skip to main content
10.1145/2839462.2839493acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesteiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Using Tangible Smart Replicas as Controls for an Interactive Museum Exhibition

Published:14 February 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the design, creation and use of tangible smart replicas in a large-scale museum exhibition. We describe the design rationale for the replicas, the process used in their creation, as well as the implementation and deployment of these replicas in a live museum exhibition. Deployment of the exhibition resulted in over 14000 visitors interacting with the system during the 6 months that the exhibition was open. Based on log data, interviews and observations, we examine the reaction to these smart replicas from the point of view of the museum curators and also of the museum's visitors and reflect on the fulfillment of our expectations.

References

  1. Steve Benford, Andy Crabtree, Martin Flintham, Chris Greenhalgh, Boriana Koleva, Matt Adams, Nick Tandavanitj, Ju Row Farr, Gabriella Giannachi, and Irma Lindt. 2011. Creating the spectacle: Designing interactional trajectories through spectator interfaces. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 18(3), Art 11, 1--28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Harry Brignull and Yvonne Rogers. 2003. Enticing People to Interact with Large Public Displays in Public Spaces. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC.13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT 2003), 17--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlotta Capurro. 2014. Tangible interfaces in digital museum applications. http://bmuseums.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/141029-tangible_interfaces.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Helen J. Chatterje. 2008. Touch in museums: policy and practice in object handling. Oxford: Berg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jean Ho Chu, Paul Clifton, Daniel Harley, Jordanne Pavao, and Ali Mazalek. 2015. Mapping Place: Supporting Cultural Learning through a Lukasa-inspired Tangible Tabletop Museum Exhibit. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (TEI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 261--268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Luigina Ciolfi. 2007. Supporting Affective Experiences of Place Through Interaction Design. Co-Design, Volume 3, Issue S1, 183--198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Luigina Ciolfi and Liam Bannon. 2002. Designing interactive museum exhibits: enhancing visitor curiosity through augmented artifacts. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE11), Catania (Italy).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Luigina Ciolfi and Marc McLoughlin. 2011. Physical Keys to Digital Memories: Reflecting on the role of tangible artefacts in "Reminisce". In Museums and the Web 2011: Proceedings, J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds). Museums and Archives Informatics, Toronto, 197--208.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Sandra Dudley. 2010. Museum materialities: objects, engagements, interpretations. Routledge, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Rebecca E. Grinter, Paul M. Aoki, Amy Hurst, Margaret H. Szymanski, James D. Thornton, and Allison Woodruff. 2002. Revisiting the Visit: Understanding How Technology Can Shape the Museum Visit. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2002), 146--155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Tony Hall, Luigina Ciolfi, Liam Bannon, Mike Fraser, Steve Benford, J. Bowers, Chris Greenhalgh, Sten-Olof Hellström, Shahram Izadi, Holger Schnädelbach, and Martin Flintham. 2001. The visitor as virtual archaeologist: explorations in mixed reality technology to enhance educational and social interaction in the museum. In Proceedings of the 2001 conference on Virtual reality, archeology, and cultural heritage (VAST '01). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Christian Heath, Dirk vom Lehn, and Jonathan Osborne. 2005. Interaction and Interactives: collaboration and participation with computer-based exhibits. Public Understanding of Science 14(1), 91--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Eva Hornecker and Jacob Buur. 2006. Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '06), 437--446. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Eva Hornecker and Matthias Stifter. 2006. Learning from interactive museum installations about interaction design for public settings. In Proceedings of the 18th Australia conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Design: Activities, Artefacts and Environments (OZCHI '06), Jesper Kjeldskov and Jeni Paay (Eds.), 135--142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Mark T. Marshall, Nick Dulake, Daniela Petrelli and Hub Kockelkorn. 2015. From The Deposit To The Exhibit Floor: An Exploration On Giving Museum Objects Personality And Social Life. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '15), ACM, 1917--1922. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Daniel Pletincks. 2007. Virtex: a multisensory approach for exhibiting objects. EPOCH KnowHow Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Elizabeth Pye. 2008. The power of touch, handling objects in museum and heritage context. Left Coast Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Jessica Roberts. 2015. Exploring Effects of Full-body Control in Perspective-based Learning in an Interactive Museum Data Display. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (TEI '15), 445--448. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. Roozenburg. 2013. Smart replicas: bringing heritage back to life. In Smart Replicas, The Hague: Royal Academy of Art, 28--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Samantha Sportun. 2014. The Future Landscape of 3D in Museums. In Nina Levent and Alvaro Pascual-Leone (eds.) The Multisensory Museum. Crossing-Disciplinary Perspective on Touch, Sound, Smell, Memory and Space. Rowman & Littlefield.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Robyn Taylor, John Bowers, Bettina Nissen, Gavin Wood, Peter Wright, Qasim Chaudhry, Lindsey Bruce, Sarah Glynn, Helen Mallinson and Roy Bearpark. 2015. Making Magic: Designing for Open Interactions in Museum Settings. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C '15), 313--322. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Using Tangible Smart Replicas as Controls for an Interactive Museum Exhibition

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      TEI '16: Proceedings of the TEI '16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction
      February 2016
      820 pages
      ISBN:9781450335829
      DOI:10.1145/2839462

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 14 February 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      TEI '16 Paper Acceptance Rate45of178submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate393of1,367submissions,29%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader