Creativity is not a talent. It is a way of operating.

Creative people are not different from less creative people. Creative people just find ways to get in a certain mood, in a certain way of operating. They are playful and child-like. They play with ideas and explore them. Most of us know this. In the following video, of which I summarised just some points, John Cleese talks about creativity. It is well worth watching.

At work we function typically in two modes: in an open and a closed mode. In closed mode we act purposeful. We are less humorous, slightly anxious and impatient. We are focused and want to get things done. In open mode we act without specific purpose. We are curious, playful, humorous. We should alternate between the two modes as the open mode helps us solve problems and the closed mode helps us implement solutions.

John Cleese describes five factors that are required to be creative: Space, time, time (sic!), confidence, and humour.

1. Space: We need a place for ourselves where we are undisturbed.
2. Time: We need to give ourselves a certain time frame with a certain duration. About 90 min are best as one needs about 30 min too settle down and let go of pressing issues. He discourages longer sessions as we normally need a break after 90 min anyway.
   Set boundaries of space and time for yourself! Separate yourself from regular life and create an “oasis”.
3. Time: “Play” with a problem long enough. Give your mind enough time to come up with an original solution. Daydream about the problem at hand. Tolerate discomfort of having not solved a problem longer. Ask yourself always: “When does the decision needs to be taken?”. Do not hasten decision. But be decisive in the end.
4. Confidence: To play means to experiment. Be open to anything that happens. Don’t be frightened to make errors. You can’t be spontaneous within reason.
5. Humour: Humour gets us faster from the closed mode to the open mode. Don’t mix “seriousness” with “solemnity”.

Either technology or magic? I say, magic of technology is what we want, err, don’t we?

The recent death of the science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke reminded me of one of my favourite quotes:

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” (Third of Clarke’s three “laws” of prediction.)

Modern information technology is for many people—and sometimes even for me—indistinguishable from magic. You cast a spell, i.e., interact in a specific way with some user interface, and if you waved your magical wand the right way—and only then—you achieve your goal. Such devices as the Nintendo Wii video game console or the iPhone with their motion detection capabilities allow for completely new interactions with the user and more natural interactions among users.

But there is a big problem with magic: You are required to believe in it and to not ask questions about it. Magic’s dark side is all about hiding, making believe, obscuring, and blinding. I do not say that software developers intentionally engineer obfuscating applications, but from a user’s point of view it often just looks the same.

Of course, there are times where I suspend my disbelief, where I need to suspend my disbelief. Every time I watch a movie or read a novel I am required to do so in order to be entertained. But life is (unfortunately?) not only entertainment. Computer systems need to have beautiful and elegant, easy-to-use interfaces that evoke a sense of wonder like magic does. This just helps keeping your spirits up and makes working more fun. There is no need for dull and boring applications. But interfaces should never be shallow. Systems should help people learn about what is going on in a software system if people want to know. Systems should provide transparency when asked for. Systems should explain their used vocabulary when asked about.

So, my dear developers, keep on providing magical interfaces, but let the interested users have a peek behind the curtains whenever they want.

Explanation opportunities at the book-seller’s

I just had a longer discussion with my wife about information systems she uses at work. My wife is working part-time as a book-seller for many years now and is often frustrated about the different capabilities of the search and ordering tools of different distributors. The systems have different user interfaces and different search algorithms. Especially the latter are the source of her frustration. Even though certain books are available from the distributors, the search engines produce different results. The book-seller has to know what he or she is searching for to find it. An idiocy par excellence.

If those search systems would provide a means to inquire on how those results were obtained (i.e., by providing action explanations) my wife and other users could either learn how the respective search works and to better use the search engines, or could complain about the search behaviour to the vendors. Either way, transparency provided by explanations would improve the overall performance.

Nintendo Wii meets Apple Keynote – Making a wish II

As Judi Smith pointed out there already is a possibility to use the Wii mote with the Mac. Remote Buddy lets one use a wide range of remote controls, including the Wii mote (but, unfortunately, not my older Keyspan model ). But watching the respective presentation reveals that the Wii mote is only used as a standard remote control. There is an infrared source—for example a tea-light (sic!)—necessary (for positioning, I assume). The motion-sensors are not used in the way I described earlier. In fact, the motion-sensors are not used at all. But the possibility is pointed out at the website.

Judi also points out that one needs to additionally use something like FlyGesture, but this still cannot provide the whole illusion I have in mind. There is no feedback between the execution of slide change effects and the (swiftness of the) gesture. This is why I “asked” Apple to do something about it. Apple would need to provide hooks to allow the user to control the speed of the animation. For example, if you want to tear off a page or turn a page very slowly in order to uncover some secret, maybe even give only a brief glimpse at the next page and then cover the page again … well.

[composed and posted with ecto]

Nintendo Wii meets Apple Keynote – Making a wish

Most of my friends and colleagues are hyped up about the Wii console. And it is the first time I can understand the hype about a game console. I even might get hooked up, too, if I am not careful Being physically active in a game and not just your mind and fingers is intriguing.

Many years back I had the chance to play some very simple game in a 3d virtual reality environment. I do not remember too much about it. I stood on a platform wearing a heavy, uncomfortable headset. The headset contained two small (not so high resolution) monitors in front of my eyes and some motion sensors that allowed the system to change the scenery, depending on where I turned my head to. It was quite an experience. But due to the hardware costs, I imagine, nothing came from it and the game disappeared. The Wii console seems to be a very good development of current play stations going into the direction of games where you are totally immersed.

Well, thinking about the Wii controllers with motion-sensing technology and some stuff I currently read about presentation skills (see, for example, the two inspirational blogs Presentation Zen and Les Posen’s CyberPsych Blog) I wondered how more interesting one could make a presentation if one had a remote control like a Wii controller for Keynote presentations. A presentation always is kind of a performance, isn’t it? Some presenters are better “actors” (more outgoing) and others are more on the quiet side. For those of us who like to make the whole stage their own and not only the square-meter behind the standing desk such a presentation tool could enhance the presentation experience and turn it into a presentation adventure.

Think about the turning cube effect of Apple Keynote (part of iWork). Now think about wanting to present some heavy material to your boss and you need all your physical power to turn the cube from left to right or, maybe even better, lift the cube to turn up. With a motion-sensing presentation tool you would be able to set up a certain resistance into slide change effects. During presentation you would then need to grab an edge of your slide and “manually”

move the slide. (Must be funny if you set up slide effects for yourself and then having someone else do the presentation who is not as strong as you.) You could even do part of your workout during a presentation! Who would have thought.

I think you get the picture. So: Apple, do something about it! It would be fun.

And, Apple, when you are at it: Think about Les Posen’s suggestion to use iPhoto for storing all of one’s Keynote slides.

[composed and posted with ecto]

Travelling without moving

Reading David Weinberger’s book “Small pieces loosely joined {a unified theory of the web}” reminded me of the famous line from Frank Herbert’s “Dune” about travelling without moving. David Weinberger in one chapter describes our perception of space and how getting documents in the “real” world differs from going to documents on the Web. The Web folds space in a way that (most of) human knowledge is within our arm’s reach. Frank Herbert died before the Web came to pass. What would he think about his metaphor now?

[composed and posted with ecto]

Design vs. Art

For quite some time now I am an avid reader of Maeda’s SIMPLICITY blog, a constant source of inspiration. But it took me nearly as long to buy his small book on “The Laws of Simplicity”. In many ways the book does not contain anything new to me (as I had been warned of). Most of its content I already have learned over time. But—you already saw this ‘but’ coming, don’t you?—it is necessary to be reminded of those things from time to time and to take your time reflecting on those experiences and lessons learned. What strikes me most is the concentrated and fresh view, interwoven with personal believes and insights, which in the end made it so accessible and easy to relate to. It was definitely a worthwhile read!

Over the last year my private and my research life—btw, for a scientist: can there be a difference between private and research life?—gravitates towards art and design (see, for example, my actual project proposal Mnemosyne). So, John Maeda’s differentiation of art from design struck a chord in me, helping me a great deal in grasping the concepts:

“The best art makes your head spin with question. Perhaps this is the fundamental distinction between pure art and pure design. While great art makes you wonder, great design makes things clear.” (“The Laws of Simplicity”, p. 70)

As a researcher, your head most of the time spins with questions. Viewing part of one’s research as art and some the resulting systems as art work could serve as a way of channelling questions. From those pieces of art one then can work towards design, towards making things clear. This viewpoints allows for more personal freedom in approaching complicated or overwhelming research questions. Look at the problem from a (probably naïve) artistic and fun point of view. Play with the research questions! Use your right, synthesis-oriented half of your brain instead of your left, more analytic half. The ten “laws” then help channel one’s efforts.

These are, by no means, breathtakingly new insights. Research work is always about asking questions and coming up with reproducible results and valid evaluations using the right tools and approved methods. But looking at research from an art/design viewpoint makes it a tad more interesting and a bit more fun, at least for me

[composed and posted with ecto]

Document-oriented vs. people-oriented access

In my lecture on the Semantic Web / Web 2.0, which started yesterday, I formulated for the first time how my habits of searching the Web are changing since Social Software is available. My search habits are shifting from googling using keywords and crawling long result lists to navigating through del.icio.us accounts. From time to time I go through my shared bookmarks and check out what others commented on those bookmarks; thus, finding experts on certain topics and valuable web-sites. Web-sites I would not have found via Google, I am pretty sure of.

Of course, this is the intention of such services as del.icio.us, bibsonomy, and diigo, but I think it hints on a more subtle change of the Web. The Web is adapting more to human behaviour. Whenever possible I prefer asking colleagues and friends about topics and valuable documents to searching for myself. Social Software starts offering such a “natural” access to documents on the Web.

[composed and posted with ecto]

Scenario: A fiction author looks for mythological information

I am currently working on a project proposal in which also the following scenario will be addressed:

Researching information is a vital task for fiction authors. Say, he is interested in writing a novel that deals with some mythological topics. As one would guess Google delivers tons of information; information one would need to sift through carefully. Say, he would like to restrict his search to museums as he wants to base the story on artifacts throughout the last 20 to 25 centuries, i.e., beginning with Egyptian history. Let us assume museums provide tags for their artifacts (and let us forget for the moment how to acquire those tags). Then a Semantic Web search and browse would deliver all kinds of artifacts classified, e.g., as paintings or sculptures. The author would get information on their creation dates, the artists, probably who knew whom (e.g., by way of friends-of-a-friend links). Additional information could point him to biographies on Wikipedia or more specialised sources, point out and explain symbols used by an artist or at a certain time, etc.

Let us assume the story is set to take place in London and he will go there for location scouting. He now needs a way of combining his digital search results with his trip to London. Several itineraries could be created from his search results; each itinerary describing a way through a museum or gallery, e.g., Tate Modern Art Gallery or The British Museum, linking exhibits together in different ways, e.g., by dates, owners, a certain story, artists or relationships between artists.

Location scouting and research work is always accompanied by taking notes and pictures. Tagging could be simplified by computer support. If a mobile device knows its GPS co-ordinates or network location, routine information could be added very easily for later processing. (Another way of identifying artifacts are Semacodes if provided by a museum.) Recording the places where the author has been could be fed in future research activities. Having been in London before would have an impact on the selection of places to visit, wouldn’t it? Either there are places that were interesting enough to gather more details from there or they already have been tagged to be unimportant.

Btw, a while ago I briefly described some other semantic support fiction authors could find interesting (see earlier post).

The future of Artificial Intelligence

Last year’s fifty’s anniversary of Artificial Intelligence sparked discussions about the results of AI research. Many advances already became so mainstream that they are not visible anymore. Fuzzy control in washing machines is a famous and often cited success story, but by far not the only one. AI research also led to view software development in a new light, e.g., modelling became a commodity.
But where is AI heading?

I am a firm believer in weak AI. (“Weak AI refers to the use of software to study or accomplish specific problem solving or reasoning tasks that do not encompass […] the full range of human cognitive abilities.” [Wikipedia]) Maybe at some point in the far future some intelligent behaviour emerges from the development and use of complex information systems, but I don’t think we are capable of understanding what intelligence is and how to create intelligent machines in the first place. I believe in further developing many more decision support systems, each very specialised but on the other hand better integrated with the environment and with improved communication abilities. I do not talk about spoken language understanding capabilities here but of more intelligent user interfaces in general.

In my opinion, research on intelligent user interfaces is an important topic. Intelligent user interfaces rely on symbolic reasoning as only symbolic reasoning allows for explanation capabilities, which in turn are the basis for improved understanding and, thus, a better synchronisation of knowledge of the user and the information system. It is probably worthwhile to look into hybrid approaches where sub-symbolic reasoning engines are supported by symbolic reasoners that can interpret what the sub-symbolic reasoner is doing. But this is outside the scope of my explanation research.

Software systems get embedded more and more in electronic devices providing contextual and personalised information. New opportunities arise for supporting everyday activities. For example, GPS-enabled digital cameras already provide the necessary position metadata to place photos on GoogleMaps or create other Web 2.0 mash-ups. And powerful mobile devices such as Apple’s upcoming iPhone lets me wonder what one could intelligently do with it. So it will surely play an important part in my upcoming FP7 project proposal.

User centric design, personalisation, context, social software are topics addressed by our research department for quite some time. Their importance is visible in and through our projects as well as the Competence Center Computational Culture and the newly created Competence Center Human Centered Visualisation HCV.