Kees Dorst | Interpreting Design Thinking – Long version from Business 21C on Vimeo.

MakerBot have announced that their Botcave™ Retail Store in Brooklyn will open on November 26th. This is a physical retail space that will retail MakerBotsand Arduinos as well as kits from Adafruit, Evil Mad Science, Jimmie Rodgers, Sparkfun and Liquidware.

This reflects increasingly obvious emergence of retail and commercially focused models growing around open source, crowd-sourcing, social product design and citizen led approaches. [Perhaps better understood as citizen/retail/production models.] Examples include Ponoko, Shapeways, Nervous Systems and perhaps most obviously DOIY and Quirky.com.

Here innovation is observed in the research, design, supply chain, production and distribution mechanisms employed. Quirky, for example, employs crowd sourced (social) product design, research and development. This is complemented by a pull production system, requiring a predetermined level of sales before products are actually produced. This low risk (agile, pull) approach is an interesting development for production and retail of consumer goods.

My research has been looking at models such as these for some time and in doing so I have found many failures and obviously sub-standard models. While it is early for such models it is obvious that Quirky (for one) is something to watch out for.

For the models that didn’t survive or are destined for the retail administration/bankruptcy graveyard I suggest that their primary failings or short comings are related to the client/citizen side interaction, how the citizen/consumer interacts with the model, the effort required, barriers to participation, incentive to participate and a simple lack of consumer awareness.

My forth-coming paper* with Dr. Leon Cruickshank begins to address the client/citizen side of such models through consideration of the role of design as applied to such models. We suggest that through appropriate service design, design of (citizen) processes, provision of toolkits, design or supply of proto-designs** these citizen/retail/production model will be substantially enhanced. (Throw IoT into this mix and we have a perfect storm.)

Retail kids WAKE UP!

>>More to come<<

*SVID 2010
**Related to the known concepts of unfinished, modular and under-design.

Hello!
I’ve been observing the beginnings of a project by TinkerLondon involving DIY smart homes which will run over autumn of this year, and I wondered if you might be interested (or know other folks who would be)?

The project involves giving 6 homes across Europe a research kit of the latest open hardware tech, and training in how to use them. They then have up to 3 months in the autumn to play with the tech, make interesting things, and share their experiences through blogs and videos. Each household will also be partnered with some local technology experts who will help them throughout the autumn and provide support where-ever’s needed.

It doesn’t matter if you don’t know anything about technology – all of the kit and the training is designed so that folks with any amount (or not) of tech know-how. We’re actually really interested to see what kind of things non-techy people would make and how they make it. There’s no constraints on what toys people can build: people could track their cats, their plants, measure how often the fridge door opens, and anything else they fancy.

There’s more information here - www.homesenseproject.com – and do give me a yell if you need to know more. We’re on a pretty tight deadline to find our final round of households so do let us know soon if you fancy it, and please please do pass this on to anyone else who might be interested!

Cheers,
Natasha

Details available here:
http://www.homesenseproject.com/about/

Sign up here:

_Households
http://www.homesenseproject.com/make-me-a-smart-home/
_Experts
http://www.homesenseproject.com/become-an-expert/

Affordance theory was originally developed by James Gibson, a psychologist interested in perception. Affordances were originally defined as ‘action possibilities’ between an animal and its environment. Specifically, the term affordance (clues in the environment) was used to indicate an action possibility that was sensed in an immediate, direct way with no sensory processing required.

As an example of this construct, a slide control or push button would, it is claimed, be directly understandable and require sensory processing. Affordances always exist as a relationship between an organism and its environment. Whilst looking to scramble up a steep, grassy slope trees afford grip to haul you up, rocks afford grip to propel. They also have to be usable, affordances do not exist if they cannot by physically used through lack of height for example. This notion of direct, immediate access to the ‘meaning’ of an affordance without sensory processing is obviously appealing to designers of products. It was popularised in human computer interface circles after Donald Norman used the concepts in Psychology of Everyday Things.

In Norman’s view of interface design the notion of affordance was used alongside conceptual models and conventions to aid a designer. However, as interest in affordances grew he became concerned that discussion about them in hci circles was wandering further and further away from his original intention. Norman has expressed his dissatisfaction on this and distinguishes conceptual models, real affordances, perceived affordances, constraints and conventions.

Conceptual models provide the logic for how an interface works and provide a base for reasoning about possible actions in an interface. Real affordances are all the affordances that physically exist, but may not actually provide access to a designer’s intention. Perceived affordances are those that the designer has managed to make readily accessible and understandable to the user of the interface. Constraints exist in physical and logical form – an example of a physical constraint would be where a section of a monitor does not provide cursor feedback so it’s clear that no actions are possible in that areas. A logical constraint allows reasoning to be made about possibilities for example where a user is asked to click on five locations, but only four are visible. The user knows logically that another location must exist and can look for it using, e.g., scroll bars. Scroll bars are in turn examples of cultural conventions which have become to be accepted within communities. They are understood precisely because of their ubiquitous nature which has developed over time.

Norman is very clear on his wish to see these different aspects of interface design clearly separated out to help analysis and subsequent design. It is clear how an individual designer’s role can be much stronger in the development of intended perceived affordances of a product (they can have direct influence on this) whilst it is more difficult to change cultural constraints (at least in the short term).

Collaboration is a coat of many colours – it exists in many forms and for many ends. It can be fun, it can be exciting, it can be extremely hard work and it can take you outside of your comfort zone. In its very best form it gives everyone involved a chance to learn something, to produce something meaningful and not just merely contribute from their own single perspective. HighWire’s strap line ‘creating innovative people for radical change’ doesn’t quite capture the collaborative nature of much of our work and of our thinking. But it’s there, it’s definitely there.

We held our first workshop on Tuesday around the general theme of emotive physicality. What do we mean by this? Well, there’s a sense that physical products can engage and affect us in ways that are different to digital media. Can we make use of these possibilities and provide experiences that seem more natural, more intuitive and maybe more fun? This is what we’ll be looking at over the next few months and the workshop allowed us to kick start the whole process.

As part of our collaborative approach, we were honoured to have both Taylor Nuttall from Folly and Alexandra Deschamps-Sonsino from Tinker working with us for the day. They are both truly inspirational.

So, how did it all work out? Well, in the spirit of DIY culture and just ‘making stuff’ the initial warm-up session felt like you’d just entered a primary school classroom, but with less tears. This was surprising; to be honest I’d been expecting more tears. After the ‘getting to know us all’ session with card, felt, scissors, glue, string and balsa wood we then proceeded into the next sessions armed with only post-it notes for support. Stripped bare, we brainstormed ideas around data and data sources, connections and transformations, and finally physical realisations of these data sources and associated transformations.

There were a few novel interpretations of what data would be useful – ‘confusion’ was identified, along with a ‘busyness’ indicator. A cluster of ideas developed around ‘emotional states’, specifically asking the question about capturing the emotional states not of individuals, but of groups, such as an audience. The prize for the most inventive transformation must surely go to the inspired choice of ‘magic’. This struck me as a wholly appropriate way to think about transformations and maybe even interaction design in general. Interaction that has a sense of wonderment about it may be interesting indeed.

Final concept realisations were developed in the heady atmosphere of both the post-it notes and the contents of the craft boxes. Carnage ensued and fun was had by all as teams were rather naughtily swapped at half-time and inherited another team’s half-baked ideas. The physical models produced included adaptive architectures, connected gardens, handbags that dripped e-pheromones, and an interventionist God. What more can I say?

The day was rounded off in rather fine style with fizz and cake. I believe we may have judged the concepts too and awarded a rather special prize.

For me, this was the beginning of a journey. Collaboration, to work well, has to be based upon trust, building of relationships and of mutual interest (and passion) across a broad topic area rather than short-term specific questions. For those interested in forms of collaboration with Universities I can recommend reading Knowledge Exchange and Universities and Business produced by the Centre for Business Research.

One thing that clearly jumped out to me personally was the Renaissance nature of this developing field. It’s clearly post-disciplinary; skills and expertise are required in a wide variety of areas across art, design, engineering, and computing. We also need to both incorporate and synthesise theoretical approaches to help us understand and support these type of interactive experiences.

A final word – it’s likely that we’ll be running more of these workshops, focusing more on practical skills covering, e.g., arduino, processing and rapid-prototyping techniques. If you’re interested in these or in broader collaboration, please do get in touch.

HighWire recently held an Ideas Workshop with Alex Deschamps-Sonsino CEO of Tinker London. The workshop was the first of a coming series of workshops related to an emerging HighWire project involving Richard Wood, Graham Dean, Natasha Carolan & Marcia Smith. This project is focused on (broadly speaking) physical computing, interaction design, physicalisation of data and emotive and persuasive design.

The day was pitched as an ideas factory, to encourage idea generation, exploration of the domains of interest and networking between the relevant disciplines. Given our ongoing dedication to playfulness the day was designed to entertain and inspire each participant. With guests including Folly CEO Taylor Nuttall, Imagination Lancaster and the Computing and Management schools in Lancaster we started the day by creating teams through drawing keys out of bowl at random, a starting point which set up a playful and provocative atmosphere.

Product Designer Lee Murray has created an application for CCTV surveillance with his concept, The Observer; a public access viewing station allowing any member of the public to watch others via CCTV cameras. The object explores the potential social implications if all CCTV cameras were monitored by the public.
Using web camera & internet technology to bring the concept to life, Lee hopes that ultimately the entire system would be connected to the nations extensive network of CCTV cameras. Constructed from sheet steel & aluminium, this concept makes interesting nods to ‘people watching’ and crowd sourced surveillance. While  the Observer’s design has been inspired from classic science-fiction books & films such as “Brave New World”, “1984″ & “Brazil”.

Wired UK and US covers, both covering the ‘new industrial revolution’. Interesting to behold, in terms of the cover art used. Is the UK/European image a nod to socialism?