Category: Interaction Design

The concept invented by Christoph Alexander for architecture has been taken up and adapted by the software industry. One of the first publications on software pattern was Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software in 1993. Followed by Patterns of Software, Tales from the Software Community by Richard P. Gabriel in 1996. [1] In the article of design pattern a pattern is defined as a solution to a recurring problem in a particular context. (Gamma et al. (1995, page 2-3) ) Dirk Riehle and Heinz Züllighoven define a pattern as mental concept which derives from our experience. Only through past experience can we recognize patterns at all. The recognition of patterns always takes place in retrospect. If there was a good solution to a problem, if we know this solution, if the concept of the solution fits our new problem, we can use it. To do this, it can and in most cases must be adapted and can be improved. A pattern is therefore a template for future solutions based on solutions that have already proven themselves. If the context of the pattern does not fit the context of use, there is a mismatch and adapting the pattern to the new concept could be more work and also more expenses. [2]

A solution which has proven itself through practical application, usefulness and repetition can become a pattern. To meet the requirements of a pattern the solution must be useful, applicable in the similar context and reused by others.[3]

Dirk Riehle and Heinz Züllighoven describe three general pattern types:

Conceptual patterns

Conceptual patterns are a kind of mental model of the work situation and the corresponding system. They are used to understand the user and his tasks. They must be abstract enough to be applicable to other situations, but not too specific, otherwise they cannot be reused. In my opinion, this can be compared to pattern of process, closely related to creating scenarios in the UX process.

Design patterns

Design pattern in software design have nothing to do with surface design, it describes the intent of a pattern and explains problem and solution which can be solved with the pattern. They show the structure and construction of the code and contains objects, classes, inheritance, aggregation and relations. A Framework on the other hand consists of design pattern and components. A pattern is more a best practice, a framework is collection of components based on design pattern. Both concepts follow the same purpose, which is the reuse of former solutions to save time for development.

Programming patterns

A programming pattern is closely related to the specific programming language. It is about programming styles in certain programming languages. [3]

A lot of approaches tried to make software development easier less time consuming, like higher-level programming, languages, object-oriented programming, faster computers, design methodologies, compilers, debuggers, editors, programming environments, automatic programming and artificial intelligence. In 1996 programming was still something not a lot of people are able to do.

Richard Gabriel explains a common problem of this industry by comparing it to craft of building bridges. Bridge building has a long history and profound methods and technologies the engineers can draw upon. These advantages do not exist in software design, and with constantly evolving technology, software engineering must also constantly adapt. [4]

Also the reuse of code, which was supposed to speed up the development process, was not yet mature at that time. Developers had to have a central repository, they had to find the right piece of code, which had to be documented to understand not only the purpose but also the code itself. It is often easier and faster to write the code yourself then to search, find and understand code to reuse it. [5]

A solution for this can be found in design pattern. If programmers know a certain pattern they understand it more easily and can work with it faster. Gabriel compares it with the structure of language – if people know the most common patterns they can use it. [6] A problem can be solved with more than one pattern, so it needs a certain context to work effectively. Using a pattern is also not just copying because it will not work with certain circumstances. [7]

• [1] Understanding and Using Patterns in Software Development, Dirk Riehle and Heinz Züllighoven, 1996
• [2] Understanding and Using Patterns in Software Development, Dirk Riehle and Heinz Züllighoven, 1996, P. 2-3
• [3] Understanding and Using Patterns in Software Development, Dirk Riehle and Heinz Züllighoven, 1996, P. 4
• [4]Patterns of Software, Tales from the Software Community, Richard P. Gabriel, 1996 [preface p. 12-13]
• [5]Patterns of Software, Tales from the Software Community, Richard P. Gabriel, 1996 [P. 3-4]
• [6]Patterns of Software, Tales from the Software Community, Richard P. Gabriel, 1996 [P. 26]
• [7]Patterns of Software, Tales from the Software Community, Richard P. Gabriel, 1996 [P. 46-47]

On Instagram, people tend to present themselves in a highly curated and idealized way, often portraying an image of a perfect and happy life. This can be achieved through the use of filters, photo editing tools, and selective posting. It’s not uncommon for users to only post the highlights of their lives and to avoid sharing the more mundane or difficult aspects.

Additionally, many users tend to use filters and other editing tools to enhance their photos and to present themselves in the best possible light. These tools can be used to conceal imperfections, to change the lighting and color of a photo, or to add special effects. This can create an unrealistic and misleading representation of a person’s life and appearance.

It’s important to remember that the images we see on Instagram are not always an accurate representation of reality. Many users are presenting an idealized version of themselves, and we should be cautious of comparing our own lives to the filtered and curated images we see on the platform.

There are several reasons why people tend to present themselves in an idealized and curated way on Instagram. One major factor is the desire for validation and attention. Instagram is a platform that is based on likes, comments, and followers, and users may feel pressure to present a positive image in order to gain more engagement and followers.

Another reason is the fear of rejection and the desire to fit in. Instagram can be a highly competitive platform, and users may feel pressure to present themselves in a certain way in order to be accepted by their peers. Additionally, users may also feel pressure to present a certain image in order to be attractive to potential partners or to be successful in their careers.

Instagram’s design also plays a role in encouraging this behavior. The platform’s algorithm prioritizes posts with higher engagement, which means that users who present an idealized image of themselves are more likely to gain visibility and followers. Additionally, Instagram’s features, such as filters and editing tools, make it easy for users to present an idealized image of themselves.

However, this tendency to present an idealized image of oneself can be toxic. It can lead to feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem among users who feel like they can’t measure up to the curated images they see on the platform. Additionally, it can create a distorted and unrealistic image of reality, which can be harmful for users who are trying to form an accurate understanding of themselves and the world around them.

Moreover, the constant need to present an idealized version of oneself can be time-consuming and can lead to the neglect of real life connections and experiences. It can also lead to a lack of authenticity, which can make it hard for users to form meaningful connections on the platform.

In conclusion, while Instagram’s design can encourage users to present an idealized image of themselves, it’s important to be aware of the potential negative consequences of this behavior and to find a balance between the curated image we want to show and the real one.

I mean seriously, when was the last time you saw or heard anything about 3D TVs? At one time this technology was on a wave of popularity, but today few people will remember it. In this article, I’d like to look at a couple of examples of this technology, which was, what they call, on a hype cycle, but ended up not being needed.

Eywa is eternal and 3D TVs are not.

In the late 2000s, the producers of televisions, monitors and even mobile phones actively pursued the theme of 3D. It was even announced that a new era of 3D television had dawned. Perhaps it all started before Avatar arrived in cinemas, but the film made things faster as everyone got addicted to 3D. The high price did not deter consumers, although any TV with 3D function was much more expensive than its analog, only without 3D. The manufacturers of tablets and phones started making “3D devices” out of a feeling of profit. But they were not very popular, and over time, sales of 3D TVs began to fade as well.

As a result, by 2017, many companies had stopped releasing new 3D TVs. What is the reason for this? It can be explained by several factors:

Untimeliness. Several years before 3D TVs entered the market, consumers had already purchased the then-new HDTVs and not all potential customers wanted to splurge.

High cost. Not enough to own a TV, you have to buy 3D content for it! This, of course, is a very expensive treat, Blu-ray with 3D support, new 3D enabled cable/satellite set-top boxes and the like.

The need for additional equipment. One word: glasses. Or rather a few words: glasses which only fit one type of TV and again cost money, especially if we’re talking about active shutter glasses.

In general, 3D has over time become an occasional entertainment, going to the cinema once a month to see a 3D movie is fine, but investing in a home 3D system has simply not been profitable.

To wire or not to wire

In 2012, Nokia launched the Lumia 820 and Lumia 920. The feature of these phones was wireless charging. I myself became a lucky owner of the Nokia Lumia 920 around 2014 and bragged terribly about being able to charge the phone without a wire. At the time, I thought it was the future of chargers. However, almost ten years have passed and wireless charging technology hasn’t really made much headway. This approach has a number of design disadvantages that are not easy to overcome.

The inability to use the phone while charging.
This is an aspect that particularly annoyed me while using a Nokia. You had to wait for the phone to charge before you could use it again. The charging stand allows you to place the phone in an upright position and not interrupt use. But it’s still not very convenient, as one wrong move of the hand would move the smartphone off the coil and the battery recharge would be interrupted. Wires are more reliable in this regard.

Extra cost.
Another obvious disadvantage of wireless charging is the need to additionally purchase a docking station. Of course, it doesn’t come with the phone. While many manufacturers equip smartphones with a factory USB cable. It turns out that wireless charging requires additional costs. A quality wireless charger from a reputable manufacturer will cost at least $20-25. Multifunctional chargers for several devices are mostly available at prices starting at $40. Not all users are willing to spend that much money to purchase an additional accessory. In order to save money, it is better to use a regular wire, especially if it comes with the phone.

Low charging speed.
Wireless charging is significantly less powerful than wired charging. For example, the top flagship Xiaomi 12 Pro (Dimensity Version) has a 67-watt wired and a 50-watt wireless charger. On paper it seems like a small difference, but in reality the smartphone will be powered up much faster from the cable. It’s a similar situation with the new Google Pixel 7: a wired 30-watt charger will power the battery up to 50% in just 30 minutes, while a wireless one will take about an hour. If you’re in a hurry, you’re better off using a cable.

Funny observation: even complimentary articles written about wireless charging acknowledge the advantage of charging from a cable, but as if urging the reader to appreciate that the creators at least tried. Truly necessary technology doesn’t usually need such reassurance.

Big Brother is watching you. Or is he?

Back in 2012, Google Glass seemed like a real miracle. Something we could only imagine in sci-fi movies. “The future is already here” was written by various publications. But is it really so? From our current perspective we can say definitely not. But why, what has happened?

There are two main reasons, technical and social. The second includes privacy issues. When Google Glass was desperately publicised, some were already beginning to be wary of the device. The glasses were even banned from bars and cinemas. And in general, with growing concerns about the protection of personal data, the ethics of such a device are being questioned a great deal.

However, this is a minor point when you consider that in reality Google Glass is simply useless. Uncomfortable controls, laggy interface, overheating problems, very low battery life (literally a couple of hours) – after all, what is Google Glass good for anyway? It’s easier to put a GoPro on your head for hands-free video shooting. The browser could only be used by people who like pain, and while driving the glasses were distracting and even caused a few accidents.

The most interesting thing is that Google hasn’t given up on their product. Not once has anyone from the top management of the corporation called Google Glass a failure or announced the cancellation of the product. The commercial release of the device has been constantly postponed. Tony Fadell, formerly of Apple, was brought on board. Five years ago, he was tasked with bringing the device to fruition. Rumours of an upgraded version of Google Glass have been circulating online from time to time, but whether it will reach users is a big question.

In conclusion, I have made one interesting point since writing this article. Marketing is a powerful thing. However, it is not durable at all.

References:

3D TV Is Dead—What You Need To Know. (2021, April 17). Lifewire. https://www.lifewire.com/why-3d-tv-died-4126776

Proença, E. (2013, August 9). Review: Wireless Charger for Nokia Lumia 820 and Lumia 920. Showmetech. https://www.showmetech.com.br/en/review-wireless-charger-for-nokia-lumia-820-and-lumia-920/

Leow, V. (2021, July 14). Does Fast Wireless Charging Really Affect Your Phone Battery? https://chargeasap.com/blogs/news/does-fast-wireless-charging-really-affect-your-phone-battery

Srivastava, P. (2022, July 13). Why Google Glass Failed? Google Glass Failure Case Study. StartupTalky. https://startuptalky.com/google-glass-failure-case-study/

The Octalysis framework is a method for designing and analyzing gamification. It is based on 8 core drives that are the underlying motivations for human behavior. I find it interesting to think about how this could apply for the gamification of nature for children.

For example, using the “Epic Meaning and Calling” drive, children can feel like they are part of something bigger than themselves, such as protecting and preserving nature for future generations.

The “Development and Accomplishment” drive can be tapped into by providing children with opportunities to learn new skills and improve their abilities. A possible way to approach this could be by creating activities that involve nature observation, such as tracking animals, or identifying different types of plants and animals.

The “Empowerment of Creativity and Feedback” drive could be about giving children the freedom to create their own projects and receive feedback on their work such as providing children with the resources and guidance to create their own nature-based projects, like building a birdhouse or creating a nature sketchbook.

The “Ownership and Possession” drive could be engaged by giving children the opportunity to (unofficially) take ownership and responsibility for a small piece of nature, such as a garden or a tree. This could be reinforced by creating activities that involve planting, nurturing and caring for a small piece of nature.

A possible way to tap into the “Social Influence and Relatedness” drive could be by providing children with opportunities to share their nature experiences with others. If we are thinking about an app, an option for this would be by having a multiplayer mode or a way of sharing their accomplishments on the app with their friends.

In this case the “Unpredictability and Curiosity” drive could mean providing children with opportunities to explore and discover new things in nature all while keeping their interest.

The “Scarcity and Impatience” drive can be engaged by highlighting the urgency of conservation and the importance of nature. This could mean focusing on endangered species, or raising awareness about the impacts of pollution and climate change in a child friendly way.

The “Avoidance and Loss” drive could mean emphasizing the negative consequences of not taking action to protect nature and encouraging children to act to prevent loss. A possible way of doing this would be showing what their local park could look like if the environment was neglected.

Overall, the Octalysis framework could be an effective tool for gamifying nature experiences for children. By understanding the 8 core drives that motivate human behavior, it may be possible to create engaging and meaningful nature-based activities that tap into these drives.

Sources:

https://yukaichou.com/gamification-examples/octalysis-complete-gamification-framework/

In my last blog I was looking into the touchpoints between companies and teenagers. There were several ways how the communication takes place. In the following, I am blogging about “practical days” (dt. Berufspraktische Tage/ Schnuppertage).

What are pracitical days?

“On practical days, students observe and perform individual activities in the company for a short period of time and without remuneration. The practical days do not constitute an apprenticeship or any other type of employment relationship.

The practical vocational days enable the students to become acquainted with occupations, to correct false ideas about occupations and to self-critically examine their personal aptitudes and inclinations. In addition, practical vocational days provide the entrepreneur with support in selecting personnel.” [1]

How does the application for the practical days takes place?

For this I am reffering to my blogpost #4 where I interviewed a 14-year old who is attending the “Polytechnische Schule” and is going to start an apprenticeship in autumn 2023. He told me, that they have to do five internships in total. The first ones took place last year a few weeks after they started the semester and the last ones will take place in spring 2023. He spent his pracitcal days in two companies. Each for a week and he knew the companies from his teachers or had a private connection to it. Also there were constantly companies and representatives visiting the school and present their companies and the apprenticeships they offer.

To apply for the pracitcal days the students need to contact the companies themselve – mostly, they get a contact from the teachers who is responsible for apprenticeships in the enterprise. [2]

How does a typical practical day look like?

It always depends on the company but mostly the pupils are watch, ask questions and can try simple activities. The main goal is to get to know the work in a practice orientated environment.

Bibliography:

[1 ]https://www.wko.at/service/arbeitsrecht-sozialrecht/Berufspraktische_Tage.html

[2]https://pts-reutte.tsn.at/meine-ausbildung/der-weg-zur-lehre/berufspraktische-tage

Anonymity on Instagram is a double-edged sword, on one hand, it allows users to express themselves freely without fear of judgment or backlash, but on the other hand, it can also be used as a tool for cyberbullying and harassment.

Cyberbullying, also known as online bullying, is a form of bullying that occurs through digital devices and platforms like Instagram. It can take many forms, including name-calling, harassment, and spreading rumors. Anonymity on Instagram can make it easier for bullies to hide behind fake profiles or fake identities and to evade accountability for their actions.

Instagram’s design also plays a role in facilitating cyberbullying. The platform’s features, such as direct messaging and comments, make it easy for bullies to target their victims and to spread their hateful messages. Additionally, Instagram’s algorithm prioritizes posts with high engagement, which can amplify the reach and impact of negative comments and messages.

Moreover, Instagram’s system to report bullying or harassment is not effective, and it’s not easy to use. This can discourage victims from reporting the issue, and it can make it hard to track and stop bullies.

The reasons behind cyberbullying on Instagram are complex, and they can range from personal issues to societal problems. However, it’s important to remember that anonymous or not, cyberbullying is never acceptable, and that Instagram has a responsibility to design the platform in a way that prioritizes the safety and well-being of its users.

Forest kindergartens differ from other kindergartens in two main ways. Instead of being indoors, the children spend most of their time outdoors no matter the season. And instead of using conventional toys, they play mainly with the materials and objects that nature offers them.

Forest kindergartens and their teachers aim to take the different circumstances under which children grow up these days into account and want to compensate for the increasing lack of nature experiences and movement. In close connection with nature, the children experience all seasons and thus have the opportunity to learn holistically, to practice mindfulness with people and nature and to gain many fundamental experiences. Additionally, the fresh air and movement improves the kids’ physical and mental health and their motor skills and perception are great.

I think this is an interesting way of bringing the children closer to nature and comes with many benefits. But in order to form this connection to nature, the parents need to prioritize it and put their kids in forest kindergartens. This is a huge commitment and requires the full conviction of the parents. It would also be interesting to know how these children will be when they’re older and how their social skills differ from other kids’. Lastly, it is also worth noting that nature can be a source of danger whether that’s animals and the diseases they transmit or just the tree roots and uneven ground.

Sources:

https://www.herder.de/kindergarten-paedagogik/kita-leitung/handlungskonzepte-und-profile/waldkindergarten/

https://www.waldpaedagogik.at/waldpaedagogik/waldkindergaerten/?no_cache=1