MULTITOUCH BARCELONA

Humans after all

Text: Poncho Paradela | Photo: Rodrigo Manzano

Probably many of you know the collective Multitouch Barcelna thanks to the ‘Hi’ video, that one in which a guy is playing an operating system’s interface. But now is when you’re going to meet them properly because we had Pol Pla and Dani having a coffee with us and they have talked to us about who they are, where they come from and where are they going. Here we have their words and then, their videos, because there’s nothing better than their own work to explain itself. Without a doubt, we are in front of a project with a more than promising future.

What’s Multitouch-Barcelona, how did it start, etc?
It’s funny because there is four of us but Roger Pujol y Xavier Vilar , the two who are missing now are the ones who started it all. The project has a year and a half, the evolution we have is very small, actually people ask us who we are or what we’ve done and stuff like that, our track is still short.

Where did you meet each other?
We met at the university, we studied Multimedia Engineering and the two guys missing focused on multi-touch technology on their final project. From that, they started to realize about the possibilities of this technology, they began with board prototypes and they had the chance to do an exposition in a small setup at the OFFF Festival. From there, they could see the people’s connection with this type of technology and also they were able to change a little bit the philosophy they had at the beginning of the project. Lets say they started a course project and then saw that it could have exits on other things or topics that they were also interested in, so the course project became a personal project. More interesting things started to come out, we were lucky that Red Bull contacted us and we started to have the chance to make projects for someone else, not just personal projects, and to look people’s reaction to what we’ve done. Little by little we’ve defined our work’s philosophy. That’s up until now.

So, what’s your work about?
We naturalize technology to make people not be afraid of it and interact with it instead. We  bring technology closer to people in a natural way.

How’s that done?
You have to unmask it in order to make them focus on what they really have to. For instance, if we had a surface to draw on, we are interested in the commands to be as natural as they can so they can focus on their creation, in this case, in a drawing level, without learning the interface.

Tell us what you did for Red Bull.
Red Bull’s case helps a lot to explain this. The application itself had nothing, it was a turned off screen and when people started to touch it they realized they could paint on it, they saw they could do it with their fingers, that there were brushes they could use and sponges for erasing. It was all very intuitive, you didn’t give people any direction, but because it was similar to reality, because it was something so natural, they understood how it worked right away. That helps people get closer to technology.

And then, there was the space invaders project, right?
Yes, when we did space invaders for Red Bull we discovered something more powerful: we suggested a ball game and found that people started to relate apart from it. People started to play on their own and after a little while they saw they could organize themselves, some of them were attacking those from above, others were after the bonus. There were synergies generated among people, and all of that resulted in people not concerning about how many space invaders were killed but in having a good time together in groups and sometimes they even stopped playing to throw balls to each other. We thought it was great that technology moved people in that way. Since then, the interfaces we’ve been generating are on the same line, that is, forgetting about what is our thing and simply let it be an excuse to relate people and produce personal feelings that technology, for sure, can’t give. The screen doesn’t have to be the appeal, but people in front of it. That when you see a hot girl playing space invaders you get closer because you will have an excuse to talk to her for sure. In fact, we read a comment in Twitter that made us laugh  that said, ‘playing space invaders and meeting hot girls’. That’s when you say, I’ll stop programming to start playing. To see what happens with what we do, gives us feedback and helps us to focus things in a different way.

I read some statements from Miyamoto in which he explains that the new Wii Sports Resort doesn’t have an ‘online’ because he thinks that for that kind of games, having your rival next to you is vital.
Of course, human contact is basic. I love the evolution we’ve taken, because I find it very coherent with what we did before. We started by trying to understand people and their feelings, and we found that interfaces or something we could program, are not the best ways to do it, but with other people instead. If you can get people get together, you let your idea grow to something coherent and with a massive potential, and presence is something that has an incredible value and that you’ll never get with internet or distance, even if you work as hard as you can. There can be progress, but the fact that you’re playing tennis on the Wii and that you hit your partner accidentally with the controller is something great and it must be enjoyed.

…and to see him sweat
Well, sweating is the first phase, that can be done on your own, but when you establish a challenge with the other, getting a point after playing for long is priceless.

He also said that to really interact with a video game you have to touch something, clearly referring to Microsoft’s Natal Project, obviously he says that looking after number one, but, how do you see it?
There is much to that, I think that the fact of having an object that relates you with the video game is interesting as long as the object itself is contributing in some way. The fact of having a board to do snowboard is not as important as having something you can manipulate and that physical manipulation is changing the game. It’s a very subtle topic. I mean, when the object is not contributing something it can be avoided. but if it has a reason then it’s different. For instance, with the balls in ‘space invaders’, motion is so much better than using a Wii controller resembling the throw of the ball,  although the device can calculate the power and direction, and the result is the same, but the fact of holding the object and throwing it to the screen contributes a lot for sure. For each case it has to be analyzed if the object contributes or not.

I love your project ‘Hi’, what can you tell us about it?
It’s a personal project, an idea that came to be developed by ourselves for the presentation at the 2008 OFFF Festival. It explains our concept and our vision of what we’re doing. We had some problems and at the end we couldn’t show it until this year’s OFFF, we decided to re-use the idea by narrowing it down. People ask us about what we’re really doing and it’s very hard to explain. ‘Hi’ it’s a very simple video that has a little from everywhere of what we do, our philosophy is represented there. You can think that the person inside is us, that we worry about trying to give the user what he or she expects from the system, but also the ability to see what’s going on behind simplifies a little to understand what’s an interface. It was a job that took several days but I think it was worth it because people from that point on, from the ones that saw it at the OFFF to the ones that saw it on the web, have a better idea of what’s our work about.

Does the name limits you?
We’re not concerned about the name, we’re not only doing multi-touch, it started because of the project and it stayed because it started to allocate us, but that’s not important. With this video we didn’t use any multi-touch technology. Any at all. Our profile is not only technological. We’re looking to conceptualize things and from there start to develop something. ‘Hi’ is a bit of a gag, half joke from the ‘loading human interface’ that came with Windows.

The video can also be interpreted as call to a more intuitive and “human” technology.
We find this very positive, in fact everything comes from the opportunity that came with the  moment of converting a computer into something more personal. Because it has always been called personal computer, but it has never been. And in the moment when you imply emotions and you can sweat playing Wii, just as an example, it establishes an emotional link with the computer. And this has an incredible potential communication wise. When you get to people’s feelings and emotions it’s so much easier to communicate with them and to express in their language. Technology begins to have many possibilities in this matter, everything that we can do that results in feelings works to communicate, indeed Multitouch Barcelona started doing multi-touch but it doesn’t focus on that but in any communicative system that really connects emotionally to people.

How do you think technology’s evolution is going to be and how would you incorporate it to your work?
The best thing for us is that technology develops to a maximum because it will save work for us. We started by doing our own interfaces from scratch and now we stopped doing it because now there are very specialized companies that are concentrated on hardware, which let us focus more in the concept. There is people contacting us asking us for displays or an interactive wall and that’s not what we do. But if in order to develop a concept we need to built it because there is no one who does it, then yes. Little by little there are coming new technological solutions that gives more possibilities creative wise to develop more powerful tools.
All of our projects are characterized by the focus in the user, when we know what to say to them and how to say it we look for technology that helps us to do it. That technology evolves in the sense of focus in the user makes things easier for us. It can be said that people begins to see that it is a good path to focus in the user and make thing easier. There are very clear examples of that like the Wii, the iPhone… You can see the evolution.

Which is your essential tool at the moment?
None. We like to have ideas that are really worth to develop. When there’s a project on the table we think in what we want to do, what we want to express and then we look for the possibilities to do it, with technology or something else. With the previous work, we enjoyed more to think, to plan… than the tools we used. Tools are not that important.

Is there any object in the market right now that shares your essence?
We admire all gadgets out there that have the same functions as their competitors but that have obtained a market share by providing a more human touch to the interface. That being logic because even though your giving the same to people, it’s easier to use, there you have again the iPhone and the Wii.

I find remarkable the Wii because it’s a console that is below its competitors’ processing capacity, and even like that, thanks to its innovative interaction and to the way it involves players, has accomplished a spectacular repercussion.
There are many gadgets that have little things that surprise us and we try to take out the things we are interested in, that being an iPod or the Wii controler. But there’s still not a gadget that we praise, although there are some interesting gadgets being released that focus on the person and in being natural. It’s like, why do you have an iPhone and not a Blackberry, just as an example? You try it, and the multi-touch they’ve done is so much better than any other mobile phone that has tried to imitate them. It’s really not worth to buy a multi-touch mobile that’s not an iPhone. I’m not trying to sell iPhones but its focus is really wise, while the rest have done it just because it’s appealing to have something multi-touch.

Lately, that philosophy has distinguished Apple and Nintendo from competitors.
Yes, in that sense they have worked more like us. First they had an idea about what they wanted to do and then they found the technology that let them conceive that idea. What other companies do is ask themselves what’s trendy, multi-touch? Well, they’ll take their old mobile and put multi-touch in it, without worrying too much about details on the multi-touch. When you slide to go to the next photo and it gets stuck, the user loses sensibility. It’s like when someone is coming and tells us that he’s opening a shop and that he wants a multi-touch display. Why? because its cool and people will be amused, this is not the answer nor the point of this technology.

Is people really understanding this new technology?
I believe that when you give people something that they really don’t have to understand is when you succeed. Because the big thing about the iPhone or the Wii is that knowing nothing you can understand that to resize a photo you have to move your fingers in some way; with the console, that in order to play golf you have to move the controller in certain direction, you get that right away. Perhaps, the fact that is so natural may help to create very simple games or applications, even stupid, but people download them, buy them, use them and enjoy them. There is this first level of simple things, but it’s things that if you gather and try to use them all together and have this global vision, you can get to something more complex. Besides this has just been implemented, people’s still learning they can use their body to interact with the new gadgets that are being released. When there’s a little bit more of culture on this, challenges to the users using this possibilities can begin, work in more elaborate gesture topics can begin, and I think we’ll see changes once the public grasps today’s innovations.

How do you think this evolution will be?
I think that the wisest thing is that the moment arrives when you don’t notice that you’re using this technology; that is everywhere without having you to think, now I have a new gadget; that it merges with the world and gives you exactly what you expect. They have to be useful tools, technology is there to help people and make life easier. People should stop taking courses to learn Word, this is a mistake, people who wants to use a word processing software has to use it without problems.

Do you think that at the end, even though there’s a great technology, it depends too much on the developers, like the case with the Wii that it’s said that it’s worked just from the inside?
The problem with video games is that to create one graphically powerful and optimized requires such a budget that maybe then you lose the side of interaction. I think the important games, the ones that will have the biggest budgets can make a very complete game on a technical level and at the same time a powerful interactive kit.
The good thing for us is that we’re not attached to the market, if you need people to get a special controller or something else to sell a game, you have to worry about if what you did to sell the controller is giving you enough results. Because you can make a Zelda that if people doesn’t have the motion plus they won’t buy it. That’s the dilemma when you enter to market topics and to avoid it the most you can is good to take advantage of all possibilities that technology has. The thing is, that, of course, we don’t have the benefits that Nintendo has.
The technology that the Wii is using is not new, sensors have been used since years ago, the multi-touch topic comes from when computers started to come out, is just that people associated the computer with the keyboard and the mouse even though they had the possibility to do it multi-touch. In the 80’s there were spectacular multi-touch examples. There’s a conference in 1986 by Nicholas Negroponte, MIT’s Media Lab ex-Director that now has dropped everything to carry on the project of One Laptop per Child, that marked all the bases of multi-touch interaction that are applied nowadays. I find hallucinating that it took 20 years to start using them.

Why the delay?
The reason is as I was saying before: there are two technical options, more power or better quality. And economically, the companies have gone after more power, usability and possibilities and forgot about what is the user for them. They found normal to say, if we’ve done Photoshop; the average user knows around two percent  of its features. I find this very wrong but is normal to them, as long as it sells they don’t care about the rest. When you start to look after what the users want and you create a well adapted application, the users will have a greater knowledge of it, they will use it better and will be happier. And that has been underrated until now.

But the user has some fault as well, for instance, a lot of people wants an iPhone but they don’t get the data plan.
With the iPhone, I found very interesting Apple’s strategy to force to get it with just one distributor, this one making the data plan obligatory on the contract and that’s great.

Ok, but there were people who bought an EDGE iPhone for 600 Euros before it was released here and not having the data plan or anything else.
Is very sad, but Apple’s case is particular because people who bought it before it was released here did it because they love the brand, not thinking in the possibilities that the object offers them. But with classic software people have bought it for necessity. For instance, I buy Word because I need to write, but I don’t do tables and not until Word’s last version you couldn’t configure menus with the options you wanted. I mean, you had everything there and you had to learn the things you did, but from the menus you just only used 4 option from 80 or 90 that were there, and it’s even more with Photoshop. Developers haven’t worried much about how the user utilize the software but in giving it a lot of tools instead.

Ok, but Photoshop is a professional tool, there’s not much sense that a thirteen year old wants to have it. Or for example, there is people who buys a 17-inch MacBook Pro and only use it to surf the web, is that wrong because there’s nothing suggesting that such product is not for them?
The thing is that Adobe is interested in selling their products. The won’t say it because they wouldn’t sell not even half of what they sell even though lots of them are illegal downloads. In that sense I’ve seen people that use, I don’t do it, but there’s many of them that use Mac’s iLife, a tool made for people that wants to do photography, video and only have four things. Of course, when you want to use it more professionally you find out that you cannot  affect loads. But when my father organize his holiday’s photos on the computer, he gets very excited because he does it in half the time he did before and doesn’t have to learn Photoshop menus, I had to go and help him every time he wanted to do it in the past.

Like with iMovie, loads of people are starting to make their own movies.
Of course, you drag the clips, put four different transitions, even titles and then you make the DVD with chapters. Going back to my dad, he comes with that and its very good, then he shows it to the rest of the family and they are like, how did you do that? It’s great that people that has no clue whatsoever can make this things, that’s an example of an interface thought for users.

But, so much democratization of the professional can weaken their work?
Well, maybe that causes to value more the work of the professionals. Is never bad to have more competitors, people will still look for professionals that work good. From where we stand, it helps us, if we wouldn’t have uploaded the ‘Hi’ video, a lot of people wouldn’t know who we are, and that’s what the internet has given us.

Ok, but at this stage, the internet is big box where anything fits, were you worried  that you could have been taken lightly?
There’s loads of people that spend hours watching YouTube videos, like that, with no use of it, but there are many that when they see something they can distinguish the good ones from the bad ones. The good thing about the internet is that it rates itself, if you’re watching a video you can know if people likes it or not, there’s always a boom at the beginning with visitors and then you can see if it drops or if it maintains. This can be helpful. We’re going to make more work in the same line as ‘Hi’ because we’ve seen that people liked it a lot.

It’s like the amateur culture victory, in the past if you wanted to make a movie you had to go through film school, and now you take your friends and do it.
This is really interesting because it raises questions. Do you really need to study all that you had to do in the past in order to make a movie? I believe not. For instance, the guy who made the What’s In The Box? video, he’s been required to work in Hollywood. Of course, that video is great. Internet is a mine of talents, you see a guy like this and you want him to work in the next Transformer film, maybe it isn’t the perfect video because it has some technical errors, but you find out right away the potential of this guy. At the end, the bad things go away and people stop to watch them. If I see something that I like, I subscribe to his or her blog, but after three or four bad posts I delete it. I think it’s a challenge for people that take it seriously: you have to work more for everything you do is of interest to people.

Just to finish, what about your next projects?
We cannot say much, but what we can say is that after the OFFF and ‘Hi’ we began to receive loads of e-mails from people interested in making different projects and right now we have a lot of things on the table. What we can say is that we have projects for commercials for big companies and also artistic projects for museums that see us more like an artistic project. That’s the balance we want to have. We will talk to you when there’s something official .