Leveraging Physical Locality to Integrate Smart Appliances in Non-Residential Buildings with Ultrasound and Bluetooth Low Energy

Fürst, Jonathan; Chen, Kaifei; Aljarrah, M.; Bonnet, Philippe

doi:10.1109/iotdi.2015.35

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recognising that the greatest advantage of nearultrasound communication was that no extra hardware was required, Ka et al proposed a framework for TV second screen services [39]. Near-ultrasonic data over sound has also been used to communicate with wearable devices [68], transmit data from within shipping containers [35], share network credentials in an industrial IoT setting [24], and for wireless communication between everyday personal electronic devices and hearing aids [59]. In addition, it has been previously used for near-ultrasonic beacons, for example to control a smartphone museum guide [7].…”

Section: Audible Vs Near-ultrasonicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the user experience of acoustic data transmission

Mehrabi

Mazzoni²,

Jones³

et al. 2019

Pers Ubiquit Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Users of smart devices frequently need to exchange data with people nearby to them. Yet despite the availability of various communication methods, data exchange between co-located devices is often complicated by technical and user experience barriers. A potential solution to these issues is the emerging technology of device-to-device acoustic data transmission. In this work, we investigate the medium-specific properties of sound as a data exchange mechanism, and question how these contribute to the user experience of sharing data. We present a user study comparing three wireless communication technologies (acoustic data transmission, QR codes and Bluetooth), when used for a common and familiar scenario: peerto-peer sharing of contact information. Overall, the results show that acoustic data transmission provides a rapid means of transferring data (mean transaction time of 2.4 s), in contrast to Bluetooth (8.3 s) and QR (6.3 s), whilst requiring minimal physical effort and user coordination. All QR code transactions were successful on the first attempt; however, some acoustic (5.6%) and Bluetooth (16.7%) transactions required multiple attempts to successfully share a contact. Participants also provided feedback on their user experience via surveys and semi-structured interviews. Perceived transaction time, physical effort, and connectivity issues. Specifically, users expressed frustration with Bluetooth due to device selection issues, and with QR for the physical coordination required to scan codes. The findings indicate that acoustic data transmission has unique advantages in facilitating information sharing and interaction between co-located users.

show abstract

Section: Audible Vs Near-ultrasonicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the user experience of acoustic data transmission

Mehrabi

Mazzoni²,

Jones³

et al. 2019

Pers Ubiquit Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ubiquity of smartphones makes them a prime target for providing opportunistic connectivity to devices. Fürst et al investigate the use of smartphones as access points for home appliances [5], guaranteeing that a user is present when communication occurs and alleviating some security concerns. Classic Bluetooth has been used to provide communication for devices in oilfields and offices [15].…”

Section: Background and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One enticing solution to this infrastructure challenge is the smartphone, and there have been several proposals suggesting their use as gateways for pervasive sensors [5,15,18]. Phones go everywhere people go, contain low-power networking hardware, maintain near constant connectivity to the cloud through cellular infrastructure, and have human oversight to maintain their functionality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%