Advertisement

Creating a Sense of Unity: From Quantified Self to Qualitative Space

  • Fatemeh Moradi
  • Mikael Wiberg
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9737)

Abstract

The design and usage of Personal Informatics (PI) systems have been subjects of rapidly growing interest in recent years. PI systems are typically designed to monitor individuals’ physical activity and encourage them to be more active, thereby ‘hacking’ the habit of prolonged sitting. Most PI systems focus solely on collecting quantitative data to encourage self-reflection and are therefore sometimes discussed in terms of the Quantified Self movement. However, this perspective is wholly focused on individual bodily movements and neglects the role of architectural spaces. This paper discusses an ongoing project focused on PI systems design at the intersection of bodily movements and the office as an architectural space. Taking this as a point of departure, we introduce a simple prototype interactive lamp known as the NEAT lamp, which was designed, implemented and evaluated in relation to everyday office work. The rationale underpinning the prototype’s design is presented, followed by the results of a real-world evaluation of its effects in practice. We also discuss the role of the NEAT lamp as an ambient light that promotes awareness of sedentary behavior in the office as an open architectural space. Finally, we highlight the role of ambient displays as a medium for creating a sense of unity between the self and the architectural space, and propose that this observation suggests that we should move the discussion away from “quantified selves” towards qualitative spaces.

Keywords

Personal informatics Design Notification systems Ambient light Architectural space 

References

  1. Barnes, R.M.: Motion and Time Study Applications. Wiley, Hoboken (1953)Google Scholar
  2. Bellotti, V., Bly, S.: Walking away from the desktop computer: distributed collaboration and mobility in a product design team. In: Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM (1996)Google Scholar
  3. Bureau of Labor Statics: Bureau of Labor Statics, 26 October 2015. http://www.bls.gov/tus/charts
  4. Burns, P., Lueg, C., Berkovsky, S.: Activmon: encouraging physical activity through ambient social awareness. In: CHI 2012 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, A.: Design Anthropology. Actar, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  6. Corlett, E.: Analysis and evaluation of working posture. In: Ergonomics of Workstation Design, vol. 13. Butterworths, London (1983)Google Scholar
  7. Elsden, C., Kirk, D., Selby, M., Speed, C.: Beyond personal informatics: designing for experiences with data. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  8. Hazlewood, W.R., Stolterman, E., Connelly, K.: Issues in evaluating ambient displays in the wild: two case studies. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  9. Heidegger, M.: Building dwelling thinking. In: Poetry, Language, Thought, vol. 154 (1971)Google Scholar
  10. Jafarinaimi, N., Forlizzi, J., Hurst, A., Zimmerman, J.: Breakaway: an ambient display designed to change human behavior. In: CHI 2005 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  11. Levine, J.A.: Nonexercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT): environment and biology. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 286(5), E675–E685 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Li, I., Dey, A., Forlizzi, J.: A stage-based model of personal informatics systems. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  13. Luff, P., Heath, C.: Mobility in collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 1998 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM (1998)Google Scholar
  14. Maeda, J.: The Laws of Simplicity. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  15. McAlpine, D.A., Manohar, C.U., McCrady, S.K., Hensrud, D., Levine, J.A.: An office-place stepping device to promote workplace physical activity. Br. J. Sports Med. 41(12), 903–907 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McCullough, M.: New media urbanism: grounding ambient information technology. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 34(3), 383–395 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moradi, F., Wiberg, M.: Redesigning work-from sedentariness to activeness. Procedia Technol. 9, 1005–1015 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Norberg-Schulz, C.: Architecture Presence, Language and Place (2000)Google Scholar
  19. Ohlin, F., Olsson, C.M.: Beyond a utility view of personal informatics: a postphenomenological framework. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  20. Pallasmaa, J.: The Thinking Hand. AD Primer, London (2009)Google Scholar
  21. Pallasmaa, J.: The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. Wiley, Hoboken (2012)Google Scholar
  22. Pallasmaa, J., MacKeith, P., Tullberg, D.C., Wynne-Ellis, M.: Encounters: Architectural Essays. Rakennustieto Oy, Helsinki (2005)Google Scholar
  23. Ploderer, B., Reitberger, W., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., van Gemert-Pijnen, J.: Social interaction and reflection for behaviour change. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 18(7), 1667–1676 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shirazi, M.R.: Towards an Articulated Phenomenological Interpretation of Architecture: Phenomenal Phenomenology. Routledge, Abingdon (2014)Google Scholar
  25. Stolterman, E., Wiberg, M.: Concept-driven interaction design research. Hum. Comput. Interact. 25(2), 95–118 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Swan, M.: Sensor mania! The internet of things, wearable computing, objective metrics, and the quantified self 2.0. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 1(3), 217–253 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thorp, A.A., Healy, G.N., Winkler, E., Clark, B.K., Gardiner, P.A., Owen, N., Dunstan, D.W.: Prolonged sedentary time and physical activity in workplace and non-work contexts: a cross-sectional study of office, customer service and call centre employees. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 9(1), 128 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van der Ploeg, H.P., Chey, T., Korda, R.J., Banks, E., Bauman, A.: Sitting time and all-cause mortality risk in 222 497 Australian adults. Arch. Intern. Med. 172(6), 494–500 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wiberg, M.: Interaction design meets architectural thinking. Interactions 22(2), 60–63 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wiberg, M., Moradi, F.: Information and engagement in personal informatics systems design. In: The Power of Information Conference, Brussels, 20–23 January 2013Google Scholar
  31. Zumthor, P., Oberli-Turner, M., Schelbert, C., Binet, H.: Thinking Architecture. Birkhäuser, Boston (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations