8 PERVASIVE computing Published by the IEEE CS n 1536-1268/15/$31.00 © 2015 IEEE

Innovations in Ubicomp ProductsEditor: Albrecht Schmidt n University of Stuttgart n albrecht@computer.org

Societal Discussion Required?Ubicomp Products beyond Weiser’s VisionAlbrecht Schmidt, University of Stuttgart

M any of the devices and services envisioned and explored in the

seminal ubicomp research project at Xerox PARC1 over 25 years ago have become mainstream. In particular, devices in the form factors discussed in the project—namely boards, pads, and tabs—are all around us now, and we hardly notice their presence. Schools and meeting rooms are equipped with large interactive displays (boards), tab-let computers (pads) are in widespread use in the work place and can be found in many living rooms, and smartphones (tabs) are ubiquitous.

Ubiquitous computing devices have become part of the fabric of everyday live for many of us. Just think about your last business trip. How would it have been different without your smartphone? Planning transportation ahead, printing out addresses and maps, not forgetting to take paper tickets before you leave, no social network to tell others where you are or that you were delayed, no online shopping while at the airport, and no last-minute presentation updates for the client.

We, researchers and users alike, pay little attention how our world has changed in the past 20 years through computing technologies. However, if you walk around with open eyes, you see it everywhere: paying with NFC at the café, QR-coded airline tickets delivered on mobile devices, and pub-lic transport information on phones.

There’s also recommendation systems for restaurants combined with hand-held navigation systems, instant mes-saging, and social awareness through social media, and services are per-sonalized and contextualized to pro-vide information only when needed. Multimedia capture devices appear in different form factors, and we have access to factual knowledge and entertainment while on the go. These are just some examples that highlight the ubiquity of computing we take for granted.

As a community, we should be more aware of the impact and inspiration our research creates. Perhaps we might even dare to celebrate these changes.

PRODUCTS BEYOND THE UBICOMP VISIONMany recent products that have entered the market or have been announced are going well beyond the original ubicomp vision. Smart watches, head-worn com-puting devices, wearable cameras, and

tracking devices entering the market are meeting mixed responses. This isn’t, however, surprising—looking back, ubicomp technologies have com-monly been disputed (at least before a critical mass of users started participat-ing). But with new products, societal discussions might be even more impor-tant than before.

As computers come closer to the body, know more about the user (sometimes even more than the users know themselves), and have a greater impact on the user’s environment, it becomes more difficult to design these technologies. Google glass is one example that’s receiving mixed responses. Besides solving techno-logical challenges, many upcoming devices require new agreements in society. As technologies enable new opportunities, we need to have a dia-log in society to address fundamental questions of what’s required, desired, and allowed.

Technologies are enablers, and the following questions must be asked:

What information can an individ-ual record and keep, and for how long?How much impact on others is acceptable when a person records or shares information about themselves?Will commercial entities (such as health insurance providers) be allowed to require their clients to

As technologies enable new opportunities, we need to have a dialog in society to address fundamental

questions of what’s required, desired, and allowed.

JANUARY–MARCH 2015 PERVASIVE computing 9

monitor their activity to provide a service or to receive discounts?Will your employer be allowed to ask you to prove that you have done a cognitive task (such as read a docu-ment) before you’re allowed to make a decision on it?

Answering these questions can help us reach a wider agreement of what’s acceptable.

IS SOCIETY READY?In the following, I discuss two new products as examples of technologies that have a chance to make a great and positive impact on users. At the same time, these products could create con-troversy in society and require open discussions on what we can do and what we should do.

Measuring Cognitive Activity with GlassesThe “quantified-self” idea looks at keeping quantitative records of our activities, which we can use for reflec-tion. Devices that measure physical activity have enabled many people to monitor themselves. An example is counting steps toward a personal goal (10,000 steps a day, for exam-ple). With new sensing techniques, the quantified self can be extended to the user’s cognition. In “Activity Recogni-tion for the Mind: Toward a Cognitive ‘Quantified Self,’” Kai Kunze and his colleagues describe how electro-ocu-lography (EOG) can be used to moni-tor eye movement, which in turn can be used to estimate cognitive activi-ties.2 In particular, EOG can be used to monitor a person’s reading behav-ior—estimating the number words a person has read, the type of text the person is reading (comics or scientific papers), and potentially determining how well the person understood what was read.

J!NS MEME is a pair of ordinary looking glasses that includes this tech-nology (www.jins-jp.com/jinsmeme/product). The frame includes three

electrodes for EOG, a three-axis gyro-scope and accelerometer, and Blue-tooth (see Figure 1). The device can provide information on eye movement, winking, as well as head movement.

Given that reading is linked to intel-lectual abilities, I can imagine users (or their parents) setting goals similar to setting goals for physical fitness. Goals could be reading 10,000 words in a foreign language or reading at least 90 minutes a day. Setting such goals could help individuals better track their activities and achieve their goals—just as with tracking the number of steps walked.

However, such technologies could also be used to increase accountabil-ity. If you review a research paper, or check a contract, or claim time at work on reading on new trends, you could be asked to provide proof that you have done so. Imagine you get a research paper rejected from a con-ference, and you see that two of the three reviewers only skimmed your paper.

It’s apparent that such a technol-ogy has a great potential and could revolutionize the way we track and quantify learning. Users will be able to better understand their cognitive activ-ities and will be able to set goals and

monitor their success. At the same time, such technologies might put pressure on individuals to opt-in.

Measuring Activities and Sleep with a StickerOver the last few years, many devices for tracking physical activities and for measuring physiological signals have become available.3 Devices for physical activity monitoring and fitness tracking in particular have been selling well. Nev-ertheless, wearable devices come with dif-ficulties—they can be easily lost or acci-dentally thrown in the washing machine. For sensing physiological signals (such as heart rate, breathing rate, or ECG), device placement can be still tricky or uncomfortable (such as a chest strap).

Vancive has put activity monitor-ing into a water resistant adhesive plaster with a weight of 13 g (0.4 oz) and a battery and memory capac-ity for one week’s worth of recording (http://vancive.averydennison.com/en/home/technologies/metria/MetriaIH1.html). It includes a three-axis accel-erometer, a sensor for skin and near body temperature, and a galvanic skin response sensor. The disposable device is approximately 112 mm × 66 mm × 8 mm (4.40″ × 2.59″ × 0.31″) in size (see Figure 2).

(a) (b)

Figure 1. J!NS MEME eyewear. (a) The frame looks like an ordinary pair of glasses, and sensing is only directed at the user. (b) When wearing the glasses, basic cognitive activities can be tracked. (Photos curtesy of Kai Kunze; used with permission.).

10 PERVASIVE computing www.computer.org/pervasive

INNOVATIONS IN UBICOMP PRODUCTS

INNOVATIONS IN UBICOMP PRODUCTS

To use it, you stick it like an adhe-sive plaster on you upper arm, then switch it on and record data for a week. After just a few minutes, you forget you’re wearing the device—you can even shower with it. After a week, you remove the plaster from your body, cut open the cover of the device (thereby destroying the cover) to expose the USB port (see Figure 2), and you can connect it to your com-puter. The device provides detailed

data about physical activity, calorie expenditure, and sleep duration and quality.

Here, too, the convenience and accuracy of the solution is a clear advantage. It’s so much easier than other devices for sleep monitor-ing, because you won’t forget to wear it. At the same time, a health insurance company might provide incentives for customers to stick it on, and unlike devices that are just

worn in a pocket, this device would let the insurer more closely monitor customer compliance.

Ubicomp devices are an integral part of our everyday environment. Once

a significant portion of the population has bought into using a technology, we’re not giving it a second thought, reflecting little on what capabilities we’ve gained and the price paid. New devices bring more and exciting capa-bilities, which might require us to fur-ther discuss, on a broader scale, what we can do in society with these com-puters.

REFERENCES

1. M. Weiser, “The Computer for the 21st Century,” Scientific Am., vol. 265, no. 3, 1991, pp. 94–104.

2. K. Kunze et al., “Activity Recogni-tion for the Mind: Toward a Cognitive ‘Quantified Self,’” Computer, Oct. 2013, pp. 105–108; www.computer.org/csdl/mags/co/2013/10/mco2013100105-abs.html.

3. J. Meyer and S. Boll, “Digital Health Devices for Everyone!” IEEE Pervasive Computing, vol. 13, no. 2, 2014, pp. 10–13; www.computer.org/csdl/mags/pc/2014/02/mpc2014020010-abs.html.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 2. The Metria IH1. (a) The adhesive plaster has (b) a built-in sensing device to be (c) attached to the (d) upper arm. The device must be (e) cut open to (f) access the USB port and read the data.

Albrecht Schmidt is a

professor of human-com-

puter interaction at the Uni-

versity of Stuttgart. Contact

him at albrecht.schmidt@

vis.uni-stuttgart.de.

Selected CS articles and columns are also available for free at http://ComputingNow.computer.org.