Outcomes and Findings, Evaluating with participants, 14.04

 Pre-Presentation

I find it a quite interesting practice and hobby of the polish science fiction author Stanislav Lem to write reviews about a conference that hasn't happened yet. The advantage of it is to contrast different core ways of how a topic can be looked at and its different aspects by breaking it down into its essential parts. However separating such "stereotypical types" also opens the door to assumptions. The way it was done in "Evaluating Design fiction: The right tool for the job" I find it to be well implemented, but the truth is multifacetted and to avoid falling into the trap of generating a fake reality it is important to reach out to the actual users. For that there are multiple methods of user-testing processes [Image on the right], each highlighting different aspects and with each there being important specific knowledge to be gained. However, unlimited testing is rarely ever the case and the designers and researchers are bound by time and monetary constraints. Thus it is a priority to decide which methods of evaluation are most beneficial to the specific research. Explorative user approaches may be best recorded through observation while to understand the motivation of the users a questionary or interview is better. User-testing is one of the most crucial parts of a design. Because what good is a product if no one wants to use it? 

Because of that, we shouldn't even only leave behind the assumptions we make about other people, but the assumptions about our surrounding as well and explore the world anew. Victor Shklovsky introduced the term "defamiliarization", a process which invites us to go back to the basics such as asking ourselves "What is a glass for? What are the affordance of glass?" [source: Making by making strange: defamiliarization and the design of domestic technologies]. We developed an understanding of how life is, such "Naturalizations" lead to the beliefs of an objective truth. "This is how it is" instead of "This is what it could be". Another such instance is the standardization of measurements and recipes where the details and individuality get lost while a correct way is being established. Or devices such as the microwaves that do heat the food well but its repetitive and presumes it to be "the correct heat" for the dish. What I found interesting is that my hunches about the promise of "you will have more time in your life if you do/use xyz" - which may just be an empty promise since I question if it is not just being filled with other new chores - was reflected in the papers. “While the gains made through labour saving devices are undeniable, we must guard against raising standards and expectations to the point that though the work becomes easier there is more of it to do.» [Making by making strange: defamiliarization and the design of domestic technologies]

Something off topic. 

When I read the excerpt of "That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis [1942] in the papers "Making by making strange: defamiliarization and the design of domestic technologies" my mind drifted off to the topic of ambiguity and multifacetted truth. I thought of the well known tale of The Emperor's New clothes. This story was always about making fun of the king. But what if the king was aware? What if he went through with it simply as a statement of his power. Because no peasent was allowed to laugh, they all had to pretend a fake reality. The Emperor's Reality. All the townspeople had to accept a distorted reality and pretend he was wearing an elegant robe. In the told story the king was a fool, but perhaps  he was well aware but relished the power and freedom that he held to do whatever he wants and have no one question him.

Papers:

> Making by making strange: defamiliarization and the design of domestic technologies by Genevieve Bell, Marc Blythe and Phoebe Sengers, 2005 In ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
> Evaluating Design fiction: The right tool for the job by Eric P.S. Baumer, Marc Blythe, Theresa Jean Tannenbaum, 2002 - In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference
> Introducing Evaluation by Preece J., Rogers Y., Sharp H. - 2002 In Interaction Design

Post-Presentation

Excerzise: How would a fridge look for A.I?

Logic: I tried to break down the properties of a fridge and AI to its essential parts.

Fridge: storage, nutrients, ingredients, temperature

A.I:  electricity, data, self-learning

The "fridge" is a solar panel with multiple measurement devices, a reprogrammable script and movable tiles. Its function is to store energy which is accessible to the AI to "feed" it as well as be transformable by it.

The logic brain of the AI is connected to electricity (to function from the start) as well as the solar panel - creating a circular path. AI learns how the solar panel can be used to collect and store energy for powering itself. It analyses the input and improves the system. Perhaps the solar panel will become a system/device/fridge that is unfamiliar to us.

Ideally the AI would also have access to robotics so that it can not only improve the fridge from within but also change physical properties.