Intelligent physical modelling systems - Why?

“What did you think you were doing?” Was the question posed by the conference organizers to me as the inventor and constructor of the first working Tangible Interfaces over 40 years ago. I think the question was intended to encourage me to talk about the underlying ideas and intentionality rather than describe an endless sequence of electronic bricks and that is what I shall do in this presentation. In the sixties the prevalent idea for a graphics interface was an analogue with sketching which was to somehow be understood by the computer as three dimensional form. I rebelled against this notion for reasons which I will explain in the presentation and instead came up with tangible physical three dimensional intelligent objects. I called these first prototypes “Intelligent Physical Modelling Systems” which is a really dumb name for an obvious concept. I am eternally grateful to Hiroshi Ishii for coining the term “Tangible User Interfaces” - the same idea but with a much smarter name. Another motivator was user involvement in the design process, and that led to the Generator (1979) project with Cedric Price for the world’s first intelligent building capable of organizing itself in response to the appetites of the users. The working model of that project is in MoMA. And the same motivation led to a self builders design kit (1980) for Walter Segal which facilitated self-builders to design their own houses. And indeed as the organizer’s question implied, the motivation and intentionality of these projects developed over the years in step with advancing technology. The speaker will attempt to articulate these changes with medical, psychological and educational examples. Much of this later work indeed stemming from the Media Lab where we are talking. Related topics such as “tangible thinking” and “intelligent teacups” will be introduced and the presentation will end with some speculations for the future. The presentation will be given against a background of images of early prototypes many of which have never been previously published.

The moral economy of social media

In this chapter we take a high-level view of social media, focusing not on specific applications, domains, websites, or technologies, but instead our interest is in the forms of engagement that social media engender. This is not to suggest that all social media are the same, or even that everyone’s experience with any particular medium or technology is the same. However, we argue common issues arise that characterize social media in a broad sense, and provide a different analytic perspective than we would gain from looking at particular systems or applications. We do not take the perspective that social life merely happens “within” such systems, nor that social life “shapes” such systems, but rather these systems provide a site for the production of social and cultural reality – that media are always already social and the engagement with, in, and through media of all sorts is a thoroughly social phenomenon. Accordingly, in this chapter, we examine two phenomena concurrently: social life seen through the lens of social media, and social media seen through the lens of social life. In particular, we want to understand the ways that a set of broad phenomena concerning forms of participation in social life is articulated in the domain of social media. As a conceptual entry-point, we use the notion of the “moral economy” as a means to open up the domain of inquiry. We first discuss the notion of the “moral economy” as it has been used by a number of social theorists, and then identify a particular set of conceptual concerns that we suggest link it to the phenomena of social networking in general. We then discuss a series of examples drawn from a range of studies to elaborate and ground this conceptual framework in empirical data. This leads us to a broader consideration of audiences and publics in social media that, we suggest, holds important lessons for how we treat social media analytically.