Here I will review an interesting topic in a paper entitled: “Yesterday’s tomorrows: notes on ubiquitous computing’s dominant vision “ by Genevieve Bell. Paul Dourish (2006).

The paper’s general subject is the “ubiquitous computing vision” which was articulated by Mark Weiser (1988). This vision anticipated a future in which our interaction with the world and with each other is relying on and facilitated by the use of technology.

The author’s main claim here is that “Ubiquitous Computing”, unlike other computer science research, has always been characterised by a concern with potential future and the majority of research in this area have been devoted to the proximate future. Even after more than a decade, since it was first coined by Mark Weiser (1988).

Whereas, as in the author’s argument, we already live in a ubiquitous computing world. Devices, wireless data communications and powerful computational properties have been emerging in our daily life embedded (e.g. CCTV) or carried around (e.g. cell phones), as in the anticipated future by Weiser. Yet we failed to notice the arrival of ubiquitous computing. According to author, that is due to the difference between technological form of ubiquitous computing in Weiser’s model and ubicomp in our lives today. As it was meant to be clean, invisible and not messy in Weiser vision while it is a visible and messy ubicomp world today. The difference appears to be in the use not in the technological details.

Therefore, the author in this paper calls for understanding the fact that we live in a world of ubiquitous computing and he attempts to argue for an alternative domain of a ubicomp: that is, developing a ‘‘ubicomp of the present’’.

From my point of view, to some extent, I find that there is some exaggerating in this article. First and for most, we have to notice that this article was written in 2006, just before the huge revolution of smart phones that started in 2007, when Apple launched its first iPhone. This was actually just the “future around the corner” as the author calls it yet did not anticipate it.

The author’s main claim was that “we already live the future”, the future which Weiser anticipated in his ubicomp vision. In his claim, the author seemed to be the only person who noticed the arrival of ubicomp whereas everyone else “failed” to notice it, and thus considered it a future concern. To confirm this, the author mentioned more than once that the “majority” of research in this area, adopted Weiser’s vision and consider ubicomp a future concern even a decade after Weiser’s paper. However, some of the numbers shown on the paper do not support this claim. For instance, according to the author, 47% of the papers in ubicomp, between 2001 and 2004, are oriented towards a proximate future. This percentage even though it is high enough but it does not represent the “majority”. Moreover, the author did not mention the other 53% papers in ubicomp, which makes his claim ambiguous. I would like to know more about other research that agree with the author claim, if there are any. Thus it would be easier to see where this paper fits in related works.

The second support for the author’s argument was the examples of two non-western environments: Singapore and Korea. I found most of the “use of technology” in both examples is not quite different in a way or another than in some other environments, western or non-western ones. The author demonstrated some numbers that appear to be just normal in any given environment, such as the daily use of text messages and email address. At some level, I could not find a direct link between these numbers and the author’s claim. Finally, although the author was attempting to clarify his claim and call for changing the domain of ubicomp from “future” to “present”, he did not proposed any suggestions of how we might do that. Therefore, I found it difficult now to agree or disagree with the author’s claim as it is true to some extent but it is not quite what we all expect ubicomp to be. However, back in 2006, I would have probably disagreed due to the big difference in technology, between then and Weiser’s vision, and it was not just a difference in the “use of technology” (as the author claimed).

For this week, I chose a paper entitled:

Gate reminder: a design case of a smart reminder

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1013115.1013128&coll=DL&dl=ACM&CFID=724927035&CFTOKEN=38892602

Jan Kučera says:

October 27, 2015 at 1:08 am

When I was doing the HCI module last year, I was a bit unimpressed and sceptical about the papers in the field as gradually unveiled to me by John. My task for this week was to read the ‘What next, Ubicomp?’ by Abowd and it made me to find the ‘Yesterday’s tomorrows’ paper you read (without actually realizing it was paper for another group) and it did appeal to me quite a lot. I think it is great that you view the works with distance and strive for learning how they fit into the field and how the community accepted it. My point here is that you not only have all the tools to do so – e.g. find the paper on ACM DL and check the ‘Cited By’ works – but also have John who most likely already picked the best-of for all of you. All the papers for this week were critical view of Weiser’s vision and Abowd explicitly addresses the paper you are reviewing.

I am glad you included your view. How do you think the iPhone made a revolution step, especially towards Weiser’s vision? Smart phones had been on the market for couple of years already and I don’t think iPhone came with anything new, or did it? (I didn’t own one so I am not sure.)

I found the insight into other cultures quite rare and most interesting. The numbers might now seem to be ordinary, but surely weren’t to the western world of 2004. Just randomly checking the internet, America reached the same ownership of cell phones just recently. But I believe the point here was not in the numbers, but in the vision itself, its origins; putting it into context of the whole world and pointing out that sticking to it (as most of the authors in HCI did since there was nothing else) also means imposing western culture on others. That was the message I took away anyway.

What do you expect ubicomp to be? And most interestingly, you argue your 2006 disagreement due to the big difference in technology between then and Weiser’s vision. When I was commenting on Weiser’s vision, I especially noted how the technology for his vision had already been there – they even used it in the article itself. So I would love to hear what difference do you think was there?

Matt Wood says:

October 29, 2015 at 5:36 pm

Nice thoughts Tag. I think you’re definitely think you’re right to acknowledge that this article is rather old now (how is 2006 nearly 10 years ago!), but I wondered what you thought Bell and Dourish have exaggerated specifically? I agree that the iPhone has had a pivotal role in changing the way many people interact with technology, which nobody could have expected, but for me this doesn’t detract from the authors’ pivotal point about concentrating on the present. I think if you asked people in 2006 how they thought smartphones might change the world they would come up with a very different image than what we have now. Moreover, I think this vision is very different to Weiser’s prediction of the future whereby technology seamlessly pre-empts what I want or need. My life in 2015 instead seems to depend on how many ‘likes’ or ‘retweets’ I got on social media, google apparently knows everything about me and my smart phone bullies me for not standing up enough!

I think it is very telling that in a field as diverse as ubicomp that nearly half of the articles explicitly orientate themselves towards this future of a technological Nevada just waiting for us around the corner. I think what Bell and Dourish are arguing by (somewhat provocatively) stating “we already live in the future” is that technology is continually changing our lives in unexpected ways, and that it’s much more interesting to examine that than waiting for an alternative vision imagined in the 1980s.

Tag’s review on: Yesterday’s tomorrows

Gate reminder: a design case of a smart reminder

Leave a Reply Cancel reply