ArticlePDF Available

Designing Smart Urban Objects – Adaptation, Multi-user Usage, Walk-up-and-use and Joy of Use

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Designing human-computer interaction for non-personal computing devices in urban space poses different challenges than designing for personal devices. In this paper we summarize the findings from a project developing smart urban objects to help elderly people participate in urban life. We present four key challenges that have been identified designing such objects, and present first ideas for how to address these challenges. The four key challenges are adaptability (and data privacy), multi-user usage, walk-up-and-use and joy of use.
Example for interactive objects in urban space from (Radwan et al. 2014) ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Fig. 2: The "audience funnel" from (Müller et al. 2010) .................................................. 3 Fig. 3: Smart Urban Objects (from top left: smart information display, smart park bench, smart bus stop, smart lighting). Render graphics: Drees & Sommer SE ........................................................................................................... 5 Fig. 4: Outdoor deployments of smart information displays. Left: Outdoor information radiator at the Senior-Scooterpark of SHMG. Right: Mobile information radiator at a festival in Mönchengladbach (Turmfest 2019) ................................................................................................................. 7 Fig. 5: Indoor deployment of a smart information display at a retirement home in Mönchengladbach. ........................................................................................... 8 Fig. 6: User interface of the smart information display. Left: Easter themed interface for an event at a retirement home in Mönchengladbach. Right: Senior-friendly design mainly used in UrbanLife+ ................................. 9 Fig. 7: Micro-Information Radiators deployed at the Senior-Scooter-Park of SHMG that are part of the SUO network which communicates with the activity support service. .............................................................................. 11 Fig. 8: Accessible path displays that use the activity support service and micro-information radiators for leading the senior to the most suitable entrance. Concept and design: Patrick Stangl, Robert Jurisch-Eckardt, Edith Herrmann .............................................................................. 12 Fig. 9: Prototype of a profile configuration screen for editing personal preferences. Concept and design: Henning Hontheim ...................................... 14 Fig. 10: Start screen of the smart ticket vending machine with personalized information. Concept and design: Matthias Boger, Christian Bottek, Maximilian Wolf ................................................................................................................ 15 Fig. 11: Temporal interaction zones (based on (Müller et al. 2010)). ........................ 19
… 
Content may be subject to copyright.
Michael Koch, Julian Fietkau
Laura Stojko, Anna Buck
Volume 8
Schriften zur
soziotechnischen Integration
Forschungsgruppe Kooperationssysteme,
Universität der Bundeswehr München
ISSN 2194-0274 (Print)
ISSN 2194-0282 (Online)
www.soziotech.org
Designing Smart Urban Objects Adaptation,
Multi-user Usage, Walk-up-and-use and Joy of Use
CSCM
Forschungsgruppe
Kooperationssysteme
München
Bibliographic data according to the German National Library
The German National Library is recording this publication in the German National
Bibliography. Detailed bibliographic data is available online:
https://portal.dnb.de
Series: Schriften zur soziotechnischen Integration
Published by:
Michael Koch & Florian Ott
Volume 8: Designing Smart Urban Objects Adaptation, Multi-user Usage,
Walk-up-and-use and Joy of Use
Contributed by:
Michael Koch, Julian Fietkau, Laura Stojko & Anna Buck
Referenz / Zitation
Koch, Michael; Fietkau, Julian, Stojko, Laura; Buck, Anna
(2021): „Designing Smart Urban Objects Adaptation, Multi-
user Usage, Walk-up-and-use and Joy of Use”. Schriften zur
soziotechnischen Integration, Volume 8. München: For-
schungsgruppe Kooperationssysteme, Universität der Bun-
deswehr München.
https://schriften.soziotech.org/band8
ISSN 2194-0274 (Print)
ISSN 2194-0282 (Online)
DOI 10.18726/2021_1
1st edition, February 2021
Cover design: Eva Stuke, Layout: Florian Ott
Forschungsgruppe Kooperationssysteme, Universität der Bundeswehr München
Werner-Heisenberg-Weg, 85577 Neubiberg
E-Mail: schriften@soziotech.org
Internet: https://schriften.soziotech.org
The content of this series is licensed to the public under the Creative Commons Attribution Non
Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International license. This means that you are permitted to copy
and distribute this content, provided that the work is correctly attributed to the authors, the
content is not used commercially, and the text is not edited, shortened or otherwise changed.
For further details see: https://creativecommons.org/licenses /by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Schriften zur soziotechnischen Integration, Volume 8
i
Designing Smart Urban Objects Adapta-
tion, Multi-user Usage, Walk-up-and-use
and Joy of Use
Michael Koch, Julian Fietkau, Laura Stojko & Anna Buck
Abstract
Designing human-computer interaction for non-personal computing devices in ur-
ban space poses different challenges than designing for personal devices. In this
paper we summarize the findings from a project developing smart urban objects to
help elderly people participate in urban life. We present four key challenges that
have been identified designing such objects, and present first ideas for how to ad-
dress these challenges. The four key challenges are adaptability (and data privacy),
multi-user usage, walk-up-and-use and joy of use.
Keywords
HCI, challenges, smart urban objects, outdoor, evaluation, adaptation, multi-user,
walk-up-and-use, joy of use, UrbanLife+
Table of Contents
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... i
Keywords ....................................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Figures ......................................................................................................................... iv
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
2 HCI CHALLENGES FOR NON-PERSONAL COMPUTING
DEVICES IN URBAN SPACE .................................................................... 2
3 SMART URBAN OBJECTS ........................................................................ 5
3.1 Smart information displays ......................................................................................... 6
3.1.1 Conceptual approach ....................................................................................................... 7
3.1.2 Description .......................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Activity support ................................................................................................................ 9
3.2.1 Conceptual approach ..................................................................................................... 10
3.2.2 Description ........................................................................................................................ 11
3.3 Accessible path display .............................................................................................. 12
3.4 Decentral user profiles and user identification ................................................ 13
3.5 Smart ticket machine .................................................................................................. 14
4 HCI CHALLENGES IN SMART URBAN OBJECTS ............................. 16
4.1 Adaptability (and Data Privacy) .............................................................................. 16
4.2 Multi-User Usage ........................................................................................................... 18
4.3 Walk-up-and-use .......................................................................................................... 19
4.4 Joy of Use .......................................................................................................................... 20
Table of Contents
iii
5 DISCUSSION / CONCLUSION ................................................................ 23
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................... 24
LIST OF AUTORS .............................................................................................. 30
Table of Figures
iv
Table of Figures
Fig. 1: Example for interactive objects in urban space from (Radwan et al.
2014) ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Fig. 2: The “audience funnel” from (Müller et al. 2010) .................................................. 3
Fig. 3: Smart Urban Objects (from top left: smart information display,
smart park bench, smart bus stop, smart lighting). Render graphics:
Drees & Sommer SE ........................................................................................................... 5
Fig. 4: Outdoor deployments of smart information displays. Left: Outdoor
information radiator at the Senior-Scooterpark of SHMG. Right:
Mobile information radiator at a festival in Mönchengladbach
(Turmfest 2019) ................................................................................................................. 7
Fig. 5: Indoor deployment of a smart information display at a retirement
home in Mönchengladbach. ........................................................................................... 8
Fig. 6: User interface of the smart information display. Left: Easter themed
interface for an event at a retirement home in Mönchengladbach.
Right: Senior-friendly design mainly used in UrbanLife+ ................................. 9
Fig. 7: Micro-Information Radiators deployed at the Senior-Scooter-Park
of SHMG that are part of the SUO network which communicates
with the activity support service. .............................................................................. 11
Fig. 8: Accessible path displays that use the activity support service and
micro-information radiators for leading the senior to the most
suitable entrance. Concept and design: Patrick Stangl, Robert
Jurisch-Eckardt, Edith Herrmann .............................................................................. 12
Fig. 9: Prototype of a profile configuration screen for editing personal
preferences. Concept and design: Henning Hontheim ...................................... 14
Fig. 10: Start screen of the smart ticket vending machine with personalized
information. Concept and design: Matthias Boger, Christian Bottek,
Maximilian Wolf ................................................................................................................ 15
Fig. 11: Temporal interaction zones (based on (Müller et al. 2010)). ........................ 19
Introduction
1
1
1 Introduction
Human-computer interaction research and design puts an increasing focus on non-
personal computing devices to be used in public urban space. Important fields
where this development can be seen are smart cities and urban objects (e.g. public
displays).
Designing human-computer interaction (HCI) for objects in a technology-augmented
urban environment poses some challenges that have not been fully addressed up to
now (Stephanidis et al. 2019). These challenges result from the following differences
between non-personal devices to be used in public urban space and (classical) per-
sonal devices:
Outdoor use vs. indoor use
Public use vs. private use
Multi-user vs. single-user usage
Need for In-situ and long-term evaluation (in the field)
In a five-year project
1
aiming at designing and evaluating Smart Urban Objects (SU-
Os) for improving safety for elderly people in urban spaces, we had a chance to in-
vestigate these challenges. SUOs are elements of the urban environment, e.g. sign
posts, bulletin boards and benches, which are connected to a digital information
space and allow for implicit or explicit interaction in public spaces. The desired goal
of our project was to increase seniors’ feeling of safety in the urban space by making
these objects react to the people passing by.
In this paper we summarize some of the insights we gained during the project re-
garding challenges in designing non-personal computing devices for public spaces,
and present examples of how we addressed these challenges in the SUOs throughout
our project (Chapter 4). Before, we review related work regarding challenges (in
designing SUOs) (Chapter 2). Furthermore, we present the classes of SUOs we ad-
dressed in the project and highlight some of the objects (Chapter 3).
1
The project UrbanLife+ has been supported from 2015 to 2020 by the German Federal Ministry of
Education and Research under grants 16SV7438-49. In addition to Universität der Bundeswehr
München, project participants were Universität Hohenheim, Universität Leipzig, Sozialholding
Mönchengladbach, Drees & Sommer, Hochschule Niederrhein and some local application partners
See https://www.urbanlifeplus.de/ for more information about the project.
HCI challenges for non-personal computing devices in urban space
2
2
2 HCI challenges for non-personal
computing devices in urban space
Designing computing devices for public or urban space has been a relevant topic in
HCI for decades, building on work from Marc Weiser (Weiser 1991) and under the
umbrella of integrating information and architecture with Roomware (Streitz et al.
1998) as well as Ambient Displays (Wisneski et al. 1998). Today, the work can main-
ly be found in the context of Smart Cities. Smart Cities particularly refer to the appli-
cation of a wide range of electronic and digital technologies being used in communi-
ties and cities which aim to transform life and working environments (Deakin & Al
Waer 2011).
Fig. 1: Example for interactive objects in urban space from (Radwan et al. 2014)
HCI challenges for non-personal computing devices in urban space
2
3
A good overview of challenges to be addressed in developing HCI for computing
devices in general can be found in (Stephanidis et al. 2019). The authors list “Seven
HCI Grand Challenges” – more precisely “Grand Challenges for living and interacting
in technology-augmented environments”:
1. Human-Technology Symbiosis
2. Human-Environment Interactions (including the scenario of interaction in public
spaces with multiple users)
3. Ethics, Privacy & Security
4. Well-Being, Health & Eudaimonia
5. Accessibility & Universal Access
6. Learning & Creativity
7. Social Organization and Democracy
In the paper the challenges are framed quite generally intending rather to provide
a guide for research than a guide for particular system development.
With regard to their interaction with a public system, users can be characterized as
passersby, bystanders, audience members, participants, actors, or dropouts
(Wouters et al. 2016). A major consideration is how interactive systems can attract
the attention of passersby and motivate them to engage with the system (Müller
et al. 2010). Factors that have been found to motivate engagement with public sys-
tems include challenge, curiosity, choices offered, fantasy, collaboration with other
users, one’s self-efficacy with technology, as well as the content and appeal of the
topic of an interactive artifact (Hornecker & Stifter 2006, Müller et al. 2010, Margetis
et al. 2019).
Fig. 2: The “audience funnel” from (Müller et al. 2010)
Another concern is that in public settings the boundaries between private and public
interaction are “blurred” (Reeves 2011). In this respect, the design of interactive
experiences in public spaces needs to provide clear and timely feedback about who
HCI challenges for non-personal computing devices in urban space
2
4
is in control of the interaction and what each user is in control of. It also needs to
appropriately support the various user roles in terms of (social) interaction and
content (Hespanhol & Dalsgaard 2015, Hespanhol & Tomitsch 2015). The “blurred”
boundaries between private and public interaction also raise privacy concerns re-
garding personal information that may be publicly presented, and about how such
“harmless” personal information can be defined (Vogel & Balakrishnan 2004).
Privacy concerns are also raised when the urban objects have to work with personal
information to provide their service. Since Streitz et al. write that “smart” is only
smart if it can adapt to the user (Streitz et al. 2019), the use of some personal infor-
mation is obligatory for SUOs.
More challenges can be found in reports on particular projects designing urban ob-
jects (e.g. (Gaver & Beaver 2006, Müller et al. 2012, Schiavo et al. 2013, Ventä-
olkkonen et al. 2016)). Examples for such challenges are: How to design access to
private space in the public environment? How to motivate users to provide infor-
mation? How to attract users to use the devices?
In summary, up to now, mainly multi-user usage and personalization (as “core of
smart”) and personal data privacy have been listed as important challenges when
designing for urban space. However, these challenges are often discussed at a very
high level. Usually, there is no transfer from the general challenges to particular de-
sign challenges or particular (urban) objects. In our research, we were aiming at
closing this gap by providing a discussion of challenges identified and categorized
while designing a broad set of urban objects.
In the following Chapter 3, we will present the SUOs we worked on in the Urban-
Life+ project and in Chapter 4 we will present the challenges we identified and
show in relation to the objects from Chapter 3, how these challenges can be ad-
dressed.
Smart Urban Objects
3
5
3 Smart Urban Objects
In the project UrbanLife+ several SUOs have been explored, and challenges during
their design and deployment have been identified. Fig. 3 shows some of these SUOs.
Fig. 3: Smart Urban Objects (from top left: smart information display, smart park bench, smart
bus stop, smart lighting). Render graphics: Drees & Sommer SE
The complete and detailed list of the SUOs explored in the project is provided in the
following. Additionally, in (Skowron et al. 2019), some aspects of the design space
for SUOs are explored by providing an ontology for classifying SUOs.
Smart information displays (Koch et al. 2017) large interactive displays to
provide suggestions and information
Smart activity support with micro information radiators, small LED or audio
transmitters, to support navigation and activities see Fig. 7 and (Fietkau &
Stojko 2020)
Smart informants small LED or audio transmitters to caution against potential
hazards (Zimpel & Hubl 2019)
Smart signposts small displays to help navigating in the urban space
Smart park bench with a possibility to make reservations (Hubl et al. 2018,
Hubl 2019)
Smart / adaptive lighting (Aleithe et al. 2018)
Smart bus stop and smart ticket machine
Smart Urban Objects
3
6
In the following sections, we elaborate on some of these SUOs in more detail, in
which the authors were involved in starting with (large) smart information dis-
plays, then micro information radiators and the activity support system, followed by
two more focused examples: An accessible entrance display and the decentralized
identification and profile solution we developed in the project.
3.1 Smart information displays
In a survey conducted at the beginning of the UrbanLife+ project (see for more de-
tails (Leukel et al. 2017, Schehl et al. 2019, Schehl & Leukel 2020)), many older peo-
ple cited the lack of information about services as a reason for refraining from out-
of-home activities. This includes poorly accessible information about offerings in the
neighborhood (What is there? Where can you go? What can you do there?) as well as
a lack of certainty about what accessible paths there are and on which routes they
can find sufficient rest opportunities.
By "being on the move" in the urban neighborhood, people young and old main-
tain and cultivate the image they have of their surroundings in mind. Thus, their
own personal experiences are an important source of information about activities in
the neighborhood, walkable paths and construction sites that may limit accessibility,
etc. If older people start to stay at home more often and reduce the frequency and
range of their out-of-home activities, a vicious cycle can develop:
The less I relate to my urban environment,
the less I get to know about construction work and other changes,
the less confidence I have in my own ties to the neighborhood, and
the lower my motivation for future activities outside the home.
In addition to direct experience, the most important sources of up-to-date infor-
mation about the urban neighborhood are personal conversations with family,
neighbors or friends, as well as the use of media such as television, newspapers and
the internet.
Personal conversations about new possible activities as well as construction sites or
recommendations for pleasant routes are extremely valuable but happen organically
and largely unstructured. There are no guarantees about the accuracy or timeliness
of the information. Moreover, such personal conversations are only possible if there
is still a social connection to enough other people in the immediate vicinity, which is
not self-evident.
(Mass) media allow the providers of offers more control over the mediated content
in television commercials, newspaper ads, etc., but offer fewer opportunities for
Smart Urban Objects
3
7
personalization. The content conveyed via media is aimed at the broad masses and
does not consider whether it is interesting or relevant to an individual. The flood of
information makes it enormously difficult to filter out the relevant content and ends
in exhaustion. Seniors are particularly affected by this, as they have additional chal-
lenges to overcome, such as using technology and dealing with the medium.
We designed some smart information displays as a solution to address the stated
challenges and help seniors to overcome them. The idea of smart information dis-
plays will be described in the following chapters starting with the conceptual ap-
proach and a description.
3.1.1 Conceptual approach
The smart information displays use the metaphors of the bulletin board and the ad-
vertising pillar, which are two types of urban objects that are placed in highly visible
locations to make information about offers generally accessible. Unlike their non-
interactive counterparts, however, they additionally bring dynamic content presen-
tation and possibilities for personalization of content selection and presentation.
Smart information displays (also referred to as information radiators) show infor-
mation about the urban space (offers, routes, SUOs and other interesting details)
continuously, which move dynamically across the screen (from left to right and vice
versa). The displayed information is divided into categories (e.g. offers, SUOs, places
in the vicinity, etc.), which have different colored borders and can therefore be easi-
ly distinguished from each other. Interactivity (touching and selecting content) ena-
bles exploration and the acquisition of detailed knowledge. This can be personalized
by identifying individual users, as the smart information display shows targeted
recommendations and motivates seniors to take action.
Fig. 4: Outdoor deployments of smart information displays. Left: Outdoor information radiator
at the Senior-Scooterpark of SHMG. Right: Mobile information radiator at a festival in
Mönchengladbach (Turmfest 2019)
Smart Urban Objects
3
8
Compared to similar displays of information on mobile devices, the use of large wall
screens allows a comparatively large interaction space and thus the promotion of
exchange among pedestrians. In contrast to personal mobile devices, smart infor-
mation displays also allow users to find information that they have not actively
searched for. This is also referred to as "serendipity" (Ott & Koch 2019). Examples
for deployed large information radiators within the UrbanLife+ context are dis-
played in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, showing various application possibilities.
Fig. 5: Indoor deployment of a smart information display at a retirement home in
Mönchengladbach.
3.1.2 Description
By providing community-usable, medium- to large-sized interactive information
displays at locations suitable for public use, the awareness and information volume
of users shall be increased. With a higher level of information and awareness of oth-
er people's concerns and their own abilities, the feeling of safety when moving in the
urban environment should be successively increased or maintained.
Depending on whether people are in a familiar or unfamiliar situation or environ-
ment, targeted information is presented to support challenging or less challenging
activities. For example, older people receive information about the route (locations
of benches, toilets, etc.), about offers in the city quarter (stores, clubs, etc.) and
about current events (activities, events, news) via the information radiators. De-
pending on the knowledge the technical system has about the person in question,
recommendations for activities can also be adapted to personal preferences as well
as restrictions (e.g. only wheelchair accessible locations). On the smart information
display, support for a specific activity can also be started immediately (see Section
3.2).
Smart Urban Objects
3
9
The experience from UrbanLife+ as well as from other projects shows that relevance
and up-to-dateness are of central importance. Only if people realize that the content
fits their personal life and is not outdated, such information offers will be accepted.
A continuous strategy is therefore needed for content maintenance in order to en-
sure that content is always up to date. The combination of touch interactivity and
detection of registered users on approach allows three types of interaction with the
device:
1. No interaction: Users can view recommendations shown on the information dis-
play.
2. Indirect interaction: The smart information display recognizes the user upon
approach and displays personalized recommendations.
3. Direct interaction: Users explore the information space based on the displayed
information e.g. connected offers, accessible route to the destination and
trigger actions (e.g. “Take me there!”).
These information radiators are discussed in more detail e.g. in (Ott et al. 2010, Ott
& Koch 2012, Nutsi & Koch 2016, Lösch et al. 2017, Nutsi 2018, Ott 2018, Lösch
2020). Fig. 6 shows various versions of the user interface of a smart information
display that has been developed and used in UrbanLife+.
Fig. 6: User interface of the smart information display. Left: Easter themed interface for an
event at a retirement home in Mönchengladbach. Right: Senior-friendly design mainly
used in UrbanLife+
3.2 Activity support
Older people moving through urban space have changing needs for assistance de-
pending on their current situation. They usually have a goal it doesn't have to be
something as specific as a doctor's appointment or a visit to the hairdresser, it can
also be exploring the new city park or spending some time in the sun. It would be
helpful if the devices placed in the urban space could not only provide information
and warnings independent of the destination but could also provide very concrete
Smart Urban Objects
3
10
support for current activities. However, these goals and activities are not automati-
cally known to the respective SUO.
In order to enable SUOs to provide such activity support, various technical require-
ments must first be met:
The SUOs must be digitally connected to each other to be able to exchange data.
A way of recognizing registered users when they approach (identification) and
profile management are required see Section 3.4.
SUOs can provide value to older people in public spaces even without networking
and user recognition, but considerable potential for personalized support is lost in
such isolated approaches. Instead, if the SUOs are implemented as a collaborative
network, the individual objects can consider details known from previous interac-
tions with other SUOs (e.g. the destination and the previous duration of walking
activities) in their interaction with the person and adjust their offers accordingly. An
activity support service was developed to perform the task of coordination and in-
formation distribution which is described conceptually and generally in the next
subsection.
3.2.1 Conceptual approach
The goal of activity support is to enable deeper and more personalized interactions
with SUOs. This involves anticipating upcoming visits from registered users so that
SUOs can plan and respond accordingly. In addition, information about the person's
current destination, how long they have been traveling, and when the last break was
taken (to estimate their current and future need for breaks) is communicated to the
SUOs.
The activity support receives data on when the person passed which SUO we do
not use GPS tracking of the users, since it is sufficient to use identification data from
SUOs (Bluetooth) that is already used for proximity detection.
For the determination of the SUOs' responses, mobility parameters of the person can
be taken into account (e.g., information about their comfortable walking range, mo-
bility aids used, speed on foot, known limitations of vision and hearing, etc.). The
person's current destination can also be included, if known e.g., based on previous
interaction with a smart information display.
All of this information is managed by a central activity support service, which then
turns it into "information packets" for SUOs on the person's anticipated path and
delivers them to the SUOs.
Smart Urban Objects
3
11
An example of such an information packet could look something like this: "User
Margot Nowak is currently on her way to August-Monforts-Str. 14 in Mönchenglad-
bach. She has been walking for 20 minutes and has just taken a break on the bench
at the bus stop Rheinstraße. Expected arrival at the park bench in August-Monforts-
Strasse in about 5 minutes." The smart park bench in August-Monforts-Strasse re-
ceives this information in advance and can react to it, e.g. by independently reserv-
ing a seat for Ms. Nowak and giving her an auditory hint that she is welcome to take
a break for a moment.
3.2.2 Description
If an elderly person communicates his or her destination to the SUOs network for
example, by selecting a quest displayed at a smart information display wayfinding
assistance is provided by small information radiators micro information radiators
(see Fig. 7). These can then indicate the direction to the destination by personalizing
digital signs like a pedestrian guidance system.
The interaction with micro-information radiators is mainly indirect as information
is displayed after recognition of the user. The definition or selection of activities to
be supported can take place either as a direct interaction with the smart information
display, implicit through e.g., regularly recurring appointments or by other means
(e.g. via mobile applications).
Fig. 7: Micro-Information Radiators deployed at the Senior-Scooter-Park of SHMG that are part
of the SUO network which communicates with the activity support service.
Smart Urban Objects
3
12
A prerequisite for such navigation support is an area-wide placement of SUOs so
that there are no spatial gaps in the support and seniors are always accompanied. If
all SUOs can communicate with the central activity support service, the benefits in
personalized support will be enabled. For example, micro-information radiators can
display their navigation cues in the personally selected color and explicitly address
the needs of the individual senior (e.g., duration of visual signal, brightness, anima-
tion speed).
More details on micro-information radiators can be found in the first scenario of the
publication of (Kötteritzsch et al. 2016) as well as in (Fietkau & Stojko 2020, Stojko
et al. 2020).
3.3 Accessible path display
Many older people need accessible entrances to public buildings, for example be-
cause they can no longer climb steps or use aids such as a walker. However, the ac-
cessibility of a building is often not immediately obvious, for example because it is
located on the rear side of the building out of sight. There may also be different ac-
cess options depending on the exact abilities of the visitor.
Fig. 8: Accessible path displays that use the activity support service and micro-information
radiators for leading the senior to the most suitable entrance. Concept and design: Pat-
rick Stangl, Robert Jurisch-Eckardt, Edith Herrmann
Smart Urban Objects
3
13
Regarding this issue, we want to describe a solution which is a special case of activi-
ty support. The activity support i.e., support of moving to the accessible entrance
is automatically activated by approaching the building (and identifying the user in
need of assistance). The assistance for navigation is provided by micro-information
radiators positioned there.
The navigation can also be personalized according to individual requirements. For
example, it is conceivable that they navigate to the most suitable entrance depend-
ing on the available parameters (wheelchair, walker, e-wheelchair), if a building has
several entrances that are designated as accessible. The illustrated example (Fig. 8)
shows the floor plan of a church and the navigation instructions of the individual
micro-information radiators pointing to the most suitable accessible entrance.
3.4 Decentral user profiles and user identification
To fulfill their task, SUOs require information about their users (see chapter 4.2.1:
something is only "smart" if it can be adjusted to individual users). A central solution
for fulfilling this requirement e.g., via a central profile service is often rejected by
users. The justified distrust of central storage of their data can be countered by a
decentralized profile store on a user's own personal device.
The user profile is completely stored on the user's mobile device and allows inde-
pendent control and handling of personal data. The profile includes the ability to
edit profile information and set preferences for the usage of profile information
e.g. restriction to certain types of services. Fig. 9 shows a configuration screen of our
prototype implementation. Valuable input for SUOs is a broadly defined user profile
with information on interaction preferences, perceptual limitations, and motor disa-
bilities. Furthermore, an important profile value is the comfort zone (Kötteritzsch
et al. 2016) a representation of the areas in which the user feels comfortable, de-
rived from past activities. One goal of the overall system is to expand the comfort
zone and give seniors more room to maneuver in their environment.
In addition to the modeling of profile information, the user identification is a rele-
vant aspect as well. For the identification of the users, we use the Bluetooth LE pro-
tocol via mobile devices (or iBeacons). SUOs offer a Bluetooth interface permanently
to which mobile devices of passersby can enroll. The usage can be described as fol-
lows: The elderly users carry their device (e.g., smartphone) with them and have a
BLE Central implemented i.e., an application that reacts to recognized SUOs and
exchanges data with them. Thereby the SUOs know who is close to them and what
impairments they have. This allows SUOs to respond to the individual user in the
best possible way.
Smart Urban Objects
3
14
3.5 Smart ticket machine
A flood of information and obscure fare structures regularly cause many people
especially the elderly and physically impaired to despair when buying tickets. To
help users overcome these challenges, we designed a personalized ticket vending
machine. Elderly users with a low perception of self-efficacy and people with visual
impairments should receive important information quickly and easily through this
individual adaptation.
Fig. 9: Prototype of a profile configuration screen for editing personal preferences. Concept
and design: Henning Hontheim
The concept is a smart ticket vending machine that uses proximity detection to rec-
ognize when a person who is registered in the system is standing in front of it. In
this case, the vending machine accesses the stored profile and personalizes the se-
lection options on the start screen based on the profile. This makes it possible to
quickly book tickets to known destinations, e.g. home, visiting relatives, or to a
popular shopping destination as this information was stored in the profile.
The start screen (Fig. 10) is not only personalized in terms of content, but also in
terms of design. The size and contrast of elements such as icons and text are adapted
Smart Urban Objects
3
15
to known visual impairments. Audio output can also be provided. In any case, the
design is clear and intuitively understandable.
In addition to cash payment at the machine, billing is also possible via the user pro-
file. This means that the amount due can be transferred conveniently from home or
paid directly by direct debit.
Fig. 10: Start screen of the smart ticket vending machine with personalized information. Con-
cept and design: Matthias Boger, Christian Bottek, Maximilian Wolf
HCI challenges in Smart Urban Objects
4
16
4 HCI challenges in Smart Urban Objects
As we have presented in Chapter 2, in our research, we were aiming at closing the
gap between high level challenges and low-level design of SUOs by providing a dis-
cussion of challenges identified and categorized while designing a broad set of urban
objects.
When looking into the properties of urban space, we encounter prerequisites for
interaction that should be taken into consideration:
Interactions can take place at any time of the day or night.
All demographic groups in the urban space can be attracted by and interact with
urban objects often several at the same time.
Usage of the urban objects is voluntary and should not require any training at all.
These properties lead us to the challenge of walk-up-and-use, and due to the volun-
tary usage to a need for joyfulness in the use (to improve motivation to use).
If we add these two challenges to the challenges already identified in Chapter 2, i.e.
personalization and data privacy and multi-user usage we get the following list of
challenges:
Adaptability (personalization and personal data privacy): to enable personal-
izing the interaction with the devices
Multi-User usage: to provide the possibility for multiple users to use the devices
(at the same time)
Walk-Up-and-Use: to enable intuitive use of the device, i.e. the possibility to use
the devices without reading manuals or performing setups
Joy of use: to allow for playfulness, i.e. to make using the devices fun
In the following, we will briefly address how these core challenges may be ad-
dressed in general and have been addressed in particular in some of the developed
SUOs in UrbanLife+.
4.1 Adaptability (and Data Privacy)
In general HCI, the adaptability of a system is considered fundamental for usability
(Heinecke 2012). In public space which is characterized by a lack of control of us-
ers and conditions of use heterogeneous needs meet. The fit senior citizen in his
HCI challenges in Smart Urban Objects
4
17
mid-80s should be just as much addressed by technology as the 60-year-old wheel-
chair user. When involving people of different sizes, cognitive capacities, interests
and motor skills, HCI must allow for diverse models of input and output, adapted
presentations and changes in content and structure.
There is a lot of research on adaptivity in HCI. Starting with early work by Brusilov-
sky on adaptive hypermedia systems: “by adaptive hypermedia systems we mean all
hypertext and hypermedia systems which reflect some features of the user in the
user model and apply this model to adapt various visible aspects of the system to the
user.“ (Brusilovsky 1996)
So, there has to be a user model and adaptivity on different levels: From changes in
procedures or structures in the system (pragmatic level), via changes in the content
with which the user interacts (semantic level), changes in the basic interaction with
the system (syntactic level), changes in the presentation of information (lexical lev-
el) to physical changes in input and output (sensomotoric level).
For our SUOs we first have defined a rich user profile including interaction prefer-
ences, restrictions on perception and motoric disabilities. Then we address the issue
of privacy control when this profile is made available to SUOs by storing only highly
sensitive personal data on mobile devices not at a central storage and restricting
its use to the minimum necessary exchange between SUOs and profile service. One
important profile value is the comfort zone we derive from past activities to mo-
tivate activities (Kötteritzsch et al. 2016). So, in our experience the issue of data pri-
vacy that was often stressed by the authors mentioned in Chapter 2, is closely relat-
ed to this issue of adaptability.
For smart information displays or the smart bus stop we have provided adaption of
the information displayed and of the modes of interaction with the display includ-
ing the possibility to physically lower the display (when approaching it in a wheel-
chair).
For smart activity support we have tried displaying different symbols and allowing
different forms of interaction based on the user profile. Smart informants should
only point to dangers that are dangerous for the person approaching, smart sign-
posts can display different directions according to the abilities of the user (e.g., dif-
ferent accessible paths).
In terms of privacy and information sovereignty, one of our major design decisions
was to avoid general location tracking techniques (such as GPS or other device ven-
dor location services), instead relying only on proximity detection of users near the
SUOs (which have a known position). This goes a long way towards avoiding the
impression of user tracking, as proximity detection is necessary for personalized
SUO interactions anyway and thus unavoidable. It also makes it easy for the user to
HCI challenges in Smart Urban Objects
4
18
disable all location tracking by toggling a switch in our mobile app or by turning off
Bluetooth.
4.2 Multi-User Usage
“As computation gradually becomes part of everyday physical space, the
spatial context within which interaction between humans and computation
takes place radically changes from a fairly static single-user, location-
independent world to a dynamic multi-user situated environment“
(Streitz et al. 2019).
All urban objects can be used by multiple users after each other, most of them even
by multiple users at the same time. The multiple usage does not have to be coordi-
nated. Also watching a public display by one user from a distance while another user
is interacting with the display is multiple usage. Challenges stemming from the need
to serve different users simultaneously include the balance between the single-user
and multi-user contexts, and the facilitation of collaboration among multiple users
who may be strangers (Ardito et al. 2015, Lin et al. 2015).
In the UrbanLife+ project, we found the most difficult issue is that most devices can
be seen by more than one user at a time. That is true for large smart information
displays (several users standing in front of a screen in different interaction zones)
and for small devices like micro-information radiators or lamps in a smart lighting
scenario.
One example of work on multi-user capability concerns the investigation of which
directions of movement of text on the screen provide the best legibility. The use of
moving text on the screen is motivated by various recommendations to use anima-
tions to attract or enlarge the attention of users (e.g. (Huang et al. 2008)). Classically,
it is assumed that leading i.e. moving a sequence of words from right to left is the
optimal animation method (So & Chan 2009). However, this work does not take into
account that 1) the view of the screen may be partially blocked by other users, and
2) users may not stand rigidly in front of the screen but may move around while
viewing the screen itself. In a laboratory study, we therefore ran through these sce-
narios with different directions of movement for text and determined the variant
that offers the best subjective readability (Nutsi & Koch 2016). The result of previ-
ous experiments was that the typical text animation direction (right to left) is not
always the best choice. When a user is standing in front of the screen, it has been
shown that the best results are achieved when the text is animated vertically (from
top to bottom). For moving users, it has been shown to be optimal if the text moves
with the user (in the direction of movement).
HCI challenges in Smart Urban Objects
4
19
For the large smart information displays we also looked into personal areas to be
displayed for different users and into differently addressing users to the left or to
the right of the screen.
For micro-information radiators we looked into using different colors for different
users. However, this proved not to be ideal when several users are addressed at the
same time. We had to limit to addressing the nearest user which in itself is hard to
determine since it is not only up to the physical distance, but also due to who can
(better) see or faster approach the device.
4.3 Walk-up-and-use
Walk-Up-And-Use refers to the characteristic of systems that they can be used im-
mediately without the need for introduction or study of a manual. This includes,
firstly, an intuitive user interface, but also drawing attention to the systems and
making potential users aware that the systems are interactive.
Intuitive usability was defined as, for example: "A technical system is intuitively us-
able if it leads to effective interaction through unconscious application of prior
knowledge by the user" (Mohs et al. 2006). Raskin addresses the connection be-
tween intuitiveness and familiarity even earlier (Raskin 1994). However, the con-
cept of the intuitiveness of user interfaces has not been finally clarified (Herczeg
2009).
Fig. 11: Temporal interaction zones (based on (Müller et al. 2010)).
HCI challenges in Smart Urban Objects
4
20
In the context of smart information displays for example, we specifically address the
question of how someone who walks past the screens can 1) be made aware of the
screen and the interactivity of the screen, 2) be motivated to approach the screen,
and 3) be motivated and enabled to perform beneficial touch interaction with the
screen. The model is based on temporal zones of interaction (see Fig. 11).
In our project we experimented with different ways to communicate the “how-to-
use” to our users. The simplest was a text sign on a large smart information display
that points to the possibilities of interaction. More potential was identified in show-
ing a personal information area and playing a personal audio greeting when the de-
vice was approached.
The best solution for intuitive usability often was, if the result appeared without the
need for explicit interaction i.e., if the users “only” had to approach the devices. But
even then, the result had to be “intuitive” with respect to interpretation and under-
standing. An analysis of the walk-up-and-use design of the smart activity support
system is provided with a process description:
The user starts at the large smart information display which shows a personal
area and suggested activities for the approaching senior. Here, we decided to use
touch interactions and use drag-and-drop to add the desired activity into the per-
sonal area. This personal area appears without interaction required, as the senior
is identified by Bluetooth signal (for more details see Section 3.4). While the per-
sonal area speaks for intuitive design, the activity selection by drag-and-drop
may be challenging for some seniors. This still has to be analyzed by evaluation.
After selecting the activity, the senior starts with its execution and receives sup-
port without explicit interaction by micro-information radiators in the urban
space. Those use proximity detection via Bluetooth to enable this intuitive inter-
action. However, we identified that for making the information as understanda-
ble as possible, it is important to use standardized symbols (e.g., conventional ar-
rows) and sounds or vibrations with known meaning for the user (e.g., their per-
sonal color or selected personal sound).
4.4 Joy of Use
Joy of use is a sub-topic of the design of interactive systems, which has occasionally
appeared in the HCI literature since the late 1990s. Roughly speaking, it describes
the extent to which interaction with a technical system can trigger feelings of joy,
happiness or fun in the user. Unfortunately, there is no uniform and generally ac-
cepted definition. Probably the best known and most frequently cited attempt to
define the term today is (Hassenzahl et al. 2001), although there have been other
efforts to systematically develop the term, e.g. (Hatscher 2000). A successful over-
HCI challenges in Smart Urban Objects
4
21
view of definitions proposed up to the time of publication is provided in (Reeps
2004), who also discusses a number of neighboring terms (e.g. gamification, funolo-
gy) and their delimitation.
An interesting question, but one that, according to our own research, has not had its
research potential tapped very deeply, is that of linking joy of use and the methods
associated with it with technology in the public space. Especially in older HCI publi-
cations, the single-user context in private or professional environments is often im-
plied. For the UrbanLife+ project, however, joy of use in public spaces is particularly
interesting, including everything that goes along with it because it requires new
interpretation for the elderly as a user group (such as the spontaneous gathering of
several users who want to interact with a system at the same time see also section
on Multi-User usage, or e.g. theoretical work on the design of prosocial game experi-
ences (Cook et al. 2016)).
That is not to say that there is no other work on joy of use in public spaces at all.
Strands of research have recently coalesced around the terms “playable city”
(Nijholt 2017) and “urban gamification” (Thibault 2019). Research challenges in
these areas often mirror those of other urban technology deployments how to op-
erationalize user attention and engagement, how to gather data about users’ per-
ceived emotional experience, etc.
In UrbanLife+ we designed and implemented a gamified reward system for urban
exploration based around the game element of “quests”. Senior users would be pre-
sented with opportunities for urban activities (outside their comfort zone if possi-
ble) such as visiting a specific café, museum or social gathering. If they successfully
completed such a quest, they would receive a small but tangible reward, such as a
voucher for their next visit or a free cup of coffee. This idea draws upon existing
research on both economic incentive systems (c.f. loyalty programs such as “Pay-
back”) and personal narratives driven by self-determination (“being the hero of your
own story”). This concept is described in more detail in (Fietkau 2019).
We conducted a brief empirical evaluation of this system prototype in the form of
user tests and qualitative interviews with seven participants, some of whom were
seniors (four persons older than 60 years) who were asked to judge from their own
perspective, and some of whom were experts from the field of geriatric care who
were asked to speak from their professional experience.
Within our interview group, we observed a diversity of opinion regarding material
rewards as a potential motivator. Some subjects were immediately taken with the
"prizes" and explicitly noted them as important motivation for activities outside the
home, others showed indifference, or in one case even clear rejection.
Independently of the rewards, the participants showed a broad acceptance of the
quest concept. The motivating function of the quests as a way to structure offers was
HCI challenges in Smart Urban Objects
4
22
repeatedly judged as positive not only for their own experience, but also hypothe-
sized to be helpful for other elderly users in the context of society.
It should be noted that joy of use is not limited to gamified experiences. For example,
during sessions with seniors using interactive technology, we were able to observe
that highly joyful reactions (a powerful motivation to overcome fear of technology)
were sparked by showing photos of people or places that the seniors could recog-
nize. One resulting design which was implemented as a prototype but ultimately
not pursued for empirical research was a digital jigsaw puzzle that allowed senior
users to assemble photos of their social group or of places outside their home.
Another lesson we learned about joy of use was, that it is closely related to the pur-
pose of the object. “Using” an object is not considered a burden, if it is purposeful
in our case, if the user gained additional safety by using the object.
Discussion / Conclusion
5
23
5 Discussion / Conclusion
In this report we briefly reviewed challenges for designing objects for urban space
and particularly presented experiences we gained in designing SUOs for improving
the safety of seniors in urban space in the UrbanLife+ project.
We found the most important challenges to be adaptability (including data privacy),
multi-user usage, walk-up-and-use and joy of use. While other papers have present-
ed a much broader view here (e.g. (Stephanidis et al. 2019)), we found that our four
challenges are more practical they provide direct issues to look at when designing
systems. That helped us a lot in the project.
There is a lot that can be done now each of the four challenges could be addressed
in a separate book. We will continue to use this thematic structure for presenting
and discussing the challenges and the possible solutions in one particular class of
SUOs: The information radiators both large smart information displays and micro-
information radiators.
One final remark about seniors as user group: We found that the need for addressing
our four challenges is not unique for this user group however, some challenges are
different for seniors than for other user groups. One example for this is walk-up-
and-use. As noted by other designers and researchers, we experienced that seniors
in general are much more reluctant to use technology than other user groups. But
even for this issue we found that providing a real benefit and presenting the objects
in settings such as focus groups helps to overcome this challenge.
Bibliography
24
Bibliography
ALEITHE, MICHAEL; SKOWRON, PHILIPP; SCHÖNE, ERIC & FRANCZYK, BOGDAN (2018):
Adaptive Lighting System as a Smart Urban Object. In: GANZHA, MARIA;
MACIASZEK, LESZEK A. & PAPRZYCKI, MARCIN (Hrsg.): Communication Papers of the
2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems
(FedCSIS 2018). Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems (ACSIS),
S. 145149.
ARDITO, CARMELO; BUONO, PAOLO; COSTABILE, MARIA FRANCESCA & MORO, ALDO (2015):
Interaction with Large Displays: A Survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR),
3/2015 (47), S. 138.
BRUSILOVSKY, PETER (1996): Methods and Techniques of Adaptive Hypermedia. User
Modeling and User-Adapted InteractionUser Modeling and, 1996 (6). Springer,
S. 87129.
COOK, DANIEL; FULTON, BILL; GONZALES, JOEL; BIALOSKURSKY, YURI & FITCH, MICHAEL
(2016): Game design patterns that facilitate strangers becoming “friends”. In:
The Eleventh Annual Game Design Think Tank Project Horseshoe. Comfort,
Texas, USA.
DEAKIN, MARK & AL WAER, HUSAM (2011): From intelligent to smart cities. Intelligent
Buildings International, 3/2011 (3), S. 140152.
FIETKAU, JULIAN (2019): Quests als Gestaltungsmittel zur Motivation und Struktur
außerhäuslicher Aktivitäten für Senioren. In: Proceedings of the Mensch und
Computer 2019 Workshops (MuC2019). Hamburg, Germany.
FIETKAU, JULIAN & STOJKO, LAURA (2020): A system design to support outside activities
of older adults using smart urban objects. In: Proc. Europ. Conf. on Computer-
Supported Cooperative Work 2020. EUSSET.
GAVER, WILLIAM W. & BEAVER, JACOB (2006): The Presence Project: Helping Older
People Engage with Their Local Communities. In: PURCELL, PATRICK (Hrsg.):
Networked Neighbourhoods. London: Springer, S. 345371.
HASSENZAHL, MARC; BEU, ANDREAS & BURMESTER, MICHAEL (2001): Engineering Joy.
IEEE Software, January 2001/2001 (18), S. 7076.
HATSCHER, MICHAEL (2000): Joy of use: Determinanten der Freude bei der
Softwarenutzung. Universität Osnabrück.
HEINECKE, ANDREAS M. (2012): Mensch-Computer-Interaktion: Basiswissen für
Bibliography
25
Entwickler und Gestalter, 2. Auflage. Auflage.
HERCZEG, MICHAEL (2009): Software-Ergonomie - Theorien, Modelle und Kriterien fr
gebrauchstaugliche interaktive Computersysteme, 3. Aufl.. München: de Gruyter
Oldenbourg.
HESPANHOL, LUKE & DALSGAARD, PETER (2015): Social Interaction Design Patterns for
Urban Media Architecture. In: Proc. 15th Human-Computer Interaction
(INTERACT), S. 596613.
HESPANHOL, LUKE & TOMITSCH, MARTIN (2015): Strategies for intuitive interaction in
public urban spaces. Interacting with Computers, 3/2015 (27), S. 311326.
HORNECKER, EVA & STIFTER, MATTHIAS (2006): Learning from interactive museum
installations about interaction design for public settings. In: ACM International
Conference Proceeding Series, S. 135142.
HUANG, ELAINE M; KOSTER, ANNA & BORCHERS, JAN (2008): Overcoming assumptions
and uncovering practices: When does the public really look at public displays?
In: Proc. Pervasive 2008, LNCS 5013. Berlin: Springer, S. 228243.
HUBL, MARVIN (2019): An Adaptive Park Bench System to Enhance Availability of
Appropriate Seats for the Elderly: A Safety Engineering Approach for Smart
City. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Business Informatics
(CBI 2019). IEEE, S. 373382.
HUBL, MARVIN; SKOWRON, PHILIPP & ALEITHE, MICHAEL (2018): Towards a Supportive
City with Smart Urban Objects in the Internet of Things: The Case of Adaptive
Park Bench and Adaptive Light. In: GANZHA, MARIA; MACIASZEK, LESZEK A. &
PAPRZYCKI, MARCIN (Hrsg.): Position Papers of the 2018 Federated Conference on
Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS 2018). Annals of Computer
Science and Information Systems (ACSIS). Poznan (Posen), Polen, S. 5158.
KOCH, MICHAEL; KÖTTERITZSCH, ANNA & FIETKAU, JULIAN (2017): Information Radiators
Using large screens and small devices to support awareness in urban space.
In: Proc. Intl. Conf. on Web Intelligence (WI’ 17). ACM Press.
KÖTTERITZSCH, ANNA; KOCH, MICHAEL & WALLRAFEN, SUSANNE (2016): Expand Your
Comfort Zone! Smart Urban Objects to Promote Safety in Public Spaces for
Older Adults. In: Adjunct Proceedings of UbiComp 2016. ACM Press.
LEUKEL, JÖRG; SCHEHL, BARBARA; WALLRAFEN, SUSANNE & HUBL, MARVIN (2017): Impact
of IT Use by Older Adults on Their Outdoor Activities. In: Proceedings of the
38th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2017). AIS, S. 12.
LIN, XU; HU, JUN & RAUTERBERG, MATTHIAS (2015): Cross-Cultural Design Methods,
Practice and Impact. In: CCD 2015, Part I, LNCS 9180, S. 328338.
Bibliography
26
LÖSCH, EVA (2020): Unterstützung der Exploration von mehrbenutzerfähigen
interaktiven Informationstafeln im (halb) öffentlichen Raum. Universität der
Bundeswehr München.
LÖSCH, EVA; ALT, FLORIAN & KOCH, MICHAEL (2017): Mirror, Mirror on the Wall:
Attracting Passers-by to Public Touch Displays With User Representations. In:
Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces
and Spaces. ACM Press, S. 2231.
MARGETIS, GEORGE; NTOA, STAVROULA; ANTONA, MARGHERITA & STEPHANIDIS,
CONSTANTINE (2019): Augmenting natural interaction with physical paper in
ambient intelligence environments. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 10/2019
(78). Multimedia Tools and Applications, S. 1338713433.
MOHS, CARSTEN; HURTIENNE, JÖRN; ISRAEL, JOHANN HABAKUK; NAUMANN, ANJA;
KINDSMÜLLER, MARTIN CHRISTOF; MEYER, HERBERT A. & POHLMEYER, ANNA (2006):
IUUI Intuitive Use of User Interfaces. In: Proc. Usability Professionals 2006,
S. 130133.
MÜLLER, JÖRG; ALT, FLORIAN; MICHELIS, DANIEL & SCHMIDT, ALBRECHT (2010):
Requirements and design space for interactive public displays. In: Proceedings
of the international conference on Multimedia - MM ’10. ACM Press, S. 1285
1294.
MÜLLER, JÖRG; WALTER, ROBERT; BAILLY, GILLES; NISCHT, MICHAEL & ALT, FLORIAN
(2012): Looking glass: a field study on noticing interactivity of a shop window.
In: Proc. of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI ’12), CHI’12. New York, NY, USA: ACM, S. 297306.
NIJHOLT, ANTON (2017): Towards Playful and Playable Cities. In: NIJHOLT, ANTON
(Hrsg.): Playable Cities. Iskandar Puteri, Johor: Springer Science+Business
Media Singapore, S. 120.
NUTSI, ANDREA (2018): Gestaltungsempfehlungen für mehrbenutzerfähige
Informationsanwendungen auf interaktiven Wandbildschirmen im (halb-
)öffentlichen Raum. Universität der Bundeswehr München.
NUTSI, ANDREA & KOCH, MICHAEL (2016): Readability in Multi-User Large-Screen
Scenarios. In: Proc. 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction
(NordiCHI2016). ACM Press.
OTT, FLORIAN (2018): CommunityMirrors: Interaktive Groußbildschirme als ubiquitäre
Natural User Interfaces für Kooperationssysteme. Universität der Bundeswehr
München.
OTT, FLORIAN & KOCH, MICHAEL (2012): Social Software Beyond the Desktop
Ambient Awareness and Ubiquitous Activity Streaming. it - Information
Technology, 5/2012 (54), S. 243252.
Bibliography
27
OTT, FLORIAN & KOCH, MICHAEL (2019): Exploring Interactive Information Radiators
A Longitudinal Real-World Case Study. In: Proc. Mensch und Computer 2019 -
Workshopband. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V.
OTT, FLORIAN; KOCH, MICHAEL & RICHTER, ALEXANDER (2010): CommunityMirrorsTM -
Using Public Shared Displays to Move Information “Out of the Box”. In:
HAFKESBRINK, JOACHIM; HOPPE, ULRICH H. & SCHLICHTER, JOHANN (Hrsg.):
Competence Management for Open Innovation: Tools and IT Support to Unlock
the Innovation Potential Beyond Company Boundaries. Lohmar, Köln: EUL
Verlag, S. 141169.
RADWAN, AHMED HOSNEY; ABDEL, AHMED & MORSY, GHANEY (2014): The importance of
integrating street furniture in the visual image of the city. , 2014 (X).
RASKIN, JEF (1994): Viewpoint: Intuitive equals familiar. Commun. ACM, 1994 (37).
ACM Press, S. 1718.
REEPS, INGA ELISABETH (2004): Joy-of-Use eine neue Qualität für interaktive Produkte.
Universität Konstanz.
REEVES, STUART (2011): Designing Interfaces in Public Settings: Understanding the
Role of the Spectator in Human-Computer Interaction. Springer.
SCHEHL, BARBARA & LEUKEL, JOERG (2020): Associations between individual factors,
environmental factors, and outdoor independence in older adults. European
Journal of Ageing, 2020. Springer Netherlands.
SCHEHL, BARBARA; LEUKEL, JÖRG & SUGUMARAN, VIJAYAN (2019): Understanding
differentiated internet use in older adults: A study of informational, social, and
instrumental online activities. Computers in Human Behavior, S. 222230.
SCHIAVO, GIANLUCA; MILANO, MARCO; SALDIVAR, JORGE; NASIR, TOOBA; ZANCANARO,
MASSIMO & CONVERTINO, GREGORIO (2013): Agora2.0: Enhancing Civic
Participation through a Public Display. In: PRINZ, WOLFGANG; SATCHEL, CHRISTINE;
KOCH, MICHAEL & SCHLICHTER, JOHANN (Hrsg.): Proc. Intl. Conf. on Communities
and Technologies (C&T). ACM Press.
SKOWRON, PHILIPP; ALEITHE, MICHAEL; WALLRAFEN, SUSANNE; HUBL, MARVIN; FIETKAU,
JULIAN & FRANCZYK, BOGDAN (2019): Smart Urban Design Space. In: Proceedings
of the 14th Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems
(FedCSIS 2019).
SO, JOEY C Y & CHAN, ALAN H S (2009): Design factors on dynamic text display.
Engineering Letters, 3/2009 (16), S. 1619.
STEPHANIDIS, CONSTANTINE; SALVENDY, GAVRIEL; ANTONA, MARGHERITA; CHEN, JESSIE Y.C.;
DONG, JIANMING; DUFFY, VINCENT G.; FANG, XIAOWEN; FIDOPIASTIS, CALI; FRAGOMENI,
GINO; FU, LIMIN PAUL; GUO, YINNI; HARRIS, DON; IOANNOU, ANDRI; JEONG, KYEONG AH
Bibliography
28
(KATE); KONOMI, SHINICHI; KRÖMKER, HEIDI; KUROSU, MASAAKI; LEWIS, JAMES R.;
MARCUS, AARON; MEISELWITZ, GABRIELE; MOALLEM, ABBAS; MORI, HIROHIKO; FUI-
HOON NAH, FIONA; NTOA, STAVROULA; RAU, PEI LUEN PATRICK; SCHMORROW, DYLAN;
SIAU, KENG; STREITZ, NORBERT; WANG, WENTAO; YAMAMOTO, SAKAE; ZAPHIRIS,
PANAYIOTIS & ZHOU, JIA (2019): Seven HCI Grand Challenges. International
Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 14/2019 (35), S. 12291269.
STOJKO, LAURA; FIETKAU, JULIAN & KOCH, MICHAEL (2020): Design Guidelines for Micro
Information Radiators to increase Seniors ’ Safety in Urban Space. In: Proc.
Mensch und Computer 2020.
STREITZ, NORBERT A.; GEIßLER, JÖRG & HOLMER, TORSTEN (1998): Roomware for
cooperative buildings: Integrated design of architectural spaces and
information spaces. In: Proc. CoBuild 1998: Cooperative Buildings: Integrating
Information, Organization, and Architecture. Springer, S. 418.
STREITZ, NORBERT; CHARITOS, DIMITRIS; KAPTEIN, MAURITS & BÖHLEN, MARC (2019):
Grand challenges for ambient intelligence and implications for design contexts
and smart societies. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments,
1/2019 (11), S. 87107.
THIBAULT, MATTIA (2019): Towards a Typology of Urban Gamification. In:
Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Maui, HI, USA, S. 14761485.
VENTÄ-OLKKONEN, LEENA; LANAMÄKI, ARTO; IIVARI, NETTA & KUUTTI, KARI (2016): It’ s a
Pain in the … Wild? Struggling to Create Conditions for Emerging Practices in
an Urban Computing Project. In: Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on
Human-Computer Interaction.
VOGEL, DANIEL & BALAKRISHNAN, RAVIN (2004): Interactive Public Ambient Displays:
Transitioning from Implicit to Explicit, Public to Personal, Interaction with
Multiple Users. In: FEINER, STEVEN & LANDAY, JAMES A. (Hrsg.): Proceedings of the
17th annual ACM symposium on User iIterface Software and Technology
(UIST’04). Santa Fe, New Mexico: ACM Press, S. 137146.
WEISER, MARK (1991): The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American,
3/1991 (265). New York: Munn \& Co., S. 94104.
WISNESKI, CRAIG; ISHII, HIROSHI; DAHLEY, ANDREW; GORBET, MATT; BRAVE, SCOTT; ULLMER,
BRYGG & YARIN, PAUL (1998): Ambient Displays: Turning Architectural Space
into an Interface between People and Digital Information. In: STREITZ, NORBERT
A; KONOMI, SHINICHI & BURKHARDT, HEINZ-JÜRGEN (Hrsg.): Proc. CoBuild 1998:
Cooperative Buildings: Integrating Information, Organization, and Architecture.
Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, S. 2232.
WOUTERS, NIELS; DOWNS, JOHN; HARROP, MITCHELL; COX, TRAVIS; OLIVEIRA, EDUARDO;
Bibliography
29
WEBBER, SARAH; VETERE, FRANK & VANDE MOERE, ANDREW (2016): Uncovering the
honeypot effect: How audiences engage with public interactive systems. In: DIS
2016 - Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive
Systems: Fuse, S. 516.
ZIMPEL, TOBIAS & HUBL, MARVIN (2019): Smart Urban Objects to Enhance Safe
Participation in Major Events for the Elderly. In: Proceedings of the 14th
Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS
2019).
List of Autors
30
List of Autors
Prof. Dr. Michael Koch
michael.koch@unibw.de
www.unibw.de/inf2/personen/professoren/univ-prof-dr-michael-koch
Prof. Dr. Michael Koch studied computer science at the TU
Munich and received his doctorate in the subject. After an in-
dustrial stay at the Xerox Research Centre Europe and subse-
quent habilitation in computer science again at the TU Munich,
he now teaches at the University of the Federal Armed Forces Munich where he
holds the professorship for Human-Computer Interaction.
Anna Buck
anna@koetteritzsch.net
www.koetteritzsch.net
Anna Buck (née Kötteritzsch) studied Applied Cognitive and
Media Sciences (M. Sc.) at the University of Duisburg-Essen.
Until 2019, she worked as a research assistant in the Urban-
Life+ project at the University of the Federal Armed Forces Munich. Currently, she is
working in the field of IT training.
Julian Fietkau
julian.fietkau@unibw.de
www.unibw.de/julian.fietkau
Julian Fietkau studied computer science and human-computer
interaction at University of Hamburg, then worked for a year
as a research assistant at Bauhaus University Weimar until he
joined Universität der Bundeswehr München in 2016. Since then, he has been work-
ing as a PhD student with Prof. Dr. Michael Koch in the field of human-computer
interaction, especially with regard to the research project UrbanLife+.
List of Autors
31
Laura Stojko
laura.stojko@unibw.de
www.unibw.de/inf2/personen/wissen_mitarbeiter/laura-stojko
Laura Stojko studied Information Systems at the University of
Regensburg (Bachelor) and at the Technical University of Mu-
nich (Master) and has been working on her PhD in Human-
Computer Interaction with Prof. Dr. Michael Koch at the Uni-
versity of the Federal Armed Forces Munich since September 2019. She is a research
assistant and supports in teaching and research projects.
List of Autors
XXXII
Designing human-computer interaction for non-
personal computing devices in urban space poses
different challenges than designing for personal
devices. In this paper we summarize the findings
from a project developing smart urban objects to
help elderly people participate in urban life. We
present four key challenges that have been iden-
tified designing such objects, and present first
ideas for how to address these challenges. The
four key challenges are adaptability (and data
privacy), multi-user usage, walk-up-and-use and
joy of use.
Designing Smart Urban Objects Adaptation, Multi-
user Usage, Walk-up-and-use and Joy of Use
Schnittstellen Middleware
Activity Streams
Schema Authentifizierung Dienst
Mashup Filterung
Daten Protokolle Caching
Social Software
Aggregation API
ubiquitär Information
multi-user Interaktionszonen
Interaktive Großbildschirme
Freudvolle Nutzung Usability
Visualisierung Benutzerakzeptanz
Sozialer Kontext
Tablets & Smartphones
pervasive multi-touch
Informationsstrahler
Awareness Simplicity
Social Guidelines Enterprise 2.0
Aneignung Einführung
Anforderungsanalyse Motivation
Nutzungsoffenheit
Erfolgsmessung Social Business
Partizipation
Wissensmanagement Community
Social Networking
Technical Report
Full-text available
Titel des Teilvorhabens: Mensch-Technik-Interaktion mit smarten städtebaulichen Objekten: Entwicklung und Evaluation Zuwendungsempfänger: Universität der Bundeswehr München Förderzeitraum: 01.11.2015 – 31.10.2020 Förderkennzeichen: 16SV7443
Conference Paper
Full-text available
An important part of older adults' social integration is their involvement in urban life outdoors. While going outdoors contributes to participation and well-being, older adults often avoid to go outdoors because of deteriorating health and individual perceptions of threats to their safe mobility. A particular perceived threat to safety and a crucial barrier to go outdoors is the perception of lacking appropriate seating possibilities. To mitigate this barrier, we introduce an adaptive park bench system as an innovative form of smart urban objects. The system of adaptive park benches seeks to ensure that each pedestrian has available an appropriate seat when necessary. Empty adaptive park benches are particularly appropriate due to an active assistance functionality for sitting down and standing up. We developed an AI based algorithm and validated its effectiveness by conducting a simulation of a use case scenario created with domain experts.
Conference Paper
Das Thema „joy of use“ hat in den letzten Jahren einige Beachtung gewonnen: Glass (1997) sieht Freude und Spaß beim Benutzen als eine der wichtigsten Eigenschaften kommender technischer Artefakte an; Norman (1993) fragt: „Why is it more fun to read about the new technologies than to use them?“, und Cooper (1999) bezeichnet als „desirability“ einer Software deren Eigenschaft, bei den Menschen Gefühle von Glück und Zufriedenheit auszulösen. Auch in der Industrie wird auf positive Erfahrungen im Umgang mit der Software — zumindest im Marketing — gern hingewiesen: So findet sich sowohl bei Microsoft (für Windows Me) als auch bei Apple (für MacOS X) und Be (für BeOS) der Hinweis darauf, dass das Arbeiten mit den jeweiligen Betriebssystemen mehr Spaß machen werde bzw. angenehmer sei, und SAPs Enjoy SAP-Projekt reagiert ebenfalls auf die gestiegenen Erwartungen der Kundschaft in Bezug darauf, dass eine Software nicht nur effiziente Aufgabenerledigung ermöglichen solle.
Article
Bisher wurde Joy-of-Use für interaktive Systeme als Extravaganz bezeichnet, inzwischen ist es jedoch mehr als eine stilistische Nebensache. Immer mehr Produkte werden emotional aufgewertet, wie „Das Prinzip Freude“ beim neuen 1er BMW oder „Design for Desire“ bei Siemens Mobiltelefonen zeigen. In einigen Produktbereichen haben technische Fortschritte und Herstellungsprozesse einen Vollkommenheitsgrad erreicht, der jeden potentiellen Wettbewerbsvorteil im Sinne von Funktionalität, Sicherheit und Herstellungskosten marginal erscheinen lässt. Es gilt andere, neue signifikante Vorteile gegenüber der Konkurrenz zu finden – Joy-of-Use bietet eine Möglichkeit dazu. Gute human factors werden inzwischen als selbstverständlich angesehen und Schwierigkeiten in der Interaktion mit Produkten werden von den Benutzern nicht mehr akzeptiert. Joy-of-Use bezieht sich auf Ästhetik und Emotionen, stellt eine Erweiterung des traditionellen Usability dar und lässt sich im weiteren Sinne als ein Ergebnis gelungener Zusammenarbeit von Usability Engineering, Design und Branding bezeichnen. Joy-of-Use bezeichnet das positiv subjektive Empfinden eines Benutzers in der Produktnutzung; dieser empfindet Freude bei der Benutzung. Der Begriff Joy-of-Use umfasst jedoch weitaus mehr als nur Freude. Er bezieht sich zunächst nur auf positive Affekte, impliziert als Anwendungskonzept in der Gestaltung aber auch das Vermeiden von negativen Empfindungen beim Benutzer und beschränkt sich nicht auf das Gestalten optischer Merkmale, sondern richtet den Fokus auf das Gestalten „schön” funktionierender Produkte. Mit Hilfe einiger, vorwiegend psychologischer, Untersuchungstechniken wird versucht den Joy-of-Use beim Benutzer zu messen. Der Sinn eines Joy-of-Use-Produktes ist es, dem Benutzer größeren kreativen Freiraum zu geben, sein Interesse, Vertrauen und seine Zufriedenheit zu stärken und ihn zu motivieren. Schlussendlich wird der Benutzer durch Joy-of-Use zur verstärkten und weiteren Nutzung des Produktes animiert. Nach Donald Norman: „Attractive things work better!” [Norman 2002]. Ziel der Arbeit ist, diese neue Thematik in ihren verschiedenen Facetten vorzustellen und Kriterien und Methoden zu identifizieren, anhand derer Joy-of-Use in die Gestaltung interaktiver Systeme miteinbezogen und evaluiert werden kann. Bisherige Evaluationsverfahren beschränken sich im Wesentlichen auf Bedienbarkeit, Joy-of-Use erfordert zudem u.a. auch das Erfassen der empfundenen Attraktivität eines Produktes. In dieser Arbeit werden Rahmenbedingungen, theoretische Konzepte und Oualitätskriterien identifiziert. Modelle und Werkzeuge zur Sicherstellung der Qualität sowie Methoden zur Evaluierung von Joy-of-Use werden eruiert. Weiterhin wird Joy-of-Use aus den Disziplinen Software und Usability Engineering sowie (Screen) Design und Brand Design hergeleitet. Es wird analysiert, inwieweit diese Disziplinen bereits Joy-of-Use-Aspekte berücksichtigen und warum insbesondere die Kooperation von Usability Engineering, (Screen) Design und Branding für eine Realisierung von Joy-of-Use erfolgversprechend ist. Desweiteren umfasst ein Kapitel einen kurzen Abriss der kritischen Diskussion über Joy-of-Use in der wissenschaftlichen Fachwelt. Anschließend werden Konzepte zur Gestaltung von Joy-of-Use diskutiert. Es werden Beziehungen zwischen den identifizierten Kriterien untersucht und die Einbindung eines kreativen Gestaltungsprozesses sowie Patterns und Ideenboxen erörtert. Zudem wird eine Integration dieser Methoden in Prozessmodelle des Usability Engineering in Betracht gezogen und es wird diskutiert, welche Erkenntnisse aus dem Bereich der Spielsoftware für Joy-of-Use nutzbringend sind. Die Arbeit schließt mit einem Resümee und einem Ausblick auf weitere Entwicklungen zum Thema ab. Since production processes have reached a level of sophistication where functions, safety, and costs are no longer competitive advantages, aesthetics and user experiences, so called Joy-of-Use, has become more than a stylistic after-thought to outpace competitors. This masters thesis introduces several aspects of the new topic of Joy-of-Use for interactive products. We analyse its integration with the disciplines of Design, Branding, Usability and Software Engineering, and it is discussed how the cooperation of these disciplines can contribute to successful Joy-of-Use. In the following theoretical, in particular psychological, background for Joy-of-Use is described. Quality criteria are identified as well as methods for their realization and the measurement of Joy-of-Use as felt by the user. After that critical opinions from the community’s actual discussion about Joy-of-Use are pictured and we present different approaches of design concepts for Joy-of-Use, e.g. conclusions drawn from game software. The work concludes with an outlook toward future prospects and required research.
Quests als Gestaltungsmittel zur Motivation und Struktur außerhäuslicher Aktivitäten für Senioren
  • Julian Fietkau
FIETKAU, JULIAN (2019): Quests als Gestaltungsmittel zur Motivation und Struktur außerhäuslicher Aktivitäten für Senioren. In: Proceedings of the Mensch und Computer 2019 Workshops (MuC2019). Hamburg, Germany.
Unterstützung der Exploration von mehrbenutzerfähigen interaktiven Informationstafeln im (halb) öffentlichen Raum
  • Eva Lösch
LÖSCH, EVA (2020): Unterstützung der Exploration von mehrbenutzerfähigen interaktiven Informationstafeln im (halb) öffentlichen Raum. Universität der Bundeswehr München.
Gestaltungsempfehlungen für mehrbenutzerfähige Informationsanwendungen auf interaktiven Wandbildschirmen im (halb-)öffentlichen Raum
  • Andrea Nutsi
NUTSI, ANDREA (2018): Gestaltungsempfehlungen für mehrbenutzerfähige Informationsanwendungen auf interaktiven Wandbildschirmen im (halb-)öffentlichen Raum. Universität der Bundeswehr München.
Towards a Typology of Urban Gamification
  • Mattia Thibault
THIBAULT, MATTIA (2019): Towards a Typology of Urban Gamification. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Maui, HI, USA, S. 1476-1485.