discussing an extension of Fix My Street for campuses. there is an argument for increasing the number of reports by lowering the ‘cost’ of logging them, and also by lowering the threshold of importance from ‘problem’ to ‘niggle’. then insight can be sought from aggregates of the log rather than responding to each individual niggle.
suggestion for tag categories:
- FTW – For The Win – positive observation
- WTF? – What The Fuck? – confusion
- FFS! – For Fuck Sake – frustration
- (optional extra) Fail – totally broken (probably captured by FFS!)
logging by sharing photo with the app, or by launching the app and taking a photo to add context. advanced menu lets you add notes, and location, but not required. sniff location from wifi, bluetooth, etc. or add 2d barcodes to each room (light switch) or the underside/back of objects.
how to design in the ‘permission’ for others to fix problems logged that they can right away? perhaps the authority in the system publishes a plan even if they do not have the resources to fix. and the people can allocate themselves or others like bug trackers.
In the process of archiving some old media lab class work I ran across notes I had made and forgotten about on the subjects of “moblogging, temporal and spatial rhythms and visualisation”.
While my final class paper for Judith Donath’s ‘Designing Sociable Media‘ is an interesting enough read, looking back it’s these notes I find provide a clearer narrative on the subjects I studied during that class.
Published in 2000, The Robot in the Garden, is a collection of essays edited by Ken Goldberg on telerobotics and telepistemology – ‘the study of knowledge acquired at a distance’. While many of the texts feel a little taken by the novelty of the internet, it remains a succinct review of foundations in the field.
In their chapter, John Canny and Eric Paulos describe PRoPs – Personal Roving Presence devices which allow them to explore to what extent manifestations of computer mediated presence can be effective in placing distant participants into the social and physical context of a space.
PRoPs need not be realistic portraits of humans because our motor-intentional behaviors are flexible. Our PRoPs are cubist statues, with rearrangements of face and arms, and separation of eyes from gaze … dictated by function and engineering constraint.
Their devices are relatively simple – a conferencing system mounted at eye level on a roomba type device or a helium filled blimp that can navigate a space – but allowed for social experiments into the psychology of interactions mediated through mechanically extended body. Canny and Paulos have long since moved on to many other projects, but their research approach remains a pertinent and valid one.