Why mobile phone users engage in vivid nonverbal communication that do not benefit their communication partner

An interesting read for a Friday afternoon: “Not crazy, just talking on the mobile phone: Gestures and mobile phone conversations” by Carolyn Y. Wei from Google research.

The paper addresses why mobile phone users engage in vivid nonverbal communication behaviors that do not benefit their communication partner, e.g., gesturing, smiling, and nodding their heads. The insights presented here are not coming from a user study. Instead, they are derived from a literature review about nonverbal aspects of mobile phone use and on the communicative functions of nonverbal behavior (such as the use of gesture in speaking when the partner is not visually present and how it can influence conversations).

Some excerpts I found interesting:

“Much of the literature about gesture in conversation suggests that it has cognitive benefits for the speaker. (…) The gestures can help speakers think through a complicated task, explain complex relationships, and find substitutes for missing vocabulary. Gesture has a definite purpose in communication and is not performed merely for color. It is easy to see why mobile phone users engage in these nonverbal behaviors to aid themselves as they speak even without an audience in sight – it is instinctual and probably spontaneous.
(…)
speakers intend gestures to help their listeners better understand communication. They use gesture in concert with words and to convey semantic meaning. Further, they tailor gestures relative to the listeners. Gestures are purposefully designed for the listener – with fewer and different gestures used with people who are not face-to-face. Thus, the gestures employed by mobile phone users are probably more muted than they would normally be in face-to-face conversation.
(…)
Despite all these studies that suggest speakers gesture to help themselves think and to help their listeners, there seems to be inconclusive evidence about whether the gestures actually help listeners.“

And about all of this can influence mobile phone design:

“Mobile phone design can be sensitive to nonverbal communication behaviors. (…) Gesture could be taken advantage of in a similar way to create innovations in mobile phone design, especially to improve the “user experience” for surrounding people. A simple design could be a phone that alerts nearby listeners that the user is speaking on a mobile phone, perhaps by turning on a signal whenever the phone is engaged. One example of this might be a phone that is linked to a wristband, and the wristband visibly glows whenever the phone is in use.
(…)
Mobile phone design can also respect existing research that suggests gestures are more meaningful to the speaker than the listener, and thus focus on innovations that aid the speaker. An example of this kind of design would be a mobile phone that senses gestures or other nonverbal behaviors and compares them with the words being spoken. If the words being spoken match the amount and nature of gesturing, then the phone might alert the user that she is performing well.“

Why do I blog this? because the paper highlights interesting insights about the role of non-verbal communication in cell-phone usage… which is something that has always fascinated me when observing people on the street.

Pianococktail and the convergence of artifacts

An intriguing encounter this afternoon with a pianococktail, i.e. a piano that mixes drinks based on the combination of keys played. Being a reader of Boris Vian, running across this crazy object he described in his novel “L’ecume des Jours” (“Froth on the Daydream“) is always a pleasure. The one I saw this afternoon has been designed by Géraldine and Nicolas Schenkel in Geneva.

Here’s how Vian explains how the device works:

“For each note there’s a corresponding drink – either a wine, spirit, liqueur or fruit juice. The loud pedal puts in egg flip and the soft pedal adds ice. For soda you play a cadenza in F sharp. The quantities depend on how long a note is held – you get the sixteenth of a measure for a hemidemisemiquaver; a whole measure for a black note; and four measures for a semibreve. When you play a slow tune, then tone comes into control to prevent the amounts growing too large and the drink getting too big for a cocktail – but the alcoholic content remains unchanged. And, depending on the length of the tune, you can, if you like, vary the measures used, reducing them, say, to a hundredth in order to get a drink taking advantage of all the harmonics, by means of an adjustment on the side.“

Why do I blog this? sunday encounter with a curious object that corresponds to the absurd convergence of two very different artifacts. The idea of mixing distinct functions in one object is an interesting innovation process but it’s sometimes more poetic and intriguing to do it with very distant class of objects.

As a general exercise to envision alternative near future worlds, it would be good to think about similar convergence between very remote objects. Making two functions converge is a difficult purpose. This example reminds me of a talk by Ben Fullerton at interaction 2010 in which he described a project he worked on at IDEO forBang&Olufsen: a music player that was also a phone, as opposed to a a phone that would also be a music player. This kind of approach is inspring IMHO as it forces to rethink the role of the two objects in very different ways.

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.

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.

Korean “you are here”

Why do I blog this? the “you are here” sign is a common wayfinding element that is always interesting to observe. Stating where people are can take many forms ranging from ubiquitous red dots (w/o captions) to interactive LED and the context can also influence the signage.

Cognitive sciences deal with this issue and state different criteria to evaluate what they call “YAH” (you are here maps). See for instance You-Are-Here Maps in Emergencies – The Danger of Getting Lost by Klippel, Freksa and Winter which summarize the literature about this:

• “Local placement: One important aspect of the local placement of YAH maps is the use of asymmetries to facilitate locating the map within the environment. An asymmetrical part of an environment is easily identified on the map as its layout combined with the YAH symbol (see below) shown on the map provides many cues for its location. Therefore, the location of the map in the environment becomes non-ambiguous.
• Correspondence: YAH maps should allow for easily establishing a correspondence between the represented information and the information that is immediately erceptible. While locating oneself should be guided by a YAH symbol (see below), several aspects
  contribute to whether or not the orientation within an environment can be accomplished easily:
  • Alignment: The YAH map and the environment should be aligned.
  • Architectural cues: YAH maps should be designed such that architectural cues and natural landmarks are included and that the shape of the route drawn in the YAH map relates to the actual shape of the route the user has to take in the environment, i.e. the behavioural pattern depicted corresponds to the behavioural pattern to be carried out
  • YAH symbol: The YAH symbol fulfils two tasks: First, it locates the user within an environment; second, it should indicate the user’s orientation with respect to her immediate surroundings (…) The double function can be achieved by combining a dot with an arrow or by a triangular shaped symbol designs.
• Alignment of text in the map: The text in a map should be generally readable without requiring to turn one’s head.
• Repetition: Combining the principles mentioned above may allow for easier self-localization, orientation and determination of the route to the destination.”

The principles can be employed as a mean to evalate YAH maps as well as a way to design and place then in the environment. As a matter of fact, they can also be interesting if you want to automate a “you are here” system through LBS. The level of mobility (or immobility) would then be an additional factor (in-car GPS versus pedestrian versus bike). There is a whole world to explore here in terms of user/field studies.

SXSW 2010 Proposal about Design Fiction

Julian proposed a panel for SXSW about Design Fiction at the following url: http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/5066. Feel free to vote on the platform if you’re interested in the topic.

It’s called “Design Fiction: Using Props, Prototypes and Speculation In Design” and here’s the summary:

“This panel will present and discuss the idea of “design fiction”, a kind of design genre that expresses itself as a kind of science-fiction authoring practice. Design fiction crafts material visions of different kinds of possible worlds.

Design’s various ways of articulating ideas in material can be seen as a kind of practice close to writing fiction, creating social objects (like story props) and experiences (like predicaments or scenarios). In this way, design fiction may be a practice for thinking about and constructing and shaping possible near future contexts in which design-led experiences are created that are different from the canonical better-faster-cheaper visions owned by corporate futures.

This panel will share design fiction projects and discuss the implications for design, strategy and technology innovation. In particular, how can design fiction bolster bolster the communication of new design concepts by emphasizing rich, people-focused storytelling rather than functionality? How can design fiction become part of a process for exploring speculative near futures in the interests of design innovation? What part can be played in imagining alternative histories to explore what “today” may have become as a way to underscore that there are no inevitabilities — and that the future is made from will and imagination, not determined by an “up-and-to-the-right” graph of better-faster-cheaper technologies.“

If this all happens Julian will be joined by people such as Sascha Pohflepp (http://www.pohflepp.com/), Jake Dunagan (http://www.iftf.org/user/958). Bruce Sterling (http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/), Stuart Candy (http://futuryst.blogspot.com/) or myself.

7 qualities of “responsive environments”

Awesome encounter the other day at the flea market in Geneva: Responsive environments: a manual for designers by Sue McGlynn, Ian Bentley, Graham Smith (1985). I bought it right away and started perusing this interesting compendium of urban design principles. Very practical and straight to the point, exemplified with illustrations and drawings, it shows how to crate environments that do not alienate but offer comprehensible, friendly and controllable places.

The whole book is about this:

“The design of a place affects the choices people can make, at many levels:

• Permeability: where people can go and where they cannot.
• Variety: the range of uses available to people
• Legibility: how easily people can understand what opportunities it offers
• Robustness: the degree to which people can use a given place for different purposes.
• Visual appropriateness: the detailed appearance of the place make people aware of the choices available.
• Richness: people’s choice of sensory experiences
• Personalization: the extent to which people can put their own stamp on a place.“

For each of these, there are interesting assignments such as doorstep interviews or probing people at street corner with peculiar photographs:

Why do I blog this? surely some insightful material to chew on, will try to spend more time on it and connect these thoughts with Dan Hill‘s discussion of hackability and design. So far, I like how the book offer interesting models that can go beyond architecture or urban planning.

In Marseilles for Lift France 09

“in the land of the mute – the blind are deaf“, the local version of “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king“. This is Marseilles, France and today is Workshop-day, lots of things going on.

Hidden protection

An interesting example of a car carpet repurposed to hide a locker at the door of an urban garden in Torino.