skip to main content
10.1145/2971485.2971534acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnordichiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

It's a Pain in the... Wild?: Struggling to Create Conditions for Emerging Practices in an Urban Computing Project

Published:23 October 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Urban computing projects are complex endeavors that require the involvement of many stakeholders. A long-term goal of such projects can be seen as providing positive outcomes on local practices. This is, however, a huge challenge. Drawing on the trajectory of the UBI-Oulu project, we identified a variety of stakeholders and abstract forces that shaped the project and its outcomes. The trajectory was largely characterized as reactions to the contesting forces. Our contribution was a framework for making sense, and managing the complexity, of "in-the-wild" urban computing projects. The framework categorized the implicating factors according to their level of 1) contribution to project goals, 2) interdependence, and 3) foreseeability. The use of the framework could help to relieve the pain in the wild.

References

  1. Cheverst K., Taher F., Fisher M., Fitton D., Taylor N. 2012. The design, deployment and evaluation of situated display-based systems to support coordination and community. Ubiquitous Display Environments: 105--124.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Clinch S., Davies N., Friday A., Efstratiou C. 2011. Reflections on the long-term use of an experimental digital signage system. In Proc. UbiComp, 133--142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Dalsgaard P., Eriksson E. 2013. Large-scale participation: a case study of a participatory approach to developing a new public library. Proc. CHI 399--408. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Dalsgaard P., Halskov K. 2010. Designing urban media façades: cases and challenges. In Proc. CHI 2277--2286. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Friday A., Davies N., Efstratiou C. 2012. Reflections on long-term experiments with public displays. Computer 45, 5: 34--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Gaver W., Boucher A., Bowers J., Blythe M., Jarvis N., Cameron C., Kerridge T., Wilkie A., Phillips R., Wright P. 2011. The photostroller: supporting diverse care home residents in engaging with the world. In Proc. CHI 1757--1766. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Gaver W., Bowers J., Boucher A., Gellerson H., Pennington S., Schmidt A., Steed A., Villars N., Walker B. 2004. The Drift Table: Designing for ludic engagement. In Proc. CHI EA. 885--900. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Hosio S., Kukka H., Goncalves J., Kostakos V., Ojala T. 2016. Toward Meaningful Engagement with Pervasive Displays. Pervasive Computing. 15,3: 24--31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Jurmu M., Ventä-Olkkonen L., Lanamäki A., Kukka H., Iivari N., Kuutti K. 2016. Emergent practice as a methodological lens for public displays in-the-wild. In Proc. Pervasive Displays. 124--131. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kukka H., Kostakos V., Ojala T., Ylipulli J., Suopajärvi T., Jurmu M., Hosio S. 2011. This is not classified: everyday information seeking and encountering in smart urban spaces. Personal and Ubiquitous computing. 17, 1: 15--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Kukka H., Luusua A., Ylipulli J., Suopajärvi T., Kostakos V., Ojala T. 2014. From cyberpunk to calm urban computing: Exploring the role of technology in the future cityscape. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 82: 29--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Kuutti K., Bannon L. 2014. The turn to practice in HCI: towards a research agenda. Proc. CHI 3543--3552. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Memarovic N., Langheinrich M., Cheverst K., Taylor N., Alt F. 2013. P-LAYERS -- A layered framework addressing the multifaceted issues facing community-supporting public display deployments. ACM TOCHI 20, 3: 17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Ojala T., Kukka H., Lindén T., Heikkinen T., Jurmu M., Hosio S., Kruger F. 2010. UBI-hotspot 1.0: Large-scale Long-term Deployment of Interactive Public Displays in a City Center. Proc. ICIW 285--294. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Pentland B. T. 2011. The foundation is solid, if you know where to look: Comment on Felin and Foss. Jrnl of Institutional Economics 7, 2: 279--293.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Rogers Y. 2011. Interaction design gone wild: striving for wild theory. Interactions, 18, 4: 58--62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Storz O., Friday A., Davies N., Finney J., Sas C., Sheridan J. G. 2006. Public ubiquitous computing systems: Lessons from the e-Campus display deployments. Pervasive Computing 5, 3: 40--47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Suchman L. A. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge university press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Suopajärvi T., Ylipulli J., Kinnunen T. 2012. "Realities behind ICT Dreams": Designing a Ubiquitous City in a Living Lab Environment. Int. Jrnl of Gender, Science and Technology, 4, 2: 231--252.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Taylor N., Cheverst K. 2009. Supporting community awareness with interactive displays. Computer 45, 5: 26--32 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Taylor N., Cheverst K., Wright P., Olivier P. 2013. Leaving the wild: Lessons from community technology handovers. In Proc. CHI 1549--1558. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Urban interactions research program websites. Retrieved Apr 14, 2016 from http://www.ubioulu.fi/enGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Ventä-Olkkonen L., Lanamäki A., Iivari N., Kuutti K. 2016. Using with discretion: Identifying Emergent Practices around Interactive Public Displays. ECIS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Wulf V., Rohde M., Pipek V., Stevens G. 2011. Engaging with Practices: Design Case Studies as a Research Framework in CSCW. Proc. CSCW 505--512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Ylipulli J., Luusua A., Kukka H., Ojala T. 2014. Winter is coming: Introducing climate sensitive urban computing. In Proc. DIS 647--656. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Ylipulli J., Suopajärvi T. 2013. Contesting ubicomp visions through ICT practices: Power negotiation in the meshwork of a technologised city. International Communication Gazette July 11, 2013: 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. It's a Pain in the... Wild?: Struggling to Create Conditions for Emerging Practices in an Urban Computing Project

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      NordiCHI '16: Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction
      October 2016
      1045 pages
      ISBN:9781450347631
      DOI:10.1145/2971485

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 23 October 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      NordiCHI '16 Paper Acceptance Rate58of231submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate379of1,572submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader