Transcript Lab vs. Field - University of Bath

What can you do in the field
that you can’t do in the lab?
A study of the ‘Tangible Toolbox’
What is the Tangible Toolbox?
• A lightweight component model that allows the
user to manage the introduction and
arrangement of new interactive services and
devices in the home.
• The Tangible Toolbox was developed as part of
the ACCORD project
– The ACCORD project was a 2.5-year project ending
in June 2003, funded under the Disappearing
Computer initiative. Partners were The Swedish
Institute of Computer Science, Nottingham University,
and Acreo. (Swedish Institute of Computer Science,
2008)
Linker Device
• With the Linker Device users can explore the properties of a
physical device in the home and link these with properties of
other physical devices.
• The basic device consists of an iPAQ that talks directly to the
shared data space and a barcode reader that can read
barcodes placed on interactive devices.
Jigsaw Editor
• Tablet-based editor that discovers available ubiquitous
components and presents these to users as ‘jigsaw pieces’
that can be dynamically assembled and reassembled.
An example of ubiquitous computing
facilitated by the Tangible Toolbox
• Three ‘jigsaw pieces’- GroceryAlarm, AddToList and
SMSSend- are established using the Linker Device
and connected via the Jigsaw Editor.
• GroceryAlarm generates names of missing groceries
in the cupboard. It detects groceries moving in and out
and if one is away more than 30 seconds it is said to
be out.
• AddToList adds elements (in this case the missing
groceries) to the list it publishes into the data space.
• SMSSend sends this list as an SMS to a phone
number previously supplied to the Tangible Toolbox.
Architecture and the Tangible Toolbox
“Between the dazzle of a new building and
its eventual corpse… lies the
unappreciated, undocumented, awkwardseeming time when it was alive to
evolution… those are the best years, the
time when the building can engage us at
our own level of complexity.” (Brand, 1994)
Architecture and the Tangible Toolbox
• Stewart Brand’s ‘Six S’s’:
–
–
–
–
–
Site: where the home is situated.
Structure: the architectural skeleton of a home.
Skin: the cladding of a home, e.g. brick, wood.
Services: water, electricity, waste, etc.
Space-plan: the interior layout of the home, including walls,
doors, cupboards, shelves, etc.
– Stuff: mobilia or artefacts that are located within the Spaceplan.
• The Tangible Toolbox was developed with a specific
focus on the interplay between the Space-plan and
Stuff in terms of human interaction.
Principles of product development
• Can the potential end-user:
– See the sense of the technology?
– Recognise the relevance of the technology to
practical activities and practical circumstances?
– Determine ways in which the technology might be
appropriated?
Development of the Tangible Toolbox:
Phase 1
• The functional relationship between the Spaceplan and the Stuff of the home was theorised
firstly by considering the results of a number of
ethnographic studies.
• Several ethnographic studies conducted in
domestic environments have emphasized the
importance of the spatial and temporal nature of
technology use in the home.
• The Space-plan and Stuff are ‘organizational
features’ of interaction.
Development of the Tangible Toolbox:
Phase 1
• Ecological Habitats are places where artefacts and
media live and where household members go to
locate particular resources. (e.g. desks)
• Activity Centres are places where artefacts and
media are manipulated and where information is
transformed. (e.g. sofas)
• Coordinate Displays are places where media are
displayed and made available to residents to
coordinate their activities. (e.g. notice boards)
• While discrete, these places often overlap, assuming
different functions at different times.
• The interaction and interplay of the Space-plan and the Stuff
of the home relies upon the assembly and manipulation of
artefacts and media at various functional sites.
Development of the Tangible Toolbox:
Phase 1
“While new homes may eventually be purpose-built for
smart applications, existing homes are not designed
as such. Perhaps homeowners may decide to
‘upgrade’ their homes to support these new
technologies. But it seems more likely that new
technologies will be brought piecemeal into the home;
unlike the ‘lab houses’ that serve as experiments in
domestic technology today these homes are not
custom designed from the start to accommodate and
integrate these technologies.” (Edwards and Grinter,
2001)
– These real world constraints make it necessary for
us to complement lab-based research and consider
how users might bring ubiquitous computing into
the home in the ‘piecemeal’ fashion predicted.
Development of the Tangible Toolbox:
Phase 2
• Mock up sessions: exploratory studies
conducted in lab houses, in which researchers
and participants engage in mutual learning and
collaborative prototype development.
• Mock ups were guided by the ethnographic
data and architectural concepts derived during
Phase 1 of product development.
Sample data from a mock up session
Bill: I might want to see who’s coming to the house during the day while I’m
at work. So I might want to have this (picks up a blank jigsaw piece) as a
doorbell, yes?
Jack: Yes (sketches a Doorbell icon on the blank piece). And when the
doorbell is activated it links to?
Bill: A video camera or webcam or something like that.
Jack: Yes a camera, good idea (takes another blank paper jigsaw piece and
sketches a Webcam icon).
Bill: Even better. If we have that (points to the newly sketched Webcam
icon) and the doorbell rings, OK? Then the image from the webcam goes to
Jack: A web page? (Jack places jigsaw piece showing WebToText icon next
to jigsaw pieces bearing sketches of Doorbell and Webcam).
Bill: Or even a picture text message. I suppose you could have a picture
flashed up on my mobile (points to his Sony Eriksson T300 and then
replaces the WebToText piece with the SMSRecieve piece) and that shows
me just who’s at the door!
Jack: So you’d have an image of who and how many people have been to
your home.
Bill: Yeah.
Development of the Tangible Toolbox:
Phase 2
• Lab-based mock up sessions guided the outlining of
an initial editor based on the assembly of puzzle
pieces. Issues addressed at this stage included:
– Difficulties understanding icons on the puzzle pieces.
– Suggestions for improving feedback from activating services
or connections; such as audio feedback when actions are
generated or error sound when someone tries to join two
incompatible pieces together.
– Suggestions for default and ready-made macros to choose
from, perhaps borrowing/importing macros from friends or
neighbours.
Development of the Tangible Toolbox:
Phase 3
• The third phase of product development
sought to bring research efforts back into
the real world domestic environment.
• paper mock ups allowed users to explore
both the assembly of components and the
identification of new components.
• Semi-structured interviews
Contribution of Theory
• Architectural theory compounded with
ethnographic research in order to firmly
establish the relationship between Spaceplan and Stuff in the domestic setting.
• The concept of interplay between Spaceplan and Stuff provided the initial direction
and rationale for the Tangible Toolbox
project.
Contribution of Laboratory Studies
• Provided researchers with the opportunity to
engage in mutual learning with participants
through controlled mock up scenarios.
• By establishing pre-arranged scenarios,
researchers were able to quickly evaluate the
functionality of the Tangible Toolbox in a variety
of situations which may never arise in a
particular uncontrolled domestic environment.
Contribution of Field Studies
• Grounded the development of the Tangible
Toolbox firmly in the real-world domestic
environment.
• Provided a point of covalence between theory
and domestic technology use which facilitated
more focused lab-based approaches to
prototype development.
• Provided the opportunity to observe the efficacy
of laboratory-informed development decisions
in an uncontrolled environment.
Summary
• The purpose of the three phase approach of study
was to develop an understanding of the social
character of technology use from a ‘naturalistic’
perspective.
• During phase 1, theoretical and ethnographic sources
constituted the foundations of the Tangible Toolbox
project.
• Phase 2 saw research move into a laboratory-like
setting in order to focus research towards practical
product development.
• Phase 3 saw research move back into a naturalistic
setting in order to ecologically validate the findings of
lab-house mock ups.
References
• Brand, S. (1994) How Buildings Learn, New York: Viking
• Crabtree, A. (2003) Designing Collaborative Systems: A
Practical Guide to Ethnography, London: Springer
• Edwards, K. and Grinter, R. (2001) “At home with ubiquitous
computing: seven challenges”, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 256272, Atlanta, Georgia: Springer
• Hansson, P., Humble, J. and Koleva, B. (2002) Accord
Deliverable D3.2: Understanding and Using the Tangible
Toolbox
• Humble, J. et al (2003) “’Playing with your bits’: usercomposition of ubiquitous domestic environments”,
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Ubiquitous
Computing, pp. 256-263, Seattle: Springer
• Rodden et al (2003) Accord Deliverable D3.3: Study of the use
of the Tangible Toolbox