Paul Dourish on reflective HCI

Been reading this paper from Paul Dourish tonight in the train: “Seeing Like an Interface” (a paper he presented at OzCHI 2007). The author concluded about “the burgeoning interest in a reflective approach to HCI” that would be concerned by the “critical dimensions of design”. He basically describes technologies such as computers as “an effective site” at which to engage in critical engagements about the cultural values and assumptions. What does that mean for the everyday researcher/practitioner? Here are some hints described in the paper:

“Reflective HCI suggests an approach to interaction design in which cultural assumptions and values play as important a role as traditional usability metrics both as measures of success and as elements of the design process.
(…)
The discipline of HCI has evolved considerably over several decades, but so too have computer systems themselves. What I want to draw attention to here is not simply the fact that computers have become faster, smaller, and more powerful as technological artifacts, but that they have emerged as cultural objects in a radically different way than they did before. They are elements of the landscape of daily life in many different forms. Digital devices are embedded in our cultural and social imagination in very different ways than they were when HCI was emerging. To the extent that our discipline thinks not simply about user interface design but about interactions between humans and computers, these transformations suggest that we need to look more broadly for theoretical perspectives that help us understand how computation manifests itself as a cultural object“

Why do I blog this? surely some elements to be connected with what Anthony Dunne described in Hertzian tales about “critical design” (although the two visions are not the same). On a more general level, I find interesting to see when different disciplines (such as human-computer interaction or design) come-up with close concepts.

What is then interesting for the layman (for example when I am working with game designers on gestural interfaces usage for the Nintendo Wii) is to see how these ideas can be turned into (pragmatic) actions. In other words, what would “reflective HCI” brings to the table when I am surrounded by level designers, scenario planners, the production manager and the lead coder? Well, it’s certainly different from showing graphics about usability issues (that bloody tester missed the door 14 times on that level!) but it does bring questions, insights, discussions that sometimes allow to reconsider problems and results from tests/observations/ethnographic accounts of playtests.

Graffiti removal selectivity

Seen in Lyon, France last week:

Some graffitis removed, some other still there. How to establish a hierarchy of what should be removed? Is it the cost to remove big graffitis? the possibly-offensive content?

It gives an intriguing flavor of selectivity anyway. Stains are always curious as they are traces of activities and decisions taken by people.

Embracing innovation

In this NYT piece called “The Risk of Innovation: Will Anyone Embrace It?“, G. Pascal Zachary deals with interesting issues regarding innovation. Some excerpts:

“Even today, when adding video to a phone is a trivial cost, consumers may rebel. Video-conferencing often remains an activity forced on people by their employers. Resistance to technology is an omnipresent risk for every innovator. Even a device as fabulously freeing as the personal computer struck some people as an abomination
(…)
Adaptable humans usually trade one technology for another, rather than reject any and all. To be accepted, innovations must deliver benefits — enough benefits to make change worthwhile.
(…)
FOR technological innovators, the cash register can ring either way. They may achieve a smash-hit breakthrough, or simply make a slight improvement in a technology that humans already feel comfortable with. Most innovators no longer even try to predict human reactions to their creations. Henry Kressel, a partner at Warburg Pincus and a co-author of “Competing for the Future: How Digital Innovations Are Changing the World,” says, “You throw technologies into the market and see what sticks.” The hope is that passionate “early adopters” will blaze a path toward mass acceptance of a new technology. Yet the truth is that no one can tell in advance which innovations people will adapt to and which will become the next example of the Picturephone.“

Why do I blog this? some general-and-controversial thoughts about tech/usage foresight.

How to kill an elephant path

The last step of a neverending story (see previous episode here and when it all started). The tagline for this would be “how to kill a an unofficial route, a path that is formed in space by people making their own shortcuts“

July 2006:

February 2007:

January 2008:

(the last picture shows the sign that say “please take care of the lawn, don’t cross it please”)

Why do I blog this? this is one of the most interesting aspect of urban life, how people’s intents materialize (‘desire lines’ as one of the comment on my Flickr picture says) and how this is prevented by others forces. In this case, it’s “to protect the lawn”, which is a quite intriguing reason.

In addition, other things to think about: what’s more efficient? the barriers or the warning sign? why isn’t there any other elephant path starting on the other side (where there is no sign)? is it because you just get out of the building and it’s acceptable to take a longer path?

Putting Space in Its Proper Place

Morning read in the train: “Toward a Geography of a World Without Maps: Lessons from Ptolemy and Postal Codes” by Michael R. Curry. In this paper, the author describes the implicit and widely accepted history of space:

“the world (and, indeed, the universe) was, once upon a time, seen as vast, too vast to be grasped in its entirety. While knowledge of the world was limited to knowledge of the local, the local was imagined as situated within this vastness. Through what might best be described as an evolutionary process, people gained an increasing knowledge of the local, of places, but began, too, to be able to situate those places within an increasingly comprehensible whole, which came to be called (but had always been) ‘‘space.’’ By the time of Ptolemy, a sophisticated—and familiar—geographical ontology had developed, wherein there was a hierarchy from place to region to space and wherein knowledge of places tended to be tinged with subjectivity, while that of space became increasingly amenable to more rigorous, mathematical understanding. On this view, the situation today, where geographic information systems, global positioning systems, remote surveillance systems, and related technologies are increasingly parts of everyday life, is continuous with that past, and is in a sense an expected step in that evolutionary process. “

And then shows us the flip side of the coin, describing how this is a “telic fantasy” using the postal code example:

“there are good reasons for believing that a more empirically grounded account of the relationship between the concepts of space and of place will indicate that that relationship has been, and remains, far more messy than on the ‘‘standard’’ account. (…) such an analysis will show that prior to the invention of written maps and lists, the means for the storage of information were far too feeble to underpin anything resembling the homogeneous and metrical idea of space that we find in, say, Ptolemy; ‘‘space’’ was, in fact, invented rather late in the day, in societies that offered the appropriate affordances.
(…)
People do not, on the whole, walk around with anything that could seriously be termed ‘‘maps’’ in their heads, and to attempt to resuscitate that idea by redefining maps as ‘‘sets of directions’’ (to take just one example) is to be dishonest.“

Why do I blog this? I am more and more interested in human geography and the way they deal with space and the individual as it is far more interesting than what has been done in psychology recently. Furthermore, there are important conclusions to be drawn for ubiquitous/urban computing as it describes people’s representation of space and place.

Curry, M. R. 2005: Toward a geography of a world without maps: lessons from Ptolemy and postal codes . Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95, 680-691

Old-schoold handheld electronic games

What does handheld electronic game such as Parker Brother’s Split Second can teach us?

The curious box/enclosure? the super straight select-start-4-arrows buttons? the rockin’ analogic screen? the okay-for left-handed and okay for right-handed design? the symmetry of the system with sound on one part and display on the other?

Maybe it’s the whole experience or even the expectations back in the days, when playing with very near 3×15 red matrix was like being immersed in Tron. What impresses me now is the “one-device = one game/purpose” equation. The interface was so rough and basic that you could only play one sort of game. It was even crazier with Nintendo handheld a la Donkey Kong since part of the level design was DRAWN and PRINTED on the screen. Would there still be devices like this? Or only converged phones?

Very curiously, this sort of electronic games have always received a very low interest from both thinkers and academics. In the book “Electronic Plastic (see also here), the authors of that nice compendium state how “the recourse to supposedly primitive games leads us back to the creative source of the contemporary entertainment revolution” and that these game provide as much fun as recent Sony or Nintendo platforms.

The interface transition of common artifacts

Recently read L’Age du Plip by Bruno Jacomy, a french book about stories concerning the evolution of techniques. The book haven’t been translated in english but there are some interesting aspects I wanted to report here. Using different examples of techniques, the author describes different rules of technical innovations

The first example is about the “plip”, the remote keyless system to access automobiles. One of these device, invented by Paul Lipschutz received the name “plip”. Jacomy finds interesting to describe “the fact that there is a mutual coexistence in drivers’ pockets, of 2 distinct objects with the same function” (to open up doors and start off the engine). According to him, it shows that we’re in a transitory phase with: the physical key made of metal with weird shapes and the “plip”, that small box full of electronics. He also take two other examples a different transitory phase from sailing ships to steam ships (with a co-existence of both steam engines and sails) or the use of crank to start engines in old cars. In these cases, it took 50 years for the innovation (steam instead of sail, removal of the crank) to be fully deployed.

The second case study he observes is the difference between cook handles depending on their use of gas or electricity. To be started gas handles need to be turned counter-clockwise (to the left) and electric handles do not have standards, and generally need to be turned clockwise (to the right). The author shows that this is caused by the two different “cultures” behind the design of such instruments. Gas are fluids, and as every other liquids, one open handles by turning it to the left whereas electricity comes from a different culture in which things has been derived from devices employed to take measures (such as voltmeter). The modifications of voltage for example was measured by a small increase that would go clockwise (because of the resemblance of the measuring device and a clock). Then, when people had to design electrical appliances, they figured out that it would be better if an increase was translated by a clockwise movement. Things get complicated when the interface that evolved from two different culture can be found in the same cooking device (gas and electricity). Jacomy uses this as a second law in which he shows that the confluence between two techniques will have three phases: the two ignore themselves, then they coexist, then one win over the other.

We’re in the midst of such a situation with the examples below: a telephone, a computer keyboard and… a lovely-but-dusty minitel.

This has been caused by two different technical cultures: calculators (started with Felt and Tarrant’s Comptometer) and telephone keypad. The minitel is the most interesting because it’s a sort-of computer designed with the phone interface culture. The author also mentions how ATM use both interface.

Why do I blog this? few notes and thoughts about that book (which have more to offer!). I find interesting this timescale dimension that also give some interesting elements to consider in terms of foresight issues and the evolution of artifacts. Moreover, the notion of “design culture” who set standards is also important, especially when things start to mix because of the convergence between manufactures objects. Surely material and food for thoughts for a near future laboratory pamphlet.

Urban warfare and its categorization of space

In “Slumlords: Aerospace Power in Urban Fights“, Troy S. Thomas (Aerospace Power Journal, 2002) describes the challenging environment of future conflicts: urban warfare. Although I am definitely not into military research, the article is interesting because of its representation of space. Some quotes I found interesting:

“Understanding the urban setting is tough, given the complex and diverse nature of the environment. We need a framework that embraces the diversity of cities but in a manner that has actionable, operational significance
(…)
The urban system is unique in that it consists of five dimensions or spaces. First, the airspace above the ground is usable to aircraft and aerial munitions. Second, the supersurface space consists of structures above the ground that can be used for movement, maneuver, cover and concealment, and firing positions. For airmen, the supersurface warrants special consideration since the enemy can locate weapons such as surface-to-air missiles or antiaircraft artillery there. Structures also channel or restrict movement at the surface. Third, the surface space consists of exterior areas at ground level, including streets, alleys, open lots, parks, and so forth. Fourth, the subsurface or subterranean level consists of subsystems such as sewers, utility structures, and subways. (…) The fifth domain is the information space.
(…)
Distinctions between modern and primitive cities are a function of three subsystems: physical, functional, and social. All can exist in the five urban spaces. The physical subsystem consists of man-made terrain. (…) The physical and functional character of the urban battle space is irrelevant without the human dimension- the social subsystem, which includes a wide range of variables, such as culture, demographics, religion, and history.
(…)
rapid urbanization in developing countries results in a battle-space environment that is decreasingly knowable since it is increasingly unplanned.
“

Why do I blog this? militaries (airmen in this case) have warfare doctrines that they use to derive strategies and tactics. As a matter of fact, doctrines rely on a vision of the future the try to project. In this article, what is interesting is how they deal with a representation of the urban environments of the future. The quote I picked up are a bit limited compared to what is described in the document, but I found interesting to read about this categorization of space, quite different from the one we often read in anthropology or ubicomp research about space&place.

Playful spaces in Geneva

Why do I blog this? Two interesting examples of playful assemblage, definitely put together in some sort of informal urban setting. Of course they are hidden and a bit less accessible than city skate-parks and kids parks. They however prove to be intriguing in terms of their presence, showing the necessity to have playful area. What does that prove for urban computing? maybe nothing, perhaps the need to leave open spaces (even hidden) for creativity.

Software tool to help citizens visualize their cities’ eco-efforts

The last issue of Metropolis featured an article about See-it, a software tool developed by “Visible Strategies” that helps Albuquerque citizens visualize their cities’ eco-efforts:

“See-it (short for Social, Environmental, Economic-Integration Toolkits) organizes citywide data into a live
status report that the average citizen can quickly understand. At the center of the screen is a planet divided into three general areas of focus (ecosystems and agriculture, the man-made environment, and the economy and culture) and encircled by concentric rings of in-creasing specific ity (goals, strategies, and actions). If you’re interested in Albuquerque’s plans for its buses, for example, follow the “Greening Our Travel” goal to the “Vehi cle Efficiency” strategy, where you can read about the fleet’s ongoing conversion to alternative fuels. You’ll also find a graph that evaluates the plan’s progress (on track!) and a form to send feedback to a city manager. “It has forced us to take a good hard look at what data we have and how we measure our success,” says Danny Nevarez, who works at Albu quer que’s Environmental Health Depart ment.“

Why do I blog this? there are lots of projects in urban computing that aims at revealing the invisible/implicit phenomena such as pollution, I am curious to see how city dwellers understand/use/employ such platforms. I quite liked that comment in the article: “Of course, the program is only as good as the data behind it, which the city itself provides” but I am more dubious about this comment by a user: “I want to be part of this. I want to be able to see whether I’m reducing my ecological footprint. And if I can’t do that, how can I relate to a government plan?”