Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Towards Open Pervasive Displays (Keynote at UbiSummit, Helsinki, May 2011)


Published on

We discuss the challenges of opening up networks of public displays to wider control (based on our experiences of eCampus) and postulate what might happen if we open up to applications also (global networks of displays, content and applications, c.f.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Towards Open Pervasive Displays (Keynote at UbiSummit, Helsinki, May 2011)

  1. 1. Towards OpenPervasive Displays!Adrian Friday, Lancaster University, UK!Thanks to: Nigel Davies, Sarah Clinch,Oliver Storz, Christos Efstratiou and theeCampus and PD-NET teams.
  2. 2. I’m from Lancaster in UK! About 1 hour from Liverpool and Manchester (United)! About 250 miles from London! Experimental systems focused department! !
  3. 3. My background! Mountain" Equator: Physical -" rescue! Digital!1990! 1995! 2000! 2005! 2010! Context-aware" Open Interactive" Mobile" GUIDE! Public Displays! Collaboration!
  4. 4. Why real world systems?!To probe – beyond participatory design!Ultimate ‘acid test’ of acceptability!Teaches you about Ubicomp ‘for real’!Naturalistic evaluation (you say ‘it’s good for doing X forcommunity Y’, is it?)!Increasingly the ‘gold standard’ in major conferences!!Championed in Oulu!!
  5. 5. Why not real" world systems?!Uncontrolled environment!Effort (initial, ongoing support and ingenerating high quality content andapplications)!Remote: “out of sight, out of mind”!Unsupervised!Often built out of COTS hardwarenot designed for the domain!The unexpected happens!!
  6. 6. The only future for displays?! Is Pervasive Advertising the only future for ubicomp displays?!Minority Report, 20th Century Fox, 2002
  7. 7. Overview!Experiences of opening up our network of displays oncampus!Particularly a user and display owner facing interface!Postulate how we might move beyond this forapplications!Some early ideas about challenges and avenues toexplore!
  8. 8. FLUMP Adaptive Signage, 1996! Badges triggered And then we had to personal pages take it reasons!! fire safety down for embedding the output of crude ‘apps’! J. Finney, N. Davies, FLUMP - The FLexible Ubiquitous Monitor Project, Proceedings of the 3rd Cabernet Radicals Workshop, Connemara, May 1996
  9. 9. e-Campus, 2005-!Large-scale deployment of networked displays acrossthe campus (approx £0.5 million budget)! •  To create a large scale experimental testbed in public displays and ubiquitous computing across campus! •  To act as a catalyst for world class research in ubiquitous computing! •  To enhance the image of Lancaster University for staff, students and visitors!Specific focus on creating an open researchinfrastructure – but that only paid for the kit and runningreal world systems is hard!!
  10. 10. Requirements for standard content and proprietary applications." Content from a range of different sources: arbitration, priorities andpreemption, wide range of schedulingcriteria (interaction, time, …), dynamic length! O. Storz, A. Friday, N. Davies, J. Finney, C. Sas, and J. Sheridan.Public ubiquitous computing systems: Lessons from the e-campus display deplo IEEE Pervasive Computing, 05(3):40–47, 2006.
  11. 11. The e-Campus platform for displaynetworks!Flexible distributed infrastructure! •  Small set of management processes on each display machine communicate over Elvin pub-sub event broker! •  Low level API for building range of schedulers and presentation tools! •  Abstractions hide specialised hardware, AV switching and distribution! •  Provide support for transactions on displays (Control, Atomicity and Isolation) – can use them in concert! •  HTTP based high-level API supporting the display of sets of content subject to a set of constraints!
  12. 12. Status: 70 displays: 40door displays, 25 LargeLCD panels in collegesand foyers, and 5projected displays"(e.g. theatre)! Ref: Keith Cheverst!
  13. 13. Applications! •  Bluetooth Friendly Name (Map, Google, Flickr, YouTube, TinyURL…)! •  Follow me Content (LitFest)! •  ‘Capture the Campus’ MR game! •  Main ‘app’ is digitalN. Davies, A. Friday, P. Newman, S. Rutlidge and O.Storz signage!!Using Bluetooth Device Names to SupportInteraction in Smart EnvironmentsMobiSys 2009
  14. 14. Applications! But, these are all ‘insider’ apps – by us, trusted, using our internal framework. More complex apps require manual deployment.!
  15. 15. Letting go of top down control of content!OPENING UP CONTENT ANDDEVOLVING CONTROL!
  16. 16. The Channel System!Initially – production and experimental systems co-existed - users sent us their content!!The Channel systems allowed trusted user groups toschedule content on their own and others displays – it’sdeliberately simple!Separates content provision and displayownership!The primary method for control of the e-Campus displays(for approaching 3 years)!
  17. 17. Users create private orChannel! public channels ‘shared folders’ for content. Channels may have time constraints. Stimulate a (content) ‘network effect’.!
  18. 18. Displays! Display owners subscribe to one or more channels!
  19. 19. And it works fairly well…! 33 user groups (about 80 active users) - > 50% have used the system for > 1 year! Over 1,700 unique content items (3,700 content items) since 2008! Supports a variety of media (images, movies, urls)! The only serious issue we have is poor handover when staff changes are made! Some evidence of gaming the system!
  20. 20. Typical content!
  21. 21. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1402008-052008-06 url2008-072008-08 video image stream2008-092008-102008-11 unsupported2008-122009-012009-022009-032009-042009-052009-062009-072009-082009-092009-102009-112009-122010-012010-022010-032010-042010-052010-062010-072010-082010-092010-102010-112010-122011-012011-022011-032011-04 Links to deeper! Looking effective!! and effort)! ~40% of channel providers have used video at some point! images (toolchain webpages least > 80% of content are
  22. 22. Surprisingly little temporal andlocative coherence!Rarely bound to location, but sometimesaudience!24% of content items had no obvious time constraints!8% had a validity of one day (sometimes repeated)!8% had a validity of up to week!12% up to a month!21% a validity of 2-3 months, and!12% a validity of 1 year!!
  23. 23. Content lifetime is short (7-10 Or long days)! (~120 days), - roughly a University Semester!People are much better at addingcontent than removing it!!
  24. 24. A,B-1%)8:)*+,-.)$%-)!"#$%&()*+,-.%)/012,(.-%34),"#$%&()"2%5.,6)%$7%*125&8%)/*18%%-%3),")98"2:62()*80-0);2,)0+-)<.-)%6%0-9)/"80%3))=,7.-")08)>81?)"2@-1-0.6)
  25. 25. CHANNEL_SUSPEND 100 channels (64 currently 80 CHANNEL_DELETE marked ‘active’)! CHANNEL_ADD CHANNEL_ACTIVATE 50% are 60 shared, 50% private!Number of events 40 Considerable differences between users! -  to organise, organisational change! 20 Channels are 0 suspended but not often Arts Building 1 Building 2 Business Careers Chap Dep E Dep P Disp. Dev. Estates Faculty 1 Faculty 2 L. Tech. PR Proj 1 Res 1 Res 2 Res 3 Res 4 Res 5 Res 6 Res 7 Res 8 Res 9 St. Exp. St. Recruit. St. Services St. Union Student Theatre Volunt. removed!
  26. 26. Discussion!The channel system has been very effective at devolvingcontrol of content scheduling! No! Regular usersiscan’tThe combination file system + web approach verysuccessful! create the apps! SoIt’s conceptually simple and easy to learn! who can?!User peeves: can’t order ‘slides’, can’t preview channelcontent!Would this approach work for applications and moreinteractive content?!
  27. 27. )*+,-C)DE--4)F1,24) >+,0)"8)68$)>,0) 08)"8)082(+0GD) ./0%12*+C)DH+-) %,9-)0+2()>-)"8) -;-16)2(+04)A2?6I 016)08)0,?-)8;-1)0+-) >81."JK) !"#$!%!&"(&%Kids WB, 1995-2001
  28. 28. An “Open” Approach!Current systems are closed – small networks under a singlemanagement domain!Difficult to introduce new applications, new content or interaction!A new infrastructure that supports a “global” network ofdisplays & interaction and personalisation on that scale!!New approach for applications that decouple displayownership from content production!Need to tap into wide (global) community of developers, 3rdparty applications!
  29. 29. Open is more content, developers,communities and customers!
  30. 30. So, writing apps is hard… we needapp stores!! For fun," for profit!
  31. 31. But that may not be entirely straightforward…!CHALLENGES!
  32. 32. Scale: who controlswhat - Control vs. Abuse, hierarchy,overlay, cloud, P2P?!
  33. 33. Personalisation,context-aware orprivacy violation?!
  34. 34. Who pays, andwho gets therevenue?! More stakeholders, apps not entirely personal, infrastructure not owned by the end user!
  35. 35. What might we see (as well as inevitable advertising)?!DISPLAY APP MARKET!
  36. 36. Being Artistic!!
  37. 37. Inevitably… games, social media!
  38. 38. Surprising hobbies… Airtime to Local Issues! Memarovic N, Langheinrich M. “Your place or mine?” – Connecting communities and public places through networked public displays. Urban Internet of Things - Towards Programmable Real-time Cities (UrbanIOT 2010); Workshop at the 2nd Intl. Conference on the Internet of Things (IOT2010), December 2010
  39. 39. Sustainable local food?! Photographer: Sarah Lee,
  40. 40. Part of pan-global events?!
  41. 41. Wider: Events, Disasters, HumanRights, Climate Change!Image of Tokyo Tsunami removed for copyright reasons.!
  42. 42. Support local events," share globally…!Communities ofinterest rather thangeography? ! Some rights reserved, Sepultura,
  43. 43. http://pd-net.orgThe Internet of displays ?! “Change spaces with public displays - from spaces where information is pushed to passers-by in the form of adverts to spaces that can be tailored to reflect the hopes, aspirations and interests of its occupants using content and applications created anywhere in a global network.”!
  44. 44. To conclude!The channels system lets us open up control of ournetwork to interest groups!We create a network of content that is shared – its beenlargely successful too!The next step is moving to a pan-European testbed (3nodes so far: Switzerland, Germany and Portugal)!Join in helping to overcome the challenges!"!
  45. 45. A unique opportunity! globally unique infrastructure testbed of displays andwireless coverage!A model for conducting ‘in the wild’ Ubicomp research!An incredible pioneering achievement – and weappreciate this having tried something similar!!A proving ground for future Ubicomp business ideas!
  46. 46. Adrian Friday!School of Computing andCommunications!InfoLab21, Lancaster University!!Tel: +44 (0)1524 510326!