How aesthetically beautiful are your photos? Try out Acquine, an Aesthetic Quality Inference Engine. Welcome to the brave new world of computational aesthetics!

Clever – video of evolving a human face using a genetic algorithm. A face detector is used for the fitness function.

Time to start gaming for mental health?

Haunting and beautiful sand art “animation” – very neat and worth the 9 minutes.

Any ideas on how I can design and build a Charisma Augmentation Device…? Learn about the science of charisma.

Handy handy – a useful new and free visualisation tool called Parallel Sets has just been released.

An arty digital analog clock designed by Humans Since 1982 – Clock Clock: The Analog Digital Clock (thanks Baz).

Some day soon I’ll do a proper writeup about the PhD, but in short I was looking at the effect individual differences in low-level vision have on the user experience of HCI designs – a fun fusion of interface / information visualisation design, vision science / optometry, eye physiology and probabilistic modeling.

Anyways lets get started again with a Link Bucket, enjoy!

Did you know that Attractive Things Work Better, written by HCI guru Don Norman.

John M. Carroll, one of the fathers of HCI, writes about the History of HCI (thanks Mads Soegaard @ Interaction-Design.org).

CHI 2009, one of the main HCI conferences has just finished, read about a few neat ideas in The Stranger Side of CHI 2009.

See how the world looks to a baby’s eyes.

What is our psychology of time? Read The future is nonlinear on Mind Hacks to learn more.

Drool drool love the visual style in the My Drive Thru music video.

Air Ape art.

Fashionable Technology is a just released book on The interplay of electronic textiles and wearable technology, and fashion, design and science is a highly promising and topical subject. Offered here is a compact survey of the theory involved and an explanation of the role technology plays in a fabric or article of clothing. (found via architectradure)

Therein lies the future – as a follow-on to my post Metamatter: Self-Reshapable Materials check out Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. CTIHP is a report sponsored by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and Department of Commerce (DOC), so its worth paying attention to. There’s also the follow-on Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations: Converging Technologies In Society.

Arthur Shaprio, vision scientist at Bucknell University, has setup a new blog featuring visual illusions with explanations of why they occur. I particularly like his Lucy in the Sky illusion.

Beautiful – The Singing, Ringing Tree.

Neat – Kickable self-reassembling robots. (thanks Graham)

Get some insight into how Google approaches usability and HCI in the talk The Art and Science of User Experience at Google.

An amusing ad. Have you ever felt like that forward thinking little girl when explaining some far out research and design concepts?

Affordances – a common usability term. Do you mean Gibson’s or Norman’s sense of affordances?

Just a quick blog note: For the last few weeks I’ve only posted a weekly Link Bucket. A lot of my time and energy is going into writing up my HCI PhD (woohoo!). Every week I’ll continue sending interesting links your way BUT for the next while I won’t be writing longer speculative and reflective pieces. Got to keep focused.

Very neat – A Periodic Table of Visualisation Methods from Visual-Literacy.org. Hover your mouse over any of the entries and up pops the related visualisation.

Excellent, the 2nd Irish Human Computer Interaction Conference is going to be on on the 19th and 20th of September in University College Cork, Ireland. Submission date is June 13th, 2008. Get writing! For more details keep an eye on the 2008 iHCI website.

Get a very brief glimpse Inside Microsoft’s Research Labs. If you want more depth wander over to Microsoft Research’s website – while there have a look at the recently released report Being Human: Human-Computer Interaction in the year 2020.

Recently I’ve been reflecting on Science 2.0, especially wondering what my research practices will be post-PhD. Science 2.0 (or whatever its getting called this month) is a much more open approach to science. Scientific America has a good introductory article explaining it. For example Science 2.0 scientists put their lab books online, writing about failures as well as success’ while making early stage research work (pre-publication) available for all to read about. Like others I suspect that the rise of the Internet inevitably leads to the emergence of Science 2.0, with a corresponding increased fluidity of idea exchange and cross pollination. There’ll probably be some of the same kind of issues occurring as in other digital media industries, i.e. ignore the openness, then fight the openness and finally embrace it. Admittedly the process of figuring out how to make Science 2.0 work fairly is going to interesting.

Have you ever gotten into one of those silly arguments about the colour of something? You know where you’re sure that a t-shirt is red, while your friend is 100% sure its redish yellow. Frustrating isn’t it.

Strange as it is, both of you can be utterly right.

You both “see” a slightly different colour because of individual differences in physiology. The receptors in eyes that help convert light into colour often have slightly different sensitivities between people. For most people the differences are so slight they’re not usually noticed, but people with colour blindness experience a world where colours appear very different. Go here for details about the Ishihara colour plate image, which is used in testing whether people are colour blind.

There are thought to be women who are the opposite of colour blind, they are tetrachromats who are able to see more colours than most people (who are usually trichromats). Damn Interesting has a good introductory article about tetrachromats A Life More Colorful, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a good article with a little more science background, Some women may see 100 million colors, thanks to their genes.

Previously I’ve touched upon individual differences in genetics for Personalised Medicine and the Psychology of Individual Differences.

There are many other kinds of subtle physiological differences, such as variations in taste receptors and densities on the human tongue. Here’s an introductory article about taste blindness.

Individual differences in physiology can be measured. These measures can be used to shape the design of objects. For example measures of your taste receptors could be used to automatically adapt a collection of cooking recipes to enhance the flavour for your tongue. Or TVs could have inbuilt smarts that adapt football game colours so a person with red-green colour blindness can more easily see their favourite football team. No more struggling to see a team wearing a red outfit running around on a green pitch, or a red snooker ball on a green table.

If the above is to become possible then self-mallable / re-shapable objects that adapt to the individual physiology of users need:
1) measures of user physiology
2) predictive models of the impact due to physiological differences, i.e. if an object is adapting to a user how does it know an adaption has a positive or negative effect?

This builds on implications from When Toothbrushes Mate: Form & Function DNA. Malleable objects and artifacts need to be:
1) self-describing
2) user describing (predicting the impact on user experiences due to physiological differences).

Are you a hacker (maker) or a painter? Or both? Or neither? Which of C.P. Snow’s Two Cultures do you belong to? Paul Graham’s essay on Hackers and Painters may be of interest.

Fascinating talk given by Professor Mark Reed from Yale talking about The Next Frontier: Bioelectronic Interfaces (video).

I’m curled up with a bug and head cold so today I’m posting a Link Bucket instead of the normal long Tuesday post. Enjoy.

Looks Tasty – see the world with your tongue.

For the last few years I’ve been keeping my eye on the emerging transdisciplinary field of Augmented Cognition. On the AugCog website it is defined as an emerging field of science that seeks to extend a user’s abilities via computational technologies, which are explicitly designed to address bottlenecks, limitations, and biases in cognition and to improve decision making capabilities. Is it a repackaging of a human information processing approach to HCI, or something more? Either way it has interesting potential.

Takes your breath away – UDF SkyWalker is a massive interactive image from the Hubble Space Telescope. The image shows 10,000 galaxies from when the universe was only 800 million years old. You could also try out GEMS SkyWalker. I wonder how many of those galaxies are now teaming with life?

Lovely overview about The History Of Visual Communication.

A bunch of interviews with User Experience pioneers.

Can you touch it? Workshop on designing multi-touch interaction techniques for displays (thanks Aaron). Invent a new interaction technique for the likes of Microsoft’s Surface and the DiamondTouch.

Can you sing it? World’s First HCI Rap

Chill out and sketch a personal kaleidoscope. Interactive realtime feedback on how your design changes over time.

Isn’t it strange the way faces look so different? Yet we easily recognise that a face is a face. Imagine waking up tomorrow and everyone’s face has disappeared. Each face is replaced with a blank unexpressive blob. Don’t worry about the eating, seeing, speaking and breathing bits – in this brave new faceless world we can still speak and eat, etc, all without a face.

In Faceless Land would you be more or less easily able to tell when someone is lying to you? Think how many times you’ve chatted with someone close who says one thing yet you know from their eyes, lips, nose and cheeks that they mean the opposite.

For a fascinating article about the science behind our ability to read faces checkout The Naked Face (free download) written by Malcom Gladwell, published in the New Yorker a few years ago.

From the article I learnt that most of us are absolutely terrible at telling whether people are lying. We’re so bad that when it comes to strangers we might as well flip a coin as guess whether they are telling the truth or not. Less than 1 percent of people are extremely good at telling whether others are lying.

How do these the super face readers do it? What do they see in the human face that normal people don’t notice? Psst, Gladwell’s article provides a few answers.

Paul Ekman is one of the pioneering researchers into understanding facial expressions. In the 1960s he helped establish that facial expressions are universal. He also found that in a limited way if you physically arrange your face to mimic an emotion then you begin to feel that emotion! There’s lots more brain food on Ekman’s website via his freely available articles and book chapters.

Ok, that’s it for now with the science – I’ll be back to this topic again as its very relevant, interesting and has lots of potential, e.g. Affective Computing (MIT Media Lab Group), HCI + Emotions (paper discussing applications), etc.

How does face reading relate to User Designer? Computers and other digital tools are currently face blind, to them we are all living in Faceless Land. Cutting edge research has begun to crack the problem of facial recognition but we are still a long way off from having systems that recognise facial expressions with the same accuracy as super face readers.

What are the implications when we can design digital artifacts that read our faces as well as super face readers? Add in a dash of smart materials that can intelligently re-shape themselves, and out pops ideas such as self-reshaping comfort blankets that reassure a child by mimic’ing the movement of a parent’s face. The blanket might be able to “smile” without looking like a face – it creases itself here and it creases itself there.

Or make-up that stimulates your facial muscles to induce you to arrange your face into a smile…smile on the outside so you smile on the inside.

Or a sales technique where the salesperson’s office furniture, cups, chairs and any surface begins to look a little bit like the potential buyer’s face. If it was done subtly enough it might be more reassuring than creepy. Here’s lookin at an office chair lookin like yourself, human.