Improving Intelligibility and Control in Ubicomp EnvironmentsJo Vermeulen, Kris Luyten and Karin Coninxfirstname.lastname@uhasselt.beHasselt University – tUL – IBBTExpertise Centre for Digital Media

in⋅tel⋅li⋅gi⋅bil⋅i⋅ty:the quality or condition of being intelligible; capability of being understoodcon⋅trol:to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command

Ubicomp?Source: http://luci.ics.uci.edu/blog/archives/2009/02/6_words_16_grad.html

Why are intelligibility and control important?HAL 9000 from “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968)

Example: smart lighting applicationSee also: http://ailab.wsu.edu/mavhome/

Example: MavHome“With inhabitant three, we noticed a new phenomenon in the course of our experimentation — the system did more training of the inhabitant than the inhabitant did to the system. There seemed to be a reluctance to give prompt feedback on the inhabitant end. On interview, the inhabitant said that they were learning to live in the dark because it was too bothersome to correct the system. This is probably human nature. We also observed a few fights between the system and the inhabitant over control that ultimately was won by the inhabitant when feedback caused the system to change behavior, but for a short duration the system caused some duress to the inhabitant—not a desired effect.”[Youngblood et al., PERCOM’05]

Example: MavHome“With inhabitant three, we noticed a new phenomenon in the course of our experimentation — the system did more training of the inhabitant than the inhabitant did to the system. There seemed to be a reluctance to give prompt feedback on the inhabitant end. On interview, the inhabitant said that they were learning to live in the dark because it was too bothersome to correct the system. This is probably human nature. We also observed a few fights between the system and the inhabitant over control that ultimately was won by the inhabitant when feedback caused the system to change behavior, but for a short duration the system caused some duress to the inhabitant—not a desired effect.”[Youngblood et al., PERCOM’05]

Example: MavHome“With inhabitant three, we noticed a new phenomenon in the course of our experimentation — the system did more training of the inhabitant than the inhabitant did to the system. There seemed to be a reluctance to give prompt feedback on the inhabitant end. On interview, the inhabitant said that they were learning to live in the dark because it was too bothersome to correct the system. This is probably human nature. We also observed a few fights between the system and the inhabitant over control that ultimately was won by the inhabitant when feedback caused the system to change behavior, but for a short duration the system caused some duress to the inhabitant—not a desired effect.”[Youngblood et al., PERCOM’05]

Example: MavHome“With inhabitant three, we noticed a new phenomenon in the course of our experimentation — the system did more training of the inhabitant than the inhabitant did to the system. There seemed to be a reluctance to give prompt feedback on the inhabitant end. On interview, the inhabitant said that they were learning to live in the dark because it was too bothersome to correct the system. This is probably human nature. We also observed a few fights between the system and the inhabitant over control that ultimately was won by the inhabitant when feedback caused the system to change behavior, but for a short duration the system caused some duress to the inhabitant—not a desired effect.”[Youngblood et al., PERCOM’05]

This observation is not new V. Bellotti and W. K. Edwards. Intelligibility and accountability: human considerations in context-aware systems. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 16(2):193–212, 2001. W. K. Edwards and R. E. Grinter. At home with ubiquitous computing: Seven challenges. In Proc. UbiComp ’01, pages 256–272. Springer-Verlag, 2001 K. Rehman, F. Stajano, and G. Coulouris. Interfacing with the invisible computer. In Proc. NordiCHI ’02, pp. 213–216. ACM, 2002. T. Erickson. Some problems with the notion of context-aware computing. Commun. ACM, 45(2):102–104, 2002 L. Barkhuus and A. K. Dey. Is context-aware computing taking control away from the user? Three levels of interactivity examined. In Proc. Ubicomp ’03, pp. 149–156. Springer, 2003.…

V. Bellotti and W. K. Edwards. Intelligibility and accountability: human considerations in context-aware systems. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 16(2):193–212, 2001.

W. K. Edwards and R. E. Grinter. At home with ubiquitous computing: Seven challenges. In Proc. UbiComp ’01, pages 256–272. Springer-Verlag, 2001

K. Rehman, F. Stajano, and G. Coulouris. Interfacing with the invisible computer. In Proc. NordiCHI ’02, pp. 213–216. ACM, 2002.

T. Erickson. Some problems with the notion of context-aware computing. Commun. ACM, 45(2):102–104, 2002

L. Barkhuus and A. K. Dey. Is context-aware computing taking control away from the user? Three levels of interactivity examined. In Proc. Ubicomp ’03, pp. 149–156. Springer, 2003.

Lack of intelligibility and control leads to …?

Frustrated users

Our solutionOur solution(s)

Our solutionWhy questions

UnderstandingWhat actually happens here?

UnderstandingUsers formulate silentquestions.

UnderstandingMost common: Why & Why not

Relatedwork[Ko et al., CHI’04][Ko et al., CHI’09][Myers et al., CHI’04][Lim et al., CHI’09][Lim et al., Ubicomp’09]

No implementationforUbicompyet[Ko et al., CHI’04][Ko et al., CHI’09][Myers et al., CHI’04][Lim et al., CHI’09][Lim et al., Ubicomp’09]

Whyquestions: scenario

Whyquestions: intelligibility

Whyquestions: controlUndo

Whynotquestions: scenario

Whynot: intelligibility and controlDo

Whyquestions: user study

Our solutionMaking the invisible computer visible

Our solutionMaking the invisible computer visible

Our solutionIntelligibility: Graphical Behavior Notation

Our solutionControl: cancel command

Our solutionAmbient projection system

Our solutionAmbient projection systemprojector withwide-angle lenssteerable projectors

Relatedwork[Rehman et al., Ubicomp’05][Dey et al., CHI’03]

Our solutionReal-time feedback

Our solutionVisible Computer: user study

AcknowledgementsSketches: Daniel TeunkensCo-author: GeertVanderhulstDesign:Karel RobertCo-author: Jonathan SlendersMovie: MiekeHaesenPhotography:stock.xchng

ConclusionsJo Vermeulen, GeertVanderhulst, Kris Luyten, and Karin Coninx. Answering Why and Why Not Questions in Ubiquitous Computing. In Ubicomp ‘09 Supplemental Proceedings (Poster), pp. 210-213.Jo Vermeulen, Jonathan Slenders, Kris Luyten, and Karin Coninx. I Bet You Look Good on the Wall: Making the Invisible Computer Visible. To appear in Proc. of AmI '09, Springer LNCS, 10 pages.Undohttp://www.jozilla.net/http://www.edm.uhasselt.be/

Jo Vermeulen, GeertVanderhulst, Kris Luyten, and Karin Coninx. Answering Why and Why Not Questions in Ubiquitous Computing. In Ubicomp ‘09 Supplemental Proceedings (Poster), pp. 210-213.

Jo Vermeulen, Jonathan Slenders, Kris Luyten, and Karin Coninx. I Bet You Look Good on the Wall: Making the Invisible Computer Visible. To appear in Proc. of AmI '09, Springer LNCS, 10 pages.

Backup slides

Example: smart lighting applicationSee also: http://ailab.wsu.edu/mavhome/

Example: MavHome“With inhabitant three, we noticed a new phenomenon in the course of our experimentation — the system did more training of the inhabitant than the inhabitant did to the system. There seemed to be a reluctance to give prompt feedback on the inhabitant end. On interview, the inhabitant said that they were learning to live in the dark because it was too bothersome to correct the system. This is probably human nature. We also observed a few fights between the system and the inhabitant over control that ultimately was won by the inhabitant when feedback caused the system to change behavior, but for a short duration the system caused some duress to the inhabitant—not a desired effect.”[Youngblood et al., PERCOM’05]

Example: MavHome“With inhabitant three, we noticed a new phenomenon in the course of our experimentation — the system did more training of the inhabitant than the inhabitant did to the system. There seemed to be a reluctance to give prompt feedback on the inhabitant end. On interview, the inhabitant said that they were learning to live in the dark because it was too bothersome to correct the system. This is probably human nature. We also observed a few fights between the system and the inhabitant over control that ultimately was won by the inhabitant when feedback caused the system to change behavior, but for a short duration the system caused some duress to the inhabitant—not a desired effect.”[Youngblood et al., PERCOM’05]

Example: MavHome“With inhabitant three, we noticed a new phenomenon in the course of our experimentation — the system did more training of the inhabitant than the inhabitant did to the system. There seemed to be a reluctance to give prompt feedback on the inhabitant end. On interview, the inhabitant said that they were learning to live in the dark because it was too bothersome to correct the system. This is probably human nature. We also observed a few fights between the system and the inhabitant over control that ultimately was won by the inhabitant when feedback caused the system to change behavior, but for a short duration the system caused some duress to the inhabitant—not a desired effect.”[Youngblood et al., PERCOM’05]

Example: MavHome“With inhabitant three, we noticed a new phenomenon in the course of our experimentation — the system did more training of the inhabitant than the inhabitant did to the system. There seemed to be a reluctance to give prompt feedback on the inhabitant end. On interview, the inhabitant said that they were learning to live in the dark because it was too bothersome to correct the system. This is probably human nature. We also observed a few fights between the system and the inhabitant over control that ultimately was won by the inhabitant when feedback caused the system to change behavior, but for a short duration the system caused some duress to the inhabitant—not a desired effect.”[Youngblood et al., PERCOM’05]

This observation is not new V. Bellotti and W. K. Edwards. Intelligibility and accountability: human considerations in context-aware systems. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 16(2):193–212, 2001. W. K. Edwards and R. E. Grinter. At home with ubiquitous computing: Seven challenges. In Proc. UbiComp ’01, pages 256–272. Springer-Verlag, 2001 K. Rehman, F. Stajano, and G. Coulouris. Interfacing with the invisible computer. In Proc. NordiCHI ’02, pp. 213–216. ACM, 2002. T. Erickson. Some problems with the notion of context-aware computing. Commun. ACM, 45(2):102–104, 2002 L. Barkhuus and A. K. Dey. Is context-aware computing taking control away from the user? Three levels of interactivity examined. In Proc. Ubicomp ’03, pp. 149–156. Springer, 2003.…

V. Bellotti and W. K. Edwards. Intelligibility and accountability: human considerations in context-aware systems. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 16(2):193–212, 2001.

W. K. Edwards and R. E. Grinter. At home with ubiquitous computing: Seven challenges. In Proc. UbiComp ’01, pages 256–272. Springer-Verlag, 2001

K. Rehman, F. Stajano, and G. Coulouris. Interfacing with the invisible computer. In Proc. NordiCHI ’02, pp. 213–216. ACM, 2002.

T. Erickson. Some problems with the notion of context-aware computing. Commun. ACM, 45(2):102–104, 2002

L. Barkhuus and A. K. Dey. Is context-aware computing taking control away from the user? Three levels of interactivity examined. In Proc. Ubicomp ’03, pp. 149–156. Springer, 2003.

Whyquestions: user study

Our solutionAmbient projection system

Our solutionVisible Computer: user study

Our solutionRelation to Stages of Action model

Our solutionRelation to Stages of Action model

Our solutionRelation to Stages of Action modelfuture work