joseph 'jofish' kaye et. al. minimal intimate objects minimal intimate objects: open for...

Joseph 'Jofish' Kaye et. al.Joseph 'Jofish' Kaye et. al.Minimal Intimate ObjectsMinimal Intimate Objects

Minimal Intimate Objects: Open for

Interpretation

Open Systems – Open STSCornell University19 February 2005


Doing S&TS in Information Science, or

Doing Information Science in S&TS

• Importance of building solutions, not identifying problems

• Emphasis on reflective design: designs that encourage both the user and the designer to consider their assumptions


Minimal Intimate Objects

Is it possible to communicate something as complicated as

intimacy over a one-bit communication device?


Prototypes

• MinIO (Minimal Intimate Object):• Computer built inside

an Altoids mints container with a button and a large red LED (light).

• Connected to partner via Internet

• When button is pushed, partner’s light glows bright red, then fades over time


Prototypes

• VIO (Virtual Intimate Object):

• Software device represented as a small red circle in the taskbar of Window’s screen

• When circle is clicked, partner’s circle glows bright red, then fades over time


Focus: VIO

• In this talk, and in the paper, we are focusing on the use of the VIO. All results and statistics are for couples using the VIO, not the MinIO.

• This is due to a combination of technical problems with the MinIOs (getting network connections) and participant dropout.


Methodology: Participants

• Participants– 10 couples in existing long-distance

relationships (n=20)•5 couples assigned to VIO (n=10)•5 couples assigned to MinIO (n=10)


Methodology: Procedure• Procedure

– Initial screening for technology– Pre-test questionnaire– Daily Logbook for 7 days– Post-test questionnaire– Server logs of every use of IO


Server Data

• When a VIO is in use, it checks in with the server every ten seconds, which is logged.

• The server logs every time a button is pressed.

• From this we can answer questions like “How many times a day did the local partner in couple 5 press the button? The remote partner?”


Methodology: Logbook• Some question the same every day:

– I think I pressed the button ___ times– I think my partner pressed the button ___

times– Likert scales:

• Questions about relationship; questions about VIO

– Explain one of your answers to the Likert scale questions

• Some questions new every day:– I would name my VIO…– Draw a picture of your ideal IO– Tell us a better way to do this study


Results

1. Participants used it: 14 to 168 times a day (average 53, SD 65)

2. 75% reported VIO made them feel closer to their partner during the study.

3. 88% stated it became a regular part of their daily routine.

4. Many participants found it was an unobtrusive way to communicate while at work.


Responses

“When she's online and I'm not distracted by something else, I enjoy seeing VIO red. I feel closer to her.”

“…Sometimes you just don’t have time to talk and its nice to have something to know you’re still in your lover’s thoughts, especially in long-distance relationships.”

“When I see my VIO light up it makes me happy cause I know [my boyfriend] is thinking about me.”


Not everyone’s happy…

• Clicking can feel like an obligation (only 37.5%)– “It seemed more like an obligation because I

would get yelled at by my partner if I didn't press it some days.”

– This confirms our hypothesis that couples using the VIO functions as a two-person gift economy: when giving a gift, there is an expectation of return.

• 67% reported it “fell short of their initial expectations”


Theory: Clicks as Gifts

• Taylor & Harper (2002). Age-old practices in the 'New World': A study of gift-giving between teenage mobile phone CHI 2002.

• Teenagers' use of text messages function as a gift economy, after Mauss (1923).

• We found similar hallmarks: obligation; reciprocity, competition


Theory: Presence

• Presence and activity awareness• ...ambient virtual co-presence, or

‘ambient accessibility’, defining “a space of peripheral background presence that is midway between direct interaction and non-interaction.”

• Ito, M. and Okabe, D. Technosocial Situations: Emergent Structurings of Mobile Email Use. in Personal, Portable Intimate: Mobile Phones in Japanese Life. M. Ito, M. Matsuda, D. Oakabe, (eds.). MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 2005.


Conclusion: Dynamic Interpretation

• Original hypothesis: couples would agree meanings for (deliberately) underspecified interaction

• It turns out meanings change dynamically: a site for competition, presence and activity awareness, establishing co-presence, gateway for richer interaction.


Situated Intimate Objects

• Lucy Suchman, Plans & Situated Actions (1997)

• Requested changes to VIO (from users)– Let users add sounds of their choice– Decrease perceived response time– Let users pick own schedule for color

change– Let users define own colors

• So: sounds & timing– First click of the morning – plays our song– In the middle of clickwars? Short tap.


Thank you!

• Joseph 'Jofish' Kaye, Mariah K. Levitt, Jeffrey Nevins, Jessica Golden and Vanessa Schmidt. Communicating Intimacy One Bit At A Time. Proceedings of CHI 2005.

Joseph 'Jofish' Kaye

Culturally Embedded Computing Group

Cornell Information Science

http://www.infosci.cornell.edu/cemcom

[email protected]

joseph 'jofish' kaye et. al. minimal intimate objects minimal intimate objects: open for...

Documents