触觉互联网_扩大触觉宇宙

By david parisi| To help broaden the appeal and impact of haptics, designers should think about technology historically and culturally.

大卫·帕里西 | 为了扩大触觉的吸引力和影响力，设计人员应该在历史和文化上考虑技术。

David Parisi is Associate Professor of Emerging Media, College of Charleston.

David Parisi 是查尔斯顿学院新兴媒体副教授。

Haptics is hard. Transmitting touch over long distances using electrical signals rendered by a computer interface, or simulating the tactile materiality of a virtual world, presents a wide range of challenges. The sense of touch is complicated and variegated; the mechanisms by which it functions — the foundations of our tactile reality — have historically been understudied in psychology, physiology, and neuroscience, in comparison to studies of seeing and hearing. As a sense distributed throughout the body, composed of a range of different submodalities (including movement, pressure, temperature, and pain) it is difficult — and perhaps impossible — to design a machine that comprehensively stimulates the sense of touch. The hurdles for haptics are not strictly technological and scientific: it is not just a question of designing haptics applications that work well in the lab, or of gaining a deeper and more holistic understanding of how touch operates. As any haptician knows — and as the diverse array of haptics devices already developed and abandoned attests to — these are certainly immense obstacles that at times appear insurmountable.

触觉很难。 使用由计算机接口呈现的电信号在远距离上传输触摸，或模拟虚拟世界的触觉重要性，提出了各种各样的挑战。 触感复杂多样。 与视觉和听觉研究相比，在心理学，生理学和神经科学领域，人们一直对其功能机制(即触觉现实的基础)进行过研究。 作为一种分布在全身的感觉，它由一系列不同的子模式(包括运动，压力，温度和疼痛)组成，因此很难(甚至不可能)设计一种能够全面刺激触感的机器。 触觉的障碍并不严格是技术和科学上的问题：这不仅仅是设计在实验室中运行良好的触觉应用程序，还是要获得对触摸操作方式更深入，更全面的理解的问题。 正如任何触觉者所知道的那样- 以及已经开发出的各种触觉设备和已被抛弃的证明 -这些无疑是巨大的障碍，有时似乎是无法克服的。

But there is also a cultural challenge involved in bringing haptic devices out of the design lab in ways that are meaningful to their imagined users. There’s a tendency among hapticians to assume that their own enthusiasm for the technology extends to the broader public. It’s an understandable impulse, given that those drawn to the field are often motivated by a sort of humanistic desire to bring touch to computing: if touch is the most fundamentally human of our senses, and if it is increasingly absent from interactions in a society dependent on computer-mediated communication, then restoring touch entails a restoration of the human. However, not everyone shares this belief. For potential users who may be skeptical or disinterested, how does one explain the value that haptics can add to experiences with digital media?

但是，以对他们的想象用户有意义的方式将触觉设备带出设计实验室还涉及文化上的挑战。 触觉者之间有一种趋势，即认为自己对这项技术的热情已经扩展到了广大公众。 这是可以理解的冲动，因为吸引到该领域的人通常是出于一种将触摸带入计算的人文主义愿望而驱动的：如果触摸在我们的感官上是最根本的人类，并且在依赖于社会的社会中越来越不存在触摸在计算机介导的通信中，恢复触摸就意味着人类的恢复。 但是，并非每个人都认同这一信念。 对于可能持怀疑态度或不感兴趣的潜在用户，如何解释触觉可以为数字媒体体验增加价值？

For a long time, the haptics industry has answered this problem by overpromising and overhyping its forthcoming products, aided and abetted by a popular press that frequently covers new haptics discoveries in a fervent, celebratory, and uncritical tone, with tech companies and the popular technology press situated in a synergistic relationship. Articles (and, especially article headlines) that sensationalize the potential of haptics technologies make for alluring and evergreen clickbait. Such stories announcing the impending arrival of new devices mobilize and rehearse what I have called the “dream of haptics”: a vision of fully-realized haptic devices that provide a type of photorealism for touch, restoring the missing tactile dimension to our interactions with computers. The problem with this dream of haptics is that it is conjured around virtually every instantiation of the technology, no matter how minor. Each instantiation, accordingly, carries the burden of realizing this dream — and is destined to fall short of these promises. This has been a character of haptics marketing and journalistic writing about haptics since at least the late 1990s.

长期以来，触觉行业通过过分地夸大其即将推出的产品来解决这个问题，在一家受欢迎的媒体的协助和支持下，这些媒体经常以热烈，庆祝和不批评的口吻报道新的触觉发现，这些都是科技公司和流行的技术媒体处于协同关系。 引起触觉技术​​潜力的文章(尤其是文章标题 )引起了人们的关注和常青的点击诱饵。 这样的故事宣告了新设备即将到来，从而动员并演练了我所谓的“ 触觉梦 ”：一种完全实现的触觉设备的愿景，该触觉设备提供了一种逼真的触摸感，将缺失的触觉维度恢复到我们与计算机的交互中。 触觉梦想的问题在于，无论技术多么细微，它几乎都围绕着技术的每个实例而产生。 因此，每个实例都承担着实现这一梦想的重任-并注定无法兑现这些承诺。 至少从1990年代后期开始，这一直是触觉营销和有关触觉的新闻报道的特征。

It’s easy to understand how this happens: of course those drawn to work in the field of haptics are enthusiastic about it — haptics tends to get overlooked in favor of a focus on graphics or audio¹.

很容易理解这种情况是如何发生的：当然，那些对触觉领域感兴趣的人对此充满热情-触觉趋向于被忽视，而侧重于图形或音频¹。

¹Interestingly, psychologists who worked on touch have consistently lamented, going back at least to the 1950s, that research on the psychology of touch is overlooked in favor of research on the psychology of seeing and hearing: touch, as the lament goes, is considered “the neglected sense” in everything ranging from psychology to aesthetics to engineering.

¹有趣的是，从事触摸工作的心理学家一直感叹，至少可以追溯到1950年代，人们对​​触摸心理学的研究被忽视了，而转向了关于听觉和听觉心理学的研究：正如人们感叹的那样，触摸被认为是“从 心理学 到 美学 再到工程学 ，一切都被忽略了” 。

In the push to make haptics research legible and compelling, hapticians — both haptics marketers and haptics engineers — fall back on a set of well-rehearsed tropes about the technology and its immense impact. Journalists, too, revert to a familiar and comfortable framing of haptics as both immanent and transformative; if they do offer qualifiers about the feasibility of these complex devices coming to market, they are often buried toward the end of the article, leaving readers with the impression that they can expect to see these advanced haptics applications distributed ubiquitously in the near future².

在推动触觉研究变得清晰和引人注目的过程中，触觉技术人员(包括触觉营销人员和触觉工程师)都回避了关于该技术及其巨大影响的一系列经过反复演练的比喻。 记者们也将触觉理解为既熟悉又舒适的框架，既具有内在性又具有变革性。 如果他们确实提供了有关这些复杂设备投放市场的可行性的限定词，那么它们通常会埋在文章的最后，给读者留下印象，他们可以期望在不久的将来看到这些高级触觉应用无处不在。

²For one very recent example, check out the headlines for and reporting on the HaptiRead midair Braille haptic system: these articles contain little mention of the fact that the application is still in the very early stages of research; similarly, reporting on haptics patents often conflates the patenting of a technology with its impending arrival.

²有关一个最近的示例，请查看 头条新闻 ，并 在报告 中 HaptiRead空中盲文触觉系统 ：这些文章很少提及该应用程序仍处于研究的早期阶段。 类似地，对触觉专利的报告通常会使即将到来的技术的专利范围扩大。

So it’s clear that there’s a future orientation to the framing of haptics: a thing you’ll someday have that adds a fantastical dimension to your experience with existing technologies³.

因此很明显，触觉框架的发展方向是未来：某天您将拥有的东西将为您使用现有技术的体验增添梦幻般的效果³。

³BoingBoing’s Mark Frauenfelder, commenting on the haptics in the Wii Remote in an early review: “It feels like magic. I love it.”

³BoingBoing的Mark Frauenfelder在早期的评论中评论了Wii Remote中的触觉：“ 感觉就像魔术。 我喜欢它。 ”

The challenge is to foster an appreciation for and understanding of current-generation haptics applications, while explaining how they have and have not lived up to the dream of haptics. Those working in the field would do well to acknowledge and embrace the field’s historicity: confront the dashed hopes and failed promises, explain why haptics hasn’t lived up its lofty and transformative aspirations, and then finally, as a positive step, show how haptics already has changed the way we interact with digital devices.

面临的挑战是在理解和理解现代触觉应用如何实现和不实现触觉梦想的同时，培养对当前触觉应用的欣赏和理解。 那些在该领域工作的人会很好地认可并接受该领域的历史性：面对破灭的希望和失败的承诺，解释为什么触觉没有实现其崇高和变革性的抱负，最后，作为积极的一步，展示触觉如何已经改变了我们与数字设备交互的方式。

Skepticism about the technology’s capacity to meet the lofty promises made around it has been present since haptics began to cohere as an industry way back in the 1990s. In an article published on the eve of Immersion Corporation’s 1999 IPO, one market analyst assessed the state of haptics: “It’s still very much a nascent technology […] It hasn’t lived up to its promise. It could become a part of every PC, or it could just fade away. I’m not seeing anything yet that says, wow, you’ve really got to go out and buy it.”⁴

自从1990年代触觉作为一种行业方式开始融合以来，人们就一直对该技术能否实现围绕其崇高承诺的能力表示怀疑。 在Immersion Corporation 1999年IPO前夕发表的一篇文章中 ，一位市场分析师评估了触觉的状态：“这仍然是一项新兴技术[…]尚未兑现其承诺。 它可能成为每台PC的一部分，或者可能逐渐消失。 我什么都没说，哇，你真的必须出去买。”⁴

⁴Logitech’s senior vice president in that same piece, commenting on vibration-enabled computer mice: “we believe that mice using FEELit technology will revolutionize the way people interact with their computers.”

罗技的高级副总裁在同一篇文章中评论了启用振动的计算机鼠标：“我们相信使用FEELit技术的鼠标将彻底改变人们与计算机交互的方式。”

Evaluating the analyst’s concerns over 20 years later, it certainly seems correct that haptics still hasn’t lived up to its promise. But haptics has become a part, not of every PC, but of every smartphone, wearable, and game console: almost without notice, we have become accustomed to decoding the variegated patterns of vibrations constantly emanating from these devices. Gradually, we acclimate to this language of vibrations, acquiring a device-specific and platform-specific tactile literacy: an ability to read the messages being sent to us through our skin by a range of digital devices. One does not have to be a trained haptician to notice, for example, that the vibration pattern reminding a FitBit wearer to take 250 steps that hour (two quick jolts) is perceptibly distinct from the celebratory burst of vibrations that rewards the wearer for hitting their 10,000 step daily target (a few short bursts of vibration, followed by a couple of longer ones — “wrist fireworks” that correspond with the display on the screen). Similarly, the vibration pattern indicating an incoming call differs from the pattern used to announce the arrival of a text message, which may both be distinct from the vibratory message alerting the user that the device’s battery is running low.

在20多年后评估分析师的担忧时，触觉仍然没有兑现其承诺，这似乎是正确的。 但是触觉已成为不是每台PC的一部分，而是每部智能手机，可穿戴设备和游戏机的一部分：几乎不加通知，我们已经习惯了解码这些设备不断发出的各种振动模式。 逐渐地，我们适应了这种振动语言，获得了特定于设备和特定于平台的触觉素养 ：一种能够读取各种数字设备通过皮肤发送给我们的消息的能力。 不必是受过训练的触觉师即可注意到，例如，提醒FitBit佩戴者在一个小时内走250步(两次快速震颤)的振动模式与庆祝振动的爆发明显不同，该振动是对穿戴者击中他们的奖励。每日目标为10,000步(几小段振动，然后是几段较长的振动-与屏幕上显示的相对应的“手腕烟火”)。 类似地，指示呼入电话的振动模式不同于用于宣布文本消息到达的模式，二者都可能不同于振动消息，该振动消息提醒用户设备的电池电量不足。

The problem with such vibratory languages, however, is that they lack stability and cohesion. Different actuators found in different devices produce different sensations; phone operating systems and specific applications use vibration alerts inconsistently; and the impulse to overuse vibration notifications could be leading to what Ben Lovejoy called “haptic overload”, with app developers competing for bandwidth on the haptic channel. So what might otherwise be trumpeted as a major victory for haptics gets muted somewhat by the lack of a shared tactile vocabulary across devices and applications. There are a host of reasons for this fragmentation: a lack of standardized design tools, competition between companies each pushing their own vocabularies, intellectual property concerns, and so on.

然而，这种振动语言的问题在于它们缺乏稳定性和内聚性。 在不同设备中发现的不同执行器会产生不同的感觉。 手机操作系统和特定应用程序不一致地使用振动警报； 过度使用振动通知的冲动可能会导致Ben Lovejoy称之为“ 触觉超载 ”，应用程序开发人员在触觉通道上争夺带宽。 因此，由于跨设备和应用程序缺乏共享的触觉词汇，使得原本可能被吹捧为触觉的重大胜利变得有些无语了。 造成这种碎片的原因有很多：缺乏标准化的设计工具，各家公司各自推销自己的词汇表的竞争，对知识产权的关注等等。

However, the important consequence, culturally, concerns the inability of haptics to cohere around a unifying language of vibrations. We may each informally acquire an understanding of the way an individual device communicates to us through haptics, but that literacy becomes obsolete when we move to a new device. When the Apple Watch was announced, for instance, some suggested that the Taptic Engine would usher in a new era of tactile communication, with vibration communication stealthily transforming the way we interact with our devices. Here again, we find another failed promise of haptics: if the Apple Watch provided a new language of touch, where was the dictionary for this language? How did Apple go about training users to read by touch? And did it educate designers on how to best write for this new language of feel?⁵

但是，从文化上讲，重要的后果涉及触觉无法围绕统一的振动语言凝聚。 我们每个人都可能非正式地获得对单个设备通过触觉与我们进行通信的方式的理解，但是当我们使用新设备时，识字就变得过时了。 例如，当Apple Watch发布时，有人建议 Taptic Engine将迎来触觉通信的新时代，振动通信会秘密地改变我们与设备交互的方式。 在这里，我们再次发现触觉的另一个失败承诺：如果Apple Watch提供了一种新的触摸语言，那么该语言的词典在哪里？ 苹果如何着手培训用户进行触摸阅读？ 它是否教育了设计师如何最好地为这种新的感觉语言写作？⁵

⁵To their credit, Immersion Corporation’s efforts on this front were far more systematic: its proposed Instinctive Alerts framework was ambitious in providing over 40 distinct vibration patterns, each attached to specific messages, capable of running on any single-actuator device. Apple’s Core Haptics provides an impressively detailed set of guidelines for developers, but the moment of excitement around smartwatch and smartphone haptics appears to have been eclipsed somewhat by the renewed hope for VR haptics that followed the commercial release of the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive.

⁵值得赞扬的是，Immersion Corporation在这方面的工作更加系统化：其提议的 Instinctive Alerts框架 雄心勃勃，可以提供40多种不同的振动模式，每种模式都附加到特定的消息上，并且可以在任何单执行器设备上运行。 Apple的Core Haptics 为开发人员提供了一套令人印象深刻的详细指南 ，但是随着Oculus Rift和HTC Vive的商业发布，人们对VR触觉的新希望似乎掩盖了智能手表和智能手机触觉的激动时刻。

If we broaden this conversation outward to encompass video game controller rumble, which has been a standard feature of console controllers since 1997, we see a similar problem: video game players have acquired a variety of languages of touch, specific to individual games and individual game genres, but game design lacks robust training programs in haptic effects programming, so the haptic vocabularies of games remain haphazardly assembled and fragmented. And vibration feedback in games, too, has been continually framed since its inception as an imperfect instantiation of haptics that will inevitably be overcome with the rise of some new and improved feedback mechanism (it is only recently, first with HD Rumble in the Switch and now with the impending release of Sony’s DualSense controller, that this promise is being fulfilled).

如果我们将讨论范围扩大到涵盖视频游戏控制器隆隆声( 自1997年以来一直是游戏机控制器的标准功能) ，我们就会看到类似的问题：视频游戏玩家已经获得了针对各个游戏和各个游戏的多种触摸语言种类 ，但游戏设计在触觉效果编程中缺乏可靠的训练程序，因此游戏的触觉词汇仍然随意组合和分散。 自游戏问世以来，振动反馈就一直被构架为触觉的不完美实例， 随着一些新的改进反馈机制的出现 ，不可避免地会克服振动反馈(直到最近， 在Switch和现在随着即将推出的Sony DualSense控制器的发布 ，这一诺言得以兑现。

That strategic distancing of current generation from next-generation might just be a common marketing maneuver, but it perpetuates the always-on-the-horizon dream of haptics — a continual feeling that the dream is bound to be deferred.

当前一代与下一代战略性的分离可能只是一种常见的营销策略，但它使触觉器始终处于地平线的梦想永存，这种持续的感觉是梦想必定会被推迟。

I would put this challenge to hapticians: instead of speaking in the language of “haptics will…”, begin thinking in terms of “haptics has…”. Rather than projecting the impact of haptics based on the assumed widespread adoption of fantastical and expensive pieces of hardware, try to convey a sense of what is possible given existing technologies. This is not to suggest that the field should run from dreaming big — many of the just-on-the-horizon devices represent significant steps forward for haptics in terms of hardware sophistication and use case diversity, the result of creatively-conceived and carefully-executed research programs — but instead, to argue that the field would be better served by not continually pinning its hopes on the uptake of unavoidably expensive new hardware. Moreover, being realistic about the capabilities of current generation devices and circumspect in the forecasted impact of future devices would go a long way toward restoring some of the field’s strained credibility. And finally, haptics research has primarily operated with a top-down model, driven by those in industry and the academy, rather than being pushed forward by the interests and agitations of those working outside of professional contexts.

我将对触觉者提出挑战：与其说“ 触觉将……” ，不如说“ 触觉有……”。 与其基于假定的奇妙而昂贵的硬件的广泛采用来预测触觉的影响，不如想传达一种对现有技术可能实现的感觉。 这并不意味着该领域应该从梦想开始- 许多水平设备代表了在硬件复杂性和用例多样性方面触觉技术的重大进步 ，这是创造性构思和精心打造的结果- 执行研究计划 ，但相反，如果不将希望寄希望于采用不可避免的昂贵的新硬件，则可以更好地为该领域服务。 此外，对于当前设备的功能和对未来设备的预期影响的谨慎考虑，对于恢复该领域某些紧张的信誉将大有帮助。 最后，触觉研究主要是由自上而下的模式运作，由行业和学术界人士推动，而不是由在专业环境以外工作的人们的兴趣和激昂推动。

Hapticians would do well to emulate Kyle Machilus’s focus on community engagement with his open source Game Haptics Router sex toy control software, which emphasizes adaptability to the various uses different communities might want to put it to. Building haptics applications up from a foundation of community interest would help ensure that the hype around haptics is more than just a product of industry enthusiasm echoing through popular press click-chasing (Dave Birnbaum’s INIT podcast is a significant step toward growing this sort of public-facing intellectual culture around haptics).

使用Kyle Machilus的开源游戏《 Haptics Router》性玩具控制软件可以模仿Kyle Machilus对社区参与的关注，该软件强调了对不同社区可能想要适应的各种用途的适应性。 从社区的利益出发构建触觉应用程序将有助于确保围绕触觉的炒作不只是通过热情的新闻点击追随而产生的行业热情的产物(Dave Birnbaum的INIT播客是朝着发展这种公共领域迈出的重要一步。面对触觉的知识文化)。

With much of the world — and the US in particular — still struggling to adapt to the physical distancing protocols required to slow the wildfire spread of COVID, we might also consider the use cases that would be the most immediately beneficial to people, in terms of restoring a lost feeling of connection to those in their affective networks. Broadening our understanding of touch technologies to include this cultural dimension will increase the kit of available tools to help meet the difficult challenges facing those wishing to expand the universe of haptics.

由于世界上的许多地区(尤其是美国)仍在努力适应减慢COVID野火扩散所需的物理距离协议，因此，我们还可以考虑在以下方面对人们最直接有益的用例 ：恢复与情感网络中那些人失去联系的感觉。 拓宽我们对触摸技术的理解，以包括这种文化方面，将增加可用工具包，以帮助应对那些希望扩大触觉世界的人们所面临的艰巨挑战。

About the author: David Parisi researches the cultural and historical aspects of touch technology. His book Archaeologies of Touch: Interfacing with haptics from Electricity to Computing, provides the first comprehensive origin of haptic interfaces, offering vital insights on the development and future trajectory of technologized touching. A sample of David’s book is available here.

关于作者： David Parisi研究触摸技术的文化和历史方面。 他的著作《触摸的考古学：从电到计算机的触觉接口》提供了触觉接口的第一个综合起源，为技术化触觉的发展和未来轨迹提供了重要的见解。 大卫的书的样本在这里 。

Twitter: @dave_parisi

推特： @dave_parisi