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.

Weiser’s paper, published in 1991, describes a world of the future where computers are all around us. He draws a parallel between computing and writing, poignantly noting that “carrying a super-laptop is like owning just one very important book. Customizing this book, even writing millions of other books, does not begin to capture the real power of literacy.” To combat that problem, Weiser envisions a world where we have many types of computers all around us. He describes these computers on three scales: tabs (little thumbnail screens), pads (size of a pad of paper), and board (large whiteboard sized wall screens). These computers respond to gestural interaction, are smart enough to sense our presence and preferences, and aid our everyday communication.

For 1991, this paper is extraordinary. Weiser was able to think critically about the future and where computing was headed, long before the proliferation of laptops, mobile devices, and other portable computing. While reading the paper in 2009, however, I am able to see a few places where the argument could be taken further.

First of all, Weiser has a strange conception of his board computers. He smartly describes shared displays and electronic chalk, but still notes the difficulty of using a keyboard with a smart board (which, if absolutely necessary) shouldn’t be difficult at all. More interestingly, he notes that since not everyone will be able to reach the top of a board, a menu bar will have to run along the bottom instead of the top. Today, we have pulled back from the once-necessary menu bars, finding more intuitive ways to send instructions to a computer. Here, Weiser could have taken his vision farther.

Secondly, Weiser moves into uncertain territory when he begins to describe the life of someone in the future’s computing environment. Asking for coffee is interesting, but seeing electronic trails of where her neighbors have walked throughout the morning, even if there is no video footage, does seem a little privacy-invasive. When he notes that she still prefers the paper form of the newspaper, I laughed to myself – did computer engineers not see the end of the newspaper industry, either? Throughout the rest of the day that Weiser describes, there continues to be some interesting aspects and some confusing aspects (why does she drink so much coffee?), but overall the description is not unlike the Microsoft video I posted a few months ago. I enjoyed his vision for the future; I especially enjoyed the conclusion that ubiquitous computing will help us overcome information overload, which I think is one of the greatest problems we face.

Ishii and Ullmer approached the question of ubiquitous computing in 1997 from a slightly different (and more modern) angle, looking not just to put little computers all around us but to make the objects we already have computerized, joining bits (computers) with atoms (physical worldly objects) to make a smarter world. After describing practically every TUI created before 1997, they introduce the metaDESK, the transBOARD, and the ambientROOM as three proposed parts of a solution.

Across all of the new models they describe, I was drawn most intensely to the ambientROOM, which would use ambient media (light, sound, etc) to alert a user to changes in the computing environment. Much as a darkening sky would alert us that rain was on the way, changing patterns in electronic light could alert a user to a flood of incoming messages or web traffic. Ishii and Ullman note that they “found the metaphor of light, shadow, and optics in general to be particularly compelling for interfaces spanning virtual and physical space,” and I agree.

Ishii and Ullman also use a set of physical objects they call “phicons” throughout their work: small, tangible objects that metaphorically correspond to a computer’s icons. A phicon might represent a source of information to recall, a physical handle with which to interact with the computational space. Personally, I agree with the ides of augmenting our existing objects, but I can’t see why we need to add new objects to our already physically jumbled space. When computational spaces make transition and change so easy, it seems like a step backwards to require them to interact with a static, unchanging object. We have enough objects in our world to interact with; why can’t we work computers into existing interaction modules?

For our project, Dynamic Rehearsal, we are certainly embracing a form of ubiquitous computing akin to what Weiser, Ishii, and Ullman describe. Through the use of multiple tools that can “talk” to each other, we are creating a smarter environment. Our installed video camera, RFID tags, augmented pens, etc. all capture activities that we already perform, and that information is accessible on a gestural interface provided by the Microsoft Surface. It empowers a user to work freely with the knowledge that their actions will accessible for later review, just like Weiser’s futuristic character can review the content and attendees of her past business meetings. Overall, we would be making the theater, a space which already exhibits an interesting juxtaposition of live, spontaneous, untouched emotion with fully wired, computationally rich technical systems, into a smarter space with a communal ubiquitous computing system.