Charitos (2009) - Precedents for the Design of Locative Media
From Inventiopedia
Charitos, Dimitris (2009) "Precedents for the Design of Locative Media". In P. Saariluoma and H. Isomäki (eds.) Future Interaction Design II, London: Springer-Verlag (pp. 141-156). DOI 10.1007/978-1-84800-385-9_7.
In this book chapter, Charitos is investigating "precedents" for the design of locative media: "precedents that may inform the design and implementation of location-based systems and the communication experiences they support" (142). He focusses on "interfaces that have a predominantly spatial character and that ultimately afford a hybrid (synthetic and physical) spatial experience in the context of which a novel form of social interaction occurs" (ibid.).
The idea of spatial interfaces, however, does not from the outset refer to physical space, but rather "human–computer interfaces that utilize space as a context for supporting navigation within information sets" (145). In other words, the focus is on visual interfaces, based on the argument that
"...Since humans use spatial organizing prin- ciples in their daily lives, they are used to navigating space and communicating easily within space. Therefore, it could be suggested that graphical interactive environments may enhance communication between humans and computers." (145)
The assumption that such interfaces must primarily be graphical/visual, does not appear to be challenged. Instead, Charitos goes on to discuss various approaches to visualization of data, 3D graphics on mobile devices, virtual reality and telepresence. After noting with regret that "Despite their environmental character, the majority of interfaces used in mobile and locative media usually comprise 2D, and not necessarily 3D, graphics displayed to users via relatively small screens" (147), Charito argues that
"Interactive 3D graphics content adds to the sense of depth and the environmental character of the representation and also affords more possi- bilities for presenting information on the limited surface of a mobile device display. Moreover, the ability to interact and determine the course of the representation may significantly enhance the engagement of participants with the evolving action" (149).
Charito does not seem to consider a counter-argument that for me is quite obvious, and runs as follows: The more the user's attention is focused on the "environmental character of the representation", by which I assume he means the sense that the medium presents some form of "virtual reality", the less attention the user will be able to spend on the physical environment. Aside from the obvious dangers of having users walking around in urban environments with their attention consumed by the screens of their mobile devices, this perspective seems to miss one important point: How is this any different from the desktop model of virtual environments? It is mobile, so you can carry it around, but surely there is an important value to be gained from allowing the user direct her attention simultaneously at the medium and at the unmediated environment. The "interactive 3D"/virtual reality-model does not seem to take this problem into account.
Charito cites Blast Theory's Uncle Roy All Around You as support for the idea that
"The introduction of 3D graphics in mobile devices implies the introduction of mobility into interacting with 3D interfaces and the potential afforded to both mobile and home users for partici- pating concurrently in multiuser activities within such mediated spaces. One very good example of artwork affording such a collaborative experience is the revolutionary work of the new media performance group Blast Theory, titled Uncle Roy All Around You." (149)
However, as far as I have been able to understand from the documentation of the game, the mobile clients used in URAAY do not use 3D graphics! I have not been able to play the game so I can't guarantee this 100% - but certainly, from the description of the game both at the game's website and in the book Pervasive Games: Theory and Design (Montola, Stenros and Waern 2009, pp. 231-234), if 3D graphics were a part of the mobile client, they were not important enough to deserve mention. The properties of the mobile client appears to have been: A clickable map (for positioning and navigation), and text and audio messages (to communicate). Immersion in the virtual world seems not to have been a central issue - at least not for those of the players that were mobile.
Charitos then goes on to discuss mixed reality and augmented reality, and mentions a system for playing Quake in an urban space, using a wearable computer and a head-mounted display, projecting the virtual environment onto the physical one. Unfortunately he does not expand on this interesting example - what does it imply to play Quake in this way? How is it different from playing similar games (paintball, laser-tag etc) in artificially built environments? How does it make users engage with the urban environment, if at all?
Speaking about context awarenes in mobile interfaces, Charitos appropriately points out the paradoxical element of locative media, in that they reintroduce a connection with the physical context from which digital communication had liberated us:
"While the Internet allowed physical meeting places to migrate to a virtual spatial context, the introduction of mobile location-based communication networks relates the concept of a ‘‘meeting place’’ to the physical space of an urban environment. Thus, social computing, which was previously restricted to the Internet, is now brought back into the urban realm." (150)
"Locative media may be called systems of situated, context-aware communication. Location-based mediated environments bring human–computer communication and human–computer– human communication back into the context of the physical world, instead of expecting humans to adapt to the needs of a computer environment. [...] Locative media [...] promise a kind of spatialization of the Internet, whereby a part of its content, and the activities it relates to, are mapped onto physical space." (151)
Finally, Charitos turns to the idea that "locative media may contribute to regenerating public space and animating social interactions within it", and asks: "Why is public space in need of regeneration?" (151) To answer this, Charitos turns to the critique of contemporary urban environments as "nonspaces" (Auge 1992), and Castells notion of contemporary society being constructed around "space of flows" (Castells 1996: 441-442); as well as Hayles' concept of mobile communication creating "enfolded" contexts of communication (in other words, when speaking on a mobile phone the conversation itself is one context, the random strangers surrounding you is another) (Souza e Silva 2003: 14). From this, Charitos argues:
"In an attempt to describe the collaborative spatial experience afforded to all participating users of the multiuser locative media discussed in this chapter, it may be suggested that the folded context corresponding to the concurrent flow of content among all users has indeed more of a representational and spatial character, due to the spatial graphical interface of the system. This may result in a kind of hybrid spatial experience, involving the potential coexistence of participants, not only in the space of flows they carry with them, but also in the space of places within which they may experience proximity." (153)
I can't help but feel this paragraph can be restated more simply as: Locative media allow users to structure their communication and interaction with other users according to their locations - which, after all, is a more natural way for human communication and interaction to be structured, and which therefore may be assumed to be pleasing and rewarding for human beings in much the same way that basic human communication and interaction is. The only problem with the argument is what the graphical dimension of the interface has to do with it.
However, disregarding the graphical/visual question, Charitos vision of "electronically enhanced public spaces" is nice (even if it owes a citation to Russell):
"Tuters (2004, p. 1) suggests that locative media may transform the urban space of disconnected flows into a huge ‘‘peripatetic computer’’ of interpersonal contact that is a space full of potentially social places. This may lead to electronically enhanced public spaces that can be enjoyed, as they regain life by aiding city dwellers who are virtually strangers to meet in public places and engage together in various activities. In this sense, the urban space, enhanced by the ICT system, partly becomes a spatial communication interface, potentially initiating social interaction among the connected (and possibly unconnected) citizens who inhabit it.
[...] With the aid of location-based systems, space is being hybridized as the mediated spatial experience that is mapped onto the physical urban environment, allowing for new kinds of collaborative activities and social interaction. Thus, the experience of urban space is augmented by multiple layers of information, potentially accessible by all participating mobile users." (154)
Charitos ends with a call to action which it seems appropriate for the Inventio members to take as a challenge:
"Communication is tied to places and places to communication (Charitos, Diamantaki, Gazi, & Meimaris, 2005). The emergence of locative and mobile communication systems and their potential impact on social interaction in the urban context, however, suggests that new conceptual models regarding the design of such hybrid, dynamically evolving environmental experiences are needed." (154)
--Anders Sundnes Løvlie 16:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
