Pieces of personal informatics left on our office door

At the Lift offices, we now print (yes, on paper) different pieces of personal informatics such as our Dopplr sheets of trips. As we are often in and out our physical offices, collocated colleagues and friends who swing by can access this a sort location-awareness board that is both accessible on the web (if connected to us through Dopplr) and on our office door. Information about our perambulations when traveling to different locations for field trips, vacations, conference visits, client meetings and stuff are then made accessible through two modalities: being connected through the interwebs AND coming physically to our offices (in addition, it also necessitates to know where our offices are located, which is not obvious).

What’s next? perhaps a colleague will start adding post-it notes or drawing graffitis on the paper sheets, that would be an interesting.

Why do I blog this? Quite rough and paper-based, this example makes me think about the ways one can rethink non-computer based practices by adding rationale coming from software/web services design. The unbook is another example of such idea as it corresponds to the idea of re-injecting ideas from the digital sphere (e.g. the release early/often trope, the community-based model). As a matter of fact, translating ideas from the digital to the physical is perhaps not always interesting as it may embeds logics and underlying hypotheses that can be irrelevant (I wouldn’t be that interested in translating productivity software/widget out of my laptop) but there could be curious and original design endeavor.

Of course the example above is flawed given that the Dopplr webpage is not really meant to be printed on paper and stuck on a wall; it’s definitely a trick but uh it can be a good start. And it leads me to think about what would be a good asynchronous and paper-based location-aware device? shareable with friends? with a certain level of errors about my future whereabouts?

Motherboard as tapestry

Tapestry made out of old motherboards, encountered in Lisbon, Portugal. Ubicomp/urban computing to the letter.

Confusion in user research

In “Ships in the Night (Part I): Design Without Research?” (ACM interactions, May/june 2009), Steve Portigal addresses the role of user research in design. He points this interesting example of people/companies who mistook how to to carry out research, see this quote from a book he mentioned:

“[T]hey put a design in front of customers and say, “What do you think?” And the customers say, “Well I don’t know; I don’t know if I like this; it’s new; it’s scaring me; it’s too big; it’s too round; it’s too square.” That’s the kind of response you get. People who use this kind of research come back and say to the designers “People think this is too square-you’ve got to make it more round.” Most customers have a hard time articulating their design preferences. You can do far better by watching, listening, and observing.”

And here is what Steve says:

“I’m a big fan of “what do you think?” questions because they let the participant respond on their own terms first. But to be effective, there’s much more to consider: What do people tell you first; how do they tell you; what reasons do they give; how can you triangulate that response against other things you’ve learned about them; and how can you help them get to a point where they’re engaged enough in this new idea to give a meaningful response? And of course, we don’t have to take these answers literally and make our design more square or more round; we can see that those responses are trailheads to follow for a deeper understanding of how this new thing is or isn’t making sense to them.“

Why do I blog this? This is an interesting problem I often encountered when chatting with people/companies who express some concern/skepticism about user research. The conversation sometimes lead to a similar discussion about “we have done it, we asked people what they wanted and it did not work”. There seems to be a confusion between user-centered design and asking people what they want/need.

Design as part of R&D?

[A perhaps very high level and political post... emerging from recent thoughts about how to frame my work in the R&D public policy in Europe]

Can design be perceived as a component of Research & Development? Or is it mostly about “production” and commercialization of products? What are the design phases that can be part of R&D?

All these questions take an increasing importance in my work lately. Working with European companies, I often face them for a very simple reason: in countries such as France, Research and Development benefits from a series of financial incentives (such as tax credit). Since it’s not possible for States to directly help companies (although sometimes they try to do so), they have to figure out how to support their national firms in compliance with what the European Commission can accept and stated as regulations. This is why offering financial devices such as tax credits on R&D expenses/investment can be a good way to help. The underlying agenda is that backing companies to fund research project may facilitate the emergence of innovation (I won’t comment on this as this is another hot potato in political/economical theories).

Once you’ve said that you want to facilitate R&D, you have to deal with an important question: what activities can be considered as R&D? The answer generally lies in arid documents that define what constitutes R&D or not. Although different countries have different ways to formulate it, the common definition stems from something called the “Frascati manual“:

“Research and experimental development (R&D) comprise creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications. The term R&D covers three activities: Basic research is experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundation of phenomena and observable facts, without any particular application or use in view. Applied research is also original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new knowledge. It is, however, directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective. Experimental development is systematic work, drawing on existing knowledge gained from research and/or practical experience, which is directed to producing new materials, products or devices, to installing new processes, systems and services, or to improving substantially those already produced or installed.
(…)
The basic criterion for distinguishing R&D from related activities is the presence in R&D of an appreciable element of novelty and the resolution of scientific and/or technological uncertainty, i.e. when the solution to a problem is not readily apparent to someone familiar with the basic stock of common knowledge and techniques for the area concerned.“

The definition is quite broad and the document gives lots of examples of what is considered as being part of R&D but my experience in France was that you had to follow certain criteria that are largely based on technology: what is the technological problem? how did you solve it? what prototypes have you put in place to solve it?, have you secured the IP through patents?, etc. In the end, this puts the emphasis on technological research, and it’s hard (but possible to stretch it a little bit for creative industries (web, video game for instance). What it means is simply that if you have a bunch of existing techniques (say… open source components and IP) and you try to innovate by tying them together to create something new and original, you will have trouble showing that it is “R&D” as defined by these criteria (so you’re sorta forced to create a new technology).

Therefore, it’s interesting to look more closely at the document and see what they have to say about “design and R&D”. See how it is summarized in this other EC document:

“The Frascati Manual includes some industrial design activities in this definition of R&D. Specifically, the Manual states that prototyping and industrial design required during R&D should be included in R&D for statistical purposes. Design for production processes and the less technical design activities are however not considered as R&D. Forms other than industrial design, such as service design, are also not included. (…) From a designer’s point of view, design includes some research (for example to identify user needs, preferences and behaviours). This means that there are overlaps between the concepts of R&D and design, but that there is no common view as to which is the overarching concept of which the other is part.“

Still digesting the implications of this, I am highly interested in the recent announcement Mark reported about the EC public consultation on design as a driver of user-centred innovation.
Why do I blog this? all of this means sounds boring and formal but these discussions and definitions have a great importance in innovation in Europe. Based on what is considered (or not) as R&D, some work can be funded (or not). And it has lots of implication about my daily work (when I carry out research studies for european clients OR when I work on a project about how such definition impacts web companies R&D).

Windows, shutter and privacy

Windows and their relative transparency are an architectural element that I tend to always observe when traveling. Indeed, the presence of shutter and curtain is an interesting material indicator of how people deal with privacy. Some cultures are more likely to leave things open/transparent (as in the first picture above from Utrecht in the Netherlands) than others (the second one has been taken in Zürich, Switzerland). However, the absence of shutters or curtains is not an invitation for passers-by to look at what’s happening inside the house. It’s a different social norm. Besides, shutter are not just meant to be used for privacy reasons, it’s also a good way to regulate indoor temperature (keeping the heat in the winter or a fresh atmosphere in the summer)

During my trip to Portugal last week, a different sort of shutter attracted my attention. Called “meia persianas”, it’s an interesting middle-ground between the absence and the presence of shutter.

From what I was told, this sort of shutter acts as a low-cost air conditioning system (since the house’s walls are very thick and retain the heat/cool) AND a good way to protect one’s window by letting it open while being sure that no-one can come through the window. Furthermore, it also allows to see without being seen.

Another aspect of this portuguese architecture is also the presence of ropes to dry things above the window. But this is definitely not enabled by the semi-closure. It’s just a side-use of the window that I found relevant to document.

So, what is the take-away here? simply that there are different ways architecture embeds privacy issues, practices and norms: from the transparent glass to the sealed window and the half-half solution of the portuguese “meia persianas”. This last solution is perhaps the most relevant when it comes to current debates about social software/location-based services privacy issues.

What happens when you criticize a holy grail

(Picture taken from Azuma’s “Tracking Requirements for Augmented Reality”, 1993)

The other day, Julian wrote an insightful critique of Augmented Reality, as a one of those glorious holy grails I referred to in my Lift09 presentation. Julian argued about how he wasn’t convinced by the current iterations of this endpoint that has been presented in the past already, and why the meme is coming back nowadays.

While I share similar concerns about this very technology, I was more specifically intrigued by some of the comments, which dismiss Julian’s claims and re-iterate that AR is *teh next big thing*. Let’s have a look at the range of opinions:

1. AR (or whatever technology) is inevitable and this is generally demonstrated by bringing a usual suspect to the table: Moore’s law. Such a reference is what sociologist Bruno Latour calls an allie: a piece of theory/knowledge used to back up position. What other french sociologist (like Lucien Sfez) have shown is that the allies in the discourse about progress and technology are often recurring. In this sense, Moore’s law can be described as a “usual suspect” in the discourse about the inevitability of technology. To put it shortly, it’s generally very useful to bring this law out from the blue as you can prove almost everything wrt to increase and improvement. The law states that the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has increased exponentially (doubling approximately every two years). However, if you read it correctly, the law is about a “number of transistors” (then extended to cost per transistor, power consumption, cost per transistor, network capacity, disk storage and even “pixel per dollars”). What I mean here is that there is some sort of technological determinism implied by
   this law (not to mention its role in acting as a self-fulfilling prophecy!). See more in Ceruzzi’s “Moore’s Law and Technological Determinism: Reflections on the History of Technology“.
2. The next argument is generally that “technology” has changed. This is a fair one and it’s indeed true that the technological underpinning are different now than 15 years ago (“1995 tech and 2009 tech are a wee bit different). However, it does not necessarily mean that the use of AR proposed 15 years ago will work in today’s context. It’s not because we have a “mobile internet” that we will end up with a “3D Twitter where people walk around with “what I’m doing” status updates hovering above their heads, or mood labels” as one of the comment express (hmm). Perhaps I would have reacted differently if the statement was “society has changed / we’re more used to used mobile technology for XXX”.
3. Some people think that willing to avoid “tour-guide” AR scenarios on the basis that it’s a loss of poetry in our way to live in our environment corresponds to being an old fart (“This reaction is about as annoying and as useless as people who, when confronted with ebook readers, say “but I like the smell of books and/or turning page“). This techno-geek reaction is quite funny and inadequate as it dismiss the wide range of desires and wants express by people. It’s as if techno-enthusiasts could not understand the inter-individual variability and gave an opinion based on their sole interest. Doing lots of workshop about the future of mobile and locative technologies, I am often stunned by how much some people only rely on their own experiences and needs to think about the possibilities.
4. Others say that you can be critical because it’s “the idea has been around for ages” but under different forms signage like trail blazing). Nevertheless a sign on a rock is different than what is currently proposed on AR devices.

This is highly intriguing as it echoes a lot with the reactions I sometimes received in my talks about failures. There are also other opinions, not expressed in the comments posed after Julian’s blogpost.For instance see the the “it’s already here argument” that I encounter very often when I talk about the failure of social location-based applications (such as buddy-finder and place-based annotation systems). Lots of folks seem to by confused by the adoption of a service and it’s mere existence. It’s not because you have Latitude on your phone that social location-based services are “already here”. Furthermore, I do admit that the we’re moving slightly on the adoption curve thanks to mobile internet and better devices/applications (especially on the iphone) but it’s still a super-small portion of human beings on Earth.

Perhaps the best conclusion for this post is to look at Adam’s comment on Julian’s post about AR:

“They get defensive, they hide behind rhetoric or jargon, they appeal to authority or the aura of inevitability, they call you names – you see it right here in these comments. This is what happens when technological literacy is allowed to reside solely in the class of people who benefit from the widespread adoption of technology, and why I believe we should work to extend such literacy as far outward into the far larger pool of “(l)users” as is practicable.“

That said, a bit of reflexivity here wouldn’t hurt. The arguments used here:

• also emerges from allies, although they’re different: sociology and science-technology-society research.
• see technological success with a different lens, ore metric: the adoption of the device by a large number of people out of the techno-enthusiats sphere, who will then appropriate it in different ways (hence creating new usage). I can fairly admit that some people can have other measure of success.

people and electricity

Last semester, I’ve given a series of lectures at ENSCI (a Paris-based design school) for design students about people’s experience of electricity. Just had some time to trim the slides and edit then in english. It’s a short version of the presentation I’ve made about people’s representations of electricity as well as intriguing practices I collected during trips, research projects and home visits. This material was used to give students some insights about how human beings related to an abstract (and now mundane) phenomenon such as electricity.

Slides under the link below:

Of course most of the presentation is a bit limited without the corresponding talk but it gives an idea of the messages I brought to the table. Moreover, the elements I presented here are only a subset of lots of other phenomena related to electricity that I missed or did not describe for time reasons. For the record, the students’ project was about designing “internet of things” artifacts that would make people more conscious of electricity consumption.

Integration of the natural and computational worlds

Freshly updated signage in the woods above Sintra, Portugal. As if the green mousse has just been removed to paint these basic-but-elegant trekking signs.

These inspiring pictures echoes a lot with a research paper I recently read about how human computer interaction (HCI) had little explored everyday life and enriching experiences in rural, wilderness and other predominantly “natural” places. Entitled “Pursuing genius loci: interaction design and natural places, the paper by Nicola Bidwell and David Browning addresses the integration of the natural and computational worlds.

The pictures above are more precisely connected with one of the principles the authors discussed, there is the idea that “design must simultaneously fade into the background and provoke seeing natural places differently”. This is IMO the role of this simple signage painted on rocks: not invasive, easy to understand and just in place. Which of course, leads to the debate of using technological means to support this.

Prevalent indoor environment in computer games

“most virtual environments still rely on the cinematic idea that the virtual space extends off-screen even though it can neither be seen or accessed. Hence the popularity of games settings such as labyrinths, prisons, caves and interior chambers of pyramids and the like. The spatial frameworks efficiently spatialize a virtual environment, endowing it with the implicit sense of being an extensive environment“

Read this morning in “The Virtual (Key Ideas)” (Rob Shields)

Why do I blog this? Although the situation has changed a lot since the 80-90s, I find this point intriguing in terms of interaction/game design history.

Speech idioms

Idioms going from the interwebs to the physical, seen on ads in Berlin last october.

Thought about it the other day when I overheard a goof on the streets screaming “lol” (in a french conversation), found it funny to think about the transfer of idioms.

Plus, I am always intrigued by speech bubbles on posters.