skip to main content
10.1145/332040.332499acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

Joking, storytelling, artsharing, expressing affection: a field trial of how children and their social network communicate with digital images in leisure time

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 April 2000Publication History

ABSTRACT

Increasing use of mobile phones in leisure and communication with digital images are important and current issues in the field of telecommunications. However, little is known about how images would be used in leisure related communication. According to our experience field trials are the best way of studying it. In this paper, we describe a field-trial case study of leisure related communication with digital images. Moreover, we discuss the advantages of conducting field trials as part of product concept design process.

References

  1. 1.Abramis, D.J. (1990). Play in Work. Childish Hedonism or Adult Enthusiasm? American Behavioral Scientist, 33 (3), 353-373Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. 2.Beyer, H., and Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual Design. Defining Customer-Centred Systems.Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 3.Bly, S. (1997). Field Work: Is it product work? Interactions, 4 (1), 25 - 30 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 4.Carroll, J.M, and Rosson M. B. (1996). Developing the Blacksburg electronic village. Communications of the ACM, 39(12), 69 - 74 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 5.Carroll, J.M. et al. (1995) Building a History of the Blacksburg Village. In Proceedings of Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, & Techniques, 1995, 1 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 6.Chikszentmihalyi, M., and Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things. Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge University PressGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. Mouton, The HagueGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.De Vrede, G, and van Wijk, W. (1997). A field study into the organizational Application of Group Support Systems. In Proceedings of Computer Personnel Research '97, ACM Press Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 9.Dunbar, R. (1996). Grooming, Gossiping and the Evolution of Language. Faber & FaberGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.Ford, S., and Forlizzi, J. (1999). Towards a Framework of Interaction and Experience As It Relates to Product Design. Workshop in Usability Professional's Association Conference 1999. URL: http ://www.goodgestreet.com/UPAweb/home.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.Frohlich, D., and Tallyn, E. (1999). AUDIOPHOTOGRAPHY: Practice and prospects. In Extended Abstracts of CH199, ACM Press Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. 12.Hindus, D. et al. (1996). Thunderwire: A field study of an audio-only media space. In Proceedings of Computer supported Cooperative Work '96, ACM Press Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. 13.Kristoffersen, S., and Ljungberg, F. (1999). An Empirical Study of How People Establish Interaction: Implications for CSCW Session Management Models. In Proceedings of CHI 99, ACM Press Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. 14.M/ikel~i, A., and Battarbee, K. (1999). Applying Usability Methods to Concept development of a Future Wireless Communication Device- Case in Maypole. In Proceedings of 17th International Symposium on Human Factors in Telecommunication Copenhagen, Denmark, May 4- 7, 1999, 291-298Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.Poulson, D., and Richardson, S. (1994). Developing adaptable smarter homes for elderly and visually impaired people. In Proceedings of Intemational Ergonomics Association, vol.4: Ergonomics and Design. Ergonomics AssociationGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.Giller, V. et al. (1999). Image makers. Interactions, 6 (6), 12- 15 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. 17.Veinott, E.S. et al. (1999). Video Helps Remote Work: Speakers Who Need to Negotiate Common Ground Benefit from Seeing Each Other. In Proceedings of CH199, ACM Press Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 18.Wixon, D., and Ramey, J. (1996). Field Methods Casebook for Software Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Joking, storytelling, artsharing, expressing affection: a field trial of how children and their social network communicate with digital images in leisure time

        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 '00: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          April 2000
          587 pages
          ISBN:1581132166
          DOI:10.1145/332040

          Copyright © 2000 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 1 April 2000

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • Article

          Acceptance Rates

          CHI '00 Paper Acceptance Rate72of336submissions,21%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader