Historical Perspective
From CS160 User Interfaces Sp09
Lecture on Apr 27, 2009
Readings
- As We May Think. The Atlantic Monthly. 1945. Bush.
Mirror for people from off-campus networks or who don't have ACM accounts
- The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American. 1991. Weiser
Mirror for people from off-campus networks or who don't have ACM accounts
Saung Li - Apr 25, 2009 06:26:33 pm
These two articles have some pretty interesting ideas for making computing more helpful and easier to use. The first article came up with the "memex" as an example, showing how it can be used to easily store and retrieve data so the user can quickly perform a task or learn about something. As of now, we have ways to store tons of information but don't have good ways to access them, so only a few can learn from the huge wealth of information. The article, which is pretty dated, gives some ideas for some solutions to that problem, but we are not nearly there. The second talks about using small computers like tabs and pads that can provide for a ubiquitous or an embodied virtual computing, where people can easily get whatever relevant information anywhere they go. This sounds pretty cool, but there's bound to be many issues. It sounds like it will need a lot of research and be very costly, at least in the initial stages, until ubiquitous computing becomes more popular. Since computers are everywhere in ubiquitous computing, there will be endless opportunities for hackers to do harm to users. California wanted to use electronic voting devices for the 2008 presidential elections, but they were discarded because they had too many security flaws. Thus, a lot of research in computer security would be needed to accompany the growth in ubiquitous technology. There would also be privacy issues, since people can seem to be able to get info about anything at any time. Someone could use one of these tabs to record everything, so there would need to be safeguards against this. Though it seems like we are far from the predictions that these articles made, there is some progress. I saw on a YouTube video a screen on the table developed by Microsoft in which users could access data and use it in cool ways. A lot has been done these past few decades, and it will be interesting to see the technological advancements of this century.
Andrew Chen - Apr 25, 2009 11:26:36 pm
It was interesting to see how many of the issues raised in As We May Think are addressed by the personal computer of today, in a different form than the author had imagined. For example, for data compression, we now have the hard drive, and for information retrieval, perhaps the search engine. However, it was also interesting to see, just as the previous post mentioned, that some of the ideas raised in both articles, though good ideas, are still mere ideas today. For example, the "information trail" of the first article seems like something profitable for research on the internet, but little of it is seen today. "Ubiquitous computing," though seemingly closer to reality now than when the article was written, since many more computers are embedded invisibly around us today, still remains a vision of the future. Embedded computers today still do not operate under the paradigm of recognizing their own physical location and communicating with each other to form an integrated support network for people.
Sean Ahrens - Apr 26, 2009 02:10:15 pm
I was thoroughly impressed with the ideas expressed in "As We May Think". As I was reading I was thinking to myself that the author must be no chump, no simple journalist -- this guy knows what he is talking about and must have a very intimate relationship with the technologies he is discussing. I find it so intriuging that the visions he presented in 1945 have very much come true today. His idea of a "memex" is very similar to that of the desktop computer, and the applications he discussed for it, very true to actuality. One important insight he did miss however, was the internet and its effect on file storage and sharing. But hey, not bad.
The XEROX PARC article was quite interesting as well, but I found its vision to be quite off the mark in present day. Computers, in fact, are almost no more ubiquitous today than they were when this article was written. Laptops still remain rather confined to laptops. We are now seeing the wider emergence of smart phones, and this is the one point where I see an increase in possible ubiquity. However, people who own smartphones, still only have one. A typical person might have one smart phone and one laptop. That is essientially the extent of their computing ubiquity. People today don't have hundreds of computing devices around their houses (I suppose remotes and stereos may prove slight exceptions, but I don't think even in the Xerox PARC article these were recognized as computers). If I can postulate a reason I would say that this is because of cost -- computers are still far far far far more expensive than paper -- making "scrap computers" only a rich man's possibility -- plus, I believe there is still no software and hardware development that so far meets this end. Probably because the market is so small.
Anatol Tsang - Apr 26, 2009 07:30:35 pm
The article "As We May Think" at first addressed a problem that I think the whole of computer science seeks to address: enlarging man's ability to gain information and to increase the expressive power of his thoughts. Things such as programming languages, IDE's, and compilers automate certain processes for us, which allows programmers to focus on the most important details in designing a system or a program. The article then delved into the advances of the past and possible technological advances of the future, which seemed irrelevant, until it culminated in a description of a system that would enable people to gain information and absorb it in a more effective manner. However, I think that this is less related to user interfaces and more related to general problems of computer science. Of course, user interface design is an important element of computer science, but it seems somewhat more related to psychology and how users perceive things than to things that go on inside a computer. Perhaps my concepts are getting in the way.
The article about twenty-first century computing was very similar to the first reading in nature (and therefore, somewhat more related to general computer science than to user interface design). Weiser makes a good point when he points out that sometimes, the best inventions are the ones that disappear. Humanity keeps advancing in technology and in ways of thinking, so that each newly developed layer builds on previous layers. In the end, we are able to worry less about the underlying layers and focus more on the most abstract and powerful layer. The whole article on ubiquitous computing sounds interesting- it seems that many things will be more convenient once computers are able to handle some of the lower-level details of our activity. Although I think there is a danger of becoming unappreciative and jaded of life despite ubiquitous computing, this change in our lives can be very good.
Ling Chen - Apr 26, 2009 07:08:40 pm
Even as an article written in 1945, "As We May Think" has impressed me with all of its predicted ideas, most of which have already come true in today's society. For example, nowadays, photography "need not be wetted at all" because we have digital cameras. Records of books are now on digital reserve, "a library of a million volumes" is now indeed "compressed into one end of a desk." We also have super computers that can do calculations at a speed beyond their imagination in the 1940's. I guess the most impressive idea was that of the memex, and how similar it sounds like today's personal computers. "A memex is a device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility." and "it can presumably be operated from a distance...screens, on which material can be projected for convenient reading. There is a keyboard, and sets of buttons and levers...In one end is the stored material....Only a small part of the interior of the memex is devoted to storage, the rest to mechanism...Most of the memex contents are purchased on microfilm (from floppies, to cd's, to flash drives) ready for insertion." It was interesting to read about how far we have come today in terms of technologies, and how people way back in 1945 had already dream about today's advancement. Just imagine where we'll be in another 60 or 70 years!
My first reaction to the second article was that I like the idea of ubiquitous computing. Where as the first article presented to us the thoughts and ideas from the past and perhaps brought us to where we are today, this article might very well be the present vision for our future. Today when we think about computers, like the article suggested, we often think of a person sitting in front of a computer monitor in a windowless office, and becoming isolated to other human presence. The computers demand our focus of attention rather than fading into the background. Ubiquitous computing, on the other hand, wants computers to be able to reside in the human world and pose no barrier to personal interactions, and to bring communities closer together. We have always talked about how technology is making people more and more distanced toward each other. Even now, We can already see a trend in using technology to help people connect with each other, that's why social networks are so popular. I enjoyed walking through the story of Sal's day and how computers have incorporated so seamlessly into her life at home and at work. Just imagine living a day in her shoes... I don't know, it's quite tempting. On the flip side though, I am also a little concerned that if we made all these technology so convenient, invisible and part-of-our-everyday-lives, would we become even more depended on technology in the future than we are already today?
Alan Young - Apr 26, 2009 07:03:33 pm
"As We May Think" brings up a lot of interesting points on the shortcomings of the current way of transmitting and reviewing research. A lot of examples were given, such as Mendel's research on genetics, to show that important research findings were lost to the world for a long time just because it didn't get into the hands of a few people who could understand it and spread or build on it. The article proposed a future device called a "memex" that will act as a mechanical device to store all a person's books, records, and communications to be accessed quickly and easily. The memex seems to be an advanced desk with translucent screens to act as monitors which would help people with the quickly changing research information today.
"The Computer for the 21st Century" brings up the interesting idea of ubiquitous technology and how to think of computers differently so that computers can become as natural in the environment as written language, which we use everyday. Ubiquitous in this case does not mean like a laptop that can be taken anywhere but more about how a technology has vanished into the background in a psychological sense. Examples they talked about include pads which are digital sketchpads. The purpose of ubiquitous computers is to overcome the problem of information overload. Since this article is a little dated, I think that the prevalence of laptops and increased wireless internet areas and the increasing utilization of cloud computing has all made computers ubiquitous.
Chunwei Lai - Apr 26, 2009 09:13:07 pm
It's always good to see people having big visions of progress as shown in the readings. The type of technology that seems to be only found in movies then are now achievable. However, most of the time, the impact a technology isn't grasped well since there are quite a bit of factors to consider that can't be fully comprehended completely from a technical point-of-view. Smaller embedded devices and cloud computing are rapidly making its way into practical use and is just a small part of the changes to come. UI itself went through some big revolutions since then as well.
Shoeb Omar - Apr 26, 2009 09:21:56 pm
"The Computer for the 21st century" article was extremely interesting, and for its time, probably a little visionary. The obvious response to reading a predictive article such as this is to see how much of the author's ideas have come to pass since he described them. Clearly the ideas of ever present computers on all of our surfaces and completely encompassed into our everyday lives has not happened. We still have to emerge ourselves into the world of computing in order to get anything done, and instead f having huge screens we have projectors that utilize power point and the existing computer as its source. Things haven't become seamlessly and invisibly integrated into our world. However steps towards this ideal have been taken, to a point, with cloud computing and the advent of the smartphone. It may not exactly be what the authors were thinking, but it is a step towards mass distributed networks, and an always available computer.
As others have stated before me, the "As we may think" article was extremely englightening, and surprising in its accuracy of predicting things that are very much active today. His idea of the memex is fascinating and relating his concepts of information retrieval (Google) to the wealth of information he seeks to have stored and accessed in an easier manner is intriguing. He brings up a good point n the need for being able to find things better and how much important information and research is simply lost. I wonder if the wealth of information has really helped this or made this problem even worse. How good can google really be? :) Also, to that end, how blinded to other sources are we now that we do have personal computers and a monopolized search structure?
Jeffrey Patzer - Apr 26, 2009 09:43:41 pm
Bush's article was really amazing. I have read it before, but I am still taken aback by the amount of foresight it provides. The fact that he synthesized how the mind works, making associations and jumping from subject to subject quickly and without abandon, and then applied that to how computers could make it easier for humans to think that way is incredible. I cannot help but think about the phrase I hear a lot from friends: "I just spent an hour on wikipedia, clicking on things that were interesting, and totally forgot how I even got started on the whole subject in the first place." This is exactly what Bush is talking about, a system so natural that it seems easy to get lost in. This sort of jumpiness could really be used in interfaces, making complex webs allowing users to follow many paths to create their intended products.
The second article was also quite impressive. I really like and abhor the idea of ubiquitous computing. While it highly imitates the metaphor of the real world, it also limits a person to it. The article states at the end that by using machines that have only specific functions, then you can decrease the information overload that is occurs. I think that the way the metaphor has been extended to help with the daily lives of people is really good, but that at the same time by making the metaphor so strong it might limit capabilities. The whole thing about computers is they let you do things quickly that would otherwise be more complicated or not capable of doing. For instance photoshop allows me to be artistic where I might otherwise be unable to do something.
Dwij Garg - Apr 27, 2009 12:32:19 am
I really enjoyed reading "As We May Think." It was extremely interesting to read about concepts presented in this article, as it clearly made me realize how far we as humans have come along with technology. It also reveals that technology is not just about coming up with and implementing something within a matter of weeks or months. Rather, like anything else, it takes time to invent and discover the realms of science and what we can do with it. One big element that was not included in this article was the concept of something like the Internet. It surprises me that although the author did include concepts of information retrieval (i.e. databases etc), he failed to mention or include anything close to the concept of the Internet. It kind of makes me realize just how big of an invention the Internet really is. No one could have even imagined that there would be something like this in the 21st century!
Yin-Zen "Johnny" Hwang - Apr 27, 2009 12:44:20 am
HELP!! I CAN'T OPEN THE READINGS!! THE USERNAME/PASSWORD I TRIED DOESN'T WORK!! WHAT DO I DO??
(Sean Ahrens) You need to access them thru campus (Airbears) or via a proxy (not sure how that works).
(Derek Liu) You can also Google the articles, they're pretty easy to find =)
Mark Dhillon - Apr 27, 2009 01:10:07 am
I enjoyed both readings. I really thought the opening line to "As we may think" was pretty epic: "The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it." It really struck me because of a recent predicament I've been in: my expensive-a$$ smartphone broke and taking it to a repair shop ended up losing me money. So, I decided to wait until a free or cheap phone came my way, as I didn't want to sign up for another 2 year contract. That was over 2 weeks ago, and I finally got a friend's old phone today. During that time, it was really interesting for me to be on the outside of everybody else, namely those who have cell phones. When I needed to make a call I was usually able to, but if I needed to be reached it was near impossible. It made me think again about how ubiquitous cell phones are, and that first line from the paper really struck me. Cell phones truly have woven themselves into the fabric of everyday life: there's even laws about driving with them. The author makes really great points in this paper, and it was surprising to me to find out that it was written in 1991. What a baller.
Derek Liu - Apr 27, 2009 01:06:29 am
I felt the Bush's article was very interesting and my initial reaction after I finished the article was that a lot of the predictions Bush made about the advances in computer technology were very accurate. For example: "Wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified." Wikipedia anyone? Bush's article accurately predicted the development of things like the Internet (information retrieval) and voice recognition (speech controlled typewriter). The fact that this article was written in 1945 makes its predictions all the more astounding, each of these predictions at the time probably seemed completely unimaginable yet they have mostly been accurate.
The second article presents this idea of ubiquitous computing. The idea being that someone using a ubiquitous computing device would not even know they are using some computer system because of its integration into an ordinary every day thing. One example being a tablet pad, if one uses it for long enough they might feel they are simply writing or drawing with a pen and paper on screen. There are not too many indications of ubiquitous computing devices presently, with the exception of the tablet or a GPS device.
Kevin Huey - Apr 27, 2009 01:21:13 am
It's very interesting to think about the notion of technological progress. Specifically, when we compare our predictions and thoughts from the past with what we may believe may happen in the "future" (or the current present), we gain some degree of understanding of where we should be and where we really are. We can come up with these great, crazy ideas that make logical sense, yet lacks in practicality, rendering them obsolete in the general public. But maybe those scrapped ideas would have put us technologically further than we are today, and possibly could have given us boundless possibilities for the future. Who really knows. Whatever technology stays afloat seems to live and die by the media, and even then, the mainstream disappears rather quickly as people strive for new and better things (even if the product is just minimally better).
Now, what is in the future for us? Basically, computers are heralded as the biggest thing. Computers will be ideally used for just about every task, from vacuuming the floor to driving your automobile. We'll let the computer do everything for us. No longer will we need to worry about missing a prior engagement; computers will vocalize a reminder. No longer will we need to cook food; computers will do it all for you. No longer will we need to stress about possible vehicular accidents; computers will sense all vehicles and avoid any collisions. Our ideal world is a lazy world. There will be no more need for hard work. Only those masochistic (maybe not quite) enough would really want to do hard work. If this all happens, what's the future of our world?
Rohan Dhaimade - Apr 27, 2009 01:45:40 am
I always love prediction articles about the future because they tend to be completely wrong and hilarious. Apparently this one was fairly accurate. We now have access to a VAST amount of information available (the internet) and we can now easily retrieve it. Though the issue with the whole wealth of information and filtering through it in the beginning of the article as been applied again with the internet. So much information yet so much crap.
I think we have almost reached a point of ubitiqous computing, at least I've noticed that there are computers in a lot of things we do. The cars and other instruments we use are all computers, even the game consoles and TV's that we use nowadays (a form of community building I think) are a form. Facebook and social networks and having things like always on. The problem of over reliance on computers and abstractions though are that we forget the basic thing. I remembering reading an article long ago about how nobody can recognize a good coat from a bad coat. Women used to have to sew a lot of their clothes and thus they knew a good stitch from a bad stitch. Nowadays though, everybody buys their clothes so they have no idea what's a good or bad coat, because they have no knowledge of the details. Thus abstraction isn't always a good thing, having knowledge of the basics is necessary.
Alexei Baboulevitch - Apr 27, 2009 02:20:07 am
I am unable to access the articles. My guess is that they work when I'm connected to the campus network, so I'll try to read them tomorrow morning.
Sean Kim - Apr 27, 2009 01:54:48 am
First of all, it is hard to believe the fact that these articles were written so earlier. From these articles, I can see how well studying for human-computer interaction anticipate the future technology in real industry. And I also see it is a significant issue for a genuine idea to be developed and produced. There are lots of examples authors mentioned, but we can see just part of them in these days. Especially, the concept of memex can be analogous with the modern web browser to create a list of bookmarks pointing to articles relevant to a topic, and then to have some mechanism for automatically scrolling through the articles. I think it is the motive of the modern hypertext systems with word and phrase-level linking to offer more sophistication in connecting relevant information .
Denise Ngai - Apr 27, 2009 02:25:53 am
Similarly to Rohan, I love "prediction" articles. I find it very impressive when some old piece of written work correctly estimates the future growth in technology and how people evolve. Thus is the case with "As We May Think." Every single point made in the article has become true to life. Even more so impressive is the fact that every single point made in the article can now be done with the use of computers/involves computer science.
(1) gaining knowledge through advanced technology (2) keeping and editing records (files, information, etc.) (3) editing/updating/refining said records (4) as stated, (2) and (3) have gone to the "machines" -- computers take care of these ... and so on, and so forth.
Apparently in 1945, we were able to extrapolate observations on machines and technology to deduce general predictions as to what is to happen technologically in society. Therefore, using this knowledge, we should be able to extrapolate our current observations in the present in order to prepare and begin our predictions for our future.
As a side note, addressing one of the comments prior to mine, although this article does not necessarily concern user interfaces, it does have a great deal to do with human-computer interaction and how things have evolved to involve HCI. I think this is a very important fact that we must consider when thinking about future developments in technology/computer science -- how things that are performed presently can be done through HCI.
Timofey Titov - Apr 27, 2009 02:24:42 am
I thought the Bush article was not very imaginative. The author presented his dream device. However, nowadays the "future" is arguably an interface-less UI. We want something where the user doesn't have to input/read something. At the very least we want the user to simply speak or much better let the system read his thoughts. That would eliminate semantic and articulatory distance.
Ubiquitous is already almost there. Most of the necessary information retrieval is already provided by the search engines. The question is how can personal devices be all integrated? The answer to that is synchronization over the web. The only thing that is left is a "tablet". Ironically, this will be the hardest part, because an interface that is so simple and beautiful as pen and paper can't be easily "ported".
Cuong Ngo - Apr 27, 2009 02:45:53 am
First and foremost, I found the two articles pretty interesting despite the fact that they are somewhat dated. Both readings discussed how we can make computers more friendly to users and how we can use them more efficiently. The first article suggested the memex, which is basically a technology to store data so that users can access them easily. We may have zillions of bits of data but utilizing such knowledge is another story. The second article emphasized the concept of "ubiquitous computing." The idea was innovative at the time, and even today it still proves to be effective. The benefits it brings about are obvious. Not only does it cut down operation cost but it also streamlines our work. I like the idea that everything is connected as a network, and information is shared across devices. I think this is the future we'll be heading for.
Gregory leshner - Apr 27, 2009 02:50:11 am
The ability to free your mind and look into the future. Forget about the boundaries that current realities place on us and allow yourself to contemplate the world in a future state. Its good work if you can get it ... better work if people will pay you for it. These articles point out that computers are tools of mankind and as tools they are here to serve us and not be the center of our attention. Civilized man has been around for a long time now. In all that time the basic fabric of lives have remained pretty much the same. We eat, drink, work, fall in love, seek entertainment, make conversation, take walks. The tools we use have improved over the ages but what we do with our days has not. Read some Shakespeare and its clear that human motivations weren't changed by the industrial or computer revolution. That said, as a computer scientist, I will remember that I am improving what has become one of the most important tools of mankind and work hard to make it disappear into the back ground so we can get back to smelling the flowers and discussing the meaning of life.
William Cho - Apr 27, 2009 01:03:25 am
It's pretty interesting to look back into the past and see how far people's predictions about the future have come along. The first article has some remarkable ideas for its time, like the memex concept. We've come a long ways since then; just one of many examples is the vast information ocean we call the Internet ... although there's always improvements to be made; I still often have trouble retrieving certain information quickly. Ubiquitous computing, on the other hand.... There are lots of examples of this in today's world, like traffic signal weight sensors, toilets that automatically flush, digital cameras, digital watches, digital this and that. and so on. These have made our lives easier and more convenient, and yet I'm a bit worried that we may grow to depend on them too much.
Szu-Chun Mao - Apr 27, 2009 03:09:56 am
In “As We May Think”, Bush started by talking about instruments, cameras and the process of photography. Then he went on and talked about selection by association and most importantly the idea of memex which is a device similar to the computer today. Most of his predictions in this reading were described with enough detail and were quite accurate comparing to today’s technology. This is pretty amazing given that this article was written back in 1945. The second article, “The Computer for the 21st Century”, started by discussing about how technology should be weaved into the fabric of our everyday life. “The most profound technologies are those that disappear.” I thought this is also an interesting read although its predictions in 1991 are not as impressive as Bush’s article. Reading these two articles made me imagine the future might bring. The possibility of whatever that comes from Internet2, IPTV, AI, robots and etc… In short, it encourages me to envision a future sculpted by technological developments pioneered by software engineers.
Carolc - Apr 27, 2009 03:13:05 am
The article by Weiser called The Computer for the 21st Century was a thought provoking read. The author presented a clear need: ubiquitous computing involving computers that are both location aware and scalable. He also did a decent exploration of what would be needed to make such computing practically possible, and admitted that there are privacy concerns. His proposal (now nearly two decades old) is attractive. Tabs, pads, and boards that run the gamut of activities, from allowing users to gather tabs of shrunken program windows with them to identity-less, "yellow bike" pads imitating scrap paper. I would be interested in knowing how far these prototypes went and whether these endeavors are still in progress. However, I could not shake the discomfort I felt at the idea that people can be so easily tracked. Even at work, I would expect to at the very least have the knowledge that sometimes I can go somewhere to rest or gather my thoughts, and my team would not have access to my whereabouts. With the type of ubiquitous computing proposed by Weiser, this basic right would no longer be mine, and what's scarier, I may not even be aware of what I've lost, given how ubiquitous the technology would be.
Kevin Nakahara - Apr 27, 2009 03:20:36 am
Both articles were interesting in how they established historical context and conjecture for the present. Bush's forecast for the development of the memex definitely seems like a crazily accurate prediction for the future, but we have to remember that computers started to come into their infancy at the time the article was written, and that engineers may have taken ideas from people such as Bush into account as they developed the technologies we have today. It is certainly interesting, however, to see how "cutting edge" technologies like simple typing were back then. The forecast for the present in Weiser's article is a little more concise, and also a little less accurate. The ubiquitous computing mentioned in the readings, although possibly proliferating, hasn't quite caught on like he had hoped. Although things like GPS sort of parallel the sort of technology described, other similar ventures, such as touchscreen ordering at fast food restaurants have failed. Although devices such as smartphones and iPod touches have made computing more portable and more available, they still concentrate computing into a singular entity.
David Burban - Apr 27, 2009 03:10:10 am
It is interesting to see how the predictions by Vannevar Bush in 1945 manifest themselves in today's world. Vannevar Bush talks about a system he calls a "memex", which closely mimics today's social collaboration networks such as wikipedia. However, Bush talks a lot about dry photography and microfilm, something that we don't necessarily do a lot of these days, as magnetic storage is cheap and we have displays that change much more rapidly than pictures could.
Mark Weiser at Xerox labs had a different vision for the future. Mark predicted that computers will be everywhere, even replacing the normal pen and paper, and he said that they can even get as thin as a piece of paper. Today, computers are essentially everywhere, from your cell phone to your car, but the pen and paper still persist. This is probably due to the reliability and ubiquity of the technology, since a pen and paper can't possibly crash because of a manufacturing defect in some factory making hard drives. Weiser's active badge idea sounds a lot like RFID tags, which every student at Cal already has (their student ID). However, the great thing about RFID is that the badge doesn't need to be active (since this would require replacement batteries and whatnot). RFID are passive, they get read by receivers in rooms, making them ideal for the kind of work that Weiser suggested.
Moonway Lin - Apr 27, 2009 01:42:15 am
These papers are interesting given their historical context. Bush's paper was written in 1945, more than a half-century ago. Obviously, back then, the personal computer had not yet been developed, but advancement in that field was rapidly growing at the time. Bush's idea of a "memex" was a surprisingly accurate prediction of our computerized workspaces today. The various types of books are catalogued by entry codes and users build "trails" of linked/related subjects, like the Internet does. Then in 1991, Weiser talks about "ubiquitous computing" through some combination of virtual reality, auxiliary storage devices, and large screen displays. The capacity of USB storage devices is still increasing exponentially year after year, and LCDs have become more and more widespread. It is likely that in a few more decades, Weiser's vision will be completely realized.
Phiroath Chan - Apr 27, 2009 01:44:57 am
In the "As We May Think" reading the author looks to try and predict where science can take humanity now in times of peace. There were plenty of predictions and desired innovations the author talks about taking place, such as forward progress with photography. I liked how Bush talked about keeping records if it is to be useful to science. The quote thereafter stated that records "must be continuously extended, it must be stored, and above all it must be consulted." I think there is a correlation between records improving science and past history improve future history. The old saying "The people who do not learn history, are doomed to repeat it" comes to mine when i read about records in Bush's article.
In the "The computer for the 21st century" reading Weiser talks about how literacy technology is great when trying to portray something in realife without having the user actively pay attention and how computers are in a world of its own. Traffic signs is a great example of literacy technology in our world today and people can get its meaning just by a glance without consciously having to read it. "Whenever people learn something sufficiently well, they cease to be aware of it" brings home the point that yes literacy technology has been around forever and using the same example from above, we can interpret what traffic signs mean without having to conscientiously read it. Computers on the other hand, falls short in that department.
Victor Lum - Apr 27, 2009 04:46:15 am
I found the Bush article really interesting. It was written in 1945 and talked about many of the problems with storing data and allowing people to use it in a meaningful way. Fast-forward to today and many of these problems have been solved, and in ways similar to what Bush envisioned. The second article is like the first article, only a more recent version. It too makes predictions about the future, but not many of these have come true. Sure, a lot of computers are embedded in things we don't normally think of as computers, but it's nowhere near as common as Weiser's paper-like computers.
Chao Michael Zhang - Apr 27, 2009 04:09:42 am
It was very interesting to read an article from 1945 that seems to describe many of the things we take for granted today. In his time, he was already looking forward to the future and thinking of the potential benefit things like the Internet and the personal computer would bring to society and knowledge. It was also interesting hearing him describe the techniques of photograph developing they had back in those days. I wonder what he would have said if he could know that his prediction of a completely "dry" photographying technique would one day be more widespread than even his "wet" systems. Digital photography definitely satisfy all the things he hoped for.
In the second article, ubiquitous computing sounds a little creepy. I'm not sure I'd like to live in a world where everything is basically one giant network of computers. Also, it's interesting that he predicts that there will no longer be computer addicts when computers become completely ubiquitous, just as there are no longer radio addicts.
Stephanie Shih - Apr 27, 2009 05:12:33 am
It was fascinating reading the Bush article - when he began describing things that we today think of as commonplace, it really gave a sense of the time that had passed. The visions he had of the future were surprisingly on target, though perhaps not in the exact way he imagined it. "The Encyclopoedia Britannica could be reduced to the volume of a matchbox. A library of a million volumes could be compressed into one end of a desk." One could do that with little more than an external HD nowadays. Weiser too offered a similar, if not more updated, vision of the future. Weiser however envisioned computers in everything, a notion rather remniscent of sci-fi fantasy. To be honest, I'm not sure whether ubiquitous computing would be something I'd be interested in, given how many ways I can think of that that could go wrong.
Siddharth Shah - Apr 27, 2009 07:14:37 am
I really liked "The computer for the 21st century". It was a little visionary and its whole idea of ubiquitous computing has not exactly come to pass even though we are almost 2 decades past the date of the article (he predicted that it would happen by the end of that decade), but it was still pretty cool. The example of Sal was kind of bleh, but he was trying to generate interest in ubiquitous computing, and I suppose if I weren't already used to this sort of stuff I'd be more excited by the example.
"As we may think" was much more visionary in nature than "The computer for the 21st century". It was not only written longer ago, but it also made more predictions about more aspects of life using more types of technology than the other article. I liked how Bush justified most of his predictions using historical corollaries; he did not really require you to make a huge leap of faith. It's kind of weird how some of the stuff he predicted has already occurred or is in the process of becoming reality.
Eric Hernandez - Apr 27, 2009 09:13:00 am
As We May Think
A quick opening note, it is surprising to see how people thought that all computing machines were limited in their application to certain (mainly arithmetic) problems. The lack of the idea of Turing Machines that can solve any tractable problem is strange in the present day. This paper sounds like a precursor, indeed a call, for efficient Human-Computer Interaction. The author speaks of a mountain of research that cannot adequately be processed by humans, even if a human read all of it. This is where the importance of great data representation is. A way to summarize all important data, then be able to delve in to the details at will is what everyone needs, and sometimes gets, today. The search results on any search engine essentially does this, as well as countless other programs and web sites. Somehow, though, it seems like it's never enough. As the article suggests, the brain works by association. If there were a way to organize data, especially for learning, so that easy to grasp concepts lead in the organization to similar, more complex concepts, this would be yet another way to effectively organize data.
The Computer for the 21st Century
While I agree with the opinion in this article that computers simply are not usable in a way where we don't even notice that we use them, this is largely inevitable given the computer's purpose. The computer is meant to be a machine that does anything one wishes it to, short of perhaps physical manipulation. Reading and writing does indeed happen naturally without notice, but the reason for this is simple; reading is for obtaining information, while writing is for recording information. The more an instrument is capable of doing, the higher the complexity of the instrument. The solution, according to the author, is to not have a single machine capable of everything, but rather hundreds of machines capable of doing very few things. Personally, I'd rather sit at one machine and have to think for a short amount of time about how to perform a task rather than walk across the room and perform the task. I can see the author's perspective however, when mentioning systems like Windows 3.0, which are unusable by today's standards, and required much more thought to use.
Michael Cohen - Apr 27, 2009 09:21:28 am
I found both of these articles interesting, although I think they reveal more about the respective times they were written rather than a true view of the future. Both spoke about ways to make computers, or information managment better than it was at the time, although following the then prevailing model. For instance, the tab computers from " The computer for the 21st century" is basically trying to allow us to interact with computers in a way similar to how we act with paper. While displaying information is important, I think that tru ubiquitous computing will not be achieved until we focus more on information filtering, rather than display. We already have small computer displays, and PDAs which can access nearly infinite amounts of information via an internet connection. What we need is a way for these displays to be showing us relevant information. Shrinking an application down to a tab? leaving a small electronic note via the same? Why not just email it? however, if the tab was always displaying what I wanted to know, it would become more useful. This may sound impossible, but in some ways pdas are starting to approach this: With a glance into my pocket, I can instantly see the time, the date, the temperature, and any voice or text messages that may have been sent to me. With a bit more work, I can search through the whole internet. If the pda could be aware of its surroundings in the same way a person is, it could start calling up definitions of words spoken in its vincinity, or the history of it current location. Basically, I think we have solved the information problem,and we now need to scale it back, and focus on the relevant information problem. Rather than have the whole encyclopedia britannica on a small corner of my desk, I only want the single page with the article I feel like reading today to be on my desk.
Matthew Can - Apr 27, 2009 10:29:24 am
I really enjoy the article by Vannevar Bush. The first time I read it was about a year ago and I remember going through his predictions one by one and connecting some modern day technology with each one. My favorite is the "memex". He was absolutely right when he said that future scientists would need a device like that, except that it turned out everyone had a need for it. And the modern day memex (the internet, but Wikipedia specifically) is not a device that each person has but rather one gigantic entity that we all share. Another part of Bush's article that I found interesting this second time I read it was his remark that humans need a way to manage and efficiently access all the information that they generate. Even though we have made great advances in information retrieval, I still think that our ability to access information lags way behind the rate at which we generate it today. Think of all the streams of information being generated each second on sites like Facebook and Twitter. The challenge for us is to find some way to keep up with this.
Weiser's article brought up a point that I had never thought of before. For computers to truly become a profound technology, they have to disappear into our everyday lives. Perhaps some day computer will be so tightly integrated with the human body that we will just take them for granted as being part of the human being, but I would still say that the computer has been woven into my life to some degree. When I browse the internet and check e-mail, for example, it seems like such a seamless process that's become natural to me. It's just as normal to me as picking up a pen to write down a thought.
Chris Thompson - Apr 27, 2009 10:23:02 am
The first article can probably be summed up to say that the amount of information we have to access is fast outgrowing the effectiveness of the ways we have to access it. I agree that it's a real threat that there is so much information out there, sometimes finding what you want is difficult (and often you may not even realize it exists, and therefore not even search for it). However, I'm more amused by the predictions the article makes. Being roughly half a century old, computers like we understand them were, more or less, inconceivable. The author does a decent job in some ways, predicting the advancement of mathematical tools, but misses out on some rather large developments, such as the idea of digital storage (microfilm is fine, and all, but is only used by antiquated institutions these days). It reminds me of something I heard a while back -- the more complex the storage system, the less resilient it is. Stone carvings in caves have existed for thousands of years. There are some scrolls out there that are also ancient, but decaying. I suspect there're even a few books that are a couple hundred years old. But CDs will decay after a few decades at best, hard drives fail regularly, and flash memory doesn't even last that long. If there's ever a catastrophe or lapse in our record rerecording, the collective knowledge of humanity is in trouble.
The other article raises a more interesting point. It almost seems like we're going the wrong direction with computers. Yes, it's great to have one box that does everything I want (provided I know how to make it work), but then I'm limited to carrying that box with me everywhere (which is quite a task since my box has a 19" screen, and I have to walk from the BART station up to Soda Hall every day, along with my backpack of physical materials) and hoping that I'm in range of a wireless signal, and that there are no server or internet issues... It's a very focused, limiting process. It doesn't free us up to grow; it forces us to become dependent. But currently the focus of much research is how to make the one little box perform even more and more functions. Perhaps it ought to be, like at PARC, the creation of many ubiquitous devices for many different functions.
Sum Sum Wong - Apr 27, 2009 08:51:40 am
"As We May Think" is a very impressive article and it is interesting to see how Dr. Bush predict the trend of science development back there in 1945. We can see many of Dr. Bush's idea has came into truth in the nowadays society like the Digital Camera and so on. Another interesting idea mentioned in Bush's article that can be applied in our class is the "index vs. association". "The Computer of the 21st Century" is also a quite old article since we can see the author described DOS as the "Today's operating system". However, it is still a pleasure to read this article since the author brought out a lot of great points, especially the idea of "ubiquitous computer". Both articles are kind of predicting how future science and computer will look like which is a very interesing topic to think of.
Alexander Cho - Apr 27, 2009 10:47:29 am
The first reading "As We May Think" was a reflection of science and scientists and what scientists should do. It was interesting how much of science was influenced because of war and making war tools. This article brings up an important point that is often set aside, which is the ethics of technology. We could make some awesome technologies but at what cost? Just take nuclear warfare as an example. I guess the technologies we are creating (UI's) won't be able to do that much damage, but there could be some negative effects that result from the technologies we produce. As for the computer for the 21st century, they bring up an interesting point that the most profound technologies are the ones we cease to notice of. Right now indeed computers are frustrating and they demand our attention. This connects with the article that says the best UI are ones that make the users unaware of it, and rather just of the system and objects they are manipulating.
Bernardo de Seabra - Apr 27, 2009 11:02:22 am
In the article "As We May Think" the author gives a perspective on how we would think some time in the future. It's always interesting to read these articles predicting the future because they often shoot way ahead of time. I specially found interesting the fact that the author said that there is a need to store information and allow it to be consulted. The internet is exactly that prediction where the information is stored across the globe and most of it made accessible to everyone (especially it being one of Google's mission). The "memex" concept is also quite interesting and I was quite impressed with the fact that it had been envisioned that far back. Wikipedia is a very close implementation of such idea. On the negative side, I think the author was quite off in terms of dry photography as magnetic storage is the prevailing storage method.
In the article "The computer for the 21st century" the author supports the specialization of computers/machines. In other words, that there shouldn't be a computer/machine that is capable of doing everything. Rather, there should be a machine for a single purpose that does its job well. It sounds very close to software engineering and the unix concept where each tool does just one thing and does it well. If we want more complex tasks we can compose those based on simple tasks. I can see how this could be true many years ago given the technological limitations of that time but I believe that nowadays it's possible to have a machine that does a lot of different tasks as well as if those were in separate computers.
Anjana Dasu - Apr 27, 2009 11:19:51 am
Like Mark (above), I was really moved by the first statement of "The Computer for the 21st Century": "The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it." Computers and mobile devices have become so completely integrated into our lives that many of believe we couldn't live without them. In fact, I would go so far as to argue as technology evolves even within our lifetime, it becomes impossible to go back. My roommate, for example, was perfectly content with her Motorola Razr two years ago, but ever since she switched to iPhone when it first came out, she simply cannot go back. The potential to check her email at any time, get directions, and even read fmylife at the tap of a finger is so ingrained in her system now that she can't 1) can't go anywhere without her phone and 2) couldn't possibly go back to a regular phone. Similarly, I'm in disbelief that one of my friends only has a desktop in her apartment-- I honestly don't know how she functions without a laptop. Although we are not at Sal status, I think that we are definitely heading in the direction of ubiquitous computing.
The article "As We May Think" was interesting for its description of the memex-- "an enlarged intimate supplement to [...] memory." The memex would be a "device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility." I think this is the direction in which technology is going these days. Think a facebook+wikipedia+bearfacts+gmail+bankaccount system. This memex seems like a complete integration of an individual's data and communications, and though we may not currently have one tool like this, we have multiple interfaces which are starting to become integrated (think mashups).
Prahalika Reddy - Apr 29, 2009 08:46:55 am
The article "As We May Think" was very interesting with all its ideas. I especially liked the memex and think it's a very neat sounding piece of technology. The way Bush describes it makes it seems very simple and easy to use. In addition, its uses are widespread and for almost everyone. I really liked the fact that people could easily share information with each other through the memex technology. I think that can be very useful for many people and would make collaboration much easier and more efficient. Overall, I think the memex technology was a brilliant idea for Bush's time.
