The mobile phone does not just mediate existing forms of communication, it conditions our social relations.
Our neighborhood is the mobile phone. We don't accidentally run into social encounters; we choose whether to call or answer to someone. Although we are supposedly available anytime anywhere, we exercise full control over who we respond to, by what means we communicate (voice, voice mail, text, multimedia), what we say and what we hide, what appearances we present. Our social relations are more like levers on an instrument panel.
Gone are the days of the tightly knit neighborhood with its complex social nuances. Mobile-mediated social interaction also involves certain nuances, but these have to do with the handling of the device rather than the sustainance of face-to-face interaction. Notice how young kids feel more comfortable texting one another rather than talking face to face.
Not only isn't the technology anthropomorphic, it conditions our social relations into a technomorphic mould.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Anthropomorphic Technology
I find it quite remarkable that the mobile phone, this highly personal and intimate device, still comes in such cold, industrial-age designs.
People refer to their mobile phones as if they were their best friends. Often the language we use to refer to mobile phones expresses affection and other sentiments that we typically reserve for humans or sometimes our pets. Moreover, we all have an unprecedented degree of attachment (or addiction ?) to our mobile phones: we never fail to go anywhere without them. Indeed, the mobile phone is the most personal technological artifact of our times. And it goes far beyond other personal devices (e.g. the watch, the pen) in terms of the social and personal uses it affords.
Shouldn't therefore its design be more anthropomorphic, as opposed to the cold, metallic and boxy phones that we have become accustomed to? If a more anthropomorphic design were not to find widespread acceptance, what would the dominance of current designs signify for our social relations?
People refer to their mobile phones as if they were their best friends. Often the language we use to refer to mobile phones expresses affection and other sentiments that we typically reserve for humans or sometimes our pets. Moreover, we all have an unprecedented degree of attachment (or addiction ?) to our mobile phones: we never fail to go anywhere without them. Indeed, the mobile phone is the most personal technological artifact of our times. And it goes far beyond other personal devices (e.g. the watch, the pen) in terms of the social and personal uses it affords.
Shouldn't therefore its design be more anthropomorphic, as opposed to the cold, metallic and boxy phones that we have become accustomed to? If a more anthropomorphic design were not to find widespread acceptance, what would the dominance of current designs signify for our social relations?
Friday, June 03, 2005
Social Ambient Intelligence
Talking of hypertext living and ambient intelligence... Crudely putting it, ambient intelligence is about my mobile or other wearable device interacting with intelligent rooms, buildings, kiosks, roads, vehicles, lamp-posts, etc. Fair enough.
But although people interact a lot with inanimate objects such as the above, we do so without consciously thinking about it. I switch on the light, open the door, buy a newpaper, drive my car, avoid obstacles when I walk, and more, without consciously analyzing and planning my interactions. And I manage all that quite skillfully and effectively nonetheless. So my guess is that additional intelligence in my interactions with my physical surroundings would not make too much of a difference.
The kinds of interactions on which we focus consciously are social interactions (or, at least, we tend to do so more often). Whether I am genuinely interested in the other person or I am faking a polite exchange, I focus on handling a person-to-person communication.
A counterexample might be the checkout process at the supermarket: unless they engage in a purposeful conversation, both the client and the cashier can happily expedite this largely mechanical process, being totally absent-minded and ignorant of the identity of each other other, and still complete the checkout and payment process flawlessly. Note that this is not a social interaction though; this is typical of a non-place.
So how about some ambient applications that would enhance the social "intelligence" of our environment? Instead of enhancing interactions with objects, I am trying to think of possible applications that might enhance interactions with other people. Some community business models would probably fall in this category, though I'd consider them rather primitive.
You might ask: what's wrong with plain old talking to one another? Nothing whatsoever. And what would be the use of such applications? I don't know; does anybody know the use of all those other features that are being built into mobile phones? Not really; we are just figuring that out in practice (hence many of them fail) [1, 2].
Here's another primitive idea: you're attending a conference presentation and there are a couple of things you feel you have to say but you miss the chance during Q&A; wouldn't it be nice if you and other attendees could post those comments on a shared 'mobile' space while attending the presentation? You are as likely to use the same time and place to exchange irrelevant SMS with your best friend back home, anyway [1, 2].
But although people interact a lot with inanimate objects such as the above, we do so without consciously thinking about it. I switch on the light, open the door, buy a newpaper, drive my car, avoid obstacles when I walk, and more, without consciously analyzing and planning my interactions. And I manage all that quite skillfully and effectively nonetheless. So my guess is that additional intelligence in my interactions with my physical surroundings would not make too much of a difference.
The kinds of interactions on which we focus consciously are social interactions (or, at least, we tend to do so more often). Whether I am genuinely interested in the other person or I am faking a polite exchange, I focus on handling a person-to-person communication.
A counterexample might be the checkout process at the supermarket: unless they engage in a purposeful conversation, both the client and the cashier can happily expedite this largely mechanical process, being totally absent-minded and ignorant of the identity of each other other, and still complete the checkout and payment process flawlessly. Note that this is not a social interaction though; this is typical of a non-place.
So how about some ambient applications that would enhance the social "intelligence" of our environment? Instead of enhancing interactions with objects, I am trying to think of possible applications that might enhance interactions with other people. Some community business models would probably fall in this category, though I'd consider them rather primitive.
You might ask: what's wrong with plain old talking to one another? Nothing whatsoever. And what would be the use of such applications? I don't know; does anybody know the use of all those other features that are being built into mobile phones? Not really; we are just figuring that out in practice (hence many of them fail) [1, 2].
Here's another primitive idea: you're attending a conference presentation and there are a couple of things you feel you have to say but you miss the chance during Q&A; wouldn't it be nice if you and other attendees could post those comments on a shared 'mobile' space while attending the presentation? You are as likely to use the same time and place to exchange irrelevant SMS with your best friend back home, anyway [1, 2].
Hypertext living II
A while after my previous comment I came across this story on physical world hyperlinks. There are some interesting ideas in the story and even more interesting ideas in the comments that follow. I guess the main story itself is probably just a subset of the broader vision of ambient intelligence. Incidentally I should mention that although interested, I remained unconvinced by most of the ideas in those pages.
What is remarkable in all those scenarios (from the point of view of this note) is the possibility that the mobile device will increasingly open up pathways for each of us to divert from our physical itinerary to explore other social or cognitive domains, without relocating physically; without even changing our physical itinerary.
What is remarkable in all those scenarios (from the point of view of this note) is the possibility that the mobile device will increasingly open up pathways for each of us to divert from our physical itinerary to explore other social or cognitive domains, without relocating physically; without even changing our physical itinerary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
