Advertisement

Ambient Rabbits Likeability of Embodied Ambient Displays

  • Thomas Mirlacher
  • Roland Buchner
  • Florian Förster
  • Astrid Weiss
  • Manfred Tscheligi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5859)

Abstract

This paper discusses the possibility of using embodied Ambient Displays for presenting information in a public setting. For embodying an Ambient Display, a Nabaztag rabbit was used, the information displayed was a weather forecast. Throughout four weeks of alternating traditional visual Ambient Displays and Nabaztag testing, differences and commonalities in terms of perceived usability and likeability have been investigated. Special focus has been put on the likeability and comprehension differences. Results show a correlation between perceived usability and likeability for the traditional Ambient Display as well as a better comprehension over time for both Ambient Displays. However, significant differences in terms of perceived usability and likeability could only be revealed for the traditional Ambient Displays.

Keywords

Ambient Intelligence Ambient Display Ambient Information System Embodied Display 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Weiser, M.: The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American 265(3), 94–104 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ishii, H., Ullmer, B.: Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: CHI 1997, pp. 234–241. ACM Press, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matthews, T., Dey, A.K., Mankoff, J., Carter, S., Rattenbury, T.: A toolkit for managing user attention in peripheral displays. In: UIST 2004, pp. 247–256. ACM, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stasko, J., Doo, M., Dorn, B., Plaue, C.: Explorations and experiences with ambient information systems. In: Workshop on Ambient Information Systems at Pervasive 2007, May 2007, pp. 36–41 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mankoff, J., Dey, A.K., Hsieh, G., Kientz, J., Lederer, S., Ames, M.: Heuristic evaluation of ambient displays. In: CHI 2003, pp. 169–176. ACM, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tscheligi, M., Reitberger, W., Obermair, C., Ploderer, B.: perCues: Trails of Persuasion for Ambient Intelligence. In: IJsselsteijn, W.A., de Kort, Y.A.W., Midden, C., Eggen, B., van den Hoven, E. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2006. LNCS, vol. 3962, pp. 203–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neely, S., Stevenson, G., Nixon, P.: Assessing the suitability of context information for ambient displays. In: Workshop Ambient Information Systems at Pervasive 2007, May 2007. CEUR Workshop, CEUR-WS.org, vol. 254 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jafarinaimi, N., Forlizzi, J., Hurst, A., Zimmerman, J.: Breakaway: an ambient display designed to change human behavior. In: CHI 2005, pp. 1945–1948. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hazlewood, W.R., Coyle, L., Pousman, Z., Kyung Lim, Y.: Ambient Information Systems 2008 - Introduction. In: 2nd Workshop on Ambient Information Systems, September 2008. CEUR Workshop, vol. 402 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Neely, S., Stevenson, G., Kray, C., Mulder, I., Connelly, K., Siek, K.A.: Evaluating pervasive and ubiquitous systems. IEEE Pervasive Computing 7(3), 85–88 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holmquist, L.E.: Evaluating the comprehension of ambient displays. In: CHI 2004: Extended abstracts, pp. 1545–1545. ACM, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pousman, Z., Stasko, J.: Ambient Information Systems: Evaluation in Two Paradigms. In: Workshop Ambient Information Systems at Pervasive 2007, May 2007, pp. 25–29 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shen, X., Eades, P., Hong, S., Moere, A.V.: Intrusive and non-intrusive evaluation of ambient displays. In: Workshop Ambient Information Systems at Pervasive 2007, May 2007. CEUR Workshop, vol. 254 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brooke, J.: SUS: A ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. In: Usability Evaluation in Industry, pp. 189–194. Taylor & Francis, Abington (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bartneck, C., Croft, E., Kulic, D.: Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence and perceived safety of robots. In: Metrics for HRI Workshop, Technical Report 471, University of Hertfordshire, pp. 37–44 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hazlewood, W.R., Connelly, K., Makice, K., Lim, Y.k.: Exploring evaluation methods for ambient information systems. In: CHI 2008, pp. 2973–2978. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Mirlacher
    • 1
  • Roland Buchner
    • 1
  • Florian Förster
    • 1
  • Astrid Weiss
    • 1
  • Manfred Tscheligi
    • 1
  1. 1.ICT&S CenterUniversity of SalzburgSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations