Thoughtful Chunk 2: Using Your Smarts!

Don Norman: the Design of Future Things, April 2008 from IIT Institute of Design on Vimeo 

“In the past, it was indeed people who made machines smart. But we’re getting over that now. Now it is machines that make people smart.” Donald A. Norman: The Design of Future Things, p.178.

Although the above quote is from an imagined machine character in conversation with Norman, I feel great disquiet at calling machines, “Smart.”  Several definitions of the word found on the Web include:

•                showing mental alertness and calculation and resourcefulness

•                bright: characterized by quickness and ease in learning;

•                fresh: improperly forward or bold; "don't be fresh with me";

We are becoming very accustomed to talk describing technology as ‘Smart’ and/or ‘Intelligent’ which implies a level of independent thought that includes emotional, critical, and personal reflection. Surely this can only be ascribed to humans? After all, it is the ‘people’ who have constructed the distinctive language that describe these very particular human attributes and capabilities. Using vocabulary that holds special meaning for humans to describe the attributes of machines tends to accidentally or deliberately mislead.

Thoughtful Chunk 1: What's the use?

 Microsoft Kinect

 http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/706283/microsoft-taking-kinect-on-the-road-for-national-tour.html


“This difference in usage circumstances means that consoles can rely less on having a self-explanatory UI, whereas a mobile UI must have extremely high learnability.” Jakob Nielsen in Kinect Gestural UI: First Impressions

Nielsen uses a comparison chart to demonstrate how issues of usability differ in levels of concern for the user depending upon the context of use. According to Nielsen, Kinect, a game console that employs human gestures as it’s user interface, does have several weak usability areas. For example the games rely on human memory for game instructions as no visual help is afforded during play. Related is the inconsistency of feedback. However, Nielsen takes this opportunity to illustrate the different levels of importance assigned to certain usability issues. These may depend on the goals of the user in a specific situation. An extreme example, he suggests, is the possible difference in consequences of user error caused by less than attentive design, development and testing of the product: “your avatar ‘dies’ and restarts a level” or you “lose your job and investments.” Jakob Nielsen

This concept has great transference value to my future teaching practice: the efficacy and value of including certain technological processes and products may need to be considered in relation to the specific learning/teaching goals desired. What may not be appropriate for one educational setting/student need(s) may be very acceptable in another despite perceived areas of usability weakness or imperfection.

Merry Christmas

Hallelujah Chorus

To Publish or Not To Publish: That Is The Question.

Julian Assange: Why the World Needs Wikileaks

Given the affordances offered by current Internet capabilities and the ease in which ideas can be disseminated throughout the world, I wondered at this recent phenomena of Wikileaks. Here, essentially, we have a media organization set up to accept and publish, at the organizations' discretion, any perceived newsworthy items that a self proclaimed whistle-blower has deemed essential for the world to see. 

Julian Assange, the creator and overseer of Wikileaks, has therefore, by creating this cultural 'tell-all' space, set himself up as basically the chief decision maker for the world as to what we should or shouldn't be privy to. Yes, I see that other news organizations, if given the same materials, would also have that same power, except that here we have almost a self-proclaimed arbiter of what we, the people, should know or not know. We elect governments, for good or ill, but we do 'choose' our representatives. In the case of Wikileaks, which has such a global reach and global impact, there is no semblance, effective or otherwise, of the public's democratic choice. 

On the one hand, Julian Assange is lauded as the savior of the world for letting us see and hear all that may be passed to him from 'unknown' sources: we trust that he is totally objective in what he chooses to reveal. On the other hand, who gets to judge what the balance of harm to good is achieved by such methods...is it, again, Julian Assange? Is there a democratically elected body that oversees such decisions based on the common good? Or, are we allowing too much power to reside in one person? I wonder about this.

So, To Publish or Not To Publish: That IS The Question.

Designing Demonstrations

50 Years of Innovation in Design from British Design Council on Vimeo

Here are a few Design Demonstrations  of note, together with several connections of design interest
In Praise of Good Design
2010 Best Designed Products
Canadian Design Resource
AskTog: First principles of Interaction Design
Bad Designs Scrapbook
IDEO

British Design Council Awards
AND
In the Future We'll all be Harry Potter

Brain Games

 How Do Teens Do Homework Today? Fronline: Digital Nation

At last we hear from a real life 'Multi-Tasker!' There is much written about such people but not much in the way of research studies to support each side of the discourse. At least that's my understanding after reading through our course linked materials and trying to find out more on the Internet. Even at MIT there are opposing views around the positives and negatives regarding the skills, capabilities, and brain functioning of the multi-tasking 'Digital Native,' a term coined by Marc Prensky to the dismay of some and the approbation of others! For Prensky it seems that

"It is very likely that our students’ brains have physically changed – and are different from ours – as a result of how they grew up. But whether or not this is literally true, we can say with certainty that their thinking patterns have changed." 

 (Digital Natives Digital Immigrants, 2001, p. 1)

However, there are many criticisms regarding the concept of a division between a 'Digital Native and a Digital Immigrant' ,  and the suppositions that the brains of each subcultural group are different. There is even much questioning on how this division became an accepted reality in the first place! For example, Jamie McKenzie harshly criticizes the origins of such ideas.

In the following video clip Sherry Turkle and others attempt to define what multi-tasking is and what it looks like at MIT.

Multitasking at M.I.T.

Sherry Turkle explains further and comments on the affects and effects of total, continual immersion in a digital environment, in this interesting article from New Scientist Tech.
Clifford Nass at Stanford University expresses how scary the future is because we just don't know what effects and affects the digital world is having on humans.  In addition to the conjectured changes to the brain he talks about the level of attention we now pay to one another. He says,

"One of the biggest points here I think is, when I grew up, the greatest gift you could give someone was attention, and the best way to insult someone was to ignore them. ... The greatest gift was attention. Well, if we're in a society where the notion of attention as important is breaking apart, what now is the relationship glue between us? Because it's always been attention." (Interview with Clifford Nass, 2010)
 

Indeed the discourse concerning much of the pros and cons around digital media and current mobile and wireless technologies is becoming of greater concern: witness presentations to the House of Lords in England no less!


Without substantial research evidence perhaps all of the rhetoric is purely a strategy of our  Brain Games?

The Ups and Downs of Human-Tech Feedback

Clay Shirky: How Social Media Can Make History, TED Talk

Kim Vicente states on his University of Toronto faculty page, "If technology doesn't work for people, then it doesn't work."  However, as he himself details in his book, The Human Factor, there are inevitably forces at work that can use this Human-tech fit for positive or negative ends or, by its very nature, may lead to working for or against the 'common good.' In his words,

"If you can create a tight Human-tech fit between a technological system and human nature, then you have a much better chance of achieving your political objectives -- for good or ill "
(p. 232).

As Clay Shirky outlines in the above TED talk, we are "living through the largest increase in expressive capability in human history."  He illustrates how the new social media platforms offer sites of "communication and coordination" and the audience can be "consumers and producers' at one and the same time. This is all well and good, as necessary and productive feedback can then move both ways to ensure an appropriate Human-tech fit: serving needs from the top Political level of the Human-tech ladder on down to the individual Physical and Psychological levels and vice-versa. An added element is that these particular technological innovations can be "appropriated to serve a political end that it wasn't intended for" (Vicente, p. 231) or can be designed from the start to satisfy a deliberate political decision (Vicente, p. 245). In other words, a mixed bag of pros and cons can ensue. 

In different contexts, the technology can serve dichotomous ends: productive or destructive, controlling or liberating, honest or dishonest, ignorant or informed. Basically, the ultimate outcomes are contingent on the choices made by humans to use soft and hard technologies with forethought and deliberate wisdom. This, of course, cannot always be guaranteed.

 Walkerton, Ontario, Canada

As an example, the Walkerton tragedy demonstrates the failure of those multi-level feedback mechanisms that should have been planned for, adhered to, and monitored for latent effects. These can occur as consequences of changes at any level--and indeed that is what happened in this case.

"Many factors contributed to the Walkerton tragedy, highlighting the need for constant vigilance and multiple layers of protection to ensure safe community water supplies"

(Water Quality and Health Web site) 

As Vicente demonstrates, we cannot have an unwavering faith that all scientifically produced mechanistic processes are best left to their own devices. We cannot distance ourselves from the human responsibilities that come with utilizing technology. This means we have to maintain a healthy and critical relationship with technology at every level of the Human-tech ladder.

As C. P. Snow posited in reference to the rift between technical and Humanistic thinking,

"When those two senses have grown apart, then no society is going to be able to think with wisdom...This polarisation is sheer loss to us all. To us as people, and to our society."

(As quoted In Vicente, p.31)

I was reminded of this idea recently when reading the local newspaper. Our new Major, with the best of intentions, has embraced many of the innovative and increasingly pervasive social media technologies. Your Turn to Trim the City's Budget is an article that explains how Calgary's Major has asked for Calgarians to provide feedback on proposed amendments to the city's budget plans, and indeed then provides a survey tool for readers to fill out. As the paper quotes, the major asks Calgarians to use Twitter to "help me and (council) make tough decisions" (Herald, Nov. 21, 2010, p.A6)

Whilst it is admirable that such feedback is being solicited at the Political level, what struck me was the lack of background information provided for the reader, together with a lack of details outlining what may happen if certain choices for cutbacks were made without thought for consequences, or the domino effect it may have in other areas of Calgarians' lives--for good or ill! More details and links to the City of Calgary's Facebook, Twitter, and Blog platforms are available at  The City of Calgary. Whilst this is in no way a Walkerton-type situation in the making, it does illustrate how easy it might be to overlook those Human-tech factors at every level in our haste to, say, save money. How will citizens make an informed choice in the above scenario? As Vicente implores, 

"System design decisions made by governments must also reflect affinity with human nature at every level of the system--the organizational, team, psychological and physical levels" (Vicente, p. 266)

I offer the following video as a small example, I believe, of designing with Human-tech Revolutionary thinking! let me know what you think.

 

Emily Pilloton: Teaching design for change

Emily Pilloton is a Humanitarian Design Activist. Here is a little about her as written for TED

"As a young designer, Emily Pilloton was frustrated by the design world's scarcity of meaningful work. Even environmentally conscious design was not enough. "At graduate school, people were starting to talk more about sustainability, but I felt it lacked a human factor," she said. "Can we really call $5,000 bamboo coffee tables sustainable?" Convinced of the power of design to change the world, at age 26 Pilloton founded Project H to help develop effective design solutions for people who need it most."

So, these are the many variations of The Ups and Downs of Human-Tech Feedback