geoblog report

8/14/2019 GeoBlog Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/geoblog-report 1/155

CONTENTS

Project Description.................................................................................................... .......2

Project Background.............................................................................................. ............4Description of System Components...............................................................................10

Description of System Components –Access Rights and Profile Generation..................11

Description of System Components –Content Contribution and Digital

Annotation/Description of the Contributed Content.......................................................17

Digital Annotation of Space – Attaching Digital Content to Physical Locale, Digital

Annotation of Space.......................................................................................................27

Digital Annotation of Space – Geotaggable Space and Dimensionality..........................45

Description of System Components – Location-based Retrieval of Contributed Digital

Content..........................................................................................................................59

Geo-Blog Technical Implementation – Geographic Description of Space.......................61

Data Tables – Description of Data sets and Relations....................................................65

GEOblog - Future Directions - Adoptability and Expansion............................................78

GEOblog – Future Directions - Improvement of Locationing functionality......................82

GEOblog – Future Directions – Further Enhancement of User Experience, Benefiting

from the Implemented technological platform...............................................................84

GEOblog – Future Directions – Cross Platform Deployablity of the System....................91

Moving Forward - Post-Implimentation Longitudinal User-Study...................................92

Appendix A- Post-implementation User Study-Online Questionnaire...........................100

Appendix B - Post-implementation User Study-Geo-tagging Experiment Using Zone Tool

to Associate Digital content to Physical Localities.......................................................113

1 |G E O - B L O G R E P O R T



PROJECT DESCRIPTION

GEOblog is a web-based platform that allows people to annotate the space, through geo-tagging and

sharing user generated content or, in other words, placing digital content over spatial zones that can be

retrieved by others based on their real-time sensed location by the system. The platform has been

implemented for MIT campus and is open to MIT community for the content contribution part and open to

general public as a location-sensitive content retrieval/viewing online service.

GEOblog has been developed in MIT SENSEable City Lab. It builds on previous research projects at the lab

focused on providing location-based services on MIT campus. The MIT campus is unique in that over 4000

Wi-Fi access points were installed throughout it (for comparison, city-wide Wi-Fi systems often have

hundreds). This allows Wi-Fi-enabled devices to calculate their location to a high degree of accuracy

(several feet) indoors without as opposed to GPS locationing system that do not work indoors or anywhere

that there is no clear view of the sky.

As an architect/urban designer both by education and profession, I got involved in the project at its initial

conceptual design phase, and in close collaboration with a programmer, I tried to implement a set of

criteria - devised through my theoretical inquiry into techniques of conceptualization, design,

representation and implementation of interactive spaces and responsive environments - in the design of

the interaction scenarios that to my mind can enhance the spatial perception of the individuals that are

occupying the digitally augmented space.

GEOblog offers the MIT community and campus visitors the distinguishing potentials for creating and

benefiting from a grasping sense of place, social capital, and collaborative content generation in the form

of geo-tagged digital narratives which will result in establishment of a dynamic and democratic public

sphere , allowing users to explore the campus as a spatial collaborative blog open to personal stories, self-

expressions, and shared memories, showcasing the institute's unique and pervasive system of wireless

technologies as well as institute's invaluable culture of collaboration, communication, companionship and

compassion...




Aside from added value of over laying a digital spatial narrative and enhancement of spatial perception of

the individuals who use the platform to contribute their stories or retrieve others, the follow-up analysis of

how the system is perceived and received by the community can help to study patterns of inhabitation of

the physical space and its relation to the manner that the augmented digital layer is populated throughtime. Also, how the digital augmentation of space is perceived by individuals that occupy that space and

how it can change the meaning of location, spatial zones and their boundary conditions as well as concept

of temporality in the mind of these individuals?




PROJECT BACKGROUND

Initially proposed by the MIT Museum, the project was conceptualized as a location-based storytelling

research project called Museum Without Walls (MWOW). The original idea was that in a period that is

hyped with enthusiasm for geographic information systems and electronic devices, from MapQuest and

Google Earth to GPS locationing technology, “there is an extraordinary interest in the ways locative

technologies can link digital information to the physical world. Just as a museum curator puts a label next

to an artifact on display in order to help tell a story, the new technologies allow for similar sorts of tagging

of the spaces outside the gallery walls.”1 If implemented, the platform would “provide a new model for

cultural exchange about science and society.”2

The project proposed a system for a “rich repository of digital information and stories(indexed by location,

time and thematically) “ offered by institute itself or created by individuals under close supervision of an

institutional editorial board that can then be placed over or attached to different spatial content holders all

around the campus and could be retrieved by those whose location was being sensed in real-time by the

implemented location-sensing component of the project.

The project had a focus on "in situ", or in place experience of a digital narrative whose various

components were attached to different locations on the campus, whereas the individual could retrieve

them while physically present within a specific place with a hand-held device that through location sensing

technology is aware of its real-time location and as a result of the location of the individual that is holding

the device.

As far as the location sensing technology was concerned, while acknowledging the shortcomings of GPS

based location sensing systems that only work outdoors and also experience a drastic decrease in level of

their accuracy of determining the real-time location of mobile entities carrying a GPS-enabled device in

built areas with high density, the project proposed the use of Wi-Fi base location sensing system for indoor

parts of the campus to expand the location-sensitivity of the system to indoors as well as outdoors. The

1 May 3, 2006 version of Project Overview, retrieved from http://museum.mit.edu/mwow/files/handouts/2006-05-03-

project-overview.pdf/view2 Ibid.4 |G E O - B L O G R E P O R T



With such proposal on the table, MIT SenseAble City Lab was approached by the museum for further

design development and also implementation of a working prototype on a handheld device, as well as full-

scale implementation of the system campus wide as the final stage of the proposed project.

* Nokia N800 was the proposed hand-held device

for the initial working prototype

Nokia N800 was the hand held device, proposed for initial implementation of the prototype. This hand-held

device is able to connect to internet via Wi-Fi connection to retrieve content from distant servers, which

also enables it to calculate its real-time location based on signal strength of all the available Wi-Fi access

nodes given the fact that the geographical location of these access nodes are stored on a local file on the

device. It also has a touch screen that can augment the user-experience with easy to initiate screen-based

user input.

MIT SenseAble City Lab was approached by MIT Museum at a time that a platform for location sensing over

Wi-Fi network was already implemented and in full operation. Called iFIND, the implemented platform “

would give all 20,000 members of the MIT community the ability to accurately calculate their location on

campus, using Wi-Fi access points, and to choose if, when and with whom they want to share it with.”3 With

almost 4,000 WiFi access points, which provide the wireless network all around the campus, the MIT

campus is one of the most densely networked areas in the world. In such a wired environment, “new social

issues emerge: How can you know where your friends are? How can you increase the chances of casual

3 “SENSEable City reveals 'friendspotting,' new MIT social networking form” retrieved fromhttp://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/ifind.html6 |G E O - B L O G R E P O R T



encounters with classmates? How can meetings be more effectively coordinated, in real time?”4 With these

questions in mind the goal of the project was to “ allow friends to keep track of friends and increase

serendipitous connections,"5 “The developed platform was unique compared with similar applications, in

part because of the extreme precision of its positioning system. More significantly, iFIND was developedwith particular attention to privacy and data storage issues. There was no centralized storage of data, and

everything happened on encrypted peer-to-peer transmissions among users. “ and since the system was

device-centric, as oppose to network-centric, nobody could track one’s position unless he or she wanted

them to.

* Implimented interface for iFind by MIT SenseAble

City Lab

In initial discussions between the design team and their colleagues at MIT Museum, It was decided that

this approach towards location sensing which conceptualizes the function as such that is handled locally

and client side to provide a desired level of transparency/privacy to the users of the platform be adopted in

the new platform too. As a result, it was proposed that building on the already implemented technology foriFind, a web-based software for Nokia N800 be implemented that calculates the real-time position of the

device locally and generates a request to a distant web-server based on the sensed-location to retrieve

relevant content placed in the vicinity of that location, whereas the digital content was provided by various

institutional entities entitled to do so by Massachusetts Institute of Technology or from a repository of

content contributed from members of MIT community that has been reviewed and/or edited by an

4

Ibid. quoting Carlo Ratti5 Ibid.7 |G E O - B L O G R E P O R T



appointed editorial board. It was also decided that for initial showcasing of the project, a digital guide tour

of the campus pertaining to the rich history of MIT student initiated hacks and pranks be prepared and

uploaded to the system as a jump start which would be followed by other thematic collections over time.

Hack-Track was described in its biref as follows:

“One of the unique aspects of student social life at MIT is the tradition of student hacks and

pranks. This practice has a long history. Student hacks draw great attention and depict a

cheerful character of the MIT student body, while the students subjected to hacks find

themselves faced with friendly, mostly harmless physical challenges. Conceptually, hacks

can be perceives as a collective, grassroots, social construct that binds the members of a

community – in this IT student body – to the urban setting – in this case the MIT Campus.One of the interesting aspects of hacks is their temporary nature. Although they live on as

sweet memories shared by members of the community, their actual/physical

manifestations are removed after they are enjoyed by the community. How can the vivid

experience of witnessing these hacks be preserved and made accessible to visitors of the

MIT campus and members of its community? How can the ephemeral memory of the things

past reconcile with the fixity of the physical terrain that accommodated these past

occurrences? Throughout the years, MIT hacks have been intensively documented by bothstudents and the institute. We propose the development of a digital guided tour of the MIT

campus that will reveal the documented incidents of hacks throughout history to visitors

and members of the MIT community as they walk through out the campus. Visitors will use

a handheld device which could automatically retrieve content about the hacks that are

relevant to their location as they move.”




DESCRIPTION OF S YSTEM COMPONENTS

After intensive contemplation on different approaches that could be adopted in introducing functionalities

of system components, I decided to introduce the system from a user interaction point of view. As a result,

I am breaking the system to different aspects of user interaction and will try to provide description of each

aspect separately, explaining the concept behind the design, the factors that has been taken into

consideration of both conceptual design and implementation of each component as well as technical

specifications that actually made the described goal possible. At the end of each section I will also attend

to the question of possible ways to further improve the system functionality, or even add new components

or possible scenarios based on already implemented platform.

The user interaction can be broken down to two major categories of content contribution on one hand and

content retrieving on the other hand. Incorporation of a geographical information system consisting of geo-

localized floor plans of buildings on the campus is a part of both content contribution and content

retrieving since annotating the space through geo-tagging and attaching geographical information to a

piece of digital content and placing the content over specific spatial zones, exacts the existence of a

system that describes the space both in terms of the geometry of spatial phenomena as well as actual

geographical location of it. Location-sensing will be a sub-category under content retrieving since onepossible way of retrieving content is based on real-time sensed location of an individual that is physically

present in MIT campus premises and is willing to share his or her location with the system as the criteria to

be used in retrieving relevant content attached to the current location. With this description in mind the

structure of system components can be diagramed as follows:




DESCRIPTION OF S YSTEM COMPONENTS –ACCESS RIGHTS AND PROFILE GENERATION

The platform is only open to members of MIT community to contribute digital content. Although in the

mutated version of the project, the system is conceptualized as an open platform for contribution of user-

generated content without a preliminary editorial process to determine the appropriateness of the

contributed material, the concern for liability of individuals for what they are actually placing over digital

extension of a publicly shared space is still holding. A completely open system that does not have any

means of tracking who is responsible for placement of which content, or a top-down supervision of the

contributed material through censorship imposed by an institutionally appointed editorial board, can lead

to a social chaos since there is no way to hold individuals who are abusing the system by placing

inappropriate or offensive material on the digital extension of a publicly shared space like a university

campus, responsible for their actions. Thus, although the digitally augmented space hosts a democratic

spatial scenario, since the identity of an individual who is contributing a given piece of content is

transparent both for the fellow participants in form of a username chosen by the account holder and the

institution through track-ability of the MIT email account that the profile was generated using it, one is

automatically aware of the fact that although he is given the opportunity for un-censored self-expression,




he is still held responsible for his actions both by members of the community and the institution

authorities. I would call such system a controlled democracy, whereas individuals are free to express

themselves as long as their use of the provided freedom does not result in making a hostile or

uncomfortable environment for others, or violate their right to enjoy the digitally augmented, publiclyshared institutional space without feeling discouraged, insulted or intellectually harassed by the content

placed on the digital extension of the space.

Any individual with a valid MIT email account will be able to register to create a unique user profile on

GEOblog. The profile that is created upon registration will enable the user to upload digital content as well

as placing it over specified zones on the campus. On the registration form, the user is asked to provide a

valid MIT email account as well as a username and password that will be used to logon into the system andget access to one’s profile in order to add new entries or edit previous entries listed in the user's profile. In

case that the user tries to generate a profile with a non-MIT email account or with an email account that

has already been used to create a GEOblog profile, the system will generate and error notifying the user

that the process cannot be initiated. Once the form with required fields is submitted by the user, the

system will automatically generate an activation key and will send it to the provided MIT email account on

the registration form. Upon validation of the email address by the user through clicking the provided

activation link in the auto-generated email, the user’s profile will be operational and ready to use.

The system will also keep track of the actual time that a profile is created. This piece of information will

enable us to determine the penetration rate of the system within MIT community and how fast the

introduced system was adopted by the community through time and what are the factors that affect the

adaptation rate of the system.

*As soon as the user tries to get to the Contribute page in order to start

uploading digital content to the system, s/he is directed to Login page

where he would be asked for a user-name and password specified at the

time that the account was created using a valid MIT email account.




opposed. Imagine a given user in an online community like second life;

one can lead the life of a male German investment banker through one

generated profile where as at the same time he/she is benefiting from

another cyber-life let’s say that of a female Russian astronaut. In GEoblogas an online community that is also situated within physical boundaries of

an actual institutional entity, just as in physical version, the individuals

are considered unique and with an un-shattered persona, living a unique

life, having a unique identity.

* Once the registration form is submitted without an error, the system will

send a confirmation email containing a hyperlink that should be clicked at

to complete the registration process. This is a simple way to avoid identity

theft in the system. Thus, the system can be assured that the very same

person that is using an MIT email account to create the profile also has

access to the used email account. Under such circumstances individuals

cannot use a random MIT email account to initiate a GEOblog profile

without knowledge or consent of the MIT email account holder.




As a result of all the specifications of the login/registration process that has been summarized above the

conceptual design of the access rights would provide the following characteristics of the designed situated

digitality:

1. Restricting the contribution part to profile owners situates the content contributor within a social

context while the provided platform for spatial annotation and geo-tagging the content situates the

contributed content within the physical context that at the same time is fostering the social

context. Thus, at a conceptual level, situated-ness of the digitally enhanced spatial scenario

happens both in social terrain and physical terrain. Situating the participation of the individuals in

a social context allows for the possibility of holding the participants accountable for their actions

while the democratic aspect of the proposed scenario is maintained by omitting the institutionally

posed censorship.

2. Although the system uses the conventional profile-base membership, by limiting the membership

to individuals that have a recognizable social status within the framework of the institution, the

cyber- persona of the user is situated within the actuality of the social context that is fostered

within the physical space which is digitally augmented. Whereas the digital contribution is situated

within a physical context through the act of spatial annotation or geo-tagging the content, the




cyber-contributor is also socially situated within the psycho-social context-MIT Community- that is

fostered by the physical establishment-MIT Campus. Also, at a conceptual level, limiting the right

of contribution of members of the community, fosters the creation of a sense of place for members

of the community, where as the digitally augmented space rewards social presence or membershipover what I would like to define as social absence or lack of institutional ties to a physically

situated social establishment.

3. By restricting the profile creation to one profile per member of the community, the system

prevents establishment of multiple or parallel persona. Just like conventional spatial scenarios that

subjectivity of an individual is perceived as unique both for one’s self and for other subjectivities,

in a digitally augmented physical space the uniqueness and perceptual integrity of the persona of a participating individual is maintained.

4. Limiting the content contribution to profile owners also enables the system to keep track of the

participants’ contributions through time in order to study how the digitally augmented space is

populated by individual’s contributions through time. Having access to such trajectory of spatial

participation provide plethora of possibilities for follow-up spatial analysis of the implemented

system. This item is going to be discussed in details in the section dedicated to follow-up analysisof the system.

5. Although the contribution part is restricted to members of MIT community who own a profile on the

system, content viewing or retrieval is open to public. This is exactly the power/access structure

that is considered conventional for any given publicly shared entity in a civic context. Take an

urban street for example, although the street is open to all potential passer-bys, individuals who

actually have more attachment to the physical terrain than a passer-by are automatically granteda specific right to the space. A shop owner is able to affect the spatial arrangement of the formerly

mentioned street through use of different signs, or an inhabitant of a neighborhood whose

domestic space happens to get its access form this very same street assumes being granted a

privilege over the passer-by. In a digitally augmented space, ownership privileges are translated

as community membership privileges, whereas still the passer-by maintain a different set of rights

of access to the spatial entity by the mere fact of being physically or cybernetic-ally present; the

right to retrieve and view contributed content.




DESCRIPTION OF S YSTEM COMPONENTS –CONTENT CONTRIBUTION AND DIGITAL ANNOTATION/DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTRIBUTED

CONTENT

The profile holders are able to contribute digital content after logging into the system. The digital

contribution can be in form of digital images or videos:

All file formats for digital images are supported by the system. But, due to concerns regarding operational

efficiency of the system the uploaded content will be automatically converted to a JPEG format as the

result of a function applied on the server side. In addition, all digital contributions are automatically scaled

down to fit in the maximum accepted frame by the system which is 800*600 pixels in dimensions. Also,

upon uploading an image file, a small version of the image scaled down to fit in a 50*50 frame is created

that will be used as an icon/thumbnail of the actual image, used in generating list of uploaded content – in

content contribution interface – or retrieved content – in content retrieval interface.

* Once the digital image is uploaded to the system, a

server side function automatically checks the size of the

digital image and in case that the dimensions of the

image exceeds 800*600 pixels, the system will scale

down the image to fit in a 800*600 pixel frame




* In addition to scaling the original contribution, a server

side function automatically generates a smaller version of

the image that fits within a 50*50 pixel frame to be used

as a thumbnail in listing of the contributed or available

content

* The first step to upload digital content is to

locate the files that are already saved locally.

Clicking on browse button will direct the user

to a “Choose File” window that allows the

user to chose the digital file intended to be

uploaded to the system.

*Once the file is located, clicking on “Upload”

button will result in automatic generation of

a thumbnail, that is listed in the “Media Files”section. Whereas clicking on the “Delete”

icon on any of the listed thumbnails results in

the omission of the digital file from the

system. It is also worth mentioning that the

system allows for uploading multiple digital

images as part of a single content

contribution. All the uploaded digital files will




be listed under “Media Files”

*Double clicking on the thumbnail of anuploaded file brings up a preview window

that contains both the digital image and its

original name at the time that it was

uploaded to the system.

*In addition to digital images, the user is

allowed to contribute video files. At the

moment, the only supported format is flash

animation. As soon as a video is uploaded to

the system, a thumbnail is automatically

generated and listed under “Media Files”.

Double clicking on the thumbnail will open a

conventional video preview window that

allows the user to navigate the video.

A possible extension of the system can be incorporating a server-side function to convert any given video

format to flash animation which allows the system to support other file formats as well. An implemented

case of such functionality is that of YouTube website that allows users to upload video files of various




formats whereas all these formats are automatically converted to flash animations before being stored on

the system.

It is also worth mentioning that the users are offered by the functionality of specifying a certain YouTube

entry as digital content. You Tube, the famous and widely used video sharing platform can be accessed by

the system to retrieve videos that are already uploaded to this platform.

Furthermore, the automatic resizing of the uploaded digital content is a try to address a fundamental

restriction of digitally backed up spatial annotation which is the limited dimensionality of the faculty of

perception in the digital terrain. Whereas in the physical terrain the limits of perceived dimensionality is

that of the sensory faculties- dimensions of the phenomena are perceivable as long as it is within the

perceivable range of the sensory faculty, for example how far is still visible for a naked eye- when

perception is limited to the extremities of the digital screen, this given frame becomes the limits of

instantaneous perception of phenomena. One approach would be maintaining the original size of the

digital image and allowing the user to navigate the content using scroll bars, in which case, the image

would not be perceived instantly as a whole but through time and as a multiplicity of fragments each of

which is limited to the dimensions allowed by the size of the digital screen. At the conceptual design

phase, it was decided that the medium should maintain the integrity of the message – in this case, the

digital image- and should offer an over arching view of the phenomena instantly which exacts the resizing

of the digital images that happen to be bigger than the conventional size of the digital screen, in order to

be fitted in this frame.

*Once single or multiple digital files are uploaded to the system, this

collection is treated as a single entry for which the user is allowed to specify

a name, the actual date that the story corresponds to, a temporal span

through which the narrative is going to be available for viewing, a multi-line

description, and various descriptive tags separated with commas. Also, the

user is allowed to specify who should be granted access to this specific

digital narrative.




*As far as temporal aspect of the digital narrative is concerned, user input is

allowed via a conventional date picker popup menu.

*Also the user is allowed to specify access rights to the contributed

narrative. The narrative can be accessible to general public- individuals that

try to retrieve digital narratives without logging in to the system- or the

accessibility can be restricted to members of MIT community – individuals

that have logged in to their GEOblog profile – or it can only be accessible to

the owner of the content.

Enabling the user to specify access rights for different digital narratives can be translated as a poetic

aspect of the digitally annotated space which addresses one of the dualities inherent in architectural

discourse that relates to the question of domestic/private spaces as oppose to publicly shared ones. A

domestic or for that matter private space is differentiated from a publicly shared one based on three major

criteria; that of ownership, access and transparency. Whereas any given domestic space is conventionally

privately owned, and is selective in granting access to inside both physically as in right of entrance and

visually through transparency, a public space is conceptualized as an spatial entity, publicly owned or21 |G E O - B L O G R E P O R T



administered, whereas it is open to the public both in terms of rights of entrance and transparency. Of

course, variations in levels of access and transparency results in differentiations in how much public-ness

is intended for a given architectural space, resulting in conceptualization of different categories such as

private, semi-private, semi-public or public.

One can argue that modernist use of glass facades somehow shattered the classical notion of intellectual

bearings of use of opacity and transparency in defining domesticity, privacy, and publicness as attributes

of a designed architectural space. From a personal point of view, as an architect, I believe that Philip

Johnson’s “Glass House” is more of a political statement rather than a case study in actual implementation

of a modern domestic space whereas opacity of the inside for those who happen to be outside is not part

of the definition of architecturally prescribed domesticity. As a result, specifying different access rights for

different digital narratives is what actually defines how private or public is the digital narrative, and for

that matter the digitally annotated space.

For a given physical zone, if it is annotated with multiplicity of digital narratives, each digital narrative

redefines the physical space as public or private. The same physical arrangement can be considered public

granting the least level of sensational intimacy if viewed as the holder of a digital narrative accessible to

general public, whereas it can also be considered, domestic or private, offering the highest level of sense

of intimacy if recognized as the holder of a digital narrative which is not accessible to the public and which

is selective in to whom it is revealed.

One possible extension of the functionality of the system is to add more variations to the access rights,

enabling the contributor to be more specific about granting access to the contributed content; for example,

enabling him/her to choose from a list populated by friends, whereas the friends can be categorized based

on level of intimacy, or the type of friendship. Imagine the case that the user is able to choose if the digital

narrative is accessible to friends, close friends, colleagues, one’s classmates in a specific course, or even a

list of explicitly specified individuals.

Whereas, access rights can introduce parallel variations in terms of privacy and public-ness of a digitally

augmented space, specifying a temporal span through which a digital narrative is available, expands the

dimensionality of the augmented space along a fourth dimension which is that of time. As oppose to

conventional architectural space that is inherently perceived as fixed and inert, a digitally augmented




space is mutating through time. This transformation is perceived by the inhabitant of such space where

and when it is recognized that a given digital narrative that was retrieved at a previous incident is not

there anymore. The digital augmented layer is in constant transformation through time. The narratives

appear and disappear from time to time. The more one immerses one’s self in the digital layer, the more

one recognizes that this spatial entity has a life of its own. The inherent fixity of the physical context is

what gives the subject a sense of spatial orientation. In an ever-transforming augmented space, such

sense of spatial orientation is not attainable as easily, since the spatial context as a perceptual point of

reference is not fixed through time. For me, this subtle spatial disorientation can be considered as poetic.

To push the imagination to the extreme, imagine a hypothetical world, whereas the streets of the city are

reconfigured on a day to day basis. Dark City (1998) based on a story by Australian film-maker Alex

Proyas, who also directed the film, is a nightmarish narrative which pictures such scenario and itsperceptual and sensational ramifications for the human mind. Paroya uses the Gothic and claustrophobic

themes commonly and dark colors prevail during the film. Such setting conveys the paranoia resulted from

inherent spatial and perceptual disorientation that one experience if the physical spatial arrangements

were subjected to constant mutation through time. A man wakes up in a hotel bath tub, suffering from

what seams at the first glance some sort of amnesia. Throughout the movie the protagonist is in constant

struggle with his shattered, incoherent memories which lack external point of reference which is that of

physical spatial arrangements of the city that he is a denizen of. As the story unravels it becomes clearthat the city is run by evil creatures called “Strangers” which are able to stop time, erase the memory of

all inhabitants of the city, and completely reconfigure the spatial arrangement of the city through an extra

ordinary kinematic power. Of course as in most conventional Hollywood plots, the protagonist manages to

overcome the evil at the end. But, the point is how the plot connects the nightmarish paranoia of

perceptual amnesia to disorientation resulted from constant mutation of spatial arrangement of one’s

physical context. Whereas such drastic mutation of physical context results in severe paranoia, in a

digitally augmented space, the constant transformation of the overlaid digital layer, populated with digital

narratives can be considered poetic. One still maintains a sense of orientation within the physical space

that does not go through drastic changes on a day to day basis whereas his memory of the augmented

space is in constant transformation due to mutation of the digital layer from time to time. The subject feels

lost at a perceptual level whereas he is still certain about his location and orientation within the physical

space. This duality is what I consider the poetics of augmented space. The digitally augmented space is

always open to re-interpretation and re-configuration. Its animation and mutation through time gives free

reign to imagination. The inhabitant of such space is always expecting the unexpected, the un-determined,23 |G E O - B L O G R E P O R T



the un-planned, that which is not there and is yet to come. The unexpected is not feared by the perceiving

subject since he is still able to locate himself logically within the physical terrain.

* “Dark City”(1998) picturing the

evil “Strangers”

* “Dark City”; the nightmarish aspect of a city that is in constant

mutation, the use of dark, claustrophobic Mise-en-scène hints on the

resulted paranoia of the implied situation.

The temporal aspect of digitally annotated space is not limited to the constant transformation of theaugmented narrative layer. The augmented space is granted with a memory of past things, in case that

the physically situated digital content offers an account of an event, or an incident that occurred in the

very same locale that the digital content is attached to. The digital screen becomes a time machine that

tele-ports the perceiving subject to the time of the occurrence of the story.

Such setting reminds me of a scene from the movie “Déjà vu”(2006) whereas the protagonist is standing in

front of a digital screen staring at the persona of a victim following how what had happened unfold. What

he sees is not a cinematic recording of a past incident but a real-time account of a past which is very much

present. The movie envisions a hypothetical case whereas what is told to be a technical aberration in a

research project has led to discovery of a “Time Window” that connects the present to a point in past

exactly four and a half days ago. The time of what seems to be happening in the account that is offered by

the digital screen is certainly a past time, yet there is this mind boggling twist that this past is very much

present since the perceiving subject has access to it via the portal offered by the discovered “Time –




Window.” The digitally annotated space offers such access to a present-past of the space. The subject

receives the space as a “Déjà vu.” I cannot help but wonder how poetic that can be at a perceptual level.

*Screen shot of “Déjà vu”

picturing the astonishment of

the protagonist when he finds

out that what he is witnessing is

not a recording of a past

incident but an account of what

is actually happening at a

present-past!

Furthermore, enabling the contributing party to semantically describe the contributed digital narrative and

assigning descriptive tags to it, offers the possibility of locating the narrative within the discursive terrain.

Human beings perceive stories through semantics. We think about narratives in terms of actual words. As

a result, I believe that any platform that enables the subject to annotate the physical space through

attaching content to specific localities should also offer the means to semantically describe and tag the

digital story. The provided tags and descriptive words will be used to retrieve content based on semantic

search in the content retrieving aspect of the project that will be discussed later on.

As it was mentioned before, in addition to providing semantic description of the contributed digital

narrative, the user is allowed to assign “Tags” to it to. In computer related discourse a tag is a non-

hierarchical keyword or term assigned to a piece of information. This kind of “metadata” helps describe an

item and allows it to be found again by browsing or searching. Tags are chosen informally and personally

by the item's creator or by its viewer, depending on the system. On a website in which many users tag25 |G E O - B L O G R E P O R T



many items, this collection of tags becomes a non-hierarchical informal structure to locate entities

perceptually. Tagging was popularized by websites associated with Web 2.0 services. “In 2003, the social

bookmarking website “Delicious” provided a way for its users to add "tags" to their bookmarks as a way to

help find them later. Delicious also provided browseable aggregated views of the bookmarks of all users

featuring a particular tag. Flickr allowed its users to add free-form tags to each of their pictures,

constructing flexible and easy metadata that made the pictures highly searchable. The success of Flickr

and the influence of Delicious popularized the concept, and other social software websites – such as

YouTube, Technorati, and Last.fm – also implemented tagging.”6 Currently web users are comfortable with

the concept and its accompanying applications and under such circumstances it was natural to adopt such

a practice in the design of yet another platform for collaborative user-generated content.

The last and most important aspect of contributing digital content is attaching it to physical locations

throughout the campus. Since this part is the most important aspect of the project, I decided to dedicate a

whole section to provide a historical background of the practice as well as an overview of the case studies

that I encountered during my research. At the end of the following section I will explain how the user-

interaction was conceptualized, designed and implemented for this functionality based on my prior

research in the field.

6 From entry for “Tags” in Wikipedia.org26 |G E O - B L O G R E P O R T

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_bookmarking


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicious_(website)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_software


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technorati

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last.fm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicious_(website)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickr


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technorati






DIGITAL ANNOTATION OF SPACE – ATTACHING DIGITAL CONTENT TO PHYSICAL LOCALE, DIGITAL ANNOTATION OF SPACE

The functionality that is offered by the platform which enables the users to place digital content within

actual physical locations in form of spatial zones can be considered as a form of Geo-Tagging. Geo-tagging

is the process of adding geographical information to various media such as photographs, video, sound

recordings or even websites and other internet related services like RSS feeds, and recently Wikipedia

entries or even blogs in the form of geospatial metadata. This data usually consists of latitude and

longitude coordinates, though it can also include place names, country, city, or even street addresses. A

parallel practice is the process of “Geo-coding” which is the process of finding the associated geographic

coordinates of an entity based on non-coordinate geographical identifiers, such as a street address.

Naturally, “Reverse Geo-coding” is the process of finding the associated non-coordinate identifiers or

meta-data of a piece of digital information based on the known geographical coordinates attached to it.

Geo-tagging allows people to specify rather precisely where the content of a given media is to be located,

but on some media platforms (such as Google Earth) it also gives the reverse ability: showing people

relevant media to a given location, allowing them to retrieve the geo-tagged digital data based on location.

The first step of the user interaction design was to decide what forms of digital content should be

supported by the platform. A quick online search helped to find out about the possibilities both in terms of

supported digital formats and how the content contribution and geo-tagging on one hand and content

retrieval based on location on the other hand is handled. Online services that allow users to share digital

content most of the time also allow the contributor of the digital content to include geo-location meta-tags

in their contributions:

Flickr, the well known image and video sharing website allows the users to geo-tag their contributions.

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2006/08/28/great-shot-whered-you-take-that/ explains how it works. Flickr added

geo-tagging functionality and location-based search to its service in August 2006. Adding location

information on Flickr is done through the Organizr, under the Organize tab. On Map tab one can drag

photos into a Yahoo Map interface. A marker will appear that shows the number of photos included with

that marker. Once one has a location s/he can use the Organizr to search photos and then drag them

individually or by sets into the map. On the other hand, users can search for photos by location in Flickr


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_hosting_service


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_hosting_service


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Website








Map. Once the map is set to a location (zoomable from world view down to street level) and a search query

is performed, markers will appear on the map with photos that contain that query in the tags or description

of the photos. The geo-tagging functionality allows the users to drag-and-drop photos onto a location

where they are automatically tagged with location information (city/state/country) as well as latitude and

longitude. It also allows the users to create a map-based view of all their photos or specific photosets, to

share with others. On the other hand, Flickr Map provides an interface to browse photos on a Yahoo! Maps

interface with easy to use navigational controls. As a result of the inclusion of the functionality, Flickr users

can now search for digital content by tag, text, time, group and location.

* The Map tab in Organizer page allows the

users to associate their uploaded digital content

with different physical spaces.

*The association or geo-tagging of the content

happens through dragging and dropping the

thumbnail of the content from the list populated

with user’s contribution on an interactive

navigatable map.




*Each entry can be placed at a unique location

meaning that the system does not support

multiple locations for a given digital entry. Once

placed on the map, after clicking on the

placeholder, the system will provide an overview

of the entry and also functionality of directly

editing the features of the entry from the map

interface.

What happens after a digital content is placed

on the map is automatic generation and

inclusion of geo-location meta-tags to the

entry.(geo:lat=***** geo:lon=********)

*Not only the user is allowed to geo-tag the

contributed content but also the systems allows

for exploring other’s contributions and locationbased searching for content.

http://flickr.com/map provides the mentioned

functionality.

The interface is a navigatable map with all the

basic functionalities: zooming and panning

either through click and drag or using thezoom/pan tool, and choices in terms of visual

aspects of the map (map, satellite image or a

hybrid of both). It also allows the user to

perform a semantic search for content based on

descriptive tags or locational tags like country,

state, city, or even zip code.


http://flickr.com/map

http://flickr.com/map



*Once a search is initiated by the user using anyof the offered search criteria, a list populated by

retrieved entries is generated while the location

of each entry is marked on the map.

*Clicking on a provided node on the map that

represents the placeholder of the digital content

will opens a popup window which provides an

overview of the chosen content. Reversely, once

a thumbnail is clicked upon in the list of

retrieved entries, the placeholder of the content

on the map is highlighted too.

One feature of the Flickr Map is capability of limiting a search to the area that is visible in the map at any

given moment. If while initiating a query the user types in “This Map” in “Taken In” text box. The query will

be geographically limited to the area that is visible in the Map interface at the moment.

Also once the user inters the Map in the organizer, the Map is automatically zoomed to the user’s

geographical location that is determined by the system based on IP address from which the user isconnected to the web. IP address localization is one of the most commonly practiced techniques for geo-

targeting in web services. Geo-targeting enables a given web service to deliver relevant information to the

users through determining their real-time location. I will attend to the question of location sensitivity of the

service in the coming sections of the report.




*In Content contribution part, the first step to

contribute content on flicker is to locate the

digital files on the computer and upload them.

The user interaction is quite convenient since

multiple files can be selected in one step. Also,

before uploading the digital entries one can

specify privacy and safety level of the content

as well as the type of the content.

*Once the selected entries are uploaded to the

system the user has the option to add

description and descriptive tags to each of the

entries or make a “set” of multiple entries and

specify descriptive tags and text for the whole

set as one entity

*Adding or deleting digital content to/from sets

is a matter of dragging and dropping associated

icons to different panels on the organizer

interface. Once a set is created and populated

the user can give it a title and description as

well as assigning descriptive tags to it




*Once a set is created and populated by multiple

digital content, it can be placed on a unique

geographical location as one entry.

In short, the flicker interface for uploading, organizing and geo-tagging content is convenient in different

aspects. The most interesting one is the possibility of uploading multiple entries in one step and creating

sets and geo-tagging sets as opposed to stand alone entities. One the other hand, the location based

content retrieving interface is well-designed in terms of user interaction: First of all, upon entrance into the

map interface, the map automatically zoom to the current location of the user that is calculated by the

system based on reverse geo-codding of the IP address via which the user is connecting to the website f.

Furthermore, The available content on the spatial zone that is framed in the current view of the

navigatable mapis offered both in the form of nodes on the map to which the content is attached to and

also a browse able list from which entries can be chosen.

The second case study that is of interest is the Freesound project which is a collaborative database of

sounds. Once a profile is created on the projects website at http://www.freesound.org the user is allowed to

upload digital sound recordings. The process of adding a digital recording to the site is as follows: An FTP

applet is provided to upload files. Wave, aiff, ogg vorbis, flac and mp3 files are supported by the platform.

Once an uploaded file is chosen the user can semantically describe the content of the file. After describing

files they will be placed in a 'moderation' queue. This means that a moderator will look at the file before it

will appear on the site. When the file is added, the user will be notified by email. The service is not rich in

terms of graphical user interface or for that matter user interaction design. Yet, the platform is worth

mentioning firstly because of the fact that it supports sound contributions and secondly because of how it

handles the monitoring of the contributions in terms of the appropriateness of the contributed content; the

contributions are not available online before they are viewed and approved by the editorial committee.


http://www.freesound.org/

http://www.freesound.org/filesUploadApplet.php


http://www.freesound.org/





*At the time of the visit to the site it was not

clear for me how the user is able to geo-tag his

contribution. But the delivery method was a

Google map API in combination with a list

populated with all the geo-tagged entries. Once

an item in the list is clicked upon, the map is

zoomed to the location of the file on the map

whereas its corresponding click-able placeholder

is located. If the place holder is clicked a popup

menu containing the title, tags, and description

of the audio file will appear on the screen. The

popup also contains a flash applet to play the

sound.

Aside from graphical user interfaces, it is possible to add text-based locationall tags to digital information.

For example; Wikipedia allows the contributors to include geographical information with their entries using

a provided format. It is also possible to add geo-location tags in any tag-based service like Panoramio,Flickr, and del.icio.us. with the provided standard; for example:” geotagged geo:lat=57.64911

geo:lon=10.40744”

Panoramio.com is another online photo sharing platform that makes use of Google map api to provide a

graphical user interface for geo-tagging the content.

*The retrieving of digital content based on

location is supported using Google Map API. The

user can search a specific place by typing in its

name or address. It is also possible to find digital

content by direct manipulation of the Map. At

any given point a list populated by

corresponding thumbnails of the retrieved

content is updated based on the interaction of 33 |G E O - B L O G R E P O R T



the user with the map. The visible portion of the

map is the criteria for automatic retrieval of the

content.

*It is also possible to choose a place from a listof locational bookmarks that will direct the user

to the previously mentioned viewing page

whereas the Google map is already zoomed in to

the bookmarked place.

*Clicking on the thumbnail of a photo directs the

user to a webpage containing all the attributes

of the digital photo including the owner or

contributor of the photo, the location of the

photo displayed on a Google map, the semantic

tags of the photo and so on. This page also

allows the user to flag the digital photo as

“offensive” or “Best of Panoramio”. This

functionality offers a platform to receive limited

feedback from the users concerning the

appropriateness of the contributed digital

content.

Content contribution process starts with locating the file on one’s computer and uploading it to the system.

Once the picture is uploaded by the user it is automatically resized. In the next step the system asks for a

semantic description of the content to be typed in.




*Once the process of content upload is

completed the system is automatically directed

to the list of uploaded content.

To check the attributes of any entry, clicking on

the thumbnail of that entry will redirect the user

to a webpage containing all the information

regarding the chosen entry. A Google map is

also provided here that locates the digital

content in case that it is already attached to a

node on the surface of earth.

Thus in the case of Panoramio the user interface includes three separate views for uploading the content,

the list of all uploaded content and the attributes page of each content. Also for any give digital content,

location is assumed to be a unique node. The Google map API does not allow the user to specify more than

one place holder for the digital content or attach more than one digital content to a specified node. The

separation of functionalities on one hand and the fact that the place holders and digital entries have a oneto one relationship – One digital entry is attached to a one node- does not offer that much of convenience

when it comes to placing different digital contents relative to each other for example to make a digital

narrative.

As it is obvious from these and other cases for online services the location is mostly interpreted as a node

on the surface of the earth with a specific longitude and latitude, whereas through reverse geo-coding this

meta data can be translated to other forms of geo-location information such as place names, country, city,36 |G E O - B L O G R E P O R T



zip code or street addresses and such. This approach towards understanding location is further popularized

by API’s such as Google map or Yahoo maps and alike that enable third party developers to easily

incorporate user interfaces for geo-tagging digital content as well as exploring the repositories of digital

content based on geo-locational queries.

http://wikimapia.org is another online service that allows the users to add digital information to specified

locations using a Google map API. The platform only supports textual digital information that should be

typed in. The interesting aspect of the interface is that the place holder of the contributed information is

conceptualized as spatial zones as oppose to stand alone nodes. If the textual information that the user is

contributing applies to a geo-spatial entity that is extended over a terrain then it is just common sensual to

allow the contributor to specify a place holder that corresponds to the spatial entity that is described by

the contributed information.

*The map is populated by multiplicity of zonal

place holders.

*Once a zonal place holder is clicked upon a

popup menu appears on the screen that delivers

the textual information attached to the clickedupon place holder


*T dd h h fi i



*To add an entry to the map the first step is to

define the spatial zone to which the information

is intended to be attached to. This happens

through specifying the vertexes of a polygon via

mouse click. The user can add more vertexes to

an already defined edge by moving the mouse

over the edge and clicking on a point that the

newly added vertex is going to be placed at.

Once a zonal place holder is created and saved a

popup menu appears that provides an interfaceto type in the information that the user intends

to attach to the created spatial zone

So in short, the contribution part is a twofold: specifying the spatial zone, and attaching textual information

to the created spatial zone. On the other hand, retrieving the annotations is possible by clicking on a

spatial zone that has been annotated by information.

After studying the mentioned case studies and others the interaction scenario was devised for the system

that would support the following aspects. For the content contribution part:

The user should be allowed to upload multiple digital files in one go

The user should be allowed to create sets populated by multiple digital files. When the contributed digital

files intend to offer a coherent narrative about a specific location or entity in the space, more than one

digital content is needed to convey the intended message and it is just common sensual to offer the




“In that empire the art of cartography attained such perfection that the map of a single province occupied



In that empire, the art of cartography attained such perfection that the map of a single province occupied

the entirety of a city, and the map of the empire, the entirety of a province. In time, those unconscionable

maps no longer satisfied, and the cartographers guilds struck a map of the empire whose size was that of

the empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following generations, who were not so fond of

the study of cartography as their forebears had been, saw that that vast map was useless, and not without

some pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the inclemencies of sun and winters. In the deserts of

the west, still today, there are tattered ruins of that map, inhabited by animals and beggars; in all the land

there is no other relic of the disciplines of geography.” 7

Although the text has been referred to by the scholars in discussions of the exactitude of representational

techniques in sciences and how there is a cap on the acceptable accuracy of the representational

technique beyond which no matter how much resources are spent the representation would not offer more

to the target audience8, here I would like to read the text from another yet more poetic point of view. Lets

agree that the representational map no matter how accurate it can not be equated to the spatial

phenomena that it is representing. Also let’s assume that we agree that the digitally augmented layer that

is populated by digital contributions of participating individuals constitute a mental map which is as big as

the terrain. Although this digital map of the placed narratives is not the terrain that it overlays, yet it adds

another level of perceptual sophistication to the phenomena. GEOblog does not claim that it offers a

digitally backed up perceptual map of the terrain that is so accurate that it can be thought of as one with

the terrain. But, it can be claimed that a digitally augmented terrain is not a terrain any more but a Map-

Terrain; whereas it is not possible to detach the overlaid map and the augmented terrain from the

perception of each. They become a unified entity, a new hybrid phenomena different from both its

components, yet dependent to both in its existence and attributes.

Back to the discussion of zonal annotation of space as opposed to nodal version of the practice, if a digital

narrative is placed over a spatial zone as opposed to being attached to a geographical node, once the

subject crosses the extremities of the spatial entity, going beyond its boundaries in the physical terrain,

simultaneously he crosses the boundary of the associated spatial narrative in the digitally augmented

layer or what I would like to refer as the narrative terrain. Thus, the physical terrain and the narrative

terrain develop a series of perceivable spatial associations that will not be possible if the boundaries of a

7 From Jorge Luis Borges,in Collected Fictions, Translated by Andrew Hurley 1999

8 From Gregory Bateson, in "Form, Substance and Difference," from Steps to an Ecology of Mind 197240 |G E O - B L O G R E P O R T

specific locality do not correspond with the boundaries within which a narrative about that specific location



specific locality do not correspond with the boundaries within which a narrative about that specific location

is offered to the individual engaged in following the spatial narrative.

Whereas in node base annotation of space using an interactive map like Google map API the space is

assumed to be equal to the surface of the globe; as a spherical skin; GEOblog should incorporate the third

dimension. GEOblog conceptualizes the space as a 2.5 dimensional entity consisting of multiplicity of floor

plans stacked on top of each other.

*The user can navigate the horizontality of

the space using the zoom and pan

functionality of the interactive map.

Meanwhile; it is possible to navigate crossdifferent floors using the virtual elevator

tool.

If the space is treated as a two dimensional phenomena, no location is an unacceptable location to define

a spatial zone as a placeholder for the digital content. On the contrary, once the third dimension is

incorporated in the description of the geo-taggable or annotatable space, the created spatial zones should

be examined by the system to assure their acceptability within the three dimensional space. For example,

if a spatial zone is created on the third floor of the building the system should be able to compare the zone

against the extremities of the building envelope to make sure that the specified zone does not fall outside

of the building envelope on the third floor and into the void. Thus the system should be able to readjustthe spatial zone to acceptable areas. While the offered “ zone” tool allows the user to specify a circular or

polygonal zone, the system will modify the specified zone in reference to geo-localized plans of MIT

buildings and which floor the user has specified to place the zone on. On upper floors the areas of the

created zone that are outside of the building are going to be automatically subtracted.




All aspects of the user interaction should be offered in one coherent view for the user to support a

seemless flow of interaction scenario, as a result instead of different screens for uploading content, geo-

tagging the uploaded content, adding and vewing previously added semantic information and placing thecontent on the map, all this information and interaction platforms should be incoorporated in one unique

view.

As a result of taking to consideration of the mentioned design criteria, contributing digital content happens

in 5 steps and in one comprehensive screen that accommodate all the steps at onc


*Specifying the spatial zone over which content is



p y g p

placed at using the interactive navigatable map

interface

*Uploading the digital file containing the shared

content. Content in form of digital image and video

are supported by the platform

*Specifying the temporal duration through which

the content is going to be available for retrieval


*Adding semantic information or meta-data about



the shared content including Content Title, Content

Description and Semantic Tags

*Specifying access rights and whether the geo-

tagged/shared content is available to everybody in

campus, just the members of MIT community or the

owner of the content in case he/she chooses so.

Once an entry is completed by the user it would be added to the list of previously completed enteries.

Thus from the same screen view the user can have access to other entries for further modifications. The

next section will attend to the question of dimensionality in a geo-taggable space which is trying to

incorporate the third dimension in the description of the space.


DIGITAL ANNOTATION OF SPACE – GEOTAGGABLE SPACE AND DIMENSIONALITY



Written over a century ago, Edwin A. Abbot's master piece, Flat Land, is the best introduction into the

manner of perceiving dimensions. Throughout the piece the reader is walked through the way in which the

inhabitants of Pointland (A universe perceived as having zero dimension), Lineland (A universe perceivedas having one dimension), and Flatland (A universe perceived as having two dimensions) inhabit their

universes. Based on this reading it gets obvious that us, the inhabitants of Spaceland (A universe

perceived as having three dimensions) by the mere fact of inhabiting this space have already faced the

three stages of transcendence – from the point to line, from the line to plane, and from the plane to

solid.(borrowed from Isaac Asimov overview of the piece-p.i) I believe that in any discussion of geo-

taggable space one should incorporate some scrutiny into the phenomena of dimensionality and decide

how many dimensions can be incorporated in description of a geo-taggable space. Also if we think of geo-

taggable space as a type of interactive or responsive space then the introduction of time as an element

contained in the phenomenological description of space exacts another level of transcendence from the

three dimensionality of the Spaceland to the fourth dimension which is time itself to what I call Time-Space

land.

The piece is a narrative of a two-dimensional entity – a square – and his personal account of the universe

that he is living in – Flatland – which is a two-dimensional universe or for that matter space. In the course

of the story the reader also follows the protagonist to the realm of Pointlnad – a universe with zero

dimension – Lineland – a universe with only one dimension – and Spaceland – the universe with three

dimensions which is basically the spatial arrangement that we are familiar with. What I would like to do is

to diagram this transcendental journey from zero dimension to one dimension, to two dimensions and

finally to three dimensions and layout a map of all the perceptual and experiential ramifications of different

dimensionalities on one hand and transcending one for the other on the other hand. At the end I would like

to attend to the following question: What category of space does a geo-taggable space belong to in terms

of dimensionality and what are the perceptual/experiential effects of inhabiting such a space by the

perceiving subject? I am going to start from Pointland moving towards Lineland, Flatland and finally

Spaceland, although this sequence does not chronologically correspond to the flow of the story in Flatland

and how our protagonist is exposed to these different universes experientially and perceptually.


Flatland, is also a study of human’s mind and its attitude towards limitation. If because of actuality of our



world, incapability of perceiving time as a dimension to space is inherent to the perceiving subject how can

one incorporate time as a phenomena in the architectural representation of space. And what if the

limitations are due to a gained habit of thinking? (borrowed from Isaac Asimov overview of the piece-p.iii)

Is our limitation in thinking of time as an inseparable aspect of conceptualization of architectural space a

gained habit of thinking or inherent in us as perceiving subjects? And either case, how can one gets around

this limitation through architectural representational techniques and for that matter technologies?

Although the unity of time and space thrusts itself upon the notice of scientists by the work of Einstein and

like throughout the twentieth century, still architects and designers and as a whole our whole culture of

architectural representation seems to be resistant to adopting the Time-Space notion.

Towards the end of the story, the protagonist – our two-dimensional square – has a reverie in which he

finds himself exposed to a universe with no dimensions or what he refers to as Pointland. With no

perceivable dimension, the universe diminishes to a Point, thus the name Pointland. This specific type of

universe is reffered to as “Lowest depth of existence, the realm of Pointland, the Abyss of No dimensions.”

(p.109) With no perciveiable dimensions, the inhabitant of Pointland becomes one with its universe of zero

dimension (p.109) This only inhabitant of the universe of zero dimension, this contained point that is

inseparable from its container, the king of Pointland is “self-satisfied.” He utters with himself: “ It fills all

Space, and what It fills, It is. What It thinks, that It utters; and what It utters that It hears; and It itself is

Thinker, Utterer, Hearer, Thought, Word, Audition…!” (p.109-10) So if I want to summarize our

understanding of an inhabitant of a universe with zero-dimension I will list the characteristics as follows:

1. The Universe does not have any dimensions.

2. Having no dimensions the idea of expansion or extension is alien to this universe since both of the

mentioned states happen, are experienced, and are perceived along a direction or within one ormore dimension and having no dimension at all Pointland is not able to accommodate such

phenomena.

3. Pointland is the case that the contained and the container become one. Assuming that this

universe has no dimension, it cannot contain anything since containment exacts the existence of


at least one dimension which grants the universe and inside as oppose to outside thus, capability



of containment.

4. Due to the fact that there is no inside conceived and for that matter perceived for Pointland, the

perceiving subject always locate himself outside of this universe which means that Pointland itself has an outside. This is the only universe in our fourfold that the protagonist does not have an

insider view of it and always perceives himself as an outsider looking at this universe.

5. Distance, direction, location, measurement and all the related concepts are not perceivable for

Pointland/Pointlander since these are concepts that exact the existence of some level of

dimensionality that is absent in a universe of zero dimension by definition.

6. The only awareness of Pointland/Pointlander is a self awareness that does not need any sensory

faculty or what I would like to call faculty of consciousness like faculties of auditory, visual or

tactile senses since such faculty operates under the condition of dimensionality and senses

measure a phenomena which has extension in at list one dimension.

7. With no dimensionality incorporated in the system movement, in the sense of measurable change

in distances in a perceivable direction, is a concept that does not exist in a zero dimension

universe.

I think that in a geo-taggable space, our relationship with other locatable subjectivities provided through a

map interface is of this nature. Any “I” perceives other perceiving “non-I‘s” as inhabitants of Pointland

which are at the same time unified with their territory -Pointland- itself. Thus one find on a map interface a

multiplicity of Pointland/Pointlanders all contained and all looked upon from outside by the “I”. There is a

slight difference though. The Pointland/Pointlanders in this case are not self-satisfied, or self-contained, or

as is in the story unaware of the existence of the others. Although the actuality of their existence is limited

to their biological skin bag, their perceptual existence is extended through a digitally provided dimension.

There are points in a multitude of points that have real-time awareness of other points.

On the other hand, if I want to give an example of a Pointland/Pointlander that does not have any

awareness of what is happening outside it and its universe, I would go with the description of “Cellular

Automaton.” A cellular automaton (plural: cellular automata) is a discrete entity. The concept consists of a


regular grid of cells, each in one of a finite number of states whereas the grid can be in any finite number

f di i ll h h l f d i b d h l i i i hb h d h

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_mathematics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_mathematics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(computer_science)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(computer_science)



of dimensions. Every cell has the same rule for updating, based on the values in its neighborhood. Each

time the rules are applied to the whole grid a new generation is created. The cells being discrete entities

do not have an overview of the whole system or let’s say the arrangement of their surrounding but are

solely programmed to respond to a set of criteria that they sense at any given time t and respond to it

accordingly. A multiplicity of cells arranged in a grid change state separately and the result is an emergent

behavior that is observed by an outsider. Each cell just has a limited awareness of itself and its internal

governing rule and operates based on the rules but the multiplicity of them in operation –discreetly-, result

in a system operating in a non-hierarchical bottom-up fashion. In a way each cell is a Pointland/Pointlander

with one level of transcendence. Its awareness also includes an awareness of its immediate neighborhood.

In that sense the cell is a Pointland/Pointlander with extended awareness.

Back to our account of the story, the first level of transcendence happens in migrating of the perceiving “I”

form Pointland, the universe with zero dimensionality to Lineland, the universe with one dimension.

Lineland is a universe that is contained and at the same time contains. It is contained in the universe of

two-dimensions and contains elements of one dimension –lines- and elements of zero dimensions – points.

In the course of the story the readers are walked through another reverie of the protagonist, whereas he

finds himself outside of the two-dimensional universe of Lineland at first and tries to reach out to its

inhabitants by entering this universe. The entrance of a two-dimentional object to a one-dimentional

universe is conceptualized as an intersection. Since a one-dimensional universe lacks one dimension to

contain the whole of the two-dimensional object, what happens upon the act of entrance of the mentioned

object in the mentioned universe is that the universe at any given time is only receptor of sections or parts

of the object that it can afford to contain at that given time which as was mentioned before would be the

intersection of the two dimensional object with the one dimensional universe.”The linear realm of Lineland

has not Dimensions enough to represent the whole of an inhabitant of Flatland”…” In the same manner

the country of Two Dimensions is not spacious enough to represent a being of Three, but can only exhibit a

slice or a section of it” (p.84) that can be accommodated in the existing dimensions of that space. In the

case of our protagonist in this specific reverie– The square and his dream of the journey to the Lineland–

this intersection would be a line as the reader becomes aware of in course of the story. Another interesting

aspect of the story is the rule presented by the author as the only way of transcending a universe of n-

dimensions to a universe of n+1-dimensions. The transcendence is actualized by the movement of the

object in a direction contained in the dimension that does not exist in n-dimensional universe. In the case


of Lineland which only has two directions along its only dimension – South and North – the transcendence

h h th bil tit i ht l ft l th di i th t i t t i d i th



happens when the mobile entity moves right or left along the dimension that is not contained in the

Lineland. For a linelander a straight line is where he passes his existence and is which constitute the whole

of the world, and indeed the whole of Space. Not being able either to move or to see beyond constrains of

this space, saved in his Straight Line, he has no conception of anything out of it. If in the same manner as

what I did for Pointland I would like to categorize the presented characteristics of Lineland these major

headings come to mind:

1. With only one dimension there are two perceivable geographical directions in Lineland: North and

South

2. Lineland can contain entities with maximum of one dimension which can extend along onedimension and in two directions. Since dimension implies direction and measurement, with one

dimension the inhabitants of Lineland are able to measure phenomena in two directions along the

sole dimension of their universe. In LineLand measurements of length become the very

measurements of space, since “Space is Length”(p.67-8)

3. To conduct the act of measuring Linelanders use a sensing faculty that in this case is the sense of

hearing, and through the same faculty the measured dimensions is communicated among theinhabitants: The inhabitant that wants to communicate his measurements sends an auditory

signals from what I call his two output devices located at its two extremities. The other inhabitants

“at this moment receiving the sound of one of [his] voices, closely followed by the other, and

perceiving that the latter reaches them after an interval in which sound can traverse a specific

length, infer that one of the subject’s extremes is that length further from them than the other,

and accordingly know the subject’s shape to be that length.” (p.68). So one can also inferred that

in a universe of one dimension shape is the measurable Length too. Another interesting issue isthat in a one dimensional universe the measurements of the sole supported dimension is not

directly perceived by the sensory faculty but is inferred indirectly via some level of mediation,

which is the calculation of measurements based on auditory differentiations.

4. In Lineland, all vision limited to a Point, and all motion to a Straight Line. (p.64)


5. “As each individual occupies the whole of the narrow path, so to speak, which constitutes his

Universe and no one can move to the right or left to make way for passers by it follows that no



Universe, and no one can move to the right or left to make way for passers by, it follows that no

LineLander could ever pass another. Thus “Proximity is an accident,” (p.63) and an irreversible one

for that matter. In Lineland when there are at least half a dozen intervening individuals between

the perceiving subject and the other that he is intended to communicate with , whome you can

neither see through, nor pass by(p.63) Distance is eliminated by means of the faculty of sound and

the sense of hearing (p.65). Thus again the same combination of input/output devices that are

used for measuring the phenomena in Lineland are also used as means of communication between

the inhabitants and the exchange of these measurements becomes a part of the communicated

phenomena.

6. In the field of visual perception, the length is not perceptible since it is the inside of the subject

(p.70) In Lineland to detect the difference between a Line and a Point by the sense of sight is in the

nature of things impossible; but it can be inferred by the sense of hearing.(p.67)

7. Movement happens in the direction of the extremities as opposed to the direction of one’s side. It

becomes more clear in the discussion of the protagonist and the King of Line land:

“King. Exhibit to me, if you please, this motion from left to right.

Protagonist.Nay, that I cannot do, unless you could step out of your Line altogether

King. Out of my Line? Do you mean out of the world? Out of Space?

Protagonist. Well, yes. Out of your World. Out of your Space. For your Space is not the true Space. True Space is a Plane; but your Space is only a Line.”(p.70-1)

Furthermore the discussion also indicates that If there is no perception of a direction there is no

way to explain movement in that direction since movement is explained in terms of directionality


The next stage of transcendence is that of the universe of two dimensions or that of Flatland. Flatland is

where the two dimensional inhabitants move freely in the two dimensional world without the power of



where the two dimensional inhabitants move freely in the two dimensional world without the power of

rising above or sinking below it. (p.1) For a Flatlander everything appears as a line and in the occasion of

women viewed from a specific angle, a point; given the fact that female members of this hypothetical

society are straight lines.

In Flatland, identity is discerned via senses of hearing, feeling and sight.(p.3) Flatlanders cannot see

angles, they can infer them through sense of sight thanks to the existence of fog that dims the elements

based on distance, shading away as they get further away from the perceiving eye. Since dimension

implies direction in which it extends, it implies measurement, and the concept of more and the less. If one

does not know what to measure and in which direction one is incapable of perceiving the dimension. Thus

for Flatlanders the only geographical directions are Northward, Southward, Eartward and Westward. And

these fuor also are the only directionalities that are in accord with the idea of movement, extension and

measurement. The space is conceptualized in this case as an entity that extends indefinitely in two

dimensions.

In a Dialogue between a Flatlander and an intruding three-dimensional entity that later on we find out that

is a sphere intersecting with the plane of the Flatland, the two-dimensional entity describes the space as

that which is height and breadth indefinitely prolonged. (FLATLAND, p.80) and then the Flatlander proceedfurthermore in his scrutiny of the claim of the supposedly three-dimensional entity by asking: Dimension

implies direction and measurement, If I have dimensionality called by you as height, … measure my

“height”, or merely indicate to me the direction in which my “height” extends.(FLATLAND, p.83) In what

direction is the Third Dimension? (FLATLAND, p.80) First rule of thumb that comes to mind is that in order

to perceive an extra dimension the perceiving subject should first have a faculty by which it becomes

possible for the subject to become conscious of anything outsides the limits that are exacted by

dimensionalities of the universe or space that is inhabited by the subject, and second the subject should

posses means of moving out of the limits exacted by dimensionality of the inhabited n-dimensional space

in order to perceive the n+1th dimension. As a result, as long as the navigation of the subject and his

faculties of consciousness are confined within the dimensional limits of the n-dimensional universe, it is

impossible to perceive the n+1th dimension. Dimension implies direction in which it extends, implies

measurement, and implies the more and the less. If you do not know what to measure and in which

direction, you are incapable of perceiving the dimension. (borrowed from WM. Garnett overview of the


piece-p.xx) This requirement of a sensorial faculty that functions outside of the dimensional confinements

of space and also the navigational means and/or skills that provide movement in a direction outside of the



of space and also the navigational means and/or skills that provide movement in a direction outside of the

space with the limited dimension is well described in the scene where our narrator from Flatland meets an

inhabitant of the Lineland. The question that comes to mind at this point is whether the mentioned faculty

of consciences or means of navigation needs to be a part of natural configuration of the subject or can it

also be a prosthetic, for our case a technologically enhanced digital prosthetic that assist the subject in yet

another sensory and/or navigational transcendance to a dimension beyond the three dimensions of the

inhabitable space in our universe.

Another interesting phenomena discussed throughout the book is what I would like to call the collision of

universes with different dimensionalities. When a sphere descends upon the plane of the Flatland all that

the flatlanders perceive is a circle that grows through time driving the inhabitants outward and after a

certain point it contracts leaving their habitat un-obstructed again. Whereas for the two dimensional

subjects the phenomena changes through time, for three dimensional subjects it is the matter of

movement through time and not dimensional change. Thus in a fourth dimension collision with our three

dimensional space, all the changes that we experience and assign to flow of time is due to movement, the

whole future as well as the past always existing in the fourth dimension. (borrowed from WM. Garnett

overview of the piece-p.xvii-xviii) Contemplating the progression of the events, the intersection of a

moving square ( a two dimensional entity) perpendicular to the Lineland, and the intersection of a moving

sphere ( a three-dimensional entity) perpendicular to the Flatland, one can infer that when an entity with

n+1 dimension enters a space with n dimension what is visible to n-dimensional beings inhabiting the n-

dimensional space is the intersection of the n+1-dimensional entity with n-dimensional space and it is a

recognizable entity since it (the intersection) confirms with n-dimensionality, with a slight difference

though. The generated figure can transform in time: increase/decrease in dimensions through time to the

point of disappearance or perishing from the n-dimensional world, which is the point that due to its

movement in the n+1th dimension it seizes to intersect the n-dimensional world. So, the dimensional

transformation of the intruding n+1-dimensional entity is due to the fact that it is mobile or capable of

mobility in the n+1th dimension. (FLATLAND, p.106-7)

In Flatland, the flatlanders can not see angles, but can infer them with great precision(FLATLAND, p.22)

through sense of sight thanks to the existence of fog that dims the elements based on distance, shading

away into greater dimness as they get further away from the perceiving eye (FLATLAND, p.27,28) Thus in a


two-dimensional world for the two-dimensionally conscious subjects the second dimension is not detected

or picked up directly by the sensory faculties but is inferred based on the hints provided by the subjective



p p y y y p y j

sensorium. Applied as a universal rule, the mentioned fictitious fact represents the other interesting aspect

introduced in the course of the narrative which is the fact that in a universe with n-dimensions n-1

dimensions are directly perceived by the sensing faculty and the nth dimension is inferred based on the

hints perceived by the perceiving subject through sensorial faculty. In a two dimensional world the second

dimension is not visually grasped but inferred through logical contemplation. When entered the third

dimension the second dimension is not just inferred but actually seen whereas the third dimension is

hinted upon by atmospheric phenomena: light and shadow, color, receding lines in the distance which we

call perspectival view and so on. On the other hand, Men, woman, child, thing – each is a point to the eye

of a Linelander, whereas for a Flatlander everything appears as a line and in the occasion of women

viewed from a specific angle, a point. (FLATLAND, p.63) With Loss of dimensions the sensory faculties

diminish in number too. Where as in the Flatland, identity is discerned via senses of hearing, feeling and

sight, in Lineland identity is only discernable by the sound of the voice. (FLATLAND, p.63) And following the

same line of ramifications the directionality of movement reduces accordingly. For example in LineLand as

each individual occupies the whole of the narrow path, so to speak, which constitutes his Universe, and no

one can move to the right or left to make way for passers by, it follows that no LineLander could ever pass

another. Thus in Lineland All vision limited to a Point, and all motion to a Straight Line (FLATLAND, p.64)

Also there is a direct relation between the number of navigatable directions and the number of dimensions

of the space. For example in Lineland with one dimension where measurements of length become the very

measurements of space, since “Space is Length”(FLATLAND, p.67,68) the only navigatable geographical

dimensions are North and South and moving right or left is something that is imperceptible for an

inhabitant of this two-dimensional universe. In the same manner a Flatlander is incapable of perceiving

any movement upward or downward since the only thinkable geographical dimensions are North, South,

East and West. If there is no perception of a direction there is no way to explain movement in that direction

since movement is explained in terms of directionality. This observation becomes more clear at different

points throughout the narrative, once when the two-dimensional entity which also happens to be the

narrator of the story fails to explain the second dimension for a one-dimensional entity, living in a one

dimensional world in terms of movement to right and left and in another incident when a three-

dimensional entity is trying to communicate the concept of the third dimension to our two-dimensional

narrator, when he is incapable of perceiving upward and downward as directionalities that are different


from North and South. Upward does not exist as a direction in flatland, just as left and right are non-

existant directionalities in Lineland. (FLATLAND, p.108)



Aside from the difficulties that an inhabitant of a n-dimensional universe has in understanding another

possible direction of movement in the n+1th dimension, which is the representation of movement in then+1th dimension in a n-dimensional universe, the perceiving subject is obstructed in representing an

entity that has an extra dimension. For example, The linear realm of Lineland does not have dimensions

enough to represent the whole of an inhabitant of Flatland… In the same manner the country of two

dimensions in not spacious enough to represent a being of three, but can only exhibit a slice or a section of

it (FLATLAND, p.84) that can be accommodated in the existing dimensions of that space.

The other interesting moment in the story is when the sphere (The three dimensional entity that intrudesthe two-dimensional universe) explains for the square (our two-dimensional narrator) how is it possible to

get an overview of a two-dimensional space by simple act of moving out of it.“You could leave this plane

yourself… A slight upward or downward motion would enable you to see all that I can see. The higher I

mount, and the further I go from your Plane, the more I can see, though of course I see it on a smaller

scale… This is when I am ascending”(FLATLAND, p.90) The description reminds me of my experience with

Google-earth, Google-map or any other large-scale mapping engine on a day-to-day basis. I feel that my

experience of zooming in and out has the same experiential bearing as ascending and descending of atwo-dimensional entity who defies the limits of the dimensions of his universe, flying above the plane that

constrains him and looking back at his very own universe from the out…

Going through all the ideas presented by the narrative I believe that this is the time to locate my discourse

about geo-taggable space within this taxonomy of space regarding dimensionality: Going back to the

definition of a geo-taggbale space; we already defined it as a space that is geographically describable

where as any contained entity can be described in terms of its location, dimensional extensions ormeasurements and directionality in an objective, universal and quantitative manner. Also in the case of a

geo-taggable space within which the contained entities are locatable at any given time we can conclude

that a geo-taggable space that has real-time awareness of the mobile entities contained in it is also a

monitored space where as the space can detect the location, dimensional extensions or measurements

and directionality of the mobile agents in real-time via its monitoring or location/direction/extension


sensing agents. Now based on my reading from Flatland I would like to attend to the question of

dimensionality of such space.



The first aspect is the question of directional extension of such space. Based on the reading of the piece

we can conclude that an n-dimensional space is an entity that extends indefinitely in n dimensions and in2n directions. For example a one dimensional space or Lineland extends indefinitely along its sole

dimension in two directions: north and south. Or a two-dimensional space is an entity extended indefinitely

in two dimensions and four directions : northward and southward in one dimension and eastward and

westward in the second direction. Furthermore, the dimensions that bear the extensions of the spatial

entity are the very same dimensions along which movement, and measurement of phenomena is

supported too. To my view the dimensionality of a geo-taggable space depends on the technology that is

used for geo-referencing the space on one hand and geo-locating of the contained mobile entity within thespace on the other hand.

As I mentioned before the technologies that have been considered in this study is of the type that describe

the location and direction of the physical phenomena in terms of longitude and latitude assuming the

existence of a virtual grid overlaid on the surface of the globe in reference to which all the fixed and

mobile geographically describable phenomena are located and mathematically described in terms of their

geometrical relativities. Apparently this grid has two discernable dimensions and four geographicaldirections for that matter. The difference between this two-dimensional space and Flatland is exactly the

concept of Flatness. Since the grid is overlaid on the globe although there are two dimensions to it, it does

not constitute a flat surface but a spherical one. Since a spherical form always turns back to itself thus it

does not have what we call extremities from which it can extend indefinitely in the case of Flatland. Such

space is not an extended or extendable space. Although it gains another spatial property that I would like

to define as expandability. Although a spherical surface is not extendable it can increase its measurable

surface area through expansion or scaling of the sphere itself. This geo-taggble space is an expandable

space as opposed to extended space. One example of expandability of geo-taggable space is the

experience of zooming in and out on a Google-earth or Google-map interface. Zooming-in corresponds to

virtual expansion of the spherical phenomena and zooming out is in accord with the concept of contraption

of phenomena. And as oppose to an extended space that is extended indefinitely by definition and the

status of extension is in its nature, an expansion is not a part of the definition of the spherical two-

dimensional space, but expandability is a property of such space. Thus this property can change through


time and the change is reversible too. Such space that is expanded so to speak through the act of zooming

in can in turn be contracted at a later time through the act of zooming out, thus indefinite expandability



and not indefinite extendedness is the property of such space. Expandability as opposed to extendedness

also implies the notion of time and change through time thus a two-dimensional expandable space by

nature also has a third dimension which is time. If we agree upon the fact that time is a measurablephenomena that has directionality and that there are entities that can be conceptualized as moving along

the directionality of time and are measurable in terms of time then we are talking about a dimension that

obviously is not of the same type or contained in longitude and latitude. Thus geo-taggable space is a

three-dimensional space with longitude, latitude and time as its dimensions, besides, this space is

indefinitely expandable in two directions which are longitude and latitude where as it is already indefinitely

extended in the third dimension which is time.

Now that we decided upon what sort of space is a geo-taggable space in terms of dimensionality, I would

like to move on to another aspect related to our recent finding which is that of the location of subject in

relation to the space that we just described in terms of dimensionality. I think that the subject can be

discussed in three different states in relation to the geo-taggable space. First is the subject that looks at[

the representation of ] such space through a map-interface, second is the subject that is aware of the fact

that currently he is contained within such a space and at the same time has the luxury of viewing this

space from an outsider point of view – via the map interface – while still being contained within the space.

And, third the subject can also be discussed in terms of being a three-dimensional entity with length,

width and height as the dimensions, that is inhabiting the three-dimensional space again with latter

mentioned trio as its dimensions, where as it is also augmented with the mentioned geo-taggble spatial

entity. How can the subject at the same time perceive himself both as a conventional three dimensional

entity and also the one with two of the conventional dimensions accompanied with an extension in time as

the third dimension? It seems that for this subject the space contains two parallel universes coinciding

both spatially and temporary: The physical three-dimensional space and the augmented geo-taggable

space still three dimensional but different in the nature of its dimensions.

Thinking of the subject as an outside observer is the one that tries to retrieve and view content placed on

different areas of the campus using the map interface( either when he is within the premises of the

campus or not) reminds me of the experience that the Protagonist of the Flatland novel has when with the

help of the Sphere he is able to get out of his own two-dimensional space flying above his planar universe


looking down upon it. The map-interface is the means of such transcendence for the participating subject

in the case of GEOblog. In case that the participant is physically present in the premises of the campus,



and the system delivers digital content based on his real-time sensed location, at the moment that the

subject’s attention turns from the map interface to the retrieved content, is when the subject is brought

back to the universe that he is inhabiting, of course in this case the descend is willful and not mentally orphysically painful by any means. This perpetual change of status from the state of transcendence to the

state of containment is an experiential aspect of the project for the participants which can be loaded

sensationally based on the message offered by the digital content that is being

viewed.

Another possible scenario is the case that the participant wanders

around the physical space hunting for content placed at differentlocations throughout the campus without actually caring for the

representational map. That is the case that I believe the participating

subject is maintaining two parallel lives in the two parallel coinciding

spaces. As a conventional three-dimensional entity in a physical three

dimensional space he perceives the perceivable phenomena in his

adjacency through sensory clues as three-dimensional objects;

whereas in his parallel life in the geo-taggable universe, the entities

are geometrically two-dimensional entities or zones with an extension

in time. The zones are perceived as entities constructed from boundaries

that can be transcended. Once the boundary is transcended, the subject

finds himself within the zone and capable of having access to the content that is

placed in this zone. Thus in a way, in the geo-taggable universe, the geo-locatable persona of the subject

perceives the “non-I’s” which are the zones containing the accessible digital content as lines or boundaries

that can be passed or transcended, which bears similarities to the perceptual structure that was presented

to us earlier in our reading of Flatland.

The last issue that I would like to attend to in this section is the idea of the third physical dimension in the

geo-taggable space. Although I presented the implemented geo-taggable space in the case of MIT

GEOblog as having only two physical dimensions, in reality the system differs between different floors of

the campus buildings and as mentioned before in the introduction of the features of the implemented


system, the participants can place the digital content and for that matter the zones containing digital

content on different floors. Although the third physical dimension is not incorporated in the spatial model



of the geo-taggable space, this space is conceptualized as what I presented before as a 2.5 dimensional

space or stacked two dimensional planes. Thus, our geo-taggable universe consists of multiplicity of

spherical spaces with two physical dimensions and time as their third extended dimension, that arestacked. In the case of planar entities if I were to talk about their stacking I would use the term “stacked on

top of each other” but in the case of spherical surfaces I wonder what would be the correct terminology. Is

the surface representing all the second floors of the world really stacked on top of the surface representing

all the first floor of the world and so on? If I want to diagram the concept I will end up with a visualization

consisting of concentric spherical surfaces.

I intentionally insist on the entities being surfaces because although in the diagram it seams thateach outer surface contains the inner surface, in reality it is not the case; since these entities are surfaces

and not volumes. Thus our geo-taggable space is a universe parallel to the conventional universe, with

three dimensions that coincide with it. It is a multiplicity consisting of phenomena each of which has two

physical dimensions in which it is expandable and time as the third dimension in which it is indefinitely

extended. The multiple entities are stacked in relationship to each other in a concentric configuration on

top of each other if the term can be used in this case for the lack of a better terminology at the moment.

Thus geo-taggable space is a 3.5 dimensional space, expandable in two dimensions, indefinitely extended

in the third dimension, stacked on top of each other thus the .5 outward dimension!


DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS – LOCATION-BASED RETRIEVAL OF CONTRIBUTED DIGITAL CONTENT



DESCRIPTION OF S YSTEM COMPONENTS LOCATION BASED RETRIEVAL OF CONTRIBUTED DIGITAL CONTENT

Once the augmented digital layer is populated by contributed content, participating parties can retrieve

them in three different ways:

*Retrieving content based on semantic search:

If the participant types in a key word and hit the

search button, the system will look for the

searched word in content title, description, or

semantic tags and retrieve the relevant digital

content.

*Retrieving content using interactive

navigatable map interface: The participant can

specify a location in space to retrieve content

that has been geo-tagged to or placed at that

location. In order to do that, one can use the

zoom and pan function on the map to navigate

the plan or use the virtual elevator to navigate

between different floor plans.


*Retrieving content based on self-initiated, real-

time location reporting of the user: The

participant can decide to report his or her real



participant can decide to report his or her real-

time location so that the system retrieve and

deliver digital content accordingly.

Just hitting the Find Me button would result in calculation of the real-time location of the participant basedon IP address which would inform the system about which campus building the participant is in. As a result,

the system would locate the participant at the middle of that building. Using the Java applet in combination

with Find Me button will result in locating the participant with a higher precision based on continuous

screening and reporting the Wi-Fi Access Points' Mac Address, and signal strength from which the

participant is connected to wireless network. Before going further in the course of the report I would like to

give an overview of how the system is technically implemented and what the implemented system keeps

track of through time and how these temporal logs of different aspects of the system can be used in post-implementation user study and follow up analysis of the system.


GEO-BLOG TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION – GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF SPACE



GEOblog is all about location. It is a location-base content contribution and retrieval system. By definition

such system needs to be implemented using GIS technology. A GIS or geographic information system

manages and presents data that refers to or is linked to location whereas data management is defined as

capturing, storing and analyzing the phenomena that we refer to as data. Data is any digitized variable

that can be located spatially whereas location may be described by x, y, and z coordinates of longitude,

latitude, and elevation. Different kinds of data in map form can be entered into a GIS system.

In a GIS, geographical features are often described as mathematical, machine readable datasets that in

computer science are referred as vectors. In such system the spatial phenomena consists of features that

are geometrical shapes. Different geographical features are expressed by different types of geometry:

1. Zero-dimensional points are used for geographical features that can best be expressed by a single

point reference; For example, cities on a map of the world would be represented by points rather

than polygons. No measurements are possible with point features.

2. One-dimensional lines or poly-lines are used for linear features such as rivers, roads, railroads,

trails, and topographic lines. Line features can measure distance.

3. Two-dimensional polygons are used for geographical features that cover a particular area of the

earth's surface. Such features may include lakes, park boundaries, buildings, city boundaries, or

land uses. Polygons convey the most amount of information. They can measure perimeter and

area.

Each of these geometries are linked to a row in a database that describes their attributes including

semantic description of the phenomena. In GEOblog multiple GIS tables are incorporated by the

architecture of the system. The first table is populated by geo-localized floor plans of all the buildings in

MIT Campus. Each location with a recognizable boundary in the whole campus is represented as a unique

entry in this data set. Each record in the data set includes the following information about the spatial entity

that it is associated with: A unique identification number, the geometry of the location in form of a two-


dimensional polygon, the name of the space according to the naming convention that is consistent all over

the campus – i.e. w85-1201 refers to the room 201 on the first floor in building w85; the calculated area of

the polygonal object; the calculated perimeter of the polygonal object; the name of the building that the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevation_(geography)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevation_(geography)



the polygonal object; the calculated perimeter of the polygonal object; the name of the building that the

space is located in, the floor or building level that the space is located on, and the type of the space

(whether it is a class room, a corridor or connecting space, a service area, a student residence, a lecturehall or a lobby). This data set was extracted from a raw dataset that was previously generated for the

whole campus by MIT Building services.

The second table is populated by the location of all the Wi-Fi access points around the campus. The raw

dataset that this table was extracted from again was provided by MIT building services. Each entry in this

dataset include the following information about the access node that it represents: The unique mac

address of the node, the name of the node, the name of the building that the node is installed in, the flooror building level that the node is installed on, the name of the room or space that the node is located at,

and the geographical location of the node in form of a point object.

Once a zone is created by a participant as the place holder of a digital file, an entry is created in a third

dataset that is associated with this zone. This entry include the following information about the spatial

zone that it represents: a unique identification number that helps the system to refer to the entry, a binary

field that specifies if the zone is a circular one- if not, the system will assume that it is a polygonal feature-, a reference field that associates the spatial zone to the digital content that is being attached to it and is

stored in another data table – the data table that all the digital files are stored in – and finally the actual

geometry of the created zone in form of a polygonal object. Upon creation of the zone by the user, the

system compares the boundaries of the zone against the geo-localized floor plan and will subtract the

areas that fall outside the building envelope on the building level that the zone is placed at.

Since through the first mentioned dataset any given point on the campus is geographically described, andvia the third mentioned data set any spatial zone that is created by the user is interpreted by the system

as a geographical entity, the digital content that is attached to the defined spatial zones by the user are

automatically associated with geographical locations on the campus.

On the other hand, for the content retrieval aspect of the project, if the user chooses to retrieve content

based on self-reported realtime location, a java applet will monitor all the available Wi-Fi access nodes and


sends a list of the mac addresses of the available access nodes as well as the wireless signal strength of

each of them to the server. The system calculates the real-time location of the self-reporting entity using a

spatial triangulation procedure based on the provided data. The following graph shows the principals of



p g p p g g p p p

location sensing based on spatial triangulation:

When the location of the self-reporting agent is calculated as a geographical point with known longitude

and latitude, the location of the point can be compared against the geographical description of the spatial

zones stored that contain digital contributions. The system will then automatically identify the spatial

zones that contain the calculated geographical point that represents the real-time location of the self-

reporting agent. Consequently, the digital content that is associated to these spatial zones is going to be

retrieved from the data base and made available for viewing.





DATA TABLES – DESCRIPTION OF DATA SETS AND RELATIONS



This section is dedicated to the preliminary design of the data base and the relationship between different

data sets that was incorporated in the realization of GEOblog system:

Authorized User Log is a table that keeps track of all the created user profiles:

• “id” field is a unique assigned number which functions as the primary key of

the table which allows the system to refer to each record that represents a

unique profile owner

• “username” field keeps track of the actual user name chosen by the profile

owner at the time of profile creation

• “first_name” field stores the first name of the profile owner

• “last_name” field stores the family name of the profile owner

• “email” field stores the MIT email that the profile has been created using it

• “password” field stores the profile password chosen by the profile owner at the

time of registering with the system

• “is_staff” field clarifies if the profile is owned by an individual that is using the

system or an individual that is an administrative of the system who has access

to backbone structure of the system

• “is_superuser” field clarifies the access rights of a staff member. A super user

has full control on the data base to modify fundamental characteristics of the

system architecture


• “is_active” field clarifies whether the profile is currently active or not. This field

can be used if the system is designed in a way to deactivate a user profile in

case that it is detected by the system that the user is placing inappropriate



content on the digital layer of the campus or if the user himself decide to

deactivate his profile temporary or permanently.

• “last_login” field keeps track of the exact time and date of the last time that a

profile owner has logged into the system

• A “date_joined” field keeps track of the exact time and date of when an account

has been created. This information is of great help to identify the pattern of

adaptation of the system by the community and how the system becomes morepopular within the community. One assumption in analyzing this data through

time is that the more the digital layer is populated by early adopters of the

system the more it will penetrate the community. Or maybe picks in the

adaptation of the system correspond to certain dates for example the first of the

semester or summer break or some other critical time in the life of the campus

that is not known to us at this moment. This assumption is yet to be justified

through most implementation analysis of the system.

“Contribution Zones ” is a table that stores the information about the zonal place holders that are created

by users to attach digital content to:

• “id” field is a unique identification number assigned to each entry to access

each created zone on the system

• “circular” field stores the binary information about whether the created zone is a

polygon or a circle

• “floor” field stores the information about which floor the zone has been created


on

• “geo_info_id” is a foreign key which corresponds to the identification “id” of

h di i l ib i i h bl l i b h i l



each digital contribution in the table to create a relation between each spatial

zone and the content that is attached to this zone by the contributors

• “geometry” is a field that stores the actual geometry of the created zone as a

polygonal object

The system is designed in a way that a given contribution can be attached to

multiple spatial zones, whereas a contribution is a set of digital files that are

uploaded as one entry as a set. Thus, each set can have multiple spatial zones

associated with it.


“Contribution Sets ” is a table that stores the information about each contribution set created by the

profile owners:



profile owners:

• “id” field is a unique identification number assigned to each entry, used to

access each created contribution set in the system

• “name” field stores the name of the contribution set specified by the user in

contribution form at the time of creating the entry

• “description” field stores the description of the contribution set specified by the

user in contribution form at the time of creating the entry

• “created_date ” field stores the actual time of the creation of the contribution

set automatically added to the record by the system

• “modified_date ” field stores the actual time of the last modification of the

contribution set automatically updated in the record by the system

• “taken_date ” field stores the historical time of the contribution set specified by

the user in contribution form at the time of creating the entry

• “expired_date ” field stores the time beyond which the contribution set is not

going to be retrievable by prospective viewers specified by the user in

contribution form at the time of creating the entry

• “publishing_date ” field stores the time from which the contribution set is going

to be retrievable by prospective viewers specified by the user in contribution

form at the time of creating the entry

• “owner_id ” field stores the identification number of the owner of a contribution

set. This field connect the table to the “Authorized User Log” table via “id” field


in that table



“Contribution Tags” is a table that stores the all the descriptive tags generated by the contributors to

describe their contribution sets:

• “id” field which is a unique identification number for each tag

• “geocontent_id” field which stores unique “id” of a contribution set that has

been tagged by a given descriptive word. This is the field that connect the

record to the corresponding record in “Contribution Sets” table via the unique

“id” of each record in that tale

• “tag_id” field that stores the actual tag word

At the time of the creation of each contribution set, all the comma separated tags

specified by the user are going to be stored in this table by the system and

associations with the corresponding contribution set in the “contribution sets” table

is created by the system.

Storing the tags in a separate table allows for more efficient handling of semantic

search for the content. At the time that a semantic search is being performed by a

user, the system with compare the query submitted by the user against all the

entries in this table, upon identification of matches the system retrieve

corresponding records from “Contribution Sets” table

“Media Files” is a table that stores the information about all the digital files that have been uploaded to the

system by profile owners:


• “id” field which is a unique identification number for each digital file that is

uploaded to the system

• “content path” field which stores the actual address that the file is stored on the



• content_path field which stores the actual address that the file is stored on the

server

• “preview_path” field which stores the actual address that the automatically

generated thumbnail is stored on the server

• “original_filename” field which stores the original name of the uploaded file

• “type_id” field which stores the type of the digital file whether it is jpeg or flash

animation. Also youtube enteries can be submitted as digital content. In this

case the youtube content index should be submitted as the address of the

content. i.e. if the entery’s address is ” www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI

“, “Yu_moia-oVI “ should be submitted by the user in the content contribution

phase and the same data is going to be stored in the data table in the

“content_path” field as the unique part of the address of the file on the net. As it

was mentioned before all the digital images are automatically converted to jpegformat before being stored on the system

• “geo_info_id” field which associates the digital file to a contribution set in

“Contribution Sets” table. Multiple digital files can be associated with one record

in “Contribution Sets” table which means that a contribution set can contain

multiple digital files

• “height” field which stores the height of the digital file after it has been resized

to fit in the acceptable viewing screen size which is that of 600*800 pixels

• “width” field which stores the width of the digital file after it has been resized to

fit in the acceptable viewing screen size which is that of 600*800 pixels. As

mentioned before each digital file is automatically resized by the system to fit


the acceptable viewing screen before it is stored on the server




There are other datasets in the system that maintain a log file of all the activities that are accommodated

by the system through time:

“Location Log” is a table that keeps track of how a location is specified by the user in content retrieval



phase:

• “id“ is a unique automatically assigned identification number for each entry in

the table

• “date“ keeps track of the time that the location of an agent has been reported

to the system

• “ user_id ” keeps track of the identity of the user that is using the platform. In

case that the user has logged in to system this entry can be associated to the

corresponding registered user, if the user is a member of general public that

does not have a profile on the system a generic code will be entered into this

field

• “ method “keeps track of the method that is used by the user to specify a

location, the system differentiates between specifying the location on the

navigatable interactive map by dragging the location indicator on the map,

specifying the location on the navigatable interactive map using the virtual

elevator tool to navigate between different floors, specifying the location via

choosing the retrieved content through semantic search, reporting the location

via IP address localization, or reporting the location using the java applet and

Wi-Fi based triangulation of the space.

• “floor” keeps track of the floor associated with the reported location

• “location” keeps track of the geographical coordinates of the reported location

as a point object with known longitude and latitude.

“sessions_key” associates each location reporting to the session during which the


reporting is happening. Each time that a given user access the geo-blog site, the

duration that the user is using the service is identified by the system as a session

and a unique identification id is assigned to each session for the purpose of tracking

the activities of the user through time.



g

This generated data set allows us to detect connections between the manner the

digital layer is populated by community member’s individual digital contributions

and how the space is inhabited and frequented by users of the system and how the

digitally augmented layer affect patterns of movement and inhabitation in the

physical space.

Furthermore since the system differentiates between different modes of specifying

the location for which the relevant content is being retrieved. Some comparative

analysis can allow us to identify the incidents where the individuals that are using

the Wi-Fi locationing applet to report their location, use some type of interaction

with the interactive map to correct the error in the location sense by the system.

“Viewing Log” is a table that keeps track of which content has been retrieved/viewed by whom and atwhat time:

• “id“ is a unique automatically assigned identification number for each entry in

the table

• “date“ keeps track of the time that the a given digital content has been viewed

by a given user

• “ media_id ” is the unique id of the digital file that has been viewed. This id

associates the entries of the “Viewing Log” table to the entries in “Media_File”

and for that matter “Content Sets”

• .user_id keeps track of the identity of the viewer of the content. If the user has


been logged in his profile, the entry will be associated to the corresponding

entry in “Authorized User” table. If the user is retrieving content anonymously

the system assigns an a generic number to the entry in this field.



“session_key” associates each each content viewing log to the session during which

it is happening. Each time that a given user access the geo-blog site, the duration

that the user is using the service is identified by the system as a session and a

unique identification id is assigned to each session for the purpose of tracking the

activities of the user through time.

This generated dataset will help us to monitor the behavioral patterns of the

individuals who are using the system in order to draw connections between the

frequency and duration of the visits to the augmented digital layer and the

physical/spatial specificities’ of the terrain that is augmented by this layer on one

hand and how it can again affect the manner in which the augmented space is

inhabited by the individuals who are using the service.

”Campus Network” is a table that stores the information about the wireless network of the campus :

• “address” field specifies the range of dynamic IP addresses that are

automatically assigned by the network to any system that is connected to

internet via this network i.e. 18.183.0.0/16

• “building” field stores the name of the building in the campus that is covered by

a given network

• “information” field stores the information of the network i.e. NETWORK W84-

DYN 18.251.0.0/16 Building W84 Dynamic

This is the table that enables the system to maintain localization functionality based

on IP address. Once the user connects to the web interface via campus network, the

system will determine the IP address of the client that is accessing the website and


compare the IP address against the records of this table. As a result, a low accuracy

locationing system is applied to locate the user within the campus at building level,

since each IP address family correspond to one of the campus buildings.



”Campus Access Points” is a table that stores the information about all the Wi-Fi access nodes of the

wireless net work of the campus along with their geographical location as well as the name of the actual

room or identifiable space that the access node is installed in:

• “mac” field specifies the unique mac address of the access point

•

“name” field stores the information associated with the access point includingthe building name, floor and room name of the location that the access point is

installed in

• “building” field stores the name of the building

• “floor” field stores which floor of the building the access point is located at

• “room” field stores which room or identifiable space in the building the access

point is located in

• “position” is a geometry field that stores the actual point in space that

correspond to the geographical location of the access point in terms of its

geographical longitude and latitude.

This is the table that is used by the system as a refrence frame in Wi-Fi locationing.

Once the user specifies that s/he want to use the Wi-Fi locationing applet to report

her/his real time location, the applet will monitor the list of the access points that

are available to the Wi-Fi card of the viewing platform – in this case personal

computer or Laptop and calculate the location though triangulation of space based


on the known geographical location of the access nodes retrieved from this table

and the strength of the signal received from each of the available access points. The

reported location will be the criteria to retrieve digital content that has been

attached to the space in the vicinity of the reported location.



”Campus Floor Plans” is a table that is populated by geo-localized floor plans of all the campus buildings.

This is the data set that is used by the system to generate the flor plans that are used as the backdrop of

the navigatable/interactive map of the web interface. The flor plans are used by the map as a reference

frame in self-reported or specified location of the user in content retrieval and the created content zones in

content contribution part of the interaction of the user with the system. These floor plans are also used by

the system to calculate the acceptable parts of a content zone once it is created by the user. Each content

zone is compared against the floor plans is adjusted to the building envelop on the floor that the zone is

placed at. The areas of the created zones that are out of the building envelop on upper floors are

subtracted automatically by the system.

•“id” field specifies the unique identification index of each identifiable physical

space

• “geometry” is a geometry field that stores the the actual shape of a physical

space in form of a polygon with all the geographical information of tits points in

gis format

• “building” field stores the name of the building that the space is located at. In

case of MIT campus this information also include the building name and the floor

on which the space is located at i.e. 10-400 is the name of the room 400 which

is located at building 10 on the fourth floor.

• “floor” field stores which floor of the building the identifiable space is located at


With all the major data tables of the system being introduced the following graph illustrates how each of

the tables are being used by the system and how records are associated cross different tables:




GEOBLOG - FUTURE DIRECTIONS - ADOPTABILITY AND EXPANSION

1 Applicability of the system to a different [institutional] site: The system is designed in a



1. Applicability of the system to a different [institutional] site: The system is designed in a

way that through changing the geo-server to one that is populated by floor plans for another

spatial entity on one hand and also updating the database table corresponding to geo-location of

WiFi Accsess Nodes on the other hand the system automatically will adapt itself to the new site.

2. Expandability of the system via new additions to Geo-Server entries and other data sets

: With physical expansion of the campus in the case of future acquisitions, or transformation of the

digital landscape due to the applied modifications on the infrastructure of the connectivity and

Networking of the site, the augmented digital layer can also expand via adding the new entries

both to geo-server and data-sets containing geo-location of newly added Wi-Fi access points

GEOblog, uses three different geo-spatial tables to geo-localize the physical space that is used both as a

refrence frame while contributing and geo-tagging content and while the user self-reports his/her real-time

location to retrieve relevant content in situ.




Another look to the structure and nature of the data tables makes it clear that there are three different

tables in the system that allow for geo-localization of the physical space and augmented digital layer:

1. Campus Network that offers a list of all the wireless sub networks around the campus and the

range of dynamic IP addresses that are assigned to a system that connects to network which is

unique for each of MIT Buildings which allows for a low- accuracy locationing based on reverse geo-

coding of IP address of the user that is connecting to the GEO-blog server. As it was mentioned

before this locationing procedure locates the user at the middle of the building that the

automatically assigned IP address correspond to its Subnet based on associations that are made in

this data table.

2. Campus Access points that in collaboration with an applet that allows the user to self-report his

real-time locationing allows for a high resolution location sensing based on Wi-Fi wireless network


of the campus. This table consist of all the Wi-Fi access nodes as well as their geographical location

( the longitude and latitude of the point in space that the node is installed at)

3. Campus Floor Plans, which is a table populated by all the geo-localized floor plans of the buildings

in the campus. This table contain the geographical information of the shapes that constitute the



in the campus. This table contain the geographical information of the shapes that constitute the

over-all floor plans of the campus. The enteries of this data table will populate a

navigatable/interactive map interface which is used as a refrence frame both to contribute and

place digital content over specified spatial zones and specify a physical location interacting with

the map to retrieve content that is relevant ( placed over, or attached to ) the specified locality.

It is obvious that all these three data tables are site specific and the content of these tables will differ from

one physical site to the other. But the point is that the system has designed in a way that its functionality

is independent from the content of these tables meaning that for a new site, as long as these three site

specific data sets are updated with the information pertaining to the new site, the system will

automatically adopt itself to the specificities of the new site.

Thus for any given physical [institutional] site, if

1. there is a dense wireless network in place that operates using Wi-Fi access nodes

2. there is a complete data set of the geographical location of each Wi-Fi access node which also

associate the access node with the name of the building/floor/room that the access node is

installed in, on or at.

3. there is a complete data set that is populated by geo-localized floor plans of all the buildings in the

site

4. there is a complete data set that associates the automatically assigned IP addresses pertaining to

the subnets provided by the network employed all over the site with the physical entities and

actual places like buildings, rooms etc.

And if these three tables replace their corresponding tables in GEOblog data base, then the system

automatically is going to adapt to the new physical site and its spatial specificities.


Based on the same line of reasoning, after GEOblog platform is employed for a given site. In case that the

site of the project expand due to further acquisition of real-state by the institution, or the digital landscape

of the site changes to addition or omission of Wi-Fi access nodes or the change in the process of assigning

dynamic IP addresses y the implemented Network, adding the new entries to the three previously

mentioned data sets of editing the existing entries will result in adaptation of the system to the modified or



mentioned data sets of editing the existing entries will result in adaptation of the system to the modified or

extended digitally augmented landscape.


GEOBLOG – FUTURE DIRECTIONS - IMPROVEMENT OF LOCATIONING FUNCTIONALITY

1. Improvement of Location-Sensing Technology through incorporation of material



properties of architectural elements: The wireless signal strength drastically changes in its

attributes while travelling through different architectural elements with different material

properties which effect the precision of location-sensing procedure. One possible direction can be

incorporation of material characteristics of the architectural elements as a field entry of Geo-

Localized Floor Plans used in the location-sensing procedure to achieve maximum level of

precision.

2. Improving of Location-Sensing Technology through incorporation of tracking the self

reporting agent in the space through time: Each self-reported or sense location is compared

by the system to the trajectory of the movement of the mobile agent in the space, in the case that

a drastic change in location is sensed over a short time interval it is an indication of a possible

error in location-sensing which the system can rely on to correct itself. Also, through time the

system can learn from such incidents to develop sensitivity about the areas that such indication of

error or inaccuracy is more frequently detected.

Theoretically triangulation of space based on Wi-Fi signal

reception can yield very accurate result in sensing real-time

location whereas the digitally augmented space is an open

terrain and nothing obstruct the line of sight between a given

Wi-Fi access node and the Wi-Fi enabled device that uses the

strength of the signal received from the access point as a

criteria in calculating its real-time location. But, in a built

environment it is quite common that the signal has to pass

through the thickness of architectural elements to get to the

Wi-Fi enabled device.


Under such circumstances the signal strength drops each time

that it passes a physical barrier and if a procedure is not

incorporated in location-sensing code that take this

phenomena into account, the weaker signal will translate to

bigger relative distance between the Wi-Fi access node and Wi-



b gge e a e d s a ce be ee e access ode a d

Fi enabled device that is receiving the signal.

Thus the calculated location will be mistakenly shifted towards

the Wi-Fi node with stronger signal. Assuming that this node is

the nearest to the location of the Wi-Fi enabled device since in

an unobstructed terrain the strength of the signal is

proportional to the distance that the signal has to travel to get

to the device. Where as in reality distance is not the only factor

that play a rule in the strength of the signal when it is received

by the device but each time that the signal passes a physical

barrier and travels through its thickness, there is a drop in the

strength of the signal.

Given the mentioned facts, one possible future direction can focus on how this phenomena can be taken

into account in calculating the real-time location using Wi-Fi triangulation. One possible way is to find a

way to incorporate the material characteristics of the architectural elements that are spatially dividing the

terrain and obstructing the streightline between the Wi-Fi node and the Wi-Fi enabled device. If at any

given point there is a way to take into account how many barriers the signal has to cross and what is the

impact of each one on the signal strength, the accuracy of the location sensing will improve. This exact

the nedd to identify how many barriers are passed by the signal and what is the materiality of each barrier

and how and to what extend crossing a physical thickness of such materiality will affect the strength of the

signal.

Another possible way to improve the location-sensing functionality of the system is to compare each

detected real-time location against the past trajectory of the mobile entity in the space. If a drastic change

is detected within a short time span it would be flagged by the system as an improbable reading of the


real-time location. Such system can be designed as intelligent meaning that it learns from behavioral

patterns of the inhabitant through time.



GEOBLOG – FUTURE DIRECTIONS – FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF USER EXPERIENCE, BENEFITING FROM THE IMPLEMENTED

TECHNOLOGICAL PLATFORM

1. Adding more features to GEOblog Platform: In the context of the platform that hasbeenimplimented for GEOblog, with minor changes or additions other scenarios can also be

supported by the platform that will enhance the user experience in a physical space that is digitally

augmented. Two og which I would like to discuss here which are : Virtual Hopscotch and Digital

Story Lines

Virtual Hopscotch: This interaction mode allows the participant to navigate the data space, overlaid on a

physical space different from the immediate space that the he/she is inhabiting based on the the roamingof a fellow participant in another location ( Any participant owns a virtual avatar and a virtual shadow of

her/his own. The virtual avatar represents the normalized location of the participants in the augmented

space and the shadow represents the normalized location of the participant in the data-scape. By dragging

one’s shadow to the location of another participant’s avatar, one would initiate a request to virtually

hopscotch to the other subject’s location in the data-scape, getting access to what the other subject has

access to as opposed to what s/he would have access to, had s/he decided to follow his own root in the


hard-scape corporeally.) This mode of experience brings to mind the situationist’s experiments with

psycho-geographic maps of the city by navigating one city with the use of the representational map of

another city. Furthermore connections can be drawn from “Hopscotch” which is a novel by Argentine

author Julio Cortázar. It was first published in English in 1966 three years after it was written.



The piece is written in an episodic, snapshot manner. The novel has 155 chapters, the last 99 beingdefined as "expendable." The book can be read either in direct sequence from chapter 1 to 56, or by

“hopscotching” through the entire set of 155 chapters--except chapter 155--according to a table provided

by the author that leaves the reader, finally, in an infinite loop between the last two chapters in the

sequence.

There are several other ways to read the novel, such as reading only the odd or even pages, or choosing

chapters in completely random order. Some of the "expendable" chapters fill in gaps in the main story,

while others add information about the characters or record the aesthetic and literary speculations of awriter named Morelli .

Narration and the persona of the narrator is an important part of the structure of the book. In part one,

From the Other Side, it is implied that Horacio is the narrator and the ‘writer’ of the story, especially since

it is repeatedly mentioned that La Maga is his muse and eventual literary salvation. However, in part two,

From This Side, the introduction of Morelli as a character seems to hint that he is the true ‘writer’ of the

story, especially in the ‘Morelliana’ of the expendable chapters.9

The idea of this shift in the persona of the narrator and the fact that the novel is written in a way that

allows the audience to “hopscotch” cross different chapters of the book was the inspiration for the design

of the functionality for “Virtual Hopscotch” for GEOblog platform

Digital Story Lines: Right now the platform allows for contributing stand alone instances of an

accordance in form of digital media that has documented it. If a tracking system is also implemented the

users can also contribute story lines that consist of multiplicity of story zones along a defined path. When

retrieving content the user can specify that he/she wants to retrieve digital content that pertain to a

specific story along a path and the system can guide the user through the space to follow the path of the

story that consist of mile stones along a path in the physical space. An interface should be designed that

offers a graphical representation of the actual path of the user in the physical space and the desired path

that should be taken to follow the flow of the locational digital story line on one hand and the give a hint to

the user when and where the subject is deviating from the desired path on the other hand.

9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayuela




In case of digital story lines whereas a specific navigational

path becomes the desired path to take. The question is

what is the best way to represent the augmented space in

order to guide the user along a specified path in this space?

A fundamental aim of the conceptual design of such mode

of interaction with the system is to attend to the question

of whether we really need a map if the territory is the mapitself? If we look at the project as a new way of navigating

the space not based on Cartesian coordinates which

requires a representational map but based on different

levels of accessibility to geo-tagged digital content which I

call Hertzian coordinate, do we really need a map of the

Cartesian space? Do we really need a map if the map is as

big as the territory and we are in the map? This wayinstead of a map, what one needs is a diagram of our real-

time navigation in the Hertzian space representing which

data one has access to and to which direction one needs to

keep moving to if the desire is to follow the path that

corresponds to the path of the digital story line.


2. Using the implemented campus wide location sensing platform as a back-bone for other

context-sensitive services for the benefit of MIT community : One can think of multiplicity

of scenarios in which a coherent spatial system hosts different spatial scenarios or delivers



relevant services to its inhabitants best on real-time knowledge of their location and orientation in

the space.

An example of Using the implemented campus wide location sensing platform as a back-bone for other

context-sensitive services is, MIT Ping which is a proposal for a location‐based community text

messaging platform that provides a text based communication interface for the members of the

community that happen to be in physical proximity of each other at a given time. This communicative

portal offers an interface for the participating individuals to share location specific information with

each other, through geo‐tagging the text message to a specific zone in the campus making it available

to the fellow participants that happen to be in the vicinity of the participant that is initiating the text

message or within the specified zone that the text message is placed at.




Web Interface : MITPing is conceptualized as a facebook applet. The interface consists of three different

panels:

1. iping is the part of the interface that enables the user to inter the body of the text, specify the

time span that the text is valid – after the expiration time of the text message it is not going to be

available – and specify the spatial region that the text message is tagged to – the fellow

participants that their location happens to be outside of the zone that a specific text message is

tagged to, are not going to have access to the geo-tagged text message.

2. palping is the part of the interface that list the available text messages that have been generated

by one of the members of the participant’s social circle- the list of friends is retrieved from the

participant’s friend list on his/her facebook profile. The list can be sorted based on temporal

distance- chronologically- or spatial distance- calculating the distance between the current position

of the user and the node in the space that the text message was initiated from.

3. Mitping is the part of the interface that list the available text messages that have been generated

by other members of MIT community that are not in the participant friend list retrieved from

his/her facebook profile. This list is also sort-able both spatially and chronologically.


Once the participant chooses an item in the list,

the system will provide a map interface

representing the current location of the user and

the node in the space that the initial message

has been generated from. The user is also

id d b th ti f l i th



provided by the option of relaying the message

with a pre-defined spatial extension radius –

specifying a circular area with the current

location of the participant at its center that the

selected text message is going to be relayed

over- and temporal extension – a predefined

duration of a availability of the message.

Added value for the community if implemented : MIT community has always supported the concept

of sharing resources and information. There are some informational items and resources that are valid

within a specific region and at a given time, the following scenarios are indicative of some of the cases:

1. Sharing found Resources

2. Asking for Resources

3. Sharing/Asking for location specific information

4. Initiating a social event


Research potentials of the proposal: In order to be able to benefit from different features of the

system, the participants choose to voluntarily report the system on their current location every time that

they initiate a message or retrieve one. As a result the researcher is provided by a set of interconnected

public zones (MIT campus) that the inhabitants are willingly and continuously reporting back their location

for that matter their pattern of movement. Assuming a reasonable penetration rate for the offered system,

the generated datasets consisting of the time and location of the users can be used for various spatio



the generated datasets consisting of the time and location of the users can be used for various spatio-

behavioral analysis, the following list consist of some possibilities but of course is not exhaustive of all :

1. Analysis of patterns of movement in the space

2. Analysis of the patterns of co-habitation, crowed formation and dispersion through time

3. Identifying the shared spaces that are heavily used during different temporal spans

4. Identifying the patterns of dissemination of information in the space. Imagine the case that a

specific piece of information is being tracked by the system to analyze how it is disseminated

throughout the campus via relaying- The text message is initiated at a specific node in the space

and is disseminated through the users once they decide to further relay the information to their

one vicinity.

5. Monitoring the patterns in which the provided digital layer (the geo-taggable space) is populated

by the community of users and how one can draw connections between the specificities of the

physical space that is overlaid by this digital layer and the detected patterns of populating the

digital layer through geo-tagging.

6. To what extent individuals that share the same virtual social space – having mutual friends in their

facebook friends list- tend to occupy the same physical social spaces- publicly shared zones [of the

Campus].

Of course MIT Ping is not the only possible context sensitive service that can be built upon the

implemented locationing system.


GEOBLOG – FUTURE DIRECTIONS – CROSS PLATFORM DEPLOYABLITY OF THE S YSTEM

At the moment the platform has been developed as a web interface in combination with a JAVA applet or

an executable file – a driver for wireless card – that allows the system to get access to the Wi-Fi readings



an executable file a driver for wireless card that allows the system to get access to the Wi Fi readingsfor calculating the real time location. Furthermore it is assumed that the target audience will connect to

the website via a laptop or desktop computer. Since the major part of the system has been developed in a

way that it is not platform specific it will be easily achievable to convert the system to one that is

accessible and operational cross platforms on any Wi-Fi enabled device that is able to connect to the World

Wide Web including a plethora of hand held devices like smart mobile phones.

Two extensions/modifications are needed to be taken to consideration with such an aim in mind:

1. The web interface should be modified in a way that the size and resolution of the graphical

interface automatically adopts to the specifications of the viewing screen of the device that

connects to the platform via internet.

2. For each operating system a different Java applet or a different driver should be included that will

provide the require access to the wireless network card of the system which allows for Wi-Fi

readings that are required for the system to locate the device in real-time.


MOVING FORWARD - POST-IMPLIMENTATION LONGITUDINAL USER-STUDY

GEOblog is an implemented casestudy that is a try in transforming the public space to a content sharing

medium through digital augmentation of the space with geo-taggable, content holding layer. The question

to be asked is: How does the augmented digital layer changes the perception of the sociability



to be asked is: How does the augmented digital layer changes the perception of the sociability,

inhabitation, spatial navigations and boundary conditions in urban public terrain?

For the contemporary man, one of the functions of public space is being a place where a deliverable

service is delivered to him/her while the whole deal is visible and accessible to thepublic consisting of the

multitude of the subjects that are co-habiting the same space at the same time for the very same reason

of having access to the same deliverables; consider a theatre, a concert hall, a museum, or a library

whereas the deliverable is the cultural content. There are two types of public spaces; the public spaces of

transit which are perceived as spaces allocated to the act of passing through and the public spaces of

temporal equilibrium and settlement; places that are assigned to stay in and pass time while receiving a

specific deliverable service whereas this service can consist of cultural content or else.

The public zones of transit and the public zones of settlement get their perceivable description and socio-

spatial definition partly based on their socially assigned function and /or their urban typo-morphology; for

example an airport is a public space of transit by functional definition whereas

a street is a public space of transit due to its linear morphology and also partially because of a collective

perception of it as such. There are some points in the life of a public space that these assigned roles of

transit and rest change or shift due to circumstances; urban festivities and also revolutions and social

unrests are among these incidents. In the course of both incidents the function of the public arena turns

out to be that of delivering a specific content or narrative; consider a Jazz festival held by residents or local

commerce in a neighborhood in which case the incident is organized around cultural content, or an urban

upheaval whereas the content is that of grass root generation of self-expression in its individual and/or

collective form and as a multiplicity of emergent patterns of behavior concerning the concept of socio-

political resistance. As an example from my own culture, I would like to draw the reader’s attention to the

idea of collective prayer which is a ceremony being held every Friday in the streets of Tehran whereas

major urban arteries change function from transit axes to places of gathering and sit-in for half a day every


week during Friday morning prayer. It seems that narrative and content has this magical capability of

shifting or transforming the transitory public spaces to the spaces of rest and collective contemplation.

Inter-subjective behavior or discursive interaction between the subjects is not likely to happen while the

subjects who are cohabiting a public arena consider the space as a transitory space, since the first rule of

interaction is the criteria of engagement and the subject is less prone to engage while in transit.



Aside from these series of psycho-sociological assumptions we have the current state of affairs with in

which the contemporary public space is a monitored space where the absolute or relative locational,

temporal and/or contextual coordinates of the subject can be calculated in real-time. Once it is possible

through the current technological constructs to monitor the real-time spatiotemporal specificities of the

subject, it is reasonable to assume that any monitoring system has real-time access to the subject,

capable of delivering data to the subject as well as gathering data about the subject from the subject since

the relation of the one that is watching and the one that is being watched is a bilateral relationship . As a

result, the very same subject that is being surveilled in real-time can be accessed and be granted access

to the flows of information, adding a digital layer augmenting the other layers of infrastructure of the

urban spaces. The monitored aspects of the subject’s behavior and his/her spatio-temporal specificities are

delivered to the surveillance system as packages of data and at the same time through the same portal,

content packages can be delivered to the surveilled subject. As a result whereas in the old days access

was assumed to be a matter of private space, connected to TV sets and telephone land lines, and Internet

cables, in the contemporary form of it, access is implemented within the context of mobile subject, thus

the subject who is present in the transit public spaces of city.

If we assume that deliverance of content can transform the mode of subjective perception of a public

space on one hand and that it is possible to deliver content to the contemporary subject through the

bilateral relationship between the surveillance technologies and the surveilled public on the other hand,,

then it is reasonable to assume that any system that enables some sort of content delivery to the subject

on-the-run who is the subject passing through the transit public spaces of the city would both changes the

perception of the subject of the urban space with in which the content is

deliverable and also the function of this public terrain, while this new conceptualized layer of the urban

public spaces is going to be affected by spatial drivers ( the physical specificities of the urban terrain) as

well as psycho-cultural factors.


Thus, as mentioned before GEOblog as a test bed for the mentioned assumptions as been implemented to

include the following practical components:

1. A website component through which the user is enabled to upload content and attach the content to a

specific location within the physical space using a planar map. The user is provided by two different tools

for geo-tagging the content: content nodes and content zones. When content is attached, embedded or



geo-tagged using the node tool, it means that it is placed at a specific node in the planar space, or urban

terrain perceived as a two dimensional plan, and that it is accessible by viewing platform with in a default

or predefined radius (distance from the node to which the content is attached to). When the content is

placed in the physical space using the zone tool, it is more concerned with the zones or areas of the

physical terrain that the place of relevance or occurrence of the content is perceivable or in the visual field,

for example whereas the content pertaining to Graduate School of Design building is reasonably supposed

to be attached to a node within the footprint of the building, its zone of

visibility can be anywhere in Quincy street based on what sort of the relationship the sharing subject want

to develop with the narrative of the shared content.

While the conventional geo-tagging interfaces on the web enable the user to attach standalone content to

standalone nodes in the planar representation of the space, the designed interface in this research wouldallow the user to treat the content as a phenomena that extends beyond a specific node transformaing to

an augmented spatial that offers a narrative a narrative extended through time and space.

2. A platform or interface to access the data (in this case the shared and geo-temporally tagged content)

on a wifi-enabled device i( in this case personal desktop or laptop computer in the physical space which is

augmented with a digital layer of uploaded content, on the run and in situ or off-site.

There is a spatial database that is populated through uploading and geo-tagging the content using the

mentioned geo-tagging tools via the web interface. Thus, some location-based data field is a part of any

data record entered in the spatial database. As a result, if we assume that the Wi-Fi enabled device that is

aware of its location with some level of accuracy through both hardware and software components on one

hand and that it is able to connect to this spatial database populated by content and location data

pertaining to each content on the other hand, then the device can report its location to a procedure on the


server that the spatial database is located at. Once the device reports its current location to the server

space wirelessly, a procedure is executed on the server side that will query the spatial database in order to

retrieve data that is tagged to the relevant reported location of the device. Once the dataset including the

relevant content is retrieved from the spatial database, this set of content can be transmitted from the

server and received by the client software on the viewing device through wireless connection, thus

rendered accessible to the subject holding the device.



The combination of the following two interfaces/platforms would provide the public terrain with an added

digital layer that can be populated by the users of the public terrain with user generated digital contents

and stories. The idea is that providing the user with the mentioned geotagging tools as opposed to

traditional node-based geo-tagging tool would result in different patterns of populating the digital layer,

which has different or shifted patterns of density. The fact that how this augmented digital layer is

populated , and what sort of density typology would be the result of this populating pattern would affect

the patterns of movement and use in the augmented public space. Whereas in conventional cities, the

urban form and its density has a direct effect on the patterns of movement and use of the inhabitants of

the public terrain, the morphology and density of the augmented digital layer can have a indirect effect on

the patterns of use and movement of the digitally augmented physical terrain. It is interesting to find out

what would be the corresponding definition of different conventional urban phenomena (their

corresponding counterparts in the augmented digital terrain) for example what is a landmark, a

neighborhood, a street, an urban node, an urban access, and if there is a relationship or a way toinfer the

form of one in the physical terrain from the form of the other in the digitally augmented layer populated

with user generated content.

Once the platform is implemented, a sample group of subjects (most probably MIT Undergraduates who

are assumed to be both comfortable and willing to adopt new technologies) would be provided by an

already gathered set of content that is relevant to different locations in MIT Campus (MIT hacks and

pranks) and would be asked to geo-tag them using the set of provided geo-tagging tools once off-site and

using the web interface and once while on-site using the interface when the space itself becomes the map

or medium of geotagging.


On the other hand the study group would be asked to navigate the space with the device accessing the

same set of content that has been geo-tagged by other subjects. The two different data sets generated

from the geo-tagging behavior and the navigational behavior of the subjects

within the digitally augmented/tagged space will be analyzed to address the following questions:

1 Is there a relationship between the density of the augmented digital layer and the resulted forms of the



1. Is there a relationship between the density of the augmented digital layer and the resulted forms of the

process of population of this layer and the physical space and the specificities of the physical space that is

being augmented by this digital layer? Can the form of one layer be logically drawn based on the

observations about the other layer?

2. How does the tagging behavior of the user changes when he is asked to tag content to a space while

mobile in the space as oppose to being provided by the tagging interface off-site and trough a planarrepresentational map?

3. How does the user’s behavior changes in the physical space in presence of a digitally augmented layer

of user generated content as oppose to absence of such a layer?

4. Does augmentation of the urban terrain with digital content in the form of zones of accessibility or

visibility for content result in a shift of boundary of public zones for the perceiving subject. How does the

perceptual boundaries of the urban terrain changes due to the experience of the subject in the process of

being introduced to a digital layer containing geo-tagged content. Once augmented by a digital layer

populated by user generated

content, does the public terrain transforms from a zone of transit to zones of public engagement,

participation and interaction?

It is also worth mentioning that once the system is implemented and made open for public use in the

campus it is possible that the platform is adopted by enough number of users that it would make it

possible to do some more generalize post-implementation study outside the sample group, with in the

student body in MIT campus. So the sample study group is proposed to secure a minimum amount of data

to be analyzed within the framework of the proposed research and development project.


Implementing the design guidelines that are devised in the theoretical-conceptual framework of the study,

the research is intended to attend to a longitudinal post-implementation user study of the case, monitoring

the levels and patterns of the participation of the members of MIT community and perhaps the visiting

individuals in the experiment. The user study will involve analytical visualization of the quantitative data

retrieved in the process of longitudinal monitoring of the space. There is an irony in choosing such

methodology for post-implementation user study of the case: It is assumed that any augmented space



logically is a monitored space, since delivering of any data to a mobile user with locational, temporal

and/or contextual sensitivity, exacts a need for monitoring the patterns of mobility of the user and sensing

the users’ locational and temporal coordinates, in relation to other subjectivities and objectivities. So in

order to actualize digital augmentation of the space the first step is designing and implementing the

monitoring infrastructure, and again the researcher is back to this surveillance aspect once it is time to

analyze the socio-spatial impact of the implemented augmentation and the generated hybrid space.

Aside from attending to the question of how an augmented shared space is received and appreciated by

community and what are the characteristics of the generated public sphere when the public space is

enabled to accommodate various communicative acts through monitoring the space, there would be

questionnaires which would focus on cross-referencing and navigational aspects of the project attending to

following questions:

In the case of Geo-temporal referencing and the designed interaction and interface for this matter, which

approach is more desirable or intuitive for the participants: to treat the place holders as nodes of existence

on the physical terrain or zones of accessibility and/or visibility? Different aspects of this qualitative

comparison should be studied both for the participants who are using the geo-temporal cross referencing

interface on the web to upload/tag/share their content and the participants who have participated in

navigating the augmented space and accessing and viewing the uploaded content on the hand held

device. The questionnaire in this case would address the issue of eligibility of the logical connections of the

overlaid semantic/memory terrain and the physical terrain both when the connections are conceptualized

as nodes of existence or zones of accessibility/visibility.

In the case of the level of appreciation and how the augmented shared space is received and perceived as

a medium for interaction with other subjectivities, objectivities and/or the shared territory, and inter-

subjective communication, a questionnaire and/or a set of conducted interviews is going to be designed


which would focus on the following issues: To what level the participants were engaged with the adjacent

territory trough navigating the memory terrain? To what extent the participants were willing to or

comfortable with using the platform (the augmented shared space) for self-expression or (spatial-

blogging)? To what extent the augmentation of the shared space would encourage participation in design

and implementation of the digital layer? To what extent taking part in augmenting the space in the form of

content generation, spatial-blogging, or spatial story-telling, on one hand and navigating the geo-tagged



memory terrain of the shared space on the other hand encourages the members to engage in fleeting

interactions with strangers in the space without getting personal during the course of interaction?

The presented document has tried to walk the reader through the steps that has been taken in conceptual

design and technical implementation of the system that provide a platform for showcasing the potentials

of digital augmentation of a publicly shared space. Studying the modes in which such platform is perceived

and received by the community provide a valuable resource of scholarly research in the field. The

participants contribute to the scholarly goals of this project at two different levels:

1. Involuntary participation through the digital traces that individuals leave through time

unconsciously with adopting and using the system:

The system keep track of three major phenomena in the digitally augmented space through time:

i. When GEOblog profiles are created

ii. Where spatial zones are places as place holders of contributed digital content which allows

the researcher to monitor how the augmented digital layer is populated through time and

how this patterns relates to the specificities of the physical space that is being augmented

by digital layer

iii. When, where and by whom the digitally augmented space is visited by individuals. The

system keeps track of the locations that are specified on the map or reported by the

locationing system through time. This information allows the researcher to draw

connections between the specificities of the physical space and the digital layer and how

such specificities exact a certain pattern of navigation – virtual or corporeal – of the space

through time


iv. When, where and by whom digital content has been retrieved by individuals and what is

the criteria for searching and retrieving digital content which allows for studying the

impact of the message of the content, the place that the content is placed at and the

procedure of the locating content within the augmented space on each other

2. Willful participation of the individuals in the research via participation in the online pool or the

designed experiment that are designed to identify different aspects of the experience and validate



designed experiment that are designed to identify different aspects of the experience and validate

several assumptions that are made by the researcher about how such system is received and

perceived by the participants and how their experience of the spatial phenomena and the social

inter-subjective communications that are housed in such hybrid space – digitally augmented

publicly shared space - can be enhanced using the provided platform.

Through the implementation of the proposed guidelines within the framework of the proposed casestudy it is expected that providing the subjects with a well-designed platform for spatial content

sharing in shared augmented spaces would generate a discursive public sphere which would provide

denizens with a space for eventful, constructive, and engaging inter-subjectivities in the form of, peer-

to-peer, content-oriented (as opposed to object-oriented) democracy; making the space a social

medium in addition to conception of it as a social production. Lefebvre sees the space as a social

production and now, by using peer-to-peer networks it is possible that people contribute in constant

real-time transformation and transfiguration of the hybrid (augmented) urban spaces, adding another

feature to space as a social medium.

The hypothesis is that the participants will find geo-temporal referencing of the content more intuitive

if the place holders are being conceptualized as zones of accessibility rather than nodes of existence

on the semantic/narrative memory terrain. The content of the online questionnaire along with the

description of each question and also the content of the designed experiment are attached to this

report in appendix A and B


APPENDIX A- POST-IMPLEMENTATION USER STUDY -ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE

At the moment, the system is at its final implementation phase and system debugging process. Once the

system is fully implemented and operational, it will be available in the public domain @

http://senseable.mit.edu/geoblog/.

http://senseable.mit.edu/geoblog/

http://senseable.mit.edu/geoblog/



An online questionnaire is also available as a part of the website. The users can choose to participate in

this online poll. The research questionnaire focuses on the behavioral/experiential/perceptual ramifications

and of enabling the individuals to share narratives in form of digital content spatially via a geo-tagging

interface, which allows the users to place digital content on a layer overlaid on spaces that are conceived

as shared spaces. This questionnaire is designed with both location sensitive content contribution and

content retrieval in mind. If the user has not used either of the interfaces, – the content contribution

interface as well as on-location content retrieval interface or if the user chooses not to participate in the

poll it is not obligatory by any means to do so. The questions are as follows:

The first set of questions asks for the background of the poll participant and his/her general experience in

using blogging, user-generated content sharing and geo-tagging platforms.

1. Is your educational and/or professional background in architecture, urban design or interior design?

(I t is assumed that participants who have a professional/academic background in

architecture/urban design have a deeper understanding of spatial phenomena; spatially when it

comes to understanding a space mediated via a representational map.)

2. Do you maintain a personal blog?

(Bloggers are already familiar with the practice of self-casting to the on known world. Bloggers

become intimate with total strangers –sharing with the unknown world what they think and what

they feel while maintaining their privacy.)

What do you usually blog about?


( If the participant is a blogger it will be interesting to know what is it that they share with the

unknown audience.)

3. What is interesting about blogging for you?

( If the participant is a blogger it will be interesting to know what aspect of blogging, self-casting,self-expressing to the unknown audience is of appeal to them.)



4. Are you currently using any web-based user generated content sharing platform? Please specify

which platform you use to share your content

( Participants that are already using a web-based user-generated content platform, have familiarity

with the process of tagging, describing, naming and uploading digital content. Thus, they pick up

the user interface easier and in a more intuitive manner.)

5. Have you ever tried any content sharing platform that allows the user geo-tag the content? Please

specify which platform(s) you have used.

( Participants that are already using a geo-tagging web-based or client application, have a prior

understanding of idea of annotating the space, or attaching digital content to physical space. It is

assumed that for the most part this prior knowledge is limited to using nodal place holders that is

offered by platforms like Yahoo maps, Google maps, Flikre, etc.)

6. If you have ever used geo-tagging interface, which approached did you use before?

A. Placing the content on a map through specifying the point where you want to place the

content by clicking on the map or drag and dropping the content to a point on the map

B. Specifying the street address, city, country or other locational information as a text-based

tag or in the description of the content i.e. My friends in Paris!

C. Specifying geo-tags in form of longitude and latitude at the point that you would like to

place your content


(It is interesting to know if the user is familiar with the idea of thinking about space as a

geographical phenomena, is this geographic entity conceived as nodes identifiable on a

representational map, absolute longitude and latitudes, or descriptive names of identifiable places

as in name of the cities, street addresses, etc.)

7. What is the nature of the content that you usually geo-tag?



(What is the nature of the data that the participant feels the need to attach or associate it to an

identifiable geographical entity or node in space? Is it the data pertaining to the characteristics of

a space? Is it digital photos that represent the participant’s memory of a specific geographical

location?)

8. What do you find interesting about geo-tagging or adding locational information to the content thatyou share with others?

(What is interesting about associating non geographical data to geographical locations? Is it a way

for the participant to spatially locate their memories mediated and stored via digital medium?)

The users are asked to answer the following questions if they have used GEOblog Interface to upload, geo-

tag and share content.

1. Using Geo-Blog, the stories that I share are about:

A. Things that happened before

B. Things that are happening right now

C. Things that are going to happen in the future

D. Things that do not have any specific time

(Where one locate the digital memories that are associated with a physical place temporally?

When one feels the need to make such spatial association? Is it the past occurrences, things that


are just happening or things that are yet to come? Or maybe there is no need to locate phenomena

temporally for it to be associated with a physical place?)

2. Using Geo-Blog, the stories that I share are related to:

A.

Me

My family and friends



B. My family and friends

C. MIT community

D. Anybody who visits MIT campus

E. Nobody in particular

F. Other, please specify

(What sort of stories are shared with others? Personal, relating a more limited social circle, a

community that one feels social associations with, general unknown public.)

3. What is the format of the digital content that you contribute to the Geo-Blog platform?

A. Photo

B. Flash Videos

C. Videos uploaded to youtube

( Photos are messages that can be conveyed instantaneously whereas videos are perceived

through time. Which type of digital messages is being associated with physical spaces, the

instantaneous ones or the ones with duration?)

4. Using Geo-Blog, I geo-tag my content to:

A. Locations which are related to the story


B. Locations which are crowded even if they are not related to the story

C. Locations which are frequented by me and/or my friends even if they are not related to the

story

D.

Other, please specify

( What is the criteria for placing digital content over physical spaces? Association of the message



( What is the criteria for placing digital content over physical spaces? Association of the message

conveyed by the content to the place that it is attached to? The place being frequented by the

others that are the target audience of the message conveyed by the content? Or, one is more

prone to place the content on places that it is most possible for it to be retrieved by unknown

others whereas the criteria is the highest possibility of exposure as opposed to relevance?)

5. Using Geo-Blog, where do you usually place your content?

A. Outdoor courtyards around or within the campus area

B. Streets surrounding the campus area

C. Indoor Corridors

D. Lobbies

E. Studios/Classrooms/Lecture Halls/Laboratories

F. Public places with sitting areas i.e. in front of the Café

G. Student Lounges

H. Administration Offices

I. Residence Halls

J. Other, please specify


(Are participants prone to place content in more public places or more private ones?)

6. If I am able to specify who can access my content:

A. I will limit the access of all my content to my friends

B. I will limit the access of some of my content to my friends



C. I will limit the access of all my content to MIT student body

D. I will limit the access of some of my content to MIT student body

E. I will not limit the access at all

(Is the participant prone to limit who is going to have access to his contributions, self-casting, self-

expression?)

7. Do you use initiation and/or expiration date for your content? Why?

( While placing the content in physical space, is the user also associating the content to a temporal

span? Does spatializing the message exacts the need for temporalization of it as well?

8. Do you think that there should be an editorial board which decide which content is appropriate to

be shared using the platform? Why? **

(What do members of the community feel about having control over the provided communicative

platform? Do they believe in absolute freedom or institutional control over the contributed and

shared content?)

9. Do you prefer your identity as the owner or contributor of the content be disclosed to the public?

A. I like my identity disclosed to everybody

B. I prefer to contribute anonymously all the time


C. I like my identity disclosed to my friends but I like to remain anonymous for the general

public

D. I would like to have the choice to disclose or hide my identity for each content separately

(Whereas one uses the platform to share content with possible strangers does he/she want his/her

identity to be disclosed to the unknown audience?)



10. When geo-tagging my content,

A. I use zone tool to specify the area over which the content is overlaid as a polygon

B. I use node tool to specify the center of the area over which the content is overlaid as a

circle with a specified radius

C. My choice of geo-tagging tool depends on the nature of the content or other factors. Please

explain what are the factors and how they relate to your choice of geo-tagging tool?

(It is assumed that zone tool is naturally the better choice to attach digital content to physical

space over node tool. Since, the platform is implemented in a way that participants can retrieve

content while physically in space as oppose to using a two-dimensional representational map.Under such circumstances, since the space is perceived as perspectival, and the user is corporeally

navigating the digitally augmented terrain to fish for content, it is intuitive to place digital content

over spatial zones as opposed to attach it to standalone nodes in space. This question is examining

the mentioned assumption and whether it is validated in practice.)

11. Have you ever specified multiple zones for a piece of content? Describe one of the cases and

explain why?

(It is assumed that under the circumstances, retrieval of geo-tagged content in situ where as it is

possible for the contributor to attach it to spatial zones as opposed to stand alone nodes, the user

is prone to attach content that is related to a specific place to zones from where that specific

location is visible. Since for a given physical space or entity, there can be multiple spatial zones


that the entity is visible from, it is assumed that there are cases that the users attach the same

digital content pertaining to a physical entity to multiple spatial zones from where it is visible.)

12. When using the geo-blog interface, which statement is through about you?

A. I geo-tag content to the relevant location; (the location that the content is about it)



B. I geo-tag the content to the location that the people I want them to see the content are

mostly there, even if the content is not relevant to that location

C. It depends on the nature of the content, Please give an example of a case that you use the

approach specified in the option B:

(Is it more important for the user to associate the content to the relevant physical space, or is it

more important to attach it to places that allows for maximum exposure sine the place is highly

frequented by the target audience?)

13. Please read the following scenario and choose which option is the closest to your reaction in such a

case: Imagine that you have a set of pictures about the great dome at MIT campus. Great dome is

the one on building 10 which is visible from Killian court. Where would you place the two

mentioned geo-tagging interfaces? (Googlemap where people are retrieving your contribution

navigating a representational map vs. GEOblog Interface where it is possible to retrieve youre

contribution while physically present with in campus area based on real time reported location of

the retrieving party)

A. I will place the content on an area in Killian court that the dome is visible from

B. I will place the content on the Great dome

C. I will place the content in Lobby 10


( The question is designed to validate the assumption that when the user is aware of the fact that

the geo-tagged content can be retrieved in situ to the others based on their real-time location, it

becomes more intuitive to associate content to spatial zones as opposed to the exact node in

space that the content is related too. For example, in geo-tagging a digital photo taken from Great

Dome in MIT campus using a Google map interface, the user will possibly attach the content to a

node on the dome itself, whereas on GEOblog, it is assumed that the user will attach the content to

a spatial zone over Killian Court – the open space from where the Great Dome is visible.)



The users are asked to answer the following questions if they have used GEOblog platform to retrieve

digital content while in location based on self-reported real-time location

1. When you retrieve multiplicity of content while on location, what is your criterion (criteria) to

choose which content to view?

A. I check the content at locations that I find interesting

B. I check content that is most recent

C.

I check content that has been contributed by somebody I know

D. I check content that I gather it is interesting based on the title or description

E. I check content at locations that I can comfortably sit and use my computer there

F. I check content at places that has lots of content available

G. I check content at places that are crowded

H. I check content at places that I stay for longer periods


(How does the participant prioritize when offered multiple digital content in situ. Is the adjacency

of the context of the message conveyed by the content to the real-time location of the participant

impact his choice of viewing? Is it the temporal immediacy? In which locations the participant is

prone to use the platform for in situ retrieval of content? Places that are more frequented by

others? Places that it is practically more convenient to use the retrieving device in this case

personal laptop? Places that the digital layer is more densly populated by digital contributions?)

2 Where do you usually retrieve content while on location?



2. Where do you usually retrieve content while on location?

A. Outdoor courtyards around or within the campus area

B. Streets surrounding the campus area

C. Indoor Corridors

D. Lobbies

E. Studios/Classrooms/Lecture Halls/Laboratories

F. Public places with sitting areas i.e. in front of the Café

G. Student Lounges

H. Administration Offices

I. Resident Halls

J. Other, please specify

(Which type of spaces is more interesting when it comes to navigation of augmented digital layer?

Public, Semi Public, Private?)

3. While retrieving content in a location, do you check the shape and/or of the zone(s) that the

content has been attached to on the map interface? If the answer is yes, give an example of a case

that the shape and or location of the zone(s) was interesting for you


(While retrieving content in situ, is obvious that digital content that is attached to locations in

space acquire physical measurable dimensions. Moving from one location to the other the user has

a vague perception of the boundaries of the digital content as a spatially extended entity, whereas

crossing the boundaries will result in the situation that a content that was available just a minute

before disappears from the list of available content once the participant moves beyond the

extremities of the spatial zone that the content is attached to it. If geo-tagging the content and

attaching it to spatial zones result in granting the phenomena measurable, discernible physical

t i th t i f i t t if th di f t i i t t i t th h i l



extensions, are these extensions of interest if the medium for retrieving content is not the physical

space but a two dimensional representational map of the space. Is how the digital message

extend within the physical space subject to scrutiny in the case that the observer is out of the

augmented space looking at it within a holistic view from above. Is the geo-tagged content still a

spatial entity even if the perceiving subject is not accessing it with in space and through corporeal

navigation of the space?)

4. Is it confusing for you if the content that you retrieve in a location is not relevant to that location?

why?

(When retrieving digital content in situ, based on real-time self-reported location, does the user

expect the retrievable content t have some contextual association with the location? Is it going to

be confusing if it is otherwise?)

5. Have you ever experienced the case that the same piece of content shift location from time to

time?

(Not only the other participants can delete a contribution package from the system or it can expire

meaning that it is not available for retrieval beyond a certain date, it also happens that slight

changes in the result of real-time locationing will result in shifts in the location of the attached

digital content in relationship to the actuality of the physical space. Is such phenomena

discernable for the participant?)

6. Have you ever experienced the case that a piece of content disappeared completely?


(As mentioned in previous sections, the digital layer is ephemeral and subject to change through

time. The temporality of the digital augmented layer results in discernable change in the content

offered at different locations of the campus from time to time which makes an augmented space

an entity that is in constant mutation. Does this perpetual transformation obvious for the

participant?)

7. How frequent do you think the system sense your location inaccurately in the following locations

on the campus?(Always, Often, Half the Time, Not Often, Never)



o e ca pus ( ays, O e , a e e, o O e , e e )

A. Killian Court

B. Lobby Seven

C. Infinite Corridor

D. Upper Floors

(For practical reasons that are going to be discussed in coming sections of the report, at times the

location sensing is not as accurate all around the campus. For open spaces the inaccuracy is due to

lower density of outdoor Wi-Fi access nodes. For indoors, the inaccuracy is due to the thickness

and materiality of architectural elements that has drastic impact on the signal strength of a Wi-FiAccess node. This question investigates whether the inaccuracy of locationing system is

discernable for the participant and where it is more obvious all around the campus.)

8. In a scale of 1 to 5 how frequently you think the arrangement of the placed content change on the

campus.

9. What is the nature of the content that you will prefer to actually go to its location in order to checkit out as oppose to retrieve it off-site using a map interface?

(This question is designed to investigate whether the nature of the message conveyed by geo-

tagged digital content plays a role in the choice of the participant to retrieve the content in situ via

self- reporting of real-time location or off-site through interaction with representational map. The


assumption is that in case that the message of the content pertain to a specific locale, it is more

intuitive for the participant to be more prone to retrieve content in situ as opposed to off site.)

10. How often do you use the Geo-Blog platform for either placing/sharing or retrieving/viewing

content?(Never, Occasionally, Frequently, Everyday)

A. Content Contribution/Sharing

C i l i i



B. Content Retrieval/Viewing

(This question is designed to check what is the level of the familiarity of the participant with the

different interfaces for content contribution on one hand and content retrieval on the other hand.)

11. How long have you been using the Geo-Blog platform?

The proposed questionnaire tries to cover all the experiential aspects of the platform based on the user’s

experience of interacting with the interface. In addition to this online poll a experiment is also designed

that focuses more on how the users make use of zone tool to associate digital content to physical space.

The next section of the report is dedicated to introducing this experiment.


APPENDIX B - POST-IMPLEMENTATION USER STUDY -GEO-TAGGING EXPERIMENT USING ZONE TOOL TO ASSOCIATE DIGITAL CONTENT

TO PHYSICAL LOCALITIES

This experiment focuses on how study subjects use the zone tool to associate digital content to physical

locale. In a one hour long experiment the participant is provided with the set of digital photos of differentstudent hacks that has been created all around MIT campus through time. The hacks has been chosen in a

way that they create a coherent path though MIT campus, with making a seamless spatial narrative as the



goal.

The spatial narrative starts

somewhere around student center

and continues through infinitecorridor passing by Killian Court,

Open Space near Stata Center and

ends at the Open Space near Media

Lab.

All the digital photos are presenting

Hacks and student pranks that were

installed in Campus at some point and

their location is on the specified route

or visible from the areas points on the

route.

The result submitted by the

participants’ of the experiment will be

studied to see how the participant will

use the zone tool to attach each set

of content pertaining to one Hack to

places on campus. Are they going to

attach the content to the exact place

that it occurred or are they going to113 |G E O - B L O G R E P O R T

place the content over the spatial

zone from where one can have a clear

view of the location where the Hack

occurred. For example for the

content package about one of the

Hacks of Great Dome, are the

participant attaching it to the actual

place of Great Dome on the map or



p p

are they attaching it to areas of Killian

court from where the pictures seem to

be taken and also it seems that one

can have a clear view of the Dome

from these areas.

The following is the actual content of the document that is handed out to the participants during g the

experiment:

INFORMED CONSENT AND DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENT*

Please consider this information carefully before deciding whether to participate in this research.

Purpose of the research: To examine how individuals geo-tag content in case that the retrieving of the

content is supposed to be performed on location as opposed to using a map interface. It is assumed that a

location sensing technology sense the current location of the user and reports back to the system. The


system in return will retrieve all the content that is available for that specific location. The user can then

view the retrieved set of content.

What you will do in this research: In this study you are provided with 34 content packages. Each

package contains a set of pictures and description of one of the mit hacks that has been organized by the

student body all around the campus at different times.

The descriptions and illustrations of hacks are mostly retrieved from hacks.mit.edu/ which is a website

d di t d t d ti th hi t f h ki t MIT If t l d f ili ith MIT H k



dedicated to documenting the history of hacking at MIT. If you are not already familiar with MIT Hacks,

hacks are “usually clever, benign, and "ethical" prank or practical jokes, which is both challenging for the

perpetrators and amusing to the MIT community (and sometimes even the rest of the world!).” according

to this website.

You are required to place each content package on a map that is also provided as a part of this study

package assuming that you are geo-tagging this content in order to share it with other individuals who are

going to be able to access the relevant content depending on their location.

You have three different tools in order to geo-tag the content: You can either use the polygon tool which

allows you to specify a zone in the shape of a polygon or you can use the circle zone that allows you to

specify the center of a circular zone and also the radius of it, or you can use a point as the holder to which

you want to geo-tag the provided content package. For each content package that is provided here, you

have an illustration of mit campus map that you can draw the zone(s) and/or node(s) that you want to

attach the content package to it(them). For each content package you can have multiple zones or nodes to

which you geo-tag the content.

Time required: Participation will take approximately 60 minutes to complete.

Risks: There are no anticipated risks associated with participating in this study.

Benefits: At the end of the study, we will provide a thorough explanation of the study and of our

hypotheses. We will describe the potential implications of the results of the study both if our hypotheses

are supported and if they are disconfirmed. If you wish, you can send an email message to

[[email protected]] and we will send you a copy of any manuscripts based on the research (or


summaries of our results). Also the content that is provided as the base material for the exercise is a

compiled visual list of the mit hacks and pranks that going through it will provide you with a nice over view

of this unique aspect of mit culture.

Compensation: You will receive $20 for participating in this study.

Confidentiality: Your participation in this study will remain confidential, and your identity will not be

stored with your data. Your responses will be assigned a code number, and the list connecting your name

with this number will be kept in a locked room and will be destroyed once all the data have been collected



with this number will be kept in a locked room and will be destroyed once all the data have been collected

and analyzed.

Participation and withdrawal: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and you may

withdraw at any time without penalty. You will receive payment based on the proportion of the study you

completed. You may withdraw by informing the experimenter that you no longer wish to participate (no

questions will be asked).

Contact: If you have questions about this research, please contact [Nashid Nabian, Doctoral Candidate ,

Harvard Graduate School of Design, tel: 857 204 3379, email: [email protected]]. You may also

contact the faculty member supervising this work: [Carlo Ratti , Research Scientist and Director of the

SENSEable City Laboratory at MIT, Department of Urban Studies , tel: 617 253 7926, email: [email protected] ]

Agreement: The nature and purpose of this research have been sufficiently explained and I agree to

participate in this study. I understand that I am free to withdraw at any time without incurring any penalty.

Signature: _____________________________________ Date: _______________________

Name (print): ____________________________________________________________________

*The content of this form has been adopted from HARVARD UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON THE USE OF

HUMAN SUBJECTS Sample Informed Consent form retrieved from

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~research/hum_sub/#aahrpp

Definition of the concepts: In digital content Geo-taging is defined as adding information pertaining to

the geographical location of a digital entity, for example defining the actual location that a digital picture


has been taken. In the case of geo-tagging of a taken photograph, the location can be described in

multiplicity of ways:

One can describe the location by giving the actual address of the point that the photograph was taken;

i.e.“I took this picture in Harvard Square, right in front of the Bank of America Branch.”

One can also define the location of the photograph using a geo-tagging interface using a representational

map that is programmed to be geo-taggable, by placing the icon or representation of the digital file on the

provided map; the example of this approach is the Google maps API that enables the user to place pointers



provided map; the example of this approach is the Google maps API that enables the user to place pointers

on a Google map and attach photographs and textual description to them.

Another option to define the geographic location is to use geo-tags in the form of longitude and latitude.

For example Flickr website enables the users to add locational information to the photos by adding

longitude and latitude of a point in the form of Geo-Tags; i.e. "geo:lat=36.11108150, geo:lon=-

115.17366130" .

In the last two options the digital photography is virtually placed at a point in space. In the last approach,

the geo-tagging platform provides the user with a set of tools to annotate the space geographically again

using a representational map interface, that enables the user to define zones and areas both polygonal

and circular as place holders of the digital content. i.e. mscaper is a beta version of a geo-tagging software

developed at HP Research Lab that provides a user friendly platform for artists to design and implement

location-based media installations.

Geo-tagging digital content aside from adding extra information about content, makes it possible to

retrieve the geo-tagged content based on location. One can perform a semantic search on a search engine

to retrieve digital photographs of a specific geographic location, or can use a representational map like

Google map API to retrieve or represent location specific digital content, or finally one can benefit from

technological platforms that incorporate a location sensing technology, and will retrieve digital content

based on the current geographical location of the user. For the latter case it is less probable for the user to

find digital content that has been placed at a specific node on space since it is easy to miss a point with an

exact longitude and latitude in the space. In this cases there are two approaches; either the digital content

should be place over an area or zone as opposed to being attached to a standalone node on the space, or


the location-base content retrieval service will retrieve all the digital content that are attached to nodes

which are within a pre-defined or user defined radius of the user’s current location sensed by the platform.

This research focuses on placing digital content, and for that matter geo-tagging the content, using zones (

polygonal or circular) as opposed to nodes as place holders of the content in the digitally annotated space.

Participant’s Information: ……………………………………………………………………………………..

Academic Background: ………………………………………………………………………………………..



Are you familiar with the campus and History of mit Hacks and Pranks? ………...…………………

Have you ever used a geo-tagging interface on the internet? Please specify the website(s):

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

If so, how would you usually geo-tag the content?

a. Placing the content on a map through specifying the point where you want to place the content by

clicking on the map or drag and dropping the content to a point on the map

b. Specifying the street address, city, country or other locational information as a text-based tag or in

the description of the content i.e. My friends in Paris!

c. Specifying geo-tags in form of longitude and latitude at the point that you would like to place your

content

Are you performing the experiment in the actual locations?

IMPORTANT NOTE: While placing the provided content on the map bear in mind that you are geo-tagging

the content in order to make it available for retrieval for other individuals based on their actual location on

the campus, as oppose to retrieving it off site through clicking on a representational map




*Please place your created zones on this key map of MIT campus


geoblog report

Documents