The trial has finally ended – nine long days with exactly 100 participants. You can read their feedback attached as comments to each day's evaluation post, and see all of the posts in the Trial Evaluation category.
Tomorrow we begin the process of looking back over what has taken place, understanding what we can learn from this experience – not just technically, but also in terms of social and cultural implications arising from what participants have begun to author using the system.
We'll be drawing some conclusions about key themes and issues that emerge from the trial and creating a discussion space here for people interested in Urban Tapestries, public authoring and pervasive communications etc. We welcome contributions to this discussion from everyone, no matter what your interest or reason for taking part.
As we plan and develop the next stage of UT we'll continue to use this blog as part of our ongoing commitment to the open discussion and sharing of ideas, concepts and methods.
Posted by Giles Lane at December 14, 2003 09:01 PMI thought I would add some more comments now that I have had a chance to reflect and have a good look through other peoples' blogs. Being a non-teccy person, these will be more on the social/cultural implications of public authoring than anything else...So here are some (random) observations:
1. Firstly, it is interesting how many people said that using the device out on the street made them more aware of their surroundings, even if Bloomsbury is an area they know well. It seems that most peoples' experiences of the city are usually very functional, moving from A to B rather than stopping to dawdle or take in the sights and sounds. I have been in and out of Bloomsbury almost daily for the past 3 years, but I have now realised how little of the area I actually interact with in a 'full' sense. Reading some of the threads has prompted me to plan excursions to places I have always meant to visit. So I think the potential is there for local areas to be almost 're-enriched' by their communities as forgotten corners are rediscovered and shared.
2. The reinvention of the flaneur - but this time very firmly embedded within a social context: whereas the original Parisian flaneur was very much an individual (and even a loner) in a crowd, UT has shown how 'virtual' and 'real' communities can interact and overlap. People who came to use the devices were able to interact with those who had used the devices before them, but also the other participants in the trial that day. Many also brought friends and some even sparked up conversations with passers-by on the street. I don't know how or whether the 'one device for one individual' set-up contradicts this.
3. I no longer believe (as I did before) that power (whatever that means) is straightforwardly enacted through the design of technology. Yes, the interface on the IPAQs constrained how people interacted with the content, what they thought about it etc (I liked the comments about the linearity of the threads and how this may or may not be a 'gendered' construction) BUT everyone who participated is already thinking outside/beyond the current interface and coming up with their own solutions. I think it goes to show how important it is to bring in potential users of technolgy right from the start of the design process, because there is a lot of untapped potential that may otherwise be screened out.
Posted by: Victoria Peckett at December 15, 2003 02:38 PM