Domestic Resonances, Modularity, and the Internet of Things

A paper submitted to the “End of the Life of the Internet of Things” Symposium

(Edinburgh, 2020)

Abstract

A vast amount of Internet of Things works have been introduced the last years to the domestic space, but many of them failed to be “domesticated” and become part of the household. This paper discusses about important aspects that we need to consider when developing design strategies for IoT projects for the home, including resonances, modularity, customized developments, personalization, and enhancement of ubiquitous facilitation.

Diffused Innovations

The Internet of Things (IoT in short) is a multidisciplinary branch that comprises of research studies and applied technology in electronic engineering, telecommunications, software development, and (industrial) design. IoT includes hardware systems and devices that are often connected to larger clusters in order to exchange data needed for the information architecture they have been created for, and to log or automate certain properties either on a physical or digital space. Since 2008 we have witnessed an explosion of the deployment of IoT systems, resulting to approximately 50 billion connected devices (in 2020), generating tens of zettabytes (10²¹) of data, and pushing the Fourth Industrial Revolution into realization [1].

The possibilities offered by the Internet of Things this last decade has fostered disruption and innovation in numerous industries, such as logistics, transportation, health care, architecture, domestic space, and more, and it is unlikely that the technological frameworks of sensing, data analysis, and automation will come to an end soon. IoT systems have become fundamental to a planetary data grid, fusing never-ending bytes of log entries from sensors, machines, and human interactions in multiple settings and applications, blending hybrid “things” (of hardware and software modules) that keep the data flows alive, and ensuring that their corresponding systems will “preserve” a functional and ideal utility – as electricity allows a fridge to operate and preserve the stored food for longer periods of time.

Domesticated Objects

Ubiquity of computer chips and wireless networks, can turn any object into an IoT system. This has been the case in many commercial and experimental applications, as we witness industry and independent creators having developed numerous projects that succeeded on some occasions, and failed on others. In the domestic space, in particular, this success depends on the efficiency of the domestication process; a subject (biological or not) is domesticated if it manages to be incorporated into the daily life of inhabitants, or it fails, and it eventually becomes rejected or discarded. Thomas Berker et al. say in more detail: 

“Domestication, in the traditional sense, refers to the taming of a wild animal. At a metaphorical level we can observe a domestication process when users, in a variety of environments, are confronted with new technologies. These “strange” and “wild” technologies have to be “house-trained”; they have to be integrated into the structures, daily routines and values of users and their environments.” [2]

Information and communication systems, sensors, and ubiquitous technologies may be domesticated and become part of the home. Even if they are visually or physically unnoticeable, they still are important extensions of the domestic ecology, valued in the same way as other non-technological physical things [3]. As Jean Baudrillard argues [4], the technological infrastructure – although unnoticeable in the daily life – is “profoundly real”, enabling the home to extend to further dimensions; technology does not only access the physical environment but, more importantly, it accesses the psycho-affective states of the inhabitants, becoming indispensable and vital to the domestic life and the experiences it provides.

The author in a previous publication concluded that “the lack of methodologies related to the domestication of ubiquitous applications does not allow the proper facilitation of computational technologies within household activities (physical or virtual), mainly because necessary aspects of the context or the environment are not properly acknowledged” [5]. This is a main reason why numerous IoT projects are rejected from the home, and also because a range of problems such as security, maintenance, programmability, efficiency, connectivity, and protocol compatibility do not allow them to become sustainable units and to continuously evolve. Even though failed explorations and experimentation of technologies is inevitable (and necessary), it can still be an important and rewarding process as it will inform following developments and assist in more advanced and targeted productions.

Resonances

Objects we love to have and use stay with us longer. IoT include a range of products and open source projects that can be utilized in a range of scenarios – from functional, to aesthetic, and emotional, amongst others. Bringing into our life a set of sensors, databases, and interface units, our perceptual awareness shifts and links to a deeper connection with these elements and their associations. Objects that exist in a private and intimate space may be able to bound with their owners in an affective relationship and demonstrate a strong resonance and emotional presence [3][4], which can shape experience and generate memory triggers that enable a particular understanding of the personalized space – within diverse contexts and using certain behaviours or actions. Similarly, Maurice Merleau-Ponty placed an emphasis on the dependence of humans on things, saying that humans are situated in a world of things, become oriented among things, and take stands in relation to them [6]. 

The household with its structural dynamics, functions, technologies and aesthetic conditions has to be considered and understood as a whole; “the appropriation and display of individual artefacts, technologies included, does not take place, nor can it be understood, in isolation”; for example, domestic objects (from a vase, the television, or a custom-made IoT system) “all signify together an expression of the systematic quality of a domestic aesthetic which in turn reveals, with varying degrees of coherence (and contradiction), the evaluative and cognitive universe of the household” [7]. Even if the system is completely ubiquitous, it still builds a certain layer in our perceptual map, which makes it indispensable to our experience, especially when the system resonates with us over a certain threshold.

DIY, Open Source, Modularity

IoT objects and services often emerge from Do It Yourself (DIY) or Do It With Others (DIWO) projects, as freely available resources may be found quite easily online and offline. With the utilization of commercial and affordable microcontrollers and electronic units (such as Arduino, Feather, Raspberry Pi), digital prototyping technologies (laser-cutting, 3D printing), and open-source code repositories and libraries, customized connected objects can be easily assembled and used. Modularity in the design of IoT systems becomes an important facilitator, as the electronic components in these DIY/DIWO projects can be re-assembled and re-configured to express new ideas, and, in a sense, become active transformative agents that re-appropriate functions, aesthetics, or affective resonances that better support the domestic environment and its occupants. 

The creation process in a custom-made IoT work is as important as the result, bringing a level of critical awareness to the inhabitant/user/creator, and an additional layer of personalization to the domestic space. These practices oppose the standard approach of domesticating media and technologies we have used to (as buyers and consumers); we can now create our own technological infrastructures in a similar way that the Dom-Ino House plan by Le Corbusier has been utilized to construct individual domestic architectures [8], or how the IKEA model influenced the way our interiors are being assembled and used. And, in addition, through DIY & DIWO, constructivism enables individuals to firmly learn and understand the underlying frameworks, and to become more aware and responsible both on the use of materials but also on the technological dynamics [9][10].

Accumulation of user-created content in online repositories (such as code, 2D/3D models, libraries, APIs), accompanied with data generated on certain context-specific situations, can greatly inform the possibilities of computationally-enhanced domestic spaces, demonstrating better effectiveness in the evolution of the IoT systems in the home; rather than sterile research laboratories, personal creation on intelligent and aware systems is more effective when created on individual scenarios by the users themselves [11][12]. 

Open-source projects developed and supported by the community are invaluable in advancing our shared knowledge fast and efficiently, providing a space to give and receive needed resources and guidance. Even though there are plentiful healthy communities on all sorts of areas – from hardware development, to coding, or art and design – many of them face problems on sustainability [13], as there are often funding issues, or other problems such as lack of communication resources, work overload, asymmetric recognition of developers’, to name a few [14]. New models on rewarding and supporting open-source project communities should be introduced, either using donations (money, time, GPU allocation), code contributions, commercial licenses, ad support, et cetera. Most probably, the resolving model(s) will not be universal, as different projects, developers, and communities may have different objectives and preferences on how to better accommodate their vision.

On the Clouds

Databases, middleware, APIs, data analytics, AI, are some of the services that are necessary in the development of an IoT work. Developers often choose to lighten the processing requirements on the client-side, eliminating the need for additional hardware components, making their units even more ubiquitous with less physical resources. Cloud-based solutions offer powerful tools (often free to small-scale projects) that can easily provide direct links to software processing modules, or scale to production. But a major setback IoT face currently is the difficulty in having compatible services between companies and organizations, such as vendor-neutral data sharing protocols, or seamless integration of logistics and financial transactions. 

Other important considerations relate to safety, decentralization, and open data. There have been many occasions in the past where certain chipsets with poor engineering design resulted in major data leaks, or in others when private data became available to intruders [15]. Ensuring that communication protocols are encrypted and decentralized, superior projects will be possible to produce, and with the additional use of open data architectures, a large playground of creative possibilities will be available to the users. The use of them within the domestic space will ensure that sustainable solutions will be available to the inhabitants, optimizing the home as a cybernetic device, and generating new experiences on how to most effectively interface with the stack, our planetary data grid.

Conclusion

The Internet of Things is a necessary and wanted addition to the domestic life, assisting, automating, and actuating a wide range of functions, activities, and practices. Providing a framework for sustainable development is paramount, and for this reason it is proposed here (a) to consider the domestication process and understand how the ecology of the home absorbs and utilizes a new technology (work or object), (b) to amplify the resonances it causes to the inhabitants (oscillate on an affective or emotional level), (c) to undertake DIY as a design strategy and philosophy, which accommodates the personalized environment, and (d) to consider maximum utilization of ubiquitous (cloud) services for reducing physical resources. 

References

1. Klaus Schwab. 2017. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland.
2. Thomas Berker, Maren Hartmann, Yves Punie, Katie J. Ward. 2006. Domestication of Media and Technology. Open University Press, Berkshire, UK.
3. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Eugene Rochberg-Halton. 1981. The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 
4. Jean Baudrillard. 2005. The System of Objects. Verso Books, New York, NY. 
5. Stavros Didakis. 2016. In Search of the DomoNovus: Speculative Designs for the Computationally-Enhanced Domestic Environment. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
6. Maurice Merleau-Ponty. 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge, London, UK.
7. Roger Silverstone, Eric Hirsch and David Morley. 1994. Information and Communication Technologies and the Moral Economy of the Household. In Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic Spaces, Roger Silverstone and Eric Hirsch (Eds.). Routledge, London, UK, 13-29.
8. Stephen Sennott. 2004. Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Architecture. Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.
9. John Dewey. 1938. Experience and Education. Kappa Delta Pi, New York, NY.
10. Lev S. Vygotsky .1978. Mind in society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
11. Dieter Uckelmann, Mark Harrison, Florian Michahelles. Architecting the Internet of Things. Springer, Heidelberg, DE.
12. Laurence Claeys and Johan Criel. 2009). Future Living in a Participatory Way. In: Brian Withworth, Aldo de Moor (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Socio-Technical Design and Social Networking Systems. Information Science Reference, Hershey, NY, 779-793. 10.4018/9781605662640.ch051.
13. Nadia Eghbal. 2016. Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor Behind Our Digital Infrastructure. Ford Foundation.
14. Devon Zuegel. 2019. Let’s Talk About Open-Source Sustainability. Retreived 12 June, 2020 from https://github.blog/2019-01-17-lets-talk-about-open-source-sustainability/
15. W. Wei, A. T. Yang, W. Shi and K. Sha. 2016. Security in Internet of Things: Opportunities and Challenges, In International Conference on Identification, Information and Knowledge in the Internet of Things (IIKI), Beijing, 512-518. doi: 10.1109/IIKI.2016.35.