skip to main content
10.1145/3019943.3020002acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdsaiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

An Initial Framework for a Museum Application for Senior Citizens

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 December 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Museums are great places to see, ear, touch, feel and experience cool and interesting things. Even better when you can set your own itinerary, or you can move at your own pace and at the same time have all the complementary information you need about a piece. This paper presents an initial framework for a museum application where augmented reality and gamification are connected with an adaptive user interface, different from the "traditional", that usually follows a one-size-fits-all model, typically ignoring the individual user's needs, abilities, and preferences. So far, the present prototype only adapts to the senior citizens. A model to validate this framework is also presented.

References

  1. Steichen, B., Conati, C., and Carenini, G. 2014. Inferring Visualization Task Properties, User Performance, and User Cognitive Abilities from Eye Gaze Data. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 4, 2:11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Conati, C., Carenini, G., Toker, D., and Lallé, S. 2015. Towards User-Adaptive Information Visualization. In AAAI, 4100--4106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Reinecke, K., and Bernstein, A. 2013. Knowing What a User Likes: A Design Science Approach to Interfaces that Automatically Adapt to Culture. Mis Quarterly, 37, 2, 427--453. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Zhao, L., Lu, Y., Zhang, L., and Chau, P. 2012. Assessing the effects of service quality and justice on customer satisfaction and the continuance intention of mobile value-added services: an empirical test of a multidimensional model. Decision SupportSystems, 52, 645--656. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Gajos, K. Z., Wobbrock, J. O., and Weld, D. S. 2008. Improving the performance of motor-impaired users with automatically-generated, ability-based interfaces. In SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Comp. Systems, 1257--1266. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Marangunić, N., and Granić, A. 2015. Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Inf. Society, 14, 1, 81--95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Jung, T., Chung, N. and Leue, M. C., 2015. The determinants of recommendations to use augmented reality technologies: The case of a Korean theme park. Tour. Manag., 49, 75--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. United Nations. 2013. World Population Ageing 2013, Population Division, DESA, United Nations, 1--95.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Cunha, A., Trigueiros, P., and Gouveia, J. 2015. HelpWave: An Integrated Web Centred System. Procedia Computer Science, 64, 110--117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Cheng, K.H., and Tsai, C.C. 2013. Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: suggestions for future research. J. Science Edu. and Technology, 22, 4, 449--462.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Cortes, V. A., Zirate, V. H., Uresti, J. A. R., and Zayas, B. E. 2009. Current Challenges and Applications for Adaptive User Interfaces. Chapter in Human-Computer Interaction, Inaki Maurtua (Ed.), INTECH Open Access Publisher.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Akiki, P. A., Bandara, A. K., and Yu, Y. 2015. Adaptive model-driven user interface development systems. ACM Computing Surveys, 47(1). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Karaman, S., Bagdanov, A. D., Landucci, L., D'Amico, G., Ferracani, A., Pezzatini, D., and Del Bimbo, A. 2016. Personalized multimedia content delivery on an interactive table by passive observation of museum visitors. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75, 3787--3811. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. CEUD. 2016. Centre for Excellence in Universal Design, http://goo.gl/fUHPj6 (accessed 05/04/2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Negruşa, A. L., Toader, V., Sofică, A., Tutunea, M. F., and Rus, R. V. 2015. Exploring gamification techniques and applications for sustainable tourism. Sustainability, 7, 8, 11160--11189.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Schuller, B. W. 2015. Modelling User Affect and Sentiment in Intelligent User Interfaces: A Tutorial Overview. In 20th Int. Conf. on Intelligent User Interfaces, 443--446.ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Morency, L. P., Mihalcea, R., and Doshi, P. 2011. Towards multimodal sentiment analysis: Harvesting opinions from the web. In 13th Int. Conf. on Multimodal Interf, 169--176. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Metallinou, A., Wöllmer, M., Katsamanis, A., Eyben, F., Schuller, B., and Narayanan, S. 2012. Context-sensitive learning for enhanced audiovisual emotion classification. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3, 2, 184--198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Lindgaard, G., Fernandes, G., Dudek, C., and Brown, J. 2006. Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression!.Behaviour & Information Technology, 25, 2, 115--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Kralisch, A., Eisend, M., and Berendt, B. 2005. Impact of culture on website navigation behaviour. In 11th Int. Conf. on Human--Computer Interaction, 22--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrington, N., Zhuang, Y., Yazir, Y. O., Baldwin, J., Coady, Y., and Ganti, S. 2013. Beyond user interfaces in mobile accessibility: Not just skin deep. In IEEE Pacific Rim Conf. on Comm., Comp. and Signal Proc., 322--329. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Giakoumis, D., Kaklanis, N., Votis, K., and Tzovaras, D. 2014. Enabling user interface developers to experience accessibility limitations through visual, hearing, physical and cognitive impairment simulation. Universal Access in the Information Society, 13, 2, 227--248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., and MacIntyre, B., 2001. Recent advances in augmented reality. Comp. Graphics and App., IEEE, 21, 6, 34--47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Vainstein, N., Kuflik, T., and Lanir, J. 2016. Towards Using Mobile, Head-Worn Displays in Cultural Heritage: User Requirements and a Research Agenda. In 21st Int. Conf. on Intelligent User Interfaces, 327--331. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. HMS. 2016. Srbija 1914 / Augmented Reality Exhibition at Historical Museum of Serbia, Belgrade, https://vimeo.com/126699550 (accessed 05/04/2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Qualcomm, 2016. Invisible Museum, https://goo.gl/aS0NKh (accessed 05/04/2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. VAM. 2016 Interactive IPAD Museum Catalog https://vimeo.com/31821923 (accessed 05/04/2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. MWCM. 2016. Multitouch wall Cleveland Museum https://goo.gl/kI2oCh (accessed 05/04/2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. SM. 2016. Science Museum - atmosphere gallery, https://vimeo.com/20789653 (accessed 05/04/2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. EWB. 2016. Europe Without Barriers, http://goo.gl/sqlJrE (accessed 05/04/2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Pine, J., and Gilmore, J. 1999. The experience economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Oh, H., Fiore, A. M., and Jeoung, M. 2007. Measuring Experience Economy Concepts: Tourism Applications. J. of Travel Research, 46, 119--132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Li, Y. 2000. Geographical consciousness and tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 27, 4, 863--883.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Davis, F.D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 3, 319--339. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, J. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 3, 425--478. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Venkatesh V., Thong J.Y., and Xu X. 2012. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly. 36, 157--178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Richards, G., and Wilson, J. 2006. Developing creativity in tourist experiences: a solution to the serial reproduction of culture? Tourism Management, 27, 1408--1441.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Kourouthanassis, P., Boletsis, C., Bardaki, C., and Chasanidou, D. 2015. Tourists responses to mobile augmented reality travel guides: The role of emotions on adoption behavior. Pervasive and Mobile Comp., 18, 71--87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Annis, S. 1986. The museum as staging ground for symbolic action. Museum International 38, 3, 168--171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Norman, D. 2004. Emotional Design. New York: Basic Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Kidd, J. 2014. Museums in the New Mediascape: Transmedia, Participation, Ethics. Farnham: Ashgate.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Warpas, K. 2014. Designing for Dream spaces. Interactions (Forums), http://goo.gl/RtBkgq (accessed 03/06/2016). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Adler, J.M., and Hershfield HE. 2012. Mixed Emotional Experience Is Associated with and Precedes Improvements in Psychological Well-Being. PLoS ONE 7, 4: e35633.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Damásio, A. 2000. The feeling of what happens. London: Vintage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Boehner, K., Depaula, R., Dourish, P. and Sengers, P. 2007. How emotion is made and measure. Int. J. of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 275--291. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Falk, J. H., and Dierking, L. D. 2013. The Museum Experience Revisited. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Saffer, D. 2006. Designing for Interaction: Creating Innovative Applications and Devices. Berkley: New Riders. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Lidwell, W., Holden, K. and Butler, J. 2003. Universal Principles of Design. Gloucester: Rockport.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Bottino, A., Martina, A., Strada, and F. Toosi, A. 2016. GAINE -- A portable framework for the development of edutainment applications based on multitouch and tangible interaction. Entertainment Computing (article in press).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Cooper, A., Reimann, R., Cronin, D. and Noessel, C. 2014. About the face: The essentials of interaction design. Indianapolis: Wiley. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Loureiro, B. and Rodrigues, R. 2011. Multi-Touch as a Natural User Interface for Elders: A Survey. In 6th Iberian Conf. on Information Systems and Tech. Chaves, Portugal.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Blake, J. 2013. Natural user interface in .Net. Greenwich: ManningGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. König et al. 2009. Squidy: a Zoomable Design Environment for NUI, In ACM SIGCHI'09 EA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Maeda, J. 2006. The laws of simplicity: Design, technology, business, life. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Meyer, K. 2015. Flat Design: Its Origins, Its Problems, and Why Flat 2.0 Is Better for Users. Nielsen Norman Group. https://goo.gl/LjNcMz (accessed 30/05/2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Bringhurst, R. 1997. The Elements of Typographic Style. Canada: Hartley & Marks.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Douek, J. 2013. Music and emotion: A composer's perspective. In Front Syst Neurosci. 2013; 7: 82.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Begault, D. R. 2000. 3-D sound for Virtual reality and Multimedia. NASA Center for AeroSpace Information. NASA/TM -- 2000-209606 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    DSAI '16: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion
    December 2016
    440 pages
    ISBN:9781450347488
    DOI:10.1145/3019943

    Copyright © 2016 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 1 December 2016

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate17of23submissions,74%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader