The Design of Future Things

Summary:
This post is about The Design of Future Things by Don Norman. This book shares some ideas with Norman's earlier book The Design of Everyday Things but focuses on how things should be created in the future when machines have intelligence. An example that Norman highlights in his book is the realm of autonomous automobiles. This has long been a topic of science fiction societies and is beginning to show itself in today's technology. Norman discusses the issues concerning the half-autonomous vehicles that we have today and the issues of deploying imperfect intelligence into machines. Norman sets out a list of rules that machines should follow to interact with humans without confusion. These rules are:
1. Provide rich, complex, and natural signals.
2. Be predictable.
3. Provide a good conceptual model.
4. Make the output understandable.
5. Provide continual awareness, without annoyance.
6. Exploit natural mappings to make interaction understandable and effective.

Discussion:
The future that Norman sees amazing at times, scary at others. With greater automation brings less human control around their surroundings, and I, for one, surely like to be in control of my belongings. I would enjoy my refrigerator informing me of what I have, but not ordering me what to eat. The more automation in the world, the more time this frees up in humans for other activities. This could be leisure, or work related, but either way less brain power is used on tasks that impede on a person's goals. When this automation goes too far, I can only imagine a society similar to Wall-E, where people no longer do anything for themselves. I think that this future is inherently flawed however because, even today, people respect the aesthetic nature of something made by human hands. A machine may stitch a quilt perfectly, or produce a chicken breast cooked to the correct temperature to the tenth of a degree, but people enjoy the imperfections and natural skill of a task performed well by human hands.

Re-Framing the Desktop Around the Activites of Knowledge Work

Summary:

As computers become more integrated with society and with each other, their importance in everyday life has grown substantially. The standard computer desktop model tries to emulate a physical desk and as such can get just as cluttered. A research project by Steven Voida of the University of Calgary and Elizabeth Mynatt and Keith Edwards of the Georgia Institute of Technology attempts to change the desktop model around specific activities.

Their model allows users to have as many virtual desktops as they currently have "activities". and they can easily switch between them. When they switch activities their desktop clears and is replaced with icons representing files associated with that project, their contact list changes to only show the contacts whom are working with the user on a project and the shared files section of the desktop shows files that are shared among all contacts.

Traditional models of multitasking look something like this:

In Windows, the taskbar gets cluttered with windows from obviously disparate tasks, while in Linux (Ubuntu shown) most distrubtions have virtual desktops that a user can switch between to organize windows. The model propsed by these researchers however brings this level of abstraction to new heights.

Discussion:

This focused desktop environment is highly effective at organizing the ever increasing number of tasks that people are working with every day. The seamless integration of their models of organization with the operating system is also very important in producing and well formed desktop experience. I think that this technology will continue to evolve and will be eventually absorbed as an option in mainstream operating systems very soon. While casual, home users may benefit from the standard desktop model, the workplace environment is where this interface will shine.

Conclusion:

I want it.

Starbucks Ethography

Commented:
Sarah


I chose to perform an ethnography on people who go to Starbucks. More specifically, why people go, and stay, at Starbucks. During my reseach time I wasn't quite sure what I was supposed to be looking for. I noted how many people entered, how old they were, if they stayed or not, how long they stayed, and what they did while they stayed. I also noted what kind of atmosphere the location had. The environment, I concluded was a main factor in why people stayed at Starbucks. The comfort of the chairs, usefulness of the tables, color of the walls, and the smell of coffee created an ambiance that these people enjoyed.
My observation notes were very different than the notes that must have been collected from the ethnography I chose to read (Never In Anger). I did not interact with the people in my study, but I would have liked to interview people to ask them why they enjoy staying at Starbucks to enjoy their coffee. I also wanted to interview the manager to learn how they interpret the environment they offer and what they do to foster an environment people want to stay in.

Never In Anger

This post is about a book called Never In Anger by Jean L. Briggs. It is an ethnography about Jean's 17 month stay with a group of Eskimos called the Utkuhikhalingmiut (Utku). She spent time with several of the families in the group but focused on a single family that she became an adopted daughter of. She began her quest to discover more abou the Utku's pagan past, but her study revealed something altogether different. She learned a lot about family life, skills in the Artic, and how the Utku act socially and treat family members.


This ethnography was very different than other similar cultural studies that I've read. In a study of the Yanomamo of Brazil by Napoleon Chagnon, Chagnon does participate in trade with the Yanomamo for modern goods, but lives for the most part outside of Yanomamo society. Briggs's unique status as a member of the family strongly changes the atmosphere of Utku family life. She repeatedly states how, because she is an inept Eskimo, she burdens her family. Although her position in society removes some of the ability to collect a pure idea of Utku life, I believe is does offer a vastly different, important insight into Utku psychology and is an enjoyable look at the human experience from a new perspective.

Media == Real

Comments:
Ben Carsten
JD


The Media Equation by Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass attempts to prove that people respond to "media" just as they do with real people. Reeves and Nass present their case through many experiments that involve people interacting with computers and television. These various experiments explore gender, personality, politeness, actions, and language.

The Bad
The problem with these experiments is that they are sometimes lacking in important detail and graphical demonstrations. More background on the participants in their studies would help the reader take a more analytical approach to their results instead of merely reading about their experiment and taking in their conclusions.
The concept of dominance and submissive behavior and "media"'s use of it to adapt to the user's personality is a topic that is discussed that I find very dangerous. The more personality that is given to a computer, the better chance it has to persuade, rather than inform, its users.
When placing a user and a computer on a "team" (apparently only by color coordination) the user's opinions were drastically changed in one of their studies. I find this very odd, especially for users who we are continually told are well versed in computers and could even write the test programs themselves. I think of my computer as a tool to accomplish my tasks and do not expect it to butt in and give it's "opinion" of my blog post as I type. On the other hand, if the computer also merely stated that we would be a team to give my psyche an boost and not reciprocate any information, I would feel cheated by my teammate. How would you feel if your computer posted a message about teamwork next time you started a project?

If it's a good idea to add "please" to "Wait for this file to be copied", then why shouldn't the computer also say, "This task can be best accomplished if we work as a team(160).

I would especially not want the book's version of an "Ideal Spell-checker". Not only would this spell-checker inform me of words that I have spelled incorrectly, it would also praise me for my correct spelling of other words. These pointless interruptions in my thought process would hinder by ability to work and only frustrate me.

The Good
The books discussions on Motion, Voices, Fidelity, and Synchrony are very interesting and broadly useful. The book discusses the ability of motion and voice to keep attention focused, and smoothly transition the user to new areas or options. These concepts are more widely accepted today than the bestowal of a computer program with a certain personality.

The Questionable
When discussing source orientation, Reeves and Nass easily dismiss the relationship of the creator of media and the media's perception by the user. This is the argument I find most difficult to accept. It seems obvious that when a person creates a media object, if the object shows any personality at all, it is through the creator and his/her influences that they drew from to create the object. While users may not perceive this relationship while interacting with media does not mean that this relationship does not exist.

I took many interesting ideas and practices from this book that I will incorporate in my future endeavors of media creations, but many other concepts presented shall stay in the pages of this book for now. Although this book was written several years ago, I feel it may become more applicable as computers become more powerful, AI more intelligent, and computer interaction become more immersive on an everyday scale. Even now I feel that if these experiments were performed today, the outcomes would be vastly different due to the amount of technological presence in today's society.