Utilization of Pervasive IT Compromised? Understanding the Adoption and Use of a Cross Media System

Katarina Segerståhl University of Oulu

Department of Information Processing Science Rakentajantie 3, 90570 Oulu, Finland

katarina.segerstahl@oulu.fi

ABSTRACT Systems that are extended across multiple media, e.g., a mobile device and a desktop computer, are becoming increasingly popular. One reason for this is their ability to provide pervasive support for human activities across a range of contextual settings. Despite the value that these cross media systems offer, there are aspects that detract from their efficient utilization. This article reports the findings from an empirical case study exploring the adoption and use of a cross media fitness system. The system’s general fit with the ways users carry out their activities is a central determinant of utilization. However, the adoption and use of a cross media system is also essentially influenced through the user experience process. This article describes distinct system characteristics that were found to influence coherent user experience. Based on these findings, we propose design responses that address a systemic out of box experience, crossmedial referencing and explication of a holistic system image. This study provides new insight into how users interact with and perceive cross media systems and identifies distinct focus areas for future research and design of heterogeneous and pervasive information technology.

Categories and Subject Descriptors H.1.2. [Models and Principles]: User/Machine Systems – human factors.

General Terms Human Factors, Design

Keywords Cross media, crossmedial user experience, adoption, utilization, interaction design, heterogeneity, qualitative case study

1. INTRODUCTION Interactive systems today are not necessarily restricted to a single media, such as a mobile phone, a desktop computer or the web. Many of them extend across a range of distinct devices and applications forming cross media systems. The main motivation

for these systems is in optimizing communication channels and interaction resources for the different contextual settings that take place across a human activity. Application areas for such systems include: real estate agents’ work [1], laboratory information management [21] and fitness and sports [26].

Despite the ideal of ubiquitous computing implying new networking techniques, invisible computers and embodied interactions, the adoption and use of cross media systems is still hindered by the reality of end-user computing. Users often need to establish practices for managing multiple devices, accessories and connectivity [23]. They are also too often forced to make trade-offs between effort and benefit. Based on [8],[17],[26], in summary, some of the main challenge areas regarding crossmedial interactions include:

Heterogeneity. Requirements for users’ skills regarding information technology (IT) may become higher when the IT environment consists of several different interaction devices and applications. Users may also have different expectations regarding different media. Also the fit between the interactive system and the user’s primary task is determined by different variables depending on the medium and the task context.

Interoperability. Interoperability may often be understood in terms of interconnectivity. However, the conceptual or functional architecture of the system is just as important. It distinguishes the roles of media within a system and defines how functionality is distributed amongst them. This architecture determines the affordance that the system provides for interoperability through its systemic use.

Consistency. The system may be a multi-vendor mash-up, a system comprising distributedly designed components or a monopolized single vendor system. The developmental background facilitates a risk of inconsistency in terms of semantics and interaction logic as well as industrial design and technical standards.

The quality of interactions regarding a system cannot be determined merely from the quality reflected by its parts. A systemic mind-set needs to be adopted for evaluating and developing cross media IT (information technology). The success of an information system is to a large degree determined by how well it is adopted by an individual, implemented in an organization or a community and the extent to which features and functionality of the system are utilized [16]. Understanding the mechanisms that shape the adoption and use of a cross media system through the user experience process, as well as identifying system characteristics that support this, is an important topic for research and further development of pervasive IT.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. MUM’08, December 3–5, 2008, Umeå, Sweden. Copyright 2008 ACM 1-58113-000-0/00/0004…$5.00.

The main research question in this study is: How does the crossmedial user experience unfold and how do distinct system characteristics influence the system’s utilization through this process? In the next section we analyze the conceptual underpinnings of crossmedia systems and the main focal points on which our research concentrates. After this we describe our research approach as well as the explored system setting. Then we present and discuss the implications of our empirical findings. The final section concludes the study with design responses and suggestions for further research.

2. CROSS MEDIA The term, cross media, has emerged in the context of modern communications research spanning the fields of pervasive computing and human-computer interaction (HCI) [27]. According to Filgueiras et al [9] cross media can be defined as “the collaborative support of multiple media to delivering a single story or theme, in which the storyline directs the receiver from one medium to the next, according to each medium’s strength to the dialogue”. Boumans [6] has identified five essential characteristics to crossmedia: 1) more than one media is involved in supporting a message/story/goal, 2) the aim is on integrated production of support functionality, 3) content is delivered on multiple devices, 4) more than one medium is needed to support the whole message/story/goal and 5) the common message/story/goal is spread on the different platforms. In this article, a cross media system is defined as a system that extends across a range of distinct media1 constituting a structure of roles and functionalities. Different components within a system have specific roles and each one is designed to support a distinct aspect of a specific human activity. Cross media systems support human activities that reach across diverse contextual settings. Human activity is here defined a network of temporally, hierarchically and logically connected tasks sharing an objective. The objective and the structure of the human activity in a way function as the common storyline that the cross media system supports.

Based on the main research question, two key points of interest were chosen for guiding the empirical study. These are 1) the crossmedial user experience process from adoption to actual use and 2) system characteristics that embody affordances to systemic use of media. The following sections discuss the motivation and theoretical background for these focal points in more detail.

2.1 Crossmedial User Experience Many views of the definition and contents of user experience exist. What seems to be common to most of these views is that they regard user experience as a process that a) is influenced by distinct antecedents, such as prior experience, social and cultural factors, context of use, and system qualities, b) analyzed through various dimensions, such as emotional reactions and cognitive processes and c) contributes to distinct experiential effects, such as emotion, learning, or acceptance [18],[25],[11]. The crossmedial user experience process faces distinct challenges that regard fitting multiple media with the users’ primary activity and leveraging consistency and interoperability through the system’s conceptual architecture.

1 The term media is in this article used in parallel with the terms

artifact and component and appliance.

When interactions are looked upon through a single artifact, such as an application on a mobile phone, the fit between task and the artifact can be determined from that viewpoint. However, when we look at interactions taking place in the context of multi-task and multi-technology environments, task-technology fit needs to be defined with respect to a variety of intertwined use contexts [2]. The task-technology fit (TTF) model is based on the idea that IT will be used if, and only if, the functions available to the user support (fit) the user’s activities [12]. In this sense it becomes essential to accurately identify the story or the human activity that is being supported by the media as well as the contextual requirements that justify and characterize the use of distinct media. The storyline behind the conceptual structure of the system defines its role and responses in interactions. Task-technology fit can only be understood after analyzing the users’ side of the story as well. That is, digging into the users’ mental representations of the system at hand and understanding their experiential background.

The system’s conceptual architecture is often explicated through the system image, i.e., the way the system communicates or displays itself to the user. The system image influences the unfolding of the user’s mental representation of the system – how the system is constructed and how it should be used [22]. According to Jonassen & Henning [13] people create mental images of verbal representations. A mental image of a system is formed upon previous experiences as well as through concepts that emerge through articulating or visualizing the runnable model of the system. “Well-designed artifacts tell people what functions they perform and how they perform them… More important, through their design, well-designed artifacts also participate in the construction of human experiences surrounding how they (the artifacts themselves) can be used.” [13] System image can be communicated through functional architecture, semantics, commercial graphics, and manuals that explicate the system structure. What’s interesting in this case is how artifacts refer to each other or communicate systemic functionality and structure collaboratively.

User experience in cross media environments can be evaluated through how well it leverages synergic use of media. Synergic use means utilizing combinations of media to achieve a higher level of task support than what would be possible through the use of each. Synergic use practices require different kinds of affordances than the use of single media. Such as ones that lead users past the boundaries of one medium to reach across others. In cross media contexts user experience may be specified as either coherent or distributed. Distributed user experiences have been identified as a major hindrance to efficient utilization of cross media systems as they may lead to isolated perceptions of media and detract from their synergic use [26]. Coherent user experiences promote perceptions of physical, semantic, and functional unity of systems comprising multiple media. These perceptions may help users to identify relevant functionality and intended use of system components. They may also help narrowing down the conceptual gaps between media and encourage exploratory behaviors for discovering synergic use practices.

2.2 Supporting Synergic Interactions When human activity is supported by a range of technologies that supplement each other, the user may conduct a task using a sequence of devices, e.g., “starting to work on palmtop while being on the move; moving the task to a large screen in a meeting

room, and later continuing work on a laptop” [7]. In cross media systems, migration of tasks is supported through cross media usability and continuance, i.e., how well artifacts within a system support transferring user’s skills across media and support smooth transitions between them. According to Florins and Vanderdonkt [10], “users expect to be able to reuse their knowledge of a given version of the system when using the same service on another platform”. In crossmedial interactions the possibility to transfer users’ skills and experiences is a very powerful resource for supporting the use of cross media systems [7]. Quite understandably consistent use of terminology, symbols and graphics improves the usability of an artifact. However the principle of applying a consistent look and feel should be extended across artifacts in order to support interweaving of technology and synergic use [20]. Means for supporting synergic interactions through interaction design need to be better understood. The empirical study presented hereafter contributes to this mission by producing new insight on how users adopt and utilize a cross media system.

3. METHODOLOGY This research is exploratory and interpretative in nature. Our aim is to understand how users interact with a cross media system and how designable system characteristics influence the user experience process. We employed a qualitative, longitudinal multiple-case study approach where the unit of analysis was an individual user. We studied a total of 12 users over a period of three months in spring 2008. By taking all the cases together we were able to establish a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under study. The methods used for data collection and analysis included group interviews, participant diaries and observation as well as qualitative data analysis techniques, such as interpretative content analysis. [3],[28],[14]

Based on related research, practitioner insight and informal observations of users, we identified key issues for investigation that also focused the data collection. Participants were equipped with a crossmedia system, designed to support physical exercising. The system provides information on factors such as heart rate, calories, time and distance as well as tools for planning, monitoring and follow-up of fitness activities. The system includes a heart-rate monitoring wrist unit and a web service as well as data collection accessories such as the heart rate monitoring strap and a GPS (Global Positioning System) sensor. (See Figure 1.)

A formal recruitment procedure was carried out to select the participants. We received a total of 30 applications, based on which we selected 12 participants. In the selection process, we applied the strategy of purposeful intensity sampling [24]. An intensity sample consists of information-rich cases which represent diverse examples but not unusual cases. Using criteria provided in the manufacturer’s market study as guidance, we formed a sample exemplifying the product’s target users. The sample was intended to express diversity in terms of age, gender, professional background and training preferences. For example, if there were three applicants of the same age and gender, we selected the one that contributed additional diversity to the whole sample in terms of his/her professional background, experiences with technology or training preferences.

Applicants that expressed a risk regarding either the interpretation process (applicant being familiar to the researcher) or their ability to commit to the study (inability to fill out the application with care) were excluded in order to manage the risk of drop-outs and biased interpretations.

Data were drawn from four sets (total 48) of questionnaires, four semi-structured group-interviews, 12 contextual inquiries and three sets of diaries (total 36) that the participants filled in throughout the study. At the beginning of each group session the participants filled out questionnaires that were used for collecting background or phase-related data as well as data that would illustrate changes in user perceptions regarding the system at various points of the study. Each group session was followed by a three-week-long self-documentation period when the participants used the technology in their daily lives and filled in structured diaries. Applying the principles of contextual inquiry [4], each participant was also individually observed and interviewed during the study. The 1,5-hour inquiries were carried out either at a gym when the participant was performing a regular workout or by participating in their light run or jog. All interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Diary and questionnaire input were extracted to tables for analysis. For the interpretative content analysis the perspective of critical hermeneutics was adopted, in which “the researcher does not merely accept the self-understanding of participants, but seeks to critically evaluate the totality of understandings in a given situation” [19]. The iterative interpretative process was supported by observations and notes from the contextual inquiries.

3.1 Participants and System Context Participants were all exemplary of the pre-defined target group of the system. Four of the participants had no prior experience of heart rate monitoring technologies. Seven of the participants were female and five male. Participants were between ages 23 and 40. All participants reported training approximately three to five times a week with a history of regular exercise. The users’ most common exercising activities included jogging, cycling, and indoor exercise such as gym workouts or group exercise classes. The main reasons for using a heart rate monitor were to sustain a regular exercise regimen, train more efficiently, curiosity, having a tool for self-monitoring and to find extra motivation for exercising. Basic skills regarding every-day IT (PC/laptop, mobile phone, digital camera) were well established. Experience from the use of Internet for daily or utilitarian purposes (browsing, e-mail,

Figure 1: The fitness system: wrist unit, web service and data collection accessories

internet banking) was also generally common. The extent to which the users in our study had adopted the internet for networking or content contribution purposes (social media) was fairly low. Users also had relatively little experience from tasks that required synchronizing multiple media. Synchronization experiences were mainly limited to transferring photos from digital cameras or music to mp3 players. Few had synchronized their mobile phones with their computers.

The fitness system was designed to support the exercising activity as a whole, throughout the contexts of planning, exercise and follow-up (see Fig. 2). The characteristics of each task context justify the use of multiple media. For example the exercising context is particularly demanding in terms of the physical requirements for the medium supporting it. Whereas elaborative planning and follow-up tasks benefit from high-level visual presentation and a graphical user interface enabling direct manipulation.

Figure 2: The role of media across the training activity

Figure 2 illustrates the story behind the conceptual architecture of the system. In this study, the story above did not always match the users’ version and was sometimes even left untold. Reasons for these are discussed in the next section.

4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION This study highlights aspects that can be addressed through system design and critically influence the extent to which a cross media system is adopted and utilized. The fitness system in this case was taken into active use, however only partially. The heart rate monitor (wrist unit) was adopted close to its full extent. However, adoption of the web service was critically hindered. The main reason for majority of users adopting the heart rate monitor and ignoring or abandoning the web service were related to general task technology fit. However, there were also distinct system characteristics that had significant influence on use. The findings are organized as follows. First, we will summarize the structure of the user experience process observed in this study. Then we will discuss the outcomes of this process in light of task-technology fit and mental representations. After this we will discuss system characteristics that may have significantly influenced coherent user experience and through that, synergic interactions.

4.1 The User Experience Process The user experience process in this study covered a period of three months including phases from initial interactions to actual utilization of the system. We were able to identify three distinct phases that occurred within this process: 1) absorption (leading to adoption), 2) evaluation (leading to acceptance) and 3) settling (leading to utilization). (See Figure 3) The first phase in experiences with new technology is what we call the absorption phase. In this case the use of technology was voluntary and served personal purposes.

Figure 3: The user experience process

At the beginning users were very open, and enthusiastic about the technology, which promoted curiosity and exploratory behaviors. This made the absorption phase highly suitable for learning as the users were still willing to invest moderate effort into getting familiar with the technology. System qualities establishing learnability, such as ease of use and intuitiveness as well as qualities leveraging emotional appeal through aesthetics and style were very important. When successful, the absorption phase leads to adoption. Successful adoption means the initiated use of an IT artifact or artifacts within a cross media system.

After getting past the absorption phase and adopting IT artifacts, we found that the users gradually developed a more critical and evaluative view towards the technologies they were interacting with. A phase of elaborative use in which weighing task-technology-fit and cost-benefit ratios took on a stronger role, was identified – this phase is called the evaluation phase. It was found that in addition to being more critical, users would generally experience either getting bored of system feedback or becoming addicted to system functionality. The system’s ability to adapt to users preferences and actions is in a central role in facilitating addiction and boredom. This is also the phase where users generally came to conclusions regarding the system’s and its components’ fit with their personal goals and ways of carrying out their exercising tasks. Through the evaluation phase the system or its components are either accepted or abandoned.

If the evaluation phase is successful, it leads to acceptance of the adopted technology and towards a phase where the use of that technology is merged with the user’s primary activities. This phase is called the settling phase where the more persistent ways of using the technology are established. Successful settling leads to efficient utilization of the adopted and accepted features of the IT environment. In order to sustain utilization the system needs to evolve over time with users’ changing requirements. The phases described above are in line with findings from other studies, such as [5],[15]. The main difference is in the structure of phasing. Whereas other studies generally list five or more different phases, we list only three main phases: absorption, evaluation and settling. This is because we distinguish these phases from the transitional steps or outcomes that they may lead to, i.e., adoption, acceptance and utilization.

4.1.1 Multiple Media and Task-Technology Fit We identified two groups of users, habit-oriented and goal-oriented. The way the two groups viewed at and carried out their exercising activities was fundamentally different. The habit-oriented users would train one week at a time and their main motivation was to keep up a regular exercising regimen. Habit-oriented users did not generally plan ahead or document their exercising but enjoyed having exercising data on the heart rate monitor for quick and motivational follow-up. Majority of the participants in our study (eight out of 12) fell into this category of users. The goal-oriented users had a clear notion of why and how they exercised. Users with a long-term, performance-based goal (e.g., a marathon) generally dealt with larger amounts of

information and carried out elaborative analyses. These users also documented their exercising more rigorously with notebooks, training diaries and calendars. Their follow-up was analytical, i.e., they would use previous exercising data for planning future work-outs. These differences played a key role in how the users adopted the system. Users who exercised one week at a time would generally not adopt the web service. However, one habit-oriented user would adopt it for long term storage purposes and another one stated that she would have utilized it if the synergic use of the heart rate monitor and the web service was more actively supported. As she stated in the interviews:

U5: “If the wrist unit gave some sort of cues that it could also be used with the web service or that the web service was there, I might have realized that it exists and found use in it.”

This particular user was interested in obtaining a long-term goal to change her habit-oriented exercise regimen and the web service might have perhaps helped her in doing so. Users with goals requiring effort and long-term commitment perceived the web service more useful. They would use it for getting a specialized long-term training program (e.g., for running) and to follow up on their progress.

Many users felt that using the web service required extra effort and was time consuming. This was one of the main reasons why the habit-oriented often came to abandon it. Several participants pointed out explicitly in the group interviews that they are not willing to spend time online as it detracts from other activities (such as spending time with family, friends or exercising). As stated by one of the users in the group interviews: U2: “You don’t want to go online because that always

takes at least one and a half hours… That’s why the device itself [the heart rate monitor] is so much better, when you can just take it with you and you don’t have to really focus on it.”

The storyline, i.e., the assumed structure of the training activity, behind the conceptual architecture of the system was appropriate on a general level. All users planned their exercising, the habit oriented on a loose, weekly basis and the goal-oriented on a more elaborative long-term level, all users exercised and all of them carried out follow-up activities of some sort, whether it was short term (after a single workout) or longer term (progress over several weeks or months). However, the differences in the ways that users performed these tasks through their orientation and the meanings that they assigned to them eventually determined the use of different media within the system (see Figure 4). In this study the fact that the web service was not fully adopted in most cases was not critically detrimental to the success of the product as the heart rate monitor could very well be operated independently. Functionality that spanned across the task contexts was already implemented into the heart rate monitor, however, only to provide sufficient support for those, who did not have elaborative, long-term goals. The web service would be an essential part of the system for those, who needed tools to manage larger amounts of data and to carry out elaborative long term analysis. Users with long-term goals would more often adopt the web service and considered it to be useful for them.

Figure 4: Mapping users' orientation and use behavior

However, there were also users that would have benefited from the additional functionality provided by the web service, but failed to adopt it as the system did not actively communicate or support the synergic use of the heart rate monitor and the web service (see Figure 4).

4.1.2 Mental Representations Data was collected through inquiries, drawings and conceptual maps to explore how users gradually constructed a mental representation of the system – how the system image unfolded to the users. Most users did not weigh the media within the system equally. They regarded the heart rate monitor as the most important and the web application as an additional component with all of the accessories falling in between. Figure 5 demonstrates how some users depicted their thoughts on ‘heart rate monitoring technology’ at different points of the study. The mental representations generally corresponded with the users’ actual use behavior and their experiences regarding the phases through which they adopted and came to utilize the system. The correspondence of user’s interactive behavior and the images they drew implies that the mental representations interpreted together with other sources of data may provide significant explanatory power and help to identify critical points in the user experience process. The first drawings were made before the users saw the technology they were going to be using. Apart from the top-row sequence (user 1) the drawings at the beginning are not very technology oriented.

Figure 5: users' mental representations of heart rate

monitoring technology at different points of the study

After the first month (see the second column of drawings in Figure 5) the participants generally expressed a more detailed view of the system and after the third month the views were even more elaborate. Users’ perceptions of task technology fit are also fairly apparent in the pictures they drew. If we look at the top row sequence (user 1) we can see that when the user drew the second picture she was still enthusiastic about the web service. However as she realized (through the evaluation phase) that the service wasn’t much use for her, she depicted it as a supplementary component to the heart rate monitor. Whereas users two and three, whose drawings are depicted in the second and third-row sequences, grew to value the web service and gave significant emphasis to it in later phases. It is also apparent from Figure 4, that the system was adopted incrementally, i.e., the web service was only considered well after adopting the heart rate monitor. The user experience process was defined for a large part by the users’ initial orientation towards the primary activity (exercising). However, it was also found that there were cases in which users failed to utilize the system due to its weak support for synergic interactions.

4.2 Affordances for Synergic Interactions Synergic interactions may be promoted through coherent user experiences. Coherent user experiences enable users to perceive the system as a whole, reveal the roles of different media and find means for interoperability. Such experiences support users in employing media in synergistic combinations to produce an outcome that is greater than if they were used in isolation. Three issues were identified that may have had a significant impact on the user experience process in terms of its coherence. These are: 1) device-centered out of box experience, 2) incremental absorption and 3) conceptual gaps between media.

4.2.1 Device-Centered Out of Box Experience The way the system is communicated to the user at the very beginning through the out of box experience, i.e., when the user is first introduced with the system, plays a key role in how the user orients him/herself towards the system. For example the marketing materials that were presented to the users before introducing the system strongly emphasized the heart rate monitor. The users’ initial, heart rate monitor-centered, mindset may have detracted their curiosity from the web service. The system was communicated to the users through marketing images and manuals. These were device-centered in that they emphasized the heart rate monitor and excluded systemic views or descriptions (see Figure 6). The web service was mentioned as a feature of the heart rate monitor in the terms “Compatible with…”. Instead of being a part of the system for its own strengths, the web service was rather treated as an additional feature.

Figure 6: Device-centered communication of the system

This may have resulted in that users were not encouraged to explore the web service, as it was not perceived as an essential or even a visible part of the system. Also, most users very much relied on their existing mental representations and experiences of what the system could offer them and thus did not necessarily expect there to be more to the system than the heart rate monitor.

4.2.2 Incremental Absorption The system was absorbed incrementally. This means that the different components within the system were not absorbed at the same time but incrementally over time. The user experience process was dominated by the media that was adopted first. As ways to use and interact with the primary media had already been established, users were more resistant to add on another component or additional features. Most of the enthusiasm, openness and exploratory energy had been used up with the heart rate monitor. At the time users begun to get involved with the web service they were already settling with the heart rate monitor. This appeared to have an impact on their evaluation of the web service. The overall user experience process vs. the sub-processes regarding distinct media within the system do not always evolve in parallel. All users absorbed the heart rate monitor first and got acquainted with the web service only later, approximately after the first three weeks. As one of the users stated in the interviews:

U4: “It [the system] feels kind of scattered, as the different parts, the hear rate monitor, the GPS and all the web service were all packed separately. I didn’t really see the system as a whole in the beginning, and you have to search for bits and pieces of information separately for each part…”

If the components in the system are communicated as separate, emphasizing one in particular and with little information on their systemic use, users may easily abandon the ones that they do not perceive as central. In some cases this is quite understandable due to the fact that users do not always need all the available applications and functionality. However, in other cases it may also lead to users missing out on useful functionalities just because they would not know to look for them.

4.2.3 Conceptual Gaps Between Media Media within the system had been designed to function independently. In this case the independency of media worked well in the cases where users would not really need more than the heart rate monitor to support their activity. However, in cases where multiple media would have been needed, the isolatedness of media appeared to detract from their synergic use. There was little if any conceptual or functional cross media referencing. For example it was difficult to find help in the web service on how to synchronize the heart rate monitor with it. Also, the heart rate monitor did not refer to the web service in any explicit way. However, the primary medium as such was perceived positively. Participants found the heart rate monitor easy to use from the very start. The users’ experiences of operating basic mobile devices may have had a significant impact on the quick adoption of the wrist unit. However, the manufacturer is also well-known for the usability of its heart rate monitors. A part of this reputation can be traced to a long history, experience, and investments in user research and usability testing. Also, participants perceived the data transfer technology as rather intuitive and well instructed when they got around to it.

The gaps between media were not necessarily of technical but rather of conceptual nature. The fact that the wrist unit had little references to or cues of the web service, possibly weakened the perceived interconnectedness of the two media. For the habit-oriented the web service was just easy to forget as it wasn’t needed on a regular basis. Some users commented that the wrist unit could have reminded them of the web service every now and then or referred to it some way. This is something to consider when designing services that possess useful functionality that is not yet built into the user’s initial needs. How to introduce useful features of a system to users who do not initially look for them?

4.3 Design Responses and Future Research Based on the findings, we propose design responses that address 1) a systemic out of box experience, 2) crossmedial referencing and 3) explication of a holistic system image, to support coherent user experiences and provide affordances for synergic use. It is important to note that the following responses are not specifications or design patterns, but rather suggestions that may be further validated and explored through empirical research.

4.3.1 Systemic Out of Box Experience Incremental absorption of media within a system may lead to the overly dominant role of the first medium and to weakened curiosity towards other media at later stages of the overall user experience process. Constraining to a primary medium may also influence users perceptions of task-technology fit when they do not become aware of the possible ways of benefiting from synergic use of media or functionalities found outside the primary medium. Media is often adopted incrementally due to the fact that they are not required to be used as combinations. This is particularly the case with multi-vendor mash-ups and systems developed in distributed teams when developers are trying to secure the adoption of single media regardless of its role in the system.

By orchestrating a systemic out of box experience, all relevant system components and their interoperation could be introduced to the user at the very beginning of the overall user experience process. An example of a systemic out of box experience can be found in the case of the Apple iPod2. The iPod is a portable music player that is used together with a desktop application, the iTunes. iTunes helps to manage collections of music and provides access to an online music store. The very first thing that the user is guided to do when the iPod is taken out of its box, is to connect it to a laptop to charge and synchronize with the iTunes library. It would not be possible to initialize the iPod in any other way as it would have no battery or content given its physical out of box status. This is one way of orchestrating a systemic out of box experience. In addition to initializing the device, through this chain of initial interactions the user is pushed to explore the different media and to learn how they’re connected.

4.3.2 Crossmedial Referencing One of the media within a cross media system is often the primary one (e.g., one that is used more frequently than others). Secondary media may sometimes be forgotten about or used so rarely that their synergic use needs to be re-learned every time. In this study, media within the system did not actively refer to each other, which was in some cases perceived to hinder their synergic use.

2 http://www.apple.com/itunes/

A conceptual reference would be to include a picture of the heart rate monitor with a link to a synchronization wizard or instructions on the web service. Another example from Apple: when the iPod is plugged into the laptop, the iTunes displays a picture of it. This simple reference to the external medium is often enough to support the experience of synergy and interoperability as well as to provide a conceptual doorway between the media. A functional reference would be for example, if the heart rate monitor would remind the user to transfer his/her exercises to the web service when s/he he has recorded five new ones. Applying consistent terminology, interaction logic and graphics is also a form of crossmedial referencing. Through consistency and repetition, users may be able to associate experiences with one medium with the use of another.

4.3.3 Explicating a Holistic System Image By the end of the study, the user’s mental representations of the system were in most cases fairly accurate regarding the physical structure and roles of system components. In this case the users formed their representations based on previous experiences, marketing images, manuals and the product itself. The way the different media and functionality were presented did not, however, communicate a holistic system image but rather focused on individual media. For example there were multiple user manuals to the system, one for the heart rate monitor, one for the GPS and the web service had its own help functionality. Instructions, e.g., in the heart rate monitor’s manual mainly covered tasks that were relevant to the exercising context. Whereas tasks such as synchronizing the heart rate monitor with the web service were only briefly addressed. The web service and data transfer applications were referred to for additional instructions. By explicating the system as a whole through images, task-centered (not device-centered) manuals and through the system’s functional structure may help users find relevant functionality and realize the opportunities and boundaries of the system. Providing explicit support for users’ mental representations may also reduce the risk of incomplete or misguided conceptions that can be very persistent throughout further use.

There are limitations to this research that should be noted. The findings cannot be generalized as such beyond the particular system and users that were under investigation. With the selected approach it is not possible to conclude universal patterns or dependencies that would explain the adoption and use of cross media systems. In qualitative research results are always subjective despite the results being based on a thorough analysis of video and written material. However the findings of this study highlight phenomena and system characteristics that may be identified also in cases other than the one presented here.

The case being exemplary of a cross media environment provides an appropriate reference point for future research. An important topic for further study is how the design responses presented above function in practice as well as in a variety of system settings. Different cross media systems and their conceptual architectures should also be analytically studied as the distinct, underlying characteristics of cross media (such as the process through which it was designed or how it channels content) defines the central challenges for its utilization.

5. CONCLUSION We conducted a qualitative, longitudinal field study exploring the adoption and utilization of a fitness support system, that was extended across a mobile device (a heart rate monitor) and a web service. The system was adopted partially with many users abandoning the web service. We found that users’ use behavior corresponded with their mental representations of the system. These representations as well as the degree to which users adopted and utilized the technologies was influenced by 1) how well the different media fitted the users primary activity and goals, and 2) how well coherent user experiences and affordances to synergic interactions were supported. The heart rate monitor as well as the web service served their individual purposes well. However, the system did not actively – through the out of box experience, crossmedial referencing and conceptual architecture– promote synergic interactions and utilization of the system. Initial design responses were presented addressing these issues. Further research is needed in order to understand how the use of cross media could be supported through specific functionalities and in various contextual settings.

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to Marja Harjumaa for her contribution to the study, Esa Juusola for assistance, Tanja Kalliojärvi, Sirpa Hope, Petteri Siekkinen, Svante Kärkkäinen and Harri Oinas-Kukkonen for their support, and Polar Electro oy and SATS Oulu fitness centers for co-operation.

7. REFERENCES [1] Aneja, S. & Lim, Y-K. 2007. Designing for Totality of

Mobile and Non-Mobile Interaction: A Case Study. Ext. Abstracts CHI 2007, 1685-1690.

[2] Banavar, G. and Bernstein, A. 2002. Software Infrastructure and Design Challenges for Ubiquitous Computing Applications. Communications of the ACM 45(12), 92-96.

[3] Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., and Mead, M. 1987. The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly (September 1987), 369-386.

[4] Beyer, H. and Holzblatt, K. 1998. Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco. Academic Press.

[5] Bitner, M., Brown S. and Meuter. M. 2000. Technology Infusion in Service Encounters. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(1).

[6] Boumans, J. 2004. Cross Media: E-content report 8. Published in a series of E-Content Reports by ACTeN (http://www.acten.net)

[7] Brodersen, C., Bødker, S. and Nylandsted Klokmose, C. 2007. Quality of Learning in Ubiquitous Interaction. Proc of the ECCE 2007 Conference, London, UK.

[8] Edwards, K. W., Newman, M. W., and Sedivy, J. Z. 2001. Building the Ubiquitous Computing User Experience. Ext. Abstracts CHI 2001, ACM Press, 501-502.

[9] Filgueiras, L., Correa, D., Oliveira Neto, J. and Facis, R. 2008. X-gov planning: how to apply cross media to government services. ICDS 2008, IEEE, 140-145.

[10] Florins, M. and Vanderdonckt J. 2004. Graceful Degradation of User Interfaces as a Design Method for Multiplaform Systems. Proceedings of the IUI’04, Madeira, Portugal

[11] Forlizzi, J. & Ford, S. 2000. The Building Blocks of Experience: An Early Framework for Interaction Designers. Proc. DIS 2000. ACM Press, 419-423.

[12] Goodhue, D. and Thompson, R. 1995. Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance. MIS Quarterly 19(2) 213-236.

[13] Jonassen, D. & Henning, P. 1996. Knowledge in the Head and Knowledge in the World. Proc. of the 1996 International Conference on Learning Sciences. 433-438.

[14] Klein, H. & Myers, M. 1999. A Set of Principles for Conducting And Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly 23(1) 67-88.

[15] Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. 2001. Principles of Marketing. New York: Prentice Hall.

[16] Laudon, K.C and Laudon, J.P. 1998. Management Information Systems, Prentice-Hall, Fifth edition.

[17] Luyten, K., Vandervelpen, C., and Coninx, K. 2005. Task Modelling for Ambient Intelligent Environments: Design Support for Situated Task Executions. Proc. TAMODIA ’05, ACM Press, 87-94.

[18] Mahlke, S. 2005. Understanding Users’ Experience of Interaction. Proc. Conf. European Association of cognitive ergonomics (EACE '05), University of Athens 251-254.

[19] Myers M.D. 1994. A Disaster for Everyone to See: an Interpretive Analysis of a Failed IS Project. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 4, 4, 185-201.

[20] Nielsen, J. 1989. Coordinating User Interfaces for Consistency. Neuauflage 2002 edn. The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies. San Francisco, CA, USA

[21] Nilsson, M. 2004. Advancements and Trends in Medical Case-Based Reasoning: An Overview of Systems and System Development. Proc. International FLAIRS Conference. Miami, USA, 178-183.

[22] Norman, D. 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books

[23] Oulasvirta, A. 2008. When Users “Do” the Ubicomp. Interactions. 15(2). March and April 2008. ACM, New York.

[24] Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd edition, Sage Publications, Newbury Park

[25] Roto, V. 2006. Web Browsing on Mobile Phones – Characteristics of User Experience. Doctoral Dissertation. TKK Dissertations 49. Helsinki University of Technology.

[26] Segerståhl, K. & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. 2007. Distributed User Experience in Persuasive Technology Environments. In: Y. de Kort et al. (Eds.), Lecture notes in Computer Science 4744, Persuasive 2007, Springer-Verlag.

[27] Wiberg, C., Jegers, K., Bodén, J. 2007 Cross Media Interaction Design. Presented at the workshop ‘HCI and New Media Arts: Methodology and Evaluation’ at CHI 2007

[28] Yin, R. 2003. The Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Third Edition. Applied Social Research Methods Series. Vol. 5. Sage Publications Inc.