Hi Gene,

I'd like to add a bit more context to your judgment regarding "UbiCompers" taking the "cheap bait". While I did use words such as "outraged", "offensive" and "sexist" in my original response, I also [I believe] addressed each of his less inflammatory accusations about the field and the conference. Do you believe that his comments were not outrageous, offensive and/or sexist, or that my response did not address the larger issues he raised? Do you believe that his final "word" represented a substantial revision of his original erroneous claims or indicated any openness to constructive dialogue?

I also want to note that John posted the email responses -- to his remarks which appeared in an emailed newsletter -- on his web site without any warning or consent. Hardly surprising, but another aspect that does not encourage constructive dialogue.

I do believe that John (and you!) have raised important issues about the technology-centered vs. human-centered perspectives that I believe are both represented in the conference (& the field). I hope that the community will continue to explore these issues -- in a more constructive way than the "exchange" to which you allude -- and hope that the conference provided an opportunity for some progress in this area.

One of my goals for the conference was to be more inclusive, expanding participation in the conference to involve more people from different geographies, disciplines and perspectives. I do hope that the community can engage in productive and constructive dialogue about the many issues that will influence the success or failure of ubiquitous computing, and thank you for sharing your views on several of these issues.

Joe.

Joe, thanks very much for your thoughtful comments. It's great to see you here in this humble space ;-)

As far as choice of words goes, I would describe what John initially wrote as "absurd over-generalization", "annoying", and "wrong". Given the very literal nature of ascii interactions, and the tendency for people to impute meaning between the lines as they read, I try to save the more extreme terms for more egregious situations. Of course, YMMV as always.

Having said that, I thought your response to the specific issues was on the mark, and the others' responses were considered and absolutely justified as well. I found John Canny's message particularly insightful. And while Thackara did respond appropriately, I don't feel that he left the door open for a real discussion.

I think the issues that Thackara is attempting to raise are of substantial importance, and it would be fruitful to find a venue where these could be better articulated and debated.

Perhaps a panel discussion at UbiComp 2004 (in Nottingham, UK)? I invite you to submit a proposal for a panel -- the deadline will probably be sometime next spring -- since I do believe that UbiComp is a/the venue in which these issues could be productively debated (outside of the confines of ascii world :-).

Just saw this, and am happy to concede that I/we did not make it easy for a debate to flow openly. For what it's worth, we've been struggling with ways to make our site (and my newsletter) less unidirectional for ages - and plan to blog-ise it in 2004, come what may.