interactions as
well as purely personal interactions. We would like to handle both human and
computer variants with similar ease and effectiveness.
As we considered
in some detail in Chapter 6, the Web offers a powerful mechanism for the
delivery of content. A question that we noted with this capability is the
limitation of further distribution of content obtained through exchange
transactions. We pay for a file containing a popular movie that we want, but
how would the provider guard against our turning around and giving the file to
all our friends? Conversely, of course, when we buy a file containing a movie
we may feel entitled to play it on various computers or personal electronic
devices that we might possess. On a more technical level, we sometimes seek to
gain legitimate access to information that another person or company views as
proprietary to their business. Consequently, they want assurance that we will
safeguard that information. Historically, we provide such assurances by signing
Non-Disclosure Agreements. While such agreements have significant commonality,
companies often have specific assurances that they want included in the
language of the document. Moreover, it is generally a requirement of a
non-disclosure agreement to explicitly list the information being shared. All
of these requirements are well suited to systematic negotiation through
computer based systems.
Other areas
where per-transaction policy negotiation is quite amenable to computer based
systems are the implied or specific warranties on content obtained through
exchange transactions. It is straightforward to set a personal policy directive
that I want at least one-year parts and labor warranties on all computer
systems that I buy. In some transactions, this might be included in the
purchase price while in others it might cost extra. One might also be concerned
about the return policy for purchases. And, elemental to most transactions is
agreement of what laws apply to the transaction and what the recourse for
disputed results is. While pre-interaction negotiation won’t solve all
problems, it might help make clear what each party’s recourse is when something
goes awry. These are all transaction details that a transcendent personal
device could address.
Computer enabled
applications typically entail the
definition of their own contextual environment. They define actions that they’ll
perform and parameters to describe those actions in detail. This results in such
applications sometimes providing the definition of entirely new sensori-motor
concepts to the human experience. Their actions and defining parameters
constitute the specification of a vocabulary through which a person interacts
with the application, or through which one application interacts with other
applications. Most of the time, this new vocabulary seems centered on new
nouns, adjectives and adverbs. The extensions to the language center on the
objects of our actions or in the more subtle nuances defined for actions
themselves. On more rare occasions, new verbs are brought to light. In such
cases, the applications themselves suggest new sensori-motor responses to new
stimuli that actually expand the paradigm for human activity. In some
instances, the end result is the transformation of nouns into verbs. Consider
that just 15 years ago, most people would not have understood the sentence “Text
me when you get home;” at least not in the same way that we would interpret it
today.
This evolution
of language brought about by expansion of the sensori-motor environment is
certainly not new. It is the way that languages are extended to encompass a
changing environment. It is a great power of the recognition of context and
metaphorical understanding that comprise at least some aspect of the
physiological evolution that gave rise to Homo
sapiens. It is much easier to integrate nuance into our existing metaphors
than to develop entirely new metaphors; in essence, that’s something of an
alternative definition of metaphor.
|