DesigningFutureEnvironments

David Kirsh

Dept of Cognitive Science

UCSD

Agenda

• Background: Technology is outpacing design

• Science: How are we coupled to our environments?

• Comparing Environments Scientifically

• Design considerations

Background of Inquiry:Technology

– Walls are data walls

– Internet everywhere

– Wireless everything

– Near field haptics

– Easy telepresence

– Effective digitization of paper

– Sensors make it easy to cross from

physical to digital

– Rooms are context aware

Background of Inquiry: Theory

• A new theory of how people areembedded in their environments– We are closely coupled to our

environments

• The environment we inhabit is partiallythe product of our own structuringactions

• dynamics of this coupling must beanalyzed at many time scales

• we learn to exploit the dynamics ofinteraction

World acts back

Part of a system

Basic Question

So what?

How does new cognitive theory explainhow to make new tech useful?

Answer

– How material scienceguides architects

• Provides constraints ondesign – allows us to saythat design will not work

– Physics guides engineers

• It is beginning to provide principles toguide designers. Similar to:

Gehry’s Disney Auditorium

The environment we inhabit is partially theproduct of our own structuring actions

One powerful idea

Create vs. Project Structure

Project structure mentally

ecesrrruutt

ee cs rrr uu tt

ece s rrr uu tt

vs.

ecesrrruutt

Create structure physically

The environment we inhabit is partially theproduct of our own structuring actions

One powerful idea

The environment we inhabit is partially theproduct of our own structuring actions

One powerful idea

Dynamic coupling

ecesrrruutt

ee cs rrr uu tt

ece s rrr uu tt crust strut e

restructure

a. dynamics exist at many time scales

b. we learn to exploit the dynamics of interaction

Another powerful idea

Time Scaleslog time

(secs)

complementary actions

maintenance actions

-

preparatory actions-

-

-

1 sec

10 sec

100 sec

1000 sec

Complementary Actions

Close Spatial & TemporalCoupling

• external action must occur at the rightmoment wrt internal processes

How many dots?

which is longer?

which is longer?

which is longer?

Fingers can be used tocompensate for perceptual

limitations• exploit vernier perception

Fingers can be used tocompensate for perceptual

limitations• exploit vernier perception

We manipulate localresources to compensate forlimitations in other judgments

Tetris

Rotations help Judgment

most rotationsphysical rotationfaster than mental rotation

Even Experts Rotate Extra

To disambiguate mirror pieces

rotate

How to CompareEnvironments

Comparing Environments

Env 2Env 1

What makes one environment better thananother for accomplishing a task?

Why?

Behavioral measure of better

time errors errors on hardest stress interruption problem

solvable

E1 > E2

performance

problem hardness

Env 2

Env 1Env 2Env 1 >

0

Cognitive measures of better

• The same problem or task may be solvedor performed with less cognitive load.Reduced:

• computation

• memory

• stress

• sustained concentration

• Harder problems or tasks may be solved

Why is E1> E2? Simple Example

On which surface is it easier to solve the problem below?

A B

Problem:

Arrange the blocks so that• green touches red• red touches yellow• yellow touches yellow

A is better

green touches red red touches yellow yellow touches yellow

Larger surface allows more solutions

Simple Causes

• If abundant space→ no need to schedule, optimize,swap

• change problem constraints→ change solution possibilities

Would this be better for …

• Organize the location ofresources

• But:• Simple organizational

system

• Reduced opportunism

• Less conducive tomultitasking

• How does this personactually work?

More interesting Causes of E1> E2

• Change the cognitive congeniality of theenvironment

– embed hints, intelligent agents, make constraintsmore explicit (magnets repel or attract)

– Improve cognitive affordances – scope forepistemic actions

– Context aware computing –track activity andproject personal metadata

• change the cognitive workflow of a task– add paper– solve it collaboratively

More interesting Causes of E1> E2

• Exploit possibilities for complementary actions -i.e. internal-ext coordination

– use our hands to help us think

– manipulate physical objectsto save mental manipulation

• Tetris examples:

– physical rotation saves mental

– physical translation improves certainty

Externalization

Representation Shifting

Visual Thinking - Representation

Recognition vs. Recall

Epistemic Actions

Pragmatic vs EpistemicActions

Jigging the Environment

Bad Interface

Better Interface

Better still

Interactivity

Interactivity & Externalization

Change Env Change problem

Coordinating Mechanisms

Starbuck’s Cup

Speed Accuracy & Design

Learnability & Design

Complexity & Design

Error Recovery & Design

Variance & Design

Bean Counters & Design