+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Culturally Embedded Computing

Culturally Embedded Computing

Date post: 12-Sep-2021
Category:
Upload: others
View: 3 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
8
14 PERVASIVE computing Published by the IEEE CS and IEEE ComSoc 1536-1268/04/$20.00 © 2004 IEEE ART, DESIGN & ENTERTAINMENT Culturally Embedded Computing I magine a world without architects, where only engineers construct buildings. With a keen eye toward functionality, these engi- neers would make sure the buildings were sound, but something would be lacking. People would miss the richness of architecture— the designed connection to their lives, history, and culture. The designed experience of these build- ings would be irrelevant to their social and per- sonal concept of buildings. Yet this is the world researchers are inadvertently creating with ubiq- uitous computing. Most discussions about ubiq- uitous computing rely on an engineering perspective, cen- tering on the fact that comput- ing is leaving the desktop. But in leaving the laboratory and workplace, computing is cross- ing not only physical but also social and cultural boundaries. It’s becoming embedded not only in physical environments but also in culture, society, and history. Designing and building these new technologies requires more than sim- ply building and understanding hardware and software. It also requires analyzing and incor- porating the stories, meanings, and social net- works that these devices engage. Alternatives to pure engineering approaches to ubiquitous computing are emerging in digital arts and design research that encompass social and cultural meanings and implications. 1,2 Our approach rests primarily on Philip Agre’s notion of critical technical practice, 3 in which practices of technology design incorporate critical, philo- sophical self-reflection to generate new technical algorithms and concepts. Whereas Agre’s goals in critical technical practice focus mainly on improving technology, our design team includes several researchers building technical systems for, and commenting on, technology’s cultural and historical situation. 4–6 In this spirit, we build tech- nologies to change not only what people can do but also the way they think about technology. Our group is interdisciplinary—with researchers from computer science, user interface design, social science, cultural studies, architecture, and product design—all interested in computing in everyday life. Under the umbrella of the Cornell Information Science program, project collabora- tions gave rise to what we call culturally embed- ded computing. Defining culturally embedded computing In mainstream human-computer interaction (HCI), the primary goal is generally to develop a product or prototype that’s successful regardless of its cultural, social, or historical context. Does it do what it was supposed to do? Is it user friendly and accessible? In culturally embedded computing, we begin by examining how the tech- nology is emblematic of its cultural context. Why do we want a product or prototype to work in a Culturally embedded computing explicitly situates embedded computing in society, individual experience, culture, and history. Based on this new emphasis, five projects explore alternatives to traditional human- computer interaction design. Phoebe Sengers, Joseph Kaye, Kirsten Boehner, Jeremiah Fairbank, Geri Gay, Yevgeniy Medynskiy, and Susan Wyche Cornell University
Transcript
Page 1: Culturally Embedded Computing

14 PERVASIVEcomputing Published by the IEEE CS and IEEE ComSoc ■ 1536-1268/04/$20.00 © 2004 IEEE

A R T , D E S I G N & E N T E R T A I N M E N T

Culturally EmbeddedComputing

Imagine a world without architects, whereonly engineers construct buildings. With akeen eye toward functionality, these engi-neers would make sure the buildings weresound, but something would be lacking.

People would miss the richness of architecture—the designed connection to their lives, history, andculture. The designed experience of these build-ings would be irrelevant to their social and per-sonal concept of buildings. Yet this is the worldresearchers are inadvertently creating with ubiq-uitous computing.

Most discussions about ubiq-uitous computing rely on anengineering perspective, cen-tering on the fact that comput-ing is leaving the desktop. Butin leaving the laboratory andworkplace, computing is cross-

ing not only physical but also social and culturalboundaries. It’s becoming embedded not onlyin physical environments but also in culture,society, and history. Designing and buildingthese new technologies requires more than sim-ply building and understanding hardware andsoftware. It also requires analyzing and incor-porating the stories, meanings, and social net-works that these devices engage.

Alternatives to pure engineering approaches toubiquitous computing are emerging in digital artsand design research that encompass social andcultural meanings and implications.1,2 Our

approach rests primarily on Philip Agre’s notionof critical technical practice,3 in which practicesof technology design incorporate critical, philo-sophical self-reflection to generate new technicalalgorithms and concepts. Whereas Agre’s goalsin critical technical practice focus mainly onimproving technology, our design team includesseveral researchers building technical systems for,and commenting on, technology’s cultural andhistorical situation.4–6 In this spirit, we build tech-nologies to change not only what people can dobut also the way they think about technology.

Our group is interdisciplinary—with researchersfrom computer science, user interface design,social science, cultural studies, architecture, andproduct design—all interested in computing ineveryday life. Under the umbrella of the CornellInformation Science program, project collabora-tions gave rise to what we call culturally embed-ded computing.

Defining culturally embeddedcomputing

In mainstream human-computer interaction(HCI), the primary goal is generally to develop aproduct or prototype that’s successful regardlessof its cultural, social, or historical context. Doesit do what it was supposed to do? Is it userfriendly and accessible? In culturally embeddedcomputing, we begin by examining how the tech-nology is emblematic of its cultural context. Whydo we want a product or prototype to work in a

Culturally embedded computing explicitly situates embedded computingin society, individual experience, culture, and history. Based on this newemphasis, five projects explore alternatives to traditional human-computer interaction design.

Phoebe Sengers, Joseph Kaye,Kirsten Boehner, JeremiahFairbank, Geri Gay, YevgeniyMedynskiy, and Susan WycheCornell University

Page 2: Culturally Embedded Computing

certain way in the first place? Why arespecific design decisions made? Whatalternatives should we consider? Howshould our design change on the basis ofthese insights?

Shifting perspectives this way requirestaking methodologies that primarilyfocus on technology alone and adaptingthem so that they focus on technology inits social and cultural context. Threemajor themes guide our work:

• Reflective design. Some of our prod-ucts are things to use; some are thingsto think with. The latter might havelittle practical use but can encouragereflection on technology, its situatedmeanings in people’s lives, and ourown role as researchers and designers.

• Focus on personal experience. Indeveloping ubiquitous systems, wefocus on the way interactive systemsshape people’s experiences of theireveryday lives.

• Contextualizing technology in culturerather than other technology. In tech-nical research, new technologies gen-erally build on previous technical ad-vances. Our research also focuses ontechnology’s historical, cultural, andsocial implications.

As we discuss examples and implica-tions of these themes, we describe fiveprojects at various stages of develop-ment: Cultural Switches, the InfluencingMachine, Miro, iFortune, and TriggerSpray Bottles. Each project lets us illu-minate different aspects of reflectivedesign, personal experience, and con-textualizing technology in culture.

Reflective design: CulturalSwitches

Reflective design involves building sys-tems that promote reflection on a de-vice’s design, including its use, the user,the designer, and surrounding social andcultural practices. In short, it’s design for

thinking critically about design. Onestrategy for reflective design is for sub-jects to collaborate as researchers explor-ing relationships between technology,users, designers, and culture. Therefore,we aim to create experiences of technol-ogy that are immediate and nonthreat-ening so that people feel confident intheir roles as experts.

Cultural Switches was a series of stud-ies based on HCI user studies, but focus-ing on how people interpret technologyrather than on developing or evaluating

a specific technical system. A typical userstudy would observe and interview peo-ple working with some technology andthen analyze the findings to draw con-clusions. However, this study was notabout building better technology; it wasabout how people perceive and workwith technology. It was thus importantto encourage participants to engage inthe analysis process with us—to makemeaning out of their own responses tothe technology.

These studies focused on the switch,the simplest form of technology imagin-able—technically, simply a bit. Fromlight switches to on/off switches ineveryday appliances, the switch repre-sents the meeting ground between peo-ple as users and technology as designedsystems. This artifact let us focus on theproliferation of cultural meaning arounda technically trivial device. In one exer-cise within this larger study, we askedparticipants to build their own mock-ups of switches with craft supplies. Bymaking participants designers, we hopednot only to underscore their expertise

but also to inspire reflection on themeaning behind certain design decisionsand the resulting implications for tech-nology consumers and designers.

We encouraged six participants—allaffiliated with Cornell, mostly stu-dents—to build either an improved ver-sion of a switch they currently use or aswitch for some new, speculative func-tionality. Once the participants con-structed the switches, we reflected withthem about their design decisions. Oneparticipant built a weather switch: simi-

lar to a thermostat yet letting the userchange the weather. Another built anenhanced dimmer switch providing tac-tile feedback. A third participant createda commentary switch, with a humorousintention, in the form of a bright red“switch to socialism.”

In participatory design, users informthe design process to build technologythat fits their needs. In our work, thetechnology’s ultimate design is secondary;the primary focus is the design choicesand resulting implications. Therefore, oursuccess metrics were not whether partic-ipants built good switches, but whetherthe exercise of building switches provideda useful stimulus for encouraging reflec-tion on designed systems. In the positionof designers, participants spoke withauthority about what type of functional-ity they chose to fulfill the switch’s pur-pose, and its possible implications. Forexample, the construction of the weatherswitch led to conversations about whatit means to build weather-control tech-nology: What would happen if everyonein Ithaca had a weather switch? Would

JANUARY–MARCH 2004 PERVASIVEcomputing 15

In our work, the technology’s

ultimate design is secondary; the primary focus

is the design choices and resulting

implications.

Page 3: Culturally Embedded Computing

every day be sunny, or would more com-plex patterns of use emerge?

We learned that open-ended questionsproduce lengthy and rich responses.Starting the interviews with “Tell uswhat you did” and ending with “Is thereanything else you’d like to tell us?” pro-duced more interesting discussions thanasking specific detailed questions. Man-aging our conversation as an open-endedexchange among equals was more diffi-cult than a prestructured interview butenabled new reflection on design: “I

didn’t realize this until after we startedtalking. ...” From this experience, weunderstand our role as cultural re-searchers to involve creating interestingstimuli and then backing off to give par-ticipants space to create and reflect ontheir own interpretations.

We identified two critical factorsenabling reflective design experiences.The first was the approachability ofthe artifact—in this case, the switch.The second was the level of engage-ment possible. For a simple device thatgenerally enables two states, on or off,the switch artifact still provided roomfor critical discussion about whatthese states would control and why,how to represent them, whether thereare in-between states, and how thedesign of technology itself is a form ofcommunication.

We now consider these two factorsfrom another perspective. Whereas theCultural Switches study used a non-computational device as a prop forreflection on design, the InfluencingMachine and Miro studies enable re-

flective design through constructing anddeploying actual computational devices.

Focus on personal experienceThe Cultural Switches project rethinks

the role of user studies from straighttechnology evaluation toward sociocul-tural research. Our goal was not only toimprove our understanding of peopleand technology but also to encourageparticipants to rethink their own expe-riences in light of their participation. Thenext two projects, the Influencing

Machine and Miro, build on this ap-proach and expand the concept of per-sonal experience involved in designingcomputational systems.

Developing computational systems torespond to a user’s emotional experience,also called affective computing, is oneway to enhance technology design formore personal experience.7 However,existing affective-computing approachesoften stress informatics, treating emo-tion as computational bits to measure,structure, and formalize, rather thansomething to experience. In culturallyembedded computing, we’re less inter-ested in formal models of emotion thanin relatively enigmatic human experi-ences of emotion.

With the Influencing Machine andMiro, we explore the design of technicaldevices for nonformalized, and poten-tially nonformalizable, aspects of hu-man experience. In other words, we useaffective computing not to reason aboutpeople’s emotional states but to createintuitive experiences and interpretationsof affect.

The Influencing Machine: Exploring affect as enigma

The Influencing Machine encouragesreflection on the intersection betweenemotion and technology, and it probesthe possibilities of affective computing.8

Before participants began working withthe Influencing Machine, we told themthe experience had something to do withemotion, but we gave them no otherinstructions other than to explore for aslong as they wished. Upon entering theroom, people saw a display of childlikescribbling projected on the wall: jaggedlines, circles, spirals in simple colors,each building up and fading away. Alarge wooden mailbox sat on a table sur-rounded by various postcards of emo-tionally evocative art. Participants fedpostcards into the mailbox, triggeringunusual sounds and causing changes inthe speed, color, and form of the draw-ings on the wall. Typically, participantsbecame puzzled, experimented with dif-ferent cards, and discussed theories ofhow the system might be working, aswell as whether, how much, and in whatrespect it might be emotional.

The Influencing Machine does in factrespond to the postcards’ emotional con-tent. Each postcard had a barcode thatmodified the machine’s internal emo-tional model. The model includes 22emotions, mapped into 11 pairs of oppo-sites, such as happy/sad or aggressive/passive. Postcards trigger alterations inthe emotional state, which in turn drivethe graphical display and sound output.Importantly, we did not design thechanges to directly communicate thecomputer’s emotions, but we deliberatelymultivalenced them and made them enig-matic to encourage reflection about emo-tion and the role computing could playin it. The Influencing Machine is nottransparently readable; it demands reflec-tive interpretation.

In evaluating the Influencing Machine,9

we saw that some people (particularly

16 PERVASIVEcomputing www.computer.org/pervasive

A R T , D E S I G N & E N T E R T A I N M E N T

The Cultural Switches project

rethinks the role of user studies from straight

technology evaluation toward

sociocultural research.

Page 4: Culturally Embedded Computing

those older and less computer literate)felt intimidated by this demand, whereasothers engaged enthusiastically in de-bates about the machine and affectivecomputing. For example, one group ofsubjects—a married couple and a friendof the wife—quarreled about whetherthe postcards were influencing the ma-chine. During this argument, the wifenoted the computer under the table andasked the man whether this computerwas connected to the mailbox into whichthey had been inserting postcards. Sheseemed to imply that if it were con-nected, the Influencing Machine was justa computer, not a machine that emotionscould influence. Apparently, she thoughtthat a computer must be predictable andtherefore couldn’t be what her husband’stheories of its emotional reactions wouldimply.

The Influencing Machine is culturallyembedded as a boundary object in whichtechnical algorithms are structured totrigger cultural interpretations. By en-couraging users to reflect on their per-sonal experiences, it lets them participatein a cultural commentary on the rela-tionship between machines and emo-tions in a computational age. One unex-pected result, though, highlighted notwhat groups said about the machine butthe way in which interaction with themachine revealed their relationships toone another. In the group mentioned pre-viously, for example, the wife belittledand ignored every suggestion by her hus-band—who was on the right track—while the friend attempted to remain neu-tral. Frequently, the machine acted as asocial probe, and the social dynamics themachine triggered were far more inter-esting to the designers and evaluatorsthan the performance of the system itself.

In the process, we began to see thatdevices are useful and interesting notnecessarily on their own merits but in thecontext of people’s relationships and sit-

uations. This observation suggested thenotion of designing devices for socialexperiments—that is, to trigger emergentsocial interactions and interpretations.This led to the design of Miro.

Miro: Reflections on collective experience

The Miro installation senses, displays,and influences the collective emotionsand activity level of a communal space.Whereas the Influencing Machine fo-cuses on interpretation of machine emo-tion in a contained situation, Miro fo-cuses on a social group’s ongoingemotional experiences in an open officeenvironment. There are various exam-ples of ambient computing and perva-sive computing in office environmentsthat provide aesthetic displays of quan-titative information, such as weatherreports, stock market prices, and Ether-net traffic.10 However, the informationwe wanted to portray, emotional cli-mate, is qualitative, ambiguous, andnondiscrete.

We also wanted to bridge betweentechnology for providing informationand technology as a canvas for creativeexpression. In the workplace, technol-ogy to improve efficiency is common,whereas technology for personal or artis-tic experience is not. We envisioned an

application for both deducing informa-tion and evoking interpretations ofaffect. Our measures of success wouldtherefore concern how people workedwith the display and what meaning theyattributed to it. We were specificallyinterested in whether people perceivedthe display as a tool informing themabout affect in the office or more as anevocative experience of affect.

We installed Miro in the InformationScience building, a semi-open office envi-ronment housing about 30 people, mostof whom are not affiliated with ourgroup. Initial designs were based on a sur-vey asking residents how they currentlyread the affective climate in the office andhow they might like this information aug-mented. For the display, we animated animage based on artist Joan Miró’s Blue,and projected this in an office commonspace. In the animated translation, the redswath of paint moved through the mid-dle of the picture like an agent while thenumber of black spots varied and thebackground morphed into different tex-tures and colors (see Figure 1).

Three measurement tools gatheredinput:

• A sound card estimated activity levels• An emotion survey available on lap-

tops around the building solicited

JANUARY–MARCH 2004 PERVASIVEcomputing 17

Figure 1. Screen shot of the Miro displayprojected onto the wall.

Page 5: Culturally Embedded Computing

answers to the question, “How areyou feeling?”

• Personal emotion journals kept byparticipants for a week before theinstallation established the display’sbaseline behavior

We didn’t propose an exact science ofmeasuring emotions. Instead, we hopedto portray deltas in the affective climateand leave interpretation and attributionof emotion and activity open. Therefore,we derived the baseline behavior from

the emotion journals and modulated thisbehavior with the dynamic input fromthe sound level and the survey responses.

During observations of the prototypeinstallation, we often found people justwatching the display, talking about it ingroups, and venturing interpretations topassersby. Some people constructedcomplex meaning in the simple dis-play—one respondent said the red swathmoving through the picture was a tearin the emotional climate showing thehidden side of the office’s public face.However, most people wanted simpleone-to-one correspondences betweeninput and output and approached thedisplay like a game to figure out. Partic-ipants persistently asked the researchersfor the “right” interpretation. In otherwords, the expression of Miro was rich,but its readability was shallow. Whenpeople approached the display as a toolfor improving awareness of affect, theywere somewhat frustrated with notbeing able to match input to output.However, when people approached thedisplay as art, they were more comfort-

able with its openness to interpretation.Two aspects of Miro’s design are

important to consider as we look at itsimplications for our larger research ef-forts. First, because the participants inthis experience were colleagues, they hadprior knowledge of one another thatinformed their interpretations. We oftenoverheard them querying each otherabout what might be happening to influ-ence the display, such as an imminentdeadline. Miro wasn’t a mirror thatreflected dynamics, but rather a catalyst

for stimulating reflection and discussionabout the current climate. Miro’s role ascatalyst partly depended on its use bypeople with existing relationships. Sec-ond, it wasn’t only the display that cre-ated this awareness of affect. The entiredesign process—from asking for initialinput on measuring the collective emo-tions and activity level to the baselineemotion journals to the emotion sur-veys—drew attention to affect. As oneparticipant commented, “I just like thefact that someone is asking me how Ifeel, even if it is a computer.” The even-tual display was a stimulus for conver-sation, but it was only one part of theexperience evoked by the entire designprocess.

Whereas we built Cultural Switches toencourage reflection on the process andresults of conceptual design, we built theInfluencing Machine and Miro expresslyto encourage reflection—in this case,reflection on technology as part of a richnonformalizable experience. In otherwords, these projects are examples ofusing culturally embedded computing to

question what aspects of experience peo-ple consider computational and how thiscomputational capability can create rep-resentations open to rich interpretation.

Contextualizing technology inculture

So far, we’ve explored reflective designand personal experience. However, theseare incomplete without recognizing thattechnology is situated in culture and his-tory. In particular, we need to understandubiquitous computing in the contextof the Western consumer culture, whichprioritizes mass production and effi-ciency as easily quantifiable metrics overless-measurable aspects such as enjoy-ment and spirituality.11

The consumer culture is particularlypertinent to ubiquitous computing forseveral reasons. First, ubiquitous devicesoften focus particularly on consumerapplications rather than laboratory orworkplace ones. Second, the rise of theconsumer culture is precisely why every-day technologies (including noncompu-tational ones) have become readily avail-able. So, analysis of consumer culturecan throw particular light on the natureof everyday technologies. Finally, manyconcepts for domestic ubiquitous com-puting stem from a vision of an idealizedmiddle-class American or Western Euro-pean home, a vision largely shaped bythe consumer culture.

The iFortune and Trigger Spray Bot-tles projects critique consumer culturethrough their design. Examining the his-tory of domestic technology, home eco-nomics, and gender roles is particularlyimportant to our work. These two pro-jects question and rethink the role oftechnology in the home.

iFortune: Integrating functionalityand experience in the kitchen

iFortune rethinks the role of func-tionality in kitchen appliances. Histori-cally, technology has entered the kitchen

18 PERVASIVEcomputing www.computer.org/pervasive

A R T , D E S I G N & E N T E R T A I N M E N T

Examining the history

of domestic technology, home economics,

and gender roles is particularly important

to our work.

Page 6: Culturally Embedded Computing

as tools for greater efficiency or conve-nience.12 In contrast, we propose a play-ful kitchen appliance to help restorelow-key spirituality to daily life. Theinspiration for this project came fromtasseography, the ancient practice ofreading tea leaves or coffee grounds. Inthis practice, ambiguous readings leaveinterpretation up to the one drinking thetea or coffee much the way a newspaperhoroscope might do.

iFortune, which resembles a smallshrine, takes a digital photograph of thebottom of the cup when that cup isinserted into the device. The system thenmatches features with patterns in astored library drawn from tasseographybooks, and it generates a fortune on astrip of paper. The design draws fromopen-ended surveys of 25 Cornell stu-dents, which revealed a surprisingly highlevel of attachment toward and guiltabout the participants’ cups. As one stu-dent commented (in the voice of his cof-fee cup): “I get used every morning …and then my owner runs off to class,completely forgetting to wash me … andthere I stand, all alone, forgotten, for-lorn, and unwashed.”

The initial design of iFortune has pro-duced an interesting debate about theissue of functionality. Some members of

the research team believed the device’scritique works best if it integrates a use-ful function such as washing your cupafter reading your fortune. The partici-pant responses seem to validate this idea;like the student just quoted, many ofthem referred to the necessity of keepingtheir cups clean. Other members of thedesign team argued that requiring themachine to also perform as a conven-tional appliance would diminish itscapacity as a critical device. They sug-gested that a spiritual or playful activitycould be considered as functional aswashing one’s cup. We look forward toexploring this debate and seeing howpeople interpret iFortune over a longerperiod of use.

iFortune questions what people as-sume a machine can and cannot do. Itserves as a call and medium for reintro-ducing spirituality to the kitchen.Because it can reside alongside othercountertop products, it also falls withindomestic culture. Moreover, it questionsthe equation of functionality with effi-ciency embedded in such devices andsuggests a space for playful appliances. Italso connects ubiquitous devices with thehistory of the home. The next project,Trigger Spray Bottles, further exploresthis historical connection.

Trigger Spray Bottles: Redesigningculturally embedded cleaning technology

Trigger Spray Bottles is part of a largerinitiative to understand how older peo-ple clean their homes and to developproducts that meet their needs. This pro-ject revolves around everyday technol-ogy in the form not of ubiquitous com-puting but of everyday cleaning devicesand practices. In so doing, it situatesubiquitous computing in the context ofa long history of household devices.

Just as the Cultural Switches projectused a single artifact to focus attentionon people’s relationship with technology,this project used a single device, theeveryday trigger spray bottle, to under-stand the relationship between aging,domestic space, and cleaning productsand practices. This research includedinterviews with 18 subjects (65 andolder) about how they clean their homes.These visits inspired three product ideas,illustrated in Figure 2, that challengeassumptions and misconceptions of theelderly and their cleaning practices.

One common theme uncovered wasthe subjects’ frustration about accessingcleaning products. Most people storedtheir cleaning products in cabinets thatrequired either bending over or stretching

JANUARY–MARCH 2004 PERVASIVEcomputing 19

Figure 2. Three designs challenging existing cleaning devices: (a) Book Bottles; (b) the Bottle Monocle; (c) the Calorie-CounterTrigger.

(a) (b) (c)

Page 7: Culturally Embedded Computing

beyond arm’s reach, actions increasinglydifficult with encroaching age. Thisobservation inspired the design of BookBottles (see Figure 2a). These trigger-spray bottles become a discrete but acces-sible part of the domestic environment.

Another accessibility issue was thesmall print for directions and safetyinstructions on product labels. All par-ticipants discussed their inability to see as

well as they used to and their struggle toread the information provided on clean-ing supplies and other household items.The Bottle Monocle (see Figure 2b)attempts to address this problem in anelegant, interesting, and provocativeway. Many designs for assisting theelderly (for example, a metal walker)seem institutional, dispassionate, andcold. The Bottle Monocle, by contrast,is colorful and inviting, drawing atten-tion not to the fact that the person’s eyesare failing but that the print on the labelsis too small for reading.

Participants made clear that the activ-ity of cleaning is for more than justhousekeeping. During the course of oneinterview, a woman lifted her couch withone hand to clean underneath it. Shecommented that cleaning provided exer-cise and was a preferable alternative tothe gym, especially in the winter. TheCalorie-Counter Trigger (see Figure 2c)plays with this notion, drawing atten-tion to the role of household tasks in anexercise routine that maintains health.

These designs actively put technologyin the context of everyday life and its cul-tural history, rather than in the contextof other technology. Although Trigger

Spray Bottles does not use computingtechnology, it raises issues relevant toubiquitous computing. Most peoplethink of ubiquitous computing as awholly new kind of technology, but it’sactually a continuation of a long, con-troversial history of technology in thehome. Ubiquitous devices live alongsidemany items of everyday technology andshare physical space and time with a

wide variety of other tools, objects, andtasks. This suggests that the design ofubiquitous devices can draw from othereveryday technologies, whether histori-cal, contemporary, or speculative. BookBottles, for example, can serve as an ana-logue for computing at your fingertips—accessible when and where you need itbut unobtrusive the rest of the time.

Culturally embedded computinguses current design practices asa form of social research. Start-ing with constructs such as

participatory design, we learn not onlyabout the technology or the peopleusing it but also about the culture, soci-ety, and people from which the designconstruct originated. Understanding theprocess of creating designs is a power-ful methodology for analyzing societyand assumptions because the processof design is about making choices, andthese choices suggest the need toexplain the basis of those decisions.Our work acknowledges that peopleare the experts of their own personalexperience. We hope to provide addi-tional frameworks to enrich, reflect,

and change that experience. This sup-port for reflection includes user studiesand devices that support particularexperiences.

We identified several strategies at playacross the projects that honor this role ofparticipant as expert. First, as designersand researchers, we must approach ourinteractions with empathy and with a sin-cere objective to learn, not analyze. Sec-ond, establishing peer relationships withpeople necessitates creating space fordiversions: listening to people, invitingquestions, and exploring familiar activi-ties that people would feel comfortabletalking about and reflecting on. Finally,we must not only create technologydesigns that give people pleasure butmust also craft user studies that peopleenjoy participating in. Because our pro-ject designs seek to balance the effort putinto technology with the effort returnedby technology, successful user studiesshould leave participants feeling as enthu-siastic or inspired as the researchers anddesigners.

To put it simply, if we ask someone toreport on the role that switches play intheir lives, and to take photographs andnotes of switches and draw pictures ofthem, then afterwards that person will seeswitches, and hopefully other technolo-gies, in a different light. We acknowledge,embrace, and design for that effect.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported in part by the EuropeanUnion Supporting Affective Interactions for Real-timeApplications (SAFIRA) project, by the National ScienceFoundation award 0238132, and the S.C. JohnsonCorporation. We’d also like to give credit to all themembers of our team for each of the five projects:Cultural Switches: Katrina Becker, Jeremiah Fairbank,Jason Lee, and Phoebe Sengers; the InfluencingMachine: Phoebe Sengers, Rainer Liesendahl, WernerMagar, and Christoph Seibert, and evaluators KristinaHöök and Gerd Andersson; Miro: Kirsten Boehner,Mo Chen, and Zheng Liu; iFortune: Yevgeniy Medin-skiy, Joseph ‘Jofish’ Kaye, and Phoebe Sengers; andTrigger Spray Bottles: Susan Wyche. Finally, we thankBill Gaver and the anonymous reviewers for theirhelpful comments, which substantially improved the

20 PERVASIVEcomputing www.computer.org/pervasive

A R T , D E S I G N & E N T E R T A I N M E N T

Our work acknowledges that people are the

experts of their own personal experience. We

hope to provide additional frameworks to

enrich, reflect, and change that experience.

Page 8: Culturally Embedded Computing

article. All opinions expressed are those of theauthors, not the funding bodies or reviewers.

REFERENCES1. W. Gaver and H. Martin, “Alternatives:

Exploring Information Appliances throughConceptual Design Proposals,” Proc. Conf.Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI 00), ACM Press, 2000, pp. 209–216.

2. W.J. Mitchell et al., eds., Beyond Produc-tivity: Information Technology, Innovation,and Creativity, Nat’l Research Council ofthe Nat’l Academies, 2003.

3. P.E. Agre, Computation and Human Expe-rience, Cambridge UP, 1997.

4. P. Dourish, Where the Action Is: The Foun-dations of Embodied Interaction, MITPress, 2001.

5. M. Mateas, “Expressive AI: A Hybrid Artand Science Practice,” Leonardo: J. Int’lSoc. for Arts, Sciences, and Technology, vol.34, no. 2, 2001, pp. 147–153; http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~michaelm/publications/Leonardo2001.pdf.

6. S. Penny, “Agents as Artworks and AgentDesign as Artistic Practice,” Human Cog-nition and Social Agent Technology, K.Dautenhahn, ed., John Benjamins Publish-ing, 2000.

7. R. Picard, Affective Computing, MIT Press,2000.

8. P. Sengers et al., “The Enigmatics of Affect,”Proc. Conf. Designing Interactive Systems(DIS 02), ACM Press, 2002, pp. 87–98.

9. K. Höök, P. Sengers, and G. Andersson,“Sense and Sensibility: Evaluation andInteractive Art,” Proc. Conf. Human Fac-tors in Computing Systems (CHI 03), ACMPress, 2003, pp. 241–248.

10. H. Ishii et al., “AmbientROOM: Integrat-ing Ambient Media with ArchitecturalSpace,” Proc. Conf. Human Factors inComputing Systems (CHI 98), ACM Press,1998, pp. 173–174.

11. G. Ritzer, The McDonaldization of Society:An Investigation into the Changing Natureof Contemporary Social Life, Pine ForgePress, 1993.

12. G. Bell and J. Kaye, “Designing Technologyfor Domestic Spaces: A Kitchen Mani-festo,” Gastronomica, vol. 2, no. 2, Spring2002, pp. 46–62.

JANUARY–MARCH 2004 PERVASIVEcomputing 21

the AUTHORS

Phoebe Sengers is an assistant professor in Information Science and Science &Technology Studies at Cornell University, where she leads the Culturally EmbeddedComputing Group. Her research interests focus on critical technical practices inte-grating HCI with cultural studies. She received a PhD in artificial intelligence andcultural theory from Carnegie Mellon University. She is a member of the ACM,SIGCHI, SLS, SHOT, and 4S. Contact her at Cornell Information Science, 301College Ave., Ithaca, NY 14850; [email protected].

Joseph (Jofish) Kaye is a graduate student in the Culturally Embedded ComputingGroup at Cornell University, working on building technology for intimate communi-cation at a distance. His research interests include technology for domestic spacesand the use of scent for ambient-information displays. He received an MS in mediaarts and sciences from MIT. He is a member of the ACM and is cochair of CornellSIGCHI. Contact him at Cornell Information Science, 301 College Ave., Ithaca, NY14850; [email protected].

Kirsten Boehner is a PhD student in the Human-Computer Interaction Group atCornell. Her research interests include social ambient interfaces, museum installa-tions, and design for reflection and creativity. She received an MS in communica-tions from Cornell University. Contact her at Cornell Information Science, 301 Col-lege Ave., Ithaca, NY 14850; [email protected].

Jeremiah Fairbank is pursuing an MS in computer graphics at Cornell University.His research interests include extreme user-centered design, the integration ofhumanistic perspectives with new technology design, and the perception of homesof the future. He received a bachelor’s degree in architecture from Cornell Univer-sity. Contact him at 934 Stewart Ave. #31, Ithaca, NY 14850; [email protected].

Geri Gay is a professor in Communication and Information Science and the directorof the Human-Computer Interaction Lab at Cornell University. Her research interestsinclude design of interactive media and social interactions online. Specifically, sheexamines social navigation issues, affective presence, mental models and cognition,information visualization, and mobile computing. Contact her at Cornell Informa-tion Science, 301 College Ave., Ithaca, NY 14850; [email protected].

Yevgeniy Medynskiy is pursuing a BS in computer science at Cornell University. Hisresearch interests include HCI and culturally embedded computing. He is workingwith Cornell’s Human-Computer Interaction Group and is a member of the Cultur-ally Embedded Computing Group. Contact him at Risley Residential College #0217,Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 14853; [email protected].

Susan Wyche is pursuing an MS in design and environmental analysis at CornellUniversity. She integrates ethnographic and historical approaches into productdesign, especially for the home and involving issues of age and gender. She is amember of the Culturally Embedded Computing Group. Contact her at CornellInformation Science, 301 College Ave., Ithaca, NY 14850; [email protected].


Recommended