Comments on: *-computing http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/2008/09/23/%e2%80%94computing/ Creating Implications Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:45:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Julian http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/2008/09/23/%e2%80%94computing/comment-page-1/#comment-18737 Julian Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:02:38 +0000 http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/?p=2482#comment-18737 Good question Nate. I think starting with stories (not scenarios) and characters (not users) and leading with design, story tellers is a start. Looking at multiple paths for moving between idea and material, allowing for loops and swerves. Probably not allowing markets and engineering to lead the way they often do. And not even designing for markets because there can only be conservative, incremental movements. And that means doing many, many projects in a light-weight, very swift iterative approach with no clear visions of a final-final. So, that means — hone the skills necessary to work with ideas, listen to contervening ideas, get things done in 3, 30, 60 day cycles, enough to make a hundred "things" that can be shuttled around to gentle and rough "readers" who can parse the idea and give feedback and evolve the concept. Quick, fast, non-markets or "engineering possibility" driven design. Phew. Imagine what a small, crackerjack design team could do with a few or four million and four years time, just to spark a little innovation. A kind of bailout plan for stagnating innovation markets or whatever. Good question Nate. I think starting with stories (not scenarios) and characters (not users) and leading with design, story tellers is a start. Looking at multiple paths for moving between idea and material, allowing for loops and swerves. Probably not allowing markets and engineering to lead the way they often do. And not even designing for markets because there can only be conservative, incremental movements. And that means doing many, many projects in a light-weight, very swift iterative approach with no clear visions of a final-final. So, that means — hone the skills necessary to work with ideas, listen to contervening ideas, get things done in 3, 30, 60 day cycles, enough to make a hundred “things” that can be shuttled around to gentle and rough “readers” who can parse the idea and give feedback and evolve the concept. Quick, fast, non-markets or “engineering possibility” driven design. Phew. Imagine what a small, crackerjack design team could do with a few or four million and four years time, just to spark a little innovation. A kind of bailout plan for stagnating innovation markets or whatever.

]]> By: nate http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/2008/09/23/%e2%80%94computing/comment-page-1/#comment-18736 nate Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:19:12 +0000 http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/?p=2482#comment-18736 yes! a kind of manifesto for a people-first philosophy. Question is how to approach it. Isn't the point of much of these technologies to work from the ground up towards extending human capabilities/interaction? These are important points to think about as far as a design philosophy. Technologies built from the exploitation model described above are doomed to dehumanize. But in a paradigm where "computing" first is the de-facto norm -- does not the internet/technology puts computers first simply because the message is inextricably linked to the medium? my point is not to sound contrarian but rather constructive. I was curious what specific examples existed of sites or technologies designed with a human approach as opposed to the other way around. yes! a kind of manifesto for a people-first philosophy. Question is how to approach it. Isn’t the point of much of these technologies to work from the ground up towards extending human capabilities/interaction? These are important points to think about as far as a design philosophy. Technologies built from the exploitation model described above are doomed to dehumanize. But in a paradigm where “computing” first is the de-facto norm — does not the internet/technology puts computers first simply because the message is inextricably linked to the medium?

my point is not to sound contrarian but rather constructive. I was curious what specific examples existed of sites or technologies designed with a human approach as opposed to the other way around.

]]> By: Julian http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/2008/09/23/%e2%80%94computing/comment-page-1/#comment-18656 Julian Fri, 26 Sep 2008 03:39:20 +0000 http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/?p=2482#comment-18656 Indeed..time to get rid of the hyphen-computer thing.. Indeed..time to get rid of the hyphen-computer thing..

]]> By: AG http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/2008/09/23/%e2%80%94computing/comment-page-1/#comment-18620 AG Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:53:37 +0000 http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/?p=2482#comment-18620 Just so, just so. Sigh. Just so, just so. Sigh.

]]>