Archive for ‘Denise’

March 7, 2012

Last Meeting before Orals & Next Steps


I have had my refreshing break and am now back to running in the thrilling thesis marathon! Below is a brief overview of feedback from my last meeting (On Feb 29th) with Denise, Scott and Martha:

  • Describe Priorities of interface
    • ie: TUI: gameplay, Community: motivator, GUI: collection space
  • List combinations of important actions
    • Actions could be the same throughout the process but change meaning because what has come before and after it
    • sets of actions should be pointed moments in the process
  • Storyboard/Sketch/Wireframe the interface and interactions
    • Focus on behaviors of interaction not form, ie: bristley vs. task completion etc
    • form increases desirability factor
    • form expresses tangible motivation
    • Hand sketches/lo-fi
    • What does it do, how does it work
  • Orals
    • Solid foundation
    • examples to prove/manifest ideology
    • key moments which led to other key moments
    • next steps
    • 30 minutes

Next Steps

This week I will be using “Designing Social Interfaces” as a guide, per Scott’s reference.Below you can see my list of “things to do” in one week, before Orals. Looks a little crazy but most things are broken down into smaller steps:

develop the sets of actions,
develop priorities of GUI interface and TUI interface,
wireframe the GUI & TUI interface,
create presentation of scenarios incorporating key moments of interaction with TUI/GUI/and overall system,
create nomenclature/language for system? (ie: buddy, task, goal, meeting, etc)

revise gameplay map,
bring question up to par,
type out objectives and observations from studies,
outline presentation,
represent morphing of question in presentation,
create presentation with key points & next steps,

am i missing some sort of maps: overall purpose or relation to other tools etc?,
update bibliography?,
outline for writing?

February 26, 2012

Lots of Feedback with a Speed Dating Cherry on Top

Feedback from Denise

  1. This tool is not subset of another tool (i.e.. as an app is to the iphone)
  2. The desirability must outweigh the inconvenience
  3. My work must focus on the entire system of relationships: the goal buddies, the TUI & GUI, and the greater community of goal buddies
  4. My investigation much be limited to the graphic designer’s scope, not the industrial designer or psychologist
  5. The purpose of my investigation is to figure out how the design of my tangible user interface would influence the reception and response of the goal setter, not how the question might verbally be framed differently, or how the refinement of the product might influence that process

Feedback from Martha

  1. Is it a game or a tool?: It is a tool with a gamified structure just as e-bay is a e-commerce website with gamified interactions
  2. Co-couseling can offer a good framework for buddy accountability
  3. The TUI acts as a “Boundary Object” which mediates the goal buddies conversations and meetings. Define what boundary object means in general and define it for the purposes of this tool
  4. In the vein of participatory design, people could tailor their experience with this tool by creating their own code and challenges which go along with the tool. This “code” or series of challenges would be shared between the two goal buddies and could be thought of as anything in between “trash talking” to a “best friends secret code” This participant created code could be linked to suggested actions or inquiries or could be completely made up by the pair.
  5. There must be a backstory to how the buddies are paired
  6. For Orals  I should probably have many iterations, and a few fleshed out, the purpose is to express the full story along with key decision points through my process.
  7. It would be good practice to begin transcribing handwritten notes from important texts. Doing this intermittently between iterations might help keep the blood flowing and focus strong. I will also display a tentative outline for my thesis book at my Orals

Speed Dating about TUI’s

I met with Amber’s New Information Environments Seminar class and participated in a speed dating exercise in which we debated our ideas about “one reason why tangible user interface is important to design.” It was through these discussions with my amazing and intelligent classmates that I found the following things out:

  • What I felt was the most important thing about TUI’s, that they decrease cognitive load and tap into the “metaphors we live by”
  • Some functions that GUI’s might do better than TUI’s
  • The difference in engagement between social metaphors vs. physical metaphors
  • And lastly, the discussions helped me brush up on the limitations and trends I read about in an excellent book I read this week on TUI’s

See more information on all of those points below.

Decreasing Cognitive Load:

My opening argument for speed dating was the following:

Throughout our life we are building an understanding of the world around us, TUI’s draw on that understanding, conversely GUI’s create a graphical environment which has it’s own set of physics and must be learned by the user. Since TUI’s draw on such a type of processing which is innate, when it is applied appropriately, it can decrease the cognitive load

GUI’s vs TUI’s

As I continued to speed date, we found holes within my argument. We discovered some significant aspects which GUI’s might more often do better than TUI’s. In some cases GUI’s might be more appropriate for handling large sets of memory. Enabling a zoom or any other frame to view macro as well as micro views of information also seems more applicable in a GUI. Both the zoom and memory aspects bring the third idea up: utilizing search functions.  (For these reasons my system will use an app or widget touchpoint to compliment my TUI and act as a repository for the long term goal management. )

Physical metaphors vs. Social Metaphors

If we are talking about TUI’s cutting down on processing by tapping into our embodied knowledge and experience, I think it can easily be argued that TUI’s have the opportunity to operate off of a universal set of controls, for example- humans everywhere are subject to the properties of gravity, up is always up and down is always down (I’m thinking about Metaphors We Live By by Lakoff, Johnson 1980).

However, an interesting point that was brought up when talking about the metaphor of the trash can on a GUI on a desktop computer, is the comparison between a socially learned behavior and an innate physical understanding. The Idea of the trash can got me thinking that a social metaphor might not be as universal but has the potential to be extremely engaging, and embedded within a larger context of actions. Is the social or the physical metaphor stronger? I think it would just depend on the operation that is needing to be done and the context of use.

TUI Book

This last week I also read the book Tangible User Interfaces: Past, Present and Future Directions (Shaer, Orit, Hornecker, 2009). I got so much out of it, I cannot explain it all now. However, I wanted to include the list of limitations and trends they mentioned in this book. I won’t go into detail but here is a list:

Limitations of TUI’s:

  1. versitility/malleability
  2. user fatigue (ie: using a mouse because it takes less effort)
  3. scalability/risk of loosing objects

Trends in TUI’s:

  1. Actuation (pushback, shape shifting etc)
  2. Organic TUI’s
  3. Focus on TUI’s as resources to incite and mediate action (as opposed to just being tangible solely for representation) This trend directly relates to my tool!!


Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shaer, Orit, and Eva Hornecker. 2009. “Tangible User Interfaces: Past, Present and Future Directions (preprint).” Found Trends HumComput Interact 3 (1-2): 1-137. doi:10.1561/1100000013.

February 15, 2012

Moving Forward and Lesson Learned

Tasks to move forward:

  • Personas
  • User Journey/Scenario
  • Development of Interface
  • Read Gamification
  • Make informed choice about the appropriate (networked) device(s) (think about context of and behaviors surrounding interaction)


Update in Response to Meeting:

Description of Tool:

A long term goal management tool which mediates reoccurring meetings between two friends in order to take action, clarify, and fulfill long term goals.

People Involved:

  • Goal Setter & Buddy
  • Greater Community of Goal Setters and Buddy Pairs
  • Goal Setter’s Role Model(s)?

Objectives of the Tool:

  1. Clarify goal (condition or state), subgoals (activities), and values through mediated conversation and activity
  2. Prompt the negotiation of subgoals and informal deadlines to make progress
  3. Provide structure to receive mutual feedback and encouragement from a goal buddy
  4. Establish an active home base for the collection of long term goals with an emphasis on continuous action and progression (versus checking off daily habits or following a list of predetermined steps to reach a clear end point)

Requirements of the Goal Buddies:

  1. Choose a reoccurring time to meet (once every week month or bi-monthly, etc.)
  2. Choose which goals they will help each other with
  3. Be willing to share thoughts and complete progressive actions to develop goals
  4. Use the tool to mediate this process


 Lesson Learned from this meeting:

I need must always make a commitment to set aside time not only externalize information, but to synthesize it for self and especially others


Feedback from Denise and Scott:

  • Huh? (See lessons learned)
  • Is the interaction only through a single point? Maybe there are multiple touchpoints
  • Consider the scale (mobile/cell) and behaviors around that
  • With scenario consider what someone comes in with, what they leave with, and how that shifts behavior
  • Show us the interesting part: how the tool mediates that conversation between two people and those meetings, What happens?
  • Weird confusing map shown on blog got me interested in the one area: The Conversator, and that now needs to be filled out
  • State the problem, what are the goals of each user


Feedback from Amber:

  • Create Role Barriers
  • Consider how to organize greater community to share knowledge about long term goal clarification and fulfillment
  • The Buddy provides encouragement and feedback, and implicitly provides accountability.
  • The Who What When Where How of the tool is fuzzy, right now it’s only addressing the How
  • Check out BizVendor, which navigates you towards relevant task management apps
  • Two levels of engagement:
    1. The greater community, which requires a more systems approach of how people might organize and share buddy  and goal making
    2. The individual level which deals with individual engagement and motivation… check out Gamification for this
  • Create Personas (which must be in pairs) and Make scenarios based on those specific needs- not everything bc of time crunch…
  • Use Personas to ground/make concrete.. for example: one person who wants to play guitar, and another that wants to find a job.
February 8, 2012

What are you making!?


I am making something that helps people think about long term goals…

An audit of six goal management tools


I am making something that might have the following parts…

The following is a list of possible interpretive parts which my design could include:

+ the diagnoser/logger/tracker/rememberer
+ the conversator/sharer
+ the reminder/prodder
+ the inquirer/provoker/clarifyier
+ the collector/absorber
+ the presenter/performer


I am designing for an emotional experience and something which amplifies time instead of compressing it…

Now I am in the phase of my work where people are beginning to ask “So what exactly are you making?.” This week, upon Denise’s suggestion, I decided I would try to begin ideating. I was still confused myself as to what I was making. I came across an article which I found during the “body awareness” phase of my thesis question (aka, the beginning of Thesis prep class last semester). This article  titled Slow Technology – Designing for Reflection emphasizes the design of interactions which amplify time or amplify the presence of something. The author gives an example of a doorbell, which plays a pieces of a continuous melody, each time it is rung. The article brought up a lot of interesting points to me, especially after conducting the audit (shown above). The article talked about how some interactions can create a mindfulness or amplification of presence by commentary on an existing relationship with technology. Other interactions act to amplify time by causing someone to make time for something as opposed to compressing time by making something easier or faster (like the tools I audited above).

I had been thinking about the difference between designing for an emotional experience rather than a designing a utilitarian tool to complete a task. I would like what I design to be focused more on an acknowledgment (sacred/reflective) and inquiry (provocative/diagnostic) rather than progress and efficiency. How might I amplify the experience of time in order to produce mindfulness of long term goals? What role does retrieval play? Tangible interactions?  Anywho, I have a lot of questions but now I’ll show some examples of projects that I really enjoy (below). I am posting them, just to give an idea of where my head is.


I am making something which will have a depth of meaning revealed through an ongoing series of moments and physical interactions…

Olly & Molly (physical, slow)

IxDA Winner: Spotify Box (physical)

Proverbial Wallets (physical)


I am making something with a surprise factor or something equally as delightful I hope…

Photo JoJo’s Flikr Time Capsule (slow, reflective)

An article on Design Observer written by Rob Walker talked about this service saying that creative tools like Instagram is on a mission “to prod You The User to produce more, now … and now …  and now” and to incorporate that tool into your “regular broadcasting routine”.  Recently I read a description in a book called Empires of Time, which explained that in our American view time could be best represented by a series of continuous rings which interlocked are spinning uphill. Our societies view of time is a constant series of “now’s” he explained through this ring metaphor. He compared this experience to someone who makes no distinction from past present and future, or experiences time as a cycle. I was struck how these two descriptions- of Western conception of time, and Instagram’s influence, were so similar. The author also points out this “Oh Yeah” factor which the Flikr Time Capsule has on the user. I love the description in the article, and I would like to commemorate it with my own series of simple beautiful surprises involving slow, reflective, or physical artifacts.


Other random happenings involving slowness, reflectiveness, desires for future, and surprises
Time Capsules, Pen Pals, Postcard Exchanges, Temple Prayers, Omikuji,  Fortune Cookies 


I am making something with your help…

When I met with Denise this week, I created a few “first stabs” at what I might design. Though it seems silly, I am not going to include those ideas in this post, but the feedback from all these thoughts and tests. One thing I can say I am interested in is a series of interactive objects/smart objects/tangible interactions, which are the main mode for how someone would manage their goals, along with a compatible online program. So that said, I played with the idea of a smart candle, pennies with RFID tags, and a handwritten fortune that is sent through the mail as my “first stabs”. Here are some of the conversations that came out of those initial ideas:

Ideas which came up in conversation with Denise…

Use metaphor to inform & inspire
+ Apply the principles or qualities of a metaphor to your design, rather than literally interpreting or directly applying the characteristics of that metaphor

A note on creating artifacts of ritual
+ There is an interest in creating a relationship and investment in an object, but be careful not to get off subject, creating a richness or sacredness in an artifact is not completely within the role of the designer

A note on retrieval & access
+ Similar to one of the interviewee’s comments on reading analog clocks, accessing the information (the time of day) was slower than a digital clock
+ How is information, a moment, or a goal revisited?
+ In the examples information is not pushed, you pull it

Intentional Language
+ How to talk about goals
+ How to ask about goals
+ Is “Goals” even accurate?

Ask clarifying questions
+ Good examples in Achiever, use of SMART criteria and with follow up questions
+ Additional Questions: Who has had this same goal (role model), Who has this goal now? Who might work on this goal with you? Who has tried to have this goal, but have not “achieved it”? Who might help or support you?

Core/Nucleus of Interface
+ Many sites were focused on profile and accumulation, I would like mine to be focused first on the goals including the clarification of the goals, the execution of individual actions related to the goals etc.
+ In other words the interaction should emphasize action as opposed to sharing thoughts about action

Ideas which came up in conversation with ID Student Mike Falk…
+ What is the lifetime of the object, will people use this over a series of years/their whole life/ etc.
+ I was reminded how an object is physical interface, telling us how to interact with it and use it
+ Is this an object which will be used everyday, that you carry around on your person? like a keychain?
+ What is the purpose, to comfort? to disturb? to make you work harder?
+ Different object, a series of objects, or a single object with different modes or forms could allow for different sets or types of goals, Goals would could be matched with object not according to content but according to time span of commitment and conscious effort


I am making something that I have wanted to make for a while, I hope…

A long winded but possibly interesting narrative of my interests in embodied interaction and participatory toolkits…

My interest in embodied interaction was fostered as a result book suggestion from Holly Willis during the New Context New Practices conference. She recommended I read Paul Dourish’s Where the Action Is: Foundations for Embodied Interaction. I cannot remember now, what I said which made her suggest this book. However, I checked that book out my first fall semester and had been hanging onto it until about two weeks ago returned it. The book gave me a basis to understand tangible computing, social computing, and even just the difference between analog and digital computing. I was drawn into the idea of human-computer interactions which seemed to rest on nuanced physical and social interactions, which seemed so natural after completing an undergrad in Theatre studying acting, directing, voice, movement, character analysis, and the like. My interest in embodied interaction and human-computer interaction then grew through the guidance of Amber Howard in our second year’s fall semester seminar: New Information Environments. Amber helped me understand a chapter in Anne Munster’s Materializing New Media: Embodiment in Information AestheticsIt is here when I learned that designing a tangible interaction was not better than a printed artifact, or a digital on-screen interface, it was just different. And by the end of the class I was able to confidently say in front of my peers that when designing, one should consider the broad continuum of interface design, which doesn’t just include a screen or a phone, but could include an object, set of objects, or an environment. Either way we are designing an interface. An interface, like a human face, acts as an intermediary which communicates and translates information about the external environment and possibly the internal experience. (See a better articulated version of that here.) I learned that how we go about choosing the medium of that interface must be appropriate to the given context of use. This was a semi-wake up call for me, only because the projects I saw (such as the ones below) seemed so much more appealing than others.

When I started my thesis work I was very broadly interested in human-computer interaction and body awareness (or some kind of phenomenological/multi-modal experience). While I tried to incorporate those things in my thesis work it was difficult to say what my purpose was.  In a way it felt like I slowly eroded those ideas to focus on the principle behind what I was after- the idea of awareness and personal significance, making the most out of your day, and balancing enjoyment with hard work then became more off my focus.

For a while I felt I made a short tangent into what I would consider the another revelatory subject in my grad school experience, designing participatory toolkits. In the spirit of Liz Sanders, I used interviewing people about my thesis subject (the behaviors of time management in relation to the use of timekeepers) as an opportunity to design some interactive games to talk with people. The interviewing process was interesting because it was messy, invigorating, and not that straight-forward. But after reflecting on the experience some major themes seemed to rise in importance. Most notably, the idea of “long term goals” as a easy reference point for talking about the “significance of our time commitments”. When I think about a long term goal, it does not deal with efficient time management tables and deadlines, as much as developing things which relate to someone’s individual values or desires. Talking about long term goals feels like the larger framing narrative which can point me both to the experience of time as well as the significance of commitments over time.

February 3, 2012

Feedback & New Plan of Action

Revised Plan of Action:

Updated Thesis Milestones. Alexandria Jarvis


  • Create Outline for Final Proposal, Identify holes
  • Weekly Editing of Proposal Materials, Plan Session times
  • Literature Review?
  • Weekly plan to create 500 word responses along with seminal texts?


Steps to complete:

Create bullet point profile and write 3-5 paragraph description of audience


+ Receptivity Gradient: Have an opinion and ready to act

+ Address the socio-economic background

+ college education, transition period, recent graduate, upcoming graduate, within first 3 years in the workforce, unattached

+ Homogeneous group?


Steps to complete:

+ Develop criteria by which precedent will be assessed

+ Audit of existing long term goal sites & task manager tools

+ Write 2 paragraph conclusion statement outlining areas for improvement


Steps to complete:

+ Choose from taxonomy list of possible media (form/platforms)

+ Make list of possible objectives, purposes, & experiences

+ Create 3 or more combinations of artifacts with different purposes, perspectives, and approaches

+ Present through storyboards/wireframes/ etc.


Steps to complete:

+ Create list of key function/features. Use what you what you learned from 1. the audit 2. interviews and audience study to consider the context of use

+ Combine ideas from last phase and this phase to produce 3 different products, demonstrate through digital wireframes and/or physical prototypes

Final: Scenarios

(The role of the scenarios has become more of a storytelling or presentation device as well as something to work through the details of both the design and use of what I am making.)

Steps to complete:

+ Create episodes displaying the use of each product through hand drawn storyboards

+ Combine best parts of each scenarios into one

+ Produce a 5-7 minute clip of combined scenario

+ Publish online and ask for feedback, refine & adjust

+ Create introduction, pitch, or other things to frame narrative

+ Produce and publish online

Feedback from First Full Committee Meeting:

Feedback from Martha & Scott


  • Could incorporate David Roe’s “ready to know, ready to act etc” continuum to describe audience
  • The group you design for seems homogenous you must define and state those limitations or deal with those factors such as…
  1. is your audience “unattached” people who have to coordinate their lives with others (family, children) is much more complicated
  2. It seems you are addressing a certain socio-economic group, ie: college education, middle-class/upper middle-class etc.

Long Term Goals

  • Are we talking 1 year or 5 year goals?
  • You must remember that you cannot judge people’s long term goals
  • How will you deal with them when your system collects them?
    Will it be an open structure or will there be categories or buckets that would prompt them to reflect or record their goals

Designing the Functions of what is being designed

  • The age group you are talking about will already have behaviors learned from other interface experiences, you should use those instead of reinventing them
  • See the book: Designing Social Interfaces for a guide for designing UX
  • Your “three sets of functions” could be based around 3 personas (See Amina’s work for inspiration)


Major Holes- What tangible thing are you designing and when are you designing it?

  • Scenarios only address context and behaviors surrounding the use of the thing, not the actual design of the thing. Add that step, and take out others. Will it come in the form of wireframing etc?
  • What are you actually designing? What is the tangible thing?
  • Phases in Plan of action must have stop and start and relate to each other

Inform Committee

  • Talk with Denise and keep everyone informed with feedback notes
  • Establish next reoccurring meetings through e-mail


Feedback from Denise

  • Consider the feedback loop of the artifact and the relationships it creates
  • Sounds like it is more than an online interface design, will it be ambient? physical artifact? Etc.
  • Get your ideas out of your head. Document your ideas through sketches or some form so we can talk about them next week
  • A humanizing experience, an emotional/symbolic experience vs. productive online program
  • Look at Keetra Dean Dixons grad work (it assumes more of a commentary role) but it relevant to emotional and humanizing experiences
January 15, 2012



To understand habits and behaviors involving timekeepers, planning, and work-nonwork management I created the following workbook (shown below). See Below for photos of the completed workbooks. Since then I have met with Denise to revise the questionnaire in order to create a series of interpretive, open-ended, engaging activities.

Below are a few of the highlights from participants’ workbooks:

The Experience of Time:

  • Choosing alternate rhythms to frame progress. Creating breaks through specific events in the day, or something as simple as working until the last song on a CD is played
    Note: Connection to phase synchronization, an alternate :  “compositions based on the extended repetition of brief elegant fragments that weave in and out of an aural tapestry, devoid of traditional western musical events” 

Awareness of Timekeeper:

  • Sound of clock sometimes draws attention to it
    Note: Why do clocks tick, what are those experiences like when we become aware of the ticking, why do we become aware in that moment and not others?

Sharing Calendars:

  • Mother gives calendar with birthdays/anniversaries of friends and family to her children, This year the sister now returns the favor to the mother
  • She shares her long term goals with others in order to retain/remember them

Physical behaviors & time progression:

  • Desk cal only serves aesthetic purposes on desk, but she gets satisfaction from ripping off each day
    Note: Ripping off the day as a daily exercise: What if daily act could cue into nothing part of brain/create a mundane meditative task to create a break in the day?. Providing daily office gossip. Daily office clues for ongoing scavenger hunt.


In Progress. See beginning exercises below:



Week 1: Jan 10-17

  • Begin Taxonomy of Timekeepers and Qualities of Timekeepers
  • Initial Interviews: Create Workbook/ Begin interviews

Week 2: Jan 17- 24

  • Complete Taxonomy of Timekeepers and Qualities of Timekeepers
  • Adjust Workbook
  • Complete 10 interviews with Workbook
  • End of week: Document Study (Taxonomy/Interview): Objectives/Conclusions/Moving Forward

Week 3: Jan 24-31

  • Identify Audience: Background Research, Interview & Observe
  • End of Week: Document Study: (Audience Observation/Research) Objectives/Conclusions/Moving Forward

Week 4: Jan 31- Feb 7

  • Create & Disperse Timekeeping Exercise to Audience
  • Begin creating small Provocations/Probes

Week 5: Feb 7- Feb 14

  • Continue Timekeeping Exercise
  • Continue Provocations/Probes
  • End of Week: Document Study: (Exercise & Provocations/Probes) Objectives/Conclusions/Moving Forward

Week 6: Feb 21 – Feb 28

  • Prepare for Orals
  • Present



October 18, 2011

Feedback Notes: Denise 2

Feedback Skype call from Denise

Narrowing the Research Question

  • Bringing workday into computer mediated
  • Create substitutions, use sub-questions to make long winded sentence to figure out what is good,
  • Ie: How can software interfaces online in a traditional task create an increase in peoples tolerance in interaction during the workday?
  • How can biofeedback in a traditional task create a decrease in the struggles of the workday?

Start a blog to share with everyone on the committee to show process_+_+_+_

Align with a HCI pov

  • HCI pov: You feel you have a general overview of HCI, now is the time to identify with a specific pov, which you can push against, something you find galling or empathy for, who am I arguing with or aligning myself with?
  • Take a look at bibliography of these more general philosophy texts
  • Defining a category in a playful way
  • Other HCI studies: What I have to offer: applying that humanized interaction to a specific workplace scenario (my note), Anticipating something other studies have not considered yet, seeing blind spots


Defining Human[IzIng]

  • What are the values of human interaction, from a UX pov/from an HCI pov
  • Build a pov
  • Develop a speculative social/cultural concept based to define the area you are working within
  • Frustrations: parodies of workplace


  • Intervention as Add on; Ie: calander because we all know people use it, both personal and public, tracks reserved time and establishes priorities, deals w how people perceive their workday
  • Intervention as What if; Ie: working within excel and surprise etc.* Denise will send prompts from interface studio (ie: bouncing ball)


Understanding future work
See these people:

  • Stuart Candy, Research Fellow for Longnow
  • Alan Chechonov, Is it possible to find writings/talk to at symposium?
  • Roger Martin
  • James Glick, The information, Faster: The acceleration of just about everything (,, thinks about economic drive + individual drive which can be used as reference points to understand work environment)

Could think more about what you could do rather than resolving problems


Workplace Culture Probes

  • Getting an idea of work environment ie: more refined job = less satisfaction, smaller space
  • Factors which could be grounded: Job Satisfaction, company size/work model, occupation (my note)
  • In addition or in place of observation
  • To get a sense of the kind of environment, frustrations, etc/


October 5, 2011

Feedback Notes: Denise 1

Feedback notes from Skype call:

Think more about Humanizing Technology & Interactions

Study and project trends of humanizing technology, moving from box, to voice, gesture, what is the future of that

How can we humanize these work related computer mediated activities?

How to get those people who love their work to have more humanizing balanced interactions during their workday- not by bringing them away from that, but by creating a more humanizing interaction in the tasks and the work that they already do

Study workplace models
1. Creative -Google/ad agency etc
2. Corporate – cubicle etc (those ppl are reaching out when they want to, don’t create a band-aid)
3. 5 guys (project manager, accountant and clerk in the laminante city)

Some of these models will be open or readily available to understand a different relationship with their computer or their ways of working

Consider Future Problems through Future Context

The idea of considering a future context of work and work related activity and how that offers a new context to consider how we should interact with technology, each other, information, and our work.

Look at Dunn and Raby

Think about taking a role as an advocate for that future work space or future work life, be speculative, Advocate for that future, are there monitors, projections, a tablet, collaborative work environment, Ann Burdick’s comments on what is our digital physical workspace?

What are the tolerances and possibilities?

The entry point to a lot of software is a goal directed design. That is the entry point of that software. You open the computer and what happens? How can you persuade, surprise, assuage the user in a time when things have become so codified? What is the expectation? What if I open my computer and I want to type? What happens?

What is the range of tolerance people have in that environment?

Realign the Value system you are projecting

The computer is not just a box, it is a window, a 4th dimension, etc

Interview people who have an intense relationship with their computer.

There is an assumption that being in that world or being at work or in the computer is bad. That is a subjective value set and is not always shared