Looking glass: a field study on noticing interactivity of a shop window

ABSTRACT

In this paper we present our findings from a lab and a field study investigating how passers-by notice the interactivity of public displays. We designed an interactive installation that uses visual feedback to the incidental movements of passers-by to communicate its interactivity. The lab study reveals: (1) Mirrored user silhouettes and images are more effective than avatar-like representations. (2) It takes time to notice the interactivity (approx. 1.2s). In the field study, three displays were installed during three weeks in shop windows, and data about 502 interaction sessions were collected. Our observations show: (1) Significantly more passers-by interact when immediately showing the mirrored user image (+90%) or silhouette (+47%) compared to a traditional attract sequence with call-to-action. (2) Passers-by often notice interactivity late and have to walk back to interact (the landing effect). (3) If somebody is already interacting, others begin interaction behind the ones already interacting, forming multiple rows (the honeypot effect). Our findings can be used to design public display applications and shop windows that more effectively communicate interactivity to passers-by.

References

1. Brignull, H., and Rogers, Y. Enticing people to interact with large public displays in public spaces. In Proc. of INTERACT '03 (2003), 17--24.
2. Cutting, J. E., and Kozlowski, L. T. Recognizing friends by their walk: Gait perception without familiarity cues. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 9, 5 (1977), 353--356.
3. Dix, A., Finlay, J. E., Abowd, G. D., and Beale, R. Human-Computer Interaction (3rd Edition). Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2003.
4. Gallup, JR., G. G. Chimpanzees: Self-recognition. Science 167, 3914 (1970), 86--87.
5. Heikenfeld, J., Drzaic, P., Yeo, J.-S., and Koch, T. A critical review of the present and future prospects for electronic paper. Journal of the Society for Information Display 19, 2 (2011), 129--156.
6. Hilliges, O., Izadi, S., Wilson, A. D., Hodges, S., Garcia-Mendoza, A., and Butz, A. Interactions in the air: adding further depth to interactive tabletops. In Proc. of UIST '09, A. D. Wilson and F. Guimbretière, Eds., ACM (2009), 139--148.
7. Hinrichs, U., and Carpendale, S. Gestures in the wild: studying multi-touch gesture sequences on interactive tabletop exhibits. In Proc. of CHI '11, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2011), 3023--3032.
8. Huang, E., Koster, A., and Borchers, J. Overcoming assumptions and uncovering practices: When does the public really look at public displays? In Proc. of Pervasive '08. Springer, 2008, 228--243.
9. Jacucci, G., Morrison, A., Richard, G. T., Kleimola, J., Peltonen, P., Parisi, L., and Laitinen, T. Worlds of information: designing for engagement at a public multi-touch display. In Proc. of CHI '10, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2010), 2267--2276.
10. Jeannerod, M. The mechanism of self-recognition in humans. Behavioural Brain Research 142, 1-2 (2003), 1--15.
11. Ju, W., and Sirkin, D. Animate objects: How physical motion encourages public interaction. In PERSUASIVE'10 (2010), 40--51.
12. Kozlowski, L. T., and Cutting, J. E. Recognizing the sex of a walker from a dynamic point-light display. Perception Psychophysics 21, 6 (1977), 575--580.
13. Krueger, M. W. Artificial reality II. Addison-Wesley, 1991.
14. Kules, B., Kang, H., Plaisant, C., Rose, A., and Shneiderman, B. Immediate usability: a case study of public access design for a community photo library. Interacting with Computers 16, 6 (2004), 1171--1193.
15. Landis, J. R., and Koch, G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 1 (1977), 159--174.
16. Marshall, P., Morris, R., Rogers, Y., Kreitmayer, S., and Davies, M. Rethinking "multi-user": an in-the-wild study of how groups approach a walk-up-and-use tabletop interface. In Proc. of CHI '11 (2011), 3033--3042.
17. Michelis, D., and Mueller, J. The audience funnel. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (2010).
18. Mitchell, R. W. Mental models of mirror-self-recognition: Two theories. New Ideas in Psychology 11, 3 (1993), 295--325.
19. Müller, J., Alt, F., Michelis, D., and Schmidt, A. Requirements and design space for interactive public displays. In Proc. of ACM Multimedia '10, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2010), 1285--1294.
20. Norman, D. A. Affordance, conventions, and design. interactions 6 (May 1999), 38--43.
21. Norman, D. A. The way i see it: Signifiers, not affordances. interactions 15 (November 2008), 18--19.
22. Peltonen, P., Kurvinen, E., Salovaara, A., Jacucci, G., Ilmonen, T., Evans, J., Oulasvirta, A., and Saarikko, P. It's mine, don't touch!: interactions at a large multi-touch display in a city centre. In Proc. of CHI '08, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2008), 1285--1294.
23. Reeves, S., Benford, S., O'Malley, C., and Fraser, M. Designing the spectator experience. In Proc. of CHI '05, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2005), 741--750.
24. Schmidt, A. Implicit human computer interaction through context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 4, 2/3 (2000), 191--199.
25. Scholl, B. J., and Tremoulet, P. D. Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4, 8 (2000), 299--309.
26. Shoemaker, G., Tang, A., and Booth, K. S. Shadow reaching: a new perspective on interaction for large displays. In Proc. of UIST '07, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2007), 53--56.
27. Wilson, M. Perceiving imitatible stimuli: Consequences of isomorphism between input and output. Psychological Bulletin 127, 4 (2001), 543--553.

Index Terms

• Information systems

  • Information systems applications

    • Multimedia information systems