Place and Technology in the Home

Article

Abstract

The home is a complex environment, designed for general use but shaped by individual needs and desires. It is a place often shared by several people with different demands and requirements. It is a place embedded with technologies utilised at various times by people in diverse ways. Until recently most home technologies have been primarily functional; aimed at easing domestic chores such as cooking, washing and cleaning. In the last few years information and communication technologies have added to the technological complexity of the home. Entertainment technologies have become increasingly dominant, as the simple TV has given way to video, DVD and satellite or cable services. Technologies converge and diverge to create new hybrid experiences; a trend which we see continuing. Moreover in the future ubiquitous and ambient computing devices and functions will become hidden and communications between devices will become more complex. It is against this background that we undertook a number of studies into the place of technologies and technology use in the home. We studied the placement and use of existing technologies in five homes in Scotland using a novel, multi-part, naturalistic methodology. Transcripts from the studies were analysed using a grounded theory approach in an attempt to draw out key, recurring concepts concerning technology use at home. Eight concepts – place, learning, utility, interaction, control, cost, lifecycle and privacy – emerged from this analysis. Additionally, four types of space were identified in homes; communication, work, leisure (private) and leisure (public). In this paper we focus on these four spaces and how they fit in with previous work on places and spaces in the home. We present a contextually grounded method of investigation of home technologies, the technology tour, and show how the four spaces in the home can be understood and represented as maps of the home layout that are often different for different members of the household. This understanding of place can be set alongside an understanding of technology where the themes of utility, interaction, cost and lifecycle are most important. General design issues that cross place and technology in the home are discussed in the final section of the paper. These can be used to sensitise designers of both artefacts and physical spaces to the needs of people and their use of technologies at home.

Key words

technology tour spaces places children home user centred design maps 

References

  1. Alderson, S. (1962): Britain in the Sixties: Housing. Penguin: Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, C., S. Ishikawa, M. Silverstein, M. Jacobson, I. Fiksdahl-King, and S. Angel (1977): A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press: New York, NY.Google Scholar
  3. Attfield, J. (1999): Bringing Modernity Home: Open Plan in the British Domestic Interior. In I. Cieraad (ed): At Home: An Anthropology of Domestic Space (p. 73–82), New York: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baillie, L., and M.G. Petersen (2001): Emerging Themes in Designing Future Household Technologies. In Proceedings of OIKOS Working Conference (12–13 March, Molslaboratoriet, Denmark. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, 44–46.Google Scholar
  5. Baillie, L., Benyon, D.R., Macaulay, C., and Petersen, M.G. (2003): Investigating Design Issues in Household Environments. Journal of Cognition, Technology and Work, vol. 1, pp. 33–43.Google Scholar
  6. Beyer, H. and K. Holtzblatt (1998): Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1984): Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Translated by Richard Nice). Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  8. Burnett, J. (1978): A Social History of Housing: 1815–1970. David and Charles: Newton Abbot.Google Scholar
  9. Crabtree, A. and T. Rodden (2002): Patterns: Problems and Solutions? (Example Pattern), Workshop 4. Socio-Technical Pattern Languages, Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, November 16., New Orleans: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  10. Crabtree, A. and T. Rodden (2004): Domestic Routines and Design for the Home. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 13, pp. 191–220. The Netherlands, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Csikszentmihalyi, M., and E. Rochberg-Halton (1981): The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self. Cambridge University Press: New York.Google Scholar
  12. CTW. (2003): Special Edition of Cognition, Technology and Work, vol. 5(1), pp. 1–66.Google Scholar
  13. Cunningham, C.E. (1973): Order in the Aroni House. In R. Needham (ed): Right and Left: Essays on Dual Symbolic Classification (p. 204–238), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. De Mare, H. (1999): Domestic Dispute: A Reconsideration of Sources. In I. Cieraad (ed): At Home: An Anthropology of Domestic Space (p. 13–30), New York: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Douglas, M. (1972): Symbolic Orders in the Domestic Space. In P.J. Ucko, R. Tringham. and G.W. Dimbleby (eds): Man, Settlement and Urbanisation (p. 513–522), London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  16. Eggen, B., G. Hollemans, and R. Van de Sluis (2003): Exploring and Enhancing the Home Experience. Cognition Technology and Work, vol. 5(1), pp. 44–54.Google Scholar
  17. Elliot, K., C. Neustaedter, and S. Greenberg (2005): Time, Meaning and Ownership: the Value of Location in the Home. In the Proceedings of Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 251–268.Google Scholar
  18. Equator, 2006: http://www.equator.ac.uk/index.php/articles/c65/. Accessed January 22 2006.
  19. Forty, A. (1986): Objects of Desire: Design and Society Since 1750. Thames & Hudson: London.Google Scholar
  20. Gaver, W. (2001): Designing for Ludic Aspects of Everyday Life, ERCIM News, no. 47. http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw47/gaver.html.
  21. Gaver, W., and E. Pacenti (1999): Cultural Probes. Interactions of the ACM, vol. 6(1), pp. 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giddens, A. (1984): The Constitution of Society. University of California Press: Berkeley CA.Google Scholar
  23. Glaser, B. G. and A.L. Strauss (1967): The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine De Gruyter: New York.Google Scholar
  24. Harper, R. (2000): Domestic Design: An Introduction to the Research Issues Surrounding the Development and Design of Interactive Technologies for the Home. Special Edition of Personal Technologies, vol. 4(1), pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
  25. Harper, R., E. Venetia, L. Hamill, and J. Strain (2001): Paper-Mail in the Home of the 21st Century: An Analysis of the Future of Paper-Mail and Implications for the Design of Electronic Alternatives. Paper Presented at OIKOS Working Conference. Molslaboratoriet: Denmark.Google Scholar
  26. Harrison, S. and Dourish, P. (1996): Re-Place-ing Space: The Roles of Space and Place in Collaborative Systems. Proceedings of CSCW 96, 67–76. ACM: New York, NY.Google Scholar
  27. Hindus, D., S.D. Mainwaring, N. Leduc, A.E. Hagstöm, and O. Bayley Casablanca: Designing Social Communication Devices for the Home. In The Proceedings of CHI’2001. Seattle, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
  28. HOIT, 2005: http://www.hoit2005.org/. Accessed January 22 2006.
  29. Hughes, J., J. O’Brien, and T. Rodden (1998): Understanding Technology in Domestic Environments: Lessons for Cooperative Buildings. Paper Presented at The 1st International Workshop on Cooperative Buildings (Cobuild’98) Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
  30. IJHCS (2001): Special issue of International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, vol. 54(5).Google Scholar
  31. Junestrand, S., U. Keijer, and K. Tollmar (2001): Private and Public Digital Domestic Spaces. International Journal Human Computer Studies, vol. 54, pp. 753–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jungk, R., and Mullert, N. (1987): Future Workshops: How to Create Desirable Futures. Institute for Social Inventions: London.Google Scholar
  33. Kent, S. (1990): Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study. Cambridge University Press: London.Google Scholar
  34. Kjaer, A., K.H. Madsen, and M.G. Petersen (2000): Methodological Challenges in the Study of Technology Use at Home. Paper Presented at Home-Oriented Informatics and Telematics (HOIT) An IFIP W.G. 9.3. International Working Conference, Wolverhampton.Google Scholar
  35. Lawson, B. (2001): The Language of Space. The Architectural Press: Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  36. Livingstone, S. (1992): The Meaning of Domestic Technologies: A Personal Construct Analysis of Familial Gender Relations. In R. Silverstone and E. Hirsch (eds): Consuming Technologies: Media and Information Spaces (p. 113–129), London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. MacLeod, R. (1983): Charles Rennie MacIntosh: Architect and Artist. Collins: Glasgow.Google Scholar
  38. Mateas, M., T. Salvador, J. Scholtz, and D. Sorensen (1996): Engineering Ethnography in the Home. Paper Presented at CHI’96 Conference companion on human-factors in computing systems: Common Ground. New York.Google Scholar
  39. McCarthy, J., and P. Wright (2004): Technology as Experience. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
  40. Miller, D. (1987): Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
  41. Murdock, G., P. Hartmann, and P. Gray (1992): Contextualising Home Computing: Resources and Practices. In R. Silverstone and E. Hirsch (eds): Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic Spaces (p. 146–162), London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. NOAH, (2005): http://www.crito.uci.edu/noah/. Accessed January 22, 2006.
  43. O’Brien, J., T. Rodden, M. Rouncefield, and J. Hughes (1999): At Home with the Technology: An Ethnographic Study if a Set-Top-Box Trial. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, vol. 6(3), pp. 282–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Relph, E. (1976): Place and Placelessness. Pion Books: London.Google Scholar
  45. Short, J.R. (1999): Foreword. In I. Cieraad (ed): At Home: An Anthropology of Domestic Space (p. 9–11), New York: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Silverstone, R., and E. Hirsch (1992): Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic Spaces. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  47. Silverstone, R., E. Hirsch, and D. Morley (1992): Information and Communication Technologies and the Moral Economy of the Household. In R. Silverstone and E. Hirsch (eds): Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic Spaces (p. 15–30), London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Stewart, J. (2003): Investigating ICTs in everyday life: Insights from research on the adoption and consumption of new ICTs in the domestic environment. In Journal of Cognition Technology and Work, vol. 5, pp. 4–14.Google Scholar
  49. Stringer, M., G. Fitzpatrick, and E. Harris (2006): Lessons for the Future: Experiences with the Installation and Use of Today’s Domestic Sensors and Technologies. In the Proceedings of Pervasive Computing, May 7–10th. Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  50. Tolmie, P., J. Pycock, T. Diggins, A. MacLean, and A. Karsenty (2002): Unremarkable Computing. In Proceedings of CHI 2002, April 20–25th. Minneanapolis, USA.Google Scholar
  51. Tuan, Y. (1977): Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  52. Venkatesh, A. (1996) Computers and Other Interactive Technologies for the Home. ACM, vol. 39(12), pp. 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ViennaAustria
  2. 2.School of Computing, Merchiston CampusNapier UniversityEdinburghScotland

Personalised recommendations