Sean Harkin

What? Why? How? So what?

What?

Since the Industrial Revolution C02 levels in our atmosphere have grown at a previously unprecedented rate. This, along with other factors, has contributed to the drastic effects of climate change resulting in potentially irreversible damage to our planet. Many in the scientific community speculate that we are officially ‘past the tipping point’ for climate change, and now are focusing on preventative measures.

Air pollution is just one of the many causes and effects of climate change, however it is one that is quantifiable and can cause some very serious health problems. There are many possible avenues to reduce air pollution; from new technologies to moves towards renewable energy sources - however the change that could benefit the planet the most is societal change. How we choose to treat our planet today could have very serious implications for future generations. We have a responsibility to try to limit the damage we have already caused.

The questions I’m starting with are:

• How can speculative design best be used to create discourse and promote critical thought around climate change?
• What is the value of dystopia as a method of critique to current societal norms, behaviors and practices?
• Do people understand the elements which contribute to air pollution, and the health risks they pose?
• What will humanity need to build in order to survive a polluted futures?

Why?

Despite efforts for conservation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the Global Average Temperature is set to increase from 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in the next 100 years (Patz et al. 2005) (Hassan et al. 2016).

The scientific evidence for the potential dangers of air pollution are quite evident. The compounds that make up air pollution (C02, C0, S02, O3, PM10 & PM2.5) have been linked to ALRI (acute lower respiratory illness), CEV (cerebrovascular disease), IHD (ischemic heart disease), COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), lung cancer and birth defects (Lui et al. 2003) (Anderson et al. 2012) (Raaschou-Nielsen et al. 2013) (Shah et al. 2013) (Lelieveld et al. 2015).

Despite China’s hard work to reduce their pollution and improve air quality, a recent end to restrictions which had been in place for the last year, has seen a spike in PM2.5 levels across the most industrialized sectors of the country (Stranway, 2018). America’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017 could potentially have very serious ramifications for both climate change and air pollution; especially considering the recent announcement from the White House that President Trump has ordered the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to lax restrictions on pollution for industry (White House.gov, 2018). According to the WHO, 14/20 of the highest polluted cities in the world are in India. Kanpur had an average levels of PM2.5 at 173 μg/m³; 17 times the recommended ‘safe; limit. (WHO, 2018).

How?

As an industrial designer, I’ve always been interested in designing for people's needs. I believe in well designed products that function as best they can. Since coming to OCAD U and the Digital Futures program, my focus has moved to what people need right now to what people might need 50 or 100 years in the future. Speculative design and critical design allow me to design products for the future, which highlight current issues for critique and promote discourse. My intention is to design and build artifacts from polluted futures that humanity will require to survive, in the hopes of sparking this kind of thought and discussion.

My plan is to build a hybrid methodology which will aid me in my process. Starting from a popular design methodology; Design Thinking from d.School at Stanford University - I aim to incorporate elements of a critical making methodology where iteration and cyclical process will be key to the development of my artifacts. All of this will be conducted from a perspective of critical design, where my goals will be to challenge the status quo and provoc critical thought and discourse.

So What?

When speculative design is done well, I believe it has the power to force the viewer to challenge themselves and how they see the world around them. When it is done very well, it has the power to influence change. The goal of this project is to build something that shows the viewer the consequences of inaction; something that challenges them to question how their actions and behaviours are affecting the planet; and possibly to be a spark that promotes a positive change.

References

Anderson, J. O., Thundiyil, J. G., & Stolbach, A. (2012). Clearing the air: a review of the effects of particulate matter air pollution on human health. Journal of Medical Toxicology, 8(2), 166-175.

Hassan, N. A., Hashim, Z., & Hashim, J. H. (2016). Impact of climate change on air quality and public health in urban areas. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 28(2_suppl), 38S-48S.

Lelieveld, J., Evans, J. S., Fnais, M., Giannadaki, D., & Pozzer, A. (2015). The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale. Nature, 525(7569), 367.

Liu, S., Krewski, D., Shi, Y., Chen, Y., & Burnett, R. T. (2003). Association between gaseous ambient air pollutants and adverse pregnancy outcomes in Vancouver, Canada. Environmental health perspectives, 111(14), 1773.

Patz, J. A., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Holloway, T., & Foley, J. A. (2005). Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature, 438(7066), 310.

Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Andersen, Z. J., Beelen, R., Samoli, E., Stafoggia, M., Weinmayr, G., ... & Xun, W. W. (2013). Air pollution and lung cancer incidence in 17 European cohorts: prospective analyses from the European Study of Cohorts for Air Pollution Effects (ESCAPE). The lancet oncology, 14(9), 813-822.

Shah, A. S., Langrish, J. P., Nair, H., McAllister, D. A., Hunter, A. L., Donaldson, K., ... & Mills, N. L. (2013). Global association of air pollution and heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 382(9897), 1039-1048.

Stranway, D. (2018, April 13). Smog in key north China region rises 27 percent in March: Ministry. Retrieved May 28, 2018, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-pollution/smog-in-key-north-china-region-rises-27-percent-in-march-ministry-idUSKBN1HK0PM

White House.gov (2018, April 12). President Donald J. Trump Is Reducing Barriers That Are Holding Back American Manufacturers. Retrieved May 28, 2018, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-reducing-barriers-holding-back-american-manufacturers/

WHO. (2018, May). WHO Global Ambient Air Quality Database (update 2018). Retrieved May 30, 2018, from http://www.who.int/airpollution/data/cities/en/

Nadine Lessio - Useless Machines (MDes Thesis)

Note: I’m aware that Nadine’s project is not directly linked to my own, however after discussing her thesis with her I realised that we have similar approaches to the design process.

What?

This thesis project was exploring the idea of useless machines, using nihilistic humour and reprogramming personal assistants in order to critique the devices and the corporations who produce them.

Why?

The work was intended to question the need for or value in personal assistants, to critique their obvious and obscured functions

How?

Lessio built four fully-functional useless machine prototypes:

• SAD Blender
• An Alexa connected to a blender and lights. The Alexa checks a weather API daily and replicates seasonal affective disorder, represented by just not working if it doesn’t like the weather.
• Home Hub
• A Google Home which finds a bug that it must solve, and will ignore any new commands it receives from the user during the debugging process.
• Calendar Creep
• An Alexa that can be used to organize the users calendar. When you try to create a new event, Alexa will try to convince you not to go out and to spend time with them instead.
• Fortune Tasker
• A deconstructed Alexa which has had its speaker replaced with a printer. Given a specific command, the Fortune Tasker will print the user an absurd fortune and daily task.

In order to maintain and operate these devices, a web server was created named Punchy.

Lessio’s exploratory methodology was heavily based in a maker’s mindset of prototyping and reflection. Iteration and ideation through building were key. The Nihilistic humour was used throughout the prototypes as a method to promote the user to question the very point of these personal assistants.

So What?

Although not explicitly stated, these prototypes could also be considered as Critical Design objects, as they challenge the user to question how these devices improve our lives, what value they actually hold, and question if we are the user or the product.

Superflux - Future Energy Lab

What?

Superflux worked with a team gathered by the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Energy to aid with key decision making related to the country’s future energy policy. The group designed, developed and presented five future scenarios which followed different stances on energy policy.

Why?

The documentation for the project implies that the Future Energy Lab was founded to explore the different possibilities which lay before the UAE in regards to the future of their energy policy. It is implied that Superflux had an intention to show them these, by highlighting the consequences of remaining to rely on heavily polluting fossil fuels, as well as emphasizing the benefits of investment in renewables.

How?

Each scenario modeled projections for the economic, social and environmental future of the country, and included a wide range of policy suggestions, speculative design artifacts and data visualizations. The team realized that they did not only have to convince the decision makers they met with, but also had to provide policy suggestions which would encourage societal change by benefiting the general population. This involved a number of speculative design initiatives, including public renown for those who encouraged more sustainable energy practices, and even a cryptocurrency which could be exchanged for goods and services.

So What?

This project is one of the most applicable examples of the power of speculative design and its ability to positively influence change. As a direct result, the UAE government announced a plan to invest $163 billion in renewable energy, and easing their reliance on fossil fuels. This will have a great impact on the air quality of the people of UAE as well as a lasting effect on our environment.

Philips Design Probe - The Microbial Home

What?

The project was to design a cyclical ecosystem within the home; the output from one object would be the input for the next. This project asks the user to consider their relationships with waste, energy use and sustainability.

Why?

The project aimed to consider a future of a more sustainable lifestyle and home arrangement. There is a taboo around the idea of waste (sewage, effluent, garbage and wastewater) as a fuel source, which this project attempts to address.

How?

The Microbial Home included:

• The methane-bio digester
• A device used to prepare and cook food. Human waste and vegetable waste is combined and used to make a fuel source. This powers the gas cooking element and heats water for other devices in the system.
• A filtering squatting toilet
• A zero-external energy human waste solution, which would provide power for the rest of the system. The design is also linked to health benefits, such as a decreased risk of colorectal cancers.
• The Paternoster
• A plastic up-cycling machine that can create edible mushrooms from plastic waste.
• Biolights
• A lighting solution that requires no electricity. This device can work from bioluminescent bacteria or fluorescent proteins.
• The Larder
• A evaporative cooling storage device/dining table. The innovative solution can both heat or cool food items based on where they are stored.
• The Urban Beehive

So What?

Our planet is dying, and unique design solutions could promote the change in lifestyle which would be required to limit our damage on the environment. If cyclical ecosystems could be successfully installed in homes, we could vastly reduce the amount of waste we produce, leading to lower pollution and less reliance on polluting energy sources.

What?

My prototype was a user-experience/speculative ethnographic study centered around an early concept of a portable device which would generate breathable air.

Why?

The questions I wanted to answer with my prototype were:

• How would users react to the simulated effects of a portable breathable device?
• How would a user reacted when asked if they would have to use this device on a daily basis?
• How did the user react to the very idea of the device/experiment?

This third question came from the user-testing experience itself. In some ways this was the most interesting aspect of the user testing, which will be explained below.

How?

I intended to replicate the experience of having to use a device to breath outside, a concept which had been ideated before my visit to CFC. It had similarities to suggestions which had been made during a brainstorming session by a handful of my peers, and after some feedback from CFC staff, I planned to mimic this device and document my peers testing the experience.

To mimic the device and the experience of using it, I needed 3 elements:

• A component that replicates difficulty breathing.
• A component that would replicate the weight of the air-purifying element.
• An environment to replicate the heat of a future planet.

For the breathing apparatus, function was more important to the results of the testing than ergonomic mouth feel or accuracy to the final design. With this in mind, I used cucumbers with holes poked through them - this meant I could remain hygienic (and reward users with a healthy snack). With minimal iteration, I was able to fabricate the cucumbers in a way that would increase the difficulty of breathing while being comfortable enough to breath through.

The weight issue was very simple, I had a heavy backpack which I asked the users to use during the experiment.

The testing process was conducted over two days. The first day (2 participants, including myself) had an average temperature of 31 degrees, and the second day (7 participants) only had an average temperature of 24 degrees. Ideally, I would have been able to test more participants on the hotter day to better replicate the ideal testing conditions.

The test experience asked the users to wear both the cucumber-mouthpiece and heavy backpack, and to either walk or run to a marker (a wall or a tree) to replicate the experience of using this device in the outdoors. It should be noted that before any of the testing began, the experiment was fully explained to each user, and they were told that they could choose to no longer participate at any point in the process. At the end, I asked each user the same 4 questions:

• On a scale 1-10, 1 being no difficulty at all and 10 being very difficult, how difficult was it to breath through the cucumber?
• On a scale 1-10, 1 being not at all tiring and 10 being very tiring, how tiring did you find the exercise?
• Can you briefly describe how you found the experience and how you were feeling during the exercise?
• How would you feel if I told you in the future you would be required to use a similar device anytime you needed to go outside?

Each question gave different qualitative or quantitative data which would be helpful for the ongoing project:

Q1 gave a baseline for how well I’d replicated the experience of the difficulty breathing between the users. Although this would be subjective and dependent on many factors, a difficulty breathing of 3 and a difficulty breathing of 8 are going to have very different experiences. Thankfully, due to carefully planning and cucumber fabrication, most users reported a difficulty of between 6-7.

Q2 was another quantitative result of how effective the experience was. This was an ongoing check throughout the testing process to evaluate how difficult it was. I wanted to make the user feel uncomfortable, but was very sure to ensure no one felt too uncomfortable.

Q3 resulted in some great qualitative feedback. Many users reported the struggle of concentrating on how they were breathing or how they moved their bodies in order to conserve their breath. Another common thought was the idea that the actual exercise was not as uncomfortable as the panic/anxiousness that they had felt when they realised that they could not breath normally.

Q4 was a simple test in the overall effectiveness of the experiment. At this point all most all of my peers are familiar with my project so this limited the explanation of what I was trying to achieve, however I still feel their responses were very insightful and held a lot of truth about the experience of being confronted with the consequences of a dying planet.

So What?

The intention of the experiment was to test the user experience of interacting with these devices, which would replicate the difficulties of breathing and traversing in a toxic atmosphere. The unintended question which the experiment forced me to ask was how the very thought of these devices affected the user. From a group of 23, I totaled 9 testers and myself. Due to the nature of the experiment, I did not approach any of my peers to convince them to participate, and only asked for willing volunteers. Some approached me and said that the very idea of the experiment made them uncomfortable - in an essence, the exact response I am hoping to provoc from my final artifacts. In this way, I felt the prototype was incredibly successful.

Link to my photo and video documentation can be found here.

Link to my survey questions can be found here.

In the short time since we've began the formal thesis process, I've produced a remarkable amount of concept generation and development. Being familiar with standard design practices from my experience in Industrial/Product Design, many of these are inbuilt in my natural creative process. Many of these have been collaborative exercise with my peers, which has offered creative approaches and unique solutions, which I myself would never have came up with - such as putting cucumbers in peoples mouths....

My time at CFC helped me realize that my prototype should have some sort of active interaction with the user, which is the focus of one of my current prototypes. The User Experience Testing was key for me to understand how replicating the difficulty breathing would be a key aspect to my final design. During a meeting with my Primary Adviser, we discussed what forms that may take, and I was able to work with my colleagues again to further develop these concepts.

Some exercises have been more helpful than others. I found the 'Download' Exercise to be particularly helpful, as I was participating with many of the testers, they were also able to recall useful information or insights that I might have missed. 

One I found less helpful was the Grow-A-Game Verb and Value Exercise. I feel like this concept generation method would have been more helpful at an earlier stage in the process. Since I already have a clear idea of the function and purpose of my prototype, I felt like I was just validating decisions that had already been made. I did speak to some of my peers who did find the method helpful in refining their prototype to better accomplish their goals.

An interesting discussion during our class around Reflective Journals - a practice which I fully admit I am terrible at - actually had some interesting outcomes for myself. I have actively been trying to improve on my note taking and documenting everything I do as part of my critical making process. During this discussion I realized many of my peers rely on note taking, memo's even emailing themselves ideas or thoughts. I however I prefer to sketch my thoughts, whether that be a new concept, a new idea, a mind map of my thought process at 2am. My sketches are messy and my annotation is often scrawled with a hand you might need a code breaker to understand. I am reluctantly including some examples below as evidence, though I rarely share this part of my work with people. I prefer to take this work and spend more time to accurately sketch out or refine my creative ramblings. 

In summary, I've enjoyed working through this ideation stage of this prototype with my colleagues. Our diverse backgrounds have afforded us the opportunity to bring new and creative ideas to each others' projects, and hopefully improved the resulting prototypes. I'm excited to move onto the building stage next week, and to see my peers end results.

August

Deadlines:

• August 3rd: CFC Media Lab Report
• August 6th: Thesis proposal 2.0

Projects:

• Develop Thesis proposal
• Begin REB process for user testing
• Continued reading, as well as building an annotated bibliography and continual context reviews
• Continue to develop prototypes:
• Mask
• Test Tank

September

Deadlines:

• September 17th: Thesis proposal signed-off by PA and submitted to Dept.

Projects:

• Submit REB application
• Refine reading and begin highlighting key texts/work with use of annotated bibliography/context review
• Continue to develop prototypes:
• Mask
• Test Tank
• Backpack

October

Deadlines:

• October 3rd/4th: Colloquium

Projects:

• Begin literature review using annotated bibliography and context review.
• Complete Mask prototype (subject to development)
• Continue to develop prototypes:
• Test Tank
• Backpack

November

Projects:

• Complete literature review
• Complete Test Tank prototype (subject to development)
• Continue to develop prototypes:
• Backpack

December

Projects:

• User testing
• Refine documentation from prototyping into formulated section
• Continue to develop prototypes:
• Backpack

January

Projects:

• Collate work into rough first draft, adding additional sections as necessary.
• Any unfinished prototypes should be finished by this stage.

February

Deadlines:

• February 8th: First draft submitted to PA for review
• February 11th: Submit Intent to Graduate application for Spring 2019
• February 18th: Feedback from PA from first draft
• February 25th: Second draft submitted to PA, SA and GPD for review

Projects:

• Working on revisions from PA and SA.
• Begin to plan on any edits/refinements that need to be made to prototypes for exhibition

March

Deadlines:

• March 6th: Feedback from PA, SA and GPD from second draft
• March 11th: Meet with PA and SA to review paper before Defence.
• March 18th: Submit final draft of Thesis to Dept.

Projects:

• Refining thesis doc with PA and SA
• Make any modifications to prototypes
• Design exhibition space

April

Deadlines:

• April 5th-7th: Exhibition install
• April 8th-11th: Defense
• April 12th: Open Show

May

Deadlines:

• May 13th: Final Submission

This prototyping intensive has been very significant in helping to build towards my thesis. At the beginning, I was unsure whether or not to follow an ecological approach or one of verisimilitude in order to aid in the creation of my speculation. I used the time within this short sprint in order to test how verisimilitude can be key in creating a user experience to help build the speculation, even if it isn't truly 'real'. 

The feedback from my peers was vital in the process of creating and replicating the experience of using this speculative device. From the brain storming sessions, to the selfless volunteers who participated in the (intentionally) uncomfortable testing sessions. Working along side my peers who have such varied backgrounds and expertise was a great method of collaboration. Their different skill-sets offered new perspectives on my work which would not have been possible without this time to work together.

This sprint was also important for my own creative process and methodology as a critical making exercise. Design, build, test and design again. This iterative process has been key for my work in the past, and reflecting on the process has led to some extremely valuable insights, not only for the project itself but for my wider creative practice.

Unfortunately I was unable to get much valuable feedback from our colleagues from the CFC Media Lab due to time constraints, however their insights at the beginning of the project were invaluable in refining my prototypes. My only other regret from the process was that given more time I may have been able to build one further iteration which I feel would have been a more accurate depiction of my initial idea.

As for next steps, my intention is to continue with my critical making in order to develop this 'interactive' component of my design. As my prototypes develop, I aim to move to more realistic mask-designs that will incorporate the findings from my research and the user-testing up to this point. I have also been concurrently working on my the other aspects of my designs and intend to continue development of these with the lessons taken from this session.