Group Meeting – Monday 26th May

The group meeting was set up to delegate certain aspects of the design documentation each group member would be completing along with refining the workshop which was to be demonstrated to fellow class members the following day.

The meeting began with simple communication between members regarding the workshop and what was to be presented, a basic skeleton had been created prior to this meeting and was fine tuned to ensure it met the set criteria. After further discussion the team decided to make a basic script of what needed to be covered during the presentation to ensure all member were bringing forth the same knowledge and understanding to their class mates.

Finally the documentation was looked over and it was decided that as the due date was approaching quickly the document should be portioned out immediately to ensure the final product is not rushed. Individual members were asked which aspect of the documentation they would prefer to work on and were tasked with their chosen aspect.

After a final scan over the workshop and documentation, the meeting was complete.

Attended by: Tom Achilles, Matt Abraham, Marlunn Oducayen, Henry Zhou
In absence: Giselle Pastulero, Emily Samuels

General Workshop – Tuesday 27th May

After the workshop was held by half our group, we were reunited. From here, Giselle brought forth attention to a critique that was provided on our bodystorming video by our tutor. This critique stated that our device was a good concept, but could be improved in ways to engage with the public (rather than just lifting icons). 

Acting on this critique, the team quickly collected some butcher’s paper and started brainstorming ways in which we could make the concept more engaging/engaging in a different way to the public. This is a rough collection of the ideas, on our “Swag Pad”…

The circled suggestions were all infused together to create one final idea.

This idea consists of a sensor-activated speaker (similar to a shop doorbell). When people walk past the device, it senses them and starts playing a recognisable ringtone. Drawing people’s attention, they look over to see this large smartphone, with a lock screen saying ‘slide to answer’. When they do so, the lockscreen manually slides across, to show the home screen beneath. From here, the device behaves as normal. This addition adds to the engagement with the product, and also draws attention and encourages users to interact.
Note that the left side of the paper has a quick brainstorming list developed by Tom; to think of new, and record existing ways, in which this concept appeals to the five senses.

At the end of this workshop, tasks were delegated to each team member. These tasks were involving the design document, and each member was given an even amount of work from this document.

Running our own Workshop – Tuesday 27th May

This workshop was quite jam-packed full of events.

A collection of family members and friends participated in our workshop (totalling to 15 members).

The presenting of the workshop went smoothly, and there were no major difficulties or mishaps. There were two key aims from this workshop – To establish more interpretations of our chosen thesis, and to establish more contexts of use for our concept. We believe we effectively reached both of these aims, and collected helpful information from workshop participants. Some interpretations of the thesis included:
– “Intelligent devices” being weaponry, phones, cars
– “Rich and poor” being rich in happiness, resources, weaponry, knowledge, modern world advancement
– “Powerful and weak” being countries, cultures, classes, age groups

These interpretations (just to name a few) were already clearing our team’s understanding of the thesis a little more.

The second part of the workshop involved the participants coming up with contexts of use for our concept (Coltan Snapfacts) by the Walt Disney brainstorming method. This involved three steps; The Dreamer, The Realist and The Spoiler. In the dreamer step, each member came up with as many wild, wacky and wonderful ideas as possible for contexts of use. In the realist step, other members provided suggestions and improvements for these ideas. In the spoiler step, other members provided constructive criticism for these ideas.
Some contexts of use and reasons they may not work were:
– Near a tech store in a shopping mall (people are interested in this area). Problems were that shops may not like this, and people may be too busy to stop and look.
– Near a food court in a shopping mall (people have the time to look at installation). Problems were that food court is not really related to smart devices, so some people will not be interested. Also, children and unwanted eyes may view device (too graphic).
– Bus stop/Train station (people can view whilst waiting for bus). Problems were that people may be too rushed.
– Park (people have the time to look). Problems were again that children etc may view, and that the device is not guaranteed to be relevant to an audience in a park.
– University; perhaps outside computer labs or in library (Students love standing for a good/alternative cause). Problems were that students may not have time to read, and may be disinterested as they are happy with keeping their smart devices.

As you can see, we received lots of beneficial input from participants. After this main part of the workshop was done, the participants provided feedback to us on our workshop.

From the feedbacks, participants gave overall positive comments about the structure, flow, conduct and facilitation by our group of the workshop. Generally, they agreed that the structure of the workshop was there, although there was a general consensus to leave out the warm-up activity and get straight to the workshop which would have improved it.

For improvements, apart from skipping the warm-up activity, one participant in particular said that the warm up activity should be relevant to the main activity (though he/she did not specify how that would be done) and that there should be some “fun” incorporated into the first part of the main activity. Our guess would be that the first part of the main activity was “dry” in a sense and maybe to improve that, we could’ve just allowed participants room for independence instead of trying to “push” a little too much structure like giving too many hints for example, in this part.

The one main point of criticism made by participants is the lack of aim/intent of the installation we hope to use for the project. One said “I don’t quite understand the installation aims. It looks like giving negative ideas to people”, the other implied coltan mining is a problem, but there is nothing the consumer can do about it and the other one said that most of their ideas came from us. To us as a group that conducted the workshop, it may mean that:

1)    We didn’t provide room for our participants to actively engage somewhat independently in the workshop

2)    With hindsight, they may have not heard us say that our aim with SNAPFACTS was to raise awareness of the effects coltan mining was making in increasing the gaps between rich and powerful, poor and week societies, in this case with coltan mining helping to weaken the society in Congo while making the rest of the world’s society richer in smart devices.

Group Meeting [Fri 23rd May]

The group meeting was focused on creating a prototype of the ‘Coltan Snapfacts’ and the filming of the bodystorm. By the end of the meeting, the team built up more ideas towards the product. Ideas such as; product’s scale, aesthetics, interface, etc.

The Bodystorm consists of the explanation of Coltan, sketch and the demonstration of the product. The prototype was made out of cardboard boxes where the applications were drawn into the box. The bodystorm is about to be posted on the Google Plus community where other students can critique on the presented product. 

Attended by: Tom Achilles, Giselle Pastulero, Marlunn Oducayen and Matt Abraham

Group Meeting [Wed 21st May]

This group meeting was a short time to delegate and discuss group tasks, and to establish where we were at as a team. 

The main point of discussion was the concepts – working out how many we have, and establishing the need for more. A team decision was made to have 20 distinct concepts by Wednesday night. 

Also, some more concepts were discussed and developed during the meeting. 

There was discussion about the team’s progress and how much work we have completed, and whether or not we were keeping up with the deadline. It was discovered that we were keeping well on track with deadlines and moving along steadily. We decided that we would need to have chosen a concept, and have a bodystorming demo recorded by Friday night.

Attended by: Tom Achilles, Giselle Pastulero, Marlunn Oducayen

In absence: Henry Zhou, Matt Abraham, Emily Samuels

Translation of Thesis and Research Links Part 3

From the thesis the group chose, it was clear that there can be more situations, circumstances and places where it can apply to, where Intelligent Devices widen the gaps between rich and poor, powerful and weak.

Nuclear Weapons

1) http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2013/03/world/nuclear-weapon-states/

2) http://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report

Nuclear warheads, missiles, launchers, transport carriers are very dangerous, and are considered to be Intelligent Devices. In those links, with the sole exception of North Korea, the countries that own nuclear weapons are “rich” countries. So in this case, it can be said that Nuclear weapons definitively increases the gap between rich and poor [in this case, states] (and is LITERALLY the case for North Korea) and increases the gap between the powerful and weak as well (obviously this is because countries that have nuclear weapons have the POWER to destroy human life many times over as compared to countries that DON’T have them!)

Fighter Jets

1) http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/5th-generation-fighter-aircraft.asp

2) http://theconversation.com/the-f-35-jsf-what-is-a-fifth-generation-fighter-aircraft-26088

3) http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/4th-generation-fighter-aircraft.asp

4) http://www.airforcemag.com/magazinearchive/pages/2009/october%202009/1009fighter.aspx

5) https://medium.com/war-is-boring/125212bd17b

Fighter Jets, in the above links are being called 4th, 5th and 6th generations, can be classified as Intelligent Devices. They relate to the thesis the group is exploring because only rich AND powerful (militarily) countries can afford to DEVELOP, BUILD, PROCURE and MAINTAIN these advanced war machines. Most of these devices are out of reach for militarily weak and poor countries because a) no market exists for them and b) they are just too expensive to procure. Thus fighter jets, advanced ones anyway, widen the gap between weak and strong, rich and powerful.

 

Translation of Thesis and Research links Part 2

This post is a continuation of part 1. This post has more research links about the group’s thesis.

From part 1, it is easy to see that coltan wars was one area to explore for the thesis. In this post we explore Desalination plants, the social impacts of intelligent devices and Health disparity between rich and poor.

[Marlunn’s links]

1) http://www.livescience.com/4510-desalination-work.html

2) http://www.water-challenge.com/post/2014/02/19/Seawater-desalination-%E2%80%93-a-solution-to-reduce-water-shortage.aspx

Desalination plants relate back to our thesis because it shows how “rich” but water-poor countries (like Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Australia, Israel and to an extent the US to name a few) all can afford to set up and run such plants but “poor” but water-rich countries such as those in South America, Africa and Asia dont have the means to set up and maintain such a system for water use.

[Matt’s links]

1) http://www.teenink.com/nonfiction/academic/article/482544/Negative-Effects-of-Technology-on-Society/

2) http://www.passioncomputing.com.au/articles/the-social-impact-of-technology

These links refer to works about the social aspects of society whose populations use and make intelligent devices an intricate part of their daily lives. How this relates to the thesis we’re exploring is that Intelligent devices may make us “richer” in terms of access (such as being able to access resources and information, etc) and convenience (such as being able to use a mobile device) and at the same time making us “poorer ” in terms of social interactions, creativity, etc. And this may lead on to how access to the internet is making a bigger gap between those who can or cannot access the internet.

[Henry and Marlunn’s links]

1) http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Infant-mortality-rate

2) http://vectorblog.org/2012/04/empowering-patients-intelligent-devices-and-apps-for-better-health/

3) http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/magazine/issues/winter11/articles/winter11pg2-3.html

4) http://healthland.time.com/2012/08/06/report-why-40-of-donated-medical-equipment-goes-unused-in-poor-countries/

The above links are about intelligent devices like MRI machines, oxygen concentrators, etc. and how they are involved in healthcare between rich and poor countries. This relates to the thesis because many developed countries have the ability to buy and maintain expensive, sophisticated machines for their hospitals as they have the economic and infrastructural means unlike much of the developing world where majority of their hospitals cannot afford nor maintain these sophisticated machines. This is in a sense an example of how Intelligent devices widen the gap between rich and poor.

Group Meeting [16-May-2014]

What was done:

– Fix and organize the research links

The team pooled together some research links that will be used to explore the thesis, the links that were found so far relate to coltan wars, desalination, transportation, communication, technological progression and health.

– Prepare Concept Maps

The team set out and labelled criterias on axes, ready for concepts to be placed on it

– Delegation of tasks

The group discussed on who will be in charge or what of the deliverables

– Produced Workshop Ideas

The group produced two ideas/themes for workshops. What we all agreed on is our workshops will revolve around:

1) Interpretation of the thesis

2) Create a series of design sprints of the thesis.

Attended by: Tom Achilles, Matt Abraham, Emily Samuels, Giselle Pastulero, Marlunn Oducayen, Henry Zhou (in absence)

 

Translation of Thesis and Research links Part 1

The thesis that was chosen was ‘Smart devices increase the gap between rich and poor, powerful and weak’. This thesis could be translated in many different ways – depending on the reader’s perception of ‘rich’, ‘poor’, ‘powerful’, ‘weak’ and even ‘smart devices’. One essential precaution we were told to take by our tutor was to avoid making stereotypical assumptions about cultures and classes. For example, don’t assume that all old people are unfamiliar with smart technology and all young people are literate; as this is an ill-informed assumption which leaves room for argument.

The team further refined this thesis into a literal example – the Coltan wars in Congo. Coltan is a precious metal used in the manufacturing of smart devices. Almost all coltan used in the world comes from the small country of Congo. The fact that this small country acts as the world’s biggest supply of coltan, attracts a great deal of the mining industry to the area. This mining of coltan fuels civil war within the country, making the country’s economy and political structure fall, thus making the Congo “poorer”. This relates to the thesis because it is a prime example of how intelligent devices (the manufacturing of these devices anyways) is making some countries “richer” in terms of technology and some countries “poorer” by essentially getting nothing in return for their resources. Some of the links on coltan wars the group found were:

[Tom’s contribution]

1) http://www.javafilms.fr/spip.php?article8

2) http://tribune.com.pk/story/67995/blood-coltan-is-your-cell-phone-soaked-in-congolese-blood/

3) http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-12/06/rare-metals-smartphones

[Giselle’s contribution]

4) http://www.cbc.ca/…/coltan-a-new-blood-mineral-1.894027

5) http://www.cookiesound.com/…/coltan-we-all-have-blood…/

[Emily’s contribution]

6) http://www.congoweek.org/coltan-facts.html

7) http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary…

 

Tuesday Workshop [13- May – 2014]

In this workshop, all the groups in the zone looked at prior art as a means to see some examples of installations that the group can use in the project. Each group made a presentation of some prior art on interactive installations.

– Our group presented an installation of some virtual reality goggles that simulated lag. Although this did not address a major issue in society, it was thought-provoking. It addressed the thought of how lag would affect users if it was in ‘real-time’.
– Our group also presented an illustration called “Life Without Fuel”; which consisted of an exhibition of 40 fuel-bowsers, which were customized for different uses (popcorn machine, aquarium, etc). This addressed the thought; What will we do when fuel is no longer needed?

This workshop assisted the group in general, with establishing an understanding of the term ‘installation’.

The team also discussed and clarified the design brief (both with the tutor and within the team). We discussed the three theses, and established a greater understanding of the three. From here, we delegated the task to each team member to brainstorm throughout the week, and come up with at least 5 concepts each which were relevant to at least one of the theses. This way, we could establish which thesis we will choose, and also gain some knowledge of possible concepts and what to focus on for our final design.

In this workshop, the group had chosen to work on the thesis ” Intelligent devices increase the gaps between rich and poor, powerful and weak”