Feeling Angry

[tags] moodmeter, rwjf, flickr, images [/tags]

As their task is to deploy technology-driven probes next semester, I presented important points for them to think about over the break. The goal of this class is to explore the notion of streaming technology into homes – what it means, what changes this brings, how it enhances (or discourages) conversations that happen within a household.

Here are some of the main points from discussion:

Whenever a new technology is introduced there is a gap between its deployment in homes, and the users full and comprehensive usage. It takes time for people and the technology itself to adjust, as we see with the internet and with mobile phone technology. This is a great quote:

…Many families developed sometimes strict rules for set use. In some cases, the father, as the head of the household and actual purchaser of the set, autocratically decided what was watched. Many children could not view TV after a certain hour or until they had finished their homework. Some parents limited viewing to one hour a night or would not allow their children to watch certain programs. (My mother, for example, though a very relaxed overseer of the set, would not permit me to watch ABC’s violent “Untouchables” series in the early 1960s.)… – source

When Television was introduced, it was used mainly to display linear stories, similar to its predecessor, the radio. Over time, people realized that video could be edited, and a narrative could be presented in a non-linear fashion. We talked briefly about the major shifts in behavior with the introduction of the typewriter, television, personal computer, mobile phones and recently ambient devices.

Then, I went on to present the following topics in the next part of our discussion:
Public vs. Private: redefinition of these terms, especially within the home. People are ‘hanging out’ more and more online, participating in forums and conversations. Some of the more social sites are taking on the traditional task of the city square (or street stoops). Does

Mediated Presence: how technology is redefining our abilities to feel a strong connection to remote people and places. Two examples I gave were the presence frames and imPulse, both objects exploring remote connection through technology.

Memory & Trails: physical objects frame memories for their users. If an object is even slightly familiar, it brings with it a range of memories. We compared this to the eternal memory of digital information. Physical objects wear and tear, while digital information has no sign of aging.

Identity: the blurred border between reality and fantasy is something that came up while they executed probes. Some subjects felt much more confident when thinking about a fantasy world. Many teens use fantastical digital identities online. When thinking about probes, and gathering information from users, it is important to understand where they are comfortable. Perhaps it is necessary to gather information from the physical as well as fantastical selves, in order to see the big picture.

Control: a shift of control to users of technologies, coming with personalization and mobility. What was evident in this term’s documentation was also the ‘control play’ between members of the families. When the play-dough probe was introduced, kids came up front, while the parents sat in the back, as play-dough is a ‘childish’ endeavor. With technology kids may feel more comfortable.

Some of the other topics: capturing gestures through sensors and video tracking, controlling probes remotely, games empowering people and real time vs. taking time off to fill up a probe (this last point places an emphasis on the difference between people stopping whatever they are doing to fill up a probe, or it seamlessly fitting into their daily activities).
[tags] probes, ACCD, design, streaming, media, research, culture, technology [/tags]

information collected from one of the probes displayed above

All speakers talked about probes as creating a place for self-reflection – a place where the users (or people under research) stop whatever they’re doing, and answer a question or follow through with a certain activity. They self document through these actions. They talked about the differences in approach between designers and anthropologists, claiming that the latter do not accept intervention, while designers seek it. Using the language of design, these probes somewhat externalize a person’s interior thoughts. So instead of just “saying” (as in an ethnographic interview), the person can “show”, instead of writing, they may draw.

This practice also aims to collect data from the subject’s point of view – handing them cameras so they take photographs (instead of the researcher taking pictures from an external perspective). Lisa and Sean showed one really great example of a probe, where three families were given a paper and pens. The Parents were to use the red pen, and the teens the black. They were all supposed to note sounds they heard during the day. In the first family, the parents wrote on one side of the paper, while the teens wrote on the other. The second was much more integrated, while the third was mostly pictures and not text. Simple probe, big differences in interpretations, which lead to a basic understanding of these families.

information visualization & analysis above (from the probes)

Still, the probes have a multi-dimensional quality, which positions them at the intersection of design and the social sciences. within the human-centered design research community, probes have been used primarily to inspire empathy and new approaches for design. In the super studio class at MDP, students designed a probe which included the chumby – essentially a casing of plexi-glass enclosing the chumby, which displayed images from a live webcam (in the picture, the chumby is turned off):