Search
This is an old revision of the document!
DESIGNING ROBOTIC ARTEFACTS WITH USER- AND EXPERIENCE-CENTRED PERSPECTIVES
more details here →
http://www.sics.se/~majac/workshop2/
Robotic Myths
Myth
: Robots shoud never make mistakes, they should be “perfect and flawless” (ISTAG)
Annoyances
sociopathic behavious
ignoring different cultural/social values
imperfectiosn can be interesting/human
do we expect all robots to be superheros?
assumptions of perfection often hinder the development of current 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 sensitive
ignores inevitability of entropy. we should work with, rather than against entropy
Origins
Ideal meachines of the Industrial Age, always working, never needing 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 substitute for articulating desires 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'
Strategies to dispel the myth
imperfection by design
better illustrate the value of imperfect systems
do not let visions escape into the future, maintian enough “now” for the future to stand on
designing artefacts that embrace noise, error, ambiguity → 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)
User Tools
Log In
Page Tools
Edit this page
Old revisions
Backlinks
Back to top
Site Tools