Planning: Design challenge

Slow interactions offer us a interesting way to think about interaction design. Unlike what the name suggests, it does not mean doing things slowly but rather at a *right* pace. It encourages us as designers to explore time as a key paradigm of interaction. How does stretching an interaction over a week, a month or a year affect our perception of the action and alter our behaviour? Towards ourselves, others and our environment. This means a different rhythm of knowing, doing and feeling. While the concept was introduced about a decade back and has since been popularised mainly by the 'slow food' movement, I have found inspiration in more future thinking projects and people that resonate with the approach. Life-centred design encourages us to take time to question how we might achieve a more a sustainable future. I think slow interactions can uncover some interesting challenges to the notion of productivity and speed as value. The first part of my design challenge is to identify human behaviours that we have (maybe unknowingly) submitted to modern technology. Some examples of this:

• Setting alarms and reminders

• Reading online

• Multi-tasking

• Communicating with another person

• Checking our phones for updates

There are certain frustrations and pressures that we experience on a daily basis that are a direct result of the convenience that we have bought into. Some of these behaviours maybe context-specific (e.g. checking our phone for updates maybe in a metro or at a bus stop) while some maybe more pervasive (like communicating with another person over Whatsapp).

In the second part, I want to think of how slow interactions can provide alternate approaches that draw attention to those behaviours. By slow interactions I mean interactions that demand more time and therefore potentially more effort. While it may not sound practical, I see value in giving people an understanding of the unseen tension that convenience has allowed and help them feel a greater sense of control in these interaction. So that they feel more focused, engaged and reflective.

The example of Slow Games makes me think about how a traditionally 'fast' interaction can be thought of differently, thus testing our behaviour and ability to adapt. The project explores 'play' in the context of slow interaction.

The example of Manual Reader proposes an experimental take on what consuming content means in the age of unlimited access and explores the senses that can be involved in reading.

The Disrupting Clocks explore, through a material speculation approach, the ability of explicitly
materializing morality in the design of the (alarm) clock.

I am designing for a present. However, there maybe certain ideas that emerge from considering a future scenario. What behaviour will emerge from pervasive drone technology or from voice interfaces in homes or from the seeping of Ai into our workplace? I see this project as an exploration of a number of artefacts that intervene in different ways. The unifying factor will be the exploration of time and tactility.

The output will be constrained to tangible objects so that there is an opportunity to explore technology like Arduino and machine learning. At the exploration level, I will allow outputs that are purely digital. However, I feel committed to having a tactile object for the final piece.

There are the following themes that interest me:

1. Slow person-to-person communication

2. Slow information consumption (images and text)

As a layer, I want to explore the potential that inter-connected devices have. How might the scope for interaction and possibilities open up if we have many objects involved? If the solution takes on a more future-thinking angle, I'd like to create a video that demonstrates this future scenario. Simones' project 'Addicted Products' manifests as a fictional service which reveals a more interesting object story. This layer can provide a richness and potential for exploring some system and speculative ideas.

I don't want the output to be a product that offers a 'solution' for tech addiction. It will not necessarily make you or your life better. It can be more of a provocation, an experimental piece, a comment on existing norms of interaction.

I want interaction designers to think more holistically about 'value' and assess the path we're on and the probable future. How much longer will it be till everything is automated? What are we going to do when everything in our life is a service? What exists between that extreme and the ‘make everything and do everything on your own’ extreme?

“The computer’s incredibly fast, accurate and stupid while humans are unbelievable slow, inaccurate and brilliant.'“ I want interaction design to embrace technology in ways that propose ‘more’ probable futures. I see my project as a contribution to this effort. As humans, we have such a complex machinery of brain, body parts and behaviours – intuition, dialogue, honesty, curiosity, vulnerability. How can we reconcile these natural impulses with the tech advancement that we’re creating?