Using Mobile Technologies to Capture the Visitor Experience
Museums give much consideration to how visitors experience their exhibits. Mobile technologies, such as apps on mobile phones and tablets can capture the visitor experience in an automated, on-the-spot manner. Two apps were designed and used to capture visitors’ experiences of interactive exhibits at a science museum. Based on our observations, we discuss (a) the appeal of the technology, (b) the integration of this technology in the overall museum visit and (c) the processing of the collected experience data. Based on our observations, we recommend that museums and science centres critically evaluate the above-mentioned points when considering implementing mobile technologies to capture the visitor experience. Furthermore, we advise institutions to approach mobile technologies as product service systems and take into account the infrastructure that is required to make mobile technologies work.
This research was part of Science Live, the innovative research programme of NEMO Science Museum that enables scientists to carry out real, publishable, peer-reviewed research using NEMO visitors as volunteers. This study has further been made possible by the Dutch Creative Industries and Scientific Program (CRISP). The authors would further like to thank: Alt-N, Shapers and KlevR Audio Design in producing the apps, and many thanks go to the Industrial Design students that have helped in conducting both experiments.
- Baines TS, Lightfoot HW, Evans S, Neely A, Greenough R, Peppard J, Wilson H (2007) State-of-the-art in product-service systems. In: Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 221(10):1543–1552. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544054JEM858
- Desmet PM, Hekkert P (2007) Framework of product experience. Int J Des 1(1):57–66Google Scholar
- Hekkert P, Schifferstein HNJ (2008) Introducing Product Experience. In: Schifferstein H, Hekkert P (eds) Product experience. Elsevier Press, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp 1–8Google Scholar
- Intille SS, Rondoni J, Kukla C, Ancona I, Bao L (2003) A context-aware experience sampling tool. In: CHI’03 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, pp 972–973Google Scholar
- Law EL-C, Roto V, Vermeeren APOS, Kort J, Hassenzahl M (2009) Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. In Proceedings of CHI 2009, the 27th annual CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Li J, Erkin Z, de Ridder H, Vermeeren A (2013) A field study on real-time self-reported emotions in crowds. In: Proceedings of the ICT open. Eindhoven, The Netherlands, pp 80–84Google Scholar
- Nees MA, Walker BN (2009) Auditory interfaces and sonification. In: Stephanidis C (ed) The universal access handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp 507–521Google Scholar
- Roto V, Vermeeren APOS, Law EL-C, Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K, Obrist M (2015) User experience evaluation; which method to choose (Notes of a course given at the conferences SAICSIT 2010, NordiCHI 2010, INTERACT 2011, CHI 2012 and CHI 2013). Accessed from: http://www.allaboutux.org/files/UX-evaluation-methods-CourseMaterial.pdf
- Ståhl A, Höök K, Svensson M, Taylor AS, Combetto M (2009) Experiencing the affective diary. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 13(5):365–378Google Scholar
- Sterry P, Beaumont E (2006) Methods for studying family visitors in art museums: a cross-disciplinary review of current research. Mus Manag Curatorship. 21 (3):222–239Google Scholar
- Steuer J (1992) Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J Commun 42(4):73–93Google Scholar
- Vermeeren APOS, Law E, Roto V, Obrist M, Hoonhout J, Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K (2010) User experience evaluation methods: current state and development needs. In: Proceedings of the 6th nordic conference on human-computer interaction: extending boundaries. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 521–530Google Scholar