Discover Top Posts Tagged with #ctec702

Emerging Practices - Evaluation Formative

Evaluation- The process of judging something's quality, importance, or value, or a report that includes this information.

Questions Derived from the analysis of the “WearBuds”

1. Why does this Technology Exist?

2. What are the Appropriate target consumers of the tech?

3. What likely or unlikely impacts would this technology have on the consumer and retail market of similar tech?

Low-fidelity strategies to prototype/test the tech

As “Wearbubds” is a wearable tech thus linking it directly to the consumer their thoughts on the products and how it will affect their lifestyle. Ideally, the best way to compare these factors would be to having the tech with me. Going through the low fidelity route of prototyping i would bring out the aspects of the tech that were marketed on the most. In this case, the notion of regular earbuds needing constant charging and the battery dying when you are out and about.

I would result in getting consumers (Consumer is any person who owns any sort of audio listening tech) feedback on the technology. I would interview the consumers who use earbuds and traditional wired headphones on their negatives of using their audio tech and then reveal to then “Wearbuds” (get them to watch the campaign video). Then collected would be collected from the consumers on the comparison of their own audio tech to wearbuds and the features it offers.

In the Merlau ponty way of prototyping “Living On” feature i would test is the design of the tech . is it comfortable to wear daily for long periods of time. As the tech is also marketed towards fitness and wellbeing, as this tech is so close to being realized into the market the deciding factor of “Do i buy this? “ would revolve around all the promises this tech makes and how it differs from the products that exist in the market and the price point of the tech.

#ctec702

Emerging Practices Analysis - Google Glass

I haven’t been fully on par with the deadlines for this ‘formative’ assessment and didn’t complete it in its original timeline. instead I heard the ways to improve it and analyse better, before I had even completed the analysis. Luckily for me this laziness has turned positive by allowing me to become more informed on how to complete the analysis now that I have completed it and hopefully helps me later in the semester when I have chosen my real Emerging Technology to analyze.

Google Glass:

What was Google Glass?

“Google Glass is the future of communication in the mobile industry”

- A fan of Google, 2013

In 2013 Google released Google Glass which at the time seemed to be one of the next big things and held a lot of promise. It is easy to laugh at it now, six years later in 2019 after its failure. However, in its day Glass held a lot of promise and it seemed to be something we’d one day all have.

Glass launched in 2013 and sold its ‘Explorer Edition’ to a small limited market for the price of $1500 USD. Looking back it, the specs were quite reasonable for its time and it made it seem like a successful device. Google Glasses technical specifications were close to that of the Samsung Galaxy S3 - which at the time was the Samsung flagship model of phone and was released one year before Glass, making it similar to having the same specifications as a Samsung Galaxy S9 - which would be pretty incredible.

Google Glass Specifications:

720p Camera

2 GB RAM

16 GB Internal Storage

640 x 360 Display

Wifi, Bluetooth & Micro USB Input

This means that if Google Glass was to have launched in 2019 it specifications may look similar to that of the Samsung Galaxy S9 (the flagship Samsung model one year ago) which would around double the existing specifications and make it appear as a useful device with a capable level of hardware.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-Gwb61aAq4

After watching the 2013 Google Glass commercial it still seems like a cool device and takes me back to being a 14 year old who saw it and went ‘wow’. I had an old iPhone 3GS at the time and an unreliable Dell E6400 laptop from the late 2000′s. Seeing this made me think of the future and the awesome devices I’d have. I thought of the day I’d be able to afford Google Glass and be on the edge of technology seeing how wearables would change our lives.

Google Glass really looked like it would have succeeded in its day - and I think if its issues were handled correctly then maybe it could have. After watching it’s ‘how to - getting started’ video I still see it holding up today and something I’d like to try out as a novelty - but I don’t see it becoming part of my life. Similar to how I find VR fun to play around with but I don’t want to have VR in my life daily.

After analysis with Winner’s 1986 I believe that Glass stayed incredibility neutral in and after its 2013 release as it didn’t have much impact globally. To have a positive or negative effect on the world - the technology in consideration needs to have impact to gain its place and reputation. Writers analysis takes me to the later release of Glass which holds more promise. This re-iteration takes Glass into the business world and out of the consumer world to give it a more realistic use.

Though Google Glass didn’t succeed it doesn’t mean that smart glasses won’t, or that wearable technology won’t.

In 2019 we have seen multiple iterations of smart watches and some which were quite successful such as the Apple Watch and Fitbit. I believe that smart glasses were right at the original trigger of the technology back in 2013, and we may be sitting in the through of disillusionment now.

After seeing these 2018 Smart Glasses by North I was intrigued. I watched the commercial and their design was sleek both in the hardware and the software. I initially wanted them, then after reading multiple reviews I saw that all of the features they can do are literally only the ones shown in the video. The hardware is there for it’s time once again, but finding the proper use for them through the software has not been achieved rendering them obsolete and keeping the technology in the ‘trough’.

#ctec702

Emerging Practices and Social Robotics - Opinion

I have no idea what I’m doing. I don’t understand this paper. I don’t want to research robots. Robots piss me off.

#ctec702

Raw Analysis

I thought I would share my raw “data” that informed my analysis, because well, why not? As you will see I most definitely didn’t reference properly, or at all throughout this process so forgive me but its more to show all the things I didn’t include in the hand in.

SPYCE ANALYSIS

Video

Music is inquisitive, curious and intriguing. reminds me of Sergers Prokofiev’s Peter and The Wolf.

Coupled with the start of the video where you see the machine with the lights turning on but it isn’t clear as to what it is

Interior photo in second shot shows the restaurant to be clean and look more like a co-working space or a big open plan office a lot of tech companies are moving towards, hints at the “innovative” angle as well as the robotics

No ‘faffing’ around with their explanations, just get straight to the point with the facts. Mirrors the precision of the robot

“Humble starts in our fraternity basement” looking to show that they are made for the average person, by the average person.

Basic prototypes and back story give that “wow” factor to entice the customer

Very transparent in the whole process of making the food. i.e. explain how the woks cook, how they are heated, how they came up with the menu…

“perfectly cook your meal every time”

Once introduced the concept and the mechanical expertise, bring in the experts in food. Shows that they have all the bases covered

Appeal to both the students by having this innovative approach but also the older generation by bringing in a top chef

“Guess his email address” shows the commitment and the drive of these people, makes for a cool story and adds a wow factor to the backstory

The chef who says he was also puzzled by the idea and then likes the idea, used to sway skeptics

Every team member is justified

Using the idea of robotics as the way of the future and the vegetable focused menu (as meat is not sustainable) to show that they themselves are forward thinkers and look to the future.

Order system is familiar to people as it is a screen that they can navigate through touch and order without actually having to interact with someone.

“Affordable, tasty and nutritious” - no human error keeps it consistent and no humans means it’s cheaper

Music at the end goes back to that curious nature that almost invites you to come try yourself

The food is the end product the consumers see so lots of shots feature the food itself, as well as it cooking

Key point they mention is that the meals are “complex”, these aren’t basic or low number of ingredient meals

Can see your meal being cooked

Everything is automated except for the toppings so it is suited for people who don’t want to interact with others, which is a lot of the younger generation

Vibrant and energetic shows the wellness side and the “fun” factor

a lot of energy has gone into adding the personal touch, (your name while its cooking)

Website

“Wholesome and delicious food” the reason behind it anyhow it came about, the engineers working with the Michelin-Star chef, the salads themselves are all wholesome

Being a restaurant, primarily all their photos are of food and the space. They also include the human touch by having photos of the people behind the counter. Shows that they are just like any other restaurant and they aren’t trying to put people out of jobs

The Our Philosophy section puts the consumer first and two they are doing all of this to impress you, the consumer.

FAQs - Our Mission - Talks about the benefit of the robotic kitchen in terms of the cost factor and the nutrition.

FAQs - Our Mission - Diplomatic in the sense of ‘job cutting’ but show that they pride quality over quantity when it comes to staff.

Backstory has a wow/cool factor to it in terms of why and even how they got Daniel Boulud on board.

While talking about the technical aspects they talk about the process but much of the language is very human focused, to potentially bring it out of the typical sterile robot mindset.

Human aspect is to counter the typical feelings associated with automation and robots.

Instagram features very little of the actual system and focuses solely on the people and the food itself.

Highlighted on the landing page “Excellence Elevated” presenting the idea that their system innovates the food experience

Very simple process all up

The report concluded that jobs that involve “predictable physical activities” — such as cooking or serving food, cleaning kitchens, collecting dirty dishes and preparing beverages — are the most susceptible to automation.

Because the industry’s human labor tends to be lower paid, robots cooks have yet to be adopted, the report said. As the technology becomes cheaper and more widespread, however, that could change.

“Our restaurant is really efficient because people focus on what people are good at, but the robot handles the high volume tasks — like the cooking and washing — that robots are good at,”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2018/05/17/will-robots-replace-chefs-at-this-new-boston-restaurant-they-already-have/?noredirect=on

From reviews

people really enjoy watching the food getting made - similar to teppanyaki restaurant?

The being able to see aspect makes it seem “smarter” rather than it being in a box like the rotimatic

Unlike the Moley robot kitchen, it doesn’t aim to automate for the sake of automating the process, space aims to improve the process by making healthy meals quick and accessible.

https://www.moley.com/

The patent extends to both the cooking of the ingredients and/or mixing ingredients by complete automation.

We were four really hungry MIT students and water polo teammates tired of spending $10 on take-out lunches and dinners. Our athletic appetites required better nutrition but our student budgets didn’t allow for that kind of expense. While we ate our bland chopped salads and stir-frys, we dreamed of an alternative: a robot that cooked tasty and nutritious meals, served them, and cleaned up after.

https://www.spyce.com/who-we-are/

From a commercial standpoint the idea is solid, but buying ingredients and cooking your own meals is cheaper, so is Spyce the best solution to wanting cheaper healthy meals?

A simple google search will find you plenty of meals for under $10 that are healthy and easy to make and extend beyond the basic chicken and rice.

In essence the robot is a self portioning, cooking and cleaning system. The meals are still decided by humans, the method is still decided by humans and the art (presentation) is still done by the humans. The robot doesn’t have to do any of the thinking or checking if the meal is cooked.

high volume tasks

Look at:

Reviews

youtube reviews (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuIIaEND70A)

news stories

facebook

Automated cooking

rotimatic

cat food automation

mechanical harry

automatic pan stirrer

process automation

is there cooking method the best

are there better style meals

Main Takeaways so far

The automation allows the food to be consistent, delicious and exactly as intended every time so there are no surprises

The automation allows the staff to be more customer focused/ allows the business to focus on other aspects as they are not held back by the process.

Questions so far

Does an automated system really allow you to focus on something else when it comes to food, as cooking is an involved process and an experience?

Can this be extended to a personal version that allows you to not have to worry about the cooking?

Can automation turn dinner into less of a chore by removing the need to be involved? Can it just be something that is ready when you want it to be without effort from you? (look at sci fi for inspiration)

Does the system they use result in even cooking of the food?

What is the effect of short wait times for food that is supposedly Michelin-Star? Does it seem tacky? Is it a throwaway?

Is the salad bowl and their method of making it the best for personal value and nutrition?

Can the idea be extend beyond just salad bowls?

Why Automation?

#ctec702

Emerging Practices

Creating Exposure in Sport

Going back over the years, being recognized for your work or your skills was a hard to expose. You had to either be lucky that some high level person saw you and was able to give you some attention. In some rural areas If your name got mentioned in a newspaper thats how high your publicity would be able to go to and you would only be that minor celebrity around the community.

Some countries like in the Pacific Islands there are talented athletes who don’t get the exposure and attention that they rightly deserve. Keira an Artist states that “Being recognized as an artist and gaining for your work is crucial, if you dont get yourself out there and create your platform your missing out on a lot of great business and personal opportunities”. Athletes are like artists they entertain us with their special talents on the field or the court.

The internet has given us the opportunity to showcase athletes to a wider audience then never before. Social media is one of the main reasons why we see so many non famous athletes get recognized by the world. Once one video is posted on Facebook,YouTube or Instagram it gets shared over and over again which helps the athlete to become famous over night. An example for this is Basketball Player Tyler Herro who’s videos became famous over night because of insane basketball skills. After his first highlight video was posted on Youtube the Basketball World was talking about this guy and wanted to know more about him. Now Tyler Herro is an NBA Player, It just shows who much power social media and the internet has now.

Vince from ID Tech states “Some are using tech to improve the fan experience and others for player safety. No matter the use, technology is taking sports to new heights” Understanding now that we must use technology at its fullest to showcase athletes and their skill sets. Creating exposure is what the sport world needs in order to encourage more kids into sport. As long as technology keeps improving we will see more talented athletes come out of hiding and be on the world stage very soon.

References

Sogoian, Keira, et al. “Marketing in Arts: How to Gain Exposure as an Artist.” ZenARTSupplies, 18 Mar. 2019, www.zenartsupplies.co/2019/03/18/marketing-in-arts-how-to-gain-exposure-as-artist/.

Vince, Vince, Ryan, Kendall, Brooke, Sarah, . . . Alycia. (n.d.). New Technology in Sports: Changes Over Time With Fans, Equipment. Retrieved from https://www.idtech.com/blog/how-technology-is-impacting-sports

#ctec702

Informing my practice: Design that lacks social value

I had a read of the article: To Really ‘Disrupt’, Teach Needs To Listen To Actual Researchers from Wired.com which highlights “the Silicon Valley culture we live in that celebrates the technical over the social” (Irani, L. & Chowdhury, R. June, 2019.).

This is in response to a tweet made by Tristan Harris - co-founder of the Center for Humane Technologies who proposed a whole new field of study: "Society & Technology Interaction.". However ee don't need a new discipline. We need to respect, sustain, and strengthen the ones we already have (Irani, L. & Chowdhury, R. June, 2019.).

(Image: Tristan Harris - CASEY CHIN; ROMAIN GAILLARD/REDUX )

This article identifies that “entrepreneurs and engineers are making technologies and decisions without properly considering the group that it’s for” (Irani, L. & Chowdhury, R. June, 2019.). We need to emphasise to everyone - not just upcoming designers and engineers - the importance of being socially-wise, having a sense of history and society that goes beyond just design or behavioral-knowledge and traits. As a designer it is apart of our role to understand the societies we are designing for, to understand the importance of social/cultural values in general, and especially when creating new technologies and when used in visual communication.

This article reminds me of my blog post I wrote not long ago regarding the three Models of Communication - The Shannon and Weaver model, The Emmert/Donaghy model - based on the Shannon and Weaver model, and The David Berlo SMCR model - based on both of the other models. These three together emphasise that designers/artists view the world differently than those in which we are designing for. We cannot assume our own perceptions and ideas will “match” or agree with our audience. Therefore we must consider the messages we convey through design in general and design for new technologies, and consider their context, how they are structured, and how to treat (style or aestheticise) these messages.

The ideas from these models and the highlights from this Wired.com article acknowledge the need for everyone - not just designers and engineers to consider the society we live amongst in everything that we do. When we make new technologies there needs to be more thought towards the social values and critical thinking that we bring into our practice.

In terms of my own practice, these ideas fit well into Emerging Practices CTEC702 and Interaction and Play CTEC703 - In both of these papers I will be exploring technologies and their value and place in society, recognnising how they are made, the context they will fit into, and using methods of CX - Collective, Customer or Community experience - a term not often talked about compared to UI and UX. CX expands on collective group or community experience with technology.The usability and impact of a product across a collection of people within a society.

References:

Szóstek, A. (July, 2018). Where is the difference between UX, CX and Service Design?. Retrieved August, 2019 from: https://uxdesign.cc/where-is-the-difference-between-ux-cx-and-service-design-8ce0b8654a43

L. & Chowdhury, R. (June, 2019). To Really ‘Disrupt’, Teach Needs To Listen To Actual Researchers. Retrieved August, 2019 from: https://www.wired.com/story/tech-needs-to-listen-to-actual-researchers/

Ludwig, K. (n.d). Davis communication models. Retrieved July 2019 from: http://kellyludwig.com/kcai-embeds/act-05davis-communication_models.pdf

Communication Theory. (n.d). Berlo’s SMCR Model of Communication. Retrieved July 2019 from: https://www.communicationtheory.org/berlos-smcr-model-of-communication/

Businesstopia in Communication. (2018). Shannon and Weaver Model Of Communication. Retrieved July 2019 from: https://www.businesstopia.net/communication/shannon-and-weaver-model-communication

Kristen Design. (April, 2015). Emmert Donaghy Final Model of Communication. Retrieved July 2019 from: http://www.kristen.design/process/2015/04/emmert-donaghy-final-model-of.html

#Ctec702 #ctec709

Further analysis & Evaluation.

Match Pro proved not to be the best example of AI and tech driven dating platforms given its revenue targets were clearly a dream with no evidence or documentation of any sort of product, not even prototypes, it was hard to analyse a passage of text that was completely immaterial.

However the actions of current platforms and trends in emerging services also suggest this is where we are heading so I took more of a holistic approach by analysing the entire field and it’s trend towards AI and data driven match making.

Collective analysis of Artificial intelligence in matchmaking.

-There is nothing particularly new about machine algorithms in dating services. What is new is the vast amount of data these algorithms now have access to (our online footprint)

-MatchPro’s selling point was data driven results based off psychological and graphological analysis however currently dating apps are able to provide recommendations based off of the analysis of user history which you could argue is a stronger indicator. From age, gender, location, and sexual preferences, to online purchasing history and even Spotify playlists

-I’ve noticed two distinct approaches, the first being relying on data that already exists e.g social media & the online footprint and the scientific approach being extensive surveys and tests. These platform tend to target different demographics. Platforms like eHarmony and OKCUPID take this approach to data collection however people have voiced their concern over the opportunity for users to miss represent themselves. Amy Webb a journalist and professor of strategic insight at the stern school of business documented her ability to out smart a match making algorithm by catering her profile to the man she hoped to meet.

A quote from the CEO of tinder Sean Rad speculating on the state of the platform in 5 years time. “The Tinder voice might pop up and say, ‘There’s someone down the street that we think you’re going to be attracted to, and she’s also attracted to you, and guess what, she’s free tomorrow night! And we know you both like this indie band, and it’s playing, so would you like us to buy your tickets?”

Platforms like AIMM (1) seem the be smarter in the way they go about collecting data to fuel their algorithms. The application is voice controlled which allows the AI to pick up sentiment in the voice of the user, whilst platform like Loveflutter (2) analyse users twitter history to pick up sentiments and make assumptions about their personality.

“today’s dating sites are only as good as the data they’re given.”

Value proposition of AI and big data in dating platforms:

-Vast pool of potential matches, instant gratification, convenience

-“Algorithms can end up knowing a person better than friends, family or even themselves, and that’s revolutionising matchmaking”, says Michal Kosinski, a computational psychologist and assistant professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business.

- “Algorithms can learn from experiences of billions of others, while a typical person can only learn from their own experience and the experience of a relatively small number of friends.” refers to the importance of Big Data.

-Signals that people may miss but AI can catch include the sentiment in communication, response times, and length of profiles.

-With such a large and accessible candidate pool there are no missed opportunities.

It seems as though a lot of common dating speed bumps can be avoided with the due-diligence relatively simple AI can provide but do these algorithms need to be inherently broken? Otherwise successful users will not return to the platform.

Evaluation.

Questions: How does the quality of interaction differ when first meetings are based upon a pool of compatible candidates and alternatively by chance? How does the context of the situation (expectations of a date) alter the course of the interaction?

Is it ultimately more rewarding to meet someone by chance or serendipity or through a controlled and monitored pool of candidates?

These platforms market themselves on the potential for love and this is where the criteria for success becomes pretty muddy. When looking simply at introductions it is a bit easier to process. Instead of a date I chose a single test subject (one of my flatmates) to choose a particular activity to complete with their date (another of my flatmates) The subject chose a game of call of duty.

I choose to base the meeting around an activity as these were people who already new each other and I thought this provided some criteria to which they could make judgements about each other. I put no restriction on the type of activity. The rest of my subjects (my remaining flatmates) and my initial subject wrote on a piece of paper what their chosen activity would have been and two key skills that related to their chosen activity. My attempt to simulate Artificial intelligence was to use actual intelligence in the form of two other friends. In this test subjects would be paired to complete the chosen activity first by the “AI” and next at random, they would then reflect on the experience and rate the quality of interaction based on whether they would like to engage in that particular activity with their partner again. The two match makers who played the role of a machine algorithm were told to make a decision purely on the information that was provided by each subject, this consisted of three key pieces of information. The match makers selected two people for the subject to complete the selected activity. Then a partner was chosen at random.

In hindsight this was a bit of a stretch. It is extremely difficult to replicate the chemistry of potential partners meeting as well as triggering the same response as people meeting for the first time. Although this was an interesting test I’m hesitant to make any inferences about the effectiveness of artificial intelligence in dating.

I did notice that the context of the situation had an effect on their attitude, when their partner was chosen from a pool they became fixated on executing the task whereas when the partner was chosen at random was more concerned with having a laugh and looked to be enjoying the process more. Being put in a situation with someone who is said to be a match tended to bring out a more assessment oriented attitude. subjects were actively try to find value in the other person. As soon as there was a slight amount of disinterest they would become totally disinvested with the mindset there would likely be another better partner. When the activity partner was chosen at random they tended to be a lot more open minded

I’d like to know if this same attitude is present during first dates? Are daters concerned primarily with the conversion rate of meetings or do they enjoy the process?

(1) https://aimm.online

(2) https://www.loveflutter.com

#ctec702

Emerging Practices- Synthesis Formative

Synthesis refers to the creative concept generation of what does not yet exist {Buxton 2010}. In this report, you are asked to articulate a proposal for a future version of a social robot or device.

The wearbuds, the functionality of the device is split into two parts. Its main is that it houses and charges your earbuds and secondly, it acts as a lesser version of a Fitbit. It tells time (which it should as it is a watch), but the full capacity of the device still has to be iterated and developed on.

I looked at the synthesis of these devices through my own perception and the feedback i got from the short evolution i performed. Even though it is an innovative way to store and charge your earbuds, but once the buds are in your ears the watch loses its major factor and the watch loses some of its functionality.

Iteration 1

In this iteration, i looked at what features can be added to the watch to enhance its usability and increase its ease of use from the consumer's point of view. Complimenting the main function of the device, a future iteration should include a way for the watch to sync with the phone's media player and display an interactive audio UI on the face of the watch. This will allow the consumer to be able to control their music without going back to their phone as this device is also marketed towards a wearable tech while exercising.

The watch can have many other features included in it but it marketed as an alternative to the wired charging and the discomfort of carrying a case for your earbuds etc. The level of features would depend on the structure of the device and if it can house the components.

Iteration 2

The size and design of the watch itself, it is designed for a particular look and seize. Thus another change or option the AIpower (the company that developed Wearbuds) could release different sizes in the watch. This product is all about consumer comfort thus moving into the future they can look at different designs maybe one for female and one for male.

#ctec702