reading

Circle and Props

This first reading task was written by Kristina Anderson and Danielle Wilde. It discusses the OWL Project which I assume was created by these two people.
The idea behind this project is for people to think how future technologies might look and function without having any idea about them at all. This works by grouping people into 'OWL Circles', which consists of a bunch of people around a workstation, some cards with different common desires and whole variety of different materials to create the product with. These desires range from family, romance and power. Once each person has created their product, they are led to a corner for a video interview about their desire and their product.

I personally feel like this is a good idea as it allows people, of all ages, to express their creativity factor even more than usual because they are given somewhat limited materials and zero knowledge of what they are actually creating. I feel as though this should be something that's used in schools to try and get people more into design and creativity.
The article however I feel was poorly written. In the first paragraph they more or less tell you what it's actually about. And then on the second page they describe how it functions. In between all of that, there's a bunch of extra stuff which could relate to it in some way but I don't see it as being hugely beneficial. They need to shorten it a bit.

Annotated Portfolios

This task was written by Bill Gaver and John Bowers from Goldsmiths University of London. It discusses Annotated Portfolios. When I say discussed, I sort of mean sell as they seem very for Annotated Portfolios. And rightly so. They reference many different projects with pictures of them being annotated. Another part of the article discusses whether or not design can be used as research. Another part goes to talk about the logic behind annotated portfolios.

Once again, I feel this whole article could have been wrapped up in a good 4-5 pages instead of the 10 page article it is. It is an interesting read however as they cover all the different points and go into lots more detail about the topic compared to the 1st article which didn't so much.
I feel that annotating portfolios can not only benefit the user who's portfolio it is but also others who could be referring to it for research. The user can be showing off their portfolio to an employer and they are more likely to be gripped and interested if they don't have to sift through page after page of details when it could be wrapped up in a small picture of the product with annotations posted around it in an aesthetically pleasing way.
If I were looking at portfolios for research, I would be more likely to be interested in one that had annotations on the pictures instead of lots of text. It would be more beneficial as it would be easier to identify which annotation went along with which part of the final product.

Taking Our Sweet Time To Search

In this paper written by Marian Dork, Peter Bennett and Rosamund Davies, they explore the world that is slow search. Now, what is slow search you may ask? Well it's quite straightforward.
In the modern day, we have access to tools such as Google, Wikipedia and Siri, which enable us to find out a piece of information in under a minute. Don't get me wrong, they are some of the most useful tools we currently have access to. But what if you wanted to find out even more information than just the bare necessities.

Before the age of the internet, people went to libraries and read through hundreds of books to do their research. Along the way, you may come across information which isn't directly useful to what you're after but may prove to be interesting or helpful later down the line. You may also get into a conversation with a librarian when asking them where you might find something, this could then lead to them suggesting something to you that proves to a much bigger help than what you were originally intending to find.
By taking more time to conduct research, it gets your brain more tuned into it. Therefore, prompts more reflection on the subject you're researching.

This is however not always useful. Sometimes we might want to find out what year Henry the 8th died or how long it takes to get from London to Birmingham on a train (January 28th 1547 and 1 hour and 20 minutes). This is where Google and Siri come in handy. Things that don't require libraries or hours of reading.
Some projects do either require more in depth search or would benefit greatly from slow search, but it does depend on the project as well as the person. Someone might feel that they can get more than enough research by avoiding hours of books where someone else might think differently. Like pretty much everything in this world, it comes down to personal preference.

In the article, they suggest some ways in which you can begin to implement slow search into your life.

The first is changing quick lookups into strolls. This is essentially browsing further onto reference links. Wikipedia is amazing at giving all the information you need, but sometimes there's somethings missing. This is where the references at the bottom become handy, you can browse more into these articles and perhaps find something helpful that was left out of the Wiki page.

The next is slow search spaces. Now I don't mean an area like a park where you can sit down and do more research. Although that could be helpful. I mean somewhere like a library. To quote the paper, "Similar to how people often enter a bookshop without a particular title or author in mind". These people then browse to see if anything interesting comes up. Being in a place like that will open up your mind to search for other things that could be loosely linked to your subject but could still come in handy.

The last are journals. Currently on web browsers, we have bookmarks. The ability to save webpages down for later dates. Helpful for gift ideas, holiday resorts, what to do when the in-laws stay over and research. This however just bookmarks the whole page, not the most helpful parts. This is where journals come in handy. When doing research, take notes of the bits you feel are most helpful and when coming back to them, it will save having to read through the whole webpage again.

In my opinion, I like the idea. For a project that would require a lot of research to either back it up in a presentation or to help create the final product then it's a good idea that isn't too tedious. I feel that reading something on paper is more gripping than on a website, it feels more authentic and more likely to sink in. I do however like to be able to say "Ok Google" and ask it whatever I desire.

Overcoming Procrastination with ReMind

This wonderful piece of reading comes from the folks at Folkwang University of the Arts. They are, Matthias Laschke, Marc Hassenzahl, Jan Brechmann, Eva Lenz and Marion Digel.
In this paper, they show off their latest innovative design known as ReMind, a product which they feel will defeat procrastination once and for all! Where do I get one?

ReMind is a circular device that sits in your home to remind you of what tasks you need to do. Around this circle are dates of a month, ReMind comes with these magnetic, hockey puck looking circles in which you write your task on for a certain date. It is powered by a small motor that moves the wheel a small amount each day. The idea of this is to push you to complete a certain task by the date in which the puck is sat on. If it is completed, congrats! You can take it down and create a new task to do. If it is not completed, then it will fall down into this little bucket bit so you know that the deadline is upon you. At that moment you can then choose to complete the task, put it back for another day or abandon it entirely.
By having it fall down it will push you to think about it more. And by bringing it to the front of your mind, not completing it can lower your mood as you could feel unaccomplished.

ReMind has 4 principles it works with, based on psychological knowledge.

Situatedness. ReMind is placed in your home, the place you spend the most time at. Therefore it is a constant reminder that you should be doing these things instead of watching Breaking Bad. It will never leave your mind. Sounds creepy...

Alternatives. ReMind pushes alternative behaviours onto the person using it. ReMind doesn't have an unlimited supply of pucks, so it makes you put only a few on so you don't try and overwhelm yourself with all these tasks to do. It is also quite daunting seeing all these things that need doing day after day, so the way it's designed prompts you to space them out, attempting to also not overwhelm yourself.

Moment of Choice. To quote the paper, "ReMind literally throws unfinished and overdue goals at its user". When you haven't completed a task, it will drop from the circle and force you to make a choice then and there. Being put on the spot is the worst thing ever so if it happens once or twice, you'll see a pattern where it doesn't happen anymore from those.

Meaning-Making. By having ReMind and seeing the goals right in front of you, the thought of procrastinating is far from the best. By constantly showing you the tasks you have set and not letting it leave your mind, it pushes the user to ditch procrastination to feel better about themselves.

In my opinion I like the idea of it, it shows potential and has been proven it works. However I can picture some people ignoring it completely. I feel it could work for me, if I know something has to be done by a certain time, it will play on my mind until it's done, so ReMind would be a kick into action for me.

New Media, New Craft

This paper by Andrew Richardson explains how he feels that programming and other coding should be considered a craft. Let's take a quick history trip.

For hundreds of years, craftsmen have been recognised as people who create things out of "old" materials such as wood, clay, marble etc. Their craft is known to make items such as sculptures, models and pretty much anything practical and physical.
So why does Richardson feel like coders aren't craftsmen? Because in the modern day they aren't considered them. To a lot of people, to be a craftsmen, you need to have a workbench and make something that is physical.
He suggests that a craft is "the applied, skilled understanding and mastery of material". Therefore, by following this rule, a programmer is as much of a craftsman as someone who makes physical objects.
A programmer's material is a computer.

Where as craftsman creates something that is physical and intractable, the programmer creates something that gets it interaction from things such as sound and video with peripherals like a mouse and keyboard. The programmers materials are known as "new" materials, this is essentially the computer and the software used to create the code.

The difference between the two is that the old materials are stable and physical objects whereas the new materials although don't fully exist, are unlimited and can be further developed on.

Richardson compares these crafts by using the Arts and Crafts Movement. It states that a craftsmen must fully understand what they must do to complete the product. They must use his materials efficiently so to not waste them and to ensure the environment is correct. Sounds a little bit confusing but does make sense when reading the paper.
A programmer must also do this. They must know what code they must use to make the end product. They must be able to use proper code that isn't unnecessary. For example, there can sometimes be an easier bit of code to use that would be more beneficial. Their environment must also be suitable to work in.

By following all of this, I personally feel that a programmer can easily be a craftsmen as technology is such a huge part of our daily life that whether you're building PC's, servers or software to run on those things, I personally consider it to be a craft.

Distinguishing Concepts Lexicons of Interactive Art and Architecture - Usman Hacque

I won't sugar coat this, this paper was horrible. It was hard to read, too lengthy and the point of it was beyond difficult to understand. Luckily I wasn't alone, the majority of our class also agreed.

From what we gathered, he tries to mention how words can mean very different things nowadays and can also change their meaning. Take the word "interactive" as an example. This is a very overused word and can be applied to anything even loosely technological somehow that involves human interaction. He says that something can be described as interactive if it requires a human being to tell it what to do.
He also claims how the majority of these things are reactive. Something that is reactive needs human interaction to follow a set list of instructions however cannot respond to any unique instructions. If it could, that would be true interactivity.

He also goes on to discuss Public, Private and Commons buildings. He mentions how things like offices and schools are private buildings but shops are public buildings. He describes how common features nowadays such as Wi-Fi and CCTV make these things indistinguishable. He also states something is known as commons if it is truly open and free, like a random field that is owned by no one.

Overall, I had no idea what he was on about. I felt that there wasn't much of a need to discuss this and he somehow managed to stretch this over 8 pages. Definitely not a read I recommend.

Theories and Practice of Design for Information Systems: Eight Design Perspectives in Ten Short Weeks - David G. Hendry, Batya Friedman

This was really long paper. Longer than any of the others coming in at 10 pages. It was pretty hard to understand some of the language they were using but what I did understand, I found quite interesting.

In this paper, they discussed the importance of different research and design techniques. Their aim was to try to discover new ways of researching.
They did this using 14 university students that all came from technology, media and design courses. They were put in classrooms for 3 hours a day for 10 weeks. In these sessions they were given problems to solve using basic resources such as pens, coloured paper etc. They were then to form groups in order to use various research and design techniques to come up with a solution to this problem. They then presented their solution in the classes and other students voiced their opinion on that groups solution and method they used.

They weren't so bothered about the actual solution but the techniques they used to obtain that solution. They gave the students a problem and very basic resources and sat and watched at the different techniques they used.

I feel this is a great idea. Not only do the researchers get to see what techniques our generation use the most, it also gave the students an opportunity to expand their research ability. If a student wasn't very good or didn't enjoy a certain way of research, this gave them the opportunity to find new ways of researching things, using elements of design which could then benefit them in the future. While I feel the paper could have been a bit shorter, it was very interesting and much more enjoyable to read than the previous one. Sorry Usman.