marked spaces

Marked SpacesInteraction design and sensor integration for ubiquitous location-based messaging and communication

Mark Perry and Caroline Shangar SISCM, Brunel University

contact: mark.perry@brunel.ac.uk

marked spaces

Communication in place

Many common instances of space in communication notes on fridge doors and colleagues’ desks, paper pushed

under doors, pinned up in social areas for viewing at leisure other instances where desirable (e.g. the bedtime SMS)

Location has an important role to play comm’s technologies have largely failed to address this

“anytime, anywhere” vs. “now, here” current communication and information is tied to devices, not

places and thingse.g. email, digital music and photographs, etc.

Many common instances of space in communication notes on fridge doors and colleagues’ desks, paper pushed

under doors, pinned up in social areas for viewing at leisure other instances where desirable (e.g. the bedtime SMS)

Location has an important role to play comm’s technologies have largely failed to address this

“anytime, anywhere” vs. “now, here” current communication and information is tied to devices, not

places and thingse.g. email, digital music and photographs, etc.

marked spaces

Previous work

Commotion (e.g. Schmandt, et al., 2000) voice-based interaction on GPS platform simple functionality: to-do lists, augmented with limited location-

based information services (context-aware messaging) Geonotes (e.g. Espinoza et al. 2001)

focus on volume problems in spatial messaging based just on a single platform (GPS or Wireless LAN)

Urban Tapestries (e.g. Lane, 2004) situated, public annotations, to build ‘urban histories’ map-based interaction, focus on ‘place’ user interaction simplified for the task with little

user customisation All just stationery ‘locations’, all single sensor types

Commotion (e.g. Schmandt, et al., 2000) voice-based interaction on GPS platform simple functionality: to-do lists, augmented with limited location-

based information services (context-aware messaging) Geonotes (e.g. Espinoza et al. 2001)

focus on volume problems in spatial messaging based just on a single platform (GPS or Wireless LAN)

Urban Tapestries (e.g. Lane, 2004) situated, public annotations, to build ‘urban histories’ map-based interaction, focus on ‘place’ user interaction simplified for the task with little

user customisation All just stationery ‘locations’, all single sensor types

marked spaces

Designing to mark space

our goal: not just locating in, but actively marking space

the space around things, as well as Cartesian space utilise notion of proximity: ‘on’, ‘near’ or ‘around’

user-centred perspective development efforts focus around use and

usability

our goal: not just locating in, but actively marking space

the space around things, as well as Cartesian space utilise notion of proximity: ‘on’, ‘near’ or ‘around’

user-centred perspective development efforts focus around use and

usability

marked spaces

Interaction and sensor specificity

Three key granular areas of coverage different capabilities and constraints together - rich set of infrastructural resources allowing

determination of a device’s location at a different exactness

1. Microspatial (e.g. RFID tag) coverage of a few cm to metres - precise sensitivity un-powered, and allow ‘fit-and-forget’ placement

2. Mesospatial (e.g. ultrasound beacons/Bluetooth) coverage of several metres (<5-100metres), powered signal blocked by structures, allowing room-level sensitivity

3. Macrospatial (e.g. GPS) Accurate to approx. 3-100 metres, powered carried by the user, not embedded

Three key granular areas of coverage different capabilities and constraints together - rich set of infrastructural resources allowing

determination of a device’s location at a different exactness

1. Microspatial (e.g. RFID tag) coverage of a few cm to metres - precise sensitivity un-powered, and allow ‘fit-and-forget’ placement

2. Mesospatial (e.g. ultrasound beacons/Bluetooth) coverage of several metres (<5-100metres), powered signal blocked by structures, allowing room-level sensitivity

3. Macrospatial (e.g. GPS) Accurate to approx. 3-100 metres, powered carried by the user, not embedded

marked spaces

‘Relative’ sensors (e.g. RFID, B/T)

Bluetooth

RFID

Bluetooth

<Sender: caroline><tag: no-name>

Book due back in the library on the 24th Feb 2005.Check out the reference to UbiNet!

<Sender: james><tag: john’s mobile>

remember to speak to John - he’s got your briefcase with him!

RFID

marked spaces

‘Absolute’ sensors (e.g. GPS)

GPS tagged ‘boundary’ around school (an X,Y co-ordinate + n metres)

<Sender: jim><tag: grid-reference>

ha, ha! get this!

<device plays music: School’s out for the summer!>

marked spaces

3 key research elements

3. prototype technical sensor/messaging infrastructure integrates a variety of sensors into a single, unified system

3. prototype technical sensor/messaging infrastructure integrates a variety of sensors into a single, unified system

1. understand the use of space in messaging activity support user needs mesh with current practices

1. understand the use of space in messaging activity support user needs mesh with current practices

2. develop interaction techniques lightweight (think SMS) interactionally integrated

(multi-sensor) personalisable

2. develop interaction techniques lightweight (think SMS) interactionally integrated

(multi-sensor) personalisable

marked spaces

Understanding space

…actually, understanding spatial communication in particular, asynchronous messaging little understanding of the role of space in communication:

why leave messages in spaces; what level of location specificity is important; how are situated messages made visible?

need to examine current practices and values role of spatial messaging in co-ordination and collaboration:

communication doesn’t occur in a vacuumhow do people use messages to communicate and maintain

relationships? and communication breakdowns as current

practices fail

…actually, understanding spatial communication in particular, asynchronous messaging little understanding of the role of space in communication:

why leave messages in spaces; what level of location specificity is important; how are situated messages made visible?

need to examine current practices and values role of spatial messaging in co-ordination and collaboration:

communication doesn’t occur in a vacuumhow do people use messages to communicate and maintain

relationships? and communication breakdowns as current

practices fail

marked spaces

Interaction design

interaction model: text ‘tagging’ by Graffiti artists ‘sprayed’ onto people, places and things extended to ‘media tagging’ (voice recordings, photographs,

music)

sensitivity at different levels of precision how-to-do messaging at different target proximities… …on an integrated system - with a single user interface?

interaction designer’s task: low-effort message placement and retrieval allow users to utilise the different resources and

constraints that the different sensors offerwithout requiring a deep understanding of

underlying technologies

interaction model: text ‘tagging’ by Graffiti artists ‘sprayed’ onto people, places and things extended to ‘media tagging’ (voice recordings, photographs,

music)

sensitivity at different levels of precision how-to-do messaging at different target proximities… …on an integrated system - with a single user interface?

interaction designer’s task: low-effort message placement and retrieval allow users to utilise the different resources and

constraints that the different sensors offerwithout requiring a deep understanding of

underlying technologies

marked spaces

a complex design syntax! (for sender)

select <create new message>

create message

end

option <select location/sensor>

select media type

option <send>

menu selection:sensor type, name,

other details

menu selection

present user with list of available sensors

menu selection, send is the first option

select recipient/s

…compare to SMS…

marked spaces

Interaction design issues…

Questions - how to do: targeting (sender’s selection of a communication ‘space’) addressing (how can spaces/sensors be named/identified?

as mobile or static? as personal or situated?) filtering (which messages are relevant to this recipient?) navigation (how to search through several messages?) message editing (how to manipulate message settings, e.g.

editing message duration or deletion of old messages?) system personalisation (how to configure the system for

ongoing needs?) …compounded by the constraints of developing

on a handheld/small screened device.

Questions - how to do: targeting (sender’s selection of a communication ‘space’) addressing (how can spaces/sensors be named/identified?

as mobile or static? as personal or situated?) filtering (which messages are relevant to this recipient?) navigation (how to search through several messages?) message editing (how to manipulate message settings, e.g.

editing message duration or deletion of old messages?) system personalisation (how to configure the system for

ongoing needs?) …compounded by the constraints of developing

on a handheld/small screened device.

marked spaces

Summary…

answer question: why might marking people, places and things be useful?

how adopted in current patterns of activity, or appropriated for new reasons?

what values might this form of communication hold for users?

where might it fit into our current communications ecology?

how to achieve this design is a non-trivial task! its not just a matter of building the infrastructure…

…how can it be made useful and usable?

answer question: why might marking people, places and things be useful?

how adopted in current patterns of activity, or appropriated for new reasons?

what values might this form of communication hold for users?

where might it fit into our current communications ecology?

how to achieve this design is a non-trivial task! its not just a matter of building the infrastructure…

…how can it be made useful and usable?

marked spaces

Simplified architecture

database

LIM (Location

Identification Module)

User Interface

messages and related ids

messages

location request

location data

messages, related ids

received messages, devices in the area (ids)

Link Processor

sensors ‘ping’ back a unique identifier which connects to the remote message repository

marked spaces

High level architecture

Short Range Integrated

Sensor

Medium Range Environmental

Sensor

Short Range Environmental

Sensor

unique tag id

Portable Device user id

Long Range Integrated

Sensor Long Range

Environmental Sensor

Portable Device user id

device search

e.g. GPS

e.g. B/T

e.g. RFID

location info

loca

tion

req

uest

location co-ordinates

unique sensor idtag id

unique sensor id

sens

or p

oll

sensor poll