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

In this paper, Yvonne Rogers encourages the field of ubiquitous computing to move away from a sole focus on ‘calm computing’ to a focus on computers as tools to engage users [1]. Briefly, Weiser’s vision was to create a world in which ‘information technology could be diffused into everyday objects’ and which would be aware of our needs and respond accordingly. The central idea was that with technology embedded into our everyday living, we could live serene, comfortable and aware lives with information entering out attention when needed and disappearing when not required.

Rogers argues that attempts to create such ‘calm computing’ systems have not matched up to Weiser’s vision. The paper evidences a range of examples and case studies where attempts at ubiquitous computing have been disappointing in their results including in context-aware computing, ambient computing and recording, tracking and monitoring. Common issues across these different areas of UbiComp include how to decide what information to collect, how to provide that information, inaccurate data and privacy and ethical issues.

The paper describes a new direction for the field of UbiComp which moves away from attempts to create a smart environment which can predict human behaviour towards enabling people, themselves, to be smarter and more engaged in their everyday lives. Rogers suggests three areas of research where such an approach has been taken and where new developments and solutions have been successful.

The first area, playful and learning practices, uses games and learning experiences to encourage people to examine their choices when interacting with UbiComp technology. The second area, scientific practices, focuses on a need within the sciences to think how they are currently studies and the computational tools that are needed. Finally, persuasive practices focuses on the UbiComp technologies to affect behavioural change through self-monitoring.

Without a background in computer science, this paper was my first venture into the world of ubiquitous computing. Whilst reading the paper, I was in agreement with Rogers’ argument in that, personally, a world where computers can predict human behaviour does not sound appealing, particularly when considering the ethics and privacy issues this could create. Although the possibility of creating such technologies is exciting, the desire for such systems may not be a welcome one, something which was picked up by Aylett and Quigley [2] in their recent paper.

Rogers’ solution to the issues surrounding ‘calm computing’ also made sense to me. With a lack of technology to currently support attempts at ubiquitous computing as put forward by Wesiner, why not focus on smaller steps towards such a vision? By creating engaging tools now, technologies can develop until we can better learn to embed technology into our everyday lives.

After reading more around this topic, it struck me that the field has seen somewhat of an identity crisis with Rogers seeming to be one of the first to question the widely-accepted vision of UbiComp. Later papers have mapped the changes in the field [3], argued to draw the focus on the field away from the future to the present [4] and even suggested that UbiComp should no longer be a niche discipline but ‘disappear’ into agendas across most of computing and beyond [5]. My initial thoughts at the wealth of literature in the field was whether research surrounding ubiquitous computing could become more fragmented as new directions are increasingly discussed and put forward.

The paper I have chosen for this week is ‘Democratizing Ubiquitous Computing – a Right for Locality’. I chose this paper as it relates to my background in town planning and I found it interesting to see how ubiquitous computing could transform.

[1] Rogers, Y. (2006). Moving on from weiser’s vision of calm computing: Engaging ubicomp experiences. In UbiComp 2006: Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 404-421). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[2] Aylett, M. P., & Quigley, A. J. (2015, April). The Broken Dream of Pervasive Sentient Ambient Calm Invisible Ubiquitous Computing. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 425-435). ACM.

[3] Liu, Y., Goncalves, J., Ferreira, D., Hosio, S., & Kostakos, V. (2014, September). Identity crisis of ubicomp?: mapping 15 years of the field’s development and paradigm change. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 75-86). ACM.

[4] Bell, G., & Dourish, P. (2007). Yesterday’s tomorrows: notes on ubiquitous computing’s dominant vision. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11(2), 133-143.

[5] Abowd, G. D. (2012, September). What next, ubicomp?: celebrating an intellectual disappearing act. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 31-40). ACM.