The Technology that Embraces the Irreplaceable
I would like to start with very raw ideas that I had.
I got to know slow technology when I listened to Will Odom’s presentation on Photobox [1]. I was mesmerized at that moment, encountering something that I looked for (and I thank his team for such an inspiring work). From then on I somehow become to think I should be part of it.
So What is Slow Technology?
As Hallnäs & Redström defines, Slow Technology is “a design agenda for technology aimed at reflection and moments of mental rest rather than efficiency in performance [2].” Their work was indeed original and I read about several more works on slowtech and all of them were thought-provoking.
The more I read, the more I feel that these ideas basically values human experiences -especially reflective moments- that are not to be replaced by any other. Like, in the case of Photobox, it cherishes the moment of looking at old, printed pictures, soaked in memories. This moment could be lost for some people, as they earn too many pictures that they do not have time to look through one by one and eventually forget the pictures even exist.
I see that slow technology somehow acknowledges that there are experiences that need to remain, as they are so valuable. Currently, studies on slow technology emphasize on reflections, and I really think it is a right way to go. Still, I think the notion can be discussed in a broader term. It could steer its way to embrace the irreplaceable, whatever it is, the environment, certain experiences, or individual values.
Some digital devices or applications try hard to imitate the original analog object or experience. Let’s see, for example, e-book readers are designed to give the same -or similar- experience as paper books, while eliminating the inconvenience of carrying heavy books altogether. However, some of us know that it failed to mock the feeling of touching real papers, the sound of pages when we turn to the next and the smell of books, different each time. At least for me, even though I bought three ebook readers and used them, the experience of reading a paper book is never to be replaced. It is original as it is.
Like my experience with books, people are locked in certain objects or experiences (I’d like to bring the example of QWERTY keyboard but I wouldn’t this time). Once they are locked in certain things, sometimes it is almost impossible to replace them. And I think technology should value the irreplaceable and innovate in a way that it does not destroy the precious.
I’ve been trying to find some examples of slow technology in reality. Till now I found NeoLAB’s Neo Smart Pen, the story vending machine by Short Edition, and Swatch’s payment watch (not launched yet). All three admit that the original experience is valuable and do not intend to replace it but improve it with recent technologies. They all embrace the good of technology to deliver original value. I think they are truly brilliant, apart from their financial performance. And maybe, they can be included in the list of artifacts called Slow Technology, along with the materials that promote reflective moments and designed for durability (as legacies). They all have the same component as designers of Slow Technology (regardless of their awareness) somehow admit and cherish; there are some human experiences that cannot be replaceable. That some experiences are too original to be replaced.
Having these thoughts in mind, I get to think that maybe slow technology is not only about valuing reflections. There is more to it, a bigger intuition on HCI, an acknowledgment of the existence of human experience that can never be replaced by any other.
[1] Odom, W. T., Sellen, A. J., Banks, R., Kirk, D. S., Regan, T., Selby, M., … & Zimmerman, J. (2014, April). Designing for slowness, anticipation and re-visitation: a long term field study of the photobox. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1961–1970). ACM.
[2] Hallnäs, L., & Redström, J. (2001). Slow technology–designing for reflection.Personal and ubiquitous computing, 5(3), 201–212.
