Episode Notes

This week’s guest is Molly Steenson, a digital strategist, design researcher, architectural historian and Ph.D. candidate at Princeton University.

Molly joins Deb Schultz and Kevin Marks to discuss the implications of IBM’s Watson winning jeopardy, the hidden links between architecture and interface design, and whether “shipping code” is the only measure for creating value.

A few links we discussed in this episode:

Molly’s work in her own words

“I’m writing about interactivity and its origins in architecture — human-computer interaction in architecture and urbanism. Right now, I’m focusing on Nicholas Negroponte, the founder of the MIT Media Lab. He was trained as an architect and then founded the Architecture Machine Group at MIT in 1968 (which later became the Media Lab in the 1980s). He tried to apply big ideas of artificial intelligence to architecture and urban planning. Think of Watson winning on Jeopardy — now imagine a Watson that could design cities and buildings in a close relationship with a person. That’s what Negroponte had in mind in the 60s and 70s. Obviously, the technology simply wasn’t advanced enough to do it — but the thinking was provocative and really interesting.

The interesting thing to me is that figures like Negroponte, Christopher Alexander (who wrote A Pattern Language) and Richard Saul Wurman (who coined the term “information architecture and founded the TED conference) are all architects by training who had a major impact on our digital worlds. Alexander’s idea about patterns were important for object-oriented programming languages, not to mention for game and interface design. Wurman is one of the godfathers of contemporary information architecture. I wonder why these architects didn’t fit well into the field of architecture but mesh so well with the ways we design today for interactivity.

Outside of my academic work, I’m also interested in mobility, mobile phones and future-casting research. I’ve spent a summer in India researching how people share mobile phones — and as we look at sustainable ways of using objects, sharing gets to be important. I’m working on an amazing project with the Institute for the Future that I can’t talk about… I’ve looked at how friendship is changing in China and England thanks to social networking sites.”

Episode Notes

Brynn Evans and Julie Hamwood visit to talk about social interaction design, the demise of Google Wave, and the myriad differences between Twitter and Facebook.

Brynn summarized the discussion at her blog with much more elegance than any show notes could could capture.

Episode Notes

Episode 6 Download the show

Adrian Chan joined us to talk about Social Interaction Design, which he describes thus:

Social interaction design is UX and interaction design for social media. It’s the work of many practitioners and is applied through many practices. SxD is an application of insights into social media that starts with users. How they use social media reflects their personal and social interests as well as their relationships. The interactions occur among users, not just between users and the interface. I look for the emergent social practices that make your site, application, or service a social success.

As Google launched Buzz this week, we spent a lot of the show talking about it, and the privacy problem it raised though auto-connecting your contacts.

This weeks links:
Gravity7 blog
Social Interaction Design primer
SxD Salon blog
Slides:
What is sxd
personality types
user competencies
Johnny Holland is an open collective exploring the interactions of experience design.
Society for New Communications Research

Buzz commentary:
Open Standards within Buzz by Kevin Marks and Chris Messina
Privacy failings by Suw Charman and Chris Carfi
Google’s improvements
Twitter theory applied to Buzz

—-

80’s theme song: I Want to Know what Buzz Is