Advertisement

Field Deployments: Knowing from Using in Context

  • Katie A. SiekEmail author
  • Gillian R. Hayes
  • Mark W. Newman
  • John C. Tang
Chapter

Abstract

Researchers deploy systems, typically robust prototypes, to users in situ for a number of purposes: to assess changes in behavior, to gather feedback on how to improve the system, to influence the attitude of the population to adopt the final system in the future. Researchers collect both quantitative data (e.g., frequency of use) and qualitative data (e.g., observations and interviews about situations of use and attitudes), and thus, this method is associated with a number of other methods in this book.

Keywords

Research Team Target Population Community Partner Homeless People Field Deployment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Brush, A. J. B., Inkpen, K., & Tee, K. (2008). SPARCS: Exploring sharing suggestions to enhance family connectedness. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2008) (pp. 629–638).Google Scholar
  2. Carter, S., & Mankoff, J. (2005). Prototypes in the wild: Lessons learned from evaluating three Ubicomp systems. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 4(4), 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cherns, A. (1976). The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 29(8), 783–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Connelly, K., Siek, K. A., Chaudry, B., Jones, J., Astroth, K., & Welch, J. L. (2012). An offline mobile nutrition monitoring intervention for varying literacy patients receiving hemodialysis: A pilot study examining usage and usability. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 19(5), 705–712. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Consolvo, S., Harrison, B., Smith, I., Chen, M. Y., Everitt, K., Froehlich, J., et al. (2007). Conducting in situ evaluations for and with ubiquitous computing technologies. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 22(1–2), 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Consolvo, S., Klasnja, P., McDonald, D. W., Avrahami, D., Froehlich, J., LeGrand, L., et al. (2008). Flowers or a robot army?: Encouraging awareness & activity with personal, mobile displays. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 54–63).Google Scholar
  7. Cramer, M., Hirano, S. H., Tentori, M., Yeganyan, M. T., & Hayes, G. R. (2011). Classroom-based assistive technology: Collective use of interactive visual schedules by students with autism. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘11) (pp. 1–10).Google Scholar
  8. DiMicco, J., Millen, D. R., Geyer, W., Dugan, C., Brownholtz, B., & Muller, M. (2008). Motivations for social networking at work. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 2008, San Diego, CA (pp. 711–720).Google Scholar
  9. Erickson, T., Smith, D. N., Kellogg, W. A., Laff, M., Richards, J. T., & Bradner, E. (1999). Socially translucent systems: Social proxies, persistent conversation, and the design of “Babble”. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 1999) (pp. 72–79).Google Scholar
  10. Favela, J., Tentori, M., & Gonzalez, V. M. (2010). Ecological validity and pervasiveness in the evaluation of ubiquitous computing technologies for healthcare. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 26(5), 414–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hart, S. G. (2006). NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 904-908). Santa Monica: HFES.Google Scholar
  12. Hayes, G. R. (2011, August). The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 18(3), Article 15, 20 pages.Google Scholar
  13. Hayes, G. R., Poole, E. S., Iachello, G., Patel, S. N., Grimes, A., Abowd, G. D., et al. (2007). Physical, social, and experiential knowledge in pervasive computing environments. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 6(4), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hazlewood, W. R., Stolterman, E., & Connelly, K. (2011). Issues in evaluating ambient displays in the wild: Two case studies. Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 877–886).Google Scholar
  15. Hirano, S., Yeganyan, M., Marcu, G., Nguyen, D., Boyd, L. A., & Hayes, G. R. (2010).vSked: Evaluation of a system to support classroom activities for children with autism. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘10) (pp. 1633–1642).Google Scholar
  16. Israel, B. A., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2005). Methods in community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Khan, D. U., Ananthanarayan, S., & Siek, K. A. (2011). Exploring everyday health routines of a low socioeconomic population through multimedia elicitations. Journal of Participatory Medicine, 3, e39. 10 pages.Google Scholar
  18. Le Dantec, C. A., & Edwards, W. K. (2008). Designs on dignity: perceptions of technology among the homeless. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 627–636). doi:10.1145/1357054.1357155Google Scholar
  19. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Morrow, D. S. (2002). Transcript of a video history interview with Jeff Hawkins, Founder, Chairman and Chief Product Officer Handspring [Interview transcript]. Retrieved from Computerworld Honors Program International Archives site: http://www.cwhonors.org/archives/histories/hawkins.pdf
  22. Newman, M. W., Ducheneaut, N., Edwards, W. K., Sedivy, J. Z., & Smith, F. (2007). Supporting the unremarkable: Experiences with the obje display mirror. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11(7), 523–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, & Practice, 19(3), 276–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. Scholtz, J., & Consolvo, S. (2004). Toward a framework for evaluating ubiquitous computing applications. IEEE Pervasive Computing Magazine, 3, 82–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sengers, P., & Gaver, B. (2006). Staying open to interpretation: Engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation. Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ‘06), New York, NY, USA (pp. 99–108). doi:10.1145/1142405.1142422.Google Scholar
  27. Stone, A. A., Shiffman, S., Schwartz, J. E., Broderick, J. E., & Hufford, M. R. (2003). Patient compliance with paper and electronic diaries. Controlled Clinical Trials, 24(2), 182–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication (learning in doing: Social cognitive and computational perspectives). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Talmon, J., Ammenwerth, E., Brender, J., de Keizer, N., Nykänen, P., & Rigby, M. (2009). STARE-HI–Statement on reporting of evaluation studies in Health Informatics. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 78(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tang, K. P., Hirano, S. H., Cheng, K. C., & Hayes, G. R. (2012). Balancing caregiver and clinician needs in a mobile health informatics tool for preterm infants. In 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
  31. Tang, J. C., & Isaacs, E. (1993). Why do users like video? Studies of multimedia supported collaboration. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1(3), 163–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tang, J. C., Isaacs, E. A., & Rua, M. (1994). Supporting distributed groups with a montage of lightweight interactions. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) ‘94, Chapel Hill, NC (pp. 23–34).Google Scholar
  33. Tang, J. C., Matthews, T., Cerruti, J. A., Dill, S., Wilcox, E., Schoudt, J., et al. (2009, February). Global differences in attributes of email usage. International Workshop on Intercultural Collaboration (IWIC 2009), Stanford, CA, (pp. 185–194).Google Scholar
  34. Tentori, M., & Favela, J. (2008). Collaboration and coordination in hospital work through Activity-aware Computing. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 17(4), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thomas, J. C., & Kellogg, W. A. (1989). Minimizing ecological gaps in interface design. IEEE Software, 6(1), 78–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Venolia, G., Tang, J., Cervantes, R., Bly, S., Robertson, G., Lee, B., et al. (2010). Embodied social proxy: Mediating interpersonal connection in hub-and-satellite teams. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2010) (pp. 1049–1058).Google Scholar
  37. Whittaker, S., Matthews, T., Cerruti, J. A., Badenes, H., & Tang, J. C. (2011). Am I wasting my time organizing email?: A study of email refinding. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2011) (pp. 3449–3458).Google Scholar
  38. Zheng, K., Newman, M. W., Veinot, T. C., Kim, H., Meadowbrooke, C. C., & Perry, E. E. (2010). Using online peer-mentoring to empower young adults with end-stage renal disease: A feasibility study. Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katie A. Siek
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Gillian R. Hayes
    • 3
  • Mark W. Newman
    • 4
  • John C. Tang
    • 5
  1. 1.InformaticsIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.University of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  3. 3.Bren School of Information and Computer SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  4. 4.School of Information, University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  5. 5.Microsoft ResearchMountain ViewUSA

Personalised recommendations