Exploring Ambient Media Presence Awareness

William Washington

Masters Degree Project Report

Department of Technical Communication

December 2001

i

© Copyright 2001

William Washington

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my committee, Geoff Sauer, Beth Kolko, and Mark Gross, for their

guidance, encouragement, discipline, and inspiration.

I would like to thank all of the members of the Design Machine Group for their feedback,

and ideas during the beginning stages of this project, as well as technical support during

construction of prototype system.

I would also like to thank my friends, Keri P., Ben J., Paul G., and Oliver R., and all the

members of my family for their strength and consistency of support, encouragement, and

love. No one does it alone; thank you all.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1

Organizational Statement 2

Interpersonal Communication Motives 3

Needs and Desires 3

Six Interpersonal Communication Motives 4

Social Affiliation 4

Surveillance 5

Interpersonal Communication Channels in the Home 5

Mass Media 5

Computer-Mediated Communication 6

The Debate Over Computer-Mediated Communication Effectiveness 7

Instant Messaging 8

The Future of Computer-Mediated Communication 9

Transparent Immediacy 9

The Importance of the Computer-Mediated Communication Interface at Home 11

The Interface: The Locus of Experience 11

GUIs and the Psychic Split 12

Rules and Patterns of Use 13

The GUI at Home 14

Varying Levels of Engagement 15

A Calm Technology: Ambient Media 17

Ambient Media Awareness Systems 17

Instant Messaging Ambient Media 18

Examples of Ambient Media: A Literature Review 19

Portholes 19

KAN-G 20

Ambient Displays 21

The Bench 21

The Problem With Current Ambient Awareness Systems 21

Hypothesis 22

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Methodology 22

The Affective Inventory 22

The Focus Group 22

Results: The Focus Groups 26

Presence Data 26

GUI Rules of Use and Peripheral Awareness 28

Surveillance, Social Affiliation, and Interpersonal Needs 30

Secondary, Loose-Bond Relationships 30

The Telephone as the Locus of Intimate Communication 31

Admitting Social Affiliation Needs 31

Ambient Media and Use Scenarios 32

Where Does it Go? 32

One More Device 32

Maintenance 33

Ambient Media and Social Presence 33

Ambient Media and Information Mapping 34

Position, Color, Flashing, and Lumniosity 34

Scalability 36

Shared Spaces 36

Results: The Affective Inventory 36

Conclusions 38

User Population 38

Real Homes, Real Lives 39

Instant Messaging Issues Were Prevalent 39

Piggy Backing: Instant Messaging Ambient Media Conclusions Are Not Presence

Awareness Ambient Media Conclusions 39

Newness Panic 40

Instant Messaging Ambient Media Findings 40

GUI Psychic Split and Rules of Use 40

Form Factor 40

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

The Device 41

Information Mapping 41

Methodology 41

Screening 41

Demands on Panelists 42

Moderating 42

Biases 42

Future Research Considerations 43

1

INTRODUCTION

Internet-based CMC technologies used in the home—instant messaging (IM), IRC, chat,

bulletin boards, newsgroups, and e-mail—and “high-realism” mass media narratives that

are broadcast to millions of homes are especially experiencing tremendous growth in

popularity. This is due, in part, to people’s use of different media channels in order to

interact interpersonally with the world outside from within their home: the telephone,

computer-mediated communication technologies1 (CMC), and mass media narratives.

Heavy debate among scholars exists over whether interpersonal interaction through

these and other media channels is motivated by felt needs and wants or whether the

interaction occurs because of a desire above and beyond the satisfaction of “basic

human needs” (like eating, reproducing, and sleeping). While this debate continues,

these technologies are finding an audience and industry is forging ahead providing more

and more bandwidth, assuming higher fidelity forms of media will satisfy these needs or

desires. In the process, however, peace and quiet at home are being compromised.

Activities at home are being restricted as individuals’ attention becomes affixed to

mediums like television. The centered psyche of individuals is being compromised. In a

typical American home common activities—even eating—are already centered around,

even captivated by, the television. Can the good attributes of these media be captured

and the technologies designed better, considering interaction paradigms that meet

peoples desires or needs?

In this paper I propose and explore a CMC interpersonal interaction paradigm for the

home, based on instant messaging, that allows individuals to feel a connection with

others while remaining centered and with their psyche intact. I consider the motivating

factors of media use as well as the intersection of artifacts and technologies currently

used to connect interpersonally with others. The interaction paradigm proposed, IM

ambient media, “piggy backs” on IM interaction for three reasons2: (1) IM user

1 CMC is communication facilitated by computer technologies.2 This project originated with the construction of a prototype, proof-of-concept system. The prototypesystem was based on a custom IM-like system already in existence—Compadres—and that was developedat the Design Machine Group at the University of Washington. The prototype system used Apple scriptingand “cricket” technology—a microprocessor and with sensing technology and the ability to load and

2

populations are growing fast, (2) IM use seems to be motivated by some of the same

interpersonal communication motives as mass media and CMC—surveillance and social

affiliation, and (3) IM interaction is asynchronous and lightweight and thus lends itself to

ambient media. These three characteristics of IM, as well as characteristics of ambient

media are discussed, in depth, later in this paper.

Current ambient media research tends to be “blue-sky,” theoretical work.3 While this

work is necessary and can produce interesting new projects, it is considered in a bubble

of futuristic idealism. I felt it was necessary to consider ambient media within the context

of people, not technology. For this reason I chose to bring a user-centered design4

(UCD) approach to the exploration and development of IM ambient media. Without UCD

tools, like focus groups and affective inventories, it is difficult to determine whether new

interaction scenarios—like ambient media—meet interpersonal or other user needs.

This study addresses CMC in the home environment based on a view of CMC use in the

U.S. Although the consideration of these issues from a cross-cultural perspective is of

interest, the claims and arguments made are not necessarily applicable to other nations.

ORGANIZATIONAL STATEMENT

There are six main issues this paper will focus on. (1) The motivating factors of

interpersonal CMC and media use in the home. (2) The current direction of CMC

development. (3) The role of an interface in our experience of others through CMC. (4) A

“calm” CMC interaction paradigm for the home environment—ambient media. (5) IM

ambient media. And finally, (6) the exploratory UCD process and its results.

execute a program, in this case the crickets beeped when a “buddy” came on-line. The Compadres system,however, existed in a laboratory environment and was not in use. Thus it’s impact would be impossible totest empirically. Furthermore, I felt that IM users would yield a richer set of results in focus group work asthey considered their own IM use and ambient media by extension.3 In the literature reviewed at the time of the writing of this paper, there was no report of focus groups,questionnaires, or usability tests used in the development or testing of prototype systems.4 UCD is a process designed to ensure that a product fulfills the needs and wishes of users (The IBMWebsite, User-centered design). While UCD processes may differ, they generally involve an iterativeprocess of design in which user feedback is incorporated in each design iteration. A UCD process beginswith a definition of the target audience, determination of core user needs and wishes, and is followed bytask analysis.

3

I will begin by discussing interpersonal communication motives as discussed in a few

relevant disciplines: mass media theory, critical theory, and computer-mediated

communication theory. I will briefly introduce instant messaging (IM) as one form of CMC

that serves as both a broadcast medium and an interaction tool for interpersonal

communication.

I will discuss how the current direction of CMC development, “transparent immediacy”5

and increased connectivity, are problematic. I will argue that the interface of any

technology, especially CMC, is the locus of our experience. Considering this, I will argue

that the current goals of CMC will not bring a user closer to the interpersonal

communication he/she needs or desires, but instead will result in information overload

and in a de-centered, disoriented state of mind. I will introduce Weiser and Brown’s

“calm technologies,” a theoretical framework for interaction that allows users to stay

centered and in control of information. Finally, I will discuss the user-centered design

process undertaken in the exploration of Instant Messaging Ambient Media.

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION MOTIVES

NEEDS AND DESIRES

CMC interaction is heavily debated among scholars. The Uses and Gratification (U&G)

perspective (Rubin, Perse, and Barbato) assumes that interpersonal interaction through

these and other media channels is motivated by, and gratifies, felt needs and wants.

Motives are “general dispositions that influence actions taken to fulfill a need or want”

(Papacharissi and Rubin 179).

Critical theorists, however, would argue that use of mass media and other interpersonal

interaction technologies are simply motivated by desires above and beyond our basic

human needs (like eating, sleeping, and reproducing), and that these desires are, quite

possibly, manufactured wants. “[A]ny product or service…represents the solution of a

5 Bolter and Grusin identify “transparent immediacy,” experiencing a represented object without theinterference of the medium, as the goal of all media.

4

‘problem.’ That is, there is some kind of internal tension produced in the consumer by

not buying, enrolling in, or subscribing to a product or service…”(Templeton 125).

Thus a disparity exists between reasons for media use. While each view is

acknowledged, this paper is not focused on this difference. The work presented draws

from the U&G methodology, which “focuses on motives for media use, factors that

influence motives, and outcomes from media related behavior” (Papacharissi and Rubin

176).

SIX INTERPSERSONAL COMMUNICATION MOTIVES IN MEDIATED AND NON-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION

Interpersonal communication theory asserts that people engage in interpersonal

communication to satisfy needs. William C. Schutz explains that “an interpersonal need

is one that may be satisfied only through the attainment of a satisfactory relation with

other people” (Schutz 15). Schutz, identifies three motives for all communication:

inclusion, control and affection. Rubin, Perse, and Barbato drew on Schutz’s in the study

of mass media. They measured and verified three additional, but arguably less

interpersonally focused, communication motives: pleasure, relaxation, and escape

(Rubin et al. 625).

SOCIAL AFFILIATION

The one motivation identified for interpersonal and mediated communication that media

researchers commonly agree upon, Cohen and Metzger explain, is social affiliation.

They claim that all motivations identified for interpersonal and mediated communication

are really derivations of one single motivation: the need for social affiliation. Social

affiliation is “part of the more basic need to understand ourselves and the world we live

in” (42). Social affiliation has been viewed by researchers as “central to the process of

understanding oneself in the context of social life” (Cohen and Metzger 53).

The alienating conditions of modern society, including the breakup of

traditional primary groups and the concentration of cultural and

communicative action within the home require a serious look at the role

5

that the mass media now play in the process of socialization. (Cohen and

Metzger 53)

In their view it is important to understand the ways in which mass media helps us

gain social knowledge through social affiliation.6

SURVEILLANCE

Garramone et al., using a U&G approach, researched political computer bulletin board

use, where discussion centered around issues in the state government, and found

surveillance to be a use motivation. Although computer bulletin boards allow two-way

communication (through posting and reading or messages), they found that some

people never posted information, but instead passively observed (Garramone). The

surveillance gratification was characterized by responses that indicated people wanted

to keep up with current issues and events and understand what was going on in the

state government.

In summary, motivations for interpersonal interaction and mass media use have been

identified as pleasure, affection, inclusion, relaxation, escape, and control. Other

researchers have identified additional, slightly different motivations such as surveillance.

One root motivation—the core of communication motives—agreed upon by researchers

is social affiliation. Social affiliation allows us to establish ontological security by

understanding ourselves in relation to the world around us and by allowing us to reliably

trust in things and people.

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION CHANNELS IN THE HOME

MASS MEDIA

What is interesting is that mass media (and other surveillance technologies) are one-way

communication channels; they are concerned with awareness of others rather than

6 For Cohen and Metzger, people’s need for social affiliation comes from a need for what Roger Silverstonecalls “ontological security.” Ontological security is defined to be “a person’s ability to develop andmaintain a sense of individuality in relation to the social and material environment” (Silverstone as quotedin Cohen and Metzger 51). “Ontological security involves both understanding our world and beingaccepted by it” (Cohen and Metzger 52); it is the “feeling of mastery and control over the chaotic andthreatening conditions of modern life” (Cohen and Metzger 53). Silverstone identifies our need for

6

interaction with others. Media theory researchers have found that interaction, that is the

exchange of utterances, isn’t a necessary component of interpersonal need satisfaction.

Cohen and Metzger’s work found that people’s “reported motives for communicating

interpersonally seem to parallel those for using the mass media” (Cohen and Metzger

44). “[M]ass and interpersonal channels are equally effective means of satisfying

interpersonal needs.” They determine that mass communication and interpersonal

communication are not only functional alternatives, but are coequal alternatives.

So why can people use one-way communication media, like television, and supposedly

satisfy certain interpersonal needs? In part this is because surveillance lets us know that

someone else is “out there.” B.B. Hess argues that mass media gives “the illusion of

living in a populated world,” (Hess as cited by Cohen and Metzger 47). One-way

communication media provide awareness of others and provide opportunities for

surveillance and social affiliation. “[T]o feel safe we need to feel we know what is going

on in our world…” (Cohen and Metzger 52), and observing people helps. Mass media

narratives and surveillance afforded by CMC allow people to understand themselves in

the context of social life. W. J. McGuire argues that we get from mass media the feeling

of being involved in the human drama (McGuire as cited by Cohen and Metzger 48).

This is particularly true of “reality-based” television programming, where the intention is

to have an experience of the human drama that is more “real” than fully scripted

programs. Shows Survivor and Temptation Island do not use traditional actors but

instead place “real people” in staged situations to have their interactions filmed.

COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) and CMC Internet technologies, spawned

from advances in computer technology, specifically the networked computer, have

become significant communication channels. These technologies allow for interpersonal

communication and broadcast media opportunities.

ontological security to stem from the weaning stage, after which we seek to reliably trust in persons andthings, to have some grounding point of reference and stability.

7

As an interpersonal communication paradigm, CMC can occur synchronously (at the

same time) or asynchronously (at different times). Face-to-face communication

characterizes synchronous, or “conversational” communication, because the thread of

conversation is topical and doesn’t require any context (Johnson 7). Examples of CMC

technologies that are considered to be synchronous are IRC and chat. Asynchronous

communication, like traditional letter-writing, doesn’t involve the participants’ continuous

attention to the communication. Examples of asynchronous CMC technologies are e-

mail, instant messaging, Internet bulletin boards, and newsgroups. Asynchronous

communication can be described as “communication which involves an appreciable

delay between individual utterances, such that attention wanders or is directed

elsewhere while waiting for the response…” (Johnson 6). Because of this characteristic,

most communication during asynchronous communication includes contextual

information that facilitates the continuation of topic threads.

CMC can also be used as a broadcast medium. The same technology which can be

used by two people to communicate with each other, e-mail, can also be used to

broadcast messages to large numbers of people. Web pages can also serve the same

function and act as a one-way broadcast medium: once published on the Internet, a web

page can be accessed by anyone with Internet access. In this way, many CMC

technologies act as a mass media.

THE DEBATE OVER CMC EFFECTIVENESS

The ability of CMC to satisfy interpersonal needs, however, is heavily debated among

scholars. In a study published in 1998, Robert Kraut found that “greater Internet use is

related to reduced communication, smaller social circles, and greater senses of

depression and loneliness” (Kraut 1998). Kraut’s findings suggest that interpersonal

needs are not met by CMC.

Others’ research results suggest that the Internet augments–but does not replace—off-

line relationships and thus some interpersonal needs are being met. Katz and Aspden

found that “use of the Internet didn’t impact the amount of time spent communicating

face-to-face or by telephone with friends or family” (1997). Joseph Walther explains how

8

CMC satisfies interpersonal needs: “The key difference…[between] CMC and [face-to-

face] communication has to do not with the amount of social information exchange but

with the rate of social information exchange” (Walther 1999,10).

INSTANT MESSAGING: ONE INSTANCE OF BROADCAST AND PERSON-

TO-PERSON COMMUNICATION

Instant messaging is one example of an asynchronous CMC technology that

incorporates some of the benefits of broadcast media—along the surveillance dimension

it provides “presence” information—and some of the benefits of interpersonal

communication.

Instant messaging (IM) is a lightweight communication tool. The IM application appears

as a window on a user’s computer screen. IM applications log users onto a central

server via the Internet. Users can then send and receive short text messages or open

chat sessions with other people using the same IM client (many companies develop IM

applications). IM is a simple TCP/IP client: it doesn’t have inboxes, outboxes or folders.

The term instant messaging, however, refers to the asynchronous sending and receiving

of short text messages. Examples of IM clients are ICQ, AOL Instant Messenger (AIM),

MSNmessenger, and Yahoo Instant Messenger.

IM users who contact certain people regularly (friends, family, or strangers) compile a

“buddy list.” A buddy list is similar to an address book; it is a listing of other users of the

same IM application. The buddy list reflects buddies’ status (on-line, off-line, etc.)7; this is

their presence information. This presence information typically appears next to the

buddy’s name in the form of a specific icon. When a buddy changes status (he/she

comes on-line or goes off-line), either a small window at the bottom of a user’s screen

pops up or a short sound clips plays (usually the sound of a door opening or closing).

7 ICQ (one of the most popular IM applications) can select, for their status, one of many levels ofavailability: online/available, free for chat, away, extended away, occupied, do-not-disturb, privacy, offline,or invisible (they appear offline, but are actually logged on).

9

Presence information is displayed on anyone’s buddy list on which the buddy appears.

From the buddy’s perspective, their selection of status acts as a broadcast medium

displaying their presence information on buddy lists. From a user’s perspective it serves

as an awareness device and a surveillance tool showing which buddies are around and

how available they are. A user will keep an IM client window open on their screen

because it continuously displays their buddies’ status.

THE FUTURE OF COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION

Instant messaging has become pervasive. AOL alone estimates that 37 million people

are using its instant messaging service (Drucker), some estimates say that there are

around 100 million IM users (Vittori). IM is particularly important because it is an instance

of CMC that is becoming ubiquitous and yet is not hi-realism; it is asynchronous.

The next step would naturally be to meld IM and telephony

technologies: in wired systems; in Voice over IP (VoIP); in

wireless communications between handheld devices; and in

combinations of all those, plus web, e-mail and other Net-native

communications. (Searls)

Future visions of IM include the addition of streaming video (Vittori)—a push toward

high-realism, real-time, and hi-definition. “The voice, video, and file-transfer features now

being added to previously text-only software make IM more personal, but these features

quickly swallow up bandwidth” (Dornan). Proponents of this push toward hi-realism and

hi-bandwidth (such as video or voice) in order to achieve more “personal” interaction

desire what Bolter and Grusin call “transparent immediacy” (21).

TRANSPARENT IMMEDIACY

Bolter and Grusin describe transparent immediacy as the goal of all media: to present an

object as clearly and immediately as possible. In the logic of transparent immediacy the

medium has a transparency that allows us to look “through” it at a given object (41). It is

as if the medium was not there and we were seeing the represented object itself. The

viewer is not committed “to an utterly naïve or magical conviction that the representation

is the same thing as what it represents” (30). A viewer knows that what he/she sees isn’t

reality, but he/she is still moved, however, by the realistic representation of an object.

10

The desire to “erase” the act of representation manifests in different ways. Currently, it

manifests with attempts at improving image quality with hi-realism technologies like

HDTV and Surround Sound. In the logic of transparent immediacy, these technologies

“seek to put the viewer in the same space as the objects viewed” (11).

CMC technologies like videoconferencing are a move away from text and move towards

voice and video, communication modes that more “real,” “unmediated,” and have more

“social presence” (Short, Williams, and Christie 1976).8 Similar to transparent

immediacy, social presence is concerned with the psychological state or subjective

perception “in which…part or all of the individual’s perception fails to accurately

acknowledge the role of the technology in the experience” (Resources for the Study of

Presence Web Page, Presence Explication).

Many CMC tools assume more “social presence” will satisfy interpersonal needs easier.

These tools attempt to allow for “pure” interpersonal communication by approximating as

closely as possible casual and real interaction, usually through synchronous, hi-realism

communication. It is understandable, given the need and craving for interpersonal

interaction, that we desire immediacy. But greater transparent immediacy is not a

suitable goal for CMC, it is not the only direction in which CMC can develop. Walther

quotes Murray Turoff, who recognizes this misdirection in goals for CMC development:

The most misunderstood concept in CMC systems is the view that an

asynchronous …communication process is a problem, because it is not

the sequential process that people use in the face-to-face mode. The

approach of ‘How do we make CMC feel to the user like face-to-face

processes?’ is incorrect.

8 They measured different media based on Warmth, Sensitivity, Personalness (personal-impersonal),Sociability (unsociable-sociable), and Activity in order to determine a particular medium’s social presence,where “media having a high degree of Social Presence are judged as being warm, personal, sensitive andsociable” (66). Short et al evaluated face-to-face communication and mediated communicationtechnologies like speakerphones, handset telephones, multi-channel audio, and video. Many researchers usesocial presence to evaluate mass media and other media channels.

11

The real issue is how do we use the ‘opportunity of asynchronous

communications’ to create a group process that is actually better than

face-to-face group communications?

(Walther 1999, 25).

Turoff is directly challenging the goal of transparent immediacy. While Turoff focuses on

improving group processes, a similar recommendation can be made in regards to CMC

in general: the goal of attempting to replicate face-to-face communication —transparent

immediacy—by means of emulating its processes and interaction techniques is incorrect

and narrow in scope.

If surveillance and social affiliation are good, and if mass media helps satisfy

interpersonal needs, then why is transparent immediacy a problematic goal for CMC in

the home? For three reasons transparent immediacy is a problem. (1) It can never be

achieved. No technology will ever be “as good as being there.” Bolter and Grusin believe

that transparent immediacy can never be realized. “Vast audiences…continue to

assume that unmediated presentation is the ultimate goal of visual representation and to

believe that technological progress toward that goal is being made.” (31). Transparent

immediacy in CMC in the home necessitates a problematic interface: a graphical user

interface (GUI)9. It is problematic because (2) it forces a psychic split, and (3) its center-

of-attention nature prescribes rules and patterns of use within the home.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CMC INTERFACE AT HOME

THE INTERFACE: THE LOCUS OF EXPERIENCE

Interfaces themselves garner less attention than their influence perhaps

deserves. (Kolko 219)

In interactive media like CMC the desire for transparent immediacy manifests through a

desire for an interface that is simple to learn, easy to use, and even not noticed, “out of

mind.” “[D]esigners often say they want [to design]…an ‘interfaceless’ interface, in which

there will be no recognizable electronic tools” (Bolter and Grusin 23). But Bolter and

Grusin point out that “the [desire for a] transparent interface is one more manifestation of

the need to deny the mediated character of digital technology altogether” (Bolter and

12

Grusin 22). And indeed, Beth Kolko points out, interfaces do mediate; an interface can

never completely disappear from view.

Kolko, and many other scholars recognize that the interface is not transparent and in fact

the opposite is true. The interface is the basis from which we experience and their

influence should be well considered. Brenda Laurel states, “the interface becomes the

arena for the performance of some task in which both human and computer have a role.

What is presented in the interface is not only the task’s environment and tools but also

the process of interaction—the contributions made by both parties and evidence of the

task’s evolution” (Laurel as cited by Kolko 218). Kolko similarly recognizes that an

interface is inevitably the root of any computing experience. “When you use a word

processing program or play solitaire on your computer, you encounter what the program

produces, not the program itself. The interface—in these two examples: the computer

screen, keyboard, and mouse—is the point at which your experience is grounded”

(Kolko 219).

The role of the interface is especially critical in CMC. Kolko highlights the significance of

this role by making a distinction between human-computer interface (HCI) and human-

computer-human interface (HCHI). She emphasizes that the interface determines how

we interact with other people:

[T]echnology design forces users to adapt their interactions with other

people to the construct of the machine. That intermediary space, then, no

longer dictates a user’s relationship to the computer program and any

data that is associated with the program, but that mediating space also

controls how users interact with one another—a more disturbing

relinquishing of control over our experiences. (Kolko 220)

The interface is all we experience. An interface has its own ethos—it’s own culture—that

transforms the entire experience of when, where, and how we are when we compute

and communicate with computers.

GUIs AND THE PSYCIC SPLIT

9 This is at least true for video communication

13

When we use a graphical user interface (GUI), we look through a framed window into

another space, cyberspace. We refer to that space as “cyberspace” because it is not the

space we physically occupy. A CMC experience with a GUI is not integrated with our

experience of our environment. In the process, a transformation of our experience

occurs. Striving for immediacy we try to fully capture all that the representation can offer.

We are torn between attempting to occupy the time and space that the represented

person occupies, and the time and space in which we actually exist. We are forced to be

either “here” or “there” because a GUI requires center-of-attention focus . We interact

deeply and directly with GUIs (Weiser and Brown). We must completely focus on a GUI

or it is, literally, completely out of focus; it is a binary existence. “When doing personal

computing you are occupied, you are not doing something else” (Weiser and Brown).

This tension between attempting to occupy two spaces is similar to the psychic split that

occurs in the “mirror stage” described by Lacan. In this way, a GUI forces a psychic split,

disorienting and de-centering us in the process.10

RULES AND PATTERNS OF USE

This binary nature of a GUI requires a user to sit down in front of the screen to use it. But

only some tasks require that complete and constant focus. Others, like IM, are

asynchronous by nature and occur in spurts. It is therefore problematic to attempt to

engage in surveillance with a GUI. In order to monitor a buddy list— to see if a buddy

has logged on or become available—a user must continually sit down in front of the

screen to check the buddy’s status. The user must adjust his/her time and life patterns to

continually attend to a GUI for this information.

In this way a GUI forces a pattern of use, it has taken control of how and when we can

experience surveillance of our buddy list. Kolko notes that there is “a growing awareness

that technology interfaces carry the power to prescribe representative norms and

patterns” (Kolko 218). Unless a user is willing to engage in other GUI activities,11 a GUI

renders useless the asynchronous nature of IM. Away from the computer a user does

10 The common experience of feeling “phased out” and having to mentally readjust to the world after longperiods of GUI use is evidence of this de-centering and disorientation.11 or if sound notifications is used, or activities near the computer

14

not have access to his/her buddies. Even if buddies are online, the presence information

is trapped inside the GUI.

The power of technology interfaces to prescribe patterns and norms is discussed by

sociologist Barry Brown and Mark Perry. In the research note “Why Don’t telephones

have off switches?” they argue that social rules and norms associated with a particular

technology are generators of action rather than resources for action, and that many

technologies are designed to support the following of rule behavior (Brown and Perry).

As users of this technology we react instead of being in control of and empowered by the

technology. They give the example of the telephone. Telephones are not designed with

“off” switches, if they are, they are in an inconspicuous place like the bottom of the

telephone.12 Its rule that generates action is, “if a phone rings, answer it.” Technologies

like Caller ID and Voice Mail have been appropriated in order to support the breaking of

this rule. We are reluctant, as we should be, to make ourselves permanently available at

home (Brown and Perry). Technologies like Caller ID and Voice Mail help support the

breaking of the telephone’s social rules and patterns of use by giving a user control of

when to engage: Caller ID gives a user identification information and Voice Mail records

messages allowing for asynchronous communication. Neither of these two technologies,

which help break the social rules of use, require center-of-attention focus. Brown and

Perry suggest that designers of technologies develop “more effective designs that

support actual, rather than expected patterns of use.”

THE GUI AT HOME

What’s the difference between using a GUI at home and using a GUI at work? Nothing.

With an interface that requires center-of-attention focus, things in the periphery and the

surrounding environment do not matter, they do not exist. Our experience of home is tied

both to the physical environment , and to our patterns of existence there. This

experience should not be governed by the action-generating rules of technology. In the

privacy of our homes the rules and roles of public life should not exist. But a GUI CMC

interface determines when, where, and how we experience our environment and other

people by generating action, forcing patterns of use, and encouraging a psychic split.

12 In contrast, televisions are designed with the “off” switch in a prominent position.

15

When someone sits down in front of a GUI to IM or even to survey a buddy list, they are

totally focused on it, not on anyone else in the physical and social space. GUIs in this

respect do not support interaction with a partner, family member, or visitor and

interaction. In a room, a GUI breaks the social fabric. If someone is instant messaging or

in surveillance is continually attending to a GUI, it is difficult to carry a conversation. The

difficulty with this social rule manifests as households try to determine where a personal

computer should reside in the home (Venkatesh). Should it reside in the bedroom, in the

bathroom, in the living room, or in the kitchen? Venkatesh notes that two spaces exist in

the household, the “social space” and the “technology space.” He claims that computers

exist in the technology space but must be better integrated into the social space of a

home. Similar to placing a television in a space, the decision involves accepting the rules

of use associated with the technology into the norms and patterns of our behavior in that

space and into our lives.

Arguably, peace and quite, and an intact social space at home are important

characteristics of home life that technology should support. One way of supporting that

peace, quietude, centeredness , and an intact social space is by having more control

over when and how much we engage and interact with technology, and in the case of

CMC, other people.

VARYING LEVELS OF ENGAGEMENT

[T]he world, as we experience it, is a very analog place, From a

macroscopic point of view, it is not digital at all but continuous. Nothing

goes suddenly on or off, turns from black to white, or changes from one

state to another without going through a transition. (Negroponte as cited

by M. Christine Boyer in Cybercities, 9)

This insightful observation by Negroponte mirrors the argument made here for a need for

varying levels of engagement in CMC. What is needed is a gradient of interaction that

informs and that is under our control.

16

Mark Weiser and John Seely Brown call for designs that provide varying levels of

engagement by moving in and out of our center of attention thus giving us control and

informing us. They identify these designs as “calm technology.” The concept of calm

technology is a response to the coming age of ubiquitous computing in which the ratio of

computers to people will be very high, with many computers “sharing” each of us. “If

computers are everywhere they better stay out of the way, and this means that the

people being shared by the computers remain serene and in control.”

Calm technology is technology that is designed to both inform and encalm. It engages

both the center and the periphery of our attention. In the periphery “we are attuned to

[information] without attending to [it] explicitly” (Weiser and Brown). Information in the

periphery is informing without being overwhelming because it does not require center-of-

attention focus. By designing for the periphery, according to Weiser and Brown, “we can

most fully command technology without being dominated by it.” Furthermore, a calm

technology is one that we can bring from the periphery of our attention into the center of

our attention. “[B]y recentering something formerly in the periphery we take control of

it…with centering, the periphery is a fundamental enabler of calm through increased

awareness and power” (Weiser and Brown). The results of a calm technology are not

only awareness and power, but also a calmness where we are, “at home, in a familiar

place” (Weiser and Brown).

While an on/off button provides some control over when and how to engage technology,

calm technology provides a gradient of engagement.

On Off On (Center-of-attention) On (Periphery) Off (or out of

sight)

Figure 1. Current engagement (left) and varying levels of engagement (right) with calm

technology.

Windows are a calm technology example given by Weiser and Brown. I extend their

example by considering how we get a sense of living in a populated world by surveying

17

inhabitants of the city as we look at city lights through a window. Consider the following

scenario as an example of varying levels of engagement.

We can use a telescope from within our home and look through a window to see the

“goings on” of the outside world. We can simply look out over city lights with our bare

eyes. We can also turn off all the lights in our house and without looking out of the

window see the glow of the city lights coming through our windows, bathing all the

objects in our space with light. Ironically, windows are opaque in their immediacy. We

can clearly see city lights, but we actually have no views of people. We say to ourselves,

“wow, look at all those people” not, “wow, look at all those electric lightbulbs.”

Windows provide varying levels of engagement because they do not require center of

attention focus: we can see city lights in the corner of our eyes or recognize the ambient

light they project into our environments.

Similar to windows, a calm CMC technology designed for the home can provide gradient

levels of engagement as a way of supporting peace, quietude, centeredness, and an

intact social space.

A CALM TECHNOLOGY: AMBIENT MEDIA

Even though Weiser and Brown place the ubiquitous computing era beginning at around

2005, calmness is an appropriate goal for current technologies. One example of a calm

technology is the ambient media system. Ambient media systems display abstracted

information in a space occupied by the user of the system using light, sound, movement

of mechanical objects, or temperature changes that is mapped to the information. A user

receives information in the periphery of his/her awareness. Because they provide

abstracted information, ambient media are not transparent in their immediacy. Instead

they are opaque; they rely on the user to make the connection between the ambient

signal and the information associated with it.

AMBIENT MEDIA AWARENESS SYSTEMS

Whereas ambient media provide all types of information in abstracted form, “awareness”

systems provide awareness information about other people. Ambient media awareness

18

systems map presence information associated with other people to ambient media. In

this way provides a way to engage in surveillance, and thus fulfillment of social affiliation,

that does not force the psychic split that a GUI does. Instead of the GUI paradigm where

we are looking into a window--into another world, ambient media allows others’ presence

to appear as light, sound, movement, or temperature changes in our environment. We

become aware of the presence information as it exists in our space.

IM AMBIENT MEDIA

A calm CMC technology in the home--with the same varying levels of surveillance and

engagement as looking at city lights though a window--will support peace, quietude,

centeredness, and an intact social space. IM ambient media is one such technology. As

stated before, IM ambient media “piggy backs” on IM interaction for three reasons: (1) IM

user populations are growing fast, (2) IM use and surveillance seems to be motivated by

the core interpersonal communication motive: social affiliation, and (3) IM interaction is

asynchronous and lightweight and thus lends itself to ambient media. Following is a brief

description of the IM ambient media concept.

Each buddy is represented with a light (or set of different colored lights).13 When a buddy

changes his/her status (e.g., on-line, off-line, busy, not available) a change in the light

(e.g., turns off, flashes, dims, changes color) reflects that change in status. The IM

ambient media is a collection of lights (e.g., incandescent bulbs, LEDs) that project the

changing presence information into the user’s physical space, existing in the center or

periphery of the user’s awareness. Like any household appliance, it could be designed

to integrate into the home environment but can be of one’s awareness.

The ambient media device is designed to provide a user with varying levels of

engagement. Consider the following scenario in which the information is mapped with

status information mapped to a pre-attentive characteristic like color, and buddy

identification mapped to a characteristic s that require mental processing or a close-up

13 In the development of this ambient media device only light was considered as an information channel.There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to using one or the other channel. It is my hope to see bothchannels of ambient media investigated in regard to presence information, but to narrow the scope of thisproject only light was considered.

19

view, like light position or a change from high to low luminosity, changing flash rate).

Georgia is in the kitchen cooking and notices warm orange light out of the corner of her

eye. She knows then, that a family member is on-line (they all are represented with

orange lights). If the she wishes to engage further (requiring more cognitive processing),

she can process the change in light by glancing over and evaluating the change. The

light is pulsing slowly: the person is still on-line but away from their computer. Finally,

she may choose to fully engage by identifying the specific family member by reading text

labels or noting which specific light is illuminated.

EXAMPLES OF AMBIENT MEDIA: A LITERATURE REVIEW

A review of ambient media literature gives specific examples of how ambient media can

be used to create varying levels of interaction paradigms. The examples below include

awareness systems and other ambient media systems.

PORTHOLES

Portholes, developed at Xerox PARC, is an awareness system that was designed to

support distributed workgroups by providing awareness information that is normally

available to groups in a shared physical environment. The aim thus, was to help build a

“sense of community” (Dourish 541). The Portholes system maintains image information

that is generated and consumed at two sites: EuroPARC and XeroxPARC. A series of

video cameras, monitors, microphones , and speakers capture and display images

captured from public spaces and private offices. A client, which occupies a window on a

GUI, displays the images captured along with information about the image (e.g., when

the image was taken and whose office is being viewed). The images are updated

automatically, but a user can choose which images are displayed. The system also

records audio messages that are associated with particular images but these audio

messages must be actively recorded and accessed, making them “neither passive nor

‘background’” (Dourish 546).

The Portholes system was used on and off for 8-10 months (at the time the paper was

written) with about 10 users at each site. An open-ended electronic questionnaire aimed

at collecting observations about the system was distributed and eleven responses were

20

received. While the researchers were not ready to quantify the results of the

questionnaire, they comment that, “user observations suggest that awareness may be a

useful basis for community access (an information tool, especially for locating

colleagues) and for community building (a shared space for ‘sightings’ and personal

snippits)” (Dourish 545). Furthermore , they state that their experiences with the system

“suggest that awareness across distance has meaning…[and] that it can contributed to a

shared sense of community” (Dourish 546).

KAN-G: A DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY FRAMEWORK ENABLING AFFECTIVE

AWARENESS IN HOME COMMUNICATION

KAN-G is an interpersonal communication framework designed for the context of the

home. It is a system which provides “affective awareness”—the general sense of being

connected to another person through home photography (Liechti and Ichikawa). The

system framework involves capturing digital photos and publishing them to “channels” on

the Internet (e.g., friends, family, funny pics, food). The system architecture is the

opposite of instant messaging; instead of a photo (or user’s status) being broadcast to

every one, the user of the system can choose where the photos is broadcast.

Symmetrically, “watchers” can “subscribe to channels they are interested in” (3.2). A key

component of the KAN-G system is that feedback from the “watcher” is captured and

sent to the photographer. There is no direct, explicit communication between watcher

and photographer, “nevertheless [we] believe that an affective link has been created

between them” (3.2).

The designers of the KAN-G system make several observations about the home

environment and its implications for computing: many CMC systems isolate their users

physically and mentally, many CMC systems are designed for the work environment,

and that interpersonal communication is the main use of the Internet at home. Thus, they

designed their system to publish photos on ubiquitous displays that, in the future, will be

found throughout the home. Because the KAN-G system is only a framework, no user

testing has been done, nor is any mention made of user input.

21

AMBIENT DISPLAYS

The Ambient Displays system developed at MIT maps hamster wheel activity to light

patches, which are then projected onto a wall. Human activity in the common area,

sensed using ultrasonic sensors, is mapped to a solenoid which taps the surface of a

small dish of water. The reflections of these water ripples are projected onto the ceiling

of an office, providing the office occupant with ambient awareness of human activity.

THE BENCH

The Bench is another system that promotes ambient awareness. There are two benches

in two different cities, and “when somebody sits on one of them, a corresponding

position on the other bench warms up” (Dunne and Raby). The person on the other

bench can then feel the bench for “body heat,” and have awareness of their presence

(Dunne and Raby).

THE PROBLEM WITH CURRENT AMBIENT AWARENESS SYSTEMS

The problem with many ambient awareness systems is that they haven’t considered the

home environment. Like the telephone and other new technologies, the first applications

of new technology are only in the business sector (Kraut 1996).

The systems discussed in this paper (and others like the AROMA (Pedersen and

Sokoler)) are playful and demonstrate how an ambient media system might work, but

they are designed for actual use in the home. Other ambient awareness systems like the

Digital but Physical Surrogates (Greenberg and Kuzuoka) have focused on the work

environment and are not are relevant to home CMC use; they do not relate to current

uses of CMC in the home and they do not consider the social space of the home. In part,

the lack of explicitly addressed CMC interface issues for the home is due to systems

designs that lack user input. The user-centered design process designed to test my

hypothesis and explore IM ambient media interaction in the home is discussed below.

22

HYPOTHESES

I hypothesized that awareness of “buddies”—presence information mapped to ambient

media, may help satisfy interpersonal needs. The ambient media characteristics that

may contribute to this include inclusion and surveillance.

METHODOLOGY

THE AFFECTIVE INVENTORY

The research involved two methodologies: one quantitative, and another qualitative. An

affective inventory, a quantitative research questionnaire designed to discover feelings

and emotions, was administered to the focus group panelists before beginning a focus

group discussion,14 the qualitative research tool. The questionnaire was designed to test

whether IM’s presence information helps satisfy interpersonal needs. To get at this

issue, I modified questions from other affective inventories used in the above mentioned

mass media, CMC, and interpersonal communication research. The metrics were

measured on a Likert scale. On a Likert scale panelists register their agreement or

disagreement with a statement. (Rubin 203). The questionnaire is found in Appendix A,

and the results are discussed in the Implications/Conclusions section.

THE FOCUS GROUP

The second methodology involved qualitative measures using focus groups. Focus

groups, sometimes called “motivation research” (Templeton 2) are used by researchers

and businesses to determine the core needs and wishes of a certain purchaser or user

demographic. These focus group sessions involve in-depth interviewing of groups of

users (or potential users) by an experienced moderator. Users are asked about the use,

likes, and dislikes of a product or product concept (Rubin 20). These interviews are

particularly advantageous to one-on-one interviews because the group interaction

triggers responses and topics that otherwise may not surface. Jane Farley Templeton

describes them as

14 This was done so as to avoid any influence from the discussion on their answers.

23

[A] small, temporary community, formed for the purpose of the

collaborative enterprise of discovery…‘grouping’ fosters the kind of

interaction that…uncovers more basic motivations….(4)

It is the focused group interaction that is critical to a path of discovery of motivations for

use and purchasing of products or services. Generally stated, the focus group

methodology was used in my research to discover motivations and scenarios for

ambient media use, and preferences for different ambient media device forms and

metaphors. Specific question areas are discussed below in the Procedure section.

Like most qualitative research that involves interviews, the focus group sessions are

taped. Every part of what is said is analyzed: turns of phrase, softly made comments,

shiftings in persuasion, feelings expressed during crosstalk, etc (Templeton 117). This

includes the nonverbal aspects of the vocal production—tone, pitch, cadence, etc.

But there is a further reason for having tapes available. A researcher must sift through

the complex group interaction to understand what panelist really mean when they say

something. Templeton distills this complex group interaction into three separate

communicative channels that provide three levels of information to the researcher:

• Public Affirmation– This is what panelist actually say. Their

interpretation of what they think and feel is “shaped by the social role

they are trying to maintain, and [is] in conjunction with the expressed

views of the other panel members.”

• Private Acknowledgement– These are various written tasks the

panel members are asked to do according to the particular goals of

the discussion.

• Personal Revelation– This is “what is learned from the panelists’

unspoken communications: vocal range, and variation, postural

changes, facial expression, and constrictive or expansive demeanor,

to mention a few.”

(Templeton 68)

In this way, qualitative research is different from quantitative research. Where verbatim

answers to a questionnaire (quantitative research) are treated by a researcher as true

24

facts that can be measured, qualitative research takes into account other communicative

channels in the interpretation of the panelists statements (Templeton 68). “[W]hat

panelist’s responses mean [emphasis hers]” is considered “in terms of conscious and

unconscious predispositions, and inferences about probable behavior” (Templeton 41).

But Templeton warns us of the circular problems that small-sample qualitative research

pose. “The people interviewed are not the universe of possible users, and are not a

dependable sample of that user universe…” and we should therefore “keep in the front

of our minds the tinyness of the sample, and the subjectivity of the inferences which can

be made” (Templeton 273). She also explains, however, that the real advantage of focus

group work is that it “forfeits the tallying of numbers to gain complexity” (Templeton 130).

Real people with all of their complexities of concerns and desires, express not just

idealistic or theoretical views of what a technology—ambient media and IM—can provide

the world, but instead what ambient media and IM can or cannot provide them.

PROCEDURE

The focus group sessions included the following phases:

• Warm-up– Panelists were asked to provide written responses to questions

about current instant messaging use.

• Predisposition discussion– The context in which product is thought about--

Instant Messaging—was briefly discussed.

• Presentation of materials— During a first phase, information mapping

scenarios for the ambient media were presented. During a second phase

form studies for the device were presented.

• Discuss each materials separately— (Due to time constraints, instead of

discussing each possible scenario separately, each set of scenarios

(information mapping and form factors) was discussed in a collective and

comparative discussion.

• Collective and comparative discussion of materials

• Wrap-up— Panelist are asked to summarize what was said.

Panelists were encouraged to express agreement or disagreement so that the limits of

feelings, attitudes, and values could surface. Also, during the focus group, topics were

25

introduced, when possible, by respondent suggestions. Interpretive comments were

offered during the interview in order to:

• elicit deeper introspection,

• summarize before topic-shifts,

• draw out tentative statements,

• polarize dissenting points of view, and to

• challenge, or test the strength of, opinions or feelings.

PURPOSE

The focus groups were conducted with the goal of exploring three areas: (1) current

patterns of IM use at home, (2) ambient media (mapped to presence information) use

scenarios in the home, and (3) preferences for presence information mapping.

Having hypothesized that awareness through ambient media of one’s “buddies” may

help satisfy interpersonal needs, I specifically wanted to answer the following questions:

Would the varying levels of engagement afforded by this ambient media device give

people pleasure, freedom and would it be a desirable characteristic of instant messaging

interaction? How does the iconicity of the object (its form factor) affects the amount

“social presence” of the medium felt by the user? If the form factor of the object

resembled people more/less, how will that affect presence? If the lighted object had

photograph or text labels for each light, how will that affect presence? Will users prefer

an abstract form that was less iconic, and that had no text labels because these features

would be inconsistent with the décor of other household objects in their home?

SPECIFIC QUESITON AND TOPIC AREAS

• IM presence information (e.g., free-for-chat, on-line, busy, back in a few minutes, not

available) mapping to position, color, flash rate, or luminosity.

• Ranking of different status messages (from ICQ) from most available to least

available.

• How the use of text labels might change the ambient media device’s perceived use

and value.

26

• Where in the home would an ambient media device be used?

• Ambient media form factor preferences:

• Would a hand-held device or an object more like a lamp be preferred? Why?

• How might the abstractness or realism (in relation to the human form and the use

of photographs) of the shape contribute to the sense that you have your friends

“around you?”

• How would mood information that the buddy could select (similar to emoticons: J

L), if it were mapped to ambient media colors, be perceived?

• How much access to friends and family is ideal (e.g., would they keep an ambient

media device on for 24 hours at a time?)?

SAMPLE

Fourteen panelists were recruited for four focus groups. Panelists were all college

students or recent college graduates of a technical discipline. All respondents were

between 20-30 years of age.

In terms of Instant Messaging usage, the panelists were a heterogeneous group. While

all panelist used IM to some degree, the hours of usage, and the types of people (that is

the degree of intimacy) for which IM was used, varied. The panelist interviewed included

some IM early-adopters, enthusiasts, and casual users, but no beginners or super-users.

RESULTS: THE FOCUS GROUPS

PRESENCE DATA

Presence data is rich with complexity. On one end panelists felt that presence data

cannot be trusted, and that it is not as valuable as hypothesized, and on the other hand,

they spoke of being influenced by presence data in a way that is similar to face-to-face

interaction. The major findings regarding presence data are discussed below.

Presence data at home is not as valuable as hypothesized for several reasons:

Presence data is not “clean” data and panelists do not trust the validity of the data.

Buddies with broadband access to the Internet are likely to leave themselves logged on

much of the time and forget to change their status, even when they have left their

27

computer for extended periods of time. “Six [buddies] are always on-line because they

have broadband [access].” Many panelists reported having done the same thing, and

therefore feeling like with many buddies, the presence data was not valid. But the level

of trust in presence information correctness varies from buddy to buddy.

Also, the same buddies that are on-line during the day (while at work or school) are on-

line during the evening. “I don't think it would be that helpful to know if someone is

online, because you know, they're just online? It's like, they're online all the time.”

Because of this sentiment, if panelists have Internet access at school or work, they don’t

feel the need to get on-line once at home, regardless of what type of access they had at

home.

Presence data is redundant, and it should be simplified. Virtually all panelists felt

that the status options provided by most IM applications were redundant, that too many

existed, and that this confusion contributed to feelings of distrust in the presence data.

Interestingly, panelists felt that three levels of availability would provide sufficient

presence information: on-line, on-line but busy, off-line. In two of the four focus groups

these levels of presence were likened to a traffic signal metaphor: green for on-line, or

“OK to chat with”, yellow for on-line but busy, and red for off-line.

Presence data has rules of use associated with it. One of the most interesting

threads of conversations that arose during the focus groups was that of the social

interaction rules that IM had associated with it. When I asked panelists to consider a

scenario in which the ambient media device was mapped not to availability, but to a

mood that a buddy selected, panelists reacted very strongly and negatively to this idea,

they did not want this functionality. Panelist felt that mood information would systematize

the interaction too much, that it would dictate too much of the interaction. They felt it

would be “too passive-aggressive”; if a buddy had their mood set to “sad,” there would

be an obligation to interact with them. The social rules of use are symmetric; panelists

stated that they would feel rejected if they had their mood set to “sad” and no one

interacted with them. Although they are not calling it by name, the panelists describe

28

social rules of use associated with IM. “Do you often feel like you have to write people

back?”

“Ducking” soon surfaced in the conversation as a current rule of use associated with IM.

Ducking describes a buddy quickly logging off when a user gets on-line in order to avoid

an interaction. “Ducking happens a lot.” This behavior suggests that presence

information has social rules associated with it. Like the telephone that must be answered

when it rings, the rule of presence information is that if someone is on-line, interaction

should occur. Thus, enriching the presence information (with mood information) brings

more social rules of interaction to the dynamic.

Strong, almost unanimous opinions among panelist about how and when presence data

is captured and broadcast illuminate the degree to which the rules of use of IM presence

data exist. While not the focus of this study, this issue surfaced during several focus

groups. Panelists felt it was important to have control over the capture and broadcasting

of presence data. This control over presence information allows them to break the social

rules of use of presence data. While some loss of control, for the sake of “truer”

presence data was acceptable—ICQ and other IM applications sense mouse

movements and change presence data to reflect when someone is at their workstation,

panelists rejected a scenario in which sensing technologies could accurately determine

whether someone in their home or not.

GUI RULES OF USE AND PERIPHERAL AWARENESS

Use of IM at home is determined by GUI rules of use. Even though most panelists

report engaging in other activities “away” from the computer while they IM, restricted to

an area near their computer. For this user population this meant hanging around their

computers in their bedrooms, the living room, or another room in the house or apartment

where a computer was (e.g., a computer room, den).15 The written comments from the

focus group indicate that all of the panelists who use sound notification to alert them of

presence information (more use sound notification than visual notification at home)

15 None indicated that they use a computer in the kitchen or bathroom, but one stated, “I’d like to see[ambient media] from the kitchen.”

29

changes did so because it extended their “peripheral reach”; it allows them to move their

attention away from the GUI. Panelists’ written responses for why they use sound

notification are given below:

“Because [my] visual attention is diverted…I may be away from my

computer.”

“Because I’m not always looking at the computer.”

“I am usually doing other things—I don’t notice the visuals [notification].”

“I usually use visual notification, but when I am waiting for someone to

come on-line (or available) I will turn sound notification on so I can hear

the notification while I’m away from [my] computer.”

“Often, I’m doing other things. If the sound is [up] high enough, I know to

get back to the computer to see who’s on.”

Verbal comments from the panelists, however, suggest that the audio cues allow little

reach. One commented that she has to fold clothes in the same room as the computer

so that she can hear the audio cues. Another stated, “my girlfriend likes to talk to her

sister. She’ll say, ‘tell me when Thelma logs on,’ and she’ll go out to the kitchen and start

cooking, or she’ll go to the den.” This desire for more “reach” exists for other

communication devices as well. One panelist commented that his phone is “within reach

at all times” because he lives in a huge house with other people and his cell phone is his

only telephone. Another quickly commented “I’ll put it down, but keep it within hearing

distance.”

GUIs enforce a psychic split. “Psychologically, [it is] more of a commitment to get

up…and go sit in front of the computer.” “When I’m done with my computer, I go into my

bedroom and sleep.” “For me the computer is in one place…I can go elsewhere and not

deal with that.” “Since it’s [IM] not like a telephone yet, since it hasn’t permeated our

society, I think a screen would be overkill.” These comments from panelists describe, in

their own words, the psychic spilt that occurs with GUI use. They feel, I believe,

particularly sensitive to this split because they are considering and describing their

homes. Although panelists acknowledged, on some level, a psychic split that a GUI

enforces, and the limitations of GUIs on current IM interaction, as discussed below, other

aspects of IM use negate the need or desire for IM ambient media.

30

SURVEILLANCE, SOCIAL AFFILIATION, AND INTERPERSONAL NEEDS

It was argued above that surveillance is related to social affiliation, the one interpersonal

communication motivation that social scientist acknowledge as influencing behavior.

Although most panelists felt that ambient media would be useful as a surveillance tool,

many speculated that they would not feel “more connected” to buddies using ambient

media and therefore would not feel fulfillment of social affiliation, and thus interpersonal

needs. This lack of fulfillment can be attributed to several characteristics of IM use in the

home: (1) it is used mainly for secondary, “loose-bond” relationships, (2) the telephone is

still the locus of meaningful communication, and (3) panelists may not have been willing

to disclose the true level of fulfillment IM brings.

SECONDARY, LOOSE-BOND RELATIONSHIPS

Despite the subtle suggestion by some panelists that some IM relationships are

important enough to necessitate surveillance--“How many people are you trying to

represent with this? Because my girlfriend has got like 30 people on her contact list, but I

don’t think she would be interested in having more than five…five is understandable”--

the panelists generally use IM for maintaining or fostering secondary relationships, not

primary relationships which fulfill interpersonal needs. “I use ICQ to catch up with people

out of state.” Panelists reported during group discussion that they do not need continual

or continuous IM presence information about buddies because of the nature of the IM

relationships. “I can’t imagine caring that much about my IM world.” “It’s kind of random

who I have on it. I forget to put people back on my buddy list.” The relationships that

panelists have over IM are shallower than those maintained face-to-face or by other

CMC technologies. One panelists commented on discussing mood if it were

hypothetically linked to IM ambient media, “I’m not ready to go to that level of disclosure

with my friends on IRC.”

The following comments exemplifies the way in which, among a fair number of panelists,

IM is commonly thought of: “It’s good] if you are just looking for something to do” “I’d put

it on my TV, since it’s kind of entertainment related.” IM is seen as entertainment, not as

an activity that is motivated by the need to fulfill interpersonal needs. A couple panelists

did note that IM is, at times, used to maintain close relationships. One mentioned that IM

31

ambient media would be especially useful for when her boyfriend was living in another

state. Even in some instances when panelists used IM to communicate with family

members or for close relationships, it seemed fixed in length and premediated, not

spontaneous and constant—the type of interaction and connection that ambient media

would support.

THE TELEPHONE AS THE LOCUS OF INTIMATE COMMUNICATION

Although a fair number of panelists reported using IM to keep in touch with family

members, the telephone is still the locus of communication for those close ties. “I prefer

the phone, so I only use IM for quick things.” When probed, the panelists did not feel that

close connections could be felt using IM or IM ambient media. “Chances are I’d still pick

up the phone and talk to someone.”

In regards to IM ambient media being used as a notification device to initiate interaction

(as opposed to surveillance—which is the interaction) one stated, “if you really need to

you can reach them [by means other than IM].”

ADMITTING SOCIAL AFFILIATION NEEDS

Though the exception, some panelists did express the need for social affiliation and the

role IM takes in its fulfillment. “If no one is in my house, I’ll go on-line and see who’s

there, because it gets kind of lonely.” “If you don’t have anything else to say to them, it’s

still cool to see that they’re online.” “Sometimes it is nice to know that they’re there.”

“You could sleep with your friends! It’d be neat to wake up in the middle of the night and

see people’s status.” More subtle, but an example of the need for social affiliation, is a

comment made by one panelist about an ambient media device design with many lights,

each portraying a buddy: “What are you going to do if you only have 6 people on your

buddy list? You’d have all these empty spaces!” His tone carried sadness and

loneliness, and his sentiment was confirmed by the panelists in that focus group session.

Panelists, I believe, were reluctant to admit, in front of their peers, their need for social

affiliation and the role IM might have in fulfilling it. This issue, in conjunction with results

from the affective inventory, is discussed more in the Conclusions section.

32

AMBIENT MEDIA + USE SCENARIOS

The ambient media device was simply described as a device that communicates

wirelessly to a computer and that “maps IM presence information to light or sound, so

you don’t have to sit in front of a GUI to get this information.” Most panelists could see a

benefit to having it (though for reasons other than hypothesized). Indeed, the written

responses indicated that a fair number of panelists have difficulties finding a time when

buddies are on-line. There was not an overwhelming enthusiasm for the device when

initially described. Having seen drawings and after some discussion about possible use

scenarios, however, they could begin to envision places for IM ambient media in their

homes.

WHERE DOES IT GO?

Panelists said they would use an IM ambient media device, wherever it would be seen

most often (e.g., on the television, in the hallway). With the exception of one panelist,

panelists speculated that they would use the device in a room other than where they

currently use a computer for IM. Many mentioned or agreed that they would use an IM

ambient media device in the kitchen. This corresponds with written responses from the

questionnaire, which indicates that panelists currently do not use their computer in the

kitchen.

ONE MORE DEVICE

I was hoping to communicate the subtlety with which ambient media could exist in an

environment (and I hoped to discover the benefits or disadvantages of this subtlety) by

describing it at times as embedded into household objects like lamps and furniture.

Unfortunately, ambient media was initially described to panelists as a being a device and

after this most panelists could not disassociate IM ambient media functionality from the

notion of a device.16 “[I’d like it] small [so] that you can put into a drawer when someone

comes over, I don’t like a lot of gadgets around.” This characteristic concerned many

panelists; they didn’t want to have “another device.” One participant, however, did

envision changing the lighting of an entire room using ambient media. “So [ambient

16 Group discussions about form factors and text and photographic labels on necessary for ease-of-use alsoreinforced the notion of an ambient media device.

33

media] could be as radical as changing the color of a room?” “If you are at the fridge the

overhead light could change color!”

MAINTENANCE

Panelists considered the reality of having to buy and maintain an ambient media system

or device, and this also concerned them. This issue surfaced during several discussion

threads: “It’s a lot of effort to set the whole thing up, you know. You want IM to be kind of

quick. If you are talking about putting a picture in, it’s just an additional thing you have to

do.” One looked at an abstract form factor, with no photographs, and mentioned, “it looks

like it’s less work.” Others made a parallel to other communication technologies. “People

that I know that have them [web cams] end up turning them off because they’re such a

hassle.” They feel that keeping the status information current requires a lot of effort, and

that the same would be true for mood information; one participant even commented, “I

would keep it on the default mood.”

AMBIENT MEDIA + SOCIAL PRESENCE

Panelists all reacted positively to the ambient media device that uses photographs,

photo frames or photograph holders (like the photograph tree/stand shown to the left of

the picture frame style device) . This is, in part, but not entirely, due to the familiarity with

that form factor. “I have something like that in my kitchen…you could integrate it.” “That’s

a good idea, chicks dig those!” “The photos are so cool!”

The preference for the photo frame style devices is also rooted in usability concerns.

Panelists feel it is important to have either text or photographic labels (similar to one of

the prototypes presented in Fig. 1) so as to easily identify which buddy is online. “[With

the] abstract [shape] it would be harder to figure out who’s online.” None preferred the

abstract or iconic form factors, and no one felt that the iconic forms would provide more

social presence than an abstract form. One panelist, upon seeing the drawing for the

iconic form factor, commented, “oh, that’s creepy.”

A handful of panelists feel that photos are the best, if not the only way to establish a

connection with people. “If a light flashes, it’s just a light flashing. But if a picture comes

34

up, then it’s a different set of feelings.” “To enhance the connection between people then

you’d have to use voice or photos.”

Figure 2. Sketches were used to discuss the impact of form factors and iconicity on

social presence.

AMBIENT MEDIA + INFORMATION MAPPING

POSITION, COLOR, FLASHING, AND LUMINOSITY

Almost unanimously, color was desired for the sake of improved ease-of-use. Color

allows for more flexibility with the information mapping (flashing and brightness can be

used provide secondary presence traits) and its recognized pre-attentively, where as

differences in luminosity or flash rate must be evaluated and compared to other values.

“Using color would take longer to learn but would probably be more useful.” Aside from a

general preference for color, the panelists’ preferences for how the presence information

should be mapped varied. Possible mappings include:

(1) luminosity correspond to status; the position of light corresponds to a specific

buddy,

35

(2) luminosity correspond to status; a specific color and the position correspond

to a specific buddy,

(3) on/off correspond to status; the position of light corresponds to a specific

buddy, and

(4) traffic light colors correspond to status; the position of light corresponds to a

specific buddy.

While many panelists felt that flashing lights would be annoying—“Flashing might get

annoying…It would make it seem like they needed attention.” “[Y]ou don’t want

something blinking at you in the corner of your eye,” they speculated that flashing lights

would be easier to notice in daylight than differing luminosity. Some panelists were

concerned about the levels of luminosity being too similar and therefore difficult to

discern. One panelist is color deficient (i.e., the identification of colors is not pre-

attentive). An ambient media system that accommodates color blindness necessitates

redundant coding (e.g., color and luminosity indicate the availability).

A fair number of panelists felt that some sort of label, but not necessarily photographs,

would be useful in determining who is on-line. The following is an exchange between

panelists discussing this:

P1: Oh, those photos are cool.

P2: That’s a good idea.

P3: I have something like that in my kitchen…you could

integrate it.

P1: I kind of like the photograph thing because you could

put anything in there.

P2: I’d like a place to put a screen name, maybe.

P3: Definitely a name too.

P1: Just a small label.

P2: I know all of my buddies have icons.

P1: Stickers with that size icon or graphic would be nice.

P4: I wouldn’t want pictures, just names would be fine.

P1: Names with pictures would be good.

P4: If you used it enough, you’d get to know where people

are [located] on the device.

36

P1: Yeah, the pictures add to the decorative element, not

the functional.

Another panelists felt, however, that “text labels go too far. You’d have to be really close

to read them. And, it would seem too much like a computer.” If the device is used by

reading text labels and scanning photographs than by recognizing the changes in light,

then it is hardly an effective ambient media device.

SCALABILITY

On average, panelists have 21 buddies. But during group discussion, they verbalized a

need to only represent 5-7 buddies with ambient media. Still when seeing an image and

considering the actual, physical device, panelists asked, “is it expandable?” “What

happens when you kick someone off of the island?”17 Empty spaces on the device, as

well as a lack of space on the device could be problematic. Panelists were concerned

about the maintenance of updating photos and suggested a clever alternative: attaching

a smaller, ubiquitous device with just one light to each photograph or picture frame.

SHARED SPACES

Panelists reported wanting IM ambient media in the kitchen and living room. These

rooms, however, are “public” in shared housing situations. Thus, two challenges of IM

ambient media design for the home are: (1) presenting multiple sets of IM presence

information, and (2) delivering ease-of-use (which may mean text labels, photos, or

audio) while considering privacy issues.

RESULTS: THE AFFECTIVE INVENTORY

The results of the inventory suggest that many of the interpersonal communication

motives are not present for instant messaging presence information. In Table 1

descriptive statistics for the interpersonal communication motives measured on a Likert

Scale are presented (With the exception of the “How satisfied” measurement, which is

only an indication of reported satisfaction level). The Likert Scale was a 5 point scale

with a rating of “1” corresponding to “True,” and “5” corresponding to “Not at all True.”

17 This is a reference to a “reality-based” television program, Survivor, in which a group of people on anisland must decide who must be kicked off the island.

37

The “True” ratings reported for a statement correlate with the presence of an

interpersonal communication motive in the use of instant messaging presence data.

2.571 1.284 .343 14 1.000 5.000 0

4.071 1.072 .286 14 1.000 5.000 0

2.429 1.158 .309 14 1.000 4.000 0

3.286 1.069 .286 14 2.000 5.000 0

3.071 1.385 .370 14 1.000 5.000 0

3.929 1.141 .305 14 2.000 5.000 0

2.214 .802 .214 14 1.000 4.000 0

3.571 1.016 .272 14 2.000 5.000 0

2.143 1.167 .312 14 1.000 5.000 0

4.143 .864 .231 14 2.000 5.000 0

2.500 1.019 .272 14 1.000 4.000 0

2.786 1.188 .318 14 1.000 4.000 0

3.714 1.069 .286 14 2.000 5.000 0

2.357 1.393 .372 14 1.000 5.000 0

3.643 1.216 .325 14 2.000 5.000 0

2.714 1.326 .354 14 1.000 5.000 0

2.071 .616 .165 14 1.000 3.000 0

Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error Count Minimum Maximum # Missing

Have company

Same room

Entertaining

Someone is there

Exciting

Not alone

Feel in touch

Concerned with Budddies

Keep up with

Less Lonely

Know goings on

Knowing is important

Have people around

Access

Be with people

Status/ feel connected

How Satisfied

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Interpersonal Communication Motives

With few exceptions, the statements’ averages were near 3.000 (Neutral on the Likert

Scale) with a standard deviation around 1.000. The data does not suggest anything; no

conclusions can be made from this data set because the answers, on average, were

neither “true” nor “not true.”

The statements which, when considering the standard deviation, are not 3.000 (that is,

they vary the most from neutral) correspond to inclusion statements. These full

statements are below, labeled as they are in Table 1:

Feel in touch—“I feel in touch with the people on my “buddy list’”

Less lonely—“I use it because it makes me feel less lonely”

38

The statement “I feel in touch with the people on my buddy list” was reported as being

“True.” And the statement “I use it because it makes me feel less lonely” was reported as

being “Not True.” Both statements, however, measure “inclusion” as a motive in IM

presence data use; along this dimension they are supposedly equal.18

This discrepancy between the data for the two questions can be attributed to one or both

of the following: (1) the statements, with different language, actually measure different

things (that is, being out of touch is different than being lonely) or, (2) the panelists are

reluctant to admit their loneliness and therefore agree only with the statement that

portrays loneliness less severely.

It seems to me that both are true. Being “out of touch” is different than being lonely,

especially considering the nature of the IM relationships. Keeping “in touch” simply

means maintaining some contact with buddies with which one has a loose bond. As one

panelists stated, “I forget to put people back on.” Being lonely, to me, suggests missing

the close connections that sustain one socially. It is also possible, when considered in

correlation with interpretations from the group discussions regarding social affiliation,

that panelists are reluctant to admit their loneliness19 and therefore only agreed with the

statement “I feel in touch with the people on my buddy list” because it puts less

emphasis on loneliness. To feel “out of touch” is lighter in tone than to feel “lonely.”

Again, in this paper I am only hypothesizing reasons for the inconsistency in this

particular data. Further research on this issue would be necessary to determine the real

cause of the inconsistency.

CONCLUSIONS

USER POPULATION

Given the diversity and small number of panelists, what can be known from these focus

groups is not fixed conclusions or implications that are scalable to the rest of the user

population, because the panelists may not be representative of the entire user

18 The questions used to determine interpersonal motivators for media use were taken from the Resourcesfor the Study of Presence Web Page (see Works Cited for the complete reference).19 For many people admitting loneliness can be seen as a weakness, especially when admitted to peers (evenI, acting as the moderator, am a peer to many of the panelists).

39

population. This group is, along several dimensions, homogeneous and what is

interesting or problematic about IM ambient media for this group may not be so for

another user group. Instead, what we can be sure of is that these group discussions help

uncover possible issues and complexities of IM ambient media.

REAL HOMES, REAL LIVES

Ambient media was not considered in a bubble of theoretical or futuristic idealism; the

reality of IM ambient media within the context of real homes and real home lives was

explored and discussed. In this sense A holistic view of IM ambient media was

considered and surprising issues which are part of the user experience, like

maintenance, are brought to the table when considering its value. In this work we begin

to understand the complexity and issues involved in attempting to elicit a meaningful,

valuable connection between humans using light and/or sound within a person’s home.

IM ISSUES WERE PREVALENT

Many of my assumptions (and hypothesis) about IM were not valid assumptions. I

designed this research, aimed at exploring ambient media as a surveillance tool for

individuals who maintain close ties from home via IM, by piggy backing the focus group

discussion on IM presence issues and practices. I instead uncovered the complexity of

issues surrounding current IM practices. I found that IM is, among the users I

interviewed, used mainly for secondary relationships, that IM presence data isn’t

valuable for this reason and because it is difficult to maintain, and that surveillance of

these buddies is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

PIGGY BACKING: IM AMBIENT MEDIA CONCLUSIONS ARE NOT PRESENCE

AWARENESS AMBIENT MEDIA CONCLUSIONS

To me, the question of whether surveillance from within the home, of a close community,

using ambient media, isn’t answered. When asked about ambient media, panelists

respond with the interest and perspective that they have in and of their “IM world.” It still

remains to be determined (through more research) whether valuable presence

information—valuable because it is accurate and because it is information about people

that a user really cares about—should exist in the form of ambient media within the

home.

40

NEWNESS PANIC

Panelists were asked to comment on an interaction that they had no experience with and

it was difficult for them to envision how they might want to interact with an abstract and

intangible technology like ambient media. THEY ARE STUCK IN A WORLD OF devices

and therefore were able to provide the most feedback and opinions in relation to objects.

Its newness left them somewhat at a loss; none had considered the integration of

presence information into the ambience of their home. Indeed, as Templeton states,

“panel members can provided more dependable information on matters of behavioral

record than about their present or past feelings and wishes concerning a new entry in

the marketplace” (145). She attributes this to an avoidance of introspection by the

panelists when they are confronted with something new; “newness panic [is]…resistance

to change which a truly revolutionary product can evoke” (Templeton 146). Templeton

goes so far as to say this is a ”universal malady.” Even though most panelists are early

adopters for many GUI based and mobile technologies, I sensed in the panelists some

newness panic. I did witness one panelist begin to overcome the newness panic with a

bit of introspection (and hopefully not because of moderator biasing!).“If it was there,

sitting there staring at me in the face, I think it would be too much [pause]. I could see

though, myself becoming more comfortable with that.”

IM AMBIENT MEDIA FINDINGS

The most important and concrete findings regarding IM ambient media are summarized

below.

GUI PSYCHIC SPLIT AND RULES OF USE

The GUI psychic split and rules of use, at least for the user population I interviewed,

seem to hold true. Properly designed ambient media –one that takes advantage of pre-

attentive processing—can bypass GUI rules of use. And of course, the device should

have a prominent “off” button.

FORM FACTOR

The form factor issue, however, did seem to have some resolve. Although the panelists

were discussing the form factors from an IM ambient media perspective, the

41

cohesiveness and uniformity of responses suggest that a form that incorporates

photographs-- to support easy identification of buddies--is preferred to an entirely

abstract or iconic form.

THE DEVICE

A major consideration for panelists was that of having “another device.” Consequently,

the maintenance and cost became real issues for them as they considered this

technology.

INFORMATION MAPPING

The information should be mapped using color, and photographs or labels to identify a

buddy. The research also suggests that status should be limited to three states: on-line,

busy, and off-line. The busy state will be indicated by a change in luminosity (with ideal

functionality allowing for a choice between changes in luminosity and flashing).

METHODOLOGY

While I attempted to execute the focus group methodology to the best of my abilities, I

am not a professional focus group interviewer, and there are several dimensions along

which the process could be improved.

SCREENING

Professional focus group interviewers usually have professional screeners that conduct

rigorous telephone interviews and ensure the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the

panelists’ among specific characteristics.

“When there is no limiting agenda, the name of the game is demographic spread. It is

more fertile in generating reasons why and why not to use the product” (Templeton 166).

The panelists I interviewed were heterogeneous when considering their IM use, but

homogeneous when considering most other factors: age, income bracket, profession,

comfort with technology, etc. So while a good amount of exploration did occur, I felt that

there were limits to what the panelists would consider or debate. “In a more

homogeneous group, responses to questions and to presented materials may be limited

to monologues with choral murmurs of assent.” (Templeton 165). So while the

42

responses to the many topics discussed were intriguing and illuminated the issues

involved in IM and IM ambient media, as a group, they tended to behave as a

homogenous group.

DEMANDS ON PANELISTS

While most focus group studies, with a budget of around 10,000 dollars, pay panelists

typically paid from 50–225 dollars for an hour and a half or their time, the panelists in my

sessions donated their time; their effort was voluntary. Because of this, I was not able to

make the same demands of the panelists, like committing to multiple-hour or several

sessions.

Within the one-hour sessions I conducted it was difficult to both focus the discussions

while attempting to explore the landscape of issues I wished to cover. The time

limitations provided additional constraints on the process. I could not ask panelists to

first write down thoughts and opinions (private acknowledgement) before discussing

things in a group, where opinions could be swayed. Also, I was not able to discuss the

materials to the form factors separately, which would have provided more depth and

insight to opinions about form factor s.

MODERATING

A professional moderator can conduct focus group sessions in a way that makes the

familiar seem strange and the strange seem familiar. This way, when the moderator

discloses the exact purpose of the discussion, the panelists react with a fresh

perspective. During the focus group sessions I conducted, this proved to be the most

significant and difficult aspect of moderating. This difficulty manifested through the

inability of the panelists to disassociate ambient media from a device and to disassociate

their value judgements about ambient media from their value judgments of IM.

BIASES

“A moderator’s personal biases can seriously mislead both the moderator and the client.

It is difficult to prevent bias from appearing, even in inflections or facial expressions…

groups are eager to give the moderator what she wants, especially if she is warm,

enthusiastic, and charming…they [warmth, enthusiasm, and charm] are as powerful in

43

promoting false responses as they are in eliciting true ones” (Templeton 42). This

excerpt by Templeton describes the danger of having biases affect the results of the

study. While I hope that this feedback of sentiments did not affect my findings, because I

am invested in this work, I cannot be certain that I did not unintentionally bias the results

of my data. In future research an unbiased, professional moderator could help obtain

“cleaner” results.

FUTURE RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS

My goal in this work was to explore the use of light in ambient media as it relates to

presence information. While the work resulted in many interesting findings, it was

exploratory. Presence awareness and ambient media are relatively immature fields and

concepts; in both industry and in academia, presence awareness and ambient media are

rapidly changing and developing. Many issues discussed here deserve more attention

through scholarly research and critical discourse.

44

WORKS CITED

1. The Official Bluetooth Website.12 December 2000

<http://www.bluetooth.com/developer/specification/overview.asp>.

2. Bolter, Jay David and Grusin, Richard. Remediation: Understanding New Media.

Boston: M.I.T, Press, 1998.

3. Boyer, M. Christine. Cybercities. Princeton. Princeton AP, 1996.

4. Brown, Barry and Mark Perry. “Why don’t telephones have off switches?

Understanding the use of everyday technologies.” Interacting With Computers

12, 6 (2000): 623-634.

5. Cohen, Jonathan, and Metzger, Miriam. “Social Affiliation and the Achievement

of Ontological Security through Interpersonal and Mass Communication.” Critical

Studies in Mass Communication 15 (1998): 41-60.

6. Dornan, Andy. “Emerging Technology: Instant Gratification.” Network Magazine.

5 Aug. 2000 <http://www.networkmagazine.com/article/NMG200000725S0001>.

7. Dourish, Paul, and Bly, Sara. “Portholes: Supporting Awareness in a Distributed

Work Group.” Proceedings of CHI ’92. May 1992: 541-547.

8. Drucker, David. “Instant Messaging Takes Off – Mail Free-For-All.” InternetWeek.

14 January 2000 <http://www.internetwk.com/lead/lead011400.htm>.

9. Dunne, Anthony, and Raby, Fiona. “Fields and Thresholds.” Doors of Perception

’92. Amsterdam, Holland. 22 Jan. 2001.

<http://www.mediamatic.nl/Doors/Doors2/DunRab/DunRab-Doors2-E.html>

10. Garramone, G. M., Harris, A. C., and Anderson, R. “Uses of Political Computer

Bulletin Boards.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 30 (1986): 325-339.

11. Greenberg, S. and Kuzuoka, H. “Using Digital but Physical Surrogates to Mediate

Awareness, Communication and Privacy in Media Spaces. Personal

Technologies 4,1 (2000).

12. IBM User-Centered Design. IBM. 3 March 2001 <http://www.ibm.com/ucd>.

13. Johnson, Brian. “Between Friends: Support of Workgroup Communications.”

Proceedings of ACADIA 2000. 2000.

14. Katz, James E. and Aspden, Philip. “A Nation of Strangers?” Communications of

the ACM 40, 12 (1997): 81-86.

45

WORKS CITED (CONTINUED)

15. Kolko, Beth E. “Erasing @race: Going White in the (Inter)Face.” Race in

Cyberspace. Ed. Kolko, Beth E., Lisa Nakamura, and Gilbert B. Rodman.

Routledge: New York. 2000. 213-232.

16. Kraut, Robert. ”The Internet @ Home.” Communications of the ACM. 39, 12,

(1996): 32-35.

17. Kraut, Robert, Tridas Mukhopadhyay, Janusz Szczypula, Sara Kiesler, and

Wiliam Scherlis. “Communication and Information: Alternative Uses of the

Internet in Households.” Proceedings of CHI 98. April 1998: 368-375.

18. Kraut, Robert, M. Patterson, V. Lundmrk, S. Kiesler, T. Mukhopadhyay, and W.

Scherlis. “Internet Paradox: A Social Technology That Reduces Social

Involvement and Psychological well-being?” American Psychologist 53, 1017-

1031.

19. Liechti, Oliver and Tadao Ichikawa. “A Digital Photography Framework Enabling

Affective Awareness in Home Communication.” Personal and Ubiquitous

Computing 4, 1, (2000).

20. Papacharissi, Zizi, and Rubin, Alan M. “Predictors of Internet Use.” Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media 44, 2 (2000): 175.

21. Pedersen, Elin R., and Sokoler, Tomas. “AROMA: abstract representation of

presence supporting mutual awareness.” Proceedings of CHI ’97. ACM Press,

Atlanta, GA: 51-58.

22. “Presence Explication.” Resources for the Study of Presence Web Page. 29 Jan.

2001 <http://nimbus.temple.edu/~mlombard/Presence/explicate.html>.

23. Rubin, Jefferey. Handbook of Usability Testing. New York: Wiley, 1994.

24. Rubin, Rebecca B., Perse, Elizabeth M., and Barbato, Carole A.

“Conceptualization and Measurement of Interpersonal Communication Motives.”

Human Communication Research 14, 4 (1988): 601-628.

25. Schutz, William C. The Interpersonal Underworld. Palo Alto, California: Science

and Behavior Books Inc., 1966.

26. Searls, Doc. “The Next Bang: The Explosive Combination of Embedded Linux,

XML, and Instant Messaging.” Linux Journal 77 (2000): 16 Aug. 2000

<http://www2.linuxjournal.com/cgi-bin/frames.pl/index.html>.

46

47

WORKS CITED (CONTINUED)

27. Short, J., E. Williams, and B. Christie. The Social Psychology of

Telecommunications. London: Wiley, 1976.

28. Templeton, Jane Farley. The Focus Group. Chicago: Irwin, 1994.

29. Venkatesh, Alladi. “Computers and Other Interactive Technologies for the

Home.” Communications of the ACM. 39, 12, (1996): 47-54.

30. Vittori, Vince. “The Next Dial Tone?” Telephony 16 October 2000: 37-41.

31. Walther, Joseph B. “Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal,

Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction.” Communication Research 23

(1999): 3-43.

32. Walther, Joseph B. and Reid, Larry D. “Understanding the Allure of the Internet.”

The Chronicle of Higher Education 4 February 2000: B4.

33. Weiser, M. and Brown. “The Coming Age of Calm Technology.” Xerox Parc

1996. <http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/acmfuture2endnote.htm> 22

January 2001.

34. Wellman, Barry and Keith Hampton. “Living Networked in a Wired World.”

Contemporary Sociology 28, 6 (1999).

35. Wineski, Craig, Ishii, Hiroshi, and Dahley, Andrew. “Ambient Displays: Turning

Architectural Space into and Interface between People and Digital Information.”

Proceedings of CoBuild ’98. February 25-26, 1998.

48

APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT’S QUESTIONNAIRE

Please answer the following questions:

1) What Instant Messaging (IM) client do you use?

2) How long have you used IM?

3) How many hours a week do you use IM?

4) Of those hours, how many are at work, and how many are at home?

5) Do you use IM for pleasure? (circle one) yes no

6) How many people do you have on your buddy list?

7) The people on my buddy list are: (circle all that apply)

Friends Family Acquaintances Colleagues Coworkers Strangers

8) How many of your buddies typically logged on in the:

Morning Mid-day Evening Late night/GraveyardFriendsFamilyAcquaintancesColleaguesCoworkersStrangers

9) Do you chat with those people? Who?

10) Do you ever have problems “finding” your buddies on-line (finding a time when they’re loggedon)? (circle one) yes no

11) Do you use IM at home? (circle one) yes no

12) I use IM every time I sit at my computer: (circle one) yes no

13) I use IM only when I know some is there to send messages to: (circle one) yes no

14) I use IM only when I’m looking for someone to send messages to:(circle one) yes no

15) At work, I keep IM on while I engage in activities away from the computer:

(circle one) yes no

If so, please describe what activities:

49

APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT’S QUESTIONNAIRE (CONTINUED)

16) At home, I keep IM on while I engage in other activities: (circle one) yes no

If so, please describe what activities:

17) At work, for “status” notification, I use: (circle one) visual notification sound notification

Why?

18) At home, for “status” notification, I use: (circle one) visual notification sound notification

Why?

19) What type of Internet access do you have at home? (circle one):

High-speed Dial-in modem

20) If you had high-speed access at home, how many hours of the day would you keep IM on?

21) Where do you use your computer at home? (check all that apply)

All over the house (with a laptop)

In one room of my house/apt.

In the bedroom

In the living room

In the kitchen

In the bathroom

50

APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT’S QUESTIONNAIRE (CONTINUED)

DIRECTIONS:

• Please only consider the status notification function of the application (NOT instant messaging, chatting, etc.).• For the purposes of this evaluation the term “buddy list” is being used interchangeably with “contact list.”• For each statement or concept, please rate the effect of the IM client you use:

When people are logged on I feel like I have company.

True Not at all True

1 2 3 4 5

It is as though people on my “buddy list” that are logged on are in the same room with me.

True Not at all True

1 2 3 4 5

I use it because it is entertaining.

True Not at all True

1 2 3 4 5

It helps me know that someone is there, and that is reassuring.

True Not at all True

1 2 3 4 5

It is exciting to use.

True Not at all True

1 2 3 4 5

I used it to avoid being alone.

True Not at all True

1 2 3 4 5

I feel in touch with the people on my “buddy list.”

True Not at all True

1 2 3 4 5

I use it because I’m concerned about the people on my “buddy list.”

True Not at all True

1 2 3 4 5

It helps me keep up with who is around.

True Not at all True

1 2 3 4 5

51

APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT’S QUESTIONNAIRE (CONTINUED)

I use it because it makes me feel less lonely.

True Not at all True

1 2 3 4 5

It helped me know what is going on.

True Not at all True

1 2 3 4 5

Knowing what is going on with my “buddy list” is important.

True Not at all True

1 2 3 4 5

It feels like I have people around me.

True Not at all True

1 2 3 4 5

It allows me to access people at any time of day or night.

True Not at all True

1 2 3 4 5

I use it to be with people.

True Not at all True

1 2 3 4 5

Knowing the status of the people on my “buddy list” makes me feel connected with them.

True Not at all True

1 2 3 4 5

Overall, how satisfied are you with it?

Extremely Satisfied Not at all Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

52

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE DATA AND DISCUSSION

.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

Have company

Same room

Entertaining

Someone is there

Exciting

Not alone

Feel in touch

Concerned with Budddies

Keep up with

Less Lonely

Know goings on

Knowing is important

Have people around

Access

Be with people

Status/ feel connected

How Satisfied

Box Plot

Figure 3. Data from Table 1 in a Box Plot

Figure 3 shows the data from Table 1 in a Box Plot. The Box Plot shows statement

ratings of the median 50th percentile or panelists (indicated by the bounds of the box),

as well as outlying data points.

53

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE DATA AND DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)

Though the standard deviation is high for all of the statements, surveillance and access

were the only motives in which all the ratings’ means were below 3, indicating a

tendency for the reported existence of those motivations in instant messaging presence

information use. The mean values are shown in Figure 4.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Cell Mean

Have company

Same room

Entertaining

Someone is there

Exciting

Not alone

Feel in touch

Concerned with Budddies

Keep up with

Less Lonely

Know goings on

Knowing is important

Have people around

Access

Be with people

Status/ feel connected

How Satisfied

Cell Bar ChartError Bars: – 1 Standard Deviation(s)

Figure 4. Data from Table 1 in Mean Rating Bar Chart

54

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE DATA AND DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)

(CONTINUED)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Cell Mean

Someone is there

Not alone

Feel in touch

Less Lonely

Have people around

Be with people

Cell Bar ChartError Bars: – 1 Standard Deviation(s)

Figure 5. Mean Rating Bar Chart for statements measuring inclusion

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cell Mean

Morning Mid-day Evening Graveyard

Cell Line ChartError Bars: – 1 Standard Deviation(s)

Figure 6. Reported number of buddies on-line during different times of the day

55

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE DATA AND DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)

-5

-2.5

0

2.5

5

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

Units

Hrs. work Hrs. home Hrs. other

modem

high-speed

Box PlotSplit By: Connection

Figure 7. Reported number of hours spent using IM from home and work, split by type of

Internet connection

56

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE DATA AND DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Cell Sum

Problems finding buddies on-line

No problems finding buddies on-li

Cell Bar Chart

Figure 8. Number of respondents who reported having problems finding a time when

buddies were on-line, and number of respondents who reported having no problems

finding a time when buddies were on-line.

57

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE DATA AND DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)

0

.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Cell Sum

Visual notification (home) Sound notification (home)

no

yes

Cell Bar ChartSplit By: Multi-task home

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Cell Sum

Visual notification (work) Sound notification (work)

no

yes

Cell Bar ChartSplit By: Multi-task work

Figure 9. (top) Number of reported users of visual and sound notification at home

Figure 10. (bottom) Number of reported users of visual and sound notification at work

58

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE DATA AND DISCUSSION (CONTINUED)

1 1 13 1

0 0 14 ¥

1 5 9 1

1 5 9 1

1 2 12 1

0 0 14 ¥

0 0 14 ¥

# Levels Count # Missing Mode

laptop

multiple comp

one room

bedroom

living room

kitchen

bathroom

Nominal Descriptive Statistics

Table 2. Locations of reported computer use in the home