mu303 is wearable computing an acceptable form of...

© Koré Mason 2004 - 1 -

MU303

Is wearable computing an

acceptable form of computing?

By

Koré Mason

Project Advisor – Sohrab Saadat

Presented as part of the requirements for an award within the Undergraduate

Modular Scheme at the University of Gloucestershire.

May 2004

© Koré Mason 2004 - 2 -

Declaration

This project is the product of my own work. I agree that it may be made

available for reference at the discretion of the university of Gloucestershire.

Signed: ________________

Koré Mason

Date ____/____/____

The word count for this p roject report is approximately 10,205 excluding

bibliography and appendices.

Abstract

© Koré Mason 2004 - 3 -

Abstract

This research paper evaluates current acceptance of wearable computing

and identifies and appraises criteria expected to affect acceptance. The

technology acceptance model (TAM) is used to form the framework for

definition of study criteria. Past and present wearable computing research

and development are analysed to explore criteria relating to the acceptability

of wearable computing. Conceptual based device and scenario design are

analysed and used to facilitate a practical study. These factors enable

conclusion with recommendations for design methodology along with

requirements and considerations for future development of wearable

computing.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to extend her thanks to all those who enthusiastically

participated and provided interesting insights in to this study.

Thanks to Kate and Martin for reviewing the report, highlighting topics of

interest and assistance with editing.

Finally, a special thanks for the valuable discussion, enthusiasm,

encouragement and assistance of Sohrab Saadat the project advisor.

Table of Contents

© Koré Mason 2004 - 4 -

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................8

1.1 Problem Statement.........................................................................................8

1.2 Approach to Problem Resolution..................................................................8

1.2.1 Technology Acceptance Model...................................................................9

1.2.3 Criteria .......................................................................................................10

2. Literature Review..............................................................................................12

2.1 Wearable Computing Defined.....................................................................12

2.2 Historical developments in wearable computing ......................................12

2.3 Current research and commercial development ......................................14

2.3.1 Medical ......................................................................................................14

2.3.2 Survival......................................................................................................15

2.3.3 Personal/Consumer ..................................................................................15

2.3.4 Scope ........................................................................................................17

2.5 Research Model Independent Variables ...................................................17

2.5.1 Usefulness - Enhancing Human Abilities .................................................17

2.5.2 Usefulness - Anytime, Anyplace Access..................................................18

2.5.3 Usefulness – Right Information, Right Time, Right Place........................19

2.5.4 Ease of use - Accessibility ........................................................................20

2.5.5 Privacy.......................................................................................................21

2.5.6 Health ........................................................................................................22

3. Methodology.......................................................................................................23

3.1 Data Collection - Instruments......................................................................23

3.1.1 Conceptual Device and Scenario .............................................................23

3.1.2 Questionnaire ............................................................................................23

3.2 Data Collection - Focus Group ...................................................................25

3.2.1 Purpose.....................................................................................................25

3.2.2 Construction ..............................................................................................25

3.2 Subjects/Participants ....................................................................................26

3.3 Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................27

3.3.1 Conceptual Scenario and Questionnaire..................................................27

3.3.2 Focus Group .............................................................................................28

Table of Contents

© Koré Mason 2004 - 5 -

3.4 Method of Data Analysis..............................................................................29

3.4.1 Questionnaire Data Analysis ....................................................................29

3.4.2 Focus Group Data Analysis ......................................................................29

4 Analysis and Discussion of Results .............................................................31

4.1 Attitude Towards Wearable Computing ....................................................31

4.2 Findings Relative to Criteria ........................................................................32

4.2.1 Usefulness.................................................................................................32

4.2.2 Ease of Use...............................................................................................33

4.2.3 Threat to Privacy.......................................................................................34

4.2.4 Threat to Health ........................................................................................35

4.2.5 Attitude and Behavioural Intention............................................................35

4.3 Focus Group Findings ..................................................................................36

4.3.1 Usefulness.................................................................................................36

4.3.2 Ease of use ...............................................................................................40

4.3.3 Privacy.......................................................................................................40

4.3.4 Health ........................................................................................................42

5. Project Conclusion...........................................................................................44

5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................44

5.2 Acceptance of Wearable Computing .........................................................44

5.3 Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Wearable Computing ...................44

5.3.1 Usefulness.................................................................................................44

5.3.2 Ease of Use...............................................................................................45

5.3.3 Threat to Privacy.......................................................................................46

5.3.4 Threat to Health ........................................................................................46

5.3.5 Summary...................................................................................................47

5.4 Recommendations for Further Studies......................................................47

6. Project Critical Review ....................................................................................49

6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................49

6.2 Evaluation of Literature Review..................................................................49

6.3 Evaluation Conceptual Device Design ......................................................50

6.4 Evaluation of Conceptual Scenario Design ..............................................50

6.5 Evaluation Questionnaire Construction.....................................................51

6.6 Evaluation of Focus Group ..........................................................................52

Table of Contents

© Koré Mason 2004 - 6 -

7. Bibliography.......................................................................................................53

8. Appendices.........................................................................................................61

Appendix 1: Conceptual Device ........................................................................61

Appendix 2: Conceptual Scenario - A day in your life, year 2010 ...............63

Appendix 3: Coded Questionnaire....................................................................66

Appendix 4: Online Forums ...............................................................................72

Appendix 5: Focus Group Consent Form ........................................................73

Appendix 6: Focus Group Questions ...............................................................75

Appendix 7: Gant Chart ......................................................................................78

Appendix 8: Demographic Frequency Tables.................................................79

Appendix 9: Questionnaire Data Frequency Tables ......................................81

Appendix 10: University Focus Group Transcription .....................................86

Appendix 11: IBM Focus Group Transcription................................................93

Appendix 12: Quantitative Results................................................................. 113

Appendix 13: Descriptive Statistics ............................................................... 132

Appendix 14: Completed Questionnaire Examples .................................... 133

Table of Figures

© Koré Mason 2004 - 7 -

Table of figures

Figure 1 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (adapted from Davies et

al, 1989)

Figure 2 Research Model

Figure 3 Categorization of attitude score.

Figure 4 Participant age distribution %

Figure 5 Attitude towards wearable computing

1. Introduction

© Koré Mason 2004 - 8 -

1. Introduction

1.1 Problem Statement

Computing evolution has seen transitions from mainframe era computing

rooms, through desktop personal computing, to portable computing with

laptop computers and personal digital assistants (PDAs). In recent years

much scientific and corporate research and development have been

conducted in the area of wearable computing with an aim to developing truly

personal computing. It has been noted (Huang, 2000) that historically a

delicate dynamic between technology and society exists, technology adapts

to society and society adapts to technology. Technology that fails to adapt to

society, or cause society to adapt, perishes. Given these premises and that

significant investment is required in the research and development of

technology, it is valid to analyse (a) whether wearable computing is an

acceptable computing paradigm, (b) what variables effect the acceptance of

wearable computing and (c) whether adaptations are needed in the

development of wearable computing to account for expectations.

1.2 Approach to Problem Resolution

Analyses of factors leading to the acceptance of wearable computing are

done through augmentation of the technology acceptance model (TAM)

(Davis et al, 1989). Current research and development are examined and

used to identify additional TAM variables expected to affect attitude towards

wearable computing. They are also used to develop a conceptual wearable

computing device and scenario, design a focus group aimed at exploring

opinion on wearable computing and identify features of desirable wearable

computers. Desirable wearable computing features are recommended and

possible improvements in the design process aimed at avoidance of

development of inappropriate or unacceptable wearable computing devices.

1. Introduction

© Koré Mason 2004 - 9 -

1.2.1 Technology Acceptance Model

To ensure construct validity, an augmented Technology Acceptance Model

(TAM) is used as the foundation for study.

Developed from the theory of reasoned action (Vijayasarathy, 2003) TAM is a

model that has been widely used for several years in the prediction of

attitudes and behaviours of employees towards the adoption of new

technologies in the workplace (Bruner & Kumar, 2003). As shown in figure 1,

TAM focuses on two main independent variables affecting the acceptance of

technology – ease of use and usefulness.

Fig 1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (adapted from Davies et al, 1989)

Figure 2 shows how the author augments this model, as have other

researchers (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2003; Bruner & Kumar, 2003;

Galletta & Malhotra, 1999; Vijayasarathy, 2003), to create a research model

that includes independent variables, as identified from theories discussed in

the literature review, which are considered to affect the acceptance of

wearable computing: privacy and health risks.

Usefulness

Ease of use

Attitude Behavioural

Intention

1. Introduction

© Koré Mason 2004 - 10 -

Fig 2. Research Model

1.2.3 Criteria

The following criteria are designed to test each independent variable of the

study as outlined in the augmented TAM. Each criterion is judged using

quantitative data collected through the questionnaire and analysis of

qualitative results collected through focus groups. These criteria allow for

appraisal of the validity of the augmentation of TAM and enable evaluation of

variables affecting the acceptance of wearable computing.

C1 Usefulness: Perception of usefulness has a positive correlation with

attitude, as a positive attitude is likely when something is predicted to be

useful.

Usefulness

Ease of use

Privacy

Health Attitude Behavioural

Intention

Dependent variable

Key

Independent variable

1. Introduction

© Koré Mason 2004 - 11 -

C2 Ease of use: Perception of ease to use has a positive correlation with

attitude, due to a positive attitude being likely when something is predicted to

be easy to use.

C3 Threat to privacy: Perception of a threat to privacy has a negative effect

on attitude. When a technology is perceived to threaten privacy a less than

favourable attitude is likely.

C4 Threat to health: Perception of a threat to health has a negative effect

on attitude. Technology perceived as threatening health is likely to be

unacceptable.

C5 Attitude: There is a positive relationship between attitude and

behavioural intention. Desire to use or purchase a technology usually arises

from a positive attitude towards it.

2. Literature Review

© Koré Mason 2004 - 12 -


2.1 Wearable Computing Defined

This paper considers wearable computing, as defined by Mann (cited in

Lightman, 2002) to be:

“A computer that is subsumed into the personal space of the user, controlled

by the user and has both operational and inter-actional constancy, i.e., is

always on and always accessible” (p. 159).

Wearable computers are characterised by Mann (cited in Lightman, 2002) as

being unmonopolizing of user’s attention, unrestrictive of the user,

observable by the user, controllable by the user, attentive to the environment,

communicative with other people and devices.

2.2 Historical developments in wearable computing

An overview of historical developments enables understanding of what

wearable computing means today and will evolve into in the future.

As highlighted by Huang (2000) a driving force for wearable computing

development is “human desire for knowledge and convenience” (p. 2). In the

1665 publication of Micrographia Robert Hooke considered that, as glasses

enhance vision likewise, it is possible for sensory augmentation through

mechanical inventions improving hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. In

1700s and early 1900s the pocket and wristwatch respectively became the

first widely used wearable mechanical devices.


© Koré Mason 2004 - 13 -

The 1960s saw, Thorpe and Shannon (as cited by Rhodes, n.d.) invent the

first wearable computer designed to predict roulette wheels and Sutherland

invent the first computer-based head mounted display (HMD) (Rheingold,

2002).

The late 1960s and 1970s brought wearable systems that assisted helicopter

pilots in landing in dark and rough terrain (Sutherland, n.d.), Upton’s aid to lip

reading, Collins’ visual aid for the blind and HP’s algebraic calculator watch

(as cited by Rhodes, n.d.).

During the 1980s Steve Mann developed several versions of ‘WearComp’

prototype wearable computers, which augmented reality by combining game

console joysticks, power supplies, audio-video recorders, displays and a

wireless data connection (Rheingold, 2002). Mann spent most of the 1980s

and 1990s in augmented reality through various wearable computers. In

1994, using a wearable computer with wireless communications and viewing

the world through video cameras filtered through computers allowing addition

and subtraction of features, Mann beamed everything he saw to the Internet.

Commercialisation of wearable computer components began in the 1980s

when Reflection Technology sold a HMD named Private Eye.

In 1991 Weiser proposed Ubiquitous Computing, complementary to wearable

computing (Huang, 2000), where everyday objects become ‘smart’ by

containing embedded computing components. In 1993 BBN completed the

Pathfinder system, a wearable computer equipped with radiation detection

and global positioning systems (GPS). The same year Thad Starner began

to continually wear his computer containing his ‘Remembrance Agent’

augmented memory software. It served as memory assistance enabling data

retrieval from databases and a ll computer users who subscribed to an


© Koré Mason 2004 - 14 -

intellectual collective known as “the help instance” (Rheingold, 2002, p. 111).

In 1993 Private Eye was used in the development of Knowledge-based

Augmented Reality for Maintenance Assistance (KARMA), which overlaid

machines with wireframe schematics and maintenance instructions. In 1994

Lamming and Flynn developed a context aware personal recording system

called Forget-Me-Not (Lamming and Flynn, 1994).

As noted by Stenton (cited by Cowen, 2001), businesses started using

wearable computers once value-add was perceived through hands-free and

head-free operation for vehicle inspection and inventory management.

2.3 Current research and commercial development

2.3.1 Medical

The ‘Smart Shirt’ wearable has been heralded by LIFE magazine (cited by

Jayaraman, Mackenzie, & Park, 2002) as one of the 21 technological

breakthroughs that could change 21st century living. The two main

beneficiary healthcare areas are healthcare monitoring and aids for people

with certain mental or physical impairments (Huang, 2000).

2.3.1.1 Healthcare Monitoring

Healthcare monitoring systems are being developed by Siemens (2002),

which wirelessly monitor patient conditions and notify clinicians with patients’

exact location if problems arise. Philips (cited in ‘Techno clothing hits the

high street’, 2000; Philips invents intelligent clothing for personal healthcare,

2003) are developing wearables, which could lead to foetal monitoring

maternity wear and clothing that wires the elderly and people with underlying

health problems to warn, assist in diagnosis and monitoring, and trigger local

and remote alarms in the event of an acute medical situation. Such


© Koré Mason 2004 - 15 -

monitoring systems could accelerate debate and criticism that technology

centralizes control, diminishes individual responsibility and decreases the

human quality in healthcare relationships (Rosenberg, 1997).

2.3.1.2 Disability Aids

Aids for mentally and physically disabled people include devices which help

deaf-mutes to speak (Pentland, Starner, & Weaver, 1998), assist memory

(Rhodes, 2000; Ockerman, 2000; DeVaul, Pentland & Corey, 2002) and aid

the visually impaired with orientation.

2.3.2 Survival

It is predicted that specialised survival clothing will be one of the first areas

for wearable computing to be socially acceptable and desirable (Phil Stenton,

cited by Cowen, 2001).

Current survival wearables include arctic environment prototypes providing

communication, positioning, navigation aids, human and environmental

monitoring (Impio et al, 2002) examples include Reima-Tutta’s ‘Smart Shout’

a voice enabled communication device designed for active group situations

like snowboarding or rock climbing (Impio et al, 2002); and group avalanche

rescue wearables with location and physical status monitoring (Matter,

Michahelles, Schiele and Schmidt, 2003)

2.3.3 Personal/Consumer

Phil Stenton (cited by Cowen, 2001) predicts that by 2010 consumer value

will still be found in content and communication. He predicts that PDA like


© Koré Mason 2004 - 16 -

capabilities will exist in headsets, located on shoulders, badges, waists,

behind ears and will have more and less obtrusive, interaction capabilities.

Research and development are being conducted resulting in wearable

personal messaging and communication devices for office-based

environments (Sawhney and Schmandt, 1999); conference chips such as

InfoCharm capture data on booths visited, time spent and people spoken to,

this can then be e -mailed to the wearers personal account (Stroud, 1999);

wearables for desktop games, enabling first person indoor and outdoor

augmented reality (Bondi, Close, Donoghue, Piekarski, Squires, & Thomas,

2002); personal wearables enable audio and video recording, communication

and location tracking (Lightman, 2002; Rheingold, 2002; Iwatani, 1998).

Commercial products have and continue to be developed by an array of

technology companies including Nike’s washable equipment-laden clothing

and Philips’ and Levi’s digital jacket equipped with a Philips-made GSM-

standard hands-free mobile phone with earpieces concealed beneath the

jackets shoulders and microphone is built into the collar, mp3 player and a

remote-control device powering both (Cowen, 2001; Slaton, 2000). Several

‘smart watches’ are available from multiple vendors including IBM, offerings

incorporate combinations of MP3 players, digital cameras, blood pressure

monitors, pagers, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, short and long-

range radio frequency wireless connectivity, phones and heart rate monitors

(Narayanaswami and Raghunath, 2002). Nishio, Tsukamoto and Ueda

(2000) assert that when wearable computing becomes widely accepted by

society, it will play an essential role in our daily life. They foresee various

wearables becoming available on the market including “business-suit-type

wearables that are full of business tools and night-suit-type wearables with

the monitoring and relaxation of vital signs” (p. 285).


© Koré Mason 2004 - 17 -

So why haven’t we seen these devices in stores and in widespread use?

Alex Lightman (quoted by Stroud, 1999) points out that devices such as

InfoCharm are easy and cost effective to produce, he also points out that

there is no business benefit for computer manufacturers to sell cheap

bespoke devices when they can sell expensive multipurpose computers.

2.3.4 Scope

It is valuable to understand developments of wearable computing in a range

of applications, however due to limited resources and to ensure an

appropriate level of depth is gained in a single application area, the

remainder of this study concentrates on evaluating the acceptance of

personal consumer wearable computing. This research tests the acceptance

of a multipurpose wearable computer and uncovers ways which computer

users would find added value from using such a device.

2.5 Research Model Independent Variables

2.5.1 Usefulness - Enhancing Human Abilities

Wearable computing proposals (cited by Huang, 2000) show common trends

of “improving human abilities beyond our biological limits” (p. 1). Some

(Miner, 2001; Vanderheiden, 1997) consider future generations could use

wearable computing and information technologies to “enhance … sensory,

physical and cognitive skills” (p. 1441) performing tasks requiring extreme

precision, speed, perfect memory, sensing beyond perceptual abilities, or

involving manipulation of objects too large or small for conventional

interaction, for example controlling a robot in a car manufacturing plant or

operating on a patient’s internal organs through voice input or commands

through a holographic touch screen.


© Koré Mason 2004 - 18 -

2.5.2 Usefulness - Anytime, Anyplace Access

The integration of key technologies expected to enable wearable computing

these include Grid computing and pervasive computing. In brief, Grid

computing is the application of the resources of many networked computers

to a single problem at the same time (TechTarget, 2004) effectively creating

a virtual supercomputer. Grid computing required software that can farm out

pieces of a program to thousands of individual computers. Grid computing

offers cost-effective use of already available computing resources, a problem

solving mechanism for problems that cannot be solved without a huge

amount of computing resources and presents a computational resource for

collaboration and synergy between individuals, institutions and commerce.

A use for Grid computing is ubiquitous computing (also known as pervasive

computing). Ubiquitous computing is being brought about by the

convergence of advanced electronic and in particular wireless technologies

(TechTarget, 2004), and the Internet. Fourth-generation (4G) broadband

wireless promises to offer access to knowledge of anything, anyplace and

anytime through connection to a “new wireless internet consisting of millions

of mobile computers, sensors and specialized devices added to the fixed

PCs and servers that are connected today” (Lightman, 2002, p. 4).

Information and communication technologies are likely to “resemble

electricity” (Vanderheiden, 1997, p. 1441) through pervasive incorporation

into environments, devices and activities. Resources offered through the grid

together with ubiquitous computing will lead to people carrying “their access

devices with them – everywhere, all the time” (Miner, 2001, p. 1145).

Wearable technology is available facilitating user identification, positioning,

environment detection and preferences. These features enable service and

content providers to adapt existing services to the wearable computer and

provide “novel end-user services” (Caarls, de Jong, Jonker, Langendijk, &

Persa, 2003, p. 1145).


© Koré Mason 2004 - 19 -

2.5.3 Usefulness – Right Information, Right Time, Right Place

Context can be defined as “that which surrounds and gives meaning to

something else” (Beigl, Gellersen & Schmidt, 2000, p. 2).

Through context sensitivity and state-of-the-art interfaces (Beigl, Gellersen &

Schmidt, 2000; HoloTouch, 2004) wearables are potentially operational and

accessible anytime and anyplace (Stenton, as cited by Cowen, 2001).

Effective and desirable operations can be ensured through sensing

technologies such as GPS for the wearer’s physical location, audio sensing

for social, environmental and physical context to detect if the user is

interruptible and determine appropriate output mechanisms (Sawhney and

Schmandt, 1999; Muller & Randell, 2002) and, in some cases, bio sensing

detecting emotional state and environment sensors for awareness of co-

located objects and their state (Beigl, Gellersen & Schmidt, 2000) and

urgency of information delivery (Sawhney and Schmandt, 1999). This allows

timely response to situations and stimuli in the wearer’s environment and

delivery of the right information in the right way (Jonker et al., 2002). This

kind of design been coined as “Experience Design” by Richard Hull and Jo

Reid from HP Labs in Bristol. During an interview Stenton (2004) explains

that it is about delivering the right experience at the right time “whether it is

skiing without getting hot and sweaty, polite and timely instructions as you

learn a new skill, being told the name of the person you were introduced to

yesterday and who is just about to shake your hand, or experiencing a

remote hug from a close friend in another city”.

There are two main approaches for acquiring the context of an environment.

The first is through smart environments, complementary to wearable

computing (Huang, 2000) and enabled through ubiquitous computing, that

provide infrastructure for obtaining context and provide context to wearable

computing. The second is to embed sensors in wearable computers, the


© Koré Mason 2004 - 20 -

advantage being the wearable computer does not have to rely on the

infrastructure and can be used in any environment (Beigl, Gellersen &

Schmidt, 2000).

Some (Jayaraman, Mackenzie, & Park, 2002) believe that the ultimate

system should have the “ability to see, feel, think and act … based on the

end-user stimuli and/or operational environment” (p. 174).

2.5.4 Ease of use - Accessibility

Henry and Vanderheiden (1999) discuss that designing wearable computers

for people with a wide range of disabilities and designing for a wide range of

environments, have similar outcomes. They assert that accessibility issues

related to people with a wide range of disabilities will not exist if mobile

computing devices are designed for a wide range of environments.

Vanderheiden (1997) asserts tha t "different environments will put constraints

on the type of physical and sensory input and output techniques that will

work” it is difficult to use a keyboard when walking; it is difficult and

dangerous to use visual displays when driving a car; and speech input and

output, which work great in a car, may not be usable in a shared

environment, in a noisy mall, or in the midst of a meeting, or while in a library.

Systems designed to work across these environments should have flexible

input modes in order to work in diverse environments. A variety of input and

output modes between the wearer and wearable could be utilized including

audio sensing and output, motion sensing, keypads, holographic touch

screens, buzzers, tapping devices, video and visual cues.

Many navigation aids have been developed for the visually impaired using

combinations of input and output modes, which may also appeal to the wider

population. Blasch and Ross (2002) developed a prototype orientation


© Koré Mason 2004 - 21 -

system using three interface methods: a virtual sonic beacon, speech output

and shoulder tapping using orientation input for a test area from a digital

compass. Barfield and Caudell (2001) document a number of wearables

using combinations of global positioning systems (GPS), communication with

databases through mobile phones and synthetic speech output.

Xybernaut Corporation (2004) publicises their Mobile Assistant V (MA® V) as

a tool to help mentally and physically challenged students to get the most

from their education. The MA® V is a lightweight wearable computer

allowing for software tools to be loaded on to suit the student needs, such as,

an application combined with touch-activated icons that assist students with

speech problems to communicate with their tutor and fellow students. A

wearable computer which appeals to the wider population should have the

option to customise its software.

2.5.5 Privacy

Privacy surveys conducted in America show that 55% to 80% of respondents

have considerable concerns that computers and technology are a threat to

personal privacy (Rosenberg, 1997).

Wearable computers equipped with tiny computers, cameras, microphones,

biosensors, web servers and are GPS enabled, pose a threat to privacy

(Björk & Flak, 2000). In private, social, or business contexts, data could be

recorded and transmitted without consent. Furthermore, an always online,

GPS enabled system allows user tracking (Oakes, 1998). Studies (Bellotti,

as quoted by Oakes, 1998) show that wearables can cause participants to

feel lack of control where wearers cannot influence activation, resulting in

individuals becoming less independent and autonomous. People are

constantly bombarded with corporate advertising and other visual

interference. As proposed by Mann, a “self-controlled, technically-privatised


© Koré Mason 2004 - 22 -

form of wearable computer” (Rheingold, p. 109) could offer privacy otherwise

not afforded by individuals today and in the future. Control of information

“that comes into … and radiates from” (Rheingold, 2002, p. 111) wearable

computers is likely to affect social acceptance of wearable computers.

Citizens are likely to feel threatened and possibly reject technology that

enables information accumulation by government (Rosenberg, 1997),

corporations, or other groups.

2.5.6 Health

Experts are concerned that wireless wearable devices, due to their nature of

being worn in constant proximity to the body, may prove more dangerous

than mobile phones, where reports and studies show that they have possible

links with cancer, concentration lapses and long-term memory loss (Slaton,

2000). The centre of concern, as indicated by Professor Fickas (quoted by

Slaton, 2000), is that wireless technology uses frequencies to communicate

with satellites that emit radiation. Thompson (cited by Slaton, 2000) notes

that moderate doses of this radiation are unlikely to cause harm, however

wearing a system day and night could pose health risks.

3. Methodology

© Koré Mason 2004 - 23 -

3. Methodology

3.1 Data Collection - Instruments

3.1.1 Conceptual Device and Scenario

Conceptual scenario based design and testing are selected as instruments

for this study as they have been used in a number of fruitful design

processes (Siewiorek & Smailagic, 1999; Garabet & Mann, 2000).

Conceptual design proposals allow openness because many details relating

to their implementation, aesthetics or functionality are unresolved thus

provoking imagination. As highlighted by Gaver and Martin (2000) this allows

designs to be open to “imaginary extensions, developments and

modifications in a way that would be difficult to achieve with more finished

examples” (p 215). Gaver and Martin point out that conceptual proposals

allow for speculative new ideas and evoke general insights into users

attitudes. Additionally, they assert that such design proposals may evoke

participants to admit to desires that may otherwise be overlooked by

technology developers as they are dismissed as unworthy or nonexistent.

A conceptual device (appendix 1) and scenario relating to the device

(appendix 2) are designed based on research, development and theories

presented in the literature review. These instruments facilitate participant

understanding of some of the possibilities of present and future capabilities of

wearable computing.

3.1.2 Questionnaire

A five-point Likert scale questionnaire (appendix 3) captured perception of

each independent variable, the dependent variable and allowed for

evaluation of criteria. A Likert scale was selected as the method for

qualitative data collection as construction is relatively straightforward and

3. Methodology

© Koré Mason 2004 - 24 -

“people often enjoy completing a scale of this kind” (Robson, 2002, p 293).

This increases the likelihood of getting considered rather than perfunctory

answers.

3.1.2.1 Questionnaire Construction

Questionnaire construction was a two-phase process.

During phase one the questionnaire was constructed using statements

relating to the independent TAM variables with additional statements aimed

at acquiring demographics, behavioural intention and perception of wearable

computing in society.

To enable analysis of attitude, responses to Likert scale statements 3 – 24

were coded from 1 – 5, where 1 implied a negative standpoint and 5

suggested a positive view of an aspect of wearable computing. Through

reviewing coding methods outlined by deVaus (2002) the assumption was

made that participants answering “neither” lacked a strong opinion on a given

statement and therefore had a moderate attitude towards it. Therefore null

responses (answering “neither” to a questionnaire statement) were coded 3.

Total attitude scores were categorized as follows:

Score Acceptance Level Coding

68 - 80 Highly Acceptable 5

55 - 67 Acceptable 4

42 - 54 Moderates 3

39 - 41 Unacceptable 2

16 – 28 Highly Unacceptable 1

Fig 3. Categorization of attitude score.

3. Methodology

© Koré Mason 2004 - 25 -

Statements 7, 8, 10, 16 and 23 are reverse coded. The resultant

questionnaire was piloted using four participants from the University of

Gloucestershire.

Phase two involved evaluating pilot data, rewording and weeding out

inadequate statements. Appraisal of pilot data against the literature review

identified information relating to dependence on wearable computing within

the literature review and questionnaire statements as uncorrelated and

invalid. The independent variable of information control was perceived as

being part of the independent variable privacy. This resulted in the removal

of independent variables dependence and information control from the

augmented TAM and statements 12,13 and 17 – 20.

3.2 Data Collection - Focus Group

3.2.1 Purpose

The purpose of the focus group design, development and implementation

was to gather qualitative data giving further insight into participant’s attitudes,

perceptions and opinions towards wearable computing, to support and

explain quantitative findings.

3.2.2 Construction

As outlined by Krueger (1994) the focus group was constructed for

implementation with between five and six participants. This size is small

enough for participants to have the opportunity to share ideas whilst still

being large enough for provision of diverse perceptions.

3. Methodology

© Koré Mason 2004 - 26 -

Focus group questions (appendix 6) were developed using a combination of

question groupings relating to independent variables of the study and were

categorised, as outlined by Krueger (1994), as opening, key and closing

questions. The opening question (appendix 6, question 1) was designed as

an icebreaker identifying areas of commonality between participants and to

stimulate thoughts of how they currently use mobile computing and

communication technologies. Key questions (appendix 6, questions 2 - 9)

were designed to gain further insight into perceptions of usefulness, privacy,

health, empowerment and society. The researcher decided not to explore

perceptions of ease-of-use of wearable computing as this area was seen as

too abstract in relation to a conceptual wearable computing device. A closing

question (appendix 6, question 11) was designed to catch any attitudes or

perceptions not already expressed. On review of the second focus group

transcription (appendix 11) and subsequent review of literature the

researcher removed the empowerment variable because it is covered by

independent variables usefulness and privacy.

3.2 Subjects/Participants

Seventy-seven professional and non-professiona l computer users, aged

between fifteen and sixty-five, took part in the conceptual scenario-based

study. Figure 3 shows the distribution of participants by age group.

Recruitment was conducted through the University of Gloucestershire, IBM

UK Hursley Laboratories and computer associated online forums (appendix

4). Results from questionnaire demographics showed that 58% of

participants had some prior knowledge of wearable computing technologies.

On average, participants had four years mobile computing and

communication experience and seven hours daily computer usage. This

demographic serves as a representation of computer users as resource

constraints restricted collection of data from a wider population.

3. Methodology

© Koré Mason 2004 - 27 -

27

47

13

8

4 1

Age

15 - 20

20 - 30

30 - 4040 - 5050 - 6060 - 70

Fig 4. Participant age distribution %

3.3 Data Collection Procedures

Data were collected through a questionnaire and focus group.

3.3.1 Conceptual Scenario and Questionnaire

All participants involved in the study took part in analysis of the conceptual

device and scenario then answered the questionnaire ( for completed

questionnaire examples see appendix 14). They were instructed to read

through the conceptual device (appendix 1), scenario (appendix 2), then

answer the questionnaire (appendix 3). These research instruments were

presented to participants in one of two formats. Paper-based instruments

were presented to participants in close proximity to the researcher (University

of Gloucestershire students and IBM professionals) and online versions were

available for forum users.

3. Methodology

© Koré Mason 2004 - 28 -

Data collected from the paper-based questionnaire were inputted manually

into an SPSS 12.0 table. Answers were manually converted from textual

data to numerical coding. Data collected though the online questionnaire

(.html form) were initially sent to the researchers e-mail address in a pre-

coded format. The coded responses were then manually inputted into the

table ready for analysis.

3.3.2 Focus Group

Five IT non-professional participants took part in a focus group held at the

University of Gloucestershire and six IT professionals took part in a focus

group held at the IBM UK Hursley Laboratories. These two distinct groups of

participants were identified with an aim to capturing diverse opinions whilst

also identifying similarities between perceptions held by professional and

non-professional computer users, which could then be put forward as general

opinion.

Focus groups were held in quiet rooms. No more than two days prior to the

focus group participants read through the conceptual device and scenario

then completed the questionnaire. Before commencing the focus group,

participants read through and signed consent forms explaining purpose, their

rights and audio-taping (appendix 5). Due to limited resources, as advised

by Krueger (1994), the researcher also acted as moderator, posing pre-

defined questions (appendix 6) at appropriate intervals either when a topic of

discussion was exhausted, when discussion digressed, or to glean further

information. Before presenting group members with a summary of the

session, cards printed with independent variables were given to the group

and participants were asked to work together to put them in order of

importance in relation to effect on attitude towards wearable computing.

Focus groups were audio taped ensuring post-focus group data analysis this

3. Methodology

© Koré Mason 2004 - 29 -

allowed the moderator’s attention to be focussed on group dynamics and

discussion direction.

3.4 Method of Data Analysis

3.4.1 Questionnaire Data Analysis

Questionnaire data were collated into an SPSS 12.0 document with no

distinction made between participants recruited from the university of

Gloucestershire, IBM, or online forums. Reasoning behind this was that

quantitative data collection through the questionnaire was aimed at gaining

an overall perspective on how IT users, professional and non-professional,

perceive wearable computing. Total scores were calculated from coded

responses. These scores were manually converted into attitude scores from

1 - 5 (methodology for conversion is outlined under heading 3.1.3.1). Using

functionality within SPSS a bar chart was produced showing the distribution

of participant attitudes. Stacked bar charts were produced using attitude

scores and data pertaining to each questionnaire statement. Each of which

related to an independent variable allowing analysis of relationships and

correlations between overall attitude score and opinions on each

independent variable and conclusions to be drawn relative to criteria.

3.4.2 Focus Group Data Analysis

As advised by Morgan (1998) Focus group data were captured using audio

taping. At the end of each focus group the moderator summarised emergent

themes for verification by participants. IT professionals in the second focus

group were debriefed with contrasts and findings from the previous focus

group.

Post focus group transcripts were produced. The transcript for the initial

focus group consisted of recording individual comments relative to particular

independent variables (appendix 10). The second focus group was

3. Methodology

© Koré Mason 2004 - 30 -

transcribed in full (appendix 11). Analysis concentrated on gathering

descriptive data supporting, discrediting, or clarifying the reasons behind

quantitative results. As such not all responses deserved the same level of

analysis, for example, responses to the icebreaker question. Transcriptions

were analysed for trends and contradictions. Seven considerations were

taken in analysis, as outlined by Krueger (1994), use of words and their

meanings, context of the response, internal consistency – participants may

be prone to changing their minds, frequency and extensiveness of

comments, intensity of comments – depth and feeling, specificity of

responses and finding the big ideas. No analysis was done on non-verbal

communication within groups.

4 Analysis and Discussion of Results

© Koré Mason 2004 - 31 -


This section outlines quantitative and qualitative findings relative to the

demographic of participants. The researcher is aware that although the

majority of participants were UK based recruitment through forums opened

the demographic to cultural variations. The sample was too small to analyse

for cultural differences, however a larger study would be instrumental in

identifying if there were a significant split in attitudes between cultures

towards each criterion.

4.1 Attitude Towards Wearable Computing

Figure 4 shows the attitude of questionnaire respondents classified using the

technique outlined in the methodology.

Unacceptable Moderates Acceptable Highly Acceptable

Attitude towards wearable computing

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

%

6.49%

63.64%

25.97%

3.9%

Fig 5. Attitude towards wearable computing

Percentage of participants


© Koré Mason 2004 - 32 -

6% of participants have an attitude score classing their view of wearable

computing as unacceptable. A majority of 63% of participants have a

moderate attitude score, suggesting awareness of opportunities and threats

posed by wearable computing. Over 30% of participants attitude scores are

within the range of accepting or highly accepting of wearable computing,

these participants are likely to perceive benefits offered by wearable

computing as superseding concerns over health and privacy.

4.2 Findings Relative to Criteria

Appendix 12 gives a detailed breakdown of findings and results relative to

criteria. Responses to each questionnaire statement are grouped with

participants overall attitude towards wearable computing. Analysis of this

combined with literature relating to independent variables in the literature

review allows evaluation of criteria.

The researcher is aware that other methods could be used for analysis,

however due to time constraints the most efficient method for displaying data

was used to judge criteria and explain results.

4.2.1 Usefulness

Responses to questionnaire statements 3 and 4 allowed for measurement of

perceived usefulness of Wear PC and the appeal of additional functions to

enhance sensory, physical and/or cognitive skills respectively. Information

provided within the scenario and conceptual device (Wear PC) related to

currently available wearable computing features including user identification,

positioning, context sensing and preferences which enable content providers

to tailor existing services to individual users.


© Koré Mason 2004 - 33 -

Significantly over 80% of participants agree to some degree that WearPC

would be useful and approximately 60% of participants saw additional

functions offered through wearable computing as useful.

The breakdown of results shown in appendix 12 supports criterion suggesting

perceived usefulness is positively correlated with overall attitude towards

wearable computing.

4.2.2 Ease of Use

Questionnaire statements 5 and 6 allow for identification of perceived ease of

use of WearPC and its appeal due to flexibility of input and output modes.

The conceptual device and scenario highlight intelligent and flexible interface

modes and put forward a number of indoor and outdoor environments

highlighting accessibility issues relating to wearable computing.

The majority of participants perceive WearPC as easy to use and results

show an extremely positive response towards flexibility of input and output

modes suggesting a recommendable form of wearable computing should

feature multiple intelligent input and output modes similar to and extended

upon those suggested for WearPC.

The distribution of positive and negative responses to statements 5 and 6

relative to overall attitude, as seen in appendix 12, support criterion that

perception of ease of use is positively correlated with attitude. Participants

value the flexibility of input and output modes, which has an overall effect on

their perception of ease of use and ultimately attitude.


© Koré Mason 2004 - 34 -

4.2.3 Threat to Privacy

To measure participants perception of the threat to privacy posed by

wearable computing the conceptual device and scenario introduced GPS,

always online audio and video capture and storage, context sensitivity and

tailored services.

Participants’ attitudes were measured relative to the threat posed by

recording and transmitting of audio and video, GPS tracking and perception

of a general threat to privacy.

Supporting data put forward in the literature review by Rosenberg (1997) and

Oakes (1989) relating to concerns about threat to privacy posed by

computers and technology, over 80% of respondents indicated they saw a

threat posed by recording and transmitting of audio and video to their own

and other peoples privacy, over 50% observe the threat to privacy posed by

GPS tracking and over 70% of respondents note a general threat to privacy

posed by a wearable computer similar to WearPC.

Analysis of the overall distribution of attitude relating to threat to privacy

(appendix 12) suggest that it has somewhat of an effect on acceptance of

wearable computing on participants classified as un-accepting and accepting.

However, perception of the degree of threat does not appear to be an

overriding factor for participants classed as accepting of wearable computing.

Therefore at this stage the author cannot support or challenge criteria 3.

Though it is safe to say participants in this study perceive a significant threat

to privacy posed by wearable computing.


© Koré Mason 2004 - 35 -

4.2.4 Threat to Health

Quantitative analysis of results relating to the perception of a threat to health

are inconclusive due to the high frequency of null responses to questions 10

and 11 which relate to perception of a threat to health posed by wireless

technology within wearable computing. Participants may have been unsure

of possible health threats posed by wireless technology, which could be due

to an oversight in the design of the scenario. The device description

(appendix 1) explicitly states that WearPC contains GPS technology, which

has been the subject of much debate in relation to its use within mobile

phones. The conceptual scenario could have incorporated a well-balanced

news flash, perhaps warning of the possibility of threat to health posed by

wireless technology, wearing electrical components close to the body for long

periods of time and putting forward claims of the safeness from

manufacturers. This may have stimulated participants to think a little deeper

about their opinion. However alternative reasoning for the high rate of null

responses could be due to contradictory and ongoing research and results in

the evaluation of threat to health posed by wireless technology.

4.2.5 Attitude and Behavioural Intention

Measurement of behavioural intention was conducted through questionnaire

statements 21 and 22, which related to desire to use WearPC over

conventional methods to accomplish similar tasks or respectively to purchase

it. With an overwhelming majority of over 70% expressing a desire to use

WearPC and over 50% proposing they would purchase a device like WearPC

and distribution of responses relative to overall attitude, as shown in

appendix 12, it is possible to confirm that there is a positive relationship

between behavioural intention and overall attitude.


© Koré Mason 2004 - 36 -

4.3 Focus Group Findings

Analysis of focus groups enables understanding and explanation of

quantitative results. Eight key trends are identified from transcripts

(appendices 10 and 11) based on unity of ideas between groups, frequency

and extensiveness of comments. Key trends are categorised as follows:

Trend 1 – The wearable computer should be discreet and always on.

Trend 2 – Through being useful in human augmentation, wearable computing

could be part of human evolution.

Trend 3 – Intelligent wearable computing is desirable.

Trend 4 – Wearable computing could lead to information overload.

Trend 5 – Wearable computing should allow for user and self-customisation.

Trend 6 – Refinement of data security in relation to privacy of personal

information is needed.

Trend 7 – Wearable computing is likely to effect social interaction.

Trend 8 – Desirable wearable computing should feature a personal firewall.

4.3.1 Usefulness

Quantitative results suggest a strong relationship between perceived

usefulness of wearable computing and overall attitude towards it. When

asked to give the order of importance of independent variables both focus

groups decided usefulness is the primary influencer.

Participants from both groups saw a useful wearable computer as discrete

(trend 1). Providing there were no health reasons for taking off the device, it

should be completely unobtrusive when not in use removing the need to take

it off whilst sleeping or when the device is powered down.


© Koré Mason 2004 - 37 -

Both groups identify the possibility of wearable computing having an effect on

human evolution (trend 2). Evolution could be affected by enhancing human

abilities through functions including sensory augmentation though it is

believed this will be an incremental process over generations. As outlined by

a university participant, the concept of memory augmentation is simply an

extension of carrying data storage disks the only difference being the storage

medium is either worn or located remotely within the Grid and accessed

through the wearable. Memory augmentation is noted to potentially cause

complacency although it could be argued that storing uninteresting but

necessary day-to-day information digitally allows for human memory to be

used in other ways such as forming relationships, creative thinking, or

learning new skills. A perfect memory enabled by artificial means may

perhaps stimulate and expand human memory and memory augmentation

could provide a coping mechanism for conditions such as Alzheimer’s and

dementia. Other sensory enhancements perceived by university participants

as useful included x-ray spectacles, night vision and enhanced hearing. IBM

professionals put forward interesting and useful sensory enhancements,

including health and safety sensors to warn users of pollution levels and

pollen counts in the environment, blood sugar, alcoho l and cholesterol levels

within the body and ‘zoom eyes’.

Participants within both groups see wearable computing as a potential

catalyst for an evolutionary shift in the dynamics of human communication

and interaction. A university participant suggested augmentation of natural

conversation by sending other messages through wearable computing, a

current example extendable to wearable computing is the way emoticons are

used in text and instant messaging to show emotional state, this could lead to

group meetings and conversations taking on a whole new dynamic. Further

to this another university participant suggested conversational content could

be enhanced through a wearable computer giving the wearer interesting

pieces of information to add into conversations, however this could lead to

people questioning whether they are talking to a person or computer,

possibly leading to a degradation of mental health.


© Koré Mason 2004 - 38 -

In the future, wearable computing could enhance socialisation. IBM

participants propose a wearable computing device capable of identifying and

introducing wearers to others with similar interests either in immediate or

remote environments, for example a molecular biologist could be writing a

paper requiring input from a nanotechnology specialist and use the wearable

computer to advertise this need digitally, they may then pass in the street and

their devices enable an introduction where otherwise they would have

passed each other by as strangers. Conversely, wearable computing is also

put forward as having potential to negate social interaction where interaction

with it, or remotely located people through it, causes wearers to neglect

people in the immediate environment. Wearable computing allowing

information access anytime and anyplace could remove the need to ever ask

another human anything as all the information could be attainable through

the device. Nevertheless as a participant points out, at this stage the device

should be switched off. Information retrieval alone does not provide the

sense of enjoyment achieved through social interaction. Participants find

immersion in conversations with the device, or other people through the

device, when in the company of other humans to be offensive.

Intelligence of a wearable computer is identified by both groups and

professed as highly desirable by IBM participants (trend 3). The device

should be context sensitive to users environment offering intelligent adaptive

interfacing methods for accessing appropriate information anyplace, anytime.

Positive effects of this include more leisure time through being able to carry

out computer-based tasks whilst users wait for something or travel

somewhere. Though a constant demand on their attention, either from

people contacting them through the device or due to awareness of always

being able to access computer-based work, could lead to information

overload and increased stress levels (trend 4). An IBM participant pointed

out that possible conveniences offered by wearable computing could lead to

wearers being generally “more efficient” and anytime and place access to


© Koré Mason 2004 - 39 -

information could empower individuals perhaps leading to an intellectual split

between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. However it could be argued that in the

event of information overload, those with wearable computing would become

less efficient nullifying the argument.

Useful wearable computers should intelligently identify and learn user

preferences. IBM participants gave examples of reading a menu in a foreign

language with the wearable computer translating and offering only those

menu items the user liked, or accessing cinema listings and being offered

listings suitable to user tastes. An IBM participant stated “it would be cool if it

(the wearable computer) knew your thoughts and what you wanted and

needed”. In the future wearable devices could combine context sensitivity

and artificial intelligence to pre-empt user needs an offer appropriate

services, for example, when travelling to a foreign country GPS tracks users

location and on arrival offers hotel, travel, food, leisure, way finding and other

services; or the wearable computer reads the users diary and locates any

documentation or media needed for an impending meeting or it notes the

user has a dinner date so searches online stores for suitable attire.

Alongside being intelligent, useful wearable computers are proposed by

members of both focus groups to be extensively customisable (trend 5) with

the potential to add ‘bolt on extras’, such as additional sensory

enhancements and monitoring capabilities. Wearable computers may learn

something about the wearer, for example shopping habits and inventories of

store cupboards in the home and then offer services whilst the wearer shops

at stores for example recipe possibilities like, ‘you have flour and eggs at

home, if you purchase milk you can make pancakes’. Such services may

become annoying and demanding of wearer’s attention so the option to turn

services on or off is required. A device with no option to turn features off

receives a negative response from participants.


© Koré Mason 2004 - 40 -

4.3.2 Ease of use

Ease of use was not explored in focus groups as with no tangible device

available the researcher considered this topic too abstract to explore further.

However as discussed in the above section, a context sensitive, intelligent,

pre-emptive wearable computer should facilitate ease-of-use through

provision of interfacing methods and services suitable to user needs.

4.3.3 Privacy

A wearable computer similar to WearPC has a number of features seen as a

potential threat to privacy including GPS enabled user tracking and recording

and transmitting of audio, video and data relating to user habits and

preferences. Privacy is seen by participants from both groups as one of the

hottest topics relating to wearable computing, it is something expected to

really divide peoples thoughts about it, consequently needing much

consideration (trend 6).

IBM focus group participants see GPS within wearable computing as one of

the main benefits and a vital enabling technology, not as theorised in the

literature review a threat to privacy. Suggested utilization of GPS within

wearable computing include way finding as proposed in the scenario and a

training aid, for example when in “jogging mode GPS (enabled wearable

computing) could help show … (the) jogging course”. GPS is seen as useful,

when combined with ubiquitous technology, in the safety of children in the

home, one IBM participant commented, “it would be neat to have an overlay

of your house so you could know where your kids were, so if your toddler

was getting closer to the hot oven (one could intervene)”. Members from

both focus groups identified monitoring the whereabouts of children and

teenagers as being useful to parents, however this feature is unlikely to

attract a great deal of support from most teenagers! A member of the

university focus group also put forward a possible use of GPS enabled


© Koré Mason 2004 - 41 -

wearable computing as a tracking method for keeping tabs on partners!

These may seem to be unlikely scenarios, however they do highlight the

issue of an impact on privacy where user tracking is available.

Further to this, participants from both focus groups highlight social

implications of recording and transmitting of audio, video and other personal

data. This technology could invade the way users interact with each other

(trend 7). Participants from both focus groups outlined that they may feel

uncomfortable being around someone wearing such a device, as one

member form the IBM group highlights “I’d be intimidated to be around other

people who wore the device, because of the things you were saying to them.

If everyone had this device then you would be scared to say anything to

anyone. Because everything you say could be used against you”. Consider

the scenario where an individual may be in a temper and say something

about someone which could be recorded and then replayed out of context

giving rise to malicious uses. Furthermore, a university participant pointed

out that an individual probably would not say anything personal to someone

wearing such a device if they had an inkling the wearer were uploading or

saving it. Other invasive scenarios include criminals using wearable

computing to record pin numbers, credit/debit card numbers and access

passwords. A suggested remedy is to ensure people know when they are

being recorded through some audio or visual signal, this could also serve as

a deterrent to street criminals knowing their intended actions were about to

be recorded and transmitted.

A personal customisable firewall is proposed by both groups of participants

as being desirable to combat invasions of privacy (trend 8). In a future where

millions of ubiquitous computing devices make up Grid architecture, wearable

computing should have the ability to control all data coming in to and leaving

it having the ability to isolate the user, possibly by scrambling information,

from other people attempting to record audio and video of them. This


© Koré Mason 2004 - 42 -

requirement is consistent with Steve Mann’s approach to wearable

computing development as documented by Rheingold (2002).

Some participants, from both focus groups, also see security of personal

information stored through the device as a potential threat to privacy (trend

6). An IBM participant points out the collection of significant amounts of

personal information, relating to habits, preferences, location tracking and

interaction with other people – potentially everything a person does, is a

frightening thought when considering a third party might hack into local or

remote storage through the Grid or access data manually, the hacker would

literally have the wearers life in their hands. A requirement for wearable

computing therefore is thorough security through voice recognition, eye

retina, fingerprint, or some other technology.

Privacy implications are highly elastic at this stage in development of

wearable computing technology and the extent of threat would be largely

down to the level of use of wearable computing and available remedies.

4.3.4 Health

Results from both focus groups indicate the health threats posed by radiation

emissions from wireless technology incorporated within wearable computing

are not seen as being an overriding issue. An IBM participant points out they

would need to have safety assurances before purchasing a wearable

computer because of its nature of being in constant proximity to the body.

However, the group concluded the health threat from emitted radiation is a

solvable problem, which must be thought through carefully and implemented

through advancements in technology to enable high adoption levels of

wearable computing. A possible intermediate step could involve limiting the

amount of data being sent and received by the device by requiring it to be

periodically taken to base locations for large data transmissions.


© Koré Mason 2004 - 43 -

Conclusion of focus groups involved giving an overview of the purposes of

this study and asking participants to highlight any oversights, none were

identified by either group.

5. Project Conclusion

© Koré Mason 2004 - 44 -


5.1 Introduction

The project conclusion draws on theory and development discussed in the

literature review, quantitative and qualitative data collected during the course

of the study, to answer research questions and identify factors affecting the

acceptance of wearable computing. Further to this, recommendations for

further study are made.

5.2 Acceptance of Wearable Computing

The combination of the volume of research and development being

conducted in the field outlined in the literature review and results from

quantitative and qualitative studies indicate that wearable computing is an

acceptable form of computing amongst both professional and non-

professional computer users.

5.3 Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Wearable Computing

5.3.1 Usefulness

The literature review proposed three key attributes of the usefulness of

wearable computing: enhancement of human ability, anytime anyplace

access to information and delivery of the right information at the right time in

the right place. Quantitative data resulting from the conceptual scenario

based testing strengthen the proposition of the above key attributes of

usefulness. Qualitative data further reinforces this. Participants identified

usefulness of wearable computing as the number one variable affecting their

acceptance of wearable computing.


© Koré Mason 2004 - 45 -

Furthermore, analysis of focus group findings identified eight key trends, five

of which relating to usefulness, such weighting highlights the importance of

this variable. Of the five trends relating to usefulness, three are requirements

for useful wearable computers with the remainder being social observations.

Focus group participants identified a useful wearable computer as being

discrete, highly intelligent with cognitive abilities enabling adaptation to all

environments and contexts with additional functionality allowing control and

customisation by users. This is not pioneering data, however it supports the

definition and some of the characteristics of wearable computing proposed by

Mann (cited by Lightman, 2002) in the literature review.

Social observations identified as trends from focus groups back up the theory

put forward by Huang (2000) of a delicate dynamic between technology and

society. Both focus groups independently identified that human evolution

could be affected by wearable computing. Participants saw wearable

computers as useful in enhancing human abilities and suggest a number of

additional desirable sensory enhancements deliverable through wearable

computing. The very nature of human communication and socialisation were

considered to be areas which may take beneficial or detrimental evolutionary

shifts due to wearable computing. The other social observation made was

that wearable computing could have a negative effect on quality of life

through information overload and increased stress levels.

5.3.2 Ease of Use

As proposed in the literature review, the ease of use of wearable computers

is likely to be enabled through design for a variety of environments which

should also facilitate accessibility for people with a wide range of disabilities.

Analysis of quantitative data suggested a majority view that wearable

computing could be easy to use and identified ease of use as a key attribute

relating to the acceptance of wearable computing. Although no formal

qualitative data were collected relating to ease of use, as outlined above,


© Koré Mason 2004 - 46 -

adaptive and intelligent interfacing emerged as a key trend from focus

groups.

5.3.3 Threat to Privacy

A perceived threat to privacy posed by computing and technology in general

and more specifically by tiny computers, cameras, microphones, biosensors,

web servers and GPS within wearable computing is identified in the literature

review. Quantitative results support this theory with a large majority of

participants indicating perception of a threat to privacy. However quantitative

results do not confirm that this variable has an overwhelming effect on overall

attitude.

The significance of this variable is highlighted through qualitative data with

the remaining three trends relating to privacy. One of these trends was the

observation of the complexity of consideration needed when addressing

issues relating to privacy. A trend identified as a social observation was that

wearable computers could invade the way users interact with one another.

However suggestions were made as to how to combat threats to privacy one

of them, acknowledged as a trend, is the requirement for wearable

computers to be equipped with personal, customised firewalls. The author

believes that quantitative data failed to show a link between perceived threat

to privacy and overall attitude largely due to the complexity of issues relating

to this variable and suggestions made regarding ways to combat threats to

privacy – wearable computing could threaten privacy however preventative

measures are likely to be found and taken.

5.3.4 Threat to Health

The foremost threat to health identified in the literature review is that of

radiation emitted through wireless technology. Quantitative results were

inconclusive in ascertaining the perception of threat to health relative to


© Koré Mason 2004 - 47 -

overall attitude due to the distribution of views and number of null responses.

Explanation for which was uncovered through qualitative research. Focus

group participants highlighted that they failed to see a threat to health as

being an overriding issue because it is likely to be a solvable problem this

view was supported with practical solutions.

5.3.5 Summary

Usefulness and ease of use were identified through multiple methods as

influential to overall attitude. Threat to privacy and health were seen as

important issues relating to wearable computing however they were not in the

foremost of peoples minds when forming an attitude towards wearable

computing.

5.4 Recommendations for Further Studies

Conceptual scenario based design and testing using an augmented TAM

have proved an excellent framework for measuring attitudes and gaining

insight into requirements for wearable computing. The researcher

recommends conceptual scenario based testing for use in the initial design

process of cutting edge technologies, furthermore TAM is recommended for

ascertaining attitude towards such technology. The following

recommendations further study have been identified:

?? Participants used in this study were all computer users at some level,

it would be interesting to run the same study on non-computer users to

see what other groups of society think about wearable computing.

?? It would be interesting to run a similar study with a similar

demographic of participants using a conceptual device made up from


© Koré Mason 2004 - 48 -

different technologies and a new usage scenario. This could confirm

or challenge the finding of this study.

?? The next stages of this study could be a rework the conceptual

scenario and device, prototype of an intelligent and adaptive interface

to ascertain the best interface method in given environments, then

build a prototype WearPC, implementing recommended features and

environment to test in.

?? Further conceptual scenario based design and testing could be done

to evaluate attitude towards wearable computing with medical and

survival applications, this may involve augmenting TAM with other

variables.

6. Project Critical Review

© Koré Mason 2004 - 49 -


6.1 Introduction

I have found the experience of this study to be highly enriching in a number

of ways. I chose to study the acceptance of wearable computing, as I was

aware that research and development was being carried out in the area with

seemingly little regard being given to acceptance and social implications. I

was encouraged and learnt a great deal through finding copious amounts of

research and development, a wide range of application areas, advanced

technology, enthusiasm and valuable input from study participants. This

enabled me to analyse and synthesise wide-ranging information and produce

a well thought out conclusion.

6.2 Evaluation of Literature Review

A thorough review of literature was highly time consuming though worthwhile.

During the early stages of research it was difficult to focus on finding factors

that would affect the acceptance of wearable computing. However, through

literature searches I discovered the widely used TAM, which enabled me to

identify universal variables for technology acceptance and evaluate the

factors which could make wearable computers useful and easy to use. By

augmenting TAM with threat to privacy and health I was able to judge criteria

that may have a negative effect on attitude. This process laid the

foundations for framework of the study and layout of the research report.

During the course of the study I considered an additional section within the

literature review entitled ‘enabling technologies’ as I believed it would be

interesting and enlightening. However due to word limit constraints and that

inclusion of this section was not integral to the study it was omitted. The

resultant literature review gives a valuable insight into the evolution of

wearable computing, an overview of current research and development in a


© Koré Mason 2004 - 50 -

range of application areas and an in-depth analysis of criteria expected to

affect the realization of wearable computing.

6.3 Evaluation Conceptual Device Design

With no tangible appliance available for this study I decided the best method

for stimulating participants imagination was through a conceptual device.

Through reviewing literature I found many wearable computers already

developed often with specific applications in mind and a variety of

technologies available for integration. This process enabled me to envisage

WearPC, which brings together features and technologies from multiple

research ventures, enabling a range of usage contexts to be developed in the

conceptual scenario. This approach enables a balanced and unbiased

presentation of the capabilities, applications and implications of wearable

computing.

As outlined in the recommendations section, further study could be

conducted using a similar demographic and features from other research

producing a different conceptual device and scenario, for example wearable

computing in the form of jewellery or clothing. By producing less favourable

or highly optimistic scenarios the outcome of the study could possibly be

manipulated. If not then this approach would give strength to the conclusions

drawn from this study.

6.4 Evaluation of Conceptual Scenario Design

I have found that alongside the conceptual device, the conceptual scenario

proved a successful method for facilitating a quick overview and

understanding of the composition of advanced technology, application areas

and concepts of wearable computing. I was pleased to observe the

effectiveness of this research method during the focus group sessions where


© Koré Mason 2004 - 51 -

it became clear that individuals had grasped these multifarious concepts and

were able to supply invaluable information relating to the study criteria and

research questions. This has led me to believe that scenario based design is

a highly useful tool for use during early developmental stages as it provides

the means for evaluating whether a concept is worthy of being actualised and

enables redesign to be significantly less resource intensive.

I evaluated extending the conceptual scenario to include context which would

enable understanding of the potential for augmentation of many other

sensory, physical and cognitive skills. However during the pilot study

participants commented that the scenario should not be more than two pages

long as this could cause complacency. After the pilot study I thought about

producing an animated scenario using Macromedia Flash MX, however I

came to the conclusion that my energy would be better spent on other areas

of the study. This was a risk worth taking as data collected from the focus

groups showed that participants had enough stimulation to understand the

possibilities for augmentation through wearable computing.

6.5 Evaluation Questionnaire Construction

The two-stage process of questionnaire construction was recommended by

experts and proved to be a worthwhile exercise. Through the pilot study I

identified uncorrelated, invalid statements and criteria for study. This

enabled elimination and allowed me to focus on valid criteria. The method of

coding used was an efficient way to calculate overall attitude scores and

proved vital in working towards answering research questions.

However, after collating results it became apparent that a large number of

null responses were given in particular to questions relating to health

concerns, which resulted in inconclusive evidence. Had I undertaken a larger

pilot study, with a number of short interviews and a questionnaire with both


© Koré Mason 2004 - 52 -

positive and negative statements for each item, I may have identified the

cause for ambiguity at an early stage and reworked the scenario and

questionnaire to reflect this. Thankfully I carried out the qualitative research

after collation of quantitative results, so I took the opportunity to explore why

participants were unable to take a strong standpoint on certain questionnaire

statements. This resulted in valuable insight and conclusions to be drawn.

Aside from identified oversights, the questionnaire proved to be a consistent

and successful measured for the majority of criteria and beneficial data were

collected and analysed.

6.6 Evaluation of Focus Group

I found the focus groups to be invaluable in collecting explanatory material. I

attribute this success to well researched and implemented methodology.

If I were to change one aspect of this measure I would have included a

question relating to ease of use prompting participants to give their preferred

method of interfacing in predefined contexts. I believe this would have

provided a valuable insight for wearable computing researchers and

developers as to desirable and practical interfacing methods. Also the

analysis of data from focus groups would have been better preserved for

later use had I transcribed them both in full.

Focus group participants were highly enthusiastic, encouraging and

commented that the study was well thought out. The groups were extremely

enjoyable to moderate and transcribe and the resultant material was pivotal

to study conclusions.

7. Bibliography

© Koré Mason 2004 - 53 -

7. Bibliography

Amoako-Gyampah, K. Salam, A.F. (2003) An extension of the technology

acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment. Information and

Management, accepted 10 August.

Barfield (ed) and Caudell (ed) (2001) Fundamentals of wearable computers

and augmented reality. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Beigl, M., Gellersen, H. W., & Schmidt, A. (2000). There is more to context

than location. Computers & Graphics, 23, 893 – 910. Retrieved November

04, 2003 from http://www.sciencedirect.com

Björk, S., & Flak, J. (2000). Privacy and information integrity in wearable

computing and ubiquitous computing. Interactive poster presented at the

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Abstract retrieved

November 22, 2003 from

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=633390&jmp=cit&coll=portal&dl=ACM&C

FID=16433431&CFTOKEN=38249764#CIT

Blasch, B. B., & Ross, D. A. (2002). Development of a wearable computer

orientation system. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 49 – 63.

Bondi, P.D., Close, B., Donoghue, J., Piekarski, W., Squires, J., and Thomas,

B. (2002). First person indoor/outdoor augmented reality application:

ARQuake. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 75 – 86

7. Bibliography

© Koré Mason 2004 - 54 -

Bruner, G.C. Kumar, A. (2003) Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld

Internet devices. Journal of Business Research, accepted 25 August.

Caarls, J., de Jong, F., Jonker, P., Langendijk, I., & Persa, S. (2003).

Philosophies and technologies for ambient aware devices in wearable

computing grids. Computer Communications, 26, 1145 – 1158.

Corey, V.R., DeVaul, R.W. Pentland, A. (2002). The Memory Glasses:

Subliminal vs. Overt Memory Support with Imperfect Information. Retrieved

from http://web.media.mit.edu/~rich/subliminal/208_DeVaul_R.pdf

Cowen, P. (2001) Cyborg clothing. mpulse magazine. Retrieved 23 January

from http://cooltown.hp.com/mpulse/1001-thinker.asp

Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R. (1989) User acceptance of

computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models . Management

Science, 35, 982 – 1003.

deVaus (2002) Analysing social science data: 50 key problems in data

analysis. London: Sage Publications

Galletta, D. F. & Malhotra, Y. (1999) Extending the technology acceptance

model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical

validation. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on

System Sciences – 1999. Retrieved 20 December 2003 from:

http://www.brint.org/technologyacceptance.pdf

7. Bibliography

© Koré Mason 2004 - 55 -

Garabet, A., Mann, S & Fung, J. (2002) Exploring design through wearable

computing art(ifacts), CHI 2002: Changing the world , changing ourselves,

634 – 635.

Henry, S.L. & Vanderheiden G.C (1999) Designing hands-free, eyes-free,

silent (or noisy) environment, and accessible interfaces. CHI 99, 15 – 20.

HoloTouch (2004) Technology. Retrieved April, 05, 2004 from

http://www.holotouch.com/technology.htm

Hooke, R (1665) Micrographia. London

Huang, P. (2000) Promoting wearable computing: A survey and future

agenda (Tech. Rep. No. 95). Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,

Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory.

Impiö, J., Karinsalo, T., Malmivaara, M., Rantanen, J., Reho, A., Tasanen,

M., et al. (2002) Smart clothing prototype for the arctic environment. Personal

and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 3 – 16.

Iwatani, Y (1998) Love: Japanese style, Wired News . Retrieved April, 10,

2004 from http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,12899,00.html

Jayaraman, S., Mackenzie, K., & Park, S. (2002). The wearable

motherboard: A framework for personalized mobile information processing

(PIMP). DAC June 10 – 14 2002, 170 – 174.

7. Bibliography

© Koré Mason 2004 - 56 -

Jonker, P. et al (2002) Philosophies and Technologies for ambient Aware

Devices in Wearable Computing Grids. Computer Communications 26, 1145

- 1158, Retrieved December, 01, 2003, from http://www.sciencedirect.com

Krueger, R. A. (1994) Focus Groups: A practical guide for applied research.

London: Sage Publications

Lamming, M., & Flynn, M. (1994). Forget-Me-Not: Intimate Computing in

Support of Human Memory. Proceedings of FRIEND21, '94 International

Symposium on Next Generation Human Interface, Meguro Gajoen, Japan,

125-128.

Lightman, A. (2002) Brave New Unwired World. New York: John Wiley and

Sons Inc.

Matter, P., Michahelles, F., Schiele, B. & Schmidt, A. (2003) Applying

wearable sensors to avalanche rescue. Computers and Graphics, 27, 839 –

847.

Miner, C. (2001). Pushing functionality into even smaller devices.

Communications of the ACM, 44, 72 – 73.

Morgan, D.L. (1998) The Focus Group Guidebook. London: SAGE

Publications

Muller, H. & Randell, C. (2000) The shopping jacket: Wearable computing for

the consumer. Personal Technologies, 4, 241 – 244. Retrieved December

04, 2003, from The ACM Digital Library database.

7. Bibliography

© Koré Mason 2004 - 57 -

Muller, H. & Randell, C. (2002) The Well Mannered Wearable Computer.

Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 31 – 36. Retrieved December 04,

2003, from The ACM Digital Library database.

Narayanaswami, C., & Raghunath, M. T. (2002). User interfaces for

application on a wrist watch. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 17 – 30

Nishio, S., Tsukamoto, M., Ueda, H. (2000). W-Mail: An electronic mail

system for wearable computing environments. Paper presented at the

International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking. Abstract

retrieved November 22, 2003 from

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=345960&jmp=abstract&coll=portal&dl=A

CM&CFID=16433431&CFTOKEN=38249764#abstract

Oakes, C. (1998) The Truman show realized? Wired News . Retrieved 24

January 2004 from http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,15745,00.html

Ockerman, J.J (2000) Task Guidance and procedural context: Aiding workers

in appropriate procedure following. PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of

Technology.

Pentland, A. Starner, T. & Weaver, J. (1998) Real-time American sign

language recognition using desk and wearable computer based video. IEEE

Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

Philips invents intelligent clothing for personal healthcare (2003) Royal

Philips Electronics, Retrieved 26 January 2004 from

7. Bibliography

© Koré Mason 2004 - 58 -

http://www.research.philips.com/InformationCenter/Global/FNewPressReleas

e.asp?lArticleId=2823&lNodeId

Rheingold, H. (2002) Smart mobs: The next social revolution. Cambridge,

MA: Perseus Publishing.

Rhodes, B. (1997) The wearable remembrance agent: A system for

augmented memory. 1st International Symposium on Wearable Computers

(ISWC '97). Available from:

http://computer.org/proceedings/8192/8192toc.htm

Rhodes, B. (n.d.) A brief history of wearable computing. Retrieved January

05, 2004, from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Laboratory

Website: http://www.media.mit.edu/wearables/lizzy/timeline.html

Robson, C (2002) Real world research (2nd. Ed). Blackwell Publishing

Rosenberg, R. S. (1997). The social impact computers. London: Academic

Press

Sawhney, N., & Schmandt, C. (1999). Nomadic radio: Scalable and

contextual notification for wearable audio messaging. Paper presented at the

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Abstract retrieved

November 22, 2003 from

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=303005&jmp=cit&coll=portal&dl=ACM&C

FID=16433431&CFTOKEN=38249764#CIT

7. Bibliography

© Koré Mason 2004 - 59 -

Sielwiorek, D. P., Smailagic, A. (1999) User-centered interdisciplinary design

of wearable computers. ACM Mobile Computing and Communications review

3, 3, 635 – 655.

Siemens (2002). Innovation news. Building the hospital of the future.

Retrieved January 06, 2004, from

http://w4.siemens.com/en2/html/press/innovation_news/2002/ie_02_02.html

Slaton, J. (2000) E-Clothes Here, So Is Fear. Wired News. Retrieved 24

January 2004 from

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,38288,00.html

Stroud, M. (1999) You are what you ware. Wired News. Retrieved 24

January 2004 from http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,31529,00.html

Stenton, P. (2004) Cyborg clothing. HP Invent. Retrieved 05, February, 2004

from: http://www.hp.com/execcomm/inview/february02/feb02_enab4.html

Sutherland, I.E. (n.d.) Windows into Alice's wonderland: A head-mounted

three-dimensional display. Sun Microsystems. Retrieved January 05, 2004,

from http://www.sun.com/960710/feature3/alice.htmll

TechTarget (2004) Pervasive computing. Retrieved April 20, 2004 from:

http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid7_gci759337,00.html

TechTarget (2004) Grid Computing. Retrieved April 20, 2004 from:

http://searchcio.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid19_gci773157,00.html

7. Bibliography

© Koré Mason 2004 - 60 -

Vanderheiden, G.C. (1997) Anywhere, anytime (+ anyone) access to the next

generation WWW, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 39, 1439 - 1446,

Retrieved December, 01, 2003, from http://www.sciencedirect.com

Vijayasarathy, L.R. (2003) Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line

shopping: the case for an augmented technology acceptance model.

Information & Management, accepted 12 August.

Xybernaut Corporation (2004) Xybernaut Mobile Assistant, Retrieved 26

January 2004 from http://www.xybernaut.com/case_studies/PDFs/Education-

Training_CS.pdf

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 61 -

8. Appendices

Appendix 1: Conceptual Device

WearPC is a conceptual device designed by combining concepts from the

latest research and development into wearable computing and

communication technologies. Wear PC is a single device made up of an

earpiece, brooch, head mounted display, and holographic touch sensitive

display.

Specification

Wireless communication – Communication between

components of WearPC and the Internet are wireless.

Brooch

A brooch-like device

attached above or below

clothing around the

shoulder/neck area.

Includes video camera,

Earpiece

For audio interfacing.

Head Mounted Display (HMD)

Fashionable looking glasses

capable of adding to reality with a

Holographic touch sensitive

display

Infrared technology allows for full

screen multimedia viewing and

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 62 -

Context aware – Sensing allows WearPC to predict the users environment

and switch to an appropriate interface method (Audio, HMD, Holographic)

Global Positioning System (GPS) – WearPC can send and receive

geographical location information with an accuracy of up to a metre.

Always online – Whilst active WearPC is always connected to the Internet

allowing information to be sent and received continuously.

Voice recognition – Verbal input and output.

Audio and video – WearPC can record, playback, and transmit live audio and

video footage.

Optional extras - Add on hardware modules are available for body

temperature sensors, heart rate monitors.

Fully customisable software options – Software can be downloaded to tailor

WearPCs functions to specific needs.

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 63 -

Appendix 2: Conceptual Scenario - A day in your life, year

2010

7am - Dress

You dress and attach the WearPC brooch, earpiece, and pick up WearPC

glasses. You activate WearPC, which starts up in a default interface method

– private audio (via earpiece).

7.30am – Access News

Whilst eating your breakfast you give WearPC a voice command “Public

Audio” and “news”. Instantaneously a newsreader delivers the latest

headlines, which you hear through a speaker within the badge. One

particular headline grabs your attention; you command “news onscreen”. A

holographic display shows live news and a listing of news headlines, you

select the headline of interest by touching an area of the holographic display.

7.50am – Arrange to meet for lunch

After watching the news, and some of your favourite breakfast TV show, you

turn off the holographic display and give the command “call Jenny”. You

arrange to meet for lunch at a restaurant named LaBella in an area you are

unfamiliar with.

8.00am – Locate LaBella and buy a rail ticket

You take the dog for a morning walk and verbally command “orientation

service”. WearPC verbally requests “start” and “end location for destination

1”, which you supply for your home and LaBella. The system then verbally

offers methods of transport and directions to the venue. You decide to take

the train and request “rail service for destination 1”. WearPC sends your

desired destination information to an online rail service, which verbally

returns train times, ticket prices and presents a list of valid commands

including a reserve option. You reserve your ticket by commanding,

“reserve”.

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 64 -

11.00am – Travel to LaBella

Later on you go to the train station. As you enter the train WearPC bleeps

and gives an audio conformation, through your earpiece, that your account

has been debited with the amount of the ticket.

Whilst on the train you receive an incoming call. WearPCs sensors detect

that you are in a public place so the call is delivered privately through the

earpiece not the speaker.

As you alight the train, using GPS technology, the WearPC begins to give

audio guidance to LaBella and offers a map of the area; you select your

viewing method to be a graphical overlay through your glasses.

12.00 noon – Arrive at LaBella

Thanks to WearPC you arrive at LaBella bang on time, you take off your

glasses. As you enter the restaurant sensors within the building sense your

WearPC and it bleeps and gives an audio cue through your earpiece “accept

services from LaBella?” you confirm verbally “yes”. You notice that Jenny

has brought an acquaintance with her whom you met last week. However

you can’t remember his name. You give WearPC the command “private

facial identification”. A camera within WearPCs brooch takes a snapshot of

the acquaintance and searches a citizen’s database locating basic personal

information inc luding name, preferred language, and conformation that the

acquaintance’s WearPC is online. Through your earpiece you are given the

name “Todd” and “preferred language, Spanish”, and “WearPC online”.

12.05 – Lunch

At lunch the three of you converse fluently in a mixture of English and

Spanish, with your respective WearPCs translating as needed. You begin to

discuss a forthcoming project. You think it would be useful to review the

discussion at a later date so give the command “audio and video capture on”.

13.30 – Depart from LaBella

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 65 -

As you depart from LaBella WearPC gives audio confirmation that your

account has been debited with the lunch bill.

13.45 – The shopping mall

On your way back to the rail station you walk through a shopping mall, as you

pass certain stores WearPC gives and audio prompt detailing retail lines/new

stock you may be interested in. You don’t have time for shopping right now

but would like to review the items at your leisure, so you give WearPC the

command “retain”.

14.00 – Short cut

You decide to take a short cut to the station through an alleyway. It’s

secluded so for your safety you give the verbal command “safety”. WearPC

begins to record all audio and visual in your field of view, and forwards to an

online database and to your designated guardian*. As you round the corner

a stranger appears from nowhere and grabs you by the arm. You give the

command “safety help”. The nearest police station is notified of your distress

call and receives the last minute of audio and video from WearPC and your

location. The stranger simply asks for directions, before giving them, you

give WearPC the command “cancel last command”.

15.00 – Arrive home

As you arrive home you receive an audio message through WearPC “LaBella

services offer a Saturday night of live music. Make a booking?” you reply

“no”.

15.15 – Review retail offerings

As you sit down with a cup of tea you request “onscreen retained retail

offerings”, the holographic display shows adverts for products at the mall that

you are likely to be interested in. After reviewing them, you turn off and take

off WearPC.

*Guardian – A person who has agreed to receive, and respond if necessary,

your safety audio and video web casts.

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 66 -

Appendix 3: Coded Questionnaire

Informed consent

Researcher: Koré Mason

Study date: 2004

The researcher is conducting a study entitled ‘Wearable Computing: An

acceptable form of computing’, and can be contacted on:

07976 955626

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the study. Emphasis is made that:

?? Your participation is entirely voluntary;

?? You are free to ask questions regarding the project at any time;

?? You are free to refuse to answer any question;

?? You are free to withdraw at any time.

Information gathered through the questionnaire is kept strictly confidential

and is available only to the researcher. Excerpts from comments made in the

questionnaire may be made part of the final research report, but under no

circumstances are your name or any other identifying characteristics included

in the report without further written consent.

Please sign below to confirm you have read and understand the above.

…………………………………………………………….(signed)

…………………………………………………………….(printed)

…………………………………………………………….(date)

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 67 -

Demographics

Age ………………………………

Sex Male Female

Education (e.g. GCSE equivalent, A-Level equivalent, Degree, Masters,

PHD)

………………………………………………………………………………………

Background Info

Mobile computing experience (laptop/pocketPC) (yrs)

……………………………………………………………………………..

Mobile communication (mobile phone/WAP) experience (yrs)

……………………………………………………………………………..

Daily computer usage (hrs)

……………………………………………………………………………..

Please select the statement that is closest to your opinion.

SA = Strongly Agree

A = Agree

N = Neither

D = Disagree

SD = Strongly Disagree

Knowledge of Wearable Computing Technologies

S1 - I have no knowledge of wearable computing technology

SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 68 -

Technology adoption

S2 -I am usually among the first to acquire new technology.

SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]

Usefulness

S3 - Functions offered by WearPC would be useful.

SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]

S4 - Additional functions to enhance sensory, physical, and/or cognitive skills

would be useful to me.

SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]

Ease of use

S5 - WearPC would be easy to use.

SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]

S6 - WearPC appeals to me due to the flexibility of input and output modes

SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]

Privacy

S7 - Recording and transmitting of audio and video through WearPC would

pose a threat to my own and other people’s privacy.

SA [1] A [2] N [3] D [4] SD [5]

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 69 -

S8 - The Global Positioning System poses a threat to my privacy.

SA [1] A [2] N [3] D [4] SD [5]

S9 - WearPC features would pose no threat to my privacy.

SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]

Health

S10 - Wireless technology within WearPC could pose a threat to my health.

SA [1] A [2] N [3] D [4] SD [5]

S11 - Wireless technology within WearPC poses no threat to my health.

SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]

Dependence S12 and S13 removed from the study

S12 – I could become dependent on the convenience offered by WearPC

SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]

S13 – I could not become dependent on the convenience offered by WearPC

SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]

Empowerment

S14 - WearPC could provide protection from surveillance equipment

embedded in the world around us.

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 70 -

SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]

S15 - I would feel empowered by the safety features offered by WearPC.

SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]

S16 - WearPC would not make me feel empowered in any way.

SA [1] A [2] N [3] D [4] SD [5]

Information Control S17 - S20 removed from the study

S17 - I would feel threatened if government or other groups could collect

information sent and received by WearPC.

SA A N D SD

S18 - I should be the only person who has access to the information sent and

received by WearPC.

SA A N D SD

S19 - I should be the only person who can activate or deactivate WearPC.

SA A N D SD

S20 - I would like service operators to be able to activate WearPC in order to

offer me services of interest.

SA A N D SD

Behavioural Intention

S21 - If I had access to a device like WearPC I would use it, over

conventional methods, to accomplish similar tasks.

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 71 -

SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]

S22 - I would like to purchase a device like WearPC.

SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]

Society

S23 - I would be uncomfortable in a society where use of devices similar to

WearPC were commonplace.

SA [1] A [2] N [3] D [4] SD [5]

S24 - Wearable computing in a form similar to that described in the WearPC

scenario is a socially acceptable form of computing.

SA [5] A [4] N [3] D [2] SD [1]

Please feel free to make comments you feel may be of use in this study:

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 72 -

Appendix 4: Online Forums

The following are URL’s for online forums used to recruit participants for the

conceptual scenario-based study:

http://forums.anandtech.com/

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x

http://forums.hardwarezone.com/

http://www.hardcoreware.net/forum/index.php?

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 73 -

Appendix 5: Focus Group Consent Form

Statement of Informed Consent

I, ___________________________, agree to participate in this research

project on “Wearable Computing: An acceptable form of computing” that is

being conducted by Koré Mason from the University of Gloucestershire.

I understand that the purpose of this study is to hold a group interview to find

out more about the social acceptance of wearable computing; we will discuss

our general ideas about issues relating to usefulness, usability, privacy,

health, empowerment, and wider social aspects.

I understand that this study involves a focus group interview that lasts for on

hour or less, which will be audio taped.

I understand that my participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and that if

I wish to withdraw from the study or leave, I may do so at any time, and that I

do not have to give any reasons or explanations for doing so.

I understand that because of this study there may be violations of my privacy.

To prevent violations of my own or another persons privacy, I have been

asked not to talk about any of my own or others’ private experiences that I

would consider too personal or revealing.

I also understand that the information I give will be kept confidential to the

extent permitted by law, and that names of all the people in the study will be

kept confidential.

I understand that I may not receive any direct benefit from participating in the

study, but that my participation may help others in the future.

The researcher has offered to answer any questions I may have about the

study and what I am expected to do.

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 74 -

I have read and understand this information

Date………………………………………..

Your Signature…………………………………………

Print Name …………………………………………….

If you have any concerns about this study please contact either Koré Mason

[[email protected], 07976 955626]

Adapted from:

Morgan, D.L. (1998) The Focus Group Guidebook. London: SAGE Publications p87

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 75 -

Appendix 6: Focus Group Questions

This session is designed to expand on issues relating to usefulness,

threat to privacy and health, and empowerment. The information

collected during this session will be used initially within the research

report and may also be used in future papers (ISWC paper).

While in this focus group I would like you to consider the issues raised by the WearPC scenario rather than the device its self. Wearable computing is being developed in many forms and WearPC was designed to stimulate debate on the main issues relating to the acceptance of this technology.

Opening

1. What are your main uses for mobile computing and communication

technologies (Thinkpads, mobile phones, PDAs, TV)?

Key - Usefulness

2. How do you think converging networked mobile computing, mobile

phones, and TV media through wearable computing would be useful in

your day to day life?

3. What other sensory enhancements would you like to see incorporated

into a consumer wearable computer (blue sky ideas welcome)?

Key - Privacy

4. What are the benefits and pitfalls of having GPS within the WPC?

5. 85% of questionnaire respondents agreed that the recording and

transmitting of audio and video would pose a threat to their privacy.

To what extent would this affect your desire to use WearPC?

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 76 -

(Consider other peoples perception that you are invading their privacy, or your perception that other WearPC users were invading yours).

Key - Health

6. One notion of wearable computing is that it is proposed to be worn

close to the body and for long periods of time. With studies regarding

the effects of radiation from wireless technology being inconclusive.

To what degree would this affect your desire to use such a device?

Key - Empowerment

7. 52% of people would feel empowered by the safety features offered by

WearPC. Do you think such a device would deter or increase crime?

(consider here the recent spate of street robberies for mobile phones)

8. Would being able to collect and record information in areas where

surveillance equipment are used have a significant effect on your

attitude towards wearable computing?

Key - Society

9. 53% of questionnaire respondents would be comfortable in a society

where wearable computing of this kind were commonplace. How do

you think widespread use of such devices would affect people’s

behaviour? (consider aspects of having your actions and

conversations recorded, services being available anywhere and

anytime, and the possibility of having your movements monitored)

Key - Positive/negative

10. As a group put the following factors in order of importance when

considering the implications of wearable computing and ultimately the

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 77 -

affect on your attitude towards it. 1 – 5 no.1 being most important and

number 5 being least important.

Summary

In summary the key points of the discussion were …

Ending - Wrapping it up

11. This study is focussed on gaining an understanding of the acceptance

of possible large-scale use of wearable computing in society. Are

there any issues you would like to raise that we haven’t already

covered?

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 78 -

Appendix 7: Gant Chart

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 79 -

Appendix 8: Demographic Frequency Tables

Statistics

DailyCompU KnowledgeOfW

C TechnologyAdo

ption MCompExp MCommExp Valid 68 68 64 68 68 N Missing 9 9 13 9 9

Mean 6.94 2.50 3.03 3.76 4.19

Daily Computer Usage (hours)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent 0 2 2.6 2.9 2.9 2 1 1.3 1.5 4.4 3 6 7.8 8.8 13.2 4 5 6.5 7.4 20.6 5 13 16.9 19.1 39.7 6 5 6.5 7.4 47.1 7 6 7.8 8.8 55.9 8 11 14.3 16.2 72.1 9 1 1.3 1.5 73.5 10 12 15.6 17.6 91.2 12 3 3.9 4.4 95.6 13 2 2.6 2.9 98.5 16 1 1.3 1.5 100.0

Valid

Total 68 88.3 100.0 Missing System 9 11.7 Total 77 100.0

Knowledge of Wearable Computing


Percent 1 16 20.8 23.5 23.5 2 29 37.7 42.6 66.2 3 2 2.6 2.9 69.1 4 15 19.5 22.1 91.2 5 6 7.8 8.8 100.0

Valid


Technology Adoption

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 80 -


Percent 1 6 7.8 9.4 9.4 2 25 32.5 39.1 48.4 4 27 35.1 42.2 90.6 5 6 7.8 9.4 100.0

Valid


Mobile Computer Experience (years)


Percent 0 13 16.9 19.1 19.1 1 4 5.2 5.9 25.0 2 13 16.9 19.1 44.1 3 7 9.1 10.3 54.4 4 7 9.1 10.3 64.7 5 13 16.9 19.1 83.8 6 1 1.3 1.5 85.3 7 2 2.6 2.9 88.2 8 1 1.3 1.5 89.7 9 1 1.3 1.5 91.2 10 3 3.9 4.4 95.6 15 3 3.9 4.4 100.0

Valid


Mobile Communication Experience (years)


Percent 0 5 6.5 7.4 7.4 1 4 5.2 5.9 13.2 2 8 10.4 11.8 25.0 3 14 18.2 20.6 45.6 4 10 13.0 14.7 60.3 5 14 18.2 20.6 80.9 6 3 3.9 4.4 85.3 7 2 2.6 2.9 88.2 8 4 5.2 5.9 94.1 9 1 1.3 1.5 95.6 10 2 2.6 2.9 98.5 20 1 1.3 1.5 100.0

Valid


8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 81 -

Appendix 9: Questionnaire Data Frequency Tables

S3


Percent 2 1 1.3 1.3 1.3 3 10 13.0 13.0 14.3 4 47 61.0 61.0 75.3 5 19 24.7 24.7 100.0

Valid

Total 77 100.0 100.0 S4


Percent 1 2 2.6 2.6 2.6 2 7 9.1 9.1 11.7 3 14 18.2 18.2 29.9 4 37 48.1 48.1 77.9 5 17 22.1 22.1 100.0

Valid

Total 77 100.0 100.0 S5


Percent 1 2 2.6 2.6 2.6 2 8 10.4 10.4 13.0 3 23 29.9 29.9 42.9 4 35 45.5 45.5 88.3 5 9 11.7 11.7 100.0

Valid

Total 77 100.0 100.0

S6


Percent 1 2 2.6 2.6 2.6 2 8 10.4 10.5 13.2 3 18 23.4 23.7 36.8 4 39 50.6 51.3 88.2 5 9 11.7 11.8 100.0

Valid


S7

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 82 -


Percent 1 21 27.3 27.3 27.3 2 40 51.9 51.9 79.2 3 7 9.1 9.1 88.3 4 6 7.8 7.8 96.1 5 3 3.9 3.9 100.0

Valid

Total 77 100.0 100.0 S8


Percent 1 15 19.5 19.5 19.5 2 24 31.2 31.2 50.6 3 12 15.6 15.6 66.2 4 21 27.3 27.3 93.5 5 5 6.5 6.5 100.0

Valid

Total 77 100.0 100.0

S9


Percent 1 15 19.5 19.5 19.5 2 41 53.2 53.2 72.7 3 8 10.4 10.4 83.1 4 9 11.7 11.7 94.8 5 4 5.2 5.2 100.0

Valid

Total 77 100.0 100.0 S10


Percent 1 3 3.9 3.9 3.9 2 21 27.3 27.3 31.2 3 29 37.7 37.7 68.8 4 16 20.8 20.8 89.6 5 8 10.4 10.4 100.0

Valid

Total 77 100.0 100.0 S11


Percent 1 4 5.2 5.2 5.2 2 15 19.5 19.5 24.7 3 36 46.8 46.8 71.4 4 16 20.8 20.8 92.2 5 6 7.8 7.8 100.0

Valid

Total 77 100.0 100.0

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 83 -

S12


Percent 0 7 9.1 9.2 9.2 2 11 14.3 14.5 23.7 3 12 15.6 15.8 39.5 4 38 49.4 50.0 89.5 5 8 10.4 10.5 100.0

Valid


S13


Percent 0 7 9.1 9.2 9.2 1 1 1.3 1.3 10.5 2 10 13.0 13.2 23.7 3 22 28.6 28.9 52.6 4 33 42.9 43.4 96.1 5 3 3.9 3.9 100.0

Valid


S14


Percent 1 5 6.5 6.5 6.5 2 20 26.0 26.0 32.5 3 26 33.8 33.8 66.2 4 25 32.5 32.5 98.7 5 1 1.3 1.3 100.0

Valid

Total 77 100.0 100.0 S15


Percent 1 1 1.3 1.3 1.3 2 16 20.8 20.8 22.1 3 21 27.3 27.3 49.4 4 37 48.1 48.1 97.4 5 2 2.6 2.6 100.0

Valid

Total 77 100.0 100.0

S16


Percent

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 84 -

1 2 2.6 2.6 2.6 2 15 19.5 19.5 22.1 3 17 22.1 22.1 44.2 4 41 53.2 53.2 97.4 5 2 2.6 2.6 100.0

Valid

Total 77 100.0 100.0 S17


Percent 75 97.4 97.4 97.4 .00 2 2.6 2.6 100.0

Valid

Total 77 100.0 100.0 S21


Percent 1 1 1.3 1.3 1.3 2 1 1.3 1.3 2.6 3 19 24.7 24.7 27.3 4 51 66.2 66.2 93.5 5 5 6.5 6.5 100.0

Valid

Total 77 100.0 100.0

S22


Percent 1 1 1.3 1.3 1.3 2 7 9.1 9.1 10.4 3 27 35.1 35.1 45.5 4 30 39.0 39.0 84.4 5 12 15.6 15.6 100.0

Valid

Total 77 100.0 100.0 S23


Percent 1 5 6.5 6.5 6.5 2 13 16.9 16.9 23.4 3 18 23.4 23.4 46.8 4 31 40.3 40.3 87.0 5 10 13.0 13.0 100.0

Valid

Total 77 100.0 100.0

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 85 -

S24


Percent 1 2 2.6 3.6 3.6 2 8 10.4 14.5 18.2 3 19 24.7 34.5 52.7 4 22 28.6 40.0 92.7 5 4 5.2 7.3 100.0

Valid


8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 86 -

Appendix 10: University Focus Group Transcription

Usefulness

Participant 9

“Converging technologies is useful in that you don’t have to carry around

multiple devices offering similar facilities, phones, PDAs, and laptops all offer

a calendar facility and contacts, you just don’t need it.”

“There is value in having bigger devices with more features, but smaller

devices when you just need their main function e.g. mobile phone”

“Additional facilities are only there because they are easy (and cheap) to

program”

“Sensory enhancements like x-ray specs would be great”

“Memory augmentation isn’t too far a stretch of the imagination, we already

have .zip disks to hold our dissertations instead of having to remember it all.”

Participant 8

“Quality of video recording should be high”

“Context sensitive WPC”

“Sensory enhancements like night vision would be cool”

“WPC could enhance your memory and add something that you didn’t have,

when talking to someone of the opposite sex and you come out with a great

line that they really like, the person may start thinking ‘is that him talking, or is

it his WPC?’ those enhancements are false, as a storage device it would be

good, but if it actually enhanced your memory it could unleash an outbreak of

paranoia”

“Would it (WPC) send people crazy eventually? Would people still be talking

to themselves when not using their WPC?”

“If you were able to give your WPC a personality you could get people falling

in love with their WPC!!”

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 87 -

“I think development of WPC will be an incremental process.”

Participant 10

“WPC could enhance your hearing, letting you know if someone was

creeping up behind you”

“We could become complacent with memory augmentation”

Participant 11

“Quality of WAP experience isn’t there yet, this effects user experience”.

“Nanotechnology could enable wearable computing, though the

nanotechnology raises a whole load of pri vacy issues due to the probability

that tiny computing devices could be used without our knowing”

“Sensory enhancement, sight, hearing, and touch, could be one of the main

benefits of wearable computing”

“Memory augmentation would make you much sharper”

“With augmented memory you could literally ‘switch your brain off’ with a

WPC”

“The whole future is going towards devices you can talk to, you may be

walking down a street and you shout out a command and something pops

out from a lamp post and goes ‘woo hello!’”

“WPC recording your daily activities could help you find things you had lost”

“WPC needs to be almost like the clothes we wear. You just put it on and

you don’t even realize you’ve got it there. A necklace or earring or neck

brace type thing. Needs to be so discrete on your person so people don’t

know it there.”

Global positioning system

Participant 7

“Handy to for way finding.”

Trend 1

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 88 -

Participant 9

“Have implications of user tracking.”

“Benefit is that parents could track where their children were”

Participant 8

“Could be useful as a training aid. Jogging mode GPS could help to show

you your jogging course and give lap times.”

“Disgruntled partner could track the other! or partners could track the other

down the pub!!”

Privacy

Participant 7

“You probably wouldn’t say anything personal to anyone with a WPC if you

thought they may be uploading or saving it”

Participant 9

“The threat of recording and transmitting of audio and video depends on the

amount of people using WPC.”

“You would have to make it so that you would have to have permission to

record, existing legislation says that you cannot secretly record another

person”

“Citizens database would require everyone to have their images recorded,

would it be secure as you could alter your face”

“I don’t want people to have audio and video information of me … it’s mine, I

don’t want you to have it!”

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 89 -

“You may augment your natural conversation by sending other messages

with WPC, example is how emotions have developed in messenger, in

themselves they don’t have much meaning but in the context of the

conversation they do” (evolved communication form)

Participant 8

“Children come into whole ethics of WPC, you wouldn’t want paedophiles to

take pictures of them and be able to search through a database for personal

information about the child such as name”.

“Criminals could record over peoples shoulders to capture pin numbers, card

numbers on till receipts, e -mail passwords”.

“Facial analysis would make you wary of people, you would be wondering if

someone had forgotten your name”

“Privacy issues need to be refined”

“WPC could potentially affect the way you interact with people”

“With new technologies people always find a way round the security features.

Viruses could be loaded onto WPC.”

Participant 10

“Would being able to isolate yourself make WPC pointless?”

Participant 11

“A citizens database would be really bad news in the fight against

paedophilia. They could access children’s names then approach them acting

like a family friend.”

“Should be a feature in WPC to block other people from recording you,

individual voices could get deleted from conversations when someone had

set their device to stop others recording them”

Trends 2&7

Trend 6

Trend 7

Trend 8

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 90 -

“You could easily be in a mood and say something about someone that you

don’t really mean and it could get recorded and taken out of context.”

“There should be a button on WPC to isolate them from everyone else with

WPC, at that point in time they are protected and they know in their own

minds nobody can record them, take pictures of them, its like a little force

field around them. Only emergency services could have access to the

WPC.”

“Everyone would like to be able to access other peoples WPC, but not have

their own accessed!”

“I still don’t trust putting my own personal details (bank) on the Internet, you

have to build trust with these things.”

Health

Participant 7

“I would not want to be on a mobile phone for eight hours a day, my ear gets

hot.”

“You could get really bad headaches from use of the holoscreen”

Participant 9

“Understanding the underlying technology and implications is key to trusting

the technology”

“No major concerns about health implications”

“WPC could drive evolution, we evolve with technology”

Participant 8

“Imagine walking along a street with a context sensitive WPC that decides

the output mode should be holographic and a holographic picture pops up in

front of you causing you to walk into a lamp post!”

Trend 8

Trend 2

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 91 -

“The earpiece worn for long periods of time causes pain, could u wear this

form of input for hours? And still be fine”

“Inertia from a hologram could cause motion sickness”

Participant 10

“If there were similar threats to health as those proposed with mobile phones

then this would be a considerable issue.”

“Radiation could be a serious threat”

Participant 11

“You would get information overload”

“Technological advances allow us be rid of manual laborious tasks, and

advance.”

Empowerment

Participant 9

“How possible would Mann’s proposition of watching those who watch you

be, if hackers can access your information, surely government would also be

able to access your recordings”

Participant 11

“Excessive use and misuse of the ‘call police’ feature would waste police

resources.”

“Empowerment wouldn’t be the first thing when considering purchasing a

WPC”

Trend 4

Trend 2

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 92 -

Participant 10

“Empowerment wouldn’t even come into the picture when considering

purchasing a WPC”

Participant 11

“I recon WPC similar to the scenario would deter criminals”

“Most people would buy WPC because it’s a fashionable, gadgety item”

Positive/Negative Variables

Participants categorised independent variables in the following order of

importance (1 most, 5 least important)

1. Usefulness.

2. Ease of Use

3. Threat to my health

4. Threat to my privacy

5. Threat to your privacy

6. Empowerment

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 93 -

Appendix 11: IBM Focus Group Transcription

Usefulness

Participant 1

“I don’t want to have to be limited to be at my desk, unless I have to meet

people faced to face I don’t see a reason for sitting at a fixed desk.

Everything I want to be able to do from there (my desk), I want to be able to

do from any other place. There are certain situations where I think I need all

this information around me. I shouldn’t actually have to physically have it in

front of me, I want get all the information I want wherever I am, if I’m at my

desk or walking down the street. There would then be no reason for me to

actually be at my desk. I guess this may even cause my working hours to

change. I want to be able to do my chores on the football pitch!”

Participant 2

“Would you have much more time for leisure because you could do those

things like going to the bank, ordering your shopping could be done while

doing something like getting to a football pitch.

Participant 4

“Its certainly excellent from a laziness point of view. Plus you have all of your

devices together in one place. Which is cool as you could reduce the amount

of clutter you own and carry around with you. Doing it all through one device

would be pretty cool.”

Moderator

“Would the size of the device be an issue? I mean if you left some of your

devices at home would you want a tiny device that you took with you?”

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 94 -

Participant 4

“I think if it’s going to be wearable then I want it to be small enough to be

wearable. As opposed to a 1980 style phone with a bum bag to carry

batteries.”

Participant 1

“In the scenario I took the device off at the end of the day. I didn’t really need

to do that I don’t want to need to take it off unless there are health reasons

why I should do so. Unless I need to take a shower or something then why

should I have to take it off? I should be able to turn it off and it should seem

no different, the fact that I’m wearing it shouldn’t impact on me at all.”

Moderator

“So saying that, would you be happy to sleep with your wearable computer

on?”

Participant 1

“Yeah I could then wake in the middle of the night with a great idea and

capture it on my WPC, or do a bit of work and go back to sleep again.”

Participant 2

“I’m not sure I would like to be under this pressure all the time, by this device,

the fact that I’ve got no excuse not to act on this idea, I’ve got no ‘get away’

from anybody else nagging me to do something. I don’t want people to have

that expectation that they can contact me 24 hrs a day. Also information

overload, do I want to have all this information being thrown at me all the

time? I suppose I can take it off.”

Participant 3

Trend 1

Trend 4

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 95 -

“You can filter out what information you are offered, and if people want you to

do things, whether you do them or not is actually your prerogative.”

Participant 3

“The size of the device is very important to me.”

Participant 2

“A WC watch that I could wear in the bath that could do everything that my

ThinkPad could do, that would be quite good, so if I’m reading something like

a magazine in the bath and I see a web reference I wouldn’t have to

remember the reference I could just access it straight away.”

Moderator

“Would you like to see any other sensory enhancements offered by WPC?”

Participant 2

“I’d like one (enhanced sense) for carbon monoxide, pollution levels, pollen

levels.”

Participant 1

“I’d like personal rear view mirrors so I can see what going on behind me, so

I cold have a panoramic view.”

Participant 1

“I would find it useful if information was intelligently filtered. So for example if

I was reading a menu in a foreign language I’d like WPC to know what I like

Trend 1

Trend 3

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 96 -

and only offer me those things, or if I’ve eaten something similar in the

morning then don’t show me that either.”

Participant 3

“Yeah filtering is important, so if I want to know what’s on at the cinema,

you’ll only be offered something suitable so I wont be offered all the kiddies

movies.”

Moderator

“Would you like your device to have a personality, or a tailored voice?”

Participant 1

“I’d like it to know what mood I was in, then dictate which personality it spoke

to me in. If I was hungry then it could remind me that yesterday I had a huge

steak and perhaps I shouldn’t eat so much today it could regulate the type of

things and quantity I eat”

Participant 2

“Yes it could ensure you ate a healthy balanced diet.”

Participant 3

“The device could tell you how many calories you had eaten already today.

The device could measure your blood alcohol limit and calculate whether you

were safe to drive.”

Participant 4

“I don’t think I’d want it to have that much of a degree of control”

Trend 3

Trend 3

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 97 -

Participant 2

“Its not controlling its recommending”

Participant 3

“It should be optional, so you could turn features on and off.”

Moderator

“Why wouldn’t you want it to have so much control?”

Participant 4

“Because I like to make my own decisions, if I need assistance then I’d use

the device for it, rather than having it constantly offering assistance.”

Moderator

“If features weren’t selectable, would you be put off using the device?”

Participant 4

“Yes definitely. I have to be totally in control.”

Participant 2

“You need to be able to turn off and turn on the things that it can do.”

Moderator

“So flexible then?”

Participant 4

Trend 5

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 98 -

“The personalities wouldn’t be as important to me as perhaps how smart the

device was, the device has to be smart enough to do lots of things for me, I

don’t care how it communicates with me, I’d like it to be clever enough to

know what it was I wanted and needed”

Moderator

“So you’d like to tailor it then?”

Participant 4

“I’d like it to tailor its self. I don’t want to have to spend time teaching it what I

like and what I don’t like I want it to work all that out.”

Participant 2

“So that means that when I go to the supermarket and buy a loaf of bread,

pint of milk, and a pond of cheese, it knows I’ve brought those things so the

next time it says, I presume you are going to buy …”

Moderator

“You could have it offering you recipes when you buy your ingredients.”

Participant 2

“With these things you’ve brought you can do such and such. Yeah it is pre-

emptive … what’s that knowledge base?”

Participant 4

“Yeah it definitely has to be smart.”

Trend 3

Trend 3

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 99 -

Participant 6

“How practical would that be though because going through a supermarket

there would be so many things it could offer you to go in recopies it could

drive you insane”.

Participant 2

“Again you could just switch the feature on when needed. And it knows what

you’ve got in your store cupboards and by adding new ingredients in there it

could say ‘well you could cook …’”

Participant 5

“I think I’d be really scared if I had this wearable computer that had all this

information about what I said on a daily basis and knew everywhere I go and

everything I eat and I lost it, I would be petrified that somebody would have

my life in their hands”

Participant 3

“It’s got to be secure with voice recognition, eye retina, finger print, or

whatever it is that makes it secure for you.”

Participant 1

“You wouldn’t want all the information stored on the device you’d want it out

on the grid somewhere.”

Privacy

Moderator

Trend 4

Trend 6

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 100 -

“That’s quite a good opener for the next stage. 85% of people who answered

the questionnaire so far agree that recording and transmitting of audio and

video and any other information that it collects would pose a threat to their

privacy, if you are of that opinion, how would it affect your desire to use it?

Would it be a major issue?”

Participant 6

“Its not that, I’d be intimidated to be around other people who wore the

device, because of the things you were saying then. If everyone had this

device then you would be scared to say anything to anyone. Because

everything you say could be used against you.”

Participant 5

“You’d have to know if someone was recording you. In the scenario where

someone grabbed you on the shoulder it would serve as a warning to them it

would be some sort of deterrent.”

Participant 1

“You are probably going to get a real cultural split between the users and

non-users really, especially in the early stages when people start doing it.

Slowly more and more people would do it (have WPC), eventually people

without the could become social outcasts, if you have that ability to talk to

people in different languages and do all these wonderful thing and you had

this person standing here or has to sit at their desk then there’s no way they

are going to be as useful as somebody else.”

Participant 3

“Isn’t that just a transition period until everybody has it?”

Participant 2

Trend 7

Trend 2

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 101 -

“But this is invading the interaction between people”.

Moderator

“If you were wearing it, not many other people were using it yet, and you had

a perception that they felt you were invading their privacy, would this effect

your using it at all? ”

Participant 4

“It depends how subtle it is. I mean if it’s a tiny device that looks like a watch

or a pair of glasses, then that wouldn’t be a big problem because they

wouldn’t necessarily know that I was using anything.”

Participant 2

“It depends how you interacted with it though, how much attention you gave

to the device as apposed to the other person, how could you give your

undivided attention when being distracted by this device?”

Participant 4

“I don’t really want to have to speak to a device, its going to make me feel

awkward and self conscious.”

Moderator

“What would be your preferred method of interfacing?”

Participant 4

“It would be cool if it just knew your thoughts and what you wanted or

needed, some sort of brain connecting magic, that would be”.

Trend 3

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 102 -

Participant 2

“And the next stage of this is that it controls where you walk!”.

Participant 1

“How easy would it be to adopt this technology. Probably if you were brought

up with it you would pick it up really quickly, whereas with my grandparents

there’s no way they would be able to. Or want it”.

Participant 3

“That’s just another transition over a generation”.

Participant 3

“Going back to privacy, I think privacy is one of the hottest topics about it. Its

something that’s going to really divide peoples thoughts about it, big time,

and has to be really thought about carefully”

“Also something that ***** said would it take over peoples lives and we

almost become like robots rather than humans because we are pretty much

being governed by these devices as opposed to really thinking for ourselves.”

Participant 4

“Going back to the sensory enhancements, it would be good if you were

talking to someone who was really boring you could switch off and do

something else, like do some work. If you get to the stage where they’ve

asked you a question and are waiting for an answer you could get a quick

recap of all the important things they’ve said”

Participant 2

Trend 6

Trend 2

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 103 -

“I can see mental health going down the tube with this device”.

Laughter

Participant 4

“Still on sensory enhancements, I’d like it to be my glasses for me, so it’d

correct my short sightedness and also if I could have zoom eyes that would

be a great feature”.

Participant 2

“What about the medical side of things, if you were a diabetic it could tell you

your blood sugar levels were low, or be releasing a shot of insulin. Or your

cholesterol was a bit high, it would be like keeping a car serviced but doing it

perpetually”.

Participant 4

“I think we are moving from a wearable PC to a human augmentation, it’s

more of enhancements”.

Participant 1

“If it’s a stand alone device then fine, though if someone could gain control of

the WPC and pump me full of insulin …”

Participant 2

“Maybe it could be for monitoring then”.

Participant 1

Trend 2&7

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 104 -

“Everything is moving towards this grid architecture, everything connected to

everything, I wonder if you do want to have some things outside of that, you

are essentially going to have to have your own personal firewall which would

be able to control all data coming towards you”.

Participant 5

“If you started to depend on it to tell you when your insulin was dropping and

it failed …”

Participant 3

“But then you put your trust into planes and soon they will be taking off and

landing with pilots just having manual override. There is always going to be

that kind of concern while its being tested, I appreciate that but hopefully one

day you would be able to sort out those problems”.

Participant 2

“The thing that I want it to do is just to make my life easier, if I working I want

it to be able to control things remotely, like switching on the washing machine

or defrost something. Just to be able to control things that I can’t currently

control because I’m in the wrong place. Which I suppose is bluetooth

technology anyway”.

Participant 4

“I think what we are talking about is a long way ahead of just replacing your

ThinkPad and mobile phone …”

Participant 2

“It’s (about) changing all the devices we have in the home”.

Trend 8

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 105 -

Modertor

“And its also a load of different technologies as well, it would take a load of

infrastructure to put this stuff in place, but people are working towards it…”

Participant 3

“Anything’s possible”.

Health

Moderator

“We touched a bit on health issues, have any of you thought that having a

computing device close to your body at all time could possibly pose a threat

to your health especially if its transmitting data. Consider the problem that

we have inconclusive evidence about the effects of radiation from your

mobile phone, would it concern you at all?”

Participant 6

“You would want to have complete knowledge that it is healthy and its not

going to pose a threat to your health before you purchase it. I wouldn’t even

think about buying one until I knew that it was safe. I don’t really think about

it when buying a mobile phone but because its going to be by your body all

the time it would be more important to me than …”.

Participant 5

“It depends to the extent to which you wear it as well, if it had all these

feature then there would be a lot of occasions where I would want to turn it

off, otherwise I’d just have too much information all the time. If it was

something I was going to have running all day and night then I probably

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 106 -

would think about it, but I have to admit that when I bought my mobile phone

I wasn’t thinking about radiation I was thinking about colour!”

Laughter

Participant 4

“Its an important concern though, when you think about all the young people

carrying mobile phones around nuking yourself with all this radiation, it’s a bit

of an unknown”

Participant 3

“Its like all this wireless that’s being used at the moment, its going through

our bodies, does anybody know whether that’s having an effect on us?”

Participant 2

“And radio masts by schools … so yes there are concerns and a lot of

research is going to have to be done on disproving or proving it”

Moderator

“But it doesn’t sound from what you are saying that it would be an overriding

issue, considering you have said there are all these other technologies that

could be posing a threat …”

Participant 1

“I think it’s a solvable problem really, I think it’ll take some time to get the

adoption levels and technology high enough such that everybody is happy

with the safety elements of it. I guess you could go some way to solving it by

limiting the amount of data being sent and received by taking it off to a base

location, like a smaller radio mast that then links up to everything else, so you

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 107 -

take away the level of transmission you have to do and put it somewhere

else, I think that would resolve a lot of the problems”.

Global positioning system

Participant 4

“It would be neat to have an overlay of your house so you could know where

your kids were, so if your toddler was getting closer to the hot oven …”

Participant 5

“You could see if there were intruders and alarm could go off …”

Participant 4

“It’s a given that if it has GPS it can get you from place to place, so its what it

could offer you on top of that”.

Moderator

“So would GPS be a positive factor when considering buying the device?”

Participant 2

“That would be my main reason for buying it.”

Privacy

Participant 3

“Would you find it useful to monitor where your kids were?”

Participant 2

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 108 -

“It would be useful so I know where they are, but would they want me

knowing where they were and what they were doing?”

Empowerment

Moderator

“Would being able to collect and record information in areas where

surveillance equipment are used have a significant effect on your attitude

towards wearable computing? Would you want to have the same information

available to you that the surveyor had?”

Participant 6

“By knowing that people were watching me I would probably just become

more paranoid”.

Participant 2

“But you want to know what they have on you.”

Participant 6

“If it was just data then fine, but if I was aware that I was under surveillance

by cameras then that would be disagreeable”.

Participant 1

“In many ways he could be fighting a loosing battle because in terms of

things filtering down to the consumer, then we are unlikely to have access to

those things corporations and government have so as we get these things

they would already calculated form some statistical data that you were going

to do that so I think that we are always going to be one step back, I don’t

Trend 6

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 109 -

think we are ever going to be on an even table with big business and

government”.

Participant 3

“People could become really paranoid, it could be a whole load of people

watching you wherever”.

Participant 4

“Why would you need this level of protection () if I’ve not done anything

wrong then what’s the problem”.

Society

Moderator

53% of questionnaire respondents so far would be comfortable in a society

where wearable computing of this kind were commonplace. How do you think

widespread use of such devices would affect people’s behaviour? (Consider

aspects of having your actions and conversations recorded, services being

available anywhere and anytime, and the possibility of having your

movements monitored)

Participant 2

“Would it make us more efficient?”

Participant 4

“I don’t know if it would benefit society as much as it would benefit the

individual”.

Participant 2

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 110 -

“I think it would benefit society in that it would make us more efficient in our

jobs, so businesses would be more efficient, so the economy would be

effected and so on”.

Participant 5

“Do you think you would end up working longer hours?”

Participant 2

“Yes because you could work anywhere.”

Participant 5

“That could cause stress”

Participant 6

“It might have some kind of effect, in that you could do all these things you

may neglect the fact that you could speak to people as well, your social

interaction could go right down the drain”.

Participant 1

“That’s a good point because you are slowly going to get access to more and

more information it would get to the stage where you would never need to

ask anybody anything because you would know it.”

Participant 6

“And surely the uses of it would just become more and more as more things

would come out, that you just would not need anyone”.

Trend 7

Trend 7

Trend 7

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 111 -

Participant 5

“That’s where you would get to the point where you would turn it off. I think I

could get all the information I need off the Internet but it doesn’t mean I would

prefer to be sitting there than in the front room with my friends. So I don’t

know if it would get to that extent where people were walking around in their

own little bubble. I would still talk to other people because its not the getting

of information that I enjoy it’s the interaction that I enjoy, so I think people

would still turn it off, it would still be considered rude to be in your own little

zone talking to your computer if there was someone sitting next to you. If you

had it as a child it could effect the development of children in the way that TV

can effect language development”.

Participant 5

“Picking up on what **** said earlier about it introducing you to people you

are compatible with, it could be like chat rooms, and make society more

sociable because you find people who are interested in the sort of things you

are”.

Participant 4

“Yes it would give you a bit of information about someone’s interests so you

would know what to talk about, and if you were going to ask someone out on

a date and you knew they liked Italian then you would book an Italian

restaurant.”

Participant 1

“You could end up with a segmented society if it was picking people to

introduce you to then you could end up with groups of similar people and

never having interaction with others”

Participant 2

Trend 2

Trend 7

Trend 7

Trend 7

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 112 -

“This would affect cross-seminaiton of ideas”

Participant 1

“Which would be a bad thing”

Participant 5

“But you could tailor the device to introduce you to others that you don’t have

anything in common with”

Moderator

“So the device should be highly customisable, but also does it of its own

accord”

Positive/Negative

1. Usefulness

2. Threat to my privacy

3. Ease of use

4. Threat to my health

5. Empowerment (need to define empowerment see 47.00)

6. Threat to other peoples privacy

Crime, Cost and Accessibility, it should be available everyone, in terms of it

making you more efficient then it shouldn’t just be available to the rich.

51.00 … bolt on extras (Participant 3)

Trend 7

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 113 -

Appendix 12: Quantitative Results

The following graphs group responses to questionnaire statements by

participant attitude towards wearable computer. Data is labelled with

percentage. All percentages within graphs and analysis signify a percentage

of the total population.

Relationship Between Attitude and Perceived Usefulness



0

10

20

30

40

50S3 - Functions

offered by WearPC would be useful

DisagreeNeither

Agree

Strongly Agree

Fig 12:1. Relationship between attitude and perceived usefulness of WearPC (S3).

Agreement with statement 3, functions offered by WearPC would be useful,

should correlate with a positive attitude towards wearable computing.

9.09%

45.45%

7.79%

1.3%

12.99%

10.39%

2.6% 1.3% 2.6%

3.9% 2.6%

Number of

participants

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 114 -

Participants perceiving WearPC is useful are likely to be accepting of

wearable computing.

Figure 12:1 shows 25.7% of participants strongly agree and 61% agree with

statement 3. All participants classed as highly accepting of wearable

computing either strongly agree or agree with statement 3. Over nine tenths

of participants classified as accepting of wearable computing strongly agree

(12.99%) or agree (10.39%) with statement 3. Significantly 45.45% of

participants who agree with statement 3 are classed as having a moderate

attitude, suggesting these participants are aware of opportunities and threats

posed by wearable computing.



0

10

20

30

40

50S4 - Additional

functions to enhance sensory,

physical, and/or cognitive skills

would be useful to me.

Strongly DisagreeDisagree

NeitherAgreeStrongly Agree

Fig 12:2. Relationship between attitude and perceived usefulness of additional sensory

enhancements (S4)

9.09%

29.87%

16.88%

6.49%

1.3% 1.3%

14.29%

10.39%

1.3% 2.6%

1.3% 2.3% 2.6%

Number of

participants

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 115 -

Agreement with statement 4, additional functions to enhance sensory,

physical, and/or cognitive skills would be useful to me, should be linked with

a positive attitude towards wearable computing. Technology perceived as

useful, through enhancement of physical and mental ability, is likely to be

acceptable.

Figure 12:2 shows 21.1% of participants strongly agree and 48.1% agree

with statement 4. All participants classed as finding wearable computing

highly acceptable either strongly agree of agree with statement 4. Nine

tenths of participants classed as finding wearable computing acceptable

strongly agree (10.39%) or agree (14.29%) with statement 4.

In relation to criteria 1, responses to statements S3 and S4 suggest

perceived usefulness is positively correlated with overall attitude towards

wearable computing.

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 116 -

Relationship Between Attitude and Perceived Ease of Use


Attitude Towards Wearable Computing

0

10

20

30

40

50S5 - WearPC would

be easy to useStrongly Disagree

DisagreeNeitherAgreeStrongly Agree

Fig 12:3. Relationship between attitude and perceived ease of use of WearPC.

Agreement with statement 5, WearPC would be easy to use, should be linked

with a positive attitude towards wearable computing. A positive attitude is

likely when something predicted to be easy to use.

Figure 12:3 shows 11.7% of participants strongly agree and 45.5% agree that

WearPC would be easy to use. All participants classified as highly accepting

of wearable computing strongly agree or agree with statement 5. Seven

tenths of participants classed as accepting wearable computing strongly

agree (6.49%) or agree (11.69%) with statement 5. Approximately half of

participants classified as moderately accepting of wearable computing

strongly agree (2.6%) or agree (29.8%) with statement 5.

2.6%

29.87%

22.08%

7.79% 1.3%

6.49%

11.69%

5.19% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%

2.6% 2.6%

2.6% 1.3%

Number of

participants

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 117 -



0

10

20

30

40

50S6 - WearPC

appeals to me due to the flexibility of input and output

modes.Strongly Disagree


Fig 12:4. Relationship between attitudes and perception of ease of use of flexible input and

output modes.

Agreement with statement 6, WearPC appeals to me due to the flexibility of

input and output modes, should be linked with a positive attitude towards

wearable computing. Furthermore, agreement provides an insight into

desired functionality of wearable computing.

An overwhelming majority of 50.6% of participants agree and a further 11.7%

strongly agree with statement 6. All participants classified as highly

accepting of wearable computing strongly agree (1.3%) or agree (2.6%) with

statement 6. Over four fifths of participants classed as accepting of wearable

computing strongly agree (5.19%) or agree (16.88%) with statement 6.

3.9%

29.87%

20.78%

6.49% 2.6%

5.19%

16.88%

2.6% 1.3% 1.3%

2.6% 2.6% 1.3% 2.6%

Number of

participants

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 118 -

These results suggest that an acceptable form of wearable computing should

feature multiple intelligent input and output modes similar to those of WearPC

(outlined in appendix 1).

A significant percentage of participants gave “neither” responses, to

statement 5 (29.9%) and statement 6 (20.78%). Causality could be the

nature of conceptual scenario-based study. Participants were required to

imagine using WearPC as apposed to having a tangible experience to draw

upon. Had the study involved a prototype device, definitive response rates to

this statement would be achieved.

In relation to criteria 2, response to statements 5 and 6 suggest perceived

ease of use has a positive relationship with overall attitude towards wearable

computing.

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 119 -

Relationship Between Attitude and Threat to Privacy



0

10

20

30

40

50S7 - Recording and

transmitting of audio and video

through WearPC would pose a threat

to my own and other peoples

privacy

Strongly Agree

AgreeNeitherDisagreeStrongly Disagree

Fig 12:5. Relationship between attitude and threat to privacy posed by recording equipment

Agreement with statement 7, recording and transmitting of audio and video

through WearPC would pose a threat to my own and other peoples privacy,

is expected to have a negative bearing on overall attitude. When a

technology is perceived to threaten privacy through recording and

transmitting data, a less than favourable attitude is likely.

A significant majority of 51.9% of participants agree and 27.3% strongly

agree with statement 7. All participants classed as un-accepting of wearable

computing strongly agree (3.9%) or agree (2.6%) with statement 7. Over five

sixths of participants classified as moderately accepting of wearable

computing strongly agree (22.08%) or agree (36.36%) with statement 7,

2.6% 2.6%

2.6% 2.6% 1.3%

3.9% 1.3%

1.3% 3.9% 6.49%

12.99%

36.36%

22.08%

Number of

participants

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 120 -

strengthening the concept of moderates being aware of opportunities and

threats posed by wearable computing. All participants classified as highly

accepting of wearable computing strongly disagree (1.3%) or disagree (2.6%)

with statement 7, they perceive little or no threat to privacy posed by

recording and transmitting of data.


AttitudeTowards Wearable Computing

0

10

20

30

40

50S8 - The global

positioning system poses a threat to

my privacy

Strongly AgreeAgree

NeitherDisagreeStrongly Disagree

Fig 12:6. Relationship between attitude and threat to privacy posed by GPS within wearable

computing

Agreement with statement 8, the global positioning system poses a threat to

my privacy, is expected to correlate with a negative attitude towards

wearable computing. When a technology is perceived to threaten privacy

through tracking devices, a less than favourable attitude is likely.

2.6% 2.6% 2.6%

2.6%

3.9%

3.9%

1.3%

9.09%

11.69%

14.29%

18.18%

12.99%

14.29%

Number of

participants

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 121 -

19.5% of participants strongly agree and 31.2% agree the GPS could pose a

threat to privacy. All participants classified as finding wearable computing

unacceptable either strongly agree (2.6%) or agree (3.9%) with statement 8.

This suggests a perception of threat to privacy has a negative effect on

attitude towards wearable computing. Moderates are divided on the issue

with an equal percentage of 14.29% strongly agreeing and disagreeing with

statement 8. Participants classified as finding wearable computing

acceptable are also divided, with four tenths disagreeing (11.69%) and three

tenths agreeing (9.09%) with statement 8. All participants classed as finding

wearable computing highly acceptable strongly disagree (2.6%) or disagree

(1.3%) with the notion of a threat to privacy posed by GPS.



0

10

20

30

40

50S9 - WearPC

features would pose no threat to my

privacy



Fig 12:7. Relationship between attitude and general threat to privacy posed by feature of

WearPC (positive wording)

1.3% 1.3% 2.6%

2.6%

2.6% 2.6% 6.49%

12.99%

3.9%

7.79%

14.29%

37.66%

3.9%

Number of

participants

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 122 -

Agreement with statement 9, WearPC features would pose no threat to my

privacy, is expected to correlate with a positive attitude towards wearable

computing.

An overriding majority of 53.2 % of participants disagree and 19.5% strongly

disagree with statement 9, suggesting that most participants foresee some

form of threat to their privacy posed by wearable computing. All participants

classified as finding wearable computing unacceptable strongly disagree

(3.9%) or disagree (2.6%) with statement 9. Approximately three fifths of

participants classed as moderately accepting of wearable computing

disagree (37.66%) with statement 9, bolstering the view of moderates tending

to consider all aspects relating to acceptance of wearable computing. All

participants categorised as finding wearable computing highly acceptable

either strongly agree (2.6%) or agree (1.3%) with statement 9, suggesting

this group discern little or no threat to privacy.

In relation to criteria 3, results from statements 7, 8, and 9 suggest

perception of threat to privacy has somewhat of an effect on acceptance of

wearable computing with those participants classified as un-accepting and

accepting. However, perception of the degree of threat to privacy does not

seem to be an overriding factor for participants classed as accepting of

wearable computing.

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 123 -

Relationship Between Attitude and Perception of a Threat to

Health



0

10

20

30

40

50S10 - Wireless

technology withi WearPC could pose

a threat to my health

Strongly Agree

AgreeNeitherDisagreeStrongly Disagree

Fig 12:8. Relationship between attitude and perceived threat posed by wearable computing

to health.

Agreement with statement 10, wireless technology within WearPC could

pose a threat to my health, is expected to be correlate with a negative

attitude towards wearable computing. Technology perceived as threatening

health is likely to be unacceptable.

An overwhelming majority of participants, 37.7%, gave a ‘neither’ answer to

statement 10.

1.3%

1.3%

1.3% 2.6%

2.6% 2.6% 2.6%

7.79%

9.09%

6.45%

10.39%

25.97%

22.08%

3.9%

Number of

participants

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 124 -

Out of participants classed as accepting of wearable computing almost half

disagree (9.09%) and over a quarter strongly disagree (6.45%) that wireless

technology within WearPC could pose a threat to their health. A third of

participants classified as highly accepting of wearable computing strongly

disagree (2.6%) with statement 10. A fifth of participants categorised as

finding wearable computing unacceptable disagree (1.3%) and two fifths

agree (2.6%), as participant numbers in this group are low it is prudent to say

they are undecided on threat to health.

It could be deduced that there is a weak relationship between acceptance of

wearable computing and perception of a threat to health. However, a similar

percentage in each attitude group gave ‘neither’ responses as gave the

nearest percentage of another response, suggesting that there is uncertainty

pertaining to participants knowledge of a possible threat to their health posed

by wireless technology.

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 125 -



0

10

20

30

40

50S11 - Wireless

technology within WearPC poses no threat to my health



Fig 12:9. Relationship between perception of threat to health and attitude (negative wording)

Statement 11, wireless technology within WearPC poses no threat to my

health, is designed to confirm attitude on the matter. However, with 46.8% of

participants giving a ‘neither’ response, it is prudent to say that reliability of

this evidence is questionable.

In relation to criteria 4, perception that threat to health has a negative effect

on attitude, a loose relationship exists with over half of participants

categorised as accepting of wearable computing agreeing or strongly

agreeing that wearable computing poses no threat to their health.

2.6% 2.6% 1.3% 2.6% 1.3%

1.3%

9.09%

32.47%

15.58%

5.19%

3.9%

10.39%

10.39%

1.3%

Number of

participants

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 126 -

Relationship Between Attitude and Empowerment



0

10

20

30

40

50S14 - WearPC

could provide protection from

surveillance equipment

embeded in the world around us

Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeither

AgreeStrongly Agree

Fig 12:10. Relationship between attitude and empowerment

Agreement with statement 14, WearPC could provide protection from

surveillance equipment in the world around us, may have a positive bearing

on attitude towards wearable computing where participants value being able

to record data in environments fitted with surveillance equipment.

32.5% of participants agree with statement 14. Two thirds of participants

classed as finding wearable computing highly acceptable agree (1.3%) or

highly agree (1.3%) with statement 14. This could suggest protection from

surveillance equipment is something this group considers, and may positively

affect their attitude towards wearable computing. Conversely, over half of

participants classed as finding wearable computing unacceptable agree

(1.3%) or strongly agree (2.6%) with statement 14. Participants within this

1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%

2.6%

2.6%

2.6% 1.3%

19.48%

22.08%

20.78%

5.19%

7.79%

10.39%

Number of

participants

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 127 -

group may see no value add from a device claiming protection from

surveillance equipment. Out of participants classed as moderates almost

equal amounts agreed (20.78%), disagreed (19.48%), and were undecided

(22.08%). Possibly indicating ambiguity in the statement design.



0

10

20

30

40

50S15 - I would feel

empowered by the safety features

offered by WearPC



Fig 12:11. Relationship between empowerment perceived through safety features offered by

WearPC and attitude.

Agreement with statement 15, I would feel empowered by the safety features

offered by WearPC, is expected to have a positive relationship with attitude.

A majority of 48.1% of participants agree that they would feel empowered by

safety features offered by WearPC. Almost half of participants classified as

moderates agree (28.57%) with statement 15, indicating they are aware

wearable computing could be enhance their feeling of empowerment through

offering personal safety features. Three quarters of participants classed as

1.3% 1.3% 1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

2.6% 3.9%

3.9%

18.18%

12.99%

22.08%

28.57% Number of

participants

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 128 -

finding wearable computing acceptable agree (18.18%) or strongly agree

(1.3%) they would feel empowered by safety features offered by WearPC.

Three fifths of participants classified as finding wearable computing to be

unacceptable disagree (3.9%) or strongly disagree (1.3%) with statement 15.

In relation to criteria 5, results from statement 15 strongly suggest that a

sense of empowerment gained through safety features offered through

wearable computing positively influence attitude towards wearable

computing.



0

10

20

30

40

50S16 - WearPC

would not make me feel empowered in

any way

Strongly AgreeAgree

NeitherDisagreeStrongly Disagree

Fig 12:13. Relationship between attitude and empowerment (negative)

Number of

participants

1.3% 1.3% 1.3%

1.3% 1.3% 1.3%

1.3%

2.6%

20.78%

12.99%

5.19%

18.18%

31.17%

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 129 -

Agreement with statement S16, WearPC would not make me feel

empowered in any way, is expected to have a negative relationship with

attitude. Seeing little benefit from empowerment possibilities offered by

wearable computing indicates a negative attitude.

53.2% of participants disagree with statement S16, this proportion of

participants perceive a wearable computer similar to WearPC would give

them a sense of enhanced empowerment. Approximately half of participants

classified as moderately accepting of wearable computing disagreed with

statement 16. Four fifths of participants categorized as accepting of

wearable computing disagree (20.78%) with statement 16. All participants

categorised as finding wearable computing unacceptable either agree

(5.19%) or strongly agree (1.3%) with statement 16. These results support

criterion 5 in that no perception of empowerment corresponds to a negative

attitude towards wearable computing.

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 130 -

Relationship Between Attitude and Behavioural Intention



0

10

20

30

40

50S21 - If I had

access to a device like WearPC I

would use it ove conventional methods to

accomplish similar tasks.

Strongly Disagree


Fig 12:14. Relationship between behavioural intention and attitude

An overwhelming majority of 66.2% of participants agree and 6.5% strongly

agree with statement 21, if I had access to a device like WearPC I would use

it over conventional methods to achieve similar tasks. All of participants who

are categorised as finding wearable computing highly acceptable either

strongly agree (1.3%) or agree (2.6%) with statement 21. Over two thirds of

participants classed as finding wearable computing acceptable strongly

agree (3.9%) or agree (16.88%) with statement 21. Approximately seven

tenths of participants classified as moderately accepting of wearable

computing agree (45.45%) with statement 21. Only 1.3% of participants

disagree with statement 21, this percentage falls within the category of

participants who find wearable computing unacceptable.

These results suggest there is a positive relationship between attitude and

behavioural intention. The vast majority of moderates consider opportunities

Number of

participants

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3% 3.9%

2.6% 5.19%

16.88%

3.9%

15.58%

45.45%

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 131 -

and threats presented through wearable computing and deduce they would

like to use wearable computing over conventional methods to accomplish

similar tasks, this supports criterion 7.

Unacceptable Neither Acceptable Highly Acceptable

Attitude towards wearable comuting

0

10

20

30

40

50S22 - I would like to

purchase a device like WearPC

Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeither

AgreeStrongly Agree

Fig 12:15. Behavioural intention

40.3% of participants agree and 13% strongly agree with statement 22, I

would like to purchase a device like WearPC. 23.4% gave a “neither”

response, causality is likely to be ambiguity concerning the price of such a

device.

Number of

participants

1.3% 1.3% 2.6%

2.6%

3.9% 5.19%

6.49%

12.99%

7.79% 25.97%

24.68%

5.19%

8. Appendices

© Koré Mason 2004 - 132 -

Appendix 13: Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation S3 77 2 5 4.09 .653 S4 77 1 5 3.78 .982 S5 77 1 5 3.53 .926 S6 77 1 5 3.58 .923 S7 77 1 5 2.09 1.015 S8 77 1 5 2.70 1.247 S9 77 1 5 2.30 1.077 S10 77 1 5 3.06 1.030 S12 76 0 5 3.29 1.355 S13 76 0 5 3.08 1.273 S14 77 1 5 2.96 .952 S15 77 1 5 3.30 .875 S16 77 1 5 3.34 .912 S21 77 1 5 3.75 .652 S22 77 1 5 3.58 .908 S23 77 1 5 3.36 1.111 S24 55 1 5 3.33 .944 S11 77 1 5 3.06 .964 Valid N (listwise) 54

mu303 is wearable computing an acceptable form of...

Documents