Published on February 4, 2008
Personalized Pedestrian Navigation Assistant: User Profile Assessment in PC-RE Framework: Personalized Pedestrian Navigation Assistant: User Profile Assessment in PC-RE Framework Xiangkui Yao Graduate Research Forum Feb 27,2007 Talk outline: Talk outline Personalization PC-RE framework Pedestrian Navigation Assistant Hypothesis about personalized pedestrian navigation assistants Individual differences in spatial abilities Delivery and evaluation Personalization: Personalization Adjust and modify software configurations (functionality, interface, information content) based on users’ personal characteristics (abilities, needs and preferences) Importance of personalization Personalization in adaptive user interface: Personalization in adaptive user interface Bayesian network (Horvtiz et al, 1998; Liu et al, 2003) Use probabilistic model to infer users’ goal/preference E.g. Microsoft Office Assistant (Clippit) based on Lumiere Project. Failure of Clippit – difficulty to infer user goals Mixed-initiative (Liu et al, 2003) User and software agent take turns to initiate in accomplishing tasks E.g. LookOut System for MS Outlook (Horvitz, 1999) Assume efficient collaboration between users and agents Model-based (Liu et al, 2003) No learning involved Need accurate user model Programming-by-example (Liu et al, 2003) E.g. Macro function in text-editing Substantial user efforts Difficulty in generalization Personalization in e-commerce: Personalization in e-commerce Major personalization techniques in web sites (Wu et al.,2003) : Cookies Profile-based personalization Personal tools Opportunistic links Recommender systems Most techniques use machine learning and rule-based systems Troublesome when data instances are sparse (Saxe, 2004) Personalization in RE 1: Personalization in RE 1 Incorporate personal information requirements into design of Information systems for e-learning (Sun and Ousmanou, 2006) Articulation process : Personal Information equirements PIR = O x R x A x D x Pk x Sm A: access (judger or perceiver) O: orientation (introvert or extrovert) D: decision on action (feeler or thinker) R: responsiveness to information (sensing or intuitive) Sm: sensory modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) Pk: previous knowledge of the topic (poor, enough, and good) Personalization in RE 2: Personalization in RE 2 Pros: User-centered RE approach Take individual differences into account, and focus RE at individual level (Sun and Ousmanou, 2006) Using a series of assessments that determine user’s abilities and attributes for learning the subject and prior knowledge E.g., one section of assessment questions for each preference (O, A, R, D, Sm, and Pk), using linkert scale Based assessment on domain theories Cons: No implementation mentioned in their work and lack of evaluation Need to generalize the method for other domains What we learn about personalization 1: What we learn about personalization 1 Accurate inference of user’s abilities/goals/preferences are difficult, especially at the beginning of usage Inaccurate inference could be counterproductive Alternative: Assess user’s profile at the requirements engineering stage Particularly for systems that need to account for individual differences of ABILITIES E.g., Assistive Technology, learning and education applications What we learn about personalization 2: What we learn about personalization 2 we can assess personal profiles and individual user’ requirements Based on domain theories Using tests and questionnaires Needs for evaluation (errors in personalization or customization could be counterproductive) PC-RE framework: PC-RE framework Requirements engineering approach focusing on individual user and context Personal and Contextual Requirements Engineering Framework (PC-RE) (Sutcliffe et al, 2005; Sutcliffe et al, 2006) Framework for personal requirements analysis Accommodate individual and personal goals Also, effect of time and context on personal requirements PC-RE framework 1: PC-RE framework 1 Business & domain evolution, user skills, expert users Culture & localisation, interaction language, style & FRs Physical context, communications & FRs, social context Location, social context General stakeholder requirements User characteristics, requirements Personal goals Individual user skill & ability Spatial change Temporal change Attain individual goals A – Requirements specification B – User model characteristics C – Personal goals and preferences FR-functional requirements A B C 1 2 3 Layers Personal requirements framework and change dimensions (Sutcliffe et al, 2005; Sutcliffe et al, 2006) PC-RE framework 2: PC-RE framework 2 Relations between the requirement layers framework and system architecture (Sutcliffe et al, 2005; Sutcliffe et al, 2006) PC-RE framework 3: PC-RE framework 3 The second layer (User characteristics /requirements) is of vital importance Traditional approach to assess group requirements of stakeholders in the RE process… But, we need to assess users’ individual characteristics and requirements (Sutcliffe, Fickas, and Sohlberg, 2005; Sutcliffe, Fickas, and Sohlberg, 2006) Personal assessment – the first step of personalization: Personal assessment – the first step of personalization Individuals take exam/test to have their personal profile assessed Requirements of the initial delivery of the system are based on personal profiles Use computer-based tests for such assessment, and have programs infer “prescriptions” automatically Assessment of personal characteristics are often domain-specific Personalization under PC-RE: Personalization under PC-RE Possible applications: Learning systems Personalized health care system Personalized e-mail systems E.g. think-and-link for the cogntive impaired Pedestrian Navigation System Personalized pedestrian navigation assistant: Personalized pedestrian navigation assistant Proliferation of mobile/wearable pedestrian navigation assistant systems both in the commercial market and research (Beeharee and Steed, 2006) Example scenarios: Different PERSONAL spatial abilities -- mental rotation, visual memory, self-location, etc. Different CONTEXTS: downtown, campus, shopping malls, etc. If we take a clinical and user-centered approach, we regard pedestrian navigation aids in such scenario as “assistive technology” Existing pedestrian navigation assistants lacks personalization: Existing pedestrian navigation assistants lacks personalization Most existing pedestrian navigation assistant systems either targeted at the general population or focused on special groups, such as those with visual impairment or elderly population (May et al., 2003) Personalization is lacking or rigid in most existing systems (Baus, Cheverst, and Kray, 2005) Preferences vs. abilities Need for personalized assistive technology systems: Need for personalized assistive technology systems Abandonment rates of AT systems are high (ranging from 8% to 75%) (Kintch & DePaula, 2002 ) Part of the reason: lack of respecting users’ characteristics (Kintch & DePaula, 2002 ) Individual differences in navigation Individual differences in spatial abilities: Individual differences in spatial abilities Large individual differences existing in human spatial abilities and strategies in spatial behavior (Hegarty et al., 2006; Kitchin and Baldes, 2002 ) Individual differences in using external aids in navigation and learning map (Kitchin and Blades, 2002) Individual differences in spatial cognition leads to strategy differences in navigation (and other spatial tasks) (Lobben, 2004) We need to take such individual differences into account Research hypothesis: Research hypothesis Need for personalized pedestrian navigation asisstive devices Personalized navigation aid catered towards individual spatial abilities help user perform navigation tasks more effectively and efficiently than one without personalization To personalize, we need to have system requirements right for each individual! Theories of spatial abilities 1: Theories of spatial abilities 1 Definition of spatial abilities (Golledge and Stimson, 1997) Geography definition the ability to think geometrically the ability to image complex spatial relations such as three-dimensional molecular structures or complex helices. the ability to recognize spatial patterns of phenomena at a variety of different scales. the ability to perceive three-dimensional structures in two dimensions and the related ability to expand two-dimensional representations into three-dimensional structures. the ability to interpret macro spatial relations such as star patterns or world distributions of climates or vegetation and soils. the ability to give and comprehend directional and distance estimates as required in navigation and path integration activities used in wayfinding. the ability to understand network structures. the ability to perform transformations of space and time. the ability to uncover spatial associations within and between regions or cultures. the ability to image spatial arrangements from verbal reports or writing. the ability to image and organize spatial material hierarchically. the ability to orient oneself with respect to local, relational, or global frames of reference. the ability to perform rotation or other transformational tasks. the ability to recreate accurately a representation of scenes viewed from different perspectives or points of view. the ability to compose, overly, or decompose distributions, patterns, and arrangements of phenomena at different scales, densities, and dispersions. Theories of spatial abilities 2: Theories of spatial abilities 2 Psychology definition of spatial abilities (Golledge and Stimson, 1997) Spatial visualization ability to mentally manipulate, rotate, twist, or invert two- or three-dimensional visual stimuli. Spatial orientation the ability to imagine how configurations of elements would appear from different perspectives. Spatial relations (not clearly defined, include many things) abilities that recognize spatial distribution and spatial patterns; identifying shapes; recalling distributed phenomena; comprehending and using spatial hierarchies; regionalizing; comprehending distance decay and nearest-neighbor effects in distributions; wayfinding in real-world environments; landmark recognition; … Theories of spatial abilities 3: Theories of spatial abilities 3 Spatial ability tasks identified to assess individual spatial-related abilities/attributes in navigation (Lobben, 2004) Interpreting symbol meaning Route planning Self-locating Mental rotation of text/image/geometry Visual memory tasks Path integration Delivery: Delivery Prototype using CogBag system developed in Go-Outside project in UO Wearable lab. Evaluation 1: Evaluation 1 Personal profile assessment using computer-based tests and questionnaires using Navigational Map Reading Ability Test (Lobben, unpublished) Dimensions of spatial abilities Visual memory Mental rotation Self-location Evaluation 2: Evaluation 2 Evaluation 3: Evaluation 3 Wizard of Oz style experiment We have done this before for cognitively imparied population (Sohlberg, et al, to appear) Similar navigation tasks with same amount of time Evaluation 4: Evaluation 4 Compare performance of navigation using system with personalization and that without personalization Compare effectiveness (mistakes/finished tasks) and efficiency (time spent on tasks) Evaluation 5: Evaluation 5 Evaluation 6: Evaluation 6 Conclusion 1: Conclusion 1 major problem of existing personalization approach – user models Alternative – addressing the problem at the RE stage Individual profile assessment is the first step towards personalization Conclusion 2: Conclusion 2 Importance of differences between preferences and abilities in personalization Pedestrian navigation aid: a good testbed for the idea The idea could potentially be applied to other applications where application domain theories demonstrate existence of great individual differences Slide33: Thank you for your attention! Questions? Bibliography (1): Bibliography (1) Baus, J., Cheverst, K., and Kay, C. 2005. A Survey of Map-based Mobile Guides. Map-based mobile services - Theories, Methods and Implementations Meng/Zipf (Hrsg.), Springer, S. 197-213. Beeharee, A. K. and Steed, A. 2006. A natural wayfinding exploiting photos in pedestrian navigation systems. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Human-Computer interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Helsinki, Finland, September 12 - 15, 2006). MobileHCI '06, vol. 159. ACM Press, New York, NY, 81-88. Fickas, S. 2005. Clinical Requirements Engineering. Invited paper at the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (Extending the Discipline track), St. Louis, May 2005. Golledge, R., and Stimson, R. 1997. Acquiring Spatial Knowledge, in Spatial behavior : a geographic perspective. New York :Guilford Press, 1997, pp155-187. Hegarty, M., Montello, D. R., Richardson, A. E., Ishikawa, T. and Lovelace, K. 2006. Spatial Abilities at Different Scales: Individual Differences in Aptitude-Test Performance and Spatial-Layout Learning. Intelligence, 34, pp151-176. Horvitz, E., Breese, J. Heckerman, D., Hovel, D., and Rommelse, K. 1998. The Lumière project: Bayesian User Modeling for Inferring the Goals and Needs of Software Users. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, July 1998. Horvitz, E., 1999. Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. Proceedings of CHI ’99, ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Pittsburgh, PA, May, 1999. Kintsch, A., and DePaula, R. 2002. A Framework for the Adoption of Assistive Technology, SWAAAC 2002: Supporting Learning Through Assistive Technology, pp. E3 1-10. Kitchin, R., and Blades, M. 2002. Individual and Gender Differences in Cognitive Mapping, The Cognition of Geographic Space, 2002, pp99-110. Liu, J., Wong, C. K., and Hui, K. K. 2003. An Adaptive User Interface Based On Personalized Learning. IEEE Intelligent Systems 18, 2 (Mar. 2003), 52-57. Bibliography (1): Bibliography (1) Lobben, Amy K. 2004. Tasks, Strategies, and Cognitive Processes Associated With Navigational Map Reading: A Review Perspective. The Professional Geographer, 56 (2), 270-281. Lobben, Amy. 2006. Navigational Map Reading Ability Test. Unpublished. May, A., Ross, T., Bayer, S., and Tarkiainen, M. 2003. Pedestrian navigation aids: information requirements and design implications. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 7, 6 (Dec. 2003), 331-338. Puerta, A. R. 1998. Design of Adaptive User Interfaces for Electronic Patient Records. In Proc. CHI 98 Workshop User Interfaces for Computer-Based Patient Records, 1998; www.diamondbullet.com/cpr/paper-puerta.html. Saxe, R. S. 2004. Website Personalization using Data Mining and Active Database Techniques. Computer Science Seminar, April 24, 2004. RENSSELAER AT HARTFORD. Sohlberg, M. M., Fickas, S., Hung, P., & Fortier, A. A comparison of four prompt modes for route finding with community travelers with severe cognitive impairments. Brain Injury, (to appear). Sun, L., and Ousmanou, K. 2006. Articulation of information requirements for personalised knowledge construction, Requirements Engineering. Volume 11, Number 4, September, 2006. Sutcliffe, A., Fickas, S., Sohlberg, M. 2005. Personal and Contextual Requirements Engineering, 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, Paris, September 2005. Sutcliffe, A., Fickas, S., Sohlberg, M. 2006. PC-RE: a method for personal and contextual requirements engineering with some experience, Requirements Engineering, Mar 2006, Pages 1 - 17. Wu, D., Im, I., Tremaine, M., Instone, K., and Turoff, M. 2003. "A Framework for Classifying Personalization Scheme Used on e-Commerce Websites," hicss, p. 222b, 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'03) - Track 7, 2003.