01_Weiser_pg78

“Whenever people learn something sufficiently well, they cease to be aware of it”

An individual is only aware of a fraction of what is in front of them at any given time; whether that is looking at a MacBook, which seeks to hide the technology that powers it, or at a breaker box with wires running all over the place. Yes, to the expert, the individual things that make these items up make sense and are apparent, but to the casual observer, the interface in front of them is the extent of their understanding.

Is the sense of ubiquitous computing to hide technology, and the tools it powers, from view and perception? or is it just as well that the inner workings are exposed, even if they aren’t understood?

02_Weiser_pg80

“Ubiquitous computers will also come in different sizes, each suited to a particular task.”

Diving into the details of the infrastructure of ubiquitous computing, I think this idea speaks to what would become the Internet of Things, where everything is connected to the network. While the idea of everything being connected seems beneficial at first, to what extent do we really need to connect everything. Case in point, the $400 Juicero, which makes juice.

$400, IoT juicer

There is an obvious benefit to connecting things together, and adding computation into objects and tools that are used for productivity, but should this expand to items that are meant for leisure? Does it actually enhance these experiences or does it remove something from them?

03_Dunne_

Im still confused as to what the exact definition of a Post-Optimal Object really is. Is it when you add technology into an already optimized object? Is it post-optimal when the design can change without affecting performance, suggesting the the object can never truly be optimal?