The case for human-future interaction

Recently, I’ve become aware of some striking similarities between the current state of forecasting and the early days of work in human-computer interaction. These similarities have led me to think it’s time to establish a discipline of human-future interaction. Let me explain.

Over the last decade at the Institute for the Future (IFTF), and particularly the last few years, we've been in a period of prolific experimentation with formats for sharing our forecasts and processes for engaging groups in discussion of their implications. We're building maps in different structures to convey a future shaped by multiple interwoven trends, we're illustrating new possibilities with provocative artifacts-from-the-future and movies that give our forecasts an up-close, human perspective, and increasingly we're crafting experiences that immerse participants in future life or simulate important new behaviors and skills.

One of IFTF's trend maps, an example of a new format we've been trying to share our forecasts and stories about the future

But the more I design in these formats and create new ones, and the more I survey the landscape of how other forecasters are engaging and provoking, the more I find underlying commonalities; I think a larger framework is starting to emerge. I see it clearly in our own day-to-day work at IFTF. Our spirit of experimentation continues, but it's making room for a more systematic and iterative approach to how we create futures media. Each new project brings a better sense of which formats will work best, given the particular research, forecasts, and audience. Each new trend map, artifact-from-the-future, or experiential activity draws on earlier successes and failures.

My background in human-computer interaction (HCI) led me to a parallel time in that field's early years, when programmers and developers began to identify the elements that made hardware and software successful and then dissect, test, repurpose, share, repeat, and iterate them. Ultimately, this era was framed by two key shifts...

1) a move from haphazard experimentation to structured iteration
2) a changing view of the audience away from customers-to-be toward users to be engaged

Finding ourselves at a parallel stage in the evolution of futures media, I think a similarly-styled discipline of human-future interaction could do much to guide and structure our work—and ultimately improve our ability to shape our individual and collective futures. At its core, human-future interaction would be the art and science of effectively and ethically communicating research, forecasts, and scenarios about trends and potential futures. For technology design, human-computer interaction has become the framework that links the capabilities of technology, the behaviors of users, and the goals of designers and developers. These three constituents have very similar counterparts in futures work, and human-future interaction should serve much the same role--connecting the capabilities of design tools and media formats with the strategic needs of users, shaped by the goals and insights of researchers and forecasters.

This isn’t just about giving a catchy label to work already being done. Thinking of the creation of futures media and related experiences as a structured process will simply lead to better results—media that engages a broader audience in discussion about trends shaping our shared future, and experiences that engage this audience in far more personal ways than a wordy report ever could. This ability to present forecasts and future visions in media beyond text--and not just by Hollywood--is an exciting development, and couldn’t come at a better time. Popular engagement in the future is particularly crucial now when so many of the important challenges facing the human species can be influenced—perhaps only solved—by the cooperation and involvement of everyone, not limited to people and organizations that have traditionally held power. The time to engage a mass audience in global, longer-term futures thinking is here, today. For forecasters and futures media practitioners, thinking of our work as an iterative, user-centered design process that builds on previous successes will make our work stronger: reflective of an increasingly complex future, compelling, relevant, easier to understand, and, ultimately, actionable by more people.

This artifact-from-the-future sits right next to a real RFID reader, prompting people to think about privacy and surveillance

As a concrete example, there are two fundamental processes within human-computer interaction that I believe would advance human-future interaction—the important and linked ideas of user testing and rapid, iterative prototyping. To the best of my knowledge, there's been little formal work done to evaluate the effectiveness of futures media at communicating underlying trends and assumptions. At IFTF we do this internally and anecdotally through post-project conversations with clients and users of our materials. But a rigorous and open process of testing with target audiences will undoubtedly lead to greater proficiency for all practitioners and faster evolution of the whole field.

Closely related is the idea of rapid iterative prototyping. This approach is long proven in many disciplines of user-centered design as a powerful way to quickly incorporate feedback, improve functionality, and refine basic assumptions. From our work with new formats at IFTF, I believe a prototyping mindset not only leads to more effective futures media, but can also change underlying assumptions. On several occasions we've actually refined our forecasts when, through the process of illustrating implications or writing a day-in-the-life narrative, we're struck with new ideas or see patterns that only came to light through the process of translating theory into future practices. So these tangible futures media are not only powerful interaction objects between forecaster and audience, but also between forecasters themselves, and are important earlier in the process than we might think.

I included ethics in the definition of human-future interaction, and I'd like to expand on how I see its role. On one level, I believe one of the key principles of human-future interaction should be to improve and test a work of futures media, even if many disagree with the future being portrayed, similar to how the principles of human-computer interaction can be used to evaluate a user's interaction with a design, independent of its creator's values. But the human-computer interaction field quickly and rightly expanded beyond technically solvable issues of interface efficiency to include some very fundamental and murky discussions about appropriate and ethical uses of technology. These discussions became particularly important as the platforms for which HCI practitioners designed found a wider audience. Human-future interaction should follow this path and include discussions about quality and selection of forecasts and the transparency of assumptions and goals. Establishing some initial approaches to these issues will be important sooner rather than later, as more groups begin creating persuasive media aligned to their own visions of the future.

Futures media are indeed about to move into their own era of proliferation, but why now? It’s one part maturation of existing processes and formats, and certainly fueled by widespread availability of tools to create and distribute photorealistic images and persuasive movies of potential futures. But I think there’s an even more fundamental--and exciting--reason: a growing view of the future as a medium that anyone can affect and co-create, and less as looming inevitability to be passively consumed. Driven by democratic media and open platforms, more people see themselves as potential agents of influence and change. In fact it was this burgeoning view--the future as interactive system--that helped suggest human-computer interaction as a model for thinking about futures media creation.

Combined with a grassroots, DIY spirit and greater public awareness of issues like climate change, bio- and nano-technology, surveillance, we'll see many new voices sharing their own scenarios--and this is great. Much as HCI has evolved into a cross-disciplinary umbrella that brings interface designers and computer scientists to the same table as artists and social scientists, so too will human-future interaction benefit by breaking outside the walls of think tanks and traditional forecasting groups. Let's learn from and create with game designers, experience designers, community organizers, information visualizers, scientists and researchers, educators, ethicists, social activists, and users and participants.

So how to get this ball rolling? My own next steps will be to distill and document the lessons I’ve learned from human-future interaction and futures media work here at IFTF. Combining my experiences with the experiences of others, I’d love to end up with the beginnings of an open-pattern language for human-future interaction. For now I’ll use Future Now to share these thoughts, but I can see a specialized wiki-type site for capturing our collective wisdom down the road. And a real-time gathering, perhaps both online and off, would be a great kickoff event.

In the meantime, please share any thoughts or examples, either as a comment here or through email, jtester [at] iftf.org.

Comments

[Lonny J Avi Brooks]

This is an exciting development and emerging framework. The parallels between HCI work and how it informs futures media is finally getting the attention it deserves! And working to create and see the open pattern language reminds me of Phil Agre's work on grammars of action. What is the grammar of imagination in human-future interaction? Great work Jason!

Lonny

[David Scott Lewis]

This would be a GREAT idea for Virtual China -- and the perfect topic, especially considering how forecasts about China are all over the map.

David Scott Lewis (in Beijing)

P.S.--I'd be happy to help with this. I write the "Letter from China" column for the Sand Hill Group and AlwaysOn Network, and my AO columns/posts usually get a lot of comments. I also do a lot of forecasting in my columns; they're usually a mix of the here-and-now and forecasts. And, if/when appropriate we could tap into the SHG ISV C-level and AO communities.

letterfromchina -at- sandhill domain (i.e., .c-m)

[Michael Shostack]

Just came across your story on Boing Boing and was instantly hooked on your site. These are the topics I find myself endlessly thinking (fantasizing?) about and it even invades my dreams!

I am an Interactive Strategist by trade and was wondering if there are any opportunities available within your organization, volunteer or otherwise as I am very eager to immerse myself with a group of people who think about this as much as I do.

Feel free to contact me at michael dot shostack at gmail dot com. Great post!

[Peter Dreyer]

Great idea(s). It strikes me that "Future Now" really should have been "Futures Now" - although it adds an in certain contexts relativistic dimension. The "human-future(s) interaction" discipline is extremely interesting when trying to go beyond lead-user, lead-tribe dialogues to reach for the mass audience.
Please keep posting your thoughts and progress on this!