You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Final Paper’ category.

Here is my first argument outline. It has plot holes and I am trying to find out more. Please feel free to critique and give your opinions on what you think. Nathan already gave me a few pointers

 

Basic Argument:

Computers need to have emotional Intelligence 

  •  Emotion is part of the context
    • We are not always rational: We are emotive beings to think that when we are interacting with a computer we are always in a neutral state is not very in situ!
    • Desiderata and Sociability:  Explanation of context and why problem solving is not enough
    • Example: Nathan trying to find the temporary saved file when his computer crashed. .Using desiderata framework
  • Need based design produces incomplete solutions
    • Usability and Functionality is not enough
    • Pleasure is important for day to day design: What is pleasurable and how need based design does only thinks of it as aesthetics
    • Example: Jeff interacting with Cortana.

 

  • We are in an abusive relationship with computers (I will write a better claim once it makes sense)
    • We are emotionally invested in computers: We are natural meaning makers, we associate everything with a personality.  
    • Our computer are not invested in us: Computers trigger similar social interactions as people, but do not reciprocate.
    • Example: It’s like talking to a zombie!

 

  • We already know that emotive computers work
    • Science Fiction Theory and its awesomeness: what we know from sci fiction theory and how it helps us speculate. In combination with desiderata.  
    • Example: R2d2, HER. Using SF theory framework and ACT framework what can we learn about them.

 

So I already know certain things I need to read (thanks to Nathan). Here are the things that I have read, the italicized are the ones just recommended.

[1] Don Norman: Emotional Design (the whole book!)

[2] Bardzell and Bardzell: Great and troubling beauty

[3] Nelson and Stolterman: Desiderata, Design Way

[4] Trevor Van Gorp, Edie Adams: Design for Emotion. (The whole book)

[5] Crampton and Smith: Design for everyday life

[6] Picard  Affective Computers

[7] switch: its a book on emotional intelligence

So what are your thoughts, comments, concerns?

  • Major Claim: That Video Game Controllers designed for people with physical disabilities should be more aesthetically pleasing.

o   Currently we live in a world that is difficult for people with physical disabilities to play video games.

  • There are few solutions
    • List & Describe some of the solutions
  • There are only a few companies that actually make video game controllers.
    • These company’s offerings tend to be very similar in form factor and aesthetics to the first-party controller.

o   Video Game Controllers are more than just invisible ergonomic devices

  • Aesthetics and Desires matter and are very important.
  • “At this juncture, we want to emphasize that with any of the preceding approaches, there are problems with focusing too heavily on need as key human motivation for change or innovation. Need implies that the desired situation is clearly understood, and that the real state of affairs, which is clearly understood, is an undesired one.”
  • “Our understanding of motivation, triggered by what we believe to be desirable—in other words, desiderata assessment—as opposed to what we need, remains remarkably underdeveloped.”
  • Kari Kuti’s triple mediatedness of artefacts

o   A Video game controller that is aesthetically pleasing is the Razer Sabertooth controller

  • Noel Carroll’s Framework
  • Look at Aesthetics of video game controllers through Sensual-phenomenological, Conceptual-hermeneutical, Contextual-discursive,

o   Accessible video game controllers are not aesthetically pleasing and focus on functionality.

  • This follows a trend set by other accessibility devices where they are focused on functionality and ignore the aesthetic values of the artifact.

o   Aesthetic accessibility video game controllers can lead to inclusivity in video gaming.

  • Our ability to communicate our shared experiences with others allows us to form tighter social bonds
    • Engestrom’s activity system model has the triangle mediated by subject, object, and community.

o   This includes, rules, people, tools, and the division of labor leading to an outcome.

  • Enjoyment of video games
  • “In short, we are collectively asking what it means to live in this electronic world we are creating, whether this world reflects our values, who is entering into this world that we are designing and whom we are living behind. These questions are at least as philosophical as they are technological.”

o   I have shown that video games controllers need to be more aesthetically pleasing and that it is desirable that we should live in a world that has these aesthetic video game controllers.

  • What I have done here can also be used to evaluate other technologies and artifacts that are designed for people with physical disabilities and there is a wider conversation that needs to be had.

 

Yeah, so I am a little behind, but I am moving I think in the right direction. I am currently doing the brainstorming session and trying to make sense of things and need a little help with frameworks that I could potentially use.

So primary claim (it may change) is that computers/robots need to have emotional intelligence to better understand context and provide appropriate responses.

As examples, I am going to use r2d2 and c3p0 from science fiction (using Jeff’s paper as framework for analysis)

And then for real examples, I am going to use Google, Siri and Cortana as examples. I was thinking about using the “A.C.T” model used in Design for Emotion:

Attract

  • Processed unconsciously and automatically (Reptilian brain)
  • Aesthetics of the product (i.e., sight, sound, smell, touch, movement, and
  • color)
  • Whether users’ find the aesthetics appealing
  •  Pleasures and passions the aesthetics provide

Converse

  • Processed unconsciously and automatically (Mammalian brain)
  • How the product interacts and behaves (i.e., ease of use)
  •  Whether the product meets up to users’ standards
  •  Benefits that come from use and the completion of tasks
  •  Feelings of intimacy and connection

Transact

  • Processed consciously—can override unconscious (Neomammalian brain)
  • Based on the attribution of personality communicated through the qualities of
  • the aesthetics and interaction
  • The product’s contributions to our self-image and identity
  •  Benefits that come from the completion of goals
  • Feelings of trust leading to commitment

 

I am probably not going to use the Transact part of the model. Is there any other framework we did in class that you think can be helpful?

On a positive note, I have 2500 words in block quotes!

After an emotional and much needed chat with Jeff- I crumpled up my papers  (skeuomorphically, into my mac book’s trash) and started in a new direction that I finding I am much better suited for.

My new topic is something along the lines of: What can UbiComp learn from museums. Probably per Yvonne Rogers reassessment of Weiser’s vision, in which she calls for the following:

“I propose one such alternative agenda which focuses on designing UbiComp technologies for engaging user experiences. It argues for a significant shift  from proactive computing to proactive people; where UbiComp technologies are designed not to do things for people but to engage them more actively in what they currently do”

 

I wanted to share an experience I had today while researching for my paper. I went to the IMA, just to see what I could find. I actually felt sort of guilty taking time out of my day to do something fun, do you all feel like research doesn’t count if you’re not sitting in front of a pile of papers? Anyways, I sat in the Robert Indiana show decided to sit down and let myself see what would happen. I wrote down notes and observations. And feverishly at that… like, my friend was probably embarrassed to be near me and my hand hurt from writing. This went on for an hour and a half. I had so much to say and so many things just came to me. I had done some reading about UbiComp Friday night (a really cool way to fill a Friday night) and with that on my brain, so much started clicking.

Afterwards, the museum’s Audience Interpretation Director came up to me because she noticed me taking notes. She gave me some awesome insights and suggested some new sources. She is going to email me some internal case studies, as well (score!). I feel really good about this direction. It feels clear and bright and all those good fuzzy feelings.

Hope all of your paper are going well. I totally recommend leaving a desk and going out into your space (if possible). It felt like cheating, because I actually enjoy my topic.

– julia

So I just finally pieced together what I want to do and am currently pulling quotes from different papers. The basic idea comes from Don Norman’s Emotional Design.

When machines display emotions, they provide a rich and satisfying interaction with people, even though most of the richness and satisfaction, most of the interpretation and understanding, comes from within the head of the person, not from the artificial system

I basically want to argue that emotional intelligence is important for the future developments of computers and robots. I will contrast R2D2 and C3P0 with Siri and Cortana (apple and Windows phone) and show the difference in interactions of systems that are capable of emotional intelligence vs systems that only interpret commands.

For example, the other day Jeff Gadzala was showing off Cortana and was trying to get Cortana make a reference to the video game. Unfortunately, Cortana took him literally (“Cortana can you tell me about Master Chief”) and gave him a wiki answer! In this situation for example, had his phone been able to recognize the emotions (casual, joking), it would have been able to offer a joke or two!

I am probably going to dissect each example based on the readings (Sutcliff, McCarthy and Wright, Folkman, Bradzell and Bradzell) and show why emotional intelligence is important.

My question is, does this seem reasonable and narrowed down enough? Are there any seminal papers that I am missing out? Other thoughts and concerns?

Hey everyone, I’m in the process of working through the draft of my argument for my paper, and would love to get some feedback. This is all very rough, so feel free to ask for clarification on anything that doesn’t make sense. As a point of reference, I plan to take the ultimate findings from the process of writing this paper (namely the schema and/or persuasive patterns I uncover from my research) to inform the latter half of my capstone project on Dark Patterns.

 

Transactional trust towards a charity is earned over time, not inherently given, and is a byproduct of interactions that occur within the context of a user’s donation experience. (THE WHAT)

  • Trust is built through the fulfillment of promises. This includes the promises you’ve actually made to someone explicitly (e.g., contracts and commitments) as well promises that that are assumed or implicit (e.g., “this website isn’t selling my data”). (van Gorp and Adams, p107)
  • Principle of Earned Credibility: Credibility can be strengthened over time if computing technology performs consistently in accordance with the user’s expectations. (Fogg, p137)
  • The building and maintenance of transactional trust should be considered a pivotal stepping stone to increased donation compliance within an online donating framework. Instead of considering trust and donation compliance as mutually exclusive concepts, commercially driven issues of donation generation should be considered alongside the psychological concept of transactional trust. (Burt, C.D. and Gibbons, S. p192)

The trailing of charity websites to adopt modern e-commerce practices, coupled with the rapid rise of moral commodification of charitable giving has resulted in a unique set of problems of persuasion with respect to interface design. (THE WHY)

  • [G]iving to charity has been characterised as ‘the monetary purchase of moral satisfaction’ undertaken for the egoistic reason of wanting to feel better…The gift conveys a symbolic statement about the person that fits in with his or her self-identify. (Bennett, p120)
  • Overall the findings indicated that there was a lack of strategic intent to harness the potential of online social networks and evidence that charities are not mirroring the adoption of digital media that has occurred in the external environment in which they operate (Slater et al., 2010). There exists a lack of consumer orientation because charities have not embraced digital communications to the same extent as either their target audiences or for-profit based businesses. (Quinton and Fennemore, pp 44-45)
  • In the USA, internet donations for tsunami relief in 2004 accounted for more than a third of the total amount raised. Half of all the donations received following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 were given online (NFG, 2006). It follows from the above that charity managers have become increasingly interested in the website designs and online fundraising tactics that are most likely to maximise the frequencies and levels of online donations. (Bennett, p117)
  • …[I]t is recognized by some (but perhaps not all) that charities are not businesses and therefore reading across and imposing private sector governance frameworks to the charity sector may not be appropriate, and indeed may be counter-productive. (Hyndman and Jones, p153)
  • A needs-based change, animated through a problem-solving approach, assumes that the right outcome is known from the start…Desire is the destabilizing trigger for transformational change, which facilitates the emergence of new possibilities and realizations of human “being.” (Nelson and Stolterman, p110)

A semiotic analysis of the design patterns used in charity websites will yield greater insight into their functions of address, and how the emotive modalities of a website (i.e. its interactivity) can establish a relationship between the donor and the charity. (THE HOW)

  • The ability to use various modalities enables technology to match people’s preferences for visual, audio, or textual experiences. Technology can also create a synergistic effect by combining modes, such as audio, video, and data, during an interaction to produce the optimum persuasive impact. (Fogg, p9)
  • Wider information, particularly relating to performance, is probably paramount in discharging accountability to donors; and this will require the telling of ‘the story’ of the charity (often from the perspective of beneficiaries—if it is possible to operationlize such a perspective. (Hyndman and Jones, p152)
  • Principle of Surface Credibility: People make initial assessments of the credibility of computing technology based on firsthand inspection of surface traits like layout and density of ads. (Fogg, p135)
  • As Forlizzi and Battarbee (2004, p. 264) put it, “emotions affect how we plan to interact with products, how we actually interact with products, and the perceptions and outcomes that surround those interactions.” (van Gorp and Adams, p39)

A framework is needed to better understand the user cognitive patterns that emerge in context, resulting in effective emotive persuasion. (THE CONTRIBUTION) 

  • Principle of “Real-World Feel”: A Web site will have more credibility if it highlights the people or organization behind the content and services it provides. (Fogg, p156)
  • [There are] four developmental stages of organisational websites: contact, interact, transact and relate. At the ‘contact’ level, websites are largely about promoting an image and providing general levels information; at the ‘interact’ level, there is evidence of of targeting specific audiences; at the ‘transactional’ engagement level, websites facilitate online purchasing; and at the ‘relational’ level, sites develop two‐way consumer relationships. (Burt and Gibbons, p192)
  • [There are] strong positive correlations between rated transactional trust and donation compliance ratings…consistent with the idea that building transactional trust in an aid agency is likely to lead to more productive fundraising outcomes (Burt and Gibbons, p191)

 

I’ll post more about my influential sources and such later…but this is where I’m at right now.

 

 

For my final paper I kinda wanted to revisit Folkmann, but I am unsure if this is enough for the purposes of the paper.

So here is sort of the breakdown of what Jeff talked about in class yesterday with regards to my overarching topic: Interaction design in public spaces

Note this is sort of the Why of my capstone, but I can’t separate them…

  • Why
    • Throughout my life, I have had the opportunity to visit various cities and countries, as well as many museums in different places. The interactive installations and public art projects I have experienced have left a big impression on me. While these events have been impactful on the way I see the world, I believe these type of projects are scarce, in the sense that public spaces are normally quite static. I want to bridge this gap, and create everyday aesthetic experiences. My interest in ubiquitous computing and embodied interactions fit in this space, as I see an opportunity to bring interactive experiences into public spaces, and add to the aesthetic quality of life.
    • The why in terms of contribution, I do see a trend in more tangible interactions in space. Be an app that guides you through a store, or in-store experiences, I think technology embedded in our environments is in a way inevitable, but the execution could be overwhelming and overbearing, or well executed and aesthetic.
  • What
    • I seek to understand how public installations create meaning and build memorable experiences for people, with the aim of providing design principles for ubiquitous technology.  Too broad ? (perhaps)
  • How
    • I think the how is what might be different to my capstone, since there I am building something, and have talked to ppl and done a bunch of primary research. I think in understanding several designs more in depth, and I think Follkmann is a way in that seemed more natural for the type of design (meaning looking at sensual-phenomenological, conceptual-hermeneutical, and contextual discursive platforms). So would looking at say 5 installations and break them down into their components, and see what patterns emerge be enough? (what say you?) I think an underlying claim is that in understanding how installations create such experiences, we can design better ubiquitous technology or something like that.

So in terms of what things I need to look into, it would be something like:

  • Explain Folkmann’s platforms
  • Show why it ties well to this type of designs, or why I think it can be used (find the value in a way)
  • Find if someone has used this for some other ulterior motive(s)
  • Talk about 1 example of how it is used
  • Summarize findings from doing this 5 times or so

I think the paper structure I am using as a basis is the defamiliarization paper (explain what technique is, how it is used in some cases, drop some principles).

Any concerns/criticisms/worries/show stoppers you can see?

 

I’ve really struggled with choosing something to write about for the final paper. I tried a collection/survey approach with my prewriting as practice for the type of paper I thought I wanted to write later in the semester. The prewriting was a total botch job, and I’ve been in a holding pattern since then. Thankfully, Jeff’s diagram in class today helped me put the pieces together of something else that’s been floating around my mind for a while. This paper might be a chance to dig into it further.

I’d like to make the claim that digital learning applications, services, and technologies represent the means to begin thinking about new ways to approach education at all levels. I cite Khan Academy, Duolingo, Wikipedia, & Glerb as examples. These are also the interactions/designs I’m interested in exploring in my paper – specifically, their educational components (more obvious in Khan, Duolingo, & Glerb than Wikipedia, perhaps).

Based on my survey of these designs, I’d use the paper to propose one possible “new way” to think about education. While I’m sure my thinking will evolve once I’ve done a more careful analysis of the designs, my existing knowledge of this space suggests that I may be able to reference the same Monroe Beardsley quote Jeff shared in Foundations, and that served as early inspiration in my Capstone problem framing:

“We must be careful not to lose sight of our main purpose, which is not primarily to increase our knowledge of the arts, but to improve our thinking about them.”

I think digital learning tools may give us the means to restructure the role brick and mortar schools and universities play in education. How can we use the very different but equally valuable strengths of modern technology and physical classrooms in concert to improve education?

Some readings I’d leverage off the top of my head: Bardzell IC paper, the recent Barnard reading, perhaps ‘Cinema as Skin & Touch’, probably Carroll, and probably the Design Way.

I’m having trouble focusing my thinking, but I also only put all this together myself a few hours ago. What do you think? How can I scope down the discourse I’ll need to work through? What frameworks of analysis might you recommend to help understand the value, educational or otherwise, of a design within the scope I’ve defined here? Is this a bad idea for a paper?

I am still playing around with my final paper topic somewhat, but I am thinking something in respect to what I want to call the post-Facebook political campaign (Mitch writing about political campaigns? Who would have thought?).  Here is what I’m thinking about and my basis:

In 2008, the Obama Campaign used social media heavily as a campaign tool to get the name and positions out there, much more and effective than, say the McCain Campaign.  However, since then, the use of social media has dropped off, in fact, did we really see that much of a push on social media to sign up on HealthCare.gov?  The Obama Administration appeared to have moved on from social media campaigns, other than a few paid Facebook ads here and there.  What happened? Are we now moving backwards to what it was before 2008?  How are we going to capture the youth vote now if they are moving away from social media?  Why are we moving away from social media?

My favorites are the Twitter trends which are many times put together by Super PACs to make it look as if everyone is feeling a certain way nationally on Twitter in an effort to persuade younger voters to be more conservative or liberal, but do these really have an effect?

That is where I am at with my paper. Right now. Exploring what I have already observed and personally think this is a topic I could shape into my capstone project.

Any thoughts?

It is my intent to start the bulk of my pre-write this Sunday for my paper. I have been pondering about the idea for my paper for a bit of time and I keep circling back to the idea of aesthetics and accessibility designs. I remember when it first entered my mind when I argued in front of Eli that the collection of accessibility-minded video game controllers were aesthetically ugly. He challenged me on that idea and I couldn’t think of answer on the spot. This thought has gone through numerous different ideas where at one point I was questioning whether it was ethical to design a one-handed video game controller. I have been looking at one other designers have designing in this space, including the post Zan made earlier on Facebook and Scott’s Prosthesis legs. However while I feel I could be looking harder, I haven’t found many other examples that are beyond a “utilitarian focus.” So it may be a direction on my final paper. However, a working prejudice I have working in my head is that aesthetics in accessibility design beyond utilitarian are desirable and improve the well-being of both the people with disabilities and those who interact with them.  I’m not certain yet where video game controllers will fit into this argument, but these are some of my thoughts at the moment. . .