48 4 Designing with Blends reality, tangible interaction, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, context-aware computing,handheld,or mobile interaction and so on (Jacob et al. 2008). But there is still a huge gap between these interactive media and our selves as bodies in physical space. We need a clear understanding of the scope of this phenomenon, especially its perceptual and psychological aspects. The history of HCI can in fact be seen as largely that of the evolution of the standard WIMP interface composed of desktop metaphors. When metaphors don’t workwell,theyleadtopeopletodevelopinappropriateexpectationsoftechnologies (Imaz and Benyon 2006). And yet we have been slow in finding replacements for the uniquely successful metaphor of the desktop. To move beyond this and other existing metaphors, we need to consider how they are actually used, more as blends than as analogies with other things. In order to understand how blends are framed and formed, we need to get a picture of metaphors and how metaphors and blends actually work together. This will also help us to understand the embodimentnotion, derived from our bodily and social experiences, and how it may be used in HCI design. MetaphorsandDesign Metaphors have been used in the design of digital devices for many years, though their use has been far from uncontroversial(e.g. Nelson 1999).The well recognized personal computer user interfaces have been at least partially designed on this basis – the ‘desktop metaphor’. The idea was that the designer of a desktop interface explicitly tries to draw on people’s knowledge of office work to help them understand the operation of the computer they are using. So metaphor is the well- known approach to the design of HCI, one which draws on users’ experience in a different domain to assist their understanding of the computer system (Waterworth et al. 2003). Users appreciate such metaphors when their previous experiences are suitable for comprehending some new interaction, but will criticize metaphorical designs when they don’t understand them or what they are for (Imaz and Benyon 2006). Overthepast20years,moreandmorecomputerinterfaceshaveadoptedadesign style ostensibly based on this metaphor, and this has spread to other devices such as mobile phones, digital cameras, audio-visual equipment,and to some extent web sites. The metaphors will work well when the designer and the user perceive them in similar ways. But while metaphorsare providedto let people bring their previous experiences to understand new interactions, they often lead to people developing different understandings of the purpose of some features, even within the same cultural environment. Much of this confusion arises because metaphor is not well understoodbydesigners.Thatmeansthattheembodiedaspectsofmetaphor,which are derived from our bodily, social and cultural experience, are not well used. Next weconsiderwhythismightbethecase.