Reading Response to excerpt from Design Meets Disability by Graham Pullin

I really enjoyed this weeks reading assignment about the design of tools used by those with physical disabilities. Pullin describes how most assistive devices are designed to draw as little attention to the device as possible. Prostheses illustrate this example clearly; they are usually flesh-colored with a texture intended to imitate skin. What I found interesting was his commentary of how glasses have bucked this trend. He explains how glasses used to be treaded as medical apparatuses, but have more recently become something we wear as opposed to use. He contrasts this to how we think of hearing aids. What I found lacking in the text was the reason why glasses have become a fashion statement and accepted – even envied – by non-glasses wearers.

I think I have an idea. I don’t claim to have studied this or to have anything other than anecdotal evidence, but I think the reason glasses have passed into fashion accessory territory has to do with what we associate with glasses themselves. Glasses seem come with a stigma representing nerdiness, or sometimes elitism. Growing up, the geeks and nerds portrayed in movies and on tv always wore glasses. But now, nerds are cool! And anytime something becomes cool, people want to emulate it. Even the classic styles that were popular before glasses were cool are coming back into vogue. As a glasses wearer, It’s very interesting to observe.

So where do we go from here? I think an amazing trend in society is our increasing acceptance of disabilities. I loved the example of Aimee Mullins and her different legs for different occasions. For someone with a physical disability, there are options now to show their unique style instead of just trying to be “normal”. With the cost of rapid prototype machines and supplies (like 3d printers and cnc machines) decreasing rapidly, I could see small shops setting up to make custom-designed pieces for traditionally boring “invisible” medical devices, turning them into pieces that fit the style -and functional lifestyle – of their wearer.

I read an excerpt of Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See by Donald D. Hoffman that spoke to the fact that there is evidence our brain constructs what we see and touch. The chapter discussed medical studies that were performed on patients who had limbs amputated but could feel the sensation that the appendage was still there (Phantom limb syndrome). Hoffman used this as an argument that even the sensation of touch is something created in our brains, not necessarily imposed through outside influences.

It’s something I’ve never thought about with regards to touch before. I’ve though about whether or not people see things the same way I do (physically, not metaphorically), or how my colorblind father and sister see the world, but I always just assumed sensations of touch were relatively universal. Is it possible to “spoof” a feeling of touch? I’m not sure if scientifically there is a way to make materials change their physical feeling yet, but that would be an interesting development. Or maybe a sensor in our brain that corresponds with a material. Wouldn’t a trackpad that changes texture depending on the application or game be really interesting? Maybe an e-book that could simulate the texture and weight of pages while still using a display. This really makes me rethink what could be possible for the future of human/computer interaction.

Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses) -Tom Igoe

I loved looking through this list of different types of physical computing projects. Some were very inspiring (mechanical pixels, fields of grass), and others I’ve seen many many times. what I really like about both the mechanical pixels and fields of grass are the scale and response given to a user. Seeing so many objects working together in harmony is mesmerizing and hypnotic. I think these ideas are great for art pieces or interactive displays, but I think the usefulness degrades when I try to think of “practical” uses (whatever that means).

One trend I’ve been seeing a lot recently is the use of the Kinect in projects. I think its fascinating to use our bodies as a controller and interact with digital objects on a screen (or other objects). There seems to be a market for it as well since there are other competitors making similar products (Asus and Leap Motion are both interesting examples). I don’t think these are the epitome of human/computer interaction, however. I think the problem is in the feedback. I’ve played some games on with the kinect on the xbox. One game, for example, you block dodgeballs with your arms legs and torso. But where’s the feedback? How do I know I blocked one? I don’t feel anything on my arm or leg, or anything anywhere. I think that’s an opportunity for improvement. There should be resistance and feedback built into the system in order to achieve a more life-like feeling.