The computing paradigm where sensor and actuator technology work in tandem to track and act on events in real Euclidean space, known as ambient intelligence (AmI), is likely to become increasingly common due to the rapid maturation of computing technology. Installing AmI in the built environment creates ambient intelligent environments (AmIE), which strive to make the places we inhabit (invisibly) sensitive and responsive to our presence, needs, wants, and preferences. Given that built environments and the goings-on therein are complicated in an of them selves, implementing AmI for (increasingly) complicated tasks in (increasingly) complicated scenarios, increases the difficulty of managing the outcomes in AmIEs. Our previous research indicates that industry practitioners attribute the agency of AmI artifacts as responsible for these outcomes; especially when harm perpetuation is (one of) the outcome(s), which we codified as the Agency/Intelligence Axis [1]. Due to the nascence of AmI, research on best practices for the design-engineering of AmI is still emerging. This research seeks to add to this literature by evaluating our formerly identified Agency/Intelligence Axis in the context of AmIE through a case study of VyZee, a retail company working on transitioning their retail stores to “smart” stores. Our findings highlight that while VyZee seems largely unaware of any relationship between agency and perpetuating un-anticipated/-desired outcomes, they do implement an array of levels of AmI agency in their retail stores, and their justifications for their choices are presented in the discussion. Finally, coding the data revealed more nuance then previously documented in the Agency/Intelligence Axis, and a new Ambient Intelligent Agent Model, which suggests that AmI agents have six properties, is proposed.

Creating Spatial Computing (SComp) artifacts (including Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Mixed Reality, and Ambient Intelligent artifacts) is a rapidly-emerging domain in need of new design methodologies. In this paper, we examine whether and how ethics are procedurally integrated into the creations of SComp artifacts. After an introduction to terminology—including a re-framed definition of Spatial Computing—findings of interviews with Spatial Computing practitioners are shared. The interviews indicated an awareness among professionals about the inordinate vulnerability of SComp artifacts, and about the need for—and the lack thereof—processes and tests to mitigate negative effects of SComp artifacts. Results from the domain expert interviews are integrated into a proposed framework: The Framework for Ethical Spatial Computing Design Engineering. Our framework serves to support researchers and practitioners in devising new methodologies unique to Spatial Computing by highlighting considerations central to the creation of ethical artifacts. The framework integrates the findings from the in-depth interview study and builds on existing models in Design Process, Methods, and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) Research that highlight important barriers and opportunities between research and practice. It maps the three-phases journey consisted of (1) Enablers, (2) Synthesizers, and (3) SComp Artifacts. We trust that our work sheds light on considerations necessary to the creation of ethical Spatial Computing artifacts.