Designing smarter things— 3 concerns
The rise of internet of things have given designers the chance to re-design traditional objects with a virtual layer, imbuing these objects with new values and new uses. Along with this opportunity comes pitfalls that make augmented objects sometimes less useful than the original. I have grouped some of these pitfalls into three overall categories. Complexity, Malleability and Assertiveness.
Augmentation of objects to allow them to participate in an internet of things seems always to increase the complexity of an object. This increase in complexity is often accompanied by specialisation of an object’s purpose. As objects need to be designed for contextual requirements, an increase in complexity and specialisation narrows the contexts in which an object may be used. An example is the toothbrush. A conventional disposable toothbrush is able to be used in many contexts, even after they are too worn to be used to clean teeth. They are often recycled to clean shoes for example. An augmented version, the electric toothbrush is less flexible. For most electric toothbrushes the bristles are disposable, but the handle which contains the battery must be reused. This means that in order to use the brush to clean other things, the user has to first replace the bristles. While adding complexity to a toothbrush augments its ability to do its main function, cleaning teeth, with this added efficiency comes the sacrifice of other uses. The simpler an object is, the more easily it is able to fit in different contexts.
Related to the issue of complexity is the malleability of objects. Increased complexity of objects reduces the user’s ability to repurpose them. Along with complexity has come a trend toward hiding the inner workings of augmented objects. Changing an object’s use requires the user to understand how to repurpose them, this is best served by a low level of complexity, and high level of transparency. For example, the simplicity of a paperclip allows it to be easily repurposed to opening Iphone sim card slots, to press hard to reach reset buttons of many electronic devices, and even to pick locks. Less extreme changes to its form allow it to clip together more sheets of paper than it was originally made to do. As it is impossible for a designer to understand all contexts in which an object will be used, it sometimes makes sense to design for more flexibility, to allow the user choice in how they use the object. Since a virtual software layer is invisible, designing for internet of things naturally takes away from a user’s ability to understand an object well enough to it to custom uses.
Finally, augmentation is an opportunity for designers to imbue long used objects with a new set of values, or to increase/decrease the intensity at which an object promotes these values. Wrist worn fitness trackers are an example. These trackers can be thought of as a new product entirely, or they can be thought of as augmented weight scales. What differentiates health trackers from the latter object is its values toward health, and level of assertiveness at which it promotes these values. Health trackers easily change from being an encouragement to a constant reminder of failure, whereas the less insistent scale is still able to measure health, but allows the user choice of when this measurement is done.
One way to avoid over specialising an object may be to be mindful of the object’s evolution. An object’s history is filled with instances in which users try to break it, or mould it to their customised needs. Whats more, since an object’s design is the result of both natural selection and politics [1], being able to differentiate between qualities arising from politics and qualities arising from actual user will give clue the design in to what the next step in an object’s evolution may be. This information can then be used as basis to design a flexible object to serve a set of possible uses.
As objects become smarter, designers should be mindful of augmentations which conflict with the qualities which made the previous iterations useful. Especially dangerous is the tendency of augmentation to come hand in hand with complexity, inflexible design and assertiveness.
References
[1]Ruth Schwartz Cowan, “How the Refrigerator Got its Hum,” The Social Shaping of Technology: How the Refrigerator Got its Hum, eds. Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman (London: Open University Press, 1985).
