In the early days of what was then called man-computer interaction and which we now know as human-computer interaction, thinking was dominated by a comparison. Many papers of the day drew a boundary, on one side of which were ranked the capabilities of the human – imagination, creativity, etc. – and on the other the computer – speed, memory, etc. Weakness was compared in a similar way. What this comparison revealed, of course, was the apparent complementary nature of the relationship. What one lacked the other possessed and vice versa. This was both exciting, because it held out the possibility that we could be better than we were, and reassuring – we had nothing to fear from the computer, as for all its strengths it lacked intelligence and creativity, the very characteristics that account for humankind's dominance of the natural world.
Of course, we have developed the computer enormously since then and with each step we have been forced to reconsider the boundary between human and machine. However, the computers superiority over the human has remained largely unquestioned in one respect, that of memory. This superiority was not one of capacity (the very first mini-computer that I programmed comprised 4k of working memory) but of retention. We are forgetful and forgetfulness is problematic, often embarrassing. We must all know the experience of being greeted by someone who knows us by name, whom we recognise, but cannot name or place. The computer, by contrast is like the mythical elephant, it remembers everything that is written into its memory.
This advantage is unquestionable, isn't it? Well, I suspect that most of us feel the flicker of a question every time our computer tells us that we are out of memory, a point reached, it seems, whatever the capacity of our computer for remembering. In “Forgetting as ‘a feature, not a bug’,” Bannon brings this subliminal response to the fore, by examining the neglect of the duality of memory, i.e., remembering and forgetting, which he argues unnecessarily limits the options for designing technology that plays a useful role in our future.
Many years ago I submitted a paper to somewhere I can't quite remember, conference or journal, only to have it rejected on the basis that it was too polemical. Having studied fine art it came as rather a shock that polemical writing was not welcomed by some communities. I guess, I thought that argument, dispute and controversy were the norms regardless of the debate. So I'm pleased to be able to publish a paper, such as Bannon's, which verges on polemic and we would like to encourage the submission of others in a similar vein.
In a sense, Keller, Pasman and Stappers also deal with memory in their paper “Collections designers keep …”, because it concerns how designers collect and organise visual material to support the design process. They describe a study that uncovered how designers in six Dutch design agencies collect such material as a continuous background process without specific stages, processes or tools. The paper explores how the physical visual material collected in this way of material is used in making digital collages, and how the resultant physical and digital collections are used differently with different value in the design process. Finally, the authors presents six considerations for a tool to support the collecting behaviour of designers.
Having started this issue by looking at an aspect of the relation between human and computer, Chang brings us back to the topic in “Modelling generative interplay using acting role model.” Chang argues that design generation requires an interaction between users and between user and computer, with an understanding of the context of a design task and relevant design knowledge. Here such interactions are called “interplays”. The paper explores role-play as a basis for computer-based mechanisms of generative interplay. Chang argues that role-play is different to the simulation of design factors, because it produces unexpected results based on interaction and collaboration among different actors. Using this metaphor, a distributed collaboration framework called Acting Role Model (ARM) and is described and its application is explored.