This is a beautiful example of crowdsourced creativity - a real testimony to the ideas outlined in We Think.

fastcompany:

Star Wars Uncut is a Frankensteined love letter of absurdities—and that’s just how mastermind Casey Pugh wanted it. Warning—once you start, you can’t stop watching. Co.Create got a behind-the-scenes look at how the ultimate crowdsourced film was produced.
Read all about it->

This is a beautiful example of crowdsourced creativity - a real testimony to the ideas outlined in We Think.

fastcompany:

Star Wars Uncut is a Frankensteined love letter of absurdities—and that’s just how mastermind Casey Pugh wanted it. Warning—once you start, you can’t stop watching. Co.Create got a behind-the-scenes look at how the ultimate crowdsourced film was produced.

Read all about it->

This has long been an interesting topic - and the subject of a few works of fiction. This reminds me of the controversy surrounding the CAD model of an AR-15 Lower Receiver that appeared on Thingiverse. You can check it out here.
I have to say though that I’m pretty thrilled about TPB opening up this discussion, since TPB has a vast reach- this could really provide great momentum for the idea of sharing your own creations.
fastcompany:

3-D Printing And Pirate Bay Usher In the Era of Pirated Physical Goods with “Physibles.”

“the idea of encoding an industrial design as a pirate-able torrent does open up intriguing variations on traditional copyright infringement and corporate espionage.”

Read on->

This has long been an interesting topic - and the subject of a few works of fiction. This reminds me of the controversy surrounding the CAD model of an AR-15 Lower Receiver that appeared on Thingiverse. You can check it out here.

I have to say though that I’m pretty thrilled about TPB opening up this discussion, since TPB has a vast reach- this could really provide great momentum for the idea of sharing your own creations.

fastcompany:

3-D Printing And Pirate Bay Usher In the Era of Pirated Physical Goods with “Physibles.”

“the idea of encoding an industrial design as a pirate-able torrent does open up intriguing variations on traditional copyright infringement and corporate espionage.”

Read on->

A letter to Apple.

I think I might write to Apple. A proper, physical letter.

Not because I expect a reply, or even that I expect them to care what a single customer thinks, but because I am in a quandary over the fact that I own 2 Macs, and an iPhone, and how I square that against the my ethics- particularly in light of the recent New York Times article about labour conditions in China.

Of course, this is not a new story - people have been exploited in the production of goods for centuries, and Apple is not new to stories circulating about it’s suppliers Foxconn, Wintek and others. This is without even acknowledging the appalling atrocities committed in the DRC in search of Rare Earth materials, touching a whole host of products beyond those of one producer.

I suppose my attitude in the past has been fatalistic- if it is impossible to avoid companies that produce artefacts using such practices, why not at least choose one that acknowledges the problem?

The issue with this line of reasoning is that it favours the status quo- if we do not hold that we can change the world (or are led into that tacit assumption), then the world will not change. Interesting that I have applied this in other areas of my life (like shopping locally, buying fair trade produce) and yet the question of where the technology I buy has been glanced over.

Ivan Illich, and E. F. Schumacher both write about how a change might be bought about (or at least highlight the conditions required), and it’s interesting to see that these conditions are starting to appear. For instance, the open source movement- and how this could have an impact on hardware; not just creating outstanding software solutions, but how about the hardware to run it on? For instance, the very powerful, diminutive Raspberry Pi.

Open design has a lot to add here - take the local production methods outlined by Schumacher. Instead now, we can share plans and best practice across the whole globe, not simply our own physical location. 3D printers might not be able to print to a fine enough resolution (or in comparable materials like Aluminium) at the minute, but with the right development and with other community initiatives like Fab Labs and Hackerspaces it’s not too much of a stretch to imagine that I (or my son, when he’s a bit older) could make my own phone.

Many will raise the valid counterpoint that some people have neither the inclination or talent to successfully produce their own hardware, in the same way that many currently lack the inclination or talent to produce their own software. This is true, but with advances in the manufacturing techniques mentioned above, it would be possible to produce artefacts in the country of origin from locally-sourced and available materials; which might even be a catalyst to see more heterogeneous products that refer to the culture of their origin. See Don Norman’s excellent article in Core 77.

So this takes me back to the opening line of this post.

Why write to Apple? Well, for one thing it’ll get my concerns off my chest. Secondly though, I do not believe that we are incapable of making a difference- I’m not arrogant enough to think that my sole contribution will persuade Apple to crusade on behalf of a fair deal for Chinese workers - but collectively, we can make a difference.

“Users have heightened expectations that not only services and products, including medical devices, that they buy will meet their particular needs, but that they should also have had a major role in their development (Poolton and Ismail, 2000)”
This is a great quote - it seems common sense that those who will be affected most deeply by a product should have a hand in how it is designed. The photo is part of a stroke rehab device that I helped redesign- with people who had suffered a stroke. How much more could open design benefit those who can’t meet together to participate in more traditional co-design workshops?
Poolton, J. and Ismail, H. (2000) ‘New developments in innovation’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 795‐811

“Users have heightened expectations that not only services and products, including medical devices, that they buy will meet their particular needs, but that they should also have had a major role in their development (Poolton and Ismail, 2000)”

This is a great quote - it seems common sense that those who will be affected most deeply by a product should have a hand in how it is designed. The photo is part of a stroke rehab device that I helped redesign- with people who had suffered a stroke. How much more could open design benefit those who can’t meet together to participate in more traditional co-design workshops?

Poolton, J. and Ismail, H. (2000) ‘New developments in innovation’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 795‐811

3D Prototyping in design, using Minecraft?

Some of the biggest questions I need to answer in my PhD are questions surrounding the tools that I give to people in order to facilitate their creative work. For instance, I fully expect, and indeed will encourage, people to produce their own 3D models to be made on a MakerBot. This means people who participate in the research will be able to see their ideas come to life in 3D… of course that’s the theory, but the actual process of making a 3D object on a computer is much tougher.

Most people don’t know how to use CAD software, and even though there are free and open-source CAD programs out there, these still don’t have a very shallow learning curve. Sketchup might be easier than AutoCAD to learn, but Sketchup is still more daunting from a cold start than say, MS Paint. Both allow for free expression in a medium, and both are capable of impressive results (e.g. 2D & 3D)- in my experience of running collaborative design workshops, handing someone a blank piece of paper and inviting them to draw some ideas can be very daunting. How could the creation of something as complex as a 3D model be made simple, and very much less daunting?

Cody Sumter & Jason Boggess of the MIT Media Lab have written a script that works with the really popular game Minecraft, called Minecraft.print(). Minecraft is a game with a deceptively simple premise; you build things from materials found within the game. There are 2 different modes:

  • The first is about survival; the player must survive in the game environment by building a shelter before nightfall (when monsters appear), and then collect resources to build more things and harvest food (this mode has 2 difficulty settings, normal and hardcore. Hardcore will only allow one death; if you die, the game world (and therefore everything one has built) is lost.
  • The second is an open environment, free from danger (and where the player can fly) which is open for the player to build whatever they can imagine from an unlimited supply of resources.

Minecraft.print() works by allowing a player to define an area of the game environment and then export that as an STL file. This is similar to the Mineways product, however it appears that a person has more control over what they export using Minecraft.print().

More information about Minecraft.Print() can be found at the website, as well as videos of the script in action and some models that have been created using it. Check it out here.

This has meant that I have spent a happy couple of hours playing Minecraft for the first time, so I can make sure it’ll actually work in practice! I have to say though, that I haven’t learnt any coding or programming languages, so I am struggling to run the Python code. I have emailed Cody & Jason to see if there is a more, er, user-friendly package that they have created to get the job done. If there is, then it’ll be great to try this method out with people in design workshops!

RF2… over & out

Since my last post I have actually delivered that important presentation, and it went really well. I have lots o reflect on- the questions & discussion lasted for about an hour & a half, and a lot of this centred on my definition o the outcomes for the project.
I’m really eager to get started now though- the plan has changed somewhat. I’ll now be recruiting one person, and building a community to design with from there.
First, more stupid writing. Journal paper, then amendments to PhD, then DESIGN PRACTICE

RF2

Tomorrow is a very big day in my PhD. It’s the 1 year milestone, and I have to present my reflection and reading to this point. It’s a funny sort of time, because I’ve been reading, thinking and writing but not doing a whole lot of sketching, making or producing… It seems the culture of PhD’s varies so radically between institutions. Here at Sheffield Hallam, I’ve found the focus very much being one of wandering and learning.

Anyway, it was July last year that I finally nailed a focal point- open design in health, and since then (and after becoming a dad in July too) I’ve been reading and focussing on this. So tomorrow is when I defend my methods and such to a panel, much like a mock viva. A 40-60 minute presentation and another hour for open questions, from a panel that includes Prof Paul Chamberlain, Prof Sue Mawson & Dr Leon Cruickshank. As well as my director of studies (Dr Paul Atkinson) and supervisor (Prof Andy Dearden).

To say that I’m nervous is an understatement. I’ve put together a plan of what I’ll be doing, but as is always the case before I have to deliver a presentation or deliver a well-reasoned & researched piece, I find myself under a black cloud. I suppose it’s just the nerves, I always feel like I’m not working hard enough, so I suppose I should look back and see what this report and presentation show about my work. I’m one third of the way through; it’s time to create something on the foundation I’ve built.

Ducks are unreliable.

At the RepRap forum on Saturday, I met a guy called Andy Kirby who had a really interesting problem… that he solved (or, is currently solving) using Arduino boards, an old servo from an RC car, and some Aluminium sheet.

Andy keeps Ducks, and as loveable as they are they’re impressively thick. So thick in fact, that they’re pretty bad at incubating the eggs that they lay. Andy wanted to breed some Ducks, and so he built a contraption to heat, and move the eggs in a way that a mother Duck should.

I was struck by Andy’s solution- it’s really simple, while being really useful. Plus, I love that it fills in the gaps that a stupid/unreliable Duck leaves in rearing it’s own ducklings…

Incidentally, this might be right up Rob Phillip’s alley…

On Saturday, I went to the GIST Hub’s RepRap 3D printer event… it was really interesting to meet people who build and develop their own 3D printers. I learned a lot, and it was pretty refreshing that an enthusiast’s group welcomed noobs to come and see what is entailed in designing and building a 3D printer.

My interest in 3D printing is less about the machines, and more about what these machines allow a person to do- but the current state-of-the-art of 3D printing requires that I engage with the community… as soon as my MakerBot arrives (the purchase order went through today!) then I’ll be putting back- I already have a list of stuff to print & upload to thingiverse.com.

Of course, for my PhD one of the main questions to answer is how can a person be empowered to design stuff themselves… for instance, if I gave someone who has a chronic condition the means to design their own medical products, what would the results be? I’m currently planning my first case study (which will be 2 design projects happening simultaneously), ready for the spring. I’ll be inviting people to take part via tumblr, twitter and via volunteer patient lists & stuff like that.

You can see more of Andy’s ‘Stretched Huxley’ RepRap at his blog- AKA47

I’m really proud of this diagram. It’s pretty simple - and it’s only an adaptation of Paul Atkinson’s diagram in Open Design Now, but it’s pretty neat.
This is exactly what I want to do with people who have chronic conditions - empower them to redesign the stuff they have to use everyday. How better to involve them in the design process than to empower them to design? Could it be any more participatory?

I’m really proud of this diagram. It’s pretty simple - and it’s only an adaptation of Paul Atkinson’s diagram in Open Design Now, but it’s pretty neat.

This is exactly what I want to do with people who have chronic conditions - empower them to redesign the stuff they have to use everyday. How better to involve them in the design process than to empower them to design? Could it be any more participatory?