Archive for category Thoughts & Reflections

Date: January 31st, 2011
Cate: Final Project, Thoughts & Reflections

Proposed Final Project

For my final project, I’ve known since before I started the MRes that I wanted to look at digital intimacy/presence.

I would like to conduct user research into when and where people miss their lovers ones the most and, from these findings, will aim to develop networked objects which will allow subtle, non-interfering interactions between them. These interactions will be deeply meaningful encounters with technology and would merge seamlessly into an individual’s everyday life.

Whilst exploring intimacy over the Christmas break, my initial user research highlighted the key moments and situations in which individuals miss their partners the most. Going to bed at night is the situation which induces the greatest feeling of absence but, as I explored this before (Pillow Talk, 2010) I am choosing to look at another. Therefore, at the moment I am exploring ways in which I can enable or enhance intimacy between couples at mealtimes. My aim is to develop a networked technology solution which will make dining alone less lonely and allow a subtle connection and interaction to their partner who is also, presumably, dining alone.

As I was supposed to start a PhD last September, I’ve had a pretty in-depth proposal drawn up for a while, the problem I’ve had is picking something “small” enough to achieve by August. I don’t want to skimp over anything or fail to do my research justice – my worst fear is that I’ll get so caught up in it all that I won’t want to have to force it to a close after only eight months. I guess the key thing I need to do here is define milestones and key goals, to ensure I remain on target and can force myself to move onto the next stage.

The mealtimes thing is a bit of tangent. I wasn’t 100% sure what aspect of a relationship I wanted to focus on, and then the other week I was having lunch with an old university professor, one who is quite likely to be my PhD supervisor next year. We were talking about my PhD proposal and ways in which intimacy could be explored and – probably because we were sitting in a restaurant at the time – we started observing the ways people were dining. This made me think back to the cultural probes I did for my degree project; the top “lonely time” for couples separated by distance was bedtime, but this was very closely followed by mealtimes. So, ever since this meal with my old lecturer I’ve become obsessed with intimacy whilst dining. It’s driving my boyfriend a bit crazy, he doesn’t like eating with me in restaurants anymore because I keep creeping on all the other people eating! But I’ve read a lot of interesting papers on the topic and I think it’s definitely worth pursuing.

Date: January 26th, 2011
Cate: Thoughts & Reflections

Twenty Eleven

Despite actually doing rather a lot of work over the Christmas break, I fell off the blogging bandwagon slightly whilst other things took over my life for a while (namely eating turkey, playing scrabble and building snowmen). However, fear not, for I have returned to the mental place (by which I mean state of mind, not Newcastle!) in which I ponder copiously and blog appropriately.

I’m glad that our essay submission is finally in. I decided to write about interaction design, and to what extent we expect technology to engage with us. One of our first Thinking lectures was on interaction design and I found it raised a lot of questions for me. The implication was that something had to give each user a truly unique output to be considered truly interactive, but this went against everything I’ve learned over the last 4 years at university, so I wanted to explore it in more depth. Ideally I wanted to explore it in relation to what each argument (standard output vs. unique output) meant for me as an interaction designer, and the implications it could have on my work or even on the way I perceived other interactive works. I wrote my essay plan around this but my feedback asked me to remain critical and not get emotionally involved. Although, after I’d submitted I found in the module handbook that it stated “the essay should explore the relationship between observed social or cultural phenomena, theory and philosophy, or the student’s own practice and the ideas and theories encountered in the module“ which kind of suggests I could have pursued my first avenue. I think I must have read that bit before I wrote my essay plan, but I suppose it’s what I get for then not spotting it again until after finishing my essay! But yeah, definitely going to ask Brigitta about this one before Essay 2 because I wasn’t really happy with my submission and think it would have been a lot richer when approach from a more personal angle. (Or does that mean it’s not really research writing? Hmmm.)

With the essay submitted, all thoughts have once again turned to my final project. I have a rough idea of what I’d like to achieve but need to really narrow it down and try and be more specific. I’ve done a lot of user research over the break so I’m hoping to spend the next day or two organising it all and posting it all – not just for the benefit of my blog, mostly as an exercise to help me see “all the branches of my tree” so to speak. The prospect of having to make such a huge decision actually makes me a little bit nervous. I have so many ideas, picking one that will not only keep me interested but also go the distance is going to be a huge task. How I am EVER going to top Pillow Talk, I don’t know.

Date: December 10th, 2010
Cate: Doing, Thoughts & Reflections

December Doings

My essay outline is done and dusted. In the end I decided that all the philosophy stuff didn’t really engage my brain in a positive way (mostly just confused me!) and I wasn’t really passionate about relating it to my work so I steered away from it in my plan. I’ve decided to write about what exactly interaction design is. I’ve been questioning this notion a lot since Brigitta’s second lecture, when she proffered that for technology to be truly interactive, it needs to process an input and generate a completely unique output. I wasn’t sure if I agreed at first – does this mean that typically “interactive” technologies such as Xboxs, mobile phones etc, are not interactive? Surely they are – but are users starting to expect technology to engage with us on a deeper level? Should interaction design be about providing a completely unique experience to each individual? Over the last few weeks I’ve been reading a lot about it and now I’m actually quite keen to write about it. I’m looking forward to exploring it in more detail – getting my teeth into both arguments and establishing exactly how I feel about it all and how this is reflected in my work.

With the essay outline submitted and out of my mind for the next few days, I can concentrate all of my efforts on my little Arduino project. Here is a sneak preview of it in its crudest, most basic form.

I’ve been using Processing to pull XML data from the BBC Weather website’s RSS feed. It scans the weather forecast for key terms and weather conditions and then passes it to Arduino, which outputs it visually. I’m making an object which will give you an indication of the weather outside. Naturally, being a designer and being obsessed with “usefulness”, I’m going to output it in a vaguely useful/practical way :-)

Date: December 3rd, 2010
Cate: Thinking, Thoughts & Reflections

Philosophy of Technology

“Apply one of the concepts of the Philosophy of Technology 1 & 2 sessions. Reflect on your practice or other scholarly/artistic/design work.”

Philosophy. Usually the word alone, stirring up images of Socrates and old men in Greece, sends me to sleep. However, I’ve never thought about it being applied to technology before. Philosophy has always struck me as something old fashioned, unproven, and lacking any rich qualities allowing it to underpin the foundations of any solid ideas. Have I been too quick to rule out philosophy and the implications it might have on my practice?

“The world of tools is an invisible realm from which the visible structure of the world emerges” (Heidegger, 1967)

Heidegger’s Tool is quite an interesting concept. I like the notion that people use “tools” – whether they are literal or metaphorical, to interact with the world. And do they matter? Does it matter what the “tool” is, and does the user pay any attention to it, if it’s getting the job done and the outcome is the desired result? Or is the tool just as important, is the tool part of the journey, which ultimately both leads to and defines the outcome? This raises a lot of questions for me around aesthetics and usability.

If the technology disappears in the user’s hand as they focus on the immediate performance of the tool – I’ll stick with the hammer example – does the way it looks, the material it is made of, its colour, etc, even matter? I’ve always been a firm believer that the tool is very important. I think any object a person uses is important, and its design/behaviour/aesthetics will ultimately impact on the experience of using it, as well as its performance. I do however like how it talks about the tool being “fused with the body”, as in my work I always aim to make the interaction work with the user’s body as I feel it creates a more fluid interaction, and thus a richer experience.

“The objective presence of the tool only occurs if it breaks during application” (Zics, 2008). This is a rather depressing thought, I think. It makes me feel like people only enjoy things when they are functional – that any beauty in the design is lost instantly should it fail to function. I’d hate to think that anything I have designed or created is viewed like that! I never discard beautiful things just because they are broken. I have several really old camera, old slide projectors, ancient light meters, etc, just because they are cool. I have a box of jewellery which is broken, but I would never throw it out because it is still of value to me – it reminds me of people and places and things – and it always will, regardless of functionality. I think the functions of objects change over time.

Ultimately, I think I must subconsciously consider a lot of these concepts within my own work. I have never taken the time to study them until now, so perhaps I wasn’t aware of the decisions I’ve been making. I started my first undergraduate degree when I was 16 – in film and media studies, and I’ve written a lot about the hermeneutic code. It’s quite interesting to revisit this and apply some of that to technology and design. Have I been doing it all along without realising?

I’m finding all this a bit mind-bending, but it has made me think a lot. I’m going to end this post here and will probably come back and update it in a few days when I’ve had some more time to process all this!