Vol. 52 No. 3 1234 1244 (Mar. 2011) 1 1 mixi 1 Casual Scheduling Management and Shared System Using Avatar Takashi Yoshino 1 and Takayuki Yamano 1 Conventional scheduling management and shared systems have been used only in some organizations. This is because a user cannot keep his/her motivation to use such a system. Therefore, we have developed a casual scheduling management and shared system using avatar. The dress-up and accessories for each avatar increase depending on the number of items in a schedule. This system can be performed on mixi that is one of famous SNS sites in Japan. From the result of the experiment, we found that our system can keep a user s motivation. Especially, the users who are interested in the items acquisition input their schedule more than the users who are not interested in those. 1. PC 1) 1) Google Google Mozilla Sunbird 1 2005 iphone Android 2009 2009 10% 2) Web Web 2 2010 1 40 ID 300 GREE 3 4 3) 1 Faculty of Systems Engineering, Wakayama University 1 http://www.mozilla-japan.org/projects/calendar/sunbird/ 2 http://www.nicotto.jp/ 3 http://gree.jp/ 4 http://pigg.ameba.jp/ 1234 c 2011 Information Processing Society of Japan
1235 mixi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. 2.1 4) 5) 6) 2.2 1 http://mixi.jp 7) 8) Takayama EcoIsland 9) 1 2.3 10) 1 Weekend Battle 11) 6 12) Chao UNIX
1236 13) Bernhaupt 14) 1 3. 1 15) 15) 4. 4.1 (1) ( 2 ) mixi mixi 4.2 PHP DB XML mixi mixi maku puppet 1 3 (1) 1 1 http://maku.jp/index.php
1237 1 Table 1 Kind of operation of avatar. 0 1 3 4 8 9 1 Fig. 1 1 Screenshot of avatar editing page. Fig. 3 3 Screenshot of schedule page. 6 1 1 2 Fig. 2 Screenshot of main page. (2) 2 (3) 3 1 mixi
1238 5. mixi 5.1 (1) (2) 5.2 2010 1 15 18 1 29 18 2 12 11 1 (1) 3 (2) (3) (1) 1 1 22 5 15 43 (2) 2 Table 2 Questionnaire result about avatar. 3.1 1.11 3.8 0.37 3.0 1.00 3.8 1.01 1 2 3 4 5 5 1 5.3 5 5 3 1 5 3.6 16) 5.3.1 2 2 3.1 2 3.8 10 8 2
1239 3 Table 3 Questionnaire result about schedule. 2.4 1.04 3.3 0.94 3.6 1.19 3.4 1.44 1 2 3 4 5 5 2 3.8 5.3.2 3 3 2.4 3 3 4 9 2 3 4 3 0.65 3 4 3 Table 4 Relation ( ) and( ) on Table 3. u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7 u8 u9 u10 u11 u12 3 4 4 3 5 2 3 4 2 2 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 5 2 1 4 2 4 4 4 4 0.65 5 Table 5 Questionnaire result of a whole system. 3.2 1.14 mixi 4.1 0.95 3.4 0.86 3.3 1.16 1 2 3 4 5 5 5.3.3 5 5 3.2 4 5 5 2 5 5 4.1 3 5 5 mixi
1240 6 Table 6 Number of non-login users. 1 15 2 1 16 3 1 17 0 1 18 2 2.57 1 19 5 1 20 4 1 21 2 1 22 3 1 23 2 1 24 2 1 25 4 2.29 1 26 2 1 27 3 1 28 0 1 29 7 2.43 1.35 0.789 U 1 29 4 1 Fig. 4 Mean use time per access. 5.4 5.4.1 6 15 21 22 28 6 12 9 10 1 28 5.2 4 1 10 Fig. 5 5 Transition of operation frequency related to avatar. 1 3 4 1 Google Analytics Web 30 Web 10
1241 5.4.2 5 0.73 6 6 23 5.2 22 3 1 23 5.4.3 7 22 6. Fig. 6 6 Number of changing attached item in avatar. 6.1 7 2 0.73 6.2 mixi 5 mixi mixi mixi mixi Google Web Table 7 7 Relation between the interest of item acquisition and number of changing attached item of avatar. Fig. 7 7 Transition of number of input in schedules. u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7 u8 u9 u10 u11 u12 2 1 4 4 3 4 2 5 4 2 3 2 3 27 160 171 63 113 79 377 44 37 81 47 49 0.73
1242 8 Table 8 Relation between number of each user of schedule total input and interest of avatar. u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7 u8 u9 u10 u11 u12 7 24 12 28 30 22 34 21 11 12 8 9 2 1 4 4 3 4 2 5 4 2 3 2 3 0.68 5 mixi 6.3 7 8 2 0.68 9 0.85 2 5 A 7 B 10 1 9 Table 9 Relation between number of schedule input and number of changing attached item of avatar. 1 15 352 45 1 16 129 18 1 17 220 21 1 18 61 17 1 19 18 18 1 20 36 13 1 21 8 9 1 22 29 3 1 23 137 10 1 24 37 8 1 25 55 14 1 26 37 8 1 27 41 8 1 28 71 20 1 29 17 6 0.85 A 10 1 2 15)
1243 *: p < 0.05 10 1 Table 10 Comparison of input frequencies in schedule. A B 1 15 3.80 3.57 1 16 1.60 1.43 1 17 2.80 0.86 1 18 1.20 1.00 1 19 2.80 0.14 1 20 1.00 1.14 1 21 1.20 0.14 1 22 0.40 0.14 1 23 1.40 0.29 1 24 0.60 0.57 1 25 1.80 0.43 1 26 0.40 1.29 1 27 1.20 0.00 1 28 3.00 0.57 1 29 1.00 0.14 24.20 11.71 1.06 0.88 0.005* A 5 4 5 B 7 Wilcoxon 6.4 12) 34 2 1 12) 1 22 23 6 6 4 1 5 7. 3 (1) (2) 2 (3) 1) http://www.jmam.co.jp/new/newsrelease/1239032 1362.html 2) 2009 R&D (2009). 3) mixi GREE http://japan.internet.com/busnews/20090806/6.html 4) L4 4 (2007). 5) No.32, pp.121 126
1244 (2007). 6) letters Vol.2, No.4, pp.7 10 (2004). 7) avatar http://e-words.jp/w/e382a2e38390e382bfe383bc.html 8) Vol.44, No.7, pp.1812 1827 (2003). 9) Takayama, C. and Lehdonvirta, V.: EcoIsland: A System For Persuading Users To Reduce Co2 Emissions, w2 17, pervasive (2008). 10) pp.117 118 (2006). 11) Kuramoto, I., Kashiwagi, K., Uemura, T., Shibuya, Y. and Tsujino, Y.: Weekend battle: An entertainment system for improving workers motivation, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Vol.265, pp.43 50 (2005). 12) EELF Vol.50, No.12, pp.2807 2818 (2009). 13) Chao, D.: Doom as an interface for process management, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp.152 157 (2001). 14) Bernhaupt, R., Boldt, A., Mirlacher, T., Wilfinger, D. and Tscheligi, M.: Using emotion in games: Emotional flowers, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Vol.203, pp.41 48 (2007). 15) (2000). 16) (1999). ( 22 5 19 ) ( 22 12 1 ) 44 4 6 CSCW 61 22