Advertisement

Gadgile Probing: Supporting Design of Active Mobile Interactions

  • Susanne Koch StigbergEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9746)

Abstract

Designing for mobile interactions is a difficult task. Designers must understand the multifaceted nature of the mobile context and require an overview of interaction techniques feasible for that context. We propose gadgile probing as a technique to support the design for mobile interactions. Introducing “off-the-shelf” technology in the inquiry phase enables designers to explore not only what is but also what could be early in the process. We present an example from running and biking. Our findings demonstrate that gadgile probing can complement contextual inquiries providing a good understanding of the context, listing needs and desires of participants, evaluating alternative interaction techniques, and inspiring designers and users to ideate about future technologies.

Keywords

Probing Probes Interaction design Mobile interactions 

References

  1. 1.
    Bach, K.M., et al.: You can touch, but you can’t look: interacting with in-vehicle systems. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1139–1148. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergstrom-Lehtovirta, J., et al.: The effects of walking speed on target acquisition on a touchscreen interface. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pp. 143–146. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beyer, H., Holtzblatt, K.: Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. Elsevier, ‎Amsterdam (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boehner, K., et al.: How HCI interprets the probes. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1077–1086. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edwards, H.M., et al.: Exploring teenagers’ motivation to exercise through technology probes. In: Proceedings of the 25th BCS Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 104–113. British Computer Society, Swinton (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fitton, D., et al.: Probing technology with technology probes. In: Equator Workshop on Record and Replay Technologies (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gaver, B., et al.: Design: cultural probes. Interactions 6(1), 21–29 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gaver, W.W., et al.: Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Interactions 11(5), 53–56 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gemperle, F., et al.: Design for wearability. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers, p. 116. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Graham, C., Rouncefield, M.: Probes and participation. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008, pp. 194–197. Indiana University, Indianapolis (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hutchinson, H., et al.: Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 17–24. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ishii, H., Ullmer, B.: Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 234–241. ACM, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim, K., et al.: Wearable-object-based interaction for a mobile audio device. In: CHI 2010 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3865–3870. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kurdyukova, E.: Inspire, guide, and entertain: designing a mobile assistant for runners. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pp. 75:1–75:2. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lumsden, J., Brewster, S.: A paradigm shift: alternative interaction techniques for use with mobile & wearable devices. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research, pp. 197–210. IBM Press, Toronto (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marshall, J., Tennent, P.: Mobile interaction does not exist. In: CHI 2013 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2069–2078. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Negulescu, M., et al.: Tap, swipe, or move: attentional demands for distracted smartphone input. In: Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, pp. 173–180. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Noy, Y.I., et al.: Task interruptability and duration as measures of visual distraction. Appl. Ergon. 35(3), 207–213 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Brien, S., Mueller, F.: “Floyd”: holding hands over a distance: technology probes in an intimate, mobile context. In: Proceedings of the 18th Australia Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Design: Activities, Artefacts and Environments, pp. 293–296. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Oliveira, R., Oliver, N.: TripleBeat: enhancing exercise performance with persuasion. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pp. 255–264. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Preuschl, E., et al.: Mobile motion advisor — a feedback system for physical exercise in schools. Procedia Eng. 2(2), 2741–2747 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raven, M.E., Flanders, A.: Using contextual inquiry to learn about your audiences. SIGDOC Asterisk J. Comput. Doc. 20(1), 1–13 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saponas, T.S., et al.: Devices that tell on you: The nike+ipod sport kit (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceØstfold University CollegeHaldenNorway

Personalised recommendations