nurturing natural sensors ubicomp 2011 best paper stacey kuznetsov, william odom, james pierce, eric...

1

Nurturing Natural Sensors

UbiComp 2011 Best Paper

Stacey Kuznetsov, William Odom, James Pierce, Eric Paulos

Human-Computer Interaction Institute

Carnegie Mellon University

Pittsburgh, PA, USA

呂孟林

2

Outline

• Introduction• Methods• Discussion• Conclusion

3

Introduction

• Majority– Electronic instantiations of sensing devices

• Visionary– Non-digital sensing to reflect environments– Everyday biomarkers: common biological

organisms that express information about an ecosystem or its many parts

– Expand UbiComp visions of sensing to include living organisms themselves

4

Introduction

• Opportunity for future ubiquitous sensing– Non-digital sensors– Designing technologies that teach new ways of

‘seeing’– Enriching practices of data collection and

sharing

5

What can be a sensor?

• Reptile posture suggesting a disturbance to the environment

• Scale larvae (幼蟲 ) signifying a pest problem• Bee behavior reflecting local weather and bloom cycles• Fish appearance indicating water quality and parasite

levels

6

Where are the sensors?

• Activity recognition and infrastructure sensing–Wearable sensors, mobile phones sensors or

sensing surrounding infrastructure

• Active participatory sensing– Handheld air quality monitors

• Passive environmental monitoring– Autonomous robots or sensors in daily life

7

Input techniques

• Detecting human actions– Direct manipulation: touch and gesture sensing

technologies

• Natural User Interfaces (NUI)– Contrast to GUI–Without learning–Make the user feel like a natural

8

Methods

• Semi-structured interviews with 10 participants• Walk through their daily routines to know their

tools and local settings• Audio recorded all interviews and took field

notes

9

Participants

• Members:– Organic farming, urban agriculture group [F1, F2, F3]– Organic gardening, independent [G]– IPM (integrated/organic pest management), city zoo [I]– Beekeeping, urban beekeeping community [B1, B2]– Horticulture, independent [H]– Aquarium and fish keeping, city zoo [A]– Reptile keeping, city zoo [R]

• Participants’ backgrounds are all professional.• Motivation: income, enjoyment and contribution

10

Findings

• Monitoring practices– Use of technology or traditional tools and

observation-based

• Types of living indicators– Use living organisms as environmental indicators

• Collection, sharing and speculation– How to process biomarker data

11

Monitoring practices

12

Monitoring practices

• Regular check-ups– Daily, weekly, or routinely rounds– Starting with technology– Ending with traditional instruments or observation

13

Technology-mediated monitoring

• Routine digital sensing– Thermometer: saving animal from losing

temperature–Weather report: when raining, flower can’t secrete

nectar; when too cold, too day, it’s the same.– ORP sensor: to ensure proper function of the ozone

generator – Scale: to make sure the animal is healthy– Soil tests

14

Technology-mediated monitoring

• Occasional digital sensing– Plants grow not properly: pH problem or a nutrient

deficiency– Unusual fish behavior: pH, light or oxygen– The amount of fermented honey: refractometer

with 18% threshold

• Abandoned digital sensing– No sprinkler due to faulty humidity sensing– No testing soil but observing plant growth

15

Traditional or observation-based

• Magnification and counting tools– Beekeeping: monitoring tray with square inch grid– Handmade traps: to catch insects–Magnifying hand lens: to observe the stages of

beneficial larvae on leaves– High-resolution microscope: to check various

parasites of fish

16

Traditional or observation-based

• Monitoring through physical engagement and action– taps plants to let clouds of whitefly to emerge– tip beehive to gauge its weight and infer the

amount of nectar– Stick finger into soil to measure the moist of soil– Scuba dive into tank to monitor fish appearance

and behavior

17

Traditional or observation-based

• Monitoring through ‘naked’ observation– Smell: to check if the ammonia is in the water– Sight: to see what’s germinating can tell the

temperature– Taste: to identify the flower the bees get– Hearing: to know the planting time by hearing the

bird mating calls– Touch: to detect pest by feeling sticky on the

leaves

18

Types of living indicators

19

Types of everyday biomarkers

• One-to-one– For the bees, chicken coop smell = deadly bacterial infestation; piping sound

= new queen is ready– Green water = ozone deficiency– Saw dust at the bottom of vine plants = borer pest– Hydrangea color = soil pH value– Accentuated leaf growth = too much nitrogen

• One-to-many– A yellowing “between vein of leaves” = nutrient deficiency or pH imbalance– Blossom end rot in tomatoes = lack of calcium or moisture content– Sliming fish = poor water quality or a parasite– Trembling bees = sprayed or got contaminated by chemical

20

Types of everyday biomarkers

• Ecosystem– Local drought and blooming cycles by observing the

bees– Tracking the balance between pest and beneficial

insects for monitoring the greenhouse– Coral reef bleaching as a response to stress or

disturbance to the system– The endangerment of the Philippine crocodile

suggesting “pollution, habitat loss– Diseases prevailing on unhealthy plants

21

Collection, sharing and speculation

22

Data collection, sharing and speculation

• Data collection– Daily logs of water quality and feedings– Extensive log and computer database of pest

infestations– Recipes of honey products– Schedules and layouts for crop rotations– Gardening journal– Sharing Mechanisms

• Sharing Mechanisms• Casual conversation, e-mail, facebook, twitter, books, blogs,

radios and speaking to zoo visitors

23

Data collection, sharing and speculation

• Speculation based on data and sharing mechanism– Through discussion and blog to know weather pattern allows

stink bugs to reproduce rapidly– Urban water quality affects the growth of the plants and the

fish due to chlorine, fluoride and other chemicals use for disinfection

– Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) in honeybees due to the pesticides or genetically modified plants

– Nitrogen soil deficiencies due to chemical sprays on the yards– The endangered Louisiana Pine Snake due to the disappearing

habitat of their food source pocket gopher causing by forest management

24

Discussion

• Highlight participants’ proficiency with technologies and rely on biomarkers to infer information about the environment

• Biomarker systems– The interdependency between using biomarker and

technological sensors

• Active engagement with context– Direct interact with the environment– Involved in the social and political processes

25

DESIGN IMPLICATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES

• Leveraging non-digital inputs• Designing technologies that teach new ways

of seeing• Enriching practices of data collection and

sharing

26

Leveraging non-digital inputs

• Expanding the UbiComp community’s vision of sensing beyond electronic devices, to include living organisms and traditional tools

• Shift from designing sensing technologies to designing ubiquitous systems that incorporate living organisms and traditional tools along with digital devices, either active or passive

27

New ways of seeing

• Skilled technologies abandoned after participants developed a skill

• Support new ways of seeing or engaging with the environment

• Encourage human awareness, refection and wonderment about our living world

• Embracing low-fidelity signals– Imprecise sensing practices of biomarkers and

traditional tools– With indiscreet input and to embrace ambiguity

28

New ways of seeing

• Peripheral engagement– To know the whole system by observing peripheral

biomarkers

• Scaffolding (鷹架 )– New scaffolding tools that train individuals and groups

to ‘sense’ better and differently– Activity recognition and participatory sensing

appropriates mobile phones as digital sensing devices– sensing as a conjoint practice, tool for community

togetherness

29

Data collection and sharing

• Recorded in logs, databases and personal journals through causal conversation, blogs, radio and so on.

• Opportunities for existing and future citizen science applications to incorporate individuals working with living systems

• Community concern and political interest– Collective action around shared issues– Using the scaffolding tools for biomarker data of

everyday life

30

Conclusion

• Fluent but without a clear structure, due to no section or paragraph number.

• In overall, it’s a good article with nice sentence rather than a good paper.