1. The Design of futureThings
DonaldNorman
susieherbstritt
2. 4
Chapter Servants of Our Machines
Men have become
the tools of their tools
3. 4
Chapter Servants of Our Machines
But lo!
Men have become
the tools of their tools
4. 4
Chapter Servants of Our Machines
Have you seen
my Blackberry?
Men have become
the tools of their tools
5. 4
Chapter Servants of Our Machines
Tech•nol•o•gy (noun): New stuff
that doesn’t work very well or that works
in mysterious, unknown ways
6. 4
Chapter Servants of Our Machines
Overautomation!
7. Chapter
4 Servants of Our Machines
Overautomation!
Z
Z
Z
8. 5
Chapter The Role of Automation
Smart Things
• Autonomous:
system attempts to infer intentions of people
• Augmentative:
provide useful tools but allow people to decide
9. 6
Chapter Communicating with Our Machines
Who do we blame?
10. 6
Chapter Communicating with Our Machines
Egg Freckles
14. How Robotic Products Become Social Products:
An Ethnographic Study of Cleaning in the Home
15. How Robotic Products Become Social Products:
An Ethnographic Study of Cleaning in the Home
16. How Robotic Products Become Social Products:
An Ethnographic Study of Cleaning in the Home
Dr. Jodi Forlizzi
17. How Robotic Products Become Social Products:
An Ethnographic Study of Cleaning in the Home
Dr. Jodi Forlizzi
Carnegie Mellon University
18. How Robotic Products Become Social Products:
An Ethnographic Study of Cleaning in the Home
Dr. Jodi Forlizzi
Carnegie Mellon University
ACM/IEEE International Conference on
Human-Robot Interaction
March 2007
37. Method
ethnographic study of floor cleaning
• semi-structured study
• 21 people/6 families
• Pittsburgh Benigno Numine
38. Method
ethnographic study of floor cleaning
• semi-structured study
• 21 people/6 families
• Pittsburgh Benigno Numine
• ages 10-90
39. Method
ethnographic study of floor cleaning
• semi-structured study
• 21 people/6 families
• Pittsburgh Benigno Numine
• ages 10-90
• female CEO
40. Method
ethnographic study of floor cleaning
• semi-structured study
• 21 people/6 families
• Pittsburgh Benigno Numine
• ages 10-90
• female CEO
• home ownership ≥ 5 years
43. Method
ethnographic study of floor cleaning
• conversational interviews
• visual story diaries (before and after)
44. Method
ethnographic study of floor cleaning
• conversational interviews
• visual story diaries (before and after)
• 30-minute follow-ups every 3 months
45. Method
ethnographic study of floor cleaning
• conversational interviews
}
• visual story diaries (before and after)
• 30-minute follow-ups every 3 months
1 month
I’m here to talk to you about the Design of Future Things by Donald Norman, a book I hope you enjoyed as much as I did. My name is Susie Herbstritt and there’s my email address in case you have any questions for me that we don’t have time to get to after this presentation.\n
So back in the day Henry David Thoreau told us that tools had begun to define people’s lives. Fast forward 150 years and now we complain about maintenance of all of our technology. Norman says, “People have become slaves to their technology, servants of their tools.” We not only serve our tools, we maintain and comfort them and allow them to tell us what to do, even when they lead us to disaster.\n
So back in the day Henry David Thoreau told us that tools had begun to define people’s lives. Fast forward 150 years and now we complain about maintenance of all of our technology. Norman says, “People have become slaves to their technology, servants of their tools.” We not only serve our tools, we maintain and comfort them and allow them to tell us what to do, even when they lead us to disaster.\n
So back in the day Henry David Thoreau told us that tools had begun to define people’s lives. Fast forward 150 years and now we complain about maintenance of all of our technology. Norman says, “People have become slaves to their technology, servants of their tools.” We not only serve our tools, we maintain and comfort them and allow them to tell us what to do, even when they lead us to disaster.\n
So back in the day Henry David Thoreau told us that tools had begun to define people’s lives. Fast forward 150 years and now we complain about maintenance of all of our technology. Norman says, “People have become slaves to their technology, servants of their tools.” We not only serve our tools, we maintain and comfort them and allow them to tell us what to do, even when they lead us to disaster.\n
So back in the day Henry David Thoreau told us that tools had begun to define people’s lives. Fast forward 150 years and now we complain about maintenance of all of our technology. Norman says, “People have become slaves to their technology, servants of their tools.” We not only serve our tools, we maintain and comfort them and allow them to tell us what to do, even when they lead us to disaster.\n
So back in the day Henry David Thoreau told us that tools had begun to define people’s lives. Fast forward 150 years and now we complain about maintenance of all of our technology. Norman says, “People have become slaves to their technology, servants of their tools.” We not only serve our tools, we maintain and comfort them and allow them to tell us what to do, even when they lead us to disaster.\n
Unfortunately, it’s too late to go back; we can no longer live without the tools of technology. Despite what’s written in the book and up on the wall here, Norman defines technology as “any systematic application of knowledge to fashion the artifacts, materials, and procedures of our lives.” Examples include language, clothing, art and music, Thoreau’s pencil, all of these are tools of technology. Up until now, we’ve been able to keep technology under control, we’ve been using technologies that we can understand. But now, automation is taking over and we’re in this fuzzy area where it hasn’t quite taken over completely AND THAT is where the most trouble lies.\n
As we give our cars, our homes, our entertainment more control, we risk falling into the trap of overautomation. Our equipment becomes so good that we don’t have to pay attention anymore. This is acceptable when flying a plane in uncrowded airspace with good weather and plenty of fuel, but Norman asks us to consider what happens when we’re driving a car? \n
As we give our cars, our homes, our entertainment more control, we risk falling into the trap of overautomation. Our equipment becomes so good that we don’t have to pay attention anymore. This is acceptable when flying a plane in uncrowded airspace with good weather and plenty of fuel, but Norman asks us to consider what happens when we’re driving a car? \n
As we give our cars, our homes, our entertainment more control, we risk falling into the trap of overautomation. Our equipment becomes so good that we don’t have to pay attention anymore. This is acceptable when flying a plane in uncrowded airspace with good weather and plenty of fuel, but Norman asks us to consider what happens when we’re driving a car? \n
As we give our cars, our homes, our entertainment more control, we risk falling into the trap of overautomation. Our equipment becomes so good that we don’t have to pay attention anymore. This is acceptable when flying a plane in uncrowded airspace with good weather and plenty of fuel, but Norman asks us to consider what happens when we’re driving a car? \n
As we give our cars, our homes, our entertainment more control, we risk falling into the trap of overautomation. Our equipment becomes so good that we don’t have to pay attention anymore. This is acceptable when flying a plane in uncrowded airspace with good weather and plenty of fuel, but Norman asks us to consider what happens when we’re driving a car? \n
Norman argues that the current state of automation is unsound because we’re in this dangerous middle-ground, neither completely automated nor completely manual, however, even with fully automated equipment, people are still “in the loop” but that results in a complete passive observation of the situation and people’s lack of vigilance leads to deteriorated performance over time. A second problem is over-reliance on automation. People fall “out of the loop,” are too trusting of technology and fail to catch problems in time. This phenomenon has been found across a variety of domains (pilots, train operators, automobile drivers). Norman warns that although partial automation of cars may lead to fewer accidents, the ones that do happen will be much more severe.\n
In Chapter 5, Norman gives several examples of “smart things” and the research involved in experimental smart homes, suggesting that the research can move in two different directions: towards intelligent autonomy or towards intelligent augmentation. Both have pros and cons. Autonomous systems are useful for dull, dangerous and dirty jobs or when the task could not otherwise be accomplished (think search and rescue after an earthquake). Augmentative tools are voluntary, we can take them or leave them and so we’re comforted by them, we can mix and match our technology to our lifestyle. While both types are valuable, the challenge we face is adding intelligent devices to our lives which improve them without adding to our stress.\n
\n
In Norman’s book, “The Design of Everyday Things,” he tell us “Don’t blame yourself, blame technology.” Now he’s saying, sometimes, we should blame ourselves for a failure. If we’re at fault and not the technology, maybe we can change and learn to work with the technology. A great example of this is the handwriting recognition system on the Apple Newton, a product that he had worked on and which failed miserably. Norman says “always make sure a system’s response is understandable and interpretable.” Several years later, when Apple came out with Rosetta, the conceptual model of the software had completely reversed the idea of where to place the blame. Suddenly people understood why it was failing (they blamed themselves) and were able to adapt to the technology to make it work. \n\nHe finishes up by saying that the Newton was a perfect example why any design unable to give meaningful feedback is doomed to fail in the marketplace.\n
In Norman’s book, “The Design of Everyday Things,” he tell us “Don’t blame yourself, blame technology.” Now he’s saying, sometimes, we should blame ourselves for a failure. If we’re at fault and not the technology, maybe we can change and learn to work with the technology. A great example of this is the handwriting recognition system on the Apple Newton, a product that he had worked on and which failed miserably. Norman says “always make sure a system’s response is understandable and interpretable.” Several years later, when Apple came out with Rosetta, the conceptual model of the software had completely reversed the idea of where to place the blame. Suddenly people understood why it was failing (they blamed themselves) and were able to adapt to the technology to make it work. \n\nHe finishes up by saying that the Newton was a perfect example why any design unable to give meaningful feedback is doomed to fail in the marketplace.\n
In the final chapter in the book, Norman talks about the future of robots. Now making them work is exceptionally difficult and today’s devices are not reliable, intelligent, or versatile enough, however, the future of robots, he says, is likely headed in three directions: education, entertainment, and home appliances. The area that is of most interest to me (for the purpose of today’s presentation) is home appliances, robot vacuum cleaners and lawn mowers. Now Norman says that these special-purpose robots (which already exist in many people’s homes) eliminate a lot of the miscommunication and interaction difficulties that we have with other types of autonomous systems because we have a mutual understanding of the tasks they are supposed to perform and the limitations of their abilities. And that brings me to the article which I’d like to present to you today.\n
In the final chapter in the book, Norman talks about the future of robots. Now making them work is exceptionally difficult and today’s devices are not reliable, intelligent, or versatile enough, however, the future of robots, he says, is likely headed in three directions: education, entertainment, and home appliances. The area that is of most interest to me (for the purpose of today’s presentation) is home appliances, robot vacuum cleaners and lawn mowers. Now Norman says that these special-purpose robots (which already exist in many people’s homes) eliminate a lot of the miscommunication and interaction difficulties that we have with other types of autonomous systems because we have a mutual understanding of the tasks they are supposed to perform and the limitations of their abilities. And that brings me to the article which I’d like to present to you today.\n
In the final chapter in the book, Norman talks about the future of robots. Now making them work is exceptionally difficult and today’s devices are not reliable, intelligent, or versatile enough, however, the future of robots, he says, is likely headed in three directions: education, entertainment, and home appliances. The area that is of most interest to me (for the purpose of today’s presentation) is home appliances, robot vacuum cleaners and lawn mowers. Now Norman says that these special-purpose robots (which already exist in many people’s homes) eliminate a lot of the miscommunication and interaction difficulties that we have with other types of autonomous systems because we have a mutual understanding of the tasks they are supposed to perform and the limitations of their abilities. And that brings me to the article which I’d like to present to you today.\n
In the final chapter in the book, Norman talks about the future of robots. Now making them work is exceptionally difficult and today’s devices are not reliable, intelligent, or versatile enough, however, the future of robots, he says, is likely headed in three directions: education, entertainment, and home appliances. The area that is of most interest to me (for the purpose of today’s presentation) is home appliances, robot vacuum cleaners and lawn mowers. Now Norman says that these special-purpose robots (which already exist in many people’s homes) eliminate a lot of the miscommunication and interaction difficulties that we have with other types of autonomous systems because we have a mutual understanding of the tasks they are supposed to perform and the limitations of their abilities. And that brings me to the article which I’d like to present to you today.\n
In the final chapter in the book, Norman talks about the future of robots. Now making them work is exceptionally difficult and today’s devices are not reliable, intelligent, or versatile enough, however, the future of robots, he says, is likely headed in three directions: education, entertainment, and home appliances. The area that is of most interest to me (for the purpose of today’s presentation) is home appliances, robot vacuum cleaners and lawn mowers. Now Norman says that these special-purpose robots (which already exist in many people’s homes) eliminate a lot of the miscommunication and interaction difficulties that we have with other types of autonomous systems because we have a mutual understanding of the tasks they are supposed to perform and the limitations of their abilities. And that brings me to the article which I’d like to present to you today.\n
In the final chapter in the book, Norman talks about the future of robots. Now making them work is exceptionally difficult and today’s devices are not reliable, intelligent, or versatile enough, however, the future of robots, he says, is likely headed in three directions: education, entertainment, and home appliances. The area that is of most interest to me (for the purpose of today’s presentation) is home appliances, robot vacuum cleaners and lawn mowers. Now Norman says that these special-purpose robots (which already exist in many people’s homes) eliminate a lot of the miscommunication and interaction difficulties that we have with other types of autonomous systems because we have a mutual understanding of the tasks they are supposed to perform and the limitations of their abilities. And that brings me to the article which I’d like to present to you today.\n
This article is entitled “How Robotic Products become Social Products: An Ethnographic Study of Cleaning in the Home” by Dr. Jodi Forlizzi who is a professor at Carnegie Mellon University. This article is from the proceedings of the ACM/IEEE conference on Human-Robot Interaction from March 2007 \n
This article is entitled “How Robotic Products become Social Products: An Ethnographic Study of Cleaning in the Home” by Dr. Jodi Forlizzi who is a professor at Carnegie Mellon University. This article is from the proceedings of the ACM/IEEE conference on Human-Robot Interaction from March 2007 \n
This article is entitled “How Robotic Products become Social Products: An Ethnographic Study of Cleaning in the Home” by Dr. Jodi Forlizzi who is a professor at Carnegie Mellon University. This article is from the proceedings of the ACM/IEEE conference on Human-Robot Interaction from March 2007 \n
This article is entitled “How Robotic Products become Social Products: An Ethnographic Study of Cleaning in the Home” by Dr. Jodi Forlizzi who is a professor at Carnegie Mellon University. This article is from the proceedings of the ACM/IEEE conference on Human-Robot Interaction from March 2007 \n
Dr. Forlizzi (or Miz Jodi as she’s known on Twitter) has a BFA in Illustration from Philadelphia College of Art and her Masters and PHD in HCI from CMU. To me, she seems an embodiment of the perfect Right brain/left brain combination (artistic + logical). She is a tenured professor in the School of Design, the Human Computer Interaction Institute and she also currently holds the Habermann chair in Computer Science, which is awarded for a three-year term to junior faculty members of unusual promise in order to help them build a career of distinction.\nNot only that, she’s also a 4th degree Black belt in tae kwon do, which in my book, makes her a total badass\n
Dr. Forlizzi (or Miz Jodi as she’s known on Twitter) has a BFA in Illustration from Philadelphia College of Art and her Masters and PHD in HCI from CMU. To me, she seems an embodiment of the perfect Right brain/left brain combination (artistic + logical). She is a tenured professor in the School of Design, the Human Computer Interaction Institute and she also currently holds the Habermann chair in Computer Science, which is awarded for a three-year term to junior faculty members of unusual promise in order to help them build a career of distinction.\nNot only that, she’s also a 4th degree Black belt in tae kwon do, which in my book, makes her a total badass\n
Dr. Forlizzi (or Miz Jodi as she’s known on Twitter) has a BFA in Illustration from Philadelphia College of Art and her Masters and PHD in HCI from CMU. To me, she seems an embodiment of the perfect Right brain/left brain combination (artistic + logical). She is a tenured professor in the School of Design, the Human Computer Interaction Institute and she also currently holds the Habermann chair in Computer Science, which is awarded for a three-year term to junior faculty members of unusual promise in order to help them build a career of distinction.\nNot only that, she’s also a 4th degree Black belt in tae kwon do, which in my book, makes her a total badass\n
Here’s a photo of Dr. Forlizzi at CHI 2010. The research presented in this article was part of a more than 3 million dollar NSF grant to study the cognitive and social design of robotic assistants. Sarah Keisler was the PI and Pamela Hinds was the other co-PI and they are also both at CMU. Research funded by this grant was carried out between 2001-2008 and resulted in 55 publications (this article is not counted as these were published conference proceedings).\n
Here’s a photo of Dr. Forlizzi at CHI 2010. The research presented in this article was part of a more than 3 million dollar NSF grant to study the cognitive and social design of robotic assistants. Sarah Keisler was the PI and Pamela Hinds was the other co-PI and they are also both at CMU. Research funded by this grant was carried out between 2001-2008 and resulted in 55 publications (this article is not counted as these were published conference proceedings).\n
Here’s a photo of Dr. Forlizzi at CHI 2010. The research presented in this article was part of a more than 3 million dollar NSF grant to study the cognitive and social design of robotic assistants. Sarah Keisler was the PI and Pamela Hinds was the other co-PI and they are also both at CMU. Research funded by this grant was carried out between 2001-2008 and resulted in 55 publications (this article is not counted as these were published conference proceedings).\n
Here’s a photo of Dr. Forlizzi at CHI 2010. The research presented in this article was part of a more than 3 million dollar NSF grant to study the cognitive and social design of robotic assistants. Sarah Keisler was the PI and Pamela Hinds was the other co-PI and they are also both at CMU. Research funded by this grant was carried out between 2001-2008 and resulted in 55 publications (this article is not counted as these were published conference proceedings).\n
Here’s a photo of Dr. Forlizzi at CHI 2010. The research presented in this article was part of a more than 3 million dollar NSF grant to study the cognitive and social design of robotic assistants. Sarah Keisler was the PI and Pamela Hinds was the other co-PI and they are also both at CMU. Research funded by this grant was carried out between 2001-2008 and resulted in 55 publications (this article is not counted as these were published conference proceedings).\n
Essentially this study pits the Hoover flair upright vacuum against the iRobot Roomba vacuuming robot. In full disclosure before I introduce the data from the study, I’d like to point out that the Flair retails for about $49.95 while the low-end Roomba model sells for around 250 dollars.\n
Essentially this study pits the Hoover flair upright vacuum against the iRobot Roomba vacuuming robot. In full disclosure before I introduce the data from the study, I’d like to point out that the Flair retails for about $49.95 while the low-end Roomba model sells for around 250 dollars.\n
Essentially this study pits the Hoover flair upright vacuum against the iRobot Roomba vacuuming robot. In full disclosure before I introduce the data from the study, I’d like to point out that the Flair retails for about $49.95 while the low-end Roomba model sells for around 250 dollars.\n
There were 3 main goals to this study which builds on earlier research that Dr. Forlizzi conducted on assistive robots and domestic environments. She was interested in examining robotic products in real world contexts, she wanted to compare robotic products with non-robotic ones that have essentially the same functionality, and she was looking to inform the development of future robotic systems.\n
There were 3 main goals to this study which builds on earlier research that Dr. Forlizzi conducted on assistive robots and domestic environments. She was interested in examining robotic products in real world contexts, she wanted to compare robotic products with non-robotic ones that have essentially the same functionality, and she was looking to inform the development of future robotic systems.\n
There were 3 main goals to this study which builds on earlier research that Dr. Forlizzi conducted on assistive robots and domestic environments. She was interested in examining robotic products in real world contexts, she wanted to compare robotic products with non-robotic ones that have essentially the same functionality, and she was looking to inform the development of future robotic systems.\n
There were 3 main goals to this study which builds on earlier research that Dr. Forlizzi conducted on assistive robots and domestic environments. She was interested in examining robotic products in real world contexts, she wanted to compare robotic products with non-robotic ones that have essentially the same functionality, and she was looking to inform the development of future robotic systems.\n
There were 3 main goals to this study which builds on earlier research that Dr. Forlizzi conducted on assistive robots and domestic environments. She was interested in examining robotic products in real world contexts, she wanted to compare robotic products with non-robotic ones that have essentially the same functionality, and she was looking to inform the development of future robotic systems.\n
There were 3 main goals to this study which builds on earlier research that Dr. Forlizzi conducted on assistive robots and domestic environments. She was interested in examining robotic products in real world contexts, she wanted to compare robotic products with non-robotic ones that have essentially the same functionality, and she was looking to inform the development of future robotic systems.\n
In order to do this, Dr. Forlizzi conducted a semi-structured, ethnographic study that took place over 12 months\n
How did she go about this? She conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 21 men, women, and children in 6 families who all live in the Pittsburgh area. Three groups had elders at the center of the family and three did not. The participants ranged in age from 10-90. Each person at the center of the family was female, and she was also responsible for housecleaning. All of the families lived in homes which they had owned for between 5 and 50 years. They were screened to make sure that they had no prior experience with either product. \n
How did she go about this? She conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 21 men, women, and children in 6 families who all live in the Pittsburgh area. Three groups had elders at the center of the family and three did not. The participants ranged in age from 10-90. Each person at the center of the family was female, and she was also responsible for housecleaning. All of the families lived in homes which they had owned for between 5 and 50 years. They were screened to make sure that they had no prior experience with either product. \n
How did she go about this? She conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 21 men, women, and children in 6 families who all live in the Pittsburgh area. Three groups had elders at the center of the family and three did not. The participants ranged in age from 10-90. Each person at the center of the family was female, and she was also responsible for housecleaning. All of the families lived in homes which they had owned for between 5 and 50 years. They were screened to make sure that they had no prior experience with either product. \n
How did she go about this? She conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 21 men, women, and children in 6 families who all live in the Pittsburgh area. Three groups had elders at the center of the family and three did not. The participants ranged in age from 10-90. Each person at the center of the family was female, and she was also responsible for housecleaning. All of the families lived in homes which they had owned for between 5 and 50 years. They were screened to make sure that they had no prior experience with either product. \n
How did she go about this? She conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 21 men, women, and children in 6 families who all live in the Pittsburgh area. Three groups had elders at the center of the family and three did not. The participants ranged in age from 10-90. Each person at the center of the family was female, and she was also responsible for housecleaning. All of the families lived in homes which they had owned for between 5 and 50 years. They were screened to make sure that they had no prior experience with either product. \n
How did she go about this? She conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 21 men, women, and children in 6 families who all live in the Pittsburgh area. Three groups had elders at the center of the family and three did not. The participants ranged in age from 10-90. Each person at the center of the family was female, and she was also responsible for housecleaning. All of the families lived in homes which they had owned for between 5 and 50 years. They were screened to make sure that they had no prior experience with either product. \n
There were four parts to the research. Part 1 consisted of conversational interviews with each member of the family to get to know participants, cleaning activities and the people, products, and processes involved in them. In Part Two, one family member filled out 12 images of a visual story diary which consisted of photographs plus written descriptions in a logbook. They documented events that made the floor dirty and the floor cleaning events along with products or services used. In part three, the central person was given either a Roomba or a Flair and asked to keep another visual story diary to describe how the product assisted or changed cleaning tasks and whether it fit with the group of cleaning products that they already own. The last part consisted of follow-up interviews with each member of the family. They focused on if they had used the vacuum, likes and dislikes, and whether it was an effective product. Parts 1 through 3 lasted 1 month. In part 4, 30-minute follow up interviews were conducted by telephone at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the start of the study.\n
There were four parts to the research. Part 1 consisted of conversational interviews with each member of the family to get to know participants, cleaning activities and the people, products, and processes involved in them. In Part Two, one family member filled out 12 images of a visual story diary which consisted of photographs plus written descriptions in a logbook. They documented events that made the floor dirty and the floor cleaning events along with products or services used. In part three, the central person was given either a Roomba or a Flair and asked to keep another visual story diary to describe how the product assisted or changed cleaning tasks and whether it fit with the group of cleaning products that they already own. The last part consisted of follow-up interviews with each member of the family. They focused on if they had used the vacuum, likes and dislikes, and whether it was an effective product. Parts 1 through 3 lasted 1 month. In part 4, 30-minute follow up interviews were conducted by telephone at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the start of the study.\n
There were four parts to the research. Part 1 consisted of conversational interviews with each member of the family to get to know participants, cleaning activities and the people, products, and processes involved in them. In Part Two, one family member filled out 12 images of a visual story diary which consisted of photographs plus written descriptions in a logbook. They documented events that made the floor dirty and the floor cleaning events along with products or services used. In part three, the central person was given either a Roomba or a Flair and asked to keep another visual story diary to describe how the product assisted or changed cleaning tasks and whether it fit with the group of cleaning products that they already own. The last part consisted of follow-up interviews with each member of the family. They focused on if they had used the vacuum, likes and dislikes, and whether it was an effective product. Parts 1 through 3 lasted 1 month. In part 4, 30-minute follow up interviews were conducted by telephone at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the start of the study.\n
There were four parts to the research. Part 1 consisted of conversational interviews with each member of the family to get to know participants, cleaning activities and the people, products, and processes involved in them. In Part Two, one family member filled out 12 images of a visual story diary which consisted of photographs plus written descriptions in a logbook. They documented events that made the floor dirty and the floor cleaning events along with products or services used. In part three, the central person was given either a Roomba or a Flair and asked to keep another visual story diary to describe how the product assisted or changed cleaning tasks and whether it fit with the group of cleaning products that they already own. The last part consisted of follow-up interviews with each member of the family. They focused on if they had used the vacuum, likes and dislikes, and whether it was an effective product. Parts 1 through 3 lasted 1 month. In part 4, 30-minute follow up interviews were conducted by telephone at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the start of the study.\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
In the chapter by Nardi and O’Day in the Bishop book, we learned about information ecologies. Forlizzi uses the concept of a “product ecology” to describe dynamic and social relationships that people form with robotic products and systems. So, a product ecology is an interrelated system of a product surrounded by other products, acting as a system; of people (together with their attitudes, dispositions, norms, relationships and values; of activities and places (including the built environment) and of social and cultural context of use. She uses this framework to describe how the environment affects products that are used and in turn, how product use changes the people and context of the use. So what did she find out?\n
In the chapter by Nardi and O’Day in the Bishop book, we learned about information ecologies. Forlizzi uses the concept of a “product ecology” to describe dynamic and social relationships that people form with robotic products and systems. So, a product ecology is an interrelated system of a product surrounded by other products, acting as a system; of people (together with their attitudes, dispositions, norms, relationships and values; of activities and places (including the built environment) and of social and cultural context of use. She uses this framework to describe how the environment affects products that are used and in turn, how product use changes the people and context of the use. So what did she find out?\n
In the chapter by Nardi and O’Day in the Bishop book, we learned about information ecologies. Forlizzi uses the concept of a “product ecology” to describe dynamic and social relationships that people form with robotic products and systems. So, a product ecology is an interrelated system of a product surrounded by other products, acting as a system; of people (together with their attitudes, dispositions, norms, relationships and values; of activities and places (including the built environment) and of social and cultural context of use. She uses this framework to describe how the environment affects products that are used and in turn, how product use changes the people and context of the use. So what did she find out?\n
In the chapter by Nardi and O’Day in the Bishop book, we learned about information ecologies. Forlizzi uses the concept of a “product ecology” to describe dynamic and social relationships that people form with robotic products and systems. So, a product ecology is an interrelated system of a product surrounded by other products, acting as a system; of people (together with their attitudes, dispositions, norms, relationships and values; of activities and places (including the built environment) and of social and cultural context of use. She uses this framework to describe how the environment affects products that are used and in turn, how product use changes the people and context of the use. So what did she find out?\n
In the chapter by Nardi and O’Day in the Bishop book, we learned about information ecologies. Forlizzi uses the concept of a “product ecology” to describe dynamic and social relationships that people form with robotic products and systems. So, a product ecology is an interrelated system of a product surrounded by other products, acting as a system; of people (together with their attitudes, dispositions, norms, relationships and values; of activities and places (including the built environment) and of social and cultural context of use. She uses this framework to describe how the environment affects products that are used and in turn, how product use changes the people and context of the use. So what did she find out?\n
In the chapter by Nardi and O’Day in the Bishop book, we learned about information ecologies. Forlizzi uses the concept of a “product ecology” to describe dynamic and social relationships that people form with robotic products and systems. So, a product ecology is an interrelated system of a product surrounded by other products, acting as a system; of people (together with their attitudes, dispositions, norms, relationships and values; of activities and places (including the built environment) and of social and cultural context of use. She uses this framework to describe how the environment affects products that are used and in turn, how product use changes the people and context of the use. So what did she find out?\n
In the chapter by Nardi and O’Day in the Bishop book, we learned about information ecologies. Forlizzi uses the concept of a “product ecology” to describe dynamic and social relationships that people form with robotic products and systems. So, a product ecology is an interrelated system of a product surrounded by other products, acting as a system; of people (together with their attitudes, dispositions, norms, relationships and values; of activities and places (including the built environment) and of social and cultural context of use. She uses this framework to describe how the environment affects products that are used and in turn, how product use changes the people and context of the use. So what did she find out?\n
In the chapter by Nardi and O’Day in the Bishop book, we learned about information ecologies. Forlizzi uses the concept of a “product ecology” to describe dynamic and social relationships that people form with robotic products and systems. So, a product ecology is an interrelated system of a product surrounded by other products, acting as a system; of people (together with their attitudes, dispositions, norms, relationships and values; of activities and places (including the built environment) and of social and cultural context of use. She uses this framework to describe how the environment affects products that are used and in turn, how product use changes the people and context of the use. So what did she find out?\n
Well, families stopped using the Flair after 3 months and consequently, they did not find that it brought about any significant change to the way people cleaned their homes. However, the Roomba had lasting impact on the people, activities, and products in the home. Men and children began using the Roomba and therefore taking on cleaning responsibilities. People cleaned more often with the Roomba because it gave them autonomy; not only could they multi-task, they also found new ways to clean with it. The Roomba also affected the other products in the home. Some families replaced their other cleaning tools (like brooms, dust mops, or vacuums) and one family even purchased a second Roomba. BUT to bring us full-circle back to the start of this presentation on future things, perhaps the most interesting finding of this research is that all families who received the Roomba talked at length about how their pets interacted with it. They attributed both social and emotional responses that pets had to the vacuum, for example, one family said their cat liked to sit near it to “keep it company” while another family said that their older dog was afraid of it and ran away from it when in use. To wrap up, I’d like to share with you some of the latest research into the field of CCI (cat-computer interaction).\n\n
Well, families stopped using the Flair after 3 months and consequently, they did not find that it brought about any significant change to the way people cleaned their homes. However, the Roomba had lasting impact on the people, activities, and products in the home. Men and children began using the Roomba and therefore taking on cleaning responsibilities. People cleaned more often with the Roomba because it gave them autonomy; not only could they multi-task, they also found new ways to clean with it. The Roomba also affected the other products in the home. Some families replaced their other cleaning tools (like brooms, dust mops, or vacuums) and one family even purchased a second Roomba. BUT to bring us full-circle back to the start of this presentation on future things, perhaps the most interesting finding of this research is that all families who received the Roomba talked at length about how their pets interacted with it. They attributed both social and emotional responses that pets had to the vacuum, for example, one family said their cat liked to sit near it to “keep it company” while another family said that their older dog was afraid of it and ran away from it when in use. To wrap up, I’d like to share with you some of the latest research into the field of CCI (cat-computer interaction).\n\n
Well, families stopped using the Flair after 3 months and consequently, they did not find that it brought about any significant change to the way people cleaned their homes. However, the Roomba had lasting impact on the people, activities, and products in the home. Men and children began using the Roomba and therefore taking on cleaning responsibilities. People cleaned more often with the Roomba because it gave them autonomy; not only could they multi-task, they also found new ways to clean with it. The Roomba also affected the other products in the home. Some families replaced their other cleaning tools (like brooms, dust mops, or vacuums) and one family even purchased a second Roomba. BUT to bring us full-circle back to the start of this presentation on future things, perhaps the most interesting finding of this research is that all families who received the Roomba talked at length about how their pets interacted with it. They attributed both social and emotional responses that pets had to the vacuum, for example, one family said their cat liked to sit near it to “keep it company” while another family said that their older dog was afraid of it and ran away from it when in use. To wrap up, I’d like to share with you some of the latest research into the field of CCI (cat-computer interaction).\n\n
Well, families stopped using the Flair after 3 months and consequently, they did not find that it brought about any significant change to the way people cleaned their homes. However, the Roomba had lasting impact on the people, activities, and products in the home. Men and children began using the Roomba and therefore taking on cleaning responsibilities. People cleaned more often with the Roomba because it gave them autonomy; not only could they multi-task, they also found new ways to clean with it. The Roomba also affected the other products in the home. Some families replaced their other cleaning tools (like brooms, dust mops, or vacuums) and one family even purchased a second Roomba. BUT to bring us full-circle back to the start of this presentation on future things, perhaps the most interesting finding of this research is that all families who received the Roomba talked at length about how their pets interacted with it. They attributed both social and emotional responses that pets had to the vacuum, for example, one family said their cat liked to sit near it to “keep it company” while another family said that their older dog was afraid of it and ran away from it when in use. To wrap up, I’d like to share with you some of the latest research into the field of CCI (cat-computer interaction).\n\n
Well, families stopped using the Flair after 3 months and consequently, they did not find that it brought about any significant change to the way people cleaned their homes. However, the Roomba had lasting impact on the people, activities, and products in the home. Men and children began using the Roomba and therefore taking on cleaning responsibilities. People cleaned more often with the Roomba because it gave them autonomy; not only could they multi-task, they also found new ways to clean with it. The Roomba also affected the other products in the home. Some families replaced their other cleaning tools (like brooms, dust mops, or vacuums) and one family even purchased a second Roomba. BUT to bring us full-circle back to the start of this presentation on future things, perhaps the most interesting finding of this research is that all families who received the Roomba talked at length about how their pets interacted with it. They attributed both social and emotional responses that pets had to the vacuum, for example, one family said their cat liked to sit near it to “keep it company” while another family said that their older dog was afraid of it and ran away from it when in use. To wrap up, I’d like to share with you some of the latest research into the field of CCI (cat-computer interaction).\n\n
Well, families stopped using the Flair after 3 months and consequently, they did not find that it brought about any significant change to the way people cleaned their homes. However, the Roomba had lasting impact on the people, activities, and products in the home. Men and children began using the Roomba and therefore taking on cleaning responsibilities. People cleaned more often with the Roomba because it gave them autonomy; not only could they multi-task, they also found new ways to clean with it. The Roomba also affected the other products in the home. Some families replaced their other cleaning tools (like brooms, dust mops, or vacuums) and one family even purchased a second Roomba. BUT to bring us full-circle back to the start of this presentation on future things, perhaps the most interesting finding of this research is that all families who received the Roomba talked at length about how their pets interacted with it. They attributed both social and emotional responses that pets had to the vacuum, for example, one family said their cat liked to sit near it to “keep it company” while another family said that their older dog was afraid of it and ran away from it when in use. To wrap up, I’d like to share with you some of the latest research into the field of CCI (cat-computer interaction).\n\n
