1 / 38

Ubi ubi ubicomp comp

Ubi ubi ubicomp comp. Thu Mar 8 Evaluation. Issues for Personalizing Shared Pervasive Devices. by Jonathan Trevor et al. “shared” devices. Same for everyone. “shared” devices. Home TVs Stereos Kitchen appliances Workplace Copiers Fax Machines Projectors. “shared” devices.

justin-rojas
Download Presentation

Ubi ubi ubicomp comp

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. Ubi ubi ubicomp comp Thu Mar 8 Evaluation

  2. Issues for Personalizing Shared Pervasive Devices • by Jonathan Trevor et al

  3. “shared” devices Same for everyone

  4. “shared” devices Home • TVs • Stereos • Kitchen appliances Workplace • Copiers • Fax Machines • Projectors

  5. “shared” devices • World Wide Web?

  6. “shared” devices • Personalization/targeting on the web = “unshared” device?

  7. “shared” devices Web personalization • Friendlier? • More efficient? • Profitable!

  8. “shared” devices Domain? • Internet

  9. “shared” devices Other domains?

  10. Authors’ hope • Personalize “shared” devices

  11. Contributions of this paper • Comparative prototypes • Novel personalization system proposal • Lessons learned

  12. Personalization • Emacs • “teleporting” • iCrafter iRoom • BMW 7 Series

  13. Personalization • http://mybrew.topcities.com

  14. Personal Ubiquitous Systems • Ubicomp vs. “Shared” devices

  15. Personal Ubiquitous Systems • Embedded Design Approach • Integrate personalization with an already existing interface/device • Portable Design Approach • Personal interface for mobile devices • Which one? • Comparative evaluation time!

  16. Personal Ubiquitous Systems • Embedded Design Approach • Integrate personalization with an already existing interface/device • Portable Design Approach • Personal interface for mobile devices • Is that all?

  17. Comparative Evaluation • Design with alternative • Vary deployment situations • Compare and contrast

  18. Personal Interaction Points (PIPs) • System for shared pervasive devices • “smart” access • Information cloud

  19. Testing testing • Podium PC • Brainstorming plasma • MFD

  20. Personalization Design • Idetifying users • Learning and remembering • Creating personalized UI

  21. PIPs Architecture • Web-based

  22. PIPs Architecture • Web-based

  23. Embedded vs. Portable • Direct access w/ peripherals Vs. • “Remote control”

  24. PIPs • A success! • PIPcidents • Usability decreases with portability • Lazy people prefer to be lazy • Availability increases with portability • May be untrustworthy • Portable = private

  25. PIPs

  26. PIPs

  27. PIPs • Usability and availabilty • Varied based on design • Utility and privacy • Varied based on design and situation

  28. Back to the future:comparative prototyping • Designing for use • Designing for evaluation

  29. Everyday Encounters with Context-Aware Computing in a Campus Environment • by Louise Barkhuus and Paul Dourish

  30. Ubicomp motivation • Expand computers beyond desktop confines • But it’s dangerous out there!

  31. Ubicomp motivation • Expand ubicomp beyond academic confines • Time for the real world, ubi!

  32. If you don’t know, now you know Institutional analysis ‘meso-level’ approach | V Ethnomethodology –----------Marxist analysis

  33. Taking it to the real world! • “Given that many ubiquitous computing technologies are developed, deployed, and evaluated in university settings, our particular institutional concern is with student life on a university campus and how these institutional arrangements manifest themselves for students day-to-day.”

  34. Taking it to the real world! • “There are many reasons to expect that campus environments are ideal for the development, deployment, and testing of ubiquitous computing technologies. Clearly, many technologies are developed in university research, and campus environments are therefore convenient.”

  35. Ubicomp “in practice” • Active Campus • diet monitor • Aware campus

  36. To be used ubiquitously • Active Campus • Active class • Support classroom teaching • Questions • Polls • Ratings

  37. Adoption • Why teens?

  38. “When does location manifest itself as a practical problem for students?”

More Related