|
Note: at the moment these are just preliminary answers. I'm working on it! 1. a) what did you find interesting about the article? I thought it was radical in that it calls for change in the HCI field. I wasn't expecting that kind of intensity from the paper but the authors make a strong case: I'm convinced! The idea of bringing the computer to the people is an excellent one (as opposed to bringing people to the computer as is the current model). So many people have the "what good is a computer anyway" attitude, and I think this approach to building human-centered systems could change that. At the moment, computers seem anti-social - something someone withdraws from the world into, but as the software engineering discipline has found with "extreme programming", getting a couple of minds working together in the same computing environment greatly enhances the experience. The introduction of physical objects in the action space really caught my eye and apparently, as the paper notes, it has been seen as a key feature by many others. I think people instinctively prefer to work with their hands in that way. b) not interesting about the article? At around page nine I was begging for an example. I think the concepts presented in the beginning are pretty general and as I read I found myself thinking, "OK, fine, but what are you really getting at?" The middle to the end of the article ties things up and brings it together nicely. Having said that, I have to read the article again and what I've said so far is based only on a fuzzy recollection! 2. what do you consider the main message of the article? The main theme seems to be that HCI is no longer "Where should the button go?" Not that this is a main message I picked up on but here's as good a place to comment on it as anywhere... At first I was concerned with the way the paper regards the consumer role, and was relieved to read the section at the end that says it's ok to be a consumer sometimes. I think that it is important to aknowledge that not everyone can be a producer/designer all the time, and some people are perfectly happy being nothing more than consumers. An important point the paper makes is that we should always have the choice of roles along the continuum from designer to consumer and that it shouldn't be a role imposed on us. 3. are themes discussed in the article which you would like to know more about? Hmmm... Not that I remember right now. I would like to hear/think about other applications of this environment that would equally benefit. 4. what did you find interesting about the "Envisionment and Discovery Collaboratory (EDC)" system? As I noted before, the use of physical objects is a great addition. I also highly agree with the separation of action space and reflection space as two physically separate entities (although the article does say there can be elements of one space within another). When I had the luxury of programming on a dual monitor system, I often used the other window for resources such as help documents and web page tutorials. As I think about it now, that was really a manifestation of the two spaces. 5. do you know of other papers, ideas, and systems which are closely related to the article and the EDC system? No, but see my answer for question seven. 6. what does the article say about design learning collaboration innovative media support for these activities? I'm not quite sure what this question is looking for. Ok, well now I do but I'll add it in later. 7. do you have any ideas how this research could / should be extended (based on your own knowledge and experience)? Immersive 3-D visualization! As you design the neighborhood, periodically take a drive through it! I'm not sure if this is part of the relfection space or part of a new space - the visualization space.
|
