This is my presentation at ENTER2013 PhD Workshop, describing my research @ Bournemouth University. As usual, it makes little sense if you were not in the audience, but I hope you enjoy the slides :)

1. INFORMATION

2. INFORMATION

3. Bournemouth
University
USER-CENTRED DESIGN OF
SMARTPHONE AUGMENTED REALITY
FOR URBAN TOURISM
Zornitza Yovcheva
John Kent Institute in Tourism
Bournemouth University, UK
Supervisors: Prof. Dimitrios Buhalis
Dr. Christos Gatzidis

4. WHY AUGMENTED REALITY?
Reality

5. WHY AUGMENTED REALITY?
Augmented
Reality Reality

6. WHY AUGMENTED REALITY?
Text-based Interface
Augmented
Map-based Interface Reality

7. VISUALIZATION ADVANTAGES FOR TOURISM
Interested in surroundings
Information
attached to LOCATION
Time-pressured Augmented
Reality
Information
within FIELD-OF-VIEW
Unfamiliar environment
Information
In CONTEXT

8. WHY URBAN DESTINATIONS?

9. GAPS AND MOTIVATION
more than 100
COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS
perceive utility and usability is
LOW
no guidelines or standards for
DESIGN of annotations
scarce research about
TOURISTS and their needs

10. RESEARCH AIM
more than 100
COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS
perceive utility and usability is
LOW Design of smartphone
AR annotations used
by tourists for
knowledge acquisition
in unfamiliar (urban)
no guidelines or standards for
environments
DESIGN of annotations
scarce research about
TOURISTS and their needs

11. RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES
Research Aim
To improve the usability of smartphone AR browsers used in
urban tourism context for knowledge acquisition
Research Objectives
 Identify the problems tourists experience when using
smartphone AR to obtain knowledge about unfamiliar
environment
 Explore the influence of key contextual factors on the emerging
interaction
 Propose design solutions that solve the identified problems
effectively

12. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH: USER-CENTRED DESIGN

13. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH: USER-CENTRED DESIGN
• Interviews
• Questionnaires
• Observations
User • Diary keeping
Requirements • Task analysis
Evaluate Design
• Usability • Prototypes
inspections • Usability goal
• Usability testing setting
• Post-experience • Card sorting
interviews • Focus groups

14. SELECTED METHODOLOGY

15. EQUIPMENT
15

18. DATA
30 hours video/audio
recording
Audio recording
Background
Questionnaires
Santa Barbara Sense of
Direction
18

19. ANALYSIS
19

20. ANALYSIS
Time
Task success
Certainty and Difficulty
Problems
Context
20

21. USE OF CUES
21

22. POSITIONAL ACCURACY AND CONTENT

23. PRELIMINARY RESULTS
• Huge dataset and rich data
• Similar questions, most often “what is this?”
• Differences among domestic and international tourists
• Use of cues to determine type of object
• Positional accuracy is a secondary requirement
• Content is key / What content?
23

24. FURTHER RESEARCH
24

25. EVALUATION, DESIGN AND EVALUATION
• Hypotheses about effective association through content
• Prepare several design alternatives
• Expert evaluation to confirm problems and evaluate design
alternatives
• Laboratory-based usability testing
• Different locations and targets
• Quantitative
25

26. EXPECTED RESULTS
User requirements for
AR ANNOTATIONS
Design of
USEFUL and USABLE AR
Improved
TOURIST EXPERIENCES

27. QUESTIONS AND FEEDBACK ARE MORE THAN
WELCOME!
Zornitza Yovcheva
zyovcheva@bournemouth.ac.uk
John Kent Institute in Tourism
Bournemouth University, UK
27