In this section we explore how pleasant the use of the interactive features, profile interface, media-request and portability might be. We search for parents‘ feelings associated with their interaction with the tool and its adoption within their everyday activities.
7.3.4.1 Configuring
Are there any experiences of using the interactive resources that appear to be troublesome and that may have frustrated parents or discouraged them from using those features? Or is it possible that unpleasantness or complexity of using some of the awareness resources of the user profile interface might cast a shadow on its benefits?
Which are the benefits you encounter with defining the sensor‘s sensitivity
and the alert area definition?
Parent (2.4y) – “well, if you do not really need to touch any of these… I mean if
everything here was already done for you it could be good”…“however, I don‟t know, because when you realize that…that you need to select this and that (pointing to the room‘s stuff labelling section within the user profile interface).”
The view from this parent seems to support our theory of unpleasantness concerning the configuration of awareness parameters. This might be associated with the knowledge and understanding required to master their use. We wonder if parents grasped the technical concepts that link the sensibility, alert distance and awareness areas resources. We observe how parent 0.6y seems to agree with the above parent.
Parent (0.6y) – “the good thing here is that you have the chance to switch off general activity and ask for alerts only.”
In general we would argue that perceptions of the pleasurableness of configuring awareness parameters might be influenced by the short experience that users had of interacting with the tool, and in particular by the time available to make use of the possible combinations of the profile interface‘s options. We discuss this in more detail in section 7.4.
7.3.4.2 Portability
One main concern in exploring portability issues is the obtrusiveness of the tool, for example, carrying it while attending to household tasks. We present responses from parents when considering using the PChCT in their everyday activities.
To what extent did parents feel that they could use the PDA user interface without affecting/modifying their attendance to household work?
Do you consider that this tool might collaborate with you when doing the
housework and caring for the child at the same time? For instance, when you
are making the beds and your child is ―playing‖ within the living room
Do you think there is a situation in which you could make use of the media
interface?
Consider a situation in which you are doing the any housework such as
cooking or cleaning; do you think there might be a chance (time/space) of looking at the image?
Parent (3.10y) – “I think both things can be done simultaneously.”
This parent‘s response at first glance suggests that the parent had no problem with
carrying the device. However, at the end of the interview when the parent was asked if something should be added to the tool, she asked:
“Do I need to carry the PDA all of the time? Because if, for example, I‟m cooking
and I have not any pocket for the PDA… where could I place it? If I put it over there
(pointing to the room‟s space on which the microwave and sink are) it can get wet…”
This could be an indication to the degree of unpleasantness that might possibly be felt if a parent is considering carrying the tool by hand; or could we take it for granted that parents will always find a means of carrying the device?
Parent (2.4y) – “perhaps the only issue, carrying the device, is when you are walking and at the same time pressing buttons. However, I think it is easy to get accustomed
to use it. For instance, you can stop walking to make use of the tool”
This parent appears to consider that constant use of the tool might not be a problem. To explore what could underlie her positive attitude, we asked:
do you think this (using the tool) doesn‘t interrupt your doings (your
household tasks)
“Not in my case… there must be many other cases, but for me, aware of what I have at home (referring to the child)…”
We could observe, therefore, that the individual needs of parenting might influence the acceptability of the PChCT. In other words, if the utility of the PChCT is clear,
then parents‘ might consider its use regardless of unpleasantness.
Parent (0.6y) – “ it is easy its use because it‟s quite small”…“it can fit in my pocket” Finally, we could observe that this parent is assuming that a pocket in which to put the tool will always be available. However, this parent added:
“…other thing is that she is too small so she is all the time with me…”
In summary, we could say that the overall attitude to the PChCT‘s features is positive with regard to ease of use. Parents do not seem to have any problems using the interfaces or interacting with them to request collaboration, such as uploading to the media interface. There is, however, a less positive response when considering the PDA user-interface for configuration, for example, concerning the awareness
about, these awareness parameters might depend on their individual monitoring needs.
The next section discusses some of the previous results, in terms of the degree of social acceptability of this type of ubicomp tool and the potential opportunities to meet parents‘ need more closely.
7.4 Discussion of results
The PChCT might be accepted as a tool that could collaborate with parents in the attendance to the childcare task. Throughout this chapter we have seen parents‘ perceptions regarding the collaborative and interactive resources that the PChCT offers to help with caring for children within the home. Particular features offered by the PChCT for collaboration and interaction were explored by parents and their responses have been used as a measure of the acceptance of this kind of ubicomp
tool. Parents‘ attitudes were explored across the four usability categories: practical
worth, applicability, ease of use/learning and pleasurableness, as defined in chapter five, section 5.4.
This section discusses whether or not less useful or usable PChCT elements might have a common problem, and if it might be possible to change these perceptions by any improvements or enhancements to the PChCT. We used two approaches: firstly, we explored associations between those elements which were either less useful or usable according to parents. We use table 7-3 as a reference to discuss the PChCT- usability, which summarizes parents‘ apparent feelings about the PChCT tool; secondly, we explored potential improvements to some of the tool‘s resources in order to increase potentially parents‘ acceptance of the PChCT.
The level assigned to the tool resources within table 7-3 represents whether one, two
or three parents seemed to consider the PChCT‘s features useful or usable. Section
7.4.1 discusses less useful and usable features while section 7.4.2 considers what might be seen as desirable improvements in these resources.
Usefulness + usability
PChCT‘s features/resources Practical worth Applicability Pleasant Easy use/learn
C o llab o ratio n Interfaces Space H H H H Events L L L M Profile H H L L Deliveries Txt-message L L L M Visual-space H H H H Media H H H H Sound H H L M Services On-demand H H H H Digital-album M M M L Activity-aware M M H M + In ter ac tio n Request Media NA NA NA H Configuring Aware levels H H H H Aware distances H H L L Aware services H H M H Labelling stuff H H H H Sound H H M M
Portability Size, weight NA NA M NA
Table 7-3 Parents’ perceptions of the PChCT’s usefulness and usability
L=low, M=medium, H=high