Add this to digg, del.icio.us, etc.

Please update your RSS reader

_ Add Punchcut to Google Reader

_ Follow our Feedburner RSS

_ Get our XML feed

Add this to digg, del.icio.us, etc.

In this post I’ll give a brief intro to ubiquitous computing: it’s concepts, history, and current state. Most of this I’d like to be in service of us (those of us making devices) finding solutions for today out of these various historic and futurist perspectives. If we agree that the iPad fits ubicomp criteria, and we know the futurist path of ubicomp all the way to it’s ideal (networked t-shirts!), we may be able to derive a path for the consumer devices we’re working on today. We may also be able to detect future problems before they arrive. Let’s see where we can get…

Take a look at this short Intel commercial:

This commercial features a series of technological ah-ha moments. From video games to the internet, wireless internet and finally Intel’s 2010 Core processors (which features a very ubicomp ability of scaling power) each moment exhibits a technology that is not fully understood until personally experienced.

One could imagine another scene at the end:

Two 20-something, upper-middle-class men are hanging out watching an uneventful World Cup match at what appears to be a “man night”; Pizza boxes are strewn around a basement room with a Star Wars figurine collection on display in the background. One guy passes an iPad to another, sharing a YouTube video of a keyboard playing cat (or a very smart TED talk),  in sheer delight, the recipient exclaims ”It’s like you’re HOLDING YouTube in your hands!”

This is one of the promises of ubiquitous computing.

The concept of ubiquitous computing was first described by computer science researchers at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) in the late 80s/early 90s with Mark Weiser as Chief Technologist (who is accredited with coining the phrase) along with Alan Kay. The concept was mostly a reaction to what Mr. Weiser and others saw as flaws in the virtual reality computing paradigm in which reality was being virtualized and all user attention went into a computer screen. Weiser developed the concept the furthest, with his seminal Scientific American paper The Computer for the 21st Century in which he describes the ideal ubicomp future, it’s purposes, concerns and analogies.

Today there are many parts to ubicomp, including the latest philosophies and perspectives on the topic of computing. For the purpose of this blog post and conversation I’m going to stay pretty close to Mark Weisers description. Most of the attributes and concepts described by Mr Weiser are rooted in an opposition to virtual reality. Here are some key parts of the concept.

Ubicomp is not an attention suck

The first thing you’ll notice when comparing VR or traditional personal computing to ubicomp is the difference in user attention placement. When using a traditional computer, most of your attention is directed at one screen in which all activity takes place. In a ubicomp experience, your attention would be more distributed, just like your attention might move around the physical world.

Ubicomp is “lightweight“

Let’s think about a single experience using a desktop computer and the “resources” that go into this activity. The computer is mostly one box where all computing happens. All of the CPU power is in one box. All of the monetary costs go into buying that one computer. One large space is used to place the computer in. The users attention is all direct towards the screen. Many activities can be multitasked within the computer. The PC experience is “heavy”. So there is a centralization of resources here in the PC: space, cpu, money, time and attention.

A ubicomp experience isn’t stuck at a desk with a very expensive machine, it is “lightweight” and accessible (low cost in all resources) so it can go into more situations. And that brings us to our next point:

Ubicomp is distributed

For instance, an analogy that Mark Weiser uses is that of the early 1900s factory. At the turn of the century, there would be one engine that powered an entire factory or workshop. The single engine turned a single rod that was connected to all the automated parts of the factory via belts and other rods. It wasn’t until engines became cheap, efficient and much smaller that engines could be used as they are today, distributed around factories and giving each part of the factory it’s own source of motive force.

Ubicomp is invisible

Finally, once any technology becomes sufficiently distributed, it becomes invisible. Just like you are not aware of all the motors in your car. Mark Weiser likens ubicomp to writing. Writing is our main method of storing information and understanding. It’s used to create books, signs, label candy and create UI. Writing is employed effortlessly and without consideration for what it technically is. For instances, a writer doesn’t need to know how to make ink or bake clay tablets anymore as was once the case. Currently, to use a computer you may need to know the equivalent to use a computer.

“The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it.”
– Mark Weiser

Something like this could never happen with virtual reality because when VR becomes pervasive it replaces instead of augments life. But other technologies do disappear. For example see Louis CK’s enlightening discussion with Conan O’Brien

Are we there yet??

Obviously we are already in a world where some of our computing technology has become ubiquitous but ultimately whether or not we’ve crossed a ubicomp threshold is not very important for those of us creating user experiences today. We will never wake up with networked t-shirts and a crystal clear understanding of device design.

However, we can safely say that PC and wireless broadband internet access adoption has peaked with the roughly 70% of American households who can afford it or live in internet-accessible parts of the country. We can throw in the replacement of home PCs by laptops and most recently netbook sales. In addition, smart phones are projected to capture a majority of US mobile market in 2011 and their usage is increasingly non-voice related. Finally, Forrester projects by 2011 tablets will outsell laptops, essentially making tablets the new cheap, mobile, quotidian computer. It appears as if mainstream consumers are moving towards ubicomp.

Consider that this majority of adoption has occured in only 15 years.

One thing this means is that consumers are having that feeling of “why wasn’t I doing it this way before?” When we get used to always having smartphones — having access to a GPS-connected map, music store, social network and the internet in general — we all start to compare this awesomeness to other parts of our lives.  And then one day your Dad calls and says “Hey, I’ve got a great idea for an iPhone app!” This is why I believe we’ll find in our user research (outside tech scenes) that mainstream consumer desires, expectations and pain points will reflect an internalization of ubicomp concepts.

“Why can’t I store all my media in one place and access it everywhere?”

Onward!

In a previous post I explained why tablets fit into everyday life, and in this post I’ve explain why that ‘fitting in’ is called ubicomp. In the next post I want to fill in the space between now and the ideal ubicomp future with more actionable, near-term predictions and examples of device design. Thanks for reading.

George Murray is an Interaction Designer at Punchcut in San Francisco.

Add this to digg, del.icio.us, etc.

File under: Brands in the mobile space

Imagine having to swipe your credit card before you can walk into a retail location. Imagine giving them your email address before picking up a catalog. That’s what Pottery Barn hopes you’ll do when you download their free iPad catalog app.

PixelMags may make a great catalog engine for iPad, or then again, they may not. I didn’t bother to create the mandatory account in order to find out.

Pottery Barn’s mistake is not in selecting a platform like PixelMags. Their mistake is requiring account creation as an entry-point for the experience. This needs to come almost last, just before a user orders something through the catalog.

Clearly business requirements trumped user requirements.

Add this to digg, del.icio.us, etc.

To most people I’ve encountered (outside the bay area tech scene) the iPad is a mysterious thing. The impression has been one of reluctant acceptance, as if individuals are unable to resist the accelerating march of technology. For instance, in a focus group, when asked about upgrading mobile phones I’ve heard something to the effect of “I don’t know what it does or what I could use it for but everyone’s getting them so I guess I will have to get one eventually.” And technology marches on. (and we keep our jobs).

The same thing is happening right now with the iPad. Despite the herculean efforts of Apple’s advertising, consumers are still asking “What is it for?” They cannot see it in their lives.

As an early adopter of the iPad, I believe it and other tablets will be integral parts of the mainstream computing experience but it’s difficult to explain this to consumers in casual conversations. I have explained that it is good for web browsing, games and watching videos (the same case advertisements are making) but I believe there is more to it than these basic software or feature-based use cases. The most important and valuable part of the iPad is its form. I’ll try to explain this more.

In the beginning there was tv… (photo: marsdd)

What have I been doing with my iPad?

First of all, let me preface with this statement: I am not a typical consumer. I adopt technology like (and because) it’s my job. However, my activities are the same as most people: I want to stay connected to others and use email, I read news from the internet, I like sharing cool stuff, and I like entertaining movies and games.

Since getting my iPad, I have not sat down at my home desk to check my email or read the internet or do any of the other quotidian tasks typically done at a computer desk. The first thing I do in the morning is reach for my iPad and check the news and a few select blogs (industry stuff). The activity of getting my morning news has been the same for over a decade (reading) but now it’s as easy as picking up a book and as powerful as the internet. At night, I use it to read websites, check email, watch netflix and play some casual games. Throughout the day I use my iPad to check bus schedules, bank online, check Facebook, read recipes (and cook), and do all the things I used to do with my laptop on the couch and at my desk. I would posit that 90% of all my home computing/internet activity is consumption (reading, finding or watching) the rest is work and that happens at my desk. My laptop is stuck at my desk but the internet isn’t.

How to share a funny video with a computer… (photo: phploveme)

What makes the iPad work is the form its hardware and UI has taken, not “what you can do with it” in terms of software features. What makes it special is that it fits so much better into our physical lives than a laptop or phone ever could. Of course, us nerds have been dreaming up such life-fitting devices for decades and these dreams have been stuck in academia until recently. Here is what I think has changed to make dream digestible for the mainstream.

Why does it fit?

1) Direct Manipulation UI - The user interface removes the mouse and keyboard and moves the interaction away from “learning to do what you want to do” to just “doing what you want to do.” It is starting to remove the interface part of interaction and thereby makes using a computer less technical and more natural. This same technique was used in introducing the iPhone, it certainly is less powerful but was that really what we needed?

2) The Hardware - When you use an iPad, you are holding a screen. You are holding YouTube, your vacation pictures, and the rest of the internet. You are not holding just an iPad. There are very few buttons or levers to manipulate outside of the UI. This helps maintain that lack of interface. In addition to the design of the physical device, its engineering (processor, screen and memory) is relatively state of the art and supports the usage that its physical form suggests. That is, the processor does not gulp energy because the device will not be plugged in most of time, etc. Most importantly, this engineering feat is finally accessible to those of us without M.I.T.-scale University grants thanks largely to Apple’s business savvy.

3) The Connectivity - The network is there. Nearly 99% of Americans are covered by some form of cellular data network (either EV-DO or HSPA) and nearly 95% of all home networks are wireless. We are constantly surrounded by network connectivity and all the magic that is ‘the internet’. To utilized all that connectivity, activities and services are increasingly cloud-based, non-CPU-intensive, distributed and specialized. This means that a computing device doesn’t need to be a workhorse anymore and can spend those resource elsewhere (like lower costs further).

How to share. (photo: jted)

In Conclusion

The iPad and tablets (along with smart phones and networked TV) exhibit incremental steps towards a ubiquitous computing future. To invoke Alan Kay, we are moving from the 2nd paradigm into the 3rd and the attributes that make the iPad successful are the same that bring ubicomp to the mainstream. I think as designers, technologists and businesspeople involved in the creation of next-gen devices we can investigate these themes and concepts further to help intuit what may work or be a challenge in the future.

In my next post I’ve written about what ubicomp is and why I think the iPad is part of the mainstream adoption of its concepts. I’d also like to explore what other implications a ubicomp future might have for device UI design, product strategy and consumer tastes.

Click here to read Ubicomp Moving Towards Mainstream

George Murray is an Interaction Designer at Punchcut in San Francisco.

Add this to digg, del.icio.us, etc.

1_ More discussion of magazine apps for iPad. Tokyo web agency, iA, dissected the “designed for print, published to tablet” approach of the Wired iPad app. By contrast, the Popular Science iPad app excels because of it’s direct manipulation of content, we believe the approach is no doubt inspired by Berg’s Mag+ concept.

2_ A nice summary of the Info Display conference focused on touch technologies.

3_ The 2006 book every mobile and device UI designer should read, Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing

4_ HP CEO discusses WebOS as the primary driver behind the acquisition of Palm.

5_ Google’s Pac-Man burns $120M of work time, according to the BBC.

6_ And finally, two of mankind’s greatest inventions, together at last — an interesting exploration using velcro to put an iPad in different contexts.

Add this to digg, del.icio.us, etc.

The test below was put together by MOTO, a San Francisco based mobile development group. It’s a very simple, but highly illustrative test to check the accuracy of capacitive touchscreens. Could be a useful method before delving into that upcoming touchscreen interface.

And lest you think Apple has the corner on touchscreen accuracy, it’s interesting to note the differences in accuracy are a function of the materials and sensors (OEM hardware), not the OS/platform itself.

For other touch UI considerations read and watch Punchcut’s touch UI design considerations.

Add this to digg, del.icio.us, etc.

Wired’s tweet this morning captured it in a nutshell, “Steve Jobs writes about his beef with Adobe Flash. Still a little unsatisfying.”

My take can be summed up simply. The evolution of mobile computing — especially the emergence of rich and ubiquitous mobile browsing — is forcing the web to keep up.

1- Adobe asked for this kind of response. The Adobe Flash evangelists and the attendant Flash community can only take jabs at Apple for so long before Apple squelches the whining with some hard realities (and some unnecessary jabs). Adobe has let Flash rest too long on web-based video delivery to carry the Flash platform. Despite lots of pioneering in mobile and on TV, the Flash platform has struggled to stick on non-PC devices. Jobs’ point about .H264 is right on in the mobile context. Which leads to a second point…

2- Adobe has a solid platform because the development tools (the IDE) are so accessible. Yet, the platform sags under the weight of its age, and of the weight of the player on already constrained systems. Jobs’ comments about battery life, processor load are right on, making deployments difficult and requiring plenty of compromise. So, Adobe still carries this strength. Like any large company their struggle will be to update those tools quickly enough to become part of the workflow of mobile designers and developers. I would love to see that. I’m a huge fan of Adobe (despite my occasional rants about feature bloat). They’ve proven they get designers, they respect the design process and they understand workflows and managing design assets. Apple is not providing those tools so I don’t understand the somewhat disrespectful treatment from Cupertino.

Jobs asserts Adobe should focus on development environments (IDEs) for new technologies like HTML5. But, already Apple has said that apps created in Flash, and compiled for iPhone (no Flash player required!) are not allowed in the Apple App store. That hurts. There’s no need to be harsh if Apple really feels Adobe is the solid, long term partner as Jobs suggets.

3- The design once, deploy anywhere mentality has struggled to deliver. (And Adobe come closer to the design once part than J2ME did.) The sticking point is the deploy anywhere dream. In practice, deploying Flash anywhere means convincing chipmakers and OEMs to get on board, customizing Flash players for every device. And that player has to sit on top of the OS that has itself required the same custom fitting. That’s a heavy burden in the quick-turn world of deploying mobile devices.

4- The slow death of the Flash platform won’t be driven by resistance from mobile handset manufacturers like Apple or anyone else. If it comes to a demise it will be driven by web properties who retool their sites with rich, non-Flash interfaces (like HTML5) so they don’t lose traffic and relevance.

That’s the part I’m fascinated by, despite the pains for these companies along the way, it is the mobile computing context that is pushing innovation forward, if painfully. This whole scenario is driven more by the evolution of mobile computing (viva tablets!), that will unwittingly force the web to keep up. No, Flash is not dead. But the prognosis is not good if they can’t make it to the number one handset or the number one tablet. What sucks is the heavy-handed way it affects so many developers — snubbing an otherwise healthy developer community.

Add this to digg, del.icio.us, etc.

Interested in attending? RSVP through the AIGA SF.

Punchcut
170 Maiden Lane, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, California 94108

Tuesday, 13 Apr 2010
6:00pm - 8:00pm

Add this to digg, del.icio.us, etc.

Add this to digg, del.icio.us, etc.