Week 18

CMT: 18th Feb ‘08

 

Paola’s class today started by demanding the papers she asked us to search on safety critical systems; “Alarm” domain, and designing for complex systems.We then moved on towards identifying few issues related to organisational/ societal factors affecting the design/perception and response relating to Problems with Alarms, analysis of the problems, organizational and–Historical analysis of failure to respond to alarms.In the paper “an analysis of problems with auditory alarms: Defining the roles of alarms in process monitoring tasks” by Yan Xiao and F Jacob Seagull of University of Maryland School of medicine and University of Illinois at Urban-Champion. We also discussed historical artefacts; views about the problems alarm is intended to solve.

Click here for the paper: Alarm review

The perception or view of alarms varies in different domain.

The weight attached to procedures makes a substantial difference in designing industrial or everyday products.

What is the role of historical approach?

What are the organizational/societal factors that induce larger number of disruptive alarms; why do they induce these alarms?

Finishing the design-customization is the only way that users can, in an intelligent way, put chunks in the cracks that the designer left between their designs and the users’ idiosyncratic ways of doing things, not appropriately.

Next week assignment is to send by Wednesday two papers on safety critical domains, from 2005 forward to date.

PDE: 22nd Feb ‘08

No session for this week. Individually working on our projects.

 

Week 17

CMT: 11th Feb ‘08

In today’s Current issues in Interaction design class, Paola asked us to think of questions that best describe the topics we have covered so far.

One after the other, we all contributed to the list of questions. We subsequently examined and discussed the topics and questions.

After we have looked at the previous topics, she then moved on to talk about safety critical systems referring to the papers she emailed to us on designing alarm systems, and a review of the different roles played by such devices. Also, we touched up on ethnographic study on how operators interpret the information provided by the alarm in the Nuclear Power Plant industry.
We particularly looked into the following papers: An analysis of problems with auditory alarms: Defining the roles of Alarms in process monitoring tasks. By Yan Xiao and F Jacob Seagull of University of Maryland School of medicine and University of Illinois at Urban-Champion respectively.

PDE: 15th Feb ‘08

 

We started quite early today, David started the day rolling with what he called Lead user innovation strategy-Ecology?

Andy and Bob engaged Dean on his project plan, they suggested ways he can approach his intended field study with a group of youth at the ZSL, and he also showed the team the two piece of hand-held PDA (personal digital assistant) from Orange™, and some intended replica ideas and photos.

I then told the class about the (forums) websites I have visited in the last week, and the pattern of questions/ problems experienced by the forum members, this will be apart of my requirement gathering for my project. The information’s I collate from the forums will help me narrow down and sharpen my project plan, and objective to a more realistic design target as will be seen in the next couple of weeks. I have started working on the story board and HTA- hierarchical task analysis- to be presented on the next session.

Halil and Dikshit had a joint presentation on the AR application; they showed some new discoveries regarding their projects.

Madushani invigorated her digital drum sequencers, and subsequently Anoi presented a screen shot of his EPG -Electronic Programme Guide for HD DTV (High Definition Digital Television).

 

Week 16

CMT: 4th Feb ‘08

This Monday afternoon’s, session was held in the focus area of Hendon campus and the Guest lecturer was Dr. Elke Duncker the topic was on “International Globalisation and Localisation”, before the lecture proper, we talked about our individual project ideas and how it is connected to the topic of the day.

In the lecture, she discussed cross-cultural experience, similarities across ethnicities, Difference between ethnicities, sub cultures, culture, Artefacts, Global products, Global brands, Global products and brands, Problem and solutions with Foreign markets, Localisation, Product and software localisation, Formal and technical aspects of language, Other cultural issues, Local conventions and practices, finally summary and discussions

PDE: 8th Feb ‘08

Today’s session was quite vibrant and exciting for me to an extent, may be because I had my initial concept, presentation and project action plan to discuss with the class. We also had a PhD student Linda, in attendance as well. Nevertheless, Dean started his presentation without Andy who has other University related engagement.

Dean told the team what he has done so far and further research plans he has for his project.

I took the next turn to show the class the concept for my project, the presentation is attached herewith; project -presentation-1.ppt

Andy came into the class in the middle of my presentation, which was good for me because, that will enable him contribute directly towards this phase of my project. Andy, Bob and the rest of the peer-group positively criticized and suggested ways to achieve my design objectives.

When we returned from the usual lunch break, Dikshit presented his AR in architecture project progress. Halil followed with mid-fidelity prototype.

Madushani, assisted by Bob and Andy displayed her AR musical drums simulation with a laptop keyboard, and flat board with markings to indicate levels of speed, volume, tone and timer.

Anoi was brief with his presentation; he introduced his project topic as GUI and Interaction Design for Multi featured HDDTV.

David closed the day by first talking about methods and toolkit for his lead user innovation. For his project, the group members also designed our ideal prototype for a future mobile, music and video set. We were probably acting as lead users in this case, or lead designers may be.

Week 15

CMT: 29th Jan ‘08

We usually hold this session on Monday, but because Professor Gaver was attending this IDC seminar, we were all requested to attend in place of our typical CMT meeting for the week.
SPEAKER: Professor Bill Gaver, Goldsmiths College, University of London
TITLE: Curious things for curious people: Designing technology for
everyday life
TIME & PLACE: Tuesday 29 January 2008, 1100-1230hours, Focus Area, Town Hall Building, School of Computing Science, Middlesex University.

ABSTRACT: In my studio, we design computational products that shun utilitarian assumptions to tell more interesting stories about who we are and what we care about. The Plane Tracker, for instance, tracks passing flight traffic and imagines views of their journeys. The Local Barometer displays text and images from local sources as if blown through the home. The Home Health Monitor picks up indicative information about household activities and reflects this back in the form of automatically generated horoscopes. Such designs offer new perspectives not only on the form and functions of interactive systems, but on the ways technology reflects people.

ABOUT: Bill Gaver is a Professor of Design at Goldsmiths, University of
London, and also head of the Interaction Research Studio.

At the seminar, he called the presentation Threshold Devices; he started with the Video window, a device he described as being fascinating and by kick-starting the presentation with it, he gets geared up. Furthermore, he talked about the video window being Multi-dimensional in terms of view, aesthetic and a functional content; it can also be seen as an opening to the world with a personal perspective. He only mentioned ludic engagements calmly; although he supported his idea about designing for play/ everyday life.

 

PDE : 1st Feb ‘08

We discussed Professor William Gaver’s Speech/ Presentation at the IDC meeting held earlier in the week; individually we talked about the presentation and what we felt about such designs and ideas. Some of us saw it as great way of thinking and designing. That is to say, techniques like design the product first and then apply/ define the theoretical methods subsequently. Others might view this idea as an unconventional way of making things, but at the end of the day, usual pattern of designing things are not quite innovative some times.

When we later got into the tutorials proper, Halil started by showing the improvement/ new studies/ he has done so far relating to his “Augmented Reality Paradigm” in his presentation, he mentioned about shutter glasses and the possibility of applying it to his design.

After Dikshit showed his project plan to the team and received advice from our team tutors/ supervisors, we then adjourned for lunch.

On returning from the lunch break, I put forward my ideas about “Service Design” and also talked about trying to find an edge to grip on service design project. I received advice on my initial idea and how to go about developing it further in order to result into a valid / realistic project.

Finally David presented a Gantt chart and other resources referring to his “Lead user Innovation” project.