Responsive office environments
Communications of the ACM - Special issue on computer augmented environments: back to the real world
The active badge system (abstract)
CHI '93 Proceedings of the INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Communications of the ACM
Shuffle, throw or take it! working efficiently with an interactive wall
CHI 98 Cconference Summary on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Water lamp and pinwheels: ambient projection of digital information into architectural space
CHI 98 Cconference Summary on Human Factors in Computing Systems
MusicFX: an arbiter of group preferences for computer supported collaborative workouts
CSCW '98 Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work
The coming age of calm technolgy
Beyond calculation
CoBuild '98 Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Cooperative Buildings, Integrating Information, Organization, and Architecture
A Market Protocol for Decentralized Task Allocation
ICMAS '98 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Multi Agent Systems
Building brains for rooms: designing distributed software agents
AAAI'97/IAAI'97 Proceedings of the fourteenth national conference on artificial intelligence and ninth conference on Innovative applications of artificial intelligence
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Intelligent environments are physical spaces that can sense and respond to the people and events taking place within them, providing opportunities for people to influence environmental factors that affect them, such as the lighting, temperature, d茅cor or background music in the common areas of an office building. The designer of an environment that can be influenced by a group of collocated people rather than a single individual must decide how to accord influence among the individuals in the group. We have designed two multi-agent group preference arbitration schemes and tested them out in an intelligent environment, MUSICFX, which controls the selection of music played in a fitness center. One scheme seeks to maximize the average satisfaction of the inhabitants, the other seeks to maximize the equitable distribution of satisfaction among the inhabitants. We present the results of a series of experiments using real data collected from the deployed system, and discuss the ramifications of these two potentially conflicting goals.