pezbct-blog

[pezbct-blog]

Further analysis & Evaluation.

Match Pro proved not to be the best example of AI and tech driven dating platforms given its revenue targets were clearly a dream with no evidence or documentation of any sort of product, not even prototypes, it was hard to analyse a passage of text that was completely immaterial.

However the actions of current platforms and trends in emerging services also suggest this is where we are heading so I took more of a holistic approach by analysing the entire field and it’s trend towards AI and data driven match making.

Collective analysis of Artificial intelligence in matchmaking. 

-There is nothing particularly new about machine algorithms in dating services. What is new is the vast amount of data these algorithms now have access to (our online footprint)

-MatchPro’s selling point was data driven results based off psychological and graphological analysis however currently dating apps are able to provide recommendations based off of the analysis of user history which you could argue is a stronger indicator. From age, gender, location, and sexual preferences, to online purchasing history and even Spotify playlists

-I’ve noticed two distinct approaches, the first being relying on data that already exists e.g social media & the online footprint and the scientific approach being extensive surveys and tests. These platform tend to target different demographics. Platforms like eHarmony and OKCUPID take this approach to data collection however people have voiced their concern over the opportunity for users to miss represent themselves. Amy Webb a journalist and professor of strategic insight at the stern school of business documented her ability to out smart a match making algorithm by catering her profile to the man she hoped to meet.

A quote from the CEO of tinder Sean Rad speculating on the state of the platform in 5 years time. “The Tinder voice might pop up and say, ‘There’s someone down the street that we think you’re going to be attracted to, and she’s also attracted to you, and guess what, she’s free tomorrow night! And we know you both like this indie band, and it’s playing, so would you like us to buy your tickets?”

Platforms like AIMM (1) seem the be smarter in the way they go about collecting data to fuel their algorithms. The application is voice controlled which allows the AI to pick up sentiment in the voice of the user, whilst platform like Loveflutter (2) analyse users twitter history to pick up sentiments and make assumptions about their personality.

“today’s dating sites are only as good as the data they’re given.”

Value proposition of AI and big data in dating platforms:

-Vast pool of potential matches, instant gratification, convenience

-“Algorithms can end up knowing a person better than friends, family or even themselves, and that’s revolutionising matchmaking”, says Michal Kosinski, a computational psychologist and assistant professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business.

- “Algorithms can learn from experiences of billions of others, while a typical person can only learn from their own experience and the experience of a relatively small number of friends.” refers to the importance of Big Data.

-Signals that people may miss but AI can catch include the sentiment in communication, response times, and length of profiles.

-With such a large and accessible candidate pool there are no missed opportunities.

It seems as though a lot of common dating speed bumps can be avoided with the due-diligence relatively simple AI can provide but do these algorithms need to be inherently broken? Otherwise successful users will not return to the platform. 

Evaluation.

Questions: How does the quality of interaction differ when first meetings are based upon a pool of compatible candidates and alternatively by chance? How does the context of the situation (expectations of a date) alter the course of the interaction?

Is it ultimately more rewarding to meet someone by chance or serendipity or through a controlled and monitored pool of candidates?

These platforms market themselves on the potential for love and this is where the criteria for success becomes pretty muddy. When looking simply at introductions it is a bit easier to process. Instead of a date I chose a single test  subject (one of my flatmates) to choose a particular activity to complete with their date (another of my flatmates) The subject chose a game of call of duty.

I choose to base the meeting around an activity as these were people who already new each other and I thought this provided some criteria to which they could make judgements about each other. I put no restriction on the type of activity. The rest of my subjects (my remaining flatmates) and my initial subject wrote on a piece of paper what their chosen activity would have been and two key skills that related to their chosen activity. My attempt to simulate Artificial intelligence was to use actual intelligence in the form of two other friends. In this test subjects would be paired to complete the chosen activity first by the “AI” and next at random, they would then reflect on the experience and rate the quality of interaction based on whether they would like to engage in that particular activity with their partner again. The two match makers who played the role of a machine algorithm were told to make a decision purely on the information that was provided by each subject, this consisted of three key pieces of information. The match makers selected two people for the subject to complete the selected activity. Then a partner was chosen at random.

In hindsight this was a bit of a stretch. It is extremely difficult to replicate the chemistry of potential partners meeting as well as triggering the same response as people meeting for the first time. Although this was an interesting test I’m hesitant to make any inferences about the effectiveness of artificial intelligence in dating.

I did notice that the context of the situation had an effect on their attitude, when their partner was chosen from a pool they became fixated on executing the task whereas when the partner was chosen at random was more concerned with having a laugh and looked to be enjoying the process more. Being put in a situation with someone who is said to be a match tended to bring out a more assessment oriented attitude. subjects were actively try to find value in the other person. As soon as there was a slight amount of disinterest they would become totally disinvested with the mindset there would likely be another better partner. When the activity partner was chosen at random they tended to be a lot more open minded 

I’d like to know if this same attitude is present during first dates? Are daters concerned primarily with the conversion rate of meetings or do they enjoy the process?

(1) https://aimm.online

(2) https://www.loveflutter.com

[pezbct-blog]

MatchPro

Formative Analysis.

“It is Easy, Effective, Exact.

MatchPro automatically suggests partners that are right for you.  

MachPro is used by a person, who values her own time and looks for excellent results. MatchPro is the future of searching for a partner. - The psychological test supplemented with graphological and iridological analysis gives a clear picture of what kind of a person you are and what your wishes are. A specific algorithm processes and analyzes the results of tests and suggests partners that are suitable for the target person. “

Upon first inspection Match pro obviously lacks the professional execution to be commercially viable, hence the extensive use of royalty free stock images. Matchpro claims to be at a stage where they are looking to integrate individually successful components into a functional application and commercialise however the product seems to be an extremely stripped back version their value proposition which at first glance is reminiscent of the black Mirror episode “Hang the DJ”. The episode takes place within a simulation where a system pairs partners to find how compatible they are, a plot twist reveals the characters exist in real life and are brought together by a dating app signalling a 98% match whilst it was the app that was running the simulations in which the protagonists fell in love.

However in stark contrast to this SciFi depiction it seems as though as MatchPro is backed up with pseudo science, so what would lead a paying customer to put their faith into something so fanciful? Perhaps it speaks to the quality of interaction current social media offers. Obviously such a solution seems tragic and desperate but what does this tell us about the current climate of social media and dating platforms? Are users left disillusioned due to a lack of transparency, honesty and the ability to fabricate a desired public image?

The kickstarter showreel references the use of “Iris analysis”. Patterns that are “Governed by the same genes than those regulating our personality.“ I was unable to find anything to corroborate this statement however even if these claims are true and matchPro can take effective readings the nature vs nurture debate adds yet another variable. This refers to a recurring debate around the extent of which human behaviour is inherited (genetic) or acquired. So called “Iridological analysis” is purely a result of genetic inheritance, this begs the question does the application turn a blind eye to the fact that life experiences and an individuals learnings greatly effect the way we perceive ourselves and others? Or are they simply trying to break ground in this market with an inherently limited and untested product. It also seems bizarre that I am first exposed to the field that is Iridology through a dating application. It appears as though MatchPro leverages desperation to turn a profit and the numbers of this campaign would suggest so, ten backers who as a reward are offered a premium membership. 

The Myers-Briggs test is a hotly debated psychological analysis that groups participants into personality types however has been used in a variety of applied settings, so in that regard certain psycho analysis features could hold some merit but you have to wonder to what extent fairly vague and inexplicit results are in accurately pairing users? As well The field of Neuro science still harbours many mysteries so are there simply too may variables to be able to ever come close to predicting something like this?

“And so truly understanding the brain, it seems, will require better experiments — using apparatus that is more fully understood than the brain now is — of sufficient complexity to be worthy of probing the brain’s abilities.”  

A contrasting school of thought could perhaps argue the idea itself isn’t ridiculous but inherently constrained by the current state of tech that underpins it all. Could MatchPro be the first in a long chain of match making applications and programs that take advantage of artificial intelligence that is improving exponentially and/or leveraging & monetising new discoveries in the field of neuroscience. Maybe It has failed to gain the necessary backing now due to ignorance around the capabilities of this technology in the future. If we take into account Amara’s law such a platform could yet reach a “Plateau of productivity” if or when this idea is revisited by a company with adequate resources and influence to produce a viable commercial product.

It could also be argued, like many other applications that clutter our smartphones MatchPro is a reflection of a 21st century attitude where we want everything instantly and we assume everything can be purchased “This important part of our life - finding a partner - should not be so frustrating” yet dating is inherently frustrating and I would argue that if it wasn’t the end product wouldn’t be so rewarding.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/iv55/matchpro-find-a-partner-by-using-artificial-intelligence?ref=discovery_category

Myers, I. B. (1962). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Manual (1962).

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/neuroscience-understanding-brain

[pezbct-blog]

Some context.

Pilgrim is a response to our understanding of a real world problem, four defining pain points and a projected user base. This user base relies on data retrieved from a New Zealand  surfing association survey held in 2016, it is estimated that 1 in every 27 New Zealanders surf (“NZ Surfing Survey”, 2016). This equates to roughly 170 thousand New Zealanders who could become potential users of Pilgrim just from surfing alone.  Adjacent industries and activities such as Snow sports, Mountain Biking, Tramping and select Music festivals provide growth channels which would see Pilgrims user base greatly expand hence the emphasis on developing of a versatile and transferable platform.

The concept of ridesharing in recent years has drastically changed the way we travel locally, platforms the likes of Uber (Uber, 2018) and Zoomy (Zoomy, 2018) have taken the New Zealand and international market by storm. Uber boasts as of the end of 2017 a presence in 554 cities across 80 countries (Uber blog, 2017), these figures highlight an attitude shift with the worlds urban population becoming more open to organising rides through flexible mobile platforms. However, the majority of mainstream rideshare platforms don't cater to the diverse needs of Pilgrims user base. This has seen surfers and those partaking in other recreational activities turn to social media as a point of call, in particular Facebook (Facebook, 2018). A variety of communities exist on Facebook for the purpose of sharing rides across the board from surfers looking for a wave to students looking to split the cost of driving to a summer festival. However, social media platforms like Facebook are not designed to act as rideshare platforms, they have been turned to because of their large user base and popular messaging applications allowing for ease of communication. Facebook does not provide an effective system of organising rides due to the saturation of other material and its wide range of both users and uses. The job of Pilgrim is to harness all these potential users scattered in disparate facebook and online communities, and connect them using one centralised platform.

The rideshare market is one that caters to many different demographics, and is populated by many different companies. The section that seems to be most heavily targeted is the daily urban commuter (carpooling). In New Zealand we have companies the likes of Chariot (Chariot Ridesharing, 2016) providing such services, while globally almost every country or major city has something of a similar nature. Companies the likes of BlaBlaCar (BlaBlaCar, 2018), a global ridesharing service that takes a slightly different model to conventional carpooling apps focusing on long distance intercity travel. The key difference here being drivers get paid per trip rather than doing it out of pure good will. Locally, Co seats ( https://www.coseats.co.nz) provides a service that is targeted at travelers looking to travel intercity, However destinations are limited to NZ’s major towns and centres and it lacks a standardised payment scheme leaving passengers to make set offerings from which drivers can pick an choose from.  Then we have existing action sport ride sharing platforms, most notable in New Zealand is “Snowpool” (Snowpool Limited, 2015) an online and mobile platform which, similar to Pilgrim, provides the opportunity for drivers to list available seats and for riders to find a ride to popular ski fields in New Zealand. However, the platform being founded in 2005 is an outdated service with a clumsy user interface. It fails to make use of advances in technology and additional API’s that make modern day ridesharing so simple and accessible. Furthermore, the platform currently only services central south island ski fields due to its small user base.

Where Pilgrim sets itself apart from existing platforms in this space in the diversity of the needs of its user. It is often a time consuming process finding someone heading to the same location for the same reasons and settling on a price. By targeting a tight knit and established community we hope to alleviate the above problems, when the conditions for a particular activity are good the majority of that community wants to be in the same place, a standardised estimate of price will negate the need for time consuming and potentially off putting negotiations.

Wilkinson, J. (2016, November 15). Surfing survey biggest of its kind in New Zealand. Stuff. Retrieved from: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/86479402/surfing-survey-biggest-of-its-kind-in-new-zealand?rm=m

Uber Technologies, Inc. (2018). Uber. (Version 3.322.10004). [Mobile Application software].

Zoomy, Ltd. (2018). Zoomy. (Version 5.0.3). [Mobile application software].

Uber Blog. (2017, December 12). Kiwi trends: 2017 according to Uber and Uber Eats [Blog Post]. Retrieved from: https://www.uber.com/en-NZ/blog/yearwithubernz/

Facebook, Inc.(2018). Facebook. [Web application Software]. [Mobile Application Software].

Chariot Ridesharing. (2016). Share the ride share the rewards. Retrieved from: https://www.getchariot.com

BlaBlaCar. (2018). Click. Go. Together. Retrieved from: https://www.blablacar.com

Coseats.(n.a) Rideshare in New Zealand. Retrieved from: https://www.coseats.co.nz

Snowpool Limited. (2015, April 23). Snow pool. (Version 3.1). [Mobile Application Software].

[pezbct-blog]

A community.

We have put strong emphasis on the social aspect of this platform. It is as much about making connections, sharing your journey and being a part of something bigger than yourself than it is about getting form A to B. Features such as the “Caravan” and “Stories” are a visual representation of past journeys and connections made with other users. This integrates a social element into the user experience that existing platforms lack, with every journey you are building your profile, status and network within the Pilgrim community.

However with the platform itself not yet functional this had to begin somewhere else. We set up a closed Facebook group with friends and potential users who fall within our target demographic to whom we introduced the concept. This Closed help us hear popular opinions on features and ideas, build the community, and begin our pilgrimage. It is an opportunity for those we are designing for to be apart of the Pilgrim story, and to help create a platform that works for them. 

Welcome to Pilgrim! If you're in this page you’re a part of ourvision, there are big things to come and this is just the beginning. Pilgrim is a platform for sharing rides and connecting like-minded people. Our story began with two mates, one car, and a passion for surfing. Living in and around the city, getting out there can be a mission. An idea was born out of our own need to travel long distances to beaches, mountains, and festivals and the hassle of organising carpools with groups of people. We decided to create a solution.Pilgrim gets you to the surf by connecting people with the same goal. Stuck at home with no ride, or just want to split the petrol costs and head out with some new mates - Pilgrim has you covered. While we are in the process of designing and building Pilgrim in the form of a mobile and web app, this group has been created to hear your opinion on features and ideas, build the community, and begin our own pilgrimage. This is an opportunity to be a part of the Pilgrim story, and help create a platform that works for you.

We also started a public Instagram in an effort to gain some traction and lay the foundations of a strong community united by a common interest.

@becomeapilgrim

 To validate and prototype Pilgrims other potential applications that extend past surfing, we ran a small scale beach clean up with Sustainable Coastlines. The aim to get as many people to one location in as few cars as possible at as little cost for all of those involved through a sustainable means of transport. What we were hoping to show through this event is that there is a void that Pilgrim can filll. Communities of like minded people already exist and therefore our role is simple, to extend the scale and scope of the connections within these communities. We ran this at betels beach with the help of sustainable coastline 

As the platform is as much bout making manful connections as it is about saving many and finding a ride we though a public image should be a representation of this. Throughout the past ten weeks we have been hitting benches both local and a far and steadily collecting and creating content for the purpose of rallying a community and active user base around a mutual passion. A few examples can be seen below.

[pezbct-blog]

Practical design research.

Informed by innovative UX workflows,  practical application began with studying existing applications and platforms in an effort to extract, and implement UX features that enhance trust, community interaction and ease of communication. We saw these as key elements a potential user would look for when using a service of this nature. Platforms that facilitated connections involving logistics such as online marketplaces, auction sites often connect user but don’t go as far as handling the finer details. Take for example Airbnb (Airbnb, 2018) Before a transaction is complete users must submit a message of intent which in turn generates an open dialogue allowing a connection to take place seamlessly. New Zealand based charity Sustainable Coastlines rallies a community around public data that shows the impact of a collective rather than the individual (Howitt, 2018). Popular social networks such as Facebook create a sense of trust and security through layers of transparency allowing users to see mutual connections and degrees of separation between other users ( Facebook, 2018) which serve to eliminate any anonymity in their user base, something the Pilgrim platform will rely upon greatly.

With trust and communication being a major consideration in the design of this platform. We have interpreted features as seen in the diagram above and brainstormed potential features that would make the platform a safer more appealing place.  We decided riders and driver should see mutual connections and degrees of separation between other Pilgrims through their “Caravan”, a visual representation of past journeys and connections made with other users. Users should also build up their Journey portfolio by uploading past rides, images and videos to their “Story”, a feature that aims to capture and share user journeys with the wider Pilgrim community. These features create a transparent environment and eliminate any anonymity in our user base. 

Facebook, Inc.(2018). Facebook. [Web application Software]. [Mobile Application Software].

.Airbnb, Inc. (2018). Airbnb. (Version 18.3). [Mobile Application Software].

Howitt, C. (2018, sep 28) Sustainable Coastlines. Future Slam. Auckland War Memorial Museum.

[pezbct-blog]

The Wireframe.

Following on from my last post, we worked on creating our first wireframe using Adobe XD. This version lacks any attention to the user interface that would make the appearance of the final product so user friendly.This is  due to the use of assets that make prototyping in this manor so efficient. A detailed breakdown of key features such and ride request and rider journey map will be found in an extensive document showing the entirety of our UX development. These involved numerous iterations and rounds of user feedback.

Throughout this process we actively user tested isolated elements and received feedback our biggest takeaways being that first contact of rider to driver and trip details should be off equal importance when confirming a ride. Our solution being a trip description or message/statement intent which would be displayed at the view profile stage of organising a trip and be sent as an automatic icebreaker message. With the help of this feedback we came to the conclusion certain functions should be more dynamic e.g selecting and communicating pick up and drop off locations and selecting destination (Due to conditions this could change last minute) 

My personal take on preliminary user experience testing is that the platform takes care of the hard stuff; Connecting a user with a complete stranger, choosing a location and time. Bearing in mind that given the duration of this project we hope to create a minimum viable product, it is reasonable to assume the finer logistics of a journey can be organised between rider and driver.

[pezbct-blog]

Carving up the problem.

The next stage required us to construct user personas from which our target audience will be based around and the subsequent UX designed for, then came user touch points generated during said empathy mapping process. After painting a very basic picture of our solution we could begin seeking validation by construction these basic user experience elements into a rudimentary wireframe of an in app experience. 

By drawing on our own experience as surfers, the problems we have faced personally and by talking to others in the community we have been able to identify four key pain points that clearly define the problem we are trying to solve.

Affordability: Getting to surf locations is often expensive.

Flexibility: Weather conditions dictate location and timing, these change frequently.

Accessibility: Popular locations are often remote and hence require considerable travel times.

Exclusivity: Locations are only accessible by car.

This can be narrowed down to two simple statements for two types of customer.

When [situation], I want to [motivations], so I can [outcome]

When I go sur ng I want someone to ride with so it is affordable

When the surf is good I want a ride so I can go surfing

Below is a customer experience map. This shows key moments along our proposed users journey and the necessary interaction points with the app.

[pezbct-blog]

Designing with user in mind.

In the early stages of development we tended to have a lot of thoughts and ideas but no clear road map, no clear idea how our many ideas would come to fruition. Time spent developing a clear road map and aligning ourselves with established workflows and best practices was one of the most important and beneficial stages of this project. What resulted was a series of logical steps and achievable goals that would guide us to an effective user user experience and functional application, it allowed us to at any point where an important decision was required look back on the work which underpinned everything and make critical and informed decisions. 

Our approach to the build was heavily influenced by the framework of human centred design (Giacomin, 2014), the process of designing solutions to problems with the human perspective in mind. A look back at the history of user experience design and existing approaches provided us with clear direction. The author of LEAN UX Jeff Gothelf talks about reaching a stage of consensus between designer and user “Shared understanding is the currency of UX” (Gothelf, 2013). From this we decided to create in depth user personas and empathy maps which provided a detailed breakdown of the exact pain points we had to solve in an attempt to reach such a level of understanding as the app itself and the incumbent user experience is intended to be a direct response to these pain points. In terms of testing and implementing planned features we looked again toward the lean model for guidance. “The practice of bringing the true nature of design work to light faster, in a collaborative cross functional way with less emphasis on deliverables and a greater focus on the actual experience being designed” (Gothelf, 2013) The core objective being to obtain feedback as early as possible so that it can be used to make quick decisions. The Agile software development  model (Beck, Beedle, Van Bennekum, Cockburn, Cunningham, Fowler & Kern, 2001) works in tandem by outputting work in rapid cycles, these shadow the lean workflow to ensure feedback and user data generated can be used in each iteration.

Giacomin, J. (2014). What is human centred design?. The Design Journal, 17(4), 606-623.

Gothelf, J. (2013). Lean UX: Applying lean principles to improve user experience. " O'Reilly Media, Inc."..

Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., ... & Kern, J. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development.

[pezbct-blog]

A problem worth solving?

New Zealand is renowned for its diverse range of recreational activities, from the mountains to the sea there is something for everyone. New Zealanders and tourists flock to every inch of our country to participate in a wide range of recreational activities. However, these journeys pose a unique set of obstacles in that popular destinations are often remote, exclusive to people with cars and therefore expensive to travel to. An activity that exemplifies this set of problems is the sport of surfing.

Surfing is a sport whereby the journey and the search for a wave is just as important as riding the waves themselves. In Auckland you need to travel at least 40 minutes or even several hours to nd good surf, this is similar in other major centers around the country and world. This rules out any means of public transport, taxi service or traditional ride share service as a means of transportation. Not to mention the hassle of logistically traveling with a surfboard.

With fuel prices In New Zealand’s major centers set to rise consistently and the introduction of a fuel tax for Auckland, people are now making a conscious effort to save fuel when and where they can. On top of this, more cars heading to remote locations means crowded roads and carparks which puts pressure on local communities and infrastructure to accommodate visitors. All of which ultimately contributes to greater carbon emissions. Currently there is no system out there that caters to this market effectively. Ride sharing services exist, but are either too difficult to use, outdated or focus on commuter or intercity carpooling whilst offering drivers little incentive to use their services.

Us being avid surfers we know that there is a gap in the market that a platform like Pilgrim could ll, because we have dealt with these problems ourselves. We felt that the best way to validate our own experience and observations would be by reaching out to surfers where they congregate most off water, Facebook. Facebook has become a tool for surfers to connect to the wider community. To confirm and validate the market we conducted a simple four question multi choice survey and posted it in the NZ surfing marketplace. We received responses from 254 people on the questions that follow.

How often do you surf?

If you drive, how many people would you typically take with you?

How far do you typically travel?

How much money do you spend on fuel per trip?

Is cost a factor in deciding whether to surf or not?

See google form results here https://goo.gl/forms/WMbUsUdkqnG2wU2s1

80% of surfers making the journey 1-3 times a week. 97.6% of vehicles make the trip have at least one spare seat whilst 64.8% have at least 3 spare seats. This survey also validates what we already knew about the inconvenience of New Zealand’s popular surf/action sport locations with over 50% of surfers travelling 1⁄2 to 1 hour plus for a surf. From this data it is conclusive that there is a large group of people that surf regularly, the majority going alone and traveling a considerable distance whilst spending a considerable amount per trip.

[pezbct-blog]

Research

In my last log i talked about my need to find data streams that could be translated into perceivable experiences and since then my research has lead me to smart cities and big data. The way things are heading the physical and digital worlds are slowly merging, everyday objects and our physicals surrounding increasingly have the ability to send and receive data without direct human interaction, This is known as the internet of things. 

Smart cities are built upon the combination of physical and digital worlds; devices that can send and receive information without human interaction, a network of technology such as sensors and cameras collect data and send it to the cloud. This data can then be accessed by any number of devices, big or small  with the intention of improving operational efficiency . The above video by LinkedIn learning shows current uses for this technology and the overall motivation that being to increase the operation efficiency of major cities through  the use of open source data. Some current applications of smart city technology is a carpark that transmit data to cars which ultimately lowers the time are driver will spend driving around looking for a carpark. This came off of the back of research that suggests a considerable amount of inner city traffic is in fact drivers looking for vacant car parks.

So in a future where our surroundings are connected digitally why not utilise open data to benefit all walks of life, The technology and data is there so the applications are almost infinite. In reference to my previous blog could a stream of live transmitted data from an urban environment be translated to physical experience that would help a user gain a greater understanding of their immediate surrounding. With this in mind i need to consider a manful motivation for this project, if this technology existed which demographic would it benefit? 

[pezbct-blog]

Pitch motivation.

For a while now I have been searching for project ideas through researching new forms of interactive technology within the context of real world problem. In this Ted Talk neuroscientist David Eagleman introduced me to the idea of sensory substitution. Sensory substitution is a non-invasive technique for circumventing the loss of one sense by feeding its information through another channel” (Eagleman, 2015). Essentially feeding sensory data through unusual sensory channels. The Talk details the development of a wearable vest that allows deaf people to essentially feel sound waves through a series of haptic feedback patterns as research shows the human brain has the ability to identify patterns of information regardless of where they are coming from, process this and identify key patterns. “Neural signals processed by different brain regions come together for a temporally unified picture of the world.”[1]. If “our experience of reality is constrained by our biology” in what ways can technology exploit aspects of human biology to bend the rules of human experience.

David Eagleman addresses the fact that humans “are trapped on a thin slice of perception” as “our experience of reality is constrained by our biology”[1]. His approach to this concept by using sensory substitution to benefit the deaf, got me thinking about streams of data, especially digital ones, that could through sensory substitution be translated into directly perceivable experiences.

The challenge for me know is to find a way in which series of digital data could serve to augment a users natural abilities or benefit them in some way.

[1]  Can we create new senses for humans? | David Eagleman  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c1lqFXHvqI&t=133s

[pezbct-blog]

Human computer interaction.

Whilst preparing for my first presentation I came across the field of study known as human computer interaction, Known as HCI. This was a field established with the first computers and now that this technology has evolved and become so advanced the field has become more complex and multi faceted.

Allan Dix, a leader in the field makes an interesting point about the definition of this field [1]. I found it interesting that there is a clear distinction between the academic definition of human computer interaction and the practical design definition, the academic definition being the study of how we interact with computer technology whilst the design definition being the study of how to create computer systems for human interaction. The above photo is a practical breakdown of how we design effective systems for human interaction, this is pertinent when thinking about my project proposal where we have been tasked with conceptualising and presenting an interactive technology system. In the ideation stage when I am researching different technologies It will be important to keep these guiding values in mind and refer to my project motivation to ensure the outcome is Useful and usable. The matter of it being used is not so important at this stage.

Photo - Dix, Alan. “What Is Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)?” The Interaction Design Foundation, www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/human-computer-interaction.

[1] Dix, A. (2009). Human-computer interaction. In Encyclopedia of database systems (pp. 1327-1331). Springer, Boston, MA.

[pezbct-blog]

“A functional handle of digital information that you can grasp, twist or push and pull. Almost infinitely manipulable”[1]

Thumbles is physical controller that effectively harnesses natural movement allowing a user to interact with digital information using just their hands, the small controller paired with projection technology creates the opportunity for common computer software to be controlled in a tactile and spacial way. Pattens works shows awareness of existing systems through the utilisation of the users hands and movement. An interesting point was made that the human brain is optimised to deal with physical information as our five main senses help understand our immediate environment, hence why it is easier to use physical keyboard a opposed to an on screen one. Because of this fact physical user interfaces are often more intuitive to use than digital ones.

Another thing this talk made me realise was just how versatile our hands are, that sounds stupid but with regards to interactive technology they are an effective tool for gaming, data visualisation, design and editing software and even social media. The ability to deal with immaterial data in a way that is familiar to us gives us a greater understanding and control over our technology. A key feature of Thumbles is haptic feedback through vibrations to communicate errors is software usage, I recently spent hours on the adobe program indesign only to realise a number of notable errors that were communicated with a small red exclamation mark at the bottom left of my screen. This experience made me realise just how useful an extended physical connection with computer software could be.

This concept of blending the digital and physical world is not a new phenomenon though, we have seen this most notably with the introduction of the touch screen. Thumbles is indicative of larger trends in technology as levels of abstraction are slowing being removed, with technology and user inter being sew seamlessly into our everyday.

[1] Patten, J., Ishii, H., Hines, J., & Pangaro, G. (2001, March). Sensetable: a wireless object tracking platform for tangible user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 253-260). ACM.

[pezbct-blog]

This TED talk by Maurice Conti details the rise of artificial intelligence in design tools and software, known as generative design. What I found interesting about this is the distinct shift taking place in how we interact with technology of this nature. The technology we currently use and have used in the past requires the user to manually direct it, the technology itself is passive, without human interaction it is nothing. Take for example a 3D modelling software such as fusion 360, although augmenting our abilities it generates an output entirely sculpted by the user, each action is manually input by the user. When the technology shifts from passive to generative with the help of artificial intelligence that emulates the process of evolution we are able to work with the technology to create not only a large number of unique outputs, but outputs that due to their obscurity and freedom from the bias and the preference of the maker are far more unique than what we are used to seeing.

The creation of this technology allows for co-operative interactions with technology as opposed to manual linear ones. With regards to interactive technology systems I believe this shows how the exponential advancements of technology are constantly increasing the scope of interactions.

[pezbct-blog]

Interactive Art and the Active Audience.

After making an effort to experience as many practical examples of interactive technology systems as I could of the past five weeks I thought it would be pertinent to conduct some more academic research to gain a bit more understanding of the history and context of the field.   

This reading focuses on interactive art and the relationship between the artist and the audience, I found the definition of “active audience” particularly interesting as it shows how interaction and influence can be bidirectional as I often assume forms of interactive art exist purely to inform or have an influence on the user when in many cases user trends serve to educate the artist and add value to the artwork it self.

“By ‘active audience’ we refer to situations where the artwork is changed as a result of actions by, or changes of state in, the audience”. [1]

In preparation for next weeks presentation the reading provided some interesting points regarding the systems aspect of interactive technology systems “In interactive art, the strength of the experience can be heightened by the fact that the audience feels, at least in part, responsible for events. In that sense, the participants are necessary partners in creating the interactive artwork.” [1] This shows that the timing of an artwork along with location, target audience and it’s connotative meaning are equally as important as the physical function.

[1] Ascott, R. (2011). Interacting: art, research and the creative practitioner. L. Candy, & E. A. Edmonds (Eds.). Faringdon: Libri Publishing.

[pezbct-blog]

MOTAT.

In an effort to experience interactive technology systems of a different nature myself and Josh made a trip to MOTAT. Interactive installations and exhibits included a glorified air New Zealand add and an iPad game controlled buy a user on a trampoline. The Air New Zealand add comprised of a pretty slick VR experience and was a good example of the capabilities of virtual reality which I am guessing was the goal given that it is a museum for technology. 

In the case of the iPad game using a novel form of physical interaction like jumping on a trampoline was an interesting use of technology and an effective way to fully engage it users, but you have to ask yourself is linking it to a rather generic iPad game really enhancing the experience of jumping on a trampoline? I would say not really. I think this one is for the hordes of energetic children, so I guess in that case it serves it’s purpose. As you can see from the bottom right photo the 14ft trampoline was accompanied by what most have been a 20 inch monitor, this was a little bit underwhelming and made the objective of the game a little harder to complete especially for younger users for whom the monitor would likely not be at eye level. 

Probably the most substantial interaction of them all was the simplest. Robust, intuitive and simple large scale mechanisms which could be activated to visualise how a range of common mechanisms are used in the context of a larger machine (as seen in the top photo), physical elements were easy to operate and were accompanied by explanations appropriate for all ages. 

The implementation of theses interactive systems was well executed with almost all providing a polished user experience however it just seemed as though everything was there to be played with without any real objective or intent to educate, although considering we were constantly surrounded by touring school groups this probably serves them quite well.

[pezbct-blog]

When we visited the museum last week one exhibit proved to be particularly relevant. Whilst I am not the target demographic for “The word of butterflies” their use of novel technology targeted at a certain demographic shows how interactive technology systems can be implemented effectively. 

The space was clearly targeted at young kids with the layout the of the space  incorporating physical elements which promote interaction and the inherent inquisitive nature of children. Through Integrating and facilitating play kids were able to take onboard knowledge and become more aware of the world around them through something natural and familiar with them.

The centre piece the exhibit was a digital environment where kids could create their own butterfly whilst simultaneously learning about their anatomy and send it off to interact with other people creations and the digital environment. This was extremely well executed with a panoramic screen spanning the length of the room displaying his environment, this effectively created a dynamic backdrop for the entire exhibition allowing everyone in the room to see your creation. The user interface was playful and intriguing whilst remaining intuitive. From observing kids interact you could see the investment in their own creation, following their journey whilst inadvertently learning about the life of a butterfly.