The general issue of ontology, that is, how best to structure our concepts for effective computation, leads to the philosophical and fundamental issue of what computing is. In seeking an answer, we explore some well-known areas within computer science.
A current issue within information design today is whether we should focus on designing information or designing interactions (see [2]). In other words, should we design experiences or artifacts? Information design intersects graphics, cognition, communication and computing. Indeed, it is a field about to bloom as we concentrate increasingly on the notion of information.
To get a better grip on the issue, consider the more familiar field of human-computer interaction (HCI). This component field of computer science has struggled over the years to establish a user-centered design framework that considers the needs and tasks of system users (from a process perspective), but yet it cannot—and must not—forsake the challenge of designing artifacts.
This dynamic underlying HCI can be generalized to reflect overall computing. Is it best to view what we are doing as product development or as process facilitation? The issue is a deep philosophical one, categorical ontologies of being on one side, and process philosophies on the other. (Indeed, the latter issue goes all the way back to Aristotle and Heraclites and the wisdom of the venerable Tao Te Ching.) In effect, everything can be viewed as a thing or a process, depending on the perspective we decide to adopt and how we wish to view the phenomenon. The two views are complementary, although each offers a certain take on the issue.
We see this in considering information and cognition. The field of AI was built on the notion of artificial cognition—the processing of conceptual elements, or structural information tasks. This ambition is pursued today in the more trendy field of agent technologies—a nice combination of artifact and process. Indeed, they engage processes that operate on other information artifacts, as does all computing. This ties nicely into the traditional consideration of specifications, both structural and functional.
It all comes back to ontology and the core nature of information. Ontology is the way we carve up reality in order to understand and process it. Information, still a vague and generally misunderstood concept, is the product of that carving. It is the model we create of the world—in all its representational complexity. It is the model we ascribe to in computing; the structure we create in order to make sense of the world and communicate among ourselves. Information, we must realize, is functional (it has its purpose), artificial (man-made), and designed (created through specific choices).
Why is this important? Why is it more than just academic, more than merely an interesting philosophical issue? The crux of the matter is we are moving away, rapidly and inexorably, from human computing. Computing is spilling out from the confines of user-centeredness from its human focus.
What’s this? A scenario of computers running amuck? That’s not the intent, although the possibility is certainly becoming ever more real, as futurists like Bill Joy or Ray Kurzweil have warned.
A new perspective on computing is needed, one that re-centers on processes rather than tasks; one that examines the nature of information more closely. Continuing references to information theory from mid-century engineering starkly show how ancient we are in this respect.
The land of agents illustrates the trend well. Agents act on behalf of humans, but also interact with humans and other agents. A program that initiates a sell of a given stock upon a certain condition acts on behalf of humans but also within a perhaps unforeseen set of circumstances that go beyond human foresight—in effect, a context that is larger than the human one.
U.S.-based HCI activities have yet to recognize this transformation within computing [1], but must do so sooner or later as computing continues to expand beyond its traditional user-centered limitations.
A new perspective on computing is needed, one that re-centers on processes rather than tasks; one that examines the nature of information more closely. Continuing references to information theory from mid-century engineering starkly show how ancient we are in this respect.
It is important to really come to grips with information architecture, not in terms of system efficiencies or Web site navigation, but of designing information for use in computing, communication, and just plain enjoyment within entertainment and the arts.
Information is malleable. Ontologies are man-made frameworks. Computing does not merely process information, it commits to a certain representation of information. There is active design going on within this process.
Information is structure; it is organization. Books and documents collect and archive that knowledge for later use by others. But yet, the structural view remains diffuse—there is a continuum from data and information to knowledge and even wisdom, but no general scientific agreement on what is what.
These issues become very real as soon as we enter applied domains like e-learning, for instance. We do design online learning materials for processing at a distance by interested and goal-oriented students. But can we define the learnability of these materials? Or are we putting too much emphasis on the artifact dimension rather than the process one in which learning is traditionally viewed? Sadly enough, learning theory itself is sorely lacking within the current field of instructional design.
So, the issues continue to draw our attention, even though our just-get-it-done attitude generally prevails and we do indeed produce respectable materials and programs, albeit without often understanding why or how they might have been better.
The question is will information design in the end continue to help us come to grips with the nature of information—and by extension, with the nature of computing. The rapid development of agents and the impending point at which progress reaches beyond our ability to keep up with it, brings us face-to-face with the more global environment of computing within its new context beyond the human one. This will revolutionize HCI as well as computer science. The new face of computing remains to be drawn. Ontology is the key to this task, but it needs to reach deep into philosophy, not just parade around the square.
Join the Discussion (0)
Become a Member or Sign In to Post a Comment