skip to main content
10.1145/3290607.3312837acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Evaluating a Wearable Camera's Social Acceptability In-the-Wild

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

With increasing ubiquity, wearable technologies are becoming part of everyday life where they may cause controversy, discomfort and social tension. Particularly, body-worn "always-on" cameras raise social acceptability concerns as their form factors hinder bystanders to infer whether they are "in the frame". Screen-based status indicators have been suggested as remedy, but not evaluated in-the-wild. Simultaneously, best practices for evaluating social acceptability in field studies are rare. This work contributes to closing both gaps. First, we contribute results of an in-the-wild evaluation of a screen-based status indicator testing the suitability of the "displayed camera image" design strategy. Second, we discuss methodical implications for evaluating social acceptability in the field, and cover lessons learned from collecting hypersubjective self-reports. We provide a self-critical, in-depth discussion of our field experiment, including study-related behavior patterns, and prototype fidelity. Our work may serve as a reference for field studies evaluating social acceptability.

References

  1. Victoria Bellotti and Abigail Sellen. 1993. Design for Privacy in Ubiquitous Computing Environments. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 77--92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Liwei Chan and Kouta Minamizawa. 2017. FrontFace: Facilitating Communication Between HMD Users and Outsiders Using Front-facing-screen HMDs. In MobileHCI '17. ACM, Article 22, 5 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Barrett Ens, Tovi Grossman, Fraser Anderson, Justin Matejka, and George Fitzmaurice. 2015. Candid Interaction: Revealing Hidden Mobile and Wearable Computing Activities. In UIST '15. ACM, 467--476. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Jan Gugenheimer, Evgeny Stemasov, Harpreet Sareen, and Enrico Rukzio. 2018. FaceDisplay: Towards Asymmetric MultiUser Interaction for Nomadic Virtual Reality. In CHI '18. ACM, Article 54, 13 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Roberto Hoyle, Qatrunnada Ismail, David Crandall, and Apu Kapadia. 2015. Challenges in Running Wearable CameraRelated User Studies. In CSCW Workshop: The Future of Networked Privacy: Challenges & Opportunities. Vancouver, BC, Canada. https://networkedprivacy2015.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/hoyle_etal-cscw2015.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Roberto Hoyle, Robert Templeman, Steven Armes, Denise Anthony, David Crandall, and Apu Kapadia. 2014. Privacy Behaviors of Lifeloggers Using Wearable Cameras. In UbiComp '14. ACM, 571--582. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Marion Koelle, Katrin Wolf, and Susanne Boll. 2018. Beyond LED Status Lights - Design Requirements of Privacy Notices for Body-worn Cameras. In TEI '18. ACM, 177--187. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Theodore Kunin. 1955. The Construction of a New Type of Attitude Measure. PERS PSYCHOL 8, 1 (1955), 65--77.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Jonathan Lazar, Jinjuan Heidi Feng, and Harry Hochheiser. 2017. Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Philipp Mayring. 2014. Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. AUT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Calkin S. Montero, Jason Alexander, Mark T. Marshall, and Sriram Subramanian. 2010. Would You Do That?: Understanding Social Acceptance of Gestural Interfaces. In MobileHCI '10. ACM, 275--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Halley Profita, Reem Albaghli, Leah Findlater, Paul Jaeger, and Shaun K. Kane. 2016. The AT Effect: How Disability Affects the Perceived Social Acceptability of Head-Mounted Display Use. In CHI '16. ACM, 4884--4895. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Evaluating a Wearable Camera's Social Acceptability In-the-Wild

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI EA '19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 2019
        3673 pages
        ISBN:9781450359719
        DOI:10.1145/3290607

        Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 2 May 2019

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • abstract

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

        Upcoming Conference

        CHI '24
        CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 11 - 16, 2024
        Honolulu , HI , USA

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format