A COGNITIVE VERNACULAR FOR THE INTERNET OF THINGS? Daniel Buzzo University of the West of England Bristol, UK Daniel.buzzo@uwe.ac.uk Abstract As the spread of engineer culture is embossed upon the minds of those increasingly ordering and interacting with their lives and that of the lives of others (for the current zeitgeist of technology is to mediate and interpose in rather than directly enable commu- nication between people) the world is walking to the beat of a new drum of cognitive hegemony. Just as there is a vernacular in architecture, an awareness of the value of difference, locality and diversity in our shaping of our physical world. This paper proposes I that we can look to a future we would like, that we may prefer, that we may want to have the option to choose for our future environments. That we can con- ceive of a vernacular for the interaction design of the future of smart objects. Keywords Internet of things, vernacular, design, user experience, culture, interaction design, Human Computer Interaction, Conceptual modelling Introduction Vernacular: NOUN: Usually ‘the vernacular’. The language or dialect spoken by the ordinary people in a particular country or region. Informal with adjective or noun modifier: The terminol- ogy used by people belonging to a specified group or en- gaging in a specialized activity. Mass noun: Architecture concerned with domestic and functional rather than public or monumental buildings. ADJECTIVE (of language): Spoken as one's mother tongue; not learned or imposed as a second language. Oxford English Dictionary, As the broad autism spectrum and neo liberal capital focus of the rarified atmosphere of the valley remakes the new normal it also trains and transforms the processes, views, thinking and basic ontology of the minds that engage with, and are engaged by a cognitively monocultural landscape of interaction design. I mean interaction as that space in- side a computer system, that without shape, form, rules, structure or patina. That space where any suitably cogni- sant person can engage in what I would call ‘abstract space engineering’. That pursuit of shaping mind palaces and ‘users conceptual models’ to help people get things done, to communicate things to and with them, to facilitate the mental gymnastics of interacting with a non- mechanical machine. As we are trained and remade by the view of this narrow focus of world view I think it reasonable to ask, and subse- quently propose a new view. Just as there is a vernacular in architecture, an awareness of the value of difference, locality and diversity in our shaping of our physical world. As Dunne Notes (1999 pg 137-138) technology often conspires to isolate us from the extant world with its uniformity rather than engaging with the vernacular of our location. Of the celebration of equivalent difference, of culture and identity shaped in, of, by and with the physical and mental architectural environ- ments we inhabit so I propose that we can look to a future we would like, that we may prefer, that we may want to have the option to choose for our future environments. As the discussion of smart city, city as process, as distrib- uted system, as service nodes for a future connected envi- ronment grows. And as we look to the forward rolling internet of things, whatever we think it to be, it is becom- ing increasingly apparent that the specifics of any individ- ual piece of hardware is less and less relevant and the no- tion of the internet of things as distributed services is more and more important. As these distributed services become entwined and entrenched in the version of our future envi- ronments I think it is time to ask. Can we find, see, recognise, build or describe a cognitive vernacular for the internet of things?