The Broken Dream of PervasiveSentient Ambient Calm InvisibleUbiquitous Computing

Matthew P. AylettUniversity of Edinburgh,Informatics10 Crichton St. Edinburgh, UKmatthewa@inf.ed.ac.uk

Aaron J. QuigleySACHIUniversity of St AndrewsSt Andrews, UKaquigley@st-andrews.ac.uk

Paste the appropriate copyright statement here. ACM now supports threedifferent copyright statements:• ACM copyright: ACM holds the copyright on the work. This is the historicalapproach.• License: The author(s) retain copyright, but ACM receives an exclusivepublication license.• Open Access: The author(s) wish to pay for the work to be open access.The additional fee must be paid to ACM.This text field is large enough to hold the appropriate release statementassuming it is single spaced.Every submission will be assigned their own unique DOI string to be includedhere.

AbstractWe dreamt of technology becoming invisible, for our wantsand needs to be primary and the tools we use for makingthem a reality to become like a genie, a snap of the fingersand ta daa, everything is realised. What went wrong?Was this always an impossible dream? How did we end upwith this fetishised obsession with mobile phones? Howdid we end up with technology tearing apart our sense ofexperience and replacing it with ’Likes’. No one meantthis to happen, not even US Corporates, they just wantedto own us, not diminish our sense of existing andinteracting within the real world. In this paper we considerhow tools took over, and how the dream of ubiquitous (orwhatever its called) computing was destroyed. We rallyrebellious forces and consider how we might fight back,and whether we should even bother trying.

Author KeywordsPervasive Computing, Ubiquitous Computing, CalmComputing

ACM Classification KeywordsH.5.m [Information interfaces and presentation (e.g.,HCI)]: Miscellaneous.

IntroductionIt seems Xerox Parc pretty much invented everythingbefore anyone got round to making it[6]. Back in 1991Mark Weiser, working at Xerox Parc, published TheComputer for the 21st Century in Scientific America[16].His vision dominated an area of research he coinedUbiquitous Computing for over a decade. His articlenoted the shift from mainframes to desktops and positeda next phase where computers would become small andeverywhere. He described a world where computers fadedinto the background until required, where they mediatedalmost every part of our lives, and implicitly made ourlives better. A little like consulting Nostrodamus it is easyto pick and choose Weiser’s predictions to accurately fitmany technological developments over the last twentyyears. Central to Weiser’s argument was not just thatcomputers would become smaller, connected andubiquitous. The key to Weiser’s vision was thatcomputers would become like writing, just there, justused, not in your face, not dominating our day-to-dayexperience, but facilitating all sorts of wonderfulconveniences from finding parking spots to letting usknow when there is fresh coffee. Part of this visionincluded many tablet like computers of different sizes allso cheap as to be as throw away and usable as paper.Weiser with Seely Brown[17] extended this vision with theidea of the computer being in the periphery until required,or as they termed it Calm Computing. They posited thatif computers were everywhere, in order to avoidinformation overload, they must be able to fade into theperiphery. In the two decades following Weiser’s originalarticle we have seen his ideas extended, the terms used forthis, and related ideas, blossom, many million of poundsworth of research funding being designated for this field ofcomputing and the emergence of dedicated publicationsand conferences. We have also, more recently, seen some

soul searching concerned with what happened to Weiserpredicted future and what relevance such visions have[12].These vary from discussing why Weiser’s vision waswrong, to why it has mostly been proved right, to offeringhow his vision should be modified and replaced. So it’shistory, get over it, right? No, wrong, it’s not history yet.It’s not history because the contrast between Weiser’svision and what happened is something we must learnfrom. Some of the reasons Weiser’s vision was notrealised go deeply to the heart of HCI theory and practice,other’s cast a spotlight on the difficult relationshipbetween the commercial world and HCI research. But,most important of all, it raises crucial questions abouthow HCI and design professionals should work withcommercial and government sectors in the future.

In this paper we will consider some of the idiocies inherentin ubiquitous computing, review the most influential criticsand apologists, and offer our own perspective on whyWeiser’s vision was not realised. We also discuss whetherwe should just all forget about it and move on, or whetherthere is something beautiful and important in Weiser’svision that we should strive to keep alive and call for anew pervasive computing manifesto fit for the current age.

Pervasive Sentient Ambient Calm InvisibleUbiquitous ComputingWhat exactly is ubiquitous computing? The harder youlook the less clear this becomes. The nomenclatureincludes half a dozen different terms all overlapping orsynonymous, all vying for relevance, citation andimportance in the field. Taking a brief look at Ubicomp,the international conference dedicated to ubiquitouscomputing, we see papers ranging from car routerecommendations to power management, gait analysis tosocial robots, localisation to bandages to collect biosignal

data. Stanjano[15] suggests the difference in names wasoften connected with different research groups and a

Figure 1: An example of aBlindingly Visible digital display.Recently one the size of anAmerican football pitch wasadded to Times Square. Bymaking use of the natural humanreaction to horrific or traumaticevents, future systems are beingdeveloped that will aim toimplant images you cannotforget, directly into your brain.

desire to claim antecedence in the concepts than anyconcrete differences. Yet the terms do convey differentnuances within the field. We can now regard ubiquitousand pervasive as synonymous. Pervasive, while startingwith a more systems focus, was the term popularised byIBM and Ark and Selker[2] and like ubiquitous computing,focuses on the notion of computers being in everythingand being everywhere. Invisible Computing[11]focusesmore on the distinction between a standalone PC and thevision of computers merging into the environment. Thesefields have been gradually superseded over the pastdecade with Blindingly Visible Computing (See Figure 1),or as termed in the recent EU H2020 call, In Your Face(IYF) Computing1. Sentient Computing[8] and AmbientIntelligence[5] focus more on the how computers cansilently predict and attend to our needs and wishes. Acontrast to this approach can be found in many deployedsystems, such as Airport information systems, which aredesigned with the contrasting approach of Not Giving aShit (NGS) Computing where the user needs are ignoredand the focus is instead on the service providers needs.Over the previous few decades we have also seen atake-up of the Ambient Ignorance approach to computingwhich has been shown to be cheaper and more efficient toimplement, and in the end, less annoying.

Previous CritiquesWeiser’s vision was called the The computer for the 21stcentury. Thus after much investment in time and moneyto fulfill this vision, when the 21st Century arrived, itseemed not entirely profane to ask how reality matched upto the vision. Critiques can be split into camps of Weiser’ssupporters and detractors. It depends on the importance

1This is a joke, no such call exists... yet.

you give to the various elements in Weiser’s vision. Forexample it is true that computers are smaller, connected,and ubiquitous in the modern world than they were in1991. However, it’s more contentious to argue that wehave reached an era of calm computing.

Bell and Dourish: Bell and Dourish in 2003[3] is bestunderstood from the perspective of cultural anthropology.Three arguments are presented, firstly that Weiser’s visionwas set in the proximate future, the just about to happenfuture, and that this, in a common approach to researchin ubiquitous computing, preventing appropriate use ofthe now to test and apply ideas, secondly, that Weiser’svision is particularly US centric, and that looking at othercultures can help develop and understand the concept ofubiquitous computing, and thirdly, that developinghomogeneous infrastructure to support ubiquitous servicesis a major challenge.

The observation that publications in ubiquitous computingare often written, not just in the future tense, but describea future which is just about to happen, is used to arguethat this dependency on a proximate future has been aspecific feature of work in ubiquitous computing research.They point out that “fully 47% of papers in Ubicompbetween 2001 and 2004 were oriented to a proximate and(inevitable) technological future”[3]. However if we take astraw poll of three random paper sessions from CHI 2014,Studying Online Communities, Image and AnimationAuthoring and Studying and Designing Gameplay, we alsofind similar language “are becoming an increasinglyimportant”, “Advances... are changing the traditionalnotions”, “With the rising interest in” etc. 5 out of 12papers use this type of language (42%). Arguably Belland Dourish have confused a style of writing typical toresearch engineering as a whole, with the writing in

ubiquitous computing. Without a baseline theirobservations, although well argued, are without basis.

In contrast the observation that Weiser’s vision is very UScentric is more compelling. Even more so when reading itin hindsight. They also point out that the social attitudesare relevant when dealing with technology that willseamlessly into their lives. However the analysis ofcomputing in Korea and Singapore fails due to a basicmisconception (and one shared by some other reviews),computers being ubiquitous is not the same as ubiquitouscomputing. Its confusing I know but we didn’t choose thenomenclature. The amount of broadband, and coverageof mobile phones might well vary across cultures, and BellDourish make some very insightful comments about howthis might effect take up of mobile services. In reality, theuse of mobile phones (the opposite of ubiquitouscomputing according to Weiser) is incrediblyhomogeneous across cultures, compared to say food, orreligion or how you bring up kids.

Finally, we would also dispute their conclusion thatinfrastructure is too messy, and it has hamperedubiquitous computing. This is really just a matter ofopinion. GPS, bluetooth, Internet protocols, voltage, isincredibly homogeneous throughout the world. Back inthe 1970s you couldn’t even take a TV to France from theUK and expect it to work. Now we expect our mobiledevices to pick up cellular, WiFi and locative serviceseverywhere we go.

Despite our reservations with the three main conclusionsin the Bell and Dourish paper, their contribution to thedebate has been crucial. They point out that the way wedo science, social factors, and the existence ofinfrastructure are key drivers in how technology isdeveloped and developing. We will return to these three

key drivers when we present our own view on whathappened with ubiquitous computing.

Rogers: Rogers[14] in 2006 argues for a change indirection in ubiquitous computing research. She arguesthat calm computing as proposed by Wieser has not beensuccessful and that we should move from approaches suchas ambient intelligence to enjoyable engagement, wherethe focus is in engaging the user with a sense of play(ludic computing e.g. [10]) and to generate a rich sense ofexperience (experiential computing e.g. [9]). Theargument is, that predicting and servicing the users’ needsautomatically is just very hard, quoting Greenfield “wesimply don’t do ‘smart’ very well yet”[7], because “itinvolves solving very hard artificial intelligence problemsthat in many ways are more challenging than creating anartificial human.”[14]. Furthermore Rogers argues thateven if we could build such systems they would not bedesirable. “It is worth drawing an analogy here with theworld of the landed aristocracy in Victorian England who’sday-to-day live was supported by a raft of servants thatwere deemed to be invisible to them.”[14]. There is animplicit argument here that the lifestyle of Victorianlanded gentry is not something we should aspire to. Thisechos Bell and Dourish’s observation that Weiser’s visionwas particularly US centric; a utopia for people whocommute to high paid tech jobs in the valley; making theworld measurably better for the currently privileged.Moreover she raises the real issue of privacy and securityin such systems. Systems that collect context about auser without their knowledge are prone to abuse. Directengagement with the user can make it clearer whatinformation about a user is being collected and why.

The subtext to Roger’s paper is politely veiled fury withthe assumption that computers should sort everything out

without human input, that not only is this pretty muchimpossible, but that it isn’t even desirable. This model,that of ubiquitous systems collecting context, predictingthe users needs and automatically responding to them iscentral to ideas in Ambient Intelligence, InvisibleComputing, Disappearing Computing, FairylandComputing2 and, until Roger’s paper, little had beenpublished to effectively challenge these central ideas inubiquitous computing.

However we would argue that Rogers was mistaken inusing the term Calm Computing as an umbrella for thesetypes of systems. In Weiser’s scenario, where Salexperiences the joys of ubiquitous computing, the firstinteraction is Sal’s coffee machine asking her if she wantscoffee. The systems Roger’s is describing would infer theneed for coffee and make it whether she wanted it or not.As Weiser clearly states, “if computers are everywherethey better stay out of the way, and that means designingthem so that the people being shared by the computersremain serene and in control.”[17] (our emphasis).Weiser does not argue against engagement, he just pointsout that if you have twenty devices around you, you can’tengage with them all at once.

Caceres and Friday: Both Bell and Dourish, and the paperby Rogers are critical (although politely) of the conceptsof ubiquitous computing. Bearing in mind the old saying,Don’t shit where you eat Caceres and Friday’s review of20 years of ubiquitous computing[4] in 2012, prefer toregard the current situation as progress, failures to beseen as opportunities, and problems reinterpreted aschallenges. They present earlier critiques (such as Rogersand Bell and Dourish) but remain silent concerning there

2Okay, we made that one up, the world supply of pixie dust hasbeen shown to be insufficient to support this model of computing.

own views on the desirability of Weiser’s vision of a calmintegrated world. Rather the focus is on why we aren’tthere yet (A use of the proximate future which wouldprobably have made Bell and Dourish chuckle). The papercontains a clearly written and detailed review of currenttechnical issues within ubiquitous computing such as dataprivacy, intelligent infrastructure, and energyconsiderations. It is not a positional paper, and doesn’tseek to be one, rather a useful collection of up to dateinformation on the current state of ubiquitous computing.New buzz words, such as the Internet of things and bigdata, have perhaps overshadowed terms such as pervasiveand ubiquitous. Both are interpreted here as a means ofsolving the infrastructure problem which this paper sees asa critical limitation of current ubiquitous computingsystems. For example, if all items have suitable RFIDtags, then this information could be used by ubiquitousapplications to sense context. “In short, Ubicomp is lowon deployed infrastructure, while potential infrastructure isout there and growing. We only need to harness it!”[4](Another proximate future quote for Bell and Dourish).

The paper concludes by raising some fundamentalquestions concerning the commercial aspects ofubiquitous computing, “Two of the main issues are moreeconomic than technical: Who will pay for Ubicompsystems, and who will manage them?”. We argue that aneven more critical question is And why?. They point outservice providers have a conflict of interest betweenincreasing advertising revenue, and maintaining userprivacy. However, they do not present any evidence thatservice providers care about user privacy, so perhapsconflict of interest is the wrong term. We prefer the termservice providers don’t care about privacy, they care abouthow valuable your data is. Which isn’t very snappy butarguably a more correct analysis.

The conclusion is pretty much well done everyone. Wehave “a large and vibrant research community has grownaround the Ubicomp concept. Numerous successfulprototypes have been built and evaluated, demonstratingthe utility of many different aspects of Ubicompsystems.”[4]. In other words, no one is actually using anyof this stuff. However, we can also take credit as “digitaltechnology has made great advances, enabling productsand services that are complementary to the Ubicompvision... Arguably the most successful of these products isthe mobile phone”, dramatic pause, sharp intake of breath- the mobile phone!

An outsider might find ubiquitous computing taking creditfor the mobile phone, or even regarding it as a successstory related to ubiquitous computing, a little surprising.After all, it was Weiser who specifically said “Ubiquitouscomputing in this context does not just mean computersthat can be carried to the beach, jungle or airport. Eventhe most powerful notebook computer, with access to aworldwide information network, still focuses attention on asingle box.”[16] But if you bear in mind other successstories from ubiquitous computing; such as the moonlanding, celebrity chefs and the cure for cancer, you cansee how much mobile phone technology is indebted to theresearch efforts of hundreds of academics all trying toinvent something else.

Abowd: Abowd, 2012[1], takes on board the success ofubiquitous computing in inventing the mobile phone,GPS, sensor technology, i.e. pretty much all moderncomputer technology. “Two decades later, the world hasembraced many of the notions of Ubicomp, and it is timeto reflect on that reality and decide where to go next.The discipline of ubiquitous/pervasive computing hasspread so widely throughout the computing universe - the

research and practice of computing - that it shoulddisappear as a niche topic in computing.”[1]. In otherwords job done! So what now? Off home, perhaps a nicecup of tea and a biscuit, and think about submitting toMobile HCI? “My thesis is that ubiquitous computing, thethird generation of computing, is here and no longerrequires special attention, as its ideas and challengesspread throughout most of computing thought today.”Well that’s a relief. Weiser would be so happy to see howthe world has embraced calm computing, how computersare throw away devices that move seamlessly from theperiphery to the center of our attention. What’s that?Sorry I couldn’t hear you because someone was on theirmobile phone playing fucking Candy Crush with thevolume on full. Oh, thats right, none of that happened.

Sarcasm aside, Abowd is, however, sort of right. ForgetWeiser, look at what people have been actually doing overthe last twenty years and you will see a lot of the work hasbeen focused on mobile phones, sensors and localisation.The Weiser article is just a flag of convenience. In manyways ubiquitous computing can be regarded a bit likeinventing a colour called flooble which is every colour thatis not blue. Ubiquitous computing is often defined aseverything that is not a desktop PC (e.g. Wikipedia). It’sflooble and surprisingly, just as easy to publish, presentand research in any other computer discipline. Trouble is,however convenient it might be, flooble is not actually acolour, just as, based on Abowd, ubiquitous computingwas never actually a research discipline. What’s more,given more profitable, vague, terms such as the Internet ofthings and big data, Abowd raises an important point.We’ve used this stupid term, ubiquitous computing, for allthese years, lets give ourselves a break, refresh our grantwriting activities and replace it with some new, equallymeaningless term.

We have looked at critiques that argue ubiquitouscomputing was misconceived and unreachable[3][14], thatits all on course[4], or that it either didn’t really ever exist,or it is now all over[1]. Abowd’s paper is offered as“attempting... to get us all to think more deeply abouthow to continue as a community of research practice.”Given what seems to be some very different views fromsome very experienced researchers concerning theobjectives and research area of that community ofresearch practice, Abowd’s paper is a timely andimportant contribution.

Learning from HistorySo it’s history, why worry about it? Weiser has passedaway, the world isn’t the way he hoped it would be, sowhat? But perhaps we should worry about it becausenow, more than ever before, computer technology hasinvaded the fabric of our social, personal and political life.Just as drugs companies must be deeply concerned withthe ethics and effects of their technology3, we as designersand engineers must also consider the ramifications of ourwork. As Monteiro points out in his ascerbic presentation,“How Designers Destroyed the World”4, the stuff we domatters. Returning to Weiser’s vision is an interestingthing to do, not just because it helps us interpret how wedo science and engineering, but because the one thing wecan say about modern computing is that it is not calm,not in the least calm. Yet this idea that technologyshouldn’t annoy you is an important one, and morerelevant now (as Weiser predicted) than ever before.

Case Study: The AirportThe modern airport is full of technology, it has thousandsof people moving through it each day. Many of the

3Don’t laugh4http://vimeo.com/68470326

terminals have been built in the last decade, allowing thebest and most effective ubiquitous computing technologyto be fitted to guarantee a calm, safe, and pleasurable,airport experience for all their customers. Okay, they’renot, but once we thought they might be.

“Scenario 1: Maria - Road WarriorAfter a tiring long haul flight Maria passes through thearrivals hall of an airport in a Far Eastern country. She istraveling light, hand baggage only. When she comes tothis particular country she knows that she can travel muchlighter than less than a decade ago, when she had to carrya collection of different so-called personal computingdevices (laptop PC, mobile phone, electronic organisersand sometimes beamers and printers). Her computingsystem for this trip is reduced to one highly personalisedcommunications device, her P-Com that she wears on herwrist. A particular feature of this trip is that the countrythat Maria is visiting has since the previous year embarkedon an ambitious ambient intelligence infrastructureprogramme. Thus her visa for the trip was self-arrangedand she is able to stroll through immigration withoutstopping because her P-Comm is dealing with the IDchecks as she walks.” EU Report: Scenarios for ambientintelligence in 2010[5].

This report was produced, in 2001, before Snowdon,cyber-bullying/casing/stalking, and social media ingeneral. Privacy and control of your digital data was notthe burning topic it is now. As with Weiser, the idea of allthis data about a person’s location and activities did nothave the same creepy feeling it might have today. It wasalso before 9/11, before the modern misery that is now airtravel (and we thought it was miserable then - ho ho),there seemed hope of a bright future for ubiquitoustechnology in the travel environment This brings us right

back to Caceres and Friday’s question of who isresponsible for managing infrastructure and who pays forit? In such terms, Weiser’s vision is like a kitten in a poolof alligators.

Figure 2: A departure boardfrom a UK airport demonstratingthat the airport regardsadvertising revenue as exactlytwenty times more importantthan giving you flightinformation.

Figure 3: A means of monetisingthe misery of airport security.Anyone can now pay extra tojump the queue in security,potentially making it moreprofitable to extend the queuingtimes for everyone else.

We may imagine how connected, smart ubiquitoustechnology might make airports more bearable, but theynever will, because the airports lowest priority is thepassenger’s serenity. Their priority is wall to wall digitaldisplays, endlessly advertising crap, and to tell you thegate number at the last moment in the hope you will buya fucking teeshirt in Fat Face (See Figure 2). As forinfrastructure, Heathrow terminal 5, an airport built in2008, didn’t even have power sockets for passengers tocharge their computers and mobile phones for over a year.Finally they got £4000 power poles, the most expensivesockets in history. Why? “Sponsorship of the HeathrowPowerpoles creates strong levels of positive brandassociation”5. Our point is that there is no commercialcase for calm computing. Its not a human right, despitethe human need for calm in airports. We end up having topay extra for the absence of airport misery, for the statusof being less miserable and to allay the fear of suffering asothers suffer (See Figure 3). Airports are a clear exampleof how technology is driven by commercial needs and anexample of the failure of ubiquitous and calm computing.

Commercial RealityWeiser envisaged cheap sharable devices that you wouldjust pick up and use like a piece of paper. There has neverbeen an incentive for the industry to allow people to sharedevices. Ideally they would like to sell you several devices,certainly not have you share one. In addition, devices willnever become cheap. In order to make money you have tomaintain a high unit cost. The Apple II cost

5http://www.jcdecaux.co.uk/airport/powerpoles

approximately £2400 back in 1977 in todays money6 notvery different from a high spec Macbook Air. No matterhow cheap technology becomes the unit price stays fairlyconstant, you just get more of it whether you want it ornot, and you have to replace your device whether youwant to or not because it becomes redundant (i.e. can nolonger play flash, can no longer link to your iPod).Certainly, modern technology is disposable but not in theway Weiser expected. You see a new phone, we seelandfill. Devices have to be sold as personal, beautifultoys that sit squarely in the center of your attention.Devices have to become useless and old fashioned withina a couple of years because they need to be bought at ahigh cost again, and again, and again. Or resold in lowcost markets and eventually disposed of out of sight, andwell out of your environment.

Methodology in HCIIt is unfair to lay the entire blame for the lack of progressin Weiser’s vision of ubiquitous computing at the door ofthe commercial and social context that modern computersinhabit. The problem is larger than this, it concerns aview of computers as tools, our focus on the task, and ourmethodologies in HCI for how we understand, representand evaluate things. The task model is a strong one inHCI because it is the predominant means of evaluating asystem and thus the main justification of spending timeand effort in researching and building something novel.

Understanding the world is much harder than it may seemat first which is what makes the task model so appealing.HCI has brought in or adapted established means ofunderstanding the task and our relationship with it fromdisciplines such as Design, Cognitive Science,Ethnography, Psychology and Cognition. As a result,

6www.historylearningsite.co.uk/personal computer.htm

today in HCI we have more systematic approaches whichhelp us develop an understanding or offer inspiration. But,whatever warm words researchers share on calmcomputing (or ludic[10] and experiential design[9] for thatmatter) the core of HCI methodology is the task.

Computers are tools, and tools are for solving problemsand getting things done! Before you build anything decidewhat problem you are trying to solve, what task you aresupporting. Hey, we have an App for that; hey, you wantto know how high Everest is; hey, let me find you aChinese restaurant with good decor. The task solvingmodel of design and use in computers is ingrained, evenFacebook was designed to help with the task of gettingyou laid7. In reality, if you think about what you aretrying to achieve you will realise in fact “There’s Not anApp for That” [13] and instead you are fitting your goalsand desires around the tools available.

The curious reality is, that computers are not just tools;they have become jewellery, social crutches, hautecouture, and a means of escape. Computers mediateinformation, and information is at the heart of humanexistence, our sense of being is mediated by language, andlanguage is information. Ubiquitous computing sits in adifficult position somewhere between treating computersas tools, and treating them like furniture, decoration. andconfidants. By concentrating on tasks we remove much ofthe motivation for ubiquitous computing. If you knowwhat task you need to solve why not just get a tool anddo it? They don’t need to be in the periphery they justneed to be in a cupboard.

7Facebook is actually for the task of making your life seem betterthan your friends, Tindle is for getting laid.

ConclusionWe initially tried to give you a positive message at the endof this paper. But the reviewers saw through that: workon a new manifesto blah blah, involve the community blahblah. So maybe, when you stand in the rubble ofsomeones dream, the best thing you can do is just openyour eyes and cry. In reality, the economic forces and thecorporate agenda make us simply a cog in the machine.

But if technology masquerading as ubiquitous computingis going to drive us to an ever increasing society ofinformation overload, information exploitation, andinformation inequality, then we should, as a communitywalk with our eyes open. One of the central features ofpsychosis is the inability to understand, recall or careabout the damage caused to others - to lack a conscious.Perhaps Alt.chi has begun to emerge as the conscious ofthe HCI community: a refreshing self examination of whatwe do, why, and with what consequences.

To increase this sense of self-awareness, for CHI 2016, inSan Jose, we call for nominations in the followingcategories:

UbiComp GLUT (Ghastly Lessons in UbiquitousTechnology): The best example of a deployed UbiComptechnology which adds to information overload. We wishto identify achievements which make people nauseous andthen truly impoverishes them.

UbiComp EVIL (based on Evidence, Vile concepts,Immoral foundations with Long lasting damage tosociety): We expect stiff competition as there are manyEVIL ideas out there. As this award develops it mightwish to incorporate awards for technologies that havehelped destroy the most families, kill people, or simplydegraded our digital environments.

UbiComp DBH (Damned by history): Papers from CHI2006 which showed the most promise and interest andresulted in the most unappealing, miserable, non-existentand forgettable outcomes.

We hope the our proposed EVIL, GLUT and DBH awardswill help the UbiComp community start to truly recognisethe researchers, research and technologies and ideas thatare helping sell us out and subjugate us further. We lookforward to your nominations and will seek to build ajudging panel with the same measured, analytical, andtolerant attitude that we have showed in this paper. Seeyou in Korea.

References[1] Abowd, G. D. What next, Ubicomp?: celebrating an

intellectual disappearing act. In Ubicomp ’12, ACM(2012), 31–40.

[2] Ark, W. S., and Selker, T. A look at humaninteraction with pervasive computers. IBM systemsjournal 38, 4 (1999), 504–507.

[3] Bell, G., and Dourish, P. Yesterdays tomorrows:notes on ubiquitous computings dominant vision.Personal and Ubiq. Comp. 11, 2 (2007), 133–143.

[4] Caceres, R., and Friday, A. Ubicomp systems at 20:Progress, opportunities, and challenges. IEEEPervasive Computing 11, 1 (2012), 14–21.

[5] Ducatel, K., Bogdanowicz, M., Scapolo, F., Leijten,J., and Burgelman, J.-C. Scenarios for ambientintelligence in 2010. Office for official publications ofthe European Communities, 2001.

[6] Gladwell, M. Creation myth: Xerox PARC, Apple,and the truth about innovation. The New Yorker 16(5 2011).

[7] Greenfield, A. Everyware: The dawning age ofubiquitous computing. New Riders, 2010.

[8] Hopper, A. The Clifford Paterson lecture, 1999.sentient computing. Phil. Trans. of the RoyalSociety. Series A: Mathematical, Physical andEngineering Sciences 358, 1773 (2000), 2349–2358.

[9] McCarthy, J., and Wright, P. Technology asExperience. MIT Press, 2004.

[10] Morrison, A. J., Mitchell, P., and Brereton, M. Thelens of ludic engagement: evaluating participation ininteractive art installations. In MULTIMEDIA ’07(2007), 509–512.

[11] Norman, D. A. The invisible computer: why goodproducts can fail, the personal computer is socomplex, and information appliances are the solution.MIT press, 1998.

[12] Quigley, A., Dix, A., Mackay, W. E., Ishii, H., andSteimle, J. Visions and visioning in CHI: Specialinterest group meeting. In CHI ’13, ACM (2013),2545–2548.

[13] Robinson, S., Marsden, G., and Jones, M. TheresNot An App for That Mobile User ExperienceDesign for Life. Morgan Kaufmann, 2014.

[14] Rogers, Y. Moving on from Weisers vision of calmcomputing: Engaging ubicomp experiences. InUbiComp ’06. Springer, 2006, 404–421.

[15] Stajano, F. Security issues in ubiquitous computing.In Handbook of Ambient Intelligence and SmartEnvironments. Springer, 2010, 281–314.

[16] Weiser, M. The computer for the 21st century.Scientific american 265, 3 (1991), 94–104.

[17] Weiser, M., and Brown, J. S. The coming age ofcalm technology. In Beyond calculation. Springer,1997, 75–85.