There’s a nice article over on Wired discussing body modification. From an industrial designer’s perspective, the discussion is an interesting one. From the article (Link):

Even if Haeck were inclined to install devil horns on a patient’s head, he wouldn’t be allowed to under the rules of his profession: Modifying the body toward societal ideals is considered ethical, but any modification away from those ideals is unethical and comes with potentially stiff penalties.

That frustrates Haworth and Vidra. “The American Medical Association says you can’t modify the body away from what society says is normal,” says Haworth. But what society deems normal changes.

I wonder if the medical profession has similar “ideals” regarding abnormal anti-aging technologies or RFID implants or implants that somehow improve human performance without changing outward appearance? There certainly doesn’t appear to be any shortage of physicians willing to supply professional athletes with drugs that enhance performance (with side effects, of course).

Last I checked, steroids modify a body. But I guess huge biceps are ideal and well worth the dangerous change in a user’s behavior. I guess the medical community thinks aggression is okay too.

I often discuss “convergence” on this blog but I don’t often explore how far that goes. Seems to me the medical community is having it’s own run in with the concept.

So at what point will technological advancement force them to review their ethical guidelines and update them so they can deal with what’s to come? If they’re not prepared for these simple changes to our bodies, they can’t be ready now. Then again, when it comes down to it, will those ethics make any real difference? I doubt it. Chiba City, here we come.

While surfsearching for information about a Maya Mel script I’d seen in action years ago, I happened across a nice polygon modeling timelapse video on anotherhell.com which some of you who visit this blog might find interesting. There’s no audio. Just polygons being manipulated into the shape of a boot. Fun to watch.

The video is available for download in the tutorial section of the site (Link) and is a .rar compressed file, so you’ll need to have something like WinRAR to decompress it.

Be sure to check out the rest of the site as well. You’ll see the rendered boot as well as some nice character models.

If only everything were modeled using polys and subD’s.

{Image Copyright © 2002 – 2005 John Iysun Raho}

Via Clickable Culture comes word that Microsoft has patented something having to do with in-game spectating. From Tony’s post (Link):

Microsoft has just scored its 5,000th patent in the U.S., covering “technologies that allow people to not just play video games against each other online, but to join the game as a spectator from anywhere in the world,” according to an official announcement yesterday.

As I mentioned in a comment, I think this is related to some emerging forms of digital entertainment similar to what I recently suggested we might see in the near future (Link).

When I have time, I’ll try to find the patent and give it a read. Unfortunately, that might take a few days. However, I have to remember to continue posting any ideas I have to ensure that I do my part in keeping the obvious stuff from being locked up by deep-pocketed corporations.

Nice little article over on C|Net discussing how fans of television shows are using onling mapping tools to document places/events/whatever tied to their favorite show. From the article (Link):

It is surprising that more studios and broadcast networks looking for ways to increase viewership haven’t caught on to the mashup rage, which seems a near perfect marriage of content and interactivity for an entertainment hungry public.

This popped up on my radar a couple of weeks ago when HBO used online maps in conjunction with the return of the hit series “The Sopranos” (Link). But as I mentioned then, I’m looking for this to be used – in 3D – with Google Earth. I’ve not checked all the ones mentioned in this article. Maybe one of them…

There’s an article over on Ad Age that has me doing one of those eyebrow dances. You know, the one where you’re trying to reconcile what you know and what you’re being told. The article is called “Anthropological Marketing Insights – Why Non-Verbal Cues Are Crucial to Advertising Strategy and Design” (Link) and here’s a couple of excerpts from the piece (btw, you’ll need to substitute “style” for “design” here … as usual):

In other words, if you get the design [i.e. style] wrong, you get the message wrong as well. The design is the message. And no amount of clever words in an ad will override a bad design that communicates an irrelevant symbol.
–
Dyson vacuum cleaner
For an example of how good design can communicate the meaning of a brand, look no further than the Dyson vacuum cleaner. Commercials for the product got noticed for many reasons, but the design of the vacuum itself became a symbol of its promise to powerfully suction up dirt.

and

If the Dyson design came anywhere close to Bissell’s or Hoover’s or Eureka’s, do you think its message would have translated so effectively? I don’t. Just as anthropologists have used recognition of designs to navigate unknown cultures for centuries, cultural anthropologists have used the context or layers of meaning within design to bring order to an imbedded culture.

Interesting but as far as I’m concerned the author, Emma Gilding, is wrong in suggesting this was intended.

I recall when Dyson first entered the vacuum market. It was a long time ago and the design language and culture back then was very different. In fact, by the time the Dyson vacuum was being discussed among product designers, most of the people I knew were wondering why it looked so dated (the 80’s design aesthetic had worn thin by the time Dyson vacuums showed up on most industrial designer’s radar in the early 90’s).

The dated design could, however, be explained. This wasn’t some big manufacturer with the ability to keep up with stylistic trends. This was a guy basically on his own. He started the project in 1978! It’s not like he’s going to dump all his work to try to catch up with the style of 1993, which by the way, was trending toward soft, amorphic shapes (a CAD headache for the tools available back then).

The one thing that it did do well was emphasize the staged nozzles. There are other bagless, cyclonic vacuums out there, but the Dyson vacuum is unique in that it stages the nozzles such that there is a greater overall pressure differential. This is what allows it to do such a nice job of “scrubbing” the air. But otherwise, the thing was considered pretty ugly by everyone I knew.

So how did this vacuum succeed? Not by it’s looks as far as I’m concerned. Most people simply didn’t understand it back then and I’m not entirely sure they understand it now. So the staged nozzles – along with the robotic-looking excess and graphic treatment – just as likely communicated that it was an inelegant solution in a sea of increasingly sophisticated-looking offerings. If anything, it’s been lucky that there’s so much retro showing up now (example: Link) because while working on a vacuum a couple of years ago, the looks of the Dyson still put people off.

I think we just have to chalk this one up to James Dyson’s tenacity and a well-designed product; not styling and not cultural anthropology. Sorry Ad Age. I think you’re using the wrong example here.