I recently posted this on linkedin. It came from an email conversation with Alex DS and my experiences with applying for jobs recently.I’ll say it again, Alex is extremely smart and been a fantastic person to talk with about so many things, especially the rights and wrongs of the tech industry.
A month ago, I remembered something fundamental: my network matters far more than applications sent into the void of public job boards.
Thanks to Alexandra Deschamps-Sonsino for the wise words again and the nudge!
I’m finally putting this into action…
I’m seeking roles inspired by four core strengths I bring to the table:
🔹 Declarative Development – xHTML, CSS, SVG, #XML, RDF, #Linked Data, Semantic Web. I’m a declarative coder at heart, specialising in this space. Data privacy and management are non-negotiable.
🔹 Project Leadership – Planning, leading, and nurturing projects from early development, through securing funding, all the way to public launch.
🔹 Real-World AI Advising – Beyond the hype! I combine academic rigour with hands-on experience running local, private #AI systems on regular open-source systems. I’m also a strong advisor on technology, design, and data-related projects.
🔹 Leading, Lecturing & Teaching – #UX research and future media development (object-based, adaptive and perceptive media). I’m passionate about shifting from #HCI (Human Computer Interaction) to an #HDI (Human Data Interaction) mindset, with a focus on alternative metrics grounded in human values, sustainability and good human incentives.
If you know of opportunities, teams, or conversations that align with any of these areas, or if you’d just like to connect and exchange ideas (especially around digital legacy, ethically connecting people or the digital public space), I’d love to hear from you.
Open to remote, hybrid, or in-person opportunities.
Feel free to comment or send me a DM. And if you think someone else should see this, I’d appreciate the re-share…
Its clear this post connected with quite a few people, and I have booked in talks with quite a few people…
To quote Buckminster Fuller “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.“
Ian thinks: Although the piece about the wives of AI skilled workers Wired magazine makes clear the wider sad effect of everything centring around AI, is causing huge problems for partners, friendships and families. The domination of AI in every conversation is something I have noticed more and more. Sad times indeed.
Ian thinks: This piece titled comrade trump sums up a lot of the points have made about the Trump effect. Of course, its all side effects of some of the worst political policy’s in decades (it can be argued). But Cory and others are right, this disruption to the order does provide a green light for public value alternatives. Also worth watching Cory from Republica this year which touches on these these themes.
Ian thinks: One of the biggest claims about AI is it will solve cancer. This episode breaks down the claims and puts everything in perspective. The idea of AI solving cancer gets thrown around a lot and its not just a lie but also takes resources away from existing efforts which shocked me.
Ian thinks: I didn’t get much time to be involved in this years Fediforum but Laurens, covered the event and pulls some good ties between it and 2mr.social. The interesting point is how its become a bigger tent for much more than the technology of the activitypub. Having the green party give a keynote and even larger conversations about sovereignty from American traditional social media; is a clear sign of maturity.
Ian thinks: This is one so many true stories of the ongoing problem of AI psychosis. Its unreal but so dangerous. The analysis afterwards is good but doesn’t go into enough depth. You might look at it and shrug but the recent research isnt looking good either, with AI frying our brains in other ways.
Ian thinks: With the insanity of predication markets comes a crypto driven site called Dare market. Its exactly like Black Mirror’s common people. But comes from the madness of the memecoin era when people would do outrageous things to convince people to buy their memecoins. A time of corruption, foolishness and rug pulls.
Ian thinks: 404 interview the highly rated Natasha Dow Schüll, who’s excellent book Addicted by design, I quote a lot. Its great to see how relevant her book is during social media addiction then and now prediction markets. If you haven’t read her book go do it! I also noticed a lot uptick in this space with Mozilla, tech wont save us and even Jon Oliver talking about prediction markets (not available outside the USA, so here is a reaction video).
Ian thinks: When W Social jumped into the limelight and claimed to be the only European social network to fill a void. Many of us couldn’t believe what we were seeing. Elena’s uncovering post cuts the cord on the whole shambles which is W Social and is a clear reminder to work together not alone in darkness.
Ian thinks: The New_public live events are always worth watching even before I started working for them. Tackling the AI monster with human and public thoughts is a good start for a conversation about a future most of us would rather make happen.
Ian thinks: I recently watched the full titled AI Doc: Or How I Became an Apocaloptimist. Watching with my partner and friends raised an interesting discussion. The AI doc really tears down the binary wall of AI boosters and doomers, with some practical suggestions we can all do.
Like this newsletter? Find the monthly archive here
These user interface changes I have lots of thoughts about them from a design and UI point of view (most which has been said elsewhere). However my biggest thought is the underlying problems of our smartphones and our tired notions. (especially since finishing the book The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt and the The Chaos Machine by Max Fisher.
After all the hype and attention, I did fiid the book reasonable. There are parts I did question and frown at but generally it’s not as ground breaking as the press made out.
It strikes me, these are the horrible phase of a pig with a touch of lipstick.
The whole way we use smartphones is broken, I’m not that excited about glassy or blobby elements but it feels like were not getting to the root of the issue. Abuse of user/owner data, lack of user/owner agency and the mass surveillance of millions of people through their smartphones can’t got on as its has…
I’d love to see a new paradigm in the same way both companies have tried to tackle the huge rise in smartphone thief’s. Its not like we don’t have the technology to provide advanced protections for user data but rather each one (Apple & Google) benefit from access to the data. I know people will say yes Google but Apple protects user data access? Likely they do but then become the gatekeeper to your data means they can also offer it to trusted parties?
However this isn’t about that question, I’m questioning why so much work has gone into the UI and not into how to make reconsidering the problems of how we use them?
Although old, this still feels clunky and could be done much better with better integration with the operating system
Using the scoped storage as a example. This limits an application to a certain space on the file system. iOS and now Android support this, but its a little clunky and almost encourages the owner of the phone to just accept all (This old tread highlights the problem).
Android recently put more emphasis on modes (basically profiles, which have been tried over and over again). It wouldn’t be difficult to tie modes to permissions too? The difference could be the user interface? I don’t have solid answers but I think about when (rarely) my Pixel goes into power saving mode when the battery is less than 20%. There is a visual UI clue but also it restricts the background data use too. I have heard about people turning on extreme power saving mode always for many reasons.
Some of you might say so what? This isn’t permissions and data but ultimately its the combination which is important. Its almost like their aim is just shift more new phones, regardless of the result… Of course! Some of you may say hey Ian, what would you change and how? My answer is simply I could rethink a bunch of things and I’m sure some of their teams already have but as usual its so low on the list as it doesn’t sell phones. Or even maybe they are waiting for regulation to force them to make the change?
I reflect on the AI/Gemini changes in Android and Google services, maybe I would like to use it for a limited scope of things and accept the results won’t be as great. But my only option is accept or decline. In 2025 this is bad and needs changing, heck I love for designers to take up the challenge of making this all seamlessly work with the ability to negotiate and change the scope at any time.
Really need to see Human Data Interaction replace Human Computer Interaction now because its become unacceptable in my eyes. Worst still it limits whats possible and leads to a outcome which doesn’t empower the owner/users.
The way of the firestarter’s design process, treat as alpha version 00.2
I was talking with a colleague in London the other week. One of the great thing about working in the same space face to face is being able to noodle together. (I won’t talk about any endless whiteboarding right now).
Anyway one of the things which was mentioned was the design process being messy before it becomes clearer. (Without going into the number of different design methodologies). While they were drawing the multiple iterations, I started to think about how I work.
This is when I started to draw something like the bottom graph and started thinking to what degrees the existing methodologies are incompatible with a collaborative future. I don’t mean just co-designing together but actually building things which people can take forward in a slightly different direction or space.
When I drew it I thought about how I like to starting and proving the worth through research/experiments but also attracting more people into the project to share ideas and thoughts. Ideally there would be other lines which intersect with lines joining and leaving I guess? My old manager use to describe me as a different type of researcher but I can never remember what he called it.
To quote Buckminster Fuller “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Ian thinks: Ransomware is awful and is such a big problem. Interpol and others decided to do something about it, to encourage victims from paying out. The 1.5 million victims helped in a short time is impressive
Ian thinks: Over the last few months, the AI image generation world has gone in overdrive. I found this comparison really intriguing although the story of midjourney speaks volumes.
Ian thinks: I’m not usually a reader of Sci-Fi but now Black Mirror is cancelled, I am looking out for the audiobook of this book. Interesting short stories about the future we are slowly walking towards.
Ian thinks: This talk from the Thinking Digital Conference in Newcastle, made me chuckle but highlights a lot of the problems with the future dreams of robots around the home. Its worth checking out the rest of the conference videos too.
Ian thinks: MIT’s podcast about the automation of everything is a good listen. Well thought out and I’m looking forward to the next season in this ongoing question about trust and machines.
Ian thinks: I am still fascinated and still impressed the podcasting industry is holding tight against the larger players. Innovating together and for the benefit of all, a great example of the public focused future.
Ian thinks: Everyone has been beating up on Netflix recently, but I found this summary sensible, logical and raises questions about the multipliers of tech companies.
Ian thinks: For a long time, I have thought about a term which sums up the downsides of social media/networking. In the book Social Warming: The dangerous and polarising effects of social media, I feel Charles Arthur has found the perfect term.
While hearing Cass Sunstein talk about his new book Sludge, I thought surely this is fiction?
Not knocking it, I’m already known for saying friction can be a good thing.
One of the things I really like about the design guidance is the time to stop. A lot of the time we rush design in a frictionless way but we need to deliberately add friction.
I spent some time in the spa recently and listened to a conversation about Android vs iOS in the stream room. I didn’t partake but found it interesting to hear how people were describing both and their dis/advantages.
There was a point when one person mentioned the customization of Android vs iOS, something like “you only just widgets last year”
But there is something which I have been thinking about in that general space.
Most phones are super similar and the software is what makes it different, its why I stick to the Google phones. I’m not keen on the Samsung opinionated software choices, although I understand people do find much comfort in the per-installed software and decisions. I think of it like Debian vs Ubuntu (of sorts). When Ubuntu came with Unity, I always installed Gnome Shell. It was easy enough to do, but its very difficult to do on a phone (replace Samsung’s UI with plain Android).
But back to phones…
The customization is key… I was originally concerned when Google was following Apple’s approach a while ago but then they seemed to understand the power of Android being yours and leaned right into customization.
Having upgraded to Android 12 a couple of days ago, I really like the system. Material you is surprising and is just right even in dark mode.
I am using Yatse remote which changes the background of my phone depending on what I am watching.That change will persist till I watch something else. I thought it might cause a clash but it doesn’t and still manages to look good always. The colour palette works no matter what. What would Joney Ive and Steve Jobs make of this design approach? Can’t imagine they would be a fan. Its one of the rejections I had about objectified the film/documentary is the lack of customization.
I found this video which sums up what I’m thinking. I look forward to seeing Material you on my new Pixel 6 soon.
I was reminded of a number of design books I read when in College and University. They were held up as the way to do good design. Its something I did explore at UCD gathering last year.
Public wall space given over for public wall art in the Northern Quarter
I recently went on a Manchester International Festival tour with the amazing Skyliner (Hayley Flynn). One of them was centered around the history of Manchester’s Northern Quarter (meant to be the Eastside). It was a very good tour but I could tell there was much more Skyliner wanted to talk about in the short amount of time of the tour. Lucky for me, I had booked myself the week afterwards on another tour, There Was a Bench Here Once
Join us on a search for lost public spaces: places where we could once have sat, pondered and watched the world, vanished benches and much-missed opportunities to interact with the streets around us. Visiting sites where we could once idle and dwell, we’ll talk about the importance of those spaces between places, drawing on the works of urbanists William H Whyte and Jane Jacobs to discover the importance of streetlife as we discover what and who you could once have seen and met at city-centre locations across history.
Its was great tour, where I learned about a space which is Salford’s Green Gate square (the Piccadilly Gardens of Salford). Its a really nice public space but not very inviting although everything is there including good seating, a large open space, fountains and even views of the river (although the river irwell not exactly picturesque at that point)
During the tour, I got talking with Skyliner, She asked me about what I do at the BBC on the first tour but on the second one, I could truly talk about what I do in reflection to what she does.
I do what you do but in the digital space. I am fighting for public spaces in the digital world. Fighting for the public benches, library’s and parks where you can relax without requiring payment, personal identification, etc.
We had a good but short discussion about this on the tour, I would love to have a longer conversation with Skyliner about this all. About a week later I had a very similar discussion with good friend Architect Jane, while walking around the old BBC Manchester site now called Circle Square. The Circle Square is private land, just like Skyliner mentioned when talking about Peel’s Media City UK. The impact of private and public spaces is fascinating but also on the flip side really awful if in the words of Skyliner. What you are doing can be easily lumped into the anti-social behavior box and you are moved on with little to no review. For example sleeping on a public bench would be pushed under this broad definition. Under private space all bets are completely off, as 2 black men found out while waiting for their friend in a starbucks cafe in America.
The problem with Starbucks (I mentioned to Jane, as we looked at the awful and good architecture choices in Circle Square) is its attempt to be a pseudo public space with its community noticeboard and policy of join us, kickback and enjoy time here? (I use to work at Starbucks a long time ago and we use to have a older homeless woman come into the shop about a hour before closing time, very rarely did we ever ask her to leave as the conflict of Starbucks policy was interesting)
…pseudo I believe is the perfect word here.
Not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham. almost, approaching, or trying to be.
Interesting use of green blending in a quiet corner of the circle square development. But is it public or private space?
This got me thinking there are clear parallels between the physical and digital worlds, especially around public spaces. I also think those parallels are really useful to explain to different people why these things are of absolute importance. (I wonder what are the dark patterns of the physical & digital world?)
Its strikes me in America, there is a lot of pressure to work along the big tech corps like Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc. While in Europe there is more of an apatite to build alternatives, rather than position those public spaces them within private lands (thinking about the Starbucks example earlier).
In the ideal world, it would work but we know it doesn’t. Skyliner’s tour makes this super clear. I’m of course not disparaging the efforts to carve out digital public spaces within private digital spaces.
What is the public bench in the digital space? Does it actually exist? Can it exist and whats the norms that surround it?
I for one believe in public spaces and will continue to create those very important public benches.
This project, led by the BBC, seeks to try out a more human-centric focused approach to measuring audience engagement by putting human values at its core. It will do so by putting into practice longer-standing research work on mapping the kinds of values and needs their users care about the most, and developing new design frameworks that would make it easier to actually track these kinds of alternative metrics in a transparent way.
The project will run a number of design workshops and share its findings through a dedicated website and other outlets to involve the wider community.
