160712

ふむ・・・

なんだかんだ一緒にいると楽しいからなぁ

頑固なところはあるけども。

でも、かまってちゃん発動したときはやっぱり可愛い。って最近思うようになってきた。

前は「こいつなにやってんだ・・・」って思ってたけど(笑)

そうこう考えていると来ないひはさみしいですねぇ

160708

研究が楽しい。

そんなことより、ツイッターじゃなくてここに書けばよかったと思って若干後悔…
ツイートはもう消したのだけども。

いろいろと思うことはあるけれど、
いろいろと言える立場でもないし、
言って面倒になるのは嫌だから言いたくない。
ただ、一つだけ、端的に言ってしまうと、
どうでもいいって言葉は嫌い。
もちろん状況にも相手にもよるけど、
そんな適当な仲なのか…？って思ってしまってどうも平常心ではいられなかった。
だからってどうすることもできないからタバコを吸いに行くぐらいしかないけども
言われたのも初めてじゃないしね。

仲間は仲間の範囲で抑えておくべきなのかね。
もっと仲良くなったところでそういうの意識するのはこっちだけだしね。他の人にニコイチって言われてちょっと嬉しかったのが悔しいわ。

帰ってウイスキーでも飲もう。

学習用

Where did my Office go? Is it in the Cloud!? – Workshop on Spatial and Social Connectedness in Virtual and Mediated Work Environments

Abstract
The physical workplace, a hub for communication, collaboration and co-located interaction can no longer be taken for granted. Today, the design of intelligent interactive media, physical products and ubiquitous environments has passed the phase of being
technology-driven.
Meaning, insight and experience are now the key design drivers for the bridging of digital and physical design.
We foresee how new interconnected knowledge systems – objects/devices, buildings and even cities created from web-based services and IoT – thoroughly transforms CSCW.
A wide spectrum of services already invites users to seamlessly
move between real and virtual workspaces, using a range of previously separated media channels.
This interdisciplinary workshop welcomes researchers and practitioners to a day-long exchange targeting User eXperience (UX) and, specifically, the relationship between social and spatial connectedness in mediated and virtual work environments. Examples from ongoing research and developments informs a discussion on
how the borders between the virtual and real become increasingly obsolete.

Workshop theme
In the last decade there has been numerous attempts to reach beyond the “talking heads” and the 16:9 paradigms [1] in video-mediated interaction.
The most elaborate solutions have integrated heavy hardware in spaces where users benefit from how activity and social space are brought together through design, yet in very costly interiors [2]. More recently, new standards for web-based communication (WebRTC, HTML5) facilitate a representation of participants and activity space, simply via a web interface, with the help of a webcam and computer. Currently, a range of web applications for mediated
interaction target technical maturation (e.g. automatic bandwidth reduction, switching microphone on/off through sound detection
algorithms, adding additional tools for cooperative tasks, etc.), however, multi-party interaction, and in particular naturalness [3], and immersion and engagement, may also benefit from spatial, social and shared activity features in one seamless (virtual) space. Ongoing design research specifically addresses the fusion of
spatial connectedness (a term describing how well users perceive that real space is integrated with virtual space) and social connectedness (how well users perceive social dynamics/cues
and their relationship with others in mediated space during interaction) [4]. The workshop seeks to explore the seamless merging of spaces, social interaction and shared activities in
virtual workspaces, in order to discuss how this may enhance the experience of (social) presence, naturalness, immersion and
engagement and social connectedness.

Research context
Over twenty-five years have passed since Bill Buxton and his colleagues [5] used architectural spaces as a reference for the Hydra studies in which they showed the importance of spatial
cues and design as a prerequisite for presence in shared ‘person spaces’ and remote collaboration.
They challenged media, as a new field, to achieve what architecture as a mature discipline already does: support physical proximity by activity-based design. Activities are central to
the experience of social connectedness, of engaged relationships with others as well, addressed by Goffman as Interaction rituals
(recurring activities that are the building blocks of our social habits, and can have varying frequencies of occurrence) [6, 7] and by Clark as shared activities and grounding (social dynamics
and cues needed in interaction) [8]. Today, the field of presence is arguably mature - nevertheless still lacks in adequate terminology to also discuss how spatial connectedness and
the experience of proximity and activity benefit and support the social connectedness. Spatial connectedness indicates that architectural design is as important in mediated environments as in
real spaces for human interaction. In architecture, spatial features such as proximity, visibility and layout may stimulate interaction and collaboration [9]. Architectural design
equally creates spatial dividers, walls and barriers by e.g. geographically separating offices or domestic environments, seeking to harbor privacy, security, but also (social) exclusion and
loneliness [10, 11, 12]. Equally, in shared mediated spaces, the individual experience of presence is negotiated as part of a process to establish trust and confirmation from the remote
party/parties [13, 14, 15]. An ongoing construction of a sense of place is informed by a series of spatial and social cues, i.e. ‘reality tests’ carried out by participants, who seek fast, consistent and reliable confirmation that the interaction can be trusted - in which case they can temporarily agree to suspend their judgment in favor of a ‘willing suspension of disbelief’.
In a broader context, social connectedness is a layered construct that describes how people relate and connect with one another in society and social groups [12]. Of relevance to the current study is that social connectedness develops over time through interaction rituals’[6, 7] (regular moments of contact and shared activities), provided that grounding (social cues) and correct social dynamics are in place [8].
The linking factor between spatial and social connectedness is the ambition to design mediated spaces that support and enhance trustbuilding processes and secure this common
ground and interaction rituals.
We have identified three main developments in technology creating the challenges we meet in HCI design. Firstly the introduction and market penetration of low cost microcontrollers, sensors
and actuators (e.g. Arduino [16]), radio beacons [17], now embedded in different products, on ourselves, in our clothing (wearables) in and outside our houses, in our cars, etc. Secondly, standardization work in network technologies and emerging industry standards (often open standards) and information exchange protocols supporting the communication of different kinds of data ranging from sensor data to real time video streams between devices, applications and
services embedded in environments.
WebRTC/HTML and other new networking protocols further support easy media stream exchange and combinations of data with software applications enabling users to control features in local (as well as remote) and virtual spaces. In short, web-based service
development becomes more contextual and adaptive. Thirdly, the emergence of networked systems, applications and services support data exchange, manipulation and visualisation in real
time through new visualization and interaction means [4]. Progressions in the areas above express the boundaries between the physical and virtual world are dissolving. The goal is, through
open development methods, to empower users to actively control and interact with and in the environment in a contextually relevant manner, allowing them to share a combination of on-site
and remote uses and experiences of virtual and physical artefacts, and spaces. This workshop addresses the increasing call for designers to design physical equivalents of virtual artefacts
(and virtual of the physical), merging the physical and the virtual even further. The new ways to interact with information, objects,
people and our surroundings thus provides new challenges for HCI designers and calls for interdisciplinary research, new conceptual tools and methodologies to adequately design and
represent content in ways that are meaningful and contribute quality of experience to users in various contexts.
An example: SharedSpaces The SharedSpaces design prototype (Figure 1) has been developed by the workshop organisers as part of ongoing research which seeks to create a seamless mediated space for social
interaction and shared activity by integrating live and/or stored media streams combined with software applications (e.g. physical sensors and actuators) that can provide live feedback and
empower users to actively control features in local (as well as remote) and virtual spaces.

Figure 1. The SharedSpaces design prototype. Top
left: An interior with green screen and participant.
The other screenshots show how several participants in
different locations appear side by side in SharedSpaces,
see for example this YouTube movie [18].

SharedSpaces is an example of innovative WebRTC services increasingly available, inviting users to seamlessly move between real and virtual spaces using a range of previously separated media channels. It adds a spatial quality of experience by representing the users side by side in a shared virtual space. It offers a
fun, novel and aesthetically appealing approach by engaging users in multiple locations to manipulate their real-time video-streams,
thereby co-creating a shared space, using spatial features to fit their contextual needs. It supports social dynamics by allowing users to draw and paint together and to move and resize video
streams. Further, it enhances grounding and social cues by merging video-streams and space, representing users as if they were in the same space. Standard and easily available equipment is used. Recent user studies show that a seamless integration of space, social dynamics and shared activity benefits the experience of
presence, naturalness, immersion/engagement and social connectedness. Our ongoing design research specifically addresses the fusion of spatial connectedness (a term describing how
well users perceive that real space is integrated with virtual space) and social connectedness (how well users perceive social dynamics/cues and their relationship with others in mediated
space during interaction).
Workshop goals
We find that the research field today lacks in adequate terminology to discuss how spatial connectedness and
the experience of proximity and activity benefit and
support social connectedness in mediated and virtual
work collaboration. Spatial connectedness indicates that
architectural design is as important in mediated
environments as in real spaces for human interaction.
In architecture, spatial features such as proximity,
visibility and layout may stimulate interaction and
collaboration [9]. Architectural design equally creates
spatial dividers, walls and barriers by e.g.
geographically separating offices or domestic
environments, seeking to harbour privacy, security, but
also (social) exclusion and loneliness [10, 11, 12].
Equally, in shared mediated spaces, the individual
experience of presence is negotiated as part of a
process to establish trust and confirmation from the
remote party/parties [13, 14, 15]. An ongoing
construction of a sense of place is informed by a series
of spatial and social cues, i.e. ‘reality tests’ carried out
by participants, who seek fast, consistent and reliable
confirmation that the interaction can be trusted and
understood [8] – in which case they can temporarily
agree to suspend their judgment in favour of a ‘willing
suspension of disbelief’. In a broader context, social
connectedness is a layered construct that describes
how people relate and connect with one another in
society and social groups [12]. Of relevance is that
social connectedness develops over time through
‘interaction rituals’ (regular moments of contact and
shared activities), provided that grounding (social cues)
and correct social dynamics are in place. The linking
factor between spatial and social connectedness is the
ambition to design mediated spaces that support and
enhance trust-building processes and secure this
common ground and interaction rituals. The above
results in new challenges and opportunities for HCI
researchers with interests ranging from direct and live
representations in virtual space (not least facilitated by
new visualization and interaction techniques) to subtler
interaction that supports an awareness of persons’ or
objects’ remote (inter)actions.
In the workshop we seek to explore from a user
experience perspective what the important issues are in
designing and evaluating these merged environments
and new interactions. Specifically, we seek
contributions that address theory, methodology and
practice (case studies) in the areas of: 1) the design of
spaces (physical, virtual and mixed with sensor and
actuator technology), how the design of such spaces is
supporting and merged with 2) interactions with
objects, others and other spaces and the intended
goals with these interactions in terms of UX, 3) case
studies providing insight in the created UX and 4) what
technical implementations are used to realize this. We
are specifically interested in applications of mainstream
technology because these often better support in-situ
461
CSCW '16 COMPANION, FEBRUARY 27–MARCH 2, 2016, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA
and long term studies from which we can learn most in
terms of UX and the value provided in our everyday
work. For example, our own work focuses on spatial
and social connectedness design in mediated
communication that seamlessly supports merging of
spaces, objects therein, people and activities performed
in such mediated communication environments. UX
concepts such as spatial and social connectedness are
key experiences which we hypothesize creates value in
terms of overall well-being, relatedness, identity, social
support, and more control over work events.
Workshop activities
This one-day workshop seeks to attract 20-25
participants. Position papers (max 4 pages) are
accepted from a wide range of disciplines, e.g.
interaction researcher and designers, architects,
WebRTC-developers, IoT service innovators.
Participants are asked to share experiences, user
studies and evaluations from collaborative practices
that relate to the following: seamless integration of
space, social dynamics and shared activity (in virtual
space facilitated real-time communication standards
(e.g. WebRTC), advanced sensor technology,
visualization and interaction techniques, alongside
other tools approaching the market). Means used for
recruiting and selecting participants are a call for
participation distributed through different ACM CHI
mailing lists, social media and the professional
networks of the authors and their colleagues (e.g.
LinkedIn). A workshop website will provide further
information on the call for participation, the workshop
goals, context, accepted position papers, the workshop
program and different means for communication among
the organizers, participants and interested public at
large.
Preliminary workshop agenda:
8.30-9.30 Coffee and informal preparations for the
workshop • 9.30-10.00 Introduction and round of
presentations • 10-11.30 Parallel work sessions in two
groups • 11.30-12 Reporting back • 12.00-13.00 Lunch
• 13.00-14.00 A session to identify relevant futureoriented
topics, based on the morning’s work • 14.00-
16.00 Parallel discussion groups explore 4-5 selected
topics for a ‘Draft Agenda’ (including coffee) • 16.00-
17.00 Concluding session with a round table to
comment the Draft Agenda and propose future steps •
17.00-18.00 A walk or other social activity •
19.00 Dinner
Workshop planning:
As soon as the workshop has been accepted, the
organisers will plan short weekly video-meetings to
prepare and divide the organisational work. All papers
that are submitted will be read and commented on by a
reviewing committee selected, invited and coordinated
by the workshop organizers.
Participants who are interested in this workshop are
requested to: (1) Submit a short paper (4 pages)
addressing a relevant topic in relation to the call; (2)
Participate in a video-meeting with the workshop
organisers, if the paper is accepted for workshop
participation; (3) Upload additional information on the
workshop website (e.g. photos, videos, links, other
publications or design experiences). (4) Partake in two
preparatory video-meetings for planning and
community building, where brief presentations by all
participants will ensure that everyone is acquainted
with everyone’s work.
462
SESSION: WORKSHOPS
After the workshop, the organisers will summarize the
outcome and formulate a Post-Workshop Statement
and Invitation to continued collaboration, which
provides an outline of the topics or issues for a
potential co-authored article, based on the outcome of
the workshop. Within a month after the workshop, the
organisers will then invite all interested participants to
continue discussions in view of preparing a co-authored
paper, based on the insights that the workshop has
generated. It is expected that a majority of
participants, although not all, will want to continue the
collaboration. In this phase, the organisers will take the
role as editors asking the participants to contribute as
follows: (1) Participate in at least two of six mediated
mini-seminars that the organisers will host in the
SharedSpaces virtual meeting space, addressing
different topics; (2) Write draft texts sections and
submit relevant references, following interests and
expertise; (3) Volunteer to proof-read and provide
feedback at later stages of the co-authoring process.
The editorial group will use own resources to edit the
article and a draft version of the article is planned to be
ready for submission by September 2016.
Organizers background
Charlie Gullström, PhD, Architect SAR/MSA, is a
University Lecturer at the department of Architecture
(KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm), where
she combines teaching with research and heads the
research group KTH Smart Spaces: Architecture and
Interactive Media. Her design-driven research and
practice over twenty years address the fusion of
architecture, interaction design and media technology,
facilitated by new information and communication
technology. Her particular interest concerns the
contribution from architects to a highly-mediated
society, given that new digital tools have thoroughly
changed the way humans interact and communicate
and thus may trigger more sustainable patterns of
behaviour: the design of responsive environments can
provide live feedback to users (sustainable design).
Gullström initiated the VINNOVA Centre of Excellence
for Sustainable Communications at KTH and served as
its Centre Director 2005-2007. She is currently
research leader for a 3-year EU-project
(www.compeit.eu) which develops web-based services
for highly interactive shared media experiences.
Joke Kort has a degree in cognitive psychology and
social informatics from the State University of
Groningen and a Master in Technological Design from
the Stan Ackermans Institute, Eindhoven University of
Technology. She works for TNO on multidisciplinary
client and research projects in different domains such
as education, healthcare, telecommunications, work
environments, public services and domestic
applications. Her work focuses on user experience in
these domains, what value technology offers to its
users, and its effects on behaviour on a personal as
well as societal level. She held a 6 months postdoc
position at the Delft University of Technology, Electrical
Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science and is
a guest researcher at this university in the faculty of
Industrial Design Engineering. Currently she holds a
part time position as senior invited researcher at KTH in
the department of Architecture.
Acknowledgements
The workshop is organized with acknowledgments to
the EU FP7 COMPEIT project (www.compeit.eu).
COMPEIT explores the future of connected media and
463
CSCW '16 COMPANION, FEBRUARY 27–MARCH 2, 2016, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA
creates a web-based system for highly interactive,
personalized, shared media experiences. The project is
funded by the European Union.
References
1. Joke Kort, Charlie Gullstrom, Harold C. Nefs. 2013.
Beyond talking heads – Towards sharing life. In the
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’13) workshop
The Future of Personal Video Communication:
Moving Beyond Talking Heads to Shared
Experiences.
2. Cisco Immersive Telepresence. Retrieved
September 24, 2015 from
http://www.ivci.com/products/cisco/ciscoimmersive-
telepresence/
3. Ned Kock. 2002. Evolution and Media Naturalness:
A look at E-communication through a Darwinian
Theoretical Lens. In Proceedings of the Twenty-
Third International Conference on Information
Systems (ICIS’02).
4. Joke Kort, Charlie Gullstrom, Leif Handberg, Galena
Kostoska, Sylvia van der Pal. 2016. CHI2016 Note,
submitted and currently in review.
5. Bill W. Buxton. 1992. Telepresence: integrating
shared task and person spaces. In the Proceedings
of Graphics Interface '92, 123-129.
6. Erving Goffman. 1961. The presentation of self in
everyday life. New York, Doubleday.
7. Erving Goffman. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on
face-to-face behaviour. Garden City, NY,
Doubleday.
8. Herbert H. Clark. 1996. Using language. Cambridge
University Press.
9. Hillier, B. 1996. Space is the Machine: A
Configurational Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press)
10. John T. Cacioppo and William Patrick. Loneliness:
Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection.
2009. W. W. Norton & Company.
11. Marco C. Rozendaal and Nienke Hollenberg. 2013.
Pediatric Oncology Sketched Out. TU Delft, Delft.
12. Sabine Wildevuur, Dick van Dijk, Anne Äyväri, Mie
Bjerre, Thomas Hammer-Jakobsen, and Jesper
Lund. 2013. Connect - Design for an Emphatic
Society. BIS Publishers.
13. Charlie Gullstrom (Charlie add)
14. Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn (2004). Presence in depth.
Doctoral dissertation. Eindhoven: Eindhoven
University of Technology
15. Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn, Riva, G. (2003). Being
there: The experience of presence in mediated
environments’, In: G. Riva, F. Davide, & W.A.
IJsselsteijn (Eds.) Being there: Concepts, effects
and measurement of user presence in synthetic
environments. Amsterdam: IOS Press
16. https://www.arduino.cc/
17. http://estimate.com and
https://google.github.io/physical-web/
18. SharedSpaces YouTube movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=13&v=lsZYk4T
mI14
464
SESSION: WORKSHOPS

160428

就活をのんびりやってると、周りが少しずつ内定をもらい始めていて、
焦る反面、俺が志望する業界は元々遅いから仕方ないし、焦るべきではないという事実もある

今はとにかく研究室行ってESを書くか、論文を読むか、あとはバイトするかという生活かな

まぁでも、楽しいよ、忙しいのは。
アホみたいに一つのことで悩んで落ち込んでいることよりはずっと気分がいい。

元カノに関しては、今はもう、会ったら自分が「あ、やっぱり可愛いな」と思うか、「あれ、こんなんだったっけ」と思うかわからないぐらいには吹っ切れてる。

さっ、英論文の課題やりますかぁ

160405

友達と話してて、彼氏と一緒にいるときにLINEを返す返さないの話になった。

それで思い出したけど、本当にいい彼女だったと思うなぁやっぱり。

「気にならなくなった〜」って急に言われたときは嬉しすぎて敢えて「何に？」って聞いた。
気持ち的には涙が出るほど嬉しかった記憶がある。

大事な用じゃなければ一緒にいるときに返すのはやめてって言ってから1ヶ月ぐらいかな、いつも気になるみたいな感じはあったけど、ずっと我慢してくれてた。

もうその気持ちが嬉しくて…てかそんなに努力してくれる子って、いるの？って思うぐらい。

だからあんなに好きだったんだろうな。

やっぱり怖いってのは嘘だと思うなー
言ってた当時はそう思ってたのかもしれんが、例の、"拒否反応"で。
あの子だって俺が優しいのを知っていた。
こないだバイトしてたときに思い出したんだが、
「わたしがいいって言うんだからいいって言えばいいのに！」「いいよ！」「うふふ」
とか、
「そんなこと言われたら、俺は何も言えないよー」「知ってる(笑)」
とか
俺が彼女に弱いことは彼女はとてもよく知っていた。

彼女は怖いと思う前に、思い始めたときに、「最近態度がおかしいけどどうしたの？」って聞くべきだったな。そしたら俺が気が付いて、あ、俺どうかしてた…ってなっただろうに。

まぁ、そういう意味では俺も傷つけたほうだな。
本気で付き合おうって言って、いろんな秘密も言い合って、それだけお互いに心を開いていたということなのに。

思ったけど、彼女がいい子すぎて、予想してたペースより早く仲良くなってしまって、ペースが掴めなかったのはある。
突っ走りすぎた。

まぁ過ぎた話をだらだらしても仕方ない。
もうやめておこう。
また悲しくなってしまう。

昨日から大学4年生になり、俺はゼミ長になった。

今週はゼミ長の仕事の引継ぎ、パナソニックの０次とNECプラットフォームズのES、研究テーマの発表資料、HONDAの説明会、の用意をしなければならない。
あとバイト二回か。

オーバークロックでオーバーヒートしちゃうわ〜〜〜〜〜〜〜

自分で言った単語でいちいち連想で回想してしまうのが辛い。
オーバークロックと、回想か…

160327

ふむ・・・

壁に大きな紙を貼りつけて付箋で貼っていく。
アナログなスタイルを始めてみた。

まぁスリラーの映画やドラマなんかではよくあるようなやつ。
壁にいろいろ写真とかメモとか貼ってくスタイル。

そんなことよりふと思ったんだが、

2ヶ月って短すぎると思うな、中学生じゃないんだし。
俺の恋愛歴(大したものではないけど)がガラッとイメージが変わるような2ヶ月という数字。

でもあんなにいい雰囲気で付き合えたのに2ヶ月で終わるほど俺は、あぁ…って感じ。
あの時は本当自分じゃなかったなーあんなことで、あんなどうでもいいことで怒ったりして…ストレスフルすぎたあの時期。人生で一度もそんなことなかったのに。

でも人のイメージは簡単に変わらないということをよく知っている俺としては、

これも悔しいことの中の一つ。

実際の俺はそうじゃないのに、数日間の行動が、俺のイメージを完全に変えてしまったこと、そして、
それを元に戻すことができないってこと

それが悔しい。

関係を戻すとかもうどうでもいいけど（そんなこと期待してもしょうがないってわかってるから）、

なんかそのイメージだけ変えれねぇかなぁー

どっか学校で会ったときに話せたらいいけど。

てかｗ拒否反応なくなったって、

拒否反応持ってたのかよｗ

さすがにそれはいきすぎだろ

強がる女の子が心の中はたくさん傷ついていることは知っている。

だけど、それだけ経験があることも知っている。

拒否反応って…

まあいいけど。

セコンドがチャラいってのも問題。

まともな相談ってできんの？

この子の味方をするよってｗ

それまで何を話してたか知らないけど、味方をするも何も、正しい方向に向かわせろよｗ

あーーーーー世の中にはアホが多すぎる

160322 映像記憶

映像記憶力がいいと、良いことも悪いこともたくさんあるが、
今は時期として悪いことの方が多い。

記憶というのはいろんなところにリンクしていて、似たような状況に接した場合、また全く関係ない状況でもふと思い出すことがある。

楽しかった、幸せだった記憶が脳内で再生される。どの場所で、自分がどの位置に立っていて、相手がどの位置で何を言ったか、そしてその声や表情まですべて覚えている。一緒にいた時じゃなくて、電話をしてた時のことだって覚えている。
思わずにやける。

そして思い出した直後に今はもう同じ幸せを感じることができないことに気づき、顔をしかめる。一気に悲しみに耽る。

これを一日に何度も何度も繰り返す。

気持ちとしては忘れることができても、記憶から消すことはできない。
その上からたくさんの新しい情報に埋もれて引き出すのが難しくなるまで記憶は呼び戻される。
そしてその状態になるまでは何年もかかることを自分でよくわかっている。

映像記憶は、記憶力と想像力との融合物だと思う。現在目の前に見えていないモノを再生させるわけだからね。

悔しいなぁ。こんな女に惹かれて。
俺は自分の目線と他人目線がわかっているつもりだから言うけど、一般的にはそんなにいい女じゃないかもしれない。ただスタイルがめちゃめちゃよくて恰好がエロい女なのかもしれない。
でもやっぱり俺にとっては魅力的すぎるんだよなぁ。
俺の周りにはたくさん女がいるけど、ただ過ぎていく女ではないってことは明らかなんだよなぁ。
ほんとに、なんだろうね、彼女の魅力って。
それさえなかったら、新しく女ができても俺をこんなに悩ませることにはならないだろうに。
中身を知ってしまったからってのはあるだろうけど。

やっぱりって感じだけど、
強がる女ってのは、心の奥に深い傷があるわけで、それを隠そうとして必死なんだ。
彼女は親が厳しい分、もっと優しくて心地の良い相手を探してたんだけど、俺はそれに気づくのが遅くて、自分の我が儘ばかり言ってしまった。
今なら変えられるけどもう遅いのはわかっている。
本当に付き合うタイミングが悪かった。
3週間前と今とでは自分自身の心の余裕が全く違うからね。
彼女のオアシスのような存在になりたかった。
だけどいい彼氏でいたい気持ちで目的を忘れてしまっていたのが後悔で、今でも悔しい。

卒業式で先輩に「いろいろあったみたいだけど、がんばって」って言われたのがまだ心に残る。
友達に、「あ、今年じゃないのか」って言われたのがいまだに悲しい。
みんな俺があの子の彼氏でいたことを意識してるし応援してくれているのに、こんな形に終わっていしまったのが残念すぎる。
まぁ相手が飽きやすい人間だから仕方ないのかもしれないけど。
普通の人間だったらこんなにすぐ終わらないと思うけどね。