Injecting technological intelligence into our lives could further develop customized models, systems and services within various contexts.

“… technology itself is neither good nor bad; it is how we use it that makes the difference.”

Through achieving a balance in the technological impact outcomes, we would be able to create an equilibrium in its effect on the users. When technology is actually creating knowledge, excitement, entertainment, education, productivity, social contact… etc, then it is surly desired by the users for it brings them added value.

Throughout history people always were and still are eager to accomplish knowledge, power and mobility by making use of intelligence surrounding them whether through other humans, animals or even plants and microbes. Yet through this built-up of knowledge we always tend to realize matters of ethical and unethical. So on an ethical level, digital intelligence should be accessed equally by others to also pursue their own fulfillment.

Users could collect and access knowledge through various technologies to supply themselves with what they specifically need. So through systems that communicate with us via smart or intelligent devices, users are realizing a natural communication through talking, touching, gesturing and showing.

Current interfaces, whether through hardware or software design, are creating a more human-like communication methods aiming to include human senses within those smart devices. So by touching a screen, talking to a phonebook or snapping a QR code, the device is detecting and analyzing your senses and acting accordingly.

What we always thought of as a certainty is being challenged again right now. Questions about the meaning of being human, a reality of an experience, an ethicality of a behavior, the distinction between natural or artificial, and all other cultural evaluations.
Where are human interactions with technologies categorized in these themes, when new understandings of communication are introduced. Further than human to human interaction, human and smart devices have a higher rate of interaction these days.

Many of todays’s devices are introduced into human environments, where they would recognize you and the context you are in. They are custom made for your own precise needs that can change according to your request. They could also respond to your desires without direct conscious control.

Through an airport navigational system, a user would only need a selection of information to get to his/her assigned gate. This user doesn’t need to be involved in further irrelevant information that don’t relate to his/her journey. For that a layer of personalized information is selecting the needed information only to disclose for that user in specific to get him to his boarding gate on time, and at the other hand help him/her enjoy the waiting time efficiently instead of stressing out of coming back to the right terminal on time.

Abraham Moles states that ‘to live and experience a culture is to interact with innumerable, disparate forms of that culture, as well as to find one-self presented with a myriad of possibilities for successful –and unsuccessful– operation’. He warns of the pitfalls of completely going for an immaterial culture, of not being able to distinguish between ‘actual presence’ and ‘vicarial presence’ any longer. He argues that this immaterial culture has been created without form of purpose and therefore we as a society have to be cautious how to use it in terms of ownership.

Anton Andrews also points out that with Ambient Intelligence, people should be seen as protagonists and co-creators rather than passive end-users or consumers. Therefore, the role of the designer is to make sure that we understand the culture and do not just create new things without understanding the geography that was already created. He also stresses the importance of making sure that empowering people will not turn into an infringement of our personal privacy, as ‘technology itself is neither good or bad; it is how we use it that makes the difference’.

Interactive installations embedded in public space provoke and stimulate, as Marion Verbuken points out in the article. The curiosity of the user is provoked by the given piece and the observation of other participants leads to engagement. If a certain kind of trust in the technology is obtained, self-expression is stimulated by the possibility of interaction: this evokes a sense of exploration and play leading finally to new knowledge and new things by receiving immediate feedback and reactions linked to the participants own action.

The basic materials required for an interactive design solution should involve motion, space and time. When the design elements are more conceptual, the outcome elements can be either digital or analog or both.

In the case of my project the outcome elements can be both; whether a software application added to already existent smart devices – or a hardware device specifically functions for airports (distributed and dropped off at airports).

Motion:
“…objects that don’t move don’t interact.” – “Without motion there is no interaction.”

To create communication, interaction has to take place. Interactions generate behaviors in people as a response of an behavior of a certain product they are using. Where behavior is the motion with the layers of culture, attitude, personality and context.

The cycle of interaction starts with motion responded by action and often again by motion as well. So in touching the device’s screen for “duty free”, the interface will act upon layering arrows on top of the reality to direct your way. Further this action is followed by a motion by the traveler to the indicated direction.

Space:
“Space provides a context of motion.” – “All interactions take place in space.”

Interaction design deals with different dimensions of space, the 2-D and the 3-D, for it involves a combination of the physical space of the user and the digital space of the screen. Again 3-D space is also involved in the interface itself when designers tend to shift from flat designs into including perspectives in the interface, thus design elements would appear to move backward and forward even on a 2-D flat screen.

An airport navigational interface through your smart device is controlling your movement in the real 3-D airport space. So this interface is setting the guidelines for the traveler’s motion into the airports, meaning the whole interaction is taking place in this space (the digital and physical interaction). In this case the interaction design is the combination of the digital space of the interface and the physical space of the airport.

Time:
“All interaction take place over time.”

Usually digital interactions happen instantaneously, whereas physical interactions take longer periods of time. When interacting with an interface it should respond directly, yet when it requests motion from the user, sometime has to be involved. “Movement through space take time to accomplish.” Selecting to get to the boarding gate would give you directions instantly, yet to get to that gate it might take several minutes.

Interaction designer have to have awareness of time, and they have to follow a rhythm of animation within the interface. For instance the user’s should be able to pick up the speed of how slow or how fast would the interface respond to their selected option.

Appearance, Texture and Sound:
Proportion, structure, size, shape, weight, color, texture and sound are all variables for designers to consider while developing an interface. Through those variables, users would automatically know the method of how the interface or device should be used, held, stored…etc. Depending on the dimensions of the device, the feeling it triggers and the sound it produces, the user could detect what action is required from him/her in response.

Hazards of architecture can result from misplacement of elements within the space. So properly designed places are a source of peaceful and less stressful life for inhabitants of those spaces.
Through my project I am touching on the aspect of how mis-designed signage and wayfinding in airport could lead to a stressful journey of travelers. The solution is offering a smooth easy voyage of navigating this space keeping in mind the constrains of time, destination and anxiety.

Airports are the brief image of the city, that summarizes the city in one space for the travelers arriving, connecting or departing from this particular city. It reflects the culture, habits, food, fashion and other specs of the city. Being small community representation, airports are also working on their potential to attract more travelers through their premies. So providing an easy and helpful navigation systems, travelers tend to chose one airport than the other for such services.

Quality of life, charm, culture, ambience, livable, investive, visible, new, vibrant and clear are all terms used in the text to distinguish, rank rate and evaluate cities. Same applies to airports where they are no longer a small hub for transportation needs merely, they are engraving a memory of traveler’s journey.

Cities struggle to secure themselves a position in a competitive market, that’s why a marketing strategy should emerge to distinguish them from others so that inhabitants could chose one particular life style on top of the other. In this way they would be working their way in attracting businesses, tourism, conventions, sports events, and others to nourish employment and living within a certain standards. Airports being the gate to these cities have a role in marketing the respective city as well. Relying on their own resources, a main part of what airports are offering is an easy, relaxed journey, and that actually starts at the airport itself where getting to your destination smoothly on time is becoming an enjoyable voyage of the traveler.

Airport would differ from one country to another because they are representing different cities of different cultures and resources, so through my project I am using augmented reality to actually make the traveler engage to the space he/she is navigating and to relate to it as an image of the city he/she will be exploring.

through “cura” and “the everyday life reader”, the idea of a context being variable according to various inhabitants is discussed from different views.

in cura; care: using and enjoyment
curation of a city is formalized from the concepts and oppositions between the virtual and the material. the interplay between inhabitation and space which directly relates to the interplay of social spaces and images. a city versus material (stuff) is reality in contrast with virtuality.

city curator being an architect, an urban planner and others who have the responsibility of the city’s representation of form and materiality. tools of analysis become means of production which is the transition of criticism into composition. its the rearrangement of thought into the right context that would formalize a new true meaning.

the gift of architecture is the fact that the space shifts context with every other inhabitant that uses it after the initial curator, becoming curators themselves. the stage of this interplay of future curators that would be involved in a certain space after the architect’s main curation, holds responsibility for both the architect / urban planner / others and the inhabitant in later phases of the space’s / city’s lifespan.

in the everyday life reader: the concept of everyday life varies between individuals , groups, societies. its rather based on cultural differences that cant really be summarized in a term “everyday life”. what tends to be an everyday life habit for some might not be a habit for many others. it all depends on societies, cultures, families, even individuals themselves.

an airport space would shift in its original curated context by the time it is used by travelers, retail shops, restaurants, police, staff and others. these players would have the role of re-curating the space according to their needs.
including a personalized navigation system into an airport space would change the comprehension of the whole space. by the presence of AR technology as an aid for navigation and in parallel acknowledging the fact that the traveler is actually navigating through facial detection technology, these facts would actually change the context of the space of what could be previously recognized as an “everyday travel journey”… travel could be an “everyday life” for some who are always on the fly, but not to many others. for those it could be an anxious journey that an ad-on the curated space might make it smoother and less stressful.

Verbucken also pointed out that young adults “have learned to be curious and anxious to discover new things from their parents, school, society and culture. Self expression is stimulated and media are there to be edited and fed back into the world; their favourite occupation is to explore and try out new things” (Verbucken, 2009).  My own observation conducted within three different families and the False Creek Elementary School illustrates Google Generation students as active learners of real and simulated experiences, visually adapted, self-reflective, inquisite, social and team oriented individuals. These students are naturally inclined towards co-designed learning experiences as they predisposed to explore information in a non-linerar manner. They are fluent in multiple media, used to navigating diverse information sources and function significantly better when networked.

Bauerlein (2007) argues that today’s student’s are less productive due to habitual digital distractions. He further insists that students’ reading  had deteriorated, and their writing skills tend to suffer as kids grow up. (Digital Nation, 2007). And as researchers point out “kids write paragraphs as opposite to essay, …they are being constantly distracted…” (Digital Nation, 2007). This information is also supported by Verbucke’s  articulation that “…we may be in the process of losing traditional qualities associated with skill such as traditional writing and concentration”.

In the interview conducted by the Digital Nation TV program, the MIT students suggested decay of their own writing skills, and also reflected on rapid development of their Internet inflicted issues (Digital Nation, 2007). Many learners displayed the so called “Paradox of Choice” problem in which the availability of unlimited range of information sources could be overwhelming and confusing as opposite to being liberating.

Current research suggested that as a result of growing up with a cognitive load caused by a technologically dominant and rapidly changing environment, the Google Generation have had to develop habits and behaviour that can be damaging to their comprehension skills (University College, 2008). University College of London research (2008) describes these characteristics as going on the Internet to avoid traditional reading formats; viewing an abundance of pages, many of which have no real content; showing no interest in text rich readings and difficulty in comprehending information.

My qualitative study, part of which was the observation of the students, demonstrated youths’ enthusiasm towards reading. When interviewed, all participants expressed a great interest in traditional reading formats often referring to their extensive book collections. Yet upon my observation students displayed difficulties in staying focused while reading, as they often got engaged in “jumping” and “skimming”activities; their attention span appeared to be short.

In the digital “idiot-proofed” environment, the young adults had developed a habit of assuming that technology understands their inquiries and will give them an answer without their need to be engaged in the inquiry process (University College, 2008). As students access information online, their search skills are typically nonexistent. Yet, as Stephano Marzano points out in Cultural Issues in Ambient Intelligence, “…technology itself is neither good or bad; it is how we use it that makes the difference” (Marzano, 2009).

However, what is important to keep in mind as Abraham Moles points out is that no immaterial culture can exists without a material culture and infrastructure beneath it allowing its existence. And regardless of technological advancements, an immaterial culture must be reliable, that it must possess certain properties and characteristics that allow people to invest a reasonable degree of trust into it.

As a society we are shifting towards an immaterial culture or civilization, Ambient Intelligence can be thus seen as part of that the vanguard for that particular shift. Certainly the increase in pervasive technologies and advancement of not just user-centered but also user co-creation design has lead to a shift in the way we have come to engage with technology.

Stefano Marzano points out that Ambient Intelligence share similarities with “Xerox PARC’s ubiquitous computing paradigm, IBM’s pervasive computing paradigm and MIT’s Oxygen project…(but) Ambient Intelligence differs fundamentally from those proposals.” The purpose of Ambient Intelligence is to usher and bring in a different sort of relationship between man and technology, one that is not so invested in the “desktop metaphor (of) graphical user interface” and increase productivity paradigms of the past. Ambient Intelligence for Marzano is “a new metaphor or interaction paradigm, enabling natural and social interaction with ambient intelligent environments…success of Ambient Intelligence will depend on the development of concepts that make it possible for us to interact in a natural and intelligent way with our digital environments – and with each other.”

We can evidence both the presence and success and failure of Marzano’s position on Ambient Intelligence with Microsoft’s Kinect for the Xbox 360. The Kinect is the first free gestural interface available for home entertainment. The purpose of the Kinect was to remove the restrictions of traditional controllers and replace them with intuitive movements that relate to the actions of on-screen avatars as a method of changing our relationship with technology. This is in line with Marzano’s position regarding developing a more natural interaction with digital environments as there would appear to be nothing more natural than using one’s own body as the controller.

However, trust and reliability of the technology is debatable, for both Marzano and Moles have both pointed out it is essential for people to trust the technology, to have a perception of a reasonable degree of reliability, for any positive shift further into an immaterial culture and acceptance of embedded technologies. For Moles there must be “a reasonable degree of reliability into an uncertain miracle”, with that miracle being a result from interacting with the immaterial. As the Kinect has only been released for a number of days, it remains to be seen if it possesses these characteristics.

Agency is also an important factor to which both Moles and Marzano touch upon in their writings. For Marzano he speaks of the importance of experience and of feedback, whilst Moles warns of the pitfalls of wholly committing ourselves into an immaterial culture that was created without form of purpose, that in such a state we are not truly living, but living vicariously through projections.  For Moles “to live and experience a culture is to interact with innumerable, disparate forms of that culture, as well as to find one-self presented with a myriad of possibilities for successful – and unsuccessful – operations” and within an immaterial culture created without form or purpose we run the risk of losing out on possibilities.

Ultimately both authors caution the path we as a society have embarked on, that Ambient Intelligence can be utilized as a force of empowerment for people, but for that end to manifest we as designers and members of society must ever be wary of sidelining and categorizing people into ‘end user’s rather than co-creators and participants. That the role of the designer is in making sure that we do not rush ahead and introduce or create ‘new’ things before we have come to understand the geography that we have already created, that we do not through rash decisions deny people participation in their own culture.

My work always addresses space, and as the author states that ‘[s]pace provides a context for motion’ I am using that motion as a trigger for action, hence motion results in interaction.
What I do is pretty much combining physical with digital space, the users are invited to control this digital space by physical gesture and direct manipulation in the real space, so that the digital display gets edited, hence, the user acts as a transition from physical to virtual space.
By coding and setting up certain possible options, certain stages of re-actions of the object that can be controlled or indicated by the user, the designer is generating or controlling behavior.

Also mentioned in the reading is that rhythm is an important component of animation, if a sequence shows a certain rhythm (light patterns or array of moving images) the user/audience can grasp that and realizes instantly when this rhythm gets interrupted by one of his movements for example. If affordances of an object or installation are not clear from the very beginning, in case of the intention of an explorative experience, the designer has to make sure that the user will learn real quick how to use it. In case of an interactive installation with unexpected reactions it has to be very clear that the behavior/reaction of the object is a result of the users movement. This has to be overdone so that the learning process can’t be misunderstood. Immediate responsiveness helps mediating this understanding. In case of a delay of the objects reaction or even an interruption to the users action the dialogue of user and object looses its understandability.

Fitts’ Law states that ‘the time it takes to move from a starting position to a final target is determined by two factors: the distance to the target and the size of the target’. In case of interactive installation designers have to deal with this law in the analog space. In case of movement and distance detection, size and distance are two essential factors that trigger the objects reaction –size of the active zones and distance of the user from the sensors. Active zones have to be indicated or have to be readable by the audience instantly in terms to understand how the installation works.

Hick’s Law states ‘that the time it takes for users to make decisions is determined by the number of possible choices they have.’ Familiarity and format of choices can help the user to understand more quickly how to use or deal with an interactive installation. If the detection zone is set up so that the user easily understands that if he approaches the object closer he triggers the behavioral stages, it doesn’t really matter how many different given stages there are, as long as the reaction is immediate and understandable. However, it is clearer if the number of different stages is limited and clearly divided in active zones.
The Magical Number Seven rule states ‘that the human mind is best able to remember information in chunks of seven items” as most human beings can’t keep more than that in their short-term memory. This again can be linked to seven behavioral stages that can be triggered by the user in different active zones and suggests to limit it to that number so the user will remember, even though this could also limit the users experience of exploration, so I guess in this case I would disagree to a limitation of that kind.

Tesler’s Law of Conservation of Complexity states that there are complexities that cannot be removed from an experience, but they can be moved to ‘reasonable places’, which means that the user shouldn’t have to be dealing with certain issues that would just complicate the handling of an object, he refers to an example where the coder should rather spend more time in fixing the code making it a little bit more complex but therefore taking away some of the complexity that would remain on the users shoulders.
With the Poka-Yoke Principle designers are trying to prevent problems to occur in the first pace by testing certain constraints on products, thereby they make users change their behavior reacting to those constraints at the same time. Limitations due to coding form these behavioral constraints in my work.
Feedback would be the direct reaction of an object/installation on users behavior, in case of an interactive light installation it could be the change of one light stage to another linked to the movement or position of the user, this feedback has to be immediate to be understood.
Feedforward starts taking place after the user gets familiar in interacting with an object, even though he has not jet experienced all stages of interaction, he will be expecting that changing his position again will also change the reaction of the object.
Appropriateness is one of the trickiest realms in case of an interactive installation that is intended to be shown internationally, as culture, situation, and context are changing with each location. Acceptance of certain values (religion, status, rights), differ especially between the western and eastern worlds. But even a simple change of location can place a bespoke piece out of context as it is in dialogue with the space living of its reciprocal relation.

The ludic lies at the fore with respect to my installations, through curiosity and play the user explores and experiences what an installation has to offer and slowly unravels its potentials. The outcome for the user is a certain kind of information and findings. This realm is tied closely to the idea of trustworthiness as it plays a major role in getting people involved in an action. In case they are not feeling comfortable or in case there is coming up any kind of mistrust they would not agree in getting involved in an interaction. So the piece has to state that it doesn’t exploit the user or causes harm in any way. Aesthetics are not to be forgotten as they basically work as an invitation –an eye-catcher– to get attention in first place. By offering a pleasurable object people do not only get involved and are willing to interact, but are also more forgiving of mistakes, little delays due to coding for example.

In the Interaction Design Basics, authors suggested that “ …you wouldn’t design a toy for young children the same way you would design a military communication device to be used in battlefield conditions.” Different sources point out that children do not think the same way as adults. Today’s generation is using the Internet as its information source for school projects and for leisure. Yet, as discovered by researchers, youth are not using portals specifically designed for them. My own research mirrors a variety of academic sources suggesting children’s overwhelming use of adult’s search engines such as Google. And while a small fraction of students are simply unaware of the existence of specific youth relevant portals, the majority, upon their encounter of such portals, prefer not to use them.

Although the main principles of designing interfaces for children are somewhat similar to those of adults, it is clear that “specific interface design guidelines are required for young users rather than simply relying upon general design guidelines, and that in order to formulate such guidelines it is necessary to actively include the young people themselves in this process” (Large, el al. 2005).

Nielsen (2005) suggested that most web site designs are “based on pure folklore about how kids supposedly behave–or, at best, by insights gleaned when designers observe their own children.” Researching educational multimedia user interface designs, and conducting group interviews with students, I concluded that the criteria is almost entirely based on the opinions of adults. In many youth portals, the understanding of the concept of  “affordances” was explicitly executed from the adult’s point of view. Expectations in interactions  for adults are different from those of children.

Shneiderman (1998) argued that “any design should be based upon an understanding of its intended users”, and he implies age as one user characteristic alongside gender, physical abilities, education, cultural or ethnic background, training, motivation, goals, and personality.

Although it is more common in the present-day to find an interface design practice that uses youth as a user characteristic, it is still unusual to involve the children themselves in the design process, which is important. Large, in his pilot studies, (2005) illustrated that youth have a lot to offer in the design process since they are capable of creating ideas that adults might not consider. The potential issue with co-design method is that children might desire aspects of design that are not quite possible to achieve.

The understanding of the unique needs of children is quite important in order to develop innovative and relevant learning solutions via new technologies.

Designing Interfaces

Barry Schwartz suggests, in his The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less, that giving people too many choices tends to lower their satisfaction. He also talks about “Satisficers” – those who settle for a choice that is “good enough”. He characterizes people who spend less time conducting search activities, as generally happier with their choice. Research regarding interface design for children argues that providing youth with too many choices, which is the case in many educational products, clearly confuses, frustrates and irritates children, leading to their lack of motivation to use such products and poor overall learning results (Large, 2005).

Fitts’ law states that ‘the time it takes to move from a starting position to a final target is determined by two factors: the distance to the target and the size of the target’. Thus we can identify this law easily in a first person shooter. The closer a target is to the player character the larger they are, because of their increase in size they are also far easier to target than targets further away. In a game such as Fallout3 where the accuracy of weapons and damage is calculated by the player characters weapon skill, distance from the target, and the range of the weapon, the percentage of hitting the target increases and decreases depending on the targets distance.

Application of Hick’s Law

The Hick-Hyman law postulates ‘that the time it takes for users to make decisions is determined by the number of possible choices they have.’ This is further concluded by that a user will quickly make choices from one menu of 10 items than form two menus of 5 items. An example of this applied within a role playing game is in the character menus. The options of Inventory, Character Stats, Quest Log, and Abilities are all displayed in one menu. Within each of these sections all the options are also displayed as one menu rather than being subdivided into categories. For example, in World of Warcraft the Character Stat and Character Equipment options are merged even though each can be separated into subcategories. This enables the player to make decisions about character equipment and affected attributes to the character statistics faster than were the two divided into two menus as found in Diablo2.

The Magical Number Seven

The magical number seven rule determined ‘that the human mind is best able to remember information in chunks of seven items” as a person comes to experience difficulty keeping more than that amount of information in their short-term memory at any given time. The application of law can also be seen in World of Warcraft in the limitation of quests a character can possess at any one time in a specific zone. This method if ‘gating’ the player helps keep the player on track with their given tasks rather than overwhelming them with an abundance of quests in a single moment. It also serves to draw out the play experience and build a narrative between the player character and the specific zone to which they are currently questing in.

Law of Conservation of Complexity

This law deals with understanding that there are complexities that cannot be removed from an experience, however, such complexities can be relocated away from the user. This can be seen in the AI present in games that control NPC characters grouped to the player. For example in Mass Effect 2, the player controls their character, however, they also possess two addition party members to which they have limited control over. The game could potentially become bogged down as the player has to repeat actions and directions to three characters rather than one. In this way the AI takes over the basic functions of the party members with things such as automatically following the player character or automatically attacking enemies attacking the player character. This removes the complexity of having to issue repetitive commands to the party members.

The Poka-Yoke Principle

This is the process of preventing problems before they occur through what is essentially testing. This can be seen in games in a beta testing to identify problems. In addition, games such as Mass Effect 2 do not allow the player to fire their weapons in certain areas where crucial NPCs exist. This thus prevents the player from accidentally killing an NPC that is necessary for the player to progress to the next stage of the game.

Feedback

Feedback is dealt with by many games differently. The most common form of feedback for computer games is to shake the camera and feather the edges red when the player is coming under attack. Because the player can not physically feel the attack this creates a facsimile of the experiences visually and acts as an indicator to the player.

Appropriateness

Games are designed for specific audiences in mind. This distinction can be found in the division between WRPGs and JRPGs. WRGPs are Western Role Playing Games while JRPGs are Japanese Role Playing Games. JRPGs do not see the same commercial success as WRPGs in the west due to the appropriateness of the content. As religion is perceived differently in Japan and without the baggage of a lived history and experiences, JRPGs often contain religious imagery and ideologies that western consumers find difficulty digesting. This can be seen in Bayonetta released in 2009 and Final Fantasy 13 released in 2010, both games containing heavy religious symbolism that came under scrutiny when released in western markets.