Place and Technology in the Home

Abstract

Abstract. The home is a complex environment, designed for general use but shaped by individual needs and desires. It is a place often shared by several people with different demands and requirements. It is a place embedded with technologies utilised at various times by people in diverse ways. Until recently most home technologies have been primarily functional; aimed at easing domestic chores such as cooking, washing and cleaning. In the last few years information and communication technologies have added to the technological complexity of the home. Entertainment technologies have become increasingly dominant, as the simple TV has given way to video, DVD and satellite or cable services. Technologies converge and diverge to create new hybrid experiences; a trend which we see continuing. Moreover in the future ubiquitous and ambient computing devices and functions will become hidden and communications between devices will become more complex. It is against this background that we undertook a number of studies into the place of technologies and technology use in the home. We studied the placement and use of existing technologies in five homes in Scotland using a novel, multi-part, naturalistic methodology. Transcripts from the studies were analysed using a grounded theory approach in an attempt to draw out key, recurring concepts concerning technology use at home. Eight conceptsplace, learning, utility, interaction, control, cost, lifecycle and privacy -emerged from this analysis. Additionally, four types of space were identified in homes; communication, work, leisure (private) and leisure (public). In this paper we focus on these four spaces and how they fit in with previous work on places and spaces in the home. We present a contextually grounded method of investigation of home technologies, the technology tour, and show how the four spaces in the home can be understood and represented as maps of the home layout that are often different for different members of the household. This understanding of place can be set alongside an understanding of technology where the themes of utility, interaction, cost and lifecycle are most important. General design issues that cross place and technology in the home are discussed in the final section of the paper. These can be used to sensitise designers of both artefacts and physical spaces to the needs of people and their use of technologies at home.

Learning to live in a smart home

“…They are meaning and emotion-laden places in which, often, multiple household members with different roles and relationships with technology (Mennicken & Huang, 2012;Nyborg, 2015) must interact and negotiate their wants and needs to achieve a relatively peaceful co-existence (Baillie & Benyon, 2008). Further, domestic life is characterized by routines that involve regular breakdowns, improvisations, compromises and conflicts (Davidoff et al, 2006).…”

Analyse de contextes d’activité domestique pour la conception de systèmes diffus énergétiquement efficients

“…Premièrement, l'activité domestique, envisagée à partir du point de vue des habitants, n'est pas orientée vers l'efficacité énergétique (e.g., Baillie & Benyon, 2008 ;Chetty, Tran, & Grinter, 2008 ;Martini et al, 2002), ou sinon très irrégulièrement (e.g., Haué, 2003). Ces travaux décrivent les préoccupations quotidiennes des membres des foyers, comme le soin aux enfants, l'organisation du vivre-ensemble, la réalisation des affaires quotidiennes... Certes, il y a bien des formes de finalités et de significations de l'action domestique en lien avec la régulation (baisse ou augmentation) des consommations d'énergie.…”

“…Deuxièmement, notre thèse repose sur le fait que l'activité domestique possède de multiples dimensions collectives (e.g., conflits, coordination, négociations…), notamment reliées à l'utilisation des appareils électriques et de l'espace physique (e.g., Baillie & Benyon, 2008 ;La Valle-Torres, 2011). Plusieurs modèles de système diffus dédié à la gestion énergétique dans l'habitat soulignent l'importance de cette dimension (e.g., Cerisara & Haradji, 2007 ;Salembier, Dugdale, Fréjus, & Haradji, 2009).…”

“…Il est par exemple possible d'observer une similarité entre trois acteurs, co-habitant avec deux acteurs dont les préoccupations respectives diffèrent de l'ensemble du collectif. Quoi qu'il en soit, nos résultats, comme d'autres dans la littérature (e.g., Baillie & Benyon, 2008 ;Dimond, Fiesler, & Bruckman, 2011 ;La Valle-Torres, 2011) démontrent une richesse à interroger finement, empiriquement. Dans notre cas, les contextes dévoilés oscillent sur des échelles temporelles de l'ordre de la seconde à la minute, entre un collectif « se réunissant à table pour manger plus ou moins ensemble (similarité quasi-complète) », et un collectif parfois en « coaction », parfois en « conflit », parfois loupant sa coordination… Nous pouvons tirer deux conséquences de ces résultats pour la conception.…”

Making Sense of Mobile Technology

“…For many users, mobile technologies have extended work engagement beyond the period and locus of paid employment (Harmer & Pauleen, 2012;Schieman & Glaving, 2008). In so doing, mobile technologies have not only changed the pattern of work and private life but also perceptions about the role of technology in the home (Baillie, Benyon, & Jorgenson, 2008) and work-life balance (Roberts, 2007).…”