Toward Hybrid Computing
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Toward Hybrid Computing

on

  • 790 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
790
Views on SlideShare
790
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • http://interrelativity.com/joe/research.html
  • Our first generation proactive display was a shared aural rather than visual display, created when I was at Accenture Technology Labs, was called MusicFX. The selection of music playing in a fitness center is a perennial problem for the members and staff – trying to find music that everyone loves, or, at least, no one hates, is a challenging problem. MusicFX enabled members of a corporate fitness center to create a profile of how much they liked or didn’t like each of 91 different genres of music (shown in the middle image) and associate this with their employee badge. People would badge in when they entered the fitness center (shown in the right image), adding their preferences to a pool, and a weighted random selection algorithm would then find music that was most popular – or least objectionable – to the people working out at any given time. References: http://interrelativity.com/joe/projects/MusicFX.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLgXLl4uGYk
  • We installed the MusicFX system in the fitness center at Technology Park in Northbrook in November 1997. The system was an instant hit with both the fitness center staff and its members. We conducted a poll of members six weeks after the system was installed. Over 70% of the respondents told us they liked having MusicFX select music more than the old complaint-driven music selection scheme. Only 7% of those polled told us they liked the old scheme better (these were probably among the squeaky wheels mentioned earlier). The others either thought the music was about the same or had joined during the previous six weeks and therefore had no experience with the old scheme. We asked members what they liked best and what they liked least about the system (in free text). Half of the respondents told us they liked the increased variety of music played -- we were very happy to see this, because although Joe and I were both eager to increase the variety of music, we weren’t sure how this would be greeted by the rest of the members. Over a third of the people we polled told us they liked havingsome say in what music was being played -- the silent majority was given a voice, and they liked it. The least liked feature cited by members was abrupt station changes -- when the system determines it’s time to change, it just does it; although we considered trying to detect the end of song boundaries and delaying the channel change until the end of a song on the old channel, we would likely cut into the middle of a song on the new channel. We may implement a feature to fade out, or turn down the volume on the old channel before the change, and then turn up the volume to fade in to the new channel. Finally, a few people complained about occasional bad (or whacky) music -- a natural side effect of the increased variety.
  • I’ll start off with some charts that show the most popular and least popular stations, as well as a list of the stations that we have yet to hear. Then I’ll talk about human nature and group dynamics: what we’ve learned about people’s musical preferences, what happens when you try to take into account a large pool of preferences, and finally some interesting experiences we -- and others -- have had with the system.
  • One context in which a larger group of people who don’t know each other so well gathers for a period of time is a conference. When I moved from Accenture to Intel Research Seattle, I was General Chair of UbiComp 2003, and so we decided to experiment with the idea of proactive displays at the upcoming conference. We again created special-purpose web-based profiles for people (shown in the upper left), in which they could enter their name, affiliation, photo of themselves, a photo representing some area of interest, and their home page. These profiles were associated with RFID tags that could be inserted into their conference name badge sleeves (shown in the upper middle photo), and then RFID antennas mounted near large displays would enable those displays to sense and respond to people in three different ways. The AutoSpeakerID application (lower left photo) showed the name, affiliation and photo of someone detected in front of the microphone stand during the question and answer period after a conference presentation, enabling the audience to see who the person asking the question was (and figure out how to spell their name). Ticket2Talk showed the same information, plus the photo representing a person’s interest, near the coffee break table, giving each person moving through the line 5 seconds of fame, and offering them a “ticket to talk” with each other about the photo of interest. Interestingly, one of the benefits people reported was that, because the person’s name was also shown on the Ticket2Talk display, they could save face by being reminded of a person’s name without having to look at their name tag. The third application, Neighborhood Window, showed a network graph visualization with nodes listing the names and photos of people detected near the display, and a small number of connected nodes that showed words and phrases the people’s home pages had in common, or those that were unique across the entire population, figuring those were the two most likely sets of topics to spark conversations. References: http://interrelativity.com/proactivedisplays/
  • http://interrelativity.com/joe/research.html
  • http://interrelativity.com/joe http://gumption.typepad.com http://www.slideshare.net/gumption

Toward Hybrid Computing Toward Hybrid Computing Presentation Transcript

  • Toward Hybrid Computing: Mediating among People, Places and Things, Online and Offline Joe McCarthy
  • Outline
    • A brief history of Joe
    • Hybrid computing
      • Definition
      • Examples
    • Future / ongoing challenges
    http://www.slideshare.net/gumption
  • A Brief History of Joe (part 1) B.A. Philosophy M.S. Computer Science Asst. Professor of Computer Science Independent Consultant Ph.D. Computer Science 1983 1985 1989 1996
  • A Brief History of Joe (part 2) 1996 2002 2004 2006 2008
  • A Brief History of Joe (part 3) Conference Co-Chair General Chair Program Co-Chair Posters (36) Invited Performance Demos (40) Short papers / Notes Most papers (42; 19%) Reviews: 2 PC + 2 ext. Steering Committee Chair UbiComp, 2003-2009 International rotation ACM sponsorship
  • Toward Hybrid Computing
    • Two dimensions
      • Online + Offline
      • People + Places + Things
    • Three common themes
      • Situatedness
      • Democratization
      • Serendipity
    • Three examples
  • Opening Up Portals in Hybrid Spaces @ Workout places Work places Conferences
  • MusicFX MusicFX: An Arbiter of Group Preferences for Computer-Supported Cooperative Workouts Joseph F. McCarthy and Theodore Anagnost 1998 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ‘98) A Multi-Agent System for Meting Out Influence in an Intelligent Environment M. V. Nagendra Prasad and Joseph F. McCarthy Eleventh Innovative Applications in Artificial Intelligence Conference (IAAI ‘99) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLgXLl4uGYk promoting harmony, diversity and democracy in a fitness center
  • MusicFX: Problems & Goals
    • Problems
      • Music is a common complaint
        • 25% of “feedback” focused on music
      • RSI: Repetitive Song Injury
        • 3 stations played, 91 available (DMX)
      • Squeaky Wheels
        • Vocal minority prevails over silent majority
    • Goals
      • Democratize the music selection process
      • Increase the variety of music played
      • Unburden fitness center staff
    • Database of musical preferences
      • 91 genres, 5-point scale
    • Group Preference Arbitration algorithm
      • Group Preference Calculation
      • Candidate Identification (sort, filter)
      • Weighted Random Selection operator
    • Environmental Events (algorithm triggers)
      • Entrance, exit, expiration, preference / parameter update
    The MusicFX System
  • Evaluation of MusicFX
    • Daily operation Nov 1997 – Dec 2001
    • Evaluation (after 6 weeks)
    • Staff interviews
      • Complaints: 5-10 / week  3 in 6 weeks
    • Log analysis
      • Variety: 3 stations  66 stations
      • Satisfaction index: 170 users, all but 8 >= 0
    • Survey results:
      • MusicFX vs. Staff selection:
        • 71% better, 8% same, 7% worse, 14% N/A
      • Positive:
        • increased variety, having some influence
      • Negative:
        • abrupt changes, occasional “bad” music
  • MusicFX: Other results
    • Charts
      • Top 10, Bottom 13
    • Human Nature
      • Average individual musical preferences
      • Individual Preference Filter: NOT
      • Interesting anecdotes
        • Veto power & IPF
        • Uncommon variety
        • The Polka incident
        • The Chinese Music incident
  • AutoSpeakerID, Ticket2Talk, Neighborhood Window Augmenting the Social Space of an Academic Conference Joseph F. McCarthy, David W. McDonald, Suzanne Soroczak, David H. Nguyen and Al M. Rashid ACM 2004 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2004) Proactive Displays: Supporting Awareness in Fluid Social Environments David W. McDonald, Joseph F. McCarthy, Suzanne Soroczak, David H. Nguyen and Al M. Rashid ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interactions (TOCHI), Vol. 14, No. 4, January 2008 promoting community at a conference
  • Proactive Displays: Problems & Goals
    • Problems (variability in approachability):
      • Stature: senior faculty, grad students
      • History: veterans, newcomers
      • Selectivity: presenters, audience
    • Goals:
      • Enhance the sense of community among attendees
      • Mesh with existing practices (calm technology)
      • Protect the privacy of participants … & non-participants
  • Setting & Data Collection
    • Conference deployment: UbiComp 2003
      • Medium-sized, single-track, conference
      • 500 attendees (50% from USA)
      • Explicit online opt-in, RFID
      • Three proactive displays:
        • AutoSpeakerID (ASID)
        • Ticket2Talk (T2T)
        • NeighborhoodWindow (NW)
    • Systematic Observation
      • Observations + opportunistic interviews
    • Post-conference Survey
      • Multiple choice + open-ended response
      • 94 respondents (19% response rate)
  • Evaluation
    • Simple descriptive statistics
    • Open ended responses
      • New vs. old
      • Provocation
      • Saving face
      • Gaming
    • Mixed results
      • Enhance community: yes
      • Mesh with existing practices: no
      • Preserve privacy: mostly
  • The Context, Content & Community (C3) Collage promoting community in the workplace The Context, Content & Community Collage: Sharing Personal Digital Media in the Physical Workplace Joseph F. McCarthy, Ben Congleton, F. Maxwell Harper ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2008) [best paper nominee]
  • C3 Collage
    • Goals
      • Increase sense of community in a new lab with multidimensional diversity
      • Increase social media use and “hacking” of web apps
    • Approach
      • Open interactive windows in shared physical spaces into online social media
    • Hypotheses
      • Adding a physical dimension of audience will promote greater social media usage
      • Social media sharing in the workplace will enhance personal relationships
      • Enhanced personal relationships will lead to more productive professional relationships
    • Challenges
      • Privacy / benefit tradeoff (usability vs. security)
      • Sustainable engagement (after novelty factor has worn off)
      • How to measure the impact? (measuring community, relationships)
  • C3 Collage
    • Profile
      • Username
      • Flickr account(s), include / exclude tags
      • Bluetooth phone name(s)
    • Proactive
      • Add photos of nearby people[’s phones]
    • Interactive
      • Move, close, vote, flag
    http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=m5rU9cAiYsY
  • C3 Collage Evaluation
    • Context
      • 8 displays, evaluated after 4 weeks
      • 75 full-time / part-time residents
      • 44 accounts (34 partial, 27 full)
      • Perpetual alpha (location sensing, new modules, new features)
    • Web-based Survey
      • Mix of multiple choice and open text questions
      • 32 responses (43%)
    • Semi-structured Interviews
      • 5 subjects, representing different groups and levels of seniority
  • C3 Collage Results
    • Enhance community
      • Personal relationships: yes
      • Professional relationships: no (?)
    • Increase social media use
      • 5 users created Flickr accounts for C3C
      • 13 users posted photos for C3C
    • Issues
      • Leaving phone(s) in office
      • Disconnect: online / offline
      • Serendipity: good and bad
      • Power law of participation vs. the org chart
  • Open Challenges
    • The Internet of People, Places & Things
      • Privacy / benefit tradeoff
      • Control of / access to data
    • Living Laboratories
      • Evaluation “in the wild”
      • Situated serendipity
    • Computer-Supported Whatever
      • Cooperative / competitive
      • Work / play
      • Game mechanics
      • Incentives, evaluation
  • As we may relate …
    • As we may think
      • Vannevar Bush, Memex
      • Connect [with] knowledge, information
    • As we may relate
      • Connect [with] people, places, things IRL
      • Challenges:
        • What do we want to reveal, to whom, where?
        • What do we want to find out?
        • On what criteria should connections be based?
        • What connection devices do we want to use?
    Any sufficiently large signal is indistinguishable from noise
  • As we may relate
    • What do we want to reveal, to whom, where?
      • Online content (my homepage) vs. offline content (where I live/work)
      • Online “friends”, “real” friends, consequential strangers
      • Home, office, school, third places, other
      • Usability issues; gender, age, relationship status
    • What do we want to find out?
      • Information, entertainment
      • People to meet, places to go, things to do
      • Mobile, personalized, place-based bazaar; Craigslist++
    • On what criteria should connections be based?
      • Proximity
      • Common vs. complementary interests
      • Search vs. discovery, serendipity
    • What connection devices do we want to use?
      • Smartcard, smartphone, laptop, public display, head-mounted display, other
      • Proactive connections vs. explicit “check-ins”
  • OpenGov: Platform Thinking
    • OpenGov is an HCC opportunity
    • Technology-Mediated Social Participation
    • “ Government as a Platform”: Tim O’Reilly
      • Intro to “Open Government: Transparency, Collaboration and Participation in Practice”
        • http://opengovernment.labs.oreilly.com/
      • Apple iPhone: control + generativity
        • Design principles, interoperability rules, developer ecosystem
      • Google AdWords for Medicare
        • Dynamic pricing, tying outcomes to reimbursements
      • 10 practical steps for government agencies
        • See also: 8 Open Government Data Principles
    [see also: http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/03/how-do-we-measure-innovation.html]
  • Discussion
      • http://interrelativity.com/joe
  • Thanks!
    • For more information:
      • joe AT interrelativity DOT com
      • http://interrelativity.com/joe
      • http://gumption.typepad.com
      • http://twitter.com/gumption
      • http://www.slideshare.net/gumption