Don’t mind me. I’m just thinking.
A few of my earlier posts were directed at discussion emerging through the IoT crowd. With a debate as to ‘how we can create or design for smart, connected things that sense, adapt and perhaps learn’ provoking discussion of personality and emotion. This post is a side thought, probably risky.
Raised as product designer, and not much older than the typical digital native, I have been looking at the IoT space and some of the concepts emerging from this space and I have been wondering as to the reference points used by those that develop these things.
I think it is fair to say that many of these things emerge through opportunistic design, designers and developers with some free time on their hands. Doodling if you will.
Being young, (really really young) I sometimes question the motivation or reference points engaged in the design of connected things. Take the Ideo music concepts. I’m not so young as to not grasp the reference point. Physical media, specifically the record player. Given that the average designer is a 38y/o white male this becomes obvious.
I’m told that some young people enjoy the idea of the ceremony involved in handling physical media. For me, however much I like the nostalgia associated with this concept, it (at times) seems frivilous, excessive and perhaps unnecessary. How many devices do you want me to live with?
Being a physical avatar for an experience that can just as easily be facilitated by existing devices or digital facilities is not enough. Cloud baby. My iPhone/iPad does everything I need in this respect. Did we not have a term dematerialisation? No. Just me?
Anyways I’d really really like to understand this, just like the Nazbaztag, couldn’t I just run a script on my laptop or iPhone? I get the ambient nature of this but my iProducts can be ambient too. My iPad peeps each time my inbox grows, if I could teach it to growl, now that would be an entirely different matter. Rawr!