Yu Centrik

On its official blog, Google has recently announced the production of a new, lightweight, simplified operating system:

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html

To commemorate the occasion, I thought I would vocalize my stance on what operating systems today are missing, and how Google might be able to fill that hole.

Macs have a reputation of providing smooth, sleek and usable interfaces.  Linux is well-known as a base for full customizability: tech-savvy users can build their own machine’s architecture.  Windows has many reputations, good and bad, which place it somewhere in the middle of these two extremes.  The spectrum lies between offering a practical solution to many of life’s problems and offering the techno-philic an opportunity to customize and create a machine that works to their exact specifications.  The implied question asks whether we are stuck with many different operating systems, each tailored to a different point on this gradient.  Are we doomed to segregation?  Is our technological future littered with incompatibility and a lack of standard?

Technological development may seem divergent, but it’s not too late to move in the right direction.  Operating systems started with cryptic, technical command prompts and eventually evolved to the smooth, intuitive GUIs we know today.  However, the answer is not to simply shove a system’s implementation model behind the scenes in favour of creating a usable mental model, but instead to allow users a practical interface which implicitly builds a foundation of systemic understanding.  Put simply, we are oversimplifying our operating systems so much that, to the laymen of the next generation, computers are considered mere ‘tools’.

The ideal situation is to build a system where users’ practical needs are met while they also enjoy the experience of learning the system.  If done well, their desire for enjoyment will develop into a curiousity which will eventually manifest an urge to explore the system as its own entity (and not just a tool)!  At this point, users begin to form an intimate understanding the true potential of technology to solve problems in all fields (something i learned tinkering with my first DOS machine as a child).  Google is working on a simple OS which seems useful for specific contexts, but I’m skeptical to consider minimalism as the future.  If they, or anyone else, can create a practical and usable operating system while simultaneously accommodating a transparency which engages curiousity and promotes ‘tinkering’, I believe it would be a step in the right direction: toward a unified, practical and educational technology.

I consider this concept as an example of inclusive design as it focuses on generating systems which include all users in the long-term iterative design process.  On the generational time-scale, an operating system which encourages tinkering is providing the next generation with the tools it needs to continue progress.  An inclusive system elegantly solves your general problems while inherently teaching you how to design your own unique solutions in the future.  One part Mac, one part Linux, and a whole lot of hope for the next generation.

I wrote up a brief report on the EuroITV conference, held in Leuven, Belgium from 3 to 5 June, where Jay Vidyarthi and I presented.  The conference focused on the state of technological advance but also consumption trends guiding the TV of tomorrow.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the paradigm of television as we know it will drown, or at least significantly evolve.

We know that very few people use interactive functions on their digital television system apart from the program guide and access to show information.  This lack of interest comes from multiple sources: applications not suited for viewers (more passive, watch in groups), outdated design features, competing with higher technologies (computers, game consoles), limited interaction with the remote.  Many of these obstacles will be overcome soon.

The results of almost all ethnographic studies presented at Euro ITV showed users glued to their TV in a state of relax, escaping extraneous effort.  Developers must consider this aspect in application design.  For example, configuration, settings, and preferences must be minimized, or even shifted to the computer to facilitate more complex interaction (an interface which is psychologically associated with more effort, as well).  The paradigm shift in TV consists largely of the intelligent distribution of interaction between different media (television, computers and Internet, mobile) in a way which takes strengths and weaknesses of each technology into account.  The good news is that this concept now seems to be well understood by the industry.

Great strides have been made in the electronic program guides, simplifying life for TV users. Imagine you turned on your TV one night, tired after a hard day, and it offers a schedule which truly takes account of your taste and context (”it’s Friday, nothing too serious, please.”).  No longer do we need to go sift through a convoluted show schedule.  This will be possible thanks to a smart grid based on the system building a model of you (or your whole family) powered by external data (eg. social networking websites), implicit behavioural data (setting reminders, recording shows, searching content, etc.) and explicit assessments (assessing a film after watching it).  A promising solution in an era of content proliferation where searching for a good shows is becoming more and more of a challenge.

On the other hand, some purely technological developments suggest that the TV of tomorrow might come sooner than we think.  Now that progress in image quality has plateaued, and public expectations have been largely surpassed by available technologies, the hunt begins for other selling points.  TV manufacturers are beginning to incorporate downloadable features to televisions (i.e. installing “Widgets” directly to the system), as has been the case for smart phones for about a year.  Imagine, for example, access to latest Facebook posts, your local weather or the weekly news on demand with a single button on the remote.

According to Rich Ezekiel from Yahoo! Connected TV, who gave an opening keynote devoted to explaining Yahoo! TV’s concept of “Widgets”, 90% of televisions manufactured in 2010 may be connected to the Internet and download such mini-applications.

Remotes are changing, too.  Some models incorporate more and more features to provide greater interaction, such as motion detection and retractable keyboards.  Soon, it might be possible soon to navigate through menus using gestures (like the Nintendo Wii) instead of pressing standard buttons on the remote.

It seems that all the pieces are in place for the advent of SmartTV: not only a mature technology, but also a clearer representation of what people really expect from their televisions.

Pierre-Alexandre Lapointe and I recently presented some Yu Centrik research on design methodology and alphanumeric input for interactive TV at Euro ITV 2009 in Leuven, Belgium.

The community is in very strong agreement that TV’s place in the future lies somewhere between a traditional source of broadcast content and a fully interactive computer.  At Euro ITV 2009, professionals from around the world were drawing lines in the sand on the dimensions of social interaction, user generated content, broadcast vs. downloadable content, input devices, media convergence and systemic integration.  While synthesizing the information presented, I wanted to add two high-level design perspectives which should be considered by those on the front lines creating an iTV system or service for real users.

The “living room” context of television might shift user values.
Many of the papers presented discussed the main distinguishing factor of television is its appeal for a “lean back” experience; users tend to be in a more relaxed state when watching tv.  From a design perspective, this issue might actually reflect a shift in values.  When debating issues for an iTV system, unlike the web, consider that a more engaging, expressive or fun interaction model might provide a better experience than one that is more classically ‘usable’ (efficient, clear, direct).

Optimizing business organization for cohesive design.
Integrated solutions move beyond the traditional business model of the television industry.  No longer can a service provider order a set-top-box from a hardware provider, configure a third-party remote and compete.  This type of disjoint business model prevents one team from being responsible for a cohesive design vision and serves as a major obstacle to user experience.  The suggestion is not necessarily to perform all these tasks in-house, but instead for the individual units to collaborate more openly on a specific service (the service provider and hardware providers should be open to customizing and adapting their products for a unified vision).

Access specific details from the conference: EuroITV Proceedings

So, where do I start?  If you’ve been following my Twitter @jayvidyarthi, you know that last week I experienced an overload of knowledge transfer at the annual CHI conference in Boston.  I wanted to write a blog updating all of you on some of the fantastic methodologies, processes and technologies on the fringe of our field.  First, let me tell you a little about my read on the main theme of the conference.

Tying directly into the Closing Plenary delivered by Kees Overbeeke from Eindhoven, I observed the underlying theme of HCI and design today as focusing on the humanization of technology.  Computer systems no longer have to be cold and digital.  Instead, they can behave more organically, installing themselves into our lives in a natural way.  Kees described how our relationships with technology can even go beyond such seamless integration.  He presented a lamp which gradually loses power.  As one pets the lamp, as if it were a cat or dog, it comes back to life.  This was an example of technology which can appeal to our emotions and connect with our users in a more profound way (while also being environmentally friendly!).  The tradeoffs between a practical and useful lamp and a “pet” lamp are still to be explored, but Kees’ point of view undoubtedly inspires questions about the future directions of human-computer interaction.

Although not every researcher is ‘dreaming of the impossible’ like Kees, a broad survey of projects from various angles at CHI 2009 show that seamless integration is the underlying theme of our technological future.  I decided to summarize a few interesting projects for you to check out, but by no means is this a comprehensive summary.  Check out the official CHI program summary to get many more descriptions and references on the fringe of HCI.

Some Highlights

• Eric Gilbert’s work on building a predictive model for social networks allowing a system such as Facebook to automatically distinguish your close friends from your distant acquaintances based on your behaviour with the system.  A short summary on Eric’s blog
• John Zimmerman is building a strong design philosophy centered around creating products which promote self-identity.  An application of product attachment theory to design specifically for role transition and self enhancement.  Really fantastic stuff for the creative theorist.  John’s Research Description
• Sunny Consolvo is working on the Ubifit Garden, a wallpaper for your mobile phone which measures how much time you spend sedentary, walking, running, biking, etc., and grows flowers and plants to indicate your physical exertion.  The system serves as a subtle ambient measure of your own exercise which creates a motivating factor within your cellphone.  A Poster Describing the Ubitfit Garden
• Tovi Grossman et. al. at Autodesk are designing and testing a new approach to measure the learnability of an interface: the Question-Suggestion model.  By having a coach directly interact with users, the method extracts specific problems and provides a more precise measure of interface learnability.  Extremely valuable for any kind of longitudinal usability testing of complex interfaces.  Description of the Paper @ ACM
• David Geerts from Leuven presented well-justified heuristics for the implementation of social functionality in interactive TV systems.  Hopefully I’ll hear more from David when I head to Euro ITV 2009 in Belgium to present Yu Centrik’s interactive TV research findings.  David’s Presentation Slides (jump to slide 33)
• Sarah Diefenbach and Mark Hassenzahl presented a thought-provoking piece on the interaction of Beauty and Usability on consumer product choice.  The paper served as a launching point for an intense panel discussion including a tirade on the definition of beauty from Bill Buxton.  Very engaging stuff.  Sarah and Mark’s Thought-Provoking Paper
• Leanne Hirshfield from Robert Jacob’s lab at Tufts University presented some early work on using fNIR brain imaging to get a read on human syntactic and semantic workload.  The eventual fruits of this work could lead to interfaces which can adapt to the users’ cognitive load by reading bloodflow in the brain.  If this project starts to fly, interfaces could get very interesting.  A Description of the Adaptive Interfaces using fNIR Project
• Alexander Hoffman is working on TypeRight, a keyboard which uses language dictionaries to adjust the resistance of keys on the keyboard based on the probability of each letter being pressed.  I tried using the keyboard and barring some minor technical issues, it seems to have potential to help us avoid type-os and increase our overall typing speed.  The TypeRight Project
• David Frolich presented a case study of StoryBank, a mobile-phone and touch-screen based system allowing children in rural India to develop narrated slideshow videos.  Being a kind of “local, embodied youtube”, the interfaces involved no language, enabling use by illiterate children in the village.  The findings were quite surprising, and the videos made were very powerful.  David was intent on stressing how our technology can help the developing world.  The StoryBankHomepage

Again, if you enjoy this type of work, check out the CHI program summary for more quick descriptions!  If you want details and have access to ACM’s digital library, check out the full proceedings.

To Internet lovers who have yet to jump on the Twitter bandwagon, one question constantly emerges:  why do people use Twitter?  At first, Twitter seemed like a simple stream of Facebook’s ’status updates’ without any other features.  I couldn’t understand why ‘tweeting’ was catching on, so I decided to spend an hour visiting Twitter pages in an attempt to understand how and why people use the service.

I ended up getting a little addicted.  Ironic, I know.

As far as I can see, Twitter’s main distinguishing factor is its enabling of asymmetric relationships: I can connect to you even if you don’t connect to me.  The power of this idea allows users a unique experience when compared to something like LinkedIn or Facebook.  For instance, I was able to watch an interaction between two musicians I admire, Trent Reznor (of Nine Inch Nails) and Courtney Taylor (of The Dandy Warhols), without either of them having to approve.  I ‘follow’ them, but they don’t ‘follow’ me.  This structure allows thinkers and content publishers to promote their work, ideas and day-to-day thoughts to thousands of fans without having to connect directly to each of them.

Facebook’s symmetric ’friend” structure allows no such freedom; users are forced into bidirectional social interactions at every turn.  The Facebook team has recognized this and is attempting to implement a similar interaction by allowing content creators the ability to make ‘pages’ where users can become ‘fans’, but having this asymmetry inherent in Twitter’s architecture allows it to satisfy the particular needs of content creators with much more grace and simplicity.

I may be a beginner to Twitter, but as far as I can tell, it seems much more useful to connect with people you don’t know than with people you do know.  Are you a power user of Twitter?  Correct me if I’m wrong @jayvidyarthi.

I was completely blown away when I first played around with an iPhone. However, with no desire to subscribe to a 3-year contract, I was relieved to hear that the iPod touch provided the same interface and similar functionality without any monthly services; an iPhone-without-the-phone, so to speak.

While the iPod Touch allows me to connect to my home wi-fi network and play with its supreme functionality, I can’t escape the feeling that Apple forgot to ensure a music listening experience which meets the same high standards. As a company focused on innovative user interfaces, anyone at Apple should have cringed when they read that.

–

Both of the problems detected involve a failure to capture a music lover’s flow of needs. Here, I would define music lover as anyone who is very particular about music, with urges to hear specific songs and an inability to sit through any song they are not in the mood for. The iPod touch runs into problems with the music lover’s experience when it is resting in the user’s pocket with a music library playing at random. I have identified two specific problems here:

1.  Since I have 6 gigabytes of music randomly thrown into my ears as I walk the streets, it’s inevitable that a song which is inappropriate for the current moment will come on.

With my iPod Touch, I am forced to pull out the device, push a button to activate the screen display, swipe my finger on a slider displayed on the screen to remove the ‘hold’ feature, and finally push the ‘next song’ indicator displayed on the screen. This is not only a more complex user interaction involving both haptic and visual interaction, but pulling out the device itself is also very frustrating when you’re forced to take off your gloves and unbutton your jacket because you’re outside in Montreal when its -30C. Maybe it’s time for Steve Jobs to visit a cold climate!  This problem can only be solved with an external remote which must be purchased separately.

Contrast this to my iPod Shuffle, where i could feel the surface of the player through the fabric of my pocket, hold down the play button to remove the ‘hold’ feature, feel the simple circular button interface and skip the song. I didn’t have to take the iPod out, put my hand in my pocket, or buy an external remote to get the job done. Oh, and did I forget to mention that it was only $40 when I bought it used from the owner of a Depanneur on Sherbrooke St?

2.  I also noticed a second problem when listening to music at random with the iPod Touch in my pocket.  When a song comes on, often I will be inspired to listen to a different, related song. For instance, my randomized playlist might give me “Shoo Shoo Boogie Boo” by Big Joe Turner. I might decide that I’d rather hear “Shake, Rattle and Roll” by Big Joe.

On the iPod Touch interface, there are convenient features which allow me to browse songs from the same album/artist; however, when I select one of these songs, it is impossible to instruct the device to resume my random playlist when the song finishes. I am forced to wait until the song is over to perform this function, forcing me to either hold on to my iPod until the song finishes, or take it out of my pocket again 5 minutes later.

With my Shuffle, the song-selection interaction is obviously limited by the lack of a screen.  Even still, there are aspects to the interaction which are easier.  The Shuffle controls randomization with a physical switch.  I reach in my pocket, turn random play off, switch between songs in the current album, turn random back on.  After playing my desired song, the player will continue its random playlist.

–

Why are these minor problems a big deal when, obviously, the benefits of the Touch compared to the Shuffle are tantamount?  Here’s where the problem ties into User Experience!  I can’t shake the undeniable feeling that Apple simply released the iPod Touch to cash in on the buzz surrounding the iPhone, without seriously considering its role as a music player, not a phone.  I also can’t shake the fact that I was a victim of this marketing ploy, which severely decreases my trust in Apple products.  That’s a big deal.

For anyone who doesn’t know Big Joe:  Big Joe Turner - Shake Rattle and Roll