1 / 11

Incorporating Social Contribution Features in M-Urgency

Incorporating Social Contribution Features in M-Urgency. Final Project Presentation CMSC 838C: Social Computing by Shivsubramani Krishnamoorthy. Dec 12 th ,2011. M-Urgency. Next-Gen Public Safety System Redefining how emergency calls are made to PSAP

teresa
Download Presentation

Incorporating Social Contribution Features in M-Urgency

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Incorporating Social Contribution Features in M-Urgency Final Project Presentation CMSC 838C: Social Computing by Shivsubramani Krishnamoorthy Dec 12th,2011

  2. M-Urgency • Next-Gen Public Safety System • Redefining how emergency calls are made to PSAP • Audio, Video, real time location and other contextual information • E-911 call (Through SIP) + Video • Real time location – Google map • Personal information + special needs • Three main components • Caller application • Dispatcher application • Responder application

  3. M-Urgency Dispatcher Video Location Audio/Video Flash Media Server Location SIP Call (E-911) Video Audio Location Flash Media Gateway Caller M-Urgency Server • Technologies • Adobe Flash Media Server • Adobe Flash Media Gateway • Adobe Flex Framework • Android (>2.2) & iPhone Responder

  4. Social Contribution How canusers in near vicinity of an incident help? HELP!!!!!!!!!

  5. Social Contribution • Effective in situations: • Immediate assistance • Medical • Mugging/theft • Multiple views • Fire • Accident • Traffic

  6. Experimental Study - Initial • Initial Level Study • How is the idea welcomed? • Informal interview/interaction to understand concerns • People • 6 students • 100% positive response. • No specific concerns • 2 Dispatchers (UMPD) • Welcomed the idea • Bit hesitant in adopting new technologies • UMPD IT personnel • Did not welcome the idea, though appreciated it. • Concerns regarding 911 standards • Security/privacy concerns

  7. Experimental Study - Detailed • Participants • UMPD set up a test group of 38 • UMPD employees and auxiliaries • Students and staff • Design • A provision to opt in • Option to opt in • Very short questionnaire • Though email. • Feedback logging system for every call • Questionnaire

  8. Experimental Study - Results • Opt-in Provision • Description : • <………… • ………… • …………..> • Opt in for social contribution: Yes/No • Willingness: • Always • Depends on the situation • Only if desperate need • Would not risk. • Other – please specify. • Concerns: • Security • Privacy • Benefits • Others – please specify • Opt-in provision • 26 responded • 79% - Always • 11% - Depends on situation • 7% - Would not risk • 1 person - other (disability) • No specific concerns reported • 8 expressed slight concern about privacy • But were comfortable with dispatcher initiating the process

  9. Experimental Study Caller’s Log Initiated a call Overall experience : Pos/Neu/Neg Audio Quality: Video Quality: ...... ….. …. … .. . Invited to the call Situation to accept the call: Good/Bad/Neutral Burden? Yes/No/Neutral Security/Privacy issues? Dispatcher’s Log Usual Questions Overall experience : Pos/Neu/Neg Audio Quality: Video Quality: ...... ….. …. Invited Callers? Callers available in vicinity? Callers accepted call? Callers receptive to questions/tasks? Satisfying answer/tasks? Other issues/ incidents to report? • Participants requested to make at least one call per day (Mon – Thu) • Dispatchers requested to attempt to find another user in vicinity • Simple questions/tasks • Weather/traffic/crowd etc. • Did you see something? • Requesting to meet other caller etc.

  10. Experimental Study - Results • 86 calls received • 16 with other callers in vicinity • 12 answered, 4 ignored • Dispatcher’s log • Callers receptive to questions/tasks – 100% • Satisfying response – 71% • Handling additional users became an overhead – 12% • Other issues (network/audio/video quality)– 26% • Grouping never performed • Caller’s log • Two of them reported that they were busy when invited • Overall feedback positive • No specific negative feedback to highlight • One special incident reported • Actual caller lost connection and second caller reached out.

  11. M-Urgency

More Related