Ubiquitous Computing: Thinking About a
New Wave of Computing
Daniel Schomburg
Computer Human Interaction Course
Clemson University
dschomb@clemson.edu
[3]. Both technologies have similar goals because
both technologies attempt to create a scenario
where the user interacts naturally with the
computing environment; however, ubiquitous
computing is a more natural and more practical
way to accomplish this goal. The cost to
implement ubiquitous computing is not great and
is feasible with current technology; however, the
cost to implement VR to a level where a user’s
presence in the virtual environment seems
realistic is extremely costly if not unattainable.
Thus, ubiquitous computing will likely be a cost
effective and much more common.
Abstract
Ubiquitous Computing is considered to be the
next major computing paradigm. Historically
there have been two other major models for
computing, main frame computing and today’s
current model, personal computing. Although the
PC was a large improvement over preceding
mainframe computer systems of the 70’s and
80’s, this is not to say it is an ideal system. This
paper will explain why ubiquitous computing is
beneficial, and possibly even mandatory for the
computer industry to move into. It will then
follow with a brief history of ubiquitous
computing and try to pin down where ubiquitous
computing currently is. A shift from personal
computing to ubiquitous computing will create
new problems in industry and thus new job
markets and research opportunities. Ubiquitous
Computing is still in its infancy; however, more
and more of the requirements for ubiquitous
computing are coming to fruition. Since
ubiquitous computing is user centric, people
knowledgeable in Human Computer Interaction
will be particularly valued in this area.
Ubiquitous computing has also been termed calm
computing and is considered to be the third wave
of computing. The paradigm is fairly radical;
however, it is not as radical as VR and has more
potential to be realistically implemented on a
large scale in the near future. Elements of mobile,
pervasive, and distributive computing are
currently encroaching upon some principles of
ubiquitous computing. These are hotbeds of
research and in reality the lines between these
disciplines have started to blur.
Key Words
Ubiquitous Computing, Calm Computing,
Human Computer Interaction, Moore’s Law,
If this ‘third wave’ of computing is so different,
potentially better, and more feasible, why has it
not been implemented earlier? Why was it not the
designated model for computing in the first place?
The answer to these questions can be pinned
directly upon the evolution of the computer itself,
which has been reliant on research and
innovation but also on economics and the basis
for existing markets.
Introduction
By definition, ubiquitous is the act of being or
seeming to be everywhere at the same time.
When applied to computing, this definition is still
valid; however, its meaning is slightly altered.
The key concept behind ubiquitous computing is
the computer becomes an omnipresent element of
our physical environment, but it is also important
that the computer does not seem intrusive.
Ubiquitous computers should play an invisible
role in peoples' daily lives and allow people to
concentrate solely on the task at hand rather than
on how to use a computer to do the task at hand.
An Economic Justification for Ubiquitous
Computing
The development of the personal computer can
be linked to Moore’s law, which has proved
correct and given stability and profitability to the
processor market since 1965. It can be seen as
driving principle behind why computer
companies, particularly processor companies, can
continue to manufacture and market new chips,
which directly corresponds to new computer
systems. As long as every 18 months a new line
of faster more powerful computers are released,
Ubiquitous computing is considered the complete
opposite of virtual reality. VR attempts to create
a completely computer generated world for
people to act in; ubiquitous computing creates a
world augmented by devices that people act upon
1
the market will continue to expand. However, if
an increase in computing power stops, either
because the need no longer exists or because of
physical manufacturing limitations, one must
question what becomes of the industry.
original paper. It portrays a salesman who is
selling 'handy home computers' as if they were
cosmetics. This cartoon seems somewhat similar
to the current notion of ubiquitous computing, at
least its omnipresent, commonplace aspect. This
cartoon is quite futuristic considering it was
published in 1965, but then again the personal
computer didn’t exist in 1965 either. It
specifically points out an ideal that chip
production would become a massive and cheap
venture, which would affect all people.
Moore’s law has received a lot of attention in the
press over time; however, a closer look at
Moore's law and Moore's original paper shows
that his statements have been often generalized
[11]. Moore never actually stated, “Computing
power will double every year." Rather he stated:
"The number of transistors per chip that
yields the minimum cost per transistor
has increased at a rate of roughly a
factor of two per year."
Although Moore's real statement is arguably
analogous with the layman version, it is not the
same, and this is an important distinction to make,
because Moore's law can also be applied in
support of ubiquitous computing. Moore’s basic
premise that transistor density goes up and cost
goes down is also beneficial to ubiquitous
environments, because it translates into cost
efficient chip production and actually supports
lowering power voltage as well [4]:
Cartoon from Moore’s Original Paper
suggesting the future of Computing
Although computing speed has been consistently
doubling every 18 months for the past 40 years,
it has been predicted that within the next 2
decades the trend will not continue [11]. This
means that Moore’s law as applicable to personal
computing may start to lose its validity. However,
Moore’s law as applicable to ubiquitous
computing may not. Eventually processor
development will hit a wall where it will be very
difficult to increase the number of transistors per
chip and increase clocking speeds with out
running into power density issues [11]. However
utilizing the extra space to do what Weiser
proposed in the previous quotation may still be
possible.
“Recognizing the new requirements of
ubiquitous computing, a number of
people have begun work in using
additional chip area to reduce power
rather than to increase performance
[Lyon 93]. One key approach is to
reduce the clocking frequency of their
chips by increasing pipelining or
parallelism. Then, by running the chips
at reduced voltage, the effect is a net
reduction in power, because power falls
off as the square of the voltage while
only about twice the area is needed to
run at half the clock speed.”
In addition to the former possible physical
limitation on computing speed, there are also
some other concepts and ideas that oppose
Moore’s law.
The construction of monolithic software systems
is not currently going so well. There is “no silver
bullet” [13] which will provide a leap in the
efficiency or way we produce software. Writh’s
law also points this out. As a result, there isn’t
anything that really drives the need for faster
desktops or personal computer systems. It seems
to a certain extent the size of the programs and
their complexity has become some what capped.
So once again, where can there be expansion? A
new computing paradigm would be ideal.
Weiser, the founder of ubiquitous computing
eloquently points out.
Moore’s originally conjecture is almost ironic,
because he may have been thinking about its
implication on ubiquitous or pervasive
computing scenarios rather than on personal
computing before either concept really existed.
However, Moore ended up going on to becoming
the CEO of Intel, which obviously had some of
the greatest stake in the personal computer
market.
The following cartoon was included in Moore's
Other computer components have not evolved as
quickly as processors either. Hard drives and ram
2
old. The early stages of ubiquitous computing’s
infancy are already developing, and as it gains
ground, its impact on the way people view
computing could be drastically altered.
are good examples. This point brings into
question whether or not faster computing speeds
are really as necessary today as they once were.
Possibly the computers of the next wave will put
power consumption on a podium rather than
processing speed. If this is the case, computers
could become much more mobile and
omnipresent than before.
This is not a prediction of the extinction of the
personal computer; obviously the personal
computer will always be useful for certain things
just as mainframe computers are still useful for
certain tasks. Ubiquitous computing is like an
added layer on top of personal computing, which
is similar to the way personal computer was an
added layer on top of the main frame terminal
concept. Therefore, it is logical that the future of
ubiquitous computing may become a new area of
rapid growth and expansion. The graph below is
an indicator of this possible trend.
A small example of this trend can already be
seen with the increase in flat panel monitors in
business environments. Despite higher cost flat
panels consume much less energy than CRTs.
LCD will use an average 30 watts compared to
120 watts for the CRT. Is this an indication of
more energy conscious and conservative era?
A Humanistic Justification for Ubiquitous
Computing
Looking at the current scenario from a human
standpoint, possibly an increase in speed is not
what is important any longer. Is it more likely
that people want constant connectivity and
superior mobility than a faster computer? Or
maybe people desire something more abstract.
Maybe it has to do ease of use and transparency.
The success of mobile computing might be a
piece in the puzzle, which could act as a stepping
stone to a truly ubiquitous computing paradigm.
People who drive the computer market have
shown the importance of user centric design, and
indicate the desire for a more natural and flexible
computing paradigm. This was the main goal at
PARC labs when the ubiquitous computing
program was first started there. It was actually a
combination of anthropological studies and
computer research [6]:
A History of Ubiquitous Computing
The origins of ubiquitous computing are
officially set to 1988 at Xerox with PARC labs.
The person who is given credit for coining the
term and solidifying its presence is Mark Weiser.
The program was a combination of Weiser’s
research in computing coupled with Lucy
Suchman’s anthropological research, which
observed the way people really used technology,
that started interest in the program. These
observations led to research that was less focused
on improving the computer itself; rather, it was
focused on improving how the computer
functioned within the framework of peoples’
daily lives. The concept of the project was
summarized with the catch phrase, “from atoms
to culture.” [6]
“The program was at first envisioned
only as a radical answer to what was
wrong with the personal computer: too
complex and hard to use; too
demanding of attention; too isolating
from other people and activities; and
too dominating as it colonized our
desktops and our lives. We wanted to
put computing back in its place, to
reposition it into the environmental
background, to concentrate on humanto-human interfaces and less on humanto-computer ones.”
Marc Weiser worked on various projects at Parc
Labs between 1988 and 1994, with most of the
papers concerning ubiquitous computing
published around the end of his stay there. He has
also acted as a lecturer promoting his concept
throughout academia and speaking or even
Thus, things seem to be falling into place for the
next wave of computing. From an economic
perspective to a social perspective a new
paradigm is ready to come forth and replace the
3
arguing about the future of computing at places
like MIT’s Media Lab
Current Ideas Similar to Ubiquitous
Computing
Since the first manifestations of ubiquitous
computing in the early 90’s, there are also other
branches of computing that people should be
aware of which are related to ubiquitous
computing; however, are not truly ubiquitous.
The ubiquitous devices Weiser developed while
at Parc were named pads, tabs, and boards. These
items were basically nomadic devices designed to
act very much like sticky notes, or paper. This
research is considered some of the first attempts
at creating ubiquitous computer environments
where the computer was “invisible.” According
to Weiser the first real ubiquitous devise was the
live board first unveiled in 92 [4].
Although these devices are intended to be
ubiquitous, they still do not fully realize the
potential of the ubiquitous paradigm. Weiser
stated he saw these devices merely as “a start
down a radical direction” [4].
Many times mobile devices such as cell phones
or in automobile interfaces are associated with
ubiquitous computing, but these devises are not
purely ubiquitous devices because they are not
‘invisible’ to the user. They do, however, share in
the omnipresent and interconnected aspects
which are prevalent in ubiquitous computing, and
it is evident that these areas of research could be
seen as overlapping fields.
MIT’s media lab must also be given due credit in
the research and development of ubiquitous
computing. Although their website no longer
makes any claims directly to ubiquitous
computing, it is apparent from the their mission
statement and their research that they have a
strong interest in merging computing media into
a seamless, almost invisible, integration with
every day life. The “Things That Think” program
at MIT Media lab is the best example.
Another similar concept is pervasive computing,
which connects to mobile computing and
ubiquitous through its notion that computers
should be omnipresent; however, it lacks the
original concept that computers should be
unnoticed. It is interesting to observe what
industry and research have done to ubiquitous
computing. The paradigm has definitely been
adopted; however, it has been mixed with these
other areas.
From this body of seminal research, other loosely
based endeavors into ubiquitous computing
stemmed. In 1997 the Personal and Ubiquitous
Journal was started. However, this journal seems
to have a mobile device slant to it. In 1999 the
first conference for ubiquitous computing was
held in Karlsruhe, Germany. It has continued to
be held annually ever since. The conference
functions as a place for the somewhat scattered
ubiquitous computing community to meet and
present research.
Weiser originally envisioned a world where the
computer could disappear and people would no
longer need to view the computer as an
autonomous [5]; rather, computers would simply
act as an unobtrusive tool to accomplish a task
set. One issue with Weiser’s vision, however, is
he does not ever completely define how to do this
in his earlier papers. His tabs and pads are
examples of computers, which function in a
nontraditional way, but they are not truly
invisible as he points out in his research [4].
Maybe with time and persistent emphasis on the
invisible, seamless interaction between human
and machine, a more pure strain of ubiquitous
computing, will develop. Currently it is yet to be
seen; however, similar areas such as mobile
computing and pervasive computing rely on the
ubiquitous model as an ideal to strive for.
There are even several companies that have been
created as a result of ubiquitous computing, and
almost all large computing companies have some
research and development dealing with
ubiquitous computing. Intel has its own research
lab devoted to ubiquitous computing, which is
located in Seattle, Washington. Another company,
known as Maya, is currently active as a design
consulting and technology laboratory. Almost
everyone on their staff has a background in
Human Computer Interaction and fanaticizes
about ubiquitous computing scenarios. The
company is defined by the idea of ubiquitous
computing.
But Who Defines Ubiquitous?
Once again, Weiser’s vision is ambiguous when
his explanations are further taken into question. If
one closes their eyes and tries to imagine the
fuzzy concept of interacting with an environment
augmented by devices, which are invisible yet
constantly enhancing our everyday experience, it
seems possible; yet, there is something quite odd
4
“Writing and electricity become so
commonplace, so unremarkable, that we
forget their huge impact on everyday
life. So it will be with UC.”
about it. There seems to be a small paradox in
place. How is it possible that the devices,
especially computing devices remain invisible to
the user, yet still provide the user with an
improvement over not using them? What if these
invisible devices were suddenly gone, would
their deconstruction lead to their visibility? It
seems that it is almost impossible to have
something, which has an invisible state, and
simultaneously produces a visible benefit.
This is the problem with narrowing the
ubiquitous paradigm and why the ubiquitous
computing paradigm shouldn’t be too rigidly
constrained although it is questionable whether
Weiser would agree. In his more recent papers
and presentations, it appears he has softened
some in his view of what ubiquitous computing is.
He appears to be accepting mobile devices, like
cell phones as ubiquitous, although originally
they may not have seemed transparent enough
because of their fairly complex user interface.
Weiser argued in his early papers that eye glasses
are a good example of a ubiquitous tool [1]. He
thought they fit the paradigm, because a person
simply has to look through them and they work.
Glasses are such a seamless extension of the
human that soon the person forgets eye glasses
are even worn. Weiser also brings up the
example of speaking or even typing. Eventually
we no longer think about typing or speaking
when expressing our ideas. Well we think about
it, just not nearly as much as we do about the
other thoughts which are being conveyed. In fact,
when a person reads this paper, they are not
thinking about the system of paper, words, and
how these things come together to construct
meaning, rather they are simply receiving a
stream of information through an understood
medium.
It could also be argued that the user sees the cell
phone merely as a telephone and nothing more
though it is drastically different from the type of
phone that was used 40 years ago. If time travel
was possible and the same cell phone was placed
in the hands of someone in the 1960’s, they
would have had no clue what to do with it;
therefore, the phone would not be considered
ubiquitous. Thus, as cultures shift, the notions of
what is and is not invisible technology shift as
well.
The Current State of Ubiquitous Computing
The current state of ubiquitous computing lies
within some hybrid form of mobile and
pervasive computing, which seems like a very
logical place for it to grow and develop into
better things. As stated earlier in the paper, for
ubiquitous computing to become a reality,
several things need to be accomplished. In
Weiser’s earlier papers, he would consistently
lay out several key characteristics of mobile
computing. Power consumption, user interfaces,
wireless technology, and obviously cost, were all
in need of development.
It is obvious there is a learning curve to reading
just as there is to using a computer. At some
point, people must analyze the tools they are
provided with and learn to use them regardless of
whether it is words, mathematics, bifocals, or
even a computer. Weiser points this all out in his
paper [5] and then proceeds to condemn personal
computing because he believes it does not follow
this pattern. He finds the computer system to be
too distracting [4]:
“Rather than being a tool through which
we work, and so which disappears from
our awareness, the computer too often
remains the focus of attention.”
Power consumption is important because
ubiquitous devices tend be mobile or consistently
on. This means they have to operate on low
power battery supplies if they are mobile. If they
are not mobile, energy efficiency should still be
an issue since ubiquitous device are always on.
His perspective is interesting because it seems to
shift itself based on the person and the time
period. To a child growing up today, a computer
is not all that much different than television or
books were to a child who grew up 30 years ago.
Inevitably man is the measure of all things.
Things which man can not construct cannot be
constructed and things which man cannot
perceive at the moment …. Well it is arguable
whether they even exist at the current moment.
As Weiser states in a more recent paper [1]:
Wireless technology is also important for
ubiquitous computing because the ability for
devices to talk or communicate with other
devices is important. Many ubiquitous computers
are embedded in other objects and their
functionality will depend on other devices in the
vicinity. In an ideal ubiquitous scenario, all the
5
devices surrounding a user are connected with
one another and information and data flows
freely.
Another problem Weiser addresses, relating to
networking, was the problem with mobile IP
addresses and assignment. It is not completely
logical to assume that computers can have a
static constant IP that defines them upon a give
network since computers will not always remain
on the same network. A business man may travel
from New York to Hong Kong in a day, and
every ubiquitous device he carries with him
would as well. The problem is how to change the
routing information so that his devices still work
properly. In addition, if ubiquitous computing
were ever implemented on a larger scale, more
IP addresses would be needed. If every home
appliance in every house had an IP address there
would be an issue of running out of addresses.
Since Weiser wrote his paper in ’94, IPv6 has
been developed and addresses or solves many of
these issues.
User interfaces vary within ubiquitous
computing, but regardless the user interface may
be the most important aspect of ubiquitous
computing. Without intuitive interfaces,
ubiquitous computing will never succeed,
because it is not sensible for people to constantly
be learning to carry out simple operations with
complex or confusing interfaces on a multitude
of devices. The interface should lend itself to the
task and should not drastically alter how the task
was performed before the computer assisted it.
A greater emphasis is currently placed on chips
designed specifically for mobile computing.
Intel’s M series of chips and Centrino
technology are a good example. Rather than
researching how to make devices run faster, Intel
has taken considerable efforts to make its chips
run more efficiently and become more mobile.
Motorola, which at one time was heavily
entrenched in chip manufacturing for personal
computers, recently separated the semiconductor
production section of its company into an
independent corporation called Free Scale
Semiconductors. Motorola has since become
more focused on mobile computing.
If ubiquitous computing is going to be achieved,
cost becomes an important factor because these
machines will need to be pervasive; therefore, it
is not practical to assume people will be willing
to pay high prices for the multitude of ubiquitous
computers which are in place in everyday life.
Thus, ubiquitous computing has to take cost into
consideration and be innovative in producing
cost effective solutions.
Current Examples of Ubiquitous Computing
There are numerous examples of Ubiquitous
computing which could be discussed, however to
be fair to all its applications and its scope,
examples from different categories of ubiquitous
computing will be shown and then discussed.
Wireless technology was always a concern of
ubiquitous computing. Weiser wanted to see
several types of wireless connections
implemented on ubiquitous computers [5]:
“Present technologies would require a
mobile device to have three different
network connections: tiny range
wireless, long range wireless and very
high speed wired. A single kind of
network connection that can somehow
serve all three functions has yet to be
invented.”
Calm Computing, the Ubiquitous Ideal
The best example of calm computing and also
one of the first, is the “Dangling String,” which
was constructed by artist Natalie Jeremijenko.
The string is a long thin, round piece of plastic,
which hangs from the ceiling and is attached to a
small electrical motor. The motor is
electronically attached to the Ethernet cable of an
office or home network. As the electronic
impulses, which are packets that are traveling the
network, go by, the motor twitches. A very busy
network will cause constant motor rotation while
a quiet network will cause the motor to rotate
very little. The motor’s rotation translates
directly into the movement of the string. Weiser
specifically likes this example because of its
periphery nature. It is very unobtrusive yet still
conveys a lot of information about the network,
There is still not a do it all connection; however,
wireless connectivity is common place through
standards like 802.11 and short range standards
like IrDA or Bluetooth. In 2004 IEEE developed
a research group for 802.11n which would
supply speeds of up to 504 Mb/s. These sorts of
connectivity technology are currently being
implemented in a wide range of devices from
laptops to PDA’s to cellular phones.
6
which is something usually unknown to most
users.
capabilities allowing them to interact with their
environments.
Place-Its [8], developed at University of
California and Intel Research labs, are a good
example of the power of mobile devices to
enhance a users environment. The premise,
behind Place-Its, is a cell phone can be used
effectively as a device to handle reminders.
Since many cell phones are equipped with
positioning systems, reminders can be
administered based on a cell phone’s given
location. As pointed out in their paper [8],
nuances of location are naturally used by people
as reminders, so Place-Its is just augmenting this
fact.
A user implements the system by setting three
options, trigger, text and place. The trigger
describes whether to issue the reminder upon
arrival or departure. The text is the reminder
itself, and the place is the specified location at
which the reminder is issued. A place is defined
when a person is physically located there;
however once the person has defined a ‘place’ on
their phone, it is saved indefinitely and can be
used to schedule reminders from that point
forward.
The dangling string in action
Biometrics and Ubiquitous Computing
Biometrics is a way of identifying people based
on physical or behavioral traits. It is a central
issue in ubiquitous computing because it deals
with privacy issues that accompany ubiquitous
devices. How do ubiquitous devices know who
their owners are and stop others from accessing
sensitive information? Biometrics are a way to
address privacy issues associated with ubiquitous
computing. In addition, biometrics often lead to
seamless ways of verification. Fingerprint
scanners, for example, can be implemented with
out a user even really realizing it. Simply
touching a ubiquitous device maybe enough to
identify the user.
Overall this study appeared to be effective seeing
that there was some benefit to the system and
reminders based on location seemed very useful.
Although cell phones were not 100% accurate at
determining their positions, the prevalence and
already accepted nature of cell phones seemed to
make up for this fact.
The smart floor developed by Robert J. Orr and
Gregory D. Abowd at Georgia tech, is a piece of
flooring which tracks and uses information about
the force of a persons foot steps. By looking at
previous footstep samples, a computer
programming running in the background could
identify the person walking on the smart floor
with 93% accuracy. Because a user never has to
think about directly interacting with any
interface, the smart floor is an unobtrusive
method for user verification. Thus, it fits well
into the ubiquitous idea.
Ubiquitous Networking
As stated earlier, Networking is a crucial part of
ubiquitous computing, thus the construction of
invisible, flexible, noninvasive networks is
extremely important. The papers on this issue
range from low power, short range add hoc
networks to long range wireless systems.
One of the more interesting networking ideas is
the CarpetLan [12], which utilized the person as
a connection between the object and the network.
The interface to the network is located within the
carpet, and the human body is actually
performing like a cable that connects a touching
device to the network. This is still currently very
experimental and was expensive to implement
costing approximately $5,000 for one installation;
however, there are some very notable benefits.
CarpetLan acts as a medium for networking and
Mobile Devices and Ubiquitous Computing
Mobile devices and the general area of mobile
computing is one of the most common areas for
ubiquitous computing to take place. Cell phones
are already being seen as somewhat ubiquitous
devices, which are starting to gain more complex
7
simultaneously can create user position
information, which is beneficial because it takes
away the requirement for a separate positioning
device.
Wearable Ubiquitous Computing
Wearable computing represents the all present
aspect of ubiquitous computing and is also an
attempt to allow computing to seamlessly fit into
the environment. The previous example of the
GETA sandals is an excellent example of
wearable computing. There have also been other
implementations of wearable computing outside
of the realm of positioning.
Ubiquitous Positioning
Position is also integral to ubiquitous computing
because a person’s or device’s position needs to
be known to decide if they will be in position to
communicate with one another. Devices or
humans that are not in proximity with one
another do not need to waste resources trying to
stay networked. Likewise, devices need to be
able recognize the presence of users or other
devices that are leaving or entering their area.
The View Pointer [10] is an example of a
wearable ubiquitous device. Developed at
Queens University under John D. Smith, Roel
Vertegaal, and Changuk Sohn, the View Pointer
allows for seamless interaction with objects. By
placing IR tags in the environment and having a
tiny eye tracking camera added to a hands free
cell phone device, they system can determine
when a user makes eye contact with a specific
object. Each object’s IR tag flashes at a different
rate, which uniquely identifies the object. The
flashing can also be seen as a way to transmit
binary information from object to user. Thus a
device can seamlessly provide the user with
information about itself, for example a web page
URL.
At the 2005 UbiComp in Tokyo Japan, a demo
was given for a device called GETA Sandals [9].
These sandals are used as a means to obtain
positioning information with out very much
infrastructure. Unlike other positioning systems,
they do not require wi-fi points or ultrasound to
aid in determining their location. They keep
track of their own position by calculating the
displacement vectors of each foot through
sensors which are placed inside each sandal.
These vectors are added up, and from these
summations, distance and position can be
determined.
The IR tags are about the size of a dime and can
operate for extended periods of time on a very
limited power source; thus, they are not at all
obtrusive. However, because the headset must be
worn, it is not completely ubiquitous. Unlike
sandals, most people do not currently wear
headsets; however, this may change in the future
and can simply be seen as an example of
ubiquitous scenarios redefining themselves with
time. In addition, eye track is an excellent way to
achieve a ubiquitous interface since eye
movement is such a natural part of the human
communication and interaction. Another benefit
of this system is its low cost. The system was
built with off the shelf parts from Radio Shack
for a very reasonable price.
GETA Sandals in action
An extension of the wearable device concept is
transhumanism, which is a futuristic concept
where computers are transplanted directly into
the user’s body. This goes beyond the realm of
ubiquitous computing, because although
seamless and ever present, it brings up many
ethical issues. The alteration of ones body can be
seen as an evasive procedure, which is not
something originally intended by Weiser. His
main goal for ubiquitous computing was making
the computer fall invisibly into the background
environment; it was not for the computer to
Other forms of position tracking are also
common but not as novel. Many Mobile Devices
already have GPS enabled or something
equivalent. However, these are not as ubiquitous
as the GETA Sandals, because they are an extra
device which requires extra attention. The GETA
Sandals are a seamless integration of a
computing environment into the natural human
environment, and thus, they are truly ubiquitous.
8
become integrated directly into the human.
lives, and augments our environments. Anyone
interested in HCI will hopefully see the range of
possibilities which are created through the
development of ubiquitous scenarios. This paper
has been an attempt at explaining why ubiquitous
computing is on the rise, summarizing what it is,
describing its current state, and finally giving
some examples, which reflect ubiquitous
computing’s range and scope.
Visual interfaces
Visual interfaces, although not really required for
ubiquitous computing, are useful if implemented
properly. There are certain tasks that rely heavily
upon visual interaction, for example reading
maps.
At the 2005 UbiComp Conference in Tokyo
Japan, a demo for an interactive visual map was
carried out. Deemed a “Computational
Augmented Table Top”, the system consisted of
a table top display running a touch sensitive
computer application in the background. Multiple
users were able to interact with image and each
user could be uniquely distinguished. This was
possible by implementing Diamond Touch,
which is a program that incorporates a touch
sensitive display coupled with a software SDK
for application development [7].
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
This application has a very natural interface that
allows people to interact simply by touch the
display. Touch is obviously a natural human
gesture. By taking advantage of this, a very
seamless visual interface is created for multi-user
interaction.
10.
11.
Conclusion
Ubiquitous computing is a new paradigm in
computing, which has started to come to fruition
over the recent years. Furthermore, because of
economic reasons, social reasons and
anthropological observations, the possibility for
ubiquitous computing to rise as a dominant and
common area of computing is becoming more
realistic. Most major computing companies have
started research and development in areas of
ubiquitous computing and it is also on the rise in
academic departments. At the heart of
ubiquitous computing is an interest in user
centric design, which facilitates our everyday
12.
13.
9
Mark Weiser and John Seely Brown, The
Coming Age of Calm Technology, Xerox
PARC, October 5, 1996
Weiser, The world is not a desktop,
Perspective Article for ACM Interactions
Weiser, Ubiquitous Computing, IEEE
computer, October 1993
Weiser, Some Computer Science Issues in
Ubiquitous Computing, CACM, July 1993
Weiser, The computer for 21st Century,
Scientific America, September 1991
Weiser, Gold, Brown. The origins of
ubiquitous computing research at PARC in
the late 1990’s.[online] available at
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/384/
weiser.html
Masakazu Furuichi, Yutaka Mihori, Fumiko
Muraoka, Alan Esenther,and Kathy Ryall,
DTMap Demo: Interactive Tabletop Maps
for Ubiquitous Computing. UbiqComp 2005
Timithy Sohn, Kevin A. Li, Gunny Lee, Ian
Smith, James Scott, and William G.
Griswold, PlaceIts: A Study of Location
Based Reminders on Mobile Phones.
UbiComp 2005
Shun-yuan Yeh, Keng-hao Chang, Chon-in
Wu, Okuda Kenji, Hao-hua Chu, Geta
Sandals: Knowing Where You Walk To.
UbiComp 2005
John D. Smith, Roel Vertegaal and Changuk
Sohn, View Pointer: Lightweight
Calibration-Free Eye Tracking for
Ubiquitous Handsfree Deixis. ACM Press
2005(53-61)
Stokes, Jon. 2003. Understanding Moores
Law [online]. Arstechnica; available from
Masaaki Fukumoto, Mitsuru Shinagawa.
CarpetLAN: A Novel Indoor Wireless(-like)
Networking and Positioning System.
UbiComp 2005
Brooks, Fredrick P. “No Silver Bullet:
Essence and accidents of Software
Engineering” [online] at
http://www.lips.utexas.edu/ee382c15005/Readings/Readings1/05-Broo87.pdf