skip to main content
10.1145/1620545.1620576acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesubicompConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Assessing demand for intelligibility in context-aware applications

Published:30 September 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

Intelligibility can help expose the inner workings and inputs of context-aware applications that tend to be opaque to users due to their implicit sensing and actions. However, users may not be interested in all the information that the applications can produce. Using scenarios of four real-world applications that span the design space of context-aware computing, we conducted two experiments to discover what information users are interested in. In the first experiment, we elicit types of information demands that users have and under what moderating circumstances they have them. In the second experiment, we verify the findings by soliciting users about which types they would want to know and establish whether receiving such information would satisfy them. We discuss why users demand certain types of information, and provide design implications on how to provide different intelligibility types to make context-aware applications intelligible and acceptable to users.

References

  1. Abowd, G.D., Atkeson, C.G., Hong, J., Long, S., Kooper, R.&Pinkerton, M. (1997). Cyberguide: a mobile context-aware tour guide. Wireless Networks 3(5), 421--433. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Abowd, G.D., Mynatt, E.D.&Rodden, T. (2002). The Human Experience, IEEE Pervasive Computing 1(1), 48--57. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Antifakos, S. Kern, N., Schiele, B.&Schwaninger, A. (2005). Towards improving trust in context-aware systems by displaying system confidence. Proc. MobileHCI 2005, 9--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Avrahami, D.&Hudson, S.E. (2006). Responsiveness in Instant Messaging: Predictive Models Supporting Inter-Personal Communication. Proc. CHI'06, 731--740. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Barkhuus, L.&Dey, A.K. (2003). Is context-aware computing taking control away from the user? Three levels of interactivity examined. Proc. Ubicomp 2003, 149--156.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellotti, V.&Edwards, W.K. (2001). Intelligibility and Accountability: Human Considerations in Context-Aware Systems, Human--Computer Interaction, 16(2-4): 193--212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Cheverst, K., Byun, H.E., Fitton, D., Sas, C., Kray, C.&Villar, N. (2005). Exploring issues of user model transparency and proactive behavior in an office environment control system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 15(3-4), 235--273. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Dey, A.K.&Abowd, G.D. (2000). CybreMinder: A Context-Aware System for Supporting Reminders. Proc. Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing, 172--186. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Dey, A.K., Abowd, G.D.&Salber, D. (2001). A conceptual framework and a toolkit for supporting the rapid prototyping of context-aware applications. Human-Computer Interaction, 16(2-4): 97--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Dey, A.K., Sohn, T., Streng, S.&Kodama, J (2006). iCAP: Interactive Prototyping of Context-Aware Applications. Proc. Pervasive 2006, 254--271. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Dzindolet, M., Peterson, S., Pomranky, S. Pierce, L.&Beck, H. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6): 697--718. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Fogarty, J., Hudson, S.E., Atkeson, C.G., Avrahami, D., Forlizzi, J., Kiesler, S., Lee, J.C.&Yang, J. (2005). Predicting human interruptibility with sensors. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 12(1), 119--146. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Froehlich, J., Dillahunt, T., Klasnja, P., Mankoff, J., Consolvo, S., Harrison, B., and Landay, J.A. (2009). UbiGreen: investigating a mobile tool for tracking and supporting green transportation habits. Proc.CHI 2009, 1043--1052. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Glass, A., McGuinness, D.&Wolverton, M. (2008). Toward establishing trust in adaptive agents. Proc.IUI'08. 227--236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Graesser, A.C.&McMahen, C.L. (1993). Anomalous information triggers questions when adults solve quantitative problems and comprehend stories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 136--151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Gregor, S.&Benbasat, I. (1999). Explanations From Intelligent Systems: Theoretical Foundations and Implications for Practice. MIS Quarterly 23(4): 497--530. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Herlocker, J., Konstan, J.&Riedl, J. (2000). Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations. Proc. CSCW 2000, 241--250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Ko, A.J.&Myers, B.A. (2009). Finding causes of program output with the Java Whyline. Proc. CHI '09, 1569--1578. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Kuleza T., Wong, W.K., Stumpf, S., Perona, S., White, R., Burnett, M.M., Oberst, I.&Ko. A.J. (2009). Fixing the Program My Computer Learned: Barriers for End Users, Challenges for the Machine. Proc. IUI 2009, 187--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Lim, B.Y., Dey, A.K.&Avrahami, D. (2009). Why and why not explanations improve the intelligibility of context-aware intelligent systems. Proc. CHI 2009, 2119--2128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. McGuinness, D.L., Glass, A., Wolverton, M.&Pinheiro da Silva, P. (2007). A Categorization of Explanation Questions for Task Processing Systems. AAAI Workshop on Explanation-Aware Computing (ExaCt-07).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Muir, B. (1994). Trust in automation: Part i. theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37(11): 1905--1922.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Mynatt, E.D., Rowan, J., Craighill, S.&Jacobs, A. (2001). Digital family portraits: supporting peace of mind for extended family members. Proc. CHI '01, 333--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science 11(4), 404--428. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Schonlau, M., Soest, A.V., Kapteyn, A.,&Couper, M.P. (2006). Selection bias in web surveys and the use of propensity scores. Sociological Methods&Research, 37(3): 291--318.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Strauss, A.L.&Corbin, J.M. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Van der Meik, H. (1987). Assumptions of information-seeking questions. Questioning Exchange 1, 111--118.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Assessing demand for intelligibility in context-aware applications

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      UbiComp '09: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Ubiquitous computing
      September 2009
      292 pages
      ISBN:9781605584317
      DOI:10.1145/1620545

      Copyright © 2009 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 30 September 2009

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      UbiComp '09 Paper Acceptance Rate31of251submissions,12%Overall Acceptance Rate764of2,912submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader