CHI 09- Butler Lies

Jeff Hancock, Jeremy Birnholtz, Natalya Bazarova, Jamie Guillory, Josh Perlin, Barrett Amos

Department of Communication and Information Science Program

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY 14853

The authors introduce "butler lies" which they define as an act deception to manage social interactions. Butler lies are used to avoid and exit conversations, and to explain communication behavior. Examples would be like saying, IMing "cant talk, im studying" when you are not studying, just don't want to talk to that person. Or maybe telling someone "sorry I missed your call I was in the shower" when really you just didn't want to talk to them then. These lies are rampant in our society because of our many forms of 'always-on' communication such as cell phones, text messaging and email.

Thoughts

I think its awesome that someones finally coined a term to cover these little lies. 'Butler lie' has a fitting connotation in my opinion like 'respectful, nothing-personal, lie'. It is just like if someone came to your house and knocked, and you told your butler to tell them you weren't home. In fact that's probably why they chose butler lie. I think that the definition of a butler lie should also include deception to start a new conversation, such as, 'oh sorry my phone must have called you on accident, but anyway whats up?' or sending a 'i had a great time last night' text message to ex girlfriend by accident just to make her jealous.

CHI 09- Social TV

David Geerts and Dirk De Grooff IBBT / K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Social television enables remote communication and interaction between viewers. Many social TV systems are currently in development. There are existing guidelines for ensuring a usable system however there are no guidelines evaluating the social aspects of a system. The authors propose a set of twelve heuristics for measuring the sociability of these TV applications.

Their heuristics in my own words:

1. Offer text and voice communication.
2. Have a user status bar with options like busy, away, watching intently, watching relaxed, and not really watching at all just sitting on the couch with the TV on.
3. Let people collaborate at the while watching at the same time or if they watch at different times.
4. Allow for interactions between people at different TV and also people watching at the same TV.
5. Track and use everyone's TV choices and habits
6. Let the user change the settings.
7. Have privacy options and ensure privacy.
8. Don't distract from the actual TV watching.
9. Be sure and tell user about changes and upcoming shows or events.
10. Recognize the genres of programs and behave appropriately for each genre. Like don't allow for people to spoil the endings of mystery shows but for comedy shows it doesn't really matter.
11. Allow for sharing between devices like a PC or smartphone.
12. Encourage shared activities.

The major effort of the authors was spent on grounding these sociability heuristics in observed user behavior. They have not validated these heuristics yet because no social TV systems are commercially available.

Thoughts
The heuristics they propose seem like 'duh' to me. I am assuming that these authors are attempting to create a social TV system and one of their first steps to research the design requirements. After they gathered the requirements they thought 'Hey we could publish a paper about these' and that's just what they did. All the heuristics are good ideas in my opinion and I agree that a system that fulfilled them all would be a success.

Emotional Design

Don Norman is back and he's learned a few things. Some time since his last book he must have visited the home of a few real American families and noticed that people gladly purchase and enjoy items that are ugly, impractical, and not well designed. This book is his attempt to reconcile human preference with good design.

He identifies three aspects of emotional design visceral, behavioral, and reflective. I think that reflective should really be split into two sections: Reflective - self-image, how others view you with the object, associated social stigma. Personal or Internal - personal or spiritual satisfaction and memories. As he has it, reflective design is out of proportion compared to the other two aspects.

I do agree with his concept of emotional design. Personally I make all my decisions based on emotion. Things are always more enjoyable when chosen for their emotional quality. Forget practicality, do what feels best.

Asylum Run by Inmates

Alan Cooper

From the first chapter this book already seems to be overlapping a lot with the things Don Norman was saying from the last book. One concept that I really enjoyed was the apologists and survivors. It's nice that he acknowledges that there are more than one few point on design. I do not think that these names are great, they sound weak but I have yet to think of something better. The survivor and apologist outlooks are true for all life not just design. Its Republican and Democrat, right and left. The apologists are of course the right wing, 'the software does what it needs to do,if you dont like it, dont use it', 'this is the way its always worked and we've been fine', 'it wouldnt be so hard to use if you didnt drop out of highschool you bum', 'this is america where we speak english'. And the survivors are the left-wing Democrats who feel entitled to be able to understand and use the software, socialized tech support, software should cost more and be easier to use. Its the age old battle of liberty versus equality. Apologists want the liberty and freedom to use the software how they want and if some can use it better than other then good for them. Survivors think software should be equally usable by everyone.

This raises a question, if everything was perfectly designed, what kind of world would we live in? Id think itd be a world of artists. With everything designed perfectly there would be no need for alot of occupations. It would be a world of artists and the only thing ever in question would be aesthetics.

But will design ever be perfect, I dont think so. Design is inherently an iterative process. No design will ever reach perfection, it will either be made obsolete or altered, changed, or built upon as the needs and requires of society change. And even though I believe it to be iterative no one wants it to be. No one wants things to change, and so these iterations take decades or even centuries. Who knows when we will see a new take on pants really catch on. Pants have been around for over a 100 years I'd say but certainly they can't be the perfection of leg attire for men. We'll have to wait and see. Maybe pants made of fabric that can shrink and expand. Say when you are jogging the pants tighten on your legs like spandex for better running and breath-ability but when you slow down to walk they expand to normal pant size, and then if you sit down then expand further like a comfy blanket over your legs.

CHI 09- IKEA Hacking

Daniela Rosner, Jonathan Bean. University of California, Berkeley

http://ikeahacker.blogspot.com/

Summary
This paper is a look into the growing trend of DYI and home hacking. Specifically they focus on IKEA hacking. If you dont know, IKEA is a Sweedish company that makes all manner of home products. They sell furniture to ice cube trays, small-space storage solutions to complete kitchen remodels. Their products usually lean more towards a Danish Modern look however they do have products more Contemporary American. The researchers interviewed nine frequent IKEA hackers to gain insight into the creative and collaborative community. One hacker defined the community as "a collaborative set of non-concurrent projects". The paper provides enthnological data on these emerging online communities and suggests that there is a need to develop new ways of online collaboration.

Thoughts
I am a big DIY-er and a fan of IKEA. Most of their stuff isnt the best quality but you just have to consider that its all 2-3 year items. Meaning youll have them for that long and then chunk them and thats ok because they were cheap. I am familiar with IKEA hacking and it is a consistent topic in all the home-centered blogs I read.

I thought it was silly for them to draw conclusions on the effects online culture simply based on the fact that the word 'hack' and 'program' have now entered common vocabulary and have gathered new meanings.

Overall I think that the traditional website has become a bit outdated and we should work on new ways of online collaboration. Maybe like an interactive Flash site which is like an in browser Second Life kind of thing. Or maybe like an online shared cork board of ideas and posts and links and images. Or maybe some sort of online version of a shared Lego table, like the one that is the doctors office or in the back of a car dealership. Were kids can come and make something but then they have to go and the next kid comes and either adds on to what is there or destroys it. Something like that but for adults.

CHI 09- Steerable Focus

National Taiwan University

Summary
The paper was focused on a mixed resolution table projection display. The display was capable of displaying a large area in low resolution and a small area in high resolution. They built an application which uses Google Maps to display a large map in low res with a small focus area in high res. They tested two methods of moving the focus section. One was with the focus section being fixed in one location and the map would move under it. And the other the map would remain still and the user could direct the focus section, steerable. They tested each method on two tasks and found that users were able to complete the tasks faster with the steerable focus.

Thoughts
The results of the study showed what I thought. In my experiences playing computer games or using software I knew that the steerable focus would be superior. This seems to fit inline with things Don Norman was talking about, mental models, and analogous actions. Being able to steer the focus section is much like using a magnifying glass. The study proves that the action being a reality based interaction is better than the one that is not.

Design of Everyday Things

Summary
There are a lot of great concepts in this book. It was impressive how many concepts that we have been seeing in the UIST papers and also in my own research were covered. Things like natural mappings, analogous actions, and mental models. Many of these ideas are things I've been researching for my senior capstone projects. The project will be exploring new multitouch gestures and we are currently in the design stage. I recently read a paper concerning alot of these same things and they referred to natural mapping, mental models, etc. as a group named "reality-based interactions". I have also been thinking about designing visibility in a different way than what he talked about, external visibility. External visibility considers the ability of others not involved to follow along with what the author is doing.

Thoughts
This book made me rethink everything about everything. Having read the book I now see errors all around me. He provoked a lot of new ideas about doors and phones. Being written over twenty years ago some parts were very funny. For example when he was talking about the small computer in his pocket that could keep track of his planner and his address book, then he said, "...and it would need to have someway to connect to a phone."

Questions
How will his ideas change on knowledge in the world vs knowledge in the head?

Are his seven steps on an action applicable to software?