Proceedings of 8th European Assembly on telework (Telework2001)

91Usability compatibility. Terminals, applications, services, and sometimes even service contentscome from different origins. They may be technically compatible, but technical compatibility isdifferent from ‘usability compatibility’. The service may be optimized to a completely differentterminal – or technology – that you have. You need to reconfigure the device for the connection,and perhaps remove the configuration when back in normal use. The features that are coded into thememory <strong>of</strong> a product can be presented in a clear manner in the user interface. The user only needsto browse through the menus and check what there is to choose from. In situations then a serviceis dependent on the cooperation <strong>of</strong> several devices and different communication technologies theoptions cannot be presented to the user. Often the user needs to know in advance what to look for– and where to look it.Adaptation for low UI bandwidthFlexibility is one <strong>of</strong> the most important requirements in developing telecommunication solutionsto support distributed work. There are tasks that one can pack into a briefcase, go wherever oneprefers, complete the tasks and come back. However, in practice everything that will be neededduring a task completion is seldom known in the beginning. New information will be requiredduring the work flow and even the nature <strong>of</strong> that material can be specified only as the need emerges.The results are neither delivered as a single unquestionable package, but different versions needto be sent for reviews, or the actual output is a combination <strong>of</strong> several individual contributions.Further on, even efficient information transfer is not enough to meet the flexibility needs <strong>of</strong> manybusiness tasks. Instead <strong>of</strong> sending and commenting produced documents, the work needs to bedone in closer cooperation. A team <strong>of</strong> experts may be working on the same object each one beingaware <strong>of</strong> what the others are doing. Everybody needs to know about the others for fluent coupling.Another angle to the flexibility <strong>of</strong> working is the location <strong>of</strong> performing the tasks. The traditionalmodel is that people came where the work is. Wired telecommunication allows people to takethe work where they are. They can work where they prefer, as long as they prefer to work in thesame location all the time. The ultimate step along this dimension is that working is essentiallylocation independent. People would be able to work wherever they want – or need - and changetheir preferences.Aiming at the flexibility calls for tools that enable information and context sharing and mobility.With these kinds <strong>of</strong> tools flexibility can be realized on two levels: on one hand they allow individualdifferences between users and pr<strong>of</strong>essions, and on the other hand they let the individuals to choosethe most appropriate and preferable ways <strong>of</strong> work in all situations.What does this kind <strong>of</strong> flexibility mean from the user interface design angle? On one hand theuser needs efficiency: versatile input facilities, large screens and fast connections for usabilityand comfort. On the other hand the user needs to have an access to the same – or compatible –services and data when utilizing the freedom to move. Apparently the physical terminals when onthe move are different from the ones that are optimized for stationary efficiency, and the differentinterfaces have different communication bandwidths. Adapting for low user interface bandwidthis one <strong>of</strong> the most crucial challenges influencing the users’ experiences and their acceptance <strong>of</strong>mobile services.