Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Papers Read/Reread Over Weekend
*Cell Phone Usage and Social Interaction with Proximate Others: Ringing in a Theoretical Model by Omotomayo Banjo, Yifeng Hu, Shyam Sundar
Relates cell phone usage (CPU) to social interaction with proximate others (SIPO) by proposing theoretical model with mediating factors: obligation to others, presumption of privacy, and limited capacity. Deception experiment to see if using cell phone would affect person’s helping behavior, friendliness. Results suggested cell phone use inhibited altruistic behavior and reduced obligation to proximate others.
(relates to Readers Digest studies of courteous behavior in different countries)
*Designing the Spectator Experience
Create taxonomy to design public interfaces, mainly staged performances
Secretive interfaces tend towards hiding both manipulations and effects, either to protect spectators from knowing about the experience until it is their turn,or to protect performers from interference
Expressive interfaces tend toward revealing, even amplifying both manipulations and effects, supports learning by watching and admiration/entertainment of watching
Magical interfaces tend toward revealing effects while hiding the manipulations that led to them.
Suspenseful interfaces tend towards revealing manipulations while hiding effects
*Frame of the Game: Blurring the Boundary between fiction and Reality in Mobile Experiments
Uncle Roy All Around You-public game, clues, performer
*Building a Context Sensitive Telephone: Some Hopes and Pitfalls for Context Sensitive Computing by Barry Brown and Rebecca Randell
Points out challenges of context-aware telephone since it’s unlikely that a telephone would be able to be completely accurate. Suggests three guidelines for context systems:
1) Context sensitive computing used defensively where incorrect behavior tolerable
2)Technology can provide structures to which people themselves can add context.
3) Technology can communicate context to users, allowing users to make sense of that contextual information themselves.
Mentions notion of normative usage with society developing mechanisms to deal with and manage use, with shame and stigma as motivation for end users to make sure phone is turned off.
*Mobile Communnities: Extending Online Communities into the Real World
by Christian Hillebrand, Georg Groh and Michael Koch
COSMOS-more of a proposal level discussing support services for mobile communities including using sensors for locational/contextual data and implementing services that support matchmaking and both synchronous and asynchronous communication.
*Psychological Predictors of Problem Mobile Phone Use
by Adriana Bianchi and James Phillips
“Problem use” mainly w/respect to use while driving, also debt incurred, used to violate privacy and harass others. Used addiction literature to find potential predictors for problematic use: extraversion, self-esteem, neuroticism, gender and age. Showed that problem use is function of age, extraversion and low self-esteem but not neuroticism.
*Usage Patterns of FriendZone—Mobile Location-Based Community Services
services including Instant Messaging and Locator (gives locations of users, emoticons indicate mood and availability, enhanced presence), Location Based Chat and Anonymous instant messaging (most popular because want immediate stimulations which could lead to face-to-face meetings)
*Cultural Differences in Communication: Examining Patterns of Daily Life
by Leslie Haddon http://members.aol.com/leshaddon/Korea.html
What issues useful to look at cross-culturally
Examples: When to Use mobiles over other forms of communication cost major factor, infrastructure available, value put on mediated communication and specifically on spontaneous contact which may partly reflect communication norms and expectations that have emerged in different cultures including extent to which people have become ‘locked into’ certain patterns of mobile use which may themselves reflect such thing as time structures of different societies, how ‘busy’ ppl are and degrees of mobility(travel in everyday life ,
Use of mobile in public spaces well documented.
Telecom Italia Study (1998) showed that some variation in ppl’s reaction. Ex for Italians mobile phone ‘antisocial instrument’ (Fortunati 97) since ‘wherever emphasis placed on individual, as in Italian case, the public sphere goes neglected and unheeded’, distinctly more willing to switch phone on in range of public spaces compared to other Europeans. Israeli willingness to use mobile in most public spaces whereas Japan country where norms of non-intrusion demand ‘low level of noise maintained’ in public spaces (Geser 2004)
**If there may be cultural differences, why would this be interesting? First, in discussions of the social consequences of mobile telephony a number of writers have observed that this use of the mobile in public spaces is threatening existing norms of communication, shattering old rules. If there is cultural variation, this claim may simply be more true of some cultures than of others. Second, if we want to understand differences in the use of mobile in daily life, the strength of public norms can have a bearing upon medium of communication used, as noted in regulation of mobile in Japan favoring use of text messaging. By implication, it may well have a bearing upon peoples’ use of strategies to minimize disruption to public spaces (eg in terms of their willingness to go off and seek quiet places to call). And variation in these communication norms may help us to understand the degree to which various bodies (from restaurant owners to railway operators) develop policies to regulate mobile use or else provide for it, in various spaces over which they have authority (Geser 2004)
Many of discussions talk about reactions of unknown co-present others, assuming anonymity described by Simmel in ppl’s coping strategies for urban life.
By now turning to cultural influences, at the heart of some of these discussions is the notion of culturally different communication norms as well as different codes of ‘courtesy, etiquette and manners’ (Ling 20020) especially about allowing other people some privacy in public spaces. From a research point of view, we would have to be able to specify what these norms were and derive evidence of their existence. But we might also want to ask why these particular norms exist, For ex in Philippines, one researcher noted in some densely populated settings, ppl became more tolerant of allowing others private communication spaces to make calls, but the callers are also more considerate of those around them, raising the question of whether we should consider aspects such as population density, the ‘crowdedness’ of some urban settings, and also the scope for being able to find more isolated and quieter spaces to make calls, such as private cars as opposed to public transport.
Beyond communication norms, maybe we ought also to consider values related to how orderly public spaces should be and expectations of more general behavior in these settings This might consider what is tolerated and what is not (eg in terms of what counts as disturbing behavior and how this is policed). Although discussions of private calls in public spaces often dwell on questions of private content of calls as being the key disruptive elements, we might also want to consider norms about generally noise levels, for ex as breached when Walkman first appeared in 70s(duGuy 1997). This is also touched upon in discussions of why the mobile is sometimes not tolerated/
Controlling reachability (strategies for controlling incoming communication that could be potentially disruptive-- ie timing socially awkward or arrive in settings where inappropriate to take them: limiting who has number, switching off, negotiating importance of call when mobile rings, sending to voice mail)
*A Space Oriented Approach to Designing Pervasive Systems
by Vassilis Kostakos and Eamonn O’ Neil
Essence of approach: effective integration of spaces (physical space + social dimensions) created by built environment with interaction spaces created by computing resources distributed in that environment
*Imagining the City:The Cultural Dimensions of Urban Computing
by Amanda Williams and Paul Dourish
Much urban computing research focuses on cities as generic settings and containers of action. However, cities can also be viewed as products of historically and culturally situated practices and flows. When we view urban areas in this context, rather than as collections of people and buildings, infrastructure and practice are closely entwined.
Dodgeball, Simmel-urban indifference, anonymity, familiar stranger
*Social Topography in a Wireless Era: The Negotiation of Public and Private Space
by Lee Humphreys
Ways in which people respond to cellphone calls in public spaces provide markers for social topographical space. In this study, she explores how cellphone users negotiate privacy when using cellphones in public space and how those within the proximity of the caller negotiate space in response to these callers.
Goffman: minimal main involvement: activities that people alone in public engage in that are socially appropriate and legitimize their solitary presence.
Moderating behavior based on contextual cues
Places popular to use—spaces large and open such as train stations (embodiment of mobility) and right outside of buildings
Linking cellphone use to smoking
Design-cause of cell yell that people can’t hear themselves
“Selfish and intrusive” behavior-loud or intimate cellphone call that infringes on privacy as bystanders
*Cell Phone Usage and Social Interaction with Proximate Others: Ringing in a Theoretical Model by Omotomayo Banjo, Yifeng Hu, Shyam Sundar
Relates cell phone usage (CPU) to social interaction with proximate others (SIPO) by proposing theoretical model with mediating factors: obligation to others, presumption of privacy, and limited capacity. Deception experiment to see if using cell phone would affect person’s helping behavior, friendliness. Results suggested cell phone use inhibited altruistic behavior and reduced obligation to proximate others.
(relates to Readers Digest studies of courteous behavior in different countries)
*Designing the Spectator Experience
Create taxonomy to design public interfaces, mainly staged performances
Secretive interfaces tend towards hiding both manipulations and effects, either to protect spectators from knowing about the experience until it is their turn,or to protect performers from interference
Expressive interfaces tend toward revealing, even amplifying both manipulations and effects, supports learning by watching and admiration/entertainment of watching
Magical interfaces tend toward revealing effects while hiding the manipulations that led to them.
Suspenseful interfaces tend towards revealing manipulations while hiding effects
*Frame of the Game: Blurring the Boundary between fiction and Reality in Mobile Experiments
Uncle Roy All Around You-public game, clues, performer
*Building a Context Sensitive Telephone: Some Hopes and Pitfalls for Context Sensitive Computing by Barry Brown and Rebecca Randell
Points out challenges of context-aware telephone since it’s unlikely that a telephone would be able to be completely accurate. Suggests three guidelines for context systems:
1) Context sensitive computing used defensively where incorrect behavior tolerable
2)Technology can provide structures to which people themselves can add context.
3) Technology can communicate context to users, allowing users to make sense of that contextual information themselves.
Mentions notion of normative usage with society developing mechanisms to deal with and manage use, with shame and stigma as motivation for end users to make sure phone is turned off.
*Mobile Communnities: Extending Online Communities into the Real World
by Christian Hillebrand, Georg Groh and Michael Koch
COSMOS-more of a proposal level discussing support services for mobile communities including using sensors for locational/contextual data and implementing services that support matchmaking and both synchronous and asynchronous communication.
*Psychological Predictors of Problem Mobile Phone Use
by Adriana Bianchi and James Phillips
“Problem use” mainly w/respect to use while driving, also debt incurred, used to violate privacy and harass others. Used addiction literature to find potential predictors for problematic use: extraversion, self-esteem, neuroticism, gender and age. Showed that problem use is function of age, extraversion and low self-esteem but not neuroticism.
*Usage Patterns of FriendZone—Mobile Location-Based Community Services
services including Instant Messaging and Locator (gives locations of users, emoticons indicate mood and availability, enhanced presence), Location Based Chat and Anonymous instant messaging (most popular because want immediate stimulations which could lead to face-to-face meetings)
*Cultural Differences in Communication: Examining Patterns of Daily Life
by Leslie Haddon http://members.aol.com/leshaddon/Korea.html
What issues useful to look at cross-culturally
Examples: When to Use mobiles over other forms of communication cost major factor, infrastructure available, value put on mediated communication and specifically on spontaneous contact which may partly reflect communication norms and expectations that have emerged in different cultures including extent to which people have become ‘locked into’ certain patterns of mobile use which may themselves reflect such thing as time structures of different societies, how ‘busy’ ppl are and degrees of mobility(travel in everyday life ,
Use of mobile in public spaces well documented.
Telecom Italia Study (1998) showed that some variation in ppl’s reaction. Ex for Italians mobile phone ‘antisocial instrument’ (Fortunati 97) since ‘wherever emphasis placed on individual, as in Italian case, the public sphere goes neglected and unheeded’, distinctly more willing to switch phone on in range of public spaces compared to other Europeans. Israeli willingness to use mobile in most public spaces whereas Japan country where norms of non-intrusion demand ‘low level of noise maintained’ in public spaces (Geser 2004)
**If there may be cultural differences, why would this be interesting? First, in discussions of the social consequences of mobile telephony a number of writers have observed that this use of the mobile in public spaces is threatening existing norms of communication, shattering old rules. If there is cultural variation, this claim may simply be more true of some cultures than of others. Second, if we want to understand differences in the use of mobile in daily life, the strength of public norms can have a bearing upon medium of communication used, as noted in regulation of mobile in Japan favoring use of text messaging. By implication, it may well have a bearing upon peoples’ use of strategies to minimize disruption to public spaces (eg in terms of their willingness to go off and seek quiet places to call). And variation in these communication norms may help us to understand the degree to which various bodies (from restaurant owners to railway operators) develop policies to regulate mobile use or else provide for it, in various spaces over which they have authority (Geser 2004)
Many of discussions talk about reactions of unknown co-present others, assuming anonymity described by Simmel in ppl’s coping strategies for urban life.
By now turning to cultural influences, at the heart of some of these discussions is the notion of culturally different communication norms as well as different codes of ‘courtesy, etiquette and manners’ (Ling 20020) especially about allowing other people some privacy in public spaces. From a research point of view, we would have to be able to specify what these norms were and derive evidence of their existence. But we might also want to ask why these particular norms exist, For ex in Philippines, one researcher noted in some densely populated settings, ppl became more tolerant of allowing others private communication spaces to make calls, but the callers are also more considerate of those around them, raising the question of whether we should consider aspects such as population density, the ‘crowdedness’ of some urban settings, and also the scope for being able to find more isolated and quieter spaces to make calls, such as private cars as opposed to public transport.
Beyond communication norms, maybe we ought also to consider values related to how orderly public spaces should be and expectations of more general behavior in these settings This might consider what is tolerated and what is not (eg in terms of what counts as disturbing behavior and how this is policed). Although discussions of private calls in public spaces often dwell on questions of private content of calls as being the key disruptive elements, we might also want to consider norms about generally noise levels, for ex as breached when Walkman first appeared in 70s(duGuy 1997). This is also touched upon in discussions of why the mobile is sometimes not tolerated/
Controlling reachability (strategies for controlling incoming communication that could be potentially disruptive-- ie timing socially awkward or arrive in settings where inappropriate to take them: limiting who has number, switching off, negotiating importance of call when mobile rings, sending to voice mail)
*A Space Oriented Approach to Designing Pervasive Systems
by Vassilis Kostakos and Eamonn O’ Neil
Essence of approach: effective integration of spaces (physical space + social dimensions) created by built environment with interaction spaces created by computing resources distributed in that environment
*Imagining the City:The Cultural Dimensions of Urban Computing
by Amanda Williams and Paul Dourish
Much urban computing research focuses on cities as generic settings and containers of action. However, cities can also be viewed as products of historically and culturally situated practices and flows. When we view urban areas in this context, rather than as collections of people and buildings, infrastructure and practice are closely entwined.
Dodgeball, Simmel-urban indifference, anonymity, familiar stranger
*Social Topography in a Wireless Era: The Negotiation of Public and Private Space
by Lee Humphreys
Ways in which people respond to cellphone calls in public spaces provide markers for social topographical space. In this study, she explores how cellphone users negotiate privacy when using cellphones in public space and how those within the proximity of the caller negotiate space in response to these callers.
Goffman: minimal main involvement: activities that people alone in public engage in that are socially appropriate and legitimize their solitary presence.
Moderating behavior based on contextual cues
Places popular to use—spaces large and open such as train stations (embodiment of mobility) and right outside of buildings
Linking cellphone use to smoking
Design-cause of cell yell that people can’t hear themselves
“Selfish and intrusive” behavior-loud or intimate cellphone call that infringes on privacy as bystanders
Comments:
Post a Comment
