Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Cloud PIR sensor failure
Looks like the cloud PIR sensor will not work on the cloud balls. But it will detect people motion ( I have a nice use for this ) .
Back to the grind
Finally back in the lab - I haven't escaped M255 ( introduction to Java) exercises but just postponed it ( deadline for TMA is 6th Jan).
Got back to lab and the sensor network was down - I've managed to fix it, I think but needs some recalibration. I'm now working on sorting out the cloud display. Then I can get data for the paper.
Also spent today looking for drivers for the Diamond Touch for Khaled Bachour and we found them ( kind of ) . The new bulb is in so I've managed to run it with the Mac OK.
I wonder if I have time to do the ecology of devices before Yvonne takes the cool tables with her to UCL ?
PANIC
Got back to lab and the sensor network was down - I've managed to fix it, I think but needs some recalibration. I'm now working on sorting out the cloud display. Then I can get data for the paper.
Also spent today looking for drivers for the Diamond Touch for Khaled Bachour and we found them ( kind of ) . The new bulb is in so I've managed to run it with the Mac OK.
I wonder if I have time to do the ecology of devices before Yvonne takes the cool tables with her to UCL ?
PANIC
Space syntax and information communication
I thought I would make some good work on communication in buildings .
This is Alan's talk on IKEA
The space of innovation: interaction and communication in the work environment
A Penn, J Desyllas, L Vaughan
Peponis naturally -
Gordon Brown ( another one ) good work.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Flex irritation
( Flash Builder 0 Flex 4.5's Rectangle class .contains(x,y) message looks to be broken. I had to write me own ;-(
Also I am annoyed that I can't draw more than a few objects with out it slowing the interaction process down. Oh Xor where are you ?
I made a list today of my projects I have on the go - I had 18 with about 8 which where really important for the near term.
Also I am annoyed that I can't draw more than a few objects with out it slowing the interaction process down. Oh Xor where are you ?
I made a list today of my projects I have on the go - I had 18 with about 8 which where really important for the near term.
Paranav Mistry
Nice Ted talk about tangibles - I might have blogged this before. I love the phyilosphy but the implementation/proposed use is pretty dull ( except how to take a photo). I also like mixing projection and paper ( augmented paper). The sound detection ( with clipon ) is good( for clicking) . Pinch for copy ( across machines ). I like the cheap things he has been hacking.
BBC iPlayer - All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace: Love and Power
Stimulating program but really about the economy and nothing to do with how humans have been colonised by machines they have built - might be more accurately said that this is about the formulas we have written or books we have sold ( but that wouldn't sound sinister enough )
BBC iPlayer - All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace: Love and Power
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b011k45f/
BBC iPlayer - All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace: Love and Power
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b011k45f/
.::Safebook::.
.::Safebook::.
This is a academic attempt to build a peer to peer social network like face book.
needs a big change in user interface ( I think ) but I like the idea. But having just finally watched the socialnetwork it was the mixture of technology and snobbery
Still nice idea.
Back to exam writing.
This is a academic attempt to build a peer to peer social network like face book.
needs a big change in user interface ( I think ) but I like the idea. But having just finally watched the socialnetwork it was the mixture of technology and snobbery
Still nice idea.
Back to exam writing.
Monday, May 23, 2011
An Evolutionary Architecture - John Frazer
This is his 1995 book ( which was brillant ) now avaiabel for free download.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
More self aggrandisement
Discovered that Microsoft ( which my son referes to as Microscopic i.e Microscopic office) are trying to match google scholar with Microsoft Academic. From this I get this nifty visualisation of my co-authorin.
Friday, May 20, 2011
explorer 7-8-9 what ever
I found an interesting advert for MS explorer on the web last night. [
http://www.beautyoftheweb.co.uk/] Why was Microsoft advertising a product I can't use ? This was a flash advert so they new the browser and operating system I had ( I thought they had finally produced a new mac version ). Complete waste of their money ( and my time).
Another example of the inevitable failure of Microsoft (poor souls).
I saw something saying that Apple was now worth more than Microsoft - not surprising.
Idear of the day - bring back the command line!
Thinking about the Newton/Iphone I realised I liked the command line interface it had
( Dinner John thursday ) ( remember milk )
If you could build an interface that was really really quick where basically you did a command key combination then it would send up a message box where you could type
dinner John Thursday
The system would be smart enough to guess who John was ( from your contacts [and your facebook links] ) or it would produce a list of best guesses. It would vaguely know when dinner was and then produce a dialog box ( which might prompt for more info).
I guess like Google it would have a good guess for miss typed commands (dinjer with jon - did you mean dinner with john Grady today at 6:00 ? ).
The idea would be to collect a number of things in the same interface.
Remind Ruth about milk
sets up an email with a template
Hi Ruth, I thought I would just take this opportunity to remind you about milk.
Thanks ... )
Tell Ruth late
Sets up and email to ruth saying I am late.
Phone ruth
The idea is to keep lots of stuff which might cause you to switch contexts. I've looked at quicksilver on the mac but its more of a better finder than anything.
The whole thing would have to be fast enough to stop you context switching with an interruption.
( Dinner John thursday ) ( remember milk )
If you could build an interface that was really really quick where basically you did a command key combination then it would send up a message box where you could type
dinner John Thursday
The system would be smart enough to guess who John was ( from your contacts [and your facebook links] ) or it would produce a list of best guesses. It would vaguely know when dinner was and then produce a dialog box ( which might prompt for more info).
I guess like Google it would have a good guess for miss typed commands (dinjer with jon - did you mean dinner with john Grady today at 6:00 ? ).
The idea would be to collect a number of things in the same interface.
Remind Ruth about milk
sets up an email with a template
Hi Ruth, I thought I would just take this opportunity to remind you about milk.
Thanks ... )
where as
Remind me milk
might set up an alarm
Tell Ruth late
Sets up and email to ruth saying I am late.
Phone ruth
The idea is to keep lots of stuff which might cause you to switch contexts. I've looked at quicksilver on the mac but its more of a better finder than anything.
The whole thing would have to be fast enough to stop you context switching with an interruption.
More near field technologies strikes
The BBC are reporting on O2 introducing a Near Field equipped phone. Basically your phone becomes a top up small change ( up to £10). Nice attempt but I don't seeing it happen big time unless Apple goes with the flow and they won't do that unless they see an advantage for them - which they won't do unless they are first or can monopolise the market them selves ( like get money when you spend money).
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Apples next iphone interface
Wow I foggot how similar to the Newton the iPhone/iPad was in design terms ( row of most used apps at the bottom)
Naturally the Newton had things the iPhone/IPad doesn't ( in the OS)
Internally where was some nice stuff
- Ultra compressed programming language ( you got data AND functionality inheritance )
- SOUP ( nice open filling system )
Naturally the Newton had things the iPhone/IPad doesn't ( in the OS)
- hand writing recognition
- narrow pen
- drawing recognition
- note pad centric interface
- The agent like interface (type Lunch with Jon thursday - guesses )
- Almost like a command line ( call bob, remind me to ... )
- Animation interface
- Use of sound
- Undo button
- Drawing tidying ( geometry recognition really nice )
- I like the typing interface ( which I shouldn't )
Internally where was some nice stuff
- Ultra compressed programming language ( you got data AND functionality inheritance )
- SOUP ( nice open filling system )
Apples 1987 vision ( complete with agents).
I liked this one - this is the iPad before iPads. This was when Agents was big ( before they were killed off by the Microsoft Paper clip ).
What to these things tell us - people like simple integration. What do I like - summary and speech synthesis. I wish my Mac or IPad/IPhone talked a bit more we really under use speech in the interface.
What killed this off ( I've been checking out the old Newton adds ) well I think to much partly functional AI. People have a low threshold to something that doesn't work well ( like FaceTime).
What to these things tell us - people like simple integration. What do I like - summary and speech synthesis. I wish my Mac or IPad/IPhone talked a bit more we really under use speech in the interface.
What killed this off ( I've been checking out the old Newton adds ) well I think to much partly functional AI. People have a low threshold to something that doesn't work well ( like FaceTime).
The Microsoft Courier/Ditto
I just had to link to it. before the designers got there hands on it.
I thought the idea of something more like a pro version an Nintendo DS or the second generation onelaptop per child - you could use it like a laptop ( keyboard on one screen ) or a note book( with pen) or multi-touch ( like an Ipad). Most of these demos are using the two window approach ( which is still good ).
Now the courier is dead these guys at Tapose are making a iPad version. Perhaps some smart and desperate tablet maker will see it and use it.
and after
I thought the idea of something more like a pro version an Nintendo DS or the second generation onelaptop per child - you could use it like a laptop ( keyboard on one screen ) or a note book( with pen) or multi-touch ( like an Ipad). Most of these demos are using the two window approach ( which is still good ).
Now the courier is dead these guys at Tapose are making a iPad version. Perhaps some smart and desperate tablet maker will see it and use it.
and after
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
CHI 3 Towards a theory of Interaction design a critique of the workshop at CHI2011
Towards a theory of Interaction design a critique of the workshop at CHI2011
I had the pleasure of attending the special interest group at CHI2011 entitled UX Research: What Theoretical Roots Do We Build On – If Any? The objective of the session was to attempt to investigate to see if there might be a common definition of and understanding of UX theory.
This is not the first time someone has attempted to do this. As just one example Paul Dourish in his book Where the Action is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction suggested that to find an area of common ground it is necessary to abandon disembodied rationality and focus on skilled engaged practice using phenomenological practices.
The move to find some common theoretical ground is a positive one but during the workshop I witnessed a number of conflicts which I believe where unnecessary and counter productive.
Many of these conflicts arise from confusion over the meaning of theory from the differing component disciplines. By understanding these misinterpretations over the role of theory I believe it is possible to eliminate a lot of the problems and move more rapidly toward some kind of fundamental interaction theory.
What is theory ?
Theory is a term from ancient greek derived from theoria meaning a looking at view or beholding. It refers to contemplation as opposed to praxis (action or practice). This description still assumes that all academic disciplines use the notion of theory in the same way, which I contend is not true. Being on the boarder between the arts and the sciences HCI has come across a collision in paradigms between the two areas of practice. The domains of the arts and sciences have different notions over the role of theory and as such have different theories.
Science theory
Science theory is a well studied area but basically has a number of components. Firstly and to refute one misconception commonly used during the workshop there is no ONE theory or grand unified theory of science. Each domain has different theories depending upon context, so chemistry has the periodic table of elements while physics has theories such as electromagnetism, biology has evolution theory.
Confusingly physics has experienced intertheoretic reduction – were two theories such as the theory of electricity and the theory of magnetism have been combined to form one theory of eletro-magnetism. These intertheoretic identities are how ever rare and important steps in the progress of physics as an endevor. intertheoretic identities might give the impression to the outsider that there is one theory in physics but infact there are still a multiplicity of theories.
What makes science theory different is that if there are two theories which explain the same phenomena then it is generally possible to perform an experiment which appear to support one theory over another. This happened for example when the medical theory of the four humors (blood,yellow bile,phlegem and black bile) succumbed to more complex theories including bacterial infection theory. Scientific theories can be conceived of as compact descriptions of the phenomena they describe. As such well-collected empirical evidence is an important material along with experiments which appear to support or refute one theory over another. Finally generally scientific theories are also predictive. The limits are known to a strong extend and the significant parameters are known well enough that predictions can be made and ultimately tested. Scientific theories also tend to be reductive, they describe one phenomena really well but don’t seek to explain everything. Thus Galileo explained the presence of gravity but did so assuming the absence of air resistance. From an outsiders perspective he didn’t explain everything that falls ( the theory of gravity cannot explain the fall of a feather) but he did explain one aspect of movement which he considered widely important.
In terms of interaction and design scientific theories don’t tell you what to do just permit the inferring of consequences of doing so. An architectural analogy might help. Structural theories used by engineers permit them to predict if a design might stand up. Equally it is possible to say if you want a platform to stick out this far, from this material then it must be this thick. If you went to a structural engineer and said ‘I want a museum please calculate what should I build’ they wouldn’t have any idea. Scientific theories are descriptive but not generative. This can be quite liberating, for architects this means they are free to design anything they feel expresses the idea they want. With out this structural theory they would be forced to rely on precedence – previous successful buildings – something common in pre- structural theoretic cultures such as the medieval cathedrals of Europe. From this we can conclude that science theories are flexible and liberating for design.
Art theories
The second group of theories that are relevant are art theories. Art theories or design theories don’t have the property of being exclusive. Consider Cubism vs Dadaism it doesn’t make sense to consider one to be better than another,. they are not mutually exclusive and so intertheoretic reduction doesn’t apply. From this perspective art theories tend to be more prescriptive – they give a domain of consideration and a background of rhetoric to launch from. Thus when you begin a design there is already a condition to begin from, this is importantwhen a designer could be faced with creating something from nothing. Art theories gives them the property of being broad and cohesive, you can have a modernist painting, a modernist building, a modernist chair. Consider the process of creating a website and mobile version of a product ( not to mention physical documentation) scientific theories ( narrow and deep) will not help create a framework for action at this point but art theories do. Art theories often exist as a response to current conditions and can prefigure the works that compose them. As such art theories are very powerful generative tools in the hands of a skilled designer.
Summary
I have described two types of theory –art and science, but there are others, Mathematics, History, Politics and Philosophy all of whom use the notion of theory differently. It is important not to use scientific views of theory as bench marks for artistic theory, as it is not to use art theories to understand scientific ones. This said the diversity of theories creates for a rich structure and description of evaluation of user experience. If user experience is to thrive it needs to embrace the multicultural inheritance by admitting it’s presence and stop false comparison. This is not to suggest that there should and could not be a group of theories which lay purely in the domain of interaction design, just that they will have to be constructed between the two primary regions.
I had the pleasure of attending the special interest group at CHI2011 entitled UX Research: What Theoretical Roots Do We Build On – If Any? The objective of the session was to attempt to investigate to see if there might be a common definition of and understanding of UX theory.
This is not the first time someone has attempted to do this. As just one example Paul Dourish in his book Where the Action is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction suggested that to find an area of common ground it is necessary to abandon disembodied rationality and focus on skilled engaged practice using phenomenological practices.
The move to find some common theoretical ground is a positive one but during the workshop I witnessed a number of conflicts which I believe where unnecessary and counter productive.
Many of these conflicts arise from confusion over the meaning of theory from the differing component disciplines. By understanding these misinterpretations over the role of theory I believe it is possible to eliminate a lot of the problems and move more rapidly toward some kind of fundamental interaction theory.
What is theory ?
Theory is a term from ancient greek derived from theoria meaning a looking at view or beholding. It refers to contemplation as opposed to praxis (action or practice). This description still assumes that all academic disciplines use the notion of theory in the same way, which I contend is not true. Being on the boarder between the arts and the sciences HCI has come across a collision in paradigms between the two areas of practice. The domains of the arts and sciences have different notions over the role of theory and as such have different theories.
Science theory
Science theory is a well studied area but basically has a number of components. Firstly and to refute one misconception commonly used during the workshop there is no ONE theory or grand unified theory of science. Each domain has different theories depending upon context, so chemistry has the periodic table of elements while physics has theories such as electromagnetism, biology has evolution theory.
Confusingly physics has experienced intertheoretic reduction – were two theories such as the theory of electricity and the theory of magnetism have been combined to form one theory of eletro-magnetism. These intertheoretic identities are how ever rare and important steps in the progress of physics as an endevor. intertheoretic identities might give the impression to the outsider that there is one theory in physics but infact there are still a multiplicity of theories.
What makes science theory different is that if there are two theories which explain the same phenomena then it is generally possible to perform an experiment which appear to support one theory over another. This happened for example when the medical theory of the four humors (blood,yellow bile,phlegem and black bile) succumbed to more complex theories including bacterial infection theory. Scientific theories can be conceived of as compact descriptions of the phenomena they describe. As such well-collected empirical evidence is an important material along with experiments which appear to support or refute one theory over another. Finally generally scientific theories are also predictive. The limits are known to a strong extend and the significant parameters are known well enough that predictions can be made and ultimately tested. Scientific theories also tend to be reductive, they describe one phenomena really well but don’t seek to explain everything. Thus Galileo explained the presence of gravity but did so assuming the absence of air resistance. From an outsiders perspective he didn’t explain everything that falls ( the theory of gravity cannot explain the fall of a feather) but he did explain one aspect of movement which he considered widely important.
In terms of interaction and design scientific theories don’t tell you what to do just permit the inferring of consequences of doing so. An architectural analogy might help. Structural theories used by engineers permit them to predict if a design might stand up. Equally it is possible to say if you want a platform to stick out this far, from this material then it must be this thick. If you went to a structural engineer and said ‘I want a museum please calculate what should I build’ they wouldn’t have any idea. Scientific theories are descriptive but not generative. This can be quite liberating, for architects this means they are free to design anything they feel expresses the idea they want. With out this structural theory they would be forced to rely on precedence – previous successful buildings – something common in pre- structural theoretic cultures such as the medieval cathedrals of Europe. From this we can conclude that science theories are flexible and liberating for design.
Art theories
The second group of theories that are relevant are art theories. Art theories or design theories don’t have the property of being exclusive. Consider Cubism vs Dadaism it doesn’t make sense to consider one to be better than another,. they are not mutually exclusive and so intertheoretic reduction doesn’t apply. From this perspective art theories tend to be more prescriptive – they give a domain of consideration and a background of rhetoric to launch from. Thus when you begin a design there is already a condition to begin from, this is importantwhen a designer could be faced with creating something from nothing. Art theories gives them the property of being broad and cohesive, you can have a modernist painting, a modernist building, a modernist chair. Consider the process of creating a website and mobile version of a product ( not to mention physical documentation) scientific theories ( narrow and deep) will not help create a framework for action at this point but art theories do. Art theories often exist as a response to current conditions and can prefigure the works that compose them. As such art theories are very powerful generative tools in the hands of a skilled designer.
Summary
I have described two types of theory –art and science, but there are others, Mathematics, History, Politics and Philosophy all of whom use the notion of theory differently. It is important not to use scientific views of theory as bench marks for artistic theory, as it is not to use art theories to understand scientific ones. This said the diversity of theories creates for a rich structure and description of evaluation of user experience. If user experience is to thrive it needs to embrace the multicultural inheritance by admitting it’s presence and stop false comparison. This is not to suggest that there should and could not be a group of theories which lay purely in the domain of interaction design, just that they will have to be constructed between the two primary regions.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Yvonne Rogers to leave OU and move to interaction group at UCL!
See this link for all the gory details http://bit.ly/mc5pmy
Back from CHI part 2
Well its nice to be back. I'm not good a socialising let a lone networking and I'm not fully socialised out.
On the plus side I met a number of architects including Martyn Dade-Robertson ( Newcastle), Anijo Pennen Mathew(Chicago) and Prof Keith Green (from Clemson). Which for a conference on human computer interaction was interesting.
It might have been the conference but the vibe emerged of doing a workshop on HCI and architecture ? At CHI for 2012. I think it would be interesting so am pushing it.
Overall the conference was good ( I'm never overly excited by the papers ) and I'm currently plowing through the proceedings.
Yvonne's book launch party was so cool and I'm walking away with a signed copy of the new BFB( big fat book) and had a fantastic talked to Claire O'[ gone black hang on]
I also got a free copy of Paul Dourish's book (no pictures, lets face it - its not going to make it to Kindle is it?). and I managed to meet Patrick Oliver so perhaps I'll be able to visit the Newcastle HCI people.
On the plus side I met Prof David Kirsh taking at the workshop on embodied cognition and he was quite inspiring. The outcome of a previous workshop ( on large displays ) was the inability to measure the 'impact' of an ambient display ( how do you measure the impact of a public clock?). David Kirsh had the mantra that anything can be measured ( then proceeded to tell me exactly how to do it) which was good.
The mighty Steve Benford was also there and mentioned there might be some money to fund me popping over to MRI to do some collaborative analysis of a recent experiment (yah nice).
I also bumped into Rachel Roumelitis from Morgan Kaufmann ( publishers) and did an elevator pitch on the Interaction programming in Java book. Was this the start of something good or did I get a polite brush off only time will tell.
CHI 2011 - Very inspiring but very wet.
On the plus side I met a number of architects including Martyn Dade-Robertson ( Newcastle), Anijo Pennen Mathew(Chicago) and Prof Keith Green (from Clemson). Which for a conference on human computer interaction was interesting.
It might have been the conference but the vibe emerged of doing a workshop on HCI and architecture ? At CHI for 2012. I think it would be interesting so am pushing it.
Overall the conference was good ( I'm never overly excited by the papers ) and I'm currently plowing through the proceedings.
Yvonne's book launch party was so cool and I'm walking away with a signed copy of the new BFB( big fat book) and had a fantastic talked to Claire O'[ gone black hang on]
I also got a free copy of Paul Dourish's book (no pictures, lets face it - its not going to make it to Kindle is it?). and I managed to meet Patrick Oliver so perhaps I'll be able to visit the Newcastle HCI people.
On the plus side I met Prof David Kirsh taking at the workshop on embodied cognition and he was quite inspiring. The outcome of a previous workshop ( on large displays ) was the inability to measure the 'impact' of an ambient display ( how do you measure the impact of a public clock?). David Kirsh had the mantra that anything can be measured ( then proceeded to tell me exactly how to do it) which was good.
The mighty Steve Benford was also there and mentioned there might be some money to fund me popping over to MRI to do some collaborative analysis of a recent experiment (yah nice).
I also bumped into Rachel Roumelitis from Morgan Kaufmann ( publishers) and did an elevator pitch on the Interaction programming in Java book. Was this the start of something good or did I get a polite brush off only time will tell.
CHI 2011 - Very inspiring but very wet.
Back from CHI part 1
Love is a lab with a powerful electromagnet - I'm guessing its done with a sensor which keeps the balls at the right distanced ( so what are they putting in the balls?)
F5 2011 RE:PLAY Film Festival. Inductance from Physalia Studio on Vimeo.
F5 2011 RE:PLAY Film Festival. Inductance from Physalia Studio on Vimeo.
entropy notes
From a conversation at CHI with Nadia that interaction was different from traditional design because what you designed was complex. For me our comprehension and management of complexity & pattern lie at the heart of HCI.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjzc4-a6Iwg&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzdvX1ong18&NR=1&feature=fvwp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjzc4-a6Iwg&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzdvX1ong18&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)