« Gaming Services | Main | Over Specification »
Acceptable Boundaries of Use
Today's office is a guest house half way up a mountain in Japan's northern island of Hokkaido. I'm here with a research colleague to catch up on the last year, figure out where we want to go in 2006 and in between discussions make the most of what the mountain has to offer. In the village outside it's minus 10 and for the third night in a row it's dumping it down. The building we are staying in was initially a disappointment - semi-industrial in a run-down-damp sort of way, but after 3 days the room starting to look like home. It helps that that every evening the staff leave a thermos of hot water in the room (we happen to have some decent freshly ground coffee), that there is a spacious open air onsen 5 minutes away, and that someone nearby has left their Wi-Fi unsecured, bless them.
I'm tucked up in bed, and on the floor to my left a digital camera has been broken down into its composite parts and is (hopefully) drying out after being covered in snow. I'm familiar with the challenges of capturing data in difficult conditions - but tonight presented new hurdles. A combination of the cold - around minus 18 on the mountain, horizontal in-your-face winds, the need to remove outer glove-wear to be able to properly handle equipment, and the constant heavy snowfall meaning that after 20 seconds or so a new snow-drift has built up on the edges of the lens. Realistically the only way to clear the camera lens of snow flakes was to lick it whilst avoiding having my tongue stick to its metal frame (to the Finns reading this, yes, I know the solution to removing frozen body parts from metal I'm just not sufficiently physically agile, and am certainly not prepared for my colleague to do the deed). Earlier tonight I learnt that the frozen residue left by my tongue can serve as an OK if somewhat inaccurate soft focus lens filter (top photo). In all I'm satisfied that the camera continued to work and that photos and memory card survived the cold.
User experience practitioners often use personas and scenarios to understand and communicate how a product will be used. But what happens when use falls outside acceptable limits? What are acceptable limits? Is it reasonable to expect a camera to function in these conditions? Is it reasonable to expect your phone to work after being run over by a car? Is it reasonable to carry your iPod Nano in your pocket without it scratching?
It's telling that on my last visit to Yodobashi Camera (one of the largest general electronics stores in Japan), consumers buying iPod products were handed a crudely photocopied sheet explaining whom to call in the event of it breaking. This is hardly a show of faith in the products they are selling and I presume is a result of fielding so many consumer queries related to perceptually faulty iPods. (As a comparison I've bought dozens of other mainstream electronics from the same store none of which included similar information). The law-suits over scratched iPod Nanos shows there is an obvious mis-match for acceptable boundaries of use between (some) consumers and the manufacturer.
There are two trends that are likely to considerably shift consumer perception of what constitutes acceptable use: miniaturization; and the availability of flexible componentry. Once objects reach a certain size the range of places that they can be comfortably carried and stored increases - making it feasible for it to be carried without significant extra burden for the user, comfortably placed in a pocket or tucked in amongst other objects in a bag. Objects will be carried and stored in locations and used in contexts which did not previously need to be considered in use cases. It is more comfortable to carry a flexible object next your (soft, fleshy, human) body than a hard object. Smart use of flexible components will increase the range of objects can be comfortably carried in pockets or next to the skin - expanding the range of use case scenarios for many products and along with it, user expectations.
Writing from Tokyo | January 5, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Perhaps dedicated pockets side-step the problem of whether it is reasonable or not to treat densely-priced pocket-size objects like any other thing that normally goes into a pocket.
A while ago Matt Webb wrote (http://interconnected.org/home/2005/04/12/my_40gb_ipod_has) about the size of gadgets tending to pocket-size, and of custom pockets designed to conveniently store this form factor in bags, coats, and trousers. I posted some thoughts on this too (http://www.tom-carden.co.uk/weblog/2005/04/pockets.php).
All in all, perhaps wallets are leather for a reason - all that loose change, dust and keys isn't healthy for a polished surface.
Posted by: Tom Carden at January 6, 2006 12:49 AM
So if you have WiFi and are working, why aren't you e-mailing with us?!
Posted by: ken at January 6, 2006 6:40 AM
As mentioned before I will be picking up work mail from 10th January. Please call if have something urgent to discuss (GMT+9).
Posted by: Jan at January 6, 2006 8:02 AM
To follow Tom's comment - we've noted in the Where's The Phone studies (http://www.janchipchase.com/blog/archives/2005/11/where_people_ca.html) that people who carry objects in trouser pockets tend to separate phone and keys for that reason.
The iPod Nano scratches from just being in a regular pocket, without other objects being present. And incidentally stops working for days at a time - condensation (?), just before the display cracked.
Posted by: Jan at January 6, 2006 9:34 AM
I won't go into that whole iPod hype thing (which in my oppinion it is), but just want to say that that third picture on the bottom is just amazingly cool, IMHO. So, kudos for that!
Posted by: Michael at January 6, 2006 5:28 PM
So (for the non-Finns), what is the solution to removing frozen body parts from metal then?
Posted by: Sascha at January 6, 2006 6:58 PM
Jan, on picture #3 your board looks sooo extremely short. How short/long is it? I'd assume 155cm
Posted by: Serge at January 6, 2006 11:31 PM
Hei Serge,
Wide angle lens. The photos are of Raphael (www.grignani.org) who is riding 160.
Posted by: Jan at January 7, 2006 8:18 AM
Hei Sasha,
Peeing on the affected body part.
Whether this method is widely used or not I don't know, but there is scene in a book by a well known Finnish author where the technique is applied. A more well read (Finnish) visitor to this site might be able to provide the authors name.
Posted by: Jan at January 7, 2006 8:22 AM
Hi,jan,is your opinion limited to single objects,like mobile phone or iPOD,or camera? If some small computing devices locate in every corners in family.It is likely that digital family entertainment can use "ubiquitous computing" technology to integrate these small computing devices.
Posted by: jordon at January 11, 2006 10:30 PM
facinating site
Posted by: EAMONN at December 1, 2006 11:25 PM