We spend a great deal of time talking about context, but rarely use models to define elements of it. This particularly true when talking about mobile devices and accounts for the hit-and-miss quality of most apps available on the market. It is one thing to design a usable app that conforms to human factors and cognitive requirements, but it is quite another to design a stage in an environment, or an environment itself, when there are innumerable semi-autonomous devices mediating an swirl of information. Consequently, it makes sense for us to think about how we structure context so that we can determine what exactly we can affect.
1. Physical Context
From the computational side of things, physical context refers to the notion of imbuing devices with a sense of “place.” In other words, devices can distinguish the environments in which they “live” at any given moment and react to them. But this is much more difficult than it at first appears. Mapping out longitude and latitude is one thing, but reacting to features (political, natural, social, etc.) is much more problematic. Getting beyond demarcation of identifiable borders and structures, means coming to grips with place (as opposed to space). That in turns having to be “aware” on some level.
Think of a mall. Within that mall are hundreds of stores, each with hundreds of devices and/or nodes of information. The device now has to decode what information is most relevant to itself, what information is most relevant to the user and how it will deliver that information. Returning to the mall example, we have to think about a host of things in order to make any app relevant. What competing retailer apps get precedence over others? When you receive an offer from one store, will the device “tell” other retailers in order to generate real-time counter offers? When someone else is hold your device for you (say, while trying on clothing but needing to set the iPad aside), how will the device know what incoming content is private and what is public? How will the device communicate with a location or with other devices as it moves throughout the mall?
2. Device Context
Just as various kinds of sensory apparatus (GPS-receivers, proximity sensors, etc.) are the means by which mobile devices will become geographically aware, another class of sensors makes it possible for devices to become aware of each other. There is a fundamental difference between the ability to transmit data between devices and the ability (and desire) of devices to discover each other. And this presents a series of problems that are different in nature than those of physical context. Because this deals with choices of communication.
We are on the verge of existing in a world with zero-infrastructure networks that can spring up anywhere, anytime. That means that devices are in a potentially constant state of discovery. Returning to the mall for a moment, imagine that your are with a friend whose device is communicating with yours. In there mall are a couple of thousand devices, all of which are discovering each other. What happens now? Assuming we’ve dealt with the problem of my mobile phone communicating with my friend’s phone while blocking out the other 2000 devices, we still have several thousand potentially “identities” that may have useful information for us. How do we select how to manage that without devoting a ridiculous amount of time to setting up the hundreds of variables that shape what we do and don’t want at any given time? And all this is couched in a neat little world defined within a single, bounded geographical unit. So understanding device context is as important as understanding physical context.
3. Information Context
This is the realm of information architecture, plain and simple. But with the advent of pervasive mobile, this topic is becoming even more complex. Specifically, data no longer resides, literally or figuratively, “in” our computers. Our devices are extensions of the cloud and exist as something akin to perceptual prostheses. They exist to manipulate data in the same way a joy stick allows us to handle the arms of robot in a factory. And this is important because it reflects a shift in how we think about and use information because all information (and the aps that carry that information) are transitory and by and large public.
This changes the nature of what the device has to actually be. Storage issues are essentially removed from the equation. Content can leap from place to place and device to device in an instant. All content will be customizable and reflect the human-application interaction rather than shaping it. This leads to the point that devices, and the people who use them, will find themselves in the 4th kind of context of social interaction, with all its peculiarities and contingencies. Just as our behavior and worldview shapes and is shaped by the moment in which we find ourselves, so too will our apps and information need to adapt to the moment. In other words, devices will need to be more human.
4. Socio-Cultural Context
The whole humankind is riven with contrasting practices, cultures, tongues, traditions and world views. A cultural context may exist on levels as diverse as a workplace, a family, a building, a city, a county, a state, a nation, a continent, a hemisphere etc. A cultural context provides a shared understanding of meaning provides a framework for what “works” in the world. It is what helps you recognize “your kind” in all senses of the word.
And it is at the point of socio-cultural understanding where gain a better perspective on what will and will not be accepted in the mobile universe. We need to understand the essence behind the veil of design and usage to uncover meaning. Take the beer pouring app as an example. Here we have a simple app that mimics the pouring of a beer when you tilt your device. On the surface it has little relevance to our daily lives. It serves no direct function and yet it has been tremendously successful because of the cultural needs it to which it speaks – workplace breaks from the mundane, the ability to show off the newest thing, male-to-male pair bonding, etc. It’s absurdity is precisely what makes it relevant. But in another context, say Saudi Arabia, the context shifts and meaning change to fit that particular milieu.
The nature of our successes lies in understanding the reasons behind our beliefs and actions, in the symbolic exchanges we are part of and our abilities to code and decode those symbolic exchanges. The nature of our mistakes essentially lie in a lack of comprehension. It leads to UI and app development that speak to a minority of the population even as they try to sell to the masses. Without understand the underlying epistemological constructs of a group (or more accurately, a mix of often associated groups at different points of interaction and interpretation) then we miss opportunities.
So why does any of this matter? It matters because good design and messaging are increasingly difficult to master. Our great technological leaps forward have also produced more complexity, which in turn leads to a greater need to make sense of what is “going on” in the broadest sense of the term when it comes to gathering insights and translating them into design and business applications. Without a means by which to categorize context, we can’t isolate those things that matter most. And we miss enormous opportunities.