"Human Computer Interaction in Science Fiction Movies" 5 different "interface metaphors"
From the CS Seminar “Instrumented Spaces” SS 2003 A. Butz, C. Endres, W. Wahlster.
Original location: http://w5.cs.uni-sb.de/%7Ebutz/teaching/ie-ss03/papers/HCIinSF/
Written by Micheal Schmitz, the paper surveys numerous types of interaction designs found in movies, over the years. The author mentions that most of the movie scenes are set in future times, "Most of these movies have in common that they expose their own vision of the future, with new technologies commonly being the most noticeable change in these hypothetical worlds." (Michael Schmitz, 1) But they are all unique, and use inovative and creative approaches. I will discuss the five interactions I personally found the most interesting.
Neuro technology is all about human + computer interaction. The first example the author gives is from the movie “Johnny Mnemonic”, it is unique because it incorporates the technology into more or less everyday life. The main character, "Johnny" (Keanu Reeves) is an agent who delivers sensitive information, using his own brain as a storage device! Probably would never happen, since we all seem to have our brains full most of the time, right?
Identification technology is practical, especially at this time. If we could do half the things done in the movies mentioned, many problems wouldn't even exist. In the movies, they emphasize also on the safety aspect, "the privacy / security issues are the main aspects that the directors try to bring in into their work" (Schmitz, 2). The oddest and most far-fetched example was the breath-ID test, from “Alien IV”. The author claims that the technique will never be used, and it sounds like a good answer to me, but who knows really. Science is broad and I believe there is room for types of possibilities.
Speech recognition is a technology that is being used in our age in time. It has of course also been mentioned in the films. The author of the paper says it's one of the easy effects, "Besides that it is very easy to realize this for the director, no special effects are needed, just actors imitating the dialog with the computer." Some films have tried to spice up the idea, like in "Space Odyssey", made in 2001. In it, the computer was in charge of the spaceship, and "It could interpret their lip movements and understand their conversation" (Schmitz, 4). Although they come up with new ideas, how far can it go?
I/O technology involves virtual reality type interfaces. One of the examples was, yet again, from "Johnny Mnemonic", where the character does movements and moves around to surf the Internet. This idea bored me a little, because many people are always trying to reinvent the way we go on the Internet, and it gets repetitive. I did however enjoy the example from “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Galaxy”, from 1981. In it, there is an actually Babel Fish translator. Believe it or not, the translator "is a fish that will translate all languages such that you will be able to understand them, by plugging it into your ear". I found this interesting, because it does not involve robots, or computers, thought the author says, "Here the device/fish is actually supposed to contain all the technology, but for us it would be conceptually more interesting if the fish would be an object in an intelligent space". I am not sure I agree with his statement, I do however think the exact opposite. Why complicate a system when it can be simple.
My fifth interface design isn't one at all, it is more of a humourous remark. At the very end, they speak of part of an episode of "Futurama", "The scene shows a group of people talking about a person called “Fry” and the computer listened and assisted by downloading a movie about this person and opening the owners calendar on Friday and ordering some french fries."(Schmitz, 5) This example clearly shows a big fault in computers today, often, they cannot determine the contexts we speak in. They are too logical to complete a command the right way, and it somewhat proves that they cannot be perfect.
In conclusion, I believe Michael Schmitz's paper proved many interesting points, about our future technology, about the possibilities we have. It also shows how creative the human mind can be, and how in a way, it is more effective than a computer, in a few ways. It may replace many of our daily tasks, and may aid immeasurably, but it still isn't perfect.
Original location: http://w5.cs.uni-sb.de/%7Ebutz/teaching/ie-ss03/papers/HCIinSF/
Written by Micheal Schmitz, the paper surveys numerous types of interaction designs found in movies, over the years. The author mentions that most of the movie scenes are set in future times, "Most of these movies have in common that they expose their own vision of the future, with new technologies commonly being the most noticeable change in these hypothetical worlds." (Michael Schmitz, 1) But they are all unique, and use inovative and creative approaches. I will discuss the five interactions I personally found the most interesting.
Neuro technology is all about human + computer interaction. The first example the author gives is from the movie “Johnny Mnemonic”, it is unique because it incorporates the technology into more or less everyday life. The main character, "Johnny" (Keanu Reeves) is an agent who delivers sensitive information, using his own brain as a storage device! Probably would never happen, since we all seem to have our brains full most of the time, right?
Identification technology is practical, especially at this time. If we could do half the things done in the movies mentioned, many problems wouldn't even exist. In the movies, they emphasize also on the safety aspect, "the privacy / security issues are the main aspects that the directors try to bring in into their work" (Schmitz, 2). The oddest and most far-fetched example was the breath-ID test, from “Alien IV”. The author claims that the technique will never be used, and it sounds like a good answer to me, but who knows really. Science is broad and I believe there is room for types of possibilities.
Speech recognition is a technology that is being used in our age in time. It has of course also been mentioned in the films. The author of the paper says it's one of the easy effects, "Besides that it is very easy to realize this for the director, no special effects are needed, just actors imitating the dialog with the computer." Some films have tried to spice up the idea, like in "Space Odyssey", made in 2001. In it, the computer was in charge of the spaceship, and "It could interpret their lip movements and understand their conversation" (Schmitz, 4). Although they come up with new ideas, how far can it go?
I/O technology involves virtual reality type interfaces. One of the examples was, yet again, from "Johnny Mnemonic", where the character does movements and moves around to surf the Internet. This idea bored me a little, because many people are always trying to reinvent the way we go on the Internet, and it gets repetitive. I did however enjoy the example from “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Galaxy”, from 1981. In it, there is an actually Babel Fish translator. Believe it or not, the translator "is a fish that will translate all languages such that you will be able to understand them, by plugging it into your ear". I found this interesting, because it does not involve robots, or computers, thought the author says, "Here the device/fish is actually supposed to contain all the technology, but for us it would be conceptually more interesting if the fish would be an object in an intelligent space". I am not sure I agree with his statement, I do however think the exact opposite. Why complicate a system when it can be simple.
My fifth interface design isn't one at all, it is more of a humourous remark. At the very end, they speak of part of an episode of "Futurama", "The scene shows a group of people talking about a person called “Fry” and the computer listened and assisted by downloading a movie about this person and opening the owners calendar on Friday and ordering some french fries."(Schmitz, 5) This example clearly shows a big fault in computers today, often, they cannot determine the contexts we speak in. They are too logical to complete a command the right way, and it somewhat proves that they cannot be perfect.
In conclusion, I believe Michael Schmitz's paper proved many interesting points, about our future technology, about the possibilities we have. It also shows how creative the human mind can be, and how in a way, it is more effective than a computer, in a few ways. It may replace many of our daily tasks, and may aid immeasurably, but it still isn't perfect.
posted by Dora at 11:22 AM
0 comments
