Cloud4all User Forum and Focus group

1. Cloud4all User Forum and Focus group 30/08/2012 in Berlin Vivien Melcher, Daniel Ziegler FhG IAO

2. Main objective Use case validation: • Discussion and validation of the basic user profiles Requirement analysis: • Gathering requirements regarding profile initialisationand the Profile Management Tool • Validation of first FhG concepts

3. Agenda and objectives

4. Agenda and objectives • Cloud4all approach • What kind of user groups can benefit from Cloud4all? • What problems do the users have when accessing ICT?  results are included within ID502.1 • Self-adapting systems • Gathering requirements for UI adaptation and auto-configuration • Which interaction modalities need to be considered?

5. Agenda and objectives • Presentation of use cases 1/2 • Users creating their Preferences for the first time: who sets up the profile -the caregiver or the user? How should the profile be set up? • Users looking at their Preferences and changing them: Should the profile be available on all end devices? What about public devices? Are changes to the profile made directly at the end device or could the users imagine to use a second device for editing the profile? • Advanced management of Preferences: What kind of advanced functionalities are required? How important are privacy settings?

6. Agenda and objectives • Presentation of use cases 2/2 • Sharing your Set of Preferences with other peers: What kind of use cases could be imagined for sharing profile settings? In which extend would user share settings? • User login/ Recognition of users: • Getting your Preferences from the server – or USB – or Phone: Where should the settings preferably be stored – server, mobile phone, USB storage medium?

7. Agenda and objectives • Profile Management Tool • How are the profiles set up- select from pre-defined profiles, stepwise selection of options, parameters, ...? • Would the users do profile initialisation at public devices (e.g. Cash point machine)? • How much effort would the users accept for profile initialisation? • How extensive and detailed would users set up their initial profile? • How many complex profiles would userscreate? One main profile. one profile per device group (e.g. “smartphone”) or one profile for each device (e.g. “Tom’s Android”; “Tom’s iPhone”)?

8. Agenda and objectives • Presentation and discussion of the prototypes Persona based prototype vs. ontology based prototype • Focus was on the underlying concept rather than the GUI of the prototypes • Which concept of profile initializationis preferred? • Which forms of interaction should be offered? Prototype for profile management • How should the preference settings be organized within the management tool?

9. Setup • FraunhoferForum Berlin • 8 participants with different disabilities

10. Results • Adapt range of functions of AT (e.g. not every function of a screen-reader is used) • Different levels of speech for captions (e.g. simple speech) • Personalized privacy settings • Automatic adaptation to context variables (e.g. light conditions) • Speech recognition with personal speech profile stored in the cloud (especially for motor impaired) • Auto-configuration/ adaptation

11. Results Who sets up the user profile? • The user him-/ herself (self-determined) • Gargiver as person who sets up the profile are only imaginable for persons with low level of computer litracy How should the profile be set up? • Comparable to an app store: different options for preference settings are offered and can be accepted or rejected • Wizard-dialogue or direct manipulation of settings within the main tool • Two modes (easy, advanced mode) • WYSIWYG – preview of preference adjustments • Simple speech and symbols • Tool should meet accessibility criterias • Profile Management Tool

12. Results Where would the users do profile initialisation? • On a personal device that is already ajusted (manually) to the users needs and preferrences (PC, smartphone). • Is an processing of user profile parameters also imaginable on public devices? • Considerable for adjustment of device specific settings • But rather via smartphone or any other personal mobile device than directly at the public device (near-field communication) • Profile Management Tool

13. Results How should the initial profile creation should be processed? • Selection between wizard and tool • Wizard: Ontology based approach was more accepted than the persona based approach • If the wizard is declined, then the main page of the tool is shown • The user can selct between taking over the device settings as default or to leave the profile blank until the user changes the setting of a parameter • Profile Management Tool

14. Results How much effort should be associated with the creation of the user profile? • Users are willing to invest a lot of effort in the profile compilation, if the outcome provides a high level of accessibility • Users can imagine to generate a first „rough“ profile, that is extendable, as well as to compile a detailed profile in one session • Profile Management Tool

15. Results One default profile , one profile per device class or one profile for every device? • Default profile + conditional preferences (if-then conditions) • General Settings + automatic context related adjustments (environment variables, e.g. sunlight) • Profile Management Tool

16. Results Ontology • Is suitable for people with learning disabilities, but not for blind people, because a lot of unsuitable information has to be read aloud by the screen-reader • preferred way to create a profile • Simple and clear structure is important • Adjustment of settings by sliders or direct input rather than selection of alternatives • Ontology versus Persona

17. Results Persona • Detailed, indirect description of the disability • Personas do not differentiate enough between users and their needs • Additional effort is required to adapt the persona to the users needs • Perhaps suitable for other user groups (e.g. elderly, people with low computer literacy) • Ontology versus Persona

18. Results User suggestions • First the ontology based approach is followed (query of some key parameters). Based on the user‘s selection the matchmaker uses the statistical approach to select the next parameters to be shown and proposes a suitable persona and the corresponding preference settings • If the persona is rejected, additional settings are queried • If a persona is accepted, then the previous made settings are applied to the persona • Ontology versus Persona

19. Results Where are the preference settings edited? • On a personal computer or another personal device • To edit preference settings for remote devices at home is not feasible because it is not estimable which effects the changes have • Focus Group Preference sharing among peers • Useful in selecting suitable software (user forum) • Recommendations should be given, but not too intrusive