What Next?

A few days ago I happened to see a video of Professor Pattie Maes presenting at the TED conference on youtube and I was amazed to see the work that she is doing(I have included the same video above) Later I wondered is this really what we need. Definitely it will be useful to communicate with our devices for meta information as referred by prof. Maes, however when I saw a young man getting information about his friend without talking to him inspite of being present alive in front of him I somehow did not appreciate it. The reason is because I felt that using technology for purpose like this may change our natural ability to speak and interact. I feel that it will hinder the natural process of human development. I feel technology should be used wisely as well as smartly. Technology is growing and no doubt surpassing human intelligence but it is still in our hand to use it wisely. Norman says that “In the market-driven economies, new services are continually being offered to public, not because there is a demand but because the companies need to increase their sales.pp. 157”. Here again the same question arises do we need technology to rule us or we need technology to facilitate us. I think we need to decide what we really "need the technology for" and not "what we want the technology to do" for us. I feel it is a fair idea to implement technology that will facilitate us and that does not make us handicapped. Norman talks about robot teaching our kids, i am using some computer voices in my recent project and i feel that they are very unhuman without emotiona and too mechanical, my question here is will the robot sound as close as human voice in the near future. If yes, than according to me it can be a neat idea for teaching kids at home while parents are at work. Norman further states that “Smart technologies have the capacity to enhance pleasure; simplify lives, and add to our safety. If only they could really work flawlessly; if only we could learn how to use them.—156” which is what he is being saying in all all his books, technology must be user friendly and should meets user expectations to survive for long run.

Calm technology – Feedbacks that informs without overburdening

Every instructional designer is taught about the significance of providing feedbacks. The importance of providing effective feedbacks in computer-based learning is well known to instructional designers since the advent of the discipline. However today educational technologist are attempting to change the face of computers they are experimenting on innovative ways in which computer technologies can be used in different forms for example the palmtops. While attempting to use these new innovations, it is valuable to take two cents from Norman on how to provide feedbacks.
In the readings this week Norman advocates the type of feedbacks that informs users without overburdening them. To elucidate his point he provides example of machines and applications that can presents feedbacks in calming and irritating modes. According to me this two cents are also applicable to the principles of instructional design.
A very recent example that I can think of, is an educational software that is being developed for school children. The software is game, which is designed to inform the consequences of war. The students are expected to play the roles of soldiers and are expected to make critical decisions. These critical decisions are made on a computer screen, which are called the decision stations the actual computers are hidden, and the students are not aware of the backend that is being used. The screen presents the students a graphical interface, here the student has to use sliders and meter gauzes to understand the implications of their decision.
When these decisions stations were first tested with a group of students, it was found that the students were struggling to find the cues and waiting for feedbacks for interacting with the interface. However it failed to provide them with the necessary feedback. This reminds me of the Newton system that failed to meet the user expectations, as it remained silent on users incorrect method of using the system. In the case of the decision station I could observe the same thing was happening. Here the technology was challenging the students by being silent. One good thing was that the product was still in its testing phase and will be improve upon…this experience also establishes the importance of usability testing in instructional design.

thanks for reading

Augmenting or Automomous?

“Augmenting tools are comforting; for they leave the decisions about activities to people” Opposed to Autonomous things “that attempt to infer the intentions of people”.
Norman in this chapter talks about smart homes that can remind us of our daily tasks; help us make decisions; keep us informed about the happening in the house and what not.The readings this week intrigued me to explore Smart home technologies and to my surprise I found galore of information on the internet. Homes that can help you make wise decision about the clothing you should wear depending on the weather outside. The walls that can transform according to the whims and fancies of the person staying inside....



An aesthetically designed kitchen with an island which is a computerized, a digital notice board that informs about the resources that are being consumed in house, it makes a list of grocery that can be negotiated to the smart phone......



Norman talks about two different homes, one that makes people smart and the other that is smart by itself. According to me the former is built around the principles of augmented technologies while the later is autonomous. Given a choice I would prefer to stay in a house which uses augmented technologies because in that case I have a choice to make my own decisions the technology just helps me meet my desire. However in the case of autonomous houses the technology will not sense my desire rather it will just track my physical motions and act accordingly. I feel what Norman wants to put forth here is that automation rules out the possibility of human involvement in controlling technology further empowering the technology over humans. Whereas augmentation, still helps us retain the symbiotic relationship between technology and humans.

thanks for reading

How much and how far?

WESTJET FLIGHT SIMULATOR

How much and how far? I think its all about it. How much should we rely on technology and automation and how far will it meet our expectations. Should we get into the loop or completely avoid it. Many questions filled my mind as I read Norman's chapter four “Servants of our Machines” The following piece of content grabbed my attention this week.

“In theory, a person could still be in the loop, stay full aware of the situation, even with completely automated equipment, by continually monitoring the vehicles actions and assessing the situation being ready to step in when needed.”

Norman refers it to as “Situational Awareness”. This triggered my memories of the field visit last week to the West Jet flight Simulator. It was a WOW experience. I got into the plane sat besides the captain and had the pleasure of a mesmerizing tour over Calgary. I am sure that a number of principles and theories are deployed in developing a close to reality model/simulation and the one that I associated with the West Jet model was “situational awareness”. Coming back to what Norman says about situational awareness, and what I understand from my learning is that it is about perception, comprehension and prediction. What do you perceive from the environment? How do you comprehend the perceived event? And what and how do you predict and deal with that particular event in future or rather how you interact with such a kind of event in future. The point of concern here is that, Norman talks about the fully automated cars of the future that will provide us the luxury of not holding the steering, twisting and turning but according to the principles of situational awareness we have to be vigilant like pilots are while flying the plane. The plane is fully automated but pilots are constantly monitoring its actions and control it with their eyes pealed. It will be good to have a car like that but I think that the fully automation will have other demands for us it will generate a list of things that we have to watch and monitor in our car so that it give us a safe ride. We will have to be vigilant about each and every move it makes for us and maintain a symbiotic relationship after all it is a matter of our life.
Thanks for reading

Movie Making -Tribute to Slumdog Millionaire

This week’s article gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the movie SlumDog Millionaire-awarded by the Oscar Academy as the best film of the year 2008.

It was an amazing experience while watching the Oscar Award ceremony, heart started beating louder until the name of the best movie for the year 2008 was announced and yes it was “SlumDog Millionaire”. Almost whole of the cast and the crew was on the stage. What a team work!. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJRzk2WfOAo) Currently a lot of information about the movie is available on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slumdog_Millionaire. The readings this week and the victory of the movie has intrigued me to know more about movie making. I pondered on the similarities that exist between a movie making industry and organisations that are engaged in developing digital educational content. Both employ team work. Infact the positions and the responsibilities of team working for developing digital educational content share a lot of similarities with that of the movie making team. It will be interesting to compare and contrast the features of both the segments. Apart from the methods similarities exists between the tools that are used for example the videos. I think there is a lot of scope for instructional designers to learn from the process of movie making especially at this time when instructional designers are encouraged to become the architects of their design. Do the movie making industry use any development model?

Coming back to the reading this week which brings in light the important aspects and considerations for video based instructions I agree with the following quote “Video is comparatively expensive and difficult to develop, so it should only be used when it serves a specific instructional purpose, or enhances the likelihood of learning.” The process of developing a video is painstaking. There are many things we should know, when to use and how to use, videos are time consuming and very expensive. The phases of video development demand intense work. The tips and tools discussed in the reading makes one realise the considerations and tradeoffs to be done for keeping up with the quality and the medium of delivery. Therefore it is important to understand the need for the video based instruction before implementing it as a element of content. This belief matches with the second quote which says “Select video only when you can't accomplish the same thing with a still picture. It is truly amazing how much video material serves no instructional (or as far as we can tell, aesthetic) purpose.”

The evolution of useful things

I found the article on “the evolution of useful things” very engaging. It was interesting to know how social scientist like Basalla, Forty, Giedion, Pye, Alexander et al. have different views about evolution of things. Before I begin on the quotes that enthused my thinking I would like to admit that these social scientist have entirely different perspective in looking at useful commodities. They have in a way inspired me to looks at things differently.
--The first quote
“Basalla admits that, Whereas natural things arise out of random natural processes, made things come out of purposeful human activity”
While Basalla talks about the concept of organic evolution he makes the distinction clear between the physical world and the natural world. For him the evolution of things in the physical world is always with a purpose. Right besides I can see two calculators, one is the normal calculator and another is a scientific calculator. The main interface of the calculators is the same however the scientific calculator over the normal calculator seems to be a purposeful design, which will be used by an engineer. I did not go beyond my workstation and I am sure I will find better examples. I think Basalla makes sense
--The second quote
Forty states that “the new designs require new tools for assembly and disassembly, and these new tools in turn enable still further new designs to be realized”
I am convinced by Forty, the refrigerator, the hammer, the computer hardware, the furniture almost everything that we see in daily life fit as an example for his quote.
--The third quote
Gideon’s explanation with respect to the invention of the new chair goes this way “the development of the new patent furniture was thus in response to a new need which happily coincided with a concentration of creativity among ingenious designers”.
This is tricky I think I will have to scratch my brain. I do not agree with his point of view of design by coincidence? Is this what he means.
--The fourth quote
I would like to mention Alexander’s view of fitting form to context, which involves a normal person in the process of evolution of design.
“We should always expect to see design as a negative process of neutralizing the incongruity or irritants or forces which case misfit.”
I liked it because Alexander further expands it giving us the freedom to critic a design without expecting to implement the change that we have suggested. It means, if we have noticed a misfit and if we cannot fix it we can refer to the craftsmen who is simply considered as an agent. The discussion seems to be endless however I would like to make a note of the following quote in my Design Diary

“Misfit provides an incentive to change: good fit provides none”

Animation for Designer

Designer titbit

In the pot of knowledge of visual design I am entering the following points that I gathered from this weeks reading. I will begin by adhering to Reibers’s suggestion to stick the following three considerations on my computer by noting them on my blog.
•Animation should be used only when it is consistent with the learning task.
•The influence of animation on learning is subtle. (It should be used to help learners visualize processes involving motion that would be difficult to visualize on their own.)
•Computer-based animation may be used to attract attention as much as it is to provide direct instruction

Additionally the following aspects of visual design were worth noting,

•For an instructional developer it is important to know what functions the animation is expected to provide whether it will serve effective function to improve a student's attitude toward learning or whether it will serve cognitive function to directly enhance the ability of students to learn from instructional materials.
•Animation is the persistence of vision that reveals static pictures in rapid sequence.
•Basically there are three types of animation: frame-based animation, morphing and 3-d animations.
•Abundant researches reports positive affects and also the negative affects of animation
•Interesting researches maintains:
-Preferences of animations over text and vice versa
-Animations serve recall but does enhance comprehension
-Animations are appropriate for representing concepts involving time and motion.
-Animation communicates those ideas involving time and motion better than text does.

I personally would suggest a usability test with the actual users to ensure the requirement of animated form of instruction. The article this week had intrigued my interest in cybernetic environment.


Thoughts for design Guru
The chapter on “The psychology of people and machines” as reading for this week was sort of funny. I thought for a while that Norman is passionate about bringing emotions in future machines. Until now I thought I was on the same page as Norman was however after reading the article this week I am struggling to understand what and how much should we expect from our future machines. Norman talks about brining the machines to the common grounds with us or letting it set a benchmark for us. But is it really required? I appreciate the need of machines to have goals set for them like humans do, to the extent that the machine is providing a helping hand for eg. It’s a good reason for a machine to set a goal to repair a retina of a human being. I whole-heartily welcome the idea of machines being intelligent to the extent that they sense danger, they inform the owner about the danger and further accept the idea of symbiotic relationship that a machine should have with humans. However I somehow disagree with the idea of letting the machine decide for me the best route that I should take. According to me it’s a good idea asking for a suggestion. The house example given by Norman to keep us updated with the happenings around is extreme. I doubt on relying on machines to decide what’s happening in the world and what actions are best. Before coming to a conclusion on whether machines should have emotions I think we need to draw lines. I see no harm in a “handshake” where machines and humans work together to accomplish a task that is really meaningful and constructive. Technology as we know is a two-edged sword. We need to be careful before relying on machines to let them take critical decisions in our life.