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
Thursday, May 19, 2011
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
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Interaction venice
Gilian Crampton Smith is a god but strangely down to earth - I had a nice lunch with her on the grass in a park near the conferance at the last CHI. I used to work with her Husband at the Bartlett school of architecture - he's a really nice guy just wonderful - and met her though him. I used to demo NeXT machines to her students ( this was all pre-internet). Nina Pope and Rory Hamilton who had both been digital artists in residence who then went to work on Gillian's Computer related design course. I was always really jealous of her computer related design course at the RCA. I mean I loved the freedom for the students - provided it was related to computers and design and computers you could do it. Gillian ended up being on my executive committee for the virtual environments course ( now adaptive architectural computation at the Bartlett) which gave the course a lot of credibility to architecture back then. Now Gilian is work in Venice - could you imagine anything more cool ?
If I was young again I would definitely do that course.
Any way GCS is rightly famous for basically giving Durrell Bishop the space do to the marble answering machine. Still for me one of the clearst and most viable products for tangible technology. I remember seeing this video at the first Doors of Perception conference ( which was so cool). It was one of those - I know the world has change moments when I first saw it. Now you can judge for your self.
Durrell Bishop Marble Answer Machine from Luckybite on Vimeo.
If I was young again I would definitely do that course.
Any way GCS is rightly famous for basically giving Durrell Bishop the space do to the marble answering machine. Still for me one of the clearst and most viable products for tangible technology. I remember seeing this video at the first Doors of Perception conference ( which was so cool). It was one of those - I know the world has change moments when I first saw it. Now you can judge for your self.
Durrell Bishop Marble Answer Machine from Luckybite on Vimeo.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Head Tracking for iPad: Glasses-Free 3D Display!
IPad2 does 2D without glassess.
Oddly I thought of doing this with a desktop machine but the hand held does much better. Makes you wonder what kinds of affordances 3D gives you? I'm still impressed withe the graphics power of a machine that thin!
Oddly I thought of doing this with a desktop machine but the hand held does much better. Makes you wonder what kinds of affordances 3D gives you? I'm still impressed withe the graphics power of a machine that thin!
Floor walkers
I have now heard about floor walkers ( people use different names ) in a number of different contexts
In a military planning centre floor walkers move around from static workstation to static workstation to assist the information conherance between 'workers' ( who can't move ).
In forensic accounting - someone from UCL interaction group talked about a floor walker in the context of a group of legal and accounts who take all the records from a large complex fraud. Each person looks at data bit by bit and the floor walker trys to make connections between diffrent people ( 'you thought john Smith was odd hmm jake also found a odd record about John Smith lets make a new file on him').
In air trafic control - someone talking about using multi touch for air traffic control talked about a floor walker moving between static workers who control zones. The floor walker is much more experienced and can solve co-oridination problems or just help individuals when work load is too high.
I wonder what this means in terms of colocated collaboration across an ecology of devices
In a military planning centre floor walkers move around from static workstation to static workstation to assist the information conherance between 'workers' ( who can't move ).
In forensic accounting - someone from UCL interaction group talked about a floor walker in the context of a group of legal and accounts who take all the records from a large complex fraud. Each person looks at data bit by bit and the floor walker trys to make connections between diffrent people ( 'you thought john Smith was odd hmm jake also found a odd record about John Smith lets make a new file on him').
In air trafic control - someone talking about using multi touch for air traffic control talked about a floor walker moving between static workers who control zones. The floor walker is much more experienced and can solve co-oridination problems or just help individuals when work load is too high.
I wonder what this means in terms of colocated collaboration across an ecology of devices
Monday, April 11, 2011
neurodiversity dyslexia
1.
Baum, S. Gifted but learning disabled: A puzzling paradox. Eric Digest 3E479. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, (1990).
Interesting paper about the up sides of dyslexia.
Relates to an interesting lecturer on neurodiversity and dyslexia.
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/disability/lecture/lecture2010.html
Yvonne Rogers to leave OU and move to interaction group at UCL
Well it's official and I'm slightly well numb.
Prof Yvonne Rogers is off to run the interaction group at UCL leaving the space for a new Professor of Interaction for pervasive computing here. Naturally I'm from UCL originally and I'm very excited for her, she's a top class userati person ( http://www.usabilityviews.com/userati_name.html ) and she will be going to what is arguably one of the top research places in the UK/World so I can't think of a better mix.
I think this is great for Yvonne and I'm really please for her.
For me I'm not sure - I've been left with a lot of stuff to play with and a nice space to do it in. I'll be continuing the blog, we have a new Pervasive professor joining this year and I'm told a replacement for Yvonne at some point within the next 12 months.
Mean while I'll take some time to absorb it and reflect on my current research agenda.
Prof Yvonne Rogers is off to run the interaction group at UCL leaving the space for a new Professor of Interaction for pervasive computing here. Naturally I'm from UCL originally and I'm very excited for her, she's a top class userati person ( http://www.usabilityviews.com/userati_name.html ) and she will be going to what is arguably one of the top research places in the UK/World so I can't think of a better mix.
I think this is great for Yvonne and I'm really please for her.
For me I'm not sure - I've been left with a lot of stuff to play with and a nice space to do it in. I'll be continuing the blog, we have a new Pervasive professor joining this year and I'm told a replacement for Yvonne at some point within the next 12 months.
Mean while I'll take some time to absorb it and reflect on my current research agenda.
Multi-touch meets online collaboration for all the right reasons
3 from B-Reel & B-Reel Films on Vimeo.
I remember seeing a proposal for this kind of system some years ago at an old MediaMatic/Door of Perception conference ( with out the sales angle) . I was excited then - you can have a display were everyone gets the text the right way round. Naturally easy to do multi-touch with a IR camera with this too.
I wonder what the client has - a flash plug-in or something ? How much do you get the feeling that the operator has to work blind ( not seeing the client ) .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)