1 / 21

Design for families (or homes)

Design for families (or homes). Rikard Harr. Outline. What make homes interesting for HCI What make homes difficult to study? 3 ways of studying domestic use of IT Participatory design and the papers Between the dazzle LINC, Inkable Digital Family Calendar

jaclyn
Télécharger la présentation

Design for families (or homes)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Design for families (or homes) RikardHarr

  2. Outline • What make homes interesting for HCI • What make homes difficult to study? • 3 ways of studying domestic use of IT • Participatory design and the papers • Between the dazzle • LINC, Inkable Digital Family Calendar • Concluding remarks/Student comments

  3. What make homes interesting for HCI four different industries which are now viewing the home as the next site for technological development: telecommunications industry, information industry, computer industry and entertainment - many of these working in close collaboration. (Venkatesh 1995) • The home is becoming increasingly computerized • E.g. Cell Phones, PCs, wireless networks, Smart TVs, Media Centers, interconnected platforms, devices and services • A large part of all computer use takes place in homes • Different reasons for technology use than at work • More diverse user groups • Users expect true ubiquity • New challenge for researchers

  4. And what makes it difficult to study • A challenge just to get access • Even the briefest ethnographic study of organisational life - perhaps best characterised by Hughes et al.’s quick and dirty ethnography [13] - tends to involve several days of continuous fieldworker presence within the workplace, a degree of intrusion likely to be considered at best undesirable and at worst wholly unacceptable if replicated within a domestic environment. (O’Brian and Rodden 1997, p. 252) • Sensitivity for intrusion • Importance of privacy • Three approaches • Ethnographic studies • Lab houses • Participatory approaches

  5. 1. Ethnographic studies in homes • Relatively few examples • Lull (1991), research assistants lodged in the host households • O’Brian and Rodden (1997) focus on interactive system designs for domestic environments • Rouncefield et al. (2000) wanted to create general design principles and writes: • The explicit aim of the studies was to develop an understanding of the detailed everyday activities in the home with the emphasis placed upon the provision of a 'thick description' of daily life within the home • Often light versions of ethnography (e.g. O’Brian and Rodden 1997) • Our intention in the studies undertaken for this project was, of course, to remain as faithful as possible to the fundamental principles of ethnographic research… (p. 252) • A fieldworker conducted series of three evening visits a week to ten families

  6. 1. Ethnographic studies in homes • Blythe and Monk (2002) studied domestic technology • Focus on gender division of domestic labor and gendered product design • Studied three households • In-depth interviews with seven family members • Used the Technology Biography for generating critical and creative responses to questions of home technology development • TB included: • a technology tour of participants homes • last times questions about participants latest technology usage • a personal history interview of participants technologies and routines • a guided speculation on possible future technologies, and • three wishes for products that participants would like to see.

  7. 2. Lab houses (awarehome.gatech.edu) • The Aware Home Research Initiative (AHRI) • Focus on: • Health and Well-being • Digital Media and Entertainment • Sustainability • Ambition: investigating how new technologies can impact the lives of people at home • Two identical floors, featuring: a kitchen, dining room, living room, 3 bedrooms, 2 full bathrooms, and a laundry room

  8. Lab houses, continued • The lab house serves the needs of the researchers in many ways, such as: • for research projects where elements of the home are not easily recreated in the lab • as a place for testing out installation of research projects in a home setting prior to deploying to research participant homes • as a controlled home environment for studies, where technology is not yet ready for installation in participants homes and a home environment would make the difference. • to educate students and provide an interesting environment for their class project ideas • as a single location to share our multi-disciplinary research with others • as an informal location for gathering with a group.

  9. 3. Participatory approaches • Involves the user in the process, outside their homes • PD includes all stakeholders in the design process • Captures the cultural, emotional, spiritual and practical needs of users • Interaction techniques developed through user-participation enable household members – rather than designers – to configure and reconfigure interactive devices and services to meet local needs (Rodden et al. 2004, p. 71) • Origin in Scandinavia (1970) • Political dimension, user empowerment and democratisation • Degree of participation varies, the US and European school

  10. The two papers • Between the dazzle… (Rodden et al. 2004) • Want to helpusers to manage the introduction and arrangement of new interactive services and devices in the home • LINC-ing the Family… (Neustaedter and Brush, 2006) • Want to helpfamilies in coordinatingeveryday life • Focus on technological support for familycoordination • Both are influenced by participatory design • Bothtargets the domesticuse of IT

  11. The procedure: Between the Dazzle • Consulting previous ethnographic studies • People continuously exploit and reconfigure Space-plan and Stuff • Ecological character of domestic technology use • Placement, technology is situated at functional sites • Assembly, technologies are interlinked

  12. The procedure: Between the Dazzle • The Component model: • A physical jigsaw editor • Devices can be combined in different ways by users • Familiar, easy, not loaded with existing interpretations • Construction of arrangements • Hard to design upon

  13. The procedure: Between the Dazzle • Aims: evaluate the jigsaw-approach, capturewhatdevicesmightfitintohomes and how • 6 Paper-basedmock-upevaluations with 8 participants • Severaljigsawpiecesmadeavailable and combined • Video recording and analysis • Reflections • Userstake an active part in the design • Userswant to interleaveold and new technology • Homes are interleaved with outeractivities • The importance of usinglow-fidelityprototypes • The benefits of groundingcurrent research in previous

  14. LINC, Inkable Digital Family Calendar • Focus on familycoordination • Develop the LINC calender • Background: • Family life involves myriads of activities • Activitiesextendsbeyond the home • Activities must be coordinated, or else… • Shortcomings of existingcalendars: • Paper calendarsaren’tavailableoutside of home and are not easilysynchronized • Existing digital calendersexcludesfamilycoordination

  15. Ambition • Design a calender that match existingdomesticroutines • Unite the flexibility of papercalenders with the ability to make it digital in a later step

  16. Development of LINC • Outline design principlesbased on previous work, a familycalender: • Should be designed as a simple awarenessappliance • Must be flexible in order to support a variety of domesticroutines • Should provide tools for coordination • Should support contextuallocations

  17. Participatory design process • Selection of respondents • Searched for a diverse group • Age 31-45 (11), 46-60 (9) etc. • No secondaryuserswereinvolved • Low-fidelityprototyping design sessions • Interviews on currentcalenderuse with 10 users • Performing a series of coordination and awareness tasks • A researcher acted as computer • Video recording and notetaking • Concluded by discussion and recommendedchanges • Refining the design • Medium-fidelityprototyping design sessions • Same procedure as above, but different prototype

  18. Key findings of current use • Variouscalendertypeswereused, often in combination • Calenders are placed in high trafficlocations • Calendersonlyleavetheirlocation in case of substantialplanning • People check theircalendersonce or twice a day • Participantswere possessive of ”their” calenders • What is scheduleddiffer, recurrent posts, start and endtimes, location, names or initials, colouruse • Events sometimes come in throughemail, requiring ”copy and paste” • Separate sheets of paper, stickynotes

  19. Paper prototype

  20. Digital prototype

  21. Concluding remarks • It is important to studydomesticuse of IT • Increasinglyimportant • It is howeverdifficult • People might not wantusthere • Three approaches for studying IT at home • Ethnography • Labhouses • Participatoryapproaches • The papers and participatory design • Questions? Comments?

More Related