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.

Ph.D. Defense: Situating Engagement: Ubiquitous Infrastructures for In-Situ Civic Engagement

834 views

Published on

Ph.D. Defence at the Department of Computer Science, Aarhus University on May 7, 2013.

Abstract:
Mobile phones and other situated technologies offer new possibilities to engage us citizens in urban planning activities while on the go, on our daily routes and routines. Matthias Korn has studied how to support people in participating in planning discussions while out and about and in close proximity to the sites of discussion. Experience from a number of software and hardware prototypes deployed in the field has led him to argue that mobile technologies afford a better integration of civic engagement activities into our everyday lives by offering opportunities to participate when such topics are most relevant and most present to us.

In doing so, Matthias Korn seeks to promote 'situated engagement', that is, to support civic engagement activities in those spatial contexts that are at stake in urban planning. Situated engagement complements existing forms of engagement such as polls, town hall meetings, or consensus conferences, because it connects discussions to the places of our daily life that are personally meaningful and relevant to us.

The PhD degree was completed at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Participatory Information Technology (PIT), Aarhus University.

  • Login to see the comments

Ph.D. Defense: Situating Engagement: Ubiquitous Infrastructures for In-Situ Civic Engagement

  1. 1. DefenseMATTHIAS KORNAARHUSUNIVERSITY MAY 7, 2013PhDSITUATING ENGAGEMENT:UBIQUITOUS INFRASTRUCTURES FORIN-SITU CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
  2. 2. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013CONTRASTING USES OF MOBILETECHNOLOGYLeisure & Entertainment Political Movements2 / 18
  3. 3. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013MOTIVATION› Ubiquity of mobile phones in everyday life (de Souza eSilva, 2006; de Souza e Silva & Frith, 2012; Farman, 2012)› New practices of locating things and people aroundus (Gordon & de Souza e Silva, 2011; de Souza e Silva & Frith, 2012)› Ubiquitous computing as a potential shared accessmedium (Dourish & Bell, 2011; Weise et al., 2012)› New forms of participation=> Supporting local neighborhoods and communities3 / 18
  4. 4. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013SITUATED ENGAGEMENT› To engage people where they are› To ‘situate’ civic engagement in the local places ofpersonal interest› Any action is always already situated, “contingent onspecific, unfolding circumstances” (Suchman, 1987/2007)=> To situate engagement in the right contexts› To better interweave participation with citizens’everyday lived experience› Different means to contribute in different situations4 / 18
  5. 5. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013AGENDA› Motivation› Situated Engagement› Method› 2 Design Experiments› Methodological Challenges› Individual Contributions› Summing Up› Conclusion5 / 18
  6. 6. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013METHODExperimental, exploratoryand designerly (Brandt & Binder,2007)1.  Research Through Design(Zimmerman, Forlizzi & Evenson, 2007;Zimmerman, Stolterman & Forlizzi, 2010)2.  Participatory Design (Bjerknes,Ehn & Kyng, 1987; Greenbaum & Kyng,1991; Simonsen & Robertson, 2013)3.  Prototyping (Lim, Stolterman &Tenenberg, 2008; Bødker & Grønbæk,1991)6 / 18..og forklarer borgerne hvordan dekan underbygge deres foreslagendnu bedreKommunen har et problem..Planlæggeren markerer allebyggegrundende på et kortGeneral Møller ser opslaget ogfår en idé..men Hanne har en anden idé..Jeg kunne nu godttænke mig at det blevbrugt i den lokale parkPlanlæggeren gennemser nu alleforeslageneHvad skal vigøre med alden her grus?!Vi kan ikkebare smideden ud!Vi kunne godtbruge det grusi vores lejr!
  7. 7. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013DESIGN EXPERIMENTS7 / 18
  8. 8. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013MOBILE DEMOCRACY8 / 18
  9. 9. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013IN-SITU + EX-SITU REFLECTION ANDACTION9 / 18
  10. 10. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013WALKSHOPS10 / 18
  11. 11. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013CONTRIBUTIONS1. Argues for in-situ and ex-situ reflection and action2. Explores qualities of being there3. Understands place as a resource4. Proposes the walkshop technique for hands-on co-exploration in the field11 / 18
  12. 12. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013MENING@PARK12 / 18
  13. 13. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013MENING@PARK13 / 18Et forskningsprojekt vedFor yderligere information kontakt Matthias Korn (mkorn@cs.au.dk)Kræver “Mening@Park” fra Android MarketScan denne QR kode med din smartphone til at deltage i diskussionen.Brug f.eks. Google Goggles, Barcoder Scanner eller QR Droid fra Android Market.?Hvad er din mening om stedet?Hvad mener de andre?Nationalparkbesøgscenter i Kalø — et Mening@Park diskussionsemne
  14. 14. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013EXPLORATORY FIELD TRIALS› A model for methodsstudying ubicomp systems› How to use sophisticatedprototypes for furtherexploration in the field?› Exploratory field trials forlooking ahead ratherthan back14 / 18use situationinvolvement ofthe investigatorparticipantstimesophistication ofthe prototyperealisticartificiallowhighrecruitedcompressed real-timefunctionalattractedrepresentative actualmocked upincomplete complete
  15. 15. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013CONTRIBUTIONS1. Evaluates and discusses the coupling betweenphysical and digital spaces2. Analyses means of access and representation3. Questions appropriate forms of engagement4. Reflects on exploratory field trials as a part of ratherthan an assessment of an iterative design process15 / 18
  16. 16. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013SUMMING UP› A plethora of different means for citizens to engagewith planning issues in a plethora of differentcontexts and situations=> A notion of a situated engagement infrastructure …(Star & Ruhleder, 1996; Dourish & Bell, 2007)… made up of mobile, stationary, ubiquitous, andremote systems=> Allow citizens to act wherever and whenever it ismeaningful and relevant to them16 / 18
  17. 17. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013CONCLUSION› Methodological challenges when studying situatedand interwoven practices of everyday lifeSituated Engagement:› In-situ engagement at the site of interest as an initialtrigger + place as a resource› Providing many different means to contribute inmany different situations17 / 18
  18. 18. MATTHIAS KORNAARHUSUNIVERSITY MAY 7, 2013You!ThankSITUATING ENGAGEMENT:UBIQUITOUS INFRASTRUCTURES FORIN-SITU CIVIC ENGAGEMENT18
  19. 19. MATTHIAS KORNAARHUSUNIVERSITY MAY 7, 2013DefensePhDBACKUP19
  20. 20. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 20132088Public Deliberation in Municipal Planning: SupportingAction and Reflection with Mobile TechnologyMorten BohøjAlexandra InstituteAarhus, Denmarkbohoej@cs.au.dkNikolaj G. Borchorst, SusanneBødker, Matthias KornDepartment of Computer ScienceAarhus University{ngandrup, bodker, mkorn}@cs.au.dkPär-Ola ZanderDepartment of Communication andPsychologyAalborg Universitypoz@hum.aau.dkABSTRACTThis paper reports on an exploratory participatory designprocess aimed at supporting citizen deliberation inmunicipal planning. It presents the main outcomes of thisprocess in terms of selected prototypes and an approach tothe use setting. We support and discuss different ways forcitizens to act and reflect on proposed plans: in-situ, whilephysically close to the planning object, and ex-situ, whencitizens are remote from this. The support of in-situ and ex-situ participation allows citizens to engage in continuousreflection-in and on-action as a collaborative activity withother citizens, hereby inspiring citizens to increase theirdemocratic engagement.KeywordsCommunities and e-governance, map-based discussion,geospatial annotation, public deliberation, reflection andaction, situatedness, participatory design.INTRODUCTION“Peter is out on his weekly run in the forest when hismobile phone starts buzzing in his pocket. He takes it outand sees that it is a notification from the MobileDemocracy application. The notification tells Peter thatthere is a proposed change in the municipal plan nearby.He clicks on the notification to find a description of theplans to build a new wastewater plant at his currentlocation. Peter does not think much of it, but clicks the‘show me’ button. Pointing the phone at the designatedbuilding ground as if to take a picture, Peter sees a 3Dmodel on top of what the camera is actually registering.Peter walks around the site looking at the model fromdifferent angles. It almost looks like the building is alreadythere and it is much bigger than he had imagined. It getshim thinking. Annoyed, he switches to the discussion taband sees that three other people have already commented.He switches to the image tab and takes a picture. He addsthe comment ‘This beautiful forest would be ruined with awastewater plant.’ The topic is automatically bookmarked,so he continues his run. Later that evening he checksMobile Democracy again, this time using his desktopcomputer. He looks at his bookmarks to find the wastewaterplant discussion. He sees that more citizens havecommented and a municipal planner has argued that a newwastewater plant is needed, because the old one is nolonger sufficient. Peter realizes that he has some potentialallies among the other commentators. He decides to write amore elaborate discussion comment, listing disadvantagesof placing the plant there and arguing for better locations.After a couple of days, he is contacted by another citizenand they decide to team up and write a more elaborateproposal for the planning debate.”The above scenario describes the use of two interconnectedprototypes developed in a case exploring public delibera-tion in municipal planning through mobile, location-awaretechnology. In this paper, we focus on the development ofthe two prototypes within the specific design case at hand.It soon became apparent that what was needed in order forcitizens to fathom the implications of the municipal plan –an abstract and often opaque bureaucratic object – wasmore than just putting information out there for people tofind. Research has shown that merely increasing the avail-able amount of information about public policy does notlead to increased democratic engagement [21]. Informationand communication technologies have played an importantrole in governments’ attempts to support civic engagementby providing information in more pertinent ways thansimply making it publicly available. Web-technology andcommunity participation has been addressed, e.g., bySchuler [18] in what he calls civic intelligence:“Information and communication technology has thepotential to alter civic intelligence in ways that go farbeyond the informational content of any particular messagethat is transmitted or received. This observation applies toany efforts at encouraging civic intelligence. It is in fact thecentral tenet of the design philosophy that would undergirdcivic intelligence.” ([18], p. 62)In their characterization of e-participation software in Ital-ian municipalities, De Cindio and Peraboni [10] argue thatthe shared discussion space of citizens and municipalservants (e.g. municipal planners) should be understood asconsisting of three elements: a community space, whichraises trust between participants; a deliberation space,which supports the creation of shared positions and con-sorted efforts among citizens; and an information space,which supports the sharing of information. The proposeddiscussion spaces illustrate that there is more to civic en-Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).C&T’11, 29 June – 2 July 2011, QUT, Brisbane, Australia.ACM 978-1-4503-0824-3INCLUDED PUBLICATIONSFrom Workshops to Walkshops: Evaluating MobileLocation-based Applications in Realistic SettingsMatthias KornAarhus Universitymkorn@cs.au.dkPär-Ola ZanderAarhus Universitypoz@cs.au.dkABSTRACTMany open questions on how to best observe the mobileuser experience remain – at the stage of design time as wellas use time. In this paper, we are focusing on the stage ofdesign time and describe our experiences from evaluating amobile application for citizen involvement in municipalland use planning. Due to the problems and issues identifiedafter conducting several user workshops in our exemplarycase process, we propose “walkshops” as a complement totraditional workshops and prototype field studiesspecifically to evaluate mobile location-based applications(and similar context-aware systems). We report someproblems with workshops and outline how a walkshop maybe carried out. The first trials of the new method arepromising and have generated valuable feedback, insightsand discussions about using the mobile application withinthe intended contexts.INTRODUCTIONHow to evaluate the mobile user experience both at designtime and use time poses many open questions. Specifically,conducting user evaluation with mobile location-basedapplications is difficult as most evaluation methods are notcontextual and/or not suited for systems used in outdoorcontexts. With this paper, we focus on a new technique fordesign-time evaluation of mobile location-basedapplications. Our purpose is twofold: 1) to illustratesituations where workshops, well suited for stationarycomputing, raise problems in a mobile context and 2) toshow how this can be in part alleviated by, what we coinedas “walkshops”, given the right staging.Methods for evaluating systems directly in the context ofuse exist. For example in prototype field studies thesoftware is deployed and the use of the system over timesomehow monitored or observed from a distance. They canbe strong in their ecological validity, but in themselves theyprovide no access to how users think about the use.Workshops address what field studies lack. The concept of‘workshop’ as an evaluation activity has become anumbrella concept for a range of method prescriptions andactivities involving groups of users who meet, whereperhaps the participatory design workshop is the most wellknown type. Under the label of ‘workshop’ we find anumber of evaluation activities that vary in how they areconducted, what they evaluate, and perhaps also theirepistemological underpinnings. Workshops are, however,generally used in order to stimulate a discussion betweenusers where the outcome is used in the next step of design.In the rest of the paper, we let the term refer to methods wehave used throughout the project including future workshops,pluralistic walkthroughs and group discussions betweenusers and designers facilitated by various design artifacts.There may be differences between stationary use in aworkshop and stationary use in practice in the field study.However, these differences are more severe in a mobilecontext, since mobile computing usually affords multi-tasking, and the physical conditions vary widely. Let usturn to walking as a methodological alternative thatdecreases these differences. Different walking approaches,where users would move about in the context of theapplication domain testing a system to be evaluated, havebeen used before, but a focus on walking as a stimulatingactivity has never been made explicit or analyzedsystematically in any methodology to the best of ourknowledge. For example, transect walks [4,5], a methodfrom participatory rural appraisal (PAR), are used forunderstanding the local context (e.g. natural resources,landscape, land use etc.) by walking together with localinformants through an area of interest (e.g. a rural village).In civil engineering and architecture, one researcher evenspent an entire year walking the streets of Lisbon andBarcelona in order to understand the architecture of theseplaces [8]. Ochoa highlights that “the physical walk allowsthe mental walk, stimulating the thought and makingpossible the contact of the body, as element of measure,with the space“ [8]. Yet, both of these methods are aimed atunderstanding the environment and not the mediatingtechnology.Summing up, field studies do not provide the strength ofworkshops – to capture details in a user’s sense-making andother cognitive processes. Workshops around a table do so,but sacrifice context. Walkshops enable the study of contextpaired with the micro-processes of sense-making. We applywalking (i.e. as in going for a walk) both as a tool forthinking and a tool for closer relation to the use context.The forthcoming sections of the paper concretize thisargument by examples from our research project. Itdescribes how we developed that walking may stimulatereflection and that an increase of ecological validity can begained by observing sense-making processes duringwalkshops. Finally it provides some lessons to be learnt.8 From Workshops to Walkshops: Evaluating Mobile Location-based Applications in Realistic Settings29Talking it Further: From Feelings and Memories to CivicDiscussions In and About PlacesMatthias KornDepartment of Computer Science, Aarhus UniversityAabogade 34, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmarkmkorn@cs.au.dkJon BackMobile Life @ Stockholm UniversityDSV, Forum 100, 164 40 Kista, Swedenjon@mobilelifecentre.orgABSTRACTCivic engagement systems to date frequently focus onpurely rational aspects of deliberation void of emotions. Inorder to empower youth in a largely immigrant and lower-income neighborhood, we designed a location-basedstorytelling and story experiencing system for web-enabledmobile phones. The system is based on a novel concept ofpervasive play where stories emerge and develop on severaldimensions – most notably for our design a geographicalone. This system functions as a research instrument in thispaper. Through a qualitative analysis of the commentsmade through the system, we find (1) memories, feelings,and attitudes to be prime means of expression for youth, (2)the expression of such personal emotions leading to civicdiscussions, and (3) such discussions expanding overgeographic areas in the neighborhood. Consequently, weargue for an approach to locative civic engagement systemsthat takes a vantage point in youth’s emotions rather than avery rational and dry approach to deliberation.Author KeywordsCivic engagement, youth, mobile phones, collaborative andlocative storytelling, pervasive play, emotions.ACM Classification KeywordsH.5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI):Miscellaneous.INTRODUCTION“While walking past the schoolyard I remembered how weused to play here when I was young. It makes me sad to seehow gray and boring it seems today. I decided to share mythoughts and started up I’m Your Body on my phone. I tooksome time to formulate my comment and wrote it into thesystem.Just a couple of days later I came by again, remembered myold comment, and decided to check it. There was a new re-ply, and from the map it seemed to be from another schoolin the neighboring suburb. The feelings were similar:‘We also have a kind of boring schoolyard. But we have anice tree in the middle of it, where I used to climb when Iwas younger.’I answered the comment. ‘Maybe we need a tree as well, orsome other kind of nature thing. It would make the place somuch nicer for the kids playing here now.’ Maybe my com-ment will lead to change in the future, who knows.”In this fictitious scenario the location-aware mobile phoneapplication I’m Your Body (IYB) is used to share thoughtsand feelings in and about a place. In the IYB project, we ex-plore the use of collaborative storytelling and story experi-encing as a political and artistic instrument. Our aim is toempower the inhabitants, especially youth, of a largelyimmigrant and lower-income area in Stockholm, Sweden byincreasing their social capital [21]. As part of a larger par-ticipatory arts project, the mobile application lets partici-pants collect their stories, present them to others, andexperience the stories of others. We report on findings fromthe IYB system for the first time in this paper.The goal of IYB is to design a leisure-oriented experiencetied to a specific place and related to its cultural and politi-cal meaning. Thus, one way to describe IYB is as a loca-tion-based cultural experience. As Benford et al. [6] in theirwork on cultural applications, games, and performance, weuse the singular word ‘experience’ to refer to such stagedinstallations that encourage participants to engage.Although the implemented system is generic, it was specifi-cally designed to be used in a particular area. This area,Järva (a part of Stockholm), is politically challenging.Large cultural divides and different agendas among inhabi-tants, commercial forces, and politicians create tensions.Thus, it is crucial that the experience creates close ties tothe physical area in which it is staged.We broadly subscribe to the traditions of action research,participatory design, and in the wild studies in our researchand design process. As IYB is implemented, tested, andused on location, in real use contexts, and with real users,the reality of the situation means we have to take an activepart in the community to be able to design for it; i.e., therealready is an existing community that we add on to. Ourpartners in the project act according to their artistic andpolitical backgrounds. And so do we as researchers anddesigners who want to be a part of that community change.In this active role, we consequently take a participatoryaction research approach in the steps of Lewin [1]. ThePermission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work forpersonal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies arenot made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copiesbear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise,or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires priorspecific permission and/or a fee.NordiCHI 12, October 14-17, 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark.Copyright © 2012 ACM 978-1-4503-1482-4/12/10...$15.00.189Looking ahead – How field trials can work in iterativeand exploratory design of ubicomp systemsMatthias Korn, Susanne BødkerDepartment of Computer ScienceAarhus University, Denmark{mkorn, bodker}@cs.au.dkABSTRACTWe investigate in which forms field trials are a workablemodel as part of an exploratory design process for sporadic,mobile, non-work settings. A major concern of evaluatingubicomp systems is to study how practices and context ofuse emerge and develop over time when new technology isintroduced. To introduce a sophisticated version of our ownprototype in the course of an iterative design process, weconducted a public field trial of the system—a new platformfor mobile democratic discussions in municipal planning—that we distributed via the Android Market. However, itturned out to be surprisingly difficult to evaluate our designin a setting that stretches over time, place, and without apreselected set of users. Analyzing our difficulties, wedevelop a general model for methods studying ubicompsystems. On the basis of this model, we characterize anopenly interactive approach to field trials in order to lookahead rather than back.Author KeywordsUbiquitous computing, methods, field trials, exploration,iterative design.ACM Classification KeywordsH5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI):Miscellaneous.General TermsDesignINTRODUCTIONThe history of field trials is almost as long as the history ofHCI methodology itself. While the classic cognitivistapproach to HCI was primarily coming from a humanfactors tradition, Bannon [1] in his paper ‘from humanfactors to human actors’ argued for the need to understandtechnology situated in realistic use situations and the needto work with users in design. At the same time, Grudin [10]pointed to the added challenges of designing groupwareinstead of single user technologies. Among his methodolo-gical concerns are the issues of critical mass, and thatdesigners’ intuition is even more flawed than usual whenaddressing collaborative technologies.Both of these authors and many more saw prototyping apossible means of better understanding the future usesituation—for users as well as designers. Bardram [2],however, points to new difficulties regarding prototyping ofspecific sets of applications (CSCW in his case) due tomore complicated use settings. Common to these earlyexperiences with the deployment of prototypes in realisticuse settings is that the deployment happened within ratherwell-established use situations and even more well-established communities of practice.With the new millennium came a new wave of techno-logical and methodological challenges [5]: The technologybecame increasingly mobile, use situations moved fromwork to the rest of human lives, and the idea that techno-logies were designed and deployed as systems one at a timeno longer functioned as a basis for design.Grudin [11] addressed some of these new challenges of ubi-comp, in particular that applications are no longer about the‘here and now’, meaning that use situations stretch into eve-rywhere and forever. This has consequences for the meth-ods with which we analyze and design ubiquitous technolo-gies, because many of the methods deployed hence far wereaddressing situations where people act, perhaps together,within quite well-understood settings, time spans, and loca-tions. Ubiquitous technologies are often designed for usesituations that are not well understood and in the making.Bødker and Christiansen [6] suggested using prototyping toexplore which questions to ask in such emergent settings.Iterative design and prototyping has dominated ourresearch. Accordingly, we see all designs as part of aniterative design process, where the prototypes, for a period,hold on to design decisions [21] and are vehicles for com-munication in the project and for users’ hands-on experi-ence [7]. Prototypes accordingly are intermediate outcomesthat in various forms capture what we know about theproduct, the use situation, and the design process. Some ofthese prototypes are versions of the final product that are invarious ways fully functional, while others at the otherextreme are experimental and throw-away prototypesformed in materials and software that has little to do with afinal product (e.g. mock-ups or paper prototypes).Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work forpersonal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies arenot made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copiesbear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise,or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires priorspecific permission and/or a fee.UbiComp’ 12, Sep 5 – Sep 8, 2012, Pittsburgh, USA.Copyright 2012 ACM 978-1-4503-1224-0/12/09...$15.00.43Making Sense of Green Boxes: A Study on People’sUnderstanding of Augmented Buildings on Mobile PhonesMatthias Korn, Mikkel Baun KjærgaardDepartment of Computer Science, Aarhus UniversityAabogade 34, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark{mkorn, mikkelbk}@cs.au.dkABSTRACTMobile augmented reality (MAR) is a promising tool for ur-ban planning as it allows a wide audience to experience fu-ture changes to the cityscape firsthand through their smartphones. With a study on how people make sense of visu-alizations of planned buildings within a real (outdoor) envi-ronment, we identify user requirements for such augmenta-tions using a bespoke prototype system with sparsely visual-ized buildings. We employ an in-the-wild study that involvesencountering virtual buildings through the prototype systemon a 45-minute walk in a planning area. Based on in-depth,qualitative data, we found that distinct qualities of augmentedobjects are important to provide among other things and thatpeople relate virtual objects to existing structures in the realworld. Our findings are generally applicable beyond urbanplanning whenever augmentations seek to imitate or repre-sent real objects.Author KeywordsMobile augmented reality; participatory urban planning;virtual buildings; sense-making.ACM Classification KeywordsH.5.1 Information Interfaces: Multimedia InformationSystems—Artificial, augmented, and virtual realities.General TermsHuman Factors; Design; Experimentation.INTRODUCTIONThe advent of the smart phone generation of mobile phonesis bringing augmented reality (AR) to the masses. With theirsensors, camera, and high processing power, smart phonespresent the most widely distributed and well equipped plat-form for AR. Much work has already been done in mobileaugmented reality (MAR) systems [4] and AR in the archi-tecture domain [1, 9]. Additionally, numerous commercialAR applications for smart phones exist (Wikitude and Layarare two of the earliest and most prominent examples).11See www.wikitude.com and www.layar.com.Unpublished paper draft.Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).Do not cite, do not circulate.Figure 1. Screenshot of the ARCity system showing the outline of aplanned building through the camera of the phone.A domain where a wide-spread adoption of MAR sys-tems could help is participatory urban planning. Although,changes to the cityscape are usually announced in the pressand other outlets by the municipality, citizens are still oftenunaware of them or the implications they may pose. Archi-tectural drawings and textual descriptions are often unapt orinsufficient in communicating these plans to interested resi-dents, who may not always be able to read and understandthem. Furthermore, they are often published for the city as awhole rather than being filtered according to the areas a cit-izen may be interested in (e.g., close to home or work). Ar-chitectural models can neither appropriately communicate theactual impact new buildings might have within lively and realrather than stylized surroundings. We envision that a MARapproach to urban planning may improve the awareness andunderstandability of municipal plans by visualizing plannedbuildings anchored in reality and aligned with the actual cur-rent surrounding cityscape in real-time.For this purpose, we are building the ARCity system (seeFigure 1). We employ AR building visualization in orderto engage more people to experience and participate in ur-ban planning of their own everyday living environment. Weuse a fairly basic approach for building visualization for itto perform well on general-purpose smart phones. We relysolely on already built-in GPS and inertial sensors for regis-tration and tracking—i.e., only on the capabilities already inthe phone. This enables augmented buildings in every per-son’s pocket without any required calibration or preparationof the site as would usually be the case with other AR tech-niques such as feature-tracking and model-based approaches.We seek to enable citizens to just point their phone at anyfuture building site and see what is planned to be built there.1
  21. 21. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013RESEARCH OBJECTIVESConceptual Research Objectives:I.  To explore (and conceptualize) the design of technology-mediated civic engagement opportunities in participatory landuse planning that are better integrated into people’s everydaylived experience.II.  To explore (and conceptualize) how such engagement activitiescan be made more pervasive (i.e., enabling engagementeverywhere and through various means) and co-located withthe referred-to places, i.e., the places that are personallymeaningful and matter to citizens.Methodological Research Objective:III.  To enrich our available methods and techniques that enable usto capture practices involving mobile behavior and allow forexploration of the field with sophisticated prototypes in the wild.21
  22. 22. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013UBICOMP METHODSuse situationinvolvement ofthe investigatorparticipantstimesophistication ofthe prototyperealisticartificiallowhighrecruitedcompressed real-timefunctionalattractedrepresentative actualmocked upincomplete complete22
  23. 23. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013DESIGN EXPERIMENTSvkqp"ctqwpf"ukvwcvgf"gpicigogpv"fgxgnqrgf"cpf"gxqnxgf0 Vjg"gzrgtkogpvu3K jcxg"eqog"vq"ecnn"vjgo"fgukip"gzrgtkogpvu"kpuvgcf"qh"ecugu"kp"vjg"xgkp"qh"gzrgtkogpvcnfgukip"tgugctej"cu"dtqwijv"hqtyctf"d{ Dtcpfv"cpf"Dkpfgt *4229+0 D{"ecnnkpi"vjgo"gzrgtkogpvu. Kfq"pqv"uwiiguv"vjcv"o{"yqtm"yqwnf"rtqxkfg"wpgswkxqecn"{gu1pq/cpuygtu"vq"engct"ewv. pcttqyn{fgÞpgf"tgugctej"swguvkqpu0 Tcvjgt. K ycpv"vq"gorjcuk|g"vjg"gzrnqtcvqt{"cpf"gorktkecn"ejctcevgtqh"o{"uvwfkgu. yjkej"K jcxg"eqpfwegf"kp"ugvvkpiu"yjkej"ygtg"vgorqtcnn{. urcvkcnn{. cpf"uqekcnn{ygnn"eqpÞpgf0Gzrgtkogpv Gorktkecn"Hqewu OgvjqfuOqdkng"Fgoqetce{ eq/fgukip"rtqeguu gzvgpukxg"rctvkekrcvqt{"fgukip"rtqeguuCT Ekv{ Þgnf"wug cpcn{vkecn"ycnmujqruOgpkpiBRctm eq/fgukip"rtqeguu1Þgnf"wuggzrnqtcvqt{"Þgnf"vtkcn. kpvgtxkgyu.yqtmujqru. gzrnqtcvqt{"ycnmujqruKÔo"[qwt"Dqf{ cevwcn"wucig Þgnf"vtkcn. cpcn{uku"qh"wucig"fcvc.tgàgevkqp"qp"fgukipVcdng 603 Qxgtxkgy"qh"vjg"kpfkxkfwcn"fgukip"gzrgtkogpvu"cpf"vjgkt"ugvwr06723
  24. 24. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013ACCESS AND REPRESENTATIONEjcrvgt"6 Fgukip"Gzrgtkceeguu tgrtgugpvcvkqp cevkqp*htqo"rnceg"vq"vqrke+ *htqo"vqrke"vq"rnceg+ST eqfg"ukipu vqrke"nqecvkqp etgcvkpi"c"vqrkepqvkÞecvkqpu kp"vqrke"vkvng citgg1fkucitggocr kp"vqrke"fguetkrvkqp eqoogpvkpi"*kpen0 oqqf+nkuvu rjqvqu wrnqcfkpi"c"rjqvqujctkpi1tgeqoogpfkpi CT xkgy ujctkpi"c"vqrkeo{"nqecvkqp hcxqtkvkpi"c"vqrkeg 605 Nkuv"qh"*korngogpvgf+"fgukip"kfgcu"tgncvkpi"vq"vjg"curgevu"qh"ceeguu. tgkqp. cpf"cevkqp"tgurgevkxgn{0 24
  25. 25. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013CONTRIBUTIONS88 Ejcrvgt"7 Eqpegrvwcn"EqpvtkdwvkqpuGzrgtkogpv Eqpvtkdwvkqp"Vjgogu Kphtcuvtwevwtcn"RgturgevkxgOqdkngFgoqetce{kp/ukvw"cpf"gz/ukvw"tgàgevkqp"cpfcevkqp= swcnkvkgu"qh dgkpi"vjgtgcffkvkqpcn"fgumvqr"kpvgthceg"hqtÔtgoqvgÔ"ceeguuCT Ekv{ dgvvgt"kortguukqp"qh"rncpu"kp/ukvw=rnceg"ogfkcvkqpxkuwcn"eqorqpgpv"hqt"rncegogfkcvkqpOgpkpiBRctm nkpmu"dgvyggp"rj{ukecn"cpf"fkikvcnurcegu= ceeguu"cpf"tgrtgugpvcvkqp=crrtqrtkcvg"hqtou"qh"gpicigogpvrj{ukecn"ctvkhcevu"kp"vjg"gpxktqpogpvcu"nkpmu"vq"vjg"fkikvcn"kphtcuvtwevwtgKÔo"[qwt"Dqf{ uvqt{vgnnkpi. rnc{hwnpguu. cpfgoqvkqpu"hqt"ekxke"gpicigogpv=uvqtkgu"fgxgnqrkpi"igqitcrjkecnn{ctvkuvke"cpf"rnc{hwn"gzrtguukqpvjtqwij"rj{ukecn"ctvkhcevu*uewnrvwtgu+"cpf"rgthqtocpegu*vjgcvgt"rnc{+Vcdng 703 Eqpvtkdwvkqp"vjgogu"qh"vjg"kpfkxkfwcn"fgukip"gzrgtkogpvu"kpenwfgf"kp"vjkufkuugtvcvkqp"cpf"vjgkt"rgturgevkxg"qp"kphtcuvtwevwtg025
  26. 26. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013RELATED WORKmobileWebMapMedia(Pudas)Urban MediatorGeoAnnotatorMobile Democracy(desktop)VoiceYourView*Mobile Democracy(mobile)augmented deliberation*Tell a Story(Pudas)Locast Civic MediaStoryPlace.meDigiGraff situated displaysmedia architectureBefore I Dieparticipatory sensing(Kuznetsov & Paulos, 2010)AR CityMening@ParkIm Your BodyI Wish This Wascouplingbetweenphysicalanddigitalrealm(*) In these two approaches, citizens are situated in a different physicaland/or virtual context than is referred to.MR Tentstationary ubiquitous ex-situ / remoteMening@Park(QR code signs)Im Your Body(sculptures)weakstrong{ }{ }26
  27. 27. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013I’M YOUR BODY92 Ejcrvgt"7 Eqpegrvwcn"Eqpvtkdwvkqpű **cv"c"rwdnke"rctm"fqypvqyp++ÑNqqmkpi"wr"cv"Mctn"vjg"ZKK cpf"vjkpm"qh"jqy"kvwugf"vq"dg. fwtkpi"vjku"rgtuqpÔu"vkog0 Ecppqvjgnr"vjkpmkpi"jqy"K yqwnf"nqqm"nkmg"cu"c"uvcvwg0Ò]hgocng_Ï **kp"vjg"uwdwtd. dgjkpf"vjg"ocnn++ÑQj"jqy"hwp0 Wphqtvwpcvgn{. vjgtg"ctg"pquvcvwgu"jgtg0Ò ]ocng_, **kp"vjg"uwdwtd. tgukfgpvkcn"ctgc++ÑK citgg. vjgtg"ctg"pq"uvcvwgu"jgtg"gkvjgt0Tgcnn{"ucf"vjcv"vjgtg"ctg"pq"uvcvwgu"cpfqvjgt " hkpg " vjkpiu " yjkej " ejggt " wr " vjguvtggvu " gxgt{yjgtg#Ò ]hgocng. qtkikpcnrquvgt. tgugpf"ykvj"v{rqu"eqttgevgf_, **kp"vjg"uwdwtd. dgjkpf"vjg"ocnn++ÑPq. K fq"pqv"ugg"cp{"uvcvwgu"jgtg"lwuvujqrrkpi"kpuvcnncvkqpuÒ"]ocng_Hkiwtg 703 Gzcorng"vjtgcf"cpf"eqttgurqpfkpi"ocr"qh"vjg"gpvtkgu"ujqykpi"vjg"igq/itcrjke"urtgcfkpi"uvctvkpi"ykvj"c"eqoogpv"htqo"c"rwdnke"rctm"fqypvqyp"*dqvvqotkijv+"cpf"vjg"gpuwkpi"eqpxgtucvkqp"kp"vjg"uwdwtd0 *Vjg"eqoogpv"kp"vjg"nqygt"nghv"jcu27
  28. 28. AARHUSUNIVERSITYSITUATING ENGAGEMENT – PH.D. DEFENSEMATTHIAS KORNMAY 7, 2013PHOTO ATTRIBUTIONS› Slide 2 (left): Foursquare User Chris Z. at Café Le Coq, Aarhushttp://4sq.com/17zsbLw› Slide 12: Nils Jepsen / CC-BY-SA-3.0, via WikimediaCommons http://bit.ly/10SsVbK› Slide 13 (bottom left): Nationalpark Mols Bjergehttp://bit.ly/19ytjeZ› Slide 14 (bottom left): Ebelfestival http://ebelfestival.dk/› Other photos by Nikolaj Gandrup Borchorst, Mikkel BaunKjærgaard and Matthias Korn28

×