Post on 19-Mar-2018
© Koré Mason 2004 - 1 -
MU303
Is wearable computing an
acceptable form of computing?
By
Koré Mason
Project Advisor – Sohrab Saadat
Presented as part of the requirements for an award within the Undergraduate
Modular Scheme at the University of Gloucestershire.
May 2004
© Koré Mason 2004 - 2 -
Declaration
This project is the product of my own work. I agree that it may be made
available for reference at the discretion of the university of Gloucestershire.
Signed: ________________
Koré Mason
Date ____/____/____
The word count for this p roject report is approximately 10,205 excluding
bibliography and appendices.
Abstract
© Koré Mason 2004 - 3 -
Abstract
This research paper evaluates current acceptance of wearable computing
and identifies and appraises criteria expected to affect acceptance. The
technology acceptance model (TAM) is used to form the framework for
definition of study criteria. Past and present wearable computing research
and development are analysed to explore criteria relating to the acceptability
of wearable computing. Conceptual based device and scenario design are
analysed and used to facilitate a practical study. These factors enable
conclusion with recommendations for design methodology along with
requirements and considerations for future development of wearable
computing.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to extend her thanks to all those who enthusiastically
participated and provided interesting insights in to this study.
Thanks to Kate and Martin for reviewing the report, highlighting topics of
interest and assistance with editing.
Finally, a special thanks for the valuable discussion, enthusiasm,
encouragement and assistance of Sohrab Saadat the project advisor.
Table of Contents
© Koré Mason 2004 - 4 -
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................8
1.1 Problem Statement.........................................................................................8
1.2 Approach to Problem Resolution..................................................................8
1.2.1 Technology Acceptance Model...................................................................9
1.2.3 Criteria .......................................................................................................10
2. Literature Review..............................................................................................12
2.1 Wearable Computing Defined.....................................................................12
2.2 Historical developments in wearable computing ......................................12
2.3 Current research and commercial development ......................................14
2.3.1 Medical ......................................................................................................14
2.3.2 Survival......................................................................................................15
2.3.3 Personal/Consumer ..................................................................................15
2.3.4 Scope ........................................................................................................17
2.5 Research Model Independent Variables ...................................................17
2.5.1 Usefulness - Enhancing Human Abilities .................................................17
2.5.2 Usefulness - Anytime, Anyplace Access..................................................18
2.5.3 Usefulness – Right Information, Right Time, Right Place........................19
2.5.4 Ease of use - Accessibility ........................................................................20
2.5.5 Privacy.......................................................................................................21
2.5.6 Health ........................................................................................................22
3. Methodology.......................................................................................................23
3.1 Data Collection - Instruments......................................................................23
3.1.1 Conceptual Device and Scenario .............................................................23
3.1.2 Questionnaire ............................................................................................23
3.2 Data Collection - Focus Group ...................................................................25
3.2.1 Purpose.....................................................................................................25
3.2.2 Construction ..............................................................................................25
3.2 Subjects/Participants ....................................................................................26
3.3 Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................27
3.3.1 Conceptual Scenario and Questionnaire..................................................27
3.3.2 Focus Group .............................................................................................28
Table of Contents
© Koré Mason 2004 - 5 -
3.4 Method of Data Analysis..............................................................................29
3.4.1 Questionnaire Data Analysis ....................................................................29
3.4.2 Focus Group Data Analysis ......................................................................29
4 Analysis and Discussion of Results .............................................................31
4.1 Attitude Towards Wearable Computing ....................................................31
4.2 Findings Relative to Criteria ........................................................................32
4.2.1 Usefulness.................................................................................................32
4.2.2 Ease of Use...............................................................................................33
4.2.3 Threat to Privacy.......................................................................................34
4.2.4 Threat to Health ........................................................................................35
4.2.5 Attitude and Behavioural Intention............................................................35
4.3 Focus Group Findings ..................................................................................36
4.3.1 Usefulness.................................................................................................36
4.3.2 Ease of use ...............................................................................................40
4.3.3 Privacy.......................................................................................................40
4.3.4 Health ........................................................................................................42
5. Project Conclusion...........................................................................................44
5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................44
5.2 Acceptance of Wearable Computing .........................................................44
5.3 Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Wearable Computing ...................44
5.3.1 Usefulness.................................................................................................44
5.3.2 Ease of Use...............................................................................................45
5.3.3 Threat to Privacy.......................................................................................46
5.3.4 Threat to Health ........................................................................................46
5.3.5 Summary...................................................................................................47
5.4 Recommendations for Further Studies......................................................47
6. Project Critical Review ....................................................................................49
6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................49
6.2 Evaluation of Literature Review..................................................................49
6.3 Evaluation Conceptual Device Design ......................................................50
6.4 Evaluation of Conceptual Scenario Design ..............................................50
6.5 Evaluation Questionnaire Construction.....................................................51
6.6 Evaluation of Focus Group ..........................................................................52
Table of Contents
© Koré Mason 2004 - 6 -
7. Bibliography.......................................................................................................53
8. Appendices.........................................................................................................61
Appendix 1: Conceptual Device ........................................................................61
Appendix 2: Conceptual Scenario - A day in your life, year 2010 ...............63
Appendix 3: Coded Questionnaire....................................................................66
Appendix 4: Online Forums ...............................................................................72
Appendix 5: Focus Group Consent Form ........................................................73
Appendix 6: Focus Group Questions ...............................................................75
Appendix 7: Gant Chart ......................................................................................78
Appendix 8: Demographic Frequency Tables.................................................79
Appendix 9: Questionnaire Data Frequency Tables ......................................81
Appendix 10: University Focus Group Transcription .....................................86
Appendix 11: IBM Focus Group Transcription................................................93
Appendix 12: Quantitative Results................................................................. 113
Appendix 13: Descriptive Statistics ............................................................... 132
Appendix 14: Completed Questionnaire Examples .................................... 133
Table of Figures
© Koré Mason 2004 - 7 -
Table of figures
Figure 1 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (adapted from Davies et
al, 1989)
Figure 2 Research Model
Figure 3 Categorization of attitude score.
Figure 4 Participant age distribution %
Figure 5 Attitude towards wearable computing
1. Introduction
© Koré Mason 2004 - 8 -
1. Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement
Computing evolution has seen transitions from mainframe era computing
rooms, through desktop personal computing, to portable computing with
laptop computers and personal digital assistants (PDAs). In recent years
much scientific and corporate research and development have been
conducted in the area of wearable computing with an aim to developing truly
personal computing. It has been noted (Huang, 2000) that historically a
delicate dynamic between technology and society exists, technology adapts
to society and society adapts to technology. Technology that fails to adapt to
society, or cause society to adapt, perishes. Given these premises and that
significant investment is required in the research and development of
technology, it is valid to analyse (a) whether wearable computing is an
acceptable computing paradigm, (b) what variables effect the acceptance of
wearable computing and (c) whether adaptations are needed in the
development of wearable computing to account for expectations.
1.2 Approach to Problem Resolution
Analyses of factors leading to the acceptance of wearable computing are
done through augmentation of the technology acceptance model (TAM)
(Davis et al, 1989). Current research and development are examined and
used to identify additional TAM variables expected to affect attitude towards
wearable computing. They are also used to develop a conceptual wearable
computing device and scenario, design a focus group aimed at exploring
opinion on wearable computing and identify features of desirable wearable
computers. Desirable wearable computing features are recommended and
possible improvements in the design process aimed at avoidance of
development of inappropriate or unacceptable wearable computing devices.
1. Introduction
© Koré Mason 2004 - 9 -
1.2.1 Technology Acceptance Model
To ensure construct validity, an augmented Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM) is used as the foundation for study.
Developed from the theory of reasoned action (Vijayasarathy, 2003) TAM is a
model that has been widely used for several years in the prediction of
attitudes and behaviours of employees towards the adoption of new
technologies in the workplace (Bruner & Kumar, 2003). As shown in figure 1,
TAM focuses on two main independent variables affecting the acceptance of
technology – ease of use and usefulness.
Fig 1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (adapted from Davies et al, 1989)
Figure 2 shows how the author augments this model, as have other
researchers (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2003; Bruner & Kumar, 2003;
Galletta & Malhotra, 1999; Vijayasarathy, 2003), to create a research model
that includes independent variables, as identified from theories discussed in
the literature review, which are considered to affect the acceptance of
wearable computing: privacy and health risks.
Usefulness
Ease of use
Attitude Behavioural
Intention
1. Introduction
© Koré Mason 2004 - 10 -
Fig 2. Research Model
1.2.3 Criteria
The following criteria are designed to test each independent variable of the
study as outlined in the augmented TAM. Each criterion is judged using
quantitative data collected through the questionnaire and analysis of
qualitative results collected through focus groups. These criteria allow for
appraisal of the validity of the augmentation of TAM and enable evaluation of
variables affecting the acceptance of wearable computing.
C1 Usefulness: Perception of usefulness has a positive correlation with
attitude, as a positive attitude is likely when something is predicted to be
useful.
Usefulness
Ease of use
Privacy
Health Attitude Behavioural
Intention
Dependent variable
Key
Independent variable
1. Introduction
© Koré Mason 2004 - 11 -
C2 Ease of use: Perception of ease to use has a positive correlation with
attitude, due to a positive attitude being likely when something is predicted to
be easy to use.
C3 Threat to privacy: Perception of a threat to privacy has a negative effect
on attitude. When a technology is perceived to threaten privacy a less than
favourable attitude is likely.
C4 Threat to health: Perception of a threat to health has a negative effect
on attitude. Technology perceived as threatening health is likely to be
unacceptable.
C5 Attitude: There is a positive relationship between attitude and
behavioural intention. Desire to use or purchase a technology usually arises
from a positive attitude towards it.
2. Literature Review
© Koré Mason 2004 - 12 -
2. Literature Review
2.1 Wearable Computing Defined
This paper considers wearable computing, as defined by Mann (cited in
Lightman, 2002) to be:
“A computer that is subsumed into the personal space of the user, controlled
by the user and has both operational and inter-actional constancy, i.e., is
always on and always accessible” (p. 159).
Wearable computers are characterised by Mann (cited in Lightman, 2002) as
being unmonopolizing of user’s attention, unrestrictive of the user,
observable by the user, controllable by the user, attentive to the environment,
communicative with other people and devices.
2.2 Historical developments in wearable computing
An overview of historical developments enables understanding of what
wearable computing means today and will evolve into in the future.
As highlighted by Huang (2000) a driving force for wearable computing
development is “human desire for knowledge and convenience” (p. 2). In the
1665 publication of Micrographia Robert Hooke considered that, as glasses
enhance vision likewise, it is possible for sensory augmentation through
mechanical inventions improving hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. In
1700s and early 1900s the pocket and wristwatch respectively became the
first widely used wearable mechanical devices.
2. Literature Review
© Koré Mason 2004 - 13 -
The 1960s saw, Thorpe and Shannon (as cited by Rhodes, n.d.) invent the
first wearable computer designed to predict roulette wheels and Sutherland
invent the first computer-based head mounted display (HMD) (Rheingold,
2002).
The late 1960s and 1970s brought wearable systems that assisted helicopter
pilots in landing in dark and rough terrain (Sutherland, n.d.), Upton’s aid to lip
reading, Collins’ visual aid for the blind and HP’s algebraic calculator watch
(as cited by Rhodes, n.d.).
During the 1980s Steve Mann developed several versions of ‘WearComp’
prototype wearable computers, which augmented reality by combining game
console joysticks, power supplies, audio-video recorders, displays and a
wireless data connection (Rheingold, 2002). Mann spent most of the 1980s
and 1990s in augmented reality through various wearable computers. In
1994, using a wearable computer with wireless communications and viewing
the world through video cameras filtered through computers allowing addition
and subtraction of features, Mann beamed everything he saw to the Internet.
Commercialisation of wearable computer components began in the 1980s
when Reflection Technology sold a HMD named Private Eye.
In 1991 Weiser proposed Ubiquitous Computing, complementary to wearable
computing (Huang, 2000), where everyday objects become ‘smart’ by
containing embedded computing components. In 1993 BBN completed the
Pathfinder system, a wearable computer equipped with radiation detection
and global positioning systems (GPS). The same year Thad Starner began
to continually wear his computer containing his ‘Remembrance Agent’
augmented memory software. It served as memory assistance enabling data
retrieval from databases and a ll computer users who subscribed to an
2. Literature Review
© Koré Mason 2004 - 14 -
intellectual collective known as “the help instance” (Rheingold, 2002, p. 111).
In 1993 Private Eye was used in the development of Knowledge-based
Augmented Reality for Maintenance Assistance (KARMA), which overlaid
machines with wireframe schematics and maintenance instructions. In 1994
Lamming and Flynn developed a context aware personal recording system
called Forget-Me-Not (Lamming and Flynn, 1994).
As noted by Stenton (cited by Cowen, 2001), businesses started using
wearable computers once value-add was perceived through hands-free and
head-free operation for vehicle inspection and inventory management.
2.3 Current research and commercial development
2.3.1 Medical
The ‘Smart Shirt’ wearable has been heralded by LIFE magazine (cited by
Jayaraman, Mackenzie, & Park, 2002) as one of the 21 technological
breakthroughs that could change 21st century living. The two main
beneficiary healthcare areas are healthcare monitoring and aids for people
with certain mental or physical impairments (Huang, 2000).
2.3.1.1 Healthcare Monitoring
Healthcare monitoring systems are being developed by Siemens (2002),
which wirelessly monitor patient conditions and notify clinicians with patients’
exact location if problems arise. Philips (cited in ‘Techno clothing hits the
high street’, 2000; Philips invents intelligent clothing for personal healthcare,
2003) are developing wearables, which could lead to foetal monitoring
maternity wear and clothing that wires the elderly and people with underlying
health problems to warn, assist in diagnosis and monitoring, and trigger local
and remote alarms in the event of an acute medical situation. Such
2. Literature Review
© Koré Mason 2004 - 15 -
monitoring systems could accelerate debate and criticism that technology
centralizes control, diminishes individual responsibility and decreases the
human quality in healthcare relationships (Rosenberg, 1997).
2.3.1.2 Disability Aids
Aids for mentally and physically disabled people include devices which help
deaf-mutes to speak (Pentland, Starner, & Weaver, 1998), assist memory
(Rhodes, 2000; Ockerman, 2000; DeVaul, Pentland & Corey, 2002) and aid
the visually impaired with orientation.
2.3.2 Survival
It is predicted that specialised survival clothing will be one of the first areas
for wearable computing to be socially acceptable and desirable (Phil Stenton,
cited by Cowen, 2001).
Current survival wearables include arctic environment prototypes providing
communication, positioning, navigation aids, human and environmental
monitoring (Impio et al, 2002) examples include Reima-Tutta’s ‘Smart Shout’
a voice enabled communication device designed for active group situations
like snowboarding or rock climbing (Impio et al, 2002); and group avalanche
rescue wearables with location and physical status monitoring (Matter,
Michahelles, Schiele and Schmidt, 2003)
2.3.3 Personal/Consumer
Phil Stenton (cited by Cowen, 2001) predicts that by 2010 consumer value
will still be found in content and communication. He predicts that PDA like
2. Literature Review
© Koré Mason 2004 - 16 -
capabilities will exist in headsets, located on shoulders, badges, waists,
behind ears and will have more and less obtrusive, interaction capabilities.
Research and development are being conducted resulting in wearable
personal messaging and communication devices for office-based
environments (Sawhney and Schmandt, 1999); conference chips such as
InfoCharm capture data on booths visited, time spent and people spoken to,
this can then be e -mailed to the wearers personal account (Stroud, 1999);
wearables for desktop games, enabling first person indoor and outdoor
augmented reality (Bondi, Close, Donoghue, Piekarski, Squires, & Thomas,
2002); personal wearables enable audio and video recording, communication
and location tracking (Lightman, 2002; Rheingold, 2002; Iwatani, 1998).
Commercial products have and continue to be developed by an array of
technology companies including Nike’s washable equipment-laden clothing
and Philips’ and Levi’s digital jacket equipped with a Philips-made GSM-
standard hands-free mobile phone with earpieces concealed beneath the
jackets shoulders and microphone is built into the collar, mp3 player and a
remote-control device powering both (Cowen, 2001; Slaton, 2000). Several
‘smart watches’ are available from multiple vendors including IBM, offerings
incorporate combinations of MP3 players, digital cameras, blood pressure
monitors, pagers, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, short and long-
range radio frequency wireless connectivity, phones and heart rate monitors
(Narayanaswami and Raghunath, 2002). Nishio, Tsukamoto and Ueda
(2000) assert that when wearable computing becomes widely accepted by
society, it will play an essential role in our daily life. They foresee various
wearables becoming available on the market including “business-suit-type
wearables that are full of business tools and night-suit-type wearables with
the monitoring and relaxation of vital signs” (p. 285).
2. Literature Review
© Koré Mason 2004 - 17 -
So why haven’t we seen these devices in stores and in widespread use?
Alex Lightman (quoted by Stroud, 1999) points out that devices such as
InfoCharm are easy and cost effective to produce, he also points out that
there is no business benefit for computer manufacturers to sell cheap
bespoke devices when they can sell expensive multipurpose computers.
2.3.4 Scope
It is valuable to understand developments of wearable computing in a range
of applications, however due to limited resources and to ensure an
appropriate level of depth is gained in a single application area, the
remainder of this study concentrates on evaluating the acceptance of
personal consumer wearable computing. This research tests the acceptance
of a multipurpose wearable computer and uncovers ways which computer
users would find added value from using such a device.
2.5 Research Model Independent Variables
2.5.1 Usefulness - Enhancing Human Abilities
Wearable computing proposals (cited by Huang, 2000) show common trends
of “improving human abilities beyond our biological limits” (p. 1). Some
(Miner, 2001; Vanderheiden, 1997) consider future generations could use
wearable computing and information technologies to “enhance … sensory,
physical and cognitive skills” (p. 1441) performing tasks requiring extreme
precision, speed, perfect memory, sensing beyond perceptual abilities, or
involving manipulation of objects too large or small for conventional
interaction, for example controlling a robot in a car manufacturing plant or
operating on a patient’s internal organs through voice input or commands
through a holographic touch screen.
2. Literature Review
© Koré Mason 2004 - 18 -
2.5.2 Usefulness - Anytime, Anyplace Access
The integration of key technologies expected to enable wearable computing
these include Grid computing and pervasive computing. In brief, Grid
computing is the application of the resources of many networked computers
to a single problem at the same time (TechTarget, 2004) effectively creating
a virtual supercomputer. Grid computing required software that can farm out
pieces of a program to thousands of individual computers. Grid computing
offers cost-effective use of already available computing resources, a problem
solving mechanism for problems that cannot be solved without a huge
amount of computing resources and presents a computational resource for
collaboration and synergy between individuals, institutions and commerce.
A use for Grid computing is ubiquitous computing (also known as pervasive
computing). Ubiquitous computing is being brought about by the
convergence of advanced electronic and in particular wireless technologies
(TechTarget, 2004), and the Internet. Fourth-generation (4G) broadband
wireless promises to offer access to knowledge of anything, anyplace and
anytime through connection to a “new wireless internet consisting of millions
of mobile computers, sensors and specialized devices added to the fixed
PCs and servers that are connected today” (Lightman, 2002, p. 4).
Information and communication technologies are likely to “resemble
electricity” (Vanderheiden, 1997, p. 1441) through pervasive incorporation
into environments, devices and activities. Resources offered through the grid
together with ubiquitous computing will lead to people carrying “their access
devices with them – everywhere, all the time” (Miner, 2001, p. 1145).
Wearable technology is available facilitating user identification, positioning,
environment detection and preferences. These features enable service and
content providers to adapt existing services to the wearable computer and
provide “novel end-user services” (Caarls, de Jong, Jonker, Langendijk, &
Persa, 2003, p. 1145).
2. Literature Review
© Koré Mason 2004 - 19 -
2.5.3 Usefulness – Right Information, Right Time, Right Place
Context can be defined as “that which surrounds and gives meaning to
something else” (Beigl, Gellersen & Schmidt, 2000, p. 2).
Through context sensitivity and state-of-the-art interfaces (Beigl, Gellersen &
Schmidt, 2000; HoloTouch, 2004) wearables are potentially operational and
accessible anytime and anyplace (Stenton, as cited by Cowen, 2001).
Effective and desirable operations can be ensured through sensing
technologies such as GPS for the wearer’s physical location, audio sensing
for social, environmental and physical context to detect if the user is
interruptible and determine appropriate output mechanisms (Sawhney and
Schmandt, 1999; Muller & Randell, 2002) and, in some cases, bio sensing
detecting emotional state and environment sensors for awareness of co-
located objects and their state (Beigl, Gellersen & Schmidt, 2000) and
urgency of information delivery (Sawhney and Schmandt, 1999). This allows
timely response to situations and stimuli in the wearer’s environment and
delivery of the right information in the right way (Jonker et al., 2002). This
kind of design been coined as “Experience Design” by Richard Hull and Jo
Reid from HP Labs in Bristol. During an interview Stenton (2004) explains
that it is about delivering the right experience at the right time “whether it is
skiing without getting hot and sweaty, polite and timely instructions as you
learn a new skill, being told the name of the person you were introduced to
yesterday and who is just about to shake your hand, or experiencing a
remote hug from a close friend in another city”.
There are two main approaches for acquiring the context of an environment.
The first is through smart environments, complementary to wearable
computing (Huang, 2000) and enabled through ubiquitous computing, that
provide infrastructure for obtaining context and provide context to wearable
computing. The second is to embed sensors in wearable computers, the
2. Literature Review
© Koré Mason 2004 - 20 -
advantage being the wearable computer does not have to rely on the
infrastructure and can be used in any environment (Beigl, Gellersen &
Schmidt, 2000).
Some (Jayaraman, Mackenzie, & Park, 2002) believe that the ultimate
system should have the “ability to see, feel, think and act … based on the
end-user stimuli and/or operational environment” (p. 174).
2.5.4 Ease of use - Accessibility
Henry and Vanderheiden (1999) discuss that designing wearable computers
for people with a wide range of disabilities and designing for a wide range of
environments, have similar outcomes. They assert that accessibility issues
related to people with a wide range of disabilities will not exist if mobile
computing devices are designed for a wide range of environments.
Vanderheiden (1997) asserts tha t "different environments will put constraints
on the type of physical and sensory input and output techniques that will
work” it is difficult to use a keyboard when walking; it is difficult and
dangerous to use visual displays when driving a car; and speech input and
output, which work great in a car, may not be usable in a shared
environment, in a noisy mall, or in the midst of a meeting, or while in a library.
Systems designed to work across these environments should have flexible
input modes in order to work in diverse environments. A variety of input and
output modes between the wearer and wearable could be utilized including
audio sensing and output, motion sensing, keypads, holographic touch
screens, buzzers, tapping devices, video and visual cues.
Many navigation aids have been developed for the visually impaired using
combinations of input and output modes, which may also appeal to the wider
population. Blasch and Ross (2002) developed a prototype orientation
2. Literature Review
© Koré Mason 2004 - 21 -
system using three interface methods: a virtual sonic beacon, speech output
and shoulder tapping using orientation input for a test area from a digital
compass. Barfield and Caudell (2001) document a number of wearables
using combinations of global positioning systems (GPS), communication with
databases through mobile phones and synthetic speech output.
Xybernaut Corporation (2004) publicises their Mobile Assistant V (MA® V) as
a tool to help mentally and physically challenged students to get the most
from their education. The MA® V is a lightweight wearable computer
allowing for software tools to be loaded on to suit the student needs, such as,
an application combined with touch-activated icons that assist students with
speech problems to communicate with their tutor and fellow students. A
wearable computer which appeals to the wider population should have the
option to customise its software.
2.5.5 Privacy
Privacy surveys conducted in America show that 55% to 80% of respondents
have considerable concerns that computers and technology are a threat to
personal privacy (Rosenberg, 1997).
Wearable computers equipped with tiny computers, cameras, microphones,
biosensors, web servers and are GPS enabled, pose a threat to privacy
(Björk & Flak, 2000). In private, social, or business contexts, data could be
recorded and transmitted without consent. Furthermore, an always online,
GPS enabled system allows user tracking (Oakes, 1998). Studies (Bellotti,
as quoted by Oakes, 1998) show that wearables can cause participants to
feel lack of control where wearers cannot influence activation, resulting in
individuals becoming less independent and autonomous. People are
constantly bombarded with corporate advertising and other visual
interference. As proposed by Mann, a “self-controlled, technically-privatised
2. Literature Review
© Koré Mason 2004 - 22 -
form of wearable computer” (Rheingold, p. 109) could offer privacy otherwise
not afforded by individuals today and in the future. Control of information
“that comes into … and radiates from” (Rheingold, 2002, p. 111) wearable
computers is likely to affect social acceptance of wearable computers.
Citizens are likely to feel threatened and possibly reject technology that
enables information accumulation by government (Rosenberg, 1997),
corporations, or other groups.
2.5.6 Health
Experts are concerned that wireless wearable devices, due to their nature of
being worn in constant proximity to the body, may prove more dangerous
than mobile phones, where reports and studies show that they have possible
links with cancer, concentration lapses and long-term memory loss (Slaton,
2000). The centre of concern, as indicated by Professor Fickas (quoted by
Slaton, 2000), is that wireless technology uses frequencies to communicate
with satellites that emit radiation. Thompson (cited by Slaton, 2000) notes
that moderate doses of this radiation are unlikely to cause harm, however
wearing a system day and night could pose health risks.
3. Methodology
© Koré Mason 2004 - 23 -
3. Methodology
3.1 Data Collection - Instruments
3.1.1 Conceptual Device and Scenario
Conceptual scenario based design and testing are selected as instruments
for this study as they have been used in a number of fruitful design
processes (Siewiorek & Smailagic, 1999; Garabet & Mann, 2000).
Conceptual design proposals allow openness because many details relating
to their implementation, aesthetics or functionality are unresolved thus
provoking imagination. As highlighted by Gaver and Martin (2000) this allows
designs to be open to “imaginary extensions, developments and
modifications in a way that would be difficult to achieve with more finished
examples” (p 215). Gaver and Martin point out that conceptual proposals
allow for speculative new ideas and evoke general insights into users
attitudes. Additionally, they assert that such design proposals may evoke
participants to admit to desires that may otherwise be overlooked by
technology developers as they are dismissed as unworthy or nonexistent.
A conceptual device (appendix 1) and scenario relating to the device
(appendix 2) are designed based on research, development and theories
presented in the literature review. These instruments facilitate participant
understanding of some of the possibilities of present and future capabilities of
wearable computing.
3.1.2 Questionnaire
A five-point Likert scale questionnaire (appendix 3) captured perception of
each independent variable, the dependent variable and allowed for
evaluation of criteria. A Likert scale was selected as the method for
qualitative data collection as construction is relatively straightforward and
3. Methodology
© Koré Mason 2004 - 24 -
“people often enjoy completing a scale of this kind” (Robson, 2002, p 293).
This increases the likelihood of getting considered rather than perfunctory
answers.
3.1.2.1 Questionnaire Construction
Questionnaire construction was a two-phase process.
During phase one the questionnaire was constructed using statements
relating to the independent TAM variables with additional statements aimed
at acquiring demographics, behavioural intention and perception of wearable
computing in society.
To enable analysis of attitude, responses to Likert scale statements 3 – 24
were coded from 1 – 5, where 1 implied a negative standpoint and 5
suggested a positive view of an aspect of wearable computing. Through
reviewing coding methods outlined by deVaus (2002) the assumption was
made that participants answering “neither” lacked a strong opinion on a given
statement and therefore had a moderate attitude towards it. Therefore null
responses (answering “neither” to a questionnaire statement) were coded 3.
Total attitude scores were categorized as follows:
Score Acceptance Level Coding
68 - 80 Highly Acceptable 5
55 - 67 Acceptable 4
42 - 54 Moderates 3
39 - 41 Unacceptable 2
16 – 28 Highly Unacceptable 1
Fig 3. Categorization of attitude score.
3. Methodology
© Koré Mason 2004 - 25 -
Statements 7, 8, 10, 16 and 23 are reverse coded. The resultant
questionnaire was piloted using four participants from the University of
Gloucestershire.
Phase two involved evaluating pilot data, rewording and weeding out
inadequate statements. Appraisal of pilot data against the literature review
identified information relating to dependence on wearable computing within
the literature review and questionnaire statements as uncorrelated and
invalid. The independent variable of information control was perceived as
being part of the independent variable privacy. This resulted in the removal
of independent variables dependence and information control from the
augmented TAM and statements 12,13 and 17 – 20.
3.2 Data Collection - Focus Group
3.2.1 Purpose
The purpose of the focus group design, development and implementation
was to gather qualitative data giving further insight into participant’s attitudes,
perceptions and opinions towards wearable computing, to support and
explain quantitative findings.
3.2.2 Construction
As outlined by Krueger (1994) the focus group was constructed for
implementation with between five and six participants. This size is small
enough for participants to have the opportunity to share ideas whilst still
being large enough for provision of diverse perceptions.
3. Methodology
© Koré Mason 2004 - 26 -
Focus group questions (appendix 6) were developed using a combination of
question groupings relating to independent variables of the study and were
categorised, as outlined by Krueger (1994), as opening, key and closing
questions. The opening question (appendix 6, question 1) was designed as
an icebreaker identifying areas of commonality between participants and to
stimulate thoughts of how they currently use mobile computing and
communication technologies. Key questions (appendix 6, questions 2 - 9)
were designed to gain further insight into perceptions of usefulness, privacy,
health, empowerment and society. The researcher decided not to explore
perceptions of ease-of-use of wearable computing as this area was seen as
too abstract in relation to a conceptual wearable computing device. A closing
question (appendix 6, question 11) was designed to catch any attitudes or
perceptions not already expressed. On review of the second focus group
transcription (appendix 11) and subsequent review of literature the
researcher removed the empowerment variable because it is covered by
independent variables usefulness and privacy.
3.2 Subjects/Participants
Seventy-seven professional and non-professiona l computer users, aged
between fifteen and sixty-five, took part in the conceptual scenario-based
study. Figure 3 shows the distribution of participants by age group.
Recruitment was conducted through the University of Gloucestershire, IBM
UK Hursley Laboratories and computer associated online forums (appendix
4). Results from questionnaire demographics showed that 58% of
participants had some prior knowledge of wearable computing technologies.
On average, participants had four years mobile computing and
communication experience and seven hours daily computer usage. This
demographic serves as a representation of computer users as resource
constraints restricted collection of data from a wider population.
3. Methodology
© Koré Mason 2004 - 27 -
27
47
13
8
4 1
Age
15 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 4040 - 5050 - 6060 - 70
Fig 4. Participant age distribution %
3.3 Data Collection Procedures
Data were collected through a questionnaire and focus group.
3.3.1 Conceptual Scenario and Questionnaire
All participants involved in the study took part in analysis of the conceptual
device and scenario then answered the questionnaire ( for completed
questionnaire examples see appendix 14). They were instructed to read
through the conceptual device (appendix 1), scenario (appendix 2), then
answer the questionnaire (appendix 3). These research instruments were
presented to participants in one of two formats. Paper-based instruments
were presented to participants in close proximity to the researcher (University
of Gloucestershire students and IBM professionals) and online versions were
available for forum users.
3. Methodology
© Koré Mason 2004 - 28 -
Data collected from the paper-based questionnaire were inputted manually
into an SPSS 12.0 table. Answers were manually converted from textual
data to numerical coding. Data collected though the online questionnaire
(.html form) were initially sent to the researchers e-mail address in a pre-
coded format. The coded responses were then manually inputted into the
table ready for analysis.
3.3.2 Focus Group
Five IT non-professional participants took part in a focus group held at the
University of Gloucestershire and six IT professionals took part in a focus
group held at the IBM UK Hursley Laboratories. These two distinct groups of
participants were identified with an aim to capturing diverse opinions whilst
also identifying similarities between perceptions held by professional and
non-professional computer users, which could then be put forward as general
opinion.
Focus groups were held in quiet rooms. No more than two days prior to the
focus group participants read through the conceptual device and scenario
then completed the questionnaire. Before commencing the focus group,
participants read through and signed consent forms explaining purpose, their
rights and audio-taping (appendix 5). Due to limited resources, as advised
by Krueger (1994), the researcher also acted as moderator, posing pre-
defined questions (appendix 6) at appropriate intervals either when a topic of
discussion was exhausted, when discussion digressed, or to glean further
information. Before presenting group members with a summary of the
session, cards printed with independent variables were given to the group
and participants were asked to work together to put them in order of
importance in relation to effect on attitude towards wearable computing.
Focus groups were audio taped ensuring post-focus group data analysis this
3. Methodology
© Koré Mason 2004 - 29 -
allowed the moderator’s attention to be focussed on group dynamics and
discussion direction.
3.4 Method of Data Analysis
3.4.1 Questionnaire Data Analysis
Questionnaire data were collated into an SPSS 12.0 document with no
distinction made between participants recruited from the university of
Gloucestershire, IBM, or online forums. Reasoning behind this was that
quantitative data collection through the questionnaire was aimed at gaining
an overall perspective on how IT users, professional and non-professional,
perceive wearable computing. Total scores were calculated from coded
responses. These scores were manually converted into attitude scores from
1 - 5 (methodology for conversion is outlined under heading 3.1.3.1). Using
functionality within SPSS a bar chart was produced showing the distribution
of participant attitudes. Stacked bar charts were produced using attitude
scores and data pertaining to each questionnaire statement. Each of which
related to an independent variable allowing analysis of relationships and
correlations between overall attitude score and opinions on each
independent variable and conclusions to be drawn relative to criteria.
3.4.2 Focus Group Data Analysis
As advised by Morgan (1998) Focus group data were captured using audio
taping. At the end of each focus group the moderator summarised emergent
themes for verification by participants. IT professionals in the second focus
group were debriefed with contrasts and findings from the previous focus
group.
Post focus group transcripts were produced. The transcript for the initial
focus group consisted of recording individual comments relative to particular
independent variables (appendix 10). The second focus group was
3. Methodology
© Koré Mason 2004 - 30 -
transcribed in full (appendix 11). Analysis concentrated on gathering
descriptive data supporting, discrediting, or clarifying the reasons behind
quantitative results. As such not all responses deserved the same level of
analysis, for example, responses to the icebreaker question. Transcriptions
were analysed for trends and contradictions. Seven considerations were
taken in analysis, as outlined by Krueger (1994), use of words and their
meanings, context of the response, internal consistency – participants may
be prone to changing their minds, frequency and extensiveness of
comments, intensity of comments – depth and feeling, specificity of
responses and finding the big ideas. No analysis was done on non-verbal
communication within groups.
4 Analysis and Discussion of Results
© Koré Mason 2004 - 31 -
4 Analysis and Discussion of Results
This section outlines quantitative and qualitative findings relative to the
demographic of participants. The researcher is aware that although the
majority of participants were UK based recruitment through forums opened
the demographic to cultural variations. The sample was too small to analyse
for cultural differences, however a larger study would be instrumental in
identifying if there were a significant split in attitudes between cultures
towards each criterion.
4.1 Attitude Towards Wearable Computing
Figure 4 shows the attitude of questionnaire respondents classified using the
technique outlined in the methodology.
Unacceptable Moderates Acceptable Highly Acceptable
Attitude towards wearable computing
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
%
6.49%
63.64%
25.97%
3.9%
Fig 5. Attitude towards wearable computing
Percentage of participants
4 Analysis and Discussion of Results
© Koré Mason 2004 - 32 -
6% of participants have an attitude score classing their view of wearable
computing as unacceptable. A majority of 63% of participants have a
moderate attitude score, suggesting awareness of opportunities and threats
posed by wearable computing. Over 30% of participants attitude scores are
within the range of accepting or highly accepting of wearable computing,
these participants are likely to perceive benefits offered by wearable
computing as superseding concerns over health and privacy.
4.2 Findings Relative to Criteria
Appendix 12 gives a detailed breakdown of findings and results relative to
criteria. Responses to each questionnaire statement are grouped with
participants overall attitude towards wearable computing. Analysis of this
combined with literature relating to independent variables in the literature
review allows evaluation of criteria.
The researcher is aware that other methods could be used for analysis,
however due to time constraints the most efficient method for displaying data
was used to judge criteria and explain results.
4.2.1 Usefulness
Responses to questionnaire statements 3 and 4 allowed for measurement of
perceived usefulness of Wear PC and the appeal of additional functions to
enhance sensory, physical and/or cognitive skills respectively. Information
provided within the scenario and conceptual device (Wear PC) related to
currently available wearable computing features including user identification,
positioning, context sensing and preferences which enable content providers
to tailor existing services to individual users.
4 Analysis and Discussion of Results
© Koré Mason 2004 - 33 -
Significantly over 80% of participants agree to some degree that WearPC
would be useful and approximately 60% of participants saw additional
functions offered through wearable computing as useful.
The breakdown of results shown in appendix 12 supports criterion suggesting
perceived usefulness is positively correlated with overall attitude towards
wearable computing.
4.2.2 Ease of Use
Questionnaire statements 5 and 6 allow for identification of perceived ease of
use of WearPC and its appeal due to flexibility of input and output modes.
The conceptual device and scenario highlight intelligent and flexible interface
modes and put forward a number of indoor and outdoor environments
highlighting accessibility issues relating to wearable computing.
The majority of participants perceive WearPC as easy to use and results
show an extremely positive response towards flexibility of input and output
modes suggesting a recommendable form of wearable computing should
feature multiple intelligent input and output modes similar to and extended
upon those suggested for WearPC.
The distribution of positive and negative responses to statements 5 and 6
relative to overall attitude, as seen in appendix 12, support criterion that
perception of ease of use is positively correlated with attitude. Participants
value the flexibility of input and output modes, which has an overall effect on
their perception of ease of use and ultimately attitude.
4 Analysis and Discussion of Results
© Koré Mason 2004 - 34 -
4.2.3 Threat to Privacy
To measure participants perception of the threat to privacy posed by
wearable computing the conceptual device and scenario introduced GPS,
always online audio and video capture and storage, context sensitivity and
tailored services.
Participants’ attitudes were measured relative to the threat posed by
recording and transmitting of audio and video, GPS tracking and perception
of a general threat to privacy.
Supporting data put forward in the literature review by Rosenberg (1997) and
Oakes (1989) relating to concerns about threat to privacy posed by
computers and technology, over 80% of respondents indicated they saw a
threat posed by recording and transmitting of audio and video to their own
and other peoples privacy, over 50% observe the threat to privacy posed by
GPS tracking and over 70% of respondents note a general threat to privacy
posed by a wearable computer similar to WearPC.
Analysis of the overall distribution of attitude relating to threat to privacy
(appendix 12) suggest that it has somewhat of an effect on acceptance of
wearable computing on participants classified as un-accepting and accepting.
However, perception of the degree of threat does not appear to be an
overriding factor for participants classed as accepting of wearable computing.
Therefore at this stage the author cannot support or challenge criteria 3.
Though it is safe to say participants in this study perceive a significant threat
to privacy posed by wearable computing.
4 Analysis and Discussion of Results
© Koré Mason 2004 - 35 -
4.2.4 Threat to Health
Quantitative analysis of results relating to the perception of a threat to health
are inconclusive due to the high frequency of null responses to questions 10
and 11 which relate to perception of a threat to health posed by wireless
technology within wearable computing. Participants may have been unsure
of possible health threats posed by wireless technology, which could be due
to an oversight in the design of the scenario. The device description
(appendix 1) explicitly states that WearPC contains GPS technology, which
has been the subject of much debate in relation to its use within mobile
phones. The conceptual scenario could have incorporated a well-balanced
news flash, perhaps warning of the possibility of threat to health posed by
wireless technology, wearing electrical components close to the body for long
periods of time and putting forward claims of the safeness from
manufacturers. This may have stimulated participants to think a little deeper
about their opinion. However alternative reasoning for the high rate of null
responses could be due to contradictory and ongoing research and results in
the evaluation of threat to health posed by wireless technology.
4.2.5 Attitude and Behavioural Intention
Measurement of behavioural intention was conducted through questionnaire
statements 21 and 22, which related to desire to use WearPC over
conventional methods to accomplish similar tasks or respectively to purchase
it. With an overwhelming majority of over 70% expressing a desire to use
WearPC and over 50% proposing they would purchase a device like WearPC
and distribution of responses relative to overall attitude, as shown in
appendix 12, it is possible to confirm that there is a positive relationship
between behavioural intention and overall attitude.
4 Analysis and Discussion of Results
© Koré Mason 2004 - 36 -
4.3 Focus Group Findings
Analysis of focus groups enables understanding and explanation of
quantitative results. Eight key trends are identified from transcripts
(appendices 10 and 11) based on unity of ideas between groups, frequency
and extensiveness of comments. Key trends are categorised as follows:
Trend 1 – The wearable computer should be discreet and always on.
Trend 2 – Through being useful in human augmentation, wearable computing
could be part of human evolution.
Trend 3 – Intelligent wearable computing is desirable.
Trend 4 – Wearable computing could lead to information overload.
Trend 5 – Wearable computing should allow for user and self-customisation.
Trend 6 – Refinement of data security in relation to privacy of personal
information is needed.
Trend 7 – Wearable computing is likely to effect social interaction.
Trend 8 – Desirable wearable computing should feature a personal firewall.
4.3.1 Usefulness
Quantitative results suggest a strong relationship between perceived
usefulness of wearable computing and overall attitude towards it. When
asked to give the order of importance of independent variables both focus
groups decided usefulness is the primary influencer.
Participants from both groups saw a useful wearable computer as discrete
(trend 1). Providing there were no health reasons for taking off the device, it
should be completely unobtrusive when not in use removing the need to take
it off whilst sleeping or when the device is powered down.
4 Analysis and Discussion of Results
© Koré Mason 2004 - 37 -
Both groups identify the possibility of wearable computing having an effect on
human evolution (trend 2). Evolution could be affected by enhancing human
abilities through functions including sensory augmentation though it is
believed this will be an incremental process over generations. As outlined by
a university participant, the concept of memory augmentation is simply an
extension of carrying data storage disks the only difference being the storage
medium is either worn or located remotely within the Grid and accessed
through the wearable. Memory augmentation is noted to potentially cause
complacency although it could be argued that storing uninteresting but
necessary day-to-day information digitally allows for human memory to be
used in other ways such as forming relationships, creative thinking, or
learning new skills. A perfect memory enabled by artificial means may
perhaps stimulate and expand human memory and memory augmentation
could provide a coping mechanism for conditions such as Alzheimer’s and
dementia. Other sensory enhancements perceived by university participants
as useful included x-ray spectacles, night vision and enhanced hearing. IBM
professionals put forward interesting and useful sensory enhancements,
including health and safety sensors to warn users of pollution levels and
pollen counts in the environment, blood sugar, alcoho l and cholesterol levels
within the body and ‘zoom eyes’.
Participants within both groups see wearable computing as a potential
catalyst for an evolutionary shift in the dynamics of human communication
and interaction. A university participant suggested augmentation of natural
conversation by sending other messages through wearable computing, a
current example extendable to wearable computing is the way emoticons are
used in text and instant messaging to show emotional state, this could lead to
group meetings and conversations taking on a whole new dynamic. Further
to this another university participant suggested conversational content could
be enhanced through a wearable computer giving the wearer interesting
pieces of information to add into conversations, however this could lead to
people questioning whether they are talking to a person or computer,
possibly leading to a degradation of mental health.
4 Analysis and Discussion of Results
© Koré Mason 2004 - 38 -
In the future, wearable computing could enhance socialisation. IBM
participants propose a wearable computing device capable of identifying and
introducing wearers to others with similar interests either in immediate or
remote environments, for example a molecular biologist could be writing a
paper requiring input from a nanotechnology specialist and use the wearable
computer to advertise this need digitally, they may then pass in the street and
their devices enable an introduction where otherwise they would have
passed each other by as strangers. Conversely, wearable computing is also
put forward as having potential to negate social interaction where interaction
with it, or remotely located people through it, causes wearers to neglect
people in the immediate environment. Wearable computing allowing
information access anytime and anyplace could remove the need to ever ask
another human anything as all the information could be attainable through
the device. Nevertheless as a participant points out, at this stage the device
should be switched off. Information retrieval alone does not provide the
sense of enjoyment achieved through social interaction. Participants find
immersion in conversations with the device, or other people through the
device, when in the company of other humans to be offensive.
Intelligence of a wearable computer is identified by both groups and
professed as highly desirable by IBM participants (trend 3). The device
should be context sensitive to users environment offering intelligent adaptive
interfacing methods for accessing appropriate information anyplace, anytime.
Positive effects of this include more leisure time through being able to carry
out computer-based tasks whilst users wait for something or travel
somewhere. Though a constant demand on their attention, either from
people contacting them through the device or due to awareness of always
being able to access computer-based work, could lead to information
overload and increased stress levels (trend 4). An IBM participant pointed
out that possible conveniences offered by wearable computing could lead to
wearers being generally “more efficient” and anytime and place access to
4 Analysis and Discussion of Results
© Koré Mason 2004 - 39 -
information could empower individuals perhaps leading to an intellectual split
between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. However it could be argued that in the
event of information overload, those with wearable computing would become
less efficient nullifying the argument.
Useful wearable computers should intelligently identify and learn user
preferences. IBM participants gave examples of reading a menu in a foreign
language with the wearable computer translating and offering only those
menu items the user liked, or accessing cinema listings and being offered
listings suitable to user tastes. An IBM participant stated “it would be cool if it
(the wearable computer) knew your thoughts and what you wanted and
needed”. In the future wearable devices could combine context sensitivity
and artificial intelligence to pre-empt user needs an offer appropriate
services, for example, when travelling to a foreign country GPS tracks users
location and on arrival offers hotel, travel, food, leisure, way finding and other
services; or the wearable computer reads the users diary and locates any
documentation or media needed for an impending meeting or it notes the
user has a dinner date so searches online stores for suitable attire.
Alongside being intelligent, useful wearable computers are proposed by
members of both focus groups to be extensively customisable (trend 5) with
the potential to add ‘bolt on extras’, such as additional sensory
enhancements and monitoring capabilities. Wearable computers may learn
something about the wearer, for example shopping habits and inventories of
store cupboards in the home and then offer services whilst the wearer shops
at stores for example recipe possibilities like, ‘you have flour and eggs at
home, if you purchase milk you can make pancakes’. Such services may
become annoying and demanding of wearer’s attention so the option to turn
services on or off is required. A device with no option to turn features off
receives a negative response from participants.
4 Analysis and Discussion of Results
© Koré Mason 2004 - 40 -
4.3.2 Ease of use
Ease of use was not explored in focus groups as with no tangible device
available the researcher considered this topic too abstract to explore further.
However as discussed in the above section, a context sensitive, intelligent,
pre-emptive wearable computer should facilitate ease-of-use through
provision of interfacing methods and services suitable to user needs.
4.3.3 Privacy
A wearable computer similar to WearPC has a number of features seen as a
potential threat to privacy including GPS enabled user tracking and recording
and transmitting of audio, video and data relating to user habits and
preferences. Privacy is seen by participants from both groups as one of the
hottest topics relating to wearable computing, it is something expected to
really divide peoples thoughts about it, consequently needing much
consideration (trend 6).
IBM focus group participants see GPS within wearable computing as one of
the main benefits and a vital enabling technology, not as theorised in the
literature review a threat to privacy. Suggested utilization of GPS within
wearable computing include way finding as proposed in the scenario and a
training aid, for example when in “jogging mode GPS (enabled wearable
computing) could help show … (the) jogging course”. GPS is seen as useful,
when combined with ubiquitous technology, in the safety of children in the
home, one IBM participant commented, “it would be neat to have an overlay
of your house so you could know where your kids were, so if your toddler
was getting closer to the hot oven (one could intervene)”. Members from
both focus groups identified monitoring the whereabouts of children and
teenagers as being useful to parents, however this feature is unlikely to
attract a great deal of support from most teenagers! A member of the
university focus group also put forward a possible use of GPS enabled
4 Analysis and Discussion of Results
© Koré Mason 2004 - 41 -
wearable computing as a tracking method for keeping tabs on partners!
These may seem to be unlikely scenarios, however they do highlight the
issue of an impact on privacy where user tracking is available.
Further to this, participants from both focus groups highlight social
implications of recording and transmitting of audio, video and other personal
data. This technology could invade the way users interact with each other
(trend 7). Participants from both focus groups outlined that they may feel
uncomfortable being around someone wearing such a device, as one
member form the IBM group highlights “I’d be intimidated to be around other
people who wore the device, because of the things you were saying to them.
If everyone had this device then you would be scared to say anything to
anyone. Because everything you say could be used against you”. Consider
the scenario where an individual may be in a temper and say something
about someone which could be recorded and then replayed out of context
giving rise to malicious uses. Furthermore, a university participant pointed
out that an individual probably would not say anything personal to someone
wearing such a device if they had an inkling the wearer were uploading or
saving it. Other invasive scenarios include criminals using wearable
computing to record pin numbers, credit/debit card numbers and access
passwords. A suggested remedy is to ensure people know when they are
being recorded through some audio or visual signal, this could also serve as
a deterrent to street criminals knowing their intended actions were about to
be recorded and transmitted.
A personal customisable firewall is proposed by both groups of participants
as being desirable to combat invasions of privacy (trend 8). In a future where
millions of ubiquitous computing devices make up Grid architecture, wearable
computing should have the ability to control all data coming in to and leaving
it having the ability to isolate the user, possibly by scrambling information,
from other people attempting to record audio and video of them. This
4 Analysis and Discussion of Results
© Koré Mason 2004 - 42 -
requirement is consistent with Steve Mann’s approach to wearable
computing development as documented by Rheingold (2002).
Some participants, from both focus groups, also see security of personal
information stored through the device as a potential threat to privacy (trend
6). An IBM participant points out the collection of significant amounts of
personal information, relating to habits, preferences, location tracking and
interaction with other people – potentially everything a person does, is a
frightening thought when considering a third party might hack into local or
remote storage through the Grid or access data manually, the hacker would
literally have the wearers life in their hands. A requirement for wearable
computing therefore is thorough security through voice recognition, eye
retina, fingerprint, or some other technology.
Privacy implications are highly elastic at this stage in development of
wearable computing technology and the extent of threat would be largely
down to the level of use of wearable computing and available remedies.
4.3.4 Health
Results from both focus groups indicate the health threats posed by radiation
emissions from wireless technology incorporated within wearable computing
are not seen as being an overriding issue. An IBM participant points out they
would need to have safety assurances before purchasing a wearable
computer because of its nature of being in constant proximity to the body.
However, the group concluded the health threat from emitted radiation is a
solvable problem, which must be thought through carefully and implemented
through advancements in technology to enable high adoption levels of
wearable computing. A possible intermediate step could involve limiting the
amount of data being sent and received by the device by requiring it to be
periodically taken to base locations for large data transmissions.
4 Analysis and Discussion of Results
© Koré Mason 2004 - 43 -
Conclusion of focus groups involved giving an overview of the purposes of
this study and asking participants to highlight any oversights, none were
identified by either group.
5. Project Conclusion
© Koré Mason 2004 - 44 -
5. Project Conclusion
5.1 Introduction
The project conclusion draws on theory and development discussed in the
literature review, quantitative and qualitative data collected during the course
of the study, to answer research questions and identify factors affecting the
acceptance of wearable computing. Further to this, recommendations for
further study are made.
5.2 Acceptance of Wearable Computing
The combination of the volume of research and development being
conducted in the field outlined in the literature review and results from
quantitative and qualitative studies indicate that wearable computing is an
acceptable form of computing amongst both professional and non-
professional computer users.
5.3 Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Wearable Computing
5.3.1 Usefulness
The literature review proposed three key attributes of the usefulness of
wearable computing: enhancement of human ability, anytime anyplace
access to information and delivery of the right information at the right time in
the right place. Quantitative data resulting from the conceptual scenario
based testing strengthen the proposition of the above key attributes of
usefulness. Qualitative data further reinforces this. Participants identified
usefulness of wearable computing as the number one variable affecting their
acceptance of wearable computing.
5. Project Conclusion
© Koré Mason 2004 - 45 -
Furthermore, analysis of focus group findings identified eight key trends, five
of which relating to usefulness, such weighting highlights the importance of
this variable. Of the five trends relating to usefulness, three are requirements
for useful wearable computers with the remainder being social observations.
Focus group participants identified a useful wearable computer as being
discrete, highly intelligent with cognitive abilities enabling adaptation to all
environments and contexts with additional functionality allowing control and
customisation by users. This is not pioneering data, however it supports the
definition and some of the characteristics of wearable computing proposed by
Mann (cited by Lightman, 2002) in the literature review.
Social observations identified as trends from focus groups back up the theory
put forward by Huang (2000) of a delicate dynamic between technology and
society. Both focus groups independently identified that human evolution
could be affected by wearable computing. Participants saw wearable
computers as useful in enhancing human abilities and suggest a number of
additional desirable sensory enhancements deliverable through wearable
computing. The very nature of human communication and socialisation were
considered to be areas which may take beneficial or detrimental evolutionary
shifts due to wearable computing. The other social observation made was
that wearable computing could have a negative effect on quality of life
through information overload and increased stress levels.
5.3.2 Ease of Use
As proposed in the literature review, the ease of use of wearable computers
is likely to be enabled through design for a variety of environments which
should also facilitate accessibility for people with a wide range of disabilities.
Analysis of quantitative data suggested a majority view that wearable
computing could be easy to use and identified ease of use as a key attribute
relating to the acceptance of wearable computing. Although no formal
qualitative data were collected relating to ease of use, as outlined above,
5. Project Conclusion
© Koré Mason 2004 - 46 -
adaptive and intelligent interfacing emerged as a key trend from focus
groups.
5.3.3 Threat to Privacy
A perceived threat to privacy posed by computing and technology in general
and more specifically by tiny computers, cameras, microphones, biosensors,
web servers and GPS within wearable computing is identified in the literature
review. Quantitative results support this theory with a large majority of
participants indicating perception of a threat to privacy. However quantitative
results do not confirm that this variable has an overwhelming effect on overall
attitude.
The significance of this variable is highlighted through qualitative data with
the remaining three trends relating to privacy. One of these trends was the
observation of the complexity of consideration needed when addressing
issues relating to privacy. A trend identified as a social observation was that
wearable computers could invade the way users interact with one another.
However suggestions were made as to how to combat threats to privacy one
of them, acknowledged as a trend, is the requirement for wearable
computers to be equipped with personal, customised firewalls. The author
believes that quantitative data failed to show a link between perceived threat
to privacy and overall attitude largely due to the complexity of issues relating
to this variable and suggestions made regarding ways to combat threats to
privacy – wearable computing could threaten privacy however preventative
measures are likely to be found and taken.
5.3.4 Threat to Health
The foremost threat to health identified in the literature review is that of
radiation emitted through wireless technology. Quantitative results were
inconclusive in ascertaining the perception of threat to health relative to
5. Project Conclusion
© Koré Mason 2004 - 47 -
overall attitude due to the distribution of views and number of null responses.
Explanation for which was uncovered through qualitative research. Focus
group participants highlighted that they failed to see a threat to health as
being an overriding issue because it is likely to be a solvable problem this
view was supported with practical solutions.
5.3.5 Summary
Usefulness and ease of use were identified through multiple methods as
influential to overall attitude. Threat to privacy and health were seen as
important issues relating to wearable computing however they were not in the
foremost of peoples minds when forming an attitude towards wearable
computing.
5.4 Recommendations for Further Studies
Conceptual scenario based design and testing using an augmented TAM
have proved an excellent framework for measuring attitudes and gaining
insight into requirements for wearable computing. The researcher
recommends conceptual scenario based testing for use in the initial design
process of cutting edge technologies, furthermore TAM is recommended for
ascertaining attitude towards such technology. The following
recommendations further study have been identified:
?? Participants used in this study were all computer users at some level,
it would be interesting to run the same study on non-computer users to
see what other groups of society think about wearable computing.
?? It would be interesting to run a similar study with a similar
demographic of participants using a conceptual device made up from
5. Project Conclusion
© Koré Mason 2004 - 48 -
different technologies and a new usage scenario. This could confirm
or challenge the finding of this study.
?? The next stages of this study could be a rework the conceptual
scenario and device, prototype of an intelligent and adaptive interface
to ascertain the best interface method in given environments, then
build a prototype WearPC, implementing recommended features and
environment to test in.
?? Further conceptual scenario based design and testing could be done
to evaluate attitude towards wearable computing with medical and
survival applications, this may involve augmenting TAM with other
variables.
6. Project Critical Review
© Koré Mason 2004 - 49 -
6. Project Critical Review
6.1 Introduction
I have found the experience of this study to be highly enriching in a number
of ways. I chose to study the acceptance of wearable computing, as I was
aware that research and development was being carried out in the area with
seemingly little regard being given to acceptance and social implications. I
was encouraged and learnt a great deal through finding copious amounts of
research and development, a wide range of application areas, advanced
technology, enthusiasm and valuable input from study participants. This
enabled me to analyse and synthesise wide-ranging information and produce
a well thought out conclusion.
6.2 Evaluation of Literature Review
A thorough review of literature was highly time consuming though worthwhile.
During the early stages of research it was difficult to focus on finding factors
that would affect the acceptance of wearable computing. However, through
literature searches I discovered the widely used TAM, which enabled me to
identify universal variables for technology acceptance and evaluate the
factors which could make wearable computers useful and easy to use. By
augmenting TAM with threat to privacy and health I was able to judge criteria
that may have a negative effect on attitude. This process laid the
foundations for framework of the study and layout of the research report.
During the course of the study I considered an additional section within the
literature review entitled ‘enabling technologies’ as I believed it would be
interesting and enlightening. However due to word limit constraints and that
inclusion of this section was not integral to the study it was omitted. The
resultant literature review gives a valuable insight into the evolution of
wearable computing, an overview of current research and development in a
6. Project Critical Review
© Koré Mason 2004 - 50 -
range of application areas and an in-depth analysis of criteria expected to
affect the realization of wearable computing.
6.3 Evaluation Conceptual Device Design
With no tangible appliance available for this study I decided the best method
for stimulating participants imagination was through a conceptual device.
Through reviewing literature I found many wearable computers already
developed often with specific applications in mind and a variety of
technologies available for integration. This process enabled me to envisage
WearPC, which brings together features and technologies from multiple
research ventures, enabling a range of usage contexts to be developed in the
conceptual scenario. This approach enables a balanced and unbiased
presentation of the capabilities, applications and implications of wearable
computing.
As outlined in the recommendations section, further study could be
conducted using a similar demographic and features from other research
producing a different conceptual device and scenario, for example wearable
computing in the form of jewellery or clothing. By producing less favourable
or highly optimistic scenarios the outcome of the study could possibly be
manipulated. If not then this approach would give strength to the conclusions
drawn from this study.
6.4 Evaluation of Conceptual Scenario Design
I have found that alongside the conceptual device, the conceptual scenario
proved a successful method for facilitating a quick overview and
understanding of the composition of advanced technology, application areas
and concepts of wearable computing. I was pleased to observe the
effectiveness of this research method during the focus group sessions where
6. Project Critical Review
© Koré Mason 2004 - 51 -
it became clear that individuals had grasped these multifarious concepts and
were able to supply invaluable information relating to the study criteria and
research questions. This has led me to believe that scenario based design is
a highly useful tool for use during early developmental stages as it provides
the means for evaluating whether a concept is worthy of being actualised and
enables redesign to be significantly less resource intensive.
I evaluated extending the conceptual scenario to include context which would
enable understanding of the potential for augmentation of many other
sensory, physical and cognitive skills. However during the pilot study
participants commented that the scenario should not be more than two pages
long as this could cause complacency. After the pilot study I thought about
producing an animated scenario using Macromedia Flash MX, however I
came to the conclusion that my energy would be better spent on other areas
of the study. This was a risk worth taking as data collected from the focus
groups showed that participants had enough stimulation to understand the
possibilities for augmentation through wearable computing.
6.5 Evaluation Questionnaire Construction
The two-stage process of questionnaire construction was recommended by
experts and proved to be a worthwhile exercise. Through the pilot study I
identified uncorrelated, invalid statements and criteria for study. This
enabled elimination and allowed me to focus on valid criteria. The method of
coding used was an efficient way to calculate overall attitude scores and
proved vital in working towards answering research questions.
However, after collating results it became apparent that a large number of
null responses were given in particular to questions relating to health
concerns, which resulted in inconclusive evidence. Had I undertaken a larger
pilot study, with a number of short interviews and a questionnaire with both
6. Project Critical Review
© Koré Mason 2004 - 52 -
positive and negative statements for each item, I may have identified the
cause for ambiguity at an early stage and reworked the scenario and
questionnaire to reflect this. Thankfully I carried out the qualitative research
after collation of quantitative results, so I took the opportunity to explore why
participants were unable to take a strong standpoint on certain questionnaire
statements. This resulted in valuable insight and conclusions to be drawn.
Aside from identified oversights, the questionnaire proved to be a consistent
and successful measured for the majority of criteria and beneficial data were
collected and analysed.
6.6 Evaluation of Focus Group
I found the focus groups to be invaluable in collecting explanatory material. I
attribute this success to well researched and implemented methodology.
If I were to change one aspect of this measure I would have included a
question relating to ease of use prompting participants to give their preferred
method of interfacing in predefined contexts. I believe this would have
provided a valuable insight for wearable computing researchers and
developers as to desirable and practical interfacing methods. Also the
analysis of data from focus groups would have been better preserved for
later use had I transcribed them both in full.
Focus group participants were highly enthusiastic, encouraging and
commented that the study was well thought out. The groups were extremely
enjoyable to moderate and transcribe and the resultant material was pivotal
to study conclusions.
7. Bibliography
© Koré Mason 2004 - 53 -
7. Bibliography
Amoako-Gyampah, K. Salam, A.F. (2003) An extension of the technology
acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment. Information and
Management, accepted 10 August.
Barfield (ed) and Caudell (ed) (2001) Fundamentals of wearable computers
and augmented reality. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Beigl, M., Gellersen, H. W., & Schmidt, A. (2000). There is more to context
than location. Computers & Graphics, 23, 893 – 910. Retrieved November
04, 2003 from http://www.sciencedirect.com
Björk, S., & Flak, J. (2000). Privacy and information integrity in wearable
computing and ubiquitous computing. Interactive poster presented at the
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Abstract retrieved
November 22, 2003 from
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=633390&jmp=cit&coll=portal&dl=ACM&C
FID=16433431&CFTOKEN=38249764#CIT
Blasch, B. B., & Ross, D. A. (2002). Development of a wearable computer
orientation system. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 49 – 63.
Bondi, P.D., Close, B., Donoghue, J., Piekarski, W., Squires, J., and Thomas,
B. (2002). First person indoor/outdoor augmented reality application:
ARQuake. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 75 – 86
7. Bibliography
© Koré Mason 2004 - 54 -
Bruner, G.C. Kumar, A. (2003) Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld
Internet devices. Journal of Business Research, accepted 25 August.
Caarls, J., de Jong, F., Jonker, P., Langendijk, I., & Persa, S. (2003).
Philosophies and technologies for ambient aware devices in wearable
computing grids. Computer Communications, 26, 1145 – 1158.
Corey, V.R., DeVaul, R.W. Pentland, A. (2002). The Memory Glasses:
Subliminal vs. Overt Memory Support with Imperfect Information. Retrieved
from http://web.media.mit.edu/~rich/subliminal/208_DeVaul_R.pdf
Cowen, P. (2001) Cyborg clothing. mpulse magazine. Retrieved 23 January
from http://cooltown.hp.com/mpulse/1001-thinker.asp
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R. (1989) User acceptance of
computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models . Management
Science, 35, 982 – 1003.
deVaus (2002) Analysing social science data: 50 key problems in data
analysis. London: Sage Publications
Galletta, D. F. & Malhotra, Y. (1999) Extending the technology acceptance
model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical
validation. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences – 1999. Retrieved 20 December 2003 from:
http://www.brint.org/technologyacceptance.pdf
7. Bibliography
© Koré Mason 2004 - 55 -
Garabet, A., Mann, S & Fung, J. (2002) Exploring design through wearable
computing art(ifacts), CHI 2002: Changing the world , changing ourselves,
634 – 635.
Henry, S.L. & Vanderheiden G.C (1999) Designing hands-free, eyes-free,
silent (or noisy) environment, and accessible interfaces. CHI 99, 15 – 20.
HoloTouch (2004) Technology. Retrieved April, 05, 2004 from
http://www.holotouch.com/technology.htm
Hooke, R (1665) Micrographia. London
Huang, P. (2000) Promoting wearable computing: A survey and future
agenda (Tech. Rep. No. 95). Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory.
Impiö, J., Karinsalo, T., Malmivaara, M., Rantanen, J., Reho, A., Tasanen,
M., et al. (2002) Smart clothing prototype for the arctic environment. Personal
and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 3 – 16.
Iwatani, Y (1998) Love: Japanese style, Wired News . Retrieved April, 10,
2004 from http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,12899,00.html
Jayaraman, S., Mackenzie, K., & Park, S. (2002). The wearable
motherboard: A framework for personalized mobile information processing
(PIMP). DAC June 10 – 14 2002, 170 – 174.
7. Bibliography
© Koré Mason 2004 - 56 -
Jonker, P. et al (2002) Philosophies and Technologies for ambient Aware
Devices in Wearable Computing Grids. Computer Communications 26, 1145
- 1158, Retrieved December, 01, 2003, from http://www.sciencedirect.com
Krueger, R. A. (1994) Focus Groups: A practical guide for applied research.
London: Sage Publications
Lamming, M., & Flynn, M. (1994). Forget-Me-Not: Intimate Computing in
Support of Human Memory. Proceedings of FRIEND21, '94 International
Symposium on Next Generation Human Interface, Meguro Gajoen, Japan,
125-128.
Lightman, A. (2002) Brave New Unwired World. New York: John Wiley and
Sons Inc.
Matter, P., Michahelles, F., Schiele, B. & Schmidt, A. (2003) Applying
wearable sensors to avalanche rescue. Computers and Graphics, 27, 839 –
847.
Miner, C. (2001). Pushing functionality into even smaller devices.
Communications of the ACM, 44, 72 – 73.
Morgan, D.L. (1998) The Focus Group Guidebook. London: SAGE
Publications
Muller, H. & Randell, C. (2000) The shopping jacket: Wearable computing for
the consumer. Personal Technologies, 4, 241 – 244. Retrieved December
04, 2003, from The ACM Digital Library database.
7. Bibliography
© Koré Mason 2004 - 57 -
Muller, H. & Randell, C. (2002) The Well Mannered Wearable Computer.
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 31 – 36. Retrieved December 04,
2003, from The ACM Digital Library database.
Narayanaswami, C., & Raghunath, M. T. (2002). User interfaces for
application on a wrist watch. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 17 – 30
Nishio, S., Tsukamoto, M., Ueda, H. (2000). W-Mail: An electronic mail
system for wearable computing environments. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking. Abstract
retrieved November 22, 2003 from
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=345960&jmp=abstract&coll=portal&dl=A
CM&CFID=16433431&CFTOKEN=38249764#abstract
Oakes, C. (1998) The Truman show realized? Wired News . Retrieved 24
January 2004 from http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,15745,00.html
Ockerman, J.J (2000) Task Guidance and procedural context: Aiding workers
in appropriate procedure following. PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of
Technology.
Pentland, A. Starner, T. & Weaver, J. (1998) Real-time American sign
language recognition using desk and wearable computer based video. IEEE
Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.
Philips invents intelligent clothing for personal healthcare (2003) Royal
Philips Electronics, Retrieved 26 January 2004 from
7. Bibliography
© Koré Mason 2004 - 58 -
http://www.research.philips.com/InformationCenter/Global/FNewPressReleas
e.asp?lArticleId=2823&lNodeId
Rheingold, H. (2002) Smart mobs: The next social revolution. Cambridge,
MA: Perseus Publishing.
Rhodes, B. (1997) The wearable remembrance agent: A system for
augmented memory. 1st International Symposium on Wearable Computers
(ISWC '97). Available from:
http://computer.org/proceedings/8192/8192toc.htm
Rhodes, B. (n.d.) A brief history of wearable computing. Retrieved January
05, 2004, from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Laboratory
Website: http://www.media.mit.edu/wearables/lizzy/timeline.html
Robson, C (2002) Real world research (2nd. Ed). Blackwell Publishing
Rosenberg, R. S. (1997). The social impact computers. London: Academic
Press
Sawhney, N., & Schmandt, C. (1999). Nomadic radio: Scalable and
contextual notification for wearable audio messaging. Paper presented at the
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Abstract retrieved
November 22, 2003 from
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=303005&jmp=cit&coll=portal&dl=ACM&C
FID=16433431&CFTOKEN=38249764#CIT
7. Bibliography
© Koré Mason 2004 - 59 -
Sielwiorek, D. P., Smailagic, A. (1999) User-centered interdisciplinary design
of wearable computers. ACM Mobile Computing and Communications review
3, 3, 635 – 655.
Siemens (2002). Innovation news. Building the hospital of the future.
Retrieved January 06, 2004, from
http://w4.siemens.com/en2/html/press/innovation_news/2002/ie_02_02.html
Slaton, J. (2000) E-Clothes Here, So Is Fear. Wired News. Retrieved 24
January 2004 from
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,38288,00.html
Stroud, M. (1999) You are what you ware. Wired News. Retrieved 24
January 2004 from http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,31529,00.html
Stenton, P. (2004) Cyborg clothing. HP Invent. Retrieved 05, February, 2004
from: http://www.hp.com/execcomm/inview/february02/feb02_enab4.html
Sutherland, I.E. (n.d.) Windows into Alice's wonderland: A head-mounted
three-dimensional display. Sun Microsystems. Retrieved January 05, 2004,
from http://www.sun.com/960710/feature3/alice.htmll
TechTarget (2004) Pervasive computing. Retrieved April 20, 2004 from:
http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid7_gci759337,00.html
TechTarget (2004) Grid Computing. Retrieved April 20, 2004 from:
http://searchcio.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid19_gci773157,00.html
7. Bibliography
© Koré Mason 2004 - 60 -
Vanderheiden, G.C. (1997) Anywhere, anytime (+ anyone) access to the next
generation WWW, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 39, 1439 - 1446,
Retrieved December, 01, 2003, from http://www.sciencedirect.com
Vijayasarathy, L.R. (2003) Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line
shopping: the case for an augmented technology acceptance model.
Information & Management, accepted 12 August.
Xybernaut Corporation (2004) Xybernaut Mobile Assistant, Retrieved 26
January 2004 from http://www.xybernaut.com/case_studies/PDFs/Education-
Training_CS.pdf
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 61 -
8. Appendices
Appendix 1: Conceptual Device
WearPC is a conceptual device designed by combining concepts from the
latest research and development into wearable computing and
communication technologies. Wear PC is a single device made up of an
earpiece, brooch, head mounted display, and holographic touch sensitive
display.
Specification
Wireless communication – Communication between
components of WearPC and the Internet are wireless.
Brooch
A brooch-like device
attached above or below
clothing around the
shoulder/neck area.
Includes video camera,
Earpiece
For audio interfacing.
Head Mounted Display (HMD)
Fashionable looking glasses
capable of adding to reality with a
Holographic touch sensitive
display
Infrared technology allows for full
screen multimedia viewing and
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 62 -
Context aware – Sensing allows WearPC to predict the users environment
and switch to an appropriate interface method (Audio, HMD, Holographic)
Global Positioning System (GPS) – WearPC can send and receive
geographical location information with an accuracy of up to a metre.
Always online – Whilst active WearPC is always connected to the Internet
allowing information to be sent and received continuously.
Voice recognition – Verbal input and output.
Audio and video – WearPC can record, playback, and transmit live audio and
video footage.
Optional extras - Add on hardware modules are available for body
temperature sensors, heart rate monitors.
Fully customisable software options – Software can be downloaded to tailor
WearPCs functions to specific needs.
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 63 -
Appendix 2: Conceptual Scenario - A day in your life, year
2010
7am - Dress
You dress and attach the WearPC brooch, earpiece, and pick up WearPC
glasses. You activate WearPC, which starts up in a default interface method
– private audio (via earpiece).
7.30am – Access News
Whilst eating your breakfast you give WearPC a voice command “Public
Audio” and “news”. Instantaneously a newsreader delivers the latest
headlines, which you hear through a speaker within the badge. One
particular headline grabs your attention; you command “news onscreen”. A
holographic display shows live news and a listing of news headlines, you
select the headline of interest by touching an area of the holographic display.
7.50am – Arrange to meet for lunch
After watching the news, and some of your favourite breakfast TV show, you
turn off the holographic display and give the command “call Jenny”. You
arrange to meet for lunch at a restaurant named LaBella in an area you are
unfamiliar with.
8.00am – Locate LaBella and buy a rail ticket
You take the dog for a morning walk and verbally command “orientation
service”. WearPC verbally requests “start” and “end location for destination
1”, which you supply for your home and LaBella. The system then verbally
offers methods of transport and directions to the venue. You decide to take
the train and request “rail service for destination 1”. WearPC sends your
desired destination information to an online rail service, which verbally
returns train times, ticket prices and presents a list of valid commands
including a reserve option. You reserve your ticket by commanding,
“reserve”.
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 64 -
11.00am – Travel to LaBella
Later on you go to the train station. As you enter the train WearPC bleeps
and gives an audio conformation, through your earpiece, that your account
has been debited with the amount of the ticket.
Whilst on the train you receive an incoming call. WearPCs sensors detect
that you are in a public place so the call is delivered privately through the
earpiece not the speaker.
As you alight the train, using GPS technology, the WearPC begins to give
audio guidance to LaBella and offers a map of the area; you select your
viewing method to be a graphical overlay through your glasses.
12.00 noon – Arrive at LaBella
Thanks to WearPC you arrive at LaBella bang on time, you take off your
glasses. As you enter the restaurant sensors within the building sense your
WearPC and it bleeps and gives an audio cue through your earpiece “accept
services from LaBella?” you confirm verbally “yes”. You notice that Jenny
has brought an acquaintance with her whom you met last week. However
you can’t remember his name. You give WearPC the command “private
facial identification”. A camera within WearPCs brooch takes a snapshot of
the acquaintance and searches a citizen’s database locating basic personal
information inc luding name, preferred language, and conformation that the
acquaintance’s WearPC is online. Through your earpiece you are given the
name “Todd” and “preferred language, Spanish”, and “WearPC online”.
12.05 – Lunch
At lunch the three of you converse fluently in a mixture of English and
Spanish, with your respective WearPCs translating as needed. You begin to
discuss a forthcoming project. You think it would be useful to review the
discussion at a later date so give the command “audio and video capture on”.
13.30 – Depart from LaBella
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 65 -
As you depart from LaBella WearPC gives audio confirmation that your
account has been debited with the lunch bill.
13.45 – The shopping mall
On your way back to the rail station you walk through a shopping mall, as you
pass certain stores WearPC gives and audio prompt detailing retail lines/new
stock you may be interested in. You don’t have time for shopping right now
but would like to review the items at your leisure, so you give WearPC the
command “retain”.
14.00 – Short cut
You decide to take a short cut to the station through an alleyway. It’s
secluded so for your safety you give the verbal command “safety”. WearPC
begins to record all audio and visual in your field of view, and forwards to an
online database and to your designated guardian*. As you round the corner
a stranger appears from nowhere and grabs you by the arm. You give the
command “safety help”. The nearest police station is notified of your distress
call and receives the last minute of audio and video from WearPC and your
location. The stranger simply asks for directions, before giving them, you
give WearPC the command “cancel last command”.
15.00 – Arrive home
As you arrive home you receive an audio message through WearPC “LaBella
services offer a Saturday night of live music. Make a booking?” you reply
“no”.
15.15 – Review retail offerings
As you sit down with a cup of tea you request “onscreen retained retail
offerings”, the holographic display shows adverts for products at the mall that
you are likely to be interested in. After reviewing them, you turn off and take
off WearPC.
*Guardian – A person who has agreed to receive, and respond if necessary,
your safety audio and video web casts.
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 66 -
Appendix 3: Coded Questionnaire
Informed consent
Researcher: Koré Mason
Study date: 2004
The researcher is conducting a study entitled ‘Wearable Computing: An
acceptable form of computing’, and can be contacted on:
07976 955626
Thank you for agreeing to participate in the study. Emphasis is made that:
?? Your participation is entirely voluntary;
?? You are free to ask questions regarding the project at any time;
?? You are free to refuse to answer any question;
?? You are free to withdraw at any time.
Information gathered through the questionnaire is kept strictly confidential
and is available only to the researcher. Excerpts from comments made in the
questionnaire may be made part of the final research report, but under no
circumstances are your name or any other identifying characteristics included
in the report without further written consent.
Please sign below to confirm you have read and understand the above.
…………………………………………………………….(signed)
…………………………………………………………….(printed)
…………………………………………………………….(date)
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 67 -
Demographics
Age ………………………………
Sex Male Female
Education (e.g. GCSE equivalent, A-Level equivalent, Degree, Masters,
PHD)
………………………………………………………………………………………
Background Info
Mobile computing experience (laptop/pocketPC) (yrs)
……………………………………………………………………………..
Mobile communication (mobile phone/WAP) experience (yrs)
……………………………………………………………………………..
Daily computer usage (hrs)
……………………………………………………………………………..
Please select the statement that is closest to your opinion.
SA = Strongly Agree
A = Agree
N = Neither
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
Knowledge of Wearable Computing Technologies
S1 - I have no knowledge of wearable computing technology
SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 68 -
Technology adoption
S2 -I am usually among the first to acquire new technology.
SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]
Usefulness
S3 - Functions offered by WearPC would be useful.
SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]
S4 - Additional functions to enhance sensory, physical, and/or cognitive skills
would be useful to me.
SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]
Ease of use
S5 - WearPC would be easy to use.
SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]
S6 - WearPC appeals to me due to the flexibility of input and output modes
SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]
Privacy
S7 - Recording and transmitting of audio and video through WearPC would
pose a threat to my own and other people’s privacy.
SA [1] A [2] N [3] D [4] SD [5]
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 69 -
S8 - The Global Positioning System poses a threat to my privacy.
SA [1] A [2] N [3] D [4] SD [5]
S9 - WearPC features would pose no threat to my privacy.
SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]
Health
S10 - Wireless technology within WearPC could pose a threat to my health.
SA [1] A [2] N [3] D [4] SD [5]
S11 - Wireless technology within WearPC poses no threat to my health.
SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]
Dependence S12 and S13 removed from the study
S12 – I could become dependent on the convenience offered by WearPC
SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]
S13 – I could not become dependent on the convenience offered by WearPC
SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]
Empowerment
S14 - WearPC could provide protection from surveillance equipment
embedded in the world around us.
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 70 -
SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]
S15 - I would feel empowered by the safety features offered by WearPC.
SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]
S16 - WearPC would not make me feel empowered in any way.
SA [1] A [2] N [3] D [4] SD [5]
Information Control S17 - S20 removed from the study
S17 - I would feel threatened if government or other groups could collect
information sent and received by WearPC.
SA A N D SD
S18 - I should be the only person who has access to the information sent and
received by WearPC.
SA A N D SD
S19 - I should be the only person who can activate or deactivate WearPC.
SA A N D SD
S20 - I would like service operators to be able to activate WearPC in order to
offer me services of interest.
SA A N D SD
Behavioural Intention
S21 - If I had access to a device like WearPC I would use it, over
conventional methods, to accomplish similar tasks.
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 71 -
SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]
S22 - I would like to purchase a device like WearPC.
SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]
Society
S23 - I would be uncomfortable in a society where use of devices similar to
WearPC were commonplace.
SA [1] A [2] N [3] D [4] SD [5]
S24 - Wearable computing in a form similar to that described in the WearPC
scenario is a socially acceptable form of computing.
SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]
Please feel free to make comments you feel may be of use in this study:
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 72 -
Appendix 4: Online Forums
The following are URL’s for online forums used to recruit participants for the
conceptual scenario-based study:
http://forums.anandtech.com/
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x
http://forums.hardwarezone.com/
http://www.hardcoreware.net/forum/index.php?
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 73 -
Appendix 5: Focus Group Consent Form
Statement of Informed Consent
I, ___________________________, agree to participate in this research
project on “Wearable Computing: An acceptable form of computing” that is
being conducted by Koré Mason from the University of Gloucestershire.
I understand that the purpose of this study is to hold a group interview to find
out more about the social acceptance of wearable computing; we will discuss
our general ideas about issues relating to usefulness, usability, privacy,
health, empowerment, and wider social aspects.
I understand that this study involves a focus group interview that lasts for on
hour or less, which will be audio taped.
I understand that my participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and that if
I wish to withdraw from the study or leave, I may do so at any time, and that I
do not have to give any reasons or explanations for doing so.
I understand that because of this study there may be violations of my privacy.
To prevent violations of my own or another persons privacy, I have been
asked not to talk about any of my own or others’ private experiences that I
would consider too personal or revealing.
I also understand that the information I give will be kept confidential to the
extent permitted by law, and that names of all the people in the study will be
kept confidential.
I understand that I may not receive any direct benefit from participating in the
study, but that my participation may help others in the future.
The researcher has offered to answer any questions I may have about the
study and what I am expected to do.
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 74 -
I have read and understand this information
Date………………………………………..
Your Signature…………………………………………
Print Name …………………………………………….
If you have any concerns about this study please contact either Koré Mason
[kore_m@hotmail.com, 07976 955626]
Adapted from:
Morgan, D.L. (1998) The Focus Group Guidebook. London: SAGE Publications p87
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 75 -
Appendix 6: Focus Group Questions
This session is designed to expand on issues relating to usefulness,
threat to privacy and health, and empowerment. The information
collected during this session will be used initially within the research
report and may also be used in future papers (ISWC paper).
While in this focus group I would like you to consider the issues raised by the WearPC scenario rather than the device its self. Wearable computing is being developed in many forms and WearPC was designed to stimulate debate on the main issues relating to the acceptance of this technology.
Opening
1. What are your main uses for mobile computing and communication
technologies (Thinkpads, mobile phones, PDAs, TV)?
Key - Usefulness
2. How do you think converging networked mobile computing, mobile
phones, and TV media through wearable computing would be useful in
your day to day life?
3. What other sensory enhancements would you like to see incorporated
into a consumer wearable computer (blue sky ideas welcome)?
Key - Privacy
4. What are the benefits and pitfalls of having GPS within the WPC?
5. 85% of questionnaire respondents agreed that the recording and
transmitting of audio and video would pose a threat to their privacy.
To what extent would this affect your desire to use WearPC?
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 76 -
(Consider other peoples perception that you are invading their privacy, or your perception that other WearPC users were invading yours).
Key - Health
6. One notion of wearable computing is that it is proposed to be worn
close to the body and for long periods of time. With studies regarding
the effects of radiation from wireless technology being inconclusive.
To what degree would this affect your desire to use such a device?
Key - Empowerment
7. 52% of people would feel empowered by the safety features offered by
WearPC. Do you think such a device would deter or increase crime?
(consider here the recent spate of street robberies for mobile phones)
8. Would being able to collect and record information in areas where
surveillance equipment are used have a significant effect on your
attitude towards wearable computing?
Key - Society
9. 53% of questionnaire respondents would be comfortable in a society
where wearable computing of this kind were commonplace. How do
you think widespread use of such devices would affect people’s
behaviour? (consider aspects of having your actions and
conversations recorded, services being available anywhere and
anytime, and the possibility of having your movements monitored)
Key - Positive/negative
10. As a group put the following factors in order of importance when
considering the implications of wearable computing and ultimately the
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 77 -
affect on your attitude towards it. 1 – 5 no.1 being most important and
number 5 being least important.
Summary
In summary the key points of the discussion were …
Ending - Wrapping it up
11. This study is focussed on gaining an understanding of the acceptance
of possible large-scale use of wearable computing in society. Are
there any issues you would like to raise that we haven’t already
covered?
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 78 -
Appendix 7: Gant Chart
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 79 -
Appendix 8: Demographic Frequency Tables
Statistics
DailyCompU KnowledgeOfW
C TechnologyAdo
ption MCompExp MCommExp Valid 68 68 64 68 68 N Missing 9 9 13 9 9
Mean 6.94 2.50 3.03 3.76 4.19
Daily Computer Usage (hours)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 0 2 2.6 2.9 2.9 2 1 1.3 1.5 4.4 3 6 7.8 8.8 13.2 4 5 6.5 7.4 20.6 5 13 16.9 19.1 39.7 6 5 6.5 7.4 47.1 7 6 7.8 8.8 55.9 8 11 14.3 16.2 72.1 9 1 1.3 1.5 73.5 10 12 15.6 17.6 91.2 12 3 3.9 4.4 95.6 13 2 2.6 2.9 98.5 16 1 1.3 1.5 100.0
Valid
Total 68 88.3 100.0 Missing System 9 11.7 Total 77 100.0
Knowledge of Wearable Computing
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 1 16 20.8 23.5 23.5 2 29 37.7 42.6 66.2 3 2 2.6 2.9 69.1 4 15 19.5 22.1 91.2 5 6 7.8 8.8 100.0
Valid
Total 68 88.3 100.0 Missing System 9 11.7 Total 77 100.0
Technology Adoption
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 80 -
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 1 6 7.8 9.4 9.4 2 25 32.5 39.1 48.4 4 27 35.1 42.2 90.6 5 6 7.8 9.4 100.0
Valid
Total 64 83.1 100.0 Missing System 13 16.9 Total 77 100.0
Mobile Computer Experience (years)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 0 13 16.9 19.1 19.1 1 4 5.2 5.9 25.0 2 13 16.9 19.1 44.1 3 7 9.1 10.3 54.4 4 7 9.1 10.3 64.7 5 13 16.9 19.1 83.8 6 1 1.3 1.5 85.3 7 2 2.6 2.9 88.2 8 1 1.3 1.5 89.7 9 1 1.3 1.5 91.2 10 3 3.9 4.4 95.6 15 3 3.9 4.4 100.0
Valid
Total 68 88.3 100.0 Missing System 9 11.7 Total 77 100.0
Mobile Communication Experience (years)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 0 5 6.5 7.4 7.4 1 4 5.2 5.9 13.2 2 8 10.4 11.8 25.0 3 14 18.2 20.6 45.6 4 10 13.0 14.7 60.3 5 14 18.2 20.6 80.9 6 3 3.9 4.4 85.3 7 2 2.6 2.9 88.2 8 4 5.2 5.9 94.1 9 1 1.3 1.5 95.6 10 2 2.6 2.9 98.5 20 1 1.3 1.5 100.0
Valid
Total 68 88.3 100.0 Missing System 9 11.7 Total 77 100.0
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 81 -
Appendix 9: Questionnaire Data Frequency Tables
S3
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 2 1 1.3 1.3 1.3 3 10 13.0 13.0 14.3 4 47 61.0 61.0 75.3 5 19 24.7 24.7 100.0
Valid
Total 77 100.0 100.0 S4
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 1 2 2.6 2.6 2.6 2 7 9.1 9.1 11.7 3 14 18.2 18.2 29.9 4 37 48.1 48.1 77.9 5 17 22.1 22.1 100.0
Valid
Total 77 100.0 100.0 S5
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 1 2 2.6 2.6 2.6 2 8 10.4 10.4 13.0 3 23 29.9 29.9 42.9 4 35 45.5 45.5 88.3 5 9 11.7 11.7 100.0
Valid
Total 77 100.0 100.0
S6
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 1 2 2.6 2.6 2.6 2 8 10.4 10.5 13.2 3 18 23.4 23.7 36.8 4 39 50.6 51.3 88.2 5 9 11.7 11.8 100.0
Valid
Total 76 98.7 100.0 Missing System 1 1.3 Total 77 100.0
S7
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 82 -
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 1 21 27.3 27.3 27.3 2 40 51.9 51.9 79.2 3 7 9.1 9.1 88.3 4 6 7.8 7.8 96.1 5 3 3.9 3.9 100.0
Valid
Total 77 100.0 100.0 S8
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 1 15 19.5 19.5 19.5 2 24 31.2 31.2 50.6 3 12 15.6 15.6 66.2 4 21 27.3 27.3 93.5 5 5 6.5 6.5 100.0
Valid
Total 77 100.0 100.0
S9
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 1 15 19.5 19.5 19.5 2 41 53.2 53.2 72.7 3 8 10.4 10.4 83.1 4 9 11.7 11.7 94.8 5 4 5.2 5.2 100.0
Valid
Total 77 100.0 100.0 S10
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 1 3 3.9 3.9 3.9 2 21 27.3 27.3 31.2 3 29 37.7 37.7 68.8 4 16 20.8 20.8 89.6 5 8 10.4 10.4 100.0
Valid
Total 77 100.0 100.0 S11
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 1 4 5.2 5.2 5.2 2 15 19.5 19.5 24.7 3 36 46.8 46.8 71.4 4 16 20.8 20.8 92.2 5 6 7.8 7.8 100.0
Valid
Total 77 100.0 100.0
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 83 -
S12
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 0 7 9.1 9.2 9.2 2 11 14.3 14.5 23.7 3 12 15.6 15.8 39.5 4 38 49.4 50.0 89.5 5 8 10.4 10.5 100.0
Valid
Total 76 98.7 100.0 Missing System 1 1.3 Total 77 100.0
S13
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 0 7 9.1 9.2 9.2 1 1 1.3 1.3 10.5 2 10 13.0 13.2 23.7 3 22 28.6 28.9 52.6 4 33 42.9 43.4 96.1 5 3 3.9 3.9 100.0
Valid
Total 76 98.7 100.0 Missing System 1 1.3 Total 77 100.0
S14
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 1 5 6.5 6.5 6.5 2 20 26.0 26.0 32.5 3 26 33.8 33.8 66.2 4 25 32.5 32.5 98.7 5 1 1.3 1.3 100.0
Valid
Total 77 100.0 100.0 S15
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 1 1 1.3 1.3 1.3 2 16 20.8 20.8 22.1 3 21 27.3 27.3 49.4 4 37 48.1 48.1 97.4 5 2 2.6 2.6 100.0
Valid
Total 77 100.0 100.0
S16
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 84 -
1 2 2.6 2.6 2.6 2 15 19.5 19.5 22.1 3 17 22.1 22.1 44.2 4 41 53.2 53.2 97.4 5 2 2.6 2.6 100.0
Valid
Total 77 100.0 100.0 S17
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 75 97.4 97.4 97.4 .00 2 2.6 2.6 100.0
Valid
Total 77 100.0 100.0 S21
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 1 1 1.3 1.3 1.3 2 1 1.3 1.3 2.6 3 19 24.7 24.7 27.3 4 51 66.2 66.2 93.5 5 5 6.5 6.5 100.0
Valid
Total 77 100.0 100.0
S22
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 1 1 1.3 1.3 1.3 2 7 9.1 9.1 10.4 3 27 35.1 35.1 45.5 4 30 39.0 39.0 84.4 5 12 15.6 15.6 100.0
Valid
Total 77 100.0 100.0 S23
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 1 5 6.5 6.5 6.5 2 13 16.9 16.9 23.4 3 18 23.4 23.4 46.8 4 31 40.3 40.3 87.0 5 10 13.0 13.0 100.0
Valid
Total 77 100.0 100.0
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 85 -
S24
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent 1 2 2.6 3.6 3.6 2 8 10.4 14.5 18.2 3 19 24.7 34.5 52.7 4 22 28.6 40.0 92.7 5 4 5.2 7.3 100.0
Valid
Total 55 71.4 100.0 Missing System 22 28.6 Total 77 100.0
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 86 -
Appendix 10: University Focus Group Transcription
Usefulness
Participant 9
“Converging technologies is useful in that you don’t have to carry around
multiple devices offering similar facilities, phones, PDAs, and laptops all offer
a calendar facility and contacts, you just don’t need it.”
“There is value in having bigger devices with more features, but smaller
devices when you just need their main function e.g. mobile phone”
“Additional facilities are only there because they are easy (and cheap) to
program”
“Sensory enhancements like x-ray specs would be great”
“Memory augmentation isn’t too far a stretch of the imagination, we already
have .zip disks to hold our dissertations instead of having to remember it all.”
Participant 8
“Quality of video recording should be high”
“Context sensitive WPC”
“Sensory enhancements like night vision would be cool”
“WPC could enhance your memory and add something that you didn’t have,
when talking to someone of the opposite sex and you come out with a great
line that they really like, the person may start thinking ‘is that him talking, or is
it his WPC?’ those enhancements are false, as a storage device it would be
good, but if it actually enhanced your memory it could unleash an outbreak of
paranoia”
“Would it (WPC) send people crazy eventually? Would people still be talking
to themselves when not using their WPC?”
“If you were able to give your WPC a personality you could get people falling
in love with their WPC!!”
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 87 -
“I think development of WPC will be an incremental process.”
Participant 10
“WPC could enhance your hearing, letting you know if someone was
creeping up behind you”
“We could become complacent with memory augmentation”
Participant 11
“Quality of WAP experience isn’t there yet, this effects user experience”.
“Nanotechnology could enable wearable computing, though the
nanotechnology raises a whole load of pri vacy issues due to the probability
that tiny computing devices could be used without our knowing”
“Sensory enhancement, sight, hearing, and touch, could be one of the main
benefits of wearable computing”
“Memory augmentation would make you much sharper”
“With augmented memory you could literally ‘switch your brain off’ with a
WPC”
“The whole future is going towards devices you can talk to, you may be
walking down a street and you shout out a command and something pops
out from a lamp post and goes ‘woo hello!’”
“WPC recording your daily activities could help you find things you had lost”
“WPC needs to be almost like the clothes we wear. You just put it on and
you don’t even realize you’ve got it there. A necklace or earring or neck
brace type thing. Needs to be so discrete on your person so people don’t
know it there.”
Global positioning system
Participant 7
“Handy to for way finding.”
Trend 1
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 88 -
Participant 9
“Have implications of user tracking.”
“Benefit is that parents could track where their children were”
Participant 8
“Could be useful as a training aid. Jogging mode GPS could help to show
you your jogging course and give lap times.”
“Disgruntled partner could track the other! or partners could track the other
down the pub!!”
Privacy
Participant 7
“You probably wouldn’t say anything personal to anyone with a WPC if you
thought they may be uploading or saving it”
Participant 9
“The threat of recording and transmitting of audio and video depends on the
amount of people using WPC.”
“You would have to make it so that you would have to have permission to
record, existing legislation says that you cannot secretly record another
person”
“Citizens database would require everyone to have their images recorded,
would it be secure as you could alter your face”
“I don’t want people to have audio and video information of me … it’s mine, I
don’t want you to have it!”
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 89 -
“You may augment your natural conversation by sending other messages
with WPC, example is how emotions have developed in messenger, in
themselves they don’t have much meaning but in the context of the
conversation they do” (evolved communication form)
Participant 8
“Children come into whole ethics of WPC, you wouldn’t want paedophiles to
take pictures of them and be able to search through a database for personal
information about the child such as name”.
“Criminals could record over peoples shoulders to capture pin numbers, card
numbers on till receipts, e -mail passwords”.
“Facial analysis would make you wary of people, you would be wondering if
someone had forgotten your name”
“Privacy issues need to be refined”
“WPC could potentially affect the way you interact with people”
“With new technologies people always find a way round the security features.
Viruses could be loaded onto WPC.”
Participant 10
“Would being able to isolate yourself make WPC pointless?”
Participant 11
“A citizens database would be really bad news in the fight against
paedophilia. They could access children’s names then approach them acting
like a family friend.”
“Should be a feature in WPC to block other people from recording you,
individual voices could get deleted from conversations when someone had
set their device to stop others recording them”
Trends 2&7
Trend 6
Trend 7
Trend 8
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 90 -
“You could easily be in a mood and say something about someone that you
don’t really mean and it could get recorded and taken out of context.”
“There should be a button on WPC to isolate them from everyone else with
WPC, at that point in time they are protected and they know in their own
minds nobody can record them, take pictures of them, its like a little force
field around them. Only emergency services could have access to the
WPC.”
“Everyone would like to be able to access other peoples WPC, but not have
their own accessed!”
“I still don’t trust putting my own personal details (bank) on the Internet, you
have to build trust with these things.”
Health
Participant 7
“I would not want to be on a mobile phone for eight hours a day, my ear gets
hot.”
“You could get really bad headaches from use of the holoscreen”
Participant 9
“Understanding the underlying technology and implications is key to trusting
the technology”
“No major concerns about health implications”
“WPC could drive evolution, we evolve with technology”
Participant 8
“Imagine walking along a street with a context sensitive WPC that decides
the output mode should be holographic and a holographic picture pops up in
front of you causing you to walk into a lamp post!”
Trend 8
Trend 2
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 91 -
“The earpiece worn for long periods of time causes pain, could u wear this
form of input for hours? And still be fine”
“Inertia from a hologram could cause motion sickness”
Participant 10
“If there were similar threats to health as those proposed with mobile phones
then this would be a considerable issue.”
“Radiation could be a serious threat”
Participant 11
“You would get information overload”
“Technological advances allow us be rid of manual laborious tasks, and
advance.”
Empowerment
Participant 9
“How possible would Mann’s proposition of watching those who watch you
be, if hackers can access your information, surely government would also be
able to access your recordings”
Participant 11
“Excessive use and misuse of the ‘call police’ feature would waste police
resources.”
“Empowerment wouldn’t be the first thing when considering purchasing a
WPC”
Trend 4
Trend 2
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 92 -
Participant 10
“Empowerment wouldn’t even come into the picture when considering
purchasing a WPC”
Participant 11
“I recon WPC similar to the scenario would deter criminals”
“Most people would buy WPC because it’s a fashionable, gadgety item”
Positive/Negative Variables
Participants categorised independent variables in the following order of
importance (1 most, 5 least important)
1. Usefulness.
2. Ease of Use
3. Threat to my health
4. Threat to my privacy
5. Threat to your privacy
6. Empowerment
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 93 -
Appendix 11: IBM Focus Group Transcription
Usefulness
Participant 1
“I don’t want to have to be limited to be at my desk, unless I have to meet
people faced to face I don’t see a reason for sitting at a fixed desk.
Everything I want to be able to do from there (my desk), I want to be able to
do from any other place. There are certain situations where I think I need all
this information around me. I shouldn’t actually have to physically have it in
front of me, I want get all the information I want wherever I am, if I’m at my
desk or walking down the street. There would then be no reason for me to
actually be at my desk. I guess this may even cause my working hours to
change. I want to be able to do my chores on the football pitch!”
Participant 2
“Would you have much more time for leisure because you could do those
things like going to the bank, ordering your shopping could be done while
doing something like getting to a football pitch.
Participant 4
“Its certainly excellent from a laziness point of view. Plus you have all of your
devices together in one place. Which is cool as you could reduce the amount
of clutter you own and carry around with you. Doing it all through one device
would be pretty cool.”
Moderator
“Would the size of the device be an issue? I mean if you left some of your
devices at home would you want a tiny device that you took with you?”
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 94 -
Participant 4
“I think if it’s going to be wearable then I want it to be small enough to be
wearable. As opposed to a 1980 style phone with a bum bag to carry
batteries.”
Participant 1
“In the scenario I took the device off at the end of the day. I didn’t really need
to do that I don’t want to need to take it off unless there are health reasons
why I should do so. Unless I need to take a shower or something then why
should I have to take it off? I should be able to turn it off and it should seem
no different, the fact that I’m wearing it shouldn’t impact on me at all.”
Moderator
“So saying that, would you be happy to sleep with your wearable computer
on?”
Participant 1
“Yeah I could then wake in the middle of the night with a great idea and
capture it on my WPC, or do a bit of work and go back to sleep again.”
Participant 2
“I’m not sure I would like to be under this pressure all the time, by this device,
the fact that I’ve got no excuse not to act on this idea, I’ve got no ‘get away’
from anybody else nagging me to do something. I don’t want people to have
that expectation that they can contact me 24 hrs a day. Also information
overload, do I want to have all this information being thrown at me all the
time? I suppose I can take it off.”
Participant 3
Trend 1
Trend 4
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 95 -
“You can filter out what information you are offered, and if people want you to
do things, whether you do them or not is actually your prerogative.”
Participant 3
“The size of the device is very important to me.”
Participant 2
“A WC watch that I could wear in the bath that could do everything that my
ThinkPad could do, that would be quite good, so if I’m reading something like
a magazine in the bath and I see a web reference I wouldn’t have to
remember the reference I could just access it straight away.”
Moderator
“Would you like to see any other sensory enhancements offered by WPC?”
Participant 2
“I’d like one (enhanced sense) for carbon monoxide, pollution levels, pollen
levels.”
Participant 1
“I’d like personal rear view mirrors so I can see what going on behind me, so
I cold have a panoramic view.”
Participant 1
“I would find it useful if information was intelligently filtered. So for example if
I was reading a menu in a foreign language I’d like WPC to know what I like
Trend 1
Trend 3
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 96 -
and only offer me those things, or if I’ve eaten something similar in the
morning then don’t show me that either.”
Participant 3
“Yeah filtering is important, so if I want to know what’s on at the cinema,
you’ll only be offered something suitable so I wont be offered all the kiddies
movies.”
Moderator
“Would you like your device to have a personality, or a tailored voice?”
Participant 1
“I’d like it to know what mood I was in, then dictate which personality it spoke
to me in. If I was hungry then it could remind me that yesterday I had a huge
steak and perhaps I shouldn’t eat so much today it could regulate the type of
things and quantity I eat”
Participant 2
“Yes it could ensure you ate a healthy balanced diet.”
Participant 3
“The device could tell you how many calories you had eaten already today.
The device could measure your blood alcohol limit and calculate whether you
were safe to drive.”
Participant 4
“I don’t think I’d want it to have that much of a degree of control”
Trend 3
Trend 3
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 97 -
Participant 2
“Its not controlling its recommending”
Participant 3
“It should be optional, so you could turn features on and off.”
Moderator
“Why wouldn’t you want it to have so much control?”
Participant 4
“Because I like to make my own decisions, if I need assistance then I’d use
the device for it, rather than having it constantly offering assistance.”
Moderator
“If features weren’t selectable, would you be put off using the device?”
Participant 4
“Yes definitely. I have to be totally in control.”
Participant 2
“You need to be able to turn off and turn on the things that it can do.”
Moderator
“So flexible then?”
Participant 4
Trend 5
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 98 -
“The personalities wouldn’t be as important to me as perhaps how smart the
device was, the device has to be smart enough to do lots of things for me, I
don’t care how it communicates with me, I’d like it to be clever enough to
know what it was I wanted and needed”
Moderator
“So you’d like to tailor it then?”
Participant 4
“I’d like it to tailor its self. I don’t want to have to spend time teaching it what I
like and what I don’t like I want it to work all that out.”
Participant 2
“So that means that when I go to the supermarket and buy a loaf of bread,
pint of milk, and a pond of cheese, it knows I’ve brought those things so the
next time it says, I presume you are going to buy …”
Moderator
“You could have it offering you recipes when you buy your ingredients.”
Participant 2
“With these things you’ve brought you can do such and such. Yeah it is pre-
emptive … what’s that knowledge base?”
Participant 4
“Yeah it definitely has to be smart.”
Trend 3
Trend 3
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 99 -
Participant 6
“How practical would that be though because going through a supermarket
there would be so many things it could offer you to go in recopies it could
drive you insane”.
Participant 2
“Again you could just switch the feature on when needed. And it knows what
you’ve got in your store cupboards and by adding new ingredients in there it
could say ‘well you could cook …’”
Participant 5
“I think I’d be really scared if I had this wearable computer that had all this
information about what I said on a daily basis and knew everywhere I go and
everything I eat and I lost it, I would be petrified that somebody would have
my life in their hands”
Participant 3
“It’s got to be secure with voice recognition, eye retina, finger print, or
whatever it is that makes it secure for you.”
Participant 1
“You wouldn’t want all the information stored on the device you’d want it out
on the grid somewhere.”
Privacy
Moderator
Trend 4
Trend 6
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 100 -
“That’s quite a good opener for the next stage. 85% of people who answered
the questionnaire so far agree that recording and transmitting of audio and
video and any other information that it collects would pose a threat to their
privacy, if you are of that opinion, how would it affect your desire to use it?
Would it be a major issue?”
Participant 6
“Its not that, I’d be intimidated to be around other people who wore the
device, because of the things you were saying then. If everyone had this
device then you would be scared to say anything to anyone. Because
everything you say could be used against you.”
Participant 5
“You’d have to know if someone was recording you. In the scenario where
someone grabbed you on the shoulder it would serve as a warning to them it
would be some sort of deterrent.”
Participant 1
“You are probably going to get a real cultural split between the users and
non-users really, especially in the early stages when people start doing it.
Slowly more and more people would do it (have WPC), eventually people
without the could become social outcasts, if you have that ability to talk to
people in different languages and do all these wonderful thing and you had
this person standing here or has to sit at their desk then there’s no way they
are going to be as useful as somebody else.”
Participant 3
“Isn’t that just a transition period until everybody has it?”
Participant 2
Trend 7
Trend 2
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 101 -
“But this is invading the interaction between people”.
Moderator
“If you were wearing it, not many other people were using it yet, and you had
a perception that they felt you were invading their privacy, would this effect
your using it at all? ”
Participant 4
“It depends how subtle it is. I mean if it’s a tiny device that looks like a watch
or a pair of glasses, then that wouldn’t be a big problem because they
wouldn’t necessarily know that I was using anything.”
Participant 2
“It depends how you interacted with it though, how much attention you gave
to the device as apposed to the other person, how could you give your
undivided attention when being distracted by this device?”
Participant 4
“I don’t really want to have to speak to a device, its going to make me feel
awkward and self conscious.”
Moderator
“What would be your preferred method of interfacing?”
Participant 4
“It would be cool if it just knew your thoughts and what you wanted or
needed, some sort of brain connecting magic, that would be”.
Trend 3
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 102 -
Participant 2
“And the next stage of this is that it controls where you walk!”.
Participant 1
“How easy would it be to adopt this technology. Probably if you were brought
up with it you would pick it up really quickly, whereas with my grandparents
there’s no way they would be able to. Or want it”.
Participant 3
“That’s just another transition over a generation”.
Participant 3
“Going back to privacy, I think privacy is one of the hottest topics about it. Its
something that’s going to really divide peoples thoughts about it, big time,
and has to be really thought about carefully”
“Also something that ***** said would it take over peoples lives and we
almost become like robots rather than humans because we are pretty much
being governed by these devices as opposed to really thinking for ourselves.”
Participant 4
“Going back to the sensory enhancements, it would be good if you were
talking to someone who was really boring you could switch off and do
something else, like do some work. If you get to the stage where they’ve
asked you a question and are waiting for an answer you could get a quick
recap of all the important things they’ve said”
Participant 2
Trend 6
Trend 2
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 103 -
“I can see mental health going down the tube with this device”.
Laughter
Participant 4
“Still on sensory enhancements, I’d like it to be my glasses for me, so it’d
correct my short sightedness and also if I could have zoom eyes that would
be a great feature”.
Participant 2
“What about the medical side of things, if you were a diabetic it could tell you
your blood sugar levels were low, or be releasing a shot of insulin. Or your
cholesterol was a bit high, it would be like keeping a car serviced but doing it
perpetually”.
Participant 4
“I think we are moving from a wearable PC to a human augmentation, it’s
more of enhancements”.
Participant 1
“If it’s a stand alone device then fine, though if someone could gain control of
the WPC and pump me full of insulin …”
Participant 2
“Maybe it could be for monitoring then”.
Participant 1
Trend 2&7
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 104 -
“Everything is moving towards this grid architecture, everything connected to
everything, I wonder if you do want to have some things outside of that, you
are essentially going to have to have your own personal firewall which would
be able to control all data coming towards you”.
Participant 5
“If you started to depend on it to tell you when your insulin was dropping and
it failed …”
Participant 3
“But then you put your trust into planes and soon they will be taking off and
landing with pilots just having manual override. There is always going to be
that kind of concern while its being tested, I appreciate that but hopefully one
day you would be able to sort out those problems”.
Participant 2
“The thing that I want it to do is just to make my life easier, if I working I want
it to be able to control things remotely, like switching on the washing machine
or defrost something. Just to be able to control things that I can’t currently
control because I’m in the wrong place. Which I suppose is bluetooth
technology anyway”.
Participant 4
“I think what we are talking about is a long way ahead of just replacing your
ThinkPad and mobile phone …”
Participant 2
“It’s (about) changing all the devices we have in the home”.
Trend 8
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 105 -
Modertor
“And its also a load of different technologies as well, it would take a load of
infrastructure to put this stuff in place, but people are working towards it…”
Participant 3
“Anything’s possible”.
Health
Moderator
“We touched a bit on health issues, have any of you thought that having a
computing device close to your body at all time could possibly pose a threat
to your health especially if its transmitting data. Consider the problem that
we have inconclusive evidence about the effects of radiation from your
mobile phone, would it concern you at all?”
Participant 6
“You would want to have complete knowledge that it is healthy and its not
going to pose a threat to your health before you purchase it. I wouldn’t even
think about buying one until I knew that it was safe. I don’t really think about
it when buying a mobile phone but because its going to be by your body all
the time it would be more important to me than …”.
Participant 5
“It depends to the extent to which you wear it as well, if it had all these
feature then there would be a lot of occasions where I would want to turn it
off, otherwise I’d just have too much information all the time. If it was
something I was going to have running all day and night then I probably
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 106 -
would think about it, but I have to admit that when I bought my mobile phone
I wasn’t thinking about radiation I was thinking about colour!”
Laughter
Participant 4
“Its an important concern though, when you think about all the young people
carrying mobile phones around nuking yourself with all this radiation, it’s a bit
of an unknown”
Participant 3
“Its like all this wireless that’s being used at the moment, its going through
our bodies, does anybody know whether that’s having an effect on us?”
Participant 2
“And radio masts by schools … so yes there are concerns and a lot of
research is going to have to be done on disproving or proving it”
Moderator
“But it doesn’t sound from what you are saying that it would be an overriding
issue, considering you have said there are all these other technologies that
could be posing a threat …”
Participant 1
“I think it’s a solvable problem really, I think it’ll take some time to get the
adoption levels and technology high enough such that everybody is happy
with the safety elements of it. I guess you could go some way to solving it by
limiting the amount of data being sent and received by taking it off to a base
location, like a smaller radio mast that then links up to everything else, so you
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 107 -
take away the level of transmission you have to do and put it somewhere
else, I think that would resolve a lot of the problems”.
Global positioning system
Participant 4
“It would be neat to have an overlay of your house so you could know where
your kids were, so if your toddler was getting closer to the hot oven …”
Participant 5
“You could see if there were intruders and alarm could go off …”
Participant 4
“It’s a given that if it has GPS it can get you from place to place, so its what it
could offer you on top of that”.
Moderator
“So would GPS be a positive factor when considering buying the device?”
Participant 2
“That would be my main reason for buying it.”
Privacy
Participant 3
“Would you find it useful to monitor where your kids were?”
Participant 2
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 108 -
“It would be useful so I know where they are, but would they want me
knowing where they were and what they were doing?”
Empowerment
Moderator
“Would being able to collect and record information in areas where
surveillance equipment are used have a significant effect on your attitude
towards wearable computing? Would you want to have the same information
available to you that the surveyor had?”
Participant 6
“By knowing that people were watching me I would probably just become
more paranoid”.
Participant 2
“But you want to know what they have on you.”
Participant 6
“If it was just data then fine, but if I was aware that I was under surveillance
by cameras then that would be disagreeable”.
Participant 1
“In many ways he could be fighting a loosing battle because in terms of
things filtering down to the consumer, then we are unlikely to have access to
those things corporations and government have so as we get these things
they would already calculated form some statistical data that you were going
to do that so I think that we are always going to be one step back, I don’t
Trend 6
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 109 -
think we are ever going to be on an even table with big business and
government”.
Participant 3
“People could become really paranoid, it could be a whole load of people
watching you wherever”.
Participant 4
“Why would you need this level of protection () if I’ve not done anything
wrong then what’s the problem”.
Society
Moderator
53% of questionnaire respondents so far would be comfortable in a society
where wearable computing of this kind were commonplace. How do you think
widespread use of such devices would affect people’s behaviour? (Consider
aspects of having your actions and conversations recorded, services being
available anywhere and anytime, and the possibility of having your
movements monitored)
Participant 2
“Would it make us more efficient?”
Participant 4
“I don’t know if it would benefit society as much as it would benefit the
individual”.
Participant 2
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 110 -
“I think it would benefit society in that it would make us more efficient in our
jobs, so businesses would be more efficient, so the economy would be
effected and so on”.
Participant 5
“Do you think you would end up working longer hours?”
Participant 2
“Yes because you could work anywhere.”
Participant 5
“That could cause stress”
Participant 6
“It might have some kind of effect, in that you could do all these things you
may neglect the fact that you could speak to people as well, your social
interaction could go right down the drain”.
Participant 1
“That’s a good point because you are slowly going to get access to more and
more information it would get to the stage where you would never need to
ask anybody anything because you would know it.”
Participant 6
“And surely the uses of it would just become more and more as more things
would come out, that you just would not need anyone”.
Trend 7
Trend 7
Trend 7
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 111 -
Participant 5
“That’s where you would get to the point where you would turn it off. I think I
could get all the information I need off the Internet but it doesn’t mean I would
prefer to be sitting there than in the front room with my friends. So I don’t
know if it would get to that extent where people were walking around in their
own little bubble. I would still talk to other people because its not the getting
of information that I enjoy it’s the interaction that I enjoy, so I think people
would still turn it off, it would still be considered rude to be in your own little
zone talking to your computer if there was someone sitting next to you. If you
had it as a child it could effect the development of children in the way that TV
can effect language development”.
Participant 5
“Picking up on what **** said earlier about it introducing you to people you
are compatible with, it could be like chat rooms, and make society more
sociable because you find people who are interested in the sort of things you
are”.
Participant 4
“Yes it would give you a bit of information about someone’s interests so you
would know what to talk about, and if you were going to ask someone out on
a date and you knew they liked Italian then you would book an Italian
restaurant.”
Participant 1
“You could end up with a segmented society if it was picking people to
introduce you to then you could end up with groups of similar people and
never having interaction with others”
Participant 2
Trend 2
Trend 7
Trend 7
Trend 7
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 112 -
“This would affect cross-seminaiton of ideas”
Participant 1
“Which would be a bad thing”
Participant 5
“But you could tailor the device to introduce you to others that you don’t have
anything in common with”
Moderator
“So the device should be highly customisable, but also does it of its own
accord”
Positive/Negative
1. Usefulness
2. Threat to my privacy
3. Ease of use
4. Threat to my health
5. Empowerment (need to define empowerment see 47.00)
6. Threat to other peoples privacy
Crime, Cost and Accessibility, it should be available everyone, in terms of it
making you more efficient then it shouldn’t just be available to the rich.
51.00 … bolt on extras (Participant 3)
Trend 7
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 113 -
Appendix 12: Quantitative Results
The following graphs group responses to questionnaire statements by
participant attitude towards wearable computer. Data is labelled with
percentage. All percentages within graphs and analysis signify a percentage
of the total population.
Relationship Between Attitude and Perceived Usefulness
Unacceptable Moderates Acceptable Highly Acceptable
Attitude towards wearable computing
0
10
20
30
40
50S3 - Functions
offered by WearPC would be useful
DisagreeNeither
Agree
Strongly Agree
Fig 12:1. Relationship between attitude and perceived usefulness of WearPC (S3).
Agreement with statement 3, functions offered by WearPC would be useful,
should correlate with a positive attitude towards wearable computing.
9.09%
45.45%
7.79%
1.3%
12.99%
10.39%
2.6% 1.3% 2.6%
3.9% 2.6%
Number of
participants
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 114 -
Participants perceiving WearPC is useful are likely to be accepting of
wearable computing.
Figure 12:1 shows 25.7% of participants strongly agree and 61% agree with
statement 3. All participants classed as highly accepting of wearable
computing either strongly agree or agree with statement 3. Over nine tenths
of participants classified as accepting of wearable computing strongly agree
(12.99%) or agree (10.39%) with statement 3. Significantly 45.45% of
participants who agree with statement 3 are classed as having a moderate
attitude, suggesting these participants are aware of opportunities and threats
posed by wearable computing.
Unacceptable Moderates Acceptable Highly Acceptable
Attitude towards wearable computing
0
10
20
30
40
50S4 - Additional
functions to enhance sensory,
physical, and/or cognitive skills
would be useful to me.
Strongly DisagreeDisagree
NeitherAgreeStrongly Agree
Fig 12:2. Relationship between attitude and perceived usefulness of additional sensory
enhancements (S4)
9.09%
29.87%
16.88%
6.49%
1.3% 1.3%
14.29%
10.39%
1.3% 2.6%
1.3% 2.3% 2.6%
Number of
participants
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 115 -
Agreement with statement 4, additional functions to enhance sensory,
physical, and/or cognitive skills would be useful to me, should be linked with
a positive attitude towards wearable computing. Technology perceived as
useful, through enhancement of physical and mental ability, is likely to be
acceptable.
Figure 12:2 shows 21.1% of participants strongly agree and 48.1% agree
with statement 4. All participants classed as finding wearable computing
highly acceptable either strongly agree of agree with statement 4. Nine
tenths of participants classed as finding wearable computing acceptable
strongly agree (10.39%) or agree (14.29%) with statement 4.
In relation to criteria 1, responses to statements S3 and S4 suggest
perceived usefulness is positively correlated with overall attitude towards
wearable computing.
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 116 -
Relationship Between Attitude and Perceived Ease of Use
Unacceptable Moderates Acceptable Highly Acceptable
Attitude Towards Wearable Computing
0
10
20
30
40
50S5 - WearPC would
be easy to useStrongly Disagree
DisagreeNeitherAgreeStrongly Agree
Fig 12:3. Relationship between attitude and perceived ease of use of WearPC.
Agreement with statement 5, WearPC would be easy to use, should be linked
with a positive attitude towards wearable computing. A positive attitude is
likely when something predicted to be easy to use.
Figure 12:3 shows 11.7% of participants strongly agree and 45.5% agree that
WearPC would be easy to use. All participants classified as highly accepting
of wearable computing strongly agree or agree with statement 5. Seven
tenths of participants classed as accepting wearable computing strongly
agree (6.49%) or agree (11.69%) with statement 5. Approximately half of
participants classified as moderately accepting of wearable computing
strongly agree (2.6%) or agree (29.8%) with statement 5.
2.6%
29.87%
22.08%
7.79% 1.3%
6.49%
11.69%
5.19% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%
2.6% 2.6%
2.6% 1.3%
Number of
participants
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 117 -
Unacceptable Moderates Acceptable Highly Acceptable
Attitude Towards Wearable Computing
0
10
20
30
40
50S6 - WearPC
appeals to me due to the flexibility of input and output
modes.Strongly Disagree
DisagreeNeitherAgreeStrongly Agree
Fig 12:4. Relationship between attitudes and perception of ease of use of flexible input and
output modes.
Agreement with statement 6, WearPC appeals to me due to the flexibility of
input and output modes, should be linked with a positive attitude towards
wearable computing. Furthermore, agreement provides an insight into
desired functionality of wearable computing.
An overwhelming majority of 50.6% of participants agree and a further 11.7%
strongly agree with statement 6. All participants classified as highly
accepting of wearable computing strongly agree (1.3%) or agree (2.6%) with
statement 6. Over four fifths of participants classed as accepting of wearable
computing strongly agree (5.19%) or agree (16.88%) with statement 6.
3.9%
29.87%
20.78%
6.49% 2.6%
5.19%
16.88%
2.6% 1.3% 1.3%
2.6% 2.6% 1.3% 2.6%
Number of
participants
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 118 -
These results suggest that an acceptable form of wearable computing should
feature multiple intelligent input and output modes similar to those of WearPC
(outlined in appendix 1).
A significant percentage of participants gave “neither” responses, to
statement 5 (29.9%) and statement 6 (20.78%). Causality could be the
nature of conceptual scenario-based study. Participants were required to
imagine using WearPC as apposed to having a tangible experience to draw
upon. Had the study involved a prototype device, definitive response rates to
this statement would be achieved.
In relation to criteria 2, response to statements 5 and 6 suggest perceived
ease of use has a positive relationship with overall attitude towards wearable
computing.
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 119 -
Relationship Between Attitude and Threat to Privacy
Unacceptable Moderates Acceptable Highly Acceptable
Attitude Towards Wearable Computing
0
10
20
30
40
50S7 - Recording and
transmitting of audio and video
through WearPC would pose a threat
to my own and other peoples
privacy
Strongly Agree
AgreeNeitherDisagreeStrongly Disagree
Fig 12:5. Relationship between attitude and threat to privacy posed by recording equipment
Agreement with statement 7, recording and transmitting of audio and video
through WearPC would pose a threat to my own and other peoples privacy,
is expected to have a negative bearing on overall attitude. When a
technology is perceived to threaten privacy through recording and
transmitting data, a less than favourable attitude is likely.
A significant majority of 51.9% of participants agree and 27.3% strongly
agree with statement 7. All participants classed as un-accepting of wearable
computing strongly agree (3.9%) or agree (2.6%) with statement 7. Over five
sixths of participants classified as moderately accepting of wearable
computing strongly agree (22.08%) or agree (36.36%) with statement 7,
2.6% 2.6%
2.6% 2.6% 1.3%
3.9% 1.3%
1.3% 3.9% 6.49%
12.99%
36.36%
22.08%
Number of
participants
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 120 -
strengthening the concept of moderates being aware of opportunities and
threats posed by wearable computing. All participants classified as highly
accepting of wearable computing strongly disagree (1.3%) or disagree (2.6%)
with statement 7, they perceive little or no threat to privacy posed by
recording and transmitting of data.
Unacceptable Moderates Acceptable Highly Acceptable
AttitudeTowards Wearable Computing
0
10
20
30
40
50S8 - The global
positioning system poses a threat to
my privacy
Strongly AgreeAgree
NeitherDisagreeStrongly Disagree
Fig 12:6. Relationship between attitude and threat to privacy posed by GPS within wearable
computing
Agreement with statement 8, the global positioning system poses a threat to
my privacy, is expected to correlate with a negative attitude towards
wearable computing. When a technology is perceived to threaten privacy
through tracking devices, a less than favourable attitude is likely.
2.6% 2.6% 2.6%
2.6%
3.9%
3.9%
1.3%
9.09%
11.69%
14.29%
18.18%
12.99%
14.29%
Number of
participants
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 121 -
19.5% of participants strongly agree and 31.2% agree the GPS could pose a
threat to privacy. All participants classified as finding wearable computing
unacceptable either strongly agree (2.6%) or agree (3.9%) with statement 8.
This suggests a perception of threat to privacy has a negative effect on
attitude towards wearable computing. Moderates are divided on the issue
with an equal percentage of 14.29% strongly agreeing and disagreeing with
statement 8. Participants classified as finding wearable computing
acceptable are also divided, with four tenths disagreeing (11.69%) and three
tenths agreeing (9.09%) with statement 8. All participants classed as finding
wearable computing highly acceptable strongly disagree (2.6%) or disagree
(1.3%) with the notion of a threat to privacy posed by GPS.
Unacceptable Moderates Acceptable Highly Acceptable
Attitude Towards Wearable Computing
0
10
20
30
40
50S9 - WearPC
features would pose no threat to my
privacy
Strongly DisagreeDisagree
NeitherAgreeStrongly Agree
Fig 12:7. Relationship between attitude and general threat to privacy posed by feature of
WearPC (positive wording)
1.3% 1.3% 2.6%
2.6%
2.6% 2.6% 6.49%
12.99%
3.9%
7.79%
14.29%
37.66%
3.9%
Number of
participants
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 122 -
Agreement with statement 9, WearPC features would pose no threat to my
privacy, is expected to correlate with a positive attitude towards wearable
computing.
An overriding majority of 53.2 % of participants disagree and 19.5% strongly
disagree with statement 9, suggesting that most participants foresee some
form of threat to their privacy posed by wearable computing. All participants
classified as finding wearable computing unacceptable strongly disagree
(3.9%) or disagree (2.6%) with statement 9. Approximately three fifths of
participants classed as moderately accepting of wearable computing
disagree (37.66%) with statement 9, bolstering the view of moderates tending
to consider all aspects relating to acceptance of wearable computing. All
participants categorised as finding wearable computing highly acceptable
either strongly agree (2.6%) or agree (1.3%) with statement 9, suggesting
this group discern little or no threat to privacy.
In relation to criteria 3, results from statements 7, 8, and 9 suggest
perception of threat to privacy has somewhat of an effect on acceptance of
wearable computing with those participants classified as un-accepting and
accepting. However, perception of the degree of threat to privacy does not
seem to be an overriding factor for participants classed as accepting of
wearable computing.
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 123 -
Relationship Between Attitude and Perception of a Threat to
Health
Unacceptable Moderates Acceptable Highly Acceptable
Attitude towards wearable computing
0
10
20
30
40
50S10 - Wireless
technology withi WearPC could pose
a threat to my health
Strongly Agree
AgreeNeitherDisagreeStrongly Disagree
Fig 12:8. Relationship between attitude and perceived threat posed by wearable computing
to health.
Agreement with statement 10, wireless technology within WearPC could
pose a threat to my health, is expected to be correlate with a negative
attitude towards wearable computing. Technology perceived as threatening
health is likely to be unacceptable.
An overwhelming majority of participants, 37.7%, gave a ‘neither’ answer to
statement 10.
1.3%
1.3%
1.3% 2.6%
2.6% 2.6% 2.6%
7.79%
9.09%
6.45%
10.39%
25.97%
22.08%
3.9%
Number of
participants
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 124 -
Out of participants classed as accepting of wearable computing almost half
disagree (9.09%) and over a quarter strongly disagree (6.45%) that wireless
technology within WearPC could pose a threat to their health. A third of
participants classified as highly accepting of wearable computing strongly
disagree (2.6%) with statement 10. A fifth of participants categorised as
finding wearable computing unacceptable disagree (1.3%) and two fifths
agree (2.6%), as participant numbers in this group are low it is prudent to say
they are undecided on threat to health.
It could be deduced that there is a weak relationship between acceptance of
wearable computing and perception of a threat to health. However, a similar
percentage in each attitude group gave ‘neither’ responses as gave the
nearest percentage of another response, suggesting that there is uncertainty
pertaining to participants knowledge of a possible threat to their health posed
by wireless technology.
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 125 -
Unacceptable Moderates Acceptable Highly Acceptable
Attitude towards wearable computing
0
10
20
30
40
50S11 - Wireless
technology within WearPC poses no threat to my health
Strongly DisagreeDisagree
NeitherAgreeStrongly Agree
Fig 12:9. Relationship between perception of threat to health and attitude (negative wording)
Statement 11, wireless technology within WearPC poses no threat to my
health, is designed to confirm attitude on the matter. However, with 46.8% of
participants giving a ‘neither’ response, it is prudent to say that reliability of
this evidence is questionable.
In relation to criteria 4, perception that threat to health has a negative effect
on attitude, a loose relationship exists with over half of participants
categorised as accepting of wearable computing agreeing or strongly
agreeing that wearable computing poses no threat to their health.
2.6% 2.6% 1.3% 2.6% 1.3%
1.3%
9.09%
32.47%
15.58%
5.19%
3.9%
10.39%
10.39%
1.3%
Number of
participants
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 126 -
Relationship Between Attitude and Empowerment
Unacceptable Moderates Acceptable Highly Acceptable
Attitude towards wearable computing
0
10
20
30
40
50S14 - WearPC
could provide protection from
surveillance equipment
embeded in the world around us
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeither
AgreeStrongly Agree
Fig 12:10. Relationship between attitude and empowerment
Agreement with statement 14, WearPC could provide protection from
surveillance equipment in the world around us, may have a positive bearing
on attitude towards wearable computing where participants value being able
to record data in environments fitted with surveillance equipment.
32.5% of participants agree with statement 14. Two thirds of participants
classed as finding wearable computing highly acceptable agree (1.3%) or
highly agree (1.3%) with statement 14. This could suggest protection from
surveillance equipment is something this group considers, and may positively
affect their attitude towards wearable computing. Conversely, over half of
participants classed as finding wearable computing unacceptable agree
(1.3%) or strongly agree (2.6%) with statement 14. Participants within this
1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6% 1.3%
19.48%
22.08%
20.78%
5.19%
7.79%
10.39%
Number of
participants
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 127 -
group may see no value add from a device claiming protection from
surveillance equipment. Out of participants classed as moderates almost
equal amounts agreed (20.78%), disagreed (19.48%), and were undecided
(22.08%). Possibly indicating ambiguity in the statement design.
Unacceptable Moderates Acceptable Highly Acceptable
Attitude towards wearable computing
0
10
20
30
40
50S15 - I would feel
empowered by the safety features
offered by WearPC
Strongly DisagreeDisagree
NeitherAgreeStrongly Agree
Fig 12:11. Relationship between empowerment perceived through safety features offered by
WearPC and attitude.
Agreement with statement 15, I would feel empowered by the safety features
offered by WearPC, is expected to have a positive relationship with attitude.
A majority of 48.1% of participants agree that they would feel empowered by
safety features offered by WearPC. Almost half of participants classified as
moderates agree (28.57%) with statement 15, indicating they are aware
wearable computing could be enhance their feeling of empowerment through
offering personal safety features. Three quarters of participants classed as
1.3% 1.3% 1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
2.6% 3.9%
3.9%
18.18%
12.99%
22.08%
28.57% Number of
participants
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 128 -
finding wearable computing acceptable agree (18.18%) or strongly agree
(1.3%) they would feel empowered by safety features offered by WearPC.
Three fifths of participants classified as finding wearable computing to be
unacceptable disagree (3.9%) or strongly disagree (1.3%) with statement 15.
In relation to criteria 5, results from statement 15 strongly suggest that a
sense of empowerment gained through safety features offered through
wearable computing positively influence attitude towards wearable
computing.
Unacceptable Moderates Acceptable Highly Acceptable
Attitude towards wearable computing
0
10
20
30
40
50S16 - WearPC
would not make me feel empowered in
any way
Strongly AgreeAgree
NeitherDisagreeStrongly Disagree
Fig 12:13. Relationship between attitude and empowerment (negative)
Number of
participants
1.3% 1.3% 1.3%
1.3% 1.3% 1.3%
1.3%
2.6%
20.78%
12.99%
5.19%
18.18%
31.17%
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 129 -
Agreement with statement S16, WearPC would not make me feel
empowered in any way, is expected to have a negative relationship with
attitude. Seeing little benefit from empowerment possibilities offered by
wearable computing indicates a negative attitude.
53.2% of participants disagree with statement S16, this proportion of
participants perceive a wearable computer similar to WearPC would give
them a sense of enhanced empowerment. Approximately half of participants
classified as moderately accepting of wearable computing disagreed with
statement 16. Four fifths of participants categorized as accepting of
wearable computing disagree (20.78%) with statement 16. All participants
categorised as finding wearable computing unacceptable either agree
(5.19%) or strongly agree (1.3%) with statement 16. These results support
criterion 5 in that no perception of empowerment corresponds to a negative
attitude towards wearable computing.
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 130 -
Relationship Between Attitude and Behavioural Intention
Unacceptable Moderates Acceptable Highly Acceptable
Attitude towards wearable computing
0
10
20
30
40
50S21 - If I had
access to a device like WearPC I
would use it ove conventional methods to
accomplish similar tasks.
Strongly Disagree
DisagreeNeitherAgreeStrongly Agree
Fig 12:14. Relationship between behavioural intention and attitude
An overwhelming majority of 66.2% of participants agree and 6.5% strongly
agree with statement 21, if I had access to a device like WearPC I would use
it over conventional methods to achieve similar tasks. All of participants who
are categorised as finding wearable computing highly acceptable either
strongly agree (1.3%) or agree (2.6%) with statement 21. Over two thirds of
participants classed as finding wearable computing acceptable strongly
agree (3.9%) or agree (16.88%) with statement 21. Approximately seven
tenths of participants classified as moderately accepting of wearable
computing agree (45.45%) with statement 21. Only 1.3% of participants
disagree with statement 21, this percentage falls within the category of
participants who find wearable computing unacceptable.
These results suggest there is a positive relationship between attitude and
behavioural intention. The vast majority of moderates consider opportunities
Number of
participants
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3% 3.9%
2.6% 5.19%
16.88%
3.9%
15.58%
45.45%
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 131 -
and threats presented through wearable computing and deduce they would
like to use wearable computing over conventional methods to accomplish
similar tasks, this supports criterion 7.
Unacceptable Neither Acceptable Highly Acceptable
Attitude towards wearable comuting
0
10
20
30
40
50S22 - I would like to
purchase a device like WearPC
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeither
AgreeStrongly Agree
Fig 12:15. Behavioural intention
40.3% of participants agree and 13% strongly agree with statement 22, I
would like to purchase a device like WearPC. 23.4% gave a “neither”
response, causality is likely to be ambiguity concerning the price of such a
device.
Number of
participants
1.3% 1.3% 2.6%
2.6%
3.9% 5.19%
6.49%
12.99%
7.79% 25.97%
24.68%
5.19%
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 132 -
Appendix 13: Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation S3 77 2 5 4.09 .653 S4 77 1 5 3.78 .982 S5 77 1 5 3.53 .926 S6 77 1 5 3.58 .923 S7 77 1 5 2.09 1.015 S8 77 1 5 2.70 1.247 S9 77 1 5 2.30 1.077 S10 77 1 5 3.06 1.030 S12 76 0 5 3.29 1.355 S13 76 0 5 3.08 1.273 S14 77 1 5 2.96 .952 S15 77 1 5 3.30 .875 S16 77 1 5 3.34 .912 S21 77 1 5 3.75 .652 S22 77 1 5 3.58 .908 S23 77 1 5 3.36 1.111 S24 55 1 5 3.33 .944 S11 77 1 5 3.06 .964 Valid N (listwise) 54
8. Appendices
© Koré Mason 2004 - 133 -
Appendix 14: Completed Questionnaire Examples