Advertisement

Evaluating User Experience in Smart Home Contexts: A Methodological Framework

  • Peter Mechant
  • Anissa All
  • Lieven De Marez
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10921)

Abstract

Similar to the concept of ‘smart city’, the phrase ‘smart home’ is being adopted by many businesses and stakeholders as a priority which recognizes the growing importance of digital technologies in the home context. However, few targeted methodologies exist that take into account the dynamic and interactive aspects of this environment when studying user experience. To date, the multi-disciplinary field of user experience studies, which investigates individuals perception about using a particular product, system or service, lacks a methodological and conceptual framework to study these smart homes that are connected to the internet and to a rapidly increasing amount of both sensors and actuators.

The goal of this paper is to create a framework to explore how technology enables and constrains agency and engagement in smart homes or spaces. Our methodological framework is grounded in the concepts of interactivity and affordances. We will propose a framework that takes the operational, structural features of a smart home (expressed in structural affordances) into account as well as the functional, subjective perception and usage of these features by people (expressed in functional affordances).

Keywords

Smart home Affordance User experience 

References

  1. Saad al-sumaiti, A., Ahmed, M.H., Salama, M.M.A.: Smart home activities: a literature review. Electr. Power Compon. Syst. 42(3–4), 294–305 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1080/15325008.2013.832439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, F.K.: Smart homes: past, present and future. In: Harper, R. (ed.) Inside the smart home, pp. 17–39. Springer, London (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/1-85233-854-7_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrejevic, M.: iSpy: Surveillance and Power in the Interactive Era. The University Press of Kansas, Lawrence (2007)Google Scholar
  4. Cook, D.J.: How smart is your home? Science 335(6076), 1579–1581 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook, D.J., Crandall, A.S., Thomas, B.L., Krishnan, N.C.: CASAS: a smart home in a box. Computer 46(7), 62–69 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2012.328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frey, J., Bird, C., Willoughby, C.: Human aspects of smart spaces for knowledge. In: Howlett, R.J., Gabrys, B., Musial-Gabrys, K., Roach, J. (eds.) Innovation through Knowledge Transfer 2012. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol. 18, pp. 19–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34219-6_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gaver, W.: Technology affordances. In: CHI 1991, pp. 17–24. ACM (1991)Google Scholar
  8. Gibson, J.J.: The theory of affordances. In: Shaw, R., Bransford, J. (eds.) Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, pp. 67–82. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1977)Google Scholar
  9. Gibson, J.J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Lawrence Erlbaum, London (1986)Google Scholar
  10. Gillespie, T.: The politics of “platforms”. New Media Soc. 12(3), 347–364 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goffman, E.: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Penguin, Harmondsworth (1959)Google Scholar
  12. Hargreaves, T., Wilson, C.: Smart Homes and Their Users, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68018-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hartson, H.R.: Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behav. Inf. Technol. 22(5), 315–338 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hogan, B.J.: Networking in everyday life. Graduate Department of Sociology. University of Toronto, Toronto (2009). http://individual.utoronto.ca/berniehogan/Hogan_NIEL_10-29-2008_FINAL.pdf
  15. Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B.: Affordances of HCI; toward a mediated action perspective. In: Höök, K. (ed.) CHI 2012, pp. 967–976. ACM, Austin (2012). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2208541&dl=ACM&coll=DL&CFID=370918149&CFTOKEN=79438039
  16. Koles, B., Nagy, P.: Virtual worlds as digital workplaces: conceptualizing the affordances of virtual worlds to expand the social and professional spheres in organizations. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 4(2), 175–195 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386613507074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Korzun, D.G., Kashevnik, A.M., Balandin, S.I., Smirnov, A.V.: The Smart-M3 platform: experience of smart space application development for internet of things. In: Balandin, S., Andreev, S., Koucheryavy, Y. (eds.) ruSMART 2015. LNCS, vol. 9247, pp. 56–67. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23126-6_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. M&M. Smart home market by product, software & service, and geography—global forecast to 2023 (2017)Google Scholar
  19. McMillan, S.J.: Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: users, documents and systems. In: Lievrouw, L., Livingstone, S. (eds.) The Handbook of New Media, pp. 205–229. Sage, London (2006)Google Scholar
  20. Nardi, B.A., Whittaker, S., Bradner, E.: Interaction and outeraction: instant messaging in action. In: Kellogg, W.A., Whittaker, S. (eds.) Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM Press, Philadelphia (2000). http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/360000/358975/p79-nardi.pdf?key1=358975&key2=4747714621&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=74313543&CFTOKEN=73171065
  21. Norman, D.: The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  22. Nyborg, S.: Pilot users and their families: inventing flexible practices in the smart grid. Sci. Technol. Stud. 28(3), 54–80 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. Polson, P.G., Lewis, C., Rieman, J., Wharton, C.: Cognitive walkthroughs: a method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 36, 741–773 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reid, F., Reid, D.: The expressive and conversational affordances of mobile messaging. Behav. Inf. Technol. 29(1), 3–22 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Richardson, H.J.: A “smart house” is not a home: the domestication of ICTs. Inf. Syst. Front. 11, 599–608 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Silverstone, R., Haddon, L.: Design and domestication of information and communication technologies: technical change and everyday life. In: Mansell, R., Silverstone, R. (eds.) Communication by Design, pp. 44–75. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996)Google Scholar
  27. Statista. Smart home - Statistics & Facts (2017)Google Scholar
  28. Trepte, S.: Social media, privacy, and self-disclosure: the turbulence caused by social media’s affordances. Soc. Media + Soc. (1–2) (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115578681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilson, C., Hargreaves, T., Hauxwell-Baldwin, R.: Smart homes and their users: a systematic analysis and key challenges. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 19(2), 463–476 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Withagen, R., de Poel, H.J., Araújo, D., Pepping, G.-J.: Affordances can invite behavior: reconsidering the relationship between affordances and agency. New Ideas Psychol. 30(2), 250–258 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhang, P.: Motivational affordances: Reasons for ICT design and use. Commun. ACM 51, 145–147 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ziglari, L.: Affordance and second language acquisition. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 23(3), 373–379 (2008)Google Scholar
  33. Zion. Smart Home Market: Global Industry Perspective, Comprehensive Analysis and Forecast, 2016–2022. Zion Market Research, Sarasota (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.imec-mict-Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations