Aesthetics in design improve the appeal of the product. Indeed, top designers look to improve products based on some of the following virtues:

1) mastery of complex systems and self-assembly

2) passion for versatility

3) redesign in a positive and constructive way

4) knack for making information clear and engaging

5) metaphysical appreciation of bodily functions

6) infusing objects with elegance and intelligence

But how much do we really enhance a tool to make it appealing enough for daily use ? We don’t think twice about using our toothbrush while sophisticated tooth brushes like the sonic toothbrush has also become mainstream. Furthermore, from forks, fidbits to cars, gadgets have been increasingly measuring every activity we do and becoming intelligent in making efficiencies in our habits. With the internet of things, IoT, a jargon used often to refer to connectivity to the internet for appliances and gadgets, these same measurement and data find their way from small devices to cloud based services and eventually to our smartphones giving us a rich experience of knowing even more about what we do and how to do it better.

But when does a HAPIfork that can monitor how quickly we are eating and signal us to slow down become enough that we reach for the drawer and get the old fashioned fork out? In fact, user experience talks to the art of demanding just the right amount of attention from the user and being polite and enticing to the user to get their tasks done as easily as possible.

With the social engineering applications such as Facebook, Twitter etc and their ecosystems allowing the devices and applications to share information and tap into the peer pressure for punishing and rewarding certain behaviors taking the devices from becoming smart and connected to the next level of reaching out to your friends. The application BinCam was about making your recycling behavior visible to your circle to reward responsible behavior.

This is a new trend of re-inventing social engineering as product engineering and even arguably advertising. From smart glasses to smart forks, “Smart” in Silicon Valley for example is the shorthand for transforming the convention with a disdain for the poor souls who haven’t upgraded.

But what really is a balance between the an old fork and a smart connected fork? There in seems to be the feng shui of design which can tip between good “smart” and bad “smart”. While most people can immediately relate to the two ends of spectrum between what is helpful and appreciable and the other overwhelming or resulting in premature balding, there is a far more troublesome and complicated story when all the perspectives fall into the picture. From designer, advertiser, business etc all the way to the enduser, each one has a different meaning to what is good and what is bad. There doesn’t seem to be a panacea that can be strived for in the end product but yes a common ground would almost always be welcome. There may still be concerns such as privacy and verbose information but they can be alleviated with technology and standards borrowed from realms involving the bigger world such as computers and clouds.

Among all these concerns, perhaps the closest one that I find unequivocally alluring in almost all domains is the notion of quality assurance. A product, simple or sophisticated, can be a joy to use so long as it can earn the trust of its user. The reliability and accuracy comes from quality control. Hand in hand with this working formula is the notion of minimalist design.  Minimalistic design embraces the idea that less is more. The adage goes that the most important thing for an application is not what it does, but what users think it should do. Creating not just a clear map between purpose and function but also a clever map that strikes a chord with the user, then seems to be the right approach from a product design perspective that can withstand the forces exerted by the different players around the product from business to consumer.

There’s a lot more debate and some hugely popular with TED talkers but I just present a short list in the reference together with my understanding above.

Reference:

1) http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/smart-technology-making-us-dumb

2) http://gizmodo.com/5918045/why-smart-people-are-actually-dumb

3) http://www.newyorker.com/tech/frontal-cortex/why-smart-people-are-stupid

4) https://www.fastcodesign.com/3027943/innovation-by-design/berg-wants-to-be-the-platform-to-make-any-dumb-appliance-smart

5) https://www.mirumagency.com/blog/when-dumb-design-smart-tech-companies-find-minimalism-leads-success-0

6) Are smart gadgets making us dumb ? http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324503204578318462215991802

#codingexercise
List<int> AddTwoLists(List<int> a, List<int> b)
{
Var num1= a.ToDouble();
Var num2 = b.ToDouble();
Var sum = (a + b);
Return sum.ToList();
}
List<int> AddTwoListsDetailed(List<int> a, List<int> b)
{
Int k = a.Count + b.Count - 1;
Var ret = new List<int>(k){0};
Int I = a.Count - 1;
Int j = b.count - 1;
Int carryover = 0;

While ( I >= 0 && j >= 0)
{
Var sum = a[i] +b[j] + ret[k] + carryover;
ret[k] = sum%10;
Carryover = sum/10;
i--;
j--;
k--;
}
While( I >= 0)
{
Var sum = a[i] + ret[k] + carryover;
ret[k] = sum%10;
carryover = sum/10;
i--;
k--;
}
While( j >= 0)
{
Var sum = b[j]+ ret[k] + carryover;
ret[k] = sum%10;
carryover = sum/10;
j--;
k--;
}
While(carryover)
{
Ret[k] = carryover%10;
Carryover /= 10;
k--;
}
Return ret;
}
It can be shown that the sum of two numbers cannot have more digits than both of them combined which is why we allocate and initailze a list of zeros to store the sum.