1. Hotspots and Free WiFi in a Ubiquitous City. Do they Serve Citizens Information Needs? The U-City Oulu as a Case Study L. Schumann, S. Rölike & W. G. Stock Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Germany laura.schumann@hhu.de | steffen.roelike@hhu.de | stock@phil.uni-duesseldorf.de

2. Overview Ubiquitous Cities The U-City Oulu Methods Results Prospects Schumann, Rölike & Stock 2

3. Ubiquitous Computing Ubiquitous (=omnipresent) computing: integrating information processing thoroughly into everyday objects and activities Participants may not necessarily even be aware of the technology Machines that fit the human environment instead of forcing humans to enter theirs" (York & Pendharkar, 2004, p. 771) Schumann, Rölike & Stock 3

4. Ubiquitous Cities Ubiquitous computing in a city wide context: – Integrating advanced ICT-based infrastructures, city-specific information services and content into the urban space Aim: – Offer any services anywhere and anytime – enhanced living conditions Schumann, Rölike & Stock 4

5. Ubiquitous Cities - Services Different aspects of the daily routine: U-Life: – Home banking, telecommuting, teleconferencing, telemedicine, remote sensing, telematics U-Business: – Multimedia conferencing, information management, virtual markets, smart-offices U-Government: – Emergency control, intelligent transportation system (ITS), control of urban infrastructure, environment monitoring, sensor networks Schumann, Rölike & Stock 5

6. The U-City Oulu City in Northern Finland, fourth largest city of Finland, considered as the "smartest city of Europe" (ICF, 2012) Project "UbiOulu": – PanOULU: Open and free city-wide WiFi-network – UBI-Hotspots: Interactive public displays providing information services – Middleware: Necessary for the functionality Schumann, Rölike & Stock 6

7. panOULU Public-private partnership involving five public organizations and four ISPs 1,350 Access Points (APs) 500 APs deployed near the city center Public places in and around Oulu Schumann, Rölike & Stock 7

8. panOULU Schumann, Rölike & Stock 8 = OK = Offline = Status unknown = Upcoming = Several access points

9. UBI-Hotspots Since May 2009 21 indoor and outdoor displays 57 Full HD LCD panel, internet connection, quad core control PC, 2 overhead video cameras, NFC/RFID reader, loudspeakers etc. 2 different modes: – Passive broadcast mode – Interactive mode Schumann, Rölike & Stock 9

10. UBI-Hotspots Categories: News, Services, City, 3rd Party, Fun & Games, Multimedia, New Cool Stuff Massive amount of quantitative and qualitative data Schumann, Rölike & Stock 10

11. Case Study - Methods Qualitative interviews with stakeholders Quantitative user study Participants (n 1.000): – University students (University of Oulu) – Upper secondary school students (Oulun Lyseo Upper Secondary School) 100 hard copy questionnaires Online questionnaire (May 23rd to June 10th 2012) Schumann, Rölike & Stock 11 Digital Natives

12. Case Study – Methods Questionnaires Four categories: – Demographical aspects (four questions) – UBI Displays (eight questions) – PanOULU WLAN (six questions) – General questions (five questions) Five types of questions: – Multiple choice – Multiple choice and additional text field possibility of commenting an answer – Free text field – Scale with grades (1-5) – Questions that depend on a preceding question Schumann, Rölike & Stock 12

13. Case Study - Methods Research questions: (1)Do hotspots really meet information needs of their users? What kinds of services are mainly used via interactive screens? (2)Does free WiFi satisfy information needs of the users? What kinds of services are mainly used via free WiFi? Is free WiFi a competitor of commercial internet service providers? Does it lead to market distortion? Schumann, Rölike & Stock 13

14. Case Study - Results Schumann, Rölike & Stock 14 n=1.045; multiple answers 1) n=1.028; multiple answers

15. Case Study - Results 2) Schumann, Rölike & Stock 15 n=652; multiple answers

16. Case Study - Results 3) Schumann, Rölike & Stock 16 n=1.047

17. Case Study - Results 4) Schumann, Rölike & Stock 17 n=1.047

18. Case Study - Results 5) Schumann, Rölike & Stock 18 n=1.046

19. Case Study - Results 6) Schumann, Rölike & Stock 19 n=610

20. Case Study - Results 7) Schumann, Rölike & Stock 20 n=1.010; multiple answers

21. Case Study - Results 9) Schumann, Rölike & Stock 21 n=1.025; multiple answers

22. Case Study - Results 10) Schumann, Rölike & Stock 22 n=1.028

23. Case Study - Results 11) Schumann, Rölike & Stock 23 n=1.026

24. Case Study - Results 12) Schumann, Rölike & Stock 24 n=1.013

25. Case Study - Results Schumann, Rölike & Stock 25 n=1.025 13) n=1.025

26. Case Study - Results Schumann, Rölike & Stock 26 n=948 14) n=1.001

27. Case Study - Results No significant gender specific differences Weather doesnt influence the usage of the hotspots indoor and outdoor hotspots Turnover of local ISPs not endangered by the panOULU WLAN Both services satisfy the definition of ubiquitous tools Schumann, Rölike & Stock 27

28. Case Study - Results Hotspots: Rarely used Meet the information needs of their users only to small extent Limited to city-specific information Small perceived usefulness Needs for improvement: – Usability – Content – Technical aspects Schumann, Rölike & Stock 28

29. Case Study - Results Open WiFi: Frequently-used service Satisfies many different information needs, e.g.: – Communication (e-mail) – News – Social networking (Facebook) – Basic needs etc. Schumann, Rölike & Stock 29

30. Case Study - Results Open WiFi: Considered as useful Not as limited to a specific place as the UBI Hotspots Needs for improvement: – Covered area – Safety Schumann, Rölike & Stock 30

31. Prospects Why do people prefer the panOULU WLAN? How do usage, adoption, trust and perceived usefulness correlate? Information Service Evaluation Model (ISE-Model) Schumann, Rölike & Stock 31

32. Thank you for your attention! Schumann, Rölike & Stock 32