批判互動設計作業06 / m10210302 林浩翔

“InTouch” allows interaction web within human relationships to be embodied through the metaphor of temperature. 4 squares respectively represent 4 different relations, may be friends, family members, or beloved one...etc. While pressing it, temperature responds, transmitting a kind of non-definite, abstract information.

From 1st paradigm’s point of view, the interaction that InTouch provides can not be precisely measured, the process of its use is not tend to dissect and(or) hack things; InTouch does not identify any specific problems, and isn’t a complete solution. Its non-task-oriented design may confuse researchers: “What is this do for? Why will I put such a thing without any clear function in my house?” As it using soft fabric for the pressing interface, from the 1st paradigm’s aspect, the action of pressing is not accurate, without any definite trigger point, and its expression is obscure, not to mention that the perception of temperature differs from person to person. As a result, InTouch is a design artifact with unidentified purpose under the 1st paradigm.

The purpose of InTouch is to embody interaction within human relationships through the device installed in a living space. I believe its universal-applicability fits in the 2nd paradigm. But the purpose of the interacting process doesn’t lie in optimizing human-computer interaction, and its uncertainty can not be evaluated as well. For researchers can not optimize for particular design goal or reduce the scope of it, InTouch can not be generalize into a widespread design wireframe or research method. So from the 2nd paradigm’s point of view, InTouch does not fulfill its research goal.

The 3rd paradigm focus on phenomenological interpretation. Under this paradigm, the ability of a machine is no longer a target for researcher. Rather, the goal is to grapple with the full complexity around the system. Therefore, optimization and efficiency is not the point, it is how a interaction device itself assists users to construct meanings, how users complete phenomenological interpretations through InTouch. 

Researchers of the 3rd paradigm construct meaning through thick description, and through this process to have a profound understanding of the lived world. So, the interaction of InTouch, for the 3rd paradigm, possesses a huge research space.

批判互動設計作業05 / m10210302 林浩翔

The raise of co-working space symbolize the new form of working style. Exchanging ideas with people from different domain in the same space, brain storming and collaborating with each other, it is a better way of working for developer/designer than usual, working at home.

The interaction installation Gelatine includes 4 parts, applying Ruby on Rails for the back-end database, allowing connection between different interfaces for users to register their personal information, and “Label” for themselves.

Then, it is the usage of RFID device. By the presence of users, the information is embodied through the checking point.

And the screen with visualization itself become a form of information flow, revealing the presence status in the co-working space through a random, aesthetic way.

At the end, a small thermal printer prints out the information randomly, turning them into physical object, bringing out a sense of serendipity. And meanwhile the print outs are portable, becoming a extension of previous interactions.

We can analyse Gelation with the 4 aspect mentioned in the paper “Research Through Design as a Method for Interaction Design Research in HCI”:

Process:
Taking the advantage of the fluency of context(register, check-in, take away the print outs, reading the information), combining internet information and physical device together, the researcher make public the technique they use for others to represent with it.

Invention:
It is worth to mention that the usage of thermal printer at the last step allows digital information to be “archived” in physical paper, becoming one of the end result of the interaction, meanwhile reinforce the existence of co-working space.

Relevance:
The goal Gelatine wants to achieve is relevant to the value of co-working space. The design of the interaction is also relevant to the physical action. So in terms of relevance, I think it is coincided.

Extensibility:
Gelatine is not only suitable for co-working space, the researchers are willing to share their ideas and techniques allowing this type of interaction be transform into different context and spaces.

As we all know, the development of information technology has brought a revolutionary change to the world today, the speed of information produced and the density of information itself has increased insanely, the way how people work and the efficiency of it has rapidly evolved alongside the computer technology. But the huge gap between physical and digital world still remained. Gelatine ingeniously resolve this problem with today's technology.

批判互動設計作業03 / m10210302 林浩翔

  Nowadays, technology become more rapid and efficient base on internet explosion, that includ huge interflow of information, and it is woven into the fabric of everyday life. At 2001, Hallnäs and Redström present the “slow technology” which remind us should focus on

mental rest and moment of reflection, that is mean the efficiency and capacity should be out of focus. how we researcher/designer can provide a further reflection on it.

  base on this point of view, photobox provide a rethink of photo,  as a symbol of memory, technology allow we can take photos on a simple way, that make us have thousand of photos store in our harddrive and web service - but seldom recall it. If photos not to be seem again, them it no meaning.

  By randomly pick up the flickr photo & print it out, photobox make serendipity from digital memories, but keep its form and funtion in a simpleway, so we will expect the artifact without too much cognizance loading.

  "little printer” use thermal printer to transform fragmentary information become concrete

form, it not have main purpose or tasks have to done. Just a way to reflect a piece of everyday life, through this way, it try to establish new view point of people’s daily consumption.

  both of them use simplicity construction and materials, but keep a distance to fulfill the meaning by user, it is not aim to take away time, but seeking for the moment of reflection.

批判互動設計期末報告 / m10210302 林浩翔

批判互動設計期末報告

背景

十九世紀以降，無線電的發明讓資訊的遠端傳輸變成可能，克服了以往溝通上的空間限制，也自此開啟了時代的不斷革新與躍進，然而一直以來，對於這類無線傳輸技術的認知始終停留在工程上解決問題的層次，如戰爭的軍情傳遞、無線電台的廣播等…但對於其造成的現象與並沒有太過於完整與全面的認知；我們解決了雙方在資訊傳遞之間的問題，但對於我們所使用的技術本身的能耐與局限性，和其所可能造成的影響及變化，並沒有太大的研究與著墨。

書本內容與詮釋

Dunne 察覺到了這一點，並提出了一種電子氣象的假說：強調在人類的感知空間中，另外有一種影響環境事物運作，而被我們一直忽略的電子訊號空間，它如同我們普遍認知到的氣象一樣，是以不同的密度 / 頻率於空間中發揮作用；人類於體表感知溫度、濕度一樣，生活中各種逐漸電子化的器材、家具、介面已經形同人類的第二層體表，作為我們感知這類空間的中介媒介。

在「Hertzian tales: electronic products, aesthetic experience, and critical design」這本書中，Dunne藉由不同的互動裝置，試著去探索，並論述這類電子空間的可能發展與狀況；透過閱讀這本書，設計師對於電子空間能有更深層的認識，並在發展設計的過程中屏除純粹解決問題的角度，而從美學經驗的角度對其提出令人反思的設計可能，在不同的情境以及詮釋方法下試著讓大眾意識到電子氣候的存在與可能的樣貌。

像是Faraday Chair 這件作品，試著透過標示出”無”的空間，去對比出赫茲空間的存在，並讓人類躺在其中捲曲，如同嬰兒在母體裡；然而它卻也不是全然的反對，而是透過氧氣罩這個物品的符號，去暗示出現代人對於赫茲空間的依存性，迫使人們去思考此空間對於自身的意義，並清楚的意識到其實自己無法自外於此空間。

現況

然而現今邁入21世紀之後，各式各樣如NFC、低功率藍芽、光傳輸等等……的無線傳輸技術邁向成熟與更為廣泛的商業應用中，使得電子氣象在人類的互動關係與社會發展中益顯複雜。而全球網路通信的發展使得資訊的交換成本趨近於零、各式可量測的數據更爆炸性成長 ( Big Data )、商業脈絡的不斷推動下更可預見物聯網的到來。

與以往不同的是，現在網路的發展使資訊開始得以匯流並整合，跳脫了以前單向維度、無互動性、延續性的思考，其中的關係網絡變的複雜，學科之間的相關性變的扁平化，各種跨學門的研究與發展需求不斷產生。但這些始終聚焦於具體的數字與商業利益之上，對於人類心靈上的需求以及情境的探索研究卻依然貧乏。

設計師在其中所扮演的角色

        因此在各種電子與運算裝置逐漸隱形化，融入生活世界的同時，設計師在其中所能夠扮演的角度，是一種情境式的思考：在第一派典的制式化解答、大量複製思維之外；在第二派典的人類認知模型之外，透過各種情境的再檢視，跨領域的整合思考，為人類的日常生活提出反思。其中並不聚焦於解決問題或是降低其不確定性，而是讓人們透過設計物體會到複雜的情境與科技至高的反思，互動設計應該被定義為一種現象學情境的再造，是雙方一起創造、定義其意義的過程。

        因此相較於純粹哲學的形而上思考、理學院的解決問題之間，設計師其實扮演著中介的角色，以更宏觀、全面的角度去思索如同赫茲空間這樣，獨立於人類感官之外的空間，以及透過實體的設計物，與使用者共同建構起美學上的意義。

結論

        正如同人類社會的發展一樣，每個學派的蓬勃發展勢必導致不同的反思與新學派的崛起，思考不會完全消逝，只是藉由不斷的辯證與定位，構築出人類文明發展的樣貌，並完整的體現在日常生活之中。而科技早已融入日常生活，成為如同陽光、空氣、水一般的普遍存在，如同我們不會去質疑馬達的存在一般，新的世代早已對其習以為常，而如何能不被其制約，正是人類於二十一世紀當下所面臨的首要課題。

批判互動設計作業04 / M10210302 + M10210308 / 林浩翔 + 陳敬恆

林浩翔:

twins這個東西有兩個目的性，(1) 增加人際關係互動 (2) 多元的機能，意圖以隱諱的外型( form ) 製造各種機能 ( funtion ) 的可能性；

陳敬恆:

其實我覺得這的確是一個治癒人心的好產品，在生活當中確實是可以觀察到人對於“陪伴”的需求和依賴性。不說別的，單舉“上廁所都要手牽手一起去”這件事情，不得不說我們真是不甘寂寞的動物。

林浩翔:

可是一起做什麼這件事，在twins這個作品中我認為是比較弱的，因為它無形中有一個淺規則：「我必須遵守設計師所預設的使用方法，才能傳達出我的使用狀態」，可是它的外形又很隱諱，造成會有種「其實要怎麼用，用在哪都可以啦」的感覺，因為我平常是不喜歡看說明書的人。

陳敬恆:

關於這一點我覺得滿認同的，確實這個設計還滿矛盾的，假設這個設計是希望讓使用者自然的去隨著自己的習慣和想法使用，但我看不到他的開放性，畢竟產品本身有一套確實的遊戲規則在裡面，透過摸索我們自然會回到那個規則上。假設這個設計是讓使用者透過規則來達成設計本身的目的的話，確實整體又太過隱諱了一些，而且很麻煩的是我們還必須去學習它的規則才能夠順利使用。

林浩翔:

所以意思是說：這作品"預設"了一個可以被摸索出來，甚至是先定義好的規則，但外型又保留了一定的隱晦程度，沒有很明確的傳達出來，這其實是矛盾的。是嗎老皮？

陳敬恆:

大致上就是這樣了阿寶。

林浩翔:

我認同，因為我看到影片的第一個想法就是「一定要這樣用嗎？」，不過相對來說這樣的作法其實保留了很多的開放性，是不是有可能增加了二次對話的可能？比方說因為對於對方的投射而去彩繪木頭外框、或是分享不同的使用方法；而藉由這樣的過程，使雙方的互動能更為深入，使得這個作品本身其實變成了一個開始。

陳敬恆:

也許我們還得再考慮一個“時間”的面向還有使用的對象，如果今天是一對情侶在使用這樣的裝置時，我覺得應該會產生強大的共鳴，這個東西除了能夠溝通之外，是不是也會成為一個感情的寄託，長時間的使用我想一定會產生某種程度的情感，然後使用者會自行在上面製造意義，這樣的狀況下確實會讓人產生新的溝通語言和使用方式。

林浩翔:

所以其實我們可以透過這樣的思考邏輯，去檢視身邊習以為常的物件，重新思考它的形狀跟功能，並予以再設計。工業時代的形隨機轉 ( form follow function ) 已經不再是設計師要思考的層面，之前的工業設計師處理這個已經太出色了，應該是再退一步，思考設計物本身與環境、行為、使用者之間的對話關係與在長時間下的發展性。