The First International Conference on Appliance Design offered the opportunity for computer scientists, electronic engineers, designers, architects, and business strategists to discuss and to blend all the perspectives of design—physical, functional, interaction, graphical, and information—of pervasive computing systems and infrastructures

Roussos, George

English

Birkbeck Institutional Research Online

1536-1268/03/$17.00 © 2003 IEEE ■ Published by the IEEE CS and IEEE ComSoc PERVASIVEcomputing 75T he First International Conferenceon Appliance Design (1AD) tookplace at HP Labs, Bristol, UK, on 6 to 8May 2003. The AD conference seriesintends to bring together a mixed aca-demic and industrial audience withdiverse backgrounds in broadcasting,entertainment, consumer electronics,computing, and telecommunications. Asthe conference subtitle states, it aims to“create a new community of designpractice at the dawn of pervasive com-puting.” And indeed, 1AD offered theopportunity for a diverse audience ofcomputer scientists, electronic engi-neers, designers, architects, and businessstrategists to discuss and to blend all theperspectives of design—physical, func-tional, interaction, graphical, and infor-mation—of the emerging pervasivecomputing systems and infrastructures.Unlike the Pervasive, Ubicomp, andPercom conferences, 1AD focused oninteraction design. By the conference’send, the diverse set of participants hadindeed found common ground. Theyhad also established an open dialogue,had developed some understanding ofeach other’s priorities, and had come toidentify several common strands in thework of interdisciplinary teams.KEYNOTE SPEECH I: BILL MOGGRIDGEBill Moggridge is a cofounder of IDEO,a consulting firm dedicated to user-cen-tered design of products, services, andenvironments. His work has focused ondigital-device design since the mid sixties.Moggridge addressed issues relatingto the coexistence of designers, com-puter scientists, and engineers in thesame team, a mode of interaction thathe has been involved in since early in hiscareer. Although such interactions havebeen occurring for several decades, theneed for a better understanding of themechanisms that make collaboration ininterdisciplinary teams effective isbecoming more urgent—primarily ow-ing to their complexity and increasedimportance to product development.Indeed, such collaboration is a delicatebalancing act. On the one hand, engi-neers aim for higher system perform-ance, and they often evaluate their suc-cess using quantitative criteria. On theother hand, designers work in the sub-jective circumstances of personal expe-rience and aesthetics. This tremendousdifference in approach frequently causestension between team members.Working in mixed teams is a neces-sity today. However, the combinationof interaction design, service design toaccommodate business models, andtechnical infrastructure development,as well as the possibility for significantlyimproved functionality, raise this task’scomplexity. This situation also necessi-tates that teams rather than individualswork together to deliver a solutionwithin the time and resource constraintsavailable.Even in the design community, tradi-tions and approaches, as well as per-ceived priorities, differ significantly. Forexample, interaction design focuses ondeveloping electronically mediated ex-periences, while architecture focuses ondeveloping spaces for use. This differ-ence in focus implies that, although bothshare the same priorities, they addressthe requirements at completely differentscales (more on this issue in Bill Bux-ton’s talk later). All these different dis-ciplines and traditions are merging intoa new design discipline, which encom-passes all aspects of the above elementsand works toward shaping everyday lifethrough digital technologies.The development of this new disci-pline is creating the current tension andconvergence. Indeed, personal digitaltechnologies have followed three evolu-tionary stages (see Figure 1), from beinga leisure activity for computer enthusi-asts, to becoming a business tool for pro-fessionals, and today emerging as every-day consumer appliances. So, computerand telecommunications technologieshave migrated from the technology-intensive environment in which they firstappeared to an environment where notechnical sophistication is available. Sub-sequently, the development focus hasshifted from “how it works” to “whatyou do with it.” Thus, today, design aimsto improve the quality of interaction andsystem responsiveness by fusing togethervisual, sonic, and long-lasting elements.At which point, Bill Moggridge declaredthat we are at the “era of the consumer”and that the way forward is through par-ticipatory design at a professional level.The remainder of Moggridge’s talk dis-cussed particular case studies in which heAppliance Design forPervasive ComputingGeorge RoussosEditor: Mary Baker   ■ Stanford University   ■ mgbaker@cs.stanford.eduConferenceshas been directly involved, with an empha-sis on design failure as well as opportu-nity. He sees the failure’s cause in differentrealms, particularly in a device’s or ser-vice’s value to the consumer, the specificconsumer needs it addresses, and con-sumer perceptions of it. For example, theSoftbook, an early electronic book, failedin the market possibly because the result-ing experience was too novel for the con-sumer. H2Eye’s Spyfish submarine tele-presence vehicle has been redesigned touse sound and graphics to evoke the feel-ing of being underwater while ensuringthat the user maintains movement orien-tation throughout his or her undersea ses-sion.Finally, Moggridge presented Prada’sfirst Epicenter store, which opened inNew York City and features the inter-active dressing room. All merchandisecontains radio frequency identification(RFID) transceivers with immediateaccess to back-end data through salesstaff appliances. The customers them-selves are also identifiable through theirRFID-enabled loyalty cards. Each dress-ing room is a simple eight-foot-squarebooth with Privalite glass walls thatswitch from transparent to translucentwhen a room is occupied. Once inside,customers can switch the doors back totransparent at will, exposing or pro-tecting themselves from onlookers.Lighting controls let customers viewtheir selection in either a “warm eveningglow” or “cool blue daylight.” Whileinside the dressing room, customers candirectly access information relating totheir particular garment selection. Whengarments are hung in the closet, embed-ded RF readers scan their RFID tags.Finally, the dressing rooms feature avideo-based “Magic Mirror” that letscustomers see an image of their back. Ascustomers turn in front of the mirror,the image becomes delayed, letting themview themselves in slow motion from allangles.KEYNOTE SPEECH II: IRENE MCARA-MCWILLIAMIrene McAra-McWilliam is the direc-tor of the Department of InteractionDesign at the Royal College of Arts andformer director of Design Research &Development for Philips Design. She dis-cussed “the creative process”—that is, anovel methodology for creating “newthings.” This process is fundamentallydifferent from information systems designand development methodologies, and itprovides a useful insight into how dis-ciplines other than computing developtheir solutions. A main reason for thisapproach’s development has been therealization by McAra-McWilliam and hercolleagues that a main problem in inter-action design today is that electronic andcomputer based artifacts are developedto replace rather than elevate humantraits. In effect, such designs redefinehumans in terms of computer qualitiesrather than the other way around. Thisapproach creates significant friction inusing pervasive services and appliancesbecause it directly conflicts with humans’need to sustain themselves and their per-ceptions of themselves as individuals.The creative process model (see Fig-ure 2) works best for planning orreevaluating a strategic design processbecause it exposes the raisons d’êtrebehind observable characteristics ordesigns and interactions. The modeldevelops around four motifs:• The psychology of possibility (designkoans)• Creativity with uses (seeing the world)• The design process (insight and imagination)• Making worlds (embodying andshaping)Its main objective is to prepare individ-uals from distinct backgrounds for col-laboration. In fact, the speaker identi-fied collaboration and connectedness asthe main ingredient in creativity.McAra-McWilliam used the modelto draw some corollaries about collab-oration in interaction design. First, theinteraction between ways of makingand ways of being is a core factor in thehigh stress levels related to technologyuse (“if it requires effort to use, it causesstress”). Familiarity and intuitivenesscome from reflection on actions and areembedded through experience. That is,they close the cycle from ways of beingto ways of making. However, there aresignificant pressures and lack of time toreinforce this feedback loop.Second, prototypes play differentroles in computing and in design. Forcomputer engineers, prototypes are con-structive, in that they’re the first step toimplementation. For designers, proto-types are destructive, in that they’re cre-ated to be destroyed, with their decon-struction furthering the creative process.Finally, McAra-McWilliam observedthat the path she presented as a forwardprocess (from ways of being to ways ofmaking) has been followed backwardthroughout design history. Originally,design was considered a means for mak-ing artifacts. Over the past decades, it has been transformed several times,and today is seen as a means to reflectidentity.KEYNOTE SPEECH III: BILL BUXTONBill Buxton is a principal of BuxtonDesign, a design and consulting firm,and an associate professor in the Uni-CONFERENCESC O N F E R E N C E S76 PERVASIVEcomputing http://computer.org/pervasiveWays ofthinkingWays ofmakingWays ofseeingWays ofbeingFigure 2. Irene McAra-McWilliam’screative process model.Enthusiast ConsumerProfessionalFigure 1. The evolution of electronic technologies and their user profiles.versity of Toronto’s Department ofComputer Science. His talk revolvedaround two themes: technology asprosthesis and location as an interac-tion paradigm.In this context, “prosthesis” means toextend human capabilities through addi-tions to these three dimensions: ourmotor or sensory abilities, cognitive abil-ities, and social skills. To this end, Bux-ton proposed an appropriate measure ofsuccess for prosthetic technologies:whether the new service or device reducesor increases complexity of a situated taskand whether it increases or reduces theuser’s control of this complexity. Thismeasure reflects the need for higherfidelity in the three dimensions of pros-thesis. Finally, he reflected that the designprocess for systems augmented by com-putational and communications capa-bilities should aim to increase those sys-tems’ intelligence. Following Piaget, hedefines intelligence as a system’s ororganism’s ability to adapt and assimi-late to a changing environment.Regarding location, Buxton addressedthe relationship between design andarchitecture and the fact that the formerevolves to be more like the latter. That is,although objects as devices or serviceportals are important, the need is increas-ing to design behavior instead. Indeed,Buxton believes that a key challenge inindustrial design is making informeddecisions in terms of the behavioralaspects of what’s being designed. Heoffered a possible solution inspired by aquote from Louis I. Kahn: “Thoughtsexchanged by one and another are notthe same in one room as in another.” Heconsiders this concept to be true not onlyfor thoughts exchanged between peoplebut also between people and devices,and even devices and devices. So, thephysical and social proximity and thesocial and physical (rather than solelyinformation) ecology in which ideas arebeing exchanged have a crucial, but asyet unexplored and underexploited,impact on the exchanges themselves.Therein lies the potential usefulness ofexploiting location, which can signifi-cantly reduce the complexity of use forsystems and concepts such as ubiquitouscomputing, augmented reality, wearablecomputing, and pervasive computing.EXHIBITIONOne of the most interesting aspectsof 1AD was the research exhibition,held during the afternoon of the firstday after the paper presentations. Sev-eral interesting installations attractedvisitors’ interest; I discuss three here.Notably, a competition of Schminkyran throughout the conference, with thewinners receiving an award from HPLabs. In Schminky, players try to iden-tify the missing sound from a musicalpattern, an adaptation of an idea fromSimon, the old gamer favorite. How-ever, Schminky is played in groups. Play-ers can search for and invite others overa wireless network, the idea behind thegame being to foster interactions in pub-lic spaces. According to the game devel-opers at HP Labs, Bristol, a Schminkyinstallation ran for a week-long trial atthe Watershed Café in downtown Bris-tol, with great success (http://cooltown.hp.com/mpulse/0603-Schminky.asp).Web Signs are “display-based Inter-net appliances” developed by ApplianceStudio under its Smart Signs initiative(www.appliancestudio.com/sectors/smartsigns.htm). They form the basisfor a range of applications that requirelow-cost, low-footprint, software-con-figurable displays. They’re situated dis-plays furnishing a flat-panel touchscreen, wireless networking, and an em-bedded Web server. They’re often usedtogether with Web-based collaborationservers to provide office and workplacesignage, retail point-of-sale terminals,or adaptive, interactive displays formuseum galleries and exhibitions. Theyrun on the company’s own embeddedLinux operating system.Finally, “A Walk in the WirelessWoods” is one of the “experience proj-ects” that form Equator, the premier per-vasive computing academic-research collaborative in the UK (www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/projects/equator). The proj-ect showcased the Periscope, coopera-tively developed by researchers from theuniversities of Sussex, Nottingham, Bris-tol, and Southampton, and the RoyalCollege of Art. The Periscope is an inter-active device designed to be situated inwoodland and to augment children’sfield trips by providing relevant infor-mation to their outdoors activities. Itconsists of a display and a collection ofRFID sensors. Users control it by rotat-ing it and twisting the handles. A col-lection of Petri dishes fitted with RFIDtags let children carry out experiments,with the results appearing on the display.1 AD successfully provided a forumfor discussing the emerging perva-sive information appliances that willrequire multidisciplinary teams toreach across traditional and subjectmatter boundaries, encompassing thevarious types of design, technologyinnovation, and human-centered stud-ies. It also highlighted issues crucial tofacilitating collaboration and the prac-ticalities of such collaborations, includ-ing mechanisms to help build commonunderstanding.2AD will take place 11 to 13 May2004 at HP Labs Bristol and will bestructured around six themes:• The knowledge workspace• Home and entertainment appliances• Wearable appliances• Games and social experiences• Urban contexts• Experience design2AD will introduce an “appliance ba-zaar” and a robot soccer tournamentto increase audience participation.CONFERENCESOCTOBER–DECEMBER 2003 PERVASIVEcomputing 77George Roussos is a lecturerand a London TechnologyNetwork Business Fellow atthe School of Computer Sci-ence and Information Sys-tems of Birkbeck College,University of London. Con-tact him at g.roussos@bbk.ac.uk.

Appliance design for pervasive computing

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Birkbeck Institutional Research Online

Name not available