Yesterday I was explaining what I do to a friend and started getting caught up in the usual tangle of terminology, so I came up with a structure for the different terms related to the fragmentation of information processing into everyday objects. As I see it, the different terms--pervasive computing, ubiquitous computing, ambient intelligence and physical computing--come from different historical contexts that are based on geography: PARC coined "ubiquitous computing," so it's big on the West Coast; IBM likes "pervasive," they get the East; Philips was responsible for "ambient intelligence," so that's what it's called in Europe. In reality, it's just a blind men and elephant problem. They're all describing the same idea, but alliances and territoriality create clusters of terminology. So here's how I described it to my friend:
| Term | Interrogative | Note |
| Ubiquitous computing | How | Embedded information processing and network communication will change the world by continuously providing services and support. |
| Physical computing | What | This will require them to be embedded in physical objects. |
| Pervasive computing | Where | The embedding will need to be if they're to provide the support continuously. |
| Ambient intelligence | Why | And the goal of the project is to create an environment that supports our goals through distributed reasoning. |
"Who" is, of course, left as a a big question, but that's why there are so many anthropologists involved now, I suspect.
The definitions aren't totally separate, but it's an interesting exercise to see the focus of the groups who fly a particular flag. I still think it's all the same elephant and that maybe it needs an even yet different term. There's great value in creating a good term that encapsulates a set of ideas, but it has to accurately capture the essense of an idea as it is perceived by others to take off. Which means it needs to be externally-focused, and not about the process. I feel that none of these terms is sufficiently strong in that department, though I'm going to use "ubiquitous computing" and "ubicomp" for now, since I'm from the west coast and Weiser deserves mad props for having seen it first.
[1-31-06 update: Anne has written a typically thoughtful and insightful commentary to this note, to which I've replied. Thank you, Anne!]
[2-5-06 update: Doh! Peter tells me that if I had been paying attention, I would have noticed that my alma mater, Wired, is also on the disambiguation tip. More general than my take, but still. Peter generously said "must be in the air."]
I agree that people's association with the technology will likely have little to do with the technology itself. Steam locomotives were not interesting because they ran on high pressure steam, but because they allowed people and things to travel farther, faster and cheaper than ever before. The association people had with trains was with the travel, signified by the train. The core technological innovations in terms of engineering and infrastructure largely were not as interesting, in my opinion, as the effects.
The same thing is going to happen with ubicomp. If people's associations with it are going to be with the objects, not the ideas, I believe that names for the idea should reflect THEIR perspective. As "the Web" is shorthand for "the Internet" (much to the frustration of purists) for most people, so whatever we call it should somehow be related to the most popular physical manifestations of ubicomp. In this, I think that Bruce Sterling's "spime" is on the right track, though I think the word is currently meaningless outside his usage, and so it's not particularly useful. I'm still waiting to see what transpires.
Why do you think I felt it necessary to create a whole new term for these activities, even at the risk of collapsing valid distinctions?
I would go a step further than you - in fact, in the book, I do - and argue that even things that seem peripheral to the ubicomp argument (enabling technologies like RFID or WiMax, interface modes like gesture) will in fact be for most of the people experiencing it the signifiers of the ubiquitous experience.
The trouble with "ubicomp," too, is that it cannot help but yawn under the weight of its Weiserian, "calm technology" baggage. The most misleading thing in the world is to suggest that the actual ubiquitous devices and services being designed in 2006 share Weiser's essentially humanist values - as I know you will agree, Mike, having sat next to me in Shinagawa.
Good question. I think there are several concepts that are part of this cluster, but which don't seem as central to the idea as these. Tangible media, social computing and service design can also be made to fit into what, where and how categories, respectively. However, they seem to have fairly strong definitions (at least social computing and service design) that don't get confused with these others as much. I wanted to address the terms that seemed most in need of clarification, and the others can continue to be part of the practice of whatever-we-call-the-elephant without being confused for the whole thing. Does that make sense?
What about tangible and social computing? Does Ishii and Dourish fit in this cluster?