• Start with big ideas!
• Conceptualize a problem statement well, before you begin working towards a solution.
• Try to consider problems that plague the better part of humankind rather than just a particular group of people. That being said, when dealing with a specific group (which might happen as your original idea becomes streamlined), always try to think of a solution that could possibly be expanded to improve the lives of the rest of humanity.
• If you have a fantastic sci-fi solution, say teleportation as someone mentioned, do 2 things:
  1. Consider who might benefit from this and why (i.e., identify the problem, beneficiaries, and what the solution does for them. In this example, it could be convenience, speed, etc.)
  2. Transplant this idea into the present day context, and consider the implementation of more plausible science/technological solutions that already exist (or are beginning to take shape) along the lines of the original sci-fi solution, which can still solve the above-stated problem for the beneficiary.
• The entire design process, as mentioned in the lecture, is an interactive one between the problem and its solution(s). As you work towards a solution, you may discover that it has parts that are not feasible in reality. If this happens, don't just abandon the idea! Instead, try to think outside the box to create innovative solutions that can overcome the obstacle that you are facing. Think of Reddy's umbrella example; you need to go beyond modifications to the nominal uses of an umbrella, if you really want to come up with a cutting edge solution on how to stay dry in the rain.
• Finally, as someone had asked, the device does not need to be electronic. Remember the juice machine shown during the lecture? Don't forget that the best solutions are intuitive, simple, and elegant.

On a separate closing note, I would just like to draw your attention to the Hawthorne Effect that Reddy mentioned during the lecture. This is a very classic study that all learned people should be aware of, normally presented during a research design course as an example of participant bias (or demand characteristics). However, you should also know that this effect is sometimes considered a misnomer since there were other experimenter-based factors that may have caused the group under study to behave differently apart from the fact that they were being observed.

For those of you who want to see some cutting edge ideas from the field, have a look at this site TED recommended by my techie friend. According to the Web site:

"TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design. It started out (in 1984) as a conference ringing together people from those three worlds. Since then its scope has become ever broader. The annual conference now brings together the world's most fascinating thinkers and doers, who are challenged to give the talk of their lives (in 18 minutes)."

To get you started, here's an interesting presentation about a new desktop interface called BumpTop.

Have fun!

For this module, you need to produce an interface device that is intrinsically altruistic, i.e., it must be able to somehow enrich, enliven, or enhance the human living experience. So, you have to stay away from (i) ideas that are way too distant in the future, and (ii) stay away from frivolity. What would be frivolous? Well, have you heard of Rube Goldberg machines? These are machines that perform simple tasks in complicated ways. If you remember from Reddy's lecture, solutions should be more elegant than what comes before, and should be so intuitive that anyone could work the device without instructions. The Japanese equivalent of this that many of you would have heard is Chindogu (see pic below). Please do not attempts projects like these at any cost!

My not so suicidal schedule this time around:

Oh wow, finally we get to see something of the new movie that isn't paparazzi.
But to be honest, I have mixed feelings about the key image that has stirred up quite a buzz:
 
I don't have qualms about the giant nacelles - the Big E does look phat from certain angles.
My gripe is with how Motion Picture she looks, as in, this ain't the "model" Enterprise that's been appearing in either the original or revamped HD TOS for sure. Just look at the bridge module. The TOS-E was just a smooth dome with a protruding, er, mosquito bite on top, just like the picture below:
 
But this E looks like the ST:TMP-E with multiple decks on the command module, ala:

My concern then is whether the interior of the E will also be updated to look like the interior of the NX-01, which means that the whole damn TOS series will look out of place. It's one thing to have a motion picture Borg with more detailed makeup, but this creates some ambivalence on my part. Still, I reserve judgment till Christmas this year, if that is when I get to see the movie in Japan. The trailer itself, by the way, is below.

Man, the rats are coming out to play everywhere. I hate rats...
it's almost as bad as being in the middle of the year. *sigh*