Skip navigation

Category Archives: interaction design

As interaction designer we always deal with future. We try to be up to date to the new technology, we try to innovate the market and we often end up designing web services and I Phone apps. Our cultural references are Facebook, the Apple Store, Skype, IKEA, RFID technology. One of our obsession is ubiquitous computing.

Recently we attend the Tangible User Interface class at CIID:  one month to design an interactive product or artifact around the theme of working at home. Many of my classmate as well as me and my teammate, Laura, we end up designing something that have a strong haptical appeal while the technology we used to make it works is usually hidden, embedded inside carefully crafted layers of wood. What I saw at the final exhibition was something close to a paradox: high tech artifacts that have the appeal of no-tech consumer products.

Few days ago I stumble upon an article about the so called Mujicomp a new concept introduced by Matt Jones during the  ”new digital spaces” conference at Technoarkin  Sierre, Switzerland. Basically the Mujicomp are a new category of objects within the context of ubiquitous computing:  technological artifacts should “become sexy and desirable… able to be appreciated as cultural design objects rather than technology… they should be tasteful, simple, clear, clean, contemporary, affordable in order to be invited into the home“.

That seems to perfectly match what our final designs looked like. But what is that we found so appealing in this beautifully crafted interactive object? Are we somehow so sick about this hyperconnected and hypertechnological world that when it comes to Tangibility our answer is embed the technology, hide it in order to rediscover ergonomic and haptics? Our answer is for solving our problems and maybe is an answer to a need of simplicity.

The Tangible User Interfaces we are familiar to in real life are stuff like a mobile phone, a touchscreen, the mouse and the keyboard.. All those object are maden in plastic and glass. They’re cold, they’re complex, they hardly gain a patina over time. They’re piece of technology, and this is what is stated in the design of the object itself. But what if we can design tech stuffs that are warm, appealing, that can invite the user to touch them and play with them; stuff that are made with nice wood, ceramic, stone, fabric… ? What if we can design technological objects that can gain a patina, that can even get better with use, while getting old?

A lot of questions and few answers.. Let’s see what we’ll build next time.

E: Cos’e’ per te il disordine? Ti piace? E perche’?

M: non posso aiutarti, non sopporto il disordine..

E: perche’?

M: non rientra nei miei schemi mentali

E: cosa ti comunica il disordine? fastidio? perche’?

M: non fastidio. ma il disordine materiale é spesso segno di disordine mentale/interiore e sinceramente se posso scegliere scelgo l’ordine

E: si ma perche’ preferisci l’ordine?

M: senso di sicurezza

E: se ti chiedessi di associare sentimenti a ordine e a disordine

M: mi sento a mio agio

E: ok senso di sicurezza.. derivato dal controllo?

M: penso di si dal controllo oltre che dall’estetica

E: c’e’ un’estetica nel disordine, o meglio, nella complessita’ non necessariamente nel disordine.

M: spiegami il perché di queste seghe mentali

E: il disordine mi affascina per la ricchezza delle forme e per la complessia’ visiva che implica. Credo che nel disordine ci sia un potenziale di emergenza ma al contempo e’ si, simbolo di debolezza. Il disordine delle cose, degli oggetti e’ un arrendersi.

M: ti ho chiesto il perché di queste domande

E: perche’ mi sto interrogando sul significato delle data vizualization in generale, visualizzazioni esteticamente funzionali e attraenti di strutture dati complesse. sono tutte basate sul concetto di ordine. e’ l’ordine che costruisce il significato in questo caso.. la capacita’ di catalogare i dati e organizzarli.

During the computational design course, last week, we explored a Processing library called OpenCV.  The library provides tools (among the others) for object and blob detection through realtime video analysis. Today I was trying to figure out what are the core concepts linked to this technology.

OpenCV can detect faces (very well), eyes (ok), mouths (more or less), bodies (didn’t try yet) and the A-sign of the gesture alphabet (that it a closed hand-comunist-like-sign); that it means that the software can analyze the video and distinguish the mentioned “objects” among the rest of the video content. Every frame is geometrically divided into different areas (meaningful and not).

The software analyzes a video, so it detect objects over time. It detect movements. The time variable come into the play. Then, the software work in realtime. The way this technology is used depends on his characteristics, that I’m trying to describe here.

I found out different types of usage:

1.  For visualizing graphics that adapt to the video content over time.

2. For using objects (in a wide sense) in a video and their movements as controller for a second piece of software.

3.  For retrieving general data, such as how many people passed in front of the camera, that are collected through video analysis.

4. …

1. + 2. = For interactive games.

I feel those thought are a kind of unfinished and incorrect, because somehow I’m not able to go deeper and find the right way to describe the technology and its potential. By the way, I hope I was able to refine ideas around the topic.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.