Understanding Web 2.0 / 3.0 with the context of Mobile Device technologies, with particular interest in their use and application in public libraries.
Introduction:
(“Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards. - Aldous Huxley”)
The telephone was invented in 1876, well over a century ago. It seems both fitting and peculiar to think that a mobile phone has progressed so far since then that using it to make a telephone call is just one of the many tasks a smart phone can perform.
A study of American smart phone users (Smith, 2011) measured what activities people used their phones for, aside from actions such as ‘pretending to play’ with them so to not be disturbed, the survey grouped their activities under 15 categories, for example send/receive email, access social media website, or post photo or video online. This interaction with the internet is a prime example of Web 2.0 and the internet ‘culture of contribution’ (Jones, 2008).
Web 2.0 is also considered more of ‘a marketing term’ (Jones, 2008) for the second wave of the internet, not an upgrade to the system just a different approach to how we interact with that internet. With that in mind, in this essay I will hope to explore the functions of smart phones, how these features can be utilised in applications and whether the world of Web 2.0 has a place with library services.
Mobile Phones and the Internet:
Smart phones can access the internet in one of two ways, either through connecting to local WiFi networks or using data networks data allowance, users will often find themselves working out which is the best option, i.e. the public WiFi in Westminster Libraries is slow but would not use up data allowance. The Skype online calling and video call service, until recently, did not allow their service to be run with network data (Froehlich, 2011) citing strains on the program, with competition from similar services, such as Tango (TangoMe, 2011), Skype has backed down and now offers the service on 3G platforms. There are also users who do not have unlimited data plans, which limits the extent they can browse over their data network. A method for getting around internet access would be to cache information while at a WiFi hotspot and refer to it later, but is not ideal for information you need generated at a later late.
Features of a smart device:
Most smart devices have the following features which can be taken advantage of by app developers as well as the user; multi-touch screens, internet access, multimedia support (allowing video play back, for example), sensors and accelerometers, compass/location awareness/GPS positioning, access to personal contacts/calendar/email, Bluetooth, microphone and camera (Froehlich, 2011).
However, the key aspect of smart phones is that they are context aware (Berndt, 2008), meaning that a mobile device can work out where it is (through GPS positioning), which direction it is being held and which direction it is moving (internal compass, gyros and accelerometers) and Android devices boast having ambient light sensors (Froehlich, 2011) that automatically respond to changing changing light factors to adjust screen brightness accordingly.
Multi-touch was introduced from iPhone 3.0, it allows the phone to distinguish between a single finger and several, an extra level of sensitivity which enables the phone to recognise more complex gestures such pinching or stretching to zoom, flicks to quickly scroll and dragging (Breen, 2011).
GPS allows a mobile device to listen to satellites, which are synchronised to an atomic clock to emit time encoded signals; the smart phone can triangulate these signals to position itself on a map. With three satellites a location on the surface can be pinpointed, if the receiver is above ground then a fourth is used to calculate altitude, in extreme cases when there is too much interference (noise) then a position cannot be calculated at all. Additionally, repeated or extended use will rapidly reduce the battery life as the device’s processer attempts to compute. A more battery friendly method, but less accurate, would be measuring position through overlapping WiFi points, such as the BT Openzone project which aims to provide useable hotspots across the country.
A smart phone which is able to locate itself is a great benefit for marketers (Froehlich, 2011) who could target a user with local adverts. Another example of a phone’s native feature being used creatively would be WideNoise (WideTag, 2011) which can utilise the microphone to measure decibel levels, accessing core features such as the microphone, without which telephone calls would be redundant, but for use in an app.
Another example uses the camera function, Dutch magazine Linda has used the app Layar Vision which ‘allows us to view digital information superimposed onto reality’ (Layar, 2012). Layering digital information over real images is an example of Augmented Reality, a concept that has been around since the 70s but has come into focus today with ready access to portable processing power (Buckley, 2006).
Limitations of a smart device:
There are some limitations to mobile technology, and as mentioned earlier, Moore’s Law is often cited. For example, while a phone could locate itself to being at a famous landmark because GPS places it in the vicinity, they currently do not have the computing power which would enable it to recognise if the user took a picture of it. Jonathan Koomey of Stanford University suggests a law ‘deeper than Moore’s’ (Economist, 2011)which places the trend of energy-efficiency of computers as doubling every 1.6 years, which would lower the phone’s requirements on the battery and improving these technology issues. Not an outright solution but progression and computer processor technology will develop in time according to Moore’s Law.
One limitation of mobile devices, one which Moore’s Law will not aid with is, would be when internet access cannot be gained, such as in a tunnel or on the London Underground where there are no WiFi hotspots (although BT Openzone is aiming to have coverage by the Olympics (BBC, 2011)) and phone signals are also unavailable therefore no network data.
Finally, a practical limitation is size of the screen, which is usually less than 5 inches wide. The first Android device (T-Mobile G1) had a 3.2 inch screen and a resolution of 320x480 pixels (Froehlich, 2011), the upper end of screens, such as HTC EVO or iPhone, have screens 4.3 and 4.5 inches respectively (800x480 and 960x640 resolution sizes). It is unlikely that phones will exceed this as users still wish for a device to fit in a pocket. There will be larger phones than this, but trends suggest that most phones will fall under an average size between 3 to 5 inches and any larger (or smaller) than this is an anomaly and usually part of a ‘fashion phone’ (Hjerde, 2009).
Berndt (2008) also mentions screen size and the desire for technology that is portable, which is not affected by the 18 month rule, although products such as the Samsung Galaxy Skin (Mezzofiore, 2011) or the Nokia Human Form (Henry, 2011) are providing a start. Rather than seeing screen size as a limitation, these devices are being modified for our behaviour. Additionally, sales of tablet devices are increasing which is attracting the demographic those outside of the ‘digital native’ age who enjoy the technology but prefer a larger screen, it isn’t impossible to see this technology upgrade to tablet devices.
Publishing Apps online:
As for installing apps on smart phones, there are two categories: the first are native apps which are downloaded from a third party such as the App Store or the Android Market, and there are non-native apps, which are accessed online and installed on the phone through a connected computer or directly onto the phone through connecting to WiFi or data network access (O’Rouke, 2011). The disadvantages to non-native applications are that the user needs an internet connection to launch the app each time, it is given restricted access to device features (placed in ‘the security sandbox’ (O’Rouke, 2011)) and it is harder for users to stumble on your app because they aren’t sold by the big third parties.
When published natively the device can be searched for in an app market, has an icon dedicated to it in the device menu and does not require the internet to run the application (the app might have a dependence on the internet for its content but does not require a connection to launch). Additionally, as the app is given full access to the mobile’s features there is better running performance than on a browser due to better access to the hardware allowing for faster computation and graphics rendering. The disadvantages include developer fees, digital certificates and third party control over the availability of the application (O’Rouke, 2011).
Applications of mobile apps in Libraries:
So far we have seen how Web 2.0 is about contribution to the internet, app development is just that, taking the fundamental features of mobile phones and recreating them into something new. We have also seen how screen size will not be affected by Moore’s Law but processing power will be, allowing more complicated tasks to be performed on a hand-sized device. We know that mobiles connect to the internet through WiFi connections or via data networks (provided the user has an unlimited data plan). With regard to apps, we can see how once ordinary features of phones such as microphones or cameras can be adapted and then those apps can either be sold through app stores and markets or published non-natively online.
Now I would like to see if there is a market in public libraries for apps. The thought is interesting but there are many pitfalls. When designing an app, O’Rourke (2011) warns against providing the same desktop website but for a smaller screen and performing irrelevant tasks.
City University Library mobile app is available on Android, BlackBerry, iPhone and accessible by ‘the universal version via your mobile browser’ (City University, 2011) and therefore I do not necessarily need the app to access the same information. Of course, this is a University library, where the students are far more likely to have smart phones (Ofcom places the number of teenagers with smart phones at 47% and adults at 27%).
However, in public libraries, while a mobile app might encourage young people and teenagers to use library services, such an app may be alienating for the majority of public library users, whose demographic is usually the elderly and disabled, working professionals with children, and the unemployed or poorly waged, for whom a smart phone is either a luxury or an intimidating piece of technology. These users rely on the library still being here, whether it is access to free computers or as a source for local information, for example at just my library within Westminster City Council there are elderly and disabled information points, healthcare information and resources and information about childcare services.
Another aspect of app design which O’Rourke (2011) warns about is attempting too much, creating a ‘cluttered and noisy interface’ – which, if I attempted to cater for all of the above, it would be. Instead, I would like to focus on how using elements of Augmented Reality could benefit the blind and deaf members of the community who use library services.
It might be ambitious to think of smart screen technology being used for the blind in such a way, but the technology is being developed. Nuance Communications (2011) has developed TALKS&ZOOMS app which ‘converts displayed text into highly intelligible speech and/or large print’, this is done by exploring the phone’s surface with a finger until the command you are looking for is read out and can be tapped. There is also the Sandero Group (2011), which has developed a GPS system that informs the user aurally where they are and what local points of interest are around the user just by shaking the device. Finally, in development, is Disney’s TeslaTouch (2011), which converts images into electrical signals that could be ‘felt’ be a user, as an example it would allow a user to feel the surface of a wall just from the image.
Presently, Westminster City Council offers a talking newspaper service and within the libraries are a small range of large print and audiobook titles. The audiobooks are often abridged and large print is aimed for the elderly whose sight is failing and does not cater for the tastes of partially sighted younger readers. My attempt at a library app would use augmented reality to translate e-books directly to audio or even give the feeling of Braille on the screen. I believe that this would allow public libraries to continue to offer services to the disabled in the modern era of mobile technologies
References:
Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2011) Americans and Their Cell Phones. [online] Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Cell-Phones/Key-Findings.aspx [Accessed: 28th November 2011]
Jones, B. (ed.) (2008) Web 2.0 Heroes, ‘Bob Brewin & Tim Bray: Sun Microsystem’s.’ Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing Inc.
Berndt, H. (2008) Towards 4G mobile technologies : services with initiative. Chichester: John Wiley & sons Ltd.
Jones, B. (ed.) (2008) Web 2.0 Heroes, ‘Garrett Camp: StumbleUpon.’ Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing Inc.
Froehlich, C. (2011) Android App Development. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Breen, C. (2011) The iPhone Pocket Guide (5th ed). Berkeley: Peachpit Press.
WideTag. (2011) WideNoise 3.0 Sound Calibrator. [online] Available at: http://www.widetag.com/widenoise/ [Accessed 2nd December 2011]
TangoMe. (2011) Tango Video Calls for iPhone 3GS. [online] Available at: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tango-video-calls/id372513032?mt=8 [Accessed: 28th December 2011]
Layar. (2012) LayarVision. [online] Available at: http://layar.com/browser/info/ [Accessed: 2nd January 2012]
Buckley, P. and Clark, D. (2005) The Internet: All you need to know, from broadband to blogs.(11th ed.) London: Rough Guides Ltd.
The Economist. (2011) A deeper law than Moore’s? [online] Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/21531350 [Accessed: 30th November 2011]
BBC (2011) Tube wi-fi internet plan progresses despite security fears.[online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12856289 [Accessed: 2nd January 2011]
O’Rouke, J. (2011) Flash Mobile Application Development. Hoboken: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hjerde, M. (2009) Mobile screen size trends. [online] Available at: http://sender11.typepad.com/sender11/2008/04/mobile-screen-s.html [Accessed 12th December 2011]
Mezzofiore, G. (2011) Flexible Samsung Phone to be issued in 2012. [online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8790189/Flexible-Samsung-phone-to-be-issued-in-2012.html [Accessed: 28th November 2011]
Henry, C. (2011) In Focus: The Nokia Human Form. [online] Available at: http://nokiaconnects.com/2011/11/15/in-focus-the-nokia-human-form/ [Accessed: 28th November 2011]
Ofcom. (2011) A nation addicted to smartphones. [online] Available at: http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2011/08/04/a-nation-addicted-to-smartphones/ [Accessed: 12th December 2011]
City University London (2011) Libguides at City University. [online] http://libguides.city.ac.uk/content.php?pid=234596&sid=2157583 [Accessed: 2nd January 2011]
Nuance Communications. (2011) Screen Reader and Screen Magnifier. [online] Available at: http://www.nuance.com/for-individuals/by-solution/talks-zooms/index.htm [Accessed: 3rd December 2011]
Sendero Group. (2011) GPS for the blind. [online] Available at: http://www.senderogroup.com/ [Accessed: 3rd December 2011]
Disney Research. (2011)TeslaTouch. [online] Available at: http://www.disneyresearch.com/research/projects/hci_teslatouch_drp.htm [Accessed: 3rd December 2011]
Blog URL : http://teapotverseslife.blogspot.com/
