Questions for Augmented Human
Hello hello,
Below are my questions from last week.
Hope everyone’s having a good reading week!
Also, I just wanted to pick up on a couple points that came up in class:
- Yes I do feel excited about lots of the possibilities. Criticism is not necessarily meant as pessimism. It came up a bunch last class that we as a class were sitting more on the side of critique than enthusiasm… but I am definitely enthusiastic, and I believe others are as well. That said, some important themes continue to emerge in our discussions. More on that below.
- To the question that came up in class, what would I/we need in order to embrace the endless tech possibilities that came up in Augmented Human… I think the major theme that is coming up for me, not just in this one reading but across the readings, is the need for a more nuanced analysis when looking at the possibilities. I love the visionary thinking in these readings, but for me, when that thinking lifts up the possibilities without grounding itself in socio-political realities, it leaves me constantly asking questions. What about the impacts of these inventions? Who is in the room dreaming these things (and by extension who isn’t)? Who gets access to the tech (and who doesn’t)? What communities get displaced so that tech dreamers can set up their operations and research companies? How much waste is all this producing and what are the impacts environmentally to develop these creations? How will this tech contribute to ongoing political struggles/movements/resistance, and who/what gets priortized in those contributions? etc etc etc. So, for me, these questions need to be integrated. These questions need at least to be allowed to be published and be part of the techno-dreaming-landscape in order for me to more fully feel excited about things. If that makes sense.
Just a couple thoughts. Questions from last week below.
best,
lee
Questions from Augmented Human
1. General Question:
There is something very utopic about the way Papagiannis explores the variety of possibilities for AR. At each turn I was curious about the critiques of future AR potentials. About who and how decisions will get made. About the political realities of our current and historical climates, and how these will or won’t inform the kinds of research that are being conducted and will be pursued in the future.
- I’m wondering if others shared these questions as they were readings and what critiques were emerging for you as readers?
2. “For me as a designer of interaction whose focus is always about the quality of the human experience, I found out very early on that if you want to understand something, you go to the extreme cases and try to understand things at the edges. In nearly all cases, what you learn people need while you’re there will also apply to the general population.” (quoting Buxton)
Further quote: “Buxton pointed me to his “favorite reference,” an article from 1987, “Making Computers Accessible to Disabled People” by Frank Bowe.Bowe wrote, “If options for different users were incorporated into the design of all computers, the lives of millions of disabled individuals could be greatly enhanced.” He referenced the design of buildings as the most familiar concept of accessibility, citing accessible architecture in the form of automatic doors and entrances level with exterior landscaping.” (pg 53)
- In general, I’ve been finding a lack of discussing access — there are nods to artists having to be part of the creation of content beyond technological possibilities, and nods towards technology providing aid and access for people who are disabled, etc. In general however, there seems to be a lack of analysis that access is essential to how we envision application and design of technology. This quote for me stood out as a moment where someone is suggesting such an approach and analysis that is sorely needed throughout.
- Wondering what people think about access needs? And along with access I am thinking more broadly than disability, including class, gender, education, sexuality, nationality, status, etc. Are other people thinking along these lines?
3. “This medium is prime for new modes of expression” (pg 80) and “a secure footing on unfamiliar terrain.” However, Holtzman urges that we must “transcend the old” to discover the new, for, “like a road sign, repurposing is a marker indicating that profound change is around the bend.” (pg 86)
- There is a wealth of colonial sounding approaches to technology as this new frontier that is a tabula rasa and needs entirely new ways of being and thinking and making
- Wondering about the implications of such approaches and also thinking about Rettberg’s assertion to “make it not new” and what people think about this?
4. “Reality becomes malleable, mutable, and highly personalized” (pg 11)
- Constant questions about a highly personalized world and how in such a world we continue to build in/with community rather than further the neo-liberal project of prioritizing individual self-interest (and ultimately the interest of the rich, those with access, those with power)?