Invisible Work: An Ambient System for Awareness and Reflection of Household Tasks

  • Wolfgang Reitberger
  • Martin Kastenmiller
  • Geraldine Fitzpatrick
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7822)


Household tasks have been described as the invisible work carried out in the home. Their coordination and especially negotiating a fair and transparent distribution of these tasks between different members of a household is a significant challenge in the busy lives of many people. The persuasive system presented in this paper, Choreflect, aims to address this issue by making the inhabitants’ contributions to household work more visible. The prototype uses distributed ambient displays in the home to enable household members to track household tasks, which are then visualized by the system. A four week study of the system carried out in two shared apartments and two family households showed that the system fostered a rise in awareness about this invisible work by showing users their own and other inhabitants’ contributions. The multiple ambient displays situated in the participants homes enabled opportunities for reflection and motivated an increased engagement in household tasks.


Household Chore Household Task Social Facilitation Ambient System Family Household 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    The Invisible Economy and Gender Inequalities: The Importance of Measuring and Valuing Unpaid Work. Pan American Health Organization (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaplan Daniels, A.: Invisible Work. Social Problems 34 (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeVault, M.L.: Feeding the family: the social organization of caring as gendered work. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gershuny, J., Kan, M.Y.: Half-Way to Gender Equality in Work? Evidence from the Multinational Time Use Study. In: Scott, J.L., Dex, S., Plagnol, A. (eds.) Gendered Lives: Gender Inequalities in Production and Reproduction, xiv, 231 p. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scott, J.L., Plagnol, A.: Work–Family Conflict and Well-being in Northern Europe. In: Scott, J.L., Dex, S., Plagnol, A. (eds.) Gendered Lives: Gender Inequalities in Production and Reproduction, xiv, 231 p. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mause, K.: The Tragedy of the Commune: Learning from worst-case scenarios. The Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 308–327 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sohn, T., Lee, L., Zhang, S., Dearman, D., Truong, K.: An examination of how households share and coordinate the completion of errands. In: Proc. CSCW 2012, pp. 729–738. ACM, Seattle (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weiser, M.: The Computer for the Twenty-First Century. Scientific American, 94–104 (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aarts, E., Marzano, S.: The New Everyday: Views on Ambient Intelligence. 010 Publishers, Rotterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reitberger, W., Ploderer, B., Obermair, C., Tscheligi, M.: The PerCues Framework and Its Application for Sustainable Mobility. In: de Kort, Y.A.W., IJsselsteijn, W.A., Midden, C., Eggen, B., Fogg, B.J. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4744, pp. 92–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wisneski, C., Ishii, H., Dahley, A., Gorbet, M., Brave, S., Ullmer, B., Yarin, P.: Ambient Displays: Turning Architectural Space into an Interface between People and Digital Information. In: Yuan, F., Konomi, S., Burkhardt, H.-J. (eds.) CoBuild 1998. LNCS, vol. 1370, pp. 22–32. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Terrenghi, L., Quigley, A., Dix, A.: A taxonomy for and analysis of multi-person-display ecosystems. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 13, 583–598 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mankoff, J., Dey, A.K., Hsieh, G., Kientz, J., Lederer, S., Ames, M.: Heuristic evaluation of ambient displays. In: Proc. CHI 2003, pp. 169–176. ACM, Ft. Lauderdale (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rogers, Y.: Moving on from Weiser’s Vision of Calm Computing: Engaging UbiComp Experiences. In: Dourish, P., Friday, A. (eds.) UbiComp 2006. LNCS, vol. 4206, pp. 404–421. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gaver, W., Boucher, A., Law, A., Pennington, S., Bowers, J., Beaver, J., Humble, J., Kerridge, T., Villar, N., Wilkie, A.: Threshold devices: looking out from the home. In: Proc. CHI 2008, pp. 1429–1438. ACM, Florence (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gustafsson, A., Gyllenswärd, M.: The power-aware cord: energy awareness through ambient information display. In: CHI 2005 EA, pp. 1423–1426. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kjeldskov, J., Skov, M.B., Paay, J., Pathmanathan, R.: Using mobile phones to support sustainability: a field study of residential electricity consumption. In: Proc. CHI 2012, pp. 2347–2356. ACM, Austin (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Erickson, T., Podlaseck, M., Sahu, S., Dai, J.D., Chao, T., Naphade, M.: The dubuque water portal: evaluation of the uptake, use and impact of residential water consumption feedback. In: Proc. CHI 2012, pp. 675–684. ACM, Austin (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chatterjee, S., Byun, J., Pottathil, A., Moore, M.N., Dutta, K., Xie, H(Q.): Persuasive Sensing: A Novel In-Home Monitoring Technology to Assist Elderly Adult Diabetic Patients. In: Bang, M., Ragnemalm, E.L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7284, pp. 31–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: Persuasive Systems Design: Key Issues, Process Model, and System Features. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 24 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fogg, B.J.: The Six Most Powerful Persuasion Strategies. In: IJsselsteijn, W.A., de Kort, Y.A.W., Midden, C., Eggen, B., van den Hoven, E. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2006. LNCS, vol. 3962, p. 6. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reitberger, W., Güldenpfennig, F., Fitzpatrick, G.: Persuasive Technology Considered Harmful? An Exploration of Design Concerns through the TV Companion. In: Bang, M., Ragnemalm, E.L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7284, pp. 239–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Esch, T., Stefano, G.B.: The neurobiology of pleasure, reward processes, addiction and their health implications. Neuroendocrinology Letters 25, 235–251 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Reitberger
    • 1
  • Martin Kastenmiller
    • 1
  • Geraldine Fitzpatrick
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Design & Assessment of TechnologyVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations