{"id":9652,"date":"2015-12-21T17:05:42","date_gmt":"2015-12-21T17:05:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.nearfuturelaboratory.com\/?p=9652"},"modified":"2017-08-18T17:56:39","modified_gmt":"2017-08-18T17:56:39","slug":"some-critical-thoughts-to-inspire-people-active-in-the-internet-of-things","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.nearfuturelaboratory.com\/2015\/12\/21\/some-critical-thoughts-to-inspire-people-active-in-the-internet-of-things\/","title":{"rendered":"Some Critical Thoughts to Inspire People Active in the Internet of Things"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"DSC01857\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It has never been so easy to build things and throw them into people\u2019s pockets, bags, phones, homes, cars. Almost inevitably\u200a\u2014\u200awith this abundance of \u2018solutions\u2019\u200a\u2014\u200ait has never been so easy to get caught in the hyperbolic discourses of perpetual technological disruptions with their visions of flawless connectivity and seamless experiences. When translated literally, theses visions often take the form of a questionable world of Internet of Things (IoT)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

At Near Future Laboratory<\/a>, we get the chance to meet amazing people active in the IoT who request critique and feedback on their products. We help them abstract from the hype of the dominant vision and gain fringe insights that can refresh their strategies. To do so, I often dig into the rich literature produced in the early days of ubiquitous computing. Some of the texts were published more than 10 years old, but\u200a\u2014\u200atrust me\u200a\u2014\u200athey all carry inspiring thoughts to improve the contemporary and near future connected worlds.<\/p>\n

I hope this accessible academic literature is useful for people active in IoT curious to enrich their ethical, human, geographic and social perspectives on technologies. En route and beware of shortcuts!<\/p>\n

The shift from the showcase of the potential of technologies to the showcase of active engagement of people<\/h4>\n

Written in 1995, Questioning Ubiquitous Computing<\/a> critiqued that research in ubiquitous computing is conceived as being primarily as the best possibility for \u201cachieving the real potential of information technology<\/em>\u201d and had little to do with human needs and much more with the unfolding of technology per se.<\/p>\n

Ten years after, based on similar observations, but with more constructive arguments, Adam Greenfield wrote Everyware<\/a> to question the implications of the scale up of ubiquitous computing and genuinely how to improve the connected world he coined as \u201ceveryware\u201d [my notes<\/a>].<\/p>\n

\"DSC01861\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In the same period voices raised to rephrase the approach of ubiquitous computing. For instance, in Moving on from Weiser\u2019s vision of calm computing: engaging ubicomp experiences<\/a> Yvonne Rodgers promotes connected technologies designed not to do things for people but to engage them more actively in what they currently do [my notes<\/a>].<\/p>\n

The shift from the design of a perfect future to the design for the messiness of everyday life<\/h4>\n

Similarly, in Yesterday\u2019s Tomorrows: Notes on Ubiquitous Computing\u2019s Dominant Vision<\/a> Genevieve Bell and Paul Dourish highlight that the problems of ubiquitous computing are framed as implementation issues that are, essentially, someone else\u2019s problem, to be cleaned up as part of the broad march of technology. In other words, the dominant vision of ubiquitous computing promotes an indefinitely postponed future in which someone else will take care of solving any technological (e.g. interoperability, fluctuant connectivity, or limited battery life) or social issues. Consequently, the text argues for a \u201cubicomp of the present\u201d which takes the messiness<\/em> of everyday life as a central theme [my notes<\/a>].<\/p>\n

That notion of messiness<\/em> of technological settings provoked the interests of researchers to regard technological imperfections as an opportunity for the design of everyday life technologies. William Gaver pioneered work in that domain with his proposals of Ambiguity as a Resource for Design<\/a> that requires people to participate in making meaning of a system [my notes<\/a>] and Technology Affordances<\/a> that promotes interfaces disclosing the direct link between perception and action. Practically, as advocated by Matthew Chalmers in Seamful interweaving: heterogeneity in the theory and design of interactive systems<\/a>, this means that people accommodate and take advantage of technological imperfections or seams<\/em>, in and through the process of interaction. In No to NoUI<\/a>, Timo Arnall gives excellent additional arguments that question the tempting approach of \u201cinvisible design\u201d.<\/p>\n