Fitting everything into 10 or 15 minutes is challenging, but makes for a dense overview of new ideas. If anyone stopped by and has any thoughts to share please email or comment. It was difficult to find room for conversation during the session with so much going on.

…update…
Here are the slides from the talk.

An Experiment In Cord Cutting

1. Communal Computing
2. Modes of Interaction
3. Leniency of Input
4. Modes of Free Gesture

Note that the focus of the design discussion is on average users and if/how new platforms will become a part of everyday lives and culture. When talking about specialized professional uses like industrial design, architecture, film editing, health/science, etc., the UI may indeed mimic sci-fi imagery more directly.

1. Communal Computing
This is the aspect I feel will establish large screens as their own unique platform and makes them truly different from being just a bigger version of something people already have. The elements that provide the basis for communal computing are shown in the diagram below.

- Large scale screens are often used in sci-fi for their cinematic and immersive qualities. However, IRL, scale is primarily used to reach multiple people. A large screen for a single user is often hard to use, not private, and unnecessarily expensive.

- Interactivity just refers to the fact that the screen accepts user input and has processing capabilities as opposed to only being a display (like a movie theatre screen or billboard).

- Natural input like touch, gesture, or voice is often used in films because it’s novel, demonstrative or literal, and it appears effortless. IRL, natural input is easily accessible in casual situations.

These qualities overlap to create the new idea of communal computing. This multi-user context is a key idea in strategizing for these new platforms. The resulting use case combinations are not often considered by interactive designers but can make for exciting new experiences.

Considerations for Communal Computing
With multiple users, who controls the screen and how? Video games are often a great starting point in addressing these questions. A familiar way to deal with this situation is to let one user control what’s going on. In early multi-player games, the system told users whose turn it was (the old 1-up, 2-up).
Another variant is to have users themselves figure it out as they do with the TV remote. Though these are not new techniques they are still very effective when 1 person is controlling the screen at a time since they bring clarity. Advances in input such as multiple controllers or natural user interface (NUI) actually complicate single user control since users either are confused as to who is controlling the input or in conflict.

To accommodate multiple users at once, split-screens are a simple solution. It allows for collaborative learning in that new users can both watch and participate. They can establish an understanding of the computer and a rapport other users gradually.

Though more complex, allowing multiple users shared access to the same screen space where they can engage and connect with each other is ideal. A combination of shared screen approaches can be used at different points in interaction and for different features.

Personalization
With multiple users on a screen, user recognition is not a given as it is with personal computing platforms. Most personal computers and mobile devices are built for one user or allow for login on the very top level of entry (requiring users to back out of the system). And the degree of personalization they enable with stored account logins, cookies and innovative algorithms is extremely high. This presents a challenge in delivering the type of easy access and features users have to expect with the casual entry and exit nature of group computing. Login often cannot be automatic and even once login is achieved, the user may be hard to track. Communal platforms are inherently not private – entering, displaying or storing personal information can create serious problems.

Schematic addressed this problem in the touch wall designed for the Cannes Lions festival in 2009 by using RFID tags in attendees badges. This was an effortless way to tie users to personalized data onscreen and felt like magic to unsuspecting users.

When such a solution isn’t possible, another approach is to find value in group identity or shared experiences. Find other factors to inform algorithms (ie. time of day, usage patterns, hand size, voice quality) to provide benefits associated with personalization without knowing distinct identities. Overall, strike a balance, make it unobtrusive, and think of cost to payoff.

The Computer’s Role
A final note about communal computing is to consider the computer’s “personality”. In a group situation, the features chosen for a system and the style of implementation will result in giving the computer a role in the social dynamic. It can be a patient teacher that is straightforward and gives its audience instruction, prompting, and encouragement. It can be more elusive and experimental like an art installation. Alternatively it can be a dumb robot putting too much responsibility on user initiation. Or it can be annoying, like “Clippy” constantly trying to help or a used car salesman shouting at people to buy their product.

One interesting idea is to imagine a touch surface in a semi-public setting (like a conference) acting as good host, introducing people based on data unknown to the people themselves. Conference goers are often try to network and make face-to-face connections. While there are a glut of social networking applications on personal platforms, the transition from a cyberspace connection to a real world connection is still a barrier. At a communal computer that has background information on its users, the display could alert the users as to some commonality in profession, geography, or common event they are attending. Context is important and there is even some degree of stage-fright for some users who go up to a large display without knowing what to do. But creating very basic connections with and between users makes for powerful “wow” moments.

Conclusion
For all the capabilities and conveniences our personal devices give us they sometimes lead us into our own little digital cocoons. Communal computing is inspiring in breaking our attachment with devices and interacting with the people around us whether it be strangers, colleagues, or our families. This leads us to the unexpected. Far from the cold or dystopian visions of sci-fi, these technologies can allow for the true social connections that we crave.

The first panel I got to was Touch + The Holy Grail of Delight. This seemed the most like Beyond Sci-fi so I was especially curious. Turns out it’s a bit of a different focus, theirs being retail. They talked through their use cases on immersive out-of-home touch screens that augment and personalize product information in stores.

There is some crossover with my talk in getting at the importance of multi-platform strategy. Us UX designers just can’t stand the thought of porting what’s essentially a web site to these emerging platforms. The more we can get that across to clients the better!

Being a touchy-feely day, I also caught A Touchy History of the Future. The talk basically covered some emerging and futuristic technologies like brain interfaces, RFID, jetpacks, etc. with some thoughts on how compelling or viable they were. Um, I think. They were actually couched in terms of how compelling or viable they were in a future zombie apocalypse. Kinda funny, kinda random. But I agree with Stassi on voice (it’s too loud).

The last one I caught was PayTV vs. Internet – The Battle For Your TV. Or rather, I caught the first few minutes until the Austin Convention Center had to be evacuated (!). I think it turned out a false alarm, but in the confusion I didn’t catch the rest – and really wish I did.

I wished the *showdown* between Cuban and Ronen was framed a little better for those unfamiliar with their apparent blogging saga. I didn’t entirely know what they were fighting about being that the issue is large and complicated. But from the little I saw as well as the blogging and scanning some tweets, I’d have to side with Cuban.

From looking his blog, I believe Ronen is naive as to how complex and interconnected the economics and practicalities of content production, marketing/distribution and infrastructure are. He sees the current system as flawed and the inevitable direction more choice and segmentation. But the current system works for the average user. You can try to end broadcast as we know it, but something fairly similar would spring up in it’s place.

We at SXSW are a unique bunch. We crave interactivity and choice and open systems, but for most people all that amounts to is more work (to find media) and much less payoff (in quality). Content bubbles up in You Tube because of one reason: it’s short. People are not going to browse 1/2 or 1 hour shows or 2 hour movies to find what’s good. That would take all day. Someone else will end up doing it. And while they’re at it, they should make the quality better so it doesn’t look like it was shot in someone’s bedroom. And next thing you know, you got an industry of networks and production companies that is looking for exposure through the people who build a wide-reaching technical platform, i.e. cable companies.

I also think the hate of cable companies is curious in that they seem to be the potential partners of the Boxee business model (making the software and hardware of set-top boxes). I totally understand the burning desire to make a single, optimized platform. TV platforms are unique (in a bad way) because unlike any other device, the TV is a single display that switches between a bunch of wildly different computers that are running through it. Integration is a noble goal, but you would need more that a great UI for that experience. You need content and the wires to get it to people.

Granted, I’m not exactly non partisan on this issue. I work on UI for, oddly enough, Ronen’s own maligned provider Cablevision. Because of vastly different technology and histories, the iTV and internet communities have strangely little contact together, but people in iTV certainly know of UI trends and social networking. The development cycles are also huge and hardware roll-out is glacial as opposed to the ADD device replacement of consumer-driven PCs and web. There are definitely ways iTV can change and it indeed is. There’s just a lot of procedural and economic complexity dealing with infrastructure and content licensing. TV can learn from the internet, but I also think the internet is also going to have to deal with this – only in retrospect. You used to have a business model first, then work on the product. Internet sometimes works in the opposite way, but you eventually have to end up in the same place – viable and sustainable.

I’m really trying to understand this issue in that it’s a crucial one for the future of ALL media. It relates to similar challenges in music and (in the wake of Kindle and iPad) books and is one I hope to explore in greater depth. But for now, I really must get some sleep. -.-

…update…
Here are the slides from our talk (with some very slight revisions for web posting). Podcast is scheduled to post in August.