Nasig Keynote 0.2
Published on: Mar 3, 2016
Transcripts - Nasig Keynote 0.2
how ubiquitous computing serializes everyday things
NASIG Annual Conference
June 7, 2008
Good morning! My name is Mike Kuniavsky and the first thing I should tell
you is that I have no formal background in library science, so I apologize in
advance for all terrible misunderstandings that may occur.
Photo CC by puck90, found on Flickr
I’m a user experience researcher and designer. I spend much of my time
thinking about how technologies and people affect each other from social,
economic, historical and technological perspectives, and how the technological
side of that relationship can be made better, or at least more interesting, for the
human side of it.
Junkyard photo CC by Sigma. Found on Flickr.
I spent a little more than 10 years doing design and research for the web. I was
the designer of one of the first ecommerce websites in 1994, HotHotHot.
Despite the name, we sold hot sauce.
In 1996 I was the interaction designer of one of the ﬁrst big search engines,
In the late 90s I worked with many dotcoms, some famous, some--like
I sat out the dotcom crash writing a book based on the work I had been doing.
Ask your reference librarians to order extra copies.
In 2001 I co-founded an Internet consulting company called Adaptive Path.
Things went very well, Adaptive Path is doing very well, but ten years in
cyberspace is a long time. So 4 years ago I decided to pause and think full time
about how to apply what I had learned about people and the Internet to the
other computers that were increasingly embedded in our lives.
Things like mobile phones, iPods, TiVos, smart refrigerators, and talking
greeting cards. In other words, I decided to leave the office, leave cyberspace
and walk around a bit.
Photo CC by Cocoarmani, found on Flickr
Two years I founded a company with Tod Kurt called ThingM to pursue these
ideas commercially. We're a ubiquitous computing consumer electronics
So what’s ubiquitous computing, which sounds either ominous or exciting
depending on your attitude toward contemporary technology.
“Ubiqutious computing” was coined by the late Marc Weiser of Xerox PARC
about 20 years ago to describe a concept where computers didn't have to be
monolithic general-purpose devices that required special training to use
Photo CC by Richard Pluck, found on Flickr.
but could be, in his words, woven quot;into the fabric of everyday life until they
are indistinguishable from it.quot;
Photo: CC Mark Lacoste, original:
He made an analogy to books: a laptop is like a single really important, really
Such books exist, of course, but they're the exception.
Most books serve a special purpose and are read or consulted as needed.
But that’s not how we’ve been treating computers.
Photo CC by chotda, found on Flickr.
In other words, in his view, and in mine, the power of information processing
technology should not be limited to viewing the whole world through the lens
of a single magic window..
but the power of that technology, the potential of that technology, should be
brought into everyday life. When Weiser was writing, his vision was more of a
dream than a pragmatic reality, but in the intervening 20 years, something
This is a graph of Moore's Law. You’ve probably heard of it. It started as a key
piece of technology trend analysis but became a blueprint for the development
of technology over the last 30 years.
Normally, this graph is read as a trend representing how computers are getting
more powerful, but it also represents trend that shows how technology is
getting smaller and cheaper.
The personal computer chip that was the state of the art when Weiser was
initially writing about ubiquitous computing was the Intel 486. It’s in the
middle of this chart. The 486 correspond roughly to the beginning of the
modern, internet-connected computer and is a very powerful device.
1989: $1500* 2008: $0.50
33MHz, 20MIPS 20MHz, 20MIPS
* CPI Adjusted to 2008, original price: $900
In the 19 years since it came out, thanks to the economics of Moore's Law, that
processing power has become a commodity and it’s possible to buy a chip with
nearly as much power for about 50 cents.
Such commoditization of a technology profoundly changes the social response
When something is expensive, you're going to have one of it and it's going to
have to do a wide variety of different things. Maybe one of the reasons
Gutenberg printed bibles was because he knew a bible is a kind of a general
purpose book with a guaranteed wide audience.
A closer example is the electric motor.
in 1918 electric motors were expensive, so you bought one for the house and
then you bought attachments for it. The motor was a general purpose tool that
was adapted as needed.
That’s the way Kitchen Aid mixers still work, but that’s more of a quirk of the
Kitchen Aid. In 1918, it was an economic necessity because few people could
afford to own many electric motors.
However, when something is cheap, you can have more than one of it. When
you have more than one of a given thing, you get specialization. The concept
of the self-contained kitchen appliance appeared when motors became cheap
enough to hide. Instead of a juicing attachment, you have a juicer. Instead of a
blending attachment, you have a blender.
When you can have dozens of a thing, they get hyper-specialized, as those of
you who have ever shopped for appliances know.
This is what we're already seeing with computer and networking technology.
The age of objects with embedded processors is already here. Let me give you
some examples. Mobile phones are of course a kind of portable computer.
Photo CC by Scott Ableman, found on Flickr.
So are cars. This is a Toyota Prius display, but cars have had multiple
embedded computers in them for 25 years.
Photo CC by -Ant, found on Flickr.
This is the Cuddle Chimp, a robotic toy. There are hundreds of robotic and
computer augmented toys on the shelves and they cost little more than toys
that have no information processing in them at all.
This is the Adidas 1 shoe, which has a embedded microprocessor that analyzes
the running surface about 20 times a second and adjusts the stiffness of the
heel in between strides in response.
And this is a Blendtech blender that has programmable blender cycles. If
you’ve been to Jamba Juice or any of the other big smoothie chains, you’ve
had the products of these.
Whole new classes of objects with embedded computers are being added on a
In other words, we already live in the world that Weiser envisioned, and both
we and it are changing in response.
A key piece of this is digital, machine-readable, identification.
Things have long had identifying marks, from silversmiths' hallmarks.
To barcodes, but mating machine-readable identification with pervasive
networking greatly increases the value of the marks.
Photo CC from http://www.ﬂickr.com/photos/dumbledad/298650884/
For example, when a machine-readable identification method such as an RFID
or a high density visual code…
is combined with the wireless networking of a mobile phone, a new way of
interacting with everyday objects is created.
Point certain phone cameras at a QR-CODEd object and it takes you to a URL
that the phone, which is a kind of portable networked computer, automatically
You can see where a product was made and, for example, what the nutritional
value is. You can get third party reviews of the product. Does it do what it says
it’s going to?
Photo CC, found on http://www.ﬂickr.com/photos/hiromy/330745745/
Once you have that capability, you can attach meta Information to anything.
Photo CC, found on http://www.ﬂickr.com/photos/dotben/54783107/
Such machine-readable identiﬁcation technologies let you see a lot more of the
social life of everyday objects. How much is this worth on Ebay? Which of my
friends has one? Will this go with my Mom’s china?
I call this digital representation as accessed through a unique ID, an objects’
quot;information shadow” and I now see them attached to just about everything.
Paraphrasing Yahoo!’s Tom Coates, first we learn to digitally point at a thing's
information shadow, then we can glue information handles to it. Once the
shadow has handles, we can grab and throw the information around.
I think it’s telling that Tom developed this way of thinking of objects as having
digital handles while developing the BBC’s online program guide. TV shows
are a kind of serial and he had to learn to think about that data and how that
data could be used, while trying to organize this mass of serialized
Let me give you another example of information shadows.
Photo CC by lovestruck, found on Flickr.
A geographic coordinate is a simple kind of information shadow. Here's a map
of the trails of San Francisco yellow taxis as they move around the city. Every
cab has a unique identifier, a GPS device and a wireless network connection
that updates its location in real time.
The unique identifier is the handle and the GPS coordinate is the information
So how can we throw this around? We can use this data to do something as
basic as suggesting what street corner to wait at for the next cab, or as complex
as understanding downtown migratory patterns to make urban planning
Once we have that handle, the possibilities open up quickly, and this is the key
to the power of machine-readable identification.
Another example: Ulla-Maaria Mutanen, a Finnish researcher, realized that
when Amazon extended ISBN to create their ASIN system they suddenly
allowed anyone to reference any product Amazon sells or has ever sold. The
ASIN is the handle that we can use to throw Amazon information shadows
around. Amazon has built a large portion of their business around the fact that
people point at their objects in a million ways, but at the core of that is always
Amazon sells a lot of stuff, but they don’t sell everything. Mutanen went
beyond her initial observation to create a new system, Thinglink, that extends
the idea of having a digital handle to any object, however unique or mundane.
She hopes that Thinglink will let everything be as easily addressible as
Amazon’s products, so that even the most humble homemade product can have
the kind of social life Amazon’s products have.
Some things are crying out for having their information shadows so easily
For many wine enthusiasts, for example, information about wine is as
important as wine itself, and they may spend as much time researching and
talking about wine as they do drinking it, probably more.
Other things have become subsumed by their shadows. We all know what
happened to music
Amazon’s Kindle is trying to do that to books.
In the past, there was a fairly clear distinction between an object, a digital
representation of that object and the metadata about that object. Now that
distinction has sufficiently blurred that there is a range of objects that exist to
varying degrees as information shadows.
Photo CC by scurzuzu, found on Flickr.
Some things have dematerialized almost completely.
When was the last time you thought of a plane ticket as a physical thing?
These kinds of identification and tracking technologies are not wholly new.
However, until recently, information handles have not extended far beyond the
world of digital objects and machine readable identification has not extended
beyond the logistics and shipping industries. That's soon going to change.
My view of serials
In the rest of this talk, I'm going to speak about how I believe the world of
serials and the world of ubiquitous computing intersect.
First, however, I’d like to tell you how I think of serials. I come from outside
the library world, so my view of what a serial is may be naïve, so first let me
tell you what I imagine when I think quot;serialquot;:
I think of a journal. And what's a journal?
Well, from my perspective, it's an agreement between a publisher and
subscriber that one will provide information of a certain type to the other. This
service traditionally manifests as a softcovered book.
The New England Journal of Medicine mails my doctor housemate medical
information every week. Next week this one will be replaced with a similar
and similarly the week after that
and the week after that
When I look at this journal on our coffee table, I see a dotted line in the shape
of a soft-covered book.
The outline is regularly filled in with something that addresses a set of
concepts that are defined by the agreement between publisher and the
Furthermore, the space inside the dotted line represents what can be thought of
as a slice through a single object, some of which has been created, and some of
When I think about purchasing a subscription, I think about buying some paper
that represents a chunk of the contents of that larger object
Photo CC by heipei, found on Flickr.
and as long as I, the subscriber, am interested in that broad set of concepts, I
kept buying new chunks.
What I, the subscriber, own is the ageement for the service. The paper
manifestation of that agreement is one way that the aggrement can be satisfied
and the service provided. There can, of course, be other manifestatations, but at
the core for me is idea that when you subscribe, you buy the dotted line and
you own whatever fills in that dotted line.
A dotted line around the world
Now, I believe that journals are no longer the only things that have implicit
dotted lines around them.
A familiar dotted-line object is the timeshared condo. Allow me to compare a
timeshare to a journal. In a journal, the form and update period are fixed, and
the content is variable. Similarly, in a timeshare, the form and usage period are
fixed, and the occupants are variable. You could say that in this view, the
timeshare is subscribed to you although of course, then you’re paying to be the
contents, and that's probably taking the metaphor too far. Or maybe not.
In both cases, what you own is the possibility of an object, rather than a
specific object. Also, unlike rental, which is a time-limited agreement that
implies no rights before or after, both a journal and a timeshare represent a
kind of true ownership. You have some rights to that property forever, even if--
in the case of the journal--it may only mean being able to keep the paper
manifestation on your shelf forever.
Now I’d like to talk about a related concept called a quot;vacation club” that
extends the timeshare idea and this kind of relationship even further.
Photo CC by opacity, found on Flickr.
Disney has one, of course. Ownership of a Disney Vacation Club property, for
example, last about 50 years and gives you the right not to a fixed property at a
fixed time, but the right to vacation at something like 500 different properties
at just about any time.
In this agreement, neither the place, nor the time is fixed, only the rough
outlines of the experience you're going to have.
So what do you own for 50 years?
Not getting into the literal legal definition, roughly speaking, you own the right
to request a class of things that changes with every instantiation.
But it changes in a way that is predictably different.
I think these types of goods point to a new model of relating to everyday
objects, one that's enabled by ubiquitous computing and which could
fundamentally challenge and change what it means to own something. I
believe that it could shift the nature of many everyday things from existing as
monolithic objects to being closer to something that's between a service and a
To paraphrase science fiction writer and ubiquitous computing theorist Bruce
Sterling, why should I own a bicycle and my neighbor own a bicycle, when we
typically don't need to use one at the same time? Why does everyone on the
block need to own their own wheelbarrow?
Photo CC by alykat, found on Flickr.
Until recently, the logistics of sharing everyday objects have been complex and
have happened only where traditional ownership was financially prohibitive or
where the people involved were highly motivated, such as at a commune,
summer camp or in the military.
Photo CC by kindee, found on Flickr.
As anyone who's lived with roommates will tell you, sharing is difficult
Photo CC by christinerenee, found on Flickr.
and the tools are primitive.
Ubiquitous computing gives us tools to track, trade and share objects much
more efficiently than any previous technology.
Let me give you an example.
Photo CC by rexandsharkey, Found on Flickr.
City Carshare, the first car sharing company, wouldn't exist without ubiquitous
When you buy into their service, you get a dotted line car and a key fob that
has an RFID in it, which is essentially a small microprocessor and radio. The
car is connected to a central network. You can only open the car and start the
engine when your specific keyfob is scheduled to open and start it. Like the
yellow cabs I showed earlier, it uses a GPS to track where the car is, whether
it's been dropped off at the right location, and how far it's been driven. All of
that is transparent to you, the owner of a membership. You treat it much like
your own car and have access to it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with very
little advance notice. It's of course different than your own car--you can’t leave
your CDs in it--but it's certainly a lot more like your own car than a rental.
However, unlike a single car, it's a car possibility space. This is an ad from
Zipcar, a similar service to City Carshare and it shows the implicit power of
this kind of system. It shows how your relationship to your car can change if
that car is a dotted line object.
Here's another example: Germany’s Call-a-Bike program run by the rail
service. The program is completely based on ubiquitous computing
technology. You need a bike, you find one of these bikes, which are usually at
major street corners. You use your mobile phone to call the number on the
bike. It gives you a code that you punch in to unlock the bike lock. You ride
the bike around and when you've arrived, you lock it. The amount of time you
rode it automatically gets billed to your phone, by the minute.
Photo CC by probek, found on Flickr.
Here's another example that’s not technically ubicomp, but points to some
exciting possibilities. Bag, Borrow or Steal is a designer purse subscription
site. It works like Netflix, but for really expensive handbags.
It's fashion by subscription and it again points to a new way of thinking about
Photo CC by bs70, found on Flickr
The changing nature of everyday objects
Information shadows and dotted-line objects are related. The shadow of an
object allows it to be tracked and managed so that it can become an instance of
a dotted-line object. In other words, it's the trackable metadata of physical
objects that allows for their efficient conversion to services, to subscriptions. It
was technically possible before, of course, and variations on these ideas have
existed for a long time…
but it was not widely practical until the technology enabled these relationships
to be embedded in many kinds of everyday objects and once embedded, to be
This points to a fundamental change in the nature of everyday objects.
Photo CC by takomabibelot, Found on Flickr
One that simultaneously opens great possibilities and raises deep questions
about ownership and privacy.
Economist Jeremy Rifkin coined the term quot;The Age of Accessquot; to define this
change. He says it represents a shift from ownership of objects to access to
Photo CC, found on http://www.ﬂickr.com/photos/antara365/823844803/
This is not unlike the philosophy of the Whole Earth Catalog, which promised
access to tools, but now the tools are services. Rifkin wasn't talking about
ubiquitous computing, but I believe that ubicomp represents a key enabling set
of technologies that are going to introduce a deep social shift in our
understanding of what is a service and what can be provided as a subscription,
as I’ve shown.
That's where you come in.
Technologists typically leave out the information management challenges
when talking about technological shifts. However, you understand those shifts
better than anyone else, since you have been on the forefront of the integration
of information shadows and physical objects longer than just about everyone.
Your job is to wrangle information about information. You have developed
concepts, language and procedures for managing a broad range of knowledge
about a broad range of entities. You understand how to name, classify,
organize, curate and preserve continuity among dotted-line objects. You know
how they differ from non-dotted-line objects.
Right now your focus is predominantly on informational objects, but why
should that be the only kind of object that you consider? Why not think about
how your work here can apply to the serialization of everyday objects?
Photo CC by larskﬂem, found on Flickr
What I'm saying that the world of dotted-line objects needs people who
understand how to manage information about these objects. The field needs
people who will corral, label and organize the information shadows. It doesn't
know that yet, since the phenomenon is so new, but it will. The world will
need shadow wranglers, and that's you.