Talkin’ on the Network

Calm technologies attempt to deliver information in a contextually-appropriate manner. But more attention (if you will) needs to be paid to how exactly that context is to be sensed and manipulated. Should technology simply wait until the room is quiet before announcing something? Can the importance of information be planned in advance, so that signal amplitude is controlled by prior conceptions? An overnight frost is normal in late fall in Vermont, but not in Florida. If the cat was left outside it could be an emergency. Should the windows be shut? What if the stove was left on?

The technologies described by the Equator project and the Disappearing Computer initiative don’t seem to directly address these questions, but I believe that they are central to understanding what a network object is and how it should behave.

The reading from Greenberg and Kuzuoka gives an indirect hint. Its focus on little pseudo-people to represent real people gave me an idea. What if each network object behaved just like a person? Communication would occur based upon motivations. An alarm clock would try to get everything in the house to ring. At first nothing would happen because it would take some time for other objects to become convinced. After a bit, the phone might respond and join in the attempt to wake the slumbering occupant. But the doorbell would hold out for quite a while because it was farther away and set to be less sensitive. Meanwhile, the coffee maker, hearing the alarm clock still sounding, would switch from brew mode into a hold pattern, unless the shower started to urge it back into action. (Perhaps the alarm clock went off after its owner rose and began showering). Similarly, the shower would try to convince the alarm clock to shut up, and a chorus of several other devices might gang up to turn it off. This might be an idea worth experimenting with in a simplified form….