What we talk about when we talk about context Export

@article{citeulike:168573, abstract = {The emergence of ubiquitous computing as a new design paradigm poses significant challenges for human-computer interaction (HCI) and interaction design. Traditionally, HCI has taken place within a constrained and well-understood domain of experience\—single users sitting at desks and interacting with conventionally-designed computers employing screens, keyboards and mice for interaction. New opportunities have engendered considerable interest in \“context-aware computing\”\—computational systems that can sense and respond to aspects of the settings in which they are used. However, considerable confusion surrounds the notion of \“context\”\—what it means, what it includes and what role it plays in interactive systems. This paper suggests that the representational stance implied by conventional interpretations of \“context\” misinterprets the role of context in everyday human activity, and proposes an alternative model that suggests different directions for design.}, address = {London, UK}, author = {Dourish, Paul}, citeulike-article-id = {168573}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=970985}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00779-003-0253-8}, citeulike-linkout-2 = {http://www.metapress.com/content/Y8H8L9ME8YABYCL3}, comment = {positivist (engineering, objective, world can be described) vs phenomenological (ethnographic, subjective, person acts on \& defines world) positivist/representational --> interactional (less contradictory to the phenomenological origins of context as an important factor in ubicomp) * context is a form of info --> context is a relational property between things * context can be defined in advance --> scope of context defined dynamically * context is stable --> context is an occasional property * context and activity are separable --> context arises from the activity uses Sacks' study of ordinariness to illustrate context's definition also defines it in terms of "practice" leads to the following definition: As technologists, then, our concern is not simply to support particular forms of practice, but to support the evolution of practice – the ” conversation with materials” (Sch\"{o}n, 1983) out of which emerges new forms of action and meaning. how can ubiquitous computing support the process by which context is continually manifest, defined, negotiated, and shared? embodied interaction encompasses but extends beyond the physical, and so beyond the scope of physically-based ubiquitous computing or tangible interfaces (Ishii and Ullmer, 1997). then proposes ... systems that display their context; architectures for adaptation; structures in information space; how does his representation of context relate to everyday computing? }, doi = {10.1007/s00779-003-0253-8}, issn = {1617-4909}, journal = {Personal Ubiquitous Comput.}, keywords = {context, cs-mini, ethnography, hcii-minis, recognition, ubicomp}, month = {February}, number = {1}, pages = {19--30}, posted-at = {2007-01-16 18:43:40}, priority = {0}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag}, title = {What we talk about when we talk about context}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00779-003-0253-8}, volume = {8}, year = {2004} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:168573 L3 - citeulike-article-id:168573 N2 - The emergence of ubiquitous computing as a new design paradigm poses significant challenges for human-computer interaction (HCI) and interaction design. Traditionally, HCI has taken place within a constrained and well-understood domain of experience—single users sitting at desks and interacting with conventionally-designed computers employing screens, keyboards and mice for interaction. New opportunities have engendered considerable interest in “context-aware computing”—computational systems that can sense and respond to aspects of the settings in which they are used. However, considerable confusion surrounds the notion of “context”—what it means, what it includes and what role it plays in interactive systems. This paper suggests that the representational stance implied by conventional interpretations of “context” misinterprets the role of context in everyday human activity, and proposes an alternative model that suggests different directions for design. IS - 1 JF - Personal Ubiquitous Comput. SN - 1617-4909 AD - London, UK EP - 30 TI - What we talk about when we talk about context PB - Springer-Verlag VL - 8 SP - 19 KW - context KW - cs-mini KW - ethnography KW - hcii-minis KW - recognition KW - ubicomp N1 - positivist (engineering, objective, world can be described) vs phenomenological (ethnographic, subjective, person acts on & defines world) positivist/representational --> interactional (less contradictory to the phenomenological origins of context as an important factor in ubicomp) * context is a form of info --> context is a relational property between things * context can be defined in advance --> scope of context defined dynamically * context is stable --> context is an occasional property * context and activity are separable --> context arises from the activity uses Sacks' study of ordinariness to illustrate context's definition also defines it in terms of "practice" leads to the following definition: As technologists, then, our concern is not simply to support particular forms of practice, but to support the evolution of practice – the “conversation with materials” (Schön, 1983) out of which emerges new forms of action and meaning. how can ubiquitous computing support the process by which context is continually manifest, defined, negotiated, and shared? embodied interaction encompasses but extends beyond the physical, and so beyond the scope of physically-based ubiquitous computing or tangible interfaces (Ishii and Ullmer, 1997). then proposes ... systems that display their context; architectures for adaptation; structures in information space; how does his representation of context relate to everyday computing? AU - Dourish, Paul PY - 2004/02// UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00779-003-0253-8 ER -