Here are the slides of my talk, which concluded the Junior Research Day at the Swiss Design Network 2010 in Basel. It was about the relationships between Sci-Fi and Design... which allowed me to introduce some of the concept that Julian Bleecker or James Auger would address later on in the conference. [slideshare id=5597554&doc=sdn2010-nova-101028114235-phpapp01]
Thanks Laurent Marti and Martin Wiedmer for the invitation!
An interesting text by Jonathan Dotse about African science-fiction:
"There are also artistic reasons to look forward to an African science fiction renaissance. African storytelling tradition contains the very sort of metaphysical themes that science fiction is best equipped to address: themes of identity, self and community, and relationships between generations in time. There is no shortage of inspiration for science fiction within African life today, as the pervasive reach of technological development is being witnessed even by those in the most remote regions of the continent. Aesthetically, science fiction gives the writer power to create landscapes that blur the distinction between the literal and metaphorical interpretations of a story to produce an absolute representation of a complex idea. The writer can freely traverse the continuum of time, placing the present time in its right context by clearly framing it between the future and the past. This freedom could yield invaluable additions to the classics of African literature by tackling critical new issues while opening radical new dimensions to existing ones."
Why do I blog this? preparing my speech about sci-fi and design for the Junior day at the Swiss Design Network requires some examples :)
The density of information on the back of a Polaroid camera, observed at the flea market in Geneva.
As claimed by Fredrik Pohl "A good science fiction story should be able to predict not the automobile but the traffic jam". Just thought it would be good to play with a LOLtechnology such as graphjam to exemplify this quote.
Wandering around the Internet, I stumbled across this website about a car technology, which has an interesting flow of comments about how people feel towards it. It's about the “ECO pedal”, i.e a pedal system that uses onboard electronics to determine when the driver is excessively accelerating (and therefore wasting gas and emitting more emissions) and can actually push back on the driver’s accelerator foot.
Some comment examples.
"Now your gas pedal will be able to say, "Shame on you, you wasteful person!" I'd like to see how well the GT-R runs the ring with this technology added.
NO! GOD, NO. i don't want to argue with my car about how fast i should be accelerating. i get in enough arguments about that with other people.
That's unnecessarily intrusive. Lighting up an indicator in the instrument cluster should be the most the car can do to tell you how to save gas.
What ever happened to KNOWING HOW TO DRIVE??? We managed to make it through nearly an entire century of the automobile without parking-assist, radar cruise, lane-keep assist, and now a freaking accelerator nanny? If people want to drive greener, then leave it to them to decide to accelerate slower when they're able, yet still be able to haul ass if it's life-or-death necessary. Please auto companies, stop making it even easier for people to drive while dicking around with their iPhones."
Brilliant! One of them made me think about this insightful quote by Mark Weiser back in the days: "I don't want to argue with my car about where I want to go. And of course, it can be traced back to Philip K. Dick's Ubik.
Why do I blog this? collecting examples of tech automation/assistance for an upcoming lecture.
Last Wednesday I went to Torino. I was part of a "Warm-up event" for the Share Festival, which focuses this year on a topic called "Smart Mistakes". The talk was called "Accidents and failures as creative material for the near future" and slides can be found on Slideshare. It was actually an updated version of an earlier talk I've given at Interaction 2010.
[slideshare id=5531113&doc=share-torino2010-101022102413-phpapp02]
The talk starts with a presentation of how accidents are cool and funny (on the Internets)... which lead me to a sort of typology of failures and a discussion about how problems, accidents and malfunctions are actually important for design. I then move to how failures, problems and limits of technologies can be employed as a design tactic.
Thanks Simona for the invitation!
Some excerpts from an interesting interview with Bruce Sterling about robots from acm interactions in 2005:
"AM: What do you think of as the most successful or surprising innovation in robotics in the past? BS: Well, robots are always meant to be “surprising,” because they are basically theater or carnival shows. A “successful” robot, that is to say, a commercially and industrially successful one, wouldn’t bother to look or act like a walking, talking human being; it would basically be an assembly arm spraying paint, because that’s how you get the highest return on investment out of any industrial investment make it efficient, get rid of all the stuff that isn’t necessary. But of course it’s the unnecessary, sentimentalized, humanistic aspects of robots that make robots dramatically appealing to us. There’s a catch-22 here.You can go down to an aging Toyota plant and watch those robot arms spray paint, but it’ll strike you as rote work that is dull, dirty, and dangerous—you’re not likely to conclude, “Whoopee, look at that robot innovation go!” When it’s successful, it doesn’t feel very robotic, because it’s just not dramatic. (...) AM: How do you think robots will be defined in the future? I’d be guessing that redefining human beings will always trump redefining robots. Robots are just our shadow, our funhouse-mirror reflection. If there were such a thing as robots with real intelligence, will, and autonomy, they probably wouldn’t want to mimic human beings or engage with our own quirky obsessions. We wouldn’t have a lot in common with them-we’re organic, they’re not; we’re mortal, they’re not; we eat, they don’t; we have entire sets of metabolic motives, desires, and passions that really are of very little relevance to any- thing made of machinery.
AM: What’s in the future of robotics that is likely very different from most people’s expectations? BS: Robots won’t ever really work. They’re a phantasm, like time travel or maybe phlogiston. On the other hand, if you really work hard on phlogiston, you might stumble over something really cool and serendipitous, like heat engines and internal combustion. Robots are just plain interesting. When scientists get emotionally engaged, they can do good work. What the creative mind needs most isn’t a cozy sinecure but something to get enthusiastic about."
Why do I blog this? Currently working on the program of the upcoming Robolift conference in France next March... led me to accumulate insights like these. Might also be interesting in my design course and for research projects about human-robot interactions.
A voting interface encountered last week in Lyon at the local city council. It's interesting to note:
To some extent, this device partly embeds a small portion of the representative democracy. As you can see it's fairly asymmetrical (the only feedback the user can get is the LED that show if she/he voted).
Why do I blog this? Local observation of a curious object. It would be intriguing to re-think such a device in different ways (more symmetry, open to third-parties and citizens, etc.). Pressing one of these buttons is important given that the person who is entitled to do so "represent" a bigger number of people ("citizens"). Could this be reflected in the design of the interface?
An interesting quote from William Gibson in this interview in Wired UK:
"When I was a kid in the late fifties and the late sixties reading a lot of science fiction from the 1940s, I used to simultaneously reverse-engineer the history of the world from whatever version of it that science fiction writers were implying in their imaginary futures, and I was patching bits in my own imagination to not have the story spoiled by some ludicrous anachronism. So I sometimes imagine children doing that to Neuromancer. If you wanted to do an interesting thought experiment, try to imagine writing a science fiction novel in 1981 that would have had a representation of the cell phone in society in exactly the way we use it today.If I could have got that word from the future to my unconscious somehow, I don’t think it would have worked, I don’t think I would have been able to sell it. I would have been writing a novel in 1981 in which everyone talked to each other constantly on little pocket radios and sent each other messages through the telephone system. I can’t imagine that being the stuff of a sensible narrative. It would have seemed so bizarre and incredibly indulgent on the writer’s part."
Why do I blog this? I like this kind of thought experiment, perhaps I should try it with design students in my course about the evolution of interfaces.
Seen in Marseille, France last week-end. An interesting occurrence of very close proximity between a human being and his cell-phone. Various remarks here:
Why do I blog this? documenting practices from the 21st century, surely some material to be reused later on in courses/articles/speeches.
For those who read the Michel Houellebecq's latest novel, there is this intriguing quote "computer motherboards, which, when filmed without any scale indication, evoke odd futurists citadels"... which immediately made me think of this wall observed in a shop in Lisboa, Portugal.
In French: "les cartes mères d’ordinateur qui filmées, sans aucune indication d’échelle, évoquent d’étranges citadelles futuristes”
October is a busy month, here are the blurbs of 3 talks I am going to give in the near near future: Citic (Lyon, France) - October 15
I'll be on a panel about how the usage of digital technologies and the hybridization of the digital and the physical will influence our relationship to space.
SHARE Festival (Torino, Italy) - October 20
Title: Accidents and failures as creative material for the near future Abstract: This will be a talk about product failure, glitches, errors and accidents. It will focus on how people experience them and how they can be a starting point for creating near future worlds. Think for instance about creating prototypes and exhibiting problems within it to make them more compelling. Or showing something as it will work with the failures — so anticipating them somehow rather than ignoring the possibility. What will not work right? What problems will be caused? What does it mean? We will rely on examples of failed robots, absurd aircrafts or the intentional destruction of mobile phones and vending machines to show how studying these examples can be relevant in the design process. Based on these examples, the talk will deal with two issues: how can we include the exploration of failures in the design process? How to turn failures and people’s reaction to failures into prototyping tools?
Junior Research Day, Swiss Design Network (Basel, Switzerland) - October 28
Title: From Neuromancer to the Internet: the role of science fiction culture in design Abstract: This will be a talk about a feeling you must have had as designers. About comments such as "Ah, you're designing that interface from Minority Report" or "Oh yes, it's like that weird chair from 2001 a Space Odyssey". If your work is about interaction design, this kind of remarks are very common, but it also applies to other design domains. It is as if the visions described in science-fiction films and books led to expectations about what will happen in the future. The speech will uncover what is hidden behind these reactions.
The talk will address what design can learn from science fiction: original metaphors, anticipation of problems when using new technologies, speculation about peculiar types of material, etc. But the presentation will also deal with design fictions: how design allows making speculative and provocative products to raise questions about social interactions in the future.
We will mention examples such as failed robots, walking architectures or the metaphors that shaped the Internet. Each of them will shed some light on the relationship between science fiction and design.
As discussed in his speech at the Cadogan Hall, few days ago (see write-up here), William Gibson's work is grounded into three interesting principles:
With this in mind, reading "Zero History" made a lot of sense and I enjoyed spending time with Hubertus Bigend, Hollis Henry and other characters. I was certainly less impressed by the plot itself, but as mentioned above, it was something I expected.
The whole thing revolves around marketing strategies, trends evolution, the conquest of cool and the commodification of stylish fringes (which in this case corresponds to military outfits). Page 22 and page 216 offer a quick example of the topic at hand, showing how product design has been turned into storytelling and building narratives:
Also, my feeling about the book was certainly influenced by the fact that I read it exactly in some of the places described (London, Paris). For example: "he walked on shortly finding himself in what an enameled wall-signed informed him was the rue Git le Coeur. Narrower, possibly more medieval (...) He saw a magical-looking book-shop, stock piled like a mad professor's study in a film, and swerved, craving the escape into text. But these seemed not only comics, unable to provide his needed hit of words-in-row but in French as well"... which corresponds to one of my favorite book-shop in Paris:
As usual with Gibson, I liked the way he expresses things about this postmodern society of ours: "harshly tonsured child-soldiers, clad in skateboarding outfits still showing factory creases" or "eye that peered from face suggestive of gas-station taxidermy", "her Waiting for Godot outfit", "some complex electrotechnical Tesla-node no designer had even had to fake up", "he seemed to exist in his own personal time-zone" or "he looked like something that had gone wrong a computer screen". These quotes are amazingly well-put and manicured. Of course it's less stunning than the Sprawl trilogy but it's still enjoyable.
Beyond this, there are also some interesting perspectives and advices which always echo with my own activities and feelings: "when you want to know how things really work, study them when they're coming apart. Another comment that I liked was the following:
"Some very considerable part of the gestural language of public places, that had once belonged to cigarettes, now belonged to phones. Human figures a block down the street, in postures utterly familiar, were not longer smoking.""
(A picture of a friend which I found in line with the quote above)
Using this sunday afternoon to work on a book chapter, I was brought back to this peculiar tool created by Gartner called the "Hype Cycle"... defined in Julian's comments the other day on the near future laboratory blog as:
"The Gartner Hype Curve, where whatever the future is, it is sure to be oversold and overpromised, leading to the *trough of disillusionment and despair, after which the future sort of becomes more reasonable than the hype and slowly productizes itself. ((I’m still waiting for the Jet Pack future.))"
The underlying point of this cycle is that products/technologies have a peak of inflated expectations and it’s only after a period of disappointment that "they are adopted by people". Although the idea is promising a first, there are various problems with the cycle itself. The first one is that it doesn't look like a cycle at all, it's as if products/technologies only go through one disillusionment phase before becoming a success... which is utterly wrong. Some products fail several times, some never succeed... and what's a success anyway? We see it's about "visibility" but what does it mean more seriously? A second general problem is of course the idea that progress can't be stopped and that every single piece of tech will find its way to what other people call "the market". I've collected other problems below:
In addition, Richard Veryard has interesting points:
"Clue Number One: All technologies appear to have the same eventual outcome.
Clue Number Two: All the points are perfectly on the line. To a scientific mind, this indicates that the coordinates are not based on any real objective measurement, and that the curve itself is not subject to scientific investigation or calibration. The curve itself is based on a standard engineering pattern.
Clue Number Three: The shape of the line has not altered (or accelerated) in ten years. But all the evidence points to a shifting (shrinking) curve. For one thing, technology studies suggest that the half-life of new technologies is getting shorter. (This is sometimes known as the Red Queen Effect.) Furthermore, we might expect the quantity of attention received by each technology to be affected by the number of technologies competing for attention - and since this is increasing, the quantity and/or duration of hype might be reduced - in other words the hype curve getting steeper."
Finally, Jorge Aranda add important elements to the discussion:
" found the curve fallacious and untrustworthy for two reasons:
Irrational optimism: The curve tells you that, no matter how wacky your technology is, and how unachievable its goals, after it fails to live up to its hype things are gonna get better, always! You’ll see the light at the end of the bad-press tunnel. I find this happy ending scenario very implausible, partly because some proposed technologies do simply crash without recovering, and partly because forecasters have mistaken their job for that of cheerleaders in the past.
Disappearing acts: If you compare the curve from 2005 (below, click for better view) with the most recent one from 2006, you’ll see a number of technologies that have simply fallen out of the radar. SOA is gone. Videoconferencing is gone. Podcasting is gone. Are they past the plateau? Are they not worth a mention?"
Why do I blog this? Deconstructing other's thinking tools is always curious. That said, it might be that the Hype Cycle should not be taken too seriously and that it's just an alibi to start a discussion about the maturation of certain technological products.
There are of course other kinds of diagrams (with their own problems), see my previous post about s-curves.
(pic by Mando Gonzales)
An interesting story from an old issue of Wired that I found on my shelf this morning:
"Morgan had become convinced that there was plenty of gold left behind when the rush ended in 2001. The idea took root in fall 2003, while he was reading The Victorian Internet, Tom Standage's history of the telegraph. Just like the most ardent promoters of the Internet, the telegraph's early boosters claimed that the fledgling technology would do everything from helping save lives to ushering in world peace. Over the half-century between the telegraph's rise to prominence and its eclipse by the telephone, it did change the way people lived and worked, but not in the ways its evangelists had predicted. "The lesson was that while new communications media do change the world," Morgan says, "they do it much slower than the early adopters think they will."
From there, it was a small step to the realization that perhaps some of the ideas from the Internet boom might simply have been a few years ahead of their time. Morgan began to revisit the startups he'd put cash into - those that had failed and those that were still breathing. "I was getting reinterested in consumer Internet plays," Morgan says. "Some of the companies I'd invested in were starting to look like they had made it through the nuclear winter, and I wanted to figure out exactly how they were different from the ones that hadn't made it." He set about systematically distilling the lessons of the recent past and applying those lessons to his evaluation of each startup that he considered funding."
Why do I blog this? Collecting examples for my book about failures and how their analysis is important in the innovation process. Of course, I am less interested in the VC thing than in the process of surfacing ideas from the past as a exercise to see what conditions have changed and how it can be relevant for the future.
There seems to be growing and conspicuous increase of feedback indicator in public space, based (or not) on PPT metaphor. Seen in London last week.
Why do I blog this? documenting the circulation of artifacts from one space to another, and how public space is influence by this. It's funny to see how this kind of visual metaphor (sometimes very poor, like pie chart) finds it way in the streets.
Jan Blom told me yesterday about this approach called "ethnomining", a mixed methods approach drawing on techniques from ethnography and data mining. It comes from Intel and you can get a description about it called "Ethno-Mining: Integrating Numbers and Words from the Ground Up by R. Aipperspach, T. Rattenbury, A. Woodruff, K. Anderson, J. Canny, P. Aoki. The idea is to benefit from the integration of results coming from both the processes of ethnographic and data mining techniques to interpret data, inspire design [23] or facilitate finding patterns in social behavior. Some excerpts I found relevant in this paper:
"in practice, either qualitative or quantitative analysis is typically used in service of the other. (...) However, ethno-mining is unique in its integration of ethnographic and data mining techniques. This integration is carried out in iterative loops between the formation of interpretations of the data and the development of processes for validating those interpretations. (...) here are two key characteristics of the iterative loops in ethno-mining. First, they can be separated into three categories based on the amount of a priori knowledge used to find and validate interpretations of the data. Second, the results of the iterative loops are frequently, although not exclusively, represented in visualizations. Visualizations have two basic affordances: they can represent both quantitative and qualitative analyses, and they exploit the visual system to support more comprehensive data analysis, particularly pattern finding and outlier detection. (...) our method seeks to expose and explicitly address the selection biases in both qualitative and quantitative research methods by checking them against one another. Ethno-mining extends its scrutiny of these biases beyond simply comparing the biases embedded in standard qualitative and quantitative techniques. It does so by tightly integrating the techniques in loops, generating mutually informed analysis techniques with complimentary sets of biases."
Why do I blog this? great article that covers methodological aspects we discussed internally. The combination of both quantitative and qualitative techniques to collect data (and make sense of it) is definitely something that we try to apply (both in Fabien's PhD research and mine). The paper here offer a relevant framework and a discussion of cases.
[slideshare id=5291045&doc=playful2010-nicolasnova-100926125947-phpapp02] Here are the slides from the talk I've giving at Playful 10 in London last Friday. The talk was a quick overview of the project Laurent Bolli and I are conducting about the evolution of game pads.
Btw, this project has its own dedicated channel here and we'll soon release an iPad app with all the material we have collected.
Gameification. Points. Badges. Gamepocalypse. External rewards. Every day the headlines about games remind us that there must be more to games than these keywords. The game industry has sometimes a bad navel gazing habit... which is why it's good to attend event such as the playful10 conference in London last Friday. The point of this conference is to "look at what PLAY means both creatively and culturally, and put speakers on the stage who offer different perspectives on where we are currently, where we’ve been, and where we’re going. We want people walking away talking about the nature of games… what they mean to different people inside, on the periphery, outside or miles away from the industry".
The playful10 conference was certainly as good as last year's: passionate speakers (ranging from comic book writers to hair dressers), intriguing topics (old jew jokes, item collections from badge to game controllers, Mad Men quotes, dead chicken, critics about gameification), good audience and cosy venue.
Some quick notes below about what inspired me:
In his introduction, Toby Barnes first claimed that "not all play is created equal" and that we need to go back again. To clarify this, he then pointed to H.G. Wells' classic victorian wargame books from 1913: "Little Wars" and "Floor games" with great quotes such as "the home that has no floor upon which games may be played falls so far short of happiness". or "How utterly we despise the silly little bricks of the toyshops! They are too small to make a decent home for even the poorest lead soldiers, even if there were hundreds of them, and there are never enough, never nearly enough; even if you take one at a time and lay it down and say, "This is a house," even then there are not enough". The importance of the floor (and other structures to play games) has also been re-asserted later on by another speaker who presented a project for racing games on sidewalks. Barnes' second point to start off the day was also that creating games is hard. Based on this tweet ("Deciding that games design is 20% fun, 80% frustration."), he showed that reversing the percentages is a matter of iterating (as suggested by Matt Locke), so "let's keep iterating".
Naomi Alderman discussed the problem of storytelling in video-games: "it's almost impossible to tell the player something about the character at the same moment you give him/her total freedom about what to do".
Paul Bennun, in his presentation about audio games, showed intriguing videos from loneconspirator. Based on this material, he described how audio games indeed make you look like a dork but the user is definitely "in flow". Audio games are just like any other games: some are good, some are bad. Eventually, when you get rid of the screen, you find yourself more free, have less constraints and it's because of how sounds work. As a matter of fact, the difficulty here is that sound can only be "in the moment" and this is why it's so immersive, especially for first person games.
Tom Muller unveiled inspiring examples of his work about graphic design and comic books. He basically showed the importance of typography in these fields and I quite enjoyed examples such as World's best robot, World war robot, Pop Bot and 24SEVEN, which seems to be tremendously interesting.
Development director at TT Games, Jonathan Smith worked for the production of LEGO Star Wars. In his talk, he claimed that game design revolved around a conflict finely described by Dr. Miller in the second episode of Mad Men (4th season):
"Faye Miller: Look, we're both in the same business. I'm not embarrassed to say. It's about helping people somehow to sort out their deepest conflict.
Don Draper: And what is that?
Faye Miller: In a nutshell, It all comes down to "what I want" versus "what's expected of me."
Freedom versus constraints. He showed that people who play video-games are not there to be indulged and that they want to be "directed by the system". They want to find the boundaries and the rules through communicated affordances. The game designer creates an awareness of the permitted possibilities... to create play.
Then Sebastian Deterding gave an insightful analysis of "gameification and its discontents". He started by asserting that there's a disease currently on the web: the "badge measle", i.e. the pervasive presence of rewards such as badges. These are being given for tons of reasons ranging from posting a blogpost to watching a TV channel. It is as if points and other rewards were given to achieve life goals. Deterding simply wondered about "what the hell is going here?". His critique focused on the idea that game mechanism are now perceived as a crunchy thing you can add to anything, a trend weirdly called "gameification" and propelled by game designers, "talking heads" and - worse - service vendors.
He followed on this by addressing what is wrong with gameification:
The problem is also that gameification also has side-effects: it creates unintended behavior, people game the system and it messes with implicit social norms.
When people take gameification too directly, they generally miss that games are about: fictions, make believe, talk, and freedom to play ("whoever plays plays freely, whoever must play cannot play!"). Playing = "as if" and playing is fun because of the autonomy. As shown on Deterding's slide below, this is the difference between work (a spreadsheet) and play (Eve On-line):
After this, Bertrand Duplat from Editions Volumiques showed some of the awesome prototypes they recently produced. And then I had to catch my flight missing the last speakers.
This kid suitcase with wheels and a leash encountered last thursday at London Heathrow airport perfectly echoes with this weird "suictase blade":
Why do I blog this? documenting peculiar means of (micro-)transport.