I was doing some writing for my upcoming Device Design Day talk and started to make a list of two common kinds of smart things that I've been seeing out in the world. For lack of better terminology, I'm calling these appliances and terminals. I haven't yet processed all of these ideas, but here is an initial stab at distinguishing two major classes of smart thing.
| Appliances | Terminals | |
| Most functionality is | Local | Remote |
| Technical capabilities | Narrow. Technology is only included if it supports core purpose. | Broad. Many possible sensors and actuators are included in case they're needed by a service. |
| Effectiveness | High. They're very good at the small number of things they do. | Low. They're OK at many things. |
| Interface complexity | Low. A narrow vision means the interface is relatively straightforward. | High. The general-purpose nature of the devices means that the burden of efficacy is on the interface design. |
| A group of them that is interoperating is called... | An ensemble | A service |
| A single member of the group is called... | An instrument | An avatar |
| Barriers to interoperability | High. Unless they're designed to work together from the start | Theoretically low: they're designed to be avatars of the same service. In practice: high. Cross-avatar UX is still at an infancy. |
| Distinguished from each other by | Specific function | Size |
| Strength of links between linked devices | Low. Connecting appliances that aren't designed to be connected is difficult. | High. In theory. Theoretically service avatars should easily communicate, but that's not often the case in practice. |
| Examples | Digital pedometers, Internet connected bathroom scales, networked parking meters, cars, Nike+iPod, cameras. | smart phones, netbooks, laptops, connected TVs |
You might want to change "Size" to "form" for terminal. As size is one part of the terminals shape it takes. The word "form" is also a nice opposite of "function" for the appliance. :)