Anyways. This comes from the middle of a discussion about ubiquitous computing and the idea of phicons.

“The Media Lab is, above all, a place where people build working models of wild ideas like phicons. Ishii led me to a wide, blank table surface. At the edge of the table were several wooden objects the size of large alphabet blocks. One of them was a model of MIT’s landmark dome. I picked it up and put it on the table. The blank table turned into a map of the MIT campus. I moved the phicon, and the map moved. I rotated the phicon, and the map rotated. Ishii handed me a second object, which was recognizable as a model of the I M Pei designed Media Lab building. I put it down on the table and the map shifted to that both the dome and the lab were in their proper places. I shifted one, then the other phicon; the map shifted to adjust, so that both buildings were always in correct juxtaposition to the rest of the landscape.”

I don’t believe we saw this TUI in particular this semester, but it strikes me as another simply perfect use of that kind of tabletop phicon interface. The model isn’t right for a lot of things, but for a map – it’s perfect. A brilliantly clear and concise explanation of what is a clear and concise TUI. That’s how you know something is right: it’s easy to explain.

On a similar but more reflective note, this semester in tangible user interfaces has opened my eyes to a lot of things. I’m increasingly inspired by the image and idea of truly ubiquitous computing. I will admit that my visions aren’t of a typical TUI world where EVERY object has a tag or a URL or embedded chips; they’re more like of a world where every surface is computerized and all your data is stored in the epic data cloud, so every wall and table knows who you are and what you want… anyways! Enough.

Strangely, one of the things I’ve taken away most strongly is something one of the guest speakers talked about. We discussed the difference between treating technology as your really smart friend versus treating technology as an extension of yourself, like a third limb. The conversation was actually about the difference between gestural input and voice input, but I’ve been thinking about it a lot in terms of social networks, a cloud of data, etc. For instance, if you go to a computer and open a browser window to Google something, that’s the computer-as-friend method. If, on the other hand, you were able to put your hand down onto the Surface and be provided with the most recent news relevant to your life (in terms of your work life, your social network, your interests in world news, etc) that’s more like a computer-as-limb method. And wouldn’t that be cool?

Anyways, it’s been an interesting semester and I look forward to continuing my train of thought in HCI next fall, assuming my schedule doesn’t rearrange itself. I’m working up the website to showcase the Dynamic Rehearsal project, and it’ll be up here soon! So for now, TUI section of my blog, farewell.

Rheingold writes about his observation of the growth of “texting” as a new means of communication; he notes that everyone seems to be looking at their phones instead of talking into them. The conclusion is made that the growth of mobile Internet will increase the importance of our mobile phones, bringing every piece of information we might need into our palms. Ironically, I took a break from reading the piece to pick up a call and to check my Facebook, both on my iPhone.

This current vision of iPhones and Android-powered devices was a legitimate hypothesis for the future 10 years ago. What’s so funny to me is that our current legitimate hypotheses for the future are comprised of what used to be true scifi and fantasty- appliances that talk to each other and surfaces embedded with giant glass computer screens, everything communicating wirelessly. All that seems to be missing is flying cars, but since it’s become obvious that the car industry is lagging a bit these days, I’m not surprised. Seriously, the future we’re moving into is a legitimate version of Minority Report meets The Fifth Element meets The Jetsons.

At any rate, I was inspired by Rheingold’s introduction; it conjured up visions of my cell phone morphing into an epic remote control with the immense power to deliver me every miniscule piece of information about everything (and everyone) on the planet. His discussion of the pros and cons of this social networking is powerful, and we have already seen the manifestations of much of it (consider Iran this summer).

I just wish he had published something more recently; I’m off now to watch his TED talk, but it’s from 2005. I’m also following him on Twitter, but it’s not yielding much. I’m more interested in what he has to say ABOUT twitter than what he’s saying on twitter, if that makes sense. No upset here, though; I respect Social Mobs enough to leave it at that and walk away pleased.

… and what does this have to do with journalism, you ask? It has everything to do with journalism, because journalism is the democratic act of bringing information from citizens to other citizens. And that is exactly what the social mobs revolution is doing.