It’s friday afternoon and the week-end is almost there so it’s a good time to read few things about Buckminster Fuller, isn’t it?

First in Metropolis, there’s an interesting overview of his “legacy” by colleagues and admirers. And second, Popular Mechanics have a sort of retrospective called “10 Gonzo Machines From Rogue Inventor Buckminster Fuller:

“The late, great architect and inventor brought us the geodesic dome, but Buckminster Fuller’s often twisted, often brilliant vision extended far beyond air-conditioned sporting arenas. From super-efficient cars carrying lots of passengers to entire cities encapsulated by single roofs, he made Frank Lloyd Wright look positively normal, and his prescient engineering foreshadowed—and continues to inform—the movement toward green design and prefabricated housing. Here’s a handful of our favorite concepts from the Fuller retrospective at the Whitney Museum in New York.“

The one which amazes me is certainly the “Dymaxion Air-Ocean World Map” which shows the land masses as there true sizes:

“Frustrated with the failure of cartographers to develop an accurate two-dimensional map of the world, Fuller used his geometric knack to create his own distortion-free projection. His “Dymaxion Air-Ocean World Map” appeared in Life magazine in 1943 and remains one of the most geographically accurate world maps. “

Why do I blog this? pure curiosity in thinkers about space, urban environment and design.

Thinking about ubiquitous computing and the so-called “internet of things” lately, I have started to recognize the underlying process and how it is engineered. It’s as if the starting point was the “social” which is then cut in different chunks and “places”: home, work, etc… and then a second differentiation in “objects” or “things” that engineers try to “augment” or “make intelligent”: smart fridge, augmented maps, intelligent car, house 2.0 and so on. It’s as if the process was always like this, following both an incremental innovation path AND the assumption that objects should stay the same with an augmented smartness permitted by different sorts of Gods (AI, connection with 3D virtual worlds, networked capabilities).

Janne Jalkanen has a good post which also deals with these issues, it’s called “Ubicomp, and why it’s broken“). He basically describes 3 reasons why he things ubiquitous computing is flawed, some excerpts:

1. “People want to feel smarter, and in control. When you are overwhelmed with choice, you feel stupid. When you have five options, you can weigh them in your mind, and make a choice which you feel happy about - you feel both smart and in control. Apple gets this - the reason why iPhone is so cool is because it makes you feel powerful and in control as an user: you understand the options (no geekery involved), you can use it with ease, and you get to go wherever you want. Granted, your array of choice is limited, but that only exists so that you can feel smarter.
2. The second big reason why the ubicomp vision is broken is cost. Building infrastructure costs money. Maintaining infrastructure costs money. Making your environment smarter means that it needs to have maintenance. Yes, it can be smart and call a repairmain to come by - but as long as it’s not a legal citizen, it can’t pay for the repairs. Is it really ubiquitous, if it works only in very selected patches of the world where people can afford it? (…) However, consider your personal electronics - like the mobile phone. You get a new one every two years (…) Personally, I think the iPhones and Androids and Limos and Nokias of the world have a lot more claim to the ubiquitous computing vision than the internet-of-things folks. They’re already connected, and they’re everywhere.
3. The third thing that I find broken in the whole thing is how the human factor has been cut from the equation. Yes, it is said to transform our lives, but I’ve yet to hear one good reason what exactly would make two home appliances want to talk to each other? And note - I am specifically saying want. Because at the moment, they don’t want anything. They do as they are told, without any personality or desires. We need to figure out what a toaster wants (and not ask the one in Red Dwarf) to understand why they would need to network - and if they do, why aren’t they talking to me instead of each other?”

Why do I blog this? some great thinking here, especially about the underlying visions of ubiquitous computing and how it’s tackled by people who really implement stuff. It’s therefore interesting to see the perspective from someone at Nokia and about this claim that phones better relate to ubiquitous computing than other internet-of-things projects.

(Maps of optic fiber routes in an urban environment taken from Jef Huang’s talk at the world congress of architecture)

Meanwhile, on the urban computing front, Adobe Think Tank featured an insightful article by Karzys Varnelis and Leah Meisterlin entitled “The invisible city: Design in the age of intelligent maps”. It described how today’s maps are not just about spatial relationships but rather about revealing invisible information (”previously hidden in spreadsheets and databases”) through new sorts of representation.

As the authors say, maps are now so ubiquitous that they’re a key component of network culture: we use map on the web, on mobile, in car GPS, etc. and even on the street.

Concerning the implications:

“…is not just a new representation of the city that emerges out of this data; its a new hybrid city, part physical texture and part data-driven map. (…) For designers, the implications are clear. As maps become richer, more complicated, and less predictable, cartography becomes less a matter of convention and more a matter of invention. Our age of intelligent maps demands intelligent map design
(…)
Instead of seeing ourselves as part of the city fabric, inhabiting a three-dimensional urban condition, we dwell in a permanent out-of-body experience, displaced from our own locations, seeing ourselves as moving dots or pins on a map. In doing so, we experience ourselves less as individuals and more as data moving along a planetary network, composed of both telematic circuits and the physical pathways of the global city.
(…)
[and also some critical perspectives:] If ubiquitous mapping systems are a powerful new tool, uncritical reliance on them can easily lead users astray. (…) it is also disappointing—and perhaps indicative of where Google is ultimately going in all this—to observe that layers of content for ubiquitous mapping applications remain so tied to traditional datasets“

(Picture of the book “Paris ville invisible” by Bruno Latour which deals with this issue)

So what can be done? how to design meaningful interactions and using alternative datasets? Varnelis an Meisterlin describe how “interventionist mapping” has started to gain some interest recently, mentionning examples like Stamen’s INdigital Wireless E9-1-1 or Justice Mapping Center and Columbia University’s Spatial Information Design Lab’s series of maps depicting the Million Dollar Blocks. These projects, by showing relationships and patterns can become more than expository: they allow to ask questions, draw conclusions and help to mobilize people politically.

And while maps’s role evolve, so does our relationship to the spatial environment

“In the past, maps existed as much to mark out the unknown, to slowly fill in areas blank except perhaps for the legend “here be monsters,” as to represent the known territory of the city. Today, however, with polar exploration, mountain climbing, and even space travel, becoming increasingly banal amusements instead of feats of daring exploration, maps are shifting toward a new relationship between the known and the unknown.
(…)
maps as navigational tools for the physical traversal of space are supplanted by intelligent maps for navigating a contemporary space in which the physical becomes a layer of data in a global informational space (…) Much of this world is invisible and it is the task of the designer to help us understand it.“

Why do I blog this? Accumulating material for a near future laboratory pamphlet about urbain comuting. The article reads as an interesting follow-up to Urban Computing and Its discontent by Adam Greenfield and Mark Shepard, since it looks at the same boundary object through another perspective.

Perusing this also made me think about what Dan Hill recently described about his position at Arup (and some examples of what is of interest to him):

“I’m currently exploring a few ideas in particular, such as extrapolating and aggregating Building Information Modelling (BIM) techniques up to the city level - to form a kind of ‘City Information Modelling’ (CIM). Taken with the feedback from urban informatics, this could then extend the design process out over the true life-cycle of the project, including inhabited and adapted, which would mean a four-dimensional modelling process taking into account the living city, or a ‘4D Urbanism‘. You’ll note these concepts are still a bit slippery, to say the least.“

A basic instance of revealing the invisible through technology (urban computing!?). These simple electronic displays give some information about the production of electricity by solar panels located on this parking lot rooftop. Seen in Lyon, France yesterday, it actually represents the real-time production (percentage), the cumulated production since 2005 and the equivalent of saved greenhouse gas.

Some cities are amazingly good at keeping the different layers which constitute the “urban envelope”. In this example taken from Zürich last week, remnants from an old building have been kept to create a colorful playground. Where other cultures/regulation would tear it down, the city of Zürich amazingly allow this to happen, preserving a sense of different times in the environment.

An interesting short description of common touch-screen technologies on by AP described by Peter Svensson:

• ” Resistive (Palm Treos, HTC phones and the Samsung Instinct.): Two layers of clear conductive material lie on top of the display. Pressing them together makes current flow between them. Resistive displays are cheap and can be used with a simple plastic or metal stylus, but are prone to damage because the sensor is on top of the display.
• Projected capacitive (Apple iPhone and the LG Prada): this touch sensor can lie underneath a protective sheet of glass, making it more durable. The mere proximity of a finger or other object of similar size changes the electrical properties of the sensor’s conducting layers, which is why the iPhone is so good at sensing light touches and quick swipes. Projected capacitive sensors can register more than one touch at a time.
• Surface capacitive (ATM, kiosks): Like resistive screens, they usually need recalibration, and because they’re mounted on top of the display glass, they’re prone to damage and wear.
• Surface acoustic wave (ATM, large screens): these touch screens vibrate very rapidly. Sensors pick up how the touch of a finger affects those vibrations. The screens can be crisp and clear, but the sensor can’t be sealed against the elements.”

Why do I blog this? a quick and dirty overview only to be aware of the field.

In the last TOCHI issue, there is this paper called The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas by Lim, Stolterman and Josh Tenenberg which deals with prototypes in HCI and design. They state how the role of prototype is well known but there’s a lack of knowledge concerning the “fundamental nature of prototypes”. They subsequently try to provide an “anatomy of prototypes as a framework for prototype conceptualization”.

Some excerpts I found relevant:

“we identify an initial set of design aspects that a prototype might exhibit. We call these aspects filtering dimensions. We use the term filter, since by selecting aspects of a design idea, the designer focuses on particular regions within an imagined or possible design space.
(…)
The Principles of Prototyping and the Anatomy of Prototypes

Fundamental prototyping principle: Prototyping is an activity with the purpose of creating a manifestation that, in its simplest form, filters the qualities in which designers are interested, without distorting the understanding of the whole.

Economic principle of prototyping: The best prototype is one that, in the simplest and the most efficient way, makes the possibilities and limitations of a design idea visible and measurable.

Anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes are filters that traverse a design space and are manifestations of design ideas that concretize and externalize conceptual ideas.“

Also about the quality of a “good” prototype:

“…can only be understood in relation to the specific purpose of the design process and to the specific issue that a designer is trying to explore, evaluate, or understand. The purposes for which prototypes are used can be broadly categorized into the following areas:
(1) evaluation and testing; (2) the understanding of user experience, needs, and values; (3) idea generation; and (4) communication among designers. These categories are not meant to be mutually exclusive, and any one prototype can be used for multiple purposes.“

Why do I blog this? documenting some aspects of design for project discussion with a client in the video game industry. The notion of prototype is intriguing in that field and would benefit a bit from design thinking.

This summer issue of IEEE Pervasive Computing is especially focused on hacking and its role in the field of pervasive/ubiquitous computing. As Roy Want, puts it into his editorial introduction, hacking can play a powerful role in pervasive computing as it can inspire “thought processes and reduce the time it takes to create a viable prototype. This process can take many forms: taking a device that performs one function and tweaking it so that it makes another, gathering unrelated components and commercial products to be repurposed or rapid prototyping.

In their introduction, the guest editors also highlight how “The advent of the Web along with the rise of open source communities have brought a resurgence in hacking” along with a good bunch of websites about this topic.

The issue covers examples about the Nintendo Wii, Chumby, bluetooth in cell phones among other things, as well as a more theoretical description of how hacking is valuable for user innovation by Eric von Hippel and Joseph A. Paradiso. In this paper, they show how the hacker is a “lead user” who reinvents and modifies products to better achieve his or her own needs.

Why do I blog this? simply looking at how the recent evolution of object hacking scene pervades the academic/engineering field.

… made me thing of Person, M. & Shanks, M. Theatre/Archaeology, London: Routledge (2001):

“The archaeological experience of ruin, decay and site formation processes reveals something vital about social reality, but something which is usually disavowed. Decay and ruin reveal the symmetry of people and things. They dissolve the absolute distinction between people and the object world. This is why we can so cherish the ruined and fragmented past“

Why do I blog this? Visiting this glass dump last week made me think about the intricate relationship between waste, detritus and how we use things…. which often leads to an intriguing typology of places where we drop detritus like the one above. Generally hidden from public view, it sometimes resurface. Beyond my fascination towards garbage, it’s intriguing to note the value of trashs described by Person and Shanks’s quote.

Chris Speed’s PhD thesis seems very relevant for people interested in architecture and digital technologies, and more specifically the notion of “social navigation“:

“Through a literature review of the introduction and development of digital technologies to architectural practice, the thesis identifies the inappropriate persistence of a number of overarching concepts informing architectural practice. In a review of the emergence and growth of ‘human geography’ it elaborates on the concept of the social production of space, which it relates to an analysis of emerging social navigation technologies. In so doing the thesis prepares the way for an integration of socially aware architecture with the opportunities offered by social computing.“

As the author describes in his conclusion, the thesis:

“…adressed the research question by analysing how digital architecture had positioned itself without a social agenda through its adoption of a split model for time and space. It went on to discuss the way in which human geography, through an identification of social agency in the production of space, has demonstrated how a combined approach supports many new models for understanding experience. It introduced social navigation as a contemporary form of social computing that offers the methodological techniques for supporting the construction of digital architecture. The author’s own art and design practice was reflected upon, as it was through this that a methodology was developed and applied to the large-scale design project, and evaluated through a substantial ethnographic study.
“

What’s interesting in his work is the different projects he designed to illustrate his theoretical claims. One my favorite is certainly the Random Lift button that I already mentioned here.

(Photo by Chris Speed)

Why do I blog this? I only had a glance to the whole thing because there’s a lot of material in there but it looks like an impressive attempts to put together different theoretical bodies and design projects in a very coherent and relevant way to address the relationship between digital and physical space.

Where the first picture only requires to gently caress the button, the second is strikingly more aggressive and requires the presence of an RFID tag to open up the access. In the first case, the symbol depicted is the hand, the situation is more complex in the second one with this non-universal pictogram. Besides, there is also this very non-user-centered number on a white sticker that reveals a different interaction “flavor”. Finally, the concrete wall also reveals the different context definitely more oriented towards car drivers who want to enter a parking lot.

A nicely folded map for a careful bike-rider? At first glance, its looks as if the owner folded a map intelligently to find his/her way in the city. But the same map is on every bike around and if you read it you notice that it’s a warning about the upcoming removal of the bike. An interesting signal of map usage with bikes anyway. Seen in Zürich, Switzerland this week.

Two interesting projects that I ran across recently and which aims at making invisible phenomena more explicit:

Magnetic movie b Semiconductor (Ruth Jarman and Joe Gerhardt) shot at the NASA Space Sciences Laboratory, UC Berkeley, California, USA.:

“In Magnetic Movie, Semiconductor have taken the magnificent scientific visualisations of the sun and solar winds conducted at the Space Sciences Laboratory and Semiconducted them (…) In 1744 a simple experiment was conducted in Sweden to reproduce the underlying cause of the Aurora Borealis in a laboratory, what we would now think of as a room. A small hole in a shade “the size of a large pea” let through a ray of sunlight that then was refracted through a prism. The small patch of light broken into a spectrum of colours then traveled through a medium of turbulent air directly above a warmed glass of aquavit.
(…)
scientists at the SSL at University of California in Berkeley theoretically model, conduct experiments, and develop instruments to study the magnetic fields of the sun. They study them deep inside the sun’s core, their effect on the looping of the corona flaring above its surface (the photosphere, that lights our days), and the solar winds of charged particles that interact with the earth’s own magnetic field, creating the auroral displays at the poles. Magnetic Movie is the aquavit, something not precisely scientific but grants us an uncanny experience of geophysical and cosmological forces.“

The Pollstream series

“Pollstream is a collection of ideas, forms and images that explore man-made clouds. We are fascinated by clouds because of their movement, and because of their natural undefined form - which makes them difficult to be fixed in time. Across a number of projects, clouds are used as a visual metaphor to aestheticise emissions and chemical toxins. (…) This project is an intervention in environmental ethics. It creates a series of environments and processes to monitor and localise pollution at the very same time that it is produced. (…) Pollstream, using visual, kinetic and sonic technologies, undermines these typical defences of disengagement by speeding up the normal time it takes for our actions in and on the environment to have consequences. Across a number of projects, a sense of constant rather than delayed feedback is created. Thus, in its final form, color coded communal information is projected onto the vapor of a power plant that is visible to all residents. The movement of the green vapor emission changes size to show levels of energy being consumed at any given time; the chimney becomes a community measuring tape, a shared canvas. Nuage Vert is the ultimate aesthetisation of pollution, while seeking to draw critical attention to it. “

Why do I blog this? two “pervasive art” projects that I’ve found intriguing recently, when looking for documentation before preparing the talk I gave last week in Torino. Can this be part of the “4D urbanism” described by Dan Hill?

Beyond the aesthetic of these projects I am often amazed by how recurring is the visualization of pollution in new media project related to ubicomp. Of course there’s a growing concern about the environment but it’s interesting to see how the locus of representation is geared toward this topic.

Just saw that in a the newspaper this morning, there seems to be a guy in town who’s attaching those little ashtray in various places because he’s fed up of people throwing paper and cigarettes on the ground. A bottom-up urban fux of some sort if you want.

URBAN TRACES - TELEPHONE is a project I recently stumbled acrosss, which examines public phones in different countries. Alina Tudor & Răzvan Neagoe sees public phones as a interesting sign of daily urban life that reveal the relationship between certain cultures and public space:

“We start up from the idea that the identity cannot be anything else but the object of a horizontal analysis and can’t be simply defined as an urban artefact. It represents a cultural sign as long as the virulent changes affecting all the social structures register as a natural answer a form of resistance over the all these mutations.

TEL. continues the series of unconventional spaces as part of the Urban Traces project. Following the interactive “Up in the flat there’s a house” and “Courier” projects, this one brings in front a small but… sizeable space, which is ignored. We have chosen the public phone because it is getting sick of daily urban life syndrome. It has become a place for passers by to have rest, a shelter to hide from the rain… it is vandalised and almost none of the phone booths has the door. This project is a warning sign regarding the collective indifference that is representative for big cities.“

An example from this project:

This project is also part of a “Bank of images”, that is to say a collection of public telephones from different countries and regions of the world:

“The Bank of images project has the intention to collect a series of photographs of public phones searching to offer them a new identity. Images that are representing different telephones and phone booths used accordingly to any other destination besides their primary one, but also the public phones which are placed in different contexts and thus acquiring a double sense in relation to that place are expected.“

Why do I blog this? Public telephone (with or without phones) is definitely a urban signal I am always looking at when visiting a city. A topic we covered in Sliding Friction as well. What I find intriguing in that project is the idea of thinking how they can reveal the state of public space cultures in modern societies. Other public services can also be relevant to observe, such as public toilets, benches or traffic lights.