« May 2008 | Main | July 2008 »
June 27, 2008
Posse
Suffice to say there is a meme on the internet.
Posted by djp3 at 2:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 26, 2008
Opinion: What embodied interaction is not.
 Photo courtesy of andyi |
As part of the graduate course on Ubiquitous Computing the students were asked to comment on embodied interaction. Below is the response from Bruno Nadeau an ACE student, posted with his permission. Here is what Bruno thinks the opposite of embodied interaction is: "To define what embodied interaction is not, we must first look at what Dourish means when suggesting that a framework of embodied interaction underlies current research in human-computer interaction. Briefly, Dourish argues that certain areas of research are paying a special attention to our human embodiment in the world to study and design computing systems, and uses work from the fields of tangible and social computing to point out this trend. Dourish ties this approach he terms 'embodied interaction' with the work of philosophers – such as Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, Alfred Schutz and Maurice Merleau-Ponty – who have questioned the notion of embodiment long before computers were part of our everyday life. Philosophically, embodiment is the being in-the-world, the experience of acting and interacting in and with the physical and social world that surrounds us. Embodiment is the experience of the body, not a body detached from its environment, but a body that is only definable in relation to the world it acts in. For Dourish, “embodied interaction is the creation, manipulation, and sharing of meaning through engaged interaction with artifacts.” |
With this broad definition of embodied interaction in mind, it is impossible to think of an interaction that is not embodied. Even riding the most magical of animals, the unicorn, an interaction that inevitably takes place in-the-head, is affected by our behaviors learned through everyday embodied interaction in the world. However, Dourish's framework of embodied interaction comes in opposition to a predominant approach in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI) that favors a form of interaction that takes place in the mind of the user, at the cost of involving the wide possibilities offered by our embodiment. The approach that Dourish seeks to shake out of its track is best exemplified by Sparky. Sparky is the Model Human Processor that Card and Moran (1983, p26) proposed to examine user interaction with the computer. For Card and Moran, the perceptive, motive and cognitive abilities of the user interact to form a model of the situation in the user's mind, model which is transformed in the head, leading to physical interaction with the computer often limited to typing on the keyboard or clicking a mouse. Although this model of human-computer interaction brought researchers to reflect on how we interact with the desktop computer, it fails to grab the current state of ubiquitous computing.
An approach that pays attention to embodied interaction requires that we go beyond creating metaphors of the world, that we use the world as a medium in the design of computing systems. The most well known metaphor for human-computer interaction, the one Sparky was facing, is the desktop metaphor. As the computer was originally destined to sit on the desk of work offices, the desktop metaphor appropriated artifacts and actions common to the workplace. Files, folders, spreadsheets and garbage cans were integrated into the virtual world displayed on the computer screen. Physical artifacts and physical actions where transformed into virtual representations with the goal of maintaining some of the properties of the physical world to ease the interaction. However, by removing the physical part of the interaction, having to interact solely through the mouse and keyboard, the desktop computer restrained the accomplishment of most tasks to primarily take place in the worker's head. Researchers realized the importance of physical interaction on the desktop which gave place to projects like the metaDesk. (Ullmer & Ishii, 1997) Through the metaDesk, and several similar projects that followed, (Patten et al., 2001; Patten et al., 2002) it became apparent an active body could play an important role in the everyday use of technology. More recently, Microsoft Surface (2008) is one example that learned from the research that took place in the last two decades, and in comparison with standard desktop computing, it tries to integrate certain aspects of our embodiment in the world. Allowing users to interact with both hands simultaneously and to utilize computational objects on the surface as part of an activity brings the interaction closer to the mundane use of our tables and the objects they support. From this, an approach that comes in opposition with Dourish's embodied interaction favors the use of cognitive processes on models formed in the user's mind without acknowledging for the importance of the active body.
But the active body must be examined in relation to its environment, never detached from it. Although Microsoft Surface is a significant step for human-computer interaction, it will be interesting to see how applications will manage the different situations it is placed in and the ways that simultaneous users can approach the device. People might place non-computational items on the device, crowding the table by using it as, well, a table. People might want to divide the table space to accomplish their respective task. An approach that does not pay attention to our embodied interaction with the tables that fills our environments would limit the body and its learned behavior at and around the table.
This bond between body and environment has been at the center of several mobile computing systems, which can more or less fall under the umbrella of embodied interaction. Although mobile computing inevitably involves the body moving through space, several system still neglect to pay attention to the body in its environment. As anyone who tried to deploy mobile applications will attest, this has significant impacts on the design and functioning of a system. Unlike the desktop computer, people walking freely in the busy streets of a city will often need to stop gazing at the screen to find their way. People will want to engage with others in their surrounding, moving the focus of attention away from the device. These are simple but important factors of the embodied use of mobile technology that designers have to come to grip with. Another aspect of mobile computing systems that give rise to recurrent problems is the reliance on a physical infrastructure. An approach that does not pay attention to embodied interaction might assume a model of the infrastructure that does not correspond to its complex use in the physical world. Seamless coverage is a common example for mobile phone and WiFi connectivity, GPS reception, etc. In the design process, an embodied approach must acknowledge that the physical infrastructure is far from seamless. Mobile games such as Can You See Me Now? (Benford et al., 2006) and Feeding Yoshi (Bell et al., 2006) have adopted a design approach that not only pay attention to the complexity of the infrastructure in the design, but also integrate it in the gameplay. An approach that comes in opposition to the framework of embodied interaction would design for a preconceived model of the user and the environment disconnected from the physical world where the application will be deployed, assuming that the model is a perfect simulation, whereas embodied interaction demands that a study of situate use must inform the design.
Dourish's framework of embodied interaction is broad and demands that we question human-computer interaction in terms of our embodiment, which is a notion that touches every aspects of our lives. The reach of our embodiment makes it difficult to pinpoint what is and what is not an approach that pays attention to embodied interaction, instead, the question becomes about the different aspects of design processes and systems that merge or clash with our embodiment in the world. Although our embodiment leads to individual human experience, we must face the same physical world from different perspectives and we engage in it in a social manner. In the end, an approach that drastically denies embodied interaction designs for the generic user, the couch-potato with restrained physical capacities, and assumes a limited relationship between the undergoing tasks and the environment a they are situated in. "
References- Bell, M. and Chalmers, M. and Barkhuus, L. and Hall, M. and Sherwood, S. and Tennent, P. and Brown, B. and Rowland, D. and Benford, S. (2006), Interweaving mobile games with everyday life, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, ACM Press New York, NY, USA, pp417--426
- Benford, S. and Crabtree, A. and Flintham, M. and Drozd, A. and Anastasi, R. and Paxton, M. and Tandavanitj, N. and Adams, M. and Row-Farr, Ju (2006), Can You See Me Now?, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol 13, Number 1, pp100-133
- Card, S.K. and Moran, T.P. and Newell, A. (1983), The Psychology of Human-computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Microsoft Surface (2008), http://www.microsoft.com/surface, June 12, 2008
- Patten, J. and Ishii, H. and Hines, J. and Pangaro, G. (2001), Sensetable: a wireless object tracking platform for tangible user interfaces, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM Press New York, NY, USA, pp253--260
- Patten, J. and Recht, B. and Ishii, H. (2002), Audiopad: a tag-based interface for musical performance, Proceedings of the 2002 conference on New interfaces for musical expression, pp1--6
- Ullmer, B. and Ishii, H. (1997), The metaDESK: models and prototypes for tangible user interfaces, Proceedings of the 10th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, ACM Press New York, NY, USA, pp223—232
Posted by djp3 at 1:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 23, 2008
UbiComp 2008 reminder: Workshops, Panels, Demos, Posters, Videos, Doctoral Colloquium, Student Volunteers
 Photo courtesy of hatayanorg |
From the UBICOMP 2008 organizers: "We are happy to announce that submissions are now being accepted for the open participation categories (listed below) for UbiComp 2008, the Tenth International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, to be held in Seoul, South Korea, September 21-24. We invite you to share your ideas and innovations in one or more of the following categories: Workshops, Panels, Demonstrations, Interactive Posters, Videos, Doctoral Colloquium. Applications for Student Volunteers are also being accepted. Submissions to these categories must be completed by Friday, June 27, 23:59 PDT. Please refer to individual web pages for each category for more information about that category. |
Posted by djp3 at 7:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 19, 2008
Opinion: Invisible Computing
|
Photo courtesy of andyi |
As part of the graduate course on Ubiquitous Computing the students were asked to comment on the idea of ubiquitous computing as "invisible" computing. Below is the response from Joel Ross, posted with his permission. Here is why Joel thinks invisible computing resonates with users, but is problematic as a concept. "In his paper “The Computer for the 21 Century", Mark Weiser proposed a vision of ubiquitous computing—a type of computing that was embedded in the world around us and that we would unconsciously use. Although the idea of “invisible computing” is very popular, Weiser’s vision has some fundamental problems that have keep his style of pervasive computing from becoming truly ubiquitous. Weiser’s idea of “invisible” computing resonates with users because people don’t understand (and so don’t really like) using computers, but is problematic because no tool can become and remain fully invisible. |
Many people don’t understand computers. This was true when Weiser wrote his paper and remains true today. Computers are complicated machines capable of a vast variety of general and specific tasks and require a certain level of expertise to be able to operate. The “arcane aura” surrounding computers (and computing in general) discourages many potential users, and makes it so they don’t enjoy using a computer. Computing becomes an unpleasant chore for them, as they focus on the problem of using the computer rather than on the task at hand. Using the computer seems to take more effort than performing the job without it--the tool only gets in the way.
Thus Weiser’s vision of the “invisible” computer is very compelling. Many believe that a computer should be like a hammer—you pick it up and can use it without thinking about how it works. Weiser’s example of a car as a complex machine that can be used without thinking resonates with users—people learned how to drive a car, why is it so hard to learn to use a computer? Finally, the language of Weiser’s vision implies a very desirable world, in which using a computer (and thus doing everything that a computers can do, which most users will agree is “a lot”) is as easy as reading a billboard or a street sign. The implied power and capabilities are staggering: computers are capable of amazing things, so being able to do those things with a computer with no more effort than reading a few sentences is certainly desirable). Thus it’s easy to see why the idea of “invisible” computing resonates so strongly with users.
But achieving this vision is problematic, for no tool can become fully invisible. Just consider for a moment the idea of a literally invisible hammer—how could you ever use it? Dourish states that proponents of invisible computing need to find a better term, because the word “invisible” is misleading. When Weiser writes of “invisible computing,” I think he really intended to say “unconscious computing” (Dourish states that proponents of invisible computing need to find a better term). The goal is to reach a state that Heidegger calls “ready-at-hand.” When an object is ready-at-hand, it is being used as part of an action to complete a task, thus “disappearing” into the actions that the user is taking. This state is contrasted with being “present-at-hand,” when the user is aware of the tool as a tool independent from the user, the action, and the task. People can quickly move between these two states, in what Dourish calls “coupling.” Thus a person can be aware of a hammer as an object, yet quickly pick it up and treat it as an extension of his or her arm. Weiser’s vision is for computers to easily become ready-at-hand, but the idea he proposed (and the one that many people latch on to) is for computers to constantly become ready-at-hand: in other words, invisible.
This is a fundamental flaw in people’s interpretation of Weiser’s vision, for an object cannot be constantly ready-at-hand. All tools can draw attention to themselves, especially at the “seams”— when the use of a technology breaks down. While it may be easy to couple a hammer, that coupling will frequently be broken if the head of the hammer is loose and in danger of flying off. Similarly, even Sal’s world described in Weiser’s article would break down when the power goes out, drawing attention to itself and becoming visible and present-at-hand. This points to some of the ideas suggested by Mainwaring et al.’s paper titled “Infrastructures and Their Discontents: Implications for Ubicomp”—an infrastructure may seem invisible until it breaks down, or when it is the becomes an active focus (such as by attempting to avoid it). An infrastructure of embedded computers might easily become invisible (be easily backgrounded), but it would still never be fully invisible as some visions of ubiquitous computing suggest. The ideal of a computer just “working” all the time, to take as much effort to use as to read a sign (that isn’t smeared or far away), is impossible to achieve. No matter how easy a computer is to use, it will always be able to become visible.
However, it is possible for a computer to become easier to background. Tolmie et al. discuss the idea of an event or object being “unremarkable”—that is, something that is not remarked upon as being special. They point out that artifacts involved in a routine often become unremarkable, such as a knock on a door or the buzzing of an alarm. This implies that making computing routine can make it unremarkable. As Tolmie says: “a fundamental issue for us in things that are ‘invisible in use’ is not the physical nature or particular perceptual qualities of these things but rather the significance which accrues to them within a particular course of action.” Once using a computer becomes part of the action, it can be backgrounded (coupled, made ready-at-hand), and so in effect becomes invisible.
In this way, Weiser’s idea of invisible ubiquitous computing is not necessary distinct from normal “desktop computing”: using a desktop computer can also become unremarkable. For example, it doesn’t take me much effort to couple the movement of the keys with the text I am typing; the mechanics of browsing the Internet and checking my email occurs unremarkably in the background of my consciousness. I have learned how to use a computer the same way I learned how to drive a car, and just like when driving a car, it is possible to easily couple the use of a desktop computer with the task being performed. My usage of the computer in many ways has become invisible, even without a drastic shift to a different interaction mode. Thus achieving Weiser’s vision of invisibility computing may not require a major shift in the form of computers, just the ways in which people use them.
As people become more used to using computers (for example, by being part of a generation that grew up using them), I believe that computing will and has in many ways become more invisible to use (if not invisible to see) of its own accord. Much computing is becoming invisible, such as the use of cell phones and mobile devices. So just as Bell and Dourish suggest in “Yesterday’s Tomorrows,” ubiquitous computing is here already, if we only acknowledge its presence. "
Posted by djp3 at 11:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 16, 2008
LoCA 2009 - Call For Papers
 Photo courtesy of jazzmasterson |
LoCA 2009 The 2009 Symposium on Location and Context Awareness (LoCA) seeks new and significant research on systems, services, and applications to detect, interpret and use location and other contextual information. Context includes physiological, environmental and computational data whether sensed or inferred. In addition, context includes users' activities, goals, abilities, preferences, interruptibility, affordances, and surroundings. With context, we can expect computers to deliver information, services, and entertainment in a way that maximizes convenience and minimizes intrusion. Developing awareness involves research in sensing, systems, machine learning, human computer interaction, and design. We seek technical papers describing original, previously unpublished research results. We are especially interested in submissions in the following areas but welcome submissions from other areas that are relevant to the theme of the symposium:
|
Posted by djp3 at 11:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 12, 2008
Congratulations to Nomatic*IM crew (UBICOMP 2008)
 Photo courtesy of paulworthington |
Congratulations to Informatics undergraduates Chris Baker and Sam Kaufman, Social Sciences undergraduate Andrew Zaldivar, ICS Master's student Kah Liu, Informatics grad Sharon Ding and Informatics professor Donald J. Patterson on having a paper accepted for publication to UBICOMP 2008! D. J. Patterson, C. Baker, X. Ding, S. Kaufman, K. Liu, and A. Zaldivar. Online everywhere: Evolving mobile instant messaging practices. In Ubicomp, 2008.
|
Posted by djp3 at 8:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 10, 2008
Popcorn with a cell phone?
LUCI lab challenge: reproduce the popping of corn with cell phones or prove it's a hoax.
Posted by djp3 at 4:56 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack