skip to main content
article

Shared family calendars: Promoting symmetry and accessibility

Published:01 September 2006Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We describe the design and use of a system facilitating the sharing of calendar information between remotely located, multi-generational family members. Most previous work in this area involves software enabling younger family members to monitor their parents. We have found, however, that older adults are equally if not more interested in the activities of younger family members. The major obstacle preventing them from participating in information sharing is the technology itself. Therefore, we developed a multi-layered interface approach that offers simple interaction to older users. In our system, users can choose to enter information into a computerized calendar or write it by hand on digital paper calendars. All of the information is automatically shared among everyone in the distributed family. By making the interface more accessible to older users, we promote symmetrical sharing of information among both older and younger family members. We present our participatory design process, describe the user interface, and report on an exploratory field study in three households of an extended family.

References

  1. AIRSET, www.airset.com.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Arai, T., Aust, D., and Hudson, S. 1997. PaperLink: A technique for hyperlinking from real paper to electronic content. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 327--334.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Back, M., Cohen, J., Gold, R., Harrison, S., and Minneman, S. 2001. Listen Reader: An electronically augmented paper-based book. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 23--29.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Beard, D. and Palanlappan, M. 1990. A visual calendar for scheduling group meetings. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM Press, 279--290.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bederson, B., Clamage, A., Czerwinski, M., and Robertson, G. 2004. DateLens: A fisheye calendar interface for PDAs. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Inter. 11, 1, 90--119.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Browne, H. 2000. Accessibility and usability of information technology by the elderly. Universal Usability Guide. Retrieved June 10, 2004 from http://www.otal.umd.edu/UUGuide/hbrowne/.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bullen, C. and Bennett, J. 1990. Learning from user experience with groupware. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Cooperative Design. ACM Press, 291--302.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Chisnell, D., Lee, A., and Redish, J. 2004. Designing web sites for older users: Comparing AARP's studies to earlier findings. Retrieved June 10, 2004 from www.aarp.org/olderwiserwired/oww-features/Articles/a2004-03-03-comparison-studies.html]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Crabtree, A., Hemmings, T., and Rodden, T. 2003. Informing the development of calendar systems for domestic Use. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 119--138.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Crabtree, A. and Rodden, T. 2004. Domestic routines and design for the home. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 13 (2), Kluwer Academic Publishers, 191--220.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Czaja, S. and Lee, C. 2003. Designing Computer Systems for Older Adults. In J. Jacko and A. Sears, Eds. The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahway, NJ.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. C-PEN, www.cpen.com.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Druin, A. 2002. The Role of Children in the Design of New Technology. Behav. Inform. Tech. 21, (1), Taylor and Francis, 1--25.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Dymetman, M. and Copperman, M. 1998. Intelligent paper. In Proceedings of Electronic Publishing 98, Springer-Verlag.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellis, C., Gibbs, S., and Rein, G. 1991. Groupware: Some issues and experiences. Comm. ACM 34, 1, 38--58.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Emery, V., Edwards, P, Jacko, J. Moloney, K. P., Barnaed, L., Kongnakom, I., Sainfort, F., and Scott, I. U. 2003. Toward achieving universal usability for older adults through multimodal feedback. In Proceedings of the Conference on Universal Usability. ACM Press, 46--53.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Fpamilyscheduler. www.familyscheduleronline.com.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics. 2000. Older Americans 2000: Key indicators of well-being. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August. Retrieved June 10, 2004 from agingstats.gov/chartbook2000/default.htm.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaver, B. and Pacenti, E. 1999. Cultural probes. Interactions, January and February. ACM Press, 21--29.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M., Eds. 1991. Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Grudin, J. 1994. Groupware and social dynamics: Eight challenges for developers. Comm. ACM 37, 1, 92--105.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Guimbretiere, F. 2003. Paper augmented digital documents. In Proceedings of User Interface Software and Technology. ACM Press, 51--60.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Gupta, N. 2002. Seiko SmartPad: The digital link between paper and your pocket PC, Smartphone and Pocket PC Magazine. July, www.pocketpcmag.com/_archives/Jul02/SeikoSmartpad. asp.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Hindus, D. 1999. The importance of homes in technology research. In Proceedings of Second International Workshop on Cooperative Building. Springer, 199--207.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Hindus, D., Mainwaring, S., Leduc, N., Hagstrom, A., and Bayley, O. 2001. Casablanca: Designing social communication devices for the home. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 325--332.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Hine, N. and Arnott, J. 2002. Assistive social interaction for non-speaking people living in the community. In Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies. ACM Press, 162--169.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Hirsch, T., Forlizzi, J., Hyder, E. Goetz, J., Kurtz, C., and Siroback, J. 2000. The ELDeR project: Social, emotional, and environmental factors in the design of eldercare technologies. In Proceedings of the Conference on Universal Usability. ACM press, 72--79.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Hutchinson, H., Bederson, B., Plaisant, C., and Druin, A. 2002. Family calendar survey. University of Maryland Tech. Rep. CS-TR-4412. see www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/pubs/tech-reports.shtml.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W., Westerlund, B., Bederson, B. B., Druin, A., Plaisant, C., B.-Lafon, M., Conversy, S., Evans, H., Hansen, H., Roussel, N., and Eiderbäck, B. 2003. Technology probes: Inspiring design for and with families. In Proceedings on Human Factors in Computer Systems. ACM Press, 726--727.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Ishii, H. and Ullmer, B. 1997. Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 234--214.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson, W., Jellinek, H., Klotz, L., Rao, R., and Card, S. 1993. Bridging the paper and electronic worlds: The paper user interface. In Proceedings of InterCHI 93. ACM Press, 507--512.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelley, J. and Chapanis, A. 1982. How professional persons keep their calendars: Implications for computerization. J. Occup. Psych., vol. 55. British Psychological Society, 241--256.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Kincaid, C. and Dupont, P. 1985. Electronic calendars in the office: An assessment of user needs and current technology. Trans. Office Inform. Syst. 3 (1), ACM Press, 89--102.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Klemmer, S., Newman, M., Farrell, R., Bilezikjian, M., and Landay, J. 2001. The designers' outpost: A tangible interface for collaborative Web site design. In Proceedings of User Interface Software and Technology. ACM Press, 1--10.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., and Crawford, A. 2002. Internet paradox revisited. J. Soc. Issues. 58 (1), Blackwell Publishers, 49--74.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Lange, B., Jones, M., and Meyers, J. 1998. Insight Lab: An Immersive Team Environment Linking Paper, Displays, and Data. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, 550--557.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Logitech. 2002. www.logitech.com.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. MacKay, W. and Fayard, A. 1999. Designing interactive paper: Lessons from three augmented reality projects. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Augmented Reality. A. K. Peters, Ltd., Natick, MA.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Marmasse, N. and Schmandt, C. 2003. Safe and sound: A wireless leash. In Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computer Systems. ACM Press, 726--727.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. McGee, D., Cohen, D., Wesson, R., and Horman, S. 2002. Comparing paper and tangible, multimodal tools. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 407--414.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Milne, S., Dickinson, A., Gregor, P., Gibson, L., Mciver L., and Sloan, D. 2005. Not browsing, but drowning: Designing a web browser for novice older users. In Proceedings of HCL International, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1--7.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Mueller, E. 2000. A calendar with common sense. In Proceedings of Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM Press, 198--201.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Mynatt, E., Rowan, J., Jacobs, A., and Craighill, S. 2001. Digital family portraits: Supporting peace of mind for extended family members. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 333--340.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Nabeshima, S., Yamamoto, S., Agusa, K., and Taguchi, T. 1995. MEMO-PEN: A new input device. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 256--257.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. National Institute on Aging and the National Library of Medicine. 2002. Making your Web site senior friendly. Retrieved June 10, 2004 from www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/checklist.pdf.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. 2000. Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. Washington, DC, October. Retrieved June 10, 2004 from www. ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Nelson, L., Ichimura, S., Pederson, E., and Adams, L. 1999. Palette: A paper interface for giving presentations. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 354--361.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Neustaedter, C. and Brush, A. J. 2006. “LINC-ing” the family: The participatory design of an inkable family calendar. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Human Interaction. ACM Press, 141--150.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Newburger, E. 2001. Home computers and internet use in the united states. U.S. census bureau, Washington, DC. Retrieved June 10, 2004 from www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p23-207.pdf.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Ogozalek, V. 1994. A comparison of the use of text and multimedia interfaces to provide information to the elderly. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 65--71.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Olson, G. and Olson, J. 1997. Research on computer supported cooperative design. In Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, (2nd Ed.), M. Helander, T. K., Landauer, and P. Prabhu, Eds. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Ourfamilywizard. www.ourfamilywizard.com.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Palen, L. 1999. Social, individual and technological issues for groupware calendar systems. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 17--24.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Paper++. www.paperplusplus.net.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Robertson, G., Card, S., and Mackinlay, J. 1993. Information visualization using 3-D interactive animation. Comm. ACM (36), 4. ACM Press, 56--71.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Scheduleus. www.scheduleus.com.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Stifelman, L. 1996. Augmenting real-world objects: A paper-based audio notebook. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 199--200.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Taylor, A. and Swan, L. 2005. Artful systems in the home. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 641--650.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Trumba. www.trumba.com.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Tullio, J., Goecks, J., Mynatt, E., and Nguyen, D. 2002. Augmenting shared personal calendars. In Proceedings of User Interface Software and Technology. ACM Press, 11--20.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Voida, A. and Mynatt, E. 2002. Grounding Design in Values. position paper for the Workshop on New Technologies for Families at the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Want, R., Fishkin, K., Gujar, A., and Harrison, B. 1999. Bridging physical and Virtual Worlds with Electronic Tags. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 370--377.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Wellner, P. 1993. Interacting with paper on the DigitalDesk. Comm. ACM 36 (7). ACM Press, 87--96.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Westerlund, B. and Lindkvist, S. 2002. Aesthetic perspectives on participatory design in the InterLiving project. Position paper for the Workshop on New Technologies for Families at the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Worden, A., Walker, N., Bharat, K, and Hudson, S. 1997. Making computers easier for older adults to use: Area cursors and sticky icons. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 266--271.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. World Wide Web Consortium. 2004. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. Retrieved June 10, 2004 from www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20040311/.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Shared family calendars: Promoting symmetry and accessibility

        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

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader