Some interfaces encountered in Los Angeles this week

Few examples of technology/software-enabled spatiality encountered in Los Angeles last week:

First, this marvelous dashboard from a Toyota Prius, an energy monitor that dynamically gives indications to the driver. As soon as I got into the taxi, I became fascinated by this visualization, it looks like a weird video-game (especially if you consider the joystick-shaped gear selector that has no real mechanical link to the car).

Then this Google map itinerary printed on paper, definitely a classic nowadays:

This miniature keyboard seen at the flea market in Pasadena is also curious… sitting here in a previously human-inhabited kiosk:

Being a great fan of pet toys, this mouse-controlled mouse is a definitely stunning invention. Not just because of the mouse recurrence, but also because designing artifacts for non-humans may be intriguing:

And finally, this gorgeous “singing rock” that we ran across in Calabasas is one of those little things that express the seemingly human need to control nature:

Why do I blog this? Of course there are plenty of other objects, but these different “interfaces” struck me as fascinating this time in California. Mostly because they have various spatial implications and that they’re all somewhat recent.

Touch technologies in shared public toilets

Towards Touch-Free Spaces: Sensors, Software and the Automatic Production of Shared Public Toilets by Martin Dodge and Rob Kitchin is an essential read for anyone interested in how software-enabled technologies have implications at various spatial levels.

In this case, it’s about touching things with hands (pressing of buttons, pulling of handles, flicking switches, twisting selector dials), a relevant situation to understand the “nature of the recent automatic production of touch-free spatiality”.

(Toilet interface in Geneva)

Some excerpts that fascinated me:

“in spite of the hype and some potential benefits from touch-free technologies for enhanced convenience and hygiene, their real world implementation is always imperfect. The incomplete deployment of sensors and software across the sequence of activities (including opening doors) means that toileting as a whole can never be rendered fully touch-free and the bathroom fails to become a completely automated code/space.
(…)
Touch-free technology is almost always implemented partially, and also partial in different ways, which can make for user frustration as one is uncertain about how bits of an unfamiliar bathroom are meant to work: ‘so where do I wave my hands to get some soap?’.
(…)
The danger is then that toileting is set to become an over-determined activity. Attempting to make avowedly simple activities touch-free with digital sensors and software algorithms is simply unnecessary it could be argued, and an excess of automation in the bathroom could be critiqued as an example of disciplining the body through ‘technological paternalism’ “

Why do I blog this? Being interested in the usage of digital technologies in various places as well as the implications of automation, this is a good example of how to explore a specific locus of interaction.

Structured curiosities: personal approach to design projects

In California this week for a workshop at Nokia Design about location-based services. Today at lunch, I also gave a brownbag seminar about my approach to design/innovation projects.

Here are the slides of the presentation:

Why do I blog this? It was a good opportunity to finally step back and describe informally how I work, what I’m interested in and what kind of assumptions I have when carrying out projects (self-funded or with clients).

Interview (in French) at 36-15

No, it’s not a minitel service, it’s just called 36-15, and it’s a cool new podcast in French about digital innovation by Laurent (“L’émission qui se demande si le 21e siècle est une bonne idée”).

Last week, I’ve been interviewed on my book about failures and it’s located there on the infosphere.

Devices showing their inner selves

I found this gem on the website of the Evil Mad Scientist Laboratories:

“Meggy Jr RGB is a new kit that we designed as a platform to develop handheld pixel games. It’s based around a fully addressable 8×8 RGB LED matrix display, and features six big fat buttons for comfy game play. (…) A unique feature of Meggy Jr RGB is that it is designed to be mounted inside a “handle set” — a wooden or plastic case that’s safer and more pleasant to hold than a bare circuit board. You can make, mod and customize your own handle sets to suit your taste– These are like faceplates in that you can switch whenever you want to suit your mood or the game that you’re playing, however different handle sets can radically change what the Meggy Jr looks and feels like. Above, you can see what our basic handles (left) look like, as compared to a set of custom smoke-colored batwing handles (right).“

And you can even make your own handle (or to have them fabbed) on platforms such as Ponoko or Pololu. I’d be curious to test it and see whether the interface itself is easy to play with, without a shell.

Why do I blog this? What fascinates me, beyond the fab/open platform, is the device aesthetic. That might be the equivalent of Centre George Pompidou (Beaubourg) for digital devices! Showing the internal guts of a technical apparatus is an intriguing approach that can be traced back to other architecture/industrial design traditions. It can be about making things visible and transparent to the users/people.

It also reminds me of this Mehmet Erkök’s Extreme Personalization phones. The phone shell, personalized in a very expressive way, can be seen as an interesting approach to customization:

One-eyed robot

Found in Hotel by Boichi, a Japanese manga that I only found in French.

Why do I blog this? I like the way the one-eyed face has been turned into something more human-readable through basic pencil drawings. This may be the equivalent of the “Transmetropolitan” smiley face.

“it’s not the strangeness of the work as much as their thinking process that counts”

An interesting excerpt from the interaction12 day1 report by Johnny Holland about Antony Dunne’s speech “Crafting Design Speculations”:

“One audience member did ask the obvious question: where is the role for such out there work in everyday interaction design? His answer was that these students come from work and many return to the commercial field being employed by big corporations: it’s not the strangeness of the work as much as their thinking process that counts.“

Why do I blog this? that’s simply a good quote/answer to the question since it reflects the value of design.

The non-adoption of location-tracking in the family

“A Case Study of Non-Adoption: The Values of Location Tracking in the Family” by Vasalou, Oostveen and Joinson is a paper that is going to be presented in a week or so at the CSCW 2012 conference. It deals with the use of location-tracking by parents to monitor where their children are when outdoors. Based on a large- scale survey of 920 parents from the UK, the researchers show that this technology concurrently supports and threatens parental values.

A quick summary of the results:

“Families do not use location tracking: Only 1.7% parents reported using this technology with their children (implementation stage).
(…)
A significant number of parents, over one third of our participants, were not aware these technologies existed
(…)
Values are the motivating force in the adoption of location tracking: Our findings inform the technology adoption literature by showing that contrary to previous work, demographics (e.g. age and gender) did not predict adoption.
(…)
A small group of parents, 16%, were favorable toward location tracking (persuasion stage). Location tracking was seen as a tool to reduce uncertainty by providing constant information about children’s movements (uncertainty reduction category). More generally, parents’ accounts show that location tracking technologies are understood to be ‘preventive innovations’ that have the ability to reduce the risks facing children. Despite their positive attitudes, however, it is noteworthy that parents had not adopted these systems.
(…)
Parents do not need location tracking: The control provided via location tracking was considered to be a threat to self-direction and trust (trust and self direction category). Parents wanted to preserve their children’s ability to freely explore their environment without being judged“

And, interestingly, this last bit about declarative location (“checkin-in” in the Foursquare parlance) caught my attention:

“Systems that feature spontaneous location disclosure (e.g. checking-in) might be more reflective of this web of values and behaviors. By weakening the power relationship previously established through one-directional control, spontaneous location reports can give choice to children and nurture a sense of responsibility as well as honesty without stifling their freedom and autonomy“

Why do I blog this? Following the appropriation of location-based services, I am often surprised by the discourse that surrounds the use of such platforms. Articles such as this one, backed by data, are relevant in the sense that it shows the current usage and perspective in a specific context.

Madrigal on “QR Codes Are the Roller-Skating Horses of Advertising”

(several codes encountered in Madrid last week).

Alexis Madrigal has a good piece in The Atlantic about QR codes, their proliferation in advertising and their low adoption rate by users. Some excerpts I enjoyed

“ This is a picture of a roller-skating horse named Jimmy. I think he is a great analogy to explain why QR codes, those little black-and-white squares in magazines that you’re supposed to use as a paper hyperlink, continue to proliferate. Let me explain.
(…)
For now, though, we’ve got QR codes. And it appears we’ll continue to have them. Don’t be fooled, though: this is a novelty more than anything else. I think print magazine ads work and I think digital campaigns work. But when I look at a QR code, I don’t see the future, I see a roller-skating horse. Advertisers deploying QR codes are like people in 1900 wanting transportation to be faster, saying to themselves, “Well, we’ve got horses and we’ve got roller skates — I think we’re on to something! It seems gimmicky, but we’re innovating.” Meanwhile, inventors in garages were building the first janky, bug-ridden automobiles, the Model T just a few years away.“

Why do I blog this? Given my interest in technological trajectories, it’s relevant to put things in perspective and see how they fit in the global picture. Will the QR code eventually work? Is it just a “bridge technology”? I don’t know but there’s something worth digging here. Also, make sure to read the comments, the arguments in there are quite insightful… the way people defend QR codes (“QR is a good technology for condensing lots of information into a small physical space”) is sometimes very tech-oriented and does not account for issues related to human usage.

Two workshops at Lift12: futurescaping and location-based games

Lift 12 is almost there… and I will co-organize two workshops there:

1. Game mechanics in location-based games, in collaboration with Mathieu Castelli (C4M):

“Location-based games now exist for quite ten years. They have always been a creative platform to test innovative propositions (beyond gaming) based on geopositioning.

The game mechanics in this field is stable now with treasure hunt, geocaching and people tracking. Interestingly, the evolution of these platforms is quite slow; mostly because it is difficult to tune the game component properly. Beyond contextual issues (the city you’re in, its architecture), the experience is very much dependent on details such as the number of participants at a given time, the reactivity of the game or the accuracy of geopositioning.
This workshop will look at this in a very “hands-on” way as we will test different game mechanics with a prototype. It is aimed at participants, interaction designers, web and mobile app developers and game designers interested in testing ideas about the user experience of location-based applications.

The session will consist in a series of group activity based on Meatspace Invasion, a location-based game recently developed by C4M and Mekensleep. After a quick introduction about these, we will form groups who will test different combinations of game parameters. We will then go on the field in Geneva to test these scenarios and regroup after the game session to debrief the outcomes.“

2. Foresight surprise!, in collaboration with Anab Jain and Justin Pickard (Superflux):
This one will be devoted to exploring near future scenarios but it’s going to be a surprise. No spoilers, you have to be there to know what will be going on.