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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)