C-3PO and R2-D2 Are Not Different UX Philosophies

When discussing the future of robotic and artificial intelligent technology, C-3PO and R2-D2 are often used as an attempt to illustrate the choice between designing humanoid robots and non-humanoid robots.  However, these comparisons are often superficial and overlook the fact that C-3PO's humanoid design and R2-D2's non-humanoid design is very much tied to their function rather then arbitrary design decisions.

C-3PO exists as a translator or liaison between people, droids and maybe equipment of difference species and makes.  For example, he translated what Jabba the Hut said to Luke in Return of the Jedi and often translates R2-D2's beeps.  His knowledge of six million forms of communication means he is much better at this then a person could be in the same position and having a humanoid form ensures that there is no sacrifice in usability by using a droid.  If C-3PO looked like R2-D2 then the conversations would be more awkward as the addition of a droid would be much more obvious.

R2-D2 exists as a replacement for a humanoid engineer and thus he is essentially an intelligent toolbox. His design and unique non-humanoid features reflect and support this role including the ability to conduct maintenance with a variety of built in tools and the ability to do his job while rolling around on the hull of ship in space.  A versatile droid such as R2-D2 would be difficult to create if he looked like C-3PO.  In addition to the practical issues of putting R2-D2's features on a humanoid form consider the confusion that would happen in a frantic battle where crew members are getting blowing into space and a medical droid sees a humanoid form clinging to the side of a ship.

The reason that C-3PO looks humanoid while R2-D2 looks like a rolling toolbox is not arbitrary or due to superficial reasons such as friendliness. Their respective forms are required to provide the best user experience and ensure that they are each fulfilling their unique purpose.

Idea: How Smart Kitchens Should Work

Why would someone want to configure their blender for Wi-Fi?  Or upgrade the firmware of their toaster over? Or replace their perfectly working microwave because their refrigerator does not support it anymore? It is unlikely that someone would want to do these things but this seems to be  the direction where smart kitchen appliances are heading with the Internet of Things. 

For the "Internet of Things" many of these "things" are just low powered computers put in a device and then connected to the user's home network.  This means that they have the same basic needs as a computer, tablet, smartphone, etc. in that they need to be:

• Authenticated so they have a secure connection
• Able to protect themselves against malicious traffic
• Patched when flaws or vulnerabilities are discovered
• Upgraded to support new features

These are very important tasks but they are not something users like to think about and probably not something they want to do with their blender, toaster oven, microwave, etc..  Despite all the benefits of smart appliances one does not want to wait for their smoothie to blend because of an installing patch or have that new game on their tablet decide that their baked potato should be very, very well done. To solve this problem I suggest the creating a smart kitchen instead.

Rather then having each appliance on the home network individually, have only a dedicated computer in the kitchen on that network.  This computer could then treat the other appliances like a private network and would be the only interface between them and devices on the other network.  It alone would need to be configured and would also have a firewall just like a regular computer in addition to managing all the patching to ensure that the kitchen operates smoothly. 

A critical benefit is also that the computer can be the primary point of interaction.  Therefore, when cooking a roast when the user opens up the their recipe the oven would preheat, the timers would automatically be set and anything else they need would be configured and ready to go.  Also as it is a standard computer it would be possible to install new kitchen applications to increase functionality as well as browsing the Internet, using email, etc. when additional information is needed.

The main hurtle is that standards need to be established to ensure compatibility among vendors but I imagine that would be easier convincing people to enter a WPA2 password on their blender, toaster oven, microwave, etc..