At the origin we have the here and now; everyday life and the real products that are available on the high street. The lineage of these products can be traced back in time to where the technology became available to iterate them beyond their current form. The technology element on the left hand side represents research and development work, the higher the line the more emergent the technology and the longer and less predictable the route to everyday life (domestication). As we move to the right of the diagram and into futures we see that speculative design futures exist as a projection of the lineage; they are developed using a methodology that consciously focuses on contemporary public understanding and desires to make these speculations both tangible and desirable. Alternative presents step out of the lineage at some poignant time in the past to re-imagine our technological present. These designs challenge and question the existing systems and objects that arise from current modes of manufacture.

This is a project about technology. Not in the context of laboratories, of experts, philosophers, futurologists, science fiction writers and academics but in the context of everyday life, of non-experts; the consumers and users of technology.

It is therefore about the products that evolve from technological research and development and crucially survive this complex journey to become a part of our domestic lives.

For the purposes of this project the product/technology to be investigated is the robot, exploring the roles they may play in mediating, modifying, controlling and augmenting our existence, both today and in the future.

This project explores how a practice based design methodology can be used to question what our relationship with technology could (or shouldn’t) be as experienced through interaction with products and services.

It is not about predicting futures, it is about looking at the technology currently being developed, working with the people developing it, extrapolating its development in reasonable ways and then speculating on its application through understandable, desirable and consumable products and services. These hypothetical artefacts act as a cultural litmus paper, testing the water before we commit ourselves to specific applications and unknown consequences. One of the fundamental aims of this approach is to move beyond the confines of the academic domain and facilitate a more democratic approach to thinking about technology.

One of the abiding objects used to represent technological promise is the robot. It is therefore the perfect candidate on which to make this study.

The enduring presence of the robot in our visions of the future means that it has the ability to morph, to mutate and to evolve in tune with our societal and cultural needs and desires. It reflects our current state of technological development, our hopes for the future and also our fears. The philosopher Langdon Winner (1986) suggested that: “It is not uncommon for the advent of a new technology to provide for flights of utopian fancy” (p.106) So the robot had taken us on many such journeys, from the vast humanoids of the 1940’s, the synthetic humans of the 1990’s to the miniature medical nano-bots being proposed today.

By viewing the robot as a product rather than a technology it becomes exposed to a whole different set of rules and expectations than those which currently inform and direct robot development. This contextual shift; from the screen and laboratory to the domestic and the everyday is aimed at introducing new ways of thinking about robots, our relationships and interactions with them and their meaning not as visions, props or demos but as real things in our homes.

This research will comprise a thorough analysis and critique of robots in the world today from the perspective of the designer, looking into why, despite their abiding presence as an object of the near future, they are yet to materialise in any meaningful way. This has led to a summary list entitled: “10 reasons why I don’t have (or Want) a robot in my home.”

This list will act as a starting point for the practiced based element of the project. By addressing the issues outlined several prototypes will be developed. These will be disseminated through a variety of methods and media and aimed at different audiences:

1. The design research community: Much is being written about design research practice at this time but methods, particularly the development and dissemination of artefacts tends to take secondary importance. The goal here is to fill the gap between theory and materialisation.

2. Scientists and engineers who develop technology: To communicate the value of a design orientated research practice. The design discipline is often misunderstood due to the complexity and variety of design activities that take place under this umbrella term. This project will aim to outline how a designer exploring applications of technology can offer insights and opinions that would be of value to the science community.

3. The users and consumers of technology: How, through the dissemination of designed artefacts, questions around the development of technology can move beyond the academic domain and into everyday life. A more democratic model for thinking about technological progress.

The practice-based activity taking place during the second year will be supported by regular laboratory visits, discussions with experts from a variety of fields and a continuing survey of relevant projects.

At the Impact Exhibition

facial biometric style self-portrait

device for people who are slightly under 6ft.

In the context of national security, criminal activity and human safety, technology is seen as a means to an end. However dark or invasive the application, its presence is accepted because the worst case scenario would be infinitely worse. Thus through these means ‘smart’ technologies are entering our lives and being applied as infallible judges and experts of human character.

But with a slight shift in context: applying their powers in the domestic setting, the political justifications are removed allowing us to freely explore these technologies for what they are. A coming together of sensory technology and the home is a well explored marriage. Currently “intelligent” spaces mostly detect just the presence of a person, perhaps adjusting the lighting or music to follow their movement. As the capabilities of technology advance far more spectacular possibilities arise of the kind that have only existed in science fiction. This project explores those possibilities imagining the application of face recognition and thermal image camera in a family house over a 15 year period.

We like the last line: Brilliant - completely disgusting, but brilliant.

Using pavlovian methods, a cat and some items of kitchen equipment we have a no-tech telephonic activity indicator.

The telephone rings, the cat thinks of food, it salivates and the device collects the saliva, from this we can understand roughly how many calls we have had.