« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »

February 21, 2007

freeFormed.net is in beta testing!!

The re-design of freeformed has been underway for a very looooooong time. However, with the arrival of the students from Xavier University (visit my thesis blog for more info on this) Jadie and I launched ourselves into super overload coding mode (I personally haven't slept in a few weeks) and now we have officially gone into a beta testing phase. Anyone who wants an account can email me at catherine@freeformed.net or my other email address if you know it. And this above is not a typo, we are freeformed.net now (instead of .org). The .org is going to be reserved for the company site since eventually we will have to start making some money.........

February 20, 2007

Hmmmm

February 16, 2007

Urban Computing Assignment

Angela Pablo and I collaborated on the first assignment for Urban Computing. The assignment was to create a proposal or prototype that dealt with the scope of the ideas currently discussed in class, walls, windows and doors. Angela and I were both interested in focusing our idea on the level of an urban apartment building and specifically on the concept of the door. We both came to this idea from slightly different places but our thought process was somewhat similar.

An apartment building is a uniquely urban artifact and it encompasses concepts of anonymity and density that are unique to living in a city. Both of us have had the experience of living in a building where we did not know or did not have strong ties to our neighbors. It is interesting to me that these nodes of private space that are so close in proximity to each other do not in fact promote any kind of social interaction and in fact, at times, discourage it. In suburban or rural areas, proximity is extremely relevant. As children in such an environment, most of our social lives are played out within the context of those that live in proximity. And even as adults living in such environments, the concept of representing ourselves as absent from our past history and actions is almost non-existent. This is part of the attraction of living in a city; being able to be amongst strangers, to re-invent oneself, to explore different contexts and relationships that do not function on the level of coincidence. But that does not necessarily mean that we should abandon the entire concept of maintaining ties with those that live near where we live.

This is interesting when considering the way we interact in virtual space. Virtual space completely abstracts the idea of proximity. We can connect with anyone, and those that are in proximity exist as such because of desire or pre-existing social relationships, rather then because of necessity. In virtual environments we are better able to negotiate the concept of being amongst strangers because we can chose this proximity and subjectively decide who enters our 'homes' (at least to the degree that we have to acknowledge their presence). The absence of privacy also creates an absence of responsibility. As Kevin mentioned in class, when someone knocks on our apartment door we have to make a significant decision to either remain silent and hide our presence or let them in. In virtual space this relationship is not binary, we not either there or not there. To a certain extent we are always there and simultaneously not there. It is a gray area.

This leads directly to the reason why we were interested in dealing with the concept of a shared and yet not shared living space. Physical doors imply a binary relationship, but they don't necessarily have to. A closed door is not necessarily a locked one or one that doesn't want to be opened. And, as mentioned in class, entrance to private space is relative; some people we want to enter and others we don't.

Neighborspace (working title) was our original idea. We wanted to use a tool (the mobile phone) that is ubiquitous and familiar and create an environment that would promote the discovery of proximity.Here is some stuff we wrote about the subject.

After feedback in class, however, I think we both realized that the project needs a physical iteration. I have been interested for a while in exploring the concept of a physical representation of social networks because I think it is an idea that has not been fully explored. If we could find a way to create states of a door, to use it as a real permeable membrane rather then a binary object it would be very interesting. I have been looking a lot at bluetooth code in my Cell Phone Studio Class and somehow I think this could be the beginning of a idea. Angela and I are going to discuss this further next week (after the insanity of the approaching Xavier University students and the freeFormed launch on Monday pass). This could be a new project.....more to come.

February 14, 2007

Ajax Assignment #2

This week's Ajax assignments were somewhat challenging. I understood the basic concept of XMLhttprequest but had trouble with two basic issues:

1) I didn't fully understand what the PHP was doing in the examples shown in class because we did not have access to the actual PHP functions behind the scenes. I know PHP pretty well but found it hard to figure out exactly what the example PHP functions were returning to the Javascript.

2) I found it really difficult to switch between using 'regular' ajax and the Prototype API. I read the documentation but found it difficult to find example code. Then again, maybe my google searches were not good enough. I also had a significant problem using InnerHTML, which worked in the example with 'regular' ajax but not in the example where I used Prototype.

Exercise One
PHP File (in text format)

Change the loading of different sets of pictures based on pressing a different button.

Exercise Two
PHP File (in text format)

Enter in your astrological sign and get a message when you click outside the box.

Exercise Three
PHP File (in text format)

Drag a group into the box to link it to your group. (this is where the InnerHTML is not working) Running Firebug will show you the calls to PHP.

February 11, 2007

Urban Computing First Assignment Thoughts

The assignment this week was to come up with a prototype or proposal that functions on the level of a building (windows, doors, walls. etc.). The assignment is very open ended so first I thought of what is significant about a building. The obvious answer is that it usually involves the idea of being home. Being home, or arriving home, especially in a city, can be a very specific entry into personal space. So then i began to consider the reprucussions of that space being violated in some way, something having entered through the door or windows that would obstruct one's enjoyment of home. So far I have came up with one potential idea:

1) A system that can track if there are children in a building and what apartment they are in.

Purpose: To inform emergency workers (firemen, EMS) where a child is located in the event of an emergency such as a fire, hurricane, flooding, etc. (depending on the city).

Operation: Parents can download an application to their mobile phone and enter in their address, apartment number and the age and names of their children. This information could then be saved in a secure database system that is controlled by a central emergency agency. When a parent walks in their door the application could run automatically and ask the parent to list which of their children are home and which aren't. Perhaps older children with their own phones could also have a non-administrative version of the application that could automatically list them as being home when they walk in the door. (wearable devices that could list the children at home???) If their is an emergency at a particular address the application could automatically download to an emergency worker's phone how many children are located in which apartments and have an option to download the children's names and the mobile phone numbers of their parent's in the even that the parent themselves are not home (helpful for children who have babysitters or older children that spend time at home while their parent's are at work).

Still thinking....

February 09, 2007

Urban Attractors, Private Distractors

I had eluded to this fact on the urban computing blog, but i suppose an official annocement is in order. Startinf next week, I will be working on this project with Eyebeam artist in residence Angie Eng. The project is very interesting and has a lot of cross-over with my own work. We'll see hoe it goes.

Live Online

In the Urban Computing class last night, Kevin Slavin showed us a website that I had not seen before. Stickam.com is like Myspace with a twist, its users broadcast themselves from their webcams live online. For about twenty minutes last night we watched an 18 year old boy from Orlando, Florida laying on his bed looking at his webcam, and presumably chatting on his computer with someone. He said nothing and did nothing. It was incredibly strange and, given its voyeuristic overtones, pretty boring. I searched through the site a little after class and the interesting thing is, this kind of behavior really does seem to be the norm. Most of the Stickam users are not actually doing or saying anything so, in actual fact, the web camera is not broadcasting their lives at all, but rather providing a kind of window into their bedrooms. Kevin made the every interesting point last night that this kind of virtual structure is actually mimicking that of the urban experience. In a city, he reasoned, we come into contact with strangers all of the time, and are constantly engaging in some sort of accidental and purposeful performance through our choices in clothing, behavior, where we choose to go etc. He also made the point that these kids are actually in some way searching for the kind of missing feeling that exists when one does not have this urban experience, and that in fact this is perhaps what we are all searching for when making our selves public in an online space, some form of connection and companionship with strangers.

I thought this point was incredibly interesting, but I have not yet figured out how much I buy the entire concept. It is certainly true that companionship with strangers is something unavoidable in a city environment such as New York. I was struck by how much I personally had incorporated this kind of feeling into my daily existence when I moved to LA, a city where feeling as though you are part of a crowd of strangers is almost impossible.. Every one drives, no one walks the streets and the accidental meeting between people who don't know each other is rare and confined to particular parts of the city at particular times. But New York is also anonymous and, as I have begun to realize more and more, the tendency for most people in this city is to keep a wall of personal space around oneself while engaging in physical contact with crowds. When we are on the subway, we look down or we read. When we walk the streets we are on our mobile phones or listening to our ipods. Its not that we are not engaging at all, but we have adapted to the public environment of crowds by developing different concepts of personal space. These spaces do get violated, people talk to us that we don't know, watch us, sometimes acknowledging that fact (how many women have been hollered at on the street). But it seems that in the physical world we have choices. If you don't want to talk to someone you walk away. If you don't want to be somewhere, you leave. How does this translate to the virtual world?

One's immediate response is to say that it is easier to turn off in a virtual world, you do just that, turn off, log off, not participate at all. We can delete emails, sign out of Myspace and in the case of Stickam turn off our web cameras. But as this article (which I will discuss in more detail in a later post) states, there is an archive. We cannot run away, hide or deny that which we say and do online and this IS different. It is searchable. In the physical world, our actions, while they can be seen in by strangers, are confined in space and time to where they, archived only by physical memory. What we are in effect creating, therefore, seems to be urban-like environments with memory forever, crowds of strangers with an unbelievable ability to scrutinize. This article suggests that this might not necessarily be a bad ting. If we make everything public then maybe we do in fact become desensitized to it. Half naked pictures of 16 year old girls do start to become irrelevant when there are 6000 of them instead of 10. But the question I have, as I raised in class, is what effect does this have on our ability to exist and interact in the physical world? How will a generation that grows up interacting online negotiate physical space? There IS somewhere here a correlation. This does not mean that we should become paranoid and log-off. But there is a fundamental change in relationships when they primarily exist in a virtual space or when they are partly informed by a virtual existence. Some kind of disassociation occurs.

One of the assignments for next week’s thesis class was to discuss our project with someone who is completely out of our field. I chose my friend Craig, partly because he was unfortunate enough to be having dinner with me last night. We talked about a lot of things concerning online experiences and mobile phones. But the one interesting thing he mentioned, and I knew already that he did this, was his participation in T-Mobile chat rooms. I have personally never been in one or seen what they are, but apparently they are simple text based spaces where T-mobile users across the country can speak to each other. I asked him when he most used this and he told me it was primarily at home (which was odd in and of itself because one usually thinks of the mobile phone as enabling something mobile) and that he normally goes on when he can't sleep as a time waster. I asked him why he wouldn't do something like this online, IM or whatever. His response was interesting. He told me that online he feels more public, less anonymous and since this form of communicating is more for fun and to pass the time he doesn't personally feel invested enough in the communication to want to make it public.

It was at this point that I became very interested. Suddenly, it seems, being online no longer feels anonymous, even for someone like Craig whose exposure to online forms of communication is restricted to Myspace and search engines. It is interesting that in this environment his mobile phone has become a means to exert some personal control over private space. I'm still thinking about what this actually means…..

February 07, 2007

Urban Environment and Electronic Devices

This article is particularly interesting, not so much because of the fact that someone wants to propose the banning of iPod use while crossing the street, but moreso because the very suggestion that this is a measure we need to take says a lot it seems about where technology is driving us. Have we become so desperate for personal space and privacy in the streets of New York that we plug in and disassociate from even that which may kill us? I was having a conversation with someone earlier about how this is probably a generation gap and I tend to believe this may be true. Younger children, my thirteen year old sister is a prime example of this, have no problem multi-tasking and interacting with various aspects of technology both in the physical and virtual world simultaneously. But perhaps older adults, lacking the experience of growing up in a culture that stresses such abilities, may find it difficult to navigate through a world of physical space while attached to a sense of virtual space. I have a tendency to believe, however, that some of this also has to with the intersection between physical and virtual space that can be disconcerting, in other words its almost impossible to participate in both simultaneously with no cross-over. I once had a friend who met a friend of a friend on myspace. They didn't know each other in the physical world, even though they were both close to their mutual friend. One day, accidentally, they met at a bar. She described it to me as being one of the strangest and ultimately the most disappointing experience she'd had in a while. .Confronted by a physical setting, the two were practically incapable of maintaining a decent conversation. They eventually stopped talking in the virtual world based on this meeting.

A couple of responses to the Urban Computing Blog Comments

Catherine Colman Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 01.48

Angela-

I agree with your comment about the ad campaign. I think this directly relates to what we were discussing in class about context. This seems to be a perfect example of something that could have unintended consequences because it is taken out of context. Just because something is unexpected or shocking does not mean that it will provoke an easily identifiable emotional response. It also seems to me that placing these images on a door is a very odd choice. I’m not sure how much these images would serve to desensitize people, however. To a certain extent I think that our media overloaded culture has already done that to a certain degree.


# Catherine Colman Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 02.01

“if you don’t know about the damn thing, the door doesn’t exist - that which is blocked by the door is not even conceivable.”

I found this to be an interesting statement. I agree with the second part but not so much the first. One person’s individual lack of knowledge of a door, especially a virtual one, does not by any means mean that it does not exist. I would argue that access to the internet, or to various aspects of an online experience, is very much a door. And that one’s lack of access or lack of knowledge of the various virtual doors involved does not mean that they don’t exist. And the fact that what lays behind the door is not even conceivable is the problem. There are many virtual doors that we probably pass through unaware of on a daily basis (and if not we will), which leads to the questions: what rights of passage are we participating in that we don’t even know of? what information is required to enter these doors? where are these doors leading us? etc.

I think this also relates to the question of how far open we leave the virtual doors that lead directly to our physical selves (online profiles, media sharing sites, blogs, social networks, etc.). Who is coming in? It seems that many people’s relationship to these kind of doors is to shut them completely (non-participation) or leave them wide open. Maybe neither one is the answer. Perhaps the answer is finding a way to re-gain control over who has the key. But how does that happen?

February 06, 2007

Distractions...

I have become very obsessed recently with StumbleUpon, a firefox add-on that allows you to find websites that match your interests and are well review by other StumbleUpon users. It also allows you to add comments and search comments for whatever website you are on. I know there are other add-ons and plug-ins that allow you to find sites and communicate socially through your browser, but I think I really like this because it is easy, quick, not confusing and it seems to consistently find things that are either interesting or that I would not have searched for myself. If it works for you just beware.... its addicting.

freeFormed Application Status

I have had considerable progress with the application this week, especially since implementing Dan O'Sullivan's Image Sender code. One of the largest problems with the original application was unreliable image sending capability and the new image sending code seems to have resolved that problem. I am still having difficulty integrating the different parts of the application, but I hope to continue working on that in the upcoming week.

February 05, 2007

Doors

Here is my reaction to this essay on doors on the Urban Computing Blog:

It has always seemed to me that a door, beyond being a physical construction, is often a social one. A physical door can in fact be locked needing an actual key to enter. But it can also be metaphorically locked, blocking access to certain people based on a conceptual social structure, not because of physicality. As a child, I'm sure most of us remember someone saying that the point of doing well in school was so doors would open for us as adults. (this touches on the idea of a door being closed forever..."what if were to never open again"). But what happens when these social doors are closed for the wrong reasons in the wrong contexts? This seems particularly relevant when considering how a physical door translates into a virtual one. Perhaps virtual keys are not simply previously registered personal information and a virtual door is not simply a login page. Perhaps the key is also educationally and socially based and access is limited to those who meet certain criteria of exposure and economic status. If you don't realize the door exists you can't even begin to find the key.

The idea of a virtual key is interesting because it most often involves some kind of exchange of personal data that is archived in places that the initial 'user' has no control over. To gain access to many 'walled' websites we have to provide our names, email address and other forms of personal data. By being unable to control what happens to these keys we are unable to negotiate our own terms of personal space and privacy. In the physical world a door is the intersection of two functionally different places, most often crossing the boundaries of what we identify as publicly accessible and what is private (either to an individual or to an identifiable group). What if the keys to our apartment were available to third parties at any time without our knowledge?

Physical doors are also social indicators of neighborhood. This door is different then this one. They can sometimes symbolize the importance of being able to (and to what degree we need to) protect personal space in certain environments from people that aren't supposed to enter. My parents live in a relatively small and quite safe neighborhood in Westchester County. They very rarely lock their front door, so rarely that neither me nor my sister have an actual key to the house. This does not mean that they are inviting the world in. Sometimes a door does not need to be locked to imply "do not enter". I've lived with roommates and we never locked the doors to our bedroom, but it was implicitly implied that you would never simply walk in. What happens, however, when an unlocked door allows for intrusion, either because the door is left unlocked accidentally or because it is broken?

In 2001, I lived on Steinway Street in Astoria, Queens, which was and still is a very Arabic neighborhood. It was actually the place that I enjoyed living in the most of all the neighborhoods/apartments/cities I have lived in. My apartment building was right across the street from a Mosque. A few weeks after September 11th, someone (or some group of people) entered my apartment building and spray painted racial slurs all over the lobby and stairwell in part referring to the Mosque. The lock on the front door of the building had been broken since I had moved in there a year earlier but nothing of that nature had ever happened before. It was actually very disturbing, and most people in the building felt that way. Even though the lobby was simply an entrance way and no one ever congregated there, many people I spoke to seemed to feel that their personal space had been violated. The weekend after it happened, a bunch of us got together and washed the walls because the landlord seemed disinterested in arranging it himself. When I returned to the building in 2005 the lock was still broken.