Emerging practices 2019 week 3
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes229 views
The document provides an overview of the course content and assignments for an emerging practices course. It outlines 12 weekly topics that will be covered, including technology and society, non-humans, speculative futures, social robots, human-robot interaction, adoption and diffusion, and co-design. Students will complete various assignments throughout the course, including analyses, evaluations, and a final synthesis report on emerging practices in 2050. The course aims to help students critically examine new technologies and their social implications through different theoretical lenses.
Emerging practices 2019 week 3
- 1. Emerging Practices 2019 #ctec702 Week 3 Ricardo Sosa rsosa@aut.ac.nz designcomputing
- 2. Weeks Content Activity To Do 1 Technology & Society In class analysis of an EP case Reading 1 & Video 1; CYOA a D&T kickstarter EP case 2 Non-humans (Artefacts) In class evaluation of 3Doodler Formative 1 due: Analysis of your EP case 3 Speculative Futures In class ideation session for future tech Formative 2 due: Evaluation of your EP case 4 Philosophies Presentations of your EP case: A-E-S & feedforward Formative 3 due: Synthesis of your EP case Videos of social robots (shortlist 12-6-3, justify) 5 Social Robots In class initial analysis of videos; definitions and initial impressions Prepare notes and questions for crit session on Analysis 6 HRI; Social Cognition In class activity; crit session on your Analysis work Summative 1 due: Analysis report 7 Adoption and Diffusion Student presentations of themes emerging from Analysis Reading 2 & Video 2 8 From Analysis to Evaluation In class low-fi prototyping (Wizard of Oz technique) 9 Speculative Futures In class assessment of speculative designs Summative 2 due: Evaluation report 10 From Evaluation to Ideation Ideation techniques and formats Reading 3 & Video 3 11 Co-Design In class planning and running a Co-design workshop 12 Emergent Practices: 2050 Summative 3 due: Synthesis report
- 3. • “Technology can be judged for the ways in which it can embody specific forms of power and authority” • Social determination vs technological determinism • “The theory of technological politics suggests that we pay attention to the characteristics of technical objects” • “Most technologies that have political consequences are those that transcend the simple categories “intended” and “unintended” altogether” • “The technology deck has been stacked in advance to favour certain social interests” • “Specific features in the design of a technical system… seemingly innocuous design features”
- 4. • “Both household labor and market labor are today performed with tools that can be neither manufactured nor understood by the workers who use them” • “Those implements are much more likely to have been made by persons and in locales that are totally foreign to their eventual users” • “Houseworkers are alienated from the tools” • “Tools are not passive… tools alter our domestic work process as well as the emotional entanglements” • “… for whom? Under what conditions?” • “determined partly by the decisions of individuals but also partly by social processes over which they have had no control”
- 5. • “Intentional fallacy”: the meaning of a text lies in the author’s intention • The “designer fallacy”: a designer-god can design into a technology, its purposes and uses • Humans and non-humans in a “dance of agency” • Affordances of technology, materiality • Indeterminacy of multiple uses • Both the designer-materiality relation, and the artifact-user relations are complex and multistable • The design process must be seen to be fallibilistic and contingent
- 6. Amara’s Design Law: “The early applications of a new technology are myopic and often plain stupid, meaningful and useful applications take a while to develop” EXPECTATIONS
- 7. EXPECTATIONS http://rodneybrooks.com/forai-domo-arigato-mr-roboto/ “There will be much more that comes from AI and robotics. For those who are able to see through what is hype and what is real there are going to be great opportunities.”
- 8. https://mondoweiss.net/2019/03/hannah-arendt-would/ Hannah Arendt • There is no reason to doubt our (tech) abilities. The question is only how we wish to use our technical knowledge… and this question cannot be decided by scientific means; it is a human question of the first order • Every person has the capacity of beginning something anew • The things that owe their existence to men nevertheless constantly condition their human makers • Value is the quality a thing can never possess in privacy but acquires automatically the moment it appears in public • Spare time is never spent in anything but consumption, and the more left, the greedier and more craving his appetites.
- 9. “We are surrounded by things more permanent than the activity by which they were produced, and potentially even more permanent than the lives of their authors” Arendt, H. (1958) The Human Condition. p.96
- 10. “Treating all use objects as though they were consumer goods, so that a chair or a table is now consumed as rapidly as a dress and a dress used up as quickly as food” Arendt, H. (1958) The Human Condition. p.124
- 11. https://mondoweiss.net/2019/03/hannah-arendt-would/ Hannah Arendt • Machines are different. Unlike tools, which at every moment remain servants of the hand, the machines demands that the labourer serve them, that he adjust to them • The question is not so much whether we are the masters or the slaves of our machines… it has become as senseless to describe this world of machines in terms of means and ends as it has always been senseless to ask Nature if she produced the seed to produce a tree or the tree to produce the seed.
- 13. “And lastly I’ve realized, in experimenting with this device, that I also kind of have a nervous tic. The cell phone is – yeah, you have to look down on it and all that, but it’s also kind of a nervous habit…” Sergey Brin … this exercise definitely made me realise to what extent. We’ve added on about 10 extra steps to being able to play the piano just by purchasing this “helpful” and “assisting” product. - As it is meant to replace your need to have your phone out it is meant to immerse you in your own life, so are the glasses the best way to do that? - We see lots of adventure footage, do they stay on your head even when in extreme activities? - What are the issues around privacy?
- 14. Evaluation (formative) • Formulate 2-3 questions from your analysis of the kickstarter EP case • Think of ways in which you could test those ideas: • Do the assumptions behind the technology hold? • Are those realistic uses of the tech? • Are those appropriate users? • What may the likely/unlikely impacts be? • What scenarios can you imagine?
- 15. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/720376666/herbot-automatic-home-gardening-system-you Herbot: Automatic Indoor Gardening Robot 1 Name “Herbot” makes reference to herbs (planetnatural.com/herb-gardening-guru/types) then refers to gardening and see later claims about food in general. It’s commonplace to see exaggerated claims, mixing scales, and making grandiose visions from only one small device. 3 Is this a “robot”? The URL uses “system” but the project became a robot. Also “automatic” is an interesting addition: aren’t robots automatic? What really is automatic or robotic about this hydroponics watering system? Why is the term “hydroponic” hidden? 2 “Indoor” indicates the focus on urban living spaces that are increasingly small especially in high-density cities. This product appeals to a “return to Nature” with references to healthier and more pure living, a key paradox 4 Peculiar design decision: a glass enclosure that isolates most sensorial qualities of gardening and frames the presence of Nature in an otherwise artificial setting, alludes to similar tensions in Sci-Fi: 5 A peculiarly poorly done psd edition of these graphics 6 Clear clues that indirectly point to a type of users: frame sitting on the floor, books used as bookcase. Also, is that an empty pot on the wooden block?
- 18. “you have to learn how to read your plants” (4:40)
- 22. Evaluation (formative) • Creatively think* of low-fidelity strategies to prototype/test those ideas • What aspects of the technology can you simulate in one afternoon? • Who could you ask about their views on this tech? • Can you think of a way to prototype an experience that informs your assessment of the technology? • Are there features that you can “live on” for a few days? • It’s not about testing alternatives (yet), it’s about play testing some key aspects of the new technology and the emergent practices (and meanings) In a Merleau-Ponty way: “living on” the prototype, “communing with” the ideas
- 23. Evaluation (formative) Things I could do to test the Herbot/Plantui idea (Automatic Indoor Garden): • Build a cardboard model (volumetric) to ask SPATIAL questions: where would a Herbot/Plantui live in the house? What size? Visibility and access? Meaning and messages that the Herbot/Plantui send. • How does it feel to have plants in a glass enclosure? • How do people read their plants? How do they communicate with plants? What information/feedback could be useful? • What are the types of incentives for types of users to grow indoor plants? • What stops people who intend to grow indoor plants to do it? • What makes children interested in growing plants? • SOCIAL questions of growing plants…
- 24. Rubric (Analysis) Insufficient (D) Incomplete (C) Adequate (B) Exceptional (A) Clarity Poor readability makes the report hard to follow, the main ideas are unclear, and argument is difficult to assess. Limited writing, flaws make it difficult to read, and many ideas are unclear. Readable and mostly easy to follow and understand. Some limitations with language. Engaging to read, memorable and persuasive, easy to follow and understand the main arguments. Frames new questions and reveals assumptions clearly. Criticality (LO1) Impersonal, uncritical, remains descriptive without evidence of analysis. Fails to identify claims, messages, and agendas in how the case study is defined and its purpose and values embedded. Timid analysis, some critical approximations to deconstruct how the device is defined and perceived by the creators and/or users or experts. Misses opportunities to “read between the lines” and seems to take things at face value. Mostly a complete analysis showing a personal approximation at the case study, cites and interprets specific statements and images. Misses some sources or details which leads to a somehow limited understanding of the purpose of this device. A personal take on the case, identifies overt as well as concealed messages that help reveal an insightful understanding of the purpose of this device, and the values it embodies. Reveals issues and dimensions that are grounded in the analysis and aren’t immediately obvious. Validity (LO2) Uninformed, arbitrary, improvised, lacks relevant or credible sources. No triangulation of ideas, no connection and no elaboration of meanings about this device. Some sources but some lack relevance or credibility. Insufficient connection and triangulation of ideas, reads superficial due to weak sources. Missed opportunities to go offline and source ideas from experienced people or relevant events. Mostly relevant and credible sources, including authoritative and genuine voices. Some triangulation of ideas between sources. Most of the arguments in the analysis are supported adequately either directly or by the student interpreting and building upon sources. Identified and triangulated ideas from a range of sources, revealed new meanings from relevant and authentic information. The key arguments in the analysis are strongly supported by sources either directly drawing from them, or by insightful views and interpretations of them by the student.
Editor's Notes
- #7: Each hype cycle drills down into the five key phases of a technology's life cycle. Technology Trigger: A potential technology breakthrough kicks things off. Early proof-of-concept stories and media interest trigger significant publicity. Often no usable products exist and commercial viability is unproven. Peak of Inflated Expectations: Early publicity produces a number of success stories—often accompanied by scores of failures. Some companies take action; most don’t. Trough of Disillusionment: Interest wanes as experiments and implementations fail to deliver. Producers of the technology shake out or fail. Investment continues only if the surviving providers improve their products to the satisfaction of early adopters. Slope of Enlightenment: More instances of how the technology can benefit the enterprise start to crystallize and become more widely understood. Second- and third-generation products appear from technology providers. More enterprises fund pilots; conservative companies remain cautious. Plateau of Productivity: Mainstream adoption starts to take off. Criteria for assessing provider viability are more clearly defined. The technology's broad market applicability and relevance are clearly paying off. If the technology has more than a niche market then it will continue to grow.[5]