2011

Location Based Services: A Literature Review

Mateja Vidakovid
NHTV UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES

Graduation Report

24. May 2011

Location Based Services: A literature review.

Mateja Vidakovic
Student at the NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences, International Media and Entertainment Management. Specialized in Production.
1

ABSTRACT/MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
With the constant evolution of technology, involving smartphones and location tracking technologies, Location Based Services have been garnering attention in the research community, due to their predicted growth potential and the opportunities for development of various other technologies, as well as lifestyle improvements. The research conducted on Location Based Services has been in abundance since the early 2000s and even prior to that, but only recent research has been able to stay in line with the speed of evolution of said technologies. Novel ways of utilizing Location Based Services have been suggested, and there has been further insight into the context and ubiquity of such services in the first place. This literature review serves as a guide to any Location Based Researcher as it presents a sample of the state of current Location Based Service research. The review was motivated by the need to provide groundwork for research in the NHTV University MediaLab, and inform researchers on the results and research set ups that prior research has already set up and obtained. In this paper some basic information on Location Based Services, the state of Location Base Service research and the technologies behind them is given. This will be followed by the core of this thesis, which is consisted of observations on different aspects of Location Based Service research that were garnered through reviewing a select number of research papers. Each observation features aggregation of data, as well as the researchers opinion on that specific category of research. Finally, the conclusion and discussion features suggestions on future research and debate on the findings and insight gathered by writing this thesis, as well as a personal view.

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT/MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 6 1. On researching Location Based Services for future application ........................................................... 6 2. On Location Based Services .................................................................................................................. 6 2a. Location Based Services and adoption of Location Based Services ................................................ 6 2b. Technologies behind Location Based Services ................................................................................ 9 2c. Research in Location Based Services ............................................................................................. 10 METHOD...................................................................................................................................................... 11 Research Questions ................................................................................................................................ 11 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Data Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 14 OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Observation 1: Technologies Used ......................................................................................................... 15 1a. Location family values: A field trial of the whereabouts clock ..................................................... 17 1b. Control, deception and communication: Evaluating the deployment of a location enhanced messaging service ............................................................................................................................... 18 1c. From Awareness to Repartee: Sharing Location within Social Groups ......................................... 20 1d. Whos viewed you: the impact of feedback in a mobile location-sharing application ................ 21 1e. Privacy in location-aware computing environments .................................................................... 22 1f. Location Disclosure to Social Relations: Why, When, & What People Want to Share .................. 22 1g. Wayfinding and art viewing by users of a mobile system and a guidebook ................................. 23 1h. Location Based Services: Evaluating user perceptions of location-tracking and locationawareness services. ............................................................................................................................ 23 1i. A Space-Identifying Ubiquitous Infrastructure and its Application for a Tour-Guiding Service .... 24 Observation 2: Types of research ........................................................................................................... 25 2a. Wayfinding and art viewing by users of a mobile system and a guidebook ................................. 26 2b. Control, deception and communication: Evaluating the deployment of a location enhanced messaging service. .............................................................................................................................. 26 2c. Whos viewed you: the impact of feedback in a mobile location-sharing application ................ 27 2d. Privacy in location-aware computing environments .................................................................... 27 3

2e. Location Disclosure to Social Relations: Why, When, & What People Want to Share ................. 27 2f. Location family values: A field trial of the whereabouts clock ..................................................... 28 2g. From Awareness to Repartee: Sharing Location within Social Groups ......................................... 28 2h. Location Based Services: Evaluating user perceptions of location-tracking and locationawareness services. ............................................................................................................................ 28 2i. A Space-Identifying Ubiquitous Infrastructure and its Application for a Tour-Guiding Service .... 29 Observation 3: Set up of research .......................................................................................................... 29 3a. Control, deception and communication: Evaluating the deployment of a location enhanced messaging service ............................................................................................................................... 31 3b. Location family values: A field trial of the whereabouts clock .................................................... 32 3c. Whos viewed you: the impact of feedback in a mobile location-sharing application ................ 33 3d. From Awareness to Repartee: Sharing Location within Social Groups......................................... 33 3e. Privacy in location-aware computing environments .................................................................... 34 3f. Location Based Services : Evaluating user perceptions of location-tracking and locationawareness services. ............................................................................................................................ 35 3g. Location Disclosure to Social Relations: Why, When, & What People Want to Share ................. 35 3h. Wayfinding and art viewing by users of a mobile system and a guidebook................................. 36 3i. . A Space-Identifying Ubiquitous Infrastructure and its Application for a Tour-Guiding Service .. 37 Observation 4: Research results ............................................................................................................. 37 4a. Control, deception and communication: Evaluating the deployment of a location enhanced messaging service ............................................................................................................................... 38 4b. Location family values: A field trial of the whereabouts clock .................................................... 39 4c. Whos viewed you: the impact of feedback in a mobile location-sharing application ................ 40 4d. From Awareness to Repartee: Sharing Location within Social Groups......................................... 42 4e. Privacy in location-aware computing environments .................................................................... 42 4f. Location Based Services : Evaluating user perceptions of location-tracking and locationawareness services. ............................................................................................................................ 44 4g. Location Disclosure to Social Relations: Why, When, & What People Want to Share ................. 45 4h. Wayfinding and art viewing by users of a mobile system and a guidebook................................. 46 4i A Space-Identifying Ubiquitous Infrastructure and its Application for a Tour-Guiding Service ..... 47 Observation 5: Remarks on future research and the future of said technology .................................... 49 5a.Control, deception and communication: Evaluating the deployment of a location enhanced messaging service ............................................................................................................................... 50 4

5b. Location family values: A field trial of the whereabouts clock ..................................................... 50 5c. Whos viewed you: the impact of feedback in a mobile location-sharing application ................ 50 5d. From Awareness to Repartee: Sharing Location within Social Groups......................................... 51 5e. Privacy in location-aware computing environments .................................................................... 51 5f. Location Based Services : Evaluating user perceptions of location-tracking and locationawareness services. ............................................................................................................................ 51 5g. Location Disclosure to Social Relations: Why, When, & What People Want to Share ................. 52 5h. Wayfinding and art viewing by users of a mobile system and a guidebook................................. 52 5i. A Space-Identifying Ubiquitous Infrastructure and its Application for a Tour-Guiding Service ... 52 Observation, additional : Location Based Services best practices .......................................................... 53 CONCLUSION & DISCUSSIONS..................................................................................................................... 54 5a. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 54 5b Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 56 1. Reflections of this project from a personal viewpoint .................................................................... 56 2. Limitations....................................................................................................................................... 56 5c.Refferences ........................................................................................................................................ 57 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................... 61

INTRODUCTION
1. On researching Location Based Services for future application

The purpose of this paper is to conduct a literature review on Location Based Services (LBS), and aggregate certain findings and remarks into a cohesive body. The information contained within this paper can then be used for accurate assessment on the state of LBS research at the moment. Another benefit of the information in this paper is the possibility of establishing a foothold for predicting future development and research. One of the main motivations of this work is to supplement the activity of the NHTV Medialab, and provide a base for which the Medialab can then go on to ascertain its position in further research. In this paper, the methodology of this research will be discussed, followed by observations relating to the review of all the selected literature. A section describing the MediaLab can be found afterwards, as well as a conclusion with a personal view on all that has transpired and concluded during this literature review.

2. On Location Based Services

2a. Location Based Services and adoption of Location Based Services

The authors Iris Junglas and Richard Watson have defined Location-based services as any service that takes into account the geographic location of an entity (Junglas & Watson, 2008). By entity, Junglas meant any object that triggers the location information, be it human or an object. According to Junglas, all LBS function by exchanging location information between two entities, one relative to other. For example, a user requesting the location of nearby caf (human and object entities) or a person checking up on the location of his friend (human to human). One of the entities is always the object of the LBS, the entity about which location information is recorded. (Junglas & Watson, 2008)

Location-based services represent an emerging class of computer systems providing mobile device users with information and functionality related to their geographical location. (Paay & Kjeldskov, 2007) They are based on a combination of the inherent location information about specific data, and/or the location 6

information supplied by LBS clients, requesting location-specific and otherwise customized services. (Liu & Wilde, 2011)

Location Based Services, and context-aware mobile computer systems that feature them, have been garnering attention from both the software industry and various researchers within the computer and HCI industry for some time now. Chen and Kotz (2000) define context-aware computing as a mobile computing paradigm in which applications can discover and take advantage of contextual information. This information would be items like the location of the user, time of day, nearby people and devices, and user activity.

Google Earth, Google Maps and similar services have seen a steady increase within popular media, and the emergence of options given to users of LBS lead to other innovations within the LBS industry (Paay & Kjeldskov, 2007). The ubiquitous nature of mobile devices with GPS-capabilities combined with the advance of smartphones, and devices with Internet capability in general, has sped up the development of location sharing applications (Sadeh, 2002).

An example of the Location Based Service Foursquare. It is browser based, displaying location.

This is a field with a huge potential, especially considering the fact that a minimum of 87% of the U.S. population owned cellular phones in the year 2009 (CTIA Wireless Association, 2008). Predictions hailed LBS as the possible dominant technology of the future, and analysts predicted that by 2010 half of all cell phone users in the US will be using location-based services (Reardon, 2006). Europes LBS market was predicted to rise from $191 million (Junglas & Watson, 2008) to $622 million (CTIA Wireless Association, 2008) and the U.S. market from $150 million to $3.1 billion (Mccarthy, 2008). However, although these location-sharing applications have become more available and present, widespread adoption has been curiously lacking (Corvida, 2008; Mccarthy, 2008). The privacy concerns of users, with regards to the sharing and use of their location information, is but one of the many reasons implied as a cause for the lack of adoption LBS have faced (Holson, 2007; Mccarthy, 2008; Junglas & Watson, 2008; Barkhuus et al.,2008) Location-Based Services have been noted to surge in popularity though (Junglas & Watson, 2008) The newfound popularity of smartphones and localized services have generated specific services around location such as Foursquare and Gowalla (Popescu, 2010), as well as location services provided by platforms that are not internet based such as iOS, Android or Symbian. Foursquare is a location based service which functions both as a social networking website and a LBS. While it functions as website, it is also customized for use on smartphones and GPS-enabled mobile devices. Forsquares primary functions is the checking, in which users can register or check in at locations utilizing a web browser, text messaging or a device-specific application. This application detects nearby locations, or venues, and the user can then select the one he is located in, therefore checking in. The user can obtain rewards for this, such as points or virtual badges. Gowalla is a similar Location Based Service that also functions as a social network, its main difference being the rewards the user can obtain for checking in . A user either checks in through a dedicated website or from an application downloaded to a smartphone. Interestingly, Gowalla allows users to check in via Foursquare, Facebook places, Twitter or Facebook. Facebooks Places functionality ushered LBS concepts within the Facebook platform, though Facebooks policy of centralizing its own service hampered its spreading, while consumer LBS gave rise to personalization of services and contextualization of information (Schiller & Voisard,2004). The Facebook Places functionality is similar to that of Foursquare or Gowalla it allows users to post status updates in which they tag their location. It integrates with Facebooks other functionalities such as tagging people in posts and status updates.

The Human Computer Interaction (HCI) researchers have arguably been dealing with the issue of the need for themselves, designers and software developers to more thoroughly investigate the context mobile device and system use, so they could develop relevant and appropriate solutions for any issues that occur in this area (Johnson, 1998). LBS researches frequently focus on dealing with privacy in location-aware technologies and systems and software for privacy policy management (Kapadia et al., 2007; Patil & Lai, 2005). Several studies have agreed that one of the most frequent uses of SMS is to coordinate and schedule meetings, something highly relevant with regards to location. (Grinter & Eldridge 2001) A slew of issues have been investigated so far, ranging from interface issues such as modes of interaction or presentation formats of information and technical issues such as positioning techniques or data models. User behavior with LSB is also a topic that warranted research (Ishikawa et al., 2009).

2b. Technologies behind Location Based Services

Location Based Services can be provided via several different kinds of technologies, namely GPS, Wireless positioning, cellular identification, IP location and web browser plugins.

The Global Positioning System (GPS), gets the location information by triangulation via multiple satellites. It is a highly reliable method for location tracking. GPS however is not yet fully ubiquitous, and most notebooks and laptops do not incorporate that technology. Battery consumption and lack of consistency regarding indoor functionality can be considered the shortcomings of this technology.

Wi-Fi access points can, and have been utilized to provide LBS. For example, in their paper, Whos Viewed You? The Impact of Feedback in a Mobile Location-Sharing Application, the authors perform research utilizing Locyoution, an application that uses Wi-Fi access points to determine location (Tsai, Kelley, Drielsma, Cranor, Hong, & Sadeh, 2009). The application integrates with Facebook and allows the user to track the location of all friends that they have listed. Wi-Fi access points do not share the reliability of GPS, they are more consistent indoors, as well as it being a more widespread technology with the common user when compared to GPS. (Tsai et al. 2010)

IP addresses are also a technology that can be used to obtain location information. A multitude of websites that allow geographic tracking via IP, such as IP2Location and IPadressLocation, already provide this service, and there has been research in integrating this kind of technology within location based services (Bringing Location Based Services to IP Multimedia Subsystem). IP addresses are finite in number and relate to any device that can connect to the Internet. This technology is mostly used to back up one of the previously mentioned methods of obtaining location in case a failure occurs (Tsai et al. 2010).

Cellular identification such as GSM is a popularly used technology when it comes to LBS research. Mobile phones are almost always in range of cell phone towers, and they send the signal towards them. This provides an opportunity for the location of the cellphone to be triangulated, considering the locations of the cell towers are known. The location of cellphones can be tracked down via the signal it provides to cell phone towers, and the companies that gather this data can disclose it. Some operators have thus partnered with telecom companies to use cellular data (J. Tsai et al. 2010).

Most location based services on mobile phones and computers are provided either by the user installing software on their device or via a browser. If the service is provided via a browser, plug-ins will usually need to be installed to allow for the appropriate technology (wireless or IP usually) to be used to obtain the location information (Tsai et al. 2010).

2c. Research in Location Based Services

In researching LBS, it can be noted that most studies utilized a sampling method called Experience Sampling Method (ESM), in which participants carry devices and then are requested location based information]. Another kind of experiment that was often encountered was supplying automatic location disclosures and SMS capabilities to pre-existing social groups (Tsai et al. 2010). ESM studies, sometimes named ecological momentary assessments, involve participants filling in questionnaires multiple times daily. The questionnaire features questions about the participants activities, feelings and conditions. ESM studies are usually made up from signal contingents, involving several signals a day in the span of several days. The authors Denise Anthony, Tristan Henderson, and David Kotz (2007) in Privacy in location-aware computing environments have noted that ESM was used for a variety of purposes such as evaluation of experience, communications technology, television viewing, and experience with 10

ubiquitous computing devices. ESM methodology is in a constant state of improvement, with various prototypes and methods being used; anything from paper and notebook questionnaires to voicemail, PDAs and mobile phones have been known to be utilized as tools for ESM studies.

As aforementioned in the beginning of this introductory chapter, the aim of this thesis is to use the aggregation of data from several relevant papers that feature Location Based Service research in order to form an informed decision of what the research direction which can be explored within the Medialab of NHTV. An approach to finding all the information of importance to this research involves deciding on precise research questions. To ascertain what data is needed to produce conclusions relating to the Medialab, we must first examine what research has been performed in the LBS area? Therefore, the first RQ would be: What are the current research endeavors in LBS? It is then by analyzing this data that we can start making conclusions as to what can be done within the MediaLab within this branch of research. The next main RQ would then be: What is the most promising direction for the MediaLab to pursue in LBS? More on the research questions and the methodology behind this thesis is featured in the Method section below.

METHOD
Research Questions

This paper aggregates information obtained from journals and conferences, as well as other works, based on certain criteria. Primarily, the mentioned works must contain research on or utilizing location based services. Secondly, the papers must somehow refer or hint at future research, so that certain trends in location based research could be established. Research Questions were established in order to create a framework for the filtering of all researched literature. The two main research questions that motivate this research are: 1. What are the current research endeavors in LBS? 2. What is the most promising direction for the MediaLab to pursue in LBS?

11

In order to better answer these questions, sub-questions were created to further refine the research What research has been done on Location Based Services recently? What trends in Location Based Service research do the authors of these works hint at? Can, and how, some of the questions raised by the examined literature authors be answered by this aggregation? Question Purpose

What research has been done on Location To aggregate all the research in order to Based Services recently? provide a comprehensive review of the current state of LBS research, as well as give grounds to answering the other Research Questions.

What trends in Location Based Service This is of relevance due to the fact an research do the authors of these works hint aggregation of multiple researchers prediction at? can lead to a more or less accurate depiction of where future research might lead to as well as what kinds of project might be worth both investing into and considering.

Can, and how, some of the questions raised by In effect, the knowledge gathered from all the the examined literature authors be answered literature examined might provide answers to by this aggregation? some of the questions asked by some of the authors of said papers, but were unable to answer due to the limited scope of their research. This is to ascertain whether or not some of their own research questions can be answered by compiling all the findings of related works and suggesting the answer.

12

Data Collection
Rules were established when searching through the relevant literature that ensured that all the data could be collected in a reproducible and reliable way. The rules for including data are:

a)

The work presents the results of a research that involves Location Based Services and their use

or implementation. It features some form of prototype, and asides results also offers suggestions on what future research can or should be done within this realm of research.

b)

The papers examined need to be recent. Though some older research was given admittance to

the database, the general rule is that newer papers take prime due to their increased relevance and the speed of evolution of LBS related research.

c)

Data from one paper does not coincide with data from another paper; there should be no

duplicate prototypes or systems. If such an occurrence does come to be, the more recent or comprehensive work was picked.

d)

In the case of a paper not presenting results on an LBS research, it must then feature some form

of information aggregation, akin to this one, or conclusions that relate strongly to Location Based Services. Discussions as well as papers that describe all Location Based Services are some of the kinds of papers that fall under this category.

13

Data Evaluation
Once the primary body of the papers was obtained, the works were then read in order to analyze them more thoroughly and get more detailed information relating to this research. A variety of questions were generated to aid in the filtering process.

Question What kind of research is performed in the paper? What is the purpose of the research? What is the scope and aim of the research? How is the research set up? How many participants does the research include? How long did the research last? How were the participants monitored? What is the prototype and how was it used? What technologies are utilized within the research? What are the results of research? What do the findings of the research imply? What is the authors opinion on the research itself and the findings? How relevant are the results to other papers of a similar theme? What do the results imply when concerning future research? What remarks does the author make on either his further research or the future of such research in general?

14

OBSERVATIONS
The following section presents observations that stem from reviewing all of the papers that were considered for this literature review. The observations are divided into categories, namely the technologies used, the type of research performed, the setup of the research, the results of the research and the remarks on future research. In each section, a sub-question is given and an answer, based on the literature reviewed, is attempted. This is followed by specific evidence per paper. Sources are cited once per section for each paper; it can be assumed that the whole section covering a certain paper is citing the paper itself.

Observation 1: Technologies Used

Sub questions: What technologies were used? What is the description of the system? The majority of the papers examined in this review featured the utilization of GSM technology, such as Iachello (2005), Brown (2007) and Barkhuus (2008). The common factor for all these papers was that most of the featured a Location-disclosing application implemented on a cell phone, or similar device. For example, the Whereabouts Clock (WAC), is a tablet based application (Brown, Taylor, Izadi, Sellen, Kaye & Eardley, 2007).The tablet is wirelessly connected via a GSM modem to a cellular network. It is important to note that aforementioned prototypes featured SMS communication with the device.

According to the Barkhus (2008), GSM was chosen due to the fact the GSM tracing has been shown to be adequately precise in locating a mobile phone, in particular in urban areas where cell phone towers are dense (Barkhuus, Brown, Bell, Sherwood, Hall & Chalmers, 2008) The authors discuss other technologies and point out to why these were not chosen for their experiment instead: GPS does not work well indoors, consumes a relatively high amount of power and often has a long startup time between being powered up and delivering an accurate location. Wireless positioning using is also possible on phones, although the hardware is becoming far more common in small handsets, one obvious downside of these techniques is that they primarily rely on privately owned Wi-Fi base stations; the locations of which are not known and can change (be moved or turned off) over time. (Barkhuus et al.,2008) The authors of the other papers that contain prototypes that use GSM technology do not disclose information as to why they have chosen that specific technology, so we can only speculate.

15

However, a logical assumption would be that it is the same reason, or similar, to that mentioned by Barkhuus et al. (2008)

Research by Tsai (2009) deviated from this pattern by also featuring a Location disclosing application for cell phones but not utilizing GSM. Their experiment featured an application called Locyoution that utilized Wi-Fi access points to determine location. Though the prototype Locyoution was based on, PeopleFinder, has two versions; a GPS and GSM enabled one and a wireless one, the experimenters chose to utilize only the Wi-Fi version. PeopleFinder was originally developed by Sadeh (2009). Why this version was chosen for Locyoution is not disclosed, but it is safe to assume that the nature of the application demanded this kind of connectivity due to its integration with Facebook (Tsai et al, 2009).

Another technology utilized was active radio frequency identification (RFID) This was used in the two papers that featured tour guide systems, and therefore demanded a location system that suits their research (Ishikawa, Murasawa & Okabe, 2009; Paay & Kjeldskov, 2007) The authors of justify their use of this system in lieu of, say, GPS by explaining that These ubiquitous-computing technologies enable indoor, as well as outdoor, navigation with sufficient accuracy (roughly within 10 m, depending on the types and settings of tags or beacons), contrasted to GPS-based systems. ( Ishikawa, Murasawa, Okabe, 2009)

The authors from Besho (2008)

have similar qualms regarding GPS, claiming they have two

limitations in their applicability. Firstly, they are not capable of supporting indoor or underground environments where GPS signals are not available. Secondly, they are not aware of the places of human interest. We understand the space as a set of places, each of which is a label of space partition with certain meaning defined based on human interest, but the coordinate information provided by GPS is not suitable for recognizing such places. (Bessho, Kobayashi, Koshizuka, & Sakamura, 2008) In effect, the researchers in these two papers have opted for the RFID option rather than GPS due to the faults of the GPS system rather than some innate advantage of a RFID technology.

Certain research demanded simpler technology utilization. Wireless PDAs with Wi-Fi connectivity were distributed for the research in the paper by Junglas (2008), and a Palm m500s device was provided for the research in the paper Consolvo (2005). Participants in the research of Anthony (2007) were given pagers which used an SMTP-to-page (simple mail transfer protocol) gateway operated by the pager 16

service provider. One of the reasons why they have chosen this solution instead of a wireless PDA equipped with an 802.11 network, as described in the paper is that the authors believe they would not have been able to signal participants when they were out of range of an 802.11 network

From these findings it could be summarized that the technologies used vary depending on the nature of the research, however a majority of applications developed for location based services in these papers utilized GSM technology. For experiments that related to orientation with location disclosure rather than, for example, privacy issues, the RFID technology was deemed more appropriate. Finally, research that was based on surveys or was smaller in scale, as far as the experiment demands, tended to utilize technologies like PDAs and pagers. 1a. Location family values: A field trial of the whereabouts clock (Brown, Taylor, Izadi, Sellen, Kaye & Eardley, 2007) A plethora of technologies have been utilized in researching LBS, varying from fully developed systems and application to devices with simple software solutions. One of the unique examples of a LBS related application is the Whereabouts Clock (WAC). The WAC is a clock-like application displayed on a tablet PC with touch input encased in a box made to look similar to that of a normal household clock. It served to display family members current locations as one of four privacy-preserving, deliberately coarse-grained categories (HOME, WORK, SCHOOL or ELSEWHERE).

Whereabouts Clock in case (a), interface (b), close-up of message window (c).

The tablet is wirelessly connected via a GSM modem to a cellular network. Users of the WAC, the family members, are given cell phones that communicate with the WAC. The WAC uses GSM cell ID 17

available on cell phones to garner the location data. Users were able to change, whenever they wish, what places they had set for the three different labels of home, work and school. Limited

messaging capability, namely sending SMS messages to the WAC, which are in turn displayed on the WAC, is present. Upon text message arrival, the text is displayed around the icon of the sender, marked by the sound of a cuckoo clock. The full message can be displayed by touching the icon. The WAC was intended to be placed in visible place in the household, like a living room or kitchen.

If located at work, or school, areas such as this required labeling by the user, utilizing a menu within the phone application. This makes a record of the cell tower IDs that are nearby, for that specific zone. The application is constantly scanning for all cell towers in range, noting the ID with the most likely match onto a registered zone. The WAC is constantly updated by SMS whenever the application finds that a user from changed location between registered zones. Labels for work, school and home are interchangeable, and able to attach to anything, meaning any place can be re-registered as work, and so on. (Location family values a field trial of the whereabouts clock). The WAC is a relatively static form of LBS, therefore a rarity in these kinds of research. A number of these studies required the development of a mobile service, usually intended for cell phones.

1b. Control, deception and communication: Evaluating the deployment of a location enhanced messaging service (Iachello, Smith, Consolvo, Abowd, Hughes, Howard, Potter, Scott, Sohn, Hightower &. LaMarca, 2005)

The researcher have developed a peer-to-peer, location-enhanced service for cell phones called Reno. It was developed for the Nokia Series 60 cellphones, and is both a location and messaging service. It allows users to request the location of other users, and communicate their own location to them. Users define names for their locations, such as home or work, but the application also provides information on surrounding locations. The application has two automated functions: the Instant Reply List and Waypoints. Waypoints cause Reno disclose location whenever the user enters a specific, pre-defined location, with a two-hour timeout in order to deny bursts of messages during brief visits with many returns to the same spot. The user must indicate both the location of interest and the recipient of the message to successfully set up a Waypoint. The number of times Reno disclosed location can be viewed automatically by using an audit tool called Activity Report. Instant Reply causes Reno to automatically 18

reply with the current most likely location to any request that comes from someone on the Instant Reply List. . A list known as the Instant Reply list is created by the user, is user-defined, and a part of the Reno contact list. If the location is undetermined, Reno transmits Unknown Location. Another feature is a custom, integrated list of activities that can be utilized instead of place names for message replies. The authors claim this was done to eliminate the need to type for any kind of message that deals with location disclosure, as it leaves only two steps are needed to successfully reply to a location request.

A usage scenario for Reno. The application presents a list of likely locations and a static list of activities when replying to request

Reno uses SMS messages to communicate; consisting of both the user intended sentence and message recognition code and checksum. Using inaccurate names to label locations, not labeling the location, responding with an activity, or ignoring requests are all methods and denial strategies that Reno supports in order for the user not to need to deceive outright.

19

1c. From Awareness to Repartee: Sharing Location within Social Groups (Barkhuus, Brown, Bell, Sherwood, Hall & Chalmers, 2008). Another cell-phone based application was Connecto. It is a Windows Smartphone application, and utilizes GSM fingerprinting techniques to ascertain the phones location. Locations are marked by the user, which names them and subsequently select the remember this location option. Thus a database of user generated locations is formed in the phone. Other features of Connecto are the ability to record the ringing profile the phone is set to, such as normal, vibration or silent, with the profile name also being susceptible to change. The users can name locations whatever they desire. Both the name of the profile and how the ringing profile behaves can be altered by the user. The data gathered by Connecto is sent to a central server every 7 minutes, simultaneously downloading updates from the persons on the contact list of the user

Connecto keeps a local database, and synchronizes with an SQL server database which runs on a server by exchanging compressed XML datasets over standard GPRS connections. Connecto therefore updates information in a time period of a minimum of 7 minutes.

20

A user can name a location in any way he wishes, ignoring the automatic location detection feature of Connecto. Whether or not the user chooses to disclose the actual location or is ''lying'' is not disclosed via Connecto.

1d. Whos viewed you: the impact of feedback in a mobile location-sharing application (Tsai, Kelley, Drielsma, Cranor, Hong & Sadeh, 2009) Locyoution is a Facebook interface for a mobile location-sharing application built a technology based on PeopleFinder. (Tsai et al, 2009). PeopleFinder is an application that enables cell phone and laptop users to selectively share their locations with others, such as friends, family, and colleagues. It was developed by Norman Sadeh, Jason Hong, Lorrie Cranor, Ian Fette, Patrick Kelley, Madhu Prabaker and Jinghai Rao for their paper Understanding and capturing peoples privacy policies in a mobile social networking application (Sadeh et al., 2009).

Locyoution is made out of two main components: software must be installed by the user onto a laptop and an application which is added on Facebook, and it mostly functions via Facebook. It utilizes Wi-Fi access points to determine location. In order to check a Locyoution users location, the users Facebook profile must be visited, and click on the Locyoution application icon clicked, whereupon the user will be shown a map of the searched users precise location (state, city and address). Once a request for location is created, it is sent to the server, and if it does not function within a certain timespan, the map location is shown on the Home screen; alternatively a message saying unavailable is shown on the Home screen. The Locyoution interface on Facebook has three major areas, Home, My Rules and Who Has Viewed me. Home can be viewed by anyone on Facebook, while the other two are reserved only for Locyoution users, with a username and password. Also appearing is the Friends with Locyoution list and the map. The Friends with Locyoution contains all the friends of the user who have installed the Locyoution application; allowing for their locations to be requested. The map displays the location of any user selected person that appears on the users list. If another user isnt found, it will display current location of the user him or herself. There are two reasons to why location requests can be rejected: either the locator is offline, or has a rule that does disallow location disclosure.

21

The Rules interface provides users with the ability to control when their location can be viewed by others. Locyoution allows solely time-based rules, defined based on specific days of the week and a combination of times of the day. Users of Locyoution can restrict the Facebook application privacy settings to My Networks & Friends, Some Networks (which the user selects) and Friends, or Friends Only. See Figure 2, 3, 6 Appendix. 1e. Privacy in location-aware computing environments (Anthony, Henderson, and Kotz. 2007) The prototypes utilized were a pager and a questionnaire notebook. The pager was a Motorola Bravo numeric pager operating in the 406-512 MHz band. The pager used an SMTP-to-page (simple mail transfer protocol) gateway operated by the pager service provider. The notebook featured questions about communications use (wired, wireless, and other communications devices), location, current activities, and others. This option was chosen in lieu of using a PDA equipped with a 802.11 network adapter, making it one device utilized both for participant contact and questionnaire. The range of the network, the number and versatility of the questions as well as the possibilities of malfunction affected the decision to use a notebook and pager instead of the mentioned PDA option. 1f. Location Disclosure to Social Relations: Why, When, & What People Want to Share (Consolvo, Smith, Matthews, LaMarca, Tabert & Powledge, 2005). Some research specific devices were often used in studies that demanded less functions than some of the ones mentioned so far. In one case, researchers needed to pose series of questions to their users, within a LBS context. To accomplish this, a Palm m500s device provided by the researchers was utilized for this research, with software for running The Experience Sampling Method ESM on PalmOS devices installed. The Experience Sampling Method was used to capture participant responses to in situ, hypothetical requests for their location, which is what the Palm devices were used for. A plethora of ESM questions about the context of location were also asked at the time of each request.

22

1g. Wayfinding and art viewing by users of a mobile system and a guidebook (Ishikawa, Murasawa, Okabe, 2009). Certain research demands that a very specific device is developed for the study, at least specific in regards to the research. Ishikawa (2009) and his colleagues used an art tour system for their study on orientation in a museum environment. The mentioned art tour system functions by utilizing 158 active radio frequency identification (RFID) tags and 31 infrared beacons, which communicate with a hand-held communicational terminal device known as a ubiquitous communicator. This communication is performed with identification codes known as ucodes. This communicator allows for accurate navigation, and also provides maps, speech guidance, text messages and photographs. The art-information function is supplied with text descriptions about the artwork and the artist, photographs and movies showing other artworks by the artist as well as artist interviews and production

videos. View Figure 1 in the Appendix. The researchers also had to supply some users with paper guidebooks. The paper guidebooks supplied had a map of the area as well as artwork information contained within it.

1h. Location Based Services: Evaluating user perceptions of location-tracking and location-awareness services. (Junglas & Watson, 2008). Simpler still was the technology applied to study aimed at determining different reactions users have to wireless and Location Based services, performed Junglas & Watson (2008) In their study a series of wireless PDAs with different functionalities were distributed, as well as wireless devices to all participants. The functions include location-tracking and location-aware functionalities, as well as wireless connectivity.

23

1i. A Space-Identifying Ubiquitous Infrastructure and its Application for a Tour-Guiding Service

(Bessho,Kobayashi, Koshizuka & Sakamura, 2008). The authors developed a Ubiquitous Tour Guide which they then researched the effectiveness of. The developed infrastructure model features three layers: Firstly there is a layer of devices that contains multiple space-identifying devices attached to a place of interest. Then there is a layer of places, with each place given its own identifier. The third layer is one of spatial semantics. To quote the authors themselves While the necessary semantics depends on applications, this model provides a framework that allows flexible definition of their vocabulary. In this model, a place-based service can be realized as follows. First, a user with a mobile terminal receives an identifier from advice, and accesses the service provider with the received identifier. Then, the provider recognizes the place corresponding to the device, and generates a service using the spatial semantics related to the particular place. (Bessho et al., 2008) The entire system functions with the aid of a unique identifier called a ucode. These ucodes are 128bit unique identifiers. Ucodes are assigned a real world entity that demands identification. Each ucode is transmitted from a small device named ubiquitous marker, which is attached to each entity. The architecture supports different kinds of ubiquitous markers, such as active RFID tags, passive RFID tags, infrared beacons, and 2-dimensional barcodes. See Figure 4, 7 Appendix. An Ubiquitous Tour Guide was then created, to function on the basis of the above detailed infrastructure, and provide a tour guiding system to introduce many art works in the Tokyo Midtown. The system was deployed in the Tokyo Midtown, a commercial complex in Japan. 25 artworks were chosen for the guided tour. It was made out of two place-based services; navigation and art

introduction. A user with a mobile terminal is supplied with an Ubiquitous Communicator (UC) and can then navigate to a number of art works, sequentially, starting from the tour counter. Once reaching the location of the artwork, a set of detailed introductory descriptions are showed to the user, and upon completing the tour the user is then navigated back to the tour counter. The navigation 24

features map based route presentation, landmark-based guidance utilizing audio messages, photographs and text messages.

Observation 2: Types of research

Sub question: What was the research objective? What was the motivation for creating it? While all the papers reviewed here uniformly dealt with Location Based Services, the motivation behind each research was varied. The topics covered can be, very loosely, divided into those that deal with user perception of a certain LBS, those that are testing out a LBS prototype and those that delve into consequences of LBS interaction that are more psychological in nature, such as the issue of plausible deniability i.e. how frequently, if at all, do users of LBS choose lie or deceive about their location. This issue was the main research objective in the research of Iachello (2005). The main research questions set for this research were actually hypotheses meant to be tested, namely: Automatic disclosures are not problematic with appropriate corrective measures, Deception and denial practices will occur with Reno (the LBS application developed for the experiment) and Activity, as well as place, will be used by participants in their communications. (Iachello et al., 2005) Other examples of these kinds of LBS related topics within research are demonstrated the research by Brown (2007), where the emotional aspects of utilizing an LBS for inter-family communication is examined. Similar to this was the motivation behind research by Barkhuus (2008), conducted partly to investigate how, by sharing status and location, the system developed by the authors supported the ongoing repartee of all participants, creating a form of platform for development of friendship and social interaction . Feedback, or lack there off, was the main topic of the research of Tsai (2009), while Anthony (2007) researched the difference between received feedback and lack of feedback when using Location Based Services, as well privacy issues. Disclosure was also covered in research Consolvo (2005). Performance, usefulness, and ease-of-use perceptions associated with certain tasks given to users with and without forms of LBS was further investigated by Junglas (2008)

When examining the motivation behind all the reviewed research, asides noting the fact that they all featured either testing user perception and ease of use of different LBS, it is also worth noting that most of the research featured at least some segments dedicated to privacy issues, even if privacy was not one of the main motivations for the research in question. Another notable fact that can be perceived through this kind of data aggregation is that the amount of disclosure, the relation and feedback to LBS and finally the psychological effects of LBS utilization are the dominant research topic within the chosen 25

literature. As described later on in the Conclusion and Future Research sections, it is noteworthy that navigation using LBS, privacy, perception and customization are the mostly covered issues within the papers reviewed, and thus most future research will probably stem from these categories.

2a. Wayfinding and art viewing by users of a mobile system and a guidebook

(Ishikawa, Murasawa, Okabe, 2009). A study that has a very clear research goal comes from the paper titled Wayfinding and art viewing by users of a mobile system and a guidebook. The paper examines the various differences in effectiveness and perception of two different systems for touring and experiencing a museum. One is a classic, printed guidebook, and the other a location based service mobile art tour system. A test is performed using these two mediums to ascertain the various differences, benefits and drawbacks of each. The two major research questions are whether and how the perception of space and behavior in space differ between users of a navigation system and users of paper maps, and secondly whether and how the perception of artworks differs between users of an art-information system and users of a guidebook. As mentioned above, the authors used a ubiquitous communicator, as they have called it, to perform this research. 2b. Control, deception and communication: Evaluating the deployment of a location enhanced messaging service. (Iachello, Smith, Consolvo, Abowd, Hughes, Howard, Potter, Scott, Sohn, Hightower &. LaMarca, 2005) The paper called Control, deception and communication: Evaluating the deployment of a location enhanced messaging service focuses primarily on the issue of plausible deniability. This paper examines and reports on a study of a peer-to-peer, mobile, location-enhanced messaging service which was developed to further analyze plausible deniability and how location based services and their communication of time and place can be used to aid planning and intentions. It also covers research performed prior to the main research - an Experience Sampling Method study aimed at developing the prototype that would later be used in the main research. The mentioned mobile application Reno was developed for this study.

26

2c. Whos viewed you: the impact of feedback in a mobile location-sharing application (Tsai, Kelley, Drielsma, Cranor, Hong & Sadeh, 2009) LBS usage and the feedback that the users provide was the main topic of research by Tsai (2009). This paper focuses pre-dominantly on pointing out the difference between received feedback and lack of feedback when using Location Based Services. The authors performed a study involving 56 users and a mobile location sharing system called Locyoution. The study also deals with privacy, and is known for being one of the larger studies of its kind, involving 56 users. 2d. Privacy in location-aware computing environments (Anthony, Henderson, & Kotz, 2007). A form of feedback was also examined by Anthony (2007) and his colleagues. The main topic of this paper is a study conducted using the experience sampling method, in which 25 undergraduate students were observed for one week, in order to examine their willingness to share location information in various settings and with different requesters. Also researched was whether willingness to share location information varied depending on who was seeking the information. 2e. Location Disclosure to Social Relations: Why, When, & What People Want to Share

(Consolvo, Smith, Matthews, LaMarca, Tabert &Powledge, 2005).

The willingness to share information such as location is a hot topic within LBS research. Research performed in Location Disclosure to Social Relations consisted of a three phased formative study what was performed to determine if and what users of location-based services are willing to disclose as far as their location to social relations. The study was performed with 16 non-technical participants and using a variety of different techniques, including in situ and in-lab. This study featured the participants getting hypothetical requests from people they knew, questionnaires, a privacy classification survey, interviews, exercises and a nightly voicemail diary study.

27

2f. Location family values: A field trial of the whereabouts clock Certain papers, such as Location family values A field trial of the whereabouts clock focused more on a specific prototype and its reciprocations in this LBS themed study. This paper details the research and results utilizing a family oriented location awareness system called the Whereabouts Clock (or WAC). It is a striped down location based service that displays information only within a home environment. The goal of this research was, amongst others, to confirm and check on the emotional aspect, asides a utilitarian one, which a location based, services of this sort can provide. 2g. From Awareness to Repartee: Sharing Location within Social Groups (Barkhuus, Brown, Bell, Sherwood, Hall & Chalmers, 2008) Again, a more prototype centered research was performed by Barkhuus (2008). The focus on of this paper is research on micro blogging and location based services via an application developed specifically for this purpose, called Conecto. This application is phone based and gives users a chance to tag locations and have the locations shared automatically on a phone. One of the motivations behind this research was further exploration of the users ability to form a social repartee when using these kinds of LBS applications . 2h. Location Based Services: Evaluating user perceptions of location-tracking and locationawareness services.

(Junglas & Watson, 2008). This research deals more with the perception of LBS, and is groundwork for many other kinds of LBS research. Here authors examine why Location Based Services (LBS) have not become the widely popular platform as predicted as well as further define the term LBS. They focus on the perceptions of users on usability and usefulness of LBS, and coin several key definitions such as location tracking and location aware services. Location-tracking services give information about a users location to someone other than the user, with an external third party requesting and receiving location information about another entity. Location-aware services, on the other hand, provide the person requesting information with personal location data, and the location-information cause is the recipient himself. A car navigation system is a location- aware service while a UPSs truck-tracking system, where location information for each truck is used to increase fleet management efficiency, is a location-tracking service. The 28

experiment conducted within this paper was aimed to measure , usefulness, performance, and ease ofuse perceptions relating to certain tasks given to users with and without forms of LBS. 2i. A Space-Identifying Ubiquitous Infrastructure and its Application for a Tour-Guiding Service (Bessho,Kobayashi, Koshizuka & Sakamura, 2008).

The research performed in this paper features a tour guiding system based on a space-identifying ubiquitous infrastructure, the Ubiquitous Tour Guide. The aim of this system is to introduce many art works in a large commercial complex in Japan. Aside this, the infrastructure built for the research is also able to supply detailed navigation services. The authors describe their system in great detail, and perform several user test in real environments to confirm its functionality and effects. The research performed in this paper was motivated by the development of said system, which was aimed to be able to provide detailed navigation service as well as art introduction service in both indoor and outdoor environments, as well as guiding users to reach the art works they show an interest for.

Observation 3: Set up of research

Sub questions: What were the limitations? Most of the papers reviewed had relatively small numbers of participants. The number of participants went from 10 being the smallest to 58 being the largest. The research techniques used include selfassessment surveys, interviews, diaries, in situ observation, interviews, questionnaires and the experience sampling method, as well as usage of external diary and questionnaire applications such as Flexifil. For one study, Iachello (2005), it can be said that the major limitation of this research was the relatively small number of participants, as well as the timeframe chosen for the interviews. It included 11 participants in total, with men, women and children participating. Performed in a period of 14 to 18 days, the participants were interviewed for 45 minutes after a week of using the application, and then for an hour at the end of the study. The authors, however, suggest no obvious limitation in the paper. Some research, such as the one conducted by Brown (2007) differ in scale, and though the scale of this experiment is larger to that of the one in Iachello (2005), and the interviews were performed on a weekly basis, it is worth noting that the nature of the application in this research was very specific with very different research goals therefore the limitations criteria that might apply to other works.

29

Certain research such as conducted by Tsai (2009) and Junglas (2008) feature large numbers of participants. Where Tsai (2009) had limitations that regard the prototype rather than the research method, Junglas (2008) points out that the laboratory setting of their research as a positive. It can be debated, however, that this can also be a limitation. Furthermore the application in Tsai (2009) functions via Facebook, and the user was demanded to install it himself a definitive drawback. Barkhuus (2008) performed a study featuring 11 participants, with ages varying from early twenties to early thirties, were part of this study. The length of this study was two weeks. The method chosen was interviews, one after a week of using the app and the other after the completion of the two week period. Interestingly, the researches chose to also perform diary fill ins utilizing a tool called Felxifil to generate questions based on the phones activity. The use of this application could be considered a limitation, though no issues with its operation were reported in the paper. Certain research, such as the one by Antony (2007) specifically remarked on the limitations, in this case the fact participants were only asked about their location information when they reported using an electronic device. Another limitation was the fact the participant body was not considered representative, even representative of college students which all the participants were. Representativity was also questioned in research by Ishikawa (2009), where the authors point out that students are not necessarily a representative group, making their choice of participants a limitation. Research, such as conducted by Consolvo (2005), was multi-phased and featured participants creating buddy lists, participants answering to in situ requests from their social relations, as well as the Experience Sampling Method (more details below). Again, while the authors give no concrete mention to the limitations of their study in their paper, we can speculate that the number of participants as well as the multi-phased nature of the research leaves a lot of room for issues from variance in behavior due to the knowledge of being monitored to issues with the buddies lists, and so on. The ESM method could also be seen as a form of limitation. The lack of a controlled environment, combined with a small number of participants and a lack of diversity in data collection could be considered a limitation for some of the reviewed research, such as Bessho (2008). When aggregating the research setup of all of the papers reviewed, it can be noted that the number of participants was mostly small, rarely going beyond thirty participants except in certain cases such as for Junglas (2008). Most of research reviewed had limitations as far as the representativity of their participant body, with some authors going as far as to specifically point this out as a limitation and flaw. Other limitations, while not mentioned by the authors, concern the various research methods utilized, and their lack or surplus of effectiveness. While mentioned, time constraints were not a lingering issue in any of the research performed. Technical issues regarding the users relation to the LBS were noted as 30

limitations, and certain research methodologies. It is therefore suggested to review the representativity of the sample, the time constraints of the research and its reflection on the results, as well as demands on the technical ability of the participants prior to conducting any kind of future research. 3a. Control, deception and communication: Evaluating the deployment of a location enhanced messaging service

(Iachello, Smith, Consolvo, Abowd, Hughes, Howard, Potter, Scott, Sohn, Hightower &. LaMarca, 2005) Research was performed by exposing two families with teenage children to Reno, the mentioned a peerto-peer, location-enhanced service for cell phones. The children were asked to contact one schoolmate or friend in order to monitor usage with both peer and parent relationships. The children were all under 16. In order to participate, the required elements were: use of a cell phone for adult participants (to lessen novelty effects), adults not in Information Technology-(IT) related occupations, at least one parent working outside the home, and children attending school outside the home (to ensure mobility was at minimum). The families were interviewed by phone, and then called in for a 60 minute session I which they filled in surveys and release forms, compiled activity lists as well as possible places they would wish to visit during the weeks that follow. These lists were, in turn, pre coded into the Reno software. View Figure 5, Appendix.

Reno was used by the participants in a 14 to 18 day period. Participants mail surveys every other day, featuring questions about their usage of Reno. These questions included whether the participants have left the phone behind, when and why they had requested or disclosed a location, if they had ignored requests, delayed responding, responded something different from their real location or disclosed location information in some other way than with Reno. 11 participants in total, 6 of which were female, were involved. Adult participants all owned cell phones, as well as 4 teenagers.

Upon starting, and every 24 hours from then on, status messages were sent to the researchers with information like messages sent and received, cumulative running time and cumulative time in unlabeled locations. These messages were in SMS form. The application also sent location disclosure samples daily, with four being the maximum number per day. Communication activity, the creation or deletion of places and contacts and information application malfunctions were all kept within the phones internal log. 31

Each participant for was also interviewed for 30-45 minutes after one week of use. There was a 60 minute interview at the end of the study as well. Certain aspects, such as privacy and deception were monitored by keeping a log of disclosures in which the disclosed location differed from the most likely location as calculated by the phone, and by asking specific questions in the email surveys and interviews. Some of the items monitored were daily occurrences of:

delayed answers (i.e., the user knowingly delays answering even if s/he could); Time-shifted answer (i.e., the answer describes a past or future location, but not the current location); ignored requests; and Explicit deception (e.g., sending an inaccurate location).

The interviews were formed with regards to the answers provided for the email surveys and status messages sent back by the application. They Instant Reply List and the Waypoints function were only activated after a week of deployment, coinciding with the interview that was performed after a week. The participants were also asked to proclaim what Waypoints they would prefer other participants to make for them, as well as on whose Instant Reply list they want to be. 3b. Location family values: A field trial of the whereabouts clock (Brown, Taylor, Izadi, Sellen, Kaye & Eardley, 2007) The research produced results from a trial of the Clock with five families (26 users) over a total period of six months. The usage times varied from family to family, but overall 26 family members used it in a range from 4 to 9 weeks. Participants hailed from the local Cambridge area, and at least three members of the family owned cell phones, and possessed texting habits. Data on the results was garnered through a series of weekly interviews that featured as many of the family members as possible. The questions asked were centered on kinds of use, how the participants felt about their location being tracked and have they sent any texts to the Clock itself. Other questions were aimed and finding out if, and how, the massaging option merged with the families household activities. The participants were also given a chance to voice their opinion on future devices and improvements. All interviews were audio-taped for later review and the interviews transcribed.

32

3c. Whos viewed you: the impact of feedback in a mobile location-sharing application (Tsai, Kelley, Drielsma, Cranor, Hong & Sadeh, 2009) Locyoution and its usage was examined in a field investigation in which 56 Participants, solicited from a university population, were asked to install and use Locyoution over a period of four weeks. The study consisted of four phases: a pre-study questionnaire, Locyoution installation and troubleshooting, Locyoution deployment, and an exit survey. Phase 1 had participants completing a questionnaire and filling in study consent forms. In the second phase participants were given a Locyoution username and password, and installation tutorials. In the third phase participants were required to use Locyoution. The patterns of usage of Locyoution were determined by analyzing server logs. In the last phase participants needed to complete an exit survey on their experience with Locyoution. Participants were split in two conditions: The No Feedback condition, where information about who had requested their location was not received, and the Feedback condition, in which the participants could view their location disclosure history. Participants were provided with online instructions for participation, no physical meetings or lab sessions were conducted. Participation were in charge of downloading and installing the Locyoution software and adding the Facebook application. 3d. From Awareness to Repartee: Sharing Location within Social Groups (Barkhuus, Brown, Bell, Sherwood, Hall & Chalmers, 2008) Users were studied during their everyday lives, with methods like fill-in diaries and interviews being utilized to monitor with a minimum amount of intrusion. For daily inquiries a diary tool known as Flexifil was used, which creates questions based on the users activity with the phone, like incoming calls and text messages (this tool was also used by Scott Sherwood, Stuart Reeves, Julie Maitland, Alistair Morrison, Matthew Chalmers in their paper Adapting Evaluation to Study Behavior in Context) . This diary was required to be filled in on a daily basis. Two groups were studied, all of which work and study in and around the area of Glasgow, UK. The first group was made out of six young professionals and graduate students in their early twenties, four of who knew each other from an activity club and two who were partners of participants. The other group was a set of five close colleagues in their early thirties who also socialized outside of their work in a large technology company. The actual study lasted two weeks, with two rounds of interviews, one after a week of using the app and the other after the completion of the two weeks. This is accompanied by the before mentioned diaries and routine 33

checkups to make sure there are no technical issues. Log data was also recorded, including records of calls between the group members, text messages stripped of content for anonymity, participants profile and locations. Also recorded was whether or not the participants set their location manually and, if so, for what duration. 3e. Privacy in location-aware computing environments (Anthony, Henderson, & Kotz, 2007). 15 male and 15 female were originally included in this 2004 study, gathered via a website and college bulletin board. All of the participants were undergraduate students, with the age of 20 being average. One participant male participant dropped out during the study, and four others, one male, three female, did not answer an adequate number of location requests to be included in the analyses reported here; these participants data are excluded from the results, leaving a total of 25 participants. Each participant was given a pager and a questionnaire notebook, which they agreed to carry for seven consecutive days. Upon the end of this time, each participant was interviewed and debriefed. The participants provided conflict times, during which they did not want to be pagedfor example, when they were asleep or in an examination. View Figure 8, Appendix. Outside these times, each participant received up to seven pager alerts per day at random times. Each alert occurred at least 45 minutes after the preceding alert, to prevent the alerts from being too intrusive. The study featured several limitations, pointed out by the authors themselves. The first limitation is the fact users were queried about willingness to share location information only when participants reported using an electronic device. Considering the arrival of sensor and other new technologies that will most probably enable location sensing capabilities regardless of active usage of devices, and the fact environment-embedded sensors could capture a users location even when they are not carrying devices; it could be concluded the study does not fully capture the entire range of experiences in which location privacy is relevant. The biggest limitation of this study is the fact the sample is derived and consisted solely from undergraduate college students, which is not a representative sample of all users, or even of all college students. At each page, the questionnaire contained questions about current activities, location, communications usage (wired, wireless, Voice over Internet Protocol, and other communications devices), how many people they were with, and their willingness to share location information The questionnaire included a total of 203 possible questions per pager alert, but the number of questions varied according to the participants activities. For example, at each page in which participants reported using an electronic device (any type,

34

though most often participants were using a laptop computer), they were asked whether they would be willing to share their location. An example question would be Which, if any, of the following would you be willing to inform of your current location (for example, GPS coordinates or building name)? The answer options include: anyone who asked (yes/no); anyone who sent email to you (yes/no); or anyone from the list you specified (yes/no).

3f. Location Based Services : Evaluating user perceptions of location-tracking and locationawareness services.

(Junglas & Watson, 2008).

58 subjects were divided into two groups, with most of subjects was between the ages of 19 and 23. One group was equipped with wireless PDAs with location tacking and aware services and the other equipped with same devices with wireless connectivity. The groups were given various LBS related tasks, such as finding a moving person or office, or checking the weather, and then monitored for performance, usefulness, and ease-of- use perceptions associated with the tasks by asking the participants for their opinions on said items. Although the authors claim that the fact they examined LBS in a laboratory setting is beneficial, as it that was not affected by slow response times or imprecise localization information, it can be argued that this could be a limitation. Removing real-world technical problems did allow the researchers to us to focus on the pure effects of LBS on users perceptions, but it could have also taken away the genuine reactions from the participants. 3g. Location Disclosure to Social Relations: Why, When, & What People Want to Share

(Consolvo, Smith, Matthews, LaMarca, Tabert &Powledge, 2005). 16 non-technical participants were included in this research. The research consisted of 3 phases. Phase 1 was based around investigating the structure of participants social networks and how they thought they would use location-enhanced computing. The second phase consisted of participants responding in situ to hypothetical queries for their location from their social relation, during a two week period. The final phase featured reflection by the participants on their experiences and attitudes of said services and location based computing. Participants also had to create a buddy list of individuals that they would be willing to engage in information exchange about location, which consist of a maximum of 17 people 35

extracted from the social networks of said participants. Certain social groups such as spouse/significant other, two family members of the participants choosing, manager, two co-workers of the participants choosing, and up to 11 others from the participants social network are to be included in this list.

During this phase a differentiation was made between a single and standing request. The single request allows for persons on a buddy list to make one-at-a time requests for another users location, while the standing request option utilized a less known model where a request could be sent to anyone on the buddy list for the requester to be informed whenever the user gets to a location. View Figure 9, Appendix. Phase 2 included an experience sampling method (ESM). These included questions such as Where are you?, What are you doing?, With whom are you? And disclosure based on location based on hypothetical requests from a social relation from his or her buddy list. All the questions were personalized using information from phase 1, such as replacing colleague from work with an actual name from the buddy list or adding answers that users might have implied they might answer in phase 1 (such as answering drinking alcohol to the question what are you doing?) A nightly voicemail diary study was done by the participants to report any events that were not typical for that specific weekday. The final phase consisted of one-on-one interaction in a lab environment, including end-of-study interviews, edited exercised from the first phase and an altered version of the privacy classification survey.

3h. Wayfinding and art viewing by users of a mobile system and a guidebook

(Ishikawa, Murasawa, Okabe, 2009). The study performed within this research consisted of 18 men and 2 women, college students, which were divided into two groups, with one using solely the guidebook to navigate, while the other use the art tour system. During 75 minutes, the groups were asked to view 13 artwork pieces within the museum, utilizing said means (guidebook and art tour system) for navigation. An researcher followed the participants around, monitoring their way-finding abilities and asking questions upon viewing that relate to satisfaction and knowledge on said art pieces. A series of research techniques were then utilized to ascertain the differences between the two groups, with questionnaires and self-reports included, all in the aim of examining the following differences: Artwork satisfaction, understanding of

36

the artwork, retention of memory for artworks, direction sense, level of general interest in art ( Ishikawa et al., 2009). One obvious limitation is the fact the students are not necessarily a representative group.

3i. . A Space-Identifying Ubiquitous Infrastructure and its Application for a Tour-Guiding Service (Bessho,Kobayashi, Koshizuka & Sakamura, 2008). The Ubiquitous Tour Guide developed by the authors was researched in an experiment on its navigation capability. The aim was to determine how smooth the navigation is and how well it functions in general. 10 Participants unfamiliar with the Tokyo Midtown were given the Ubiquitous Communicator and left to perform the tour, beginning at the tour desk and finishing at the same location. To finish the tour several navigation tasks, such as moving through specific segments, needed to be performed. The participants were monitored by an examiner, who in turn measured three values: the ability of the participant to reach the destination, the number of times the participant deviated from the specified route and the time he or she needed to reach each task destination. During this research 166 samples were obtained.

Observation 4: Research results

The research conducted within all the papers featured in this review yielded various kinds of results. The wide field of research covered a slew of topics, from behavioral to emotional and so on. To exemplify, research featured in the paper Location family values: A field trial of the whereabouts clock shown that an LBS such as the Whereabouts Clock can help in the planning capabilities within a family, and can provide a sense of connectedness and togetherness (Brown et al.,2007) Overall, findings seem to indicate that users to not demand, or specifically need automatic features in LBS systems, as well as that users do not utilize LBS for deception as much as was expected (Iachello et al., 2005). Location Based Services were shown to provide comfort, and increase organizational ability within a community. User location disclosure increased the more feedback the system offered, and Anthony (2007) added that disclosure was much more likely to occur with persons on customized lists. Acceptance of technology was also highly related to technical ability of the user (Tsai et al, 2009). LBS were largely used for meeting co-ordination, and the importance of personalization to users was 37

deemed high (Barkhuus et al.,2008). Interestingly, privacy classification of the user did not seem to accurately signify how users behave when prompter for location disclosure by social relations , as determined by the Westin/Harris Privacy Segmentation Model, was not a good predictor of how users would respond to requests for their location from social relations, but mood was confirmed to be of effect on location disclosure willingness (Consolvo et al.2005) Concerning navigation, failure to understand the LBS system directions proved to be the biggest reason for failed navigation (Ishikawa et al., 2009). Most navigation issues were easy to resolve, according to Paay (2007), but it is important to note they did occur. Aggregating all the results and finding featured in the reviewed papers is a daunting task due to different nature of the researches. However, it is possible to conclude that location disclosure requires levels of familiarity with both the system and the persons to whom the data is perceived as disclosed. Deception is not as frequent as generally considered. Most mistakes in LBS application use stem from misinformation, which originates in problems with the interface rather than the nature of the service itself, especially when concerning tour-guide systems. Though LBS are considered useful, some trepidation remains over privacy issues, but allowing customization seems to resolve any lingering issues users have with privacy. 4a. Control, deception and communication: Evaluating the deployment of a location enhanced messaging service (Iachello, Smith, Consolvo, Abowd, Hughes, Howard, Potter, Scott, Sohn, Hightower &. LaMarca, 2005) The researchers came to several conclusions. Firstly, they claim that automatic features are not needed, and so are not a priority for social mobile applications, partly due to the fact the participants did not exhibit a desire for them. Contrary to assumptions none of the participants claimed they have been overwhelmed by messages they have gotten via Reno. Three participants alone turned on any automated features. When asked about the reasons for not configuring Waypoints and the Instant Reply List, only one participant referred to possible issues with privacy. All others indicated that they were not entirely confident of how the features would function in practice, and they did not feel setting up Waypoints or the Instant Reply List was necessarily needed. None of the teenage participants set up Waypoints or Instant Replies. Secondly, the study showed that Reno proved to be useful in controlling environmental privacy, where the ability to know where someone is without interrupting them with a call was invaluable, such as a school or meeting situation. When concerning deception using Reno, a far 38

lower rate than expected by the researcher was exhibited by the participants. The researchers theorized that the reason for this could be due to the timing of the study, as it was performed during a busy part of the school year. Their assumption is then that the normally rebellious teenagers that would be prone to lying have been forced to be honest due to circumstance the need for the parents to know where they are, as they have no car and need rides. Therefore the length of the study might not be sufficient, the researchers conclude. View Figure 10, 11 Appendix.

Cases of blatant deception relating to location were relatively rare, both in the ESM study and in the deployment; however, participants in both studies pointed out that in those occurrences, having the ability to deceive, stretch the truth, or deny a reply would be important, leading the researchers to conclude that communication technology should support plausible deniability, achieved by maintain certain imperfections in communication, for example. Due to the fact Reno operates on a family and friends basis, and that the place names can be controlled by the users, most of the participants had voiced no major concern on privacy issues. Participants perceived privacy concerns as co-related with broader demand for control and application utility. Though location requests from unknown people were unanimously rejected by all participants, a number of teenager participants pointed out that they would feel comfortable disclosing their location to any of new friends who would make the effort to ask. This study also demonstrated that activity and place are often used together or interchangeably for realizing communication goals and that the choice of what to share is a function of, at least, the activity being achieved with the communication. The study also implied that Automated Functions should not be a priority for design, as all the participants in this study had a preference to maintaining control over the messages their phones had sent. All participants viewed Reno as an enhanced messaging

application instead of simply a location-enhanced service. 4b. Location family values: A field trial of the whereabouts clock (Brown, Taylor, Izadi, Sellen, Kaye & Eardley, 2007) According to the research, the WAC was useful in aiding the betterment of planning within the family, such as dinner time and when certain members are coming home. The WACs functions also allowed a signal of location change prior to the change actually occurring, such as a person changing his location to HOME to signify he or she is on his way and that the other members should put the kettle on (Brown et al. 2007). The messaging option served to add more detail to such endeavors, as well as call to action

39

such as asking for a phone call. The Clock was also deemed reassuring by a large part of the participating families, as well as providing a feeling of connectedness and togetherness. The Clock was also sometimes used to display affection, with the messaging service being utilized for touching messages such as saying goodnight to the whole family. The limited number of monikers allowed for the locations, such as HOME, WORK and SCHOOL did not dissuade the participants from misnaming locations in order to be creative, such as naming the train station SCHOOL or walking the dog as WORK. 4c. Whos viewed you: the impact of feedback in a mobile location-sharing application (Tsai, Kelley, Drielsma, Cranor, Hong & Sadeh, 2009) A total of 233 requests were made to locate 56 participants, which is around 4 requests per participant, over the two weeks in which the application was used.. Results indicate that users of Locyoution were concerned about their privacy prior to using the technology. After using it for a month, the participants privacy concerns were lessened slightly. Participants were much more comfortable, in general, with friends finding their locations as compared to acquaintances, and acquaintances as compared to strangers. According to the results of the exit survey, a differentiation was registered between privacy concerns in the Feedback and the No Feedback conditions. Participants with feedback were far more atease with being located by friends and strangers, compared to their perceived levels of comfort at the start of the study. This was based on results of paired T-tests by condition. Participants in the Feedback condition had the assumption they would be at-ease with being located by friends based on time-based rules. After using Locyoution, they became much more comfortable about being located by friends. Participants in the Feedback condition were not comfortable being located by strangers, even with time restrictions.

40

The number of hours per week that a users rules allowed him or he r to be viewable at the conclusion of the study are displayed above split by the Feedback and No Feedback conditions.

After using the system, they became slightly less uncomfortable about being located by strangers at the time allowed by their rules. Results on privacy have shown that users have privacy concerns about sharing their location, but experience with the system slightly reduced their privacy concerns. Users who had received feedback become more comfortable with sharing their location information with friends and strangers. Users in the Feedback condition had a lesser degree of concern for their privacy after using the technology. Overall the results indicate that users want to know who has been viewing them, but that for those who did not receive feedback; more users were not sure if they would be more willing to share their locations with others under any terms. Most participants would prefer an opaque system to having the ability to know who has been viewing their profile. Users in the study seem to feel comfortable with the levels of control they possess to actually use the system, but they also noted that they wished they were given access to more expressive rules. Participants were generally satisfied with time-based rules, but indicated their preference to location-based rules and group-based rules. Mobile location sharing system users usually make their locations visible for a more hours, if time-based rules are used, if they are able to track who has been checking their locations. Peers significantly influence whether or not a user will adopt and continue mobile location-sharing technology usage. The more technically savvy someone is has an effect on adoption mobile location-sharing technology. To summarize the findings, the authors concluded that providing feedback to users about when and by whom they have been queried tends to make them more comfortable about sharing location information. Also highly lauded is the fact that feedback is a desired feature in such a system and makes users more willing to share their location information.

41

4d. From Awareness to Repartee: Sharing Location within Social Groups (Barkhuus, Brown, Bell, Sherwood, Hall & Chalmers, 2008) The Connecto application was initially used for call co-ordination, with users checking when to call or not to call depending on the profile the person they want to call is using. The location of the person wished to be called was also critical to participants call co-ordination, as well as general organization: for example, if a user can perceive another as home, he can then organize dinner accordingly. Cocoordinating meetings and such matters was made easier by utilizing the application. Geographical references, locations descried through personal meaning, locations named by activity and hybrids of said classes are all different ways users chose to tag their locations. Users also tended to change their profile setting names do more personalized forms, such as changing 'silent' to 'shhhh'. Whilst it was predicted that user might want to manually set location to conserve privacy, this research showed that it was better used for 'freezing' location, such as leaving the location set on ''on the road'' instead of the location constantly changing. The manual setting was highly appreciated by participants, and was not, contrary to popular belief, used primarily for deception and lying about location. The ability to name location also allowed participants to add context to their location, such as marking ones location as ''drinking'' to invite friend instead of simply leaving the location name as is. The participants utilized the naming feature in creative ways, striving to add a ''storytelling'' aspect to location marking. Participants used the awareness of others activities for both practical issues as described above and social navigation, such as serendipitous meetings. 4e. Privacy in location-aware computing environments (Anthony, Henderson, & Kotz, 2007). Participants were willing to share location information for half of all requests. In general, participants were significantly more likely to disclose location information with people in the list they specified than with email contacts or with anyone who simply asks. In addition, participants willingness to share with email requesters was statistically much greater than with anyone who asked when at home, in the library, or at other public place. Contrastingly, participants were more willing to share when they were at home or in the library compared to when they were in other public places or at friends households. Nine participants answered no to all location sharing questions, with all requester categories, every time and were labeled consistent- private (CP) users by the researchers. 10 participants answered at every 42

request that they would share their location with requesters who were on the list they specified, and were labeled the consistent share- with-friends (CSWF) users. Different from both types of consistent users were the six participants who varied in their willingness to share location information with different requester categories, depending on the situation. These were labeled variable-privacy (VP) users

VP users willingness to share with the three different requester categories according to place.

When at friends homes, CSWF users were significantly less willing than VP users to share location information. There were no statistical differences between CSWF and VP users in willingness to share when in the library or in other public places. VP users were most willing to share with requesters in their list and with anyone who asked when they were in the librarya public space. These users were also most willing to share with email contacts when in other public places, such as restaurants, other public buildings, or outdoor areas. VP users were not willing to share with anyone who asked when at friends home, but were willing to share with anyone who asked when they were at home in just over 20 percent of requests. View Figure 12, Appendix.

43

Participants were less willing to reveal location information when they were with others (typically friends) than when they were alone. The influence of being with friends was statistically stronger when participants were at home. When VP users were alone at home, they were willing to share their location with anyone who asked for 25 percent of the requests, with email contacts for 39 percent of the requests, and with their list for 79 percent of the requests. When VP users were alone and not at home, including when they were exercising, in class, at work, eating in a restaurant, or in transit, they were the most willing to reveal location to people on their list (85 percent), followed by anyone who asked (59 percent), and then email contacts (37 percent). When VP users were with friends and not at home (typically engaged in a social activity such as at a sporting event), they were never willing to reveal location to just anyone who asked, but they were sometimes willing to reveal location to email contacts (about 25 percent of requests), often willing to reveal location to people on their list (75 percent of requests). When these users were with friends at home (for example, watching television or a DVD, playing video games, or studying), they were occasionally willing to reveal location to anyone who asked (6 percent), and somewhat more willing to reveal location to email contacts (29 percent) and their list (53 percent). CSWF users had significantly lower levels of concern about the privacy of email compared to both CP and VP users. VP users had the highest level of privacy concerns for both email and instant messaging, and these levels were significantly higher than for CSWF users. VP users also rated the importance of email and instant-messaging security higher than both CP and CSWF users.

4f. Location Based Services : Evaluating user perceptions of location-tracking and locationawareness services. (Junglas & Watson, 2008). Location-tracking capabilities exhibited high levels of perceived usefulness and ease of use, and the performance levels of participants with these capabilities were higher than those with only wireless capabilities. Enthusiasm and concern were both voiced by participants over the ability to track location with relative ease, with interviews displaying participant fascination but also worry over the fact their movement could be tracked. Participants that used the location-aware services were more convinced of the usefulness than their other counterparts. Both groups performed similarly though. Subjects tended to perform the same, irrespective of whether or not LBS were available.

44

4g. Location Disclosure to Social Relations: Why, When, & What People Want to Share

(Consolvo, Smith, Matthews, LaMarca, Tabert &Powledge, 2005). The two major conclusions are that participants want to disclose what they think would be useful to the requester or deny the request, and that participants privacy classification, as determined by the Westin/Harris Privacy Segmentation Model, was not a good predictor of how they would respond to requests for their location from social relations. The Westin/Harris Privacy Segmentation Model divides participants into fundamentalists, pragmatists and unconcerned. fundamentalists have very high privacy concern and are passionate about what they *see+ as business threats to their consumer privacy, and *favor+ active government regulation of business and information practices. (Consolvo et.al 2005) Pragmatists, who are a middle group with balanced privacy attitudes, ask what benefits they get as consumers in sharing their personal information to balance against risks to their privacy interests, and they usually favor a mixture of government and private solutions. (Consolvo et.al 2005) Unconcerned individuals have little to no concern about consumer privacy issues. (Consolvo et.al 2005) This research seemed to show that the most important requests were who was requesting, why the requester desired the location of the participant and what is the detail is most useful to said requester. The participants tended to either disclose the most useful details about their location or none at all. Overall, participants were willing to disclose something about their location most of the time they received a request The findings also seem to imply that blurring location to protect ones privacy from social relations is not needed, or at least is not something participants thought to use, with vague information given out relatively sparingly, confirming this claim. Participant choosing not to disclose their location mostly used this denial as a method of sending a message that the request was not appropriate. Disclosure to friends and family was much more frequent than to that of co-workers and managers. The participants feelings about the requester, as well as their opinion on what the reason for the requesters query is, are largely influential to the decision do disclose or not disclose information. Location of disclosure and participant mood also had significant effect, with participants at work, doing chores or being depressed most likely to disclose information. Conversely, participants that are studying or engaged in conversation, as well as angry, are least likely to disclose information. On average, 45

unconcerned participants disclosed something 58% of the time (with a range of 85%), pragmatist participants disclosed 88% of the time (range of 25%), and fundamentalist participants disclosed 70% of the time (range of 19%). Though pragmatists behaved as expected, unconcerned and fundamentalists did not. To exemplify, two participants who were least wanted to disclose their location (12% and 41%) were both unconcerned, and fundamentalists usually decided to disclose their location. Most rejected request stemmed from the fact the requests themselves were deemed non-appropriate or strange, such as request from co-workers in non-work hours. Many participants mentioned that they did not want to disclose location to anyone when they were busy doing chores, usually with the exception of their partner. 4h. Wayfinding and art viewing by users of a mobile system and a guidebook

(Ishikawa, Murasawa, Okabe, 2009). During the tour, people from the mobile group were disoriented 27 times, as compared to 17 times of the people from the guidebook group. Out of these, 15 cases were due to inability to understand the systems provided directions. There were also cases of where problems comparing the provided picture on the screen and the real one. In case of the guidebook, seven cases were caused by map reading issues, and in the case of four people there was trouble in understanding which floor what was located at. The same flooring error led to a larger number of errors in map sketching when concerning the guidebook group. View Figure 13, Appendix.

46

There was no large difference in performance between the two groups when analyzing their perception of the surrounding scenes during the tour, or with satisfaction with the artworks. The guidebook users did seem to have viewed more photograph and movie contents than the mobile users. People with a lower interest in art tended to view less when in the mobile group than in the guidebook group. Otherwise, when concerning interest levels, the groups were pretty equal. Relative equality was also achieved in correctly remembering the photographs. It was, however, later established that participants who toured with a mobile terminal tended to forget about the artworks as time passed, whereas those who toured with a guidebook did not. 4i A Space-Identifying Ubiquitous Infrastructure and its Application for a Tour-Guiding Service (Bessho,Kobayashi, Koshizuka & Sakamura, 2008). All the navigation tasks featured in this experiment were successfully completed by all participants, without external aid. There were 27 occurrences where participants deviated from the designated route, but all of the said participants were able to return to the right path by following a recalculated route.

The experimental result of the number of successful navigation and out-of-route cases, and average time ratio.

47

The average walking time of four persons that knew the best possible route in advance was recorded, and used as an ideal sample to compare to the times of the participants. The ratio of the resultant time compared to the ideal time was recorded and analyzed, with shorter task that last less than a minute eliminated from this record.

The distribution of the ratio of the spent time to the ideal time.

The average ratio of the 97 samples was 1.21, and its variance is 0.0326. Table 1 the timing result of 10 examinees is shown, revealing that visitors spent about 20 % longer to walk than the ideal time spent by familiar visitors to Tokyo Midtown. As shown in the histogram, 91.8 percent of the sample ratios are less than 1.5. The authors observe that most of the out-of-route cases were noticed by the examinees at once to recover to the designated route, but a few cases were not and new routes were recalculated for such cases. Therefore, it is considered that the larger samples were mainly caused by the latter 48

infrequent cases because the walking path itself became much longer than the ideal one in such a case (Bessho et al., 2008).

Observation 5: Remarks on future research and the future of said technology

Sub question: What future directions do they stem from this work? Though most of the research papers have been scarce in their suggestions on future research, some data was given on this topic, while the rest can be concluded from their findings. Researching to what degree are automatic functions unnecessary is one option, suggested by Iachello (2005). Looking into integration of disclosure history (Janice Y. Tsai et al, 2009) and re-analyzing population to further examine their sharing habits (Henderson & Kotz, 2007) are also promising future research options. The E911 protocol is significant to consider in all future research that concerns the U.S (Junglas & Watson, 2008). The Westin/Harris Privacy Segmentation Model and its validity were put in question (see the relevant section below for more detail) (Consolvo et al., 2005). Analyses of all the suggested future researches leads to the conclusion that the authors either demand the same research be performed again, but on a larger scope, or lament the non-availability of certain information and would suggest further research on those topics. Overall, however, there seems to be a demand for further research in user perception of an LBS. Intrusiveness and privacy are issues present in all of the works reviewed, and even if briefly addressed, are given high regard. Reliability, usability and sample representativity are recurring issues that are mentioned. Therefore, it is logical to suggest that future research should not necessarily focus in a novel approach, but refining the already tried research methods. Some suggestions could involve having more participants which are more representative in relation to the target group, prolonging the duration of experiments or broadening the scope of research by varying the location (the Medialab could be very useful in this regard). Personalization, user interaction with the LBS, privacy preferences and the amount of customization of the LBS application these are promising areas for research, with reciprocations for all of the reviewed research, from the ones concerning navigation to ones concerning the ubiquitous nature of LBS. An example would be an experiment that looks into the amount of customization the user is given and its relation to privacy issues. Another would be the consequence of location disclosure system customization to navigation using LBS seeing how the ability to customize the service reflects the users ability to navigate; for example, does naming locations differently allow for an easier interaction with the LBS and quicker navigation? Finally, as 49

mentioned, privacy and intrusiveness remain an issue, so an experiment that tests varying degrees of intrusiveness and its effect on user interaction with LBS would also be warranted. 5a.Control, deception and communication: Evaluating the deployment of a location enhanced messaging service (Iachello, Smith, Consolvo, Abowd, Hughes, Howard, Potter, Scott, Sohn, Hightower &. LaMarca, 2005) Considering the participants did not use automatic functions and provided strong evidence suggesting that even in a complete social network automatic functions would be unnecessary in the face of loss of control, the paper implies this area could be researched more to conclude to what degree is automatic functions an unnecessary function. A similar study to this one but with a longer duration is suggested by the researchers as the next step in researching all of the covered topics in this paper.

5b. Location family values: A field trial of the whereabouts clock (Brown, Taylor, Izadi, Sellen, Kaye & Eardley, 2007) The authors of this paper suggest that understanding the value of location-in-interaction may lead to technical design distinct from optimizing the underlying technology, such as less accurate but more meaningful location information therefore implying further research in this topic is warranted. They also hint at further working on redesigning the WAC while learning from the results of this study. They consider giving families more flexibility in labeling locations and move from a clock to a watch. 5c. Whos viewed you: the impact of feedback in a mobile location-sharing application (Tsai, Kelley, Drielsma, Cranor, Hong & Sadeh, 2009) The authors suggest building disclosure history feedback into future systems as well as urging the invention of methods to define more expressive privacy preferences, as well as offering a diverse palette of rule types to govern the disclosure of personal location information, this empowering people to protect their own privacy. According to the authors, the adoption of a mobile location-sharing

technology depends highly on technical ability. One of the items implied in the paper is that developers need maintain a positive buzz about their services to keep users and their peers enthusiastic about location-based technologies. 50

5d. From Awareness to Repartee: Sharing Location within Social Groups (Barkhuus, Brown, Bell, Sherwood, Hall & Chalmers, 2008) This research was aimed at pointing to a gap in studies of real-life use of LBS applications in terms of open location sharing, as well as exploring the social interaction around the application. The paper suggest that researching technologies in this manner can and should open up the research agenda to a more encompassing set of technologies. Subsequent studies should, the paper suggests, add different functionalities and features for comparison and more detailed findings (L. Barkhuus et al.,2008)

5e. Privacy in location-aware computing environments (Anthony, Henderson, & Kotz, 2007). The authors of this paper specifically claim their usage of college students is not a representative sample of all users, or even of all college students. They therefore imply that future research, including studies of representative samples of the population such as in survey research, must examine whether population groups vary in their concerns about, or willingness to share, location information. Another important area to be studied is further exploration of how and for whom privacy preferences are context dependent. The authors perceive a challenge in develop interfaces that can adequately control information commensurate with user preferences but that do not constantly interrupt users, and advise further research to better understand location privacy behavior across a broader sample population, as well as the need to explore privacy behavior across a larger range of context sharing technology. 5f. Location Based Services : Evaluating user perceptions of location-tracking and locationawareness services. (Junglas & Watson, 2008). The future of LBS, according to this research, will be largely dependent on the development of solutions for the privacy issue that seem to be one of the technologies downfalls. Another point of consideration is the completion of E911 implementation, for which full compliance in the US is expected in 2012. The

51

E911 is a new model of telephony that features location tracking for any emergency 911 call. This is relevant, and applicable, to the US only (Iris A. Junglas & Richard T. Watson, 2008).

5g. Location Disclosure to Social Relations: Why, When, & What People Want to Share

(Consolvo, Smith, Matthews, LaMarca, Tabert &Powledge, 2005). Suggested research includes exploration of the introduction of social ramifications in social relation disclosure, and the balance between a system that the user controls and can interrupt the user and one that relies on a priori preference configuration. The Westin/Harris Privacy Segmentation Model seems to require further investigation as well. 5h. Wayfinding and art viewing by users of a mobile system and a guidebook

(Ishikawa, Murasawa, Okabe, 2009).

Due to the fact that more errors in navigation were made by people utilizing the mobile-art tour system than the guidebook, more research in precision and reliability of such Location Based Service (LBS) is probably warranted, as well as the usability and HCI aspects of said services. This researched showed that this type of mobile orientation method is helpful for dealing with the issue of remembering locations on wrong floors etc. Further research is suggested on the effect of small screens of the mobile units on the wayfinding behavior of the user. As participants configurational understanding of the environment was not strictly examined, more in-depth research in whether this type of spatial understanding is affected by different navigational media is a suggested area for future research. The effect of technological novelty (or rather the lack of effect) on attention attraction will also probably be looked into with more detail. More thorough research on the various aspects of evaluations of art and art information will probably be required to supplement this entire study. 5i. A Space-Identifying Ubiquitous Infrastructure and its Application for a Tour-Guiding Service (Bessho,Kobayashi, Koshizuka & Sakamura, 2008).

52

The authors suggest that various kinds of place-based services can be constructed on the basis of the infrastructure they have developed. They hint at their future plans which include integration of a different e different place-based services within this existing system, such as shopping assistance and navigation to the nearby rest rooms. The authors also conclude that their system is user-friendly towards persons with disabilities, and that it opens up multiple commercial opportunities.

Observation, additional : Location Based Services best practices

(Tsai, Kelley, Cranor, & Sadeh, 2010)

Guidelines were issued by International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry in order to assist providers of LBS in the protection of user privacy. It is based on two Fair Information Principles (FIPs), user notice and consent. The guidelines include:

Notice: Providers of LBS have to first inform users as to how their location information will be

used ,protected and disclosed. This allows the user to make a decision on using the LBS based on this information, as well as authorizing any disclosure.

Consent: If the user decides to use an LBS, or authorize the disclosure of location

information, the user must have choices on whether or when location information will be disclosed to third parties. The user must be enabled to revoke any authorization of that kind.

The CTIA guidelines do not determine the form, placement, manner of delivery or content of notices . Most providers tend to provide their statements regarding notice and consent in their posted privacy policies or terms of service.

53

CONCLUSION & DISCUSSIONS

5a. Conclusion
Analyzing each separate aspect of the research found in the reviewed paper has allowed for an easier outlook on LBS research as a whole. The technologies used were varied, with simple ones such as wireless-PDAs present in research that did not demand more elaborate prototypes, but others such LBS as applications that integrate with Facebook were also present. A conclusion could be made that none of the prototypes seem difficult to replicate. However, the papers that dealt with navigation using LBS, such as Wayfinding and art viewing by users of a mobile system and a guidebook and A SpaceIdentifying Ubiquitous Infrastructure and its Application for Tour-Guiding Service, would be difficult to replicate, and the research there presented could only be re-created in environment such as the Medialab, where the locations and artwork that those experiments featured could be virtually simulated. It can be noted that most of the researches featured in this review had small participant groups, which debatably hampered the representativity of their sample groups. It is also interesting to note how most researches suggested more research into the cognitive and psychological, as well as design and HCI aspects of LBS utilization. To answer the main RQs of the thesis, it was important to examine a number of LBS research papers and establish what the research trends are. Researching navigation with Location Based Service was one major research theme. The other was how participants relate to location disclosure, from a variety of angles: is there deception, how easily do they adopt this technology, how it applies to the lifestyle of families, what are the other privacy issues. While privacy remains a very vibrant issue and is covered, at least briefly, in almost all of the paper examined, it is not necessarily the central research subject for most of these papers. It is immediately apparent that there are several promising branches of LBS research when concerning the MediaLab and its application. The most obvious case is with research dealing with navigation and orientation when utilizing LBS, such as the ones performed in museums etc. The distinct advantages of the Medialab, with their virtual reality options, become apparent when considering that all the environments described in LBS navigation featuring papers, such as an art-gallery, for example, can be emulated in the MediaLab environment. Obviously, research that features participants queried in their

54

daily lives, or whole-day interaction with an LBS, such as the one in .Locating Family Values. Is not replicable in the Medialab, but many of the findings, such as the ones on privacy for example, can then be applied to new experiments that can be performed in a controlled environment such as the MediaLab is. Another field of LBS research that is promising for application in the MediaLab is research on the perception users have of location-tracing and LBS. These issues were explored in LOCATION-BASED SERVICES: Evaluating user perceptions of location-tracking and location-awareness services, among others, and with minor modifications, could probably be applied to the MediaLab. In effect, most experiments that feature orientation as a tool for garnering results, be it on privacy or perception of use, are perfectly suited for implementation within the MediaLab. In conclusion, it is worth considering the results of all these papers in setting up any future LBS research within the MediaLab, as even if the research itself does not feature the same set-up or goals, certain parameters could be established by cooperation, as all of the papers deal with prominent issues within Location Based Service research. Reviewing both the chosen papers and the results of this thesis, it is clear that the MediaLab offers many options when concerning LBS research. The most apparent one is the emulation of environments that are featured in research on navigation and perception of usefulness, such as mentioned bellow. Simply put, the MediaLab can create, or re-create any environment required virtually, therefore opening up a window for a plethora of LBS research. For example, to create an art gallery and test out if participants perceive the artwork differently when using LBS, the MediaLab would merely need to simulate the gallery; instead of researchers having to move participants to that locations (if unavailable). While research on, for example, sharing location within social groups, might be difficult to emulate in the MediaLab, research on perceived usefulness, orientation and wayfinding and even privacy and intrusiveness is a wide open field for the MediaLab, and would be advantageous to consider.

55

5b Discussion
1. Reflections of this project from a personal viewpoint

While the LBS field seems focused, it is actually quite broad considering the wide range of factors Location Based Services themselves feature: issues of navigation, privacy, perception, usefulness and many more. This research has given me an opportunity to view the whole field of LBS from a more analytical viewpoint, prompting me to ask questions such as how can this particular LBS be applied in future research? or how have the creators of this LBS dealt with the issue of privacy for example. It has proven difficult to aggregate all the knowledge gathered from various LBS research due to the sheer amount of information, as editing it down proved troublesome. However, I believe this thesis functions well as a summary of relevant information relation to each separate paper, as well as a useful tool for someone looking for a bite sized view on LBS research with which they can orient themselves with before starting their own. 2. Limitations

As I have mentioned, the limitations of this paper are the sample size i.e. the number of papers reviewed, and the amount of information presented as opposed to the information gathered. To put it simply, it was difficult to choose a small number from such a large variety of papers on the subject, and it was even more difficult to then compact this information so that the essence remains, but so that the paper is in an acceptable format and length. These can, therefore, be considered the drawback and limitations of this thesis, but they are by no means debilitating, nor do they lessen the value of the information contained within.

56

5c.Refferences
1. Sadeh, N. M-Commerce: Technologies, Services, and Business Model, 1st ed. Wiley, 2002.

2. Corvida. Whats plaguing your mobile social network? ReadWriteWeb (May 15 2008). http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/whats_plaguing_your_mobile_soc.php. 3. Mccarthy, C. The mobile social: Not ready for prime time? News.com (February 13 2008). http://www.news.com/8301-13577_3-9870611-36.html.

4. L. Barkhuus, B. Brown, M. Bell, S. Sherwood, M. Hall, & M. Chalmers. From awareness to repartee: Sharing location within social groups. In CHI 08 (April 2008), pp. 496507. 5. Iris A. Junglas and Richard T. Watson.Location-Based Services. Communications of the ACM, 51(3):6569, March 2008.

6. Martin Kofahl and Erik Wilde. Location Concepts for the Web. In Irwin King and Ricardo BaezaYates editors, Weaving Services and People on the World Wide Web, pages 146169. 7. Alexander Mayrhofer and Christian Spanring. A Uniform Resource Identifier for Geographic Locations (geo URI). Internet RFC 5870, May 2010.

8. Yiming Liu, Erik Wilde, Personalized Location-Based Services, iConference 2011, Seattle, Washington, February 2011. 9. M. Reardon, Mobile Phones that Track Your Buddies, CNET.com, 14 Nov. 2006, http://news.com.com/Mobile+phones+that+ track+your+buddies/2100-1039_3-6135209.html

10. Grinter, R. E., Eldridge, M.: y do tngrs luv 2 txt msg? In: Proc. ECSCW 01, Kluwer Academic Press (2001) 218239. 11. Hflich, J. R., Rssler, P.: Mobile schriftliche Kommunikation oder: E-Mail fr das Handy. Die Bedeutung elektronischer Kurznachrichten (Short Message Service) am Beispiel jugendlicher Handynutzer. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft 49 (2001) 4

57

12. Iachello, G., Smith, I., Consolvo, S., Abowd, G. D., Hughes, J., Howard, J., Potter, F., Scott, J., Sohn, T. , Hightower, J. and LaMarca, A. Control, Deception, and Communication: Evaluating the Deployment of aLocation-Enhanced Messaging Service. In Proc. Of UbiComp 2005. Springer (2005), 213-231. 13. Barry Brown, Alex S. Taylor, Shahram Izadi, Abigail Sellen, Joseph 'Jofish' Kaye, and Rachel Eardley. 2007. Locating family values: a field trial of the whereabouts clock. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Ubiquitous computing (UbiComp '07), John Krumm, Gregory D. Abowd, Aruna Seneviratne, and Thomas Strang (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 354-371.

14. Janice Y. Tsai, Patrick Kelley, Paul Drielsma, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Jason Hong, and Norman Sadeh. 2009. Who's viewed you?: the impact of feedback in a mobile location-sharing application. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2003-2012. 15. Denise Anthony, Tristan Henderson, and David Kotz. 2007. Privacy in Location-Aware Computing Environments. IEEE Pervasive Computing 6, 4 (October 2007), 64-72.

16. Sunny Consolvo, Ian E. Smith, Tara Matthews, Anthony LaMarca, Jason Tabert, and Pauline Powledge. 2005. Location disclosure to social relations: why, when, \& what people want to share. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 81-90. 17. Toru Ishikawa, Kei Murasawa, Atsuyuki Okabe: Wayfinding and art viewing by users of a mobile system and a guidebook. J. Location Based Services 3(4): 277-293 (2009)

18. Masahiro Bessho, Shinsuke Kobayashi, Noboru Koshizuka, and Ken Sakamura. 2008. A spaceidentifying ubiquitous infrastructure and its application for tour-guiding service. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Applied computing (SAC '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 16161621 19. Jeni Paay and Jesper Kjeldskov. 2007. A Gestalt theoretic perspective on the user experience of location-based services. In Proceedings of the 19th Australasian conference on ComputerHuman Interaction: Entertaining User Interfaces (OZCHI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 283-290.

58

20. Yiming Liu and Erik Wilde. 2011. Personalized location-based services. In Proceedings of the 2011 iConference (iConference '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 496-502. 21. Guanling Chen and David Kotz. 2000. A Survey of Context-Aware Mobile Computing Research. Technical Report. Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA. 22. M. Reardon, Mobile Phones that Track Your Buddies, CNET.com, 14 Nov. 2006, 23. Holson, L. Privacy lost: These phones can find you. New York Times (October 23 2007).http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/technology/23mobile.html 24. Andrei Popescu. Geolocation API Specification. World Wide Web Consortium, Candidate Recommendation CR-geolocation-API-20100907, September 2010.

25. Jochen Schiller and Agnes Voisard. Location Based Services, chapter 1. Morgan KaufmannPublishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 2004. 26. Johnson, P. (1998) Usability and Mobility; Interactions on the move, Proc. Mobile HCI 1998, Glasgow, Scotland, GIST Technical Report G98-1.

27. Apu Kapadia, Tristan Henderson, Jeffrey J. Fielding, and David Kotz. 2007. Virtual walls: protecting digital privacy in pervasive environments. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Pervasive computing (PERVASIVE'07), Anthony LaMarca, Marc Langheinrich, and Khai N. Truong (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 162-179. 28. S. Patil and J. Lai, Who Gets to Know What When: Configuring Privacy Permissions in an Awareness Application, Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 05), ACM Press, 2005, pp. 100111.

29. Grinter, R. E., Eldridge, M.: y do tngrs luv 2 txt msg? In: Proc. ECSCW 01, Kluwer Academic Press (2001) 218239. 30. Coors V., C. Kray, C. Elting & K. Laakso, 2005. Presenting route instructions on mobile devices: from textual directions to 3D visualization. In: J. Dykes, A.M. MacEachren and M.-J. Kraak, eds. Exploring geovisualization. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 529550. 31. J. Tsai, P. Kelley, L. Cranor, and N. Sadeh. Location-sharing technologies: Privacy risks and controls. A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society (I/S), 2010.

59

32. Norman Sadeh, Jason Hong, Lorrie Cranor, Ian Fette, Patrick Kelley, Madhu Prabaker, and Jinghai Rao. 2009. Understanding and capturing people's privacy policies in a mobile social networking application. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 13, 6 (August 2009), 401-412. 33. Ashraf Khalil and Kay Connelly. 2006. Context-aware telephony: privacy preferences and sharing patterns. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 469-478.

34. I. Smith, S. Consolvo, J. Hightower, J. Hughes, G. Iachello, A. LaMarca, J. Scott, T. Sohn, & G. Abowd. Social Disclosure Of Place: From Location Technology to Communication Practice, Proceedings of the 3rd Intl Conference on Pervasive Computing: Pervasive 05, Munich, Germany (2005), pp.134-51. 35. Jialiu Lin, Guang Xiang, Jason I. Hong, and Norman Sadeh. 2010. Modeling people's place naming preferences in location sharing. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM international conference on Ubiquitous computing (Ubicomp '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 75-84.

60

APPENDIX
Figure 1: The art-information function provides the user with various contents about each artwork, including text descriptions, photographs and movies. The user can access any information by clicking tabs on the terminal screen.

Figure 2: The LocyoutionHome interface, displayed in Facebook. It shows, by default, the users own location, and presents a list of friends using Locyoution. This allows users to quickly query their friends locations without having to navigate to each of their Facebook profiles individually.

61

Figure 3: The Locyoution Who Has Viewed Me interface.

Figure 4: The installation of ubiquitous markers deployed in a city as space-identifying devices.

62

Figure 5: Graph depicting how often participants see each other. (Adults in darker circles.)

Figure 6: The Locyoution My Rules interface

63

Figure 7: Space-identifying model with three layers of devices, places and spatial semantics.

Figure 8: Pages answered and location requests made at various places.

64

Figure 9:

Figure 10: Daily messages sent; family group aggregate.

65

Figure 11: Volume of messages exchanged between pairs of participants

Figure 12:

66

Figure 13:

67