Incorporating Social Contribution Features in M-Urgency

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