Social Issues of Setting and Context in ‘Real-life’ Ubicomp Tom Hope, Takuichi Nishimura, Yutaka Matsuo Information Technology Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, 241-6 Aomi, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135-0064 Japan
[email protected]
Introduction Ubiquitous computing has, in its development as a field, held onto an assumption of the potential ability for technologies to ‘disappear’ into ‘everyday life.’[1] Yet this aim has rarely been achieved by researchers, due in part to the emphasis “placed on demonstrating theoretical principles from computer science and the capabilities of new ubiquitous technologies.”[2] This paper explores some of the issues, primarily the problem of ‘context’, that accompany extending the reach of ubiquitous computing out of the lab or demonstration space and into the ‘real-world’, via an initial analysis of observations from one such exercise, a conference information support system used at the JSAI 2005 annual conference1. Overview of the System The system in place at JSAI 2005, named the Event Space Information Support System (hereafter ESISS), is a heterogeneous technology designed to enable users more easily and enjoyably find relevant information of conference sessions and participants2. This includes the location, start time and number of participants in sessions. This information is bound together via a core social network system, which enables users to view their research network before the conference, and build it further at the conference venue via the use of IC cards given to all authors and co-authors. Over the course of the three-day conference, in addition to usage log data, full-day audio and video data was collected of users interacting with the system at ‘kiosks’, both individually and in small groups. The system allows two people to login simultaneously and see their combined social network on one public screen, in addition to viewing and entering sessions previously attended (Fig.1). This action between users therefore has to be coordinated, both technically (via the use of unique numbers in each IC card) and socially, between users.
Fig. 1. The Event Space Information Support System [3]
ESISS is an example of recent attempts to combine multiple technologies into one integrated system, and as such, while not yet ‘ubiquitous’ in the strict sense (i.e. not yet ‘invisible’), it moves towards this, in that it 1 2
JSAI 2005 Annual Conference, June 15-17 2005, Kitakyushu, Japan ESISS is a system developed by the Event Space Information Support Group Project. The following is only a very brief summary of some of its characteristics. More detailed information (in Japanese) can be found online at
seeks to be flexible enough to become a commonplace conference system, integrated with the conference site. After registering to the conference, software gathers data from the world-wide-web on joint research papers, presentations, collaborations and affiliations, to generate social network diagrams that illustrate connections between conference registrants. Dey [4] has defined a ‘context-aware’ system as one that “uses context to provide relevant information and/or services to the user, where relevancy depends on the user’s task.” ESISS, according to this definition, is context-aware in the sense that the user’s social network affects the information given to them about various conference sessions and other users, and users are given appropriate information depending on the page they choose and who is logged into the system with them. Though clearly a conference is a unique type of setting, the system, within this space may be placed tentatively in an ‘everyday computing’ frame [5], as it aims to become a valuable and normal part of conference experience. Due to limits of space, here we focus on only one issue that could be seen in the video data: logging into the system with the IC card given to participants of the conference.
Local Context: The Setting Weiser writes, “whenever people learn something sufficiently well, they cease to be aware of it”[6]. This image of invisible technology is appropriate for stable, relatively permanent technologies, but what of temporary computing environments? Conference systems are in place only during the event, leaving very little time for a lengthy learning process and may actually disrupt information flow [7]. However, learning does take place. At JSAI2005 many participants experienced problems when first attempting to log into the system. The trouble revolved around how long to hold the IC card over the reader; clearly many people did not know that removing the card would log them out, but the system requires the card to remain on the reader for the entire length of the user’s session. After repeated attempts, some recognized the issue, and over the next hours many taught other users. The conference space, with an interactive multiple-user system, proved effective in providing a setting where a learning community could quickly form.
Fig. 2. Using the ESISS kiosk
This technology did not stand alone, however. ESISS staffs were on hand to provide information, in addition to maintaining the hardware and software. In fact, much of this learning and teaching took place between participants who were acquainted with ESISS staff. These members who could pass on skills between the staff and other participants, acted as ‘brokers’ [8], calling on staff members to aid their acquaintances. We can understand their function if we conceive of the staff and other users as two types of communities. The practice of the members of these communities were obviously dissimilar in many respects, their discussions differed in addition to their actions at the kiosks, and the brokers – conference participants who were able to venture across the two communities – could bring members from each group together. The actions of all those who logged into the kiosk were recorded and viewable on the system’s action-log pages; thus user’s actions were accountable to other users in a very real sense, and the literal joining of members of each community could be seen via the developing social networks.
Clearly, this has implications for interactive design. The differing community practices (and perhaps aims) of conference participants was reflected in their action within the local setting. Staff members would often log in and out very quickly, viewing different pages apparently to check the stability of the system. Other conference members would often stand viewing the screen without logging in for long periods, or would log in and view the social network only. ESISS should be developed to understand this contextual information and give relevant feedback, yet the difficulty remains as to what information in the local context would be required for this.
Broader Context: Community The role of context in ubiquitous computing is quite clearly one of enabling technology to more closely meet the needs of users and, in social terms, has been explored influentially by Lucy Suchman in Plans and Situated Actions [9]. But while situated action has been taken up by HCI and UbiComp communities, the ‘plans’ that she writes about have been somewhat forgotten. While Harold Garfinkel, the founder of ethnomethodology [10] (from which Suchman’s work is heavily inspired), warned against presuming individuals are ‘cultural dopes,’ he did not call for researchers to ignore potential influences from prior to the event under study. As such, context, redefined, or rather remembered as in earlier social science, could play a significant role in shaping development of technologies. Dey and Abowd provide a definition of context in ubiquitous computing: “Context is any information that can be used to characterize the situation of an entity. An entity is a person, place, or object that is considered relevant to the interaction between a user and an application, including the user and applications themselves” [11]. While this reflects accurately what researchers in HCI and UbiComp have termed ‘social context’, that term has been used to direct design towards the (seemingly homogeneous) ‘social group’ in the local context [12]. The move to abolish assumed contextual information from recent social research might blind us to opportunities of understanding action within settings. At the conference, for example, the behavior of holding the IC card over a reader only momentarily may be accounted for by recognizing that the action is very similar to the use of other IC card readers in Japan; in shops and train stations. While ‘nationality’ may not be a fashionable term to use in contemporary social science, at the very least recognition of already existent ubiquitous technologies in users’ localities could be done during development and design. Should this information be given to the system, the ‘entity’ (in this case, person) can be better processed. Collaborative learning of the system, too, may be better understood if the contextual information of users, in this case the members of a well-established Japanese system of seniority, is brought into the analysis. The teaching and learning of ESISS that took place was shaped, in part, by the access to the IC card readers, which was, at times, observably in favor of more senior members of the small communities using the system. Consequently, access to the interface was governed by the context of previous relationships. If the system were to be made aware of this context, perhaps based on the knowledge of the community in the local context gleaned from social network information, more relevant information could be given to users. Clearly, we are some way off from creating systems that can understand comprehensively local contextual information within the knowledge of broader context, but what our research has shown thus far is that the interaction between humans when using real-life technology, such as ESISS, is often ordered around more than the immediately present context. We may call this other information ‘community’ context – the practices and knowledge that transfer between members of communities, which is observable in local settings. The next step will be to develop and use ubiquitous middleware technologies to glean the local contextual information and understand it within broader context. Using information gained via social networks, which is representative of a form of community both outside the local setting and within it, may be one way to move towards this goal.
Summary This paper has attempted to argue how both setting and context must both be combined in the development of real-world ubiquitous computing if the social action of humans and technology is to be understood and
processed, leading to relevant output to the user and ease of user-system interaction. It has pointed to the need to not discount earlier conceptions of context in favor of focusing solely on immediate use in the setting. We plan to explore the redefining of context further in the future and believe that reconsidering wider issues of context may be the key to developing successful ubiquitous computing that truly ‘disappears’.
References 1. Weiser, Mark “The Computer for the 21st Century”, Scientific American, 265(3): 94-104, September (1991) 2. Ubicomp workshop (W7. Situating Ubiquitous Computing in Everyday Life: Bridging the Social and Technical Divide) call for papers, online (last accessed 2005/07/14) 3. Event Space Information Support System, AIST press release, online, (last accessed 2005/07/14) 4. Dey, Anind K “Understanding and Using Context”, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 5:4-7, 2001. 5. Abowd, Gregory D and Mynatt, Elizabeth D, “Charting Past, Present, and Future Research in Ubiquitous Computing”, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 7, No. 1, March 2000, Pages 29–58 6. Weiser, Mark “The Computer for the 21st Century”, Scientific American, 265(3): 94-104, September (1991) 7. Jacobs, Neil and McFarlane, Angela, “Conferences as learning communities: some early lessons in using ‘backchannel’ technologies at an academic conference – distributed intelligence or divided attention? (draft paper) 8. Wenger, Etienne, “Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity”, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998. 9. Suchman, Lucy, A, Plans and Situation Actions: The problem of human-machine communication, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987. 10. Garfinkel, Harold, Studies in Ethnomethodology, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1967. 11. Dey, Anind K and Abowd, Gregory D. “Towards a Better Understanding of Context and Context-Awareness”, Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) Journal, Volume 16 (2-4), 2001, pp. 97-166. 12. Tang, John C, “Ubiquitous computing: Individual productivity at the expense of social good?”, First International Workshop on Social Implications of Ubiquitous Computing, CHI 2005 Conference, online (last accessed 2005/08/07)
This research has been supported by NEDO (New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization) as the project ID of 04A11502a.
