Physical computing is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Most of these are not examples at all. They are vague lists of other disciplines and realms of design and art that physical computing might mesh with, apparently. What is the goal of this list? Any objections to me changing the label to match the goal or description of the list? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, the definition describes exactly what we electronic engineers have termed for decades as an Embedded System. The difference, if there is one, has to be emphasized within the article!! Is it some special context of use, e.g. when using embedded systems for installation in arts? -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Although physical computing usually implies an embedded system, far from all embedded systems are regarded as physical computing. For one thing, much embedded computing has nothing physical about it: it's either a pure computing resource, or a data capture device with no physical output.
There is also a contextual issue. I've never heard of an industrial robot being described as physical computing, although a uselessly puny example built of laser-cut plastic and stepper motors quite possibly would be. It's not a single context, it encompasses art, education and hobbyists, but it is a context that excludes the "traditional" high-performance, high-budget applications. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)