Adaptive Path Blog

A Brief History of the Future

In 1991, Mark Weiser of Xerox PARC wrote an article for Scientific American titled The Computer for the 21st Century (PDF link here). Arguably the father of ubiquitous computing, Weiser predicted a future of computing characterized by an ecosystem of mobile screen-based devices that would seamlessly communicate with one another. In such a system, we would distribute our computation across multiple devices, effortlessly tossing content and activity between them, continually renegotiating these devices and the spaces they occupy based on our changing needs, tasks and contexts.

Weiser’s vision included three device classes, segmented based on their size and intended use. “Boards” would be large screen devices perhaps three feet to a side, “Pads” would approximate the size of a sheet of paper, and “Tabs” would feature a small screen at the scale of a Post-It note. Rather than interacting with a single computer (the dominant interactive paradigm at the dawn of the 90s), Weiser predicted that we would interact with tens or hundreds of these computational devices throughout the day, switching between them depending on activity and context.

Today’s Emerging Device Ecosystem

When we consider the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad, as well as the new touchscreen iPod nano, it is clear that Weiser was quite accurate when he predicted that we would soon live amongst an ecosystem of mobile screen-based computational devices. Not everything has turned out as he planned, however. There is no widely-available “Board”-sized touchscreen device, and the “seamless” distribution of content and activity between these devices is certainly wanting.

As Apple fleshes out its lineup of iOS (and iOS-inspired) devices, bigger with the iPad and smaller with the iPod nano, it begs the question of what the future holds as these devices get better at communicating and collaborating with one another, and what new uses and contexts emerge as a result of this proliferation of form factors.

What would a near-future iPod nano look like?

The current iteration of the touchscreen iPod nano is impressive, but what really sparked conversation here at Adaptive Path is what the near-future of this device might look like. Upcoming iterations could potentially be outfitted with Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, natively run iOS (rather than an interactive layer that feels like iOS), and ultimately allow users to install apps.

The small screen makes the iPod nano impractical as a device for consuming video, but it offers an interesting extension of the conventional wallet photo. The camera of the previous iPod nano has sadly been eliminated, and text entry into the device would be challenging given its tiny screen, but the multi-touch screen and accelerometer (and potentially a future gyroscope) could open up some interesting possibilities for control or input. The square screen offers a unique symmetry and looseness of orientation that invites design experimentation.

The Wearable, Fashionable nano

With its bright screen and clip-on design, the iPod nano extends the role of the “device as fashion accessory” beyond that of white earbuds and the iPod Shuffle, and the opportunity to “wear” one’s own album art offers a new level of personal expressiveness. Further, the tiny, wearable form factor of the new nano offers a level of unobtrusiveness that is absent from the iPhone and iPod Touch. Hipsters everywhere can now carry their ripped collection of LPs without shoving a device into the tiny pockets of their skinny jeans.

Which isn’t entirely true, because hipsters carry tape players, not iPods.

But anyway.

Connecting and Extending the Device Ecosystem

Short-range wireless communication would allow nearby iPod nanos to communicate with one another in a manner similar to that of Siftables, and the configuration and reconfiguration of multiple nanos could offer a form of play for all those kids these days with their technologies and Facebooks and Beibers. With wireless functionality your iPod nano could also offer a real-world, local access point into your online identity (or, sure, your Ping profile) through an iPhone or iPad app.

The iPod nano already has a radio, which allows what we jokingly refer to as “live podcasting” and “wireless audio streaming.” The radio could also be used to pick up low-power broadcasts from other nearby devices, making the nano a great output device for a remote baby monitor, intercom, thermometer or weather station.

Further alternative uses for the iPod nano could include: bedside clock, alarm, kitchen timer, stopwatch, tiny picture frame, die (as in dice), sketch pad, fake eye (great for pirates), fake fingerprint, bicycle light, and smart car key.

Finally, a future version of the iPod nano that runs iOS and allows user-installed apps would be a great platform for our Charmr concept!

Although few of them would describe it this way, many of the people agitating for change to Facebook are really asking for changes to the user experience, not to Facebook’s policies or even functionality. This recent graphic from the New York Times summarizes the chief complaint with Facebook quite nicely. The unstated thesis of the graphic is that privacy management on Facebook is simply too complicated, with too many settings buried too deeply in too many categories. In short, this is an information architecture problem.

Implicit in many of these criticisms, however, is the notion that these settings were buried as part of Facebook’s efforts to monetize user activity on the site. And that raises an interesting question: Did Facebook — could Facebook — manipulate the information architecture in order to keep users in the dark about what information they were actually sharing with the world?

In various talks I’ve given as far back as 2002, I’ve talked about “black hat” UX, expressing my concern that our belief in the inherent nobility of UX as a profession is naive, and my concern that the knowledge we’ve accumulated about crafting experiences to benefit users could be applied toward unsavory ends: that the methods we use to clarify could be used to obscure, the methods we use to reveal could be used to conceal, and the methods we use to enable people to take a course of action could be used to disempower them instead.

For my part, I’m unconvinced that Facebook has taken a black-hat approach here. The user experience shown in the NYT diagram seems just as likely to be the result of overengineered information architecture that favored conceptual rigor and “completeness” over the actual flow of user behavior. The new privacy user experience Facebook has announced seems more in tune with the real-world needs of users — particularly the need to feel a sense of control of their own privacy. Whether it goes far enough remains to be seen.

User Experience Intensive (UXI) is happily underway in Amsterdam! Day 1 (Design Strategy) kicked off on Monday with Henning, and today the Design Research session is going strong with Paula. Andrew and I are in the wings, prepping for Day 3 (Information Architecture) and Day 4 (Interaction Design.) Last night was the official opening party for the Adaptive Path Amsterdam studio , and the room was buzzing with UX folks from across Europe.

I landed in Amsterdam yesterday and had a chance to walk around the city and drink in the canals, leany/tilty buidings and preparations for Queens Day. But what I noticed most on my walkabout is “Holy crap there are a lot of bikes in this town!”

Bikes filling the narrow streets…people dinging bells so they don’t wham into you…bikes locked to railings, racks, fences, each other…bikes loaded with families, babies, toddlers, deliveries, couples, old folks, young folk…bikes, bikes, bikes. With so many bikes zipping about, the UX in me wondered “Could we somehow capture the mobile sensing potential of bikes?”

Happily, the uber-smarties at the MIT SENSEable City Laboratory have been thinking about this for a while. Last December they unveiled design concepts for The Copenhagen Wheel : “a revolutionary new bicycle wheel that not only boosts power, but can keep track of friends, fitness, smog and traffic.”

The big story of the wheel is regenerative braking which enables the bike to capture energy from braking to use later when the rider needs a power boost (like heading up a hill.) This is a nifty approach to making biking easier, which could entice non-bikers to give it a try.

But what makes my heart go pitty-pat is the swarm of data that the sensor in the wheel captures and transmits. Not only does it track info about the biker (riding time, effort, calories) but it also grabs info from the environment, like temperature, carbon monoxide, noise and humidity. You can share this info with friends, and also with your city by making an anonymous donation of your data. The end result? A community of data-contributors helping cities build more accurate models of routes, noise, carbon emissions and temperature. All this data can be used inform urban planning, transit systems and environmental policies in service to sustainable cities.

Here’s how the folks involved describe the project:

As you ride, the sensing unit in the Copenhagen Wheel is capturing information about your personal riding habits how much effort you are putting in, calories you are burning etc as well as information about your surroundings, including carbon monoxide, NOx, noise, ambient temperature and relative humidity. You can access this data through your phone, or on the web and use it to plan healthier bike routes, to achieve your exercise goals, or to meet up with friends on the go. You own all the data that your Copenhagen Wheel collects. However, you might also like to share it with friends -through online social networks gaining access to an even larger pool of information.

You can also make a bigger contribution through your daily commute. And share your data, anonymously, with your city. When many cyclists donate the information their wheel is collecting, your city gains access to a new scale of fine-grained environmental information. Through this, your city can: Cross analyze different types of environmental data on a scale that has never before been achieved before. Build a more detailed understanding of the impact of transportation, on a city infrastructure Or study dynamic phenomena like urban heat islands. Ultimately, this type of crowd sourcing can influence how your city allocates its resources, how it responds to environmental conditions in real-time or how it structures and implements environmental and transportation policies.

From The Copenhagen Wheel, Urban Data

The project was announced at the December 2009 United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen, and the US launch is tomorrow (April 28) at MIT. SENSEable City Labs is holding a sold-out panel called Urban Revolutions: How Cycling is Transforming our Cities. David Byrne  (yes, THE David Bryne) will be on the panel.

Granted, this thing won’t be widely available for a while, and it ain’t gonna be cheap. Early estimates are $500 to $1000. That’s a lot for adding a bit of pump to your pedal. But the possibilities of crowdsourcing data collection for cities? Priceless.

I’m pretty excited to see things like this take hold in our cities. Seeing a healthy bike-friendly transit culture in cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen is an inspiration, and it will be exciting to see where initiatives like this lead us. The UX needs and opportunities for these kinds of experiences are mind-opening. I can’t wait!

More info on the Wheel, with descriptions, video, commentary, etc.:

• Copenhagen Wheel Website
• MIT Press Release
• MIT News article
• Engadget article: MIT’s Copenhagen Wheel turns your bike into a hybrid, personal trainer
• SENSEable City Lab @ MIT

I love museums, and am fortunate that San Francisco has a number of great ones. I especially enjoy exploring museums with a friend. Wandering through a museum sharing thoughts about what we see is a big part of how I experience art and history. I also love to learn as much as possible about what I’m seeing, and in recent years this means taking advantage of the audio tour.

The problem with most audio tours I’ve experience however, is that they generally require headphones. Headphones are isolating and make it very difficult to share the experience with a companion. It isn’t just that earphones aren’t well designed designed for sharing, but also because my companion also tends to have their own headphones. Continually putting on and taking off headphones to chat is off putting. Ultimately, for me, this degrades the experience.

I recently had a great experience at the De Young museum when I went to see the King Tut exhibit that changed my perception of audio tours greatly.  Instead of offering a set of headphones, we were offered what looked more like a wand with a earpiece on one end.

In addition to the earpiece, the lightweight device had a keypad built into it, and a strap to hang it around my neck. When we reached an exhibit with an audio portion, I keyed the number into the device and – this is the best part – could then SHARE the audio experience with my friend simply by putting our heads together and earpiece to both our ears. No headphones required. Content aside, the final experience was much more enjoyable than any headphone driven audio tour I’ve ever had.

All the advances in using mobile phones, spacial awareness, RFID tags and lasers that folks are talking about for next generation museum tours are all well and good, but museums shouldn’t forget that sharing is key to many folks experiences. It’s hard to share your experience if you’re isolated by headphones.

I’m dropping the word “user” from user experience. Flame on.

First, I’m not suggesting anyone forget the user – the person using the thing – from our consideration. Quite the contrary. I believe that the user should always come first in any design discussion, even initially above business needs.

What I am proposing is that today’s consumer electronics are much more than a traditional human-computer interaction. It’s no longer enough to think solely about the user and how she works with the device. It’s not good enough to think about the user’s context or the persona. The experience of a device reaches well beyond a person’s relationship with the product.

Today’s devices are part of a larger ecosystem of things. Smart phones, tablets, notebooks and desktops are examples of connected machines. But there are watches, refrigerators, DVRs, TVs, even picture frames that rely on a linked situation. These things are most complete when they interact with content and other data that comes from a system.

And those are the obvious examples. Nearly every consumer product is designed to live within an ecosystem. Just look at anything from IKEA or CB2. These stores carry products that use aesthetics to fit into a system – fancy vacuums are designed to fit in your home’s decor; chairs that match the entertainment center; my Apple mouse that’s designed to match my Apple computer.

When designing a product, it’s important to recognize (at least) three things. First, and foremost, are solutions to the end user’s problems. Second, the ecosystem that this product lives within. And third, the business needs that eventually allow the product to exist.

Designing products with an ecosystem in mind provides valuable insight and great design constraints. Often this means exploring what things are failing certain user needs. If that vacuum doesn’t suck up dirt well enough, then let’s design one that doesn’t lose suction. It also means exploring a competitive landscape. There isn’t any other vacuum out there that sucks up cat hair, then let’s design one that does. Often it means exploring a visual design that conveys a lifestyle. If the other vacuums out there look like boxes with a stick, then let’s design something that makes the user feel like they look great doing it. It even means exploring other devices that are already present in the user’s lifestyle. If a big, whole-house vacuum is already present, let’s design a smaller, grab-and-go vacuum for smaller jobs.

The problems that products are designed to solve require the use of many design disciplines. Some of these design efforts work directly at the user’s interaction while others are employed to address the business’ bottom line. But all of these design considerations affect, and sometimes create, an intended experience for the product.

While I will continue to put the user’s needs at the beginning of every design effort, I encourage us change our discourse to include the idea of a product experience, instead of the experience that only deals with the user.

In the early 90′s, Tandy released one of the earliest PDA’s, the Zoomer. It cost $699, and was a flop. One of the architects of the product, Jeff Hawkins, left Tandy to strike out on his own with Palm Computing. He wrote down the four criteria that his PDA must meet:

• Fit in shirt pocket
• Sync seamlessly with PC
• Fast and easy to use
• Costs no more than $299

While the quality and characteristics of the product’s behavior were crucial, it’s revealing that among the top considerations was price. Simply building a great product isn’t sufficient, if people aren’t willing to fork over the cash. Also, setting a price limit is a great way to fight feature and function creep.

Before iPad was announced yesterday, some industry watchers were guessing for a price tag just short of $1000.

Steve blew them away when he announced $499.

Image taken from Engadget’s coverage.

He also made investors very happy at that moment.

And what I firmly believe is that “$499″ was a mantra for the device. (If you calculate what $299 is worth in today’s dollars using the Consumer Price Index, you get $410.) Steve knew that he had to be able to release something that was less than $500. Once you factored the components that have become table stakes–wi-fi connectivity; accelerometer; full capacitive touch; support for high-quality video; crazy long battery life–there was no room left for a camera or for GPS. And that was the sacrifice they were willing to make in order to hit that number.

We in the user experience design industry talk a lot about keeping the user’s perspective in mind as we make things. User research helps us do that. User testing keeps us in check. And here’s another interesting way to shift your perspective…shake things up and look at it from the object’s point-of-view.

When I watched this video for the first time, I was fascinated on the surface level of aesthetic. I loved seeing words written from the perspective of a pen. And then it struck me that it is also a great reminder of how far we may have to go to really abandon our own way of seeing things. A useful practice when making something for someone other than you.

This video was created by Mike Strasser for his graduate industrial design program at Stanford. He is currently Founder and Managing Partner at the ID firm Think2Build.

Steve Gundrum | UX Week 2009 | Adaptive Path from Adaptive Path on Vimeo.

It’s becoming that season. You know, the season where food seems to take center stage. As the weather gets colder, comfort food, hot drinks and celebratory feasts appear on the horizon.

When I think of food, I think of things like: yummy, fragrant, spicy, hearty. Or, fruits & veggies, meat & potatoes, Mom’s amazing spaghetti.

Then I heard Steve Gundrum, CEO of Mattson speak at UX Week 2009 on “The Secret Ingredient” for Designing New Foods and Beverages. He told the insider tale about how the food industry thinks about food. It was fascinating, enlightening, and, I admit, a little creepy, as I captured in my sketchnotes of the talk.
Steve was passionate and engaged when he revealed the pyramid of maximizing profits. He did a great job of communicating how differently the food industry thinks, plans and designs food products. Do you think about attitude as a key ingredient in food? I didn’t either, but now I can’t get it out of my head.

To cap off the talk, Steve did what very few speakers know how to do: give the audience an experience with the simple tools of jellybeans, nose, mouth and time.

Are you designing experiences that have an insider view? Are you curious about what makes the food and beverage industry go? If so, take a peek through the keyhole into the world of food profitability with Steve Gundrum.

Matt Webb | UX Week 2009 | Adaptive Path from Adaptive Path on Vimeo.

This past UX Week brought some great speakers, including Matt Webb from BERG. We’re happy to share is fantastic talk about developing products and learning from mistakes. Matt shares the lessons that his company grappled with during the design and production of their first major product.

Matt talks about how smart products bring their own design challenges. Internet-connected devices and plastic filled with electronics behave in unexpected ways: what does it means for a physical thing to side-load its behavior, or for a toy to have its own presence in your social network? What we’ve learned about user experience on the Web is a great place to start: social software, adaptation, designing for action creating action — these are principles familiar on the Web, and still valuable when design is not on the screen but in your hands.

Matt’s story is important for anyone who is developing new products and experiences – physical or digital. Being selective about your innovation and looking for the one thing that your customers can get excited about is a guiding product development principle that we can all remember.

Mobile is a realm of user experience that has long held my imagination because it’s an accessible opportunity space for designers to explore, prototype and ultimately invent new ways for people to interact with information. Mobile is a place where we can experiment; it’s a place where designers can test the tethers of the PC desktop legacy and create interactions that begin to bring Mark Weiser’s original vision of ubiquitous computing closer to reality.

There have been clear and consistent signals over the last year that indicate the technology landscape is rapidly evolving beyond the boundaries of the PC and mobile devices …

The demo from MIT’s Pattie Maes’ and Pranav Mistry’s wearable Sixth Sense device as well as David Merrill’s Siftables demo were the buzz of TED 2009. These presenters gave the audience of thought leaders insight into the exciting interactions that will be possible in the not-so-distant future.

IBM’s research scientists in India have developed a technology that will offer users the ability to talk to the Web and create ‘voice’ sites using mobile phones.

Barcodes can now hold entire video clips and games with Mobile Multi-Colour Composite, a 2D barcode technology. Better than a QR code, users don’t need internet access to discover associated media—the data is all in the picture.

These signals as well as a host of others indicate we’ve arrived at an important and magical technological inflection point. We’re entering an era – a Golden Age of sorts – that is encouraging interaction designers and user experience professionals to explore the frontier that lies beyond the desktop.

Within this broader trend, I’ll be hosting a discussion on Wednesday, April 8th at Adaptive Path titled, Beyond the Desktop: A Panel Discussion on Emergent Interaction Paradigms. I feel like the luckiest girl in the world to have the opportunity to facilitate a discussion between these thought leaders who are actively exploring this exciting frontier…

• Aza Raskin, head of User Experience at Mozilla Labs will discuss the progress of Ubiquity and represent the promising world of intent-based systems.
• Brent Fitzgerald, and Jeevan Kalanithi of Taco Lab will share their experiences developing Siftables and exploring the realm of physical computing.
• Noah Richardson, manager of Tellme’s Mobile User Experience group, will share his expertise on designing voice-driven systems and interfaces.
• Nathan Moody and Daren David of Stimulant will share their perspective on designing NUI and multi-touch interfaces for the Microsoft Surface Table and other public, multi-user computing installations.
• Jennifer Bove, a Principal at Kicker Studio, will share her perspective and expertise in designing products with gestural interfaces.

I hope you can join us. If you can, please head over to Upcoming and let us know. And if you have ideas about the panel or the topics you’d like covered, comment here or twitter with #btdpanel