Right after reading Dan Hill’s recent post about transport fare system this morning, I had to bring a friend to a tram stop here in Geneva and I had an interesting discussion with what I would call the local “vending machine proxy/broker”.

Transport ticket machines in Geneva are actually a bit complex: the interface is a pain (with buttons without any uses, two little screens, two slots to swipe a care), the pricing is also difficult to understand and to choose (for instance the zoning is not very well described and reflected in the interface). Plus: the ticket does not give back change (it gives you a sort of ticket that you can use to claim your money back at counters). We discussed that example during the LIFT08 workshop about design failures, talking how this situation leads to frustration and waste of time or money since lots of people choose to avoid paying.

That said, the most interesting phenomenon is the presence in some key tram/bus spots of “proxy ladies” who help people to buy a ticket. They generally take your change, ask you where you’d like to go and use their transport card to get the ticket. The thing is that when you buy a “cartabonus” card for X transport then you can get one free (as that lady explained me). They can then make a few amount of money using that trick and help angry or clueless Geneva visitors.

What’s interesting here is that the lady is NOT an agent from the transport company. She’s a freelance proxy to the machine, or “broker” with customers. The whole system itself generated this opportunity to make a little amount of money (incentive for the broker) AND help customers who definitely need a hand.

Why do I blog this? following closely what happen with “urban interface”, I find this example fascinating, especially when you think about it was not planned by the machine designers, how it was a by-product of the bad design+pricing system. To me, that’s a very important example to be understood if one wants to design relevant “urban computing” applications. The presence of a human helper is tremendously interesting here. Although this only happens in crowded transport spots (like the railway station), there are lessons to draw here about “urban interface” in contemporary cities.

Spending time with that lady is fantastic, especially if you consider that she speaks a sort of mix of french and portuguese AND she still manage to help people finding the right ticket to go to a specific zone. Furthermore, the whole transactions between some customers and the “proxy lady” are a very rich terrain to investigate people’s mental representation of the city and how they can be translated into an interface (or a need to have a human face to help them!). Through a discussion with the customer, the proxy lady seems to help him/her transferring the representation of the wanted location (its image-ability) in the zoned map printed on the vending machine, and thus, to choose the right button to buy the correct ticket.

When Fabien and I had to find a title for our photo booklet “Sliding Friction: The Harmonious Jungle of Contemporary Cities“, the notion of “friction” came up very easily in the conversation. Having read few books by Lefebvre in the last few years, it was certainly one of the reason for picking up that term. Digging my “Docs” folder on my laptop, I recently unburied a very good paper by Jensen & Lenskjold
about similar issues. It’s called “Designing for social friction: Exploring ubiquitous computing as means of cultural interventions in urban space“.

Here’s how they define this “social friction” (a notion they discuss using Lefebvre and De Certeau):

“Social friction is a fundamental aspect of everyday life. We use the term to denote the process, which separates different expressive behaviours and contexts from each other. Social friction is at play when people in the city act and express themselves in surprising and unconventional ways. When people challenge existing norms and leave marks and traces on their social and physical surroundings.
(…)
Social friction can also be described as the ‘rubbing of’ of people on each other. It is the kind of friction that occurs when people, who hold different backgrounds, understandings and experiences, meet on the bus or in the street and exchange opinions, stories or maybe just gestures and glances.“

Now, what about “social friction” and ubiquitous/urban computing? The authors’ point is that this notion is helpful “in the development and analysis of ubiquitous computing in relation to art and design“. They articulate social friction a critical position, which could be applied as a strategy for design. Relying (or designing for) social friction is then seen as way to release new forms of social and cultural potentials. Which, is also related to Nicolas Bourriaud’s idea of “art as a social interestice”.
Why do I blog this? my interest in urban computing and art practices led me to that paper, I quite like that notion of “social friction”. Let’s sleep on it.

If there’s a population that is often overlooked (or dismissed) by urban designers or urban technology engineers, it’s definitely the homeless. A CHI 2008 paper by Le Dantec and Edwards entitled “Designs on Dignity: Perceptions of Technology Among the Homeless” deals with this topic, trying to understand how technology — from cell phones to bus passes—affects their daily lives. Such a qualitative study allows them to challenge reseachers’ assumptions about people’s relationship with technology and discuss possible opportunities to develop services.

Using Photo-Elicitation Interview, the researchers identified different unique needs homeless had and characterized perceptions of technology among them. Some excerpts from the results:

“Staying Connected: The first theme was the importance of staying connected to family members and friends during spells of homelessness. (…) Many of the participants came from places other than their current urban home and keeping in touch over distance was something they worried about.

Synchronous v. Asynchronous Connections All of the participants had voice-mail accounts through local organizations. These accounts were meant to provide a stable number of contact and aid in job searches and managing appointments or other personal business. (…) The difficulty for a number of participants was in accessing their voicemail, leading to a decidedly asynchronous style of communication when using the telephone.

Mobile Telephony The preferred way to maintain a stable connection to family and friends for many of the participants in the study was through a cell phone. (…) cell phones were not without problems (…) the ongoing cost, the need for access to power to recharge the phones, and the inevitability of theft when living in and out of shelters.of his extended friends he would tell about being homeless.

Identity Management: For participants in our study, different forms of identity management came out through their use of technology and social institutions. (…) Identity management took both technology- and non-technology-focused forms. For example, on the non-technologic side, identity management appeared in how participants
managed their physical appearance

Access to Information, Social Networks: The social network was the primary mechanism participants in this study used to navigate the world around them.

The Digital Divide: Participants varied widely in the use of information technology, effectively resulting in an internal “digital divide” within the homeless community.

Health and Medication

Getting Around: Moving around the city was an imperative for our participants.“

As the authors say, although these needs can suggest opportunities for designed solutions, they find it more relevant to consider the broader implications for urban computing:

The social dynamics that are playfully exposed through urban computing ideas could be more thoughtfully considered in their relation to the less-priviledged participants of the urban environment. Appropriate technologies need to consider more than the usability or psychological appropriateness of an interaction. We need to put careful thought into the social impact technologies have for non-users as well as users. In using technology to redefine boundaries, we have an opportunity to do so inclusively, bringing the periphery into sharper focuses, inviting in the disenfranchised and the under-served. “

Why do I blog this? This kind of research help to figure out alternative vision of current urban computing ideas as it allows to adopt another lens concerning people’s relationship with technology and the city. All the issues described in the paper are extremely important to consider the situation in a more holistic way (and certainly not only as a quest for ” design opportunities”).

In addition, I also find interesting the way some concrete problems are considered here. For instance, the article describes how some homeless people make communication decisions based on their ability to predict cost using pre-paid cellular service. The problem of these phones is that purchased minutes expire after as little as 30 days and phone numbers that become inactive can be reclaimed by the service providers after 90 days (which is difficult for people with irregular incomes). What is interesting here is the notion that the problem is not necessarily about the technology itself but rather the whole model of its deployment (business model). This is a good example of a technosocial situation in which the whole ecosystem should be taken into account if a technology is to be adopted. Of course, in this case, this kind of limit in pre-paid phone contracts is generally aimed at getting rid of this sort of population…

“Trace: Mapping The Emerging Urban Landscape” by Alison Sant is an interesting article if you’re interested in the whole debate about digital traces and how wireless networks and mobile devices are “reforming our contemporary notions of urban place”. It deals with a topic I am interested in, which is the boundaries of wireless technology. As the authors says, they have deep implications for our notion of space even though they are not physically obvious.

Sant describes in this paper a project called *TRACE* which make the wifi topography visible, revealing “the intersection of the physical and immaterial infrastructures of the city” (I don’t know why they say it’s immaterial… as WiFi nodes are all but immaterial). Moreover, the project also reveals the fluctuating character of the wireless network, an important characteristic as it challenges the notion of “a purely static notion of public space”. This sort of “Hertzian landscape” is represented as follows, with “binary qualities of being on and off the network, in locked or unlocked zones, and in areas of unique or default node name“.

For instance, it can be represented like this, with the shapes are uniquely suited to each node and are at varying angles:

The process of building these viz also allowed the author to observe very interesting practices:

“The decision to leave a WiFI node locked or unlocked or to rename a base station communicates a bias to those that “see” these nodes through wireless devices. In addition, WiFI node names and encryption states become vehicles to express disparate attitudes about public access. An inflammatory declaration of privacy like “Go Away!” may be opposed by an open invitation to logon in the form of a web site address “go http://192.168.168.4/airport”
(…)
Our understanding of physical space becomes complicated by traces of electronic signals, the way they are formatted, and the information they project to us. The wireless network suggests a new subtext to urban space. In turn, these transmissions change our fundamental understanding of location. Instead of responding purely to the physical space around us, we also become engaged with the fleeting qualities of wireless signal. These “states” of the network begin to inform and direct our interactions with the urban landscape as significantly as the material landmarks on city maps.“

Why do I blog this? I like how the author describes this wireless layer as an hertzian fooprint that is dynamic and reconfigure our relationship to space in novel ways. Very much in line with similar projects such as Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby’s “Tunable Cities” (Architectural Design 68*, No. 11/12, pp. 78-79, November-December 1998):

““. . . [H]ertzian space is actual and physical even though our senses detect only a tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Images of footprints of satellite TV transmissions in relation to the surface of the earth, and computer models showing cellular phone propagation in relation to urban environments, reveal that hertzian space is not isotropic but has an ‘electroclimate’ defined by wavelength, frequency and field strength. Interaction with the natural and artificial landscape creates a hybrid landscape of shadows, reflections, and hot points.”“

That issue is important to me as there is an intriguing paradox with the advent of the “digital city” (which gets lots of visibility in the media) and its relative invisibility practically speaking.

Beyond molested bicycles, street cleaning vehicles and bad wiring, shopping carts are highly ranked in my list of intriguing city devices.

One of the reason is because there is always a small proportion of carts that are stolen, abandoned or used or other purposes. Some examples easily comes to mind, see for instance how this bunch of homeless people in LA use the cart:

OR, more intriguing in Madrid, I stumbled across these 2 guys who collect steel material on the street before selling it somewhere. The carts shown below served as a convenient way to carry steel stuff before heading to a buyer:

BUT it’s certainly the abandoned shopping carts like that one encountered yesterday in Geneva, which ranks first in my list of cart behavior.

Abandoned carts always makes me wonder that there are strong design opportunities for micro-distance devices like this in our contemporary cities.

When it comes to bike rental platforms, I am often intrigued by how digital technologies are employed and for what purposes. A description of how italian biking solution Bicincittà describes it in detail:

“Monitoring and organizational systems: Every movement of the bicycles is transmitted to a server that updates in real time their availability in the area. Upon receiving an electronic card, each cyclist is then registered in the server, having inserted his/her personal information and telephone number. This card is distributed for an indeterminate amount of time and can be deactivated remotely at any time at the director’s discretion. The system’s interface supplies us with the user’s personal information at the moment of the hire, giving us a general overview of who is exploiting the system. As a result we can analyze bike movements and study their statistics in order to increase or decrease the number of bicycles according to demand.

Tele-diagnostic system: Bicincittà is equipped with a remotely enhanced diagnostic system that allows us to know the conditions of the parking stations at any moment. Wherever there may be a damaged or malfunctioning unit, a remote mechanism allows us to reset the device, be it a single parking space or the entire parking station. The practicality of the tele-diagnostic system allows us to solve problems from a distance. This guarantees a completely efficient, indispensable organization in providing quality available alternative public transportation.“

Seems to be very close to Velib/Velov and co. The website interestingly gives some random stats which seems to be more descriptive than explicative:

Why do I blog this? I find interesting to see where digital technologies play a role in bike rental solutions; and the description above is quite transparent regarding how the digital traces of physical activities (movement, parking, diagnosis). In addition, I like the way they describe the whole process. There must be intriguing tools and visualizations to reflect that kind of traces for diverse “urban audiences”:

1. the company which needs to have indicators about his services (but the one above is maybe less informative since it’s regardless of any explanatory variable such as city, weather, etc.).
2. local institutions that what to get information about bike mobility in their city, how the platform is used, etc. in a sort of descriptive way. Further out, they might also need to access to a more explicative dimension so that they could see what works (re-fill of stations, time spent on bikes, etc) and what doesn’t. The point would hence be to modify the system (change the frequency of re-fill, add stations, etc.)
3. Customers who may want to get information about the service availability (number of bikes in real-time at what station) or more elaborated services (why not printing out special maps to depict the best areas to drop a bike, new routes to come past certain empty bike stations). This information could also be coupled with other one coming from other means of transport to help people to pick-up a more efficient succession of transport means (get a bike - use it to go to a metro station - get the metro and get out); in order - for instance - to avoid finding no spots for your bike (or a steep hill?).

Belle Dumé in the NewScientist addressed recently the idea that city road networks grow like biological systems. The article is basically a description of the academic work of Marc Barthélemy and Alessandro Flammini who analysed street pattern data from roughly 300 cities, including Brasilia, Cairo, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Venice.

Using these cases, the researchers found interesting patterns showing that the road networks in cities evolve driven by a simple universal mechanism that follows a biological metaphor:

“The main influence on the simulated network as it grows is the need to efficiently connect new areas to the existing road network – a process they call “local optimisation”. They say the road patterns in cities evolve thanks to similar local efforts, as people try to connect houses, businesses and other infrastructures to existing roads.
(…)
“Beyond the economic, demographic and geographic “forces” that shape a town, there are a myriad of small “accidents” that contribute” he says. “Although these are unpredictable, they can be understood in terms of statistics and simple modelling.”

The team’s model also reveals that roads often bend, even in the absence of geographical obstacles, and that road intersections are generally perpendicular.“

And, as the authors described in their paper, “in the absence of a global design strategy, the evolution of many different transportation networks indeed follows a simple universal mechanism.”
Why do I blog this? I am not really into urban pattern modeling but I find interesting this notion of “local optimisation” and how it works for instance for roads and not for rail (because of its different nature and scales).

This is somewhat related to the elephant path (desire line) I often blog about here and there as pointed out by Space and Culture. A desire line can be turned into a design opportunity and thus into a new road.

Why is that interesting? certainly because it shows the contingencies of the urban infrastructure. I am wondering this hold true for other sort of infra, such as internet connections.

Another synonym for elephant path: desire line. According to the Wikipedia:

“A desire line is a path developed by erosion caused by animal or human footfall. The path usually represents the shortest or most easily navigated route between an origin and destination. The width and amount of erosion of the line represents the amount of demand. Desire lines were used in early transportation planning, prior to the advent of computerized models.
They are manifested on the surface of the earth in certain cases, e.g., as dirt pathways created by people walking through a field, when the original movement by individuals helps clear a path, thereby encouraging more travel. Explorers may tred a path through foliage or grass, leaving a trail “of least resistance” for followers.“

In french people say “chemin de l’âne” which means “donkey trail”.

Related: How to kill an elephant path and here.

SK8 OBJECT 1.5 is a very interesting urban artifact designed by Melanie Iten and Gon Zifroni, commissioned by the city of Geneva. It’s actually a mix of a bench and a skateboard bank:

Why do I blog this? simply because I find that kind of project interesting and curious. Readers here know my interest in skateboarding practices and how I see skateboarders as an interesting target group to foresee the future of urban behavior. In this case, what I find relevant is the fact that it’s not the skaters who are innovative but urban designers. Beyond the shape and the affordance of the object that I like, the implications are very interesting here in the sense that the object can be used by different populations (BMX+rollers+skaters AND regular pedestrians). Of course, it can be employed by these different population at the same time, showing the urban tensions of urban furnitures.

I also find intriguing how it looks like a mix between a skatepark artefact and something more… urban, less artificial like the assumption that if you build a skatepark, people will go there.

This sort of device installed here used to be called “Journal Electronique de Rue” (Street Electronic Journal) in the 80s in France. What I find intriguing here is the assumption people had for this sort of urban screen: so much confidence in them led people to employ the word “journal” for a pretty basic display.

Seen in Amsterdam last fall, beyond tandems.
What I like here is that there is a potential to have this sort of device circling around a certain path, taking and letting people along the way, each of the participant giving a contribution to the movement. In the case above, it’s not really like that, it’s simply a “beer bike” A curious form of mobility anyway

Encountered yesterday on my way to a meeting, this nice street camera has been protected but some people have found a more interesting side-effect of the protection. The accumulation of bottles might, down the road, influence what the camera is watching.

Finally managed to read the oversized Paris ville invisible book by Bruno Latour and Emilie Hermant (1998). The whole thing is an amazing photographic essay on the “social” and technical aspects of the city of Paris (”social” in Latour’s sense). It’s a bit like Susan Star’s article called The Ethnography of Infrastructure but definitely in Latour’s words (and yes it’s definitely french). There is also a web version, defined as “a sociological web opera”.

For this post, I am mostly concerned by the notion of traces, their visibility and their implications. An important part of the book is about various “channels of signifiers”: from collected data like temperature or time to their computation by intermediaries (sensors, computers) and the map and model outputs employed by institutions such as telecom operators or police departments

Some excerpts from an english translation by Liz Carey-Libbrecht:

“Megalomaniacs confuse the map and the territory and think they can dominate all of Paris just because they do, indeed, have all of Paris before their eyes. Paranoiacs confuse the territory and the map and think they are dominated, observed, watched, just because a blind person absent-mindedly looks at some obscure signs in a four-by-eight metre room in a secret place. Both take the cascade of transformations for information, and twice they miss that which is gained and that which is lost in the jump from trace to trace – the former on the way down, the latter on the way up. Rather imagine two triangles, one fitted into the other: the base of the first, very large, gets smaller as one moves up to the acute angle at the top: that’s the loss; the second one, upside down in the first, gets progressively bigger from the point to the base: that’s the gain. If we want to represent the social, we have to get used to replacing all the double-click information transfers by cascades of transformations. To be sure, we’ll lose the perverted thrill of the megalomaniacs and the paranoiacs, but the gain will be worth the loss.
(…)
The more information spreads and the more we can track our attachments to others, since everywhere cables, forms, plugs, sensors, exchangers, translators, bridges, packets, modems, platforms and compilers become visible and expensive – with the price tag still attached to them. the reader will perhaps forgive us for our myopic obsession with the trails of traces“

About how to reveal the invisible and the role of this book:

“the visible is never in an isolated image or in something outside of images, but in the montage of images, a transformation of images, a cross-cutting view, a progression, a formatting, a networking.
(…)
In photos and text we’ve attempted to highlight the role of the countless intermediaries who participate in the coexistence of millions of Parisians. In the series of transformations that we followed with myopic obsession, we would have liked to have kept each step, each notch, each stage, so that the final result could never abolish, absorb or replace the series of humble mediators that alone give it its meaning and scope. “

Why do I blog this? The book is a very intriguing read for anyone interested in contemporary cities and their underlying activities/infrastructures. If you liked Italo Calvino’s “invisible cities”, that book written by Latour (with pictures from Emilie Hermant) is a must read. The notion of traces described here is very Latour-ian to some extent and it’s interesting how he uses it to describe what happens in a contemporary city such as Paris. What I find relevant here is this idea of “intermediaries” and the observation of the transformation he discusses.

If you’ve read Dan Hill’s post “The Street as a Platform”, that book is a theoretical exploration of the issue of technologies in city space. There is of course much more to draw from this book, which I will explore in following blogposts.

Weird post-it encounter in Puebla, Mexico last summer. On the street, looks as if it was a secret code of some sort.

Seen last week in Geneva, next to temporary constructions for immigrants.
What can we see here in this interesting “point of contact”
- almost all have the same orientation (= same channels? same cultural group of viewer?)
- they are grounded, do not at their regular position on the roof (= left here in a a hurry? not possible to climb to the roof)
- they are very close to the sidewalk where people pass by (low number of people passing here anyway)