Product Powwow

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
It's interesting because there's

there's a wonderful book that
sort of describes Who I am.

It wasn't written about me, but I read
the book and I said, Yeah, that's me.

and the argument was that a lot
of what we believe is that To be

really good at something, you really
have to focus your life on it.

And And so, you know, the book
starts off talking about Tiger

Woods, the golf player, who basically
has played golf since he was,

what, two years old or something.

And that's all he's done his whole life.

And yes, he was really wonderful.

But it turns out that for
sports, yeah, very useful.

But not But in fact, lots of successful
people were not successful at first,

because they're interested in everything.

And so they flitter around, and
they do this, and they do that, and

they do something else, and so on.

this book is by David Epstein.

It's called Range.

And I said, that's me.

kev_11_08-19-2024_171624: Today I talk
to Don Norman about how to think about

user experience in the age of AI.

For many of you, Don needs no
introduction, but I'll give you a

quick bio just to remind you of what
a pioneer and renaissance man he is.

He's best known in design circles for
coining the phrase user experience

when he was at Apple in the early 90s
and for generally evangelizing user

centered design, particularly through
his seminal book, Psychology of Everyday

Things, or some of you will know it
as The Design of Everyday Things.

But he began in electrical engineering.

He then moved to computer science.

He was one of the founders of
cognitive science as a new discipline.

And while he claims later that there's
no general arc or direction to his

career, there is a sort of general shift
from the hard sciences and engineering

over to psychology and human society.

He's won multiple awards, holds many
titles, but what I most admire about

Don are his humanistic perspective.

He's, he knows a ton about technology,
but he's also developed a deep

Deep and heartfelt understanding
of how people tick and what their

underlying motivations and needs are.

And he's a great champion for those in
a, an increasingly technological world.

He's also a deep and erudite thinker,
as an alumni of MIT, Harvard,

Cambridge, and other universities,
his, the quality of his working and

thinking is, you know, very rare, Then
there's his intellectual influence.

I normally steer clear of using the term
thought leader, but I think if that,

if anyone is worthy of that term, Don
is, because he's managed to pioneer and

popularize so many important concepts.

And related to that is
clarity of communication.

there's lots of smart people around, but,
um, there's few people who are smart and

as clear as Don is so very impressive.

So today I want to talk about Don's views
on user experience in the age of AI.

It ended up being quite
a long conversation.

So I split it into two.

Part one covers his very busy
retirement, his wide ranging career.

And then we get onto the evolution
of how we've interacted with

technology over the years, up until
roundabout now and around AI, and

then part two solely focuses on AI.

Now for me, Don's a living legend.

He's been a champion and a friendly
critic of design over the years.

I always enjoy our conversations.

So I hope you do too.

And without much further
ado, I give you the Don.

/
squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412: So,

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Don Norman,

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
Norman.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: to the podcast.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
podcast.

Thank you.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
Let's get started with your

so called retirement, Don.

I forget how many times you've tried
to retire, but you seem to have a few

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
times

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: issues.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
to retire, but you

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Five times.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
a few.

Right.

So

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: So
what are you up to these days?

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
these days?

I don't know.

Uh, probably write another book, But what?

Because I usually write books when
there are things that excite me and

that there's something that I can
say that I believe is new and useful.

And I was thinking though about
all my books and said, they're

all about making design easier to
understand and easier to use in many

different ways of looking at it.

And that's good, but it's
not changing the world.

And the world is filled with problems.

And so, okay, I'll write
about the problems.

Okay.

But actually I, there's nothing I can
add that isn't already well known.

Okay, I'll write about
what the solutions are.

And I looked around and I found good
solutions already out there, well known.

So, what am I going to talk about?

Wait a minute.

How come we know the problems and we know
the solutions and nothing is happening?

And I said, ah, human behavior.

So maybe that's where I can add something.

so I decided to write a book about
this and I spent, it took me, I don't

know, three, four years because I
did a lot of history, learned a lot

of new things, talked to many groups
around the world and people and,

learned about colonialism and learned
about the history of modern society

.
And of course the economic
systems that we now are under.

So what I try to do is give a
new perspective on the issues.

And I'm proud of the fact that
there's nothing new in the book

in the sense that all the problems
they describe are well known.

So, it's not just me complaining.

Uh, other very well established
credentialed people are complaint,

making the same complaints.

And I also have a rule which I should
never complain unless I know a better

solution, unless I know a solution.

And so I found solutions for everyone.

And they're not my personal
solutions, with one exception.

Uh, so again, it's not just
me, it's other people are doing

it and doing good work on it.

It just hasn't been
accepted around the world.

And the one exception has to do with what
I'm calling humanity centered design.

But what I realized was that
What I've been teaching, human

centered design, is wrong.

And I've been teaching it for
20 or 30 years, and it's the

book, Design of Everyday Things.

And what I usually do at this
point is I hold up the book in

front of the microphone, in front
of the camera, and you can see the

book, and I say, this is wrong.

Well, why is it wrong?

Well, there's nothing wrong in the book.

I still believe everything
that's in there.

What's wrong is what's not in the book.

what's not in the book is,
well, what today's issues are.

It doesn't talk about sustainability.

It doesn't talk about when we make
these wonderful, beautiful objects,

how we mine the earth and destroy the
ecology to get the materials we need.

And then we have to transform
it, smelt it, into materials that

we can use for manufacturing.

And then the manufacturing.

All of these steps pollute the
atmosphere, and the water, and the land.

worse, we have now the, in part because
of our economic philosophy, we want

to sell, and sell, and sell, and sell.

So we make products that don't
last very long, and that are

very difficult to repair.

And Some of the difficulty is deliberate,
I think, by the marketing people.

And, but some of it is that, well,
we want to make these products

thin and lightweight and beautiful.

And that requires gluing them
together and not using normal ways of

fastening things and making it really
hard to get in and change things.

Ha.

So, that's left.

And we also didn't talk about, so,
people who do digital products say,

well, that's not us, we're not polluting.

Well, first of all, all digital
products work on physical products.

more and more, especially
the new AI systems, take a

tremendous amount of electricity.

And where does that electricity come from?

And then, we're also polluting mines.

that we have deliberately
made things addictive.

And, you know, I used to
teach how to make things.

We called it, it was a lock in.

We said it was wonderful.

You know, you want people to come
back to your product or once you get

there, not, never to leave because
it's so exciting and important to them.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
Make them sticky.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
sticky.

So, anyway, First of all,
I wrote this book, and out.

Designed for a better world.

Meaningful, sustainable,
humanity centered.

And humanity centered also has one
more component, which is, if you look

at the colonialism, what happened was
the nations of the world, particularly

from Europe, but this includes the
United States, we call it the Western

nations went around the world and took
over all these other countries and

said, oh, we'll show you how to live.

And we'll show you the better way
to govern, and the better way to

have a religion, and the better way
to do this, that, and the other.

Come on now, we destroyed wonderful
cultures all around the world.

But designers do the same thing.

send out the anthropologist
to see what the issues, to

see how people work and so on.

And then we build things and we
say, isn't this wonderful, all these

wonderful devices we are giving you.

And No, so that if you're doing
things especially for societal

benefit, it should come from them.

again, this is hardly a new concept.

It's called participatory
design or co design.

It is well known in design circles,
but surprisingly little done because

it doesn't fit the it doesn't fit
the business models of companies.

companies, they want to bring out new
products on a particular schedule.

And it's really, they barely give the
design team enough time to do it well,

and they seldom give the design team
enough time or money to go out and

actually see what the customers really
need and how they work with things let

alone to have it come from the customers.

So that's what we have to change and
that's what's missing in centered design.

So I'm calling it.

Humanity centered design, if human
centered design is HCD, humanity is

HCD Same principles, but a bit more.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Sure.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
Well, then I decided one more thing.

Let me put my money, if you
will, where my beliefs are.

And so, with a bunch of friends,
I started a charity called the Don

Norman Design Award and Summit.

And It's an official charity
in the United States.

We have a board of five senior,
very experienced people.

Only one of them is a designer.

And got 18 people from around the world.

So there's the board and 18
advisors and the five people board.

23 people come from 12 countries.

And, uh, we said, what we want to
do is not reward great designers.

They don't need a reward.

When you're, when you're well
known, rewards don't mean much.

It doesn't change what you're going to do.

It's nice.

But it doesn't change anything.

We want to reward people
who are just starting out.

when you need the reward the most.

But they have to be practitioners.

I don't want, I don't
want lovely concepts.

Because that's what designers do.

They draw the plans and maybe
they'll make one model or something.

they'll test it among friends.

But it's not real.

So it has to be a practitioner.

I don't care how you were trained
or what your background is.

But it has to follow
my HCD plus principles.

They come in many versions, by the way.

It's not just called that, it's also
called life centered design or planet

centered design and other things.

But we all mean the same thing.

and they have to have evidence.

And I also wanted to reward
the educational institutions

that are training these people.

And for them I wanted two
kinds of evidence, a statement

of what their curriculum is.

It doesn't have to be the whole
department, it could be just

a small section a specialty.

But they also have to have
graduates who are out.

And the best evidence is that
they have graduates who are out

doing work for societal needs.

So that's what I've been doing.

And so the first year.

On August 2nd, or, no, on August
1st, we actually released the

results of the first year.

We had applications from 26 different
countries, and we ended up giving, for

the practitioners, three awards for
Alexa, for excellence, and two awards

for promising, in education we gave eight
awards, and then we realized there were

a whole bunch of things that didn't fit
our categories, so We invented a new

category called Special Recognition,
and that's eight awards, but it was

actually eight pro eleven projects
because some of them were multiple

projects from one non profit organization.

And so, we have now eleven
countries got awards.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Well, I
was going to call this episode human

centered AI, so we should probably
retitle it humanity centered AI.

Shall we agree on that?

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
Thank you.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Great stuff.

Well, that's what you're doing now.

Let's wind the clock back a little bit.

Cause I'm,

I've always been fascinated by your,

cause I've never, we've never
talked about this, your formative

influences, cause I've always been

impressed about what a

Renaissance man you are.

With such a breadth of kind of interest,
passions and skills from I had got

written down engineering, science, design,
business, academia, writing and speaking.

And you've just explained
with the research for your

latest book, you're adding in

Sort of history and.

economics into the mix as well.

But I'm just fascinated

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412: just

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
know, what were your

Influences, inspirations, the people
who, or even experiences that shaped you,

,
your thinking, your career,
however you want to put it.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
It's interesting because there's

there's a wonderful book that
sort of describes Who I am.

It wasn't written about me, but I read
the book and I said, Yeah, that's me.

and the argument was that a lot
of what we believe is that To be

really good at something, you really
have to focus your life on it.

And And so, you know, the book
starts off talking about Tiger

Woods, the golf player, who basically
has played golf since he was,

what, two years old or something.

And that's all he's done his whole life.

And yes, he was really wonderful.

But it turns out that for
sports, yeah, very useful.

But not But in fact, lots of successful
people were not successful at first,

because they're interested in everything.

And so they flitter around, and
they do this, and they do that, and

they do something else, and so on.

this book is by David Epstein.

It's called Range.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: I know it.

I've got it.

Yeah.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
Triumph?

Yeah, you know that book.

And I said, that's me.

It's because I started off, I really
wanted to do electronic circuits

and build circuits, because I loved
electronics, because it was invisible.

When I would take apart, as a child,
mechanical devices, I could figure

out how they worked, because you could
move things and see what happened.

And when I started taking apart the family
radio, well, it had lots of parts, but

they couldn't figure out what they did.

They were invisible, and I
loved that, and I still do.

I started learning and reading
a lot about electronics when

I was still in high school.

And so I decided I wanted
to be a circuit designer.

And I went to MIT in the States and
graduated with a degree in electrical

engineering, which is the field.

that does this, except computers
were just starting to come out then.

So I decided I wanted to learn more
about computers and build intelligent

machines, but there was no place doing it.

So I went to the University of
Pennsylvania, where the first computer

had been built in the United States,
and but nobody was there anymore.

They had all left and started companies.

So, by accident I got into psychology.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
How did that happen?

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
that happen?

Well, 'cause I, one the psychology
department suddenly changed.

They got a new head and the new person
came and gave a talk to the engineering

school and I listened and I said.

Well, that's interesting.

So if I can't build an intelligent
machine, maybe I could try to

understand how our brain works and,
you know, understand how that's done.

the new head was a physicist, and
he was establishing a new field

called mathematical psychology.

I went up and talked to him,
and he said, you don't know

anything at all about psychology.

And I said, that's right.

And he said, good.

And When I entered the psychology
department, I got my PhD in two

years, by the way, which is pretty

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Rapido.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
but I hated psychology, because

it was all memorization, there
weren't any principles and then the

major person in the world was B.

F.

Skinner, who was a behaviorist
who believed if you can't see

it, you can't study it, and
he had really terrible memory.

naive models of behavior.

But he was the world's famous, and
that was dominant psychology.

That the only stuff I found that was
at all interesting was the old stuff

from William James back in the early
1900s and from the people in Britain.

So Donald Broadbent, he was at
Oxford, no, Cambridge, and he was

writing this wonderful stuff, and
so I got, that's what I liked.

So.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: was that

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
We'll switch.

Was that

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: cognitive
psychology or cognitive science or kind of

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
kind of both.

Well see.

Psychology was when I, my
first job was at Harvard

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Okay.

Excellent.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
entered the department, uh, BF Skinner

stood up and denounced me in the work I
was doing and I thought, oh, a compliment.

And what I've done is I've taken
my knowledge about how things work

and how science works and so on and
information processing in general,

and I applied it in psychology.

And so what I would do is when I
would find things that were just,

there were things that were obvious
in engineering that were considered

brilliant insights to the psychologists.

every time you switch fields I discover
that happens because the fields are

so narrow and specialized they don't
know what other fields are doing.

so, you just take obvious stuff in one
field and put it in the other field,

and wee, wow, aren't you brilliant?

No, I'm not brilliant at all.

But so I, but I thought
psychology was too narrow.

Had very special ways of doing
it and doing experiments and

only in the laboratory, they
didn't go out to the world.

And so, I wanted to bring
in computer science.

I was already publishing in the
artificial intelligence journals.

And I wanted to bring in computational
thinking, and anthropology, and

sociology, and language, and psychology.

No, they just stuck to
what they were doing.

And so, I started the first department
of cognitive science in the world.

Actually, the people in Sussex
think that they were the first.

It doesn't matter.

The two of us were very
early in this business

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
Wow, I didn't know that.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412: And
But after a while I got, I began to get

interested in why people do things in the
world and the kind of errors they make.

And this got me interested in
human error and how it happens.

And and that got me involved in
some accidents like The nuclear

power accident in the United
States, called Three Mile Island.

we, when we were asked, a group of
us were asked to go and investigate

why the operators made all those
errors and couldn't figure out

what was going on for so long.

Why were they so stupid?

We decided they were very intelligent and
they did the best job they could, but the

design of that plant led to the errors.

If you wanted to design something
to cause errors, you could not

have done a better job, we said.

And I said, oh.

I'm supposed to understand people.

I'm a psychologist, and
I understand technology.

Maybe this field of design is
something I should work in.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Okay, so
that's when you discovered design.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
design.

Well, no, I didn't know there
was a field called design.

The people on this team were
all human factors people, so I

knew about human factors, or in
Europe it's called ergonomics.

And I didn't know about design at all.

And I Started looking at computer systems.

So we studied what the early days, what's
called human computer interaction today.

And wrote, I, then I went to Cambridge,
England for a sabbatical where I couldn't

work the water taps and I couldn't
work the light switches or the doors.

I went to Cambridge because it
was a good place to be and there

were lots of good, smart people.

I didn't intend to do anything,
but I Wow, I wrote this book,

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
So that's when you wrote the

psychology of everyday things.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412: The
Psychology of Everyday Things, which got

changed, by changing that, only, the only
change was to change the one word, so

it became The Design of Everyday Things.

And it was only as I had finished the
book, and I was showing the manuscript

to a bunch of friends, and one of
them said, that, I clearly didn't

understand that there was a profession
called design, and when I talked

about designers, I was insulting them.

And so, thank goodness he, he caught me.

I met him at a conference, I asked
him to read my manuscript, and he

read it briefly and said, Look,
there are a couple of real designers

here, let's go meet and talk to them.

And they told me that all the complaints
I had, they had the same complaints.

And all the kind of solutions I was trying
to suggest, they already were doing that.

But I actually changed a lot of my
book to, to reflect what I had learned.

In fact I blamed the designers at one
point, and there's a section of my book

called Pity the Poor Designer, who is
trying to do this, but the economic

pressures and other pressures prevent
them from doing the job properly.

So that's when I discovered design.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
And would you say

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
other problem, by the way, is that

interaction design, it was done
in the human computer interaction.

There were two groups doing it.

The HCI people were in the computer
science group, and they were either

computer scientists or psychologists.

And then there were a bunch of
designers, in, mostly in London or

in Silicon Valley who were doing the
same work, but they didn't, neither

group knew about the other one.

And that was interesting.

But today, fortunately, we both know
about each other and we work together.

Would

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Excellent.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
that,

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
you say that that,

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
Island

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
Three Mile Island,

Study you did was that way?

Is that where you found
your kind of guiding

motive for the rest of your career

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
the rest of my career.

I never know what I'm going,
I never know what I'm doing.

And so I just sort of stumble around
here and there and put things together.

In fact, I think I understand
what I'm doing, I write a book.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
and then move on?

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
it, I teach it, I write a book and then

I try to find some other areas that
is really interesting and I have no,

I, and I don't understand it at all.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Yeah.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
And so I spent, I think my students

have thought, they never thought I
understood anything because they always

saw me in this in between state when
I was confused and making errors and

stupid statements and, know, trying
to understand how we put together.

But I wanted to put together not
from the my own field, I wanted to

bring in anything that was known
in the world that was relevant.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
I admire your honesty.

I think lots of people try and post
rationalized an arc to their story

and downplay the sort of serendipity
element to their biographies.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
Even this, I said, what I'm doing

now is a charity and I said,
I helped establish a charity.

Well, not quite.

One of the people who used to work
for me at Apple is from India.

And he had taken me, he had
a project running in Apple.

And he, so he took me to see the project.

And it was right in the middle of
India, where I went to places, I'd be

visiting health centers in India, which
didn't have running water, didn't have

electricity, it was just one room.

I, I went to parts of India that my
Indian friends have never been to,

because they just live in the big cities.

So he's been a lifelong friend, and I've
been an advisor to a number of companies

he's set up, you know, after Apple.

He said he's the one who wanted
to start a prize in my honor.

And that's

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Nice.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
started.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Nice.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
it wasn't, I didn't have, I

didn't think through a course of
life that I'm going to follow.

I stumble around and let
the accidents guide me.

the accident has to be something
that attracts my attention.

And that, oh.

interesting.

I don't know much about it, but I
think that maybe I could learn a

lot, and also maybe some of the stuff
I know could apply and be useful.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Yeah,

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412: have

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: to be selective
about the accidents you follow up on.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
follow up on.

That's right.

It can't be random.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Indeed, Okay.

Let's move on to

getting into the

of user experience a bit more.

So before we get into AI, I
just want to backtrack and set

the scene about how you see

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412: see

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: interaction
evolved over the last few decades.

So I'll just set the scene a little bit.

So.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412: bit.

So,

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
Before computers, we had

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412: we

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
physical dedicated tools.

We had hammers to hammer nails in
and we had looms to weave cloth with.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
cloth

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: They were
dedicated for a particular task.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
task.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: we
had the computer arrive, which

became a more universal tool.

It had a

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
know, it

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
QWERTY keyboard, a mouse, a

desktop metaphor, what have you.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
what have

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
And sure enough, it had some

dedicated software tools, but

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
tools, but

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
people use quite big

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412: big

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: purpose tools
like word processors and spreadsheets

which were used for lots of different
tasks and as a result were crammed

with lots of different features.

And at the time I remember people used
to call these bits of software bloatware

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
of software bloatware

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413:
because they were so bloated with

features and quite hard to use.

And you wrote a book called
The Invisible Computer.

Yes, sir.

In 1998, where you bemoaned how
complicated and frustrating PCs were.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
things were.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: And as
you put it, this is largely down

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412: down

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: attempt to
cram too many functions into a single box.

And the fix you proposed was that
you, you championed a, a concept,

um, called the Information Appliance,
which I think originally was

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
/originally

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: by Jeff Raskin.

.
squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412: And

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: that broadly

put forward that if,

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
that if

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: computers
were multi purpose machines, if you like,

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412: you

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: information
appliances should be more dedicated.

So if

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412: So

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: PC was a
Swiss Army penknife, the information

appliance would be a dedicated penknife.

steak knife for example.

.
squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
I must

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: I
was very taken by this idea and

tried to set up a lab around it
unsuccessfully, unfortunately.

But before we get on to how the smartphone

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
smartphone era

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: things, do
you want to expand on any of that setup

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
Oh, wow.

Yes.

We, but we don't have all day do

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Indeed.

Yeah.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
you left out an important step, is that

a lot of the early devices, in fact
all the early devices, were mechanical.

so, even a loom, for example, to use a
loom, it really takes a lot of skills.

It takes a, it's a long learning process.

Whether it's the early hand looms, where
you had to learn to spin the and make the

thread, and then do the sewing and so on.

Or, the big mechanical, in the early days
of the Industrial Revolution the when

England mechanized the making of cloth
To run those machines was fairly complex.

But you could understand all the
steps, because you could see it.

You could see it working.

You could see when the thread broke,
how it just, you know, you had to

stop everything and reset everything.

And you could see how all these
different levers, because to do,

to weave, Something with a pattern
in it required really incredible

kinds of, uh, mechanical devices.

But, uh, once again, you
could look at each one and

figure it out all by yourself.

But when electric devices came into
going, being, the first ones were still

easy to figure out because they were
basically motors and uh, light bulbs.

But there wasn't much to it.

But as they got more and more complex,
and especially once we got What's called

vacuum tubes and then transistors.

, it could do all sorts of things and
there's no way of figuring it out.

You had to learn about it and
learn the theory behind it.

And so I think that was the
beginning of complex devices.

For the first time instead of being able
to figure it out, you were at the mercy of

the person who designed it and what kind
of controls they decided to give you and

how they explained what they were doing.

Take a look at some of those
early radios or the early TV sets.

They'll have about seven or
eight different controls.

And trying to use them, it
was, never understood them.

They would just twiddle in each of
them until something seemed okay.

So, the next step is that,
You're absolutely right.

Once we got to these more general purpose
things run by computers was interesting

is in the early days of the internet,
I was one of the first users in the

first couple thousand users, I guess.

Because first of all, I was at MIT
and I was at Harvard and I was writing

papers with a friend at MIT and they
had a time shared computer system

and we could write papers together.

And And then when I moved to the
University of California in San

Diego, we could still keep writing
because we had an internet connection.

There weren't very many of them.

But we had one of those connections.

It was called the ARPAnet, the Advanced
Research Project Agency Network.

And, but you know what?

we use the word processor all the time.

It was really effective for Irish writing,
but the head of the computer center came

to my, came to me and said, I should stop.

He said, you're costing us.

Do you know what it takes
to, to write a paper on this?

You had a waste of the use of
the, of a powerful computer.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Right.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
a character, and that character has to

go on an expensive telephone line all
the way to Cambridge, Massachusetts,

and then it has to come back again.

So that your system can say, yes,
you got the correct character.

And then you can send the next
character, the next character.

And, what a waste of time, you know?

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: And back then,
were you writing on a shared document?

Or were you emailing or
transferring files to each other?

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
other.

We couldn't edit at the same time.

So, , we could edit the single document,
but when one person was editing,

the other person had to keep away.

and email didn't exist, but you,
there were various things that

kind of allowed you to chat and
send text messages back and forth.

Or you'd be on the
telephone while typing away.

because email was still, it
was just about, just starting.

And But the other thing that happened is I
began to learn that when you have a power

device and people are starting to use it
and it's creating, doing, because it's

really helping them, you shouldn't go and
say, hey, that's not what this is for.

So you use the example of a spreadsheet.

The first spreadsheet revolutionized.

It came out on this tiny little
machine called the Apple II.

don't remember how much memory it had.

48, 000 words or something?

No, probably less.

And it revolutionized the way
accountants were doing their jobs.

But guess what?

It's a spreadsheet.

It's, it turns out to be a
document rows and columns.

And then each cell can have a value
that's determined by a computation

based on surrounding cells.

So people started playing, making
computer programs out of it.

The game of life.

which is a wonderful game, is, you
can build it on the spreadsheet.

It's really wonderful.

You don't have to know any programming
language, you just built it.

And and people realized that,
oh, they could store you know,

a catalog of the items they own.

They could make it into a database.

And you could use it for your, lists.

And it did all sorts of wonderful
things, and And you said this led to the,

you know, the great confusion because
once the companies discovered this,

they said, Oh, well, let's help you.

We'll add a new special command that
is helpful just for that purpose.

So yes, these things got
more and more complex.

But in some sense, it's because you built
this general purpose tool and people were

using it in ways you'd never dreamed.

By the way, this is true
of mechanical tools, too.

Take a look at a hammer, a screwdriver.

people use a screwdriver,
what do they use it for?

Well, they sometimes use it to pry open

devices.

They use it like a hammer, or like a
chisel, and they bang on the top and

the, and they do all sorts of things
you're not supposed to do with it.

But, the solution in the
mechanical thing is we invented

specialized tools that did that.

Or, we simply let people
use the tools the wrong way.

And the professionals said, Oh, you
should be using a specialized tool.

But no.

Everybody just said, Look, my,
my screwdriver is really great.

I use it for screws.

I use it for chipping away wood.

I use it for scratching my back.

I use it for reaching into
a, you know, a dark area.

And if it breaks, okay, I buy a new one.

So, that's a good lesson, and yes,
specialized tools are easier to

use, they're made for the function,
and they actually do a better job.

But, you end up with lots and
lots of specialized devices,

and that's our cell phone today.

The cell phone is a platform, and inside
we have different, what we call them,

apps, specialized devices that, in theory,
are very simple to use, because they're,

you know, designed for one function only.

but we have a lot of them.

But actually, the problem is though, that
each one of the ones that was designed

for just one thing, people discovered
other ways of using it, things it could

do that nobody ever thought of, and so
pretty soon, it was no longer specialized.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: I don't
know how you see it, but I thought the

The smartphone was almost like
half an information appliance.

It was still one box.

It was even

A bigger universal box than the PC,
because it incorporated cameras and

alarm clocks and calculators and things.

But you had all these dedicated
little tools inside it.

The software tool.

So

How do you, looking back on the
information appliance kind of

concept, how do you see that
compared to the smartphone?

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
phone?

Well, the smartphone, as you point out,
is a platform for information appliances.

And it's very small, relatively.

And the main thing that makes it
big is the need for a larger screen.

And so now we're into wrappable screens
and folding screens and they're, in the

labs we have screens that roll up so
they're very small and then when you

want a big screen you just unroll it.

You roll it as whatever
size you want it to be.

But, because there's sort of a conflict
between having something small that

fits in the pocket, but then it's
very hard to use and to read or to

do, to work on a spreadsheet on a tiny
little screen is really difficult.

But, yeah, I think it's
an information appliance.

And mind you, we're getting more and
more information appliances that are

real physical devices that are small,
that do things, like our watches.

kevin_1_08-07-2024_172413: Yeah.

Yeah.

squadcaster-dhaf_1_08-07-2024_092412:
it was, and then it said, well it also

tells you the date, and it also tells
you the day of the week, and then it

also, well we'll give you a timer so you
can time something, or an alarm clock

so you can wake up, or, Oh, by the way,
we just discovered how you can measure

blood pressure, or heart rate, or oxygen
content of your blood from the watch, and

so now it's becoming, here we go again,
this very complex device, but it's filled

with individual information appliances.

squadcaster-1ghd_4_09-10-2024_112237:
So that was the first

half of our conversation.

In part two, we move on to the big
questions around human centered AI and

what it means for the future of UX.