Comments on: Matt Donovan on Automating the In-Between

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:49:26 +0000

@Chris – sometimes stating the obvious helps things remain obvious. Also, no one is heralding me as anything – much less as a genius.

@Cameron – No hard feelings. I agree that anticipatory technology is frightening. Especially when we move out of the realm of the ridiculously simple to much more complicated things like personal data sharing and RFID all over the place.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:47:11 +0000

Matt -

Sometimes I forget that Joshua’s blog is popular enough that my overly critical comment might be read by the original post author :)

I completely agree with your sentiments (and apologize for using the term “inane”). My hesitation about the “anticipation” function of technology is due to how easily it can go wrong — and how the near misses tend to hurt instead of helping (see: towel dispenser, Clippy saying “it looks like you’re writing a letter”, overeager spam filtering, and so on).

I think the end of your comment is key: “anticipating needs and offering options.” The need anticipation should either replace a step in a linear progression of actions (the garage door, for example) or it should graciously provide you options in more complicated decisions. Maybe where current implementations tend to fall short is either to a) regulate you in some way (dispenser) or b) over-anticipate and limit your options (Clippy).

(Think, type, repeat = 3-paragraph comment reply)

By: Joshua

Joshua — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:17:54 +0000

Start thinking, then start typing. Repeat.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:14:07 +0000

I really want this ability to use language to turn something so obvious that you wouldn’t even think to think of it into a really long, descriptive statement, publish it, and be heralded as a genius. Because that is what you posted above, and I see people do it all the time. How do they do it? How?

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:16:09 +0000

Admittedly, the examples are nothing special – maybe even obvious. I had a few more ideas, but they raised too many questions. I even thought about getting into some of the different implementations (e.g. a single dispenser below each sink), but I was afraid that would distract from the main point. Maybe I could’ve expounded a bit.

Cameron’s question about “Why give it an engine and power source when your arm can be both?” is a good one. The automatic dispenser is a creation meant to regulate consumption, which isn’t inherently evil, but it regulates in an annoying manner. That’s what I was trying to eliminate.

The point is, when we automate the unnecessary step, we come closer to technology anticipating our needs and offering options, whereas now it often just helps us do/make/find things faster. Or, like an intro page with a skip button, it just gets in our way.

By: travis

travis — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:49:48 +0000

this is exactly the sort of thing i am after… i am giving this period of my life to rethinking the process we call web design… pray for me! and if you’re bored and want to see how its going… check out http://www.swamped.com and i totally need help. so your thoughts are very welcome!

By: Stuart

Stuart — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:10:07 +0000

Hey man, now you’re thinking up my alley! Stuff like that is exactly what my research group at Clemson does. Never knew that was your bag. Check out http://aid.ces.clemson.edu/Main_Page to track down some academic based topics related to this. We apply this theory to diverse and complex problems to achieve solutions to what most consider impossible problems.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:49:50 +0000

As I said, “I love this kind of solutions-oriented thinking…” The examples I could take or leave, but the idea of automating what doesn’t need to be a user-initiated step appeals to me.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:45:40 +0000

I posit that waving my hand back and forth in order to get a set amount of paper-towel assigned to me is much more annoying than cranking it myself.

Never mind the fact that one must lie to the machine and pretend to be multiple people (wave, move away, move back, wave, etc.) in order to slowly accumulate enough paper towels to perform a decent drying job.

If you ask me, there’s your unnecessary step – requiring the paper towel dispenser to self-automate. Why give it an engine and power source when your arm can be both?

… actually, now that I’ve read the article, you did excerpt the least inane idea. I like the concept (in theory), but are those 3 the only good examples they could think of?

By: Isuru

Isuru — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:29:13 +0000

i don’t disagree with the concept of automation, i think the example is a little weird. It assumes that you are at the faucet that is directly next to sink, and therefore will “automatically” desire a towel. If you are the poor sod in the middle however, it might take a second (or wipe your hands on your pants).

PS> i wipe my hands on my pants ALL the time. I think its the primary reason why i wear pants :0)

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:19:47 +0000

I wipe my hands on my pants. Is that bad?