1
edit
Changes
→Essay Draft
Body
* One paragraph per point, 6 points, ~250 wordsper paragraph
* POINTS
** People prefer computers that conform to then rather that conforming to computers (natural interacting) [Sharon]
* general
'''Context Awareness'''
Users do not like to feed their devices and application information. Ubiquitous devices should determine as much information about the user as possible in order to adapt to and predict what a user wants. To do this requires contextual awareness. Context includes such information as the user’s identity, location, and activities. By identity we mean who the user is and what are their preferences. By location we mean where the user is in the world or in a room, where have they been. And what is around them. And by activities we mean what is the user doing and what have they done. In true ubiquitous computing, this activity awareness extends not just to what the user is doing with the device or application, but what is the user doing in the world. All this information should be determined implicitly, without direct input from the user. It is that explicit input from users that should be avoided in order to making the computer processes invisible to the user, and thereby makes the user experience feel more natural. A good example of context awareness is a device that changes the device language to French automatically when a user speaks French instead of having the user manually change the language to French. While that may take more sophisticated speech recognition systems than we have available today, the amount of contextual awareness in devices is increasing. With the addition of GPS and online access in smartphones and tablets in the last few years, services now have access to a significantly greater amount of locational context information.
'''Personalization'''
All users like to feel special, and individualized. In congruence with this individuality users like to customize their computing experience. They like services that remember who they are, and their preferences. In addition to services having to remember user identities and their preferences, services also have to be adaptive. This adaptability means user preferences do not have to be set or pre-programmed by the user. Instead, the services will set the preference and personalize the user experience based upon previous user inputs and usage patterns. Example of this technology is the digital video recorder TIVo. TIVo records TV shows according to preset interests of the user, the more advanced version of TIVo records TV shows based on what the user have been watching in the past. So in essence if a user watches a lot science fiction shows, TIVo will prerecord shows of that nature without the user telling it to. And if the user preference changes, the service should be smart enough to change the settings without additional commands. This personalization and adaptation technologies are the basis of ubiquitous computing. They are also the core for realizing context awareness in pervasive service provisioning. Users want to discover the most appropriate service to support their tasks, and the most appropriate service depends on user preferences and context therefore, ubiquitous computing is pushed to provide the personalization needed for an individual user.
'''Data Sharing'''
In the ubiquitous computing model there are often many computers running many services. Users will expect that interactions with any given device will be shared with any other device. Services must be able to share information and use other services on the same device and across other devices. In addition it is likely than many services are going to be running at any given time, both on a single device and across many. These services need to be able to interact in real-time. For example, if you are watching television and a news story is mentioned, the user should be able to read it in more detail in a news service on any other device they are using. All this should happen without the user needing to search for it the news story. This sort of seamless interaction between multiple services and devices will allow users to easily and naturally carry on with whatever activity they are doing without needing to work at the device to make it do what they want it to do. This will make the computers invisible to users by making users think of the computers as an entirely different class of device. From the example the user perceives a television and perhaps a phone and not two computers with different interfaces.
'''Service interruption and resumption'''
Ubiquitous computing aims to integrate itself into everyday life, and everyday life is not a single threaded linear event. In the daily lives of an average user, there are many interruptions, stoppages, and unexpected occurrences. Users also need to take breaks during their activities, or even want to put an activity on hold. Sometimes an activity can be put on hold for long durations or permanently. Regardless of the durations or the frequency of interruptions to an activity, the ability to resume an activity after an interruption must exist. Users also expect the service to resume the activity with all previous progresses intact. What this means is that when a service pauses an activity or process it must save all progress done on the activity and any settings that might be created for the activity. When the activity resumes all the saved data must be readily available, and the activity should resume as if no interruption had occurred. Furthermore, when an activity had been paused for a long duration, the user might forget previous progress and the service should be aware of the passage of time, and reacquaint the user with the activity and its progress. In addition, users also require continuously available services, as today’s paradigm move toward the infusion of ubiquitous computing into our everyday lives, the services provided will need to become constantly available, always interrupted and easily resumed. The manner of the service resumption is also paramount in the successful integration of ubiquitous computing. The service must be able to start in one location, paused, resumed at a completely different location with a different interface and a different computer. Only when all of those capabilities are meet, then true integration into ubiquitous computing will be possible, and accepted by the users.
'''Tablets and iPad example'''
Tablets have existed before iPad came along. However, they were not successful. Microsoft came up with a line of Microsoft Tables PC but their clients were mainly business people. In 2010 Apple Inc. released the iPad with major success. The iPad is extremely popular and people find it easy to use. The key element of the iPad’s success lies with its great user interface that people find natural and comfortable to use. Natural interaction on the screen is what made it successful. They are easy to use due to the touch screen technology and iPads are very portable. In some ways they have replaced the paper notebooks that people used to carry around. Handwriting and note taking technology is also available and it’s interesting to note that this copies, in a technical way, the old styles of note taking. Comfort levels are established. The use of an iPad, for example, is learned quickly since the functions are all laid out on a touch screen. The only presumed background knowledge would by previous use of computers such as laptops, etc. which are common in today’s schools and workplaces. The user interface is natural because it removes the need to input information through the traditional keyboard in favor of directly inputting information on the screen, and the way people manipulate the screen. It was this natural interface that made people think of the iPad and of tablets as a new class of device, not merely a netbook or laptop without a keyboard.
'''Conclusion'''
The principles discussed in this essay are becoming more and more expected by users in the technology that they use. People demand that the devices and interfaces they use conform to the human form and ways of doing things, rather than making people conform to the demands of computers. This human centred design requires computers to become more aware of who users are, what they are doing with it, what is going on around in around it, and using these and other contextual information to adapt and to make predictions. Because everyone is different and uses computers differently, one of the ways computers need to adapt is to personalize interfaces and interactions with the computer to the user. And in real life people don’t usually do things in a linear task oriented way like traditional computer interactions. People want to be able to do many things at a time and have computers keep up with their activities and how those activates might affect each other. Furthermore, people don’t want to be limited by time and space. They want to be able to start, stop, and resume activities when and where they like. Computers will need to be able to facilitate to and adapt to how users want to use things, and not make user adapt to computers.
The iPad serves as a good example of what can be accomplished when a product is designed properly and with these principles in mind. Primarily due to the new and innovative way people are naturally able to interact with it, and do so almost immediately without training has made people think of tablets in a new way, as a new class of device. This is essentially the goal of the ubiquitous computing model, not to make people think of computers as computers, but to think of them as an entirely different type of object. Designing computers that accomplish this goal is not easy. It requires designers and developers to think carefully about how people think and behave. That means more time spent focusing of developing these aspect and more time testing with people. This is time well spent because it gives those designers and developers a competitive advantage that is slowly becoming an expectation and requirement as the ubiquitous computing model become more and more prevalent.