6 months in a design lab

It’s been 6 months or so that I am working at the Media and Design Lab, a structure led by Jef Huang that sits both in architecture and computer sciences faculties. My motivation to join this lab, as a researcher, was both to work on architecture/urban projects and to learn more about design thinking.

My background being mixed up (undergraduate degree in cognitive sciences/psychology, MSc in human-computer interaction in a psychology a faculty, PhD in human-computer interaction in a computer science faculty) I quite like discovering new territories, epistemologies, methodologies and purposes. Therefore, discovering and working with architects and designers (other than game designers with whom I work for 7 years now) is very worthwhile and relevant. Given my interest in “user experience” research (or behavioral studies/psychologie ergonomique/…), it’s important to live with people who create, design, build and think technologies or services, especially in domains that I am interested in (urban computing , mobile applications, tangible interfaces, games).

Speaking about projects, the lab is a bit scattered as each of us have his or her own project but there are some common ones that involves everyone and most of the time we’re required to give feedback on each others’ work (be it about teaching or research). It’s especially during those moments that I feel how we can learn the richness of multidisciplinary design work.

(Picture of a lab meeting)

Over time, I tried to take notes of the elements that I found interesting and that seems to be referred to as “design thinking”. Coming from more structured research traditions (HCI, psychology and social sciences), it’s pertinent for me to see the differences as well as the idiosyncrasies of that group work. Reading this made me think that I should post about it. So here are some of the elements I spotted a interesting [if you're from the design community, you might find that a bit dumb]:

The first thing that is striking when you come from more monolithic-science department is the use of artifacts during the project process. I won’t enter into much detail about it (rather read “Sketching User Experiences” by Bill Buxton) but it’s important to notice how artifacts such as posters, sketches, drawings, cardboard stuff are not an end but a way to convey and discuss ideas. See for example the huge posters below that we used for a project, it was mostly to discuss the evolution of interface design. Over time, there has been at least 8 iterations of different visualizations, all supporting the arguments. Hence the gathering of artifacts in sourcebook that can be reused afterwards as inspiration.

The corollary of this is the importance of prototyping and hence the presence of fascinating material all over the place (not that different from computer sciences department though):

Of course, this does not mean that the end product/report does not also benefit from this… there is comparison between reports/presentations that I have seen in some academic psychology/HCI contexts and what is in that community.

Another side issue is the importance of the design critique in the process, which is quite surprising you’re thrown in the arena, having to criticize architectural projects you have no clue about how to articulate the validity. Over time, you grow and habit and learn what elements can be criticized, especially about how the design process has been achieved, what has been done from the starting point and whether there are flaws in the reasoning/building of the artifact.

Something that keeps surprising me about this is both the “tabula rasa” attitude in which, at the end of the day, the ideas and artifacts are stored somewhere and the next day starts with new ideas. I don’t mean here it’s a constant attitude but I noticed the tendency of architects to do so (without reinventing the wheel afterwards). This is linked to the design thinking/process that is very different from what scientific research in the sense that it’s much more creative and based on defining different vectors, evaluating their pertinence, exploring others in a less incremental way than engineering or scientific research.

In sum, I am happy to see that and how I can adjust my own research to this. Of course, this is just after 6 months there but I really have pleasure to discover all of this and to compare it to other settings. And not only to scientific research, my biggest surprise (in retrospect) is to notice how video game design suffers from the lack of design thinking, how they’re definitely closer to the engineering way of thinking (problem/technological solution) and that there is a whole set of things to apply there. This is not astonishing as the work I am doing for certain video game companies for few years is spot on this (user-centered design, ethnography, foresight).

As a side note, what I wrote here mostly emerges from my academic work. Foresight and research work don with Julian at the Near Future Laboratory explores that area in different ways.

Mapping the HCI communitiy

In “How do Design and Evaluation Interrelate in HCI Research?“, Wania et al. investigates the relationship between two communities in human-computer interaction: those who focus on designing for usability and the ones who evaluate usability. Their goal was to discover how design and evaluation are related through an analysis of the citations in the HCI literature over a fourteen-year period in a database of over ten million documents (and bibliographic cocitation analysis).

The result of their analysis allowed them to get this co-citation map:

Some interesting remarks from the paper:

“There are authors who draw attention to the fact that design and evaluation go hand in hand. But even some of those who do draw connections between design and evaluation seem to spend most of the time talking about them separately and then spend a short time talking about both design and evaluation together.
(…)
two orthogonal dimensions and these were discussed above. One, vertically, shows high involvement with end
users (at the top) and low involvement (at the bottom). The second dimension, running horizontally, shows a strong focus on theory development (on the left) and a strong focus on system building (on the right)
(…)
While this analysis is clear about who is at the center, we must speculate about why this particular set of authors is at the center. (…) We believe that the central theme that ties these five authors together is a focus on the context of use of systems. Suchman’s situated action and Hutchin’s cognition in the wild have a clear focus on context. Fischer’s seeding-evolution-reseeding model of system development bases design decisions on studies of systems in their context of use.
(…)
There are distinct clusters here, but there are not clusters consisting only of design methods and others consisting only of evaluation methods. Rather, each of the seven clusters contains examples of both design and evaluation methods. What, then, is the glue that holds each cluster together? (…) To some extent, there is some mapping of problems to approaches, but it seems that the ties are weak.
(…)
The next hot research area will be the one in the center of the HCI map. (…) We predict, therefore, that the next hot topic in HCI will be a focus on understanding design and evaluation in the context of use.“

Why do I blog this? it’s interesting to read this sort of article to get an overview of a field. Of course it’s a pity this only concern academic work (and not other interaction design actors) but only the academic system would allow such analysis based on publications and co-citations.

Wania, C.E., Atwood, M.E. and McCain, K.W. (2006): How do design and evaluation interrelate in HCI research?. In: Proceedings of DIS06: Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, & Techniques 2006. pp. 90-98.

A user study of Dodgeball

The last issue of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication is devoted to social networks. Among all the papers they have about this topic, there is one that is closer to my own research about location-based applications and services: Mobile Social Networks and Social Practice: A Case Study of Dodgeball by Lee Humphreys. It interestingly investigate the nature of interactions that develop around a mobile social network site such as Dodgeball and how these interactions might change the way users think about and experience urban public spaces.

The interesting thing in taking Dodgeball as a location-based application is that it’s based on self-disclosure of one’s whereabouts. Looking at the findings from this year-long qualitative field study is very informative. As the conclusion summarizes:

“The messages exchanged through Dodgeball did help my informants to coordinate face-to-face meetings among groups of friends. In addition to this functional purpose, Dodgeball messages also served a performative function by allowing informants to associate their identity with the branding of a particular venue. Sometimes a Dodgeball message could be interpreted as a member demonstrating a kind of social elitism. At other times, sending check-in messages with one’s location to Dodgeball was a means of social and spatial cataloguing. In this way, Dodgeball can serve as a social diary or map.
(…)
Some of the social connections and congregations facilitated by Dodgeball are similar to those found in third places, but Dodgeball congregations are itinerant spaces for urban sociality. In contrast to place-based acquaintanceships, third spaces allow for habitual, dynamic, and technologically-enabled face-to-face interaction among loosely tied groups of friends.
(…)
A related implication of Dodgeball use was social molecularization. By communicating about locations in the city, my informants could cognitively map urban public space. In addition, Dodgeball users can move through the city differently, based on the social-location information available to them. If they know friends are at a bar, they can go join them. In fact, the more friends who check in to a bar, the greater the pull to meet up with them. In this way, Dodgeball use contributes to a collective experience and movement of social groups through urban public space.“

Why do I blog this? being interested in my research in the role and affordances of location-awareness, this study is important as it unveil some usage of that information. It complements some of the other affordances described in HCI (I am currently writing two journal papers about this).

Furthermore, since I am interested in how such features may affect urban environment and cities, the last result is quite interesting. It’s actually very close to other writings about micro-coordination. See for example “Nobody sits at home and waits for the telephone to ring:” Micro and hyper-coordination through the use of the mobile telephone by Rich Ling and Birgitte Yttri.

Humphreys, L. (2007). Mobile social networks and social practice: A case study of Dodgeball. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 17.

“TGV hitch-hiking”

This morning in the french news, a story of furious commuters, unhappy with the delay of their trains who stopped a high-speed train (TGV) in France. After few weeks of transport strikes and regular delay, the commuters on this line were so edgy that they warn the station manager that they would stop the TGV. As the article says, it’s about “TGV hitch-hiking”, a very discreet practice.

Why do I blog this? in terms of (sub) computing urban or mobility applications would there be some interesting applications for transport regulation to think about based on this sort of practice?

Steampunk tangible interface for music

Being a great fan of all the electro-dub production of french label Jarring Effect, my interest has been drawn by a device designed for Ez3kiel‘s last show, created in partnership with Medias-Cités. That blogpost by Clement Thierry has a good write-up (in french though) about it.

Called “cycloharpe” (bike-harp), this installation is meant to allow the user to change the music titles of the band’s new album. Pedaling and using old-school buttons on this Jules Vernes-like device allow to control samples through different melodies and rhythms.

Why do I blog this? just found curious this steampunk tangible interface to control sound.

Nomenclature of Wii gestures

Preparing my talk for the Game Design Conference about tangible/gestural interfaces, I ran across this very interesting Wario Ware Walkthrough guide by G. Louie (not only curious because of its ASCII layout).

What struck me as very pertinent here is the nomenclature (the naming) and the description of moves. See for example this intriguing list:

“The Form Baton – The Balance Stone – The Remote Control – The Umbrella – The Handlebar – The Sketch Artist – The Chauffeur – The Samurai- The Tug-of-War -The Waiter – The Elephant – The Thumb Wrestler – The Discard -The Big Cheese – The Janitor – The Dumbbell – The Mohawk – The Finger Food – The Boxer -The Mortar and Pestle – The Diner“

With descriptions such as:

“ The Handlebar
“Turn the Form Baton sideways and grasp the ends firmly in both hands. Like riding a bicyle, perfecting this stance requires grace, steadiness, and tightshorts.”

To do The Handlebar, turn the Wii Remote so that the 2 button is on the right. Place hands over the top so that palms are on the buttons. Uses for this form would be pumping and balancing.
*Does not use remote sensor bar*“

Why do I blog this? what I find relevant here is the way people try to refer to gestures meant to control specific game interactions. Things get more complicated when the interface is gestural: how to name them? how to describe them not only to the users but in game guide? A solution as we se here is to rely on existing metaphors: type of activities (boxer), postures or animal that makes think of posture (elephant), moments (diner) or jobs (chauffeur).

Pumping like a shadok

As the Shadok say: “Better to pump even if nothing happens than to risk something worse happening by not pumping”.

Why do I blog this? The Shadok was a french animated TV series from the late 60s that involved rough and stupid bird-like characters. One of the most curious aspect of this species is their absurd, useless and endless pumping. Surely invisible to non-francophone people, the series was a very weird mise-en-scène of various situations, with a whole world/vocablary/history/etc (see on youtube).

What is interesting here is the fact that this series set some standards in french’s behavior towards progress, innovation or the passage of time. Quotes and mottos coming form the Shadoks are very commonly used in technological developments and projects as programmers, designers engineers often refer to them to criticize design. It’s almost invisible to people who do not know them but a bit pervasive in the culture.

The Mobile City conference

The Mobile City is a conference on locative and mobile media and the city that seems to be interesting:

“Locative and mobile media can be seen as the interface between the digital domain and the city, bringing the digital world into the physical world, and at the same time uploading and sharing real world experiences back to the digital world.

1. From a theoretical point of view, what are useful concepts to talk about the blurring/merging of physical and digital spaces?
2. From a critical perspective, what does the emergence of locative and mobile media mean for urban culture, citizenship, and identities?
3. From a pragmatic point of view, what does all this mean for the work of urban professionals (architects,designers, planners), media designers, and academics?”

Why do I blog this? the program has not been announced yet but the topics seem to be very interesting.

Some urban computing projects

Last week I attended an interesting event organized by the foresight group of the Geneva State. The whole day was about the digital cities of tomorrow with an interesting set of speakers.

I’ve been mostly interested in all the projects that speakers presented to describe either weak signals of urban computing or critical perspectives on that topic. Instead of putting on-line notes transcriptions, the list of projects is maybe more important to get a global picture of the discussion (mostly taken from Christophe Guignard and Bruno Marzloff’s presentations).

Diurnisme (Philippe Rahm) is an environment that physiologically creates the conditions of night during the day. To some extent, it tryes to introduce the night during the day (Photo: Adam Rzepka, Centre Pompidou).

Jour noir (Philippe Rahm) is a negative urban standard lamp, producing the night during the day, physically. The lamp emits an invisible and cold electromagnetic radiation, like that emitted by the night sky (Photo: Philippe Rahm).

Real room (fabric.ch) is an experimental architectural project for the Nestlé World Headquarters in Vevey (Switzerland) that insert computer device in offices which can diffuse temporalities and places, and interface light, sound, heat, humidity or information (instead of displaying images or printing documents on paper). It’s actually informed by atomic clocks, luminosity, heat, pressure and humidity sensors, distributed in a regular framework across a space representing the entire globe. These “RealRoom(s)”, connected permanently, directly recreate in an artificial but perceptible way, a global “terrestrial spatiality” fitting to the scale of Nestlé in 2005 (Photo: Fabric.ch).

City Wall is a large mutli-touch display installed in a central location in Helsinki which acts as a collaborative and playful interface for the everchanging media landscape of the city. It displays photos and videos which are continuously gathered in realtime from user-generated websites such as Flickr or YouTube.

Dash is collaborative GPS device: an internet-connected automobile navigation system that helps user to “know the best routes around traffic using up to the minute information provided by the Dash Driver Network“, “find virtually anything—nearby or near your destination—using Yahoo! Local search“> and “Send an address from any computer right to your car with Send to Car. What is interesting here is the social navigation of such a tool, and of course that it might be relevant for pedestrians as well (see more elements here).

Bruno Marzloff also mentioned how Toulouse-based transport company Tisséo displays travellers’ faces on subway screens or how Twitter is used by the BART both as a service system (e.g. receiving updates about delay) and a social space (e.g. people sending messages to each others).

Why do I blog this? this list is definitely a raw description of the projects that struck me as pertinent during this event; they cover a certain range of the urban computing spectrum. The first projects a re definitely more about interactive art whereas the others are a bit more utilitarian. In both cases, they exemplify interesting tendencies regarding urban computing with different level of scales.

Encouraging uses of location-aware systems

Reading (again and again) articles about location-awareness for a journal paper I am writing, I ran across “The Carrot Approach: Encouraging use of location systems” by Kieran Mansley, Alastair R. Beresford and David Scott which I found quite interesting. The paper addresses the lack of understanding about why location-aware applications can be useful and what factors can motivate people to use them, through a case study of AT&T’s Bat system.

The use of Bat they’re interested in here is the one of the person-locator application or of context-aware paging. As they describe, the system is quite efficient as an indoor positioning provider. Accuracy and coverage are excellent but they noticed a “lack of genuinely useful applications and a strategy for their deployment“. they developed a classification of the intended users of the location system (in their case, the staff and students within the lab) with the aim of targeting applications at the needs of specific social groups. Using the prisoner’s dilemma approach, they show which ones are relevant.

What they found is that:

“We model the utility to an individual of an application by the formula Utility = AU2 + B where U is the number of participating users and A and B are constants. AU2 is the Metcalfe-effect and B the single-user payoff. Applications fall into one of three categories: Type I : those useful to isolated individuals (high B); Type II: those useful to small subgroups (high A, small set of users U ); and Type III: those only useful when the whole lab participates (high A, whole lab U ). Many traditional applications (e.g. the “person-locator”) are Type III applications; most of the applications we present here are either Type I or Type II.
(…)
We analysed the recent decline in Active Bat usage from a game-theoretic standpoint and argued that many existing location-aware Type III applications have fallen into disuse as a consequence of the well-known Prisoners’ Dilemma. We described how this trap could be avoided if Type I or Type II applications are provided which are of immediate use to individuals and small social groups. Furthermore, increased overall participation has an overwhelmingly positive effect as users of the location system receive a community benefit from increased take-up, both from being able to locate colleagues more reliably and from increased privacy. We claim this principle justifies the existence of applications that have no intrinsically useful purpose (such as games).“

Why do I blog this? quite relevant for current writings and talks about location-awareness in mobile social computing. The game-theory approach is original and brings interesting arguments to the table.

What’s interesting IMO wrt to person-locator is this notion of

“from a game-theoretic standpoint, this application may be modelled by a multi-player prisoners’ dilemma. In real-life each person chooses whether to wear their bat or not whereas in the prisoners’ dilemma each prisoner chooses whether to co-operate with the authorities or not. Both wearing a Bat and co-operating have an associated (small) cost. If everyone co-operates (i.e. everyone wears their Bats) then the whole group receives a benefit. However, from the point of view of an individual it is always better not to co-operate (i.e. not wear their Bat) while secretly hoping that everyone else does; this is said to be the dominant strategy. It does not matter how great the benefit (i.e. the size of the coverage area) is; if all the players are rational then no-one co-operates and no-one wears their Bats. Therefore coverage area and applications like the “person-locator” cannot explain the difference in uptake between the LCE and AT&T. “

Mansley, K., Beresford, A.R. & Scott, D. (2004). The Carrot Approach: Encouraging use of location systems. In Proceedings of Ubiquitous Computing: 6th International Conference, Nottingham, UK, September 7-10, 2004, pp. 366-383.