I realize, I haven’t posted anything on my personal blog for a while, so I think it’s time I start doing it again (at least I’ve tried to post more often on WoT), and I’ll use this more as a personal dump of ideas, thoughts, and use WoT for more professional content. That means the content of this blog will not necessarily have the same editorial quality, but well, we’ll see.
I was in Paris a while ago to attend the “Entretiens du nouveau monde industriel“, focused on smart objects. Very interesting talks, I tried to take some notes (so might be filled with errors! beware!) that of my favorite speakers. Although – as always – the excellent Hubert Guillaud captured them much better than I could on the Internet Actu blog here, here, here, here, here, and here (all in french).
Jean-Louis Fréchin
Starts by asking who is interested in Design of Objects (half of the room raised their hands when asked “who is designer?”). Object emancipation, design/branding (”Baudrillard was right”). Big companies do not realize that worlds are changing and do not understand why their product do not work anymore.
Objects are older than IT. Internet is changing, there is more than just information: applications, services: data & processing. With cloud computing we can much better address huge amounts of data. Also objects are changing -> objects/things (choses objets). Things (as opposed to “objects”) can be seen, affects senses. Extension of the objects worlds, new networked objects, and a network of objects. “A marketing craze brings hinders a pragmatic reality.”
Why do that? The why is more important than how (design, usability). For example: prison-objects (jail-objects) iPhone/nespresso that creates dependability. Is it a matter of love of impulsions? A world where users only provide money is over, they provide feedback and it’s essential. “Yeah, Internet sucks because people can criticize our work.” Eh oui, welcome to the world.
Why do we ask things about usability in this area? People are trying to “scientifize” the problem, when it’s not the problem, we’re confusing innovation and research. In a machine to machine world, we’re eliminating the human, and it’s bound to fail.
Hardware is a commodity. In France (ndlr: I’d say in EU at larger), what we can do is to focus on the interface, not hardware (comes from china, etc). IoT is parallel to the internet of data, we can’t separate them. Interface – > objects. People almost to be tagged. Everything connected, tracked. These objects that talk about us, objects that love us.
Domesticated objects. We must learn to transform technologies into products. Stop with user/customer-oriented design. We’re humans above all. It’s also about lovable objects. Interface objects, products become interface. Interfaces also become objects. Solitary objects don’t exist anymore. How do we understand these objects. Do we want to see kwh from smart meters? Do we want something else? Social objects. It’s important: open objects, post-products. Hackable is good, but not enough. Yesterday: objects > commands > services > usages. Today: practices > services > programs > objects = ne-objects.
Nicolas Nova
Users, consumers, participants, contributors, different terms for the same thing, but people is the best word for Nicolas. Objects inscribe predefined things about user (Madeleine Akrich), and this predefines their future uses. For example, there are examples of subscribed information about people in objects (jo/josephine). Sally (PARC), the persona for future computer users, that can use future devices with little learning.
All these preconception were inscribed into objects, and they brought into. The “human processor” by Card and Moran. We represent psychology using the computer analogy, therefore how computers see us (Dan O’Sullivan).
5 archetypes, human representations. What kinds of misconceptions are there?
1. Omnipresence of screens. Designer thinks user wants to use screen to access data (wikireader), or photo frames. This makes sense. But it also goes too much in other things (his previous fridge). Also, it’s often messed up (trains, planes rebooting). A web of screens, it’s everywhere. It makes sense, but should it be really everywhere? Also should it be overcharged for AR, widgets (à la WoW)?
2. Liflogging. Fiat ecodrive, foursquares, life in a camebert diagram? is it is just about a little part of it, the raw data. It’s not just quantitative data. Even small things that happened only once might be very relevant.
3. Persuasive computing. Walk with me on DS, is an example of devices that tells you, attempts to change your behavior. It delegates to the devices.
4. Life simplifying things. No more “where are you”? Again, it’s a great idea. It’s relevant and useful when i do because I need. But not when it’s automatic. Bad automation. But when we ask people if they need automation, they say yes. But when it happens, then no. People want to keep the control.
5. Users to which we should not ask too much. Black box concept. Before, people could.
1. Swings is a little screen-less box that makes you play, engages you. Connects to the net.
2. objects a faire vivre: Autolizum you plug on your iphone or music, and this allows you to make it live. it has it’s own object based on the music you listen to. The object is not inert. you have to make it live
3. Tripit. Go to a place where there is that kind of music. It incites you to transform the music.
4. Customizable objects. Physically. not just like twitter or web. Olinda: Social radios. objects is also modular, little leds, radio, etc…
5. This offers multiple agencing possiblilties. Build objects that wrap around existing (agencés). Ipod access
6. four-squares you can lie about where you are.
Preconceptions are inscribed into objects. To design new objects: be conscious about potential preconceptions, inscribe into objects deep desires (communicate, curious, equilibrium of control on own and data). no paternalism, and teach people what to do.
Frédéric Kaplan
Metamorphoses des objets. How to transform something that is worth, into something that has a emotional value (put two coins and turns it into a money).Practical work. his daughter has asked how many things we have. good let’s count. But count what? everything? let’s count what counts. And different objects can have different value profiles (fantastic graphs about value of objects).
All other objects can be replaced, but not the ones that build value over time. Initially a note book is cheap, but value builds over time (you write it). He realized that he didn’t have electronic objects that really matters. He likes his computer, but doesn’t matter if he changes it. For example the first iMacs, with colors, plastic, organic. But then, actually not. People want sexy things, square, 0815 (the black macs). But then we throw away the carapaces. People on the streets. it’s not really the objects that matters, it’s the data they contain and convey. Millions of interfaces for a single machine.
Therefore the IoT word is dangerous, because it makes us believe these objects are little, autonomous and talk to each other. But in fact it becomes a single mega-object, which is really different from the classic vision of a reticular IoT. Therefore, PCs are maybe just an alea in the history of computing. If I break my PC, no big deal. It’s just an interface that i carry to interact with my data that is not stored on the machine but somewhere else.
Object-interfaces. New objects appear that have less and less an value on their own. He shows his latest object, a screen that moves covered with tissue (and not plastic because it’s not convenient for moving things). It has silent motors, it moves, but is not a little man/machine, etc. it’s a point. He has two microphones He has depth perceived camera. and pulsed IR receivers, it can see in 3D people. Can track people, recognize, and you can interact with it remotely, manually. This machine is not a thin client – it gets its data from the cloud, music, sounds, and so on. It’s intimate, the interface comes to you.
He shows another example: his new book has each page 3D-barcoded. This augments the book online, where people can annotate collectively on the digital page. Each page becomes place to start conversations. You can then see the life of the book in real-time, what people like, what they see think about this book. The object keeps living afterwards.
Then Frédéric showed his lamp. When you put the book under it, it’s automated – no more need to manually scan the bardcode. It sees the book it feels. Then, we could embedded that into light bulbs. Imagine, each lamp could summon an physical/virtual augmentation of physical spaces, new interfaces among other. When you leave the library, you can keep working.
The metamorphosis of objects separates historical and functional value of objects. Here it is a little different. objint tend to become valueless objects. They’ll end being products and become services. Their conception could take into account the whole lifecycle of the object. The fact it is enveloped by textile so you can change it, like a physical skin. it can be built with sustaibale. You can change it bit by bit.
Biographical data. We give away huge data, and in the end we get little in exchange. Is it worth a lot? I dunno but i get free things in exchange. am i being ripped off? new actors will emerge that will take care of all this data, biographical agents. Like a bank. The trust will be the major factor. We can decide what they’ll do with our biographic data, we chose how it’s used. We would see the emergence of a memory art, how to decide what we remember, what we want to forget.
Finally, above all, these objects are an invitation to reflect upon oneself. metamorphose-des-objects.com
