UbiComp --> Computing in the home --> Qualitative research
Tolmies, P., Pycock, J., Diggins, T., MacLean, A. & Karsenty, A. (2002) Unremarkable Computing in proceedings of CHI 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesita, USA
Abstract: In this paper, we seek to contribute to the Ubiquitous Computing agenda by focusing on one of its earliest, but most difficult, design ambitions - making technology "invisible in use". We draw on field studies of domestic life as this domain is becoming increasingly important for new technologies and challenges many of the assumptions we take for granted in the desing of technologies for the workplace. We use some examples of domestic routines to identify a number of insights into what it means for features of activities to be "unremarkable". We conclude by using these insights to critique some of the current emphases in Ubiquitous Computing research, and suggest how we might better understand the HCI issues of what will be required to develop technologies that really are "invisible to use".
Summary of main points: At the time the paper was written, home was a largely ignored domain (although it is not extremely popular now either). Aithors presented some of their field studies, illustrating the importance of daily routines. They called their approach - ethnomethodologically-informed ethnography - enough concepts in an expression for ya?
What are routines? The article grapples with the ideas of what household routines are and why they are present, what is their significance. They claim there is little empirical work on the topic and even less understanding. They cite Suchman and Wynn as examples of investigating office routines. There does exist a Journal of Mundane Behavior but it is largely unknown. In general, daily routines seem to be more of interest to scholars of the beginning and decline of life - child development and gerontology. Oddly enough, there isn't much out there written about daily routines of everyone in between (the majority of this world's population).
The aim of this particular paper is to simply identify some of the characteristics of routine behavior in the home. Authors conduct a series of observations and interviews. They find several interesting trends that involve non-verbal communication: Knocking as a message and opening the door as a message. They then focus on context-specific meanings, the meanings that are communicated not just through specific actions but through the routine itself - that is, opening a door at a certain point in the day, communicates something specific to others. Something it wouldn't communicate at any other time. Authors follow behaviors that may at some point have been unusual - alarm clocks or open doors, but have become unremarkable, yet full of particular meaning, by virtue of becoming routine.
People also tend to know routines of others and may be sensitive to changes in their routines as well. While all of us may have quirky examples of such, authors present one of a coffee shop and it's "regulars". They explore when and how outsiders comment on insider's routines and how insiders notice each other's deviations from routines.
People can provide accounts of their own routines and are interested in routines of others (maybe as heuristic short cuts to predicting behavior of others?) However, people are bad at explaining a routine without context for it. That is, they need to be able to demonstrate and then comment on it.
Authors suggest that the very nature of routines may be useful as a concept for ubiquitous computing, where the very goal is to become seamless, routine and embedded to the point of being unnoticable and unremarkable. Devices need to be designed with the presence of routines in mind, to augment action, to offer new opportunities, but, most importantly, to support routines themselves.
Relevance: As most of the CHI-relation in my work has to do with the idea of investigating practices and routines, this paper is extremely relevant. Even more so, because the residential mobility can be extremely disruptive specifically to daily routines both for movers and for their close relations. This disruption may be part of what creates stress and makes people uncomfortable, unsettled. Maybe re-creating a set of routines is the process of getting settled into a new location?
Related work:
Suchman, L. (1983) Office Procedures as Practical Action: Models of Work and System Design ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 1(4)
Weiser, M. (1988) The world is not a desktop ACM Interactions, 7-8
Reference leads (other things to look up):
Source: ACM Digital Library
Abstract: In this paper, we seek to contribute to the Ubiquitous Computing agenda by focusing on one of its earliest, but most difficult, design ambitions - making technology "invisible in use". We draw on field studies of domestic life as this domain is becoming increasingly important for new technologies and challenges many of the assumptions we take for granted in the desing of technologies for the workplace. We use some examples of domestic routines to identify a number of insights into what it means for features of activities to be "unremarkable". We conclude by using these insights to critique some of the current emphases in Ubiquitous Computing research, and suggest how we might better understand the HCI issues of what will be required to develop technologies that really are "invisible to use".
Summary of main points: At the time the paper was written, home was a largely ignored domain (although it is not extremely popular now either). Aithors presented some of their field studies, illustrating the importance of daily routines. They called their approach - ethnomethodologically-informed ethnography - enough concepts in an expression for ya?
What are routines? The article grapples with the ideas of what household routines are and why they are present, what is their significance. They claim there is little empirical work on the topic and even less understanding. They cite Suchman and Wynn as examples of investigating office routines. There does exist a Journal of Mundane Behavior but it is largely unknown. In general, daily routines seem to be more of interest to scholars of the beginning and decline of life - child development and gerontology. Oddly enough, there isn't much out there written about daily routines of everyone in between (the majority of this world's population).
The aim of this particular paper is to simply identify some of the characteristics of routine behavior in the home. Authors conduct a series of observations and interviews. They find several interesting trends that involve non-verbal communication: Knocking as a message and opening the door as a message. They then focus on context-specific meanings, the meanings that are communicated not just through specific actions but through the routine itself - that is, opening a door at a certain point in the day, communicates something specific to others. Something it wouldn't communicate at any other time. Authors follow behaviors that may at some point have been unusual - alarm clocks or open doors, but have become unremarkable, yet full of particular meaning, by virtue of becoming routine.
People also tend to know routines of others and may be sensitive to changes in their routines as well. While all of us may have quirky examples of such, authors present one of a coffee shop and it's "regulars". They explore when and how outsiders comment on insider's routines and how insiders notice each other's deviations from routines.
People can provide accounts of their own routines and are interested in routines of others (maybe as heuristic short cuts to predicting behavior of others?) However, people are bad at explaining a routine without context for it. That is, they need to be able to demonstrate and then comment on it.
Authors suggest that the very nature of routines may be useful as a concept for ubiquitous computing, where the very goal is to become seamless, routine and embedded to the point of being unnoticable and unremarkable. Devices need to be designed with the presence of routines in mind, to augment action, to offer new opportunities, but, most importantly, to support routines themselves.
Relevance: As most of the CHI-relation in my work has to do with the idea of investigating practices and routines, this paper is extremely relevant. Even more so, because the residential mobility can be extremely disruptive specifically to daily routines both for movers and for their close relations. This disruption may be part of what creates stress and makes people uncomfortable, unsettled. Maybe re-creating a set of routines is the process of getting settled into a new location?
Related work:
Suchman, L. (1983) Office Procedures as Practical Action: Models of Work and System Design ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 1(4)
Weiser, M. (1988) The world is not a desktop ACM Interactions, 7-8
Reference leads (other things to look up):
posted by Q at 03:52
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home