Ubi ubi ubicomp comp Thu Mar 8Evaluation

Issues for Personalizing Shared Pervasive Devices by Jonathan Trevor et al

“shared” devices Same for everyone

“shared” devices Home TVs Stereos Kitchen appliances Workplace Copiers Fax Machines Projectors

“shared” devices World Wide Web?

“shared” devices Personalization/targeting on the web = “unshared” device?

“shared” devices Web personalization Friendlier? More efficient? Profitable!

“shared” devices Domain? Internet

“shared” devices Other domains?

Authors’ hope Personalize “shared” devices

Contributions of this paper Comparative prototypes Novel personalization system proposal Lessons learned

Personalization Emacs “teleporting” iCrafter iRoom BMW 7 Series

Personalization

Personal Ubiquitous Systems Ubicomp vs. “Shared” devices

Personal Ubiquitous Systems Embedded Design Approach Integrate personalization with an already existing interface/device Portable Design Approach Personal interface for mobile devices Which one? Comparative evaluation time!

Personal Ubiquitous Systems Embedded Design Approach Integrate personalization with an already existing interface/device Portable Design Approach Personal interface for mobile devices Is that all?

Comparative Evaluation 1. Design with alternative 2. Vary deployment situations 3. Compare and contrast

Personal Interaction Points (PIPs) System for shared pervasive devices “smart” access Information cloud

Testing testing Podium PC Brainstorming plasma MFD

Personalization Design 1. Idetifying users 2. Learning and remembering 3. Creating personalized UI

PIPs Architecture Web-based

PIPs Architecture Web-based

Embedded vs. Portable Direct access w/ peripherals Vs. “Remote control”

PIPs A success! PIPcidents Usability decreases with portability Lazy people prefer to be lazy Availability increases with portability May be untrustworthy Portable = private

PIPs

Usability and availabilty Varied based on design Utility and privacy Varied based on design and situation

Back to the future: comparative prototyping Designing for use Designing for evaluation

Everyday Encounters with Context-Aware Computing in a Campus Environment by Louise Barkhuus and Paul Dourish

Ubicomp motivation Expand computers beyond desktop confines But it’s dangerous out there!

Ubicomp motivation Expand ubicomp beyond academic confines Time for the real world, ubi!

If you don’t know, now you know Institutional analysis ‘meso-level’ approach | V Ethnomethodology – Marxist analysis

Taking it to the real world! “Given that many ubiquitous computing technologies are developed, deployed, and evaluated in university settings, our particular institutional concern is with student life on a university campus and how these institutional arrangements manifest themselves for students day-to-day.”

Taking it to the real world! “There are many reasons to expect that campus environments are ideal for the development, deployment, and testing of ubiquitous computing technologies. Clearly, many technologies are developed in university research, and campus environments are therefore convenient.”

Ubicomp “in practice” Active Campus diet monitor Aware campus

To be used ubiquitously Active Campus Active class Support classroom teaching  Questions  Polls  Ratings

Adoption Why teens?

“When does location manifest itself as a practical problem for students?”