The User Study

THERE WERE FOUR ISSUES THAT WE FOCUSED ON IN OUR STUDY:

1.) The Preferred Format of the RFID Tags
One example of an RFID tag was a universal key chain that encased the RFID tags. They were small, fashionable and easy to attach to your set of keys. Members took well to the key chains, with a number of them reporting that they were durable and easy to hold on to, as they were attached to an invaluable asset: their house and car keys. Although a likely conversation piece, there were a few drawbacks noted with the key chain RFID tags, however. Those that chose not to attach them to their current set of keys discovered that the chain was easy to loose on its own. Also, as there was no name tag attached to the key chain, users often mixed up and lost their personal chains, with no proper way of returning them to their rightful owner, if found.
Another method of RFID tags used was the public transport card: an essential asset to anyone currently living in Helsinki. The public transport card provided quick and painless access to busses, trams, trains and metros, and for a period of time, to Hunaja as well. People liked this method as it was a common and well-known method of entrance already, and it often required only holding a wallet or handbag up to the sensor, without the cumbersome need to physically remove the card each time entry was desired. The only drawback to this method was its lack of individuality or originality. It was commonplace for people to have this public transport card, regardless of whether they were Aula members or not. Hence, unlike the key chain, it was not a conversation piece.
The last method of possible entry tested was via mobile phone. The most personal of entry methods used, members would simply gain access at the door via their mobile phone. Non-members were in awe of this method, and, as in the case of the key chain, the mobile phone entry method was an imminent conversation-starter. Although easily implemented and hassle-free, the main drawback to this method was its lack of versatility. Users could no longer loan their "card" to friends, drop it out of windows to allow others to enter and in the event that a phone crashed or died, access was virtually impossible.

2.) The Preferred Feedback Sequence of the Reader Devices
There were three forms of feedback generated by the reader device. The initial feedback generated was visual feedback from the coloured LED When the RFIDs were used, a green or red light would appear on the lock showing the member that his/her access was either granted (green) or denied (red). This method received the most negative feedback in our study, as the LED light was not at eye-level and often the only way the members could tell if they were granted or denied access, was whether or not they could open the door. It proved over time to be quite confusing to all parties involved.
The second form of feedback generated by the reader device was audio feedback from the speech synthesizer In this method, when a member was granted access, there would be an audible greeting at the door of "Welcome to Aula [first name]!" When a member was denied access, there was an audible "Intruder alert!" greeting at the door. This method, although deemed entertaining and fun by the members, was overall highly impractical and often crashed throughout its trial period.
The third and most well received method of feedback generated by the reader was the tactile feedback from the door. In this method, instead of following the visual signals from the LED, the users relied on tactile feedback from the door lock. When it opened, the electric lock made an audible "unlocking" sound and caused a shudder in the doorframe that could be felt when grabbing the handle. This method proved to be most practical, most reliable and most favoured.

3.) The Social Motives of Using Hunaja
In a user study conducted by Maarit, she routinely used her time on Hunaja, finding out who knew whom, the social gossip that was going on, and overall interactions between other members. This motive, was later referred by Maarit as people watching People watching, in Maarit's case, allowed her to live vicariously through the trails and tribulations of other Hunaja members, as if she were watching a soap opera of sorts. It can be inferred that there are numerous members of Hunaja that check and learn the names and IDs of other members, in order to gain a better understanding of what's going on within the group.
While observing another member, Timo, we concluded that members often like to use Hunaja to fully express themselves without fear of retribution by other members for their own personal thoughts, comments and beliefs. In other words, anonymity. In Timo's case, he would frequently change and alter his user ID and account information, while simultaneously closely following each web log and posting various thoughts/comments of his own. With Hunaja, we concluded, members can fully express themselves at will.
There are two points of view for which member's can socially use Hunaja: "the observer" point of view and "the observed" point of view. For the observer, there are a number of reasons for which to use Hunaja, such as entertainment, timesaving, spying, romance, avoidance, professional interests and recruitment. For the observed, members often cite social contact seeking, community-building, personal branding and career-building as reasons for using Hunaja. Users also wanted to acquire social capital, via Hunaja. Through Hunaja, users could build and maintain social bonds and social bridges for which they could advance their perceived status in their local society. Hunaja offered a chance for a seeming random group of people to meet, interact and help each other in a number of introverted and extroverted ways.

4.) Concerns Related to General Privacy and Trust With Hunaja
The various types of information the users reported they would like to know about others was grouped to three main categories: identity, activities, and location. Within each category, two basic types of queries were defined: user-centric queries (queries about the attributes of a specific user) and attribute-centric queries (queries about users exhibiting or lacking a specific attribute). An example of a user-centric query could be: "Where is Niko?" The AULA KUKA SMS keyword, on the other hand, was an example of location-centric query ("Which users are logged in at Aula?").
Out of analysis of the research data, three alternative scenarios for the system's design emerged:
Big BrotherIn this scenario, an unknown number of observers (people who have access to data from the reader) have unidirectional access to the identity, activities, and location of a given number of tag users. This is the classic scare that Orwell wrote about in his book 1984.
Reality TVIn this scenario, a known number of tag users can give reader data access to an unknown number of observers. A similar phenomena can be witnessed in the popular reality TV shows, for instance.
Neighbourhood WatchThis is the intended model of Hunaja: each member has access to the Aula space with the RFID tag, and is able to also observe others online and via SMS. However, because only 50 people out of 500 had tags, usage of Hunaja drifted towards the celebrity scenario. This was reflected in the motivation of the users.

Click here to view the online version of the presentation, or here download the PowerPoint file (3,5 MB).Here's a PDF appendix to the user study that provides supplementary information about the Hunaja system, the research process, the study participants, and the heuristic models.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://aula1.hel.fi.magenta.net/mt-tb.cgi/3724

Comments

Post a comment