Programme of the day
The workshop’s scheduled for a whole day, 10.00 to 18.00, although we will make sure there’s plenty of time for breaks and getting to know each other. Here’s a tentative outline
|Part 1: Evolution, complexity, context & intelligence|
|Afternoon||Part 2: Objects, thinking machines & performance|
|Part 3: Do we understand each other?|
|Discussion of the day|
Part 1: Evolution, complexity, context & intelligence
Led by Delfina Fantini van Ditmar
As an introduction for the rest of the workshop, we will start with a presentation in which we will explain some aspects of biological evolution (from amoebas to humans) together with a timeline of computing history (Computers, robots…) and the evolution of the Internet.
In the case of technology we will show some complexities around the subject of intelligence by demonstrating the relevance of context (environment) in the interaction.
Part 2: Objects, thinking machines & performance
Led by Claudia Dutson
For the second activity, a short warm-up exercise will introduce participants to active performative methods for investigating objects and thinking machines.
By drawing parallels between Constantin Stanislavski’s theory of goal-driven action—and heuristic algorithms—participants will be guided in devising small improvisations of the interactions between non-humans and their environment and with other non-humans (without defaulting to anthropomorphic projection). We will address (and challenge!) theories of intention, consciousness and vital materialism/ object oriented ontology.
Part 3: Do we understand each other?
Led by Dan Lockton
We will explore aspects of etiquette, empathy and superstition, through a fun activity where—in playing the roles of people and ‘smart’ objects together engaged in responding to social situations—we articulate our own mental models, and the heuristics we are following, and our worries about others knowing these too accurately. We explore the reciprocal degrees of opacity of the black box (Ashby, 1956; Glanville, 2007).
Drawing on Argyris & Schön’s (1974) Theory in Practice and Laing’s (1970) Knots, but also more current work around persuasive design (e.g. Crilly, 2011) and public understanding of the IoT (e.g. Lockton, 2014), the aim is to arrive at a set of example (mis)understandings which can form the basis of more detailed analysis, while highlighting issues relevant to designers working on everything from ‘behaviour change’ to the Internet of Things.