In this paper we propose the concept of Habitable Interfaces. This concept builds on values-based trust. We hypothesise that representations and interactions built on scientific metaphors and concepts and organised based on the knowledge whithin particular scientific domain will enable values-based trust. Habitable interfaces may provide better information exchange within scientific communities

Malchanau, A.V.

English

University of Twente Research Information

 1 Can Intelligent Environments be Trustworthy? Designing for Trust in Scientific Communication: Concept of Habitable Interfaces (Position Paper) Andrei Malchanau University of Twente P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands A.V.Malchanau@utwente.nl  ABSTRACT In this paper we propose the concept of Habitable Interfaces. This concept builds on values-based trust. We hypothesise that representations and interactions built on scientific metaphors and concepts and organised based on the knowledge within particular scientific domain will enable values-based trust. Habitable Interfaces may provide better information exchange within scientific communities. Author Keywords Habitable Interfaces, Trust, Scientific Communication, Ambient Intelligence ACM Classification Keywords H.5.1 Multimedia Information Systems, H.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces INTRODUCTION Scientific communication is an important part of information exchange within our society. Hummels and Roosendaal argue that innovative changes that are taking place in scientific communication will inevitably emphasise the role of trust [2]. In the recent review on trus in Information Science and technology [4] Marsh and Dibben conclude that “… much potential benefit to consumers, users, and suppliers of information and information systems is at stake for it to be otherwise”, referring to the role of trust in information systems in general. Ambient Intelligence (AmI) [1] aims to fundamentally change parameters of communication within our society.  AmI is based on intelligence embedded everywhere in our environment: at work, at home, in cars, in clothes and other objects that people interact with. The environment in he AmI’s vision becomes intelligent and aware of users. However, intelligence may be perceived as a threat andtherefore distrusted. One can find reflections of this distrust expressed in literature and movies: from Big Brother to Matrix. There is an inherent distrust in things that are smart and intelligent, and somehow are able to escape our cont ol. The research proposed in this paper is to find ways to design intelligent environments so that they will be trusted by users. Trust of users towards an intelligent enviro ment is a necessary condition if such an environment is to participate and take care of activities of the users. In turn, the environment may “expect” users to be trustworthy. This will enable positive feedback on trust in interaction of users and environment. AmI builds on several components such as ubiquitous computing, context awareness and social and intelligent interaction. We can relate these components to several concerns of trust: • Ubiquitous computing (technology: hardware and embedded software) - Are there security, reliability, safety built in the technology? • Context Awareness (observation) - Do we control the system or does the system control us? Is privacy not violated by observation? • Interaction (interfaces) - Does it support building a trust relationship between interacting parties? • Intelligence (built in all the components above) - Can intelligence be trusted? Arguably, these concerns should be addressed at their corresponding component. A concept of interfaces that is proposed in this paper addresses designing the intelligent interaction component. TRUST IN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION Trust is a necessary condition for scientific communication to take place. The way how trust develops matters fo  effectiveness and efficiency of the communication.   2 The process of scientific communication has characte istics of both a temporary system and a continuous process. Scientists searching for information might use resources well known for them (long-term system) as well as new sources of information (temporary system), for example, a new article in the proceedings of a recent conference that was referred to by a colleague. The process requires a getting together of at least the following actors: an author, an editor, reviewers, a publishing company, a library and finally readers in research who are members of scientific communities. Such a configuration determines the value chain. Typically  scientist keeps on communicating within several different configurations. Some of them are temporary and some are long-term lines of communication. Paper-based communications will increasingly be replaced by electronic communications which will polarise the character of the process as temporary, on the one ha d, and more long-term systems, on the other hand. In an electronic environments it is easy to surf from one system to an ther in search for momentary desired information, but, on the other hand, creating, learning and integrating into one’s own research information resources may require more effort. It is not that electronic systems are more difficult to create than paper based archives, but the variety of pes and amounts of information typically expected within electronic systems are much greater than those of paper-based systems. Contracts and control devices are hardly effective when dealing with a temporary co-operation since there are few opportunities to effectuate compliance. In a temporary system that heavily relies on the use of information and communication technology there are hardly means to make a partner comply and to retaliate when he fails to meet his obligations. Electronic communication therefore strengthens the need to build trust for both long-term and temporary configurations. It has been customary to distinguish four functions of scientific communication: registration, awareness, certification and archiving [5]. These functions constitute the product market. The four functions can be characte ised by some operational characteristic issues: • Registration: (submission, speed, copy right, propety rights ...) • Archiving: (archive, access library ...) • Certification: (peer review, quality ...) • Awareness: (disclosure, browsing/search capabilities ...) Functions of scientific communication can be classified based on their relation to the science process and to the main actors of scientific communication that are readers and authors. In relation to the science process the functions can be classified as external or internal, and in relation to the main actors the functions can be classified as concrete “author” functions or abstract “reader” functions (ee Figure 1).  Hummels and Roosendaal [2] propose mapping between functions of scientific communication and levels of trust (Figure 1). The mapping shows the levels of trust required for implementing functions of scientific communication. The levels of trust used in this mapping are based on a framework developed by Zucker [8]. Zucker distinguishes three types of trust: process-based trust, institutional-based trust and characteristic-based trust. Hummels and Roosendaal add the fourth type of trust which they callvalues-based trust (summary on the types of trust is given below). Classifications of trust seem to be similar to the classification of the functions of scientific communication. Hummels and Roosendaal discuss these similarities in detail. Here we would like to stress that the mapping points towards levels of trust required as a necessary conditi  by the communication functions.  Figure 1. Habitable Interface aims at externalising elements of the awareness and builds on values based type of trust. Certification  Archiving abstract  indirect concrete  direct Awareness Registration  Values-based Institutional-based Characteristic-based Process-based internal  member external  non-member Habitable Interfaces  Based on this mapping, different concepts towards the development of interfaces for scientific communication can be put forward. For example, the institutional-based type of trust can be related to branding (building trust towards well established brands). Interfaces that build up on institutional-based trust can lead towards development of in-house archives. The concept of Habitable Interfaces proposed here aims at externalising elements of awareness functio and builds on values-based trust.  3 CONCEPT OF HABITABLE INTERFACES The elements of the awareness function which may be externalised can be identified based on models proposed in the literature on information seeking (see for example [6]). The following list provides an example of externalising such elements: • Browsing: Allowing the user to browse through available information by means of representations and interacion based on navigating through these representations. • Retrieving: Finding relevant information from all the available resources based on a query specified by the user (by typing text, using speech or navigating through some representations of available information). • Filtering: Finding relevant information within a collection of information sources, based on a priori specified by the user parameters of a filter. • Chaining: Relating objects, concepts or resources from the domain in a way suitable for the user. • Collecting: allowing the user to systematically or randomly collect data or other objects (like concepts) from a representation or results of a query. For an interface to be a Habitable Interface, to externalise elements of internal functions, it has to build-up on values-based type of trust.  We hypothesise that implementation of elements of the awareness function can better be facilitated by graphic l representations. Further, we hypothesise that to enabl  values-based type of trust these representations may need to be specific for a given domain of scientific knowledg .  For molecular biology, for example, knowledge about cell and its components can be used. Obvious graphical representations for this knowledge are stylised pictures of the biological cell and its components. In addition, well known metaphors such as biological pathways, the structure of proteins or genome maps can be used. These pictorial representations will be related within an interface to concepts and relations of ontologies and further to information resources. In some envisioned discovery environments [7] scientists are not merely users but they are actors. They interact with the intelligent environment through a variety of channels rather than making use of a single device. De Jong and Rip have developed a detailed scenario describing a group in molecular biology who just found an unexpected experimental outcome [3]. The group is able to interpr t the finding and to submit a paper to an established journal in a few days. They have searched data bases and knowledge bases for similar findings and they have remotely run qualitative simulation programs to predict experimental outcomes given particular theoretical assumptions. The concept of Habitable Interfaces elaborates on this scenario adding an important element of trust.   CONCLUSIONS An intelligent environment can be trustworthy. However, there are different ways in which trust can build-up. Different ways of building trust correspond to different activities of users and different cooperating parties. Depending on the type of activity (for example, communication of family members), design may need to facilitate communicating specific aspects of the cooperating parties. For an interface to become part of a user, to implement elements of internal user functions (like awareness function in scientific communication), values-based trust is mandatory. Seamless interaction of users and intelligent environment may create a positive feedback system that can enable more effective and efficient ways of communicating. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Hans Roosendaal, Paul van der Vet and Anton Nijholt for helpful discussions and comments. REFERENCES 1. Ambient Intelligence: from vision to reality. http://www.cordis.lu/ist/istag.htm. 2. Hummels, H., and Roosendaal, H. E. Trust in Scientif c Publishing. Journal of Business Ethics 34, (2001), 87-100. 3. Jong, H. de, and Rip A. The computer revolution in science: steps towards the realization of computer-supported discovery environments. Artificial Intelligence 9, (1997), 225-256. 4. Marsh, S., Dibben, M.R. The role of trust in Information Science and Technology. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of Information Science and Technology, 37, (2003), Information Today, Medford, NJ, 465-498. 5. Roosendaal, H. E. and Geurts, P. A. Th. M. Forces and Functions in Scientific Communication: an Analysis of their Interplay, Proc. Conference on Co-operative Research in Information Systems in Physics, (1997). 6. Spink, A., Wilson, T.D., Ford, N., Foster, A., Ellis, D. Information-Seeking and Mediated Searching. Part 1. Theoretical Framework and Research Design. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(9), (2002), 695–703.  7. Vet, P.E. van der Building web resources for natural scientists. Proc. IDMS2000, 205-210. 8. Zucker, L. Production of Trust. Research in Organisational Behavior 8, (1986), 53-111.  TYPES OF TRUST Process-based trust is based on past history of cooperation. In this mode, trust arises through the personal experience in recurring interactions (exchanging information, for example).  4 Institutional-based trust is based on formal guarantees against defection and functions as an infrastructure for cooperation. This type of trust is tied to formal structures, such as procedures or certificates. There is a distinction within institutional-based trust between person or firm-specific institutional trust and intermediary mechanisms. Characteristic-based trust arises when cooperating parties share the same traits or background – the same characteristics.  Among people belonging to the same family, for example, trustor and trustee share a basic understanding of each other’s needs and wants. Values-based trust is based on the indirect relationship between the trustor and the trustee, as it is in the case with institutional-based trust. However, the relationship does not rest on the accumulated past experiences, but on membership. For example, when driving at night on a road one would assume that others, driving in opposite dir ction, would follow their road lines. At night, it is very difficult or may be too late to see whether this is the case. At the same time, there need not be any history of previous exchange, nor knowledge about characteristics of other party. The types of trust can be classified by the relation of membership between trustor and trustee. That is whether both are members of the same community. Another classification is based on the nature of the relationship – either direct or indirect.   

Can Intelligent Environments be Trustworthy? Designing for trust in Scientific Communication: Concept of Habitable Interfaces (Position Paper)

der Building web resources for natural scientists.

Forces and Functions in Scientific Communication: an Analysis of their Interplay,

Production of Trust. Research in Organisational Behavior 8,

The computer revolution in science: steps towards the realization of computersupported discovery environments.

The role of trust

Trust in Scientific Publishing.

http://purl.utwente.nl/publications/66327

Can Intelligent Environments be Trustworthy? Designing for trust in Scientific Communication: Concept of Habitable Interfaces (Position Paper)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Twente Research Information