Slashdot Mirror


The 'Pervasive Computing' Community

Roland Piquepaille writes "Most of us are using computers, but also PDAs and cell phones. And this trend is accelerating in our increasingly networked wireless world. We might use hundreds of computing devices by the end of this decade. Still, we are slaves to our machines. With every new device, we have to learn new commands, languages or interfaces. The Cambridge-MIT Institute (CMI), a strategic alliance between the University of Cambridge in the UK and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the U.S., has enough of it and wants to give back control to the users. So it launched its 'Pervasive Computing' initiative with the intention to tackle this challenge. In particular, the group wants to develop new technologies to make easier for us to interact with all these computers. This overview contains more details and references about this initiative."

6 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Clarification by jetkust · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Still, we are slaves to our machines...

    No, we are slaves to the programers who program the software that runs on our machines.

  2. ... sentient, loyal, small and low maintenance by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, I prefer my girlfriend that way also.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  3. Long overdue. by torpor · · Score: 5, Informative

    Disclaimer: I work for a synthesizer manufacturer.

    Synthesizers and other forms of electronic musical instrumentation have been having the same problems as computers.

    Nevertheless, the paradigms of "Page Up/Page Down" and "Parameter Left/Right", and "Patch Up/Dn", and "Edit/Play", as horrible as they are, have served 'standard interface' requirements for years. There is a 'standard user interface' in this realm, as crap as it is.

    Manufacturers in this market have copied each others interface ideas freely and easily, and it has resulted in an, admittedly hodge-podge, 'general user interface' set of 'music machine hacker' chops. "Multi-mode"/"Single-mode", etc. can generally be found on most modern synth platforms. Any synth geek around knows that the patch +/- keys are the ones you look for first, then the 'filter resonance knob', or whatever.

    Computers would do well to learn from the lessons of musical instruments in this regard. It never ceases to amaze me that all these TLA "Initiatives" often disregard even the most obvious examples of solutions to problems... I guess because their grants aren't "directed" to those realms.

    In any case, I hope to see some interesting results from CMI. At Access, we're really interested in human/user-interface problems and good ways to solve them ...

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  4. The "overlords" joke is really apt here by ObviousGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As technology becomes more and more pervasive in our lives we are growing up with a generation of people who don't know what it's like to live without computer assistance. They also are primarily exposed to computers as these large devices that do a whole bunch of things but have a terrible interface. They don't understand that computers can be small, unobtrusive, and do their jobs without the user having any idea they are there.

    Automobile control systems are one type of the latter while microwave oven controllers are a type of the former. The car control system works great and for the most part the user can be completely oblivious to its existence. However, the microwave oven control pad is getting more and more complicated every day with too many settings, too many choices, too much interface getting in the way of the user.

    When working on your next consumer device (those of you working on that kind of thing), think about making it invisible. That is the key to making it indispensable.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
  5. using pervasive computing to make life better... by OglinTatas · · Score: 5, Funny

    from the article, they state this of computers: "It needs to be sentient, loyal, small and low maintenance."

    I propose adding the following rules:
    0. It may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
    1. It may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm except where such orders would conflict with the Zeroth Law.
    2. It must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the Zeroth or First Laws.
    3. It must protect its own existence, except where such protection would conflict with the Zeroth, First or Second Laws.

    except for "small" and maybe "low maintenance" their goals seem to anthropomorphize computers.

  6. Ummmm...? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Interesting
    not to troll or be considered flamebait
    but doesn't anyone else see the irony?
    in particular, the group wants to develop new technologies to make easier for us to interact with all these computers (read as 'old' technology)
    Now that I've read the article, I like what they're doing. Instead of trying to complicate our lives further, they want to change the way things work; which is good. Longer battery lifespans, secure UIs, ubiquitous communication, etc.

    I do think its a waste of time to try and create a 'better' input method. Pretty much the only thing faster than typing is a direct connection to your brain. We can type faster than we speak & read faster than we can listen.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!