October 16, 2005

Paul Dourish's Where the Action Is

Even though the processing capabilities of computers have changed by several orders of magnitude since they were first developed in the 1970s, the structure of the computer has changed very little. They still have the basically the same inputs (mouse, keyboard) and outputs (speaker, screen). Despite the impressive boost in power, the quality of the interaction has not improved signicantly. Paul Dourish asks why this is, and gives us a few pointers to work with when considering possible future directions for interactivity.

The main reason that our interactions with computers have been so stagnant is due to their design, and especially their raison d'etre. The focus when using a computer is the computer itself, whereas with other devices that use processors (i.e., a microwave), the interaction is focused on a specific activity for which that device is well-suited. As processing power continues to become cheaper, we will move toward "ubiquitous computing," an idea whereby processors will be embedded into everyday objects, which will allow our everyday objects to be "computers" in a limited sense. By giving small individual objects computer-like functionality, but within the scope for which that object is already well-suited, computing as we know it will recede so that the focus comes once again to the actions for which we use the ubiquitous computer-objects.

In the examples Dourish gives, I noticed a lot of ITP-like projects. For instance, one item is called "feather", and it floats a feather in a room whenever an action in another, far-away area, takes place. For instance, the feather might float in my room when my sister lays down on her bed in Minnesota, thus forming a new way of connecting with each other. Also, one project mentioned has a string connected to a motor that moves in proportion to the amount of traffic on the ethernet cable to which it is attached. This reminds me of my instructor's project that advanced the hands on a clock by the number of emails he had received since he last checked his email.

The Tangible Bits project at the MIT Media Lab caught my attention. The term refers to the transition from physical bits (i.e., atoms) to virtual bits, with a focus on the way virtual bits are superseding the need for physical bits. This is a fine idea, and I think that this sort of focus, when also taking into account the ubiquitous computing idea, can take us very far. By focusing on the actual physical objects necessary to do certain tasks, but imbuing them with digital properties, we can combine the best of both worlds.

The idea of multiple limited-ability compute-able objects that can interact and be used simultaneously also allows us to transcend the sequential order of interaction that computers have taught us. When using a computer, there is only one input source used at a time (occasionally we use both mouse and keyboard), and the idea is that one thing comes after the next. But when we employ the digitally-aware objects of a ubiquitous computing environment, interaction is more fluidly defined by a human's needs, rather than limited to sequential instruction to a central computer.

The idea, really, is that the idea of computing fades away and we are left with ideas that we have and tools (well-suited to their individual tasks) that we use to do them, taking advantage all the while of the benefits afforded us by virtual bits but never having to notice them as such.

Posted October 16, 2005 07:46 PM. Categories: Readings , Week 6 | Permalink