Acta formal de

This section presents two key factors considered by the proposed framework in the design of ubicomp domestic systems, and how the reference architecture elements should be applied in a socially-based approach. These key factors are the intersections of the social and physical and social and digital contexts. Figure 3.2 shows the physical and digital contexts that encapsulate the aforementioned elements. This indicates how we are considering domestic activities and their influence on these contexts.

Figure 3.2 Family members’ activity and domestic ubicomp designs

The next sections describe the management of these two key framework interactions: social-physical and social-digital. These interactions underlie our approach to designing ubicomp domestic systems.

3.3.1 Social and physical contexts

To date, technology tends to be assumed to be integrated seamlessly within domestic spaces, but we should certainly not take this for granted. If technology seeks to find a place within everyday domestic environments it first needs to be accepted by users. The proposed framework explicitly considers social factors of living spaces as an important issue when accommodating candidate technology within everyday environments. It uses a holistic approach in exploring issues of physicality in the sensing and physical environment elements of the framework. This will allow us to understand the possibilities and limitations for gathering environmental context information, as shown in figure 3.3.

Home setting Information processing User Ubicomp collaboration Accommodation of sensing technology Physical Digital Domestic Activities

Building: - walls - passages - room dimension - stuff mobility Social: - aesthetic - obtrusiveness - culture Technology of: - dense network - embedded sensor - wearable Physicality: - what - where - how Built environment Social psychology Sensing technology context

Figure 3.3 Physicality issues and the gathering of context information

Figure 3.3 (left) suggests specific options and issues that should be explored in order to understand issues of physicality around sensing technology, built spaces and social behaviour. To clarify these issues we describe next how specific questions – what, where and how – are addressed within the framework. In addition, we note some of the aspects of domestic activities that typically constrain the integration of pervasive technology within domestic spaces.

3.3.1.1 “What” technologies

Examination of technology is a two-fold process. It needs to be considered in terms of its sensing possibilities bearing in mind its intended purpose and the physical requirements of accommodating it within the home. This allows designers to explore choices of scale of the sensor deployment and the type of context information that can be collected. On the one hand, we should examine available technologies in terms of, for example, supporting the sensing of user location which is part of many ubicomp designs offering location-based collaboration. In particular, we could explore candidate technologies that use, for instance, a user-tagged or artefact- augmented approach to location sensing. On the other hand, we should specifically consider the physical requirements of the technology. For example, as well as its inherent physical requirements for power supply and communication channels, we should also account for those associated with its weight, dimensions and appearance.

By considering the use of a webcam, for example, we will find physical issues from its wired communication, but in addition we need to identify the DIY tasks that might be required for locating this device within the home.

3.3.1.2 Where and how to integrate technology

In principle, this depends on the kind of social support being offered. However, whatever the social support, typically some technology has to be accommodated within the home. This implies that either walls or artefacts are augmented as receptors for sensing technology. However, the question is where specifically sensors could go and how this could affect the natural setting. That is, the problem might not be finding a place for technology as such, but whether this accommodation of technology could be achieved unobtrusively. There are devices that need, for example, a particular position or orientation, and those that are constrained by the shape or size of the artefact. It is well understood that most existing homes were built without considering a place for computer technology and were unlikely to be purpose-built [Rodden, Bendford, ‗03], but the challenge is how the physical space

could be best employed to integrate technology in today‘s homes.

Using the webcam example again, we should ask whether the ceiling is adequate to hold this device or, if it is placed in a corner of the room, how it will be attached. Another clear example is the cabling: could the home hide cabling paths for either communication or power supply? Regarding artefacts in the home, we should ask if their selection considers mobility constraint. For example, it might be the case that fixed artefacts represent the best choice for augmentation as mobile artefacts could increase erroneous measurements such as false sensor triggering due to loss of line of sight.

3.3.1.3 Consideration of human activity within the home

Finally, we need to explore how these design requirements can be harmoniously situated within the local social setting. In particular, is the proposal respectful of the users‘ well-being? There are two important social factors that should be considered in domestic ubicomp designs: aesthetic and space usage. It is recognized that the

home is possibly the human‘s most valuable space, in which freedom and relaxation

are usually part of the inhabitants‘ expectations [Crabtree, Rodden, ‗04]. Thus,

technology should be integrated in such a way that the dweller‘s environment is

disrupted to a minimum. Clearly, the dynamics of artefacts, in terms of upgrading or disposing of it, is a factor when determining where technology could go. In addition,

with everyday changes, e.g. we could find that the movement of artefacts might be

associated with the room‘s re-arrangement.

If we consider the household task of cleaning, we should be careful that cabling does not unduly obstruct or alter the way inhabitants do that task, or, that incorporating sensing technology into artefacts does not limit their use. For example, technology attached to a window should not restrict its opening. Considering these issues, we argue that candidate technology has to be considered against social activities occurring within the home before deciding whether it should share the user‘s physical spaces.

So far, we have discussed how issues of physicality might constrain the degree of

technology that could be accepted within today‘s homes. Our framework suggests an

early consideration of physical spaces along three dimensions: sensing technologies, built resources and social aspects of domestic activities, in order to design socially acceptable computer-human interactions. From the various physical-social scenarios mentioned we conclude this section by arguing that when ubicomp designs move out of laboratory, it is often not the technology which supports the householder but the other way around.

3.3.2 Social and digital contexts

Users should be able to determine the level and nature of the collaboration of the ubicomp system. Once the physicality of the system has been considered, the designer can have a more realistic view of the type of information that can be collected from the sensing infrastructure. This sensor information needs to be explored to determine whether it will still address the identified social need and, if so, to what extent the system might unobtrusively interact and collaborate with users. That is, whether the systems‘ interaction should be modified, depending on social context, to vary the pro-activeness of the system‘s collaboration.

3.3.2.1 Information processing

First, we need to examine the level of information processing that the system might offer in terms of the types of context-information that could be extracted from the gathered sensor information. For example, when considering user location we should

data, e.g. at the level of room or artefact. Second, we need to explore the types of services that could be delivered to users. For example, it might be the case that environmental measures such as temperature and light are available from sensing points, which might allow the system to offer additional services. Third, we need to examine whether these potential services might empower or enhance the human activities. That is, whether any possible level of user-system collaboration might be considered useful and usable.

These three aspects of the social-digital interaction – available sensor information, services for collaboration and usefulness – might be affected by the dwellers‘ needs, wishes, culture, and so on. Some ethnographic research has shown that fears of accepting or adopting ubicomp systems are associated with the extra work or the complexities that might be needed to master or interact with those systems [Meyer,

Rakotonirainy, ‗03]. Our framework suggests exploiting sensor data to provide

possible services but taking into account whether current services meet user requirements.

This does not mean that the processing of context information should be limited to that which is specifically needed for the user. Our framework promotes a maximization of the information collected from the available sensing technology (subject to its physicality constraints) in order to support any possible kind of service or collaboration.

In summary, this section presents three levels of association between social and digital contexts: establishment of context information, potential services and usefulness of collaboration. The management of these social-digital interactions might enhance the social acceptance of ubicomp designs due to the consideration

given to the nature of the setting and human activity in ―living‖ spaces.

From the exploration carried out so far of the interactions of both the social and physical and the social and digital contexts, it is clear that human activities can affect the scale of integration of technology and the potential collaborative success of

elements of the framework link to domestic activities to support the system‘s adaptation.