HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION (HCI) Assignment2, Third Module

This is a challenging and important topic that invites many more thoughts and research, than those explicit of the task below. Considering the type of interest I have in the sort of "relationships" we establish with technology, this chapter has been informative and intriguing. Some of the comments I have annotated on the texts will be included later on the book review at the end of the semester and concern the "knowledge" reflected on actions. The illustrative instances of slips that I could think about are some of the most common that people experience on everyday life, just as the examples that our readings have presented:
1. Capture based error: Starting the computer to check emails and getting into Facebook instead.
2. Description based error: Placing unwashed silverware on the drawer tray instead of into the dishwasher.
3. Data driven error: Calling my youngest son by every name on the family, male or female before using his own.
4. Associative activation error: Using the words on the top of my head to designate any object, because that is what I am thinking about. Say Coffee (which I love) to offer a beverage to my son (tea or juice, which he drinks).
5. Loss of activation error: Making a massive effort and going out to the shop because we need milk and returning with everything else but milk. Reading a link on the website of the course and straying from the main article by looking up words or new data that needs expansion further loosing focus and continuing with a different task such as collecting references for a paper I am writing.
6. Mode error: Trying to retrieve information from a site by using the back button and risking loosing information that has not been saved or will not be recorded. Now this is fixed by cookies and prompts that check on my desired action: "Do you want to save document 111"?

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION (HCI) Assignment2, Second Module

This section of the book suggests the way in which design could become more strategical, following the pattern of actions that human behaviour does, in a way that could really be made in support of effectiveness over efficiency, without disregarding the last. This is to say that a goal and its accomplishment should be the north of a project whereas the efficiency or the ways to reach the goal (tasks, as important as they are), should not remain the only concern. I would imagine that more important that they separately considered (tasks vs. goals) is the consistency between the two, so they match. At least this this the application of the observations on how actions are performed with a purpose based on experience and information (I differ from Norman on the belief that this is about any sort of knowledge, but made the Cmap using his terminology anyway). 

Sometimes, however, a design is already a prototype of good function that allows only adjective improvements precisely in connection to tasks and efficiency. The innovation cycle (Utterback) explains it well. Breakthrough/dramatic innovation is not always possible or even desired. We should distinguish therefore whether to talk about processes that have to do with emerging artefacts and completely new products or derivative/corrective design. Then the task becomes a goal on its own.

Management theories have researched strategic planning for long and many models could have been used and applied to the design process. This is not to trivialize the contribution by Norman, and his check-list  but merely to say that we tend to develop too many models before using to the full extent those that exist already. Interdisciplinary outreach tries to correct this, and I approve this approach to sharing theoretical resources.

It is noteworthy that when discussing the cognitive process, the chapter departs substantially from the ontological theories that prevail and are of wide acceptance in regard of merging of the mind and an the objective reality. Psychology does not really explain this (what knowledge is) as well, so Norman´s book seems light on this respect. On the other hand it discusses the paradox of technology, a topic I would attribute much greater attention. After all one could say it shows the distance between technical and socio-economic development in any given society and also can measure, according to my own research levels of satisfaction in as differing areas as business management and politics. 

The post on the course blog poses a confusing statement also present on the book: " Despite less-than-perfect knowledge, precise behaviour is still possible as much knowledge is not in the head but in the world. This is so because behaviour is determined by combination of knowledge in the world and in the head." It is difficult to accept that knowledge and information (and/or the recount of it -memories-) are the same, or that it exists in the world per-se. At least it does not seem plausible or theoretically founded that knowledge is on itself and has any entity in disrespect of a human being. Further it continues with an implication on that we need not to actually know as long as we can decide on the right action of usability, or so it seems to be implicit by the following: " The implication is that high precision of knowledge in the head is unnecessary as we only need knowledge to be precise enough to distinguish the right  behaviour from the others possible." This would in logic lead to a conclusion most peculiar that the cognitive process, is actually less relevant than what Norman aimed to demonstrate, at least for users, not designers, placing the former in a very disfavouring light, like objects. Maybe what Norman was really analysing is about accuracy (people err, in addition make attribution mistakes often imagining causalities that do not hold true in reality) and what theory has described as tacit knowledge with the implication that we can induce the acquisition of similar content (knowledge) on users? In such case, these ideas would make more logical sense and once again we could be using developments that other academics have discussed for many years and of course develop them further, applying them to the usability and HCI contexts. Why Norman states that memory is knowledge on the head when memory can be faulty and mistaken? Is not it simply information stored? Knowledge thus, is a term I think he could have avoided considering how much philosophy has dealt with it already. In my opinion scholars have more or less done the same things in their confined territories, focusing on their own fields, instead of integrating entirely compatible observations to create a full view of the big picture on Human potential. I am also intrigued about the ways in which Norman would comment on activity theory. In p.60 he states that central to his book is what happens when someone does something. Its seems a lot connected. 

The question posed to prepare the conceptual map this week was: What is the relationship between the seven stages of action and knowledge? Although I tried to stick to this, I had to give relevance to other notions, some of which seemed to me even more important. It appeared to me that the gulf of action, for example should be coherent with the gulf of evaluation to be able to discuss factors such as efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency could be said to look into procedure too (fast, clear, unambiguous, inexpensive), while effectiveness to outcomes (satisfaction of needs and interests). 

Is not the tacit knowledge some sort of conventional wisdom? a default though culturally determined set of understandings (rather than knowledge), what the designers need to take advantage for creating simpler solutions? I would not give to any of these the rank of "knowledge" indeed. Knowledge in ontology means so much more than that: the being, the truth.

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION (HCI) Assignment2, First Module

As suggested, this conceptual map generates from a question on the general topic. The module was an introductory one on some of the fundamental concepts in HCI. It seemed to add coherence to this chapter, to make associations, thus the initial question was: How these fundamental concepts relate to one another? This way, the Cmap below would have a readable flow, without excess information, and rather than being a descriptive net of words connected awkwardly, it can really reflect processed thoughts. If necessary, with a more refined understanding of the subject it can also be amended and completed, so this version is short, I choose to aim for clarity, simplicity and consistency. I also added some keywords for my own references rather than to re-formulate any theory.
Hints on the the strategic planning of the design were left for last on the module, despite their importance in the design process. The result of a conscious development of ideas should be what is called a conceptual model. To better implement user friendly interfaces, and efficient, practical objects, the model must be conceived first, and here is where my concept map begins. A model could serve as a guideline for the implementation of a design that should convey the intent of its producer (a designer who has been observing and analizing potential users, so I am assuming the things that will be created respond to needs or interests instead of mere whimsical ideas) and communicate to those who implement the manufacturing stage, the capacity of an artefact, I would say also its extent to relate to users and the other way around. If a good conceptual model is successfully translated into a finished product, it may be that the mapping of possibilities is implicit on it, but also that it requires additional elements to inform users, depending on what the object is, to exploit efficiently its potential. Labelling, in this context should not be considered a negative feature, when appropriate. It seems specially necessary for an interconnected, culturally diverse world. We no longer create for our peers but everything that is being materialized nowadays has global reach, even if through an electronic image, to say the least. I find it very hard to go to an anthropological level where our minds all meet and react towards objects in only one way. Most of what we intuitively do is learned, for example the direction to push opening (to the left). Babies do not know this. Some conventions are very difficult to read even to adults. In my case, it has never been clear what toilets are for men or women by the visualization of a triangle. That is not enough data for me, and I fail to remember the many explanations people have given me on this respect. I wait outside until I can verify who enters or exits those rooms. Sometimes, I have to ask.
In times, mapping are the most meaningful part of the design, because in the absence of signs/clues for logical relationships between things and -what must/should not/can/can´t- people -do with them- the functional attributes of such objects get trivialized or ignored. If articles that are really needed, then they turn into a hassle, like the very common examples of graphic signs, doors and knobs that are more puzzling than anything else.

The properties of an object are visible when obvious; Affordances are functional allowances, no matter how objectively or subjectively they are judged to be (real or perceived), whereas constrains represent the opposite: limitations that the design imposes to the user. If these last rely on consensus or cultural conventions, logic indicates that affordances should too. Constrains should also be real and perceived following the same reasoning. Some activities are acceptable for specific groups and they should be able to relate to objects in their surroundings in manners that other people could not even imagine. All of this beyond culture, for example at the level of subcultures. A smoker in some countries might see on an empty cup of coffee the perfect ashtray while a gardener/artists a creative way to display plants, and a collector a beautiful piece of history. In Finland, it is common to find old shoes lined up on top of fences with live flowers growing inside. In contrast, in my country, old shoes are the ultimate horror, they would not easily be connected to gardening and ornamental arrangements. These are the two sides of the perceived concepts (Affordances and constrains) on the same objects.
It all must become much more practical if designers have the opportunity to solicit, receive and process feedback, test model objects, etc. A good practical object needs to pass the test of usability or else it would remain a theoretical, distant piece of science fiction, or junk. This, I guess would correspond to its market value, if to talk in economic terms.

NIE2012, last task, task 13. Looking back.

With task 5th, I tried to express a very pragmatic approach at the way I plan and perform any action (involves will) in life. Rather than simple activities. If so much reflection is needed I upgrade the term to that level (from activity to action), very likely in accordance with my mother´s tonge as we discussed with Sebastian some weeks ago. I reflected over externalities but marginally those that related to technology, because it was not required to emphasize on these. Of course the means one counts on, were part of the graphic and my fucntional processes I shared, but where not the main focus of my constrains, rather an adjective factor that led me to resolve my problems.
The main externalities were cultural, social, personal and emotional limitations:
I explained: " My approach is teleological. I think abot the possible outcomes first, so I can measure the degree of compatibility of what I want to do or have to do with what I should or am supposed to. Or if it is simply worthy of my attention.
An imperative is to think in advance in which way my activity and the methods I use can affect others..."
When I started reading the course´s main text, it seemed too obvious and almost unnecessary; trivial. However, as we progressed, I was able to assign to it a value, despite the fact that the obviousness is still there, and the excessive use of wordy explanations: it organizes in an intelligent way and produces a rational explanation of what we all experience and perceive at a very unconcious level if at all. I am a firm believer of the capacity of people to grasp all these concepts by themselves, if they just thought and analyzed in depth their own dynamics. I imagine it comes with time: the interest in doing this, the need and the skills to use it and apply it in different aspects of life. I know I can use these to improve my courses, electronic and otherwise. In addition it is important to be up to date with literature of relevance to our disciplines.
I was not so far from what the authors we got to know in this course propose, but I was not acquainted with their model. Each model is valid and trustable if consistently applied. In that sense, we count with yet another option to assess our conduct and produce better results more conciously. So far, I am sticking with my ways, because they are in their way, efficient, effective and reflective. That is all that matters.

Task12. NIE2012.

Especially relevant to our team´s subject was the theory we have been studying in this course. The concrete scenario that we need to resolve involves facilitating the learning experience of an hetereogeneous group.
The activity system (the project) was not controlled, directed, coordinated or facilitated by any party. It seemed more an experiment on how the groups would structure themselves spontaneously.
Actors were a mixture of students of different backgrounds, cultures, levels and ages; the main instrument of communication was technology based; a software that shared environments for common creation and editing of texts, comments, messages, and interaction of those who were registered. The object was the creation of a handbook, simplified by the assignation of chapters, that contained each the scenario each team was to assess.
In most organizational theories it is explained how when any group is formed the first step towards effective association is the creative construct of rules and institutions. In the absence of these, formal or informal (can be strict norms or just practices/uses, etc.), no common pursuit can be efficiently achieved. It was manifest and acute the need for structure, guidance and leadership in this project that otherwise was a constructive experience. Two of the participants took a lead and in a disconnected way some others filled out the blank spaces with as much as they could come up with. Meetings were organized in times when most could not attend, lasted short and were filled in the begining with senseless wonderings and socializing alone. Later, when time was pressing people was more commited and contributed more meaningfully to the work. It was very surprising to find out that the theories we are revising, and some others that seemed so standard and obvious to me (activity theory, andragogy, and cognitive distance mainly) were unherad of by the participants that were not from Estonia. None of them had even heard of, or at least in these terms. Our own group was extremely hetereogeneaous, we might not have anything at all in common other than this task.
The technology used was as much as necessary if conflict prevention techniches were applied, if an strategy could have been formulated or people were told in advance these goals. Also, guidance so people would not waste time allowing all these to form by themselves, out of dire need, in time, just few days before submission. I personally felt I wasted a horrible amount of time, only trying to communicate and express the need to make a working plan of reasonable complexity, so the result was not too simple minded. The whole proposal seems to rely too much on the magic of technology. No software or technique can supply for basic human skills on conflict management, group dynamics, communication and facilitation. Technology is supportive to unbelievable extents but it means nothing in the absence of human competence and control.
In this case, no matter how many possibilities existed and we started to use (facebook, google documents, doodle, and the project´s site, in addition to net meetings of Oulu university), people did not show up, or we could not conduct in the begining very fruitful conferencing. Later, the past week in particular it was much better and efficient. The Finish participant edited work that we all contributed with and every one proposed some texts, bibliography and view points. I feel I had to reduce my expectations a lot, not to be too pushy or upset people with excessive criticism.
The checklist of the text by Kapertini and Nardi is so far the most practical and interesting part of the readings in this course. I plan to simplify it and use it to re-evaluate and formulate my lectures next year so the use of technologies by my future students who are not computer literate. The courses and activities must improve with the mediatization, instead of getting too complicated (transparency? ubiquity?).

Theorizing III. Task 9 (some people numbered it 10). NIE2012.

I have made a great effort of turning computer technology, to the extent of my abilities, into more than a medium. My very limited experience has taught me to be very cautious about the expectations I place on it. It is difficult for anyone nowadays to dispute the impact of artificial intelligence, accessible everywhere to most (ubiquity?). Equally hard is to generalize in terms of how refined our maangement of these tools is. We might be at a point where everyone understands these technologies are a medium, but most do not know how to put them at their own service of manipulate them in a way that can influence transformations, tactically to reach ends or purposefully.
Every student is enabled to participate of the digital economy exchange, starting from the email addresses and their information systems at universities, facebook and other resorces available to connect and even associate, I guess the effort we are doing at the co-create project reflects just that. However, when I "force" upon mine to take full responsibility for the management of their tasks, trying alternative producs (mindmap software, net meetings, and even the very same Prezi), they refuse, and get irritated by the need to lean additional and seemingly unrelated skills. Generalizing is not my aim. Some are very engaged and learn fast, feeling confident and doing it very well, but for the most part they get lost and waste a lot of time, protesting openly. At the end, I re-focus onto traditional lectures and the typical readings combined with report like submissions. This is to say that eventhough the potential of these technologies is imense, it remains unexplored by many. Progress and "penetration" of these as tools will take place later, I see it like an evolving process where people first need to learn to the point of being competent enough to be creative. The confidence is still not there.
I´ve studied it from the legal and political perspective and in this context we talk about a new technology paradigm all together (On this a respected and prolific author is Carlota Perez. She talks about the large scale transcitions, and the role of public policy in these processes), one that turns every single known institution (rules, formal and informal of any level) around, reshaping and compromising social, political and economic patterns. Consequently, when I read the author´s reference to this : "No political revolution is comparable with computer based globalization. This urges us to reflect on digital information and telecommunication technologies as catalysts of a new social system emerging."  I can relate very well and understand its actual reach.
I was again surprised to find on the readings sections compatible to what discussed earlier and posted about on one of our previous assignments. I feel relieved at the realization that some ideas that arise when I ponder about these issues are not so alien and extraordinary. For example, in this lecture the author also questions the implicit biased that the political context could have imposed onto Leontive´s works: "Maybe Leontiev got into ideological pressure trying to adjust his theory to the logical constrains of historical Materialism?" (Page 4). He goes about exploring this statement much further exposing the possible contradictions of this theory and further considering leontiev´s context a possible factor to be taken into consideration:  "May be these theoretical restrictions are owed to the social historical situation of Leontiev´s and to the theoretical possibilities or limitations of Historical Materialism in its specific understanding of man and society at that time. It would be a very important and interesting program of historical research to show this." (Page 6).
I was very confused by the use of the word "systemic" in here. Earlier, I viewed it as a growing interdependence among subjects and objects, to a lesser degree that it seems to be explained or suggested in this text. In addition the reference to cognition was not, to my mind, what meant the most if we were to take this approach. To put it differently, I might be misplacing the applicability of systemic development because I clearly get its applications to organizational management and development control but hardly to a single relationship between a technology and individuals unless connected into networks, so again we could say this is organizational theory. I remain confused trying to associate these approaches.
Was the author trying to say in the last section of page 6, that Lompscher claims activity theory incapable of solving theoretical challenges of our times? Is this also a call for transcending the theory?
A bit off track but still interesting to me: Is the following paragraph refering so any sort of communication and hence justifying dialog and dialectical exchange, or even negotiation at every other level of human interaction (different from computer technologies)? Can this be applied to conflict management all together?

"To Luhmann social and psychic systems are forced to communicate their fundamental differences and inevitable contingencies in order to stay alive. To get rid of irritating differences with its environment by destroying environment is no real option to a social or psychic system because this finally destroys the system itself, for there is no system without environment and without difference to it."

Among the most compelling concluding remarks I found the 3 last to be the most applicable to my field of interest and research: 9th , 10th and 11th.

 

Theorizing II. Task 8. NIE2012.

Some salient thoughts that the reading gave rise to, this week:

-The following paragraph: "The last conclusion implies, in particular, that objects of activities are dynamically constructed on the basis of various types of constraints. These constraints include the needs that the given activity is striving to satisfy; available means; other potentially related activities; and other actors
involved, with their own motives and objects. When some of these
components change—for instance, the importance of a certain need
increases—or new means become available, the whole configuration of
constraints may require a redefinition of the object of activity to meet
the new constraints (see Hyysalo 2005)." is a very relevant one and serves as a feedback to one of the exercises we made with Terje, when we explained how to decide on what to do, when. It seems this reflects very closely what I actually do when acting. See the post on that below, and a graphic summary of compatible elaborations. I do not remember now but I guess I received no individual feedback on these earlier tasks.
-I was moved by the same intuitive need to simplify and regard all of those very interesting, articulated and surely important theories redundant as they put in many more or less words the same analysis that I have been exposed to in other disciplines. It is not unique to these authors to explain these processes, so (heuristic as I like) I kind of relate to them and know that I have already perceived these patters. For instance, what the authors expand on pages 205, 206, 207 seems far too similar to systemic analysis. There is no centralized control or one head thinking all of the data but a person delegating, distributing tasks, TRUSTING others, and therefore reducing redundancy to the minimum. Even if at the end Kaptelini and Nardi find that these are insufficient and should be combined with the rest and even transcended with activity theory. Probably that is a generic claim, that activity theory transcends earlier proposals. (This is about conserving resources and energy, as I see it. Why, if an artifact can be precise of certain tasks one needs to redo them, revise them, etc? Intentionality, though was also mentioned and I would say that the processes of surrendering to comfort and rational distribution o roles is natural but one could OPT for not getting into that course of events, for example, I have always have  a very good sense of orientation, seldom if ever get lost, and can go anywhere without even reading a map, literally. Our family traveled between my country and Peru more than 3000 kilometers without map and back home safely and educated about the geography of 3 countries! I never read instructions when I get new appliances but use common sense, I do not want to loose this resourcefulness and also impose to my children the effort of figuring out where they are, so they observe and pay attention and look around and find clues and signs (as I mentioned earlier I made it a rule not to be connected to any of their devices when in the car, walking with me or strolling around in the city). I will never buy anything to tell me in a silly voice what side to turn to and what street is next. I force my self to keep a notebook even if I have a tablet an android device and a laptop with me. Why to loose that human dimension or debilitate our commitment with the capacity we are naturally equipped with? Why to go to a web page like Luminosity to train the brain on elementary tasks if we could do it without any app teaching, just by training on everyday basis, making intellectual efforts and controlling the growing tendency to delegate it all on technology? Could not we think about balance and moderation?
-I think this is a disservice to his brilliant analysis: "Characteristic of Leontiev’s view of the individual was his opposition to understanding the individual as merely a component part of social systems and processes. When discussing the idea that an individual could be completely described through a set of roles defined by the social context, Leontiev (1978) called the notion ‘‘monstrous.’’But again, I am no expert on his work. I would rather use the same argument I pointed out earlier, that this probably what the person had to say so it fit to ideological constrains. It is refreshing to read that the authors give more credit to the individuality, and more or less can state this is what I try to suggest all of the time. That one plays an important role if one is empowered to do that and committed to control one´s life.
-Subjective refraction that Leontiev mentions (cottage cheese incident, page 210, I have also make some comments on this before)= sounds a lot to me as intuition or tacit knowledge...The reflections on learning are valuable and I would have liked to read much more on that or many more examples on the same field (p.211-214). Phenomenology?
-The sections I would be more likely exploring further start in page 220 (9.4.2).
"To give some structure to those places where we might seek creative
fissures at different levels of collaborative activity, we refer to Raeithel’s
(1996) three-part scheme based on earlier work by Fichtner (1984):
coordination
cooperation
co-construction"
Distributed cognition seems a valuable field to explore since my interest is networked teaching and learning. This happens, naturally, but can one somewhat modify the patterns of distribution? Would this be recommended? Should people be let to learn to the best of their abilities? I would think so, because the result can be genuine and effective development.
-The book reads: "In Spinuzzi’s analysis the workers were active subjects. Traffic safety was the collective motive in the activity. The workers ‘‘made decisions,’’
‘‘transformed data,’’ and otherwise acted as aware subjects. Spinuzzi’s
discourse was not of small adjustments or the application of simple rules.
He described how the workers faced a mountain of narrative data—
filing cabinets full of thousands of accident reports. It is a tribute to their
creativity that they figured out how to transform such voluminous data.
To do so, they employed specialized domain knowledge and conceptual
tools including mathematical and statistical analyses to create more
revealing representations of the data (Spinuzzi 2003)." I thought if it has to do also with phenomenology (page 235: "Phenomenology
responded to the overformalization of science and mathematics in which
the everyday world of practical experience had little place).
Could not we in  a cooperative effort get together and "draw" the theory, adding some data (experiential theorizing) to explore and test the result?
-By the end of chapter 9, in page 234 I found this statement worth commenting: "Such social activity involving complex negotiations and discussions among diverse groups of humans requires a theory that allows for intentional activity enacted by beings capable of imagining and planning the future." Yes, this theory exists and is developed by conflict studies, literature on this abounds as well as methodologies, tactics, models and a diversity of studies. The use of existing studies associatively to integrate knowledge can be useful. At least I see compatibility here. Of course the book cannot be comprehensive of all knowledge available on every aspect they mention.
-Will there be any theory explaining a total synergy between humans and artifacts? Does this activity theory apply to artificial intelligence or will there be a post-activity theory forming for that? I would like to know the reach of these explanations.
-The conclusions of the chapter are extremely clear.

Sebastian, I do talk about many aspects on every post instead of counting 5 or 3 and sectioning the flow of thoughts. I am not really thinking about the quota necessary to pass the task. I hope this works out well this way. In fact I could divide this alone into 6 parts. Let me know please if that is needed.