Prototyping and sampling experience to evaluate ubiquitous computing privacy in the real world

Abstract

We developed an inquiry technique, which we called "paratype," based on experience prototyping and eventcontingent experience sampling, to survey people in reallife situations about ubiquitous computing (ubicomp) technology. We used this tool to probe the opinions of the conversation partners of users of the Personal Audio Loop, a memory aid that can have a strong impact on their privacy. We present the findings of this study and their implications, specifically the need to broaden public awareness of ubicomp applications and the unfitness of traditional data protection guidelines for tackling the privacy issues of many ubicomp applications. We also point out benefits and methodological issues of paratypes and discuss why they are particularly fit for studying certain classes of mobile and ubicomp applications.

End-User Privacy in Human-Computer Interaction

“…This viewpoint is reflected by HCI researchers, including the proponents of participatory design [88,251] and researchers of social computing [81]. Iachello et al even go as far as claiming that in the domain of privacy, adoption patterns should be "designed" as part of the application and can be influenced to maximize the chances of successful acceptance [154].…”

“…However, Consolvo et al noted that the random simulated requests were often implausible from a social standpoint. To add even more context, Iachello et al combined event-contingent ESM with experience prototyping [50], calling this technique "paratyping" [154]. A technique similar to paratyping was developed by Roßnagel et al in the context of IT end-user security evaluation [247].…”

“…In that case, it was essential that the survey procedure be as minimally invasive as possible. However, the information notice required by the IRB disrupted the experience even further than the disruption caused by filling out the survey [154]. Iachello et al noted that more concise consent notices would be helpful, though changing standard wording requires extensive collaboration with IRB officials.…”

“…In addition to static acceptance models, HCI practitioners would benefit from reliable models to predict the evolution of privacy attitudes and behaviors over time [154]. Looking back at past technologies and understanding the drivers for acceptance or rejection can help formulate informed hypotheses going forward.…”

“…Other work could investigate what UIs, value propositions, and policies flatten the peak of the privacy hump and accelerate the process of acceptance (assuming a positive judgment by the designer that a given technology ought to be accepted) [154]. For example, we mentioned earlier in Section 4.5.1, when recounting PARC's ubicomp experience, how poor framing of a technology severely impacted its acceptance.…”