John Maeda posted my diagram on multitasking here, which in turn was a response to his original post. Sandwiched between them is an interesting filling "Converge or Diverge-Depends where you stand", which reminded me of two pieces of work that may complement John's thought-piece.
Rich Gold, when he was Manager - Research into Experimental Documents at Xerox Parc, presented the idea of the Humidity of Spaces. I have one or two of his original slides, the original links have long since decayed (as predicted by William Mitchell in City of Bits). The metaphor (which his staff hoped he wouldn't use) went like this:
There are three types of space that we work in
In Rich's words: "What is a “wet space”? Well this room ( in which Gold was delivering lecture) is a wet space. You can smell, touch, feel each other; Pheromones and hormones are swirling; Very “mammal” - pack formations, leaders; Lots of gossip.
It is my experience that no project of any size can work without wet space to form the team.It unifies the team and the direction.
A “dry space” is being alone in your room. Door closed, email off, phone off, web off; There is time available to think, to dream ; Here you can write long pieces; Here you can read long pieces.
Dryness is required for any thoughts of any depth (Brainstorms (wet) can start thoughts, but only dryness can make them real).
Harder and harder to achieve in today’s world.
Dampness is new, only since the telegraph (though I get arguments). You are alone in your room; But you are connected via mediating technologies to one or more other people. Hence it has both wet and dry properties. In that sense it is the definition of telecommunicative. It is also “designed” since each medium has a series of design decisions which mould it (e.g. video screens are rectangular - when first imagined in the 19th century they were oval). Talking to my mother in Buffalo is a damp space.
Damp spaces are “prophylactic” in that they don’t allow everything through. This makes them MORE and not less valuable than wet spaces. The communicative act itself becomes more designed and can actually become art. Damp spaces are not “poor” wet spaces - the total VR model doesn’t work.
What is interesting is that all three kinds of spaces are necessary
That there are flows between one and the next
Here is how just a simple PowerPoint presentation flows through the different spaces
Make PP in a dry space - present in a wet space - teleview in a damp space - take notes afterwards in a dry space - email in a damp space - have a meeting about presentation in wet space - have conversation around coffee in a wet space - have a phone conversation in a damp space - write a memo in a damp space - write a paper in a dry space - construct a business plan based on the ideas in a wet space - read the plan in a dry space - have another meeting in a wet space - write the minutes in a dry space - download to a PalmPilot in a damp space - make another PowerPoint presentation in a dry space
BUT WHAT ARE THE ARROWS?
The arrows in the previous slide are “media” modulated by “content”
Here are some examples:
A monitor is modulated by email, the web, text, images
Paper is modulated by black or coloured ink
The air between us is modulated by sound waves (words)
The phone system is modulated by electronic wave (words)
Media is usually stable and has an existential essence that remains even when modulated
The content is the thing which changes (and is usually intended)
.....and the second piece? I'll cover that in another post!
Comments