iPhone's Lackluster Performance as Communication Hub for World Tour

The first and longest part of our world tour is now officially finished. During this part of our trip I used a jailbroken first-generation iPhone as my personal communication hub. I chose this device because it is extremelly portable and I believed that it would enable me to capture snapshots, lo-res video, and audio snippets, it would serve as a platform for the posting of journal entries, it would support the tracking of our budget, and it would allow us to take a good amount of our favorite music and videos with us on the trip.

I knew that there were many downsides to selecting the iPhone as my communication platform. The main ones of which I was aware were limited functionality and application availability compared to a laptop or netbook, and small form factor which makes it tiring to use for development of longer form content (I guess the content I developed is more like mid-form content).

So how did the iPhone do? The results were mixed and if I had to do it over again I would definitely bring along a netbook to complement this device as a communication hub.

The shortfalls were many. First and foremost, much of the iPhone's functionality is dependent on the availability of wireless internet connections and does not support connection to online via ethernet ports. This was an issue due to the scarcity of wireless connections (both cell-based and wifi) throughout the trip. Thus, when I would write blog posts using the notes application there was no way for me to transfer this content to computers that had hardline internet connections. This was by far the biggest issue I encountered.

Other inconveniences included the lack of cut and paste functionality, problems with the video application on my phone, and issues related to storage space (which I was eventually able to overcome using the terminal application on the phone).

On the positive side, the iPhone featured applications that met most, though not all, of my requirements - the picture, blogging and financial tracking applications were usable and useful. The jailbroken phone also worked well with local GSM sim cards, enabling me to stay in touch with my friends throughout the trip.

Dancing and Traveling

During the past several weeks I have been devoting less time to my interaction and experience design journal for two reasons: Lauren and I have been planning an around the world the trip for this summer; and we have been rehearsing for a dance performance that we delivered at a friend's wedding this past weekend.

The good news is that these preparations are coming to an end. The not so good news is that I won't be able to get back to my curriculum because I've decided to take a detour and focus on considering what aspects of technology, culture, design, and experiences I can explore during our trip around to world.

There are two main perspectives on digital communication technologies that I want to explore: first, I want to leverage technology to capture and share my and Lauren's experiences; second, I want to investigate how different cultures relate to technology and are designing and adopting technology to support local endeavors.

From a personal perspective I am looking for a mobile/portable solution that will enable me to capture and publish experiences from this trip. This solution will include multiple hardware and software products. Here is a brief overview of the tools currently under consideration:

• Personal communication hub: the main contender for my personal communication hub is my first generation (aka 2G) jailbroken iPhone. This device would enable me to capture quick snapshots, lo-res video, audio, and journal entries. The main downside of selecting the iPhone as my platform is that I will not be able to publish directly from the iPhone, even in a wifi area, as I have not found any acceptable blogging apps. A secondary drawback is that the 2G iPhone has lower quality audio and video capabilities (available on jailbroken phones only), and no GPS. I am not willing to take a laptop due to considerations related to portability (we'll be on a 34-day trip) and theft.
• Additional devices: I will also definitely take a camera for higher quality photos and video. I am uncertain about whether I will be willing to invest in a new Canon G10 - the temptation is strong, it is hard to resist. We will likely take our existing camera as well, a Canon SD950.
• Publishing tools: to publish all of the content that we capture and create I plan to use several platforms including a blog (on blogger), my existing flickr account, google calendar and maps, daytum, and youtube; I'm still considering if and how to integrate twitter and facebook without driving myself crazy.
  

From an observer's perspective (with no real claim of being objective) I want to explore how people from different cultures leverage familiar technologies in different ways; and what different technologies they have developed that are specific to local contexts.

For example, how are mobile phones used differently based on local cultural, and economic contexts; what different services are available, and how have they adapted other services to meet their needs; what meaning does the society ascribe to cell phones.

Over the next three weeks I will share more about the technology-related aspects of the planning for this trip. Once we are off I will also document how technology ultimately enhanced, or totally screwed up, our trip (after all I do believe that technology can be both a force of good and evil).

Statement of Purpose for ITP

I am excited for this opportunity to share with you more about what I am up to. Below I have posted the statement of purpose that I submitted with my application to the Interactive Telecommunications Program at NYU.

Writing this piece was difficult and cathartic. It required that I take a long and hard look at the reasons why I am pursuing this goal, and do a good bit of soul searching to identify which questions I want to explore in this program. This process forced me to start to crystalize what I want to create through my involvement at ITP. At the end of it all, I was more excited and energized than ever to pursue this path.

Over the next two years I will work to bring into existence many of the possibilities that I discuss in this piece. I look forward to sharing my experiences while on this journey, both the successes and failures. Not to mention that I'm sure I'll need guinea pigs from time to time. My only request in sharing this with you is that you feel free to share your own thoughts and ideas in return.

Statement of Purpose

"I’ve cultivated a passion for design and technology since I was teenager. My interest in design has inspired me to undertake numerous personal projects spanning industrial, graphic, web, and sound design, while my passion for technology has supplied valuable tools that have supported my projects and opened doors to new experiences. The increasingly pervasive role that technology plays in my life has given me a deeper understanding of the ways in which people engage with technology. As users of technology, we constantly shift between acting “through” it, as a tool, and acting “on” it, as an object of engagement itself.

I have become fascinated with the possibility of combining these passions in a new configuration: acting “through” design in order to act “on” technology. It is evident to me that the Interactive Telecommunications Program at New York University is the right place for me to explore this convergence of design and technology.

My interest in harnessing the power of design to enhance technology is not for technology’s own sake. It is driven by a belief that technology can have positive and negative consequences. Designers have an important role to play in shaping the evolution of technology by appropriately designing our interactions with, and through, technology.

On a personal level, I am inspired by the power of technology to enable connections between people, and to communicate meaning in engaging new ways. My iPhone has revolutionized the way I stay connected to people, content and places, and has also altered my expectations regarding their accessibility. The Nintendo Wii, by designing interactions that mimic the familiar gestures we use to do things in the physical world, enabled me to connect with friends who had no previous interest in video games.

The power of technology is ever more defined by its ability to connect people to other people, communities, and organizations. As a marketing communications professional I have realized that people have become empowered by technology to challenge the control once held by corporations over distribution of information. Traditional marketing communications now compete with the voices of millions of individuals, who on an aggregate level have a higher degree of credibility. At the same time, the connective power of technology has enabled the fragmentation of society into distinct communities that subscribe to different beliefs and value systems.

These are some of the realizations that have sparked my desire to experiment with design of technology-based interactions and experiences. My pursuit of this goal is driven by passion, curiosity, discipline, and integrity.

I designed a three-year plan and curriculum to channel my passion and curiosity in a disciplined manner. The first phase, currently in progress, is focused on building a theoretical foundation of knowledge through consumption and production of content that supports the development of an analytical design-perspective. The second phase concentrates on development of design production skills using a project-based approach that provides opportunities for learning through practice. The curriculum will then culminate with a focus on creativity driven by an integration of my analytical and production skills through continuous theoretical and hands-on engagement.

I have used similar strategies to achieve other important personal goals. When I moved to New York City in January of 1999, I created a similar plan to pursue DJing. After three years I was transformed from having no knowledge of how to spin records to moonlighting as a DJ with bi-weekly residences at popular parties in downtown lounges and clubs.

These pursuits have other important features in common: a genuine desire to share something of great personal value, and a focus on integrity. Sharing the joy and energy that music brought to my life was key to my success as a DJ. Acting with integrity also contributed to my accomplishments, though until recently I failed to notice that my actions did not support this same goal at a community level. I’ve realized that acting with integrity includes not only standing by my own promises. It also requires holding others accountable for their commitments. I failed to notice that I had too often sacrificed my authenticity and honesty because I was afraid of hurting someone’s feelings or not being liked.

This failure undermined my ability to grow as a leader and to contribute to the growth of other individuals within my personal and professional communities. Now, while I still place emphasis on getting along with others, I am also conscious that my integrity depends on direct and honest communications.

My interest in human growth and development is one of my main inspirations for applying to ITP. Beyond investigating how to improve interfaces with machines, I want to explore how technology can enhance the way human beings experience the world. How can technology create constructive new ways for people to communicate? How can we guide its continued expansion into our physical and social worlds so that it has a positive impact on the way we conceive and communicate our identity and individuality? How can it help to transform our consciousness so we depend less on a conditioned response and become more actively engaged?

I also want to explore how technology can be made accessible to a greater number of people. How can we create new and more natural and delightful ways for human beings to interact with computational devices? How can we enable communities of people who have special needs such as illiteracy or disability to interact with computational devices?

I know that the Interactive Telecommunications Program at NYU would provide me with unrivaled opportunities to investigate these areas of interest. I am attracted by the program’s focus on hands-on experimentation and the self-directed project-based framework on which it is built. I have limited experience writing code and building physical computing devices, but I have passion and desire to learn, which is evidenced by the assortment of cell phones and computers I’ve collected for hacking.

I have already started down the path of interaction design, and I would consider it an honor if I could integrate studies at ITP into my journey. In return I am eager to dedicate my passion, energy, commitment, and contagious optimism to ensure the continued success of this program."

ID FMP: Cognitive Model of Emotions for Design

In the 90’s Don Norman, along with his colleagues Andrew Ortony and William Revelle, began to explore the role that emotions play in making products easier, more pleasurable, and effective to use. During this time period various design researchers were investigating the link between emotions (especially aesthetics) and usability. These inquiries confirmed that our affective states strongly influence our experiences, and that these states can be induced by design of product systems.

The model they developed aims to explain how different levels of our brain govern our emotions and behaviors. At the visceral level our brain is pre-wired to rapidly respond to events in the physical world by triggering physiological responses in our body. The behavioral level controls our everyday behaviors, including learned routines such as walking and talking. Lastly, the reflective level is responsible for cognitive processes related to contemplation and planning.

Emotions can arise at various levels and are created by a combination of physiological and behavioral responses that are influenced by reflective cognitive processes. An emotion like anger tends to be mostly visceral or behavioral in nature. However, indignation, which is a higher-level version of this emotion, is reflective in nature as well.

The main implication from this model is that our affective states have an impact on how we think. This important insight applies to thinking about the user’s affective state when using the product, and to how a user’s affective state will be impacted by use of the product. In regards to the former consideration, designers can take leverage an understanding regarding common physiological and emotional responses to stressful situations in order to design products that can be successfully used in such contexts.

A users’ experience with a product itself can also have impact on their affective states. High- and low-level emotions can influence all levels of cognitive activity, which is why a one’s visceral response to a product’s aesthetics can impact our behavior. On the other hand, the one’s higher cognitive functions control one’s lower level functions, which is why we can overcome our initial emotional responses if a product is effective enough.

The most common way that designers apply this model is by exploring the design considerations associated to each of the three levels. Visceral design encompasses considerations such as the aesthetics of the look, feel, smell and sound of the product. Behavioral design refers to considerations associated to the product’s usability. Reflective design is concerned with the meaning and value that a product provides within the context of a specific culture.

I consider this model to be an evolution of modes of cognition framework. The main change is that in the Emotional Model the “experiential” mode of cognition has been divided into distinct types of cognition: visceral and behavior. This revision enables the model to reflect the important role played by our emotional response to a product’s aesthetics.

[source: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction; Don Norman’s book Emotional Design.]

** What the hell is ID FMP? **

ID FMP: External Cognitive Activities

People often leverage artifacts and characteristics from their environment to reduce cognitive load and enhance their cognitive capabilities. External cognition refers to the activities that people use to support their cognitive efforts. These activities rely on: a wide range of artifacts such as computers, watches, pens and papers; characteristics of the environment such as visible landmarks, and signs; and other people. There are three main types of external cognition activities.

These three types of activities are heavily inter-dependent. In the diagram above they are listed from broadest to most specific. The externalization of memory load is the most basic external cognitive activity. It is involved in all types of external cognitive activities.

Computational offloading leverages memory externalization for the specific purpose of performing computational tasks. It is the next most basic external cognitive activity.

Annotation and cognitive tracing can be used to support both types of distributed cognitive activities mentioned above. This type of distributed cognition involves the manipulation or modification of memory and computational externalizations that impact the meaning of the externalizations themselves.

External cognitive activities are used to support experiential and reflective modes of cognition [more info on cognitive modes]. These activities rely on and support all types cognitive processes defined in my earlier post – attention, perception, memory, language, learning, and higher reasoning [more info on cognitive process types].

This framework of external cognitive activities complements the Information Processing model by identifying how people leverage their external environment to enhance and support their cognitive capabilities [more info on information processing model].

It also complements the model of interaction by providing additional insights regarding how people interact with the world (or system images) to support and enhance their cognitive capabilities. However, it does not provide insight into how people interact with systems for non-cognitive pursuits, such as physical and communication ones [more info on model of interaction].

[source: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction]

** What the hell is ID FMP? **

ID FMP: Information Processing Cognitive Model

One of the most prevalent metaphors used in cognitive psychology compares the mind to an information processor. According to this perspective, information enters the mind and is processed through four linear stages that enable users to choose an appropriate response.

Though this model offers insights into how people process information, it is limited by its exclusive focus on activities that happen in the mind. Most of our cognitive activities involve interactions with people, objects, and other aspects of the environment around us. In other words, cognition does not take place only in the mind.

In my next ID FMP post I will cover the external cognition framework that describes external cognitive activities; and distributed cognition models that attempt to map all internal and external activities. Here’s how this model aligns to the frameworks, models, and principles that I have explored over the past several weeks.

The cognitive activities modeled by Information Processing framework above can be mapped to the mental activities outlined in Norman’s Model of Interaction. At a high level, Norman’s model provides additional insights regarding the mental activities that take place and it features the external environment as an important, though unexplored, element. Here is a brief overview of how the phases from this model relates to the interaction one:

• “Input encoding” maps to “perception”
• “comparison” encompasses “interpretation” and “evaluation”
• “response selection” corresponds to “intention” and “action specification”
• “response execution” maps to “execution

The “goals” phase of the Interaction Model crosses over between the “comparison” and “response selection” phases of the Information Processing framework – so do the additional phases of the modified Model of Interaction.

Here is how this model aligns with the framework regarding the relationship between a designer’s conceptual model and a user’s mental model. The focus of the Information Processing model is on the cognitive processes that occur in the user’s mind when they are interacting with the world. These processes are closely related to mental models in two ways:

• First, mental models provide the foundation for people to understand their interactions with the world and select appropriate responses.
• Second, mental models evolve as people evaluate the impact of their own actions and other events on the world.
  

[Note: by “world” I refer to any physical, virtual and social entities with which people can interact.]

The Conversation Turn Taking Model is related to the Information processing model in a broad sense only. The turn taking framework focuses on explaining an external phenomenon related to language and communication that is driven by the cognitive functions described in the Information Processing model. They do not contradict one another nor do they directly support each other.

The Information Processing model can be applied to both reflective and experiential modes of cognition, though the phases involved in each mode differ. Reflective cognition tends to be active during the “comparison” and “action selection” phases. On the other hand, experiential cognition can be active across all phases depending on the type of interaction.

The chart below provides an overview regarding which cognitive process types are involved with each phase of the Information Processing model.

[source: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction]

** What the hell is ID FMP? **

ID FMP: Model of Interaction

There are many theories that attempt to describe the cognitive processes that govern users’ interactions with products systems. Here I will focus on a model developed by Don Norman, which was outlined in his book Design of Everyday Things. This framework breaks down the process of interaction between a human and a product into seven distinct phases.

Seven Phases of Interaction with a Product System

1. Forming the goal
2. Forming the intention
3. Specifying an action
4. Executing the action
5. Perceiving the state of the world
6. Interpreting the state of the world
7. Evaluating the outcome

Two important concepts related to Norman’s Theory of Action are the gulf of execution and evaluation. The gulf of execution refers to the gap between how the user wants to act and how the system allows the user to take action. The gulf of evaluation corresponds to the gap between how the system displays data to how the user interprets this data into knowledge.

Now let’s put this theory into context with some of the concepts and models that we’ve encountered thus far. First, I want to point out that this model aligns with Don Norman’s model regarding the relationship between a designer’s conceptual model and a user’s mental model [read more here]. The focus of this framework is the interaction between the system image, the product’s interface where user interaction happens, and the user’s mental model, the user’s understanding of how the product works which governs the user’s interpretation, evaluation, goals, intention, action specification.

I’ve extended Norman’s original model to account for the reflective cognition that is also involved in peoples’ interactions with products. Reflective cognition governs peoples’ higher-level evaluations, goals and intentions that ultimately drive peoples’ experiential cognition activities. Experiential cognition governs the second-by-second evaluations, goals, and intentions involved in peoples’ interactions with products. These two different modes of cognition are explored in greater detail here.

Here is an example to distinguish and highlight the interdependencies between these two different types of cognition and interaction. Let’s consider a person’s interaction with a car. In this scenario, a person’s reflective cognitive would include setting a goal such as choosing a destination and desired time of arrival, and evaluating what route to take based on understanding of current location and traffic patterns. These activities would govern a person’s experiential interactions with a car and drive their moment-by-moment evaluations, and creation of goals and intentions. Experiential interactions would include using the steering wheel to turn a corner or switch lanes, pressing the accelerator to speed up, and stepping on the breaks to stop the car.

How does the concept of mental models relate to this framework? The mental model itself is not represented by a single phase, or grouping of phases. It refers to the understanding that a user has of how a system works. Norman’s model was developed to describe how users interact with product systems on an experiential, minute-by-minute basis. At this level of interaction a user’s mental model drives their interpretations, evaluations, setting of goals and intentions, and specification of actions.

Now let’s explore how the different cognitive types come into play during the various phases of interaction. These cognitive types have been outlined in greater detail here.

• Attention supports all phases of interaction from perception through to action execution. This cognitive process refers to a user’s ability to focus on both external phenomena and internal thoughts.
• Perception is clearly called out as its own phase in Don Norman’s model.
• Memory plays an important role during all phases from interpretation through to action specification.
• Language supports communication throughout all phases of a person’s interaction with a product. Here I refer to both verbal and visual languages.
• Learning enables people to use new products and increase effectiveness and efficiency in their interactions with existing products. This cognitive process supports all phases between the interpretation and action specification.
• Higher reason governs all activities related to the setting of high-level goals and intent, and driving evaluations.

[source: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction; and Don Norman's Book The Design of Everyday Things]

** What the hell is ID FMP? **

ID FMP: Conversation Turn-Taking Model

Holding a conversation is a basic human activity. It requires a large amount of coordination between participants, a fact that is often unnoticed. People need to know when to listen, when they can start talking, and when to cede the floor. Conversation mechanisms facilitate the coordination of conversations by helping people know how and when to start and stop speaking. These mechanisms enable people to effectively negotiate the turn-taking required carry out a conversation.

Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson have developed a model that aims to explain how people manage turn taking during conversations. The focus of their research was to create a framework that can be applied across cultures and contexts, and that can accommodate several key observations about the structure and dynamics of conversations. Here is an excerpt from the abstract of their paper The Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.

“The organization of taking turns to talk is fundamental to conversation, as well as to other speech-exchange systems. A model for the turn-taking organization for conversation is proposed, and is examined for its compatibility with a list of grossly observable facets about conversation [outlined below].”

The Foundations
Before we explore the model itself let’s take a look at its foundation. Here is a list of the “grossly observable facets about conversation” that was referred to in the quote above:

1. Speaker changes will always occur and often recur.
2. For most of the time only one party talks at a time.
3. More than one person will often talk at a time, but these occurrences are brief.
4. Most transitions occur with no gap or overlap, or with slight gap or overlap.
5. Turn order varies throughout conversation.
6. Turn size or length usually varies.
7. Length of conversation is not specified.
8. What parties say is not specified.
9. Relative distribution of turns is not specified.
10. Number of parties varies considerably.
11. Talk can be continuous or not.
12. Turn-allocation techniques are used to facilitate the conversation.
13. Sometime turn-constructional units are used to facilitate conversation.
14. Repair mechanisms exist for correcting turn-taking errors.

The Model

The general model that they developed, which is pictured above, is composed of the three basic rules that govern the transition of turns in a conversation. These rules are:

1. The current speaker chooses the next speaker by asking a question or making a request.
2. If the speaker does not choose the next speaker, then another person can self-select to start speaking.
3. The speaker can decide to continue speaking if no other person self-selects to start speaking.

[source: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction; and Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson’s paper The Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation, 1974]

** What the hell is ID FMP? **