Improving Intelligibility and Control in Ubicomp Environments<br />Jo Vermeulen, Kris Luyten and Karin Coninx<br />firstna...
in⋅tel⋅li⋅gi⋅bil⋅i⋅ty:<br />the quality or condition of being intelligible; capability of being understood<br />con⋅trol:<...
Ubicomp?<br />Source: http://luci.ics.uci.edu/blog/archives/2009/02/6_words_16_grad.html<br />
Why are intelligibility and control important?<br />HAL 9000 from “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968)<br />
Example: smart lighting application<br />See also: http://ailab.wsu.edu/mavhome/<br />
Example: MavHome<br />“With inhabitant three, we noticed a new phenomenon in the course of our experimentation — the syste...
Example: MavHome<br />“With inhabitant three, we noticed a new phenomenon in the course of our experimentation — the syste...
Example: MavHome<br />“With inhabitant three, we noticed a new phenomenon in the course of our experimentation — the syste...
Example: MavHome<br />“With inhabitant three, we noticed a new phenomenon in the course of our experimentation — the syste...
This observation is not new<br /><ul><li> V. Bellotti and W. K. Edwards. Intelligibility and accountability: human conside...
 W. K. Edwards and R. E. Grinter. At home with ubiquitous computing: Seven challenges. In Proc. UbiComp ’01, pages 256–272...
 K. Rehman, F. Stajano, and G. Coulouris. Interfacing with the invisible computer. In Proc. NordiCHI ’02, pp. 213–216. ACM...
 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 ex...
Lack of intelligibility and control leads to …<br />?<br />
Frustrated users<br />
Our solution<br />Our solution(s)<br />
Our solution<br />Why questions<br />
Understanding<br />What actually happens here?<br />
Understanding<br />Users formulate silentquestions.<br />
Understanding<br />Most common: Why & Why not<br />
Relatedwork<br />[Ko et al., CHI’04]<br />[Ko et al., CHI’09]<br />[Myers et al., CHI’04]<br />[Lim et al., CHI’09]<br />[...
No implementationforUbicompyet<br />[Ko et al., CHI’04]<br />[Ko et al., CHI’09]<br />[Myers et al., CHI’04]<br />[Lim et ...
Whyquestions: scenario<br />
Whyquestions: intelligibility<br />
Whyquestions: control<br />Undo<br />
Whynotquestions: scenario<br />
Whynot: intelligibility and control<br />Do<br />
Whyquestions: user study<br />
Our solution<br />Making the invisible computer visible<br />
Our solution<br />Intelligibility: Graphical Behavior Notation<br />
Our solution<br />Control: cancel command<br />
Our solution<br />Ambient projection system<br />
Our solution<br />Ambient projection system<br />projector with<br />wide-angle lens<br />steerable projectors<br />
Relatedwork<br />[Rehman et al., Ubicomp’05]<br />[Dey et al., CHI’03]<br />
Our solution<br />Real-time feedback<br />
Our solution<br />Visible Computer: user study<br />
Acknowledgements<br />Sketches: Daniel Teunkens<br />Co-author: GeertVanderhulst<br />Design:Karel Robert<br />Co-author: ...
Conclusions<br /><ul><li>Jo Vermeulen, GeertVanderhulst, Kris Luyten, and Karin Coninx. Answering Why and Why Not Question...
Jo Vermeulen, Jonathan Slenders, Kris Luyten, and Karin Coninx. I Bet You Look Good on the Wall: Making the Invisible Comp...
Backup slides<br />
Example: smart lighting application<br />See also: http://ailab.wsu.edu/mavhome/<br />
Example: MavHome<br />“With inhabitant three, we noticed a new phenomenon in the course of our experimentation — the syste...
Example: MavHome<br />“With inhabitant three, we noticed a new phenomenon in the course of our experimentation — the syste...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Improving Intelligibility and Control in Ubicomp Environments

1,558

Published on

Talk at the first SIGCHI.be conference in Affligem at October 19, 2009.

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,558
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Improving Intelligibility and Control in Ubicomp Environments"

  1. 1. Improving Intelligibility and Control in Ubicomp Environments<br />Jo Vermeulen, Kris Luyten and Karin Coninx<br />firstname.lastname@uhasselt.be<br />Hasselt University – tUL – IBBT<br />Expertise Centre for Digital Media<br />
  2. 2. in⋅tel⋅li⋅gi⋅bil⋅i⋅ty:<br />the quality or condition of being intelligible; capability of being understood<br />con⋅trol:<br />to exercise restraint or direction over; <br />dominate; command<br />
  3. 3. Ubicomp?<br />Source: http://luci.ics.uci.edu/blog/archives/2009/02/6_words_16_grad.html<br />
  4. 4. Why are intelligibility and control important?<br />HAL 9000 from “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968)<br />
  5. 5. Example: smart lighting application<br />See also: http://ailab.wsu.edu/mavhome/<br />
  6. 6. Example: MavHome<br />“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.”<br />[Youngblood et al., PERCOM’05]<br />
  7. 7. Example: MavHome<br />“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.”<br />[Youngblood et al., PERCOM’05]<br />
  8. 8. Example: MavHome<br />“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.”<br />[Youngblood et al., PERCOM’05]<br />
  9. 9. Example: MavHome<br />“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.”<br />[Youngblood et al., PERCOM’05]<br />
  10. 10. This observation is not new<br /><ul><li> V. Bellotti and W. K. Edwards. Intelligibility and accountability: human considerations in context-aware systems. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 16(2):193–212, 2001.
  11. 11. W. K. Edwards and R. E. Grinter. At home with ubiquitous computing: Seven challenges. In Proc. UbiComp ’01, pages 256–272. Springer-Verlag, 2001
  12. 12. K. Rehman, F. Stajano, and G. Coulouris. Interfacing with the invisible computer. In Proc. NordiCHI ’02, pp. 213–216. ACM, 2002.
  13. 13. T. Erickson. Some problems with the notion of context-aware computing. Commun. ACM, 45(2):102–104, 2002
  14. 14. 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.</li></ul>…<br />
  15. 15. Lack of intelligibility and control leads to …<br />?<br />
  16. 16. Frustrated users<br />
  17. 17. Our solution<br />Our solution(s)<br />
  18. 18. Our solution<br />Why questions<br />
  19. 19. Understanding<br />What actually happens here?<br />
  20. 20. Understanding<br />Users formulate silentquestions.<br />
  21. 21. Understanding<br />Most common: Why & Why not<br />
  22. 22. Relatedwork<br />[Ko et al., CHI’04]<br />[Ko et al., CHI’09]<br />[Myers et al., CHI’04]<br />[Lim et al., CHI’09]<br />[Lim et al., Ubicomp’09]<br />
  23. 23. No implementationforUbicompyet<br />[Ko et al., CHI’04]<br />[Ko et al., CHI’09]<br />[Myers et al., CHI’04]<br />[Lim et al., CHI’09]<br />[Lim et al., Ubicomp’09]<br />
  24. 24. Whyquestions: scenario<br />
  25. 25. Whyquestions: intelligibility<br />
  26. 26. Whyquestions: control<br />Undo<br />
  27. 27. Whynotquestions: scenario<br />
  28. 28. Whynot: intelligibility and control<br />Do<br />
  29. 29. Whyquestions: user study<br />
  30. 30. Our solution<br />Making the invisible computer visible<br />
  31. 31. Our solution<br />Making the invisible computer visible<br />
  32. 32. Our solution<br />Intelligibility: Graphical Behavior Notation<br />
  33. 33. Our solution<br />Control: cancel command<br />
  34. 34. Our solution<br />Ambient projection system<br />
  35. 35. Our solution<br />Ambient projection system<br />projector with<br />wide-angle lens<br />steerable projectors<br />
  36. 36. Relatedwork<br />[Rehman et al., Ubicomp’05]<br />[Dey et al., CHI’03]<br />
  37. 37. Our solution<br />Real-time feedback<br />
  38. 38. Our solution<br />Visible Computer: user study<br />
  39. 39. Acknowledgements<br />Sketches: Daniel Teunkens<br />Co-author: GeertVanderhulst<br />Design:Karel Robert<br />Co-author: Jonathan Slenders<br />Movie: MiekeHaesen<br />Photography:stock.xchng<br />
  40. 40. Conclusions<br /><ul><li>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.
  41. 41. 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.</li></ul>Undo<br />http://www.jozilla.net/<br />http://www.edm.uhasselt.be/<br />
  42. 42. Backup slides<br />
  43. 43. Example: smart lighting application<br />See also: http://ailab.wsu.edu/mavhome/<br />
  44. 44. Example: MavHome<br />“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.”<br />[Youngblood et al., PERCOM’05]<br />
  45. 45. Example: MavHome<br />“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.”<br />[Youngblood et al., PERCOM’05]<br />
  46. 46. Example: MavHome<br />“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.”<br />[Youngblood et al., PERCOM’05]<br />
  47. 47. Example: MavHome<br />“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.”<br />[Youngblood et al., PERCOM’05]<br />
  48. 48. This observation is not new<br /><ul><li> V. Bellotti and W. K. Edwards. Intelligibility and accountability: human considerations in context-aware systems. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 16(2):193–212, 2001.
  49. 49. W. K. Edwards and R. E. Grinter. At home with ubiquitous computing: Seven challenges. In Proc. UbiComp ’01, pages 256–272. Springer-Verlag, 2001
  50. 50. K. Rehman, F. Stajano, and G. Coulouris. Interfacing with the invisible computer. In Proc. NordiCHI ’02, pp. 213–216. ACM, 2002.
  51. 51. T. Erickson. Some problems with the notion of context-aware computing. Commun. ACM, 45(2):102–104, 2002
  52. 52. 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.</li></ul>…<br />
  53. 53. Whyquestions: user study<br />
  54. 54. Our solution<br />Ambient projection system<br />
  55. 55. Our solution<br />Visible Computer: user study<br />
  56. 56. Our solution<br />Relation to Stages of Action model<br />
  57. 57. Our solution<br />Relation to Stages of Action model<br />
  58. 58. Our solution<br />Relation to Stages of Action model<br />future work<br />

×