4. Chapter Four: Systematic Review
4.4 User Modality Factors
The literature review acknowledged the importance of modality and user interaction, particular the movement of a user. Almost all the papers within the meta-synthesis include some form of user mobility, which overlaps between Kristoffersen and Ljungberg’s (1999) wandering, travelling and visiting. Figure 4.4. attempts to match the movement of the test participant within these research papers to the modalities presented by Kristoffersen and Ljungberg’s perceptions of movement within an industrial setting. The discussion uses the themes from this data to contextualise approaches to support mobility and mobile testing.
Fig 4.4: User Modalities
Research (by author)
Wandering Travel Visiting
Kristoffersen & Ljungberg (1999)
Walk while using mobile computing device.
Travel between industrial sites in a vehicle
Moving around site on arrival - outside
97
Nilsson et al., (2001) Sat and Walking -
temporary context
In a Car - Travelling between events
N/A
Bouwman & Van De Wijngaert (2002)
N/A N/A At home but about to go to
University
Johnson (2003) N/A N/A Sat in the office for
temporal time period
Kjeldskov & Stage (2003) & Beck et al., (2003)
Walking on a treadmill and walking outside
Simulation travel between destinations
N/A
Rieh, S. Y. (2004). N/A N/A Does not fit with these
variables but would be based around home life. So hear for a temporal period of time.
Goodman et el., (2004)
To find post office No transport used A colleague
Oulasvirta et el., (2005)
Walking through a busy street to a bus stop
Travelling on an escalator Visit friends - Conversing in a café
Kaikkonen et al., (2005)
Walking between destinations
Travelling on metro - Office district in Helsinki
Visiting a friend in shopping center
Wiberg, M. (2005). Walking between network
locations
Schedule and travel to location
N/A
Barnard et al., (2007) Walking a 1foot wide path around a room
Sitting, asks were perform with PDA flat on a table
N/A
Kane et al. (2008) Walking down the corridor
Set on predefined routes Walking outside set on campus
N/A N/A
Church et al. (2009) Travelling by various means N/A Travelling by various
means
Case (2010) N/A N/A At home – hard to
distinguish with these variables
Schmied et al (2011) N/A Driving simulation travelling
using Play Station.
N/A
Chua et al. (2011) N/A Public transport
Bus/train
N/A
Church & Oliver (2011)
Walking
Moving around the house
N/A Sat at home – stationary
Teevan et al. (2011) Range of Collaborative
(agreeing on lunch and destination)
Solely finding coffee shop
Pickup children Meeting for lunch destination
Hussain & Kutar (2012)
N/A Stationary sat in a car Visiting different location - Sat in a car
Burnford and Park (2012).
Information related to their studies
Between classes On the way to University
Sun & May (2013) Simulated sports event.
Sitting at the event
N/A N/A
Redondo et al. (2013) Walking and standing N/A N/A
4.4.1 W
ANDERINGThe literature review defined wandering as an extensive local mobility within a building or local area (Kristoffersen and Ljungberg, 1999). Nilsson et al. (2001) set wandering within two physical contexts, a forest campfire and a music festival, which defined wandering within a “naturally occurring event” where people walked between social groups sharing information.
98
Their social settings are similar to Oulasvirta, A. et al. (2005) and Kallio & Kaikkonen (2005), their research conducted in “semi-naturalistic” settings applying to all three modalities. The wandering modality presented by Oulasvirta et al. (2005) used “Conversing in a café”, similar to the campfire setting in that a user moved within this local area to seek and share
information. The café setting is not a motion of “wandering” per se but the fact they are in a local area/building fits with what Kristoffersen and Ljungberg define as the wandering modality. Their tasks do not require body movement except for movement as they sip the coffee, gesturing to support conversation, and being aware of the social setting and their personal space. Kallio & Kaikkonen applied wandering to the movement around a shopping centre tests focused on motion and the impact on device interaction. The data from this evaluation focused on movement within a shop for a set/temporal length of time before moving on. Similar to Oulasvirta, A. et al., (2005), Sun, X., & May, A. (2013) evaluated Smartphone interaction as the user personalised activities a spectator at a sports event. Their field studies applied the wandering modality, which sacrificed some experimental controls that a lab would offer in order to maximise the ecological validity of the experiment within a real context. Kjeldskov and Stage (2003) and Beck et al. (2003) used field context as they wandered (locally) between two destinations. This approach could be seen as travelling however most of this research based around a local environment assessing interaction and motion whilst walking with a devise. Kane et al. (2008) described two investigations, which explored the effects of walking on interaction, a clear wandering
exercise set within the confines of the University campus evaluating the effects of walking on performance with soft buttons and music player when using a mobile device. Redondo et al. (2013) set within an educational environment (Barcelona Knowledge Campus - BKC), students used Mobile Learning (ML) practices visualizing experiments set in different locations. Students worked with the device for a temporal time-period before moving to the next location. The aim was so they can work with computer-generated objects (AR) as if they were real objects in a real environment, and in real time, set in a local area.
As we have already seen within the literature review, simulations have played an important part in mobile testing research. The simulation supports modality research. Mobile
evaluations conducted by Barnard et al. (2007) simulated the wandering modality by
assigning participants tasks to walk and perform tasks while walking around a 1-ft wide path taped to a carpeted floor. The path was a loop that wound around tables and chairs in the room, such that users could make multiple laps during a single task scenario. Hagen et al. (2005) state that simulations enable the controlled capture of comparable and measurable data, in varying degrees through established mechanisms such as observation and video recording to enable quantifiable data to be produced and compared (p6, 2005). Simulations
99
could complement the research as a mode to gather “baseline” data to compare against the field data.
4.4.2 T
RAVELLINGTravelling is a user moving between destinations this could be by vehicle, as a passenger in a car or a commuter on a train or bus (Kristoffersen and Ljungberg, 1999). Nilsson et al. (2001) defined this as travelling to different destinations, which switches from traveling to wandering as they are in the local area (a campsite) for a temporal period watching the following stage of the car rally. Schmiedl et al. (2011) created a travel simulation re-enacting mobile situations whilst travelling in a car. This assessment evaluated users’ fragmented attention as they completed mobile tasks whilst driving a car simulation. Hussain, A., & Kutar, M. (2012) ran research experiments within a car to reviewing the usability of SatNav applications. Participants used the SatNav system as they planned visits to different destinations. The travelling modality was set as the car moved, the user was sat in a car completing location based tasks and sharing the information with the driver.
Kristoffersen and Ljungberg (1999) original coined these modalities and travelling is movement from one place to another in a vehicle. Oulasvirta, A. et al., (2005) and Kallio & Kaikkonen (2005) interpreted travelling on an escalator a modality which simulates motion similar to standing on a train or a bus. The escalator requires less motor control, although body posture must be monitored and the right hand is usually reserved for holding on (pp. 3, 2005)
4.4.3 V
ISITINGVisiting defined as “spending time in a place for a temporal period of time before moving” on to the next destination (Kristoffersen and Ljungberg, 1999). Visiting seeks to capture the mobility involved as the user spends time in a place basis before moving to another place (i.e. seating waiting for a meeting). Nilsson et al. (2001) termed “media convergence” as a platform to test the visiting modality, requiring participants to use mobiles (and other media) to find information. This information was sourced from these multiple media sources to help coordinate and communicate rendezvous points along the rally route. The rendezvous points were temporal where wandering would take place before moving (or visiting) the next
destination. A more up-to-date version of Nilsson’s work was Hussain, A., & Kutar, M. (2012) applying visiting and travelling to predefined destinations using the SatNav. Goodman et al. (2004) created a set of tasks, which simulated a tourist visiting places (i.e., uncovering information about a particular building or tourist attraction, finding the nearest Post Office
100
and determining the location of work colleagues). Oulasvirta et al., (2005) and Kallio & Kaikkonen (2005) used modalities which all worked around the visit modality (i.e., visiting a friend in a café, travelling on a metro and moving to a shopping centre) these took place for a temporal timeframe. Oulasvirta, A. et al., (2005) set walking through a busy street to a destination and planning a route back within other cognitive demands by “walking while at the same time taking care of safety”.
Example Timetable App (Modality)
The student is sitting and then standing on the train travelling to University and moves to a different states and modality changes to (wandering) to the class.
Travelling: Going to university on the train from home for a lectures Wandering: Moving between campus buildings from one lecture to the
next
Fig 4.12: Modality (Based on Systematic Review)
Modality and levels of mobility in any given setting supports the identification of suitable contextual environments to support test design. The meta-synthesis has acknowledged that there could be multiple modalities within a test; this depends on the context set out within the environment variable. An awareness of these modality changes is important to establish context-aware tests, which will help evaluate applications, user interaction within different contexts (socially and physically).