Moving on from Weiser’s Vision of Calm Computing: Engaging UbiComp Experiences (2006)

Rogers sets out by explaining the trajectory of UbiComp; and the vision, focus and direction of the field. She argues that whilst these endeavours have been fruitful, they have perhaps been too aspirational in their aims and objectives. Weiser’s vision was to incorporate computing into our everyday lives in a way that facilitates perpetual information whilst remaining subtle and seamlessly diffused into our surroundings and activities.

In order to demonstrate how Weiser’s vision of ubiquitous computing could be implemented, he detailed a day in the life of Sal – an executive single mother. Computers and sensors are embedded into her surroundings with a view to ‘make her life super efficient, smooth and calm’. The usual mundane task of making coffee is redundant as it is freshly poured for her as she wakes, and she is kept up-to-date with her neighbours’ comings and goings via the electronic trails she can see out of her window. All of Sal’s assumed needs are accounted for. Herein lies the problem: these needs are assumed.

In reference to the example of Sal, it is easy to see that, whilst her needs are assumed (and therefore may change frequently), these needs are met and the outcomes desirable. In context-aware computing, where the aim is to address limitations in human cognition, it is much more difficult to accurately assess an individual’s needs. Rogers asserts that in order to guide a person through particular activities, it is necessary to use a model of human behaviour that is based upon rationality and predictability. This is a challenging task considering that people behave in unpredictable and idiosyncratic ways. How do we account for this? Is it even possible? Or desirable?

A concept I do find to be desirable is that of customising UbiComp technologies so that they can be used and sustained at different firms and organisations. It is also important to consider how sensors and computational devices could be assembled by non-UbiComp experts. Individuals from different fields (such as doctors and teachers) would have an active engagement in the evolution of a technology and the ways in which information could be accessed and disseminated by it. This idea typifies a relational engagement and is integral to the philosophy of the Open Lab. It is not only paramount to think of how people use technologies, but how they can be involved in their development and advancement. Only then can we really consider UbiComp to be a process in which we are enhancing and enabling the lives of people and not just assuming what they need, which, when this falls short, can be somewhat paternalistic and ethically questionable.

Here is the paper I identified regarding ubiquitous computing.