Latest Entries »

Systemic Considerations For The Development Of Technology – Virtual Personalities

Filed under: Systems Theory by systemsprinciples — Leave a comment
14:42

In the previous article I expanded on the importance of minimising the interference of hardware or software in the connection between user and end-goal. However, this is only part of the story: some technology companies are moving in a fundamentally different direction. Given that our sense of self-soothing is built best when socially interacting within a shared cultural group, some companies are moving towards developing virtual personalities into their hardware. The point? To simulate interaction with individuals we can feel an affinity with and, in doing so, stimulate our feelings of self-soothing, contentment and, as such, brand loyalty.

Conversations with hardware

Do you talk to your phone? Regularly converse with the all in one printers at work? It’s pretty natural behaviour – and tech companies are trying to encourage it.

Moving to a different brand of phone involves more than just learning a new skill-set: hardware takes on its own personality, and in changing we must adapt to a new ‘virtual person’. Part of this is fuelled by the purposeful anachronisms built in to modern devices. Still more is fuelled by a well-crafted approach to designing and manufacturing them. But companies also take particular approaches that give a sense of ‘system-wide’ – or ‘ecosystem-wide’ – unity to their virtual personalities.

Take, for example, Siri on newer Apple devices. S/he (depending on region) responds in a characteristically personable manner – and Apple admits to having spent many hours carefully crafting a personality that would tread the line between servile and expertise. As such, Siri’s responses are in keeping with the entire iPhone, iOS and even Apple ecosystems. Her wit is akin to that shared by Apple’s marketing department. The kinds of responses she gives to more philosophical questions are in keeping with Apple’s guiding principles. What’s the point of all this? Because, each time you use Siri, you engage in a shared cultural experience with someone your body recognises as a genuine individual. Result? Endorphins. Particularly as Siri is polite, complimentary but self-confident – exactly the kind of individual we crave attention from.

Other technology companies are moving towards speech-recognition and synthesis software, but few currently have the ‘personality’ of Siri. And that’s quite a big issue. Given the psychological reaction we have to virtual personalities, I would predict that, over the next few years, competitors will develop their own characteristic variants.

Long-term thinking

 Researchers in AI have spoken at length about the ‘uncanny valley’ – a point past which computer-generated personalities will be indistinguishable from ‘natural’ ones. Some suggest that this is a point that humans will innately reject further AI development, but many are accepting that humans will likely welcome it warmly. Many science fiction writers have authored stories in which technology-kind is indistinguishable from humankind, and this seems to be a systemic trend in the complexity of technology evolution. So, in addition to the anachronising of common hardware and software tools – allowing us to accept them in to our consciousness – I believe that we will see an increasing trend in those ‘multi-function’ elements to become more ‘human’. In doing so, companies will not only enable swifter and more efficient features – they will build strong brand loyalty, based on direct interaction with a ‘representative avatar’ of the company ethos itself.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Systemic Considerations For The Future Of Technology – Multi-Function Hardware

Filed under: Systems Theory by systemsprinciples — 2 Comments
14:34

I’d prefer to carry my iPhone than a mobile, calculator, map, Yellow Pages and so on. It’s just more convenient. Yet, it might be reasonably argued, my choice of such a multi-function device contradicts the suggestions of my previous article, in which I asserted that multi-function software was doomed to failure. The intrinsic difference lies in our attitude to the hardware/software divide – one that will lessen in future. In this article, we’re going to take a look at David Chalmers’ theory of extended consciousness, and see how hardware devices can be seen much more as an extension of our own person than can software.

I’d rather lose my arm than my phone

 When I worked in technical repair, I frequently met with people that would claim to prefer loss of limb to loss of tech. And, as with most glib phrases, there’s a nugget of truth to the statement – we do, in many ways, see our personal electronic devices as extensions of our own selves. This is something that does not stand for most software – we’ll see why in a moment.

This idea – that our consciousness can be extended beyond the physical limitations of our body – was first considered seriously by David Chalmers, an Australian philosopher of mind. In his terms, ‘consciousness ain’t all in the head!’. He envisaged an individual ‘A’ who had, through some accident, lost his memory. This individual was compared with someone will fully-functional memory access (‘B’). ‘A’ was provided with a notebook in which to record things he needed to remember. He was given one important memory – that the notebook contained things he needed to remember.

Chalmers insists that the two are functionally equivalent. And that’s a very compelling argument – whenever ‘B’ checks his memory for directions to a location, ‘A’ checks his notebook. The conclusion? That ‘A’ has in some way extended his consciousness into the notebook pages – it’s now a part of his person.

Chalmers winds up the article by discussing the possibility that calculators and phones do similar, if more complex, things. Can our consciousnesses truly ‘extend’ in to our phones? I believe there is merit to thinking so.

My phone’s a notebook

 The role of anachronism in software development has already been considered – but how does it work in hardware design? Simply put, good hardware is that which diminishes the ‘belief gap’ between the user and the task-at-hand. Writing is a naturally anachronistic process for ‘A’ – his own handwriting is personalised, human and, if he wishes, well-crafted. As such, his ‘belief gap’ is pretty minimal – he can see his handwriting and identify immediately with the personal element of what is written. It’s not difficult for him to envisage what is written as his own memory.

Devices nowadays are designed in part to be as minimally invasive as possible. iOS and Android have recently developed a whole new set of features to minimise their invasion of the user experience. Apple has even gone so far as to develop voice-recognition software to this end. And this opens another interesting avenue – not only must good hardware be minimally invasive, it must be personal and well-crafted. Good phones offer a host of personalisation features. Why? Because in customising them we are integrating them in to our consciousness. We are lessening the ‘belief gap’ through suspension of our belief – achieved via customisation.

Software does not offer this level of customisation. The more it does so – while retaining minimal invasiveness – the easier it will be to integrate in to our consciousness. It’s a difficult line to tread – how to make a device personal without bloating its feature-set is possibly the most critical strategic design decision a modern technology division can make.

Back to multi-function devices

 Remember when I mentioned the hardware/software divide earlier? That’s a convenient way of dividing objects we can integrate in to our consciousness easily with those we cannot – the line between hardware and software is much blurrier than traditionally conceived. So there’s a critical systemic consideration to take forward – customisability and minimisation of the ‘belief gap’ are key driving factors in the development of technology. With that sufficiently tackled, the a ‘multi-function’ tool does not remain recognisably ‘multi-function’ – when parts of it are integrated in to our consciousness, we no longer recognise those features as dissimilar from our own capabilities. Take, for example, a Calendar app. It’s simple, it’s usually well-crafted, and in my case highly anachronised – these things enable me to simply replace sections of my memory with the app itself. The hardware in between does its best to get out of the way. Compare this with an app designed to control my laser printer – it’s bloated, non-customisable, takes a while to navigate around. I instantly recognise this printer app as ‘other’. So, future developments will likely involve suspension of the ‘belief gap’ by making multi-function devices thinner and more personable.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Systemic Considerations For Future Technology – The App Mentality

Filed under: Systems Theory by systemsprinciples — Leave a comment
14:24

If you pop down to the local 99 cent store, you’ll see that it’s littered with multi-function tools; spanners that are hammers, screwdrivers that are wrenches. And, though many households might count such tools among their DIY arsenals, they’ve never really caught on in the intended way – as replacements for entire toolboxes. Why? Ultimately, the issue lies with an old adage – if you try to do too many things at one time, you will fail at all of them. It’s the same psychological inclination towards specialised tools that guides our selection of hardware and software – it’s a subtle trend, but one that will determine the success or failure of certain emerging technologies.

Hammers, spanners and Maps

Google Maps is a great invention. It’s an incredible piece of kit: you can navigate satellite imagery of virtually anywhere, and in many places you can take a trip curbside to see the surroundings in a glorious panorama.

It may come as a surprise, then, when I say that Google Maps’ browser integration is symptomatic of a trend away from multi-function software. It’s not great. In fact, it’s not a particularly pleasant experience. I probably wouldn’t spend hours enchanted by Google Maps in my browser window. Put it on a tablet, though – and all of a sudden it just clicks. That back-end code is just made for that kind of tailored interface. Why?

It comes down to anachronism, and how that stimulates our self-soothing system. We’ve mentioned earlier that well-designed things ‘feel’ right and hit our endorphin sweet spot. I’ve also alluded briefly to the role of designing digital interfaces as if they were analog – and these things are, I believe, closely linked. Consider the complexity systemically. Our human psychology demands well-crafted products, and most of our understanding of ‘well-crafted’ comes from products having a ‘human touch’ – handling a handwritten map will stimulate greater self-soothing than using one from a printer. Therefore, we will crave objects with a ‘human touch’, especially when these things are well-crafted. It’s therefore in the best interests of companies to design software and hardware that simulates anachronistic objects with a ‘human touch’. In turn, we relate handling of well-crafted anachronistic objects to our self-soothing, and reinforce our belief that such objects can provide contentment. The positive feedback loop is complete, and highly reinforceable – the more anachronistic and well-designed stuff we associate with contentment, the more we will seek it out.

So what does this mean for Google Maps? Simply that its design is necessarily a fine balance between features and anachronism. I prefer to use Maps on my tablet, because it feels more like an authentic map. I prefer to use it in the ‘roads only’ mode, because the satellite imagery disturbs my sense of anachronism. Sure, it’s fun to navigate the world via satellite imagery, but I’m more comfortable with something that resembles a map from the pre-digital age; I associate that with contentment and security.

The app mentality

 So this is where the ‘app’ mentality comes in. Consumers want tailored products that simulate anachronism – and browsers just cannot do that. They boast a great feature set, but like the multi-function tool it’s not all about the stuff it can do. Apps, on the other hand, offer a series of well-designed and carefully anachronised experiences, especially if they are being run on a flexible app platform. This in turn moves us to choose them, even at a premium (in both efficiency and cost). So, the future of technology development does not lie, I believe, in multi-function software (like browsers) – but in specialist apps.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Systemic Considerations For Future Technology – Preparing To Bring It All Together

Filed under: Systems Theory by systemsprinciples — 1 Comment
14:08

Up to now we have been building a rich verbal picture of the complexity inherent in the technology field. We’ve seen that the evolution of technology is driven to surprising extent by individual and group psychology – whether that be in-company (such as employment tacts) or out-of-company (such as group purchasing behaviours).

This article will summarise the previous few, and provide some illustrative analogies to illuminate any contentious areas of the rich picture.

Where have we come from?

 

We’re emerging from an analog electronics world, with a deeply ‘human’ feel, to a digital one. We’re also moving from a world in which the marketers rule to one focused much more around Research and Development of novel or potentially interesting ideas. Both of these elements are recognised among many controlling parties as being ‘dehumanising’ on the human interaction front, so purposeful anachronisms are being built in to user interfaces to simulate older, more analog methods of completing tasks. Companies are taking human psychology as integral to the very conception and design phase of any new project.

What could get in the way of future developments?

 

Patenting and licensing issues are stifling open development, as most are ‘hoarded’ as a kind of insurance against other companies’ R&D efforts. This in turn is leading to fragmentation – companies carve out their own ecosystems, which are becoming ever-more incompatible with one another. Rudimentary efforts are being made to unify these ecosystems, but these are not at an advanced stage and may suffer due to intellectual property conservatism on the part of major corporations. While the field does seems to be ‘thinning’ a little – Research In Motion (RIM) are falling behind Android and iOS, Windows phone is virtually dead in the water and Nokia’s Symbian OS is gradually being written out – the design attitudes inherent to primary contenders’ strategies are widening the gulf between operating system features. Consumers are keen to adopt a single ecosystem, and so it seems that purchaser behaviour will be the ultimate selector for who succeeds and who fails.

Another contrary factor is that of communication within and between ecosystems. Design teams are becoming increasingly holistic, and top-performing corporations are recognising the important role that multiple perspectives can have. A more systemic approach to design is emerging, and with it, a common language to describe certain facets of software and hardware.

What kinds of developments will we see?

 

The advent of Cloud Computing suggests that hardware of the future will act much more as a thin client than a computational device. How it does this is a matter for debate: while in-browser technology is garnering acclaim in some areas, it doesn’t seem to be catching with the consumer to the same extent that apps are. This important element is driven by a consumer desire for well-crafted and designed user experiences. This is partly what is driving the move towards unified ecosystems – or, ideally, a single unified ecosystem. Content is very much hand-in-hand with the experience of that content; both are integral to a user deciding to invest further in an ecosystem.

This in itself is part of a wider systemic motion in the complexity of technology evolution; that of human purchasing behaviours driven by psychological needs. Specifically, the interaction of the ‘goal’ – I must have that – system, the ‘threat’ – what happens if I don’t have that? – system and the ‘self-soothing’ – this thing is really great in and of itself – system guide purchasing behaviour and company loyalty. Of all of these, the longest-term designator of such behaviour seems to be the self-soothing system. While companies will manipulate our goal and threat systems via marketing, the self-soothing system is the one that determines which company produces products we feel soothed by. Additionally, company efforts to expand their remit – such as social movements encouraged by companies like Google – encourage further brand loyalty. That’s not just a catchphrase – brand loyalty is the gold dust of corporate welfare. By providing safe, well-polished and soothing user environments, companies can ensure greater brand loyalty. Would you prefer your company to use well-built and responsive wireless printers as opposed to older, more perfunctory models? And would you be prepared to pay more for the opportunity to do so? Most consumers would answer ‘yes’ – I believe we’ll see a lot more attention to detail in future product iterations.

Tags:
Comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 44 other followers

%d bloggers like this: