Adam Greenfield on the Rise of Ubiquitous Computing

In the July issue of Interactions magazine I came across an interview with Adam Greenfield. The article, titled At the End of the World Plant a Tree, featured six questions from a lengthy interview that was conducted by Tish Shute in February of this year. As soon as I finished reading this condensed version I made my way to UgoTrade.com to access the full interview, which is well worth the time.

This interview was my introduction to Greenfield and many of his fascinating and thought-provoking ideas. Adam is currently leading Nokia's design direction for services and user-interface. The

 focus of this piece is on ideas that he explores in his soon to be released book The City is Here for You To Use.

This upcoming release is Adam's second book, he also keeps a blog called Speedbird and has released an interesting pamphlet called "Urban Computing and Its Discontents". All of his publications investigate the potential shape and impact of ubi-comp on modern life. His first book, titled Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing, often made it into my amazon cart, though I never choose to purchase it due to my lack of familiarity with Adam (this is something I plan to remedy shortly).

Interesting topics covered in the interview:

• Definition of relevant concepts such as "onto" and "ontomes". Ontomes refer to a global environment of addressable, queryable, scriptable objects (e.g. the class of objects), while onto refers to any given such object that is part of this environment (e.g. an object instance). These terms are closely related to the concept of "spimes" that was created by Bruce Sterling.
  
• Conversations regarding evolving perspectives regarding the nature of ubiquitous systems. From Mark Weiser's vision of computers fading into the background, where they appear when needed and disappear when not in use, to Yvonne Rogers’ vision of computers supporting engaged living, helping people engage more actively in things that they do rather than do things for them.
• Discussion regarding Greenfield's principles of ubiquitous computing. These principles are ultimately "codifications of common sense and basic neighborly virtues, expressed in language appropriate to the domain of application."
• Viewpoints on the potential impact of ubiquitous technologies on our society's ability to instigate the necessary changes to create sustainable living practices and lifestyles. Adam's view on this topic is quite skeptical. "sometime in the next sixty years or so a convergence of Extremely Bad Circumstances is going to put an effective end to our ability to conduct highly ordered and highly energy-intensive civilization on this planet." 
• Concerns regarding how to enable individuals to manage privacy at three distinct levels: secrecy ("data [that] should not be readable by or understandable by anybody except me or people I designate"), anonymity ("data [that] should be seen by anybody but about whom it is should be knowable only by me or people that I designate"), and autonomy ("my right to live under circumstances which reinforce my sense that I am in control of my own fate"). 

[picture taken by Pepe Makkonen]

Data Should Inform But Not Determine

In this entry I will continue to explore the implications of the growing trend related to the creation of measurement and tracking systems for the optimization of life. On my previous post I failed to adress the impact of our decisions regarding what to measure on the way we lead our lives.

As we continue to leverage data to support and guide our actions and decisions, the selection of what to measure will become increasingly important. What we measure will identify what we deem to be most important, and will provide a foundation for our actions and decision making. In other words, the data will serve as a reflection of our world view as well as a basis for the reality that we strive to bring into existence in our life.

As a consequence the information systems that we create, which processes this information, will also grow in importance. It will play an enabling and limiting role in our lives. In the word of Terry Winograd , in "designing information systems we design ways of being." This will be more true than ever before as technology encroaches in the day-to-day lives of most individuals (at least in industrialized nations), no longer relegated to professional organizations and pursuits. Lawrence Lessig shared the same idea in his famous quote "code is law".

What does this all mean to me - it is now more important than ever that the creation of information systems be guided by the interests and active involvement of people that come from all different avenues within our society (rather than merely engineers, developers and programmers). 

Also, echoing a sentiment from my previous post, as individuals we need to remember to empower ourselves rather than data from outside. We can't loose sight that the data we are capturing and processing is ultimately nothing more than a guide posts that we have selected. The choices we make should be informed by data but not determined by it.

Always Addicted to Being Always On

I am spoiled and I can't blame it on my parents. Over the past several years I have become accustomed to having constant access to my own and others' information from anywhere at anytime. More than being spoiled, I am an addict. I am part of a large and growing community of addicts from throughout the United States and other developed countries who have adopted the habit of being "always on".

Actually, we've taken this one step further. We have bought into the belief that being "always on" is an important evolutionary leap for mankind, not to mention a basic human right. I (sorry, I meant we) demand the right to have immediate access to answers for all questions, no matter how useless, and to be able to stream information about our lives, no matter how boring. I became aware of my sorry predicament during a month-long trip through Asia and Europe this summer.

I wish that this insight had surfaced through a moment of stillness and clarity. However, it was actually crystalized through the experience of several moments of techno-rage. This included multiple instances where my wife had to talk me off the proverbial edge. Actually, it was my iPhone that was on the edge of getting smashed against walls, tables, windows and other parts of various hotel rooms.

Everyone of these moments were instigated by my struggle to find and remain connected to the internet. Moments where I asked for nothing more than the ability to exercise what I believed was my inalienable human right to remain "always on." No matter how much I prayed to the techno-gods, or how many Balinese style offerings I conjured up for them, it was all to no avail.

In the end of it all, this experience helped me realize once again that being "always on" is just as bad as it is good. That is not to say that I overcame my addiction. Just like any good addict I love my addiction and have made every effort to remain "always on" since I have arrived in Brazil to visit my parents.

ID FMP: Conversation Turn-Taking Model

Holding a conversation is a basic human activity. It requires a large amount of coordination between participants, a fact that is often unnoticed. People need to know when to listen, when they can start talking, and when to cede the floor. Conversation mechanisms facilitate the coordination of conversations by helping people know how and when to start and stop speaking. These mechanisms enable people to effectively negotiate the turn-taking required carry out a conversation.

Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson have developed a model that aims to explain how people manage turn taking during conversations. The focus of their research was to create a framework that can be applied across cultures and contexts, and that can accommodate several key observations about the structure and dynamics of conversations. Here is an excerpt from the abstract of their paper The Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.

“The organization of taking turns to talk is fundamental to conversation, as well as to other speech-exchange systems. A model for the turn-taking organization for conversation is proposed, and is examined for its compatibility with a list of grossly observable facets about conversation [outlined below].”

The Foundations
Before we explore the model itself let’s take a look at its foundation. Here is a list of the “grossly observable facets about conversation” that was referred to in the quote above:

1. Speaker changes will always occur and often recur.
2. For most of the time only one party talks at a time.
3. More than one person will often talk at a time, but these occurrences are brief.
4. Most transitions occur with no gap or overlap, or with slight gap or overlap.
5. Turn order varies throughout conversation.
6. Turn size or length usually varies.
7. Length of conversation is not specified.
8. What parties say is not specified.
9. Relative distribution of turns is not specified.
10. Number of parties varies considerably.
11. Talk can be continuous or not.
12. Turn-allocation techniques are used to facilitate the conversation.
13. Sometime turn-constructional units are used to facilitate conversation.
14. Repair mechanisms exist for correcting turn-taking errors.

The Model

The general model that they developed, which is pictured above, is composed of the three basic rules that govern the transition of turns in a conversation. These rules are:

1. The current speaker chooses the next speaker by asking a question or making a request.
2. If the speaker does not choose the next speaker, then another person can self-select to start speaking.
3. The speaker can decide to continue speaking if no other person self-selects to start speaking.

[source: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction; and Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson’s paper The Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation, 1974]

** What the hell is ID FMP? **

Reading List: Interactions, January & February 2008

I’ve been meaning to write this post for a few weeks now. The hectic pace of our do-more-with-less, post-financial-crisis, and always-on/always-connected world, has kept me from finding two spare hours to devote to this simple endeavor.

This month's edition of Interactions magazine featured several interesting pieces that are well worth the read. Here is brief overview of the most interesting ones, along with a link to the original article online.

Social Network Sites and Society: Current Trends and Future Possibilities
Written by Nicole Ellison, Cliff Lampe, and Charles Steinfield, this article focuses on exploring how social network sites are transforming society. As this technology becomes adopted by a greater swath of the population, it impact becomes more pronounced. The information available in social networks lowers the barrier to social interaction, helping individuals forge connections that would have otherwise not taken place. Social networks also make it easier for people to manage weak ties by lowering the amount of effort required to keep these relationships alive.

Social networks also help counteract the increasing isolation created by the proliferation of mobile communication and entertainment devices such as iPhones, PDAs, iPods, PSPs and the like. These technologies inhibit opportunities for engagement between people in public spaces. The ability to connect people with similar interests or concerns makes social networks ideal places to assist the coordination and mobilizing of social actions.

Some interesting questions for research are raised by the authors: “how can the power of social network sites be leveraged in other contexts, including formal organizations? How can social network sites support individuals as they make life transitions, such as moving to a new city or starting a new job? How can the mobilizing power of social network sites increase community and political engagement, especially among traditionally disenfranchised groups?” [link to article]

90 Mobiles in 90 Days: A Celebration of Ideas for Mobile User Experience
This article, written by Rachel Hinman, explores a personal project she undertook to come up with a new idea related to mobile design and user experience every day for 90 days. This process, though daunting at first, provided the author with several interesting insights. First, this prolific creation of new design ideas provided a "template for creative practice" by shifting the focus from an attempt to find the right idea to a process of idea generation and exploration, which carried with it a unique momentum.



As part of this shift in perspective, the author had to come face to face with her own inner critic that served as a barrier to the daily idea generation work. The last insight imparted bythe author is how this process of idea generation helped her gain a deeper understanding regarding the source of inspiration, which can come from pretty much anywhere. So now the question is: when will embark in similar project of my own. [link to article]

The Washing Machine That Ate My Sari – Mistakes in Cross-Cultural Design
This article, written by Apala Chavan, Douglas Gorney, Beena Prabhu, Sarit Arora, adresses common mistakes and issues in the design of products for emerging markets. Their main premise is that designers have had to deal with the challenges associated to launching products across markets and cultures for a long time but have only recently begun to adapt their processes and approaches to support the specific challenges related to developing for products for emerging markets. “Successful design for emerging markets requires radical innovation. It demands culturally sensitive and sometimes unorthodox approaches that can throw a designer off balance.”

Designers and marketers are touching the lives of people who a few years ago were not even on the radar. These people from emerging markets have specific needs. First, they demand affordability. However, they are also more cautious than “consumers” in the West because of their limited income. This means that products must be durable, as people will avoid products that seem to be of low quality or disposable. To complicate matters, culture has a large impact on a product’s success on functional and emotional levels. As a consequence, designers need to understand the specific needs of each emerging market in which they plan to launch their product. [link to article]

The Heterogeneous Home


This piece, written by Ryan Aipperspach, Ben Hooker, and Allison Woodruff’s, discusses the homogenization of domestic environments, potential negative effects of this phenomena and interesting design concepts for addressing this trend. The homogenization of our homes is caused in large part by the pervasive technology that provides us access to the same “virtual environment” at home as in the office. This phenomena is extended by time shifting technologies that modify our experience of time, and mobile devices that provide anytime, anywhere access to work and home.

The main negative impact that arises from this increasing homogenization of our domestic environment is that it squeezes out our restorative spaces. The concept of the “Heterogeneous Home” was developed to explore solutions for leveraging design and technology to create environments that are offer variations, and are thus able to provide restorative space. You can download the complete Heterogeneous Home sketchbook. [link to article]

Design Versus Innovation: The Cranbrook / IIT Debate
In this interview, Scott Klinker and Jeremy Alexis explore the two contrasting approaches to design education embodied by the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) and Cranbrook Academy of Art. These oposing perspectives have evolved over the past 20 years into "design" and "design thinking" (also referred to as "innovation"). The former is an experimental and semantic approach, while the latter is methods driven and scientific one. In other words, ITT places stronger emphasis on the importance of observing user needs and behaviors as the basis of design, whereas Cranbrook focuses on the role that artistic inspiration and cultural impulses play in the creation of great design.

Here are some of the interesting questions adresses in this piece: what I'd the role of design in innovation? Or innovation in design? Is design being led astray by too much business thinking? Is design thinking useful without design making? [link to article]

What is Interactions? Are There Different Types?
This was my favorite article from this issue of Interactions. It provides a valuabl overview regarding interactions (including a summary of common interaction models. For my own selfish reasons I am going to provide a slightly more in depth analysis of this piece. There are three different perspectives on interaction that are outlined by the author:

The design-theory view: This is a broad perspective that views all design as design for interaction. It stipulates that all objects created by humans are developed for some type of interaction because to use a product one must interact with it. For example, a chair and a book are designed for interaction, the former for sitting the latter for reading.

The HCI-view This perspective views all interactions as an instance of a feedback loop. "information flows from a system (perhaps a computer or car) through a person and back through the system again." in this view of interaction it is assumed that the person has a goal and that his/her actions are carried out with this goal in mind. Their actions have an impact on the system or environment, which is measured and compared against the goal to determine the next action.

The HCI definition of interaction focuses on dynamic systems only. Static systems such as chairs and books are not considered interactive. There are several variations on the concept of feedback loop. The most well known variation that reflect an HCI perspective are Don Norman's and Bill Verplanks models of interactions.




The Systems-Theory View: simple feedback loop models are useful but somewhat abstract. In these models the person and the system are closely coupled and the nature of the system (and the person) is left unspecified. Once you begin to characterize the system and the person involved in an interaction you can distinguish between various types of systems that emerge. The systems-theory view explores and maps the relationships between these various types of systems.

According to this school of thought, “the process of clicking on a link to summon a new webpage is not “interaction”; it is “reaction.”” In a reaction, the coupling between input and output are fixed. This means that a given action will always produce the same effect. For example, when you click a link on a standard webpage the server acts in pretty much the same way as an automatic door when you walk within the range of its sensors – it reacts. The term interaction only refers to systems where the coupling between output and input is dynamic. There are several other different types of systems explored in this article, including linear, closed-loop, recirculating, self-regulating, first-order, second-order, self-adjusting, and learning. [link to article]

Culture and Technology: Wifi Adoption in Brazil

While I was down in Brazil during Thanksgiving one of my friend accused me of having become too Americanized. This accusation was instigated by my expectation to find greater availability of Wifi connectivity in Sao Paulo. In my friend's defense, I am a freak about staying connected to the internet being accustomed to accessing the web via phone and wireless broadband card. In my hometown's defense, there are actually a growing number of restaurants and cafes that offer free Wifi (and this type of technology is still a lot more expensive down there).

One interesting characteristics of Wifi adoption in Brazil is how quickly the service industry has begun to leverage this technology. A large number of restaurants outfit their waiters with wireless PDAs to more efficiently capture orders and communicate those orders to the kitchen. They also use portable debit/credit card machines (similar to those seen at the Apple store) to enable guests to pay via debit card from their dinning table.

In my view these devices enhanced my experience, though I do understand that they are not appropriate for all dinning establishments. In New York I don't know of any restaurants that uses Wifi technology in this manner. Though I am sure there are a few, the adoption of this technology in this industry is extremelly limited in comparison to what I saw in Sao Paulo.

So how can we explain this different adoption trends? I posit that in Brazil technology is more closely associated with status and is viewed more widely as a positive sign of progress. This explains why the technology is used in a customer-facing manner, and why the restaurants where you find it are upscale and modern places. I attribute the lag in personal Wifi adoption to the current costs of the technology (which is still out of reach for most Brazilians).

In the US people have a more skeptical stance towards technology. This is especially in a food-related settings, which is echoed by the growing demand for organic and fresh offerings. Therefore, restaurants in the US are more reticent to adopt technology in such an "in-your-face". I assume that here in the US the use of technology in non-customer facing areas is equally, or more widely, adopted as in Brazil. On a individual-level, Americans had no sensitivity to adopting this technology for personal and professional purposes, quickly realizing the value it provides.

It is interesting to think about how these cultural differences impact the adoption and use of technology in different contexts, and the design of technology for these contexts.

Interactive Foil - Making Touch Displays out of LCD's and Projectors

In the spirit of continuing my investigation into the world of touch interfaces, check out this innovation from Visual Planet (I found out about this invention through interaction design blog). They are releasing an "interactive foil" that can be coupled with a standard LCD or projection display from 30 to 116 inches to deliver touchscreen functionality. Check out the video below of a prototype in action. If the cost is sufficiently low this will further drive the proliferation of touchscreens in public places - in doing so it will open up new opportunities and challenges for interaction designers.

As this technology increasingly becomes more available, it will be interesting to see how people respond to the appearance of touchscreen devices in different places. How will the type of interactions that people are willing to engage in differ based on their context. For example, people will feel comfortable engaging in some types of interactions in the privacy of a back of taxi that they would not be willing to do in a more public place, such as a bus stop.

As an inexperienced and technology-loving designer I have to always remind myself that I have a higher comfort-level with technology-based interactions than most others (my wife can attest to this). This is part of the reason that I have chosen to pursue this curriculum in interaction design - to help unleash the power of computation to enhance our experience of the world and improve quality of life.