skip to main content
article
Free Access

At home with the technology: an ethnographic study of a set-top-box trial

Published:01 September 1999Publication History
First page image

References

  1. ANDERSON, R. 1994. Representations and requirements: The value of ethnography in system design. Hum. Comput. Interact. 9, 2, 151-182.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. BENTLEY, R., HUGHES,J.A.,RANDALL, D., RODDEN, T., SAWYER, P., SHAPIRO, D., AND SOMMER- VILLE, I. 1992. Ethnographically-informed systems design for air traffic control. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '92, Toronto, Canada, Oct. 31-Nov. 4), M. Mantel and R. Baecker, Eds. ACM Press, New York, NY, 123-129.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. BUTTON,G.AND SHARROCK, W. 1994. Occasioned practices in the work of software engineers. In Requirements Engineering: Social and Technical Issues, M. Jirotka and J. A. Goguen, Eds. Academic Press Prof., Inc., San Diego, CA, 217-240.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. ENGLISH-LUECK,C.AND DARRAH, C. 1997. The infomated households project. Pract. Anthropol. 19, 4, 18-22.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. GARFINKEL, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. HUGHES, J. A., O'BRIEN, J., RODDEN, T., ROUNCEFIELD, M., AND BLYTHIN, S. 1997. Designing with ethnography: a presentation framework for design. In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (DIS '97, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Aug. 18-20), I. McClelland, G. Olson, G. van der Veer, A. Henderson, and S. Coles, Eds. ACM Press, New York, NY, 147-158.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. HUGHES, J., O'BRIEN, J., AND RODDEN, T. 1998. Understanding technology in domestic environments: Lessongs for cooperative buildings. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Cooperative Buildings-Integrating Information, Organization, and Architecture (CoBuild '98, Darmstadt, Germany, Feb. 25-26), N. Streitz, S. Konomi, and H.-J. Burkhardt, Eds. Springer-Verlag, Vienna, Austria.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. KRAUT, R., SCHERLIS, W., MUKHOPADHYAY, T., MANNING, J., AND KIESLER, S. 1996. The HomeNet field trial of residential Internet services. Commun. ACM 39, 12 (Dec.), 55-63.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. LUFF,P.AND HEATH, C. 1998. Mobility in collaboration. In Proceedings of the 1998 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '98, Seattle, WA, Nov. 14-18), S. Poltrock and J. Grudin, Eds. ACM Press, New York, NY, 305-314.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. MATEAS, M., SALVADOR, T., SCHOLTZ, J., AND SORENSEN, D. 1996. Engineering ethnography in the home. In Proceedings of the CHI '96 Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Common Ground (CHI '96, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Apr. 13-18), M. J. Tauber, Ed. ACM Press, New York, NY, 283-284.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. NCR. 1998. Passionfruit-An NCR Knowledge Lab report. NCR Knowledge Lab, National Cash Register Co., London, UK.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. O'BRIEN,J.AND RODDEN, T. 1997. Interactive systems in domestic environments. In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (DIS '97, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Aug. 18-20), I. McClelland, G. Olson, G. van der Veer, A. Henderson, and S. Coles, Eds. ACM Press, New York, NY, 247-259.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. PYCOCK,J.AND BOWERS, J. 1996. Getting others to get it right: An ethnography of design work in the fashion industry. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer-Spported Cooperative Work (CSCW '96, Boston, MA, Nov. 16-20), G. Olson, J. Olson, and M. S. Ackerman, Eds. ACM Press, New York, NY, 219-228.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. ROUNCEFIELD, M., HUGHES,J.A.,RODDEN, T., AND VILLER, S. 1994. Working with constant interruption: CSCW and the small office. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '94, Chapel Hill, NC, Oct. 22-26), J. B. Smith, F. D. Smith, and T. W. Malone, Eds. ACM Press, New York, NY, 275-286.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. TWIDALE, M., RANDALL, D., AND BENTLEY, R. 1994. Situated evaluation for cooperative systems. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '94, Chapel Hill, NC, Oct. 22-26), J. B. Smith, F. D. Smith, and T. W. Malone, Eds. ACM Press, New York, NY, 441-452.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. VENKATESH, A. 1985. A conceptualisation of the household/technology interaction. In Advances in Consumer Research.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. VENKATESH, A. 1996. Computers and other interactive technologies for the home. Commun. ACM 39, 12 (Dec.), 47-54.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. VENKATESH,A.AND VITALARI, N. 1986. A post-adoption analysis of computing in the home. J. Econ. Psychol. 8.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. ULLMER,B.AND ISHII, H. 1997. The metaDESK: Models and prototypes for tangible user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '97, Banff, Alberta, Canada, Oct. 14-17), G. Robertson and C. Schmandt, Eds. ACM Press, New York, NY, 223-232.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. At home with the technology: an ethnographic study of a set-top-box trial

            Recommendations

            Reviews

            Brad A. Myers

            There have been many trials of sophisticated set-top boxes designed to provide services through a television. These have generally been unsuccessful. This paper provides a wealth of ethnographic evidence, drawn from studies of families in the UK, to explain why this may be so. The researchers studied 11 families, which varied in their use of technology, the number of family members, age, marital status, and so on. One observation they made is that each family sets up standard routines, procedures, and allocations of space. Sometimes, these are defined in terms of the technology involved (for example, watching TV). The authors summarize: “interaction with technology is, in complex ways, a managed activity in domestic environments.” New technology should not disrupt the family dynamics, or it will not be accepted. For example, “living and action are distributed throughout the home,” but a set-top box concentrates many activities—banking, scheduling, playing computer games, and watching TV and movies—in one place. Another observation concerns the aesthetic impact of a set-top box on a person's living space: most people did not mind, but one thought it was too ugly. Another key concern of many users was the security and control issues—who would control the access to and content of the set-top box, and whether and how they could control the costs. The users did not understand how the boxes worked, and tended to envision worst-case scenarios. This paper does an excellent job of showing how ethnographic studies can contribute to the design and analysis of new systems, and provides interesting descriptions of how media technology works in homes today.

            Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

            Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

            Comments

            Login options

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

            Sign in

            Full Access

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader