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."

13 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. In the voice of HAL.... by ReidMaynard · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dave ... you may want to close your bathrobe before the video conference ...

    --
    -- www.globaltics.net

    Political discussion for a new world

  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 lpangelrob · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You may not want an unpredictable OS, but I don't like wasting my time, either. You're probably thinking of instances like Windows' "feature" to customize your menus, which is more annoying than helpful. Or Clippy, for that matter.

      On the other hand, if I'm trying to contact my cousin, in 2006, I have four options: e-mail, text message, cell phone, home phone. I would rather not go in order if some sort of context-aggregator service knows that her cell phone is on the move somewhere in north-central Illinois. Businesses would appreciate knowing where their employees, or other employees, were at any given point in time.

      Or, imagine a website (Gmail, for example) that responds to the user depending on if it knows you're at work, home, or the library, and adjusts its security settings accordingly.

      I'm not a time freak and I don't demand to utilize 100% of my time, all the time, but if this could save me some hassle that's come in this age as a result of our technology, I'm for it.

      --
      -Rob

      Biblical fiscal responsibility

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. Re:No! by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is not exactly true.

      I have noticed that users generally fall into two distinct groups, those who understand the underlying concepts and those who don't. This difference seems to dictate how a user will actually respond to a change in interface.

      Someone who doesn't understand the underlying concepts completes computer related tasks by mimicking a previous action that brought about the desired results. They couldn't answer a single question regarding what they were actually doing or how it worked. These are the type of people who cannot transition between OSes or even APP versions very well. This group is exemplary of your statement.

      The second group has a firm grasp on the concepts they are working with. They can transition between OSes and APP versions much quicker because they understand WHAT it is they want to do, they don't rely on the HOW.

      I do agree that if you had a constantly changing interface that it would be difficult to become an efficient operator. Yet I can also see how some people might function better with something like this. There is the opportunity to strike a nice balance between constantly changing interfaces and completely static ones. Your web browser is a perfect example of this. High level functions that have triggers in a static layout, but content navigation that changes drastically from site to site. While there are some best practices concerning site navigation, they are still extremely dynamic. Just look at how frequently the terminology changes from site to site concerning the navigation.

  3. Re:Information Overload... by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Alternatly, find customers that are more familiar with technological advancements since the mid 90's (if not earlier - Wikipedia didn't have information on the date of origin of context menu's). Here's how to find them:

    • Ask them if they have any experience with 1960's era tape-driven Honeywell mainframes.
    • Ask them if they know what an iPod is.

    If they answered no to the first and yes to the second, then you'll probably be fine.
    --
    There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
  4. Re:Computer-arrange social gatherings by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 5, Funny

    According to my Blackberry, I've got 5 minutes free next April in which we could discuss possibilities for socializing.

    --
    There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
  5. 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!

  6. What they need... by Hahnsoo · · Score: 5, Funny

    What they need is some sort of motion sensor that detects when the case is jostled, so I can provide feedback to the program in the form of a swift steel-toed boot to the DVD-ROM/drink holder. That'll give it some "context".

    1. Re:What they need... by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think some Mac laptops already have that, so all that would be need to be implemented is the software side (ie violently shaking the laptop causes it to kill the process with the most cpu usage, would be most helpful).

    2. Re:What they need... by Hahnsoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hah! Or, it can simply reboot the laptop. You can call it "Etch a Sketch"!