Skip to main content
Log in

Digital Selves: Devices for intimate communications between homes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The technologies that pervade domestic spaces mainly focus on utility and efficiency. They also become ever more so immaterial and non-spatial, concentrated on tiny “magic” devices concealed inside the environment, or dispersed into invisible networks. Yet, they fail to create a strong feeling of place that is intimate and reflects our identity, relations and domestic history. In this paper I am presenting a proposal for a spatial system that organizes the positions of a new type of electronic object inside the two disparate homes of a couple living apart, in order to produce a kind of intimate communication between them. The resulting architectural space is an imaginary merge of the two homes, but where real locations in each house correspond to trans-located presences of the other person/space. The system is based on simple ubiquitous technologies and the intimate relationship of the couple. I am also presenting here the attempt to implement some of the objects and to carry out a concept evaluation with potential users in order to test its validity and to highlight important issues or concerns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Examples of such projects are: (a) House_n, developed in MIT Medialab, MA, USA and (b) comHOME, a concept dwelling that was developed by the Interactive Institute in Stockholm

  2. Donna Haraway, Cyborg Manifesto, included in her book[5]

  3. One characteristic text in recent architecture theory of that kind is [7]

  4. for example: (a) Remote Home, Tobi Schneidler, Magnus Jonsson, Interactive Institute, Stockholm, (b) Adaptive House, Michael C. Mozer, Georgia-Tech, (c) bed communication, MIT, Media Lab

  5. In fact, as it was shown in the concept evaluation, any location within the house can be used as a point of reference for the merge of the two plans.

References

  1. Bergson H (1991) Matter and memory. Zone Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cooper Marcus C (1997) House as a mirror of self. Conari Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dunne A, Raby F (2001) Design noir: The secret lives of objects. Birkhaüser, London

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hall Edward T (1966) The hidden dimension. Anchor Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Haraway Donna J (1991) Simians, cyborgs, and women: the reinvention of nature. Free Association Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ihde D (2002) Bodies in technology. University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota-London

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lynn G (1998) Folds, blobs and bodies. La Lettre Vollé, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  8. McCullough M (1996) Abstracting craft: the practiced digital hand. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rilley T (eds) (1999) The un-private house. Museum of Modern Art, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konstantinos Grivas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grivas, K. Digital Selves: Devices for intimate communications between homes. Pers Ubiquit Comput 10, 66–76 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-005-0003-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-005-0003-1

Keywords

Navigation