3RD COLLOQUIUM ARCHITECTURE & BEHAVIOUR
DATA HIGHWAYS' INCIDENCE ON URBAN DESIGN AND LIFE
SESSION 1: Appropriating New Technologies Jean-Claude Gabus
FST (Swiss Foundation for Rehabilitation Technology)
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
In the High Tech area, I have the feeling that consumers are often in a situation for which they don't
see a real application. At my point of view, this consideration does not seem to be specific to an
application sector. As a result, progresses made in new technologies could always be more and
more unwanted and/or misunderstood. This observation could have a lot of effects in the medium
or long term.
n fact, I am supposing that our society is changing some of its traditional values and moving in a
society in which the Progress, with a capital "P", will not be easily accepted anymore. We could
express the same phenomena in another way, like for example" the progress considered will not be
the direct result of some R&D work, but the consequence of this work upon our quality of life".
One day, it could be normal to say that the value of the technological progress is not anymore in
the technology itself, but in the way human beings could apply it and/or benefit from it.
Our observation platform...
The FST belongs to the technical rehabilitation field. In Switzerland and since 1972, severely disabled
people are daily using what we call "telethesis" or technical aids. The main applications made from
the equipments and services we provide are divided in three fields:
• Adapting computer man/machine interface in order to help people with severe
physicaldiseases
• Providing electronic speech (digital or text-to-speech) in order to provide an alternativeand
augmentative communication system to people without oral communication (AAC)
• Environmental controls used to increase the choice of a tetraplegic, to do by himself simple
things like, for example, answering to a phone, giving a call, opening and closing doors or
windows, etc...
In our country, there are 2500 disabled using daily some of our equipments and about 4000 in
other european countries.
In this field, most of the concerned people (disabled users as well as family and/or professionals) are
very often reluctant in regard of High Tech. From my point of view, it is mainly the accumulation of
two factors:
• Using technical aids confirms the disability and can also generate some new balances in the
relationship between users and carers (or the family)
• Equipments used are generally considered as having a high degree of innovation
In the consumer's electronic market, customers have a large degree of freedom in the buying
process. It could be mentioned that, when they buy new devices, it is more or less to satisfy a
demand which generates pleasure or satisfactions. The "buying degree of freedom" is, so to say,
relatively high compared with the same process applied in our field.
A typical FST customer is characterized, under this point of view, with at least following points:
• The demand he may have is based on an unwanted situation; an accident or an illness.
• He does not belong automatically to High Tech fans....
• He is in an situation in which his behaviour and relationship with able-bodied persons are
not representing normal ones, mainly based on the dependence in which he is in regard to
carers and/or family.
From my point of view, this specific market can show us some considerations which, based on the
above postulated evolution of the Progress perception, the public will more and more develop in
regard to new technologies. The process linked to the steps up to the total appropriations of new
technologies could then be of interest.
2. From an idea to its appropriation by users
I would like try to outline the creative process, as experienced by a creator and his creation, from
the original idea to the point at which the creation acquires a common place status, i.e., at which
consumers fully adopt the new concept and make it common place.
First Condition: What to Create
In most situations, if a consumer is asked what product he would like to see launched on the market
in the future, he or she will be unable to go beyond the limits of previous experience. In other
words, it is very difficult to (dare to) imagine the use of a new product. If a creator presents a new
idea for evaluation, based on a project or prototype, the best he can hope to obtain is confirmation,
sometimes no more than partial, that a specific need could be answered by the product he
proposes. The user confuses the idea of need and the demand generated by that need. In the end,
the product's utility will be proved by the demand for the product. Unfortunately, the concept of
demand is very rarely generated on presentation of an idea. Demand does not really begin to arise
until the first applications of the product take place. Therefore, a risk directly proportional to the
project degree of innovation must be assumed.
The creator's interest is centred principally on the potential uses of an idea or product, rather than
on the idea of the product itself. In addition to creating the references necessary to invent a new
item, he must be able to calculate its impact. A creator must learn from the past in order to
understand why the present is as it is. The present can then be used as a basis for evaluating the
future. A creator knows that he must rely mainly on his own forecast of the demand which will be
generated for the product he intends to create.
From an observer's standpoint, a creator essentially follows his intuition. In reality, he often pursues
a relatively logical reasoning process. Taken to extremes, this process may be characterized as
intuitive, provided that intuition is defined along the following lines: "a logical process of which the
detail and development escape our conscious awareness".
In Switzerland (as well as, maybe, in other countries), the public's interest for new products is not of
overwhelming significance. The present and its slow and pensive evolution offer comfort
(reassurance?) in which the Swiss are perhaps more willing to indulge than are the citizens of some
other countries. I do not decry the art of cultivating these values, however, I do regret that we find
an incompatibility between what may be termed "the right to create and to the recognition of the
values engendered by creation" and the value attached to what is now thought and done, or was
always thought and done.
Second Condition: How to Create
The greater the innovative nature of the projected creation, the less recourse to acquired knowledge
is theoretically possible. Knowledge can stifle creativity, by providing security and tending to
validate existing choices. The inability to identify references in support of a project from one's own
knowledge, or that of others, can become - with a sort of "academic blessing" - an excellent reason
for inaction.
A creator's priority should not be what he knows (or others know), but rather what he can make of
what he knows. For this purpose, one solution is to work with a team whose members are
competent in several fields. We must also recognise that new ideas are often produced by people
who are not experts on a particular subject: nevertheless if the idea is to be developed, a specialist
will be better able to bring it to fruition.
Third Condition: the Necessary Means and Support
The initiator must convince others that the project he wishes to develop has merit. The great
difficulty here is the inventor's tendency to underestimate the problems he will encounter. I do not
take this for a deliberate manipulation, but rather as a healthy reaction: if a creator were to know
beforehand the extent and nature of the problems facing him, he would hesitate to proceed with, or
even renounce his project. However good the idea, a creator must not forget that it is of fleeting
value as long as it is not shared with other like-minded people.
Fourth Condition: Patience
Based on the creative experiments carried out by the FST, I have observed that a new creation goes
through several stages. When a new product is launched, consumers rarely applaud. The creator
should not be surprised at this, nor offended by a lukewarm response from potential users. He
must accept that a reliable judgement can only be formed if enough tests have been performed, i.e.
where critical mass is achieved. It is best to warn the project contributors of this, even at the risk of
causing a disappointment which may have grave consequences.
Fifth and Last Condition: BELIEVE IN IT !
A creator's task begins by an assumption of risk (by the creator and those involved in the project).
In spite of continuing doubt, he must not be afraid to seek solutions to the series of problems his
creation will pose. A creator must remain confident and, may be, meditate on the following maxim:
having self-confidence does not mean ignoring doubts, but learning to handle them. At critical
moments, it often occurs to me that "things are going well when one's available energy is sufficient to
respond to the problems that arise".
3. Why not taking an example...
FST is lucky enough to be in some Europe Union TIDE and SPRINT research projects (Tide M3S,
FOCUS, HEART, LAMP, MOVAID and SPRINT IMMEDIATE). In the MOVAID project, we plan to
apply robotic to the rehab field. From my point of view, this project carries a large degree of
innovation, not only on the technological aspect, but mainly on the application field; robot
(manipulators) applications in the rehab field are not really made yet. In MOVAID, a mobile robot is
developed. The main considered tasks this manipulator must do are for example:
• Preparing food and helping the disabled to eat
• Taking dirty sheets and put them in the trash
• Opening doors and windows
FST must, in the MOVAID project, do some technical work of course, but also contribute deeply to
user's need definition and final evaluation. I propose to use here some aspects of a paper we had to
provide for this project (with the authorization of the main contractor of this projet, Scuola Superiore
St. Anna, Prof. Paolo DARIO, Pisa, Italy).
3.1. Definition of the words "need" and "demand":
Need: theoretical analysis definition of the users/carers situation and related weakness
possibly compensated by assistive technology
Demand: based on the total needs (according to the above mentioned definition), the demand is
the part which is precisely recognised by both the user and the carer(s).
If a product evaluation is based only on the "need" aspect, its results could be either too pessimistic
or too optimistic. One should also take into consideration that doing such an evaluation can be
difficult, if the initial motivation of both user and carer(s) is too low. As a consequence, the fact of
being faced with problems (for example technical ones) during the evaluation will create a good or
better reason to stop it.
Again, from an ideal point of view, if the evaluation is made with a confirmed demand from both the
user and the carer(s), the "reliability" of the results will be higher.
Postulate about demand
From an ideal point of view, a demand for some MOVAID's possibilities could be formulated as
follows. "I am alone at home during lunch time and I really have troubles to prepare my food.....",
or: "the maid coming every morning really does not like to change my bed. Due to some
incontinence problems, my bed is really dirty..."
The probability that such formulations are made is small. Anyway, when a need is identified, the
corresponding demand can be revealed. The evaluator must have those considerations in mind
during all the contacts with potential users/carers, in order to stimulate (and not create) the demand
as much as possible before the evaluation is made.
Looking for synergy...
One of the evaluation's goals could be to look for synergy in other applications fields. In both
kitchen appliances and robotic parts of the project, users' evaluation will include questions related to
other applications of the robot arm as well as other kitchen appliances.
3.2. Basic proposal for user's evaluation
Whom?
First of all, we propose that evaluation with users should not only focus on users themselves but
also on the carers. Based on FST's experiences in assisting technologies for disabled users, reports
based on applications or tests results only are interesting, but not enough. As a consequence, the
evaluations results obtained on the first evaluations are not easily reproducible at other places,
because the general conditions around, might not be the same at the new place.
The evaluation should take into consideration the reactions of carers as well as the conditions in
which the complete evaluation process is made. In other terms, we propose that:
• Description of the time needed to train up the carers has to be taken into account.
This will describe under which conditions, how long and how many times training will be
given to the "user-carer", not only to operate the system, but to make some small
maintenance actions, including a good verbal or written explanation of the possible
technical problems which may appear.
• Description of both the users and carers' backgrounds, their knowledge, their
experiences with assisting technology, etc....
It is of importance the background of both user/carer to be well described in this context. In a
situation in which technical sophisticated aids are being used successfully since many
years; on can suppose that training time will be shorter if compared with another team
with no (or bad) experience in the matter.
• How many times must the technician (Movaid's team or/and our people) spend to install
the system and how frequently they have to be present, in order to complete training or
to do the maintenance.
Unfortunately and very often, the carer's team changes (nobody else knows how to operate the
system) or, in case the system is not manipulated by the carer for some weeks, the carer, even if it
was trained before, do not remember anymore how to proceed with the equipment
3.3. - Basic approach of testing
The wider goal of the MOVAID Project is to enable elderly and disabled users to exploit their own
abilities, so that everyday tasks can be performed with a higher degree of comfort and
independence. The goal of user testing must be to determine whether MOVAID systems do indeed
assist users during the performance of such tasks. In principle, two approaches could be taken into
account for the testing of the MOVAID systems: the absolute and relative.
The absolute approach:
It consists of evaluating MOVAID systems without reference to other rehabilitation products (or
method of carrying out tasks), measuring the system performance on the basis of user performance
and subjective responses (both quantitative and qualitative) while carrying out specified tasks.
The m ain a dvantage s of this approach are that testing would be methodologically simple; we would
know whether the systems is effective and acceptable for users; and any major problems would be
identified.
The m ain d isadvantag e is that it would be difficult to determine (in an objective way) whether
MOVAID systems had actually improved the user's situation. Knowing the investment in
MOVAID, it would be folly to ignore this factor in the evaluation: for this reason alone, the absolute
approach cannot be considered as suitable.
The relative approach:
It would be to test MOVAID systems against the baseline of the user's existing rehabilitation
technology (or other method of carrying out tasks), again measuring system performance on the
basis of user performance and subjective responses while carrying out specified tasks.
The m ain a dvantage s : in this way, any differences between MOVAID systems and the user's
existing situation could be made explicit; it would be possible to identify and rank any problem areas
(allowing decisions to be made about resource allocation to solutions); and it will also be possible to
identify major successes.
The m ain d isadvantage s of the relative approach are that users will need practice with the MOVAID
systems; they will have to take part in at least two test sessions; and the test methodology will be
more complex. Nevertheless, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, so the relative approach
will be adopted for user testing.
3.4. - Outline test specification
The testing will be carried out in three countries (Italy, France and Switzerland), but the test method
will be identical in every case. The test will consist of a number of three sessions of user trials. The
sessions within a trial will be separated in time - users could not be expected to take part in all three
sessions in a single day.
First Test Session: Baseline
In each user's first session, his or her Baseline performance of specified tasks will be measured, s o
the user will carry out the tasks in his or her usual way (making use of their existing technology or
method). If a specified task is one which the user is normally unable to perform, this will be noted,
and the next task carried out.
Objective performance will be measured in terms of efficiency (effort required to perform the task),
and effectiveness (level of success). Subjective measures will be based on user judgements of
satisfaction and comfort experienced during task performance, and of the extent to which the
technology (or method) suits his or her perceived needs.
Second Test Session: First Sight And Practice
The second test session will have two phases: a test phase, in which the user's perceptions of the
MOVAID systems are measured when they see the systems for the first time; and a practice phase,
in which the user can familiarise him or herself with the systems (the learn ability of the systems will
be assessed, for both the user and the carer).
First Sight
Objective and subjective measures of the user's perceptions of the MOVAID systems will be taken,
concentrating on aesthetics (visual, audible, tactile appeal), what the systems communicate to the
user (can the user determine basic functions without help?), and predicted performance (what does
the user expect from the systems?).
Practice
In the practice session, the user can explore and use the MOVAID systems, and receive guidance
or help as required from a person familiar with the technology and its use. The practice session will
be open, in the sense that it will enable the user to practice the specified tasks for the final test
session, but the user will not be restricted to those tasks (thus the user may "play" with the
systems). The time and help required to achieve familiarity will be noted, in order to assess learn
ability.
Final Test Session: MOVAID Performance
The final session will also have two phases, in which two further aspects of performance with
MOVAID systems will be measured: During Use (objective and subjective measures of task
performance, much like the Baseline session); and After Use (perceptions of the MOVAID systems
in general, following use).
Analysis of Results
The First Sight measures of the MOVAID systems will be used to determine the extent to which the
systems are acceptable, and communicative, and to identify any problem areas (which deter users
from accepting MOVAID systems). During and After Use measures will be compared to the Baseline
measures in order to determine whether MOVAID systems offered users any advantages (or
disadvantages) compared with their existing technology or methods, and to identify usability
problems generally.
Additionally, the First Sight and After Use measures will be compared, in order to determine whether
users appreciation of the MOVAID systems changed with use of the systems. This comparison can
be used to identify more subtle problems which may arise with the systems.
4. Multidisciplinarity
The appropriation process in new technologies as developed in this document will, I think, more and
more need cooperation between many different sciences. If a computer specialist starts to develop a
strong innovative product without taking into consideration many aspects of his work belonging to
other sciences, he may be disappointed about the result he really obtains on the market later. I am
convinced that cooperating with other sciences (human sciences particularly) will be more and more
necessary. But these sciences are not automatically used to cooperate...
I have herewith enclosed a paper relative to my (limited) perception of a mutlidisciplinary team work
in the field of augmentative and alternative communication systems for people without oral
communication. It could not be applied as such in many other situations, but it could give an idea
how we proceed.
Appropriating new technologies and going in a multidisciplinary team work, is basically characterized
by a broad diversity of aspects. Communication between partners is not as easy as we can hope....
5. How to communicate in the diversity of a multidisciplinary team?
Praising T he D ifferenc e or the notion of removing barriers.
Removing barriers must not lead to a levelling out of the differences. Does not the richness of a
system also lie in the diversity of its elements? The desire to remove barriers does not mean to unify
or level out. Now and then, the differences are seen to undermine our identity. On the contrary, we
should consider them as a means of reinforcing our personal and social identity.
To remove barriers, is it not, first and foremost to praise the fact of being different?
Quality o f C o m munication
In the relations between men, do we not often notice that their deep divergences stem from the
quality of communication? Communication brings with it an inherent risk - that of not understanding
or, even worse, that of believing oneself to be understood! Therefore , we put forward the
hypothesis that the quality of our exchanges is a primordial factor in the harmony of our relations,
particularly in fields as different as economy and culture.
Difficulty Inherent T o C ommunicating in D iverse W a y s
As these lines are written, the meaning of the words used is in the author’s head. From this first
stage, until the final one of another person reading the document, these words, or to be more exact,
these signs (or even these spots of ink on the paper paste) carry no meaning whatsoever. The
meaning of the content is given by the reader himself.
When one expresses oneself orally, is it not similar? In the physical reality of speech transmission,
the words pronounced are but vibrations of air, caused by the speaker and captured by the
interlocutor. Each one gives meaning to these vibrations!
There are undoubtedly several studies dealing with the above reflection. One author, a scientist b y
profession (the exact sciences) has written a doctoral thesis on this subject ("Communicating Man as
a unique being" ("L'homme communique comme unique") - Prof. Gil Le Cardinal - the Technological
University of Compiègne - 1989). Le Cardinal analyses these “mechanisms” and proposes the term
“intelligence structure” to mean the knowledge which allows man to make sense of what he
perceives or what he conceives prior to transmission.
This also reveals another essential factor. In order that two individuals or systems may
communicate and understand each other, their “intelligence structures” must have a part in
common. Le Cardinal writes about the shared fund of evidence. The sign of greeting carried out in
Tibet (end of nose) corresponds to something totally different in the western world. Within a group
of Tibetans and westerners, not to know this could lead to a diplomatic incident!...
By definition, communicating in different ways is made difficult by the inherent risk of not having a
shared fund of sufficient evidence. This risk is even greater when the interlocutors, in good faith,
postulate to have been understood or to have understood the other’s message...
How T o C ommunicate " within d iversity"
Based on the above, we could not dream of giving ourselves the means capable of generating “the
intelligence structure ” shared by the Other, preferably! Our plan ought to be to imagine, first of all,
the necessity of “producing” a growth in “the intelligence structure ” (for one and the Other) and/or
to take maximum precautions, so that the shared fund of evidence is as large as possible.
To answer this question, let us try to consider the cognitive means we use to generate “the
intelligence structure ”. Did not Jean Piaget write that “intelligence results from an interiorized
action”? Does not Albert Jaccard speak of “humanitude”, that is to say, this knowledge resulting
from the inner self and the acquired, produced by man with the help of other men? It is probable
that man must be confronted with these questions or problems to resolve in order for cognitive
development to take place.
Besides, have we not noticed that our mistakes are often not due to an error in our reasoning, but
on the contrary, due to an inability to outline the problem to be resolved?
Communication situations often cause us to debate many problems. Have we not got the tendency
to only transmit, in principal, the solution or the conclusion at which we have arrived, without taking
the necessary time to check if our perception of the message (object of debate) is the same as that of
our interlocutor? If, in an “incommunicable” situation, we take the time to debate, above all, the
problem posed and not its(s) solution(s), do we not notice an improvement in the quality of
communication as a result?
How many times have we not noticed that the solution to a problem which has taken us several
years, is found in a few hours by the other, as long as the issue is essentially centred on only
defining and recognising the problem posed
What follows from the above, is that apparently the means which allow communication in diverse
ways is based on the exchange of our perceptions of the problem, postulating that the other, while
generating “the intelligence structure” in common, will find the solution himself.
If this model is of interest, it is not however sufficient. In reality, we cannot always put it into
practice. Among the factors against it can be mentioned the time needed or even the pleasure of
transmitting the solution to the problem posed, to the other (are we not happy to have found
something...!).
If we accept this inherent difficulty, we can assume that language, alone (oral or written), is not
enough and that, from this, communication is even more difficult when the people present are from
very different backgrounds!
If language is not enough, how can its deficiencies be compensated?
But F urthermore...
In the research field concerning automatic translation, certain researchers consider that the solution
is recourse to a meta-language. This language is will become common to all translations, but will
belong to no language in particular.
Is this remark not of interest? Translating from one language to another, is to communicate through
the diversity of languages. As far as the author is concerned, culture is a important generator of
shared “intelligence structure”. Whatsmore, nobody can appropriate it for themselves - it is the
patrimony of all!
If we go one step further in our reasoning, could not the cultural dimension be reinforced even
more by the spiritual? Is not spiritual life a fundamental illumination of our respective
consciousness?
***
We have seen the importance of communication and the inherent difficulties, linked directly to the
diversity of interlocutors present. Even if it is possible, by certain strategies, to improve the chances
of making oneself understood and understanding the other, we have shown that spoken and
written language are not enough and that complementary means have to be found.
These means are very probably beyond language. Perhaps they are a meta-language. If it is
necessary to seek beyond language, is it not a matter of what attitude to take?
An attitude whose qualification are, for example, ideally ...
respect and solidarity !
5. C onclusions
The progress has a value when it can be shared
between all of us and could increase our quality of life...
Uncontrolled progresses in new technologies could, one day, generate a new illness which could be
called "technose"...
Within the FST, we try to take as much care as possible, in order to avoid this risk. For us, the
objectives of the technology are, as far as possible, to avoid handicaps (physical or mental) by using
some technology tools. We are convinced that the most important aspect of our R&D work is not in
the technology itself, but in the way users could appropriate and use it.
It is impossible to stop the progress and we have to try to control it as much as possible. As
consumers, we should help the researchers (mainly in applied research) to define in which fields
they should improve the actual state of the art. I think that we have to try strongly to reject the
progress if it does not bring a real contribution to our quality of life. We have the power for it!
Is there any vaccine against this "technose"? I am convinced that opening borders between exact
and human sciences belongs to the solutions allowing to control the progress' development in a
right way. We should try to link ...
High Tech, Ethic, and Tact...
GB/November 1995
|
