google home vs 3 89

8/8/2019 Google Home vs 3 89

1/52

2010-09-08

Google Home vs 3.87, Hakan Gulliksson 1

Google home and Facebook family

Notes on pervasive media at home in the preparation for a research agenda for Interactionand design 2010-2015

(The title is a catchphrase that we will often hear as Google presents their new mediaplatform for the home and Facebook its family system, both contributing to the pervasivecomputing system of the home.)

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 22. Pervasive computing ...................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Some design issues related to the future pervasive home ........................................ 63. Social computing, what it is, issues, design considerations ......................................... 114. Home, what it is, issues, design considerations............................................................18

4.1 Laptop in the home as an example ......................................................................... 225. Family, what it is, issues, design considerations..........................................................23

5.1 Managing the network as another example............................................................316. Media at home .............................................................................................................. 32

6.1 Radio and sound ..................................................................................................... 366.2 TV and video .......................................................................................................... 396.3 Future TV ............................................................................................................... 42

7. References .................................................................................................................... 47


2/52

2010-09-08


1. Introduction

Designer as a watch maker (Cartesius) Designer as a gardener (Benteley) Designer as a participant, a designer, as we all are (HG)

Quality of life and meaningful lives for as many people as possible should be the ultimategoal. What does this mean in terms of technologies and applications to develop?

Some typical indicators of wellbeing are emotional, physical and material well-being, aswell as good interpersonal relations and social inclusion. What meaningful life means iseven more difficult to sort out, but at least we can say that most meanings are based onexperiences, e.g on sensual, emotional, physical, and social levels. Technical systemssupporting quality of life and the experiences listed inevitable involves media, one way orthe other. Pervasive media is the next generation of media where media devices areintegrated into our environment to an extent that has never before been experienced byman. First, the number of media cannels and the types of conent will increase. Secondly thetechnical quality of the channels will be better, even amazingly good. Thirdly, thepossibilities to interact with the channels and their content will increase, upgrading theviewer into a participant. In order to prepare for using and implementing such media thisshort essay presents a number of observations around the concept of pervasive media forthe home.

2. Pervasive computing

Let us first try to define some terms in the area of pervasive computing. Their historymirrors the different ways of conceptualizing the development. In the beginning (1990,Xerox Parc) the idea of pervasive computing was calledubiquitous computing and can bedescribed as a move from desktop machines towards multiple small devices.Augmentedreality added dynamic context-specific visual information to the perceived ordinary reality.Tangible interfaces are physical objects used to manipulate the virtual world of information. Wearing the interfaces close to the body iswearable computing , and if theinterfaces are embedded in our immediate environment we talk aboutsmart houses,intelligent spaces or smart objects. Along with this development more and more of thefunctionality of the system has migrated out onto the Internet.


3/52

2010-09-08


In the words of Wikipedia; Apervasive system (ubiquitous, ambient intelligence,everyware ) is a (future) system where information processing has been thoroughlyintegrated into everyday objects and activities (Wikipedia). An attempt to summarizeinformation system development so far could be boiled down to the following:

1990-2000 Decade of the PC2000-2010 Decade of the Mobile device2010-2020 A world of Pervasive systems

The trend towards pervasive computing has been acknowledged for many years, but stillthere are only minor advances. Most of the systems built so far have been experimental,exploratory, and failures when it comes to delivering new commercial products. Oneexample of such a failure is the smart home.

We can compare this development with that of the Internet around the year 2000. Muchresearch then indicated video on demand to be the killer application, this prediction waswrong. Why? Some reasons were:

The infrastructure was not ready Lack of standardisation No need for the service, i.e. no general social support and demand for the service Price/performance not good enough

However, as of now YouTube is an established success, TV channels are migrating to theInternet where they can be streamed on demand, along with films, television shows, andsport events. When did this happen? When and why did the failure turn into a need? Oneimportant reason is that success for a technology demands a large number of users andsupporting applications. Any global successful system will develop over many years untilthe timing is right. When most of the prerequisites are available a breakthrough willemerge, suddenly. Both developing the applications and recruiting the users take time evenif enthusiasts quickly see the advantages. An educated guess is that pervasive systems willfollow the same curve of development, if it becomes a success at all.

If pervasive systems are the future, what then are the trends, the supportingtechnologies, and problems we will be facing? Somecurrent trends to consider whendesigning for a ubiquitous system are:

The personal information aura that we bring with us is strengthening, and will sooninclude the whole of the Internet.

Some increasingly important keywords for applications are personal, persistent,reviewable and revisable, secure, referencable (unique ID), standardized,semantic (useful in many contexts).

Applications migrate from the desktop environment to a diverse set of representations.


4/52

2010-09-08


From mouse and keyboard to a greater set of physical interaction devices andmodalities.

From applications to services. From personal applications to socially embedded interactions. Exploitation of overlapping information clouds. From low level tasks to higher-level activities From batch computing at a particular place to real time computing everywhere

Supportive technologies often discussed with pervasive technology are:

Web 2.0 enabling user participation Universal plug and play

Rfid technology remote identification Sensor networks many sensors working together to provide context, e.g.extremely cheap small cameras

Voice commands, speech synthesis enabling new interaction paradigms E-paper flexible surfaces holding text and images Displays of different sizes from small wearable, to public screens. Some allow for

tactile interaction Location services positioning objects in space, Google maps Wireless networks connecting all this technology without wires. Internet is

invading our homes, starting from a single point of entrance. As multiple computersstart to fill out the home we will have Internet access at all activity centres of thehome.

Open source development by the user community Mash up applications reusing work by others

A pervasive system is a distributed system, and any everyday object can in principle beenhanced to an input or output device. Interacting with the object could trigger an actionanywhere in he world, see Figure 1. In the upper figure a user points his mobile phone onsome objects in the real world. He might not even know exactly which object that heinteracts with. The mobile phone can be seen as a technological extension of the user givinghim a tool to connect to the digital, virtual reality, in a way that is a natural development.The channel created can exploit Internet protocols to transmit data and at the other side of the channel actions can be triggered operating, for instance on some kind of model asillustrated in the figure. Information can also travel in the other direction, be collected at theother side and presented either by the mobile or on some other media device nearby.


5/52

2010-09-08


Alternative 2 in the lower part of Figure 1 shows how the user interacts with a model thataffords some actions. The interaction results in actions in two places and in one placeaffects a girl.

Figure 1 Interacting in a pervasive environment.

The design space for all sorts of pervasive applications is huge, if not unlimited. The reasonfor this is twofold. First, objects in a pervasive world afford almost any kind of actionssince the affordances can be adapted by the system. Secondly, the system has manyopportunities to filter the intentions of the user into actions, also in ways that the user mightnot be aware of, see Figure 2 for an illustration.

Figure 2 The (enormous) pervasive design space

Alt 1

Reality Model

Alt 2

FilterFilterFilter


6/52

2010-09-08


Pervasive phenomena by their very nature are difficult to spot; they are accepted andhabitual characteristics of the reality. One example is text, look around you, and look forinstances of text. McCullough writes; For a precedent in ubiquitous informationtechnology, Mark Weiser would point to text. Text really is ubiquitous-you are rarely out of sight of several pieces of it The back of a serial box is a cacophony of texts and imagesvying for the awakening persons momentary attention (McCullough, p. 86).

2.1 Some design issues related to the future pervasive homeThis section will discuss some problems with pervasive design in the home. A first problemis that we tend to focus on technology or fancy design rather than on fulfilling humanneeds. The designer John Thackara formulates this as the innovation dilemma; We knowhow to make amazing things. We don't know what to make or We are brilliant on meansbut pretty hopeless on ends. Sometimes this tricks us into doing to much. Just because wecan do it does not mean it is worth doing.

A second problem often discussed is the potential for surveillance that pervasive systemsallow. Rheingold formulates it as: "... Ubicomp might lead directly to a future of safe,efficient, soulless, and merciless universal surveillance". Referring to surveillance might beoverstating the issue here but there are clearly privacy and integrity issues to consider.

A third line of attack is to maintain that pervasive technology does not solve anything, noteven simplifies anything that was previously a problem. Stephen Levy wrote, in an articlein Newsweek may 1999, that pervasive technologies will provide; At best marginal value,loss of control and loyalty, False promises of simplification instead everything hasbecome almost impossibly complicated and yet has to be thoroughly understood wheneverthere is a problem.nothing fundamentally new... useless frills trivial conveniences forthe rich.

In a seminal article written already in 1995 Araya questions ubiquitous computing. Heperceives ubiquitous computing as a way of extending our nervous system through sensors.As a consequence the environment becomes us rather than other. If we combine thiswith tagging things such that they can be identified and cannot be lost, then surveillancewill be the default state and what we perceive as the world could be arbitrary, depending onhow, why and by whom the world is interpreted. (Araya).

In the coming frenzy on pervasive applications we also need to remember that there arecognitive challenges and questions to consider with new technology:

How are people supposed to understand what is going on? Do we need and want to be kept evermore informed, involved, having more and

more social relations? Can we handle interrupts anytime, anywhere, by anyone (in the worst case)? How do we guarantee a sense of constant belonging, safety, and security in such a

volatile, even arbitrary, world?


7/52

2010-09-08


Everything we do also has a cultural context that will be affected by the interaction.Consequently, along with the cognitive issues listed above there are also a large number of social issues :

How will people adapt to quickly expanding social networks and to the toolsnecessary for managing and enjoying them?

Will people mind that their every move and action is being tracked and monitoredby others?

Will people mind that others are more aware of their everyday activities? Will our notions of personal space, integrity and privacy change? What new social conventions will be needed?

Will people follow them?In another line of attack the reference (Jacucci 2004) claims that human-computerinteraction (HCI) has ignored the effects of how the introduction of a new system affectsthe pre-design setting, i.e. has been neglecting how actors re-arrange collections of artefacts and reconfigure spaces.. The effect of this is to think of configurability assomething done by the designer during the design, not something that practitioners do. Inhis thesis Jacucci poses the following questions related to the discussion above:

Physical Artefacts: How do new physical interfaces relate to existing materialartefacts and what are the properties of the new artefacts that can be created? As

Jaccucci said: Artefacts acquire meaning through material qualities, their spatiality,and the way participants interact with them. (Jacucci). Will artefacts cooperate;emerge into new types of systems?

Space: In which ways can existing spaces be exploited in physical interfaces? Embodied Actions: What role can bodily movements play if augmented through

physical interfaces? Configurability: How can configurability be pursued beyond the design phase and

what is its relevance and relation to space, artefacts and bodily movements?

The issues above result in a set of user interface challenges listed below. The referencesmostly did not consider social issues emerging from other collocated or remote users. Most

of the issues in the quotes and ideas below are however straightforward to adapt also to thesocial world (the solutions are not).

What are the boundaries of my smart home? (e.g., what are the walls? How muchprivacy do I have?) (Edwards).

How can users be made aware of the affordances of the entire home itself? (e.g.,what are the possible and impossible configurations of this home?) (Edwards).

Where will the locus of interaction be in a system that exists in no one place, butrather represents the sum of many interoperable (and changing) parts? (e.g., wheredoes the UIlive?) (Edwards).


8/52

2010-09-08


How can I tell how my devices are interacting? (e.g., what are my devices inter-acting with, and how do they choose?) (Edwards).

How do I control these devices, and the whole system? (e.g., Where are thecontrols, what visualizations of the whole system do I have?) (Edwards).

When I address a system, how does it know I am addressing it? When I ask a system to do something how do I know it is attending? When I issue a command (such as save, execute or delete), how does the system

know what it relates to? How do I know the system understands my command and is correctly executing my

intended action? How can we configure and manage invisible and not-obvious-what-to-do

interfaces? What are the potential configurations of my devices? (e.g., what

connects with what, what won't connect, and why?) (Edwards). Are transparent and seamless interactions with others and artefacts desirable? Are convenience and calmness desirable goals? Will people want to be more or less in control of their interactions with ubiquitous

computing technologies? What does this mean for the acceptance of intelligent, oremergent systems?

How do I recover from mistakes? To what extent should a system be adaptive and flexible systems? What kinds of

affordances do we need to provide to occupant-users to make the systemintelligible? (e.g., is the device recording, displaying, manipulating in-formationabout me) (Edwards).

Furthermore, Edwards et at state: these abilities must be provided and maintained in anenvironment in which new devices are added, old devices are removed, devices fromdifferent manufacturers may coexist, and wireless connectivity may extend beyond thewalls of the home itself. (Edwards). There should be no need for a system administrator;every new device should reliably interoperate with all existing ones. Pervasive technologyin other words has to beextremely simple to use . As larger and larger aspects of our livesare integrated with pervasive systems they will reach mind-boggling complexity and beused by a major part of the population. Whenever we add new equipment to this system itmust not increase its perceived complexity. In analogy with the electrical system usingequipment should be like plugging in a light-bulb. The system should elegantly cope with

one device disappearing and a new one (perhaps an upgrade) entering the resource pool. If successful this behaviour also relates totrust . If we do not trust the infrastructure, becauseof erroneous behaviour, lack of standards compliance, information theft, or for some otherreason then the introduction of pervasive systems will be delayed. Designing for reliabilityimplies a need to put functionality into the network, and to rely more on the network thanon local support for reliability. In such a case reliability of the network will be crucial, but,on the other hand we already trust water, electricity, garbage collection, removing snowfrom the street in the winter, to be there, always.


9/52

2010-09-08


It is extremely difficult for a computer system to say anything about the state of the worldas interpreted by a human; Intelligence in such a world can take a number of forms, someof which make greater assumptions than others. Some of the more obvious of these include:

The environment can interpret the meaning of sensor data to reflect some state of theworld. For example, the system might assume that I am in a room because my activebadge is in a room.

The environment can infer that some state exists by aggregating a number of other factors.For example, if a number of people are gathered together in a meeting room, the systemmight assume that a meeting is taking place.

The environment may attempt to infer my intent from its view of the state of the world.For example, the system might assume that because I am in a meeting, I might want toshare my meeting notes with others in the meeting.

Finally, the system may preemptively act on assumptions of intent. For example, if thesystem assumes I may want to share my meeting notes, it may go ahead and make thoseavailable to other meeting participants (or ask me if it should do so).

All of these modes of intelligence can be found represented in the literature of ubiquitouscomputing. And all are subject to error, of varying degrees and types. (Edwards).

The solution have to be that humans make most of the decisions, or at least that visibility,intelligibility, predictability, recoverage from errors is guaranteed in short or longer timescales for actions and routines; Such predictability depends on (Edwards):

The systems expected behavior in the face of this condition is known. The systems facilities for detecting or inferring this condition are known. Provision is made for the user to override the systems behavior.

We look for system designs where users provide for smartness and technology issupportive. The problems we face get even worse when there are more than one userinvolved. New technology also alleviates the problem and taking all of the above intoaccount a motto should be smart use of stupid technology rather than stupid use of smart.Tolmie formulates it as; However, it might be more appropriate to think of the system asmore akin an ethnographer than a participant. Participants have anego centric view of others routines because knowing anothers routines is a practical matter, it is a resourceand only needs to be adequate for the participants purposes. It is in this sense specific andpartial as the purpose is not a passing abstract and general interest. For a system to get itright implies major challenges in access to and use of contextual information that arelikely to be beyond what it is reasonable to expect. The accounts of the kind anethnographer gives are more like the basis that might be appropriate for a system toembody they are likely to contain a better articulation of the homes routines than aparticipant will be able to produce easily, and by so doing leave the more subtle issues of how this should be used in a particular situation to the human participant. (Tolmie 2008).


10/52

2010-09-08


As we integrate new technology, human and technology will, as we for instance do withour home, need to learn together.One interesting lesson from the Adaptive House is thatas the inhabitant, I also constructed a model of ACHE, or more specifically, a model of ACHEs model of the inhabitant. For instance, if I were at work at 8 p.m., I would realizethat under ordinary circumstances, I might have left several hours earlier; consequently,ACHE would be expecting me, and I felt compelled to return home. To some degree, Iregularized my schedule in order to accommodate ACHE and its actions. Living withACHE makes one aware of ones own occupancy and movement patterns. It is not entirelyfacetious to claim that ACHE trains the inhabitant, just as the inhabitant trains ACHE.Indeed, this interactive training is one of the virtues of living with an adaptive house. To theextent that the house discovers regularities of the inhabitants behavior, and inhabitantsregularize their behavior to accommodate the house, the interaction converges on an idealsituationinhabitants whose schedules and behavior are predictable, allowing ACHE toboth maximize comfort and minimize energy utilization. Generalizing from this scenario, itseems useful for a smart home to educate its inhabitants concerning their behavior andneeds. (Mozer).

Some interesting research has been done looking at technology support in the home forreligious purposes. The results included (Woodruff 2007b);

there was a sense that the automation concealed what was going on behind thescenes, giving a pleasing final effect.

there were some situations in which automation was associated with a sense of being in control,

benefit of intentional surrender of control on the Sabbath [] Studies suggest thatthere are situations in which surrendering control offers significant psychologicalbenefit

Use of home automation appeared to have become a religious custom for theparticipants, both a ritual in the home and a sign of affiliation with the community.Over the years, automation and/or the atmosphere it created became associated withreligious commitment and ritual.

However, it was quite common for participants to attribute meaning to actions takenby the automation system, and sometimes to associate them with expectedbehaviour.

The researchers suggest that future pervasive systems (smart houses) should focus onexternal relations rather than control and mastery; One of the themes that we found moststriking was the orientation to external forces external mandates, processes, community,etc. This perspective is in stark contrast with traditional visions of the smart home, whichfocus on control and mastery. (Woodruff 2007b).

When we use new technology in the home we often experience broken expectations. Manytimes they arise from us combining use cases not tested, or even thought of by someone


11/52

2010-09-08


else. The result is often unexpected. You know that something will go wrong, but notexactly how.

When the system gets complex and users cannot grasp it, then many interrelated practicesget a touch of magic. One such can be the problem of understanding billing mechanisms.OBrien exemplifies by a set top box; Was it all in the box all the time, or was it allbeing downloaded all the time? If they bought a game, video, or piece of music, where wasit stored? What happened to such purchases if their box broke? Would they be lost?Would they be able to access them from other peoples boxes? Would their PIN numberswork on other boxes? [] There are implications, as stated earlier, which arise fromsuch confusion, in particular relating to participants concerns about payment and securityissues. (O'Brien ).

3. Social computing, what it is, issues, design considerations The discussions and experimentation with pervasive systems continues, but recently a newtrend of computing has taken the main stage, i.e. social computing. This is a developmentthat was not foreseen even by the pioneers in the area. Social computing can be seen aspervasive computing involving multiple interacting users. Only over the last years millionsof blogs have been written, millions of users have signed on to Facebook and Twitter. Theactivity testifies to the importance of this new trend. New and evolving functionalitytogether with social computing emerge into new forms.

Wikipedia (itself being an outburst of the trend) formulates it thus; Social computing is ageneral term for an area of computer science that is concerned with the intersection of social behaviour and computational systems. It has become an important concept for use inbusiness. It is used in two ways as detailed below.

In the weaker sense of the term, social computing has to do withsupporting any sort of social behaviour in or through computational systems. It is based on creating orrecreating social conventions and social contexts through the use of software andtechnology. Thus,blogs, email, instant messaging, social network services, wikis, socialbookmarking and other instances of what is often called social software illustrate ideasfrom social computing, but so do also other kinds of software applications where peopleinteract socially. Figure 3 illustrates the idea adapted to pervasive computing.


12/52


13/52

2010-09-08


Conversation - whereas traditional media is about broadcast (content transmittedor distributed to an audience) social media is better seen as a two-way conversation.

Community- social media allows communities to form quickly and communicateeffectively. Communities share common interests, such as a love of photography, apolitical issue or a favourite TV show.

Connectedness- Most kinds of social media thrive on their connectedness, makinguse of links to other sites, resources and people.

Innovation is moving from a top-down to bottom-up model Value is shifting from ownership to experiences Power is moving from institutions to communities

At first sight social computing might seem insignificant, only a variation of the mobile

phone useful for interpersonal communication, but not much more. Some researchers suchas Wang do not agree; Social computing and online communities are changing thefundamental way people share information and communicate. They are profoundlyaffecting the global economy, social interaction, and every aspect of our lives. (Wang).According to a Forrester Research report individuals increasingly take cues from oneanother and communities rather than from institutional sources such as corporations. Thereare of course also risks and problems with the development one is that as peopleincorporate these emerging technologies into their social interactions they lose touch withsocial nuances, cultural values, and the characteristics of traditional society. Increasing thenumber of remote personal relations at the cost of local ones.

Social networking sites on the Internet prosper and the number of users is high and rising.There are however some important problems in most of them. One is that social links areunnuanced, i.e. it is not possible to indicate the type or importance of a social link. Anotherproblem with many of the sites is that links are public, which of course makes you reluctantto enter sensitive personal information. On the positive side, the fact that you havedisclosed a profile and a number of connections which should increase your credibility,since anyone could contact your contacts telling them about your misbehaviour.

The intentions of the network site are also not clear. Will it for instance use the informationyou add for advertisements? This makes users even more reluctant to add data into thenetwork. Related to the problem of public links is that links are decontextualised. It is notpossible to group them, for instance showing a selection of the links to a particular group(Donath). In the real world we use time, space and other contextual information to organizeincompatible social contact networks. A typical personal network (primary group) includes3-6 very close ties, 5-15 active but less close, and about 1000(!) acquaintances in total. Acompletely open network with 1000 people will not be very useful.

A fundamental problem with most online communities is that your identity cannot beverified. However, if your online partly coincides with your real world network then youare probably who you say you are, and your profile will be implicitly verified. Meetingyour real world contacts in the virtual world might not be what has been why you were


14/52

2010-09-08


interested in the first place. The irony with the scheme of verifying your identity bydisclosing a trustworthy profile and reality based connections is that it makes it easier foran imposter to use your identity.

The three most common reasons to use SMS are to keep in touch with friends, coordinateactivities and chat. Important to all of these purposes is physical position, but also the sociallocation. Would you use a tool that disclosed where you have been? Who you werespending your time with and for how long? This information can for instance be found byexchanging contact lists. If you know a person well the social location can many times beinferred from the physical position. Furthermore, if the person you know knows about thisthen this knowledge can be used in turn. How and when would you use a system whereyour request for a persons current social environment is logged and can be viewed by thatperson?

The first question asked in a mobile phone conversation is often Where are you?, a wayof establishing some common ground. Adding GPS and other technology for establishinglocations add to the common ground.

As with other technology the introduction of socially oriented systems will disrupt commonaccepted behaviors and support new unanticipated uses. A mobile device used foridentifying friends in the neighborhood is for instance likely to decrease planning in favorof serendipitous now-here social networking. Some different models for obtaining locationinformation about a person x are:

Ask x, possibly blocked by a device carried by x Get the information directly from x or his device, without asking for it Ask device carried by x, possibly blocked Ask a proxy where x or his device can update location information at his

convenience or when some condition on the context of x triggers an update Ask your own device updated by x or his device

The decision of whether a position should be disclosed depends among other things also onwho wants it, why, and at what level of detail (Consolvo).

It is not possible to fully represent, and manage, the same amount of social information in acomputer based system as we do when socialising in real life without effort, every moment,every day. We will illustrate this by following the discussion on privacy preferences andP3P in (Carroll).

The idea with the Internet P3P protocol (Privacy Preference Protocol) is to create a privacystandard for the web allowing the information owner to have detailed control over access.For P3P we are faced with a difficult user interface problem. There are several millions of users and if we assume a fine information granularity, almost any user provides thousands,


15/52

2010-09-08


probably millions of data items. How can we set the access rights for each item and keepthem updated to changed conditions?

We need to group data and users to keep the complexity down, but as we do this we loosecontrol over details and will have to introduce numerous exceptions. Also, the systems wecurrently use are discrete and precise which means that we will not even have thepossibility to postpone the decision and stay ambiguous, which would be a typical humansocial solution to a similar problem. We are faced with thesocial-technical gap (Carroll).

The problem is, it seems, impossible for a computerized system to solve even if it isassisted by a human, but the problem is easily solved many times a day, by any human, in asocial context. The gap descried above is a fundamental problem originating from thecomplexity of life itself, as indicated in figure 4 below.

Figure 4 Complexity means flexibility and loss of control.

One partial solution is to build really flexible systems that learn from, and co-developswith, humans. Next generation, at least in Sweden, will have spent more time with thecomputer at the age of 15 than the previous generations will over their whole lifetime. Theextent to which ICQ and interactive networked games are used says something about theimportance of the next generation of computer support.

Maybe we should try to find ways in which the computer could augment rather than replaceour social abilities. Technology could provide strange augmented reality support such asseeing through walls, or maybe technology for automatic blood pressure analysis of peoplewalking by.The more active participants of the human race will certainly try to change moods and stiremotions.Advertisements are mild and acceptable versions of manipulation, but otherssuch ashypnosis , andgroup pressure , are potentially dangerous. Many forms of blackmail are not allowed and will send you to jail. Still, our society would not work, noteven for one single day without social manipulation. We call iteducation , and want a childto be well raised.

Humanbrain

LogicNeuralnetworksNeuralnetworks

Fuzzylo ic

ControlFlexibility

Humansociet


16/52

2010-09-08


How could you avoid being manipulated? This is knowledge that works both ways. If youknow how to escape it, you know how to exert it. Without knowledge about manipulationyou will not even know that you are being manipulated. Are you?

There are three factors that are important in developing resistance. First,knowledge aboutsocial psychology and attitude change are important, second and maybe even moreimportant isgeneral knowledge about philosophy and science. If someone presentsscientific facts showing that energy is created in their refrigerator without any externalenergy source then you, as a knowledgeable person, will mutter something about UFO andalchemy. A third factor important for detecting manipulation isself-knowledge . It will helpyou to inspect yourself and observe your own reactions. Of course, a general attitude of scepticism, which for some is a born gift, is always healthy.

Some examples of findings from social psychology are that manipulators often start withmaking minor requests. They often seem concerned, sincere, and friendly. They use grouppressure and do not make things too easy. They present you with an apparantly meaningfultask that is said to be tough, but you are of course are capable of performing it. Immediateintimacy and friendship, and feelings of disorientation, confusion, and embarrassment aresome possible indications that you are being manipulated (Dubrow-Eichel). In generalpeople are easy to fool, as can be seen in any magic show!

Not all manipulation is bad of course. Some flattery could even help convince someone todo the dishes and praising the result will lower the resistance to repeat the feat.Flattery isan important social cue, andsimilarity is another. People similar to us more easilypersuade us. If you play golf and meet another golfer the probability for liking increases. Infact, the greater the similarity, in background, trait, or attitudes the greater the potential forpersuasion (Fogg). If this is scientifically proved to apply also to fifty year old men onmaking the dishes we do not know.

In a social setting we exploit similarity by adoptingculturally predefined roles . In the roleof a teacher we are trusted to know the subject and be able to teach it. Another example isthat a referee is automatically accepted as an authority on the football field. A social rolecan easily be used for social manipulation, we for instance readily trust a doctor andaccept the decision of the head of the family.

Attractiveness is another important aspect, since attractive people or products sociallyinfluence us easier. Physically attractive people are by default assumed to be intelligent andhonest. Luckily people cannot yet be designed, only styled. A problem for product design isthat different audiences have different culturally established preferences, which vary overtime. This means that the designer has a lot of footwork to do, making surveys, and lookingfor clues, for instance in typical magazines and TV-shows.

The last possibility for social manipulation that we will mention here is therule of reciprocity , which seems to be followed in every human society (Fogg). The principle isthat if you are given a favour you will feel obliged to return it, and this can be used for


17/52

2010-09-08


social manipulation in many ways. One example are companies that gives you a watch,almost for free, if you sign up for buying one book each month.

Security is how to protect a computer, network, or another resource, from beingmanipulated. It is necessary to guaranteeprivacy and integrity , the conditions of keepingsomething personal and to be yourself. Computers and networks have created newchallenges, but the basic problems are as old as the social network. Some members of agroup areauthorized to access resources, andauthentication is needed to verify theiridentities. For face-to-face communication authentication is simple, in other situations weneed passwords, biometrics, or access cards with pin codes.

Unauthorized access could be gained by misusing prior authorization, masquerading assomeone else, or by exploiting some vulnerability in the security system. All well-knowntricks from films featuring J. Bond. Once inside the system, or with access to the protectedresource, the intruder couldsteal , destroy , orbrowse secret information . Denial of service is another type of attack that could be especially damaging for a computer system.It diminishes server capacity by keeping the server as busy as possible and therebytemporarily hinders access to the system.

It is interesting to note that biology inspires thinking about network security. Viruses andworms are different existing attacks. The defending side also use colourful names,firewalls, sandboxes, and honey pots (used to trick hackers) are some examples. Security isalways a balance between the cost of loosing control and the cost of equipment andadministrative expenses to keep it. Another important lesson is that insiders are responsiblefor most of the security attacks.

Videophones, or stationary desktop video at workstations, raise ethical issues, as well aspractical. We want to know who is watching us, and why. Normally there should be anindication that someone is remotely using a video camera and this will be yet anotherdistraction, adding to the distraction from the sound of arriving e-mails plopping into themailbox. You should at least have the option to turn the video off, and the question is if youwill ever turn it on again. The following four issues, at least, have to be considered withrespect to privacy (Mackay):

Control : Users want to control who can see or hear them at any time.Knowledge : Users want to know when somebody is in fact seeing or hearing them. Theyalso need feedback on what is seen. If a recording is done and reused in another context theuser should know about it.Intention : Users want to know the intention of the connection, i.e. whether the video isstored, or otherwise processed, and for what reasons.Intrusion : Users want to avoid connections that disturb their work.

On the other hand, we somehow manage to take the subway and go to the restaurantwithout too much problems with privacy issues.


18/52

2010-09-08


As we build tools for H-H interaction we should evaluate thesocial quality of service of the tool. How does a particular tool present social services? How are the users affected andwhat means do a user have to adapt? Some of the questions related to social services are:

Who is allowed to join? Who has joined and who has joined and left? Who is allowed to do what, with what, and together with whom? Who is doing what, and has done what, at which activity level? Who is allowed to follow the work as it progresses and to what degree? Who is following and has followed the work? Who is allowed to see the results? Who is viewing and has viewed the results?

If we build systems where answers to such questions can be found and presented in usefulways, we have a chance toenhance social life, at therisk of being controlled andrestricted . In fact, the more we try to get a system to act on our behalf, especially inrelation to other people, the more we have to watch every move it makes (Bellotti).

As the social aspects of life drips into digital life we will also see more of the less flatteringaspects of human social life, suspicion to strangers, rotectionism, and jealousy, just to namea few. These behaviours will necessitate explicit mechanisms that enforce identity andaccountability for actions. Important functionality to assure such mechanisms are todetectarrival , presence, departure , activity andidentity (Bellotti). All of them good old human

capabilities.4. Home, what it is, issues, design considerations

The home is interesting because we all have one and it is intimately related to architecture,family, everyday life and habits. Also, it seems that how it looks or feels like is evermoreimportant as a number of television shows and magazines about home design indicate.Studying technology in the home is furthermore important since homes are filled withtechnology and this technology is economically important. There is also a potential forimproved quality of life, with an elderly population in Western Europe it might even bemandatory.

Historically houses did not become homes in our sense until en of the 18th century. Beforethat the average bourgeois house in Western Europe was more like a public meeting placewhere people cooked, ate, worked, entertained, and slept. Private rooms with specializedfunctions, such as bedrooms, dining rooms, or bathrooms, were non-existent. Rybczynskiargues that the "human inventions" of intimacy, privacy, domesticity, and comfort were thefirst domestic innovations, which ultimately transformed the house into a home andrepresented the first major turning point in the history of home. (Hsieh).


19/52

2010-09-08


Most of the studies below study home-technology-action from a spatial or social point of view. The following list elaborates the list of possible views by OBrist (Obrist):

Spatial context: TV in the living room; multifunctional in all rooms; individualrooms, e.g. how space is used for different family activities, how familiesdesignate space for ritualized functions, and various other practices. (Venkatesh).

Temporal context: TV viewing during the day; week and weekend; season. Social context: TV used alone; in company; in both contexts; social structure of the

household (e.g. adults, children, older people). Power relationships, control issues,household division of labour, parental and spouse concerns

Personal context: demographic data; prior experience with other technologies;hobbies and interests; TV preferences.

Technological context: household equipment; technologies used at home. Context of the context home: neighborhood; nation; cultural factors.

Agnes Heller writes that, for us "home represents familiarity in our everyday lives, a fixedpoint from which to proceed and return. Going home should mean returning to that firmposition which we know, to which we are accustomed, where we feel safe, and where ouremotional relationships are at their most intense" (Hsieh quoting Agnes Heller). Enclosinga space with walls and controlling the door creates a private sphere that can be seen as theopposite to the public. The home then is our controlled territory where we in the best of worlds can defend and display identity, feel both physically and mentally secure and allowourselves to be stimulated as we please. The security we feel allows our identity to grow,further increasing our feelings of security and stimulation. Furthermore, the home givesopportunities for personal development, creativity and skills. On the other hand it limitscommunication, divides people and could deprive those inside of necessary emotional andsocial resources. Not having a home (in our age) is an unacceptable human condition.

If we have a stable home where we spend time we will acquire habits, routines and rituals,which are often overlapping in time. The resulting patterns are more of a number of evolving, interleaved, interacting processes than a static set of behavioral patterns fillingneeds; the patterns also contributed to a sense of belonging, particularly in the lives of single adults, who achieved a sense of belonging by forming patterns around differentmedia. (Koskela).

Technology has contributed in many ways to the home; Lighting reverses the privacyrelation between indoor and outdoor at night by making the former visible to the latter technology makes the familiar seem strange (McCullough, p. 61). It is in fact very difficulttoday to imagine a home without electricity, i.e. an infrastructure enables our concept of home. Any technology introduced into the home will change habits and the homeenvironment, often in more ways than originally was understood from just looking at thetechnology. Edwards goes as far as saying- indeed any technologieswill be disruptiveto the home environment . (Edwards). Designers need to predict the resulting changes,which is quite difficult, while at the same time pay heed to the stable and compelling


20/52

2010-09-08


routines of the home, rather than external factors, including the abilities of the technologyitself. (Tolmie 2002). Adapting technologies to our habits, which in turn will adapt to thetechnology used, is a major design challenge, i.e. acknowledging the subtleties of the oftencomplex, yet unremarkable, details that surround our everyday routines places powerfulrequirements on any technology that might become embedded in such activities (Tolmie2002). To do thiswe need to identify and understand habits which itself is by no meanssimple. In Edwards words; These routines are subtle, complex, and ill-articulated, if theyare articulated at all; thus, there is a great need for further studies of how home occupantsappropriate and adapt new technologies. Only by grounding our designs in such realities of the home will we have a better chance to minimize, or at least predict, the effects of ourtechnologies. (Edwards).

Crabtree and Rodden studied routines, and more specifically routines for communicationand found that routines often are performed inactivity centers ; placeswhere artefactsand media are manipulated and where information is transformed. They include suchthings as porches and hallways where mail is organized, sofas where letters are discussed,tables where phone calls are made from, etc. (Rodden). Media devices can serve asactivity centres supporting routines; In fact, media devices, such as the TV and PC, havebecome significant action centres at home. For example, in front of TV sets, people dochores (for example, fold clothes), entertain or baby-sit children (for example, withcartoons), and make their plans (for example, according to weather forecasts). In addition,as the TV and PC can also be used for lamps, radios, clocks, etc., their adjustability makesthem natural smart home interaction and communication devices. (Koskela).

Crabtree and Rodden also defineecological habitats. These are places where artifactsand media live and where household members go to locate particular resources. Theyinclude such places as shelves where phones and address books reside, desks where PCs aresituated, tables where mail pending action lives, etc. (Rodden). As a third concept theyalso defined; Coordinate Displays. These are places wheremedia are displayed andmade available to residents to coordinate their activities . They include such things asbureaus where mail is displayed for the attention of others, mantelpieces where cards aredisplayed for social and aesthetic reasons and to remind the recipient to respond, noticeboards where appointment cards are displayed, etc. A final component of their model is thesequences of actions that link the ecological habitats, coordinate displays and activitycentres together.

As an example of how to apply their theory we can use paper based media. Paper-basedmedia can find a home in any ecological habitat and coordinate display (they can be put indrawers, left on surfaces and pinned to walls). The means of creating and modifying themcan be easily used in any activity centre (you can write and draw in activity centresthroughout the home). Digital media, by way of contrast, are less comfortably integrated.Some such as email, Internet and hyperlinks dont easily spread beyond the workstation,which is still required to produce, manage and consume them. To break this dependence,inhabitants often transform digital media to paper by printing them out. (Crabtree 2004).


21/52

2010-09-08


Taylor also considers informational artefacts and notes that they afford particular uses andmake up systems for organizing home life, what we callorganizing systems . (Taylor).According to them people create, design, configure and re-configure such systems in artfulways (Taylor). These dynamic systems in turn affects the social relations of the household;organizing systems necessarily demand that informational artifacts afford action byspecific family members (and not others) and that, in turn, these actions produce a patternor order to family life [one example is ] where a letter she is given at the school gates findsits way into the familys system for arranging pending to-dos and is then translated into ascheduled journey in and amongst the familys routines. (Taylor). Because they arescattered between activity centers, actual home tasks often require mobility within thehome. In addition, multitasking is common in a home environment, and varioussimultaneous tasks require varying amounts of activity. (Koskela).

There are activities in the home that are less utility oriented. One such is pottering, i.e. thatparticular members of households have established routines in which they secludethemselves from their families. Finding a sequestered place (and time), pleasure is taken inmundane, seemingly unessential activities: loosely sorting and organizing things, tinkeringwith tools or equipment, doing odds and ends on personal computers, etc. (Wyche).

There has been quite a lot of research on the smart home. So far this research has notaffected the ordinary home life. One reason for this is that we are stuck with the houses wehave for a number of decades ahead. The evolution of technology in the home will bynecessity be a step by step process over long time. Another reason for the failure is thattechnology is not the driving force of home, people are. History demonstrates that whenpeople accept a technology into the home, they have chosen to because it makes adifference in their daily lives. (Hsieh). On the other hand,Remove technologies from themodern house and most would consider it uninhabitable. Cut off the power that fuels themachine for long enough and the dwelling must be evacuated (Hsieh).

Domestication provides a model of how technology is adapted to the home. Four phaseshave been identifies; appropriation, objectification, incorporation, and conversion.Appropriation refers to the stage where a technology or service is bought by individuals orhouseholds and becomes owned. In theobjectification phase, the display of the technologyreveals the principles that inform a households sense of its self and its place in the worldIn theincorporation stage, information and communication technologies are used byhousehold members and incorporated into their everyday routines. In the final phase,conversion is referred to as the phase in which the use of technologies by the householdmembers shape relations between the household members and those outside the house. Theemphasis is now less on the internal structure of the household but more on how thesetechnologies shape other peoples understanding of the household members in terms of status and/or lifestyle. (Allouch).

Technology by itself is not very interesting. It gets interesting when used by people andwhen it as a result of use affects how people live their lives. As technology was introducedinto the home our notion of the home changes; Spiegel notes that 1) The introduction of


22/52

2010-09-08


television created the notion of home as a theatre; 2) the introduction of the desktopcomputer introduced the home office; and 3) the cell phone and laptop resulted in portablework, and a portable home (Spiegel quoted by Hsieh). Hsieh also notes that; at thepresent time, no three inventions have had more impact on the home than the telephone, theradio, and television. This trio represented the first major communication technologies inthe home. When the telephone was introduced, home was considered a firmly privatedomain, and these technologies represented a novel new way to connect to the outsideworld. The more people interacted with these technologies, the more the physical and sociallayout of the home changed in response. The home's living room became the source of evening entertainment, and the family room was introduced to the home as a more casualsetting for home activities (Hsieh)

4.1 Laptop in the home as an exampleNow let us discuss the laptop as an example of a technology that is currently invading thehome. As opposed to mobile phones laptops are not used when moving around the houseand not even everywhere in the home. This is surprising given their size and relativemobility. Some reasons why laptops are not moved around so much is that they are fragile,and sensitive to water. Even though laptops can be carried around they are difficult to bringalong using only one hand, and especially if a power supply also must be brought along.Furthermore, the promise of immediate access to computational resources is compromisedby long times for booting. On the other hand, compared to a desktop PC, a laptop is mucheasier to remove, for instance when tidying up for a dinner party.

Homes are usually not built for IT, nor are its architecture changed. The changes made areon the level of rearranging furniture and usually not much money is spent on this.Venkatesh et. al note this and believe that the reasons for the incomplete domestication areas follows. Under the present condition of rapid product development many consumers arereluctant or not able to invest in special modifications (e.g. purchasing furniture) becausethey are unsure about their future needs. As a result, the ITs are treated something like"visitors" rather than a permanent part of the household landscape. Because PCs arefrequently replaced by upgraded equipment and an ever changing array of peripherals (e.g.zip drives, digital cameras, scanners etc.) the IT ensemble is perceived as a temporary partof the home. It is thus not treated as a permanent appliance (i.e. a fridge) or as furniture (i.e.a sofa). Money is put into upgrading hardware rather than domesticating the space toaccommodate the machinery. Not surprisingly, the appearance of the PC and peripheralswas of very little importance to these users. Also, as the PC moves out of the confines of the home office or den, users are unsure how to integrate it into the unfamiliarsurroundings. (Venkatesh).

The PC has been considered a tool and this is a second reason why not much attention hasbeen given to its aesthetics, or even its sound level. Hiding it is consequently quitereasonable. Other technical devices to hide could be game controls since they can beassociated with a way of living that the inhabitants do not want to display. On the otherhand a PC or a game consol can be seen as a status symbol to show off. Research has also


23/52

2010-09-08


identified what they call shrines. These are devices that are valued, kept becausethey hadgood utility and did exactly what the user wanted and had done so for a long time.(Baillie).

From research we also learn that there are certainfavored places ; each household membertypically had two or three favored places where they spent the majority of their time duringwaking hours [] Note that these places are quite specific they are not simply generalareas or parts of rooms. (Woodruff). Close to these places resources are arranged, such asglasses, remotes, or power adapters turning the places into habitats. Along with favouredplaces the same research also identifiedkinetic places , generally associated with shorterduration, focused activities that involved physical manipulations, e.g., a mirror in the cornerof the bedroom for doing ones hair, a door that a participant tucked her feet under to do sit-ups, or a kitchen counter that a married couple used to make sandwiches for lunch or toprepare the evening meal (Woodruff). The kinetic places do not support laptops, but ratherhand frees and other devices free from attachments. There might be no surface for placingthe laptop, no mouse or access to power. The same researchers also note the fact thatlaptops are drawn to activity and that people sometimes do not want to see or think aboutthe laptop.

Which of the favored placed that were used at a particular time changed depending onmany things; use of space and laptops within space was highly contingent on routines thatchange on a multiple-week or even multi-month time scale. Use of favored places andlaptops was highly sensitive to current routines and projects. Seemingly small changes suchas a difference in a childs nap schedule, a change in the weather, or a new projectassignment at work could greatly perturb the system, meaning for example that laptopuse ceased entirely in one location and began in another. (Woodruff). The same researchdivides favored places intocomfortable or ergonomic and also inopen or closed withrespect to sociability. Closed spaces afford privacy and often audio isolation. A coach in thedining room is for instance a comfortable and open place. The researchers also note that thelaptop is a compromise, not perfected for any type of place or activity. Using a mouse inthe coach is for instance inconvenient.

5. Family, what it is, issues, design considerations In human context, a family (from Latin: familiare) is a group of people affiliated byconsanguinity, affinity, or co-residence. In most societies it is the principal institution for the socialization of children.(Wikipedia, Family)

Humans group themselves in many dimensions and we could list an large number of possible social environments, each with a specific knowledge base, skills and behaviours.In practise, each application, or interaction, defines its own specific environment andtogether with administrative considerations and cultural habits this means that mostinteractions take place in relatively well defined environments, e.g. in homes, hospitals,schools, or cars. Some cultural environments are goal based, for instance a group of peopletravelling to a vacation resort, or focused employees at Ericsson. Others have less clear


24/52

2010-09-08


objectives such as a family, or the citizens of Ume. A cultural environment is, unlike thephysical environment, not necessarily placed in time or space. The IEEE organisation forengineers has over 30.000 members all over the world. Social environments are open andthe complexity of them cannot be overstated.

In this section we will discuss the family/small group, extending and specializing thediscussion on social computing in Chapter 3. We will in other words discuss the primarygroup, which is a small group of people that stays physically (or virtually) together for along time. This kind of group was important already on the Savannah millions of years.Secondary groups are larger and have less personal temporary relations.

Family is one of these seemingly obvious terms that are quite difficult to define precisely.The Wikipedia definition at the beginning of this chapter is one attempt sufficient as astarting point for our discussion.

Official projections of the average family size in the developed world indicate that it willnot exceed 1.9. (OECD). In Sweden the average household was 2.1 already in the late1999s. and 1.9 in 2002. OECD also predicts that one-person households will increase andalso single parent households.

We will assume that a family has something of importance in common and even if this istypically a house and the family constitutes a household this is not necessarily so. What wedo assume is that sharing is what makes a family. But, what then is typically shared? Atsome stage the obvious answer is a newborn child, but this is not a necessary condition.Blood tie is however typical in a family and 4 brothers living together could also pass as afamily. What is accepted is socially agreed on and one cultural assumption is that you arenot supposed to share genes with the ones you mix them with. Face-to-face interaction, atleast at some point of the formation of the family is another common feature of a family.Other things and behaviours typically shared are: breakfast, Christmas tree, energy bill,physical space, summer vacation, education level, dust in the corners, plans for the future,pictures, media equipment, media habits, and perhaps media taste. The identity of a familycan be grounded in interaction patterns such as (Salem):

Shared norms, laws, values, beliefs and attitudes , Artefacts used and created , Blood ties, shared experiences, and physical closeness , i.e. characteristics of the

individuals in the culture.

The artefacts mentioned in item two of the list above are instantiated technology, and areconstantly changing in shape, which provides for powerful societal changes.

Why does a family share? Is it some kind of need? One objective would be to keep thefamily together. But then again, why? The obvious reason is that members benefits. Agroup, such as a family, can accomplish feats impossible for the individuals alone. Withinthe framework of a group it is possible to achieveintimacy , establishtrust , confidence ,


25/52

2010-09-08


security , and other social effects.We can fulfilsocial needs (belonging, esteem), andself-actualizing needs (mastery, control, variety, meaning ) (Veenhoven).Communicationand control is simplified and a group also makes it possible for one strong individual todominate and guarantee reproduction of his or her genes.

Furthermore, with grouping comes a possibility forspecialisation . It improves the solutionof similar recurring problems because expertise is reused to increase efficiency. In a familytypicalroles are father and mother and over times these roles can change considerably. Achild for instance grows up and can support elderly parents.

Promotion of cooperation is another feature of groups and is very much an evolvedbehaviour. We needsocial commitments in cooperation for explicit coordination. If interactors publicly state intentions, then other interactors can use the statements forcoordination. We should allow for future possibilities to affect current decisions aboutrelationships byincreasing the number of interactions and commitments to interestingindividuals . If the norm isreciprocity . Helping friends and relatives deviant patterns of behaviour will reveal exploiters who does not give, just take. This behaviour can besupported by insisting on no more that equity, thereby avoiding greed. A reputation as agreedy exploiter will not help make friends.

A first pre-requisite for a social environment, such as a family, issocial presence, and threedimensions have been distilled; co-presence, psychological involvement, and behaviouralengagement.Co-presence is the degree that a person feels that he or she is alone, i.e thatshe knows there is someone else at the same location (co-location), or senses others whileshowing some aspect of herself or her activities (mutual awareness).Psychologicalinvolvement is to what extent the person attends, thinks about, senses, or respondsemotionally to another person.Behavioural engagement is about the interactions thatconstitue social relations, e.g. when someone is dependent on an action by someone else.Connectedness complements psychological involvement and describes a situation wherewe know there is a person thinking about us, even though we cannot directly sense. Theexample given in the reference is that we send someone a message just to tell that we arecurrently connected to the Internet.

Sharing limited resources and the use of communication impliesmobility and a socalcontext that changes over time. Social context, i.e. norms, roles, and social pressure triggersmobility. We for instance leave a meeting when we receive an important phone call. If wehowever imagine a society of designed networked interactors then mobility is not necessaryfor communication, and virtual resources can be shared over the network.

Whatever the reasons, groups are formed, roles are assigned, and when they are, thecomplexity of the system rapidly increases, faster the more heterogenous and complex theindividuals are. One way (the only way?) to keep this complexity under control is to imposesocial rules on the system, using close feedback via social interaction. Therules imposeorder and alsosimplify social navigation and manipulation . We humans are unique inthat we can create, even purposively design, new conventions for coordinating our social


26/52

2010-09-08


contexts. We use rules to, among other things, build trust, make friends, and identifycheaters. A marriage is for instance a long term social bound telling who belongs and whodo not. It puts and end to messing around and signals focusing on the next generation.Hopefully it also is a result of emotional attraction.

Since social structures and behaviours are well established in human thinking andbehaviour they obviously can be exploited in different computerized applications. There isan enormous amount of results from research on these issues from psychology, and we areourselves aware of, and affected by, many social influences. Most of us for instance have atendency for social comparison , i.e. we behave as our neighbors do. This is one way for asocial animal to survive, or at least to take easy decisions, just follow the group. Peopleenjoyimitating the behaviour of other people . We humans form groups into lines andqueues, look in the same direction as the crowd, and wear clothes to help others tounderstand who we are (or who we want to be). Weadjust our behaviour to groups inmany ways, automatically, and all of the time, for instance when we follow the groupleaving the airplane, supposing that everyone is going to the luggage claim. Anotherexample is that we prefer a crowded restaurant to an empty one. This behaviour issomething that is currently not exploited on the Internet, or by any other technology.Additional examples of social dynamics are group polarization and social facilitation.Group polarization means that a group after a discussion tends to assume a more extremepoint of view. People who do not like to make the dishes like it even less after discussing itwith each other.Social facilitation is the interesting effect that a social environmentincreases the performance. You will run faster when competing against a person comparedto racing only against the clock.

A prerequisite for effective interaction is common knowledge, i.e. ashared commonground, and acommunication channel with appropriate bandwidth . Table 3 below,adapted from the reference (Carroll), describes some characteristics of synchronous face-to-face interaction and exemplifies them in different ways. Throughout the examples theimportance of a common ground can be seen. It is easier to maintain if the interactors aresituated at the same place, i.e. collocated. Collocation means more possible communicationchannels and that you know, and know about, people around you (could be years of discoveries). Common ground is also enhanced by, co-reference, implicit cues andspatiality of reference. A task that demands a high level of coupling additionally requiresshort feedback loops, and possibly a large number of complex messages over more thanone modality.Social information is necessary for social manoeuvring, and theimplicit cues supportsocial awareness . Social awareness is important since it supports cultural rules, we knowthat we will be directly accountable for our actions. You can see that someone else iscurrently working on the same project as you are, and you know that this works both ways.This relationship is not necessarily obvious in the digital world, and depend on how thetechnology supports presence. Through implicit cues social rules and social control isexerted and it also enables humour, discussions, and implicit learning by copying, i.e. as inthe Swedish saying, knowledge is in the walls. In general the downside is that there is a


27/52

2010-09-08


trade-off between visibility and privacy . Another problem is that it will take time tointroduce a new member to intricate established social cues.

Table 1 Characteristics of synchronous face-to-face interaction.

Characteristic Description and ImplicationsIndividual control Each participant can freely choose what to attend

to.Familiarcollaborators

Identities and characteristics known forparticipants, their roles and their relations. Helpfulfor interpretation of messages and behaviour andfor identifying expertise and knowledge.

Rapid feedback Many communication channels with shortcommunication delays. Quick corrections possible.

Multimodal Voice, facial expression, gesture, body posture, andmore. Enables efficient complex messages, andredundancy for error resilience.

Fine-grainedinformation

Analogue or continuous information flows. Subtlemessage differences possible and informationmodulation possible.

Shared localcontext

Participants have similar physical environmentsand experience the same local situations, objectsand actions. Allows for easy socializing as well asmutual understanding and learning by copying. It

also provides means for a shared history. A keysuch as the chaotic desktop of a colleague is usefulin deciding whom to discuss a problem with. Howcan similar cues be provided in the virtual world?

Co-reference Easy joint reference to objects. People and objectshave known spatial locations. Gaze and gesture caneasily identify objects by pointing.

Implicit cues A variety of cues as to what is going on (eventsand effects of events) that are available in theperiphery to an individual. Natural operations of human attention, e.g. eavesdropping, provide

access to important contextual informationincluding facial expressions and body postures.Provides information to a history.


28/52

2010-09-08


Physical contact and familiar collaborators means more andbetter opportunities for youto extend your social networks . It is much easier to ask someone you know aboutsomebody else.

New technology surprisingly does not seem to decrease the number of meetings face-to-face. A typical use of a mobile phone is to discuss when and where to meet, and to keepoptions for meetings open. The mobile phone and e-mail free us from space and time suchthat we can travel to another location. Neither does use of new electronic medias does notseem to replace other forms of interaction, they only complement them. Paper is forinstance still used (a lot) even if most information is digital.

We could try to estimate ormeasure co-operation and coordination within a group. Atthe same time that such a measure gives information on the level of co-operation, itestimates problems in a group of interactors. No co-operation at all is usually an indicationthat something is wrong. The following quantitative measures of cooperation can be used(Ferber):

The number of adjustments to actions. The degree of parallelism, which depends on the distribution of tasks and on their

concurrency. The amount of resource sharing. The level of non-redundancy of actions, co-operation is characterised by a low rate

of redundant activities. The number of blocking situations.

What is measured is either how well a system of co-operating interactors works as a unit,i.e. how well it uses resources, or to what extent the system avoids the implicit problems of coordination. It is hard to argue when you are alone.

Sharing of tasks and resources is both a cause for grouping, and a result of it. Supply anddemand, centralised or distributed control, and problems with coordination are some of theissues involved. A photograph is for instance something that we often take for sharing ourexperiences, but also the process of taking the photograph can be shared. Since aphotograph is discrete in time it is easier than a video to use for discussing reality,especially if the discussion is not face-to-face.

Task sharing impliesproblem decomposition andallocation of sub-problems to actors.One-way to do task allocation is to publicly announce the available subtasks and have anauction where interactors commit for the tasks they select.

How does a group accomplish its task? In what ways can computer based system help out?The first thing to acknowledge is that groups are complex social systems with both internaland external relationships. There are many views possible, economical, sociological,managing, and educational. We will here introduce the TIP (Time Interaction Performance)


29/52

2010-09-08


model by McGrath which emphasizes that a group is a social system with a purpose(McCarthy).

In the TIP model groups are seen as simultaneously and continuously engaged in threeactivities. The first isproduction , i.e. getting the task done, including problem solving andtask-performance. Next,member support encourages its members and increasesparticipation, loyalty, and commitment. The third function is tokeep the group together as a social unit, for instance by management. Small groups carry out the three functions infour possible modes:

Inception (choice and acceptance of goal); a group working well quickly starts upwork, and easily generate new ideas and plans.

Problem solving , a good group efficiently finds the preferred means and methods.Also involves staffing, and role issues.

Conflict resolution , conflicting views or interests need to be resolved, for instancein work assignments and preference resolution.

Execution (implementing the solution to reach the goal), possibly done incompetition or against common knowledge.

The four modes are concurrently active, but focus shifts depending on knowledge level,type of task, group preferences, available technology, and other changes in contexts. Thegroup may be in different modes in the three different activities mentioned above. It couldbe problem-solving in the production function, and engaged in conflict resolution, groupwell-being and member support.

The activities above are by no means static. There are continuous processes of coordinationand synchronization within the group and between the group and its social environment.Also, the group evolves over time when members get to know each other and establishroutines and norms. To further complicate matters people belong to many groups.

A social interaction can be characterized in at least two dimensions, space and time, asshown in Table 2. Asynchronous and synchronous interaction addresses whether theinteraction is happening in real time, or if it is delayed. Not many people visit the site of analready finished competition where the winners have already drunk the champagne.

Synchronous(Same time)

Asynchronous(Different time)

Same place Face to face(quite common)

Messages on therefrigerator

Differentplace

Information about aclosing airport gate.

Electronic mail, Book

Table 2 Computer supported group work, spatial and temporal view


30/52

2010-09-08


The most difficult cell in the table to support, from a technical point of view, is thesynchronous/different place combination. A network is needed with enough capacity totransport the information, and the delay must be kept within the hundred millisecondsrange. This delay includes all processing of data by the computer, which can be substantialfor instance in a videoconference. Given more time, i.e. the asynchronous applications inthe table, the demand on the technology is not as severe, but transporting a video mail isstill a problem since the amount of data is quite large.

One vision for the use of information technology was that is should be possible to workanywhere and anytime, most notably from home. So far this vision has not been fulfilled. Itseems that much work is necessary to do within a specific time slot and depends onresources at a specific location. You need to unlock the door for the plumber, your car havebe driven to service, and if your son plays a game of soccer he might want you to give hima lift to the game.

A slight variation of interactions of type different place isindirect interactions wherethere is no possibility for the receiver to affect the sender of the message, i.e. no returnchannel. We take the most popular brand of some product, i.e. asynchronous interaction,and if we are in a hurry we try to find a clear path through a crowd, which is an example of synchronous indirect interaction with the crowd.

We get a different perspective on computer supported group work if we replace place(Same, Different) in Table 1 with the objects involved in the collaboration (Artefact,Participant).

Synchronous(Same time)

Asynchronous(Different time)

Artefact What is happening tothe artefact?

What has happened, or willhappen, why, when and howdid it happen?

Participant Who are around andwhat are they doing?

Who has done what and whoare going to do what?

Table 3 Computer supported group work participants and temporal aspects.

Table 3 illustrates some possibilities for a computer supported group work application. Letus as an illustration briefly discuss notes, i.e. artefacts supporting asynchronous andsynchronous interaction. Technology is constantly inventing new ways of stickinginformation to a place for others to find at some other time. Less sophisticated is spray-painted graffiti and almost magical are electronic notes, where a physical reference helpsthe users browser to find the right web page with local information. The information


31/52

2010-09-08


supplied by the notes could assist in way-finding, or display historical events. It mightdescribe some interesting aspect of the local context, or be left as a message to a specificperson passing by, i.e. to fulfil some social function. Passing notes in the classroom is oneway to send private messages and technology could provide students with a wirelesselectronic equivalence.

Rather than just providing a location, a more general awareness mechanism could support(or disrupt current) routines for the participants. In the case of a family it could be used tofind out how many will come to dinner. The new information means that the service canproduce new routines and as these are adopted even more will emerge. One example is thatif location information indicates that if the mother is still at work at the time of dinner thefamily should start eating. There is no need for a phone call, from either the family or themother and both sides know that the other side knows this.

Humans are embedded in social information and many decisions are taken using it. Someexamples are, buying a house in the right neighbourhood, having the right, tight jeans, notchoosing a restaurant that is empty, shopping at certain times just to enjoy watching otherpeople, or the opposite, shop when no one else does. Compared to this wealth of information available in real lifewe are socially blind in the digital world (Carroll).

5.1 Managing the networkOne example of a technology evolving in the home is the local area network. Tolmie et alstudied the procedures in the home supporting a network and noted the following (Tolmie);

Even wireless equipment needs access to power, and consequently needs wiring. Users position things in such a way that the connections between things and the

activities they engage in are transparent to household members. Thus, the placementof digital stuff is framed by established routines in the home and concerned withmaintaining an appropriate relationship to those routines. For example, places wherepeople used to do written work (e.g., the kitchen table) become places where theyalso sit to do writing on their laptops..

Tidying up, e.g. hiding wires is a problem solved in different ways by households.Wires could be hidden or there could be routines to hide them when needed.

There is a substantial amount of work needed to manage a network. Because technologydevelops so fast one problem is to ensure a stable system that does not need continuousmaintenance, and that can be upgraded in a predictive way. This means understanding thenetwork and having the means to inspect it and the devices connected to it. It also includes,as Tolmie writes; representing the various devices constitutive of the home network, butalso the services, user accounts, applications, and traffic that inhabit the home network inuse. (Tolmie). Operating systems need updating, backups done, the format of films andphotographs changed. There are also new devices that need to be merged to the networksuch as the mobile phone and the internet radio.


32/52

2010-09-08


Not only must the technological aspects of the networked be managed. There are also socialaspects that need to be managed. Typically the task of maintaining the network is done byparticular individuals. What does this mean in the power structure of the home? There arealso other issues here, who is for instance given access to what, when?

The audio/video (A/V) network also presents problems similar to the computer networkalthough it seemed to be the home computer network that generated the worst difficulties.(Grinter). An interesting observation is that the A/V network is owned by all, but thatcomputers belong to individuals (Grinter). Whether this will be true also when there are alot of computational devices ready at hand is not clear. The difference in ownership affectsalso such things as sharing music and photographs on computers.

As of now data and media networks are converging. Doing this at home is still not easy andin many homes there are several A/V networks as well as separate sources, i.e. several TVsets, radios, stereos, from different stages of technology development and supportingdifferent standards. Merging the networks is often (preferably) done using wirelesstechnologies and as a side effect of this it is difficult, or even impossible, to see andunderstand what equipment that are connected to the net and accessible. This shortdiscussion of managing the A/V and computer networks naturally brings us to our nexttopic, media in the context of the home and the family.

6. Media at home According to wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn a medium is:

a means or instrumentality for storing or communicating information the surrounding environment; "fish require an aqueous medium" an intervening substance through which signals can travel as a means for

communication (usually plural) transmissions that are disseminated widely to the public

Mass media has been with us for quite a while. One example is that theBritishBroadcasting company (BBC) was established in 1922. This means; not only that the

supply of broadcasting facilities preceded the demand; it is that the means of communication preceded their content (Scannell p141). As time went by media hasdeveloped; Reality changes; to rep

google home vs 3 89

Documents