30 April 2007
Simply Complex
Ubiquitous systems must not introduce new complications into ordinary operations like the exaggerated door fee example. If ubiquitous systems help save time they should be used. Otherwise, I would agree that there is no need to place them in a situation that would take less time and energy without it. I also understand the need for the system to be at the choice of the user and not at the choice of the system. The system is in place to help us in our daily lives not the other way around so it should be greater than or equal to the efficiency of present tasks. We should not have to spend needless time using the system if it is not doing us a service. I recently read the "the laws of simplicity" by John Maeda and it discusses as greenfield has, the complexity of and within simplicity. Maeda discusses how devices such as the IPOD have succeeded in appeal because they follow the law of complexity within simplicity. Meaning, the device is simply a wheel that can function through a complex system of tasks to acheive the system goal. The look is simple the technology is innovative and simply, complex. This can definitely relate to the ubiquitous system. The system must be extremely efficient and user friendly in its simplicity, but in order to achieve this there will need to be an extensive organization of complex networked architecture for the system to function as it has been imagined, to serve the people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It's interesting that you would bring this topic up. I tend to agree with the saying that a group is only as fast as its slowest member. This can be applied to most of society. We can make devices that are unnecessarily complicated, but only a tiny percentage of the population will be able to use it. The most popular inventions have been popular because they have been easy enough to utilize that they reach a wide audience. And while there will be some people that will also find a problem with things, you will never find a person who says "My problem with this is that it is just too darn easy to use" They may want more features, but the thing (whatever it may be) must still be easy to use.
Complexity reduction, that must be the key to all successful technologies. What I mean to say is technology provides short cuts. Information technology provides shortcuts to probably the most imortant thing in hte modern world---information. Information, a difference that makes a difference, its what makes people rich, powerful, educated or uneducated. The point is now a days IT is becoming increasingly ubiquitous, Greenfield is right about that for sure. Just how far IT/everyware will prevade our lives is question I believe will begin to define societies. i mean it already defines groups of peoples, why not whole societies? Is there a real difference? I do have one reservation though, I just hope everyware doesn't colonize, what Habermas would call, our lifeworld. I hope it doesn't an end, but remains an end to better means. I believe Greenfield's Theses 76-78 touched on this very same point.
Jared's post is certainly valid and should play a major role in the interest's of developers of everywhere. however I do think that many things in history have started out on the right foot, or what they thought in all goodness was the right foot, and later turned to be something they never imagined could be used in such an awful way. I mean Iraq right now for example, your ID card can get you killed. if you have the wrong last name, you can show your face in some areas, unless you have a fake ID. and of course Rwanda genocide, the holocaust, but yes those are times of war, and death is inevitable.
The technology will only do what we the people allow it to do, but that can actually be the worst part about it, or the best, who knows. Like Jeremy said, if some people decide to create a Habermas "lifeworld", there had better be some others building barriers to stop them.
Also Kelly's comment was interesting.
"My problem with this is that it is just too darn easy to use"
I actually just said this the other day, during a presentation on SXIP and sxipper (firefox pluging for identity management). I know it sounds ridiculous but this is just the kinds of things we need to be looking out for in the development of everywhere. Increasingly things which appear to benefit the public good, are in sharp contrasts with the interest of the individual. Sxipper the firefox add on is so simple, so easy to use, not to mention has a superslick GUI, that people who install it and dont try pretty hard to read between the lines will never realize what all this "manager" is doing with your private information. It ties all the websites you login to into one openID uri, this makes any comments you make, any where you go online, anything you do in virtual space quilted neatly into one blanket. This is grreat for marketing, great for governance, but horrible for you if you care about privacy or remaining anonymous to any degree.
Something the average user would never realize; thanks to Dick Hardt's developing it so simple and easy to use...
You can of course make a new openID uri at each page you visit, but what the hell difference is that from what you do now? all i see it does is makes it slightly harder for marketers and others to track you, but still possible in the negative spaces; which to me, are the most important.
Post a Comment