Socially-Oriented Requirements Engineering: Software Engineering Meets Ethnography

  • Sonja Pedell
  • Tim Miller
  • Frank Vetere
  • Leon Sterling
  • Steve Howard
Chapter
Part of the Studies in the Philosophy of Sociality book series (SIPS, volume 3)

Abstract

We outline an approach for eliciting, understanding, and representing the cultural aspects of the domestic environment for the purpose of system design. We use agent models as shared artefacts to represent the everyday cultural life of the home. These representations build an understanding between the people that own this culture and the people responsible for technology development. We argue the necessity of knowing about a formal representation of these cultural aspects to inform design decisions and develop technologies that truly satisfy and support the everyday life of families. Our aim is to express socially-oriented requirements for technology. We show the usefulness of this approach on a case study that investigates interactions between grandparents and grandchildren who are geographically separated.

References

  1. Arnold, M. The connected home: probing the effects and affects of domesticated ICTs. In Proc. PDC 2004, ACM Press, 1–4. (2004)Google Scholar
  2. Baxter G., and Sommerville, I. Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering. Interacting with Computers. 23, 4–17. (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, G., Blythe, M., and Sengers, P. Making by making strange: Defamiliarization and the design of domestic technologies. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 12, 2, 149–173. (2005)Google Scholar
  4. Brown, B., Taylor A., Izadi S., Sellen A., Kaye J. J., and Eardley R. Locating Family Values: A Field Trial of the Whereabouts Clock. In Proc. UbiComp’07. 354–371 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. Cao, X., Sellen, A., Brush, A. J. et al. Understanding family communication across time zones. In Proc. of CSCW 2010, ACM Press, 155–158. (2010)Google Scholar
  6. Cattan, M., White, M., Bond, J., & Learmouth, A. Preventing social isolation and loneliness among older people. Ageing & Society, 25, 1, 41–67. (2005)Google Scholar
  7. Chung LK, Nixon BA, Yu E, Mylopoulos J. Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Publishing. (2000)Google Scholar
  8. Dearden, A., and Rizvi, H. Participatory IT Design and Participatory Development: A Comparative Review. In Proc. PDC 2008, 1–10 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. Druin, A., Bederson, B. B., and Quinn, A. Designing intergenerational mobile storytelling. In Proc. IDC 2009, ACM Press, 325–328. (2009)Google Scholar
  10. Durrant, A., Taylor, A. S., Frohlich, D., Sellen, A., and Uzzell, D. Photo displays and intergenerational relationships in the family home. In Proc. BCS HCI 2009, ACM Press, 10–19. (2009)Google Scholar
  11. Garcia A. and N. Medinilla. The ambiguity criterion in software design. In International Workshop on Living with Uncertainties (IWLU’07). ACM, (2007)Google Scholar
  12. Gause. D. User DRIVEN design the luxury that has become a necessity, a workshop in full life-cycle requirements management. In ICRE 2000, Tutorial T7, (2000)Google Scholar
  13. Gaver B., Dunne T., and Pacenti E. Design: Cultural Probes. Interaction 6(1): 21–29. (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibbs, M. Vetere F., Bunyan M., and Howard S. SynchroMate: A Phatic Technology for Mediating Intimacy. In Proc. DUX 2005, AIGA 37, 5 pages (2005)Google Scholar
  15. Grivas, K. Digital Selves: Devices for intimate communications between homes. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 10, 2–3, 66–76. (2006)Google Scholar
  16. Gross H. Component-based Software Testing with UML. Springer. (2005)Google Scholar
  17. Guizzardi R. and A. Perini. Analyzing requirements of knowledge management systems with the support of agent organizations. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society (JBCS)-Special Issue on Agents Organizations, 11(1):51–62, (2005)Google Scholar
  18. Harper, R. Inside the Smart Home: Ideas, possibilities, methods. In Harper, R. (Ed). Inside the Smart Home: Interdisciplinary perspectives on the design and shaping of domestic computing. Berlin Springer, 1–13. (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hassenzahl, M. The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. In M. Blythe, C. Overbeeke, A. Monk, P. Wright (eds.). Funology: From usability to enjoyment. Kluwer, 31–42. (2003)Google Scholar
  20. Hemmings, T., Clarke, K., Crabtree, A., Rodden, T. and Rouncefield, M. Probing the probes. Domestic Probes and the Design Process. Proc. PDC 2002, 42–50. (2002)Google Scholar
  21. Howard, S., Kjeldskov, J., and Skov, M. (eds). Pervasive Computing in the Domestic Space. J. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 329–414. (2006)Google Scholar
  22. Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W., Westerlund, B., et al. Technology Probes: Inspiring Design for and with Families. In Proc. CHI 2003, ACM Press, 17–24. (2003)Google Scholar
  23. Iqbal, R., James, J., and Gatward, R. Designing with ethnography: An integrative approach to CSCW design. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 19:81–92. (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Judge, T. K., Neustaedter, C., and Kurtz, A. F. The family window: the design and evaluation of a domestic media space. In Proc. CHI 2010, ACM Press, 2361–2370. (2010)Google Scholar
  25. Jureta I. J., and Faulkner S. Clarifying goal model. Conceptual modelling. Proc. ER, 139–144. (2007)Google Scholar
  26. Kirikova M, Grundspenkis J, Wojtkowski W, Zupancic J, and Wrycza S. Information Systems Development: Advances in Methodologies, Components, and Management. Springer. (2002)Google Scholar
  27. Leonardi, C., Mennecozzi, C., Not, E., et al. Knocking on elders’ door: investigating the functional and emotional geography of their domestic space. In Proc. CHI 2009, ACM Press, 1703–1712. (2009)Google Scholar
  28. Lindley, S. E., Harper, R., and Sellen, A. Desiring to be in touch in a changing communications landscape: Attitudes of older adults. In Proc. SIGCHI 2009, ACM Press, 1693–1702 (2009a)Google Scholar
  29. Lindley, S. E., Sellen, A., and Harper R. Bridging the gap between grandparents and teenagers. CHI 2009b http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/groups/sds/ publications.aspx
  30. Martin D, Sommerville I. Patterns of Cooperative Interaction: Linking Ethnomethodology and Design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 11(1):59–89. (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paay, J., Sterling, L., Vetere, F., Howard, S., and Boettcher, A. Engineering the Social: The Role of Shared Artifacts, IJHCS, 67(5):437–454. (2009)Google Scholar
  32. Patton, M. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks California, (2002)Google Scholar
  33. Pavon, J., Arroyo M., Hassan, S., and Sansores. C. Agent-based modelling and simulation for the analysis of social patterns. Pattern Recognition Letters, 29(8):1039–1048, (2008)Google Scholar
  34. Pedell, S., Miller T., Vetere, F. et al. Having fun at home: interleaving fieldwork and goal models, Proc. OZCHI 2009, 309–312. (2009)Google Scholar
  35. Petersen, M. G. Squeeze: designing for playful experiences among co-located people in homes. In Proc. CHI 2007, ACM Press, 2609–2614. (2007)Google Scholar
  36. Randall, D., Harper, R., and Rouncefield, M. Fieldwork for Design: Theory and Practice. Springer. (2007)Google Scholar
  37. Reekie H., and McAdam R. A Software Architecture Primer: Angophora Press. (2006)Google Scholar
  38. Sommerville, I. Software Engineering (8th ed). Addison Wesley, Harlow, Essex. (2007)Google Scholar
  39. Sterling, L., and Taveter, K. The Art of Agent-Oriented Modelling. MIT Press. (2009)Google Scholar
  40. Vetere, F., Davis, H., Gibbs, M., Howard, S. The Magic Box and collage: responding to the challenge of distributed intergenerational play. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 67 (2), 165–178. (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vetere, F., Smith, J. and Gibbs, M. Phatic Interactions: Being Aware and Feeling Connected. In P. Markopoulos, B. de Ruyter, and W. Mackay (eds) Awareness Systems: Advances in Theory, Methodology and Design. Springer Verlag, London, 173–186. (2009)Google Scholar
  42. Viller, S., and Sommerville, I. Ethnographically informed analysis for software engineers. IJHCS, 53(1):169–196. (2000)Google Scholar
  43. Vutborg R., Kjeldskov J., Vetere F., and Pedell S. Family Storytelling for Grandparents and Grandchildren living apart. In Proc. NordiCHI 2010, ACM, 531–540. (2010)Google Scholar
  44. Yarosh, S., Cuzzort, S., Müller, H. and Abowd, G. D. Developing a media space for remote synchronous parent–child interaction. In Proc. IDC 2009, ACM Press, 97–105. (2009)Google Scholar
  45. Zafiroglu, A. and Chang, M. Digital homes on wheels: designing for the unimagined home. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 11, 5, 395–402. (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sonja Pedell
    • 1
  • Tim Miller
    • 2
  • Frank Vetere
    • 2
  • Leon Sterling
    • 3
  • Steve Howard
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of DesignSwinburne University of TechnologyPrahranAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Computing and Information SystemsThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  3. 3.Faculty of Information and Communication TechnologiesSwinburne University of TechnologyHawthornAustralia

Personalised recommendations