Using Mobile Technologies to Capture the Visitor Experience

  • Marco C. Rozendaal
  • Arnold P. O. S. Vermeeren
  • Diana C. Issidorides
Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC)


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.


  1. 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.
  2. Beghetto RA (2014) The exhibit as planned versus the exhibit as experienced. Curator Mus J 57(1):1–4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coffee K (2007) Audience research and the museum experience as social practice. Mus Manag Curatorship 22(4):377–389. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deci EL, Ryan RM (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq 11(4):227–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Desmet PM, Hekkert P (2007) Framework of product experience. Int J Des 1(1):57–66Google Scholar
  6. Hassenzahl M (2004) The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Hum Comput Interact 19(4):319–349. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hassenzahl M (2010) Experience design: technology for all the right reasons. Morgan and Claypool. Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Locher P, Overbeeke K, Wensveen S (2010) Aesthetic interaction: a framework. Des Issues 26(2):70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Nowacki MM (2005) Evaluating a museum as a tourist product using the servqual method. Mus Manag Curatorship 20(3):235–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pang B, Lee L (2008) Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found Trends Inf Retr 2(1–2):1–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pekarik AJ, Schreiber JB, Hanemann N, Richmond K, Mogel B (2014) IPOP: A theory of experience preference. Curator Mus J 57(1):5–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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:
  18. Sheldon KM, Elliot AJ, Kim Y, Kasser T (2001) What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. J Pers Soc Psychol 80(2):325–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Snavely N, Seitz SM, Szeliski R (2008) Modeling the world from internet photo collections. Int J Comput Vis 80(2):189–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ståhl A, Höök K, Svensson M, Taylor AS, Combetto M (2009) Experiencing the affective diary. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 13(5):365–378Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Steuer J (1992) Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J Commun 42(4):73–93Google Scholar
  23. 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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco C. Rozendaal
    • 1
  • Arnold P. O. S. Vermeeren
    • 1
  • Diana C. Issidorides
    • 2
  1. 1.TU Delft - Industrial Design EngineeringDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.NEMO Science MuseumAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations