CORDIS Archive
This page has been archived. It will no longer be updated.
1.1 Scope of the Present Guide
1.2 Scope and objectives of i3 (intelligent information interfaces)
3. Evaluation & Selection of Proposals
6. Annex 1 : Administrative Forms
7.2 Inhabited Information Spaces
_____________________________________________________________
This Guide provides the necessary background material for persons wishing to make a LTR Project proposal on Intelligent Information Interfaces (i3, pronounced "eye-cube").
Intelligent Information Interfaces (i3) is an initiative of Esprit Long Term Research. Its aim is to develop new human-centred interfaces for interacting with information. These new interfaces are to be aimed at the broad population (ie not restricted to specialist uses).
i3 aims at a radical departure from present-day man-machine interface concepts, and does so under the assumption that this must be guided by a long term vision combining human, societal and technological factors. For this reason, i3 first issued a call for proposals for new visions of human-centred interaction, expressed in the form of a "schema". Proposers of schemata were asked to provide guidelines for new interface research that would act as the basis of the present call for projects. Two schemata were selected, and were subsequently worked out in detail. They now provide the technical specifications for the present call for proposals for projects to implement the schemata.
The two schemata support the principal aims of i3, namely to promote research and development of new interfaces and interaction paradigms for the broad population. The schemata call for research on new forms of interaction that will engage people as active participants in the creation and use of information, rather than simply being passive recipients. Both place the interplay of human, societal and technological factors as key to the development of these interfaces. Each schema takes a different view of how this best be done. One schema (Connected Community) places particular accent on the people and territory of a local geographical community; the other (Inhabited Information Spaces) places accent on the creation of information spaces for people who are geographically dispersed. Clearly, the aim of i3 is not to promote research on a single vision of the future, but rather on two competing visions, that are complementary and compatible.
This information package supplies the necessary material for proposers to submit an i3 project proposal. A proposal should be submitted under either one of two schemata:
1. Connected Community
or
2. Inhabited Information Spaces
A full description of the two schemata is given in section 7. A proposal must reflect and develop the concepts suggested by the schema. The criteria against which proposals will be evaluated are given in section 3.
No single project will be expected to address all aspects of a schema. Rather, it is expected that the work suggested by a schema will be carried out by several projects with a degree of synergy amongst them. As it is envisioned that synergy will develop gradually, starting from the time that projects are selected, a network of Excellence (i3-NET) has been set up with the primary goal of supporting cooperation between projects. Members of the network will include participants from all selected projects, as well as the authors of the two schemata. It will also be open to other European researchers active in the field. The principal aim of the network will be to provide a framework that will facilitate inter-project cooperation. For example enabling projects to identify complementary or competing activities, to hold inter-project workshops, or to launch new common research activities. Another important role for the network will be to provide a forum on i3 for the broadest possible community. Full internet and WWW facilities are being set up by the network with this aim in mind. Currently, an i3-NET homepage can be found on
http://www.i3net.dk
The WWW information services provided by LTR (as described below) will be expanded by i3-NET in the near future.
The i3Home Page was set up by LTR in order supply general information on i3 and to keep people updated about relevant events. The i3Home Page can be found on :
This information package is also available at this address. In addition, LTR has set up a Brokerage page in order to facilitate proposers in the creation of project partnerships. It gives lists of persons that have expressed interest in submitting i3 project proposals. The Brokerage page can be found on
If proposers have specific enquiries about i3 further to the above, they may contact:
Jakub Wejchert
email: Jakub.Wejchert@dg3.cec.be
tel: +32-2-2968032 fax: +32-2-968390
_____________________________________________________________
The programme is open to all legal entities - i.e. people and organisations - established and carrying out RTD activities in the Member States of the European Union (industrial firms - both large companies and SMEs - universities, higher education institutes, research organisation, etc.), and to the Joint Research Centre.The proposal should include at least two non-affiliated participants from different EU Member States, or from one Member State and from a State associated with and contributing financially to the implementation of this programme.
Participation in this programme, with financial contribution from the EU, is open to any legal entity established or carrying out RTD activities in a third country associated with and contributing financially to the implementation of this programme.At printing of this package these states are Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein and Norway. It is expected that Switzerland will join this group later.
Legal entities established and carrying out RTD activities in third countries (non-EU and not financially contributing as described above) may participate in the programme on conditions that:
These states are at printing date: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Moldavia, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey and Ukraine, for which financial support by the EU is expected to be provided from funds other than the IT Programme budget (an explicit request for such funding has to accompany the proposal).Swiss1, Australian and Canadian organisations may participate under the above conditions, but without funding from the EC.
Legal entities established in states other than above listed, may participate on conditions that:
Organisations from Japan, Korea, New Zealand and the USA are not eligible for funding from the EU.For organisations from other countries financial support by the EU may be provided from funds other than the IT Programme budget, an explicit request for such funding has to accompany the proposal.
International organisations may participate on conditions that:
If you are considering the inclusion of legal entities from third countries in your proposal, you are strongly advised to obtain the latest information concerning the status provided in corrigenda available for each call.
If your proposal is successful in the evaluation and is selected for further negotiation, the Commission services will contact you for finalisation of the Project Programme and budgetary aspects.The Project Officer assigned to your proposal will provide you with the necessary documentation. The time needed in this phase depends on the complexity and evaluator's comments, but normally negotiations would take between 4 and 8 weeks if the work is well planned by the consortium.The contract used for i3 LTR Projects is the standard RTD Contract as adapted for the Esprit programme. If you do not have a specimen yet, please ask for one from the Esprit information desk. Although versions of the contract are available in various languages for guidance, the English Esprit version is the only authentic version.The contract provides explicit definitions of the partnership, reporting obligations, allowable costs, other financial conditions and the intellectual property right conditions. The contractual terms cannot be circumvented by a subsequent consortium agreement which is nevertheless recommended to provide a framework for the internal management of the consortium and for exploitation aspects.The essential contractual/financial aspects for RTD contracts are the following:
consortia consist of:
- normal partners, signing the contract and having full rights and obligations, including joint and several responsibility for the work. One of them will take the task of co-ordinator and is responsible for management and administrative tasks and for liaison with the Commission
- associate partners, whose interests normally lie in a restricted part of the work and whose shares are small. They will have an associate contract with a normal partner and take no joint and several responsibility. Rights will be appropriate to their share in the work. The conditions on allowable costs, audits and reporting are the same as for normal partners. Associate contractors provide standard cost statements and share in the costs (50%) of the work
- sub-contractors, who provide services at market prices. The full costs are born by the partner, who also acquires ownership of the result. The full costs of the services are allowable and the Commission contributes 50% to these costs.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). The partner who creates (invents) will be the owner of the IPR. Every partner is obliged to provide free licenses for research and exploitation of the results obtained in the project to the other partners. It should also allow access on favourable conditions to background results where needed for exploitation of the project results. Participants may have obligations to provide free or limited access to IPRs on research to EU and associated state participants in other projects. You are advised to read carefully the precise contractual conditions, as stated in Annex II to the Standard contract, which you can receive on request from the Esprit Information Desk.
_____________________________________________________________
All proposals will be evaluated in a single step by a panel of specially selected experts who are all bound by a confidentiality agreement. The evaluation will be exclusively based on the criteria set out in this section and will be carried out under the responsibility and co-ordination of the Commission.
Project proposals are to be submitted under either:
1. Connected Community
or
2. Inhabited Information Spaces
A full description of the two schemata is given in section 7. A proposal must reflect and develop the ideas described by the schema, and suggest an original and specific project concept within that context. Proposers should take the chosen schema text as background reference when preparing a proposal, particularly the sections that the criteria explicitly refer to: overall goals, context, research challenges and methodology.
The proposal falls within the scope and objectives of the IT programme and its work programme.
The proposal falls within the scope and objectives of i3.
The proposal includes at least two non-affiliated participants from different EU Member States, or from one Member State and one associated and financially contributing state, and there is a clear added value in carrying out the proposed work at this European level (as opposed to the national level).
If there is participation from other associated countries it is clearly described why such participation is in the interest of EU policies
If there is participation from non-associated countries, it is clearly described how such participation contributes effectively to the implementation of the programme and how it provides mutual benefits.
Please refer to Section 2.1 Who can participate? for details of the conditions for participation.
A specific project concept is proposed which contributes to the overall goals of the chosen schema (see section 7.1.1 or 7.2.1).
The proposal describes in detail the particular context for the project's work (see section 7.1.2 or 7.2.2). The choices made and ideas put forward are cogently argued and supported.
The proposal describes in detail the research challenges that are to be addressed in the chosen context (see section 7.1.3 or 7.2.3). Reference is made to the context as appropriate. The choices made and ideas put forward are cogently argued and supported.
The proposal describes the methodologies that will be used in the project (see section 7.1.4 or 7.2.4).
The proposals describes effective ways of communicating results to others.
Tasks are clearly defined, scheduled and their interdependencies identified.
Milestones and deliverables are identified and scheduled within a time frame that is consistent with expected developments and effort.
Quantitative measures for assessing progress are defined and they are sufficient.
The contributions of each participant are unambiguously related to the work packages by indicating their technical contribution and commitment of effort to each of the tasks.
An adequate project management structure is clearly defined.
Responsibilities are allocated and those in the leading roles are identified.
Workable coordination and follow-up procedures for monitoring progress and responding to changes are explained.
There are appropriate procedures for conflict resolution.
There is evidence that each proposer is able to allocate the required skills and resources to the project.
The mix of proposers is necessary and sufficient to achieve the expected results.
The number of proposers does not impose undue management overheads.
The duration and total cost of the project is reasonable for the objectives sought.
_____________________________________________________________
Each proposal should be presented in two parts:
Part 1: Financial and administrative data including the administrative forms
provided with the Information Package.
Part 2: Description of the RTD Project.Section 4.2 provides more details of how to complete these two parts.Each proposal must have a co-ordinating proposer. This section of the information package is primarily directed at the co-ordinating proposer. Normally, the co-ordinating proposer will become the project co-ordinator, if the proposal is ultimately successful.
You should carefully check that the content of your proposal is structured according to the format given in Section 4.2 and that it genuinely satisfies all the criteria given in Section 3. Evaluators will be asked to assess proposals according to the same criteria, and the required structure will help them to find the various elements of the proposal. It goes without saying that evaluators are best helped in conducting their task if the information provided is concise and well structured. Any irrelevant information should be avoided.
Proposals should only be submitted once and proposals which are essentially the same should not be sent to different domains of the IT Programme or different programmes. However where the proposal is related to other Esprit domains or to other Community programmes you should indicate this in the proposal itself or in an attached covering letter.
A project proposal will require forms, of which examples, with explanation, are given in the Annex. These forms are available on diskette or on the World Wide Web at /src/appforms.htm
Form 1: Proposal administrative summary, to be filled in by the coordinator.
Form 2: Individual participation profile, to be filled in by each proposer.If you use the electronic version of the forms it will make it easier to fill in the correct data in the right format. You can also make clear print-outs and it will help us to quickly enter your data in our database. Of course, you may also complete the paper forms, or the forms as they are provided by other programmes for RTD Project proposals, as these contain the same questions. However, in each case, please follow carefully the detailed instructions.
Proposals should be submitted by the co-ordinating proposer, who will be responsible for the internal management and administration of the proposal and for liaison with the commission.You should submit one full original of each proposal plus 6 copies, unless otherwise specified. This includes the forms and any useful information you choose to include, as long as it is relevant and limited in length.You may submit proposals in any official language of the EC, However, it is advisable to supply at least the summary in English. This will assist the evaluation of proposals.It is your responsibility to assemble the proposal and you should submit it in one parcel. It is also you responsibility to ensure that you proposal is delivered at the appropriate address before expiration of the deadline.
The deadline for receipt of proposals by the Commission is 17:00 (Brussels local time) on 18th December 1996.
Your proposal should be sent by courier or postal services or delivered by hand to:IT Programme OfficeBoulevard du Souverain, 191-197B-1160 BrusselsBelgiumYou must clearly mark on the parcel:"Confidential: Proposal for the programme for RTD Information Technologies - LTR Domain, Task 4.4"
Do not send proposals by fax or E-mail. Do not announce by fax or telephone that the proposals are in the mail. Faxes and telephone calls of this nature hinder the operation of the Commission in handling proposals, and will not be acknowledged. Until the two weeks have elapsed, do not telephone or fax to enquire whether your proposal has been received. Make sure that your proposal is sent to exactly the above address without additional mentions. Do not send or deliver your proposal to other Commission offices (including the regular Esprit offices), as this would create considerable delays.
You should include - in the parcel in which the proposal is delivered - a separate envelope containing the official 'Acknowledgement of Receipt' form in the Annex. On this you - the co-ordinating proposer - must put your organisation's name and address and the title of the proposed project. This will ensure that the acknowledgement is returned to you correctly addressed.Before it is returned, however, the Commission's reception staff will record the date of receipt and a unique reference number on the form. This reference number must be used in all subsequent correspondence relating to the proposal.You should ensure that all proposers are given the proposal reference number and use it in all contacts with the Commission.If you do not receive an 'Acknowledgement of receipt' within two weeks after the closing date of the Call, or the date of submission in case of a continuous Call, you should send a fax to the IT Programme office fax: + 32 2 66372 00, indicating the acronym, title, domain, type of action and co-ordinating proposer. You will receive an answer by fax within one week. You are strongly advised to retain proof of dispatch if the proposal is mailed.
The proposal must address all criteria given in section 3. The proposal should follow the structure and include all the information mentioned below.
To complete Part 1 of the proposal you need to complete the forms provided on the diskette or in Annex, including a 1,000 character project synopsis. These provide detailed information on the proposed project partnership.
Forms
All proposals must contain the duly completed forms as given in the Annex.
For i3 LTR projects, the Action Type is "PL", and the Work Programme Task number is "4.4".
All organisations included in the proposed project consortium must provide with the proposal a written statement signed by a representative of the organisation duly empowered to do so, authorising its participation.
The coordinator must declare the involvement of his organisation in other related or similar proposals in the same or other Calls, in the IT programme or other programmes.
Project Synopsis (1,000 characters). In addition, the proposal must be accompanied by a short synopsis of 1,000 characters maximum. This will be used by both Programme staff and external evaluators during the evaluation and will be copied on the evaluation reports provided to the relevant committees. The synopsis should state what is covered in the proposed project, its rationale and importance.
Please note that the Commission will not edit or summarise the synopsis in any way. If the synopsis is longer than 1,000 characters, all characters above this will be lost automatically.
The body of Part 2 should not exceed 20 pages. In addition to these 20 pages, there should also be a one page summary and an annex containing the CVs of the key proposers. Each CV should be no more than one page in length. To ensure legibility, it is recommended that a "reasonable" font size is used throughout the proposal.
The summary should concisely address the essence of the proposal.
Why is the proposed work needed?
What does it deliver?
How is the work performed?
The description of the proposal must satisfy the criteria outlined in Section 3. The proposal must cover the following items:
Schema Addressed
You should state which schema you are addressing, either: Connected Community or Inhabited Information Spaces.
Objectives
You should clearly describe a specific project concept which contributes to the overall goals of the chosen schema (see section 7.1.1 or 7.2.1)
Context
You should describe in detail the particular context for your work, (see section 7.1.2 or 7.2.2). The choices made and ideas put forward should be cogently argued and supported.
Research Challenges
You should describe in detail the research challenges that are to be addressed in the chosen context (see section 7.1.3 or 7.2.3). Reference should be made to the chosen context as appropriate. The choices made and ideas put forward should be cogently argued and supported.
Methodology
You should describe the methodologies that will be used in the project (see section 7.1.4, or 7.2.4).
Communication
You should clearly describe how results will be communicated to others. This can include :
Work plan
This section should provide a concise description of how the project will meet its objectives. You should in particular:
You should try to use graphics to illustrate the sequence and structure of the work.
Project management
This should be specified usually in the form of a project management work package and should include precise descriptions of:
The Proposers
This section should briefly describe the role and qualifications of each proposer and explain why they are particularly suitable for undertaking the proposed work. It should explain why the group making the proposal is necessary and sufficient to conduct all of the work on the project. You may use standard brochures for describing the organisations, provided that you indicate how the information relates to the proposed work, and provided that the amount of paper is limited.
Duration & Resources
The duration should be given and be appropriate for the task. A realistic estimate of total cost and total funding should be given. Any unusual expenditure, such as large equipment costs should be highlighted.
_____________________________________________________________
Funding for Esprit RTD projects is always based on the shared cost principle. The Commission contributes 50% of the actual cost of the work to be performed under the contract, with a maximum amount which is set on the basis of the budget negotiated. For universities and research organisations which do not have analytical budget accounting the Commission may decide that the so-called 100% additional cost method must be used. This excludes the cost of permanent staff and provides for only limited overheads. In the majority of the Preparatory, Support and Technology Transfer activities, the funding will be 100% of the actual allowable or eligible costs of the action. This usually excludes RTD work and full overheads.
There are no set rules on the size of a project. The project duration, amount of work involved, the number of partners and the budget will depend on several factors. You should consider the nature of the research and development tasks proposed and the speed of action required to produce timely and relevant results.
Section 4 explains how to submit a proposal and gives you an indication of the format and length required. However you should bear in mind that the evaluators will need sufficient detail to support both the rationale for the project and the methods and funding you propose. Try to write as succinctly as possible, concentrating on providing the information which will give an evaluator an accurate but rapid insight into your project.
Project management is a decision for the whole project partnership. It is important that the organisation who acts as project manager has a substantial stake in and commitment to the completion of the project. It should possess a sufficient range of skill and resources to manage a project and most importantly should have the confidence and support of the other partners.
An Associate Partner is associated to a full partner. Normally an associate partner has a limited share in the work and may have restricted access to the results of the project.
Sub-contractors are organisations which provide services for one or more of the participants. The results are owned by the purchasing participant(s) - the Partner(s). The Esprit contract requires approval of sub-contracts in some specific situations.
Yes. The model contracts are available on request from the Esprit Information Desk: tel. + 32 2 2968596, fax. + 32 2 2968388, or E-mail esprit@dg3.cec.be. They are also available on-line.
We are not able to give any information or indications during the evaluation period, however the results will be communicated to you as soon as possible after the evaluation has been completed.
The results of the full proposal evaluation are generally available 6 to 8 weeks after the closing date for submission. At this point you will receive a letter and a summary evaluation report. The result will either be that your proposal is recommended for funding or that it is rejected. Being recommended for funding does not necessarily mean that it will be funded; it simply means that the result of the evaluation is positive. After this it will be considered in the light of the available budget and Esprit's strategic objectives, and will potentially be selected for contract negotiations, which may finally lead to funding.
If you have sent a proposal for a task with fixed submission date you should receive your acknowledgement within 2 weeks of this deadline. If you have sent a proposal for a task under the continuous submission rules you should receive your acknowledgement 2 weeks after submitting. If you have not received your acknowledgement within the specified time scales you should contact the IT Programme office immediately by fax + 32 2 663 7200. You should state the project acronym, title, domain, type of action and name of co-ordinating proposer. You will receive an answer by fax within one week.
A Commission official will contact the coordinator for negotiations. These will take into account the evaluators recommendations and the budget allocation.
Proposal should only be submitted once (i.e., to a single programme) and proposals which are essentially the same should not be sent to different domains of the IT Programme or different programmes. However where the proposal is related to other existing or proposed work in other domains or programmes you should indicate this in the proposal itself or in an attached covering letter.
If in other programmes different advice is given, you should always indicate clearly to which programmes your proposal is sent.
_____________________________________________________________
Acknowledgement of Receipt Form
_____________________________________________________________
Summary
Local communities provide the basic context to the Connected Community schema for researching new paradigms for information interfaces. The new interfaces expected to emerge from the projects in this schema would be integrated with the physical territory of the local community and would take account of the fact that a considerable amount of locally useful knowledge resides with the people of the community themselves. At the same time, the projects will promote interface technologies that move away from purely virtual environments and towards augmenting reality, thus supporting "real-life" links between people and information. People would be active participants in an information space, rather than passive recipients of broadcast or pre-packaged information.
Individual projects may address issues related to information devices, physical places for information interchange, knowledge environments or any combination of these.
Background and Rationale
User interface design has its roots in the paradigm of "human interacts with computer", and this has affected the methods, tools and processes used to create interfaces up to the present day. The paradigm of "input-process-output" has also influenced the conceptual approach to the creation of most interfaces, even those in the consumer and entertainment domains.
This approach was adequate within specialist domains and for people trained in the tasks at hand. It is not adequate to support the broad population with its variety of socio-cultural groups carrying out their everyday activities in a society in which the amount of information is increasing rapidly. New interaction paradigms need to be developed which are intuitive to the vast majority of people and generic enough to address the variety of circumstances of interaction.
Whereas the old paradigm implies the interaction between one person and a virtual or modelled world inside a computer, the new paradigm would integrate the real (physical) world with the virtual and involve different persons interacting with each other, individually or collectively, with the world of information.
Such integration is difficult to achieve at the global level and it is likely to be far more effective and efficient to tackle the problem at the level of the local community because:
the real world is physical and is, by definition, experienced locally. A particular location, for example, the cafe on the street corner can play a strong role in influencing the nature and dynamics of information exchange.
the local world can provide a rich cross-section of the population, a mix of socio-cultural groups, concentrated in one place, and dynamically interacting and exchanging information with each other in many different ways.
Interaction paradigms that emerge from research at the local level could then be extended to cover global situations, though such extension is not generally intended to form part of this initiative.
Goal
The goal of the Connected Community schema is the emergence of new interfaces to information based on new interaction paradigms that will stimulate the sharing of knowledge and experience between people in local communities.
The broad context of the schema is provided by the everyday activities of people in a community, such as entertainment, shopping, sport, hobbies, play, cultural pursuits, self-help and helping others, voluntary work, learning and self-development, self or group expression.
Individual projects are expected to contribute to the goal of the schema within a frame of reference consisting of the following four themes:
Territory as interface
Community as database
Computer-supported real life
Active participation
These themes are described below. A project may naturally concentrate on just one or two, or deal with all of them. A deepening of chosen themes and related activities is necessary in order to define in detail the context of a project's work.
Territory as interface
This theme examines the relationship between interfaces, interaction and physical space. The physical environment, or territory of the community may be considered as the space for interaction. This emphasises the need for new forms of interactivity in public spaces, on interfaces that can be accessed and used collectively, or interfaces for private or mobile use. Ideas for new interfaces should not be confined to the domestic environment.
Community as database
The community of people living in a particular geographic area often have the richest and most relevant local information. The "live" information generated by local people can often be more relevant and immediately useful, than centralised, standardised factual information. Research has to concentrate on sharing and accessing the information which is present in the minds of local people. For example, a "living database" could facilitate the exchange of opinion and points of view, through to the recording of traces and memories, and could allow the ageing of information. In such a database, it is the people themselves who form an integral part of the information process - they are "agents" providing creation and quality filtering of information.
Computer-supported real life (CSRL)
Enhancing the experience of real life in the real world is more important than creating alternative virtual worlds for their own sake. Therefore, new interaction paradigms have to place more emphasis on augmenting reality, on linking the real to the virtual, than on creating fully immersive virtual realities. An interface situated within a physical space which allows varying degrees of virtual interaction with other people or agents, is a possible example. In addition, the collective experiences offered by new interfaces have to be designed to encourage "real-life" links between people in the community rather than to substitute them.
Active participation
People are naturally active participants in the creation of collective information and knowledge - they are not just passive receivers. Research on new interaction paradigms and interfaces needs to reflect this, and needs to make it as easy for people to create and leave traces of information, as it is to access information. This is an essential element in triggering the flow of local communication and sharing knowledge.
A project proposal is expected to focus on a number of research challenges for the development of new interfaces and interaction paradigms in the context chosen and defined. Proposers may choose research challenges based on the examples below, they may suggest ideas of their own, or they may choose a combination of these. Whatever choices are made, proposers must indicate how these relate to the context of their particular project.
The challenges listed below are primarily described in terms of the new techniques, tools or environments that are likely to promote the sharing of knowledge and experience between people in local communities. Projects could consider developing:
Techniques that facilitate the creation and depositing of information for a broad range of people, where information may be in the form of text, images, or sound.
Interaction tools that are adaptive to particular needs, or have features that can act as an intelligent partner or guide.
Tools that enable the exchange of information between groups of people, or ones that can be used by groups of people simultaneously. For example, new forms of bulletin boards, or large interactive public displays.
New tools that have a link with location. For example a tool that is based on an integration of cordless telephony with localisation systems such as GPS.
Environments that are distributed in a physical location and have specific connection with it. For example, installations in public places that act as collective environments for people of the community. In such environments people can interact with information created by others, or interact with other people present either physically or virtually.
Environments as "inhabited spaces of knowledge" in which the presence of persons, the "living databases", as well as the accumulation of traces and memories can be simultaneously supported.
Collective environments that allow the "ageing" of information. For example, reducing or representing information in different ways with the passage of time. Such an environment could be appropriate for addressing the history or collection of memories of a community.
Techniques for representing or visualising the exchange of information within a community.
Addressing a research challenge will involve the development of concepts, models and prototypes, as described in the next section.
The development of innovative interfaces depends on the interplay of a range of skills and activities. This necessitates the processes and activities inherent to a project, to occur in an iterative fashion.
For any project addressing this schema four general activities are expected to take place: Understanding the community, Concept generation, Development of prototypes and Participatory evaluation. These are outlined below in greater detail. The activities are expected to occur in a non-linear and concurrent fashion with varying degrees of emphasis throughout a project's lifetime. For example, a concept generated may lead to more focused studies of a community or could lead to the development of a prototype. Likewise, participatory evaluation does not necessarily occur only at the end of a project but may be also carried out at earlier stages on initial concepts or prototypes. A conventional overall methodology that consists of a linear sequence of: gathering user-requirements at the start of a project, followed by research and development, and concluding with user-testing at the end, is not consider sufficient.
Understanding a local community
Understanding the community is a continuing process not confined to the beginning of a project. It entails the detailing and refinement of the chosen context of a project. This can include a further elaboration of a specific theme, the detailing of specific activities, as well as a description of specific needs or desires of people or groups in a community. The output of this stage can include models of activity, qualities and criteria, design briefs, or "user-scenarios". Any of these can act as input to the generation or refinement of concepts.
Concept Generation
This activity involves the creation and exploration of ideas that can lead to the realisation of new interfaces. It is a process in which human factors, design and technology necessarily come together. The process can include a combination of: transforming an understanding of the community into a design concept; generating ideas for interface functionality; relating design concepts to existing, developing or forecast technologies; generating rough ideas for aspects of new devices, installations, or software processes.
Development of prototypes
Concepts that are developed in more detail can to lead to the development of prototypes. This activity involves the formation of prototypes which can be working models or detailed conceptual scenarios that can demonstrate or prove a concept through evaluation or testing.
Participatory evaluation
Concepts and prototypes need to be evaluated, tested, and in certain cases even developed, with people in a local community. New iterative methods and techniques of user involvement need to be investigated in order to ensure the relevance and usefulness of results.
Any other methodologies that are in keeping with the general approach outlined above may also be considered and should be described as necessary.
Summary
In this schema inhabited information spaces form the basis for researching new paradigms and interfaces for interacting with information. In such spaces, people, representations of people, and information agents interact within a common environment made up of a range of technologies and media. The spaces support the participation of a broad range of people who may participate from different geographical locations. Spaces may range from purely virtual ones, through to physical ones augmented with technology.
Projects will tackle a range of research topics necessary for the formation of inhabited information spaces. These include, the design of the structure of a space, the means for presenting it and its participants, and methods for navigating in it. Projects may also develop techniques that will enhance the interaction and participation within a space, or address the problem of how to integrate an augmented physical space with a virtual one. It is expected that projects will carry out research in the context of a space that supports a particular type of activity or that reflects a particular type of place. For example, a project could develop a space that represents a marketplace, or likewise, develop a space that supports activity that is represented in an abstract fashion.
Background and Rationale
Contemporary computing is typified by the desktop machine. An individual user interacting with a single computer remains the dominant image of use. The increasing use of information technology by a broad range of people as well as the exponential growth of information available, requires us to move beyond this paradigm.
The new paradigm moves beyond thinking of people as abstract users accessing information through the window of a computer screen, towards the recognition of people as participants actively engaging with information and each other within a shared environment. Equally the new paradigm emphasises the need to support a broader range of human activities than just professional and specialised endeavours, which necessitates broadening the forms of interaction supported.
The key research and development issues are not just the design of better individual interfaces to information, but rather the design of spaces of activity that enable people to interact with information and each other in new ways. The spaces need not depend on the geographical proximity of its participants and thus have potential for enabling new forms of meaningful collective interaction to take place on a global scale.
Goal
The central goal of this schema is the formation of shared information spaces in which people, representations of people and information agents interact within a common environment.
Thematic Spaces
It is expected that projects will carry out their research in the context of one or more thematic spaces. An individual project proposal should describe in detail a thematic space and explain how it provides an effective context for addressing the research challenges chosen by the project. In addition, proposers should be aware of the potential existence of other spaces and consider techniques to allow them to coexist.
A thematic space provides a background theme for developing and evaluating new interfaces and interaction paradigms. It should be designed to support a particular type of activity or reflect a particular type of place. The space may not necessarily be a simple representation of a physical place, it may also be an abstract, virtual space with no similarity to the real-world. Whatever space (familiar, abstract, mixed) is used, exactly how it can constitute a socially inhabited information space and address the research challenges should be specified.
The examples of thematic spaces given below should not be considered as exhaustive - project proposers may wish to develop ideas of their own.
Example 1: The Arena
Whilst there has been a trend towards greater interactivity in IT, most applications and products still support only single user experiences and typically do not focus on supporting large scale, multi-user participation. In contrast, many traditional cultural forms such as the theatre, concerts, sporting events and so on, are inherently social occasions.
A space such as an "Arena" could support the transformation of contemporary cultural practices and forms, as well as the creation of new forms. Such a space could enable innovative means for involvement in entertainment or artistic events. For example, such a space could enable participants to actively contribute to the work of artists or performers, or allow them to interact with other audience members. A number of issues on how to provide both public (i.e. shared) and individual access to such cultural forms, as well as the nature of social interaction within these kinds of systems, need to be addressed.
Example 2: The Academy
A space in which, group learning, public lectures, experimental exercises and discussion platforms are supported, could be considered as a learning environment or "Academy". In such a space, novel interaction techniques for the presentation of information in conjunction with mechanisms for social interaction, enable new forms of collaborative learning and educational opportunities. In this sense the space moves beyond traditional approaches based on the dissemination of standard educational material through 'one-on-one' tutor-student communication.
Projects could consider specific issues such as the collaborative exploration of information spaces, data representations and navigation of libraries, support for large-scale and broad population participation in educational events, means for the cooperative retrieval and manipulation of educational material, etc. Methods will be required to understand interactivity and participation in exploratory learning environments, and to evaluate the quality of the novel educational experiences provided.
Example 3: The Marketplace
The Marketplace involves developing new forms of interactive, multi-participant "market places" in which producers, suppliers and consumers can interact in a common environment. It should enable the creation and study of new interaction paradigms through which goods, currency and personal details are exchanged. The space should support the broad population.
Research is required on novel techniques to support new forms of interaction between customers, suppliers and producers, based on an understanding of real shopping environments, consumer-producer relationships and purchasing patterns. This must go beyond concepts which emphasise interactivity for the individual consumer while ignoring the collective and social aspects that are inherent in shopping. Specific issues which might be considered include, the representation of goods and services, the representation of producers and consumers, navigation between retail spaces, and the augmenting of real market places with virtual spaces.
The central vision of this schema is the formation of shared spaces inhabited by participants. A number of research challenges need to be addressed in order to realise this. It is not expected that any one project will address all of these challenges, rather it is expected that the ensemble of projects selected under this schema will collectively address most of them.
From the list given below, proposers should choose which research challenges make up their project's primary focus. Such a selection could be made up of challenges under one heading, those under a group of headings, or a combination of challenges under different headings. A selection must be described in detail and must relate to the context chosen.
Structure
The discovery of appropriate space structures, and techniques for their generation and evolution. This can include both pre-planned structures and those generated by participants within the space. In designing space structures, proposers could consider building upon principles of architecture and urban planning.
Presentation
The development of techniques for conveying
The space as perceived by its participants
The personal presence of participants
An awareness of interaction and of other participants
Processes taking place within the space
Information accessible within the space
Exploration and Navigation
Developing techniques to support the exploration and navigation of information spaces. These techniques should take account of both the structure of the space and the means by which it is presented to its participants.
Interaction Techniques
The provision of novel techniques that allow engaging multi-modal interaction for information spaces, or techniques that allow collective interaction with large-scale sharable and public displays. These may involve the combination of a range of interface technologies, such as 2-D, 3-D, immersive or projected displays.
Accessibility and Participation
Supporting different degrees of participation in a space.
Developing techniques for the management of social interaction in a space.
Techniques for enhancing the interaction between humans and agents.
Mixed Realities
Understanding and developing spaces which synthesize and juxtapose augmented and virtual reality.
Scaleability
The problems of the scaleability of spaces in terms of the number of participants (including people and agents) or the problems arising from the effects of the geographical dispersion of participants.
The Inhabited Information Space schema does not specify a particular methodology for projects. However, it is expected that project proposers should outline the methodologies chosen for the design or evaluation of their concepts. These could be used in the design and evaluation of a particular aspect of an interface contributing to a space, or in the overall design of an inhabited information space and in the evaluation of its participatory features. In doing so, projects may consider developing methodologies particularly suitable to their needs, for example that:
Extend or develop existing methods.
Draw from other contributing disciplines such as the arts.
Make use of empirical studies of real-world interaction and of interaction within inhabited information spaces.
Any methodologies chosen or proposed should be clearly described and reflected in a project plan.
Homepage | 15 September 1996 Call | Work-programme | Esprit Information Package Contents Page | Feedback
The URL of this document is /esprit/src/eyepack.htm
It was last updated on 29 November 1996.