Studio 8 - Contrast, Repetition, Alignment, Proximity (CRAP)

Contrast

This refers to various things such as the fonts, sizes, styles etc and how these are used within documentation and how each one can stand out on a certain page.

- brings out dominant elements

- mutes lesser elements

- creates dynamism

- makes different things different

(image source: pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/581/presentations/05-crap/CRAP.ppt)

Repetition

Keeping the design principle the same throughout a presentation, graphical user interface, buildings wallpaper etc. All of this comes under the repetition section of Saul Greenberg’s CRAP. In other words repetition means repeating the same design throughout the interface i.e. Within Microsoft PowerPoint a user can define the design of one slide in a presentation and then at a click of a button the user can apply the same slide design to every other slide creating a constant theme throughout.

Alignment


This refers to the layout design of a document; margins, indentations, image alignments, word spacing amongst other things.
Proximity

The basic principle behind proximity is grouping all relative content into one main group for organisation.

Saul Greenberg’s CRAP does have relevance to designing pervasive computing but in my opinion it doesn't have much revelance. I say this because as pervasive computing is developing it is less and less likely to follow a design ruling, as technologies involved with pervasive computing are becoming smaller, more technical and less noticeable. In a field where there are new advancements every single year it is impossible to say that Saul Greenberg’s CRAP will guide how all things are designed and developed.

I propose that it is more likely that, for the present time, Saul Greenberg’s CRAP will have relevance to designing pervasive computing because pretty much all computerised designs seem to follow a pattern i.e. mobile phones are almost always rectangle in shape, as well as laptops, pc towers and many more. In the future though we will see Saul Greenberg’s CRAP become obsolete because pervasive computing involves our social environment which is constantly changing day to day and I believe pervasive computing will have to follow this changing environment.

Studio 6 - Identifying Research Activities and Methods

Source: http://www.cogentcomputing.org/~john_h/DIS06.pdf

Research activity 1:

This area had curators being asked what sort of information they would divulge to the visitors whilst they were giving a tour. Given a large map which incorporated models of buildings that the curators shared they were asked to discuss the information that they knew about specific parts of the house and explain.

I believe this research activity is used as Qualitative data because the information requested was required in order to find out what type of information the curators give out whilst conducting a guided tour and the information was taken by an un-structured discussion. This type of information will be helpful towards the research because the discussion can be recorded via audio or video and be used and re-used for the content of the system.

Research activity 2:

Researchers were taken on a guided tour whilst a second researcher followed the tour using a camcorder to record the tour.

I believe that this type of research activity comes under both Quantitative and Qualitative data as a mix; mainly because, it allowed the researchers to gain an idea of what specific content were mentioned frequently and what content was only briefly mentioned throughout.

This type of research activity can also be used to help backup the previous research activity (above) as it was recorded as well. Also this research activity can be used as content for the system.

Research activity 3:

This next research activity involved the researchers taking the curators a video of Ambient Wood before taking them on a walk around the house using audio clips to be played back to the curators, so that they could understand what it would be like to be a visitor to the house and how the tour would also sound to the visitor.

This research activity is a Quantitative data research because the curators were asked to take a vote on:

• Their voices being used in the system
• Like/Dislike the organisation of the transcripts

This therefore means that there will be a number of people for each case to be presentated using the researchers statistical results. The research activity also allows the researchers to make a more informed decision on how to improve and further develop the current system.

Research activity 4

School children were used in this research activity, where they were sent around the Chawton House with a mobile device that allowed the school children to complete the scenario given to them by the researchers.

The school children were told to complete a number of different tasks that required them to use the mobile device and also to interact with the Chawton House as well. The research method used within this research activity is a mixture of Quantitative and Qualitative data methods.

Throughout the Chawton House Project the school children gave feedback to the researchers about what they thought of the system (this feedback would then be used to develop potential stories). Also throughout the project the researchers watched the school children and how they interacted with the system/house and then they were interviewed at the fourth phase of the Chawton House Project workshop. As like all of the previous research activities this one also helped to further develop and improve the system.

Studio 3 - IDEO and Reading Week 3

Creative Design Approaches

Interpretive understanding of taking notice of what people do in their everyday lives, what they use and how they do it. Also, how this might inform design and create an influence within a design process.

Page 54, Parked Car
I think from this image, most people would assume that the driver of the car was in a hurry to get parked because they were late for some form of transport. However, if you notice in the car window screen the user has set up a sun block to keep the car cool; from this I feel that the driver wasn't in a rush.

The layout of the car park isn't making full use of the space available, because there is some left over room (see right-hand side of image). You can see that the car has been parked over the edge of parking line in order to give the car and user move room to get out of the car (possibly to remove luggage from the back seats). Also the bigger automobile (bottom-left of image) seems to have parked over the line as well because there is extra 'wasted' space next to the pre-designed parking space.

I think the main issue within this layout is the actual design of the car park itself. For example: the spaces have all be arranged in straight lines where as the end of the parking space is going diagonal ( \ ).

I think this image is very useful for informing design, because a solution is possible by simply changing the straight lines of the parking spaces to match the angle of the edges. Eg:

New Design: \ \ \ \ \ \ \

This would allow more cars to be parked within the area, make better use of the space given and would also generate more money for the owners of the car park (providing they charge per hour or day). Another Solution could be to provide wider parking spaces (possibly at an extra charge) for users with lots of luggage, large automobiles, families etc.

Page 86, Toilet Cubicle
The toilet in the image appears to be a disabled person's toilet, I say this because it has a bar along the wall, which is common to disabled toilet cubicles.

The main issue within this cubicle is space and distance. If this toilet cubicle is designed for disabled user, then I feel the layout is completely wrong. For example: the distance between the toilet rolls and the toilet itself has quite a bit of space between the two. This would prove to become a difficulty for the user (depending on their disability).

An example of this becoming a difficulty would be: If the disability was to do with the users legs, the wouldn't be able to reach over towards the toilet rolls by themselves without the risk of falling off.

Although I have picked out a potential problem within the image on page 86, there is something in the image that could influence design. You can notice that a user of this toilet cubicle has used a bar that is designed to help disabled people move onto/off the toilet for hanging up their newspaper.

This can lead to new designs within toilet cubicles, by including a small bar or a slot in the wall which will allow users to put magazines or newspapers in the toilet for future reading (if the toilet is within the work place). Although statistically more men read while on the toilet than women, so this design should 'possibly' be aimed towards men's toilets rather than womens.

The image also brings out some useful ideas for women cubicles, where a small bar could be put in place to allow women to hang their handbag upon whilst they are using the toilet. This would also stop robberies occurring through the bottom gaps on the toilet cubicle, which has occurred often, mainly in public toilets. Obviously one of the most common occurring things within a toilet cubicle will be a hook on the back of the door, where men and women can hang their coats, bags etc. However I believe this is still not a safe place for users to hang their bags/handbags because anybody can reach over the top and grab anything in reach, this is why I developed the idea of having some form of hanger next to the user, while they are sitting down.

Reading Week 3
Jane Fulton Suri and her team at IDEO use images to help understand ways that ordinary people use various objects in everyday use. It allows the team to develop new designs by studying how people interact normally within an environment. Jane uses images to learn “firsthand about the context, habits, rituals, priorities, processes and values of the people” , by using a collection of images Jane and her team can ask themselves various questions about, how the user is interacting with objects they are using, what they do whilst using and what they do within the environment.

An example of this would be on page 169 where they have used the concepts within a breakfast routine. The main focus of this study was to work on the concepts of 'toasting bread' before eating and 'juicing oranges' before drinking them. Whilst conducting the study of these rituals the design team developed breakfast concepts that they wished to study. Once the study was completed and after thinking about the activities rather than the juicer or toaster they understood various stages:
- Toasting bread & Stacking toasted bread – before eating it
- Juicing oranges & drinking juice

“By thinking about the activities rather than the 'juicer' or 'toaster' themselves, led to new ideas: a toast-rack life for the toaster and a straight-into-the-glass juicer”
(IDEO Reading, Page 169 by Jane Fulton Suri)

From the above example; you can see that the team at IDEO have thought of some concepts from daily tasks that people do in their everyday lives and studied them. They were asked to do this by a company named 'Matshushita' to see if they could improve the products. After studying the concepts, Jane and her team managed to improve the products to create a simple and more efficient product for the user. Jane and her team at IDEO tend to study people in comfortable surroundings, mainly in their own everyday life environment. By doing this, the team at IDEO can study how people interact with various things, how they differ and how improvements can be made.

Jane Fulton Suri goes on to say that, not everything in our surroundings has to be re-thought or re-designed with some unique idea to make it more exciting etc. She states “this is the type of product you see sold in an airplane catalog”. So as designers, we shouldn't attempt to re-design everything we see in our daily life – instead we should concentrate on how we could improve things to make them simple and more effcient, and try not to overdo our thinking when it comes our surroundings.

Studio 1 – Definitions and images of pervasive computing and Reading Week 1

203CR – Designing for Usability 2

Studio 1 – Definitions and images of pervasive computing

List of Definitions
Below is a list of definitions found from various sources across the Internet via the Google (http://www.google.co.uk/) search engine, along with the links to where the definitions were taken from.

Pervasive Computing – Refers to the use of computers in everyday life, including PDAs, smartphones and other mobile devices. It also refers to computers contained in commonplace objects such as cars and appliances and implies that people are unaware of their presence. One of the Holy Grails of this environment is that all these devices communicate with each other over wireless networks without any interaction required by the user. (http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=pervasive+computing&i=49146,00.asp)
The idea that technology is moving beyond the personal computer to everyday devices with embedded technology and connectivity as computing devices become progressively smaller and more powerful. Also called ubiquitous computing, pervasive computing is the result of computer technology advancing at exponential speeds -- a trend toward all man-made and some natural products having hardware and software. Pervasive computing goes beyond the realm of personal computers: it is the idea that almost any device, from clothing to tools to appliances to cars to homes to the human body to your coffee mug, can be imbedded with chips to connect the device to an infinite network of other devices. The goal of pervasive computing, which combines current network technologies with wireless computing, voice recognition, Internet capability and artificial intelligence, is to create an environment where the connectivity of devices is embedded in such a way that the connectivity is unobtrusive and always available. (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/P/pervasive_computing.html)

Pervasive computing is the trend towards increasingly ubiquitous (another name for the movement is ubiquitous computing), connected computing devices in the environment, a trend being brought about by a convergence of advanced electronic - and particularly, wireless - technologies and the Internet. Pervasive computing devices are not personal computers as we tend to think of them, but very tiny - even invisible - devices, either mobile or embedded in almost any type of object imaginable, including cars, tools, appliances, clothing and various consumer goods - all communicating through increasingly interconnected networks.
(http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid7_gci759337,00.html)

Analysis
All 3 of the definitions are very similar in the fact that they all state that Pervasive Computing is used in small devices. Also that Pervasive Computing can be embedded in almost anything that is man-made and whilst embedded it can be connected to a network or wireless device/network. All 3 definitions agree that this type of technology doesn’t require human interaction and that all pervasive computing devices can communicate with each other independently.

The definitions only differ from each other by interpreting the term Pervasive Computing in different ways. Pervasive Computing is generally agreed to be heavily in connection with ubiquitous computing, as all of the terms seem to trend toward one another. The above image explains a bit about pervasive computing by showing that a Human can keep track of personal things and information while ‘out and about’. The reason this is possible is because all the information tends to be embedded into many devices which interact with each other.

Ubiquitous computing – Making many computers available throughout the physical environment, while making them effectively invisible to the user. Ubiquitous computing is held by some to be the Third Wave of computing. The First Wave was many people per computer; the Second Wave was one person per computer. The Third Wave will be many computers per person. Three key technical issues are: power consumption, user interface, and wireless connectivity. (http://vdict.com/ubiquitous%20computing,6,0,0.html)

Ubiquitous computing (ubicomp) is a post-desktop model of human-computer interaction in which information processing has been thoroughly integrated into everyday objects and activities. As opposed to the desktop paradigm, in which a single user consciously engages a single device for a specialized purpose, someone "using" ubiquitous computing engages many computational devices and systems simultaneously, in the course of ordinary activities, and may not necessarily even be aware that they are doing so. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquitous_computing)

Ubiquitous computing, or calm technology, is a paradigm shift where technology becomes virtually invisible in our lives. Instead of having a desk-top or lap-top machine, the technology we use will be embedded in our environment. From the ubiquitous computing page at Xerox PARC [UBPARC] we have the following description: imagine a world with hundreds of wireless computing devices of different sizes in the same room. In order to bring this type of computing out into the environment, among the things we need to rethink are user interfaces, displays, operating systems, networks, and wireless communications. (http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/cs6751_97_fall/projects/say-cheese/marcia/mfinal.html)

Analysis
All 3 of the definitions for ubiquitous computing are very similar in the way they define how technology has become invisible to the Human everyday life. They all explain that ‘ubicomp’ a.k.a. ‘calm technology’ is making computer interaction available everywhere in physical environment but at the same time this technology is hardly noticeable.

The definitions don’t really tend to differ from each other, because all 3 have come to the same conclusion that ubiquitous computing is availability of many computers to a single user with the use of wireless communications. The only different approach to explaining the term ubiquitous computing is that we, as people need to rethink everything we use in computing to date in order to allow the full flow of ubiquitous computing within the environment. This image clearly shows a ubiquitous computing environment, while displaying how people would use a device in their everyday use without realising where the information is actually coming from, and how much they interact with each other.

Ambient Computing – Ambient computing is about moving computing capabilities beyond the desktop and about constantly and seamlessly adapting configurations of technology to changing situations and needs. Key issues in ambient computing include: Invisibility, e.g. that computing is embedded in other everyday objects:

• Construction, e.g. that new possibilities can be obtained by putting existing components together.
• Heterogeneity, e.g. that components should function in many fundamentally different contexts and configurations.
• Change, e.g. reflecting that the needs and the technologies are changing continuously.
• Scalability, e.g. that solutions that work with few users and in a limited context, should also work in almost unlimited contexts.

(http://www.daimi.au.dk/~olavb/AQLWS/)

Analysis
This definition shows that Ambient Computing heavily interacts with ubiquitous computing by agreeing that the computing technology needs to be embedded in everyday objects whilst being invisible. The term Ambient Computing is very similar to all of the other terminologies, because they all agree about the future of computing is multi-tasking, multi-user and can function in any type of environment whilst being barrier-free.

This image is used to display how everything within our daily lives can be embedded with technology and linked to a network. All embedded devices would be ‘wirelessly’ connected to a network, with the ability of all devices communicating with each other – without the need to human-computer interaction.

Disappearing Computing – In the context of disappearing computing, the user is engaged in mobile interaction sessions, with wearable machinery, while the software should be able to dynamically utilize distributed remote I/O resources, for the purpose of interaction, that are engaged (I.e. come and go) "on-the-fly". The technical purpose of this work is to provide the development infrastructure for crafting interfaces that support such disappearing computing behaviour. More specifically, the results of this work concern: (a) an interaction style that is particularly suited to the mobile, distributed and wearable nature of interactive applications; (b) a systematic design method, enabling designers to formulate easily dialogues with concrete interface elements, assuming dynamic engagement through discovery, and optimal utilisation of I/O resources "on-the-fly"; c) an implementation library in the form of an interface toolkit, through which programmers can implement fully working interfaces, that hide all dynamic remote I/O resource management details; and d) a set of run-time utility components, such as an application manager, being the necessary accompanying run-time instrumentation for dynamic distributed I/O control supporting multiple concurrent applications. (http://www.ics.forth.gr/publications/technical-reports.jsp?raey=2002, Anthony Savidis, Constantine Stephanidis, ICS-FORTH Technical Report)

Analysis
Once again, we can see that all of the terminologies are heavily involved with each other, looking for the same outcome.

A final outcome that involves a computerised civilisation. Where that the average person can use technology without the need of always being in physical contact with a computerised device. For example: A user may enter their home and the house is embedded with devices that will know what lights to turn on in the house. The house may even know the location of the user’s pet cat.

This is the outcome that all of the terms are looking for, that we as users can interact with everything, while everything we come into contact with is interacting between themselves – without the need of a human touch.

This image shows an office environment where if you look closely, you can see no computers but in the background the wall is also a desktop. Also if you look at the desk on the right of the image you will see that the user is drawing onto desktop, embedded within the table.

Reading Week 1

• - Everyware
• - Not simply just computing everywhere but also computers, computing and components everywhere and in everything
• - computing without the computers
• - An augmented reality, body-area networking
• - Invisible computing but computing everywhere - "does not live on a personal device of any sort, but is in the woodwork"
• - desktop model to become obsolete leading to the reconfiguration of everyday life of people around them
• - The abililty to wear computers, "wearable computing" allowing a t-shirt, pair of jeans, shoes etc to be able to interact with various objects linking the user to their surroundings