Ubi ubi ubicomp comp

Thu Mar 8 Evaluation

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

http://mybrew.topcities.com

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

PIPs

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?”