skip to main content
10.1145/3563657.3596076acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Getting the Residents’ Attention: The Perception of Warning Channels in Smart Home Warning Systems

Authors Info & Claims
Published:10 July 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

About half a billion households are expected to use smart home systems by 2025. Although many IoT sensors, such as smoke detectors or security cameras, are available and governmental crisis warning systems are in place, little is known about how to warn appropriately in smart home environments. We created a Raspberry Pi based prototype with a speaker, a display, and a connected smart light bulb. Together with a focus group, we developed a taxonomy for warning messages in smart home environments, dividing them into five classes with different stimuli. We evaluated the taxonomy using the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) in a field study at participants’ (N = 13) homes testing 331 warnings. The results show that taxonomy-based warning stimuli are perceived to be appropriate and participants could imagine using such a warning system. We propose a deeper integration of warning capabilities into smart home environments to enhance the safety of citizens.

References

  1. Hamood Alqourabah, Amgad Muneer, and Suliman Mohamed Fati. 2021. A smart fire detection system using IoT technology with automatic water sprinkler.International Journal of Electrical & Computer Engineering (2088-8708) 11, 4 (2021). https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v11i4.pp2994-3002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Inc. Amazon.com. 2021. Echo Show Smart speaker. https://www.amazon.de/echo-show/. [Online; accessed September-2022].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonnie Brinton Anderson, C. Brock Kirwan, Jeffrey L. Jenkins, David Eargle, Seth Howard, and Anthony Vance. 2015. How Polymorphic Warnings Reduce Habituation in the Brain: Insights from an FMRI Study. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2883–2892. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702322Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Sourav Kumar Bhoi, Sanjaya Kumar Panda, Biranchi Narayan Padhi, Manash Kumar Swain, Balabhadrah Hembram, Debasish Mishra, Chittaranjan Mallick, Munesh Singh, and Pabitra Mohan Khilar. 2018. FireDS-IoT: A Fire Detection System for Smart Home Based on IoT Data Analytics. In 2018 International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT). 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIT.2018.00042Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Frank E Block, Lauri Nuutinen, and Bert Ballast. 1999. Optimization of alarms: a study on alarm limits, alarm sounds, and false alarms, intended to reduce annoyance. Journal of clinical monitoring and computing 15, 2 (1999), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009992830942Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. A.J. Bernheim Brush, Bongshin Lee, Ratul Mahajan, Sharad Agarwal, Stefan Saroiu, and Colin Dixon. 2011. Home Automation in the Wild: Challenges and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2115–2124. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979249Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Jennifer L Burt, Debbie S Bartolome, Daniel W Burdette, and J Raymond Comstock Jr. 1995. A psychophysiological evaluation of the perceived urgency of auditory warning signals. Ergonomics 38, 11 (1995), 2327–2340. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139508925271Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Margarita Esau, Veronika Krauß, Dennis Lawo, and Gunnar Stevens. 2022. Losing Its Touch: Understanding User Perception of Multimodal Interaction and Smart Assistance. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Virtual Event, Australia) (DIS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1288–1299. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533455Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Thomas Franke, Christiane Attig, and Daniel Wessel. 2019. A personal resource for technology interaction: development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ATI) scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 35, 6 (2019), 456–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1456150Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Oxsy Giandi and Riyanarto Sarno. 2018. Prototype of fire symptom detection system. In 2018 International Conference on Information and Communications Technology (ICOIACT). 489–494. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOIACT.2018.8350730Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. E Bruce Goldstein and Laura Cacciamani. 2021. Sensation and perception. Cengage Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Neilly H. Tan, Richmond Y. Wong, Audrey Desjardins, Sean A. Munson, and James Pierce. 2022. Monitoring Pets, Deterring Intruders, and Casually Spying on Neighbors: Everyday Uses of Smart Home Cameras. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 617, 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517617Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Md. Mahamudul Hasan and M. Abdur Razzak. 2016. An automatic fire detection and warning system under home video surveillance. In 2016 IEEE 12th International Colloquium on Signal Processing & Its Applications (CSPA). 258–262. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSPA.2016.7515842Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Jasmin Haunschild, Marc-André Kaufhold, and Christian Reuter. 2022. Perceptions and Use of Warning Apps – Did Recent Crises Lead to Changes in Germany?. In Mensch Und Computer 2022 (Darmstadt, Germany) (MuC ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543758.3543770Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Jasmin Haunschild, Selina Pauli, and Christian Reuter. 2023. Preparedness nudging for warning apps? A mixed-method study investigating popularity and effects of preparedness alerts in warning apps. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 172 (2023), 102995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.102995Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Andrin Hauri, Kevin Kohler, and Benjamin Scharte. 2022. A Comparative Assessment of Mobile Device-Based Multi-Hazard Warnings: Saving Lives through Public Alerts in Europe. CSS Risk and Resilience Reports (2022). https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000533908Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Apple Inc.2021. HomePod Smart Speaker. https://www.apple.com/de/homepod/. [Online; accessed September-2022].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Rekha Shivakumar; Afshana Khanum. 2019. An enhanced security alert system for smart home using IOT. Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science Vol 13, No 1: January 2019 (2019). https://ijeecs.iaescore.com/index.php/IJEECS/article/view/14263/10252Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Kat Krol, Matthew Moroz, and M. Angela Sasse. 2012. Don’t work. Can’t work? Why it’s time to rethink security warnings. In 2012 7th International Conference on Risks and Security of Internet and Systems (CRiSIS). 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/CRISIS.2012.6378951Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Sumeet Kumar, Hakan Erdogmus, Bob Iannucci, Martin Griss, and João Diogo Falcão. 2018. Rethinking the Future of Wireless Emergency Alerts: A Comprehensive Study of Technical and Conceptual Improvements. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2, 2, Article 71 (jul 2018), 33 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3214274Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Reed Larson and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2014. The experience sampling method. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology. Springer, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Jeremiah Lasquety-Reyes. 2021. Smart home - number of households in the segment Smart Home in the world 2025. Available at: https://www.statista.com/forecasts/887613/number-of-smart-homes-in-the-smart-home-market-in-the-world, Accessed: 2022/09/02.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Qinghua Liu, Tianwei Shi, and Ling Ren. 2022. Device Action Prediction Based on K-means and Apriori for Smart Home. In 2022 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Image Processing, Electronics and Computers (IPEC). 1015–1021. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPEC54454.2022.9777395Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Davit Marikyan, Savvas Papagiannidis, and Eleftherios Alamanos. 2019. A systematic review of the smart home literature: A user perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 138 (2019), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.015Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Google Nest. 2021. Smart Home. https://nest.com. [Online; accessed September-2022].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Thirawut Nilpanapan and Teerakiat Kerdcharoen. 2016. Social data shoes for gait monitoring of elderly people in smart home. In 2016 9th Biomedical Engineering International Conference (BMEiCON). 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/BMEiCON.2016.7859611Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Nandita Pattnaik, Shujun Li, and Jason R.C. Nurse. 2022. A Survey of User Perspectives on Security and Privacy in a Home Networking Environment. ACM Comput. Surv. (aug 2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3558095 Just Accepted.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. James Pierce. 2019. Smart Home Security Cameras and Shifting Lines of Creepiness: A Design-Led Inquiry. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300275Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Sarah Prange and Florian Alt. 2020. I Wish You Were Smart(Er): Investigating Users’ Desires and Needs Towards Home Appliances. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382910Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Rasika S. Ransing and Manita Rajput. 2015. Smart home for elderly care, based on Wireless Sensor Network. In 2015 International Conference on Nascent Technologies in the Engineering Field (ICNTE). 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNTE.2015.7029932Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Faisal Saeed, Anand Paul, Abdul Rehman, Won Hwa Hong, and Hyuncheol Seo. 2018. IoT-Based Intelligent Modeling of Smart Home Environment for Fire Prevention and Safety. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks 7, 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/jsan7010011Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Lamine Salhi, Thomas Silverston, Taku Yamazaki, and Takumi Miyoshi. 2019. Early Detection System for Gas Leakage and Fire in Smart Home Using Machine Learning. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE). 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCE.2019.8661990Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Antti Salovaara, Andrea Bellucci, Andrea Vianello, and Giulio Jacucci. 2021. Programmable Smart Home Toolkits Should Better Address Households’ Social Needs. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 718, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445770Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Qusay Idrees Sarhan. 2020. Arduino Based Smart Home Warning System. In 2020 IEEE 6th International Conference on Control Science and Systems Engineering (ICCSSE). 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSSE50399.2020.9171939Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Qusay I. Sarhan. 2020. Systematic Survey on Smart Home Safety and Security Systems Using the Arduino Platform. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 128362–128384. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3008610Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Corina Sas, Kieran Brahney, Carl Oechsner, Amish Trivedi, Mauricio Nomesque, Zaffar Mughal, Keith W. Cheverst, Sarah Clinch, and Nigel Davies. 2017. Communication Needs of Elderly at Risk of Falls and Their Remote Family. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI EA ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2900–2908. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053274Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Charles Spence and Cristy Ho. 2008. Multisensory warning signals for event perception and safe driving. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 9, 6 (2008), 523–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220701816765Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Neville A Stanton, Paul Salmon, Daniel Jenkins, and Guy Walker. 2009. Human factors in the design and evaluation of central control room operations. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781439809921Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Daniel Szopinski, Thorsten Schoormann, and Dennis Kundisch. 2019. Because Your Taxonomy is Worth IT: towards a Framework for Taxonomy Evaluation.. In Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems(ECIS). https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019_rp/104Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Marion Lara Tan, Raj Prasanna, Kristin Stock, Emma Hudson-Doyle, Graham Leonard, and David Johnston. 2017. Mobile applications in crisis informatics literature: A systematic review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 24 (2017), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.06.009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. S. Tanwar, P. Patel, K. Patel, S. Tyagi, N. Kumar, and M. S. Obaidat. 2017. An advanced Internet of Thing based Security Alert System for Smart Home. In 2017 International Conference on Computer, Information and Telecommunication Systems (CITS). 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/CITS.2017.8035326Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Vishakha D. Vaidya and Pinki Vishwakarma. 2018. A Comparative Analysis on Smart Home System to Control, Monitor and Secure Home, based on technologies like GSM, IOT, Bluetooth and PIC Microcontroller with ZigBee Modulation. In 2018 International Conference on Smart City and Emerging Technology (ICSCET). 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSCET.2018.8537381Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Niels van Berkel, Denzil Ferreira, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2017. The Experience Sampling Method on Mobile Devices. ACM Comput. Surv. 50, 6, Article 93 (dec 2017), 40 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3123988Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Niels van Berkel, Denzil Ferreira, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2017. The Experience Sampling Method on Mobile Devices. ACM Comput. Surv. 50, 6, Article 93 (dec 2017), 40 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3123988Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Anthony Vance, Brock Kirwan, Daniel Bjornn, Jeffrey Jenkins, and Bonnie Brinton Anderson. 2017. What Do We Really Know about How Habituation to Warnings Occurs Over Time? A Longitudinal FMRI Study of Habituation and Polymorphic Warnings. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2215–2227. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025896Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Jing Wei, Benjamin Tag, Johanne R Trippas, Tilman Dingler, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2022. What Could Possibly Go Wrong When Interacting with Proactive Smart Speakers? A Case Study Using an ESM Application. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 276, 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517432Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Frank Wilcoxon. 1945. Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1, 6 (1945), 80–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001968Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Yanni Zhai and Xiaodong Cheng. 2011. Design of smart home remote monitoring system based on embedded system. In 2011 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Computing, Control and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 2. 41–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCIENG.2011.6008062Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Haoyu Zhang, Guomin Li, and Yaru Li. 2018. A Home Environment Monitoring Design on Arduino. In 2018 International Conference on Intelligent Transportation, Big Data & Smart City (ICITBS). 53–56. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITBS.2018.00021Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Getting the Residents’ Attention: The Perception of Warning Channels in Smart Home Warning Systems

    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 '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference
      July 2023
      2717 pages
      ISBN:9781450398930
      DOI:10.1145/3563657

      Copyright © 2023 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: 10 July 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      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
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)105
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)14

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format