The content of these readings are of great interest to me.  Something very surprising to me however was the time frame in which the Weiser piece was written.  23 years ago the concept of having [essentially] a smart phone, tablet, and laptop (using the assumption laptops have taken place of desktops) was already in existence.  Of course time was needed to develop these technologies and make them available to the everyman.  I’m sure the question “do we have ubiquitous computing today?” will come up and I think we do not.  Although we are so so close, but in fact we still need devices.  I have no idea how the devices will ‘go away’ and by go away i mean hidden out of site; existing but not obvious.

Several years ago Architecture Record put out an issue focusing on libraries of the future, addressing the issue of books becoming increasingly digital which is reducing the need for hard-copied books.  Most of a library as a building revolves around housing these hard copies so what happens when you take them away? Do libraries seize to exist? or do they take on new functions?  It seems as though the trend has been turning the focus of library design more into community centers than book houses.  Two example of this is the Seattle public library and the Salt Lake City public library.  Another much talked about topic is digital technology that is becoming more and more mainstream such as laser cutting and 3d printing.  This past summer while I was in Tokyo I spoke with a gentleman that worked for an organization that is focusing on bringing digital fabrication facilities available to the masses through cafes and maker spaces.  One of the coolest things I’ve ever heard in my life was him telling me how later that week he was flying to Barcelona to meet with some government officials about implementing these types of spaces in each neighborhood because they are basically the new library.

There are several things that I found interesting in reading this weeks articles.  One of the bigger points I took was the large possible implications of design starting at the small scale.  While the Electronic as Post-optimal Object reading focused on the need for design beyond just surface, I was intrigued mainly by the comments made on design of materials and interface.  These days many of the ubiquitous computing devices that exist are relatively comparable in function.  In fact steadily most android devices have the computationally and functionally outperformed apple products each generation.  However, apple is far superior at designing an object and creating a real experience in using the device.  So much of how we interact with our environments is now through an interface of a device.  This forces designers to now consider designing at more that just the macro scale, but forces us to consider the implications of designing interfaces and designing at the small scale.  When the author was talking about material research, I immediately was captivated.  He pointed out the engineers have long been developing advanced materials, but proposals that they make are often disappointing and do not imply large change.  Here is where architects can have and are having huge effects on the field.  If we are to consider the design of a response or a system, it must be tackled at a small scale first in order to innovate and create holistic environments.

“lagging”, “freezing”, “crashing”, etc. . All of us have heard these terms and generally “technical problems” before. “According to some technical problems”, because a technical problem”, “caused by a technical problem”.

Are technical problems just for ubiquitous computers? Are they just a part of our personal computers, laptops, phones, and tablet? Do they happen because we are not using powerful computers and devices in our quotidian lives?

Of course not. I remember my father’s first desktop computer with 8 MB of storage lagging and I now experience moments in which one of my devices stops working properly. The more things get complicated, the more technical issues come to the table and this phenomenon of technical problems seem to be never-ending.

You are using your Wi-Fi and It stops working for a while, sometimes you wish you never had one. When technologies around you don’t work properly, it really gets on your nerves.

I don’t want to come to any conclusion, however;

Once Sal arrives at work, she has to wait for 20 minutes for the technical support team to dispel the foreview which stopped working again for the third time this month. As she walks into the building,the machines in her office prepare to log her in but do not complete the sequence until she actually enters her office. The same error again; “incorrect user name or password” . So she has to log on manually and wait for everything to be arranged . Sal glances out her windows: a gray day in Silicon Valley, 75 percent humidity and 40 percent chance of afternoon showers. She doubts on the information because they were exactly showing the sentences which they were yesterday. She taps the update bottom and waits for the update. After 1 minute I is still loading the information so she just forgets about it.

Ubiquitous computing today is a reality, from the fab that grants you access to you office to your microwave or your car you can see the presence of integrated computing anywhere you put your eyes on. moving towards the ideas exposed in “Recombinant Architecture”, specifically to the field of the library, since the ever growing digitization of books and since more and more of the newly produced, written information is now digital, what will become of the actual physical space that once was employed to store these now “obsolete”(not because of what they are but because now we have other ways to access the information within them) books. an interesting solution that i have found is the use of the library as a making place. with the incorporation of 3d printers, now libraries become a place for the creation, sharing and development of this new form of production that still needs to be stored somewhere and made even more accessible to the general public. back to the use of computing within architecture, it seems like i am watching that video from corning glass again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Muv3R_6AXls

In the article by Weiser I like how there was a notion that even though one knows how to use a computer for their everyday use they have a very minimal idea of how to computer itself works. The talk about the monks making ink or firing clay is a great example of how these people had to literally make their technology from natural resources. In today’s society there seems to be a disconnect between the technologies we use and how these technologies work for us. I personally like to know as much as I can about certain technologies that I own as possible. This doesn’t mean I can build one from raw materials but I feel that I understand basically how the technologies I use function.I completely support the notion that what we learn well we cease to be aware of, I would just change a couple words and say we cease to be amazed by it. I mean we all know how to use our cell phones and we are all aware that they are there we just are not really amazed that we know how to use them.  I enjoyed how they were talking about virtual reality and how it focuses us on a simulated world instead of  having us focus on the world right in front of us.

At the bottom of the second page Dunne writes “Writing on electronic art might seem a good source of ideas on the electronic object, but, surprisingly, electronic art has become so technology-driven that it seems concerned only with the aesthetic expression of technology for its own sake” Which says to me the designers are more interested in making something that looks good in the house rather than something that functions better or is actually what people need.

Weiser says, “…display prices will fall, and resolution and quality will rise. By the end of the decade, a 1,000 * 800-pixel high-contrast display will be a fraction of a centimeter thick and weigh perhaps 100 grams.” It makes me to think how a prediction and estimation of the further technologies by a scientist can be close to the reality. I ask myself, “What kind of inventions were not predictable in the history of science and technology?” I am not sure about the answers but those are the most interesting parts of the history. On the other hand I still do not understand the aim and motivation of scientists such as Weiser who believe that the technologies related to their field should be ubiquitous. Maybe the answer is at the end of the article, ”When almost every object either contains a computer or can have a tab attached to it, obtaining information will be trivial” (I am more interested in analytical power and processing capabilities of computers rather than their super accessible memory). But it is still unclear and complex for me. I am always thinking about the next generation of technologies which are not frustrating and I am waiting to see the technologies that are solved into the human nature and nature and life. As the information technologies are changing, architectural spaces embodying activities are changing too. When the technologies can be unpredictable the architecture would be too, but there is another question, “How can Architecture cause or seek the invention of new technologies?” This is something different from thinking about “virtual pizza parlor” that Mitcher talks about. When it is unpredictable, at first, it should seems illogical but emergent. I think it happens whens architects, themselves, get deeper into the other sciences and corporate with scientists rather than waiting for using their results.

In the nineteenth century, Weiser was proposing the idea that someday, computers will be weaved into the fabric of everyday life. Today, not far from his predictions, ubiquitous computing is rapidly becoming a reality. Computers are around us and part of our life, pretty much from the time we get up to the time we go to bed and sometimes even when we are sleep.  Computers are taking into account the natural human environment and the components of our environment from the devices that we use to the clothing that we wear are becoming smart. Weiser suggested that technology in the future will disappear in the background. However, transparency of technology doesn’t mean that it is invisible to the eye; rather it is placed in a way that becomes so embedded in the natural environment that it actually becomes indistinguishable from everyday life. This development of information technology, increases the exposure of people’s life and their activities, therefore it may raise serious issues about the preservation of privacy.  The world ahead, with the blurred boundary between information technology and natural environment, will provide architecture as the designed environment with both new functions and challenges. Architecture will not be passive anymore. Smart environment affects the occupant’s choices as they go about their everyday life just like writing that as Weiser claimed freed the information from the individual memory.

In Weiser’s “The computer for the 21st Century” technology as being dissolved in our day to day life it reaches out to all sort of daily activities and products. It is used in each deal of economical and political acts sparing none even a candy wrap to communicate. “ The constant background” truly fits so well. I t does not demand to be noticed all the time but as a background it is always there. According to Weiser virtual reality is on the way to be a process and getting out of the “shell”. Ubiquitous computer has the “variety” for different use and different purposes to be a part of the day to day life. Employee ID, the display board for home, play ground, office, live boards, tabs, pads for personal use, library and research center or survey works is now a detachable part of our life. There are more grave example in that shows artificial intelligence does not need any revolution but to get dissolve in everyday life. Ubiquitous computing (ubicomp) is a concept in software engineering and computer science where computing is made to appear everywhere and anywhere. In contrast to desktop computing, ubiquitous computing can occur using any device, in any location, and in any format. Through the process of getting into ubiquitous computing people will become less into computer but more into the cloud of ubiquitous computing or augmented reality.

This is a theme that architects have forever struggled with. Expense for aesthetic or artistic value is never an easy sell (especially if you are working for a profit oriented developer who doesn’t even want to put closets in hotel rooms because they can “make money” on that closet floorspace). It is literally the spending of money for an unquantifiable result; the emotive quality of space. These emotive qualities are exactly what architects design, otherwise we wouldn’t exist. Buildings aren’t just built for efficiency, but also for enjoyment and comfort. Engineers can build more “efficient” buildings than us, period; and when they do, you get the tin cans we have to suffer in for two hours each week for class. I would say there is little architectural about those buildings. They are simply cold effiicencies. This is where architecture’s value lies, and unfortunately we can’t quantify it-it is 100% subjective, but it is our raison de etre.

When designing with ubiquitous and sentient systems, it is easy to fall into the pitfall of efficiency. That is what these systems were made for after all-to most efficiently manage our use of lighting, heating, cooling, energy, and data. But there is far more to it than that. Where is the artistic value and emotive quality in efficiency? The answer: there is none. Efficiency is a way of limiting waste, which is usually counter to emotive qualities of space. We design large glass curtain walls not because they insulate the building well, but because we like the light. We design large floor to floor heights in order to make space feel more open, not because they are easier or cheaper to heat and cool than a space with less volume (it is in fact, the opposite).

Ubiquitous computing can not be adopted in just a servatory manner. This is literally skin deep. What effects can ubiquitous computing make on space? How can ubiquitous computing affect the emotive qualities of space? These are the questions architects must ask when designing with sentient systems. It is obvious that they will be fully embraced in terms of sustainability and efficiency, but this is only half of our job. We exist to inspire.