User Centered

Oh, Eddie, Eddie, Caveman!

Here me roar.

I think on this one you may have skimmed the point. I'm not sure how reusable it is but the cycle is "burn in/burn out" -- if in is recording and out is the playback using a mini-recording.

It's not meant to replace any current products but be a different kind of recorder. Using scarcity to build value. "I recorded this for you on your birthday... but you can only watch it once."

Just think of how important a message is when it will self-destruct in 5 seconds, you better damn well remember it because you won't get it again.

So, would you record your baby's first steps? Nah... but would I use it as a way to ask that middle-school sweetheart out? Hell, yeah! -- she has no proof!

The paper doesn't do a good job of explaining it but it seems like the match would burn but not disintegrate ever.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like it (I too thought it was rather stupid on first read) because I'm thinking of ways I could use it. A "I just wanted to say Hi" message that someone could watch once, I could drop it in their bag and without any context they'd open the "wrapped present" of my memory bite.

Now their implication that it could be used to actually record seriously precious group memories is too much of a stretch. You don't risk those things on a sneeze or a breeze.

It sort of reminds me of when I used to leave little notes on my girlfriend's car, just saying hi, or i like you, or my favorite "meet me...".

Hmmmm. Most of the time, I want a camera but sometimes, just sometimes, I'd like to designate it as "self-destruct"

going to club me some women,
cave yum man

I like those use cases- but I didn't get that from the article- you're going at it from a scarcity angle, but the article reads that: since we take more pictures these days, we get a lot of data that we don't ever really go back and review. We cherished pictures in the past because we had limited resources and expended them only when we felt it was most important.

I understand and agree with this, but looking through my pictures of my childhood, I see that there are blurry ones and ones where I'm walking across the floor taking my first steps and I'm completely blurred out. But they are still there- they trigger the memory because that's all that was there at the time. It didn't matter whether it was a high def video on youtube, or a blurry, faded, yellow tinted photo- it's that something tangible triggered the memory (in this case of my parents). So, I think it doesn't really matter what it is that triggers the memory, just that something does. We often will create the attachment with whatever is available to do so (you even mentioned something similar in the digital camera post last week- that the "goofs" pictures are often what you are drawn to)

This paper also mentions that even though we're taking more pictures, we're still printing out about the same number of pictures. Which to me, kinda negates the whole "more data=overwhelming=less interest" notion it's trying to solve, and punctuates the fact that tangible items we like to form associations with will still be done regardless of the scarcity of the resource being used to capture it.

I do think your ideas are pretty endearing though, and consider my opinion of this moved slightly towards the "huh... well how about that?" territory (instead of the "wth?" territory).

...and also, I commend your diplomatic skills. I've never heard "you skimmed the point..." before and felt that was an awesome way of telling someone they're doing it wrong

Well, that's funny, I've never used it before. Just struck me.

I agree the paper seemed almost like a joke to me (I'm still not convinced it isn't) because it seemed to be so oddly crafted. Nearly unbelievable. Just seems jumbled and seems to be trying too hard to make a point about society "information overload" than allowing it to be a niché memory stick.

I think the more interesting area of study is the fact that not all beings document equally, context is important. Last week, visiting friends/fam I took few pictures (generally) but they were precious. Only because they caught us just goofing around.

Could never have told a certain girl, the last time I saw her "Hold on, I wanna get a pic" -- but a match-stick memory, man that'd be smooth.

Hm, I wonder if I could get into MIT.

Yum

Could technology enable
people to be aware of “less is more” [14] by adding
some physical properties of traditional everyday objects
to electronic devices?

The problem is in that important word, "Add." You can't just slap on form factor and physical properties and expect it to "fool people" without some negative side effects.

It's like this: All objects can and do have multiple uses. I can use a match as a toothpick because it's all I've got with me, even though that use is outside the realm of its intended use. But If I burn my lip by accidentally striking it on my braces, I feel like I'm "responsible" for the unintended consequences.

But if I use the match-stick memory to record something precious, I blame the device (and the company selling it) for not "allowing" me to see the message again or save it somewhere safe.

When people know that the object is "really" a computing device in a physical form, they may "go along" with the metaphor while it's useful, but I don't think they will hold the maker (or the sender for that matter) blameless for problems that occur. Knowing that the object is something that has been intentionally crippled, that's pretty hard to overcome.

What about one-time-use cameras? At the outset, you know the criteria -- couldn't the expectations be made clear?

Technology, the people around me and myself are far too unreliable, for me to ever consider such a thing. Just imagine, the wrong person doing the "watch once" thing, and the present is gone.

That's a very important point -- "Gotta light?"

horrible....