« November 2005 | Main | April 2006 »
January 17, 2006
Is Ambient Technology the Opposite of Virtual Reality?
A professor here at IU named Gregory Rawlins wrote an interesting book called “Moths to the Flame: The Seductions of Computer Technology.” The book is interesting because Rawlins is a futurist who does a very thorough job of taking into account lessons from history and current pop culture. In a section of his book called “In the Screen of the Machine,” Rawlins gives a scenario of what the working day may be like if Virtual Reality ever became… well… a reality.
I bring up Rawlin’s book because, as you probably know, I’ve been thinking a lot about the domain of Ambient Intelligence, and I found a definition idea on a site talking about Ubiquitous Computing.
From the site:
Ubiquitous computing is roughly the opposite of virtual reality. Where virtual reality puts people inside a computer-generated world, ubiquitous computing forces the computer to live out here in the world with people. Virtual reality is primarily a horsepower problem; ubiquitous computing is a very difficult integration of human factors, computer science, engineering, and social sciences.
I think this is an intriguing perspective, and it may apply to the notion of Ambient Intelligence. The advantage to virtual reality is that we don’t have to worry much about silly things like materials or physics, but since I last checked, virtual reality seems to be a lot further off than Hollywood would have us believe. Rawlin’s scenario would require us to know how to directly interface with the brain in order to make us see, feel, smell, hear, and taste, things that are not really in existence. I have not seen any new VR research in a while, so I assume that the concepts have been placed on the backburner until we figure out a little more on how the body works.
Regardless, in Rawlin’s scenario he paints a picture of the virtual office.
From Moths to the Flame:
What looks like a paper calendar is really an agenda file, and the clock is an electronic simulation that tells him about upcoming appointments. The tiny file cabinet is an enormous filing system, which contains electronic, not paper files. The health of the flower reflects the state of his business. Its color, the shape of the vase, and the amount of water in it reflect orders, contracts, and service requests. It gives him a quick way to estimate how well he's doing. Right now it is blooming in a tall thin crystal vase with plenty of water.
The thing I find most interesting is the flower vase. When you consider the definition above, you can imagine a version of this device in the physical world. Of course now we do have to worry about the materials, and stupid physics, but this seems to be to be a prime examples of an ambient display device. Consider how different this is than the Nabaztag. The vase constantly makes subtle changes but is always providing information in the peripherie. I would love to figure out a way to build a device like this vase and do a proper study, but I’m not even sure how it could be built.
Posted by whazlewo at 2:45 PM | Comments (2)
January 15, 2006
Pervasive vs. Ubiquitous vs. Ambient
It may seem like a silly inquiry, but I've been doing some researching to find full definitions of Pervasive Computing, Ubiquitous Computing, and Ambient Intelligence in order to understand the difference between the three. It seems to me that people use all of these terms interchangeably, but I don't know if that is because the fields are relatively new and still defining themselves, or just because I'm relatively new and don't know anything.
I have been under the impression that Pervasive computing refers to embedding technology into everyday devices/areas in such a way that people interact with the technology directly. For example, the computer screen on the refrigerator that helps you keep track of what food items are in stock, or perhaps things like Dynamo where a high-tech item is placed in a shared space.
In contrast, I thought that Ubiquitous Computing refered to technology embedded in objects around us in such a way that we interact with them indirectly. Several Ubiquitous projects describe, “making the computer disappear,” which really only allows for indirect interaction. Most of the good examples I can think of in this domain involve RFID and remote sensor technologies. For example, look at the smart pantry, in contrast with the smart fridge. With the smart fridge, the interfaces is directly on the front of the device, people can touch buttons on the screens, read information, make selections, etc. With the smart pantry however, the system is using RFID tags to log the existance of all the goods available. The user never knows what is happenening, never tells the system what to do or how to do it, but when they go to the grocery there is a nice shopping list waiting.
I know that the difference I describe is subtle but I have not found anything that compares these areas directly by describing how one technology may be EITHER ubiquitous OR pervasive. Lets look at the definitions of the words themselves...
- Pervasive: spread throughout
- Ubiquitous: Being or seeming to be everywhere at the same time; omnipresent.
Besides these two terms, there is Ambient Intelligence, which may just be a newer way of saying Ubiquitous Computing. I've looked at several products claiming to be Ambient Device Technologies, but several of the examples include things like the Nabaztag or "Ambient Bunny.” It seems to me that this is a novel communications interface, but is it an ambient technology? What is the definition of ambient?
- Ambient: Surrounding; encircling.
Hmm.... All of these definitions seem to mean the same thing according to the dictionary, but the question is, do they mean the same thing in terms of Human-Computer Interaction? There are a few websites that offer some definitions, but I don't know when the definition becomes official. There is a bit of one for ubiquitous computing here. And, this site seems to have some nice projects, but are these, or are they not, seperate domains?
Posted by whazlewo at 5:44 PM | Comments (1)