Sensing Home: Participatory Exploration of Smart Sensors in the Home

Part of the Internet of Things book series (ITTCC)


More and more things in the home are sensor equipped and connected to an all encompassing Internet of Things (IoT). These »smart« things may offer novel ways to interact but also raise questions around their social implications. While participatory research on IoT for the smart city has shown that technically functioning IoT toolkits are valuable research tools, surprisingly few such toolkits exist for participatory research on the smart home. Thus, we have developed the toolkit »Sensing Home« to involve people into designing and understanding use and context of IoT in the home. We will report on the design, development, and subsequent field studies of Sensing Home. Three use cases will be presented, to discuss how Sensing Home enabled several modes of participatory exploration. The first use case reports on people developing custom sensor applications within their homes. The second use case describes how students appropriated Sensing Home for empirical in-the-wild studies of smart sensing in the home. For the third use case, Sensing Home was deployed in households to explore and to make sense of collected sensor data together with inhabitants.


Internet of things IoT Smart home Networked sensing systems Sensor data Personal data Privacy In-the-wild User study 



This research was funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under grant number FKZ 16SV7116.


  1. 1.
    Glotzbach, U. (2009). Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften eds: Intelligente Objekte - klein, vernetzt, sensitiv: eine neue Technologie verändert die Gesellschaft und fordert zur Gestaltung heraus. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kahn, J. M., Katz, R. H., & Pister, K. S. (1999). Next century challenges: mobile networking for » Smart Dust. « In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking. pp. 271–278. ACM.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jakobi, T., Ogonowski, C., Castelli, N., Stevens, G., & Wulf, V. (2016). Das Zuhause smart machen–Erfahrungen aus Nutzersicht. Mensch und Computer 2016-Tagungsband.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hargreaves, T., Wilson, C., & Hauxwell-Baldwin, R. (2017). Learning to live in a smart home. Building Research & Information, 0, 1–13.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aspiala, T., & Deschamps-Sonsino, A. (2018). Know cards: Learn. Play collect. Retrieved January 1, 2018, from
  6. 6.
    Mora, S., Gianni, F., & Divitini, M. (2017) Tiles, 587–598 (2017).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    IFTTT: IFTTT helps your apps and devices work together. Retrieved January 1, 2018, from
  8. 8.
    Diez, T., & Posada, A. (2013). The fab and the smart city: the use of machines and technology for the city production by its citizens. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (pp. 447–454). ACM.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Airqualityegg: Air Quality Egg. Retrieved January 1, 2018, from
  10. 10.
    Bødker, S. (2006). When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles (pp. 1–8). ACM.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lucero, A., & A rrasvuori, J. (2010). PLEX Cards: a source of inspiration when designing for playfulness. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Fun and Games (pp. 28–37). ACM.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bdeir, A. (2009). Electronics as material: LittleBits. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (pp. 397–400). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lechelt, Z., Rogers, Y., Marquardt, N., & Shum, V. (2016). Democratizing children’s engagement with the internet of things through connect Us (Presented at the 2016).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blackstock, M., & Lea, R. (2012). IoT mashups with the WoTKit. In 2012 3rd International Conference on the Internet of Things (IOT) (pp. 159–166). IEEE.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oh, H., & Gross, M. D. (2015). Cube-in: A learning kit for physical computing basics. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (pp. 383–386). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bruno: Introducing bruno—the world’s first smartcan. Retrieved January 1, 2018, from
  17. 17.
    Sensortag: Simplelink Retrieved January 1, 2018, from
  18. 18.
    Laput, G., Zhang, Y., Harrison, C. (2017). Synthetic sensors: Towards general-purpose sensing. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3986–3999). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fischer, J. E., Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., Colley, J. A., Costanza, E., Jewell, M. O., et al. (2016). » Just Whack It on Until It Gets Hot « : Working with IoT data in the home. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 5933–5944). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Puussaar, A., Clear, A. K., & Wright, P. (2017). Enhancing personal informatics through social sensemaking. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 6936–6942). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tolmie, P., Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., Colley, J., & Luger, E. (2016) » This Has to Be the Cats « : Personal data legibility in networked sensing systems. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 491–502). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lefeuvre, K., Totzauer, S., Bischof, A., Kurze, A., Storz, M., Ullmann, L., & Berger, A. (2016). Loaded dice: exploring the design space of connected devices with blind and visually impaired people. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (p. 31). ACM.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bischof, A., Lefeuvre, K., Kurze, A., Storz, M., Totzauer, S., & Berger, A. (2016). Exploring the playfulness of tools for co-designing smart connected devices: A case study with blind and visually impaired students. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts (pp. 93–99). ACM.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. Interactions, 6, 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rieman, J. (1993). The diary study: A workplace-oriented research tool to guide laboratory efforts. In Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 321–326). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuutti, K., & Bannon, L. J. (2014). The turn to practice in HCI: Towards a research agenda (Presented at the 2014).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Graham, C., Rouncefield, M., Gibbs, M., Vetere, F., & Cheverst, K. (2007). How probes work. In OZCHI’07 Proceedings of the 19th Australasian conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Entertaining User Interfaces (pp. 29–37). New York: ACM (2007).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boehner, K., Vertesi, J., Sengers, P., & Dourish, P. (2007). How HCI interprets the probes. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1077–1086). New York, NY, USA: ACM (2007).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1998). Grounded theory: Strategien qualitativer Forschung. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledge: The science Question in Feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 579–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Media Informatics, Technische Universität ChemnitzChemnitzGermany

Personalised recommendations