November 19, 2004
Present and correct
Earlier this week I mused on how the audio component of telephony might evolve. To add some editorial balance, here’s (literally) a picture of the future from the presence side of the house.
I can tell you’re impressed. I am. That picture tells you all you need to know about my household, and frankly is all you’re going to find out too. The rug by the door where we put our shoes. It tells you who is home. And you know the house is warm because I’m not wearing my slippers. And you know we’re not asleep because the light is still on. I’m tempted to rig up a wireless webcam and make a permanent web page of it.
Forget those presence icons in your messaging client. Your grandchildren will laugh at the superficiality of it. Presence is vastly richer and more complex. There are the clearly digital extensions of presence. What TV station is on (don’t call me during the movie), is the cooker on, is the bathroom light on (don’t you hate the phone ringing while you’re doing a dump?). And then there will be softer, fuzzier forms of presence that require human interpretation. A dozen pairs of shoes? We’ve got a party going.
Knowing whether I’m online is increasingly irrelevant in an always-on world. What you really want to know is my contextual situation. How likely am I to welcome an interruption? A picture of my smelly slippers is worth a thousand presence icons.
Posted by Martin Geddes at 05:46 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telepocalypse.net/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/mgeddes/MT/mt-tb.cgi/345.
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Present and correct:
»
Ancient Presence Technology from Aswath Weblog
A while back Martin had posted about Presence and the need for contextual information with the ambient data aggregated. He used a picture of shoes by the front door. I wonder whether he got the idea from Mahabharat. You see, the...
[Read more]
"How likely am I to welcome an interruption? A picture of my smelly slippers is worth a thousand presence icons."
Maybe I'm missing the point, but those smelly slippers still only tell me that you're present. It doesn't answer the question above.
I agree that knowing the "context" in which you're present is probably better than just knowing you are present. But, if the objective of all of that is simply to convey to people whether or not you can be interrupted, wouldn't it just be simpler to put up a "do not disturb" sign when you don't want to, or can't, be disturbed?
Posted by: at November 20, 2004 10:45 PMNope - that approach is stuck in the IM way of thinking, where I have to flex to the system, rather than the other way round. Presence should be produced as a by-product of my lifestyle.
Contrary to popular belief, I don't spend all my life at the keyboard. So my IM client doesn't tell you whether it's a good time to call. And the keyboard being occupied, even when "Martin" is logged onto the main PC, doesn't necessarily mean I'm around. It could just as easily be my wife playing some streaming music to our baby daughter.
What I'm looking forward to is a day of "revealed presence", which emerges from the activities I already undertake.
How long until there's an RFID tag in each slipper and you'll know which room I'm in?
Martin
Posted by: at November 20, 2004 10:53 PMRFID, huh? So, I guess you don't have any privacy issues with all of this. Looks like we are approaching this from two different directions. It seems that you actually want people to know where you are, and perhaps what you are doing, at any time. I, on the other hand, do not want people to be able to know where I am all the time -- especially if I'm taking a dump. I guess, internally, I reject the notion that I am "on" 24/7. And, if I'm not "on" at the moment, the reason I'm not "on" isn't really anybody else's business.
Very much like IM, I am "on" when the sign says "come in." Otherwise, I'm "closed." People may still try to reach me in the middle of my favorite movie, but there's a very easy way I deal with that: I ignore them (there's no law -- yet -- that says you have to answer the phone when it rings). They can leave a message or send an email and I'll get back to them -- which is pretty much what happens now. On the other hand, when I really need to be available, I make sure I am available.
"That picture tells you all you need to know about my household, and frankly is all you’re going to find out too."
In a world with RFID in our shoes (or worse?), you wouldn't be able to make a statment like that.
Posted by: at November 20, 2004 11:44 PMNot at all. Nobody suggested that we're going to abandon all privacy control. I'm not expecting to give out pictures of my house and my internal location to all and sundry. And if my slippers are firmly planted in front of the great white throne, and I'm the only one home, I'm expecting the phone to not ring at all. No stressful sphincter-clenching moments, thank you.
If you've got an ordinary landline in your house today, and you don't unplug it, you're on. The Vonages of the world don't change that -- another reason they're a passing phase. And I for one certainly don't want to spend my days thinking about whether I'm currently "on" or "off".
Technology can be used for good or bad, and what we're about to experience is a much richer form of presence than me shuffing round the house with my trousers down to answer the phone and tell my mum I'm a bit busy right now. On/off binary presence is exactly the thing we want to get away from because it doesn't begin to reflect the complexity of the real world. Are you even 'on' to your family but 'off' to your work colleagues? I dread to think of the presence and availability control panel in your house.
But that said, thanks for taking the time to challenge the article's thesis. Appreciated. Martin.
Posted by: at November 21, 2004 12:00 AMWhat are your thoughts on the potential for this to raise additional "conflict" issues? I can think of a couple situations where this might the case:
1. Suppose we now live in an environment of enhanced "presence" information -- we've got the RFID, or whatever, and it's now possible for people to know where you are, perhaps what you are doing, and whether or not you are "avaliable" to interact with them. But, of course, you have got to give them permission, initially, to have this new information. What would it say to people (presumably, your friends or colleagues) if, for whatever reason, you refused to give them this permission? Or, having given them this permission, you change your mind and revoke their permission?
2. What if someone now knows where you are and that you are "available," but you, knowing they are trying to contact you, do not want to interact with them at this time? They know you are "home," and now they'll know you are ignoring or avoiding them.
As it stands now, since no one knows that kind of stuff about me, these are not issues. They either get hold of me or they don't. It may not be the most efficient way for all involved, but it seems there's less potential for offense or conflict.
In the name of friendship, ignorance is bliss(?)
Posted by: at November 21, 2004 06:21 PMThis issue was hinted at in an earlier article (http://www.telepocalypse.net/archives/000078.html). The simple answer is I don't know how we deal with the changes in etiquette required. Just like the issue of mobile in train carriages, it's one we'll have to deal with when we get there. Perhaps we should follow by brother's philosophy on mobile phones. He's an IT consultant, and carries one around. He often turns it off for extended periods while he does real work or just doesn't fancy a chat with the boss/client. His being hard to contact sometimes annoys people, and he just reminds them that he bought a cell phone for his benefit and not theirs. If your boss wants to call you when you're at home and visibly around you're going to have to remind them of your on-call rates. (I'm sorry, I'm done with hierarchical corporate living. If you want loyalty and obedience, I recommend getting a dog.)
Posted by: at November 21, 2004 07:11 PM"he just reminds them that he bought a cell phone for his benefit and not theirs"
Close, but not quite. My actual words are: The phone is for our mutual benefit, but It's for my convenience and not yours.
If you were paying a couple of hundred dollars an hour to talk to me, you wouldn't want our meeting to be interrupted by a third party either, unless it was directly relevant to whatever I'm fixing for you.
It's a fairly hard line to take, but I think many people get stressed out by their mobile, or pager etc because they fail to control their environment. I control my phone, not the other way round. Call me a luddite or a control freak, but I think I'm better off this way.
As for whether an improved presence (from aggregated factors unknown to the caller) would help, I can certainly say yes it would from annacdotal evidence. Often I skype Martin, only to find that he wife is using the computer, or that he's on his mobile, or he needs to wash my niece etc. It's better that the "no prescence at all" option of POTS - we only tend to call each other when both our status is available.
R.