Advertisement

Human Centered Design Conception Applied to the Internet of Things: Contribution and Interest

  • Quentin ChibaudelEmail author
  • Bellmunt JoaquimEmail author
  • Lespinet-Najib VéroniqueEmail author
  • Mokhtari MounirEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10898)

Abstract

Internet Of Things (IoT) is increasingly used throughout the world in different fields. But it does not have a standardized definition [28]. Several definition can be proposed. IoT corresponds to “objects with virtual identity and personality, working in a smart environment and using smart interfaces to connect and communicate in some various context” [3]. IoT is a sum of entities that are used to exchange information in different contexts. This is a network of connected objects communicating between them to extend their functionalities [17]. The IoT is larger than just a system: it is a system of system. Each one can be divided in sub-system and assimilated to a specific technology [5]. The IoT is “a dynamic infrastructure of a global network. This global network has auto-configuration capacities based on standards and communication protocols interoperable. In this network, physical and virtual objects have identities, physical attributes, virtual personalities and smart interfaces and they are integrated to the network in a transparent way” [31].

References

  1. 1.
    Azéma, B., Martinez, N.: Les personnes handicapées vieillissantes: espérances de vie et de santé; qualité de vie. Rev. française des affaires sociales. 2(2), 295–333 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baltes, P.B., Freund, A.M., Li, S.-C.: The Psychological Science of Human Ageing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bassi, A., Horn, G.: Internet of things in 2020: a roadmap for the future. Eur. Common. Inf. Soc. Media 22, 97–114 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belio, C.: Handicap, cognition et représentations. Ph.D. thesis, Bordeaux 2 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benghozi, P-.J., Bureau, S., Massit-Folea, F.: L’internet des objets. quels enjeux pour les européens? (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bijker, W.E.: Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Briançon, S., Guèrin, G., Sandrin-Berthon, B.: Les maladies chroniques. Actualités Dossiers En Santé Publique, pp. 11–53 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brunet, R., Ferra, R., Théry, H.: Les mots de la géographie, dictionnaire critique. GIR RECLUS/La Documentation française (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bussière, C.: Recours aux soins de santé primaires des personnes en situation de handicap: analyses économiques à partir des données de l’enquête Handicap-Santé. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-Saclay (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chaudet, B.: Handicap, vieillissement et accessibilité. Exemples en France et au Québec. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-Saclay (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Covelet, R.: Prendre enfin conscience des enjeux des déficits sensoriels des personnes âgées. Gérontol. soc. 30(4), 249–262 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Despouy, L.: Human Rights and Disabled Persons. United Nations (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Folcher, V., Lompré, N.: Accessibilité pour et dans l’usage: concevoir des situations d’activité adaptées à tous et à chacun. Le trav. hum. 75(1), 89–120 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fried, L.P., Tangen, C.M., Walston, J., Newman, A.B., Hirsch, C., Gottdiener, J., Seeman, T., Tracy, R., Kop, W.J., Burke, G., et al.: Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J. Gerontol. Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 56(3), M146–M157 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gohet, P.: L’avancée en âge des personnes handicapées contribution à la réflexion. Rapport, Paris (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grossman, M., et al.: The Demand for Health: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation. NBER Books, New York (1972)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., Palaniswami, M.: Internet of things (IoT): a vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 29(7), 1645–1660 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO: Ergonomics of human-system interaction: Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kirkwood, T.B.L.: A systematic look at an old problem. Nature 451(7179), 644 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ladislas, R.: Le vieillissement. faits et théories (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marinc, A., Stocklöw, C., Braun, A., Limberger, C., Hofmann, C., Kuijper, A.: Interactive personalization of ambient assisted living environments. In: Smith, M.J., Salvendy, G. (eds.) Human Interface 2011. LNCS, vol. 6771, pp. 567–576. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21793-7_64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martel, L., Bélanger, A.: Une analyse de l’évolution de l’espérance de vie sans dépendance au canada entre 1986 et 1996. Rapport sur l’état de la population du Canada 1998–1999, pp. 164–186 (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mokhtari, M., Aloulou, H., Tiberghien, T., Biswas, J., Racoceanu, D., Yap, P.: New trends to support independence in persons with mild dementia-a mini-review. Gerontology 58(6), 554–563 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    OMS: Rapport mondial sur le vieillissement et la santé (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roche, A.: Proposition d’une méthode de conception systémique d’interface homme-système adaptée aux situations de multihandicap. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Bordeaux (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seydoux, N., Drira, K., Hernandez, N., Monteil, T.: Rôle d’une base de connaissance dans semiotics, un système autonome contrôlant un appartement connecté (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shin, D.-H.: A socio-technical framework for cyber-infrastructure design: implication for Korean cyber-infrastructure vision. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 77(5), 783–795 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shin, D.: A socio-technical framework for internet-of-things design: a human-centered design for the internet of things. Telemat. Inform. 31(4), 519–531 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sommerville, I., Dewsbury, G.: Dependable domestic systems design: a socio-technical approach. Interact. Comput. 19(4), 438–456 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Steves, C.J., Spector, T.D., Jackson, S.H.D.: Ageing, genes, environment and epigenetics: what twin studies tell us now, and in the future. Age Ageing 41(5), 581–586 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sundmaeker, H., Guillemin, P., Friess, P., Woelfflé, S.: Vision and challenges for realising the internet of things. Clust. Eur. Res. Proj. Internet Things, Eur. Comm. 3(3), 34–36 (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    UNO: World population ageing 2013. Department of Economic and Social Affairs PD (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Robert, L., West, R.L.: An application of prefrontal cortex function theory to cognitive aging. Psychol. Bull. 120(2), 272 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Winter, J.: The internet of things: scenarios for a human-centered design and policy process. In: Conference Paper Presented at the World Futures Studies Federation 40th Anniversary Conference, Bucharest. Romania, June 2013Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cognitique et Ingénierie Humaine (CIH), Laboratoire Intégration du Matériau au Système (IMS) - UMR CNRS 5218, École Nationale Supérieure de Cognitique (ENSC)Institut Polytechnique de BordeauxTalenceFrance
  2. 2.Imaging and Pervasive Access Lab (IPAL) UMI CNRS 2955Institut for Infocomm Research (I2R/A*STAR)SingaporeFrance

Personalised recommendations