University of Birmingham Embedded Human Computer Interaction Baber, Christopher; Baumann, Ulrich DOI: 10.1016/S0003-6870(02)00013-3 Document Version Early version, also known as pre-print Citation for published version (Harvard): Baber, C & Baumann, U 2002, 'Embedded Human Computer Interaction', Applied Ergonomics, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 273-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(02)00013-3 Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. •Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. •Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. •User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) •Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain. Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive. If you believe that this is the case for this document, please contact [email protected] providing details and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate. Download date: 28. Sep. 2021 Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 273–287 Embedded human computer interaction Christopher Babera,*, Konrad Baumannb a Interactive Computing and Communications, School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK b Fachhochschule Joanneum (Joanneum Graduate School), Alte Postrasse 149, A-8020 Graz, Austria Abstract In this paper, human interaction with embedded or ubiquitous technology is considered. The techniques focus on the use of what might be termed ‘‘everyday’’ objects and actions as a means of controlling (or otherwise interacting with) technology. While this paper is not intended to be an exhaustive review, it does present a view of the immediate future of human–computer interaction (HCI) in which users move beyond the desktop to where interacting with technology becomes merged with other activity. At one level this places HCI in the context of other forms of personal and domestic technologies. At another level, this raises questions as to how people will interact with technologies of the future. Until now, HCI had often relied on people learning obscure command sets or learning to recognise words and objects on their computer screen. The most significant advance in HCI (the invention of the WIMP interface) is already some 40 years old. Thus, the future of HCI might be one in which people are encouraged (or at least allowed) to employ the skills that they have developed during their lives in order to interact with technology, rather than being forced to learn and perfect new skills. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ubiquitous computing; Pervasive computing; Embedded systems; Wearable computers 1. Introduction rather than merely possible), but rather how people will relate to such technology. Of specific concern, therefore, People interact with an enormous range of technology is how ought this future technology function, if it is to over and above the ‘‘personal computer’’ (PC) that sits provide realistic, useful and beneficial support to the on their desks at work and at home. Furthermore, many people who might use it? of the interactions with this gamut of non-PC technol- Any paper that purports to present a vision of the ogy can be more pleasurable, useful and important than future naturally suffers from lack of falsifiability (we will the limited range of activities that PCs support; to be not know if the claims in this paper are correct until blunt, computers compute and, while they are good at several years from now), and the dilemma of plausibility doing all manner of tasks that involve data manipula- (in order to be acceptable, a design concept should tion, there remain many things that they cannot do and sound plausible, but being plausible does not guarantee that we probably would not expect them to do. Having that the concept is of any use). Consequently, we said this, there is a growing interest in asking what consider proposals in terms of the following criteria: would happen if non-PC technology was given (limited) (i) Will the proposed technology alter the manner in computational capability. which people behave? The notion of a world of products that are able to (ii) Will the changes in behaviour require people to communicate and interact independently of human learn new activities or modify existing activities? intervention may well be the stuff of a frightening (iii) Will the changes in behaviour be in support of the science fiction. An issue for ergonomists is not whether technology, e.g., to make it function appropriately, this vision represents a reality (there is sufficient or in support of human activity, e.g., to improve evidence, for example, from the increasing level of some aspect of working or everyday life? computing in automobiles, that the concept is probable It is quite possible that the majority of the technol- *Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-121-414-3965; fax: +44-121-414- ogies considered in this paper will require people to 4291. significantly alter their behaviour in order to ensure that E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Baber). the technology functions—and the changes in behaviour 0003-6870/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0003-6870(02)00013-3 274 C. Baber, K. Baumann / Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 273–287 will result in little or no benefit to the person using the perform actions based upon an awareness of technology. By way of illustration, a personal digital ‘‘context’’. The technology will be able to interpret assistant (PDA) might require the user to learn a new the activity of people, and use this interpretation to way of writing (e.g., in order to form letters that adapt its own behaviour. the device is able to interpret), in order to enter (iii) Communication: The objects allow communication information into an address book. Compare this with between devices, and between devices and people. a paper address book, in which the user can write At another level, the devices also allow people to normally (so not need to adapt their behaviour for share, capture and retrieve experiences. The ‘‘ex- the device). Of course, one might defend the PDA in periences’’ could be recorded simply as video and terms of its ability to interface directly and easily with a audio clips, but could also involve more sophisti- PC, or the range of additional functions it offers cated merging of data sources. in comparison with the address book. Direct compar- ison between products always presents problems, as Ubiquitous computing has largely been the province one is comparing ‘‘chalk and cheese’’. However, it of technology-led research and development. As with remains a moot point as to what specific advantages one any attempt to ‘‘invent the future’’ there is a high level of can offer in favour of a PDA over a paper address book. scepticism as to whether people would want to use the Having said this, there is surprisingly little published technology or whether people would buy the technol- research into the ergonomics of everyday products, so it ogy. The broad aim in writing this paper is to introduce is not easy to determine how ‘‘new’’ technologies some of the concepts as technically feasible, i.e., working compare with alternative technologies to perform these prototypes already exist, and then to explore the activities. ergonomics implications of these ‘‘visions of the future’’. 2.1. Microprocessors and embedded systems 2. Ubiquitous computing/ubiquitous technology Of particular relevance to the development of ubiquitous computing is the ‘‘quiet revolution’’ of In a seminal paper, Weiser (1991) raised the notion of embedded systems, in which a collection of micropro- ‘‘ubiquitous computing’’ in which people and their cessors can share information to manage more complex worlds could be augmented with computational re- systems and operations. We call this a ‘‘quiet revolu- sources and capabilities. One can see this notion in the tion’’ for the simple reason that the ‘‘intelligence’’ of trend for people to carry their work, communications domestic products has risen dramatically in a short and entertainment equipment with them, e.g., the period of time, with little or no acknowledgement from Walkman, the PDA, the Mobile Telephone. Each of research communities (outside those who have been these technologies provides access to some service developing such products). Domestic products, auto- or resource, e.g., music, appointments, contact details, mobiles and many other forms of technology have or other people, and supports access from (more or less) become imbued with increasing levels of intelligence. any location. Thus, the technologies are ubiquitous The primary source of this intelligence is the micro- in their geographical distribution (as anyone who has processor that is used to control device operation. Thus, been annoyed by the tinny sounds of a Walkman or a typical microwave oven might contain a micropro- the overloud conversations of mobile telephone users cessor to control the operation of the oven and to allow of trains can testify).