Towards the Design of Intelligible Object-based Applications for the Web of Things.

COPYRIGHT © 2011 ALCATEL-LUCENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

1

Pierrick Thébault, Dominique DecotterBell Labs Applications Domain

Towards the Design of Intelligible Object-based Applications for the Web of Things.Second international workshop on the Web of ThingsJune 12th, 2011, San Francisco, USA


ABOUT USHELLO!

Bell Labs FranceApplication Studio

Pierrick ThébaultDesigner

PhD candidate at Arts et Métiers Paristech

I do research in service design, interactions techniques and user experience for smart objects and environments.

Dominique DecotterUsabilist / cognitive pyschologist

PhD candidate at René Descartes University

He does research in co-creation techniques, probe design and identifications of latent needs.

3


1. Bell Labs vision of the Web of Things

2. Aim of our research

3. Our experiment on capturing mental models

4. First results

5. Discussion

AGENDA

4


1.THE WEB OF THINGS

5


Does theconcept ofapplicationsapply to objects?

WOTCONTEXT

6


WOTVISION

7


WOTLAYERS

EVERYDAY OBJECT READY MADE OBJECT

Sensor Actuator

VIRTUAL OBJECT

Capabilities & status View

APPLICATION

Smart behaviour View

Digital

Physical

APP REPOSITORY

User-generated application Pre-configured application

Sensor Actuator

8


WOTVIRTUAL OBJECTS

Real world object (RWO)

Virtual object (VO)

Machine interactionsUsers interactions

9


WOTAPPLICATION CAPABILITIES

Capacity to deliver Web content or media through objects whose output capabilities are compatible.

•Query data stream from Web resources or others objects•Information can potentially be converted or reformatted

Capacity to publish information related to objects’ states on Web Resources. •Log data on dedicated platforms or existing web services•Publishing rules can be implemented

Capacity to trigger objects’ capabilities based on objects’ states. •Control every aspects of objects•Commands can be chained and timed

Capacity to modify the behavior of objects based on Web resources. •Augment objects’ awareness with data processing•The inner working of objects can be bypassed

www

www

10


WOTAPPLICATION TYPES

APPLICATIONS

DESKTOP-BASEDTO MONITOR OBJECTSSocial networks of things, smart metering and life logging tools, inventory and goods tracking systems…

ENV-BASEDTO ORCHESTRATE OBJECTS

Automation and assisted living systems, reconfigurations for ambience sharing or communication purposes, personalization of content delivery according to social preferences and presence…

OBJECT-BASEDTO AUGMENT OBJECTSAdding a social dimension, enhancing awareness with open data, suggesting short interactions with Web services, facilitating data circulation among objects…

11


2.RESEARCH

12


RESEARCHDISAPPEARING SYSTEMS

By blending in a seamless way into user’s environment, charging objects with additional functionalities and making them act in a proactive way, object-based applications are modifying our perception of inner systems.

There is a need to investigate user’s mental models to make sure they match with researchers’ application models.

1 Figure based on Don Norman’s definition of conceptual models. Retreived from: http://www.interactiondesignblog.com/2008/06/how-designers-communicate-with-users/

13


RESEARCHDISAPPEARING SYSTEMS

SPEAKEASY BROWSERNewman, M.W

BITRoduner, C

MASHUP EDITORGuinard, D

OBJECT BROWSERBoussard, M

Web of things browsers needs intelligible application models!

14


RESEARCHQUESTIONS

?1

CONCEPT

In users’ mind is there such concept as object-based applications?

2

PERCEPTIONHow do non-technical users perceive interconnections between objects and Web resources?

3

MODEL

How consistently do they consider these applications as being part of an object or the environment?

15


RESEARCHISSUE

How to capture mental models of an objects’ecosystem?

16


RESEARCHISSUE

The concept of smart objects is still fuzzy for many French

people!

“Bluetooth”

“Domotics”“Robots”

“iPhone”

“Sensors”“Connected

fridge”

17


RESEARCHCAPTURING MENTAL MODELS

“Mental models are mechanisms whereby humans are able to generate descriptions of system purpose and form, explanations of system functioning and observed system states, and predictions of future system states.” 1

1 Rouse, W.B., Morris, N.M., et RESEARCH, G.I.O.T.A.C.F.H.S. On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. (1985).

A NEW PROTOCOL:

•To allow participants to project themselves in a simulated reality involving well-known objects or Web resources.-

•Based on schematic representations of a non-existing but functioning smart environment.-

•To measure users’ understanding of the different representations or schemas.-

•To identify the different strategies used by users.

18


3.EXPERIMENT

19


EXPERIMENTPROCEDURE

Step 1 | Introduction

Step 2 | Production

Step 3 | Evaluation

Step 4 | Interview – optional

20


EXPERIMENTMATERIALS

21


• Every morning, my alarm clock plays a song from my Deezer playlist (i.e. a music on demand platform) to wake me up.

• When I press the snooze button, a public message is automatically published on my Facebook profile.

• The alarm time will be automatically delayed if snowfalls have caused serious traffic jams.

• The bathroom heater and the coffee machine will be automatically turned on before the alarm of my alarm clock is fired.

• My multi-color lamp will turn green if I received some letter in my mailbox.

• My digital photo frame will display Facebook pictures of my friends when they are at my place (i.e. their position is retrieved from Google Latitude).

• Every morning, during weekdays, my lamp blinks with a red color to warn me that I have to leave now if I do not want to miss the metro. The schedule is fetched from RATP’s website (i.e. Paris public transport).

• Shutters and lights of my place will be automatically triggered to simulate a presence when I am on holydays somewhere else (i.e. the dates are retrieved from Google Calendar).

EXPERIMENTMATERIALS

22


EXPERIMENTMATERIALS

+ + +

23


EXPERIMENTPRODUCTION

24


EXPERIMENTEVALUATION

25


EXPERIMENTEVALUATION

Participants had to answer these four questions:

•The schema is clearly understandable.•I clearly see the links between objects and Web resources.•I understand how to activate or deactivate an object-based application.•The schema will help me to manage my applications.

Six-point Likert scale (i.e. from 1 corresponding to totally agree to 6 which indicates that they totally disagree)

26


4.RESULTS

27


RESULTSPANEL 1

6STUDENTS

23.6YEARS OLD (M)

45MIN

•Limited background on smart-objects•Clear interest in this topic•Good panel to apprehend the concept of object-based applications

28


SCHEMA 1

29


SCHEMA 2

30


SCHEMA 3

31


SCHEMA 4

32


SCHEMA 5

33


SCHEMA 6

34


RESULTSUSER EVALUATION

35


RESULTSUSER EVALUATION

SCHEMA 5SCHEMA 4 SCHEMA 1

•Best perception•Best clarity of links•Best for managing objects•Best global evaluation

•Best clarity of links•Best global evaluation

•Best for managing objects

According to the participants’ point of view, none of the representation clearly indicates how to control object-based applications.

36


RESULTSINTERPRETATION GRID

UNDERSTANDING OF OBJECT-BASED APPLICATIONSAre applications represented? Can we count them?How many relates to an object? To a web resource?

STRATEGIES OF CATEGORIZATIONAre items organized in clusters? Can we count them?Are they labeled?

TYPE OF INTERCONNECTIONS BETWEEN OBJECTSHow are links directed? How many different types can we count?Are they captioned? REPRESENTATION AND APPLICATION LOGICDoes the schema follow a specific structure?Is the logic of the application represented? How?

NOTESRemarkable details or strategies.

37


5.DISCUSSION

38


DISCUSSIONFAR FROM SIMPLE

“For me everything is linked with

the alarm-clock”

“I added some sensors in order

to… uhhh”

“I drew a mobile

phone”

“I didn’t like thatobject so I

didn’t put it”

“I neededto see the

user”

39


DISCUSSIONMETAPHORS

THE COMPUTER BRAIN

THE INTERNET BUBBLE

THE PERSONAL TIMELINETHE NETWORK MAP

40


DISCUSSIONINSIGHT #1

The concept of applications is still fuzzy.“Applications are for iPhone.”

Objects are augmentedwith features.

www

The link often representsthe feature.

+

Some feature combineseveral complementaryWeb resources.

41



Some groups of objects are different.“It’s not really a feature of this object.”

www

It happens when a Web resource triggers an object.

www

The Web resourcebrings awareness.

Who?What?Where?When?

Such groups areoften labeled.

42



There is no rule for intelligence distribution.“In my opinion, this object control this one.”

The lamp query the mailbox.

Lamp Mailbox

The mail control the lamp.

Lamp Mailbox

Users try to avoid having to many “smart objects”.

43



Users don’t care about the logic representation (yet).“The object is smart enough to work by itself.”

www

Interactions are oftenimplicit.

IF?When? The issue of collective

use and personal data is rarely envisioned.

Behaviors are notintelligible withoutexplanations.

What?

44


DISCUSSIONDESIGN IMPLICATIONS

INTRODUCE A TAXONOMY OF APPLICATIONSDesktop-based, object-based and environment-based applications are different. The 3 types should be designed in a way that allows users to clearly distinguish them.

DO NOT FORCE FEATURES CLUSTERIZATIONHaving multiple applications for objects seems complex to handle. Each new augmentations should be considered as a feature based on the functional DNA or the user interfaces of the objects.

DESIGN MULTI-SCALE REPRESENTATION MODESUsers should be able to “zoom” in their objects’ ecosystem and switch from global views to detailed representations. Information should be hierarchized.

CREATE A VISUAL GRAMMAR FOR APPLICATION LOGICA graphic language is needed to make some parts of the inner-working of applications visible and to allow users to change parameters.

ENABLE REALLOCATION OF APPLICATIONS OR FEATURESRepresentations should be flexible enough to allow users to distribute the intelligence as they see it. They should be able to concentrate features in a single object is they want.

45


DISCUSSIONTESTING REPRESENTATIONS

“THIS REPRESENTATION IS REALLY CLEAR!”

46


DISCUSSIONITERATING THE EXPERIMENT

PANEL 1

6 design students(product design background)

•23 to 27 years old•Following a course on smart objects

PANEL 2

5 design students (product design, interaction design, spatial design)+ 1 teacher

•22 to 24 years old (+36)•No particular background on smart objects

PANEL 3

3 family members(not working in creation or telecommunications industry)

•53, 52 and 21 years old•No background at all on smart objects

To be continued…

+ INTERVIEW

47


DISCUSSIONEXPLORING OTHER DIMENSIONS

THANKS !

[email protected]@alcatel-lucent.com

Towards the Design of Intelligible Object-based Applications for the Web of Things.

Design

Transcript of Towards the Design of Intelligible Object-based Applications for the Web of Things.