Protected source of electricity

Had to deal with that yesterday in a french train:

A protected source of electricity... that prevented me to use an electrically-powered of some sort that I often employ in train for my work.

Is it because they do not want to provide electricity for commuters/travellers? In this case no, because there are power plugs elsewhere in the train. Simply, as I've been told there by the controller, this plug is covered because it's a 380V and they don't want kids/people to toy around with so much electricity (so why is it written 230V????).

'User of what?' one tends to wonder

Reading (again) Lefebvre this week-end, I ran across this quote about the notion of "user" that I liked:

"Let us now turn our attention to the space of those who are referred to by means of such clumsy and pejorative labels as 'users' and 'inhabitants'. No well-defined terms with clear connotations have been found to designate these groups. Their marginalization by spatial practice thus extends even to language. The word 'user' (usager), for example, has something vague - and vaguely suspect - about it. 'User of what?' one tends to wonder. Clothes and cars are used (and wear out), just as houses are. But what is use value when set alongside exchange and its corollaries? As for 'inhabitants', the word designates everyone - and no one. (...) The user's space is lived - not represented (or conceived). When compared with the abstract space of the experts (architects, urbanists, planners), the space of the everyday activities of users is a concrete one, which is to say, subjective. As a space of 'subjects' rather than of calculations, as a representational space, it has an origin, and that origin is childhood, with its hardships, its achievements and its lacks."

Why do I blog this? I know that challenging the notion of "user" is now more and more common, but still it's relevant to see how thinkers such as Henri Lefebvre questionned it.

Signs

mmmh? NO... OK...

Finger-based puppets

Are those examples of the future of gaming?

The juxtaposition of a visual code widgets for marker-based interaction and these finger puppets seen on the market in Geneva might appear absolutely odd and coming out of from the blue. Yet, there are some intriguing opportunities to use a combination of both for a playful phone-based application.

Is ubicomp already here?

Working on my talk for Frontiers in Interaction, I was wondering about a question I might address, which is "Is ubiquitous computing already here?" There are different options here to answer this question. At first glance, one might say "no" because as we do not see flying cars, super fancy fridges and context-aware cell phones are not used by 97% of the earth population. And when looking at the 3% (my approximation) well versed into high-tech practices, things are not that simple.

Another answer would be that yes ubicomp is here but not as envisioned by researchers, this is the claim by Bell and Dourish: "ubiquitous computing is already here, in the form of densely available computational and communication resources, is sometimes met with an objection that these technologies remain less than ubiquitous in the sense that Weiser suggested" that I share. This resonates with news press like this article in The Economist (It was hailed as a breakthrough that would revolutionise logistics. What ever happened to RFID?). The point here is to say that ubicomp is maybe less a matter of the gadgety future propelled by some researchers and maybe existing practices in countries well into broadband and mobile. Lots of reasons can be called to explain why we're not using location-based annotation systems or intelligent fridges, some are related to flawed assumptions about infrastructures, others to the problem of automation, regulation issues, etc.

Another way to think about it is that yes ubicomp is here, latent but not implemented like a sort of normative future waiting to be realized. The ideas and design of ubicomp so pervaded naive or pop culture about technologies (through cultural artifacts like Minority Report) that the future is thought to be like this. I can feel this when running workshop about the near near future (ubicomp, location-based app...). The symptom is simple: the ideas o buddy-finder, place-based annotations, intelligent agents are so present in people's mind that it's VERY difficult to reach innovative conclusions. What is even more remarkable (but maybe expected) is that it's not only the applications people want that are similar but also the underlying trend of hybridization: the improvement/facilitation ofconnection between people and people, things and people, place and things... all these *values* now pervade our culture...

QR code practices in Zürich

Some examples of QR code usage in Zürich, Switzerland (meeting there today). First, you have the formal version... an advertisement for the NZZ (swiss newspaper):

Then some more street-oriented practices also take advantage of QRcodes with the nice duct-tape touch:

I am however skeptical about the real usage of this QR code, which seems rather aesthetic/trendy that meant to foster specific interactions. It would be curious to know whether people use them, any clue about it Roger?

Quick and dirty typologies of pet's reactions to video-games

One of the near future laboratory interest concerns what I called "new interaction partners", e.g. the inclusion and participation of pets in the social web. This is why I was very interested in this Joytiq blogpost about pets confused by video games. The author of the blogpost ask people to write some examples of past experience about "animal stories": "Have a cat that flips out with the Wii pointer on the screen? Do you also have a dog who howls along like he's wolf".

The research-y side of my brain made my look more closely at the content of the narratives. So here are 2 quick and dirty typologies. First about the features that make them react: - visual features in the game: visible (bearded characters, bark at cats) or less visible (cat obsessed with laser pointers, chasing them) - audio: high pitch, howl-like noise - lots of physical activities around the pet

(Picture taken from lameazoid)

And, more interestingly the reactions are very diverse: - pet wants to participate and do similar movements: "we had a number of rounds of Wii Sports (...) One of my dogs saw us jumping around in front of the TV so he decided to join in". - pet becomes mad: "both of my dogs freaked out when the dog in the video started howling", "they still kept barking for at least a minute after that" - pet shows signs of fear: " My cat gets freaked out whenever I howl in Zelda. Her fur stands on end and she starts looking around the ceiling and walls " - look at tv, try to paw at it when certain event happen: "my dog always wanted to grab mario", "my cat, zelda, loves the horse running around in shadow of the colossus and will paw the tv at it" - demands attention, come and expect treat: "I can't use any of the voice functions on my DS at home due to the dogs - In Nintendogs they come running and expect treats when I tell the virtual dog to do anything."

Why blogging this? because they are deeply engaging narratives about the implications of video games for animals as well as curious description about how they can be engaged in a technosocial situation. In a sense, they reflect how a basic interaction (human+console+tv) is a more complex system that is made of other participants (humans/non-humans), tools (pen to draw things, cheatcodes or walkthrough described in magazines).

Difficulty in 3D perception

A Survey of Design Issues in Spatial Input by Ken Hickley, Randy Pausch, John C. Goble, and Neal Kassell (1994), Proc. ACM UIST'94 Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology, pp. 213-222. Even though the paper is a bit old, it gives a comprehensive summary of the design issues regarding spatial input, especially regarding the perception of 3D. The authors describes how users have difficulty understanding three-dimensional space, based on user studies.

" Anyone who has tried to build a stone wall knows how difficult it is to look at a pile of available stones and decide which stone will best fit into a gap in the wall. There are some individuals, such as experienced stone masons, who have become proficient with this task, but most people simply have to try different stones until one is found that fits reasonably well. In general, people are good at experiencing 3D and experimenting with spatial relationships between real-world objects, but we possess little innate comprehension of 3D space in the abstract. People do not innately understand three dimensional reality, but rather they experience it. (...) Previous interfaces have demonstrated a number of issues which may facilitate 3D space perception, including the following: Spatial references, Relative gesture vs. absolute gesture Two-handed interaction, Multisensory feedback, Physical constraints"

Why do I blog this? looking for references about how 3D is experienced. Why? because this topic is back again (with the SL frenziness) and that I often find myself in situations where I have to explain why 3D s problematic. It's quite interesting because it engages me in reading old paper from 10-15 years ago, as if everyone forgot the research that has been done.

Command Line as the future of interface

When asked about the future of interfaces, Donald Norman points towards the command line, as an interesting metaphor:

"What is to replace the GUI? Ah yes, journalists are constantly asking me that question, hoping I will speak of virtual reality implants by which we fly effortlessly through hyperspaces, finding just the items of interest, then immediately packaging and caressing them to do our bidding in reports, diagrams, and instant insights of wisdom. Well, the answer is much simpler, and it's already here: search. The real surprise, though, is that search engines have evolved into answer engines, controlled through a modern form of command line interface. (...) Even though these three services are called search engines, they are in fact becoming answer services controlled through their command line interfaces. The control language seems more ad-hoc than systematic, and the language forms are still spotty and idiosyncratic, but it is nevertheless a form of command line interaction (...) GUIs were—and still are—valuable, but they fail to scale to the demands of today's systems. So now command line interfaces are back again, hiding under the name of search. Now you see them, now you don't. Now you see them again. And they will get better and better with time"

The main reason he mentions for that is flexibility ("They are tolerant of variations, robust, and exhibit slight touches of natural language flexibility"). Why do I blog this? interesting arguments here, this connects to my interest in the past about chatbots/IM interface as a way to interact with objects.

Interaction design for blind people

Two interesting examples of interaction design targeted at blind people: This virtual mapping project by greek researchers (lead by Konstantinos Moustakas) allows to "convert video into virtual, touchable maps for the blind. The three-dimensional maps use force fields to represent walls and roads so the visually impaired can better understand the layout of buildings and cities". The good thing is that this virtual touchable maps work with standard video cameras.

And Demor is a location based 3D audio shooting game that is equally enjoyable for both blind as sighted players (Via Mr. Sterling):

"Players can physically move through the auditory surroundings and hear the different sound objects in their relative positions around them. These sound objects include environmental elements like the sound of a creek or the songs of birds. As the player moves through the game these environmental sounds remain in their geographical place and can function as navigational aids. (...) To play the game, the player is equipped with a backpack containing a laptop, a GPS receiver, a head tracker, headphones and a modified joystick. By using both locative and directional sensors the software can continuously update de spatial audio feedback to accurately reflect the user's position and direction in the virtual space, creating a kind of auditory virtual reality. "

Why do I blog this? I am not into this kind of research but these technology seems to offer relevant opportunities to solve problem with a good innovative angle.

Grid computing and non-intentionality

Interesting conversation today with Xavier about the "grid computing" as a new social paradigm. According to the Wikipedia:

"Grid computing is an emerging computing model that distributes processing across a parallel infrastructure. Throughput is increased by networking many heterogeneous resources across administrative boundaries to model a virtual computer architecture. For a computing problem to benefit from a grid, it must require either large amounts of computation time or large amounts of data, and it must be reducible to parallel processes that do not require intensive inter-communication."

Why do I blog this? It's mostly the "data" part that interests me here. What this grid metaphor means is that everyone's a resource. Imagine if everything that is on your computer is connected to others: there aren't any intention about what you share (unlike, for example, certain P2P systems in which you choose what you want to share with others). This non-intentionality may have important consequences. The fact that you're a node and share stuff is an intentional act, unless this becomes a "norm" and that you're not even aware of it.

User dashboard in railway station

In swiss railway stations, some TVs like this allow to check the state of the traffic. The map can indicate the portion of the network that have troubles. An interesting example of giving feedback to users, a bit basic but there might be some interesting information to depict. I haven't seen yet any information on the map itself (on this example, it's only a list of problem on a red background).

(Picture I took last week in Geneva railway station)

BiPodding and thoughts about 2-outputed devices

According to the Urban Dictionnary:

"BiPodding: Sharing a single set of headphones attached to one iPod. One person holds the iPod and takes the left earbud, the other takes the right earbud. Can be performed while moving.

Example: They biPodded down the street; Jane had the left ear-piece, Sarah the right."

Why do I blog this? this is an intriguing practice that emerged; it's of great interest to observe what happen when you have artifacts with two outputs like headsets (yes we have two ears). Some people have on the earbud in the ear to have their music/podcast/whatever and the other ear free to conversations/public events. It's about sharing one's attention and sharing public/private information.

Besides, it reminds me of the headset splitter, an ancestor of bipodding that we used to plug in our walkmans, when I was a teenager:

Critical issues about EEG in gaming

An article in The Economist about brain-controlled devices and games. What is good here is that it shows a critical viewpoint on a topic that it not so easy. It's basically about Emotiv Systems and NeuroSky, two Cal-based companies, which aims at measuring brain-wave activities and turn them into actions in a computer game (using a technique called electroencephalography: EEG). Both seems to get rid of existing problems (lower number of electrodes, no use of gel) and they claim that they can mimic facial expressions. For people who happened to put electrodes on one's head, this seems to be an achievement; back ten years ago it was really a pain to put this dirty gel in people's hair and the possibles actions were quite low. Neurosky even want to have only one electrode!

So what's the connection with games? it might be close to the current market:

"According to Nam Do, Emotiv's boss, those applications are most likely to be single-player computer games running on machines such as Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Sony's PlayStation 3. In the longer term, though, he thinks the system will be ideal for controlling avatars (the visual representations of players) in multiplayer virtual worlds such as Second Life."

More interesting are the problems that prevent designers and developers to create such systems:

"First, although human brains are similar to one another in general, they are different in detail, so a mass-produced headset with the electrodes in standard locations may not work for everyone. Second, about one-third of the population is considered “illiterate”, meaning in this context that not even a full-fledged medical EEG can convert their brain activities into actions. Third, electrical signals generated by muscular activity such as blinking are easily confused with actual brain-wave readings. Wink at a fellow player at the wrong moment, then, and you might end up dropping that sarsen you have lifted so triumphantly from the fields of Salisbury Plain on the toes of your avatar's foot."

Why do I blog this? interesting material about the progress concerning the use of EEG in HCI and gaming, there are lots of projects in the field (e.g. targeting "augmented cognition"), things evolve slowly. In addition, this brings me back to my cognitive/neuroscience studies, playing with this sort of material.

Street TV

"Every fine summer night, television sets can be seen outdoors, used publicly, on the busy old sidewalks of East Harlem. Each machine, its extension cord run along the sidewalks from some score's electric outlet, is the informal headquarters spot of a dozen or so men who divide their attention among the machine, the children they are in charge of, their cans of beer, each others' comments and the greetings of passers-by"

Jane Jacobs, "The Death and Life of Great American Cities".

Street TV is a phenomenon that always impressed me, the only area where I've seen it were ethnic blocks in France and in LA. Why? because it's about my fascination towards entertainment in cities and how such a device is shared in a public space. It's generally even more fascinating when people have put couches or chairs around the set, creating some sort of temporary chillzone down the street. IMO, it's neither good or bad and the picture above (taken in Geneva yesterday) is definitely not meant to show that people then trash their TV set after watching it on the streets (nor that watching tv there leads to such behavior).

Field research values

Some elements that struck me as very pertinent in Jan Chipchase's slides (from a presentation called "Always-On: An Introduction to Design Research for Everyware" delivered at Ideo, Palo Alto, 5th March, 2007). The elements that interest me are the ones that concern the transfer from field research to design, a recurrent topic in my work.

"Where's the value?

Best case: inform and inspire the design process about what (and what not) to design, supported by rich, relevant real world examples, challenge given assumptions, guide strategy, spot weak signals, and generally raise awareness across the company on a particular topic. Generate IP.

However the data inherently doesn’t have value... unless we are constantly re-evaluating the information that people need. The value comes from the conversations that happen day, weeks, months or years after the research has taken place. How do you design a study so that data from that study can be accessed long after the study, and the team members have left? The value comes from this continuous re-evaluation of what we know.

Your report is just another piece of data that people need to consider. People are smart – give them the ammunition to be smarter. Your deliverables compete with: their assumptions, reports from other sources, pre-conceptions about your research methods. Pick holes in your own research results, and give clients the ammunition to make an informed choice.

Start by delivering what people expect you to deliver. Then figure out the value added - the stuff that happens around the edges of what you’re looking at."

Why do I blog this? some good elements to think about and definitely food for thoughts for current projects.

About Tufte

The Stanford Alumni has a great overview of Edward Tufte's work (written by Fran Smith). Some excerpts:

As Tufte sees it, what makes evidence beautiful isn’t artistry. “It’s all about discovering and telling the truth,’’ he says. (...) AFTER AN ENCOUNTER with Tufte’s ideas, people can never again look at a chart, a map, a scientific table or a PowerPoint presentation quite the same way (...) Like the earlier books, Beautiful Evidence isn’t an instruction guide but a statement of Tufte’s design principles: Show comparisons. Show causality. Show data in their full complexity. Document and display your sources. Above all, respect the intelligence of your audience and tell the truth. “Serious presentations,’’ Tufte often says, “rise and fall on the quality, relevance and integrity of the content.’’ (...) it’s not a single image that makes Tufte’s work memorable; it’s the mix and multitude.

Contextual note

Typical contextual advertisement drawn from the physical environment. Lots of people thinks this would appear on you mobile device (cell phone) when passing-by. If there is a digital equivalent what would be attention required: receiving a vibration? an sms? a call? The two last options already go further the attention we put on the sort of note shown on that picture.

Spatiality in Habbo Hotel + designing for open-ended play

Some notes taken after viewing the LIFT07 talk of Sampo Karjalainen (Sulake Corporation): "Open-ended play in Habbo" (video). Sampo described how Habbo is a virtual hang out for teenagers, an open environment in which you can do things, no clearly explicit goal. A bit like Second Life but browser-based (more accessible) and not in 3D, it targets teenagers. Figure are quite amazing: 7millions unique users every month, medium age: 13y.o. gender distribution: almost 50/50.

What I found pertinent is the spatial aspects of Habbo Hotel. Sampo differentiated the following "spaces".

1) Public rooms: designed by Sulake, most of the users go here, chat online with existing friends, meet new friends and "be together"+ Games inside Habbo Hotel compete/cooperate: gaming rooms, kissing booth, photobooth (polaroid-like), changing room (exchanging you clothes as quickly as possible) with the rules of the games usually explained as sticky notes on the walls.

2) User-created rooms: the most intriguing aspect and the one that makes users come back:: user's own room: every user can create their own room (design, furnitures, pets, rare items bought with habbo credits) and people express themselves. So there are also wharehouse in which people store collected items (so that the value of the items then goes up). Some activities emerged: virtual horsetable (people dress up in brown, black... play the horse and the other ones take care of them... they type in chat what they are doing "I am burshing you...", they kind of roleplay, we did not provide any items to support this but they do it), adoption houses (rooms in which you can get adopted by another user and people the role of mothers and child).

3) Activities expand outside habbo: - traders go to online auction like ebay or in schoolyards, - community websites (writing articles about what is going on, values of items, some user-created games). Sulake tries to support this: helping people to set their own webpage

Then he described some guidelines to have this "open ended play". His point is that users do create lots of interesting content for other users. It is a source of new stuff every hour every day and Sulake would not be able to create so many things. The strategy was rather to provide tools for people. How can we design to support this type of play? what is needed to support it?

Some practical ideas: 1) you need something to play with, some type of objects/type of environment. Not necessarily huge amount of items but rather the possibility to combine them in various ways. (Examples: Mii, Legos, chats) 2) intuitive interaction: if you enable the user to move and rotate/edit, it supports the play much better than what we have in classic interaction with a browser. It's also good to keep the user interface very invisible (to not cut the flow of play). 3) set up a mood for play: nobody will laugh if you do sth stupid, it should be less utilitarian 4) foster all kind of user-create goal. traditional games tend to have one dimensional goals but here it's much more interesting if the user select what he/she wants to create. The range of things that can emerge is then higher 5) still define and test likely use-cases: you need to have some ideas of things you expect to see, and test them 6) the shared social setting: it becomes much more interesting when people can comment on things created by others (for the creator and the others).

Why do I blog this? Working on some future project ideas, these insights from Sulake are very relevant in terms of studies that concern spatialities in virtual worlds. It makes me think of practices in MOO back in the 90s.

No perfect i-roid

"Dreaming of a perfect i-roid, screaming cerebrum steroidFaking-jack decoys got beef with Ox You can get caught in my Real Earth chatterbox That's virtual (virtual), if you drunk a V8 You couldn't be parallel, because hell is vertical Aha, fooled ya, thought it was beneath you Got propelled in the sky, now soul is see-through But it doesn't matter cause there's no molecules"

Lyrics by Cannibal Ox, "Real Earth" (COld Vein)

Why do I blog this? just thought the lyrics sounded apropos with regards to some effects of technology on society: "I-roid", "now soul is see-through".