How Ambiguity and Affinity Are Enacted to Perform Interaction Design

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

How Ambiguity and Affinity Are Enacted to Perform Interaction Design how ambiguity and affinity are enacted to perform interaction design Jeremy Yuille Doctor of Philosophy 2012 RMIT The Forensic Wall how ambiguity and affinity are enacted to perform interaction design An exegesis submitted in (partial) fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Jeremy Yuille M.Des School of Media and Communication, Design and Social Context Portfolio RMIT University October 2012 ii Declaration I certify that except where due acknowledgement has been made, the work is that of the author alone; the work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for any other academic award; the content of the exegesis is the result of work which has been carried out since the official commencement date of the approved research pro- gram; any editorial work, paid or unpaid, carried out by a third party is acknowledged; and, ethics procedures and guidelines have been followed. Jeremy Yuille May 2 2012 i Acknowledgements Without the support of the Interaction Design Association (IxDA) I would never have gained a This is a work of toil and late nights, but above global and professional perspective on interac- all the help and inspiration of others. Forensi- tion design. Thank you to my IxDA colleagues cally speaking, there are many fingerprints on for their continuing encouragement and stimu- all the work contained herein, and those traces lating argument on the nature, state and fu- reveal a deeper story that I cannot hope to ture of interaction design practice. Particular do justice in a few pages. But I’ll try to sketch thanks to Jon Kolko for feedback on some of an impression, starting at the beginning… the early ideas contained in this exegesis. Thank you to John and Bing for accepting, en- Many thanks to professional colleagues Dan couraging and believing in my abilities, how- Saffer, Indi Young, Nathan Shedroff, Danny Stil- ever much I demonstrated to the contrary. My lion, Jamin Hegeman, Jesse James Garrett, and grandparents, for their example of what you Steve Portigal for taking the time to meet with me can achieve with determination and courage. and discuss interaction design practice. I want to particularly thank Kim Lenox, Dani Malik and I would not be writing this without the sup- Adaptive Path for hosting a lunchtime workshop port of my colleagues at RMIT school of Me- exploring my research. Thank you to Professor dia and Communication—and its predecessor Terry Winograd and Bill Verplank for their gen- Applied Communication—for their support erosity both with time and insight. Continued to undertake and complete this research. thanks and respect to Professor Mark Amerika for allowing me to jam with his students, and to Two of my projects would not have been possible Professor Alec McHoul for among other things, without the support of the Commonwealth Govern- recognising interaction design as an ongoing ment, via the Australasian CRC for Interaction De- conversation between Aristotle and Wittgenstein. sign (ACID). I particularly want to thank ACID man- agement for the opportunity to collaborate with Interaction design is no solo calling: I am fortunate many wonderful colleagues from across the Aus- to have worked with many wonderful research tralasian interaction design research community. colleagues at RMIT and other universities, and particularly want to thank Marius Foley for his Neither of those projects would exist were it not for collaborative verve and enterprise in bringing their respective industry partners Deloitte Digi- the Pool project together and seeing it through tal and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to the end. Chris Marmo, Hugh Macdonald and (ABC). Specific thanks to Pete Williams and Bevan Nifeli Stewart for their wonderful collaboration McLeod from Deloitte Digital; Sherre DeLys, John on the Pool and Loupe projects, particularly for Jacobs and Katie Gauld at ABC Radio National for going along with me when they must have thought their trust, energy and willingness to explore. I was making it up as we went. I often was. ii Professor Jamin Terry Hegeman Jesse James Winograd Garrett Bill Danny Verplank Stillion Hugh Dubberly Nathan Shedroff Professional Dani colleagues Malik Janetta Dan Marius Kerr Kevin Saffer Nasir Silver Foley Associate Professor Grant Barday Adrian Sherre Soumitri Varadarajan Steve Bill Miles DeRouchey DeLys Portigal Amyris Bruce Fernandez Berryman Professor Linda Editor Kim Brennan Supervisors Lenox Extended thanks to Reuben Stanton for being Kyla Matt Nish- so open to the messiness of design collabora- Brettle Pool IxDA Lapidus Josh John me Seiden tion, and without whom none of these projects Jacobs Seth Associate Professor Jon would look, work or feel the way they do. Keen Laurene Vaughan Kolko Dave Steve Liz Chris Joe Baty Bacon Marmo Malouf Sokohl Hugh Reuben Greg Janna Unless otherwise stated, all images in this Mcdonald Stanton Petroff DeVylder exegesis were produced by the author. Pascale Affinité Yuille Family John Nifeli Yuille Stewart Luca Many thanks to Professor Mark Burry for his Loupe Professor Michael Mark Amerika Yuille Sabrina research leadership on the Loupe project, and Dunbar Yuille Maria Darcy mentorship with ACID. Sincere thanks to all Dr Stephen Pete Yuille Viller Dr Yoko Williams Fong my panel critics at different graduate research Akama Dr Jane Burry Bevan conferences, for taking the time to expand my Professor McLeod Mark Burry Vanessa understanding and stretch my capabilities. Dr Bonna Cooper Jones These capabilities and understandings owe an enormous debt to my PhD supervisors: Profes- sor Linda Brennan pragmatically encouraged me to begin the end, and helped me turn a corner. This PhD is my oldest child, and I have to thank Associate Professor Laurene Vaughan for her its younger siblings for expressing just the right collaborative generousity on many projects—of amount of jealousy toward its monopolisation of my which this is but one— her professional men- attention. Their exuberant expression of life, learn- torship and ability to perform design are an ing and experience are a constant inspiration to me. inspiration. Finally, many thanks to Associate Professor Soumitri Varadarajan for joining me on To Maria, my thanks cannot do your role justice. this journey, leading me to the high road, show- They are but a part of my gratitude. Thank you ing me how to cast a critical eye on boosterism, for holding it all together while I was doing it, and leaving me to search for an authentic voice. and giving me the best reason to finish. Again. Thank you for helping me become a researcher. Many thanks to Janetta Kerr Grant for copy editing and proofreading. iii Included in this submission are a UBS memory stick with video files from the Affinité project, one report, and a set of workshop materials from the Pool Project and one report from the Loupe project. iv Abstract vii Introduction 1 Interaction Design: a tale of two disciplines 5 Defining the Intersection 12 The Turn to Experience 20 Communicating Experiences 25 Research Design 27 Inquiry and Questions 30 Research Design 35 Loupe and Pool 38 Contents Insights from the Field 40 Affinité 43 Using Ambiguity 45 Performative Ambiguity 46 Pool: designing a shared enterprise 49 Perceiving Affinity 89 Splicing in the Affinity Gene 91 Loupe: the social life of visualisation 95 The Forensic Wall 133 The Forensic Wall 134 Affinité: designing a digital wall 137 Performing Design 163 A Design Fiction 166 Conclusion: the designer’s choice 168 References 173 v vi Abstract Through a methodology incorporating de- This research contributes to the sign practice, studies and exploration (Fall- understanding of interaction design man 2008), this research has examined the emergent field of interaction design. practice in the following ways: Integrating discourse and literature from both I bring professional and academic perspectives academic and professional arenas with critical re- together to present a interaction design practice flection on two projects for clients and one self-ini- as being made up of pragmatic, critical, and enter- tiated project, I propose a model of how interaction prising approaches to performative ambiguity. designers work with artifacts, spaces and people to design for the intangible material of experience. I illustrate how interaction designers modu- late their ability to perceive similarities: I bring together theories of perception and expe- seeking, spotting and making affinity be- rience (Dewey 1934, Merleau Ponty 1945/1962), tween elements in a design situation. enaction and distributed cognition (Hutchins 2005, 2011), design practice (Schön 1983, Löwgren I identify and name a key site and method for & Stolterman 2008), and performativity (Austin this performance of design: the Forensic Wall. 1962) to reframe interaction design as a set of practices that draw on the designer’s ability to Finally, I reflect on these discoveries and propose perform ambiguity and perceive affinity between that designers perform design by choosing to excise different elements and stages of a design process. or exercise ambiguity in the situation of concern. vii viii 1 Introduction Interaction design and the turn to experience Introduction Program Academic My inquiryNetworks has been undertakenKnowledge as Manager Educator an embedded practitioner, framed by at ACID at RMIT four interrelated but distinct roles: Designer Academic educator at RMIT University, Director at the Interaction Design Association (IxDA), Program manager at The Australasian CRC for Interaction Director at Interaction Design (ACID), and Interaction designer IxDA Designer Actions in a range of design research projects 2 This research was prompted by a multiplicity of positions I saw in the contemporary discourse around the practice of interaction design. In chapter one I locate interaction de- sign within a larger turn toward experi- The range of different opinions on what made ence as a way to frame design situations. someone a good, or even competent, interaction de- signer stimulated my interest, and led my inquiry.
Recommended publications
  • Oral History Interview with Severo Ornstein and Laura Gould
    An Interview with SEVERO ORNSTEIN AND LAURA GOULD OH 258 Conducted by Bruce H. Bruemmer on 17 November 1994 Woodside, CA Charles Babbage Institute Center for the History of Information Processing University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Severo Ornstein and Laura Gould Interview 17 November 1994 Abstract Ornstein and Gould discuss the creation and expansion of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR). Ornstein recalls beginning a listserve at Xerox PARC for those concerned with the threat of nuclear war. Ornstein and Gould describe the movement of listserve participants from e-mail discussions to meetings and forming a group concerned with computer use in military systems. The bulk of the interview traces CPSR's organizational growth, fundraising, and activities educating the public about computer-dependent weapons systems such as proposed in the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). SEVERO ORNSTEIN AND LAURA GOULD INTERVIEW DATE: November 17, 1994 INTERVIEWER: Bruce H. Bruemmer LOCATION: Woodside, CA BRUEMMER: As I was going through your oral history interview I began to wonder about your political background and political background of the people who had started the organization. Can you characterize that? You had mentioned in your interview that you had done some antiwar demonstrations and that type of thing which is all very interesting given also your connection with DARPA. ORNSTEIN: Yes, most of the people at DARPA knew this. DARPA was not actually making bombs, you understand, and I think in the interview I talked about my feelings about DARPA at the time. I was strongly against the Vietnam War and never hid it from anyone. I wore my "Resist" button right into the Pentagon and if they didn't like it they could throw me out.
    [Show full text]
  • Backmatter In
    Appendices Bibliography This book is a little like the previews of coming attractions at the movies; it's meant to whet your appetite in several directions, without giving you the complete story about anything. To ®nd out more, you'll have to consult more specialized books on each topic. There are a lot of books on computer programming and computer science, and whichever I chose to list here would be out of date by the time you read this. Instead of trying to give current references in every area, in this edition I'm listing only the few most important and timeless books, plus an indication of the sources I used for each chapter. Computer science is a fast-changing ®eld; if you want to know what the current hot issues are, you have to read the journals. The way to start is to join the Association for Computing Machinery, 1515 Broadway, New York, NY 10036. If you are a full-time student you are eligible for a special rate for dues, which as I write this is $25 per year. (But you should write for a membership application with the current rates.) The Association publishes about 20 monthly or quarterly periodicals, plus the newsletters of about 40 Special Interest Groups in particular ®elds. 341 Read These! If you read no other books about computer science, you must read these two. One is an introductory text for college computer science students; the other is intended for a nonspecialist audience. Abelson, Harold, and Gerald Jay Sussman with Julie Sussman, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, MIT Press, Second Edition, 1996.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Lisp
    1 The Evolution of Lisp Guy L. Steele Jr. Richard P. Gabriel Thinking Machines Corporation Lucid, Inc. 245 First Street 707 Laurel Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 Menlo Park, California 94025 Phone: (617) 234-2860 Phone: (415) 329-8400 FAX: (617) 243-4444 FAX: (415) 329-8480 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Lisp is the world’s greatest programming language—or so its proponents think. The structure of Lisp makes it easy to extend the language or even to implement entirely new dialects without starting from scratch. Overall, the evolution of Lisp has been guided more by institutional rivalry, one-upsmanship, and the glee born of technical cleverness that is characteristic of the “hacker culture” than by sober assessments of technical requirements. Nevertheless this process has eventually produced both an industrial- strength programming language, messy but powerful, and a technically pure dialect, small but powerful, that is suitable for use by programming-language theoreticians. We pick up where McCarthy’s paper in the first HOPL conference left off. We trace the development chronologically from the era of the PDP-6, through the heyday of Interlisp and MacLisp, past the ascension and decline of special purpose Lisp machines, to the present era of standardization activities. We then examine the technical evolution of a few representative language features, including both some notable successes and some notable failures, that illuminate design issues that distinguish Lisp from other programming languages. We also discuss the use of Lisp as a laboratory for designing other programming languages. We conclude with some reflections on the forces that have driven the evolution of Lisp.
    [Show full text]
  • A Debate on Teaching Computing Science
    Teaching Computing Science t the ACM Computer Science Conference last Strategic Defense Initiative. William Scherlis is February, Edsger Dijkstra gave an invited talk known for his articulate advocacy of formal methods called “On the Cruelty of Really Teaching in computer science. M. H. van Emden is known for Computing Science.” He challenged some of his contributions in programming languages and the basic assumptions on which our curricula philosophical insights into science. Jacques Cohen Aare based and provoked a lot of discussion. The edi- is known for his work with programming languages tors of Comwunications received several recommenda- and logic programming and is a member of the Edi- tions to publish his talk in these pages. His comments torial Panel of this magazine. Richard Hamming brought into the foreground some of the background received the Turing Award in 1968 and is well known of controversy that surrounds the issue of what be- for his work in communications and coding theory. longs in the core of a computer science curriculum. Richard M. Karp received the Turing Award in 1985 To give full airing to the controversy, we invited and is known for his contributions in the design of Dijkstra to engage in a debate with selected col- algorithms. Terry Winograd is well known for his leagues, each of whom would contribute a short early work in artificial intelligence and recent work critique of his position, with Dijkstra himself making in the principles of design. a closing statement. He graciously accepted this offer. I am grateful to these people for participating in We invited people from a variety of specialties, this debate and to Professor Dijkstra for creating the backgrounds, and interpretations to provide their opening.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Program the 34Th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems San Jose Convention Center SCHEDULE of EVENTS
    San Jose, CA, USA May 7 - 12 Conference Program The 34th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems San Jose Convention Center https://chi2016.acm.org SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Saturday, May 7 Sunday, May 8 09:00 - 17:00 Workshops & Symposia 09:00 - 17:00 Workshops & Symposia #chi4good Day of Service Doctoral Consortium 17:00-18:00 Newcomer’s Welcome Reception Monday, May 9 Tuesday, May 10 08:30 - 10:00 Opening Keynote: Dayo Olopade 08:30 - 09:20 Plenary: Kimberly Bryant in 10:00 - 11:30 Coffee Break conversation with Sarah Guthals Video Showcase 09:30 - 10:50 Technical Sessions Student Game Finalist Exhibition 10:50 - 11:30 Coffee Break 11:30 - 12:50 Technical Sessions Interactive Demos Open 12:50 - 14:30 Lunch Break Student Game Finalist Exhibition lunch@chi 11:30 - 12:50 Technical Sessions 14:30 - 15:50 Technical Sessions 12:50 - 14:30 Lunch Break 15:50 - 16:30 Coffee Break Diversity Lunch 16:30 - 17:50 Technical Sessions 14:30 - 15:50 Technical Sessions 18:00 - 19:30 Opening Reception and Exhibit Hall 15:50 - 16:30 Coffee Break Grand Opening Interactive Demos Open Interactivity Demos Open 16:30 - 17:50 Technical Sessions 18:00 - 19:30 Job Fair Art Exhibition Opening Wednesday, May 11 Thursday, May 12 08:30 - 09:20 Plenary: Marissa Mayer in 08:30 - 09:20 Plenary: Alan Kay in conversation conversation with Terry Winograd with Vishal Sikka 09:30 - 10:50 Technical Sessions 09:30 - 10:50 Technical Sessions 10:50 - 11:30 Coffee Break 10:50 - 11:30 Coffee Break Interactive Demos Open Interactive Demos Open 11:30 - 12:50 Technical
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Computing Research and the Universities
    March 1987 Report No. S’I’.IN-W-87- 1160 Strategic Computing Research and the Universities ‘I‘crry A. \Vinogr;ld Department of Computer Science Sktnford llnivcrsity St;wford, CA 94305 Strategic Computing Research and the Universities Terry Winograd Abstract The Strategic Computing Initiative offers the potential of new research funds for university computer science departments. As with all funds, they bring benefits and can have unwanted strings attached. In the case of military funding, the web of attached strings can be subtle and confusing. The goal of this paper is to delineate some of these entanglements and perhaps provide some guidance for loosening and eliminating them. This paper will appear as a chapter in Paul N. Edwards and Richard Gordon, eds., Strategic Computing: Defense Research and High Technology (forthcoming). It has also been issued as Silicon Valley Research Group Working Paper No. 7 by the University of California, Santa Cruz. Strategic Computing Research and the Universities Terry Winograd Introduction The Strategic Computing Initiative offers the potential of new research funds for university computer science departments. As with all funds, they bring benefits and can have unwanted strings attached. In the case of military funding, the web of attached strings can be subtle and confusing. The goal of this paper is to delineate some of these entanglements and perhaps provide some guidance for loosening and eliminating them. The issues are not peculiar to the Strategic Computing Initiative, and it will be useful to point out other examples that illustrate them, especially as they have emerged in the SCI’s successor, the Strategic Defense Initiative.
    [Show full text]
  • What to Read
    Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Working Paper 239 November 1982 What to Read A Biased Guide to Al Literacy for the Beginner Philip E. Agre Abstract: This note tries to provide a quick guide to Al literacy for the beginning Al hacker and for the experienced Al hacker or two whose scholarship isn't what it should be. Most will recognize it as the same old list of classic papers, give or take a few that I feel to be under- or over-rated. It is not guaranteed to be thorough or balanced or anything like that. A.I. Laboratory Working Papers are produced for internal circulation, and may contain information that is, for example, too preliminary or too detailed for formal publication. It is not intended that they should be considered papers to which reference can be made in the literature. Acknowledgements. It was Ken Forbus' idea, and he, Howic Shrobe, D)an Weld, and John Batali read various drafts. Dan Huttenlocher and Tom Knight helped with the speech recognition section. The science fiction section was prepared with the aid of my SF/Al editorial board, consisting of Carl Feynman and David Wallace, and of the ArpaNet SF-Lovers community. Even so, all responsibility rests with me. Introduction I discovered the hard way that it's a good idea for a beginning Al hacker to set about reading everything. But where to start? The purpose of this note is to provide the beginning Al hacker (and the experienced Al hacker or two whose scholarship isn't what it should be) with some starting places that I've found useful in my own reading.
    [Show full text]
  • In Artificial Intelligence Department of Computer Science Stanford University
    Syllabus for Qualifying Exam in Artificial Intelligence Department of Computer Science Stanford University Spring 1980 The syllabus is organized to present a picture of the range of knowledge expected of Ph.D. candidates in Artificial Intelligence, rather than specifying a fixed list of readings. There are a number of different dimensions along which we could divide up the material. The attempt in the earlier version to establish a thorough categorization has been replaced this year with a less formal, more realistic organization. We have listed a number of "topics" with a short paragraph describing the necessary reading for each. These topics overlap in various ways, and reflect idiosyncratic views of how things divide up without any attempt to provide a consistent classification. Hopefully the set of references included with each item will make it possible for students to select a reasonable number of readings which will fill any knowledge gaps. The long reading list is intended as a source of details on individual references, not as a necessary set of things to read. It includes a rough indication of what sort of understanding is most important for each reference whether there is a general perspective, one or more specific concepts, and/or—a body of detail with which students are expected to be fluent. These indications are of course based on the prejudices and peculiarities of the committee making up the syllabus, and should not be taken as representing the views of anyone else (including the members of individual exam committees). Please send any comments or suggestions on the syllabus to Doug Lenat (LENATgSUMEX) .
    [Show full text]
  • What Can You Do with a Web in Your Pocket?
    What can you do with a Web in your Pocket? ¡ ¢ £ Sergey Brin Rajeev Motwani Lawrence Page Terry Winograd Abstract The amount of information available online has grown enormously over the past decade. Fortunately, computing power, disk capacity, and network bandwidth have also increased dramatically. It is currently possible for a university research project to store and process the entire World Wide Web. Since there is a limit on how much text humans can generate, it is plausible that within a few decades one will be able to store and process all the human-generated text on the Web in a shirt pocket. The Web is a very rich and interesting data source. In this paper, we describe the Stanford WebBase, a local repository of a significant portion of the Web. Furthermore, we describe a number of recent ex- periments that leverage the size and the diversity of the WebBase. First, we have largely automated the process of extracting a sizable relation of books (title, author pairs) from hundreds of data sources spread across the World Wide Web using a technique we call Dual Iterative Pattern Relation Extraction. Sec- ond, we have developed a global ranking of Web pages called PageRank based on the link structure of the Web that has properties that are useful for search and navigation. Third, we have used PageRank to develop a novel search engine called Google, which also makes heavy use of anchor text. All of these experiments rely significantly on the size and diversity of the WebBase. 1 Introduction The Web is a very diverse data source combining highly structured HTML, fully general natural language con- tained within the HTML, and embedded images.
    [Show full text]
  • A Procedural Model of Language Understanding
    Four A Procedural Model of Language Understanding Terry Winograd Massachusetts Institute of Technology Much of the research on language is based on an attempt to separateit into distinct components-components that can then be studied independently. Modern syn- tactic theoreticians have been tremendously successful at setting up complexrules which describe in detail the possible orderings of syntactic constituents- at the same time other researchers are trying to define semantic relations and to model the cognitive structures underlying language use. Most attempts to model language understanding on the computer have followed this strategy of dealing with a single component of language. They are constructed primarily as a syntactic program (Kuno, 1965], a model of semantic connections (Schank, 1971), or an attempt to model the memory structures (Quillian 1967) Question-answering systems have had to deal with the entire language process but they have been severely limited in the breadth of their language ability The only attempt to handle large portions of language data was the machine translation and it became soon obvious that the methods were not up to the requirements of the task. Language translation could not be treated as a problem of syntactic rearranging structures and words, because attention to meaning was required even to achieve moderately acceptableresults. One basic limitation of those programs that have tried to handle the problems of meaning is they that have dealt almost exclusively with the understanding of single effort, / , ("JjA&ikJSM>VaK^hi' '■■v. <j_ j^iM6*ii«W*..»*&M**bJ*£k&££* - ' * l^h-rtfl-^. -„., * TERRY WINOGRAD 153 language takes place ,n such an sentences, when in fact almost no human use of we make use of " artificial setting.
    [Show full text]
  • A Timeline of Artificial Intelligence
    A Timeline of Artificial Intelligence by piero scaruffi | www.scaruffi.com All of these events are explained in my book "Intelligence is not Artificial". TM, ®, Copyright © 1996-2019 Piero Scaruffi except pictures. All rights reserved. 1960: Henry Kelley and Arthur Bryson invent backpropagation 1960: Donald Michie's reinforcement-learning system MENACE 1960: Hilary Putnam's Computational Functionalism ("Minds and Machines") 1960: The backpropagation algorithm 1961: Melvin Maron's "Automatic Indexing" 1961: Karl Steinbuch's neural network Lernmatrix 1961: Leonard Scheer's and John Chubbuck's Mod I (1962) and Mod II (1964) 1961: Space General Corporation's lunar explorer 1962: IBM's "Shoebox" for speech recognition 1962: AMF's "VersaTran" robot 1963: John McCarthy moves to Stanford and founds the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (SAIL) 1963: Lawrence Roberts' "Machine Perception of Three Dimensional Solids", the birth of computer vision 1963: Jim Slagle writes a program for symbolic integration (calculus) 1963: Edward Feigenbaum's and Julian Feldman's "Computers and Thought" 1963: Vladimir Vapnik's "support-vector networks" (SVN) 1964: Peter Toma demonstrates the machine-translation system Systran 1965: Irving John Good (Isidore Jacob Gudak) speculates about "ultraintelligent machines" (the "singularity") 1965: The Case Institute of Technology builds the first computer-controlled robotic arm 1965: Ed Feigenbaum's Dendral expert system 1965: Gordon Moore's Law of exponential progress in integrated circuits ("Cramming more components
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Language Understanding Information About the World
    AI Magazine Volume 1 Number 1 (1980) (© AAAI) Al Magazine 5 NdTlJR41 LPNGUDE UNDERZirANDlNG Avron Barr Department of Computer Science Stanford University Palo Alto, CA 94305 This is an excerpt from the Handbook of Artificial natural languages, programming languages can express easily Intelligence, a compendium of hundreds of articles about Al only those concepts that are important in programming: “Do ideas, techniques, and programs being prepared at Stanford this, then do that,” “See whether such and such is true,” etc. University by Al researchers and students from across the The things that can be meant by expressions in a language are country. In addition to articles describing the specifics of referred to as the semantics of the language. various AI programming methods, the Handbook contains The research described in this chapter of the Handbook dozens of overview articles like this one, which attempt togiue concerns the development of computer programs that try to historical and scientific perspective to work in the different deal with the full range of meaning of languages like English. If areas of AI research. computers could understand what people mean when typing This article is from the Handbook chapter on Natural (or speaking) English sentences, they would be easier to use Language Understanding. Cross-references to other articles and would fit more naturally into people’s lives. Furthermore, in the handbook have been removed--terms discussed in more artificial intelligence (AI) researchers hope that learning how to detail elsewhere are italicized. Many people have contributed build computers that can communicate as people do will to this chapter, including especially Anne Gardner, James extend our understanding of the nature of language and of the Davidson, and Terry Winograd.
    [Show full text]