reading materials

This paper causes me to have a lot of contradicting arguments with myself. On the one hand I somewhat agree with what the paper is saying, but on the other hand I feel there is a much more effective way to produce currently not yet invented technology.

So, why would I agree with the paper? It does produce a very good argument. What we has human beings need are not created on purpose, they are created accidently or at least without much thinking. A good example mentioned in the paper is language. We started to invent language before we even had any intention of inventing language. Or even eating utensils is valid argument as to why we create what we need without intention. When the first utensil was created those thousands of years ago, be it just a pointed stick to hold some cooked meat, it wasn’t created by sitting down and formally planning out an easier way to hold our food, we just made it, without thinking. And I'm sure many people across the globe developed the first utensils without even being in contact with others that had produced one.
So, judging by that logic, we need to force ourselves back in to the mentality of the primal need to create new technology which is exactly what circles and props does. It askes people what their desires are (which is listed in the article), once they have chosen the desire they may choose what part of the body it applies to, and then finally, they need to think about what material they need to use in order to create their technology. This is surrealist thinking, they need to go by what they feel like, opposed to what they feel the rational answers would be. By using this method, they truly can create some unique and interesting technology that is unlikely to have been created before.

However, I personally feel that the problem with this method is that it is likely that the new technology created by the person is very unique to them and subsequently not very useful to anyone else but them. Take the “Masticalion Amplifier” for example used within the article. I'm not convinced that many people would fine the use in that.

So, my argument against this approach. I feel that in order to create a technology that is useful to enough people to value actually mass producing the product is to look towards the future. It sounds like a cliché line to argue, but I feel that it is true. Just think, fifty years ago no one would ever have even believed that something like the internet would even have been fathomable. But what if they did? Would they have been able to create a web technology or product that everyone uses today (such as Amazon) many years before its time? And as a result become very rich when the technology becomes available? My point is we as a species are evolving to become more technologically dependant and technology is advancing at a rapid rate. So, technology that hasn't been invented yet that no one thinks would even be remotely useful now may be extremely useful in twenty years, so why not try and predict what people will need, and create the technology ahead of its time?

Some of the points that were raised when talking about this paper in a group were;

- That it is a good way of extracting the ideas from people’s heads that they may not have even known existed.
- It is a free flowing process, but it is still controlled to produce useful results, so it is not completely free.
- It is comparable to how a musician writes music, often by how they write by how they feel opposed how they should create music.

In conclusion, in my opinion, I feel as if this paper raises some good points and I would agree with it to a limited extent. However, as I mentioned before, I just fail to see how it is useful. I find it very unlikely that by doing this process an idea for a useful technology will actually be conceived. However, by using the other method suggested, I feel that it is more likely that something useful will actually be developed.

Source: Circles and props-making unknown technology, Kristina Andersen, Danielle Wilde, Volume 19, Number 3 (2012), Pages 60-65.

Annotated Portfolios

I can’t say that I completely understood annotated portfolios. I found the language and format of the paper slightly confusing. Nevertheless, I will still try to write up what I can about it.

Bill Gaver and John Bowers are trying to convince the reader that design can in fact be used as research. But instead of design being presented in the usual, highly scientific way, they’d rather not dilute design, and propose an alternative method. Which is of course, annotated portfolios. Annotated portfolios would be used when carrying out practical research of a new prototype in a specific environment and collecting the results. In the case of this paper, the Photostroller is being field tested in a home for the elderly.

Annotated portfolios are effectively portfolios with a small amount of annotations or labels surrounding its images. The reason that you may want to do this is not just so as to help the viewer understand what the portfolio is trying to say, but also to provide a small amount of research validity. The reason it allows this is because images, and portfolios are subjective. They are subjective to the viewer. What the message from the creator/publisher might be may differ hugely from what the viewer sees. As a result, annotations allow for not just a lot less confusion, but also a high amount of people perceiving the same message.

This is generally a good thing, it creates less confusion, unifies ideas and allows for scientific and research validity. Which is a step in the right direction if you want design to be considered a recognised form of research. Which clearly, the writers of this paper do.

In conclusion, if I was to ask myself how I feel about annotated portfolios, I would have to say I approve immensely. I’m not sure what isn’t to appreciate about them. They allow for design to be considered a form of recognised research and they allow the viewer to more easily understand what the publisher is trying to convey, which ultimately causes less confusion. So again, I would say that this is ultimately a very good thing. It is easy to create, and effective.

Source: Gaver, B., & Bowers, J. (2012). Annotated portfolios. Interactions, 19(4), 40.

Taking our Sweet time to search is about how we, particularly in the western world have become accustomed to fast searching. We crave knowledge, and want to find out answers to our questions as quickly as possible. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with this, but Marian Dörk, Peter Bennett and Rosamund Davies seem to believe that this isn’t always the optimum approach to take when researching.
They suggest that not all topics deserve this type of fast searching, and immediately finding answers such as can be found on Google, Siri, Wikipedia, and the internet as a whole. Instead, they argue that certain things a lost through this type of search, such as human interaction and the ability to wonder through various other pieces of other information in a ludic sense.

Let me elaborate. In the time before the internet, the best place to go to find information was the library, and that may have involved searching through various books, stumbling upon various other pieces of information, and maybe even having a casual conversation with a librarian. It was a slower process. And as a result, you may stumble upon other useless to your specific task, but nevertheless interesting pieces of information, or may have even been directed to other interesting pieces of information via the conversation you have with the librarian. They also state that slower search encourages deeper reflection of the knowledge you have just gained. This is the example the paper uses at least.

What they are trying to say is that slower search could be a much more joyful and information rich experience than immediately having access to the information you were originally looking for. And I’d have to say, on this front I’d agree with them

However, I would say that not all forms of information warrant an in-depth slow search, as I’m sure most people would agree with. Sometimes, you need a fact, and you need it now. Which is when Google, Siri and other kids of search features come in handy. But for those lengthy, information intensive projects, perhaps slow search is better?

Well, I’d argue that it comes down to personal preference. I wouldn’t say that it’s necessarily a bad thing if you enjoy slower search, but I personally prefer being able to search for things quickly. Having said that, I do sometimes enjoy a good ludic approach to searching. This is why I personally believe that article isn’t wrong to propose ways that we might in fact bring back some form of slow search.

There are a few suggestions that the article puts forward as to help incorporate slow search in to our everyday lives, two of which I definitely feel could work. The first being the use of journals of journeys. I feel that this could definitely work, the bookmarking system is flawed, and I think a new system that effectively allows us to document the information we gather on the web would be a step in the right direction. Many times have I wanted to re-visit a webpage but just can’t be bothered with the hassle of looking through my bookmarks or the specific webpage I found the information on.

The second being the implementation of slow search spaces into your life. Wherever this may be, a public space, or your own private one. If you’re so inclined so slow search, this would be a definite advantage for you.

In conclusion, while I agree with the concept of slow searching. I also feel that it is important to highlight that we keep this practice as optional. I would enjoy seeing a search engine or website fully dedicating itself to slow search without the option of the faster alternative for quick lookups. I feel that this is important to highlight and remember. But otherwise, I think the world still has a place for slow searching.

Source: Dörk, M., Bennett, P., & Davies, R. (2013). Taking our sweet time to search.

Taking Our Sweet Time to Search

Overcoming Procrastination with Remind

Overcoming procrastination. It seems the clever folks at the Folkwang University of the Arts have come up with a solution to this age old problem. Remind. Remind is a circular invention that allows its user to input specific tasks using the small round pucks. You place the puck on the part of the circle that has the specific date you want the task to be completed by. Remind is powered by a small motor that moves the circle in a clockwise motion. When a puck reaches the area where the motor is located, it will fall of the circle. This basically means, whether you have completed your task or not, Remind is going to well… remind you that you either should have completed it by now, or that it’s just another task struck of the list.

The paper explains that Remind works by using ‘friction’. They claim that a certain amount of friction is required to install change with in a person’s habits and behaviour (procrastinating less). This friction means that a person could either sweep their task under the rug, or do it as soon as they have a chance. This feeling creates reflection within the persons mind, and ultimately means they are more likely to sweep the task under the rug. Not to mention, the idea of a puck falling to the ground, know you haven’t completed the task you were supposed to makes a person feel slightly uncomfortable, or unaccomplished, which is something everyone wants to avoid.

Remind is a transformational object. Transformational objects are called so because they have materialised implementation intentions. According to this paper, there are four principles to Remind based on psychological knowledge. Situatedness, which is effectively means that Remind is a constant reminder of tasks to be completed, as it is located in your home. Alternatives, this means that Remind gives the user an alternative behaviour. This means that the user may change their behaviour in order to complete their tasks more efficiently, such as by becoming more organised through whatever means helps the user. Moment of choice, Remind literally throws unfinished tasks at the user as they wouldn’t have taken the puck down. Having to pick that puck up would create a moment of choice, the person looking at the puck on the floor knows that they should have completed that task by now, making them much more likely to start on it at that moment. ‘The puck has fallen, I should probably do that work now’. Finally, Meaning-Making. This effectively means that Remind is constantly reminding the user of their goals, causing the person to reflect upon their procrastination problem, making it more likely that they would make a change.

Personally, I think Remind is very effective. It creates (in my opinion) feelings of great dread, or great accomplishment. The dread of one of those pucks falling to the floor would encourage most people to knuckle down and stop procrastinating, just so they don’t have to feel disappointed as that puck falls to the ground. I feel the accomplishment comes from the fact that when a task is completed, you get to take the puck off, meaning that there are a less pucks on the Remind. The less pucks there are, the more accomplished you’ll feel.

Source: Laschke, M., Hassenzahl, M., & Brechmann, J. (2013). Overcoming Procrastination with ReMind.

New Media, New Craft?

This paper by Andrew Richardson suggests that we should in fact start seeing programming as a craft, to stand alongside traditional crafts. It initially goes on to suggest that the idea of any craft is the “applied, skilled understanding and mastery of material.” You could say that this easily applies to programming. Just a skilled craftsman creates a beautiful wooden model out of nothing but a block of wood, a skilled programmer can create a well-designed functional website out of nothing but his computer and knowledge of programming languages.

Richardson goes on to further suggest that just as a craftsman has his material, so does a programmer. A craftsman will start with an initial material, be it wood, clay, marble, anything. And he uses his knowledge (both theoretical and applied) to create a physical, stable old material (an object that isn’t represented in a digital format, but is instead a physical object that a person can experience). So does a programmer, except their knowledge lies within their coding ability, and the material they use is the computer itself. The programmer will create a new material, something that can’t be physically interacted with. Instead interaction comes from sources such as sound, video and interaction with physical peripherals such as the mouse and keyboard. New materials do not have the uniqueness and stability that old materials have because they do not fully exist but can have limitless copies made of them all around the globe.

Richardson goes further by comparing the two different crafts by using the ‘Arts and crafts movement’ ethos and definition. According to this movement, a craftsman must have a clear understanding of what needs to be done to his material in order to create his desired product, he needs to have economy of material, meaning he must create the most efficient object possible in order to minimise the amount of material used, and finally the environment places a critical factor in the overall outcome of the product. All these principles can apply to a programmer, he must have a clear idea of how to use his computer to code in order to create his project, he must be as efficient in his code as possible in order to minimise the amount of unnecessary code and confusion, and he is also influenced in what he creates by the environment around him and the inspiration it gives him.

Personally, I feel that just because old materials and new materials are both separate, that doesn’t mean that one classifies as a craft over the other. I’d say that both the same amount of work, knowledge and effort would need to be applied to both types of craft, therefor I’d say it’s unfair to call one a craft and not the other. And for that reason, I’m going to have to agree with this paper. I agree that programming is a craft.

However, for the sake of counter argument. I believe that the majority of the general public do not see the programmer as a craftsman. They most likely instead picture a traditional craftsman, a carpenter or a sculptor for example. And as a result, the definition of ‘craftsman’ applies to those traditional roles only. And after all, I don’t believe that a definition of a word is permanently set, it is created by the people, but is fluid and constantly changing. As a result, I feel that the majority of people would not see programming as being a craft because it does categorise in to their definition of ‘craftsman’. So does that mean programmers are craftsmen? Ultimately I think weather you believe a programmers is a craftsman is subjective to you and you only.

Source: Richardson, A. (1998). New Media , New Craft ? Electronic Art and Animation Calalogue, 157–159.

Distinguishing Concepts Lexicons of Interactive Art and Architecture

This paper confused me to a fairly large extent. I didn’t quite understand the message Usman Hacque was trying to convey. But for what I understand, he was trying to explain that over the past 50 years, a consequence of philosophy suggests that the meaning of words aren’t fixed, but fluid. They aren’t constrained by physical objects anymore.

One of the he uses as an example is the word ‘interactive’. He argues that we in the west have overused the word interactive to the point where its meaning can be applied to almost anything technological that requires a human interaction to operate. He further goes on to explain how we might describe something as being interactive that needs a human being to tell it what to do. Like a website, or even a common thermostat. However, he suggests that it isn’t really interactive, but reactive. They are reactive because they have a strict set of tasks that/instructions that can be controlled by the human, but the human may not give a unique instruction and expect the piece of technology to correspond. True interactivity would be giving a piece of technology a unique instruction and it corresponding.

Some further terminology he goes on to debunk is that of Public, Private and the Commons. From what I understand, he explains that building are built in mind of either being public, or private. An office block for example is private space, where as a train station would be public. He suggests that private spaces have become indistinguishable to public ones and vice versa. The reason for this is the increase in technology being implemented in both
spaces such as wifi, CCTV and mobile phone networks. But he then goes on to suggest, that if a place is truly open and free, we name it ‘the commons’, which is an echo back to the Roman era.
In conclusion, whilst I tried, I failed to completely understand the point this paper was trying to make. Furthermore, of what I did understand I didn’t agree with. I just feel as if it’s pointless to fuss about the meaning of words to quite this extent. Whilst the definitions might not be perfect, the words we use today work. They convey the meaning intended between us in the west, and that’s what I think is more important here. That the words convey the intended meaning.

Source: Haque, U. (2007). Distinguishing concepts: Lexicons of interactive art and architecture. Architectural Design, 77(4)

Theories and Practice of Design for Information Systems: Eight Design Perspectives in Ten Short Weeks

I feel like being completely transparent and honest with how I feel about this paper is necessary. However much I have tried I struggle to understand this paper. I have tried re-reading paragraphs, going slowly but I just can’t seem to get to grips with it. Therefore, this entry may be a little shorter than usual.

From what I did understand, this paper talks about the eight perspectives of design, and how these eight perspectives were experienced by a group of post-graduate university students.
These eight perspectives in design included, but are not limited to; the character of design, design as a reflection, design as a social process and design as dialog.

The reason for holding a class to teach these design perspectives was for the benefit of two parties. The students of course, to further boost their knowledge of design when they don’t necessarily come from a fully design based background. The second was from a pedagogical approach. In order to discover the usefulness of this approach for teaching students, the lectures at the university of Washington needed to conduct a ‘test’ of sorts to prove whether it is effective or not. They’re trying to prove that design can be useful in many different fields. Fields such as geography, or information science. Students of those topics can pull pieces of design knowledge to further help in their goal.

Each design perspective had its own key question involved with it as well as a Pedagogical Approach and an activity for the students to participate in. For example, with ‘The design of character’, the key question is ‘Can creative design be stimulated through prescribed activity? What is a wicked problem and are all design problems wicked?’. The pedagogical approach asks to examine the qualities that differentiate design from other types of creative problem solving. And finally, the design activity involved using black squares to express certain concept such as order, tension and calm.
Overall, I didn’t enjoy this paper. It was incredibly lengthy as well as being confusing.

Source: David G. Hendry and Batya Friedman The Information School,University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-2840.