Image Swirl is an interesting variant of a graph layout information visualisation from Google Labs. So far I like using it to explore clusters of related images, though I wonder whether the clustering reduces the range of images I see. Do I get exposed to more images that are strongly related to each other and see less images that are unrelated to each other (but may still be strongly relevant to the search term)?

If you like Image Swirl you’ll enjoy playing with Wonder Wheel, also from Google Labs. Wonder Wheel displays a graph layout of text search results. Enjoy.

The Future of Reading Conference could be interesting – especially for the views of authors such as Margaret Atwood. How much do they think the medium matters? Why? Marshall McLuhan has more than a few thoughts in that direction. The conference is in Rochester Institute of Technology and is starting tomorrow.

Very neat – home fabricating “real devices” with Lego. See a video demo of a printer made out of Lego. Yup made from Lego – I especially like how the little Lego people help out! The future of making & user designing is creeping up on us.

Welcome to the nearly-ready nearly-there future! PaperComp 2010 sounds like a very interesting workshop planned for Ubicomp 2010. Their Call For Papers says “This workshop aims at bringing together researchers exploring the future of printed interfaces and associated practices. It will act as a kick-off event for launching a new research community, articulating how different research lines form a coherent emerging field. The proceedings of the workshop ambition to gather the visions of the most active researchers working on augmented reading practices and paper interfaces.”

Quick gimme an electronic paper origami actuator and we’ll add a splash of haptic interactivity….ooooh H Okuzaki et al., are already there doing that in A Biomorphic Origami Actuator Fabricated by Folding a Conducting Paper. Enjoy.

Shown above is the new Coca-Cola drinks dispensing machine. Originally I was delighted because I thought this was a pure co-creation play from a very well known brand – let people mix, match and completely make up new drink flavors – but apparently its not. Boo. Maybe version 2 will…100+ flavors will just have to do for now. Hello, paradox of choice…?

Life v2.0 – Scientists Create Synthetic Organism. Wonderful and impressive.

Get your dancing shoes! A variation on a well known theme, though still a bit of fun…bang bang bits of a jeep and make a good rhythm.

Bosch have enhanced the night vision system system in cars, so that it provides smartly enhanced high contrast images of the road ahead at night. Clever but would you trust it to properly identify which parts of the road are critical for highlighting?

For the last few years I’ve been using and really liked Sony’s eBook Reader, the PRS500. Yup, I was an early adopter and altogether unsure whether I wanted to give up paper books! Recently there’s been an explosion of electronic readers, lead by Amazon’s Kindle. Within the next few years we’re going to see bendable, foldable and colourful electronic paper. For those of you who are design minded and interested in using E-Paper to invent new kinds of interactive visual displays and devices, here’s a handy guide for learning more about E-Paper technology.

Fascinating The Secret History of Silicon Valley – just over an hour long but well worth watching.

What would happen if your toothbrush could mate with another toothbrush?

Would you end up with an even better toothbrush – the best of both toothbrushes? How about if your toothbrush mates with 5, 10 or 15 different toothbrushes, with each new toothbrush in turn mating with another new toothbrush?

If you could decide which toothbrushes get to breed would you eventually end up with a toothbrush that’s perfect for you? Its form and function, its colour, feel and shape all bred into the toothbrush children generation by generation. The toothbrushes you dislike don’t breed so don’t pass on their “Form & Function DNA” to the next generation.

How would you tell a toothbrush to mate? Maybe to start the mating process you exchange design DNA by physically rubbing your toothbrush against another toothbrush. After that your smart malleable material toothbrush turns into a lump, which then self-forms into lots of little baby toothbrushes. To decide which mini-toothbrushes breed you crush the ones you don’t like, and rub the ones you do like off each other. Then repeat again and again, till eventually you have a baby toothbrush that you stretch into full size and begin using as your day-to-day toothbrush.

The method I’ve described for breeding toothbrushes is a Genetic Algorithm (GA) search. GAs are very powerful for exploring a large search space. In this case our search space is the potential designs for toothbrushes. Seeing each design generation could be a great way of helping people explore and imagine design possibilities.

Dryad, from Stanford Virtual Worlds Group, is a related example of software for exploring the design space around 3D trees. You can cross breed different kinds of 3D trees. Dryad is freely available for Windows and Macs, go play.

It’s easy enough to speculate about reshaping toothbrushes by cross breeding them, but what about more complex artifacts. Such as doors that slide or TV remote controls. How would you control the cross breeding of what a button does? Functionality is more abstract than form. For example if you cross breed two door handles where one door handle works by turning and the other by pulling…you could end up with a nightmare child door handle that works by turning, then pulling, then turning again.

How can the person doing the cross breeding place limits on what forms and functionality are explored? Maybe by only cross breeding one specific part of an artifact at a time, e.g. only cross breed the handles on the toothbrushes.

For artifact cross breeding to be possible objects and artifacts will need some kind of DNA. At the most abstract level the DNA would encode form, functionality and the relationship between both. Or putting it another way: malleable objects and artifacts need to be self-describing.

Smart Lego (New Scientist article), from CMU’s Computational Design Lab, is an example of a physical / virtual artifact that is able to self-describe. Also for many years various computer languages have been capable of different amounts of self-describing, which in computer science is called Reflection.

Of course now I’m wondering what would happen if you cross breed a door handle with a toothbrush?

To those of you who voted in the poll about HCI tutorials, thank you. To those who didn’t bother (there’s still time) I mutter a future curse: May all your solar panels develop self-awareness and go on strike.

Anyhow, previously I touched upon the idea of objects and tools that enable us to more easily create physical objects (How To Make (almost) Anything), or allow us to more easily reshape existing objects (Shape A Seat, aka Don’t Forget Me). In both cases we do the creating and reshaping, we give objects their physical structure, we are the shapers.

How can the physical structure of an object or artifact reshape itself?

Imagine while drinking a coffee you rush out the door to catch a bus. As you run to the bus stop the coffee cup changes into a sealed heat preserving flat container that easily slips into your back pocket. No more splashing coffee everywhere and your coffee is still hot. Then while standing in the packed bus the flat coffee container runs a straw from your pocket to your mouth so you can continue drinking coffee.

If a smart self-reshaping cup is going to be possible we need malleable materials that can change shape anytime we want. Or even better, they change shape when they realise that’d make life easier, e.g. your soup spoon turns into a straw so you can suck up the last drops from a bowl of soup. These kinds of self-reshaping and self-assembling materials are commonly envisioned as the result of nanotechnology research and development.

Now have a look at this video showing a shaping-shifting robot forming from a magnetic swarm (New Scientist article). The research into programmable material shown in the video is part of Carnegie Mellon and Intel’s Claytronics project. Neat ain’t it – yep, its still a young research area but online you can find a bucket load of research into self-reconfiguring modular robots. If the robots where made small enough then millions of them working together could become self-reshaping materials.

Xerox PARC’s Lattice is another example of interesting early stage research into modular robots for smart materials (esp. Proteo). If you have a chance play around with the Proteo RDSim (Rhombic Dodecahedron Self-Reconfiguration Simulator). The researchers who created the simulator were trying out different techniques for enabling lots of small robots to form themselves into different shapes.

To play with the simulator your web browser needs to run Java. When the simulator loads click on “New Goal”, then select “Disk”, set the Radius to 4, click “OK”, then click “Start Run”. In the main area you’ll see a flat disk form out of the white cubes. The white wireframe is the target shape the cubes are to self-organise into. If you’re feeling brave you can new try another “New Goal” of a Cup, try with a Radius of 6.

Another more recent simulator, which I haven’t tried yet, is DPRSim: the Dynamic Physical Rendering Simulator from Intel Research. DPRSim is a platform on which Researchers can develop and test new distributed algorithms for large ensembles of Catoms. Catoms are tiny robots with no moving parts that have internal computation and magnetic actuation.

Finally, if you want a quick review of previous modular robot research have a read of the review paper Design of a Modular Self-Reconfigurable Robot.

On Donal Reddington’s excellent MadeForOne.com website Mass Customization is defined as “enabling a customer to decide the exact specification of a product or service, and have that product or service supplied to them at a price close to that for an ordinary mass produced alternative”. This definition is elaborated upon in the article What is Mass customization?. Donal’s MadeForOne blog is definitely worth checking out.

Mass Customization & Open Innovation News is a very interesting blog from Frank Piller, who has spent many years thinking about Customization. One of his blog posts particularly stands out for me User Manufacturing: Amazon’s Next Twist: Will the Online Retailer Become a Key Enabler of User Manufacturing? In this post he discusses the relationship between Mass Customization and User Manufacturing (a.k.a. User Designer).

There is a treasure trove of content in todays links, enjoy.

Recently I came across JennyLC’s Intimate Controllers project (via the always interesting we-make-money-not-art). She writes that the project involved “building game controllers into undergarments so that games are played through players physically touching one another. The goal of this project was to research and create objects that challenge the traditional notions and orientation of video game play”. Her demo video is worth watching and if you’ve a bit of time to spare her thesis presentation video is online.

Her work touches on some ideas that have been running around in my head for years. A world where it’s easy to create arbitrary relationships between actions and effects. I wonder could you generalise her controllers so they can be used for creating arbitrary mappings?

For example imagine a product where you buy a box of flexible, durable and reusable controllers that easily attach to clothes, walls, floors, etc. Once the controllers self-network you start creating relationships between controller activations and resulting actions, i.e. press a controller and it turns on a light, or lay out a bunch of the controllers on the floor and walls to create a 3D dance mat for your game console.

Will people move away from buying physical artifacts with pre-build physical interfaces to buying artifacts that can have controls easily attached to them based on their preferences?

Imagine buying a cooker / stove that has heating elements but no buttons, controls or feedback for setting the temperature. When you get the cooker / stove home its up to you to stick a bunch of controllers onto the cooker. If you like you could setup a touch sensitive controller where you adjust the cooking temperature by sliding your hand instead of twisting a knob, or setup controllers so you increase the temperature by dancing fast on a dance mat in front of the cooker :) You could build your physical interfaces for mobiles phones, door handles, etc, in the same way and potentially with the same controllers.

How could you simplify creating a relationship between controller activations and resulting actions? Maybe by fusing Visual Programming Language, e.g. Toontalk, with Programming by Demonstration. That’s a hard but important question.

What kind of easily composable output / feedback / display components would you have? Maybe build souped up versions of LED throwies.

Will we ever have malleable physical interfaces?

A very funny spoof paper discussing “The Etiology & Treatment of Childhood“. Found via Mind Hacks.

ThinkCycle: Open Collaborative Design is a small follow up related to yesterdays post about Personal Fabrication. Its a community based around sharing designs usable in personal fabs. We’ll probably see a lot more like-minded communities over the coming years?

You could also wander around the Fab Labs Out Reach website, which details efforts to bring “prototyping capabilities to under-served communities that have been beyond the reach of conventional technology development and deployment.”

There’s never enough time for reading BUT you might want to dig into the deeply related “Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata” by John Von Neumann. Or Gershenfeld’s book “Fab: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop — from Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication”.

All this work on personal fabrication makes me drool. It brings together the fundamental tools people are going to need to design, shape and build anything to meet their needs and wants. Without this kind of basic research we cannot hope to have a future where everything is malleable.

I hope and expect that over time less technical knowledge and skills will be required to build. A lot of the tools mentioned in the personal fab space are complex – though not so complex they’re beyond people’s abilities to learn. Easy building tools are important because lots of people will want to build things that enable them to achieve something else. They won’t be inherently interested in the act of building.