skip to main content
10.1145/3321335.3324944acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesperdisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

User engagement for mid-air haptic interactions with digital signage

Published:12 June 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Interactive digital signage is increasingly deployed in urban environments, from airports and train stations, to cinemas and shopping malls, whilst their integration into public spaces introduces new possibilities in multimedia presentation. In this paper, we explore the impact of mid-air haptic feedback on user engagement during gesture-based interactions with digital posters. To that end, a user study with seventeen participants was undertaken with two independent variables: interactivity (high/low), and mid-air haptic cues (on/off), whilst user engagement and emotional affect was measured with respect to various metrics. In this first attempt to understand the significance of mid-air haptic interactions for digital signage, we found increased user engagement levels, comparable to, if not greater than those achieved by content gamification. In particular, our analysis suggests that mid-air haptic feedback significantly improved usability and aesthetic appeal in comparison to digital signage without haptic feedback. Similarly, a higher level of gamification was also found to boost user engagement and helped to offer more compelling experiences with digital signage.

References

  1. Christopher Ackad, Martin Tomitsch, Judy Kay. 2016. Skeletons and Silhouettes: Comparing User representations at a Gesture-based Large Display. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Ioannis Arapakis, Xiao Bai, and B. Barla Cambazoglu. 2014. Impact of response latency on user behavior in web search. In Proceedings of the 37th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research & development in information retrieval -SIGIR '14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Firdaus Banhawi and Nazlena Mohamad Ali. 2011. Measuring user engagement attributes in social networking application. In 2011 International Conference on Semantic Technology and Information Retrieval, STAIR 2011, 297--301.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Tom Carter, Sue Ann Seah, Benjamin Long, Bruce Drinkwater, and Sriram Subramanian. 2013. UltraHaptics: Multi-Point Mid-Air Haptic Feedback for Touch Surfaces. In ACM Symposium on User interface software and technology. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Marketing Charts. 2017. Top Marketing Challenges June 2017. Retrieved August 23, 2018 from https://www.marketingcharts.com/advertiserperceptions-marketers-top-advertising-challenges-jun2017Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Jorgos Coenen, Sandy Claes, and Andrew Vande Moere. 2017. The Concurrent Use of Touch and Mid-Air Gestures or Floor Mat Interaction on a Public Display. Proceedings of the 6<sup>th</sup> ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays, June 07-09, 2017, Lugano, Switzerland. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Loic Corenthy, Marcello Giordano, Richard Hayden, Daniel Griffiths, Craig Jeffrey, Hannah Limerick, Orestis Georgiou, Tom Carter, Jörg Müller, and Sriram Subramanian. 2018. Touchless Tactile Displays for Digital Signage: Mid-air Haptics meets Large Screens. In {CHI} Extended Abstracts. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Linda Hollebeek. 2011. Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Dmitry Lagun and Mounia Lalmas. 2016. Understanding User Attention and Engagement in Online News Reading. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining - WSDM '16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Mounia Lalmas, Heather O'Brien, and Elad Yom-Tov. 2014. Measuring User Engagement. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Mark A Lange. 2006. E-learning:: From Level I to Level IV of Interactivity. Retrieved from http://www.ihrim.orgGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Vincent Levesque, Louise Oram, Karon MacLean, Andy Cockburn, Nicholas D. Marchuk, Dan Johnson, J. Edward Colgate, and Michael A. Peshkin. 2011. Enhancing physicality in touch interaction with programmable friction. In Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Deborah Brown McCabe and Stephen M Nowlis. 2003. The Effect of Examining Actual Products or Product Descriptions on Consumer Preference. Journal of Consumer Psychology 13, 4: 431--439.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Rory Francis Mulcahy and Aimee S. Riedel. 2018. 'Touch it, swipe it, shake it': Does the emergence of haptic touch in mobile retailing advertising improve its effectiveness? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Jörg Müller, Florian Alt, Daniel Michelis, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2010. Requirements and design space for interactive public displays. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia - MM '10, 1285. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Jörg Müller, Dennis Wilmsmann, Juliane Exeler, Markus Buzeck, Albrecht Schmidt, Tim Jay, and Antonio Krüger. 2009. Display blindness: The effect of expectations on attention towards digital signage. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Heather L. O'Brien, Paul Cairns, and Mark Hall. 2018. A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (UES) and new UES short form. International Journal of Human Computer Studies.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Heather L. O'Brien and Elaine G. Toms. 2013. Examining the generalizability of the User Engagement Scale (UES) in exploratory search. Information Processing and Management. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Marianna Obrist, Sriram Subramanian, Elia Gatti, Benjamin Long, and Thomas Carter. 2015. Emotions Mediated Through Mid-Air Haptics. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems -CHI '15, 2053--2062. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Joann Peck and Terry L. Childers. 2003. To Have and To Hold: The Influence of Haptic Information on Product Judgments. Journal of Marketing.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Joann Peck and Jennifer Wiggins. 2006. It Just Feels Good: Customers' Affective Response to Touch and Its Influence on Persuasion. Journal of Marketing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Stuart Reeves, Steve Benford, and Claire O Malley. 2005. Designing the Spectator Experience. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. James A Russell. 1980. A Circumplex Model of Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 6: 1161--1178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Jennifer Lonoff Schiff. 2017. How Gamification Improves Customer Engagement and Retention. https://www.cio.com. Retrieved from https://www.cio.com/article/3184368/small-business/how-gamification-improves-customer-engagement-and-retention.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Charles Spence. 2015. In Touch with the Future. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Interactive Tabletops & Surfaces - ITS '15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Alistair Sutcliffe. 2009. Designing for User Engagement: Aesthetic and Attractive User Interfaces. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Mettina Veenstra, Niels Wouters, Marije Kanis, Stephan Brandenburg, Kevin te Raa, Bart Wigger, and Andrew Vande Moere. 2015. Should Public Displays be Interactive? Evaluating the Impact of Interactivity on Audience Engagement. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Pervasive Displays -PerDis '15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Amaya Becvar Weddle and Hua Yu. 2013. How does audio-haptic enhancement influence emotional response to mobile media? In 2013 5th International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience, QoMEX 2013 -Proceedings.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Eric N. Wiebe, Allison Lamb, Megan Hardy, and David Sharek. 2014. Measuring engagement in video game-based environments: Investigation of the User Engagement Scale. Computers in Human Behavior.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. User engagement for mid-air haptic interactions with digital signage

        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
          PerDis '19: Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays
          June 2019
          223 pages
          ISBN:9781450367516
          DOI:10.1145/3321335

          Copyright © 2019 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: 12 June 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          PerDis '19 Paper Acceptance Rate26of67submissions,39%Overall Acceptance Rate213of384submissions,55%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader