X hits on this document





67 / 100

9). These dimensions are obtained from the analysis of prior literature, including Agre [18], Lessig [199], and Agre and Rotenberg [17]. Privacy issues located in different positions of the space will have different characteristics and typical design solutions will be different. Unfortunately, Lederer et al. do not describe what design solutions should be used for applications in various locations of this analytical space. Thus, Lederer et al.’s framework is a good candidate for a privacy vocabulary and as a descriptive model, but currently does not necessarily help as an aid to design.

In addition to general models, constrained models exist for specific applications. Adams presents a model to analyze perceived infringements of privacy in multimedia communication systems [15]. Through several user evaluations, she identified three factors that influence people’s perceptions of these systems: information sensitivity, i.e., how private a user considered a piece of information; information receiver, i.e., who the person receiving the information was; and information usage, i.e., how the information will be used.

Boyle and Greenberg define a language for privacy in video media spaces, i.e., networked teleconferencing and awareness applications using digital video and audio feeds. Boyle and Greenberg provide a comprehensive summary of research on privacy in media spaces [50]. They claim that in these applications, designers must consider at least the following privacy issues:

Deliberate privacy abuses

Inadvertent privacy violations

Users’ and nonusers’ apprehensiveness about technology

Boyle and Greenberg also propose deconstructing the far-reaching concept of privacy into three aspects: solitude (“control over one’s interpersonal interactions,” akin our definition personal privacy), confidentiality (“control over other’s access to information about oneself,” i.e. informational self-determination), and autonomy (“control over the observable manifestations of the self,” also related to an ontological concept of personal privacy).14 However, Boyle and Greenberg observe that that there is still insufficient knowledge about the users of this technology to draft effective guidelines. Even worse, the authors note that the very analytic tools currently employed are still inadequate for mapping system functions (e.g. “open a communication channel”) to individual preferences and actions.

Conclusions on Modeling Frameworks

Patterns and guidelines are similar in many respects because they provide a standard set of typical solutions to the designer and are popular due to their relatively simple structure and ease-of-use. For well-established domains and technologies these can be very useful. However, it becomes very difficult to apply them when the scope and level of generality of the guideline do not match with the design task.

14 Quotes from Boyle and Greenberg 50.Boyle, M. and S. Greenberg, The language of privacy: Learning from video media space analysis and design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 2005. 12(2)..

end-user-privacy-in-human-computer-interaction-v57.docPage 67 of 85

Document info
Document views105
Page views105
Page last viewedFri Oct 21 22:52:26 UTC 2016