Jan Chipchase - Future PerfectWhere's The Phone

Where's the Phone?

This essay draws on data from the research paper A Cross Cultural Study on Phone Carrying and Personalisation co-authored with my colleagues Cui Yanqing and Fumiko Ichikawa to be presented at HCI International 2007 in Beijing. A presentation Where's The Phone: Selected Data that accompanies this essay can downloaded as PowerPoint or PDF [3MB]. Related research published here, Future Perfect post here, or skip to the results.

This essay presents data from a series of Nokia street surveys conducted between 2003 and 2006 that explored where people carry their mobile phones and why. The first study in this series, conducted in Helsinki during the summer of 2003, was designed to understand the extent to which people noticed incoming communication. Since then the study has evolved to encompass the carrying location of other objects, collect a visual snapshot of mobile phones and their ‘owner’s’ and has since been run in eleven countries across four continents.

Background

Where’s the Phone street surveys set out to document the extent to which people noticed their incoming communication and cross refererence this information to the location where the phone is carried. The mobile phone’s effectiveness as a communication device is partly dependent on its owner noticing incoming communication (though whether someone decides to respond to that communication is another matter entirely) and it was assumed by the authors that the process of deciding to carry an object would correlate with a minimal level of its effective use. Contexts where there was a high likelihood of missing incoming communication presented a design opportunity both in terms of thinking about device redesign and from the perspective of connectivity-related services accessed through that device.

Street surveys as described here and in this paper [PDF, 1MB] are one method used in Nokia by researchers to supplement more in-depth qualitative techniques in generating both broader statistical-lite data and generating a rich photographic snapshots of actual consumers and their mobile phones. Building on the findings of parallel research into what people carry [PDF 2MB] the research team extended the scope of the original study to include the carrying location of keys & money - the so-called mobile essentials, and it now also documents any form of physical mobile phone customisation. Many people have been involved in these studies and the original and subsequent research teams are listed under the acknowledgements.

Background information about the qualitative research methods used by the team can be found here in particular Exploratory User Field Research in the Nokia Mobile HCI Group [PowerPoint, 3MB] and Out There: Using Field Research to Inform and Inspire [PowerPoint, 3MB].

Each street research team includes an interviewer and a photographer, with multiple teams typically working concurrently to collect data from between 100 and 200 participants over a 3 day period. Mixed gender research teams were used in all cities except Tehran and Delhi where local norms dictated a gender split. The studies generate a mixture of quantitative statistical data covering age, gender and phone location that is supported by richer data including photographs of the phone, its carrying position and the phone owner. Phones were photographed both in and out of the carrying location. In later studies particular emphasis was placed on collecting photographic evidence of physical phone personalisation - straps, the use of protective covers and other adornments, plus the same for keys and money - this data being used to support related studies on personalisation.

Since the original Helsinki study, Where’s the Phone has been conducted with 1549 participants in a further 10 locations: Milan; New York; Los Angeles (specifically Santa Monica and Venice Beach); Tehran; Kampala; Delhi; Tokyo; Seoul; Beijing and Ji Lin between 2003 and 2006, and further studies planned for 2007.

Limits of this research

The data generated by this research is used in conjunction with in-depth qualitative research techniques (not discussed in this essay) to inform and inspire the design process. The reader should naturally consider the (considerable) limits of these studies: that this study provides a snapshot of 50+ males and 50+ females in a relatively small geographic area over the three day period when the data was collected. Carrying positions are not absolute and can change frequently over the course of the day; according to context; related to tasks; weather conditions; seasons; clothing; perception of safety; expectation and importance of expected incoming communication, forms of transport and for many other reasons. Or to put it another way - the studies are not about finding answers, but about gaining insights to figure out a smarter set of questions.

Selected Results

What follows is a small selection of data taken from all 11 studies and unless otherwise stated draws on the responses of all participants (n=1549).

60% of men sampled carried their mobile phone in their trouser pockets, and of these most carried them in front right trouser pockets - positioned to be reachable by their dominant (right) hand.
61% of women sampled carried their mobile phone in a bag usually a hand bag

30% of pocket carriers and 50% of bag carriers sometimes or always miss incoming mobile phone communication. In other words women are most likely to miss incoming communication either because it is not noticed, or because even if it is noticed the phone cannot be retrieved in time - because the phone is buried deep in the hand bag.
Phone carrying positions were driven by a need to balance the ease of carrying and interaction versus a desire to protect it from damage, loss and theft. Secondary factors influencing the carrying position include: a lack of alternatives (particularly for pocketless women's clothes), health concerns, a reflection of local carrying styles and tastes, large phone sizes i.e. it was not suitable for the preferred carrying location and not wanting the phone's presence to interfere with current activity.

The use of belt pouches amongst males ranges from 0% in Tokyo N=61, 10% in Los Angeles N=66 to 38% in Ji Lin N=104, and gradually becomes more popular as respondents become older. Perhaps this reflects a preference for convenience over elegance - belt pouches are still largely perceived as being utilitarian and inelegant. This shift can also be explained be an increase in waist sizes over time, for males making pockets a less feasible destination.
The use of protective phone covers amongst males and females varied from 3% in Tokyo to 32% in Kampala and is driven by a desire to prolong the life of the device by protecting from dust and scratches, and particularly for more price conscious consumers - to protect resale value. Phone covers reduce a device’s ability to project status and reflect personal or group identity – the device and what’s on the display become more difficult by other’s to see. One anomaly for cover use was in Seoul, South Korea, which the team attributes to an unusually high local awareness of bacterial awareness/paranoia. Cover usage changes the interaction and carrying experience, and hard-covers such as those widely available in India add considerably bulk to the device.

The adoption of phone straps varies considerably between Asia Pacific and the rest of the world. One possible explanation for the cultural difference in phone strap adoption is that consumers in collectivist societies such as China, South Korea and Japan value straps as an platform for facilitating social associations and impression management - put simply the phone strap is an immediate, non-technical and obvious way of projecting oneself and one's values. (for an explanation between collectivist and individualist societies see Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival by Geert Hofstede). Phone strap usage ranges from the purely functional to highly decorated and whilst the most extreme examples can be found amongst younger females, they are also widely used by males. A lesser strategy adopted by females is to attach objects with unique textures, which then make it easier to locate the phone unsighted in the handbag. Phone strap data was only collected after the New York study, but based on a review of the photo data is estimated at under 10% for New York, Milan and Helsinki.

The use of wallets and purses to cluster, contain and protect the things we carry varied considerably ranging from 98% in Tokyo, 54% in Beijing to 35% in Ji Lin. The main reason for not carrying a purse/wallet was that it presented an easy target for theft. In addition a wallet/purse is only (functionally) needed when there are enough objects e.g. credit & debit cards, ‘loyalty’ cards, id cards, to cluster in it as a container. Currently for many of the world’s poorer city dwellers a purse/wallet is simply not needed not because of lack of money, but simply because the common wallet form factor assumes a use of credit card sized objects, and these are simply not in everyday use. Standardised card sizes are discussed in ISO 7810, ID-1.
Whilst wallet and purse use data may be biased by respondents not wanting to reveal to the research team where they carried these objects, in most instances respondents did allow the researchers to document where their money was carried. The one exception to this was Kampala - where it is socially unacceptable to ask people where they carry their money.

Comment

Whilst there are obvious limits to this research, when combined with qualitative research techniques the data has helped the design team build up a picture of carrying behaviours and highlight interaction issues including: the effects of age & gender on the likely carrying position; that female handbag users frequently miss incoming communications compared to their male counterparts; the strategies people adopt to cluster, contain and protect objects, in particular when they go below a certain size and/or share a common form factor; strategies to support object retrieval; and the device design affecting the likelihood and type of physical personalisation. Factors affecting the likelihood of personalisation are comprehensively covered in a separate in-depth study by Antti Oulasvirta and my Nokia Design colleague Jan Blom

The results also feed into our growing knowledge-bank of consumer understanding from around the world which is drawn on to both inform and inspire current and future design.

The last 10 years have seen a convergence of functionality onto a single device - instant messaging, radio, television, music, cameras, GPS the list goes on. Each feature creates new modalities of use subtly or drastically changing how people carry and interact with their ‘phone’. How does having a camera change how a phone is carried? Or access to mobile banking? Or mobile TV?

In addition, we are rapidly moving to the point where, due to miniaturization, flexible components and economies of scale, it may make sense to de-converge functionality on the phone. Hypothetically, if you took all the features on a phone today and distributed them around the body, clothes and in other carried objects, where might these functions be carried, accessed? And why? When an object can be any shape or size, what shape and size should it be?

What if we could design a device where incoming communications was noticed 100% of the time? The social acceptance of our willingness to adopt communications technology lies to some extent in plausible deniability - that element of the social equation that keeps us in control of the technology (and what it represents) and not the other way around. We could design a device where incoming communication is impossible to miss, but should we? Who has a practical choice whether to adopt the technology or not. Do you? Your boss? Your employees? To take but one example - finding a solution for the 'missing incoming communication' problem is irrelevant if other issues such as filtering, prioritisation and contextual awareness not adequately considered.

More findings from this research will be published in due course.

References

Blom, J, & Monk, A. 2003. Theory of Personalization of Appearance: Why Users Personalize Their PCs and Mobile Phones. In Human-Computer Interaction, 18, 3 193-228.
Blom, J. & Chipchase J., Which hand? Which ear? A comparative study for N-Gage and S60 portrait hand preference. 2004. Nokia Internal Technical Report.
Chipchase, J., Persson, P., Piippo, P., Aarras, M., & Yamamoto, T. 2005. Mobile essentials: field study and concepting. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Designing For User Experience (San Francisco, California, November 03 - 05, 2005), New York, NY, 57.
Chipchase. J. Physical Phone Personalisation. Presentation hosted by NIFT New Delhi on a study of 6447 used phone covers in Japan, highlighting the user of the phone as a personal shrine. Download PowerPoint [1MB].
Chipchase, J., Jung, Y., Heathcote, C., & Shimizu, A., 2006. Super Customisation: Deco Den Mobile Phone Customisation in Japan. Nokia Internal Technical Report
Hofstede, G. 2004. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival New York: McGraw-Hill U.S.A., 2004.
Ichikawa, F., Chipchase J., & Grignani R. 2005. Where's the phone? A study of Mobile Phone Location in Public Spaces. In Proceedings of the IEE Mobility Conference 2005 (Mobility ‘05) (Guangzhou, China), 3-2B-2. Download PDF [1MB]
Oulasvirta A. & Blom J. (In Press), Motivations in Personalisation Behaviour. Interaction with Computuer, (In Manuscript).

Acknowledgements

The original Helsinki Where’s The Phone research team: Juha Marila, Miika Silfverberg, Tuomo Nyyssonen, Vuokko Lantz, Topi Kaaresoja & Fumiko Ichikawa. Subsequent contributors Cui Yanqing, Fumiko Ichikawa, Raphael Grignani, Indri Tulusan, Thomas Stovicek, Lokesh Bitra, Kiyoko Toriumi, Tao Rong, Aico Shimizu, Gilles Baudet, Younghee Jung, Zeenath Hasan, Peter Kyungsu, Per Persson and everyone on the local street data collection teams.