Where is I?

Change is inevitable. Consistency is the fragmentation of inconsistency. All that matters is how we shape the progression. Our changing  perception about a division between private and public is no longer a surprise. The services offered by social networking sites confirm our willingness to redesign the boundary between private and public. Having read ‘Networks blur the private and public divide’ on the BBC news, discussing and highlighting some of the potential issues that could occur with the location-dependent tools and services.

I used to think that the boundary was becoming blurred. However, I now perceive the emerging phenomenon as ‘redesigning’ the boundary between private and public. ‘Blurring’, to some extent connotes the existence of phenomenon outside of our situated actions. We all know what it means to use Twitter and announce our whereabouts. We seem to choose to make such announcements in exchange with various personal preferences. I am certainly concerned about the number of assumptions the service providers are making in provision of their services and tools e.g. Google’s Buzz. However, is it not the case that we choose to reveal our own details of our lives online and in posting work related information with an intention to share with others? If I decide to use a location-dependent tool, should I not know the implications of it? In the same way we know the implications for having a credit card pin number with the card in the wallet? We know all the implications of the connections.

I would like to think that we are all capable of rejecting something that does not meet our needs. If someone revealed confidential information on a social networking site, it was because the decision made by that person. It wasn’t forced upon the person to use the medium that allows such information to be available to all. However, we tend to think that it is the service providers who need to be pressured and restrained. Perhaps we are looking for a cause in a wrong place. Where is I in all this?

Appreciating complexity in a seemingly simple timer

It is a photo of an analogue timer on my combi boiler. I have spent easily an hour to try to understand how to set the boiler timer. I went through an usual self doubt process of questioning my inability to understand what appears to be so simple. Luckily I got it to work but not because I understood how this simple looking timer works. After testing it a few times, I realised that after setting the time, I only need to consider the outer numbers as time. The only trick is that it is anti-clock even though the numbers represent clock times. I am completely baffled by it. I even thought at one point I understood the rational behind this, But no, now I do not. I am still staring at it, appreciating the design complexity. 

Simplicity no more. It became a symbol of complexity that exists within a seemingly simple artefact (for me anyway). There are many questions remain unanswered. Why is it anti-clock? Did it have to be anti-clock? Was there a trade off between cost and quality of this technology at the expenses of producing an intuitive design? Is there such a thing as simple? Isn’t it just because we perceive it to be simple? Let’s say, with some miracle that I get to understand the operating mechanism and design rational of this timer, just because I get to understand it, does that make it simple’? When we explain something that we understand well, we tend to say the phrase, ‘it’s simple’. Probably someone who understands this timer will be explaining it to me with such an opener as; ‘it’s simple, it works like…’