Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
most popular keywords in internet searches among
children are, curiously, “Youtube”, “Facebook”
and “Google”. The next most popular ones, in all
age groups (<8, 8-12, 13-18) are “sex” and “porn”.
Internet-critical people are often blamed for techno
phobia and moralism. Perhaps, there are grounds
for research based criticism as well. Discussion
of this kind should be carried out before arguing
that we all, from toddler to granny, need mobile
internet in our pockets to access the resources of
the information highway.
immediately if the monitored person has drunk
or eaten something forbidden or has stayed up
to watch their favourite film and thus has had
insufficient sleep.
Similar issues arise when considering location
based services (LBS) or devices. These tracking
devices monitor the elderly inside and outside of
the home environment and can potentially protect
against 'wandering' as well as measuring and en-
courage mobility. Can the person being monitored
decide when to turn the device on and off? Should
people have to be able to account for every minute
of their day? Journeys to the shops, the doctors or
outings to the library etc form an important part of
older people's daily activities. In turn this makes
up an integral part of the storytelling that occurs
between friends and family either face to face or
during the weekly phone call with long distance
relatives. The conversation 'You'll never guess
where I went last Tuesday' would be rendered
redundant if the family had access to the tracking
details. It is this kind of social implication which
is still not being fully considered by designers
of LBS. The HCI models on which designers
can draw are slowly beginning to go beyond the
straightforward issues of usability to include in-
dividual factors such as personal privacy. There
is however some way to go before the subtler,
social issues highlighted in the scenario above
are given the weight that they deserve.
The provision of monitoring systems may be
accompanied by a reduction of direct contact with
relatives, friends and care personnel (Abascal &
Nicolle, 2005). At what point does monitoring
become surveillance and to what extent are we
(accidentally or otherwise) removing the need
for human contact? Yes people want to maintain
independent lives in their own homes but on the
other hand they don't want to be looked after by
a robot' (Monk et al, 2004). How are these sys-
tems attending to the elderly person's emotional
and social wellbeing? Twenty years ago a com-
munity warden scheme supported older peoples'
independent living. A call from the warden's
GROWING OLD? NO PROBLEM,
WE HAVE A TECHNICAL
SOLUTION FOR YOU
The population is ageing. Improvements in mortal-
ity and a falling birth rate mean that in the UK the
fastest growing age group in the population are
those aged 80 years and older (National Statistics,
2008). Consequently supporting independent liv-
ing is high on the agenda for many designers and
technology providers. It is also on the minds of
everyday citizens, consider this typical scenario:
A concerned son buys a mobile phone as a present
for his elderly parent. The parent is instructed that
the phone is to help them feel safe and more secure
(although of course it is also a form of family
tracking). The son then reports feeling frustrated
that his mum always has the phone turned off.
She reminds him that it was only for emergencies
anyway and 'why should I have to always be con-
tactable?' This example highlights the distinction
between keeping a friendly eye on a loved one
and something potentially more sinister - the idea
of tracking and surveillance. Some 'surveillance'
systems are intended to monitor the physical well
being of elderly people with a view to supporting
independent living. Blood pressure and pulse for
example can be monitored and recorded remotely.
Such systems, however give rise to the notion of
'Big Brother' and place constraints upon personal
freedom and autonomy. The system will know
Search WWH ::
Custom Search