Wiberg M. - The Interaction Society[c] Practice, Theories and Supportive Technologies (2005)(en)

294 Nilsson, Nuldén & Olsson

information sources were situated. The Swedish Match Cup study indicates that spectators tried to maintain some kind of awareness of the highlights of the event while being mobile and engaged in other activities during the intervals between races. All three studies indicate the problem of missing information when spectators are out of range from information sources.

•Spectators’locationvariesextensivelythroughoutthecourseofevents,as opposed to spectators in a conventional arena setting.

•Existing sources of information are situated at fixed locations. Spectators continuously move around at the event, which results in insufficient information support while beingmobile.

Situated Content

Radio broadcasts of events aim to satisfy a broad audience and are produced for listeners not located at the event. Thus this source of information continuously broadcasts information regardless of the situation of the spectators. The effect is that spectators have to adjust their attention to what is broadcasted, and at the same time what is taking place in the field. The conventional sources of information cannot adjust to in which situation the spectator is currently in, bothintermsofinformationcontentandwhenitisasuitabletimeforinformation transfer. The different use situations call for system functionality that can be controlled by the user. This comprises the control on when information should be pushed as opposed to actively pulled. In addition, the results suggest that the users differ in their opinion about information relevancy. Thus the system has to allow the users to have influence on the content and be able to interact with it.

•Spectators’ attention varies, it changes over time depending on the situation at hand. It mainly alternates between social interactions with fellow spectators and observing what is happening in the event.

•Theneedforspecificeventinformationvariesonanindividuallevelbased on interest and when and where you are situated.

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Spectator Information Support 295

Design Challenges

In this section the main challenges for the design of spectator support are discussed. Spectators reported little interest in accessing event information during the highest points of action in the field. However, within the intervals between highlights there is room in time for a general overview and current standings, etc. Further, one of the most important issues for design is to avoid disruption and interference between spectator mobility and access of event information. Therefore, one challenge is to offer mobile access to the event information, which enables spectators to get updates without remaining in relatively close proximity of fixed information hot spots.

Tointeractwithaspectatorinformationsupportsystemdemandssufficienttime to withdraw the attention from the action in the field. Events like the Rally do not leave much room for sustained system interaction. This finding became rather evident due to high demand of visual attention and short delays between passing competitors. The Swedish Match Cup and Roskilde required less focus on the visual action and provided the spectators with considerably more time to interact with both people and technology. This was due to the lower pace of the event itself. Still, spectators’ attention within all three studies resembled a periodic nature regarding their visual attention.

As evidence from the three studies have suggested, spectators at the three different events face many different situations depending on where they currently are, when and with whom they are with. Ultimately, this will shape which information content that will be asked for. Further, the intensity in the current surrounding context will also act as an important factor of, for instance, if and to what extent the spectator is “open” to receive or actively collect event information. Another important aspect of getting information to fit into context is to design access so that event information is linked together with what spectators currently are watching. This is one thing that existing technologies have not yet accounted for.

Implications For Design

The results from the fieldwork indicate that the spectators face many different situations as a result of the constantly changing context. We have established that the demand for specific event information content is therefore heavily dependent on the momentary context viewed from the individual spectator.

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

296 Nilsson, Nuldén & Olsson

Accordingly, how the system behaves in terms of how and when information is to be transferred should be based on users’ own preferences, which could be implementedbyusingreal-timeinteractionwithpersonalprofiles.Themanner in which information is transferred should allow users to define it to broadcast eventinformationobtrusively,andalsounobtrusivelyallowtheusertoactively collect information as well. An unobtrusive system feature would therefore avoid interruptions in, for instance, social interaction or a focused visual attention on the action in the field. In addition, end users should, in conjunction to this, be able to influence the cues for interaction that the system will use to notify the user. In other words, obtrusive cues could be constituted by vibrationsfromtheartifactbeingusedwheninformationarrive.Theunobtrusive method could, on the other hand, simply use graphical cues such as interface blinkers to allow interaction when the user initiates it (simply because the user will not learn that new information is available until he/she looks at the screen).

One strategy to bring a system closer to situated content could be to implement certain context-aware features (cf., Abowd & Dey, 2000; Pascoe, 1998; Schilit, Adams, & Want, 1994), which several contributions in the literature have been concerned with (e.g. Aoki, Grinter, Hurst, Szymanski, Thornton, & Woodruff, 2002; Pascoe, 1997). For example, in the case of the Roskilde festival and the Swedish Match Cup, positioning technology could be used to make the system more location-aware, which could offer situated information content based on where spectators are located and link “appropriate” informationtospecificlocations.However,theSwedishRallyistheeventthatstretches over the largest geographical area. It would be a rather expensive challenge to cover if a fixed network would be required. From that point of view, the setting oftheRallywouldbenefitmorefromawirelessinfrastructurethatcouldrelyon, for instance, cellular network connectivity. Still, it needs to be argued, that simply adding context-aware features for the users will not eliminate or “resolve” context variety. Context-aware capabilities have the potential to bring spectator support closer to situated information access and content. However, to make eventinformation fit into context requires that usersalsocan influence information depth (level of detail), specific content, time of transfer, form and how the system notifies the user. This implies that the system should feature a hierarchical structure of information, which is dynamically updated and can be accessed at will.

Based on the three studies, and with the main contextual requirements in mind, an application that seeks to continuously support spectators in situ could rely on a hand-held computer, for instance a PDA (Personal Digital Assistant),

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Spectator Information Support 297

which would provide further interaction capabilities. Additionally, this would require a roaming, wireless network to be implemented.

Theoretical Considerations

In this section we discuss and sum up on to what extent background constructs within theory have served in this research and to which extent these mindsets have been used.

The guidance and help gained in this research from looking into concepts, such as formative context and situated action, mainly consists of general constructs as support for thought when it comes to understanding how distributed events actually take place. Further, it has also been useful concerning the understanding of the interdependencies between different parts of the events, actors, activities and how the current setting is shaped by contextualized and situated properties. The three studies share many contextual properties and are very similarinnature,i.e.,theunderlyingconcept,purpose,geographicalsettingand requirements put on spectators.

When it comes to formative context and applying ideas that originate from organizational settings, it incorporates a stance towards an underlying structure, where this structure is represented by norms, routines, procedure, conduct, form or ways for collaboration to name a few. Further, these aspects of structure are, as described by Ciborra & Lanzara (1994), re-enforced by the enactment of them. However, the very same enactment shapes the formative context when new incitements are integrated into practice.

When seeing distributed events as a formative context, i.e., its fundamental concept and layout, we have paid attention to basic arrangements by organizers and the cognitive imageries that repeatedly are enacted by the spectators. The formative context finds expression in, first, the spatial layout of the event and existing sources of information support within this space. Secondly, another expression concerns the established notion among spectators that they are, to some extent, responsible for designing their own experience, that is, they have choices, yet limited, on how to take part of the event. Further, many of the spectators share and communicate a basic, common understanding of what information support to expect. This knowledge is enacted and moulds the formativecontext.

Spectator mobility appears to follow an established pattern, resembling the notion of formative context (Ciborra & Lanzara, 1994); moving around is the

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

298 Nilsson, Nuldén & Olsson

action originating from the interest driven aspiration to benefit as much of the live experience as possible and is an evident activity to all attending spectators. Thus,mobilityisrequiredtoactivelytakepartoftheevent.Inthiscontext,there is no consensus needed for practice, nor incitements on how things should be handled to be in line with other actors’ actions. Instead, action, and accordingly mobility, is negotiated inside small social constellations, i.e., groups or pairs of individuals, on where to go, what to see, etc. Still, the basic structure of the event serves as a framework and shapes the range of activity.

Our claim, as this chapter has strived to put forward, is to design information support that breaks up mechanisms fostering the establishment of a formative context, and instead make way for and liberate situated enactment of the event experience.Moreover,withanotionofformativecontextasageneralconstruct and mindset, distributed events can be viewed as having, to some extent, a fundamental structure, which has been described above. However, what does lack structure is how spectators enact and go about their activities at the event. The decision-making concerning focus of the event and where this spatially is tobeexperiencedissociallynegotiatedandsituatedamongspectators(Suchman, 1987). How spectators go about experiencing the event depends on how they perceive it, i.e., what catches their main interest for the moment. To benefit as much as possible from the experience of the event has, from our perspective as researchers, been viewed as the basic course of action and plan. Since spectators continuously re-negotiate what and where to observe, both enactment and setting becomes the target for highly situated, interest-driven action. As a result, the different context-specific circumstances around the spectators are utterly difficult to anticipate. For example, it is a rather demanding task to predict what the spectator is currently interested to know about, the current social context (for instance, if broadcasted information is interrupting social interaction), or recent, local events that call for specific detailed information.

To apply a work-related framework in contexts of leisure could seem problematic. However, this research does not apply formative context and situated action in its most unyielding sense; rather it has served as an instrument in the qualitativeanalysisofempiricaldata.Forinstance,whenapplyingthenotionof formative context, we interpret and use the instance of structure in a less organized sense. Thus, structure, or describing it roughly as the heart of norms and common practice, becomes relevant when looking at how boundaries at distributed events shape spectator action. The notion of situated action has been treated similarly, although we find it reasonable to recognize situated action to permeate a major part of human activity. To sum this up, we

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Spectator Information Support 299

perceive the use of situated action in this research as considering the uncertainty of what course of action spectators will undertake whilst taking part of the event. In addition, the use of formative context becomes a means of identifying the boundaries put on the possible range of activity or action for spectators.

Conclusions

Thischapterreportsonempiricalresearchinvestigatingthecontextualrequirements concerning distributed event support for attending spectators. Thus the research question raised was:

What are the contextual requirements for the design of spectator information support at distributed events?

The studies indicate that information support is a supplement to the event experience and of secondary interest for spectators in situ, as opposed to those not located at the event. Spectators are likely to move between different kinds of situations and modalities of mobility. In addition, there is a diversity regarding in what activities spectators engage in. The following pointers are contextual requirements and identified situations that need to be considered for the design of support for the spectators:

•Supplement to the event

•Users are often involved in other activities besides listening to information broadcasts; they seldom exclusively direct their attention to it.

•General event information becomes of secondary interest, while moredetailed,specificinformationisasupplementthatenhancesthe event experience.

•Spectatormobility

•Spectators’ location varies extensively throughout the course of events, as opposed to spectators in a conventional arena setting.

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

300 Nilsson, Nuldén & Olsson

•Existing sources of information are situated at fixed locations. Spectators continuously move around at the event, which results in insufficientinformationsupportwhilebeingmobile.

•Situated content

•Spectators’ attention varies, it changes over time depending on the situation at hand. It mainly alternates between social interactions with fellow spectators and observing what is happening in the event.

•The need for specific event information varies on an individual level based on interest and when and where you are situated.

Results suggest that seamless access to event information has the potential of facilitating support throughout the event without spectators being forced to recreate the conditions to make use of available information. Based on our results, we have presented implications for design concerning future design efforts. Context-aware capabilities can bring spectator support closer to situated information access and content. Still, users must be allowed to have influence on the system behavior in terms of how certain information should be linked to the current use context. These features should not act blindly in an automatedfashion.

Distributed events are a rather novel target for field studies. It is yet a very dynamic environment, both from the perspective of the events and the context ofthespectators.Wesuggestthatthisdomainhavethepotentialofcontributing to research into design for mobile IT support from a research, method and technology point-of-view, with implications for both academia and the industry.

Future Work

The next step of this research is to further investigate the design of support for spectators at sporting events. For instance, we are interested in conducting empirical research on arena events, as opposed to distributed events, as well as evaluating the effects of technology in use. Moreover, to study technology in use yields research potential to explore how this affects and influence spectators’ use of space, i.e., activity within the spatial layout, and opportunity

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Spectator Information Support 301

for interaction, as well as the study of technology-supported situated enactment.

Acknowledgments

This research was partly founded by The Swedish Research Institute for InformationTechnology(SITI).Theauthorswouldliketodirectaspecialthank you to Johan Lundin, and of course the rest of the Mobile Informatics Group, and the reviewers for comments on this chapter. Thanks also to the colleagues at Viktoria Institute for their input and valuable help. Big thanks to Maria Håkansson and Sara Ljungblad, both at the Future Applications Lab, for the artwork. Final thanks go to our industrial partners, Sveriges Radio and FramFab.

References

Abowd, G., & Dey, A. (2000). Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness. In Proceedings of the Workshop on The What, Who, Where, When, and How of Context-Awareness (Part of the 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems).

Abowd, G., Atkeson, C., Hong, J., Long, S., Kooper, R., & Pinkerton, M. (1997). Cyberguide: A mobile context-aware tour guide. Wireless Networks, 3 (5), 421-433.

Aoki, P., Grinter, R., Hurst, A., Szymanski, M., Thornton, J., & Woodruff, A. (2002). Sotto Voce: Exploring the interplay of conversation and mobile audio spaces. In Proceedings of Conference on Computer Human Interaction (pp. 431-438).

Bannon, L. (1993). CSCW: An initial exploration. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 5, 3-21.

Belotti, V., & Bly, S. (1996). Walking away from the desktop computer: Distributedcollaborationandmobilityinaproductdesignteam. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work

(pp. 209-218). ACM Press.

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

302 Nilsson, Nuldén & Olsson

Bellotti, V., & Smith, I. (2000). Informing the design of an information management system with iterative fieldwork. In Proceedings of the conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 227-237). ACM Press.

Burrell, J., Treadwell, P., & Gay, G. (2000). Designing for context: Usability in a ubiquitous environment. In Proceedings on the Conference on Universal Usability (pp. 80-84). ACM Press.

Cavallaro, R. (1997). The FoxTrax hockey puck tracking system. In Proceedings of IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 17 (2), 6-12.

Cheverst, K., Davies, N., Mitchell, K., & Friday, A. (2000). Experiences of developing and deploying a context-aware tourist guide: The GUIDE Project. In Proceedings of the sixth International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (pp. 20-31). ACM Press.

Ciborra, C., & Lanzara, G. F. (1994). Formative contexts and information technology: Understanding the dynamics of innovation in organizations.

Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 4 (2), 6186.

Dahlbom, B., & Ljungberg, F. (1998). Mobile informatics. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 10 (1 & 2), 227-233.

Ehn, P. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Stockholm, Arbetslivscentrum.

Hughes, J., King, V., Rodden, T., & Andersen, H. (1994). Moving out from the control room: Ethnography in systems design. In Proceedings of Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 429439). ACM Press.

Hughes, J., Randall, D., & Shapiro, D. (1992). Faltering from ethnography to design. In Proceedings of Conference of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 115-122). ACM Press.

Kopomaa, T. (2000). The city in your pocket: Birth of the mobile information society. Gaudeamus, Helsinki.

Luff, P., & Heath, C. (1998). Mobility in collaboration. In Proceedings of Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 305314). ACM Press.

Mathiassen, L. (1998). Reflective systems development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 10 (1&2), 67-118.

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Spectator Information Support 303

O’Brien J., Rodden T., Rouncefield M., & Hughes, J. (1999). At home with the technology: An ethnographic study of a set-top-box trial. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 6 (3), 282-308.

Oppermann, R., Specht, M., & Jaceniak, I. (1999). HIPPIE: A nomadic information system. In Proceedings of the first International Symposium Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 330-333). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Pascoe, J. (1997). The stick-e note architecture: Extending the interface beyond the user. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 261-264). ACM Press.

Pascoe, J. (1998). Adding generic contextual capabilities to wearable comput-

ers. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wearable

Computers (pp. 92-99).

Rafey, R.A., Gibbs, S., Hoch, M., Le Van Gong, H., & Wang, S. (2001). Enabling custom enhancements in digital sports broadcasts. In Proceedings of WEB3D Symposium (pp. 101-107).

Schilit, B., Adams, N., & Want, R. (1994). Context-aware computing applications. In Proceedings of the workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, IEEE Computer Society (pp. 85-90).

Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated action. Cambridge University Press.

Weilenmann, A., & Larsson, C. (2001). Local use and sharing of mobile phones. In B. Brown, N. Green & R. Harper (eds.), Wireless World: Social and Interactional Aspects of the Mobile Age (pp. 99-115). GodalmingandHiedleburg:Springer-Verlag.

Endnotes

¹The term leisure is used as a contrast to work. This distinction is more complex, but such discussion is beyond the scope of this chapter.

² For more details see www.makitaloresearch.com

³The spectator names are fictitious.

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.