skip to main content
10.1145/3136560.3136586acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesictdConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Closing the Distance: Mixed and Augmented Reality, Tangibles and Indigenous Culture Preservation

Authors Info & Claims
Published:16 November 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Since the beginning of the 21st century, computer technologies are more and more able to understand the real world by the informational structure of meta-data. With the advent of new tools, the traditional distinction between culture and technology has become obsolete. In this paper, we will discuss different approaches to create mixed reality applications for Indigenous cultural preservation and also best practices of developing augmented and mixed reality systems in two different cultural contexts. We will describe several technical aspects of mobile devices, tangible user interfaces and context-sensitive services in information systems for museums and local communities developed at the researchers' affiliated institutions. Our initial evaluations show that the systems are engaging and encourage intergenerational knowledge exchange, thus have the potential to help in cultural preservation of partner communities.

References

  1. Yeo, A. W., Zaman, T., and Kulathuramaiyer, N. 2013. Indigenous Knowledge Management in the Kelabit community in Eastern Malaysia: Insights And Reflections For Contemporary KM Design. Int. J. of Sociotechnology and Know. Dev. (IJSKD), 5, 1, 23--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Harms, R. 1979. Oral Tradition and Ethnicity. J. of Interdisciplinary 10, 1, 61--85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Mushiba, M., Gallery, P., and Winschiers-Theophilus, H. 2016. On Persuading an OvaHerero Community to Join the Wikipedia Community. In Proc. of Int. Con. on Culture, Tech., and Com. Springer International Publishing, 1--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. N. Bidwell and D. Hardy. 2009. Dilemmas in Situating Participation in Rural Ways of Saying. In Pro. of the 21st Ann. Conf. of the Australian CHI, New York, NY, USA, 145--152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Milgram, P., Drascic, D., Julius, J., Grodski, Restogi, A., Zhai, S. and Zhou, C. 1995. Merging Real and Virtual Worlds. In Proc. of IMAGINA '95, Monte Carlo, 218--230.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Schäfer, M. T. 2011. Bastard culture! How User Participation Transforms Cultural Production. Amsterdam University Press, 256.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Ishii, H., and Ullmer, B. 1997. Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces between People, Bits, and Atoms. In Proc. of CHI'97, 234--241. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Zaman, T. and Winschier-Theophilus, H. 2015. Penan's Oroo Short Message Signs (PO-SMS): Co-design of A Digital Jungle Sign Language Application. In INTERACT 2015, Part II, LNCS 9297, 489--504.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Gleasure, R., and Feller, J. 2016. A Rift in the Ground: Theorizing the Evolution of Anchor Values in Crowdfunding Communities through the Oculus Rift Case Study. J. of the Asso. for Info. Systems, 17, 10, 708.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Waldura, M. 1993. The Magic Flute Two Part. Musical Concept Of An Uncomposed Opera. Archives of Musicology, 259--290.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Classen, C., and Howes, D. 2006. The Museum as Sensescape: Western Sensibilities and Indigenous Artifacts. Sensible objects: Colonialism, Museums and Material Culture, 5, 199.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Marshall, P., Rogers, Y. and Hornecker, E. 2007. Are Tangible Interfaces Really Any Better Than Other Kinds Of Interfaces? Extended CHI'07 Abstracts. New York, ACM, 2817--2820.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Smith, A., Reitsma, L., van den Hoven, E., Kotzé, P., and Coetzee, L. 2011. Towards Preserving Indigenous Oral Stories Using Tangible Objects. In Proc. of Cul. and computing (Culture Computing), 2nd Int. Conf. on IEEE, 86--91. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Ketelhut, D. J. 2007. The Impact Of Student Self-Efficacy On Scientific Inquiry Skills: An Exploratory Investigation In River City, A Multi-User Virtual Environment. J. of Science Education and Technology, 16,1, 99--111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Plimmer, B., He, L., Zaman, T., Karunanayaka, K., Yeo, A.W., Jengan, G., Blagojevic, R., and Yi-Luen, E.D. 2015. New Interaction Tools For Preserving an Old Language. In Proc. of CHI2015, ACM. 3493--3502. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Closing the Distance: Mixed and Augmented Reality, Tangibles and Indigenous Culture Preservation

    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
      ICTD '17: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development
      November 2017
      333 pages
      ISBN:9781450352772
      DOI:10.1145/3136560
      • Conference Chair:
      • Umar Saif

      Copyright © 2017 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 the author(s) 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: 16 November 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate22of116submissions,19%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader