“Tele” Me More: Using Telepresence Charades to Connect Strangers and Exhibits in Different Museums
Article No.: 389, Pages 1 - 8
Abstract
The museum is changing from a place of passive consumption to a place of interactive experiences, opening up new ways of engaging with exhibits and others. As a promising direction, this paper explores the potential of telepresence stations in the museum context to enhance social connectedness among visitors over distance. Emphasizing the significance of social exchange, our research focuses on studying telepresence to foster interactions between strangers, share knowledge, and promote social connectedness. To do so, we first observe exhibitions and then interview individual visitors of a technical museum about their experiences and needs. Based on the results, we design appropriate voiceless and touchless communication channels and test them in a study. The findings of our in-situ user study with 24 visitors unfamiliar with each other in the museum provide insights into behaviors and perceptions, contributing valuable knowledge on seamlessly integrating telepresence technology in exhibitions, with a focus on enhancing learning, social connections, and the museum experience in general.
Supplemental Material
MP4 File - Video Preview
Video Preview
- Download
- 45.32 MB
MP4 File
Talk Video
- Download
- 151.97 MB
- Transcript
ZIP File - Supplemental Material
- Evaluation_Data.pdf: Analyzed data from the user study - Age_Gender_Participants.pdf: The age and gender distribution of the user study participants - Experience.pdf: Participants' level of technology experience before the study (Strongly Disagree = Low Experience; Strongly Agree = High Experience). - Before.pdf: Questions about the social environment and museums visits before the study. - Telepresence.pdf: Responses to feelings of telepresence during the study. - Technique.pdf: During study results of the question ?The interaction technique has helped me to accomplish my task.? - Social_Connectedness.pdf: Responses to questions about social connectedness during the study. - IOS_Scale.pdf: During the study IOS scale results. - After1.pdf: Communication, telepresence, and GEQ after questions. - After2.pdf: Final questions after the study regarding the experience with the station, the opportunity to get to know the other participant better, and learning.
- Download
- 582.63 KB
References
[1]
2015. Collaborative Problem Solving - PISA. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/innovation/collaborative-problem-solving/
[2]
Stacy All and Illah R. Nourbakhsh. 2001. Insect Telepresence: Using Robotic Tele-Embodiment to Bring Insects Face-to-Face with Humans. (2001), 13.
[3]
David Antón, Gregorij Kurillo, Alfredo Goñi, Arantza Illarramendi, and Ruzena Bajcsy. 2017. Real-time communication for Kinect-based telerehabilitation. Future Generation Computer Systems 75 (Oct. 2017), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.05.006
[4]
Stav Atir, Kristina A. Wald, and Nicholas Epley. 2022. Talking with strangers is surprisingly informative. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, 34 (Aug. 2022), e2206992119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2206992119 Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[5]
Aruna D Balakrishnan, Susan R. Fussell, and Sara Kiesler. 2008. Do Visualizations Improve Synchronous Remote Collaboration? (2008), 10.
[6]
Marcel Bastiaansen, Xander Dennis Lub, Ondrej Mitas, Timothy Hyungsoo Jung, Mário Passos Ascenção, Dai-In Han, Teemu Moilanen, Bert Smit, and Wim Strijbosch. 2019. Emotions as core building blocks of an experience. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 31, 2 (Jan. 2019), 651–668. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2017-0761 Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited.
[7]
Israel Becerra, Markku Suomalainen, Eliezer Lozano, Katherine J. Mimnaugh, Rafael Murrieta-Cid, and Steven M. LaValle. 2020. Human Perception-Optimized Planning for Comfortable VR-Based Telepresence. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5, 4 (Oct. 2020), 6489–6496. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2020.3015191 arXiv:2002.10696 [cs].
[8]
Daniel Bel, Karin Smolders, Wijnand Ijsselsteijn, and Yvonne De Kort. 2009. Social connectedness: Concept and measurement. 67–74. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-034-6-67
[9]
Irina R. Brich, Inga M. Bause, Friedrich W. Hesse, and Ann-Katrin Wesslein. 2019. Working memory affine technological support functions improve decision performance. Computers in Human Behavior 92 (March 2019), 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.014
[10]
Wolfram Burgard, Armin B. Cremers, Dieter Fox, Dirk Hähnel, Gerhard Lakemeyer, Dirk Schulz, Walter Steiner, and Sebastian Thrun. 1999. Experiences with an interactive museum tour-guide robot. Artificial Intelligence 114, 1 (1999), 3–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00070-3
[11]
Loraine Clarke and Eva Hornecker. 2013. Experience, engagement and social interaction at a steam locomotive multimodal interactive museum exhibit. In CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Paris France, 613–618. https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468464
[12]
Loraine Clarke, Eva Hornecker, and Ian Ruthven. 2021. Fighting Fires and Powering Steam Locomotives: Distribution of Control and Its Role in Social Interaction at Tangible Interactive Museum Exhibits. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445534
[13]
Andrew Clayphan, Anthony Collins, Judy Kay, Nathan Slawitschka, and Jenny Horder. 2018. Comparing a Single-Touch Whiteboard and a Multi-Touch Tabletop for Collaboration in School Museum Visits. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 2, 1 (March 2018), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3191738
[14]
Damien Clergeaud, Joan Sol Roo, Martin Hachet, and Pascal Guitton. 2017. Towards seamless interaction between physical and virtual locations for asymmetric collaboration. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. ACM, Gothenburg Sweden, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3139131.3139165
[15]
Silvia Coradeschi, Stephen Von Rump, Amedeo Cesta, and Javier Gonzalez. 2016. Towards a Methodology for Longitudinal Evaluation of Social Robotic Telepresence for Elderly. (2016).
[16]
Riccardo Dini, Fabio Paternò, and Carmen Santoro. 2007. An environment to support multi-user interaction and cooperation for improving museum visits through games. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices and services. ACM, Singapore, 515–521. https://doi.org/10.1145/1377999.1378062
[17]
Judith H. Dobrzynski. 2010. The Art of the Deal Helps Spread Great Art. The New York Times (March 2010). https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/arts/artsspecial/18PARTNER.html
[18]
Sunday David Edinyang. 2016. The significance of social learning theories in the teaching of social studies education. nternational Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Research 2.1 (2016).
[19]
Lisa A. Elkin, Matthew Kay, James J. Higgins, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2021. An Aligned Rank Transform Procedure for Multifactor Contrast Tests. In The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, Virtual Event USA, 754–768. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472749.3474784
[20]
Morten Esbensen, Paolo Tell, Jacob B. Cholewa, Mathias K. Pedersen, and Jakob Bardram. 2015. The dBoard: A Digital Scrum Board for Distributed Software Development. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Interactive Tabletops & Surfaces - ITS ’15. ACM Press, Madeira, Portugal, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1145/2817721.2817746
[21]
Cedric Fleury, Nicolas Ferey, Jean-Marc Vezien, and Patrick Bourdot. 2015. Remote collaboration across heterogeneous large interactive spaces. In 2015 IEEE Second VR International Workshop on Collaborative Virtual Environments (3DCVE). IEEE, Arles, France, 9–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/3DCVE.2015.7153591
[22]
Claude Fortin. 2017. Place-making With Telepresence: A Navigation Guide to A Journey into Time Immemorial’s Seven Exhibition Spaces. (2017), 12.
[23]
Kaori Fujinami, Mami Kosaka, and Bipin Indurkhya. 2018. Painting an Apple with an Apple: A Tangible Tabletop Interface for Painting with Physical Objects. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 2, 4 (Dec. 2018), 162:1–162:22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287040
[24]
Francesco Gabellone. 2020. A digital twin for distant visit of inaccessible contexts.
[25]
Andrea Geipel. 2022. Meaning Making – eine digitale Selbsthilfegruppe. https://blog.deutsches-museum.de/2022/04/22/meaning-making-eine-digitale-selbsthilfegruppe
[26]
Jens Emil Grønbæk, Banu Saatçi, Carla F. Griggio, and Clemens Nylandsted Klokmose. 2021. MirrorBlender: Supporting Hybrid Meetings with a Malleable Video-Conferencing System. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445698
[27]
Ge Guo, Gilly Leshed, and Keith Evan Green. 2023. “I normally wouldn’t talk with strangers”: Introducing a Socio-Spatial Interface for Fostering Togetherness Between Strangers. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581325
[28]
Peter Gärdenfors. 2021. Demonstration and pantomime in the evolution of teaching and communication. Language & Communication 80 (Sept. 2021), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2021.06.001 Publisher: Pergamon.
[29]
Martin D. Hassell and John L. Cotton. 2017. Some things are better left unseen: Toward more effective communication and team performance in video-mediated interactions. Computers in Human Behavior 73 (Aug. 2017), 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.039
[30]
Luis A Hernández, Javier Taibo, and Antonio Seoane. 2002. Empty Museum. An Immersive, Walkable VR Framework for Multiuser Interaction and Telepresence.ACM International Workshop on Immersive Telepresence (2002).
[31]
W.A. IJsselsteijn, Y.A.W. de Kort, and K. Poels. 2013. The Game Experience Questionnaire. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven.
[32]
Robert J. K. Jacob. 1991. The use of eye movements in human-computer interaction techniques: what you look at is what you get. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 9, 2 (April 1991), 152–169. https://doi.org/10.1145/123078.128728
[33]
Steven Johnson, Irene Rae, Bilge Mutlu, and Leila Takayama. 2015. Can You See Me Now?: How Field of View Affects Collaboration in Robotic Telepresence. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Seoul Republic of Korea, 2397–2406. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702526
[34]
Redouane Kachach, Marta Orduna, Jesús Rodríguez, Pablo Pérez, Álvaro Villegas, Julián Cabrera, and Narciso García. 2021. Immersive Telepresence in Remote Education. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Immersive Mixed and Virtual Environment Systems (MMVE ’21)(MMVE ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 21–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3458307.3460967
[35]
A. Donald Keedwell and József Dénes. 2015. Latin Squares and Their Applications. Elsevier. Google-Books-ID: hsxLCgAAQBAJ.
[36]
Kibum Kim, John Bolton, Audrey Girouard, Jeremy Cooperstock, and Roel Vertegaal. 2012. TeleHuman: effects of 3d perspective on gaze and pose estimation with a life-size cylindrical telepresence pod. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Austin Texas USA, 2531–2540. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208640
[37]
Daniel Klinkhammer, Markus Nitsche, Marcus Specht, and Harald Reiterer. 2011. Adaptive personal territories for co-located tabletop interaction in a museum setting. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces. ACM, Kobe Japan, 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1145/2076354.2076375
[38]
Sergey Kuvshinov, Konstantin Kharin, and Valentin Pryanichnikov. 2021. Telepresence, VR, AR Technologies on the Example of 3D-Vinci Exhibitions. In DAAAM International Scientific Book (1 ed.), Branko Katalinic (Ed.). Vol. 20. DAAAM International Vienna, 231–240. https://doi.org/10.2507/daaam.scibook.2021.19
[39]
Jacques Launay and Robin I. M. Dunbar. 2015. Playing with Strangers: Which Shared Traits Attract Us Most to New People?PLOS ONE 10, 6 (June 2015), e0129688. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129688 Publisher: Public Library of Science.
[40]
Eleanor H L Leung and Harriet L Rheingold. 1981. Development of Pointing as a Social Gesture. Developmental Psychology 17, 2 (1981), 215–220.
[41]
José Manuel Mas and Abel Monfort de Bedoya. 2021. From the Social Museum to the Digital Social Museum. aDResearch: Revista Internacional de Investigación en Comunicación24 (enero-junio) (2021), 8–25. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7705934 Publisher: Escuela Superior de Gestión Comercial y Marketing, ESIC Section: aDResearch: Revista Internacional de Investigación en Comunicación.
[42]
A. H. Maslow. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50 (1943), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association.
[43]
Katherine J. Mimnaugh, Markku Suomalainen, Israel Becerra, Eliezer Lozano, Rafael Murrieta-Cid, and Steven M. LaValle. 2021. Analysis of User Preferences for Robot Motions in Immersive Telepresence. http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.03496 Number: arXiv:2103.03496 arXiv:2103.03496 [cs].
[44]
Katherine J. Mimnaugh, Markku Suomalainen, Israel Becerra, Eliezer Lozano, Rafael Murrieta-Cid, and Steven M. LaValle. 2021. Defining Preferred and Natural Robot Motions in Immersive Telepresence from a First-Person Perspective. http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.12719 Number: arXiv:2102.12719 arXiv:2102.12719 [cs].
[45]
Marvin Minsky. 1980. TELEPRESENCE. https://web.media.mit.edu/ minsky/papers/Telepresence.html
[46]
Ashutosh Morde, Carlos Correa, Jun Hou, S. Kicha Ganapathy, Allan Krebs, Ivan Marsic, Mourad Bouzit, and Lawrence Rabiner. 2004. Asymmetric collaboration through tele-presence. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGMM workshop on Effective telepresence - ETP ’04. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 57. https://doi.org/10.1145/1026776.1026793
[47]
Razieh Tadayon Nabavi. 2012. Bandura’s Social Learning Theory & Social Cognitive Learning Theory. (2012).
[48]
Hideyuki Nakanishi, Yuki Murakami, Daisuke Nogami, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2008. Minimum movement matters: impact of robot-mounted cameras on social telepresence. In Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW ’08. ACM Press, San Diego, CA, USA, 303. https://doi.org/10.1145/1460563.1460614
[49]
Thomas Olsson, Pradthana Jarusriboonchai, Paweł Woźniak, Susanna Paasovaara, Kaisa Väänänen, and Andrés Lucero. 2020. Technologies for Enhancing Collocated Social Interaction: Review of Design Solutions and Approaches. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 29, 1 (April 2020), 29–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-019-09345-0
[50]
Kazuhiro Otsuka. 2018. Behavioral Analysis of Kinetic Telepresence for Small Symmetric Group-to-Group Meetings. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 20, 6 (June 2018), 1432–1447. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2017.2771396 Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.
[51]
Callum Parker, Martin Tomitsch, and Judy Kay. 2018. Does the Public Still Look at Public Displays?: A Field Observation of Public Displays in the Wild. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 2, 2 (July 2018), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3214276
[52]
Julian Kantor Tomislav Pejsa. 2016. Room2Room: Enabling Life-Size Telepresence in a Projected Augmented Reality Environment. CSCW ’ (2016), 10.
[53]
Diego A Reinero, Suzanne Dikker, and Jay J Van Bavel. 2021. Inter-brain synchrony in teams predicts collective performance. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 16, 1-2 (Jan. 2021), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa135
[54]
D J Roberts, A J Fairchild, S Campion, A S Garcia, and R Wolff. 2016. Bringing the client and therapist together in Virtual Reality Telepresence Exposure Therapy. Virtual Reality (2016), 9.
[55]
Louis B Rosenberg. 1992. The use of virtual fixtures as perceptual overlays to enhance operator performance in remote environments. (1992).
[56]
Adam Rozan. 2017. Being Social: What Museums Need to Understand for the Future. https://museum-id.com/social-museums-need-understand-future-adam-rozan/
[57]
Ephraim Schott, Elhassan Belal Makled, Tony Jan Zoeppig, Sebastian Muehlhaus, Florian Weidner, Wolfgang Broll, and Bernd Froehlich. 2023. UniteXR: Joint Exploration of a Real-World Museum and its Digital Twin. In 29th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. ACM, Christchurch New Zealand, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3611659.3615708
[58]
R. Sharma, V.I. Pavlovic, and T.S. Huang. 1998. Toward multimodal human-computer interface. Proc. IEEE 86, 5 (May 1998), 853–869. https://doi.org/10.1109/5.664275
[59]
Fazilat Siddiq and Ronny Scherer. 2017. Revealing the processes of students’ interaction with a novel collaborative problem solving task: An in-depth analysis of think-aloud protocols. Computers in Human Behavior 76 (Nov. 2017), 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.007
[60]
Panos Trahanias, Antonis Argyros, Dimitris Tsakiris, Armin Cremers, Dirk Schulz, Wolfram Burgard, Dirk Haehnel, Vassilis Savvaides, George Giannoulis, Mandy Coliou, George Kamarinos, Peter Friess, Dimitrios Konstantios, and Andromachi Katselaki. 2000. TOURBOT - Interactive Museum Tele-presence Through Robotic Avatars. https://publications.ics.forth.gr/_publications/2000_05_www9_tourbot.pdf
[61]
P. Trahanias, W. Burgard, A. Argyros, D. Hahnel, H. Baltzakis, P. Pfaff, and C. Stachniss. 2005. Tourbot and webfair web-operated mobile robots for tele-presence in populated exhibitions. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 12, 2 (June 2005), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2005.1458329
[62]
Arnold P.O.S. Vermeeren, Licia Calvi, Amalia Sabiescu, Raffaella Trocchianesi, Dagny Stuedahl, and Elisa Giaccardi. 2016. Involving the Crowd in Future Museum Experience Design. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, San Jose California USA, 3347–3354. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2856482
[63]
Valtteri Wikström, Silja Martikainen, Mari Falcon, Niina Seittenranta, Pyry Heikkinen, and Katri Saarikivi. 2022. CoBlok: Collaborative Performance in Virtual Reality and Face-to-Face. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519883
[64]
Jacob O. Wobbrock, Leah Findlater, Darren Gergle, and James J. Higgins. 2011. The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Vancouver BC Canada, 143–146. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978963
[65]
Leonard Yoon, Dongseok Yang, Choongho Chung, and Sung-Hee Lee. 2021. A Full Body Avatar-Based Telepresence System for Dissimilar Spaces. http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.04380 arXiv:2103.04380 [cs].
[66]
Kevin Yu, Alexander Winkler, Frieder Pankratz, Marc Lazarovici, Dirk Wilhelm, Ulrich Eck, Daniel Roth, and Nassir Navab. 2021. Magnoramas: Magnifying Dioramas for Precise Annotations in Asymmetric 3D Teleconsultation. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, Lisboa, Portugal, 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR50410.2021.00062
[67]
Ye Yuan, Judy Major-Girardin, and Steven Brown. 2018. Storytelling Is Intrinsically Mentalistic: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study of Narrative Production across Modalities. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 30, 9 (Sept. 2018), 1298–1314. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01294
[68]
Jia Yunde, Xu Bin, Shen Jiajun, Pei Mintao, Dong Zhen, Hou Jingyi, and Yang Min. 2015. Telepresence Interaction by Touching Live Video Images. (2015), 29.
[69]
Ah Yusuf, Praba Diyan Rachmawati, and Diana Rachmawati. 2022. The correlation of Internet addiction towards adolescents’ social interaction. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 34, 5 (Oct. 2022), 351–355. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2020-0110 Publisher: De Gruyter.
[70]
Przemysław Żywiczyński, Marta Sibierska, Sławomir Wacewicz, Joost van de Weijer, Francesco Ferretti, Ines Adornetti, Alessandra Chiera, and Valentina Deriu. 2021. Evolution of conventional communication. A cross-cultural study of pantomimic re-enactments of transitive events. Language & Communication 80 (Sept. 2021), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2021.07.002
[71]
Przemysław Żywiczyński, Sławomir Wacewicz, and Marta Sibierska. 2018. Defining Pantomime for Language Evolution Research. Topoi 37, 2 (June 2018), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9425-9
Index Terms
- “Tele” Me More: Using Telepresence Charades to Connect Strangers and Exhibits in Different Museums
Recommendations
Digital Heritage Museums and Virtual Museums
VRIC '15: Proceedings of the 2015 Virtual Reality International ConferenceVirtuality in Digital Museums is studied as the way to transmit heritage in a digital medium. The notion of virtuality is dissociated from its technological sense to be investigated with its full philosophical meaning. Three ways of virtualizing are put ...
Effect of age on use of interactive exhibits in a museum context: a large-scale in-the-wild study
CHItaly '19: Proceedings of the 13th Biannual Conference of the Italian SIGCHI Chapter: Designing the next interactionWe investigate how the age of a visitor affects his/her use of interactive exhibits in a museum context. We conducted a large-scale in-the-wild study using eight interactive museum exhibits (three touch UIs, three tangible UIs, and two gesture UIs) over ...
Gamification in Local Intangible Cultural Heritage Museums for Children: A Case Design
Design, User Experience, and Usability. Application DomainsAbstractNowadays, local intangible cultural heritage is in danger of disappearing. The museum is a good way to protect it but the current problem is that visitors are less willing to visit boring museums. Gamification in museums is a great solution, that ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
May 2024
4761 pages
ISBN:9798400703317
DOI:10.1145/3613905
Copyright © 2024 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.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 11 May 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Work in progress
- Research
- Refereed limited
Data Availability
Supplemental Material: - Evaluation_Data.pdf: Analyzed data from the user study - Age_Gender_Participants.pdf: The age and gender distribution of the user study participants - Experience.pdf: Participants' level of technology experience before the study (Strongly Disagree = Low Experience; Strongly Agree = High Experience). - Before.pdf: Questions about the social environment and museums visits before the study. - Telepresence.pdf: Responses to feelings of telepresence during the study. - Technique.pdf: During study results of the question ?The interaction technique has helped me to accomplish my task.? - Social_Connectedness.pdf: Responses to questions about social connectedness during the study. - IOS_Scale.pdf: During the study IOS scale results. - After1.pdf: Communication, telepresence, and GEQ after questions. - After2.pdf: Final questions after the study regarding the experience with the station, the opportunity to get to know the other participant better, and learning.https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613905.3650834#3613905.3650834-supplement-1.zip
Supplemental Material: - Evaluation_Data.pdf: Analyzed data from the user study - Age_Gender_Participants.pdf: The age and gender distribution of the user study participants - Experience.pdf: Participants' level of technology experience before the study (Strongly Disagree = Low Experience; Strongly Agree = High Experience). - Before.pdf: Questions about the social environment and museums visits before the study. - Telepresence.pdf: Responses to feelings of telepresence during the study. - Technique.pdf: During study results of the question ?The interaction technique has helped me to accomplish my task.? - Social_Connectedness.pdf: Responses to questions about social connectedness during the study. - IOS_Scale.pdf: During the study IOS scale results. - After1.pdf: Communication, telepresence, and GEQ after questions. - After2.pdf: Final questions after the study regarding the experience with the station, the opportunity to get to know the other participant better, and learning.https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613905.3650834#3613905.3650834-supplement-1.zip
Conference
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 6,164 of 23,696 submissions, 26%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 201Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)201
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)31
Reflects downloads up to 23 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderFull Text
View this article in Full Text.
Full TextHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format