Posted: February 28th, 2013 | Author: jifei | Filed under: Assignment 3 | No Comments »
When a bike is broken in the middle of the road, and we happened to have a future gadget like Google Glass with us. We wear the glass and try to fix the bike. the question is, what kind of information the Glass would provide to us?
According to the JITIR system, the Glass would automatically search the potential solutions base on the condition of the environment and the bike. Or it would suggest us different tools to fix it. As a user, what we have to do is just perceiving the information and filter those which are not fit.
This is a pretty typical approach of artificial intelligence. In this approach we assume that human perceptions are passive. our eyes are like a camera, statically sitting there and waiting for something happen. It also implies that if something could be done in a way without any effort, we human are likely to chose that way. As in the bike example, if the Glass could provided me directly what’s wrong with my bike and an precise procedure of fixing it, that would be something that I want.
I am skeptical about this approach. For me human perception is not a mode of passive receiving, but an interweave between receiving and actively searching. Alva Noë wrote in his book <action in perception> that human’s perception is not something just happens in brain, but a skillful activity of human as a whole
[i]. According to him, the sense of vision, for example, is acquired not just by passively watching but also bodily engaging in the world. If one cannot interact with the world with his/her sensorimotor knowledge, even if his/her eyes physiologically function well, he/she still cannot perceive. This radical theory stresses the importance of sensorimotor skills in perception.
I therefore think, in the frame of just-in-time learning, it is not just about information providing, but more about encouraging active searching. It is about trying things out. what a computer can do in this system is to provide cues that could accelerate this interaction loop, not end it as soon as possible.
(more discussion to come….)
[i] Noë, Alva, 2006, Action in Perception (Cambridge: MIT Press), p.3.
Posted: February 28th, 2013 | Author: Sophia | Filed under: Assignment 3 | No Comments »
I’m interested in using similar systems to the remembrance agents, etc. to augment the creative process. Computers currently expect users to make the leap to remember where things are, what they are named, and that they even exist. Similarly, tools and systems that creators rely on also put the burden on the user. Creators must search for connections between disparate sources and ideas, and they must develop their own systems to help them do this. Most artists I know rely on keeping a sketchbook, having an inspiration wall, or free writing to help them generate new ideas. Few I know are able to use a computer to help them with this process, and many have complex rituals they use to put them in the right frame of mind for creation. Often, the most important “aha moments” seem to come from nowhere. What if a system could be devised that would help the user stay in this creative, associative mode more of the time? How could inspirations, interesting connections be given to the user proactively? It is much more difficult to determine what might be relevant to a creative process than in the memory agent. Maybe this is where generative systems might be come into play (which have long been used by many artists, musicians, and writers in aiding them in their creative process). I wonder how such generative systems might be able to work with the user’s current context? People are very good at immediately knowing if an idea is a compelling, but the hard part is blending information and concepts in new ways to come up with those ideas. Maybe here the computer could be a help. Would such a system work as a secondary task, something running on the side and not requiring the user’s full attention?
I also felt interested in the idea of computers worn as jewelry. Using metaphors of traditional objects changes the user’s expectations of what the computer can do. How might one of these systems be different if it were incorporated in a bracelet, a bracer, a necklace, a locket, a ring, an earring, a pocket watch, a wristwatch, a headband, a crown, etc. as opposed to a magnifying glass, a book, glasses, etc.? So many of these traditionally are ornaments and sometimes status symbols and only a few serve practical functions.
Posted: February 28th, 2013 | Author: champika | Filed under: Assignment 3 | No Comments »
When thinking about how JITIR systems can be used in the support of learning it seems relevant to consider what we define as ‘learning’. Personally – I think it can be many things. We learn through creating, through conversation with others, through experimentation and tinkering, etc. I would contrast this with rote memorization of information – which I would consider a more superficial learning as opposed to understanding. Given that definition of learning I think JITIRs can serve as something that remove’s inefficiencies in those activities. I think the Remembrance Agent Bradley discusses already does this for conversation. By allowing you to more easily pull up relevant and meaningful references in context – you could arguably engage in conversations that lead to more connections and learning. In terms of creating I could see JITIR systems playing a useful role as a source of inspiration – providing you with examples (similar, contradicting, provoking) and connecting you to helpful people (mentors?).
Posted: February 28th, 2013 | Author: dhairyadand | Filed under: Assignment 3 | No Comments »
I found some interesting insights mostly relating to the psychology and the ergonomics of a wearable display and a just in time system. I hope to use these in my thinking process.
-Factors of a context aware system: physical, temporal, information
-Users of a wearable system (henceforth called ‘wusers’) use more of the same information than a user who has no convenient way of accessing that information
-Present information to wusers in ways that can be ignored but is accessible
-Proactively queried information can be more distracting than suggestively queried information
-Zipf’s Principle of Least Effort: People will try to minimize their total future work, given their best estimates at the time and chooses the strategy with the best cost/benefit trade-off.
-More than two seconds of response delay is unacceptable and will result in fewer uses of a particular tool, even at the cost of decreased accuracy
-Focused attention and divided attention
-Proximity compatibility principle: High display proximity (similarity) helps in tasks with similar mental proximity, and where information is related and needs to be treated together
-’Ramping interface’ where information is conveyed in stages.
Posted: February 28th, 2013 | Author: Laura Perovich | Filed under: Assignment 3 | No Comments »
I was interested in how remembrance tools are meant to map the computer’s framework into the realm of human memory to make interactions more fluid and positive. Though I did begin to wonder how necessary this would be in the future–are human brains instead fully mapping themselves into the digital framework? There is increasing research on cognitive differences for this generation growing up immersed in technology. Sophia’s comments in class about her own experience also made me wonder how much we’re in fact meeting in the middle with technology on this front.
I thought the context tags as a memory structure was a very human and “brain friendly” approach. But it also made me think about how individuals store memories differently from each other–maybe I remember how to get to school based on landmarks, where another person remembers it based on geometry. It would be interesting to personalize systems based on these difference–and possible use this as a way to experience and explore someone else’s memory framework.
Furthermore, many of my strongest memories are “tagged” not by normal, easily captured, context clues (e.g. visual, location). Instead I reference them through an emotion, or a smell, or a texture. I wonder how these triggers might be supported–and whether these ways of remembering fall to the side if they’re not reinforced by technology support while others are.
Posted: February 28th, 2013 | Author: Brandon Pousley | Filed under: Assignment 3 | No Comments »
In order for just-in-time learning to work, it requires accurate delivery of content in various situations and in real-time. The problem with most technologies today is that the content is often not “smart” in the sense that its relevance is dependent on the user rather than the machine. In addition, it is difficult for real-time communication to occur, since there are few natural triggers that our devices utilize in order to present us with timely information.
In order for true situated learning to take place, technology must begin to recognize optimal learning places and times so that it can effectively present content. If a user must initiate the delivery of some type of information, the learning experience is limited to what the user already knows or can easily identify a need for. In reality, information that is often most impactful to the learner is not recognizable by the individual and therefore is often left inaccessible.
An intelligent system will be able to overcome the individual’s deficiency in judging cognitive load capabilities and awareness of content relevance. A JITIR agent will constantly scan the environment, recognize opportunities, and match those opportunities with ones that the learner is cognitively able to ingest. Over time, I imagine this could greatly increase learner self-efficacy and stimulate new areas of interest. In addition, it could refine knowledge in certain domains and filter unnecessary information, freeing up mental capacities for more meaningful tasks.
Posted: February 21st, 2013 | Author: Mohit | Filed under: Assignment 2 | No Comments »
Knowledge is inextricably linked and immersed in the activity and situation in which it is acquired. Meaningful learning can be achieved by grounding it in the social and physical environment within which it will be used. The enabling parameters of an immersive AR environment have not been studied from a neurological perspective. I think learning environments based on AR simulations should try to incorporate two key components to achieve authentic situatedness thereby increasing far transfer. They are embodiment and embedded cognition. AR based learning environments are uniquely suited to creating activities which leverage the local geographic and cultural context. AR based activities must be designed keeping the students as the affective agents in a particular situation. The learning activity must involve the usage of agents’ bodies (sensorimotor, musculoskeletal, etc.) in authentic context. Such a design helps in creating and authentic experience that is likely to be encountered in real world. Mere abstractions in classroom setting do not encourage a holistic real life experience. There is a finite limit to attention and working memory in the brain. Traditional instructional materials, to avoid cognitive overload, strip scenarios of their richness and detail, thereby creating unauthentic representations. This lower fidelity results in unauthentic scenarios that do not reflect real world encounters for students. However, in real life situations, to compensate for the limitations of attention and working memory, individuals offload certain cognitive tasks on to the environment. While designing AR activities, it is particularly important to keep this offloading principle in mind, so that the activities and scenarios can be structured in a way that encourages effective offloading strategies while retaining the most essential cognitive processes.
Posted: February 21st, 2013 | Author: tonytang | Filed under: Assignment 1 | No Comments »
Inventing tools to break through innate constraints and to extend abilities is how human beings are separated from other species. From stone age to industrial era, tools originally giving more power and speed to people gradually shift to inspire intelligence and creativity of humans. Following this tendency, Engelbart envisioned the potential power of computational tool and defined a framework to open up a new path toward today’s augmented intelligence. Actually, his framework, the so called H-LAM/T system (Human using Language, Artifacts, Methodology, in which he is trained), covered most of the interaction principles of popular software/hardware nowadays.
The T seems an important part in his system. By training, users know the standard procedures of invoking predefined functions in a system, such as drawing a line. They can also generate new combinations to externalize their mental representation of thoughts, making a graph for example, after getting used to the standard ones. However, modern notions of computational system design didn’t take training for granted. GUIs tries to use visual icons and symbols to lower the burden of learning, while TUIs attempt to borrow people’s everyday experiences of objects (affordance) as a way of triggering digital function intuitively.
Context aware and adaptive tools, such as push notifications and location based applications, get rid of foregoing intention driven interaction model and provide real-time supports one second before the needs are actually generated. This will be achieved by systems’ actively monitoring users and their surroundings and constantly interpreting collected data. Comparing to conventional AI which turns machine into a living creature, the tools equipping limited AI to mainly predict people’s needs won’t cause the result that machines take over the world in science fiction.
Posted: February 21st, 2013 | Author: tonytang | Filed under: Assignment 2 | No Comments »
This paper provides a very good overview of AR in terms of technologies and applications. However, most of the technologies and applications mainly focused on discover the popular visual AR. I would like to share two instant ideas which are trying to escape from the current domain. You probably have already had similar concepts as well.
Sound Filter
Currently, users always listen to music with headsets. Through this device users are perfectly isolated from the noisy reality and immerse in their own music world. What if we can invent a new kind of headset, Sound Filter, unpleasant noises or unnecessary aural information can be filtered out, and those sounds we desired are kept and amplified. It can also overlay the real sounds with digital ones harmonically to create a new experience of aural environment. With Sound Filter users can retrieve aural information of a location two days ago, or leave sounds at the location for a comping event days later.
Second Skin
Clothes actually is our second skin which protect us from extreme conditions. However, current function of clothes, the same as a headset, is to isolate users from the reality and to keep them in a constant and safe environment. When wind is blowing, if you wear a good jacket, you will actually feel nothing. What if your clothes are a kind of mediated matter equipping sensors on its outer surface and actuator on its inner one, a cold and strong wind blow can be transformed into a warm massage. When walking on the street in a dark night, a stranger’s gaze behind you can be sensed by your jacket and be transformed to a sense of poking at your back to alarm you and make you aware of potential danger.
Posted: February 21st, 2013 | Author: Sophia | Filed under: Assignment 2 | No Comments »
I liked what Andy Clark wrote about how we are “natural-born cyborgs”. He argues that more than any other creature, the human brain is primed to adapt to technologies and extend its process into the world around us. He describes humans’ adaptation to technology throughout history as a “cascade of ‘mindware upgrades’: cognitive upheavals in which the effective architecture of the human mind is altered and transformed,” citing speech, written language, photography, etc. as major examples. The structure of the mind adapts to our surroundings, experiences, and the tools we use.
In the article describing Sparrow’s research, this is confirmed in the case where the presence of the internet affects the way people remember things. If the participants knew they would have internet access, they adopted a model of “transactive memory—recollections that are external to us but that we know when and how to access”.
I feel these effects myself. I grew up using computers as an early age, and I strongly sense that this has affected the way I organize my thoughts and how I process information.
Like Lanier, I also see an incredible danger in the malleability of the human mind being combined with a constant overlay whose its information is controlled by only one or two sources. This will drastically shape society and the way humans behave, and it will likely do so negatively if the new AR technologies are not designed thoughtfully and ethically. The potential pervasiveness of advertising in order to interact with these systems is quite disturbing also. (There is a great short story about this by the science fiction author J. G. Ballard called “The Subliminal Man” in which Ballard describes a future in which all of society’s behavior is controlled by billboards with subliminal advertising messages.) These AR devices could easily become the “gatekeeping functions” Lanier describes where advertisers pay for access to to our minds (only now in a much more direct way than ever before).
The design of an interface says much about how we see ourselves…it is how we believe we fit with the tools we use. Knowing how adaptable our mental processes are, what would it mean to design a system with a vision of how we wish we were instead of how we see ourselves now?
Recent Comments