uxmelina

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.

Lately I’ve been think a lot about cloud computing…specifically how it’s going to change the way people interact with technology and even more specifically how this will change the way people use technology to collaborate. I’m really excited to be working in technology as we make this shift, because it’s going to be a big one. People won’t have a “desktop” as we see them today. They will have some virtual identity that will house all their “stuff”. This will drive a great shift in interaction methods (from a desktop, from a cellphone, from some dumb public terminal, etc). I’ve been looking at the desktop metiphor and considering if it will still be appropriate.

Will it resonate with novice users like it did in the past? Will we even have “novice” users or will the cloud be something like fridge where everyone knows how to use it, and can’t really pin point when they learned it? Even if we don’t have novice users, do we need a different model?

All those questions made me think. If we aren’t interacting with a desktop, what metipor would be more appropirate? I explained earlier in this post about the idea of humans interacting with a virual version of themselfs. I’m wondering if a person or human metaphor could be something to consider. Here are a few ideas.

Memory: Objects could be stored in a virtual brain or even a pocket (I think this is cute, and would be great for quick assess similar to the “Desktop”)

Software and Programs: These never fit into the desktop metaphor and they would change with the cloud. Their will be a lot more task based workflows as software services become more integrated (see ubiquity) so performing “actions” or “tasks” (instead of running programs) would keep consistent with the metaphor.

Trash: This is actually an element of the desktop metaphor that I can’t think of way to convert to a human metaphor (Unless you wanted to think of bodily waste every time to you hit delete…I think not!). However I don’t think that’s a problem with the human metaphor because why would you delete something in the cloud? I know this is a stretch, because it’s a learned behaviour, both in technology and in life, but look at what archive has done for gmail…no more trash! Out of site out of mind.

That’s all I have for now. I will post more on this later as I think about. Please comment on your thoughts/ideas!

Thanks