Design Corner » Convivio Network

Convivio Network

jump to page: 1 2 3

Interviews: Laurent Haug and Nicolas Nova.

Posted: January 17th, 2007, 5:00am PST by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

Convivio’s interviews feature interesting voices from the multi-disciplinary field of Human-Centered Design.

Our guests this time are Laurent Haug and Nicolas Nova. Laurent and Nicolas are two of the organizers of LIFT 07, a conference held in Geneva 7-9 February 2007, focused on the “challenges and opportunities of technology in our society“.

I had the pleasure of attending the first instance of the conference in 2006, and it offered a streamlined sequence of very interesting contributions from well-known speakers, coupled with ample unstructured opportunities to meet interesting people, the very speakers included.
I also thoroughly enjoyed the balance between high-level, “conceptual” contributions and more detail-oriented “hands-on” examples of work done where human culture intersects and intermingles with technology.

This year the list of speakers features again an impressive line-up, and the organizers have added even more opportunities for attendees to act like active contributors rather than passive recipients of somebody else’s messages.

Hello Laurent and Nicolas, thanks for taking the time to take part in this interview.
Can you tell us a little bit about yourselves and how and when you decided to organize an event such as LIFT?

Laurent:
I am an entrepreneur and consultant working in the web industry since 1994. I have been involved in start-ups, consulting (Arthur Andersen) and banks (Pictet).
The idea of LIFT came after I attended the Reboot conference in Copenhagen in may 2005. I felt like something was happening and we needed to bring it to Geneva too.

Nicolas:
I am a researcher working at the Swiss Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL) and a user experience consultant in the video game industry. Since I am based in Geneva and given that Switzerland is a small country I quickly had the chance to meet Laurent through friends in the IT industry. One year and a half ago he started discussing the relevance of a conference in the region with like-minded people, in a sort-of “think tank” spirit to gather and talk about how technologies impact our lives, our practices an the impact on our society. I quite liked the idea and joined him to help bootstrapping the process.

How would you describe LIFT? What are the key motivations and inspirations that led you to the current format?

Laurent:
LIFT is an excuse for an amazing community to gather and brainstorm. We chose a few topics, a few speakers, then we created a cool event around that to facilitate networking and new ideas. The philosophy is basically that creativity and ideas can change your life, so we will try to make this happen for attendees. And I believe there are a few values in there. For example, we try to keep the conference accessible so that anybody can have a chance to participate, we build the conference with everybody (we ask a lot of questions before and after the event to make it better), we try to be accessible, low profile and creative.
The motivation is to make this place a bit more aware of the big changes that are upon us, to maybe help make it more successful.

Nicolas:
Another motivation is to bring together both local people (lake Geneva area) and people from elsewhere to have a mixture of relevant contributors from different field.
In addition, our point is to go beyond current IT conferences and talk less about technology and more about how people experience it in various contexts. Europe is full of interesting voices that think, research, design and talk about these aspects, but sometimes it’s less known than in North America. So we believe there was room for this kind of event in Europe.
Finally, we also felt that there was a tremendous lack of awareness of what people were doing, even in the same region or even in a country as small as Switzerland: LIFT is then additionally meant to show who’s doing what.

I am not sure the term really makes sense in this context, but after experiencing LIFT 06 I’d be tempted to say that you applied a Human-Centered approach to the design of the conference last year, and all seems to hint you’re doing it again this year. Is this impression in any way correct?
Was it intentional? Did you actually tackle the complex task of organizing such a large event with HCD methodologies in mind or is it more of a “conference I’d like to attend” mindset that is at work in the end?

Nicolas:
Even though the human-centered approach nicely reflect what happened, it was actually not that intentional and this mindset emerged from how we thought a conference should be organized and from the type of event we would have liked to attend in the first place. Besides, when you start building a conference from scratch, you don’t have all the needed expertise so you do it with others.

Laurent:
Actually, I feel LIFT06 was deeply human centered, but that was not really intentional, nor did I follow a method or something. It was more me trying to see how I could best accommodate the constraint I had: small budget (LIFT is auto-financed), short notice, small team, no previous experience in organizing events. So we tried to get help from the community as much as we could, as LIFT is a gathering more than anything else.
We asked people to help us with some decisions and suggestions, outsourced a few things to the attendees, and after the event gathered precious feedback via a survey. This helped us prepare for LIFT07, and this year we went even further in creating a human centered event: we tried to replicate people’s rhythms (1 day to meet people, 1 day to meet ideas, 1 day to connect the dots), create self-organizing events so that anybody could have a chance to step on the big stage (that’s a big problem for conference like ours - reboot, le web 3, etc. - people in the room deserve to be on stage as much as the speakers sometimes).

In a world that is more and more interconnected, with people often engaged in a constant exchange of information with their peers, the very nature of conferences is being challenged.
Possibly and arguably as a result of this fact organizers have been recently looking at creating “un-conferences” that are more about sociality and conversation than about lectures and audiences. LIFT seems to fall into this category to a certain extent.
What is your view?

Laurent:
I think we have a good balance this year. Nothing is perfect, neither the traditional model, nor the un-conference model. In Europe, un-conferences have one big issue: the communities are not as strong a in the US, so if you gather 100 people from a local city you won’t get people like Robert Scoble and Michael Arrington in the room.

Nicolas:
In my humble opinion the “un-conference” is one model among other ones to create new sorts of events: more interactive, creative and open to discussion.
However, we were more in favor of a mixed approach, having both Open Stage (through a voting process, more structure than last year) and invited speakers.
Why inviting speaker? We felt it was a good way to establish the LIFT conference and found the process interesting to create conversations about specific topics.

Laurent:
Conferences don’t always leverage the power of the community they gather, so that’s the bad side of this model.
This year we tried to do something in between: the official program brings people from all over the world (this year we have Chinese, Korean and Indian speakers for example), which in return, gather an even more diverse and interesting crowd. Then with initiatives like the Workshops and the Open Stage, we take tools from the un-conference playbook to put anybody who deserves it on stage. The system is simple: people propose talks, and the ones that are most requested happen.

This seems to reflect the widespread notion that people are increasingly abandoning passive roles when it comes to “the activity once known as consumption of media”.
When it comes to conferences, former “attendees” expect more and more to act as true “participants”, even just by sharing photos on Flickr or commenting about their experience on weblogs.
If this is true what “tools” will you be offering participants to enhance this part experience? What are lessons learnt from last year?

Laurent:
We will definitely propose a lot of new tools this year. As I previously explained, the biggest step was probably to open our stage to the participants. In terms of tools, we are discussing with a partner to bring live file sharing and chat. such a thing would definitely a plus.

Nicolas:
I would take it the other way around, my point that LIFT should be seen as a tool by itself, to “bootstrap the conversation” between people who shape the discourse about technology.
Last year, people were active because they felt engaged and empowered by the discussion and not because there were blogs/Flickr and glued streams all over the place. That’s the main lesson to me. And personally, I was really happy to see that the tools we brought all had unexpected consequences. Who thought that the notepad given by one of our sponsor gave birth to super nice Flickr picture about each presentation?

LIFT is about the “challenges of technologies in our society”. What is your view on this matter? How does technology play a role in the conference itself?
How can a conference such as LIFT actually help in pointing, or even shaping, some of the many paths technology offers for exploration?

Laurent:
I think technology is now intimately embedded in our society. Like it or not, you have a mobile phone in your pocket. So technology is changing you, offering you new possibilities and changing the way you live. LIFT is a conference about all these changes we are witnessing (I heard there would be more changes in the next 8 year than in the past 20), intended for those who want to be part of what is coming. We try to identify strong trends and bring a set of speakers around them, with the idea to start a conversation in the community. We don’t pretend to be exhaustive, but that’s why this year we added Open Stage and Workshops.

LIFT06 was undoubtedly a success both in terms of attendance and of attendees’ satisfaction.
How do you plan to up the ante this year?

Laurent & Nicolas:
We have more days, a much better concepts, and huge innovations like the one I think is the most important: LIFT+. We think that you can not sit for 10 hours and listen to new ideas and people, and keep your mind fresh. people need to move, play, talk, so we created an event that will happen right outside the conference rooms. LIFT+ will be a set of installations by artists and designers, intended to make you play, create, share, and ultimately meet new people.
In terms of attendees, we will raise the number of people in the room from last year, but not much. Part of the LIFT concept is to give people a chance to meet, and I don’t think it happens in a 10.000 people event. So we decided to limit the entries to 500 participants, and you better save your seat very soon.

Last year the conference offered plenary sessions alternated with parallel speaking tracks targeted to smaller audiences.
Will this basically be the same structure for 2007 or will you be changing it radically? If that is the case how and why?

Laurent & Nicolas:
We fine-tuned everything a bit. Check the program and you will get the idea. Wednesday is for workshops, Thursday is for short, 20-minutes presentations of new ideas. and after you have been active and met new people on Wednesday, after you met new ideas on Thursday, Friday will be a day to sit back and connect the dots. we will give you time to enjoy your new ideas and friends, with only 4 panels and the open stage sessions.

Any word of advice for people considering attending LIFT in February? What to expect? What to bring? What to leave behind?

Nicolas:
First I’d say that I hope you’ll be surprised. Then, try to have a look at the current list of participants and check their affiliation to experience the diversity of background and jobs. This will eventually lead to a different angle than the one offered in other events. And, possibly, try to leave behind the idea that technology is about tools, processes and systems, it’s rather about usage and human creativity.

Laurent:
I think all you need is a fresh mind. Come with a lot of ideas and energy to go toward others, then try to get out of your comfort zone. Go and see the presentation that covers something you are not doing on a daily basis, go to people who are around you, don’t stay with your friend at the coffee breaks!

Thanks Nicolas and Laurent for your time and insights.

For anyone interested in attending LIFT 07 online registration is available here.
Hurry up, there are still a few places left, but something tells me they won’t last long. I’ve already reserved mine, and look forward to a second serving after last year’s feast.

Delete
Patrick Jordan interviewed on Design & Emotion.

Posted: December 14th, 2006, 6:44am PST by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

Design & Emotion has a nice interview of Patrick Jordan, author of “Designing Pleasurable Products, An Introduction to the New Human Factors “, a book that ever since 2002 has introduced many designers to the nexus of design and emotion:

“The ‘Four Pleasures’ is a framework developed in the field of anthropology.
I thought that if we applied the framework to understanding people and what they wanted from products, it could provide some useful insights and help guide design, marketing and branding decisions as well as business strategy.
Tools like the Four Pleasures are there to help designers understand their user better and get insights into their lives in a structured way. I think that this is the advantage of most design tools ??� helping designers to structure their approach. However, in the end, the designer??�s creativity, intuition and talent is still invaluable and no tools can ever replace that.

I think it is important for designers who are interested in this area to have enquiring minds. There is a lot that we can learn about people and design from other disciplines and other professions.
One thing I really enjoy about spending some time in universities is having the chance to learn from academic people and explore new areas. I don??�t think all research needs to be of the solid academic variety though.
We can learn a lot just by trying to put ourselves into the user??�s world and learning about their lives. That can mean being up to date with trends and popular culture, keeping abreast of what??�s popular on TV and in the media, understanding why people like the things that they do and what that can tell us about their values and aspirations.“

Delete
Don Norman on simplicity.

Posted: December 12th, 2006, 6:00am PST by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

In “Simplicity Is Highly Overrated” Don Norman stirs controversy by turning a critical eye onto the real value of simplicity:

“‘We want simplicity’ cry the people befuddled by all the features of their latest whatever. Do they really mean it? No.
Features win over simplicity, even when people realize that it is accompanied by more complexity.
You do it too, I bet. Haven??�t you ever compared two products side by side, comparing the features of each, preferring the one that did more?
Why shame on you, you are behaving, well, behaving like a normal person.

Why do (companies) deliberately build things that confuse the people who use them?
Answer: Because the people want the features. Because simplicity is a myth whose time has past, if it ever existed.
Yes, we want simplicity, but we don??�t want to give up any of those cool features.
Simplicity is highly overrated.“

Delete
The complexity of simplicity.

Posted: December 11th, 2006, 6:00am PST by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

In “The Complexity of Simplicity” Luke Wroblewski looks at how simplicity, often hailed as the holy grail of interface design, is quite hard to get right (if at all):

“Many of us carry a few preconceived notions about simplicity. We assume things that are easy to use don??�t have a lot of options and, as a result, shouldn??�t appear cluttered when we first encounter them.
Conversely, a perception of complexity can turn customers, clients, or business stakeholders off before they ever actually use a product.
Cultural context can also sway people??�s perceptions of simplicity.
Regardless of the specific biases of individuals, notions of perceived complexity can prevent potential users from discovering the simplicity of a product??�s actual use.

While there are many reasons why keeping things simple is difficult, I??�ve encountered the following three causes quite frequently:
1.
Perceived simplicity can often conflict with actual simplicity of usage.
2.
Actions that provide real value, and drive revenue, often have formidable learning curves.
3.
Gradual engagement, the most frequently cited solution for managing complexity, is actually quite difficult to design and build.”

Delete
Don Norman??�s new book: Natural Interaction?

Posted: November 30th, 2006, 7:30am PST by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

Don Norman is writing a new book, ???The Design of Future Things???, but you can already take a sneak peek at the first chapter, which reveals quite a bit of what it will likely be about:

“We need our technologies to aid us, not control us. We need more devices that act as servants, as assistants, and as collaborators. It is time for a humane technology.
We fool ourselves into thinking that we can solve these problems through even more intelligence in the devices, even more automation. We fool ourselves into thinking that it is only a matter of communication between the devices and people.

I think the problems are much more fundamental, unlikely to be solved through these approaches. As a result I call for an entirely different approach.
Augmentation, not automation. Facilitation, not intelligence.
We need devices that have a natural interaction with people, not a machine interaction. Devices that do not pretend to communicate, but face up to the fact that they do not and cannot.
It is time for the science of natural interaction between people and machines, an interaction very different than what we have today.”

(via InfoDesign)

Delete
From data to wisdom.

Posted: November 28th, 2006, 6:00am PST by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

In “From Data to Wisdom” Liz Danzico interviews Paco Underhill, founder of behavioral research firm Envirosell:

“There are a series of issues that come up in every job that we do (and characterize the changing nature of consumers).

The first is the issue of visual acuity, which is that our visual language is evolving faster than our written and spoken word.
The way we process symbols, the way we deconstruct what we see, is marching faster than the words we write, and what we say to one another. It is very important to be cognizant that while the connection between our eyes and our brains has never been better, our eyes themselves are tired.
One of the challenges that the design profession has is that the overwhelming majority of people constructing designs in 2006 are generally under the age of 30. And one of the persistent problems that they have is that they are designing for themselves and not for the larger audience.

The second issue is that we live in a world that, even in 2006, is owned by men, designed by men, managed by men, and that we expect women to participate in it.

The third issue is that we live in a world in which time is in a state of acceleration. And therefore the perception of ease is as important as the reality of ease.

And finally, and this is particularly poignant in an online community, is understanding what is global and what is local about the nature of whatever you??�re designing for.
We often make the assumption in the design world that I can sit in San Francisco or in New York City and design something, and it will fit the markets that I??�m designing for.
One of the biggest challenges that the online community faces is recognizing that somebody in a small town in Iowa and somebody in New York City often have completely different sets of needs and stimuli.“

Delete
Open day at the RCA.

Posted: November 27th, 2006, 6:00am PST by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

The Royal College of Art’s Design Interactions department is having an open day on December 4th 2006:

“The Design Interactions department at the Royal College of Art explores new roles, contexts and approaches for design in relation to the social, cultural and ethical impact of existing and emerging technologies.
Projects, which are often speculative and critical, aim to inspire debate about the human consequences of different technological futures, both positive and negative.
Students work closely with people outside the College, designing for the complex, troubled people we are, rather than the easily satisfied consumers and users we are supposed to be.
Project outcomes are expressed through a variety of media including prototypes, simulations, video and photography. Students have backgrounds in art and design, computer science, engineering and psychology.

Visitors can meet and talk with students in the studio between 2.00 PM and 6.00 PM.
Professor Anthony Dunne, Head of Department, will give presentations about the course at 2.00 PM and 4.00 PM.“

Delete
Interview: Adam Greenfield.

Posted: November 25th, 2006, 3:00am PST by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

Convivio’s interviews feature leading voices from the multi-disciplinary field of Human-Centered Design.

This time we caught up with critical futurist Adam Greenfield.
Adam is the principal of New York-based Studies & Observations, and author of “Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquitous computing“, a must-read book about the rise of ambient informatics.

Hello Adam, thanks for taking time off your busy schedule to participate to this interview.
Can you tell us a little bit about yourself and how you would describe your current interest in Human-Centered Design disciplines?

It’s my pleasure! I’m delighted to have the opportunity to talk with you today.

You know, I’m never quite sure how to answer questions about myself, because I have a riotously uneven background, and most of it’s not all that interesting to anyone who doesn’t know me. But I can certainly tell you how my current interest in thinking about the relationship between people and the ubiquitous informatics they’re exposed to got started.

Sometime in early 2002 I was sitting at my desk in Tokyo - at the time, I was the head of the information architecture department for Razorfish there - and I realized that my heart simply wasn’t in cranking out yet another enterprise-scale Web site.

I had already worked on so many, and the challenges were always the same. The same battles had to be fought with every new client engagement, and it had just about exhausted whatever reservoirs of energy or inspiration I had to devote to my job. On top of that ordinary ennui, I was suffering to some degree from an acute, post-September 11th crisis of relevance: “Does my work really matter to anyone? Do I make a difference in any meaningful way?”

I wanted to do something decisive, something that would contribute to people’s sense of self-empowerment and engagement with the world. And if I was going to be at all honest with myself, there was no way that the kind of work I was doing on the Web was going to satisfy these ambitions.

At the same time, it was becoming clear to me that information technologies were well-along in the process of colonizing everyday life. Even after the dot.com crash, you didn’t have to be any kind of a visionary to see the eventual convergence of Web services and mobile phones and “smart” environments. So I began poking around, asking my friends and colleagues what they saw coming over the horizon technologically, how they thought it would be presented to users, what kinds of design interventions would be required.

A great many of my friends pointed me at mobile development - this was Tokyo, of course, to begin with, and most of my non-Japanese friends there were Europeans. So it was entirely natural that they’d think of the mobile phone as a platform for this sort of activity. But, you know, I’m an American, and I’ll confess that I’ve never been really big on mobiles; they’ve always been sort of an afterthought to me.

By contrast, though, my friend Anne Galloway told me about a conference that was going to be held in Sweden in a few months’ time, a conference dedicated to an entire field I’d never heard of: ” Ubiquitous Computing“,” or “Ubicomp.” It sounded fascinating, and as I began to do more research on the field I realized that this was exactly what I had been looking for.

The potential range of situations and scenarios implicated in Ubicomp was tremendous, with deployments being proposed at the broadest possible scale. At the same time, though - as I knew all too well from my work on the Web - the user’s experience of informatic systems is frequently wretched. And the enormous dissonance between the total ambition of some of the systems being proposed and the actual quality of life they’d be likely to engender seemed like a very natural and very productive place for me to devote my efforts.

Could you briefly explain the core concepts behind “Everyware”?
How do they differ, if at all, from more widespread notions of Ubiquitous Computing?

“Everyware” is an umbrella term that I’ve introduced precisely because the term “Ubiquitous Computing” is problematic, in a few different ways.

It’s contentious, for starters: it’s strongly and properly identified with Mark Weiser and his work at Xerox PARC, and may not adequately describe the work of other people and institutions. It apparently refers - in educational circles, at least - also to ideas around using laptops in the classroom and so forth, and is understood in this context at least often enough to confuse some of the people I first turned to when I started to research my book.

And above all, it’s a mouthful. I couldn’t imagine it being used by the very people who would be most affected by this class of technologies - the ordinary, nonspecialist people, the people without any particular interest in informatics or user interfaces.

So “Everyware” is just a term that supposed to capture the important aspect of what’s going on when information processing is everywhere around us, and do so in such a way so as to be understood and comfortably used by the people around you on the subway or in the grocery store.

How does the term Everyware relate to other ones recently coined to describe apparently similar concepts, such as Bruce Sterling’s “Spime” or Julian Bleecker’s “Blogject“?
Are these terms actually fighting for the same meme-space or do you see them as complementary?

I think they refer to things at different levels of abstraction.

As Bruce explains it, in principle a “Spime” is a self-identifying, networked object that has been endowed with the ability to locate itself in space and time. In a sense, a mobile phone is a protospime: when you query it, it can tell you where it is now, where it was the last time it connected to the cellular network.

And as I understand it, Julian’s “Blogject” is an object with highly similar properties, the primary difference being that by definition it publishes the data it generates to the Web - the Web as it already exists and as we use it today. If your mobile phone had a dedicated Web page on which it would automatically publish its location and use history, it’d be a Blogject. Perhaps, then, you’d use the word to describe a Spime with a public and globally-accessible record.

Both of these are instances or cases of Everyware, “information processing embedded in the objects and surfaces of everyday life,” that “gives rise to a regime of ambient informatics.”

The thing I appreciated most about your book is that it introduces an ethical dimension to the design of ambient informatics.
How do you realistically see those currently busy turning these visions into our future accept the responsibilities mentioned in your book?
Does history testify to the ability of humankind to wisely and responsibly choose the forces that will shape its future(s)?

Well, I’m genuinely and deeply grateful that you appreciate the discussion of it in the book, but I think it’s critical to point out that an ethical dimension has always been present in the design of informatic systems. A technical system - anything designed, for that matter - always encodes the designer’s valuations and beliefs about the world they live in, on some level, and those valuations very frequently wind up conditioning the experience of use. The Northern Californian originators of the PC, for example, very explicitly held decentralized access to information processing to be a fundamental good, and a main driver of their efforts.

I think the reason the discussion looks relatively novel in Everyware is simply that such valuations are almost invariably obscured in the design and marketing and discourse aroud informatic technology. And if this hasn’t much mattered so far, as informatic systems reach every further into everyday life, their structuration begins to have very real influence on the choices we’re offered. These arguments at the level of architecture, as Lawrence Lessig might put it, constrain use in a way that is going to be inaccessible to recourse not merely in real time, but, for the great preponderance of users, ever.

These issues are only occasionally raised by designers - though there are certainly splendid countervailing examples, from Bucky Fuller to Dunne and Raby - and they’re not something that engineers and developers tend to be at all comfortable talking about.
In 1947, Norbert Wiener, the so-called “father of cybernetics,” confessed as much. This is what he said:

“Those of us who have contributed to the new science of cybernetics thus stand in a moral position which is, to say the least, not very comfortable. We have contributed to the initiation of a new science which??�embraces technical developments with great possibilities for good and for evil. We can only hand it into the world that exists about us, and this is the world of Belsen and Hiroshima. We do not even have the choice of suppressing these technical developments. They belong to the age. [??�] The best we can do is to see that a large public understands the trend and the bearing of the present work, and to confine our personal efforts to those fields??�most remote from war and exploitation.”

He also felt compelled to admit that he saw only “a very slight hope” that the systems he imagined and helped develop would be used wisely, and, to answer your question, I think history bears his skepticism out.

What gives me my own sense of slight hope is the idea - latent in Wiener’s comments about a “large public,” as well as in Mark Weiser’s call to “tell the world at large” that ubiquitous computing is “something dangerous” - that ordinary people can learn to recognize the trade-offs implicit in these systems, can demand that Everyware respond to their prerogatives, and can above all reject products and services that they do not recognize as doing so. But that’s a conversation that’s just getting started.

At the very beginning of your book you basically state that most, if not all, Everyware scenarios are based on the assumption that the current techno-fueled evolution of western societies is sustainable, but that you don’t necessarily think that is the case.
Could you elaborate a bit on this point?

Sure, I’m happy to - although I should say that my take on this isn’t particularly cheery.

At their root, across the board, all of the more elaborate visions of networked interactivity worked into the texture of everyday life make certain implicit assumptions about the context in which that life will be unfolding.

One of these assumptions is that society is going to go on more or less the way it is now, only more so: that we will continue to enjoy a relatively clement set of climatological circumstances, that energy will continue to be easily accessible and cheaply available, and that mobility and interconnectedness will continue to increase. And anyone paying attention has good reason to believe that this is an untenable assumption - that among other things, the atmosphere is now warmer than it’s been for the past few million years, that the overall salinity of ocean water is changing due to melting glaciers and ice caps, that worldwide we are running out of oil.

These are facts and observed measurements. They’re surely open to interpretation to some degree, but they’re not fundamentally open to question. And taken together they pose a considerable challenge to the idea that the status quo is going to kind of continue to unfold all placidly and uneventfully. So, as someone deeply interested in the human future, I have to reckon with the idea that there’s a nonzero chance that our civilization on this planet will be so profoundly disrupted by these developments and their consequences that any talk of a seamless, effortless everyday life built on a computational substrate is irrelevant fatuity. (In particular, I very strongly do not believe that some computational “singularity” or transcendence event is likely, and not only in the near future.)

I simply didn’t think it was responsible to release a book that in part concerned the near future without saying at least one or two words about what I thought some of the most likely outcomes were.

If nothing else, I was told last year (by someone in a position to know) that 10% of the planetary annual energy consumption is already devoted to powering computation. Already, with our current technology - all those servers and routers that we rely on to bring us the experience we recognize as the World Wide Web don’t turn out to run on good will and smiles after all.

Now imagine that even part of what the more enthusiastic advocates of computational ubiquity are imagining comes true, is deployed more or less as they would want it to be. Processing devices in every sweater, every doorknob and bicycle and kitchen sink, and all of them intercommunicating with each other. How long is that going to be sustainable, if it doubles or triples the energy requirement of the network infrastructure behind it all, and that in turn is ever harder and more expensive to maintain?

Along those lines certain visions of Everyware see objects part of the so-called “Internet of Things” becoming active contributors to conversations among human beings.
Could these objects thus play an active role in helping us better understand where we’re heading? Could they end up informing the very decisions we’ll have to make about them?

I think, among other things, that this was very much Bruce’s intention, in wanting to define a class of networked, self-describing, self-reporting objects. Certainly, if you read his book “Shaping Things“, you can’t escape the idea that the whole point of “spiming” objects is to help us do a better job of being aware of our energy and resource utilization footprint, and a better job of recycling them when their service lifetime is over.

So, yes, absolutely I think it’s possible that our ideas about the world and where we stand in it will increasingly be shaped by the objects we share it with. I have to say, though, that I’m not as sanguine as Bruce is. Like Norbert Wiener, I think it’s more likely that in the absence of any strong constituency for more responsive design, networked objects will be used to track and understand us that we may be better marketed to and better policed, and otherwise either constrain the array of choices we have available, or offer us choices that are no choice at all. That’s why I think it’s so important that we understand what these technologies imply, and demand that their design respond to our needs.

Scenarios depicted in Everyware implicitly raise by several orders of magnitude the complexity of designing experiences for such interconnected contexts.
Will brand new tools and techniques be required or do you see the current ones evolving to face these new challenges?
Who do you see “naturally” stepping up to pick up those very challenges?

I’ve historically seen the community of user-experience practitioners as being best situated to respond to these new requirements, given the appropriateness of both the UX conceptual toolkit and the general orientation toward the needs of a human user. In particular, I saw it as a fairly natural fit for my former colleagues in information architecture, always having believed (and acted as if) information architecture was a discipline suited to the structural design of all kinds of human transactions with informatic systems, not merely Web sites.

I have to admit, though, that I’m not seeing the kind of widespread interest in the ubiquitous domain that would support such a belief.
Maybe it’s simply too early.

At the moment, what I can say is this: the successful design of humane and ethical everyware is - depending on the specific instantiation in question - going to call on so many discrete skills from across the fields of architecture, industrial design, interaction design, fashion, materials research and user ethnography that anyone with a specialty in these domains is going to have plenty to sink their teeth into.

In this sense then what would be a few “words of advice” for designers-at-large keen on getting their “hands dirty” with Everyware?

One part of me wants to say “start taking Korean lessons,” since that’s where so much of the enthusiasm for everyware is right now, in Korea and other parts of East Asia.

More seriously, I’d advise people to learn everything they can about RFID and about Near-Field Communication, and what possibilities these might bring to conventional objects or spaces - what might be enabled by adding NFC capabilities to a mobile phone, for example. This seems like it’s going to be one of the major lines along which the broader ubiquitous discourse will advance.

If that doesn’t turn you on, I’d imagine that getting comfortable with user observation and ethnography, contextual inquiry, and other techniques for the qualitative understanding of the experience of use will stand you in good stead. And if neither of these two suggestions appeal, about all I can say is sit just where you are - because it seems fairly likely to me that some kind of Everyware will come to you.

As someone who has read your book and throughly enjoyed it I can only agree with your last statement.
Thank you Adam for your time and insights.

Delete
Experiencing Experience.

Posted: November 22nd, 2006, 6:00am PST by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

In UX Magazine’s “Experiencing Experience” Tom Guarriello turns an enthusiastically critical eye on the field of “experience design”:

“As a psychologist who??�s spent over 30 years focusing on human experience … it??�s exciting to see so much energetic interest in understanding users??� experiences, and designing environments that lead to desired user and customer experiences.
Phenomenological psychology??�s insights can be very useful in helping businesses gain a sharper focus on their users and customers.

I think about these things every time I hear people talk about ‘designing’ experiences. Because, the truth is, it can??�t be done.
Designers design occasions for experiences; experiences themselves are personal. That??�s why different people have different experiences in (what are supposed to be) the same situations.
Ah, but there??�s the clue: the situation isn??�t the same for all participants because each of us brings a unique set of perceptions, perceptions rooted in unique personal histories, to everything we experience.

Technically, most designers are attempting to design meaning, not experience. But, most often, designers must create experiences for people they don??�t know.
So, how can designers create opportunities for meaningful experiences for people they don??�t know? By paying close attentions to patterns.
We can??�t remove an experience from its context.
‘Context’ is just another way of speaking about where an experience fits into an individual??�s life (hi)story.
More accurately, what the experience designer is doing is creating conditions that invite the participant to engage with the atmosphere from a particular perspective and therein experience this range of meaning.“

Delete
Natural Interaction.

Posted: November 20th, 2006, 6:00am PST by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

Natural Interaction is an iO research center that investigates novel approaches to interactions with digital artifacts:

“Natural Interaction investigates the relationships between humans and machines following this vision: we create interactive artifacts that respect and exploit the natural dynamics through which people communicate and discover the real world.
Our research is aimed at creating technology-enhanced spaces that sense and understand human behaviors and expressions, and present digital content as it was real, physical stuff.
Our interaction design work is based on intuitive schemes, that need no explanations, so that common people in public spaces may spontaneously dialogue with the artifact.

Differently from traditional research facilities, Natural Interaction experiments and proposes a vertical, vision-driven, lightweight research model, that directly impacts the real world.
We think the world needs to interact with machines in a simple, human way. And we also think that small is beautiful.
The Center adopts a craft approach, like in a Renaissance ‘bottega’, where researchers address all the issues that affect the interaction experience.
We create experiences through an original conjunction of art and science.”

Their white paper “Designing Natural Interaction” ( 116 KB, PDF) is a nice introduction to their design philosophy.

(via Bruno Giussani)

Delete
Empathic Economy.

Posted: November 18th, 2006, 3:00am PST by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

Steve Hardy interviewed IDEO’s chief creative officer Jane Fulton Suri to better understand her ideas about an “empathic economy”:

“When I refer to ‘the empathic economy’ I??�m talking about a future possibility in which a similar level of empathy and imagination might be applied to the many different kinds of people who populate the business ecology of a particular industry, not just customers/end-users/consumers.
In an empathic economy the provider/supplier of goods and services would be keen to reach an empathic understanding not just of consumers, but also of many other people within the business network upon whom business success depends.

This is a matter of fostering an organizational cultural in which people all respect, even like and enjoy, one another, one another’s ideas and diversity in different work-styles, knowledge and skills.
An organization that doesn’t do that internally will have a hard time encouraging others to participate with it in creative ways.”

(via InfoDesign)

Delete
The laws of simplicity.

Posted: November 15th, 2006, 6:00am PST by Administrator

Tags: [edit]

John Maeda’s “The Laws of Simplicity” is a book (and website) devoted to Maeda’s ongoing thought processes regarding the topic of simplicity.

LAW 1: REDUCE
The simplest way to achieve simplicity is through thoughtful reduction.

LAW 2 : ORGANIZE
Organization makes a system of many appear fewer.

LAW 3: TIME
Savings in time feel like simplicity.

LAW 4:
Knowledge makes everything simpler.

LAW 5: DIFFERENCES
Simplicity and complexity need each other.

LAW 6: CONTEXT
What lies in the periphery of simplicity is de?�?nitely not peripheral.

LAW 7:
More emotions are better than less.

LAW 8: TRUST
In simplicity we trust.

LAW 9: FAILURE
Some things can never be made simple.

LAW 10: THE OBVIOUS
Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious, and adding the meaningful.

Delete
Experientia interviews Anne Kirah.

Posted: November 13th, 2006, 6:00am PST by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

Italian user experience design consultancy Experientia has interviewed Anne Kirah, senior design anthropologist at Microsoft??�s MSN Customer Design Centre, on the importance of focusing on the real lives of real people:

“When Microsoft hired me eight years ago as the first official anthropologist, they weren??�t sure what to do with me, so they had me design my own job.
I soon realised that Microsoft had until then the tendency to come up with feature and product designs within the confines of its own walls.
What went on in the minds of Microsoft??�s brilliant software engineers and of people outside the walls of Microsoft, was not always very congruent … so I created the Real People Real Data (RPRD) programme.
My work on the RPRD programme was in fact the start of a revolution within Microsoft, and helped the company change from techno-driven to people-driven design.
I did of course have some impact on Windows XP but I am much prouder being part of the cultural change at Microsoft than I am of the products and features that have been impacted by Microsoft??�s anthropological research.

I never speak about users.
Did you wake up this morning defining yourself as a user? No.
Maybe you woke up with an alarm clock, so you are an employee. Maybe you woke up with a baby, so you are a father. Maybe you woke up with your wife or lover, which makes you a spouse or a lover.
But you sure as hell didn??�t wake up and say: good morning world, I am a USER.
If we create jargon to deal with our research, then we are no better than the engineers and anyone else who doesn??�t speak the language of everyday people in their everyday lives and not so everyday people in their not so everyday lives or any combination thereof.
The kind of innovation I am involved with means changing the cultures at work by speaking the same language and culture as the people the company is innovating for.“

Delete
User Experience Research.

Posted: November 9th, 2006, 6:00am PST by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

Andreas Pfeiffer’s “User Experience Research” introduces the concept of User Interface Friction, another measure to gauge the quality of the User Experience:

“How do we compare technology?
In our innovation-driven society, we tend to compare technology almost exclusively by looking at features and performance.
This functionality-centric approach is utterly natural … (but) as technology matures, features are not that important any more.
So if we don’t look at features any more, what DO we look when we try to decide on the comparative merits of two products?
Design? Style? Both are difficult to measure, and don’t do much on their own.
Of course there is always “user experience”, an increasingly important aspect in the success of technology-related products, but an equally elusive one.

These considerations led us to come up with a new concept, that has proven extremely useful in conducting technology analysis.
Since in nature it is somewhat similar to the physical notion of friction, we called it User Interface Friction (UIF).

UIF is the resistance imposed upon a user-guided process through the operating system and the way the user interface reacts.
In most cases, it has nothing to do with functionality: we use the term User Interface Friction to define the difference in fluidity and productivity that can be observed when running the same program or procedure on different computer systems, or when trying to achieve the goal on two similar digital devices.”

(via InfoDesign)

Delete
Design & Emotion.

Posted: November 8th, 2006, 6:00am PST by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

Design & Emotion posted “Getting Emotional With??� Pieter Desmet“, a nice interview with Peter Desmet, author of “Designing Emotions“.

“Emotion is now widely recognised as an indisputable ingredient of the human product relationship.
Nowadays, most of the conferences in the fields of ergonomics, human computer interaction, product design, and marketing, present an emotion track with design and emotion research papers.
We have now a new generation of designers that is familiar with tools, techniques, and structured approaches to emotional design. It is just a matter of time before these designers will have established positions that enable them to push the real progress in design for emotion.

Ignoring the emotional side of products would be like denying that these products are designed, bought, and used by humans. I believe that it is our responsibility to think about the emotional impact of our designs.
My experience has taught me that science has many insights to offer that can help building a vocabulary that enables us to think about and discuss the abstract concept of emotion.
Design for emotion requires an understanding of the contextualised concerns of the users; their goals, standards, and attitudes. The relationship between product and emotion is not universal, but at the same time the principles that underlie the processes that elicit emotion are universal.

The principles that shape the processes that underlie emotions apply to all emotions, in all cultures, in all times, in all contexts, to all stimuli.
The challenge is to find a balance between universal principles on the one hand (that can be too abstract) and context driven product and emotion relationships (that can be too contextualised).”

(via Putting People First)

Delete
Worldchanging, the book.

Posted: November 6th, 2006, 6:00am PST by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

Worldchanging has published “Worldchanging: A Users Guide for the 21st Century“, 600-pages (!) for anyone interested in the forces currently shaping our collective future(s), and how individual choices can make a difference:

“Worldchanging works from a simple premise: that the tools, models and ideas for building a better future lie all around us.
That plenty of people are working on tools for change, but the fields in which they work remain unconnected.
That the motive, means and opportunity for profound positive change are already present.
That another world is not just possible, it’s here. We only need to put the pieces together.

This is a groundbreaking compendium of the most innovative solutions, ideas and inventions emerging today for building a sustainable, livable, prosperous future.

From consumer consciousness to a new vision for industry; non-toxic homes to refugee shelters; microfinance to effective philanthropy; socially responsible investing to starting a green business; citizen media to human rights; ecological economics to climate change, this is the most comprehensive, cutting-edge overview to date of what’s possible in the near future — if we decide to make it so.”

Covered categories include stuff, shelter, cities, community, business, politics and planet.

Delete
IDEA 2006. Presentations.

Posted: November 4th, 2006, 5:41am PST by Fabio Sergio

Enclosure: [download | LBL_PLAY]

Tags: [edit]

IDEA 2006 (previously mentioned on Convivio) has taken place a few days ago, and judging from various comments the conference was successful and filled with interesting contributions.
Most presentations (many with videos and MP3s) can be found here.

Apparently (and unsurprisingly) Bruce Sterling’s keynote was the highlight of the conference.
You can download the audio here (12 MB, MP3).

Delete
Innovation Hotlist 2006.

Posted: November 2nd, 2006, 5:02am PST by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

The Innovation Lab has posted its top-10 list of tendecies and trends for 2006:

“This hotlist comprises the prevailing tendencies permeating research, product development and service design within the field of information technology.

1. CUSTOMERMADE
When customers and users “infiltrate” the product-development work of companies or organisations and begin to design and create their own products and services.
2. GEO-AWARENESS
The filling station knows you’re on your way, and ??� via the navigating system in your car or your mobile ??� it will send you an offer on the petrol, and at the same time it will advertise the dish of the day in the station’s cafeteria.
3. THING CONNECTION
Thing Connection is the keystone of the 4A concept ??� Anytime connection, Anywhere connection, Anything connection, by Anyone.
Otherwise known as ???an internet of things???: when things communicate with each other.
4. VIRTUAL WORLDS
Welcome to another reality! Close to 400,000 people have already settled in the virtual world Second Life. There are more alternative digital worlds in the offing??�
5. WEB APPLICATIONS - THE NEXT GENERATION
The Web, and not the PC, constitutes the new centre of the universe. This entails a shift from software to web-based applications where the overt and the social will come to play an increasingly substantial part.
6. DIGITAL PRODUCT PLACEMENT
Digital and virtual advertisement pillars. The digital billboard of the future will be blank space to be filled in with messages directed at specific target groups.
7. WEB VIDEO
Show me, see me! Moving pictures have taken the pole position.
8. MIXED REALITY
The fusion of digital, virtual and physical products is near.
9. EXPANDED SEARCH
Search engines are becoming more than just a match of words and numbers in a colossal database.
10. HUMANITARIAN TECHNOLOGY
Profit-generating technologies and humanitarian aid in one.“

Delete
People, not products.

Posted: October 27th, 2006, 6:00am PDT by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

In “Interfaces for People, Not Products” Jonathan Follett looks at how the ever-accruing availability of digital information has blurred the boundaries between expert users and specialists, and how this has in turn further increased complexity for those designing the systems that let users access that interrelated information:

“The digitizing of information, the rapid rise of digital information systems, and increased access to those systems by a broad range of people have challenged the way in which we look at specialists and the roles they play. In many industries, specialists are no longer information gatekeepers, but rather system negotiators.
For example, in the travel industry, agents provide value not by finding the best deals, which you can do yourself online, but by ensuring your trip goes smoothly.

Yet this access to information is a double-edged sword.
We are increasingly responsible for managing everything from our bank accounts to our credit, our insurance plans to our retirement plans, our health care to our education.
This responsibility is time-consuming, while we are no longer amateurs, we??�re not really experts either.
Herein lies a great challenge for information designers, who must format data to aid understanding, decision-making, and efficient task completion.

We can no longer consider the tasks of information design and user interface design independent of the broader context.
Information design should take into account the interdependence of systems.
Each of our projects affects others, in small and large ways.
When solving design problems, information designers should examine how their contributions fit into the particular industry in which they??�re working, because the consequences of their design decisions may ripple across numerous systems.“

Delete
LIFT 2007.

Fetched: October 24th, 2006, 10:35pm PDT by Fabio Sergio

Tags: [edit]

The 2007 edition of the LIFT conference will be held on February 8th and 9th in Geneva, Switzerland.

Last year’s wonderful modular program allowed participants to go wide or deep, and interspersed the various talks with opportunities to socialize with interesting people and leading thinkers from various disciplines.
More than 350 people gathered for 2 days from more than 20 countries to brainstorm with the likes of R?�gine Debatty, Cory Doctorow, Robert Scoble, Euan Semple, Bruce Sterling, Stefana Broadbent, Bruno Giussani, Jeffrey Huang, Emmanuelle Richard, Beth Krasna, Matt Jones, Hugh Macleod, Xavier Comtesse, Marc Laperrouza, David Galipeau and Anina.

“LIFT: a conference about the challenges and opportunities of technology in our society.

LIFT is about teaming talented observers, explorers, and builders with people whose work depends on understanding current challenges and creative solutions presented by emerging technologies.
Attendees will face cutting edge business models, bold predictions, radical thinking, ideas to inject into their own part of the planet.
LIFT has a simple goal: connect people who are passionate about new applications of technology and propel their conversations into the broader world to improve life and work.”

I’ve heard through the digital grapevine that the organizers have a few suprises up their collective sleeve for next year, so check the conference blog every now and then if you’re planning on attending.

Delete