Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Lessons
theory of social encounters provides a possible
explanation (Goffman, 1959): When people
submit information, especially photos, to a public
display, they put a representation of themselves
(or someone else) on the public stage. In order
to see how this representation will be interpreted
within a social frame, people want to see the full
context how this representation appears (e.g. if it
is on a public display on a toilet).
Our experiences show that mobile phone interac-
tion with public displays enables simultaneous
and synchronous interaction for one or more us-
ers, supports interaction by users who, given the
positioning of the display, are physically unable
to interact directly, and can serve as a useful tool
for transferring user content, e.g. pictures, to a
display and to transfer display content, e.g. text
items, coupons, or guide programs, to the user's
mobile phone.
Our research method for deployment-based
research proved useful in a number of different de-
ployments. Some of our experiences with methods
and challenges reflect experiences of researchers
in other subfields of ubiquitous computing (Carter,
Mankoff, Klemmer, & Matthews, 2008). For ex-
ample, the problems of sparse data and reaching
a critical mass have been reported for other ap-
plications, too. However, our specific experiences
with public displays and mobile phones show that
for this field slightly different techniques should
be used (e.g. automated face detection) and dif-
ferent challenges become more important (e.g.
the visibility of the displays or Bluetooth on/off).
Some of the exemplary observations we could
make combining multiple evaluation methods and
multiple deployments could also be made using a
single method in multiple deployments (Huang,
Koster, & Borchers, 2008). Combining multiple
techniques, it is possible to gather more detailed
results (e.g. exact display viewing statistics by
camera observation) and more depth (e.g. people
stating not to look at displays because they expect
only advertising). Researchers pursuing such de-
ployments should consider a number of lessons
we provide (Figure 5).
Appropriation
We have also observed a continuum of interference
from users which affected the displays' primary
function, ranging from adding their own features,
through to sabotage and vandalism. Some users
would switch off the iDisplays every evening,
but not switch them on again in the morning.
Interviews have shown that the users were con-
cerned for power consumption. For a display near
a table, users would switch off the display while
taking lunch, because it emitted so much light
and heat, but regularly switch it on again after
lunch. When we installed cameras on top of the
iDisplays, they would be regularly turned away
to point at the ceiling or the wall by anonymous
users. In the iDisplays deployment users were
allowed to modify content and structure of the
displays: Next to the table football, a 'football
league' module was installed spontaneously where
the current high score was kept. In the sofa cor-
ner, during the European football championship
2008, another user spontaneously converted the
display to a TV that would show the games. In
the MobiDiC deployment, some users would post
their own stickers on top of the displays. In one
case, the text of one coupon shown was scratched
into the display glass with a key, thereby mak-
ing it permanent. The Comments Book revealed
that many users viewed the Wray display as a
noticeboard, although it was not designed with
this functionality in mind.
1. Manage User Expectations. As the inter-
views indicate, user expectations seem to
have played a strong role in the low uptake
of interaction. Many users stated that they
did not expect anything useful from the
Search WWH ::




Custom Search