Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 503–518 | Cite as

When privacy and utility are in harmony: towards better design of presence technologies

  • Jacob T. Biehl
  • Eleanor G. Rieffel
  • Adam J. Lee
Original Article

Abstract

Presence systems are valuable in supporting workplace communication and collaboration. These systems are effective, however, only if they are widely adopted and candidly used. User perceptions of the utility of the information being shared and their comfort in sharing such information strongly impact both adoption and use. This paper describes the results of a survey of user preferences regarding comfort with and utility of sharing presence data in the workplace; the effects of sampling frequency, fidelity, and aggregation; and design implications of these results. We present new results that extend some past findings and challenge others. We contribute new insights that inform the design of workplace presence technologies to increase both the utility and adoption of these systems.

Keywords

Presence systems Privacy Sharing Collaboration 

Supplementary material

779_2012_504_MOESM1_ESM.docx (72 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 72 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Acquisti A, John L, Loewenstein G (2009) What is privacy worth? In: Proceedings of WISE’09Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barkhuus L (2004) Privacy in location‐based services, concern vs. coolness, in workshop on location system privacy and control. In: Mobile HCI’04Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Begole J, Tang JC, Smith R, Yankelovich N (2002) Work rhythms: analyzing visualizations of awareness histories of distributed groups. CSCW 334–343Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biehl J et al (2010) MyUnity: building awareness and fostering community in the workplace. FXPAL-TR-09-21 and arXiv:1006.5024Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brush AJB, Krumm J, Scott J (2010) Exploring end user preferences for location obfuscation, location-based services, and the value of location. In: Ubicomp’10, pp 95–104Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chansanchai A (2011) Many sharing more on Facebook than they know. NBC Today: 11 April 2011. http://bit.ly/dPYACP. Accessed 13 Apr 2011
  7. 7.
    Chawla S et al (2005) Toward privacy in public databases. Theory Cryptogr 363–385Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Consolvo S et al (2005) Location disclosure to social relations: why, when, & what people want to share. In: CHI’05, pp 81–90Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cvrcek D, Kumpost M, Matyas V, Danezis G (2006) A study on the value of location privacy. In: WPES’06, pp 109–118Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Danezis G, Lewis S, Anderson R (2005) How much is location privacy worth? In: WEIS 2005Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis S, Gutwin C (2005) Using relationship to control disclosure in awareness servers. In: Proceedings of graphics interface 2005 (GI’05), pp 145–152Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Google Buzz settlement would give Google new privacy rules. The Los Angeles Times: 2 April 2011. http://lat.ms/exOfGn. Accessed 13 Apr 2011
  13. 13.
    Iachello G, Hong J (2007) End-user privacy in human computer interaction. Found Trends Hum Comput Interact 1(1):1–137MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Irwin K, Yu T, Winsborough WH (2006) On the modeling and analysis of obligations. In: CCS’06Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaasinen E (2003) User needs for location-aware mobile services. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 7(1):70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khalil A, Connelly K (2006) Context-aware telephony: privacy preferences and sharing patterns. In: CSCW’06, pp 469–478Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lederer S, Mankoff J, Dey AK (2003) Who wants to know what when? privacy preference determinants in ubiquitous computing. In: CHI’03, pp 724–725Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lin J, Xiang G, Hong JI, Sadeh N (2010) Modeling people’s place naming preferences in location sharing. In: Ubicomp’10, pp 75–84Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Patil S, Kobsa A (2009) Privacy considerations in awareness systems: designing with privacy in mind. Aware Syst Human Comput Interact Ser Part 2:187–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Patil S, Kobsa A (2010) Enhancing privacy management support in instant messaging. Interact Comput 22(3):206–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Park J, Sandhu RS (2004) The UCONABC usage control model. ACM Trans Inf Syst Secur 7(1):128–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ravichandran R, Benisch M, Kelley PG, Sadeh NM (2009) Capturing social networking privacy preferences. In: PETS’09, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rieffel EG, Biehl J, van Melle W, Lee AJ (2011) Secured histories for presence systems. SECOTS 2011Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Romero N, McEwan G, Greenberg S (2007) A field study of community bar: (Mis)-matches between theory and practice. In: GROUP’07, pp 89–98Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sadeh N et al (2009) Understanding and capturing people’s privacy policies in a mobile social networking application. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 13(6):401–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schlegel R, Kapadia A, Lee AJ (2011) Eyeing your exposure: quantifying and controlling information sharing for improved privacy. In: SOUPS’11Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shi E et al. (2011) Privacy-preserving aggregation of time-series data. NDSS 2011Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Szostek AM, Karapanos E, Eggen B, Holenderski M (2008) Understanding the implications of social translucence for systems supporting communication at work. In: CSCW’08, pp 649–658Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tang KP et al. (2010) Rethinking location sharing: exploring the implications of social-driven vs. purpose-driven location sharing. In: Ubicomp’10, pp 85–94Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Toch E et al. (2010) Empirical models of privacy in location sharing. In: Ubicomp’10, pp 129–138Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wiese J, Biehl J, Turner T, van Melle W, Girgensohn A (2011) Beyond ‘yesterday’s tomorrow’: towards the design of awareness technologies for the contemporary worker. In: MobileHCI’11, pp 455–464Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wobbrock JO, Findlater L, Gergle D, Higgins JJ (2011) The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only ANOVA procedures. CHI 2011:143–146Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacob T. Biehl
    • 1
  • Eleanor G. Rieffel
    • 1
  • Adam J. Lee
    • 2
  1. 1.FX Palo Alto Laboratory, Inc.Palo AltoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations