Advertisement

Control of Smart Home Technologies

  • Tom Hargreaves
  • Charlie Wilson
Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

In this chapter we focus on a specific theme that is central to research on SHTs: control. The potential benefits of SHTs are dependent on householders having more and finer-grained control over their appliances, homes and even their everyday lives and routines. Diving deeper into the qualitative interview material introduced in Chap.  5, we interrogate the many positive and negative ways in which control surfaces as an issue when householders use SHTs. We start by reviewing existing ideas of control in research on SHTs. We identify three distinct meanings of the term control: (i) ‘artefactual’ control which refers to the ability to use SHTs to control technologies and devices around the home; (ii) ‘perceptual’ control which refers to how SHTs impact upon householders’ feelings of control inside their home; and (iii) ‘relational’ control which refers to how SHTs affect householders’ control over their everyday lives, activities and relationships. We then explore how these distinct forms and meanings of control emerged and were experienced by householders in the SHT field trial. We also examine the inter-relationships between these distinct forms of control which can generate both positive and negative feedback loops impacting how householders use SHTs.

References

  1. Balta-Ozkan N, Davidson R, Bicket M, Whitmarsh L (2013) Social barriers to the adoption of smart homes. Energy Policy 63:363–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg C (1994) A gendered socio-technical construction: the smart house. In: Cockburn C, Furst-Dilic R (eds) Bringing technology home: gender and technology in a changing Europe. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  3. Cook DJ (2012) How smart is your home? Science 335(6076):1579–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davidoff S, Lee MK, Yiu C, Zimmerman J, Dey AK (2006) Principles of smart home control. Lect Notes Comput Sci 4206:19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edwards WK, Grinter RE (2001) At home with ubiquitous computing: seven challenges. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2201:256–272CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Friedewald M, Da Costa O, Punie Y, Alahuhta P, Heinonen S (2005) Perspectives of ambient intelligence in the home environment. Telematics Inform 22:221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hansen M, Hauge B (2017) Scripting, control, and privacy in domestic smart grid technologies: insights from a Danish pilot study. Energy Res Soc Sci 25:112–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Koskela T, Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K (2005) Evolution towards smart home environments: empirical evaluation of three user interfaces. Pers Ubiquit Comput 8:234–240Google Scholar
  9. Lee MK, Davidoff S, Zimmerman J, Dey A (2006) Smart homes, families and control. Research showcase at Carnegie-Mellon University Paper. Human-Computer Interaction Institute, School of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  10. Leppanen S, Jokinen M (2003) Daily routines and means of communication in a smart home. In: Harper R (ed) Inside the smart home. Springer-Verlag, London, pp 207–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lewis SCR (2012) Energy in the smart home. In: Harper R (ed) The connected home: the future of domestic life. Springer-Verlag, London, pp 281–300Google Scholar
  12. Norman DA (1994) How might people interact with agents. Commun ACM 37:68–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nyborg S, Røpke I (2011) Energy impacts of the smart home—conflicting visions. Paper presented at the ECEEE 2011 Summer Study, Toulon, France. 6–11 June 2011Google Scholar
  14. Paetz A-G, Dutschke E, Fichtner W (2012) Smart homes as a means to sustainable energy consumption: a study of consumer perceptions. J Consum Policy 35:23–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Park SH, Won SH, Lee JB, Kim SW (2003) Smart home—digitally engineered domestic life. Pers Ubiquit Comput 7:189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Randall D (2003) Living Inside a smart home: a case study. In: Harper R (ed) Inside the smart home. Springer-Verlag, London, pp 227–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Richardson HJ (2009) A ‘smart house’ is not a home: the domestication of ICTs. Info Syst Front 11:599–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Strengers Y (2013) Smart energy technologies in everyday life: smart utopia?. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Strengers Y (2015) Smart homes promise to end the ‘wife drought’, but where do women fit in? The Conversation. Available online at: https://theconversation.com/smart-homes-promise-to-end-the-wife-drought-but-where-do-women-fit-in-50976. Last accessed 1 Mar 16
  20. Strengers Y, Morley J, Nicholls L, Hazas M (2016) The hidden energy costs of smart homes. The conversation (12 June 2016) Online at: https://theconversation.com/the-hidden-energy-cost-of-smart-homes-60306
  21. Takayama L, Pantofaru C, Robson D, Soto B, Barry M (2012) Making technology homey: finding sources of satisfaction and meaning in home automation. Paper presented at the Ubicomp 2012, Pittsburgh, USA, 5–8 Sept 2012Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science, Society and Sustainability Research Group (3S), School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  2. 2.Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations