System Relevance

From the design and deployment process, we extrapolate motivations for real-time crowd-support systems. Next we list these motivations. This list is not necessarily exhaustive and future evolutions of this and similar systems are likely to provide additional applications and contexts. All quotes within these results are athletes’ statements unless stated otherwise.

6.9.1 Receiving live support

The most evident motivation for using the system is that of having a live supportive audience i.e. athletes become aware that others are sending their support:

“… we got frantic text messages [SMS] from X, someone else in the running club, who said, oh you just disappeared on the map. We said, ‘it’s fine, still alive, it’s all good.’ You definitely got the sense that people were tracking it for long periods”.

The athletes refer to two distinct ways in which real-time support is effective. The first

is in mitigating loneliness. “In this sort of event, where it is a very lonely event

because it is just you and the cyclist, it [remote support] is helpful. In a [competitive] race cheering does not massively help me.” Similar results were identified in earlier

work [44]. The second way is in mitigating fatigue: “You’ve done so many miles and

163

6.9.2 Having followers

Sharing data also provided a sense of prominence. In our investigation, we take into account the data sharing (i.e. knowing that others are following the event) and the crowds’ feedback (i.e. receiving support), separately. During the event, the athletes were mindful both of having their effort followed (telemetry) and of receiving support from remote spectators (cheering). Interviewed athletes commented positively on both the sharing of data through telemetry such that spectators can follow the event and also on receiving live support.

“It is the mixture of the two… people had the data to know where we are, and they also followed it… I know that my mum followed it for a lot of the time because she had the cheering so it was like ‘oh I am cheering them on!’.”

The broadcasting of live data from athletes to spectators did not only initiate engagement but also opened up communication over secondary channels like traditional SMS texting.

“When this person from the running club was watching he would texts us [standby athletes] and we all cheer and we go ‘ye this is another cheer to us’. It may be midnight and he probably should be in bed, but no he sat up there following and cheering us.”

6.9.3 Using live telemetry as a proof of accomplishment

One of the most surprising findings is the use of live telemetry as a proof of accomplishment. The athletes report that the telemetry provides evidence of task completion. This supports existing literature [176] and earlier work [42,44] where the real-time sensor-captured data broadcast is reported to give the data viewer an

164

increased perception of truthfulness than what otherwise may be considered as curated content. In this light, the live telemetry provides curiosity, suspense and expectation.

6.9.4 Democratisation of sport events

The charity event upon which this research is based was driven by university students with limited funding and resources. The cost of material for developing the relay baton was £15 excluding the Android phone while the cost of telemetry data for the whole event was less then 10p. Over the 24-hour event, the baton used a total telemetry data cost of 4.2Mbs. This created a method of democratising the endeavour at a widely accessible cost. The organisers could broadcast the activity live in a way that remote spectators can follow and interact with the athletes with similarities to commercially driven broadcast events. In this way, non-famous athletes become less dependent on traditional broadcasters to broadcast themselves. Non-famous athletes can self-harness the power of their social media for spectator support irrespective of how famous they are.

6.9.5 Triggering support mindfulness

The athletes report perceiving an association between the altitude and the support they were receiving. Figure 41 shows the cheers submitted by the remote crowd across time. This shows that spectators cheered at different intensities, thus suggesting that spectators are interested in externalizing varying degrees of excitement and support. It also indicates that spectators do not cheer randomly but are influenced by the data and external dynamics such as the current altitude or the perceived exertion effort as suggested in [99]. This relationship is also reflected in the athletes’ comments:

“We started the hill and at the top of the hill we got so many more cheers. It was quite remarkable”.

165

“In the first hill they went up by about 500. Joe had a very hilly section”.

These results support earlier work that shows that remote spectators are keen in building clear images of the remote context through data [176,179]. In this work, both locative and physiological data was shown to make the actors feel closer. Designers should thus seek ways to augment spectators’ emotional experience of the remote environment and the effort exerted.

Figure 41: Cheers submitted during the event by cheer intensity. Cheer intensity has a default value of two.

6.9.6 Transposing social network edges

After the event, the athletes positively commented that: ‘knowing who was supporting

you [during the event] was really nice… ’. “I really like being able to hear who it is who is cheering, especially if they know it is your section, so they are cheering you.” In line with earlier work [44], we observe that the most effective live remote support

seems to be that of acquaintances. “People I know best are effective, however, if you

had someone who is around the other side of the world supporting you, [excited] they must have logged on especially to help, it is not something which I feel I was duty bound to do, so that could be quite nice.”

0" 1" 2" 3" 4" 5" 6" 7" 8" 9" 10" 3/21/15"4:48"3/21/1AM"5"9:36"3/21/1AM"5"2:24"3/21/1PM"5"7:12"3/22/1PM"5"12:00 "AM" 3/22/15"4:48"3/22/1AM"5"9:36"AM" Ch eer%I nt en si ty % Time% Submi1ed%Cheers%

166

6.9.7 Satisfy a social need to connect, just-in-time

Allowing spectators to login through either Facebook or by manually inputting their name opened up room for fake names. Some of the names used by friends were not particularly suitable, such as, ‘We hate Pete’, which, in general, is not a good thing. The fake names issue can be minimised by enforcing login through a social media app like Facebook. However, issues such as lack of anonymization and a need of having a social media account would then arise. Most of the cheers (69.8%) were sent by spectators who logged in as ‘Guests’ (i.e. remained anonymous). On the other hand, the fact that the baton synthesised the log in name, prompted some of the spectators to re-log into the system and insert complex messages in their name field. In this way,

they could send customised messages, like “go Mike” (rephrased), to the athlete

carrying the baton. This highlights the spectators’ interest in communicating with the athlete during the event with more expressive tools than binary cheers.

6.9.8 Reaching a new audience

For the event organisers, the proposed cheering system facilitated reaching a new audience that was otherwise not connected with the event during the event. This ‘audience’ is likely to be different and in addition to the spectators who would be on the course cheering. After the event the organiser highlights, through reflection, key engagement values:

‘We used it [the system] more to let people know how we were going because we knew that people would not be able to come and see it [the race] very easily as we went past. So we wanted people to still be involved.’

This is likely to increase event awareness and web traffic to the charity event’s webpage both of which are important marketing affordances. Additionally, having an

167

innovative system where spectators could interact with the athletes live, facilitated event advertising through social networks before the event.

The organiser believes that the cheering is most effective because it gives the audience a feeling of contribution, ‘they feel they are participating’. This, irrespective of whether the cheering has any effect on the athletes or otherwise.

6.9.9 Tracking and event control for organisers

An unintended consequence of carrying the baton was the ability of the organiser to track where the athletes are and immediately detect wrong turns. On two occasions, this helped in guiding athletes (remotely via the cyclist) back on the course. Additionally, through the live telemetry, the spectators present on the course could know when the athletes are coming up towards them and where and when they should be ready to cheer.

Figure 42: Design considerations Limited'cheers''

e.g.'Facebook'14Like'model' Unlimited'user'cheering'

Subliminal'

e.g.'small'hap;c'cheers' Explicit'e.g.'loud'audible'cheers' Predefined'cheers'

e.g.'selected'sound'effects' Open'cheering'e.g.'spectators'stream'

messages'through'microphones' Spectator)Expressiveness) Effortless'task' Challenging'task' Crowded' Lonely'task' Context)Applicability) Spectators'are'anonymous' Spectators'log'in'' and'cheering'is''public' Restricted'network' configura;on' e.g.'spectator'communicates' with'one'athlete' Open'network'configura;on' e.g.'any'spectator'can' communicate'with'any' spectator'and/or'athlete' Network)Configura;on)

168