Theme 5
After reading:
Fernaeus, Y. & Jacobsson, M.
(2009). Comics, Robots,
Fashion and Programming: outlining the concept of actDresses. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and
Embedded Interaction. New York: ACM.
I couldn’t help but draw parallels to the
principles of interaction between human beings. The authors list a set of
different cases where programming robots for commercial use have proven to have
a high success rate.
In the first case, a robot that interacts with certain parameters such as heat detection, detection of attributes (the collar, the shoes, the pyjamas) etc
In the first case, a robot that interacts with certain parameters such as heat detection, detection of attributes (the collar, the shoes, the pyjamas) etc
For a human being these parameters would be
completely uninteresting if we could not control them and therefore get a
sensation of importance or meaning. If we dress up the robot in a certain way,
it will act in a certain, predictable way. If we do something else to it, it
will act in another predictable way. This is how we deceive ourselves into thinking
the robot “reacts” rather than acts, and that we are therefore the “masters” of
that taking place. This evokes different feelings in us, such as empathy,
sympathy, pride, joy etc.
I draw strong parallels between the reasons for this robot succeeding on the market to why people have babies.
In the other example of robots playing tunes, the question of interaction comes into play when one thinks about early cognitive affection. When children are younger and get that revelation (usually around the age of 2) of realizing they exist, they are individuals who can make calls themselves and decide things for themselves, a need for confirmation of that existence also grows. They might act out on this need by eg pressing buttons or just saying “no” to everything, testing their limits to see what happens… or, later in life- get a robot that does things in correspondence to what we do- ie. we’re the masters, the robot is the slave- and best yet, we don’t need to take responsibilities for the shots we call since it’s only a robot.
I draw strong parallels between the reasons for this robot succeeding on the market to why people have babies.
In the other example of robots playing tunes, the question of interaction comes into play when one thinks about early cognitive affection. When children are younger and get that revelation (usually around the age of 2) of realizing they exist, they are individuals who can make calls themselves and decide things for themselves, a need for confirmation of that existence also grows. They might act out on this need by eg pressing buttons or just saying “no” to everything, testing their limits to see what happens… or, later in life- get a robot that does things in correspondence to what we do- ie. we’re the masters, the robot is the slave- and best yet, we don’t need to take responsibilities for the shots we call since it’s only a robot.
2. What role will prototypes play in
research?
Prototypes play a large role in a study. When having an idea and deciding to test it out “in public” using media technology (or any kind of technology) it is fairly important that the prototype of that technology can give certain answers to questions asked in the study. As in many cases, the prototype is a test object used to try out hypotheses and can, of course, as any equipment built by humans, fail… or simply fail to deliver the specific information we’re looking for in the way we expect it.
Prototypes play a large role in a study. When having an idea and deciding to test it out “in public” using media technology (or any kind of technology) it is fairly important that the prototype of that technology can give certain answers to questions asked in the study. As in many cases, the prototype is a test object used to try out hypotheses and can, of course, as any equipment built by humans, fail… or simply fail to deliver the specific information we’re looking for in the way we expect it.
3. Why could it be necessary to develop a
proof of concept prototype?
Before going into battle it’s good to test
the cannons first.
To guarantee or to come closer to guarantee, that the study is feasible, proof of concept is taken into concideration.
In the film industry, for example, using new and advanced, untested technique, especially for animation movies, it’s much more safe to first make a proof-of-concept-film before trying to implement this advanced technology with all its possible drawbacks on a box office massive production. In this case, the proof of concept film is a short animation. Pixar makes a lot of these.
To guarantee or to come closer to guarantee, that the study is feasible, proof of concept is taken into concideration.
In the film industry, for example, using new and advanced, untested technique, especially for animation movies, it’s much more safe to first make a proof-of-concept-film before trying to implement this advanced technology with all its possible drawbacks on a box office massive production. In this case, the proof of concept film is a short animation. Pixar makes a lot of these.
5. Design research can be presented as a “proof-of-concept”
research for further evaluation of more advanced research. If the design
research is a first one of its kind, it might be ground breaking for the
implementation of new technology in the future. The presentation of design
research is usually based on an idea in it’s 2nd of 3rd phase
of its research development, meaning, it’s more advanced than just testing it
out but yet has a long way before one can make proper use of it.
REFERENCES:
The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. Gregor, S. (2006).
Comics, Robots, Fashion and Programming: outlining the concept of
actDresses. Fernaeus, Y. & Jacobsson, M. (2009)..
Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using
Vibration. Réhman, S., Sun, J., Liu, L., & Li, H. (2008).
I think that you summarized the part about prototypes nicely, however the part where you say that a prototype might "fail to deliver the specific information we're looking for in the way we expect it" caught my attention. In my opinion, when a prototype fails to deliver what was expected might still count as some kind of result. It might tell you what not to do or how not to design something and I mean that a result like that always will benefit future research. It might also give you some information that you hadn't yet considered as a possibility.
SvaraRaderaI enjoyed reading what you wrote about "proof-of-concept" prototypes. I have been racking my brain for some time now and I can't find a situation where making a proof-of-concept prototype is bad. In my opinion it can only benefit the design or implementation of a, for example, future product or system.
I agree with what Carl says above, regarding the failure of a prototype to deliver the information may not necessarily be classified as a failure. My comment to you would be to ask if you have ever considered the opposite, and that one day a prototype will actually provide better information than what we humans are able to understand?
SvaraRaderaSorry, guys, not checking comments until now.
SvaraRaderaI believe you misunderstand me, I mean to say that the "expected result may be a failure". Not the result in itself. One might find results that open doors to further examination that in the beginning wasn't even considered.
This is why I'm more up for qualitative research (and apparently design research as well)- I don't like to go in to prove a point. I relish the challenge of getting results that you didn't expect (or the significance of a result you weren't concentrated on).
If one goes in with quantitative research methods, knowing what answers you're looking for, not getting those answers at all might make the survey fall apart. Then you have to start all over and try to analyze (as you do in qualitative research) new things to look for.