long+slow+blurry innovation

The introduction of “Mobile Usability: How Nokia Changed the Face of the Mobile Phone” by Lindholm, Keinonen and Kiljander features this interesting excerpt:

“the only way to get a working assumption of what the technology enable us to do and how they are likely to be used is to be involved in these projects long enough. Even then, educated guesses and developed intuitions are only approximate. Something that was supposed to be easy to implement turns out to be practically impossible. Sometimes, the opposite occurs. Solutions that were originally postponed to allow technology to catch up are suddenly realized in unexpected ways“

Why do I blog this? This quote is an interesting summary of what I believe as it covers different aspects:

• The importance to have a long-term involvement in an organization which design something: I personally work with a french video game studio for 7 years and it strikes me how much I learn in the long run and not through short gigs on their projects. For example, it’s been almost from the beginning that we discuss the usability test and user experience field study ideas. It took us approximately 4 years to turn what was “user research as a R&D project” into “user research in the production pipe-line”. The time to convince people, to show the value of user research, the importance to insert it in the production process, and finally to get some funding to make it accepted…
• The notion of “educated guess” and “developed intuitions” is important. For that matter, I like how Jan Chipchase frame the results form his work: not facts but “informed opinions”. Although the quote does not refer to user research, I find an interesting pattern here in the sense that knowledge construction about the evolution of technology is rarely absolute. There are contingencies and idiosyncrasies that plays an important role.
• The difficulty in forecasting results because the world is a complex system.
• The importance of time: innovation is slow, change takes time and as foresight researchers say, we always tend to overestimate the short term and minimize the long term (tail).

Design Thinking in HBR (Tim Brown)

Once in a while the Harvard Business Review tackles topics close to my field. Sometimes it’s about foresight, today it’s about design with this article by Tim Brown called “Design Thinking” (in the june 2008 edition).

Starting an insightful model in R&D/innovation, namely Thomas Edison, Brown describes design thinking as a descendant of that tradition of a “blended art, craft, science, business savvy, and an astute understanding of customers and markets“. He simply defines it as:

“it is a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity.“

In these days of desperate need of innovation as “a source of differentiation and competitive advantage”, design thinking is literally more and more invited to the business table (hence a publication in HBR). Brown definitely make clear that design evolved from

“put a beautiful wrapper around the idea (…) making new products and technologies aesthetically attractive and therefore more desirable to consumers or by enhancing brand perception through smart, evocative advertising and communication strategies”

to

“Now, however, rather than asking designers to make an already developed idea more attractive to consumers, companies are asking them to create ideas that better meet consumers’ needs and desires. The former role is tactical, and results in limited value creation; the latter is strategic, and leads to dramatic new forms of value.

Giving some examples, he also enters in more detail in the process itself, discussing the role of prototypes and “tools for design thinking”. As well as an interesting deconstruction of the myth of the creative genius, Brown shows how it’s not about ideas popping up out from the blue, but instead the results of an hardworking process with human-discovery and iterations.

Why do I blog this? it’s a decent overview of what is design, to be kept up handy for upcoming teaching gigs. The good thing here (for designers) is the acknowledgement of the strategic value of design and the intrinsical importance of adopting a user-centred approach. The sidebar about designers’ profile and the non-importance of black clothes is also a good start.

As a side-note, I find intriguing that the term “behavioral scientists/researchers” is more and more used. It sorts of echoes with the NYT piece about Jan Chipchase. Working in that domain and having troubles to define in 2 words what I am doing, I am always intrigued by the terms employed by different stakeholders: behavioral researcher seems to be the term for the press lately, whereas consultants and companies use “user experience” (I know there are nuances though).

video interview about urban computing

it’s always anxious to be on video… but i’ve been interviewed by infonomia.tv about “the future of urban computing” (following the text version).

The video is available there. Thanks Alfons Cornella and Doris Obermair.

Softness for the ears

Ears are an important part of our body and consumer electronics is often adapted to them through various process. But sometimes, the aging of technologies make them fall apart and people need to fix the device they have. When it comes to intimate products such as headphones, people look for easy-and-soft solution so that it’s still adapted to the ears.

Cotton and the mandatory duct-tape can be of good help here as shown by this headset found during a home visit for a field study few days ago. A fix that will not age, gentle anyway. Again an interesting example of people’s creativity in repairing their own gear.

Video games and its influence on the military industry

(via) In The Disruptive Potential of Game Technologies: Lessons Learned from its Impact on the Military Simulation Industry, Roger Smith discusses how computer games have a disruptive impact on military industry and suggest that these will disrupt other industries in the future.

It basically tells the history of military simulations and how video-games’ relationship to them, showing how game technologies rapidly moved into the industry from which they were originally created (military simulation). What happened is that new types of defense simulation companies “have emerged and do not attempt to re-create products from scratch, but instead seek out customers who require modifications to commercial tools with which they are proficient“.

Why do I blog blog this? Personally, I am less interested in the “serious game” aspect of this (plus I don’t like that term), but instead, by the conclusive sidebar of the paper, which is about how we can draw lessons for other industries. Some excerpts:

“Specific lessons that have been learned in the military simulation industry are:

1. Not Good Enough. The game technologies often do not appear to be good enough for the core customer base of the industry. However, (…) game technologies have the power of Silicon Valley behind them and the potential to become more than good enough for core customers.
2. Raising the Standard. The visual appeal and human usability of games is far beyond that of most industrial software applications. These features are very attractive to customers and enable vendors to sway customers to their products much more easily than is possible with the traditional software tools.
3. Customer Pull. As customers become aware of game-based tools in their industry they pull on their current suppliers to offer similar products. If established companies ignore these requests it creates a disruptive opportunity for an upstart company that will satisfy these needs.
4. Explore Applicability. Established players in other industries should explore the potential improvements that game technology offers for their customers.
5. Build Capabilities. If game technologies are entering an industry, leaders must determine whether to create their own in-house expertise or develop relationships with smaller game technology studios. There are a number of game studios that have been only marginally successful in selling games for entertainment, but who possess the skills necessary to apply these technologies to a new industry.”

Some more general lessons about innovation and how people from the military industry sees the video-game business.

Game on the street

Simpler than ARG but surely along the same line, this sort of street game (spotted yesterday in Lyon, France) always makes me wondering about Jane Jacobs and the importance to have people/eyes/activity on the street.

Conviviel/Mixware

Via Etienne Mineur, I found some photo captures of this amazing book about designing for the french minitel. The book’s called “Conviviel 1, dialogues et images électroniques de grande diffusion” (in english: “Mixware: electronic dialogues and images for the general public”). See here some parts of the book scanned by Mineur.

What is interesting is the “rules” described by the books’ author (my translation form french to english):

“The relevant “telematic” applications:

1. Does not imply training on the user’s part, nor manual
2. Answers a need and bring an advantage compared to the means of communication employed thus far
3. Never fail to logic
4. Has a personality, its own brand
5. Does not have dead-end or wrong tracks
6. Give surprises and lives with its own time
7. Take into account the user’s training level
8. Take into account the user’s personality
9. Gives benefit rather than costs
10. Let people get back to it

”

Why do I blog this? although this gem is impossible to find, I would crave to have a copy (even a pdf) as the ideas described there seems very relevant (as aesthetically great). A side-reason for this blogpost is that I am collecting material for a discussion about “hidden sources of interaction design” to show how certain paths are valuable (and shaped?) interaction design: some good lessons for the field can be drawn from the minitel and also CD-rom applications.

The iPhone as a gaming platform with gestural interaction

People interested in tangible/gestural interfaces and mobile devices may be intrigued by this patent filed by Apple. Called “Techniques for interactive input to portable electronic devices”, the patent is about:

“A game input area (surface or plane) receives input for multiple applications including an interactive application executed in connection with a scene. The input received is directed to the appropriate application based on one or more locations (e.g., points, positions, regions, portions) of the input area effectively identified when input is received (or entered). In addition, the manner in which input is received (or entered) can be used to determine which application should receive the input. The input area can additionally resemble or approximate the shape of a scene (e.g., game scene) to allow a person to provide input in a more intuitive way. Accordingly, input can be provided in a simple and more intuitive manner by effectively allowing the user to interact with the input area in a way that mimics or approximates a desired action (e.g., moving a ball or bat around by inputting a rotational movement). Examples of such interaction include positional, directional (e.g., rotational), press or pressure input (or movement) which can easily be provided by a thumb or a finger, for example, on a touch screen. (end of abstract)“

That website gives more concrete details with some pics that are more explicit about “Examples of such interactions include that can be characterized as positional, directional, rotational, pressing and/or pushing type inputs (or movement)“:

Why do I blog this? the idea of the patent is to have “multitasking” input techniques that would enable iPod/iPhone users to play games on the touch-screen while at the same time maintaining control of a secondary application from the screen. I take it as an interesting signal of upcoming applications on the iPhone; of course it’s not the “iphone” word that is important here but instead that there is some good potential to see entertainment innovations with such interface due to a combination of factor: flat-fee internet subscription, touchscreen, easiness to develop web-apps, etc.

mundane creativity

Mundane creativity is always fascinating. Even when standing at a tram stop, you encounter these little details which make you wondering about the wisdom of people. The guy’s shoes protection made out of plastic bag is a tangible representation of this (certainly of interest with an unexpected rain like the one we had).

why is this important? because it shows that people can adapt and find solutions in mobility issues, so that they can cope with the context contingencies. What does that mean for urban computing and mobile services? are there any direct transfer to mobile phones for instance? perhaps not directly but if we design platform open enough and understandable enough to be personalized and modified, similar solutions can emerge.

Product ecology as a design framework

Recently, in my daily data farming, I ran across several sources mentioning the notion of “product ecology”. It generally refers to how (interaction) design broaden its focus from systems targeted on one person to more socially or culturally situated products. Among the sources about this, Jodi Forlizzi‘s work struck me as very relevant.

In this article in the International Journal of Design, she focuses on the interesting notion of “product ecology” and how it can be employed as a theoretical design framework:

“In the Product Ecology, the product is the central unit of analysis. (…) The functional, aesthetic, symbolic, emotional and social dimensions of a product, combined with other units of analysis, or factors, in the ecology, help to describe how people make social relationships with products. These include the product; the surrounding products and other systems of products; the people who use it, and their attitudes, disposition, roles, and relationships; the physical structure, norms and routines of the place the product is used; and the social and cultural contexts of the people who use the product and possibly even the people who make the product. “

(image taken from Forlizzi’s paper)

But how does that help designers? Forlizzi highlights few key ideas about the assumptions of the Product Ecology framework[I recommend reading the whole paper here]:

“First, each product has its own ecology, resulting in subjective and individual experience in using the same product.
(…)
Second, the factors in the Product Ecology are dynamic, and interconnected in several ways.
(…)
Third, changes in product use cause changes in other factors of the Product Ecology.(…) When a product no longer plays a key role, it is marked by events such as people changing roles, or going in and out of the ecology;
(…)
Fourth, the Product Ecology can be delimited by a group of people in close proximity, or a group that is spread out over a great distance.
(…)
Factors in the Product Ecology can be examined in isolation or in combination at the level of a single product, to understand what particular product features will inspire social use, or at the system level, to understand how a particular product will have an impact on a system of products retained for similar functional, aesthetic, symbolic, social and emotional factors. Similarly, behavior of individuals or groups using products can be studied.“

So, to some extent, the “product ecology” can be employed to study variety of products/services. An interesting example of such use can be found in this article (from CSCW 2006) about how robotic products become social products. The paper basically shows how different people within a houselhold formed different social relationships with Roomba vacuum (and not with the more classic vacuum). The classic vacuum, in this ethnographic study, affected significant change in the families, while the stick vacuum did not: people cleaned more often, more members of the family participated and there were more prone to make social attribution to the roomba. The author then draws some design implications concerning the importance of social attribution: “when simple social attributes are part of the design of robotic products and systems, people may adopt them more readily and find them less stigmatizing“.
Why do I blog this? find interesting this notion of product ecology and how to apply it in UX research. Some ideas/methodology to dig up for current projects about gaming platforms (Nintendo DS and Wii), as well as the perception of the devices and services in families.