Comments on: MIRW 2007 http://www.nearfield.org/2007/06/mirw-2007 Interaction with RFID and NFC Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:49:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Sam Kinsley http://www.nearfield.org/2007/06/mirw-2007/comment-page-1#comment-3328 Sam Kinsley Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:38:21 +0000 http://www.nearfield.org/2007/06/mirw-2007#comment-3328 I'm glad that you found my remarks useful, I hadn't realised that you were not directly involved - perhaps I should have read the MIRW page more closely! I think the particular issues of how such social/spatial/technological... relations are conceptualised is an interesting point of possible discussion across (increasingly malleable) disciplinary edges that, as it broadens, will continue to provoke interesting conversations. I’m glad that you found my remarks useful, I hadn’t realised that you were not directly involved – perhaps I should have read the MIRW page more closely! I think the particular issues of how such social/spatial/technological… relations are conceptualised is an interesting point of possible discussion across (increasingly malleable) disciplinary edges that, as it broadens, will continue to provoke interesting conversations.

]]> By: Timo http://www.nearfield.org/2007/06/mirw-2007/comment-page-1#comment-3325 Timo Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:09:14 +0000 http://www.nearfield.org/2007/06/mirw-2007#comment-3325 Good feedback Sam, it is particularly the term 'real' which doesn't sit right. Thanks for your thoughts on the research questions, I'll forward your post on to the organisers (I'm not in any way involved in organising the workshop). Good feedback Sam, it is particularly the term ‘real’ which doesn’t sit right. Thanks for your thoughts on the research questions, I’ll forward your post on to the organisers (I’m not in any way involved in organising the workshop).

]]> By: Sam Kinsley http://www.nearfield.org/2007/06/mirw-2007/comment-page-1#comment-3324 Sam Kinsley Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:18:22 +0000 http://www.nearfield.org/2007/06/mirw-2007#comment-3324 This seems like an interesting session. However, I find the implication of technical mediation somehow opposing (a categorisation of) a 'real' world problematic. Proposing the distinction between 'real' and 'virtual' or 'digital' (or anything other word that suggests a mythical 'other' world in which technical mediation takes place) sets up a facile binary that elides the interesting and nuanced differences between different types of interaction/ relation that the questions posed above otherwise appear to seek to investigate. All of the experiences implied by these questions are 'real' thus all of those interactions being addressed in this discussion are 'real'. Giving slightly more rigorous empirical descriptions offers a greater potential for investigation, after all - over-generalisation serves nobody. Coming from perhaps a broader angle, taking into account social sciences standpoints, might I suggest that the questions be rephrased, for example: - What different types of interaction (between people and between people & things) are afforded or signalled by mobile technical (inter)mediation? - What are the different types of technologies and their combinations can, or might, be used in these different modes of interaction? - How should we go about describing these different types of technologies, their combinations, and the different modes of interaction they engender/ are engendered by? How might we articulate causality within this schema? - What sorts of strategies for design can we work within and towards that allow for the emergence of different modes of interaction (whether intended or otherwise)? - What should these user interfaces look like? - Can these interfaces be generated automatically? - Should the services we design be defined in a standardized way (e.g. with semantic web services)? - What types of approach might be used in the interaction design and usability for mobile technically mediated interaction in different social and environmental contexts? - How are apparently inert material objects implicated or associated with new and existing forms of mobile technically mediated interaction? - What issues and debates concerning privacy and security have and might continue to arise from the expansion of different kinds of mobile technical interaction? I think with these minor changes the debates possible are considerably widened and I would be very interested in taking part! This seems like an interesting session. However, I find the implication of technical mediation somehow opposing (a categorisation of) a ‘real’ world problematic. Proposing the distinction between ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ or ‘digital’ (or anything other word that suggests a mythical ‘other’ world in which technical mediation takes place) sets up a facile binary that elides the interesting and nuanced differences between different types of interaction/ relation that the questions posed above otherwise appear to seek to investigate. All of the experiences implied by these questions are ‘real’ thus all of those interactions being addressed in this discussion are ‘real’. Giving slightly more rigorous empirical descriptions offers a greater potential for investigation, after all – over-generalisation serves nobody. Coming from perhaps a broader angle, taking into account social sciences standpoints, might I suggest that the questions be rephrased, for example:
– What different types of interaction (between people and between people & things) are afforded or signalled by mobile technical (inter)mediation?
– What are the different types of technologies and their combinations can, or might, be used in these different modes of interaction?
– How should we go about describing these different types of technologies, their combinations, and the different modes of interaction they engender/ are engendered by? How might we articulate causality within this schema?
– What sorts of strategies for design can we work within and towards that allow for the emergence of different modes of interaction (whether intended or otherwise)?
– What should these user interfaces look like?
– Can these interfaces be generated automatically?
– Should the services we design be defined in a standardized way (e.g. with semantic web services)?
– What types of approach might be used in the interaction design and usability for mobile technically mediated interaction in different social and environmental contexts?
– How are apparently inert material objects implicated or associated with new and existing forms of mobile technically mediated interaction?
– What issues and debates concerning privacy and security have and might continue to arise from the expansion of different kinds of mobile technical interaction?

I think with these minor changes the debates possible are considerably widened and I would be very interested in taking part!

]]>