skip to main content
10.1145/3357236.3395467acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

An Autobiographical Design Study of a Long Distance Relationship: When Telepresence Robots Meet Smart Home Tools

Published:03 July 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Long distance couples often face challenges in maintaining their relationship over distance because computer-mediated communication tools typically only support a limited range of relationship maintenance behaviors. To explore a broader design space that might help combat this problem, we conducted an autobiographical design study that explores the usage of a telepresence robot coupled with voice-activated smart home devices. The telepresence robot provided an embodiment for one remote partner who could talk through the robot to control the smart devices in the remote location. We studied how the setup was used by a long distance couple over a three month period to share their home and nurture and maintain their relationship. The study revealed how such a setup can promote feelings of ownership, belonging, and normalcy, as well as a diversity of interactions and social connections. Implications for design include the importance of supporting effortful, personalized, varied, and shared interactions.

References

  1. Almond Pilar N. Aguila. 2011. Living long-distance relationships through computer-mediated communication. Social Science Diliman 5, 1 & 2. Retrieved October 5, 2016 from http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/socialsciencedili man/article/viewArticle/2045Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Elizabeth Bales, Kevin A. Li, and William Griwsold. 2011. CoupleVIBE: mobile implicit communication to improve awareness for (long-distance) couples. 65. https://doi.org/10.1145/1958824.1958835Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. M. Broxvall, M. Gritti, A. Saffiotti, Beom-Su Seo, and Young-Jo Cho. 2006. PEIS Ecology: integrating robots into smart environments. In Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006., 212--218. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2006.1641186Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Jed R. Brubaker, Gina Venolia, and John C. Tang. 2012. Focusing on shared experiences: moving beyond the camera in video communication. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 96--105. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2317973Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Tatiana Buhler, Carman Neustaedter, and Serena Hillman. 2013. How and why teenagers use video chat. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 759--768. Retrieved September 18, 2017 from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2441861Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Wei-Chi Chien and Marc Hassenzahl. 2017. Technology-Mediated Relationship Maintenance in Romantic Long-Distance Relationships: An Autoethnographical Research through Design. Human-- Computer Interaction: 1--48. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2017.1401927Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Wei-Chi Chien, Marc Hassenzahl, and Julika Welge. 2016. Sharing a Robotic Pet as a Maintenance Strategy for Romantic Couples in Long-Distance Relationships.: An Autobiographical Design Exploration. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI EA '16, 1375--1382. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892313Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Marianne Dainton and Brooks Aylor. 2001. A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, and maintenance in long-distance versus geographically close relationships.communication Quarterly 49, 2: 172-- 188. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370109385624Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Munjal Desai, Katherine M. Tsui, Holly A. Yanco, and Chris Uhlik. 2011. Essential features of telepresence robots. In 2011 IEEE Conference on Technologies for Practical Robot Applications, 15--20. Retrieved November 4, 2016 from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Elizabeth Goodman and Marion Misilim. 2003. The Sensing Beds. Ubicomp 2003 Workshop: 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Konstantinos Grivas. 2006. Digital Selves: Devices for intimate communications between homes. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 10, 2--3: 66--76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-005-0003--1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Marc Hassenzahl, Stephanie Heidecker, Kai Eckoldt, Sarah Diefenbach, and Uwe Hillmann. 2012. All You Need is Love: Current Strategies of Mediating Intimate Relationships through Technology. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 19, 4: 1--19. https://doi.org/10.1145/2395131.2395137Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Yasamin Heshmat, Brennan Jones, Xiaoxuan Xiong, Carman Neustaedter, Anthony Tang, Bernhard E. Riecke, and Lillian Yang. 2018. Geocaching with a Beam: Shared Outdoor Activities through a Telepresence Robot with 360 Degree Viewing. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '18, 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173933Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Kori Inkpen, Brett Taylor, Sasa Junuzovic, John Tang, and Gina Venolia. 2013. Experiences2Go: sharing kids' activities outside the home with remote family members. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 1329--1340. Retrieved September 18, 2016 from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2441926Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Yeong Rae Joi, Beom Taek Jeong, Jin Hwang Kim, Ki Hyuk Park, Taehyun Lee, and Jun Dong Cho. 2015. WearLove: Affective Communication via Wearable Device with Gamification. 559--564. https://doi.org/10.1145/2793107.2810337Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Brennan Jones, Anna Witcraft, Scott Bateman, Carman Neustaedter, and Anthony Tang. 2015. Mechanics of Camera Work in Mobile Video Collaboration. 957--966. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702345Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Victor Kaptelinin, Patrik Björnfot, Karin Danielsson, and Mikael U. Wiberg. 2017. Mobile Remote Presence Enhanced with Contactless Object Manipulation: An Exploratory Study. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA '17, 2690--2697. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053204Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Hyo Kim, Gwang Jae Kim, Han Woo Park, and Ronald E. Rice. 2007. Configurations of Relationships in Different Media: FtF, Email, Instant Messenger, Mobile Phone, and SMS. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12, 4: 1183--1207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083--6101.2007.00369.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Robert Kowalski, Sebastian Loehmann, and Doris Hausen. 2013. cubble: a multi-device hybrid approach supporting communication in long-distance relationships. 201. https://doi.org/10.1145/2460625.2460656Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Annica Kristoffersson, Silvia Coradeschi, and Amy Loutfi. 2013. A Review of Mobile Robotic Telepresence. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 2013: 1--17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/902316Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Min Kyung Lee and Leila Takayama. 2011. Now, I have a body: Uses and social norms for mobile remote presence in the workplace. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 33--42. Retrieved November 25, 2016 from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1978950Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Danielle Lottridge, Nicolas Masson, and Wendy Mackay. 2009. Sharing empty moments: design for remote couples. 2329. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1519058Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Michael Massimi and Carman Neustaedter. 2014. Moving from talking heads to newlyweds: exploring video chat use during major life events. 43--52. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598570Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Carman Neustaedter and Saul Greenberg. 2011. Intimacy in long-distance relationships over video chat. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Carman Neustaedter, Tejinder K. Judge, and Phoebe Sengers. 2015. Autobiographical Design in the Home. In Studying and designing technology for domestic life: lessons from home. Elsevier/MK, Amsterdam; Boston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Carman Neustaedter, Jason Procyk, Anezka Chua, Azadeh Forghani, and Carolyn Pang. 2017. Mobile Video Conferencing for Sharing Outdoor Leisure Activities Over Distance. Human--Computer Interaction: 1--40. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2017.1314186Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Carman Neustaedter and Phoebe Sengers. 2012. Autobiographical design in HCI research: designing and learning through use-it-yourself. Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference: 514--523.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Joe Saunders, Dag Sverre Syrdal, Kheng Lee Koay, Nathan Burke, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2016. "Teach Me--Show Me"-End-User Personalization of a Smart Home and Companion Robot. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 46, 1: 27--40. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2015.2445105Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Samarth Singhal, Carman Neustaedter, Yee Loong Ooi, Alissa N. Antle, and Brendan Matkin. 2017. Flex-NFeel: The Design and Evaluation of Emotive Gloves for Couples to Support Touch Over Distance. 98--110. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998247Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. L. Stafford and A. J. Merolla. 2007. Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 24, 1: 37--54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507072578Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Laura Stafford. 2005. Maintaining Long-Distance and Cross-Residential Relationships. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Rob Strong, Bill Gaver, and others. 1996. Feather, scent and shaker: supporting simple intimacy. In Proceedings of CSCW, 29--30. Retrieved October 8, 2016 from https://www.gold.ac.uk/media/migrated/media/goldsmi ths/departments/researchcentres/interactionresearchstu dio/pdf/16strong-gaver.feather.cscw96.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Lillian Yang, Brennan Jones, Carman Neustaedter, and Samarth Singhal. 2018. Shopping Over Distance through a Telepresence Robot. 2: 18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Lillian Yang and Carman Neustaedter. 2018. Our House: Living Long Distance with a Telepresence Robot. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW: 1--18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274459Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Lillian Yang, Carman Neustaedter, and Thecla Schiphorst. 2017.communicating Through A Telepresence Robot: A Study of Long Distance Relationships. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA '17, 3027--3033. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053240Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. An Autobiographical Design Study of a Long Distance Relationship: When Telepresence Robots Meet Smart Home Tools

    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 Conferences
      DIS '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference
      July 2020
      2264 pages
      ISBN:9781450369749
      DOI:10.1145/3357236

      Copyright © 2020 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 the author(s) 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: 3 July 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,158of4,684submissions,25%

      Upcoming Conference

      DIS '24
      Designing Interactive Systems Conference
      July 1 - 5, 2024
      IT University of Copenhagen , Denmark

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader