From People Activity to Smart Buildings
The home of the future is expected to offer comfortable, safe, and supportive home spaces. Context-aware systems and artefacts may know the users’ routines and be anticipated to their needs. The users’ everyday activities, it is believed, will be supported and assisted by the different smart components of the home network. The home architecture should be ready to accept any scale of sensing technology in order to get a thorough understanding of the users’ behaviour and their relationship with the dwelling, before the vision of the smart home becomes a reality. In this paper we review some of the activity-aware home experiences, including our Context-Aware Room tool; and by using Rodden and Bendford work, we contrast the relationship of these experiences with the fabric of today’s home. Then, we explore some potential areas of improvement for our CARoom in an effort to get some insights for improving the CARoom smartness.
KeywordsActivity Recognition Ubiquitous Computing Smart Home Home Network Space Plan
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Martínez, F., Greenhalgh, C.: Physicality of domestic aware designs. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Physicality, Lancaster, UK (2007)Google Scholar
- 3.Brand, S.: How Buildings Learn, New York, Viking (1994)Google Scholar
- 4.Davidoff, S., Lee, M.K., Zimmerman, J., Dey, A.K.: Socially-aware requirements for a smart home for families. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Intelligent Environments, pp. 45–48 (2006)Google Scholar
- 5.Rodden, T., Benford, S.: The evolution of buildings and implications for the design of ubiquitous domestic environments. In: Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 9–16 (2003)Google Scholar
- 6.Edwards, W.K., Grinter, R.E.: At home with ubiquitous computing: seven challenges. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 256–272 (2001)Google Scholar
- 8.Macgregor, D.M.: Accident and emergency attendances by children under the age of 1 year as a result of injury (2003), http://www.emj.bjm.com (last accessed January 02, 2008)
- 12.Orr, R., Abowd, G.: The smart floor: a mechanism for natural user identification and tracking. In: Proceedings of the 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, The Hague, Netherlands, pp. 1–6 (2000)Google Scholar
- 15.Intille, S.S., Tapia, E.M., Rondoni, J., Beaudin, J.S., Kukla, C., Agarwal, S., Bao, L., Larson, K.: Tools for Studying Behavior and Technology in Natural Settings. In: Dey, A.K., Schmidt, A., McCarthy, J.F. (eds.) UbiComp 2003. LNCS, vol. 2864, pp. 157–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Philipose, M., Fishkin, K.P., Perkowitz, M., Patterson, D.J., Fox, D., Kautz, H., Hahnel, D.: Inferring activities from interactions with objects. IEEE Pervasive Computing 3(4) (2004)Google Scholar
- 18.Choudhury, T., Borriello, G., Consolvo, S., Haehnel, D., Harrison, B., Hemingway, B., Hightower, J., Klasnja, P., Koscher, K., LaMarca, A., Landay, J.A., LeGrand, L., Lester, J., Rahimi, A., Rea, A., Wyatt, D.: The mobile sensing platform: an embedded activity recognition system. IEEE Pervasive Computing 7(2), 32–41 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Bao, L., Intille, S.S.: Activity recognition from user-annotated acceleration data. In: Proceedings of Pervasive 2004: the Second International Conference on Pervasive Computing (2004)Google Scholar