People to People (mediated by technology) IxD - study by Motorola

29 Jun 2007 - 8:48am
7 years ago
10 replies
1104 reads
Dave Malouf
2005

At motorola (some distant lab very very far from me), an ethnographic
study was published. Honestly, I found it on the Experientia blog.

http://www.experientia.com/blog/motorola-ethnographic-research-on-shared-experiences-to-inform-ict-innovation/

what I liked about it is that it really confirms what Dan Saffer in
his book defines IxD as being the design of the interactions between
people through technology and NOT the design of the interaction
between people and technology.

enjoy!

-- dave

--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/

Comments

29 Jun 2007 - 9:31am
.pauric
2006

>From the link: "Of course designing for an experience between people
doesn%u2019t mean ignoring the interaction with the device, but it
calls for taking something else into account."

Agreed. I'm a firm believer in qualifying new technology by asking
'How does this better enable what humans have been doing for the
past 1000's of years'

That is to say, while a few of us love technology for technology's
sake, I believe the vast majority of people buy in to tech on the
belief that it better enables them to do the things they normally do.
Specifically here - socialise.

That all said, I do see a huge paradigm shift on the horizon in the
form of Intelligent Personal Agents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_agent
http://novaspivack.typepad.com/RadarNetworksTowardsAWebOS.jpg

>From our perspective I'm a little psyched about the idea of
designing AI interactions, I think there's strong ties to
anthropomorphism (as referenced in the other thread:
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss.php?post=17704 )

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=17736

29 Jun 2007 - 10:08pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:31 AM, pauric wrote:

> That all said, I do see a huge paradigm shift on the horizon in the
> form of Intelligent Personal Agents
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_agent
> http://novaspivack.typepad.com/RadarNetworksTowardsAWebOS.jpg

And in the future, we'll all be driving flying cars too.

:)

Jared

29 Jun 2007 - 11:02pm
.pauric
2006

wouldnt we be 'flying' flying cars? I shudder to think having been
rear-ended 4 times in the five years I've been in your
Massachussetts (while stopped at a red light I might add).

So, you dont buy the intelligent agent gig? or is it just friday
already? (o;

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=17736

29 Jun 2007 - 11:56pm
Will Parker
2007

On Jun 29, 2007, at 7:31 AM, pauric wrote:

> I'm a firm believer in qualifying new technology by asking
> 'How does this better enable what humans have been doing for the
> past 1000's of years'

On Jun 29, 2007, at 8:08 PM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:31 AM, pauric wrote:
>
>> That all said, I do see a huge paradigm shift on the horizon in the
>> form of Intelligent Personal Agents
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_agent
>> http://novaspivack.typepad.com/RadarNetworksTowardsAWebOS.jpg
>
> And in the future, we'll all be driving flying cars too.

> On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:02 PM, pauric wrote:

>> So, you dont buy the intelligent agent gig? or is it just friday
>> already? (o;

I bought the 'intelligent agent' thing back during the Magic Cap era
in the early '90s, but then, I also bought the 'flying robotic cars
by 1980' thing when I first heard it in the 1st grade and Arthur C.
Clarke's 'solar-sail racing regattas by 2010' thing when the Boy
Scout magazine ran it when I was about 10.

More to the point, I don't require that an innovation pass the
'improvement on the past 1000 years of human endeavor' -- but I do
_absolutely_ require that new ideas beat what I've seen in _my
lifetime_ -- and that includes some chance of being produced and
adopted.

These days, I don't believe anything until I've seen a working model
AND a plausible business model.

- Will

Will Parker
wparker at ChannelingDesign.com

“I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If
that were the case, then Microsoft would have great products.” -
Steve Jobs

30 Jun 2007 - 6:08am
jstrande
2007

[taking a deep breath, exhaling... ] ;-)

This is a subject that I *used* to constantly debate with co-workers... and
have long since stopped using the "AI" term. It is way too
pie-in-the-sky.... negative people get to quickly dismiss it, and
appropriately so; since the perception of its usage hasn't lived up to its
hype.

When I'm talking about this stuff now, I simply refer to it as "filtering"
or "...a more intelligent way of making that information available" or some
other contextually relevant phrase. As soon as you say "AI", people get to
start poking holes in it - and they give the most ludicrous justifications
for dismissing it: "oh, we looked at that years ago and it didn't live up to
it's promise" or "a computer can't think like a human".

The fact is that intelligent applications are EVERYWHERE. They've been
around for years and people are doing amazing things with intelligent
software - in very specific domains.

It is unlikely that we'll see a truly intelligent computer that can rival
the human mind in the next 5, 10 or 15 years... but that is no reason to
dismiss the real technological promise.

There was a great article that appeared in Wired magazine back in March of
2002 - "It's Alive":

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/everywhere.html

"...AI researchers were making more than progress - they were making
products. It's a trend that's been easy to miss, because once the technology
is in use, nobody thinks of it as AI anymore. "Every time we figure out a
piece of it, it stops being magical; we say, 'Oh, that's just a
computation,'" laments Rodney Brooks, the director of MIT's Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory. "We used to joke that AI means 'almost
implemented.'"

The article does a great job of highlighting real world usage of
intelligence in software... and this was 5 years ago!

- There is a product called SmartAirport that runs airport scheduling
through the use of "AI"
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/everywhere.html?pg=2

- Text Parsing, where you can give the software clues about what you're
looking for:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/everywhere.html?pg=3

- Pattern Recognition for detecting credit card fraud
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/everywhere.html?pg=4

- Diagnostic Medicine
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/everywhere.html?pg=5

- Speech processing - like in voice applications to properly route calls
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/everywhere.html?pg=6

- Gaming - which is really leveraging "intelligence"
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/aigames.html

The list goes on and on.

If our job is to make peoples lives easier/better, which is how I view mine,
then intelligent software is something I want to understand. The easiest
task to complete is one that requires no (inter)action.

I bought a book about 8/9 years ago, 'Constructing Intelligent Agents Using
Java', when I was a programmer, and have coded some very simplistic
intelligent apps, so I know this stuff is for real. One of the example
applications that they share is an Information Management app (smart
filtering) that weeds through Newsgroup postings and learns over time what
authors you like or don't like. Imagine being able to filter the IxDA list
so you never see another post by me, for example. This is simple AI, and
wouldn't require more than a few weeks coding effort: over time the "agent"
would learn that you always delete messages from 'Jon Strande' and it could
automatically remove those messages for you (gee, I hope no one replies
asking to have my message removed.... DOH!).

As I mentioned earlier, intelligent applications work great in very specific
domains.

This is a subject that I'm very passionate about - and get a little too
worked up over... forgive me if this reply came off as antagonistic in any
way.

Jon

On 6/30/07, Will Parker <wparker at channelingdesign.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 29, 2007, at 7:31 AM, pauric wrote:
>
> > I'm a firm believer in qualifying new technology by asking
> > 'How does this better enable what humans have been doing for the
> > past 1000's of years'
>
> On Jun 29, 2007, at 8:08 PM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:31 AM, pauric wrote:
> >
> >> That all said, I do see a huge paradigm shift on the horizon in the
> >> form of Intelligent Personal Agents
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_agent
> >> http://novaspivack.typepad.com/RadarNetworksTowardsAWebOS.jpg
> >
> > And in the future, we'll all be driving flying cars too.
>
> > On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:02 PM, pauric wrote:
>
> >> So, you dont buy the intelligent agent gig? or is it just friday
> >> already? (o;
>
> I bought the 'intelligent agent' thing back during the Magic Cap era
> in the early '90s, but then, I also bought the 'flying robotic cars
> by 1980' thing when I first heard it in the 1st grade and Arthur C.
> Clarke's 'solar-sail racing regattas by 2010' thing when the Boy
> Scout magazine ran it when I was about 10.
>
> More to the point, I don't require that an innovation pass the
> 'improvement on the past 1000 years of human endeavor' -- but I do
> _absolutely_ require that new ideas beat what I've seen in _my
> lifetime_ -- and that includes some chance of being produced and
> adopted.
>
> These days, I don't believe anything until I've seen a working model
> AND a plausible business model.
>
> - Will
>
> Will Parker
> wparker at ChannelingDesign.com
>
> "I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If
> that were the case, then Microsoft would have great products." -
> Steve Jobs
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

30 Jun 2007 - 6:23am
jstrande
2007

Oh, and let me add one more link - an article from 1999 - to my rant:

Intelligent Agent Communities: Agents That Communicate, Learn, and Predict

http://www.webtechniques.com/archives/1999/09/barnea/

It is somewhat technical, but written at a pretty high level. The company
refrenced in the article, Front Mind, went under during the dot-com bust,
but talk about real world examples of using intelligence: online shopping -
the ability to use software to help cross-sell, up-sell, etc.

Jon

On 6/30/07, Jon Strande <jstrande at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [taking a deep breath, exhaling... ] ;-)
>
> This is a subject that I *used* to constantly debate with co-workers...
> and have long since stopped using the "AI" term. It is way too
> pie-in-the-sky.... negative people get to quickly dismiss it, and
> appropriately so; since the perception of its usage hasn't lived up to its
> hype.
>
> When I'm talking about this stuff now, I simply refer to it as "filtering"
> or "...a more intelligent way of making that information available" or some
> other contextually relevant phrase. As soon as you say "AI", people get to
> start poking holes in it - and they give the most ludicrous justifications
> for dismissing it: "oh, we looked at that years ago and it didn't live up to
> it's promise" or "a computer can't think like a human".
>
> The fact is that intelligent applications are EVERYWHERE. They've been
> around for years and people are doing amazing things with intelligent
> software - in very specific domains .
>
> It is unlikely that we'll see a truly intelligent computer that can rival
> the human mind in the next 5, 10 or 15 years... but that is no reason to
> dismiss the real technological promise.
>
> There was a great article that appeared in Wired magazine back in March of
> 2002 - "It's Alive":
>
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/everywhere.html
>
> "... AI researchers were making more than progress - they were making
> products. It's a trend that's been easy to miss, because once the technology
> is in use, nobody thinks of it as AI anymore. "Every time we figure out a
> piece of it, it stops being magical; we say, 'Oh, that's just a
> computation,'" laments Rodney Brooks, the director of MIT's Artificial
> Intelligence Laboratory. "We used to joke that AI means 'almost
> implemented.'"
>
> The article does a great job of highlighting real world usage of
> intelligence in software... and this was 5 years ago!
>
> - There is a product called SmartAirport that runs airport scheduling
> through the use of "AI"
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/everywhere.html?pg=2
>
> - Text Parsing, where you can give the software clues about what you're
> looking for:
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/everywhere.html?pg=3
>
> - Pattern Recognition for detecting credit card fraud
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/everywhere.html?pg=4
>
> - Diagnostic Medicine
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/everywhere.html?pg=5
>
> - Speech processing - like in voice applications to properly route calls
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/everywhere.html?pg=6
>
> - Gaming - which is really leveraging "intelligence"
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/aigames.html
>
> The list goes on and on.
>
> If our job is to make peoples lives easier/better, which is how I view
> mine, then intelligent software is something I want to understand. The
> easiest task to complete is one that requires no (inter)action.
>
> I bought a book about 8/9 years ago, 'Constructing Intelligent Agents
> Using Java', when I was a programmer, and have coded some very simplistic
> intelligent apps, so I know this stuff is for real. One of the example
> applications that they share is an Information Management app (smart
> filtering) that weeds through Newsgroup postings and learns over time what
> authors you like or don't like. Imagine being able to filter the IxDA list
> so you never see another post by me, for example. This is simple AI, and
> wouldn't require more than a few weeks coding effort: over time the "agent"
> would learn that you always delete messages from 'Jon Strande' and it could
> automatically remove those messages for you (gee, I hope no one replies
> asking to have my message removed.... DOH!).
>
> As I mentioned earlier, intelligent applications work great in very
> specific domains.
>
> This is a subject that I'm very passionate about - and get a little too
> worked up over... forgive me if this reply came off as antagonistic in any
> way.
>
> Jon
>
>
> On 6/30/07, Will Parker <wparker at channelingdesign.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jun 29, 2007, at 7:31 AM, pauric wrote:
> >
> > > I'm a firm believer in qualifying new technology by asking
> > > 'How does this better enable what humans have been doing for the
> > > past 1000's of years'
> >
> > On Jun 29, 2007, at 8:08 PM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
> > >
> > > On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:31 AM, pauric wrote:
> > >
> > >> That all said, I do see a huge paradigm shift on the horizon in the
> > >> form of Intelligent Personal Agents
> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_agent
> > >> http://novaspivack.typepad.com/RadarNetworksTowardsAWebOS.jpg
> > >
> > > And in the future, we'll all be driving flying cars too.
> >
> > > On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:02 PM, pauric wrote:
> >
> > >> So, you dont buy the intelligent agent gig? or is it just friday
> > >> already? (o;
> >
> > I bought the 'intelligent agent' thing back during the Magic Cap era
> > in the early '90s, but then, I also bought the 'flying robotic cars
> > by 1980' thing when I first heard it in the 1st grade and Arthur C.
> > Clarke's 'solar-sail racing regattas by 2010' thing when the Boy
> > Scout magazine ran it when I was about 10.
> >
> > More to the point, I don't require that an innovation pass the
> > 'improvement on the past 1000 years of human endeavor' -- but I do
> > _absolutely_ require that new ideas beat what I've seen in _my
> > lifetime_ -- and that includes some chance of being produced and
> > adopted.
> >
> > These days, I don't believe anything until I've seen a working model
> > AND a plausible business model.
> >
> > - Will
> >
> > Will Parker
> > wparker at ChannelingDesign.com
> >
> > "I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If
> > that were the case, then Microsoft would have great products." -
> > Steve Jobs
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> > List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> > Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> > Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> > Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
> >
>
>

30 Jun 2007 - 6:50am
.pauric
2006

Jon: " The list goes on and on."

Thank you so much for the list.

Jon: "If our job is to make peoples lives easier/better, which is
how I view mine, then intelligent software is something I want to
understand. The easiest task to complete is one that requires no
(inter) action."

So, what your suggesting is that someone builds an agent that has a
basic understanding of preferences, typical actions etc thus enabling
them to reduce the interaction with the agent.

I suppose a way of going about that would be to start analysing how
we go about our lives on computers and the internet, maybe create a
suite of apps and analyse the worked content, track our searches and
store the history. Then hire a load of phd's to figure out how to
interpret that data. Then throw tons of high end engineers at the
problem. The business model could be supported by have the most
focused advertising known to man.

Just a thought.

Will: "I don't require that an innovation pass the 'improvement on
the past 1000 years of human endeavor'"
I've struggled to find examples of completely new behaviour, would
appreciate some - thanks!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=17736

30 Jun 2007 - 7:33am
jstrande
2007

Pauric, My pleasure!

On 6/30/07, pauric <radiorental at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, what your suggesting is that someone builds an agent that has a
> basic understanding of preferences, typical actions etc thus enabling
> them to reduce the interaction with the agent.
>

According to renowned Artificial Intelligence luminary Dr. Pattie Maes,
there are 4 distinct ways that an 'agent' acquires competence:

1.) They learn by "looking over the shoulder of users" and learning what the
user will typically do
2.) Indirect user feedback – this happens when the user neglects the
suggestion of the agent and takes another course of action
3.) The agent can learn from examples given explicitly by the user
4.) The agent can learn from other agents that assist other users with the
same types of tasks.

Jon

30 Jun 2007 - 8:22am
.pauric
2006

Again thanks Jon, another pointer for anyone in doubt of 'ai' is the
work of Stephen Thaler
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6464697696665901632&hl=en
14 minutes in to this sometimes kooky documentary on the singularity
is a working example of music scores from a machine created from
analysing popular hits.

>From the Frontmind article you linked to: "Specifically, we've seen
that there's a high degree of communication among agent communities
in FrontMind. The whole system is designed such that it creates a
federation of agents in which all the different agent communities
speak the same language (based on DOM and an XML dialect), while
specializing in very different tasks."

I would think that the federated agents might be facilitated by the
forthcoming Metaweb??

In most of the articles linked in this tread there's a recurring
statement.. ai's/agents or what ever you want to call them have
arrived en masse in stealth. Again, I feel there's huge scope in
designing how we will interact with smart agents. As you point out,
it wont be a traditional direct human-machine contact facilitating
human-human interactions. I'm postulating it will require a degree
of anthropomorphism with some 'core animation' baked in at the
presentation layer.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=17736

30 Jun 2007 - 7:22pm
Jeff Axup
2006

I think it's worth noting that this conversation is a little vague when it
comes to defining what AI is. I agree with one of the previous posts that
it's a term probably better not used.

There's kind of two camps on AI:
- the "it's failed and we wasted a lot of time and money on it" camp, and
the
- "it's succeeded and you see it all around you" camp.

At least based on the original concepts of creating 'artificial
intelligences' equal to or surpassing our own, it has failed. Doing that may
be possible, but it is far more complex than previously understood. Most AI
as I understand it has migrated into "complex systems" design, and much of
that claims to be "intelligent" software now. Some complex systems are
certainly able to handle some amazing coordination and processing tasks
better than humans. Some of those system will replace humans who did
previously algorithmic tasks, but that has been going on for a long time
(just look at the traffic light as an example of human replacement).

So, yes, software is getting more complex. And the UIs for that may be
different, or if it takes the form of automation, it may result in simpler
UIs.

So possibly it would be useful to re-frame the conversation away from AI or
'intelligence' and discuss how to control software/technology which has a
degree more autonomy than it used to.

Example:

My iRobot is a strange little thing. It auto-starts at a given time, which
can either be excellent when I'm not home, or immensely annoying if I'm home
and watching a movie. It has WAY more autonomy (and potential for
misbehavior) than a normal vacuum. It gets itself into trouble, hiding under
beds and sucking up socks. It even dumped my recycling bin out on the floor
once and spread it around the apt. It is a dumb little machine, but I love
it because it normally does what I need it to do and saves me from having to
do it. But how should we be able to control it? What should interaction with
a robot or agent be like?

-Jeff

On 6/30/07, pauric <radiorental at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Again thanks Jon, another pointer for anyone in doubt of 'ai' is the
> work of Stephen Thaler
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6464697696665901632&hl=en
> 14 minutes in to this sometimes kooky documentary on the singularity
> is a working example of music scores from a machine created from
> analysing popular hits.
>
> >From the Frontmind article you linked to: "Specifically, we've seen
> that there's a high degree of communication among agent communities
> in FrontMind. The whole system is designed such that it creates a
> federation of agents in which all the different agent communities
> speak the same language (based on DOM and an XML dialect), while
> specializing in very different tasks."
>
> I would think that the federated agents might be facilitated by the
> forthcoming Metaweb??
>
> In most of the articles linked in this tread there's a recurring
> statement.. ai's/agents or what ever you want to call them have
> arrived en masse in stealth. Again, I feel there's huge scope in
> designing how we will interact with smart agents. As you point out,
> it wont be a traditional direct human-machine contact facilitating
> human-human interactions. I'm postulating it will require a degree
> of anthropomorphism with some 'core animation' baked in at the
> presentation layer.
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=17736
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

--
Thanks,
Jeff
____________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Axup, Ph.D.
Principal Consultant, Mobile Community Design Consulting, San Diego

Research: Mobile Group Research Methods, Social Networks, Group Usability
E-mail: axup <at> userdesign.com
Blog: http://mobilecommunitydesign.com
Moblog: http://memeaddict.blogspot.com
____________________________________________________________________________

Syndicate content Get the feed