A living laboratory for the design and evaluation of ubiquitous computing technologies

Intille, Stephen; Larson, Kent; Beaudin, Jennifer; Nawyn, Jason; Tapia, Emmanuel Munguia; Kaushik, Pallavi

doi:10.1145/1056808.1057062

Cited by 139 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Given that humans will move around the apartment frequently and according to somewhat predictable but highly variable behaviour patterns [53][54], it is necessary to incorporate this variability into our analysis, especially given the strong impact it has on actual light exposure. As a first approximation, we decided to adopt the simplest behavioural model, i.e.…”

Section: Movement and Circadian Lightingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling ‘non-visual’ effects of daylighting in a residential environment

Andersen

Gochenour

Lockley

2013

Building and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Movement and Circadian Lightingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling ‘non-visual’ effects of daylighting in a residential environment

Andersen

Gochenour

Lockley

2013

Building and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…More studies are needed that examine what people do with their current tools and devices in their surrounding environments. In addition, more studies are needed of UbiComp technologies being used in situ or the wild -to help illuminate how people can construct, appropriate and use them [e.g., 16,22,23,29].…”

Section: A New Agenda For Ubicomp: Engaging User Experiencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving on from Weiser’s Vision of Calm Computing: Engaging UbiComp Experiences

Rogers

2006

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

322

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.A motivation behind much UbiComp research has been to make our lives convenient, comfortable and informed, following in the footsteps of Weiser's calm computing vision. Three themes that have dominated are context awareness, ambient intelligence and monitoring/tracking. While these avenues of research have been fruitful their accomplishments do not match up to anything like Weiser's world. This paper discusses why this is so and argues that is time for a change of direction in the field. An alternative agenda is outlined that focuses on engaging rather than calming people. Humans are very resourceful at exploiting their environments and extending their capabilities using existing strategies and tools. I describe how pervasive technologies can be added to the mix, outlining three areas of practice where there is much potential for professionals and laypeople alike to combine, adapt and use them in creative and constructive ways.

show abstract

“…The term 'Living Lab' was originally used to describe a research facility that tries to overcome the artificial lab-context by providing a laboratory with all facilities of a regular home, optimized for multi-day or multi-week observational studies of individuals and constructed to resemble a 'real' home as closely as possible (Intille et al, 2005). In Europe this original notion of Living Labs was reinterpreted based on the advances in both open and user innovation, and the movement was given a head start by the support of EU-policy, especially in the domain of ICTs (Dutilleul et al, 2011).…”

Section: Living Labs For User Co-creationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-creation in living labs: exploring the role of user characteristics on innovation contribution

Schuurman

Coorevits

Logghe

et al. 2015

IJSSCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the 1970s, the innovative potential of users has been recognized by von Hippel and his seminal works on the Customer Active Paradigm (CAP) and Lead Users. This fostered further research into the nature of user contribution in NPD and the characteristics of innovative and innovating users. This research stream has been labeled 'user innovation' and looks at the utility gains for end-users when involved in innovation. More recently, open innovation approaches have been looking to integrate the insights and creative potential of users through various methods and tools. One of these approaches gaining ground are the so-called Living Labs, an innovation approach relying on intensive user involvement through co-creation, using real-life settings and a multi-stakeholder approach.Although user involvement is seen as key within these Living Labs, research integrating the insights from user innovation into ways of user selection and user contribution in Living Labs is scarce. Within this paper, we will explore some of the hypotheses from user innovation regarding user characteristics in three concrete Living Lab projects and assess whether these characteristics have an impact on the outcomes and on the user contribution. The results indicate that it is necessary to take 2 into account domain-related as well as innovation-specific characteristics, otherwise this may lead to one-dimensional user contributions. Moreover, our research suggests that Living Labs are capable to facilitate a diversity of user contributions through a mix of self-selection and purposeful sampling.3

show abstract

A living laboratory for the design and evaluation of ubiquitous computing technologies

Cited by 139 publications

References 6 publications

Modelling ‘non-visual’ effects of daylighting in a residential environment

Modelling ‘non-visual’ effects of daylighting in a residential environment

Moving on from Weiser’s Vision of Calm Computing: Engaging UbiComp Experiences

Co-creation in living labs: exploring the role of user characteristics on innovation contribution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About