On robots and morals

Responding to articles written by my own professors two weeks in a row: awful or awesome?

The articles on children and technology this week, especially the two studies asking what can be seen in interactions between children and personified technologies (admittedly also affected by our recent study of value-sensitive design), raised some interesting questions, some of which fall outside the realm of Human Computer Interactions and some of which extend beyond the topic of children and technology. Instead of writing a straightforward essay attempting to encompass all of these questions, I'd like to break them down one by one with a brief discussion.

1. Do moral judgments in interactions with "personified agents" generalize to all interactions with technology?

This question was inspired by Freier's use of a Half-Life 2 model for his morality study. The model used in the study was given a voice separate from that of the game that played a researcher in a game of Tic-Tac-Toe. Insults from the researcher were observed by children to be immoral, especially when the digital player spoke up for her own rights and feelings. The question above can be asked specifically in this case: If shortly after, the children taking part in the study played Half-Life 2, and the model who had previously played Tic-Tac-Toe was now a gun-toting member of the opposite team, would the child have issue with shooting her? Would the moral reaction to the character carry over from one context to another?

More generally, once the child has encountered enough digital models that advocate for themselves, would the child start to ascribe morals to relations with all digital models? After all, for instance, characters in video games often cower, or protest, or try to fight back as we carjack them or shoot at them or stab them or steal from them. Within the context of the game, we see these as conventional, rather than moral values. However, these children maintained moral wrong even when faced with the option that other cultures did not consider certain acts as such. Would the cultural rules of a video game be perceived in the same way?

2. Are these moral reactions limited to children of the current generation, who are growing up surrounded by technology?

I would be interested to see how the AIBO study might be replicated among members of different generations. My own interactions with similar lifelike robots have been a strange mixture of curiosity and revulsion. I'm interested in the biological mimickry, but at the same time, such...creatures?...still fail to transcend something similar to Mori's "uncanny valley." Stuffed dogs, in my mind, are inanimate objects that we can comfortably project our moods upon. Robot dogs that need regular stimulus to maintain "mood", or "health" or "happiness" are a different...well, they're a different animal entirely.

I will always prefer a real dog to a robot dog, and I might assume that others of my generation would feel the same. Part of the appeal of a real pet is that their dependency upon their owner forges a relationship with consequences. Feeding a dog regularly makes it like me, which makes me like it in return. If I forget to feed my robot dog, I change the batteries and it is fine (or, in the case of a fellow student with a Webkinz, I can starve it, give it a spa treatment, and get more points than I would have if I fed it regularly). Note my use of "it" as a pronoun, unconscious until a second readthrough.

However, children who grow up surrounded by technology in a world where a cellphone is a necessary appendage, where more knowledge comes from the internet than from teachers, and where hearts over the head of a Tamagochi equal reciprocated love, may inevitably see such anibots differently. So I think two further studies would be interesting: one of older people interacting with the AIBO, and one with children of the same generation a few years down the road from now as teenagers interacting with similar technologies.

3. Are moral reactions to "personified agents" fair or valid?

A different way to ask this might be, can the child subjects of these studies see the strings and the hands of the puppetmaster? All of the personification from avatars and robots and digital people come from real researchers and programmers. The technologies are not human, cannot relay values or emotions that were not implanted in them by their creator. Are children aware of this at all in their interactions with such technologies? Are they responding naturally, or are they responding in the context that they know they're being manipulated? Do children really think the AIBO gets pleasure from eating, or are they playing along? Or does it matter?

Another question might be how children would react if the study of morals were reversed. What if the computer was in charge of placing the X's and O's, and cheated the researcher. Would the children perceive that as a moral violation? Do these children believe that the personified agent is capable of making moral decisions as well, or only that real people should have morals in their interactions with them? What qualifications would have to be met to describe a complete moral relationship?

4. Once we ascribe morals to our interactions with technology, can they still function as tools?

A friend of mine is living in Hollywood working on spec scripts and I recently worked with him on punching up a scene where [copyright / trademark / stealing prohibited!] a man is too embarrassed to ask his female-voiced GPS for directions to an adult video store, so he asks how to get to a convenience store across the street. When he turns left into the parking lot of the video store, the GPS voice seems to admonish him for his trickery. Comedy aside, various technologies are used to perform morally grey tasks that some would argue as necessary. If we get to the point where computers respond to natural speech and talk back to us, as demonstrated in the Apple commercial we viewed in class, would it be morally wrong to, for instance, have a "personified agent" who mediated the process of putting a bolt through a cow's skull at a slaughterhouse? Who controlled the process of lethal injection? Who wielded the weapons system on a tank? Who fired nuclear missiles? Would we program such technologies with voices and reactions appropriate to their tasks? Would we make them so that we could lessen our guilt over performing such tasks ourselves?

5. What will this lead to in the crazy science fiction world that will inevitably be our future?

OK, so perhaps some of the last question fit more into this category. What future are we working toward in conducting our research? At the surface, these studies wanted to ascertain what effect technologies had on the development of children, but the questions they raised went beyond that for me. Freier offers in his conclusion the following observation: "The implications of the

alternative design [digital models that cannot self-advocate their own rights] are that children will come of age engaging in a significant number of social interactions that lack any moral feature possibly increasing the likelihood that children will not construct a rich understanding of the intimate relationship that exists between social reciprocity and morality." While the study offers conclusive evidence that digital interactions can be optimized to develop morality, as the above questions show, I wonder about the other half of the equation, in which we begin as a culture to ascribe moral agency to our own digital creations.

Do computers have moral rights, or are they limited to the morals we program them to have? Do digital representations of people online have the same rights as their offline counterparts? Can relationships with digital people and animals offer the same benefits as real interactions? Do personified agents dream of AIBO sheep?

Someone Please Think of the Children

As technology progresses and thus results in a change in social norms, it is often the case that we must adapt in order to continue our development. Such is the case of children and technology. Children today have more information at their fingertips than ever before possible, they are constantly connected, and constantly informed of their current circumstances. As designers of technology, and conduits of technology and information, we must take into account this fact of the increasing degree of exposure that the youth of the world has. In no way should it be suggested to censor material, however, that does not mean that we should ignore potential differences and implications in children accessing technology versus that of an adult.

One of the questions posed by Livingstone, poses if the Internet is a distinctive technology. This is a perfectly understandable question, as the Internet is not a physical device or really anything specific. The Internet is simply a series of protocols that allows users to connect to servers and other users, which contain data, for the purpose of exploring content and information. It may not interact with it physically, however we do tend to associate with it as if it were a tangible object, which perhaps can be attributed to the interaction involved with the modern computer. In many cases, it would seem that the computer is viewed less directly as a piece of technology itself, but more of a means to an end, functioning as an interface or point of contact for the user to interact with other pieces of technology, such as software applications or the internet. As such, it can be argued that, indeed, the internet is truly it’s own technology, which can be interacted with through the intermediary of the modern computer (and indeed many other devices as well), bringing the potential for a broad range of interactions with it to the user.

Livingstone also asks if children belong to that of a specific “group”, suggesting that some feel that they might be “accounted for” within other demographics, or by responses given by their parents. As the existence of Internet access in one’s household becomes more common, it is only natural that the everyday interaction with this technology adapt to its ever-presence. It can also be said that, in the past, children have a great potential to learn about new technology, and to interact with it in a much more natural manner than adults, as in many cases it is a technology they are “growing up with”. Learning about said newer technology at a young age, when the brain is still like that of a sponge, facilitates the intuitive and natural interaction that children often have with technology. Livingstone reports “In the UK, recent surveys show that among 7–16-year-olds, 75 percent have used the Internet, a figure which doubled the adult population figure of 38 percent”. Children are using the internet at nearly twice that of the average adult, perhaps it is then no surprise that interactions on the internet are frequently geared towards the fast comprehension and browsing habits of children.

Not only do children frequent the Internet more than the average adult, but their habits when utilizing this time are typically different as well. As we can see in Livingstone, “BMRB’s Youth TGI (2001) showed that the most common uses are studying/homework (73%), email (59%), playing games (38%), chat sites (32%) and hobbies and interests (31%).” However, for adults, we can see that “Looking for information and using email were the two most common online activities of Internet users in 2006. These were done by 85 per cent and 81 per cent of adult users respectively in the three months before interview in 2006.” (NSO). This points to a much larger amount of recreational use on the part of children users, and such interactions should be planned for accordingly. For example, a website such as MSNBC.com, a site that is much more likely to be frequented by adults, contains a wealth of information, however is not necessarily aesthetically appealing, at it is following function over form. Whereas a recreational site that is used by a typically younger audience, such as FACEBOOK.com, has much more emphasis on a cohesive, aesthetically pleasing interaction between itself and all of its different members. Not only are browsing styles and habits different in adults and children, but levels of trust as well. To many adults, the Internet is still a relatively new technology, which results in a certain sense of distrust involving it. Whereas children, as the result of their growing up with it, almost associate a certain naive expectation of trust with the Internet, which can, unfortunately, be easily exploited. As Livingstone points out, “in the UK, NOP’s Kids.net survey found that 29 percent of children using the internet would give out their home address and 14 percent their email address”. This level of trust is a startling thought in this day and age, in which information such as this could be so easily used in a manner in which the user had not desired or intended, even if that means receiving more spam mail.

An idea that seems to finally be gaining some recognition in the world of computing and web design is that indeed, “children are the future”. They are the forerunners, they don’t just spot upcoming trends, and they create them. “Children themselves play a key role in establishing emerging internet-related practices” (Livingstone). Druin also suggests that children potentially have four impacts or roles in the design process: user, tester, informant, and design partner. The latter two roles, informant and design partner, are perhaps the most important of the four. While the prior two give us as designers a framework to design around, the latter give us actual feedback on the interaction and design of the technology we are attempting to implement. As an informant and design partner with children, although they may be the more difficult roles for both the adult and child to fulfill, the information and potential designs and implementations as a result of the roles can be quite rewarding.

So what can we look forward to in the future? I would wager that much more technology and software should become “child-centric”. As the current generation of children grows to a point of power in society, their norms of Internet and technology usage will become the norms, and as such, we must prepare for this. Additionally, even amongst adult users, technology that is often first introduced as children’s technology, such as UI design within video games or movies, has a way of eventually becoming commercialized to an adult audience. This transition once again, enforces the link between what may start as technology intended for children, and moves on to technology for everyone.


Sources:

Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21(1) 1-25.

Livingstone, S. (2003). Children’s use of the internet: Reflections on the emerging research agenda. New Media & Society, 5(2), 147-166.

“National Statistics Online (NSO)”. Usage of Internet. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1711 .

White Space Vote and HCI

As I mentioned in class, the FCC just voted on the White Space issue.  This is important:

FCC Expands Use of Airwaves


Preachers on the pulpit, Guns N' Roses and others who fear their wireless microphones would be disrupted by widespread public access to certain unused airwaves were drowned out by high-tech titans Google and Microsoft in a federal ruling yesterday.
The Federal Communications Commission approved a plan that would allow those airwaves, called white spaces, to be used by gadgets such as cellphones and laptops connected to the Internet once that spectrum becomes available after the national transition from analog to digital television in February.

Ubiquitous Computing Still Hasn't Disappeared

Abowd and Mynatt's (2000) fascinating and prescient article, "Charting Past, Present, and Future Research in Ubiquitous Computing," offers insight not just for ubiquitous computing (ubicomp) researchers but anyone with an interest in technology design for "everyday living," as they put it.  Their essay examines ubicomp work during the 90s and offers a series of useful guidelines for thinking about ubicomp in context as well as recommendations for future research. 

The remarkable diffusion of computing into our physical world represents more than just easily available technology, rather, "it suggests new paradigms of interaction inspired by constant access to information and computational capabilities" (28).  These new interactions are easy to spot, especially in the last few years as mobile platforms like the iPhone have changed the way many people relate to their data as well as how they act in social situations (i.e., taking calls when with a friend, texting while someone is trying to talk to you or my favorite: The play-with-my-phone-to-avoid-the-pain-of-this-awkward-silence game). 

So, how far have we come since 2000?  Abowd and Mynatt argue that, "current systems focus their interaction on the identity of one particular user, rarely incorporating identity information about other people in the environment.  As human beings, we tailor our activities and recall events from the past based on the presence of other people" (37).  I agree with the statement, but times have changed.  We are now deeply involved in the context of others, though often it can be construed as superficial.  Social networks like Twitter and Facebook allow us to broadcast our feelings and daily adventures.  However, is this what the authors had in mind?  Though we have made much "progress" in blending others into our digital lives, most of this information is focused on the present, and in the case of Twitter, it is the micro-present.  Our dominant, seemingly ubiquitous social networks are designed for the present.  Twitter, in particular, is designed to encourage micro-updates of 140 characters maximum. 

Much of our technology is designed for the now, but where is our past represented in the digital ecology?  I argue that we do have an astonishing digital past in the form of email and instant messaging archives.  (text messages are not saved to a central server by default, so they seem, unfortunately, to live in a state of constant disappearance.) Arguably, there has never been a time in history when the historical record has been more complete or rich.  People who would never write thousands of letters do write as many emails, and they are (hopefully) preserved in archives.  The question I have for ubicomp is this: How can we design ubiquitous devices and software to somehow harness the power of our rapidly growing personal archives?  In other words, how (or even should we) incorporate the past into our ubiquitous digital lives?  What could we learn about ourselves if we had a way (if we choose) to harness and easily visualize our past using ubicomp techniques?  The mobile phone seems to be the key.  What if you bought a pack of cigarettes and instead of your phone showing a waring that smoking kills, it popped up with a quote from an email you received three months earlier from your wife that said "Please don't smoke.  I don't want you to get sick."  This would incorporate our present environment, our past and our future health all using ubicomp.   

This particular scene can be usefully broken down using Abowd and Mynatt's five-point framework for thinking about context in ubicomp: 

1. Who: “Current systems focus their interaction on the identity of one particular user, rarely incorporating identity information about other people in the environment" (37). My scenario brings the user and other people in the user's life into context.  Although it's not a "real-time" interaction with your wife, why does it have to be?
2. What: “The interaction in current systems either assumes what the user is doing or leaves the question open” (37). With GPS enabled phones and the emerging use of mobile phones as credit card devices, the device will not have to assume what you are doing.  It will know where you are and what you bought (of course, you could just pay cash).
   
3. Where: “In many ways, the 'where' component of context has been explored more than the others" (37). Obviously, GPS finally solves the problem of “where.”  The key to understanding the importance of “where” depends upon how well our ubiquitous technology appears to us at critical moments and steps in to help.
4. When: “...most context-driven applications are unaware of the passage of time” (37).  Linking context to time is crucial for developing truly aware applications.  In my scenario, the mobile device could use the time of day and GPS to send a warning before the user buys cigarettes.  Say, for example, if it was two o'clock in the morning on a Friday night, and the user enters a convenience store.  The device, based upon a baseline of past activity, might try to warn the user not to buy cigarettes.
5. Why: “Even more challenging than perceiving 'what' a person is doing is understanding 'why' that person is doing it" (37).  Trying to ask “why” a person is doing something does not, to me, seem like a fruitful question for computers to ponder.  Instead, humans should ask these questions about themselves.  However, in my scenario, the computer simply prompts the user using the emotionally charged form of personal email to facilitate reflection about why they are doing what they are doing--right now.  This seems to me the best use of ubicomp and computing in general:  Rather than giving answers, computers should ask better questions and let humans do their own answering. 

As the authors note, HCI tends to design for closure, but everyday computing believes that daily activities "rarely have a clear beginning or end" (43).  This is a critical observation.  Life ebbs and flows, and our technology ought to accommodate our human reality, not constrain us inside of a designer’s assumption box.  

Mark Weiser (1991) wrote that, “The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it” (1).  This is profound guidance for all designers, not just ubicomp.  My sense is that today, too much of my technology is in my face, so to speak.  I want my technology to quietly fade in when called upon, and I want it to leave me alone unless I need it.  The ironic challenge for ubicomp is not to make more stuff but to make more stuff disappear. 

References

Abowd, G. & Mynatt, E. (2000). Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(1), 29-58.

Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94-104.

Ubiquitous Computing

Ubiquitous Computing: A Short Response Essay

The article Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing (Abowd, G. & Mynatt, E., 2000) (cited as "(Chart, 1997)") from this week's readings provides an excellent framework for the topics discussed in the other papers. For this reason, this short response essay will be structured around Abowd, G, et al.'s piece.


Technical Premises

The first topic to consider is the use of natural interfaces for computing interaction. This refers to employing more specialized and meaningful artifacts in greater numbers, rather than a few very general-purpose---and consequently, less intuitive---interfaces for computers, such as the keyboard, mouse, fixed-screen design underlying `modern' computers(Chart, 1997). If the interactions are carried out by artifacts that have a close coupling with "first-class natural data types" such as using a pen to simply mark on a pad, the system is more usable than if it tries to abstract away: for example, converting the handwriting into text(Chart, 1997). Abowd, G, et al. also note that recognition-based interaction is inherently error-prone. Since recognition tasks are necessary at times, this problem should be addressed in three stages. First, designers should strive to refine and improve interfaces wherever possible to reduce errors in the first place(Chart, 1997). In the space where these efforts are insufficient, the system should notify the user of its error discoveries (which can be fed from historical statistics, explicit rules, or confidence threshold triggers)(Chart, 1997). Once the user is apprised of the error, there must obviously be a reasonable error-recovery infrastructure through which they can produce the desired input(Chart, 1997).

The second major topic is computing context-awareness. Context-awareness entails knowledge of who the user is, what the current interaction is, where it is taking place, the current time, and what other things are temporally proximal to an interaction(Chart, 1997). With these cues, an ideal system would be able to establish the most important (as well as most difficult) context---why a user is doing what they are(Chart, 1997).

Establishing context raises a new, non-trivial question---how does one uniformly represent context(Chart, 1997)? Abowd, G, et al. suggest that a "context fusion" provides the right solution by drawing on disparate systems depending on the availability, reliability, and relevance of the constituents in each context(Chart, 1997).

Context is Key by Coutaz, J., Crowley, J., Dobson, S., & Garlan, D. (2005) (cited as "(Context, 2005)") focuses entirely on the topic of context. They first point out that context is not a state, but rather it is entangled in processes(Context, 2005). Failing to regard changes in state can result in surprising and undesirable results, such as a moving person finding a printout spread across each printer he passed because each was the nearest during the transmission of their respective pages(Context, 2005). This suggests that a holistic context is important to consider(Context, 2005). In this model, the printers could estimate where the person would be as the printout completed and therefore route all pages to that printer(Context, 2005). A third concern is the potential for user model deviations from system models(Context, 2005).

To address these issues, Coutaz, J. et al. propose a "Conceptual Framework for Context-Aware Systems." The basis of the framework is a set of finite-state automatons where each state (i.e. each node) represents a context and each transition (i.e. each edge) corresponds to a shift in context. This FSA is altered by a system modeled upon three levels of abstraction(Context, 2005). The lowest, the "sensing" hardware, feeds data to the next, the "perception layer," which in turn produces data for the top layer, the "situation and context identification layer"(Context, 2005). By drawing upon both the current state reported by lower layers and history (as well as other systems), the model can produce a good, useful context in process(Context, 2005).


Key Applications

Assuming this "context fusion" is properly constructed, one of the possible applications would be the provision of "augmented reality," a state in which real-time information is streamed to a user in response to the environment(Chart, 1997).

The natural extension of this ubiquitous computing application is automatic recording, capture, and access to live experience (Chart, 1997). Omni-present video input devices enable hassle-free recording whenever desired, and live exchange of these video feeds can power tele-brainstorming or formal idea exchanges(Chart, 1997). When the video is just fed into a computer, it can power a real-time video overlay in the user's view featuring labeling/status, reference diagrams, or even easy-to-follow situational instructions(Chart, 1997).


Further Considerations

When using computing like this every day, there are special considerations to note. First, many daily uses lack a discernible beginning or end; communication in general is a life-long activity---sub activities should respect this nature either by forgoing discreet-activity-oriented tasks or by minimizing cognitive load so as to avoid interfering with the user's flow of activity(Chart, 1997).

In Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces between People, Bits, and Atoms by Ishii, H. & Ullmer, B. (1997) (cited as "(Tangible, 1997)"), the authors devoted considerable space to this problem of peripheral awareness. The authors explore couplings between digital states and reality including: a vibrating string that represents packets of network traffic; heated metal seats that represent the presence of another person near a microphone/speaker link; and a room equipped with light, water flow, and ambient sound peripheral cues(Tangible, 1997).

For computing to accommodate universality, it must be able to cope with task interruption, which is common and probably unavoidable(Chart, 1997). This means at least saving states of incomplete tasks for later resumption and reminding users of the unfinished task if necessary(Chart, 1997). Related to this, support for multiple concurrent activities is essential; users are variously concious of elements of their environments and a computer must leverage this to integrate well into a user's mental space(Chart, 1997).

When organizing information, it is important to provide associative models when not working on well-defined tasks (which integrate well with hierarchical models)(Chart, 1997). There was an interesting paper on namesys.com (before Hans Reiser went to jail) that discussed the importance of not imposing artificial structure on data because it will destroy accessibility. The user must learn an arbitrary structure (arbitrary for them) to access the data, which is unreasonable. Unfortunately, the paper seems to have disappeared in recent months.

Ubiquitous computing raises a number of social questions. Ownership and control of information that must span numerous contexts, physical and digital, suggests serious conflicts between utility and privacy(Chart, 1997). Additionally, the likely preservation of any recordable action can have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and public participation(Chart, 1997).

A final consideration is how to evaluate ubiquitous systems. Designers must form a compelling user narrative for fulfilling a perceived or real need to justify the system, and more importantly, as a metric by which the system's impact can be measured(Chart, 1997). Further, establishing an authentic context of use for an evaluation is exceedingly difficult, considering the cutting-edge nature of ubiquitous computing, which can confound testing(Chart, 1997). Because of the non-finite-span of daily use (discussed above), task-oriented evaluation techniques are clearly not appropriate tools(Chart, 1997).


Personal Thoughts

Having quite embarrassed myself with my last short response's erroneous criticisms, I have decided to focus on just having an overview of the readings followed by these very tempered questions:

The idea of peripheral context information seems interesting, but I would like to see some research on the psychological effects of exposure to extra stimulus like that compared to being given a quiet, calm workspace.

Also, I wonder if there isn't an advantage to mastering generalized controls for efficiency over the more "natural" physical interfaces. For example, I can type far faster than I can write, and coupled with the shortcuts/functions of vim I believe I can trounce a user who is tied to physical manipulations to interact with an editor. Perhaps an approach more like what's in Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End is closer to the ideal.

Quick Link for an Article Related to Distributed Cognition

Related to this video, http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/yochai_benkler_on_the_new_open_source_economics.html

I was reminded of this article I read a while back
http://www.shirky.com/herecomeseverybody/2008/04/looking-for-the-mouse.html

It’s All About Performance

Short Response Essay by Lillian Spina-Caza

Computer Technologies Designed for Performance

Whether it be the performance of particular tasks using mainframes in the 1960s for “filling airline seats…or printing payroll checks” (Grudin, 19), or for improving performance of individuals through word processing or spreadsheet applications using minicomputers in the 1970s, computer technologies have always been designed with performance in mind. It is a given that for organizations to perform well, all of the systems, processes and people supporting them need to perform well, thus making optimal performance a critical organizational goal. It wasn’t until the mid-1980s and the advent of computer-supported cooperative work or CSCW, however, that the meaning of performance shifted -- from performance as task or functionality -- to performance as social or group endeavor. Once dialogue between people became privileged over dialogue between systems, communication evolved as a critical component of cooperative work, thus it is no surprise that technologies such as Internet, email, video and audio conferencing, and text tools like instant messaging (IM) and chat were quickly adopted for business applications.

As Olson and Olson (2007) write in the Handbook on page 546, “groupware [as] software designed to run over a network in support of the activities of a group or organization for carrying out activities,” was originally made to provide greater geographic and temporal flexibility. It was also created with new modes of socializing in mind. Some of the new social communication technologies that emerged were successful (email, IM, and chat) while others – like video conferencing – were not as widely embraced (548). The reason why some communication technologies are better received than others, according to Olson and Olson is, I would also argue, directly tied to performance. A/V problems associated with poor audio, poor video, camera placement, ac or noise interference, and delay issues, have all resulted in poor acceptance of video conferencing as a technology. Ironically, as Olson and Olson point out, video does not produce the “being there” phenomenon that many had hoped for (553). The expense and effort of producing quality video currently outweigh the benefits of using this technology to establish social presence. Performance is critical to the successful adoption of any technology, new or old.

Social Actors and their Props

With the emergence of groupware applications in the mid-1980s, “the social, motivational, and political aspects of workplaces become crucial” (Grudin, 22); in other words, one might say the drama behind the scenes took center stage. Whereas the mainframe was once the only stage for all of the critical action, now it was individuals performing in concert with each other – using technology – who found themselves in the limelight. Grudin (1994) points out when the move to networked PCs and workstations became widespread, new markets opened up for groupware to support communication and coordination. This move resulted in a paradigm shift away from off the shelf, single-user products to computer support for groups, requiring developers to consider “group dynamics for the first time” (22). Instead of placing computers in leading roles (i.e., as “mainframes” or main characters), people interacting with computers came to be viewed as actors, the tools they work with taking on secondary or supporting roles. It is understandable why the “actors” at this new stage of technological development also became the central focus of new product design centered on activity practices.

Christiansen (1996) suggests activity “is the term for the process through which a person creates meaning in her practice…” (177). Once activity became tied to meaning-making, it also became important to realize how tools as artifacts are situated or contextualized within activity to create meaning. As Christiansen explains, “You may observe and interview actors in a community of practice, but you will not come to understand why they use the artifacts the way they do until you have come to understand what kinds of activity are used in their practice” (177); this type of understanding is at the heart of participatory design. It is no wonder then, if people are viewed as “acting” with technology, that the performance metaphor stretches to include designers, who like the technologies they create, play key supporting roles. In addition to learning from “economists, social psychologists, anthropologists, organizational theorists, educators, and anyone else who shed light on group activity” as Grudin suggests, product developers also began following the performance metaphor along its natural trajectory, turning to drama and theater to gain new insights about human actors and the activities they engage in when using computer technologies.

Performance Sets the Stage for Participatory Design

It is not surprising that the performance metaphor shapes a “third space” or place where product developers can learn more about the practices associated with activity. As Muller explains in “Participatory Design,” third space experiences are hybrid experiences or “practices that challenge assumptions, are open to reciprocal learning, and facilitate polyvocal or many-voiced discussions across and through differences" (1062). One way designers can gain insights into why people use artifacts the way they do requires, as Christiansen points out, a better understanding of the kinds of activity are used in their practice – the use of drama and videos or the tools of performance can aid in this type of exploration. Muller suggests a number of techniques borrowed from theatre that are valuable for bringing to light activity practices, including ideas suggested by Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed (1974, 1992) that aid a group or community to find its voice(s) and articulate its position(s) (Muller, 1071).

Other helpful dramatic tools used for creating third space experiences to inform design practices include: “Forum theater” or a type of theater where non-professional actors perform skits with less than desirable outcomes in front of interested parties, and audience members become authors and directors who can alter skits to achieve desired outcomes (1071). “Tableau” is a technique where performers are told to freeze during play and are asked to describe what they are “doing, thinking, planning, and hoping” (1071). “Interface Theatre,” created by Muller et al. in 1994, has software professionals act out user interfaces in a large auditorium, using the theatrical stage as the screen where each actor plays the role of a concrete interface component (i.e., Kim the Cursor, Marty the Menubar, and so forth). Another participatory design practice adopting “performance” as a method for improving design is the “Situated and Participative Enactment of Scenario” that asks designers to take part in a “projective series of improvisations with 'the magic' thing in users’ homes and workplaces” (Muller, 1071). All of these techniques are performance-driven, much like the people and technologies they are used to describe. Performance, it can be claimed, is a metaphor that comes full circle in the realm of HCI.


Sources:

Christiansen, E. (1996). “Tamed by a Rose: Computers as Tools in Human Activity.” In Nardi, B. A. Context and Consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. (pp. 175-198). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Grudin, J. “Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: History and focus.” IEEE. May 1994.

Muller, M.J. (2007). “Participatory Design: The third space in HCI.” In Sears, A. & Jacko, J. (Eds.). The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, 2nd Edition. (pp. 1061-1082). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Olson G. & Olson J. (2007). Groupware and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. In Sears, A. & Jacko, J. (Eds.). The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, 2nd Edition. (pp. 545-558). Lawrence Erlbaum.