1 Introduction

In order to successfully launch a new service based on a novel technology, it is important that the issue of user experience be fully understood. If a similar service exists in the market and users have developed a mental model of its usage, it is easy for them to understand and thus accept the new service. However, a completely new service based on a novel technology makes service acceptance problematic, and in the worst case the service will not be recognized.

This paper analyzes how to design the user experience for a new service. It introduces the use case (includes behavior observation) of a smartphone-signage collaboration service for public spaces.

2 Background

There are two basic research and development strands; improvement and innovation. The former aims at improving the performance of an existing idea or technology so we can assume that users are familiar with the idea or technology. The latter targets novel concepts that are unknown to users and so the take-up rate can be an issue. Thus it is important to design not only the technology itself but also the user experience with consideration of user attributes and the expected use environment. For example, in the case of a new signage service for public spaces, there are many issues to be considered; age and gender of target users, context in which the signage will be encountered, and ambient factors such as other advertisement displays [1, 2].

3 Smartphone-Signage Collaboration Technology

While some works on smartphone-signage collaboration are known [3, 5], we developed our own Wi-Fi based smartphone-signage collaboration technology, MPIS (Multi-Player Interactive Signage); it allows multiple users to interact with the system simultaneously [4].

A screenshot is shown in Fig. 1. Users can operate their own pointer on the signage display by finger flicks on their smartphone after connecting the smartphone to the signage Wi-Fi. This is a novel interactive operation method that allows users to overview a categorized menu on the signage and view detailed information of each category on their own smartphone. However, users don’t know that they need to connect their smartphone to the signage nor that they can obtain detailed information from the signage because these functions are novel.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

A screenshot of developed technology, MPIS.

Full size image

4 User Behavior Model

In order to analyze user behaviors when using MPIS, we employed the AIDA model as it is popular in a marketing filed for analyzing user behaviors as regards purchases. We thought that this model could be employed to our signage use case in public spaces in terms of the similarity of user focus on a single target among many contending stimuli. The AIDA model consists of the following four steps: Attention, Interest, Desire, and Action. Figure 2 shows the initial problems with MPIS as identified by the AIDA analysis.

Fig. 2.
figure 2

MPIS problems identified.

Full size image

In Fig. 2, Problem #1 in the Attention step is that a user does not pay attention to MPIS. This is a problem of general signage since he/she does not recognize the existence of MPIS service. That is, this problem does not depend on his/her evaluation for MPIS.

Problem #2 in the Interest/Desire steps is that a user does not want to use MPIS due to lack of interest. This could be a problem with general signage, smartphone-signage collaboration or MPIS. This problem depends on why the user is not interested.

Problem #3 in the Action step is that the user gives up attempting to make the Wi-Fi connection due to too many operation steps for registration. This could be a problem with Wi-Fi use in smartphone-signage collaboration or MPIS.

Problem #4 in the Action step is that the user cannot correctly operate the smartphone because he/she does not know which screen should be focused on. This is a problem with the user interface design of MPIS.

5 Experiments: Behavior Observation

We conducted experiments in a public exhibition space of a museum. The aim of the experiments was to extract problems in the user experience design of MPIS not from subjects prepared for the experiments but from regular visitors to the exhibition space. These experiments were conducted on Jan. 11th 2015. We did not select nor control subjects in advance so their age and gender were not confirmed. A demonstration booth was set as one exhibit in a free special exhibition event of a professional sport team. Thus, most subjects seemed to be fans in their 20’s to 40’s from our observation.

All the exhibits presented items about the sport team. The content on MPIS included player profiles, play results, etc. The exhibit was in an open space where everyone can freely enter and exit so we could not accurately measure the number of visitors. From the Wi-Fi connection logs it seems that there were about 200 visitors experienced MPIS.

Figures 3 and 4 show a floor map and the booth of our exhibit, respectively. As shown in Fig. 3, this exhibit area has two entrances and was surrounded by walls, in front of which many types of exhibit were demonstrated such as picture panels, a display to play movies, an attraction based on face recognition technology, etc. An experimenter had a seat in the center of the area and observed user behaviors. An instruction to use MPIS was presented on a sheet of the stand beside a signage display (See Fig. 4) and was also presented as a slideshow in one of the cells on signage screen (hidden in Fig. 4).

Fig. 3.
figure 3

Floor map of the MPIS exhibit area.

Full size image
Fig. 4.
figure 4

Booth of the MPIS exhibit.

Full size image

6 Analyses

In this section, we use the AIDA model to analyze the observed user behaviors. Table 1 summarizes the solutions for problems identified by the AIDA analysis.

Table 1. Solutions for problems identified by the AIDA analysis.
Full size table

6.1 Attention

We observed whether visitors stopped in front of the MPIS booth or not and found that 57 of 353 people (16%) stopped. This low ratio is because MPIS had a strong competitor; its neighbor was an exhibit that captured the visitor’s face and displayed the famous sport player that most closely resembled the visitor. This result shows the importance of making a visually attractive guide near/on the signage display. This problem of “contending stimuli in the environment” would be more significant in the case of signage in a town, at a train station, etc. because many other visual/auditory advertisements occupy the same public space.

6.2 Interest and Desire

We observed how many people tried to use MPIS. 21 of the 57 people (37%) who stopped in front of MPIS tried to operate it. Most people did not recognize what services or contents MPIS would provide for them. Moreover, they seemed to have the impression that the signage would be difficult to use somehow. In order to attract more people, it is important to emphasize user benefits, attractive contents, and easy operation.

6.3 Action

To access MPIS service, the user had to perform two steps; connect to the MPIS Wi-Fi and then control the screen. In the exhibition, a free Wi-Fi service was provided and all exhibits needed Wi-Fi were based on the free Wi-Fi. When a visitor wanted to use the free Wi-Fi for the first time, registration was necessary. After finishing the registration, a portal page was shown on the smartphone. As shown in Fig. 5, forcing the user to navigate a long page sequence to start MPIS use is a significant problem. A system log showed that only 726 of 1691 (43%) attempts to connect to the MPIS Wi-Fi succeeded in reaching the portal page of MPIS.

Fig. 5.
figure 5

Long page sequence to start to use MPIS.

Full size image

Next, we analyze the ease of operating MPIS. As mentioned in above, users needed to operate their own pointer on the signage display by finger flicks on their smartphone. This allowed users to overview a categorized menu on the signage and view detailed information of each category on their own smartphone. We assumed that users could operate the pointer without looking at their smartphone like a game controller. However, most users viewed the smartphone when entering finger flicks. Then, they were not able to see their own pointer move on the signage screen in response to their flick operation. Figure 6 shows a problem with the user’s focus control in operating MPIS. The user could not understand when their focus should change.

Fig. 6.
figure 6

User focus change in operating the MPIS

Full size image

7 Discussion

It is expected that the MPIS service could be improved by applying solutions shown in Table 1 for each step of the AIDA model. In this section, we discuss one improvement. In the experiment, we found that most people noticed the existence of the signage display but did not pay attention to the instruction sheet on the stand beside the display. People glanced at the signage display, felt it was difficult to use, and gave up before checking the instruction sheet. Most people did not notice the existence of the instruction sheet as they were paying attention to the signage display. To solve this problem, one possible solution is to position the instruction sheet stand directly in front of and below the display, see Fig. 7. This is because it is not easy for humans to notice other object, printed material when concentrating on a display.

Fig. 7.
figure 7

Position change of instruction sheet stand.

Full size image

8 Conclusion

This paper analyzed user experience design for new services with a use case of behavior observation of smartphone-signage collaboration for use in public spaces. We employed the AIDA model to analyze the observation results of user behaviors in a public exhibition space.

Future work includes improving the proposed smartphone-signage technology, MPIS, by applying the results of the AIDA analyses.