Digital Destruct

broken-cellphoneYesterday a friend of mine sent me an email where she announced she had had enough of digital technology. She exclaimed how she had slammed her mobile phone against the headrest of the seat in front of her whilst sitting on a bus. A bit drastic I thought but she has a point. She continued ranting in her email about how the technology we subscribe to has been taken over by the advertisers. For example, since IPO, Twitter users are beginning to receive vast amounts of visual advertisements in their sea of tweets. Facebook users have been inundated with personalized ads for years. And every time you watch a YouTube video now it is fronted with a commercial video that you need to click on to skip it. And then up pops a banner ad obscuring the video, so you have to click on the tiny check box to hide it again. Anyone who subscribes to O2 will have also received weekly text ads via the delightful service, O2More. I pay O2 so much a month to make phone calls and send text messages – not to discover that the new Reebok FitHub Store is now open in Covent Garden or that I can pick up a packet of Jordan’s Country Crisp for just £2 at Tesco Express on Western Road. To stop O2 More sending me these ads I have to text stop to 20502. I can’t work that out as to whether is it just the number or I have to call the number with the letters ‘stop to’ on first. And if I do succeed, there will no doubt be some obnoxious bot waiting to pester me.

My friend was not only incensed by the ubiquity of digital advertising we are all subjected to on our technologies – but also the way we communicate with each other becoming increasingly shallow and cold: “The original idea of making a phone call, sending a text or an email to make a simple communication is now part of a long drawn out distraction. The more time and coverage we have the less we communicate directly.” It is true that many of us will opt for the easy option of keeping in touch rather than engage in a lengthy conversation. Send a quick message on WhatsApp to ask how someone is or simply post a selfie for everyone to see showing how much fun you are having – much easier than having a weekly chat over the phone with mum or catching up with family over a long Sunday lunch.

And we all know how addictive it is. You wait for your next tweet, text or email – hoping it will be from that special someone.

art_snapchat-620x349 The latest craze is Snapchat that lets users connect by sending each other photos that automatically delete after a few seconds. It is now on a quarter of all UK smartphones – and rising. It is even overtaking Facebook amongst teenagers as their modus operandi. And as of yet it is not doused in ads. Under 20 year olds love it because it does not leave a digital footprint that mum or a future employee can look at. It means they can send embarrassing photos to their friends for a quick laugh of them doing something stupid and know that it will be gone in an instant. There is no fear of getting dissed. And that is priceless for a teenager. Ironically, it has the same property of a real conversation, that is, being ephemeral. Other than that it could not be more different. Gone is the art of conversation. Just snap, annotate, send – see, laugh and reciprocate. Instead of chatting in the old fashioned way, you can send an even longer selfie – known as a Snapchat story – a short collage of photos and videos that lasts in the digital ether for just 24 hours.

Against the rise of snappy happy teen life, there appears to be a ground swell of discontented 20+ something users. Those who have started to get tired of a life filled with self-obsessed, soundbite living and instead want to get back to the Good Life. Just after reading my friend’s email, I went to my local Costas and came across this graffiti on a wall – I thought it rather poignant.

smartphone_notSeveral of my friends have ditched their smartphones for ‘stupid phones’ – ones that just let you make a call or send a text. And they seem a lot happier. Some have blogged about living without a smartphone and they all agree it is great, the quality of life is so much better.

Here is a list of 5 pros and cons from offbeathome.com

The upside of getting rid of your smartphone
• Making fun of everyone on them while out with friends
• Having more conversations
• Realizing how much more time you have and how much you can get done when not distracted by your phone
• Talking more to one’s spouse and getting more done each night after work
• Getting lost

The downside of getting rid of your smartphone
• Getting lost
• Not having music for long drives back home (buy an iPod)
• No camera and instant photo sharing
• No distraction when you’re bored, or in an awkward situation
• No GPS to help you find your way

It seems like a no-brainer for anyone over 25. But, I just love my new iPhone 5S. The camera is awesome…

Walk the Talk

stansted2Have you ever watched the videos that loop on the TV screens hanging from the ceiling, whilst waiting your turn to empty your belongings on the X-ray conveyor belt at an airport security gate – the ones that tells you what you can and cannot take with you as hand luggage? Most of us are far to busy stressing about whether we need to take our shoes off (do we have holes in our socks?), whether to remove our belt (will our trousers fall down?), empty our pockets and fumbling with our laptops and tablets – to even think to stop and watch. We are also usually familiar with current security rules and yet we still occasionally get caught out. A friend recently forgot she had a corkscrew in her hand luggage and had to wave goodbye to it as the security girl deftly removed it from her backpack – shame, as it was a really nice one. Others are too eager to glug down the remains of their bottled drinks before having to throw them away.

To draw people’s attention more to the security information, some airports have started showing animated videos that are projected onto a cardboard cut-out of a helpful assistant to make her appear alive. I watched one demonstrating to us earnestly at Stansted airport on my way to a conference in Ljubljana – and then watched people walking straight past her. No one stopped to watch or even glance at her. She appeared rather transparent, quiet and a bit limp and so in many ways, it was not surprising she was so ineffectual. But, when I mentioned it to one of my fellow conference goers he was convinced she had a Mona Lisa sideways look, that followed us through the aisles. That surely was enough to grab our attention. I was not convinced at all.

A couple of years ago, New Zealand Airlines made a safety video that was far more attention-grabbing. Since then, they have produced a series of very funny safety videos. I got to watch one this summer when on an Air New Zealand flight to the Cook Islands. It starred Grylls (the British adventurer) in “Bear Essentials of Safety,” delivering the safety message while tracking the extinct flightless Moa bird in the South Island of New Zealand. It had me hooked the whole way through. Very witty, amusing and at the right level of info-edu-tainment. Other airlines are now getting in on the safety funny act. Virgin America, for example, just produced a very elaborate one, featuring a posse of dancers and former contestants, some from American Idol participating in a highly entertaining performance.

Information salience mixed with a good dose of humour makes for compelling viewing – that stays with you. Even the jingles keep looping in your mind, admittedly, often annoyingly so. Perhaps the efforts to get passenger’s attention would be better designed with Russell Brand or Jo Brand projected onto the cardboard cut-outs, singing in cockney-style what you can or cannot take on board.

But it is not just security videos that could benefit from the presenters standing out more and being funnier. Educational videos can also be made much more watchable through humour and captivating delivery. The conference I was attending on the Internet of Education was about how to enhance online and traditional education with new technologies. There were quite a few talks about MOOCs; their pros and cons, promises and reality. Some reported on how they had developed clever technologies that could help students to annotate, tag and search for video lectures and other online materials.

Coursera was one of the first companies to get the ball rolling; its mission is to make high-quality education accessible to everyone by allowing the best universities to offer courses to everyone around the world, for free. Its website is mightily impressive – claiming a staggering numbers of students who have signed up for their courses and an equally vast number of courses they now offer. The fanfare and hype that greeted this free form of online learning a couple of years ago however has now been tempered by a fair share of public skepticism. It is dawning on many that it can never be the great leveler – as hoped. One of the Stanford professors, Andrew Ng, who co-founded the company, and has had a hugely successful online course in machine learning, gave the final keynote talk at our conference – virtually via Skype. He was still bubbling with boundless energy and enthusiasm. I watched him in awe – maybe the CAA could learn a few lessons from him about how to make effective safety videos.
TIME Summit On Higher Education

I was struck, however, as I listened to him waxing lyrical about their incredible achievements by how much of the content that gets delivered, interacted with and re-presented is all done via the computer keyboard. Inevitable, but it made me think whether we are educating a global generation of students to only talk about what they have learned through their fingers. There is no need for a MOOCs student to stand up and present their ideas, findings or concerns in a face-to-face setting or to confront their lecturers. It is largely about selecting the right answers using multiple-choice quizzes (of course there are a few courses that are the exception). Fine for working out answers and gauging the student’s progress as they work though the course, but not so good at helping them work out how to put those Q&As into practice. As any teacher or professor knows only too well, you only really learn about something when you have to talk about it yourself in front of a class of fresh-faced students.

How can online education courses help students actually explain or discuss a phenomenon or theory, such as deep learning, in the convincing way that Andrew Ng does in his lectures? How can they emulate him? Not by simply watching videos, or tagging them or answering multiple-choice questions. I raised my arm and asked him what he thought about the possibility that we might be producing a generation of students who only ever express themselves through their fingers. I suggested, as well, how about getting the students to upload videos of themselves verbally explaining what they have learnt? They might then be assessed, not through clicking through a series of radio buttons, but through being matched with other students from different parts of the globe, who are also taking the same course – each critiquing the other’s presentation. Would give a new spin to the idea of study buddies.

moocDuring his talk, Andrew mentioned a study that had investigated the value of having a virtual image (a bit like a cardboard cut-out) of the instructor appearing at the bottom of each slide. The researchers wanted to see what role it would play in motivating the students. To test this out, they split the class into two – and gave half the slides with the cut-out instructor appearing and the other half just the slides. Apparently, the students in the control condition were not at all happy when they found out they did not have the cut out instructor on their slides – feeling they were missing out. There was uproar and so the researchers had to abandon the experiment. That speaks volumes about the power of having the presence of a tutor near you to somehow make it feel a bit more real and that perhaps your tutor cares for you. And you never know they might just have that Mona Lisa effect.

Shock Box

phone boxDefibrillators (AEDs) are located on walls in public buildings, stations, trains and planes. You never really notice them unless called into action – just like all the other safety equipment that is required in public places, such as fire alarms, fire hoses and extinguishers.

Last week we were ambling though the quiet village of Steyning, doing a spot of window shopping, when we came across an AED in a disused phone box. At first sight, I thought it was bizarre to see a life saving contraption where a public phone used to be but then it made perfect sense for it to be there, since no one uses public phones anymore. Rather than sell them off to Americans who place them in their restaurants, bars and homes for show and effect – why not keep them as a permanent feature of the British landscape, but repurposed to be live savers? Maybe it will stop the phone boxes smelling of urine and being vandalized. And help save a live.

aedDefibrillators are strange machines that are intended to issue jolting electric shocks to someone who has just had a heart attack. They come encased in plastic boxes, usually coloured bright yellow or green. When opened up, they provide step-by-step instructions, with voice prompts, designed to be used by untrained bystanders. The boxes include a kit with all the things you will need to use the defibrillator. You are meant to start by ripping open the person’s clothing to expose their chest, then, if it is dry, wet it followed by applying two sticky pads with electrodes in them – one on the heart and one above the nipple on the right chest. If the person has a lot of chest hair it is suggested you trim it using a razor that is included in the kit. And if they are wearing an underwire bra you are meant to cut it away to avoid burns on the patient’s skin.

All of these preliminary actions are very intimate to be doing to a stranger. There is no dignity when it comes to having a heart attack. The AED machine will analyse the patient’s heart beat and then tell you to stand clear of the patient so it can deliver a shock if it considers it necessary. It will repeat these steps until the patient is revived or continues not to respond to the treatment.

Last week, one of my students witnessed a passenger using an AED, whilst on a tube train, on another passenger who had slumped unconscious. The person did not respond and was eventually taken away by the emergency service who came to the scene, assumed dead. She found it very distressing to be stuck in a carriage, having to watch the defibrillator machine repeatedly being used, in vain. I had a similar experience, about 10 years ago, on a flight to Seattle when a man crashed to the floor, face first, right next to my aisle seat. Two doctors rushed to the scene, when a message was sent out on the tannoy system, alongside two undercover air marshalls. They turned the man over and started the process under my nose. They began by opening up his Hawaii shirt (I can remember the detail of the pattern) and quickly strapping on the defibrillator. Then for the next hour, the defibrillator took over control issuing orders; which the doctors and air marshalls obediently followed. It was clear to everyone around him that he was dead but it is a requirement by law to continue trying to revive the patient until the plane has landed. The plane eventually made an emergency landing where he was taken off the plane on a gurney.

It is very disturbing seeing someone, unexpectedly and suddenly, die in front of you in a public place; a living body suddenly becoming lifeless, and then stripped and strapped to a pulsating AED. What has stayed with me most is the eerie robotic voice that repeatedly barks the same piercing dictum throughout the ordeal, just before it is about to deliver a shock, “Stand clear. Do not touch the patient. Stand clear.”

A couple of years ago a guy called Shay Carmon developed a concept defibrillator toaster that would revive your bread. That is black humour to the max.

toaster