Let the User Decide! User Preferences Regarding Functions, Apps, and Interfaces of a Smart Home and a Service Robot

  • Birte SchiffhauerEmail author
  • Jasmin Bernotat
  • Friederike Eyssel
  • Rebecca Bröhl
  • Jule Adriaans
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9979)


In an online survey, we studied user expectations and preferences for functions and apps in the context of a smart apartment. Furthermore, we explored which type of interface users would choose for an interaction with the smart apartment. Equally important, we investigated users’ acceptance of a service robot in the smart home. Results showed high levels of acceptance for both, the smart apartment and the robot, although the preferred interface for the apartment was context dependent. We discuss implications of the current survey and highlight key aspects to be taken into consideration when developing innovation technology for the home context.


User experience User preferences Human-robot interaction Smart home User-centered design Usability 



This research has been conducted in the framework of the European Project CODEFROR (FP7 PIRSES-2013-612555) and was supported by the Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology ‘CITEC’ (EXC 277) at Bielefeld University, which is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).


  1. 1.
    Botthof, A., Domröse, W., Groß, W.: Technologische und wirtschaftliche Perspektiven Deutschlands durch die Konvergenz der elektronischen Medien [Technicological and Economical Perspectives of Germany through the Convergence of Electronic Media]. Studie der VDI/VDE Innovation + Technik GmbH, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    SmartHome Initiative Deutschland e.V., mm1 Consulting, GdW: Smart Home- und AAL-Technologien in der Immobilien- und Wohnungswirtschaft [Smart Home and AAL Technologies in Real Estate and Apartment Business].
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Kaasinen, E., Kymäläinen, T., Niemelä, M., Olsson, T., Kanerva, M., Ikonen, V.: A user-centric view of intelligent environments: user expectations, user experience, and user role in building intelligent environments. Computers 2, 1–33 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holthaus, P., Leichsenring, C., Bernotat, J., Richter, V., Pohling, M., Carlmeyer, B., Koster, N., zu Borgsen, S.M., Zorn, R., Schiffhauer, B., Engelmann, K.F., Lier, F., Schulz, S., Cimiano, P., Eyssel, F., Hermann, T., Kummert, F., Schlangen, D., Wachsmuth, S., Wagner, P., Wrede, B., Wrede, S.: How to address smart homes with a social robot? A multi-modal corpus of user interactions with an intelligent environment. In: 10th Edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. LREC Press, Portoroz (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strese, H., Seidel, U., Knape, T., Botthof, A.: Smart home in Deutschland [Smart home in Germany]. Institut für Innovation und Technik (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ben Allouch, S., van Dijk, J.A., Peters, O.: The acceptance of domestic ambient intelligence appliances by prospective users. In: Tokuda, H., Beigl, M., Friday, A., Brush, A., Tobe, Y. (eds.) Pervasive 2009. LNCS, vol. 5538, pp. 77–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-01516-8_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mahmood, M.A., Burn, J.M., Gemoets, L.A., Jacquez, C.: Variables affecting information technology end-user satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Int. 52, 751–771 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ehrlich, K., Rohn, J.: Cost Justification of Usability Engineering: A Vendor’s Perspective. In: Bias, R., Mayhew, D. (eds.) Cost-Justifying Usability, pp. 73–110. Academic Press, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Green, W., Gyi, D., Kalawsky, R., Atkins, D.: Capturing User Requirements for an Integrated Home Environment. In: 3rd Proceedings of the Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 255–258. ACM Press, Stockholm (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jeong, K.A., Salvendy, G., Proctor, R.W.: Smart Home Design and Operation Preferences of Americans and Koreans. Ergonomics 53, 636–660 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vacher, M., Fleury, A., Portet, F., Serignat, J.F., Noury, N.: Complete sound and speech recognition system for health smart homes: application to the recognition of activities of daily living. In: Campolo, D. (ed.) New Developments in Biomedical Engineering, pp. 645–673. InTech (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Antonopoulos, C., Keramidas, G., Voros, N.S., Hübner, M., Göhringer, D., Dagioglou, M., Giannakopoulos, T., Konstantopoulos, S., Karkaletsis, V.: Robots in assisted living environments as an unobtrusive, efficient, reliable and modular solution for independent ageing: the radio perspective. In: Sano, K., Soudris, D., Hübner, M., Diniz, P.C. (eds.) ARC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9040, pp. 519–530. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16214-0_48 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Consolvo, S., Roessler, P., Shelton, B.E.: The CareNet display: lessons learned from an in home evaluation of an ambient display. In: Davies, N., Mynatt, E.D., Siio, I. (eds.) UbiComp 2004. LNCS, vol. 3205, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-30119-6_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Röcker, C., Janse, M.D., Portolan, N., Streitz, N.: User requirements for intelligent home environments: a scenario-driven approach and empirical cross-cultural study. In: Proceedings of the 2005 Joint Conference on Smart Objects and Ambient Intelligence: Innovative context-aware Services: Usages and Technologies, pp. 111–116. ACM Press, Grenoble (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neyer, F., Felber, J., Gebhardt, C.: Entwicklung und Validierung einer Kurzskala zur Erfassung von Technikbereitschaft [Development and Evaluation of a Short-Scale to Assess Technology Commitment], pp. 87–99. Diagnostica (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Misker, J., Lindenberg, J., Neerincx, M.A: Users want simple control over device selection. In: Proceedings of the 2005 Joint Conference on Smart Objects and Ambient Intelligence: Innovative context-aware Services: Usages and Technologies, pp. 129–134. ACM Press, Grenoble (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bartneck, C., Bleeker, T., Bun, J., Fens, P., Riet, L.: The influence of robot anthropomorphism on the feelings of embarrassment when interacting with robots. J. Behav. Robot 1, 109–115 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Birte Schiffhauer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jasmin Bernotat
    • 1
  • Friederike Eyssel
    • 1
  • Rebecca Bröhl
    • 1
  • Jule Adriaans
    • 1
  1. 1.Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction TechnologyBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations