Tony Hawk's Project 8: One of the many, many games in the Tony Hawk video game franchise

The franchise, while extremely successful, was in need of a ‘reboot’ of sorts.  It had explored all the available terrain and the development team was looking for a way to bring something new to the franchise.  What they arrived at, was a skateboard peripheral to play the game that more closely paralleled the act of skateboarding in real life.  What they created was a peripheral that forced the user to act in a very similar fashion to a skateboarder in order to be successful in the game.  The end product is a very slick, functional peripheral that allows a fairly capable skater to jump right in and get the hang of the game fairly quickly.  What I find perhaps even more interesting than the end result however, is the interim stage that allowed the developers to truly believe that the idea was a viable one that would catch on in the mainstream, similar to the insanely popular Guitar Hero franchise and Rockband franchise.

The Tony Hawk Ride Prototype

While at first glance, it would be very easy to dismiss this prototype as the garbage Frankenstein of a video game obsessed skateboarder, the sheer beauty lies in it’s ability to forgo any sort of attention to physical beauty.  The prototype’s ugliness belies the fact that is doing its job and collecting all the necessary sensory information to fine tune and prove that the idea is viable.  Sensors instead of wheels capture weight distribution information, buttons on key areas of the grip tape capture information relative to feet positioning for both tricks and just general riding.  The prototype isn’t complex.  It’s down and dirty, composed of elements that the developers had at their studio, not sent away for manufacturing at some third party.  This allows them to efficiently use their time and have more time to gather information and refine the product use before moving to more final prototype designs.  Whenever I see prototypes like this, I’m reminded of a design school example that was constantly brought up.  When designers went to improve the scalpel for surgeons, they didn’t use expensive prototypes, but rather a couple pencils with some elastics.  Using these low tech prototypes, they were able to mock up the best angle for the surgeon to handle precisely, and with longevity in mind.  The stripped down nature of the prototypes allows designers to quickly and easily get results, iterate the design based on the feedback, and quickly move the design forward.  None of those would be possible without the ‘ugly’, low tech approach to prototyping.

The concept continues along the path of a One Dimensional orientation of windows, but does an admirable job of trying to make it work easily for the user.  The multitouch pad has raised edges (a clever affordance) that allows the user to press these areas to access global operations (similar to that of the Start Button on a Windows OS) and an area that allows the user to access applications specific settings (such as opening a webpage or choosing a bookmark from within a browser).

The concept video goes on to detail how the OS would change for the multitouch to allow it to reach its full potential.  Unfortunately, this is where the input method falls flat for me.  Multitouch, for the mainstream, originated on the mobile cell platform, and became successful because it was used smartly rigiht off the bat courtesy of the iPhone.  The reasoning behind this, is that there really is no alternative on the mobile platform besides clicking or using a scroll wheel (ala blackberry, although thats now optical wheel if we are going to get technical).  Multitouch makes perfect sense on the mobile platform because there is no other input method that allows the user to navigate a UI as quickly or as easily as your own hands.  Since none of the other potential input methods used in cell phones have any advantage in terms of accuracy, multitouch’s lack of accuracy is no longer an issue.  However, when one moves to a less mobile situation, such as a desktop computer, the disadvantages of the multitouch become much more apparent, and the oft championed advantages tend to be somewhat gimmicky.

While movies and Apple may have convinced us that the way of the future is through touch technology, I’m not sold on it yet.  The ability to have all 10 fingers performing multiple tasks at one time, as 10/GUI claims for an advantage of multitouch,  is akin to forcing each user to learn to play the piano if they are to get the most out of their technology.  While there are certainly many people who would be able to adapt quite easily to multiple tasks being performed at once with both hands, there are most definetly a large number which would be stuck doing things one handed (think of how many people you know who couldn’t play a tune to save their life on piano).  The mouse, while relegated to one hand, leaves the other free to use the keyboard, something which looks like it would be uncomfortable in the 10/GUI system.  Regardless of that, the mouse offers up one undeniable advantage over the multitouch approach, and that is accuracy and versatility.

If you think of some of the applications you use on a daily basis, whether it be for fun or for work, or whatever the case may be, you will likely encounter scenarios where you would not want to part ways with your mouse.  Using Solidworks (or any 3d modelling application really) would be an exercise in frustration, not to mention the fact that I would be inclined to never use Photoshop again (not all of us are this good).

The problem with new technology is that everyone is in a rush to exclaim it as the next big thing and the solution to all the current problems, but technology rarely works like that.  Computers were supposed to make our lives less taxing, and help us accomplish work quicker so we would have more leisure time.  Instead, they allowed us to accomplish work quicker, and now we are expected to move at the speed of light, be connected 24/7, and accomplish more than ever.  I’m not trying to say that multitouch isn’t without it’s merits, and that concepts such as 10/GUI are useless, but rather that more thought needs to be taken to determining the legitmate problems in the first place.  If we are trying to fix problems that don’t exist, we are simply spinning our wheels.  If we are trying to crowbar in a technology into every product we manufacture, it is not going to work everytime.  However, if we do sit down, and think through what technology would best solve the well researched problems that have been found, then maybe we can begin to advance efficiently and quickly, instead of this trial and error system manufacturers seem so attatched to currently.

Click the Image to Open the Video in a New Window

However, 10/GUI attempts to distance itself from the standard multitouch input methods that are on the market (such as the HP Touchsmart’s) by reinventing the way in which the interaction takes place.  Instead of one screen, 10/GUI employs a multitouch screen on the desk where a mouse would normally sit, which has a 1:1 interaction with the screen display which is in the normal position. 

What this does is increase the precision of multitouch by allowing for the user to avoid dealing with being unable to see through their own fingers, as well as eleviating ergonomic issues that arise with traditional touch input (fatigure from poking a monitor on a desk, or neck pain from staring down at a touch display on a table).  Miller goes on to further describe how he feels an OS could function given this new method of user input, but makes one critical false assumption.  When organizing what he feels is the currently overcluttered and arbitrarily placed windows of an OS, he forces them to a linear, page by page notion in his concept.  While he makes great strides towards making it work, it begs the question, is this really a problem in the first place?

Many users who are prone to having a significant number of windows open at once tend to fall under the banner of ‘expert user’, or at the very least, ‘intermediate user’.  These types of users tend to enjoy restrictions about as much as a bear enjoys having their space invaded, and the linear system is going to cause significant problem for these ‘power’ users, as windows are often arranged consciously, not arbitrarily as Miller suggests.  The amount of times I will have multiple windows open at the same time, with only certain bits and pieces showing is countless, and for someone to take that away for the sake of ‘organization’ seems backwards.  Function should override the ‘cleanliness’ of the aesthetic every time, and especially in such a significant area of the User Interface…

]]> http://noodleplay.com/2009/11/25/is-the-mouse-obsolete/feed/ http://noodleplay.com/2009/11/25/is-the-mouse-obsolete/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NoodleplayCommentary/~3/L8zcbdtpS1s/ http://noodleplay.com/2009/11/23/the-new-ways-to-sit/#comments Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:51:36 +0000 Andrew Swanson http://noodleplay.com/?p=3218 Knoll recently released the ‘Generation‘, the latest in its’ line of task seating and it is quite a breath of fresh air into a fairly traditional genre of design.  The marketing slogan behind the chair, and if one is to believe their website, the design mantra as well, is that people should be able to sit as they choose.  People of the current younger generation do not sit as their older contemporaries do.  They slouch more, they tend to be more fidgity, switching between positions, as well as extremely interactive with those around them.  Therefore, Knoll created the ‘Generation’ in a manner to help facilitate these traits, as opposed to hindering them.  While this design may not be the best in terms of helping the user to avoid back pain from incorrect postures, it is actually a step in the right direction.

Traditionally chairs have tried to capture the user and hold them in a certain position.  While in theory this could work if the chair would be tailored to the user and they were not to move from the optimal position, in reality, this is far from the case.  According to research, it is in fact far more beneficial to go with the flow so to speak, and encourage the user to move frequently.  This movement gives the back muscles time to recouperate and lessens the long term impact of any potential damage.  What the ‘Generation’ accepts is that users want to move around and be in various sitting positions, and helps them to move between them which is a commendable step in the right direction for such a big name in the chair game.  While it isn’t optimal in that it can help users facilitate extremely poor postures for lengthy periods of time, there are always going to be missteps along the way of such a brazen and bold direction.

Where the ‘Generation’ truly succeeds is in delivering the user an experience that they are able to really make their own.  By being able to build the chair with the components that are desired, and then by further enable the user to sit in so many different positions, the chair begins to feel as though it was made specifically for you.  Even the website address, www.sithowyouwant.com is indicative of the emphasis that Knoll put on creating a product that embodies a tailored user experience.  All of the elements of the chair are easily adjustable to fit the user quickly and easily, and the materials chosen allow for flexibility that has rarely been seen in such a traditional work environment.  By browsing their website, under the demos (and then video demos), you can quickly grasp the idea and rational behind the ‘Generation’.  The shape and materials, as well as potential colorways are all very thoroughly thought out.

While this chair will not likely dethrone the Herman Miller Aeron Chair anytime in the near future as the standard by which all office seating is judged, it is able to make clear it’s value in different areas than the Aeron Chair.  It doesn’t attempt to overtake the Herman Miller offering by doing the same things, but tries to take a radically different approach, and is largely successful.   Such a dynamic and different take on an often stagnant and traditional market segment should be applauded if we are to hope for more innovations.

Rubber boots and metal sheers in tow, I was ready to heave and hoe (and all the other farm-appropriate gestures) my way along the learning curve – my green thumb had previously been limited to some potted basil and a few house plants. I expected organic farming on a large scale would be complicated. I didn’t realize it would be so inspiring.

This farm used permaculture, a design method that mimics the architecture and relationships in natural ecologies to develop sustainable agricultural practices. In other words, the organic ‘food forest’ (which requires zero fossil fuels) was bursting with diverse produce, wild flowers and life, thanks to the network of ecosystems nurtured within it. With a bit of nature-inspired design, a sustainable and rich ecosystem was created and did an unbelievable job at contributing to its own maintenance.

I was fascinated and unbelievably curious – farming is an obvious place to mimic nature’s design, but what about business? What about manufacturing, packaging and services? After all, 3.8 billion years of R&D later and we can’t deny that nature is the authority on the design of sustainable systems.

The interwebs led me to Bio-Mimicry, a design discipline committed to developing sustainable solutions by emulating nature’s time-tested patterns and strategies.

What can inter-species cooperation and competition teach us about building communities? What can the butterfly’s wings teach us about self-cleaning material? What can wind-turbines learn from flying birds? How would nature heat and cool a home? These are the kinds of questions BioMimicry seeks to answer – and with cool open-source projects like The Biomimicry Institutes’ AskNature,, the answers are right at our fingertips.

At a time when the often-daunting task of designing for sustainability is a top priority for many businesses, this is especially intriguing. Biomimicry can be a powerful tool for innovation on the road to more sustainable designs and processes. Nature can demonstrate the underlying simplicity of seemingly complicated processes – so take another look, what can you learn from your own backyard?

Ps. Intrigued? Check out this great TED talk video for examples of how nature is already inspiring design.

Then comes the news that Playdom just raised $43 million on a whopping $260 million valuation.  Playdom is the dominant game developer on MySpace (you remember MySpace, don’t you?), but is a late-comer to Facebook.

And, of course, there’s Zynga, the company responsible for countless wasted hours at offices around the world with Texas HoldEm Poker during Facebook’s early days and, more recently, with Farmville (thank god for the ability to block notifications on Facebook, btw).  Rumors continue to circulate that Zynga has its eyes on a possible IPO next year — and even a $1 billion valuation has been thrown about (cue Dr. Evil with pinky at his lips).

All of these companies are killing it with a free-to-play model, largely based on micro-transactions.  A few cents here, a few cents there… when you have millions upon millions of people playing, those pennies add up.  Tim Chang, a principal at the venture capital firm, Norwest Venture Partners, estimates that the three companies’ combined annual revenue run rate stands at about $350 million right now and the industry as a whole may be at $1 billion.  That’s a lot of  farming seeds and pet supplies.

Now, I’m a guy who can’t bring himself to buy virtual goods to advance in a video game (hey, I’m not cheap… financially responsible is how I see it), but I have seen enough to know there are plenty of people that will spend plenty of money.  In a past life, I helped to bring the GOLF.com Pro Challenge, a golf video game, onto Facebook.  Operating that game, I saw first hand just how much people would spend to play.  We even had some players forking out $100  for a virtual golf club.  I may not buy virtual goods, but I’m definitely a believer in virtual goods and micro-transactions as a revenue model.  Apple also recently made it possible for developers to sell virtual goods within free apps.  Many see this as potentially the beginning of a very lucrative market for iPhone games that are free-to-play but, which, generate revenues from virtual goods.

All of this adds up to this being a fun time to be in the video games business.  And a fun time for playing video games.  I’m looking forward to seeing more, better games I can play for free or almost free, like the multitude of $0.99 iPhone games (hey, stop calling me cheap!).

But what about you?  C’mon… how much money have you spent playing “free” games?

A retailer’s primary role may be that of curator and tastemaker, but that doesn’t mean that the crowds can’t pitch in to help. Modcloth is a Pittsburgh-based online retailer that sells affordable, independent designer women’s fashion. With a recently launched initiative called Be the Buyer, ModCloth encourages its customers to help choose which items to take into production, effectively turning a customer into a virtual member of their buying team. E-commerce functionality + community participation = We-Commerce, and it’s a very efficient method of building both brand awareness and driving advocacy.

The retailer was founded by Eric and Susan Gregg Koger, a husband-wife team who are recent graduates of Carnegie Mellon University. Susan says, “Our customers know our brand best. They’re trendsetters, and we really want to take this opportunity to listen to them, and produce and sell items that they want to see on our site”. This is keen acknowledgment of brand ownership and the value of really letting the voice of the customer be heard — insights not always recognized by more established marketers. There are some designs that the owners think will be hits, but the designer can only put them into production and at a sell-able price if they’re made in a large quantity. As a small company, it’s difficult for ModCloth to make big inventory commitments without knowing if customer demand is necessarily in alignment with the owners’ tastes in style.

ModCloth’s crowd-sourced voting process is reminiscent of t-shirt retailer, Threadless. While t-shirts are almost a commodity from a manufacturing perspective, ModCloth sells dresses, shirts, jackets and skirts that are more complicated to produce. And this is where the virtual buyers come in.

ModCloth’s fans currently have 65 designs to vote on by selecting an item, then choosing whether to “Pick it” or “Skip It”, along with the option of submitting amplifying commentary each design, and to share their voting decisions on Facebook and Twitter, turning the voting process into a useful marketing tool for ModCloth. If a design is taken into production, customers who voted for it receive email notifications as soon as it’s available, allowing them to be the first to buy and wear it. Winning designs will normally be for sale a few weeks after voting ends.

This isn’t the only way that ModCloth involves their shoppers - periodically they invite customers to become fashion writers through their Name It and Win It contests, and features on their website, like reviews and ratings, equal even more involvement. Susan thought it would be wonderful for customers everywhere to get a chance to become a virtual buyer, which was the inspiration for Be the Buyer.

While the concept won’t work for every retailer or manufacturer, it’s definitely one that many could benefit from: by making customers feel more involved, by taking some of the guesswork out of buying decisions, and by empowering customers via social media channels to drive brand awareness and capture customer sentiment and insights. We-commerce initiatives like Be the Buyer are allowing savvy merchants to drive active engagements with their customers that can efficiently drive loyalty, advocacy, and truly meaningful relationships based on that participation.

The lines between science fiction and the world as we know it are certainly blurring. While we don’t have autonomous machines walking among us today, the technologies in both robotics and artificial intelligence are progressing significantly. We may not have cloning machines, but 3D printers have become an essential tool in the prototyping of new products. And while we’re a long ways away from the ubiquitous computing vision presented in Wall-E, where people live their lives with no awareness of the digital environment they live in, our behavioral dependency on ubicomp, even now, makes it seem as though Pixar’s view of the future is a possibility (albeit, a bleak one).

Ubicomp is not Black or White

Ubicomp is a vision of the future. But if we think of it as all or nothing, we’re sure to miss out on an incredible transformation of society. The ubicomp vision presented in films, academic literature and Microsoft promotional videos seems to be an “all” - everything, every object, contains computing capabilities and works perfectly in unison with its environment.

If we accept that a full-fledged, overnight transformation to a ubicomp society is never going to happen, then we can recognize that we’ve already taken several giant steps towards integrating ubiquitous computing elements into our every day lives. Behaviorally, we’re already well on our way. We’re living in the gray.

Ubicomp & You

Small ubicomp interactions have been around for quite some time. You probably don’t realize it (that’s sort of the point), but there are hundreds of examples of invisible interactions with sensing, inferring, data transferring machines that have made their way into our lives already. From sensors at stop lights that help manage traffic flows to weight sensors in elevators to the automatic shutoff switches that turn off your iron when you’ve let it idle for too long , simple, single function computing has been making our lives safer and more efficient for over a decade. However, most of the examples we have from the past decade represent little technically-enabled blips in our life line that are the ubicomp equivilent of dipping our toes in the water.

This is not the future but the past.

These days, ubicomp has taken on a significantly more important role in product design, serving as a key form of product differentiation. In fact, it’s difficult to find a category of products that hasn’t in some way been “upgraded” with new computational capabilities.  And with this new form of invention, streams of products are  seamlessly replacing the skills humans have relied upon for thousands of years. It’s no longer about efficiency and safety, but about enhancing (supporting, replacing) skills.

Stop light sensors change the rules of how the world works, today’s ubicomp is changing who we are as a species.

Case  1. GPS & Where We’re Situated

For thousands of years, humans have relied on instincts, heuristics and tools to tell us where we are. Maps & compasses required a distinct set of skills, and in their absence, we relied on the stars to direct our path. Fast forward to today, and it’s difficult to find a car that doesn’t contain a GPS system. Humans have embraced the GPS technology so fully that there are literally hundreds of online stories of “car meets lake,” when enthusiastic GPS owners trus their electronic maps over their own visual skills. This isn’t an evolution of the tool. GPS is a complete overhaul of a skill (and clearly before the technology is perfected). We’re always somewhere, and ubiquitous is fulfilling the need of telling us where that is.

Case  2. Ambient Communications & What We’re Doing

While GPS is causing us to lose a skill, the ability to push status notifications to social networking sites has created a new behavior - updating. The desire to feel connected by letting the world know what where why and how we’re doing everything has created a consumer-side demand for devices that facilitate that process. Mobile phones, often considered the gateway to ubiquitous computing, are currently the tool of choice to provide these updates, but with examples of ovens that automatically update Twitter when fresh bread comes out of the oven, input sensors that update facebook when a baby kicks in the woumb, and shoes connected to communities of runners, there are plenty of examples of trigger-based communications that automatically inform the world when something worth mentioning happens. The demand for updating has demonstrated an interest in ubiquitous computing products that do the work for us. Real time is the new status symbol.

Case  3. There’s an App for That!

Over the past year, Apple has successfully popularized the catch phrase there’s an app for that. Since the iPhone app store’s introduction, more than 2 billion apps have been downloaded (with a half billion downloads in the last quarter alone). The total number of apps in the store currently exceeds 85,000. With an app for every scenario, there is a clear, consumer driven demand for computing to take a more prominent role in our lives. People are appifying every aspect of their lives, relying on a form of ubicomp to do everything for them, from telling them the whether when they’re already outside to calculating their tips to keeping them entertained on the street car in to work.

What’s clear from all of these examples is that there is a consumer driven demand for ubiquitous computing in our lives. While we may not be living out Pixar’s fantasy of the future, the foundation of who we and what we do is changing based on the availability of ubiquitous computing. I’m not here to convince you that it’s a good or a bad thing (I have my own opinions). But no matter how you feel about it, our evolution to a ubicomp world is happening.

Look around a bit and I’m sure you’ll notice.

Click to Watch A Youtube Video on the GyroBike

The device works with a rechargeable battery that lasts for roughly 3 hours on full strength assistance, which should be more than enough time for the average toddler’s excursion.  The assistance works significantly enough to really help the child feel secure on the bicycle, but at the same time, not so much that it does all the balancing for them.  And as the amount of help is lowered, they are forced to rely on their own sense of balance more and more.  The wheel is the standard 12″ size for childrens’ bicycles and is simple to change out with the existing wheels that accompany the bikes.  Once it is attached, there is no need to take it off as it can function perfectly normally as a wheel long after the child is in need of the support.

If you click the image to the left, you can watch a youtube video of a little girl learning to ride a biciycle for the first time.  Within 30 minutes she is able to ride with the help of the Gyrowheel, but no assistance from her father.  That feat alone is incredibly impressive, especially when considering that potentially within a day someone could be used to riding a bicycle virtually unassisted.

While the design itself is certainly an improvement upon the existing tradition of training wheels, it is also not a revolutionary leap forward.  What it does though, is use relatively new technology to improve the experience for the users, both the teacher and the student in this scenario.  It streamlines the process and effectively reduces the stress put on the rider, while encouraging them to learn quicker.  Simply put, it does it’s job, and it does it in a very efficient manner, and that is what good design is.