Thoughtful Chunk 7: Positives of Failure

Henri Petroski on Car Design 

After reading Drink Me: How Americans came to have Cup holders in their cars, by Henri Petroski (Slate, Washington Post, 2004),  I recalled the changes made to an original baby bike stroller. We were given such an item to use when riding with our grandson: admittedly it was second, third or even fourth hand but it was in great shape.

Everything was fabulous except for the fact that if it rained while we were on a ride somewhere, gradually the carriage would fill up with water while the child sat in it! Not only that, it was certainly a challenge to empty it too! The upgrade? It has two grommet holes in its base, beneath where the child actually sits, so that water can drain out! Marvelous! The added benefit: If you use it for carrying shopping instead, it too will remain dry!

Returning to the article mentioned above: Petroski contemplates the rise of the cup holder, so to speak, as a now essential feature in our cars. Imagine, he writes, trying to drink out of a cup as you rode in one of the early type cars! You just wouldn't consider it--too bumpy by far. However, eating and drinking in a parked car was part of the adventures of drive-in restaurants and theaters. Petroski posits that perhaps  the tray that hooked onto the side of the car window frame prompted the design of the now pervasive cup holder. He goes on to describe the many iterations of the cup holder design concepts and products and links these designs to the advent of new cup material and shape technologies. There are the amusing aspects too of cup holder designs that impede safe driving by obstructing controls and the fact that people apparently often want to know the number of cup holders provided before any interest is seriously shown in a particular vehicle! For Petroski, this is not quite correct: he maintains that it is the design of the cup holders, not their number, that can convince people to buy one vehicle rather than another! 

I am so amused by this article and want you to read his message of hope at its conclusion:

"But consumers can expect that cup holders will continue to be improved, like all made things. (One thing to look for is a spring-loaded flap that acts like the rubber ones found on so many cup holder designs: It keeps cups smaller than the holder from jiggling and rattling.) Meanwhile, drivers and passengers alike can still dream of one that will hold whatever size drink container they can buy at a roadside convenience store. This dream cup holder will not obstruct a single other thing in the car and will hold a cup steady on a rocky road. The future cup holder, one can further dream, will move under a cup being put down by a driver watching the road the way an outfielder moves under a fly ball. Truly visionary drivers might even fantasize of the robot cup holder that can move a cup into a hand groping in the dark." (Henry Petroski, 2004, Drink Me)

Actually, Petroski includes a quote from Donald Norman's 2004 book, Emotional Design, in which he criticizes an automobile design culture that "proclaims that the engineer knows best, and considers studies of real people driving their vehicles irrelevant" (p. 73).

In Form Follows Failure, Chapter 2 of The Evolution of Useful Things (1992), Petroski argues that the phrase "form follows function" is misleading and that in reality "form follows failure." This implies that a particular design for an item can be traced through the various problems of earlier iterations and finding out how each iteration tried to solve a problem from the one before. As he writes, the central idea is, "the form of made things is always subject to change in response to their real or perceived shortcomings, their failures to function properly" (p. 22). Products are, in other words, always on their journey toward perfection: each iteration is an approximation of the ultimate design-- hence the changes in design of the child bike carriage above! 

Of particular note for the development of our own products and their subsequent evaluation is the following from the same chapter:

"The distinctly human activities of invention, design, and development are themselves not so distinct as the separate words for them imply, and in their use of failure these endeavors do in fact form a continuum of activity that determines the shapes and forms of every made object." (p. 32)

Here is a design for a glass for drinking a lot: Glass Tank, designed  and manufactured by Kyouei Design. Any thoughts?

I have a thought! 

Let's drink to the Positives of Failure! Cheers!

Thoughtful Chunk 6: People & Machines

David Hanson on "Robots That Show Emotion"

"Awaken intelligent robotic beings: Grant them sparks of true consciousness and creativity, and distribute these beings and their constituent technologies into the world." (From Hanson Robotics Web-site) 


After coming across the above TEDTalk, I visited and explored David Hanson's site where  more illuminating videos and explanations are available. I was immediately struck by the connections to Donald Norman's text, The Design of Future Things, in particular the chapter titled, The Psychology of People and Machines, pp. 35-55.  


Here Norman uses descriptives such as, "Some machines are obstinate. Others are temperamental. Some are delicate, some rugged" (p.36). For Norman these have become valid, realistic characterizations. I am somewhat reluctant to agree with this assessment, although after viewing the above video and more, I was astonished at how human-like robotic machines are becoming! Indeed I had to suspend disbelief!


For David Hanson, through the innovation and use of Frubber™ combined with Character Engine cognition software, these "conversational character robots" purport to be sentient and empathetic to the observer and "Handled well, this combination truly comes to life, looks you warmly in the eye and inspires the sense of a soul in the machine."  The Character Engine  "enables robots to think, to feel, to perceive people and understand speech, hold natural conversations, and evolve into ever smarter beings" (http://hansonrobotics.wordpress.com/press-statement/)

"This is the new era of art—art that awakens, befriends you, and that you must nurture as it grows up to live his or her own life. Artistry is as important as science in this quest."

(http://hansonrobotics.wordpress.com/press-statement/) 


 However, Norman suggests,  
"don't believe all the hype. Lots of hobbyists and small ventures would have you believe that robots are already here, capable of a wide variety of interactions.... most of these so-called applications are more imagination than reality, with unreliable mechanisms barely able to get through demonstrations." (Robots in the Home: What Might They Do?)



But Norman still urges us to "Think of what will happen in twenty years, when machines are a thousand more times more powerful than they are today---or in forty years, when they will be a million times more powerful." (The Design of Future Things, 2007, p. 39)


The more humanly realistic some machines are designed to appear, the more we seem to accept them as containing a human-ness, which is hard to define or describe. I am not sure to which scenario I would rather drift:  Will I want to relate to machines that in no way emulate this human-ness, or would I have greater patience with a robotic 'being' that emulates although does not actually possess human-ness? I fear that I may be more willing to pass over control of certain aspects of my life if 'it' appeared outwardly human!

I must confess that I received a dog that rolls over and roars with laughter when activated by motion nearby: I love it! And what attracts me? The 'dog-ness' (read human-ness) of its laugh. Very real and very contagious. I join in with laughter every time, without anything amusing being apparent. Hm...I wonder if this is significant? As Norman points out, "The market for robots that entertain by being cute and cuddly is already well established." (Robots in the Home: What Might They do?)



On a connected, although more serious, note I wonder about the challenges of relating to these ever more complex machines whether they outwardly display a human-ness or not. We are gradually losing control over, and the ability to understand the workings of, the ever more seemingly 'clever' machines. Even when a product appears simple in appearance or not too challenging to operate, there are the underlying operational mysteries that we are not privy to. Hence, if there is a malfunction, or we want to alter some performance aspect, no simple process usually offers itself. I remember our first car, a Morris Minor, which had seen better days to be sure, often needing human encouragement to start beyond the usual turn of the ignition key. With paternal care my husband would jump out of the car, give a few turns of the Starting Handle-- a metal L-shaped rod that fit into the front of the car and simply connected to the engine--and voilå, the car would start...it never failed! 


Today, if our latest car doesn't start---the car doesn't start! End of story! Beyond the frustration and inconvenience, sometimes it would be just be reassuring and somewhat comforting to know that we humans still hold the reins---or should I say, the steering wheel? This amusing advert for Allstate insurance underlines my point. Should vehicles or humans have the final say? Norman would probably say, "It depends."

 Allstate TV Ad: GPS Mayhem

I am reminded here of the question Norman (2007) raises, "Which should be the predictable element, the person or the intelligent device" (p. 76)?  He also warns, "Machines that try to infer motives of people, that try to second-guess their actions, are apt to be unsettling at best, and in the worst case, dangerous" (p. 77).

Thoughtful Chunk 5: Festival of Learning & Technology Highlights

To be continued!

Glogster Fun Attempt

This posting is just for fun. I was experimenting to see whether I could post a Glogster 'Poster' to this blog. And, yes you can, but you need to edit the HTML otherwise it is huge!