I read recently about the Spatial Web, or Web 3.0. It's the spatial version of the internet, and coincidentally it's a similar concept to Inclr's Cyberspace. The articles I read didn't seem to delve too much into details, though. It talked about how the spatial web would be different and much more integrated into the physical world. Most of the arguments seemed to assume perfect synchronicity between the digital and the real world. Whilst the technology to allow this to happen may eventuate in the near future, I feel that it's possibly the wrong idea. I don't personally think the Spatial Web necessarily requires perfect synchronization. Even without synchronization, a 3D Internet has uses of its own. Here's what I think:
We aren't always connected, and nor do we want to be. With today's privacy concerns, data capturing is a sensitive topic. We might one day have total control over what gets tracked or not. Inclr is all about this kind of thing - our data is firstly totally offline for a reason - your data is yours, literally, not figuratively. If Spatial Web requires constant two-way data input, then it would stop and spurt when the users refuse to be tracked and want to disconnect. There must be more advantages to what a Spatial Web would offer, otherwise why create it?
Their version also assumes some kind of ubiquitous, mediated overlay over the physical environment. However, getting perfect digital overlays isn't always possible. Whilst AR technology will keep improving, there will always be instances where technology fails in real world scenarios. Further, even if the tech doesn't fail, would we always want the tech switched on? The Apple Watch for example, whilst providing more intimate notifications, not all of us want constant notifications. In the same way, I'll probably turn my future AR glasses off or not wearing them at all if I wanted to enjoy the analog realm. If Spatial Web only relies on some kind of overlay, then it fails when I don't wear it.
Spatial Web or Inclr Cyberspace is a concept, and it should live within our minds and hearts even when it is switched off. It isn't secondary to the physical world, it should have it's own will. Inclr focuses on the visual, spatial, graphics and interaction so that each inclr is feels real. By doing so, inclrs create a relationship with the physical world, via touch and visual structure. Our minds invite the visual design object into itself and creates it's own internal mental model. So when you think about an inclr, it's meant to be as natural as thinking about an object in your home. Inclr Cyberspace has its own presence as an internal mental model.
The experience of a 3D version of the internet is an experience in and of itself. Instead of focusing on how useful spatial overlays would be, I'd rather they talk about the experiential aspects of spatial digital objects. How does a digital object feel real without skeuomorphism? Our minds are arguably three-dimensional, we were never binary. Memory cues revolve around the feeling of a moment in time, and this is often incredibly spatial. If anything, the Spatial Web simply gets closer to how we think, how our brains work. Whether it's digital or physical, none of that matters. What matters is how we perceive and remember whatever we experience, at whatever the moment in time.
The term Spatial Web currently belongs in the tech world, so I don't blame them for not thinking of data as experiential. But as an architect, most things are experiential for me, data included.
