skip to main content
research-article

The calendar is crucial: Coordination and awareness through the family calendar

Published:23 April 2009Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Everyday family life involves a myriad of mundane activities that need to be planned and coordinated. We describe findings from studies of 44 different families' calendaring routines to understand how to best design technology to support them. We outline how a typology of calendars containing family activities is used by three different types of families—monocentric, pericentric, and polycentric—which vary in the level of family involvement in the calendaring process. We describe these family types, the content of family calendars, the ways in which they are extended through annotations and augmentations, and the implications from these findings for design.

References

  1. 30BOXES, http://www.30boxes.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bederson, B., Clamage, A., Czerwinski, M., and Robertson, G. 2004. DateLens: A fisheye calendar interface for PDAs. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 11, 1, 90--119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Beech, S., Geelhoed, E., Murphy, R., Parker, J., Sellen, A., and Shaw, K. 2004. The lifestyles of working parents. Tech. rep. HPL-2003-88R1, HP Labs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyer, H. and Holtzblatt, K. 1998. Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Design. Morgan- Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Brzozowski, M., Carattini, K., Klemmer, S., Mihelich, P., Hu, J., and Ng, A. 2006. groupTime: Preference-based group scheduling. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (CHI'06), ACM, New York, 1047--1056. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Brush A., and Turner, T. 2005. Survey of personal and household scheduling. In Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work. ACM New York, 330--331. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., Hemmings, T., and Benford, S. 2003. Finding a place for UbiComp in the home. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (Ubicomp'03). Springer, Berlin, 208--226.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Crabtree, A., Hemmings, T., and Mariani, J. 2003b. Informing the development of calendar systems for domestic use. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW'03). Kluwer, Amsterdam, 119--138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Dourish, P. 2001. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Dourish, P. 2006. Implications for design. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Human Interaction (CHI'06), ACM New York, 541--550. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Elliot, K., Neustaedter, C., and Greenberg, S. 2005. Time, ownership and awareness: value of contextual locations in the home. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (Ubicomp'05). Springer, Berlin, 251--268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Elliot, K., Neustaedter, C., and Greenberg, S. 2007. StickySpots: Using location to embed technology in the social practices of the home, In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI'07). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Familyscheduler. http://www.familyscheduleronline.com/index.asp.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Google Calendar. http://calendar.google.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Holtzblatt, K. and Jones, S. 1995. Conducting and analyzing a contextual interview. In Readings in Human-Computer Interaction: Toward the Year 2000 2nd Ed., R.M. Baecker et al. Eds., Morgan Kaufman, 241--253. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Holtzblatt, K, Wendell, J., and Wood, S. 2005. Rapid Contextual Design: A How-To Guide to Key Techniques for User-Centered Design, Morgan Kaufmann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Hughes, J., O'Brien, J., Rodden, T., Rouncefield, M. and Viller, S. 2000. Patterns of home life: Informing design for domestic environments, Personal Technol. 4, 1, 25--38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Hutchinson, H., Bederson, B., Plaisant, C., and Druin, A. 2002. Family calendar survey. Tech. rep. CS-TR-4412, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim, S., Kim, M., Park, S., Jin, Y., and Choi, W. 2004. Gate reminder: A design case of a smart reminder, In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS'04). ACM, New York, 81--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Kincaid, C., Dupont, P., and Kaye, A.R. 1985. Electronic calendars in the office. ACM Trans. Office Inform. Syst. 3, 1, 89--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Kelley, J.F. and Chapanis, A. 1982. How professional persons keep their calendars: Implications for computerization. J. Occupational Psychol. 55, 241--256.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Leslie. L., Anderson, E., and Branson, M. 1991. Responsibility for children: The role of gender and employment. J. Family Issues 12, 2, 197--210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Levine, R. 1997. A Geography of Time: The Temporal Misadventures of a Social Psychologist. Basic Books, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Ludford, P., Frankowski, D., Reily, K., Wilms, K., and Terveen, L. 2006. Because I carry my cell phone anyway: Functional location-based reminder applications. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (CHI'06). ACM, New York, 889--898. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Lyons, K., Skeels, C., and Stamer, T. 2005. Providing support for mobile calendaring conversations: A wizard of Oz evaluation of dual-purpose speech. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI). ACM, New York, 243--246. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Mueller, E. 2000. A calendar with common sense, In Proceedings of the Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI'00). ACM, New York, 198--201. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Mynatt, E. and Tullio, J. 2001. Inferring calendar event attendance, In Proceedings of the Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI'01). ACM, New York, 121--128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Neustaedter, C. 2007. Domestic awareness and the role of family calendars. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, Alberta. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Neustaedter, C. and Brush, A. 2006. “LINC-ing” the family: The participatory design of an inkable family calendar, In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'06). ACM, New York, 141--150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Neustaedter, C., Brush, A., and Greenberg, S. 2006. LINC, an inkable family calendar: The video. In Video Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'06). ACM, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Neustaedter, C., Brush, A., and Greenberg, S. 2007. A digital family calendar in the home: Lessons from field trials of LINC. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface (GI'07). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Neustaedter, C., Elliot, K., and Greenberg, S. 2006. Interpersonal awareness in the domestic realm. In Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (OzCHI'06). ACM, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. ourfamilywizard, http://www.ourfamilywizard.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Palen, L. 1999. Social, individual & technological issues for groupware calendar systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'99). ACM, New York, 17--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Palen, L. 1998. Calendars on the new frontier: Challenges of groupware technology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Payne, S.J. 1993. Understanding calendar use. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, 2, 83--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Plaisant, C., Bederson, B., Clamage, A., Hutchinson, H., and Druin, A. 2006. Shared family calendars: Promoting symmetry and accessibility. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 13, 3, 313--346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Planzo. http://www.planzo.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Sellen, A., Hyams, J., and Eardley, R. 2004. The everyday problems of working parents. Tech. rep. HPL-2004-37, HP Labs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Sellen, A., Harper, R., Eardley, R., Izadi, S., Regan, T., Taylor, A., and Wood, K. 2006. Situated messaging in the home. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'06). To appear. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Spradley, J. 1980. The Ethnographic Interview. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Starner, T., Snoeck, C., Wong, B., and McGuire, M. 2004. Use of mobile appointment scheduling devices. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Extended Abstracts (CHI'04). ACM, New York, 1501--1504. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Swan, L. and Taylor, L. 2005. Notes on fridge surfaces. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Extended Abstracts (CHI'05). ACM, New York, 1813--1816. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Tam, J. and Greenberg, S. 2006. A framework for asynchronous change awareness in collaborative documents and workspaces. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 64, 7, 583--598. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Taylor, A. and Swan, L. 2004. List making in the home, In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'04). ACM, New York, 542--545. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Taylor, A., and Swan, L. 2005. Artful systems in the home, In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'05). ACM, New York, 641--650. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Tullio, J., Goecks, J., Mynatt, E., and Nguyen, D. 2002. Augmenting shared personal calendars. In Proceedings of the Conference on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST'02). CHI Letters 4, 2, 11--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. TRUMBA. http://www.trumba.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Zimmerman, T., Haddock, S., Ziemba, S., and Rust, A. 2001. Family organizational labor: Who's calling the plays? J. Feminist Family Therapy 13, 2--3, 65--90.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The calendar is crucial: Coordination and awareness through the family calendar

          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

          • Published in

            cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
            ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction  Volume 16, Issue 1
            April 2009
            199 pages
            ISSN:1073-0516
            EISSN:1557-7325
            DOI:10.1145/1502800
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2009 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: 23 April 2009
            • Accepted: 1 June 2008
            • Revised: 1 February 2008
            • Received: 1 August 2006
            Published in tochi Volume 16, Issue 1

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader