Author(s):
- Koo, Sumin Helen
- Fallon, Kristopher
Abstract:
The Quantified Self is a movement that promotes the use of technology for self-tracking various kinds of personal information, such as physical activities and energy consumption. In this paper, we study the user reviews of quantified self tools, as reported on a quantified self community website. We perform a content analysis to categorize tracking tools, and to explore user experience (UX) issues related to quantified self technologies. From this analysis, we find various tracking categories, including body state (e.g., physical and physiological), psychological state and traits, activities (e.g., exercise, eating, sleep), social interactions, and environmental and property states. Furthermore, we find the key UX issues associated with quantified self technologies, which include data controllability, data integration, data accuracy, data visualization, input complexity, sharing/privacy, design/aesthetics, and engagement. The UX issues reported in this paper have significant implications for the design of quantified self technologies.
Document:
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMU.2015.7061028
References:
1. M. Swan, “The quantified self: Fundamental disruption in big data science and biological discovery”, Big Data, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 85-99, 2013. Show Context CrossRef Google Scholar
2. I. Li, A. Dey and J. Forlizzi, “A stage-based model of personal informatics systems”, Proc. of ACM CHI, pp. 557-566, 2010. Show Context Access at ACM Google Scholar
3. A. J. Sellen and S. Whittaker, “Beyond total capture: a constructive critique of lifelogging”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 70-77, 2010. Show Context Access at ACM Google Scholar
4. M. Swan, “Sensor mania/the internet of things wearable computing objective metrics and the quantified self 2.0”, Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 217-253, 2012. Show Context CrossRef Google Scholar
5. E. K. Choe, N. B. Lee, B. Lee, W. Pratt and J. A. Kientz, “Understanding quantified-selfers’ practices in collecting and exploring personal data”, Proc. of ACM CHI, pp. 1143-1152, 2014. Show Context Access at ACM Google Scholar
6. J. Rooksby, M. Rost, A. Morrison and M. C. Chalmers, “Personal tracking as lived informatics”, Proc. of ACM CHI, pp. 1163-1172, 2014. Show Context Access at ACM Google Scholar
7. A. P. Vermeeren, E. L.-C. Law, V. Roto, M. Obrist, J. Hoonhout and K. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, “User experience evaluation methods: current state and development needs”, Proc. of ACM NordiCHI, pp. 521-530, 2010. Show Context Access at ACM Google Scholar
8. J. A. Bargas-Avila and K. Hornbæk, “Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience”, Proc. of ACM CHI, pp. 2689-2698, 2011. Show Context Access at ACM Google Scholar
9. N. McNamara and J. Kirakowski, “Defining usability: quality of use or quality of experience?”, Proc. of IEEE IPCC, pp. 200-204, 2005. Show Context View Article Full Text: PDF (92KB) Google Scholar
10. “Quantified Self”, [online] Available: http://quantifiedself.com. Show Context Google Scholar
11. H. Beyer and K. Holtzblatt, Contextual design: defining customer- centered systems, Elsevier, 1997. Show Context Google Scholar 12. “AngelList: Quantified Self”, [online] Available: https://angel.co/quantified-self. Show Context Google Scholar
13. S. Hedegaard and J. G. Simonsen, “Extracting usability and user experience information from online user reviews”, Proc. of ACM CHI, pp. 2089-2098, 2013. Show Context Access at ACM Google Scholar
14. J.-K. Min, A. Doryab, J. Wiese, S. Amini, J. Zimmerman and J. I. Hong, “Toss’n’turn: smartphone as sleep and sleep quality detector”, Proc. of ACM CHI, pp. 477-486, 2014. Show Context Google Scholar
15. Y. Lee, C. Min, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Hwang, Y. Ju, et al., “Sociophone: Everyday face-to-face interaction monitoring platform using multi-phone sensor fusion”, Proc. of ACM MobiSys, pp. 375-388, 2013. Show Context Google Scholar
16. K. Tollmar, F. Bentley and C. Viedma, “Mobile health mashups: Making sense of multiple streams of wellbeing and contextual data for presentation on a mobile device”, Proc. of IEEE PervasiveHealth, pp. 65-72, 2012. Show Context CrossRef Google Scholar
17. M. Galesic and R. Garcia-Retamero, “Graph literacy a cross-cultural comparison”, Medical Decision Making, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 444-457, 2011. Show Context CrossRef Google Scholar
18. S. A. Munson and S. Consolvo, “Exploring goal-setting rewards self- monitoring and sharing to motivate physical activity”, Proc. of IEEE PervasiveHealth, pp. 25-32, 2012. Show Context View Article Full Text: PDF (583KB) Google Scholar
19. V. Rivera-Pelayo, V. Zacharias, L. Müller and S. Braun, “Applying quantified self approaches to support reflective learning”, Proc. of ACM LK, pp. 111-114, 2012. Show Context Access at ACM Google Scholar
20. T. Fritz, E. M. Huang, G. C. Murphy and T. Zimmermann, “Persuasive technology in the real world: a study of long-term use of activity sensing devices for fitness”, Proc. of ACM CHI, pp. 487-496, 2014. Show Context Access at ACM Google Scholar
21. T. Toscos and K. Connelly, “Using behavior modification theory to understand and guide technological interventions”. Show Context Google Scholar
22. P. McFedries, “Tracking the quantified self”, Spectrum IEEE, vol. 50, no. 8, 2013. Show Context View Article Full Text: PDF (615KB) Google Scholar
23. T. Lavie and N. Tractinsky, “Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites”, International journal of human-computer studies, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 269-298, 2004. Show Context CrossRef Google Scholar
24. B. M. Costello and E. A. Edmonds, “Directed and emergent play”, Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition, pp. 107-116, 2009. Show Context Access at ACM Google Scholar
25. D. M. Hilbert and D. F. Redmiles, “Extracting usability information from user interface events”, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 384-421, 2000. Show Context Access at ACM Google Scholar