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.

Scientists have created an entire synthetic genome. Another important step towards making biological nanobot “machines”, which would be extremely useful as smart malleable materials.

Very very blog relevant and interesting Call For Papers: Imagining Domestic Interiors. This is one CFP I’ll definitely be working towards! Robots are set to play an increasing role in our everyday lives, particularly in our domestic interiors. Already, they have found their way into vacuum cleaners, sweepers, mops, and other automated service machines for the home. Looking beyond these largely predictable developments, advances in self-configurable and adaptive robots promise some radically new possibilities. Our furniture, for example, may be host to interconnected assemblies of robotic modules that can re-configure themselves to suit different purposes, events, or even moods. An adaptive home interior might also physically age with its occupants, conforming to their changing needs and operating to support their states of development and health. (rest…)

What Kind of Genius Are You? Slow burn or short fast bright bright bright.

This post is dedicated to Molly “Isn’t it only natural”.

More sketching Phun. Another very pretty sketching “game” like those I mentioned in Sketch & Draw = Create & Design Interactive “Things” and Link Bucket: Crayon Physics, Optical Illusions, Design Is & Rocky Origins. (thanks Ross)

Design lovely – 16 of the Most Extreme & Modern Beds You’ll Ever See. Especially relevant to User Designer is Animi Causa’s malleable Feel Seating System bed (pictured above).

Read about morphological liberty in the essay Plateaus of Completeness on The Speculist blog. Should people be forced to use tools that are designed to augment their abilities? For example should you be required to use a computer and credit card to book an air flight? What about more futuristic “tools” that are implanted in people, such as FDA approved RFID Tags?

Graph your favourite website in your web browser using a spring / force directed layout. (thanks Baz)

There’s only going to be one UD post this week – lots of holiday days in Ireland this week so I’m chilling out and eating Easter Eggs! Yum.

Florian Kräutli has designed and created malleable magnetic curtains that retain their shape. Clunky elegance.

Embodied Cognition “is a growing research program in cognitive science that emphasizes the formative role the environment plays in the development of cognitive processes.” Learn more about this increasingly important area from this website. (via MindHacks)

Gimme gimme one of the Emotiv Brain-Computer Interface headsets. No contact gel required. Of course you could always build your own based on designs from the OpenEEG project.

Neat video of a time fountain optical illusion. Looks like water is running backward defying gravity and hanging in mid-air.

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.

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.

Look at Smash Magazine’s recent article on Modern Approaches To Data Visualization for a quick overview of key information visualizations.

Admire the 500+ visualizations at visualcomplexity.

Create your own online visualizations at Many Eyes.

Today I’m adding a new category called Creativity Knowledge to the User Designer blog. Creativity Knowledge will feature short posts highlighting specific examples of Human Computer Interaction and Interaction Design research. Posts in Creativity Knowledge will help flesh out (often very) distantly related research around enabling anyone to take control and shape their own user experiences.

Why am I adding Creativity Knowledge? Around 10+ years ago when I was getting into HCI and Interaction Design I remember finding lots of academic papers that dryly outlined exciting-vibrate-in-your-chair ideas and design concepts. Many of the prototyped ideas had conceptual and research histories dating back decades. Some of those ideas made it into products, such as the iPhone, others have been forgotten, gotten lost among a sea of publications and projects, or were before their time.

Not being aware of what’s out there is depriving yourself of a powerful source of inspiration, because you don’t know how different ideas could weave together. Maybe some of the research will inspire you to create or enhance a product, or spin out a startup?

Best of all it can be lots of fun seeing what others have invented!

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.

The seat has drawn lots of attention in the blogsphere over the last few weeks. I wonder what draws people’s attention to it? Are they interested because the seat is different? Do they imagine how they’d use the seat in their living spaces? Would it solve a problem, i.e. maximizing seating room when visitors call around? Does its attaction lie in letting people realise aspirations of designing and building their own furniture?

From the videos it looks like the range of possible physical designs is limited but it is very very easy to reshape. As we move towards smarter materials, such as shape memory alloys, can we retain that ease of alteration? The flipside of ease of alteration is there’ll need to be some way of locking things into a shape.

Bean bags are an example of a readily reshapable seat that has no shape memory. I’ve a bean bag at home and every now and then I find that sweet spot where its really comfortable and feels fitted to my body shape. When I get up I know that by the time I return to the bean bag it’ll have “forgotten” my shape. This makes me loath getting up. Though a potentially beneficial side effect of the shape forgetfulness is a form of subtly enforced stillness and calmness.

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.