In 1991, Mark Weiser defined ubiquitous computing (which he also calls “embodied virtuality”, as opposed to virtual reality) as invisible and indistinguishable from the “fabric of everyday life”; that is, from human behavior. Which is to say that ubiquitous computing aims at providing humane tools with which beings can continue dealing with their world in very much the same behavioral ways. Embodied virtuality, according to Weiser, will be non-invasive, and will enhance and facilitate human(e) interaction. However, the examples given by Weiser (granted, that was 20 years ago) revolve around interactive tabs, pads, boards that help users in remote locations communicate on humane behavioral levels and at different appropriate scales of needs. Those tools adapt to human behavior and are non-obstructive, enabling devices to interact with one another.
What is curious in his prediction that “Computer access will penetrate all groups in society”, is that it is far from being the case. Which society was he referring to? Or was this an abstract concept? Did he mean that computation has the potential of offering computer access to all groups in this unknown ‘society’; in other words, “hundreds of computers per room” –tabs, pads, and boards?
13 years later, Malcolm McCullough (2004) suggested that not only is ubiquitous computing a way of turning computers into more humane interfaces for interaction, but ‘computing’ and ‘architecture’ are now closely related and determine new spatial content for action. His approach extends the previously defined scope of ubiquity to include buildings, information, and computation, that enable appropriate delivery of information for embodied interaction; that is, context-dependent interaction –situated interaction. “Interactivity changed the role of technology.” Technology is now interactive, and deals one the one hand with expectations (both of technology’s own role in society and of users’ expectations of what its role might be), and on the other hand with contextual participation (or the creation of and co-engagement in an “ambient social infrastructure” –”situations”).
If ubiquitous means anywhere and everywhere, anytime and at-all-times, and computing involves some level of digital response, then ubiquitous computing would have to include digitally constructed environments and/or contexts that respond to pre-programmed ‘types’ of actions occurring anywhere and everywhere, anytime and at-all-times (situated actions).
Perhaps that’s not the whole story… What is, then, involved in ubiquitous computing? What is clear is that it very much depends on the context of use and the content of that which is stored (data). And, ubiquity would seem to have two connotations or implications on the way we deal with our everyday world: a) computation is embedded in the architecture around us; it is invisible and controlled by others –it may collect data for good (enabling a special purpose need) or evil (which violates our personal needs for identity, security, and privacy); b) it is highly-visible and could be single-user, or multi-user benefits, and promotes a faster, easier, and efficient way of using technological tools or engaging in interactive spaces in order to better manage our everyday activities through situated embodied interaction.
source:
McCullough, Malcolm. “Interactive Futures.” Digital Ground: Architecture, Pervasive Computing, and Environmental Knowing. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts: 2004.
Weiser, Mark. “The Computer for the 21st Century.” September 1991.