Macadamian Blog

A Day Made of Glass 2

Recently, Corning released a second video in a series called “A Day Made of Glass”. Personally, a "world made of glass” isn’t where I really want to live (everything’s fine until someone casts the first stone…) but from a UX point of view there are some interesting things to think about.

Extreme Connectivity

Almost all videos like this assume a connection between devices that is far more advanced than exists today. In fact, many of the benefits illustrated in the user scenarios depend on it: little girls taking their "tablet" and using it to pick the music in the car, or doctors sliding information between their "tablets". Being able to do these things represents both a significant technological challenge and a familiar UX challenge. It’s essential that application designs consider the users’ contexts as they transition between environments and tasks in an extremely connected world. We already wrestle with this every day as we develop applications for today’s mobile devices.

Touch Manipulation

Almost all the user interactions depicted in Corning’s world made of glass work like a giant iPad. They "solve" the issue of the lack of fine motor skill actions (i.e. in which we need a mouse or keyboard today) by scaling up sizes and only showing scenarios in which users don't really need to enter data. In the real world, I suspect we'll need to find other ways to "dialogue" with devices. The dinosaur park virtual reality example is interesting in this regard. Eventually we'll be using voice more I suspect (Apple’s already on that path with Siri). Of course voice interaction isn’t necessarily very exciting for a glass company.

Walk Up and Use

In the video, kids go to the "dinosaur park" and everybody can easily use this stuff. That's a fantastic goal. Over time I’m sure UX designs will continue to improve and no doubt future generations (and different user types) will adapt to dealing with new technologies. But, as anyone who has ever tried designing them knows, ubiquitous walk up and use interfaces are extremely challenging. And the more devices, contexts and user types must be addressed, the more challenging it becomes. Even if the "touch rules" world Corning imagines ends up being how things evolve (which Siri and I debate) it’s an incredible challenge to achieve this degree of internalized understanding amongst so many different users. Not impossible, but man, they'll be a lot of money spent on UX design to create this world. (Go Corning!)

Technology Simplifies The Task

I don't believe in the "technology always simplifies my tasks" assumption we so often see in these types of videos. Neither does my mother. Is picking my shoes in the morning really easier with a giant glass display in the middle of my room? Is that really better than an organized closet? Is having a big glass barrier in the middle of my room worth the convenience?

Starting From The Technology

People who love technology tend to think everything will become integrated into technology. 50 years ago people imagined little robots flying around, brushing our teeth and tying our ties before we rocketed to work in our jet cars. But instead we have tablet computers, are driving essentially the same vehicles and aren’t even wearing ties much anymore.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s totally worthwhile imagining things that go beyond what is likely useful and implementable, if only to test what might in fact be useful. But you need to make sure when you do this type of imagining, that it’s with the understanding that only a small fraction of what you show will likely be worthwhile and much of what will evolve isn't even imagined. 

In the end though, the real flaw, from a UX design perspective, of this type of forecasting is the huge bias of starting with "what could glass do?" as the driving question, and then matching it to some of society’s/people's needs, rather than starting the other way around. Unfortunately, this happens all the time as products are developed. Product managers and engineers start with the premise “what could this product do?” rather than “what do people need?” Usually it’s because it’s a lot easier to answer the first question. Starting the other way around very often leads to something completely different (and, I dare say, with a greater probability of success).

Before you call me a Luddite or a curmudgeon, let me say that I definitely see the benefit of at least some of Corning’s ideas on learning, medical practices and so forth. While to properly evaluate these benefits you’d need experts in those areas, I think that creating and bringing scenarios like this to life is something absolutely worth doing. Only, think of the fingerprints…