(click visual to enlarge)

Presentation concerning draft on findings of interventions done in the center of Rotterdam concerning the experience of different types of camera in that nigthscape.

(click on screenshot for download – 3.3mb pdf)

sammy niemala – nordkapp talk in three phases:

- right now
- near future
- future

- example : display objects in Helsinki. It is a touch-screen with a touch-screen. It runs on windows.
‘ design for smaller context as well’
- designing urban informatics as a whole is complex. Infra, interface, data platforms, services, databases etc. and how do mobile devices connect to this. Also time becomes important.
- locals they do not need the screens at all, until they learn something new.
- iphone app : shadow cities ; layer upon city. it happens only on your device.
- this also provides psycho-geo info
- concepts of touchpoints ; what is the real use?

the near future: these objects are on their way – mobile phones, pads, urban screens…
- input devices – how o deal with these services
- time; how do you incorporate play in time ; for personal use screens on the street are not really inviting.
- personal space is an argument here. if you incorporate multiple users what happens then?
- the physical space can amplify this problem? Should we even consider having screen with both public, private and commercial data?
- the data points us where? Please consider our environment.
- example of a challenge; informatics in nature; we decided; not there. Peopla are looking for peace here.
- these things should be polite in their appearance and behavior.
- a do you design a system with a personality
- just enough is more (not less is more)
- there is a golden line in between proving information and being polite

the future:
- more human interfaces – anthropomorphism? (should we design this, or not, uncanny valley)
- service avatars live in smaller contexts
- “basal’ “be as smart a a puppy’ ; be intelligent enough.
- example ” car robot’ (it reacts)
- sometimes; low fi can be more polite
- can we make urban screens more in place if they have names and behaviors? nano as great enabler.

norkapp.fi

First notes lecture Adam Creenfield on Cognitive Cities

- networked object
- urban scale design for networked cities
- user-driven close to frustrations and difficulties interface of everyday life
- the connected city – rooted to the experience of everyday life in networked life
- techno- determinism vs social constructionism

- main question: whether artifacts have politics?
- Robbert moses – rammed through infrastructure
- Langdon winner – inscribed his ideas into artifacts. Bridge example
- Winner says : yes

- Latour: that is not example the case; maybe.. (ANT) user + tech
- what about akrich? script analysis? + anti-programs

- in between Latour and Winner
- cities in developed world are populated by physical objects that can manipulation of data/ information. New class of technologies. If winner is right, the impact is mayor.
- you better believe is going to condition our options and behavior
- examples:
- traffic sensor (a talkie)
- sensor-equipped add (a photo machine add: as you walk by, flash-cameras go off) I find this intrusive.
- touch-screen vending machine in Tokyo. A camera +analysis software will show products that link to your profile. This  does gather information. It is very normative
- Video billboard analysis software video reports. Deployed in public space. A billboard with a camera. It is not apparent  that the camera is there. It records responses and attention. You become furnishing data. This becomes problematic. You  are generating value for someone else by using public space. That is not oke with me. By using public sap, the data should be public. Again, it is normative. Public space is more important that advertisement
- networked access objects. The ability to control movement; the are an ensemble?
- we go to surveillance cameras + software!  People votes yes due to function of traffic control. However, function creep.
new analytics package – facial analysis package installed by the police; the physical camera does not change, but the     software was.

- Big flaw about thinking about public space ; it moves to code.
- Lessig; code-law; this is where the ability of the impact resides. Code is where the power and the influence are.  We need new law about public objects
- a set of attempts rules about public objects is mentioned (greenfield, 2008)
- they have to be designed in order to make data open (an api, read/write privileges, non-rivalrous and non-excludable)

there are limitation in thinking this way; if a city is open data objects; the attack service. you unavoidably, you make it more available for bad use. however, benefit is always larger than the risk.

- who gets to use these first; how are conflicts resolved, we have just begun. Case by case learning
- i will argue that we are at a point where public space is at risk. Our pueblos sphere to private, commercial interest. We have an important, generation ability to save public space for commercial
- non consumers, but constituents
- Sloterdijk; city as bubbles;
- fabric open data city – revitalized public sphere – new democracy.
- raise our voices in the networked age – not to extract value of us, but we need a new way of thinking.

- smart city that I would like to live in.

- examples in sharing resources in a positive way? Mega-cities as an example
- regulation  vs competitive rules of these objects.
- potential misuses vs latent value that is bound up in these objects

The presentation for the WTMC school, January 2010

The full post can be read here; book presentation

The full post can be found here:

http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/2008/10/17/lecture-on-spimes-at-the-tue/

a full post can be found here:

http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/2008/10/01/powerpointcinema/

For a photo report and some nice links to youTube favorites:
this link. More on Video Vortex can be found on the masters of media site