Dave said: > Not sure why the single user makes a difference. For me, with a single actor in the video, I was unable to see how this tool was really impacting anyone beyond the one person we are able to see. Sure, I guess we are allowed to get geeked out by the fact that she's able to do all this stuff with one little device, but the changes the tool itself brought upon the world were so basic that it left me thinking "so what?"
Now, when I think back to other concept videos like HP's Cooltown (here's the best link I can find...video has to be downloaded<http://drzaius.ics.uci.edu/blogs/infx242s07/2007/05/cooltown_video_1.html>), I am able to get the concept immediately, and understand some of the greater implications of the technology. I think the fact that multiple people are interacting with the technology helps explain the real impact. Mauro said: > It seems to me that nanotechnology would make it possible to really > think about embedded computers. Any sort of object could have some > kind of "computer" on it. Clothes, glasses, wires...any object could > became "smart". Ahh...this is the part that they didn't show in the video, but has real implications for us. Now we're talking. :-) Thanks for your explanation. I love that Wired article as well. I'm off to research what else this Nanotechnology stuff will be capable of. Nice Wednesday afternoon diversion... On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:07 PM, mauro pinheiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Josh Evnin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was watching the Nokia Morph Concept > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX-gTobCJHs> video this > > afternoon, and it got me thinking on a > > tangent. Perhaps it's only because there was only one character in the > > video, but I am having a hard time seeing how this sort of tool would > > benefit human interaction...the kinds we all potentially will design. > > > > I guess my broad question is, in your opinions, how will Nanotechnology > > impact Interaction Design? For the uneducated, is Nanotechnology just > about > > mobile phones that you can fold up and put in your pocket (or wrap > around > > your wrist), or will there be bigger interaction benefits as well? > > > Hi Josh, > > I was very impressed with the video. Not because of the product > itself, but for the possible applications that I could imagine after > seeing it. I'm not familiar with nanotechnology, but it seems to me > that is another step towards accomplishing a pervasive/ubiquitous > computing world. > > It seems to me that nanotechnology would make it possible to really > think about embedded computers. Any sort of object could have some > kind of "computer" on it. Clothes, glasses, wires...any object could > became "smart". > > You may ask: is that something we would want? > > I guess we already do! Just look around... > > There are some key values that I see in our lifes that would be > enhanced with this technology. > > Information is one key value. We design information systems. We design > tools to make easier to find and use information. We produce > information. We share information. More than ever, we consume > information. > > Another key component of our lifes is mobility. To be able to access, > to communicate, to connect with each other in different spaces is > something that is vital to many of us today. Twittering on the way > home. Checking emails on the airport. Taking pictures, sending them to > our Flickr account in real time etc. > > Still we have to deal with many devices that are not so different from > our desktops computers. Laptops, iPhones...these are different sizes > of a not so different conceptual product. We still have to phocus very > hard on the object to use it. It still demands our attention. They > concentrate hundreds of functions, programs. They are more likely a > swiss knife. Many tools in one device. > > I guess with nanotechnology we would be able to create products that > could rely on a "calm technology" approach, to quote Mark Weiser...As > any object can have an "embedded computer", being able to access > information, to exchange data within the environment and within other > objects, we start to have dynamic contexts of interaction. Our > products could "sense" the environment, and respond to it. Change > under the influence of the context. Less effort from us. > > Nanotechnology is definitely not about mobile phones. That is Nokia > business, so that's how they use it. > > Nanotechnology is about wearable computers. Hands-free devices. > Dynamic environments that change upon your influence. > > The interaction benefits I can imagine for nanothecnology are beyond > my wildest dreams. :-) > > -- > prof. mauro pinheiro > universidade federal do espírito santo > centro de artes > depto. de desenho industrial > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help > -- http://josh.ev9.org/weblog ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
