uxmelina

As an Engineering student, I wouldn’t consider myself a “typical” female. But never the less, I still wear impractical heels, spend longer then I should to get ready, and own way too many things that are pink.

Today, I pulled up to the Jiffy Lube to get the oil changed in my Civic. I have done this numerous times, and each time I think to myself. Gah…what will they try to sell me? how will I know if I actually need it? hopefully nothing is wrong with my car. I always ask lots of questions, but always leave not really knowing the answers, and feeling slightly dumb (something I know, in my heart, I am not). Overall, it’s not a very pleasant experience. Today was Jiffy Lube, but I’ve had the same experience with lots to shops.

This made me think that if a respected chain like Jiffy Lube, invested in a “women-friendly” design for their shops it could pay off since nothing else exists. I can hear the men already “I’m not getting my oil changed in a shop painted pink”…that wouldn’t by my recommended design

The following things would be important to the image.

1. Customer Service

Old: Train employees to up sell customers. “I’m going to replace the gasket again, it’s only 99 cents, ok?”

New: Train employees to explain, in clear terms what they are doing and if it’s really necessary. “Your car maker recommends you replace the gasket with every oil change, the gasket does ______, it’s 99 cents extra because some customers don’t want to have it replaced because _____, what would you like to do?”

2. Environment

Old: Smells funny, looks dirty, dark colours are unwelcoming, instills a sense of confusion. What is really going on under the car? Are the people down there? What’s with all the random boxes/tools on the walls and springing from the ceiling? I always wait in my car, since I think it’s cleaner then the waiting areas.

New: It’s a shop, it’s going to seem dirty, but the waiting room doesn’t have to be. The shop itself could seem a lot less confusing and intimidating with signs and labels explaining things, or mirrors to show you things that are going on, outside of your direct view. As for a colour scheme, well lite, warm tones like navy blue, olive green, burgundy, could act to add a welcoming feel, and help hid the grease and dirt.

3. Branding

Here I’m referring to logo/slogan/marking . In the past Lowe’s appeals to women shoppers more so then home depot. Both stores are working to appeal to this once-forgotten demographic. Although they both sell the same stuff, you can see some differences in their stores with respect to service and environment. Lets compare their logos.

The shape of a house in Lowe’s logo, use of warm colours, the term “Together” in the slogan, all create a welcoming, open, community feel to the company, something that would appeal to women when they are starting a home construction project. Contrast with Home Depot where their font is rugged and basic, something that will appeal to men shoppers. Home Depot’s slogan is “you can do it, we can help”, although this slogan implies helpfulness and openness, the Lowe’s slogan is clearly better.

Overall, the service, enviroment, logo/slogan all adds together to create an image. If a quick service auto-shop could design a store to appeal to both genders they would have a compentative edge in the market.

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