Reponses to Assigned Readings


April 11, 2006

"Prototyping: Generating Ideas or Cargo Cult Designs" (Lars Erik Holmquist)
The "cargo cult" analogy is an interesting one. I suppose that this kind of "deception" (whether intentional or not) is an important issue in the interaction design world, because prototyping is such a big part of the process. I think that explaining the exact stage that a project is in to the audience or testers of a mockup or prototype is essential, particularly if those testers do not understand how the interaction field operates and the steps involved in designing a product or application. However, imagination on the part of the user may be a key prerequisite when testing a low-fidelity prototype of a complex object. If the user does not have the abstract mental capacities needed to envision symbols as reality, then even a well researched, well designed, and honestly presented mockup will not receive the proper feedback.


February 20, 2006

"Surveillance and Capture" (Philip E. Agre)
This article seems to argue a point similar to one of those made in Clay Shirky's paper about social software, except here in a more thoroughly analytical way: it is impossible for the machines instrumenting a grammar of action upon a set of users to account for all of the possible "workarounds" that might exist. People will always behave in unpredictable ways. Thus a capture system can only be "sociotechnical", and never purely technical, in nature, as Agre points out. Agre cites many specific examples to illustrate each of his definitions. An in-depth analysis of how computer hacking and identity theft fits into the surveillance and capture models would make this an even more interesting read.

"Mythinformation" (Langdon Winner)
Not a bad prognostic assessment of the Information Age for 1986. I would not argue against any of the points that Langdon makes. The democratization of information via computer networks does not by its nature promote equality and democracy in society, and Langdon makes this very clear. (information != knowledge != power != democracy). Langdon was apparently one of the first writers to promote a socially-conscious view of computerization even before a "digital revolution" had technically begun. The "pie-in-the-sky" mindset with regard to technology which Langdon was criticizing still seems to prevail today, though probably not as heavily as it did prior to the dot-com bust.


February 3, 2006

"What We Talk About When We Talk About Context" (Paul Dourish)
The main idea of this essay is that the traditional sociological view of context must be reevaluated when designing ubiquitous interactive technology. It cannot be a predetermined set of rules, but rather must be considered as a dynamically evolving entity that adapts to the user's activities. One of the author's conclusive statements is that "the meaning of a technology cannot be divorced from the way that people have of using it." This makes sense without having to think much about why, and I wonder if it was necessary to include so much background on phenomenology vs. positivism, ethnomethodology and other theoretical approaches to drive home this point. I wonder whether his whole argument is actually simpler than he actually makes it out to be.

"Typologies of Situated Interaction" (Malcolm McCullough)
McCullough's essay is essentially about placing limits on the growth of technology. It cannot simply be allowed to grow in any fanciful direction. Based on the perspective that situated interaction design has its roots in the field of architecture, one must come to realize that a firm understanding of standardized "types" or protocols appropriate for certain situations is essential. So-called "anytime/anyplace technology" is like a building that looks cool, but isn't practical or is inappropriate for its surroundings. It's contextual inappropriateness only breeds "social trivialization, chaos" and unnecessary complexities. I basically agree with this argument. An invention is most "inventive" when it can challenge or go beyond the guidelines or rules while still adhering to them on a fundamental level.

McCullough's view differs from Dourish's in that he sees contexts or "situations" as more or less quantifiable and categorizable (a more positivist approach). He enumerates certain types of situations/ locations and their intended uses explicitly on page 344 of his paper. Dourish (above) argues that context and practice cannot be preconceived. They emerge and adapt almost unpredictably to human activity.


January 28, 2006

"From Computing Machinery to Interaction Design" (Terry Winograd)
This essay makes a great deal of sense. It is right on target in my opinion. Four to five years after its publication, it still rings true. The trends of communication over computation and virtual spaces over physical machinery continue to strengthen. The field of interaction design is now an accepted term and more fully formed than it was a few years ago.

These trends all make sense because the mechanics of computing can only progress in one way at this point -- continuing to fulfill Moore's Law -- becoming better and faster at driving the content layered on top of it. Now, the actual innovation has to come out of the larger context in which the technology is employed. The analogy to the motion picture industry is a good one. At some point, pure fascination with what the film medium can do petered out, and selling content (good stories, for the people) became the priority.

"The Coming of Age of Calm Technology" (Marc Weiser/ John Seely Brown)
This what I've been waiting for: a paper which is actually visionary and is able to concretize its grand ideas about the future of digital technology. Just these few examples made a big difference in my ability to engage with the reading: "Clocks that find out the correct time after a power failure, microwave ovens that download new recipes, kids toys that are ever refreshed with new software and vocabularies, paint that cleans off dust and notifies you of intruders, walls that selectively dampen sounds, are just a few possibilities."

The necessity of so-called "calm technology" in a world of information overload is logical. There will be a need to have multiple objects working for us in the background of our daily lives. They should not be constantly competing for our immediate attention.


January 24, 2006

"Future Interaction Design Research" (Erik Stolterman)
As with Bruce Sterling's lecture at Ars Electronica, I find the theory in this article compelling. It is a bit more palpable than Sterling's in the sense that he provides some concrete examples (RFID tags, dynamic objects) of objects that might compose what he calls a digital "lifeworld." However, I have difficulty seeing why there needs to be such a premeditated change in our approach to studying or viewing future interaction design. Why won't our perspective evolve naturally on its own?

"The Construction of Change" (Roy Ascott)
The curriculum which the author ascribes for the budding artist is certainly unique - quite "experimental", many would call it. I agree that many of the art exercises mentioned are a good recipe for stretching one's imagination and ability to think in the abstract, though frustration in the process will inevitably be encountered in trying to solve these "problems". Some of Ascott's problems that I would enjoy working on are: Some of the problems I would probably detest working on: I agree with the author that all art is didactic by nature and that a developed awareness of natural and behavioral sciences is necessary for an artist to fully understand and meaningfully augment the modern world. But one thing I notice a great deal (not just in this article) is that 'creator' and 'artist' are often treated as one -- are they really the same? Does a creator necessarily have to be an artist, and does an artist necessarily need to be a creator? What about a purely scientific creator (an inventor) who does not deal with aesthetics? Or a graphic designer who lays out a page in a visually pleasing way, but does not generate his own content? Can we apply the author's recommendations equally to both of these types?