uxmelina

In September of 2008, my design partner Katie Cerar and myself set out to redesign the television viewing experience for our 4th year design project. Eight months later, the resulting prototype was a very well validated design.

In previous posts I promised a recording of the formal technical presentation delivered. However due to some technical difficulties, we were unable to capture the presentation.

Instead, check out this video story board that details the design!

Have you ever wanted your television to do more?

That was the starting point to the design of SocialTV, the redesign of the television experience. It’s been 8 months in the making, as my 4th year Systems Design project. The amount of work that has gone into it is incredible, and I’m extremely proud of the work my design partner, Katie Cerar, and I have been able to do. I got these fun ideo method cards for my birthday last summer, and they really fueled some fun research including:

- “Fly on the Wall” Ethnography style studies <-watching people watch TV is really boring, but fun!
- Card sorts
- Contextual Inquiry
- “Draw on the Experience” <- users mark up really low fidelity initial designs
- Formal user testing
- Surveys <- a bit boring but good to see trends.
-the list goes on and on….

To analyse all the data we did all sorts of other fun stuff

- coding methods
- affinity diagrams
- social network mapping
- error analysis
- the list goes on and on…

Anyway, Katie and I will be presenting our project formally tomorrow. We will be video taping it, and I hope to have the video up asap. If you are interested in checking out the project or other System’s 4th year projects. The Systems Design Engineering Design Symposium is Wednesday March 25, 2009 and will be held in the Davis Center at the University of Waterloo. It starts at 10am an is an all day event! 

We presented this project to Waterloo Design Exchange and got some great feedback! The presentation we made is available here (use the arrows in the lower right to navigate the presentation). That presentation can give you a sneak peak of the project but you should really come check out the interactive prototype!

Hope to see you there!

Disclaimer: This was a commentary I wrote for my class that looks at the impact of design on society. People who know me well, know I would never say something is “impossible”, it just may be out of reach right now…but this was written to meet the objectives of the assignment.

When robots live among us is provocative article that asks a lot of tough questions.

Could they be engineered to show loyalty or to get anger?

Will [they] enrich our social lives?

Will they compete for sexual partners?

As a designer, my traditional stance on subjects such as these, is nothing is impossible with the right design. However in the case of the humanoid robots advancing to the point of blurring the line between humans and robots, I don’t think this is likely to happen anytime soon.
Looking at the MAYA principle, designs must be “most advanced yet acceptable” [1] . A humanoid robot acting as friends and/or potential sexual partners far exceeds the level of what is “acceptable”. Consider the recent passing of Proposition 8 in the state of California. If humans can’t accept the idea of two humans (regardless of gender) acting as sexual partners they can’t be expected to accept a genderless robot playing the roll.

The article sites proof that children have empathy for toys and as such it’s reasonable to expend that principle to adults. Children’s brains are still developing as they explore their environment. This fact explains why they mimic adults (a parent with a baby) while playing with a doll. It also explains the social contract that makes it acceptable for children to behave in this way. This social contract could not be violated by adults or they would be regarded as developmentally challenged. Imagine a grown man on a subway tending to every need of a plastic doll. This is the very same social contract that would prevent humanoid robots from replacing human relationships.

Designing a robot to replace human relationships is an example where “the interests of technology experts may clash with those of the general public” [2]. In this case, the research being done will help understand the human brain and advance the field of cognitive science. As such robots can still benefit society both in the research that results and the function they can provide. It is important that the way they are represented considered MAYA and social contract discussed to ensure their success. This representation must focus on the robot as a tool, strictly inanimate object that is purchased to solve a problem (like a blender) and not to replace human relationships or interactions.

As always, thoughts and ideas are always welcome!

References
1. University of Waterloo, STV 202 Fall 2008 Course Notes. Culture.
2. University of Waterloo, STV 202 Fall 2008 Course Notes. The Human Being & Design Culture.