skip to main content
research-article

Privacy Care: A Tangible Interaction Framework for Privacy Management

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 February 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The emergence of ubiquitous computing (UbiComp) environments has increased the risk of undesired access to individuals’ physical space or their information, anytime and anywhere, raising potentially serious privacy concerns. Individuals lack awareness and control of the vulnerabilities in everyday contexts and need support and care in regulating disclosures to their physical and digital selves. Existing GUI-based solutions, however, often feel physically interruptive, socially disruptive, time-consuming and cumbersome. To address such challenges, we investigate the user interaction experience and discuss the need for more tangible and embodied interactions for effective and seamless natural privacy management in everyday UbiComp settings. We propose the Privacy Care interaction framework, which is rooted in the literature of privacy management and tangible computing. Keeping users at the center, Awareness and Control are established as the core parts of our framework. This is supported with three interrelated interaction tenets: Direct, Ready-to-Hand, and Contextual. Direct refers to intuitiveness through metaphor usage. Ready-to-Hand supports granularity, non-intrusiveness, and ad hoc management, through periphery-to-center style attention transitions. Contextual supports customization through modularity and configurability. Together, they aim to provide experience of an embodied privacy care with varied interactions that are calming and yet actively empowering. The framework provides designers of such care with a basis to refer to, to generate effective tangible tools for privacy management in everyday settings.

Through five semi-structured focus groups, we explore the privacy challenges faced by a sample set of 15 older adults (aged 60+) across their cyber-physical-social spaces. The results show conformity to our framework, demonstrating the relevance of the facets of the framework to the design of privacy management tools in everyday UbiComp contexts.

References

  1. Irwin Altman. 1975. The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, and crowding. ERIC (1975), 237. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED131515.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Irwin Altman. 1976. Privacy: A conceptual analysis. Environ. Behav. 8, 1 (1976), 7--29. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/001391657600800102Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. S. Saskia Bakker. 2013. Design for peripheral interaction. PhD Thesis. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Department of Industrial Design, Eindhoven. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.6100/IR754544Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Saskia Bakker, Elise van den Hoven, and Berry Eggen. 2015. Peripheral interaction: Characteristics and considerations. Pers. Ubiq. Comput. 19, 1 (2015), 239--254. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0775-2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Rebecca Balebako, Jaeyeon Jung, Wei Lu, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Carolyn Nguyen. 2013. Little brothers watching you: Raising awareness of data leaks on smartphones. In Proceedings of the 9th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. ACM, 12. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2501616.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Julia Barrett and Stuart Kirk. 2000. Running focus groups with elderly and disabled elderly participants. Appl. Ergon. 31, 6 (2000), 621--629. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687000000314.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Ayah Bdeir. 2006. Random search. Retrieved from http://ayahbdeir.com/work/random-search/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. R. Beckwith. 2003. Designing for ubiquity: the perception of privacy. IEEE Pervas. Comput. 2, 2 (2003), 40--46. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2003.1203752Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Victoria Bellotti and Abigail Sellen. 1993. Design for privacy in ubiquitous computing environments. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW’93), Giorgio de Michelis, Carla Simone, and Kjeld Schmidt (Eds.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 77--92. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2094-4_6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Michael Boyle and Saul Greenberg. 2005. The language of privacy: Learning from video media space analysis and design. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 12, 2 (2005), 328--370. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1067860.1067868Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Christian Bunnig and Clemens H. Cap. 2009. Ad hoc privacy management in ubiquitous computing environments. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Advances in Human-oriented and Personalized Mechanisms, Technologies, and Services. IEEE, 85--90. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/CENTRIC.2009.20Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. J. K. Burgoon, R. Parrott, B. A. Le Poire, D. L. Kelley, J. B. Walther, and D. Perry. 1989. Maintaining and restoring privacy through communication in different types of relationships. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 6, 2 (1989), 131--158. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/026540758900600201Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Sangmi Chai, H. R. Rao, S. Bagchi-Sen, and S. Upadhyaya. 2008. “Wired” senior citizens and online information policy. In Proceedings of the tenth International Conference on Living, Working and Learning Beyond. De Montfort University, Italy, 101. Retrieved from shorturl.at/hEGJ2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. R. Chakraborty, H. R. Rao, and S. J. Uphadhyahy. 2010. BANDES: an adaptive decision support system for protecting online privacy for senior citizen centers. In Proceedings of the 4th Pre-ICIS Workshop on Information Security 8 Privacy (WISP’10) - The Official Annual Workshop of Association of Information Systems SIG/SEC. Retrieved from http://www.security-conference.org/sigsec/WISP2009papers/4.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Jessica Colnago and Hélio Guardia. 2016. How to inform privacy agents on preferred level of user control? In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct. ACM Press, 1542--1547.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Sunny Consolvo, Ian E. Smith, Tara Matthews, Anthony LaMarca, Jason Tabert, and Pauline Powledge. 2005. Location disclosure to social relations: Why, when, 8 what people want to share. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 10. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1054972.1054985Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Sara J. Czaja and Chin Chin Lee. 2007. The impact of aging on access to technology. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 5, 4 (2007), 341--349. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-006-0060-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Paul Dourish. 2001. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. The MIT Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7221.001.0001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Paul Dunphy, John Vines, Lizzie Coles-Kemp, Rachel Clarke, Vasilis Vlachokyriakos, Peter Wright, John McCarthy, and Patrick Olivier. 2014. Understanding the experience-centeredness of privacy and security technologies. In Proceedings of the New Security Paradigms Workshop. ACM Press, 83--94. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2683467.2683475Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Darren Edge and Alan F. Blackwell. 2009. Peripheral tangible interaction by analytic design. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction. ACM Press, 69. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1517664.1517687Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Berry Eggen, Koert van Mensvoort, David Menting, Emar Vegt, Wouter Widdershoven, and Rob Zimmermann. Soundscapes at workspace zero – Design explorations into the use of sound in a shared environment. Workshop Secur. Priv. Issues Mob. Phone Use (2008), 8. Retrieved from shorturl.at/gJSWY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Isioma Elueze and Anabel Quan-Haase. 2018. Privacy attitudes and concerns in the digital lives of older adults: Westin's privacy attitude typology revisited. ArXiv Prepr. ArXiv180105047 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomas Erickson and Wendy A. Kellogg. 2000. Social translucence: An approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM Trans. Comput.-hum. Interact. 7, 1 (2000), 59--83. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/344949.345004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Stu Favilla and Sonja Pedell. 2013. Touch screen ensemble music: Collaborative interaction for older people with dementia. ACM Press, 481--484. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2541016.2541088Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Adrienne Porter Felt, Elizabeth Ha, Serge Egelman, Ariel Haney, Erika Chin, and David Wagner. 2012. Android permissions: User attention, comprehension, and behavior. In Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. ACM, 3. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2335360.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Alois Ferscha, Manfred Hechinger, Rene Mayrhofer, Marcos dos Santos Rocha, Marquart Franz, and Roy Oberhauser. 2004. Digital aura. (2004). Retrieved from http://pervasive2004.soft.uni-linz.ac.at/Research/Publications/_Documents/DigitalAura-ferscha2004.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Susan L. Gatto and Sunghee H. Tak. 2008. Computer, internet, and e-mail use among older adults: Benefits and barriers. Educ. Gerontol. 34, 9 (2008), 800--811. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270802243697Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. James J. Gibson. 2014. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition. Psychology Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Saul Greenberg and Hideaki Kuzuoka. 1999. Using digital but physical surrogates to mediate awareness, communication and privacy in media spaces. Pers. Technol. 3, 4 (1999), 182--198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Doris Hausen and Andreas Butz. Extending Interaction to the Periphery. Proc. Workshop Embodied Interact. Theory Pract. HCI Conjunction 29th ACM Int. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. CHI 2011 (2011), 5. Retrieved from http://www.medien.ifi.lmu.de/forschung/publikationen/detail.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin Heidegger. 1996. Being and Time: A Translation of Sein und Zeit. SUNY Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Eva Hornecker and Jacob Buur. 2006. Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 437--446. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1124772.1124838.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Scott E. Hudson, Chris Harrison, Beverly L. Harrison, and Anthony LaMarca. 2010. Whack gestures: Inexact and inattentive interaction with mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI’10). ACM Press, Cambridge, MA, 109. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1709886.1709906Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Jörn Hurtienne and Johann Habakuk Israel. 2007. Image schemas and their metaphorical extensions: intuitive patterns for tangible interaction. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction. ACM, 127--134. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1226969.1226996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Jörn Hurtienne, Christian Stößel, Christine Sturm, Alexander Maus, Matthias Rötting, Patrick Langdon, and John Clarkson. 2010. Physical gestures for abstract concepts: Inclusive design with primary metaphors. Interact. Comput. 22, 6 (2010), 475--484. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.08.009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Hiroshi Ishii. 2008. Tangible bits: Beyond pixels. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction. ACM, 15--25. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1347392.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Hiroshi Ishii and Brygg Ullmer. 1997. Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 234--241. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/258549.258715.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Johann H. Israel, Jorn Hurtienne, Anna E. Pohlmeyer, Carsten Mohs, Martin C. Kindsmuller, and Anja Naumann. 2009. On intuitive use, physicality and tangible user interfaces. Int. J. Arts Technol. 2, 4 (2009), 348. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1504/IJART.2009.029240Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Thomas René Iversen and Suhas Govind Joshi. 2015. Exploring spatial interaction in assistive technology through prototyping. Procedia Manuf. 3 (2015), 158--165. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.121Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Lukasz Jedrzejczyk. 2012. Supporting Location Privacy Management through Feedback and Control. PhD Thesis. The Open University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Lukasz Jedrzejczyk, Blaine A. Price, Arosha Bandara, and Bashar Nuseibeh. 2010. Privacy-shake: A haptic interface for managing privacy settings in mobile location sharing applications. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. ACM, 411. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1851690.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Mark Johnson. 2013. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Suhas Govind Joshi and Heidi Bråthen. 2016. Lowering the threshold: reconnecting elderly users with assistive technology through tangible interfaces. Springer, 52--63. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-39943-0_6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Daniel Kahneman. 1973. Attention and Effort. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.398.52858rep=rep18type=pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Apu Kapadia, Tristan Henderson, Jeffrey J. Fielding, and David Kotz. 2007. Virtual walls: Protecting digital privacy in pervasive environments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Pervasive Computing. Springer, 162--179. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-540-72037-9_10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Predrag Klasnja, Sunny Consolvo, Jaeyeon Jung, Benjamin M. Greenstein, Louis LeGrand, Pauline Powledge, and David Wetherall. “When I am on Wi-Fi, I am Fearless”: Privacy Concerns 8 Practices in Everyday Wi-Fi Use. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 10. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1518701.1519004Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Bastian Könings. 2015. User-centered Awareness and Control of Privacy in Ubiquitous Computing. PhD Dissertation. Universität Ulm. Retrieved from https://oparu.uni-ulm.de/xmlui/handle/123456789/3267.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Richard A. Krueger and Mary Anne Casey. 2014. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Sage Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Ponnurangam Kumaraguru and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2005. Privacy indexes: a survey of Westin's studies. Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Institute for Software Research International. Retrieved from http://repository.cmu.edu/isr/856/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Marc Langheinrich. 2002. Privacy invasions in ubiquitous computing. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Socially Informed Design of Privacy-enhancing Solutions in Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp’02). Citeseer. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.6.67438rep=rep18type=pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Scott Lederer. 2003. Designing Disclosure: Interactive Personal Privacy at the Dawn of Ubiquitous Computing. Unpublished Master's Thesis. University of CalifIfornia, Berkeley. Retrieved from Eduprojectsiopublicationsprivacy-Lederer-Msreport-101-No-Append.Pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Scott Lederer, Anind K Dey, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2002. A Conceptual Model and a Metaphor of Everyday Privacy in Ubiquitous Computing Environments. Computer Science Division, University of California. Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~io/publications/old-pubs/privacy-techreport02.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Jaakko T. Lehikoinen, Juha Lehikoinen, and Pertti Huuskonen. 2008. Understanding privacy regulation in UbiComp interactions. Pers. Ubiq. Comput. 12, 8 (2008), 543--553. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-007-0163-2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Saija Lemmelä, Akos Vetek, Kaj Mäkelä, and Dari Trendafilov. 2008. Designing and evaluating multimodal interaction for mobile contexts. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (IMCI’08). ACM Press, 265. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1452392.1452447Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Jialiu Lin, Shahriyar Amini, Jason I. Hong, Norman Sadeh, Janne Lindqvist, and Joy Zhang. 2012. Expectation and purpose: understanding users' mental models of mobile app privacy through crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. ACM, 501--510. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2370216.2370290Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Christian Loclair, Sean Gustafson, and Patrick Baudisch. 2010. PinchWatch: A Wearable Device for One-Handed Microinteractions. In Proc. MobileHCI. ACM, 4. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.453.60528rep=rep18type=pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Wiebke Maaß. 2011. The elderly and the Internet: How senior citizens deal with online privacy. In Privacy Online. Springer, 235--249. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-21521-6_17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Paul P. Maglio and Christopher S. Campbell. 2000. Tradeoffs in displaying peripheral information. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI'00. ACM Press, The Hague, The Netherlands, 241--248. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/332040.332438Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. John McCarthy and Peter Wright. 2010. The critical potential of experience in experience-centered design. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’10). ACM Press, 6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Vikram Mehta. 2020. Privacy Care—Study repository. Retrieved from https://github.com/PrivacyCare/Study.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Vikram Mehta, Arosha K. Bandara, Blaine A. Price, and Bashar Nuseibeh. 2016. Privacy itch and scratch: On body privacy warnings and controls. In Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 2417--2424. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892475Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Anne-Sophie Melenhorst, Arthur D. Fisk, Elizabeth D. Mynatt, and Wendy A. Rogers. 2004. Potential intrusiveness of aware home technology: Perceptions of older adults. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Meeting. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA, 266--270. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/154193120404800209.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Lilian Genaro Motti, Nadine Vigouroux, and Philippe Gorce. 2013. Interaction techniques for older adults using touchscreen devices: a literature review. In Proceedings of the 25th ICME conference francophone on l'Interaction Homme-Machine - IHM'13. ACM Press, Talence, France, 125--134. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2534903.2534920Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. David H. Nguyen and Elizabeth D. Mynatt. 2002. Privacy Mirrors: Understanding and Shaping Socio-technical Ubiquitous Computing Systems. Georgia Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1853/3268.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Fernando Olivera, Manuel García-Herranz, Pablo A. Haya, and Pablo Llinás. 2011. Do not disturb: Physical interfaces for parallel peripheral interactions. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human-computer Interaction (INTERACT’11). Springer Berlin, 479--486. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-23771-3_36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Leysia Palen and Paul Dourish. Unpacking “privacy” for a networked world. 8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Robert Pastel, Charles Wallace, and Jesse Heines. 2007. RFID Cards: A New Deal for Elderly Accessibility. In Universal Acess in Human Computer Interaction. Coping with Diversity, Constantine Stephanidis (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 990--999. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73279-2_111Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. James Ponsoldt. 2017. The Circle. Retrieved from http://thecircle.movie.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Florian Schaub and Pascal Knierim. 2016. Drone-based Privacy Interfaces: Opportunities and Challenges. In Twelfth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), 4. Retrieved from https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/soups2016/wfpn16-paper_schaub.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Roman Schlegel, Apu Kapadia, and Adam J. Lee. 2011. Eyeing your exposure: quantifying and controlling information sharing for improved privacy. In Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS). ACM Press, 1. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2078827.2078846Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Albrecht Schmidt, Michael Beigl, and Hans-W. Gellersen. 1999. There is more to context than location. Comput. Graph. 23, 6 (1999), 893--901. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009784939900120X.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Elisabeth Schröder-Butterfill and Ruly Marianti. 2006. A framework for understanding old-age vulnerabilities. Ageing Soc. 26, 01 (2006), 9--35. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X05004423Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. Orit Shaer. 2009. Tangible user interfaces: Past, present, and future directions. Found. Trends® Human–comput. Interact. 3, 1--2 (2009), 1--137. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000026Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Ben Shneiderman. 1993. 1.1 direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages. Sparks Innov. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 17 (1993), 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Carolyn M. Shrewsbury. 2002. Information technology issues in an era of greater state responsibilities: Policy concerns for seniors. J. Aging Soc. Policy 14, 3–4 (2002), 195--209. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J031v14n03_11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Andrew Sixsmith. 1986. Independence and home in later life. In Dependency and Interdependency in Old Age: Theoretical Perspectives and Policy Alternatives. Croom Helm London, 338--347.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Wolfgang Spreicer. 2011. Tangible interfaces as a chance for higher technology acceptance by the elderly. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies. ACM, 311--316. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2023607.2023660.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. United Nations. 2017. World population ageing, 2017 highlights. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WPA2017_Highlights.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Emanuel Vonach, Georg Gerstweiler, and Hannes Kaufmann. 2014. ACTO: A Modular Actuated Tangible User Interface Object. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces - ITS'14. ACM Press, Dresden, Germany, 259--268. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2669485.2669522Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Wei Wang, Lin Yang, and Qian Zhang. 2016. Touch-and-guard: secure pairing through hand resonance. ACM Press, 670--681. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2971648.2971688Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Mark Weiser and John Seely Brown. 1996. Designing Calm Technology. PowerGrid J. 1, (1996), 5. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.135.97888rep=rep18type=pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Stephan A. G. Wensveen, Johan Partomo Djajadiningrat, and C. J. Overbeeke. 2004. Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques. ACM, 177--184. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1013115.1013140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Christopher D. Wickens. 2008. Multiple Resources and Mental Workload. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 50, 3 (June 2008), 449--455. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288394Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Peter Wright and John McCarthy. 2010. Experience-centered design: designers, users, and communities in dialogue. Synth. Lect. Hum.-Centered Inform. 3, 1 (2010), 1--123. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2200/S00229ED1V01Y201003HCI009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  85. Christina Yamagata, Jean F. Coppola, Marc Kowtko, and Shannon Joyce. 2013. Mobile app development and usability research to help dementia and Alzheimer patients. IEEE, 1--6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/LISAT.2013.6578252Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI'07. ACM Press, San Jose, California, USA, 493--502. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. Tomasz Zukowski and Irwin Brown. 2007. Examining the influence of demographic factors on internet users' information privacy concerns. In Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries - SAICSIT'07. ACM Press, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, 197--204. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1292491.1292514Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Privacy Care: A Tangible Interaction Framework for Privacy Management

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
      ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 21, Issue 1
      Visions Paper, Regular Papers, SI: Blockchain in E-Commerce, and SI: Human-Centered Security, Privacy, and Trust in the Internet of Things
      February 2021
      534 pages
      ISSN:1533-5399
      EISSN:1557-6051
      DOI:10.1145/3441681
      • Editor:
      • Ling Liu
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 February 2021
      • Accepted: 1 October 2020
      • Revised: 1 September 2020
      • Received: 1 June 2020
      Published in toit Volume 21, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!