Hidden protection

An interesting example of a car carpet repurposed to hide a locker at the door of an urban garden in Torino.

City quantification devices

The presence of scales in public space has always intrigued me. Such a quantification device is generally private but there are different occurrences of public appearances. The picture above in Torino depict street scales that people can use (and pay for) to know their weight, which is definitely a personal use, although it takes place in a public space. There is clearly a cultural thing to have this sort of artifact in the urban environment and I don't really know the whole picture here. It seems curious though.

The one below, taken from a lift in an hotel in Paris shows the scale of the group: it's a group indicator that is meant to prevent the elevator to break down if the weight is too important. I can't help thinking about the awkward situation that may happen if the scale warns people that there are too much people in the lift. Will the negotiation process be fluid or will it lead to unexpected arguments. As usual with devices that make things explicit, I foresee surprises.

Why do I blog this? yet another example of quantification devices employed in our material world. The practices at stake here are important to document and compare to the whole discourse about how measuring our movements/activities can lead to original representations and services (will individual weight be a parameter in some sort of scary identification process? will we have elevator services based on group weight? how weird?).

The use of these measurement devices in public space is certainly an interesting locus of interest for people who want to explore what happens when "things that were implicit becomes explicit"... which is also what happens with ubiquitous computing as Adam Greenfield put it in his "Everyware" book:

"Everyware surfaces and makes explicit information that has always been latent in our lives, and this will frequently be incommensurate with social or psychological comfort"

Reading "The Caryatids" by Bruce Sterling

Just finished reading "The Caryatids" by Bruce Sterling. This inspiring book is built around the history of the four Mihajlovic sisters, who are surviving clones of a biopiracy lab. Spread in different countries (Balkans, California and the Gobi desert in China), each of them represent a different "camp" (Acquis, Dispensation, China and crazy individual) with different values and approaches to see the world. All of this is wrapped in en eco-disaster twist that is a bit reminiscent of Sterling's other novels ("Holy Fire or "Distraction"). Both a fun and deep read.

The novel is an insightful extrapolation of our present: the description of the faction (through each character in the 3 chapters) is a good example of how todays trends could evolve in the mid-term. We have networked-participative-ecofriendly Acquis, futile-wired-greedy Dispensation and Nation-State China who all have their own approaches to see the world. After Distraction and its "Moderators versus Regulators" factions, Sterling keeps exploring social and political differences of the near future. Like a foresight research report with a 3-scenarios structure, the book offer different visions of how tackling today's world problems can be achieved through differently. Of course, these 3 responses correspond to existing forces at play nowadays.

This "3 responses" structure makes me think that futures think-tanks and foresight research group can take this novel as a great example of how they could craft engaging deliverables. The "futures/foresight" angle is important anyway and Sterling drops bits of wisdom here and there that will definitely echo with futurists' approaches:

"the sea had no 'real' blue and the camp was no 'real' camp. There as a mélange of potent forces best described as 'futurity'. They were futuring here, and the future was a process, not a destination." (p13)

"it was an old trick, but often a good one. Most trend-spotters using the net looked for raising new items that were gaining public credibility. But you could learn useful things in a hurry if you searched for precisely the opposite. News that should have public credibility, but didn't." (p118)

"Futurism is prediction. We all know that's impossible. But history is retrodiction, and that's impossible too. Se we have to paper over these black holes with sheer imagination." (p295)

Besides, one of the character (Little Mary Montalban, that looks IMO to some sort of "little miss sunshine") even described herself as a Black Swan.

Beyond these general elements, The Caryatids is an excellent platform where Sterling brings a context and some carefully-crafted poetry of technological devices and social trends. By describing the crossing of these elements, the novel shows various implications about what our society (researchers, designers, policy-makers, entrepreneurs) are doing right now on our planet.

One of the easiest aspect to get, if you're following ubiquitous computing and networked objects, consists in the discussion of everyware and what Sterling refers to as the "Sensorweb":

"the sensorweb was a single instrument, small pieces loosely joined into one huge environmental telescope. The sensorweb measured and archived changes in the island's status. Temperature, humidity, sunlight. Flights of pollen, flights of insects, the migrations of birds and fish" (p10)

"now the island was an aspect of the web" (p11)

"your everyware touches everything that we do here" (p33), "cover the world with scanner and sensors" (p78)

The vision the reader is presented here is not just descriptive since the most interesting aspect of the sensorweb discussion concern its implications. As shown on the picture above (p72), there is a relevant differentiation between "sensory analysis" versus "sensory control". The two correspond to different approaches to a problem at stake today with the advent of networked sensors and the possibility of collecting information from mobile devices and the web. The current debate (today, not in the novel) is basic: (1) We have traces that are available today (generated by the use of mobile devices, picture upload on the web) and that will be easier to collect tomorrow (brain activity, heartbeats), (2) some people think it can be an opportunity for social sciences renewal, others fear that it can lead to greater control. Which actually corresponds, in the novel, to this pertinent quote by a cloned chinese state warrior who paraphrase Gilles Deleuze's "Postscript on the Societies of Control":

"The worst threats among those state running dogs are provocative figures who foment new relationships emerging from the long-standing interplay of social and urban control experiments practices by the state elite against the colonized posturban peoples. Through continually linking sensors, databases, defensive and security architectures, and through the scanning of bodies, these running nodes export the state's architecture of control" (p257)

"Diseases were everywhere, while surveillance was everyware, Everyware crushed diseases, subtly, comprehensively, remorselessly" (p211)

Moreover, Sterling reminds us that the situation is not so simple and that "blackspots" are part of the solutions:

"a hole in a sensorweb was called a blackspot. The laws of physics declared that there were always blackspots in the world. Computer science could assume perfectly smooth connections, but the Earth had hills and valleys and earthquakes and giant volcanoes. The sky had lightning storms, and even the sun had sunspots. Wireless connections were not magic fogs. Real-worl wireless connections were waves, particles, bits: real things in real places. So, If you didn't want to be seen, or heard, or known in a world of ubiquitous sensorwebs, there were options. You could find a blackspot. Or created blackspot. Some blaskspots were made by organized crime or official corruption. Other blackspots just grew in their natural blackness." (p161)

If you read Human-Computer Interaction, you'll recognize here the discussion around the messiness of the physical environment, seams and seamful design described by Bell and Dourish or Fabien Girardin). Which is exemplified by the part about augmented reality that is criticized by one the character as "pasting fantasies onto the island" and flawed because there is "a design conflict between strict geolocative accuracy and an augment that everyday viewers might willingly pay to see". To put in shortly, the augmented layer is not well adjusted to the physical environment and the digital part "appears to be hovering" over the material layer.

As a side remark, I would highlight the fact that this argument about the inherent messiness of the physical world is one of the trickiest to convey to a certain class of people who always think that "eventually XXX will be taken care of" (replace XXX by "phone connectivity" or "GPS coverage). One of the concluding remark in the novel is not so optimistic though:

"Those ubiquitous systems, what they used to call the 'mediation', the 'sensorwebs'. (...) Those technologies advanced so far that they vanished. The language operating systems, frameworks of interaction, the eyeball-lasting laser-colored neural helmets... all that stuff is more primitive than steam engines now. I mean, you can tell how a steam engine works by just looking at it, but a complex, distributed, ubiquitous system? There's no way to maintain that! That all became ubijunk! Those cutting-edge systems are gone like sandcastles. A rising tide of major transformations threw them up on the shore, and then the whole sea rose and they are beyond retrieval" p295

There is of course more in the novel. The two last points I was intrigued about are finally:

• Participation and reputation-based social systems are in the background, a bit less than in Distraction (with the reputation servers process). The Acquis faction is based on "glory rating" and they use "an architecture of participation" to promote people at other ranks.
• The whole fun around "correlation engines"n which are "an amazing new business tool (...) that never fails to hit on correlations of major interest"

Why do I blog this? this is a quick and rough transcript of the notes I've taken when reading the book. I enjoyed the whole thing and it's interesting to put the novel in perspective with the author's musings, warnings and speeches. As usual, there is a lot to draw from Sterling's novel, and I tried to make some connections here in the 30' I allowed myself to write in this blogpost.

Living in the future

In Receiver #14, James Katz wrote an interesting article entitled "The future of a futuristic device" where he describes why lots of people perceive the mobile phone to be a futurist tool, and what they might want in their phones. An interesting part of the paper deals with how early adopters say that having the most advanced mobile phone technology makes them feel like they are living in the future:

"This "living in the future" sense has both intrinsic and extrinsic attractions. In terms of intrinsic attraction, having futuristic devices suggests that the users have more insight and power than those left behind in the past. They are in several senses visitors who are experiencing today what others can only experience later. In terms of extrinsic attraction, future-oriented users can avail themselves of distinctive pleasures and conveniences. If knowledge is power, then the users of futuristic devices appear to have the knowledge to command resources and deal with various contingencies. In essence, this bestows power: they know what other people's future will be like."

Why do I blog this? what the future is can definitely be seen as a social construct. Perhaps some good material here for some of a student I am working with on the role of imagination in design.

Subtle signage in different context

In a subway station in Paris (each colors and number correspond to a metro line), in the countryside in South-Burgundy below:

Why do I blog this? it's always intriguing to compare the various ways signage can be subtly integrated in the environment.

EPFL IC research day

At the Information and Communication faculty research day at EPFL which is about "Invisible Computing: Novel Interfaces to Digital Environments". Two bits from the presentations caught my eyes. In her presentation entitled "The myth of touch", Chia Shen from Harvard University dealt with 3 wrong ideas about touch-based interfaces. She started by reminding us how people want touch because they have the impression that it's better for engaging users (and that it helps to "remember" and collaborate). She then moved to the description of 3 myths in this context:

• "Myth #1: touch is natural: The reality is not that simple. Actually, touch is natural up to 3 UI-less gestures: zoom in/out, pan/scroll, tap. For some applications, the mouse may be better and there is an entire user culture built around this vocabulary
• Myth #2: multi-touch = multi-user. As stated by Bill Buxton: "now not only can my eye see the pixels, but the pixels can see my finger", there is for example a problem with 2 fingers... whose fingers? if you don't know whose finger are there? how to zoom, select? pan?
• Myth #3: touch is intuitive: it's really the data that is intuitive, if it's not, you become an interpreter for the interface (...) a large proportion of our cognitive system is devoted to interpreting sensory information from body parts with the most sensory receptors such as our fingertips (...) visual sensory input overwhelms audio and tactile in the human brain."

It's always interesting when technology researcher bring out and explore their own myth, what is taken for granted and why they're wrong. I wish the speaker had spent longer time in this issue to dig more into details. The "natural" bit is interesting at it echoes with some elements I discuss: it connects to the fact that what is natural is socially constructed and shifts over time.

The third presenter, Richard Harper (from Microsoft Research) used the example of "smart home" design to describe his perspective on innovation and design process. Some hints about he started with echoed with what I discuss in my courses:

" it doesn't matter where you start but it matters to make assumptions... you need to start with the right assumptions

users do not know what is the future HOWEVER, the future is visible in your behaviors, the future lays here in the present, in weird behavior, the things we do that are actually special evocative and rich. We have aspirations and hope to make our life a success, we can learn from that for innovation, to bring out new ideas"

He then used his exploration of the complexity of home experience to demonstrate this process, finishing with different technological projects to support his claims. Some of the point he made about people's experience at home were quite interesting:

"People want to make distinctions, when they make a home, they make it different form work, they make their home different from everyone else. But it isn't easy, it's full of contradictions: people want to close the door on the world outside but they still want contact with that world (call their friend...). Furthermore, when they make their homes special, they cannot be so special that visitors don't feel at home.

when someone gets home, sits down and switches on the TV they are switching themselves off, but they have to work at doing nothing (housework, kids asking things, give love to partner). There is so much to do and so little time to do nothing.

And the occupants themselves make for contradictions: some tidy home up, some make a mess, some set up homes, other leave home...

do designers have to be smart to understand a smart home? yes, but it's not the technology that requires them to be smart. Don't assume that there is an integrated model of the user (one that fits all) but it doesn't mean that there can't be innovation"

Why do I blog this? some highly intriguing elements there, I find quite interesting to see how this can push a little bit the envelope at EPFL where it's uncommon to have this sort of approach (unfortunately technologies are often the starting point).

Ceiling signage

In general, ceilings are not so common place to put signage on. Which is why I found interesting to encounter this sign "L'Europe" (the name of this plazza in Lausanne) placed on the surface that is under the bridge where people walk to the subway station.

French book about locative media and LBS

My french book about locative media and location-based services (FYP Editions) has just been released. It's an overview of the field, that starts from the technical standpoint and go through various questions: what are they for, why the common scenarios (buddy-finder, spatial annotation, location-based coupons) have troubles being adopted, what to expect in the future as well as the space/time/social implications.

Update: my editor tells me that the rights to publish the books can be discussed with him (through contact (at) fypeditions (dot) com)

About digital and paper maps

Mapping is a favorite topic of mine, not only because I worked on locative media, but also because I find they are fascinating objects. Maps are really interesting these days as they exemplify one of the design trend I spotted recently: the transformation of non-digital objects by design techniques coming from the digital world. To some extent, lots of artifacts from the material world can be re-designed by applying insights learned when creating weird interfaces and new sorts of interactions.

This is what happens currently with paper-maps which design is reshuffled by people who grew up with video-games and on-line mapping tools, or by designers who consciously want to apply techniques coming from the digital. What is highly captivating in this context is that it also reshapes the user experience of the object at hands. Maps are a good example of such phenomena.

One of the most advanced project along these lines is certainly Jack Shulze's Here and There. Although I don't have the poster version, the Wired UK version will do to exemplify what it is:

Here is the idea:

"Imagine a person standing at a street corner. The projection begins with a three-dimensional representation of the immediate environment. Close buildings are represented normally, and the viewer himself is shown in the third person, exactly where she stands. As the model bends from sideways to top-down in a smooth join, more distant parts of the city are revealed in plan view. The projection connects the viewer's local environment to remote destinations normally out of sight."

There is more on S&W's on-line web log where Schulze describes how he wanted to "exploits and expands upon the higher levels of visual literacy born of television, games, comics and print". More specifically, he wanted to tap into the satellite representation as a symbol of omniscience and the reason why a platform such as Google Earth is so compelling. The point was to have "a speculative projections of dense cities (...) intended to be seen at those same places, putting the viewer simultaneously above the city and in it where she stands, both looking down and looking forward".

Reading this in the train yesterday made sense when few minutes after, arrived at my final destination in the city of Lyon (France), I encountered this curious map:

The map depicts the city of Lyon from the train station at the bottom (in this white area) and the city itself in the upper part of the picture. There is a lot to discuss here and I won't comment about what is not represented (can the white part be absent because it may have been perceived as not interesting for tourists?). What I find relevant there is:

• The sort of bird eye's view, as if we were in a video game, where the landscape is represented in plan over distance
• The color overlay that shows the subway, tram and bus lines is also curious. It basically maps the public transport infrastructure on the perspective
• The map is fixed and located in the train station, it's only drawn for this specific viewpoint (the station) and definitely match the context of use.

Why do I blog this? trying to make some connection between online musing and urban scouting... and the map topic is highly intriguing for that matter. I am convinced there is a lot to work on to modify non-digital objects with this sort of design techniques.

See-through toilet

Another item I found curious while spending time in Lausanne the the other day: a see-through toilet. Based on a steel-and-glass architecture, the toilet is based on a transparent system: when pressing the "voir" button (which means "see"), the glass gets transparent and it turns opaque when someone is inside and presses the button again. A motion sensor also turn the glass transparent if there's no motion during a certain amount of time (to prevent people from staying there for too long or in case of a problem) OR if there is TOO MUCH ACTIVITY (no party is allowed in there).

It's questioning as well to see that the button has been called "VOIR" ("see"), as most of the people who enter the toilet do not want to "see" but instead to "not be seen". My guess is that it's on purpose, to disrupt people's behavior (who would want to press a button anyway to see how to make the glass opaque).

From what I've read, the point is to find an answer the recurring problems of toilet trashing. By looking at the inside, people can have a direct overview of the toilet state. Designed by Oloom in 2008, the whole point of this is explained on their website:

"Eleven glass sides for this toilet whose walls are partly made of liquid cristal glass. Under electric tension, the glass is transparent and the toilet shows its clean and functional inside/interior: the user feels safe and sound. Out of tension, they become opaque: the place is now occupied and the users intimacy guaranteed. An innovative concept to deal with insecurity problems whilst playing with transparency."

An important feature in this design is the presence of a pine tree next to the transparent toilet. This tree has been especially chosen to be planted there because it's aimed at bringing more pleasant smell. A sort of high-tech/low tech combination.

Why do I blog this? An intriguing piece of furniture with curious combinations (the pine tree, the syringe trash can). Is this the Everyware-like city toilet of the future? I don't know but it's certainly interesting to understand more the way the glass gets transparent or opaque. The rules embedded in the system, that I described at the beginning of this post, tells us captivating insights about what is considered as normal or not in society.

Kinder eggs

Interesting piece of packaging here with these Kinder eggs, in a sort of matryoshka twist: like a set of dolls of decreasing sizes placed one inside the other. The yolk-like yellow container, in which a little toy is compacted, is inserted in a chocolate egg.

This piece of artifact is one of these highly intriguing carefully-designed object for several reasons:

• The way the designers manage to create small toys than can fit into this yellow box is imaginative and fascinating. There is even a rolled piece of paper to explain how to build the toys out of the separated pieces: the smaller manual on Earth perhaps. It's also curious to see that this tiny space also have enough room for a small paper-based disclaimer in almost 10 languages.
• The yellow container is a curious objects that can be repurposed for lots of ways (for instance as a container for small items, like coins, or for kids to tinker out weird stuff)
• The toy series, constantly transformed and new, is also an on-going surprise (see for example people who collect them).

Does it tell us something about the future? I don't know but it certainly reveals an interesting example of design with a size constraint here, surely a curious exercise to do "more with less" (and pack it into a yolk-shaped box).

Wifi zone

Interesting configuration in Lausanne: a WiFi area (that is indicated through the signage on the wall depicting both the waves and the usage with a laptop) and places to sit with a laptop (the wifi wave are also present there too). A small cluster of high chairs for people who pass by. And yes, it's covered in case of rain. Looking at the chairs show clear sign of dirt and old remnants of cigarettes though.

Why do I blog this? urban scouting in Lausanne today led me to investigate this area. The design intent here is to support new forms of activities in our contemporary cities. I love the signage on the wall. The direction of the wave is clearly going from the user to the cloud. I see this as an echo of the "creative city" meme: it's prosumer/active contributors to the network who are expected to use their laptops here.

Digital close to physical

Seen at the office today.

When the digital (in the form of a DVD that contains drivers and software) needs to be put close to the physical (this scanner) through the magical use of duct tape. DVD like this often gets lost although they're generally needed, a quick trick to avoid losing it is to keep it close to the physical items it is related to.

The role of theory in ethnographically-informed design research

The use of ethnographical methods in design research here and there out of academic circles brings back the question of the role of "theory", and its articulation with research methodologies and techniques. This is a recurring topic with clients, research colleagues and I've seen it popping on mailing lists such as anthrodesign.

Before jumping to the differentiation between theory and methodologies, it's important to acknowledge that there is no just "one" ethnography. The use of this term, especially in business circles, is not fair. It's as if it is was a general container to provide engineers/strategists/designers with a one-way solution for their problem at hand. An article such as "fieldwork and ethnography: a perspective from CSCW" by Harper et al. (to be found in the EPIC 2005 proceedings) gives an introduction to some of them.

"Part of the trouble has to do with the fact that the word ethnography can be used somewhat capriciously for a whole range of purposes; as a label used by some for practices to be jealously defended; a label used to give renewed vigor, even fashionability for an old trade, fieldwork; and at other times a label used to defend pointless hanging around. What ethnography is, though it clearly has some kind of character, is not at all clear"

The paper basically shows that there are different distinction based on disciplinary assumptions about methods, theories and sensibilities. The authors picked up 4 texts (Cognitive Work Analysis by Vicente, Contextual Inquiry by Beyer and Holzblatt, Designing Collaborative Systems by Crabtree, and Marcus' Ethnography through Thick and Thin) and show how they represent different viewpoints: a ‘cognitive science’ viewpoint; a ‘practical’ approach; an ethnomethodological perspective, and a postmodern alternative. They show how that each of them reflects different orientations and sensibilities and not only refer to which methods to choose and how to look at "data". The paper also suggests to use the term "field work" instead than "ethnography" since the former is better suited to the activity carried out in design research.

Who are the protagonists at stake here? Let's say that we can distinguish 3 components:

• Theories of science analyze the condition of production of knowledge from a philosophical viewpoint. Example: positivist view (authentic knowledge is that based on actual sense experience), more critical approach

. Then, there are finer-scaled theories that act as subset of the general theories of science: Chomsky's Generative Grammar, Sperber's relevance theory of human communication, Suchman's Situated Action theory, Media theory about framing, etc.

• Methodologies describe the general ways about how to carry out research. Based on considerations emerging from theories, methodologies propose a set of methods. Example: qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis
• Methods that are general ways to study a class of phenomena, based on theoretical tools (how about how articulate data and theories) and techniques (recipes to acquire, transform, analyze data).

In the context of design research, the situation is a bit more specific given that it corresponds to (1) a qualitative and, generally, (2) an inductive model of research. It's qualitative as it tries to uncover cases that can be selected according to whether they typify (or not), specific characteristics or contextual locations. It's also generally inductive because general principles (yes, theories) can be developed from specific observations (as opposed to other forms of research which are based on hypothesis-testing). I tried to list the link between empirical research and theories in this context:

• Certain theories can frame the research and give an idea of what one is trying to achieve and look for. Or, as formulated by Harper et al.:"disciplinary ‘sensibilities’ may allow us to produce a set of broad, ‘sensitising’ or ‘illuminating’ concepts, starting points that can serve as reminders that some kinds of thing are often to be found whilst not diverting us from our equally powerful interest in what is uniquely ‘situated’ about what we are studying. In short, provide us with a ‘way of looking’". What it means is that it allows to efficiently synthesize, interpret and sort out insights. In sum, it orients the research.
• The goal of this research is to generate a theory, Beyond describing and exploring the context at hand, it's also to articulate principles or more general notions or rules, and understand a culture based on certain aspects. To some extent, building a theory can be a research goal.

Of course, this is a quick summary and there is more to it. This is all and good but people interested by design research may want to know more about what theories or theoretical spin they might want to employ. Ranging from Ethnomethodology to Interactionism or Grounded Theory and Activity Theory, there is plenty of possibilities here and I won't enter into much details in this blogpost.

What is interesting is perhaps the discussion about which sort of theoretical twist are employed in "design research". In HCI and CSCW, which have a strong ethnographically-informed design approach, it seems that ethnomethodology is very common and french ergonomics is all about Activity Theory (and modified versions). Other approach this without any reference to theories, such as Jan Chipchase's work at Nokia Design which is fairly descriptive and exploratory. Again, as I stated above, there is no "one way" here, the important thing is to find the method the researcher is comfortable with in conjunction with he/she and the design team think is relevant for the time being. On my side, I do think that an approach such as "Grounded Theory" by Strauss and Corbin is pertinent and flexible enough for design research.

Visual marker on the sidewalk

Interesting encounter in a one-day trip to Paris this morning: a visual marker, complemented with a unified resource locator on the pavement of Paris, close to Place de la Bastille. Aimed at mobile phone owners who will surely be led to the url.

What's intriguing here?

• a curious merging of the digital and the physical that depends on the viewer: at first, having a mobile phone or not, you see the digital representation only through the form of an index (the url or the marker). It's only if you use the phone that you can access to the genuine digital layer
• the presence of the marker in the environment, surely an interesting design issue to be contrasted to representation on posters or marker on magazines (smaller surface that you hand out to other performs, while the sidewalk marker is static.
• the horizontality of the surface: you have to look at the sidewalk and point it with your phone.
• the repetition of the url showing different levels and moment of engagement with the content referred to by these inscriptions
• and the practice of spraying visual market on the pavement per se

Paper in contemporary cities

Different forms of paper-handling solutions in Geneva, Zürich and Seoul: (pieces of paper maintainted by a piece of string in Zürich)

(paper bin in Geneva)

(Huge and compressed stacks of paper, once collected, in Geneva)

(Failed attempt to recycle shredded paper, in Geneva)

(Shredded paper in plastic bags, in Seoul)

Why do I blog this? documenting the different forms of recycle papers in our cities is always curious. It basically shows how a certain material moves through different instantiations as well as the recycling norms or practices: the use of strings in Switzerland is very common with or without a big paper bin, the importance of collecting shredded papers (and the inherent accident, as shown in the photo in Geneva) or plastic bags with certain colors. All of this nicely represents both cultural norms, organizational processes and artifacts that people have put in place to maintain this recycling flow. It's important to keep in mind that this is where toilet papers, newspapers and books come from.

Tools to analyze weak signals

Spent last friday in Zürich presenting the Lift screening process and trend analysis with Holm Friebe's class at the Design Hochschule. The morning was about the Lift Conference, more specifically about our process to scout for speakers and ideas, to set a theme and work it out. The message was that the wide range of signals (ideas, memes, "trends", technologies, social phenomena, scientific discoveries, etc.) and inscriptions (books, magazine, blogposts, articles, academic papers) is scanned and filtered through different criteria: preference towards social implications than technologies for the sake of technologies, avoidance of technological determinism (as much as we can), stepping a bit from terms that are too *hip* (such as "web2.0"), etc. In the afternoon, we took some time to discuss different tools to filter the signals and forms of change. The tools are actually quite common and stem from the mix of methods we encountered in our work/readings/studies and meetings with lots of people. Most of the conversation addressed the use of s-curve, coming from diffusion theories of innovation. It shows how adoption is slow at first (depicted by a flat curve at the beginning of the time period) till a tipping point (the steep curve mid-way) and a plateau. This last phase corresponds to the adoption of the technology by adopters (which does not correspond to everyone on earth). To put it shortly, the s-curve is a way to represent the number of people who adopt a technology over a particular time period. As C. Christensen puts it, "it states that in a technology’s early stages, the rate of progress in performance is relatively slow. As the technology becomes better understood, controlled, and diffused, the rate of technological improvement increases . But the theory posits that in its mature stages, the technology will asymptotically approach a natural or physical limit, which requires that ever greater periods of time or inputs of engineering effort be expended to achieve increments of performance improvement"

Of course, we should distinguish the different ways to use s-curves. You have the sociological use where you draw the s-curve with real-data of technology adoption (as described in here). But you also have a more metaphorical use of the curve, which is the one we discussed in the course. Using a s-curve in this context is relevant to structure the discussion about where an innovation (technology, social change, etc.) stands at a certain moment in time, where it came from and where it might be in the future.

A good way to start drawing an s-curve, in the context of such discussion, is to look at different information sources: you can for example map data points depending on the information source represented on the following figure:

As one can see on the two figure above, there are two important points in s-curves:

• The beginning: that I exemplify through these 2 quotes by Paul Saffo and William Gibson. They simply show that s-curves' beginning are already here and the point is to spot them through different data sources (be they readings, field studies or always-on attitude.
• The tipping point: the moment in time when the rate of adoption increases, which depends both on technological improvements and, above all, on "contextual" issues such as " the active participation of all those who have decided to develop it" (see Bruno Latour's work about the "model of interessement"). On a methodological note here, I would say that the use of s-curve in conjunction with Latour's work may be a bit flawed. Will need to think this through later on.

Another way to see an s-curve and to discuss how to apply it to a certain innovation is to adopt a people/user/market viewpoint:

This standpoint can also be summarized by these three phases of idea/meme/technology adoption (based on Scardigli's work):

1. Phase 1: The “time of prophecy and fantasy” (enthusiastic or terrifying) where revolutions are predicted and technique is “inserted socially” (right after invention and R&D). It correlates with a discourse around the hopes and fears linked to these issues which are recurring in history. What happen is that fantasy, scientific knowledge and actions are intertwined and even the weakest signal is turned into an excessive hope or fear. Prophecies become necessities and then self-justificated. Some example: "3D web platforms like Second Life will change the Web forever", "Mobile social software will be a revolution", etc.
2. Phase 2: The “delusion phase” that suggest how the expected technological revolution does not lead to a social revolution. Or, when we realize that there is a gap between forecasts and realizations/effects. At the same time, some people start appropriating, adapting, using the idea/meme/technology differently. This is generally less publicized as the press thinks that the "innovation is a fad" and it's not worth talking about it.
3. Phase 3: “the side-effect phase”: 20 or 40 years after, the real diffusion of the technique is effective and some social and more long term consequences appear but often different from the one expected at first. This is what happened with the video-phone, it never really worked as a independent box at home but people are now using it on their laptop through Skype; and it allows interesting new social dynamics and usages.

Of course, back to the evolution of technologies, you can also take a "sales" viewpoint: if you look at the rates of acquisition/sales instead of the adoption. For each product, you then this sort of succession of curves that represents cycles of adoption (video game consoles in this case):

Finally, we also discussed the importance to consider the large diversity of human behavior, which was depicted by this well-known Bell curve that I've taken from a book by Don Norman (who actually took it from G. Moore's book "Crossing the chasm").

What we can draw from this curve is that:

• There is diversity, not juste "one normal human"
• People who are at the beginning of s-curves are the early adopters.
• You can be an early adopter for a certain topic (iphones) and a conservative person for others.
• Besides, this curve also relates to the previous representations in the sense that the s-curve can be seen as being made up a series of 'bell curves' of different sections of a population adopting different versions of a certain product

Why do I blog this? trying to formalize a bit the tools we used the other day is interesting as it forces to describe why and how they're relevant. It's important to point out, though, that these tools are definitely not a perfect algorithm/process to give you the answer about “how a signal would evolve into a fad or a success". Instead, they should be seen as a a way to structure the discussion of signals and topics we collect. Which is why I smiled when, few streets ahead in Zürich, I stumbled across the name of this company:

Thanks Holm for the opportunity!

Pervasive games book

It seems that the book "Pervasive Games: Theory and Design - Experiences on the Boundary between Life and Play " by Markus Montola, Jaakko Stenros and Annika Waer (editors) is finally out, published by Morgan Kauffman:

"Quickly emerging from the fast-paced growth of mobile communications and wireless technologies, pervasive games provide a worldwide network of potential play spaces. Now games can be designed to be played in public spaces like streets, conferences, museums and other non-traditional game venues – and game designers need to understand the world as a medium—both its challenges and its advantages.

This book shows how to change the face of play—who plays, when and where they play and what that play means to all involved. The authors explore aspects of pervasive games that concern game designers: what makes these games compelling, what makes them possible today, how they are made and by whom. For theorists, it provides a solidtheoretical, philosophical and aesthetic grounding of their designs.

Pervasive Games covers everything from theory and design to history and marketing. Designers will find 13 detailed game descriptions, a wealth of design theory, examples from dozens of games and a thorough discussion of past inspirations—directly from the game designers themselves."

Why do I blog this? just saw this on, need to get it and peruse this interesting compendium of case-studies (Killer, Insectopia, Botfighters, Uncle Roy, etc.). People interested can also listen to the podcast by the editors.

Space, from above

"By looking at the satellite image we extract ourselves from our particular point of view, yet without, bouncing up to the bird's eye view; we have no access to the divine view, the view from nowhere. We go from our bounded view to a sliding view that will carry us from a labyrinth of transformations to the general frame in which our daily action is set – and that will never be more than a few square centimetres big. The frame has the same dimension, in a sense, as the object it frames. The big is no bigger than the small"

"Paris ville invisible" by Bruno Latour and Emilie Hermant (1998).

Why do I blog this? writing a piece with Julian about urban computing leads me to revisit this nice book by Latour.

Johanna Brewer about ethnography and design

Back to EPFL today for a lecture by Johanna Brewer about "What can ethnography do for technology?". She basically presented how ethnography, as a methodological strategy, is relevant for design in the context of her PhD projects. Johanna did her PhD with Paul Dourish at UCI Irvine and she recently launched a new start-up called frestyl (in the mobile/web music business).

After a brief introduction of *what is ethnography*, she showed how Human-Computer Interaction, initially based in Computer Science, evolved to include cognitive psycho concepts with a quantitative understanding of how humans interact with technology. Researchers recognized that this approach, though fruitful for certain purposes, could be complemented by others, such as ethnography. Which is *Ethnography met HCI*: as technology has become ubiquitous, multi-purpose, embedded, social, there was trend to move beyond lab-based studies of individuals and instead understand social use of technology. The point was then to leverage ethnographic techniques to seek inspiration for new designs. This quick summary was interesting but I think it partly ignores the use of ethnographically-inspired method in the broader context of design (that happened in parallel).

Johanna then summarized what *ethnography can do for HCI*:

1. broadening the notions of requirements gathering
2. understanding social context of service increases chances of adoption (rather than just the use of technology)
3. creating new engaging experiences (things that move beyond practices people are already doing, push the envelope, push the boundaries)
4. inspired by real-world social interaction

In human-computer interaction, the way ethnography is employed is different than its earlier roots in anthropology: field study is shorter (week-long rather than year-long but the rationale is that one day is better than no days at all!), there is a deep/narrow focus on particular setting (what's like to ride the public transport in lausanne?), study of target users, with an eye towards technology design, not just understanding culture for the sake of it. Which led her to delineate two scopes: "open-ended, exploratory, revolutionary" versus "target, tailored, techno-centric" (look at a particular setting, or at particular features to be changed).

A big part of the presentation was then a description of the different techniques, which she categorized in two clusters:

• Traditional methods: participant observation (and the importance of taking personal field notes), photography, video, interviews
• Innovative methods: defamiliarization (looking at your culture with fresh eyes), people shadowing (following a person (often with consent), documenting their actions, in-situ discussions, ask "stupid" things: Why did you push that button here?), object shadowing (following things instead of people, like newspaper dropped on the tube in London), disrupting and intervention (shaking up a social situation and observing the result), cultural and technological probes (low-fi/hi-fi design interventions: exploring people's reactions, probe a situation, once you have designed something)

After a brief description of the analysis part (documentation is analyzed through coding: looking for common themes in data), she presented the existence of various outcomes: a plan for follow-up ethnographic study (as it allowed to ask more questions), general guidelines for futures technologies, concept design, implementation of prototype, fully realized product. And all of this can take a large range of format: written document, video, photographic essay, design response/prototype to demonstrate ethnographic work.

She then showed various examples taken from her work. I enjoyed the part about how she chose the sample group for her interviews.

(undersound is one of the project that emerged from Johanna and her colleagues' ethnographic research)

She used what she called "theoretical sampling": chose a theoretically interesting sample of people (rather than statistically representative) who are interested by the experience of the context she was exploring (the tube). I was also intrigued by how she looked for inspiration for design, not guidelines, something that I was not surprised of given that this was the reason why I invited her PhD advisor to Lift last year. Her point was that ethnography can give an impetus that what you design is culturally relevant as it roots your design in cultural underpinnings "when you go to a place and talk to people, you design sth that is relevant for them (and it also makes them appreciate what you do)".

Why do I blog this an interesting overview that is certainly useful as I am preparing a course about these issues for next year's class at the design school in Geneva.