Learning Outcomes

Demonstrate understanding of the concept of pervasive computing and how this differs from, and extends, desktop-based computing.

I feel this learning outcome has been met by my blog, firstly by the different definitions of pervasive computing and its other names as this allowed me to get a clearer understanding of the pervasive concept. Also in the tutorial discussing how User Centered Design(UCD) which is mainly desktop based does not always fit in with the pervasive world, links into this outcome as it shows that design for the desktop does not always fit in with design for pervasive system

Discuss issues and challenges in designing for usability in the area of pervasive computing (i.e., designing for ‘pervasive usability’).

This learning outcome is also met in the piece of work on UCD, i think it is also shown in the last piece of work based on the different research method at the Chawton House Project. As this discusses the challenges that can arise when trying to design something unknown to the user.

Appropriately select a usability method whether this be user testing, metrics, ethnography, or other; and effectively carry out usability evaluations

This learning outcome will have been met in in my usability key assignment of testing a mobile device. Also on the blog I think it shows i have a range of methods I could effectively link to pervasive computing, as I have linked Usability Goals and Design Principles to my mobile phone a piece of pervasive computing and linked Schneidermans golden rules to an iPod

Critically reflect on approaches and achievements

This learning outcome will have been made in the key assignment where i evualate the methods i used and what i achieved it the test

Recognising Research Methods

I have been scan reading a educational paper called Unfolding Understandings: Co-designing UbiComp in Situ, Over Time. In this paper a research team explain how they developed a different tourism experience using Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp) at Chawton House.

The Research they did was split into four workshops to do their research. In the first workshop they held meetings and discussed with the current the current practices of tours being given at the present time, and to see where the current staff boundaries lay. The used a map of the grounds to pinpoint key areas of interest. The majority of the methods used in this workshop i believe were qualitative as they're are no figures to be quoted from holding discussions. Depending on how they used the map though this could count as a quantitative method as they could have figures to back up the areas of interest.

In the second workshop the 3 staff gave separate tours to two researchers each, 1 of the researchers in each group videoed the tour. This collated a group of stories and audio clips that could be used later in development. In this workshop again the methods of research seem to be more qualitative as it is use of observations and recording and the research team could pick and chose the audio clips they found most interesting to use. Of course by videoing everything depending on how they analysed the tapes quantitative data could be produced from them, e.g. 2 out of the 3 staff mentioned this story we must include it

In the third workshop the methods used were more to get the Chawton House staff on side, as they showed a demonstration another similar project they had worked on and a prototype tour where researchers took the staff on a tour playing audio clips from a laptop. This again seems qualitative.

After this workshop a working model was implemented for a school fieldtrip, again researchers videoed what the children were doing and how they were using the system, Then after the field trip they interviewed some of the staff. These methods are essentially qualitative as it is observations and interviews, but again depending on how the video recording was used quantitative data could be pulled from it examples could have included all the children knew how to use this function, only 1 child could figure out how to record data. This sort of data would let you know how to improve your system and make it more usable.

Then in the final workshop it was a review of the fieldtrip, the Chawton House Staff took the tours on the working system set for a more adult friendly tour. And more discussions were made on how to progress from there.

Tutorial 5 - Key Assignmnet Plan

Option 1 Report: Usability Evaluation of a Mobile Device or Devices.

• Write a report on usability of a Phone or MP3 player
• Methods I shall use, qualitative observations, quantitative questionnaire
  
• Using the conceptual frameworks of usability-in-itself, user experience goals and Normans design principles
• I’ll observe around 5 users of similar age groups
• Using 1 device
• Focus on the usability of the device on the whole if I use the mp3 player. Using the phone I shall select some of the key functions for usability in life such as texting, making calls and taking photos.

Things to include in a report:

• Report structure: Contents

Introduction – A short statement of intent

Methodology - The method I used to test the pervasive device (references).

Results – Using graphs/images to illustrate findings(if possible)

Discussion - What the results mean to usability of the device and any improvements

Conclusion - Evaluation of Method

Tutorial 4 - Usability Tools

Within this next piece of work I will be discussing Usability Goals and Design Principles in relation to my mobile phone, the Samsung E250.

Usability goals

When looking at the usability goals, I see that the designers have followed these really quite well. The first usability goal is effectiveness. This means that the product needs to be able to do what it is supposed to. As my phone allows me to make phone calls and send text messages as well extras as take photos, record videos and listen to music or the radio. This shows that my phone has a range of features that the user needs (phone calls and text messaging) as well as others that they would now expect (camera, mp3 player)

The second goal is efficiency, this means being able to use the features as simply and as quickly as possible. The designers have definitely considered this by allowing you to customise a shortcut menu to access the features you use the most. There other shortcuts available like a recent contacts list for sending texts or phoning the people you speak to the most.

The designers would have had to follow the third goal which is safety, because if they hadn’t the product would not have been released. Utility is well linked to effectiveness and efficiency, as already mentioned the phone has a range of features that are easily used.

The learnability of the phone is very good as they follow certain standards set within the phone world, with to menu buttons a centre select button, a green phone to make or answer a call and a red phone to end/cancel a call. This is also linked in with the memorability

The last usability goal is memorability, and the memorability of the phone is very good the interfaces and navigation follow the same suit so after you have learnt how to use the phone you are unlikely to forget how to use it.

Design Principles

Also the designers would have also used the design principles put forward by Norman (1988), visibility, feedback, constraints, mapping, consistency and affordance.

Visibility has had to have been considered as all the buttons are labelled and so are the slots on either side of the phone for a memory card and for the battery charger/headphones. Also I clearly know when I have received a sms message, voice mail, or phone call as it is visible on the screen.

Feedback is related to the concept of visibility. Feedback is definitely a key concept in mobile phone design. On my phone I know when I’ve pressed a button because of a keypad tone; I know I am making a phone call because it shows me on screen. If I’ve taken a photo a shutter sound will be made. These are just a few examples of feedback that is used within my phone.

Constraints meaning to restrict what a users can do. There are three types of constraints physical, logical and cultural. The designers have included some physical constraints on my phone, examples include the shape and size of the battery charger/headphone slot means they are the only things that can be inserted into that slot, its the same with the memory cad slot and the battery in the back. There are also logical constraints on my phone by the fact that the selection buttons are matched up with the options they control on the screen. And the cultural constraints are the green phone for ring/answer, the red phone for end/reject call, the icon for power and the mute icon for silent mode.

Mapping can also be linked with constraints as the selection buttons are mapped to the actions that appear above on the display.

My phone also includes consistency as every menu is laid out in the same way and your actions for navigation are all the same as well. Keeping navigation consistent. All volume controls link back to the same volume control on the side keeping it consistent..

Affordance is something the phones design includes as well as the slide up top half is something people intrinsically know what to do and its the same with the buttons people know and feel that they need to push them.

Tutorial 3- Design Approaches

Yes, you can use User centered design (UCD) for pervasive computing but;

It is difficult to asses what a user needs if a user does not understand the technology that you are trying to implement. Also if it is something completely new how would a user know what their needs are. Then the fact some of the definitions collected for tutorial 1 suggested that users might not even know that they are interacting with the pervasive system.

Establishing requirements could rely on knowing an already present system and building upon it, and as UCD is based for desktop design there is a set context that the system will be using. If pervasive computing is implemented in everyday objects its context can change. So running something like a PACT analysis might not be successful.

Prototyping to get feedback off potential users can be a struggle to do in some forms of pervasive computing because if your running a system which contains many pieces of technology over a wide area a fully working model may be needed for users to understand what is happening.

Tutorial 1- pervasive computing an intro

Pervasive Computing

Pervasive computing is the trend towards increasingly ubiquitous (another name for the movement is ubiquitous computing), connected computing devices in the environment, a trend being brought about by a convergence of advanced electronic - and particularly, wireless - technologies and the Internet. Pervasive computing devices are not personal computers as we tend to think of them, but very tiny - even invisible - devices, either mobile or embedded in almost any type of object imaginable, including cars, tools, appliances, clothing and various consumer goods - all communicating through increasingly interconnected networks.

http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid7_gci759337,00.html

Pervasive computing is the placement of microprocessors in every day objects. This characterizes mobile, invisible devices which are numerous and convenient in placement and function.

http://teambluehci.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-is-pervasive-computing.html

The idea that technology is moving beyond the personal computer to everyday devices with embedded technology and connectivity as computing devices become progressively smaller and more powerful. Also called ubiquitous computing, pervasive computing is the result of computer technology advancing at exponential speeds -- a trend toward all man-made and some natural products having hardware and software. Pervasive computing goes beyond the realm of personal computers: it is the idea that almost any device, from clothing to tools to appliances to cars to homes to the human body to your coffee mug, can be embedded with chips to connect the device to an infinite network of other devices. The goal of pervasive computing, which combines current network technologies with wireless computing, voice recognition, Internet capability and artificial intelligence, is to create an environment where the connectivity of devices is embedded in such a way that the connectivit

y is unobtrusive and always available.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/p/pervasive_computing.html

Pervasive Computing - similarities and differences in the definitions

Each of the pervasive computing definitions state, that it is computing going past the PC and using technologies in the environment around us. The two larger definitions also state that ubiquitous computing means the same thing. At that some of this new technology is “invisible” and with the third one say it is computing in the everyday objects around us.

I believe there are not many differences within these definitions as I think they’re all saying similar things.

Ubiquitous Computing

We define ubiquitous computing environments as learning environments in which all students have access to a variety of digital devices and services, including computers connected to the Internet and mobilecomputing devices, whenever and wherever they need them. Our notion of ubiquitous computing, then, is more focused on many-to-many than one-to-one or one-to-many, and includes the idea of technology being always available but not itself the focus of learning.Moreover, our definition of ubiquitous computing includes the idea that both teachers and students are active participants in the learning process, who critically analyze information,
create new knowledge in a variety of ways (both collaboratively and individually), communicate what they have learned , and choose which tools are appropriate for a particular task.

http://www.rcet.org/ubicomp/what.htm

Ubiquitous computing (or "ubicomp") is a post-desktop model of human-computer interaction in which information processing has been thoroughly integrated into everyday objects and activities. As opposed to the desktop paradigm, in which a single user consciously engages a single device for a specialized purpose, someone "using" ubiquitous computing engages many
computational devices and systems simultaneously, in the course of ordinary activities, and may not necessarily even be aware that they are doing so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquitous_computing

So, what is ubiquitous computing? Ubiquitous means "ever present" or "everywhere." RCET's definition of ubiquitous learning environments is "learning environments in which all students have access to variety of digital devices and services, including devices connected to the Internet
and mobile computing devices whenever and wherever they need them." And, in case you were
wondering, the term ubiquitous computing was coined in 1988. I learned from the DVD that some say the first wave of computing was many people per computer. The second wave was one person per computer. The third wave is many computers per person. Ubiquitous computing
addresses this third wave

http://learninginhand.com/blog/2006/06/ubiquitous-computing-dvd.html

Ubiquitous Computing - Similarities and differences in Definitions

The major similarity in these definitions in the fact ubiquitous computing is changing the style of computing from one-to-one or one-to-many relations ships meaning one computer to one user
or one computer to many users to a many-to-many relationship, meaning people cam be using
computers at any time sometimes without even realising it.

I believe there are not many differences within these definitions as I think they’re all saying similar things. Apart from the 1^st definition being more personalised and relating to the student/teacher relations ship.

Ambient Computing

Definition:

The ability of small mobile devices to enhance our quality of life without the necessity for user interaction

http://www.nljug.org/pages/events/content/jfall_2007/sessions/00034/slides/

Disappearing Computing

Disappearing computing, by definition, is designed to exploit rich combinations of invisible(or embedded within everyday objects) sensing/computational entities in order to identify and deliver personalised services to the users when they are interacting and exchanging information with the environment

http://www.ercim.org/EU-NSF/DC.pdf

Similarities and differences in all the definitions

Ambient and disappearing computing seem to be based more on improving quality of life by using the technology, where as pervasive and ubiquitous computing definitions seem to be making more of a point of how the technology is moving beyond the desktop and into the environment. However they all are saying very similar things about embedding computing into
the environment.