this notion is referred to as ubiquitous, or pervasive, computing–the idea that digital technologies and computers embed themselves into our physical environments for us to interact with them on a more natural level beyond a mouse and a keyboard though gestures and speech-recognition. also, tagging becomes important which is similar to the idea of tagging on the internet today. for example, flickr is a prime example in which you can tag a photo with relative words that allows for easier, more efficient searching and findability. you can even tag a photo with its exact GPS location (latitude and longitude) in order to plot that location on a map. soon, RFID tagging will perform much of the same functionality… allowing all of our everyday objects to be searched for and located more efficiently and much more quickly.

the beginning of this is taking place already, especially in eastern asia where the technology is more advanced than here in the states. an article in the nytimes this morning, ‘new barcodes can talk with your cellphone‘, described a new type of barcode that can be read by software on your cellphone simply by taking a photo of it:

In much the same way that Web publishing took off because of the ability to link to other people’s sites, cellphone technologies linking everyday objects with the Web would reveal the digitally encoded attributes of tangible things on grocery shelves or newsstands…
The most promising way to link cellphones with physical objects is a new generation of bar codes: square-shaped mosaics of black and white boxes that can hold much more information than traditional bar codes. The cameras on cellphones scan the codes, and then the codes are translated into videos, music or text on the phone screens.

such barcodes will essentially become ‘physical hyperlinks’ that function similarly to hyperlinks on web pages… linking you to additional information related to a word or phrase. the primary challenge, of course, is developing the technology in order to be useful and functional so that people will have a need for it and thus adopt it. additionally, it should not interfere with how we normally perform on a daily basis nor should it be more of a burden to use.

“In very dense urban environments, you get local shops and facilities mixed up together,” says Townshend. “People tend to use those more. There’s an awful lot more walking involved, just because of the inconvenience of driving.” High-density housing, in other words, can help create what is known in the trade as the “eco-slob” effect, whereby the healthy, environmentally friendly option is also the path of least resistance.

By contrast, low-density housing leaves the resident with few options. If you want to get anywhere, you need a car. “Far too much housing is built on a cul-de-sac format with a huge great wall around it and one entrance in and out,” says Townshend. “It’s for motor traffic, with high-speed distributor roads around the edge of the compound. Usually these places have no local shops or facilities.” The cul-de-sac has another obvious disadvantage: it doesn’t go anywhere. When designing an exercise-friendly environment, connectivity is king. “What happens in really poorly designed housing estates is that people have very indoor lifestyles…”

so it’s apparent that architecture is not holding up to the social responsibility it holds (well in most social aspects… not just in terms of obesity). we must change people’s behavior, yet that change also must be the easiest solution and the environment must encourage such change in order for society to follow. with this in mind, according to the article we’re “back to the idea of the eco-slob: the healthy option has to be made the easiest option.”

architecture’s problems run much deeper than just this one issue… there’s a whole slew of problems that architecture completely ignores in favor of only answering to those with money. isn’t it about time that architecture gets its act together and stands up to what it actually defines itself as, responding to that which it says it responds to? no, i don’t have the complete answer at this point, but at least i, as well as others, are actually making an attempt to understand architecture’s disconnect with the people, with culture and with society overall.