Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Design of interactive mobile and ubiquitous applications
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Design of interactive mobile and ubiquitous applications


Published on

Keynote Talk at 13th 3IA Conference, July 2010 …

Keynote Talk at 13th 3IA Conference, July 2010
Design of interactive technologies for a mobile and ubiquitous world

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Invited talk, Athens 29 May 2010 Design of interactive technologies for amobile and ubiquitous world Nikolaos Avouris University of Patras Human-Computer Interaction Group
  • 2. Human-Computer InteractionGroupUniversity of Patras, Greece
  • 3. Mobile and ubiquitous computingUbiquitous computing is a post-desktop modelof human-computer interaction in whichinformation processing has been integrated intoeveryday objects and activities. – Reliance on context / physical environment – New kinds of applications (leisure related, everyday activities) – Many variations, flavours, technologies – Focus on devices or specific servicesHow to design such applications? 3
  • 4. Ubiquitous computing application domains 4
  • 5. Ubiquitous Computing Architecture Directory services Digital Information Providers Spaces Brokers Directory Service Providers Provider 1 Service Provider iProfile Management Dynamic Service User Service Binding Broker Profiles User Agency Space Owner SystemPhysical space Semantics of Local Service space Provider j Space information Historical user system interaction data Physical and sensory data hyperlink 5
  • 6. Ubiquitous Computingapplications examples 6
  • 7. Museum Game: Inheritance (1/2)• Collaborative game that requires the players to discover a special exhibit in a museum based on hints that must be discovered and collected from the descriptions of exhibits.• Direct interaction with physical artifacts- that become augmented artefacts that are easier to perceive using the mobile device and physical hyperlinks A. Stoica, G. Fiotakis, D. Raptis, I. Papadimitriou, V. Komis, N. Avouris (2007), Field evaluation of collaborative mobile applications, chapter LVIX in J. Lumsden (ed.), “Handbook of Research on User Interface Design and Evaluation for Mobile Technology”, pp. 994-1011, Hershey, PA, IGI Global Papadimitriou I., Komis V., Tselios N., Avouris N., (2006) Designing PDA Mediated Educational Activities for a Museum Visit, Proceedings of Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2006), December 2006, Barcelona, Spain.( 7
  • 8. Museum Game: Inheritance (2/2) 8
  • 9. Mobile library assistant (1/2)• Mobile application to assist library visitors: – retrieving information about the books by directly interacting with them – Searching books similar to those collected by direct interaction – Multiple modalities of interaction with the physical artifacts have been chosen 9
  • 10. Mobile library assistant (2/2) 10
  • 11. Museum Guide (1)• Investigate multiple modalities for delivering information (text, images, audio)• Implement legacy connectors to leverage existing information.• Build user profiles• Physical space navigation support• Content authoring support• C. Sintoris, D. Raptis, A. Stoica and N. Avouris, (2007) Delivering Multimedia Content in Enabled Cultural Spaces,Proceedings of 3rd International Mobile Multimedia Communications Conference, Mobimedia 2007 , August 27-29, 2007, Nafpaktos, Greece, ACM press. 11
  • 12. Museum Guide (2) 12
  • 13. Game: MuseumScrabble (1)• A team game involving linking exhibits and connecting them to topics covered by the museum• Deepen the understanding of interaction with digitally augmented physical artefacts• Yiannoutsou N., Papadimitriou I., Komis V. and Avouris N., “Playing with” museum exhibits: designing educational games mediated by mobile technology, Proc. of IDC 2009, 8th International Conference of Interaction Design and Children, June 3–5, 2009, Como, Italy, pp. 230-233. ACM Press, New York, NY• Sintoris C., Stoica A., Papadimitriou I., Yiannoutsou N., Komis V., Avouris N. (2010). MuseumScrabble: Design of a mobile game for childrens interaction with a digitally augmented cultural space, International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction, 2(2), 53-71, April-June 2010 13
  • 14. MuseumScrabble (2) 14
  • 15. BeNatural (1)• Personalized mobile shopping assistant.• Exploration of a new space with different dynamics.• Investigation of interaction with a different physical artefacts (items bought in a supermarket) 15
  • 16. The beNatural architecture (2) 16
  • 17. Playful Narrative: Who killed Hanae (Paay et al. 2008)• Location based narrative. Goal: find the killer• Navigation in Aalborg city through clue collection and “suspect interrogation”• Chapters of a mystery story are “attached” to different city areas Street activity Screenshot from the mobile device 17 images from Paay et al., 2008
  • 18. City Game: Frequency 1550 (Huizenga et al. 2009)• Location based game. Goal: earn citizenship (366 days in Amsterdam)• Navigation in the historical centre of Amsterdam• Assignment undertaking in specific areas of the city Location activity the Headquarter view during game playing time 18images from
  • 19. Ubiquitous Computingdesign and evaluation 19
  • 20. Abstract design frameworks: An exampleDesign Principles of Playful Narratives (Yiannoutsou et al. 2010) Narrative • Role of user • Structure of story Playful character • Rules of game • Engagement Learning Space • Joy • thinking • setting • decision making • motion Interaction • factual knowledge building • with the technology • procedural knowledge • with the story building • with the physical space • social interactions 20
  • 21. Overview of mobile applications design &evaluation practice ( Avouris et al. 2008) Source System Number of Evaluation Metrics Used Participants Method Jokela et al. Mobile 24 (lab) Laboratory Qualitative measures of user (2008) Multimedia 15 (field) evaluation and behaviour. Presentation Field study Editor Guo et al. Nintendo 20 Lab based Speed and accuracy in both tasks (2008) Wiimote and comparative and user preference through Nunchuk – user study questionnaire based controller of a robot Riegelsberg Use of Google 24 Field study in Qualitative measures and usability er et al. Maps in Mobile four different problems found using group (2008) Devices locations. briefing sessions, recorded usage, multiple telephone interviews and debriefs in a lab setting Sanchez et AudioNature, A 10 Case study in Qualitative measures of al. (2008) pocketPC lab involving effectiveness and performance device for typical users through pre and post tests and science learning questionnaires for the blind Bellotti et al. Leisure guide 11 Field study Qualitative measures of user (2008) Magitti over a period experience recorded through of several questionnaires days 21
  • 22. Issues to be taken into account see Framework of (de Sa et al. 2008)• (1) Locations and Settings: Lighting, Noise, Weather, Obstacles, Social Environment.• (2) Movement and Posture: variations for sitting, standing and walking• (3) Workloads, Distractions and Activities: Critical activities, settings or domains requiring different degrees of attention, Cognitive distractions (e.g., phone ringing, etc), to study cognitive recovery, Physical distractions• (4) Devices and Usages: Single vs Dual handed interaction, and Stylus/Finger/Keyboard/Numeric Pad different mobile devices (e.g., PDAs, Smart Phones, Portable Media Players, etc).• (5) Users and Personas: movement and visual impairment, Heterogeneity – Age, dexterity, cultural background, profession etc. 22
  • 23. Adaptation of existing measuresof user performance• Task Load Index (TLX) extended for mobile applications, in particular for in car tasks, by addition of the Distraction scale (Cook 2006)• Measures related to Field Experimentation method (Goodman et al. 2004), e.g. Percentage Preferred Walking Speed (PPWS)• Measures related to multitasking characteristics (measures of divided attention) 23
  • 24. New settings for labevaluation(e.g. Kjeldskov &Stage 2003) 24
  • 25. New requirements for Content Generation: Create-Attach to Space 25
  • 26. Different evaluation methods and findingsaccording to the phase of the design process • early design evaluation (storyboarding, enactment in physical setting) • low fidelity prototype evaluation (a desktop simulation – no spatial aspect) • high fidelity prototype evaluation (field study) 26
  • 27. Design through enactment (Jacucci, 2004) 27
  • 28. Storyboard and sketching in design and evaluation (Buxton, 2007) 28
  • 29. beNatrural Conceptual mobileapplication design (1st phase) 29
  • 30. beNatrural Conceptual mobileapplication design (2nd phase) 30
  • 31. Low fidelity prototype evaluation2 dimensional Mobile simulation device of space simulation 31
  • 32. High fidelity prototype evaluationin the field (Inheritance MuseumGame) 32
  • 33. User 1 User 2 User 3 User nFieldstudies:Analysis Multimedia Multimedia Managerof user Repositoryaction User’s Analyst’s context System discussions comments screen 33
  • 34. Dimensions of Analysis 34
  • 35. Use of ActivityLens for data analysis (Fiotakis et al. 2007) 35
  • 36. Discussion
  • 37. Discussion: On design and evaluation• .. So far emphasis on user centered interactive systems design.• .. typically done by using an evaluation method to measure or predict how effective, efficient and/or satisfied people would be when using the system to perform one or more tasks.• Usability evaluation methods range from laboratory-based user observations, controlled user studies, and/or inspection techniques 37
  • 38. Some criticism of current practice• Usability Evaluation can be ineffective and even harmful if naively done ‘by rule’ rather than ‘by thought’. If done during early stage design, it can mute creative ideas that do not conform to current norms, especially to new fields like ubiquitous computingIs usability evaluation considered harmful ? (Greenberg and Buxton, 2008) . 38
  • 39. Some criticism of current practice• Current approaches are often assuming formal task structures more related to work, while todays’ systems are more often related to no structured human activities• need to move to a more design centered approach in evaluation (Cockton 2008) 39
  • 40. Some criticism of current practice• Usability should be related to the value a product has for its users, as often usable products are not useful (Cockton 2007, 2008)• The usability evaluation results should be judged in terms of their downstream utility to designers, (Law et al., 2007, Howarth, et al. 2007) 40
  • 41. Challenges: the way aheadl Reseting the relation between evaluation and designl Redefinition of content authoring – interaction metaphores, evaluation of user experiencel We need to put the activity to the centre of the design process and not just the userl There is need for an abstract design method for ubiquitous computing.• We need to support the designer and increase the objectivity with measures of usability, while at the same time increase the pace of development 41
  • 42. thanksfor 42