Visual image to frame the software development problem

Some quotes to capture the IE direction

3 quotes that in some essence capture the research

1 The nature of the problem

"The prevailing computer-human interaction (CHI) model of interface design has been partly responsible for the current state of the desktop computer. The breakthrough on which the field emerged was the admission of psychological principles. The resulting graphical user interface has been the focus of the field of computer-human interaction for nearly 20 years. This interface is a virtual control panel whose design has remained quite technology-centered. -- Malcolm McCullough, Digital Ground, 2004"

This in a way for me is drawing on the reason why the metaphor of the ecology and move towards the information ecology concept is significant - as we need ways in which to re-frame the technology centric view is designed.

2 The software design challenge

"Software design is the act of determining the user's experience with a piece of software. It has nothing to do with how the code works inside, or how big or small the code is. The designer's task is to specify completely and unambiguously the user's whole experience. -- David Liddle, From Bringing Design to Software, edited by Terry Winograd, 1996"

This really captures the nature of the design challenge and from the 1st quote sets how this process must move towards a user centric approach.

3 What the research must accomplish
"Good designers can create normalcy out of chaos; they can clearly communicate ideas through the organizing and manipulating of words and pictures. -- Jeffery Veen, 2000"

The question now of how the information ecology can form the communication to allow for clearer understanding of the environment.

Visualising work postion

A really useful diagram to aid with the background literature review and positioning of the work

From the paper - An Evolving Map of Design Practice and Design Research
Liz Sanders

Abstract

Design research is in a state of flux. The design research landscape has been the focus of a tremendous amount of exploration and growth over the past five to 10 years. It is currently a jumble of approaches that, while competing as well as complementary, nonetheless share a common goal: to drive, inspire, and inform the design development process. Conflict and confusion within the design research space are evident in the turf battles between researchers and designers. Online communities reveal the philosophical differences between the applied psychologists and the applied anthropologists, as well as the general discontent at the borders between disciplines. At the same time, collaboration is evident in the sharing of ideas, tools, methods, and resources in online design research communities. We can also see an increase in the number and quality of global design research events and a growing emphasis on collaborative projects between industry and the universities, particularly in Europe…

One to continue to contemplate....

Where that ACD thing fits ? -http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php?post=35466

I am not sure if such a distinction needs to be made, but if practitioners need clarification then....? An aspect that may be further validated and clarified through the literature review.

The concern at this point and my interest is in that if there is a need for such a distinction then the understanding I aim to provide of activities within the information ecology is an an argument for further justification of the work.

Some thoughts...
I would argue that ACD is more part of the evolution of UCD. Design is about framing problems, and ACD is more of an evolving perspective of UCD to frame problems.

I would agree with following view point made
On 11 Nov 2008, at 02:51, Livia Labate wrote: [snip]Dan Saffer differentiates ACS and UCS in his Designing for Interaction book very similarly/succinctly. His best point is that the PURPOSE of an activity is not necessarily a user goal, meaning looking at a design problem with a user goal in mind may be too esoteric and not necessarily helpful (which is the pro argument for ACD).[trim]

Fundamentally for me ACD for me draws on the principles framework set out in Activity theory and so for this reason I would argue that it is much more that a modern day task analysis to design. At its core activities consist of the tools people use, the subject the people themselves and the material object that can be tangible or totally intangible.

There are also several interesting point made by Josha Porter on the blog post
http://bokardo.com/archives/activity-centered-design/. A particularly interesting point is a point raised by Don Norman in the article ‘Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful’.Norman says:
“Many of the systems that have passed through HCD design phases and usability reviews are superb at the level of the static, individual display, but fail to support the sequential requirements of the underlying tasks and activities. The HCD methods tend to miss this aspect of behavior: Activity-centered methods focus upon it.”

To this I would ask how much of ACD and USD methods differentiate and overlap in design practice?

The notion of the real world....?

Again another great post from Pasta & Vinegar

The notion of “the real” as user research is meant to bring material concerning the real world, what users really do, what are their constraints and needs, and in fine why they do what they do. The literature in HCI, especially about the use of ethnography, has a wide take on this but I was more curious to see what designers have to say about it. Reading User research at IDII: Three case studies, 2002-2004 by Simona Maschi, Laura Polazzi and Jay Melican, I ran across this interesting quote:

“Everything we learn from user studies has the great advantage of being “true” (although not in an absolute way), because it comes from the real world and from real experiences. This makes it somehow believable and graspable for our audience, both within and outside of the design team. In other words user studies provide the design team with “live material” that can be used to share thoughts and ideas and to communicate the project effectively to the world.“

(The document is btw a relevant set of case study and quick description of research methods employed at the Interaction Design Institute Ivrea).

This notion of the “real” as the cornerstone of the exchange between UX research and design was also interestingly tackled at the recent EPIC conference. See for example how this weblog highlight the “real issue” in the discussion about how ethnographers can build and exhibit the authority necessary to be able to sell and provide ethnographic insights:

“Simon Pulman-Jones argued, ethnographers in industry are seeking to establish themselves as an authority on The Real - what it is really like out there in order to commoditize our insights, our epiphanies to help the organisations that we work for and with.
(…)
Ethnographers are indeed ‘brokers of the real‘ - they have themselves attained a sort of gatekeeper role between the designers and the engineers and the real world where real people actually use the products. They help the engineers meet and understand the users, in order to change the way the engineers think and feel about them.

Why blog this?

The writing has particular relevance in the how to understand and bridge from the real world of the science lab to the development/system view.

Is a design ethnographer more of an important gate keeper? In the sense that they hold vital information for the design process.

And as the process of communication is key, what of the ways to clearly communicate the real, to allow the engineers to understand the users, in order to change the way the engineers think and feel about them?

I think this should and I can propose a two way process also, so the design ethnographer can have insight in the engineering process to see how the real world work is reflected technically in the engineers model.

Paper dashboard

Some thoughts taken from the blog post Pasta & Vinegar

A fascinating stack of notes with numbers, additions and corrections encountered recently in a very old-school french grocery store. This awfully nice pile of duct-taped paper looks very pre-computing and surely plays more role than calculations: it’s clearly as dashboard for the salesman as he told me he uses it as a reminder for customer credit “emprunts”.

The importance of paper, again.

Why blog this?

The importance of paper has resonated through the work I have been conducting, this I think again only highlights this importance of paper and the activities it supports.

This is useful in the current the thinking of and understanding activity theory in how paper is able to work and function in the environment (ecology of the french grocery store)

Some initial thinking with this is how the initial 'tests' for the information ecology could be in looking at the ways successful tools/artifacts in the information ecology function.

Could suitable analysis of the ecolgoy expose how and why they are successful?

Activity theory thoughts...

With the thoughts of the research being aided by the theoretical framework of activity theory, the following statement has particular significance for my thinking of how the concept of tools does not describe all technologies, and so if not all artifacts are tools "can the use of artifacts that are not tools be described as mediation?"

[Artifacts] mediate activity that connects a person not only with the world of objects, but also with other people. This means that a person's activity assimilates the experience of humanity. -- Leont'ev (1974)

Thoughts on tools to accomplish tasks...

We use tools to accomplish tasks, and we abandon tools when the effort required to make the tool deliver exceeds our threshold of indignation. ... (... the threshold of indignation (is) the maximal behavioral compromise that we are willing to make to get a task done.)
-- Paul Saffo, in Bringing Design to Software, edited by Terry Winograd, 1996

Why blog this?
The information ecology discusses how to move away from the tool centric approach, the interpretation and thoughts that the information ecology puts on the above statement is how
a tool is abandoned when it "exceeds our threshold of indignation" I would cite this as being down to the context/environment that the tool is being used in. So that the tool has not been fully thought of in the context of its information ecology - can question if this can begin to explain the behavioral compromise that people are willing to make to get a task done.

A key here for me is recognizing what the information ecology is and what it can mean for a new tool with what it is part of, in order to be able to start to explain and question the "behavioral compromise".

Looking back and forward..

Some reaction from a post on 'Transforming Grounds ' on a post looking-back and-forward

Why blog this?
I have found this useful in the sense of why I need the lab book requires such a rethink. The thoughts are on a slightly more abstract level with the thinking from the articles, but I think in a way and as mentioned in the Transforming Grounds blog post of the concern for society and the use of the analogy of who is actually looking at the front of the train in terms of technology development. This is in terms of

"It means that very few are thinking about what is coming and what we want to see in the future, since most people are struggling with understanding the ongoing reality. If that is the case, we are living in a society where people are looking backwards to get signs that can help them to understand their situation, like people looking backwards on a train, trying to get a picture of the landscape...then, who is at the front of the train, looking forward?" looking-back and-forward

My own initial thoughts with this are a design researcher needs to be able to look for the front of the train but at the same time produce real designs - through suitable awareness of the context of environment. This is seen as a key aspect where the design practice must be applied.

Thoughts on current interfaces illustrate how many computer scientists are biased toward efficiency with technological resources rather than human att

"Current interfaces illustrate how many computer scientists are biased toward efficiency with technological resources rather than human attention; or to put it bluntly, toward convenience for computers before convenience for people." -- Malcolm McCullough, in Digital Ground, 2004

Why blog this?
The thoughts are with how the quote links with idea about design as a composition that is discussed in the book 'thoughtful interaction design'. In the book it discusses how as a designer measurement can be made by creativity and innovation - I think innovation is particularly relevant in the above quote, in the way there can be a focus to develop technological resources without sufficient human attention.

Question to think about is this what may be present in the ideas about developing new technology with the elab book? - so focus on creating the technology and not upon the environment and ecology that the device works within?

So the thinking for the research is leading to thoughts of how the use of the information ecology may allow for a clearer composition of ideas for the design and development of the elab book. With the aim to allow for a clear concept through the use of the information ecology, for the design and development of scientific software/elab book work.


The background point to thinking about composition as an idea.
"Composition is a delicate task involving balance and contrast. The purpose is to compose whole entity out of existing and not yet existing reality. There is a need for balance between old and new, technical and non-technical, and function and form."
Thoughtful Interaction Design: A Design Perspective on Information Technology by J Lowgren Pg 32

Is it time to embrace the e-book....?

A really interesting article from the bbc web site on the use of the ebook, some really interesting comments too from users of ebooks in terms of preferences and scenarios of use for ebooks.

- Extract from article
Could printed pages one day be a thing of the past?
When electronic books first came onto the market, some thought it spelt the end for the printed page.

But following a flurry of headlines, and prophesies of doom from the publishing industry, the revolution in downloadable literature failed to materialise.

However, despite scepticism from some technology experts that the tactile satisfaction of the paper book has not been successfully replicated, it now seems that the e-book is starting to take off.

Full link to article - Is it time to embrace the e-book?

Useful interview also with Prof Kathryn Hughes and author Naomi Alderman on whether ebooks will threaten the printed word - Link


Why blog this?
Interesting to draw comparisons upon the design and general problems being experienced with the development of the ebook, what can be learned from the work with ebooks and be used to help identify and understand the continuing work with elab books?
Are there also significant similartities and differences between ebooks and elab books with the problems that they face which may help inform the continuing work? - this is especially thinking about the context of the information ecology.

Writing thought

The secret of good writing is to strip every sentence to its cleanest components. Every word that serves no function, every long word that could be a short word, every adverb that carries the same meaning that's already in the verb, every passive construction that leaves the reader unsure of who is doing what--these are the thousand and one adulterants that weaken the strength of a sentence

. -- William Zinsser, On Writing Well, pp. 7-8. Writing-Well-Classic-Guide-Nonfiction

Further to this

"The ability to simplify means to eliminate the unnecessary so that the necessary may speak" -- Hans Hofmann Is this captured in his own work? Hofmann Gallery

How to sell a kindle.....???

The Ten Most Beautiful Experiments and over 130,000 other books are available for Amazon Kindle – Amazon’s new wireless reading device. Learn more

Something to think about amazon sell the kindle as a new wireless reading device...

A new wireless reading device... Last time I checked a book was a wireless reading device?
I would raise this as at the point in the research in being related for the following reason
- The kindle is a new piece of technology - should not be viewed to have to compete with books but instead provide a different experience. (has though it been designed with this in mind...?)

Your not going to have the affordances of a book but instead have new the new benefits that technology offers - this is the reason for adoption. Is this not then what it could be sold on?

In a similar way would face similar challenges in a lab book - and similar with the editor.

This may be open to continued questions and although may be a bit condescending towards amazon I think at this point can be questioned.

The selling point....

A great article taken from Scientific American on Science 2.0 -- Is Open Access Science the Future?

The following quotes have been taken from the article as the quote taken from another source has been

Web 2.0 technologies open up a much richer dialogue, says Bill Hooker, a postdoctoral cancer researcher at the Shriners Hospital for Children in Portland, Ore., and author of a three-part survey on open-science efforts that appeared at 3 Quarks Daily (www.3quarksdaily.com), where a group of bloggers write about science and culture.

“To me, opening up my lab notebook means giving people a window into what I’m doing every day,” Hooker says. “That’s an immense leap forward in clarity. In a paper, I can see what you’ve done. But I don’t know how many things you tried that didn’t work. It’s those little details that become clear with an open [online]notebook but are obscured by every other communication mechanism we have. It makes science more efficient.”

The above scenario I think sets out more clearly the selling point as such for the research - I also see it linking with the point of how technology and paper are complementary for the reason that if the paper is obscuring a communication/workflow path because of the affordances it has as mentioned in the scenrio. I would see then exploration of if/how the elab book can enhance the workflow and most importantly be part of the workflow.
This is what must be achived must ensure not a focus on what a lab books functionailty is, but instead on actually what it is.

Finally the last quote below I think captures a selling point, as well as highlighting the risks and dangers that scientists are so wary about. Taking the position as an advocate for the research, it is important to have a wider perspective in order to fully appreciate the workflow.

"That jump in efficiency, in turn, could greatly benefit society, in everything from faster drug development to greater national competitiveness.Of course, many scientists remain wary of such openness—especially in the hypercompetitive biomedical fields, where patents, promotion and tenure can hinge on being the first to publish a new discovery. For these practitioners, Science 2.0 seems dangerous: putting your serious work out on blogs and social networks feels like an open invitation to have your lab notebooks vandalized—or, worse, your best ideas stolen and published by a rival.To advocates, however, an atmosphere of openness makes science more productive. “When you do your work online, out in the open,” Hooker says, “you quickly find that you’re not competing with other scientists anymore but cooperating with them.”

The argument of now with a move towards science 2.0 that your not competing but instead co-operating may require a full social culture change. Question if such instances have occurred before in work environments. Is this something that has to be forced upon people to be really effective ?

“Designing is not a profession but an attitude”

A post taken from 37signals By Matt

“Designing is not a profession but an attitude” is an excerpt from László Moholy-Nagy’s 1947 book “Vision in Motion.”

The designer must see the periphery as well as the core, the immediate and the ultimate, at least in the biological sense. He must anchor his special job in the complex whole. The designer must be trained not only in the use of materials and various skills, but also in appreciation of organic functions and planning. He must know that design is indivisible, that the internal and external characteristics of a dish, a chair, a table, a machine, painting, sculpture are not to be separated…

There is design in organization of emotional experiences, in family life, in labor relations, in city planning, in working together as civilized human beings. Ultimately all problems of design merge into one great problem: ‘design for life’.

We often put “designers” and “creatives” in special silos. But when you look at it from this “design for life” perspective, everyone is designing: writers, programmers, managers, CEOs, HR departments, parents, etc. Design and creativity don’t belong exclusively to people who use Photoshop.

Related: László Moholy-Nagy’s visual representation of Finnegan’s Wake

Why blog this?

I think the quote correctly captures a perspective on how to view the many forms and

challenges that design can take, the concept of how design is an indivisible experience I think may have a link with understanding the design of the lab information ecology.

A further poignant quote that is useful for thinking about fieldwork:

" The real act of discovery consists not in finding new lands, but in seeing with new eyes" - Macel Proust

Multiple thoughts

Last week Genevieve Bell, a highly respected anthropologist and Director of User Experience within Intel’s Digital Home Group, gave the 2008 commencement speech at the UC Berkeley School of Information.

She filled it with “anthropological advice” about how to approach the world like a fieldwork project.

"I hope you can achieve a balance of online and offline encounters with the people, spaces and practices around you. I hope you can be fully engaged with local issues and the ways in which global ones are manifested around you. And I hope you experience moments of profound dislocation and discomfort – when things aren’t familiar – because I firmly believe it is in those moments that we learn the most about ourselves and what we truly value."

http://www.experientia.com/blog/genevieve-bells-anthropological-advice-at-berkeley-commencement/

Some food for thought:

• Working Knowledge: Inside the Kindle E-Book Reader

LIBRARY TO GO: Amazon's Kindle E-Reader
AMAZON.COM

More and more people are gazing at electronic-book readers—lightweight slates about the size of a thin paper­back that can store up to 200 downloaded books. Although prior generations fizzled, Sony’s Reader, introduced in 2006, and Amazon’s Kindle, which debuted last year, are both selling well. The key difference is the screen.

Interactive: View the insides of the Kindle E-Reader

Researchers had wrestled with e-book readers for decades, but most sported power-thirsty, backlit LCD screens that glared in low light or were drowned out by bright sunlight. The breakthrough this time is a screen made with “electronic paper” from E Ink Corporation in Cambridge, Mass. Sony, Amazon and other makers worldwide are using the material.

E-paper displays are reflective: ambient light bounces off them, so they look and read like ordinary paper. The screens are very energy efficient, too. “The only power used is when you turn a page,” says Isaac Yang, manager of software product development at Sony in San Jose, Calif. No current is needed to sustain the characters on a page once it has been called up. Yang says about 7,500 pages can be turned on a single battery charge. Downloading books consumes additional power.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=library-to-go&sc=rss

• Product ecology as a design framework

Extract taken from Pasta&Vinger blog

Recently, in my daily data farming, I ran across several sources mentioning the notion of “product ecology”. It generally refers to how (interaction) design broaden its focus from systems targeted on one person to more socially or culturally situated products. Among the sources about this, Jodi Forlizzi’s work struck me as very relevant.

In this article in the International Journal of Design, she focuses on the interesting notion of “product ecology” and how it can be employed as a theoretical design framework:

“In the Product Ecology, the product is the central unit of analysis. (…) The functional, aesthetic, symbolic, emotional and social dimensions of a product, combined with other units of analysis, or factors, in the ecology, help to describe how people make social relationships with products. These include the product; the surrounding products and other systems of products; the people who use it, and their attitudes, disposition, roles, and relationships; the physical structure, norms and routines of the place the product is used; and the social and cultural contexts of the people who use the product and possibly even the people who make the product. “

(image taken from Forlizzi’s paper)

But how does that help designers? Forlizzi highlights few key ideas about the assumptions of the Product Ecology framework[I recommend reading the whole paper here]:

“First, each product has its own ecology, resulting in subjective and individual experience in using the same product.
(…)
Second, the factors in the Product Ecology are dynamic, and interconnected in several ways.
(…)
Third, changes in product use cause changes in other factors of the Product Ecology.(…) When a product no longer plays a key role, it is marked by events such as people changing roles, or going in and out of the ecology;
(…)
Fourth, the Product Ecology can be delimited by a group of people in close proximity, or a group that is spread out over a great distance.
(…)
Factors in the Product Ecology can be examined in isolation or in combination at the level of a single product, to understand what particular product features will inspire social use, or at the system level, to understand how a particular product will have an impact on a system of products retained for similar functional, aesthetic, symbolic, social and emotional factors. Similarly, behavior of individuals or groups using products can be studied.“

So, to some extent, the “product ecology” can be employed to study variety of products/services. An interesting example of such use can be found in this article (from CSCW 2006) about how robotic products become social products. The paper basically shows how different people within a houselhold formed different social relationships with Roomba vacuum (and not with the more classic vacuum). The classic vacuum, in this ethnographic study, affected significant change in the families, while the stick vacuum did not: people cleaned more often, more members of the family participated and there were more prone to make social attribution to the roomba. The author then draws some design implications concerning the importance of social attribution: “when simple social attributes are part of the design of robotic products and systems, people may adopt them more readily and find them less stigmatizing“.

http://liftlab.com/think/nova/2008/05/26/product-ecology-as-a-design-framework/

Why blog this?
Particularly interested in the concepts discussed in the Product Ecology design framework. May have help in understanding the direction and assistance needed to aid in the application for the information ecology as set out by Nardi.

Interesting and useful piece on the uptake now of the Amazon Kindle and how there is still
uncertainty over e-books and readers and if they will ever become truly ubiquitous.


Finally

• Why blogging is good for you

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-healthy-type&sc=rss

Gin, Television, and Social Surplus

Some thoughts from the post Here Comes Everybody -

Clay Shirky

TV, Cognitive Surplus, and Wikipedia

A talk by Clay Shirky called Gin, Television, and Social Surplus. Following on themes from his book, Here Comes Everybody, he tells a story that goes like this:

" We gained lots of free time (a "cognitive surplus") in the 40s and 50s because of shorter workweeks. We squandered the surplus by watching TV sitcoms and the like. Now we're finally waking up from this "collective bender" and putting our energies into better things, like editing Wikipedia.

I have a number of problems with this story. First of all, did we gain free time in the 40s and 50s? I'm not an expert, but what I've read about work life has said that Americans are working more hours now than they did at the beginning of the 20th century, not less.

Second, is the time now spent editing Wikipedia or doing other things online really coming from time formerly spent watching TV? In other words, even if there's a negative correlation between TV viewing and online activity, correlation doesn't imply causality.

Third, who's to say which of these activities is more valuable? Shirky has a couple of fairly simple rules for assigning value. Producing is better than consuming -- so writing a blog or posting to a mailing list is better than watching TV or reading. Activity is better than inactivity or passivity -- playing World of Warcraft is more valuable than watching a movie.

I think those rules are awfully simplistic and don't seem to get at the heart of what's valuable. Some TV shows and movies are far more sophisticated works of art than are most video games. Reading a book can be a much more efficient way to deepen one's understanding of a topic than debating it online. Even an adolescence wasted watching Gilligan's Island (an example of Shirky's) might reward you later with the creative juice to launch a career writing postmodern novels.

It's wishful thinking to believe that all of these new technologies will bring forth some great creative and intellectual bounty. We've already got hundreds of millions of blogs -- how much have they really changed things? How important is Wikipedia, really? If it disappeared tomorrow would anyone be truly inconvenienced? I doubt it -- Google would turn up another source or you'd go look in the library if it really mattered. Yet think of all the energy and hours that have been put into Wikipedia. The return on investment just doesn't seem that impressive."

Why blog this?
Its interesting perspective of the social move of free time and maybe in a way not to take technology as the great hope but as a tool. For me its the perspective of understanding and acknowledgment of technology as a tool that is important for my own work.

Quote to capture work upgrade & other pieces

"[The] dynamics of computational artefacts extend beyond the interface narrowly defined, to relations of people with each other and to the place of computing in their ongoing activities. System design, it follows, must include not only the design of innovative technologies, but their artful integration with the rest of the social and material world. The value of artefacts on this view lies less in their intrinsic features, than in their contribution to particular social-material landscapes." " -- Lucy Suchman

• Some useful discussion from the IxDA site:

Some thoughts on Interaction Design and the Agile Environment from IxDA may have some useful points and diagrams for continuing work

Interaction Design in an Agile Environment -This may also be useful also for future evaluation of research use

Metaphors- A discussion with some of the books in the area and some current PhD work, may be useful in providing insight in when and when not too use metaphors and the cognitive process behind it.

Measuring User Experience - With a discussion on best practice to Measure User Experience,based on 4 key pillars: 1) Branding; 2) Usability ; 3) Content and 4) functionality. Can ignore branding, remaining 3 may prove useful for evaluation later on.

• Stumbled across a very good blog, entitled “The Restless Mind through putting people first feed useful posts from blog.

The design of everyday relationships

MIT Professor Donald Schön [observed] that design is a “conversation with materials.” In many ways users have become “materials” as much as participants. We not only engage them explicitly through interaction design to create discrete features, but also in aggregate as social systems and platforms amplify their implicit actions to create value.

The siren call of the system
Well-designed systems are not, in fact, designed. They are the product of evolution. […] Systems, like narratives, take time to reveal themselves to their authors. Changes in technology, consumer preferences, and markets take years to play out. It’s not clear from day one where the system will go or how it will adapt. […] Systems are so rarely produced because they take time and time is one resource companies don’t have. Most die long before the system is revealed.

Apple and the enigma of innovation
What makes Apple special isn’t design. Or process. Or talent. It’s fear. Fear of the man who is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. (And sheathed in titanium. An engineer slaving away on the iPhone SDK isn’t concerned about the industry, his peers, or his boss. His relentless pursuit of “system elegance” is simply an animal’s instinct to avoid pain, manifested largely during the senior management review.


And insight into a designers mind....?

View from Microsoft on the future of human computer interaction

A agenda set out from Microsoft research in line with some thoughts of my own
Blogged on/from Putting people first link

Report from Microsoft Research and the future of human computer interaction

"Moving into the 21st century, there are murmurings in the research and design communities signalling the need for a change: a change that puts more emphasis on placing users –people—front and centre in that agenda; a change that is less about pervasive, “smart” computing and more about technology that enables and recognizes human values.

This new agenda raises all kinds of key questions: What is the role of technology in the 21st century, or what would we like it to be? How as researchers, designers and practitioners should we orient to this role? What are the key questions for Human-Computer Interaction as we move forward? What are the new paradigms and research agendas that emerge as a result? What are the human values we are designing for, and what does this mean for the evaluation of technology?"

Why blog this?
How can I can address and understand these type of questions and the nature of them in context of my own work, lots more to think about....

Fantastic quote from front of report

"The question persists and indeed grows whether the computer will make it easier or harder for human beings to know who they really are, to identify their real problems, to respond more fully to beauty, to place adequate value on life, and to make their world safer than it now is."

Norman Cousins – The Poet and the Computer, 1966

Also On the website of Microsoft Research Cambridge you can read a really good interview with Richard Harper, the conference organiser.

Harper on developing technology: “For many years, technology has been developed, and then society shapes it and polishes it. Now, society’s hopes and goals and people need to be involved in the process of developing technology from the outset, because it makes a big difference to what the technologies end up becoming. There’s no longer a line between technology and invention and development and society, no longer a line between what the technology might do and what the user can do. What human endeavor might be and what social endeavor might be must be considered from the very bottom of the firmware in devices and in the infrastructures that link different devices right through to the GUI on the outside.”

Post from Fade to play

Stumbled across a post from the blog fade to play caught my eye as ties in some nice ideas with Sellen & Harpers book the myth of the paperless office from a research study conducted in 2006

"This 2006 research paper entitled “Our Lives in Digital Times” by G. Sciadas from Statistics Canada has just been released. It discusses how the notion that we have become a paperless society is a myth as the use of office technologies such as email have actually increased paper usage.

Statistics Canada found that:

Not only is the notion of a paperless society defeated by existing data, but a visit to any modern office workplace will confirm that printers everywhere continue to spit out massive amounts of paper, and paper recycling bins are full,

There are also social behavioural trends in ICT and communication that are discussed:

The pattern of communication and interaction has changed. The reality is that people are talking to other people – whether to the person next door or to someone thousands of miles and time zones away. Thus, it is not that people are becoming anti-social; it is that people are becoming differently social.

In summary, key outcomes of ICTs are manifested in shifting behavioural patterns everywhere, with real consequences. Moreover, the pattern of communications has changed, something exemplified by the rise in long distance and the explosion in international calling made possible by
liberalized markets and falling prices. Such expanded circles of communication have found an even better expression through e-mail that knows no boundaries. People make the choice to expand their associations and move from geographically defined communities to communities of interest. As well, they are willing to pay for their choices. ICT spending is on the rise and, within this higher spending, substitutions take place in favour of newer ICTs, such as the Internet, and against older ones, such as the telephone. The willingness of people to pay can also be seen by the fact that many low income households choose to spend a relatively higher proportion of their income on ICTs.

A summary of the report can be found in this CBC news report.

This report confirms finding from Richard Harper and Abigail Sellen who wrote The Myth of the Paperless Office (2001) and found that paper usage increased on average 40% because of email in an organisation).

Relevance: Although offices are using paper more, I wonder about whether students are printing more in universities. I would say that they are printing less. I spend a significant time with my laptop around undergrads that I see reading papers in pdf form online on their laptop rather than printing them out. This may be due to convenience and a desire for cost savings. Perhaps, older people just feel more comfortable with paper."

Also the blog has recommended the book

Tagging: People-powered Metadata for the Social Web (Voices That Matter) (Paperback) - but only on American amazon!

Why blog this?

A blog to keep an eye on as holds some really interesting points, and research paper mentioned above may hold some significance for future reference .

DEFINE: Affordance

DEFINE: Affordance

URL: DEFINE: Affordance

In the discipline of IxD, the word has been used to define a possible

action perceived by a user within some environment (Norman 1988). In the

classic example, the affordance of a door with a flat metal plate is

"push." The affordance resolves to a verb, an action to be performed.

However, of late, I've seen the word used loosely to describe the clues

that suggest an object's possible actions. Applied in a colloquial sense

to the classic example above, the "affordance" is the flat metal plate.

Another example of this usage would be gloss applied to the visual

design of a UI button. The gloss itself is the affordance, as opposed to

the action "click".




I'm curious as to the community's opinion on this matter. How do you use

the word in your day to day discussions? Is it appropriate to use the

term both ways?

Appreciate your opinions?


Why blog this?
Evidence of the misinterpretation of the word within the field useful to throw out some ideas and gather how it is being used in the field or not...

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Collection of thoughts

A couple of posts captured from RSS feed and a comment from Wendy Mackay e-lab paper

Delver Reinvents Search

URL: Delver Reinvents Search

The most impressive thing about the new search engine Delver is that it knows who you are and who your friends are even if you don't import your address book or add your social networking profiles. Instead, Delver leverages the social graph to map out a user's social connections. Since everyone's social graph is unique, like a fingerprint, the same query will yield vastly different results for each user. The results are more personal and meaningful to users than a generic search using "normal" search engine.

But don't call Delver a "social search engine."

"That name belongs to services like Mahalo," says Liad Agmon, Delver CEO. "We prefer the term 'socially connected search engine'." That term makes sense because Delver is not a social network built around a search engine, but a search engine who indexes and queries your social network to deliver its results. Instead of just looking at a web site's popularity, Delver looks at information like whether your friends have tagged the site or if it's found on their social network profiles, bookmarking sites, photos and video sharing sites, or on their blogs. The results are more relevant because they account for who a person is and what they find valuable.

Agmon adds, "People want trusted information from their friends, but may not know who in their network is knowledgeable about a given topic. We make Web search more fun and meaningful by prioritizing results based on a user's network, while enabling the user to discover others in their extended network who share common interests."

Even without registering for an account, Delver will try to determine who you are by searching any public social network profiles you may have on sites like Flickr, Facebook, and YouTube. If you do decide to register on the site, though, you can then choose to associate your accounts with Delver in order to obtain even more accurate results. Delver currently indexes the entire web, and specifically indexes people's social connections on flickr, MySpace, LinkedIn, YouTube, hi5, facebook, Blogger, and, they are adding more all the time. When they go into public beta (circa May, 2008), an optional email import process will be provided as well.

Maximizing Your "Whole" Social Network

Many of us have friends, family members, or colleagues on sites like MySpace and facebook who aren't into using all the latest and greatest web apps and technologies. These friends may have a MySpace profile or a blog, but without visiting these sites directly, there was no way to gather information from these people before. Now with Delver, their profiles and contributions to your social graph are indexed.

No one has to sign up for Delver for you to have them included in your search results.

This is a real breakthrough since prior to Delver, the maximum value you would get out of social networks was directly related to how many of your friends would join. I don't know about you, but I still have plenty of friends who are on MySpace and nothing else, and are quite content with that. With each new social network I joined, the number of my non-tech friends that would follow me dwindled down to nearly nothing. Now it doesn't matter. They can stay on MySpace forever and yet the content they create there will be valuable to me.

Privacy Concerns?

It's important to understand that Delver doesn't display anything that isn't already publicly available. "If Google can get to it, so can Delver," says Agmon. But Delver just makes it so much easier to do so. You can access people's social information with such ease that anyone who hasn't been good about setting their profiles to "private" (or who doesn't know to do so), may be surprised to find themselves searchable on Delver.

Using Delver

After claiming your identity in Delver, your social graph is mapped and displayed for you beneath the Delver search box. Dotted lines connect you to your friends and your "friends of friends.

- Why blog this?
Insight to how social search could be thought of, and how in fact may provide the desired insight for scientific work ?

Collaborative Technologies and Science: More Tools or More Risk?

URL: Collaborative Technologies and Science: More Tools or More Risk?

Social networking has begun to make inroads in the scientific community. The Scientific American recent article, Science 2.0: Great New Tool, or Great Risk, discusses wikis, blogs, and other technologies and how their usage by researchers could be transforming how science is researched, published, disseminated, and viewed. Research work is beginning to become available through blogs, wikis, and social networks by a small but growing group of researchers.

In Eric Schell's post, Evidence of the Value of Blogs as Scholarship, he mentions a case where a postdoc geneticist received credit and acknowledgement for his blog entries. Reed Cartwright posted his random thoughts on a mutant plant gene on his blog in March 2005. One year later after reading the post Luca Comai, a plant geneticist, contacted Reed. He and said that he had coincidentally arrived at the same hypothesis, and was about to publish his research in Plant Cell. Comai said he felt obligated to acknowledge Mr. Cartwright’s blog post and offered to make him a co-author of his article. Mr. Cartwright, who is not a plant geneticist, accepted the offer.

Of course this method of information and knowledge sharing is not without controversy. While there are researchers praising the transparent and "open notebook" approach citing various success stories like OpenWetWare, UsefulChem, Chembarkothers, there are others worried about potential minefields. The fear of being scooped and the lack of attribution and credit can be huge barriers to overcome in a system where being the first to report a discovery, publishing peer reviewed journals and having heavily cited articles is the foundation for promotion within scientific community.

I like what Bora Zivkovic said in the Scientific American article, "It's a Darwinian process. About 99 percent of these ideas are going to die. But some will emerge and spread." I think that not only sums up the evolution of these tools in science but other disciplines as well such as medicine, education, and libraries.

Why blog this?
Raises some of the issues of the potential of Web 2.0 and the areas of sharing and collaboration where may need consideration, think enforces the link with Bruno Latours model of creditability and how scientists search for this in their work. Question in how to overcome this for collaboration?

Extract from The Missing Link: Augmenting Biology Laboratory Notebooks Wendy E.Mackay

"This project is one of a series that examine settings in
which attempts to replace paper artifacts have failed
[16,17,18,19,20 ].We observe and work with users as we
try to understand their interaction with both paper artifacts
and on-line systems.Then,through a series of
brainstorming and prototyping participatory design
sessions,we create prototypes that integrate paper and on-
line documents,attempting to integrate the different media
and benefit from the advantages of both.Each setting poses
unique design challenges,but when examined together,
they begin to offer a more complete understanding of how
to effectively manage the link between physical and on-line
documents and questions the assumption that documents of
the future will exist solely in electronic form."

16.Mackay,W.(1998)Augmented Reality:Linking real
and virtual worlds.In Proceedings of AVI'98 ,L'Aquila,
Italy:ACM.p.1-8.
17.Mackay,W.(1999)Is Paper Safer?The Role of Paper
Flight Strips in Air Traffic Control.ACM/Transactions
on Computer-Human Interaction,6(4),p.311-340.
18.Mackay,W.and Pagani,D.(1994).Video Mosaic:
Laying out time in a physical space.In Proc.of
Multimedia '94 .San Francisco:ACM,p.165-172.
19.Mackay,W.,Fayard,A.,Frobert,L.&Médini,L.,
(1998)Reinventing the Familiar:Exploring an Aug-
mented Reality Design Space for Air Traffic Control.
In Proc.of CHI '98 ,L.A.:ACM,p.558-565.
20.Mackay,W.,Pagani D.,Faber L.,Inwood B.,
Launiainen P.,Brenta L.&Pouzol V.(1995).Ariel:
Augmenting Paper Engineering Drawings.In CHI '95
Video Program ,San Francisco CA:ACM.

Why blog this?
Think the extract captures the way in which existing e-lab book work has gone and focused upon the action of emulation of paper, where must acknowledge the evolutionary process of paper as a technology and so open a direction to open up for new technology to strive too.

Collection of really useful other blog thoughts

Great post on Recursive affordances - post from Past&Vineger

These two ash-tray found in Geneva and Lausanne are two impressive examples of an object affordances:

Why do I blog this? This is utterly curious from a design perspective. the artifacts designed to received trashed objects looks like the object itself. A sort of recursive affordance to some extent. What does that mean? It’s actually not that recursive and the second example if maybe more self-explanatory since the two different garbages are next to each other. Besides, the first one has a little hole that only allow to receive small things like cigarettes.

Style of posting taken from this blog
- The "Why I blog this?" point is a great way to capture the reasoning behind the post and so I will look to adopt this approach as think it could provide more clarity for reasoning behind each posting of thoughts.


Why do I blog this? - recursive affordances

I have some thoughts to draw up a table of the range of affordances of the lab book as I have provided/put forward an argument that the affodances of paper and so lab book is the foundations of what makes it a ideal mobile ubiquitous artifact, with the ability to fit int work practice.

Some thoughts now maybe with gather the existing range of affordances from Gaver, Sellen & Harper etc to collectively put forward which of these are why the lab book works and where the shortcomings have been in existing technology.

Steve Portigal on scanning/meme-broking

URL: Steve Portigal on scanning/meme-broking

There is a great interview of Steve Portigal in influx. Some excerpts I found relevant:

“A great design strategist (…) someone who has had a few different professional identities and gets excited by the spaces where disciplines, schools of thought, and methods overlap. They are curious and easily intrigued: they like to observe what’s going on around them and they’re good at listening to people. And they know how to use all this data to synthesize new patterns and communicate them clearly to a range of audiences. Charlie Stross, in the sci-fi book “Accelerando”, describes the profession of a “meme broker” and the intense amount of content they have to assimilate every day in order to do this. Bruce Sterling calls this activity “scanning“ looking at all the sources one can and constantly asking what does this mean for my clients. Being able to work through all those data sources and pull out the implications is crucial for design strategy.
(…)
The best research brings to life the imperfect and messy stories of real people and presents generative frameworks that lead the way forward for new designs, products, services, features, communications, or whatever is needed.“

Why blog this ?
Some good insights here that rings a bell with personal thoughts, especially concerning the messiness of reality and the need to uncover quirks, peculiars situations, extreme users as well as exceptions.

Love the idea too of what design strategist should represent and what I think the different perspectives that are required to allow for insight - nice to point to think on for my own work as would like to look for a final position to allow for recommendations to be made in a design strategy context - drawing on use from work and in particularly table of affordances from lab books.

I agree massively with too:

"The best research brings to life the imperfect and messy stories of real people and presents generative frameworks that lead the way forward for new designs, products, services, features, communications, or whatever is needed."

Feel the methods selected for my own research will be part of the comment by Bruce Sterling:

"Bruce Sterling calls this activity “scanning“ looking at all the sources one can and constantly asking what does this mean for my clients. Being able to work through all those data sources and pull out the implications is crucial for design strategy."

- Feel this relates to the conversation that was had with Richard Coyne from Edinburgh and his talk on design tunning - do have his slides to verify/support this.

Web 3.0: Is It About Personalization?

"On the UK's Guardian newspaper site today, writer Jemina Kiss suggested that Web 3.0 will be about recommendation. "If web 2.0 could be summarized as interaction, web 3.0 must be about recommendation and personalization," she wrote. Using Last.fm and Facebook's Beacon as an example, Kiss painted a picture of a web where personalized recommendation services can feed us information on new music, new products, and where to eat. It's a marketers dream and it's really not far off from the definitions we've come up with in the past here on ReadWriteWeb. We've written about web 3.0 and attempted to define it many, many times here over the past year. One of the common themes between almost all of the posts is that Web 3.0 and the vision of the Semantic Web are joined at the hip. Last April, we held a contest asking readers for their web 3.0 definitions. Our favorite came from Robert O'Brien, who defined Web 3.0 as a "decentralized asynchronous me." "Web 1.0: Centralized Them. Web 2.0: Distributed Us. Web 3.0: Decentralized Me," he wrote. "[Web 3.0 is] about me when I don't want to participate in the world. It's about me when I want to have more control of my environment particularly who I let in. When my attention is stretched who/what do I pay attention to and who do I let pay attention to me. It is more effective communication for me!""

Why blog this?
My own work is directed to both web2.0 and incorporating its concept so I am particularly interested where the next step is with the web 3.0 direction - in order to give further power of a tool for scientists, especially when a concern for scientists is about privacy of their own environment and the background to what 3.0 is building towards is "control of my environment particularly who I let in."

Finally -Quote of the day, Feb 3rd, 2008: Interaction-Design.org Quote-of-the-Day

"On the one hand, design must be firmly rooted in the work practices of both users and designers; on the other it must confront these practices with their existing shortcomings and introduce new artifacts such as mock-ups, prototypes, or metaphors, and potentially cause breakdowns. This is how we may lean to transcend our own tradition as users and as designers. -- Boedker, Greenbaum and Kyng, p. 147-148 in "Setting the stage for design as action""


Why do I blog this?
My interpretation of this quote is to take the best of both worlds work practice of users and designers & then how must have ability to confront practices with shortcomings I think this is where continued research questions lie...

Social affordances

A really interesting article on the concept of affordances from affordances evoked by social interaction highlighted several points to some of the current thoughts/reading/ideas.

" The concept of affordances, as introduced by Gibson (e.g., 1979), provides a way to describe the world that cuts across traditional subject-object dualities. Affordances go beyond value-free physical descriptions of the environment by expressing environmental attributes relative to humans. At the same time, they go beyond subjective interpretations (e.g., associations, schemas, or social conventions) by describing meaning relative to an objective physical world.

Affordances are primarily facts about action and interaction, not perception."

As technology is becoming more ubiquitous the concept of 'social affordance' , at first thought may provide an avenue of awareness to move towards the concept of 'invisible computing' as discussed by Don Norman. In such a way though that the step before this must be in an understanding of the situated actions per se as discussed by Lucy Suchman.

"Affordances exist not just for individual action, but for social interaction as well. Research on “social affordances” (e.g., Still & Good, 1991; Goldring, 1991) focuses on the possibilities for action that people offer one another and on the role of other people in pointing out new affordances (e.g., to babies). These are not social affordances, as defined above, but affordances for sociality."


I think this may be a start to inform the way in which I can think about the design environment/ecology by questioning the design of social affordances based upon an understanding of the ecology.

"Perhaps the most important affordance of the everyday world lacking in media spaces is the ability to move. As Gibson (1979) emphasised, movement is fundamental for perception.
We move towards and away from things, look around them, and move them so we can inspect them closely. Movement might allow people to compensate for the discontinuities and anisotropies of current media spaces (Gaver, 1992; c.f. Heath & Luff, 1991). Social interactions in media space would be better supported if people could explore remote sites as easily as they can move around their own rooms.

The ecological approach is useful in the design process because it describes perception and interaction in terms of the properties of the environment, as well as those of people, and design is fundamentally about manipulating the environment for people. Thus the ecological approach challenges researchers to avoid the temptation of using memory and inference in explanations of perception, and encourages them instead to discover the possibly high-level physical attributes that serve as information about the world."

And so my impression from this is that the 'Ecological approach' can look to challenge the way ubiquitous computing is perceived? And social interactions both with the artifact of the e-lab book and is ecology it operates within could be a way which to move forward with the e-lab book concept should operate.

Some thoughts from the book Thoughtful Interaction Design

The following is taken from the book 'Thoughtful Interaction Design: A Design Perspective on Information Technology' by Jonas Löwgren & Erik Stolterman

" We live in an artificial world. It is a world made up of environments, systems, processes and things that are imaged, formed, and produced by humans. All these things have been designed, and all new things have to be designed. Someone has to decide their form, function, and structure as well as their ethical and aesthetical qualities. In this artificial world created by humans information technology is increasing becoming not only common but a vital and part. Our design world world is full of digital artifacts, that is things built around a core of information technology. We can find them in our workplaces, in our meeting and public spaces, and in our homes. Digital artifacts have a direct impact on our everyday lives. "

Although very abstract in terms of the nature of 'digital artifacts' the nature of design questions that I think the paragraph looks to open is very much within the direction of my own work for the fundamental reason that

"Digital artifacts have a direct impact on our everyday lives"

And so if the concept behind the fundamental design is not clearly directed and understood in the working practice(even more so within the working practice of a complicated domain of scientists) then there will be fundamental flaws - This may lead to thoughts of a potential question towards the understanding of the present way of working(with paper) and existing technology and how it is and actually used - with this I feel there is a lead with some of the thoughts on ubiquitous computing and the concept of invisible computing, in that ubiquitous computing can in some scenarios be a collection of broken processes where the ideal solution would a scenario based around the invisible computing concept (I would interpret the invisible computing concept as the way someone can work with technology and not have to consciously think about using the technology - similar to the way a scientist will use and write in a paper based lab book now.- reminder to check the name of the research paper for the discussion of this debate. )

Again initial thoughts would point to how such a design strategy would provide how to move forward with the development of technology to the invisible computing concept ?

The thinking from the above book has been inspired by some thoughts from the blog by david roedl materiality-in-languages-of-interaction where several more interesting points are raised

"Lowgren and Stolterman present their notion that interaction design works with a ‘material without qualities’. By this they means that digital artifacts can take on so many different forms–and the forms possible are constantly shifting due to technological advances–that is very hard to pin down a set list of qualities to describe the medium, as say a sculptor could describe their stone. They make this point more clear by suggesting that we think of bits as our material. Pondering this for a minute, I begin to realize that are an infinitum of possible physical forms and consequently qualities that bits can take on as they are presented to a user."

The following is then pointed out which I feel is closely linked with the understanding and concept of what an e-lab book is as a 'digital artifact'

"However, all digital artifacts have an aspect that doesn’t seem miles away and of which qualities can be quite easily pinned down: hardware used for display and input. While there are vast possibilities in this area too, for most part digital interaction to date has consisted of some basic elements of monitor, keyboard and mouse. It occurs to me now that there a lot of limitations in this configuration, and that by switching it up we might greatly reduce the percieved ‘distance’ between the physical and virtual world. G. Smith talks about the 4 dimensions of previous traditions that interaction design draws upon. I might argue that the 3-D, that is the language of traditional product design, has been the least utilized. With hardware advances this is changing a lot though, and the result is the introduction some much needed physicality to our overall language of interaction."

The final thoughts from david roedl materiality-in-languages-of-interaction lie with Lev Manovich who through his own approach of digital materialism and how analysis to these newer forms of interface hardware could/can question how the conception of the medium change?

This I think is a step towards the right type of questions that can be asked for my e-lab book , in a similar manner I wish to question how the concept changes from a working paper based artifact with clear affordances to the medium of technology and so how the concept of an e-lab book can be more clearly defined.

- the thoughts to do from this is to create an affordance list of the paper based lab book, this can be further enhanced by the information from the interviews - a further thought to raise is I still don't believe or have read any reasoning to believe an electronic version should be in any way a copy of a paper lab book and so such a design can simply borrow the best bits of the mental model of paper and maybe even the situated action to the various way of working(a more complete understanding would be required to demonstrated this part- maybe such a strategy for future designs can be informed by such existing mental models &/or situated actions of the work environment - which would have to be dependent on if the mental models &/or situated actions are effective ways of working - if not then this is where the continued development of technology can be designed more clearly to addressed the nature of poor/ineffective ways of working with the technology - instead of what continues to appear to be technology for technologies sake and not effectively directed at actually helping real peoples/scientists working problems (do need an an analogy and examine existing further research to help understand and demonstrate this )