Speed Rounds on What's Going 'Round in San Diego UX

It was Show & Tell for the San Diego UX Speakeasy crowd last night at our host Qualcomm. In our ongoing mission to build community, have fun, and demonstrate there is a lot of interesting UX work going on down here in Southern California we held speed rounds. Five energetic souls had 5 minutes each to wow the 100+ people (all the room could hold) with something UX-ish and interesting. Truly, only 5 minutes as the guy with the timer was on the job. There was a bit more breathing room during the following Q&A and for the most part the audience complied nicely with questions, comments and suggestions. All while noshing on some really good food.

First out of the gate was Erin Porringer making a report on World IA Day and the exciting ride up to Los Angeles on the Magic Bus. Apparently the bus ride was as wild and colorful as last year when I reported on it (sadly, I was unable to attend this year). But the best part of course was the event itself, which, according to Erin, involved, among other things, breaking up into groups and proposing solutions to some of LA's worst problems. Such as traffic.

If you have never experienced 14 lanes  (7 in each direction) going 85 mph then you haven't lived. Conversely, if you have never experienced those same 14 lanes (7 in each direction) crawling along at 5 mph for mile... upon... mile... then you haven't lived. (Now that I think on it, that particular stretch might be in Irvine.) A user experience in need of help for sure. It seemed only fitting to hear that one of the proposed solutions was to create a version of Google Maps with ratings - love that freeway? 5 stars. Hate that freeway? 1 star. I wonder if comments were going to be included for highlighting such things as really cool billboards and entertaining driver antics.

Second out of the gate was JC Nesci from Soso Limited. Soso hosted one of our meetups last year and thus we know they are always doing something creative. Last night we learned about a proposed redesign of the UI for Google Fiber network setup and configuration. As JC pointed out and we all know, it can be exceedingly painful to deal with a the likes of a Linksys router interface. (The audience groaned right on cue.) Most interesting, JC shared the thought process they went through testing out various interactive visualization prototypes for Google Fiber configuration. These got more fun as they progressed. Yes, fun - did you ever think online network configuration could be fun? I wanted to reach out and drag and drop those nodes, drag around those connections, plop those overlays on one another. Will Google use their ideas? TBD!

Third in the lineup was UX Speakeasy committee member Elina Ollila who in her day job works at Vigor Systems. Elina brought up a well known sticky challenge for large and small companies alike: where should UX be placed in a company and why? After describing what Vigor does, her job as the one and only UX employee (a temporary state of affairs she assured the audience), and the growing pains this small company is experiencing, Elina asked the audience for suggestions. Elina's presentation produced some of the most enthusiastic Q&A&S of the evening. Audience members made all sorts of helpful suggestions (hence the "S") about the role of UX within a corporate structure and why it might best be placed in one divisision or another - or ideally, integrated throughout all divisions. It was nice to see so many people voicing their ideas and the rationale for them.

Fourth, we heard from Kristine Angell, a UX Researcher, about a project called "The Domestication of the Internet".  Project management investigation for Supermoms on the Internet. Conceptions of time, time & task management. A bunch of data whizzed by in 5 minutes, as we  heard about study participants, mode of data collection and analysis. I was glued to this one because I just love research. 2010: 25 participants, 10 days online, 32 self reports, 5,600 data points. 2012: 12 returning participants, 6 days online, 10 self reports, 624 data points. Several interesting results including this one:  most family members delegate many of their tasks to the mother in the family. Supermom indeed. Lots of audience chuckles on that one. They already knew this particular result.

Last but not least, Paul Lafata from our host Qualcomm telling us all about their foray into wearable technology. In the form of a smart watch. There was also mention of a wireless dog collar to track down canine escapees. Managing to sneak past the allotted 5 minutes, Paul told us about all sorts of features and the tech underlying the smart watch. There was something about their mirasol technology based in some way on butterflies, but I missed the details because I was messing around with my camera. However, the entire audience was invited to a local pub afterwards to continue the conversation and ask Paul questions. I am sure they did so, because this crowd loves a good pub.

UNESCO Mobile Learning Week: Global Initiatives Abound

I spent the last two days attending the UNESCO Mobile Learning Week (UMLW). It has been a while since I have seen so many black and pin striped suits in one gathering. The rare academic in attendance was often identifiable by not having on wing tips. As one might expect, this was a global event, with representation from every continent (perhaps excepting Antarctica), developed and developing countries, industries, governments and teachers - lots of teachers.

The theme of this year's UMLW was "Empowering Teachers With Technology" and I was privileged to hear about initiatives and policy from Chile to Ghana to Pakistan and beyond. Languages abounded, along with excellent simultaneous translations in many of the presentations. I learned a fun piece of international vocabulary when a Portuguese speaker, who offered to speak in Spanish, apologized in advance to the translators if he slipped into "Portagñol". 

So many fascinating projects ... for example, I heard from a Palestinian speaker about coordinated use of SMS for teacher professional development in 5 countries across the Middle East (Gaza, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon) by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). They are working with curriculum contextualized for each country and coordinated with regard to policies. As you can imagine there are interesting challenges to overcome.

It became crystal clear to me this week just why mobile devices hold such promise for assisting in tackling some of the world's fundamental problems (poverty, illiteracy, health care etc). Although (to cite a revealing statistic) 774 million people around the globe are illiterate, (the majority of whom are in a few countries in Sub-Saharan Africa), mobile phones have deep penetration among these populations. Mobile phones also have greater connectivity and reliability than Internet connections obtained though more traditional sources. 

Literate and semi-literate people want to read on their phones. People also want to learn on their phones. I heard plenty of data (which I'll skip repeating here) about how people want to learn on their phones - feature phones no less. Many of us may grumble about reading on a 2" feature phone screen, but it turns out that millions of people around the world regularly read entire books on these tiny screens. Not only this, but 2/3 of those who are illiterate across the globe are women, and as I learned in my "How to Change the World" MOOC, providing equal opportunities to women for improving their lives has a direct economic effect on their entire family and community.

Thus, the many ongoing creative projects using feature phones - from delivery of informational, motivational and instructional material via SMS, to customized pedagogical videos. There is a lot going on with tablets as well. There were interesting conversations about which to use, why and when.

One of the over riding themes of the UMLW was how to go from the promise of technology to the expected outcomes. Pretty much everyone in these rooms, as well as most of you I suspect, does not need to be sold on the promise of technology. But many of you, as the attendees this week, have been around long enough to also clearly understand that technology in itself does not solve problems and produce sustainable change for the better.

Whether coming from an education background, development and aid background, or policy leadership position there was repeatedly stated concern for finding ways to perform capacity building and creation of sustainable empowerment of teachers. We heard from those in the trenches all the way up to corporate executives and government ministers. In my next post I'm going to pick up on the policy theme and share some additional observations from this week.

Funding Opportunity: Think CS Education and Jobs

You probably are aware that computing jobs pay very well.  Every state in the country has high paying computing jobs. Did you know that? Yeah, it's true. All 50 states have high paying computing jobs. Not only do computing jobs pay very well but they exist in virtually every significant industry. The public conversation doesn't always focus enough on the ubiquity of computing and computing jobs as it relates to economic and workforce issues.

Sometimes I wonder why, because computing technology supports a global economic infrastructure that we all rely on. However, I'll sit on my hands, leaving the "why" for another day, and stick today with an important aspect of "what":

When we hear talk in the media about the growing numbers of STEM jobs, it really means computing jobs in a big way. That means potential economic benefit all around. You don't need to be in Silicon Valley or working for a traditional high tech firm in order to get a really good computing job.

Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. It is a word that gets people's attention. It's a word that gets government attention.

Given the very slow economic recovery (I heard on the news last night that the U.S. national unemployment rate is still around 7.5%)  it seems a no brainer that there would be a variety of federal funding opportunities to encourage preparing students for these jobs. Funding opportunities that computer science educators can take advantage of.

Many people I work with routinely look to the National Science Foundation for funding opportunities, but not so many people are aware that funds are also available at the Department of Labor. It makes perfect sense actually, given the economic importance of computing to our economy. 

As an example, I want to point you to one such opportunity which hasn't received much press: the YouthCareerConnect grant program. From their web page:

"The Department of Labor will use up to $100 million in revenues from the H-1B visa program to fund approximately 25 to 40 grants for individual or multi-site projects. Grants will be awarded to local education agencies, public or non-profit local workforce entities, or non-profits with education reform experience. All grantees will have to demonstrate a strong public/private partnership, and must include, at a minimum, a local education agency, a local workforce investment system entity, an employer, and an institution of higher education."

My guess is that this CFP (Call For Proposals) is being overlooked by computing educators because of its location in the DOL and because it casts a wide net. Nonetheless, this could be an excellent opportunity to make a large impact, especially if you are already working with, or in conversation with, other entities interested in pushing full steam ahead on the computer science education front.

Electronic Voting in the US - Lagging But On the Way

At one point in time I might have said that voting and the democratic process was extremely important but boring to think about technically. No longer. In fact, this past Tuesday I had the nail biting experience of being on an airplane for most of election day with no idea what was going on. After circling in the sky for the final 30 minutes, with a possible threat of being diverted somewhere far away, we landed in the fog, I flew out of the plane into my car and boogied up the freeway to a friend's election night gathering, arriving just as they called the election for Barack Obama. Technology has come a long way when we can reliably report results so soon after the last polls close.

I had the satisfaction of knowing that I had been able to vote even though I was half way across the country on election day. That is because California provides the option of being a permanent mail-in voter. Very convenient for those of us who are often away from home.

But what about all those people who live places where you simply have to show up in your designated precinct polling place on election day? And all those people for whom this seemingly simple process is fraught with stumbling blocks? Why, as I was reminded last night at the monthly UX Speakeasy meeting, is our voting technology in the US 10-15 years behind our technology in other areas of society?

A few years ago I learned just how divisive the prospect of Internet voting is in this country. While researching the topic of Internet voting for my book, I posted both a blog post and a LinkedIn conversation on the topic and to my complete surprise there ensued a lengthy heated conversation and I received a few, um...spirited emails.

However, as I have suspected since then, the process of dragging and pushing the US towards secure, reliable electronic voting is continuing in spite of efforts from some quarters to stop it.

Last night at the UX Speakeasy meeting, Mike Joyce spoke at some length and in some detail about his experiences implementing electronic voting around the world. Mike covered many of the "usual" topics to those familiar with the subject (verification, validity, security ...) but there was a unique spin to his talk. He posed electronic voting and the challenges of universal enfranchisement as a usability issue. More than a user interface issue. More than a software issue. Voting should be accessible and easy for everyone, regardless of where you are, and what limitations you might have physically or cognitively.

Here in the US we are unlikely to go the way of the Australians any time soon and make voting mandatory for all citizens, however it was quite instructive to listen to how seriously the Australians take voting and how they put in place mechanisms to try and make everything run smoothly for people in far away Perth (look it up on a map and you'll see what I mean) or in the Outback.

Here in the US it sometimes seems as if, in contrast to what we heard last night about several other countries, we go out of our way to make it a challenge to vote. However, after listening to Mike last night, I am more convinced than ever that the US is going to get Internet voting implemented sooner or later. Of course it won't be perfect, but tell me, honestly, is the current system anywhere close to perfect? And shouldn't we make it easier for people to vote so that fewer people will view it as a burden or an inconvenience? Let's encourage and support participation in the democratic process.

Oh...we had our own little vote last night. UX Speakeasy is busily deciding what the theme of our next mini-conference will be. After polling our membership recently for ideas, we developed a ballot for people to mark up and submit. Not electronic alas, but truly in the spirit of the day and of the week.

Do you have an opinion about the next mini-conference? Then vote!

Photography Unites the Inner Artiste and Logician

I have the feeling that I am mentally rehashing a conversation that has been had for millenia in one form or another and for around 100 years in photography circles.

It concerns the latest step forward in technological capability. I read an article* recently about advances that permit such things as taking a picture and only deciding later where to place the focus or range of exposure. Simply put, the idea is that enormous amounts of digital data are captured and stored, including data about variables not previously captured such as angle and direction of light falling on an object all across the visual field. Later, you process the picture, picking and choosing which data to emphasize or remove entirely.

The implication is that, like cropping before it, this post-processing allows you to make an aesthetically pleasing picture out of a poorly composed snapshot. My inner artiste goes "HARUMPH".

Distracting the artiste momentarily with a new set of wallpaper choices, my inner logician takes the opportunity to jump in: "Hold on there...There are uses for this sort of approach, because not all photography is planned and carefully executed art."

For example, if, as the article states, you are a journalist and don't have time to sit around positioning everything, or the action is going by in a split second and you want to capture it live, great. Get those shots of the street war and get the heck out of the line of fire as fast as possible. Don't worry about getting back to relative safety only to discover all your shots are blurred or overexposed beyond recognition.

Or, lets' say you are a scientist looking for something and you aren't quite sure what or where it is, but it is in there somewhere... What a wonderful opportunity to dig around with the image to see what is hiding in there. My inner artiste and inner logician agree on the wonderfulness of the opportunity.

A wonderful combination of hardware and software makes it all possible. Algorithms that enable manipulation of incredibly dense numbers of pixels, working in tandem with some pretty sophisticated hardware in the "smart" lenses. Lenses that don't weigh a ton and require giant tripods or manual stabilizers that might as well be tripods. Speaking of which, "lens" singular may soon be the case - no more swapping out of lenses all the time. I'd really like to see that change in my camera pack. It would leave far more room for other things in my backpack as I trudge up the side of that mountain. Things like the rocks I like to collect.

The tradeoff is that by necessity, there will be even more people out there who miss the opportunity to really look at what is in front of them before they take a shot. The opportunity to be in the moment with your camera by virtue of having to observe, contemplate, study, see what comes to your inner self before you take that shot. The less technology there is in the camera, the more you have to pay attention to what you are looking at if you want something that is more than just not chopping off your friend's head (although we now have technology to user-proof against head chopping. It's called facial tracking software). One of the nice things about photography technology that doesn't attempt to do it all for you is that you are more likely to engage with your subject. Hopefully. Accidental decapitation existed 50 years ago, so maybe my position doesn't hold water.

I lug my camera everywhere and I suppose I will always plot plan and study what I'm shooting no matter what nifty geeky technology they come up with. And I'm no Luddite - I carry a nice (somewhat heavy) digital camera and lenses around with me. And I sometimes play with Photoshop just to see what comes of it. Just as I used to play in the darkroom. I love a good abstraction as much as a "realistic" (as much as there can be said to be realism) portrait or landscape.

When I started writing this post, I was kind of unhappy with the idea that soon cameras will allow me to blur, blunder and mess up my photographs and escape the consequences of not paying proper attention.

However, now I have come to the conclusion that the more the better because I can set everything on Manual mode if I want, I can enlist my camera ever more to the cause of investigative science and I can take that shot of the interesting passersby as well.

*"Smarter Photography" by Gary Anthes, Communications of the ACM June 2012 Vol 55, No. 6 pp 16-18

Philosophy Sneaks Up Via Technology

Bounding into the bizarre. That is how I felt, but I just couldn't stop going forward.

It all started when, quite some time ago, I picked up a book called "Technologies of the Self"*. I confess that the reason the book caught my attention was the word "technology" in the title. I had no clue what it was about, although the subtitle "A Seminar with Michel Foucault" might have been the give away. Had I ever done any formal readings in philosophy that is.

I took this orphan off the shelf and with me on a recent cross country plane ride. Having nowhere to escape to and no other resources to distract me (I declined to inquire about the "nominal fee" for inflight Internet) I plugged my way along through what turned out to be a nitty gritty voyage through historical conceptions of "Self". Who am I, what am I, how do I view me, how does society view me. Sometimes the reading was fascinating, as when the discussion involved comparative religion, historical literature, and mind bending leap frogging in and around Eastern and Western thought. At other times I thought I was going to be buried alive under the weight of 3 millenia of philosophical ideology and I wanted to cry out for more airplane coffee.

What kept me going during the incredibly dry moments was wondering when I was going to learn what the title meant. They (multiple authors) kept referring to "technology of self" as if it was self explanatory. I suppose to a graduate philosophy student it must be! Although they never did explain it (hence my conclusion that the phrase is an item of academic jargon common in the field), my clue came near the end with a passing reference to "techne".

Aha. I can look that up as an originating word. Linguistics is fun. Back to my new friend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There is therein an entry on "Episteme and Techne". Urg. I understand "epistemology": study and investigation of knowledge. Knowledge. In the greater sense of the word.  Been there - thank you to my graduate education theory classes. Techne... hmm. Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy pairs the two, as, essentially, theory and practice (see the link if you want all the details).

"Technologies of the Self".... practice of? art of (as in the act of implementation)? I am getting closer. How the self is viewed, how the self is constructed, how the self (capitalized Self) is conceptualized.

I think I get it. But this different usage of the word technology still intrigues me. In our science and engineering necks of the woods, we have a different intuition about what technology means. Don't we? Technology as an artifact, a tangible creation. We generally think of modern technology (say, since the Industrial Revolution) but I have heard it argued by colleagues in the arts that the term technology should rightfully be applied all the way back to stone knives and bear skins. Ok. Point taken.

But wow...technology as a more abstract concept involving the notion of "Self". I'm still wrapping my head around the use of techne (practice as the complement of theory) for a non-tangible application to the notion of who I am. Or what I am. Or what I am not. Or who "they" think I am. Or am not.

You have to be careful what books you pick up! They can really mess with your mind. You gotta love it.


*"Technologies of the Self" book information