It’s been more than two months since I turned in the fateful thesis paper to Anita in the basement of Margaret Morrison. It was a bittersweet feeling to finally finish the paper, since I wrestled it for so long. During and after the work, I sometimes have a hard time describing my paper, especially since I found it more of a personal exploration into topics that I wanted to resolve. I was exploring ideas of perception and the self that lingered from undergrad with the design of interactive products and the increasing context we consider as interaction designers.

Having nearly a year to craft a paper means that there is a lot of time where you are secluded in rooms full of books wondering if you still have an ounce of sanity left. With Dick Buchanan as my advisor, our meetings usually consisted of nudges and strategic questioning about the ideas involved. He helped me to look at things differently and explore sources I never would have, and generally gave a broader perspective of whatever we were talking about.

Anyway, I was inspired to write something about my paper because of a recent Adaptive Path post that had some web tools that analyze writing. I thought I’d throw my paper in and see what came out:

One of the things that happened to me, and I’m sure happened to a lot of people, is the discovery of so many more ideas and topics than you first start out with–via readings, discussions, classes, etc… So it almost turned out to be too much time as I had to fight to scope things down. Overall, it was a good experience, and made me a lot more confident in my writing and research process.

I’m going to briefly talk about some of the ideas from the book Information Ecologies. One of the main issues the authors wrote about is the way technology is thought about and discussed. They stress the importance of language when discussing technology–particularly the metaphors that shape the way we think.

Theory
The book’s ideas are related what I wrote about in my thesis paper. During my research, I had a difficult time resolving the word technology – a word that engineers, anthropologists, and everyday people use as opposed to product – a word that designers, and perhaps business people use. Technology usually refers to the collection of products we use that contain a variety of computational components. When we talk about technology, we are more often than not talking about digital/information/high technology. The problem I see is that just using the word technology usually implies a sense of inevitability–which the authors were trying to push back on.

By talking about the man made world in terms of a product, for example, saying interactive product, more responsibility can be give to the people that actually create them and make decisions about them. Designers, policy makers, and the communities that use the products don’t deal with pure technology in their everyday lives, but with products that have been intentionally shaped. Because of this, I’ve found the idea of a product ecology to be more grounded in the reality and language of everyday people.

Their argument about using an information ecology is useful and interesting. It balances the way that technologists might look at a situation that incorporates technology. It reaches out and makes connections between an idea that comes from biology to our everyday life. One of the most valuable things about it is that it gives a set of dynamic characteristics (system, diversity, coevolution, keystone species, and locality) that we can use to study, interpret, discuss, and think about. At the very least, it is a source of inspiration to think about things in a different way–even if it seems too abstract at times.

Practice
Why does any of this matter and to whom? Well, the ideas in the book can be useful to lots of people, but I’m going to stick specifically to designers. As the things we design become more complex and integratated into our contexts, I think it can become harder to tease out all the parts and think about them. To a service designer, this might seem obvious–that there is a complex system with lots of parts that need to be accounted for, not the least of which includes people with their needs and desires. But I still think that it can be useful in different stages that designers find themselves in, here are some quick thoughts:

• Researching: Generating interview questions around information ecology characteristics.
• Synthesizing: Grouping data collected during research around characteristics of the information ecology.
• Communicating: Building models based on an information ecology’s characteristics.
• Generating : Coming up with ideas that cater to a living, evolving system that fit with people’s personal values. Brainstorming around an information ecology’s characteristics.
• Refining: Fleshing out concepts that take into account the characteristics of an information ecology and referring back to them.

It might look a bit deterministic at first, but I’m not saying this should take the place of whatever a designer does already or that they should use it at every step of the process. It’s just another tool that can be used when needed. The authors go into detail–perhaps a bit too much detail–with examples involving libraries, schools, workplaces, classrooms, and hospitals. Being anthropologists, their focus is mainly on the researching aspect and less on the other phases of design.

I wanted to get a post in before the year ended, but it looks like I’ll have to settle for the first day of the new year. Instead of giving a large summary of things, I’m just going to link to some recent links that I have found interesting and might say something about the future.

Technology
Regardless of people’s view of technology in the world, designers should always have a good sense of what is happening and what will happen with the potential materials of their products. It gives us more resources to solve problems, but also more ways to screw up. BBC has a pair of lists one that is looks back at technology with impact, and one that looks forward at technologies on the rise. It’ll be interesting to see whatever happens with WIMAX, especially with regards to services that aren’t just about getting entertainment to people at higher bandwidths and with higher resolution.

Ideas and People
To do anything worthwhile with the technology, not only is there a need for people to design successful products, but there is also a need for someone to monetize it and distribute it to others.

From the always-interesting Springwise, they posted the top ten telecom and mobile business ideas of 2007 . With all the mobile stuff I’ve been involved with, it’s a nice look at some ideas people have had and developed into businesses of some sort.

There’s also a great interview with Trent Reznor by Wired in either text or audio. Most of it is him describing the ARG (Alternative Reality Game) that he developed with 42 entertainment for the release of his previous album. I think what’s great about it is not only his realization that he needs to keep up with new generations of listeners, but the fact that he understands what is going and is passionate about doing things right for his audience. I see parallels with what interaction or experience designers do, in that the value is no longer only in the traditional product (in this case the music tracks), but the entire experience surrounding it. I think if anyone wants to be ahead of the game, they either have to distribute media in ways that are faster and more convenient than the illegal channels or they have to approach their product with the assumption that the media is free and they need to build something else related to it that will bring in profits.

On the opposite ends of creation for profit is an audio interview with Tony Dunne and Fiona Raby by Core77, which many people probably came across through the experientia blog. It’s great hearing them talk about what they do, and it makes me want to grab their books.

Usability/User Experience Specialist
Despite the awkward title and contradictory descriptions, its probably a good thing that the type of work we do is on the list of Best Careers of 2008 (hopefully much longer too, eh?). The link comes from the IxDA discussion list, and even just browsing I could tell it created quite a stir, especially with the nearly six-figure salary they tacked on. Although there references are all about HCI and Human Factors, I think the day in the life description sounds a bit more like design.

Knowing
A final link, again to BBC, is a nice little list about 100 things we didn’t know last year. Reminds me that even with the catastrophes that mark time, there is also progress in our generation of knowledge as a society, even if its only random tidbits of info.