Tablet PCs strike back

The return of the Tablet craziness echoed with the perusal of “A bitter pill to swallow: the rise and fall of the tablet computer yesterday during my flight.

The article analyzes Tablet PCs as a “product failure”. Given that it was written in 2008, it states that it “no longer represented the future of mobile computing”, which is funny as people got to back it recently after rumors of an Apple “bigger ipod touch / e-book reader”. Yet another “recurring holy grail” as I discussed last year in my introduction to the Lift 2009 conference.

The entire article is a relevant read as it summarizes some good elements about innovation theories (diffusion, ANT…) and take into account the various technical component of Tablet PCs (pen computing, touchable interfaces, etc.). Some excerpts from the article that I found interesting to highlight:

“So why has the tablet computer not been a successful product? In theory, it had it all
(…)
Yet many of the factors mentioned in the case study as to why certain individual tablet computers had failed are issues which subsequently have been resolved. Clearly, the technical problems which plagued early products such as slow processor speeds and software reliability have been overcome. The compatibility of software means that applications for such computers are far greater in number and, while still not perfect, issues of functionality such as the reliability and accuracy of handwriting recognition software have been greatly improved. The manufacturers currently involved are not start-up enterprises lacking in financial support or backing; and the products are now part of large ranges of computing equipment from well-known and respected companies, and have received marketing support of a suitably high level.
(…)
it would appear from the technical factors that have been resolved that the only possible barriers left to the acceptance of tablet computers are social ones. The concept of “interpretive flexibility” proposes that different groups of people have different views on the extent to which a particular technology “works” for them. However “natural” a form of communication writing may appear to be, perhaps, as Jeff Hawkins believes, people don’t want to write on computer screens, and a pen on a large display is not a good user interface for a computer. The feel of pen on paper is a difficult one to surpass.
(…)
Another factor could involve the complexity of a personal computer, which is clearly accepted if not desired in a desktop PC. This may not be acceptable in such a portable format as the tablet PC. Slow start-up times, large size and weight, and the compromises inevitable in multifunctional products such as a full computer do not cross over well to situations in which the computer is held and carried around by the user, and constantly turned on and off.
(…)
It is possible that the semantic associations of tablet computers and the body language employed when using them is an issue. “

Why do I blog this? Because I believe that understanding the reasons of product failure is always fruitful and relevant as a starting point in a design process. Although I am not entirely sure about the reasons explained in the article, it’s interesting to see that some of the pain points have been fixed and that the return of Tablets can be explained by different factors: confidence renewed by rumors that an industrial actor such as Apple would go into the field (which may or may also lead to the return of big fishes such as Microsoft and HP), the merging of the e-book and tablet PC metaphor (while 5 years ago the two were a bit distinct), etc.

Sharks tagged by scientists

A curious example of an heterogenous network of animals, technologies and people is described in Telegraph:

“More than 70 white pointers have been tagged by scientists is Western Australia in a world first trial that will send beach lifesavers a text message when one of the predators swims close to the Perth shoreline. Wildlife officials and scientists will also receive the text or email warning when any of the tagged sharks move to within 500m of metropolitan beaches. The text messages will be triggered less than two minutes after a shark swims over any one of 18 acoustic seabed receivers.
(…)
The study is aimed at unlocking the secrets of shark migration patterns and how they relate to attacks on humans.“

Why do I blog this? amazement towards the reconfiguration of “nature”. What’s next? a surfboard with shark-location awareness tools.

Kitchen hack

Interesting kitchen hack noticed last week in France. A stopper duct-taped to a pan lid to prevent people from burning themselves. Note the interesting use of grey duct-tape to make it more coherent color-wise. Quite elegant.

Urban Computing in a design studio context

(The city being measured, encountered in Annecy, France few weeks ago)

The short article “Research through Design in the Context of Teaching Urban Computing” by Andrew Vande Moere and Dan Hill (Street Computing Workshop co-located with OZCHI’09, Melbourne, Australia) is an interesting read for people interested in both urban computing and teaching in design schools.

The paper discusses the role of interaction design in the field of urban computing by presenting various student projects. Interestingly, it also provides relevant resources in terms of approaches to student learning in this specific context (“research by design – design by research“). The project started with this issue of data that will soon “emerge from the street” and then be used as a material for new sorts of urban services “which in turn challenges new opportunities for designers across disciplines”“.

(Picture of students work by Dan Hill)

To explore these aspects, the following assignments were proposed:

• Photo-annotation: “An exploratory student assignment focused on the creation of annotated and illustrated photo-based montages, starting from existing street scenes rather than imaginary future cities. The overlaid textual and graphical notations indicated data sources that might shortly be inherently available in such streets, while also imagining the then possible urban services as a result.” As interesting as it is, it seems that the scenario envisioned “proved less impressive, with many scenarios feeling under- developed, and sometimes inappropriate or irrelevant“.
• Design Fiction: “students were asked to construct speculative textual narratives through which their proposed design ideas would be articulated, contextualized and critiqued“
• Prototyping (as well as documentation of prototyping to reflect on the design decisions): “the development of low and high-fidelity prototypes installed on and around the intended site location, in order to encourage students to explore their design ideas by confronting them with the reactions and opinions of passers-by”

Why do I blog this? Being involved in teaching activities in various design schools and working with Fabien on a series of workshop about urban computing, it’s always refreshing to hear about how others work on these issues. The range of activities you can propose to students and workshop participants is very rich. This paper provides some good insights about them and, of course, on the topic of “what to do with the data”.

On that note, I am happy to see that the authors encountered the same issue we had in different workshops. A conclusion like:

“much of the perceived innovation of the proposed student projects rests with the relative novelty of embedding communication technology and alternative information displays in a real-world, urban context. Discovering a genuinely compelling application for such technological platforms, and then making it work, however, proved to be a more challenging endeavor for the students.“

…echoes a lot with similar experiences. Nevertheless, as they say, it does not diminish the educational value of this work.

Although I did not include the students’ projects in my notes, they’re quite interesting. Readers may also have a glance at Dan Hill‘s blogpost about it.

Besides, I was also fascinated by the following element:

“despite the emerging sense that much data is already currently created ‘in the street’, the infrastructure anticipated by the urban computing vision is still largely non-existent, out- of-reach, or so nascent as to be inaccessible. [hence the use of their own sensor infrastructure (a group was however "stopped and requested to remove all sensing devices by a worried police patrol")].“

‘Nothing is original’

An interesting quote by Jim Jarmusch (taken from The Golden Rules of Filming) that I ran across yesterday after seeing The Limits of Control:

“Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery — celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from — it’s where you take them to.”

Why do I blog this? collecting quotes about circulation of ideas in different cultural spheres is an interesting exercise (and somewhat related to the discussion about the very existence of “breakthrough/disruptive” innovation).

List for time-travelling

(via) Oh, and btw, an highly important tool for 2010: a reminding list of important stuff in case of time-travelling:

Why do I blog this? It’s always curious, as a thought experiment, to think about what one would put in this sort of list. Perhaps asking my students “What pieces of knowledge and artifacts would you like to bring in the past, in case you can time-travel?” would be a good brief (to start off a discussion about what would change accordingly).