Spatial Web and Synchronisation
I read recently about the Spatial Web, or Web 3.0. It’s the spatial version of the internet and coincidentally it’s a similar concept to Inclr’s Cyberspace. The articles I read didn’t seem to delve too much into details though. It talked about how the spatial web would be different and much more integrated into the physical world. Most of the points seemed to assume perfect synchronicity with the real world. Whilst this may eventuate in the near future, I feel that it’s possibly the wrong idea. I don’t personally think the Spatial Web necessarily requires perfect synchronisation. Even without synchronisation, a 3d Internet has uses of it’s own. Here’s what I think:We aren’t always connected, and nor do we want to be. With today’s privacy concerns, data capturing is a sensitive topic. We might one day have total control over what gets tracked or not. Inclr is all about this kind of thing — our data is totally offline first for a reason, your data is yours, literally, not figuratively. If Spatial Web requires constant two way data input, then it would stop and spurt when the users refuse to be tracked and disconnect. There must be more advantages to what a Spatial Web would offer, otherwise why create it?
Their version also assumes some kind of ubiquitous digital overlay over the physical environment. However getting perfect digital overlays isn’t always possible. Whilst AR technology will keep improving, there will always be instances where technology fails in real world scenarios. Further even if the tech doesn’t fail, would we always want the tech switched on? The Apple Watch for example, whilst providing more intimate notifications, not all of us want constant notifications. In the same way, id probably be turning AR glasses off or not wearing them at all if I simply wanted to enjoy the sun. If Spatial Web only relies on some kind of overlay, then it fails when I don’t wear it.
Spatial Web or Inclr Cyberspace is a concept, and it should live within our minds and hearts even when it is switched off. It isn’t secondary to the physical world, it has it’s own will. That is why Inclr focuses on the visual, spatial, graphics and interaction. Each inclr is designed to feel real. The symbiosis then switches — inclrs create a relationship with the physical world, not a reliance on it. So the experience gets more interesting because there’s more to play with.
The experience of a 3D version of the internet is an experience in and of itself. Instead of focusing on how useful spatial overlays would be, I’d rather they talk about the experiential aspects of spatial digital objects. How does a digital object feel real without skeuomorphism? Also, our minds are arguably three dimensional, we were never binary. Memory cues revolve around the feeling of a moment in time, and this is often incredibly spatial. If anything, the Spatial Web simply gets closer to how we think, how our brains work. Whether it’s digital or physical, none of that matters. What matters is how we perceive and remember whatever we experience, at whatever the moment in time.
The term Spatial Web currently belongs in the tech world, so I don’t blame them for not thinking of data as experiential. But as an architect, most things are experiential for me, data included.
