ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Comparing two approaches to context: realism and constructivism
Full text PdfPdf (127 KB)
Source Critical Computing archive
Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing: between sense and sensibility table of contents
Aarhus, Denmark
SESSION: Short papers table of contents
Pages: 195 - 198  
Year of Publication: 2005
ISBN:1-59593-203-8
Authors
Antti Oulasvirta  Helsinki Institute for Information Technology, HUT, Finland
Sakari Tamminen  Helsinki University of Technology, HUT, Finland
Kristina Höök  Stockholm University, Kista, Sweden
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 6,   Downloads (12 Months): 64,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
Save this Article to a Binder    Display Formats: BibTex  EndNote ACM Ref   
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1094562.1094597
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

During the last few years, there have been debates over what is context and how computers should act upon it. Two disparate camps of thought can be recognized. First, Realism, having its roots in natural sciences, believes that contexts exist out there and that, if properly instrumented and programmed, computers can correctly recognize and adapt to them. Second, Constructivism, having its roots in human and social sciences, believes that contexts are human creations, mental and social, and that computers ought to provide resources for managing them. We reveal some fundamental differences between the two in three different application domains. We show that despite the deep-going controversies, both camps benefit from considering the alternative approach and a middle ground can be found.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
Höök, K. User-centred design and evaluation of affective interfaces. In Pelachaud, C. and Ruttkay, Z. (Eds.), Evaluating ECAs, Kluwer (forthcoming).
 
3
 
4
van Dantzich, M., Robbins, D., Horvitz, E. & Czerwinski, M. Scope: Providing awareness of multiple notifications at a glance. Proc Advanced Visual Interfaces 2002, Trento, Italy, 2002.
 
5
Dey, A. K. and Abowd, G. D. Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness. Technical report GIT-GVU-99-22, 1999, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
 
6
 
7
 
8
Fagerberg, P., Ståhl, A., and Höök, K. Designing gestures for affective input: an analysis of shape, effort, and valence. Proc. MUM 2003, Norrköping, Sweden.
9
10
 
11
Hacking, I. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press (1999).
 
12
Mehan, H, and Wood, H. The reality of ethnomethodology. New York, Wiley (1975).
 
13
14
15
16
17
 
18
Schmidt, A., Beigl, M. and Gellersen, H.-W. There is more to context than location. Computers & Graphics, 23 (6), 1998, 893--901.
 
19
 
20
21
 
22
Weiser, M. The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American, 265 (3), 1991, 66--75.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Antti Oulasvirta: colleagues
Sakari Tamminen: colleagues
Kristina Höök: colleagues