Animal Computer Interaction Design UX Ilyena Hirskyj-Douglas Janet C Read Brendan Cassidy University of Central Lancashire

HELLO! I am Ilyena Hirskyj-Douglas Hi my name is Ilyena Hirskyj-Douglas and I am from the University of Central Lancashire currently undertaking a PhD in developing systems and methods for dogs. I am part of the research group at UCLan called Animal Computer Interaction Design (ACID). Today I am going to talk a bit around the field of Animal Computer Interaction (ACI) and then around my work and what I am trying to achieve through this.

What is Animal Computer Interaction? Animal Centered Approach Understand Technology from an Animals Perspective Biggest Challenge: Non-Verbal With pet animals holding a place within our homes and hearts, the technology revolution humans have undertaken will soon be facing our pet companions as well. Animal Computer Interaction (ACI) is research focusing on designing machines and on the use of technology for animals, looking particularly at the interface and studying how the animal interacts. Although animals have interacted with technology long before the emergence of the ACI field, usually their behaviors were typically anthropomorphized with their needs not being fully understood. Instead, ACI research adopts an animal-centred approach and aims to understand technologically mediated interaction of animals from their perspective. In this way, the technology and systems being developed could be adapted properly towards the non-human animal user. This is in a similar way that Human Computer Interaction (HCI) has done with human-being users. Within this work the biggest challenges faced are how to design for, conduct research with, and gain feedback from, dogs; after all, how do you ask for a dog’s opinions when a dog can’t speak back? This problem is not shared by ACI alone but also those working with nonverbal users. In our work this is done through a number of different methods and from various viewpoints.

Dog Computer Interaction Methods Technology Take a Role Within Design Meaningful Interaction Face Tracker UCLan’s group, ACID, currently focuses on progressing dog computer interaction by empowering dogs to not only use technology without training but also to provide means for them, as animals, to give meaningful feedback on used technology to help with its design. This has so far been done by both creating methods to allow dogs to take a role in the technology design to create meaningful interactions and by creating a head tracker to allow dogs’ opinions to be shown through biometrics. This work is centered on creating media that a dog can interact with, in a similar fashion to humans do with keyboards and remotes, to see what a dog likes to watch and to discover if a dog can choose what to watch and can therefore interact with a technology system

WASHOE Before I go into those aspects, I would like to share with you a story about a chimpanzee in the 1960s called Washoe. Washoe was involved in the US space program in Nevada on animal language acquisition. Previous projects, such as Viki and Gua, had attempted to make a chimpanzee speak. While Viki was able to voice four words (mama, papa, up & cup), Gua never did. Washoe was the new ape, where the US were trying to contribute to psychology through communicating with an animal by teaching him to speak English. This problem of communication method is one also faced by UX designers working with children and those with significant cognitive abilities.

Interpersonal Communication Facial Expressions Pitch & Tone of Voice Kinesics Gestures Body Language = FEEDBACK! In psychology it is well known that interpersonal communication is much more than the words we speak – it is also the way the implicit message is being displayed through nonverbal behaviours. These can be facial expressions, pitch and tone of voice, kinesics, gestures, and body language. These feedback signals give depth into the meaning of verbal communication but can also tell a story of their own. As social animals, we are adept at reading each other’s body language, but also, it has been shown that we can also read the body language of other species, and notably of our pets. Donna Haraway refers to this communication between human and dogs as a ‘dance between species’. This dance enables a continual channel of communication between two beings, which, through experience of interpretation, allows for fruitful communication that is not just one way. It is through this nonverbal dance of species that users without a voice (i.e. dogs in our case) can be empowered to have their feedback collected. So how do you collect feedback, and how did I start to collect feedback? 

What Do Dogs Like To Watch On TV? Just over four years ago as a gift for finishing my degree my parents bought me a black Labrador puppy called Zack. I would often have the TV on in the background of my daily life and started to notice that my dog would watch certain TV programs and started to film his interaction with different programs. This then expanded into filming many dogs with a variety of shows. This is a video of a dog watching a dog content video vs. a human content video.   This concluded in research proving that, quite expectedly, dogs like watching other dogs on TV. They then like watching animals and, despite living with me, doesn’t really like watching other humans. This work proved that dogs have a variation in what media they liked to watch and began my process of making a system to allow a dog to choose what they want to watch on TV. The feedback method here was their body language: they watched what he was intrigued by. However I wanted a more interactive system that allowed a dog to have more of an interactive experience with the technology.

Creating a Dog Computer Interaction Systems Collect Opinions Changes Feedback Method Allows For Body Language As A Form Of Communication Dog Centered Design In my work I aimed to empower the dog to collect their opinions by create a head tracker which analysed within three segments, left right and center, where the dog was looking at the screen or among three screens. This was done using image recognition with an algorithm I invented to analyse where a dogs head was looking based upon trained data. Unlike previous methods this allowed the dog to be untrained and have contactless tracking. By created this method this allowed me to see what, within reason, a dog was looking at allowing the dog to give me valuable feedback upon my visual designs of technology. This system has potential to allow the dog to influence the system, in a similar way to a human does with the Xbox Kinect, to choose what to watch or interact with a game. Using this method this changes the feedback method of dogs to enable more than paw presses and sit down indications, to enable their own ordinary language domains using movement tracking, and empowering them to give this feedback. It is through this alteration of methodologies, variations to power relationships and the triangulation of interpretive mediums that systems can, and should, be built with non-verbal users. This method of using body language has allowed users with non-verbal capabilities to communicate with technology. Through this exploration we open up technology to all users. Typically technology has been designed for dogs which benefits the humans and with a one way beneficiary focusing in on human goals. It is against this stance where our work stands and instead we focus on working with the dog, rather than for the dog. This method is called dog-centred-design: but what is this?   Similarly to designing computers for humans there is no perfect solution to designing technology for dogs. We believe that technology can be made that allows a dog to explore computers, like humans did, to find accurate requirements by excluding focusing on dog’s needs. Humans will always be involved as the computers creators but by making the dog the center of the design gradually by building up requirements this can be transferred across more into dog-centred while becoming more usable. While a dog will never write a list of software requirements they will give their needs tellingly through body language, their species version of written language and other signposts which will later be discovered and explored. The position taken by ACID group is to design exclusively for the dog to create this version ACI and not human driven ACI which proposes at benefitting the dog but that ultimately creating poorly suited technology. This method is different as it purposes designing technology where the animal is at the center of the design. This philosophical approach of exclusively designing for dogs taken is a radical one as part of the general populace and system design community will always see dogs as just simply animals. However, we see it as a simple and logical progression of dog computer interaction. In order for the center of the design to be the dog, then the dog has to be naturally motivated to use the technology itself.

Focuses on Dogs Needs Dog Driven – Not Human! Dog in Center Dog Centred Design Focuses on Dogs Needs Dog Driven – Not Human! Dog in Center Similarly to designing computers for humans there is no perfect solution to designing technology for dogs. We believe that technology can be made that allows a dog to explore computers, like humans did, to find accurate requirements by excluding focusing on dog’s needs. Humans will always be involved as the computers creators but by making the dog the center of the design gradually by building up requirements this can be transferred across more into dog-centred while becoming more usable. While a dog will never write a list of software requirements they will give their needs tellingly through body language, their species version of written language and other signposts which will later be discovered and explored. The position taken by ACID group is to design exclusively for the dog to create this version ACI and not human driven ACI which proposes at benefitting the dog but that ultimately creating poorly suited technology. This method is different as it purposes designing technology where the animal is at the center of the design. This philosophical approach of exclusively designing for dogs taken is a radical one as part of the general populace and system design community will always see dogs as just simply animals. However, we see it as a simple and logical progression of dog computer interaction. In order for the center of the design to be the dog, then the dog has to be naturally motivated to use the technology itself.

Doggy Ladder of Participation (DOLP) Supporting this view I have also created a method which enables a dog to participate in designing technology. This is the notion that you can include a dog within the design of technology where the dog and the human are intertwined. Dogs regularly make decisions and organise themselves both through work and play, similarly to children. If, through this empowerment, and understanding, a dog might get the sense that its needs and ‘ideas’ are listened to, a dog would theoretically be more likely to give its opinion more freely. The need for participation is also more greatly needed in disadvantaged dogs as this can empower a dog through allowing more equal relationships between humans and dogs. This has already been done in designing with children with Harts Ladder of Participation which gives children equal partnership to give the children ownership over the design. To try and do this with dogs I created a Doggy Ladder of Participation. This is to encourage dog-computer-interaction designers to include dogs within the technology they design so that a dogs preferences can be derived rather than guessed building better technology.  

Doggy Ladder of Participation Training (1st ) Ornamental Manipulated No understanding Rewarded for participation (treat/toy) Forced feedback Freedom (2nd) No training or manipulation Dog can ‘walk away’ Minimall voice Little or no choice about communication Informed (3rd) Body language consultation Includes dogs emotions Empowered through understanding Empower (4th) Understand choices and outcomes Choices impact designers/activity thus decisions/activities. Frequent conversation Enriching both dog, technology and designer This model was split into two sections: participatory and non-participatory.   The first two rungs are non-participatory as this does not include the dog as an equal owner within the design. The first ladder was training, where a user was just trained at using system, the second was freedom where the user is able to walk away from a system but with both of these being owner lead. While factual conclusions can be drawn from these two methods (such as drug detection dogs) this does not give the dogs an option to give open ended feedback that is free from the trained bias. The next two rungs are participatory, informed and empowered. An informed dog is one which its feedback is consulted through its body language on tis choices which have a direct impact upon the design. This enables the user to give more than a yes/no option with questions raised on how its emotions influence its choices and more importantly why it has chosen its choices. This brings more depth into the design rather than simply giving a viewpoint. While a dog may not grasp the whole concept through repetition and working with a user, they can have some ownership and understanding. The last rung is conceptualised ideology where it is hoped through the advances of biometrics there choices will have a direct outcome upon the designers/activity thus the decisions/activity. Similarly to how adults and children often have an unspoken conversation so do dogs and owners. It is through getting technology involved in this conversation, reactive to this conversation, that technology built for dogs can profit. By capturing this conversation, through including technology within the Meta signals to fit the conversation conventions, this could greatly enrich both ACI technology and the dogs own understanding of the decisions/activities.

L1 – Training L2 – Freedom L3 – Informed L4 - Empowered Throughout this ladder there is a common theme: as the DLOP levels increases the dog has more knowledge of the activity, so does their right not to participate level rises. This method of equal participation has been done with children, those with limited cognitive ability, and now dogs. This adjustment in how we increase a user’s participation is needed to derive more accurate results to allow the users to shape the design themselves. It is only by understanding our users, and finding a feedback method that allows them to be included within the design can technology truly develop and benefit the end user.

Appropriate Feedback Method Alter Method For Users Needs Summary Appropriate Feedback Method Alter Method For Users Needs Allow Participation Allows For Better UX! This was done in the earlier case of Washoe where was not, as originally thought, about teaching the user to speak, but by changing the medium of communication to American Sign Language (ASL). This was chosen as it was known that chimpanzees have diverse body gestures without the human vocal cords to produce words. By changing the participation method, this allowed the chimpanzee to learn over 350 words and become the first non-human to communicate in this way. This allowed the chimpanzee to communicate and feedback becoming more involved.   In my own work, I have changed the feedback method of dogs to enable more than paw presses and sit down indications, to enable their own ordinary language domains using movement tracking, and empowering them to give this feedback. It is through this alteration of methodologies, variations to power relationships and the triangulation of interpretive mediums that systems can, and should, be built with non-verbal users. By including them within the design as an equal member through participation this ensures correctly designed technology. Whilst this alteration in methods is what I do for designing with animals, this lesson can and has been applied to other non-verbal users. It is only through participation inclusion and not dichotomy that a user gets involved and becomes part of the system creating better systems designed not only for, but by and with the user. This allows the user to have a better experience with the system and become embedded within the design.

THANKS! Any questions? You can find me at http://acid.uclan.ac.uk ihirskyj-douglas @uclan.ac.uk Thank-you for listening.