Building City Dashboards for Different Types of Users

Abstract

City dashboard websites are a common modality for bringing opengovernment philosophies into the public domain. Yet, there has been little research concerning the optimum design for city dashboards that takes account of users' expectations and skills. Indeed, there has been minimal exploration of user-centered design (UCD) to improve the usability and utility of smart city technologies in general. This study sought to conduct a user evaluation analysis to inform a UCD approach to city dashboards. Interviews with different types of users were conducted that applied a protocol analysis to gain insight into user perspectives and experiences of city dashboards. Along with critical incident technique procedures, interaction data of critical significance to the user was collected and a content analysis was conducted. These qualitative data were used to determine representations of users, as identified through observed behaviors, attitudes, needs, and goals. Targeted-scope user experience personas for the design process were then constructed to represent and build empathy towards three potential users of city dashboard systems: novices, end-users, and advanced users. The collected user requirements and the personas formulated are underpinning the re-design of an existing city dashboard.

A ‘planning revolution’ or an ‘attack on planning’ in England: digitization, digitalization, and democratization

“…Going back to Arnstein (1969), this involves not just looking at levels of involvement, but rather the quality of involvement and genuine impact this has on plan-making. Importantly, digital technology has, over time, been introduced into the planning-democracy mix across international planning space to broaden involvement in planning decision-making (Batty 2021;Levenda et al 2020;Milz and Gervich 2021;Kitchin, Young, and Dawkins 2021;Porter et al 2019;Rzeszewski and Kotus 2019;Young, Kitchin, and Naji 2021). However, as Jankowski et al (2019, 513) report, 'despite numerous potential benefits, online methods might not be, after all, a panacea for … improving the quality of public participation processes'.…”

“…In Poland they identify a 'demographic bias' with online participation skewed towards the 'young/ technologically savvy' and against the aged/ less educated resulting in a 'digital divide', caused by a lack of access to or knowledge of how to use Internet-enabled technologies (also Cavallo, Lynch, and Scull 2014). Similarly, in Ireland, Young, Kitchin, and Naji (2021) identify the variable proficiencies and requirements of different types of technology users (i.e. novices, endusers and advanced users).…”

“…Today, bottom-up approaches like street computing 6 (Robinson et al 2012) allow residents, shoppers, visitors, tourists etc. to access a mass of real-time data, 7 that is, urban informatics (Unsworth, Forte, and Dilworth 2014), platform urbanism (Barns 2019), city dashboards (Young, Kitchin, and Naji 2021) about what is happening in the city. Aside from retrieving information (on buses, trains, nightlife, tourist attractions, etc.…”

“…Planning systems have become more digital around the world. For example, in America Cavallo, Lynch, and Scull 2014;Milz and Gervich 2021;Unsworth, Forte, and Dilworth 2014), Poland (Jankowski et al 2019;Rzeszewski and Kotus 2019), Australia (Foth et al 2009;Porter et al 2019), Norway (Hemmersam et al 2015), Canada (Levenda et al 2020;Tenney and Sieber 2016), Greece (Pak, Chua, and Vande Moere 2017;Psaltoglou and Vakali 2021), Germany (Dembski et al 2020), Finland, Brazil, Italy (Haklay, Jankowski, andZwoliński 2018;Porter et al 2019) and Ireland (Kitchin, Young, and Dawkins 2021;Young, Kitchin, and Naji 2021). Previous work from Foth et al (2009, 98) argued, 'new technologies … have the potential to change the practice of urban planning substantially in terms of communication, collaboration and impact'.…”

Understanding Sensor Cities: Insights from Technology Giant Company Driven Smart Urbanism Practices

“…The current urban context is associated with numerous economic, social and environmental issues, such as waste management [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ], energy efficiency [ 11 , 12 , 13 ], renewable energy sources [ 14 , 15 ], water management [ 16 ], social, cultural, and health aspects [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ], material flows [ 23 ], biodiversity [ 24 ], transport [ 25 , 26 ], land use optimization [ 27 ], air and noise pollution prevention [ 28 , 29 , 30 ], infrastructure mishaps [ 31 ], economic growth [ 32 ]. Policymakers, thus, need a paradigm shift, developing innovative, sustainable, and intelligent solutions to optimize urban processes and improve citizens’ quality of life and sustainability of the city [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ].…”