Categories
Innovation

Another tangible user interface

The GroupLab at the University of Calgary has published a technical report describing Souvenirs, a tangible user interface for sharing digital photos in the home environment. It is very similar in spirit to Bowl, which I’ve previously blogged. Souvenirs will be formally published in the Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

Souvenir - the tagged rock and the image it is associated with

Image credit: Nunes, M., Greenberg, S. & Neustaedter, C. (2007) Sharing Digital Photographs in the Home through Physical Mementos, Souvenirs, and Keepsakes. Research Report 2007-875-27, Dept Computer Science, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4. July.

Categories
Innovation

Finding a human need

I’ve been reading over old ubicomp papers in preparation for a new project at NICTA. So it was that I found myself reading “Charting Past, Present, and Future Research in Ubiquitous Computing“, by Gregory Abowd and Elizabeth Mynatt (whom, incidentally, should surely be listed among those ubiquitous computing researchers who inspire me – particularly Abowd, whose work I’ve followed since my Honours year in 2000, and whose books were often referenced in the HCI course I took a couple of years before that). One of the most important passages in that paper, to my mind, was tucked away in section 6.1.1, Finding a Human Need (the emphasis is mine):

It is important in doing ubicomp research that a researcher build a compelling story, from the end-user’s perspective, on how any system or infrastructure to be built will be used. The technology must serve a real or perceived human need, because, as Weiser [1993] noted, the whole purpose of ubicomp is to provide applications that serve the humans. The purpose of the compelling story is not simply to provide a demonstration vehicle for research results. It is to provide the basis for evaluating the impact of a system on the everyday life of its intended population. The best situation is to build the compelling story around activities that you are exposed to on a continuous basis. In this way, you can create a living laboratory for your work that continually motivates you to “support the story” and provides constant feedback that leads to better understanding of the use.

Designers of a system are not perfect, and mistakes will be made. Since it is already a difficult challenge to build robust ubicomp systems, you should not pay the price of building a sophisticated infrastructure only to find that it falls far short of addressing the goals set forth in the compelling story. You must do some sort of feasibility study of cutting-edge applications before sinking substantial effort into engineering a robust system that can be scrutinized with deeper evaluation. However, these feasibility evaluations must still be driven from an informed, user-centric perspective—the goal is to determine how a system is being used, what kinds of activities users are engaging in with the system, and whether the overall reactions are positive or negative. Answers to these questions will both inform future design as well as future evaluation plans. It is important to understand how a new system is used by its intended population before performing more quantitative studies on its impact.

It strikes me that too few ubicomp research groups heed this, seemingly obvious, advice, including our own. Though we might occasionally attempt to build a story, it is not often compelling, and I’ve read far too many papers that suffer from the same problem (caveat: I specifically exclude Karen‘s work from this blunt introspective analysis because her work is typically very well motivated, and compelling; and she read the paper I’ve just quoted early on in her Ph.D. and took note of it). I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the most successful ubiquitous computing researchers have taken this advice to heart. I want to make sure that the new project at NICTA does do these things properly.

Categories
Innovation

Cool projects by Johnny Lee

Johnny Lee from CMU’s HCI Institute has done some pretty cool things with the Wiimote. His Ph.D. project has also yielded some way cool stuff. Here’s just a few of the things he’s done on his own and with his colleagues.

Truly inspiring.

Categories
Random observations

Singapore’s MDA rocks on

In the wake of international criticism following its banning of the computer game Mass Effect and the subsequent lifting of the ban, Singapore’s Media Development Authority have released a hip hop video in which its executives rap about the role of the Authority. Ever wondered how to fit “service oriented architecture” into the lyrics of a hip hop song? No problem for the MDA.

Categories
Innovation

Android – the open platform for mobile apps

So Android has been released. As I suspected, Google has not actually released a phone of their own. Could be an interesting platform for researchers in the mobile/ubiquitous computing space who want to develop prototypes quickly. One of the creators of the platform hopes that someone develops an application that can help interpret his wife’s thoughts…

Categories
Random observations

A nice little video

I’ve seen this video – about digital information and its categorisation – linked on various websites over the last week or so. I thought I’d share it here as well. Very nice.

Categories
Innovation

Ubiquitous Computing: People who inspire me

A few weeks ago, I discovered that IEEE Distributed Systems Online maintains a list of the key people in the field of mobile and pervasive computing. Here’s a much shorter list of people in pervasive computing whose work has inspired me. The list might be biased towards the sub-areas of ubiquitous computing with which I am more familiar, and in all cases, I acknowledge the involvement of Ph.D. supervisors and colleagues without explicitly mentioning them.

Mark Weiser

Often called the father of pervasive computing, he wrote the seminal paper on the topic (I know some people have their own views about this, but history will always see it this way).

Most important, ubiquitous computers will help overcome the problem of information overload. There is more information available at our fingertips during a walk in the woods than in any computer system, yet people find a walk among trees relaxing and computers frustrating. Machines that fit the human environment, instead of forcing humans to enter theirs, will make using a computer as refreshing as taking a walk in the woods. (The Computer for the 21st Century, 1991)

Anind Dey

Dey provided the first useful (i.e., operational) definition of context in this field, and one of the first non-monolithic approaches to developing context-aware applications by way of the Context Toolkit (Schilit was perhaps the pioneer in that respect).

Context is any information that can be used to characterize the situation of an entity. An entity is a person, place, or object that is considered relevant to the interaction between a user and an application, including the user and applications themselves. (Understanding and Using Context, 2001)

Karen Henricksen

While Dey provided the often-quoted definition of what context is, Henricksen filled in the details about the nature of context information in ubiquitous computing environments, and made one of the first real attempts to formally model it. Henricksen, in conjunction with her colleagues, also developed one of the most sophisticated approaches to engineering context-aware applications, beginning with modelling and ending with a set of programming abstractions. Henricksen and Indulska authored the Elsevier Journal of Pervasive and Mobile Computing‘s most downloaded article of the year from May 2006 to April 2007.

[Our] system will allow abstract models described in our notation to be mapped with little effort to corresponding implementation models that can be populated with context information and queried by applications. It will be responsible for a range of management tasks, such as integration of context information from a variety of sources, management of sensors and derived context, detection of conflicting information and so on. (Modeling context information in pervasive computing systems, 2002)

Guanling Chen

Chen and Kotz developed a novel platform, called Solar, for building context-aware applications. I found their approach particularly inspiring for what I would call its bottom-up approach. What excited me about their idea is the same thing that excited me about the DSTC’s Elvin protocol: the ability to quickly build an application by mashing up various sources of information.

A fundamental challenge in pervasive computing, then, is to collect raw data from thousands of diverse sensors, process the data into context information, and disseminate the information to hundreds of diverse applications running on thousands of devices, while scaling to large numbers of sources, applications, and users, securing context information from unauthorized uses, and respecting individuals’ privacy. (Solar: A pervasive-computing infrastructure for context-aware mobile applications, 2002)

The Cambridge Contingent

Andys Hopper and Harter, Roy Want and others gave the world Active Badges, which were initially used to divert incoming phone calls to the nearest phone to the user. Active Badges soon gained a following in ubiquitous computing research centres around the world, with installations at MIT, Xerox PARC, EuroPARC and elsewhere. These researchers also showed remarkable awareness of the social impact their technology could have in the world. The honesty and openness with which they wrote their papers is something that ought to be replicated in more of the papers of the current generation. I’m sure this project has inspired many a ubiquitous computing researcher.

The most important result of this work is not, “Can we build a location system?”, but, “Do we want to be a part of a location system?” There is a danger that in the future this technology will be abused by unscrupulous employers. (The Active Badge Location System, 1992)

The Lancaster League

Nigel Davies, Adrian Friday, Gordon Blair, Keith Cheverst and maybe a few others have made a large contribution to the field. I remember reading their stuff – about mobility, adaptation, service discovery and more – around the year 2000 and thought it was fantastic. Their papers often disclosed important findings.

Interaction with a context-aware/location-aware system is not affected by the design of the user interface alone. In fact, interaction with GUIDE is, to a large extent, governed by the design of the infrastructure, i.e. the strategic placement of cells in order to provide appropriate areas of location resolution and network connectivity. (Developing a context-aware electronic tourist guide: some issues and experiences, 2000)

Jack Schulze and Matt Webb

Although these guys aren’t strictly ubiquitous computing researchers, I find their work inspiring on a number of levels.

Tangible interactions can be more immediately familiar than ones we regularly use with our computers. (The Hills are Alive with the Sound of Interaction Design, 2007)

So, that’s my list. It’s short and sweet. As I said at the beginning of this year, I’d like to move my work more towards the HCI side of things, which means that if I were to rewrite this list in a year’s time, it might feature a different bunch of people (like Paul Dourish, perhaps).

Categories
Innovation

Steve Jobs: the second most powerful man on Earth

According to Vanity Fair’s 2007 ranking of the most powerful people on Earth, Steve Jobs comes in at number two, just behind Rupert Murdoch. That’s a big call, but not too far off the mark, I think. Apple has always been the company to beat in terms of style and innovation. The difference now is that their style and innovation is being converted into bigger bucks than before. The Google-meisters, Brin and Page, rank a joint third. I agree with Vanity Fair’s prediction that Apple will make the gadgets while Google processes the data; this partnership will blossom over the coming months and years.

Categories
Innovation

Innovation in a vacuum

Brisbane (and Australia, for that matter) needs more crazy rich people willing to invest in technology startups. Probably mindbogglingly obvious, but that’s the conclusion I’ve drawn after reading another of Paul Graham‘s insightful essays. Brisbane does not have nearly enough venture capitalists to create a critical mass of technology companies. This means that despite the existence of places like UniQuest and inQbator, any innovative ideas produced by universities, CRCs, NICTA and CSIRO (and I’ve seen a few of them) are released into a near vacuum, with the fruits of this labour dissipating according to the second law of thermodynamics. Only a critical mass of startups will have enough gravity to prevent this research fizzling away to nothing or leaping across the Pacific Ocean to the US, where the capital market is far more accommodating of crazy ideas. A critical mass of venture capitalists is required to gain a critical mass of startups, and once this is in place, a chain reaction is started whereby startups beget more startups. When this chain reaction gets going, that’s when we’ve created a sustainable, innovative technology industry.

So, what do we do to get the ball rolling? How do we get rich people to invest in our work? The first step might be to make them aware of what we do, which means inviting them to our workplaces, networking with them at dinner functions (hell, we the researchers should be organising these functions and not simply waiting for someone to do it for us) and marketing ourselves. While some of us might be doing this to some extent, we aren’t doing it nearly enough. It’s important to note that I’m not talking about targeting existing VCs – they’re already doing a fair enough job. I’m talking about attracting those rich people around Brisbane who aren’t currently part of the VC and angel investment scene. Think about all that cash hulled up in Hamilton, Ascot, Fig Tree Pocket and other leafy suburbs. It’s probably going into resource stocks, property and superannuation. The challenge is to convince these people to do something more exciting and potentially much more rewarding with their dollars. The goal is to enlarge the pool of funds available for investment in technology startups. Why will this work? Well, there’s a good chance it won’t. But I’m convinced the way to get more rich people involved in funding startups is not by trying to demonstrate the merits of any particular new idea, but by holding a conversation with them over the long term and getting them to buy into the big picture. Maybe this has been tried on numerous occasions before, but because it failed then doesn’t mean we should cease the conversation. Let’s organise a few functions with the help of organisations such as the AIC, scrape together the dosh to fly the Paul Graham’s and Guy Kawasaki‘s of the world to Brisbane and have them speak at the functions. These are small steps for sure, but they are steps that need to be taken if the Australian technology industry is to improve its position in the world. The other thing that might have to change is rates of taxation, but let’s do one thing at once!

I say it can be done.

Note: This article is covered by the standard disclaimer.

Categories
Innovation

Poor old Ballmer

Here’s Scoble ratting out on Ballmer. This time it’s about Ballmer’s lack of understanding of social networks. Microsoft’s CEO seems like he’s from a different company to the one that could produce something as cool as Microsoft Surface.