Ethnographic research on Dynamicland

I wonder, can you articulate any reasons why this might actually be harmful?

Neil Postman: Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change: https://student.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~cs492/papers/neil-postman--...

I think that "automatically reflecting the manipulations made to alternate representations" is exactly a core intention of DynamicLand. They're very much all about bringing computer interaction seamlessly into the intimate physical workspaces of humans.

Admittedly, in the very few clips and info we've seen, this isn't particularly dramatic. On the surface it's sort of like an inverted augmented-reality experience where the computer asserts itself in physical space. Whereas in regular AR, we assert ourselves in cyberspace. The project of DynamicLand, IMHO, has a much larger scope than regular AR. Will it be successful? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I am glad, however, that at least someone is trying this. I do hope that Brett Victor resumes his amazing lectures. They were really inspiring (this one in particular is a classic: https://youtu.be/8pTEmbeENF4).

I’ve tried the UI options that are available today for a reasonable price: stylus and touchscreen like the MS Surface, VR like the Oculus Quest. Neither solves much for me, perhaps because of lack of applications.

If Dynamicland could end up producing something that makes my private work experience tangibly better, I’d be happy to accept that the trade-off is that collaboration becomes more difficult. (I don’t do realtime collaboration today anyway, even though it’s theoretically possible.)

What is important, however, is taking a more holistic approach to understanding how people think and how media can help in that process. People actually think with their whole bodies. There is a kinesthetic component to thinking that is important. Computing today -- be it the desktop or the tablet -- has given us tunnel vision in a sense.

This misses the point. Dynamicland is not trying to eliminate the internet or stop people in Palo Alto from collaborating with people in Beijing.

It is a small research project to explore what other ideas can be found in the vast space of unexplored possibilities.

You might as well say that someone writing in their paper diary takes away the communication flexibility of Facebook, or that someone moving their curtains around with motorized legos takes away the flexibility of an Alexa/Siri automated home, or that building a go-kart takes away the flexibility of the interstate highway system.

You are right that small research projects are inherently “elitist” in the sense that not everyone in the world can devote their attention to every researcher’s every idea and project. Doing some new niche thing takes significant time and work, and most people lead busy lives and largely engage with large-scale mass-market projects, by definition.

I think this is a pretty crushingly middle-brow dismissal of what is essentially a hugely ambitious tech demo that could evolve in thousands of ways and lead to all kinds of unforeseeable progress.

I mean how does Dynamicland take away from the Internet? Is the status quo the global maximum? Frankly after 2 years of WFH, I'm far from convinced that staring at screens (whether traditional or in a VR headset) is the pinnacle of collaborative computing.

I tend to be skeptical of long-term projects without intermediate artefacts on which we can provide feedback, iterate, and improve.

I get the concept that they want to work quietly to build something as part of a grand vision… it certainly is not doomed to failure, but as the gap between vision <> tangible implementation widens, so does the probability of widespread success.

They've publicly acknowledged that they're still working but have been quiet.

> I imagine it’s very frustrating to not have much to show after more than half a decade of development.

Yes and No. I think, rightly so, they are concerned about pre-mature commercialization. Tech transfer in HCI-like domains can often be wrought with issues:

"The Dynamic Medium Group’s vision is rooted in the idea that the computer revolution of the ’70s and early ’80s was cut short, primarily by premature com­mer­cia­li­za­tion. While the computer as a medium was still unfolding its potential, and way before it could do so entirely, it was solidified into commercial products, thereby stifling its free growth. Once corporations had built their businesses on the ideas developed so far, they were only interested in incremental change that could easily be integrated into the products, rather than revolutionary new ideas.

Because of this cautionary tale and to avoid repeating history, the group is wary when it comes to public attention and deliberately reserved in what it shares. "

However, I do think that getting ongoing feedback & recognition of impact is important even in long-term research efforts. This was hinted at in Glen's note on why he left Dynamicland: http://glench.com/WhyIQuitTechAndBecameATherapist/

The saddest observation through all this is ... why don't academia or corporate research labs do this type of long-term, personal computing focused research anymore? It's never been easier to build a computer or an operating system, but nobody has the appetite for it anymore. Maybe people feel that operating systems and computers in their current form are here to stay forever. Maybe the most we can do is port things clumsily to VR or AR.

From a different article: https://tashian.com/articles/dynamicland/