Book proposal about joypad evolution

The game controller book project moves slowly but we tentatively wrote a draft of the book proposal that we intend to use. The provisional title is “The Joypad Continuum: tracing the evolution of game pad design” (by Nicolas Nova and Laurent Bolli).

For the record, there’s already some interest here and there but we thought it would be good to confront the book ideas with potential readers. The poster above is one of the artifacts that reflect the work we’re doing to analyze the game pads. And yes it’s a book entirely focused on joypads. Joysticks will be mentioned of course, but we zero in the evolution of pads.

Feel free to comment on this, we already collected lots of feedback, which is very refreshing and insightful (thanks for those who sent comments and emails). The outline is almost there and we have lots of material for the different parts of the book. We’ll post stuff later on.

Project description

This book describes the evolution of joypad designs over the short history of video games. It systematically tracks the process of change and how it happened in order to reach two goals. On the one hand, the book sets off to discuss the design decisions behind key interface attributes featured by this apparently banal class of artifact. It primarily focuses on joypad shapes, direction and action buttons as well as various other features that have enriched video game controllers. On the other hand, the book discusses the circulation and modification of such design attributes over time and between joypad models. Doing so, this work exemplifies general principles about patterns of change and highlights the specificities of this class of technical objects.

Among contemporary objects, joypads are peculiar given their existence both as physical artifacts and as interfaces to control characters in digital environments. Unlike joysticks, they correspond to a type of game controller held in the hand where fingers interact with buttons, sliders and tiny sticks. Therefore, observing this unique device enables to highlight critical implications about human-computer interaction and innovation in the field of new media: the intricate relationship between joypads and video game design, the evolution of game interfaces (and upcoming changes) as well as the evolution of technical objects in general.

In terms of theoretical framework, the book adopts an evolutionary perspective (Simondon, 1980; Deforge, 1985; Basalla, 1988) to describe the different paths taken by joypad design and to give the reader a critical overview of the underlying trends that shaped the various iterations of this artifact. However, the evolutionary analogy serves here as an organizing principles to track the iterative changes of objects and does not reflect any teleological assumption of progress. From a methodological perspective, this book is based on the ethnographical analysis of technical objects (Star, 1999), interviews with controller designers or the gathering of second-hand material about the design decisions that led to certain joypads (interviews, books, patents). Instead of adopting the common approach focused on studying usage and people, this work is based on the examination of artifacts. The systematic analysis of artifactual iterations enabled to build genealogies and to foster insights about patterns of changes (e.g. evolution of the number of buttons, evolution of the button/surface ratio). Furthermore, the evolutionary angle posits that objects are not explored independently but as being part of various lineages, which shares common design attributes such as controller shapes or navigation interface.

Such book targets mainly academic researchers in the field of Science and Technology Studies, New Media or Human-Computer Interaction as well as practitioners in the field of interaction design. However, the book is also meant to be relevant for video game fans who are interested in a deeper perspective about game controllers. It is intended to be short (140-180 pages) and illustrated by black and white joypad drawings and diagrams (genealogy trees, histograms as carried out by Deforge, 1985).

Fields of discourse:
The fields of discourse adopted in this project are a combination of:
- Science and technology studies (Simondon, 1980; Basalla, 1988; Akrich, 1992) for the analysis of technical objects and the description about how mundane artifacts are the product of various forces. More specifically, the work of Zimmermann (2010) about the circulation of cultural elements is informative for the analysis of how design choices about game pads spread and evolve. The book also relies on the work of Star (1999) concerning how ethnography can be applied to physical artifacts.
- Human-Computer Interaction (Gibson, 1977; Norman, 1990; Gaver, 1991; Gaver, 1996) for the focus on interfaces and the notion of affordance. At first this term corresponded to the action possibilities present in the environment. This notion evolved in the field of HCI to refer to “the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used.” (Norman, 1990).
- New media studies and more specifically Platform Studies (Monfort and Bogost, 2009) because of the renewal of interest in platforms/technical objects.

Reasons for writing this book:
The first reason to write this book stemmed from the personal collection of joypad we collected in the previous months. This material enabled to analyze and discuss the evolution of these technical objects and serve as the starting point for interaction and game design research in different contexts (workshops with students, seminar with practitioners).

A second reason is that the large majority of books about game interfaces are non-academic and take a descriptive approach with plenty of pictures but a limited analysis of their evolution (see for example Forster, W. and Freundorfer, S., 2003 or Miller et al., 2009). Our interested lies in providing an analytical perspective about joypads instead of a description of all the existing artifacts.

In addition, there is currently a renewed interest in studying artifacts (beyond their usage) in new media studies, as attested by the Platform Studies collection at the MIT press. We therefore believe the analysis of joypads is relevant both from the video game analysis standpoint and also as an introduction to the analysis of technical objects. Compared to other research foci (such as video game analysis or media usage), the joypad is a less-explored element that is paradoxical compared to its iconic nature as a powerful metaphor for video games. Because of the potential appeal of joypad to readers, the book is also an opportunity to exemplify general lessons about the history of technical objects (which generally draws upon artifacts that are less common for todays’ readers such as washing machines or car engines).

Finally, from a video game standpoint, looking back at the evolution of game controllers is important given that the console manufacturers are transferring hardware cycle to the peripherals rather than console platforms. Furthermore, the disappearance of the controller in Microsoft Natal’s project and its recombination in the case of the Wii and Sony’s Motion Controller makes the joypad an interesting object to investigate.

References:
Akrich, M. (1992), “The description of technical objects”, in Bijker, W.E., Law, J. (Eds),Shaping Technology/Building Society, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp.205-24.

Basalla, G. (1988). The Evolution of Technology. Cambridge University Press.

Deforge, Y. (1985). Technologie et génétique de l’objet industriel. Paris: Maloine.

Forster, W. and Freundorfer, S. (2003). Joysticks. Gameplan; Auflage.

Gaver, W. (1996). Affordances for interaction: The social is material for design. Ecological Psychology, 8(2).

Gaver, W. (1991). Technology affordances. Proceedings of CHI, 1991 (New Orleans, Lousiana, USA, April 28 – May 2, 1991) ACM, New York.

Miller, F., Vandome, A.F., McBrewster, J. (2009). Game Controller. Alphascript Publishing.

Montfort, N. & Bogost, I. (2009). Racing the Beam The Atari Video Computer System. MIT press.

Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.

Simondon, G. (1980), trans. Ninian Mellamphy, On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects. London: University of Western Ontario, 1980 [1958].

Star, S.L. (1999). “The Ethnography of Infrastructure,” American Behavioral . Scientist, 43: 377-391

Tulathimutte, T. (2005). Controller Mediation in Human-Computer Play. Honors Thesis, Stanford University.

Zimmermann, B. (2010). Redesigning Culture: Chinese Characters in Alphabet-Encoded Networks, Design and Culture, Berg Publishers.

Remote control analysis

An interesting diagram encountered in London at the ‘ergonomics’ exhibit (thanks Alexandre Burdin for the two pictures). The horizontal axis corresponds to the duration of use of a certain button, while the vertical axis is meant to represent the frequency of use. Doing this enable to discriminate 3 clusters of remote control features.

As described below, this graphic emerged from an empirical study of remote control prototypes.

Why do I blog this? Definitely an interesting way to analyze a physical artifact. More specifically, this is a relevant way to visualize results from a study of how people use a remote control. It’s also interesting (with regards to a design process) to understand how they employed this as a way to work out the buttons arrangement using this kind of data reduction method.

A similar graphic can be designed for joypads, considering the use of various buttons.

A visit to the Rolex Learning Center (EPFL)

Some quick thoughts about the Rolex Learning Center that I visited yesterday afternoon at the Swiss Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL). Designed by Sanaa, a japanese architecture firm, the building is an intriguing super large open space with a fairly low number of walls and partitions. This facility includes the school’s library, the research lab where I’ve done my PhD research (Craft: Center for Research and Support of Training and its Technologies), the student and alumni association offices, an auditorium, two restaurants and a café. It’s perhaps from above that the view is even more stunning. However, the most obvious way to see this is to take a flight to Geneva Cointrin (GVA) and have a proper wind that enables aircrafts landing route over Suisse romande instead of France’s Jura Mountains.

The place is filled with natural daylight and only the restaurant and library, are equipped with refrigerating ceilings (which use cooled by water from the lake).

Given the interest here about user experience and weird insights concerning people, some details attracted my attention. Most people commented on the outside. As for me, it’s some of the indoor elements that I want to describe.

Open space and Partitions

As described the architects in this interview with The Guardian:

““The main aim is to make a space for people to stay together,” says Sejima, “but where you can also have some privacy.” The design reflects their idea of “softening boundaries”. She opposes “programmes that say a room is a place to learn and a corridor is a place to relax. I do not think that is a way to learn. Sometimes, activities become continuous. You might have a coffee outside the classroom and change your opinion.”
The role of architecture is to suggest ways to use the space, rather than to prescribe. Nishizawa pushes the analogy with landscape: “When people find valleys, they tend to settle there and build villages. When they find a hill, they like to build a beautiful cafe on the hill. When they find slopes, they cover them in terraces.” In the same way, they think their artificial hills will prompt different kinds of occupation: “We hope students can find nice places for themselves.”
“

It’s indeed interesting to confront the architects’ intents to current behavior:

Although the partitions are not so present in the designers intents and in the building itself, there are still “invisible” boundaries, as attested by this map displayed on the library table. There are clear indications of areas where certain behavior are acceptable or not.

Another intriguing example lies in the usage of personal space. See for example how this Phd student re-created his bubble with “temporary walls”. The coat is interesting for that matter but the use of the umbrella is even more striking. Daylight is so important here that sometimes yes, people needs a bit less light to look at the numerous displays present on everyone’s desks.

Steep curves

In addition, the surface of the floor and the ceiling is both elegant and curious. Also, the curves are actually quite steep as shown by the examples below. There is therefore a need to have particular devices to bring people up and down. I do not know the designers’ intents here but the Alpine context around (think about the Mont Blanc on the opposite side of the lake) turns the indoor walking experience into something closer to natural structures.

Signage

The use of what I would call “smooth podotactiles” is remarkable as well. These plastic lines on the floor aims at guiding people to the main locations of the Learning Center. Because of the curved floor, these elements sometimes give a very particular impression. It is as if perspective has been added to the interior architecture.

A funny aspect of signage is also the post-its people have started to put on glass walls… because of their translucence, it seemed that some folks bumped their heads into them. The repurposing of post-its was found as a solution to prevent this problem.

Time

Of course, it’s impossible no to mention the importance of time in the context of this building. The main partner of this construction is Rolex (hence the name of the learning center) and it somewhat leads to the inclusion of clocks here and there. They act as physical marker of the presence of time. It’s a library where people work so it’s indeed relevant for students and researchers. But clocks also have another role here. if you look at the picture below, it shows time in different cities (the future is urban right?): San Francisco, Boston, Tokyo, etc. to remind people that the “outside” is as important as the inside. Perhaps it’s also meant to represent a direct connection to other “knowledge places” which are relevant in this era of cognitive capitalism.

“you are here” updates

Recent encounters in London with other “you are here” signs”. The first one is interesting because it also add a “walking time” limit through a circle:

This other one is a bit old and intriguing as it does not use a textual “you are here” but replace it with an elegant pointing finger:

Why do I blog this? i simply continue the systematic list of “you are here” elements that i encounter. Can be handy when working on location-based services interfaces as examples of current practices.

Impact! exhibition at the RCA

Spent two days at the RCA in London. A good opportunity to have some time to discuss with James Auger, Anthony Dunne and their class, give a talk to them and explore the “Impact!” exhibition.

This exhibition is another highly interesting example of interdisciplinary collaborations between design and scientific research, as already discussed about this other project. As described on the web platform, 16 researchers have collaborated with designers from the RCA under the coordination of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). Designers worked with them to produce conceptual designs (videos, photographs, interactives, prototypes, props and system diagrams and illustrations).

What’s interesting here is to reflect upon the role of design. As described by Anthony Dunne, who curated the exhibition:

“Design can shift discussions about the impact of science on our daily lives away from abstract generalities to concrete examples grounded in our experience as members of a consumer society. It can facilitate debate about different technological futures before they happen, create dialogues between different publics and the experts who defines the policies and regulations that will shape the future of technology, and help ensure that we pursue the most desirable, and avoid the least desirable.

The design projects in this exhibition offer an alternative view of how science could influence our future. The purpose is not to offer prediction but inspire debate about the human consequences of different technological futures, both positive and negative.

There are no solutions here, or even answers; just questions, ideas and possibilities. They probe our beliefs and values, they challenge our assumptions, and they help us see that the way things are now is just one possibility – and not necessarily the best one.“

Some projects were more revealing to me than others, I guess my choice reflects a personal choice rather than a judgement on their quality. Perhaps the most inspiring to me is the one called “Happylife” by James Auger and 3 other scientists. It basically explore the uses thermal imaging to analyse emotional states in a domestic context. This technology embedded in a HAL9000-like eye of Sauron can detect heat signatures (as shown on a video on the left on the picture below). Doing this, the system assesses a person’s physiological state and turn the changes into movements/dials on a family dashboard (with barometer-like displays). This project questions how imperceptible body parameters could reveal emotions such as guilt. What is highly intriguing (and smart according to me) is that the dashboard does not have any label… leaving its interpretation to the people who will live with it. How would this change social interactions in the family home? Would this electronic device enable family members to infer new things about their relatives? Would the device detect patterns invisible to people? All these issues are suggested by beautiful vignettes that I did not capture with my camera.

This Happylife project evolved from James and Jimmy’s ideas about this notion of artifacts that would detect cues about our behavior and pre-empt what we feel and desire. Autonomous and adaptive devices have explored by science-fiction writers and researchers desperately want to implement them (sometimes urged by politics who find it could be a convenient solution against terrorism for instance). In their own words, here is how they frame their design research about this topic:

“The potential for this to go much further with the application of face recognition, thermal imaging and expression monitoring is obvious. The design challenge here is to explore how this might happen. How might products and services react to humans if they were aware of their mood.“

Another project I enjoyed as the one called “The 5th dimensional camera” by Anab Jain, Jon Arden and three other researchers. It explores the notion of quantum mechanics and the possibility to access multiple dimensions. The project consists in a fictional camera that can capture “glimpses of 450 parallel universes suggested by quantum physics“. By presenting such images, the two designers aimed at highlighting the “the strange processes at work within quantum computation to the wider public, and explore how they might impact our beliefs, our values and indeed our fabric of reality“. To understand more the implications of such potential, the exhibit featured different narratives of test subjects who employs the camera in their own different ways.

Why do I blog this? these are quick and selective notes about the exhibit to keep a trace of what echoed with my interests. The two projects I mentioned as well as Anthony Dunne’s framing are relevant IMHO in terms of how design research can operate and what sort of artifacts could be designed in such context. We’re close to the idea of design fiction here.

People interested in this can also look at other write-ups by Richard Banks or building_space_with_words.

G.Basalla: The Evolution of Technology

George Basalla’s book called “The Evolution of Technology” (Cambridge University Press, 1988) is another important resource for the game controller project. In this volume, the authors describes his theory of technological change based on the history of technology, economic history and anthropology. The whole book is driven by a strong theoretical perspective: the analogy between the evolution of technical objects and the evolutionary metaphor in order to show to that this metaphor can give insights otherwise unavailable to the history of technology

Basalla uses the term “evolution” as a metaphor “at the heart of all extended analytical and critical thought” and highlight it as useful to apply this concept from biological evolution to evolution in technology. Initially this analogy was used from technology to biology (to describe living organisms in mechanical terms) and then the other way around, as a way to arrange technical objects into “genera, species and varieties and proceed from this classificatory exercise to the construction of an evolutionary tree illustrating the connections between the various forms of mechanical life”. To him the difference is the following:

“the evolutionary metaphor must be approached with caution because there are vast differences between the world of the made and the world of the born. One is the result of purposeful human activity, the other the outcome of a random natural process. One produces a sterile physical object, the other a living being capable of reproducing itself. (…) Technological evolution has nothing comparable to the mass extinctions that are of interest to evolutionary biologists. History does not record any widespread, cataclysmic extinctions of entire classes of artifacts, although something similar might occur on a local level in remote communities or on isolated islands”

(The evolution of aboriginal weapons by Lane-Fox Pitt Rivers)

His theory of technological evolution is rooted in four broad concepts: diversity, continuity, novelty and selection.

Continuity
Based on a fair amount of examples, Basalla debunks the notion of “technological revolutions” and the mere existence of “heroic inventors”. To him, both are wrong and “key artifacts such as the steam engine, the cotton gin, or the transistor, emerged in an evolutionary fashion from their antecedents“. Of course some changes are more important than others but: (1) There’s always a continuity between techniques, (2) sometimes artifacts iteration is not based on other artifact but what Basalla calls “naturfacts”: artifacts created after the analogy with natural elements (see the example of Barbed Wire based on thorny fence made of short trees).

He explains the origins of the discontinuous argument with the following notions:

1. The loss or concealment of crucial antecedents: “the first automobiles were little more than 4-wheeled bicycles. Henry Ford called his car a “quadracycle”,
2. The emergence of the inventor as a hero: “Because heroic deeds are most often linked with revolutions, evolutionary explanations of technological change did not have a broad appeal. Nationalism also played a part in the 19th Century (…) The same exhibitions that glorified industrial progress, and the men who made it possible (…) A bizarre situation thus developed in which the heroic inventors of one country were scarcely acknowledged in another land”
3. The patent system: “All of patent law is based on the assumption that an invention is a discrete, novel entity that can be assigned to the individual who is determined by the courts to be its legitimate creator. (…) Such dissimulations are the result of a system that attempts to impose discontinuity on what is essentially a continuous phenomenon“
4. The confusion of technological and socio-economical change: the term “Industrial
   “Revolution” seems to imply the technological artifacts that made it up was revolutionary. Instead, it was evolutionary!

(Evolution of spark catchers for train locomotive smokestacks)

Novelty
This chapter aimed at understanding how to account for differences and diversity in technological artifacts. In this part, the author substitutes the notion of “Homo Faber ” (“Man the maker”) to “Homo Ludens” (“Man the Player”) to show the role of play in innovation. He then describes various sources:

• Fantasy and Play: technological dreams: “the machines, proposals and visions generated by the technological community (…) epitomizes the technologists’ propensity to go beyond what is technically feasible“, technological extrapolations: “conservative ventures well within the bounds of possibility, perhaps a step or two beyond current practice“, patents, bold and fantastic technological visions or popular fantasies: sci-fi, cartoons, fantastic machines…
• Knowledge transfer by borrowing some aspects of a technology outside: cultural contacts because of imperialism, migration, trade, technology missions, industrial espionage, war.

In another chapter, he highlights how “human intervention can guide the variations toward a new artifact” and described the notion of skeuomorphs: “An element of design or structure that serves little or no purpose in the artifact fashioned from the new material but was essential to the object made from the original material“.

Selection
As defined by Basalla:

“Because there is an excess of technological novelty and consequently not a close lit between invention and wants or needs, a process of selection must take place in which some innovations are developed and incorporated into a culture while others are rejected (…) evolution by natural selection has no preordained goal, purpose or direction. This is not true for artificial selection as practiced by animal and plant breeders. Here criteria are established by the humans who select characteristics they consider worthy of preservation. (…) Variant artifacts do not arise from the chance recombination of certain crucial constituent parts but are the result of a conscious process in which human taste and judgment are exercised in the pursuit of some biological, technological, psychological, social, economical, or cultural goal.“

Some additional quotes about the notion of “needs”:

“According to functionalist anthropologists and sociobiologists, every aspects of culture, material and nonmaterial, can be traced directly to the satisfaction of a basic need. (…) Critics of the biological theory, however proposed a number of strong counterarguments. (…) We cultivate technology to meet our perceived needs, not a set of universal ones legislated by nature (…) the artifactual world would exhibit far less diversity if it operated primarily under the constraints imposed by fundamental needs. (…) a skyscraper is not simply a structure to protect people from the vagaries of the weather“

Why do I blog this? I was drawn to this book thanks to several discussion threads. Mostly the recurring chat about circulation of design choices with my neighbor Basile, as well as an exchange of tweets with Antonio Casilli who recommended the book. The material in there was highly useful in general and relevant to our project that aims at mapping the evolution of joypads. Given our interest in studying a “lineage” of technical artifacts, I was wary of using the “evolution” metaphor because of the underlying idea of progress that I did not want to imply.

Overall, three quotes about the use of the evolutionary metaphor are important for our investigation of artifacts evolution:

“I use the evolutionary analogy because of its metaphorical and heuristic power and caution against any literal applications, not the least, the process of speciation (…) On the most general level the evolutionary analogy serves as a useful organizing principle for studying technological change (…) A workable theory of technological evolution requires there be no technological progress in the traditional sense of the term but accepts the possibility of limited progress toward a carefully selected goal within a restricted framework“

Paris metro interactive map

On the most interesting “static” map I’ve ever seen is the “indicateur d’itinéraires” located on some of the metro station in Paris (this one is close to the entrance of Ligne 1 in Paris Gare de Lyon). You press the number of the metro station that you want to reach with the keyboard below and the suggested route appears displayed on the lights on the board.

Although some folks think there’s a small person in there, the inner mechanism is closer to “Operation” with lights. Very low-bandwidth and based on electricity.

This device is actually called PILI, which stands for “plans indicateurs lumineux d’itinéraires” (Light-Based Indicator Plan for Itinerary”) and has been implemented in 1937. A simple and straight-forward way to get both a general overview as well as information about where you want to go. It’s intriguing to see how people from these times designed a map-based system without any complex display technology, and it’s very efficient.

Why do I blog this? Going to the French capital quite often, I love to spend some time observing how people interact with these machines. There are lots of things to notice, see for example:

• User’s proximity to the device, which depends on their purpose (getting and overview, looking for a specific route).
• The flexibility of usage: the device is very big and it allows people to use it in various ways altogether. If a person looks for a route, it doesn’t prevent others to observe the map and look for their information (without necessarily using the buttons).

Interestingly, I found it much more efficient than the 21st century version that you can see below. Even though it has different features, this new version is rather small (intended to be used by only one person) and I generally rarely see people using it.

Lift Seminar @ Imaginove about gestural interfaces

Yesterday in Lyon, Emmanuel Rondeau and myself organized a Lift@Home about gestural interfaces. We (Lift) indeed partnered with Imaginove, a French cluster of companies, research institutions and universities focused on video games, audio-visual, cinema, animation and multimedia. Several other Lift seminars will be organized around various topics such as the Social Web, 3D virtual environment, networked objects and locative media. We’ll focus on the uses and practices of each of these technologies, to reflect upon how they are appropriated by users and how this information can be fed back into the design process.

Yesterday’s seminar focused on how gestural interfaces such as the Nintendo Wii, new kinds of accelerometers and (3D) cameras are used in the context of video games. There were around 50 participants, mostly game designers, interaction designers and Human-Computer Interaction academics.

After a quick introduction about the evolution of video-game peripherals over time, I described the pros and cons of these kind of interfaces as shown on the following slide

In addition, I mentioned some of the projects we carried out when I worked at Phoenix Interactive, a French video-game studio based in Lyon. These projects showed how we studied the various ways to transmit/explain gestures to players, a project in collaboration with a laboratory in Cognitive Psychology.

The next presenter, Emmanuelle Jacques, a sociologist from the University of Montpellier, described some results from an ethnographical study of Nintendo Wii usage. She described the discrepancy between the gestures that game designers expected to be made and people’s practices. As shown in the following picture, the movement amplitude of gestures is indeed quite different with expert players (the smaller girl) and novice players who think they must replicate real-world gestures. Emmanuelle discussed the implications of such notions, showing that playability is a much more complex notion than simply replicating what is done in the physical world.

The following presenters, Timothée Jobert from Litus/CEA and Etienne Guerry from XPteam in Grenoble presented an interesting case study of user-centered design. They described the results of an ethnographic study about how people use two sorts of gestural interfaces (the Nintendo Wii and the Bodypad). They then showed how these results were used in the design of video game prototypes based on a new kind of technology (a combination of an accelerometer and a magnetometer designed by Movéa). They ended their presentation with a demo of their prototypes, leading to a lively discussion about new technologies can overcome the problems game designers encountered with the Wii and the notion of realism.

Locative media projects that caught my attention

Interesting locative media project that I’ve found relevant lately:

Address necklace by Mouna Andraos and Sonali Sridhar:

“Address is a handmade electronic jewelry piece. When you first acquire the pendant, you select a place that you consider to be your anchor – where you were born, your home, or perhaps the place you long to be. Once the jewelry is initialized, every time you wear the piece it displays how many kilometers you are from that location, using a GPS component built into the pendant. As you take Address around the world with you, it serves as a personal connection to that place, making the world a little smaller or maybe a little bigger.“

I like the idea of having a personal connection to a place and not necessarily a human being. This is so different than the raft of buddy-finder applications.

Compass Phone by HaYeon Yoo:

“This project addresses the issue of whether the mobile phone is a surveillance tool or a digital leash and explores designing an alternative means of communication which delivers a more poetic and aesthetic experience.

The Compass Phone does not support any verbal communication side, but has only a GPS function. It measures the distance between two people in real-time and then converts it to the time it takes for them to meet each other by either transport or time unit. A compass is hidden under the digit display. The centre of the compass always indicates the user’s position and its needle indicates the other person’s direction. “

This one is also interesting at it gives subtle cues about friends’ movement in space; I see it as indicating a possibility, and less a factual or objective indication as other buddy-finder try to implement.