I’ve always been kind of obsessed with interacting with abstract digital ideas using simple physical metaphors. One of my recent projects in this space has recently gotten some press coverage from Fast Company, so I thought that I’d share and offer a bit more detail.
The issue is that there are lot of complex settings with many facets that are a pain to manage by using checkboxes in a settings panel. I use privacy as an example in a system I call “Availabowls.” Currently, the granularity allowed for specifying availability is often a bit all-or-none, but there may be a lot of nuances in how you want to manage access to self. For example:
- I may want to be seen as available to some people/groups and not others
- I may want to be contactable via some technologies and not others
- I may want to specify a level of busyness between “available” and “not available” and let the sender decide if they’re issue is important enough to disrupt me
It would be a nightmare to manage each of these settings in a control panel every time I come home. Literally, I have nightmares where I’m swarmed by radio boxes and checkbox panels! Instead, I imagine that a physical token can be used to represent a specific setting. For example, pebbles represent one unit of “busyness,” small blocks represent people or groups of people, plastic tokens represent communication media. Now, to set my privacy settings, I just have to transfer objects between a green bowl (on) and a red bowl (off) when I get home. There’s more about all this in the Fast Company article.
But really, I imagine that a physical pebble-and-bowl system of this sort could be useful for other complex settings. For example, pebbles may represent separate elements of my security system, making it easy to dis/arm everything but also easy to just leave specific elements disarmed (e.g., the back door while I’m having a family BBQ). Or they may represent different eco-friendly subroutines in the house such as ones that turn off lights in un-used rooms, control the house temperature, outdoor sprinklers, etc., again allowing me to only pick the things that I really want to have on right now.
Advantages? I think this is easier to deal with than checkbox panels. It’s easier to have a pebble-and-bowl system “live” where you would most likely be making these changes (e.g., by the front door) than a computer or a tablet. It doesn’t feel like a computer, so it won’t freak out grandma. It’s glanceable or even potentially eyes-free if each pebble has a unique shape.
Disadvantages? There’s only one physical pebble-and-bowl object and I see no elegant way to be able to sync states with this object if you wanted to make changes to your settings remotely or if you wanted to have multiples of these in a big house.
Is this something that appeals to others? Or am I unique in my checkbox-panel-phobia?
Hi Lana!
That’s an interesting post, about some interesting work! It reminds me of some work that was done by former TU Delft colleagues, that I referred to when doing my PhD work: http://www.academia.edu/928675/Gust_of_me_reconnecting_mother_and_son
Personally, I feel the same as you about the whole checkboxes/panels thing… In my opinion, doing such configurations is not at all related to any ‘natural’ behavior we have in our daily-life and home-setting. This is what the Gust-Bowl project actually tries to explore.
Just a thought… I think the main challenge in the world of ‘availability’-indicators is that in real face-to-face life, the signals are super-subtle: looking away, staring, approaching, changing topic of discussion, etc. And humans are perfectly trained (or well, most of them) in seeing and giving meaning to these signals. Mediated technology fails most of the time in joining and playing this game of subtle social cues.
Taking this a step further, we may not only want to rethink checkboxes and panels, but we also may want to rethink what we actually (want to) communicate. I love your thinking in tangible objects… and maybe this could even better support the ambiguous nature of social interaction. Social communication is ambiguous by nature, and that’s part of the fun and excitement of it… In my view, technology should support that property of communication as well.
What’s your thought about this…? Any ideas, or maybe working on similar stuff?
– Thomas Visser
ps. I wrote a bit more about this in my dissertation. Let me know if you want a copy.