Make Me Make You
Google Glass, Microsoft Kinect, Google's Flutter for Mac - are we really ready to merge with our machines?
I know that this is the big deal, the predicted "emerging algorith," the next major predicted step in computing - but I either I'm too old to adapt (is that possible?) or that kind of adapting just isn't humanly possible. Somehow, I can't picture it.
It is true, if someone had predicted 25 years ago that I'd carry a little device with me (a Tricorder, anyone?) that contained most of my life in digital form, and without which I felt positively naked - worse, I felt panicked - I would have found it hard to believe. But I believe there is a difference between an ATM Machine and The Clapper.
Let me explain that one a little. ATM machines are an innovation I would fight to maintain, and which have significantly changed my life and the way I conduct it. I don't have to worry about getting to the bank before it closes; I don't have to worry about being near a store for which I have a check cashing card. ATM machines are everywhere, easy to operate, and relatively inexpensive.
The Clapper, that famous "lights on, lights off" device that allowed you to control, by the sound of clapping, the lights (or other devices in a given room) plugged in to The Clapper.
The problem is, it's just not that hard to turn on lights. One time I might want all my lights on, another time I might want just a few, or one. It's not specific enough. It demands a new habit that doesn't make my life so much easier that I adopt it happily and readily. The time I save isn't sufficient reward for the retraining.
So my personal jury is still out on whether items like those I mentioned - Google Glass, Kinect, and Flutter - are going to be adopted as enthusiastically as developers think.
Before I go into the details of each, let me provide another example of a technology that, for all its promise, didn't really take off: "layers," or "enhanced reality." It sounded pretty cool: point your smart phone at an area of a city, for example, and find a restaurant, or a house for sale, or other information - which way to the beach? The problem was, in my view, there were alternatives that were easy to use, didn't require much in the way of learning, and had an obvious connection with the way we were used to doing things, such as the App "Around Me," that did basically the same thing by only slightly modifying what we were already used to doing (such as, looking up the location of a restaurant in a phone book, or online) but providing the convenience of "any time, anywhere," and virtual updates, that the old modality couldn't provide. Or here's another - "Bump." That was going to be a Big Thing because all you had to do was have the app turned on and then bump knuckles with another person also using the app and you would exchange contact information. Again, my guess is that this was just too far away from what we were used to doing, and not a natural enough evolution of habit, to be easily adopted.
So, let's back up and take a closer look at each of those three technologies I named at the beginning of the article.
Google Glass: it's essentially a smart headset that will perform most of the functions of your smart phone, but without you having to navigate Apps using your hands. You navigate via voice and movement. So, you can take pictures or video and post them or share them; you can make notes; you can translate to another language; you can look up information or make a phone call. Again, as noted, essentially all those things that we're doing now using our smart phones, but without the challenge of finding the phone and finding the app. Here's my problem with this one: it's just not that difficult to use the phone. Most of us have adapted to the phone-as-extension-of-self pretty easily, and while yes, if you drop the phone into a purse or on the floor of a car while traveling you can face the possibility of missing a perfect photo, for the most part, I haven't been so bothered by lost opportunity in connection with my phone that I'd do just about anything to fix the problem. In other words, using my phone as is simply isn't really much of a problem. The Siri - or truly "smart" voice control of my phone - has solved what small problems I did have, such as a long text session, with relative ease and very little adaptation of my current behavior.
Wearing a headset, and taking the time and effort to experience a new learning curve, is more of a leap. Now, if I could solve the problem of dropped calls by simply wearing the headset? You can bet I would have one in the proverbial New York minute (how long is that, by the way?). That is to say, dropped calls are such an annoyance, and more or less a daily occurrence, so in fact there is a problem to be solved there that I would be willing to go to some lengths to solve. Not so much the onerous chore of pointing my phone at a cute kid and enabling the Camera app.
Microsoft's Kinect, and Google's Flutter, are variations on a theme, and are both gesture replacement technology for the things that we now do with a mouse or keyboard.
Keyboard commands were an easy step from mouse control to a simpler, easier, less annoying way to accomplish a task: to copy and paste on a Windows keyboard, I simply hit Control-C, then Control-V, first selecting the item to be copied, then selecting the location to place the copied item. Simple. Of course, so is doing the same chore with a mouse using the right mouse button.
With gesture controls, I have to learn a way of engaging with a device - in the case of Flutter, it's basically the camera on your computer or Smart TV or whatever - and then using hand gestures and vocal cues to perform tasks. Now, I suppose I can see the usefulness of that sort of thing for a once-and-done operation, such as "Call Susie Jones." Or "Turn on DVR, Play back Walking Dead." But to try to accomplish real work by standing in front of a camera and performing a choreographed series of gestures is too big of a leap from the system already in place in our habitual behaviors.
Here's another f'rinstance: I thought I was going to love "Dance, Dance Revolution." The idea was brilliant: you attach a mat to a port on your DVD player along with the appropriate program, turn it on, then follow the moves of a dance-workout routine by hitting the right spots on the map with your feet. In fact, I did enjoy it - and the console models at Game Centers have been very popular. But the truth is that it's a pain in the neck to set up. It's much easier to simply pop a DVD in and follow an instructor who's leading you through a dance routine. The novelty isn't sufficient for the demand of retraining.
Yes, as I watch little kids engage with iPads and smart phones, and see how quickly they figure out pinching and swiping and other basic interactions, I do believe that kids who grow up using this type of "stand and swipe" behavior will most likely find it second nature. I'm less sanguine about it being a logical "next" step in the evolution of human-computer-interface technology.
I know that this is the big deal, the predicted "emerging algorith," the next major predicted step in computing - but I either I'm too old to adapt (is that possible?) or that kind of adapting just isn't humanly possible. Somehow, I can't picture it.
It is true, if someone had predicted 25 years ago that I'd carry a little device with me (a Tricorder, anyone?) that contained most of my life in digital form, and without which I felt positively naked - worse, I felt panicked - I would have found it hard to believe. But I believe there is a difference between an ATM Machine and The Clapper.
Let me explain that one a little. ATM machines are an innovation I would fight to maintain, and which have significantly changed my life and the way I conduct it. I don't have to worry about getting to the bank before it closes; I don't have to worry about being near a store for which I have a check cashing card. ATM machines are everywhere, easy to operate, and relatively inexpensive.
The Clapper, that famous "lights on, lights off" device that allowed you to control, by the sound of clapping, the lights (or other devices in a given room) plugged in to The Clapper.
The problem is, it's just not that hard to turn on lights. One time I might want all my lights on, another time I might want just a few, or one. It's not specific enough. It demands a new habit that doesn't make my life so much easier that I adopt it happily and readily. The time I save isn't sufficient reward for the retraining.
So my personal jury is still out on whether items like those I mentioned - Google Glass, Kinect, and Flutter - are going to be adopted as enthusiastically as developers think.
Before I go into the details of each, let me provide another example of a technology that, for all its promise, didn't really take off: "layers," or "enhanced reality." It sounded pretty cool: point your smart phone at an area of a city, for example, and find a restaurant, or a house for sale, or other information - which way to the beach? The problem was, in my view, there were alternatives that were easy to use, didn't require much in the way of learning, and had an obvious connection with the way we were used to doing things, such as the App "Around Me," that did basically the same thing by only slightly modifying what we were already used to doing (such as, looking up the location of a restaurant in a phone book, or online) but providing the convenience of "any time, anywhere," and virtual updates, that the old modality couldn't provide. Or here's another - "Bump." That was going to be a Big Thing because all you had to do was have the app turned on and then bump knuckles with another person also using the app and you would exchange contact information. Again, my guess is that this was just too far away from what we were used to doing, and not a natural enough evolution of habit, to be easily adopted.
So, let's back up and take a closer look at each of those three technologies I named at the beginning of the article.
Google Glass: it's essentially a smart headset that will perform most of the functions of your smart phone, but without you having to navigate Apps using your hands. You navigate via voice and movement. So, you can take pictures or video and post them or share them; you can make notes; you can translate to another language; you can look up information or make a phone call. Again, as noted, essentially all those things that we're doing now using our smart phones, but without the challenge of finding the phone and finding the app. Here's my problem with this one: it's just not that difficult to use the phone. Most of us have adapted to the phone-as-extension-of-self pretty easily, and while yes, if you drop the phone into a purse or on the floor of a car while traveling you can face the possibility of missing a perfect photo, for the most part, I haven't been so bothered by lost opportunity in connection with my phone that I'd do just about anything to fix the problem. In other words, using my phone as is simply isn't really much of a problem. The Siri - or truly "smart" voice control of my phone - has solved what small problems I did have, such as a long text session, with relative ease and very little adaptation of my current behavior.
Wearing a headset, and taking the time and effort to experience a new learning curve, is more of a leap. Now, if I could solve the problem of dropped calls by simply wearing the headset? You can bet I would have one in the proverbial New York minute (how long is that, by the way?). That is to say, dropped calls are such an annoyance, and more or less a daily occurrence, so in fact there is a problem to be solved there that I would be willing to go to some lengths to solve. Not so much the onerous chore of pointing my phone at a cute kid and enabling the Camera app.
Microsoft's Kinect, and Google's Flutter, are variations on a theme, and are both gesture replacement technology for the things that we now do with a mouse or keyboard.
Keyboard commands were an easy step from mouse control to a simpler, easier, less annoying way to accomplish a task: to copy and paste on a Windows keyboard, I simply hit Control-C, then Control-V, first selecting the item to be copied, then selecting the location to place the copied item. Simple. Of course, so is doing the same chore with a mouse using the right mouse button.
With gesture controls, I have to learn a way of engaging with a device - in the case of Flutter, it's basically the camera on your computer or Smart TV or whatever - and then using hand gestures and vocal cues to perform tasks. Now, I suppose I can see the usefulness of that sort of thing for a once-and-done operation, such as "Call Susie Jones." Or "Turn on DVR, Play back Walking Dead." But to try to accomplish real work by standing in front of a camera and performing a choreographed series of gestures is too big of a leap from the system already in place in our habitual behaviors.
Here's another f'rinstance: I thought I was going to love "Dance, Dance Revolution." The idea was brilliant: you attach a mat to a port on your DVD player along with the appropriate program, turn it on, then follow the moves of a dance-workout routine by hitting the right spots on the map with your feet. In fact, I did enjoy it - and the console models at Game Centers have been very popular. But the truth is that it's a pain in the neck to set up. It's much easier to simply pop a DVD in and follow an instructor who's leading you through a dance routine. The novelty isn't sufficient for the demand of retraining.
Yes, as I watch little kids engage with iPads and smart phones, and see how quickly they figure out pinching and swiping and other basic interactions, I do believe that kids who grow up using this type of "stand and swipe" behavior will most likely find it second nature. I'm less sanguine about it being a logical "next" step in the evolution of human-computer-interface technology.
Comments