As I mentioned in class, the FCC just voted on the White Space issue. This is important:
FCC Expands Use of Airwaves
Preachers on the pulpit, Guns N' Roses and others who fear their wireless microphones would be disrupted by widespread public access to certain unused airwaves were drowned out by high-tech titans Google and Microsoft in a federal ruling yesterday.
The Federal Communications Commission approved a plan that would allow those airwaves, called white spaces, to be used by gadgets such as cellphones and laptops connected to the Internet once that spectrum becomes available after the national transition from analog to digital television in February.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Ubiquitous Computing Still Hasn't Disappeared
Abowd and Mynatt's (2000) fascinating and prescient article, "Charting Past, Present, and Future Research in Ubiquitous Computing," offers insight not just for ubiquitous computing (ubicomp) researchers but anyone with an interest in technology design for "everyday living," as they put it. Their essay examines ubicomp work during the 90s and offers a series of useful guidelines for thinking about ubicomp in context as well as recommendations for future research.
The remarkable diffusion of computing into our physical world represents more than just easily available technology, rather, "it suggests new paradigms of interaction inspired by constant access to information and computational capabilities" (28). These new interactions are easy to spot, especially in the last few years as mobile platforms like the iPhone have changed the way many people relate to their data as well as how they act in social situations (i.e., taking calls when with a friend, texting while someone is trying to talk to you or my favorite: The play-with-my-phone-to-avoid-the-pain-of-this-awkward-silence game).
So, how far have we come since 2000? Abowd and Mynatt argue that, "current systems focus their interaction on the identity of one particular user, rarely incorporating identity information about other people in the environment. As human beings, we tailor our activities and recall events from the past based on the presence of other people" (37). I agree with the statement, but times have changed. We are now deeply involved in the context of others, though often it can be construed as superficial. Social networks like Twitter and Facebook allow us to broadcast our feelings and daily adventures. However, is this what the authors had in mind? Though we have made much "progress" in blending others into our digital lives, most of this information is focused on the present, and in the case of Twitter, it is the micro-present. Our dominant, seemingly ubiquitous social networks are designed for the present. Twitter, in particular, is designed to encourage micro-updates of 140 characters maximum.
Much of our technology is designed for the now, but where is our past represented in the digital ecology? I argue that we do have an astonishing digital past in the form of email and instant messaging archives. (text messages are not saved to a central server by default, so they seem, unfortunately, to live in a state of constant disappearance.) Arguably, there has never been a time in history when the historical record has been more complete or rich. People who would never write thousands of letters do write as many emails, and they are (hopefully) preserved in archives. The question I have for ubicomp is this: How can we design ubiquitous devices and software to somehow harness the power of our rapidly growing personal archives? In other words, how (or even should we) incorporate the past into our ubiquitous digital lives? What could we learn about ourselves if we had a way (if we choose) to harness and easily visualize our past using ubicomp techniques? The mobile phone seems to be the key. What if you bought a pack of cigarettes and instead of your phone showing a waring that smoking kills, it popped up with a quote from an email you received three months earlier from your wife that said "Please don't smoke. I don't want you to get sick." This would incorporate our present environment, our past and our future health all using ubicomp.
The remarkable diffusion of computing into our physical world represents more than just easily available technology, rather, "it suggests new paradigms of interaction inspired by constant access to information and computational capabilities" (28). These new interactions are easy to spot, especially in the last few years as mobile platforms like the iPhone have changed the way many people relate to their data as well as how they act in social situations (i.e., taking calls when with a friend, texting while someone is trying to talk to you or my favorite: The play-with-my-phone-to-avoid-the-pain-of-this-awkward-silence game).
So, how far have we come since 2000? Abowd and Mynatt argue that, "current systems focus their interaction on the identity of one particular user, rarely incorporating identity information about other people in the environment. As human beings, we tailor our activities and recall events from the past based on the presence of other people" (37). I agree with the statement, but times have changed. We are now deeply involved in the context of others, though often it can be construed as superficial. Social networks like Twitter and Facebook allow us to broadcast our feelings and daily adventures. However, is this what the authors had in mind? Though we have made much "progress" in blending others into our digital lives, most of this information is focused on the present, and in the case of Twitter, it is the micro-present. Our dominant, seemingly ubiquitous social networks are designed for the present. Twitter, in particular, is designed to encourage micro-updates of 140 characters maximum.
Much of our technology is designed for the now, but where is our past represented in the digital ecology? I argue that we do have an astonishing digital past in the form of email and instant messaging archives. (text messages are not saved to a central server by default, so they seem, unfortunately, to live in a state of constant disappearance.) Arguably, there has never been a time in history when the historical record has been more complete or rich. People who would never write thousands of letters do write as many emails, and they are (hopefully) preserved in archives. The question I have for ubicomp is this: How can we design ubiquitous devices and software to somehow harness the power of our rapidly growing personal archives? In other words, how (or even should we) incorporate the past into our ubiquitous digital lives? What could we learn about ourselves if we had a way (if we choose) to harness and easily visualize our past using ubicomp techniques? The mobile phone seems to be the key. What if you bought a pack of cigarettes and instead of your phone showing a waring that smoking kills, it popped up with a quote from an email you received three months earlier from your wife that said "Please don't smoke. I don't want you to get sick." This would incorporate our present environment, our past and our future health all using ubicomp.
This particular scene can be usefully broken down using Abowd and Mynatt's five-point framework for thinking about context in ubicomp:
- Who: “Current systems focus their interaction on the identity of one particular user, rarely incorporating identity information about other people in the environment" (37). My scenario brings the user and other people in the user's life into context. Although it's not a "real-time" interaction with your wife, why does it have to be?
- What: “The interaction in current systems either assumes what the user is doing or leaves the question open” (37). With GPS enabled phones and the emerging use of mobile phones as credit card devices, the device will not have to assume what you are doing. It will know where you are and what you bought (of course, you could just pay cash).
- Where: “In many ways, the 'where' component of context has been explored more than the others" (37). Obviously, GPS finally solves the problem of “where.” The key to understanding the importance of “where” depends upon how well our ubiquitous technology appears to us at critical moments and steps in to help.
- When: “...most context-driven applications are unaware of the passage of time” (37). Linking context to time is crucial for developing truly aware applications. In my scenario, the mobile device could use the time of day and GPS to send a warning before the user buys cigarettes. Say, for example, if it was two o'clock in the morning on a Friday night, and the user enters a convenience store. The device, based upon a baseline of past activity, might try to warn the user not to buy cigarettes.
- Why: “Even more challenging than perceiving 'what' a person is doing is understanding 'why' that person is doing it" (37). Trying to ask “why” a person is doing something does not, to me, seem like a fruitful question for computers to ponder. Instead, humans should ask these questions about themselves. However, in my scenario, the computer simply prompts the user using the emotionally charged form of personal email to facilitate reflection about why they are doing what they are doing--right now. This seems to me the best use of ubicomp and computing in general: Rather than giving answers, computers should ask better questions and let humans do their own answering.
As the authors note, HCI tends to design for closure, but everyday computing believes that daily activities "rarely have a clear beginning or end" (43). This is a critical observation. Life ebbs and flows, and our technology ought to accommodate our human reality, not constrain us inside of a designer’s assumption box.
Mark Weiser (1991) wrote that, “The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it” (1). This is profound guidance for all designers, not just ubicomp. My sense is that today, too much of my technology is in my face, so to speak. I want my technology to quietly fade in when called upon, and I want it to leave me alone unless I need it. The ironic challenge for ubicomp is not to make more stuff but to make more stuff disappear.
References
Abowd, G. & Mynatt, E. (2000). Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(1), 29-58.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Ubiquitous Computing
Ubiquitous Computing: A Short Response Essay
The article Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing (Abowd, G. & Mynatt, E., 2000) (cited as "(Chart, 1997)") from this week's readings provides an excellent framework for the topics discussed in the other papers. For this reason, this short response essay will be structured around Abowd, G, et al.'s piece.
Technical Premises
The first topic to consider is the use of natural interfaces for computing interaction. This refers to employing more specialized and meaningful artifacts in greater numbers, rather than a few very general-purpose---and consequently, less intuitive---interfaces for computers, such as the keyboard, mouse, fixed-screen design underlying `modern' computers(Chart, 1997). If the interactions are carried out by artifacts that have a close coupling with "first-class natural data types" such as using a pen to simply mark on a pad, the system is more usable than if it tries to abstract away: for example, converting the handwriting into text(Chart, 1997). Abowd, G, et al. also note that recognition-based interaction is inherently error-prone. Since recognition tasks are necessary at times, this problem should be addressed in three stages. First, designers should strive to refine and improve interfaces wherever possible to reduce errors in the first place(Chart, 1997). In the space where these efforts are insufficient, the system should notify the user of its error discoveries (which can be fed from historical statistics, explicit rules, or confidence threshold triggers)(Chart, 1997). Once the user is apprised of the error, there must obviously be a reasonable error-recovery infrastructure through which they can produce the desired input(Chart, 1997).
The second major topic is computing context-awareness. Context-awareness entails knowledge of who the user is, what the current interaction is, where it is taking place, the current time, and what other things are temporally proximal to an interaction(Chart, 1997). With these cues, an ideal system would be able to establish the most important (as well as most difficult) context---why a user is doing what they are(Chart, 1997).
Establishing context raises a new, non-trivial question---how does one uniformly represent context(Chart, 1997)? Abowd, G, et al. suggest that a "context fusion" provides the right solution by drawing on disparate systems depending on the availability, reliability, and relevance of the constituents in each context(Chart, 1997).
Context is Key by Coutaz, J., Crowley, J., Dobson, S., & Garlan, D. (2005) (cited as "(Context, 2005)") focuses entirely on the topic of context. They first point out that context is not a state, but rather it is entangled in processes(Context, 2005). Failing to regard changes in state can result in surprising and undesirable results, such as a moving person finding a printout spread across each printer he passed because each was the nearest during the transmission of their respective pages(Context, 2005). This suggests that a holistic context is important to consider(Context, 2005). In this model, the printers could estimate where the person would be as the printout completed and therefore route all pages to that printer(Context, 2005). A third concern is the potential for user model deviations from system models(Context, 2005).
To address these issues, Coutaz, J. et al. propose a "Conceptual Framework for Context-Aware Systems." The basis of the framework is a set of finite-state automatons where each state (i.e. each node) represents a context and each transition (i.e. each edge) corresponds to a shift in context. This FSA is altered by a system modeled upon three levels of abstraction(Context, 2005). The lowest, the "sensing" hardware, feeds data to the next, the "perception layer," which in turn produces data for the top layer, the "situation and context identification layer"(Context, 2005). By drawing upon both the current state reported by lower layers and history (as well as other systems), the model can produce a good, useful context in process(Context, 2005).
Key Applications
Assuming this "context fusion" is properly constructed, one of the possible applications would be the provision of "augmented reality," a state in which real-time information is streamed to a user in response to the environment(Chart, 1997).
The natural extension of this ubiquitous computing application is automatic recording, capture, and access to live experience (Chart, 1997). Omni-present video input devices enable hassle-free recording whenever desired, and live exchange of these video feeds can power tele-brainstorming or formal idea exchanges(Chart, 1997). When the video is just fed into a computer, it can power a real-time video overlay in the user's view featuring labeling/status, reference diagrams, or even easy-to-follow situational instructions(Chart, 1997).
Further Considerations
When using computing like this every day, there are special considerations to note. First, many daily uses lack a discernible beginning or end; communication in general is a life-long activity---sub activities should respect this nature either by forgoing discreet-activity-oriented tasks or by minimizing cognitive load so as to avoid interfering with the user's flow of activity(Chart, 1997).
In Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces between People, Bits, and Atoms by Ishii, H. & Ullmer, B. (1997) (cited as "(Tangible, 1997)"), the authors devoted considerable space to this problem of peripheral awareness. The authors explore couplings between digital states and reality including: a vibrating string that represents packets of network traffic; heated metal seats that represent the presence of another person near a microphone/speaker link; and a room equipped with light, water flow, and ambient sound peripheral cues(Tangible, 1997).
For computing to accommodate universality, it must be able to cope with task interruption, which is common and probably unavoidable(Chart, 1997). This means at least saving states of incomplete tasks for later resumption and reminding users of the unfinished task if necessary(Chart, 1997). Related to this, support for multiple concurrent activities is essential; users are variously concious of elements of their environments and a computer must leverage this to integrate well into a user's mental space(Chart, 1997).
When organizing information, it is important to provide associative models when not working on well-defined tasks (which integrate well with hierarchical models)(Chart, 1997). There was an interesting paper on namesys.com (before Hans Reiser went to jail) that discussed the importance of not imposing artificial structure on data because it will destroy accessibility. The user must learn an arbitrary structure (arbitrary for them) to access the data, which is unreasonable. Unfortunately, the paper seems to have disappeared in recent months.
Ubiquitous computing raises a number of social questions. Ownership and control of information that must span numerous contexts, physical and digital, suggests serious conflicts between utility and privacy(Chart, 1997). Additionally, the likely preservation of any recordable action can have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and public participation(Chart, 1997).
A final consideration is how to evaluate ubiquitous systems. Designers must form a compelling user narrative for fulfilling a perceived or real need to justify the system, and more importantly, as a metric by which the system's impact can be measured(Chart, 1997). Further, establishing an authentic context of use for an evaluation is exceedingly difficult, considering the cutting-edge nature of ubiquitous computing, which can confound testing(Chart, 1997). Because of the non-finite-span of daily use (discussed above), task-oriented evaluation techniques are clearly not appropriate tools(Chart, 1997).
Personal Thoughts
Having quite embarrassed myself with my last short response's erroneous criticisms, I have decided to focus on just having an overview of the readings followed by these very tempered questions:
The idea of peripheral context information seems interesting, but I would like to see some research on the psychological effects of exposure to extra stimulus like that compared to being given a quiet, calm workspace.
Also, I wonder if there isn't an advantage to mastering generalized controls for efficiency over the more "natural" physical interfaces. For example, I can type far faster than I can write, and coupled with the shortcuts/functions of vim I believe I can trounce a user who is tied to physical manipulations to interact with an editor. Perhaps an approach more like what's in Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End is closer to the ideal.
The article Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing (Abowd, G. & Mynatt, E., 2000) (cited as "(Chart, 1997)") from this week's readings provides an excellent framework for the topics discussed in the other papers. For this reason, this short response essay will be structured around Abowd, G, et al.'s piece.
Technical Premises
The first topic to consider is the use of natural interfaces for computing interaction. This refers to employing more specialized and meaningful artifacts in greater numbers, rather than a few very general-purpose---and consequently, less intuitive---interfaces for computers, such as the keyboard, mouse, fixed-screen design underlying `modern' computers(Chart, 1997). If the interactions are carried out by artifacts that have a close coupling with "first-class natural data types" such as using a pen to simply mark on a pad, the system is more usable than if it tries to abstract away: for example, converting the handwriting into text(Chart, 1997). Abowd, G, et al. also note that recognition-based interaction is inherently error-prone. Since recognition tasks are necessary at times, this problem should be addressed in three stages. First, designers should strive to refine and improve interfaces wherever possible to reduce errors in the first place(Chart, 1997). In the space where these efforts are insufficient, the system should notify the user of its error discoveries (which can be fed from historical statistics, explicit rules, or confidence threshold triggers)(Chart, 1997). Once the user is apprised of the error, there must obviously be a reasonable error-recovery infrastructure through which they can produce the desired input(Chart, 1997).
The second major topic is computing context-awareness. Context-awareness entails knowledge of who the user is, what the current interaction is, where it is taking place, the current time, and what other things are temporally proximal to an interaction(Chart, 1997). With these cues, an ideal system would be able to establish the most important (as well as most difficult) context---why a user is doing what they are(Chart, 1997).
Establishing context raises a new, non-trivial question---how does one uniformly represent context(Chart, 1997)? Abowd, G, et al. suggest that a "context fusion" provides the right solution by drawing on disparate systems depending on the availability, reliability, and relevance of the constituents in each context(Chart, 1997).
Context is Key by Coutaz, J., Crowley, J., Dobson, S., & Garlan, D. (2005) (cited as "(Context, 2005)") focuses entirely on the topic of context. They first point out that context is not a state, but rather it is entangled in processes(Context, 2005). Failing to regard changes in state can result in surprising and undesirable results, such as a moving person finding a printout spread across each printer he passed because each was the nearest during the transmission of their respective pages(Context, 2005). This suggests that a holistic context is important to consider(Context, 2005). In this model, the printers could estimate where the person would be as the printout completed and therefore route all pages to that printer(Context, 2005). A third concern is the potential for user model deviations from system models(Context, 2005).
To address these issues, Coutaz, J. et al. propose a "Conceptual Framework for Context-Aware Systems." The basis of the framework is a set of finite-state automatons where each state (i.e. each node) represents a context and each transition (i.e. each edge) corresponds to a shift in context. This FSA is altered by a system modeled upon three levels of abstraction(Context, 2005). The lowest, the "sensing" hardware, feeds data to the next, the "perception layer," which in turn produces data for the top layer, the "situation and context identification layer"(Context, 2005). By drawing upon both the current state reported by lower layers and history (as well as other systems), the model can produce a good, useful context in process(Context, 2005).
Key Applications
Assuming this "context fusion" is properly constructed, one of the possible applications would be the provision of "augmented reality," a state in which real-time information is streamed to a user in response to the environment(Chart, 1997).
The natural extension of this ubiquitous computing application is automatic recording, capture, and access to live experience (Chart, 1997). Omni-present video input devices enable hassle-free recording whenever desired, and live exchange of these video feeds can power tele-brainstorming or formal idea exchanges(Chart, 1997). When the video is just fed into a computer, it can power a real-time video overlay in the user's view featuring labeling/status, reference diagrams, or even easy-to-follow situational instructions(Chart, 1997).
Further Considerations
When using computing like this every day, there are special considerations to note. First, many daily uses lack a discernible beginning or end; communication in general is a life-long activity---sub activities should respect this nature either by forgoing discreet-activity-oriented tasks or by minimizing cognitive load so as to avoid interfering with the user's flow of activity(Chart, 1997).
In Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces between People, Bits, and Atoms by Ishii, H. & Ullmer, B. (1997) (cited as "(Tangible, 1997)"), the authors devoted considerable space to this problem of peripheral awareness. The authors explore couplings between digital states and reality including: a vibrating string that represents packets of network traffic; heated metal seats that represent the presence of another person near a microphone/speaker link; and a room equipped with light, water flow, and ambient sound peripheral cues(Tangible, 1997).
For computing to accommodate universality, it must be able to cope with task interruption, which is common and probably unavoidable(Chart, 1997). This means at least saving states of incomplete tasks for later resumption and reminding users of the unfinished task if necessary(Chart, 1997). Related to this, support for multiple concurrent activities is essential; users are variously concious of elements of their environments and a computer must leverage this to integrate well into a user's mental space(Chart, 1997).
When organizing information, it is important to provide associative models when not working on well-defined tasks (which integrate well with hierarchical models)(Chart, 1997). There was an interesting paper on namesys.com (before Hans Reiser went to jail) that discussed the importance of not imposing artificial structure on data because it will destroy accessibility. The user must learn an arbitrary structure (arbitrary for them) to access the data, which is unreasonable. Unfortunately, the paper seems to have disappeared in recent months.
Ubiquitous computing raises a number of social questions. Ownership and control of information that must span numerous contexts, physical and digital, suggests serious conflicts between utility and privacy(Chart, 1997). Additionally, the likely preservation of any recordable action can have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and public participation(Chart, 1997).
A final consideration is how to evaluate ubiquitous systems. Designers must form a compelling user narrative for fulfilling a perceived or real need to justify the system, and more importantly, as a metric by which the system's impact can be measured(Chart, 1997). Further, establishing an authentic context of use for an evaluation is exceedingly difficult, considering the cutting-edge nature of ubiquitous computing, which can confound testing(Chart, 1997). Because of the non-finite-span of daily use (discussed above), task-oriented evaluation techniques are clearly not appropriate tools(Chart, 1997).
Personal Thoughts
Having quite embarrassed myself with my last short response's erroneous criticisms, I have decided to focus on just having an overview of the readings followed by these very tempered questions:
The idea of peripheral context information seems interesting, but I would like to see some research on the psychological effects of exposure to extra stimulus like that compared to being given a quiet, calm workspace.
Also, I wonder if there isn't an advantage to mastering generalized controls for efficiency over the more "natural" physical interfaces. For example, I can type far faster than I can write, and coupled with the shortcuts/functions of vim I believe I can trounce a user who is tied to physical manipulations to interact with an editor. Perhaps an approach more like what's in Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End is closer to the ideal.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Quick Link for an Article Related to Distributed Cognition
Related to this video, http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/yochai_benkler_on_the_new_open_source_economics.html
I was reminded of this article I read a while back
http://www.shirky.com/herecomeseverybody/2008/04/looking-for-the-mouse.html
I was reminded of this article I read a while back
http://www.shirky.com/herecomeseverybody/2008/04/looking-for-the-mouse.html
Monday, October 27, 2008
It’s All About Performance
Short Response Essay by Lillian Spina-Caza
Computer Technologies Designed for Performance
Whether it be the performance of particular tasks using mainframes in the 1960s for “filling airline seats…or printing payroll checks” (Grudin, 19), or for improving performance of individuals through word processing or spreadsheet applications using minicomputers in the 1970s, computer technologies have always been designed with performance in mind. It is a given that for organizations to perform well, all of the systems, processes and people supporting them need to perform well, thus making optimal performance a critical organizational goal. It wasn’t until the mid-1980s and the advent of computer-supported cooperative work or CSCW, however, that the meaning of performance shifted -- from performance as task or functionality -- to performance as social or group endeavor. Once dialogue between people became privileged over dialogue between systems, communication evolved as a critical component of cooperative work, thus it is no surprise that technologies such as Internet, email, video and audio conferencing, and text tools like instant messaging (IM) and chat were quickly adopted for business applications.
As Olson and Olson (2007) write in the Handbook on page 546, “groupware [as] software designed to run over a network in support of the activities of a group or organization for carrying out activities,” was originally made to provide greater geographic and temporal flexibility. It was also created with new modes of socializing in mind. Some of the new social communication technologies that emerged were successful (email, IM, and chat) while others – like video conferencing – were not as widely embraced (548). The reason why some communication technologies are better received than others, according to Olson and Olson is, I would also argue, directly tied to performance. A/V problems associated with poor audio, poor video, camera placement, ac or noise interference, and delay issues, have all resulted in poor acceptance of video conferencing as a technology. Ironically, as Olson and Olson point out, video does not produce the “being there” phenomenon that many had hoped for (553). The expense and effort of producing quality video currently outweigh the benefits of using this technology to establish social presence. Performance is critical to the successful adoption of any technology, new or old.
Social Actors and their Props
With the emergence of groupware applications in the mid-1980s, “the social, motivational, and political aspects of workplaces become crucial” (Grudin, 22); in other words, one might say the drama behind the scenes took center stage. Whereas the mainframe was once the only stage for all of the critical action, now it was individuals performing in concert with each other – using technology – who found themselves in the limelight. Grudin (1994) points out when the move to networked PCs and workstations became widespread, new markets opened up for groupware to support communication and coordination. This move resulted in a paradigm shift away from off the shelf, single-user products to computer support for groups, requiring developers to consider “group dynamics for the first time” (22). Instead of placing computers in leading roles (i.e., as “mainframes” or main characters), people interacting with computers came to be viewed as actors, the tools they work with taking on secondary or supporting roles. It is understandable why the “actors” at this new stage of technological development also became the central focus of new product design centered on activity practices.
Christiansen (1996) suggests activity “is the term for the process through which a person creates meaning in her practice…” (177). Once activity became tied to meaning-making, it also became important to realize how tools as artifacts are situated or contextualized within activity to create meaning. As Christiansen explains, “You may observe and interview actors in a community of practice, but you will not come to understand why they use the artifacts the way they do until you have come to understand what kinds of activity are used in their practice” (177); this type of understanding is at the heart of participatory design. It is no wonder then, if people are viewed as “acting” with technology, that the performance metaphor stretches to include designers, who like the technologies they create, play key supporting roles. In addition to learning from “economists, social psychologists, anthropologists, organizational theorists, educators, and anyone else who shed light on group activity” as Grudin suggests, product developers also began following the performance metaphor along its natural trajectory, turning to drama and theater to gain new insights about human actors and the activities they engage in when using computer technologies.
Performance Sets the Stage for Participatory Design
It is not surprising that the performance metaphor shapes a “third space” or place where product developers can learn more about the practices associated with activity. As Muller explains in “Participatory Design,” third space experiences are hybrid experiences or “practices that challenge assumptions, are open to reciprocal learning, and facilitate polyvocal or many-voiced discussions across and through differences" (1062). One way designers can gain insights into why people use artifacts the way they do requires, as Christiansen points out, a better understanding of the kinds of activity are used in their practice – the use of drama and videos or the tools of performance can aid in this type of exploration. Muller suggests a number of techniques borrowed from theatre that are valuable for bringing to light activity practices, including ideas suggested by Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed (1974, 1992) that aid a group or community to find its voice(s) and articulate its position(s) (Muller, 1071).
Other helpful dramatic tools used for creating third space experiences to inform design practices include: “Forum theater” or a type of theater where non-professional actors perform skits with less than desirable outcomes in front of interested parties, and audience members become authors and directors who can alter skits to achieve desired outcomes (1071). “Tableau” is a technique where performers are told to freeze during play and are asked to describe what they are “doing, thinking, planning, and hoping” (1071). “Interface Theatre,” created by Muller et al. in 1994, has software professionals act out user interfaces in a large auditorium, using the theatrical stage as the screen where each actor plays the role of a concrete interface component (i.e., Kim the Cursor, Marty the Menubar, and so forth). Another participatory design practice adopting “performance” as a method for improving design is the “Situated and Participative Enactment of Scenario” that asks designers to take part in a “projective series of improvisations with 'the magic' thing in users’ homes and workplaces” (Muller, 1071). All of these techniques are performance-driven, much like the people and technologies they are used to describe. Performance, it can be claimed, is a metaphor that comes full circle in the realm of HCI.
Sources:
Christiansen, E. (1996). “Tamed by a Rose: Computers as Tools in Human Activity.” In Nardi, B. A. Context and Consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. (pp. 175-198). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Grudin, J. “Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: History and focus.” IEEE. May 1994.
Muller, M.J. (2007). “Participatory Design: The third space in HCI.” In Sears, A. & Jacko, J. (Eds.). The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, 2nd Edition. (pp. 1061-1082). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Olson G. & Olson J. (2007). Groupware and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. In Sears, A. & Jacko, J. (Eds.). The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, 2nd Edition. (pp. 545-558). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Computer Technologies Designed for Performance
Whether it be the performance of particular tasks using mainframes in the 1960s for “filling airline seats…or printing payroll checks” (Grudin, 19), or for improving performance of individuals through word processing or spreadsheet applications using minicomputers in the 1970s, computer technologies have always been designed with performance in mind. It is a given that for organizations to perform well, all of the systems, processes and people supporting them need to perform well, thus making optimal performance a critical organizational goal. It wasn’t until the mid-1980s and the advent of computer-supported cooperative work or CSCW, however, that the meaning of performance shifted -- from performance as task or functionality -- to performance as social or group endeavor. Once dialogue between people became privileged over dialogue between systems, communication evolved as a critical component of cooperative work, thus it is no surprise that technologies such as Internet, email, video and audio conferencing, and text tools like instant messaging (IM) and chat were quickly adopted for business applications.
As Olson and Olson (2007) write in the Handbook on page 546, “groupware [as] software designed to run over a network in support of the activities of a group or organization for carrying out activities,” was originally made to provide greater geographic and temporal flexibility. It was also created with new modes of socializing in mind. Some of the new social communication technologies that emerged were successful (email, IM, and chat) while others – like video conferencing – were not as widely embraced (548). The reason why some communication technologies are better received than others, according to Olson and Olson is, I would also argue, directly tied to performance. A/V problems associated with poor audio, poor video, camera placement, ac or noise interference, and delay issues, have all resulted in poor acceptance of video conferencing as a technology. Ironically, as Olson and Olson point out, video does not produce the “being there” phenomenon that many had hoped for (553). The expense and effort of producing quality video currently outweigh the benefits of using this technology to establish social presence. Performance is critical to the successful adoption of any technology, new or old.
Social Actors and their Props
With the emergence of groupware applications in the mid-1980s, “the social, motivational, and political aspects of workplaces become crucial” (Grudin, 22); in other words, one might say the drama behind the scenes took center stage. Whereas the mainframe was once the only stage for all of the critical action, now it was individuals performing in concert with each other – using technology – who found themselves in the limelight. Grudin (1994) points out when the move to networked PCs and workstations became widespread, new markets opened up for groupware to support communication and coordination. This move resulted in a paradigm shift away from off the shelf, single-user products to computer support for groups, requiring developers to consider “group dynamics for the first time” (22). Instead of placing computers in leading roles (i.e., as “mainframes” or main characters), people interacting with computers came to be viewed as actors, the tools they work with taking on secondary or supporting roles. It is understandable why the “actors” at this new stage of technological development also became the central focus of new product design centered on activity practices.
Christiansen (1996) suggests activity “is the term for the process through which a person creates meaning in her practice…” (177). Once activity became tied to meaning-making, it also became important to realize how tools as artifacts are situated or contextualized within activity to create meaning. As Christiansen explains, “You may observe and interview actors in a community of practice, but you will not come to understand why they use the artifacts the way they do until you have come to understand what kinds of activity are used in their practice” (177); this type of understanding is at the heart of participatory design. It is no wonder then, if people are viewed as “acting” with technology, that the performance metaphor stretches to include designers, who like the technologies they create, play key supporting roles. In addition to learning from “economists, social psychologists, anthropologists, organizational theorists, educators, and anyone else who shed light on group activity” as Grudin suggests, product developers also began following the performance metaphor along its natural trajectory, turning to drama and theater to gain new insights about human actors and the activities they engage in when using computer technologies.
Performance Sets the Stage for Participatory Design
It is not surprising that the performance metaphor shapes a “third space” or place where product developers can learn more about the practices associated with activity. As Muller explains in “Participatory Design,” third space experiences are hybrid experiences or “practices that challenge assumptions, are open to reciprocal learning, and facilitate polyvocal or many-voiced discussions across and through differences" (1062). One way designers can gain insights into why people use artifacts the way they do requires, as Christiansen points out, a better understanding of the kinds of activity are used in their practice – the use of drama and videos or the tools of performance can aid in this type of exploration. Muller suggests a number of techniques borrowed from theatre that are valuable for bringing to light activity practices, including ideas suggested by Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed (1974, 1992) that aid a group or community to find its voice(s) and articulate its position(s) (Muller, 1071).
Other helpful dramatic tools used for creating third space experiences to inform design practices include: “Forum theater” or a type of theater where non-professional actors perform skits with less than desirable outcomes in front of interested parties, and audience members become authors and directors who can alter skits to achieve desired outcomes (1071). “Tableau” is a technique where performers are told to freeze during play and are asked to describe what they are “doing, thinking, planning, and hoping” (1071). “Interface Theatre,” created by Muller et al. in 1994, has software professionals act out user interfaces in a large auditorium, using the theatrical stage as the screen where each actor plays the role of a concrete interface component (i.e., Kim the Cursor, Marty the Menubar, and so forth). Another participatory design practice adopting “performance” as a method for improving design is the “Situated and Participative Enactment of Scenario” that asks designers to take part in a “projective series of improvisations with 'the magic' thing in users’ homes and workplaces” (Muller, 1071). All of these techniques are performance-driven, much like the people and technologies they are used to describe. Performance, it can be claimed, is a metaphor that comes full circle in the realm of HCI.
Sources:
Christiansen, E. (1996). “Tamed by a Rose: Computers as Tools in Human Activity.” In Nardi, B. A. Context and Consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. (pp. 175-198). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Grudin, J. “Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: History and focus.” IEEE. May 1994.
Muller, M.J. (2007). “Participatory Design: The third space in HCI.” In Sears, A. & Jacko, J. (Eds.). The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, 2nd Edition. (pp. 1061-1082). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Olson G. & Olson J. (2007). Groupware and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. In Sears, A. & Jacko, J. (Eds.). The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, 2nd Edition. (pp. 545-558). Lawrence Erlbaum.
CSCW: Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
The topic of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) is derived from an earlier system of office automation. The notion that we can work cooperatively, within groups has been around since the 1970's. We want to learn from others and get and share ideas. Successful companies know that teamwork is imperative for the success of a company, and that each team player has at least one thing to contribute to this. The study on History and Focus written by Jonathan Grudin, University of California, Irvine shows us how we vary by culture.
I can understand how CSCW gains insight from the field of anthropology, educators and those who participate in group activity. We have so many applications we subscribe to today. We use facebook, myspace, open office, gmail documents, skype and so many other sources of communication today. This is not just single-user based applications, though we use them individually. We use them to connect to a specific group.
According to Grudin, group work was not developed in the technology created in the 70's, in this case then, how did technology learn human behavior? Jay has created a short story for this topic and has given us the option to create more to the story, to comment on the story, and even the option not to participate. For this lesson in group work, I think it is great to have the opportunity to participate, so thanks Jay for this insightful chance. The story can be totally twisted, which is awesome, and I hope it goes in that direction.
For us to focus only on the 'work' effort of CSCW is very generalized. Since CSCW supports the small group effort, it can be regarded in most concentrations. Not only that, but so many areas have an influence in the development of this product. Information Systems people are familiar with the social dynamics of networked PC's and individual workstations and the greater good of organizations. They can assist in creating small groups with workstaions by creating a sense of community. When we share the need of key goals and direction, we are cutting down on the friction of being to general.
Grudin explains that in large IS environments, the (vast majority of users) decades of experience will shed light on the non-technical problems. Is this really because of the users bringing this insight to attention? I can understand that within a small group of users, the technological problems can become an issue as they (the user) may not have the experience to use the programs.
Another difference into the CSCW area is how it relates to users by country. Grudin sites that there are many differences to the way we (here in the U.S.) approach CSCW compared to European countries. One of the differences lays in finance. In the United States, research and development are supported and more interwoven with universities. This supports the reason that the funding is coming from a more varied source (independent research, private research grants, and endowments) than within Europe, where their funding is more goverment sponsored. The research in Europe also focuses on large-scale systems development. While I'm not exactly sure what that may mean, I would guess it means that they are progressing faster than we are here. In the U.S., it almost seems like we think backward. According to Grudin, many U.S. researchers build technology and then look for ways to use it. Wouldnt this be a waste of time and effort? I think many developers in HCI would like to have their ideas be used on the first time of introduction, but really I would hope to believe that they would perform in-depth user studies to find the need first. Culture plays an integral part in this effort. In Europe, their many cultures play a part in the need for a groupwork social dynamic. During conferences and social gatherings you can tell that the Europeans are professionals who would like to share their research, experience and current results. At conferences, most who are attending will present their work. Compare this with the U.S. culture who present their work for larger audiences (may or may not be presenting), are more polished and emphasize results.
It is interesting that we share group work with people all over the world. Some of the correspondence seems effortless, while others are prevented by firewalls. Designers creating the applications have so many issues to think about, it is amazing that we communicate so much~
work cited:
Jonaghan Grudin, University of California, Irvine. "Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: History and Focus", May 1994
I can understand how CSCW gains insight from the field of anthropology, educators and those who participate in group activity. We have so many applications we subscribe to today. We use facebook, myspace, open office, gmail documents, skype and so many other sources of communication today. This is not just single-user based applications, though we use them individually. We use them to connect to a specific group.
According to Grudin, group work was not developed in the technology created in the 70's, in this case then, how did technology learn human behavior? Jay has created a short story for this topic and has given us the option to create more to the story, to comment on the story, and even the option not to participate. For this lesson in group work, I think it is great to have the opportunity to participate, so thanks Jay for this insightful chance. The story can be totally twisted, which is awesome, and I hope it goes in that direction.
For us to focus only on the 'work' effort of CSCW is very generalized. Since CSCW supports the small group effort, it can be regarded in most concentrations. Not only that, but so many areas have an influence in the development of this product. Information Systems people are familiar with the social dynamics of networked PC's and individual workstations and the greater good of organizations. They can assist in creating small groups with workstaions by creating a sense of community. When we share the need of key goals and direction, we are cutting down on the friction of being to general.
Grudin explains that in large IS environments, the (vast majority of users) decades of experience will shed light on the non-technical problems. Is this really because of the users bringing this insight to attention? I can understand that within a small group of users, the technological problems can become an issue as they (the user) may not have the experience to use the programs.
Another difference into the CSCW area is how it relates to users by country. Grudin sites that there are many differences to the way we (here in the U.S.) approach CSCW compared to European countries. One of the differences lays in finance. In the United States, research and development are supported and more interwoven with universities. This supports the reason that the funding is coming from a more varied source (independent research, private research grants, and endowments) than within Europe, where their funding is more goverment sponsored. The research in Europe also focuses on large-scale systems development. While I'm not exactly sure what that may mean, I would guess it means that they are progressing faster than we are here. In the U.S., it almost seems like we think backward. According to Grudin, many U.S. researchers build technology and then look for ways to use it. Wouldnt this be a waste of time and effort? I think many developers in HCI would like to have their ideas be used on the first time of introduction, but really I would hope to believe that they would perform in-depth user studies to find the need first. Culture plays an integral part in this effort. In Europe, their many cultures play a part in the need for a groupwork social dynamic. During conferences and social gatherings you can tell that the Europeans are professionals who would like to share their research, experience and current results. At conferences, most who are attending will present their work. Compare this with the U.S. culture who present their work for larger audiences (may or may not be presenting), are more polished and emphasize results.
It is interesting that we share group work with people all over the world. Some of the correspondence seems effortless, while others are prevented by firewalls. Designers creating the applications have so many issues to think about, it is amazing that we communicate so much~
work cited:
Jonaghan Grudin, University of California, Irvine. "Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: History and Focus", May 1994
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Jason Grigely
VSD Conceptual Investigation
Socio-Technical System
The system or environment involving our problem space, may be described as a health center, gym, or home, however, it can be further extended to any area that contains a treadmill for the sole purpose of exercise. The existence of a treadmill within this space constitutes a problem by the very nature and behavior of a treadmill. The technology for treadmills has not vastly changed in quite some time, and perhaps it is because of this that we are starting to see a growing observation by large communities of runners. Simply put, running outdoors is “easier” than running indoors on a treadmill.
Values
It is a common experience amongst most runners, that there is a great degree of variance between the acts of running outdoors versus running indoors on a treadmill. While outdoor running is said to be of greater physical difficulty, running indoors on a treadmill is commonly accepted as being more of a psychological battle and less physically demanding. However, with the easy adaptability of running on a treadmill, in terms of adjustable incline, additional impact cushioning (reducing stress on ankle and knee joints), as well as the ability to easily control your pace and speed, perhaps we should think about bringing the perceptive ease of running outdoors to the treadmill.
As it is currently designed, repetitive and continued use of the treadmill requires a certain degree of willpower, almost as if the user must at times force themselves to use a treadmill, if only for convenience’s sake. This is in part due to “Running ‘on the spot’” which “can lead to an earlier onset of boredom and mental fatigue” (Anderson). The stationary nature of the treadmill, with its unchanging view, and the simply feeling the user gets that he/she simply isn’t going anywhere. This adds an unnecessary level of stress to an activity that is meant not only to get/keep the user in shape, but also to function as a stress reliever. The increase of stress through this activity not only effects the users motivation, and attitude towards the use of the treadmill, but can also have extended effects to the people around them, as the stress may manifest in other ways.
Physiological Advantages
A study done by Jennifer R. Abramczak et al. suggests that the physical act of running outdoors is more strenuous than that of running on a treadmill. This is substantiated by the mechanics involved with running on a treadmill, such as the belt, which quite literally moves beneath the runner’s feet, requiring less action to propel ones’ self forward; in stark contrast to outdoor running, where the runner must push themselves, as well as lean forward a bit, which tends to put a greater strain on the runner’s back. Theoretically, the difference in strain on your body experienced on a treadmill versus running outdoors, should allow the user to run much greater distances on a treadmill, however Abramczak et al. suggests that this may not necessarily be so. Even though outdoors, runners in the study reached a higher heart rate, their Rate of Perceived Exhaustion (RPE), was almost always lower when running outdoors. What this means, is that while running outdoors was shown to be more physically demanding, as runners obtained a higher heart rate, they often felt less fatigue, or exhibited fewer signs of fatigue than treadmill runners.
An advantage of running outdoors is airflow. The drag force you experience running outdoors, while it does require more energy from the runner at higher speeds, the “absence of wind resistance on a treadmill leads to a significantly lower oxygen consumption compared to running outside” (Anderson). As you continue to exercise, your body requires more and more oxygen in your blood to prevent the buildup of lactic acid, which is why after exercising for extended periods, your muscles begin to ache. Therefore, if we were able to bring the additional airflow (as well as perhaps even the drag force) of outdoor running to the treadmill, it would ultimately benefit the user.
What approach can we take to solve this problem?
In order to solve the issues faced by many involving the treadmill, we must augment and elevate the design of the treadmill. In doing so, we can combine the positive elements of both atmospheres, while sacrificing little, if anything from the user’s workout. The first step to take in the elevation of the treadmill design would involve a visual display, which encompasses the surroundings of the runner, and is designed to mimic outdoor terrain, which can be chosen by the user. These visuals would provide the user with a virtual environment in which they would be immersed. Infrared sensors could be used to adjust the display height, as the size of potential users of a treadmill is likely to vary greatly. The environment would reflect perspective changes to the user based on elements such as running speed/pace, as well as the slope/incline of the treadmill. Mimicking an outdoor environment would serve as a stress reducer, as well as give the user something to focus on while running, while still concentrating on the act of running, rather than being distracted by music, television, or simply fixing their attention to a spot in the room.
In addition to the virtual display, we could implement a supplementary ventilation system, which would provide airflow to the user, which mimics that of an outdoor environment. Additionally it would be possible for the user to mimic wind conditions (for example, if you’re running north, and there is a 5mph eastern wind gust, the user would feel the effects of the crosswind), as well as the drag force encountered in running outdoors. Not only would these changes in air flow assist in the recreation of the outdoor running experience, but it would also help to increase oxygen intake for the user. This, in theory, would allow for the user to maintain a reasonably higher heart rate for longer periods, as their body would be able to more aptly combat the buildup of lactic acid.
Preliminary Conclusions
By solving the psychological issues involved with running on a treadmill, we open the door to greatly expand the capacity for athletic training indoors. While most personal trainers and elite athletes agree that for the best results, when training for an outdoor event (such as a 5k race, marathon, etc.), it is best to train outdoors. However, they also acknowledge that this is not always an availible option for everyone. In addition, it may be possible, with these proposed changes, to increase the effectiveness of treadmill training from both a physiological, as well as a psychological perspective, thereby surpassing outdoor training in terms of effectiveness.
Sources
THE PHYSIOLOGICIAL DIFFERENCES OF OUTDOOR TRAIL RUNNING VERSUS INDOOR TREADMILL RUNNING. Jennifer R. Abramczak, LeAnn M. Hayes, Christopher A. Johnson. University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI.
10/19/2008.Link
THE DEBATE. George Anderson, Steve Barrett. FitPro Network.
10/19/2008. Link
VSD Conceptual Investigation
Socio-Technical System
The system or environment involving our problem space, may be described as a health center, gym, or home, however, it can be further extended to any area that contains a treadmill for the sole purpose of exercise. The existence of a treadmill within this space constitutes a problem by the very nature and behavior of a treadmill. The technology for treadmills has not vastly changed in quite some time, and perhaps it is because of this that we are starting to see a growing observation by large communities of runners. Simply put, running outdoors is “easier” than running indoors on a treadmill.
Values
It is a common experience amongst most runners, that there is a great degree of variance between the acts of running outdoors versus running indoors on a treadmill. While outdoor running is said to be of greater physical difficulty, running indoors on a treadmill is commonly accepted as being more of a psychological battle and less physically demanding. However, with the easy adaptability of running on a treadmill, in terms of adjustable incline, additional impact cushioning (reducing stress on ankle and knee joints), as well as the ability to easily control your pace and speed, perhaps we should think about bringing the perceptive ease of running outdoors to the treadmill.
As it is currently designed, repetitive and continued use of the treadmill requires a certain degree of willpower, almost as if the user must at times force themselves to use a treadmill, if only for convenience’s sake. This is in part due to “Running ‘on the spot’” which “can lead to an earlier onset of boredom and mental fatigue” (Anderson). The stationary nature of the treadmill, with its unchanging view, and the simply feeling the user gets that he/she simply isn’t going anywhere. This adds an unnecessary level of stress to an activity that is meant not only to get/keep the user in shape, but also to function as a stress reliever. The increase of stress through this activity not only effects the users motivation, and attitude towards the use of the treadmill, but can also have extended effects to the people around them, as the stress may manifest in other ways.
Physiological Advantages
A study done by Jennifer R. Abramczak et al. suggests that the physical act of running outdoors is more strenuous than that of running on a treadmill. This is substantiated by the mechanics involved with running on a treadmill, such as the belt, which quite literally moves beneath the runner’s feet, requiring less action to propel ones’ self forward; in stark contrast to outdoor running, where the runner must push themselves, as well as lean forward a bit, which tends to put a greater strain on the runner’s back. Theoretically, the difference in strain on your body experienced on a treadmill versus running outdoors, should allow the user to run much greater distances on a treadmill, however Abramczak et al. suggests that this may not necessarily be so. Even though outdoors, runners in the study reached a higher heart rate, their Rate of Perceived Exhaustion (RPE), was almost always lower when running outdoors. What this means, is that while running outdoors was shown to be more physically demanding, as runners obtained a higher heart rate, they often felt less fatigue, or exhibited fewer signs of fatigue than treadmill runners.
An advantage of running outdoors is airflow. The drag force you experience running outdoors, while it does require more energy from the runner at higher speeds, the “absence of wind resistance on a treadmill leads to a significantly lower oxygen consumption compared to running outside” (Anderson). As you continue to exercise, your body requires more and more oxygen in your blood to prevent the buildup of lactic acid, which is why after exercising for extended periods, your muscles begin to ache. Therefore, if we were able to bring the additional airflow (as well as perhaps even the drag force) of outdoor running to the treadmill, it would ultimately benefit the user.
What approach can we take to solve this problem?
In order to solve the issues faced by many involving the treadmill, we must augment and elevate the design of the treadmill. In doing so, we can combine the positive elements of both atmospheres, while sacrificing little, if anything from the user’s workout. The first step to take in the elevation of the treadmill design would involve a visual display, which encompasses the surroundings of the runner, and is designed to mimic outdoor terrain, which can be chosen by the user. These visuals would provide the user with a virtual environment in which they would be immersed. Infrared sensors could be used to adjust the display height, as the size of potential users of a treadmill is likely to vary greatly. The environment would reflect perspective changes to the user based on elements such as running speed/pace, as well as the slope/incline of the treadmill. Mimicking an outdoor environment would serve as a stress reducer, as well as give the user something to focus on while running, while still concentrating on the act of running, rather than being distracted by music, television, or simply fixing their attention to a spot in the room.
In addition to the virtual display, we could implement a supplementary ventilation system, which would provide airflow to the user, which mimics that of an outdoor environment. Additionally it would be possible for the user to mimic wind conditions (for example, if you’re running north, and there is a 5mph eastern wind gust, the user would feel the effects of the crosswind), as well as the drag force encountered in running outdoors. Not only would these changes in air flow assist in the recreation of the outdoor running experience, but it would also help to increase oxygen intake for the user. This, in theory, would allow for the user to maintain a reasonably higher heart rate for longer periods, as their body would be able to more aptly combat the buildup of lactic acid.
Preliminary Conclusions
By solving the psychological issues involved with running on a treadmill, we open the door to greatly expand the capacity for athletic training indoors. While most personal trainers and elite athletes agree that for the best results, when training for an outdoor event (such as a 5k race, marathon, etc.), it is best to train outdoors. However, they also acknowledge that this is not always an availible option for everyone. In addition, it may be possible, with these proposed changes, to increase the effectiveness of treadmill training from both a physiological, as well as a psychological perspective, thereby surpassing outdoor training in terms of effectiveness.
Sources
THE PHYSIOLOGICIAL DIFFERENCES OF OUTDOOR TRAIL RUNNING VERSUS INDOOR TREADMILL RUNNING. Jennifer R. Abramczak, LeAnn M. Hayes, Christopher A. Johnson. University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI.
10/19/2008.
THE DEBATE. George Anderson, Steve Barrett. FitPro Network.
10/19/2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)