Hello.
We are running into week 2 of this course
on interaction design and it had 2 different
sessions.
In the last session, we had seen and tried
to understand what do we mean by interaction
model.
And in this session, our primary emphasis
would be to understand interaction paradigm.
But before we do that, let us do a quick review
of what we had learnt in the last session.
On your screen if you see with the heading
of interaction model, we have understood that
interaction models are operational descriptions
of how interaction proceeds with different
user groups having different goals and preferences.
And it had got 2 main categories and we had
understood that these 2 categories were interaction
models based on activities and interaction
models based on objects.
Within the category of interaction models
which were based on activities, there were
4 of these types.
The first set of interaction models was based
on activities around instructing.
The second set of interaction model was based
on activities around conversing.
The third set of interaction models was based
on activities around manipulation and navigating
through the interface.
And while the fourth set of interaction model
was based on activities around exploring and
browsing.
To know more details of these activities,
I encourage you to view back the session 1
in week 2.
And then within the next category which are
primarily based on objects, we had seen and
understood the relevance of interface metaphors.
There was a short discussion on what do we
mean by metaphors and how do we use them in
case of interaction design.
And then we have concluded and summarized
our understanding in the last session by saying
that interaction models are not mutually exclusive.
So there are often cases when 2 or more interaction
models get utilized in interaction design.
Today, we have to understand one more aspect
of interaction model before we move on to
interaction paradigm.
And this aspect of interaction model is about
how do we evaluate them?
So there are 3 dimensions across which we
can evaluate any given interaction model.
The first one is the descriptive power and
the essential question that we ask is that
can it help describing a significant range
of existing interfaces?
So if you remember the example of direct manipulation
which was an interaction model, focussed around
the activities of manipulation and navigating
through the interface.
If you remember that interaction model, what
we mean by the power of description is that
that particular interaction model should be
able to describe all different interactions
which are being thought as part of that model.
Can it help or can the interaction model,
given interaction model, can it help describing
a significant range of interactions or existing
interfaces?
And then comes the evaluative power.
So thinking about the same interaction model,
direct manipulation by Ben Schneiderman, we
should be asking a question like the one shown
on the screen which is, can it help assess
multiple design alternatives?
So if you are considering an interaction model
or a set of them, any given set of interactions
or different interfaces, if they, if you think
about them, you should be able to assess those
different interfaces within that interaction
model.
So that is what we mean by evaluative power.
And we are asking a question, can it help
assess multiple design alternatives.
And then third one is the generative power.
So any given interaction model or a set of
them, if as an interaction designer you are
using those in your design, then that interaction
model should be open enough, should have the
scope for you to think about new interactions
within that interactive model and that helps
designers being creative and innovative with
their interface design.
So any given interaction model should be in
a position to help designers create new designs.
And that is what we mean by generative power.
So the question that we are asking once again
is, can it help designers create new designs?
So this is very very important slide.
Any given interaction model, if you were to
evaluate it, there are 3 dimensions.
Descriptive power, can it help describing
a significant range of existing interfaces?
Evaluated power, can it help assess multiple
design alternative?
And generative power, can it help designers
create new designs.
And here onwards, we are moving into the topic
of interaction paradigm.
This is important because now we are going
to a little more abstract understanding of
interactions and if you look at interaction
paradigm, try to define them or try to understand
them, this is what we come across.
So these are interaction paradigm basically
or higher level conceptual understanding of
interactions.
So these are the very high level understanding
of interaction.
How the interaction is proceeding and not
really the operational description because
if you remember operational descriptions were
the interaction model.
These are further higher level, more abstract
understanding of interactions.
So these are actually particular way of thinking
about interfaces and interactions.
A particular thought of how do we imagine
a set of interactions or a set of situations
where the interaction proceed and these are
meant to help designers orient towards the
nature of interactions.
So here not just thinking about how do we
do this?
You have to think about what is the nature
of this interaction and we will understand
this through several examples in different
slides to come.
But at this point of time, let us keep these
few points in mind.
They may look like a bit more abstract points.
But I would encourage you to keep them somewhere
in your notebook and help understand them
through the use of further examples.
So a particular way of thinking about interactions
is interaction paradigm and it help designers
orient towards the nature of interaction.
It also helps lot of researchers and designers
to imagine future interactions, to be innovative
and creative when thinking about technology.
So we will understand these 3 or 4 different
points through different examples of interaction
paradigm.
The first example that we are considering
is a very interesting example because not
only it is much talked about, it is also much
much more relevant and we are now going to
talk about ubiquitous computing or popularly
known an ubicomp as an interaction paradigm.
So it was proposed by Mark Weiser in the year
1991 and he imagined a set of interactions
or an interaction space where computer disappear
into the environment, where the technology
becomes invisible, that is what he mean by
disappearing and invisibly when they become
invisible, when the technology becomes invisible,
even in that sense it is helping users and
hence their world.
So it is helping users enhance their capabilities
and the understanding of the world next to
them, of the world surrounding them.
So computers which disappear into the environment
and when they do that, they should enhance
the world around the users and he did not
mean that when they enhance the world around
the user, that is not really to say that they
need to recreate the world or recreate an
artificial world, that is not what he meant.
He meant that the existing world of the users
or the world or the environment around them,
that should get enhanced with the presence
of technology that disappears into the environment.
It is also known as third paradigm.
Essentially because you had the first paradigm
as mainframe computers where a number of users
are using a single computing machine.
So that was first paradigm.
And then you had the second paradigm, which
is using personal computers, where each user
has an individual machine to interact, individual
machine to accomplish different tasks that
he has in his mind.
So that is the second paradigm.
Mainframe, the first paradigm.
Second paradigm is the personal computing.
And then he is talking about the third paradigm
which is ubiquitous computing where different
users, number of users use hundreds of these
computers, okay.
And these computers can be left once used
so the other user will come and use the same
computer and these are in hundreds of number.
So he is now imagining different users many
computers, okay.
We also call it as the third paradigm.
So as we are saying that, you know, the first
paradigm had a single mainframe computer using
different user.
Personal computer is the second paradigm and
ubicomp where many users use many computers
in measures of hundreds of different sizes
spread across the environment.
Users need not to be aware of these invisible
computers, okay.
By awareness, it means the very conscious
of awareness that, you know, there is a personal
computer towards the right side of me and
that is a conscious awareness of, presence
of a computer next to you.
What Mark Weiser is trying to say that in
ubicomp, users need not to be aware of these
invisible computers and users use invisible
computers without thinking about them, okay.
So that is what he mean by disappearing technology.
Technology that fades out into the environments.
So users use invisible computers without thinking
about them in such a way that that particular
use of technology enhances their own capabilities
as human beings and it is a seamless integration
with the physical world.
So it is pretty much seamless, very much real
time and a very well integrated world where
technology enhances human capabilities.
So that is what is imagination and if you
remember the third point in the first slide
of interaction paradigm, that it is a particular
way of thinking about the interactions.
It helps people imagine future interactions.
So you see, Mark Weiser is trying to bring
before you a, his imagination of what computers
would be when it comes to a paradigm of ubicomp.
So let us move to the next slide.
In this paradigm, Mark Weiser also propose
a certain set of prototypes and these prototypes
were meant to illustrate his paradigm of ubicomp.
So he proposed tabs, pads and boards, a setup
which illustrates the ubicomp paradigm.
And there are 3 different classes of devices.
So there are devices, remember the first point
that we said that in ubicomp, many different
users use hundreds of computers of different
sizes.
So these are the classes which are based on
the size of the device.
So the first class is inch size devices where
you have devices which are 6 inches and smaller.
The second class is foot size devices where
you have devices which were ranging from 6
inches to 18 inches dimensions.
And then you have yard size devices which
are 18 inches to 6 feet, okay.
So these are 3 different classes of devices
which are proposed by Mark Weiser with reference
to his paradigm of ubicomp.
Let us look at what these devices and their
class are?
So when it comes to tabs, tabs belongs to
the inch size device class.
Pads belong to the foot size device class.
And boards, they belong to the yard size device
class.
So let us talk about tabs a little more in
detail.
So these are the smallest of all the components
and they had computing capabilities.
They can identify the bearer and connect with
each other.
So these tabs much like, you know, they are
like different small size computers which
are spread across your environment and as
soon as you step in and you pick one computer
or a tab, it identifies you as a user.
So it quickly reconfigures the entire setup
and then it becomes your computing machine.
And once you have used it, you can leave it
there and that tab reconfigures itself and
gets ready for the next use by another user.
So this is the way the different users are
using many different computers and they are
using them, leaving them and tabs being the
smallest of them, they have the capability
to identify their users, their bearer and
then connect with each other, they can connect
with each other.
So you see that ubicomp, you were saying that
it is highly relevant paradigm and because
they are direct incarnations of Mark Weiser's
vision in today's world.
So we have smart phone which is an inch size
class device.
It is 6 inches or smaller.
And it almost performs the same set of functions
as proposed by Weiser when he was talking
about tabs.
The next set of class of device is the foot
size class, okay and within that, he is proposing
pads.
So these are hybrid between paper and a laptop.
These are again scrap computers.
You can use them and leave them back into
the environment.
They reconfigure themselves for use by another
user.
So these are scrap computers in that sense
which can be used and left anywhere.
So tabs not only are they connected with each
other, they are also connected with pads and
again pads not only are they connected with
each other, they are also connected with different
tabs.
So connectivity is a big proposal in ubicomp
and just like tabs, pads are also a hybrid
between paper and a laptop.
Scrap computers which are connected with each
other and with tabs.
And again a direct reincarnation of Mark Weiser's
vision is seen in current day world which
is present day tablets, eBook readers and
etc.
So eBook readers are in particular, they are
mostly imitating paper and if you imagine
tablets also, they have the capability where
you can read different documents, assess them,
do some computing with them and you have your
basic goals realized by use of a foot size
devices.
So that is the relevance of Weiser's ubicomp
paradigm.
We are still left with the third class of
devices which is the yard size devices.
So these are the boards bigger displays to
serve different purposes, okay.
They are also collaborative spaces.
They are broadcast messaging, screens to visualize
information as charts, video screens and many
more other use of boards.
So present day interactive boards are reincarnation
of boards in Mark Weiser's term.
So again, let us look at how these devices
are configured with respect to each other
and their connectivity.
So they know where they are and with whom
they are.
They not only can identify their bearer but
they also can identify their locations.
They are location aware devices and they,
and in these devices, the communication is
given more priority over local computing power.
So we have different small size devices from
tabs to pads to boards where communication
is given priority, where connectivity with
each of them is given priority over whether
the device is highly capable of computing
complex operations, okay.
So it helps users stay mobile and access information
and the size of the device is definitely a
classifying factor when it comes to different
classes.
Remember inch size class, foot size class
and yard size class.
Mark Weiser's vision was also about saying
that devices stay ubiquitous.
They are present everywhere and can be picked,
used and then again can be left back in the
environment.
And devices which fade out into the background.
Devices become environmental then personal.
Again one another way of saying that devices
can be used by multiple users and they reside
into the environments.
They are more environmental than personal.
Once you pick them, they reconfigure themselves
for your use but once you leave them, they
could reconfigure themselves back as environmental
devices.
So a user walks into the office, this may
be one of the lines in the scenario that comes
to ubicomp which is a user walks into the
office, use the device and then leave it behind
for the next person.
So that is what we mean by saying that devices
becomes more environmental than personal.
So there is a strong influence on current
day interactive system design.
We have seen right from smart phones which
signify inch size class of device to interactive
tablets and eBook readers which signify a
foot size class of device to interactive boards
which indicate a yard size class of device.
So his paradigm, the ubicomp, paradigm is
highly influential in terms of giving rise
to present day interactive products.
Now there are other different paradigms which
are direct influences of ubicomp and we understand
them in that sense.
This paradigm of pervasive computing is one
such influence of ubicomp.
Remember ubicomp started in 1991 that is when
we had the proposal and then following 1991,
we had different paradigms which are direct
influences of ubicomp.
One such paradigm is once again on your screen
is pervasive computing.
Here the users access and interact with information
any time any place through the seamless integration
of technology.
And technology products are referred as smart
devices and information appliances.
So again we have so many examples which are
smart devices or can be termed as information
appliances.
Chiefly among them are smart phones, smart
thermostats, cooking appliances which, you
know, take recipes from the internet, can
cook it for you and including ovens and refrigerators.
In particular, we have smart refrigerators
now which can tell you that a particular commodity
is going out of stock so you better go and
buy it and they can send reminders to your
other smart device which is a mobile phone
when you are in the market.
So technology products here are referred in
particular as smart devices or information
appliances.
And there is a huge emphasis on information.
So in ubicomp you had a lot of these things
already in place but in pervasive computing,
that nomenclature is hugely emphasizing on
use and retrieval of information.
So that is why we have this nomenclature of
information appliances.
The second paradigm which is again an influence
of ubicomp is wearable computing.
Within this paradigm, different researchers
and designers, they are trying to see if technologies
could be embedded into the environments and
into our clothing and into a lot of things
that we use on a very day to day basis.
So it includes clothes people wear, accessories
they sport something like your glasses, your
wristwatch, belts, jewellery, bands, bangles,
caps and hats, bags and shoe etc.
So different things which you come across
as personal commodities like clothing and
accessories which people sport, if technology
could be embedded into them, those kind of
interactions fall into the category of wearable
computing which is an interaction paradigm
itself.
And then we have tangible user interfaces
or tangible bits given by Hiroshi Ishii and
Ullmer in 1997 interactions based on physical
virtual integration and that is also one influence
of ubicomp.
Here the approach is to integrate computational
augmentations into the physical world.
So imagine if a pen next to you is computationally
empowered or it can do more than just writing
on a piece of paper.
So if you could integrate computational augmentations
into the physical world, then that kind of
interaction falls into the paradigm as mentioned
on your slide.
So digital information gets combined with
physical objects and surfaces and virtual
representations are mapped to physical objects
and surfaces.
So these are the different things which are
happening when it comes to a paradigm of tangible
use interface, augmented reality of interactions
based on integration of physical and the virtual
objects.
Now if you leave ubicomp, you come on to the
next paradigm which is attentive environment
and transparent computing.
Remember that till now, we have understood
ubicomp as a paradigm and then there are 3
different paradigms which are further based
on, based on ubicomp or influences of ubicomp
in some sense.
Now we have the other paradigm which is different
from ubicomp and the paradigm is called attentive
environments and transparent computing.
So in this paradigm, the interactive devices
or environment anticipates what their users
want to do and accordingly present interactions,
okay.
So they anticipate, this is a new element
in this paradigm.
The element of anticipation by the smart technology
which reside into the environment or into
the device, if that technology, if the device
could anticipate what their users want and
then present interactions accordingly, they
fall within the category, within the paradigm
of attentive environments and transparent
computing, okay.
The control over the interactions is shared
between the user and the interactive device
or environment and that is the second facet
of this paradigm.
So here if the devices or the technology behind
the devices and the environment has to anticipate
what a user is thinking, they have to sense
physiological characteristics or physiological
attributes of their users.
So expressions or gestures, sensing interfaces,
you know, they arise as part of this paradigm.
So use of non-obtrusive sensors to detect
users current state and needs that is exercised
in this paradigm.
So for example, if you have a camera or some
kind of technology embedded into your glass
which constantly monitors the size of the
pupil and you know that there physiological
states which are associated with the size
of the pupil, then you can very well anticipate
what the user is trying to do.
So emotion detection is one major exercise
which is carried out within this paradigm.
People have different expressions and according
to those expressions, if the computers could
make sense of those expressions, if the interactive
device could make sense of those expressions,
then they can anticipate what the user needs
and then present the interactions accordingly.
Within this paradigm, the whole emphasis,
a major emphasis is on anticipating knowing
a priory what your user needs, okay.
So you keep that in mind when you think about
attentive environments and transparent computing.
And these are implicit interactions, interactive
product knows what does the user need.
And they are drawn on analogies from human-human
interaction.
So again remember the first slide of this
session which is when it comes to interaction
paradigm, they are a particular way of thinking
about the interactions.
So here when you are thinking about attentive
environments and transparent computing, you
are thinking about, you know, how would the
case be when 2 human beings are interacting.
Because we as human beings have the ability
to anticipate what others are thinking that
is something that we call theory of mind which
needs a different session by the way but keep
that phrase in mind if you have more queries,
you can Google about it.
It would be a very interesting read I am sure.
So human beings, they have the ability to
anticipate each other's response to different
situations.
Based on that activity, we constantly improve
or improvise on our behaviour, on our responses
to other human beings.
So this is the analogy which is taken forward
when people are thinking about interactions
in attentive environments and transparent
computing paradigm.
We have one such illustration of this paradigm.
So IBM's blue eye technology is a hardware
configuration which comprises a central system
unit and data acquisition unit.
They both are connected via bluetooth and
data acquisition unit has range of relevant
sensors which records and monitors user's
physiological state while the central system
unit analyses these inputs from data acquisition
unit and initiates appropriate system response.
So I would definitely encourage you to Google
some of these technologies when you have time.
So apart from all the paradigms that we have
understood till now, what we are going to
see is again a different way of thinking about
interactions and this is a different proposal
altogether.
In this proposal, the paradigms are given
as part of 3 primary paradigms, okay.
The first paradigm is computers as tool.
In this paradigm, once again do not confuse
it with the paradigms that you have studied
till now.
This is a different approach.
This is a different proposal.
In this proposal, we have 3 primary paradigms.
First one is computers as tool.
Now it, again it is a different way of thinking
about the interactions.
So in this stream of thoughts as interaction
designer, you see interactions with your computers
as you interact with a tool.
So tool extends human capabilities like a
pliers that you keep in your hand to turn
a tightened knob somewhere.
As a human being, your fingers are not that
strong enough to turn a tightened metal screw,
you use a plier.
So a plier becomes the tool that extends your
capabilities as human beings.
So in a similar way, computers are highly
sophisticated tool if you think about it,
okay.
So in this paradigm, we think computers as
tools and direct manipulation and the windows
icons, menus and pointers, those 2 different
interaction models, they are based on thinking
about computers as tool.
Then the other, the second dimension, the
second primary paradigm is thinking computers
as your partners, okay.
So in this particular paradigm, you imagine
all different interactions which are around
anthropomorphic means of communicating with
the computer.
So if you remember the, in the last session,
we were talking about natural language search
engines where you can just type a query like
how do I resolve this part of the problem
or what do we mean by any particular query
that of your interest.
So this is a natural language search engine
where the engine is behaving or you are asking
questions to a search engine as you would
have asked to any human being.
So that is an anthropomorphic means of communication
with the computer and your search engine is
also acting just like a partner, okay.
So you are trying to resolve a certain set
of problems while your computer becomes your
partner.
So in this paradigm, in this way of thinking
about interactions with the computers, computers
are imagined as partners.
And the third primary paradigm is computer
as medium, okay.
So here the computers are imagined as means
of communication enabling humans to talk to
each other, okay.
So at the same time if you do it, it is a
synchronous communication.
If you do it at different times, it is a asynchronous
communication.
Here the medium of communication is computers,
okay.
Let us look at few examples of synchronous
communication.
Audio-visual conferencing applications, avatar
based interactions involving multiple users
as in different games, interactive classes
are all different interactions where you are
going to use your computers as a means of
communication, as a medium to communicate
with each other or with other human beings,
okay which may be geographically distant or
may be at different times attending your sessions.
Like the MOOCs, is an asynchronous communication
between me and you as an audience and if you
see, we are essentially using computers as
medium of communication with each other.
So MOOCs as an example fall into this paradigm
and at different times, so yes of course,
MOOCs, you can see these videos at all different
times and that is the convenience behind this
learning mechanism.
So here in this paradigm essentially once
again computers imagined as a medium to communicate
with each other.
This brings us to the closure of today's session
on interaction paradigm.
Let us look at the summary of this session.
We begin with a general understanding of interaction
paradigm, higher level conceptual understanding
of interactions, a way of thinking about integrations
and we saw why is it important for designers
and researchers to know about interaction
paradigms.
And then we had studied, we had seen different
facets of ubiquitous computing, what is it,
what is its genesis, what is its current state
and is, are there any influences on current
state interactive technology and products?
What is its current stage?
Did we reach close to Mark Weiser's vision?
We had a discussion around that.
And then we had seen some influences of ubiquitous
computing as pervasive computing, wearable
computing, tangible bits, physical-virtual
interactions, augmented reality.
And then we had seen another way of looking
at paradigms which is in terms of attentive
environment and transparent computing, IBM
BlueEyes technology, sensor detecting physiological
state and needs of the user, interaction based
on emotion sensing and the BlueEyes technology
architecture where you had data acquisition
unit and central system unit.
And then we had alternate explanations of
interaction paradigm in terms of computers
as tool, computers as partner, computers as
medium.
That brings us once again to the closure of
interaction paradigm as a topic.
Thank you very much.
