Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality pp 199–210Cite as

Directions for Studying User Experience with Augmented Reality in Public

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Progress in IS ((PROIS))

Abstract

This paper discusses the different components of experience with AR applications in public—mainly in commercial contexts, but also relevant for the cultural and touristic contexts. It draws on recent studies and developments of AR marketing and investigates user-, technology- and context-related factors. In particular, it discusses the core experiential momentum—“augmentation”—and its value for the user, as well as the role of social interaction. Most importantly, the framework underlines the lack of studies that investigate the impact of AR on behaviour and behaviour change and calls for further research in that area. Finally, implications for designing AR experience in public are proposed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arthur, R. (2016). Charlotte Tilbury’s new virtual “Magic Mirror” serves as active Make-Up Selling Tool. Forbes. Retrieved January, 2017, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelarthur/2016/10/21/charlotte-tilburys-new-virtual-magic-mirror-serves-as-active-make-up-selling-tool/#5de13d242812.

  • Azuma, R., Behringer, R., Julier, S., & Macintyre, B. (2001). Recent Advances in Augmented Reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(6), 34–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An Experimental Study of the Relationship between Online Engagement and Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 321–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cecchinato, M. E., Cox, A. L., & Bird, J. (2014). “I check my emails on the toilet” Email Practices and Work-Home Boundary Management. Paper presented at the MobileHCI 2014 Workshop on Socio-Technical Practices and Work-Home Boundaries.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, K. E., Chang, C. T., Hou, H. T., Sung, Y. T., Chao, H. L., & Lee, C. M. (2014). Development and behavioral pattern analysis of a mobile guide system with augmented reality for painting appreciation instruction in an art museum. Computers & Education, 71, 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chuah, S. H. W., Rauschnabel, P. A., Krey, N., Nguyen, B., Ramayah, T., & Lade, S. (2016). Wearable technologies: The role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 276–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, C., Merrilees, B., Jayawardhena, C., & Tiu Wright, L. (2009). E-consumer behaviour. European Journal of Marketing, 43(9/10), 1121–1139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hern, A. (2017). I tried to work all day in a VR headset and it was horrible. The Guardian. Retrieved January, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/05/i-tried-to-work-all-day-in-a-vr-headset-so-you-never-have-to.

  • Javornik, A., Rogers, Y., Moutinho, A. M., & Freeman, R. (2016). Revealing the Shopper Experience of Using a “ Magic Mirror ” Augmented Reality Make - Up Application. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, (871–882).

    Google Scholar 

  • Javornik, A., Rogers, Y., Gander, D., & Moutinho, A. (2017). MagicFace : Stepping into character through an augmented reality mirror. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems ’17. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennett, C., Cox, A. L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T., et al. (2008). Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 66(9), 641–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, T., Chung, N., & Leue, M. C. (2015). The determinants of recommendations to use augmented reality technologies: The case of a Korean theme park. Tourism Management, 49, 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kourouthanassis, P., Boletsis, C., Bardaki, C., & Chasanidou, D. (2015). Tourists responses to mobile augmented reality travel guides: The role of emotions on adoption behavior. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 18, 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leue, M. C., Jung, T., & tom Dieck, D. (2015). Google glass augmented reality: Generic learning outcomes for art galleries. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015 (463–476). Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunney, A., Cunningham, N. R., & Eastin, M. S. (2016). Wearable fitness technology: A structural investigation into acceptance and perceived fitness outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 114–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagani, M., & Malacarne, G. (2017). ScienceDirect Experiential Engagement and Active vs. Passive Behavior in Mobile Location-based Social Networks: The Moderating Role of Privacy. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 37, 133–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagani, M., & Mirabello, A. (2011). The Influence of Personal and Social-Interactive Engagement in Social TV Web Sites. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(2), 41–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauschnabel, P. a., Brem, A., & Ivens, B. S. (2015). Who will buy smart glasses? Empirical results of two pre-market-entry studies on the role of personality in individual awareness and intended adoption of Google Glass wearables. Computers in Human Behavior, 49:635–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauschnabel, P. A., & Ro, Y. K. (2016). Augmented reality smart glasses: An investigation of technology acceptance drivers. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 11(2), 123–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehrl, K., Häusler, E., Leitinger, S., & Bell, D. (2014). Pedestrian navigation with augmented reality, voice and digital map: final results from an in situ field study assessing performance and user experience. Journal of Location Based Services, 8(2), 75–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, Y., Scaife, M., Harris, E., Phelps, T., Price, S., Smith, H., Muller, H., et al. (2002). Things aren’t what they seem to be: innovation through technology inspiration. Proceedings of the conference on Designing interactive systems processes practices methods and techniques DIS 02, (373–378).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohm, A. J., Gao, T., Sultan, F., & Pagani, M. (2012). Brand in the hand: A cross-market investigation of consumer acceptance of mobile marketing. Business Horizons, 55(5), 485–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, J., & Smith, A. N. (2016). Augmented reality: Designing immersive experiences that maximize consumer engagement. Business Horizons, 59(2), 149–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, J. H., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2008). Determinants of Perceived Web Site Interactivity. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundar, S. S., Jia, H., Waddell, T. F., & Huang, Y. (2015). Toward a theory of interactive media effects (TIME): Four models for explaining how interface features affect user psychology. The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology, 47–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Noort, G., Voorveld, H. A. M., & van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2012). Interactivity in Brand Web Sites: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Responses Explained by Consumers’ Online Flow Experience. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(4), 223–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, N., Downs, J., Harrop, M., Cox, T., Oliveira, E., Webber, S., Vetere, F., et al. (2016). Uncovering the Honeypot Effect: How Audiences Engage with Public Interactive Systems. Designing Interactive Systems ’16: pp. 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Prof Yvonne Rogers, Dr Morgan Harvey, Dr Ana Moutinho and Holition Ltd for all the invaluable discussions related to this line of research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    Ana Javornik

Authors
  1. Ana Javornik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Javornik .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business and Law, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom

    Timothy Jung

  2. Faculty of Business and Law, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom

    M. Claudia tom Dieck

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Javornik, A. (2018). Directions for Studying User Experience with Augmented Reality in Public. In: Jung, T., tom Dieck, M. (eds) Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64027-3_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation