Google As A Built Form

Ideas Day project idea one: Google as a built form

During our ideas day on the 27^th April 2011 I developed two project ideas, this being the first with the second (on a separate blog post) entitled memories. Out of both of the project ideas I feel that this is the strongest and consequently,is that topic that I am going to be focusing my research on.

Concept:

1. What would Google look like as a building?

Technologies:

1. Adaptive

2. Reconfigurable

3. Movable

4. Kinetic

5. Dynamic

6. Parametrics

Challenges:

1. Appropriate Mapping?

2. How do we do it?

3. What do we want to map in the first place?

4. How do we create an architecture in flux?

5. What data do we map?

Research Questions:

1. What is the design process for translating data structures into physical forms?

2. What constitutes a meaningful interaction between a person and a data structure at an architectural scale?

3. What do we do in the building? – Social Experience? Beacon? Research Space?

4. What is the meaningful data?

5. Who has control?

Methods:

1. Build Stuff – design as research

2. Wizard of Oz – observational

3. Prototype – Robot, Wearable Computer, Architectural computer

4. Design Studies

5. Literature – Ambient interfaces, information visualisation, philosophy of knowledge, adaptive architecture

Doing the ideas storming made me decide what I would like to get out of the linked Research project. I want to develop a strong, interesting and original project idea that I can take forward into my 6^th year Design Thesis. How can I do this? One thought has been to use the linked research project to generate a topic of which I will design a small part/component as the outcome, which can then be used as the starting point of taking the investigation further in my 6^th year design Thesis.

Its Stupid Simple

This week I initially decided to write about interactions that I find particularly frustrating. My inspiration for this post was my relatively new phone. Its hateful - using it is a truly horrendous experience. But, whatever technical problems it may have (and it has a lot), what really annoys me is that despite being a mini computer I can't really make it do anything. It's like it has deliberately chosen to so limit its capabilities.

I was suddenly quite aware that I may be a geek - Apple's iphone sells phenomenally well despite similar issues. Its seems that the mass market will accept potential short comings if what is actually offered works well. Architectural practice and its relationship with technology struggles similarly - CAD software has to predict how architects will try to use it in order to be a useable, worthwhile tool.

SketchUP came out of nowhere and revolutionised the way architects and students work, because @Last came up with something instantly accessible - “3D for everyone” indeed. 10 years later it still doesn’t do everything I would want to do with it, but that doesn’t matter. I could use Rhino/Grasshopper, but I don’t because its interface is not stimulating to me, I don’t script designs.

The most important thing @Last achieved, as the patent application stated, was to create “a three-dimensional design and modelling environment allows users to draw the outlines, or perimeters, of objects in a two dimensional manner, similar to pencil and paper, already familiar to them...” Whatever shortcomings SketchUP may have, this instant familiarity, immediacy and tactility is a triumph of HCI.

Quite how this revelation is going to help me, I'm not sure, but we discuss similar issues in buildings, talking about legibility of space etc.