I was reminded this morning of an old Dotcom Era commercial from IBM. With some helpful prompting on Twitter, I eventually tracked it down. As you can see—pixelated video notwithstanding—IBM had some of the main concepts of Google Glass covered back in 2000, notably the clear presentation of the wearer as a jerk.
One of the standard jobs in software development these days is UX Design. User Experience covers “any aspect of a user’s experience with a given system … addressing all aspects of a product or service as perceived by users.” Products like Google Glass make it clear that we should formalize the development process further to include what we can call “Experience of User” or XU Design. The XU Designer’s job will be to assess and tweak how third parties experience the users of your product or service. Is the XU experience intrusive? Is it annoying? Do our product’s XU Metrics all point in the direction of “Christ, what an asshole?” As the XU specialty develops we can trace its history back to phenomena like people loudly using cellphones in public, or people talking to you while wearing headphones, and the various ways norms and tolerances developed for these practices, or failed to develop. Right now, though, it looks like Google Glass is shaping up to be the leading XU Design disaster of our time.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to trademark the term XU Design and start a consulting company.
{ 23 comments }
bill benzon 05.06.13 at 4:25 pm
Tyler Cowen just posted a link to an article saying Google Glass is not ready for prime time, far from it:
http://www.businessinsider.com/nobody-really-likes-google-glass-2013-5
One of the problems is that it visibly distracts the user from attending to ongoing face-to-face interaction.
ben wolfson 05.06.13 at 5:04 pm
Lots of fake buddha quotations. “Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.†is also often attributed to Confucius, for some reason.
RSA 05.06.13 at 5:35 pm
This already falls under the larger umbrella of human-computer interaction, though not in the specialized area I’m in. I think most work toward understanding the social environment can be found in computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW) and mobile and ubiquitous computing (Ubicomp). On usability and user experience, Don Norman (a well-known cognitive scientist who thinks about these issues) advocates that designers think about activities rather than focusing too closely on the individual, which seems relevant here.
Still, I expect someone could make a bundle as a consultant on this.
Jonas 05.06.13 at 5:57 pm
I think you’re mistaking the feature for a bug. Being able to state to the world that you are oblivious to their annoyance is part of the “charm.” In a way, that’s been the case since the original sunglasses.
clew 05.06.13 at 6:26 pm
since the original sunglasses.
and the quizzing-glass and the monocle… Oho. Could one draw Google Glass wearers as fops in monocles without making them feel flattered?
David 05.06.13 at 7:44 pm
Gonna be boomboxes all over again.
Bloix 05.06.13 at 9:38 pm
It would be less annoying if it were symmetrical. A huge part of its dorkyness is the asymmetry it imposes on the face, for which symmetry is a major aspect of what we judge as beauty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_symmetry
For me, it has something of the effect of a wall-eye – it’s disturbing to look at a person wearing one.
Substance McGravitas 05.06.13 at 9:50 pm
Not to mention the non-user.
I’m looking forward to customized gestural interfaces for all our wearable gizmos. I want to be able to shake my fist and have everything power off.
Sharon 05.07.13 at 12:16 am
I you could save a boat load of money and just buy a “Clapper!”
robotslave 05.07.13 at 6:13 am
It seems odd that no-one has called Mr. Healy out on this, so here goes:
The discipline you describe not only exists, but is far larger and more profitable than the odd little niche of software UI/UX that you seem so pleased with yourself for knowing about.
The market segment you appear to be attempting to conjure as a laughable bit of satire is commonly referred to as “The Fashion Industry.”
To write that, without so much as a nod to the leviathan that is Fashion in our contemporary political economy, one’s experience “feminism” would have to consist almost entirely of reading academic papers.
Walt 05.07.13 at 6:37 am
The reason, robotslave, is that generally if you “call someone out” over a silly joke, you look like a dick.
robotslave 05.07.13 at 6:46 am
@11
You’re right, of course.
If it’s a joke, you’re totally a dick for suggesting it might not be a bad idea to have a look at the attitudes and assumptions that went into the construction of the joke.
Substance McGravitas 05.07.13 at 7:14 am
Oscar de la Renta has designed with yelping and ticcing in mind?
robotslave 05.07.13 at 7:45 am
@13
If you want to assess the worth of your own yelpings and your own ticcings by reference to a man in his 80s, then by all means, knock yourself out.
The more commercial/profitable (though far less The-New-Yorker-profile-able) bulk of the Fashion Industry seems to be appealing to much younger people. As ever.
pedant 05.07.13 at 10:37 am
I think robotslave has it right: Kieran’s proposed new discipline is actually “Fashionable User Design.”
And Google Glasses certainly radiate the esthetic of FU Design.
Katherine 05.07.13 at 12:25 pm
Whatever else they are, these things are absolutely no good for people who already wear glasses. I guess it is assumed that all people with sight difficulties wear contact lenses, but it just ain’t so.
See also – 3D glasses for films.
Substance McGravitas 05.07.13 at 2:03 pm
The Fashion Industry seems to have a lot of use for A Man In His 80s. So what’s A Representative Fashion Industry Insider in their 20s doing regarding the Necessity of Winking?
Ben Alpers 05.07.13 at 2:23 pm
The man in the IBM commercial seems to be displaying such attrocious, transcultural assholery that he has cleared the Piazza San Marco of people (tho’ not pigeons).
phosphorious 05.07.13 at 4:54 pm
Ben Alpers @ 18
“The man in the IBM commercial seems to be displaying such attrocious, transcultural assholery that he has cleared the Piazza San Marco of people (tho’ not pigeons).”
I had the same thought. Tacit admission perhaps, that using their product makes you unpleasant to be around?
Adam Bradley 05.07.13 at 7:57 pm
@16 My understanding is there are plans for a version that can have prescription lenses fitted to them–which raises an additional privacy concern: Will it be apparent that someone’s glasses have a Google Glass built into them?
Substance McGravitas 05.07.13 at 8:03 pm
Here’s a long demo video. Right now it’s obvious.
David 05.09.13 at 5:14 am
Far be it from me to take issue yet again with Katherine, but, while I agree with her main point there are good 3-D glasses for glasses wearers.
Katherine 05.09.13 at 11:04 am
There may well be good 3-D glasses for glasses wearers, but not down at my local cinema.
Anyway, interesting to know that there may be prescription Google Glasses. Although somewhat disturbing that everyone will be walking around wearing effectively the same model frames. Only a matter of time before they get designers in on the act though.
Comments on this entry are closed.