« Patent Reform Act of 2005 Introduced |
Main
| Virtual Evolution in Second Life »
June 08, 2005
Innovation and Design: One Can Only Predict Use
Posted by Ernest Miller
Johan Redström has written an intriguing paper, Technology as Material Design:
When introducing new kinds of objects, such as new technologies, there is not as much in terms of traditions, expectations and interpretations to lean on and react against. In fact, such a framework must often be developed along with the object itself. This places the designer in a rather difficult position, since not only the object but also all aspects of its eventual use need to be envisioned. Methods such as probing into possible use scenarios and user expectations become a way to get to know the object to be designed and help us build the framework needed for understanding the design problem, i.e., that characterising practical function the object will be designed around.
Here, our need for a ‘practical function’ to govern the design easily transfers into a concern for how the thing will be used. A main problem, however, is that while we can determine the design of a thing, we can only predict its use. And this is where we risk fixating its functions and to some extent also ways of using it – confusing the two different tasks, that of designing the object with that of predicting its use, we try to determine its use the way we determine its design. In practice, this confusion might lead to a focus on the capacities, needs and desires of people as a basis for design on one side, and the technology itself on the other. In the extreme case, design therefore risks becoming a question of how to package a given technology in a way that makes sense to a specified user group.
Of course, projecting what it will mean to use an object is something that is, to various extents, always present in design. However, when introducing not only new objects, but new object categories, these questions become central. Further, whereas it can be argued that the design of things such as the table, the chairs, or the dinnerware at a dinner party will shape the social interactions taking place (especially if significantly deviating from what we have come to expect from such objects) such changes are subtle compared to the rather dramatic effects of new communication technologies on how we relate to one another. [emphasis in original, endnotes omitted]
The relevance of this passage to secondary liability in copyright and innovation in general is quite clear. Though the paper is written in an academic style, it is well worth reading.
via Purse Lip Square Jaw
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Copyright
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 23
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 22
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 21
- › Kitchen Academy - The Hollywood Cookbook and Guest Chef Michael Montilla - March 18th
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 20
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 19
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 18
- › Salsa Verde
Ernest Miller pursues research and writing on cyberlaw, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. Mr. Miller attended the U.S. Naval Academy before attending Yale Law School, where he was president and co-founder of the Law and Technology Society, and founded the technology law and policy news site LawMeme. He is a fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.
Ernest Miller's blog postings can also be found @
1. csven on June 9, 2005 06:55 AM writes...
I found this passage interesting.
During my second undergraduate tour while sitting in on a critique of Industrial Design upperclassman tasked with designing public phone booths, abuse and misuse quickly became the primary issue. Almost all of the students had focused on functionality, and features were added assuming that the product would be used for its intended purpose. However, when one instructor asked about homeless people using their designs for shelter from the elements, or as private dressing rooms and maybe even latrines, all the designs fell apart. The lesson was simple: Industrial Designers had to seriously consider not just the intended use, but the misuse - unintended or otherwise - of the products they designed.
As a degreed aerospace engineer who'd spent time in the "real world", the obviousness of this struck me. I hadn't been taught during my time as an engineering undergrad to think in this way, and I suspect many engineers are still not taught to consider "rogue" variables. And during my time working as an engineer, these issues were also not raised. There was a Problem, here's a Solution.
Engineers - at least the engineers I know - mostly just solve problems, they don't predict new ones and certainly don't attempt to bring Chaos Theory into the development process. The path from A to B is mostly linear and more and more seems to be packaged as a software solution product. But so long as endusers are human beings, it's difficult for me to see the justification for not giving them and their quirks some consideration.
If you're familiar with the RepRap project, this very issue was at the core of a few emails I exchanged with the lead researcher. The emails came right after this post I made and are referenced in this follow up post. I'd like to hope some of my concerns are addressed, though I suspect many will not.
And if you'd like to see potential misuse of technology, I highly recommend taking a look at the Second Life simulation. I'm relatively new to it, but it's opened my eyes to some of the potential issues lurking around the corner in regards to virtual spaces and the 3D internet. Having been on the receiving end of a "griefer", I immediately imagined a virtual cruise missile that followed this person incessantly and made both rude comments and insulted his manhood (which is probably as far as I could go without violating the Terms of Service)! It can, and will, get much worse in non-regulated cyberspace. If people think pop-ups are bad now, just wait til they morph into annoying 3D representations and sound like a bad telemarketing phone call.
Permalink to Comment2. Ernest Miller on June 9, 2005 07:26 AM writes...
Great comments, thanks!
Permalink to Comment