NEAT-Lamp and Talking Tree: Beyond Personal Informatics towards Active Workplaces

by | Dec 28, 2017 | Research Publications

Author(s):

  • Moradi, Fatemeh
  • Wiberg, Mikael

Abstract:

A growing number of personal informatics (PI) systems have been designed to break the habit of prolonged sitting and to encourage physical activity during workdays and leisure hours. Few studies, however, have investigated the nature of local movement and mobility in workspaces. Relatively little is known about how such movement patterns are shaped and in what ways micro-mobility in workplaces could be increased. By undertaking a concept-driven design approach, and on the basis of our ethnographic prestudy, we introduce a conceptual framework. In this conceptual framework, we indicate the five main agencies that shape local movement and mobility among office workers. On the basis of this empirical and conceptual work, two prototypes, the non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT)-Lamp and Talking Tree, have been designed, implemented and observed in an office environment. This paper describes this design project and articulates the role of discussions in socially established settings in work environments in order to increase daily movement. The paper concludes by highlighting not only technology, but also collective reflections to spark behavioral change in office environments as social settings.

Documentation:

https://doi.org/10.3390/computers7010004

References:
  1. Ploderer, B.; Reitberger, W.; Oinas-Kukkonen, H.; van Gemert-Pijnen, J. Social interaction and reflection for behaviour change. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2014, 18, 1667–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Swan, M. Sensor mania! The internet of things, wearable computing, objective metrics, and the quantified self 2.0. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2012, 1, 217–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Anderson, I.; Maitland, J.; Sherwood, S.; Barkhuus, L.; Chalmers, M.; Hall, M.; Brown, B.; Muller, H. Shakra: Tracking and sharing daily activity levels with unaugmented mobile phones. Mob. Netw. Appl. 2007, 12, 185–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Burns, P.; Lueg, C.; Berkovsky, S. Activmon: Encouraging physical activity through ambient social awareness. In Proceedings of the CHI’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX, USA, 5–10 May 2012. [Google Scholar]
  5. Consolvo, S.; McDonald, D.W.; Toscos, T.; Chen, M.Y.; Froehlich, J.; Harrison, B.; Klasnja, P.; LaMarca, A.; LeGrand, L.; Libby, R. Activity sensing in the wild: A field trial of ubifit garden. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy, 5–10 April 2008. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fan, C.; Forlizzi, J.; Dey, A.K. A spark of activity: Exploring informative art as visualization for physical activity. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 5–8 September 2012. [Google Scholar]
  7. Forlizzi, J.; Li, I.; Dey, A.K. Ambient Interfaces that Motivate Changes in Human Behavior. In Proceedings of the Ambient Information Systems, Toronto, ON, Canada, 13 May 2007. [Google Scholar]
  8. Foster, D.; Linehan, C.; Kirman, B.; Lawson, S.; James, G. Motivating physical activity at work: Using persuasive social media for competitive step counting. In Proceedings of the 14th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, Tampere, Finland, 6–8 October 2010. [Google Scholar]
  9. Geleijnse, G.; Van Halteren, A.; Diekhoff, J. Towards a mobile application to create sedentary awareness. In Proceedings of the CHI 2011: 29th ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hazlewood, W.R.; Stolterman, E.; Connelly, K. Issues in evaluating ambient displays in the wild: Two case studies. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011. [Google Scholar]
  11. Jafarinaimi, N.; Forlizzi, J.; Hurst, A.; Zimmerman, J. Breakaway: An ambient display designed to change human behavior. In Proceedings of the CHI’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, OR, USA, 2–7 April 2005. [Google Scholar]
  12. Lin, J.J.; Mamykina, L.; Lindtner, S.; Delajoux, G.; Strub, H.B. Fish‘n’Steps: Encouraging physical activity with an interactive computer game. In UbiComp 2006: Ubiquitous Computing; Springer: Berlin, Germnay, 2006; pp. 261–278. [Google Scholar]
  13. Consolvo, S.; Everitt, K.; Smith, I.; Landay, J.A. Design requirements for technologies that encourage physical activity. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montréal, QC, Canada, 22–27 April 2006. [Google Scholar]
  14. Li, I.; Dey, A.; Forlizzi, J. A stage-based model of personal informatics systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GR, USA, 10–15 April 2010. [Google Scholar]
  15. Pina, L.R.; Ramirez, E.; Griswold, W.G. Fitbit+: A behavior-based intervention system to reduce sedentary behavior. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth), San Diego, CA, USA, 21–24 May 2012. [Google Scholar]
  16. Pirzadeh, A.; He, L.; Stolterman, E. Personal informatics and reflection: A critical examination of the nature of reflection. In Proceedings of the CHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France, 27 April–2 May 2013. [Google Scholar]
  17. Swan, M. The quantified self: Fundamental disruption in big data science and biological discovery. Big Data 2013, 1, 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Thorp, A.A.; Healy, G.N.; Winkler, E.; Clark, B.K.; Gardiner, P.A.; Owen, N.; Dunstan, D.W. Prolonged sedentary time and physical activity in workplace and non-work contexts: A cross-sectional study of office, customer service and call centre employees. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2012, 9, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Cresswell, T. On the Move : Mobility in the Modern Western World; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  20. Barnes, R.M. Motion and Time Study Applications; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1953. [Google Scholar]
  21. Shephard, R.J. Men at Work: Applications of Ergonomics to Performance and Design; Charles C Thomas Publisher: Springfield, IL, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  22. Moradi, F.; Wiberg, M. Redesigning Work–From Sedentariness to Activeness. Procedia Technol. 2013, 9, 1005–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Moradi, F. Working out Work: From Personal Informatics to Redesigning Work. Ph.D. Thesis, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  24. Das, B.; Grady, R.M. Industrial workplace layout design an application of engineering anthropometry. Ergonomics 1983, 26, 433–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kling, R. Computerization at work. In Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1996; Volume 2, pp. 278–308. [Google Scholar]
  26. Winner, L. Playpen or Prison’. In Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  27. Corlett, E. Analysis and Evaluation of Working Posture; Butterworths: London, UK, 1983; Volume 13. [Google Scholar]
  28. Barab, S.A.; Thomas, M.K.; Dodge, T.; Squire, K.; Newell, M. Critical design ethnography: Designing for change. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 2004, 35, 254–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dourish, P. Implications for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montréal, QC, Canada, 22–27 April 2006. [Google Scholar]
  30. Bellotti, V.; Bly, S. Walking away from the desktop computer: Distributed collaboration and mobility in a product design team. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Boston, MA, USA, 16–20 November 1996. [Google Scholar]
  31. Luff, P.; Heath, C. Mobility in collaboration. In Proceedings of the 1998 ACM Conference on Computer Supporzted Cooperative Work, Seattle, WA, USA, 14–18 November 1998. [Google Scholar]
  32. Fujiki, Y.; Kazakos, K.; Puri, C.; Buddharaju, P.; Pavlidis, I.; Levine, J. NEAT-o-Games: Blending physical activity and fun in the daily routine. Comput. Entertain. 2008, 6, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Levine, J.A. Nonexercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT): Environment and biology. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 2004, 286, E675–E685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Levine, J.A.; Schleusner, S.J.; Jensen, M.D. Energy expenditure of nonexercise activity. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2000, 72, 1451–1454. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  35. McAlpine, D.A.; Manohar, C.U.; McCrady, S.K.; Hensrud, D.; Levine, J.A. An office-place stepping device to promote workplace physical activity. Br. J. Sports Med. 2007, 41, 903–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Straker, L.; Abbott, R.A.; Heiden, M.; Mathiassen, S.E.; Toomingas, A. Sit–stand desks in call centres: Associations of use and ergonomics awareness with sedentary behavior. Appl. Ergon. 2013, 44, 517–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Van der Ploeg, H.P.; Chey, T.; Korda, R.J.; Banks, E.; Bauman, A. Sitting time and all-cause mortality risk in 222 497 Australian adults. Arch. Intern. Med. 2012, 172, 494–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Keim, N.L.; Blanton, C.A.; Kretsch, M.J. America’s obesity epidemic: Measuring physical activity to promote an active lifestyle. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2004, 104, 1398–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Taylor, W.C.; King, K.E.; Shegog, R.; Paxton, R.J.; Evans-Hudnall, G.L.; Rempel, D.M.; Chen, V.; Yancey, A.K. Booster Breaks in the workplace: Participants’ perspectives on health-promoting work breaks. Health Educ. Res. 2013, 28, 414–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Shin, D.-H.; Biocca, F. Health experience model of personal informatics: The case of a quantified self. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 69, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Holmquist, L.E.; Skog, T. Informative art: Information visualization in everyday environments. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques in Australasia and South East Asia, Melbourne, Australia, 11–14 February 2003. [Google Scholar]
  42. Weiser, M.; Brown, J.S. Designing calm technology. Power Grid J. 1996, 1, 75–85. [Google Scholar]
  43. Hallnäs, L.; Redström, J. Slow technology-Designing for reflection. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2001, 5, 201–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Stolterman, E.; Wiberg, M. Concept-driven interaction design research. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2010, 25, 95–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Höök, K.; Löwgren, J. Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 2012, 19, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Blomberg, J.; Karasti, H. Reflections on 25 years of ethnography in CSCW. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 2013, 22, 373–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kakihara, M.; Sørensen, C. Expanding the ‘mobility’ concept. ACM SIGGroup Bull. 2001, 22, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ishii, H.; Wisneski, C.; Brave, S.; Dahley, A.; Gorbet, M.; Ullmer, B.; Yarin, P. ambientROOM: Integrating ambient media with architectural space. In Proceedings of the CHI 98 Cconference Summary on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 18–23 April 1998. [Google Scholar]
  49. Schön, D.A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1983; Volume 5126. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bardzell, J.; Bardzell, S. What is critical about critical design? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France, 27 April–2 May 2013. [Google Scholar]