Charge It

When was the last time you heard someone mention that their mobile phone battery had run out, but they hadn't noticed (either until they tried to make a call, or someone asked them why they hadn't been answering their phone)? I recall, years ago, this being a fairly frequent claim. Perhaps not always true, but common enough to always be plausible.

Today the claim is less common, and less plausible. Having been incorporated more fully into our routines, we notice more quickly when our charge is low or dead. Certainly there are still some absent-minded folk who forget to charge their phones, but today they are the exception rather than the rule. I wonder if, in the early days, people regularly forgot to gas up their cars?

On the other hand, another (somewhat contradictary) experience which many people will share: having a dead phone battery, and access to another mobile or landline, which is of no value because the number you need is trapped inside your phone's lifeless corpse.

Mini Book Review (shoddy on my part)

Slow brain day, just reviewing old reading notes. I'll put on my literary criticism hat and review a few statements taken from Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. I read this book some time ago and seem to recall enjoying it, but when I look back on the quotes I jotted down, I seem to have changed my position. So, with minor apologies to Ms. Murray for not addressing the work in full:

A major point the author makes is that virtual worlds, exemplified by the Star Trek holodeck, are "enticing but unenslaving". We are "in control of the mirage". I'm not sure I can agree with that. Nor would many Koreans, whose countrymen are dying in front of their computers at a surprising rate. I've felt the siren song of fictional digital worlds, with their implicit encouragement to forsake other activities. I've mostly triumphed in these confrontations, but I've watched others fall to it (though not in the literal Korean sense). We are, in fact, not in control of the mirage. This is neither novel nor inherently dangerous, however--we're not in control of the "real world" either. Her claim implies a clear-cut distinction between fiction and reality which many people don't share.

A line I probably nodded in agreement with as I first read it: "The commitment to any particular story is a painful diminution of the intoxicating possibilities of the blank page." Now I realize that only a literary academic could compose such a sentence. In the practical world of gaming and virtual worlds, players most certainly want a particular story. There are virtual worlds with, and virtual worlds without strong narrative, but the presence of the former shouldn't overshadow the greater popularity of the latter. The trick, actually, is that the two aren't mutually exclusive. You can provide players with a story, and then all the blank pages they want to amend, interact with, and add to that story. Providing a particular story in the first place creates an anchor for all those blank pages. Virtual worlds aren't entirely different and separate from the analog world--they are extensions.

"When we enter a fictional world...we do not suspend disbelief so much as we actively create belief." True enough, but this implies that we don't create belief in non-fictional worlds--when we do all the time, and rely on it. I believe that you love me. You believe that aliens ate your dog. The creation of belief is not exclusive to fiction (digital or analog), and shouldn't be analyzed as such. Literary analysis of technical creations has huge potential offerings that the social sciences neglect, but this book isn't at the top of the pile. (One book that is at the top of the pile is How We Became Posthuman. A dense but rewarding history of cybernetics from a technically knowledgeable, but literary vantage point. And if you think that cybernetics don't interest or affect you, this book will show you how wrong you are.)

Power Tools and UCD

Donald Norman makes the point in a recent ACM article that user-centered design has various drawbacks. This is mild heresy in some corners today, where "user-centered design" is the latest buzzword. But he makes a convincing argument for activity-centered design (rather than UCD) in certain cases. He notes, for example, that violins and pianos (and musical notation in general) would not pass muster of a UCD review. Having played both instruments for years and suffered accordingly, I can vouch for the truth of that assessment. But those instruments aren't designed to be easy to use, they're designed to perform a particular purpose, and to do it well. A violin which was comfortable to play would no doubt prevent virtuoso performances.

Tangentially--to what extent are the arts appreciated as such for precisely the fact that they are not easy to learn, perform, and master? In the past, both production and use of many goods took practice and skill. Today, everyone is working to remove skill from use and place the bulk of it in design, production, and marketing. And, overall, this is undoubtedly a benefit.

The key word is "overall". UCD undoubtedly makes products easier to use. This is often inaccurately referred to as making the products "better". Actually, they are better, but in a narrow sense: they are better products for the mass market (and they will hopefully sell better). They work more easily for most people. If sales and market share are your goal, then this is probably the route to take. But it's important to realize that this form of "better" doesn't mean that the product is better at doing what it does. On the contrary, it will often be worse: less efficient, less powerful, less flexible.

Of course it's not always this way. As Norman points out, good design doesn't allow methodology (regardless of particulars) to dictate outcome. It should be taken as input or suggestions, not law. And it may be that UCD is an excellent tool for iterative tweaking of ACD-conceived products. The happy reality is that today, individuals often have a choice: the market provides UCD tools as well as the more difficult power-user tools.

I'll bet you've never thought of a violin as a device for power users.