RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fifty animations were designed from the user-participated workshop. However, animations with a morphological alphabet that was specific to ‘Y’ and ‘o’ were eliminated. As a result, eight types of macro animations were extracted and were given appropriate names, as shown in Figure 3.. Eight animation types were then classified into four groups: The first group is composed of animations with deformation of the original text in three different stretching directions (see Figure 3.(a). The second group consists of vibrating animation (see Figure 3.(b).. The third group is composed of animations with a translation in two different motion paths (see Figure 3(c)).. Finally, the last group consists of rotating animations in two different rotation axes (see Figure 3.(d). Despite the different participants involved, interestingly, several animations were replicated. For example, ‘flopping’ animation type was repeatedly used to express disappointment. The ‘jumping’ animation type was frequently used to express happiness. This implies that there are stereotypes of animation that are strongly tied to specific emotions. On the other hand, some animation types were controversial in use among participants. For instance, some participants stretched the text vertically to express an angry emotion, while other participants used it to express a joyous feeling. For a joyous feeling, however, a gentle touch was added. This triggered our motivation to investigate the interaction effect jointly caused by more than one kinetic attribute.