![6
Why biologists?
Lead users
.: have extreme needs which will become
general in society in a few years.
.: are positioned to benefit significantly by
obtaining a solution to those needs
[Von Hippel ’86]
Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/darmstadt-key-111031052512-phpapp01/85/Supporting-exploratory-science-6-320.jpg)
Supporting exploratory science
- 1. Supporting Exploratory Science inside and outside of the biology laboratory IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Aurélien Tabard - http://www.tabard.fr
- 2. 2 Aurélien Tabard IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN http://www.tabard.fr a Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 3. 3 in|situ| - INRIA & Université Paris Sud Aurélien Tabard - http://www.tabard.fr a Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 4. Supporting Exploratory Science inside and outside of the biology laboratory IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Aurélien Tabard - http://www.tabard.fr
- 5. 5 Design Construction Analysis By Ebbe S. Andersen http://biodesign.au.dk/ Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 6. 6 Why biologists? Lead users .: have extreme needs which will become general in society in a few years. .: are positioned to benefit significantly by obtaining a solution to those needs [Von Hippel ’86] Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 7. 7 Challenges - I 1. Digitization Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 8. 8 Field studies Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 9. A-book (Mackay et al. 2002) ButterflyNet, (Yeh et al. 2006) Smart Tea (Schraefel et al. 2002) LabScape (Arnstein et al. 2002) 9
- 10. 10 A. Tabard, E. Eastmond and W. E. Mackay. PRISM From Individual to Collaborative: The Evolution of Prism, a Hybrid Laboratory Notebook. In Proceedings of CSCW’08 Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 11. 10 A. Tabard, E. Eastmond and W. E. Mackay. PRISM From Individual to Collaborative: The Evolution of Prism, a Hybrid Laboratory Notebook. In Proceedings of CSCW’08 How biologists would use the different media they had at hand? Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 12. 11 Results Discipline Master notebooks Reflective practices Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 13. 11 Results Discipline Master notebooks Reflective practices Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 14. 11 Results Discipline Master notebooks Reflective practices Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 15. 11 Results Discipline Master notebooks Reflective practices Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 16. 12 Challenges - II 1. Digitization Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 17. 12 Challenges - II 1. Digitization 2. Exploration & Engineering Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 18. 13 Research cycle Office Laboratory Design Construction Analysis Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 19. 14 Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 20. 15
- 21. 16
- 22. 17 Research cycle Office Laboratory Design Construction Analysis Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 23. 17 Research cycle Office Laboratory Design Construction Mini-Grid Analysis Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 24. 18 Mini-Grid J. Bardram and N. Venkataraman. The Mini-Grid Framework: Application Programming Support for Ad-Hoc, Peer-to-Peer Volunteer Grids. In Advances in Grid and Pervasive Computing 2010 Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 25. 18 Mini-Grid How do we get people to participate to the Mini-Grid? J. Bardram and N. Venkataraman. The Mini-Grid Framework: Application Programming Support for Ad-Hoc, Peer-to-Peer Volunteer Grids. In Advances in Grid and Pervasive Computing 2010 Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 26. 19 J. D. Hincapié-Ramos, A. Tabard, and J. Bardram Co-design activities Designing for the invisible: user-centered design of infrastructure awareness systems. In Proceedings of DIS '10. Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 27. 20 GridOrbit & Infrastructure Awareness 1 Public displays 2 Notification System Viz Design activities Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 28. 21 Deployment - 1 month Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 29. 22 Increased participation 0123,"21'(4/#5$6( !"#$%&'$( )*+%&,(-&#.%"/#( Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 30. 22 Increased participation !"#"$%&"'("#)*+,,-'( !"# ./%(01234*-&)(( 01#*&"546#7( $%&&# 0123,"21'(4/#5$6( !"#$%&'$( )*+%&,(-&#.%"/#( Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 31. 22 Increased participation !"#$% !"# !"#"$%&"'("#)*+,,-'( !"# !"#$% ./%(01234*-&)(( !"#$% 01#*&"546#7( $%&&# 0123,"21'(4/#5$6( !"#$%&'$( )*+%&,(-&#.%"/#( Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 32. 23 Other results Identification of contribution patterns And... .: Sustained patterns of engagement with (60|30|10); .: Screen activity increases interaction; .: Visual clutter on the screen decreases interaction; .: No significant impact of the different notifications strategies. Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 33. 24 Research cycle Office Laboratory Design Construction Analysis Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 34. 24 Research cycle Office Laboratory Design Construction Mini-Grid Analysis Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 35. 25 Research cycle Office Laboratory Design Construction Analysis Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 36. 25 Research cycle Office Laboratory Design Construction Analysis Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 37. 25 Research cycle Office Laboratory Design Construction Analysis eLabBench Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 38. 26 A. Tabard, J. D. Hincapié-Ramos, and J. Bardram eLabBench The eLabBench: An Interactive Tabletop System for the Biology Laboratory. In Proceedings of ITS '11. Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 39. 26 A. Tabard, J. D. Hincapié-Ramos, and J. Bardram eLabBench The eLabBench: An Interactive Tabletop System for the Biology Laboratory. In Proceedings of ITS '11. 1. Digitization 2. Exploration & Engineering Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 40. 27 Information Roaming Activity Based Computing Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 41. 28 Capture and access Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 42. 29 Native applications Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 43. 29 Native applications Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 44. 30 Tangible integration Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 45. 31 Tangible integration Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 46. 32 Mediated tabletop interaction J. D. Hincapié-Ramos, A. Tabard, and J. Bardram Mediated Tabletop Interaction In Proceedings of Ubicomp'11. Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 47. 33 camera wiki notebook activity browser augmented rack folded resource scribbles on the activity's canvas Windows bar pen mouse photo capture button keyboard Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 48. 34 eLabBench deployment Submitted to CHI 2012 LB1 LB4 LB7 LB2 LB5 LB8 computer ... bench lab LB6 LB9 ow bench sink refrigerator + freezers Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 49. 35
- 50. 36 Results 5 Usage patterns Interaction with tangibles (racks and machine tags) Different levels of information capture Transformation of the workflow Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 51. 37 Research cycle Office Laboratory Design Construction Analysis Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 52. 37 Research cycle Office Laboratory Design Construction Analysis Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 53. 37 Research cycle Office Laboratory Design Construction Analysis Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 54. 37 Research cycle Office Laboratory Design Construction Analysis Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 55. 38 By Ebbe S. Andersen http://biodesign.au.dk/ Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 56. 39 Ongoing projects Device composition - phone/tablet & tabletops Design of pens for tabletops Occlusion on tabletops Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 57. Questions Work done in collaboration with: .: J. Bardram .: E. Eastmond .: M. Esbensen .: J.D. Hincapié Ramos .: W. Mackay Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 58. 41 Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
- 59. 42 eLabBench Architecture ABC Server Window top HTTP managemt camera POST/GET Machine Button/ Racks IR pen Tags Arduino miniABC miniABC Cornerstone Win7 Arduino API NatServices Serproxy activityDock eLabBench Designing for exploratory science - Aurélien Tabard - ITU
Editor's Notes
- #2: Hi thanks for the introduction, \nbefore getting started I’ll quickly introduce myself.\n
- #3: I’m currently a post-doc at the IT University of Copenhagen \n\n \n \nworking in the Pervasive Interaction Technology Lab, \n\n \n \nwith Jakob Bardram.\n\n \n
- #4: Before that I did my PhD at INRIA and Université Paris Sud \n
- #5: So let’s get started.\nThe main narrative to describe the scientific process, is one of a linear progression: you have an hypothesis, you test it, you get the results and then you have an idea of whether your hypothesis was right or wrong.\n\n \n \nAs you probably experienced in real life things get a bit more messy. It’s not that there is no hypotheses, plans or assertable conclusions, it’s just that the process requires iterations and adjustments. \nBut I’ll come back to this later and we can discuss it over coffee if you’d like.\n\n \n \nMy work over the past 5 years can be framed around a goal: supporting the\nexploratory and designerly practices in scientific environments.\n\n \n \n\n \n
- #6: \n \n \nSo in this talk I’ll present 3 projects I’ve worked on.\nAn hybrid paper / digital notebook\nAwareness tools for P2P grid technologies\nA interactive tabletop-based laboratory bench\n\n \n \nAnd which aimed at supporting the exploratory part of scientific work, basically helping to frame hypotheses and ideas, iterating on them and making sense of what was done.\n
- #7: But first I’ll answer a question that people are often too polite to ask. \nWhy the hell are you working with biologists? \nOr Are you doing bio-informatics, e-science? \n\n \n \nOnly in a tangential way.\n\n \n \nWhat interests me in their case is the extreme needs they have. \n\n \n \nThey have the characteristics of Lead Users, which were described by Von Hippel a prominent figure of research on innovation.\n\n \n \nLead users have extreme needs which will become general in society in a few years. Two examples with biologists are:\n1. the management of large quantity of information, I mean by orders of magnitude to what we handle today.\n2. they are confronted to the inherent physical nature of their activities, while living in an increasingly digital environment.\n\n \n \nThis means that they are very eager to try out new things. \nWhich is a second characteristic of lead users: they are positioned to benefit significantly by obtaining a solution to those needs.\n\n \n \nFinally their discipline is being re-defined at the moment.\n\n \n
- #8: So during my phd, I started to tackle these problems, namely the digitization of their workflow\n\n \n
- #9: At that time I studied the information management practices of biologists, both in the lab and in the office. \n\n \n \nThere are plently of people working on the problems related to the data deluge.\n\n \n \nSo I focused the increasing discrepancy between their physical and digital information in their everyday activities. At this point I focused a lot on the notebook artifact as it is a key element in the information management practices of biologists\n
- #10: I’m not the first to investigate these issues, and here are a few projects that also tackled the problem.\n\n \n \nBut besides ButterflyNet, these systems were not tested out in the wild. And butterflyNet was aimed at fied biologists so not really toward lab work.\n
- #11: So I built Prism, which is a hybrid notebook.\nHere you can see PRISM version 2, it web based, and \nIt integrates Anoto notebooks (on the left), with digital notebooks (on the right). The original part included the integration on a variety of other digital resources into it: emails, webpages, documents, but also information from colleagues. \n\n \n \nIf you have questions, stop me now, I can explain the application a bit more.\n\n \n \n\n [PAUSE]\n \n \nThere is more details on the design and architecture in the CSCW paper.\n\n \n \n[CLICK]\n\n \n \nBut the application was not the goal, rather I was interested in understanding how people would use the different media they had at hand. So I deployed the system for 3 months in a lab.\n\n \n
- #12: What did we found out?\nA first observation was the temporality of the different media. \n- scratch pad used for short term = the hour/the day- digital notes over weeks, and\n- paper notebooks for archival and long term tracking\n\n \n \nOne can think this is just a matter of habits. But it goes beyond that to what the media actually afford. Paper notebooks because of their physical constraints push toward a more disciplined writing. To illustrate this just take the case of insert a new paragraph into a page once you’ve written. That’s not really convenient or even possible on paper. While it can be done with a click in a digital notebook. The implications are countless, you feel like digital notes can always be updated or written the day after, something that does not really work well with paper. \n\n \n \nBut it actually goes beyond this, as we looked at how participants used PRISM we noticed that even though the data was aggregated online, they had a master notebook.\n\n \n \nLooking into their use of notebooks led me to define characterize their reflective practices. Using Schön’s analysis of reflective practices and extending it to scientists, I described what I call lightweight reflection. In which the process of externalizing memory to external artifacts leads to . In simple words, when deciding what to record you are scientists are already framing their research and as they must reflect on what they are doing to decide what to capture.\n\n \n \nI’m not going to talk about this here, but there are much more details on the ethnographic part in my dissertation, if you’re interested. \n\n \n \nSo I was happy and all, and then during my defense Abi Sellen asked me how I thought the lab would evolve in the coming years. As I’m a slow thinker and was quite stressed, I gave a rather boring answer but it got me thinking...\n
- #13: What did we found out?\nA first observation was the temporality of the different media. \n- scratch pad used for short term = the hour/the day- digital notes over weeks, and\n- paper notebooks for archival and long term tracking\n\n \n \nOne can think this is just a matter of habits. But it goes beyond that to what the media actually afford. Paper notebooks because of their physical constraints push toward a more disciplined writing. To illustrate this just take the case of insert a new paragraph into a page once you’ve written. That’s not really convenient or even possible on paper. While it can be done with a click in a digital notebook. The implications are countless, you feel like digital notes can always be updated or written the day after, something that does not really work well with paper. \n\n \n \nBut it actually goes beyond this, as we looked at how participants used PRISM we noticed that even though the data was aggregated online, they had a master notebook.\n\n \n \nLooking into their use of notebooks led me to define characterize their reflective practices. Using Schön’s analysis of reflective practices and extending it to scientists, I described what I call lightweight reflection. In which the process of externalizing memory to external artifacts leads to . In simple words, when deciding what to record you are scientists are already framing their research and as they must reflect on what they are doing to decide what to capture.\n\n \n \nI’m not going to talk about this here, but there are much more details on the ethnographic part in my dissertation, if you’re interested. \n\n \n \nSo I was happy and all, and then during my defense Abi Sellen asked me how I thought the lab would evolve in the coming years. As I’m a slow thinker and was quite stressed, I gave a rather boring answer but it got me thinking...\n
- #14: What did we found out?\nA first observation was the temporality of the different media. \n- scratch pad used for short term = the hour/the day- digital notes over weeks, and\n- paper notebooks for archival and long term tracking\n\n \n \nOne can think this is just a matter of habits. But it goes beyond that to what the media actually afford. Paper notebooks because of their physical constraints push toward a more disciplined writing. To illustrate this just take the case of insert a new paragraph into a page once you’ve written. That’s not really convenient or even possible on paper. While it can be done with a click in a digital notebook. The implications are countless, you feel like digital notes can always be updated or written the day after, something that does not really work well with paper. \n\n \n \nBut it actually goes beyond this, as we looked at how participants used PRISM we noticed that even though the data was aggregated online, they had a master notebook.\n\n \n \nLooking into their use of notebooks led me to define characterize their reflective practices. Using Schön’s analysis of reflective practices and extending it to scientists, I described what I call lightweight reflection. In which the process of externalizing memory to external artifacts leads to . In simple words, when deciding what to record you are scientists are already framing their research and as they must reflect on what they are doing to decide what to capture.\n\n \n \nI’m not going to talk about this here, but there are much more details on the ethnographic part in my dissertation, if you’re interested. \n\n \n \nSo I was happy and all, and then during my defense Abi Sellen asked me how I thought the lab would evolve in the coming years. As I’m a slow thinker and was quite stressed, I gave a rather boring answer but it got me thinking...\n
- #15: What did we found out?\nA first observation was the temporality of the different media. \n- scratch pad used for short term = the hour/the day- digital notes over weeks, and\n- paper notebooks for archival and long term tracking\n\n \n \nOne can think this is just a matter of habits. But it goes beyond that to what the media actually afford. Paper notebooks because of their physical constraints push toward a more disciplined writing. To illustrate this just take the case of insert a new paragraph into a page once you’ve written. That’s not really convenient or even possible on paper. While it can be done with a click in a digital notebook. The implications are countless, you feel like digital notes can always be updated or written the day after, something that does not really work well with paper. \n\n \n \nBut it actually goes beyond this, as we looked at how participants used PRISM we noticed that even though the data was aggregated online, they had a master notebook.\n\n \n \nLooking into their use of notebooks led me to define characterize their reflective practices. Using Schön’s analysis of reflective practices and extending it to scientists, I described what I call lightweight reflection. In which the process of externalizing memory to external artifacts leads to . In simple words, when deciding what to record you are scientists are already framing their research and as they must reflect on what they are doing to decide what to capture.\n\n \n \nI’m not going to talk about this here, but there are much more details on the ethnographic part in my dissertation, if you’re interested. \n\n \n \nSo I was happy and all, and then during my defense Abi Sellen asked me how I thought the lab would evolve in the coming years. As I’m a slow thinker and was quite stressed, I gave a rather boring answer but it got me thinking...\n
- #16: What did we found out?\nA first observation was the temporality of the different media. \n- scratch pad used for short term = the hour/the day- digital notes over weeks, and\n- paper notebooks for archival and long term tracking\n\n \n \nOne can think this is just a matter of habits. But it goes beyond that to what the media actually afford. Paper notebooks because of their physical constraints push toward a more disciplined writing. To illustrate this just take the case of insert a new paragraph into a page once you’ve written. That’s not really convenient or even possible on paper. While it can be done with a click in a digital notebook. The implications are countless, you feel like digital notes can always be updated or written the day after, something that does not really work well with paper. \n\n \n \nBut it actually goes beyond this, as we looked at how participants used PRISM we noticed that even though the data was aggregated online, they had a master notebook.\n\n \n \nLooking into their use of notebooks led me to define characterize their reflective practices. Using Schön’s analysis of reflective practices and extending it to scientists, I described what I call lightweight reflection. In which the process of externalizing memory to external artifacts leads to . In simple words, when deciding what to record you are scientists are already framing their research and as they must reflect on what they are doing to decide what to capture.\n\n \n \nI’m not going to talk about this here, but there are much more details on the ethnographic part in my dissertation, if you’re interested. \n\n \n \nSo I was happy and all, and then during my defense Abi Sellen asked me how I thought the lab would evolve in the coming years. As I’m a slow thinker and was quite stressed, I gave a rather boring answer but it got me thinking...\n
- #17: So as I moved to Copenhagen I started to participate to a project called the Mini-Grid also with biologists and thus went back to study labs in Denmark.\n\n \n \nI tried to step back a bit and look at the broader picture and what one could see is how their work practices were being re-defined by another big change:\n\n \n \n\n CLICK\n \n \n\n \n \nThanks to their increasing understanding of natural facts, they are now able to build artificial organic materialswhich means that they are moving toward engineering practices\n
- #18: So as I moved to Copenhagen I started to participate to a project called the Mini-Grid also with biologists and thus went back to study labs in Denmark.\n\n \n \nI tried to step back a bit and look at the broader picture and what one could see is how their work practices were being re-defined by another big change:\n\n \n \n\n CLICK\n \n \n\n \n \nThanks to their increasing understanding of natural facts, they are now able to build artificial organic materialswhich means that they are moving toward engineering practices\n
- #19: So as I moved to Copenhagen I started to participate to a project called the Mini-Grid also with biologists and thus went back to study labs in Denmark.\n\n \n \nI tried to step back a bit and look at the broader picture and what one could see is how their work practices were being re-defined by another big change:\n\n \n \n\n CLICK\n \n \n\n \n \nThanks to their increasing understanding of natural facts, they are now able to build artificial organic materialswhich means that they are moving toward engineering practices\n
- #20: Their workflow can be very roughly explained by this graph.\n\n \n \nWhat are the problems?\n- minigrid: expensive computation\n- elabbench: support digital needs in the laboratory\n\n \n \nMoreover another goal is to facilitate the transition between the different phases of their research. So that they can iterate more smoothly. And explore more alternatives.\n\n \n
- #21: So make it a bit more concrete here is an example from the lab:\n\n \n \nThe people I’ve been looking at are building nano structures made of DNA or RNA strings using a technique called DNA origami.\n\n \n \nFor example here is a sketch fo 3D nano-box\n
- #22: And some more sketches.\nBasically they build long strands of DNA in a way that will make them attach to themselves at very defined spots, and generate these shape.\n\n \n \nHere you can see the designerly practice, before going the lab and trying to build this thing, they went through many design iterations, built physical representation that they later used to discussed with each other.\n
- #23: \n \n
- #24: And once they were happy with their sketches they moved to a Computer Aided Design phase to optimize and check their design.\n\n \n \nThese exploratory phase is often very computer intensive. And biologists do not always have access to a cluster of computers or cloud services.\n
- #25: This is a drawing by a biologist colleague from Aarhus University illustrating the scope of the design activities going on in the labs:\n- On the right you can see computers crunching data, so thing we built at the ITU is a p2p network that allows biologists to offloads computationals tasks to the computers of their colleagues.\n- On the left you can see the eLabBench, a digital laboratory bench that I’ve been building for the past 2 years and which supports the digital needs of biologists in the lab.\n
- #26: This is where the Mini-Grid comes into the picture.\nIt focused on supporting the design and analysis phase of biologists work, which happen in offices.\n\n \n \nThe idea behind the mini-grid is to provide faster computation to biologists so that they can do more iterations with their bio-informatics tools either during the design phase or the analysis phase.\n
- #27: This is where the Mini-Grid comes into the picture.\nIt focused on supporting the design and analysis phase of biologists work, which happen in offices.\n\n \n \nThe idea behind the mini-grid is to provide faster computation to biologists so that they can do more iterations with their bio-informatics tools either during the design phase or the analysis phase.\n
- #28: This is where the Mini-Grid comes into the picture.\nIt focused on supporting the design and analysis phase of biologists work, which happen in offices.\n\n \n \nThe idea behind the mini-grid is to provide faster computation to biologists so that they can do more iterations with their bio-informatics tools either during the design phase or the analysis phase.\n
- #29: This is where the Mini-Grid comes into the picture.\nIt focused on supporting the design and analysis phase of biologists work, which happen in offices.\n\n \n \nThe idea behind the mini-grid is to provide faster computation to biologists so that they can do more iterations with their bio-informatics tools either during the design phase or the analysis phase.\n
- #30: \n The Mini-Grid is a P2P infrastructure for distributing computational tasks.So instead basically instead of sharing mp3 files, participants are sharing idle computing power.\n \n \nThere has been plenty of work on P2P and I did not work personally on the infrastructure, it was designed by Jakob Bardram and built by a PhD student from the ITU. So I won’t spend time on this now. But we can definitely come back to and I can explain its interest and the differences with SETI@HOME for example.\nJust quickly some the original aspects of are symmetric aspect, anybody executing jobs can also send jobs, its locality, its ability to take into account contextual information such as the location of the computers, their power, or their type (laptop vs. desktops).\n\n [CLICK]\n \n \nWhat was interesting to Juan David Hincapié-Ramos another Ph.D. student from the ITU and I was the voluntary aspect of this grid with the questions how can we get people to participate? \nAnd this is actually the thesis of Juan David Hincapié-Ramos.\n
- #31: \n The Mini-Grid is a P2P infrastructure for distributing computational tasks.So instead basically instead of sharing mp3 files, participants are sharing idle computing power.\n \n \nThere has been plenty of work on P2P and I did not work personally on the infrastructure, it was designed by Jakob Bardram and built by a PhD student from the ITU. So I won’t spend time on this now. But we can definitely come back to and I can explain its interest and the differences with SETI@HOME for example.\nJust quickly some the original aspects of are symmetric aspect, anybody executing jobs can also send jobs, its locality, its ability to take into account contextual information such as the location of the computers, their power, or their type (laptop vs. desktops).\n\n [CLICK]\n \n \nWhat was interesting to Juan David Hincapié-Ramos another Ph.D. student from the ITU and I was the voluntary aspect of this grid with the questions how can we get people to participate? \nAnd this is actually the thesis of Juan David Hincapié-Ramos.\n
- #32: To answer this question we explored a series of alternatives with Biologists\n
- #33: And we came up with GridOrbit, an awareness system composed of two applications\n\n \n \n1. a set of public displays visualizing the activity of the grid. On this picture you can see the computers connected to the grid. The one with a green halo is submitting tasks the ones with red halos are executing them. \nPeople could come to the screen to get more information and attach a picture of themselves pulled from the intranet to their computer.\n\n \n \n2. a notification system installed on personal computers and inviting people to participate more, with different short messages appearing at regular interval of times.\n\n \n
- #34: We deployed the MiniGrid for a month with our awareness tools in the molecular biology laboratory at the University of Aarhus. That’s 2 buildings 5 floors high.\n\n \n \nWe installed 2 screens like this one and the notifications systems on the computers of volunteers who contacted us.\n
- #35: The deployment started with a period of 10 days where we used classical rectruitment strategies: 2 meetings, posters, we also displayed messages on the public screens to decrease the novelty effect.\n
- #36: The deployment started with a period of 10 days where we used classical rectruitment strategies: 2 meetings, posters, we also displayed messages on the public screens to decrease the novelty effect.\n
- #37: The deployment started with a period of 10 days where we used classical rectruitment strategies: 2 meetings, posters, we also displayed messages on the public screens to decrease the novelty effect.\n
- #38: The deployment started with a period of 10 days where we used classical rectruitment strategies: 2 meetings, posters, we also displayed messages on the public screens to decrease the novelty effect.\n
- #39: The deployment started with a period of 10 days where we used classical rectruitment strategies: 2 meetings, posters, we also displayed messages on the public screens to decrease the novelty effect.\n
- #40: The deployment started with a period of 10 days where we used classical rectruitment strategies: 2 meetings, posters, we also displayed messages on the public screens to decrease the novelty effect.\n
- #41: Bootstrapping machines,\nSecondary computers\nPersonal PCs\nLaptops\nShared computers (Library/laboratory machines)\n
- #42: Coming back to the research cycle,\n\n \n \n\n [CLICK]\n \n \n\n \n \nthis work on the MiniGrid allowed us to better understand the digital needs of biologists in their offices, but also in the laboratories \n
- #43: Coming back to the research cycle,\n\n \n \n\n [CLICK]\n \n \n\n \n \nthis work on the MiniGrid allowed us to better understand the digital needs of biologists in their offices, but also in the laboratories \n
- #44: Coming back to the research cycle,\n\n \n \n\n [CLICK]\n \n \n\n \n \nthis work on the MiniGrid allowed us to better understand the digital needs of biologists in their offices, but also in the laboratories \n
- #45: Coming back to the research cycle,\n\n \n \n\n [CLICK]\n \n \n\n \n \nthis work on the MiniGrid allowed us to better understand the digital needs of biologists in their offices, but also in the laboratories \n
- #46: \n \n \nIt’s actually a bit more subtle as you have back and forth between the different stages.\n\n \n \n[CLICK]\n\n \n \nBut also that there are a whole set of digital needs during the construction phase, meaning the laboratory work. \n\n \n \n\n [CLICK]\n \n \n\n \n \nWe also went back to the lab, and worked with biologists to understand this better.\nThe results of this was the eLabBench\n\n \n
- #47: \n \n \nIt’s actually a bit more subtle as you have back and forth between the different stages.\n\n \n \n[CLICK]\n\n \n \nBut also that there are a whole set of digital needs during the construction phase, meaning the laboratory work. \n\n \n \n\n [CLICK]\n \n \n\n \n \nWe also went back to the lab, and worked with biologists to understand this better.\nThe results of this was the eLabBench\n\n \n
- #48: \n \n \nIt’s actually a bit more subtle as you have back and forth between the different stages.\n\n \n \n[CLICK]\n\n \n \nBut also that there are a whole set of digital needs during the construction phase, meaning the laboratory work. \n\n \n \n\n [CLICK]\n \n \n\n \n \nWe also went back to the lab, and worked with biologists to understand this better.\nThe results of this was the eLabBench\n\n \n
- #49: \n \n \nIt’s actually a bit more subtle as you have back and forth between the different stages.\n\n \n \n[CLICK]\n\n \n \nBut also that there are a whole set of digital needs during the construction phase, meaning the laboratory work. \n\n \n \n\n [CLICK]\n \n \n\n \n \nWe also went back to the lab, and worked with biologists to understand this better.\nThe results of this was the eLabBench\n\n \n
- #50: \n \n \nIt’s actually a bit more subtle as you have back and forth between the different stages.\n\n \n \n[CLICK]\n\n \n \nBut also that there are a whole set of digital needs during the construction phase, meaning the laboratory work. \n\n \n \n\n [CLICK]\n \n \n\n \n \nWe also went back to the lab, and worked with biologists to understand this better.\nThe results of this was the eLabBench\n\n \n
- #51: Here you can see the eLabBench in action\n[CLICK]\n\n \n \nA consequence of this digitization trend is the introduction of personal computers on the laboratory benches, improving biology work in three fundamental ways: \n1) it supports rich data access and capture by digital tools that support access to remote data (e.g. Web or Dropbox), sharing (e.g. group wiki), and computation (e.g. Excel spreadsheets); \n2) it shortens the experimental cycle, allowing in-situ experimental adjustments and analysis of results; and \n3) it allows biologists to execute multiple simultaneous experiments.\n
- #52: Here you can see the eLabBench in action\n[CLICK]\n\n \n \nA consequence of this digitization trend is the introduction of personal computers on the laboratory benches, improving biology work in three fundamental ways: \n1) it supports rich data access and capture by digital tools that support access to remote data (e.g. Web or Dropbox), sharing (e.g. group wiki), and computation (e.g. Excel spreadsheets); \n2) it shortens the experimental cycle, allowing in-situ experimental adjustments and analysis of results; and \n3) it allows biologists to execute multiple simultaneous experiments.\n
- #53: So the first step was to provide roaming of information so that users could have their access to their information where-ever they go.\n\n \n \nWe used principles of activity based computing to support this, basically information resources are organized around activities. Activities can be paused/resumed, moved around, duplicated, etc.\n\n \n \nHere you can see the activity dock running on the personal computer of one of our participant. \n
- #54: So participants can annotate their resources and view their notes back on their PC.\n\n \n \nThey can scribble quick notes. \n\n \n \nAnd can take pictures from a top mounted camera to capture the state of the bench.\n
- #55: \n \n
- #56: We also integrated with different tangibles, \n-> physical bookmarks to wiki pages\n\n \n
- #57: \n \n \n-> Augmenting racks of test tubes. Here you can see a simple version based on 2D markers attached to racks\n\n \n
- #58: \n \n \nWe also worked with RFID enabled racks and augmenting \n\n \n \n\n \n
- #59: \n \n
- #60: \n \n
- #61: \n \n
- #62: \n \n
- #63: We deployed the eLabBench in May and had 6 biologists use it for different periods of time.\n
- #64: \n \n
- #65: Usage Patterns\nPredefined experiment \nPredefined experiment with changes on the way \nVariation of an experiment done in the past \nAd-hoc experiment, not prepared \nCollaborative experiment \n\n \n \nRefining capture\n\n \n \nRe-defining the experimental workflow\nBlending laboratory and office work\nComputation in the laboratory\nChanges in the plans\n\n \n \n\n \n
- #66: \n \n
- #67: \n How does it generalizes?\n \n\n Value of deploying systems in the wild to better understand their implications.\n \n\n Reflective practices\n \n
- #68: \n How does it generalizes?\n \n\n Value of deploying systems in the wild to better understand their implications.\n \n\n Reflective practices\n \n
- #69: \n How does it generalizes?\n \n\n Value of deploying systems in the wild to better understand their implications.\n \n\n Reflective practices\n \n
- #70: \n How does it generalizes?\n \n\n Value of deploying systems in the wild to better understand their implications.\n \n\n Reflective practices\n \n
- #71: \n How does it generalizes?\n \n\n Value of deploying systems in the wild to better understand their implications.\n \n\n Reflective practices\n \n
- #72: \n How does it generalizes?\n \n\n Value of deploying systems in the wild to better understand their implications.\n \n\n Reflective practices\n \n
- #73: \n How does it generalizes?\n \n\n Value of deploying systems in the wild to better understand their implications.\n \n\n Reflective practices\n \n
- #74: \n How does it generalizes?\n \n\n Value of deploying systems in the wild to better understand their implications.\n \n\n Reflective practices\n \n
- #75: Coming back to this drawing, the goal is basically to facilitate the transition between the different phases of their research.\nSo that they can iterate more smoothly. And explore more alternatives.\n
- #76: With Leo Sicard, \nWith an intern \nOn my own\n
- #77: Thanks if you have any question I’ll be happy to answer them.\n\n \n \nIf you don’t beware, I’ll introduce you to David, he comes from Munich and has plenty of things to say about Darmstadt...\n
- #78: \n \n
- #79: \n \n