Preserving the Past, Enjoying the Present and Facingthe Future: Interaction Design and Family Archives

Molly M. Stevens, Gregory D. Abowd and Khai N. TruongCollege of Computing & GVU Center

Georgia Institute of Technology801 Atlantic Drive

Atlanta, GA 30332-0280 USA+1 404 636 6956

mollystevens@mindspring.com , {abowd, khai}@cc.gatech.edu

ABSTRACTDigital archives of personal memories are becomingincreasingly technically feasible, but there remainsignificant interaction design challenges. These challengesmust be addressed before these archives will presentinteractive experiences that are attractive and emotionallyengaging. In this paper, we present a research and designstudy of the Living Memory Box, a device and service toassist families in preserving memories in a variety of mediaforms. Through a series of ethnographic interviews andfocus groups, we have developed recommendations for thedesign and development of future personal memorysystems. Major improvements, which specifically addressour findings, must be considered by future researchers in thecoordination of interaction design and technologicaldevelopments .Keywordsdomestic technology, ethnographic studies, focus groups,automated capture, multimedia organization, ubiquitouscomputing, mass media,INTRODUCTIONAt its very core the Living Memory Box project is aboutpeople, their experiences, hopes, dreams, pains andpleasures – and how we seek to capture these experiences.Our life experiences are each unique and we want them tosurvive beyond our lifetimes – we want to be remembered.How can we best complete the task of memory capture withcurrent technologies? One of the general themes in HCI andubiquitous computing is the construction of devices andapplications to support the automated capture of liveexperiences and the future access of those records [1]. Eversince the vision of Vannevar Bush’s memex [8], researchershave understood the value of these automated capture andaccess services, and have strived toward this functionality,primarily in the workplace. Over the past decade, thetechnologies have advanced enough that the essentialfunctionality of the memex is no longer imaginary.

Interaction design questions have recently become moreurgent as the capabilities of the technologies have rapidlyevolved. We must ask if the systems and technologies wecreate match the memory capture and access goals ofeveryday people? Several recently published articles,specifically Norman [11] and Shneiderman [13] encourageHCI professionals to be more focused on the emotionalcontext of users.The emotional context is particularly relevant for memorycapture in the home. Do I want a record of every meal – orthe ones where we laughed together? Do I want a simpledatabase of moments, or an emotionally interconnected webof memories that can be gathered into special bouquets ofexperience? Is the experience of gathering and annotatingthese memories a tedious chore, or is it a special time –rewarding and enjoyable? Although the long term creationof such systems seems certain, how do we begin to addressthese issues in the home environment? Through ourresearch on the Living Memory Box project at the AwareHome Research Initiative (AHRI)[2] we have gathered a listof initial recommendations for designers and technologists.These recommendations lay the groundwork for developingsystems that not just invent helpful technology or developattractive interaction design, but integrate the two for aholistic experience that is both incredibly helpful andemotionally engaging.Overview of the paperThis paper examines the research and design of a user-centered system to support the goals embodied in thecollection, archival and annotation of memories of afamily’s life. We are interested in how the effectiveimplementation of automated capture and access servicescan be leveraged to support and improve the quality ofdomestic life, in particular psychological well-being. Wedescribe a series of ethnographic studies and focus groupsthat have informed our understanding of how and whypeople collect memories. We have chosen to definememories as anything that families chooses to save in orderto remember a moment of from their own or their family’slife. The data from these formative and summativeprocesses have informed the current and future designs ofphysical and interactive prototypes for the Living MemoryBox and other projects in the AHRI. We conclude this paperwith an attempt to bridge the futuristic design concepts of

the Living Memory Box with state of the art research onautomated capture and access in the home environment.UNDERSTANDING USER GOALSTo understand the goals of families in memory collection,archival and annotation, we have conducted both a series ofqualitative interview studies and a number of focus groups.Our initial research focus was on how to support a specificand common form of family archiving —parents wanting topreserve memories of their children as they grow. We chosethis group for the dynamic changes in collection that takeplace for many families. Changes occur for three mainreasons, 1) the experiences are very new, 2) child(ren)change quickly and 3) time can be at more of a premium asa new parent. Once we had analyzed the interviews anddeveloped key findings, our goal was to bring the idea to abroader audience. To express our vision of the LivingMemory Box we built both physical and interactiveprototypes. For the three focus groups presented in thispaper (one pilot and two regular) we recruited from the twoends of the family memory spectrum -- digital camera usersand scrapbook users (scrapbookers). The focus groupsallowed us to chick-in with users, evaluate our currentdesign and expand our recommendations for future systems.In every phase of our research we found indications ofdelight and frustration with current saving methods, whichwe will describe below.Ethnographic InterviewsOur ethnographic interviews were conducted within thehome environment with thirteen parents (11 women and 2men) whose children ranged in ages from 4 weeks to 29years. Topics covered the who, what, where, when and whyof saving memories of their child’s life (see [4] for adetailed report of these interviews.)Results from the interviews indicated that current methodsare increasingly inadequate at satisfying their memorygathering needs, although there are more technologies toassist them. Parents are confronted with a wider variety ofartifacts from in a larger variety of media (videos, tapes,objects, artwork, etc . . .). Additionally, although there areexisting systems to assist in both digital and analogorganization, most of these address the storage of thephysical manifestations exclusively (photo albums &boxes, video cases and cabinets, etc . . .)[4]Nearly all participants indicated a constant search for waysto “save” or “capture” special memories from their child’slife. While saving artifacts is ostensibly for a joyouspurpose, parents expressed a high level of guilt and anxietythat they were not saving enough, saving too much orpossibly saving the incorrect items. However, mostexpressed little hope of eventually sorting out the rightthings to save for their children.(I keep) as much as I can stomach keeping, and justify. AndI'm sure, someday, my kids are gonna go through my attic,and go 'Oh my god, look at this junk.’

To combat these concerns, parents saved as much aspossible, in the hopes that they could satisfy boththemselves in the present, and their children in the future.The medium used by parents to remember moments variesas much as the memories themselves. Often the memoryconsists of images (digital and prints), whatever is at hand(a note on a paper napkin), and can also be more elaborateand planned (portraits, plaster hand print kits).Although we often imagine that photos are the primarybulk of family collections, the photos only tell the mostclear and concise story of the items currently saved. Indeed,we found that physical objects make up the majority of thearchive that a parent retains, and in contrast these items arethe least expressive of their memories and potentially themost evocative. All items saved become a direct links tothat moment in time, and the specific item, whether held inthe hand or on the hard drive, is both a record and a memorytrigger. Without a detailed record of why an item was saved,these large archives become vast unwritten stories,unknown to those outside of the events themselves, butstill highly valued. One mother saidI mean, if you looked at it, you might throw it away. But Iwould die.If simply saving these artifacts is already a struggle, thenrecording stories about these artifacts is an insurmountableobstacle.There’s so much stuff, and so little time to…you know, I’llget a little time, and I’ll put it off, because I’ll think tomyself, “I can’t start that right now. I’ll never finish.” It’san overwhelming amount.Hence, in the busy rush of everyday life many preciousmemories are lost and very little is annotated, even withsimple dates, places, etc. Annotation may be perceived asimportant, however it is a task that often comes last and isdone on borrowed time. Add into this mix multipletechnologies creating physical and virtual artifacts in greatnumbers and we see what should be easy and fun quicklyturns into something that is at best difficult and frustrating.In their justifications for saving, parents describe theaudience for memories as rather broad - family, friends andvisitors. However when asked, most parents admitted tobeing the main person who usually visited the album.Parents with older children described the revisiting ofalbums as more of a family event. We used to go back and look at them a lot with the kidslook at what they were doing, what they were wearing, youknow, who - what they were having fun at, who theirfriends were. But also we have lots of pictures in there ofrelatives who live out of town. So we could rehearse withthem who all the people are and help to remember theexperiences with those people so they wouldn’t forget.Using the album as a way to “go back” or “remember” wassomething that we heard from many parents. It seems that

as the children become older, reliving the experiences of thepast can strengthen ties of group experience and belonging.It’s this one way to say, ‘You were little once, it was fun.Lets go back (and do it again.)’FindingsThe interviews provided us with a great deal of data aboutthe current practices of parents and how we can address theproblems that they face. The key findings from theseinterviews can be summarized as:•!Remove the “work” from collecting, annotating andrevisiting memories• Make the inclusion of physical objects a primary feature• Develop “natural” interactions (i.e. touch and voice)• Enable storytelling through centralization of artifactsIn order to support the collection of family memories thesewere essential features in developing a useful, usable andappealing system. The next step was to outline thecombination of capture devices, archives and associatedservices that could realistically enhance the memoryarchiving experience of today’s families. To illustrate ourvision of the Living Memory Box we used two main tools:visual models [7] and role-based scenarios of use. Thevisual models addressed three main areas, cultural context,artifact paths (Figure 1) and changes in the archive contents

over time. The design scenario expressed a vision of theideal interaction, on both the emotional and technologicallevel in clear terms understandable by a range of HCIprofessionals.

SYSTEM FORM AND FEATURESFrom the models and scenarios we developed physical andinteracting prototypes to illustrate the core concepts of theLiving Memory Box project. Through collaborationbetween computer science, industrial design, user interfacedesign we were able to envision a holistic design thatsupports the key findings [15].The system is composed of three pieces:

• a central storage/display device (“the box”)• one or more portable personal recording device(s)• the network connection

The box is the centerpiece of a potential array of digitaldevices and capture and access services, which would beused for input to a centralized archive. The Living MemoryBox appliance can be seen as both an archival and narrationdevice, allowing families to both bring together artifactsand tell stories about those particular items. The box acts asa gateway between the physical and electronic worlds, withartifacts as transitional objects, placed in the box only forthe moment of recording. The space within the box createsa transition between the concept of storing physical artifactsand storing within the digital realm. The transparency ofthese domains should be increased through the use ofcomputing that leverages the parents “natural” interactions.

Figure 1: The Artifact Path Model.

Each incoming item generally moves through a first passof sorting/sharing. Special artifacts are removed fordisplay in a place of honor, sending to relatives, etc.However, the majority of the artifacts go directly into thebox or folder. Parents expressed vague hopes that a future“summer project” might organize the artifacts and havethem continue the path into some form of narrated archive(purple hexagons on the left-hand side of the figure are thenarrated archive objects). “Z” marks over the path linesindicate where the breakdowns occur.

Design Scenario Example:At the end of the day and Sue picks up the LivingMemory Box from her dresser. June, her 2-year-old, justgrew out of a well-worn pair of shoes. She fingers one ofthe laces and thinks about how much fun it was to pickout the shoes six months before – June had been soearnest about wanting this particular pair. Sue puts thebox on the bedside table and sits on the bed, placing herhand on the screen. The device starts up with the sound ofJune as a baby, cooing. That sound always brings a smileto her face and makes Sue think about how quickly timehas passed. She places the shoes into the box. The devicemakes an image of the shoes she placed inside anddisplays it on the touch-screen.Sue presses the record button on the living memory box,preparing to talk about the shoes. She begins speaking:

“It was amazing how you made up your mind soquickly. We walked into the store, although weweren’t planning on going shopping at thatmoment, there was a storm that drove us into thestore. We walked over to your section and you madea beeline over to these shoes, . . . ”

The interface is a fluid space, allowing any activity to becompleted at any time. The metadata associated with a fileis available for viewing, but only if the user wishes to doso. There is a search capability for when users are seeking aparticular item, but an information visualization of theentire contents can also be activated for serendipitousbrowsing (see Figure 2 for more detail).By centralizing digital representations of artifacts in theLiving Memory Box, we envision a way to help userscomplete more pleasurable and complex tasks, that is,telling stories about particular events and then linking torelated “memories” [3]. There are several importantcharacteristics, reflected in the design of the Living MemoryBox that should assist in this function.Once a physical object is recorded, the user can then addmetadata, such as stories, names, and find other relatedimages of the object. This creates connections throughoutthe archive, which can be accessed through the physicalobject’s placement into the box, or through accessing therepresentation of the object in the archive.The Living Memory Box should have at least one dedicatedexternal, removable, capture device that is synchronized tothe box for the recording of stills, video and audio. The boxalso has an internal imaging device on the back of the

screen that will create an image of physical objects placedinside the box.Metadata (date, time, place) should be attached to all entrieswithin the box, eliminating the most boring and painfulpart of the “saving” process. The images from events takenwith the dedicated device(s) will have the recording date andtime automatically associated. The time of capture, whileeasy to obtain automatically, may not be the mostmeaningful metadata associated to a given object.Modifying and extending metadata must be supported suchas primary owner of the associated recording device.We cannot anticipate the volume of storage demand, andtherefore our box cannot be the storage place for primaryphysical artifacts. Other projects have been successful withboxes that store objects and associated audio files [9] butthe space limitations, and the inability to link to images orvideo, make this an impractical solution for our users. Thedevice should leverage the metaphor of the box in its formand interactions (see image of the physical box in top leftof Figure 2). Our studies revealed that the box is theprimary location for family archives, and should be afamiliar and comforting metaphor to draw on. Essentially,the user should be able to “place” an item into this “safe”

Figure 2. System overview of the Living Memory Box. Physical design of the box by FlorianVollmer, industrial designer.

area and imagine that they are “saving” the item forposterity.Finally, for the bulk of the story annotations, the user musthave access to voice input. Natural language will be themost efficient and comfortable for users, particularlyparents, who often tell the stories for future generations. Asone parent described:…they may not care for the next twenty years, but somedaythey may get a kick out of it, or their kids might find itinteresting.FOCUS GROUPSOnce the interactive and physical prototypes were completedwe chose to organize a focus group. We wanted to bringthe concepts to a new audience and discuss potentialinteractions with this system, device and interface. Ourgoals were to 1) check in with users, 2) gather feedback onour current prototype and 3) use the data to adjust ourfindings for a broader user group. The prototypes, physicaland interactive, were developed to give the clearestimpression of the system.For the focus groups we sought participants from the twoends of the family memory spectrum: at one end, digitalcamera users and at the other end, scrapbookers. Gatheringperspectives from both of these groups was intended to giveus the broadest range of reactions from potential users. Wegathered an initial group of approximately 20 people todivide among the 3 focus groups. Participants were recruitedthrough flyers in relevant stores in the Atlanta area andthrough online groups and list-servs on two major Internetportal sites.FocusGroup

Gender Scrap. Digital Total#

PilotGroup

2F* 0* 2* 2*

FocusGroup 1

2 F 1 1 2

FocusGroup 2

3 F ,1 M

2 2 4

Totals 5 F ,1 M

3 3 6

Table 1. Breakdown of participants involved in the focusgroup study. (*Pilot participants are not included in thetotal.)

Our Focus Group protocol involved two main activities: apre-session photo journal and then several days later a 2-hour focus group. We also performed a post-session surveyto gather baseline feedback on the system description andinteractive prototype.Pre-session JournalDuring the week before their focus group we askedparticipants to respond to questions in a journal with words

and pictures. Loosely following the Make part ofSonicRim’s Say, Do, Make[12] protocol, the journalsought to “prime the pump” for the focus groupdiscussion. The Make part of the Say, Do, Make protocolproposes creative activities as a way of successfullyopening the cognitive awareness of your focus groupparticipants to your domain of interest. The kit we senthome with the participants contained a journal, an instantcamera and two packs of film. Aside from demographicinformation, the journal had six pages of questions aboutfamily memories in their home environment, with a spacefor an illustration from the instant camera. Photo Journal Questions:• !Describe your main place to display images/artwork.• Do you have other special display places?• Tell us about where you store your photos/videos and

other memorabilia• Tell us about an object in your house with a story you

know, but not many others do.• !Tell us about a photo with a special story.• Describe the place where most family stories are told or

recorded.

Figure 3: Example journal answers to display questions.

Figure 4: Example journal answers to object and picture

questions.Focus Group ProtocolThe participants came to the Aware Home ResidentialLaboratory on a Saturday after they had received the photojournals. The outline of our activities during the 2 hourswas as follows.

Activity Minutes Intro 5-10Journals 30-40Key Words 15-20Prototype System Description 10-15Prototype Demo 20-30Feedback & Survey 10-20

Most of the time was spent discussing the Journals andKeywords at a large kitchen table while the moderator wrotenotes on large sheets of presentation paper. The interactivedemos were conducted in the nearby living room area on atouch-screen enabled iMac computer.JournalsThe participants expressed two main emotions that they feltwhile filling out the journals: enjoyment and surprise.These were somewhat competing emotions, as theenjoyment of sharing the special things about their familywas tinged with both happy and unhappy surprise at theamount of items (large) and the organization (small). Oneset of participants agreed that the items in their collectionshad an organization, but that it would be impossible foroutsiders to identify this pattern.The journal question about objects, “Tell us about an objectin your house with a story you know, but not many othersdo” generated a good deal of discussion (Figure 4). Whileparticipants were surprised by the question, they were allable to identify an object in their house to answer thequestion.The journals were very successful in preparing theparticipants to discuss family memories. Participants wereable to draw on the pictures, boxes, albums and items thatthey had seen while using the journal. They then drew onthese for examples to illustrate their points during the focusgroups.KeywordsParticipants were generally positive about computers anddigital photography, there were reservations expressed.Words that were used to describe the term digitalphotography included “exciting” and “flexible”, as well as“cold” and “elitist”. Digital was additionally seen asexpensive, risky and too much like “work”. Said oneparticipant, “I don’t want to go home and use a computer,when I just spent 10 hours on one at work”. Thisparticipant and another scrapbooker said that they would notswitch to digital because of these concerns, just they bothgot their rolls of film with a CD-ROM of photos – “Just incase I need them later”. They both foresaw a conversion to

digital, however there was not a convincing reason toswitch at the moment.KEY FINDINGSOverall the participants were very positive about the systemas described and demonstrated. The respondents reacted verywell to the multimedia aspect of the interactive prototypeand most could envision instant application in a variety offields. Five of the six participants filled out the exit surveyat the end of the session. One user indicated that “theprototype seems to duplicate already existing technology –(the idea) could be adapted immediately with software(specific) that could utilize user’s already existinginvestment” Another user also thought that it needed morevoice command (which was simulated for the demo of theprototype). They supported our initial findings, but alsoadded and extended the key issues.Recall the four key findings at the end of the interviews,and revise and expand them to the followingrecommendations:• Develop the annotation/organization into a time ofpersonal expression

Do not simply remove the “work” feel of currentannotation methods but sculpt the interaction design tomake it a time of personal expression for the user. Thescrapbookers from the focus groups all describedmaking the books and journals as “therapeutic”,something that could add significantly to the userexperience. This must be a flexible and/or creativeprocess , or neither user groups will use the system.

• Make the inclusion of practically any object possible•!Develop “natural” interactions (i.e. touch and voice)

Users expressed particular interest in saving the audioof voice for the emotional context.

•!Encourage storytelling at any pointDevelop ways of promoting storytelling thatencourages and allows users to tell stories about theirexperiences at any point in the process. For example,while taking pictures at a child’s birthday – you canrecord an audio of everyone singing happy birthday.Then you can tell more details and associate themtogether contextually.

•!Assure the capability of multiple ”voices”Include annotations from many users, allowingmultiple perspectives that can be identified as such.

•!Create Unique ExperiencesMake the experience of creating annotations and theexperience of viewing them unique in their interaction,emotional content and long-term relevance. Forexample, one digital user discussed how he has used hisdigital camera to create a Virtual Reality (VR) of alocation on a recent trip. He said that he often opens

that VR in order to feel that he is back in that calm andtranquil space.

The feedback surveys expressed worries about the ability toaddress these issues within budget and complexity, but itdid not dampen their enthusiasm entirely. Four out of thefive survey respondents indicated that they were “veryinterested” in the Living Memory Box. The fifthrespondent was single and without family, making this aless appealing product.RELATED WORKUp until this past decade, visions of how our lives wouldbe impacted by the ability to preserve virtually any multi-media “memories” were just that — visions. With theinspiration of Mark Weiser [18] and the availability ofmassive storage at an affordable price, research andcommercial endeavors are pushing toward a world in whichwe can technically store all of the artifacts of interest to us.In recent years, the growth of digital video has somecommercial vendors (such as Apple and Adobe) andresearchers (such as Bederson [5] and Girgensohn et al.[10]) thinking about ways to support the collection andediting and browsing of digital stills and home videos. Thecurrent products and research that support doing nonlinearvideo editing on a collection of video sequences have notfocused enough on identifying relevant video sequences inthe first place.On a more general level, many systems have been built toinvestigate the capture and access of information inclassrooms, offices, meetings, conferences, and othermobile experiences (see Truong et al. for a review in thisarea [17]). Many of these prototypes were built asdemonstration vehicles to illustrate interesting use ofubiquitous computing technology. In our experience withbuilding a variety of capture and access applications, theunderstanding of the motivation and goals for recording,preserving and reviewing of records and memories hascontributed to the success and longevity of our systems.The need for capture and access services in the home haveresulted in several application themes:• Near-term reminder systems or memory surrogates that

constantly record some activities (such as conversationsor cooking in the kitchen [16]) and provide lightweightinterfaces to review those activities without providingany persistence beyond a few minutes.

• Medium-term systems that assist with activities suchas finding lost objects, or sharing artifacts betweengenerations [14].

• Long-term services such as the Living Memory Boxdescribed in this paper, but also video archive systemsthat track rehabilitative or developmental progress foryoung and old.

Recent efforts, such as Gordon Bell and colleagues atMicrosoft Research are pushing toward “digital

immortality” [6]. A variety of commercial products andservices (e.g., www.123456789.net, www.legacy.com,www.forevernetwork.com, www.memorymountain.com)also aim to support an individual’s desire to digitallyarchive their memories, thus preserving their legacy. Theseservices let an individual store letters, essays, photos,videos, and stories “forever” for the future generations toview.Another approach with more of a mass media focus isgaining commercial support, multimedia entertainmentcenters in the living room. In these systems personalfamily memories have begun to encroach on the normallypassive activity of television viewing. Set-top boxes likeMoxi, which display content from both inside (pictures,music) and outside of the home (cable TV, videophonecommunication), make it both easier and harder to collectfamily memories. The social issues (who controls access tothe television?) and interaction design issues (how can youannotate something on the television), are not necessarilyaddressed through the design of the Moxi systems.However, perhaps research generation through the AHRIcan influence the development of such info-tainmentservices.FUTURE WORKThe work reported here has focused on an understanding ofthe needs of family archivists and design that is notencumbered by current technological constraints.Concurrent with the futuristic design activity, we have beeninvestigating ways to facilitate the growth of a richlyannotated family archive with current capture and accesstechnology. One current project is the development of afunctional prototype to support the archiving of digitalmedia, initially video. Many of the memories of a family are captured on still ormoving images. Our own interest is in supporting thelong-term collection and browsing of home videos inparticular. The studies informing the Living Memory Boxtell us that families are much more interested in annotatingmemories such as home movies and then performingcontent- and context-based search and access that would thenfeed into any other more sophisticated editing exercise. Inthe Aware Home Research Initiative, we are building anenvironment that will ultimately record many householdactivities and automatically tag those recordings withinformation about where the scenes were recorded, whenthey were recorded and who was in the scene. Emergingstandards for associating metadata to multimedia, such asMPEG-7 will support this kind of annotation activity.We are prototyping this family video album service tosupport tagging of video scenes with information describingthe scene (e.g., who is in it, where it is, what event isrecorded). This supports a simple form of digital videoorganization and editing; that is, the location and assemblyof relevant video sequences from a large repository. As a

demonstration, we are exploring tagging already recordedvideo archives, but are designing the system with the intentto support the simultaneous recording and tagging ofrecorded video as well. This combination of automatic andhuman-assisted tagging is what we envision for the LivingMemory Box as well. The capture application attachesknown properties (context attributes such as time andlocation information) to segments of the captured video.The future success of such systems will rely on acombination of these capabilities that reflects the goals andcapabilities of the technologies and the users.CONCLUSIONSThe need for computers to focus on user’s informationneeds and relationships is an increasingly emphasizedresearch challenge [13]. Shneiderman identifies a pattern of“collect-relate-create-donate” as the continuum of usersinformation goals over a period of time. Currently there isno single device that brings together the four stagesinvolved in this cycle with family memories, in particularas it relates to both digital and physical artifacts. Allcurrent methods (i.e. photography, video, journals, albums,boxes, and various software), fail to both collect items, orrepresentations of them, into one central spot and buildconnections between the virtual and physical artifacts.Hence, families collect many items, but have extremedifficulty in organizing these items into somethingresembling a central story line. This difficulty does notresult in reduced collections; rather, it decreases the long-term narrative potential of the collection, and the inabilityto “donate” to others.I used to have time and interest in organizing. Now I justhave interest in having stuff, but not time and maybe notinterest in organizing it.Using our recommendations and the innovative applicationof interaction and technology design we are developingsystems that address every stage of a families’ informationneeds. Only this holistic application will createtechnologically innovative and emotionally expressiveexperiences that allow users to preserve the past, enjoy thepresent and face the future.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis work has been supported in part by the Aware HomeResearch Initiative industrial consortium that Dr. Abowddirects at Georgia Tech. This work is also partiallysponsored by the National Science Foundation through agrant from the ITR program (#0121661). Additional thanksto Mr. Florian Vollmer’s design expertise in the boxrealization.REFERENCES1. Abowd, G.D and Mynatt, E.D. Charting past, present and

future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Transactionson Computer-Human Interactions, special issue on HCI inthe new millennium, 7(1):29-58, 2000.

2. The Aware Home Research Initiative at Georgia Tech. Seehttp://www.awarehome.gatech.edu/ .

3. Balabanovic, M., Chu, L.L., & Wolff, G.J.. StorytellingWith Digital Photographs. (2000) In Proc. of HumanFactors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, 564-571,2000.

4. Bandlow, A., Vaughan, J. R., Stevens. M. “CapturingMemories”: How parents record and archive items abouttheir child’s life. GVU Center Technical Report GIT-GVU-01-18, 2001.

5. Bederson, B. PhotoMesa: A zoomable image browser usingquantum treemaps and bubblemaps. In Proceedings of UIST2001, ACM Press, Orlando, Florida, pp. 71-80, November,2001.

6. Bell, G. and Gemmell, J. Storage and media in the futurewhen you store everything.http://research.microsoft.com/~gbell/storeall.htm

7. Beyer, H. and Holtzblatt, K. Contextual Design: DefiningCustomer Centered Systems. MorganKaufmann PublishersInc., San Francisco, 1997.

8. Bush, V., As We May Think, Atlantic Monthly. 1945.9. Frohlich, D and R. Murphy. The Memory Box. Personal

Technologies, Vol. 4. No. 4, pp. 238-240. Short paperpresented at Second International Symposium on Handheldand Ubiquitous Computing (HUC 2000), September 2000.

10. Girgensohn, A., et al. A Semi-Automatic Approach toHome Video Editing. In Proceedings of UIST 2000.(November 5-8, 2000, San Diego, CA), 2000, 81-89.

11. Norman, D. Emotion and Design: Attractive things workbetter. Interactions, ACM Press, New York, NY, 9, 4(2002) 36 – 42.

12. Sanders, E. and Williams, C. Harnessing People'sCreativity: Ideation and Expression through VisualCommunication. Focus Groups: Supporting EffectiveProduct Development. Langford J and McDonagh-Philp D(Eds.) Taylor and Francis, 2001.

13. Shneiderman, B. Understanding human reactivites andrelationships:!an excerpt from Leonardo's laptop.Interactions, ACM Press, New York, NY, 9, 5 (2002) 40 –53.

14. Siio, I., Rowan, J. and Mynatt, E. Peek-A-Drawer:Communication by Furniture. In Extended Abstracts ofCHI’02 (Minneapolis, MN, April 2002), ACM Press, 582 -583.

15. Stevens, M., Vollmer, F. and Abowd, G.D. The LivingMemory Box: Form, Function and User Centered Design. InExtended Abstracts of CHI’02 (Minneapolis, MN, April2002), ACM Press, 668-669.

16. Tran, Q.T. and Mynatt, E.D. What was I cooking? TowardsDéjà Vu Displays of Everyday Memory". Submitted for CHI2003.

17. Truong, K.N., G.D. Abowd, and J.A. Brotherton. Who,What, When, Where, How: Design Issues of Capture &Access Applications. In Proceedings of UBICOMP 2001,pp. 209-224, Atlanta, GA, 2000.

18. Weiser, M. The computer of the 21st century. ScientificAmerican, September, 1991.