What My Browser Looks Like After Sketching in Hardware 2014

The Sketching in Hardware 2014 conference just ended, and before I leave Berlin, I want to get some notes down from the conference. Most of my notes consist of stuff I saved in browser tabs from people’s talks. This is not a comprehensive set of notes, just the links from the talks in which I caught a reference and opened the link for later browsing.

This year’s theme was “Borders and Crossings” but it might as well have been “Internet of Things” for the number of times it was mentioned.

Meshblu, formerly Skynet.im: A cloud hub for devices. “Meshblu allows you to query devices such as drones, Hue light bulbs, Belkin wemos, Arduinos, and server nodes that meet your criteria and send IM messages to one or all devices.” I’ve seen a lot of these, and I suspect we will see several disappear in time. What happens to the data they hold when they go bust is something I wonder about.

Adrian McEwen wasn’t there, but he tweeted in for a bit, and left this post from his talk at the Italian Internet of Things day. It contains a few examples of IoT applications.

Jordan Husney mentioned Trello as a tool for managing a team, particularly when the team is spread out geographically.

Stefan Brunner showed some really nice interactive musical pieces for public spaces, and mentioned a really uncomfortable 11-minute sound piece composed from the sounds of boxers (the athletes, not the undershorts) hitting each other.

Claire Rowland gave a really good talk on the user experience of the consumer internet of things, and hit on many points that I’ve been thinking about a lot myself, regarding responsiveness, making it clear to customers where things happen, and much more. Here’s another talk she gave on the same topic. She’s working on a book on the subject for O’Reilly which I imagine will be a good read.

James Tichenor and Josh Walton did a really good talk as usual, and the piece I took away from it to think about later has to do with sensor abstraction. This is a problem many folks have mentioned, but no one’s solved really well yet. What James and Josh made me realize is that there’s another way to think about sensor abstraction, and maybe I’ll post some more on that later.

Tod Kurt gave a talk on Bluetooth Low Energy, which is why I’ve got a tab open to a brief intro to Bluetooth LE that Alasdair Allan, Sandeep Mistry, Don Coleman, and I took a few months ago.

Kipp Bradford mentioned his Solid conference talk for more information on his presentation dealing with mechanisms of economic change. The twems Kipp threw into the mix that buzzed around the most were Mean Time To Blink, or how long it takes you to get the basic application running on an embedded platform, and Mean Time To Abandonment which is how long it takes you to abandon the platform when you can’t do anything more than Blink.

Steve Hodges gave a talk on prototyping small devices with conductive ink and a pick & place machine, and passed around a tiny, tiny Cortex M0, which reminded me of Prabal Dutta’s talk on mm-scale devices at the Microsoft Faculty Research Summit a couple weeks ago.

Eric Schweikardt introduced us to FARKUS, his open source factory automation system that he and his team are building at Modular Robotics.

Phil Van Allen’s NETLab Toolkit has come a long way, and is looking really nice these days as a way to program connected microcontroller devices graphically. Now in HTML5! Phil also shared a link on his thoughts on Animism in Interaction Design.

Andy Carle introduced us to Kinoma, a JavaScript framework for embedded devices from Marvell. I’m eager to compare its performance to Tessel and Espruino.

Travis Lee and Evan Shapiro from IDEO introduced noam.io, another framework for connecting things. This one’s graphical, and features useful tools for debugging your network of connected devices.

Julian Bleecker gave a good talk on speculative futures and design fictions, and mentioned the TBD catalog that he’s about to release. For those interested in speculative fiction based on current tech and societal trends, you might also want to check out Adrian Hon’s A History of the Future in 100 Objects.

Justin Bakse told us about how he likes OpenSCAD because he can create 3D objects with code, and told us about a project he’s been working on, Comb Script, which he describes as “the best possible tool for creating a comb”. It’s “a language for describing technical vector designs and a tool that exports these designs as SVG files.” As it develops, it should be a useful tool for laser cutting. There’s a gitHub repo if you want to contribute. He (or someone in the twitter backchannel, I forget which) also mentioned Toby Schachtman’s ITP thesis, Recursive Drawing.

In the swag bag, we all got Blink(1)s, and many of us got Electric Imps and breakout boards as well.

Finally, here is Tod Kurt’s archive of the tweets with the hashtag #sketching14

There were a lot of other good talks, but I didn’t end up with links from them, so I hope others from Sketching 2014 will post their own notes as well.

Thanks to Mike Kuniavsky for making Sketching happen all these years. It’s a really great conference, and Mike does it as a labor of love. He’s never really made any money from it, but it’s been a real catalyst for those of us who make tools for designers and others to develop new interactive devices.

Posted in interaction design, networks, open innovation, physical computing | Leave a comment

Notes on CES 2014

Last week I went to the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, mostly to see interesting connected devices. What follows is a summary of some of the highlights, for me.

If you’re in the motion tracker business, you’re in trouble. There were several dozen of your competitors on display. In fact, many of the trackers appeared to be little more than a light wrapper of user experience design and industrial design around existing accelerometers, gyrometers, and other motion sensors. The silicon vendors making the sensors themselves, like InvenSense, showed a wide array of sensors that have the motion detection algorithms built right into the sensor.

If you’re a Bluetooth Low Energy expert, you’re in high demand. a large number of the devices on display connected to other devices using Bluetooth LE.  There were some WiFi-connected devices as well, of course. Other than Samsung and LG, I saw very few manufacturers using NFC to connect devices, however.

Continue reading

Posted in interaction design, networks | Tagged | 2 Comments

Ada Lovelace Day 2013: Thanks for the HTML (and great conversations)

Ada Lovelace Day is an annual celebration of women in science, technology, engineering and maths, and a good time to say thanks. There are two women whom I’ve never properly thanked for what they taught me: Cynsa Bonorris and Laura LeMay.

I originally met Cynsa and Laura online through the WeLL‘s genx conference. Come to think of it, I’m not sure if I’ve ever met them in person more than once. But through discussions there, they both got me interested in and excited about this new thing called HTML back in 1993 or ’94. Cynsa spent several hours online with me one evening explaining how it worked, using one of her own pages as an example. I probably wouldn’t have gotten so interested in web development were it not for that conversation. Laura’s technical writing helped me to take that interest and go further with it. Her book Teach Yourself HTML in a Week helped me to understand it in more depth, and later on when I got introduced to Java, Teach Yourself Java in 21 Days was my bible. I probably wouldn’t understand classes if it weren’t for Laura’s work.

So Cynsa, Laura: thank you both. I hope you’re continuing to help other folks get interested in and empowered by technology.

Posted in books, misc | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Goodbye, Red, and Thank You

Red Burns changed my life.”

Those words are popping up frequently on Twitter, Facebook, and all over the web today. Red passed away yesterday, leaving a great big hole in the hearts of those of us who were lucky enough to learn from her.

Red didn’t mince words. She knew how to make you see what you needed to see in yourself. We sometimes called her the Great Equalizer, because if you were feeling down, she’d be your greatest champion, and if you were high on your own success, she’d cut you down to earth fast. Mostly what she did well was to make you believe in yourself, and to convince you that you not only could change your world, but that you had a responsibility to do so. For her, I think the technology focus of ITP was just a vehicle to get her students to see their own strengths, and to realize what they care about in the larger world.

Red gave me a professional home along with a wonderful group of colleagues and helped me to realize my abilities and my values. Hopefully all of us who learned from her can carry on this legacy, and help others realize the same. Everything else we do is just wires and blinky lights.

Thanks, Red.

Posted in misc | Leave a comment

In defense of open source innovation and polite disagreement

First off: congratulations to the MakerBot team on Replicator 2, and on the store. It looks like a good product, from first impressions. It’s a lot of hard work getting a product out, and more opening a store. The team who did this deserve praise.

I’ve been seeing a lot of inflammatory language in my news feeds the past couple days about the Replicator 2, specifically whether or not it’s open source. I haven’t got enough information to say, but I think well of Bre and Adam and the MakerBot team. I believe their ideals regarding open source software and hardware are more or less in line with my own, and I trust that they’ll do their best to meet those ideals.

What concerns me is the inflammatory language many have used to criticize MakerBot.  A lot of fundamentalist, angry language is being thrown around; language similar to that we usually hear from people who blow things up, or who buy elections. I don’t think this kind of language is necessary. I have an aversion to fundamentalism of any sort, even when it’s in support of my own ideals.  It leads to bad things.

MakerBot is one of many companies working to establish source principles in mainstream corporate culture. Doing that means a lot of compromise. There will be steps forward in the direction of openness, and there will be steps back.  There are a lot of people in the corporate world who need to be convinced that open source is a good thing. We won’t change their minds with overthrow. We will change their minds by competing fairly on their playing field, sometimes by their rules, and offering better products and services. We won’t always meet our ideals with every product or service.

Chris Anderson’s new book refers to what’s happening as “The New Industrial Revolution”. I hope he’s wrong. Revolutions tend to be bloody, vicious things, leaving many scars. I hope it’s the new industrial evolution. That means slower change, but it’s change that benefits everyone and hurts as few as possible.

We are all compromisers. Did you tweet vicious language about MakerBot from your iPhone or iPad? Are you reading this on a Dell, a Sony, an HP laptop, a Blackberry phone?  Then you bought a closed source product.  What kind of a fundamentalist are you?  I know I’m a terrible one, because, as much as I disagree with Apple’s corporate strategy, you can have my MacBook Air when you pry it from — strike that. You can have it when the newer, shinier one comes out. When that happens, I’ll be even happier if Apple takes a step in the direction of openness.  Probably won’t happen, but, like the dog that goes happily to the front door when the doorbell rings even though it’s never for him, I am an idealist.

One dynamic that happens in a lot of idealist communities: we praise our opponents who make even a small step in our direction, but we attack our own mercilessly when they make even a small step away from us.  It’s counter-productive.

I don’t know what MakerBot will do regarding the Replicator 2’s licenses and source material, but if they do something I disagree with, I will talk to them in the same tone that I’d expect them to address me in if I did something they disagreed with. I won’t call them names.

So: if you’ve got an objection to what MakerBot or anyone in your own community does, speak up. But do it politely. Before you say anything, phrase it as if you had the person you’re addressing in front of you. Check the language with your grandmother, if you need to.  If she tells you you’re being impolite, listen to her. She’s probably right.  She changed your diaper once, you know. She knows when your poo stinks.

 

This post is dedicated to Grandma Farley, who probably would have told me that I “don’t have enough sense to pound sand into a rathole.” I still don’t know what that means.

Posted in open innovation | 5 Comments

Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen

 Don’t interpret your own work. 

Quite often I see artists who venture into interactive art start by making interactive artworks and offering interpretation in the notes beside them.  They’ll describe the work, then tell you what each element means,and what the participant will do with those elements.  They pre-script what will happen. When you do that, you’re telling the participant what to think, and by extension, how to act. Is that what you wanted?

It’s a hard shift for some artists to think about making interactive work because we’re taught that a work of art is a work of expression. It’s a statement.  Interactive work is different. The thing you build, whether it’s a device or a whole environment, is just the beginning of a conversation with the people who experience your work. What you’re making is an instrument or an environment (or both) in which or with which you want your audience to take action. Ideally they will understand what you’re expressing through that experience.

Your task in designing an interactive artwork is to give your audience the basic context, then get out of their way. Arrange the space, put in the items through they can take action, suggest a sequence of events through juxtaposition. If you want them to handle something, give it a handle. If they’re not supposed to touch something, don;t make it approachable. If they’re supposed to discover something hidden, give hints. Remove anything extraneous.

Once you’ve made your initial statement by building the thing or the environment and designing its behaviors, shut up. Let the audience listen to your work by taking it in through their senses.  Let them think about what each part means, which parts afford contact or control, and which parts don’t.  Let them decide how they will interpret the parts, and how they will respond.  Let them speak through their actions.

The next part of the conversation is to listen. Listen to what they say through their actions, through how they understand, or misunderstand, how to manipulate the parts that you designed to respond to them. Pay attention to their reactions. Some will be emotionally moved, some will not get it, others won’t care. Some will get excited and show others what they learned.  How people interact with your work will change over the course of its presentation. If you’re making interactive artwork, that is the conversation you’re having with the people for whom you make your work.

For me, planning interactive artwork is similar to a director working with actors.  (caveat: I haven’t directed anyone since class in undergrad.  I have worked on several stage productions, but this is years of observation speaking, not firsthand experience) If you want an actor to offer an authentic emotional performance, you can’t tell him what to think or what to do. You can suggest intentions, but you can’t give him interpretations. You can give him props to work with, or place them in the way so he’ll discover them. You can suggest actions, but you can’t tell him how to feel about those actions; he will have to find it for himself. He’ll discover the statement you’re looking to make through that conversation you have in rehearsal, and the resulting expression will be your collaborative effort.

So if you’re thinking of an interactive artwork, don’t think of it like a finished painting or sculpture.  Think of it more as a performance. Your audience completes the work through what they do when they see what you’ve made.  Figure out how to suggest to them what their course of action could be, and how they might uncover their story, and their own emotional interpretation of the work.

 

Posted in art & performance, interaction design, physical computing | 6 Comments

Toronto DigiFest and more

Just got back from Toronto, where I attended events at Toronto Digifest and TIFF Nexus.  I was very impressed with all the interesting work happening there. I gave a presentation at DigiFest on Arduino, Physical Computing and Mass Participation (PDF, 25.9MB). At TIFF Nexus I was a commentator on the Peripherals Initiative along with Steve Daniels, John Bouchard, and Emilie McGinley. More details on the Arduino blog. Thanks to all who made the trip so great, including Steve Daniels, John Bouchard, Emilie McGinley, Kate Hartman, Lawrence at Creatron, Luigi Ferrara, Nick Crampton, Samantha Fraser and the rest of the Digifest TO team, Maria Grazia Mattei and Giulia Capodieci of Meet the Media Guru, Ramona Pringle, Jason Nolan, and everyone else who made me feel very welcome. Gotta go back to Toronto soon.
Posted in misc, physical computing | Leave a comment

The thing that made me cry today

This morning, Massimo sent me a link that popped up as part of a Google alert for the keyword “Arduino”. It was the story of Ahmed Bassiouny, beautifully eulogized by Kent Mensah of AfricaNews.com. Bassiouny was one of the activists killed during the Egyptian protests that led to Mubarak’s resignation.  He was also an sound and video artist and a teaching assistant at  at the Faculty of Art Education, Painting and Drawing Department, Helwan University. He was married and had two children.

I wouldn’t have run across this particular story if it weren’t for Massimo’s news alert, and the story doesn’t have anything to do with Arduino or digital art, except for the fact that it was one of this guy’s passions.  Knowing that made the events of the past few weeks feel much more personal, to me. The photo below, of Ahmed and a colleague displaying one of his works, is a scene I’ve witnessed a thousand times before, of an excited artist trying out a new palette.  It’s the kind of moment that makes me excited about coming to work each day. Today, it’s a scene that made me cry.

It’s easy to forget in the course of daily life that the people we work with have lives and experiences much richer than we discuss on an everyday basis.  Often their experiences are far more profound than anything I’ve experienced ourselves.  I’m thinking of several past and present students and colleagues who’ve lived through events like those of the past few weeks. For them, it’s a part of who they are now. For me, I am in awe of their courage and passion. It’s both humbling and comforting to be reminded that the people who change the world aren’t carved out of granite or descended from the heavens.  They’re the ones you’re sitting next to.

Condolences to Ahmed Bassiouny’s family and friends. He seems like someone I’d have liked to meet.

Thanks to Massimo Banzi for the link and to Kent Mensah for writing the story.

Posted in art & performance, equity | 1 Comment

Open Source Hardware Definition v.1.0 released

Last year, along with other members of the Arduino team and colleagues from several other open source hardware makers, I attended the Open Hardware Summit in New York. We began working on a definition and statement of principles for producing open hardware.  The discussion was grounded in our experience running our businesses, and we aimed to capture both the pragmatic realities of open hardware and the best practices in a definition that could help guide companies and individuals trying to work this way.

We’re happy to announce that after several months of discussion, writing, and debate, version 1.0 of the open source hardware definition and statement of principles has been released. Though many people were involved, praise and credit has to go to Ayah Bdeir, who, along with Alicia Gibb, got the ball rolling, and wrangled a sometimes difficult and opinionated group into consensus. I admire Ayah’s spirit, and her ability to combine diplomacy and brute emotional force to get things done.

The definition is a good starting point to talk about what open source hardware is, what best practices are, and how the businesses making it work.  My hope is that it will lead to more mainstream adoption of open source hardware practices. Hopefully someday soon we’ll see a major consumer device that’s manufactured using these principles.

Ayah writes:

Now, to move forward, please HELP:

1. Endorse the definition, post your feedback on version 1.0 on the forum and the mailing list as we work towards a 1.1 update in the next few weeks / months.

2. Take a look at the logos we are considering for “open source hardware”, give feedback or submit your own logo on the forum, in the thread LOGO.

3. Show your support of the OSHW Definition by applying the definition to your work/project/website

This is a very important step in propelling our movement forward. PLEASE FORWARD FAR AND WIDE.

Posted in economics, open innovation | Leave a comment

Open Hardware Summit, Sept 23, 2010

So what exactly is open source hardware?  We’re getting closer to a consensus definition, thanks to Ayah Bdeir and Eyebeam.  A few months ago, she put together a workshop on open source hardware, and invited a group of people who are making businesses of it, along with some great legal practitioners working on open source issues. It wasn’t a comprehensive group, but there were a lot of smart and practical people there to get some good work done. We talked about our work and the practicalities of running open source businesses, we argued about what the limits of openness are, and we started working on a draft of a working definition. The discussion continued online, as did the writing and the arguing.

The result is this Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Draft Definition version 0.3. I think it’s a pretty realistic definition, and I’m proud to be counted among the folks who drafted it.  There are many whose thinking (and doing) I admire in the discussion.

But wait!  That’s not the best part!  Ayah’s not done!  She and Alicia Gibb have organized an Open Hardware Summit this fall to present these ideas, and continue the discussion. Here are the details, in Ayah’s words:

I started getting interested in Open Hardware as a vehicle for innovation and social change while a student at the CCG group at the MIT Media Lab, and got fully immersed in it while a senior fellow at Eyebeam Art and Technology Center in New York. Now, I am a (crazy!) strong believer in the power of Open Hardware. When I started littleBits, I jumped into the many challenges of porting the Open Source Software movement to tangible objects.

As I worked closely on legal strategy with incredible advisor, John Wilbanks, VP of Science at Creative Commons (CC), we decided to create a venue for the community to interface with CC, and embark on a mission to help catalyze an Open Hardware license. The workshop, entitled “Opening Hardware: A workshop on Legal tools for open source hardware” took place at Eyebeam on March 17th and featured OH pioneers such as Arduino, Adafruit, Buglabs, MakerBot, Chumby as well as Jonathan Kuniholm (Open Prosthetics), Chris Anderson (Wired), Mako Hill (OLPC, Wikipedia), Becky Stern (Make), Jon Philips (Qi), Shigeru Kobayashi (Gainer), Thinh Nguyen and John Wilbanks (CC) and us (littleBits, Eyebeam). Since then we, and an incredible group of OH stars (Evil Mad Scientist, Parallax, Sparkfun, Lilypad), have started putting together a definition that today, we are very excited to release in version 0.3 for public comment.

Recently, I have been appointed as Creative Commons fellow – a very important step which shows CC’s commitment to our community.  And on September 23rd, Alicia Gibb (Buglabs) and myself are chairing the Open Hardware Summit as part of MakerFaire. We will be discussing the OH license, and hope to put version 1.0 out to the world!

So if you’re interested in open source hardware, it’s worth coming to New York in September. It should be an exciting event.

Posted in open innovation, physical computing | Leave a comment