User Interfaces in Smart Cities

Living reference work entry


What is smart? Smart is welcoming, in which objects and environments make one feel at home. Smart is being cared for, feeling appreciated, safe, and belonging. Smart is being able to access information when in need, no matter where the location is. Smart is being able to freely roam around, to visit parks and recreation easily. Smart is turning waiting time into quality time, connecting with family and friends. Smart is feeling refreshed and rejuvenated through work, rest, and play. Smart is having things that think, spaces that sense, and places that play. Smart is embracing technology that empowers people to raise the standard for quality of life. Smart is having friendly interfaces that take care of people and connect them with a digital infrastructure. Smart is having tools that enhance the lives of those living and working in the city by providing them with context-aware, safe, secure, and sound means to access and interact with each other, and the community resources in a smart city. The chapter presents hundreds of interface ideas and examples for enchanted objects, interactive spaces, and services designed or proposed for everyday life in smart cities.


  1. Acampora, G., Cook, D. J., Rashidi, P., & Vasilakos, A. V. (2013). A survey on ambient intelligence in healthcare. Proceedings of the IEEE, 101(12), 2470–2494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ACTIVAGE Project. (2019). ACTIVAGE Virtual Experience Day. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  3. Alexandru, P., Andrei, M., Cristina-Mădălina, S., & Stan, O. (2018). Smart environmental monitoring beacon. In 2018 IEEE international conference on Automation, Quality and Testing, Robotics (AQTR), pp. 1–4. IEEE.Google Scholar
  4. Alibaba Cloud. (2018). Alibaba Cloud Intelligence Brain. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  5. Alyx. (2020). Half-Life: Alyx. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  6. AMBER Alert. (2020a). AMBER Alert: Saving Missing Children. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  7. AMBER Alert. (2020b). Police Expert Network on Missing Person. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  8. AT&T. (2013). AT&T Smart Cities: Transforming communities and creating value for citizens. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  9. Ateya, A. A., Muthanna, A., Gudkova, I., Vybornova, A., & Koucheryavy, A. (2017). Intelligent core network for tactile internet system. In Proceedings of the international conference on future networks and distributed systems. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  10. Atreya, M., Dikshit, K., Marinick, G., Nielson, J., Bruns, C., & Whiting, G. L. (2020). Poly (lactic acid)-based ink for biodegradable printed electronics with conductivity enhanced through solvent aging. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 12(20), 23494–23501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010). The internet of things: A survey. Computer Networks, 54(15), 2787–2805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baeza-Yates, R. (2018). Bias on the web. Communications of the ACM, 61(6), 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Banos, O., Villalonga, C., Damas, M., Gloesekoetter, P., Pomares, H., & Rojas, I. (2014). Physiodroid: Combining wearable health sensors and mobile devices for a ubiquitous, continuous, and personal monitoring. The Scientific World Journal, 2014.Google Scholar
  14. Beat Games. (2020). Beat Saber – VR rhythm game. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  15. Bennett, J. O., Ayres, T. R., Center, K. B., Carter, M. F., & Bass, R. S. (1991). The Colorado scale-model solar system. The Physics Teacher, 29(6), 371–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Berendsen, C. (2020). Bid data: An engineering marvel. IEEE Potentials, 39(6), 3–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. BioSpace. (2020). Virus Tracker Apps Market: Asia Pacific is currently leading the global market due to the recent outbreak of COVID-19. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  18. Brulliard, K. (2016). Cities go to extreme lengths to tackle a dog poop epidemic. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  19. Bruns, C. J. (2019). Exploring and exploiting the symmetry-breaking effect of cyclodextrins in mechanomolecules. Symmetry, 11(10), 1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Caetano, B. P., Oliveira, G. W., Paula, M. M., & Souza, J. M. (2016). Digital democracy: An analysis of resources and acceptance. In Proceedings of the XII Brazilian symposium on information systems on Brazilian symposium on information systems: Information systems in the cloud computing era-Volume 1, pp. 128–135.Google Scholar
  21. Camarata, K., Do, E. Y.-L., Johnson, B. R., & Gross, M. D. (2002). Navigational blocks: Navigating information space with tangible media. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, pp. 31–38.Google Scholar
  22. Card, M. (1999). Readings in information visualization: Using vision to think. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  23. Carrasco, R. (2017). Designing virtual avatars to empower social participation among older adults. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pp. 259–262.Google Scholar
  24. Casanueva, J., & Blake, E. (2001). The effects of avatars on co-presence in a collaborative virtual environment. In Proceedings in annual conference South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists.Google Scholar
  25. Cavalcante, E., Cacho, N., Lopes, F., & Batista, T. (2017). Challenges to the development of smart city systems: A system-of-systems view. In Proceedings of the 31st Brazilian symposium on software engineering, pp. 244–249.Google Scholar
  26. CEN. (2019). CEN–CENELEC Business Topics, European Committee for Standardization. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) – Transmission. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  28. Chattaraman, V., Kwon, W.-S., Gilbert, J. E., & Ross, K. (2019). Should Ai-based, conversational digital assistants employ social-or task-oriented interaction style? A task-competency and reciprocity perspective for older adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Chun, S. A., & Noveck, B. S. (2020). Digital democracy: 25 years look back, look ahead. Digital Government: Research and Practice, 1(1).
  30. CITY4AGE. (2016). Elderly-friendly City Services for Active and Healthy Ageing. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  31. Clarke, A. C. (2013). Profiles of the future. London: Hachette UK.Google Scholar
  32. Color Kinetics. (2013). KDKA-TV Weather Beacon atop the Gulf Tower. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  33. Cook, D. J., Augusto, J. C., & Jakkula, V. R. (2009). Ambient intelligence: Technologies, applications, and opportunities. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 5(4), 277–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Cook, D. J., Duncan, G., Sprint, G., & Fritz, R. L. (2018). Using smart city technology to make healthcare smarter. Proceedings of the IEEE, 106(4), 708–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Corning. (2013). A day made of glass. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  36. CSIS. (2020). Southeast Asia Covid-19 Tracker, Center for Strategic International Studies. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  37. Cycling Matters. (2017). Join the Filipino Cycling Revolution. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  38. D’haeseleer, I., Gerling, K., Schreurs, D., Vanrumste, B., & Vanden Abeele, V. (2019). Ageing is not a disease: Pitfalls for the acceptance of self-management health systems supporting healthy ageing. In The 21st international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility, pp. 286–298.Google Scholar
  39. Dave, E., et al. (2011). How the next evolution of the internet is changing everything. The Internet of Things.Google Scholar
  40. David, B., Zhou, Y., Xu, T., & Chalon, R. (2011). Mobile user interfaces and their utilization in a smart city. In Proceedings on the international conference on Internet Computing (ICOMP), p. 1. Citeseer.Google Scholar
  41. Decide Madrid. (2020). Portal de Participación Ciudadana del Ayuntamiento de Madrid. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  42. Dejiki. (2020). Future together at gardens by the bay. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  43. Deng, H., Li, J., Sayegh, A., Birolini, S., & Andreani, S. (2018). Twinkle: A flying lighting companion for urban safety. In Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, TEI ‘18, pp. 567–573. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  44. Denver Department of Transportation and Infrastructure. (2019). Pocket-gov. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  45. Do, E. Y.-L. (2018). Design for assistive augmentation /- mind, might and magic. In Assistive augmentation, pp. 99–116. Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Ens, B., Goodwin, S., Prouzeau, A., Anderson, F., Wang, F. Y., Gratzl, S., Lucarelli, Z., Moyle, B., Smiley, J., & Dwyer, T. (2020). Uplift: A tangible and immersive tabletop system for casual collaborative visual analytics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27, 1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. (2020). COVID-19 Pandemic. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  48. FabLab. (2018). Smart Citizen. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  49. Fisher, T. (2020). The 7 Best Emergency Alert Apps of 2020. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  50. Fixit, B. (2020). Boulder U-Fix-It Clinic. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  51. Fixit Clinic. (2018). Fixit clinic as real-world experience for Designers and Engineers.
  52. Follmer, S., Leithinger, D., Olwal, A., Cheng, N., & Ishii, H. (2012). Jamming user interfaces: Programmable particle stiffness and sensing for malleable and shape-changing devices. In Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology.Google Scholar
  53. Follmer, S., Leithinger, D., Olwal, A., Hogge, A., & Ishii, H. (2013). Inform: Dynamic physical affordances and constraints through shape and object actuation. In Proceedings of the 26th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology.Google Scholar
  54. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council (2006). Tech tally: Approaches to assessing technological literacy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  55. Gaol, F. L., Hutagalung, F., & Peng, C. F. (2018). Issues and trends in interdisciplinary behavior and social science: Proceedings of the 6th international congress on interdisciplinary behavior and social sciences (ICIBSoS 2017), July 22–23, 2017, Bali, Indonesia. CRC Press.Google Scholar
  56. Ghaffary, S. (2020). Contact tracing is well underway in Asia. What can the US learn? Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  57. Goff, P. A., Lloyd, T., Geller, A., Raphael, S., & Glaser, J. (2016). The science of justice: Race, arrests, and police use of force. New York: Center for Policing Equity.Google Scholar
  58. Gold, R. (1995). How smart does your bed have to be, before you are afraid to go to sleep at night? Cybernetics and System, 26(4), 379–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Government Technology Agency of Singapore. (2018). Smart Nation: The way forward. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  60. Greenfield, A. (2006). Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquitous computing. Berkeley: Peachpit Press.Google Scholar
  61. Gross, M. (2020). Seoul is making waves with this incredible new art installation. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  62. Gupta, A., Kumar, V., Ahmed, S., & Gautam, S. (2020). Impact of nanotechnology in the development of smart cities. In Smart cities opportunities and challenges (pp. 845–857). Singapore: Springer Singapore.Google Scholar
  63. Hacker, K. L., & van Dijk, J. (2000). Digital democracy: Issues of theory and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. Hjorth, L., & Richardson, I. (2014). Ambient play. In Gaming in social, locative, and mobile media (pp. 59–75). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Hopkins, T., Pascente, P., Seltzer, W., Masterrson, K., Do, E. Y-L. (2021). The jam station: Gamifying collaborative musical experiences through algorithmic assessment. In TEI ’21: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, February 2021 Article No.: 58 Pages 1–6.
  66. Horton, C. (2018). The simple but ingenious system Taiwan uses to crowdsource its laws. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  67. Hu, W., & Goodman, J. D. (2020). Wake-up call for New Yorkers as police seek abducted boy. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  68. Hu, C., Li, H., Huo, Y., Xiang, T., & Liao, X. (2016). Secure and efficient data communication protocol for wireless body area networks. IEEE Transactions on Multi-Scale Computing Systems, 2(2), 94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Huang, Y., Sun, M., & Sui, Y. (2020). How digital contact tracing slowed Covid-19 in East Asia. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  70. IEC. (2020). Cities and Communities, International Electrotechnical Commission. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  71. Ireland Health Service Executive. (2020). COVID-19 (coronavirus). Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  72. Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 234–241.Google Scholar
  73. ISO. (2020). ISO and Sustainable Cities, International Organization for Standardization. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  74. ITU. (2015). Smart Sustainable Cities at a Glance, International Telecommunication Union. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  75. Janney, C. (1979). With Soundstair, Chris Janney Is the King of Sole Music. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  76. Janney, C. (2007). Christopher Janney, Sculpting Sound. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  77. Janney, C., Lampert-Greaux, E., Dunlop, B., & Martin, S. G. (2007). Architecture of the air: The sound and light environments of Christopher Janney. New York: Sideshow Media, LLC.Google Scholar
  78. Jara, J. D., Lima, J., Valdez, C., Barbecho, M., Bermeo, J. P., & Chacón, D. (2019). Design of a mobile panic button for older adults for monitoring through the ecu911 system. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on vision, image and signal processing, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
  79. Josephmark Studio. (2010). Piano Stairs. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  80. Karusala, N., & Kumar, N. (2017). Women’s safety in public spaces: Examining the efficacy of panic buttons in New Delhi. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems.Google Scholar
  81. Kay, A. (1971). Alan Kay – Wikiquote.Google Scholar
  82. Kenny, P., Parsons, T., Gratch, J., & Rizzo, A. (2008). Virtual humans for assisted health care. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, PETRA’08. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  83. Kitchin, R. (2016). The ethics of smart cities and urban science. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2083), 20160115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Kjær, K. E. (2007). A survey of context-aware middleware. In Proceedings of the 25th conference on IASTED international multi-conference: Software engineering, pp. 148–155. Citeseer.Google Scholar
  85. Kondamudi, P. R. (2017). Pokémon go: Impact on yelp restaurant reviews. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on web science conference, pp. 393–394.Google Scholar
  86. Kortuem, G., Kawsar, F., Sundramoorthy, V., & Fitton, D. (2009). Smart objects as building blocks for the internet of things. IEEE Internet Computing, 14(1), 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Lages, W. S. (2018). Walk-centric user interfaces. In 2018 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR), pp. 825–826. IEEE.Google Scholar
  88. Lapolla, K., & Sanders, E. B.-N. (2015). Using cocreation to engage everyday creativity in reusing and repairing apparel. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 33(3), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Le Dantec, C. A., Asad, M., Misra, A., & Watkins, K. E. (2015). Planning with crowdsourced data: Rhetoric and representation in transportation planning. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing, pp. 1717–1727.Google Scholar
  90. Lewin, J. (2012). The Pool, by Jen Lewin. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  91. Li, H. (2017). Enabling sensing and interaction with everyday objects. In Adjunct publication of the 30th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, pp. 103–106.Google Scholar
  92. Liao, C.-C., Hou, T.-F., Lin, T.-Y., Cheng, Y.-J., Erbad, A., Hsu, C.-H., & Venkatasubramania, N. (2014). Sais: Smartphone augmented infrastructure sensing for public safety and sustainability in smart cities. In Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on emerging multimedia applications and services for smart cities, pp. 3–8.Google Scholar
  93. Lim, C., Mostafa, N., & Park, J. (2017). Digital omotenashi: Toward a smart tourism design systems. Sustainability, 9(12), 2175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Liu, X. (2020). Three-dimensional visualized urban landscape planning and design based on virtual reality technology. IEEE Access, 8, 149510–149521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Lum, K., & Isaac, W. (2016). To predict and serve? Significance, 13(5), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., & Schneeberger, A. (2009). eparticipation: The research gaps. In International conference on electronic participation, pp. 1–11. Springer.Google Scholar
  97. Majumder, S., Mondal, T., & Deen, M. J. (2017). Wearable sensors for remote health monitoring. Sensors, 17(1), 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Maquil, V., De Sousa, L., Leopold, U., & Tobias, E. (2015). A geospatial tangible user interface to support stakeholder participation in urban planning. In 2015 1st international conference on geographical information systems theory, applications and management (GISTAM). IEEE.Google Scholar
  99. Maquil, V., Leopold, U., De Sousa, L. M., Schwartz, L., & Tobias, E. (2018). Towards a framework for geospatial tangible user interfaces in collaborative urban planning. Journal of Geographical Systems, 20(2), 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Martinez-Balleste, A., Perez-martinez, P. A., & Solanas, A. (2013). The pursuit of citizens’ privacy: A privacy-aware smart city is possible. IEEE Communications Magazine, 51(6), 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Martins, T., Sommerer, C., Mignonneau, L., & Correia, N. (2008). Gauntlet: A wearable interface for ubiquitous gaming. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices and services, pp. 367–370.Google Scholar
  102. McGarry, B., Matthews, B., & Brereton, M. (2000). Reflections on a candidate design of the user-interface for a wireless vital-signs monitor. In Proceedings of DARE 2000 on designing augmented reality environments.Google Scholar
  103. Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321–1329.Google Scholar
  104. Montola, M., Stenros, J., Waern, A., et al. (2009). Pervasive games: Theory and design. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Mozer, M. C., Dodier, R. H., Anderson, M., Vidmar, L., Cruickshank III, R. F., & Miller, D. (1995). The neural network house: An overview. Current trends in connectionism, pp. 371–380.Google Scholar
  106. Müller, C., Hornung, D., Hamm, T., & Wulf, V. (2015). Measures and tools for supporting ICT appropriation by elderly and non tech-savvy persons in a long-term perspective. In ECSCW 2015: Proceedings of the 14th European conference on computer supported cooperative work, 19–23 September 2015, Oslo, Norway, pp. 263–281. Springer.Google Scholar
  107. Nesta. (2017). Six Pioneers in Digital Democracy. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  108. Nijholt, A. (2017). Towards playful and playable cities. In Playable cities: The city as a digital playground. Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Nijholt, A. (2018a). Playable cities for children? In International conference on applied human factors and ergonomics. Springer.Google Scholar
  110. Nijholt, A. (2018b). Smart, affective, and playable cities. In Interactivity, game creation, design, learning, and innovation (pp. 163–168). Springer.Google Scholar
  111. Noyman, A., & Larson, K. (2020). Deepscope: HCI platform for generative cityscape visualization. In Extended abstracts of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
  112. Nudd, T. (2015). Ogilvy gets potholes to tweet, asking to be fixed, Every Time TheyâĂŹre Run Over. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  113. Oldenburg, R. (2002). Celebrating the third place: Inspiring stories about the great good places at the heart of our communities. Boston: Da Capo Press.Google Scholar
  114. Paradiso, R., Loriga, G., & Taccini, N. (2005). A wearable health care system based on knitted integrated sensors. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 9(3), 337–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Patel, J. A., & Sharma, P. (2014). Big data for better health planning. In 2014 international conference on advances in engineering & technology research (ICAETR-2014), pp. 1–5. IEEE.Google Scholar
  116. Plensa, J. (2004). Crown fountain. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  117. Popular Science. (2015). Google translate adds 20 languages to augmented reality app. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  118. Profita, H. P., Clawson, J., Gilliland, S., Zeagler, C., Starner, T., Budd, J., & Do, E. Y.-L. (2013). Don’t mind me touching my wrist: A case study of interacting with on-body technology in public. In Proceedings of the 2013 international symposium on wearable computers.Google Scholar
  119. Red Cross. (2020). How to prepare for emergencies. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  120. Righi, V., Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2015). Urban ageing: Technology, agency and community in smarter cities for older people. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on communities and technologies, pp. 119–128.Google Scholar
  121. Rose, D. (2014). Enchanted objects: Design, human desire, and the internet of things. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  122. Rozin, D. (2000). Wooden mirror. ACM SIGGRAPH 2000, Art Gallery.Google Scholar
  123. Salimian, M., Brooks, S., & Reilly, D. (2018). IMRCE: A unity toolkit for virtual co-presence. In Proceedings of the symposium on spatial user interaction, pp. 48–59.Google Scholar
  124. Sanders, E.-N. (2000). Generative tools for co-designing. In Collaborative design (pp. 3–12). Springer.Google Scholar
  125. Scrivener, S. A., Ball, L. J., & Woodcock, A. (2012). Collaborative design: Proceedings of codesigning 2000. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  126. Silva, B. N., Khan, M., & Han, K. (2018). Towards sustainable smart cities: A review of trends, architectures, components, and open challenges in smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 38, 697–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Slater, M., Pertaub, D.-P., & Steed, A. (1999). Public speaking in virtual reality: Facing an audience of avatars. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 19(2), 6–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Spatial. (2020). How work should be. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  129. Streitz, N. A. (2011). Smart cities, ambient intelligence and universal access. In International conference on universal access in human-computer interaction, pp. 425–432. Springer.Google Scholar
  130. Stuart, S. (2018). Drone light shows look cool, but how do they work? Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  131. Supernatural. (2020). Supernatural. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  132. Suzuki, R., Yamaoka, J., Leithinger, D., Yeh, T., Gross, M. D., Kawahara, Y., & Kakehi, Y. (2018). Dynablock: Dynamic 3d printing for instant and reconstructable shape formation. In Proceedings of the 31st annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology.Google Scholar
  133. Suzuki, R., Zheng, C., Kakehi, Y., Yeh, T., Do, E. Y.-L., Gross, M. D., & Leithinger, D. (2019). ShapeBots: Shape-changing swarm robots. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, pp. 493–505. ACM.Google Scholar
  134. Suzuki, R., Hedayati, H., Zheng, C., Bohn, J. L., Szafir, D., Do, E. Y.-L., Gross, M. D., & Leithinger, D. (2020a). Roomshift: Room-scale dynamic haptics for VR with furniture-moving swarm robots. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  135. Suzuki, R., Nakayama, R., Liu, D., Kakehi, Y., Gross, M. D., & Leithinger, D. (2020b). LiftTiles: Constructive building blocks for prototyping room-scale shape-changing interfaces. In Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction.Google Scholar
  136. Tang, S. K. (2018). Florabot. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  137. Tang, S. K., Sekikawa, Y., Leithinger, D., Follmer, S., & Ishii, H. (2013). Tangible cityscape. Retrieved February 4, 2018.Google Scholar
  138. teamLab. (2020). Future world: Where art meets science. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  139. The Denver Theatre District. (2020). Night lights Denver. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  140. Thielke, S., Harniss, M., Thompson, H., Patel, S., Demiris, G., & Johnson, K. (2012). MaslowâĂŹs hierarchy of human needs and the adoption of health-related technologies for older adults. Ageing International, 37(4), 470–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. U.S. Department of Transportation. (2020). AMBER, emergency, and travel time messaging guidance for transportation agencies. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  142. UCLA Lushkin School of Public Affairs. (2019). SMART parks: A toolkit. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.Google Scholar
  143. Underkoffler, J., & Ishii, H. (1999). URP: A luminous-tangible workbench for urban planning and design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 386–393.Google Scholar
  144. United Nations. (2019). World population ageing 2019. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  145. US Forest Service. (2019). If you fly, we can’t. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  146. Vattapparamban, E., Güvenç, İ., Yurekli, A. İ., Akkaya, K., & Uluağaç, S. (2016). Drones for smart cities: Issues in cybersecurity, privacy, and public safety. In 2016 international wireless communications and mobile computing conference (IWCMC), pp. 216–221. IEEE.Google Scholar
  147. Ventä-Olkkonen, L., Kinnula, M., Dean, G., Stockinger, T., & Zuñiga, C. (2013). Who’s there?: Experience-driven design of urban interaction using a tangible user interface. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
  148. Virtual Desktop. (2020). VR desktop. Accessed 30 Dec 2020.
  149. Vogiazou, Y., Raijmakers, B., Clayton, B., Eisenstadt, M., Geelhoed, E., Linney, J., Quick, K., Reid, J., & Scott, P. (2004). ‘You got tagged!’: The city as a playground. In Second international conference on appliance design 2AD, HP labs, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
  150. Vyas, D., Poelman, W., Nijholt, A., & De Bruijn, A. (2012). Smart material interfaces: A new form of physical interaction. In CHI’12 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pp. 1721–1726. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  151. Wang, X., Knearem, T., Gui, F., Gupta, S., Zhu, H., Williams, M., & Carroll, J. M. (2018). The safety net of aging in place: Understanding how older adults construct, develop, and maintain their social circles. In Proceedings of the 12th EAI international conference on pervasive computing technologies for healthcare, pp. 191–200.Google Scholar
  152. Warren, T. (2019). Google Maps AR walking directions arrive on iOS and Android.
  153. Weiser, M., Gold, R., & Brown, J. S. (1999). The origins of ubiquitous computing research at PARC in the late 1980s. IBM Systems Journal, 38(4), 693–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Willett, W., Jansen, Y., & Dragicevic, P. (2016). Embedded data representations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 23(1), 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Wouters, N., Huyghe, J., & Moere, A. V. (2014). Streettalk: Participative design of situated public displays for urban neighborhood interaction. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: Fun, fast, foundational.Google Scholar
  156. Ylizaliturri-Salcedo, M. A., Ramos-Salvio, A. G., García-Macías, J. A., Aguilar-Noriega, L., & Cárdenas-Osuna, R. (2018). Building security bubbles: Design of a wearable device for child tracking in vulnerable zones. In Proceedings of the 7th Mexican conference on human-computer interaction.Google Scholar
  157. Zheng, C., Gyory, P., & Do, E. Y.-L. (2020). Tangible interfaces with printed paper markers. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM designing interactive systems conference, pp. 909–923.Google Scholar
  158. Zikopoulos, P., Eaton, C., et al. (2011). Understanding big data: Analytics for enterprise class hadoop and streaming data. New York: McGraw-Hill Osborne Media.Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  2. 2.University of WyomingLaramieUSA
  3. 3.National University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations