Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 1–32 | Cite as

Grounding Privacy in Mediated Communication

  • Natalia A. Romero
  • Panos Markopoulos
  • Saul Greenberg
Article
  • 475 Downloads

Abstract

This paper addresses the need of interpersonal privacy coordination mechanisms in the context of mediated communication, emphasizing the dialectic and dynamic nature of privacy. We contribute the Privacy Grounding Model—built upon the Common Ground theory—that describes how connected individuals create and adapt privacy borders dynamically and in a collaborative process. We present the theoretical foundations of the model. We also show the applicability of the model, where we give evidence from a field study that illustrates how it can describe privacy coordination mechanisms amongst users of an instant messaging application and a desktop awareness system. The model describes efficient and effective factors that communicators consider in their decisions to use mechanisms for coordination. The Privacy Grounding Model aims to help designers reflect on how their system supports, or fails to support, people’s need for lightweight and distinctive privacy coordination mechanisms, and in particular how communicators within the system create and use privacy border representations for grounding their needs to interact with each other.

Key words

interpersonal privacy common ground theory mediated communication HCI 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank our experimental participants for their participation in our studies.

Background

The reported research is based on Romero’s doctoral thesis done at TU Eindhoven.

Support

The GroupLab research group (Computer Science Department, University of Calgary) and the User Centered Design research group (Industrial Design Department, Eindhoven University of Technology) for providing all the facilities needed to conduct this research

References

  1. Altman, I. (1975). The Environment and Social Behaviour—Privacy, personal space, territory, crowding. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Aoki, P. M. and Woodruff, A. (2005). Making space for stories: ambiguity in the design of personal communication systems. In CHI'05. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, Oregon, USA, 2-7 April 2005. New York: ACM Press, pp. 181–190.Google Scholar
  3. Begole, J. B., Matsakis, N.E, and Tang, J. (2004). Lilsys: Sensing Unavailability. In CSCW’04. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Chicago, Illinois, 6-10 November 2004. New York: ACM Press, pp. 511–514.Google Scholar
  4. Bellotti, V. and Sellen, A. (1993). Design for privacy in ubiquitous computing environments. In ECSCW'93. Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Milano, Italy, 13-17 September 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 77–92.Google Scholar
  5. Boyle, M., and Greenberg, S. (2005). The Language of Privacy: Learning from Video Media Space Analysis and Design. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, vol. 12, no. 2, June 2005, pp. 328–370.Google Scholar
  6. Boyle, M., Neustaedter, C. and Greenberg, S. (2009) Privacy Factors in Video-based Media Spaces. In S. Harrison (ed.): Media Space: 20+ Years of Mediated Life. London: Springer, pp. 97–122.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, H. and Brennan, S. (1991) Grounding in Communication. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, and S.D. Teasley (eds): Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington: APA Books, pp. 127–149.Google Scholar
  9. Dourish, P. (1993). Culture and Control in a Media Space. In ECSCW'93. Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Milano, Italy, 13–17 September 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 125–137.Google Scholar
  10. Erickson, T., Smith, D. N., Kellogg, W. A., Laff, M., Richards, J. T., and Bradner, E. (1999). Socially translucent systems: social proxies, persistent conversation, and the design of “Babble”. In CHI'99. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 15–20 May 1999. New York: ACM Press, pp. 72–79.Google Scholar
  11. Greenberg, S., and Rounding, M. (2001). The notification collage: Posting information to public and personal displays. In CHI'01. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, Washington, USA, 31 March – 5 April 2001. ACM Press, pp. 514–521.Google Scholar
  12. Lederer, S., Hong, J., Dey, A., and Landay, J. (2004). Personal privacy through understanding and action: five pitfalls for designers. Journal of Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 8, no.6, November 2004, pp. 440–454.Google Scholar
  13. Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., and Christakis, N. (2008). The taste of privacy: An analysis of colleague student privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 4, no. 1, October 2008, pp. 79–100.Google Scholar
  14. Mackay, W. (1999). Triggers and barriers to customizing software. In CHI’99. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15–20 May 1999. New York: ACM Press, 1999, pp. 153–160.Google Scholar
  15. Markopoulos, P., Romero, N., van Baren, J., IJsselsteijn, W., de Ruyter, B., and Farschian, B. (2004). Keeping in touch with the family: Home and away with the ASTRA awareness system. In CHI’04. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Vienna, Austria, 24–29 April 2004. New York: ACM Press, pp. 1351–1354.Google Scholar
  16. McEwan, G. and Greenberg, S. (2005). Supporting social worlds with the community bar. In GROUP'05. Proceedings of the International Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, 6–9 November 2005. New York: ACM Press, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
  17. McEwan, G., Greenberg, S., Rounding, M., and Boyle, M. (2006). Groupware plug-ins: A case study of extending collaboration functionality through media items. In CollabTech’06. Proceedings of the International Conference of Collaboration Technologies, Tsukuba, Japan, 13-14 July 2006. Tokyo: Information Processing Society of Japan, pp. 42–47.Google Scholar
  18. McFarlane, D. C. (2002). Comparison of Four Primary Methods for Coordinating the Interruption of People in Human–Computer Interaction. Human Computer Interaction, vol. 17, no. 1, March 2002, pp. 63–139Google Scholar
  19. Metaxas, G., Metin, B., Jutta Schneider, J., Markopoulos, P., and de Ruyter, B. (2007). Daily Activities Diarist: Supporting Aging in Place with Semantically Enriched Narratives. In INTERACT’07. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 10–14 September 2007. Berlin: Springer, pp. 390–403.Google Scholar
  20. Miles, M. and Huberman, M.(1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Miller, T. and Stasko, J. (2001). The InfoCanvas: information conveyance through personalized, expressive art. In CHI’01. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, Washington, USA, 31 March – 5 April 2001. ACM Press, pp. 305–306.Google Scholar
  22. Monk, A. (2003). Common ground in electronically mediated communication: Clark’s theory of language use. In J.M. Carroll (ed.): HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 265–290.Google Scholar
  23. Nardi, B., Whittaker, S., and Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: instant messaging in action. In CSCW’00. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2–6 December 2000. New York: ACM Press, pp. 79–88.Google Scholar
  24. Palen, L. (1999). Social, individual and technological issues for groupware calendar systems. In CHI’99. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 15–20 May 1999. New York: ACM Press, pp. 17–24.Google Scholar
  25. Palen, L., and Dourish, P. (2003). Unpacking “privacy” for a networked world. In CHI’03. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA, 5–10 April 2003. New York: ACM Press, pp. 129–136.Google Scholar
  26. Patil, S., and Kobsa, A. (2004). Instant messaging and privacy. In HCI’04. Proceedings of Human Computer Interaction, Leeds, UK, 6–10 September 2004. Berlin: Springer, pp. 85–88.Google Scholar
  27. Patil, S., and Lai, J. (2005). Who gets to know what when: configuring privacy permissions in an awareness application. In CHI’05. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, Oregon, 2–7 April 2005. New York: ACM Press, pp. 101–110Google Scholar
  28. Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: dialectics of disclosure. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  29. Reichenbach, M., Damker, H., Federrath, H., and Rannenberg, K. (1997). Individual management of personal reachability in mobile communication. In SEC’97. Proceedings of the Conference on Information Security in Research and Business, Copenhagen, Denmark, 14–16 May 1997. UK: Chapman and Hall, pp. 164–174.Google Scholar
  30. Romero, N. (2008). Coordination of Interpersonal Privacy in Mediated Communication. Ph.D. dissertation. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven: Industrial Design Department.Google Scholar
  31. Romero, N., and Markopoulos, P. (2005). Common Ground to Analyse Privacy Coordination in Awareness Systems. In INTERACT’05. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Rome, Italy, 12–16 September 2005. Berlin: Springer, pp. 1006–1009.Google Scholar
  32. Romero, N. A. and Markopoulos, P. (2009). Grounding interpersonal privacy in mediated settings. In GROUP’09. Proceedings of the International Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, 10–13 May 2009. New York: ACM Press, pp. 263–272.Google Scholar
  33. Romero, N., Markopoulos, P., van Baren, J., de Ruyter, B., Ijsselsteijn, W. and Farshchian, B. (2007a). Connecting the family with awareness systems. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing [Special issue on “Memory and Sharing of Experiences”], vol. 11, no. 4, April 2007, pp. 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Romero, N., Matysiak, A., Kaptein, M., and Markopoulos, P. (2007b). Behaviours and preferences when coordinating mediated interruptions: Social and system influence. In ECSCW’07. Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Limerick, Ireland, 24–28 September 2007. London: Springer, pp. 351–370.Google Scholar
  35. Romero, N., Boer, L., and Markopoulos, P. (2009). Interactive and Lightweight Mechanisms to Coordinate Interpersonal Privacy in Mediated Communication. In INTERACT’09. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human–Computer interaction, Uppsala, Sweden, 24–28 August 2009. Berlin: Springer, pp. 832–833.Google Scholar
  36. Roussopoulos, M., Maniatis, P., Swierk, E., Lai, K., Appenzeller, G., and Baker, M. (1999). Person-level routing in the mobile people architecture. In USITS’99. Proceedings of the second USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems, Boulder, Colorado, 11–14 October 1999. Berkeley: USENIX Association, pp. 15–15.Google Scholar
  37. Garde-Perik, E.M. van de, Markopoulos, P., de Ruyter, B, Eggen, B., IJsselsteijn, W.A. (2008). Investigating privacy attitudes and behavior in relation to personalization. Social Science Computer Review, vol. 26, no. 1, February 2008, pp. 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wiberg, M. and Whittaker, S. (2005). Managing availability: supporting lightweight negotiations to handle interruptions. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction, vol.12, no.4, December 2005, pp. 356–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Woodruff, A. and Aoki, P. M. (2003). How push-to-talk makes talk less pushy. In GROUP'03. Proceedings of the International Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, Florida, 9–12 November 2003. New York: ACM Press, pp. 170–179.Google Scholar
  40. Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research, Design and Methods. Newbury Park, Calif.:Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalia A. Romero
    • 1
  • Panos Markopoulos
    • 2
  • Saul Greenberg
    • 3
  1. 1.Industrial Design Engineering FacultyDelft University of TechnologyDelftNetherlands
  2. 2.Industrial Design DepartmentEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenNetherlands
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations