Critic Review: Xerox PARC — Tab, Pad, Liveboard
Over the past 30 years, various ubiquitous computing systems have been developed. It is spectacular to look back and evaluate how far we have come, and how far we have yet to go when it comes to developments in technology. In this post, we will learn about the Xerox PARC Tab, Pad, and Liveboard. These three systems were created with three purposes, all differing slightly.
In Ubiquitous Computing Fundamentals, edited by John Krumm, we learn that the traditional units of measurement for Tabs, Pads, and Liveboards were most likely derived from the different uses of things from human perspective. These measurements include yard-scale, foot-sized, and inch-scale:
“Yard-scale measurements are typically used to measure objects around us that are large and immovable. Foot-sized objects can be held in your hands and carried, but are large enough that they are not likely to be carried with us at all times. However, inch-scale objects can fit in a pocket and be forgotten about while carrying out other unrelated daily activities” (Krumm, p. 6).
In summary, these measurements represent three different scales of human interaction, and define scale transitions for how we interact as humans with the objects around us.
Profile:
Tab — The Xerox ParcTab is an inch-scale computer communicating using diffuse infrared signalling; an infrared transceiver basestation installed in the ceiling of each room comprising the ubicomp environment. Also called “a palm-sized computer,” this project served as a preliminary testbed for ubicomp. It was designed to help office workers increase productivity by incorporating a passive stylus to touch the screen and three mechanical buttons that fall beneath the fingers of the same hand that holds the tab, allowing one-handed use. The ParcTab, the great-grandfather to the Apple iPhone, served as “a simple Personal Information Manager” (Krumm, p. 9). It was used as the first wireless pocket email readers that could also edit documents stored on the network. In addition to those capabilities, it could control the thermostat for any given room.
Pad — The Xerox ParcPad can be thought of as a great-grandfather to the Apple iPad. The ParcTab device was designed to be operated at much lower power and more suited to the small battery used by the inch-scale ParcTab device, which is why infrared was used in the Tabs. The ParcPad employed a similar design approach using a low-bandwidth protocol across a radio link, communicating with a basestation. At the foot-scale, a book has no interactive capability, but the ParcPad had the potential to deliver thousands of books across the network and could support electronic markup through its pen interface.
Liveboard — The Xerox Liveboard was designed around standard computers. They incorporated much larger pen-based displays and pen-based input. Liveboard employed an infrared pen that was tracked across its screen using a four-quadrant infrared sensor mounted in the optical path behind the screen. With the Liveboard, we had the capabilities of a traditional workstation at the time, at a much more “mobile” level. A regular whiteboard or chalkboard allows someone to wrote notes that can be captured by the class, however, Liveboard provides this as a baseline capability. It adds the option of using the pen-based markup to annotate and add graphical representation to the board.
After reviewing the three Xerox ubicomp systems briefly, we can concur that Tabs, Pads, and Liveboards were designed to replace equivalent objects in the workplace by offering similar physical affordances and an equally important goal was to enhance their capabilities relative to the original technological use in the workplace.
Critique:
It’s very obviously to me as a reader that the three Xerox ubicomp systems: Tab, Pad, and Liveboard, are very early derivations of the current technologies we use. Those being, phones, laptops/tablets, and smart boards. The possibility of capabilities thought of when implementing the Xerox systems decades ago, sparked the development and production of those technologies in today’s world. It may seem obvious, but I’ve personally never used a Xerox ParcTab, Pad, or Liveboard. The reason for this, other than living in a completely different generation of time, is that because of those systems we have what we use today at our disposal.
The systems themselves have developed exponentially over the years, but so has the way we use them. Instead of having a basestation to use a single product, we can connect our current devices to a Wi-Fi network that is based on a massively scaled server that offers connection remotely and physically wherever we are. Because of these developments, we have been able to master the ability to work from home. My current job uses a virtual desktop to work from home; however, my previous job relied on a Virtual Private Network to connect to the company’s systems. Without this capability, in order for me to productively work, I’d have to go to my office and connect to the Wi-Fi wirelessly or not. In today’s age, I’m able to be at my home, simply connecting to our network remotely. These systems have proven to be a massive part of the production of current systems and have increased work-output and productivity.
What are your thoughts?
