skip to main content
10.1145/3098279.3122135acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobilehciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Creating community fountains by (re-)designing the digital layer of way-finding pillars

Authors Info & Claims
Published:04 September 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Way-finding pillars for tourists aid them in navigating an unknown area. The pillars show nearby points of interest, offer information about public transport and provide a scale for the neighbourhood. Through a series of studies with tourists and locals, we establish their different needs. In this space, we developed Mappy, a mobile application which augments and enhances way-finding pillars with an added digital layer. Mappy opens up opportunities for reappropriation of, and engagement with, the pillars. Seeing the pillars beyond their initial use case by involving a diverse range of people let us develop the digital layer and subsequently overall meaning of way-finding pillars further: as "community fountains" they engage locals and tourists alike and can provoke encounters between them.

References

  1. Adrian Bell. 2016. Legible London: Developing a single walking wayfinding system for London. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Julia Chatain, Marie Demangeat, Anke M. Brock, Didier Laval, and Martin Hachet. 2015. Exploring Input Modalities for Interacting with Augmented Paper Maps. In Proceedings of the 27th Conference on L'Interaction Homme-Machine (IHM '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 22, 6 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Tim Cresswell. 2010. Towards a Politics of Mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 28, 1 (2010), 17--31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Clare Davies and Eric Pederson. 2001. Grid Patterns and Cultural Expectations in Urban Wayfinding. In Spatial Information Theory: Foundations of Geographic Information Science International Conference, COSIT 2001 Morro Bay, CA, USA, September 19--23, 2001 Proceedings, Daniel R. Montello (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 400--414. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Damianos Gavalas, Vlasios Kasapakis, Charalampos Konstantopoulos, Grammati Pantziou, and Nikolaos Vathis. 2017. Scenic Route Planning for Tourists. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 21, 1 (Feb. 2017), 137--155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Kirralie Houghton. 2010. Augmenting public urban spaces : the impact of the digital future on the design of public urban spaces. In Queensland Planner (2010--12), Vol. 50. PIA Australia Queensland Division, Hyatt Resort, Coolum, Queensland, 19--23. http://www.planning.org.au/qldcontent/2010-state-conferenceGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Marko Jurmu, Jorge Goncalves, Jukka Riekki, and Timo Ojala. 2014. Exploring Use and Appropriation of a Non-moderated Community Display. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 107--115. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jesper Kjeldskov and Mikael B. Skov. 2014. Was It Worth the Hassle?: Ten Years of Mobile HCI Research Discussions on Lab and Field Evaluations. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services (MobileHCI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 43--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jeni Paay, Jesper Kjeldskov, Steve Howard, and Bharat Dave. 2009. Out on the Town: A Socio-physical Approach to the Design of a Context-aware Urban Guide. ACM Transactions Computer-Human Interaction 16, 2 (2009), 7:1--7:34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Aftab E. Patla and Anne Shumway-Cook. 1999. Dimensions of Mobility: Defining the Complexity and Difficulty Associated with Community Mobility. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity 7, 1 (1999), 7--19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Daniel M. Sutko and Adriana de Souza e Silva. 2011. Location-aware mobile media and urban sociability. New Media & Society 13, 5 (2011), 807--823.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Julien Weissenberg, Michael Gygli, Hayko Riemenschneider, and Luc Van Gool. 2014. Navigation Using Special Buildings As Signposts. In Proceedings of the 2Nd ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Interacting with Maps (MapInteract '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 8--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Z Yovcheva, Dimitrios Buhalis, and C Gatzidis. 2012. Smartphone Augmented Reality Applications for Tourism. e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR) 10, 2 (2012), 63--66. http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/20219/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Creating community fountains by (re-)designing the digital layer of way-finding pillars

    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 Conferences
      MobileHCI '17: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services
      September 2017
      874 pages
      ISBN:9781450350754
      DOI:10.1145/3098279

      Copyright © 2017 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 4 September 2017

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • extended-abstract

      Acceptance Rates

      MobileHCI '17 Paper Acceptance Rate45of224submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate202of906submissions,22%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader