Improving Intelligibility and Control in Ubicomp Environments
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Improving Intelligibility and Control in Ubicomp Environments

on

  • 1,961 views

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

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

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,961
Views on SlideShare
1,043
Embed Views
918

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
3
Comments
0

5 Embeds 918

http://blog.jozilla.net 891
http://feeds.feedburner.com 21
http://marcodw05feb:dog@blog.jozilla.net 4
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Improving Intelligibility and Control in Ubicomp Environments Improving Intelligibility and Control in Ubicomp Environments Presentation Transcript

  • Improving Intelligibility and Control in Ubicomp Environments
    Jo Vermeulen, Kris Luyten and Karin Coninx
    firstname.lastname@uhasselt.be
    Hasselt University – tUL – IBBT
    Expertise Centre for Digital Media
  • in⋅tel⋅li⋅gi⋅bil⋅i⋅ty:
    the quality or condition of being intelligible; capability of being understood
    con⋅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 application
    See 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.

  • Lack of intelligibility and control leads to …
    ?
  • Frustrated users
  • Our solution
    Our solution(s)
  • Our solution
    Why questions
  • Understanding
    What actually happens here?
  • Understanding
    Users formulate silentquestions.
  • Understanding
    Most 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: control
    Undo
  • Whynotquestions: scenario
  • Whynot: intelligibility and control
    Do
  • Whyquestions: user study
  • Our solution
    Making the invisible computer visible
  • Our solution
    Making the invisible computer visible
  • Our solution
    Intelligibility: Graphical Behavior Notation
  • Our solution
    Control: cancel command
  • Our solution
    Ambient projection system
  • Our solution
    Ambient projection system
    projector with
    wide-angle lens
    steerable projectors
  • Relatedwork
    [Rehman et al., Ubicomp’05]
    [Dey et al., CHI’03]
  • Our solution
    Real-time feedback
  • Our solution
    Visible Computer: user study
  • Acknowledgements
    Sketches: Daniel Teunkens
    Co-author: GeertVanderhulst
    Design:Karel Robert
    Co-author: Jonathan Slenders
    Movie: MiekeHaesen
    Photography:stock.xchng
  • Conclusions
    • 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.
    Undo
    http://www.jozilla.net/
    http://www.edm.uhasselt.be/
  • Backup slides
  • Example: smart lighting application
    See 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.

  • Whyquestions: user study
  • Our solution
    Ambient projection system
  • Our solution
    Visible Computer: user study
  • Our solution
    Relation to Stages of Action model
  • Our solution
    Relation to Stages of Action model
  • Our solution
    Relation to Stages of Action model
    future work