The addicted society - What is your relation to your mobile phone?

Technology changes our relation to each other. It adds some things, and removes other things - and changes our meeting points. Nil Eyal wrote in TechCrunch how technology is making meetings worse. I think he here refers to business meetings, but this is thoughtful for any kind of meeting I would say;-)

"It seems that whenever people meet in person these days, they do so while separating their attention between the people in the room and the devices in their hands. Somehow, it has become socially acceptable to digitally masturbate in each other’s company. You might say, “but I’m taking notes or responding to an important request!” No you’re not, you are digitally dicking around."

"Most corrosive however, is the fact that less attention means worse outcomes. When people use their devices during meetings, even just for a quick sec, they eventually rejoin the conversation, aware that they may have missed something while they were mentally away. They fear revealing that they were not paying attention and tend to shut down. Thus, otherwise valid concerns and bright ideas are never discussed. Their lack of participation only serves to make the meeting less productive, less interesting, and more boring. Conveniently, to escape the discomfort of being not only bored, but also increasingly paranoid, more device usage ensues and the cycle continues."

Reblogged from:

Nil Eyal: Tech Is Making Meetings Worse, It’s Time For Digital Hat Racks, Tech Crunch, 2012-12-09, (http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/09/digital-hat-racks/) 

Dominant perspectives as evolved social constructions

Why do we think the way we do?

“When any group within a large, complex civilisation significantly dominates other groups for hundreds of years, the ways of the dominant group (its epistemologies, ontologies and axiologies), not only become the dominant ways of that civilisation, but also these ways become so deeply embedded that they typically are seen as ‘natural’ or appropriate norms rather than as historically evolved social constructions.” (Scheurich & Young, 1997: 7 quoted by Chilisa, 2011: 45).

 Read more at:

http://psychsoma.co.za/qualitative_inquiry_growt/third-space-methodologies/

The craft of interaction design and service design

Interesting how the craft of website wireframing or app wireframing appears to have much in common with service blueprint and customer journeys. It's an art to make it work well, and there is not one perfect solution that fits all cases?

http://maquinastudio.com/blog/2009/08/the-fine-art-of-wireframing/

Reflective and enabling design

Just read a nice article discussing the importance of understanding what you design for and why. Even if the goal is to make people happier, healtier etc it is important to acknowledge the difference of supporting people by providing different options that fit their needs, as opposed to locking them into a solution that someone else decided to be "the" best (only) alternative.

Design can be enablers of more sustainable practices and also support reflective behaviour. By providing things that make people reflect on for example their use of water or garbage, they can start to see things and realize how their actions affect for example the overall waste care in their country. Then they may also change their behaviour, because they desire to do so, not because they are forced to. A bit like the Hans Rosling effect :-) When we get new perspectives that relate ourselves to a global world, we learn something about ourselves and we start to reflect. Then we can start to act. 

This suggests the importance of separating beetween what is designed and the designers motivation behind the design. Even if the designer wants to save the world, the users have to get different enablers and alternatives and then decide what to do. At least if there is a humanistic perspective in the design? Supporting people to make sustainable choises (by providing such choices)  is very different from forcing people into a specific solution. Moreover, sustanability is about a longlasting perspective, thus it must come from a human desire and motivation.

http://www.rioleo.org/a-worrying-trend-in-behavior-change-in-human-computer-interaction.php

The relation between practice knowledge and academic knowledge

Today I listened to Ingela Josefson (Stockholm Academy of Dramatic Arts) describing philosphy of knowing. She discussed our relation to knowledge, and the history of separation beween theoretical knowledge and practice knowledge. Absolutely lovely seminar. Highlighting the importance of practice knowledge in academia.

http://www.hdk.gu.se/sv/nyheter/2012/vad-ar-kunskap-lunchforelasning-med-ingela-josefsson

Yesterday I visited the "Interaction and service design research group" (IxS) at Linköping University. I held a seminar about my current research and research environment, and presented a case describing how some industrial design practioners were working in a service design project.

We had a long discussion on blueprints and customer journeys. Apparently, many service designers are finding their own ways of representing different aspects of services, and create different visualizations that fit their needs in a given situation. The intereseting point here is what kind of knowledge that research should contribute to here?  The practitioners are creating their own tools.

What is the role for academic knowledge? Who creates the knowledge and for which reasons?

What is academic knowledge? What could it be?

Doing research at a designfirm is supporting me to get some distance to the academic environment. I'm still hanging out with researchers, but not every second everyday ;-) At least I imagine that I get to see research as bit more marginalised practice than I used too... :-)

Also, I find myself becoming more and more intrested in what research and education is - and what it could be. How should it support society and industri? Overall, it appears that there is a need for design thinking as well as visualizations of complex data... and much more. Need to care for the craft of education as well as for research.

Nice article in Swedish news, DN nov 2, 2012:

http://www.dn.se/debatt/hogskolan-maste-satsa-pa-tankandets-hantverk

People are already cyborgs

Donna Haraway writes about us being cyborgs, connected and dependent on the technology around us. Jepp, part of you brain is on the Internet and on your mobilephone Harraway is "a leading thinker about people's love/hate relationship with machines". Jepp, she is also into this perspective that we need to understand peoples relationships to technology, and even that human and machine are not possible to separate any longer. I don't agree fully, but I think it says something about our relationship to technology. Living "without that part of your brain" is like living without glasses  when having really bad sight. You feel cut off from reality. You loose something of yourself and you ability to take part in society and to perceive,  reflect and communicate.

Harraway also tackles "masculine bias in scientific culture and sees herself as the troubled "modest witness" of the ethical maelstrom of genetic engineering" 

Read more at: 

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffharaway_pr.html

By the way, Donna is coming to Uppsala in 30 of October!

Design in progress

Communicating and  presenting the design process continiously for stakeholders becomes more and more important for designers. Especially in service design, because then the "product" is never really finished. Its an ongoing process and the user value is created continiously at different touchpoints. This also  why companies are adviced to have a a group that constantly work with user input and how to improve the service. This, and other hints comes from UX practioners:

http://www.uie.com/articles/best_practices/


http://www.agileproductdesign.com/blog/emerging_best_agile_ux_practice.html

http://www.thinkingandmaking.com/view/agile-ux-six


http://www.upassoc.org/upa_publications/jus/2007may/agile-ucd.html



This and more  examples of  advices for best practice for UX in agile environments, is found here: http://www.quora.com/How-do-UX-practices-fit-with-agile-development-practices

What is your food culture?

Learning about the culture of eating without hands.  Its a challenge... but people ARE very creative in finding ways. Finding their own culture and manner. This is where true innovative ideas occur.

But, eating is about aesthetics and pleasure and meetings and cultures and lifestyle....
not just eating.

Its like, why do people take a shower or a bath?
Not necessarily to get clean. Its plesuare, rituals, lifestyle etc

- To wake up.
- To prepare for bed.
- To get warm.
- To feel warm.
- To reflect.
- To meditate.
- To reduce pain.
- To do something.
- To get away.
- To prepare oneself for a meeting.
- To look good in the hair.
- To avoid a burn injury.
- Etc.

Showering can also be approached as a culture. Just like eating is a culture.


http://wikieducator.org/Lesson_19:_Disability_and_Rehabilitation_Part_1

Experience design or service design?

What is service design and what is interaction design or experience design:

- The methods are (almost) the same
- But service design involves a bigger perspective, and requires an understanding of different touchpoints..


http://www.enginegroup.co.uk/service_design/v_page/service_design_and_user_experience_same_or_different

When inventing new services and artefacts it interesting to consider cultural differences affecting values. And values in a society may change...

The psychologist Shalom Schwartz has elaborated a widely accepted value model that consists of 10 human value types. These are ordered along two major dimensions: openness to change vs. conservation and self-enhancement vs. self-transition (see Figure). Extensive research in numerous countries has confirmed the validity of this model across cultures. However, cultures may differ in their value priorities.

http://www.migration.uni-jena.de/project4/values/index.php