Blog Post

How can we design an internet of things for everyone (not just alpha geeks)?

Stay on Top of Enterprise Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

Despite the influx of new products and considerable excitement around the Internet of Things, from a design and innovation point of view, we are in a “blank slate” moment. We know that connected devices are possible, but we’re not exactly sure why we need them.

Young startups such as Ninjablocks and Twine offer kits that let us connect our own sensors to measure and track values such as how often a door has been opened, the temperature in a certain room, or when the plants have gone dry. Companies like Sony have been working with designers to envision a flexible platform for internet of things development and collaboration to allow product designers and developers to create virtually any kind of information appliance they can think of. (GigaOM’s experience design conference RoadMap is in November in San Francisco).

These extremely flexible devices remind me of what the Commodore 64 computer was for kids like myself in the ’80s. Many people played with the limited games that were offered on it but then couldn’t really find a need for such a thing in their lives. But my geeky friends and I couldn’t leave them alone. We spent weeks crafting lines of code to write simple video games, compose algorithmic music, and even create training programs to increase our SAT scores. The computer was a kind of “everything machine”, presenting a small population of people who liked to tinker and explore with a set of tools to create and probe, while leaving everyone else feeling impressed yet bewildered, unable to figure out just what this magic box was really good for.

A magic box or a bewildering toy?

What will people do with the new connected devices and tools that have just become available? And how should those tools evolve to best suit people’s needs? And what businesses will grow from the desire (and eventually the need) for them in our lives? The alpha geek in me is excited once again, but my product designer side knows that in order to be meaningful in people’s lives, products and their associated data have to be presented within specific, human-centered contexts.

In order to really understand what’s coming in terms of design opportunities, I’ve been studying what’s happening on the front lines of the internet of things — watching companies who create the building blocks for today’s “everything machines” –- to see what people have been doing with their newly connected world. I’ve organized my observations into categories ranging from those products that can be valuable to someone as an individual, to those that relate to groups of people and social exchanges, to products that can actually help people in different places work together at different times to collect and analyze data on a “macro” level. Below are a few examples:

Knowledge of myself


These products can offer us interesting glimpses into our own personal habits and health, providing tools to change behavior. A popular use for the Twine sensors have been interfaces that encourage self control around food by visually keeping track of the number of trips to the refrigerator in a day. To conquer a forgetful mind, another user has hooked a sensor to his garage so the service can nag him via a text message if he’s left the door open. Other visions include combining GPS data with place-specific reminders, so that you get a buzz or phone call if you’re near the bakery and need to pick up bread. (Or perhaps the grocery list and your connected scale data can join forces and tell you if that pumpernickel rye loaf is really such a good idea.)

Knowledge of others


These products can connect us to other people in new ways. Many entrepreneurs are working furiously on devices that show an ambient representation of another person’s presence such as the Good Night Lamp, which is a light that turns on automatically in one place to indicate that a person in a location in another place far away has switched on a light.

In addition to the one-to-one paired communication of presence, connected objects will allow for a team dynamic, where physical aspects (location, laps run, miles walked) can be represented via on-screen graphics or another means of showing measurements such as light or sound.

This becomes most meaningful in health care, where patients can benefit from loved ones keeping an eye on them, watching changes in their health and behavior patterns and helping everyone keep an eye on medication compliance. In terms of eldercare, Lively is a product currently under development that negotiates these challenges well. Instead of an always-on vigilance system like a camera, or a catastrophe-only solution like emergency alert buttons, it offers a number of “passive” sensors that keep track of subtle but meaningful movements throughout the day. A unit on the refrigerator door, for example, gives an indication of eating habits, one on the medication dispenser shows when pills have been taken.

Knowledge of the world

about surroundings

The internet of things gives us is the ability to expose measurements that were previously invisible. A web-connected umbrella can tell us if the forecast predicts rain for today. Similarly, a host of new product concepts encourage people to distribute sensors throughout their environment in order to measure changes in temperature, humidity, barometric pressure and EMF. These products promise to give you a visualization of these values, with the ultimate goal being to help you identify how they may be affecting your health, mood, or home.

And while we can retrieve information about microscopic values like humidity, what I think is most promising is the ability for people in different parts of the world to band together to offer “macroscopic” views of a particular measurement, such as the DIY Geiger counting activities that took place after the Tsunami in Japan. A recent Kickstarter campaign called Smart Citizen is trying to standardize the way we measure air composition, temperature, light intensity, sound levels, and humidity in terms of both hardware and software. These collaborative activities can help people take citizen journalism to a new level, giving them the power to crowdsource data to give credence to their cause through recorded evidence of values that would be otherwise unable to be seen.

Pulling it all together

While the maverick manufacturers and alpha geek tinkerers have managed to find meaningful applications for the internet of things through new tools and devices, there is still a big gap between them and the average user who doesn’t want to hack or discover. In the “About Myself” category, we have a glut of health trackers to measure steps walked or run, but few truly user-friendly products that go beyond that. Similarly, in the “About Others” scenarios, we have products that provide some vague sense of presence, but if they begin to go further, the challenge of balancing vigilance with a respect for privacy is a big one. And in the “About Our Surroundings” category, the effort towards standardization tackles one hurdle, but the meaningful interpretation of that data can still require an editorial leap that makes it challenging to build a persuasive case around the numbers.

Ultimately, the ability to make sensor streams meaningful by finding significant links to multiple, varied sources of data (for example linking biometric values with environmental factors, or calendar data with home control and monitoring) is what will lead to promising developments in each category. But first, we have to design products that are intuitive to install and easy to understand, giving us feedback in a human language that tells us things that matter in our everyday lives. And while we’re at it, we as designers have to take responsibility for the fact that exposing data that’s been previously hidden will shape social mores and privacy considerations from now on.

It’s an enormous puzzle where the pieces are disparate products, tools and protocols, but those designers who are up for the challenge are the ones the ones who will truly succeed in creating a future filled with products that have a positive impact on people’s lives.

Carla Diana is a smart object designer and Fellow at the innovation design firm Smart Design, where she runs the Smart Interaction Lab.

17 Responses to “How can we design an internet of things for everyone (not just alpha geeks)?”

  1. Wayne Caswell

    If we don’t watch out, the Internet of Things will evolve like Home Automation, which after 40 years of hype and being “poised” for mass market adoption any day now, has remained stuck in the niche of either hobbyist or high-end new homes with professional installation. That’s because the automated home must be programmed with if-then-else rules, and every change (new device or new routine) must be re-programmed, requiring yet another truck-roll by a service technician.

    It’s still not easy enough for consumers to do their own programming, and manufacturers of lights, thermostats, window blinds, and consumer electronics choose different network standards, because they have different needs and see their markets differently.

    To avoid mistakes of the past, devices connecting to the Internet of Things must be self-discovering, self-introducing, and self-aware, with artificial intelligence and the ability learn for autonomous operation with no programming.

    The NEST thermostat is billed as “smart”, with the ability to learn daily routines, but is doesn’t know if I’m hot because I just finished exercising or cold because I just ate icecream. But if it knew that my new wearable wristband had the ability to measure & report skin temperature, and then automatically set up a connection between the two, it might. But I still don’t see anyone working on that.

    • Good insight! It sure feels like the IoT is always just around the corner. Its going to take a lot of genius to develop a simple and useful solution to the IoT idea. I am excited to see which startups in this space succeed.

  2. unknown

    My 2 cents. Feel free to disagree :-)

    – mankind is going to misuse whatever they can. historical fact. I am not giving any chance to control my location, health or my infrastructure to hackers, agencies over the net etc. Orwell society is a REAL THREAT !!!

    – too much convenience kills human brain. sensor on the garage door? fridge walk meter ? c’mon – are you not able to control your deeds by yourself in that primitive way? now even if I leave a door open 2 times in my life and smth gets stolen – should I really worry about it? got better things to do.

    – don’t give me more information than I critically need or can use. remotly monitor health of my beloved? full bullshit: one is unable to interprete data w/o medical background and even if why would I poison my lifetime with thoughts about things I can’t change before it is absolutely necessary?

    – no interest in technology for the sake of technology. I leave that to enthusiasts/professionals. really – it’s a waste of lifetime if there’s no critical material gain. and I mean CRITICAL. people inventing soft-close automatic for car doors are not only killing their time, also stealing your time (and money which is time).

    – WE ARE SPIRITUAL BEINGS and PHYSICAL BODIES ! balance you limited lifetime – you’d want to develop your social maturity, your control of your desires, your personal leadership, understand history, political games, social group dynamics etc. don’t let useless technology toys consume too much of your life. and don’t start business destroying other people’s lifetime – even if it sells. you won’t be happy without real friends, go write a poem or song to inspire someone, learn play guitar (not that stupid guitar hero toy, real thing). go to gym, sleep with a girl. KEEP IT SIMPLE AND CREATE REAL VALUE FOR YOURSELVES AND OTHERS.

    – yes, it is your your decision to choose if you still want to devote your life to smth like google glass or ego shooters. just the matter of consequences. there’s no authority except our individual judgement :-)

    • CaptainDiode

      I agree with this guy above me. I don’t want to be this connected, I’ve been in electronics for 20 years and I think this whole “connect everything” thing blows the goats.
      While I’m complaining, “the cloud” sucks and it’s a trap. I’ve also learned to “forget” my cellphone at home all the time. All a young man needs to carry is his pocket knife.

  3. My thoughts:

    – Forget wifi in sensors. Use battery powered sensors with low power RF comms (e.g. like jee labs) to a powered base station. The base station can have ethernet / wifi.

    – ZigBee is supposed to be a standard but it’s controlled by the big players. Need open source protocol.

    – Zero config. Instead of one unit that does everything, have many units each with a single function.

    – IFTTT for sensors. e.g. put acc sensor on fridge, if triggered > 10 times in 2 hours SMS “put the chocolate back, fatty”

    – Good AI that learns how your sensors are configured and suggests recipes / auto implements recipes.

  4. Garrett Peek

    I’m in. Let’s build out the standards and envision the landscape. Privacy is valuable- This application makes me think of Doc Searl’s book “Intention Economics”.

  5. Scott Jenson

    Excellent breakdown, thanks for that. Doesn’t it feel that we are on the verge of another ‘internet level’ boom in core technologies? We are playing around with a platform that, like the original internet, will grown in value and sophistication.

    The problem seems to be that we don’t appreciate this widespread platform appeal, we keep assuming that ‘some company’ is going to do something awesome and figure everything out for us. Of course, that company is unlikely to play nice with others.

    We need to think outside of our stock options here and realize that we need a deeper, one-step-at-a-time internet approach where we start to build on top of the existing internet. Possible directions:
    1) A discovery protocol so we can find all smart devices nearby with a single app/os extension
    2) A federated ID system to help build real security
    3) A better data model so devices and broadcast data that can be collected and used with other devices.

    This is just a few ideas, there are more, but we can’t wait for a company to come save us, any more that AOL or Prodigy would have created the internet. Most companies think too short term to solve this properly. The first step is in realizing that we need to think bigger and create a shared platform, just like the original internet was (and still is!) a shared platform.

    • Thanks Carla for the article and Scott for your insightful comment. We agree that step 1 is indeed discovery. How can things (and people) interact without the ability to discover one another, specifically in physical proximity?

      Many of the today’s IoT examples and devices centre around the connected home, but this is an unlikely starting point. The Internet certainly didn’t start in the home, why should we expect the same of the IoT? Instead, there are closed ecosystem which can today benefit handsomely from genuine IoT experiences. In these ecosystems, standards and security do not act as blockers. We expect the IoT to emerge from closed ecosystems, and with refinement of Scott’s second and third steps, extend to public ecosystems and then finally to the home.

      If small companies can create genuine IoT experiences today and collaborate tomorrow on an the evolution of a shared platform, we may indeed be able to skip the AOL/Prodigy/Compuserve era of the IoT.

  6. Scott Jenson

    Excellent breakdown, thanks for that. Doesn’t it feel that we are on the verge of another ‘internet level’ boom in core technologies? We are playing around with a platform that, like the original internet, will grown in value and sophistication.

    The problem seems to be that we don’t appreciate this widespread platform appeal, we keep assuming that ‘some company’ is going to do something awesome and figure everything out for us. Of course, that company is unlikely to play nice with others.

    We need to think outside of our stock options here and realize that we need a deeper, one-step-at-a-time internet approach where we start to build on top of the existing internet technologies. Suggested directions? 1) A public discovery protocol so with a single app (or OS extension) I can find all smart devices around me 2) A better, federated ID system so we can tackled security (and sharing) properly 3) a richer data model so that devices can publish their data and have it used by others in novel, interesting ways. There’s clearly a lot more but this is meant to just kick start the conversation that:

    *we* need to build it, we can’t wait for a company…

  7. Steve Ardire

    > How can we design an internet of things for everyone

    Good question and the design capabilities of Cisco, GE, Siemens, Google and other IoT players does not give me much hope ;-)

  8. realjjj

    The NSA pretty much killed the internet of things for me.
    It’s rather sad but at this point anything connected should be on an internal network with no data leaked to the outside.