Leaving the wild: Lessons from community technology handovers

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 1549-1558

  Taylor, Nick ^a   Cheverst, Keith ^b   Wright, Peter ^a   Olivier, Patrick ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Action research; Community; Longitudinal; Research in the wild

Indexed keywords

ACTION RESEARCH; COMMUNITY; DESIGN PROCESS; HAND OVER; LONG-TERM VIABILITY; LONGITUDINAL; REAL-WORLD;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; HUMAN ENGINEERING; TECHNOLOGY;

RESEARCH;

EID: 84878001721     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2470654.2466206     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. Abowd, G.D. Classroom 2000: an experiment with the instrumentation of a living educational environment. IBM Systems Journal 38, 4 (1999), 508-530.
2. Brown, B., Reeves, S. and Sherwood, S. Into the wild: challenges and opportunities for field trial methods. Proc. CHI 2011, ACM (2011), 1657-1666.
3. Carroll, J.M. The Blacksburg Electronic Village: a study in community computing. Proc. Digital Cities 2003, Springer (2003), 43-65.
4. Carter, S., Mankoff, J., Klemmer, S.R., Matthews, T. Exiting the cleanroom: on ecological validity and ubiquitous computing. Human-Computer Interaction 23, 1 (2008), 47-99.
5. Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. Doing Action Research in Your Own Organisation. Sage, London, UK, 2001.
6. Crabtree, A., Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Tennent, P., Chalmers, M. and Brown, B. Supporting ethnographic studies of ubiquitous computing in the wild. Proc. DIS 2006, ACM (2006), 60-69.
7. Dourish, P. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001.
8. Foth, M. and Hearn, G.N. Networked individualism of urban residents: discovering the communicative ecology in inner-city apartment buildings. Information, Communication & Society 10, 5 (2007), 749-772.
9. Gaver, W.W., Beaver, J. and Benford, S. Ambiguity as a resource for design. Proc. CHI 2003, ACM (2003), 233-240.
10. Gaver, W., Bowers, J., Kerridge, T., Boucher, A. and Jarvis, N. Anatomy of a failure: how we knew when our design went wrong, and what we learned from it. Proc. CHI 2009, ACM (2009), 2213-2222.
11. Gurstein, M. Community informatics, community networks and strategies for flexible networking. Community Informatics: Shaping Computer-Mediated Social Relations, Routledge (2001), 263-283.
12. Hayes, G.R. The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 18, 3 (2011), 15.
13. Hearn, G., Kimber, M., Lennie, J. and Simpson, L. A way forward: sustainable ICTs and regional sustainability. The Journal of Community Informatics 1, 2 (2006), 18-31.
14. Hearn, G., Tacchi, J., Foth, M. and Lennie, J. Action Research and New Media: Concepts, Methods and Cases. Hampton Press, New York, NY, USA, 2008.
15. Heyer, and Brereton, M. Design from the everyday: continuously evolving, embedded exploratory prototypes. Proc. DIS 2010, ACM (2010), 282-291.
16. Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W., Westerlund, B.B., Druin, A., Plaisant, C., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., Conversy, S., Evans, H., Hansen, H., Roussel, N., Eiderbäck, B., Lindquist, S. and Sundblad, Y. Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. Proc. CHI 2003, ACM (2003), 17-24.
17. Kidd, C.D., Orr, R., Abowd, G.D., Atkeson, C.G., Essa, I.A., MacIntyre, B.A., Mynatt, E., Starner, T.E. and Newstetter, W. The Aware Home: a living laboratory for ubiquitous computing research. Proc. CoBuild 1999, Springer (1999), 191-198.
18. Marsden, G., Maunder, A. and Parker, M. People are people, but technology is not technology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 366, 1881 (2008), 3795-3804.
19. McCarthy, J. and Wright, P. Technology as Experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004.
20. Merkel, C.B., Xiao, L., Farooq, U., Ganoe, C.H., Lee, R., Carroll, J.M. and Rosson, M.B. Participatory design in community computing contexts. Proc. PDC 2004, ACM (2004), 1-10.
21. Nielsen, C.M., Overgaard, M., Pedersen, M.B., Stage, J. and Stenild, S. It's worth the hassle!: the added value of evaluating the usability of mobile systems in the field. Proc. NordiCHI 2006, ACM (2006), 272-280.
22. Norman, D. Signifiers, not affordances. Interactions 15, 6 (2008), 18-19.
23. Redhead, F. and Brereton M. A qualitative analysis of local community communications. Proc. OZCHI 2006, ACM (2006), 361-364.
24. Rodden, T. and Crabtree, A. Domestic routines and design for the home. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 13, 2 (2004), 191-220.
25. Rogers, Y., Connelly, K., Tedesco, L., Hazlewood, W., Kurtz, A., Hall, R.E., Hursey, J. and Toscos, T. Why it's worth the hassle: the value of in-situ studies when designing ubicomp. Proc. UbiComp 2007, Springer (2007), 336-353.
26. Rogers, Y. Interaction design gone wild: striving for wild theory. Interactions 18, 4 (2011), 58-62.
27. Suchman, L. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1987.
28. Taylor, N. and Cheverst, K. Creating a rural community display with local engagement. Proc. DIS 2010, ACM (2010), 218-227.
29. Taylor, N. and Cheverst, K. Supporting community awareness with interactive displays. IEEE Computer 45, 5 (2012), 26-32.
30. Taylor, N., Marshall, J., Blum-Ross, A., Mills, J., Rogers, J., Egglestone, P., Frohlich, D.M., Wright, P. and Olivier, P. Viewpoint: empowering communities with situated voting devices. Proc. CHI 2012, ACM (2012), 1361-1370.
31. Wood, G., Lindsay, S., Olivier, P. and Marshall, J. Family Hedge: using principles of game design in a digital artefact. DIS 2012 Demos (2012).