One of the weirdest electronic toy I’ve played with so far is certainly this “tuttuki bako” (tuttuki box) poking box by BANDAI. It consists in a basic box with a LCD screen, a cute yellow button and a hole on one side of the box. To play the games, you simply have to insert your finger in this hole, and see it appear on the LCD screen.

Apart from being a basic clock, you have different games as represented on the photo below: poking a panda, removing boogers from someone’s face, touching slime or ticking a stick figure character. I actually played with it for sometimes yesterday afternoon at the game studio and it sparked a good discussion about this type of gesture-based interactions.

Why do I blog this? this object is the typical geek magnet as you can see from its presence on tons of blogs about gadgets. Oftentimes, they miss the point and only see the odd character as well as the proximity to old-school tamagotchis. Being interested in electronic toys and their user experience (in a video game project), I try to nail down the interesting aspects of this device.

What’s intriguing here is the mode of interaction proposed. Clearly, sticking one’s finger in a hole to interact with an object is highly uncommon and almost taboo. Furthermore, it’s really about being “engaged” in the interaction physically since you feel that a body part is can be both an input and a somewhat output through the LCD screen.

Second, the vocabulary of interaction of highly interesting. On the physical side: insert, touch, twiddle around inside, stick in, etc. And on the digital side: pushing around a stick figure, ticking someone’s nose, petting a tiny panda bear, etc.

People interested in hybridized ecologies (how the digital and the physical can be interlinked) and how they can be designed in weird ways may be interested to have a look at Julian’s pictures from a workshop carried out at the Institute For The Future in Palo Alto last week.

There is also a report about this topic but it’s not accessible to the public.

Some design issues that emerge from few instances of touch-based interactions: different sorts (touch, press, wave …), different attitude (hold when waiting before your can touch on pic 1), use of different hands (left/right, influence of one’s lateralization), the role of signs on the surface to be touched, the surface texture, presence/absence of cues indicating where to touch, multitasking with your hands (holding and touching on picture 3), etc…

Quick wordle after a discussion I had about touch with Timo last week. Each of these words can lead to ask interesting questions regarding interface affordance, vocabulary of interactions as well as how create human-legible touch interactions. Exercise: take each of these terms and a technological device (eg. an SLR), ask youself how to use each of them to support the existing features. And then wonder about the relevance of gestures and touch-interactions for such uses. What does waving a device would support? What would caressing mean in photography?

Why do I blog this? mapping some words about the vocabulary of touch for future brainstorm (and then research). Echoes a lot with a current research project about gestures.

In their paper entitled “New uses for mobile pervasive games - Lessons learned for CSCW systems to support collaboration in vast work sites“, Matthew Chalmers and Oskar Juhli discusses how such games could be of benefit to conduct research about mobile and distributed work (e.g. infrastructure management at airports and road inspection, as well as public bus transportation). From what I can tell, it’s a sort of longer development on their previous workshop paper “New uses for mobile pervasive games“from the Computer Games & CSCW Workshop at ECSCW’05.

They take on the analogy of space and place issues in both domains (pervasive gaming and mobile distributed group work), more especially concerning the focus on the geography both as a topic and a resource in the work. They then show how different pervasive game they worked on (Treasure, Road Rager, Backseat gaming, Castles) as well as the results from user studies can give fruitful information:

“we suggest that there are valuable lessons to be gained from research into games in which players create their forms of play subject to the rules of the game, the technology they use and the wider social and environmental situation. We see strong and useful parallels with the situation of workers who create their work within organisational rules but also within their wider technical, social and environmental setting. “

Why do I blog this? This was the approach we also adopted in CatchBob during my PhD thesis work. What I find important today is that beyond the current serious game trend, there are more and more initiatives that try to employ games as platform to do other things than playing. The paper above is an example but thing such as Superstruct, i.e. the use of ARG as a foresight tool, is another interesting sign.

Continuing my exploration of internet vocabulary, the terms employed in different cultures to refer to WiFi are diverse and interesting to document (and discus with Timo). The first one is from Boston airport (but I could have shown some from other countries) and the second from Berlin. I find intriguing the use of a technical term such as “WLAN”, as opposed to the more universal (and more basic) “WiFi”.

Quick talk at MIT Medialab this afternoon, during the “tangible interfaces” course of Hiroshi Ishii. It’s called “Tangible@home“. The presentation is a very brief overview of the work I am pursuing in terms of UX research. After a quick description of the devices I am interested in and methods I use (mostly ethnography-inspired), I described 5 research issues or usage patterns.

Thanks J*B for the invitation.

In “The Evolution of Game Controllers and Control Schemes and their Effect on their games“, Alastair H. Cummings interestingly traces the history of video-game controllers. A good read in conjunction with my earlier post about this very topic. What is relevant in that paper is the second part of the issue: how the evolutions of game controller schemes is reflected in the game play, what is the mutual relationship between both. See for example:

“The first controllers were made of whatever was available to the scientists in their electronics labs and the games were equally simple. Highly simplified versions of sporting activities such as table tennis, shooting galleries and space shooters. With the creation of the gamepad games became more complicated. Games didn’t have to be simple concepts, although the gameplay was still limited by the computing power of the era. 2D platform games took players on long journeys with them in control of simple movement of their characters. With 3D came the analogue stick, providing players with a way to guide their characters around their new 3D environment. The latest consoles let players perform the actions that they want their characters to perform and they can become part of the game more than ever before.
(…)
Finally there is the purely functional purpose of the PC control schemes. Whilst reflecting little on the actual actions taken in the game, the simple control schemes can become second nature to players, to give them a feeling of immersion on par with the best novelty controller. Despite this it can be seen that there has been minimal development on new types of games on the PC, these control schemes work, and so these games are the only ones that will be played.“

Why do I blog this? interesting material for current project about tangible interfaces. There would be something to write about the evolution of game controllers, which were the forces that shaped them and how it influenced the whole game design. This paper only begin to deal this issue and I’d find intriguing to know how the schemes had been chosen and discussed by a broad range of actors (developers, game designers, etc.) in the design process per se. From my experience, I realized how much power developers in game studio had on the Wii controllers scheme decision, simply because some game designers were not really able to understand how the device worked. Things used to be different with old-school pads.

Love that icon, seen at the airport in Geneva. That yawning character is intended to attract the ‘user’ and invite him/her to touch the screen.

vertical or horizontal swipe?

avoid too much effort, unlike:

and, in the end, your aim should be that you reach what Adam calls “information processing dissolving in behavior“:

(observed in Paris last week)

Being involved in a project about the Internet of Things and electricity consumption led me back to some stunning texts by Nikola Tesla, written back at the end of the 19th century.

For instance, in “On Electricity“,

“I wish much to tell you on this occasion—I may say I actually burn for desire of telling you—what electricity really is
(…)
But we shall not satisfy ourselves simply with improving steam and explosive engines or inventing new batteries; we have something much better to work for, a greater task to fulfill. We have to evolve means for obtaining energy from stores which are forever inexhaustible, to perfect methods which do not imply consumption and waste of any material whatever.
(…)
In fact, progress in this field has given me fresh hope that I shall see the fulfillment of one of my fondest dreams; namely, the transmission of power from station to station without the employment of any connecting wire. Still, whatever method of transmission be ultimately adopted, nearness to the source of power will remain an important advantage.“

Also more to draw from World System of Wireless Transmission of Energy:

“The transmission of power without wires is not a theory or a mere possibility, as it appears to most people, but a fact demonstrated by me in experiments which have extended for years. Nor did the idea present itself to me all of a sudden, but was the result of a very slow and gradual development and a logical consequence of my investigations which were earnestly undertaken in 1893 when I gave the world the first outline of my system of broadcasting wireless energy for all purposes.
(…)
The transmitters have to be greatly improved and the receivers simplified and in the distribution of wireless energy for all purposes the precedent established by the telegraph, telephone and power companies must be followed, for while the means are different the service is of the same character. Technical invention is akin to architecture and the experts must in time come to the same conclusions I have reached long ago. Sooner or later my power system will have to be adopted in its entirety and so far as I am concerned it is as good as done. I“

Why do I blog this? of course Tesla’s exhuberant (and ultra-positivist) claims are kind of weird today (although you can find them stated by lots of people) but what I find intriguing here is how his long-chased goal is still a research purpose lately. Some great lessons about the relationship between time and innovation. If your read his stuff, you can notice how the end of the 19th century was described and seen as an accelerating moment in time, where innovations was sparkling here and there “like never before”.

Digging some material for a project about gestural interfaces in France lately, I stumbled across this sudden (and curious) surge of Wii-like platform, see for example these 3 devices:

First, the technigame, a very rouge game console which allows to play bowling/soccer/tennis with a stick that has “infraroufe” connectivity (the typo is funny). The game seems to be entirely ripped off from the Sega Master System reshuffled with manga-style characters in a very weird way. The name itself is also stunning.

Then you have this other “technigame” version sold at the lowcost shop “La foirfouille” for 39.99euros. it looks like a Wii although reshaped by people who misunderstood Karim Rashid’s blobject concept.

Perhaps, the “Kiu” by Videojet is a tad more personality, with its own globular shape. The console only offers 5 built-in games.

Why do I blog this? It’s always intriguing to look at product copies as they are generally curious attempts to re-appropriate ideas in a new way. From a more abstract POV, it also shows how certain people think the Zeitgeist is. What seems to be the value proposition here is clearly the price, ranging from 40 to 90 euros, cheaper than Nintendo’s platform. However, the only thing these devices appears to bring to the user, apart from the nasty wii-ripped shape, is the use of gestural interaction (as if it was the only innovation on the Wii). Of course, in addition, the way these devices are advertised, using the family-tech momentum of the Wii, is revealing.

That said, I haven’t tested these consoles (yet).

An interesting add-on for the Nintendo DS is this lovely potentiometer by Taito, somewhat reminiscent from paddle controller. Using a geared potentiometer actuation mechanism, the user experience is quite basic with brick-games such as Arkanoid. Rotating that sole button is intriguing and quite smooth. Of course some folks nailed it down more thoroughly and manage to control Mario Kart DS. Surely something to think about tangentially to this.

Yet another interesting reference for a project about children and mobile gaming devices (ranging from the Nintendo DS to cell phones): In the hands of children: exploring the use of mobile phone functionality in casual play settings by a swedish team of researchers: Petra Jarkievich, My Frankhammar, and Ylva Fernaeus (taken from the Mobile HCI conference 2008).

The paper reports the results of a field study concerning swedish kids (10-12 y.o) and their use of mobile phones in indoor and outdoor settings. The authors mention that they were interested by unsupervised social play and “spontaneous play activities” taking kids as a particular use case of mobile devices target. The locus of their study was therefore peculiar: situations where children were able to play fairly undisrupted for a longer period of time, and in explicit social settings. This is why they chose play centres located in parks. In terms of methodology, it’s a mix of observation and kids interview (focus groups) about cell phone usage over the course of 6 weeks.

A quick overview of the results (although reading the whole finding section is very important to get the sense of what happens):

“The first general observation concerns the dual nature of the phones; simultaneously being serious and important communication tools for parents, as among the children being treated and valued primarily as resources to act locally in the group (…) Sharing media content was one of the key activities that we observed and seemed to play a central role in these respects, where individual ownership of the media content was assessed and valued largely based on its social context.
(…)
Our second general observation has to do with the skills that the children displayed at using the different features of the technology, and how these were constantly appropriated in a variety of ways. Existing physical play activities were sometimes altered and expanded to suit the technical resources, and the discovery of new functionality also inspired entirely new play scenarios. The children thereby also made use of functions in the phones to do things that these functions were clearly not intended for. We also
observed several ways to overcome, and even make use of, the technical limitations of the devices. This suggests that children at this age put much value into the freedom of creating their own play scenarios, as a way to make meaningful use of the technologies at hand.
(…)
Our last more general observation is related to the long-established worry that computing technology may make children less physically stimulated, often favouring passive forms of learning, and how it has tended to force children’s play environments to move indoors.“

And the following “implication for design” is also intriguing:

“some of the most meaningful and interesting technical functions were those that allowed users to invent and develop their own activities. We see no reason to suspect that this would not be a much appreciated feature also among adult users, at least in certain settings“

Why do I blog this? accumulating material about kids and mobile devices for a client project about mobile gaming. I am preparing a field study about that topic and try to get both methodological/results from other researchers. Reading the findings also worth it as it shows mobile phone usage is articulated with kids games such as ‘cops and robbers’.

If you by any chance you go to PicNic next week in Amserdam, be sure to check this nice special event called “Internet of Things: Toys for hackers or real business opportunities” put together by Vlad Trifa:

“The purpose of this session is to raise awareness that a new ecology of tiny
interconnected objects - the Internet of Things - is quickly and silently pervading even the most intimate corners of our lives. Still, many companies are reluctant to invest in this field, as these devices are perceived as unreliable toys that are not mature enough to be turned into real products. As a counterpart of the Mediamatic Hacker’s Camp - where the focus is on brainstorming and fast prototyping of new gadgets and ideas - this special event will focus on what happens when such an idea gets turned into a commercial product. To encourage research in this field, six world-class experts in this field accompanied with a bunch of interactive demos will present how they have transformed some toys for hackers into readily available products used both in research and industrial applications.“

With good people such as David Orban, Mike Kuniavsky, Rafi Haladjian and others.