Attaching stories to objects: the return of the blogject meme

This article in the NYT made me think that there seems to be a new bubble in platforms that allows attaching stories to physical objects. The article mentions Tales of things (“ Slap on a sticker with a newfangled bar code, and anybody with a properly equipped smartphone can scan the object and learn…“), Itizen (“a tell-and-tag approach“) and Sticky Bits (“ can also be used to link content to an existing bar code“).

Some excerpts I found interesting:

“Goldstein theorizes that the motive was the same “microboredom” that inclines users of mobile check-in apps to announce that they’ve arrived at Chili’s — except that users could broadcast not just where they were but also what objects were around them. Some do use StickyBits to communicate something specific to people they know, but many essentially use it as a media platform.
(…)
Under that scenario, things are being linked to a story not so much in the form of narrative as of cumulative data. The continuum moves even further in the direction of raw information when you consider what tech experts call the “Internet of things” — more and more stuff produced with sensors and tags and emitting readable data
(…)
As more objects have more to say, the question becomes what we want to hear, and from what.“

Curiously, I haven’t seen any mention of Thinglink, which was one of the first platform to propose a globally unique object identifier. Developed by Social Objects Oy, a company founded by Ulla-Maaria Mutanen and Jyri Engeström, it’s now a platform where the thinglink object code is linked to further references, such as photos, descriptive text, tags, maker(s), owner(s), and web links.

Why do I blog this? It’s been a while that I follow this trend and it’s funny so much activity along these lines. Possibly some interesting things to be discussed at Lift11. What I am curious about is how this is connected to blogjects and how things have changed in the last few years.

Networked objects 2010

An update for myself. Various networked objects that I’ve ran across recently and that seems to be curious for my projects:

Analogue Tape Glove (Signal to Noise)

“This interactive sound installation deals with “exploring the physical connection between people and technology”. A tangible user interface is provided in the form of a glove, worn by the participant as they are invited to interact with an analogue tape surface. As the glove comes in contact with the tape, sound is generated and can be manipulated via touch and movement. The pre-recorded sound on the tape is a random collage of compiled material including a range of musical styles & found recordings. According to its creators, the work “explores the somewhat obsolete medium of tape through a playful and sonically interesting experience.“

Daily Stack (sebastian rønde thielke and anders højmose)

“The simple design allows users to help track their work flow by creating physical representations of their tasks. The design consists of a small base and a series of wood blocks that each have a different colour and shape. Each colour represents a different task and the time interval is determined by the size of the block. The user stacks their tasks on the base, committing to them. the base contains electronics that communicate with a computer, tracking time and tasks in progress digitally. The user can even go back through their archive and look at previous stacks. the design helps the user better visualize their time, helping them make the most of it.“

Slurp:

“Slurp is tangible interface for manipulating abstract digital information as if it were water. Taking the form of an eyedropper, Slurp can extract (slurp up) and inject (squirt out) pointers to digital objects. We have created Slurp to explore the use of physical metaphor, feedback, and affordances in tangible interface design when working with abstract digital media types. Our goal is to privilege spatial relationships between devices and people while providing new physical manipulation techniques for ubiquitous computing environments.“

Kokonatchi / ココナッチ (University of Tokyo and Waseda):

“ Looking something like a hybrid stress ball and giant butter bean, Kokonatchi connects to your computer via a USB lead, sits on your desk, wiggles and lights up when a new tweet enters your account feed. It contains RGB LEDs which change color according to the context or ‘emotion’ of the tweet, and vibrates or ‘shivers’ when it is scared“

Olars (Lars Marcus Vedeler)

“Olars is an electronic interactive toy inspired by Karl Sims’ evolved virtual creatures. Having thousands of varieties in movement and behaviour by attaching different geometrical limbs, modifying the angle of these, twisting the body itself, and by adjusting the deflection of the motorised joints, results in both familiar and strange motion patterns.“

OnObject:

“OnObject is a small device user wears on hand to program physical objects to respond to gestural triggers. Attach an RFID tag to any objects, grab them by the tag, and program their responses to your grab, release, shake, swing, and thrust gestures using built in microphone or on-screen interface. Using OnObject, children, parents, teachers and end users can instantly create gestural object interfaces and enjoy them. Copy-paste the programming from one object to another to propagate the interactivity in your environment.“

Species (Theo Tveterås and Synne Frydenberg)

“Interactive toy that tunes in on bacteria frequency and amplifies it.“

Why do I blog this? a kind of messy list but it’s sometimes good to collect curious projects and see how they compare to what has been done in the past. Some interesting new trends ahead in terms of interactions: augmentation by other channels than visual representation, new forms of object connectivity (slurp), the importance of original material (wood, textiles). It’s not necessary brand new in 2010 but what’s curious is that the implementation and the usage scenario are intriguing and beyond classical utilitarian ideas.

Networked objects session at Lift Asia 2009

The “networked objects” session at Lift Asia 09 was a good moment with three insightful speakers: Rafi Haladjian (in transition from Violet to his new company called sen.se), Adrian David Cheok (from the Mixed Reality Lab in Singapore and Keio University) and Hojun Song. My notes from the session hereafter.

In his presentation entitled “Demystifying the Internet of Things”, Rafi Haladjian shared his perspectives on the Internet of Things. Starting from his own experience with the Nabaztag and other Violet products, he made of point of adopting a down to earth approach to the Internet of Things. Based on a analysis of the Darwinian evolution of devices and connectivity, he gave examples such as the Teddy Bear (which went from the basic version to the talking bear (because the maker needs to recreate value and then new products) and finally new toys with rfid now that we have cheap technologies. He also took the example of the scale (mechanical bathroom scales – digital scale – wifi bathroom scale).

He then highlighted “a raw and cynical definition of the IoT”:

• The expansion of the internet to any type of physical device, artifact or space. Which is not a decision but something that is happening “organically” because of the availability of cheap communication technologies
• The product of decentralized loosely joint decisions
• Something that will be technology and application-agnostic

This three characteristics led him to pave the way for possible evolution of the IoT. To do this, he stated how it is important to look at past experiences. The mechanical typewriter (one purpose) evolved into the word processor (a computer that could only be used to type in text) AND into another branch: the personal computer (multi-purpose, not just a word processor) that then took the form of laptops or netbooks (with an infinite number of applications). If we look back to things such as bathroom scales, now that we have ICT in there, the wifi scale does the same job as a scale only better but it can be done other things differently (send recommendation, update doctor, personalize the gym equipment, make the information completely social, games with prizes and promotions, organize strikes!). As he explained, this sounds weird, but is it so different than the iphone? The iphone showed that you can have a device and let third-parties make applications and you do not need to bother what should be done for this device.

According to him, the IoT change the way devices should act in the following ways:

• From one purpose to a bundle of sensors and output capabilities designed for a context
• Leads to application agnostic open to third party
• Most probably you will not be able to create new types of devices: it’s easier to piggyback on existing devices and use habits (that people are familiar with)
• You must be economically realistic, you cannot turn a device into an iphone, you must solve the cost/price/performance issue

In addition, such a system helps solving what he called the “Data Fishbowl” effect: today all our data are like fished in a fishbowl and there is just one spot in our environment where the information are: the computer. The IoT has the ambition to have vaporize information… like butterflies, or, more simply, like post-it notes. It’s about putting the information in context.

He concluded by saying that the purpose is to go from a world where with have a handful of single-purpose devices to give sense to everything:
which is what Rafi is going to be doing in my next company: sen.se

(Poultry Internet)

The second presentation by Adrian-David Cheok was called “Embodied Media and Mixed Reality for Social and Physical Interactive”. It outlined new facilities within human media spaces supporting embodied interaction between humans, animals, and computation both socially and physically, with the aim of novel interactive communication and entertainment. Adrian and his team indeed aim to develop new types of human communications and entertainment environments which can increase support for multi-person multi-modal interaction and remote presence.

Adrian’s presentation consisted in a series of ubiquitous computing environment based on an integrated design of real and virtual worlds that aims to be an “alternative” to existing systems. His examples aimed at revealing the paradigm shift in interaction design: it’s not “just” sharing information but also experiences.

He started from the well-known examples he worked out at his lab with Human Pacman (Pacmen and Ghosts are now real human players in the real-world experiencing mixed computer graphics fantasy-reality) or the hugging pajamas (remote-controlled pajama that could be hugged through the internet). He then moved to “human-pet interaction systems”:

• Poultry Internet: remote petting through the internet (red door / blue door to test pet preference to interactions & objects)
• Metazoa Ludens, that allows to play a computer-game with a pet: the human user controls an avatar which corresponds to a moving bait that an hamster tries to catch. The movement of the animal in the real world are translated in the digital environment and the pet avatar chases the avatar controlled by the human)

He finally spent the last part of his presentation dealing with “Empathetic living media”, a new form of media that follows two purposes: (1) To inform: Ambient living media promotes human empathy, social and organic happenings around a person’s life, (2) To represent: Living organisms representing significant portions of one’s life adds semantics to the manifestation. Examples corresponded to glowing bacteria (Escherichia coli) or the curious Babbage Cabbage System:

“Babbage Cabbage is a new form of empathetic living media used to communicate social or ecological information in the form of a living slow media feedback display. In the fast paced modern world people are generally too busy to monitor various significant social or human aspects of their lives, such as time spent with their family, their overall health, state of the ecology, etc. By quantifying such information digitally, information is coupled into living plants, providing a media that connects with the user in a way that traditional electronic digital media can not. An impedance match is made to couple important information in the world with the output media, relating these issues to the color changing properties of the living red cabbage.“

(Babbage Cabbage)

In his conclusion, Adrian tried to foresee potential vectors along these lines:

• Radically new and emotionally powerful biological media yielding symbiotic relationships in the new ubiquitous media frontier
• Plants which move: Animated display system, plants as sensors
• Ant-based display system
• Cuttlefish Phone

The third presenter in the session, korean artist Hojun Song, showed a quick description of his current project: the design and crafting of an DIY/open source satellite. He went through the different steps of his project (design rationale, funding, technical implementation) to show an interesting and concrete implementation of a networked object. Concluding with a set of potential issues and risks, he asked participants for help and contributions.

Wembley moustraps as blogjects

It seems that mousetraps too can become blogjects:

“[Rentokil] added a small sensor and a wireless module to its traps so that they notify the building staff when a rodent is caught. This is a big improvement on traps that need to be regularly inspected. A large building might contain hundreds of them, and a few are bound to be forgotten.

Since June 2006 thousands of digital mousetraps have been put in big buildings and venues such as London’s new Wembley Stadium. The traps communicate with central hubs that connect to the internet via the mobile network to alert staff if a creature is caught. The system provides a wealth of information. The data it collects and analyses on when and where rodents are caught enable building managers to place traps more effectively and alert them to a new outbreak. “

Why do I blog this? a basic example of a curious machine-to-machine communication involving animals.

Internet FOR things

In his graduation thesis entitled “Social RFID, at the Utrecht School of the Arts, Patrick Plaggenborg interestingly explores what an “Internet FOR Things” mean, differentiated from the so-called “Internet of Things”. The document can be downloaded here.

The goal of the project is to explore supply chain RFID infrastructure to form a public platform and “reveal the invisible emotions in things” so that “people are stimulated to look at objects differently“, especially those seemingly worthless objects.

More than the project itself, I was intrigued by the “internet for things” notion and its implication that Patrick defines as follows:

“A world with all objects being tagged and uniquely identified is still not very close, but we can think of scenarios and applications for it. The infrastructure will be rolled out slowly, starting with the bigger and more expensive items. In the mean time designers can speed up this process with Thinglinks and their own RFID tags to create test beds for their own interest. Using this infrastructure, small applications will take off as forerunners to a world where digital interaction with every day objects will be common. This is not the ‘Internet Of Things’, where objects connect to create smart environments and where they collect and exchanging data with sensors. This is about the ‘Internet For Things’““

Why do I blog this? What I find intriguing here is the parallel wave of design research concerning the Internet of Things which seems to me far beyond the current vector pursued by lots of research labs in the domain. Combined with blogjects, thinglinks and relevant interfaces there is a strong potential for these ideas.

To some extent, I am curious about how the new Nokia research lab in Lausanne is interested in this sort of explorations.

“Deer Blogger”/”Deer Tracking via e-mail”

Via, geolocated animals are now more and more common (after pigeon blogs back in 2006), the most recent example is this deer named Thor that blog his own position on Google Earth.

What is interesting in this case is not the animal blogging meme (although it’s yet another example) but the underlying process: a “Mail to Map/SMS-to-Map/Mail to Google Earth” process as described by the developer:

Also intriguing this “importance notice” by the guy who set up this whole thing:

“Important notice: since the displayed coordinates belongs to a live animal (currently a white-tailed Deer nicknamed Thor), by reading this page and looking at the map you are accepting terms of agreement: “do not harm the animal in anyway’. Actually it lives on private grounds or a preserve territory anyway.“

Yes, people, remember: although it looks like a virtual environment, it’s a real deer.

Why do I blog this? I like the “blogject tracking” via email dimension here.

A taxonomy of “coded domestic objects”:

In Software, Objects and Home Space, Martin Dodge and Rob Kitchin (Environment and Planning A) examine the relationship between objects and software in detail. They describe how ubiquitous computing – through the embedding of sensors and computation in objects – is transforming daily artifacts, giving them new capacities.

To do so, they came up with an interesting taxonomy of “coded domestic objects”:

“Coded objects can be subdivided into two broad classes based on their relational capacities. First, there are unitary objects that rely on code to function but do not record their work in the world. Second, there are objects that have an ‘awareness’ of themselves and their relations with the world and which, by default, automatically record aspects of those relations in logs that are stored and re-used in the future (that we call logjects [an object that monitors and records in some fashion its own use]).
(…)
In broad terms unitary coded objects can be divided into those that function independently of their surroundings and those that are equipped with some kind of sensors that enable the object to react meaningfully to particular variables in their immediate environment.
(…)
We can identify two main classes of logject: impermeable and permeable. Impermeable logjects consist of relatively self-contained units such as a MP3 player, a PDA or satnav. Such devices trace and track their usage by default, recording this data as an embedded history; are programmable in terms of configurable settings and creating lists (e.g. play lists of songs, diary entries and route itineraries); perform operations in automated, automatic and autonomous ways; and engender socially meaningful acts such as entertaining, remember an important meeting and helping not to get lost.
(…)
Permeable logjects do not function without continuous access to other technologies and networks. In particular, because they need the constant two-way of data exchanges, they are reliant on access to a distributed communication network to perform their primary function. Such logjects track, trace and record their usage locally but because of memory issues, the necessity of service monitoring/billing, and in some cases a user’s ability to erase or reprogram such objects, their full histories are also recorded externally to its immediate material form“

And about how these coded objects make “home differently”:

“the everyday use of coded objects reshapes the spatiality of the home by altering how domestic tasks are undertaken (and not always more conveniently for all), introducing new tasks and sometimes greater complexity, and embedding the home in diverse, extended networks of consumption and governmentality.
(…) the transition into the fully software-enabled home is a slow process. Most homes contain a mix of non-coded and coded technologies.
(…)
a useful parallel can be drawn between the coding of homes and the initial development of domestic electricity. At first, there were no electrical appliances and whole classes of electrical tools had to be invented. Over an extended period of time existing technologies were converted to electricity (e.g. gas lights to electric lights, open hearth to electric cooker, washtub to washing machine, etc.). Today, the extent to which electricity powers almost everything of significance in our homes is largely unnoticed in a Western context (except in a power cut). “

Why do I blog this? The taxonomy of objects is relevant as it shows the sort of “current design space”, mapping the different possibilities depending on the coded behavior. Moreover, the thing I like with these authors is that their reading of ubicomp is definitely more about the “messily arranged here-and-now” and less about the “supposed smart home of the future”. Surely some material to reflect on in current writings with Julian, especially about the relationships between technologies and spatial bevahior/materialities.

Text clothes

Back during the first internet bubble, mobile computing was already a hot thing and people start having ideas about how to connect things and people. One of them was Skim which enabled a sort of physical to digital connection through a identification number written a piece of clothes that you can text or email. To some extent, it’s about sending a note to your I.D. number that will be forwarded to your skim.com e-mail address. Your t-shirt could tell others how to get in touch with you BUT they won’t know you’re real identity.

The whole process is summarized here:

“There is a “unique mailbox number” on every fashion piece. It is six figures long. On the T-shirts it is on the sleeve, on the jackets it is on the pocket etc.
In the packaging of the product there is a card with an “access code” on it.
Together the “unique mailbox number” and the “access code” give you access to the world of skim.com.
Your skim.com mail account is now “unique mailbox number”@skim.com. This is yours forever. It is private to you. See our privacy promise.
You can give the email out to your friends, collegues, dates etc. To help you, some of our products come with business cards with your special number on it.
To check your mail, simply log on to the skim.com website, and go to the communications section. Then it is simple: enter your “unique mailbox number” and your “access code” and you can check/send mail.“

Why do I blog this? looking for service failures for my “tech failure” project. This skim.com thing is interesting in itself but obviously failed for some reasons (I’d be glad to know more about them). I guess the project was also an enabler of social comparison (“you have it, you’re part of that community”)

It’s also important to note the perpetuation of such ideas since reactee is a create-your-own-tshirt platform that also allows to display a code on the tshirt (to txt the person who wears it).

Thanks Luc!

Beat wartime empathy device

Look at this beat wartime empathy device by Dominic Muren. As he explained me in his email:

“Though it’s not the most traditional interface design, I feel more and more that really functional interfaces in our world of mediation, will need to be physical. And what more complicated topic to give physicality than war, and the civilian relationship to it. The Beat wartime empathy device is actually a pair of dogtag-like receiver and transmitter, one worn by a soldier, and the other anonymously “adopted” by a civilian. The soldier’s heartbeat is recorded, and transmitted, real time, to the civilian, where it is physically thumped against their chest, another heartbeat next to theirs. They feel the soldier’s fear, calm, or, god forbid, death. With such an intimate connection, it takes a hard heart indeed to ignore the true cost of war.“

Why do I blog this? an intriguing project about mediating physiological cues. I like the idea of a very simple sign (heart beat) being conveyed to connect people.

Web presence for people, places, Things

In the paper, People, Places, Things: Web Presence for the Real World, researchers at HP described in 2008 how to support “web presence” for people, place and things. It actually refers to the Cooltown project, which has been conducted 5-6 years ago.

Some elements from the paper:

“We put web servers into things like printers and put information into web servers about things like artwork; we group physically related things into places embodied in web servers. Using URLs for addressing, physical URL beaconing and sensing of URLs for discovery, and localized web servers for directories, we can create a location-aware but ubiquitous system to support nomadic users. On top of this infrastructure we can leverage Internet connectivity to support communications services.“

Why do I blog this? Although the project was more about supporting communication services and providing nomadic users with an access to object/information without a central control point, I was interested in that from another perspective: the agency of artifacts. Beyond their potential accessibility through the Internet, what does that mean when my watch, my lamp or even toilets have a web presence? This aspect is not that addressed in the paper and more obviously connects with the near future laboratory interest in blogjects.

Reference: Kindberg, T., Barton, J., Morgan, J., Becker, G., Caswell, D., Debaty, P., Gopal, G., Frid, M., Krishnan, V. Morris, H., Schettino, J., Serra, B. & Spasojevic, M. (2002). People, Places, Things: Web Presence for the Real World, Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, 2000 Third IEEE Workshop on, pp. 19-28.