Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Too Much Information – Context-Aware Applications

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the clippy-on-steroids dept.

ChelleChelle writes with a link to IBM research on the limits to and lessons learned from two context-aware computing projects: "As the researchers Moran and Dourish put it, 'Context awareness is fine in theory. The research issue is figuring out how to get it to work in practice.' The article lays out two attempts by IBM to do just this. Grapevine and Rendezvous are services offered to IBM employees as a means of looking into the promise and perils of context-aware computing. From these two experimental services the authors have drawn several valuable lessons." From the article: "What computer scientists commonly call context often has more to do with technology than with work situations, people, or frames of mind."

9 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. Computer-arrange social gatherings by QuantumFTL · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One of the hardest things it seems is to find times to gather that an entire group of friends is free. I really hope that as more people's schedulekeeping is mediated via computing devices, that this information can be used to automatically suggest meeting times, activities, etc that would be interesting for a group. Doesn't take the place of good old-fashioned event planning, but it might increase the possibility of real-life socialization, which, to me, is a very big plus.

  2. No! by mqduck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, no, no, no.

    As I commented on the intuitive OS thread or whatever it was called, users (or at least I) don't want an OS that acts unpredictable. I don't want to wait around for hours for a message before finally figuring out that my cell phone decided I didn't want to be reminded of them right then. Consistency is uncompromisable.

    --
    Property is theft.
    1. Re:No! by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I had mod points, you'd have them.
      Yes, we don't learn well by reading each and every option given to us each and every time, because the options change. We learn by repetitiveness, and always finding the same options in the exact same place is necessary for that. Context sensitivity is HELL on users who try to use tools efficiently instead of having to check for possible layout changes every time they do something.

      Context sensitivity impresses the suits, who only sees a tool once or twice, if that, and it's the suits who decide. IBM is all for catering to the suits.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art

    2. Re:No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It has already started.

      - You leave while a 6h long computation is running, come back later to discover that Windows XP decided to work for 30 min and hibernate for 5.5 hours.

      - At a critical moment, Norton decides its pop-up is more important than whatever you're doing.

      - You want to show a video to people but your media player decides it should first spend 5 minutes auto-updating.

      - You leave your car headlights on and walk in the woods to take a leak at night. Some timeout feature decides to turn off the lights and leave you stranded in the dark.

      Some technologies are past their prime. Engineers are bored, so they add automatic features. Consumers have to waste time understanding those features, and turning them off or outsmarting them.

    3. Re:No! by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Now see, I'm just the opposite. I believe that Conformity (which includes Consistancey) should be a choice. You don't want your cell phone to be adaptive and adaptable? Fine, thats probably good for you. I LIKE being able to customize things.


      Being able to customise something is one thing. A computer deciding what should be customised and how is something entirely different. You can have one without the other.

      Just because I called Jane Doe's work phone the last time I called her doesn't mean that I want her mobile phone number to replace her home number as my preferred number. If I want that, I can set that.
      Just because I looked at a book at the online book store that was incorrectly classified as "Juvenile" doesn't mean that I want "Juvenile" added to the top of the list of categories that show up.
      Just because I recently paid yearly taxes doesn't mean that I want "Town of Springfield" to show up each time I enter a "T".
      Just because I haven't used the CD ripping program for a month doesn't mean I want it to disappear from where I know it is in the program menu.

      Let me choose these things, dammit!

      I want my computer to remember the things I have done in order to help me do things easier in the future.


      Remembering things you have done is fine. It doesn't imply replacing something else with what you have done, which is what appears to happen way too often. An easily accessible history function is nice. A mandatory history replacing your own configuration is not.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    4. Re:No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Spot on.

      I've always noticed that the users who memorize the steps (who probably think they are being efficient) associated with a particular task tend to be the most spaced out when minor elements change - perhaps due to a quick slip-up or oversight of their own - which then changes the context of the app's response. Then they're completely lost, and mad at the computer to boot.

      As a person involved in HCI work, I often wonder if we'll be able to bridge the gap between these two camps. Clearly, everyone who makes desktop OSes is after this holy grail.

  3. Funniest sentence from the article: by dpbsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "First, users often were not comfortable with others knowing what they were doing. The Grapevine service provided complete control over who could observe which elements of context, and users commonly blocked all others from viewing their computer activity all of the time. Although the service allowed observer-by-observer blocking, it was rarely used. This is an area for further research."

    And in further news, the Thought Police reported today that Winston Smith has rented an apartment without a telescreen.

    --

    "How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!

  4. Question the use of the term by michaelmalak · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I question the use of the term "context-aware computing" in these two projects, which simply convey to users whether other users are available for IM. CAC usually refers to smart devices discerning the intetion of users and prompting the user, changing menus, etc. as a result. In this case, it's another user, rather than a system, making the decision to interrupt or not interrupt the user via IM. This is more CSCW (Computer Supported Collaborative Work) than CAC.

    Of course, CAC is the newer and hipper acronym.

  5. The only context aware application by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The only context aware application I need is context sensitive help. When I push F1 on my computer keyboard input device, the help menu that is loaded onto my display monitor output device should be the one that explains the field my text cursor was in at the time of said keypress.