Sometime ago I wrote about designing for time use. I’d like to expand on that post and discuss how contextual cues frequently are erased by poor technology design.
Poorly designed technology is like Vegas: you don’t know what time of day it is because it treats every minute exactly the same. Humans don’t experience time this way and good designers should recognize that.
As most qualitative researchers will tell you, context matters in research. Designers would agree: great design solves contextually contingent problems. One hidden contextual aspect is that of time. Technologies have a way of transforming time that designers should be aware of.
Digital technologies “calculate” time: Blackberrys, iPhones, iPods and Microsoft Outlook provide precise measurements of time. We know what 15 minutes is because our Outlook calendars tell us with the ubiquitous pop-up message.
But the human mind does not “calculate” time, it experiences it. Sometimes this is slow, sometimes this is fast. We know that great experiences have a “flow like” timeless quality about them, mostly because our minds do not record events in precise minutes and seconds. Instead, we “lose track of time” when we enjoy something, or time drags when we do not.
Contrast these two “timescapes” and you can see how disruptive technology can become. Humans don’t know how long 15 minutes is, so we organize our lives through contextual signals like “lunch time” or “bed time” or even “banana time.”
Blackberrys count minutes, seconds and even milliseconds. They tell us precisely when it is 3 p.m. EST, but they cannot tell us if it’s “time for lunch,” or “time to get a coffee.” Humans organize themselves around these subtle, contextually contingent cues and digital technologies disrupt the natural flow of time when they “count” time instead of monitor it.
Good technology design goes beyond usability to managing this fissure between human time and digital time. Indeed, research has shown that well designed technology offers flow-like states.
Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: design, product design, technology, time
Folks, I normally don’t offer opinion pieces on this blog, but recent changes in federal research funding must be discussed. The Canadian federal government, under the Conservatives, included this quote in the budget:
Scholarships granted by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will be focused on business-related degrees.
I have more than a few things to say about this, and none of them good.
- The phrase “business related” is entirely too vague to be useful. Moreover, it is impossible to determine ahead of the time. The social theory of “social capital” was absolutely NOT “business related,” yet it has unquestionably been useful for business. I can only assume that no one with training in social science and humanities authored such a imprecise phrase. Had they studied these disciplines, they would have learned analytic precision and writing skills.
- My second major objection is that it doesn’t actually make good business sense. Business people themselves are complaining that business faculties are not providing the kinds of thinkers they need. Increasingly, businesses are turning to people trained in sociology and anthropology who understand methods such as ethnography. They’re asking for MBAs to have a sense of design. It’s remarkably short-sighted to crowd out cultural researchers and artistic scholars by specifying “business related” as a requirement for scholarships.
- Basic research is a public good, and as such, must be publicly funded. Countless insights would never have been discovered had university-based researchers not been provided this funding. Businesses rely on basic research just as much as society at large. It is a dangerous step to limit innovation by attempting to “pick winners” before research has even begun.
If you’re a reader of this blog, you’ll know I’m a sociologist. You’ll also know that many of the insights I bring are adaptations of social research that are not in the least bit “business related.” Readers who value this kind of insight, tell the feds what you think.
Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: budget, canada, conservatives, innovation, politics, scholarships, sshrc
