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.

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.

Theme
Information Ecologies is about changing people’s perspectives on technology. In particular, the concern relates to how technology is used in a local setting and how it impacts the ways in which we live, die, work, and play. Their goal is to create a balanced discussion about technology that allows people to be informed and actively engaged in settings that include technology.

Problem
The authors’ reason for writing this book is that current discussions regarding technology lack a balanced perspective, resigning people to a mindset that all that happens is simply inevitable. The consequence of this can be seen in three ways: the rapid pace of technology leads to an inability for humans to keep up, increased automation leads to a loss of human skill and judgment in technology, and mechanical efficiency as benchmarks for performance end up ignoring the richness of a full human being. These are all symptoms of technologies being deployed that lack “human heart.”

The authors attribute this partly to public discourse about technology. They see the language and metaphors used as limited and unbalanced. With this in mind, they look at current metaphors used and their shortcomings:

Technology as a Tool

• Metaphor: Something that fits the human hand and mind of individuals.
• Thinking about technology as a tool is useful when designing for human capabilities and cognitive needs, but it doesn’t take into account the social, organizational, or political setting in which it is used.

Technology as a Text

• Metaphor: A form that holds meaning and communicates something depending on its situation.
• It is useful for discussion about meaning and the roles of designers, implementors, users, etc… But it doesn’t take into account judgment creativity and values when people choose to act.

Technology as a System

• Metaphor: Phenomena of immense scope.
• It is the broadest perspective, but it can be overwhelming and wash out distinctions and details.

Argument
The authors present a fourth metaphor, an ecology, as their core argument:

Technology as an ecology

• Metaphor: A living system that includes complex relationships, diversity, co-evolution, keystone species, and locality.
• Takes into account the broader context but also includes the detailed complexity.

They see the metaphor of a living system as being more useful in discussion people’s relationship to technology–and it makes sense since people themselves are living things. Part of their motivation in using this metaphor is the association with something that is long lasting, changing, and requires the engagement and participation of those affected by it. In essence it says: people and their complexities matter.

Definitions

• Information Ecologies: local habitations in which we can reflect on appropriate uses of technology in light of our local practices, goals, and values. It is a complex system of part and relationships. It exhibits diversity and experiences continual evolution. Different parts of an ecology coevolve, changing together according to the relationships in the system. Several keystone species necessary to the survival of the ecology are present. Information ecologies have a sense of locality.
• Local habitations: Settings in which we as individuals have an active role, a unique and valualbe local perspective, and a say in what happens. Ex. Workplaces, houses, libraries, hospitals, community centers, churches, clubs, and civic organizations.

Take-away
Sometimes it was difficult to figure out who this book would be useful for beyond researchers looking for alternative frameworks regarding technology, but they give three main pieces advice for those looking to “evolve information technology.”

• Work from core values: understand what people care about and the emotions of people using technology.
• Pay Attention: Stay curious, wonder about things, and engage people in discussion.
• Ask Strategic questions: ask a full-range of open-ended “why” questions that relate to the particularities of a local setting.

I’ll close with a quote from the book that I found particularly interesting regarding the value of real examples in anthropological research and discussion:

Real examples show diversity and interconnections that summaries often conceal. When people give general accounts of how things work to outsiders, they usually leave out what is locally unimportant or little valued. But sometimes these hidden details, seen from different perspectives, emerge as crucial to the workings of an ecology (85)

As the end of the master’s program approaches, it’s more relevant than ever for all of us second year students. That being said, I came across two documents, one from Carnegie Mellon and one from the Institute of Design in Chicago that polled some graduates:

IIT puts the median at $80-$90k, CMU gives a conservative $66k, and US News has some pretty high numbers, except for Pittsburgh. Of course, these should all be taken cautiously, considering the number of people who responded, the various levels of experience that people might have, and what the job actually is.

Also, pulled these from the IxDA discussion list:
AIGA Design Salaries Website
AIGA Survey of Design Salaries 2007
Information Architecture Institute Salary Survey 2006
Usability Professionals’ Assocation Salary Survey 2005
Jakob Nielson’s Salary Trends for Usability Professionals 2006
Peak Usability Salary Survey 2002, 2004

The types of work and titles are questionable… but if anyone has any other sources, I’d like to hear about em.

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.

John talked about his design philosophies and described the basis for the work he does. He approaches design as a way to solve complex business problems in a strategic and tactical manner. He talked a lot about the work he did with BodyMedia and how it is about behavior change for people, but that you can’t force people to change, but it is more of a change of the awareness of their behavior by having access to explicit information about their habits over time. It sounds like there is the ability to use a suite of devices along with a web service to get information into a proper way to show others, including your doctor.

Data
An interesting point he brought up related to BodyMedia devices is the contrast between data that is collected by the devices and those that are entered into the system. There are some things, such as food intake, that needs to be entered manually and is presented alongside data that from the devices, making it somewhat problematic if people aren’t as honest as they could be.

John also talked about individual differences in motivation. I found this really interesting, since my thesis project is already dealing with motivational issues.

• Numbers themselves can be motivation for some people, such as seeing the number of calories spent each day.
• Coaching and branding might also motivate people, if they  have some overarching cohesive system that is telling them what they should do next.
• The social aspect of sharing also helps motivate people, as they share the data showing the energy expenditures over a week with other people using the same system. People can also challenge each other and cooperate like when people go jogging or work out together.
• There is also the social networking aspect where people can meet and find others who are doing similar activites and have similar goals and values
• Feedback at the right moment is also important. Giving someone access to their data at the exact moment when they are deciding whether to stay indoors or go outside is more useful than after they have committed to staying home and doing something else.

Design Studios VS Design Consultancies
A lot of the conversation revolved around the idea of different possibilities in places to work, which was good for me as I make my decision of what I want to do afterwards.

Studio: You’re going to make the actual solution. You hire people to do the design of different parts, build it, and also support it.

Consultancy: More focused on research and planning. You need to be able to facilitate discussions with client teams. The interdisciplinary nature of CMU is good for this. You become the voice of design and speak for the end user.

This turned the discussion into what they end up delivering to clients at the end. Those being: Research reports, plans, scenarios, early conceptual prototypes, wireframes, or even flash prototypes. So there is quite a variety, as expected

Important Skills 
Talking about the deliverables naturally transitioned to the creation of them and skills needed to be a part of a successful design team. A lot of it might be obvious, but it was nice to hear it again.

• Ability to communicate clearly, especially to clients
• Ability to listen - hear what people are saying, understand it, and re-frame the discussion in the interest of the end user.
• Ability to find ways that users already deal with an issue (ex, paper journaling their wight loss)
• A passion for questioning and figuring out why people do the things that they do.
• Reiteration of importance of communication (it’s hard to teach and often missing)
  • Speaking clearly
  • Knowing social conventions of a group (esp. clients), when to talk, when to let them talk
  • Not just verbal, but the idea of the consultance’s stance. People are paying you for knowledge and leadership through a problem. You should clearly show your value and be able to stand your ground. People often think that you are just billing them without giving them something useful.
  • Etiquette when sending emails, naming files, logical organization of meterials. Everything is “part of the argument” and is a reflection of your relationship with the client.
  • Consciousness with your deliverables… even the breaking down of cost-benefit analysis.

He talked about how not only does this help them get new clients by being “buttoned up” but more importantly it helps them retain clients. 80% of the clients they work with are ones they started working with in their first year as a company.

To wrap up he talked a little bit about how he decided to work with BodyMedia and why he ended up starting his own company. Overall it was really worth hearing and to get some more real-world grounding. Sometime I feel like we are in a bit of a fantasy land while in school and forget about day to day logistical issues that we don’t have to deal with here. Gist definitely sounds like an interesting place and I like to hear about people who are working in the design world doing stuff that they enjoy that is positive and beneficial rather than designing simply to get more sales.

These reasons are the principles that guide the types of design projects and the decisions we make within them. Am I here because I want to make “cool stuff” or is it because there are better job prospects with a master’s degree or is it because I truly want to make the world a better place. I’m aiming towards the last one and I’m trying my best, but it’s not always easy.

This brings me to the question of when not to design. If we are truly trying to make the world a better place, there might be times that we tackle a project that ends up a dead end. Maybe there is nothing to invent and people will go about their natural way of doing things and there is nothing you can do to change it. A bit cynical perhaps and it’s probably not the best attitude have. It might come down to the initial approach to the design problem itself. There’s tons of writing and discussion about how problem framing is critical, which might be one way the dead-ends are avoided.

But I wonder, especially when the starting point is a new technology or ability, how many times have there been situations where designers should have just admitted that there is nothing they can do and move on. Or is there always something that can be done, even if it is small. Is there a mobile application hiding in every human issue? A service that people can always attach to and use on a regular basis? With pressure from clients and even within academia to produce results, it’s probably rare. If there is a paper on a project like that, I’d love to read it.

My question is then not what is it, but why is it? I feel like interaction design as we learn it at school is the most appropriate way to approach this topic. Why do we feel the need to talk about ubicomp as something distinct? Essentially interaction designers are working on these small pieces of information technology (and yes, products in general) that are addressing people’s needs regardless of the overarching organization of coherent ubiquitous system. This is interesting because the discussion is no longer about the speculations and possibilities and is more about a bottom-up approach to designing this future.

So who is designing the now and future of computing anyway? Is it the humanistic designers who empathize with people’s needs? Is it large corporations who have enough money to deploy infrastructure only when it’s convenient for them? Or is it DIY hackers who aggressively subvert these companies, organize, and create ad-hoc networks of their own?  Maybe it’s everyone. The healthy(hopefully) interplay between all these different might have the potential to scrap together new ways that we will use technology as a resource.

As I’m investigating, I came across a great post that references an old paper that questions ubicomp. Perfect timing.

Making Furniture Interactive
Although it wasn’t a class I even knew about until classes started, this class is essentially about physical computing and embedding electronics into physical objects. This is pretty closely related to things I’m interested in, with regards to the boundaries of physical and digital contexts. It’s nice to actually work on making something that has multiple facets of production (physical, electronic, and computational), but that also makes it difficult. Most of the time success means getting something simply to function rather than making something meaningful. We have been posting the work we do on this blog.

Graduate Typography
After getting a bunch of mixed reviews from people who took the class, I figured I should take it anyway since I want to have a good foundation for visually communication ideas. I’m surprised at how useful it has been so far. I’ve always thought of my problem with typography being a matter of choosing the right font, and the approach that Kristen Hughes takes already has helped me in understanding how to start using type. I’m slowly getting used to the subjective aspects and freedom that is created through constraints.

Thesis Project
I’m glad to say that I feel somewhat confident about what I’m doing with the project. I’ve started with a somewhat formed vision of what is important with my topic and why I want to do it. I’m working on Ad-Hoc assistance and how people can share resources between each other, possibly using mobile devices. I’m going to interview people who are involved in volunteer groups to get a sense of their attitudes and thoughts, and also approach the east end food co-op as a user group that collaborates through helping. I’m hoping the research will help in creating a system to make it easy for regular people to participate in everyday assistance. I think it’s great for me because it puts me outside of my comfort zone and is something I don’t know very much about. The only worry is time.

Thesis Paper
This one’s a little tough. Every week I feel like I’m formulating something worthwhile just to be thrown into doubt and anxiety following our thesis meetings. I feel lost a lot of the time and unsure if what I am writing about and why it’s worth my time and energy. Somewhat like our Seminar II papers last year. Right now I’m looking at how people assign meaning to space resulting in places. It all relates to pervasive technology and something about perception and flow. I’m hoping I can clarify this for myself as soon as possible.

If anything, I’m coming across tons of questions that be thesis topics in themselves. Here’s to hoping that things start coming together, and quickly.

It’s clear to me that I have picked an area that I’m interested in for my paper, ubiquitous technology and how it relates to people somehow. What’s not as clear to me is how I’ll be able to talk about it in a way that makes sense and isn’t just rehashing what is already known. One of the most useful books I’ve looked at is The Craft of Research by Wayne Booth and others. I’ve only had time to skim through some of the sections, it is really well written and has comforting words of wisdom:

“Doing research is not like strolling along a well-marked path to a familiar destination; it’s more like struggling through overgrown woods, searching for something you won’t know until you find it. But no matter how indirect your path, you can feel confident that you are steadily getting closer to an answer if you manage each step of the way to anticipate predictable problems.”

Sometimes it’s nice to be reminded that you don’t always need to have everything figured out…