Keywords:

Groupware design and usability; workspace awareness; Social Communication - Informal Communication

• Tagged
• XML
• BibTex

Keywords:

Privacy - Mynatt

Abstract:

Privacy is a known issue in ubiquitous computing, exasperated by an oft-cited feature of ubiquitous computing - invisibility. Dangers of invisible computing are interfaces that do not give people the needed tools of awareness and control to understand and shape the behavior of the system. By definition, ubiquitous computing systems are socio-technical, encompassing three environments: social, technical, and physical. We argue that addressing or presenting solutions in any one environment alone cannot solve the privacy issue in ubiquitous computing. Privacy is addressed best by giving users methods, mechanisms, and interfaces to understand and then shape the system in all three environments. We introduce Privacy Mirrors, a framework for designing socio-technical ubiquitous computing systems that will integrate into people's on-going needs, practices, values, and aesthetic sensibilities.

Notes:

TY - GEN RP - NOT IN FILE M1 - Everyday Computing Lab College of Computing and GVU Center

• Tagged
• XML
• BibTex

Keywords:

Awareness Systems

• Tagged
• XML
• BibTex

Keywords:

Awareness Systems

• Tagged
• XML
• BibTex

Keywords:

Awareness Systems

• Tagged
• XML
• BibTex

Keywords:

internet; multimedia applications; privacy trust; ubiquitous computing; grounded theory; Privacy - Anne Adams

Abstract:

Many users are not aware of the potential privacy implications of ubiquitous multimedia applications. Decision-makers are often reluctant to raise users’ awareness, since this may open a ‘can of worms’ and deter potential users. We conducted an opportunistic study after video-conferencing developers placed a camera in the common room of their university department, broadcasting the video on the Internet. The email debate following the common room users ‘discovery’ of the camera’s existence was analysed as well as 47 anonymous questionnaire responses. Three distinct types of responses were identified, varying with the media type (audio vs. video) transmitted and scope of distribution (local vs. global). The groups also differ in their perception of the common room situation (public vs. private) and the degree of control exerted by observers and those observed. We conclude that privacy implications of ubiquitous multimedia applications must be made explicit. Users who discover privacy implication retrospectively are likely to respond in an emotive manner, reject the technology, and lose trust in those responsible for it

Notes:

Social interactions: · Sense of place rather than physical characteristics of spaces · Presentation of the self within a perceived situation · User need social cues about type of situation in which they find themselves (private/public) and the types of appropriate behavior.

• Tagged
• XML
• BibTex

Keywords:

CMC; domestic technologies; residential technologies; media spaces; audio spaces; shared whiteboards; awareness; ambient displays; internet appliances; design guidelines; aesthetics; consumers; homes; computer-human interaction; Social Communication

Abstract:

The Casablanca project explored how media space concepts could be incorporated into households and family life. Thiseffort included prototypes built for the researchers’ own home use, field studies of households, and consumer testingof design concepts. A number of previously unreported consumer preferences and concerns were uncovered and incorporated into several original prototypes, most notably ScanBoard and the Intentional Presence Lamp. Casablanca also resulted in conclusions about designing household social communication devices.

• Tagged
• XML
• BibTex

Keywords:

privacy; multimedia communications; grounded theory; trust; user centred design; Privacy - Anne Adams

Abstract:

As the use of ubiquitous multimedia communication increases so do the privacy risks associated with widespread accessibility and utilisation of data generated by such applications. Most invasions of privacy are not intentional but due to designers inability to anticipate how this data could be used, by whom, and how this might affect users. This paper addresses the problem by providing a model of user perceptions of privacy in multimedia environments. The model has been derived from an analysis of empirical studies conducted by the authors and other researchers and aids designers to determine which information users regard as private, and in which context. It also identifies trade-offs that users are willing to make rendering some privacy risks acceptable. To demonstrate how this model can be used to assess the privacy implications of multimedia communications in a specific context, an example of the models application for a specific usage scenario is provided.

Notes:

Influences of what users are prepared to reveal about themselves: · Organizational culture · Perceptions of the situation Model of how user perceives privacy: · Which info users regard as private · From whom · In which context · Trade-off between potential risks and benefits Privacy model factors and assumptions: · Information Sensitivity · Information Receiver · Information Usage Privacy Invasion Cycle · Trust: users don’t go into every situation ready to assess the privacy benefits and risks. · Assumptions: based on o User previous knowledge and experiences and their role in the interaction o Perceived Information Sensitivity § Primary (core data being broadcasting; topic of the discussion) and Secondary (social psychological interpretation; body language) Level Information. What context the info was viewed in, how it was used and who viewed it. § Situation: user’s notion of place o Perceived Information Receiver o Perceived Information Usage § Task § Recording awareness § Repeated viewing § Context § Editing § Risk/benefits trade-offs o Perceived Context of Interaction § Technology § Social, organizational and national context · Realization and Response · Decreasing Cycle Recommendations: · Briefing Session o Systems details o Interaction details § When they can be viewed and heard § Who the IR is o Recoding details · Interface changes: Information Broadcaster o Data transmission o Interaction Feedback o Recording Feedback · Interface changes: Information Receiver o Contextual feedback o Edited data o Information handling/usage · Policy procedures o Recording permission o Changed usage o Editing o Continued privacy evaluation References: · Adams, A. (1999) Users’ Perception of Privacy in Multimedia Communication, in M.W. Altom & M.G.Williams (eds.), Companion Proceedings of CHI’99, ACM Press, 53-4 · Belloti, V. (1996). What you don’t know can hurt you: privacy in collaborative computing, in A. Sasse, R.J. Cunningham & R. Winder (eds.), People and Computers XI (Proceedings HCI’96), 241-61 · Davies, S. (1997), Re-Engineering in Right to Privacy, in P. Agre & M. Rotenberg (eds.), Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape, MIT Press, 143-65 Goffman, E. (1969), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, sec edition, Penguin

• Tagged
• XML
• BibTex

Keywords:

Awareness Systems

• Tagged
• XML
• BibTex

Abstract:

n this paper we look at awareness systems that use mobile and ambient devices for collecting or presenting awareness information and operate within an Ambient Intelligence Environment. Our focus is on Pervasive Awareness Systems (PAS) that mediate awareness with the aim to improve the feeling of being connected. In particular, we concentrate on the challenges that are connected to participation in multiple communities, requiring a continuous balancing between the need to ``keep in touch'' and to reduce interruptions. In the paper, we discuss software agents as a possible solution and identify the different roles that agents can play in reducing interruptions.

• Tagged
• XML
• BibTex