French book about locative media and LBS

My french book about locative media and location-based services (FYP Editions) has just been released. It’s an overview of the field, that starts from the technical standpoint and go through various questions: what are they for, why the common scenarios (buddy-finder, spatial annotation, location-based coupons) have troubles being adopted, what to expect in the future as well as the space/time/social implications.

Update: my editor tells me that the rights to publish the books can be discussed with him (through contact (at) fypeditions (dot) com)

About digital and paper maps

Mapping is a favorite topic of mine, not only because I worked on locative media, but also because I find they are fascinating objects. Maps are really interesting these days as they exemplify one of the design trend I spotted recently: the transformation of non-digital objects by design techniques coming from the digital world. To some extent, lots of artifacts from the material world can be re-designed by applying insights learned when creating weird interfaces and new sorts of interactions.

This is what happens currently with paper-maps which design is reshuffled by people who grew up with video-games and on-line mapping tools, or by designers who consciously want to apply techniques coming from the digital. What is highly captivating in this context is that it also reshapes the user experience of the object at hands. Maps are a good example of such phenomena.

One of the most advanced project along these lines is certainly Jack Shulze’s Here and There. Although I don’t have the poster version, the Wired UK version will do to exemplify what it is:

Here is the idea:

“Imagine a person standing at a street corner. The projection begins with a three-dimensional representation of the immediate environment. Close buildings are represented normally, and the viewer himself is shown in the third person, exactly where she stands. As the model bends from sideways to top-down in a smooth join, more distant parts of the city are revealed in plan view. The projection connects the viewer’s local environment to remote destinations normally out of sight.“

There is more on S&W’s on-line web log where Schulze describes how he wanted to “exploits and expands upon the higher levels of visual literacy born of television, games, comics and print“. More specifically, he wanted to tap into the satellite representation as a symbol of omniscience and the reason why a platform such as Google Earth is so compelling. The point was to have “a speculative projections of dense cities (…) intended to be seen at those same places, putting the viewer simultaneously above the city and in it where she stands, both looking down and looking forward“.

Reading this in the train yesterday made sense when few minutes after, arrived at my final destination in the city of Lyon (France), I encountered this curious map:

The map depicts the city of Lyon from the train station at the bottom (in this white area) and the city itself in the upper part of the picture. There is a lot to discuss here and I won’t comment about what is not represented (can the white part be absent because it may have been perceived as not interesting for tourists?). What I find relevant there is:

• The sort of bird eye’s view, as if we were in a video game, where the landscape is represented in plan over distance
• The color overlay that shows the subway, tram and bus lines is also curious. It basically maps the public transport infrastructure on the perspective
• The map is fixed and located in the train station, it’s only drawn for this specific viewpoint (the station) and definitely match the context of use.

Why do I blog this? trying to make some connection between online musing and urban scouting… and the map topic is highly intriguing for that matter. I am convinced there is a lot to work on to modify non-digital objects with this sort of design techniques.

See-through toilet

Another item I found curious while spending time in Lausanne the the other day: a see-through toilet. Based on a steel-and-glass architecture, the toilet is based on a transparent system: when pressing the “voir” button (which means “see”), the glass gets transparent and it turns opaque when someone is inside and presses the button again. A motion sensor also turn the glass transparent if there’s no motion during a certain amount of time (to prevent people from staying there for too long or in case of a problem) OR if there is TOO MUCH ACTIVITY (no party is allowed in there).

It’s questioning as well to see that the button has been called “VOIR” (“see”), as most of the people who enter the toilet do not want to “see” but instead to “not be seen”. My guess is that it’s on purpose, to disrupt people’s behavior (who would want to press a button anyway to see how to make the glass opaque).

From what I’ve read, the point is to find an answer the recurring problems of toilet trashing. By looking at the inside, people can have a direct overview of the toilet state. Designed by Oloom in 2008, the whole point of this is explained on their website:

“Eleven glass sides for this toilet whose walls are partly made of liquid cristal glass. Under electric tension, the glass is transparent and the toilet shows its clean and functional inside/interior: the user feels safe and sound. Out of tension, they become opaque: the place is now occupied and the users intimacy guaranteed. An innovative concept to deal with insecurity problems whilst playing with transparency.”

An important feature in this design is the presence of a pine tree next to the transparent toilet. This tree has been especially chosen to be planted there because it’s aimed at bringing more pleasant smell. A sort of high-tech/low tech combination.

Why do I blog this? An intriguing piece of furniture with curious combinations (the pine tree, the syringe trash can). Is this the Everyware-like city toilet of the future? I don’t know but it’s certainly interesting to understand more the way the glass gets transparent or opaque. The rules embedded in the system, that I described at the beginning of this post, tells us captivating insights about what is considered as normal or not in society.

Kinder eggs

Interesting piece of packaging here with these Kinder eggs, in a sort of matryoshka twist: like a set of dolls of decreasing sizes placed one inside the other. The yolk-like yellow container, in which a little toy is compacted, is inserted in a chocolate egg.

This piece of artifact is one of these highly intriguing carefully-designed object for several reasons:

• The way the designers manage to create small toys than can fit into this yellow box is imaginative and fascinating. There is even a rolled piece of paper to explain how to build the toys out of the separated pieces: the smaller manual on Earth perhaps. It’s also curious to see that this tiny space also have enough room for a small paper-based disclaimer in almost 10 languages.
• The yellow container is a curious objects that can be repurposed for lots of ways (for instance as a container for small items, like coins, or for kids to tinker out weird stuff)
• The toy series, constantly transformed and new, is also an on-going surprise (see for example people who collect them).

Does it tell us something about the future? I don’t know but it certainly reveals an interesting example of design with a size constraint here, surely a curious exercise to do “more with less” (and pack it into a yolk-shaped box).

Wifi zone

Interesting configuration in Lausanne: a WiFi area (that is indicated through the signage on the wall depicting both the waves and the usage with a laptop) and places to sit with a laptop (the wifi wave are also present there too). A small cluster of high chairs for people who pass by. And yes, it’s covered in case of rain. Looking at the chairs show clear sign of dirt and old remnants of cigarettes though.

Why do I blog this? urban scouting in Lausanne today led me to investigate this area. The design intent here is to support new forms of activities in our contemporary cities. I love the signage on the wall. The direction of the wave is clearly going from the user to the cloud. I see this as an echo of the “creative city” meme: it’s prosumer/active contributors to the network who are expected to use their laptops here.

Digital close to physical

Seen at the office today.

When the digital (in the form of a DVD that contains drivers and software) needs to be put close to the physical (this scanner) through the magical use of duct tape. DVD like this often gets lost although they’re generally needed, a quick trick to avoid losing it is to keep it close to the physical items it is related to.

The role of theory in ethnographically-informed design research

The use of ethnographical methods in design research here and there out of academic circles brings back the question of the role of “theory”, and its articulation with research methodologies and techniques. This is a recurring topic with clients, research colleagues and I’ve seen it popping on mailing lists such as anthrodesign.

Before jumping to the differentiation between theory and methodologies, it’s important to acknowledge that there is no just “one” ethnography. The use of this term, especially in business circles, is not fair. It’s as if it is was a general container to provide engineers/strategists/designers with a one-way solution for their problem at hand. An article such as “fieldwork and ethnography: a perspective from CSCW” by Harper et al. (to be found in the EPIC 2005 proceedings) gives an introduction to some of them.

“Part of the trouble has to do with the fact that the word ethnography can be used somewhat capriciously for a whole range of purposes; as a label used by some for practices to be jealously defended; a label used to give renewed vigor, even fashionability for an old trade, fieldwork; and at other times a label used to defend pointless hanging around. What ethnography is, though it clearly has some kind of character, is not at all clear“

The paper basically shows that there are different distinction based on disciplinary assumptions about methods, theories and sensibilities. The authors picked up 4 texts (Cognitive Work Analysis by Vicente, Contextual Inquiry by Beyer and Holzblatt, Designing Collaborative Systems by Crabtree, and Marcus’ Ethnography through Thick and Thin) and show how they represent different viewpoints: a ‘cognitive science’ viewpoint; a ‘practical’ approach; an ethnomethodological perspective, and a postmodern alternative. They show how that each of them reflects different orientations and sensibilities and not only refer to which methods to choose and how to look at “data”. The paper also suggests to use the term “field work” instead than “ethnography” since the former is better suited to the activity carried out in design research.

Who are the protagonists at stake here? Let’s say that we can distinguish 3 components:

• Theories of science analyze the condition of production of knowledge from a philosophical viewpoint. Example: positivist view (authentic knowledge is that based on actual sense experience), more critical approach

. Then, there are finer-scaled theories that act as subset of the general theories of science: Chomsky’s Generative Grammar, Sperber’s relevance theory of human communication, Suchman’s Situated Action theory, Media theory about framing, etc.

• Methodologies describe the general ways about how to carry out research. Based on considerations emerging from theories, methodologies propose a set of methods. Example: qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis
• Methods that are general ways to study a class of phenomena, based on theoretical tools (how about how articulate data and theories) and techniques (recipes to acquire, transform, analyze data).

In the context of design research, the situation is a bit more specific given that it corresponds to (1) a qualitative and, generally, (2) an inductive model of research. It’s qualitative as it tries to uncover cases that can be selected according to whether they typify (or not), specific characteristics or contextual locations. It’s also generally inductive because general principles (yes, theories) can be developed from specific observations (as opposed to other forms of research which are based on hypothesis-testing). I tried to list the link between empirical research and theories in this context:

• Certain theories can frame the research and give an idea of what one is trying to achieve and look for. Or, as formulated by Harper et al.:”disciplinary ‘sensibilities’ may allow us to produce a set of broad, ‘sensitising’ or ‘illuminating’ concepts, starting points that can serve as reminders that some kinds of thing are often to be found whilst not diverting us from our equally powerful interest in what is uniquely ‘situated’ about what we are studying. In short, provide us with a ‘way of looking’“. What it means is that it allows to efficiently synthesize, interpret and sort out insights. In sum, it orients the research.
• The goal of this research is to generate a theory, Beyond describing and exploring the context at hand, it’s also to articulate principles or more general notions or rules, and understand a culture based on certain aspects. To some extent, building a theory can be a research goal.

Of course, this is a quick summary and there is more to it. This is all and good but people interested by design research may want to know more about what theories or theoretical spin they might want to employ. Ranging from Ethnomethodology to Interactionism or Grounded Theory and Activity Theory, there is plenty of possibilities here and I won’t enter into much details in this blogpost.

What is interesting is perhaps the discussion about which sort of theoretical twist are employed in “design research”. In HCI and CSCW, which have a strong ethnographically-informed design approach, it seems that ethnomethodology is very common and french ergonomics is all about Activity Theory (and modified versions). Other approach this without any reference to theories, such as Jan Chipchase‘s work at Nokia Design which is fairly descriptive and exploratory. Again, as I stated above, there is no “one way” here, the important thing is to find the method the researcher is comfortable with in conjunction with he/she and the design team think is relevant for the time being. On my side, I do think that an approach such as “Grounded Theory” by Strauss and Corbin is pertinent and flexible enough for design research.

Visual marker on the sidewalk

Interesting encounter in a one-day trip to Paris this morning: a visual marker, complemented with a unified resource locator on the pavement of Paris, close to Place de la Bastille. Aimed at mobile phone owners who will surely be led to the url.

What’s intriguing here?

• a curious merging of the digital and the physical that depends on the viewer: at first, having a mobile phone or not, you see the digital representation only through the form of an index (the url or the marker). It’s only if you use the phone that you can access to the genuine digital layer
• the presence of the marker in the environment, surely an interesting design issue to be contrasted to representation on posters or marker on magazines (smaller surface that you hand out to other performs, while the sidewalk marker is static.
• the horizontality of the surface: you have to look at the sidewalk and point it with your phone.
• the repetition of the url showing different levels and moment of engagement with the content referred to by these inscriptions
• and the practice of spraying visual market on the pavement per se

Paper in contemporary cities

Different forms of paper-handling solutions in Geneva, Zürich and Seoul:

(pieces of paper maintainted by a piece of string in Zürich)

(paper bin in Geneva)

(Huge and compressed stacks of paper, once collected, in Geneva)

(Failed attempt to recycle shredded paper, in Geneva)

(Shredded paper in plastic bags, in Seoul)

Why do I blog this? documenting the different forms of recycle papers in our cities is always curious. It basically shows how a certain material moves through different instantiations as well as the recycling norms or practices: the use of strings in Switzerland is very common with or without a big paper bin, the importance of collecting shredded papers (and the inherent accident, as shown in the photo in Geneva) or plastic bags with certain colors. All of this nicely represents both cultural norms, organizational processes and artifacts that people have put in place to maintain this recycling flow. It’s important to keep in mind that this is where toilet papers, newspapers and books come from.

Tools to analyze weak signals

Spent last friday in Zürich presenting the Lift screening process and trend analysis with Holm Friebe’s class at the Design Hochschule. The morning was about the Lift Conference, more specifically about our process to scout for speakers and ideas, to set a theme and work it out. The message was that the wide range of signals (ideas, memes, “trends”, technologies, social phenomena, scientific discoveries, etc.) and inscriptions (books, magazine, blogposts, articles, academic papers) is scanned and filtered through different criteria: preference towards social implications than technologies for the sake of technologies, avoidance of technological determinism (as much as we can), stepping a bit from terms that are too *hip* (such as “web2.0″), etc.

In the afternoon, we took some time to discuss different tools to filter the signals and forms of change. The tools are actually quite common and stem from the mix of methods we encountered in our work/readings/studies and meetings with lots of people. Most of the conversation addressed the use of s-curve, coming from diffusion theories of innovation. It shows how adoption is slow at first (depicted by a flat curve at the beginning of the time period) till a tipping point (the steep curve mid-way) and a plateau. This last phase corresponds to the adoption of the technology by adopters (which does not correspond to everyone on earth). To put it shortly, the s-curve is a way to represent the number of people who adopt a technology over a particular time period. As C. Christensen puts it, “it states that in a technology’s early stages, the rate of progress in performance is relatively slow. As the technology becomes better understood, controlled, and diffused, the rate of technological improvement increases . But the theory posits that in its mature stages, the technology will asymptotically approach a natural or physical limit, which requires that ever greater periods of time or inputs of engineering effort be expended to achieve increments of performance improvement”

Of course, we should distinguish the different ways to use s-curves. You have the sociological use where you draw the s-curve with real-data of technology adoption (as described in here). But you also have a more metaphorical use of the curve, which is the one we discussed in the course. Using a s-curve in this context is relevant to structure the discussion about where an innovation (technology, social change, etc.) stands at a certain moment in time, where it came from and where it might be in the future.

A good way to start drawing an s-curve, in the context of such discussion, is to look at different information sources: you can for example map data points depending on the information source represented on the following figure:

As one can see on the two figure above, there are two important points in s-curves:

• The beginning: that I exemplify through these 2 quotes by Paul Saffo and William Gibson. They simply show that s-curves’ beginning are already here and the point is to spot them through different data sources (be they readings, field studies or always-on attitude.
• The tipping point: the moment in time when the rate of adoption increases, which depends both on technological improvements and, above all, on “contextual” issues such as “ the active
  participation of all those who have decided to develop it” (see Bruno Latour’s work about the “model of interessement“). On a methodological note here, I would say that the use of s-curve in conjunction with Latour’s work may be a bit flawed. Will need to think this through later on.

Another way to see an s-curve and to discuss how to apply it to a certain innovation is to adopt a people/user/market viewpoint:

This standpoint can also be summarized by these three phases of idea/meme/technology adoption (based on Scardigli’s work):

1. Phase 1: The “time of prophecy and fantasy” (enthusiastic or terrifying) where revolutions are predicted and technique is “inserted socially” (right after invention and R&D). It correlates with a discourse around the hopes and fears linked to these issues which are recurring in history. What happen is that fantasy, scientific knowledge and actions are intertwined and even the weakest signal is turned into an excessive hope or fear. Prophecies become necessities and then self-justificated. Some example: “3D web platforms like Second Life will change the Web forever”, “Mobile social software will be a revolution”, etc.
2. Phase 2: The “delusion phase” that suggest how the expected technological revolution does not lead to a social revolution. Or, when we realize that there is a gap between forecasts and realizations/effects. At the same time, some people start appropriating, adapting, using the idea/meme/technology differently. This is generally less publicized as the press thinks that the “innovation is a fad” and it’s not worth talking about it.
3. Phase 3: “the side-effect phase”: 20 or 40 years after, the real diffusion of the technique is effective and some social and more long term consequences appear but often different from the one expected at first. This is what happened with the video-phone, it never really worked as a independent box at home but people are now using it on their laptop through Skype; and it allows interesting new social dynamics and usages.

Of course, back to the evolution of technologies, you can also take a “sales” viewpoint: if you look at the rates of acquisition/sales instead of the adoption. For each product, you then this sort of succession of curves that represents cycles of adoption (video game consoles in this case):

Finally, we also discussed the importance to consider the large diversity of human behavior, which was depicted by this well-known Bell curve that I’ve taken from a book by Don Norman (who actually took it from G. Moore’s book “Crossing the chasm”).

What we can draw from this curve is that:

• There is diversity, not juste “one normal human”
• People who are at the beginning of s-curves are the early adopters.
• You can be an early adopter for a certain topic (iphones) and a conservative person for others.
• Besides, this curve also relates to the previous representations in the sense that the s-curve can be seen as being made up a series of ‘bell curves’ of different sections of a population adopting different versions of a certain product

Why do I blog this? trying to formalize a bit the tools we used the other day is interesting as it forces to describe why and how they’re relevant. It’s important to point out, though, that these tools are definitely not a perfect algorithm/process to give you the answer about “how a signal would evolve into a fad or a success”. Instead, they should be seen as a a way to structure the discussion of signals and topics we collect. Which is why I smiled when, few streets ahead in Zürich, I stumbled across the name of this company:

Thanks Holm for the opportunity!