Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
+Hi! I’m Dr. Clare Hooper I enjoy exploring boundaries
quantitative and qualitative industry and academia
I’m into HCI, web science, user experience, ubicomp, hypertext
Recent topics include design, inclusive research, crime, social media and trust
+TRIFoRMTRust in IT: Factors, metRics, Models
Trust Mistrust
Reliable
Accurate
Useable
Insecure
Unpredictable
+Multidisciplinary approach
Computer science, health science, social science and engineering
The University of Southampton… Faculty of Health Sciences (Jane Prichard) Faculty of Business and Law (Melanie
Ashleigh) IT Innovation Centre (Clare Hooper, Brian
Pickering, Mike Surridge, Stefanie Wiegand)
+The problem
What are the trusting beliefs of users of IT systems?
What factors influence trust of systems?
How can we model those factors and trust levels?
+
Trust in a system may be too high or low compared with its actual trustworthiness (security) Trigger adequate trust
perceptions allowing users to make risk-aware, informed decisions
Methodologies to increase trustworthiness
www.it-innovation.soton.ac.uk/projects/optet
+TRIFoRM How do users develop
and apply trust to systems?
Models to determine when user trust is out of balance with system trustworthiness
Add to set of warnings and reassurances that OPTET can provide
+The process
Literature
• State of the art from social sciences
• Analyse trust models from OPTET
Data gathering
• Semi-structured interviews• Service users and a service
provider
Thematic analysis
• Identify and model threats• Identify threat controls and key
issues
+The process
Literature
• State of the art from social sciences
• Analyse trust models from OPTET
Data gathering
• Semi-structured interviews• Service users and a service
provider
Thematic analysis
• Identify and model threats• Identify threat controls and key
issues
+The process
Literature
• State of the art from social sciences
• Analyse trust models from OPTET
Data gathering
• Semi-structured interviews• Service users and a service
provider
Thematic analysis
• Identify and model threats• Identify threat controls and key
issues
+Model of trust
+Rheumatoid Arthritis App (RApp)
Technology Acceptanc
e (3+1)
Demographics
HCI
Trust Transfer
Cognitive Impairment
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction
Fault Tolerance
(2+1)
Usefulness (4+1) Ease of
Use (5+1)
Risk Taking (4+1)
Convenience
(4+0)
Technology Acceptanc
e (3+1)
Demographics
HCI
Trust Transfer
Cognitive Impairment
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction
Fault Tolerance
(2+1)
Usefulness (4+1) Ease of
Use (5+1)
Risk Taking (4+1)
Convenience
(4+0)
Technology Acceptanc
e (3+1)
Demographics
HCI
Trust Transfer
Cognitive Impairment
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction
Fault Tolerance
(2+1)
Usefulness (4+1) Ease of
Use (5+1)
Risk Taking (4+1)
Convenience
(4+0)
Technology Acceptanc
e (3+1)
Demographics
HCI
Trust Transfer
Cognitive Impairment
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction
Fault Tolerance
(2+1)
Usefulness (4+1) Ease of
Use (5+1)
Risk Taking (4+1)
Convenience
(4+0)
Technology Acceptanc
e (3+1)
Demographics
HCI
Trust Transfer
Cognitive Impairment
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction
Fault Tolerance
(2+1)
Usefulness (4+1) Ease of
Use (5+1)
Risk Taking (4+1)
Convenience
(4+0)
Technology Acceptanc
e (3+1)
Demographics
HCI
Trust Transfer
Cognitive Impairment
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction
Fault Tolerance
(2+1)
Usefulness (4+1) Ease of
Use (5+1)
Risk Taking (4+1)
Convenience
(4+0)
Technology Acceptanc
e (3+1)
Demographics
HCI
Trust Transfer
Cognitive Impairment
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction
Fault Tolerance
(2+1)
Usefulness (4+1) Ease of
Use (5+1)
Risk Taking (4+1)
Convenience
(4+0)
Trust Transfer (4+1)
Trust in Experts (2+1)
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (5+1)
Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)
-ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (4+1)
Experience (4+0)
Cognitive Impairmen
t (2+0)
Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-
graphics (4+1)
Trust Transfer (4+1)
Trust in Experts (2+1)
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (5+1)
Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)
-ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (4+1)
Experience (4+0)
Cognitive Impairmen
t (2+0)
Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-
graphics (4+1)
Trust Transfer (4+1)
Trust in Experts (2+1)
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (5+1)
Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)
-ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (4+1)
Experience (4+0)
Cognitive Impairmen
t (2+0)
Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-
graphics (4+1)
Trust Transfer (4+1)
Trust in Experts (2+1)
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (5+1)
Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)
-ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (4+1)
Experience (4+0)
Cognitive Impairmen
t (2+0)
Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-
graphics (4+1)
Trust Transfer (4+1)
Trust in Experts (2+1)
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (5+1)
Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)
-ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (4+1)
Experience (4+0)
Cognitive Impairmen
t (2+0)
Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-
graphics (4+1)
Trust Transfer (4+1)
Trust in Experts (2+1)
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (5+1)
Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)
-ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (4+1)
Experience (4+0)
Cognitive Impairmen
t (2+0)
Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-
graphics (4+1)
Trust Transfer (4+1)
Trust in Experts (2+1)
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (5+1)
Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)
-ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (4+1)
Experience (4+0)
Cognitive Impairmen
t (2+0)
Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-
graphics (4+1)
Trust Transfer (4+1)
Trust in Experts (2+1)
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (5+1)
Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)
-ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (4+1)
Experience (4+0)
Cognitive Impairmen
t (2+0)
Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-
graphics (4+1)
Trust Transfer (4+1)
Trust in Experts (2+1)
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (5+1)
Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)
-ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (4+1)
Experience (4+0)
Cognitive Impairmen
t (2+0)
Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-
graphics (4+1)
Trust Transfer (4+1)
Trust in Experts (2+1)
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (5+1)
Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)
-ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (4+1)
Experience (4+0)
Cognitive Impairmen
t (2+0)
Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-
graphics (4+1)
Trust Transfer (4+1)
Trust in Experts (2+1)
+ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (5+1)
Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)
-ve Effects on H2H
Interaction (4+1)
Experience (4+0)
Cognitive Impairmen
t (2+0)
Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-
graphics (4+1)
+Threat 1: User Disengagement
+Threat 2: Unusable System
+Monitoring technology to manage pain: issues Likelihood of user risk-taking
and fault-tolerance: users are more vulnerable. We must be cognisant of user
motivation and application domain throughout design
Relationships are important. Interviewees were concerned that such technology might change their relationship with
healthcare providers be trusted by their healthcare
providers
Users
Carers
Systems
Stake-holders
+Summary: process
+Summary: outputs and findings Usefulness and ease of use are
key – of course! Also: demographics,
motivation, domain Users managing pain are
mistake-tolerant and more likely to take risks
Trust transfer and H2H interactions affect H2T trust Technology should enhance,
not replace, H2H interaction The right amount of data Displayed in the right way,
at the right time
OPTET augmented its model
Other projects used TRIFoRM outputs
Work continued by INTRMS: Individual and Network Trust in Remote Monitoring Systems
Trust in the healthcare environment is a complex interaction between technology utility and convenience and its affect on existing human interaction
+Thank you
I’m new to Vancouver; please introduce yourself
I’m available for consultancy HCI, web science, user
experience, ubicomp, hypertext
Design, inclusive research, crime, social media and trust
Stay in touch [email protected] twitter.com/ClareJHooper
