Re: assistive environments

Stephen Eric Van Hoose (vanhos who-is-at rpi.edu)
Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:50:35 -0500

>
>So if we think of a building as a 'machine for living' (FL Wright) and
>these as buildings for collaborative learning/meaning-making, then most of
>the assistive technology will be invisible (in walls, under floors, above
>ceilings, etc.) and the space will be bare and space, the better to make
>the 'place' more flexible and customizable. Obviously there will also have
>to be some contrasting spaces which have fixed 'place' character and a lot
>of rich physical texture to facilitate face-to-face relaxation (like a
>Faculty Common Room, or a cafe, etc.). So I imagine three types of
>space/place: public spaces which are physically bare but can become various
>sorts of workgroup 'places', non-work gathering places with rich visual and
>furnishing character (including vistas or open decks to outside
>landscaping, and maybe some interior landscaping as well), and private
>spaces of two kinds: permanent offices that are physically richly
>customized but with at least one 'bare wall', and temporary offices that
>are more like the public workspaces.

So, this a problem I have, escpeially looking at it from an architectural
standpoint. Personally, and many may agree with me, why would I want to
design a plain, old box. There's no expression involved. There's no "real"
engagement with the place. WHat cues might be there to make somebody want to
engage the space? If you leave a blank wall, sometimes one may not know what
to do with it. Where do they start? So, the only artifact that the learners
have is the laptop computer. That is good, but from what I understand of
cognition in context, much of the learning comes from the physical contact
with the tools of the culture. Fortunately, it's hard to see a culture where
every last function we ever do that we will need to make contact with a
computer somehow. I think that we learn so much more by utilizing the tools
for the task, much like Hutchins' discussion about navigation in the Navy.

Next note:
By concealing the "cabling," one still is setting up a functional
organization to the space. Virtual desks come about arranged in rows and
columns. At least that is what I see. This does not sit well with me.

Diane would probably agree with me by saying that this is designing a
computer room. What are computer rooms anyways? They are bland, boring
environments with computers arranged to fit a preliminary requirement for
wiring layout. Then the only way to escape that environment is to design a
virtual one and "live" there.

It's definitely an elitist environment.

Plus, the idea of these separate spaces that promote social interaction. In
my eyes, this might work, but what happens when you move between those
spaces? What happens to the social interaction then? Do you think these
"blank spaces" would promote a social interaction of some sort? I guess it
may happen when the teacher and the students interact with one another in
learning from the computer.

Next,

>One of the modernist dichotomies built into my vision of a possible future
>above is the separation of work space from relaxation place even within the
>same building. An alternative model is the 'internet cafe' where people can
>socialize, eat, drink, and also 'work' on terminals. I like breaking down
>the work/leisure dichotomy, but I'm not sure how much work I could get done
>in such an environment. I'd like to have places like this as alternative
>spaces to pure-work and pure-leisure places, but I'm not sure they
>represent a general solution.

It would depend on what you do, Jay. Santitation workers don't have this as
an option.
Construction workers, health care workers, any public service occupation; any
civil service job; good grief I dare say there is a teeny portion of

the population who are in a position to choose their work/leisure
locations. Again, this smacks of elitism,w hich i don't call as
irresponsible:
so much as, _given_ the relations between technology and the elite,
>
>

This is so true. It all definitely depends on your choice of work. What
would give the opportunity for those less fortunate to use these new spaces?

One more thing about the blank space issue. In schools, we take into one
environment what we take out of another. The school is the best context for
this concern. We learn about the world within the learning environment,
through its built environment, scoial environment, functional environment
etc., but if it is a school of blank spaces, then we'd expect blank spaces
when we got out and everything would be virtual. (This is where we'd lose
architecture, by creating these virtual realms where each architecture can be
customized to each individual. Therefore, no criticism, no physical change,
etc.)

I think that we behave accordingly to the way our environment is built. The
structure of the environment taps our senses, and we respond to it in one way
or another. WIth no cues, how should one respond? If there is nothing there,
what does one do? Plus, with a blank computer, how would one know they have
access to it for other purposes/functions? To play in it?

Without a strong background in cognition, I find it hard sometimes to respond
to some of the notions presented. I respond clearly from my architectural
background with a basic understanding of how cognition works in culture.

Hope this provokes some more discussion.

-- 
Stephen Van Hoose
5th Year B.A. Architecture Student
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute School of Architecture
Troy, NY
	mail: vanhos who-is-at rpi.edu
	web address: http://www.rpi.edu/~vanhos