Only when we are able to enjoy the richness of material culture does a functional and expressive piece of technology come alive. However, sub-fields of experience design, haptic feedback, ergonomics, and usability to name a few, all look at how we interact with objects when we are giving them full attention. I’m interested in the fact that we could still be interacting with technology in our absence—”interaction” in the sense that technology can do something that may impact us in a meaningful way.

The idea of work and play has been an interesting concept in the history of mankind. In “Homo Ludens” or “Man of Play,” Huizinga suggests that play is primary to, and is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition of the generation of culture. Historically, the idea of play and work has been merged in many cases. Fishers and farmers sang songs to make work more enjoyable. Recently, the idea of “weisure,” a compound noun for “work” and “leisure” has been a rising trend. Instead of over-working for efficiency, people started making work time enjoyable and play time productive. A good example would be someone who is replying to emails on his blackberry while playing golf with his friends. It’s happening. So then can technology also enjoy “weisure”? What would that be like? And how would it affect us?

I plan on presenting an array of familiar everyday objects that tries to keep a relationship with the owner in both the “in-use” state and “rest” state. The “rest” state would be used to reveal their “personal lives” under different themes; having an obsession, trying to fit in, exposing boredom and asking for entertainment, observing people, and trying to get attention from people. I want the “personal life” part to take advantage of the “affordance,” “imperfection,” or “personality” of each object that is revealed in their work state behavior or appearance. By seeing the functional affordance of an object contrasted with other possibilities, the viewer will think about familiar objects and our interaction with them in different ways. If quality relationship is built between the owner and the machines, maybe the owners won’t throw their belongings away as soon as they break.

• Can there be a more interesting or meaningful way to bond with technology than with the ways that are being done now?
• Can we do it without making a machine easier to use, powerful, or attractive?
• Can the blurring between “work” and “play” be applied to technology as an interesting analogy?
• What does it mean for an object to recognize or notice people?
• Can we turn idle time of electronic objects into a mode of interaction?
• Can imperfections in technology be seen as unique affordances, giving more meaning to different objects in different situations, to different people?
• Would this be an alternative to a one-size-fits-all gadget?
• Would we be able to accept the unique characteristics and limitations of electronic objects?
• Would this be a desirable alternative to exactly copying people and enhancing them if they don’t have the abilities to do so?
• Furthermore, would we be able to feel connected to machines and be able to extend the shelf-lives of objects despite consumerism?

Kevin Kelly, founder and editor of Wired Magazine stated, “technology is the 7th kingdom of life,” because “the major trends in technology evolution are the same as in biological evolution—the same drives that we see, towards ubiquity, towards diversity, towards socialization, towards complexity.” But if this is true, why is it that we can’t accept imperfection in technology? The evolution of technology has typically focused on the usability, capability, and the convenience of tools. One dead pixel will send a TV back to the factory. One small error on a computer will make its owner call the designer “stupid.”

Let’s think about people for a moment. In life, we come across many people but not one that is exactly like another. People have different strengths, weaknesses, personalities, obsessions, habits, and behaviors. Because it is not easy to find people who are like ourselves, when we find people that share our interests, it makes it that much more exciting. Because we are not perfect beings by ourselves, we admire and seek people who can fill our imperfection in many ways.

The biggest imperfection in technology as a form of life that I can identify is that it does not have, nor will it ever have ‘consciousness.’ We can impose consciousness on technology by personifying objects. We look at a tree and see it as an animate being because it resembles the movement of an animal or a person. We look at a pair of birds and see them as a married couple because they are flying side by side. Similarly, we think that the web camera on a computer is “watching” us when the green or red light next to the camera turns on. Clues, cues, and feedbacks let us understand what is going on with an object, and this potentially leads us to personify inanimate objects.

Another thing that can help us see technology as a living creature is to use the idea of “work” and “play.” Take hotel security guards for instance. They have a clear “work” manner that they show when working, but what are they like when they are off-duty? Do they like knitting? Do they like going to rock concerts? Who knows. Similar to the ideas of “work” and “play,” technology has two states of usage; “in-use” and “idle.” The “in-use” state shall be a productive one, where it is interacting with its owner in some way. On the other hand, the “idle” state can be used to do a variety of things. It can be used to “recharge” or do “house-keeping” work. A printer self-cleaning the toner or a computer defragmenting when not in use is a good example though its down-time is still used as a utilitarian purpose. Other than doing more work, in its idle state, a piece of electronics can interact with other forms of life, enjoy music, have a hobby, or communicate with other pieces of technology. This may seem unproductive or pointless but it definitely helps us see them as a form of life.

draft #1

Kevin Kelly, founder and editor of Wired Magazine said that, “technology is the 7th kingdom of life,” because “the major trends in technology evolution are the same as in biological evolution—the same drives that we see, towards ubiquity, towards diversity, towards socialization, towards complexity.” But if this is true, why is it that we can’t accept imperfection in technology? One dead pixel will send a TV back to the factory. One small error on a computer will make its owner call the designer “stupid.”

The evolution of technology has typically focused on the usability, capability, and the convenience of tools. Lately, with various technological advancements, machines have become closer to living creatures in this world—they behave, look, and even feel lifelike. However, there is an ethical issue with modern technology simply mimicking people; machines start replacing people as friends, colleagues, even lovers. Is a sex doll a good use of cutting-edge technology? I think the correct answer is “no.”

Though it is not as extreme as a sex doll, recently there has been a definite effort to enable people to feel emotional connections with their electronics. A video game where a character in the game tries to emotionally connect with the game player takes the pre-stated examples to a whole new level. Like a sex doll, and like the video game, perfectly customized, even servant-like, cater-to-the-owner systems, often fail to offer us serendipitous experiences—they make the world a much duller place, a place where we can have everything just the way we want, thus making it harder for us to accept imperfection in our surroundings, including people. Can there be a more interesting or meaningful way to bond with technology than with the ways that are being done now? Can we do it without making a machine easier to use, powerful, or attractive?

In life, we come across many people but not one that is exactly like another. People have different strengths, weaknesses, personalities, obsessions, habits, and behaviors. Because it is not easy to find people that are like ourselves, when we find people that share our interests, it makes it that much more exciting. Because we are not perfect beings by ourselves, we admire and seek people who can fill our imperfection in many ways. Many times, we even like people because their imperfections make them sympathetic. Can imperfection add a touch of humaneness to technology? Can imperfections in technology be seen as unique affordances, giving more meaning to different objects in different situations, to different people? Would this be an alternative to a one-size-fits-all gadget? Would we be able to accept the unique characteristics and limitations of electronic objects? Would this be a desirable alternative to exactly copying people and enhancing them if they don’t have the abilities to do so? Would we then be able to see technology as a new kingdom of life? Furthermore, would we be able to connect with machines without facing the ethical issues we face today?

The biggest imperfection in technology as a form of life that I can identify is that it does not have, and will never have ‘consciousness’ in a traditional sense. We can impose consciousness on technology by personifying products of technology in our heads. For instance, we look at a tree and see it as an animate being because it resembles the movement of an animal or a person. We look at a pair of birds and see them as a married couple because they are flying side by side. Similarly, we know that the web camera on a computer is “watching” us when the green or red light next to the camera turns on. Clues, cues, and feedbacks let us understand what is going on with an object, and potentially personify inanimate objects.

Another thing that can help us see technology as a living creature is to use the idea of “work” and “play.” Take hotel security guards for instance. They have a clear “work” manner that they show when working, but what are they like when they are off-duty? Do they like knitting? Do they like going to rock concerts? Who knows. Similar to the ideas of “work” and “play,” technology has two states of usage; “in-use” and “idle.” The “in-use” state shall be a productive one, where it is interacting with its owner in some way. On the other hand, the “idle” state can be used to do a variety of things. It can be used to “recharge” or do “house-keeping” work. A printer self-cleaning the toner or a computer defragmenting when not in use is a good example though its down-time is still used as a utilitarian purpose. Other than doing more work, in its idle state, a piece of electronic can interact with other forms of life, enjoy music, have a hobby, or communicate with other pieces of technology. This may seem unproductive or pointless but it definitely helps us see them as a form of life.

Only when we are able to enjoy the richness of material culture does a functional and expressional piece of technology come alive. However, sub-fields of experience design, haptic feedback, ergonomics, and usability to name a few, all look at how we interact with objects when we are giving them full attention. I’m interested in the fact that we could still be interacting with technology in our absence—”interaction” in the sense that technology can do something that may impact us in a meaningful way.