skip to main content
10.1145/3125571.3125583acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschitalyConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Writing Postcards from the Museum: Composing Personalised Tangible Souvenirs

Published:18 September 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Building a long-lasting personal relationship with visitors by maintaining their engagement after the visit is one of the most challenging endeavours cultural heritage sites face. When successful, this connection fosters new opportunities for the visitor to get in touch with the heritage, e.g. to visit again or to take part in cultural activities. One way to establish a personal connection is via personalisation services that generate souvenirs for the visitors to take away and foster future engagements with the heritage. This paper discusses how the techniques for personalised text generation can be applied to produce post-visit postcards exploiting the interaction logs collected during the museum visit. The personalised postcard summarises the visit, creates a link with what was experienced and suggests further paths for content discovery. A user study conducted over four weeks confirms the appreciation for the personalised postcard and suggests future developments.

References

  1. Charles Callaway, Elena Not, and Oliviero Stock. 2007. Report Generation for Post-Visit Summaries in Museum Environments. In PEACH - Intelligent Interfaces for Museum Visits. Springer, Berlin, 71--92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Charles Callaway, Tsvi Kuflik, Elena Not, Alessandra Novello, Oliviero Stock, and Massimo Zancanaro. 2005. Personal reporting of a museum visit as an entrypoint to future cultural experience. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces (IUI '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 275--277. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Sandra Dudley (Ed.). 2010. Museum Materialities: Objects, Engagements, Interpretations. Routledge, London & New YorkGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. John H. Falk. 2009. Identity and the museum visitor experience. Left Coast Press, Walnut CreekGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Beverly Gordon. 1986. The Souvenir: Messenger of the Extraordinary. The Journal of Popular Culture 20(3), 135--146. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Jeffrey T. Hancock, Christopher Landrigan, and Courtney Silver. 2007. Expressing emotion in text-based communication. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 929--932. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Michael Hitchcock and Ken Teague (Eds.). 2000. SOUVENIRS: The Material Culture of Tourism. Ashgate Publishing Company, Aldershot, EnglandGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Karen Hughes. 2011. Designing Post-Visit Action Resources for Families Visiting Wildlife Tourism Sites. Visitor Studies, 14(1), 66--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Tsvi Kuflik, Alan J. Wecker, Joel Lanir, and Oliviero Stock. 2015. An integrative framework for extending the boundaries of the museum visit experience: linking the pre, during and post visit phases. Information Technology & Tourism, 15, 1 (March 2015), 17--47.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Tsvi Kuflik, Judy Kay, and Bob Kummerfeld. 2010. Lifelong personalized museum experiences. In Proceedings of Workshop on Pervasive User Modeling and Personalization (PUMP'10), June 2010, Big Island, Hawaii, 9--16Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Joel Lanir, Tsvi Kuflik, Idan Zolantz, and Urit Lanzet. 2013. Personalized Video Summary of a Museum Visit. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Intelligent User Interfaces: Artificial Intelligence meets Human Computer Interaction (AI*HCI 2013). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Volume 1125Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. William C. Mann and SandraThompson. 1987. Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization, In The Structure of Discourse. Ablex Publishing CorporationGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Mark T. Marshall, Nick Dulake, Luigina Ciolfi, Daniele Duranti, Hub Kockelkorn, and Daniela Petrelli. 2016. Using Tangible Smart Replicas as Controls for an Interactive Museum Exhibition. In Proceedings of the TEI '16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 159--167. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Mark T. Marshall, Daniela Petrelli, Nick Dulake, Elena Not, Michele Marchesoni, Elisa Trenti, and Anna Pisetti. 2016. Audio-based Narratives for the Trenches of World War I: Intertwining Stories, Places and Interaction for an Evocative Experience, Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 85, January 2016, 27--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Kathleen R. McKeown. 1985. Text Generation. Using discourse strategies and focus constraints to generate natural language text. Cambridge University Press Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Elena Not and Adriano Venturini. 2010. Supporting Users in Organizing their Vacation Before, During, and After the Travel. In e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR). Special Section: ENTER 2010Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Daniela Petrelli, Mark T. Marshall, Sinéad O'brien, Patrick McEntaggart, and Ian Gwilt. 2017. Tangible data souvenirs as a bridge between a physical museum visit and online digital experience. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 21, 2 (April 2017), 281--295. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Anna Pisetti, Elena Not, and Daniela Petrelli. In press. War at your doorstep. Supporting communities discovering their local history via interactive technology. In Cultural Heritage Communities. Technologies and Challenges. RoutledgeGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Eran Toch, Yang Wang, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2012. Personalization and privacy: a survey of privacy risks and remedies in personalization-based systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 22, 1-2 (April 2012), 203--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Kees Van Deemter, Emiel Krahmer, and Mariët Theune. 2005. Real versus Template-Based Natural Language Generation: A False Opposition?. Comput. Linguist. 31, 1 (March 2005), 15--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Yiwen Wang, Lora Aroyo, Natalia Stash, Rody Sambeek, Yuri Schuurmans, Guus Schreiber, and Peter Gorgels. 2009. Cultivating Personalized Museum Tours Online and On-Site. Journal of Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 34, 2 (June 2009), 141--156Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Writing Postcards from the Museum: Composing Personalised Tangible Souvenirs

      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
        CHItaly '17: Proceedings of the 12th Biannual Conference on Italian SIGCHI Chapter
        September 2017
        216 pages
        ISBN:9781450352376
        DOI:10.1145/3125571

        Copyright © 2017 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 the author(s) 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: 18 September 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        CHItaly '17 Paper Acceptance Rate26of77submissions,34%Overall Acceptance Rate109of242submissions,45%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader