I realised that I’ve never really blaaghed about my PhD research project, rhub. So to amend this, I will write a series of posts to tell the rhub story. This is post #1, “Getting to rhub”.
Wearables
Originally I was interested in wearable computing and in particular how wearables can be designed so that they are sociable devices. I define a “sociable device” as one that supports and respects people’s social context. It acts in a way that is prosocial: for example bringing people together and not getting in the way of social interaction or activities.
“Wearables” are mobile computer systems that are supposed to be always on, always connected, always available and ideally have some level of awareness. You could think of a high-tech smartphone as a basic form of wearable. I believe however the real vision of wearables is that you never have to reach into your pocket to pull out the device to check it or use it: a wearable should provide a localised, ambient cloud of computing capability about your person.
Perceptions
Wearables have often had a stigma attached to them. Current technology is bulky and obvious, and because they often mediate one or more senses for the user – for example a eye-glass mounted display – observers often think the user is handicapped.
Such perceptions change with time as norms evolve. A few short years ago if you walked down the street talking to no-one and didn’t obviously have a phone pressed to your ear people might be forgiven for thinking you were insane. Nowadays if we observe such behaviour in a person, we scope them out for a Bluetooth headset perched on the ear. If they’ve got one, they’re (presumably) OK, if not then we might revisit our insanity hypothesis.
Outsider’s observations are of course highly important to us as social actors. Humans act in purposeful, strategic ways to shape how others perceive them. Goffman calls this “face work”. If we think that others will discount us as a loony if we use something, we will of course think twice about adopting a technology, or do so only if it adds significant benefit.
Umwelt
Having omnipresent technology in social environments can raise other issues. If you have a wearable and you’re talking to someone, how do they know that you aren’t recording them? How do they know that the outward-facing camera is only for location awareness, and their image is not being broadcast on Internet? How do they know you’re paying attention to them when you have a eyeglass-embedded display?
Goffman suggests people maintain a fuzzy sphere of awareness around them – their Umwelt. The Umwelt changes dimensions and size depending on your social connections and current context. Within your Umwelt you are aware of other people, their observation of you, and what meaning they could possibly be making of you. For reasons of face-preservation, we seek to understand and control our Umwelt as best we can. Technology such as wearables can distort others’s Umwelt in unknown and or unpredictable ways, which naturally makes them suspicious. Witness how television personalities occasionally let their face slip when they think a camera is off, but instead still broadcasting. In the presence of a transmitting camera the TV anchorperson has a very particular face that must be presented and maintained. Off camera, a different Umwelt and face may be in effect. When these two Umwelten clash, the result can be humiliation.
So to summarise, wearables present some interesting challenges for design. Because the research field is relatively new much of the focus has been on “making it work”: designing low-power, compact devices or sensing systems to detect location, for example. Looking at how wearables will actually be used in practise, and how they should be designed from a usability stand point is a fairly uncharted field.
p.s. Sorry sociologists/social psychologists for not doing Goffman justice in this short entry.
