Bono, the rock-star in the band U2, sees the current world as suffering from an inequality of enormous scale - the Africans and other third world countries are severely disadvantaged and burdened by debts, diseases (such as AIDS) and lack of societal infrastructure. He argues that the Western world must help, because of their misbehavior in the history, and that they are not doing enough currently to make the situation better.
He also argues that many of the previous ways of help have been selfish or misguided, and that much bigger efforts need to be established now.
He says that the question is not about charity, it is about equality. Point is that if a western country or a part of a western country would be in same situation, the western world would correct the situation. But Africans are just silently ignored.
I hope I can also contribute to reduce this inequality between western world and third world. My approach is that of a researcher, not a rock star. I take small steps. I want to work towards a world where the ways of production are more equal towards all people. Where products and services are not one-sidedly defined and controlled by huge western companies. A world that perhaps behaves more like open source. An enriching culture.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Open source -like ecosystems
COMPUTER SCIENCE
In the field of computer science, the last 20 years have seen two main modes of production - the companies and open source. There is also a third semi-producer - the academic research. Although academic world has traditionally been closer to the open source -approach than proprietary software -approach, the current financing and contracting frameworks in the research are actually driving towards proprietary research.
Lately, open source has become serious contender for the traditional proprietary (closed-source) business model. The advantages are high collaboration and contribution between individuals and companies in the field and the possibility to freely distribute and modify the product both in final and source code form. Because digitally created products are easy to duplicate, they are easy target for open source -inspired approaches. Physical products are much harder challenge.
USER-CENTRED RESEARCH
User-centred approach has been successful in enabling companies to reach out for users, in order to create more relevant and less risky products. Typically users in this kind of research are informants - they are a subject to be studied, understood and empathized with. It is the researchers and designers who interprete/translate the findings into the features/requirements for the product/service.
PARTICIPATIVE DESIGN
Parallel to the user-centred approach, participative design has sought to create methods and tools for users (e.g. Sanders's Make Tools), so that the users (who are non-professionals) can participate to the development and design activities in companies. Despite the higher level of participation from users, this approach allows companies to define the direction and flow of the development.
ACTIVE, EMPOWERED USERS
Lately users are increasingly capable of creating their own products (especially in the digital realm, see "prosumers") and content (like photos, video), thanks to new easy-to-use tools (e.g. Apple iLife) and services (e.g. Gmail and Flickr). In this ecosystem, the companies ultimately transform from creators of products to creators of tools (meta products), with which the users create the (final) products. Some of the meta products can translate into services, which encourages subscription based business models, instead of the traditional pay-to-own models.
It is possible to translate part of the physical product economy to this ecosystem by offering smartly designed interfaces and building blocks (remember LEGO -bricks?, see "mass-customization") to users who can then build their own product. The Apple's iPod -economy is a one kind of approach to this.
USERS AS PATH SHAPERS
Open source development has shown its potential to accelerate the creation and distribution of meaningful, well working products. It can scale beyond the abilities and resources of any single company. How this approach could be expanded outside the realm of software code?
Here are my thoughts:
1) Many of the (digital) tools of expressing and communicating ideas and thoughts already exists. Although they could be even better.
2) The re-use and re-cycling of existing products and ideas is a excellent facilitator to this process.
3) Users should have methods and techniques with which they are able to find out, articulate, describe and refine what is important and relevant to them. They should be empowered to create concepts that others (companies, organizations or individuals) can then productize. Professionals have this knowledge, but their ways of work do not directly help users.
In the field of computer science, the last 20 years have seen two main modes of production - the companies and open source. There is also a third semi-producer - the academic research. Although academic world has traditionally been closer to the open source -approach than proprietary software -approach, the current financing and contracting frameworks in the research are actually driving towards proprietary research.
Lately, open source has become serious contender for the traditional proprietary (closed-source) business model. The advantages are high collaboration and contribution between individuals and companies in the field and the possibility to freely distribute and modify the product both in final and source code form. Because digitally created products are easy to duplicate, they are easy target for open source -inspired approaches. Physical products are much harder challenge.
USER-CENTRED RESEARCH
User-centred approach has been successful in enabling companies to reach out for users, in order to create more relevant and less risky products. Typically users in this kind of research are informants - they are a subject to be studied, understood and empathized with. It is the researchers and designers who interprete/translate the findings into the features/requirements for the product/service.
PARTICIPATIVE DESIGN
Parallel to the user-centred approach, participative design has sought to create methods and tools for users (e.g. Sanders's Make Tools), so that the users (who are non-professionals) can participate to the development and design activities in companies. Despite the higher level of participation from users, this approach allows companies to define the direction and flow of the development.
ACTIVE, EMPOWERED USERS
Lately users are increasingly capable of creating their own products (especially in the digital realm, see "prosumers") and content (like photos, video), thanks to new easy-to-use tools (e.g. Apple iLife) and services (e.g. Gmail and Flickr). In this ecosystem, the companies ultimately transform from creators of products to creators of tools (meta products), with which the users create the (final) products. Some of the meta products can translate into services, which encourages subscription based business models, instead of the traditional pay-to-own models.
It is possible to translate part of the physical product economy to this ecosystem by offering smartly designed interfaces and building blocks (remember LEGO -bricks?, see "mass-customization") to users who can then build their own product. The Apple's iPod -economy is a one kind of approach to this.
USERS AS PATH SHAPERS
Open source development has shown its potential to accelerate the creation and distribution of meaningful, well working products. It can scale beyond the abilities and resources of any single company. How this approach could be expanded outside the realm of software code?
Here are my thoughts:
1) Many of the (digital) tools of expressing and communicating ideas and thoughts already exists. Although they could be even better.
2) The re-use and re-cycling of existing products and ideas is a excellent facilitator to this process.
3) Users should have methods and techniques with which they are able to find out, articulate, describe and refine what is important and relevant to them. They should be empowered to create concepts that others (companies, organizations or individuals) can then productize. Professionals have this knowledge, but their ways of work do not directly help users.
The relationship between users and companies
USERS - COMPANY divide
One of the key issues that user-centered research and design aim to solve is the lack of communication and feedback between the users (of products/services) and the companies (who create those products/services). Even nowadays it is typical for a company to create new products, based on a new/existing technology, without a real understanding of who will actually use the product and if it is actually useful. Most of the time there are already existing tools/behaviors with which users use in their daily life, and the use of the new product would either replace the existing tools or change the way of the flow of the activity (i.e. behavior). So question is not really about whether the new product works per se, but rather, is it better than the existing tool (in the sense that the user prefers it), or worth learning the new way of the activity.
Traditionally technology companies have been content in just creating new products and "letting the market" create the understanding of what the product is actually useful for. The text messaging (SMS) in mobile phones is an example of this approach. This is however a wasteful process - there are no guarantees that any single product will have success in the market, it's quite darwinian approach, really.
USER-CENTRED, PARTICIPATORY and DIY (do it yourself)
In an effort to lessen the risk of failure in the market, companies have started to embrace the usability and user-centred approaches. These approaches help the companies to have some guarantees and checks that the new products/services actually are usable and meaningful to the users (and consequently more successful in the market). These approaches advocate companies to hire professional researchers and designers who contact actual or potential users of the product-in-development and try to understand and empathize the users in order to have the knowledge to create more meaningful and usable products. This could be described as an approach where companies reach out for the users.
Another parallel is the participatory approach, where companies invite users to participate in development and design of the products. The company allows the users to participate into its own processes. Typically it is the company, however, that specifies the context of development and chooses which proposals will be further developed.
Third parallel is the DIY approach, where users simply create the products and services by themselves, without direct involvement of the companies. The suitability and quality of the product is directly dependent on the skills and knowledge of the user who creates.
OPENSOURCE
During the last twenty years, open source movement has emerged as a new approach for companies and users to approach the development and design of the products. What makes it different is the emphasis in networked collaboration and the blurring of the distiction between the users and creators. In open source, a single company is not necessarily controlling the development of the product, but a trusted individual or group of individuals. Those individuals may be employed by different companies, or they may be working for free. The trusted individuals are implicitly able to maintain their leadership as long as they are sensitive to the desires and needs of the users of the products and other developers. A balance has to be struck between the desires of different participants and the trusted individuals are essentially evaluated on their ability to keep a good balance.
One of the key issues that user-centered research and design aim to solve is the lack of communication and feedback between the users (of products/services) and the companies (who create those products/services). Even nowadays it is typical for a company to create new products, based on a new/existing technology, without a real understanding of who will actually use the product and if it is actually useful. Most of the time there are already existing tools/behaviors with which users use in their daily life, and the use of the new product would either replace the existing tools or change the way of the flow of the activity (i.e. behavior). So question is not really about whether the new product works per se, but rather, is it better than the existing tool (in the sense that the user prefers it), or worth learning the new way of the activity.
Traditionally technology companies have been content in just creating new products and "letting the market" create the understanding of what the product is actually useful for. The text messaging (SMS) in mobile phones is an example of this approach. This is however a wasteful process - there are no guarantees that any single product will have success in the market, it's quite darwinian approach, really.
USER-CENTRED, PARTICIPATORY and DIY (do it yourself)
In an effort to lessen the risk of failure in the market, companies have started to embrace the usability and user-centred approaches. These approaches help the companies to have some guarantees and checks that the new products/services actually are usable and meaningful to the users (and consequently more successful in the market). These approaches advocate companies to hire professional researchers and designers who contact actual or potential users of the product-in-development and try to understand and empathize the users in order to have the knowledge to create more meaningful and usable products. This could be described as an approach where companies reach out for the users.
Another parallel is the participatory approach, where companies invite users to participate in development and design of the products. The company allows the users to participate into its own processes. Typically it is the company, however, that specifies the context of development and chooses which proposals will be further developed.
Third parallel is the DIY approach, where users simply create the products and services by themselves, without direct involvement of the companies. The suitability and quality of the product is directly dependent on the skills and knowledge of the user who creates.
OPENSOURCE
During the last twenty years, open source movement has emerged as a new approach for companies and users to approach the development and design of the products. What makes it different is the emphasis in networked collaboration and the blurring of the distiction between the users and creators. In open source, a single company is not necessarily controlling the development of the product, but a trusted individual or group of individuals. Those individuals may be employed by different companies, or they may be working for free. The trusted individuals are implicitly able to maintain their leadership as long as they are sensitive to the desires and needs of the users of the products and other developers. A balance has to be struck between the desires of different participants and the trusted individuals are essentially evaluated on their ability to keep a good balance.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Computer trends and how to communicate them
Took a small deep dive with Business Week to see what they have to offer. I was surprised about their quality of web presence. And I can actually see their articles (no registration pains, no subscription requirements)!It's sometimes good to see the business side of computer industry and innovation, and Business Week does have quality articles with that perspective. The many retrospectives are also interesting.
The Special Report on Next Generation Computing was pretty nice summary on the current understanding of the near term innovation in computer tech. I truly like some of the trends, such as the "designing to blend with the rooms in home". One example of this was the forming of computer parts as look-alikes of a bookshelf and its contents. There are the obvious dangers of overdoing the ideas, of course.
Another pleasant surprise was the "slideshow" style of reporting. The concept of putting the picture in the forefront and text secondary to that is quite appealing. This also takes away the need to create overlyelongated articles from material that really doesn't need it. Also, it is excellent form of communication when the journalist goal is that of a summary.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Matching the timing and the message
It's always a both exhilarating and stupid moment to realize something that's been sitting in front of you all the time. One of those moments was when I understood why it really is so important for Apple the create best-of-the-breed Voice recognition and speech synthesis software into every major version of Mac OS X.In a sense, the multi-sensory interfaces (not just visual and kinesthetic, but also haptic, auditory and tasty/smelly) is one most obvious ways to innovate in computer hardware and software. However, at the same time, it has the glass ceiling of the too popular WIMP -interface1) (i.e. Windows-Icons-Mouse-Pointer). The so called "direct manipulation" interface, that actually isn't one. A bit more direct one would be the one in the picture above, in which a pen directly moves the pointer on screen, not indirectly from a mouse pad, like it's typical nowadays.
So. My theory is that Apple recognizes both the need to get rid of the WIMP, and that there aren't good enough competitors for that interface yet (by good enough, I mean nearly perfect user experience, not just technically implementable). So Apple does the next best thing, continues to advance the alternative technologies of interaction and finds places where they can be used as secondary or alternative solutions. Or, as in this case, as a service to the disabled people, who can not use the WIMP in the first place.
From this perspective, iPod represents a refreshing break from the WIMP-infested world. It's main way of interaction is a combination of gestures and auditory feedback. The control "wheel" is not haptic, finger just slides (no bumps), but the audio complements that sliding with ticking sounds that make it feel like finger would turn a discrete dial. The simple text menus do not employ fancy graphics, or icons. Hence less strain on eyes. Like Borat would say: Nice!Inspired by: 1) Milekic, S. (2002) Towards Tangible Virtualities - Tangialities. Museums and the Web 2002 -conference.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Intuitive multipoint touchscreen interaction
One of the Talks in TED Conference (blog) speaks about how enhanced touchscreens could make human interaction with the much more intuitive.
Although the hardware is cool, the real interaction innovation lies in the applications and in the interaction concepts. The Talk does show quite good examples ("lava lamp", 3D earth, maps, atoms/biology).
It would be really interesting to hear how those people that never have used computers, would use the interface differently than computer-literate people.
Watch the TEDTalks: Jeff Han
Saturday, October 28, 2006
The Vastu of Web-design
(via slashdot) in the something-completely-different -department, the new trend in India is to have the website analysed by a guru in Vastu (the Indian equivalent of Feng-Shui). Does your website overuse the water element?The image on the let is an example analysis of Slashdot's "vibes".
Monday, October 23, 2006
Insight from the past
While it's often exciting to wait for new products from Apple and other design companies, it's not actually necessary to just speculate, collect rumours and get insider tips about the products.
Much of the important "big lines" (strategies) and many features of the products can be understood through insight by researching and understanding the moves of the past. One of the sources for this type of insight is RoughlyDrafted.
Note that there is, of course, a price tag on such insight - namely lot's of fluffy text, advertising and many requests from the author to promote the website. so YMMV.
After reading many of the texts, it makes one respect and appreciate Apple (those times that it's been successful) for the hard work of 1) finding a right product for the current time/age, 2) timing the launch of products, 3) iterative design, and 4) taking advantage of the concepting/previous attempts for products.
RD notes:
Apple
Important areas: Office (MS, ignorance of MacWrite) -> Desktop Publishing (Adobe & PS & PDF) -> Digital Media (Quicktime)
Historically Apple dependent on four major application vendors: Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, and Quark (all originally started their graphic apps on Mac)
Past projects:
- Powertalk (no standards, based on AppleTalk) -> similarities to Mac OS X: Bonjour, systemwide Keychain & Addressbook
- QuickDraw GX,
- A/UX -> idea recycled in Mac OS X (UNIX basis, but based on BSD)
- HyperCard -> Human-oriented programming languages: Applescript, Automator
- Copland (another) -> "System 8"
- Pink -> entirely new development platform for the Mac with IBM, code named Pink and Taligent
- Newton
- QuickDraw 3D
- Quicktime Interactive
- Common Point
- OpenDoc
- Dylan - futuristic coding language
- Future Shock
...
The new surge of Apple-made software:
- Macromedia KeyGrip -> Apple Final Cut
- Astarte's DVD technology -> Apple DVD Studio Pro
- Nothing Real's high end video compositing -> Apple Shake
- Emagic's professional level music studio tools -> Apple Logic Pro
- Apple Aperture
- & bundled non-pro versions of the apps: iLife (iMovie, iTunes, iDVD, iPhoto, Garageband, iWeb), iWork (Pages, Keynote)
- & non-bundled "pre-pro" (prosumer) versions: Final Cut Express, Logic Express
Mac OS X
- pre-emptive, multitasking (UNIX foundations), shell + UNIX toolchain
- object oriented programming: Cocoa (from NEXTStep)
- Bonjour
- systemwide Keychain & systemwide Address Book,
- iWork (key areas: Office + Desktop Publishing)
- iLife + pro apps -- taking advatage of quicktime (Key area: Digital Media (Content creation))
- Applescript (& Automator)
- Quartz 2D: entirely new drawing system: based on the open PDF model, with a standard implementation of the OpenGL specification. Replaced the archaic and proprietary QuickDraw and QuickDraw 3D.
iTV
- On Demand Commercial Content
- Personal Content
- Alternative Content
- Interactive Content (dynamic, not static media) -- The iPod way: Games, Widgets, Notes (+ VNC)
- Original Content (Apple as a Label and a Studio, Original Content for TV - not for Movies)
Apple's way up
- Good integration of software, hardware and services (holistic design)
- High quality software/hardware (distinctive, not bulk)
- Concentration on specific markets/key areas (office work, desktop publishing, digital media/creatives)
- Apple-created key applications
- Three levels of products, with high reuse in code: non-pro (consumer), pre-pro (prosumer), and professional
- Packaging the right mixture, pricing it right
- Better visibility - Marketing (e.g. I am a PC, I am a Mac -ads) and Retail stores (+ digital store)
Much of the important "big lines" (strategies) and many features of the products can be understood through insight by researching and understanding the moves of the past. One of the sources for this type of insight is RoughlyDrafted.
Note that there is, of course, a price tag on such insight - namely lot's of fluffy text, advertising and many requests from the author to promote the website. so YMMV.
After reading many of the texts, it makes one respect and appreciate Apple (those times that it's been successful) for the hard work of 1) finding a right product for the current time/age, 2) timing the launch of products, 3) iterative design, and 4) taking advantage of the concepting/previous attempts for products.
RD notes:
Apple
Important areas: Office (MS, ignorance of MacWrite) -> Desktop Publishing (Adobe & PS & PDF) -> Digital Media (Quicktime)
Historically Apple dependent on four major application vendors: Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, and Quark (all originally started their graphic apps on Mac)
Past projects:
- Powertalk (no standards, based on AppleTalk) -> similarities to Mac OS X: Bonjour, systemwide Keychain & Addressbook
- QuickDraw GX,
- A/UX -> idea recycled in Mac OS X (UNIX basis, but based on BSD)
- HyperCard -> Human-oriented programming languages: Applescript, Automator
- Copland (another) -> "System 8"
- Pink -> entirely new development platform for the Mac with IBM, code named Pink and Taligent
- Newton
- QuickDraw 3D
- Quicktime Interactive
- Common Point
- OpenDoc
- Dylan - futuristic coding language
- Future Shock
...
The new surge of Apple-made software:
- Macromedia KeyGrip -> Apple Final Cut
- Astarte's DVD technology -> Apple DVD Studio Pro
- Nothing Real's high end video compositing -> Apple Shake
- Emagic's professional level music studio tools -> Apple Logic Pro
- Apple Aperture
- & bundled non-pro versions of the apps: iLife (iMovie, iTunes, iDVD, iPhoto, Garageband, iWeb), iWork (Pages, Keynote)
- & non-bundled "pre-pro" (prosumer) versions: Final Cut Express, Logic Express
Mac OS X
- pre-emptive, multitasking (UNIX foundations), shell + UNIX toolchain
- object oriented programming: Cocoa (from NEXTStep)
- Bonjour
- systemwide Keychain & systemwide Address Book,
- iWork (key areas: Office + Desktop Publishing)
- iLife + pro apps -- taking advatage of quicktime (Key area: Digital Media (Content creation))
- Applescript (& Automator)
- Quartz 2D: entirely new drawing system: based on the open PDF model, with a standard implementation of the OpenGL specification. Replaced the archaic and proprietary QuickDraw and QuickDraw 3D.
iTV
- On Demand Commercial Content
- Personal Content
- Alternative Content
- Interactive Content (dynamic, not static media) -- The iPod way: Games, Widgets, Notes (+ VNC)
- Original Content (Apple as a Label and a Studio, Original Content for TV - not for Movies)
Apple's way up
- Good integration of software, hardware and services (holistic design)
- High quality software/hardware (distinctive, not bulk)
- Concentration on specific markets/key areas (office work, desktop publishing, digital media/creatives)
- Apple-created key applications
- Three levels of products, with high reuse in code: non-pro (consumer), pre-pro (prosumer), and professional
- Packaging the right mixture, pricing it right
- Better visibility - Marketing (e.g. I am a PC, I am a Mac -ads) and Retail stores (+ digital store)
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
On Research
The academic world has again entered into my field of vision. Interesting.
After having taken a slight pause with that world, I think I need to make-up my mind on what it is (in high level) that I will be doing there. And I'm not speaking about the content. Yet.
I got inspired by a relatively recent article, boldly called "The Future of Human-Computer Interaction" (2006) by John Canny of UC Berkeley. Despite its grandious name, it's quite sane article, with refreshingly good historical review of where HCI comes from and why things are the way they are now. That part could be also called "The story of WIMP" (Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointing).
For future, Canny puts forward two areas of UI development: Context-Awareness and Perceptual Interfaces. Now, these are not new ideas. But what Canny wants to happen with those areas, will not happen overnight. More like in 5-10 years, or even later.
Parallel to the UI development, Canny also touches the topic of roles in a development/research project. Nowadays HCI can be seen as being involved in all the stages of (iterative) (product) development process. As Canny points out, this doesn't mean that HCI people are the (only) ones that can do the development process, but, rather, that the understanding of the HCI needs to be involved/integrated in all the phases.
Ok, so if I were in a Company, this would all be pretty clear by now. No matter what phase of the process, there is work for a user-centred person, at least as a teacher/consultant, if not as active participant.
What about Reseach? It cannot be primarily about creating unique product ideas, because a researcher cannot truly be a concept designer; He lacks the resources of a company (peers, design/implementation team, ability to make real-life products). This approach is still used through joint projects between (several) research organisations and companies. However, with the NDAs, patents and closed development often looming in the horizon, this is not the ideal way of discovering and disseminating science to all of the world.
What a researcher is good at, is sensing/finding out what is happening around the world. And also (especially in user-centred research), interacting with people via research methods such as interviewing, workshops and just getting involved in what users do. Through these activities, it is natural that ideas emerge (rather than researcher just inventing ideas out of the blue). But what to do with the ideas?
The radical (product) ideas can of course take the route of product development in a company, as I described earlier. However, in researchers role, I am more interested in the evolving ideas, because, as Canny says, humans evolve actually very slowly and there's no point in reinventing the UI paradigm every year (in contrast to new mobile phone products every quartal of the year). Moreover, there is awfully lot of technology and tools already available, it is more about discovering how to use/combine existing stuff than actually needing to create totally new and different stuff (e.g. products).
If one is aiming for discovering how to use existing stuff by sensing the world and interacting with people, it is pretty straightforward to engage with communities of people. The community specifies the nature of activities that are carried out and the goal for the activity. Also, communities often have a natural tendency to want to improve themselves, so experimentation is a welcome behaviour. Both the creation of ideas and validation become easier, because they have a clear context: The community itself can also come up with ideas and it either adopts the new ways of activities or it prefers the existing ones.
After having taken a slight pause with that world, I think I need to make-up my mind on what it is (in high level) that I will be doing there. And I'm not speaking about the content. Yet.
I got inspired by a relatively recent article, boldly called "The Future of Human-Computer Interaction" (2006) by John Canny of UC Berkeley. Despite its grandious name, it's quite sane article, with refreshingly good historical review of where HCI comes from and why things are the way they are now. That part could be also called "The story of WIMP" (Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointing).
For future, Canny puts forward two areas of UI development: Context-Awareness and Perceptual Interfaces. Now, these are not new ideas. But what Canny wants to happen with those areas, will not happen overnight. More like in 5-10 years, or even later.
Parallel to the UI development, Canny also touches the topic of roles in a development/research project. Nowadays HCI can be seen as being involved in all the stages of (iterative) (product) development process. As Canny points out, this doesn't mean that HCI people are the (only) ones that can do the development process, but, rather, that the understanding of the HCI needs to be involved/integrated in all the phases.
Ok, so if I were in a Company, this would all be pretty clear by now. No matter what phase of the process, there is work for a user-centred person, at least as a teacher/consultant, if not as active participant.
What about Reseach? It cannot be primarily about creating unique product ideas, because a researcher cannot truly be a concept designer; He lacks the resources of a company (peers, design/implementation team, ability to make real-life products). This approach is still used through joint projects between (several) research organisations and companies. However, with the NDAs, patents and closed development often looming in the horizon, this is not the ideal way of discovering and disseminating science to all of the world.
What a researcher is good at, is sensing/finding out what is happening around the world. And also (especially in user-centred research), interacting with people via research methods such as interviewing, workshops and just getting involved in what users do. Through these activities, it is natural that ideas emerge (rather than researcher just inventing ideas out of the blue). But what to do with the ideas?
The radical (product) ideas can of course take the route of product development in a company, as I described earlier. However, in researchers role, I am more interested in the evolving ideas, because, as Canny says, humans evolve actually very slowly and there's no point in reinventing the UI paradigm every year (in contrast to new mobile phone products every quartal of the year). Moreover, there is awfully lot of technology and tools already available, it is more about discovering how to use/combine existing stuff than actually needing to create totally new and different stuff (e.g. products).
If one is aiming for discovering how to use existing stuff by sensing the world and interacting with people, it is pretty straightforward to engage with communities of people. The community specifies the nature of activities that are carried out and the goal for the activity. Also, communities often have a natural tendency to want to improve themselves, so experimentation is a welcome behaviour. Both the creation of ideas and validation become easier, because they have a clear context: The community itself can also come up with ideas and it either adopts the new ways of activities or it prefers the existing ones.
Opensourcea kansalle
Tässä on pitkästä aikaa päätynyt ATK-tueksi tutuille ihmisille ja onneksi tällä kertaa on ollut mahdollisuus tutustuttaa heidät Ubuntu-linuxin maailmaan, ainaisen Windowsin sijasta. Ja mikä parasta, aloite linuxiin on lähtenyt heistä itsestään! Vihreästi ajattelevia ihmisiä selkeästi kiehtoo mahdollisuus käyttää ilmaiseksi jaettavaa, yhteisöllisesti kehitettyä ohjelmaa.
Siinä missä Windows-maailmassa joutuu käymään ison asennusrumban itse käyttöjärjestelmän asennuksen jälkeen, Ubuntussa muun muassa tekstinkäsittely ja piirto-ohjelmat tulevat valmiina. Erityisenä kompastuskivenä linuxeissa on kuitenkin kolmikko musiikki, videot ja DVD. Onneksi tähän on olemassa suhteellisen vaivaton ratkaisu: Easy Ubuntu.
Kiinnostaako Windowsin sijasta Linux?
1) Lataa Ubuntu asennus CD
2) Tutustu Ubuntuun, esimerkiksi wiki-kirjan avulla.
3) Asenna Easy Ubuntu (ohjeet), jos haluat helposti musiikin, videot ja DVD:t nähtäville.
Siinä missä Windows-maailmassa joutuu käymään ison asennusrumban itse käyttöjärjestelmän asennuksen jälkeen, Ubuntussa muun muassa tekstinkäsittely ja piirto-ohjelmat tulevat valmiina. Erityisenä kompastuskivenä linuxeissa on kuitenkin kolmikko musiikki, videot ja DVD. Onneksi tähän on olemassa suhteellisen vaivaton ratkaisu: Easy Ubuntu.
Kiinnostaako Windowsin sijasta Linux?
1) Lataa Ubuntu asennus CD
2) Tutustu Ubuntuun, esimerkiksi wiki-kirjan avulla.
3) Asenna Easy Ubuntu (ohjeet), jos haluat helposti musiikin, videot ja DVD:t nähtäville.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Hacker for life
After reading the excellent book "Hacker Ethics" by Pekka Himanen, I feel like one of the ways to describe what I really want to do is to "be a Hacker in more areas than just computers/open source". The hacker in there refers directly to the Himanen's description of it, something like: "working passionately on something that one is interested about, and having fun while doing it. Sharing the results with the rest of the world".
Even with the definition of the word hacker, my description is still vague. But it's nonetheless, the starting point I'm going with. And to start with a tradional way, I'm hacking with OpenOffice for Mac OS X :) It is, after all, the area where I began with my university studies.
What this means in other parts of my work life? Well, you'll have to wait and see.
Even with the definition of the word hacker, my description is still vague. But it's nonetheless, the starting point I'm going with. And to start with a tradional way, I'm hacking with OpenOffice for Mac OS X :) It is, after all, the area where I began with my university studies.
What this means in other parts of my work life? Well, you'll have to wait and see.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Beginning of a beautiful friendship
So, we get the new blogger. Yay :) Time to start a new blog then.
In addition to the previous onces, this feels like being a mishmash of a universe of collected thoughs + random elaborations on those thoughts. Very clear thing, you see.
We are currently dissecting narrative aspects out of Casablanca. It's surprisingly much work, when you try to document the many levels of analysis, like "How was each person introduced to the movie" and "count and analyse the meaning of each scene in the movie"...
In addition to the previous onces, this feels like being a mishmash of a universe of collected thoughs + random elaborations on those thoughts. Very clear thing, you see.
We are currently dissecting narrative aspects out of Casablanca. It's surprisingly much work, when you try to document the many levels of analysis, like "How was each person introduced to the movie" and "count and analyse the meaning of each scene in the movie"...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)