Guy Claxton gave a truly thoughtful keynote. Creative-Mindedness: When Technology Helps and When It Hinders. He pointed out that formal education as it’s currently instituted systematically destroys the creative habits of mind. In response to a question on how precisely it does this, he referred to his chart of those habits. For example, one creative habit is inquisitiveness, which is damaged by the focus in structured curricula on requiring students to study questions they have not asked. Another is creative stamina & resilience (exemplified by Einstein, who said that it was not so much that he was especially clever, but more that he stayed with problems for longer). This is damaged by the scheduling of classes that require every problem to be solved in an hour.

The papers continued through the next few days – but there were also a  lot of excellent posters. Apparently as there was only a single track for papers, the organisers could not accept some submissions that were actually very good, so those people were encouraged to resubmit as posters. Which meant that the quality of work in the posters was pretty impressive.

Of course, it’s Creativity and Cognition so there was also room for art – my favourite works were Matt Ruby’s Sympathy for Pacman and Jack Stenner & Patrick LeMieux’s Open House: Interaction as Critical Reflection. To top it off, the conference was held at Atlanta’s High Museum of Art, and we were permitted an after-hours tour. As well as some tragically unmoving Calder mobiles (which really don’t belong in temperature controlled rooms), there on a wall was perhaps my favourite artwork of all time: Duchamp’s L.H.O.O.Q. Shaved. Yes, you have to know the story for this one to work properly.

So finally: a few people asked for my slides, so after the break I’ll embed a Quicktime movie of them. Thank you everyone at C&C 2011, and especially the erstwhile organisers for providing such a great atmosphere for collaboration and creativity.

• Tim McLaughlin – Texas A&M University
• Tommy Burnette – Lucasfilm Singapore
• Tim Fields – Certain Affinity
• Jonathan Gibbs – DreamWorks Animation
• David Parrish – Reel FX Creative Studios

People have different communication styles: some do well face to face, others work better remotely – perhaps they are better at written communication, or on webcam.

If we’re in the same room, it’s easier to correct misapprehensions: “splinters become much bigger wounds”. We form tribes, so be careful to make it one tribe instead of us (here) vs them (remote). During time apart, misunderstandings can snowball.

It’s important to have diffusers in the group, reminding people to chill out.

Watch out for “the game of telephone” – you have to be able to talk peer to peer. Not only management talking to each other.

Time zone difference can work very positively – problems solved for you while you sleep. But it’s harder to collaborate as well, and work doesn’t fit neatly into discrete 8-hour chunks. Sometimes there is a specialist – only one person can fix the problem – so if they’re unavailable in an emergency it’s a problem.

Right now our production pipeline has som many restrictions based on how the elements plug in, and you can’t go back up the chain very easily. This inhibits non-linear collaboration.

There is a tension between the creative process and the factory line method for producing work. But the assembly line is efficient when you have a lot of work to do. Efficiency drives the process.

I don’t like the word pipeline – because it doesn’t just flow one way, particularly early in the show. Late in the show things tend to settle down, you don’t need as much collaboration because everyone knows what they’re doing. It’s a piece of the communication issue

We have groups where everyone is in one place and one person is not, because they’re the right person for the job. When we do that it’s because their creative skill outweighs the difficulty of working with them across distance.

Q. I’m searching for this holy grail online collaboration tool – where does all your stuff live, how do you coordinate all this stuff?

A. As a small factory, communication seems to work OK, asset management is harder.
A. As a large shop, we have entirely custom asset management and it works well; communication is now the problem.
A. When you work with multiple clients, it’s different every time – for every type of collaboration we build a custom tool set. important to document the process.

Especially when focusing on creative work, you have to balance the rules with how the artist wants to work, so you don’t overconstrain that artist – it’s a balancing act. The age-old problem: how do I schedule creativity?

We can’t separate disciplines – lighting department does rendering, compositing, colour correction etc. Handoff is difficult – you need to keep it alive.

Does distance collaboration make our workplaces friendlier to women and ethnic minorities? Don’t know if it’s better or worse, but it’s an open door.

It’s good for the film industry if films are not all made in California – a wider variety of kinds of people will bring richness to the work. People who choose to live elsewhere can still be part of the process.

In our studio in Singapore, we have more than forty countries represented.

Distant collaboration forces us into greater cultural sensitivity.

So far this is just beginning, but perhaps it is a precursor to a new, more thoroughly distributed future.

At Lucasfilm, we double up on supervisors – make sure there is one at each location so artists can get immediate feedback.

With a properly shared vision, I can give more people the power to make approvals.

Dreamworks: trusted luitenants are important. If something is approved, but then goes up the chain to the Director and back down to be redone, that’s no good. This is part of trust.

Q. Is there a minimum cell size? How independent can cells be?

A. The minimum size is a function of the artist. With some artists, the minimum size is 1. But not everyone works best alone.

A. I’m not going to build a light farm in a location with two guys.

A. But maybe data transfer speed increases will change that.

A. How invested people are in the goals of the company has a big effect – people can be more independent if they’re more invested.

In architecture school, I learned how to give and accept review feedback. We need to figure out how to learn these same skills for remote collaboration.

Cultural differences will always exist – and you want them, they bring different approaches to problems. Everyone needs to feel that it’s “our project”. It’s important to fully uderstand cultural differences.

In some countries “I’m not sure” means “hell no”. Managers need to have some maturity and worldliness.

Universities must make cross-disciplinary groups, and must continue with the dreaded group grade, because that’s the world we all live in. The product succeeds or fails as a whole.

Sometimes you need to have times when you’re all in a room with no time limit, to work until something is creatively resolved. It’s *hard* (though not impossible) to do that at a distance.

Q. Donna Cox, NCSA: Can you describe any novel proprietary collaborative software you’ve created? Do you collaborate with scientists ever?

Tommy Burnette: We have a close relationship with Stanford, we have students from there who are pretty much on staff.

Tim Fields: In the games business we often hire PhD physicists

Gibbs: We do, but have never worked with people studying this kind of problem – collaboration and communication – scientifically.

Parrish: We have developed software to allow us to hande large feature film projects without requiring a large coordination staff. It allows our supervisors to give feedback to animators, for example, over the web. Animators, modelers and riggers. It tracks our financials, tracks every detail of every project; producers use it to keep on top of budget and make sure artists aren’t working crazy hours.

Gibbs: It is crucial first to have a system that helps you be very clear about what you’re looking at. [sync]

Q: Parrish: Is collaboration making what we do better, or is it just a necessity?

A. Burnette: if it gives us access to talent we wouldn’t otherwise, it makes it better

A: McLaughlin: Being in Texas, it’s made a massive difference. Gives us access to talent, encourages our team to make better tools.

Gibbs: We always want to do more, this is access to more

Fields: We couldn’t do the scale of work we do – 400-man teams – without this.

Q from Blizzard: We have the problem of timing asset deliveries with approvals, and the difficulty of moving back up the chain. How do you deal with this? Is it harder across sites?

A: Burnette: All of our work comes in on time and no-one ever changes their mind.

[laughter]

At some point it becomes more efficient to pay people to keep track of all the information. In smaller teams there isn’t enough overhead to require it, but once you are that big, it’s vital, to manage the information flow across locations and timezones.

The artist who should have been home half an hour ago but stays an extra hour because somethings not good enough yet, is dealing with the same issue as a production manager who wants to make something better but just doesn’t have the money. Better information flows make for better decisions.

As an artist, you *always* want to make it better – the producer has to make the call to say stop.

[end]

DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments.

Translation: We don’t trust you.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message.

Translation: We don’t trust email.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of Technology Sydney.

Translation: We don’t trust our staff.

Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

Translation: You should not trust this message.

Earlier this morning Prof. Fischer delivered this HAIL lecture on Meta-Design and Social Creativity at the CSIRO. And as social creativity is a central research concern for many of us here, we’re quite excited to have him here.

Personally I’m hoping to talk about mixed reality and tabletop systems as opposed to immersive virtual environments for collaborative creativity at a distance. Or the role of Collaborative Place. Or whatever comes up ^_^

For those of us interested in how humans interact with our machines, how socio-technical systems are made and how they make us, this is a precious moment. Tomorrow the probability waveforms collapse, Schroedinger’s cat will be let out of the bag; Apple will reveal the form of their long-rumoured slate. In the realisation of a new kind of computing device many decisions are made. Not many companies are equipped to make and execute those decisions well. At the moment I can think of two: Apple and Palm. And as Palm is otherwise engaged, it falls to Apple to bring us the first fully-realised such device.

That’s why today, the moment before the Apple tablet is unveiled, is precious. From tomorrow it will be impossible to imagine a slate without reference to Apple’s design, just as now all smartphones are compared to the iPhone.

Mockups in scale

So before it’s too late, here’s what I’ve learned from six months living with iSlate prototypes.

The iPhone is Alan Kay’s Dynabook in the deck-of-cards form factor. Now Apple are ready to make the full-sized version; the paperback form factor. Kay put it at 8 by 5 inches – 10 inches diagonally. The size of a small paperback book, or a sheet of A4 folded in half (which is to say, A5). We know that this form factor is important. But it’s been hard to stop thinking of computers as anything other than television-typewriters.

The TV-typewriter form factor has found its epitome in the laptop as we know it: hinged keyboard-and-screen, trackpad and desktop metaphor. Shall I enumerate its faults? Too big and fragile to carry in an ordinary bag, we must instead heft special laptop bags with padded compartments and room for little else. Too energy-hungry for sustained use away from power. A screen that doesn’t work in sunlight. Too heavy to use while carrying. When equipped with processors fast enough to run a modern desktop operating system and 3D graphics, it’s too hot to actually use on a lap. The laptop is wonderfully portable, but not truly mobile.

The A5 dynabook won’t be better for all tasks. However it will afford different activities to those afforded by the laptop, desktop workstation and handheld device, and thereby expand the range of human creativity. That makes it exciting.

However Apple’s version will have its own affordances and constraints. It will be optimised for certain tasks; there’s more than one way to skin a universal computing device. From tomorrow we are in danger of forgetting that.

I’m conducting PhD research into creativity support tools, through a process of building and testing prototypes. Some of the prototypes have been slates, of various shapes and sizes. Form factors made from foamcore, weighted with aluminium; interactivity simulated with my (jailbroken) iPhone. I’ve been carrying them around and imagining how they fit into various scenarios. Here are some things I’ve learnt:

1. Size & Weight, and thus Connectivity

- 7-inch tablets beat 10-inch for portability. You can fit one in a coat pocket or a purse. But they’re small enough that  you can actually lose one. You’ll want a GPS tracker in that thing.

- Say a 10-inch tablet is 500g, splitting the difference of four iPhones or iPods Touch. That’s the weight of a medium-sized book, and much less than a laptop. For example a Macbook Air is 1360 g and a 15” Macbook Pro is 2490 g. That weight is great for portability and reading, but for one-handed interactivity you actually want lighter. The lighter you go, the more you can do and the more likely you are to carry it around. No hard drive. A Flash drive is light enough. For longevity put a memory card slot in the thing; then as memory prices plummet it’ll keep getting more useful. When costing this thing out for engineering, the primary cost you care about isn’t dollars, it’s weight.

- The most effective way to lose weight is to put things outside the tablet.  Files, and also processing. Voice recognition, 3D, video editing: control them from the tablet, but do the processing somewhere else. You should be able to control a desktop workstation from this, and also invisibly use all kinds of services that run on remote servers. This implies full-time connectivity; not just wifi but 3G and whatever comes next. It doesn’t matter how you get the connectivity there: people will still carry phones so tethering is an option.

2. Colour and Form

A black bezel is a terrible idea for e-reading; you want a white margin around a page of text. Ideally the margin is interactive and can hold annotations anyway, so you just want all screen. If there has to be a bezel, make it as seamless as possible (and possibly accepting touch input). If there’s a rim, it should be white or silver.

3. Keyboard & Other Inputs

- A 10-inch tablet can fit a full-size on-screen keyboard in landscape orientation.

- Typing on a full-size keyboard with one hand is a pain. Set it down on a surface and it works. Or turn the slate to portrait, and you have a keyboard that you can use with one hand while you hold the slate with the other.

- If you’re writing long documents, a bluetooth keyboard is fantastic.

Slate with bluetooth keyboard

- Other input devices are great too. Game controllers, motion sensors, everything. Artists want a stylus for pressure-sensitivity. More inputs multiply possibilities. But ensure that you can use the stock configuration with multitouch alone, because every input is also a dependency.

4. Collaboration

- A slate in a meeting room is nothing like a laptop in a meeting room. A laptop naturally faces the user; a slate naturally goes face-up on the desk. If you flip it up for privacy then it’s obvious that’s what you’re doing. So:

- Slates afford information sharing in meetings. Sketch, pass it around the table. And here we find an implication for design.

Design problem:

In meetings sketching is a common form of expression and communication for creative ideation. When teleconferencing, remote participants are either left out of this sketching process, or it stops.

Opportunity:

Tablets can help, because digital sketches can be transmitted between locations. Draw on a tablet here, have it appear on a tablet there. The remote participants can then add to or annotate the sketch; communication is enhanced and the flow of collaborative ideation is unbroken. Win!

Extension:

People also like to sketch with concrete tools (pencil and paper, arrangements of sticky notes, whiteboards, butcher’s paper etc). Tablets could have a camera or even a full-surface scanner, and thereby capture those analog sketches in digital format. This affords greater sharing with remote participants, review and archiving of materials, and with OCR and metadata, search & retrieval.

5. Capture & annotation

This leads me to an affordance I haven’t fully understood yet: slates afford rich annotation. You need a responsive screen: e-ink won’t do, but a Pixel-Qi transflective or something similar is ideal. But if you have that, then you can capture images, either by drawing or photographing. And then you can start to annotate the images, directly manipulating them on the device.

Slate as a sketchbook in a gallery

The surface is large enough to work with, and the infinite depth afforded by zoom means there is plenty of room. Every image can be a rabbithole; a portal to an information space without inherent limit. 10 inches in the diagonal, and infinity in the z-axis. Jeff Raskin, Ken Perlin, Ivan Sutherland and the other Zooming UI inventors have a great deal to teach us here.

Right. I have more, but it’s unformed. Let’s hope that after 5 AM Sydney time tomorrow I can still think clearly about imaginary tablets as well as the real.

Take a look at the wonderful Immersive Workspaces from Linden Lab and Rivers Run Red. Wonderful because it’s a great piece of work and a real breakthrough, but also because it’s not done yet. That is, if its goal is as stated “a complete collaboration solution”, and “the ultimate destination in real-time collaboration”.

Immersive Workspaces - avatars view slides in a virtual meeting room

You see, what they’ve built looks like a great solution for real-time communication and coordination – but that’s not the same thing as collaboration. Let’s take a look. I’ll wait here while you watch the the video [link updated].

The system provides the following task-oriented headings: News, Team, Meetings, Actions, Media, Journal, Stats, Admin, and Go 3D. This is looking like the next generation of groupware, with that last link promising a sprinkle of social avatar-chat sugar on top, courtesy of Second Life.

The use case shown is called a “collaboration session” – but let’s look at what the participants (Laura, Adam and Sakura) actually do.

1. Laura and Adam don headsets, sit down at PCs and log on. They can now talk to each other and see their avatars.
2. Their avatars enter a virtual presentation room, with chairs oriented toward a representation of a projection screen.
3. Sakura’s avatar appears, joining the chat: “Sorry to keep you waiting. I’ve just uploaded my slides for us to take a look at”.
4. The avatars appear to look at the slides and discuss them.So far we have communication. Note that the “real work” – preparing and uploading the slides – was done before entering the virtual world.
5. Adam is asked to add something to the presentation. He exits the virtual world, from his point of view: he’s now working full-screen on the presentation while his avatar stays in the virtual room.
6. Now the magic – Adam’s changes appear on the projection screen within the virtual presentation room.Here we have something new – a moment of actual collaboration. However note that if Sakura and Laura wanted to join Adam in editing the presentation they would both have to exit the virtual world as well, moving over to screen sharing.Now we return to the virtual world, and with it we shift back from collaboration to coordination.
7. Laura approves the changes, and directs Adam and Sakura to perform various tasks outside the virtual world. In the video we can see them nod their heads in assent – invisibly to Laura, though.

Adam exits the virtual environment to work on a document

Taken as a whole then, Immersive Workspaces is a collaboration solution. It’s interesting to see the dividing lines emerge: Communication takes place in the virtual world, collaboration in the bundled screen-sharing application, and everything’s coordinated in the bundled groupware.While in the immersive virtual world participants ignore the real world. When they leave it to use something else (like screen sharing) they maintain the sense of shared place by pretending that they’re still there.

The design of the virtual environment reinforces this implicit division; it’s a seminar room. The slides are up on a presentation screen, to be shown rather than collaboratively manipulated. All this is ideal for communicating ideas but it’s not a place that particularly affords active collaboration.

I think there are other designs that can remove this divide, and the focus on immersion is in the way of realising those designs. On this blog I hope to show you what I mean.

We have no central office and everyone involved is in a different part of the world.

They’re a cross-disciplinary, geographically distributed team. Which raises the question:

So how do we work efficiently on our projects?

They tried asynchronous work but then started getting better results with synchronous chat sessions, sending images back and forth. Then breakthrough – they introduced a shared workspace, which they describe as a virtual room. It’s one-way and ad-hoc, but it’s working. And there is definitely a design opportunity for better creativity support tools in this space.

I recently posted an idea for ad-hoc workspace sharing for under $US 500/person. The idea is simple: get one of the new LED-based micro projectors, tape it to a webcam and point them at a surface. Then everything the camera sees can be projected back onto the same surface, or more interestingly to a remote setup along the same lines. Now two people at different locations can share a workspace.

When figuring out how to prototype this, I then thought of the ubiquitous angle-poise task lamp. Apparently Anglepoise is actually a brand, which I did not know – it’s the true original, designed by George Carwardine in the UK in 1934. It’s this lamp that Jac Jacobsen found in a shipment of sewing machines, licensed and redesigned in 1937, resulting in the classic Luxo L-1 luminaire. Some version of this architects’ lamp then inspired John Lasseter to animate Luxo Jr., the short film that became the spirit of Pixar.

Now, I’m going for low-cost, ad-hoc and ubiquitous. I’m not going to use a $200 Luxo L-1 or Anglepoise Original 1227. Not unless I find a new source of funding, anyway In any case, it’s more appropriate for me to use the most low-cost, ubiquitous version of this superbly functional modern design: IKEA’s TERTIAL. $18.95 from my local IKEA in Sydney, $8.99 in the US.

The height is perfect to throw a 30cm/12″ diagonal display from the 3M MPRO110 Micro Projector, and if you remove the lamp assembly the projector fits beautifully in its place, with room to spare for a webcam. Here’s my blueprint and a shot of the design in situ. If you make one too, we can try them out.

Next is to design and implement some user interaction methods. One quite nice thing is that the field of view of the camera is wider than the lightfield of the projector. This means that we can use the projected area for direct manipulation of things in the mediaspace, and use the area around it as a gestural interaction zone for anything that effects the mediaspace as a whole. Some sketches:

(I’d have called this post Notae in Programma Quoddam, which is funnier, but only four people would have got it).

I must first confess that I thoroughly enjoy Alain de Botton’s works of popular philosophy. I love his writing, his way with words and ideas. Tragically however, he is a living philosopher that people have heard of. He is therefore being asked to comment on various contemporary matters, pretty much at random, without regard for whether he’s thought about them properly. Even worse, he’s being asked by Britain’s Sunday Times.

My own research is into collaborative technologies. I’m mostly interested in interaction design, and don’t know as much about the social side as some people, but I can spot a clanger when one is pointed out to me in a none-to-subtle yet hilarious and scathing parody.

.

My interest was particularly piqued by the claim attributed to Botton that people on Twitter “don’t say, ‘What do you think of Descartes’s second treatise?’ ”. Particularly as it happened to be Descartes’ birthday, and people were twittering about him at the rate of 15 times an hour. Meanwhile the Sunday Times considered the birthday worthy of four words in the “Anniversaries” column of the Times Online: “René Descartes, philosopher, 1596” – and only seven mentions all this year. To continue the comparison with the Sunday Times: their top story at that moment was “I had sex with my brother but I don’t feel guilty”, while the liveliest topic of discussion on Twitter at that moment was a public television programme on internet censorship in Australia.

Anyway. When it’s not Descartes’ birthday, he comes up in conversation on Twitter a little more than once an hour.

Now it’s not hard to find out that Twitter does indeed contain thoughtful discussion, and not solely people’s impressions of what they’re doing or looking at. Given a new mode of communication we will use it to convey our thoughts, some of which happen not to be entirely banal. Once again however I don’t expect Alain de Botton to have thought hard about this, or to have done a great deal of research on some random new technology that the Sunday Times asks him about. I’m a little sad to realise that like the rest of us he falls back on received ideas in a pinch, but if we didn’t I suppose we’d have a lot of trouble navigating the world.

I’m more puzzled by the quote itself. Because I’m quite sure that Alain de Botton has read a lot of philosophy, but as far as I can ascertain there is no such thing as “Descartes’ Second Treatise”.

Certainly, no-one is discussing it on Twitter. They twitter away about his Meditations (a lot of them are set it for homework), and they tend to wonder about the mind-body problem (Elisabeth of Bohemia even gets a look-in). Descartes wrote a number of works, quite a bit of it was unpublished or suppressed, and he didn’t number his treatises himself. There’s not really a canonical order that would make it easy to figure out what the second treatise might be.

Meanwhile people are happily twittering about Locke’s Second Treatise of Government.

So my point is not that Alain de Botton made a whoopsie. First I think it’s far more likely that the Sunday Times misquoted him; and if not he was speaking, not writing, and we all occasionally fluff our words. It’s not (as Alain de Botton purportedly said to the Sunday Times) precisely what he said that matters. The article actually gives me very little idea of what Alain de Botton thinks about Twitter. I can however tell precisely what the Sunday Times would like us to think that he thinks. And what therefore all right-thinking people ought properly to think.

My point is only that to denigrate a new method of communication on the grounds that it’s banal is a pathetically cheap shot, and that coming from a Murdoch newspaper it’s almost Dadaesque in its absurdity. Unfiltered human communication is a good thing, it conveys not only social signaling but also thought and meaning, and it’s increasing whether you like it or not, so bugger off.