Investigating the Inner Critic

I can be a bit critical of self-help books, so when Global Tech Women's next book club selection  ("Inner Critic Inner Success" by Stacy Sargent) fell so loudly and clearly into that category, I wasn't sure what I was going to think of it.

The reason my inner critic is so cynical about self-help books is that they are often loaded with well polished statements and implications about how the reader can rid themselves of some undesirable trait or situation with a minimum of effort. These books very often prey upon the reader who hopes that by shelling out a few dollars they will magically transform their life. 

However, I decided I would give it a fair shake, and so I dove right in.

Within a few pages, the inner critic in my head was reciting a well worn script telling me not to expect very much from this book. It seemed I had logic and facts to support this assertion. I found myself noting critically that Sargent was not saying anything new; everything she was talking about in the opening section had been written about in the cognitive science and psychology literature. And why didn't she cite the references? my little voice nagged dismissively.

A more forgiving and compassionate voice in my head waved to get my attention. It pointed out that Sargent was doing a pretty nice job of making those cog sci findings accessible to the average reader. I mean really, spoke up the quieter voice, how many people outside of the academic research community are going to read peer reviewed research studies? If putting the helpful information into a widely accessible form with a beneficial end goal in mind - might that not be a commendable thing to do?

Round 1 was declared a tie between the cynical critic and the compassionate commentator.

Having made strides on clearing the way mentally, things started to get interesting because this book is FULL of exercises and activities. Detailed exercises and activities. I don't have time for this! I groaned at first (the obstructionist cynic), but it occurred to me (the determined optimist) that perhaps I wouldn't be in a position to reach any justifiable conclusions if I didn't give it, all of it, a fair go.

How so? Well, it just so happens, that I am in the middle of undertaking some pretty exciting professional career planning. Thinking big, and figuring out how to pursue things I am really passionate about. Which, as you could probably predict, leads at times to wondering just how crazy I might be.

So when the book started asking me to apply certain activities and introspection to things that might cause me to get in my own way I discovered I had plenty of fodder to work with. The first couple of activities I embarked on were perhaps toughest because that same cynical voice said things like "you know yourself well already, you know what your greatest inner critic is, you can skip this exercise". I squashed that voice, but only because I had promised myself I would.

Er...and discovered on the very first activity, that, as Sargent suggested, things change as we progress in our lives and careers, and what I had assumed was my primary self-imposed stumbling block was no longer true (e.g. The Perfectionist voice is no longer my biggest inner critic. Other voices have insidiously taken front seats). That discovery meant that I could stop putting so much energy into addressing non-existent problems and pay more attention to other ways I might get in my own way.

That first discovery was enough to convince me that this book was on to something. I kept right on plowing along through activity after activity, not worrying about whether or not I was going to finish the book in time for the conversation this Friday. Because by that point, I found I was discovering quite useful things that I can apply to my entrepreneurial career planning. Perhaps foremost being: fooey on what the stick in the mud cynics out there might have to say (including my own inner critics, who pop up up like Whack-a-Moles).

I still haven't finished the book. Maybe I will by Friday, maybe not. No matter: things have come around full circle andI heartily recommend Sargent's book.  Not only that, I'm really looking forward to hearing what other women have to say at the Global Tech Women book club meeting: join us this Friday at 9:00am Pacific Time.

ICER Day 1: An Unexpected Foray into Learning & Design

A Layout

Synchronicity can be a freaky and wonderful thing. Within the first two hours of the ICER conference today I realized that I had not left Design behind (see my last several posts), and that a book I am currently reading (and will eventually post about) on egotistical versus empathic people in the corporate world was directly relevant to pedagogy and computing education.

The keynote speaker today was Scott Klemmer, who, in spite of what that link says, has just moved here to UC San Diego, apparently split between the Cognitive Science and Computer Science departments. He was originally trained as a designer and it showed as he took us on an interesting adventure around UI design from the back end - code in other words. He started out with the statement "View Source is a great example of UI design". That got my attention - to spend the next hour talking about the UI (UX) aspects of something users never see (code) but computer scientists see day in and day out. How very very cool.

In contrast to the industry-oriented conference I reported on a few weeks ago, ICER is an academic conference. Thus, Scott's talk was loaded with wonderful theoretical backup, explanations, references and citations, thought provoking ideas and suggestions that researchers love to roll around in. It was great.

So when Scott said "intuition is a difficult thing to teach students" it was the opening volley into wide ranging but highly focused and well supported discussion about using examples to aid learning, to generate creative design, to generate effective design, to arrive at quality prototypes while building group (i.e. team) rapport. One theme: sharing and adapting examples is good technically and good for learning purposes. But in a much deeper way than you might think. The discussion then rolled on into the role of peer assessment in design and how it can be used in software tools. Drool.

One of the interesting areas Scott has worked on is researching single vs. parallel design development. We know (the "research We" for those not used to the lingo) that people become ego attached to their own ideas and are loath to let go of them, even sometimes to their own detriment. It is called Functional Fixation and was written about back in 1945 by a guy named Dunker. But, we are learning that this ego attachment is reduced significantly if people develop multiple ideas in parallel. It becomes much easier to hear critique and drop one idea for another if you have several ideas to compare and contrast. As opposed to if you have only one idea and you are completely invested in it's success or failure.

Lots of very practical application along with some wonderful theory - established theory and theory being built. Some of what Scott spoke about was targeted at formal pedagogy but I can easily see it adapted without too much effort to an industry setting. For example, he spent some time on how to incorporate self-assessment and peer assessment into the development of designs and prototypes in the computing classroom. One of the big challenges, as educators are all too painfully aware, is that novices aren't always very good at providing useful feedback. Even when the faculty supplies an assessment rubric as guide, all sorts of issues arise - if the rubric is too specific, it can stifle creativity and lead students to just check off the boxes without any deep thinking; yet if the rubric is too abstract it can lead students to have no idea what to do with it and either flail or provide random, not very helpful, feedback.

Here comes the useful research note that provides insight into not only the classroom, but the business world too (I refuse to say "the real world", because schooling is real; where ever you are at any moment in time is your real life).

Novices have a very hard time with abstract rubrics. The question becomes how to operationalize a rubric for the particular level of students you are working with? (CS1, CS2, an upper division course)? We have research about how novices become experts and how along the way they gradually become more able to deal with abstraction. Thus, the rubric that works for a sophomore level software engineering class is probably not the same one you'd use for a senior level software engineering class or for a newly hired software engineer or for a seasoned developer.

A technique, one that Scott is working with, is to create the rubric such that up to a certain point it is fairly concrete (i.e. you can get 90% of the possible points) and after that it is more abstract (you want an A, then you have to go above and beyond). What he didn't discuss, but where my thoughts were going, was that you could take the same (or similar) rubric and start shifting that abstraction point downwards as you work with more advanced students or professionals.

Fascinating idea to consider. Fascinating idea to strategize, design, prototype, implement.

Online Traffic School Insights

First Study Break: Hulling Pistachios

I spent yesterday doing online Traffic School. After talking with friends and colleagues I realize that it is not at all uncommon for even the best of drivers to at some point in their motoring careers find themselves in possession of a ticket that can only be purged by going to traffic school. As I soon learned, most traffic school (at least around here) is done online. Even if one wanted to attend in person, those classes where you can mingle with your fellow alleged violators are few and far between. Not to mention in-person traffic school costs twice as much as online traffic school. Given the gouging financial nature of even teeny weeny tickets, I quickly dismissed the idea of coughing up even more cash.

It is possible that online traffic school is designed to bore you into never doing again whatever it was you are alleged to have done. Thus, as I fulfilled my obligation as a law abiding citizen and trudged my way through the do-it-yourself class, I was all the while musing on various related and unrelated topics. Which is probably a good thing because if I divulged the course materials I would no doubt be tracked down and cited.

Have you ever thought of driving a car as a means of communication akin to email and social media? I bet you haven't. I hadn't, and by the way, neither has the DMV (Division of Motor Vehicles) or anyone else in law enforcement I am aware of. As I was learning about all the ways people get into trouble with their cars and the reasons they get into trouble, and how they react behind the wheel of the car (you'd be amazed. or maybe not) it dawned on me that: people behind the wheel will communicate with other people in ways they would never dream of doing in person. 

For example, I have often watched people tear down a freeway at speeds far beyond the speed limit, cutting across lanes in front of other people no doubt scaring the daylights out of them. God forbid you should drive too slow (the speed limit) because you might find someone riding right up your tail giving you a subtle hint to GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY. Or if you don't accelerate into an intersection fast enough when the light turns green some Type A personality may HONNNNNK at you LOUD ENOUGH that you can hear it over your cranked Classic Rock station. They might even flip you the finger as they tear around you and burn rubber down the 100 feet to the next intersection. Which, apparently, leads to many nasty accidents in which your internal organs are splattered around against one another in a way you don't really want to think too closely about. But perhaps should.

Have you ever been on the receiving end of an anonymous teaching evaluation that referred to you in ways that are not printable here? I bet you have read a venomous review on Amazon or in the Comments section of an online newspaper. The kind of comment that makes you cringe.  Hiding, of course, behind a pseudonym along the lines of "Righteous Ralph" (or Ronda, not to show gender bias). If you have been using email long enough you have surely found yourself on the receiving end of a message that makes you want to cry or scream in outrage depending upon your personality. Or, just as likely, you have yourself contributed to email or online chat conversations that would *never* have happened could you but have seen the other person's pained face as you spoke.

People often need to be in the same physical space with another person in order to most effectively modulate their communication. There has been plenty of research about abominable online behavior and the psychological factors behind it. But, as I think about aggressive driving, road rage, and just a general tendency for people to be oblivious of their effect on others when behind the wheel, I hypothesize that we as a society sometimes hide behind the wheel much the same way we sometimes hide behind the computer monitor. Thesis topic anyone?

By the way, what does FTP stands for?

In most contexts  "File Transfer Protocol" would be the correct answer. However in the context of the Court System, FTP means "Failure To Pay".

I don't think they intended that to be funny, but I almost choked and I'm still grinning.

Wow...maybe Traffic School wasn't as much of a snoozer as I thought.

Many Study Breaks Later: A Stuffed Grape Leaf Casserole

UX Without Psychology?

"You can talk about behavior without knowing anything about psychology" 

according to Christopher Konrad, one of the panelists at the UX and Psychology meeting I have been discussing in the last few posts. Konrad has a significant background in  software for several large companies we all know and love (or hate, depending upon your personal taste) such as Microsoft, Intuit and Sandia National Labs. He also has a degree in Psychology and runs his own design firm (suitably named Konrad) so you can't just write off his comment without considering what it might mean.

No doubt Konrad likes to be provocative. He made another point by holding up a photograph of a user restrained in a chair with an eye tracker covering their face. Provocative gets you attention and if handled skillfully can make you think critically.

There is Psychology and then there is psychology. Konrad has critiques of both. Capital "P" Psychology can be, under the worst scenario, a deadening pileup of statistics and controlled studies divorced from reality. When it comes to understanding what users do in their lives, what they care about, the type of Psychology Konrad takes issue with is a waste of time.

psychology (lower case "p") refers to pop psychology. Inferring what Konrad meant by pop psychology, I take this to be exemplified in its worst guise through a certain genre of self-help books ("Break All Your Bad Habits in Six Days"). These kinds of books, software and the motivational speakers that promote them make me ill because they prey on gullible people. When it comes to professional UX work of any sort I cannot but agree with Konrad - there is no place for pop psychology.

Many people don't know what "psychology" (upper or lower case) means, as was evident by the enthusiastic audience discussion following Konrad's remarks. Not everyone agreed with him, but some did.

One of the other speakers, Matt Kelly, provided an excellent balance. Kelly is a human factors researcher at Pacific Science and Engineering whose work relies heavily on traditional psychological research methodologies. He gave some excellent examples of where collecting and analyzing formal data can make the difference between saving lives or losing them. He stressed the "...importance of not getting a 60% fail rate on mission critical applications - something might kill you".

If something might kill you, you want to make sure your application has all its ducks in a row in terms of how it and users interact. I couldn't help thinking about the term "collateral damage" which has come to stand in for people dying or getting severely injured. If running formal experiments and tests will save lives, power to Psychology.

Can you study behavior without Psychology? It depends what you mean by studying behavior and by Psychology.

Can you "do" UX without Psychology? 

Wondering if Users Have Bad Instincts

(Not the quoted audience member!)

"We live in a synthetic world. What we think is commonsense may not be common sense". This was another audience comment at the industry panel on UX and Psychology sponsored by the San Diego UX Speakeasy group.

I have heard and read endless commentaries and articles about our modern technology-enhanced culture - good, bad, indifferent. Almost everyone seems to agree to some extent that modern society is too cut off from the natural world. Sitting on one's behind in front of a computer or TV for hours on end isn't healthy for an endless set of well documented reasons. There is an entire movement to try and counter what has come to be called Nature Deficit Disorder. The movement was started by Richard Louv who posits that it is seriously problematic not to get into the outdoors and connect with living breathing ecology - the less we do it, the less our children do it, the more mental and physical problems result.

The audience member was trying to say that our common sense understanding of things, including software and hardware, is based upon instincts evolved for a non-synthetic world. i.e. the Natural World. Which we have little regular contact with. He claimed our instincts are based upon interactions with non-natural things. To be blunt, our instincts are wrong.

There is an important psychological hole to the argument that our instincts are purely evolutionarily evolved and not at all influenced by our present lives and environment. Plenty of research would yes, there are evolutionary instincts and yes, there are instincts based upon our experiences. As this is not an academic publication, I'll spare you the references.

Running with the theory a bit more though: What would this mean for psychology and those of us in high-tech who work with users? Well, it could mean that you don't trust your users. Their instincts about what they want and need are inaccurate. Hence, the developer/designer knows best. "You may not like the way this feature works, but trust me, it is in your best interest to get used to it". User adapts to the system, system does not adapt to user. I'm not comfortable with that approach at all. It's egotistical, don't you think?

Anyway, why would this line of reasoning only apply to users? Developers and designers are also evolved home sapiens, who, following this line of argument, also possess instincts and cognition based upon a non-synthetic world. Thus, according to the theory, what they perceive and believe would be no more accurate than their users. Different perhaps, but just as flawed. I find this so fatalistic (and frightening actually): we might as well all throw in the towel.

No one on the industry panel was a proponent of the "our instincts are wrong" argument. In fact, Gema Almilli, an Experience Planner at Red Door Interactive, made a very strong point of talking about the importance of providing users with desirable, engaging and delightful experiences. Delightful doesn't come from being compelled to go against all your instincts. Gema even drew upon the notion of game-ification: what are the psychological principles that make a game enjoyable? What causes people to connect with their online activity and want to go further? How can these psychological principles be extended beyond the world of games?

There is a middle path. We, users, developers, designers, do spend far too much time (imo) disconnected from the natural world. Our psychological health can only improve with time spent reconnecting to the environment. We are surely influenced and deceived by things we see on TV and the Internet. However, instincts usually have something important to tell us if we listen to them. Our mind is trying to tell us something - hey you! hey!  Someone on LinkedIn, commenting on my previous post, claimed that it was impossible to "become" the user. Not sure I agree with that either, but in both that case and this situation, working hard to understand and validate the users' perceptions is the right way to go.

Where is the Psychology in UX?

 "Isn't what Google does just computer science? (or statistics?). Where is the psychology?"

asked a member of the audience at the panel discussion on User Experience (UX) and Psychology Wednesday night. I moderated the panel of 4 lively industry speakers and boy, did everyone get into it.

I suspected on several occasions that we could have an entire discussion in response to the question "What is psychology?". Surprising, considering that many of the people present work in media that effects user reactions, points of view, and perspectives. Perhaps not surprising. The audience contained a wealth of perspectives including graphic artists, developers, interaction designers, researchers, and human factors engineers.

Nonetheless, if I hadn't been standing up I might have fallen off my chair when that question was asked. As it was, you could have seen my eyes pop so wide open they shoved my eyebrows well up under the hairline. Google Search is ubiquitous - do people think there is no ulterior motive behind how Google designs its search engine display and the results? Or that the effectiveness of Google Search happens purely through algorithmic means? Heck no. The people at Google are out to make money as well as provide a service. That doesn't happen by accident. It happens when you understand your user and interact with them in such a manner that they engage with you and ... eventually do what you want.

Phil Ohme, Principle Interaction Designer from Intuit and one of our panel speakers, made that point when he discussed the need to get in users' shoes and sometimes use that understanding to lead them down a path they might not initially want to go. As he put it, "if you lead them down the path everyone wins in the end". This of course, was in reference to working on accounting services and software. As he said, it is Good to Ask the Users, Better to Watch the Users, but Best to Become the Users. How does Phil become a tax accountant? By volunteering as a tax return preparer in a program sponsored by the IRS for low income populations. Ok, that isn't all he does to understand the experience of an accountant, but I was impressed by this level of dedication.

In the next post I have many more interesting (and occasionally outrageous) things to share from this panel meeting. I'm also going to come back to this question of what psychology is in the minds of a commercially oriented audience. It was at the same time mind blowing, fascinating and exciting to listen to what people thought or implied they thought about the role of psychology in UX. (Yes, some thought it played no role at all. Or that it should not play any role at all).

Hop on over to Google's Search Engine and type in something. You choose. What do you get back? What do you think? What is the next thing you do? Ask your pal in the next chair to do the same thing on their computer. What do they get back? What does she or he think? What is the next thing she or he does?

Before I write anything else I MUST mention that this meeting was also a celebration of the one year anniversary of the San Diego User Experience "Speakeasy" group. It has been a great year. I had no idea what to expect when I joined but every time I go I learn something, meet great people and have a good time.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

Why Would Anyone Say That?

"Psychology has run its course in user experience". Someone relayed that statement (possibly paraphrased) to me today as having been said by someone who works in .... I'm not quite sure.

It doesn't matter where this person works, it is the idea that matters! What could that possibly mean? My colleague and I kicked around a few ideas.

Perhaps "we" (the collective "we", which by the way does not include the individual "me") have said all there is to say about the application of psychology to interactive design, web design, mobile app design. Perhaps there is nothing new to say. The underlying principles have been hashed out and now it is just a matter of applying them. Is that what the person meant by "has run its course"?

Or perhaps we don't need psychology any more? Is that what the person meant?

Is the statement's author bored, or jaded, or perhaps bored and jaded? I could speculate on that:

Perhaps she or he comes from a cognitivist background and is sick to death of numbers and statistics and timing how long things take, and where people look, and how fast they respond, and drawing little colorful graphs that may or may not have any meaning in a practical setting? [Cue: Yawn... ]

Or...perhaps she or he comes from a background in affective psychology and is sick and tired of trying to intuit the deep inner angst or elation behind barely discernible vocalizations? [Cue: Scream!]

There must be other interpretations as well. BUT WHAT? As someone with plenty of background and opinions in this area, I'm dying to kick this one around some more. If only there was an opportunity...

Heh Heh. Next week I will be moderating a panel of people who have something to say about psychology in UX at the monthly meeting of the San Diego UX Speakeasy group. As moderator I am in a position of power! (of a very limited nature and of short duration). Aside from taking steps to see that our panelists and audience have an interactive experience, I think I'm going to try and slide this question into the conversation.

Unless someone else brings it up first.

Does the statement about psychology having run its course in UX sound bizarre to you? Do you even have any idea what psychology in UX is all about? If not, then clearly you want to find out. If yes, then you know this is a perfect question for inciting an audience. Of course now the cat is out of the bag. All the better.

What Helps People Share in a Meaningful Way?

Why do we share? What are our motivations for sharing? We hear a lot these days about the downside of sharing: Facebook posts can cause you to lose a job or interview; video streaming that globalizes the worst impulses of bigotry and prejudice, spur of the moment emails haunt someone for ever (and ever)...there are justifiable reasons to be wary of sharing.

You can argue we share too much. Perhaps we do. On the other hand, 21st Century computing technology allows us to share in wonderful everyday ways. We keep in touch with a colleague and his children on their Fulbright in Zambia, we receive photos from a relative who lives 1000 miles away, an elderly neighbor can download otherwise inaccessible newspapers to her tablet. Mundane? Maybe. Maybe not.

When was the last time you thought about the everyday ways you share and why you share?

Have you ever thought about why we share so much?

To share is to be human. Angel Anderson, a speaker at the UX Speakeasy Conference Saturday, knows quite well why we share and she shared the psycho-social motivations with her audience. I suspect one of the reasons people enjoyed her talk so much was that Angel bridged the human and the technological in a solid, thorough, in-depth manner and she was upbeat. Upbeat and engaging, in spite of fighting laryngitis and having to make good friends on stage with a bottle of red cough syrup.

Did you know, for example, that most of our sharing has positive evolutionary motivations behind it? We share to get things in return (reciprocation), to feel good, to feel validated (we can't survive without healthy egos), and for relationship building. We are a social species and we need our communities and our relationships with one another. We need them just as much today as we did 200,000 years ago.

Complaining can be a constructive form of sharing. After listening to Angel discuss this point, I was able to tune in to a great example that presented itself this morning. My yoga teacher told our class about the constructive outcomes that can be achieved when a student complains about an injury or a fear. When a student says "I have a weak shoulder" "I often hyper-extend my knees"  "I'm absolutely terrified of falling on my head", the teacher can offer physical adjustments, alternative poses, physical and psychological support. As a result, the student learns to stop torquing on her joints and doesn't fall on his head. These complaints present opportunities that must be voiced to come to fruition.

Angel shared additional in-depth insight into the motivations behind sharing, with the take home point that we need to understand these motivations so we can create great tools for sharing. Yes, "great". Angel used that word with gusto. Understanding the psychology of motivation lets the creator think about the types of relationships they want to foster with their app/tool/device/service. It is all about social landscapes.

Angel echoed the message of earlier speakers when she said that User Experience (UX) work is in an Age of Enlightenment. It has never been easier, deeper and faster to share - such an opportunity for creating meaningful interactions between people!

Ask yourself: "what helps people share in a meaningful way?"

Looking Forward to UX Speakeasy - Whither Psychology?

This weekend I will be attending the first UX Speakeasy conference - a San Diego based conference for User Experience (UX) enthusiasts. The conference has come together in a few months through the effort of a group of highly dedicated people in UX here in the San Diego area, many of whom did not know each other 8 months ago. They have managed to pull together an exciting group of speakers and workshop presenters. I can't wait for Saturday.

There are many things to look forward to and one of them for me, in particular, will be watching to see how much attention is given to psychology in UX. Why? Some surprising conversations on LinkedIn is why. Last year there was a fairly lengthy conversation on several UX LinkedIn groups about what role, if any, psychology should play in UX.

I was a bit flabbergasted. "If any"? The "X" in UX stands for "Experience" and experience is a holistic term based in great part upon how someone feels. What emotions they have - using more precise terminology, their "affect". In addition, their cognitive interpretations of the technology are critically important (since we are talking computing topics here I'll stick to the digital world of UX). Psychology provides the basis for understanding cognition and affect.

Affect + Cognition = The vast part of Experience. How can you evaluate/observe/comment on User Experience without reference to the psychological aspects of the interplay between user and technology?

Many of the LinkedIn group conversations revolve around technical issues - how tos, best practices, resource identification etc. Incredibly useful information and I learn from reading these posts. Thus my surprise to discover that when someone brought up the question of psychology in UX work, many (many) respondents took this as new information, a new perspective, something they had not thought of before. Happily, most posters were very excited by the idea of incorporating psychology (in one or more of its various forms) into their work.

Computing is always both a technical and social activity. In some situations this is more obvious than in others. In UX work, psychological considerations should be front and center if you want to really understand what is going on with your website/app/software/device. Think about it. If you are frustrated and pissed off, are you going to be efficient and productive? Will you come back (assuming you have a choice in the matter)? Will you go the extra mile to do more with the technology? Compare your answers to the same questions if you are pleased with your interactions.

We can count keystrokes, perform eye tracking, monitor time on page (etc) all we want, and these tasks provide valuable information. But without incorporating affect and cognition into the equation you have only part of the story.

Thus, this weekend I will be keeping all my senses attuned to monitor my full range of experiences, others' full range of experiences, and the speakers' full incorporation of experiences in their presentations. I will of course provide a report here.

Concerned About a Regenerating Doctor? Take Heart: Think Innovation

A friend, colleague and fellow Doctor Who fan announced on Facebook recently that this Spring the current Doctor would be changing. A chorus of "oh no!!!!" popped into Reply boxes from around the world.

Reading nostalgic discussions about The Doctor, it dawned on me there was a connection between accepting technological innovation and global dismay at the prospect of a new Doctor. We earthly humans don't always like change, even when we know it is inevitable and good for us. Since 1963 there have been 11 Doctors. We (his fans) all know that every few seasons he regenerates. New face, new body, new personality, new cohorts. Change is how the show stays fresh and innovative. Yet, each time we mourn and wish to hold onto our favorite for a few more episodes.

We don't always welcome change in technology even when we know the potential for innovation and positive outcomes is grand. An article last year in the CACM about natural user interfaces quoted someone who said "it is not appropriate to start talking about NUIs until you have a complete solution"*. There was more to the statement, but still I wanted to ask: why not? When has technological innovation ever waited for complete solutions? Innovation comes when people keep working, thinking, trying, changing, implementing, deploying, testing, investigating. There are no guarantees, but we forge ahead anyway.

For a period of time I had a pre-adolescent crush of serious proportions on the 4th Doctor. Many years later I had a post-adolescent crush (less serious but still notable) on the 10th Doctor. In each case, when he changed I thought no, it isn't possible to move forward - no! We (I) aren't ready! However, in spite of my personal angst, the interface changed. Tom Baker gave way for Peter Davison (a pretty cool dude too). David Tennant gave way for Matt Smith. Matt Smith will give way for...

There is a reason they call it regeneration. Doctor Who has been around almost 50 years because he upgrades - not always perfect, sometimes not so effective. If we waited around for everything to be complete, standardized, worked out, there would be no adventure. No more planets and people to save - and no opportunity for all the fun along the way.

One of the biggest challenges to technological innovation is moving out of a comfort zone based on familiarity.  A reader of my last post on NUIs commented elsewhere that it is difficult to define "norms". I agreed, and suggested that it is also difficult to define "natural". These are challenges to developing NUIs. But neither one of us suggested that technology should not move forward and strive for positive change. 



Dr. Who Timeline
* Communications of the ACM, December 2011, Vol. 54, No. 12, p. 15

Considering Collaboration with the Social Sciences?

Psychology and computing have an interesting historical relationship. With the onslaught of All Things Digital, that relationship is becoming more complex. It should go without saying (although experience indicates periodic reminders are needed) that computing's relationship with psychology and other social sciences are as important as with any "hard" science - or should be. There are exciting questions to be considered and challenges to pounce on.

Historically, we tended to think of psychology as intersecting  with computing via Human Computer Interaction (HCI), or in Artificial Intelligence. Yet, in both fields the emphasis has almost always been on the cognitive - efficiency and effectiveness in the former, data discover and interpretation in the latter.

But psychology is also about affect.  As related in a recent article in UX Magazine about "Understanding Social Computing", the whole online user experience is more and more about personal interaction. Online educators know this. Marketing professionals know this - what marketing these days is not heavily digital? But there is so much more to talk about.

There is enormous opportunity for computing professionals who have a background in psychology (cognitive and affective). In the affective domain, we have opportunities well beyond the arena of sales and marketing. We have opportunities with educational software development to really maximize learning through sophisticated understanding of the interplay between the emotional and cognitive self. No doubt computer science can contribute to a greater ability to put that understanding into action. I wonder how often computer scientists work directly with educational psychologists?

Then there is anthropology and sociology. A friend, who is interested in the intersection of physics and anthropology got me thinking about this as we were joking around about her ideal future career in the search for extra-terrestrials. Where do computing and anthropology/sociology weave together?

Throwing a few thoughts out for your consideration: consider the context in which globally divergent groups perceive and interact with computing as cultural artifacts. Books and articles have been written by non-computing professionals on this topic. But how much has been written from within the computing disciplines?  How do different ethnic, religious, urban, agrarian groups perceive and appreciate the potential of computing? If you think this isn't something for a computing professional to focus on, think again.

Or... ponder the different, surprisingly different, cultures that exist between traditional institutions of higher learning and non-traditional computing education organizations (private for-profits for example). Before you dismiss this subject for whatever reason (e.g. media reports of all the problems with for-profits) remember that just because something may not be palatable doesn't mean ignoring it is a good idea.

The more we think about it, the more I think we'll realize that culture is huge in terms of how computing "works" or "doesn't work"; collaboration with anthropologists and sociologists has enormous potential for benefiting the users, clients, customers, the public in general and for the field of computer science. And I'm talking about computer science here - the science of computation. Something to percolate on: What is the contribution that computer science can make to the study of culture?

So, I put these out there as questions: computing professionals, do you have working relationships with professionals in psychology - beyond the somewhat already trodden cognitive domain?

Computing professionals out there, do you have a working relationship with someone coming from anthropology? Sociology? 

If this sounds at all appealing, and you don't have such a relationship, how could you form one?

Lacking an Understanding of Psychology Can Doom Your Efforts

Mobile devices are inherently interdisciplinary and one would hope that the design and development of them would include a solid understanding of psychology by their creators. But it may not always be so. A few days ago I was in a car with a friend, trying to use her Android to obtain GPS coordinates to a place we wanted to go up in the mountains. If you read my earlier post that included a venture to a Verizon store, you recall that I had a fairly dismal experience trying to investigate the Android. So this was my first experience trying to use an Android in a live situation under some mild pressure (we needed to figure out where we were going before we reached the limits of cell and satellite coverage). I had a heck of a time trying to figure out the UI (User Interface) on the device. All these cool apps covering a wide range of useful tasks and I finally put down the phone in frustration and we headed up the canyon using old fashioned biological GPS (Guidance via Perceptual Sense-making)

My user experience with the Android was terrible. I wondered how the designers and developers had conducted their user research prior to developing the interface. Case in Point: The little magnifying glass on the Android does not Zoom in and out. With a magnifying glass right there in front of you, and used for zooming on other applications, who would intuitively think to do that funny expanded swooping maneuver with your fingers? Who came up with that idea? I'd be willing to bet it wasn't the potential users (someone please, correct me if you have evidence otherwise, as I'd love to hear about the origin of that particular feature of smart phones). Did the product team conduct live interviews and focus groups for example? If so, how did they pose their questions and / or perform their observations?

You have to apply some psychology to the process if you want to produce effective products. Understanding the psychology of human interaction dynamics is important when conducting any type of user, client or student interview, observation or research. It is all too easy to unintentionally lead the conversation or activities and thus bias the information you are gathering. At that point you see what you want to see, and it filters into your end product.

If you want to collect data that is as free as possible from your own perspectives, you have to be on the ball. This applies to usability work, and broader user experience investigations as well.

• Human interaction dynamics will lead someone to want to agree with their conversational partner if they feel that person is of higher status or in a position of power in some way. This can happen on a subconscious level. You the interviewer or observer have to be alert to not letting on what your hopes are for what you see and hear or what your opinion is of what you see or hear. You say "What was hard about that?" and the other person will look for hard items even if they didn't experience any. Contrast that question with "How easy or difficult was that"? The latter provides no clue as to where you might stand on the ease or difficulty of an experience.
• You want to appear non threatening and personable in an interview without falling into the "friend trap" of holding a conversation where you will naturally dominate the conversation because the other people view you as the dominant party. Ask their opinions and for expanded explanations and avoid sharing your own - smoothly. If asked your opinion, here is a Bad Way to do respond: "I don't want to share my opinion on the ease of use of XYZ. My opinion isn't relevant here". True, but a real put off and conversation stopper. Worse Way to Respond: "I find it easy to use." Now the user feels stupid or perhaps condescended to and is likely to change their responses to not look stupid, or change their responses by simply giving up on sharing with you on that topic. Better Way to respond and redirect: "I am still forming opinions on that subject. Could you tell me more about what you think (feel) about XYZ?" This approach is accurate (you are forming opinions as you gather data) and redirects the conversation back to them and their experience.

You can try out your use of psychology in a computing context: pick a device or system you own, give it to someone else to use and see how much information you can obtain from them without dominating the conversation or guiding their answers them with your opinions. The person doesn't have to be brand new to using the device or system. although that can make your job easier.

Programming, Body Language and Poetry

I had the most interesting discussion (here at the ICER conference) today with a doctoral student from the University of California Berkeley: Colleen Lewis. She gave an overview of her dissertation work called: "Integrating Prior Knowledge Into Pedagogy". As part of her work Colleen provides students with code and asks them to talk aloud about the code. Colleen believes that successful students are integrating non programming knowledge from other fields into their programming. Her mention of the humanities got my attention so I went over and spoke with her and asked for some detailed examples of what she has observed.

Critical Reading Skills. Most of you have likely been involved in discussions of code or sat in when someone was describing code. Colleen told me she hears students not simply saying what the line of code is or what it does, but explaining it in terms of what it means in a greater context. She told me when she listens to successful students she hears a story. She used the words "narration" or "narrative" repeatedly. Although she didn't say it in so many words, what I was hearing / interpreting from Colleen's narrative was that as she listens to successful students she hears a story much like the one I am writing here. Not just a sequence of statements, or an algorithmic description, but a more holistic contextualized explanation. Interesting.....Have you ever thought about code as a story?

Gestures and Body Language. Colleen took American Sign Language in college and perhaps this is what disposed her to notice that when she asks students to trace code aloud, some students actively use their body as part of the description. For example they might speak like this: "n equals 1; ok, now n equals 2; now n equals three..." while using their arms to show the movement. Colleen demonstrated by starting with her right arm out, palm up on "n equals 1", then placed her left arm inside her right arm, palm up, then moved her right arm inside her left arm, then the left inside the right again, while explaining "they are saying and showing: 'the code moves from here [right arm/palm], to here [left arm/palm] to here [right arm/palm] to here [left arm/palm]' ". These students not only narrate with words, they narrate with physical movement.

The discussion of movement caused us to look up. There were several of us standing together; Colleen and I were in motion and two others were standing, listening, with arms crossed. We then observed how some people are more physically demonstrative than others. Colleen and I for example use our bodies a lot (even while furiously taking notes, I was not standing still).  Two other people commented that they tend not to use their limbs as much when they talk...what might this mean for coding?

Watch people in action as they talk or listen - it is very interesting to tune into. Psychologists know about the messages body language sends - it isn't something we talk about as much in computing.

Poetry. This is where conferences are such wonderful synergistic experiences. I asked Colleen for yet another example and she started describing a process she observes where programming students read a challenging chunk of code, rephrase it in their head, re-read it, and re-read it, and think it through some more. At that moment another conference participant, Nanette Vielleux from Simmons College, spoke up to say that the process sounded like studying poetry when you are having trouble with a poem. She suggested that perhaps some techniques used to teach poetry could be used to teach programming. Now that is a fascinating idea.

I got an immediate visual of a page of code in a language I don't know well sitting next to a page of poetry from a writer whose style is alien to me (I often find poetry challenging). I have found that if I read poetry aloud several times and roll it around in my head I have a greater chance of making personal sense of it. If some students successfully use the same process with challenging code....wow. Cool idea. I have no idea how poetry is "taught" in the classroom. Wouldn't it be interesting to apply selected poetry pedagogy to the study of existing code and see what happens?

Computing and the Reduction of Global Conflict

I came across some creative examples of university faculty who are using computing for societal benefit. I located these faculty through podcasts produced out of New Zealand by "The Sustainable Lens". One faculty member is taking an empirical approach to studying factors that promote peace.

A broadcast from 5/13/11 profiles the work of Juan Pablo Hourcade at the University of Iowa. Hourcade earned his doctorate in Computer Science with a focus in HCI. One of his goals is to convince people in the computing field that computing technologies can be used to reduce global conflict. He recognizes that a key to making the study of peace acceptable is to apply empirical scientific methodologies to the research. There are many aspects of this work. One of the most fascinating is the mining of masses of data to identify factors that increase or decrease the chances of conflict. These data are drawn from a myriad of sources including: demographic, historic, financial and economic, supply chain analysis, social and human condition, gender and inequality, environmental stress, social stress, and consumer behavior data. The power of computing is also leveraged to provide transparency of connections between individuals and transactions.

Computing is used to identify the factor(s) that matter the most in supporting or reducing conflict and are drawn from contemporary and historic sources - some going back several thousand years. Predictive modeling has a role as well. Visualization renders complex results easier to understand (there is a small pun in there by the way). The precision of computing provides the ability to zero in on the interaction of critical factors, providing the all important empirical (rather than philosophical) basis for making large scale policy decisions. Hourcade also discusses at some length implications for personal decision making.

Using known information about human psychology, Hourcade talks about how social media can be actively used to promote compassion - which he claims psychology has shown is key to reducing or altogether avoiding conflict. Social media can be used to bring together people who might see things from different perspectives. Psychology refers to this as reducing personal distance, a proven highly effective method of promoting the "humanization" of those who appear threatening but do not necessarily need to be so.

Although he only touched on the topic in one sentence during the interview, my ears perked up when Hourcade said he saw a role in conflict reduction for electronic voting systems. As I have learned through researching this topic for my book project (here is an earlier post I wrote about internet voting), electronic voting is incredibly controversial and often promotes passionate conflict! I wish there had been more time in the interview to pursue Hourcade's view on the role of electronic voting.

Hourcade made the interesting observation that there has been a significant amount of research in the computing field into ways to improve warfare and very little research aimed at reducing it. Good point.

Why not put the power of computing to work for the cause of global conflict reduction?

Is there any plausible reason not to pursue this line of research?

What ideas do you have about why computing research for peace has not been explored as much as say...economics? (Much of the data comes from the same sources.)