WP 4: Socio-technological 3D navigation design

(1)

WP 4: Socio-technological

3D navigation design

Jo Pierson

URBAN Final Meeting 17th_{February 2010}

(2)

IBBT-SMIT User Research

  WP4 Visualisation of and User Interaction with 3D City Models   TASK 4.3: Exploring user innovation in 3D city navigation

 User Driven Innovation research (3 phases) 1.  Desk research

2.  Identification user types

3.  Field work (2 iterations of 3 settings)

1.  Everyday life getting around in city (practices)

2.  Navigation applications (affordances)

3.  3D navigation (proxy technologies)

 Outcome: User grounded profiles/personas/scenarios/ storyboarding

  TASK 4.4: Embedding user innovation in technology design

 Socio-technological integration (2 phases) 1.  Identifying & validating ‘user hooks’

2.  Co-design with technologists and external experts

 Outcome: Recommendations for socio-technical work in high-end technological project environment (navigation design)

(3)

Relevance…

  INTEL People & Practices Research Lab

  Director: Maria Bezaitis, Ph.D.

  Research

  Explore fundamental paradigms and phenomena of everyday life

  How people, practices, and institutions matter to technological innovation?

  Current projects

  Cultural Computing >

  Globalization looms large all around us. One key aspect of this has been the flows, mobilities and connections of people, objects and information across the globe. These flows affect cultural understandings of time, space, technology and identity.   Mobility >

  PaPR's study dubbed "Anywhere at Work" was initiated in 1997 focused on workers who spend their time away from the standard PC desktop or in some cases workers with no access to a desktop PC.

  Technology and Communities >

  We tend to think of the adoption of personal computing as a collection of singular purchase designs by individual users. For many people in affluent communities (the US, for instance) a PC purchase might be an individual or household decision.

(4)

(5)

Rationale

 

User-Driven Innovation (UDI):

 

Origin: ISO 13407 - Human-centred design

processes for interactive systems

 

2 key components

1)  A thorough understanding of users for finding new opportunities to create added value.

2)  A systematic involvement of users as early as possible in and throughout the whole innovation process.

 

URBAN: R&D of computer-generated 3D city models.

 

Objective within URBAN is twofold:

1)  Investigate and identify potential service innovation in relation to 3D city models as early as possible in the development trajectory by means of an explorative in-depth user research.

2)  Connect these findings on current and future user practices of navigation in a 3D environment to the actual technology

(6)

How User Driven Innovation (UDI) research?

Framework for mapping user-driven innovation processes (from the company’s perspective)

Source: Wise, Emily & Høgenhaven, Casper (2008) User-Driven Innovation. Oslo: Research Policy Institute - Nordic Innovation Centre, 136.

User Innovation

(the user is part of the innovation team)

Experiments with users

(the user articulates and the articulation is taken

at face value)

Observation of users

(the user does not articulate or the articulation is not taken

at face value)

User tests

(the user is not part of the innovation team)

Acknowledged Unacknowledged Indirect Direct Indirect Direct User Participation User Needs HOW WHAT Articulation line Participation line

(7)

(8)

(9)

Task 4.3 ‘Exploring user innovation in 3D city

navigation’

 

Implementing user driven innovation in 3D city

environment from a user-driven innovation perspective

 

Research question

 

‘Which services offer a genuine added value

for users in a 3D city environment, based on their

city-related needs and practices?’

(10)

T4.3 - Field research method

1.  Scanning user innovation opportunities (idea phase)

  Identification four vertical domains with user innovation opportunities

 Tourism (city trips); Real estate; Urban planning; Public transport

2.  First assessment innovation opportunities (concept design)

  Validation of selected domains  Tourism – city trips

 Real estate

  Two user grounded scenarios (City trips & Real estate)

 Define the possibilities and constraints of 3D digital city environment

 Serve as guidelines for User Driven Innovation (cf. Task 4.4)

(11)

T4.3 - Field research method

3.  Contextual ‘user testing’ (test and experimentation phase)

  User tests with city trippers (6):

  User tests with real estate purchasers (6):

< 40 years 40 to 60 years The (mainly) online planner Annelies Rob The (mainly) offline planner Thomas Els Explorer Evelien Noëlla

< 40 years 40 to 60 years Non-inhabitant of Brussels Wouter Ludo, Lucia New inhabitant of Brussels Michèle

(12)

T4.3 - Field research method

 

User testing: not solely testing usability of URBAN

prototype

1.  Establish a profile sketch

2.  Conducting an online search

3.  Interview on current domesticated practices

4.  Presenting the URBAN prototype

5.  A first acquaintance with the URBAN prototype

6.  Gauging the respondents’ first impression of the URBAN prototype

7.  Scenario-based task performance

(13)

 

Presenting the final user findings: Scenario 1

‘City trips’

(14)

Task 4.3 – Findings ‘City visit’

1 - ‘The practice of planning and going on a city trip: The dominant tourist information tools’

  The main advantage of a travel guide is its mobility and thus its ability to provide some (navigation) guidance on the spot.

  The tourist information that is offered by a travel guide is perceived as more synoptic and well organised in comparison to the diffuse

online tourist information.

  Tourists prefer to decide which restaurants, bars and shops they will visit on the spot in order to keep the city trip more or less

spontaneous. Future mobile tourist applications should be able to

respond to this need to not plan everything in advance.

  City trippers are interested in up-to-date information such as opening hours, events, exhibitions and the schedules of public transport. Three-dimensional city models should therefore play a part in this particular need of tourists that a traditional guidebook cannot fulfil.

(15)

Task 4.3 – Findings ‘City visit’

2 - ‘Wayfinding and localization as primary affordance’

  All city trippers regularly struggle with wayfinding issues. From this perspective navigation support is perceived as the primary service of 3D city models. Consequently navigation should be a basic function on all urban tourist applications.

  Three-dimensional visualisation of urban environments provides a

clear insight in a city, a better orientation and allows users to better link particular places to each other.

  Tourist applications should enable users to localize traditional tourist facilities, such as hotels, restaurants and tourists centres.

(16)

Task 4.3 – Findings ‘City visit’

3 - ‘A mobile 3D city model’

  A mobile 3D city model would offer a genuine added value from a user perspective:

•  City trippers, especially explorers, would like to have some

(navigation and localization) support on the spot.

•  A mobile virtual city application could respond to the shortcomings

of the domesticated travel guide and city map.

  Because of the perceived added value, users will be more willing to pay for a mobile version of the 3D city model.

(17)

Task 4.3 – Findings ‘City visit’

4 - ‘Virtual reality: How real?’

  A generalised 3D model of a city suffices for users, which means no immediate need for an overall hyper photorealistic representation (as the city visit will be already realistic).

  Things that are relevant for tourists, which are generally part of the

public space (e.g. parks, squares, historical buildings), require a

higher level of detail than things that are not of interest to tourists (e.g. private houses).

(18)

Task 4.3 – Findings ‘City visit’

5 - ‘Omni-directional video: As real as it gets?’

  The hyper realistic ODV is clearly situated on the border of getting a prior vague idea of the vacation destination on the one hand and keeping a city trip spontaneous on the other hand.

  Particularly ‘planners’ like to have a kind of pre-experience of a city, but there always has to be the opportunity to discover (new things of) a city on the spot.

  Currently the omni-directional video is mainly a good-to-have functionality to virtually explore the neighbourhood of an accommodation.

(19)

Task 4.3 – Findings ‘City visit’

6 - ‘Points of Interest: Everyone’s interest?’

  The offer of POIs needs to be extended by means of more

personalisation and categorisation in order to link in with the

personal needs and interests of a particular city tripper.

  In the context of the expansion of POIs one should assure that the 3D city model stays synoptic.

(20)

Task 4.3 – Findings ‘City visit’

7 - ‘Willingness-to-pay’

  People are more willing to pay far a mobile 3D city model rather than for a static application as the latter cannot approach the requirements of a traditional guidebook.

  The price people are willing to pay for a (mobile) 3D city model is constrained by the price of a paper travel guide on the one hand and by the existing (free) alternatives, i.e. tourist brochures, online tourist information, city map, etc., on the other hand.

  In order for a 3D city model to be able to offer a genuine added value from a user perspective, it has to create a unique city trip

experience that is tailored to the interests of the city tripper in

(21)

Task 4.3 – Findings ‘Real estate’

 

Presenting the final user findings: Scenario 2

(22)

Task 4.3 – Findings ‘Real estate’

1 - ‘The practice of searching for a home: Online real

estate information’

  Real estate purchasers like to self-select potential properties that could be worth a visit in the comfort of the own home setting by means of real estate websites and hence avoid the intermediation of a broker.

  Online property pictures are of great importance in this self-selecting process of possibly interesting properties.

  Current real estate websites have some shortcomings that can hinder an efficient online self-selection of properties and that are situated on the level of the offered information on the neighbourhood, the interior and the street of the property and on the level of the search functionalities.

(23)

Task 4.3 – Findings ‘Real estate’

2 - ‘Virtual reality: How real?’

  A generalized 3D representation of a city can have added value for real estate purchasers who are unfamiliar with that particular city in the sense that it provides them with a spatial insight in the city and with an overview of the available facilities.

  A generalized 3D representation of a city does not have added value for real estate purchasers who are familiar with that particular city since they already have a general view of their own town. For these users only an up-to-date photorealistic virtual city model with relevant real estate services creates added value.

(24)

Task 4.3 – Findings ‘Real estate’

3 - ‘Omni-directional video: As real as it gets?’

  In comparison to online property pictures, ODV is perceived as more ‘real’ and ‘authentic’.

  ODV enables users to see more features (i.e. traffic, parking space, trees, etc.) of the neighbourhood of a property, which is particularly interesting for properties that are distant from the current place of residence.

  Referring to the need to receive a better view of the interior of a property, the respondents suggest the added value that ODV indoor can have for them.

(25)

Task 4.3 – Findings ‘Real estate’

4 - ‘Points of Interest: Everyone’s interest?’

  POIs that are implemented in a 3D city model can only have added value for real estate purchasers when they are selected based on their

usefulness for future inhabitants.

(26)

Task 4.3 – Findings ‘Real estate’

5 - ‘Willingness-to-pay’

  As a generalized 3D model can only have added value for real estate purchasers who are unfamiliar with the neighbourhood where they are looking for a property, only these people might be willing to pay for a 3D visualisation of that neighbourhood.

  There is more willingness-to-pay for ODV inside than for ODV outside as the former would overcome a lot of barriers that currently exist in the self-selecting process of interesting premises: contacting a broker or owner to make an appointment to visit the property.

  The existence of free alternatives to self-select possibly interesting properties from the comfort of the own home setting, more specifically traditional real estate websites, lowers the willingness-to-pay.

(27)

Task 4.3 – Conclusions

1. Points of interest:

 

The POIs that are offered by future 3D city applications

need to vary based on the user profiles: user profile

needs to be determined immediately after logging in to

the 3D city model.

 

The presented information on useful facilities should be

layered in order to maintain synopsis, e.g. pop-ups:

selecting from an optional list of facilities in which

facilities one is interested (cfr. Realtor.com on next slide)

(28)

(29)

Task 4.3 – Conclusions

2. A mobile 3D city model

 

The best suited environment to use a virtual city model

for city trippers is actually on the spot.

 

Integrate more navigation and localization tools on

the spot: e.g. route calculation for pedestrians & public

transport, project street names on the ground, highlight

important sights/buildings, put emblems on important

shops, etc.

(30)

Task 4.3 – Conclusions

3. Omni-directional video

 

First implementing outdoor pictures in the 3D city

model: ODV outdoor is not (yet) a must for city trippers

and real estate purchasers are foremost interested in

ODV indoor

 

Make ODV fragments transparent: Mention time and

(31)

Task 4.4: Embedding user innovation in

technology design

 

Objective: Integrate user research in technological

design process

1. Interview technological project partners to trace the

‘hooks’ where user input could guide the

development

2. Participatory design exercise: to what extent a match

in user scenarios between user perspective and

technological feasibility

 

Visualizing two scenarios by way of

storyboarding

 

Based on methodology SMIT (An Jacobs – Jo

Pierson) & EDM (Mieke Haesen - Karin Coninx)

3. Evaluating prototype and integrating final version of

(32)

T4.4 - Storyboard

 

Example of one scenario component visualised by means

(33)

T4.4 - Interdisciplinary partner interaction

 

Set-up first participatory workshop (15 Dec 2008)

 

Group discussion during second participative workshop

(34)

Task 4.4 - Findings

3 topics that inform the socio-technological development

process

1) 

‘Project direction’

  A technologically oriented vision on the outcome of the project: fine-tuning and experimenting with the basic technology of 3D city modelling.

  3D city service innovation is no priority.

  No shared vision on possible future application domains for the 3D city modelling technology.

“I rather work like I first want to see what I can do technologically and then I will take a look at the user. Of course if you are doing this kind of research you actually do not know what will be the outcome so first I want to see what is possible.” (Researcher of a company that is specialised in mobile mapping technology)

(35)

Task 4.4 - Findings

2) 

‘

Cooperation’

  Mainly bilateral cooperation: involved in the same work package or task & between a research group and a data provider.

  Less overall cooperation among the project partners.

  Cooperation: in case of a win-win situation.

  Cooperation between technological research & user research: “What’s in in for us?”

 UDI: Frequent and intensive interaction between users and engineers throughout whole R&D process with openness towards and understanding of each others input.

“I would like the collaboration only if it’s suitable for all partners, if it’s a win-win collaboration, but it’s very difficult since we all have different goals, all different expertises.” (Research developer at a

(36)

Task 4.4 - Findings

3) 

‘Involving user (research)’

 User research in the final (implementation) phase of NPD when the technology is becoming ‘mature’.

 Limits the leeway for strategic user-driven technological adaptations.

 <=> UDI: NPD should be fed continuously by user input (incl. early stages) to enable new products and services to link in with the expectations, characteristics, practices and experiences of future users.

“I would say the user sometimes is a nice to have more than a must have in this first part of URBAN. But if we want a real demonstrator that is convincing for Immoweb people or others, then of course we have to make something that it can be used by people and we cannot guess it completely by ourselves.” (Research developer at a high tech research centre)

(37)

Task 4.4 - Findings

 

Methodological reflections:

 

1) User-related profiles of all involved actors: assess

where user input could have an added value in the

R&D process and anticipate on possible reservations.

 

2) Storyboards trigger more than user scenarios:

visualise the consequences and translate abstract

ideas in concrete technological choices.

 

3) Functional requirements and user requirements

≠ easy match: If and how the functional problem

created by a user requirement can be solved

technologically now or in the future?

 

4) UDI ≠ self-evident: a flexible research attitude and

(38)

Conclusion

  User findings concrete enough from researchers and developers perspective (storyboarding)

  Choices mobile device depends on different perspectives

  Technical perspective

  User perspective (as seen by technological researcher)

  Market perspective

  Involving other stakeholder of value network through business modelling (e.g. professionals)

  User reseach is not same as usability research

  Identifying optimal moment/place of user research in technological R&D process, througout the whole duration of project

  Explorative approach -> further research:

  Validation on larger scale through survey

  Combination with business modelling research, involving other stakeholders in value network

(39)

Output

  Marinka Vangenck, Marinka & Pierson, Jo (2008) Deliverable 4.3.1 - Intermediate

version of scenarios based on user goals and practices (WP4 – Task 4.3),

Brussels: VUB-SMIT, 106.

  Marinka Vangenck, Marinka & Pierson, Jo (2009) Deliverable 4.4.1 - Intermediate

version of report on socio-technological 3D navigation design (WP4 – Task 4.4),

Brussels: VUB-SMIT, 65.

  Marinka Vangenck, Marinka & Pierson, Jo (2009) Deliverable 4.3.2 - Exploring

user innovation in 3D city navigation (WP4 – Task 4.3), Brussels: VUB-SMIT, 65.

  Marinka Vangenck, Marinka & Pierson, Jo (2009) Deliverable 4.4.2 - Final version

of report on socio-technological 3D navigation design (WP4 – Task 4.4), Brussels:

VUB-SMIT, 31.

  Vangenck, Marinka & Pierson, Jo (2009) User-driven innovation in the case of

three-dimensional urban environments, Paper for the COST Action 298 conference

‘The good, the bad and the challenging - The user and the future of information and communication technologies, 13-15 May 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark.   Vangenck, Marinka & Pierson, Jo (in press) User-driven socio-technological

innovation in three-dimensional urban environments, in: Pierson, Jo, Mante-Meijer, Enid & Loos, Eugène (eds) New media technologies and user empowerment,

Berlin: Peter Lang.

  Research co-operation on interdisciplinary storyboarding (EDM & SMIT – Mieke Haesen & Karin Coninx)

(40)