criticalDesign

A selection of Design Fiction references

~ maxmollon ~ Leave a comment

In a previous post about design friction, I talk about a design fiction bibliography. Here it is thanks to Niclas Nova. I might post an updated version in a couple of months – find the original here.

  • Auger, J. (2011). Alternative Presents and Speculative Futures: Designing fictions through the extrapolation and evasion of product lineages., Negotiating Futures / Design Fictions, Swiss Design Network 2011, Basel.
  • Auger, J. (2013). Speculative design: crafting the speculation, Digit. Creat., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 11–35, 2013.
  • Bassett, C., Steinmuller, E. & Voss, G. (2013). Better Made Up: The Mutual Influence of Science fiction and Innovation”, Nesta Working Paper 13/07.
  • Bleecker, J. (2009). Design fiction: A short essay on design, science, fact and fiction, Near Future Laboratory, Los Angeles, CA,
  • Bleecker, (2011). Design Fiction: From Props To Prototypes, Negotiating Futures / Design Fictions, Swiss Design Network 2011, Basel.
  • Bleecker, J. & Nova, N., (2009). A synchronicity: Design Fictions for Asynchronous Urban Computing. The Architectural League of New York, New York, NY.
  • Candy, S. (2010).  The futures of everyday life: politics and the design of experiential scenarios, PhD thesis. The University of Hawai.
  • DiSalvo, Carl. (2012). Spectacles and Tropes: Speculative Design and Contemporary Food Cultures. The Fibreculture Journal(20).
  • Dunne, A. & Raby, F. (2011). Design noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2001.
  • Dunne, A. & Raby, F. (2014). Speculative Everything: design, fiction and social dreaming. MIT Press.
  • Forlano, L. (2013). Ethnographies from the Future: What can ethnographers learn from science fiction and speculative design?, Ethnography Matters.
  • Franke, B. (2011). Design Fiction is Not Necessarily About the Future, Negotiating Futures / Design Fictions, Swiss Design Network 2011, Basel.
  • Galloway, A. (2013). Towards Fantastic Ethnography and Speculative Design, Ethnography Matters.
  • Grand, S. & Wiedmer, M. (2010). Design Fiction: A Method Toolbox for Design Research in a Complex World, DRS, 2010.
  • Hales, D. (2013). Design fictions an introduction and provisional taxonomy, Digital Creativity, 24:1, 1-10
  • Jain, A., Ardern, J. & Pickard, J. (2012). Design Futurescaping, Journal of Futures Studies.
  • Johnson, B.D. (2009). “Science Fiction Prototypes Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying about the Future and Love Science Fiction”, in Intelligent Environments 2009 – Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Intelligent Environments, Callaghan, V., Kameas, A., Reyes, A., Royo, D., Weber, M. (Eds.), IOS Press, Barcelona pp. 3-8.
  • Johnson, B.D. (2011). “Love and God and Robots: The Science Behind the Science Fiction Prototype “Machinery of Love and Grace””, in Workshop Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Environments Augusto, J. C., Aghajan, V., Callaghan, V., Cook, D. J., O’Donoghue, J., Egerton, S., Gardner, M., Johnson, B. D., Kovalchuk, Y., López-Cózar, R., Mikulecký, P., Ng, J. W. P., Poppe, R., Wang, M. J., Zamudio, V. (Eds.), IOS Press, Nottingham pp. 99-127.
  • Kirby, D. (2010). The future is now: Diegetic prototypes and the role of popular films in generating real-world technological development. Social Studies of Science 40 (1), pp. 41-70.
  • Kirby, D., 2011 Lab coats in Hollywood: science, scientists and cinema. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Morrison, A. (2014). Design Prospects: Investigating Design Fiction via a Rogue Urban Drone, In Proceedings of DRS 2014 Conference. Umeå, Sweden.: 16.06.2014–19.06.2014
  • Raford, Noah. (2012). From Design to Experiential Futures, The Future of Futures: The Association of Professional Futurists.
  • Shedroff N. & Noessel C. (2012). Make It So Interaction Design Lessons from Science Fiction. San Francisco: Rosenfeld.
  • Sterling, B. (2009), Design Fiction, Interactions 16 (3), pp. 20-24.
  • Ward, M. (2013). Design Fiction as Pedagogic Practice Towards a fictionally biased design education, Medium.
  • Zeller, L. (2011) What You See Is What You Don’t Get: Addressing Implications of Information Technology through Design Fiction” Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6770  pp. 329-336.

Design friction and other design fiction terminologies

~ maxmollon ~ 2 Comments

After a chat with my former teacher and friend Nicolas Nova on design fiction terminologies I had the pleasure to receive from him a list of references (pasted in this blogpost, he also posted them on his blog). At the start of the conversation were the idea of using the “design friction” appellation. We thought it were new, when we found it with Remy Bourganel, here at EnsadLab. However, as pointed by Nicolas, Monica Gaspar Mallol already talks about it in her paper “Displaying f(r)ictions. Design as cultural form of dissent”, presented at SDN2010 in Bâles, Switzerland.

Picture of Monica Gaspar Mallol presenting her paper at SDN 2010 (photo by the SDN team)
Picture of Monica Gaspar Mallol presenting her paper at SDN 2010 (photo by the SDN team)

I remember I attended this conference and made a student presentation with Leila Jacquet, as being part of HEAD media design master, at the time.

Gaspar Mallol, M. (2010). Displaying F(r)ictions (p. 112). Presented at the Proceedings of the Swiss Design Network Symposium, Bâles, Switzerland.

Paper’s abstract: Displaying f(r)ictions. Design as cultural form of dissent
This paper examines at close quarters the role of fictions in design, in order to push forward the scope and influence of critical discourses in design. It aims to raise a cross-disciplinary debate around the redefinition of the design profession and also around the practices of curating and reflecting on design. Main theoretical reference has been “The practice of Everyday Life” by French sociologist Michel de Certeau. Certeau’s work has influenced the thinking of three authors that were relevant to further elaborate this study: the combination between material culture, design history and gender studies by Judy Attfield; the theory on relational aesthetics developed by Nicholas Bourriaud and the thinking of Jacques Rancière, specially his notion of dissent as form of political subjectivity that can create new modes of sensing. In order to test its arguments the paper establishes two scenarios, where negotiations between reality and fiction take place: the home and the museum. On the one hand, representative examples of critical design are examined and put in dialogue with the theoretical positions. On the other hand, the paper examines the transformations that happen in the museum’s space, when displaying critical design becomes a kind of rehearsal for alternative ways of living. Two exhibitions were analysed: Wouldn’t it be nice… Wishful Thinking in Art and Design (Museum für Gestaltung, Zurich, 2008) and Out of the Ordinary: Spectacular Craft (V&A, London, 2008).

The final part of the paper discusses how such positions in design play a critical role in society, by setting up micro-situations of dissent (disagreement), and in doing so they generate new forms of sensing and making sense in contemporary living. Conclusions will point at the potential of these design fictions (understood as projections) and frictions (considered as irritations) in order to re-fabulate the commonplace.

Other terminologies
When looking more around this appellation of “design friction”, there is are much other people using it (send me a message @maxmollon, if you find something). Philippe Gargov (from the blog “pop-up urbain”) for instance, also proposed to use this expression in december 2013 – without updates since then, unfortunately. However lot of other appellations are used, some new ones that do not last (glitch fiction) and old ones that became classics (mainly critical design, design fiction and soon, speculative design).

Finally, as listed by Anthony Dunne, many practices gravitate around a similar approach:

“Speculative design, Conceptual Design, Contestable Futures, Cautionary Tales, Activism, Design for debate, Design fiction, Discursive design, Interrogative Design, Probe design, Radical Design, Satire, Social Fiction...”

(Taken from personal communication, Dublin, February 03rd, 2012). Let’s add to this list, counterfactual & alternative histories, critical software (Fuller, 2003), critical technical practice (Agre, 1997), reflective design (Sengers, Boehner, David, & Kaye, 2005) and critical engineering (Oliver, Savičić, & Vasiliev, 2011).
This number of appellations shows that it is difficult to limit these approaches to only one “school” of practices, or one group of designers.

 

Edit (2017.sept.17th): I expanded and refined this list of labels in the writing of my PhD thesis. It will be out soon, here or on Medium.com probably.

Reading note › Design fiction by Julian Bleecker

~ maxmollon ~ Leave a comment

As I focus on specific themes for the writing of my first paper, I came back to basics of design fiction / speculative design / critical design. Here is my notes on Bleecker’s essay from 2009.

Screen Shot 2013-10-09 at 14.37.47

Source
–––
Bleecker, J. (2009). Design Fiction (pp. 1–49). Near Future Laboratory.

Description
–––
This is the first essay coining the concept of “Design fiction” by Julian Bleecker in 2009. Here is his argumentation:
• Design connects concepts and forms, it crystalizes ideas into shapes. Its objects tell stories—as they can never exist outside an imagined context of uses—they are like conversation pieces around which reflective and speculative discussions can happen. Moreover, it tends to transform existing practices (e.g. financial-design), it could therefore transform the science of fact and of fiction to tell stories differently.
• Bleecker proposes “Design Fiction” as a way to tell thoughtful and speculative stories through designed objects. Those materialized thought experiments are physical instantiations of what could be the next future (sometimes critical ones).
• As a designer working with new technologies, Bleecker believes that imagining and materializing future habitable worlds matters as much as finding effective mechanisms for creating them, without waiting on the usual ways in which the future obtains. Design fiction does just that.
• David A. Kirby’s concept of “diegetic prototype” is mobilized to illustrate how the science of fact and the one of fiction are dependent. As a consequence, usual protoypes are presented as coherent functionally, but they lack a story about what make them matter. The “stories” are what help anchor those near future worlds in a shared imaginary, while the “objects” help move these stories forward, showing what’s promising about them (as Props) rather than fetishizing the object only (as Prototypes).
• Why science and SF? Science fact and science fiction are (not only, but they are) appropriated to knowledge making and circulation about near future. They routinely swap properties :
– Fiction follows fact: As in Jurassic Park strongly based on science experts, or Minority Report collaborating with the MIT (and inspiring back the industry);
– Fact follows fiction: as with Star Wars inspiring Cisco’s hologram. Bleecker also shows how the domain of Ubiquitous computing takes his roots and inspirations from science fiction; he settles on two articles from Genevieve Bell and Paul Dourish.
Those are the reasons why Design fiction is suited to the task of imagining “more habitable” near future worlds through the tangling of science fact, fiction and design.

Comments
–––
I am not interested in the Ubicomp part but I try to isolate criteria necessary to (god) Design fiction and ingredients at the core of this concept.

Quotations
–––
DEFINITIONS
• “Design fiction […] is a conflation of design, science fact, and science fiction. [… that] ties them together into something new. […] materializing ideas and speculations [without the weight of pragmatism]” pp.6
“Why not […] explore possible fictional logics […] in order to reconsider the present.” pp.6
• Design fiction removes “the usual constraints when designing for massive market commercialization” pp.7
• “Design fiction is a mix of science fact, design and science fiction. […] that recombines […] writing and story telling with the material crafting of objects. [… It] creates socialized objects that tell stories […] encouraging the human imagination. […] stories that provoke and raise questions […] about possible near future worlds.” pp.7-8
• Inspired by pp.25: Design fiction explores and makes you think on what is soon probable, it makes “speculations on what the next ‘now’ will be like”.
• “Remember, this is a kind of knowledge-making work.” (suited for research !) pp.41

• The Diegetic Prototype: is “a kind of technoscientific prototyping activity knotted to science fiction film production that emphasizes the circulation of knowledge and ideas. It is like a concept prototype. […] The prototype enlivens the narrative, moving the story forward while at the same time subtly working through the details of itself. […] The diegetic prototype refers to the way that a science fiction film provides an opportunity for a technical consultant to speculate within the fictional reality of the film. [… It is] a necessary component of the story. The film itself becomes an opportunity to explore an idea, share it publicly and realize it, at least in part and with the consistency necessary for film production rather than laboratory production.”
“‘Cinematic depictions of future technologies are actually ‘diegetic prototypes’ that demonstrate to large public audiences a technology’s need, benevolence, and viability. […] I show how diegetic prototypes have a major rhetorical advantage over true prototypes: in the diegesis these technologies exist as ‘real’ objects that function properly and which people actually use.’ [Kirby]” pp.39

• Near Future: “What is near future SF? […] it’s SF […] we, personally can conceive of living through […] this is where you are going. […] it’s almost the diametric opposite of a utopian work; utopias are an unattainable perfection […] You’re meant to think, ‘I could end up there’. […] Posted by Charlie Stross on October 2, 2008 2:14 PM on “Charlie’s Diary” http://antipope.org [http://cli.gs/4S8ndP]” pp.68

THEMES: DEBATE / CONVERSATION / MATERIALIZATION
• Those designed objects “are like conversation pieces […] with the conversations being stories about the kinds of experiences and social rituals that might surround the designed object.” pp.7
• “…ideas are linked to their materialization by enveloping fact with fiction” […] “fiction is able to probe the further reaches of more habitable near future worlds”. pp.15

THEMES: ALTERNATIVE LOOK / CRITIQUE / FUTURE
• “Design fiction is about creative provocation, raising questions, innovation and exploration.” pp.7
• [… These] “provocations are objects meant to produce new ways of thinking about the near future, optimistic futures, and critical, interrogative perspective.” pp.7
• Science fiction, “as Frederic Jameson describes it, ‘defamiliarize and restructure our experience of our own present’” pp.17
• About design fiction’s “object-ideas […] we consider them to be important transition points towards new, more habitable kinds social worlds.” pp.41
• About Ubicomp (appliable to anything else): “Moreover, science fiction not only imagines the context of the Ubicomp future, it presents possible consequences, implications and the inevitable failures of technologies to close the gap between the pitchman’s hype and the actual experience. Science fiction prototypes the concepts” pp.66

THEMES: INNOVATION
• There is no easy way to insert the cultural “implications” into the design practice of technology. Design fiction can tell stories as well as SF, hybridizing design, science, fact and fiction. Paraphrased from pp. 79
• “…K. Dick, Spielberg and Cruise together with a team of prop designers and technical consultants may actually be doing better Ubicomp than Ubicomp researchers at university and corporate research labs do themselves. In fact, […] they just don’t know it.” pp.67

THEMES: DIEGETIC IMMERSION / FACILITATE IDEAS CIRCULATION
• “Science fiction creates prototypes of other worlds. […] Designed objects […] are like artifacts brought back from those worlds in order to be examined.” […] “[These are worlds] because they contain enough to encourage our imaginations, […] filling out the questions, activities, logics, culture, interactions and practices of the imaginary worlds.” pp.7
• “good ideas circulate well when they have a story to go along with them, and a story that is about more than a gadget.” […] The object itself “helps move the story along.” pp.27
• The example of Minority Report: “The story […] fill out the meaning of the clue-construction device, to make it something legible despite its foreignness”. pp.35
• “it becomes apparent that the capability to tell stories […] offers a richer way of materializing these ideas, and circulating them. Providing a broader context by moving the instrument into the background, and bringing people and their stories into the foreground provides a more effective, compelling fiction.” pp.37
• “Whereas ‘design’ might typically highlight the object itself, outside of its dramatic context […] on a photographer’s silk pillow, demonstrating its vague, latent power absents its engagement by people and their practices.” pp.37
• “Fact becomes useful as a way to enliven fiction; fiction becomes a useful example and index for describing fact.” pp.63

CRITERIA
• “good ideas circulate well when they have a story to go along with them, and a story that is about more than a gadget.” […] The object itself “helps move the story along.” […] Design fiction aspires at stories “that involves people and their social practices rather than fetishizing the object and its imagined possibilities.” pp.27
• “it becomes apparent that the capability to tell stories […] offers a richer way of materializing these ideas, and circulating them. Providing a broader context by moving the instrument into the background, and bringing people and their stories into the foreground provides a more effective, compelling fiction.” pp.37
›› Cursor 1: A prototype with use cases along -•———•+ A story with a proto. along

• The example of Minority Report: “The story […] fill out the meaning of the clue-construction device, to make it something legible despite its foreignness”. pp.35
›› Cursor 2: Enigmatic / foreign object -•–––•+ Legible / trivial object

References (if his shortlink don’t work, click them in his PDF in the bibliography)
–––
• W. H. G. Armytage. 1968. Yesterday’s tomorrows: a historical survey of future societies. http://cli.gs/RJZV48.
• Joseph J. Corn, Brian Horrigan, and Katherine Chambers. 1984. Yesterday’s tomorrows : past visions of the American future. http:// cli.gs/sXLqEt.
• Fredric Jameson. 2007. Archeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions. http://cli.gs/GMH2EH.
• “Progress versus utopia, or, can we imagine the future?” in Frederic Jameson’s “Archeologies of the Future” http://cli.gs/GMH2EH] (defamiliarize the present)
• David A. Kirby. Future is Now: Diegetic Prototypes and the Role of Popular Films in Generating Real-World Technological Development. Social Studies of Science (forthcoming, Summer 2009). http://sss.sagepub.com/content/40/1/41.abstract
• Eugene Thacker. 2001. The Science Fiction of Technoscience: The Politics of Simulation and a Challenge for New Media Art. Leonardo 34 (2):155-158 http://cli.gs/nJnY9m.
–––
• Gibson – Cyberpunk manifesto
• Sterling – Mirrorshades
• Paul Dourish, and Genevieve Bell. 2009. Resistance is Futile: Reading Science Fiction Alongside Ubiquitous Computing. Personal Ubiquitous Computing (forthcoming) http://cli.gs/mQ4yZA.
• Genevieve Bell, and Paul Dourish. 2007. Yesterday’s tomorrows: notes on ubiquitous computing’s dominant vision. Personal Ubiquitous Computing. 11 (2):133-143 http://cli.gs/XS36Mn.
• Anthony Dunne, and Fiona Raby. 2001. Design noir : the secret life of electronic objects. http://cli.gs/LW3N0B. William Gibson. 1984. Neuromancer. http://cli.gs/LW3N0B
–––
List of the references he makes on science fiction/fact swapping properties
• Mark Hansen and Ben Rubin. ……… The listening post [http://cli.gs/puZArT]
• Tom Sachs: Space Program. 2009. http://cli.gs/jMNLn7.
• 2001: A Space Odyssey / The Mummy Returns / The 6th Day / Monkeybone. April 2001. Cinefex (86) http://cli.gs/hNMLyJ.
• Jurassic Park. August 1993. Cinefex (55) http://cli.gs/LP5zYh.
• Minority Report / Men in Black 2 / Reign of Fire. October 2002. Cinefex (91) http://cli.gs/un3YDA.
• Byron Haskin. 1955. Conquest of Space. USA. http://cli.gs/uSn5aS.
• Michael Horn. 2008. Death Star Over San Francisco. http://cli.gs/mmBtgN.
• Julian Jones. 2007. How William Shatner Changed the World. http://cli.gs/tUJs1d.
• Franz Joseph. 1975. Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual. http://cli.gs/rduvjm.
• Floris Kaayk. 2005. The Order Electrus. http://cli.gs/yXRqYu.
• ———. 2006. Metalosis Maligna. http://cli.gs/R3TSSD.
• Christopher Nolan. 2008. The Dark Knight. http://cli.gs/L8ZhPv.
• Irving Pichel. 1950. Destination Moon. USA. http://cli.gs/uSn5aS.
• Sascha Pohflepp. BUTTONS: Between Blinks & Buttons — “Blind Camera” 2006. Available from http://cli.gs/9dSp6D.
• Ridley Scott. 1982. Blade Runner. http://cli.gs/XDdLNR.
• ———. 1999. Distraction. http://cli.gs/6mRaY6.
• ———. 1998. Maneki Neko. http://cli.gs/mhQXN8.
• Wim Wenders. 1991. Until the End of the World. http://cli.gs/We1Szt.

Concept presentation – Ringdog, The Affective Phone

~ maxmollon ~ Leave a comment

UK:
The Ringdog project is nothing more than a critic of mobile phone device of communication. My whole masters final project is a critic of nowadays tools of interpersonal communication.
I start from the statement that mobile phone is not sensible to our emotions and have been created for productive aims. It forces ourselves to concentrate our intentions of communication into voice intonation – to have the best quality of signal as said by Roseanne Allequere Stone in her Thesis – and it ignores any other source of communication other than voice – as an example this article on non-verbal language over the mobile phone.

Throughout the mobile we whisper to our loved one, the chick against a piece of plastic, we argue yelling against a piece of plastic, etc. On one side we have got a sensory frustration (tactile and proprioceptive) and a physical isolation towards the receiver.
On the other let’s take the human/dog relationship: affective, sincere, tactile.
Let’s mix the two provoque unexpected situations, new experiences of communication, new usages and try to change users habits on a longer period of time.

FR :
Je travail sur une critique de nos moyens de communication interpersonnelle et en particulier le téléphone mobile d’un point de vue affectif et émotionnel.
Je part du constat selon lequel le téléphone est insensible à nos émotions et à été inventé à des fins utilitaires. Il nous force à concentrer nos intentions de communications dans l’intonation de la voix – comme Roseanne Allequere Stone en parle dans son Doctorat – et il ignore tout indice de communication autre que la voix – pour exemple cet article sur le langage non-verbal délaissé en téléphonie mobile. 

Au travers du mobile on susurre à sa bien aimée la joue contre un bout de plastique, on se dispute en criant contre un bout de plastique, etc.
D’un côté nous avons une frustration sensorielle (tactile et proprioceptive) et un isolement physique envers notre interlocuteur.
De l’autre prenons la relation homme/chien : affective, sincère, tactile.
Mixons les deux pour provoquer de nouvelles situations, de nouvelles expériences de communication, de nouveaux usages et tenter de changer les habitudes utilisateurs sur une longue periode.

CONCEPT:
How can we explore human/dog relationship to emotionally enhance our telecommunications?




TECHNOLOGY:
STRONG AND BEAUTIFUL MATERIAL (LEATHER, RESIN)

BI-DIRECTIONAL CALIBRATED MICROPHONE, HI-DEFINITION SPEAKERS

SIMPLE BLUETOOTH™ PHONE PAIRING
ULTRA LOW RADIO WAVES, NO HEALTH DANGER FOR THE ANIMAL
EASY PICK-UP BUTTON

USE CASES
Lovers, your most faithful friend is with you when loved ones are far away
BRING BACK THE AFFECTION YOU WOULD LIKE TO GIVE ON A PHONE
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuEy014n4vk]

Argument, he understands you and reacts to the conversation (Barking forces you to calm down)
BRING ALIVE FEEDBACK AS A MIRROR OF THE CONVERSATION MOOD
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9LBx99CK2k]

Playful, don’t forget it’s your dog!
BRING BACK LIFE, FUN AND SURPRISE TO YOUR COMMUNICATIONS!

BRINGs BACK EMOTION TO YOUR CONVERSATIONS
BE CLOSER TO YOUR DOG THAN EVER
NO MORE TACTILE FRUSTRATIONS WHEN TALKING ON THE PHONE

CONCEPT: REAL VS DIGITAL WORLD
CONNECTED VIRTUAL WORLD GENERATED A LACK OF PHYSICAL IMPLICATION
TECHNOLOGY GAVE US THE FRUSTRATING EMPOWERMENT OF UBIQUITY
ANIMALS CAN BE A TANGIBLE AND ALIVE LINK WITH THE NON-PHYSICAL WORLD

REJOIN COMMUNICATION AND EMOTIONS IN AN AFFECTIVE INTERFACE
ALIVE, CAPRICIOUS, MOVING, EMOTIONAL, RESPONDING…
BRING BACK LIFE IN OUR COMMUNICATIONS

NEXT :

First tester! Eliot.

The brief – Masters final project

~ maxmollon ~ Leave a comment

Presentation of my final year masters project under the form of a self made brief.

(BRIEF) HEAD Research Lab would like to explore nowadays state of emotional/affective digital communication. On the first hand, through series of experiments you will have to criticize modern tools of communication, the way they involve our senses and modify the nature of our social interactions, on the other hand you will have to conduct a research on the potential of human-dogs relationship in over-distance human communication—project code name, Rindog. (CLIENTS AIMS) HEAD Research Lab’s goal is to make a solid and credible report/critic on modern media of communication and our everyday emotional/affective social interactions. The series of small experiments will stand as basic ground illustrating and justifying this report. The Ringdog project will take the critic at an extreme point aiming to get integrated by volunteer users in their life and habits, changing the way they communicate. (TARGET MISSION) Concerning Rindog, potential users range is wide, basically anyone having a dog and a mobile phone. Best case you will be having a teenager, a young adult, a mid 30’s person, an over 50y.o. person, women and men. (MISSION) Your mission will be to conduct a series of experiments—criticizing senses involvement and emotional social interaction of nowadays personal media–following a precise protocol, then to extract conclusions that will inspire iterative prototypes for the Rindog project. (TIME SCALE) You have 2 months (BUDGET) Half of your spending will be refund until 1000F (CONSTRAINTS) Find dog owners, No long period tests durations, Necessitate product design skills, Product design on animal, Electronic material commands takes time (CONCURRENTS) Research for that by yourself.