This is an old revision of the document!
DESIGNING ROBOTIC ARTEFACTS WITH USER- AND EXPERIENCE-CENTRED PERSPECTIVES
Robotic Myths
robots (e.g. maintainence is not considered necessary for a 'perfect' robot)
humans are not perfect, why should machines be?
perfection is context specific, context senstiive
ignores inevitability of entropy. we should work with, rather than
against entropy
to sleep, get paid or complain
godlike delusions of engineers
striving for perfection in design/engineering
Maintaining the myth
reinforced by consistent desire for improvement, onward & upward!
using “perfection” as a placeholder or susbstitue for articulating
deisres and/or purpose of machines/autonobots
human nature to improve things
stories, film. fiction, etc+ pop culture
NOTE: 'evil' robots are usually protrayed as 'perfect' in
pop.culture, the 'flaws' or failings make the robots seem more human or
'good'
the future to stand on
normal/useful/etc
consider maintainence as part of use (i.e. use cases, experience design)
design for decay
use imperfections to build character, quirks, personality, etc+ (e.g.
reduced acuracy vision system & eye tracking → less annoying
characterisation)