case for Microboundaries.
This text presents one of the key frameworks of the friction design concept. It maps various, at times contradictory, approaches to introducing friction and shows that a relatively small intervention is often enough for an interaction to become more reflective. The paper outlines these subtle methods concretely, arguing that the aim is not to abandon the principles of good design, but to design friction consciously and with care.
Liu, Y., Qin, C., Ma, X., & Liang, H. (2022). Serendipity in human information behavior: a systematic review. Journal of Documentation, 78(2), 435–462. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2021-0029
A systematic review of serendipity research from 1990–2020 that maps the topics studied, existing models, and data collection methods used, as well as gaps and limitations in the field. For my work it serves mainly as orientation: it offers a quick, reliable overview of the research and lets me place my own approach in a broader context.
André, P., Schraefel, m. c., Teevan, J., & Dumais, S. T. (2009). Discovery is never by chance ; designing for (un)serendipity. Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition ; Page 305-314. https://doi.org/10.1145/1640233.1640279
This text addresses serendipity in the context of designing computer systems and asks how the conditions for it to arise can be deliberately supported. The authors argue that serendipity is not only about the discovery itself; the prepared mind and the infrastructure that makes discovery possible are equally important. On this basis, they propose specific design areas, such as creating unexpected connections or mechanisms for sharing discoveries. The historical context is also relevant to my work: 2009 can be seen as a time when the hypertext culture of the web still prevailed, which naturally connects this text to other sources I draw on.
Björneborn, L. (2017). Three key affordances for serendipity : Toward a framework connecting environmental and personal factors in serendipitous encounters. Journal of Documentation, 73(5), 1053–1081. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2016-0097
This text tries to translate serendipity from an abstract concept into concrete, usable building blocks. The author proposes a framework that connects environmental factors with the user’s personal factors and explains how these two levels together shape the emergence of a serendipitous encounter. It is valuable for my work precisely because it provides a framework and terminology that can be used both when designing and when evaluating design interventions.
Reviglio, U. (2019). Serendipity as an emerging design principle of the infosphere: challenges and opportunities. ETHICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, 21(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9496-y
Reviglio points out that mainstream platforms prioritize content that matches users’ existing interests and preferences, which leads to filter bubbles, echo chambers and, in extreme cases, a state in which the algorithm shapes the user’s interests rather than the other way round. He stresses that serendipity has real potential in this context: by deliberately including content that goes beyond established preferences, it can actively disrupt the logic of hyper-personalization. It is relevant to my work because it connects the design perspective with the ethical and social dimension of algorithmic interfaces.
Smets, A. (2025). Intended, afforded, and experienced serendipity: overcoming the paradox of artificial serendipity. ETHICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-025-09841-6
Smets addresses the question of whether deliberately designed serendipity is still serendipity. She distinguishes between serendipity that is intended (by the designer), afforded (by the environment), and experienced (by the user), and examines how these three levels relate to each other. This framework gives me a conceptual basis for thinking about what I am designing and what I can realistically achieve.
Liu, S., & Almeda, S. G. (2025). Agency Among Agents: Designing with Hypertextual Friction in the Algorithmic Web. https://doi.org/10.1145/3720533.3750065
This text presents a comparative analysis of how interface structures shape the degree of user autonomy in human-driven versus algorithm-driven systems. The authors advocate the hypertext principle as a way to claim room for one’s own decisions in increasingly algorithmic interfaces. This source is key for my work on several levels: it connects friction, hypertext culture and the question of autonomy.
Krook, J. (2025). Nostalgia for the early internet: rebuilding serendipity in algorithm design and policy. Journal of Cyber Policy ; Page 1-15 ; ISSN 2373-8871 2373-8898. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2025.2597197
This text looks at serendipity through the lens of algorithm design and starts from the provocative thesis that an algorithmically curated life is the opposite of a serendipitous one. Krook argues that the early internet offered conditions that today’s algorithmic systems systematically suppress, and explores how they can be deliberately restored.
**Rationale, significance, and impact of the thesis**
The topic stems primarily from personal experience and social concern. Algorithms are everywhere today, and filter bubbles and echo chambers are a real consequence of their logic: environments that are comfortable, but narrowing. I see friction as a tool with the potential to help regain some degree of control over one’s own information environment, a form of quiet resistance to the passive flow of content. I miss the feeling that finding unexpected information, a moment of serendipity, is at least partly in my own hands. In the context of the current boom of artificial intelligence and algorithmization, I find it all the more important to draw attention to the value of authentic user autonomy and to actively advocate for it.
Another inspiration is the book Another World Is Possible (Mulgan, 2022). For me, this thesis is a way to get involved and to spark at least some form of imagination about how the digital environment could look different.
I believe that creating a physical artefact that embodies this alternative can show at least a few people what such an environment could look like in practice and what feelings it can evoke.
**Research questions, aim, and objectives**
Today’s digital interfaces are designed to minimize friction and maximize predictability, which opens up a discussion about how much room they leave for accidentally discovering information.
The aim of the thesis is to design and build a physical artefact that supports the experience of IE through deliberate friction and principles of open-ended exploration, and to evaluate its effect in interaction with users.
The main research question is: How can a physical artefact that uses deliberate friction and principles of open-ended hypertextual exploration support the experience of IE?
The following sub-questions relate to the main question: How do users with different levels of receptiveness to IE perceive interaction with the artefact? To what extent does deliberate friction change the quality or character of the experience of accidentally discovering information?
The gap this thesis addresses is the explicit connection between friction as a design tool and the concept of information encountering: topics that build on each other in the literature, but whose direct connection and practical application remain hinted at rather than systematically developed.
**Applied part of the project**
The design will be carried out within the generative approach of Research through Design (RtD), which differs from traditional research methods in that design does not follow research but becomes its tool. The designer focuses on creating an artefact in order to gain new knowledge and build theory. The specific form of the artefact remains open at this stage, and deliberately so. In the spirit of RtD, the final form is not determined in advance but emerges as a product of the research process itself (Gaver, 2012).
To document the iterative prototyping itself, I plan to use the critical journal method. This method helps maintain perspective within the RtD approach by systematically recording successes, failures, and the reasoning behind decisions and experiments (Sellner Novotný, 2025).
Research with the artefact will be conducted with participants across the spectrum of receptiveness to chance encounters with information, in line with Erdelez’s typology (1999). It distinguishes between non-encounterers, who rarely register such experiences, occasional encounterers, encounterers, and super-encounterers, for whom IE becomes an almost systematic way of acquiring information. The intention is to use this typology as an analytical framework when evaluating the qualitative user research. The specific way of collecting data from users has not yet been determined; it depends on the final artefact and how people will be able to interact with it.
Since the final form of the artefact is not determined at this stage, the ethical aspects will be specified in parallel with the development of the design. Participants will be informed about the nature of the research before taking part and will sign an informed consent form. All findings will be anonymized.
**Timeline**
The work is planned in several phases:
- May, June: theoretical grounding, studying the relevant literature, and connecting the key concepts more closely (algorithmization, information encountering, and friction design)
- July, August, September: developing the artefact concept and gradually realizing it through iterative prototyping
- October, November: research with participants and gathering new insights using the artefact
- December, January: analysing the results and formulating the findings
- February, March: finalising and submitting the thesis
**Resources and equipment**
The specific technical requirements will depend on the final form of the artefact, which is not determined at this stage. The thesis involves creating a physical artefact; depending on its final form, 3D printing or other material resources available through university facilities may be used.
There is currently no collaboration with external consultants, but this option remains open.
**References**
Cox, A. L., Gould, S. J. J., Cecchinato, M. E., Iacovides, I., & Renfree, I. (2016). Design Frictions for Mindful Interactions: The Case for Microboundaries.
Erdelez, S. (1999). Information encountering: it’s more than just bumping into information. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 25(3), 25.
Gaver, W. (2012). What should we expect from research through design? Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems ; Page 937-946. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208538
Mulgan, G. (2022). Another world is possible : how to reignite social and political imagination / Geoff Mulgan (First published). Hurst & Company.
Sellner Novotný, R. (2025). Perspektivy a formy dokumentace pro výzkum skrze design [Perspectives and forms of documentation for research through design]. https://medium.com/design-kisk/perspektivy-a-formy-dokumentace-pro-výzkum-skrze-design-7bbb02f4a1ea
**Placement within the study specialization**
The thesis sits at the intersection of design and information behavior. Despite this interdisciplinarity, its primary orientation is design: it uses critical and speculative approaches as its main research tools, and its output is a design artefact.