Interaction Theory Blog Post #9

How do designers meet people's emotional needs? What techniques do we use? Is it okay to sometimes ignore the emotional layer and focus only on function? If so, when? 

Upon first reading this blog assignment, I immediately thought of tools and this one particular scene in the I.D. documentary Objectified where a designer from Smart Design is discussing a pair of hedge clippers. Do tools ignore people's emotional needs and only focus on function in their design? The designer from Smart Design explored several existing designs for hedge clippers and explained the negatives of each (obviously whichever design Smart Design created would ultimately be the best hedge clippers ever made). She discussed how the ergonomics of the clippers created frustration, which is a pretty strong emotion. So even if the design of the clippers ignored emotion and only focused on functionality, its inept design created frustration in the user. Ultimately, this design could not avoid an emotional layer in the user experience. 

There are a great number of designers who do ignore the emotional layer and only focus on function but when you have an interaction that involves humans, there is no getting around the emotional component. Even if someone claims to be indifferent to a design, if a product like a tool for example, works well, that person is satisfied and most likely happy with the design even if it is a subconscious happiness. Design utilizes psychology and an understanding of human behavior to explore what humans value. This is done through careful research, user-testing, and creating iteration upon iteration. Going back to tools and its place on the spectrum of function vs. emotion, the company OXO comes to mind.  The founder of the company, Sam Farber, noticed that his wife was having trouble gripping kitchen tools because of the arthritis that was developing in her hands. He decided to create comfortable cooking tools for all users, not just those developing arthritis. But clearly Farber was inspired by sympathy for his wife's condition and the frustration she was experiencing. In this particular case, emotion inspired a highly functional design, which leads me to believe that no matter how devoid of emotion a design is intended to be, it never truly can be.

Interaction Theory Blog Post #10

What is the next frontier for interaction designers? What needs interaction design but doesn't currently know it?

I am writing this last blog post from New York where I will be spending my summer interning for a designer named Diana Eng. She is a fashion designer who works with technology and this internship seems like an apropos place for exploring my own interest in technology in unexpected and potentially ubiquitous areas. A subject that I've made reference to before is my interest in fashion and technology. On a larger scale, I'm really interested in materiality and technology and using technology to highlight unique everyday interactions. I do not particularly want to be a fashion designer but what is currently happening in the field of textiles, fashion and technology has peaked my interest. The potential for interaction design in materials research and product development for textiles, clothing, accessories, and home goods is beginning to emerge but a large majority of the people working in these fields are unaware of interaction design's existence and its incredible potential.

The first video that I've posted below is of Diana Eng discussing a project that she worked on called Fairytale Fashion which she created in conjunction with Eyebeam Atelier in New York. This project focused on using technology to make seemingly impossible concepts from Fairytales deployable in everyday life.  The second video is of a project that Adidas worked on that uses an interaction between body movement, a pair of sneakers, and a computer to create music. These two projects use whimsy and imagination to inspire delightful designs that push the boundaries of interaction design.

Interaction Theory Blog Post #8

Describe and discuss a space where you find the interactivity particularly compelling. Do you see yourself contributing to the design of interactive spaces at some point during your career? Do you think design disciplines are converging?

It seems as though the convergence of design disciplines is becoming more and more obvious now but design disciplines have always existed in a symbiotic relationship with one another. Architecture illustrates these symbiotic relationships the best because so many different kinds of designers fall under its umbrella; furniture, textile, and industrial design disciplines just to name a few. Many designers became famous for disciplines that they weren't actually trained in, i.e. Marc Newson, one of the most famous contemporary industrial designers working today, was trained as a jewelry designer and attributes his acute attention to detail and love of materials to his jewelry design education. Currently, I am grappling with where technology, materials, textiles, fashion, and industrial design converge, particularly because I am starting to think about what I want to pursue for my thesis next year. Our most intimate form of shelter is our clothing and it is a place that has a lot of opportunity to be extremely intelligent and versatile. So for me, the definition of space is not limited to structures that are made of mortar and stone, but also includes structures that are woven and sewn together.

For my Design History class, I just finished reading this essay entitled "Future of Fashion." The author, Donna Ghelerter, writes
"The manufacturing of clothes has always been affected by technological advances. The sewing machine revolutionized the clothing industry in the nineteenth century, and zippers altered clothing construction when they were perfected for use in the 1930's. In the early 2000s, technological innovations in fabrics influence how designers think about clothing, with textiles being developed that have properties unheard of in natural fibers. The abilities of these high-tech fabrics to stretch to over-whelming sizes or change their structure according to temperatures inspire clothing designers and blur the lines between fashion and industrial design." 


A contemporary fashion designer that perhaps best embodies this notion is Hussein Chalayan. His intelligent and thoughtful embracing of technology has made him the go-to example for the ideal convergence of technology and fashion. Of his own work, Chalayan says, "Everything around us either relates to the body or to the environment. I think of modular systems where clothes are like small parts of an interior, the interiors are part of architecture, which is then part of an urban environment. I think of fluid space where they are all a part of each other,  just in different scales and proportions." (The Berg Companion to Fashion, p.137) Chayalan is describing a modern notion of design which is that everything works in systems, and we have to understand how those systems relate to each other on a larger scale in order to understand how those systems can best be designed and developed.


For me, where technology and fibers converge is one of the most interesting and exciting areas of exploration that is happening right now. In the New York Times Magazine's annual Year in Ideas issue, one of the ideas highlighted was a method invented for growing clothes from bacterial culture which was developed by Suzanne Lee, a senior research fellow at Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design in London. I also recently read an article about Taiwanese researchers developing bendable e-readers and screens made from silk that was produced by genetically modified spider-goats. SPIDER-GOATS!!  FABRICs THAT GROW!! There are so many exciting, controversial, and weird developments happening in the world of textiles, materials, and science. I wish I had the confidence and passion that Dan Ionescu exhibited during his presentation when talking about what I'm interested in for my thesis. Dan spoke about his work with so much confidence and energy that it was hard not to be excited about what he was interested in. I hope that by the time my thesis presentation rolls around next year, I can talk about my work with the same enthusiasm and confidence.

P.S. This studio, Local Projects,  located in New York called  does a lot of really interesting work with interactive media and public spaces.

Interaction Theory Blog Post #7

Why is interaction design so much more democratized than other design disciplines? List and discuss at least three reasons.


Three reasons why interaction design is so much more democratized than other design disciplines are
1. The end result is not always tangible.
2. Interaction Design is a relatively new design discipline.
3. A lot of interaction design revolves around the web/user experience so people believe that they are inherently good at designing for such an experience if they are a. human and b. can use the world wide web.

Interaction Design is a fairly new discipline; very few Interaction Designers are actually beyond the age of forty. Not all interaction design lends itself to a tangible concept which makes it a bit more difficult to critique and being such a new discipline with comparatively little academic study and history to base itself upon, the field invites a lot of people who believe they are qualified enough to call themselves Interaction Designers. However, those who are actually studying and pursuing Interaction Design in a thoughtful and informed way have an understanding of the theory behind the discipline, a clarity of thought when discussing the heuristics of Interaction Design, and an incredible facility for storytelling.

When I was in college I took a critical theory class on photography and one of my favorite lectures concerned the introduction of digital photography into the art world. A lot of the art that was being created by the digital photographers at the time was relatively silly and was being utilized more as a tool to demonstrate the capabilities of digital manipulation rather than actually producing good art (whatever that means!). A period existed when many people considered themselves talented and innovative photographers because they were able to use the computer to digitally manipulate their work (I wouldn't say that this time has quite passed but I think we have a better grasp on the fact that a digital camera does not a professional photographer make.) The computer has certainly allowed for a greater number of people to pursue design and art, i.e. everyone is a photographer now, but mass access to tools and technology does not make one a successful artist and/or designer. I think this is also seen in the world of blogging, where everyone blogs, but relatively few bloggers achieve success through the medium. As educated Interaction Designers, we must possess the ability to communicate and engage without putting discouraging others, particularly when it comes to discussing and implementing ideas.  We are the thought leaders who have the amazing opportunity to expand and lead the field of Interaction Design, but to do so successfully, we must guide kindly and positively and encourage others to lead Interaction Design in a thoughtful and innovative direction.

Interaction Theory Blog Post #6

I love tumblr. I love posting videos, posting images, writing posts, reblogging friend's posts, reblogging stranger's posts. It is really fun. I in fact just posted a song that has been stuck in my head for days so it can get stuck in other people's heads. I converted to tumblr from blogger this past September and I am so much happier with my blogging experience. But I understand that tumblr is not perfect and if I step back from my fanatic approval of this particular platform, I can more clearly see it's strengths and weaknesses.

One great advantage of tumblr is the dashboard element. It is similar to the facebook feed, but it's all of the posts of the people that you are following so it's curated to display only the posts of other tumblrs that you are interested in. It is very easy to follow people and have them follow you which creates an instant community in which you can be heard. The dashboard also makes it very easy to reblog interesting posts. One can also click on a heart graphic to "like" a post if you don't want to reblog or comment. Tumblr has become so popular that around the holidays, it kept notoriously crashing much to the chagrin of all tumblr fanatics, as tumblr attempted to create more space for all of its new members. If you have a tumblr, it connotates that you are "hip" and using the latest blogging platform, which sounds really funny, but I've actually heard people say this.

On the other hand, however, tumblr could also be perceived as confusing and its usability is not always inherently obvious. I could see it not appealing to an older generation. It's doesn't garner the same mass appeal that a site like Facebook does and it you are not the kind of person who has a twitter, a tumblr, and a website, it really might not be the platform that you are looking for. Tumblr also lends itself to being image-oriented because of the easy reblogging element  and the dashboard feed which is similar to a twitter feed in many respects. If you are a writer or your blog posts tend to be more wordy, Wordpress or Blogger are probably more appropriate platforms. Tumblr definitely appeals to a tech-savvy crowd who are hyper aware of their online presence.

Interaction Theory Blog Post #5

One of my favorite TV shows is a British comedy called The Mighty Boosh. This show is about two zookeepers, Vince and Howard. In later seasons, Vince and Howard abandon their jobs at the zoo and move to a hip neighborhood in London to pursue a musical career. However, all of the first season is about the zoo. In one of my favorite episodes, Vince and Howard are attempting to thwart Dixon Bainbridge, an explorer whom they despise. The explorer once set out to find the Egg of Mantumbi in the Arctic Tundra and Vince and Howard believe that if they can find the Egg, they can thwart Baindbridge's attempts at being a successful explorer.

Generally the narrative arc of each episode of the Mighty Boosh involves Howard and Vince getting into a scrape. One or several musical performances are inevitable and sometimes the musical performance articulates the solution. In the case of this particular episode, Howard, who is the more straight laced, nerdy, self-deprecating half of the duo is warning Vince, the flamboyant, attractive scenester about the dangers of the Arctic. Howard does this by performing an “Artic Rap”, which I’ve included in this post.

Vince and Howard become separated in the Arctic at one point, but they find each other again in the cave where the Egg is located. Unfortunately, Bainbridge has also found the cave and Howard and Vince find themselves in the inevitable scrape. However, a change of events always occurs to diffuse the situation and Howard and Vince live to see another day and inevitably, get into another scrape. 

The Mighty Boosh is ridiculous. The story lines are always fantastical and filled with strange and quirky characters.  For example, in one episode Vince and Howard seek out advice from a man whose head is made of cheese. In another episode, “Mod Foxes”, foxes dressed like Mod Hipsters, help Vince and Howard out of a forest they have gotten lost in. The solutions are always silly and the story lines generally revolve around the musical performances. But the show is incredibly enjoyable, sometimes a bit dark, but I think people are willing to follow Vince and Howard on their journeys because they are so ridiculous and strange. The viewer wants to know what crazy scrape Vince and Howard are getting into or what strange character they’ll meet next. The Vince and Howard duo is endearing and their chemistry draws people into watching more. Television is a tool for escapism and escaping into Vince and Howard’s strange world is really fun.

Interaction Theory Blog Post #4

This past week, John Galliano, head designer for the brand Christian Dior, was fired for making anti-Semitic remarks in public in France, where it is a crime to incite racial hatred. Dior is part of the powerhouse corporation LVMH (Moet Hennessy * Louis Vuitton). Galliano is responsible for reinventing the Dior brand and turning it into one of the most recognizable and successful contemporary fashion houses. Despite Galliano's success, his recent behavior, which many believe to be the result of alcoholism in addition to the general pressures and mindsets of the fashion world, forced LVMH to fire him swiftly. Natalie Portman, who is now the face of the popular perfume, Miss Dior Cherie, and who is also Jewish, publicly stated that she was disgusted by Galliano's comments and did not want to be associated with the designer.

Putting my own personal feelings aside as a Jewish woman with relatives who survived the Holocaust, I think this is an interesting example of how a brand reacts to a situation that they couldn't plan for and the system that is put in motion to handle it. Being a worldwide and very public brand, LVMH was extremely aware of the damage that could be caused to the Dior brand, and the LVMH group as well, if Galliano wasn't fired. It is also well known that many luxury fashion houses earn most of their revenue though sales of items like perfume and accessories and not necessarily clothes. And now that Natalie Portman, who was already a well-liked and distinguished actress, is an academy award winner, Dior would of course not want to lose her as a public figure for their brand. From a strategic perspective, whatever genius, creativity, and success that Galliano had brought to the brand was made null by his words of hatred. Of course this situation is far more complicated than right or wrong, but in terms of brand reputation, this one act had to be acted upon quickly by LVMH to preserve their system of companies and brands and to make sure that the worldwide community knew they were not to be associated with Galliano's venomous words.

As we learned from Damien Newman's lecture last week in class, there is a huge system set in place to produce a successful product or service that most clients and customers don't even realize exists. Damien emphasized that it is important to remember what a company loves and what they care about. An article from The New York Times' T Magazine reported that Dior's president and chief executive officer, issued a brief statement saying,
"I condemn most firmly the statements made by John Galliano which are a totaly contradiction with the essential values that have always been defended by the House of Christian Dior."


No one would fault LVMH for letting one of the greatest fashion talents of the past two decades go if his values were no longer in accordance with the Dior brand. It was in fact reported that many customers were complaining about Galliano's behavior and the brand obviously needs its customers to thrive. What happened with Galliano and Dior could not have been planned for but LVMH acted with concern for the values and integrity of one of its most famous and public brands. 

Interaction Theory Blog Post #3

"Can an intelligent house fall in love with the house next door? Can they have baby houses? Is an architect a trained "womb" for houses, or more crudely, is an architect how a house makes another house? Does an architect feel like she/he is violating fundamental forces of evolution if she/he does not include the latest new technology in the house she/he next gives birth to? Do you believe in progress? Is a suburban house of today better than a row house in London in 1850 which was better than a thatched country cottage in 1700 which was better than teepees and mud huts that Columbus found in the New World? Is the house that Donald Trump lives in better than the house you live in? If you were an architect and you designed an intelligent house, would the house's own happiness matter to you? If the couple that bought the house you designed got a divorce, do you think you should be libel for damages?"  from HOW SMART DOES YOUR BED HAVE TO BE, BEFORE YOU ARE AFRAID TO GO TO SLEEP AT NIGHT? by Rich Gold

The beginning of this particular set of questions appealed to me because it genuinely made me laugh out loud. What an absurd thought, that two house could fall in love. However, isn't that the point of this series of questions? To make you think about what really is absurd in regards to technology and the home and what is actually not absurd sounding at all upon further reflection? When this article was discussed in my interaction topic studio class, I mentioned that it brought to my mind the short science fiction story by Ray Bradbury entitled "The Veldt". In this story, a brother and a sister use a nursery of the future in a "smart home" to kill their parents. It is not the most utopian scenario to mention while discussing intelligent homes, but Gold's series of questions led me to think of the worst possible outcome of living in a smart house, which is being killed by your own home.


This week's reading however, particularly the Moggridge piece on Bill Graver, made me think of the truly whimsical yet seemingly banal aspects of the home that Graver's "history tablecloth" explores. The "tablecloth" remembers what has been laid upon it, gathering information for a unique story. Graver explains "...understanding the potential for designing interactions as a complete physical environment, you are quickly drawn into the possibility of objects conveying information that is full of associations and emotional qualities." This idea and Bradbury's imagined dystopia point out that no matter how we imagine a house's capabilities, we all recognize that there are emotions evoked by the home, good and bad, that pervade our lives. Graver's exploration is obviously a more positive one, but Bradbury's skepticism is also important. Gold is asking us to contemplate on what it means for technology to be a ubiquitous presence in our lives and how it will affect us, positively and negatively, in our most intimate and private environments, which is usually our homes. Will the home become something that is no longer intimate and private? And does that matter?

Interaction Theory Blog Post #2: Pattie Maes

Blog Topic: Select a key figure in interaction design to research further. What made them tick? What was important about their contributions to the field? Where would we be now without their contributions?

Perhaps this is not exactly following the Blog Topic at hand, but my interaction design figure of choice is Pattie Maes, head of the Fluid Interfaces Group at the MIT Media Lab. According to her TED Biography,

"Pattie Maes was the key architect behind what was once called 'collaborative filtering' and has become a key to Web 2.0: the immense engine of recommendations -- or 'things like this' -- fueled by other users. In the 1990s, Maes' Software Agents program at MIT created Firefly, a technology (and then a startup) that let users choose songs they liked, and find similar songs they'd never heard of, by taking cues from others with similar taste. This brought a sea change in the way we interact with software, with culture and with one another."

She's also kind of a rock star. She was named one of the "100 Americans to watch for" in 2000 by Newsweek magazine; the World Economic Forum honored her with the title "Global Leader for Tomorrow" and randomly, Maes was listed in People Magazine's annual 50 Most Beautiful People feature in 1997. In the movie The Social Network, I felt that in a strange way, programmers were being portrayed like rock stars. Whether that's good or bad or true or not, I think that people like Pattie Maes and Mark Zuckerberg are bringing a lot of awareness to the computing world, and ultimately interaction design. Perhaps that is something that will be discussed during our class entitled "When everyone thinks they're an interaction designer."

In "From Computing Machinery to Interaction Design," Terry Winograd writes 
"Today's popular press plays up efforts like those of Pattie Maes and her research group at the MIT Media Laboratory, where thy have produced agents to help people brows the web, choose music, and filter email. In fact, a notable indicator of the current trajectory is the ascendancy of MIT's Media Lab, with its explicit focus on media and communication, over the AI Laboratory, which in earlier days was MIT's headline computing organization, one of the world centers of the original AI research."

Maybe Maes' most significant contribution is making certain areas of computing seem sexy but I have to admit, I think this TED video that highlights some of the research that is happening at the Fluid Interfaces Group is pretty awesome.

Interaction Theory Blog Post #1

Blog Topic: What kind of interaction designer do you want to be? What kind of interaction designer are you now? If your answer to the two questions is different, what will you do to help yourself transform? 

It feels strange claiming that I'm an interaction designer currently. I'd say really, I'm not, but rather I'm more of a stagnant product designer. In Nicholas Carr's book, The Big Switch, which I currently have to read for my design history class, Carr devotes an entire chapter to Thomas Edison and his ambitious project of providing electricity for all of New York City. Of Edison, Carr writes "Unlike lesser inventors, Edison didn't just create individual products; he created entire systems." I feel as though I design individual products; I have yet to become a systems thinker. I am mostly focused on the product, and am not yet aware of the user, his/her needs and a larger system at hand.

Ideally, I would like to be an interaction designer who works with programmable materials and responsive objects, similar to what's being pursued by the Fluid Interfaces Group at MIT Media Lab. I have a crazy love of things and can't get away from materials and industrial design, but I would like to combine that with technology, user experience and needs, and systems thinking. Just being back in school in a graduate program that offers time to foster my interests while nudging me into thinking about the larger picture is a great way to reconcile the kind of interaction designer I think that I am now with what I hope to be in the future.