ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Isabel Hardemo

Finding a form to hold the act of queuing

Received: 15 February 2004 / Accepted: 9 April 2004 / Published online: 16 June 2004� Springer-Verlag London Limited 2004

Abstract In this paper, we present an initial applianceidea that is to reflect the practice of queuing. This is toenable exploration on how the act of queuing mightevolve with new appliances and experiences. Based onthe notion that a good appliance is one with limitedfunctionality, we have worked on a limited number ofexcerpts from the act of queuing. By using interactionalfeatures from the field as material for design, these fea-tures are formed into the Queuing Display, which reflectsissues on queuing as such.

Keywords Interactional features Æ Work-orienteddesign Æ The act of queuing

1 Introduction

1.1 Extended interfaces

The starting point for the queuing project presented inthis paper was a feasibility study focusing on the use of apharmacy and their concept on health, the HealthSquare. This commitment means that, indirectly, thepharmacy is working towards a vision of spreading theideas and services of healthcare to adjacent activities. Asa consequence, the pharmacy has been graduallyextending their interfaces, from interactions betweenstaff and customer at the counter, to more distributedinterfaces where customers and staff meet in discussionson self-service and information on health in severalconstellations.

The fact that the pharmacy is extending their imme-diate interfaces to nearby activities is closely related tohow the materials of ubi-comp merge with other mate-

rials. The grain of this paper is, therefore, taking theideas of ubi-comp and how interfaces spread beyondthe desktop and into the woodworks of everyday life asthe starting point [6]. In line with the extending inter-faces of computational technology, and the fact that thepharmacy is making parallel progress with computa-tional technology in extending its interfaces, presumablymakes the pharmacy and the act of queuing a goodprospect for developing ideas for appliances.

Dourish [2] has commented on how the ideas ofubi-comp and tangible computing exploit our everydayactivities as a way of designing technology that isincorporated into practice. The idea he means is to ‘‘tiecomputational and physical activities together in such away that the computer ‘withdraws’ into the activity, sothat the users engage directly with the tasks at hand andthe distinction between ‘interface’ and ‘action’ is reduced.’’

2 Appliances for queuing

Considering how computation withdraws into activitiesin this manner is one of the objectives in our work onfinding a form to hold the existing practice of queuing ina possible appliance. This paper also gives an account ofa number of interactional features [5] and how thesefeatures are subsequently interpreted into a queuingappliance—the Queuing Display. Our work is not aimedat covering an overall picture of queuing, but, rather, toadd a perspective to the analysis of the practice.Working merely with extracts from the practice ofqueuing brings a finite image of the same—a usefulperspective when analyzing a practice with the goal toadd a new design. This might also be a desirablerestriction in line with the conviction that appliances areto have limited functionality when used for a variety ofpurposes [4].

Focusing the fieldwork on the existing practice withqueuing tickets and the rest of the queuing system wasguided by our work towards a specific form. In thispaper, we have envisioned this form as an appliance with

I. HardemoWork Practice Lab, Blekinge Institute of Technology,372 25 Ronneby, SwedenE-mail: isa.hardemo@bth.seTel.: +46-457-385563

Pers Ubiquit Comput (2004) 8: 247–254DOI 10.1007/s00779-004-0285-8

a number of features arising from the existing practice.By making people’s use of the current queuing tech-nology evident in our ideas for a new appliance, it doesnot necessarily show the precise functionality for aqueuing appliance. The issues raised through theQueuing Display force a position on what affordances afinal queuing appliance should have in order to corre-spond well with how the current queuing technologyworks. Our starting point has been to work on thedynamics characterizing the act of queuing, and the factthat people engaged in the act have different purposesand different concerns in their involvement. We decidedto try and use this diversity as an asset in our reasoning.

In this paper, the act of queuing is presented in aninitial idea for an appliance that is to correspond to theexisting practice of queuing and how the current queuingtechnology is being used. This appliance builds on thework of using selected interactional features as materialin the concrete design work. In analyzing the centralissues of the current queuing practice, we were able toconclude some interactional features that should beconsidered important, even in future queuing appliances.The idea is that the Queuing Display is to carry issuesfrom the existing practice, but add experiences inexplorations on possibilities with the future practice ofqueuing.

3 The act of queuing

3.1 Ubiquitous queuing

Queuing is a ubiquitous phenomenon in itself. Peoplequeue up when waiting for the train, when waiting for a

table at a restaurant, when waiting for service at the postoffice, or when waiting to get to the cashier at thepharmacy (as exemplified in this paper). It is like aneveryday skill; we know how to do it, like we know howto eat with a knife and a fork or how to use a pencilwhen writing.

People that are waiting for something rarely have achoice but to stay in the queue—in need of that medi-cine, or forced to get on that train. The queuing timewhile waiting for one’s turn is likely to be seen asunnecessary time being spoiled. This creates a state oftension between an urge of movement towards a specificgoal—being first in line—and inertial forces of otherpeople aiming at the same goal. People in the queuesuddenly have something in common. Such a commu-nity is one aspect that might influence how well peopledo when they queue, what they do, and how they use thequeuing technologies. On that account, reasoning onmaterials for queuing is a way of working with therelations between computational technology, its spatialsurrounding, and people’s actions and experiences in apractice of queuing.

3.2 The current queuing system

In studying how people queue in relation to the phar-macy with the current queuing system, we observed aphenomena of how the visitors at the pharmacy almostgot stuck in an activity where the cluster of queuingpeople were pressing in upon the pharmacy in a way thatcould be compared to a dough (Fig. 1).

This metaphor of a dough mediates how the activityof keeping watch of one’s priority in the queue brings

Fig. 1 The dough

248

about a focus on the queuing ticket and an anxious waitfor your turn.

In the present day, the visitors at the pharmacy usequeuing tickets with numbers (Fig. 2), and displays(Fig. 3), placed close to the counters inside the phar-macy, showing the order of priority. This results in aqueuing practice where people don’t actually queue bylining up, but, instead, people are waiting with theirqueuing tickets at hand, positioned towards the displays.

Visitors at the pharmacy appear as a crowd of people(Fig. 4a). A trained eye could probably make out thedifferent types of visitors (that is to say, those who are‘‘merely visiting’’ and those who can be considered aspeople actually waiting in line), but there are no clearlines of people queuing in a direction towards thecounters, as is common when lining up at the counters ina grocery store for example.

The person who is first in line is likely to be revealedat the time being when a new number is announced,since this person will then probably approach a counter.The rest of the waiting crowd is still just a crowd, but itis a crowd with a specific order between one another(Fig. 4b). This order is later to be distributed betweenthe different counters that offer service. In that sense, thewaiting crowd is more or less a line that is being split uptowards a number of counters. If one were to follow thetraces of this divided line backwards, a number of lineswould be the result (Fig. 4c,d).

The aspects of how the people queuing at the phar-macy appear merely as a crowd—while the order ofpriority is not visible—brings about a challenge infinding ideas on how to make the order of priority, aswell as the visitors that it consists of, more visible.People in the act of queuing position themselves in thisdough of a crowd, which is affected directly by thecurrent queuing system, forcing visitors to keep watch oftheir priority and focus on their number on the queuingticket, in order to compare it to the displayed number.

Moreover, having the queuing ticket actually func-tioning as access to service is another significant aspect.This process of getting access to service is, again, partlyFig. 2 A queuing ticket

Fig. 3 One of the presentdisplays

249

guided by the number printed on the queuing ticket andhow it corresponds with the number on display, but isalso guided in relation to how others use their tickets.

3.3 Interactional features

Our explorations on the act of queuing and the use ofqueuing technologies is comprised in extracts from thefollowing interactional features:

– Dependency on displays– Focus on numbers– Influence of dynamics

Dependency on displays According to how the currentqueuing system works, it is, in fact, not of vitalimportance as to where people position themselves,since they don’t have to physically stand up for theirturn in a line. Assuming that people’s positions is ofslight importance does not apply without restrictionsthough. It is only a valid fact the while people aretaking part in the act of queuing, they keep track ofwhat number is next in turn. Keeping track of thenumber next in turn implies that people need toposition themselves in a place where the whole queu-ing system is accessible, thus, in a spot where it ispossible to compare the number on the display withthe one at hand. This means, indirectly, that people inthe act of queuing are dependent on the displays thatare often placed close to the cashiers.

Focus on numbers Our image of the Holy Note (Fig. 5),with the number 154 printed on it, frames the

importance of numbers in the current queuing system atthe pharmacy. Queuing systems based on printed num-bers and numbers being displayed in a sequence is quitepredictable in that it is a common structure, a structurewe recognize. With numbers, most people know whatorder they normally follow, that 26 comes before 27 and28 and that number 44, for example, is a bit furtheraway.

Queuing tickets carry a certain palpability, but, evenso, having a queuing ticket with a number representingyour priority in the queue is not enough to complete thetask of queuing. The number on the queuing ticket needsto match the number on display. The focus on numbers,and ,thus, a focus on the queuing ticket are closelyrelated to the dependency on displays as well.

Influence of dynamics If a number of people enter thequeue, grab a queuing ticket, and then decide on leavingthe queue without using their turn in the priority, thenumbers on the remaining tickets are immediately mis-leading. Being one of the remaining people who are stillin the act of queuing, one can look around and estimatethe number of people waiting for their turn. But such anestimation would presumably sum up everyone visitingthe pharmacy and not necessarily only the number ofpeople actually in the queue. Some people seem to tryand make up for this by placing their rejected queuingticket by the machine where it was once grabbed. But,despite this, and the fact that the current queuing systemenables people to walk in and out of the queue, it stilladds a level of difficulty in estimating and interpretingthe actual queue—which results in visitors being underthe influence of dynamics.

Fig. 4 Illustrating peoplewaiting for service at thepharmacy

250

3.4 Features for a queuing appliance

As stated initially, we decided to consider the dynamicsof the queue in our appliance ideas for the act ofqueuing. Some of the activities and phenomena that webase this decision on are portrayed in the interactionalfeatures phrased above as: dependency on displays, focuson numbers, and influence of dynamics. We mean thatthese features affect the overall view of the queue indifferent ways, and, thereby, also influence how a personin the act of queuing can relate to the queue as such andthe priority of order. The priority is not visible to a greatextent, despite the relatively fixed structure of number-ing—which is probably, again, disturbed by the varying

dynamics. These varying dynamics involve activities thatare not directly related to the queue, such as people thatare merely visiting the pharmacy with a person in thequeue, people deciding to leave their priority in thequeue, or the fact that customers aspire to differentamounts of time during service.

We can, hereby, probably establish that, in this work,the dynamics of the queue is central in interpreting thepractice of queuing. The urge has been to carry outexplorations on how to increase the transparency of thequeue’s order. That is to say that a queuing applianceless explicit in numbers and priority could still mediatequite a good sense of the priority to the user. Anincreased level of transparency would then give an

Fig. 5 The holy note

251

experience of how one’s position in the queue relate toother people’s positions in the queue.

Our attempts in finding a form to hold the act ofqueuing add up to the following three accounts:

– Others as display– Focus at rate– Appearing dynamics

Queuing display The form we have found that corre-sponds to the existing practice of queuing is a QueuingDisplay (Fig. 6). The function of this Queuing Display isto merely blink at a certain rate set by the bearer’sarrival time in the queue. The use of such an applianceisn’t necessarily limited to the singe purpose of display-ing the order of priority in a queue, but a display withsimilar functions could accordingly be used for otherrelated purposes.

The Queuing Display blinks at a given rate to illus-trate the priority of order for a specific visitor at thepharmacy. It starts to pulsate at a given rate once avisitor initiates the act of queuing. The rate of theQueuing Display is further evolving in relation to thebearer’s priority in the queue.

Others as display Having Queuing Displays to representpeople’s order of priority opens up the possibility for

using a wider spatiality while waiting for one’s turn.People would no longer be dependant on the centraldisplays located at the cashiers, since a Queuing Displaywould show the order of priority for each bearer whilelikewise mediating it to other visitors by blinking atdifferent rates.

In that sense, people with Queuing Displays involvedin the practice of queuing would replace the displays oftoday and, instead, work as display for others. We thinkof this feature as Others as Display, which correspondsto what we described above as Dependency on display.That is to say, if people in the act of queuing werepreviously dependent on the displays, then, with Queu-ing Displays, they are dependent on each other (Fig. 7).Comparing the pace of your own Queuing Display givesan estimation of your priority of order in relation to theothers. This is a way of making the priority within thecrowd more visible.

Focus at rate The palpability of numbers have had tobe considered in the sort of queuing practice weimagine with the appliances of several Queuing Dis-plays. In fact, any alternative to a queuing systembased on numbers would probably have to be pre-dictable, or at least readable, to the same extent asnumbers are.

Fig. 6 Queuing displays

Fig. 7 Others as display

252

Even a queuing system based on arrival time, as inthe case of the Queuing Displays, presupposes that theappliance makes visible, marks out, or notifies the orderof priority. Rendering or interpreting the rate at which aQueuing Display is blinking might be more difficult thansimply comparing numbers, but it is offering anotherway of sensing the order of priority.

The idea with the Queuing Display is for it to replacethe queuing ticket in a natural way (while building onfeatures of the same). Solely, one personal QueuingDisplay would be enough to indicate to a person whenhe or she is next in turn. As mentioned above, this meansthat a Queuing Display would function both as a displayand as access to service. The blinking starts with a slowpulse once a person enter the queue, and then pulsatesfaster and faster until a steady light indicates that it istime—you are next! And the consequence of not havingto worry about queuing tickets and their numbers wouldprobably have a peaceful influence on the act of queu-ing. The act of queuing would, of course, still be char-acterized by the focus of attention to a specificappliance, but at least it would not be a focus simulta-neously dependent on display.

Appearing dynamics The current queuing system doesnot really correspond to the dynamics of the queuingpractice. If people decide to leave the queuing situation,this is first revealed once a new number is being dis-played without anyone approaching the cashier. Withthe Queuing Displays that sort of dynamics becomesmore of Appearing Dynamics.

People queuing with Queuing Displays wouldn’t beable to easily spot the exact number of people that are at ahigher priority in the queue (unless one decides to actuallycount the number of people bearing Queuing Displayswith a faster rate), but it also means that any gaps in thequeue can pass by unnoticed. If a person decides to leavethe queue, this will conclude in the change to a faster rateon the remaining Queuing Displays.

Getting an overview of one’s own rate in relation toother people in the act of queuing in using others asdisplay, gives a possible experience of the dynamics ofthe whole queuing system. This experience even containspossible dynamics in the queue, as that of peopledeciding to leave the queue. With the Queuing Displays,we envision the same act, whereas people leaving thequeuing situation would immediately affect the rate ofthe Queuing Displays, representing the people that arestill in the act of queuing. This is opposed to the currentqueuing practice at the pharmacy where the whole ideais, rather, as stated above, under the influence of thedynamics in the queue.

4 Ethnography as design material

Innovation is, in a way, a practice of pasting new ideasonto existing ideas. We tend to think of new media and

technology as alternatives to what and how we do thingstoday. But new technology is rarely replacing a practice,rather, it is added to an existing one and mixed with ourcustomized ways of doing things.

On the basis of the queuing project exemplified in thispaper, we allow descriptions on the act of queuing toserve as materials for design. In this project, the processof creating an appliance that reflects the practice ofqueuing is not a production of answers, but a way ofraising questions as to which design might be the answer,or a reason of questioning further. Some of the mostcentral aspects that carry the appliance are, likewise,some of the most central aspects in the queuing situationat the pharmacy that has been in focus of our study.

This has opened up for the possibility of actuallyworking consciously on transforming selections of anongoing practice into an appliance—a way of filteringthe practice of queuing at the pharmacy to find thegrains to make new appliances out of.

With the result of a Queuing Display, our aim hasbeen to both contain aspects from the current queuingsystem and, furthermore, to open up for new experienceswithin that practice. This is to exemplify how ideas foran appliance can reflect an existing practice and simul-taneously suggest possible functions for the same. TheQueuing Display can, for example, be of use both inanalyzing the existing practice and in reasoning on whatfunctions to consider in a new queuing appliance.

The elements from the practice of queuing that theQueuing Displays contains redirects the continuousreasoning to the actual design situation in similar waysas ethnographic accounts point back to the practicebeing studied [1]. We mean that our appliance exempli-fies how considerations on functionalities and interac-tional features contribute to the understanding and thecreation of a corresponding image of a practice.

We consider this to form to be an essential part in theprocess of making a practice visible [5], as the traditionof work-oriented design suggests. Only that, in thisproject, the practice has been made visible more throughdescriptions in images than in accounts of words.Another important aspect is the fact that our workextracts fragments from a practice without trying to givea true picture of the practice of queuing. We are, instead,aiming at consciously changing it [3] and adding newperspectives that build on how people use the currentqueuing technology. This makes it easier in that ourdescriptions don’t have to be true for several dimensionsand perspectives on queuing—but, on this occasion,merely true or interesting from the purpose of designingnew experiences of queuing. In comparing the concep-tions of what is and what could be [1], we encircle a voidwith possible room for innovations.

5 Conclusion

The explorations on the act of queuing presented in thispaper is a way of getting acquainted with the practice of

253

queuing. A combination of the features collected in theQueuing Display is to mediate a sense of the relationbetween people, activities, spatiality, and technology.Generating an idea for an appliance on the elements ofqueuing is striving to enclose something about people’shabitual patterns and their experiences in relation to thepractice of queuing—trying to find a form to hold theact of queuing. This initial appliance idea can then bebuilt upon in creating new appliances for queuing.

References

1. Blomberg J, Burrell M, Guest G (2002) An ethnographicapproach to design. In: Jacko JA, Sears A (eds) The human–computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolvingtechnologies and emerging applications, ISBN: 0-8058-3838-4.Erlbaum, New Jersey, pp 964–986

2. Dourish P (2001) Where the action is: the foundations ofembodied interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

3. Fallman D (2003) Design-oriented human–computer interac-tion. In: Proceedings the conference on human factors in com-puting systems (CHI2003), Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 5–10 April2003

4. Sharpe WP, Stenton SP (2002) Information appliances. In:Jacko JA, Sears A (eds) The human–computer interactionhandbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emergingapplications, ISBN: 0-8058-3838-4. Erlbaum, New Jersey,pp731–751

5. Tap H(2004) Accountable interaction. Exploring interactionalfeatures of technology in use. PhD thesis, Blekinge Institute ofTechnology

6. Weiser M, Brown JS (1996) The coming age of calm technology,http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/acmfuture2endnote.htm

254