Interaction beyond the desktop (Seminar Dagstuhl)
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•361 views
Interaction Beyond the Desktop Organizers Alan Dix (University of Birmingham, GB) James D. Hollan (University of California - San Diego, US) Albrecht Schmidt (Universität Stuttgart, DE) Jürgen Steimle (MIT - Cambridge, US) http://www.dagstuhl.de/en/program/calendar/semhp/?semnr=12351
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Featured
Featured (20)
Interaction beyond the desktop (Seminar Dagstuhl)
- 2. Proprioceptive / Synesthetic interface
- 3. “Interface” or extension of the Self?
- 4. Supernormal stimuli (vs. text displays) ‘Here’s a thought experiment: suppose you hold up a smartphone and say, “where’s my shoe?” and a laser-pointer jumps out of it and focuses a hot red dot on your lost shoe […]. Maybe we need a definitional category that involves humble little “augment apps” that don’t inflict major interventions on “reality.” Bruce Sterling, (Wired Blog)
- 5. (minimal, iconic graphics by no means imply “small”)
- 6. Zero-delay / zero mismatch for Spatial AR
- 7. ...Towards a “function projector”? “ Augmented Reality as the graphic front-end of Ubiquity. And Ubiquity as the killer-app of Sustainability.”, B.Sterling, (Wired Blog)
- 8. Wait: what do we mean by “mixed reality”?
- 9. Knowledge Voxels multi-modal spatial AR for browsing large databases. Skin Games High speed, zero-delay, zero-mismatch spatial AR.
- 10. Physical affordances... as services? rechargeable hammer erasable book ...utopian or dystopian future?
- 11. Why Interfaces Beyond the Desktop may matter! Failing to see alternatives may be a faux-pas with lasting or irreversible consequences (sustainability, monopoly, waste): QWERTY vs DVORAK… x 1000000! FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Editor's Notes
- www.alvarocassinelli.comIentered the HCI research field through Media Arts exhibitions, TV shows, etc. These were opportunities to deeply and freely explore interaction metaphors and discover previously unseen affordances of technology.A parallel: minimalism was an attempt to escape art that was too symbolic/conceptual and concentrate on the material; in the same vein, new media arts can be seen as an attempt to focus attention on that new media, and reveal how it shapes our human experience. I strongly believe that this kind of research cannot be completely done in “controlled” environments of the lab, but needs an ethnological approach; media arts exhibitions provides an interesting platform, a trade off between” controlled environments” and totally random experimentation.
- Khronos Projector / Deformable Desktop / Volume Slicing Display / Knowledge Voxels Concept:: Intuitive (physical-like low level affordances) + high level “metaphor”BUT ATTENTION: the metaphor is just a metaphor. The “designed physical affordance” are not real, and sometimes collides with the user intuition.Proprioception & Artificial synesthesia may provide a way to better “fix” experiences, retrieve information.How to use procedural memory to “annotate” reality (associate with other things - using something like multimodal virtual tags): HUMAN MEMORY IS DEEPLY SUBJECT TO CONTEXTUse of real space as a “scaffold” for organizing and retrieving informationMEMORY BLOCKS: information visualization and visualization analytics TODAY (interactive+loads of data). Ex: genetics. Tangible interfaces” can be seen as a subset of “physical/reality centered” interfaces. Alan Dix: what we can see, what we want to see, what we like to see…And Shneiderman’svisualisation mantra: overview first, zoom and filter, then details on demand
- Haptic Radar / Haptic Mask/ Haptic Car / Light Arrays CONCEPT: “design artificial affordances” based on action-perception theoryMy approach to “design affordances” is based on the concept of SENSORY MOTOR CONTINGENCIES (action-perception theory): the “given” natural world is just one possible instantiation of a COHERENT set of SCMs. We are not obliged to rely on them, but we must create systems that are “coherent” even if completely “unreal”. Reality (physical, psychological) is just a coherent, consistent set of physical/psychological RULES (well, at least it seems... Godel). So, how to design interfaces which do not present the user with “paradoxes”? PROBLEM: Artificial affordances can be counterintuitive: how to design interfaces which do not present the user with “paradoxes”? “ALTERNATE REALITIES” (McGonigal), MAGICNote1: Eva Hornecker: “While we should not give up on exploiting the benefits of physicality, we also need design strategies that acknowledge the hybrid nature of systems. […] A change of focus is advocated: from apparent immediacy to the de- sign of seamful mappings and support of reflection, enabling appropriation and a better understanding of systems.” Leveraging the knowledge of the physical world affordances and “copying” it may NOT be a good idea (it will lead to contradictions, unless it is a perfect simulation or a perfect “isomorphic” real world). My point is: only the LOW level affordances may be useful as an “entry point”, but the rest may be an abstract metaphor (I say abstract very much like in the sense employed in mathematics: abstract objects manipulated by abstract rules that may or may not become “second nature”). Note: We are indeed “trained” since childhood to “read” many physical affordances, and therefore it may be difficult to transcend metaphors when they break; however, we can train like a mathematician trains her/his mind on manipulating abstract "objects” Note this interesting quote by John Von Newman: “ in mathematics you don’t understand: you get used to”. When the interface becomes second nature, transparent, “ready at hand” (ex: distal attribution):Action in Perception (this informs and inspires my work as an artist and researcher) =>such interfaces reinforce the action-perception loop using multiple modalities.procedural memory vs. declarative memory Being IN the world, vs. describing the worldNote:The opposite is equally important for elucidating the nature of the self (construct), and it is also interesting for its peculiar effects (optical illusions, distortions, altered perception): disconnecting/disrupting/forgetting (TBNTB, boxedEgo, blended identitiies). I am interested in this area as a media artist and researcher.
- Laser Aura / Light Robot / Fluid SuitWHAT is a display? Why always addressing the neocortex? Who is “us”? Designing interfaces for the reptilian brain or even the autonomous nervous system [no cognitive load] MINIMAL DISPLAYS / SUPERNORMAL STIMULIMost of the time we don’t really need text.No need to project “screens” that imitate GUIs... BTW: What do you think about Google goggles?? Interfaces that talk to neocortex as well as reptilian brain - or even directly to the autonomic nervous system.Example: laser aura (iconic, cartoonish graphics)Simple “agents” that may be immaterial: robot made of light, or “light pet”
- LaserinneMinimal displays by no means means “small”! Projecting sound, image, laser queues, pressure, smells...Large spaces - ex: accident prevention on the street. Personalized voices.
- ScoreLight / Laser Sensing Display Technology… but WHICH TECHNOLOGY is capable of realizing this kind of ALTERNATE REALITIES? - projecting affordances (function projector) - zero-delay, zero-mismatch Spatial ARWhat is needed, at a minimum, is NO perceivable mismatch or delay. AR today is sluggish.When the tech will be ripe?One concrete tech: the laser sensing display.A problem though: R and AR are indistinguishable only when we get zero-delay / zero-mismatch spatial ARUnder these conditions: can we still talk about “augmented reality”? Isn’t it just more “complex”, engineered reality?I have been developing technology based on laser projection for minimalistic SAR.
- Invoked ComputingBeyond just graphics: FUNCTIONprojectorAwarecomputing.Invoked computing: function/artificial affordance, based on suggestive SHAPE. ...ARTIFICIAL AFFORDANCES on everyday objects? AFFORDANCES as services???two ways to synthesize affordances: more hardware on the object, or multimodal SARThings we can project right away: images, sound, HEAT (in the lab). alternative to miniaturizing hardware: a physically as well as informationally-collaborative smart environment examples: surround sound from smart phones, laser Web, etcthese are alternative ways to do “ubicomp”
- Laser Aura / Virtual Haptic Radar / Memory Blocks / laser WebIsn’t that just “mixed reality” ?I know what you are thinking: this is just “mixed reality”… Well, it may be, but then a broom or a dvd player is mixed reality. It’s about combining technologies, right?There is nothing “virtual” about this augmentationpaper with “affordances” of a google doc, book flipping printingthis is not hyper-reality: augmented paper is not a symbolic “prop” (think of smart materials... made smart from the “outside” -a relative concept by the way)
- Latest projects
- Book Flipping Printing BUT if the object itself is just an empty shell, and function can be instilled on it... this is just too similar to “cloud” computing and the like. But “PHYSICAL” CLOUD COMPUTING. A clear “trend”:In fact, if you think of it, physical “products” are already becoming “services” through “programmed or planned obsolescence”. … or services like the batteries on electric cars (fuel: is that “yours”? Battery: is that yours?)Actually “disabling” the affordance is not necessary: using the hammer when it does not have more “units” would just be illegal – like ripping a DVD...Advantages and disadvantages: cheaper to own or to pay for the service? Danger of monopoly. Danger of technological stagnation. Etc. Importance of OPEN SOURCE REALITY... In other terms, importance of TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION, or HACKING CULTURE (how many of us know how to “hack” or a TV, or for that matter, things that seems “given”, but are actually engineered of course – like stairs, public transport (don’t tell me you never dreamed to adjust their schedule!), etc.
- First: most people in the world don’t even have desk, let alone a desktop computer! BUT countries in development, while not being “early adopters”, will adopt the mature trend (ex: cellphones vs. terrestrial network). The point is, we have to explore as many alternatives as possible. Not think in short term!! (example: “A crude awakening”)Technology evolution is not gradual, perhaps better described by “punctuated equilibrium” (the black swans...):I think we are at a “branching moment”. Making the wrong choice (or failing to see suitable branches) may be a mistake with lasting, perhaps irreversible consequences (sustainability, monopoly, waste, etc). it is all about deciding which future we want, what will be the place of technology (from the economics, social, humanistic point of view)RICHARD STALLMAN (few days ago): “One reason you should not use web applications to do your computing is that you lose control,” he said. “It’s just as bad as using a proprietary program. Do your own computing on your own computer with your copy of a freedom-respecting program. If you use a proprietary program or somebody else’s web server, you’re defenceless. You’re putty in the hands of whoever developed that software.”(Answer from a friend, Cesar Harada: we never really are in control, but we have the illusion of control. By delegating this to a company, at least we have a clear fight.The problem is not just about applications, but the hypernetworking, the default state of the services on line: they connect you to everything possible, they “steal” you.