Active share


Published on

Design case

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • “Studies paint a grim picture: those who complete weight-loss programs lose approximately 10% of their body weight, only to regain two-thirds of it back within a year and almost all of it back within 5 years” [3] . One of the main reasons for such a high relapse rate is that individuals have difficulty maintaining the necessary lifestyle improvements.
  • suggestions can work (such as a poster of "use the stairs" next to an elevator)goals are traditionally defined by the system or by the user himselfwhy not allow people to define goals in a social environment. by suggesting activities to each other, or even better.. CHALLENGING!share the goal and if you like it, you join it.
  • In order to achieve our goal increasing the sedentary people 's physical activity levels, our first concept is to design a system based on challenge setting which includes individual and group challenges, group collaboration and competition, and reminders.We interviewed 6 sedentary people (2 female, 22-27 years old, 1 Dutch, 1 Russian, 3 Chinese, 1 Brazilian), on questions ranging from current lifestyle, challenge setting, activity sharing within or outside social group, and activity monitoring system.From the interviews, we found that most of the interviewees understand the importance of the healthy lifestyle. Moreover, they considered their lifestyle as not healthy and are willing to change. They preferred to have a system linked to their schedules that would remind them to do activities whenever there is an empty time slot. On the other hand, most of them liked a coach or friends for motivating them because they think a coach is worthy of scientific trust.
  • Gather initial opinions. First time we would talk to user and present our ideas but let them guide us to what they wantPresenting a broad concept and asking related questionsphysical activity.. about broad concepts already addressing the challengesWe interviewed 6 sedentary people (2 female, 22-27 years old, 1 Dutch, 1 Russian, 3 Chinese, 1 Brazilian), on questions ranging from current lifestyle, challenge setting, activity sharing within or outside social group, and activity monitoring system.Understand the important of healthy style. Similarity rule. they want to use the system with existing friends which have the same activity level
  • who is doing what, who completed the most challenges, which did I accept, which did I complete, total calories burned, total kilometers walked, etc.29 challenges set (12 by Coach)56 times a challenge was accepted
  • Active share

    1. 1. User System Interaction – TU/e<br />Coaches Shalu | Joyca | Panos<br />Group André | Herjan | Li | Qing | Qonita<br />
    2. 2. Content<br />Motivation<br />Background<br />Requirements <br />Final Design<br />Evaluation <br />Conclusion <br />
    3. 3. Sedentary Lifestyle<br />Health<br />Obesity and overweight<br />Heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes ...<br />Aesthetics<br />Stay fit or your clothes won't fit !<br />Well-Being<br />Exercises combat depression and anxiety<br />...Just makes you feel good !<br />
    4. 4. How<br />HealthyLifestyle<br />Indicatedlevels of physicalactivity<br />Increasephysicalactivity<br />Mantain<br />Remind and motivate<br />Opportunistic<br />Leisure<br />Sports<br />
    5. 5. Goal<br />"PersuasiveTechnology to support increase of physicalactivity"<br />Target peoplewithsedentarylifestyle<br />
    6. 6. Brainstorming<br />
    7. 7. Possible solutions<br />Comparison with over 24 related studies<br />Social Network<br />System as an active Agent<br />Self awareness<br />Physical activity recognition<br />Challenge Setting<br />distributed goal definition<br />
    8. 8. Gathering requirements <br />User centered design approach<br />Initial interview (N=6)<br />Concept test: Prototype ActivityPal (N=8)<br />Focus group: video prototype (N=6)<br />
    9. 9. Initial interview result<br />(n=6) , distinct nationalities<br />I want to be more active but...<br />NO time, motivation and company <br />About sharing<br />Do and share activities with FRIENDS<br />Communicate with other users through system<br />Challenges should...<br />According to physical activity level AND schedule <br />from coach (expert, trust) and then friends<br />Self monitoring<br />
    10. 10. Concept test<br />(n=8)<br />Send challenges, activities and Messages;<br />7<br />
    11. 11. Concept test: result <br />56 acceptedchallenges<br />All participants liked the concept!<br />Half of the participants felt more active<br />They don't accept unrealistic or impossible (heavy) challenges<br />Opportunistic challenges are preferred among sedentary people<br />They like the coach (feedback) <br />“It is strange, but the coach really felt like an expert. His compliments felt better than positive feedback from other users.” <br />They want more information (feedback and overviews)<br />
    12. 12. Focus group<br />(n=6)<br />
    13. 13. Focus group: result<br />Resistance towards challenge setting (pressure)<br />He who sends must complete! "Suffer with me..."<br />only by friends or by the coach<br /><ul><li>Users disliked the alerts and reminders functions
    14. 14. Provide self awareness (improvement)</li></ul>Reliable activity recognition<br />Sharing information is not issues<br />Mobile solution (weekends)<br />
    15. 15. Design<br />Requirements<br />Allow means for self monitoring<br />Implement a social network<br />Coach functionality<br />Challenge Setting<br />
    16. 16. Measurement<br />Facilitate activity tracking<br />Philips Activity monitor<br />Algorithm: Movements Calorie expenditure<br />Y<br />X<br />Z<br />
    17. 17. Self-Monitoring<br />263 kcal<br />
    18. 18. Social Network<br />Communicate and Shareactivities<br />Social dynamics<br />Implicit social pressure<br />Surveillance<br />Groups: Users who know each other and have similar levels of physical activity<br />View<br />
    19. 19. Accessibility<br />Accessible in both the work and home environment. <br />Both working hours and leisure time.<br />Allow easy access, specifically during weekends! <br />Full time and real time access + update<br />Mobile Device<br />
    20. 20. Challenges!<br />Distributed goal setting: Share Goals!<br />Different status<br />Structured<br />Description<br />Activity<br />Time<br />"He who sends shall accept"<br />Recognize<br />
    21. 21. The coach<br /> Infiltrated social agent!<br />Moderate and motivate<br />Reminders<br />The less the best<br />Feedback<br />Reinforce positive behaviors<br />Challenges<br />Feasible; Focus on opportunistic activities.<br />
    22. 22. Quick Peek!<br />
    23. 23. User test<br />Recruitment<br />Sedentary work (office) within Philips<br /> Group 1 (n=6) Group 2 (n=6)<br /> Research Scientists Software Eng.<br />International Physical Activity Questionnaire<br />
    24. 24. User test<br />Baseline<br />7<br />Group 1<br />1st version - Stripped <br />Overview<br />Self-monitoring<br />Shared activity<br />Group 2<br />2nd version - Full<br />Messages<br />Challenges<br />Tag Activities<br />Coach<br />10<br />
    25. 25. Views results<br />Connects<br />Raw Data<br />Loads XML<br />Conversion<br />Speedskater<br />Request XML<br />Philips<br />Behind the curtains<br />
    26. 26. Evaluation<br />Difference of calorie expenditure (>100) over<br />1 error + 1 lost = 2<br />Questionnaire (7 point Likertscale)<br />Interest/Enjoyment<br />Perceived Competence<br />Perceived Choice<br />Usefulness/Value <br />Social Influence<br />Interview<br />Qualitative data on our concept for both groups<br />
    27. 27. Evaluation<br />Mixed subject ANOVA X F(1,8)=2.48, p= .15<br />900<br />850<br />800<br />750<br />Group 1<br />Group 2<br />time<br />Baseline<br />Test<br />
    28. 28. Evaluation<br />Pearson correlation r(3)=.84, p<.05 <br />Calorie increase accepted/completed challenges<br />Calorie<br />Increase<br />Completed<br />
    29. 29. Questionnaire<br />Reliability analysis: 2 questions removed<br />Independent samples T-Test (1 2 ) <br />Interest/Enjoyment (t=2.83, df=6.43, p=.028) <br />Group 1: 6.04 Group 2: 4.17 <br />Value/Usefulness (t=4.02, df=8.31, p=.004)<br />Group 1: 5.61 Group 2: 4.22 <br />No significant results for remaining categ.<br />Both scored low (<3) on Social Influence<br />
    30. 30. Interview<br />For both groups most participants<br />Liked the system<br />Understood all functionalities<br />Praised the self-monitoring possibility<br />Used the system frequently (2 to 3 times daily)<br />Contested measurement accuracy<br />
    31. 31. Conclusions & Discussion<br />Group 1 <br />Enjoyed and valued more the system<br />Think there was activity increase<br />Seamed more enthusiastic from start<br />Group 2<br />Appreciated challenge setting <br />Claimed to be Really, really busy...<br />Dismissed communication feature<br />Had difficulties with tagging <br />Different group characteristics (job, location)<br />
    32. 32. Comparison with previous concept test<br />Final evaluation Previous Test<br />Accepted Challenges<br />Sent Messages <br />Coach presence<br />IPAQ questionnaire showed different levels of physical activity (5 , 6 , 1 )<br />Correlations (accepted challenges and calorie increase) suggest further investigation<br />Conclusions & Discussion<br />21 56<br /> 31<br />
    33. 33. Future work<br />Evaluation<br />More participants (Homogeneous group)<br />Second user test (Invert settings)<br />Long term effects<br />Design<br />Facilitate tagging (automatic?)<br />Implement a mobile solution<br />
    34. 34. Thank you!<br />Questions?<br />