Urban5

Urban5​ ​was​ ​designed​ ​by​ ​Nicholas​ ​Negroponte​ ​and​ ​MIT’s​ ​Architecture​ ​Machine​ ​Group​ ​to​ ​“study the​ ​desirability​ ​and​ ​feasibility​ ​of​ ​conversing​ ​with​ ​a​ ​machine​ ​about​ ​environmental​ ​design project…​ ​using​ ​the​ ​computer​ ​as​ ​an​ ​objective​ ​mirror​ ​of​ ​the​ ​user’s​ ​own​ ​design​ ​criteria​ ​and​ ​to​ ​form decisions;​ ​reflecting​ ​formed​ ​from​ ​a​ ​larger​ ​information​ ​base​ ​than​ ​the​ ​user’s​ ​personal​ ​experience.” (Negroponte,​ ​1970)​ ​It​ ​achieved​ ​this​ ​through​ ​the​ ​use​ ​of​ ​“instructions”​ ​and​ ​“two​ ​languages…: graphic​ ​language​ ​and​ ​English​ ​language.​ ​The​ ​graphic​ ​language​ ​[used]​ ​the​ ​abstract representation​ ​of​ ​cubes​ ​(nouns).​ ​The​ ​English​ ​language​ ​was​ ​text​ ​appearing​ ​on​ ​the​ ​screen (verbs).”​ ​(​Pertigkiozoglou​,​ ​2017)​ ​Urban5​ ​provides​ ​an​ ​example​ ​of​ ​how​ ​an​ ​understanding​ ​of​ ​an interface​ ​affects​ ​the​ ​quality​ ​of​ ​exchanges​ ​for​ ​that​ ​specific​ conversational interface.

Urban5

Connection

By​ ​establishing​ ​a​ ​common​ ​“environment​ ​and​ ​mindset,”​ ​(Dubberly​ ​&​ ​Pangaro,​ ​2009)​ ​a conversational​ ​interface​ ​provides​ ​a​ ​context​ ​and​ ​language​ ​for​ ​the​ ​successful​ ​exchange​ ​of “thoughts​ ​and​ ​words.”​ ​(OED​ ​Online,​ ​2017)​ ​​​Urban5​ ​resolved​ ​this​ ​through​ ​clear​ ​“instructions.” Through​ ​these​ ​instructions,​ ​users​ ​became​ ​aware​ ​of​ ​the​ ​restrictions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​application​ ​and​ ​their purpose​ ​within​ ​the​ ​application. Well designed instruction will be imperative to ensure a user understands the capabilities of any agent I design over this year.

By​ ​establishing​ ​a​ ​“shared​ ​language,”​ ​(Dubberly​ ​&​ ​Pangaro,​ ​2009)​ ​conversational​ ​interfaces provide​ ​users​ ​the​ ​understanding​ ​for​ ​an​ ​effective​ ​exchange​ ​of​ ​“thoughts​ ​and​ ​words.”​ ​(OED Online,​ ​2017)​ ​Urban5​ ​again​ ​provides​ ​a​ ​successful​ ​example,​ ​but​ ​this​ ​time​ ​for​ ​the​ ​creation​ ​of​ ​an environment​ ​for​ ​“[the]​ ​use​ ​of​ ​shared​ ​language.”​ ​(Dubberly​ ​&​ ​Pangaro,​ ​2009)​ ​It’s​ ​main​ ​mode​ ​of manipulation​ ​was​ ​a​ ​block​ ​and​ ​because​ ​users​ ​and​ ​the​ ​interface​ ​shared​ ​an​ ​understanding​ ​of​ ​a block​ ​and​ ​its​ ​capabilities​ ​within​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​a​ ​“shared​ ​language”​ ​(Dubberly​ ​&​ ​Pangaro, 2009)​ ​was​ ​established.​ The integration of objects, terms, language that is familiar to the couple will allow the creation of a “shared language” between a human and artificial agent.