Thanks. I gave it its own page.
tigoe

Dourish - Where the Action Is

Josh

I have no criticisms, but a thought kept running through my head as I was reading this: Which of these concepts, if any, have potential? How can we judge if they have potential? When the perfect solution comes along, will we instantly know that it's the perfect solution? Or will we begrudgingly accept it at first and eventually forget how we ever lived without it? I ask because none of these stood out as ideal solutions. (Imagine having to stare straight downward onto a desk to see a projection coming from the ceiling. How is this an improvement upon a wall projection? I think it's a big step backward, because it still confines us to the desk. I think the whole point of renewing the human-computer interface is to free us from chairs and desks.)

Concerning the VR vs Ubiquitous Computing argument, I think I happened upon the answer (at least, I realized my own preference) while reading this. I read it with another book, "The Social Life of Information," at my side. I thumbed through the book to find themes similar to those in Dourish, trying to pull quotes from it so that I could cite them here and sound smart. The book's index was insufficient, so I went to Amazon and searched for text that I knew to be in the book. THEN, once I got the page number, I picked up the real book and read it (even though the whole page was already on my monitor). People love the power that computers give them. However, we still prefer physical things over intangible objects. Having the power of a computer injected into a clothbound book would be far better than "virtual reading."

Matt

Ed

The most interesting point I took away from this article is that we are now 1/2 way from the "here" described in this piece and the "there" they suggest we'll get to. We have, often, several channels for data - nearly ubiquitous. We also have many means for ambient info displays and tangible computing. So what has worked and what isn't working, and how do we address the implementations of new technologies using the successes?

Here are my notes from the piece:

"Interaction with screen and keyboard, for instance, tends to demand our direct attention; we have to look at the screen to see what we're doing, which involves looking away from whatever other elements are in our environment, including other people."

Ubiquitous computing stands to radically reinforce or alter this. How / why? I'm curious about what the ramifications are and how the incorporation of computing "all around us" can allow us NOT to spend more time swapping time interacting with people for time interacting with machines.

"The rise of the personal computer - and, more broadly, of personal computing - was an attempt to break away from the ten-dominant paradigm of mainframe computing."

The network is the computer, as they say. W/ web services are we returing to this, except on a much broader scale?

"Why not put computation wherever it might be needed?" THAT IS THE QUESTION! What is "need"? Today's teenagers "need" a cell phone at all times; need is contextualized.

"A single user might have, at his or her disposal, tens or more of the inch-sied devices, just as we might have many post-it notes dotterd around, stuck to computer screens, walls, books"

No offense, but this line of thinking is horrible. It works w/ post--its because they're disposable, have high resolution, and are easily accessed and thrown away - things a PDA-like unit are not! Moreover, a major trend in mobile devices (convergence) indicates that users want *less* devices, not more.

"Information is expected to be able to move around between different devices."

This makes sense for displays, but issues of security/privacy and personalization mean that people will want their *environment* to move along with their data. This is a wholly different challenge.

Interestingly, people seem to prefer phone mtg's, perhaps so they don't have to look decent for their boss (and vice versa) at a moment's notice?

"Similarly, if the room 'knows' that there is a meeting in progress, then it can take that information itno account to generate an apprpriiate configuration."

This seems to ignore that we're really talking about sensors, data, and code - the "meaning" we derive or assign, and the associated actions taken as a result, are contingent on *us* and how we design the applications.

"The other, perhaps most important, piece of context it made use of was the fact that it was the Reactive Room."

Please note that this also means people changed their behavior to fit their understandings of the expectations of the room - whether those be in accordance with meetings or not.

"A related issue is how tangible interaction transforms the sequential nature of interaction at the interface."

See multitasking - how many of us have accidentally copied something into the wrong IM window before?

Josh

Ed

ed?

Ed?

gilad

In response to David's experience of drawing with a mouse - I've been thinking about the image of computer use that I remember (hazily) from the film "Minority Report". I remember people interacting with a large glass stand-alone screen. Kind of like the screens we see actors use in films when they're pretending to be generals directing combat operations in a 'war room'. What I like so much about this interface is that the user is on her feet, and can interact with the computer by moving her body through space. It seems to me that this would be a great interface for designers, artists, etc. I tend to get stuck in my head when using a computer. The static position of the body can encourage tunnel vision in terms of creative thinking. There is no variety in spatial attitude - it becomes overfocussed and all direct effort (to use Laban language), no indirect effort. I feel like I could improvise with speed, surprise myself, shift point of view with this kind of interface. I could literally dance with my software application.

In response to the digital desk, although I like the fact that this means that I would have a more varied and dynamic interface than screen/keyboard/mouse, it does still mean that I would be constantly staring at digital projection (probably in a darkened environment, so I can see the projection clearly), which might get to me after a while... I guess the ultimate in ubiquitous comuting is when the computers become invisible, and the environment is actually enhanced, instead of just replicated (in a more expensive and error-prone way). Perhaps this vision of ubiquitous computing needs to come hand in hand with progress in renewable sources of local energy? Those batteries have to be disposed of somehow, and after all, it's all going to be useless if the power goes down.

In response to Gilad's comment about Second Life, I attended the same talk, and it kind of blew my mind, also... but I'm really not sure whether this is actually a social reverse (or advance). I've never been into gaming or VR, and I have no facts to base this on, but I'll hazard a guess that the people who like to spend a lot of time in Second Life are the same people who would have been playing a lot of Dungeons and Dragons 20-30 years ago, or spending hours reading Tolkein and Isaac Asimov. I'm really not sure if spending hours in Second Life is so much worse than spending hours in either of this other activities? They're all fantasy lands, and share the same degree of physical inactivity. In fact Second Life is more creative in a way, because you can generate the world as you go, and the only limit is your imagination. And the inhabitants of Second Life are interacting with each other. In fact, it looks like an amazing visual representation of all the desires, expectations and assumptions of contemporary culture. True, it's not pretty... but it'll make a good psychology thesis for someone.

Ed?

I think that the trend of ubiquitous computing is a logical step forward, and am greatful to be a part of this generation which will probably go through many stages of rapidly evolving technology, until the technology itself will become 'invisible', as stated. But I do think that we have to be very cautious as to how we approach all this new and **** technology. Like David, I also am very interested in these two approaches to the relationship between computers, people and the world - Virtual Reality VS. Ubiquitous Computing. Virtual Reality is a great tool but at the same time extremely dangerous. I've recently been to a lecture about a fairly new software - Secondlife. Just from their title - 'Your World, Your Imagination' - its obvious to grasp the danger in this type of software. Seeing the demo of this software, I can easily imagine people sinking into these imaginary worlds because they are, in a way, a cooler place to live. The fact is that there are already people living in this 'Seconlife' world, and making their yearly salary through their virtual characters online (the most successful currently making 300K yearly). Just insane.

I think that the trend of ubiquitous computing is a logical step forward, and am greatful to be a part of this generation which will probably go through many stages of rapidly evolving technology, until the technology itself will become 'invisible', as stated. But I do think that we have to be very cautious as to how we approach all this new and **** technology. Like David, I also am very interested in these two approaches to the relationship between computers, people and the world - Virtual Reality VS. Ubiquitous Computing. Virtual Reality is a great tool but at the same time extremely dangerous. I've recently been to a lecture about a fairly new software - http://www.secondlife.com]|[Secondlife. Just from their title - 'Your World, Your Imagination' - its obvious to grasp the danger in this type of software. Seeing the demo of this software, I can easily imagine people sinking into these imaginary worlds because they are, in a way, a cooler place to live. The fact is that there are already people living in this 'Seconlife' world, and making their yearly salary through their virtual characters online (the most successful currently making 300K yearly). Just insane.

david

Sometimes I wonder if all this longing for super-interactive tools all around us is maybe too much. Can there ever exist a 'paperless office'? The technology is there already, but there still are some activities where we cannot substitute paper with anything else. Paper has many personal properties, many relating to our memory. Personally, when I look at a piece of paper, I tend to subconciously memorize layouts and position of text on the sheet. For me, this trigger of photographic memory happens is not as strong on the computer screen.

I think that the trend of ubiquitous computing is a logical step forward, and am greatful to be a part of this generation which will probably go through many stages of rapidly evolving technology, until the technology itself will become 'invisible', as stated. But I do think that we have to be very cautious as to how we approach all this new and **** technology. Like David, I also am very interested in these two approaches to the relationship between computers, people and the world - Virtual Reality VS. Ubiquitous Computing. Virtual Reality is a great tool but at the same time extremely dangerous. I've recently been to a lecture about a fairly new software - www.secondlife.com]|[Secondlife?. Just from their title - 'Your World, Your Imagination' - its obvious to grasp the danger in this type of software. Seeing the demo of this software, I can easily imagine people sinking into these imaginary worlds because they are, in a way, a cooler place to live. The fact is that there are already people living in this 'Seconlife' world, and making their yearly salary through their virtual characters online (the most successful currently making 300K yearly). Just insane.

gilad

cory

I remember the promise that computers (macs) held for me in 1987, tortured through my Art School days of inking velum, using plastic ellipses and flexible curves to ink a line only to smudge in because I am cursed to be a lefty. Then someone brought in a Mac SE30 and I discovered Illustrator (88). Suddenly my curves were bezier and quite impossible to smudge (if not to delete). I was quick to embrace, but not questions the "mouse" I just accepted that I had to draw with, let's face it a bar of soap.

So, to me that is how we were all convinced... learn this way and life will be better. Alas, I still cannot draw better with a mouse than a No.2 pencil.

I very much enjoyed the writing about Virtual reality vs. "Physical Virtuality". As cool as VR seems, I like much better the idea of ubiquitous computing. The multimedia computer is a needless block of inertia, we sit in front of it and it seems more as if we are serving it than the other way round. So what is the answer? I think that we would be happier if we could interact with the computer all over our home and out into the world, not by sitting down and staring at a screen but by dictating and making choices verbally and visually in the context of what we are doing. Each piece of the puzzle would fit with the other and the computations power would be specialized. The idea of these separate devices coming together to a "unified effect" is very attractive because there are so many distractions and small amount of wasted time because activities in our lives are not coordinated or remembered by any kind of helper device or application.

The desktop metaphor has survived not because of it brilliance, but because we are not questioning it as much as we should. To be happy with the statis quo is not an indicator of a good design that has stood the test of time, but of a business model that supports staying in one place. As it's been said, "good is the enemy of great"

david

cory

judson

I saw a lot of ITP projects described in here: The feather project reminds me of the one in the main floor area and also Mark Argo's hugms, and the string connected to a motor that moves in response to ethernet traffic is a lot like Tom's own email/clock project.

I really liked when Tom mentioned that a good tool should "recede," allowing the user to focus on the action/expression rather than the object being used for the expression. I don't know if I've done a good enough job of following this philosophy when making my own device, instrument, tool project, but I can see that the idea fits in very well with what Douris is saying, both about tangible bits and ubiquitous computing. I think an important take-away is that we should be making devices that take advantage of the benefits of virtual bits, but that also are well-designed (and specialized) enough that we are able to use them intuitively for the expression/action intended.

cory?

the neat thing about the Digital Desktop is that anyone could walk up and decide this is the tool for my job. the ownership aspect is really just for the IRS or theft, not intrinsic to the tool. The tool could still contain "profiles" but its successful operation is in no way addresses propriety. a refridgerator just stores food that needs to be kept cold. you CAN write your name on the milk carton, but few of us do. if the label is too hard to make out for a color blind person, the refridge keeps the milk cold all the same, is still useful to to them. there's no need to involve the text here.

however, ubiquitous computing in general is neat but could also easily turn into surveillance and big brother watching you. it puts a lot of emphasis on sharing info and avoids the issue of private info, and treats everything as either an all or nothing ownership. sometimes a tool shouldn't have that aspect, but give the choice over entirely to the user. a screwdriver has no inherant personal/public property issues. it could be used for either prying open a locked door or sealing a box shut, but mostly it is for completely neutral jobs. the super's brother tightening the screws on your front door actually sets aside the personal issues for a moment and simply concentrates on making the door work better. who it keeps in/out is an abstract construct of secondary concern to the user of a screw driver. having your screw driver engraved with your name is rarely considered and does not enhance the use in any way. whereas password protection is used (by osx and windows) to keep novices without admin priveledges from messing up the system.

the neat thing about the Digital Desktop is that anyone could walk up and decide this is the tool for my job. the ownership aspect is really just for the IRS or theft, not intrinsic to the tool. The tool could still contain "profiles" but its successful operation is in no way addresses propriety.

ubiquitous computing in general is neat but could also easily turn into surveillance and big brother watching you. it puts a lot of emphasis on sharing info and avoids the issue of private info, and treats everything as either an all or nothing ownership. sometimes a tool shouldn't have that aspect, but give the choice over entirely to the user. a screwdriver has no inherant personal/public property issues. it could be used for either prying open a locked door or sealing a box shut, but mostly it is for completely neutral jobs. the super's brother tightening the screws on your front door actually sets aside the personal issues for a moment and simply concentrates on making the door work better. who it keeps in/out is an abstract construct of secondary concern to the user of a screw driver.

what are folks waiting for!? there's a great idea here that's been gathering dust since the 60's. granted, using the projector/camera combo (from above? easy fix) has fundamental OCR/AI problems. but why is math fundamental to computing? why not simply for graphics/layout? allow text as a rendered image, but no need to read it. imagine photoshop and quark/freehand totally devoid of language dependencies, manipulated by intuitive gestures. squeeze an img to make it smaller. no learning curve or steps to remember. the computer needn't read or understand anything but RGB levels. for those who like text entry, they can still buy a computer. for those who think in pictures, dislexics, non-native speakers, etc. a new Digital Desk would be an ideal tool. i bet there'd be a way to even create a rudimentary pseudo-IDE, in the way Flash isn't at all C++, but does support IF... THEN, FOR decisions. bet it could be combined with MAX. arranging a graphic flowchart from popup choices, no text entry required. (like Flash, it wouldn't need to do things like make specific calls to lower level functions, because that's not something that makes tool useful to the vast majority of these people)

ubiquitous computing in general is neat but could also easily turn into surveillance and big brother watching you. it puts a lot of emphasis on sharing info and avoids the issue of private info. sometimes a tool shouldn't have that aspect, but give the choice over entirely to the user. a screwdriver has no inherant personal/public property issues. it could be used for either prying open a locked door or sealing a box shut, but mostly it is for completely neutral jobs. the super's brother tightening the screws on your front door actually sets aside the personal issues for a moment and simply concentrates on making the door work better. who it keeps in/out is an abstract construct of secondary concern to the user of a screw driver.

(i moved this down, thinking it might make finding the other stuff easier. but tom can always re-organize this however -judson)

Hoffman, Visual Intelligence, ch. 7, pp.172-184

(i moved this down, thinking it might make finding the other stuff easier. but tom can put this wherever -judson)

Paul Dourish - Where the Action Is

Dourish says, "Imagine what it would be like if any other technology had undergone such rapid advances in price/performance."

This seems very rudimentary, but this really let my imagination go wild - disposable cars, space travel, augmented reality TVs, etc. So why not a new I/O scheme with a computer?

I'm intrigued by Weiser's concept of "ubiquitous computing" and I feel that as technologists we have the responsibility to provide people with a better way to do things, even if they resist. But often marketing overtakes the ubiquitous computing ideal. If you buy a Mac or iPod, for example, you buy into a lifestyle - just look how good-looking and hip the people in the commercials are. You are buying the ability to sit in Washington Square park and compose a song in GarageBand or burn DVDs for your friends of your road trip to the world's largest donut stand. You have a sense of ownership, whereas an automatic door in a grocery store reacts to your presence and makes your life easier, but you can't own it.

But to quote Tom from a Wiki discussion, "For me, I think it comes down to the fact that functionality lasts, fashion doesn't." I think he's right. The functionality of the keyboard and mouse has lasted. But people have to feel that a device fits into their "personality" in some way.

I believe people hate to be sold, but they love to buy. Without the desire to use a technology it is destined to fail, and it seems that functionality on its own does not fill that desire.

gjh235

what are folks waiting for!? there's a great idea here, that's been gathering dust since the 60's. granted using the projector/camera combo (from above? easy fix) has fundamental OCR/AI problems. but why math? why not simply for graphics/layout? allow text as a rendered image, but no need to read it. imagine photoshop and quark/freehand totally devoid of language dependencies, manipulated by intuitive gestures. squeeze an img to make it smaller. no learning curve or steps to remember. the computer needn't read or understand anything but RGB levels. for those who like text entry, they can still buy a computer. for those who think in pictures, dislexics, non-native speakers, etc. a new Digital Desk would be an ideal tool. i bet there'd be a way to even create a rudimentary pseudo-IDE, in the way Flash isn't at all C++, but does support IF... THEN, FOR decisions. bet it could be combined with MAX. arranging a graphic flowchart from popup choices, no text entry required.

instead of naming files, maybe it would just recall the top 10 most frequent colors. you'd choose from a color wheel and it'd show all the files that use that color a lot. i dunno, but perhaps the move from text to graphics stopped only part way. Dourish wonders a lot why computers, though having changed specs drastically, haven't really changed in the way we work with them. (thiough that's maybe arguable. for instance, imagine the swarm of bloggers who did not feel privy to using a BBS, though these things are really only cosmetic differences about 15 years apart. the habits of users hasn't really changed but has shifted. the computer is still on a desk, but the desk is now in the living room, not just the office.

judson

Paul Dourish - Where the Action Is

Dourish says, "Imagine what it would be like if any other technology had undergone such rapid advances in price/performance."

This seems very rudimentary, but this really let my imagination go wild - disposable cars, space travel, augmented reality TVs, etc. So why not a new I/O scheme with a computer?

I'm intrigued by Weiser's concept of "ubiquitous computing" and I feel that as technologists we have the responsibility to provide people with a better way to do things, even if they resist. But often marketing overtakes the ubiquitous computing ideal. If you buy a Mac or iPod, for example, you buy into a lifestyle - just look how good-looking and hip the people in the commercials are. You are buying the ability to sit in Washington Square park and compose a song in GarageBand or burn DVDs for your friends of your road trip to the world's largest donut stand. You have a sense of ownership, whereas an automatic door in a grocery store reacts to your presence and makes your life easier, but you can't own it.

But to quote Tom from a Wiki discussion, "For me, I think it comes down to the fact that functionality lasts, fashion doesn't." I think he's right. The functionality of the keyboard and mouse has lasted. But people have to feel that a device fits into their "personality" in some way.

I believe people hate to be sold, but they love to buy. Without the desire to use a technology it is destined to fail, and it seems that functionality on its own does not fill that desire.

gjh235

Hoffman, Visual Intelligence, ch. 7, pp.172-184

Nørretranders, User Illusion, ch. 6, "The Bandwidth of Consciousness"

The NYU bookstore will be selling it as an online pack. To buy it, go to the bookstore, and ask for it. They'll sell you an access code, which you can then use to download the readings as PDFs. Because they couldn't secure the rights to the last reading in time, there will be a supplemental coursepack available a bit later in the semester.

Norman, Emotional Design, Chapter 1, "Attractive Things Work Better".

Myron Krueger, "Responsive Environments", in Packer & Jordan, Multimedia: From Wagner to Virtual Reality, ch. 12, pp. 104-120

A note on the coursepack:

 The NYU bookstore will be selling it as an online pack. To buy it, go to the bookstore, and ask for it.  They'll sell you an access code, which you can then use to download the readings as PDFs.  Because they couldn't secure the rights to the last reading in time, there will be a supplemental coursepack available a bit later in the semester.

You might also check with second-year students, since last year's coursepack contains all the articles for this year.\\

I moved all the Buxton and Crawford comments to their own page.
tigoe

Norman, Design of Everyday Things, ch. 1 (in coursepack)\\

tigoe

Norman, Design of Everyday Things, ch. 1 (in coursepack) Norman, Emotional Design, Chapter 1, "Attractive Things Work Better".

I moved all the Buxton and Crawford comments to their own page.

tigoe

Good points all. My responses here may be a bit scattershot, so bear with me, please:

Regarding Buxton's graph of Moore's Law vs. God's Law:

I don't think Buxton needs to get specific about the actual curve of Moore's Law vs. God's Law. He's not trying to say that humans don't evolve, nor is he arguing about the details of the rate of change of processor speed. The point he was trying to make is that the rate of change of human ability is far less than that of computer speed. Neither graph is mathematically correct, of course, but the overly-simplified graphs do a great job making his point, that when technological complexity exceeds the learning capacity of the person it's intended for, frustration results. Some of you may have had direct experience of this type of frustration in the past couple weeks.

One way we deal with this kind of frustration is to develop layers of abstraction. In other words, we find ways of encapsulating the complexity of some process or device and revealing only its interface. We design computer applications so that ordinary users don't have to deal with the details of managing a database, or an array of pixels or other technically complex tasks. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) are designed to encapsulate common programming tasks so programmers don't have to worry about the details. Programming languages and operating systems are designed to mask the assembly languages of particular processors. Assembly languages are designed to keep low-level programmers from having to memorize or look up the actual operational codes of the processor. Programming as a whole, from the opcode level up, was designed to make it possible for computer scientists to change computers without the aid of electrical engineers. (for more on this, see Danny Hillis' "The Pattern in the Stone". For a decent overview of computing from a non-technical perspective, see Poole, et. al, "History of the Internet: A Chronology, 1843 to the Present".

You can see the process of abstraction in just about any field, from Skinner's "black box" ideas in psychiatry to Stouffer's TV dinners in cooking. In any abstraction, you've got to find a way to make the interface clear and simple, or frustration results. In computer interface design, it's very easy to add functions, because there is little or no physical work to be done; it's all about intellectual work (programming). Graphic interfaces have made this a little less true, because eventually you run out of screen real estate. But as any user of MS Word knows, screen real estate doesn't keep the determined interface team from adding too many features.

What I think is important to take away from Buxton's rant about multi-purpose tools is just this: that it is very easy to go overboard with the features. It is possible to make a program or an interface too general. And that a few well-placed limits makes for a more pleasant and often more effective tool.

A for him blaming engineers for the problem, don't worry, it all balances out in a couple weeks when we read Don Norman, who blames designers for the problem.

Buxton's point about location specific computers is dating itself now, I think, and perhaps not coming across as clearly as it did when he wrote it. This is partially because of the proliferation of mobile computers in the past ten years, I think, and partially because he talks about computers and not computing. I can find a few dozen location-specific computers on the fourth floor of ITP that do their job far better than if they were to be replaced by a general purpose machine: The alarm keypad, the motion-sensitive light switches, the thermostats, the guard check-in pads, the strain sensor loggers for the facade of the building, and many more. When Buxton talks about location-specific computers, this is what I interpret him to mean. These are tasks that need neither the complexity nor the expense of a Pentium and Windows, OSX, or Linux. And they meet the needs for which they were designed beautifully.

I don't see an argument in Buxton that general purpose computers should be replaced. In fact, he says that there are many times when he prefers his Swiss Army knife. But I can see how a quick reading of the article could lead you to see it that way. The point to take home, I think, is that location and task are two very important factors that have traditionally been overlooked in computer interface design.

It's interesting to consider things like the PDA, the PSP, and the cell phone and ask, where is this pattern repeating itself? Gilad cites the Treo as the logical replacement to the Palm, stating that it lends itself to our manual nature. I couldn't disagree more. Typing on a Blackberry or cell phone is a nightmare, and typing on a Treo isn't a whole lot better, for me. In fact, the number of times I've seen use of these devices actually disrupt social interaction is huge. I'd be willing to bet that if I asked one of you to type a name, address, and phone number on a cell phone or Treo, and another of you to write it on a piece of paper, the latter would finish first just about every time. Paper and pencil are technologies that we've adapted to over time, and that we train our children to use from birth, so that their use becomes second (not first) nature. The palm stylus hasn't yet matched that for a number of reasons: first, because the ability of handwriting software is not yet up to par (though it'd getting better). Second, because the friction of the stylus across the screen comes nowhere near that of pen or pencil across paper. Part of learning to write is the muscle memory of that friction. Keyboards are another technology that we've adapted to over generations. Despite that, mobile keypads are difficult for many users, because of the shift in scale and in layout. Many of you may have already developed the manual dexterity to type as fast on a phone as you do on a keyboard, or as fast as you write, but that is a learned ability. To say that we've gotten the phone keyboard right is, I think, a bit premature. We haven't even standardized it yet. What other features of these new computers looks promising? What ones seem like mistakes?

Related question that I'm not sure of the answer: How long had the typewriter been around before the QWERTY keyboard became the industry standard? I know that it was developed to slow typists down in order to prevent key jamming, but I don't know when it was invented relative to the typewriter itself, and when it became standard. Anyone know? Henry Petroski probably wrote about it somewhere.

More on Crawford later...

tigoe

Check out the photos of this game on my blog or experience a simulation of this game in action on this site: http://www.milkandcookies.com/links/22042/

Listen, think and speak are the three major components of interactivity. In computer language, listen is input, think is process, and speak is output. I was enlightened to read that a fridge can be interactive ("The Art of Interactive Design," Crawford). A fridge listens to you when you open it's door, thinks as it switches, and speaks when it lights up. I just played the most remarkable game, called "Nintendog." The console was as small as PSP and the Tetris games, the difference in the experience is the content. In "Nintendog" you could touch the screen and pet the dog, play with him (by throwing a frisbee), and if you blow into the microphone, bubbles magically appear, and your digital dog reacts to them by wagging it's tail. It is a sophisticated version of Tomagachi (those Japanese games of dinosaur eggs), except "Nintendog" is also similar to the SIMS (you can even shop for food, toys, and a dog condo for your dog). The graphics are life-like, unlike SIMS. It's interactivity was so sophisticated, that I was engaged with throwing a digital frisbee for 20 minutes. "Interactivity is superior to all other forms of human expresssion in one way: it engages the human mind more powerfully than any other form of expression" ("Why Bother With Interactivity," Crawford). This is true. I definitely want this game.

Check out the photos of this game on my http://itpannie.blogspot.com/? or experience a simulation of this game in action on this http://www.milkandcookies.com/links/22042/:

"Less is more" in fashion, but not function. When designing tools, one should think about not just the function, but the user's interactivity with it. William Buxton makes a point of analyzing the user's actions; who is using the computer; what are they doing; where are they doing it; when will they be able to use it; why are they using it; and how are they doing it. There definitely seems to be a disconnect between experience and interface. For example, when I use my laptop, the metaphor of the desktop doesn't really physically look like my desktop at home, yet my laptop desktop functions more. Maybe because the location of my computer is in the physical location it's suppose to mimic. Crawford uses examples of the "Shopsmith," which encompasses a saw, sander, drill, drill press and lathe, and a Swiss Army Knife (the portable utilitarian tool handy in every situation." These tools are multi-usage, portable, exhibit in a single location. A food processor which is located in the kitchen would look absurd in the bathroom. I believe it's important to think of certain rituals in certain spaces when designing a tool or computer. Specialization can link to it's physical space. Nevertheless, a successful tool or appliance specializes and diversifies. Crawford supports this with the outstanding design reputation of the Palm Pilot. It understands and addresses human needs. This article is why I went looking for the perfect switch. While the color of my switch (red) is not the desired color because it represents danger or intense passion, it is a "soft press" switch, a trait important to interactivity. I want to integrate tactility and emotion to my designs.

Listen, think and speak are the three major components of interactivity. In computer language, listen is input, think is process, and speak is output. I was enlightened to read that a fridge can be interactive ("The Art of Interactive Design," Crawford). A fridge listens to you when you open it's door, thinks as it switches, and speaks when it lights up. I just played the most remarkable game, called "Nintendog." The console was as small as PSP and the Tetris games, the difference in the experience is the content. In "Nintendog" you could touch the screen and pet the dog, play with him (by throwing a frisbee), and if you blow into the microphone, bubbles magically appear, and your digital dog reacts to them by wagging it's tail. It is a sophisticated version of Tomagachi (those Japanese games of dinosaur eggs), except "Nintendog" is also similar to the SIMS (you can even shop for food, toys, and a dog condo for your dog). The graphics are life-like, unlike SIMS. It's interactivity was so sophisticated, that I was engaged with throwing a digital frisbee for 20 minutes. "Interactivity is superior to all other forms of human expresssion in one way: it engages the human mind more powerfully than any other form of expression" ("Why Bother With Interactivity," Crawford). This is true. I definitely want this game.

Anne ah1232

i think what he meant by "god's law" wasn't the "flat line" of unchangeable abilities of humans. But that the mass total of all these (extremely elemental) adjustments still pretty much stays the same. like if we get tuned more into reacting to changes like when red lights become green, we may also ignore (and let atrophe a little) linguistic abilities. really there are only 24 hours in a day. every hour you use any ability, that is like excersize. no one has time to excersize everything. our abilities are in constant flux. but by "god's law", buxton seems to say the total really doesn't change.

i think what he meant by ""god's law"" wasn't the "flat line" of unchangeable abilities of humans. But that the mass total of all these (extremely elemental) adjustments still pretty much stays the same. like if we get tuned more into reacting to changes like when red lights become green, we may also ignore (and let atrophe a little) linguistic abilities. really there are only 24 hours in a day. every hour you use any ability, that is like excersize. no one has time to excersize everything. our abilities are in constant flux. but by ""god's law"", buxton seems to say the total really doesn't change.

a dwindling attention span over the decades would be hard, nearly impossible, to guage. you hear it is caused by tv, the web, every time something is new. a big factor is that people who study older literature (for example) aren't using the same mental processes as people who randomly come into contact with it. still, 18th century writing tends to be a lot more "flowery", verbose, than modern emails. and most folks just miss a lot when the sentences get longer, the point not clear immediately, there's more "mood/ambiance" than pertanent "info/content". There is a "get to the point" fashion now, which probably actually has no net effect on the amount of information ultimately conveyed. sometimes ambiance provides much more understanding than an address. sometimes the meandering associations of the speaker, tell you a lot more about where they are coming from, why their perspective.

from Christian aka rcc273

i think what he meant by "god's law" wasn't the "flat line" of unchangeable abilities of humans. But that the mass total of all these (extremely elemental) adjustments still pretty much stays the same. like if we get tuned more into reacting to changes like when red lights become green, we may also ignore (and let atrophe a little) linguistic abilities. really there are only 24 hours in a day. every hour you use any ability, that is like excersize. no one has time to excersize everything. our abilities are in constant flux. but by "god's law", buxton seems to say the total really doesn't change.

a dwindling attention span over the decades would be hard, nearly impossible, to guage. you hear it is caused by tv, every time something is new. a big factor is that people who study older literature (for example) aren't using the same mental processes as people who randomly come into contact with it. still, 18th century writing tends to be a lot more "flowery", verbose, than modern emails. and most folks just miss a lot when the sentences get longer, the opoint not clear immediately, there's more "mood/ambiance" than "info". There is a "get to the point" fashion now, which probably actually has no net effect on the amount of information ultimately conveyed. sometimes ambiance is more informative than an address. sometimes the meandering assosiations of the speaker, tell you a lot more where they are coming from.

i dunno. it's true that people often perform well beyond percieved limits (michael jordon comes to mind, for some reason) but when summing up most of us, most of the population, he hardly effects the average. i personally am so bad at basketball, i am cancelling him out in the average.

---

judson aka jgw234

gl637 (aka Gilad) I also wonder about Buxton's introduction of God's law into his capability/ function equation. I was wondering if he was thinking of an average capability among humans and not individuals. It seems to me that people either 1) evolve with the technology 2) adapt to the technology (which would involve the replacement of previously viable capabilities with technological capabilities) or 3) augment their bodies with technology to expand their capability to work with technology (Popular Science has a great article this month "The Future of the Body: Will we merge with machines?" --scary stuff, maybe God's law has no relevance when we start modding our own bodies.)

rcc273 aka Christian

gl637, (why can't we see people's real names? I'm going to have a hard time cataloguing everyone's netID alongside their meatspace name in my brain) I also wonder about Buxton's introduction of God's law into his capability/ function equation. I was wondering if he was thinking of an average capability among humans and not individuals. It seems to me that people either 1) evolve with the technology 2) adapt to the technology (which would involve the replacement of previously viable capabilities with technological capabilities) or 3) augment their bodies with technology to expand their capability to work with technology (Popular Science has a great article this month "The Future of the Body: Will we merge with machines?" --scary stuff, maybe God's law has no relevance when we start modding our own bodies.)

from Christian aka rcc273

gl637, (why can't we see people's real names? I'm going to have a hard time cataloguing everyone's netID alongside their meatspace name in my brain) I also wonder about Buxton's introduction of God's law into his capability/ function equation. I was wondering if he was thinking of an average capability among humans and not individuals. It seems to me that people either 1) evolve with the technology 2) adapt to the technology (which would involve the replacement of previously viable capabilities with technological capabilities) or 3) augment their bodies with technology to expand their capability to work with technology (Popular Science has a great article this month "The Future of the Body: Will we merge with machines?" --scary stuff, maybe God's law has no relevance when we start modding our own bodies.)

ewp221

gl637, (why can't we see people's real names? I'm going to have a hard time cataloguing everyone's netID alongside their meatspace name) I also wonder about Buxton's introduction of God's law into his capability/ function equation. I was wondering if he was thinking of an average capability among humans and not individuals. It seems to me that people either 1) evolve with the technology 2) adapt to the technology (which would involve the replacement of previously viable capabilities with technological capabilities) or 3) augment their bodies with technology to expand their capability to work with technology (Popular Science has a great article this month "The Future of the Body: Will we merge with machines?" --scary stuff, maybe God's law has no relevance when we start modding our own bodies.)

Buxton is on the right track in general, and kind of incomprehensible in his specifics. Gilad is right, the so called ""God's Law"" doesn't make sense. The whole point of learning is that humans aren't stuck in a flat line function for capabilities. We obviously rise to the world's challenges by learning, and over time by the powerful inheritance of culture. Buxton presents a linear increasing graph of functionality as a problem for people. But functionality, to me means that technology is serving us better. So it seems like increases in functionality would enhance human's capabilities. And by the way, Moore's law is certainly not a linear function, rising steadily over time. It's exponential, starting off slowly and rocketing upwards. I do get that Buxton wants to simplify technological growth, but I'm not sure that comparing bad graphs was the right way to go. For me.

Where I think Buxton really misses the important evidence though, is with the personal computer. Sure it's not perfect. Sure we'll be better served by specialized ""browsers"" at some point in the future. But look at how well Xerox PARC got it right to begin with. Humans are highly visual, linguistic and have fine manual dexterity. So of course their computer had a screen, keyboard and mouse. That's everything we're good at so those innovations stuck around. Well that's almost everything we're good at. We're also highly social. The original computer didn't help out much with social communication. With the advent of networking, email and so forth all the basic human features were essentially addressed. Well almost. Humans are bipedal. And with the transition from hardwired desktops to portable wireless laptops nearly complete, our bipedal nature is being properly addressed. It's interesting that Buxton uses the Palm Pilot as an example of a move away from keyboards. The Palm Pilot was portable and visual with a slow ability to parse penned-in characters. It was pretty good for a while because it wonderfully addressed our bipedal needs (and benefited from excellent usability). Recently it has been displaced by smartphones like Palm's highly popular Treo. The Treo adds a keyboard and networked communications to better serve our visual, linguistic, manual social and bipedal nature. So yes, we should strive to do better but no, we should never forget those factors that we've already gotten right.

raf275

Re Crawford, I liked the way he put his definition of interactivity in human, conversational terms, and it set me thinking. I'm not sure if he is differentiating between a reaction and a response. A considered response (or output), that is the result of some thought (processing) is clearly considered "interactivity". But how about a reaction - something that is done without thought, or requires no "processing", just a trigger?

I tried thinking about interactivity as an exchange of energy. Not just a transformation of energy, but an exchange. So, on that basis, is a rug interactive? Well, If I wrap myself in a rug, I may start to feel warmer, as the rug stores some of the heat energy that radiates from me, and I receive some of it back. Not being sure about the energy dynamics of insulation, I'll stop there - any thoughts? Feel free to shoot me down...

3) Throw this book across the room. Measure the distance it traveled and the angle of impact. Draw appropriate conclusions in crayon. Ummm...I don't think my Applecare would cover this. Some crayons would be nice though.

I read Buxton's essay as a call for design that is initiated and informed by need, as opposed to being instigated by pure desire to invent or compete for innovation's sake. He's all about design that is not only usable by the average human, but also design that performs a useful function. Thus our upcoming observation project with it's central aim of improving what is already there. I was interested in his use of the phrase "web browser" to describe any appliance that uses the web in some way, and also in his vision of ever more specific, single function appliances that are networked.

Re Crawford, I liked the way he put his definition of interactivity in human, conversational terms, and it set me thinking. I'm not sure if he is differentiating between a reaction and a response. A considered response (or output), that is the result of some thought (processing) is clearly considered "interactivity". But how about a reaction - something that is done without thought, or requires no "processing", just a trigger?

 Excuse me while I think aloud.  I tried thinking about interactivity as an exchange of energy.  Not just a transformation of energy, but an exchange.  So, on that basis, is a rug interactive?  Well, If I wrap myself in a rug, I may start to feel warmer, as the rug stores some of the heat energy that radiates from me, and I receive some of it back.  Not being sure about the energy dynamics of insulation, I'll stop there - any thoughts?  Feel free to shoot me down...

If I roll around in a deep furry rug, I may feel happier afterwards, but this is just my reaction to my experience. The rug may be flattened and a little bit more worn after I rolled around in it, but this is just how the rug was affected by it's encounter with me. It's not even a reaction because the rug is taking no action of its own. My clothes may be covered in hairs from the rug, but the rug didn't think about doing this, or choose to do it. Even though both the rug and myself were both affected by our encounter, does it still not count as an interaction? If no, does this mean that we need some display of intelligence from both parties in order for an encounter to be defined as interative? Is so, how do we define intelligence...? Re the kids rug picture. I think that's just an activity that's on a rug.

ewp221

1) Are rugs interactive? Explain in your own words why or why not. Well, I thought I might go and see if I could find someone else's words on this question. So, I asked Google, and it actually took me to a children's rug site were I saw the Interactive Rug picture from Crawford's book. If these rugs aren't considered interactive yet, then it's definitely time to bring them to the thinking, speaking, listening level. My favorite's "Creataville."

1) Are rugs interactive? Explain in your own words why or why not. Well, I thought I might go and see if I could find someone else's words on this question. So, I asked Google, and it actually took me a children's rug site were I saw the Interactive Rug picture from Crawford's book. If these rugs aren't considered interactive yet, then it's definitely time to bring them to the thinking, speaking, listening level. My favorite's "Creataville."

1) Are rugs interactive? Explain in your own words why or why not. Well, I thought I might go and see if I could find someone else's words on this question. So, I asked Google, and it actually took me a children's rug site were I saw the Interactive Rug picture from Crawford's book. If these rugs aren't considered interactive yet, then it's definitely time to bring them to the thinking, speaking, listening level. My favorite's [http://us.st7.yimg.com/store1.yimg.com/I/rugamerica_1858_162805442 "Creataville."]

gl637

I think I agreed with about half of Crawford's philosophy of interactivity. I still loved the tone of his writing in the other half, though. I hope the quote, "We tend to think of interactivity as a Boolean property...like virginity," sticks in my head forever. For fun, I think I'll try and answer his review questions, just because I haven't read a book with review questions in a while (and also to beg the question whether or not his insertion of this playful element in his book makes it somehow interactive. But wait, the book's still not thinking/listening...right?)

1) Are rugs interactive? Explain in your own words why or why not. Well, I thought I might go and see if I could find someone else's words on this question. So, I asked Google, and it actually took me a children's rug site were I saw the Interactive Rug picture from Crawford's book. If these rugs aren't considered interactive yet, then it's definitely time to bring them to the thinking, speaking, listening level. My favorite's [http://us.st7.yimg.com/store1.yimg.com/I/rugamerica_1858_162805442 | "Creataville."] 2) Come up with your own damn definition of interactivity. Oooo...this is a doozy. Let's see. Before I read Crawford's chapters, I think I thought more along the lines of Lev Manovich's separation of interactive media into two camps: open interactivity and closed interactivity. I think Crawford's definition fits into Manovich's understanding of "open interactivity": an interactive system where the user's response modifies the media object on the fly. (Closed interactivity being a system composed of a branching structure that is navigable and capable of different formulations, yet still fixed in space.) I wonder what Crawford thinks of a lot of the interactive narrative that's been put out there so far. Although they may speak and listen (if taking different routes based on the user qualifies as listening), interactive dramas don't usually achieve thinking. I still think they can be a very emotive medium though. Okay, so get to the answer, your own damn definition of interactivity: I think I need more time to think about that one. 3) Throw this book across the room. Measure the distance it traveled and the angle of impact. Draw appropriate conclusions in crayon. Ummm...I don't think my Applecare would cover this. Some crayons would be nice though.

I completely agree with the importance of I/O as stated in the article. There definitely needs to be more variety, more options, ways to talk/react with a computer. Am sure this will come sooner than we think.\\

gl637

I completely agree with the importance of I/O as stated in the article. There definitely needs to be more variety, more options, ways to talk/react with a computer. Am sure this will come sooner than we think.

 gl637

I am not sure I agree with his 'God's Law'. Its hard for me to agree that the capacity of human beings is limited and doesn't increase over time. I think us humans aren't doing too bad, looking at the past hundreds of years. Its true that every field has become so specialized nowadays, that its impossible for someone to remember everything in every field just like a computer can. Still a computer can't really make use of all this information, unless programmed to. Now when Computers will start programming themselves, that will be a sight. I completely agree with the importance of I/O as stated in the article. There definitely needs to be more variety, more options, ways to talk/react with a computer. Am sure this will come sooner than we think.

I agree with Crawford about actors alternatively listening, thinking and speaking, but I think good interactivity is also about a careful balance (not necessarily split evenly) between those actions. Like the expression goes "a good teacher says little, but the students learn a lot".
fc637

So a Gospel revival call and responce qualifies as "loosely interactive" theater. While a computer is really probably the only objects the average person owns that is capable of much "technical interactivity". (Maybe a toaster too?) Interactivity is just more effective neurolgically, for learning, conveying info. activity makes brains do other processes more efficiently than passive observation or being lectured to. (A really good summary of the neuro stuff is the first few pages of the book Headfirst Servlets & JSP.)
jgw234

I’m all for better human-centric/user-centric design; I just don’t think it’s the sole responsibility of the engineers involved.
ds286

Buxton writes that when engineers are in school, they’re not required to develop applications that have been tested by others. While this may very well help the functionality and usability in the end, in the real world, engineers don’t work in a bubble or above the corporate structure (at least not to my knowledge). They’re part of a team, and it’s the entire team that’s responsible for ensuring the functionality/usability of the end application/product.

Buxton's article, "Less is More (More or Less)" is an excellent piece. His belief that the future of design needs to be focused less on technology and engineering and more on the humanities and design arts is spot on. I do, however, think he’s unduly hard on the engineering community, which he faults for many of the limitations of everyday technology. (For the record, I'm not an engineer.)

Buxton writes that when engineers are in school, they’re not required to develop applications that have been tested by others. While this may very well help the with the functionality and usability in the end, in the real world, engineers don’t work in a bubble or above the corporate structe (at least not to my knowledge). They’re part of a team, and it’s the entire team that’s responsible for ensuring the usability of the end application/product.

Wholeheartedly blaming engineers for the limitation of an application’s usability is like telling a content engineer that he/she must ensure that a site’s nomenclature is clear, the flow of information logical and the overall site design graphically pleasing. This, we know, is handled by distinct (and often disparate) parties: content strategists/copywriters, IAs and art directors/designers. Yet they're all responsible as a team for the overall execution of the site....usability and otherwise.

I’m all for better human-centric/user-centric design; I just don’t think it’s the sole responsibility of the engineers involved. ds286?

Seems like there are 2 kinds of interactivity, a loose definition and a technical definition. Crawford's totally right, that people seldom make it as far as the loose definition. But for our purposes, we should discern between these.

Loose: Crawford's article does an amazing job of stipulating a loose explanation, of what is interactivity. Which you can apply to any object capable of a "conversation".

So a Gospel revival call and responce qualifies as "loosely interactive" theater. While a computer is really probably the only objects the average person owns that is capable of much "technical interactivity". (Maybe a toaster too?) Interactivity is just more effective neurolgically, for learning, conveying info. activity makes brains do other processes more efficiently than passive observation or being lectured to. (A really good summary of the neuro stuff is the first few pages of the book Headfirst Servlets & JSP.) jgw234

So a Gospel revival call and responce qualifies as "loosely interactive" theater. While a computer is really probably the only objects the average person owns that is capable of much "technical interactivity". (Maybe a toaster too?) Interactivity is just more effective neurolgically, for learning, conveying info. activity makes brains do other processes more efficiently than passive observation or being lectured to. (A really good summary of the neuro stuff is the first few pages of the book Headfirst Servlets & JSP.) JW

Loose: Dawson's article does an amazing job of stipulating a loose explanation, of what is interactivity. Which you can apply to any object capable of a "conversation".

Notes on the readings, and sources of other readings.

Seems like there are 2 kinds of interactivity, a loose definition and a technical definition. Dawson's totally right, that people seldom make it as far as the loose definition. But for our purposes, we should discern between these.

Loose: Dawson's article does an amazingly wonderful job of stipulating a loose explanation, of what is interactivity. (And so wonderfully written!) Which you can apply to any object capable of a "conversation".

Tech: There really is no comparing a computer with well over 1000 possible input variables (well over the "critical mass" to qualify as an ok "listener") versus a VCR with a half dozen (well below the "critical mass"). Interactive things physically are alterable. HTML alone, for instance, is actually just navigating like a train on tracks between static elements. Java or Flash can create things on the screen that transform according to your input. while a CGI script/PHP (used with HTML) behind a wiki makes your changes appear for others (beyond conversation to a 3rd party).

So a Gospel revival call and responce qualifies as "loosely interactive" theater. While a computer is really probably the only objects the average person owns that is capable of much "technical interactivity". (Maybe a toaster too?) Interactivity is just more effective neurolgically, for learning, conveying info. activity makes brains do other processes more efficiently than passive observation or being lectured to. (A really good summary of the neuro stuff is the first few pages of the book Headfirst Servlets & JSP.)

judson

Notes on the readings, and sources of other readings.