批判互動設計作業06 / B9934001 林季樺

With the participation of Facebook and other modern social network, interpersonal relationship has nowadays become more and more complicated while itself is the least simple thing to understand. Many attempts has be made to simplify or just display or indicate what happens right in the relationship. InTouch is one of them, trying to show the intriguing mechanism of this abstract relationship.

With four square window-like light installed in a flat wooden box attached to wall, InTouch seeks to turn invisible yet never-the-easy-case relationship between man and man into visible and tangible. While its output is light and warmth, what makes it tricky is that these two outputs represent quite different thing. Each window-like unit represents a connected friend. Upon thinking of him or her, the user could poke the unit and created a realtime connection. Poking frequency would alter the colour of the unit from pale to bright, and on the other hand, Poked frequency, for that connected friend of user, would take control of the tangible temperature of the unit. Once the interaction pauses, the colour and the warmth will gradually decline from their high level (bright/warm) to low level (pale/cool).

Judging from 1st Paradigm, whose values, more often than not, inclines to be more physical and more about working cool, InTouch is quite okay with it touch-trigger mechanics and heating device hidden in the wooden box. InTouch has no intension to solve any specific problem taking place around and in our daily life. In terms of 2nd Paradigm, InTouch focus more on information processing.

With different information source collected as input, the incoherent relationship between LED light and warmth, seems to be the most interesting part. It breaks what beholders expect to perceive, the coherence between colour and warmth, which no doubt could be seen as an instinctive reaction of every single human being. And it is such quirky relationship that brings suspense and thus further thinking and reflections to people.

The metaphor of this incoherent relationship is undoubtedly of the 3rd Paradigm. Possibilities of coherence or incoherence of concord and discord calmly assesses a statement at the conflicted state of the relationship. These values hidden behind all the mechanism and usability concerns are the least things that will be overlooked in this paradigm. The complex interwoven state of interpersonal relationship is vividly described through the interaction. Once the never-even state being visualised through technology, stepping outside of the virtual world, where internet takes place, intruding in the physical world, it’s exaggerated to some extent that announce its existence loudly as a means of showing-off. Doing more than just a medium, InTouch, like no other even as such similar action as Facebook “Poke” function, becomes more aggressive and intrusive.

批判互動設計作業05 / B9934001 林季樺

Coworking space has now become a fashion. There’s no wonder why so many of which spring up in cities around the world. Despite the prosperous scene of coworking spaces, there’s still some problems faced and needed to be carefully tackled.
For all kinds of people crowding in coworking space, it’s far from easy to find an efficient way to arouse and to accelerate cross- pollination of skills and creativity. But with Gelatine, a system which combines check-in function by use of RFID technology and a trigger to facilitate more social interaction taking place around, things seem much easier. Upon checking in, one random user profile will be presented as a ticket by a thermal printer, and the Gelatine screen will then display some basic information like skills, areas of interests, and needs of a collection of currently co-present users sorted by collaboration opportunities. With the aid of these two, in accordance to the study mentioned on the project page, Gelatine does work. It amplifies awareness of each other among users, and thus facilitates their collaboration.

Process
As information provided by the researchers of Gelatine is detailed enough that other interaction design researchers could follow all the process and thus reproduce.

Invention
Despite no huge invention taking place in this project, the resulted integration of existing technology does lead to a significant advancement. This prototype provides a guidance on how to communicate between space and peers, and peer to peer in coworking space.

Relevance
The preferred state Gelatine aims to achieve is to amplify the relationship between peers and between peer and space to accelerate interdisciplinary collaboration and creativity. This is no doubt relevant to the property of coworking space, whose shared values, to sum up, is collaboration and inspiration.

Extensibility
The shared values of coworking space could be applied to a bunch of different places for these values are shared even outside the coworking space. Thus, it’s no deny that the extensibility of Gelatine, to some extent, is never the case of narrow border. Such device could be also applied to places as enterprises of all kinds, and schools.

批判互動設計期末報告 / M10210118 王柏皓

1888年 Hertz 證實電磁波存在之後，人類生活空間的距離便開始擴展開來，對於這種物理現象的深入研究，打開了各式各樣對於人類生活型態的改變，如同二次世界大戰中，德國的閃電戰也因無線電技術而能實現，而近年的發展和研究更讓無線電波的各個區段 - 無線電、微波、紅外線、紫外線...等 - 有更多元的應用。不過對於技術的思維方面，普羅大眾的認知還是局限在點對點的傳輸，對於無線電波的技術想像往往只是單方發射 - 單方接收的思維。

Dunne 觀察到這樣的現象，並嘗試著用各種設計物去探索更多可能性，可以說是提供了一種不同的技術想像，比方說車用收音機：普遍只是認為這個裝置就是收聽廣播，而忽略了它作為探針的一種可能性。所以 Dunne 在 "Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience, and Critical Design" 這本書，其中包含了很多這樣的例子，提出了赫茲空間與電子氣象的概念：在科技發展的同時，電磁波其實可以被視為一種氣象狀態，是散布在我們周圍的空間，而人們可以透過各種科技裝置去感應電子氣象的存在。這樣的技術想像，其實應該透過設計師的實體設計物做一種批判式的設計：在使用的過程中促進人們不斷去思考赫茲空間的存在。而藉由這種思維的下放，建構出一種對於無線電波的新認知，進而提供不同的視野發展未來的運用。

因此，Dunne 其實賦予了設計師一個新的角色，藉由實體設計物的陳述與質問，使用者在操作設計物的過程其實是一種意義建構的過程，如同課堂裡 ” the three paradigms of HCI “ 中所說的，設計師已經不再滿足於單純的解決問題( 1st paradigms )，或是針對科技與人之間的優化 ( 2nd paradigms )，而是提供一種情境，促使人們去反思，就和科幻小說或電影一樣，試著建構與表達出各種不同的世界，在這些情境之下科技的能耐已然不是重點，而是它與生活交織的樣貌如何被描述、被接受 ( 抑或質疑 ) 。

但設計師也不是全然的否定以往的思維，如同人類在社會科學中的發展一樣。從實證主義、後實證主義、結構主義、詮釋學、批判理論的發展來看，不斷的會有不同的思惟崛起，去質疑之前的觀點和缺漏，如同 Hegel 在辯證法 ( Dialectics ) 中的核心觀念，各種正反意見的相互激盪最後會形成一種超越，接近事物的本貌；因此，批判理論並無法全然的否定建構主義，只是長年在建構理論之下的設計思維，的確需要一些刺激，並逐步完整其本體論、認識論與方法論。

批判設計的價值在於其設計物所產生的論述空間，相較於純粹哲學的理論 跟 理性主義的 " 問題 - 解決方法"而言，設計師是當下有能力跨足兩者，透過設計去營造情境、傳遞不同的價值觀，甚至是不提出價值，讓使用者自己探索與思考 ( The drift table, William W. Gaver)。實體設計物在此時成為了一種論述上的優勢，是讓使用者進入情境的最直接方法。

最後，回歸到人類的社會發展本身，21世紀資本主義加速了世界的扁平化，同時也逐漸塑造了一些較為偏頗的價值觀，人們開始以物質標準作為價值判斷的依歸；如同 Lars Hallnas and Johan Redstorm 所提到的，設計師應該要幫助人們回歸心靈的平靜，以及促進對於生活片段的反思；在現在高速發展的科技之上打個大問號，迫使人們去檢視這個問號，並逐漸的建構出生活的意義，從批判設計走向建構，創造以真實意義帶領的世界、更加美好的世界。

批判互動設計作業06/M10210306/劉宥佳

Intouch

The plenty area of people have participated in the Interactive Design with its development by time. It’s not only about the improvement of technique, but the combination of different elements and function to make more interactivity between electronic products and people. The discussion of Interactive Products  is no longer the simply breakthrough of science technology and efficiency of human and machine, it commences to input the life situation of human  beings and bring the value of electronic products. Here we use Intouch as a discussed topic.

What is that feeling when the temperature can be delivered through electronic products? Intouch planted temperature into the Interactive Design, hoping to deliver the memories and emotions to others via the delivering of the temperature. When Intouch is touched by people, it will change its color including red, pale red, white, pale blue and blue. These colors  would corresponding to five feeling of the temperature: hot, warm, normal, cool and cold. Intouch use four plain white cloths of square shape as touching area, the overall appearance is a block of wood material boxes.

1) Intouch doesn’t solve the specific problems and even not clearly define the question which should be answered. Temperature is the physical expression of the concept of hot and cold, Intouch can’t accurately deliver it from human beings and from environment of receiving party. It planted the Thermoelectric Cooling Module inside but not function as refrigerated or heated objects. It functions as the feedback of color when the receiving party touch it. Intouch has connected to the internet but can’t deliver pictures, functions and other messages.

2) The purpose of the communication of intouch with the receiving party is temperature. There is no clear indication of the button so the users are unsure where can be touched. And it can’t directly deliver the temperature without continuously pressed. In terms of interaction, when intouch being touched so to the other side temperature rise, but the receiving party has no clue to understand it is the state of elevated temperature. The failure of delivery could cause the inefficiency of interaction. The temperature of Intouch would drops if it has be touched over ten minutes, but the product itself could be influence by temperature surrounding. So Intouch would possibly cooling to normal temperature and make the users unknown it has been touched.

3) Intouch is composed by square box and fabric which is the material close to the people and to bring the comfort. Especially the fabric which has the characteristics of softness and flexibility. Intouch can produce plenty ways of interaction in different situation, and provide a random and a chance encounter condition. The both part of temperate and color would be rise and change and the other side will synchronously feel the temperature and receiving the emotions and cares when Intouch touched by two parties. The temperature would be cold if the other party doesn’t touch it for a long time, the sign of the coldness is about someone’s leaving (without touching) or someone’s shifting (shift to touching other part). The users can be aware of the rise of temperature by colors instead of numbers. Intouch represent the connection of relationships by color and temperature without defaulting the users situation and usage behavior which give the users more space to interact. The interaction is diversity in real world, the temperature make the electronic products no longer visual and flat. It adds the tactile sensation in the part of interactive design to make more possibility of interactive products.

批判互動設計作業06 / m10210302 林浩翔

“InTouch” allows interaction web within human relationships to be embodied through the metaphor of temperature. 4 squares respectively represent 4 different relations, may be friends, family members, or beloved one...etc. While pressing it, temperature responds, transmitting a kind of non-definite, abstract information.

From 1st paradigm’s point of view, the interaction that InTouch provides can not be precisely measured, the process of its use is not tend to dissect and(or) hack things; InTouch does not identify any specific problems, and isn’t a complete solution. Its non-task-oriented design may confuse researchers: “What is this do for? Why will I put such a thing without any clear function in my house?” As it using soft fabric for the pressing interface, from the 1st paradigm’s aspect, the action of pressing is not accurate, without any definite trigger point, and its expression is obscure, not to mention that the perception of temperature differs from person to person. As a result, InTouch is a design artifact with unidentified purpose under the 1st paradigm.

The purpose of InTouch is to embody interaction within human relationships through the device installed in a living space. I believe its universal-applicability fits in the 2nd paradigm. But the purpose of the interacting process doesn’t lie in optimizing human-computer interaction, and its uncertainty can not be evaluated as well. For researchers can not optimize for particular design goal or reduce the scope of it, InTouch can not be generalize into a widespread design wireframe or research method. So from the 2nd paradigm’s point of view, InTouch does not fulfill its research goal.

The 3rd paradigm focus on phenomenological interpretation. Under this paradigm, the ability of a machine is no longer a target for researcher. Rather, the goal is to grapple with the full complexity around the system. Therefore, optimization and efficiency is not the point, it is how a interaction device itself assists users to construct meanings, how users complete phenomenological interpretations through InTouch. 

Researchers of the 3rd paradigm construct meaning through thick description, and through this process to have a profound understanding of the lived world. So, the interaction of InTouch, for the 3rd paradigm, possesses a huge research space.

批判互動設計作業05 / m10210302 林浩翔

The raise of co-working space symbolize the new form of working style. Exchanging ideas with people from different domain in the same space, brain storming and collaborating with each other, it is a better way of working for developer/designer than usual, working at home.

The interaction installation Gelatine includes 4 parts, applying Ruby on Rails for the back-end database, allowing connection between different interfaces for users to register their personal information, and “Label” for themselves.

Then, it is the usage of RFID device. By the presence of users, the information is embodied through the checking point.

And the screen with visualization itself become a form of information flow, revealing the presence status in the co-working space through a random, aesthetic way.

At the end, a small thermal printer prints out the information randomly, turning them into physical object, bringing out a sense of serendipity. And meanwhile the print outs are portable, becoming a extension of previous interactions.

We can analyse Gelation with the 4 aspect mentioned in the paper “Research Through Design as a Method for Interaction Design Research in HCI”:

Process:
Taking the advantage of the fluency of context(register, check-in, take away the print outs, reading the information), combining internet information and physical device together, the researcher make public the technique they use for others to represent with it.

Invention:
It is worth to mention that the usage of thermal printer at the last step allows digital information to be “archived” in physical paper, becoming one of the end result of the interaction, meanwhile reinforce the existence of co-working space.

Relevance:
The goal Gelatine wants to achieve is relevant to the value of co-working space. The design of the interaction is also relevant to the physical action. So in terms of relevance, I think it is coincided.

Extensibility:
Gelatine is not only suitable for co-working space, the researchers are willing to share their ideas and techniques allowing this type of interaction be transform into different context and spaces.

As we all know, the development of information technology has brought a revolutionary change to the world today, the speed of information produced and the density of information itself has increased insanely, the way how people work and the efficiency of it has rapidly evolved alongside the computer technology. But the huge gap between physical and digital world still remained. Gelatine ingeniously resolve this problem with today's technology.

批判互動設計作業03 / m10210302 林浩翔

  Nowadays, technology become more rapid and efficient base on internet explosion, that includ huge interflow of information, and it is woven into the fabric of everyday life. At 2001, Hallnäs and Redström present the “slow technology” which remind us should focus on

mental rest and moment of reflection, that is mean the efficiency and capacity should be out of focus. how we researcher/designer can provide a further reflection on it.

  base on this point of view, photobox provide a rethink of photo,  as a symbol of memory, technology allow we can take photos on a simple way, that make us have thousand of photos store in our harddrive and web service - but seldom recall it. If photos not to be seem again, them it no meaning.

  By randomly pick up the flickr photo & print it out, photobox make serendipity from digital memories, but keep its form and funtion in a simpleway, so we will expect the artifact without too much cognizance loading.

  "little printer” use thermal printer to transform fragmentary information become concrete

form, it not have main purpose or tasks have to done. Just a way to reflect a piece of everyday life, through this way, it try to establish new view point of people’s daily consumption.

  both of them use simplicity construction and materials, but keep a distance to fulfill the meaning by user, it is not aim to take away time, but seeking for the moment of reflection.

批判互動設計作業05 / B9934031 周雅涵

Gelatine is an interaction design research that design a system including (i) user profile website and database (ii) Checkin Points (iii) Public Screen Application (ix) Thermal Printer. It facilitates peer collaboration, peer inspiration and cross- pollination of skills and creativity in public libraries and co-working space. The system provide a website for users to create personal profile. When one ‘check in’ at a workspace, Gelatine will display one’s information such as skills, interest, and needs of currently show on a public screen and also print out from printer. People could check the screen or printer to know their co-worker or search for some help. It encourages people in working space to get more interaction with their peers.

Process

Gelatine clearly describes how they find out the unnatural situation social learning, inspiration and collaboration between coworkers. So they design a system to increasing the exposedness of coworkers’ information. It demonstrates how to use the profile information on public space and create the interaction between people.

Invention

Gelatine use digital information and device into our social life, and actually could arouse more inspiration and opportunities happened in coworking space. It is an invention that introduces digital device system into a working space as a social learning device. It combine with profile website, a check in system, printer and a screen to browse. Gelatine creates a new ability to interactive design into normal social life.

Relevance

Gelatine articulates the preferred state their design attempts to achieve, which is to create a coworking space that more and more cross- pollination of skills and creativity. It inspires the environment’s real potential from present situation of user’s unaware of and uninspired by using this system. And through their design practice we can see it really have changes in the coworking space.

Extensibility

For the public or coworking space like this case shows, Gelatine could be a demonstration that makes people easier to knowing others or ice breaking. Especially in a new working space, it hard for people know so much people while it would be a pity that wastes such a treasure.

Gelatine like some kind of physical forum, which share information and has it social functionality. However, unlike traditional online forum, it real practice in space and encore people meets and interacts with their coworker face to face. And it would make it different from existing social network system, and become a customize system that suit for specific working space.

批判互動設計作業02 / B9934031 周雅涵

Power Aware Cord

STATIC!’s design, Power Aware Cord, are a design which focus on energy issue.

It uses power strips to make people seeing their personal energy consumption everyday life by visualize the energy. Expressing the presence of energy through light to inspire people to explore and reflect upon the energy consumption of electrical devices in their home.

The lighting power strips don’t have any traditional meaning of ‘function’ such like saving energy, it even need extra energy to be lighten. However, it has ‘para-functionality’, which discourages unthinking ideological assimilation and encourages doubt by increasing the poetic distance between people products. Make it unfamiliar to normal power strips.

Instead of other design try to solve the energy problem like use energy saving device or solar system, Power Aware Cord tries to “aware” our consciousness of energy consuming, It evoke users to reflect upon the issue rather then solving problem and then hiding it. For our society to find problem is equal important to salving problem, since the energy issue is too big to have ultimate solutions. People should aware about it in their daily life and it could become a social common view. Power Aware Cord inspires people to critically rethink from most normal life with this simple deign to the big global issue behind this seem- peaceful ordinary.

批判互動設計期末報告/M10210306/劉宥佳

「每件藝術作品都是它那時代的孩子，也是我們感覺的母親。每個文化時期，都有自己的藝術，它無法被重複。即使企圖使過氣的藝術原則復甦，最多只能產生死胎作品。」--康定斯基，《藝術的精神性》

我們相信這個時代的精神，來自可以由多元的媒體傳達和互連網獲得龐大的資訊，以為可以被滋潤而成長得更茁壯，分辨出對的事物進而走向正確道路。但正確、龐大、多元、豐富都是我們對知識的精神想像，我們能在這個時代得到的，垃圾和不重要的訊息及過度渲染，讓世界分流成更多小圈子的謊言及封閉的偏見。

我知道我先前所受的藝術教育，因為跳過了第一跟第二派典而直接朝向第三派典認識世界。雖然藝術跟資訊因為背景的關係，認識世界的方式一定有所差異，但兩邊同樣都是為了讓世界變得更好。而不同背景的人在詮釋人與媒體、人與科技間的複雜關係，會因為知識體系的差異使用不同的語言（或視覺語彙）去表達自己的想法。

在這個想法底下，Hertzian tales是在對資訊及科技有了深刻了解後，從而去思考的過程。加入了設計、文學、社會及人類學、現象學講述的一整套想法和學問。像是第七章的一件作品「When object dream...」他以物品會發出我們看不見的電磁波去譬喻那就像人在做夢一樣，以這個概念做設計。我心想：天啊會把電子產品的電磁波看做夢的人，大概只有對電子產品這麼深層認識，又浪漫的人才想的出來吧！這是非常從「物」本身去出發的概念。要我用過去經驗連結的話，只能從陶藝家熟悉陶土和瓷土的特性，和手藝達到登峰造極的境界時，那個時候外在的形式以不足以滿足藝術家對陶藝的詮釋，唯有用最困難的技法挑戰身體和陶土的極限。想起小雯夫妻說的，他們為什麼選用互動產品設計，因為就像過去談批判，因為正值小說盛行期所以用的是文學，那麼我們在這個時代，就必須依靠媒體，因為這是這個時代文化精神。

我的理解是：藝術或設計界的人或許相對不熟悉新科技，但希望世界更好，所以想辦法用了這個時代的語言（媒體或電子）去做作品。而資訊背景的人知道新科技的應用，他們也希望世界更好。他們已有了技術和知道許許多多的產品，而這些是工具，而人是使用工具的。於是開始從第一派典到第二派典，再走向第三派典，他們必須面對的挑戰是如何不被原有的形式或功能侷限。而設計師面臨的挑戰是，長久下他們被賦予解決問題的任務，要從回答者變成提問者，而這個提問不見得有答案，這點應該是許多設計師最困惑的地方，也是為什麼開始有很多設計師問我：設計跟藝術的差別在哪裡？

那麼藝術界呢？藝術家的問題也很大，可這個問題同樣存在於應用藝術（建築、電影、攝影、陶瓷、木工...）所以不斷被拿來爭論。

拿一位建築大老之前在演講時提到的話：「建築常因考慮到現實而被藝術圈歸類為應用藝術，概念的檔次在形而下的部份，而純藝術因概念的完整在形而上，但事實上能做到形而上的人沒幾個，大部分都是虛假的形而上。

而建築設計可貴的就是他能實際去做點什麼，但希望當建築或設計介入空間，能夠加入一點抽象。」

這也是為什麼資訊設計吸引我的原因，它為何可貴因為它能夠進入人的生活。尤其對我們這輩的人而言，資訊及電子產品幾乎是當我們孩童時期就陪伴著我們長大，和我們的生命已然密不可分，對生活的撼動力之大。而Hertzian tales的結論也是將整本書視為一種對未來的期許，知道未來我們和電子產品的關係會更複雜，在這裡預先提出的一種設計方法。

雖然柳宗悅曾提到的：「手與機器的差異在於，手總是與心相連的，而機器則是無心的。」 機器難免因為冷硬感及製程，當要以更貼近人心的方式呈現時，需要考慮很多外型及包裝，因為它無法經由製程呈現人手與心的感覺。當然這是工藝界對科技最大的質疑。（當然表現手感這是件弔詭的事情，畢竟某些產品光滑平整的外觀並不全是因為全自動化的機械，而是打鐵師父的仔細拋光及打磨）但看到以 Hertzian Space為想法做的作品，光點遊走在RFID周遭，這項物件因為電磁波的被看見還有它呈現的不定性，讓我們感覺它好像被賦予了某種生命。還有一些以統計資料視覺化的作品，如Facebook stories，因為互動產品及網路可以讓使用者成為參與者，讓我們看到資訊的軌跡，而這個資訊軌跡是與人心相連的，就像人留下的腳印一樣令我們有所想像。這些都是資訊與電子產品擁有的無限潛力，並非全如傳統角度的想像被框架。

不只是現代，記得Hertzian Space介紹的其他作品中，不乏幾十年前就出現，但現在想法仍然很前衛的產品，譬如可以拿來偷喝酒的拐杖。對於Hertzian tales提到的詩歌，我的想法是：詩歌的填空、過多的漏洞可以讓觀者加入自身的想像，越抽象的東西（意義不固定）能夠涵蓋的範圍越大，越固定則否（會被變化）。

批判互動設計作業5 / M10210118 王柏皓

Gelatine is a system designed to encourage co-workers to share encounters in the work space by allowing them to check in digitally. The system consist of following 4 modules:

1.  User profile website, the database allow users to create, edit and maintain their profile information such as background, interests, areas of expertise, status information and questions to others.
2. Check in Points, a physical electric device allow user to check in with their RFID membership cards.
3. Public screen application, a screen aesthetically displaying visualizations of information about interests, backgrounds, projects status of people currently checked in.
4. Thermal printer, a printer prints out the user profile of the most recent checkin.

To evaluate the research project - Gelatine, we use 4 lenses from Research through Design.

1. Process: The researchers provide various details of how the system is construct, including how these 4 modules interact with each others, what controller they choose to build up the check point module, which software they used to implement the public screen...etc. In such, they provide a rich documentation for following researcher who wants to reproduce a similar system.
2. Invention: The system they created was in fact becoming interface for social learning through exploratory, opportunistic and serendipitous inspirations, and amplifies users’ sense of place and awareness of other coworkers.
3. Relevance: From the researchers point of view, the preferred state of a public area or a co-working space is that social learning, inspiration, and collaboration between workers are able to happen within the space naturally. The pilot evaluation at The Edge not only proves the success of Gelatine, also showing that the pre-entry motivation highly influencing whether people notice the screen and further interact with it.
4. Extensibility: In terms of extensibility, although the system was initially design for co-working space, it can also be deployed into large enterprises, which have large group of employees with different expertise, to help different divisions to cooperate well.

批判互動設計作業6 / M10210118 王柏皓

According to Maslow's hierarchy of human needs, after fulfilling physiological, and security needs, there comes the needs of feeling belongingness, being loved and cared about. InTouch is a design artifact aiming at providing a whole new social interaction experience to fulfill this kind of need. It allows social interaction between friends through simple action of touch and press, where the color on the device shows the level of one's consideration toward their friend while the temperature indicates the friend's.

Although InTouch creatively uses temperature as the metaphor for the considerations toward others, it radically does not provide a precise number of temperature for the user, which might lead to a mis-understanding and therefore fundamentally go against what the first paradigm of HCI are seeking for, that is to optimize the fit between humans and machines.

And because temperature is perceived differently by different people, it is difficult to generate a standardized mapping from temperature spectrum to every levels of considerations. As the result, InTouch does not fit very well in the second paradigm.

While InTouch can't receive good credit in the first two paradigms, the value of it still remains. Not being a task-oriented tool for efficient information communication, InTouch is rather a companion quietly hung in one's room, and continuously providing materials for meaning making, such as one may hold expectation before touching the device to see whether his/her friend is giving consideration to him/her, one may feel companionship while doing other activities in the room for each squares are representing the particular friends...etc. So, from the third paradigm's aspect, InTouch opens up the space for meaning making.

It is these reasons that makes the third paradigm important. Our world is not filled with task and problems. The third paradigm provides a new aspect of viewing the world, and addresses issues that are bad fits to prior paradigms. It sees meaning and meaning construction as a central focus. 

批判互動設計期末報告 / D10110103 陳俊中

前言
漫步在工業設計的求學路上，一直很相信大眾與主流這件事，從Dieter Rams的新現代主義到Sony的科技主義，再以歡欣鼓舞的心情迎接Apple世代，很習慣的順從與接受看似必然的主流，樂觀的認為大科技最終會創造一個更人性化的環境，而設計師的任務就是在「其上」塑造出可與消費者連結的型態。我們不斷藉由「理論」、「方法」、「創意」等各種工具企圖開鑿出一種「最佳化」的路徑，銜接大眾與主流。
設計師很少甚至是沒有被教育過如何思考來批判主流，當畢業後進入台灣許多所謂主流的電子科技企業後，更不會有機會意識到批判這件事。我認為，一方面東方儒家思想與哲學是較內向的，服膺階層、中庸與和氣的，另一方面台灣早年有意無意把批判連結到中國文化大革命式的批鬥，似乎質疑主流、質疑階層、質疑權威就會帶來不幸的後果，因此在台灣的學術環境比較難想像一個充滿批判與思辦的探求真理道路。
接觸到Critical Design之後，雖然讀的文章不多，但大致了解到批判對於整個體系的重要系，我認為其中一個關鍵就在於避免盲目的一言堂式毀滅，有如所有人類坐在一列主流火車上，大家都以為列車長知道火車將開往何處，但若其實他不知道呢？透過不斷對“理所當然”的挑釁，可以刺激人們思考：有沒有其他可能、會不會是更好的選擇、是不是更符合需要等，透過反覆辦證來找出可行的發展道路。也因此，許多文章也特別提及設計師是少數有能力把這種批判“思想”置入每天日常生活的關鍵職位。雖然我們根本沒有意識到自己有這樣的責任。

思考
思辯在西方思想體系中源遠流長，真理越辯越明一直是西方重要的價值核心，Shaowen Bardzell和Jeffrey Bardzell大作已經闡明了這個部分，而Critical可被視作為當一切看似毫無疑問的理所當然，及所有事物都彷彿包裹在夢幻泡泡舒適圈的反擊與反思，主要藉由各個時代主流媒體進行批判，例如19世紀的小說、20世紀的多媒體，到21世紀的互動媒體，但同時，把Critical矛頭只對準主流似乎也是另一種漫不經心的理所當然，不禁思考：為什麼？主流之所以為主流難道不是正確符合了大多數人的期待，另外非主流不公不義的事難道不值得批判嗎？我認為有以下幾種可能：
※主流通常資源利益龐大，相關成員眾多且複雜，最有可能失控
※主流的另面意思就是擁有最多使用或愛好者，透過批判主流可以創造最廣泛的認識
※批判主流才會變成另類主流的聚光燈效應
※主流通常也是正在快速發展及不完全成熟的力量，需要批判與辯證來協助找出新方向
2010年之後，拜智慧型手機高滲透率之賜，電子科技互動介面成為顯學，並與日常生活形成更緊密的交織共生，這些電子裝置無限延伸了整個互動脈絡進入生活經驗中，因此產生許多新的問題或模糊的空間，例如很多時候我們只能把互動的開關轉到被孤立與被控制兩個極端，如同手機通訊軟體LINE，若開啟就要時時刻刻保持注意力讓所有朋友訊息都能第一時間“已讀”，若關閉又會被朋友間的互動隔絕，也正是因為這些疑惑，才需要Critical Design來建立反思的機會，也因此會有所謂ambient disply的論述，有機會從互動媒體困境中逃脫。

反思
在Critical Design從默默無名的角落，逐漸邁向更多人熟悉的新知識體系，又有如Shaowen Bardzell和Jeffrey Bardzell到台灣來演講，推廣相關Critical Design的論述，經過不斷的努力，當有一天它成為了某一種的主流，這種反主流意念本身又該如何自處？就如同龐克、搖滾、嘻哈變成主要流行文化的一部分，反骨變成大賣場熱銷的商品，所有向主流挑釁、叫囂、宣戰的動作該往哪裡去？我認為這也是Dunne& Raby一直把Critical Design定義在精英階層並不願說清楚的原因，一個小眾與模糊的概念不可能成為主流，Critical Design就可以一直站穩在主流的對立面，繼續揮舞著戰旗。但反面來說，一個為Critical而Critical的知識體系又是對的嗎？它本來應該是一種鼓勵反思主流的詩意空間卻變成一個必須被不斷填入的無底洞。
設計史中我們可以看見一代代的主流更迭，例如巴黎1925年Art Deco博覽會時，現代主義教父Le Corbusier也大喇喇跳進去參展，對巴黎的都市更新提出瓦贊計畫（Plan Voisin），以絕對理性挑戰當時的主流裝飾美學，以當時社會氛圍不得不說這是一種詩意挑釁，唯一不同的是Corbusier對主流批判在於期望自己變成主流，而且後來也的確成為席捲全球的國際形式建築代表人物。所以Dunne& Raby挑戰主流卻又不願成為主流，實在是蠻弔詭的一個狀況，難道是根本沒有自己中心思想而只能依靠挑釁主流來證明自己“還在”？我想也許再過一段時間才會慢慢顯露出更多認識，尤其在Shaowen Bardzell和Jeffrey Bardzell的大作嘗試讓Critical Design變得更清楚後，就看Dunne& Raby如何回應。 

未來
早期「Design Thinking」是IDEO內部一種模糊的、非制式化的、不見諸文字的專案流程共識，它甚至不是一種“知識”，在1999的ABC News的"Deep Dive"以一個改善賣場購物車的專案展示了何為Design Thinking協作進程，但這種模糊的意識並無法變成一種可被傳遞的體系，也僅存於IDEO的菁英群體內，直到後來透過David Kelley積極演講推廣，並形成文字與圖表的明確化、制式化、大眾化，Design Thinking逐漸變成一種設計與創新上的主流顯學，也有許多人把Design Thinking視為一種新的知識體系，許多大學也放進課程之中。而我認為Critical Design也逐漸走上類似的道路。同時，東方哲學體系是否應該全盤接受這種外放、直接、表演式的批判，我認為是有疑慮的，尤其我們的教育一直不認為公開“爭辯”是有益的，舉例來說：兩個學生吵架，師長第一步先叫雙方閉嘴，然後就會充當和事佬並要求雙方各自離開，而不是引導雙方找出爭辦裡的事實，如同前述，東方哲學長久以來均以“和”為貴，有可能逐漸轉向嗎？應該很難。但若說如此就沒有任何機會建立反思的體系也未必，論語說：見賢思齊，見不賢內自省。一如老師說的反身性，我認為，透過反省後把自己變成一種互動的批判暗示或隱喻，如同對照組鏡射出不賢的問題點，難道不是一種“中庸的挑釁”？由此觀點來看Critical不必然是主動或發聲批評的，與其花時間展覽一堆假的Critical Design來喧聲批判主流，還不如真的創造出心中理想的形式，由大眾自己去作對照，迂迴的批判。我認為是東方思想體系下比較可行的模式。