#futurebar

Last week, we turned up to class and were told to break into groups and start working on individual interventions in the bar. A new concept for the bar’s design has appeared (I’m not sure where from) that involves a whole lot of small boxes. The new brief we were asked to create was not mentioned- this was disappointing, but I’m happy to move on and get started on making things. 

Jeremy, Polly, Don and I are in a group working on a photobooth. We planned it out last class, and this class are bringing in various objects to start working.

A list of intervention ideas has been created, and people are deciding what they want to work on. The brief is still up in the air, but we’ve told all the groups to at least remember that they should just ask the question ‘does this improve/increase social interaction?’ whether directly or indirectly. After all, other than the actual consumption of food and drink, thats why people go to a bar, and it should continue to be at the core of ‘why’ this bar exists.

During last class, we had a meeting with the Research team and the graduate students in which grievances were aired in terms of the progress and level of teamwork, and we resolved to create a new brief ready for this week. 

Jeremy posted a precedent of a ‘climb in selfie’ - where cut out are mounted on a wall, and have to be filled for the photo to be taken. 

Concept 1

Based on this, I wondered if we could use the old fashioned aesthetic that has been established for the bar, to create something similiar: a ‘photo booth’ type set up. Firstly, this would work in conjunction with another intervention discouraging users from using their phones (discussed on the group Trello board). Then, since they can’t take a selfie on their phone, they will be more likely to want to take it with something in the space. This could have the appearance of an old fashioned camera, perhaps set up on a stand, in front of an interesting scene.  To get the camera to work, perhaps someone has to place their eye on the viewfinder (so if you want all your friends to be in it, you have to ask a stranger). Perhaps there is some other key to make it work. 

Concept 2

Combine ‘not using’ your phone with the photo booth idea: upon arriving at the bar, patrons insert there phone into a holder (perhaps styled like an old camera). Its placed at a good angle to view the table, it charges the phone, and it is connected by a cable to a button on your table. Just like a selfie stick: you hit the button to take a photo. This way, you can take photos whenever you want and they are already on your phone, but you aren’t using to to interact externally. Also, like having to wait til the film was developed in an old camera, you have to wait til the end of the evening to see your pictures. Perhaps to add appeal, the set up adds an interesting filter (eg sepia). Or, it prints out pics like a polaroid camera.

!!

Before last week’s class, I looked into whether any research had been done on people’s awareness of how much they use technology. I couldn’t really find anything, which surprised me: I expected to find quite a lot, and be able to use that to further inform this whole why revolving around control over technology. 

What I did find was a lot of very negative media about technology - combined with the phrase titling this post, it seems the media is constantly pushing the idea that technology undermines social interaction. However, there was research going both ways. A study showed that when couples spoke with phones present, they tended to fiddle with the phone and seemed to be a bit distracted. When phones weren’t present, they rated the quality of the conversations, and the level of empathy much higher. 

On the other hand, I found some studies that successfully implemented technology in public spaces to improve social interaction. ‘Fish Pong’, a game that is started automatically when a user places their coffee cup on a table, gets people spontaneously interacting to keep a projected fish from falling off the table. In other cases, large installations, like an interactive wall, are found to have a ‘honeypot’ effect: people will gather around them, and once there, the strangers interacting will end up chatting. 

So the thing is: why are we vaguely talking about ‘technology’ in this way? 

Yet, I found  suddenly realized a problem with this. The term technology is so insanely broad! There’s no point arguing whether tech is good or bad because a) its here, and not going away and b) WHICH technology? We should think about when tech is bad, yes, but also when and how technology can be good. 

In the context of a bar, a social environment, we should be thinking about how we can use tech to improve that social experience. This is the key reason people go to a bar- yes food and drink is important, but you can get that at home too - the social atmosphere is the key. In this space, technology that takes you OUT of the moment, that connects you to the external (the internet, people you are texting) is negative to the social experience. Technology that helps you better ENGAGE with the current environment - either assisting interactions with the people you came to the bar with, or to meet new people there, is positive. According to the authors of the ‘fish pong’ study, the advantage of these tech interventions is that they can get people interacting the way kids do! ‘Play first, talk later’. They break the ice, they get past any cultural barriers, so you can be having fun, and interacting spontaneously, then get to know each other after. 

I think that interventions within this bar then, need to keep this in mind. They should be trying to improve interactions with either 1) people who already know each other 2) strangers in the bar. And they should do this by 1) Discouraging people from using their phones to connect to external, 2) Smoothing, assisting natural interactions between people (eg a system to get server’s attention so you don’t have to be distracted from a conversation to order a drink) 3) Encouraging people to interact WITHIN the space (eg honeypot, or things that only work with multiple people).

So I am in the research team which is responsible for finalizing the core idea of the space, establishing the ‘WHY’: why would people come to this bar? And what is its purpose - what is the story?

Yesterday’s class we started with the usual sticky note brainstorm. Lots of people made great points. Eventually we arrived at the idea that ‘Jack’ could be an AI, in control of the bar. The bar doesn’t just consist of technology that is hijacked: the point is to hiijack the bar, to take control from the AI, and from other patrons, in order to make the bar the way you want.

The bar might be very controlled when you arrive, eg Jack, as a computer, has calculated ‘ideal’ conditions for all patrons: eg there is a menu, but Jack has decided only house wine is available because the majority of humans like wine. Patrons then need to do things to change it. Alternatively, things are normal except when Jack melts down, then patrons of the bar need to work together to fix things. Or, things are always in a state of flux: changing according to what users do in the bar (eg ordering drinks, dancing)- so to get music and drinks you like, you should work together. In that instance, Jack as an entity perhaps helps or hinders whichever patrons it likes. In any case, the point is still to ‘hiijack’ the bar: we need to decide which story we want to tell.

I guess the point is to say that while people complain about technology changing us, we need to remember we are in control: if you don’t like the way technology is right now, change it!