UbiNET Smart Living

The UbiNET platform is a unified framework that considers all aspects of future living and is intended to deliver solutions that move humanity on from dealing with mundane transactional activities into Smart Living where these transactions are secondary to their benefits. The system provides absolute identity of everything, absolute ownership and absolute value.

Below are several use cases;

Ownership – when an item is purchased it becomes added to several new ecosystems through its embedded micro sensor; individual, family, community, state and nation.

While it may be considered that as resources become more scarce ownership will become much reduced and shared resources more common, even including telecommunication devices as profile identities become portable ownership will continue to be a focus for some time. The adoption, usage and recycling of material and energy of every item will become more and more critical to the world.

Recycling – an item lifecycle is monitored from creation to recycling, items that are not recycled retain a relationship with their last individual owner or other structure like business/organisation.

Unfortunately the notion of law is for some an imposition on them rather than the glue of society where they consider their choice to be destructive a right, it’s not. Rights are created by societies and their boundaries agreed in societies underwritten by laws and law enforcement. The UbiNET platform is agnostic on by who and how societies laws are enforced only that citizens should be accountable for their actions to the society they live in and affect. One key accountability is recycling and the full lifecycle of products. While this may seem invasive its already highly common for consumers to give this data to stores as part of the purchase transaction where they are rewarded with point. The stores in turn utilise this data for product manufactures and to understand store dynamics.

Identity and Value – items that are not recognized as being part of an ecosystem may not join one. Without full lifecycle data, the item will be considered to have no value, fraudulent or stolen.

Absolute identity of items creates huge value to consumers and businesses alike, it removes all fake goods from the supply chain and establishes brand and product trust. For business the benefits are clear by removing fake products that damage their brands or create a risk to consumers. Many people will think of handbags with this, yes but what about fake airplane parts or baby milk? While these items can be traced, businesses who make them can also be traced.

By using an inverse data analysis, a home or other place can detect a person that has no recognizable items and consider them a threat. They will not be allowed access and become the focus of Law Enforcement.

Personal and family security continue to me a major issue, the absolute identity of everything will also include people (concerned about human right read on). The right to be anonymous has never existed in any society. Since the 1950’s governments have focused on identifying its citizens, the difference with UbiNET is it identifies everyone. It does this through the micro sensors embedded in everyones clothing which will be different each day (we can’t share how this works for obvious reasons) and our twin AI blockchain. Suffice to say the UbiNET creates a proactive security net over the areas in which it is deployed.

Usage – two items in common use are guns and bullets, although an advanced sensor would be required is would be possible to create zones where bullets would not fire from guns as UbiNET would instruct the bullet to fail. There are a number of complexities around this use case, however given the complexity of building bullets even self-loader ammunition can have sensors added to the ignition cap.

This last use case involves Generation 2 of sensors, which we have not even started designing yet however the concept is sound based upon the deployment of UbiNET.

The above use cases are just the start, we already have financial services and medical use cases not listed which will be in our white paper for our crowdfunding launch of ThingCoin see ThingCoin as a SAFT release schedule now in tranche 1.

Tagged : / / /

#UbiNET twin #AI #Blockchain with mutating #security #algorithm

UbiNET platform architecture is built on two key components;

  • a twin blockchain written in an AI codebase called Ubi developed specifically for UbiNET
  • a mutating security algorithm derived from the unique platform functional architecture

By interlinking the security algorithm derived from every transaction only the next ordered AI blockchain knows what the structure of an acceptable contract is.

More to follow…….

Tagged : / / / / / /

Founder and Thought Leader

Karl Smith is a Founder and Director of The Human-Centered Design Society which is directly involved in central government policy in The House of Commons and The House of Lords through a number of committees including Associate Parliamentary Group for Design and Innovation. The British Computer Society has acknowledged him for his contribution to User Experience as a discipline with a Fellowship – FBCS.

Tagged : / / / /

#UX #IoT and #Blockchain with #KarlSmith of Paradigm Interactions Inc

, , and with Karl Smith of Paradigm Interactions Inc.

Karl Smith is an inventor of open network UbiNET which he has patented and a holistic transformation consultant more involved with how humans have to deal with technology than the technology itself. Karl Smith is also former Global Head of Mobility User Experience at Accenture and Partner (founder), Global Head of Digital Design at Wipro Digital, current Chairman of the Human Centered Design Society and has relaunched or launched Design as a USP in several global enterprises.

Karl has always been fascinated by how technology can augment the lives of humans, his desire was not to build things that humans already do but to find out how technology could evolve all human experience. He is still looking for the Gene Roddenberry future today where humanity pulls together and projects all of us the next stage of evolution. Transformation is at core of this evolution; he’s highly engaged in Ubiquity or the IoT as it is a gateway point.

Tagged : / / / / /

#SmartTechnologies to #SmartLiving

Trajectory from Smart Technologies to IoT Ecosystem and on to Smart Living

Something few people have grasped yet is that to get from Smart Technologies to IoT and on to Smart Living (Ubiquity) is a progression, not just in sensors, networks and device thinking, but also in ecosystem and task appraisal (to discern if they are even relevant not just the form of them) thinking. As with every other revolution not only does time and people change the meaning of the revolution they also change the trajectory.

At the Global 5G Test Summit at MWC17 in Barcelona the panel was asked what services will 5G bring, extend or establish as the killer services, quite rightly the panel answered that the key services of 4G were not known until the network capability was in place and they evolved by adoption, not by strategy alone.

Three Stages of IoT Evolution

IoT Smart Technologies, #IoT1

Smart Technologies relates to limited networks of control actions, sensors and rules setting devices around a small number of tasks, specific locations or limited markets. They can be added to relatively easily but ultimately can’t manage a whole ecosystem, without replacement. An example would be managing home based utilities; there are already many systems that manage, heating, lighting and security in one system. These systems don’t manage the whole home and all the tasks in a home, so don’t manage the Home Ecosystem. They are also restricted to non complex tasks that that have binary or stepped rules for controlling tasks. For example setting the heating times, temperature, managing lighting, responding to a proximity alert for security, that can be locally or remotely set and observed.

IoT Closed Ecosystems, #IoT2

Closed Ecosystem IoT relates to a fully integrated system of several types of network including machine to machine M2M, machine to human M2H and machine to data system M2D through an application gateway. Additionally these networks provide pre-connected and situational relationships dependent upon tasks, locations and users. An example would be a Home Ecosystem, again as this is the most likely location to get investment at this point in human society.

All possible actions and interactions within a home, including disallow rules (security and safety), policies related to sensors and personal ecosystems are defined and can be added to by users with the correct rights (on matters of safety for example only Parents would have the rights to set safety rules). Every sensor device (item group made from many items with a micro sensor), task (with an outcome) and activity (outcome not essential), item (everything not an item group or a device) can be included in the ecosystem. Personal ecosystems (personal avatar plus id, agenda, voice print, payment), location ecosystems (kitchen, living room, garden etc.) and an Adoption / Attribution Ecosystem (to manage purchase, transit and adoption).

An example of a task would be, an item group close to arrival (washing machine), then arrives, the Home Ecosystem advises a Parent Ecosystem of arrival through audible or voice alert, the Parent working in the garden greets the delivery vocally while remaining in current location and opens the door. The delivery staff enter the property, confirm they are fitting the item group, when it is connected the House Ecosystem sends a request to the Parent Ecosystem, “diagnostics good, adopt?” the Parent says “Adopt”, the House add the item group to the Kitchen and Parent ecosystems and the the House Ecosystem “Owned, Working, Value” and updates the Insurance provider, the fitters get a message Adopted and then leave. The Parent rates their service. While this is a simplified view and there are several other M2M processes that happen it shows that a closed Home Ecosystem enables the simplification of process and the ability for remote management of otherwise time consuming and stressful tasks.

IoT Smart Living, Open Ecosystems, UbiNET #IoT3

Open Ecosystem IoT is an evolution of IoT2 that enables an end to end lifecycle management of all items and item groups from material, through creation, use, disposal and recycling. It is not vested in Home only but also in Communities, States, Nations, Internationally and at Planet Level. It fundamentally changes our interactions, behaviors and relationship to work, institutions like banks and security.

#SmartLiving Payment Scenario – while having a coffee with a friend in their house a person sees a nice bowl and says, ‘buy bowl’. Their personal network checks the area and finds three bowls (items), it asks ‘white bowl’ the person says ‘Yes’ the bowl is ordered based upon the person’s personal preference which could be Speed, Price, Color or anything else, for this scenario it’s Speed the Protocol locates the nearest supplier and orders it for immediate delivery. The person carries on chatting and the bowel is delivered to their home and is waiting for when they get home. Payment is automated, they unpack look at the bowel and say, ‘Great Condition’ and feedback allocated is allocated to the carrier, the product and the supplier.

#SmartLiving Recycling Scenario – an item lifecycle is monitored from creation to recycling items that are not recycled retain a relationship with their last individual or other (structure like business or organisation) if should be but not recycled that relationship informs state and national law enforcement.

#SmartLiving Ownership Scenario – when an item is purchased it becomes added to several new ecosystems, individual, family, community, state and nation (if bought outside individual’s country of origin) advising national law enforcement of their status.

#SmartLiving Advance Security Scenario – items that are not recognized as being part of an ecosystem may not join one. Without full lifecycle data, the item will be considered to have no value, fraudulent or stolen. By using an inverse data analysis, a home or other place can detect a person that has no recognizable items and consider them a threat. They will not be allowed access and become the focus of Law Enforcement.

UbiNET Copyright © 2006 Paradigm Interactions Inc.

UbiNET is the Paradigm Interactions Inc. test platform also called Project Charlemagne using 5G and 6G concept where we are building scenarios for IoT3, linking blockchain, sensors and artificial intelligence, which forms the bases of the Open Network Ecosystem Protocol, patent.

Related Articles on Paradigm Interactions

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / /

#Pervasive #UX and the next Human Revolution

Pervasive UX #pUX an evolutionary UX that enables (#ubiquitous) #Open #IoT #Ecosystems through Human Centered Design #HCD

Talk Proposal:

This talk is about the need for UX to dig deeper into its core capabilities to facilitate Smart Living and true Ubiquity in the form of Open IoT Ecosystems.

 Pervasive UX is contextual responds to eye movement, hand gestures and voice

While for many recent joiners to the UX profession Open IoT Ecosystems are a daunting proposition, to those with both understanding and experience of the evolution of UX they are an opportunity to return to core values and the eminence of our profession.

UX and CX are the same thing, UX created CX as there was a drift in the mainstream away from data science towards visual UI’s. User Centered Design (UCD) was renamed Human Centered Design (HCD) in 2010 and are the same thing, a framework not a method for a wide array of professional practitioners and clients.

In this talk, Karl Smith with briefly describe the evolution of UX and the core competencies required to facilitate the next human revolution through Pervasive UX.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / /

#Smart #Business is #Smarter not locating to a #SmartCity

Lets not building Smart Cities, lets Live Smart instead

Just as humanity is starting to deal with business processes that should never have been digitized we might also consider the huge waste in making Smart Cities when we no longer need cities.

Watching humanity evolve in retrospect it is easy to spot the errors and poor judgement, but humanity is on the cusp of a revolution so profound it calls into question the structure of our societies.

Why do we need Cities?

Think for a moment, why do we need cities? They create centralization of people and resources however they also drive costs as often space is insufficient for demand. There is a huge dependency on the need for workspace, shops and local living accommodation.

In a Smart Economy with people engaged in Smart Living people rely on digital communications not face to face engagements. Unless direct physical contact with another person is required for your job you don’t need to be physically present. Most work can be distributed to multiple locations across the planet. Even specialist surgeons can now work remotely and have been doing so for some time, even surgery can now be done through a physical / virtual interface.

What about the time of Day?

Time is a construct, instead on narrow thinking around working day, working time is more productive.

Preparation for Smart Business

The assertion “Lets not building Smart Cities, lets Live Smart instead” is completely correct however the preparation to deal with this change and timeline are another matter. There is also geographies and infrastructure to consider.

Working from Home

Corporations who are already seeking to reduce or remove their huge overheads and dependency upon city office space are offering their staff the ability to work from home and have done for some time. The natural extension to this is the end to centralization completely. This represents a complex issue for Enterprises as they also tend to have large property portfolios maintained in their Enterprise Treasury Assets. While divestment strategies are being established, there are huge risks for those who have not understood that over time the resell value will crash, making city office property worthless.

Working from the World

There are significant problems in the structuring of the world due to notions of status, long held wealth and existing infrastructure. Working from the world will be a lot harder than working from countries that have large investments in infrastructure, hence cities will still exist, becoming an indication of old thinking and technology poverty.

Summary

The cost of creating Smart Cities is huge and relates to infrastructure for jobs and services that won’t be required in the mid term, they will not make a profit and may even not cover their cost of creation and installation. The Smart solution is a distributed model not a centralized one. Creating these types of services takes a huge investment and without the confirmation of a captive customer base, it should be interesting to see how capital can be raised and who will take this risk.

Tagged : / / / / / / /

#Situational #Awareness #Shopping

#Situational #Awareness #Shopping

Consider, currently we see things we want to buy through advertising or by seeing it in films or when around other people or places.

Why not; while having a coffee with a friend in their house you see a nice bowl and you say ‘buy bowl’. Your personal IoT ecosystem checks the area and finds three bowls, it asks ‘white bowl’ you say ‘Yes’ the bowl is ordered based upon your personal preference which could be Speed, Price, Colour or anything else, for this scenario it’s Speed it locates the nearest supplier and orders it for immediate delivery. You carry on chatting and the bowel is delivered to your home and waiting for you when you get home. Payment is automated, you unpack look at the bowel and say ‘Great Condition’ feedback allocated.

There are more scenarios in our Open Networking Ecosystem Protocol Patent which will be published soon.

Situational Awareness Shopping #UX

I’m just going to get this out there because there is a great deal of lying going on that IoT does not affect the UX profession and E-Commerce business.

IoT system design does not require UX wireframes as the are no GUI’s

The IoT is a complex ecosystem that not only changes interactions but also removes many of the common processes that have been adopted by people to use technology.

Situational Awareness Shopping #UI

Graphic User Interfaces are not a consideration for the IoT as the interactive methods used to select and buy are no longer through container websites, advertising (as a separate activity), payment gateways or any other existing copy of a shop.

digital versions of shops are irrelevant in a society run through situational awareness.

Tagged : / / / / / / / /

#Alive and Present #Everywhere open #IoT3 Ecosystems #SmartLiving

Introduction

The IoT is a much marketed term as the future of all things;

the IoT is interconnected landscape of life experiences and transactions

What is the IoT, how is it intended to work and how does that relate to how it currently works. What are the real business opportunities and how will they be measured as a success? How can your business gain an advantage or benefit? Finally, are there any risks associated with the IoT, either foreseen or not and how might they be mitigated?

What is the IoT and where does it come from?

The IoT is problematic as a description for Ubiquity a concept that has been around for a long time.

Ubiquity is a synonym for omnipresence, the property of being present everywhere

Defence Ubiquity

The technology that underpins ubiquity comes from defence, specifically battlefield command and control (CnC) and has been evolving since the second world war. At that time, it was essential to coordinate and protect allied forces during the war. This strategic view of the battlefield as it changed was provided first through telephone communications (easily intercepted), radio communications (also easily intercepted) and then later RADAR (Radio Detection and Ranging).

The second part of the technology that underpins ubiquity is security, the interception of communications in the second world war made it essential to provide proof of authenticity and to encode or encrypt important messages. While this was a common practice off the battlefield by people with the time to do this, the speed of change and the danger on the battlefield made this impossible, although the USA did use native american indian code talkers this security was not embedded across all battlefields as it had also been used in the World War I but German anthropologists had attempted to learn the languages.

Post the second world war, beacon technology (encrypted identifiers) with satellite uplinks provided oversight on large assets. However, until beacons could be miniaturised while maintaining a secure satellite uplink true battlefield ubiquity could not exist. This problem was overcome during the 1990’s enabling complex CnC of navy task groups, air forces, missiles, ground force vehicles and individual soldiers. The defence industry now has access to a fully ubiquitous battlefield command and control system, however it is still controlled by human choice based upon interpretation of sometimes confusing data. This interpretation and ownership of Meaning still resides with human control.

What is the IoT now and what will it become?

Commercial Ubiquity

The IoT is a stepping stone to Ubiquity. The commercialisation of ubiquity has been going on for a long time. It has included white goods requesting a service without customer involvement to fridges asking for milk, cars contacting the garage and customers monitoring their devices remotely.

However, it is yet to deliver the promise of true ubiquitous ecosystems talking to each other and creating a ubiquitous living environment by augmenting human existence, through simplification and service revolution.

Ubiquity is a network of negotiated connections, contracts with policies and attributes that are always present and open

In ubiquity the CIO once again comes to the forefront of the information exchange, management and security around products, services and things as they don’t require marketing to acquire each other’s benefits.

In open IoT Ecosystems there is an emergent human cognition language

This is devoid of the current marketing paradigm of using images to entice rather

Open IoT Ecosystems focus people on avatars in a new and more disruptive way

Tagged : / / / / / /

#Situational #awareness drives open #IoT #Ecosystems not #visual #interfaces

The foundation for this thinking goes back to a notion of the ‘social life of things’. If things themselves exist and have a number of trajectories and states then those things also potentially have accessible and useful human touch points in the IoT.

Much of the interactions we humans have become used to are in fact simple touch-points to hidden and complex interactions within dispersed and non-interlinked (at the core) technology systems. This simplification process of creating a directed visual presentation layer enables us to maintain a simplified mental model around our interactions. However in IoT technologies the additional integration of voice, touch and thought require a full understanding of the primary cognitive models for each IoT device and an associated and integrated cognitive model, possible clashes or drop outs and load descriptions (for each constantly changing eco-system) by Thing and Cognitive Group. Only then can an interface be defined.

Situational networks with IoT devices services and humans

Situational networks with IoT devices services and humans

Above is a visual description of a set of Things available with a person walking through them projecting themselves, a simple human journey. However working in a local model gets the notion of Things and Cognitive Groups across. Each colour group represents a Thing, attempting to get our attention, each Thing does something different, a different set of interactions, activities, behaviours and outcomes. They can talk to each other or ignore each other. The person traversing the real world and IoT ecosystem walks through several fields of interaction, each time they enter a new field it communicates to them, availability, interaction, messaging (branding, cries for attention, warnings etc.). The first position P1 three touch-points seek engagement, by P2 it’s six touch-points, in P3 five touch-points seeking engagement.

There is no requirement for visual interfaces, in fact audio, smell or touch (vibration or texture) are more likely and in fact desirable to create the ambience for localised interaction and mental association.

Further the current cognitive models associated with the digital existence of tangibles may need to be reconsidered in the context of the IoT as it amalgamates previously separate constructs. It could simply be that the detailed component view we have constructed around daily interactions is no longer valid and we can simplify not only our interactive behaviour but also our descriptors by moving them to high level (directional and instructional avatar) understood constructs rather than the detailed process models we tend to use to live.

Tagged : / / / / / /

#IoT #Products for the IoT #Economy, its all about #Productization

It should be clear by now to observers of how businesses who are being successful are changing. For them IoT is not just another name for Technology or a Delivery Channel but it is a Pervasive Customer Engagement Productization.

As Technologies come and go, Customers are eternal

What is an IoT Product?

An IoT Product is not the envelope, like a website, app or another container, but the thing that is purchased, transferred or acquired. An IoT Product is pervasive (accessible anywhere on any device, platform and mental model) and modular, designed to be portable, while maintaining all the associated complex information, languages and cultural context, findability, regulatory compliance and trace route for quality, feedback and development.

A IoT Product is the virtualisation of DATA that describes the product uniquely (SELF), its history (LIFE) and ecosystem contracts and policies (USAGE)

Where does an IoT Product live?

An IoT Product comes from an IoT Product Ecosystem that has both directly related bolt-on and ancillary upgrades and other domain related tangible and intangible Products and Services.

How do Businesses get IoT Products?

IoT Products are created by responding to clear signals from people in the market.

IoT Products don’t invent themselves

Creating IoT Products in unqualified hands means someone tells you an idea, you pay for it, they walk away and then you change the KPI’s because the idea you bought has no foundations and does not deliver to your business goals and objectives.

IoT Products always have a value model, ROI model a planned life and death built in

Though not always evident when first launched to the customers an IoT Product will have planned financial or gain attributes. They will be easily acquired by their intended customers and be desirable by others.

IoT products are often found through Big Data projects in a data exchange between different business seeking to extend the value of their current data. These Big Data projects drive huge profits not relative to start-up costs but gained by market capture.

Who creates IoT Products?

There are two aspects of creating an IoT Product, the Product Ecosystem and the IoT Product, which are combined in IoT Productization.

I usually just provide information, but this time, if your looking for IoT Productization please contact me or this skill.

Tagged : / / / / / / / /

#IoT #Ecosystems require #Ontologies of your #Products and #Services

Products and services associated with the IoT currently operate in closed ecosystems like Home Automation, in effect, they are simply networked products with linking software. Part machine to machine (M2M) and part human to machine or machine to human (H2M setup and observation and M2H alerts).

The IoT is an open ecosystem, made up of billions of product, services and people ecosystems.

While many people will associate an ontology with a website, software or information system, the key factor in IoT products or services is;

  • Information uniqueness
  • Information parity
  • Information exchange policies

IoT products and services also require

  • Governance frameworks
  • Security frameworks
  • Privacy/data storage frameworks

An ontology is a formal naming and definition of the types, properties, and interrelationships of the entities that really or fundamentally exist for a particular domain.

In order to digitize products and services for the IoT an open network, they are required to fit into several types of ontology including;

  • Global ontologies
  • Domain ontologies
  • Geographic ontologies

IoT digital productization

If you’re looking for advice on how your products or services can be made ready for the IoT please contact me.

About the Author

Karl Smith is Computer Scientist or as he describes himself a Creative Scientist. He has worked as an Instructional Designer, Information Architect, Innovator, User Experience Architect and Human Centered Design Consultant. He is also an entrepreneur, founder and director, CIO, CXO involved in startups, offering development, capability building (recruitment), global business development and global program management.

Karl Smith is an acknowledged leader in the field of Human Centred Design, User Experience and Usability and has been honoured with a Fellowship by the British Computer Society. He is also the Founder of several organisations including The User Centered Design Society in the UK.

Tagged : / / / / / /

#Project #Charlemagne #UIoT, the #unification of the #IoT

Paradigm Interactions has decided to get involved in building products to service the IoT marketplace.

Project Charlemagne is a unification project that links existing technologies with a high-level strategy and vision for financial benefits for those who implement it and gain insights from it.

Project Charlemagne is using Ethereum smart contracts to establish uniquely identifiable items in an IoT network effectively establishing a secondary handshake protocol for network access, that manages policies and identities, this will also allow us to simplify the data that IoT objects require and use ambient power tagging. Some of the sensor technologies do not exist in the format we require yet and we are engaged with medical sensor companies to develop ones that will work with our system.

“Our first product is an IoT retail platform intended to support the mapping of the birth to death (and everything in between) journey of retail products.” says CEO Karl Smith.

While this first version is not as polished as the offerings of major consultancies it does have proprietary information schema, data architecture and ambient power sensor systems that enable IoT item tracking from birth to recycling.

“The opportunities are endless with item level IoT, our whole world becomes a data source, we can deal with anti-social behaviour on an item level, waste and recycling and finally connect product makers to their end customers.” says CEO Karl Smith.

While Paradigm Interactions has already fixed a number of critical problems in regard of enterprise architecture, ontologies and micrometa, component technology working on ambient power requires additional investment to convert real-world interactions into digital insights.

This project remains in development until we can establish a true testbed in a single domain within FMCG.

Until the IoT retail platform is complete Paradigm Interactions focus will remain on client enablement though its IoT Products service.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / /

#SmartLiving or as we might live with #artificial #intelligence and an open #IoT in a #new #reality

I tend to think of myself as a futurist, I immediately see the possibilities of technologies as part of a much larger ecosystem than the one it is intended for.

I look for ways to test and assess “How we might Live” with the technology and how it will adapt our lives, our cultures and move humanity onwards to greater things.

Digital Living

In our modern societies we have relieved ourselves of the burdens of the industrial age and are in the process of doing the same to the digital age. We had digitized the same old processes, making them easier to do, involving less time so we could use that time on other things, but we had not thought to remove them. That is the next stage in human and machine evolution, removing pointless interactions and processes.

“we used to wait until the washing machine broke down, to arrange a service engineer, then we took out a service contract so they would call us, with our IoT machine, it calls the engineer, or shop and they just charge our account when we get the service or comestibles we need to do our washing, but we still need to check we have not been over charged”

We Keep Moving Forward

Modern convince has only changed the stress points in our lives, from analog, to digital and from servant, to master and onward to accountant. However the wider ecosystem changes that are coming, may mean that washing clothes becomes a meaningless process as well. We need to be aware when we build dead end processes and be prepared to throw them away with their subsystems when they become redundant.

Smart Living

There is much talk about digital ecosystems and benefits of IoT and artificial intelligence, but little about the living experience it will create, the social and political upheavals it will cause except in the extreme destruction of humanity and machines as overlords aspect.

However our societies are balanced on several key behaviours that can be changed or in fact removed in a Smart Living scenario.

Smart Living – Wealth

Establishing a means to gain wealth is a clear goal in human existence, regardless if that wealth is the ability to purchase or to be healthy, wealth is essential. Our current society enables wealth acquisition through speculation, work, connections or product distribution, new types of wealth are also on the horizon (which I will cover in another post).

The wide distribution of blockchain technologies afford the ability to remove several of key aspects of speculation. Speculation works through special knowledge, insights of availability, location, size and a choice to sell or buy. However with blockchain only the choice to sell or buy is an unknown factor, everything else is visible. Not only will blockchain reduce and remove hidden wealth it could destroy its value, as moving and reselling by taking advantage of another persons lack of knowledge will no longer be possible.

Bitcoin with Blockchain Smart Wealth Transparency rather than Secrecy
Bitcoin with Blockchain, Smart Wealth, Transparency rather than Secrecy

You might say that the new dynamic of wealth will be Transparency rather than Secrecy. In fact accessing a transparent wealth system from non attributable assets will not be possible as they will be consider tainted or fake, hence they lose their value.

Smart Living – Work

In a smart world do we work? Ideas are still needed but committees about ideas are not, if like the idea we can test buy, by printing it at home. Since it’s creativity and inspiration to be creative that we crave knowledge and creations become the central focus of work, teamwork does not require physical co-location only a communication method. With Smart working, textures, smells, colours. sounds, people can all be delivered virtually. This would mean no more offices, centralised property in a city would no longer be a focus and would cease to have value.

People with ideas that other want is Smart Living Wealth
People with ideas that other want is Smart Living Wealth

The nature of world will revert to a more feudal barter system where our services are available as a group (forum or company) or as in individual.

Smart Living – Transport

The big question is where are we going and why? Will humans still want to visit the world or will they have the world in their home?

Travel to work flying armchair?
Travel to work flying armchair

If work is not the priority is mass transportation a need. If shops are virtual again the question is where are we going and why?

Smart Living – Home

We are looking at a revolution in the the focus on human lives and the home is the major battle ground for Smart Living. As the workplace was for Digital Living a way to create better control and work during previous down times, the home will become a place to enjoy, between working moments.

Sub-cultures

And what happens to everyone else who can’t transition between Digital Living into Smart Living, because of the loss of freedoms, due to not having the skills to function in Smart Living or just not being invited?

The will be and has always been other cultures co-existing the problem even with Digital Living is the marketing makes it desirable to people who can’t by skill or education or work have it. Their addition to society is not respected or valued. The odd thing about Smart Living is that it makes people with manual skills the same value as creative people, because they do things rather than move things around.

You might say that “Smart Living is the end of Management” in all its structures as devices become self managed and humans no longer need it.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

#Dependant on #dumb #data and is making #bad #choices? #Douglas #Adams

Data, Big Data, Artificial Intelligence

Clients don’t understand their customers, they just think they do!

It’s not for the lack of trying or spending millions on developing and building huge data systems, the problems are many but can be traced back to one simple thing;

“Data only describes part of the what is happening and almost nothing of the why, let alone what should be done to change the situation”

Clients have been sold that data gives them the answers and that big data will close the loop for them to understand the upstream and downstream thinking of their customers, WRONG.

Douglas Adams noticed the real problem

Douglas Adam’s said  “But even Amazon has only got part of the picture. Like real world shops, they can only record the sales they actually make. What about the sales they don’t make and don’t know that they haven’t made because they haven’t made them?” Douglas Adams “The Salmon of Doubt” by Permission of Pan Macmillan. That pretty much covers the problem if you extrapolate the thinking for Data Analytics, Big Data or even Artificial Intelligence based Data and Decision systems.

“Data is binary a yes or no (even complex views), it does not capture motivation, intention, desire, cognition, distraction or any other human reasoning or pattern”

child pretending to be robot data prentending to be truth
child pretending to be robot data prentending to be truth

A child pretending to be a robot just as data pretends to be the truth, he is a kind of robot and data is a kind of truth

A pure Data approach to understanding customers will provide the wrong data because data is an absolute and people are not. Even with Artificial Intelligence it only works from the starting point you give it, if any of the perimeters are wrong the whole data sample is wrong.

Guide to understanding Customers

  • Data, Big Data, Artificial Intelligence – Tells you what
  • People in target demographic – Tell you why

People in target demographic

User research answers the question Why have we not made the Sale? through the only people equipped to answer the question, consumers. This is not market research, its scientific without a predetermined agenda or outcome. User Research is a problem solving method that offers solutions by finding the right questions, finding the right people and asking the questions in a way that does not lead or direct the answers.

There are right questions and people to ask?

This may sound a little Adamsesque (if you ask the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything you get 42, because it the wrong question). Getting the questions or setup wrong is the real problem with an Analytics approach to a Diagnostic process. While it may be reasonably expected by a seller to directly ask, why didn’t a visitor become a buyer or register. Visitors may be asking themselves where am I? what does this do? this does not make sense, should that be happening? technology, why do I bother? Why has my screen gone pink? None of these “in mind” experiences are expressed in the data or even a consideration for the data schema design.

A visitors experience is not only defined by the online environment but they bring past experiences, desires and doubts about their current experience. Without these insights from research, it is difficult for clients to grasp potential problems, gain a good return upon their investment (ROI), innovate to fit the market and consumer needs or break into a new market sector.

Reasons that Data is Trusted and People are Not

It appears to come down to scale and a short sighted approach to costs. Buying an Analytics Solution appears to tick all the boxes, even if in reality it does not. While using Research Companies or in-house Research Teams seems expensive in comparison.

“The real trick is to understand you need both, you always did”

retro robot toys, not what you expect when you say robot today
retro robot toys, not what you expect when you say robot today

When I first started using Web Position Gold (the analytics tool), bought by Webtrends long before Google Analytics existed or the current proliferation of products promising the impossible, we used it to spot trouble only. We would then do some user testing in the area, working out possible failure scenarios, from there we would suggest two or three solutions and build them for A/B testing to see what worked and what did not. Everything was monitored and all the data from both analytics and user testing was collated into one final solution. Sometimes there was a single resolution, a re-architecting of a section, in one project I kept 16 pathways active because they all delivered transactions for different types of customers.

The thing is just as there is no absolute way to find out the problem, resolution or adaptive innovation except byDiagnostics a digital and human activity.

Diagnostics

[Data+Human+Solution+Testing=Resolution]

+

[Feedback+Data+Human=Adaptive Innovation]

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

#Cognition #Clash in the #IoT #SXSW

Thank you to everyone who attended our (Karl Smith and Thom Heslop) talk at SXSW, it’s the start of a long road into a really complex and contextual problem. But being silent in the crowd as the King walks by with no clothes on is not an option, peoples lives, futures and prosperity is at risk, not to mention the risk of multi-trillion dollar lawsuits that can follow by knowingly distracting people who are engaged in critical tasks.

Cognition Clash in the IoT at SXSW16
Cognition Clash in the IoT at SXSW16

The IoT – Internet of Things (Ubiquity) is the next great opportunity for commerce to engage with business enterprises and customers. However, there is no unified approach to the mental load between physical interaction, mental interaction and digital interaction. This cognitive landscape is inhabited by associated experiences that gel human behaviour and machine interfaces through, touch, mouse and keyboard. The usage of sight, voice and thought create new complexities and risks which have until recently been the subject of defence technologies (battlefield and strategic), where clear outcomes and prescribed mental models exist.

IoT clash girl dies
IoT clash girl dies

The diversification of these touch points and multi-point human logic models clash and derail human thinking patterns.

We are looking for people and their knowledge to help create an Ubiquity Open Standard. We are doing this because no one else has noticed this fundamental error in thinking, the hoping that product based companies will work together in creating common standards that are driven by an understanding of human thinking capabilities, cognitive models, relational thinking and machine interactions is unlikely.

While product manufactures continue with supremacy attitude to other ecosystem products and services,

“the human voice and our needs and desires are subjugated to simply another component”

albeit the one that is constantly paying for everything without any input on how it works.

Some Foundations (the rest will go in a technical paper)

Distributed Cognition studies the ways that memories, facts, or knowledge is embedded in the objects, individuals, and tools in our environment. According to Zhang & Norman (1994), the distributed cognition approach has three key components: Embodiment of information that is embedded in representations of interaction Coordination of enaction among embodied agents. Ecological contributions to a cognitive ecosystem.

In Embodied Interaction Dourish -everyday human interaction is embodied; non-rationalising, intersubjective and bodily active.  User, not designers, create and communicate meaning and manage coupling. Not just concerned with what people do, but also with what they mean by what they do and how that is meaningful to them. It reflects the sets of meanings that can be ascribed to objects and actions over those objects as part of a larger task or enterprise

Cognition the key to the mind, how people understand what they can do is by comparison a Diagnostic Methodology (goals, adaptations, conventions) with what they already know by accessing the Active Narrative patterns they have created in their own minds according to Smith (2005).

Cognition Patterns Cognition Clash in the IoT different people think differently
Cognition Patterns Cognition Clash in the IoT different people think differently

Cognition Groups create a communication paradigm, they carry intention, meaning, risks and benefits.

  • Some Cognition patterns are common, shopping basket etc.
  • Some Cognition Patterns are social by Family, Sports Team etc.
  • Some Cognition Patterns change without notice

Guided Interaction, existing websites offer guided interaction – simplified cognitive pattern encapsulating a plethora of interacting technology and data systems: Shopping Basket – This representation allows for distributed cognition > appropriation > cognitive pattern forming understand– once a user has used a shopping basket they will understand how to use them and generalize: transferable cognitive pattern

Some of the issues with the IoT

  • There is no standard of interactivity for humans in the IoT – not a problem if passive background machine-to-machine. A very big problem if actively interacting with humans, who are all different and can create their own meanings for example LOL.
  • How does a user form any cognitive patterns from an invisible system?
  • IoT combines known patterns as hidden machine-to-machine communications that can create mistrust and security fears
  • Detailed component view we have constructed around daily interactions is no longer valid

Some of our initial research

IoT Design Principals

  • What is device / service for?
  • Where will it be situated?
  • When will it be triggered?
  • What other devices will it be interacting with?
  • Where can it clash?
  • Security? – * Lack of security – Shodan
  • Design Principal: “Do No Harm

IoT Design Risks

Context is critical

  • Situational interaction problems for consideration

The following barriers reduce our ability to understand the situation

  • Perception based on faulty information processing
  • Excessive motivation – over motivated to the exclusion of context
  • Complacency
  • Overload
  • Fatigue
  • Poor communications

A possible solution

  • Avatar (can be visual, sound, texture, smell, taste or a combination) – smart use of Artificial intelligence (AI), where the users cognitive interface is patterned on their unique cognition pattern through a learning algorithm
  • This avatar should be directional and instructional like digital signage
  • This avatar should respond to the users behavioural interaction and should fall away gracefully as users behaviour becomes more ‘expert* In effect it should be a learning system – learns from the users rather than based on static rules
  • For example the AI that George Hotz has built into his self driving car while not the answer points to the kind of thinking required to find the answer, don’t tell the machine to watch and learn from a human and then carry out your task (from 3.33 to 5.04) “the point is to drive naturally like a human, not some engineer’s idea of safety“. For anyone who then thinks this is the final solution, please let us know why you think driving a car is like cooking dinner or navigating the street?

The Full SXSW Talk is on YouTube

Connect to the speakers on LinkedIn here Karl Smith and Thom Heslop

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

#Cognition #Clash in The #Internet of #Things

I’m speaking at SXSW Interactive 2016 on Cognition Clash in The Internet of Things, if your in Austin, TX let me know?

The IoT is the next great opportunity for business enterprises to engage with customers. However there is no unified approach to the mental load between context of use, physical interaction, mental interaction and digital interaction. This cognitive landscape is inhabited by associated experiences that gel human behavior and machine interfaces through, touch, mouse and keyboard. The usage of sight, voice and thought create new complexities and risks which have until recently been the subject of defense technologies, where clear outcomes and prescribed mental models exist. The diversification of these touch points and multi-point human logic models clash and derail human thinking patterns.

http://schedule.sxsw.com/2016/events/event_PP47495

Hashtags: #sxsw #IoTdesign

Sunday, March 13
12:30PM – 1:30PM

JW Marriott 
Salon FGH
110 E 2nd St

Tagged : / / / / / / /

The #IoT an #interactive landscape without #visual #interfaces

I should say at the beginning this is one inception of the IoT, which may or may not be confirmed by products or more importantly by human adoption. The foundation for this thinking goes back to a notion of the ‘social life of things’. If things themselves exist and have a number of trajectories and states then those things also potentially have accessible and useful human touch points in the IoT.

Much of the interactions we humans have become used to are in fact simple touch-points to hidden and complex interactions within dispersed and non-interlinked at the core technology systems. This simplification process of creating a directed visual presentation layer enables us to maintain a simplified mental model around our interactions. However in IoT technologies the additional integration of voice, touch and thought require a full understanding of the primary cognitive models for each IoT device and an associated and integrated cognitive model, possible clashes or drop outs and load descriptions (for each constantly changing eco-system) by Thing and Cognitive Group. Only then can an interface be defined.

IoT cognitive group karl smith

Above is a visual description of a set of Things available with a person walking through them projecting themselves, a simple human journey. However working in a local model gets the notion of Things and Cognitive Groups across. Each colour group represents a Thing, attempting to get our attention, each Thing does something different, a different set of interactions, activities, behaviours and outcomes. They can talk to each other or ignore each other. The person traversing the real world and IoT landscape walks through several fields of interaction, each time they enter a new field it communicates to them, availability, interaction, messaging (branding, cries for attention, warnings etc.). The first position P1 three touch-points seek engagement, by P2 it’s six touch-points, in P3 five touch-points seeking engagement.

There is no requirement for visual interfaces, in fact audio, smell or touch (vibration or texture) are more likely and in fact desirable to create the ambiance for localised interaction and mental association.

Further the current cognitive models associated with the digital existence of tangibles may need to be reconsidered in the context of the IoT as it amalgamates previously separate constructs. It could simply be that the detailed component view we have constructed around daily interactions is no longer valid and we can simplify not only our interactive behaviour but also our descriptors by moving them to high level (directional and instructional avatar) understood constructs rather than the detailed process models we tend to use to live.

Tagged : / / / / / /

#UX #cognitive #interactions patterns for #IoT by #Gestalt

Principles

Pre-accepted and trusted visual standards are vital to user acceptance and experience as they encourage adoption of technology systems. This is vital so that users don’t need to learn new or counter intuitive interaction behaviours.

Overview

Just as the creators of hypertext transfer protocol (http) were able to attribute their invention to Vannevar Bush’s ‘Memex’ so user interface architects are able to attribute the key concepts of user interface structures to principals defined by Gestalt. The following explains the key principals of user interface design as key patterns based upon Gestalt principals.

Karl Smith’s Research

The psychology of visual location, shape  and colour are critical  to enable user to understand and interpret their location and expectations of use in any given area. My research from 2002 defined additional aspects as ‘biographical templates’ that establish key perceptions and personal drivers which I linked to persona’s.

Key patterns

Law of continuation

Continuation is the eye’s instinctive action to follow a direction derived from the visual field. For example, in Figure 1.1 our eyes follow the rail tracks from the left of the picture to the top or vice versa, with Figure 1.2 the eye follows the text box layout.

Rail tracks directing users view
Figure 1.1: Rail tracks directing users view

Text boxes directing users view
Figure 1.2: Text boxes directing users view

 

Law of figure-ground

We distinguish the foreground and background in a visual field.  Two different foreground colours let the viewer perceive different things from the same illustration, as illustrated in Figures 2.1 and 2.2. If our focus (foreground) colour is black, then in the Figure 2.1, you can see a vase.  In Figure 2.2, when the background is black, we see two faces.

Vase
Figure 2.1: Vase

Two Faces
Figure 2.2: Two Faces

Law of closure

Open shapes make the individual perceive that the visual pattern is incomplete and the sense of incompletion serves as a distraction to the learner.” Our minds will tend to close gaps and complete unfinished forms. In Figure 3 the letters used to form the word “INCOMPLETE” are sliced into parts but our minds complete the unfinished forms.

Law of Closure
Figure 3: Law of Closure

Law of balance / symmetry

A visual object will appear as incomplete if the visual object is not balanced or symmetrical.  A psychological sense of equilibrium, or balance, is usually achieved when visual ‘weight’ is placed evenly on each side of an axis for example, Figure 4.1 illustrates visual balance but in Figure 4.2 the image appears unbalanced.

Balance Figures Blocks and Web page template
Balance Figures 4.1: Blocks and Web page template

Imbalance Blocks and Web page template
Imbalance 4.2: Blocks and Web page template

Law of focal point

Every visual presentation needs a focal point, called the centre of interest or point of emphasis. This focal point catches the viewer’s attention and persuades the viewer to follow the visual message further. Figure 5.1 shows how a differently shaped element appears to protrude out from among other elements and draws attention, 5.2 create high impact.

Changing Shapes
Figure 5.1: Changing Shapes

High impact
Figure 5.2: High impact

Law of isomorphic correspondence

All images do not have the same meaning to us, because we interpret their meanings based on our experiences.  If we were to see the image in Figure 6 on a computer screen, we would interpret its meaning as a help or question icon, even if we could not understand the German word “Hilfe” because we associate a question mark with ‘help’ based on past experience.

Help Icon
Figure 6: Help Icon

Law of proximity

The law of proximity states that items placed near each other appear to be a group. Viewers will mentally organise closer elements into a coherent object, because they assume that closely spaced elements are related and those further apart are unrelated. In Figure 7, people mentally arrange the sign in component together as a form.

Hotmail login mind base joining of form
Figure 7 Hotmail login mind base joining of form

Law of unity / harmony

Unity implies that a congruity or arrangement exists among the elements in a design; they look as though they belong together, as though there is some visual connection beyond mere chance that has caused them to come together.  If the related objects do not appear within the same form, the viewer will consider the separate objects to be unrelated to the main visual design, leading to confusion. Figure 8.1 and 8.2 are examples of unity in presentation where all of objects are arranged together into a unified form.

Hotmail, password problems
Figure 8.1: Hotmail, password problems

Apple, password problems
Figure 8.2: Apple, password problems

Law of Similarity

Similar objects will be counted as the same group and this technique can be used to draw a viewer’s attention. Below in Figure 9 the viewer can recognise a triangle inside the square, because these elements look similar and thus part of the same form.

Figure 9: Similarity creates a focal point

Law of Simplicity

When users are presented with visuals, there is an unconscious effort to simplify what is perceived into what the viewer can understand. The simplification works well if the graphical message is already uncluttered, but if the graphics are complex and open to interpretation the simplification process may lead to unintended conclusions. The example below Figure 10:1 shows the Plough star grouping which people can naturally join together, while Figure 10:2 just shows the Sky

Star group the Plough
Figure 10.1: The Plough

The sky
Figure 10.2: The sky

References

Chang, D., Nesbitt, K., V., Australian Computer Society, 2006. Developing Gestalt-based design guidelines for multi-sensory displays. MMUI ’05: Proceedings of the 2005 NICTA-HCSNet Multimodal User Interaction Workshop – Volume 57 , Volume 57.

Kearsley, G., Campbell, R., L., Elkerton, J., Judd, W., Walker,  J., SIGCHI conference. 1998. Online help systems: design and implementation issues (panel). CHI ’88: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems.

Flieder, K., Modrritscher, F., CHI Montreal 2006. Foundations of a Pattern Language based on Gestalt Principals.

Author Links

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / /