Wednesday, March 21, 2018

VR, authenticity and killer apps

The hype around VR has lately been growing and ads are making the case that it is time to take on this new form of interaction for all kinds of applications. However, in a great article (published by TechCrunc) the writer  Sibjeet Mahapatra argues that there is a major problem in the world of VR. The problem is the missing killer app.

Mahapatra discusses what he sees as the two values that VR can offer, primarily a sense of presence. But he also argues that VR still lacks when it comes to authenticity. The author makes a good case for what is needed for VR to really become something wanted by a larger audience. So, a good read about interaction and interactivity.

[And of course, I always like someone who  mentions Rorty and his "experience machine"!]

Monday, March 19, 2018

PhD course on "The elements of interaction"

I am just back from a trip to Europe where I among other things taught a two day Ph.D. course called "The Elements of Interaction". The course was organized at the department of computer science at Aalborg University by my colleague Peter Axel Nielsen.

It was an intense experience. Two full days completely focused on our new book "Things that keep us busy--the elements of interaction". We worked through almost all chapters in the book. It led to wonderful discussions. The doctoral students were great. They were curious, critical and inquisitive. And to me, it was a great way of exploring if the content of the book make sense and work for others than me and my co-author Lars-Erik.

Based on the experience, I learned two things. Our book seems to work fine with PhD students and they were able to relate the content to their own research in ways that might help them. Secondly, to teach a PhD course in this format, two full days, is excellent. It leads to complete focus. I will definitely argue for this format when I have the chance.

Thursday, March 08, 2018

When is a copy and the original the same

In an interesting article, Byung-Chul Han examines the notion of what is an original artifact versus a copy. He explains the different notions in the East and West in a way that is relevant to anyone thinking about design and creativity. The major argument that Han makes is that in China (and other Eastern societies) the notion of what is an original might appear as strange to us in the West. According to him, in these cultures, a perfect copy is the same as the original and has no greater value than the original. The article tells a number of fascinating stories of when this difference in thinking between East and West has led to serious misunderstandings and conflicts.

I was intrigued by this article. I have no idea how correct it is and how true it depicts the cultural differences, but even if it is not a true depiction, it does raise a lot of exciting questions about how to think about what is an original and if an original should have any particular status. Again, all relevant questions to any designer.

I have earlier commented on two other books by the philosopher Byung-Chul Han on this blog. See links below.
"In the swarm"

"The burnout society"

Btw, the online magazine Aeon, where this article published, is excellent!

Monday, March 05, 2018

Interaction and Complexity

One aspect of interaction that keeps emerging is related to complexity. A lot of people complain that interacting with systems and devices today is too complex. As a natural reaction to that, a lot of designers argue for simplicity as an important design principle. But what is complexity when it comes to interaction and why does it appear? In our recent book "Things that keep us busy -- the elements of interaction" we spend two chapters on interaction complexity and the related notion of control.

We do this by examining what interaction complexity is and what causes it. This leads to a theory (or model) of interaction complexity that consists of four different types of complexity. This is what we write (on p 85).

"We will identify and define four main loci of complexity of an artifact or system (see figure 5.1), all with respect to its designed purpose:
      1. internal complexity
      2. external complexity
      3. interaction complexity
      4. mediated complexity
These four loci should not be thought of as different measures or types
of complexity; they represent a rough division into the main (more or less abstract) locations where complexity is residing in varying degrees, and manifesting itself in various ways."

and figure 5.1 lays out how these different forms of complexity relate to each other.

After having worked with this model for quite some time, I find it quite useful and it helps to understand many aspects of interactivity and its relation to complexity. One of the major consequences of the model is that it indicates (strongly) that there is no easy "fix". To design for simplicity does not have any optimal solutions, every design decision about how to handle (or where to put complexity) leads to serious trade-offs that are inevitable.

This is why I believe that understanding this model can help and prepare every interaction designer to better approach the design of any interactive system and device.

Monday, February 26, 2018

Three new books on my desk

Just received three new books. Looking forward reading them. Especially since I know the authors of two of the books.

Friday, February 16, 2018

Nope, there is no 'hack' or 'fix' for designing

It seems as if we live in a time where everything can be solved with a 'hack' or a 'fix'. There are infinite websites, blogs, Youtube videos that show how to 'hack' a specific problem or even your life, 'life hacks'. The idea is that there are some smart, maybe almost 'magical', ways of doing things that some people know and now, finally, they are sharing it with the rest of us. You can find videos that say "You have been folding your laundry the wrong way" or "How to peel a banana the right way". These examples are of course harmless but it seems as if we are seeing a shift in mindset. People want quick fixes, smart hacks, that won't require long periods of learning, practice and experience.

It is possible that this mindset is also seeping into areas where it is not appropriate. For instance, the process of designing, of becoming a designer, is not something you can do or become by learning a few tricks or hacks. In the midst of the ongoing growth of design and design thinking (which is mainly a good thing), there is a misconception that you can spend a few hours in a workshop or maybe just read about some design "hacks" and you will become a designer. To me, this is a serious problem that leads to unhappiness and backlash. First of all, people become unhappy when they realize that their design efforts don't work or lead to good designs. Secondly, design, as an approach to change, will be seen as not working and we see a backlash.

I have never seen anyone propose that all you need to do to become a proficient scientist, musician or artist is a 3-hour workshop. Why is designing and design thinking seen as something that anyone can acquire without almost any effort? What does that say about how designing is understood?

Friday, February 09, 2018

"The Design Way" in Spanish

Fondo de Cultura Económica in Mexico City is publishing the Spanish language edition of our book "The Design Way -- intentional change in an unpredictable world" (MIT Press) by Harold G. Nelson and me. This is quite exciting and it will make the book accessible to an even larger audience.

We are also quite happy that the book has now been referenced almost 1.000 times by other authors. I hope that means that at least some of them have read it, or at least parts of it :-)

We do not have any date for when the Spanish version will be out, it will probably be a while.

Featured Post

Why Design Thinking is Not Enough

If you go to Youtube and look for "design thinking" you will find a large number of videos with TED talks and other talks all expl...