(image source: Nokia via Rutgers School of Communication and Information)

I really wanted to pursue a deeper understanding of mobile applications in my graduate research. Problem? The rural women I worked with couldn't afford a mobile phone, thereby limiting my testing options with my participants.

Instead of creating a long post about my thoughts on learning #11: The mobile phone is the new computer, I'll let these links speak for themselves. While I think Yves Behar's tablet is pretty sweet, it still comes back to accessibility. Even in my own life, my iPhone offers a new kind of computing experience (and my back is delighted to not be carrying a laptop so much these days). I love how these groups (and many others) are taking this accessible and more affordable tool and innovating new opportunities to offer immediate and relevant outcomes:

Frontline SMS Medic
Frontline SMS
Credit SMS
Ushahidi
Nokia mBanking
Nokia Life Tools
Phone Power
Katine Market

One of twelve in this series

Learning #5: Poverty can't be solved by a campaign. Or a website.
Spending time working on a sustainable development project in Rwanda exposed me to all sorts of new ideas. As the "outsider," I realize I still have much to learn. I was grateful to be given a Kinyarwanda name and told that I was 50% Rwandan but these affirmations don't replace understanding the actual needs of a community. The thing I can't shake is how often we try to solve problems using ideas or technologies that we assume will work everywhere.

Quick back story: I made a website. For a group of individuals who did not have access to the Internet. The hope was that this tool would improve the sales of their products. But the analytics prove there is little activity on this site. Without a business plan, they have no means of owning their own outcomes either. So I've struggled with my contribution for the past year or so. And have come to realize that creating an isolated outcome is no longer an acceptable way to look at my design practice.

Lesson learned? Poverty can't be solved by a campaign. Or a website. We must be asking bigger questions about entire systems before acting on solutions.

Campaigns with slogans and accompanying websites bring awareness to issues. Twitter feeds support the ideas being spread to the masses. But at the end of the day, I think we need to ask, "Are the people who we're trying to help actually seeing some sort of benefit from all this?" Whenever designers get connected to a development project, I think we need to ask the right questions.

Maggie Black helped me understand that development is complex (in her book, The No-Nonsense Guide to International Development):

Even at the purely semantic level, the term 'development' is difficult to replace. If you dislike it and its derivatives - 'developing', 'developed' - and try to avoid using them, nothing else quite works. To understand that development is an artificial construct and has earned much discredit does not help get rid of it. The concept has become ingrained in economic language and philanthropic endeavor. In default of some better terminological alternative, we will probably go on using the one we have. It would be helpful, however, if it was more used with greater care, and not assumed to be invariably beneficent and politically clean.

From this experience, I would advise any designer to simply be aware. I won't create a list of dos and don'ts because I'm not the expert. But learn from those who have gone before you, as best you can. One person I've learned from (from a distance) is Jacqueline Novogratz (head of Acumen Fund). I devoured her book, The Blue Sweater and found her talks to offer a strong case for the type of posture and action we need take.

Novogratz shows, in ways both hilarious and heartbreaking, how traditional charity often fails, but how a new form of philanthropic investing called "patient capital" can help make people self-sufficient and can change millions of lives. More than just an autobiography or a how-to guide to addressing poverty, The Blue Sweater is a call to action that challenges us to grant dignity to the poor and to rethink our engagement with the world.

These are but two examples! The list is much longer. But preparing yourself to have your eyes on the system, rather than just the product, will go a long way in producing results that have a measurable impact. In reflecting on this and seeking to move forward, I'm grateful to have been approached about a project in Rwanda (still in very early discussions about this). If it actually comes together, it would enable my new learning to be applied to pursue valuable outcomes related to maternal health. The first order of business will be to pursue an understanding of the whole system before applying any finalized solutions.

One of twelve in this series

I just returned from a ten day trip to New York and San Francisco. One of the highlights was being able to visit the Cooper Hewitt and see the Design USA: Contemporary Innovation and Design for a Living World exhibitions.

During this experience, while visiting Jonathan Ives' work for Apple, I overheard these two women bantering about the problems they were having with their interactive tool: the iTouch program designed by 2x4 that would help them to interact with the exhibit.


In her thick New York accent, Marge calls out,"Blanche! It's not working! It's broken."

Notably, their frustrations were not quiet musings in the corner. With headphones on, they were talking quite loudly in the midst of a large group of museum-goers. One women, who was just as unfamiliar with the iTouch, attempted to assist. I walked over, seeing the irritation on other people's faces, and attempted to offer my two bits. I tried to demonstrate how the interface worked (at one point, the screen was completely black) and eventually saw them move along with some measure of ease.

There are multiple layers to this experience: from human to environmental to technological. Did it matter that these women were seemingly disruptive? Should the museum be quiet? Or is interactivity meant to be a bit disruptive? How else could interactivity create conversations with people? Was this disruption actually a way to connect the human quality of the museum experience? Did the technology that was intended to assist create a profitable distraction? Could it be more communal and less individual?

As you can imagine, the list of questions could go on.

I don't know these women so I didn't want to intrude on their museum experience anymore than I already had. But I would be curious talk with the "Marge's and Blanche's" to uncover their ideas about an "interactive museum experience" to see what might have surfaced. Maybe they would have suggested improvements to the current and familiar system or maybe their ideas could push it in a new direction that wasn't expected?

Ironically, after this trip to New York, I headed over to California to participate in the ACM Creativity and Cognition conference. The Berkeley Art Museum hosted a diverse group of individuals who were focused on creativity research. The final keynote was Mihaly Csikszentmihaly, who is best known for his work on creativity and flow. During the 3 days of conferencing, I also heard from a group at Queen Mary University of London who are looking into democratizing technology for marginalized communities. Specifically, they have worked with elderly individuals who often find themselves outside of the "third wave." The presentation revealed their research and demonstrated the power in accessing the voices of those who are least connected with technology. It would seem someone is talking to the Marge's and Blanche's of this world - and inviting them to participate in the process.

Tele.fone Project

Today, Jen, Joanna and I presented our mini research project:

The purpose of this research is to both have fun while also considering if image can help people communicate in a global world where language, culture and life experience varies. The cell phone has become the most common tool of communication and is more available than the internet for many people around the world. This research will use cell phones with camera included (and specifically the multimedia messaging service or MMS) to investigate if image can be used instead of text to communicate.

We asked a series of questions to 4 participants (plus us as the design team):


This idea is based on the game "Telephone", where a phrase is passed to participants by whispering it into another person’s ear. No one knows the original sentence until the end of the game. In the same way, we want to try this principle using cell phones as the means to share the information. Instead of using oral or textual tools, you will use pictures taken from your cell phone.

Six rounds of play occurred that begged various questions. What resulted was a visual response with various interpretations (we're still gathering some data on perceptions of the questions being asked so can't list anything here yet).

This principle of the game has considered both playfulness and meaningfulness as each of us consider our research theses. Jen is looked at adaptive tools for children with disabilities, Joanna is considering cross-cultural community dialogues and I am looking at how the mobile phone can expand as a tool in the "developing world."

Here are a few other links that surfaced in our research that provide interesting mobile ideas that we'd like to explore further.
Analog Blogger
Ushahidi
The Bowler Hat Game

Contradictions

This work fascinates me.
I think it highlights the tensions I am interested in. How can design really address the needs of those on the periphery when my idea of technology isn't available? Not all progress is good progress, in my estimation. I don't claim to know the hierarchy of "good progress". But I do know, from watching and immersing myself in the various communities I've engaged with both here and abroad, that some of the best ideas aren't always the best for everyone.
How to know what is best? My research is attempting to ask questions of the individuals who don't always have people around them to help them find their best answer.

"The idealization connected with these experiences provokes a small-but-important detach of the perception of reality and what i want to do by writing the names of anything connected with the 2.0 life we are living in the slums of the third world is to point out the gap between the reality we still live in and the ephemeral world of technologies." --Filippo Minellis
Wooster Collective Article

Using the medium as the message

I love this work of Julius Popp. It demonstrates to me how the use of message with a medium can have profound impact. I'm curious about a similar translation when working on design for development. When one is seeking to survive, can the solution be messaged through art and technology? If so, how?